Why climate change is good for the world

Don't panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm

19 October 2013

9:00 AM

19 October 2013

9:00 AM

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.

There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.

To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.

Now Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.

You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit.

Overall, Prof Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.

It will still be 1.2 per cent around 2050 and will not turn negative until around 2080. In short, my children will be very old before global warming stops benefiting the world. Note that if the world continues to grow at 3 per cent a year, then the average person will be about nine times as rich in 2080 as she is today. So low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today.

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.

Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.

The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates.

The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.

It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.

Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.

Well yes, you may argue, but what about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The latest IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.

In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the remarkable success of cyclone warnings in India last week. That’s the thing about climate change — we will probably pocket the benefits and mitigate at least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate does.

Yet cherry-picking the bad news remains rife. A remarkable example of this was the IPCC’s last report in 2007, which said that global warming would cause ‘hundreds of millions of people [to be] exposed to increased water stress’ under four different scenarios of future warming. It cited a study, which had also counted numbers of people at reduced risk of water stress — and in each case that number was higher. The IPCC simply omitted the positive numbers.

Why does this matter? Even if climate change does produce slightly more welfare for the next 70 years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There is one obvious reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.

So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years. That’s like having radiotherapy because you are feeling too well. I just don’t share the certainty of so many in the green establishment that it’s worth it. It may be, but it may not.

Disclosure: by virtue of owning shares and land, I have some degree of interests in all almost all forms of energy generation: coal, wood, oil and gas, wind (reluctantly), nuclear, even biofuels, demand for which drives up wheat prices. I could probably make more money out of enthusiastically endorsing green energy than opposing it. So the argument presented here is not special pleading, just honest curiosity.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • GeraldWilhite

    Thank you, Mr. Ridley, for bringing our attention to some refreshing IPCC scientific sanity that needs to be highlighted in the public discussion.

    I intend to submit a link to your article in the comments section of the LA Times editorials about global warming. Your excellent article will surely meet the standards for their new ‘no denier’ comment policy. Well done.

    • CB

      lol! You think?

      Explain why Matt Ridley did not discuss the likelihood of polar ice caps persisting with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM when they have never done so in Earth’s history.

      What good could come from climate change that would outweigh the loss of all the arable land within 220 vertical feet of the sea and the flooding of the homes and businesses of a billion people?

      • Steve Crook

        “would outweigh the loss of all the arable land within 220 vertical feet of the sea”

        70 metre sea level rise? You’d have to pretty much melt everything to get that much. Even on the most pessimistic IPCC projection this is an outlier and even then, for the far future.

        It might help if you actually *read* the article before posting this sort of stuff. Ridley is talking about relatively near term projections on the effects of climate change.

        • CB

          Yes. If total polar meltdown and 67 meters of sea level rise isn’t the most likely outcome of CO₂ passing 400PPM, name a single point in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM.

          If Matt Ridley wanted to talk about near term projections, why isn’t the article entitled, “Climate Change Is Good for the World… in the Near Term… and Absolutely Catastrophic in the Long Term”?

          If the author were interested in honestly weighing the outcomes of climate change, why isn’t there a single word discussing the likelihood, extent or timeframe of polar meltdown?

          • Conservative Republican

            Projections of a polar meltdown are harmless. There have been multiple polar meltdowns.

            A 67 Meter sea level rise is outside of the bounds of any reasonable measure. Those studies that looked at that question saw such an increase taking several thousand years. Well within adaptability parameters.

          • CB

            Yes, there have been multiple polar meltdowns in Earth’s history! Were there humans at the time?

            If total polar meltdown wouldn’t raise the levels of the oceans 67 meters worldwide, how much would it raise them?

            If polar ice caps can withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM, why have they never done so in Earth’s history?

            What studies saw polar meltdown taking several thousand years? Did these studies say that sea level rise would happen abruptly at the end, or did they say it would be a slow, constant increase?

            How many cm per year should we be prepared for, and what impact might that have on communities near the sea?

          • Conservative Republican


            List the approximate times of all polar meltdowns. There were humans during those times.

            It requires all else to melt to get 67 meters. And it also requires significant warming for the thermal expansion effect.

            The polar ice caps are agnostic to CO2 levels. They care about temperature.

            Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the science. Peer reviewed you know.


            This study shows 70 meters taking at least 7000 years. There are many more. You are definitively discussing an event that is the thousands of years time scale.

            We should be prepared for sea level rises. Engineering for such events is pretty advanced and we can easily handle them with appropriate wealth. Wealth that is made easier by use of cheap fossil fuels.

            Within thousands of years, perhaps some cities will be flooded. That will be economically harmless at that time scale. Most cities will build protections.

          • SkyHunter

            The ice cores go back 800,000 years in Antarctica. The human species is 200,000 old.

            When did the polar ice caps melt during the last 200,000 years?

          • Leslie Graham

            This absurd ‘no humans’ meme merely reveals you don’t understand even the schoolboy basics of climate change.
            The laws of physics don’t care WHERE the extra CO2 comes from.
            Whether it is outgassing as methane from some ancient ocean that is warming as a result fo the Milankovitch Cycles or whether it is being pumped out by humans burning 32 billion tons a year of the stuff.
            The laws of physics just do their thing.
            CO2 levels rise – global temperatures rise.
            Always have – always will.

          • ghl

            Global temperatures rise, THEN CO2 levels rise, get it right.

          • CB

            Temperature increase pushes CO₂ out of solution and increases in CO₂ warms planets.

            Why would you think one negates the other?

            What difference does it make which came first if each causes the other?

          • JK

            Increasing one causes significant increases in the other. Vice versa, it is mild increases, if any. This is why we have not had runaway warming.

          • CB

            Sure, the factors balance each other out eventually.

            What is your point?

            Did you think the amount of CO₂ coming out of the ocean wasn’t dependent on the amount of CO₂ in the ocean?

            If you understand that CO₂ warms planets, and you understand that polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ over 400PPM in Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

            What besides a suicidal ideation explains the complete failure of Deniers like yourself to answer this simple question?

          • JK

            It is a question of magnitude. CO2 is a byproduct of temperature. It is now also a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. The CO2 never melted the polar ice caps.

          • CB

            So what did? Polar ice caps have formed and melted multiple times in Earth’s history.

            If there is a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, name a single point in time this driver allowed polar ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM.

            If this point existed, why hasn’t a single Climate Denier been able to name it?

          • JK

            If CO2 were the strongest driver of temperature, life on Earth would have ended a long time ago.

          • CB

            Why? Did you think life can exist at temperatures like those of a celestial object without CO₂?

            … say, the moon, for instance.

          • JK

            Because we know that temperature drives CO2 significantly. If CO2 were the strongest driver of temperature, we would have a positive feedback loop that would destroy the planet.

          • CB

            Right. How might temperatures force more CO₂ out of the oceans than exists in the oceans?

            The phenomenon of dissolved CO₂ coming out of solution at higher temperatures and CO₂ raising temperatures is a positive feedback loop, and one can see this in rapid spikes in CO₂ and temperature over the last 800,000 years:


            There is only so much CO₂ that can come out of solution, though!

            … so this feedback doesn’t go on indefinitely.

          • JK

            Again, if CO2 were the strongest driver of temperature, temperature would not be diving in your graph just when CO2 was peaking. Something much more significant than CO2 is driving temperature.

          • CB

            … and who but a mental patient could look at that image and see anything other than CO₂ and temperature matching precisely for the last 800,000 years?

            If you think CO₂ matches temperature because temperature pushes CO₂ out of solution, why would you think CO₂ doesn’t match temperature?

            If there is a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, why can’t you name a single point in 4.5 billion year that this driver allowed polar ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ over 400PPM?

            If you didn’t already know what you’re saying is false, why are you running like a coward instead of giving your reply?

            How do you think that makes you look?

          • JK

            Look closely. Temperature drives CO2. CO2 is a minor driver of temperature, if at all, and the more CO2 increases, the less it drives temperature! And, as you can see, the planet is liking current CO2 levels.

          • CB

            Yes! We’ve been over this. Increased temperatures force more CO₂ out of solution.

            How is it possible to force more CO₂ out of solution than is dissolved? Did you think there weren’t other long-term sources and sinks for CO₂ on Earth besides the sea?

            How might this change the scientific fact that CO₂ warms planets?

            If there is a stronger driver of planetary temperature than CO₂, why are you having difficulty naming a time when this driver allowed ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?

            If it’s not because no such driver exists, why should this be?

            If you weren’t mentally ill, why are you having difficulty focusing on this conversation?

          • JK

            Insolation due to changes in eccentricity, obliquity, and precession. Your graph is pretty good proof of such. Notice how, despite CO2’s peak values, some other stronger forcing causes temperature to dive even when CO2 remains high for a few hundred years. CO2 clearly loses the forcing battle. But, I at least we don’t have to worry about the runaway warming that Jimmy Hansen was trying to peddle on the world for so many years. Even Jimmy recently retracted his prediction that all the water would boil from the earth four centuries, admitting that such process would take millions of years, if it were possible at all.

            CO2 is not a major driver of climate, and it is being proven today. CO2 is rising each year, yet temperature is not doing much of anything. This will continue as China and India will only increase CO2 emissions over the next 40 years. Then Africa will join in the party. There are billions of people that want to drive cars and have internet discussions just like you. And they will.

          • CB

            lol! Did the graph I posted show changes in insolation?


            … then why would you think the graph says a single thing about insolation?

            When did Jim Hansen say the greenhouse effect would boil the oceans away in either four centuries or millions of years?

            If what you said were true, shouldn’t you be able to provide a link?

            Right, the polar ice caps haven’t melted completely in the 200 years since the industrial revolution. Why would you think a million years of accumulated ice would melt in 2 centuries?

            Why would you think polar ice will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM, when they have never done so in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history?

            What besides a suicidal desire to actually cause catastrophic melting explains your failure to answer this simple question?

          • JK

            Jimmy said those things in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren,” in a bigthink interview, and then retracted it in his April 2013 paper/article. And Jimmy, mind you, is the quintessential alarmist hypocrite. We are ruining the planet for his grandchildren, but it is ok for him to jet around the globe to accept millions of dollars in “prizes” and be put up at the nicest hotels.

          • CB

            Link to it, clown shoes. If you weren’t lying, why is that giving you difficulty?

          • JK

            You are going to have to get your own copy of Jimmy’s book. For the other two, just use the research tool “Google.”

          • CB

            No! No, I am not. If you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up.

            Given Climate Deniers are almost pathologically dishonest, you should not be surprised when no one believes you.

          • JK

            JImmy is the one making these absurd claims, not me.

          • CB

            You are claiming Dr. James Hansen is making an absurd claim.

            … and you haven’t provided a shred of evidence.

            What’s more likely, that Dr. Hansen is absurd, or that you are?

            Where is the answer to my question?

            If you understand polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

            If you weren’t suicidally mentally ill and actually trying to bring about catastrophic meltdown, why are you running away from the question instead of giving your reply?

          • JK

            Even Jimmy’s closest friends and colleagues know he is an alarmist nutjob. They must cringe every time he opens his mouth. That is why he was prompted to write his April 2013 article. You seem to be the only one unaware of this.

          • CB

            Prove it. Then answer the question:

            If you understand polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

            If you didn’t already know what you believe is a lie, why are you running like a coward from the question instead of answering?

            If anyone can see you running like a coward, what’s the point of posting anything at all? Who is going to believe you?

          • JK

            Have you heard of JImmy’s alarmist positive feedbacks? You know, an extra 4.5 C of warming for a doubling of CO2? According to Jimmy’s runaway greenhouse doomseday scenario what else is evaporating out of the Oceans when it warms? What happens when all of that substance evaporates out of the Oceans?

          • CB

            WTF are you talking about?

            If you know I’m accusing you of mental illness, why would you go out of your way to prove it?

            Why would you think polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ over 400PPM when they have never done so in Earth’s history?

            What besides a suicidal desire to destroy the ecology you depend on for survival explains your repeated failure to answer this question?

          • JK

            CO2 will have little effect on the ice caps. Mark my words. We are going to find out. CO2 emissions will continue to rise for the next forty years, and there is nothing you can do about it. And in forty years, life on earth will be better than it is today.

          • CB

            … and why is that?

            If you understand CO₂ raises the temperature of Venus 400 degrees, why couldn’t it raise the temperature of Earth that much as well?

            Did you think increases of that magnitude wouldn’t melt polar ice caps?

            Did you think life on Earth will be better for the billion people whose homes and businesses will be drowned under 220 feet of ocean?

            Did you think you could avoid the repercussions of such an outcome?

            Unless you were suicidal, why haven’t you already answered these questions?

          • SkyHunter

            You replied to the wrong person, and the wrong argument.

          • Guest

            You know, that is a good question.
            Why are you lying about ocean heat content when it is so easy to check and see that it is a lie.

          • osseo

            But the temperatures rise before the CO2 levels.

          • CB

            If you understand that increases in CO₂ increase temperature and increases in temperature increase CO₂, what difference does it make which comes first?

          • Eugene S

            It makes a huge difference… if the effect is asymmetric, i.e., x increase in global mean temperature –> y increase in atmospheric CO2, but y increase in atmospheric CO2 –> much less than x increase in global mean temperature.

          • CB

            Why? Won’t there still be x increase in global mean temperature due to y increase in CO₂?

            If you understand that CO₂ warms planets, and you understand that polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

          • JK

            CO2 potentially warms planets a little. And the relationship, if any, is logarithmic.

          • CB

            Sure, the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is roughly logarithmic.

            Did you think a logarithmic function had an upper bound?

            Did you think you were the first Denier to repeat this transparently false talking point?

          • JK

            It means that we will continue to emit CO2 into the atmosphere at increasing levels over the next 40 years, and nothing bad will happen.

          • CB

            Uh huh, and if you understand that CO₂ warms planets, and you understand that polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history…

            … why would you expect them to today?

            What besides a suicidal desire to destroy the ecology you depend on for survival explains the complete failure of Climate Deniers like yourself to answer this simple question?

          • JK

            Was the ecology “destroyed” when previous polar ice caps melted?

          • CB

            Of the areas which were flooded by sea water? Of course!

            Did you think you could grow crops under 220 feet of ocean?


          • JK

            Climate changes, and there are winners and losers. That is how it has been and how it will be. Unless you intend to stop climate change altogether, and good luck with that.

          • CB

            Right, how might anyone benefit from the loss of the land supporting a billion people?

            Did you think there’s a single person on Earth who wouldn’t be affected by such a refugee crisis?

            Why would you not intend to stop the meltdown of the polar ice caps!?

            Unless you were suicidal, why wouldn’t you think avoiding such a catastrophe is a good idea?

          • SkyHunter

            Do you know anything at all about chemistry?
            Have you ever heard of organic chemistry, also known as carbon chemistry?
            What leads you to conclude that doubling the amount of active carbon in the biosphere have a benign effect?

          • JK

            Yes. Yes. I think you mean Carbon Dioxide, right?

          • CB

            Yes, bubby, he means carbon dioxide, also known as CO₂.

            If you understand this gas warms planets, and you understand polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in Earth’s history…

            … what makes you think they will be able to today?

            If you weren’t driven by a suicidal desire to destroy the ecology you depend on for survival, why are you running like a coward from the question instead of giving your reply?

          • JK

            Well then at least get the terminology right. Maybe I should start referring to CO2 as “Oxygen” as there are, in fact, two Oxygen atoms and only one Carbon atom in CO2.

          • CB

            lol! Did you think CO₂ was ever anything other than carbon dioxide?

            Did you think O₂ was ever anything other than oxygen?

            What in the world is your point?!

            Why are you running from my question like a coward instead of answering it? If it’s not because you already know what you believe is not true, why should this be?

            If you know you’re lying and everyone else knows you’re lying, what’s the point of lying? What does it get you besides a reputation for dishonesty?

          • JK

            I realize that you are just pounding your mantra which you do everywhere you go, but where is the lie?

            The sun is a far bigger driver of climate than is CO2, (assuming CO2 drives climate at all). CO2 does, however, benefit the planet and the life thereon. This will be proven further in the years to come as CO2 levels rise even further and life flourishes even more than it is now.

          • CB

            lol! So many dishonest statements you’ve given me to choose from! Let’s try the most basic:

            “CO2 is not a major driver of climate”

            If changes in solar output drive climate more strongly than CO₂, name a single point in Earth’s entire history when solar output dropped low enough for polar ice caps to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM.

            If this point existed, why haven’t you already named it?

            If you didn’t already know what you are saying is a lie, why are you running like a coward from the question instead of answering it?

          • JK

            Well, obviously, because temperature drives CO2. It is the CO2 that is not persisting in lower temperatures.

          • CB

            lol! Obviously, you’re lying? Yes, I agree. Why are you doing that?

            Why are you pretending higher temperatures can force more CO₂ out of solution in ocean water than is dissolved in ocean water?

            I would suggest you hurry up and focus on the question, because our therapy session is quickly drawing to an end. I’d rate you as extremely poor on the Denier scale of mental illness. There are worse Deniers, to be sure, but not many. If you want to see how you appear to people, I recommend the movie Idiocracy.

          • JK

            You engage in debate like a delusional child. You are a one trick pony, and you can’t even use your one trick properly. CO2 has but a mild effect on temperature. Your hero Jimmy believes that for every 1.2 C of CO2 warming, there will be another 4.5 from water vapor and other nonsense.

            Posting the same tired mantra in the comment section of every article you can find will not prevent one CO2 molecule from being emitted. You are being laughed at.

          • JK

            What are you talking about is CO2 carbon dioxide? SkyHunter said “active carbon” which is erroneous if not deceptive. It is how you manipulate the public into thinking the most green compound on earth, CO2, is “dirty” by calling it “carbon.”

          • CB

            I think SkyHunter was trying to make a distinction between carbon that’s been in the carbon cycle for a long time and carbon that’s been dug up from underground and newly added.

            I am also uncomfortable with calling CO₂ a “pollutant”, although the CO₂ imbalance people like yourself are actively ignoring is far more dangerous on a far greater scale than any pollutant could possibly be.

            The continued release of paleocarbon is a suicidal endeavour.

          • osseo

            As I understand things, causes generally precede effects.

          • CB

            Right. If you understand the effect of CO₂ on planets is to warm them, what is your point?

          • osseo

            To me, the historic record suggests that a hotter climate produces (after a few centuries) more CO2 in the atmosphere. I admit that CO2 (like water vapour) is a greenhouse gas – what I am not clear about is how much and how rapidly it will cause global waming. If I were as certain of the position as you are, I might devote as much energy as you do to making converts – but I would probably go about it differently.

          • CB

            You know what else suggests that? Repeatable, demonstrable observation that higher temperatures force more CO₂ out of solution from the oceans into the atmosphere.

            If you want to gauge how much warming CO₂ will cause, what more reliable source might you find than 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history?

            If you understand polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

            When confronted with a mental illness like Climate Denialism, what better way is there to help folks find their way out of the darkness than delivering a short, sharp shock?

          • Keith D

            Methane is a helluva lot different to CO2.

            Any proximity to a cows backside will confirm this.

          • CB

            That’s true. Methane is a much more potent, though shorter-lived greenhouse gas.

          • GeraldWilhite

            CO2 levels rise for 17 yr 4 mo,
            Global temperatures flat-lined.

            AGW hypothesis falsified.
            Chicken Little climate alarmists extinct.

            Sun rules.
            Always has. Always will.

          • CB

            If you think the sun drives temperatures more strongly than CO₂, name a single point in Earth’s history that changes in the sun’s output allowed polar ice caps to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM.

            If this point in time actually existed, why hasn’t a single Denier been able to name it?

            Did you think geological time was measured in 17-year increments?

          • Tim Groves

            CB, the period in time you are looking for is known as the Late Ordovician. Around 444 million years ago, CO2 levels were calculated from measurements to have been well over 5,000 ppm and global temperatures were about 25 deg. C. There was a rapid cooling resulting in a glacial period lasting about 500,000 years — that’s about the length of the past five glacial and interglacial periods of our current Holocene Period lined up in a row. It is possible that during that time, CO2 levels fell to as low as 3,000 ppm, but as far as I’m aware there are no indications and no studies that claim CO2 ever went below 3,000 ppm — that’s 7.5 times as high as the 400 ppm figure you are concerned about — during the Late Ordovician glacial period.

            In any case, we are about to enter an era with CO2 levels above 400ppm any time now, and it will be fun to see how it turns out.

          • CB

            … and why aren’t you aware of studies that show CO₂ crashed during the late Ordovician glaciations? If it’s not because you haven’t bothered looking, why should this be?


            Where does your 3,000PPM figure come from and what issue do you take with measurements of ¹³C in marine invertebrate deposition showing CO₂ dropped to almost zero precisely during the Hirnantian glaciation at the end of the Ordovician? (see page 2 for a handy graph).

            Did you think you were the only Denier dropping this dishonest talking point?

            What kind of a psychopath thinks that the drowning of the homes and businesses of a billion people will be “fun”? Did you think you would be able to avoid the repercussions of such an event? o_O

          • Tim Groves

            Where does it say in that paper that CO2 levels were at no time during the Ordovician above 400ppm when polar ice caps were present? That was your initial claim and the results of the research in the quoted paper do not support that claim.

            FYI, I got my information on this from peer reviewed research papers, but since the content of such literature is way above your head, let me direct you to the Sesame Street version at Skeptical Science, written by arch-Alarmist John Cook, who refers to the paper you’ve linked to, and unlike you, he is capable of comprehending what it says and what it doesn’t say.


            I agree with Cook’s summation that “arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless.” However, I would point out that Cook also writes:

            “Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation – the growing of ice sheets.”

            What kind of a psychopath thinks that the drowning of a the homes and businesses of a billion people will be “fun”?

            A psychopath with a sense of humour, obviously.

          • CB

            It says so on page 2! As I literally just said!

            You got your information from Denier propaganda, using the legitimate proxy Geocarb III which is too coarse a sampling to prove your assertion.

            This is a well-known, dishonest Denier talking point.

            John Cook is wrong! … though generally, Skeptical Science is a reliable place for information about climate science. CO₂ dropped much lower than 3,000PPM during the Hirnantian glaciation, and we know because there was a worldwide spike in ¹³C/¹²C ratios at the time. This only happens when all the ¹²C is used up! Marine organisms generally reject ¹³C unless it’s the only thing available, which suggests CO₂ crashed to almost zero.

            The reason for this crash is the evolution of land rhizomes which sent a pulse of calcium into the sea.

            If your definition of humour is the destruction of the livelihoods of a billion people, it is well outside the bounds of the common understanding of that term…

          • Tim Groves

            “It says so on page 2! As I literally just said!”

            No it doesn’t. Literally!!!

            “You got your information from Denier propaganda, using the legitimate proxy Geocarb III which is too coarse a sampling to prove your assertion.”

            No I didn’t. Unless Skeptical Science is denier propaganda. I agree that Geocarb II is too coarse a sampling to tell one way or another whether CO2 went below 400ppm at the time of glaciation or not. But the study you cite does not provide a precise record of CO2 concentrations at that period either. It certainly can’t prove your assertion that CO2 was below 400ppm throughout the entire 500,000-year period of the glacial.

            “John Cook is wrong! …”

            It happens to the best of us.

            “The reason for this crash is the evolution of land rhizomes which sent a pulse of calcium into the sea.”


            “If your definition of humour is the destruction of the livelihoods of a billion people..”

            No, it’s laughing at the hysterics of climate alarmists. They never cease to amuse and amaze me. But don’t let that bother you, please enlighten us on how you propose to save the livelihoods of a billion people by legislating fossil fuel use out of existence?

          • CB

            Allright, if you don’t see a delta ¹³C going from around 0 %VPDB for the majority of the Ordovician to 7 %VPDB precisely during the Hirnantian glaciation on page 2 of this document:


            … how high did the carbon delta go, and what does it signify? If CO₂ concentrations didn’t fall below 400PPM, how low did they fall and how do you know?

            lol! No! Not whatever! If you are going to make a claim about climate science, you have to present your reasoning. If the evolution of land rhizomes didn’t cause a pulse of calcium which caused a crash in CO₂ which caused the Hirnantian glaciation…

            … what caused the Hirnantian glaciation?

            We don’t get to talk about solutions before you’ve identified the problem. If total polar meltdown isn’t the most likely outcome of CO₂ passing 400PPM, why can’t you name a single point in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?

          • Tim Groves

            “If CO₂ concentrations didn’t fall below 400PPM, how low did they fall and how do you know?”

            My only claim is atmospheric CO2 didn’t remain below 400 ppm for the entire half million year period, which if true, invalidates your repetitious claim. If you want to claim it did, then it is incumbent on you to provide the evidence in the form of data precise enough and well calibrated enough to back up your claim.

            You’ve made a big boastful claim on this thread and insulted everyone who had the audacity to disagree with you. I’ve called you on your claim and you’ve presented nothing but a busted flush and what’s become known as the Chewbacca Defense—attempting to win the argument by confusing the audience with unneeded facts and unnecessary correlations.. It’s an irritating and infantile habit that one hopes you will grow out of.

            “… what caused the Hirnantian glaciation?”

            Perhaps the incoming Silurian world government imposed Draconian controls on SUVs.

            More reasonably, a combination of Gondwanaland migrating over the South Pole and major episodes of mountain building/weathering. Probably both of these factors were essential. The evolution of land rhizomes may have also played a part. It’s all speculative. Nobody today can prove what the detailed causes of events that long ago were. We simply don’t have good enough data. But some of us can tell a good story of what might have happened.

            I found this article on the Hirnantian glaciation very interesting and well written.


            Now, your parroting on about “why can’t you name a single point yak, yak, yak?”, has become extremely irritating to everyone reading this thread. I don’t suppose you’ll let up as it’s like a mental tick with you, but this often happens to people who suffer from the affliction of false alarmism.

            So I’ll just point out for the benefit of anyone else reading that this kind of argument “If A isn’t valid, then why can’t you B?” is a form of logical fallacy known as a false dilemma. It’s unusual to see the same false dilemma offered up so many times on one thread.

            In this case, regardless of whether or not A was valid (which remains to be seen), another person’s lack of ability to do B would not provide validation of A. In other words, not being able to name a single point in Earth’s history when polar ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400 ppm does not imply anything significant about whether polar meltdown is the most likely outcome of CO2 passing 400 ppm in today’s world or tomorrow’s. It’s an irrelevancy. But I’m sure most people reading here knew that already.

            My opinion is that with Antarctica over the South Pole, no amount of CO2 that humanity could dump into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels would be sufficient to significantly melt the Antarctic ice cap, so the Antarctic will continue to keep the planet relatively cool and so there’s no cause for alarmism.

          • CB

            You’ve actually found a very nice paper that basically proves my claim, though I believe it’s actually incorrect about the levels of CO₂ during the Hirnantian:


            The paper claims that a sun that was 95% weaker and the concentration of all land on Earth at the South Pole caused the CO₂ threshold for ice formation to be much higher.

            Is all the land concentrated at the South Pole today?

            Do you expect the sun to be getting 95% weaker any time soon?

            No? … then why would you expect the threshold for polar ice cap formation to be the same today as it was in the late-Ordovician?

            The paper says the upper bound for ice cap formation is 800PPM! Are you saying this is the point at which we should expect total polar meltdown? If this is such a reliable number, find me a single crystal of polar ice recording a level of CO₂ above even 300PPM:


            If polar ice can withstand levels of CO₂ above 300PPM, why hasn’t polar ice withstood levels of CO₂ above 300PPM?

          • Tim Groves

            You wrote to Gerald Wihite above:

            “If you think the sun drives temperatures more strongly than CO₂, name a single point in Earth’s history that changes in the sun’s output allowed polar ice caps to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM.”

            So you disagreed with him that the sun drives temperatures more strongly than CO2.

            Now you are saying that:

            “The paper says that a sun which was 95% weaker and the concentration of all land on Earth at the South Pole caused the CO₂ threshold for ice formation to be much higher”

            basically proves your claim about the CO2 level required to melt ice caps.

            So now you are agreeing that the sun drives temperatures more strongly than CO2.

            You are also saying that:
            “The paper says that a sun which was 95% weaker and the concentration of all land on Earth at the South Pole caused the CO₂ threshold for ice formation to be much higher.”

            If you check, I think you’ll find that solar output at that time was 95~97% of what it is now. That is, 3~5% weaker, not 95% weaker. Stellar evolution, which, unlike paleoclimatology, is a fairly straightforward and well-understood process, would predict such a value.

            Over long timescales of tens of millions to billions of years, changes in geography and topography play an enormous role in determining the earth’s temperature. Large continents large regions at high elevation in polar regions lead to large ice caps and these can lower the average global temperature by 10 to 20 decrees centigrade compared to when the polar regions are land-free. With our medium-sized Antarctica at the South Pole and modest Greenland with its high plateau close to the North Pole, we are somewhere in the middle of the range.

            Over billions of years, a slow but steady rise in insolation from the brightening sun also raises the earth’s temperature. And over periods of millennia and tens of millennia, regular variations in the earth’s orbit modulate the climate and at some epochs, such as the current “ice age”, these modulations can tip the planet into and out of glacial periods.

            CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” may have a role to play in modulating the temperature as well. But it’s potential to cause catastrophic warming at 400 ppm or even 1,000 ppm has been vastly exaggerated by the alarmists. In the air today, it only accounts for one molecule in 2,500, so even if it did absorb all the IR the ground could throw at it, for the alarmist theory to be feasible, each molecule of CO2 would have to be continually warming up around 2,499 molecules of Oxygen, Nitrogen and Argon to make the atmosphere so many degrees warmer than it is now using the same amount of incoming sunshine as the basic energy input.

            Orbital forcing (Milankovitch cycles) and geographic forcing (continental drift, etc) work by changing the earth’s albedo and by opening and closing huge low-humidity areas at the poles where strong radiative cooling can proceed. But IMHO, changing the amount of CO2 in the air has not been proved to affect the balance of incoming to outgoing radiation enough to make significant changes. We are conducting an experiment at the moment in which the amount of CO2 is being raised significantly over a short period of time and the temperature is being constantly monitored. In a few decades from now, we should know much more about this subject than we do now.

          • CB

            Thanks for the correction, the sun’s output was 5% less during the Hirnantian, not 95% less.

            Your claim that CO₂ was at 3,000PPM at the time is incorrect, and we know this because of ¹³C ratios which spiked from 0% VPDB to 7% VPDB precisely during the Hirnantian glaciation:


            This suggests CO₂ crashed to almost zero, not 3,000PPM. If that’s not what these data suggest, how do you interpret them?

            If you aren’t using a strontium proxy that’s too coarse to prove your claim, how are you arriving at your number?

            If Milankovitch cycles, geography, or solar output control the Earth’s climate more strongly than CO₂, why can’t you name a single point in Earth’s history these factors allowed ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?

            What precisely is it that allows you to stare a plain fact in the face and just say, “No”?

          • Tim Groves

            My claim isn’t as strong as say it is. My claim was “as far as I’m aware there are no indications and no studies that claim CO2 ever went below 3,000 ppm”.

            Now you’ve made a claim that my claim “is incorrect, and we know this because of ¹³C ratios which spiked from 0% VPDB to 7% VPDB precisely during the Hirnantian glaciation. This suggests CO₂ crashed to almost zero, not 3,000PPM.”

            My response would be that you may be correct that CO2 crashed to almost zero, but I don’t think we don’t know that and the authors of the study don’t make that claim and neither do the people at Skeptical Science. Remember, I don’t have a dog in this particular fight and I’ve make no attempt to analyze this piece of geological/paleoclimatic research or draw conclusions from it. I merely passed on to you information and analysis supplied “mainstream peer-reviewed” science and well-respected establishment media.

            Regarding your suggestion that CO2 crashed to almost zero, I wonder how close to zero it could have gone? Plants existed in the Ordovician and I expect they would have needed at least some CO2 to keep them going. But I have no knowledge of the details.

            “If Milankovitch cycles, geography, or solar output control the Earth’s climate more strongly than CO₂, why can’t you name a single point in Earth’s history these factors allowed ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?”

            Let’s come at this from a different angle. ice caps form when the earth is cool and they melt when the world is warm. That’s a plain fact. Basically, the level of CO2 in the air is dependent on total amount of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system and on the temperature of the oceans. That’s another plain fact.

            Anthropogenic processes or other large-scale natural processes can alter the balance temporarily by adding extra CO2 to the air, but whether or by how much this extra CO2 contributes to the level of the gas in the air and to changes in global temperature are questions at the crux o the CAGW debate. They are like footballs being kicked around by both sides. They have not yet reached the status of being considered plain facts by everyone who studies the physics of the matter. The IPCC’s current report notes some, but not all, of this uncertainty.

          • CB

            The level of CO₂ in the air is dependent on the level of CO₂ in the air?


            What does that even mean?

            Humans have increased the level of CO₂ in the air 37%, from a steady 290PPM stretching back thousands of years before the industrial revolution, to 400PPM today.

            Yes, the crux of the debate is over plain facts. Why are you denying them? What is wrong with your mind that you don’t care about what’s true? Why would you eagerly give the entire world the impression that you are dishonest and mentally unstable?

          • Tim Groves

            No, the crux of the matter is that you have misread my words yet again.

            The plain fact is that I wrote: “Basically, the level of CO2 in the air is dependent on total amount of CO2 in the ocean/atmosphere system and on the temperature of the oceans”

            And you interpreted that to mean “the level of CO₂ in the air is dependent on the level of CO₂ in the air”.

            Was that a deliberate misinterpretation or are you really that intellectually challenged? Do you have any issues with the actual statement I made?

            FYI, the ocean/atmosphere system refers to the oceans and the atmosphere, which are often described as a coupled system from the standpoint of climate science. The amount of CO2 in the air increases when the temperature of the ocean rises because CO2 is more soluble in cold than in warm water.

            “Humans have increased the level of CO₂ in the air 37%, from a steady 290PPM stretching back thousands of years before the industrial revolution, to 400PPM today.”

            We’ve only had accurate measurements from Mauna Loa since 1959, so we don’t know that CO2 was steady at 290ppm for thousands of years up to the industrial revolution. As ocean temperatures have varied over that period, it would be a miracle if atmospheric CO2 hadn’t varied accordingly. Would you like to elaborate on why increasing the level of CO2 in the air by 37% is a problem? I won’t quibble over this “plain fact” this time. It is of interest, but I confess it fails to scare me.

            I feel sorry for climate alarmists if they are sincere in their beliefs. They have to live with a grim sense of foreboding that the future a few decades from now is going to be catastrophic, and if temperatures rise their anxiety increases to panic proportions, while if temperatures fall or fail to rise they are gripped by disappointment and frustration.

          • CB

            You may not have accurate information on CO₂ concentrations before 1959, but that doesn’t mean scientists don’t. Here is 800,000 years of data on CO₂ concentrations:


            Find me a single point in the ice when CO₂ goes above even 300PPM. If polar ice can withstand high CO₂, why hasn’t polar ice ever withstood high CO₂?

            Why are you pretending not to know this dataset exists when I’ve already shown it to you?

            If you aren’t suffering from a self-destructive mental illness, what’s stopping you from gauging threats to your well-being?

          • Nicholas K

            I think it was Woody Allen who said that the formula for humour was tragedy plus time. As has been pointed out above without you being able to contradict the point, your doomsday scenario might arrive in 70,000 years (assuming the Warmists’ models, which have so far proved unreliable) are correct this time. There are plenty of other possible reasons why humans might have been wiped out anyway in 70,000 years.

          • CB

            lol! Why are you citing models in which you don’t have confidence?

            How do you know current levels of CO₂ are going to cause total polar meltdown in 70,000 years? Where are you getting that figure?

            Why should a hypothetical, unnamed danger make you unconcerned about a very real danger? What besides self-destructive impulses would make you uninterested in threats to your well-being?

          • Tim Groves

            This little troll-bot is a lot of fun, but it fails the Turing test by a wide margin. Real humans don’t talk like that.

          • CB

            What little troll-bot?

            What does this have to do with the timeframe for total polar meltdown?

            If it’s not going to take 70,000 years, how long will it take and how do you know?

          • saintlaw

            says little troll-bot.

          • Guest

          • Cain Abel

            “CO2 levels rise – global temperatures rise”
            You still have ZERO proof of that.

          • Conservative Republican

            The human species is not 200K years old. Check the date.

            The polar ice cap last melted when?

          • SkyHunter

            The modern human first appears in the fossil record ~200,000 years ago. Did I miss a new discovery?
            The Antarctica ice sheet shows evidence of rafting 45.5 million years ago, so I would estimate from estimates of sea levels, not less than 50 million years ago, and not more than 75 million years ago. One could do a doctoral thesis on the question.

          • Conservative Republican

            I think you are just science illiterate. You said human. Maybe 200K for homo sapiens, but many forms of human go back millions of years.

          • SkyHunter

            I think you are projecting your ignorance on to me.

            All of those species are extinct. We have other older ancestors you know. Heterodontosaurus is 200 million years old.

            Misinterpreting my statement does not falsify it.

          • Conservative Republican

            You said human. Human includes many species. you meant homo sapiens. I forgive your error. Humans have lived through many things. We are quite good at it. There is plenty of land.

          • saintlaw

            Insane as well as stupid. Evil too. You win at denial bingo!

          • Conservative Republican


            Insane? In what way? Be more precise in your arguments or you just look childish. For stupid, you will need to explain even more given I have a genius level IQ. Evil? Why? Because I support the poor?

          • saintlaw

            Jesus – look at its name. You dont even have to read its posts to know that there argument is essentially “I WISH THE FACTS AWAY!”

          • Conservative Republican

            My name is at best orthagonol to my beliefs. They are fact based. You will need to provide some evidence to support your position or be relegated to the dark corner of obscurity.

          • CB

            Some (but not all) transitions from an ice house climate to a hothouse climate include the end of: snowball Earth, 650mya, Andean-Saharan glaciation, 455mya, and the Karoo ice age, ~300mya.

            How old is the human species?

            Nature is a reliable source of science information, but you have to actually read the article if you want to understand it. It’s about things that happened 125k years ago, not predictions for today.

            … so how long will it take for total polar meltdown to occur, and how do you know? How many cm per year of sea level rise should we expect and what might that cost?

          • Conservative Republican

            The human species is 2 million years old.

            If you don’t want to see the analog of the past event, please feel free to examine this study:


            Also thousands of years. Around 2 meters per degree celsius. So to get it in 2000 years we need to raise the temperature 30+ degrees celsius. Fast. Not going to happen.

            The costs of sea level rises have been historically minor. There is no reason to expect them to be too onerous in the future. Technological improvement tends to lower the real cost of civil engineering projects.

          • CB

            Okay, I’ll give you the origin of the human species 2 million years ago.

            Were there 7 billion people on Earth 2 million years ago?

            Right, so how long will it take for the oceans to rise 67 meters and what technical improvements do you foresee which will allow us to surround entire continents with a seawall 67 meters high?

            If this seawall cannot be built, how much do you think it will cost to lose all the arable land and human settlement within 67 vertical meters of the sea?

          • Conservative Republican

            67 Meters would require uncontrolled CO2 for centuries. Then it would take 7000 plus years for the water to get to that level. We would certainly develop technology within that time to completely control the earths temperature and prevent that event. But if we did not we would not build walls around every continent. We would simply migrate inland and away from the equator. There is plenty of space. Even for 20 billion people and half the space. The good news is we will likely delay the next ice age. A far more important thing than worrying about any warming.

          • CB

            Why would total polar meltdown require the release of more CO₂ than what is already in the air?

            If you understand that total polar meltdown occurred each and every time in Earth’s history that CO₂ passed 400PPM, why would you expect a different outcome today?

            If you understand your timeline adds a centimeter a year to global sea levels, and you understand that far less than that increase is already causing billions of dollars of damage in the form of increased flooding, why wouldn’t you expect even more economic cost?

          • Conservative Republican

            Are you confusing polar with arctic? Because both poles have not melted each time Co2 passed 400. I showed that to you in another graph I believe. Arctic melt would be insufficient. Also, you need sufficient thermal expansion to get to 67 Meters. Ice melt alone would not get you that far,

          • CB

            No! No, I am not confusing polar with Arctic.

            Did you show me a point in time when ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM? … because I believe you showed me no such thing.

            In case I missed it, when did this alleged event take place? If it happened, you should be able to say when, right?

            If moving polar land ice into the sea wouldn’t raise sea levels 67 meters, how much would it raise sea levels?

          • Conservative Republican

            I will have to get back to you on ice caps and 400ppm. The graph I showed you showed only very close to 400. Not above. By the way, looking at NOAA’s website I see we have dropped down to 390 recently. I will have to see what data there is on antarctica historically. I did not quickly find that. If you have a source with a historical record of antarctica I will look at that. The arctic has many times, even in relatively recent human history. I could not even find evidence that it always melts above 400. It could be 1000 . We need to look at the times when it melted.

            As to how much?

            If the antarctic alone, it would be approximately 50 meters. Without thermal expansion. That would have to be accounted for separately. I have seen figures of projected warming that would take that to 60m.

            The arctic cause no net sea level rise. It is almost all in the sea already.

            However, I would like you to acknowledge a few, factual things:

            1] CO2 does not melt anything. You are assuming temperatures will follow in an exponential fashion. An interesting theory, but not proven in the least and estimates of that factor are decreasing with the most recent IPCC report. It could be as low as 1 to 2 degrees per doubling. So it may be we have a long way to go to raise temps enough to cause the antarctic to be in a state of large scale melting.

            2] The current situation does not show an automatic correlation between large changes in CO2 and large temperature increases. Certainly there is some, but it appears to be a smaller amount than previously assumed. The current theory of heat going into the deep sea is just a theory. If true, it only reinforces that the surface temps will not be as badly affected,

            3] The melting you are concerned about will take thousands of years even at higher temperatures. All studies show this. The melt is not instantaneous. It takes a very long time. If concerns arose we could take geoengineering action to cool the earth quickly.

            4] Current sea level rises are not alarming. Perhaps a few millimeters per year attributable to man. At most.

            So people throw around the word denier very easily. I deny nothing. But my take as a skeptic is that there seems to be little reason to act yet. That current action will cause more pain that future action. In fact, many scientists believe modest future warming would be a net positive. I think that was the subject of this article. Between the decrease of future costs, the current benefits, and the ability to quickly correct and adapt with engineering options, there seems to be no need to act currently.

            The thinking about what to do is not a scientific question. It is most certainly political based on societal values and risk assessment. It seems to me there are far more important and harmful areas to focus our resources currently. The poor should not shoulder the costs of increased energy prices. The best hedge against any change in climate is wealth. We should focus on that until such time as the science is clearer, the effects are better known and we are better equipped to address.

            now can you read the last paragraph I wrote and conclude that “deniers” are denying science and unintelligent fools. Or maybe that we have a reasonable alternative take on how to approach?

          • CB

            You will have to get back to me if you want your claim to be believable… but I doubt that you’re going to. Climate Deniers are not interested in what’s true. Not only that, Climate Deniers are suicidally mentally ill and actually trying to bring about catastrophic melting. See my profile for pages and pages of proof.

            In the event I’m wrong, here is 800,000 years of ice core data:


            Find me a single crystal of polar ice on Earth that records a level of CO₂ above even 300PPM. Then explain to me why you think polar ice is compatible with high CO₂ when polar ice doesn’t yield a single record of high CO₂.

            Antarctic ice is around 60m of sea level, not 50m, but let’s pretend you were correct. How much would it cost to lose all the arable land and human settlement within 50 vertical meters of the sea? Since the meltdown is likely, how do you know how long it will take?

            CO₂ increases temperature which melts ice. How are you not understanding this simple chain of causation?

          • Conservative Republican

            You need to reread what I wrote. I recognize that causation. It seems that you inherently relate 400ppm CO2 level to sufficient temperature increase to melt all of antarctica in a rapid fashion. That is no clear from any data.

            Show me the various antarctic melts. When did they occur? What CO2 levels were present at those times?

            If you cannot show that then you have a theory not based in any facts except an odd misconception of a specific level of CO2 and a perceived temperature.

            Post the antarctic melt history here.

          • CB

            Antarctic? Clownshoes, we are talking about the entirety of Earth’s history! There was no Antarctic continent for most of it.

            I’ve already told you the major glaciations in the Phanerozoic. Find where I did so and list them for me. Each glaciation was terminated by a rise in CO₂.

            I’m relating a rise in CO₂ above 400PPM to polar meltdown because a rise in CO₂ above 400PPM is always related to polar meltdown!

            How are you not understanding that?

          • Conservative Republican

            You just called me clownshoes. How is that polite debate? You only diminish your position and look unintelligent. You should be more facile in discussion.

            You did not answer my questions. I will answer yours when you stop avoiding mine.

            Do you agree that CO2 does not melt anything?

            Do you agree that the current situation does not show an automatic correlation between large changes in CO2 and large temperature increases?

            Do you agree that the melting you are concerned about will take thousands of years even at higher temperatures?

            Do you agree that current sea level rises are not alarming?

            I will answer your questions in which you continue to confuse cause and correlation when you have answered mine.

          • CB

            And? You asked me for data I literally just provided you plus you can’t even be bothered to look for data which supports your own position.

            I think clownshoes is the perfect name for someone who behaves in such a ridiculous fashion.

            I do not agree. CO₂ traps the sun’s energy, warms the surface of planets, and yes, melts ice. How are you failing to understand this simple chain of causality?

            No, there is not a single point in Earth’s history when it’s been cold enough for polar ice caps to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM. If there is, why haven’t you already named it?

            Polar meltdown will probably be complete in a few thousand years (barring unforeseen circumstances). That’s centimeters a year. Did you think that wouldn’t affect humanity? What’s alarming is actually the lack of sea level rise. It suggests there is energy hiding out there which is going to cause an abrupt increase to correct the system.

          • Conservative Republican


            I see I am going to have to get really simple with you given your clear lack of understanding of science.

            “I do not agree. CO₂ traps the sun’s energy, warms the surface of
            planets, and yes, melts ice. How are you failing to understand this
            simple chain of causality?”

            Oh I understand that chain. The only thing that does the actual melting is the warmth. Not the CO2. The CO2 warms the planet, but is not the thing causing the melting. It is a step away.

            But let’s take another step back. The Sun. The Sun directly melts the ice and also get trapped by the CO2.

            You cannot say with certainty that every time that CO2 was over 400 that other factors were not present that would cause the warming. Some possible culprits: A sun with increased activity. A larger degree of methane. Changes in cloud cover.

            It is completely possible that our current situation would require a CO2 level of 1000 to melt the poles because other factors are lower.

            You seem to ignore the complexity of the system and want to use simplistic correlation to determine what is the “cause”. That doesn’t fly in any science. Until you get this simple fact around your head there is little point in moving forward with you on what the science says. You are caught up in a religious fixation on CO2 when so many other bigger factors are at play.

            I will point out that we have never not had ice when Brittany Spears is alive. I also can confuse cause and correlation.

          • bworei

            @CBlargh:disqus Per CR: “You…ignore the complexity of the system and want to use simplistic correlation to determine what is the ’cause.'” That, my dear, is your (and your leftist friends’) Achilles heel. Tom Sowell refers to it as refusing to “think beyond stage one.” Try it sometime….if you dare.

          • CB

            lol! … or, Climate Deniers are attempting to make the system seem more complex than it actually is in order to deceive people.

            If you understand that CO₂ warms planets…

            … and if you understand that when CO₂ is low, ice house conditions persist, and when CO₂ is high, hothouse conditions persist…

            … and if you understand that this has been true for the entirety of Earth’s history…

            … what’s more likely, that ice caps will be able to persist with high levels of CO₂, or that the Earth will become a hothouse due to high CO₂?

            What besides a self-destructive mental illness is keeping you from answering this question?

          • bworei

            CR has already answered those questions, you petulant little snob. Please do keep on with your futile attempts to engage him. It is highly entertaining!

          • CB

            lol! Yup, it’s a step away. Are you planning on stopping CO₂ from warming planets or heat from melting ice?


            Methane is a global warming gas! Furthermore, there is more methane now than there has been in the past! What is your point?

            lol! Was Britney Spears alive during the Karoo ice age or Andean-Saharan ice age? No?

            … then you’re just cherry-picking your data, aren’t you?

            How long will it take for CO₂ to reach 1,000PPM, and why shouldn’t we act now to stop that from happening in order to avoid catastrophic polar meltdown?

          • Conservative Republican

            CO2 will always warm. What you fail to understand is that the system has governors that will regulate that warming across the system as a whole.

            In a vaccuum CO2 has a mild warming effect. Not enough to invoke your catastrophic water levels. Your theory relies on significant multipliers (positive feedbacks).

            Those are only in models. The real world is behaving more like CO2 is a minor player.

            Let me ask you this. How do you plan to keep the next glaciation from destroying civilization?

          • Conservative Republican

            So I sat and did the research and it didn’t take very long. See this from the wikipedia article on antarctica:


            “Gondwanaland breakup (160–23 Ma)

            The cooling of Antarctica occurred stepwise, as the continental
            spread changed the oceanic currents from longitudinal equator-to-pole
            temperature-equalizing currents to latitudinal currents that preserved
            and accentuated latitude temperature differences.

            Africa separated from Antarctica around 160 Ma, followed by the Indian subcontinent,
            in the early Cretaceous (about 125 Ma). By the end of the Cretaceous,
            about 66 Ma, Antarctica (then connected to Australia) still had a
            tropical to subtropical climate, complete with a marsupial fauna. About 40 Ma Australia-New Guinea
            separated from Antarctica, so that latitudinal currents could isolate
            Antarctica from Australia, and the first ice began to appear. During the
            Eocene–Oligocene extinction event about 34 million years ago, CO2 levels have been found to be about 760 ppm[38] and had been decreasing from earlier levels in the thousands of ppm.

            Around 23 Ma, the Drake Passage opened between Antarctica and South America, resulting in the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that completely isolated the continent. Models of the changes suggest that declining CO2 levels became more important.[39] The ice began to spread, replacing the forests that then covered the continent.”

            So you see there was ice when CO2 was at least 760 and actually higher than that.

            There has also been arctic ice at MUCH higher CO2 levels. See this study for a graph of CO2 over the last 500 mY.


            Now I know it must be hard for you that the science doesn’t support your position. It should not surprise you though because you confuse cause and correlation.

            How about we make a deal. We will all join you in freaking out when the Oceans rise 6 inches. See you in a few thousand years.

          • CB

            Right, polar ice caps begin to form at 760PPM… but they don’t persist. We know this because polar ice does not record a level of CO₂ above 300PPM. For the second time:


            Find me a single crystal of polar ice on Earth recording a level of CO₂ above 300PPM. If polar ice can tolerate high CO₂, why doesn’t polar ice record high CO₂?

            If you believe the threshold for total polar meltdown is actually 760PPM, how long will it take to get there and why shouldn’t we start fixing the problem now in order to avoid catastrophic sea level rise?

            If you think total polar meltdown will take 2,000 years, and you understand that energy distribution on Earth isn’t necessarily uniform, why wouldn’t you expect an average of a centimeter per year sea level rise over a hundred years all condensed into a single catastrophic event?

          • Conservative Republican

            They did persist above 300 – for milliniea. The information you are citing only goes back a short 800K years. I am telling you about events of 10’s of millions ago. Please check.

            I have no reason to believe that the release of water will occur in a single catastrophic event. There is no historic analog. The analogs are measured in millinea.

            We shouldn’t do anything yet because

            1] Your theories are not clearly accurate.
            2] We can cool the earth inexpensively.
            3] The cost of reducing CO2 would hit the poor badly and do more damage than client change.

            4] You won’t control CO2 until there are viable portable fuel sources and a lot more nuclear power plants.

            If you want to see CO2 reduced, push fracking, natural gas exploitation and massive nuclear power.

          • bworei

            @CBlargh:disqus We’re waiting….. 😉

          • CB

            For what?

          • Conservative Republican

            Ad please indicate which of my points you agree with. I am completely fact based. You should understand that a rise of 70 meters even is not “suicidal”. We would move inland over thousands of years. It would have little impact on deaths or economies.

          • depressionbaby

            My calculations prove that the increase would be 2.732 cm per year ad infinitum.

          • CB

            … well, until infinitum or total polar meltdown, which at your rate would happen in around 2,400 years.

            That sounds like the low end of a fairly reasonable estimate, though I’m using a back of the envelope calculation (and assuming quite a lot about feedbacks and the ability of humans to accept the reality of the universe they inhabit).

            Of course, if we can get Climate Deniers to pull their heads out of their recta, perhaps most of this can be avoided completely. How’s that for a happy spin? 😀

          • Fergus Pickering

            As I understand, you are saying that all polar ice will melt at some unspecified time in the future unless we do all sorts of things now. Is that what you are saying?

          • john_willow

            Adaptability parameters? Big words for someone with little or no scientific knowledge. Thousands of scientists have determined that the Arctic sea ice melting is a serious issue and one of the symptoms of problems to come.

          • Conservative Republican


            Perhaps you should start following me. I am highly literate in science. It seems perhaps you are not.

            “”The results highlight the long-term vulnerability of ice sheets to even relatively low levels of sustained global warming.””

            Sure I read this. This is not the measurement. Any amount of warming will reverberate in the system for thousands of years.

            The measurement is here:

            As a consequence we are committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 m °C−1 within the next 2,000 y.

            Do you know how to read that sentence? If so, how much does it take to get to 70 meters.

            Oh. And I’ll show you my MENSA card sometime. You should be careful. You never know who you will run into on the internet.

          • bworei

            You never disappoint, CR! Love it!

          • Tom Moran

            Wind in the willows, Arctic Sea ice floats on water. How would its melting cause sea level to rise?

          • CB

            It wouldn’t, Tom, but melting land ice would.

            Why are you pretending anyone is trying to link melting sea ice to rising sea levels?

          • Tom Moran

            Hi CB, the reply was to John_Willow who appears to support your poorly crafted and rapidly disintegrating theory. Ask him why?

          • CB

            Right, why should I ask him for the information in your little noggin?

            Now why are you pretending anyone is trying to link melting sea ice to rising sea levels?

          • Tom Moran

            Thank you for giving me the opportunity to help the reading disadvantaged today. CB, you appear to be reasonably intelligent but your noggin reading comprehension mirrors your silly little theory…… in a thread about sea level rise:
            Conservative Republican–> CB
            • 5 days ago
            Projections of a polar meltdown are harmless. There have been multiple polar meltdowns.
            A 67 Meter sea level rise is outside of the bounds of any reasonable measure. Those studies that looked at that question saw such an increase taking several thousand years. Well within adaptability parameters.
            john_willow –>Conservative Republican
            • 4 days ago
            Adaptability parameters? Big words for someone with little or no scientific knowledge. Thousands of scientists have determined that the Arctic sea ice melting is a serious issue and one of the symptoms of problems to come.

          • Tom Moran


          • john_willow

            Did you read this sentence from the abstract?

            “The results highlight the long-term vulnerability of ice sheets to even relatively low levels of sustained global warming.”
            Do you even understand what you read, CR?

          • Dan Debrunner

            This year CO2 was 399.76PPM in May and Arctic ice recovered compared to recent lows, and Antarctic ice extent at record high (for our short measurement history).

            Pity when facts don’t fit the AGW narrative.

          • CB

            lol! Yes, Arctic ice “recovered” to record lows.

            Antarctic sea ice is increasing because the continent is melting down.

            These are well-known dishonest Denier talking points. Why are you repeating them?

            If it’s so likely that polar ice caps will be able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM, name a single point in Earth’s history that they have.

            If Climate Deniers were telling the truth, why hasn’t a single one of you been able to meet this simple challenge?

          • sadmaninagame

            Why are you basing your argument on the spurious assumption that CO2 levels drive ice formation? As far as I know from looking at Greenland and Vostok ice cores, CO2 trails temperature change. It doesn’t cause it. It’s the dirty secret at the heart of your ideology.

          • SkyHunter

            In 1896 Svante Arrhenius posited that unknown source of the missing energy necessary to melt the continental ice sheets came from an atmosphere made optically thicker in the IR band by CO2 coming out of solution (Henry’s Law 1803) as the oceans warmed due to orbital forcings. A feedback to increased temperature.

            Since it is the basis upon which the AGW theory is premised… please explain how it is a dirty little secret.

          • Tom Yoke

            “Optically thicker”. What the H does that mean. I suppose you were struggling to communicate ‘more reflective’.

            “Henry’s Law 1803”. Hoo boy. The fact that gases become less soluble when liquids warm, is a long, long, long, way from justifying global warming alarmism. That is particularly so since the molarity of dissolved CO2 is very small, the presumed temperature rise is relatively small, and the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is small.

            That leaves you with Arrhenius. Any straightforward reading of the warming effect supposedly produced by CO2 can at best account for only 1/3 of the projected warming. The CO2 effect is dwarfed by that caused by water, and the effect of water on warming and cooling in the atmosphere is very complex indeed. Lots of positive and negative feedback loops now being modeled with a lot of dubious finagle factors.

            By the way, the observed temperature record has now diverged so far from the predictions of the 4th IPCC report that it is now outside the error bands published at that time. If real science were being used, that would mean that the AGW hypothesis made back when “the science is settled”, has been formally falsified.

          • SkyHunter

            “Optically thicker”. What the H does that mean. I suppose you were struggling to communicate ‘more reflective’.

            You suppose wrong. No surprise. Science deniers are by definition ignorant of real science, as your reply to me demonstrates.

            Reflectivity is not a measure of optical depth.

            optical thickness [′äp·tə·kəl ′thik·nəs]


            In calculations of the transfer of radiant energy, the mass of a given absorbing or emitting material lying in a vertical column of unit cross-sectional area and extending between two specified levels. Also known as optical depth.


            So tell me… since you are obviously ignorant of climate science… why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

          • Fergus Pickering

            So if you do not believe some liar who happens to be a scientist, then you are a science denier. A very fat book could be written about the balls scientists have urged us to believe. Have you heard of the wandering womb? At present scientists are telling us that practically anything a woman does during, and even before, pregnancy will cause two-headed foetuses.

          • SkyHunter

            No. If you don’t believe science, you are a science denier.

          • JK

            Sky, Are you saying that Milankovitch cycles alone are not enough to produce the inter-glacial periods? If so, see Roe, In Defense of Milankovitch.

          • SkyHunter

            The Roe 2006 study posits that the rate of change in ice volume during glacial termination is correlated with insolation on the ice.

            Imagine that, they published a study that concludes; sunshine melts ice.

            The authors then tentatively suggest that CO2 is not as important for melting ice as sunshine.

            Another obvious conclusion.

            Insolation changes still don’t provide enough energy to melt all the ice.

            They don’t mention this in the study, so to conclude that this falsifies AGW is a gross misreading of the paper.

          • ErikKC

            Please, don’t bother us with facts.

          • AndyJ

            The panic industry never likes to talk about the Ice Age and how CO2 gets trapped in the ice and then gets released as it melts. So the heat does come first.

          • Airey Belvoir

            Your use of the emotive word ‘deniers’ tells us all we need to know about your objectivity.

          • SkyHunter

            Denier is descriptive, not emotive.

            When someone denies basic reality, calling them a denier is apropos.

          • pjl20

            I suggest that you get up-to-date with your reading matter.

            What is a so-called ‘denier’ supposed to be doing? Refuting theories, hypotheses and myths. Where are the proven scientific facts – you have none!

          • SkyHunter

            The AGW theory is based on 200 years of what is now textbook physics. It has been verified by tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence. There is not a single scientific institution in the world that rejects it. We can measure it’s effect in the atmosphere.

            It is the denial of this preponderous amount of evidence that makes you a denier.

            If you have a null hypothesis that refutes the AGW theory… let’s hear it.

          • pjl20

            Why do you persist with this nonsense?

            There is nothing but natural climate change, as all the text
            books used in universities confirm.

            The much-lauded ‘Stern Review’ was deleted from the reading list at my university as being full of misleading data, not based upon scientific fact, but myth and hypotheses, and was mainly intended to cause alarm and panic amongst it’s readers.

            There is absolutely no confirmed evidence that man is responsible for a phenomena known as man-made climate change.

            This is a scam of monumental proportions, that is now being revealed as such across the globe. The purpose being to raise taxes for spurious projects to do with green renewable energy, whilst the important traditional forms of efficient energy production are being sadly neglected.

          • SkyHunter

            Natural you say.

            What is the nature of the universe?

            Cause and effect.

            So what is the “natural” cause of the current effect?

            And be specific please.

          • saintlaw

            Not a fact in your gibberish.

          • pjl20

            So you are an advocate of the nonsense spread by Greenpeace, the WWF, the RSPB, the IPCC and suchlike.

            Who is your disciple, Al Gore?

            All this is pure myth founded on theory and hypotheses using flawed computer modelling

          • Pablo Diablo

            Go take another toke you foolish hippie.

          • ErikKC

            Calling someone a denier is an obvious attempt to demonize those who disagree with you. Like Holocaust denier. That is why it was originally coined. And, now you pass on the meme.

          • SkyHunter

            When someone denies reality, like deniers of science, it is a appropriate to use the term denier because it is descriptive of their behavior.

            The fact that you don’t like it is just icing on the cake.

          • ErikKC

            The fact that you could not possibly know what I do or do not believe, but assert otherwise, makes you an idiot.

            The fact that you don’t like it is just icing on the cake.

          • SkyHunter

            Where did you get the idea that I don’t like it?

          • ErikKC

            Oh. I stand corrected. You like judging others, based upon a lack of knowledge about them. Bringing idiocy to a crescendo. Makes total sense.

          • SkyHunter

            You are defending science deniers by attacking me. I don’t care what you believe. Ad hominem attacks give me a chuckle.

            When all you have to refute my argument is logical fallacies, I win.

          • ErikKC

            Belief is not truth. No matter how so very much you wish it so.

            Again, the use of the word “denier” is a clear attempt to demonize (as in holocaust denier) those who remain skeptical of your so called consensus.

            Your posting above is what is known as the logical fallacy of well poisoning.

            So, nope, you lose.

          • SkyHunter

            Exactly, your belief is not the truth and neither is mine. I don’t wish my beliefs to be the truth, because I already know that everything I know is wrong or at least incomplete. When I discover why my belief is wrong, I don’t compound my mistake by denying my own ignorance.

            Richard Muller is a skeptic. He headed up the BEST study because he believed that the modern warming trend was an artifact of the urban heat island effect. With funding from the Koch brothers, he joined forces with Anthony Watts and analyzed all of the raw temperature data, and came up with the same results as every other scientist who has analyzed the data.


            Additionally, you are also confused about logical fallacies.

            If calling someone a denier were a clear demonization of a true skeptic, it would be an ad hominem fallacy, not a poison the well fallacy. Poisoning the well is a common denier tactic.

            A good example is declaring that the science has been corrupted by politics and can not be relied upon. The well, scientific literature, is now poison, any reference to science can now be dismissed by the science denier as political rhetoric.

          • ErikKC

            “A good example…” Straw man.

            And “well poisoning” is presenting a person in a bad light so you can argue against whatever they say. That is what calling them “denier” is.

            Look it up.

          • SkyHunter

            I don’t need to look it up. Unlike you, I inform my opinion before I express it.

            But since you don’t believe me, here you go.

            A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3]To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. In those cases the false victory is often loudly or conspicuously celebrated.

            Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army, to diminish the attacking army’s strength.

            An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[3][4][5] more precisely as a genetic fallacy,[6] a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.[7]

            You lose again.

          • ErikKC

            I know exactly what those logical fallacies are, without wiki.

            The fact that you can make them, get called on it, even read the wiki definitions, and still can’t see when you use them, makes you, either stupid or ignorant. The latter can be cured with study, while the prior is usually terminal.

          • SkyHunter

            You said calling someone a denier was poisoning the well.

            I corrected you by pointing out that it was an ad hominem fallacy.

            But it is also descriptive. Since deniers are in denial, it is an accurate description.

            So if you know “exactly” what those fallacies are… why are you still confusing them?

          • ErikKC

            An ad hominem like calling someone a “denier” can most certainly function as well poisoning. Doing so demonizes someone. That’s the point of labeling someone pejoratively in this manner.

            Which, you did repeatedly..

          • SkyHunter

            Calling someone in denial, a denier, is also an accurate and descriptive term.

          • ErikKC

            It can be. However, in this case, it is purely pejorative. It is an attempt to equate skepticism of your, so called, consensus science with other irrational deniers, be they holocaust deniers, or deniers of evolution. As such, it is well poisoning.

            Deny it if you will, but it is so. Denial isn’t merely a river in Egypt.

          • SkyHunter

            What skepticism?
            Deniers are not skeptics. You are confused.
            Are you are skeptical that CO2 interacts with the light field of photons at certain frequencies?
            Are you skeptical that when a photon interacts with CO2 that it does not produce heat?
            Are you skeptical that combusting carbon does not increase atmospheric CO2.
            If you are skeptical, you must have a valid scientific reason. Unless you just deny it without any evidence or rationale.

          • ErikKC

            Yawn. So says you. Others disagree. And, you demonize those who do. Well poisoning.

            I am skeptical of all claims of truth. Religious, economic, politically ideological and, like all good scientists of claims of scientific truth.

            Some, you included, have gone astray from scientific method. And you now stand corrected.

          • SkyHunter

            So you have no reason, just personal opinion.

            You are a denier.

          • ErikKC

            I’ve taken no position one way or the other. It is you that is expressing certainty about something you could not possibly know.

          • SkyHunter

            You say you are skeptical. You don’t beleive in climate science, yet you can articulate no rational reason for disbelief.

            That my friend is denial.

            It is impossible to everything about anything. Therefore, everything I know is wrong. When I discover why it is wrong, I won’t compound my mistake by denying it.

          • ErikKC

            Straw man. I believe in climate science. As such you are putting words in the mouth of another. Look it up.

            False premise, leading to a false logical conclusion.

            I simply believe that current climate science is too young, and inaccurate (none of the models is predictive).

            You believe in it as a religious zealot. Go figure. I do not. I question it. And, that’s good science.

            As for your last incomprehensible sentences? More of same? Just babbling? Insanity? Religion?

          • SkyHunter

            So you don’t really know why you are in denial, just some vague excuse about lack of knowledge.

            You are a denier, because you cannot cite a scientific reason for disbelieving the science.

            Is it possible to know everything about anything?

            What do you know for certain, beyond a doubt?

          • saintlaw

            You fool none but fools like you.

          • ErikKC

            Ah yes, ad hominem, last refuge of the mentally challenged.

          • Fergus Pickering

            In denial is just a trendy phrase. All the people who use it should be distrusted. Anybody who says ‘the science is settled’ is not to be trusted.

          • SkyHunter

            I see you are a fundamentalist.

            Interesting dogma you have.

          • Fergus Pickering

            No you don’t. You see I disagree with you. And distrust you.

          • SkyHunter

            And you live inside your own reality bubble.

          • saintlaw

            Yes, but then you;re a liar and probably a shill so what is your ‘trust’ worth?


          • Fergus Pickering

            Subtle stuff!

          • NDP TRUTH

            The whole point of slinging the denier mud at us is demonstrated right here in these comments – we are diverted into a discussion over their totally screwed up, bullshit behaviour. They laugh and laugh as they engage us in what they well know to be a fake debate, even as they posture seriously over their absurd, laughable lies, misinformation, distortions, and outright, crude manipulations of data.

            Shut up fools – when the dust has settled, a great number of you will be sharing a 5′ x 8′ cell together, for your fraudulent, traitorous crimes against your fellow citizens.

          • ErikKC

            Perhaps. Maybe Gore. But many are true believers. However, as I’ve said previously, belief is not truth.

          • Tobyf1

            Holy smokes; NPD truth, are you actually Mr T? “Shut up, fool!”

            I think of myself as a skeptic rather than a “denier,” but fear of a future jail cell will certainly not make me amend my “errant” ways. For the record, me going to jail is even less likely than global disaster due to CAGW.

            Here is the reason I doubt the catastrophic predictions, in bullets:
            1. I build numeric models (not GCMs, admittedly, but other fluid based modeling) for a living where I actually have to predict outcomes which my clients can implement to make/save money.
            2. I have reviewed the input parameters of several of the older open-source GCM models which produce similar results to the most “up-to-date” models (which I do not have access to because the authors don’t like criticism of their codes)
            3. In the models I have reviewed, the data loop which makes the temperatures go crazy in the extended (30 yr+) simulations is as follows: (a) CO2 drives a temperature increase – (b) Temp Increase creates more water vapor (the most important GHG) – (c) More water vapor increases temp – (d) repeat step c.
            4. I agree with step (a) but I’ve reviewed the literature and there is no good, empirical (think ERBE or other global data set) evidence which supports the idea that increased temperatures cause an increase in overall atmospheric water vapor density – this is step (b) for the record.
            5. If the model inputs are wrong on step (b), we end up with a degree or so of warming, not 3 to 6…

            Maybe some areas are a little warming, maybe some get a little more or more intense rain, I don’t know, but reviewing their models, I can assure you they don’t know either…
            I have no position on whether warming may create stronger storms but the idea that warming the planet enters us into a warming spiral, as the models calculate, is strongly contra-indicated by empirical evidence, both current and geological.

            Several disclaimers:
            I believe CO2 causes warming.
            I believe that science is our best bet (and the basis of my professional career), I just believe in the type where you are allowed to challenge any idea without being shouted down
            Remember, prominent physicists tried to refute Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity by observing the transit of Venus and his response to his critics was “Okay, if I’m right here’s what you’ll see.” – and we all know how that turned out.

            I hate pay-walled studies and hidden models.
            The idea that “If I give you my data and model code, you’ll just try to prove me wrong” is an anathema to actual science!
            If they had the idea first and are right they deserve credit. If they are wrong, we need a better model

            Just my thoughts.

          • HookesLaw

            No one is denying reality – except possibly you and Dr Mann. The reality is that every IPCC prediction has failed and failed badly.
            The reality is that no one understands climate and what changes it.

          • SkyHunter

            Typical argument from an ignoramus.

            You don’t understand it… therefore you conclude that no one can understand it.

          • Fergus Pickering

            What is basic reality?

          • SkyHunter

            Big surprise that you wouldn’t know.

          • Mr Creosote

            Where’s the nearest gun shop?

          • JK

            The word “denier” is used by people unable to successfully articulate their own beliefs and conclusions. Otherwise, you would do so rather than engaging in ad hominems.. Someone with an erroneous conclusion about a particular matter is no threat to a well reasoned hypothesis.

          • SkyHunter

            That is just your opinion.

            In my opinion, when someone denies direct evidence because it contradicts their worldview, they are a denier.

            Calling someone a moron or an idiot is ad hominem, even if they are behaving like an idiot or moron.

          • JK

            Certainly your engaging in ad hominems has no bearing on the truth, or lack there of, of your underlying assertions. But it just makes you much less credible and therefor not very convincing.

          • SkyHunter

            Truth is self evident. I don’t need credibility to speak the truth.

            A person who denies the evidence is a denier.

            The fact that they don’t like being called “denier” is an added bonus.

          • SkyHunter

            I notice you don’t answer any of my questions.

            Are you afraid of exposing your ignorance?

            Tell me something… If you are ignorant of climate physics and chemistry… Why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

          • JK

            Just ask a relevant question. Ignorance is your statement that China is banning coal power plants. Or were you just being intellectually dishonest? Saying that China is banning coal power plants is like saying that the US is banning restaurants (in my residential neighborhood). If I were concerned about CO2 emissions, I would be terrified about what is coming from India and China. And you just disregard it, buying into China’s green propaganda. That is pretty gullible.

          • SkyHunter

            The fact that you dismiss my questions as irrelevant speaks to your ignorance not mine. The fact that you offer no evidence to support your opinion they are irrelevant is typical of your dishonest nature.

            China is banning coal plants to mitigate pollution. And they are also investing $500 million in renewable energy.

            China and India are still far below the west in per capita emissions, and they are not responsible for most of the buildup over the last 100 years.

            I am sure that you are terrified of many things. Bullies are all cowards deep down.

          • JK

            China is not banning coal plants to mitigate CO2 emissions. China’s CO2 emissions will grow over the next 40 years. Just take a look at the direction of the curve. According to your AGW theory, does the planet care about total emissions or per capita emissions?

          • SkyHunter

            It is not my AGW theory, the honor goes to Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

            And no, it doesn’t matter how the CO2 got into the atmosphere, once there it will transmit the earth’s energy through the atmosphere. But using China as an excuse for your own behaviour is a sign of mental illness.

          • saintlaw

            says liar

          • Steve Eros

            Its not even possible to recover back to record lows. You sound confused.

          • CB

            lol! Right, Steve… so did Arctic ice actually recover?

          • Steve Eros

            Yes it did but you are not interested in facts just green propoganda.

          • CB

            No! No, it did not. Arctic sea ice is the highest it’s been in 2 years and the lowest it’s been in 40. Why would you think that’s a recovery?

            If the person uninterested in facts isn’t you, why are you stating things you already know are not true?

          • Pablo Diablo

            I really don’t care how much or how little the ice caps melt. Yours must be a miserable existence moaning about everything that is not as you would like it to be. Nuts like you are driving policies that have adverse effects on productive people like myself who pay a high price in taxes and ancillary costs driven by ill-conceived laws and regs enacted as a capitulation to the nutty leftists. That’s why many of us take this seriously and will not let you crazies drive the debate. I will concede that you and yours have the upper hand at the moment. That’s subject to change as more and more people start to think for themselves in a rational manner.

          • Steve Eros

            You really want to talk facts? What is the significance of Arctic Sea Ice 40 years ago? Is it a fact that 40 years ago, that was the norm? What if 40 years ago was a high and we are back to normal now? The whole global warming theory is based on the supposed fact that as CO2 rises, so does temperature. CO2 levels have not stopped increasing yet warming stopped 17 years ago. You can spout all the propoganda and excuses you want but the “fact” is all your excuses were never predicted which means the whole basis of global warming is based on junk science. This is an undeniable fact.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Because it is, you fool. Draw it if you can’t work out what difficult things like words mean.

          • Tom Moran

            You write “Antarctic sea ice is increasing [freezing] because the continent is melting down.” [thawing]…..

            CB’s magic alarmist theory that melts glacial ice at the colder S. Pole but re-freezes it North of there where it’s warmer?

          • Dan Debrunner

            You miss my point, you seem to be claiming that there will be no polar ice once 400ppm is reached. We came close this year and the ice was moving in the opposite direction of a collapse. Higher Arctic minimum, and record Antarctic sea ice extent. It’s data that doesn’t agree with what you seem to be claiming.

          • Tim Groves

            CB, just met your challenge above. What’s my prize? I think I can guess.

            How much farther down can Antarctica possibly melt? It’s already melted down to the bottom of the world! (/sarc)

            The mean annual temperature of the interior of Antarctica is currently is −57°C. Give us a wake-up call when it hits single figures. I might be interested in buying some seafront property there.

          • HookesLaw

            More rubbish. You are the denier of facts.

          • mikewaller

            I think your mode of expression is too sophisticated. As in “Father Ted”, you should explain that the ice-cream dropped on the ground does not actually get bigger, but merely covers a larger ground area having got flatter as a result of melting. That might just do the trick. That said, I am not sure that it worked with the other Doogle!

          • JK

            During the Ordovician the Earth experienced an ice age at 2000PPM CO2.

          • AndyJ

            Shhh. Don’t tell them. They may have to completely rethink their ideologies.

          • bmac438

            First, the earth has been at 400 ppm before — just not in a long time. Second, other than 400 being more of a round number than, say, 397, this fact seems to make little difference. Third, during the time man has been on Earth, there have been periods with no polar ice caps … and we seem to have survived. And fourth, CB seems to be the one with well-rehearsed left greenie talking points … “increasing because the continent is melting down?” And, as Guest says, CO2 trails temperature change … it doesn’t cause it.

          • CB

            Sure! Was there polar ice on Earth the last time CO₂ was at 400PPM? … or 397PPM, take your pick.

            I’ll give you the origin of humans before the last time Earth’s poles were basically ice free.

            Were there a billion people in the path of rising seas at the time?

            Why would you think heat increasing CO₂ would mean CO₂ doesn’t increase heat?

            If you weren’t suicidally mentally ill and actually trying to bring about catastrophic polar meltdown, why would you be contradicting a century of well-understood science and endangering the ecology you depend on for survival?

          • bmac438

            First, everyone here is discussing something without calling opponents suicidally mentally ill. Second, as for rising seas, even the IPCC admits the threat is overblown to say the least. Besides, seas rose almost 2 feet in the last 100 years, and the world, including tiny seaside burgs such as New York, Houston, El Lay and New Orleans seem to have survived. Perhaps it’s like Ridley and Lomborg say, and it’s just not that big a deal.

          • CB

            lol! No you aren’t. You aren’t discussing a thing. You’re trying to convince one part of your personality that another part isn’t lying when it really is.

            I wasn’t joking when I said you were suicidally mentally ill! I’ve talked to hundreds of you and this is what I have concluded.

            Why else would you be having difficulty gauging threats to your well-being?

          • bmac438

            CB = Closed Brain. What you don’t understand is we have gauged the threat and not found much to worry about. On the other hand, your side seems to change its story every other day for the express purpose of keeping people such as you on pins and needles. The 17 years of warming? “We never said it would be a straight-line process.” Actually, that’s all you said. “Well, we’ve have more extreme weather.” Oops. Failure.
            Snow … slightly below historical norms. Cyclones/hurricanes, tornadoes and thunderstorms all below historical norms both in frequency and severity. W-w-well Superstorm Sandy. Actually, probably not even a hurricane when it came ashore. Numbers bolstered to ensure eligibility for government money. (It worked. Damage estimated at $22 billion; Congress appropriated $65 billion and, unfortunately, counting.) Sea-level rise. “Well, it was going to be three meters, but now it’s looking more like the one foot range. But things will get better … er … worse.”
            You should be less worried about the psychiatry of people you don’t know and a lot more worried about why this thing you keep warning us about doesn’t seem to want to materialize.

          • CB

            I’m sorry, bubby, but I don’t have time for a private therapy session. If you want to find me on a fresher thread where everyone can observe my technique for dealing with your mental illness, I’d be glad to oblige!


          • john_willow

            Check the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, Debrunner. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • Dan Debrunner

            Direct from the NSIDC …


            “September 2013 [Arctic] ice extent was 1.72 million square kilometers (664,000 square miles) higher than the previous record low for the month that occurred in 2012”

            “Antarctic sea ice extent reached 19.47 million square kilometers (7.52 million square miles) on September 22, a record high maximum extent relative to the satellite record”

            Note that the Met Office predicted 3.4 +/+ 1.5 km2 for the Arctic minimum ice, shows how reliable their models are when the actual number was 5.35.


          • mikewaller

            With regard what is happening in Arctic, one possible reason for this is that Asian emergent economies are now putting so many pollutants into the skies that they are reflecting a significant proportion of the sun’s rays back into space. Trouble with that is that only a couple of days ago there was a piece in the press about the Chinese having to tell a whole community to stay in doors because the local pollution had reached very harmful levels. And this was very much not for the first time. What seems clear to me from this is that unless the West sets a clear example, it will be a toss-up between a baking planet or a slow onset nuclear winter.

            One other thing, we folks who claim to be right-wing realists cannot see the critical importance of having the meeting of our most basic electrical needs made reasonably catastrophe-robust by means of highly localised renewable generation, is quite beyond me. Perhaps they just lack the imagination.

          • Tobyf1

            Two points:
            1) The only pole that could melt and truly effect sea level is the South pole, and given that most of that ice sits in an area that will remain frozen even under the worst IPCC scenarios, I think we’re alright for the time being. (and don’t reply about Greenland, because >90% of that island is similar to antarctica in the stability of its icecap as I understand it)
            2) Correct me if I’m wrong but as I understand it, geologists have pretty conclusively proven that sea level has risen over 120 meters over the last 14,000 years and looking out my window at this moment, I see no post-apocolyptic, malthusian devolution under-way.

          • CB

            lol! I shouldn’t talk about facts that prove you wrong? How convenient for you!

            Why couldn’t Greenland melt?

            If you understand that every time in Earth’s history CO₂ rose above 400PPM, not merely Greenland but all of the polar regions melted completely, why would you expect a different outcome today?

          • Eugene S

            If what you claim were true

            every time in Earth’s history CO₂ rose above 400PPM, not merely Greenland but all of the polar regions melted completely

            why should we care? Atmospheric CO2 is already at 400ppm and will go over shortly. Absolutely nothing we can do about that. Why are you bothering us then? Can’t you find a less strident and annoying hobby?

          • CB

            You should care because increasing the level of the sea 67 meters would flood a fantastic percentage of the cropland you depend on for survival, and send a billion starving, desperate, politically destabilising refugees your way (if it didn’t simply drown you)… never mind all of the other likely effects of polar meltdown, such as wild disturbances of stable ocean and atmospheric currents humans have built our entire civilisation around!

            How are you not understanding that?

            If you understand that turning the key in your ignition is what is causing this problem, why would you say there is nothing you can do about it? Who is forcing you to destroy the ecosystem you depend on for survival?

          • Pablo Diablo

            Leading versus lagging indicator….it’s really not that difficult to grasp…

          • David

            CB repeating ad nauseam 400ppm as some holy grail of argument for your case is negated by the fact you refer to the past world outcomes when this magical figure happened. Because by default, if that is the case then those times (when man was inconsequential) had nothing to do with man made global warming which then completely negates your whole belief system.
            Therefor you argument is irrelevant – end of story

          • Conservative Republican

            That is non-factual. I will respond on our thread.

          • JK

            Your problem here is that temperature drove CO2 in the past. So, when it was cold, CO2 was absorbed. When it was hot, CO2 was released. But now there is something else driving CO2. We are. And no matter what, we will continue to do so. We know that if CO2 has any effect on temperature, it is a mild one. We know that because previous glacials and interglacials were driven by Milankovitch factors. And spare me the “insolation isn’t enough to cause interglacials alone” argument. If CO2 were such a primary driver of temperature, along with all of the positive feed backs James Hansen touts, the Milankovitch factors could not have overcome the effect of the CO2 to end the interglacial as CO2 was at its very highest point then, lagging behind temperature. Or do you contend that the Milankovitch factors alone couldn’t initiate an interglacial, but they were strong enough to overcome “mighty CO2” when its effects were strongest?

          • Steve Crook

            “why isn’t there a single word discussing the likelihood, extent or timeframe of polar meltdown?”

            Mainly I think because this is not an article about polar meltdown. Which, incidentally, isn’t something that the IPCC is too worried about either, from everything I’ve read. Something that I think you ought to do, otherwise you start to look like a troll 🙂

          • CB

            Uh huh, and why isn’t it an article about polar meltdown?

            If the author has concluded climate change is good, why hasn’t the author bothered to consider outcomes of climate change that are bad?

            … or are you saying 67 meters of sea level rise will actually be a good thing?

          • Steve Crook

            “hasn’t the author bothered to consider outcomes of climate change that are bad”

            There’s not exactly a shortage of people who are only too willing to discuss the climate disaster that awaits us. Yourself included.

            The problem has been the complete refusal to even consider the possibility that there may be beneficial effects of *constrained* warming. Look at the bucket of filth that was poured on Lomborgs head when he popped up and suggested it might be the case…

          • CB

            Uh huh, and if warming to the point of total polar meltdown isn’t the most likely outcome of CO₂ rising to where it is right now, why can’t you name a single point in Earth’s history polar ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?

            Did you think 67m of sea level rise would not be disastrous to the people who live within 67 vertical meters of the sea?

            Is this the “constrained” warming you’re talking about?

            What beneficial effects of global warming might outweigh the loss of the homes and businesses of a billion people?

          • osseo

            As I read the article, it is does not deny that bad effects might arise over 80 years from now. The question is whether the science is so compelling that we should spend trillions on seeking to avoid this before it happens. I can credit predicting eclipses 100 years abead – not climate.

          • CB

            Right! It just ignores those bad effects completely!

            If the author were interested in giving an honest appraisal of the effects of climate change, why would the author completely ignore an effect as catastrophic and likely as 67m of sea level rise?

            If you understand polar ice caps have never been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM in Earth’s history, why would you expect them to today?

            What is wrong with your own reasoning skills that you wouldn’t be able to make your own prediction?

            If you don’t think the economic value of the land supporting 1/7th of the world’s population is a trillion dollars, how much is that land worth?

          • osseo

            The answer to your first question is probably because he (like me) feels it quite impossible to predict with reasonable certainty what will happen to the climate in 60 years’ time.
            The other questions don’t arise.
            I appreciate that you feel strongly about this matter. However, if you want to change minds, you need to think whether you are likely to do this by accusing those who disagree with you of dishonesty. Otherwise your comments serve merely to bolster your good opinion of yourself.

          • HookesLaw

            There is no polar meltdown.
            You are an idiot.

          • JK

            The earth experienced an ice age with CO2 at 2000 PPM during the Ordovician Period.

          • CB

            Read the thread, clown shoes.

        • mikewaller

          It might also help if you thought for a moment and realised that with a system as massive as the world’s climate, not doing much until we reach the point at which GW is “doing more harm than good” is like waiting for the crash before you apply the brakes. I suspect that Matt Ridley is just seeking to raise his game. Having catastrophically crash a bank he now wants to do the same to the planet!

      • Tobyf1

        Troll. I see a troll. – I’ve seen her write this at least a hundred times. I’m not sure she says anything else actually/

        • Tobyf1

          Just for fun I pulled down this commenter’s posts for the last ten or so days. Couple thoughts:
          1. Pulled into MS Word with no formatting changes – her posts amount to 115 pages, I kid you not. Even accounting for formatting and the way her picture is pulled in with each post, she must be writing 5 – 6 PAGES of posts a day – get a life!
          2. In these posts, she uses the “400PPM” statement over 115 times – maybe its true – i really have no idea, but good lord don’t you have a little more to say.

          • CB

            Are you saying I care too much about the survival of the human race?

            Sorry, I can’t help it!

            Right, you don’t know whether or not polar ice caps have been able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM…

            …and you haven’t bothered to find out!

            Why is that, Toby?

            If it’s not because you already know what you believe is false, why should this be?

          • Tobyf1

            I generally don’t pursue conversation with fanatics but I’m going to make an exception here.
            Your writing style suggests that you see this as an existential threat rather than a practical challenge which may or may not come to pass. The fact is that humans excel at overcoming challenges through adaptation and technology, at least those who are not beggared by stupid environmental policies.
            Whether the sea level rise you fear comes to pass or not, I have full confidence that my descendants (about whose survival I am purportedly unconcerned) will be sufficiently capable of outwalking your existential threat.
            More to the point, unless you are living in an unheated mud hut and ride a horse for transportation, you are a hypocrit. And even if you are living that way, you better convince ALL 8-9 billion others on the planet to do so as well. Otherwise, we are going WAY over 400ppm no matter how much you care about to “survival of the human race.” Reflecting on that point makes me realize that, with the use of fossil fuel energy, just how much more likely good outcomes are for those kids of mine; yeah, those ones you think I don’t give a hoot about.

          • CB

            Why should humans have to give up modern conveniences in order to live sustainably, and why would a person have to drop out of society completely in order to say something that was true?

            Yes! Climate Deniers are fanatics! You also talk about yourself in the 2nd person.

            Why do you do that?

          • Tobyf1

            I am simply delighted with your answer. I had to re-read it to confirm you aren’t my fourth grader, but rather a different petulant child. I have good news and bad news though, the good news is when you are old and on your death bed, the earth will still be fine, the bad news is that from today until that far off time, it appears that you will be confined within the silly, simplistic head of yours.

            I am laughing at your right now.

          • john_willow

            You’ve just said absolutely nothing, Toby boy. And she’s completely outflanked you in dispensing information. You’re doing nothing but pontificating, about a subject you obviously are not acquainted with. The information-challenged, such as yourself, generally resort to ad hominem attacks (“fanatic”)when they can’t refute someone’s argument. Bit sad.

          • saintlaw

            I’ll bet YOU produce a lot of methane.

          • FatBastage72

            CB, first up get over the 400ppm [CO2] fetish, Leslie has got her ‘schoolboy basics’ of climate change backwards, rising [CO2] follows rising temperature by about 900years.

            The greatest glaciation event the planet has suffered was follwing the breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia when [CO2] was more than four times that of today and ‘snowball earth’ you mentioned was triggered through changes in run-off (Donnadieu, Godderis, Ramstein, Nedelec & Meert 2004).

            So now that you have gotten your head around that, let’s consider how the ice caps will respond to imagined temperature increases.
            Just for refereshing reference, the melting point of ice is 0C, but while 1 Calorie of heat will raise the temperature of a gram of water by 1C, 80 Calories are required to melt an equivalent volume of ice. And ice is a good reflector of heat and also a good insulator.
            The most hysterical increase the IPCC claims is about +3C by the end of the century (with a 100% uncertainty).
            Average surface temperature on the Arctic Ice Cap is about -30 in winter, close to 0C in July, on the Greenland Ice sheet -30C dropping to minima of -60Cin winter, -10C in summer. Antarctica’s mean annual temperature is -57C and the lowest temperature ever recorded on Earth is -89.2C in Vostok.
            So if we add 3C to any of that, tell me how much melting you expect.
            (and also bear in mind that like the ice melting in your carrot and alfalfa smoothie, melting sea ice doesn’t raise sea level).

            To answer your repetative question, firstly the earth’s ice caps have survived warmer temperatures, during the Holocene maximum (about 6000years ago); sea level 2m higher than today, average air temp about 6C higher, Greenland ice sheet didn’t melt down (Weidick, Oeter, Reeh, Rhomsen & Thoring 1990).
            Secondly ice sheets demonstrate an indifference to [CO2] at 400ppm, since both the Greenland (Zwally, Schultz, Abdalati, Abshire, Bentley, Brenner,Bufton, Dezio, Hancock, Harding, Herring, Minster, Quinn, Palm, Spinhirne & Thomas 2005) and Antarctic ice sheets are growing thicker today (Davis, Li, McConnell, Frey & Hanna 2005) the latter to the tune of 45 billion tonnes of water per year.

            A small point of order, Dan didn’t suggest Arctic ice “…recovered to record lows…”, he is correctly refering to the recovery from recent record lows (by which I am assuming he’s talking about this data: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png but maybe should be contemplating the ease of arctic marine navigation during the 1930s compared to today.

            So relax, unless squander on ‘fighting gullible warming” completely bankrupts human society to the point where it can’t respond to real challenges, the survival of the human race isn’t in question.

          • CB

            Yes, these are all common Climate Denier talking points. See http://www.skepticalscience.com for an explanation of why they are either dishonest or misleading.

            Where in your delusional babble might I find a point in Earth’s history that polar ice caps were able to withstand levels of CO₂ above 400PPM?

          • Galvanize

            CB, do you have something a little less partisan and a little less draconian in their moderating that you could link to?

          • CB

            I just had a discussion about this the other day!

            In my opinion, skepticalscience.com is a place for actual scientific discussion. It is not a place to discuss the mental illness of Climate Denialism, or to have the discussion of climate science hijacked by Climate Deniers.

            You have plenty of other places to make your point… such as this dishonest propaganda article!

            If you actually had a point why are all of you having such difficulty making it?

          • thallstd

            CB, there are numerous known factors related to ice melt, polar and otherwise. The two primary probably being atmospheric warming and changes in ocean circulation. Other factors are:

            heat from the Earth’s mantle:



            debris fields (mud & rock):





            No source readily available but also not much disputed.

            I am aware of NO studies that show a cause and effect relationship between CO2 and ice melt. Can you cite any?

            If not then your question is just a straw man argument. Of interest to me, since you seem to be familiar with the geological record, at the times when CO2 was above 400ppm and the ice caps were melting, what was the temperature compared to today?

          • Galvanize

            You are right CB, there is plenty of science discussed on SkS. In other discussions I have had elsewhere, we came to the conclusion that it is the empirical evidence that they tend to moderate out of existence; data from RSS, NOAA, ACE Index and other such inconvenient evidence. They would rather discuss modelled data or, all of a sudden, the oceans ate my global warming. Never mind though, SkS is a fairly inconsequential site with relatively low traffic.

          • osseo

            CB, sensible discussion and valid points influence rational people. Name-calling antagonises. if you want to convert sceptics, use only rational arguments. Or we may assume you have nothing better.

          • harryrsnape

            I note that according to Wikipedia, the current polar caps started forming when CO2 levels were 760ppm. So not only were they able to withstand the levels you claim to be a limit, they prospered, growing kilometres deep with ice.

          • john_willow

            Well, she has a lot of trolls like yourself to set straight. And she has said quite a bit, but it’s obviously flown over your head. I wouldn’t be proud of having little ability to digest information, if I were you.

      • nobody24

        did your brain cell stop working? it is already above 400ppm the ice caps are still there! Hmmmm how can that be?
        Learn please, that reading does not just mean saying the words out load… it means UNDERSTANDING what the words mean… did you miss that part?

        • CB

          That’s an excellent point! CO₂ has been at or around 400PPM for about 5 months.

          Did you expect a million years of accumulated ice to melt overnight?

          Did you think geological time was measured in months?


      • TeaPartyGeezer


        Still crazy … after all these years.

      • Well I suppose that’s why Gore, Flannery, Gillard have bought beachfront properties. But then there are always going to believe what they say rather than look at what they do. And then there is that David Susuki buying an island with the help of an oil company. Please check out how far one of his 3 houses is from the sea.

      • Chris Schoneveld

        Greenland was obviously much greener in the MWP (hence ice had melted more than is has done these days), yet the earth didn’t drown.

      • jimsteele

        CB You assume that CO2 is the driver, however East Antarctic has not only sustained the current level of CO2, the mass has increased. West Antarctic as lost mass but that is mostly due to warmer water from below being pushed more frequently onto the shallow shelves by cycles of El Nino/La NIna. Antarctic sea has increased.

      • Stewart Pid

        CB with the usual c_rap … Antarctic sea ice at record highs for the past several years and yet that doesn’t register on CB’s nitwit thought processes. Your mythical gas doesn’t control the continental ice ages that cover large parts of the northern hemisphere for 100,000 year periods every 20,000 years or so!

      • Cain Abel

        Please explain how history has any relevance.

      • AndyJ

        CO2 levels were far higher during three previous Ice Ages, so CO2 levels have no correlation with ice formation.

  • Kadhim Shubber

    You have pointed towards exactly four studies (two by the same person) to support your claim that there is a “scientific consensus” on the supposed positive impact of climate change:

    1. Professor Richard Tol’s “review of 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.”

    2. Another study by Tol in his book, How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, “which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists”. Who are these leading economists?

    3. “Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green.”

    <– I note this study does not appear to address the question of whether climate change is good for the world, merely the change in global vegetated area.

    4. "Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect."

    <– This study also does not address "good for world" question, simply what has caused greening.

    Your article notes that the IPCC report does not agree that climate change is good for the world.

    "Scientific consensus" implies that the vast majority of scientists working in this field agree that climate change is good for the world. In support of your claim you've offered one economist, and two studies that don't appear to directly address the question. You even admitted a report that directly contradicts your claim.

    The subheading and Fraser Nelson's tweet here (https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/390717975214297089) are therefore completely unjustified.

    • jimsteele

      Despite claims that CO2’s effects are supposed to be most devastating at the poles, Antarctica’s penguins are now more abundant than before we ever started counting. As the Inuits well-know it is the time of the most polar bears. And as Matt noted it has been heavy ice that was most detrimental to seals and bears. As i posted above Dr. Kevin Arrigo of Stanford University wrote “Annual primary production in the Arctic has increased yearly … Should these trends continue, additional loss of ice during Arctic spring could boost productivity >3-fold above 1998–2002 levels” The whole Arctic food web has benefitted!


      Most trees near tree line could not grow during the Little Ice Age, and required a warmer world. A longer growing season has undeniably benefited the terrestrial food web. These benefits are well documented in hundreds of papers. Why would anyone want to return to the Little Ice Age, unless they have ben provoked by unwarranted fears.


    • CarbonFooledYa

      Yes, I see your point, four measly papers versus hundreds. We could evaluate what’s in the papers, but let’s just count them instead.

      Let’s say 100 climate scientists publish 100 papers and all say that climate change is real and is happening and is definitely caused by humans (I hope I got the lingo-of-doom(TM) right). Let’s say four papers come out saying we don’t really know what’s happening with the climate. It’s obvious which side to pick isn’t it? You just count the number of papers and go with the majority and that’s how science is done.

      I hope I haven’t misconstrued your scientific acumen as being more dopey than it is.

      • Kadhim Shubber

        My argument is to do with the article’s claim about a “scientific consensus”, not about the science itself.

        I have no interest in debating the science itself here.

        • CarbonFooledYa

          I think it was an “economic consensus” that action on climate change, e.g. reduction of CO2, isn’t worth it. The scientific consensus is definitely on the side of CAGW, agreed.

  • Steve Evans

    In your next article, please explain why the IPCC is at the heart of a global conspiracy to mislead the world’s governments. I think we should be told.

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Well, Steve,

      Start with this, in which an IPCC official states clearly that “climate change” is not about “climate change”.


      “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole”

      There ya go. Happy to have been of assistance.

      • Steve Evans

        So you’re saying there is a conspiracy? Climate change is either not happening, or if it is, it is good for us. But all the world’s governments are acting otherwise. It doesn’t make sense, unless some malign, secret cabal is stitching things up…. (I’m being ironic, btw)

        • CB

          It’s funny how Deniers claim the IPCC is unreliable and then cite them when you ask them how the greenhouse effect works…

          Fighting against the conspiracy by joining it…

          • Conservative Republican

            There is no such thing as a denier. Nobody denies the greenhouse effect. Perhaps you are denying the evidence that CO2 is a minor player in the overall system.

          • CB

            Denying your own existence? Yeah, not at all shocking, sorry.

            If there is a stronger driver than CO₂, name a single point in 4.5 billion years this driver allowed polar ice caps to form with levels of CO₂ over 400PPM.

          • FatBastage72

            Snowball earth CB, the greatest glaciation in the last 4.5 billion years, with [CO2] four times higher than today.

          • CB

            Excellent find!

            During the snowball Earth period, approximately 650 million years ago, the Earth was almost completely covered in ice. Because of the increased albedo, the amount of CO₂ required to melt it was much higher.


            Is our Earth completely covered in ice today?

            Although it’s a good find, I asked you to find a time when polar ice caps were able to persist with levels of CO₂ above 400PPM, not an Earth completely covered in ice.

            If this event actually occurred, why hasn’t a single Denier been able to name it?

          • Tom Moran

            CB originally and continuously posts there has never been a time when the ice caps persisted when CO2 was over 400ppm. When the answer is now and Snowball earth she says that doesn’t count. Your tiresome moan is old lassie, shut your CO2 hole.

          • SkyHunter

            During the snowball earth, the sun’s energy was ~30% lower. CO2 levels were very low, which allowed the globe to freeze. Ice and snow have a very high albedo, 0.5 and 0.9 respectively, as opposed to the ocean, 0.04. Volcanic activity, coupled with the lack of weathering over tens to hundreds of millions of years, led to an atmospheric buildup of CO2. Once it reached a level that initiated melting, the albedo flip amplified and accelerated the change from snowball to ice house. The evolution of photosynthesizing cyanobacteria converted the atmospheric CO2 into terrestrial carbon and atmospheric O2.

            Have you the slightest inkling of how absurd it is to compare today’s climate with the climate 4 billion years ago?

          • Bill Johnson

            “SkyHunter”, have you the slightest inkling of how much wild speculation built upon earlier wild speculation was required to generate the scenario you just laid out? Do you really think it’s possible to definitively establish the Earth’s climate, volcanic activity, sun’s output, etc. billions of years ago???

            What do you suppose is the scientific consensus that “snowball earth” even happened is?

          • SkyHunter

            It takes a carpenter to build a barn. But any jackass can kick a hole in it.
            What I laid out is the leading theory.
            If you have another… let’s hear it?
            Do you deny the dim sum theory? [edit dim sun, I must be getting hungry/]
            Do you deny the snowball, or slushball earth theory?
            Do you deny the existence of cyanobacteria?
            Do you deny that photosynthesis produces oxygen?
            Or do you just deny the possibility that what you believe could be wrong?

          • Tom Moran

            Looks like your issue is with CB’s repeat button and not my crushing of her absurd mantra.

          • SkyHunter

            LOL “crushing her absurd mantra”.

            You must be a legend in your own mind.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            We’re practically at 400ppm CO2 now, yet southern sea ice in increasing, north pole sea ice is coming back, and the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets are still at least 20C below zero and no melting is evident in the sea level rise, which has been steady for 3,000 years.

            CO2 isn’t the control knob on the environment you wish it to be. There are many, many other factors. It’s like you’re wearing CO2 coloured glasses. (I hope they don’t make your eyeballs too hot).

          • SkyHunter

            The Antarctic sea ice is increasing because of various factors, among them being the more fresh water at the end of the melt season, because the Antarctic glaciers are melting faster than before.

          • JK

            The Antarctic sea ice is increasing because it is warmer and melting which is causing more frozen water. Interesting.

          • SkyHunter

            Did you know that there is a difference between sea water and fresh water?

            Do you know what the differences are?

            Could you list some?

          • Bill Johnson

            CB, I could have picked any number of your silly posts to reply to, but I go with this one. Why is it that Al Gore, in his “An Inconvenient Truth” crockumentary, did not show the correlation between CO2 and temperature the way you are suggesting??? Remember the part where he showed the huge graph of temperatures versus CO2 from the ice core data?? And then he said “It’s complicated.” about the relationship between the two??

            Why do you suppose he didn’t just zoom in on several spots and show how CO2 went up and then temperature followed???!!! Or show CO2 falling and then show temperature falling shortly afterward???!!! It’s because based on the ice core data going back thousand of years CO2 changes lag that of temperature!!! And you can’t claim Gore or his sources are deniers!! Based on ice core data, CO2 is a function of temperature and not the other way around!!!!!!! If Gore had zoomed in on his huge graph everyone could have seen his CO2 line was just on the wrong side of his temperature line!!!!!!!

            Even the most die hard warmist scientists know this, and they claim that present day is different. You’re the one out of the consensus here.

            And by the way, you need to read the definition of a “record low”. If Arctic ice has increased by about 60% from last year’s “record low” we can’t be recovering to a record low. And Ice extent right now is also above several recent years on this date. And we only have data going back to 1979!!! Which was at the end of the cooling period that produced the ice age scare of the mid 1970’s! So in terms of thousands of years of data the Arctic ice satellite data we have is Jack Squat. You would need to have at least hundreds of years of data to draw any conclusions about whether the Arctic was melting due to man made arming over the past 50 to 80 years.

          • Conservative Republican


            You seem to be not very science oriented. You want to draw a correlation when there is no inherent causation. CO2 does not melt ice. Temperature does. CO2 affects temperature. in a complex way.

            Perhaps you would like to look at this graph:


            As you can see the temperature and CO2 levels have both been higher than current and within the time of your 800K year old ice cores.

            I should warn you that I deal only with the facts and the actual science. Original science, not propaganda from one side or another.

        • Conservative Republican

          “Climate change is either not happening”

          It has been happening for all of earth’s history.

          • Steve Evans

            Sorry, my mistake. 95% of climate scientists believe that there is a 95% chance that human activity is causing a major increase in global temperatures. All world governments believe this. I don’t think this is a conspiracy. Do you?

          • FatBastage72

            Steve that sounds like the lyrics to the IPCC summary for policy makers; the annex to the report compiled by a political organisation to brief politicians on how to be politically correct as long as gullible warming is the politically fashionable subject of the day.
            Have a look at what was forecast by the climate scientists when the science was settled and compare any of it to what has transpired, still plenty of ice in the Arctic, no increase in extreme weather frequency, decline in average temperatures over the last 15 years, no hot spot in the tropical troposphere.
            World governments believe in what ever they believe will win them short term votes and if you can convince an electorate that taxes on thin air are neccessary to protect your children’s children from gullible warming, who’s going to argue with some carbon taxes to pay for the drinks at no. 10?

          • thallstd

            No, Steve, not a conspiracy, in my opinion, but also a false consensus arrived at by a number of factors. Chief among them, off the top of my head are an ignorant cheerleading press, poor methodologies, bias, gatekeeping/pal review, career preservation, incomplete data, adjusted historical data and conflict of interest. And I’m sure there are others as well. I won’t try to address all of these here, just a couple.

            Central to all of this is the IPCC, frequently presented as and perceived as a neutral and independent body of scientific experts producing an honest representation of the science. It is not. From an expose on the IPCC, it is shown to be “an agenda-driven political organization, not a scientific one. It and its leader are shown to be corrupt, arrogant, and hypocritical.” (http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/10/08/book-review-into-the-dustbin-rajendra-pachauri-the-climate-report-the-nobel-peace-prize-by-donna-laframboise/) Donna Laframboise is the only journalist I know of who has bothered to look under-the-hood of the IPCC. Besides her most recent book, reviewed in the link above, you can review much of her findings on http://www.NoFrakkingConsensuse.org. All of her charges are backed up with references and usually archived citations.

            How this turned into a consensus is partially explained in these the lengthy but insightful pieces below that explain how “consensus” occurs in science in general (the New Yorker piece which I don’t believe even mentions climate change) and in how it has occurred in climate science (the two Lindzen pieces). I know alarmists don’t like Lindzen since he is outspoken against their position but he is a professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT and has first hand knowledge and experience with how the “consensus” was formed and how it is maintained. His first piece below is more or less an introduction to the 2nd which provides detailed examples.




          • Conservative Republican

            Actually there is no evidence of what you just said. What is inferred from 97.1 percent of papers selected in one system by use of keywords is:

            Human activity emits CO2. That CO2 warms the earth.

            No major. In fact no amount specified. For those that specified that humans contributed more than 50% of warming it was .03 percent of papers.

            I do not believe there is a conspiracy. It is your standard political manipulation of science that goes back at least to Galileo. The science is very clear and I read it regularly. It just isn’t very scary and there seems to be no reason to make any changes to actively reduce CO2.

          • Steve Evans

            Well if human-cause climate change isn’t a problem, why are governments of left, right and centre worried about it? Even the Chinese are worried. Either they are all stupid or there is a conspiracy. Or, more likely, we have to stop polluting as much.

          • Conservative Republican

            It is always convenient for governments to have bogeymen. In many governments there is little capability to do realistic risk assessment. They spend money on low probability events because it is not really their money,

            They also have listed to the IPCC, which is itself a governmental and not scientific organization. This organization is almost entirely made up of people with shared political values inside and outside of climate change.

          • Steve Evans

            Why do you see this as a political issue? I am fiscally conservative because the evidence points to that making people richer and happier. I am also scared of climate change because I believe 95% of the experts.

          • Conservative Republican


            What we choose to do is a political and economic question. Science can only tell us what has happened and can intelligently guess at what will happen.

            I think you need to re-examine your evidence of what the experts believe. You keep saying 95%. I have never seen that number anywhere. What is your source?

          • Steve Evans

            My source is the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. That summarises the science.

          • Conservative Republican


            That number does not appear in the report in reference to the number of scientists. In fact the report makes no reference to percentages of scientists. Why don’t you quote the page number this statistic appears on or agree that no such statistic exists.

        • FatBastage72

          conspiracy is strong word Steve, I don’t credit political organisations with the intellect or testicular fortitude to manage a conspiracy.
          Keeping a lucrative gravy train in motion though, one that’s impossible to scrutinise (because the imperceptible temperature increase isn’t due for a century) is a strong motivator for those dedicated to their own mediocrity.
          And while we’re all wittering on about gullible warming in some blog, we’re not paying much attention to the way our elected reresentatives are misrepresenting and mismanaging us all.
          happy, easy days if you’re paid by the government.

  • Bonkim

    Agree to some extent but the author misses out on population explosion, and fast depletion of water, land, energy, and mineral resources which limits human expansion in any case and mankind’s eventual demise.

    The main danger is population and consumption and the need for continuous growth for the world systems to survive – a mutually exclusive situation – unsustainable. We will probably kill each other in the almighty battle for resources before climate change makes life inhospitable.

    • You make too many assumptions, and weave them into a gloom and doom, Hell and damnation prophesy. Traditional, it’s true, but not well considered.

      • Bonkim

        Simple logic does not need rocket science to grasp. Look at the causes of conflicts around the world. look at the people trying to migrate to locations where they feel they will be safe and able to eat.

        If you think world economies can keep on growing and absorb the multiplying population, good luck to you. The signs are there but you can always live in your cocoon.

        • Look at the specific examples that support your concern…..

          ….You haven’t presented them.

          • Bonkim

            Don’t expect me to do a Doctoral theses on the subject – look up yourself.

        • Keith D

          You’re right,But the main cause of conflict is, and will always be, Islam.

          Who is driving this population boom?. All this while we in the West, denied the chance to procreate through economic necessity, find our indigenous population in terminal decline.

          Why?. Because our married couples are all too busy working to support the intolerable economic burden of unfettered third world immigration.

          No such issues for our new overbreeding,welfare dependant masters.

          • Bonkim

            Difficult to discuss rationally with someone with deep-seated hatred or paranoia about Islam or third world immigration.

          • Keith D

            Realism about the causes of overpopulation in the third world.Quite a difference.

            But then,you’re the numpty that thinks Christians deserve all they get in the ME.Paranoid? No,its just you.

          • Bonkim

            The world is as it is – it is not a question of deserving persecution – no one deserves persecution – but Christians are a very small group in terms of getting persecuted – the world is full of persecuted minorities and in huge numbers. Christians in countries like Syria are suffering as part of the conflict there where over 2 millions have been displaced, and tens of thousand killed, so it s a matter of proportion – not sure why Christians caught up in such conflict matter any more than the huge numbers of others. Same in other countries where minorities have difficulties – if they don’t integrate.

          • Keith D

            Thats a whole lot better, thankyou.
            I was actually agreeing with you about the overpopulation problem, driven as it is by poor education and religious duty.FWIW the Church in Rome is equally as guilty.

            Turning now to to the IPCC and AGW I’m all in favour of finding alternative energy sources, and have every confidence that our scientists will do so. I’m just unconvinced that CO2 is the driver.

            I have studied Solar dynamics and many respected people in this field, eg, Eugene Parker and Svensmark, are convinced that the Suns behaviour in the last century has driven most of the change. Now that we have the SOHO satellites on permanent station we should develop a deeper understanding of the energy exchanges going on.

            There was conflict over resources before the religionists took over although in a world now bristling with ICBM’s all bar the religiously insane are deterred. Which was my point about Islamic Jihad. Name one country bordering an Islamic state where terrorism or outright hostility is not the norm. The Jihadists are not deterred because they have no country. Or humanity.

            Just Islam.

          • Bonkim

            Followers of Islam are still living in the Middle-ages – no different with Christianity – only Christianity and Judaism have reformed themselves, adapted and changed – but then any religion altered by man is not true religion.

            Regards global warming, etc, regardless of forces outside man’s control – solar activity, natural emissions from volcanoes, etc, little doubt man’s activities over the past 100 or more years has significantly altered the balance between pollution and the earth’s recovery systems.

            Technology has limits and will not provide solutions in the real world to resource depletion because of certain principles of irreversibility of natural processes.

            Conflicts are endemic in many parts of the world and not simply because of militant Islam or any other religious divisions, these do provide support though to conflicts arising from natural and social dysfunctions.

          • Keith D

            Agreed in the main.And heartfelt apologies for my uncalled for remark.Have a great weekend.

          • Bonkim

            No need to apologize and no offence taken – in discussion one needs to be detached.

            Best wishes.

        • CacheLaPoudre

          But prospering nations have lower birthrates.

          • Bonkim

            Yes – best for mankind to go back to 18th century – pre-industrial population levels and resource consumption patterns.

    • Steve Crook

      The best thing we can do to slow population growth is to allow developing economies to grow as fast as they can. This will provide education, freedom of choice and better health care to billions. Birth rates will slow of their own accord as a result.

      We can always do more with less, that’s been the history of our species, and it’s why Malthus was wrong, continues to be wrong, and will, probably, always be wrong. I’m more optimistic than you…

    • bornonsaltspring

      Bonkim – You apparently fail to understand that as the standard of living worldwide increases, population rates will decrease. e.g. – Canada has a net declining birthrate. See US figures http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/birth-rate-low/.

      Whether you like it or not, the primary driver of increased standards of living is oil, and hence the associated release of CO2.

      “Sustainability” will only occur when population rates have leveled out, and begun to decrease. This is a real possibility by the end of this century…if we continue to use oil.

      As far as temperature projections go, the latest, from the UN IPCC, are hardly pause for concern.

      97.4% of 117 Global Climate Models overestimate the amount of predicted warming…hardly a statistic for any scientist to hang their hat on.

      • SkyHunter

        The models did not fail to predict the warming. They failed to predict where it would show up. Since the global near-surface temperature is what people relate to, that is the model output. The Earth has not stopped warming, in fact accumulation of heat has accelerated due to the prolonged period of cool SST.

        • bornonsaltspring
          • SkyHunter

            Nothing to say?
            If you understand it… why can’t you articulate it?

          • SkyHunter

            The experiment is designed to falsify the null hypothesis.
            Models are not experiments.
            If you want to falsify AGW, you need a null hypothesis and an experiment designed to falsify it.

          • bornonsaltspring

            Since computer models predict the future, through the passage of time they become experiments in the computer model’s predictive value.

            GCM’s use not just one, but a number of null hypotheses,
            written into software theorems in order to make a prediction. In that regard the collective null hypothesis (the model) is the basis of the prediction.

            So, the failure of GCM’s to predict the future, based on real observations, means the null hypotheses incorporated in the GCM’s were collectively falsified through observational experiment.

            This doesn’t necessarily mean all the hypotheses used were falsified, but, it certainly has proven the GCM’s, as a means of predicting temperature and the future, are not reliable enough to place money on – e.g. better than a 50/50 chance.

            Alarmists like you are currently betting on a long shot in a 30 year race, 17 years of which are already gone, with 37 to 1 odds (97.4/2.6) of being right.

            Best of luck…you’ll need it.

          • SkyHunter

            Computer models are not experiments. They are number crunchers.

            The global near-surface temperature represents less than 5% of the climates thermal mass, but since it is the best measured with the longest history, it is the chosen metric for climate change. Because the climate system has a lot of internal variability, it takes a long time before the trend becomes greater than the uncertainty. Measuring only the temperature of >5% of the climates thermal mass, this usually takes about 30 years to achieve 95% significance.

            The ENSO region is the key to predicting global temperature. The reason is that the Earth’s surface is 70% ocean, ocean albedo is 0.04, and the tropical Pacific is where most of the energy enters the climate system. If the surface temperature is warmer than average, more energy is emitted, if it is cooler, less energy is emitted. Out of the last 39 months the ENSO index has been positive 6 times. Right after the last El Nino in 2010 it was 0.1, went negative, two back to back la Nina events, then in July of 2012 it rose to 0. It was slightly positive for next five months, but has been negative ever since.

            The long term prediction for ENSO is neutral till NH spring.

            Now ENSO is very difficult to predict long term. The models are all over the place.

            So does that mean that something else besides known physics is causing the ocean surface temperature to fluctuate?

          • SkyHunter

            They did not fail to predict the amount of warming. Some of them failed to reproduce the extended hiatus in the ENSO cycle. The earth is still warming steadily, and that will be quite obvious after the next El Nino event.

            The models also failed to predict the accelerated increase in the global near-surface temperature from 1993 – 2010, but I don’t recall deniers claiming that models underestimated global warming.

            But the question is moot. AGW founded on physics, not model projections, which BTW, no scientist of repute would call an oracle, since it is well known that the approximate state of a dynamic system cannot predict the state of the system for any given time in the future. See chaos theory.
            And your attempts to intimidate and insult me are a waste of time. You see this is not about me. You cannot distract me from exposing your ignorance with threats and insults.

  • Richard Moseley

    One thing not listed above which also benefits humanity is the motivation climate change brings to overcome challenges that wouldn’t even be considered otherwise. The Holocene Maximum (warming) encouraged Britons 5,000 years ago to explore new concepts of architecture, religious theology and working together to achieve a goal far beyond anything before, while ‘the Enlightenment’ which thrived in Britain under ‘the Little Ice Age’ suffered during the late 17th and early 18th centuries acted as preparation for a global empire. Necessity is the mother of invention, so the idea that an impossibly static climate should be something to be prized is both misinformed and potentially dangerous, given how we are still anchored to just one planet and at risk as a species of an ELE (Extinction Level Event).

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Previous warm periods all saw advances in civilisation; whereas the LIA was very nasty, and at it’s worst responsible for huge numbers of deaths in Northern Europe.

      Warm is good. CO2 is good. Relax.

      • Margaret Hardman

        So how come the agricultural and industrial revolutions, the Renaissance and the scientific revolution, the major contributors to modern wealth, happened during a time of unremitting nastiness. Warm might be good but caricature is bad.

        • john8

          I’m going to caricature Margaret as a hard man. Typically unremitting nastiness has come from males (when not the 4.5 billion years of changing climate). But thanks be to feminism now women can be all that men have been. Death to femininity, long live feminism!

          • Margaret Hardman

            Not sure what you’re actually saying, john8, but my point is that the most recent lengthy spell of cold climate produced the inventions and philosophical changes that made the modern world and the prosperity you, amongst others, enjoy. My use of the word nastiness was to highlight the use of the word nasty in the post to which I was replying. It’s got nothing to do with your chromosomes. But then, john8, as a man, you obviously need to touch your feminine side more often. By the way, I think you’ll find that plenty of women could be all that men have been throughout history without the need for feminism.

          • NTropywins

            The prosperity of the modern world was based on the industrial revolution when mankind learned how to unleash the formidable power of fossil fuels principally coal. Coal and steam replaced windmills and water wheels for a very good reason – they were more efficient. Wealth is created by doing things more efficiently something that mankind has been pretty good at. Making energy generation artificially more expensive is destroying wealth. It also hits the most vulnerable members of society hardest. So it is difficult to understand why anyone would be so stupid as to pursue such policies when the developing world is turning to coal as the cheapest form of generating electricity for the billion people on the planet who have not yet enjoyed their industrial revolution.

          • SkyHunter

            Fossil fuels are not more efficient. They take millions of years to form,yet they rapidly combust.
            Solar PV is thousands of times more efficient at converting sunlight to energy.

          • Tom Moran

            Today, fossil fuels ARE more efficient than solar and this cheap abundant energy will do more to help the worlds poor than the solution Greens are presenting. When we run out of FF’s we will have switched to LFTR’s and then that takes care of all for millennia.

          • SkyHunter

            By then most complex organisms, including humans will be extinct.

          • Tom Moran

            So by your theory of rapidly decarbonizing we can perhaps squeeze a few more years out and then die? Why not create unprecedented wealth and the technologies that will allow us to survive. I choose life And Liberty over government programs destined to fail…. Like ethanol for example. Farmers divert crops meant for food and feed to the government boondoggle of ethanol, biofuels and worldwide food shortages and food cost increases cause riots, The Arab Spring And then the Muslim brotherhood takeover of Egypt. The left and in particular the greens own that. Thanks guy Hunter

          • SkyHunter

            The first step is to stop causing more damage. Decarbonizing is the first step.

            These changes take place over geologic timescales. What we did over the last century is unprecedented in the geologic record. However a century is an eyeblink. It might still be possible to reverse the trend before too many of the feedbacks kick in.

            Your Arab spring narrative is a TeaBagger fairy tale with no evidence to support it.

            Ethanol is produced from field corn, which is not intended for human consumption. (Except as HFCS) So no, it was not diverted from food to fuel.

            And before you claim it took acreage away from crops grown for food… you should read this.


            The US exported:
            133 million tons in 2010

            158 million tons in 2011
            138 million tons in 2012
            and it is projected that the US will export 155 million tons in 2013.

            Yea, stupidity, the Right, and particularly the TeaBaggers own that!

          • JK

            Yes, one of Ridley’s points is that farming has become significantly more efficient over the last 50 years. Do you assert that the price of food has not gone up as a result of the ethanol program?

          • SkyHunter

            I find no correlation. And neither does the Federation of American Scientists.


            Can you show me a direct relationship between the cost of food and ethanol production?

          • JK

            CO2 is not damaging the planet, and that will be proven to all of us. Here is how. Use of fossil fuels will grow over the next 40 years. Mankind will emit more CO2 for each of those years than it did the previous year. It doesn’t matter what a few elite groups do regarding carbon trading, emissions standards, etc. If you disagree, you have simply not done the math. Fossil fuels don’t just allow us extravagant lifestyles. They allow us to survive. They allow us to have clean water and electricity, something 20% of the planet does not have. Guess what? They want it too. And they are going to get it. That is why China and India are building coal powerplants as fast as they can. It is not stoppable. Nor should it be. The Earth will do very well. That 20% is measured in Billions of people. Billions of people that want iPods, automobiles and wash machines. And the only way for them to get it is by burning fossil fuels. Now add to that the growth that will take place as these societies come out of poverty.

          • SkyHunter

            Have you ever studied the geologic record?

            If you have, you should be aware that large excursions in the carbon cycle are accompanied by blank spots in the fossil record.

            Did you know that the carbon cycle is part of the life cycle?

            Why would you expect that that radically altering the thermal and chemical structure of the biosphere will be beneficial or even benign, when all evidence in the past says it is not a good thing for complex lifeforms to radically alter their chemical environment.

            China is banning new coal plants.

            China is also investing more in green energy than any other country.

            But like I always tell people when they ask me:

            What behavior do you want to change?

            I answer; my own.

          • Tom Moran

            Yes, and no doubt the reason wind & solar are so efficient and dependable is because they are backed up with diesel generators?

          • SkyHunter

            Gas turbines.

  • JimmySD

    Matt Ridley is well known denier lunatic with the “Global Warming Policy Foundation”.

    These disgusting creatures actually organize “think tanks” using polluter money that’s laundered through non-profits to intentionally mislead the public. Considering what’s at stake it is nothing short of criminal. They should be rotting in prison.

    • RaymondDance

      “disgusting creatures”

      This kind of language is why, in spite of all the ‘evidence’ you produce, you are still losing public support.

    • NTropywins

      Jimmy comments like this drive people into the sceptics camp simply because the idea of sharing an ideology with someone as wantonly deranged as you obviously are is abhorrent.

      • JimmySD

        Boohoohoo you little whiny baby. You deniers earned your labels now live with it.

        • NTropywins

          I see that raising your game is not a concept you are familiar with.

    • DaBilk

      Hey, did you pick up your eagle head from under a windmill?

      • bornonsaltspring

        DaBilk….Still laughing…I can hardly wait to share your comment…

    • FatBastage72

      Jimmy, have a nice warm cup of tea and a lie down old son.

  • William Bradley

    So consensus is defined as one bloke reviewing 14 papers now? Wow.

    • nobody24

      yes, kind of like the arbitrary determination by the IPCC of 95% confidence, UP from 90% and based on nothing, except input from the IPCC in-house Philosopher, next they should hire a Poet Laureate to contibute

  • pjl20

    There appears to be a great deal of confusion between climate change and extreme weather events.

    Also, the fractional increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere can surely be explained by the level of deforestation across the globe over the past century or two? Nature’s method of correction is for plant and tree growth to be stimulated by these higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

    • Aljo_C

      So you don’t think that burning fossil fuel puts CO2 into the atmosphere? The fossil carbon we have burned is actually more than enough to explain the increase in CO2, with the rest dissolving in the ocean or absorbed by vegetation.So vegetation is a net sink of carbon, for the moment at least. And isotopic analysis confirms that the carbon is fossil in origin, not from recent vegetation (or volcanoes either).

      • pjl20

        Quote your precise source please.

        I have spent time researching the subject when I was looking at the justification for the Climate Change Bill in 2008 at an environment centre at a British university.

        No such proven data was then available to show an exact amount contributed by man to atmospheric CO2 levels. Although it was thought by some to be around 17% of the increased total.

        Meanwhile CO2 is not now thought to be the primary cause, or even the secondary reason for the increased global average temperatures, prior to 1997/8, since when they have remained static. Of course you would not expect an academic scientist to agree, as they rarely, if ever, acknowledge that their own research may be wrong and publish a retraction of a written paper.

        My tutor maintained that CO2 dissolved in the surface levels of the oceans and seas, was evaporating to produce an increased CO2 figure.

        • Aljo_C

          Source: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

          As for your tutor, oceanic CO2 is increasing, not decreasing, hence the reduced pH that we are seeing.

          • pjl20

            I can assure you that this is fact. Evaporation rates do vary with temperature and over time.

            Computer models have also been shown to be seriously flawed and inaccurate on the whole subject area.

            What you have read in a published article does not make it a proven and established fact, however posh the publisher may claim to be in academic circles.

            My tutor was awarded his PhD on the basis of what he wrote about Oceans and Seas.

          • bornonsaltspring

            Aljo_C – I think you should take an hour, watch, and try to understand this lecture – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0 …If you do/can, you will perhaps revise your thinking and conclusions regarding (a) the contribution of natural sources of CO2, and (b) the theory that CO2 drives temperature as opposed to temperature driving CO2.

          • Aljo_C

            (b) What makes you think the two are mutually exclusive? They both happen. I am not going to watch a video for an hour to see a straw man demolished.

          • bornonsaltspring

            Of course you’re not…who would possibly want to be better informed on the subject by an atmospheric physicist?

            PS – “The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a
            person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version.” …or IMO who willfully refuses to even listen to a person’s position…

            Yeah, you have all the makings of a real climate scientist….not.

          • Aljo_C

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is indisputable, basic physics, know since the 19th century, therefore it DOES drive temperature. Warming drives CO2 out of the ocean, so warming can also cause increased CO2. If you cannot grasp these simple facts then YOU are the one who will never be a scientist.
            If your video says otherwise then I will look forward to seeing him win his Nobel prize. I am not holding my breath.

          • bornonsaltspring

            I apologize for not making myself clearer. Yes, I understand CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

            However, the debate which I was hoping to open your mind to is not whether CO2 has a warming effect, but, whether the increases of CO2 we are seeing in the atmosphere are the result of manmade CO2, or natural source CO2.

            It is cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere which I am taking exception to.

            You started out this thread by stating, “…isotopic analysis confirms that the carbon is fossil in origin, not from recent vegetation (or volcanoes either).”

            Professor Salby’s lecture destroys that belief/theory quite nicely.

            But, since you apparently won’t take the time to review that information, it is impossible to have a rational debate with you on the subject material.

            If, as I now believe to be true, natural variability temperature drives CO2 levels, then there is nothing man can do to significantly prevent CO2 levels from increasing.

            However, as Salby explains, the current levels of CO2 are not by any means unprecedented, nor are levels which are much greater than today.

            The divergence of CO2 and temperature trends of the past 17 years should at least make you curious as to whether there is a rational, scientific explanation.

            I’ve given you the link to that explanation, but, you’re so wrapped up in your current beliefs you are apparently afraid to review any finding that is contrary to your

            Last time I looked, that is defined as scientific dogma…

            Try getting a passing mark in any science class by proclaiming a dogmatic approach is “scientific.”

          • Aljo_C

            Instead of expecting us all to watch a long video, why don’t you simply summarise his argument?

            I have actually seen many arguments by deniers, such as those given on the Channel4 programme several years ago. I have never seen any that stands up to scrutiny, and some of them are easily refuted without any specialist knowledge, If someone really proves that the consensus is badly wrong then it will be big news, but that hasn’t happened yet

            The slowdown in surface temperatures is interesting, but this is not the first time that is has happened, and the oceans seem to be gaining heat as fast as ever. There has also been a small reduction in solar output, and changes in volcanic activity which no doubt play a part. So no reason to suppose that warming will not continue.

            As for science classes, anyone who disputes the known facts will not do very well! Accepting the facts is not dogmatism – is it dogmatic to say that the Earth goes round the sun or that we are made of atoms?

          • bornonsaltspring

            Let’s see….I’ve already:

            (a) told you the lecture disputes your stated belief regarding isotopic analysis (I assume of Carbon 13);

            (b) given you the link to the lecture;

            (c) informed you the lecturer is an atmospheric physicist;

            (d) told you the lecture proves temperature drives CO2 increases;

            and you now you want me to waste my time to further “summarize” it…

            I tell you what, when your curiosity finally gets the better of you and you click on the link and watch it, get back to me with your rebuttal…until then continue your “blissful” existence.

            PS – As you yourself have stated before, “It is clear from the comments here that there are still a lot of people who are wilfully ignorant about climate change. Anyone who claims to understand the science better than the scientists cannot be taken seriously.”

            I’m suggesting you are claiming to understand atmospheric physics better than an atmospheric physicist and are therefore a hypocrite by not at least reviewing the lecture.

            Sorry for the name calling, but it appears to suit you.

          • SkyHunter

            (a) How does the lecture disprove isotopic fractionation of the carbon atom, both C13 and C14.
            (b) Not interested in watching an hour long lecture.
            (c) Appeals to authority are logical fallacies. If you understand it… why can’t you explain it?
            (d) Since the fact that CO2 is a feedback to global temperature rise was first posited to explain glacial/interglacial cycles and is the foundation of the AGW theory… how can this lecture prove something that has been known since 1803?

          • Aljo_C

            Here is a refutation of Salby’s argument.


            So, do you still believe Salby and not the majority of scientists? If so then you would appear to be guilty of cherry-picking.

          • bornonsaltspring

            Yeah, I’m extremely familiar with SKS 2011 “rebuttal” by Rob Painting.

            I love how he admits, “Professor Salby refers to a
            number of graphs in his talk, but I have been unable to track down copies ofthese, therefore we’ll have to rely on what I’m able to glean from the podcast…”

            So here we have Rob Painting “an environmentalist,
            scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer” writing a rebuttal to a well published atmospheric scientist’s podcast without actually sourcing the easily obtainable graphs.

            That “refutation” was written in August 2011.

            Mr. Painting states, “…the natural flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems varies from year-to-year. This flux is 20-30 times larger than the annual contribution by humans, but this balances out in the long-term.”

            Really? Salby proves that statement is complete BS.

            And, even a high school student would know total atmospheric CO2 not only varies on an annual basis, but also on decadal, centenary, millennial, and glacial time scales. In other words, it is certainly not stable, nor does it
            “balance out in the long term.” Duh…In fact, as everyone knows, atmospheric CO2 has been increasing on a constant basis. Salby’s 2013 Hamburg lecture explains in great detail why.

            Mr. Painting states, “There is simply no reason why the annual fluctuation should match the human contribution. At least Salby doesn’t explain why he expects this to be the case.”

            I guess Mr. Painting didn’t listen closely enough to the podcast – Professor Salby never said the annual fluctuation should match human contribution. In fact, Professor Salby’s findings indicate anything but.

            Who does say human contributions are driving the
            increase of CO2? People like yourself and Mr. Painting.

            Mr. Painting states, “He goes on to derive a formula
            for CO2 rise associated with temperature. Salby claims a good match back to 1960 but therefafter it deviates from actual CO2 measurements by 10ppmv. By 1880, prior to atmospheric CO2 sampling, he estimates atmospheric CO2 at 275ppmv with a whopping uncertainty of 220 to 330ppmv!”

            First, the reason there is a “good match” back to
            March 1958 is that was when CO2 began to be monitored at Mauna Loa. (Now I’m beginning to understand more about Mr. Painting’s “scientific credentials”)

            If Mr. Painting had bothered to source the graphs, the “whopping uncertainty” in CO2 circa 1880 is actually in the order of 55 ppmv, which gives a range between 220 and 330 ppmv. Those figures aren’t Salby’s estimates, they are based on the acknowledged proxy record of CO2, something else Mr. Painting has yet to understand.

            Mr. Painting states, “As for his calculated trend disagreeing with the ice core record for the year 1880 (i.e the CO2 in air, from that period, trapped in ice cores) he ‘disses’ the ice core record claiming it to be only a ‘proxy’. Which is news, I’m sure, to respected ice core experts like Dr Richard Alley.”

            At this point I’m rolling on the floor laughing. Mr.
            Painting doesn’t appear to even understand that an ice core is a proxy record…unbelievable…

            However, since Mr. Painting quotes Richard Alley’s
            work, take a look at Alley’s ice proxy record for the last 11,000 years:


            In blue is proxy temperature, derived from isotopic
            oxygen, in red is proxy CO2. Please explain how and why both vary. Sorry, of course you can’t. However, my point is Mr. Painting evidently believes that the proxy ice record is as accurate as Mauna Loa’s record. If not, what deviation
            would Mr. Painting have us believe is believable, and, based on what scientific evidence?

            Professor Salby however clearly demonstrates using atmospheric mathematics, how and why CO2 is dampened in the ice core records.

            Mr. Painting states, “You will note that every time the data disagrees with Salby’s ‘model’, he trusts his ‘model’ over the data. Which contravenes the ‘skeptic lore’ that models are worthless and must be bashed, and only data should be trusted.”

            Au contrair, Professor Salby not only relies on data, but, using well established atmospheric physics, reveals why the ice proxy record underestimates atmospheric CO2.

            And, true to form for alarmists without credentials, Mr. Painting loves to use ad hominem remarks to bolster his argument.

            As far as a ‘skeptic lore’ that models are worthless, I would suggest you read a recent paper which actually shows, with complete certainty, that 114 out of 117 (97.4%) of Global Climate Models have overestimated temperature predictions. Not much a ‘skeptic lore’ now is it?

            I’ll stop there…it’s obvious to me neither Mr. Painting nor you have (a) the slightest understanding of what Professor Salby is actually saying, or evidently (b) the slightest interest in trying to understand.

            PS – Still laughing out loud at the environmentalist, scuba diver, spearfisherman, kayaker and former police officer’s understanding of basic science.

            PPS – Final note. I have, a number of times, posted relevant comments on the Skeptical Science website, only to have them censored and removed. This comment wouldn’t survive 5 minutes on that site. So, if that’s the kind of open scientific debate you can expect from a website (which you obviously rely upon for information) that proudly proclaims in the first line of its home page, “Scientific skepticism is healthy” then you are, in a word, “lost” my friend.

          • cwon1

            The usual massive appeal and assumption of authority wrapped up in the Orwellian NewSpeak “Science”.

            Human co2 is less than 3% of total annual contributions, the co2 sink isn’t defined. There is no evidence in the open climate structure of rising temps due to human co2 which are at record levels but no rising temps for 17 years.

            No doubt the Nobel committee are another set of politically correct EU hacks that gave up on objective reasoning long ago.

          • SkyHunter

            Human CO2 is 100% of the 130 ppm increase over the last 200 years.

          • FatBastage72

            CO2 effects temperature up to about 100ppm, after that it’s three IR absorption bandwidths are near enough to saturation that you move into the realm of diminishing returns.
            Forget the nobel politics prize, remember they awarded it to a politician for winning an election not so long ago.
            And to another politician who failed to win an election but made a handy profit showing off a bogus powerpoint presentation

          • SkyHunter

            If the CO2 absorption band is saturated… why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury, while being much further from the sun with a very high albedo?

          • SkyHunter

            So the video presents evidence that CO2 does not interact with the light field of a photon of certain frequencies as it attempts to pass through the atmosphere?
            How do they explain the increased atmospheric back-radiation from the atmosphere in the frequencies that CO2 transmits electromagnetic radiation?

      • cwon1

        Human input is around 3% of total co2, the sink is undefined. It’s only through magical compounding of unknowns that you end up claiming human co2 is significant at all.

        What hypothesis depends on every abstract claim be falsified to survive? A junk science hypothesis.

        • SkyHunter

          You are a special kind of stupid.
          If your daily income is $100 and your daily expenses are $100, if you add $3 to your daily income, how much money will you have left over at the end of the week?

          • cwon1

            Since you can’t define the sink your comment is especially ignorant. It’s essential to warmists.

          • SkyHunter

            What sink are you talking about?

            All major carbon sinks and sources in the carbon cycle have been identified.

    • SkyHunter

      Then please explain how your mentor converts 0.81 billion metric tons of carbon from deforestation annually into 30 billion metric tons per year?
      I am eager to see that equation.

      • pjl20

        Go back to your ivory tower.

        Have you had your scales out to measure it?

        Such hypotheses just do not stand up to scrutiny.

        • SkyHunter

          Not scales, satellites.


          Well then please, scrutinize away.

          I am all eyes.

          • pjl20

            Much data previously published by Nasa has since been shown to be flawed.

            Almost all computer models and forecasts have come up with vastly exaggerated forecasts on the subject.

            Do you tutor or teach in an environment centre in a university?

          • SkyHunter

            Which data is that? Be specific.

            The models are quite skilled at capturing the equilibrium response to CO2 forcing.

            This is not about me.

  • EDMH

    Matt Ridley in his assessment assumes that the world will be indeed be warming and that will bring benefits till at least 2080.

    However the world does indeed face a dire and truly urgent threat from Climate Change. It is just not what the Global Warming advocates want to think it is.

    The last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD has been the coolest of our current benign Holocene interglacial and was a full 1.5 °C lower that the earlier Holocene optimum according to ice core records. So a little global warming could be very welcome.

    But being parochial since the year 2000 a further significant change has been occurring: the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record has shown an annual decline of ~ -1.0°C and a winter (DJF) decline of ~ -1.5°C. These declines are as much or even more than the total CET gains in the period 1850 – 2000.

    However, this year 2013, has seen a more extreme temperature decline in the UKMO official Central England Temperature CET record. In the first half of 2013, UK Met Office CET temperatures were a full 1.89°C lower than the monthly averages of the previous 12 years.

    That is pretty significant and it really matters. That marked decline has lead to crop failures and serious loss of agricultural productivity. The effect has been seen throughout the Northern hemisphere and cooling effects are also clear in the Southern hemisphere.

    Assessing the sunspot records we seem to be rapidly heading for a Dalton minimum event (at best) in the next few decades. This will destroy agricultural productivity
    throughout the world.

    But Global Warming advocates only ever propose solutions for the control of Global
    Warming, (overheating), by reducing Man-made CO2 emissions. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates fail to explain how reduction of man-made atmospheric CO2 can ever can help to control Climate Change towards a cooling world.

    Having made so many dire predictions of impending climate catastrophes from overheating, the advocates of Global Warming / Climate Change fail to accept that a climate change towards a cooler climate is more likely to lead to more intense adverse weather. There is good reason to expect this, simply because the energy
    differential between the poles and the tropics is bound to be greater and that
    in itself leads to less stable atmospheric conditions.

    A cooling world as the Northern Hemisphere seen in the years since 2000 leads to much more dire consequences for the biosphere and for mankind than any realistic
    amount of warming that could ever arise from future man-made CO2 emissions.

    National policy makers and the United Nations are neither recognizing nor are they preparing for this potentially disastrous eventuality.

    • NTropywins

      Unfortunately people like Cameron and Clegg (like their predecessors Brown and Blair) see themselves as world statesmen fantasising about saving the planet from a non-existent threat. They are quite happy to sacrifice thousands of their fellow citizens at the altar of their egos.

    • Conservative Republican

      Are you trying to make me relive the 70’s?

  • NTropywins

    Matt I think we all know this is not about the science it is about the policy. The SPM is pure politics. Consensus is not a scientific concept. It is politics. So whilst we must continue to point out the many failings of establishment ‘science’ let us not lose sight of the fact that this is ultimately a battle against the attempts of the Left to bypass democracy.

    • nobody24

      According to the IPCC, Greenpuke, the science is decided (via consensus)..
      it’s all about fund raising… for academics to study (no point in study if all’s well) and enviro-evangelists…. it’s how they pay the rent!

      • john_willow

        How do you think oil companies pay the rent, troll?

        • Steve Eros

          Oil companies dont suck money out of tax payers pockets and they certainly dont claim that if you send them money the planet will miraculously be saved.

          • pmagn

            Err, yes they do.

          • Steve Eros

            Maybe in your fantasy world.

          • Eamonn McKeown

            no, we can drive less. doubt very much we can manage to get taxed less.

          • Sir Huddleston Fuddleston

            Only an American corporation or plutocrat could find it difficult to be taxed *less*.

          • Fergus Pickering

            You can drive less, doubtless. I can’t. I don’t like driving and I do it only when I must. But what has that got to do with it?

          • Sir Huddleston Fuddleston

            Oh no? Where do you think government subsidies, mineral rights, and corporate bailouts come from? How much money does the American public expend in order to maintain good relations with the Saudis? How do you think cars manage to get from one place to another? If we treated oil companies like the airlines or Amtrak, they’d have to pay for their own road construction.

          • SohnMan

            The US is now the worlds largest oil producer despite Obama. We need the Saudi’s less and less. If we could get the Keystone Pipeline rolling, would could virtually stop using the middle east’s oil.

          • cah28

            They are taking away American citizens property to allow a foreign company and government to put a pipeline through our country and you support this?

          • ferd_berple

            US companies build pipelines all over the world. should that be illegal? US companies also build factories all over the world. Should that also be illegal?

            Would you rather get your oil from Canada or Saudi? It was Saudi’s, not Canadians that flew the 911 planes.

          • DrMorbius

            If we treated the oil companies like Amtrak the gasoline and other oil-based products we buy would be poor quality and their would be constant shortages of gasoline and diesel fuel at the pumps because the delivery trucks would always be running late and half-empty…

          • falstaff77

            “Oil companies don’t suck money out of tax payers pockets”

            Yes they avoid taxes, thereby shifting the tax bill on to others. I’d say that qualifies as sucking money out of pockets.

            In the US, oil and gas companies have indeed managed to manipulate the tax code to insert items that give them custom exemptions. No these tax breaks are not available to everyone, the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker on the corner: “intangible drilling costs” ($9B), “percentage depletion allowance” ($4.3B), “expensing for refining equipment” ($2.4B) [5 years].

            Alternative energy (solar, wind, biofuel) of course does the same thing through their own specific tax breaks, but they are tiny in comparison over the last hundred years.

          • BobM001

            Have you looked at what you pay at the pump for gasoline taxes? Where I live we pay FIFTY NINE CENTS TAX PER GALLON! Who collects said s tax? THE GOVERNMENT! So give yourself a colonic and your “thinking” may “improve”.

          • falstaff77

            Yeah I know about the gasoline tax that the the gasoline buyer pays the government, and which has nothing to do with the income taxes that oil producers avoid, but ordinary small business like mine can not avoid.

          • Christian Abel

            Even if you were correct about tax avoidance, it’s irrelevant unless you produce similar goods.

          • falstaff77

            “it’s irrelevant unless you produce similar goods.”

            Maybe in Corruptistan, where the king’s preferred suppliers pay no tax and the peasants pay tax on everything:

            Let me tell you how it will be
            There’s one for you, nineteen for me
            ‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman

            Here in the in US there is supposed to equal application under the law, so that the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker all pay the same tax on income, that is, it is the the goods and the particular business that are irrelevant. The argument that starts, “this particular business [has a disadvantage/ is more important/ etc] in that . .” blah, blah, blah is irrelevant.

          • Christian Abel

            Everybody uses oil.

            Everybody depends on oil.

          • falstaff77

            Agreed, most do, me included.

            And like the farmer who makes the food everybody eats, like the builder who builds shelters which everybody lives in, and like the banker who makes loans which most everybody takes out, the oil producers and solar and wind guys can pay *all* their taxes. Anyone who runs for office and want’s to cut taxes for every business, I’ll support them. Any politician who wants to grant special set asides can go to hell.

          • Christian Abel

            Everybody eats a little, some spent a lot on food.

            Everybody has a “home”, some have cheap homes…

          • falstaff77

            So? Some drive Cadillac Escalades, some ride the metro train.

            Look, in not a few but many modern, 1st world countries, a good part of economic success is all based on what kind of deal one makes with the government. Italy is a good example. It is nearly medieval there, where everyone comes ’round to kiss Don Corleone’s ring. In the end everybody suffers. So far in the US the guys getting protection via the Corleones are Solyndra guys, the sports stadium builders, and yes the oil and gas guys. Enough.

          • Christian Abel

            The metro doesn’t run on oil, really?
            I doubt it.

          • falstaff77

            US metropolitan rail transit is almost entirely electrified. In the US, electric grid power is about 99.5% *not* supplied by oil. The trains in my ‘hood would be run mostly from nukes.

            This is now pretty far off the topic of tax set asides for special interests, so now I mosey on down the internet.

          • Christian Abel

            I have no proof, but my intuition is that all trains run mostly on oil.

          • falstaff77

            You’re right for long distance, cross country trains: today they’re mostly diesel electric (i.e. powered by diesel generators). In town, commuter metro trains, often running underground, are all electrified. It would be a bit difficult to not suffocate underground if all the passenger trains were diesel.

          • BobM001

            So where are your “facts” regarding the power supplier to your local “metro rail”? You say it’s all “nuke”. I’d wager they buy their power from an “ESCO”. Meaning they may get it from a supplier that uses fossil fuel to generate. Or certainly a percentage of that source.

          • falstaff77

            “You say it’s all “nuke”.”

            No, I did not say “all”, and you have a problem with the truth.

            North Anna’s 2 GW is ~60 miles away, Calvert Cliffs nuclear 1.7 GW is 60 miles away. Unlike any other source of electric power, these plants run ~92% up-time.

            Virginia’s electricity source profile is here.


          • Mike Hughes

            Light rail aka the “metro” runs on electricity which is overwhelmingly generated with coal, NG or nuclear power in the US not oil.

          • Christian Abel

            Why are railways so costly?

          • Mike Hughes

            Costly compared to what? What relevance does that have to the fuel that ultimately powers them? You made the claim that:

            “I have no proof, but my intuition is that all trains run mostly on oil.”


            “The metro doesn’t run on oil, really?
            I doubt it.”

            The metro i.e. light rail, almost always if not always since I can’t think of a single one that doesn’t, runs on electricity and in the USA that electricity is almost never generated by oil. Period.

          • Christian Abel

            “Costly compared to what?”

            Compare to anything else: car, buses, planes…

            “What relevance does that have to the fuel that ultimately powers them?”

            Why is it costly? What do you buy with all this money flowing on railways?

          • Mike Hughes

            In the US the metro probably runs on coal or NG since those two things accounted for 66% of the fuel to generate electrical power in 2014. Nuclear was next at 19%.

          • Mike Hughes

            Energy companies and everyone else who can passes their taxes on to consumers. If you use energy you are going to pay more if they pay more tax.

          • Mike Hughes

            You will pay either way. If the taxes are paid by energy companies they will be simply passed along to energy consumers as higher prices.

          • James

            I do not know about the brits but, in the US, business all those expenses are a business deduction and not a “cost” to taxpayers, or a subsidy.

            Do you depreciate your assets and deduct business expenses necessary to earn your income? Actually BIG oil has limits on their deductions that other mining (and like companies do not get) When you look at the payrolls, property taxes .. etc, oil companies actually make less than the US government and, the GOV has no liability.

            The real “Winners” of the tax payers dole are the green companies like GE which have net negative tax.

          • BobM001

            Thanks for your “attempt to educate” FALLFLATS77

          • BobM001

            Did you also know that the “evil oil companies” make about 7-8 CENTS per gallon sold. Do YOU know the cost of a drilling rig? Or what it costs to drill for oil? EDUCATE YOURSELF! http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/oil-drilling-expensive-business.php

          • falstaff77

            Are you arguing with your invisible friend that calls oil companies “evil”? I don’t.

          • Stan Kulp

            supply and demand. Drill in ANWR, and the Gulf and regain that 50% of land we lost over the years to drill on, and stop importing

            dumb lefty policies are keeping costs up

          • But then there are also petroleum taxes, no? Yes.

          • Stan Kulp

            the tax code is there for everyone. If the nuts in charge want to pander to anyone, it’s the government’s fault. To get a tax break, they have to jump through the hoops (restrictions) that the gov’t sets up.

            pass the FairTax and end this

          • Stewart Pid

            Idiot … why don’t you show the taxes oil companies pay and the deductions they are allowed under the tax code. They pay far more than they write off. Spread your lies elsewhere … say a Greenpuke rally.

          • falstaff77

            I have no time for the greens. Most businesses pay more than they deduct, and I never said otherwise. The point is the oil companies still get deductions that other businesses do not, that my business does not receive: “intangible drilling costs” ($9B), “percentage depletion allowance” ($4.3B), etc

            My business is not allowed “intangible” deductions. There is one and only one reason for this. That oil (and gas) companies can afford a full time industry association and lobbyists to jam these things into the tax code.

          • Stewart Pid

            Other businesses don’t have drilling costs. Why don’t you look up the intangible drilling costs to understand what they are and why they apply. Also the depletion allowance is easily understood if you bother to look it up. Non resources businesses generally don’t have a depleting resource and so this doesn’t apply to them. Again take the time to find out why these tax deductions exist. You can’t expect a non resource business to get the same tax treatment as a resource based business and vice versa.

          • falstaff77

            “Non resources businesses generally don’t have a depleting resource”

            *Nobody* gets that industry wide deduction except drilling and mining. Not farmers if their soil goes bad, not fisherman if the fish vanish, not developers if the land is all developed, not truckers if they’re banned from certain highways.

            Depletion aside, every business has weaknesses in its business model but damn few of them get to resolve those problems through tax breaks, at least not without the aid of lobbyists to insert the specific name of their industry in the tax code.

          • Mary

            Industrial wind is the only form of electrical generation I know of that is exempted from most laws, including those protecting environments and ecosystems. Since we don’t generate anything but piddly amounts of electricity from oil this is not about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil. Since we produce most of our natural gas it is not about gas. Since air quality has continued to improve across the US and is now back to 1960’s quality levels with mercury in particular reduced, it is not about air quality. This is about power and control. It is also a way to perform another debt/swap game to create a bubble that can be burst to effect income.

          • falstaff77

            US air is better, but the particulates and volatiles coming out of coal stacks and auto exhaust still are responsible for a lot of asthma and early fatalities.

          • Mary

            Nonsense. Particulates coming out of coal stacks and automobile exhaust do not cause asthma and the only fatalities directly related to coal are those when miners do not wear protective gear. More people die from starvation because of Wall Street speculation on the commodities markets than die from these causes, and more people die because of our mining of tantalite/coltan to make the cell phone people think they need to replace every year than they do from coal plants.

          • falstaff77

            Particulates cause asthma attacks, not asthma.

            Many things kill people like car wrecks. But so do coal n auto emissions. No throwing out “directly” does not take them off the hook. Saying otherwise is a waste of time as 5 minutes on the EPA site or with Google scholar will show.

          • falstaff77

            “You can’t expect a non resource business to get the same tax treatment as a resource based business and vice versa.”

            That game can be played by all (and all would if given the chance). You can’t expect:
            -a retail business (with high employee turnover, customer whimsy, theft, big box store and online competition) to get the same tax treatment as…
            -a financial business (with the most regulation, far more than oil&gas, etc) to the same tax treatment as …
            -a farmer/fisherman to get the same tax treatment as …
            -a silicon valley tech company (where some new tech may make them obsolete over night) to get the same tax treatment as…

          • Mike Hughes

            “I have no time for the greens. Most businesses pay more than they
            deduct, and I never said otherwise. The point is the oil companies
            still get deductions that other businesses do not, that my business does
            not receive”

            Yeah that’s probably because the oil companies lobby congress which actually has a say in the taxes they pay and you whine about how unfair it all is here where it doesn’t much matter.

          • doubting_rich

            “they avoid taxes”

            No, they don’t, at least they don’t do so any more than others, and they are subject to taxes and duties on their products that others are not. Those “tax breaks” you list are available to butchers when they start to drill for meat. You clearly have never run your own business, and are utterly clueless, if you don’t realise that expenses are taken into account when taxes are calculated.

            Are you really announcing your dishonesty so openly with spreading over 100 years? Most of which the “altenative” energy has only been used for its legitimate, specialist applications.

            The alternative energy business does not just have tax breaks, it is a net receiver of income that would rightly be called tax: money from governments and money we are forced to spend due to government mandates. That is far higher than the legitimate costs not taxed in the oil industry.

            Who avoids taxes the most? Probably the entertainment business, people that you presumably look to for scientific expertise as they are the ones make

          • falstaff77

            “Those “tax breaks” you list are available to butchers when they start to drill for meat.”

            What the heck does drill for meat mean?

            “You clearly have never run your own business, and are utterly clueless, if you don’t realise that expenses are taken into account when taxes are calculated.”

            Yes I do run a business, yes we do deduct expenses, no we are not given a “depletion” tax deduction when a market becomes saturated. You don’t know what you are talking about.

          • doubting_rich

            Are you kidding, or you really struggling to understand?

            Drilling for meat doesn’t mean anything. That’s the point. You were the one complaining that butchers don’t get tax breaks for drilling costs. I was pointing out that this is because they don’t do any drilling!

            I presume you get no depletion tax break because you are not in the oil business, and depletion does not apply. I am sure that the oil business does not get tax breaks my wife gets on attending concerts, because she is in the music business and they are not.

            I get no tax breaks except for travel, stationery, computers and software because that is the only expenses I have in my business. Should I complain that I don’t get a tax break for buying a camera, like my friend who runs a photography business?

          • falstaff77

            Every business, oil, meat, candle stick makers, can deduct travel, power bill, etc, i.e. actual *expenses*, meaning money going out the door to run the operation. They do *not* get to deduct taxes because supply dries up for their particular business or because the market saturated. Nobody gets this break except for drilling/mining industries.

            Why is this so difficult to understand? It is simply false that every enterprise gets the same breaks under the category of “expenses”.

          • ferd_berple

            you are confusing expenses and depreciation.

          • falstaff77

            Somebody is confused.

          • ferd_berple

            depletion allowance is similar to capital cost allowance, which all businesses have as a deduction. Be it buildings, cars, or oil reserves. As you use them they go down in value, and this capital loss is deductible.

          • falstaff77

            The oil and gas industries also receive the standard capital depreciation allowance. The capital allowance for a building is similar to the allowance for drilling rigs and mining equipment. So all is fair with depreciation.

            But as you know, “all business” does *not* receive the depletion allowance, an extra break. No, oil reserves, which are discovered, are not the same as a building. The better analogy of depletion for other businesses would be for, say, the ‘depletion’ of the local drug store customers in a boom town after the boom, or for a restaurant that’s hot for awhile and then not. And, granting such businesses tax allowances would be just as much a corrupt set aside of the tax code as it is for the oil and gas industry at present.

          • Mike Hughes

            “But as you know, “all business” does *not* receive the depletion allowance, an extra break.”

            So probably you should get off your butt and lobby for it instead of whining about how unfair it is that the oil industry gets something you don’t. Their lobby got it for them. Have yours get it for you. Life isn’t supposed to fair and rarely is.

          • Mike Hughes

            You have the right to lobby congress for any tax break you want for your business or industry the same way the oil industry does. Of course it would help if your industry provided a commodity which affects the operating costs of businesses all across America as oil does.

          • falstaff77

            I owe you an apology. From your earlier posts I thought merely ignorant, but your smugness makes it clear you are really a creepy fellow aren’t you? You think because some crazed greens (and they are) beat up on the oil industry that their corrupt deals self-justify, and then you figure everyone should really be kissing the Don’s ring. You’re no more than a thief who thinks himself righteous because, well the world’s not fair, and for the moment he has the loot. It’s all excrement. Bon Appetit.

          • BobM001

            Neither do YOU! So jump into your PRIUS and drive to the BERNIE SANDERS RALLY. There you’ll be at home with the rest of the SOCIALISTS!

          • falstaff77

            I’m Conan the Conservative, am a partner in my own business, know the difference between a common tax deduction and a crony tax rip-off, drive an SUV, and you’ve been talking to your invisible friend for too long.

          • Mary

            Wrong, when you compare cost on the basis of subsidies and output, industrial wind receives more taxpayer support than coal, nuclear and gas fired plants combined….according to the Department of Energy. And unlike new gasification plants, wind does nothing to reduce carbon emissions.

          • falstaff77

            Why include output? This is a government subsidy or tax break, not an invoice or a utility bill. I measure only on how much tax must be lifted from my wallet to pay the 60 percent out revenues, and then to pay the interest on other 40 percent which is borrowed by government, none of which is dependent on the output of some coal plant.

          • Mary

            So you don’t care that you pay a lot more for less, and do not care that what you are paying for does not perform the function you are told it will perform? That’s ridiculous and absolute poppycock.

          • falstaff77

            Less? Perform? That sounds like some kind of boiler room sales pitch. All of this is govt handout, wind, coal, whatever. Paid for out of my wallet and by debt. For which I get nothing, nor do I want anything from the govt.

          • Craig Austin

            So are their energy contributions.

          • Carly Rae

            I am calling BS on this, as with most climate change doom and gloom garbage. http://tiny.cc/rbok5w

          • BobM001

            I “second” the BS!

          • J. Allday

            So your calling BS on scientific studies that point to the fact that global warming IS happening and on top of that there is an international consensus that these studies are correct. I’d love to see you in a debate, haha. What is your response to these studies Carly Rae….Ummm BS. haha. Good luck with that.

        • TheLight

          Ummm…by selling useful products that people use every day???

        • Um, they dig up oil, turn it into other things and then sell them. What REALLY happens?

        • Mike Hughes

          OIl companies pay the rent by selling a vital product that the world desperately needs and that just drives people like you CRAZY. 🙂

      • kate

        No Global Warming, Earth’s Cooling, claim scientists. http://kwn.me/kt48

    • Margaret Hardman

      “Matt I think we all know this is not about the science it is about the policy.”Would that be why Ridley is a leading light in the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a body that has policy in the title? Methinks there is a cake in a quantum superposition of being eaten and not being eaten in your comment.

      • osseo

        Of course it’s about the policy. “Now that I know that, what do I do?” as Charlie Brown asks. Whether or not there’s consensus about the science, there certainly isn’t aboout the policy. Are you saying that Ridley isn’t entitled to a position on the policy?

        • Mnestheus

          Were it not for preexisting policy preferences, neither side would be hyping its own authority at the expense of the evidence such as it is.

          At all times and in all polities , science politicized is science betrayed.

          • osseo

            CB, I’m afraid I understand no such thing. Your argument seems to be: post hoc, propter hoc (or pre hoc..?). You claim I am mentally ill. This diagnosis I reject (for doubt about your qualifications to make it, among other reasons). Your proposed treatment is not, I think, evidence-based, and certainly doesn’t seem to be working.

    • JemyNicolo

      I think I’ll get a second opinion? http://bit.ly/14FZmbd

  • Peter Stroud

    Just how was it possible that governments became convinced by the propaganda dished up by the fanatical green movement, and CAGW alarmists? The points made about the positive side of a warming climate are, by no means, new. Why were these ignored?

    Did international politicians, perhaps, see depleting the use of fossil fuels by the West would lead to a rebalancing of wealth? If so then their dreams are coming true. China and India are two now major emerging economies benefitting from expensive energy, decreasing the manufacturing sector in the developed countries. But this has done nothing to decrease global CO2 emissions. In fact these two emerging economies are building massive numbers of coal fired power stations. This inbalance will continue if our politicians don’t wake up and ignore the warmist fanatics.

    • DallasBeaufort

      Taxing the public more to fund government empire building is the main game no matter the vehicle or story line.

    • HookesLaw

      In the case of the UK the govts own chief scientist (and the one before that) all spouted the AGM rubbish. The scientific community is part of the scam.

      It makes it difficult to pursue policy in those circumstances.

  • D M

    I think the above article assumes a rather narrow definition of ‘beneficial to the world’ as ‘benefits humans’.
    The world is actually mostly Ocean – and the ocean is not at all addressed in your article – and the oceans are plummeting due to acidification from CO2 etc as fast as you can imagine, as a little googling will tell you.
    Similarly the rainforests may not count as the largest area of the world, but they do instead hold a disproportionate amount of species. Vegetation isn’t simply to be measured by ‘amount’. If the world were taken over by wheat and all other species died out, I would probably think the article would count this as a good thing, because amount of vegetation had gone up.
    In short, I get the impression your article is using a poor measuring stick. The lack of mention of the Oceans should make this abundantly obvious.


    • Jeremy Poynton

      DM “As a little googling will show you”.

      ROTFLMAO, Citations please, not “a little googling”. You do realise that the oceans are very alkaline, yes?

      • D M

        Perhaps it is worth mentioning to you that acidification doesn’t mean something is acid?

        I’ve found in the past links can cause problems with postings, but here you go.

        See for example these three links:-
        Last 30 million years’ pH (remember that pH is logarithmic) – note the term ‘acidification’ used:-

        A recent comment on the oceans:-

        And the following shows how sensitive organisms and biological systems can be to pH:-


        • Ruth Dixon

          The Guardian had to correct that last article – see http://www.newssniffer.co.uk/articles/690315/diff/0/1

          And the graph in your ’30 million years’ link shows Pearson and Palmer’s data (Nature 2000) missing out their far more acidic earlier data (Pearson and Palmer’s complete graph reproduced here http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/the-oceans-are-not-more-acidic-now-than-in-the-past-300-million-years/)

          Ocean acidification may become a problem but exaggeration helps no-one.

          • D M

            In most people’s books, correcting an article is a virtue; for you apparently it’s a crime 🙂 The corrected one reflects the source better. We don’t expect newspaper articles always to hit the mark scientifically but they need to be given credit in portraying things to the public in plainer english than a science paper will ever do. They’ll make more mistakes in the process, and correction is therefore a natural consequence. You’re trying to pick on the fact that it corrected a word in its article as some kind of vindication, when of course it is no such thing.
            I cannot comment on your second link because unfortunately it doesn’t work. However in all the literature it is not necessarily the absolute level of acidity that is flagged up, it’s the speed of it. Hence the Guardian article talking about acidification *fastest* over the last 300my. Therefore the omitted data you mention, though useful, may well be irrelevant to this strand – if the end part of the graph stands fine (it was done I think in 2006) then I cannot see what’s off the graph is going to match its rate of acidification.
            If you can repost the link i’d be grateful though, as it sounds interesting and I cannot find it 🙂

          • Ruth Dixon

            Perhaps I wasn’t clear, I was delighted that the Guardian corrected the article, it took me a number of emails to the author to persuade her that her article misrepresented the science.

            I took issue with your use of the phrase “Acidification worst for 300 million years” as this is easily misunderstood to mean level of acidity, which is far from the case. I’m not saying that you misunderstood it, but I have seen it misunderstood.

            My second link picked up a trailing ) – the correct link is here http://mygardenpond.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/the-oceans-are-not-more-acidic-now-than-in-the-past-300-million-years/

          • D M

            Thanks for the clarification 🙂
            It’s good to see the graphs.
            I’ve actually wondered to myself that since fossil fuels are supposed to have been buried over aeons and taken C out of the c-cycle, putting them back in will actually only be restoring the situation to what it was there aeons ago. I guess they must occasionally have got released by tectonic activity at times. That in itself is not intrinsically bad, only the speed with which it is currently being done is beyond anything that seems remotely sensible 🙂
            We wouldn’t let our child walk out on its own in the dark for fear of a miniscule chance of some danger coming to it, and yet we’re happy to take gargantuan blind risks with our children’s and their children’s lives en masse…..
            Thanks for your posts 🙂

        • CarbonFooledYa

          Regarding the first graph you posted: these are two data sets spliced together. It’s a dodgy trick, like Michael Mann’s Nature trick of “hide the decline”.

          The main data is from old sea shells used to estimate past CO2. The vertical line on the right is a few years of direct measurements combined with IPCC computer projections of what could happen.

          Your graph obscures this fact. I found the original graph which doesn’t obscure the distinction:


          from here:


    • Paul.NZ

      DM says, “In short, I get the impression your article is using a poor measuring stick. The lack of mention of the Oceans should make this abundantly obvious.”

      Absolutely right! For example, the rate of ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is the highest it’s been for 300 million years. See:- http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/03/ocean-acidification-carbon-dioxide-emissions-levels

      This article contains the following: “…the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) said: “This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth’s known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun.”

      Ridley avoids such information like the plague. Instead we are distracted with the economic advantages of the nomads of the Sahel based, one assumes, on increased pasture for their cattle, due to local weather changes which are, no doubt, due to global warming.

      Yet while this is valid, his overall logic is totally perverse. What he is effectively saying is that we don’t even need to think about the wider consequences of global warming, such as the oceanic crisis, no matter how catastrophic they might be, as long as we can find someone somewhere who is making a profit out of overall global warming.

      This is the argument of a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. My point is that when you are down to dredging up a handful of nomads from the depths of Africa, you really are at the bottom of your cherry-pick’n barrel!

      What’s going on underneath all this is a deep fear of market regulation. As J.K. Galbraith famously said: a fisherman with an overdraft will always go out and try to catch the last fish in the sea!

      What’s going on underneath all this is a deep fear of market regulation. As J.K. Galbraith famously said: a fisherman with an overdraft will always go out and try to catch the last fish in the sea!

      You can smell the fear of the truth of this proposition in the frothy comments in this column. Where else could one find such a choice catalogue of distracted denial and deliberate indulgence in wonky perspective?

      The hard cold truth is that environmental economic regulation is the only viable option we have. Our task is to write an anti-left political philosophy that avoids the shallow shifting sands of socialism and the rocks of communism, around which they so often accumulate; and all the cross currents of politically correct light-bulb-changing, windmilly nonsense.

      New Zealand

  • rtj1211

    The biggest killer is not cold, it is inability to protect oneself against the cold.

    I would ask Mr Ridley to ask searching, piercing questions as to the morality of government of ALL hues since 1979 in selling off all forms of energy generation to private interests and the outcome it has had on prices in the past 35 years.

    I would ask him to consider the current attempts of the EU to stifle the shale revolution in the UK and the effect that would have on human deaths due to fuel poverty.

    The time has come to start all government action from the principle of not harming its citizens and pricing luxuries higher than necessities as a moral imperative.

    Markets are amoral about death – it is time that the limitation of markets be exposed, overcome and put to bed.

    • Conservative Republican

      “Markets are amoral about death”

      This statement shows your naivete of economics. Markets require consumers. Dead consumers stop consuming. They like to keep those consumers alive.

  • brossen99
  • Jeremy Poynton

    It’s a shame then that it’s getting colder now; winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have been falling significantly for some years. Odd that the media doesn’t report this, isn’t it?


    • Barry Brill

      This results from the termination of the late-20th-century warming phase some 17 years ago.

      AGW didn’t suddenly stop in late 1996. Whatever actual contribution it was making during the two previous decades (an unknown figure but the IPCC contends an average of 0.12°C/decade) would have continued up to the present. If it had ceased, the number of deaths would obviously be greater.

      The analyses studied by Professor Tol assumed that the earth would experience net warming warm as a result of AGW. In recent times, it has been much much more valuable than that – it has staved off natural cooling.

      According to the Met Office, the natural cooling will continue for at least 5 further years. Others expect it to continue for about 30 years. Throughout all of this time, AGW will offset all of the damages we associate with the cold, including winter deaths and short growing seasons.

    • SkyHunter

      The media reports on it all the time. And sometimes they even offer the scientific explanation.
      A warmer Arctic produces a weaker polar jet stream, which is not as effective at keeping the Arctic air from descending to lower latitudes.

  • This has to be one of the most ignorant pieces of trash I’ve read in a while

    • But essentially true if you bother to go and read around. Your rigid adherence to an outdated shibboleth may play well with your set but quite frankly you need to get up to speed with the real world.

      So far the benefits of our using fossil fuels have not been offset by even the smallest discomfort thanks to man made atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

  • geraldine

    >after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true)

    I think it’s a safe bet that we’ll have a safe form of nuclear power by then

  • Norpag

    It is past time for someone Tol? to study the real world. There has been no net warming since 1997 with CO2 up 8%. The earth entered a cooling trend in about 2003 which is likely to continue for another 20 years and may continue for several hundred years beyond that, All impact studies (Esp. Stern report) based on the IPCC model forecast of warming are a complete fantasy. For the data and an estimate of the amount and timing of the coming cooling se http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com

    • SkyHunter

      Looking at the global near-surface temperature the trend is 0.082C per decade, plus or minus 0.131C. Not statistically significant, but a definitely a mildly positive warming trend. So even by limiting ones observations to less than 5% of the thermal mass in the climate system, your assertion that there has been “no net warming since 1997”, patently false.

      And when you look at the oceans… well then the whole notion that the earth has not warmed becomes an obvious lie.


      • Norpag

        The best metric for climate change is the SST data . See various posts at the link above. Why would anyone lie when these days anyone can check for themselves . To confirm what I said in the comment readers can see the data at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

        The notion that the missing heat has for some reason suddenly decided to disappear down the oceans is an epicycle type notion to preserve the warming meme. When is it supposed to reappear? Like Glenn Close rising from the bathtub?
        In any event humans are not fish – we don’t live in the depths.

        • SkyHunter

          No it is not. Sea surface temperatures are highly influenced by dominant wind patterns and cycles.
          The heat did not disappear, it is right there in the deep ocean.
          See here, it is not missing or hidden.

          • c777

            Hilariously wrong not to mention impossible.

            Hot liquids and gases rise because when they are heated they expand and become less dense. The less dense warm liquid or gas then floats up through the more dense cold liquids and gases.

            Thermal convection heat will always rise.

            It is impossible it can be stored at the Ocean depths.

            I’m sorry but your beliefs are religious in nature not scientific.


          • SkyHunter

            Is that so?
            Why does the troposphere get colder with altitude?
            If heat always rises… why is the ocean not stratified?
            Where did the measured 5x10e-22 Joule increase in heat content in the top 2000 meters over the last 15 years come from?

        • SkyHunter

          That is a good question.
          Why are you lying about ocean heat content when it is so easy to check and see that it is a lie.

      • falstaff77

        “Not statistically significant, but a definitely …”

        No comma, full stop, no “but”. You don’t understand what “not statistically significant” means if you think can follow it with “definitely” up or down anything.

        • SkyHunter

          Of course I do. It means that the trend has more than a 5% chance of being random.
          That being said; the trend is still the trend, statistically significant or not. The trend in the data is definitely positive, IE, warming.

          • falstaff77

            You correctly calculate a linear regression of some numbers on a page, correctly observing the result is positive. Then you skip quickly past the statistical meaning of the calculation and assert the number in the second decimal place or the result means something in the physical world has changed. It does not.

            Absent statistical backing indicating a trend can be pulled from the noise in this 15 yr data set, there is no *evidence* of a trend that correlates with anything in the physical world.

            By the way, the RSS and Hadcrut 3 numbers give a slightly negative slope for the last 15 years, and that math exercise doesn’t mean anything physical either.

          • SkyHunter

            Strawman. I said the trend itself is both positive and statistically insignificant.

            Please explain why it cannot be both?

            HadCRUT3 is obsolete. Cherry picking is one thing, but rotten cherry picking???

            Satellite near-surface extrapolation has twice the margin for error than the station data.

            So you are relying on an obsolete data set, and another with twice the margin of error to claim that the general warming trend is not positive?

            Picking the two worst samples out of eight does not change the fact that six of eight are positive. Therefore the trend, as calculated from the data is definitely positive, even though it is statistically insignificant.

  • Margaret Hardman

    I was at Brighton the other day to see Richard Tol jump a shark. His recent attempts to discredit Cook & al 2013 didn’t go very well. Lord Ridley seems incapable of taking both sides of an argument and critically assessing them any longer. Perhaps his inability to run a bank has left him with a form of post traumatic stress disorder. He certainly seems to have left science behind.

    • cwon1

      Considering Cook is pure drivel and politically motivated nonsense I doubt you and your claims.

      • Margaret Hardman

        I guess you are unaware of Tol’s attempts to discredit Cook 2013. Perhaps you are also unaware of the absolute disaster that was Ridley’s running of Northern Rock – that he failed to see the bank was bankrupt itself. Deny my claims by all means. If you live in Britain, you are still paying for the consequences of Ridley’s failure.

  • Truly excellent article! Sums up nicely almost all of the arguments we’ve been making at http://www.cfact.org for years!

    Bravo, Mr. Ridley!

    • cwon1

      I think many of the junk science under currents of the AGW meme are validated in this approach.

  • Kevin O’Brien

    Costings based on Stern show it is at least 50x more expensive to try and combat this hypothetical monster than to adapt; the attempt would beggar the world for unmeasurable difference. See http://revfelicity.org/2013/09/17/god-in-climate-change/

    • Margaret Hardman

      Oh, please. When Monckton gets his igNobel for economics, we might actually be able to applaud him. Until then, his calculations are easily debunked.


      • Kevin O’Brien

        The proponents of world control better be very sure before they inflict more hardship on those who can least afford it. Why shouldn’t lesser developed countries have cheap energy sources? Is there an unvoiced agenda to deny them and hence reduce global population?

  • Leslie Graham

    Last year I predicted that when the next El Nino produced another temperature spike and a new global surface temperature record (as it always does) then the denial industry would abandon their absurd “no warming since 98” meme and retreat to; “OK, it’s warming but it’s a good thing”.
    Seems they are getting their denial in first.
    This article is an utterly nonsensical piece of junk from start to finish.
    And whats more you know it.
    Just shamefull.

    • SkyHunter

      Actually, the minor 2009/2010 El Nino event did result a new record global temperature. They shut up about it for a few months in 2011, then picked it up again when 2011 was not warmer than 2010.

  • Leslie Graham

    Yes, OF COURSE the climate has changed in the past without human influence.
    So what?!
    Every climate change event in the history of the planet HAS A PHYSICAL CAUSE..
    It doesn’t just change by magic.
    And every time CO2 levels have risen in the past the global temperature has risen too.
    CO2 levels rise – global temperatures rise.
    Always have – always will.
    Whether humans help do it or not.
    Basic schoolboy physics.
    Anyone parroting this absurd “The climate’s changed before” meme is merely revealing their ignorance of even the most elementary schoolboy science.

    • cwon1

      What’s revealing is your pro-statist agenda to “do” something that usual involves other peoples money and wealth.

      • SkyHunter

        No, what is revealing is your abject failure to produce a rational response.

        • cwon1

          We should just ignore the overwhelming link of leftist green politics to the AGW meme?

          • SkyHunter

            In determining the empirical evidence?

            Yes. Just like we should ignore the overwhelming link of Tea-Baggers and fossil fuel industry sponsored politicians to denial of climate science.

            The science is clear. When yo take out the politics, there is no doubt, hence the reason 97% of climate scientists agree with the consensus position.

          • cwon1

            So the media and Greenshirt academics are the only source to be considered? Most know better.

          • SkyHunter

            No. The best source is the scientific literature, which the IPCC assesses every 5 years.

          • cwon1

            The IPCC is a political agenda, not science.

          • SkyHunter

            And that is your opinion, not reality.

          • cwon1

            Your view of “science” is as an opinion of what’s best for all also.

            A totalitarian threat of the first order.

  • cwon1

    Of course there is no empirical evidence that there is AGW at all. We have an inductive, politically correct theory and set of talking points as “science”.

    • SkyHunter

      So are you saying that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
      Or is your position that humans do not produce CO2 when they combust fossil fuels?

      • cwon1

        You can’t quantify the co2 impact. No formulas or equations, just expert testimonials from a predetermined pack of partisan green activists dressed as “science”. You’re especially facetious although it’s common in the Greenshirt left.

        • SkyHunter

          Hmmm… you are a special kind of stupid.

          I suspect that mathematics beyond addition and subtraction are beyond your scope of comprehension.

  • cwon1

    Any subset that assumes co2 warming as fact isn’t that important. It’s unknown but you make a hypothesis and the burden of “science” is to prove it. The IPCC is a political organization with a regulatory agenda but no evidence of co2 making the Earth warmer.

    This is just Curry, Lomborg styled mush trying to let the AGW fanatics off easily.

    We should open all the model records (codes) and notes, they were largely publicly funded and review the emails for the criminal factions like Michael Mann and put some of the fraudsters in jail. AGW is a best an abstract theory and at the norm a hyped fear based political mantra and junk science.

    • Margaret Hardman

      Any chance of a denier not mentioning Michael Mann without defaming him? I think they debunked the idea that ostriches actually stick their heads in the sand. At least they have heads. Your posts are textbook examples of the rubbish that deniers usually post.

      • cwon1

        As in “Holocaust Denier” right Margaret? That’s the level of civility you are striving for?

      • FatBastage72

        When one publishes a paper that flies in the face of prevailing knowledge, becomes the poster child of an IPCC review and then can’t robustly explain why one has creatively filtered the data setand used a mathematical model that produces a hockey stick no matter what numbers it is fed, one (and by extension one’s supporters) should have the gall to be surprised when people laugh at your expense. The guy is at best a sloppy scientist, at worst a fraudulent one, so who wouldn’t have a go?

        • SkyHunter

          If one is so ignorant as to believe the lies you just repeated.
          One should not be surprised when people laugh at your expense.
          BTW – When a PCA is properly done, (unlike MM05, which) it does not produce a hockey stick from random noise. Besides which, Mann has used RegEm Climate Field reconstruction that uses all the proxy data instead of principal components.
          In fact every paleoclimate reconstruction has a hockey stick shape, regardless of the methodology used.

      • NTropywins

        Margaret I left a civil reply to one of your posts up thread not realising you were the sort of person that used the D word. Unfortunately that disqualifies you from membership of civilisation. I will treat any further comments of yours with the contempt they deserve by not reading them. Good day.

  • jonathanmurray1066

    I for one dont care a fig for rising sea levels,

    Ive swum over the edge of coral attols and seen it. its corals all the way down.
    Ive climbed over the ocean depositied rocks now thousands of metres in the air.
    Ive walked on new rock, still hot in the crater.

    I really care about the quite accurately known and long understood rate of the “Tipping” of the London plate as the South East corner of England slowly sinks below the water line into the English Channel.
    London is Doomed… unless it puts another brick on top of the Embankment that is.


    Great article, it’s rare to see common sense spoken on the global warming scam.

  • AlStone13

    Tell the people of NSW who lost at least 100 homes overnight to bushfires (in Spring!! – 3 months before the fire season normally starts) after the hottest 12 months on record, hottest summer, hottest March and the earliest fire season I can recall. Every stat shows this has been getting worse in Australia over the past 50 years.

    The callous disregard your show for science and the human cost that comes with not listening to it is breathtaking.

    And obviously the brilliant Mr Tol has missed all the other papers out there that show reduced crop yields, increased social dislocation, impacts on infrastructure, increased insurance costs – the list goes on and on.

    Matt Ridley, the only good thing to come from your articles is that they are on the record, so you will have nowhere to turn when history confirms the bleeding obvious.

    You should be ashamed.

  • SkyHunter

    The rate and quantity of carbon released into the biosphere over the past 100 years is unprecedented in the geologic record. The idea that a major disruption to a system in equilibrium would be benign is preposterous. To assume it will be beneficial is bat-crap-crazy!

    • Steve Eros

      You are a liar. There have been many times in the past where CO2 increased at a higher rate and the overall levels have been much higher also.

      • SkyHunter

        Care to give an example and explain why it is relevant?

  • stefanthedenier

    extra CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere can only bring more benefits; even if they double; GLOBAL warming is a mythology, not science: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/

  • John T

    The normal climate of the earth during the past 3 million years is glaciation. Interglacial periods like now are the exception. Too bad you AGW fools won’t live long enough to freeze to death in yet another ice age.

  • Wang King

    Doesn’t anybody realise that when the ice-cubes melt on your drink the level does not change? Thus the North Pole we can right off – except ice on land of course.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    Well,don’t show this to anAL GOREtentive….it’s liable to make his 2nd chakra shrivel up

  • jimsteele

    They have indeed been cherry picking the bad news. The whole Arctic food web has improved as productivity has nearly tripled. Heavy ice was also bad for seals and bears in the Beaufort Sea. http://landscapesandcycles.net/less-arctic-ice-can-be-beneficial.html

  • jimsteele

    Dr. Kevin Arrigo of Stanford University wrote “Annual primary production in the Arctic has increased yearly … Should these trends continue, additional loss of ice during Arctic spring could boost productivity >3-fold above 1998–2002 levels”

    The whole Arctic food web has benefitted!


  • AlecM

    My Dear Matt,

    You must realise by now that the IPCC ‘consensus’ is built on many (13 so far detected) mistakes in basic physics. This includes a serious misunderstanding of Tyndall’s experiment (there can be no thermalisation of absorbed IR energy in the gas phase at local thermodynamic equilibrium, basic statistical thermodynamics forgotten by most), also Sagan got his aerosol optical physics badly wrong (the real AGW has been from polluted clouds, now saturated).

    Do the sums and there is next to zero CO2-AGW. This winter looks likely to be as cold as 1962-63 because of the low solar magnetic field, and presages a 1.5 K fall in World temperature by the mid 2040s.

    100s of millions will die from cold. Luckily, shorter growing seasons will be compensated for by higher CO2 increasing growth rates thus saving 100s of millions, perhaps billions of further deaths.

    As for Richard Tol, he must forget about Stern and the IPCC; this has been a repeat of Lysenkoism, I call it Hansenkoism, with the fraud dating back to this paper: 1981_Hansen_etal.pdf, which has in it three major mistakes.

    • SkyHunter

      Do you have a citation for that nonsense?
      Are you are saying that when a photon of IR is absorbed, the energy cannot be quenched through friction, collision with other molecules?
      Please elaborate on the mechanism prevents these collisions, or that exempts these collisions from the laws of thermodynamics.

  • PAaron

    If it was going to be possible to suddenly stop climate change in 60 years when it becomes harmful (accepting for a moment the premise of this article), it might make sense. But it won’t be possible to tapidly and sharply decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere after it moves into the danger zone, and merely stabilising it will not reverse its progressive effects on the climate.

    However, if we’re lucky, the efforts presently under way to slow the increase in CO2 may have begun to bear fruit by then, so in a sense Mr Ridley’s premise provides a powerful argument to continue and in fact redouble these efforts, rather the argument than to delay them which he seems to be making.

    If you’re in a car racing for the edge of a cliff you need to apply the brakes before you’re airborne.

    • Augustus

      CO2 is a minimal element of the atmosphere. It is the amount of solar radiation that determines the Earth’s overall temperature and the Sun has been experiencing a natural, cyclical decrease as the result of less sunspot activity recently.The other primary factor in climate change is the amount of water vapour, not carbon dioxide, in the Earth’s atmosphere. The IPCC has been simply wrong on every prediction and claim it has made over the years about carbon dioxide’s role in heating up the Earth.

      • SkyHunter

        The sun’s energy has decreased over for the last 50 years, yet temperatures have increased faster than ever recorded.
        How do you explain this?
        Specific humidity, water vapor, is coupled to temperature. It is a feedback that amplifies warming and cooling. It is not a forcing.

        • Augustus

          Not only is water vapour coupled to temperature,”water is the main determinant of weather in all its forms; as vapour in the atmosphere, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation, as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport dominate the motions of our atmosphere and the precipitation from it, and finally as cloud, snow, and ice cover which influence the radiative balance between the Sun, the Earth, and free Space.”
          – Slaying the Sky Dragon—Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, by Dr. Martin Hertzberg.

          Blaming the climate or the weather on human related CO2 emissions, claiming they alone were trapping heat being produced by all manner of human related activity since the industrial revolution is insane. The Earth has gone through regular seasons as well as cycles of warming and cooling for billion of years.

          • SkyHunter

            I didn’t ask you how Dr. Martin Hertzberg explains it. I am asking how you explain it.

            And please, no strawmen about how CO2 is being blamed for everything.

            How do you explain that the last decade is the hottest decade on record, even though the primary source of energy for the climate, solar radiation, is at it’s lowest level in a century?

          • Augustus

            You don’t have to study climatology to know that usual scientific data involves cyclical trends, not specific decades, and as far as I can gather the last warming cycle ended around 1996. In other words, we are now in our 17th year of flat temperatures without any significant further warming trend. Which really means that the only place you will ever find any proof of continued global warming nowadays is in computer models.

          • SkyHunter

            So you don’t know why.

            Tell me something. Since you don’t understand climate science… why do you have such a strong opinion about it?

        • CarbonFooledYa

          You’re talking about a temperature record that goes back 130 years, so what are you comparing it too? The end of the Younger Dryas was a larger (11C) and more abrupt (2C/decade) warming than today.

          According to this wiki page the sun has been fairly steady for 2,000 years:


          “It is a feedback that amplifies..” that’s what the IPCC claims, yet CO2 has gone from 280ppm to 390ppm and the temperature hasn’t even gone up a whole degree C. Seems water vapour also turns into clouds and acts as a negative feedback.

          • SkyHunter

            And what caused the temperature to change so rapidly at the end of the Younger Dryas?

            Where did all of the heat come from in those few short years?

            No evidence that the sun suddenly flared up for a few years.

            Hmmm… where on earth could that much heat be stored???


          • CarbonFooledYa

            So, in other words, it’s unprecedented warming except for all the other times, I get it.

          • SkyHunter

            No, you don’t get it. Otherwise you would not be constructing straw man fallacies.

          • SkyHunter

            I found that link to show lots of variation in solar activity. They even name the minimums and maximums.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            What’s the link?

          • SkyHunter

            Your Wiki link.

            Here is a recent overview of the faint young sun paradox.


          • SkyHunter

            There is no detectable long term trend in cloudiness, because clouds are influenced by relative humidity, which also has no detectable long term trend. However, the WV feedback to temperature is influenced by specific humidity.

            Do you understand the difference?

          • CarbonFooledYa

            I do, but the IPCC’s positive feedback scenario is not backed up by the narrow range of earth’s temperatures despite rising and falling CO2 over a long period. http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz278/CarbonFooledYa/image277.gif

            It doesn’t matter anyway because the water vapour greenhouse effect is just as bogus as the CO2 greenhouse effect. Arrhenius did not show that CO2 magically creates free energy. He and Tyndall were wrong about the energy multiplication effect of the greenhouse effect — it doesn’t exist.

          • SkyHunter

            That graphic is 12 years old, the GEOCARB record overestimates ancient CO2, and the resolution is something on the scale of a million years.

            What multiplication effect are you talking about?

            Are you saying there is no greenhouse effect?

            Or are you saying it is not as large as measurements suggest?

            We can measure the energy that is being emitted by the atmosphere with a spectrometer. Not only that, we can analyze the frequencies and determine the composition of the atmosphere of distant planets, just by which wavelengths of light are being emitted.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            Yeah, greenhouse effect is fiction because it involves getting energy for free.

          • SkyHunter

            How so?

            The CO2 does not create energy, it slows the rate at which the atmosphere emits it into space.

          • Jesse4

            No, it doesn’t.

          • Jesse4

            Doesn’t sound like you have even the slightest understanding of the greenhouse effect.

    • cwon1

      Do you have any empirical evidence backing the claim of higher co2 impacting the climate?……………….I didn’t think so.

      What about a 50 year asteroid threat? Should we spend trillions betting on preventing an unknown scenario?

      AGW is greenshirt mythology compounded over decades of political investment. It isn’t a hard science by miles.

      • SkyHunter

        We have these instruments called spectrometers. With them we can not only measure electromagnetic radiation, we can also analyse the different wavelengths. There is a measured increase in atmospheric transmission of EM in the exact same frequencies in which the light field of photons interact with the CO2 molecule.

        In other words, we can empirically measure the increase in energy being returned to the surface from the atmosphere by carbon dioxide.

        It is because you and your ilk deny these basic scientific facts, that you have earned the moniker “science denier.”

        • CarbonFooledYa

          Actually the backradiation coming from the atmosphere doesn’t increase the ground’s temperature, because mutually exchanged EMR cancels, it doesn’t add. If it did add, the Universe would heat infinitely via mutual EMR and explode in an infinite heat death. The greenhouse effect therefore is a fiction — you can’t get energy for free from greenhouse gases.

          Tyndall cooled the gas tube target with a water cooler — his experiment doesn’t demonstrate an atmospheric greenhouse effect at all — it merely demonstrates that heat flows from warm to cool.

          The greenhouse effect says that heat can move from cool to warm via backradiation. Yet the second law says that it can’t.

          • Jesse4

            You’re an ignorant fool.
            Pick up a high school science book and find out just how ignorant a fool you are.

          • SkyHunter

            If the surface is emitting 356w/m2 into the atmosphere and the atmosphere is emitting 332w/m2 back to the surface. (356-332=24) The net surface emission is 24w/m2. If you increase atmospheric back radiation to 333w/m2, you reduce the net surface emission by 1w/m2. (356-333=23)

            Nothing free about it. No violation of the second law, since net heat transfer is from the warmer surface to the cooler atmosphere.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            If the net heat transfer is from the ground to the sky, then the sky can’t be warming the ground. If the greenhouse effect makes earth 33C warmer than it should be, that extra temperature is extra energy. Where does the energy come from?

            CO2 is as good an emitter as it is an absorber. It should increase earth’s emmisivity but it doesn’t. Greenhouse gases emit as much EMR as they absorb, there’s no energy gain.

            The second law says that EMR from the cooler sky shouldn’t warm the earth surface by “backradiation” or some other concept where energy is counted twice.

          • SkyHunter

            This is true, the atmosphere is warmed by the ground, not the other way around.

            So to continue where we left off; if the atmospheric emission increase by 1w/m2, in order for the earth to shed the extra heat, the surface emission must increase 1w/m2 in order to maintain equilibrium. and rid itself of the heat it absorbs from the sun.
            The only way to increase emission is to increase temperature.
            As long as the net flow of energy is from warmer to cooler, there is no violation of the second law.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            By “net flow” you’re still thinking some energy is coming back (in the form of backradiation) to do tangible heating work (33C temp rise). I say all heat flow coming from the sky to the ground is cancelled by the heat flowing out — so no net temperature gain. I.e. EMR from a cooler object (the sky) can’t warm a warmer object (the ground) to a higher temp then it otherwise would be.

            The idea that EMR can be slowed on the way out is a false analogy based on a blanket. Blankets do function in the case of convection but not for EMR. You can’t “slow EMR”, and whatever absorption and re-emision there is doesn’t provide any extra energy.

            Finally, CO2 is a good emitter as per Kirchoff’s law, so it should increase earth’s emissivity — it’s not just temperature that affects emission. However, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, more emission to space at IR wavelengths will take place from the upper atmosphere which is cooler, which makes it seem like it’s reducing earth’s emissivity, but it’s not.

          • SkyHunter

            Of course it is canceled out. The surface is emitting 356w/m2 into the atmosphere, while only 333w/m2 is being returned. for a net flow of 23w/m2 into the atmosphere. Increasing the atmospheric back-radiation by 1w/m2 will cause the surface emission to increase by 1w/m2. For surface emission to increase, the temperature must rise. The sun is still doing the warming, (net 161w/m2) the atmosphere is just causing the surface to warm enough to overcome the back-radiation and shed the sun’s energy.

            A blanket also absorbs the EMR that your body radiates. It warms your skin, which in turn warms the blanket, until the surface of the blanket is effectively radiating the heat your body produces. if it was only convection that the blanket stopped, wrapping oneself in plastic wrap would achieve the same effect.

            Here is an experiment. Wrap one leg in plastic wrap and the other in a wool stocking. Go outside in freezing temperatures and see which one gets frost bitten first.

            Bingo! You just hit the jackpot!

            The stratosphere is cooling because of increased CO2 emission, it is one of the fingerprints of AGW.

          • CarbonFooledYa

            A human blanket only uses convection blocking for its warming effect. In no way is EMR blocking involved in this process. Perhaps this is the misunderstanding at the root of belief in the greenhouse effect.

          • SkyHunter

            Did you try the experiment I suggested?

            What is a human blanket?

            Sounds gruesome.

          • falstaff77

            “Which is exactly what we are seeing. ”

            No so much, especially recently. The effect you calculate is valid and, by itself, minor. That CO2 forcing, by itself, is minor is not in dispute. The theorized follow-on feedback effects required to make warming significant are in a great deal of dispute scientifically, especially given the last ~15 years of ~flat surface temperature record.

          • SkyHunter

            Could you be more specific?
            What feedback is in dispute?
            Is lower albedo from reduced snow and ice in dispute?
            Is the Clausius/Clapeyron equation being challenged?

          • falstaff77

            “…an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed the following two common biases in the models: 1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and 2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor….”

            Sun, De-Zheng, Yongqiang Yu, Tao Zhang, 2009: Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models: A Further Assessment Using Coupled Simulations. J. Climate, 22, 1287–1304.

          • SkyHunter

            LOL, You disparage models until they confirm your bias.

            ROFLMAO. You deniers just kill me.

            How about some empirical measurments.


  • foxoles

    The strange death and subsequent mysterious resurrection of the Mediaeval Warm Period, courtesy IPCC


    • cwon1

      There is nothing strange about political agenda corrupting anything including “science”. What is sad is the total decline of moderating values even at the highest end and best educated in the west in particular. AGW is on par with Soviet agenda science of the 1930’s under Stalin. In fact it’s worse since many of those players performed out of real fear while the climate science craze was born out of consensus leftism and being “green”.

      • foxoles

        Quite. Lysenkoism in action, enabled by narcissism. Cherchez l’argent.

        • Rick

          You guys have a great echo chamber going there.

          Perhaps at some point you might consider the possibility that scientists understand science better than you do.

          • Steve Eros

            All scientists or just the ones that fit your narrow narrative?

          • Jesse4

            How about the vast majority? (97%-98%)

          • Morgan Wright

            The majority of the ones who haven’t lost their jobs you mean, because the money is all in global warming alarmism. Why would anybody pay a scientist to say that everything is fine? Professors make money teaching students and students are usually liberals. Colleges can’t get students if their professors aren’t globetards like Jesse4 here.

          • Jesse4

            Scientists with any credibility who say we’ve got a problem are a dime a dozen. You can get them cheap. But the fossil fuel lobby would pay big bucks for one who will help them peddle the lie that everything is OK. They are very hard to find. So the real money would be in the denial business, if they could just find anyone who knows anything and is willing to destroy their reputation by saying “no problem.”

          • Morgan Wright

            I know of one scientist who can. Me. And you don’t have to pay me. I’m a retired atmospheric geologist with more credentials than the pope and my name is right there. And I won’t charge you a dime. Check out my page at hyzercreek.com/hillofshizzle.htm and learn something about the climate and how the collusion of globetard warmtards has been lying to you. I say NO PROBLEM. And so will you.

          • Morgan Wright

            What problem do we have Jesse4? I’m not having a problem. Check out my web page at http://www.hyzercreek.com/globalwarminghoax.htm if you want to learn something about why the left wing liberals are morons for believing all this caca doo doo.

  • toocoldinwa

    Nixon got caught lying and he was out of office within 2 years. The AGW crowd got caught lying and the cover up and subsequent silence of evidence to the contrary of their religious dogma (see article above) has been going on for more than twice as long so far. Why hasn’t someone been prosecuted? Why hasn’t someone at least lost his job?

    • Steve Eros

      Because politicians can tax people more using the global warming BS.

    • Jesse4

      “Why hasn’t someone been prosecuted?”
      Because no one did anything wrong.
      No one got caught lying, and there was no cover up.
      That’s why, you silly dupe.

  • William

    AlGore is a big fat idiot.

    • Steve Eros

      Yet lefties want to send him your money.

  • Hey?

    Really? This is ridiculous. A secret consensus at best, this is the first I’ve heard of it. Granted, depending on the location and where money is invested, global warming can be good, but cons clearly out weight the pros. This extra “greening” is easily negated by deforestation, the economic energy saving will more than be lost with infrastructure damage, and most of these other human benefits are not due to warming, but more so in advancements of technology and innovation.
    Give me a break

    • Steve Eros

      Please explain how global warming causes deforestation? Facts, not propoganda please.

      • Hey?

        Deforestation is caused primarily by people. I never said it was directly caused by global warming, although the causes for both are human activities.
        Want to compare the “greening” of the Sahel region of Africa to deforestation of South America? Check this out:

  • Hey?

    I think “maybe richer biodiversity” should be changed to “maybe richer biodiversity thousands of years from now” because it’s a fact that biodiversity is currently dropping.

    Nice try though

    • Jesse4

      It seems the author doesn’t really even understand what the concept means!

  • soetes
    • soetes

      Just in case anyone was wondering, this is the same Margaret Thatcher who graduated from Oxford University in 1947 with Second-Class Honours in a Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree. She was also the same Margaret Thatcher who was reportedly much more proud of becoming the first Prime Minister with a science degree than the first female Prime Minister.

      • soetes

        What’s the matter, people? Cat got your tongues?

        • Jesse4

          Maybe no one cares what some politician said in some speech twenty four years ago.

          • soetes

            Some politician.

          • soetes

            Is this the best you can do?

  • Greybeard Chieftain

    So wait a minute, wait a minute here, are you saying that ‘immigration alarmism’ in which you claim the native race of Britons is being wiped out by a few EU workers moving into London is somehow better than the justified climate change ‘alarmism’ which actually encompases the obliteration of vast swathes of land(which will create ACTUAL refugee crises) and destabilisation of our current climate? Whatever you’re smoking, I need some of that s**t right away.

  • denko
  • GrigoryRyzhakov

    Rising co2 levels and temperatures lead to the ocean’s acidification and deoxygenation killing coral reefs. Coral reefs have been shrinking 20% each decade in the past 50 years. This costs world economy billions of dollars.

    • Daniel Maris

      50 years = 5 decades = 20% per decade = no more coral reefs anywhere on the planet…some mistake surely?

      • GrigoryRyzhakov

        Daniel, yes, it seems the 20% estimate is just for the last decade, before the 90s the extinction rate wasn’t as high.

        1 – 1*0.2=0.8

        0.8 – 0.8*0.2= 0.64

        0.64 – 0.64*0.2= 0.51

        0.512 – 0.512*0.2 = 0.4096

        0.4096 – 0.4096*0.2 = 0.32

        0.32 is not 0.

        so, according to this estimate coral reefs reduced by two thirds in the past half a century.
        is clearly wrong, I agree, NASA gave a different estimate – 27% of
        coral reef reduction so far, plus 32% of reefs are in danger of peril in
        the next 30 years. http://earthobservatory.nasa.g

    • Steve Eros

      Is this what passes for science these days? Because it certainly doesnt pass as math. According to your numbers, there are no coral reefs left on the planet.

      • GrigoryRyzhakov

        the 20% estimate is just for the last decade, before the 90s the extinction rate wasn’t as high.

        1 – 1*0.2=0.8

        0.8 – 0.8*0.2= 0.64

        0.64 – 0.64*0.2= 0.51

        0.512 – 0.512*0.2 = 0.4096

        0.4096 – 0.4096*0.2 = 0.32

        0.32 is not 0. Check you maths.

        so, according to this estimate coral reefs reduced by two thirds in the past half a century.
        This is clearly wrong, I agree, NASA gave a different estimate – 27% of coral reef reduction so far, plus 32% of reefs are in danger of peril in the next 30 years. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Coral/

        • Morgan Wright

          The problem with your math is that coral reefs are not shrinking at all.

    • c777


      The fact is they don’t really know.

      “The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE is a $2 million global competition that challenges teams of engineers, scientists and innovators from all over the world to create pH sensor technology that will affordably, accurately and efficiently measure ocean chemistry from its shallowest waters… to its deepest depths”.

      They don’t actually have an accurate method of measurement for that.

      Still make things up if you wish.

      After all that’s what alarmist climate science is based on.


      Still for a moment you sounded plausible.
      However I check the facts first.

      • GrigoryRyzhakov

        I’m not a climatologist, but the the fast extinction rate of coral reefs in the recent decades is hard to deny.

  • Daniel Maris

    As much of the discussion shows, the climate is way too complicated for us to understand yearly variations, or even variations over decades. One factor incidentally that I note tends to get ignored is the massive expansion in irrigation schemes in what are effectively desert areas. This will have hugely increased the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere – but climatologists don’t really understand the effects of clouds i.e. whether they are net warming or net cooling (maybe they are both depending on other factors).

    All this leads me to the precautionary position that we should seek to maintain historical levels of atmosphere gases.

  • IanB

    What a whistling in the dark tosspot of an article. Ridley is just selecting the bits the confirm what he wants to believe i.e. that he doesn’t have to change his lifestyle because everything is just within limits and fine.

    Who knows what the consequences will really be? Certainly not Ridley. Not responding to climate change is like sitting there with a growing credit card debt and pretending everything’s fine because there’s no sign of the bailiffs…. even if they exist, which we all know is just a left-wing notion designed to scare us all witless.


    • Rose215

      That’s ridiculous. If no one knows what the consequences will be (in year 2080, for example) Why are we killing ourselves to curtail emissions? Ridley’s view is as legitimate as anything else I have seen. Let’s face it, the issue is way too political for any objective analysis. The only appropriate response is to monitor the situation and to reduce obvious pollutants.

  • pmagn

    Unbelievable willful blindness. One just is completely gub-smacked at how such a promenant thinker with access to expert advice and the data on climate change can come to these conclusions. Sad.

    • Steve Eros

      Willful blindness is when you think sending money to the UN will save the planet. Willful blindness is allowing big govt to tax and spend at your detriment to save the planet. Willful blindness is believing that rising CO2 will rise temps even though it hasnt happened in 17 years.

      • pmagn

        You can clearly see why u reject science and reality of man driven climate warming from ur first sentence. You are hooked on the fact that it’s going to have to be a commons solution and u can’t bear it so u ignore the blatant science and extreme weather occurrences. Sad.

        • OraEtLabora

          I can clearly see that you reject correct spelling and punctuation but confess to being perplexed as to why; and I am mystified why you labour under the impression that such misspelled and poorly punctuated posts affords your opinions any credibility.

          • paradise 33

            only a poster with a latin name could be so pompously offended by the use of non-standard english 🙂 also, spot the error in the second part of thine sentence…

          • OraEtLabora

            Have you heard of capitalisation?

          • paradise 33

            isn’t that the opposite of communisation?

          • OraEtLabora

            Well done, paradise: a sense of humour. See, we can have a bit of a laugh after all. You know, paradise, if we all stopped demonising the other side, we just might be able to agree some acceptable compromises and leave this world a little bit better for our having been here (to paraphrase Col. T. Collins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3562917/Colonel-Tim-Collins-Iraq-war-speech-in-full.html ). We could even learn something from each other.

          • paradise 33

            I’ll drink to that, Sir! (Caps – yay!)

            Tim Collins’ speech was an excellent piece of oratory, but a bit ironic, though, given the history of Britain’s highly duplicitous involvement in Iraq subsequent to the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.


      • TonyPrep

        Only 2% of the energy trapped by greenhouse gases ends up in the atmosphere. The earth, as a whole, has not stopped warming over the last 15 years (or 17, if you like). If anything, it has accelerated slightly when all the heat is taken into account (including the oceans, which absorb more than 90% of the heat). That CO2 traps heat is very well understood. That the energy radiated into space is less than the energy received from the sun is very well understood. There is still a large energy imbalance, so the atmosphere will keep warming until balance is re-established.

        By the way, in terms of surface temperatures only, the decade of the 2000s was significantly warmer, on average, than the decade of the 1990s, which, itself, was significantly warmer than the decade of the 1980s. So, on a decadal basis, even surface temperatures have continued to increase despite the so-called hiatus.

      • Augustus

        A few hundred ppm CO2 in our atmosphere is completely insignificant. Our climate has had much higher temperatures and levels of CO2 than we now experience. Plants and animals, flora and fauna, love heat and CO2. Climate change fanatics always seem to avoid admitting that all that dirty CO2 from oil and coal emissions came from the lush vegetation during the prehistoric periods millions of years ago when the Earth’s CO2 levels were much higher than now, and which, conveniently for us, became stratified and produced all those coal, oil and gas deposits.

    • OraEtLabora

      What on earth is ‘gub-smacked’?
      * prominent

  • cwon1

    This is how the jackboot Greenshirt left is promoting “Climate Change”;


    It really is getting to Soviet levels of “science” and political correctness. Green activists should be ashamed but few are in fact.

  • DannyE

    Of the 89 forecasting predictions posited by the IPCC 72 violate the basic principles of forecasting. AGW is not science, its a belief system unsupported by any factual basis.

    • TonyPrep

      Ah, so Matt Ridley is wrong and there will be no net benefits to be had? Shame, I was looking forward to becoming rich over the next 70 years, even if things fall apart after that (economically speaking, of course – who cares about other species).

      • DannyE

        Keep believing the lies,,,it will make your unexamined life feel like its fulfilled. And its doubly funny that you have no real critique based on science, confirming the articles’ conclusions…lol

        • TonyPrep

          Are you saying that Matt Ridley is wrong to accept global warming? Perhaps you should direct your comments at him. He is the one suggesting that global warming will be a good thing for all of us (at least for most alive today) and, therefore, accepting that global warming is real.

          By the way, Skeptical Science picked up the argument that AGW isn’t so bad, a while ago. They usually base their articles on science, so take a look.

          • DannyE

            AGW is not science, its a fantasy land belief system cobbled together to control. Of the 89 forecasting principles used in the IPCC report, the ipcc violates 72 to arrive at their specious conclusions.

            You are not scientific when you fail to follow the basic principles.

          • TonyPrep

            I’m still not sure why you’re directing your tirade at me. You should be complaining to Matt Ridley to ignore the science of climate change, because it’s bunkum (according to you). However, you should be made aware that the IPCC do not conduct science. If you want to read the actual science, and make your own mind up, much of it is easily accessible.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            The “actual science” is paid for by political forces with a predetermined agenda. The IPCC wasn’t created as a scientific organization investigating climate change. The IPCC was created by political forces, for political purposes, and it has never examined whether AGW is real. It simply attributes normal climate change to human forces, in the hopes of initiating further methods of social control…

          • Gerry Gagnon

            Ridley didn’t say AGW was happening — he said that climate change was happening — you know, that natural process that happens to be warming when you’re in an interglacial…

          • TonyPrep

            Check the article. He talks about warming being beneficial, up to 2.2C. So I guess you are saying that Ridley thinks the warming is just happening – that is, it doesn’t have a cause? Actually, warming has to have a cause, otherwise it doesn’t happen. The trend was actually cooling until maybe 150 years ago. Human caused greenhouse gases actually provide a pretty clear explanation for the cause of warming, which seems reasonable, given that greenhouse gases have been shown to trap heat and humans having been increasing the concentrations of them in the atmosphere.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            Then how do you explain the similar warming from the first half of the 20th century? Warmist scientists admit that it was due to natural causes. It is far more likely that we are seeing natural cycles: the 20th century started with around 30-40 years of warming; then, 30-40 years of cooling, that led to the mid-70s fears of ‘global cooling’; then the warming that caused the current hysteria; and now, 17 years of stable-to-cooling world temperatures…

          • TonyPrep

            There weren’t really fears of global cooling, if you look at scientific papers. Of course, there have been slow downs over the last 150 years but the trend was up. The latest IPCC summary of the science includes the high confidence statement that all (yes, “all”) of the warming since 1950 appears to be the result of human activities (“The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”). Now you can choose to ignore that or not but it doesn’t change the science. Unfortunately, opinions don’t alter reality, which is best determined by the scientific method.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            I said: “Then how do you explain the similar warming from the first half of the 20th century?” Well?

            As far as the general trend being up, well… of course. As i said in my first comment on this page, we are in an interglacial and the overall trend should be up…

          • TonyPrep

            Gerry, if you’re really interested in the factors affecting early 20th century warming, take a look at some of the latest thinking:


            Regarding interglacial warming, that already happened at the start of the Holocene, about 12,000 years ago, which was the warmest part of that epoch (which is this epoch). Temperature had been generally decreasing since then but has now returned to match that time. Human induced forcings can explain the recent warming (since 1950) completely. If you have another explanation, then please provide a link to the cause of the warming (just saying it’s an interglacial doesn’t provide a cause).

          • TonyPrep

            The trend was up, near the start of this epoch, the Holocene. Since then (about 10,000 years ago) the trend was down, until greenhouse gases got underway. Research into the early 20th century warming is still being done but the science is clear that GHGs are causing warming due to the energy imbalance they cause (this has been measured). Unless you can come up with a cause for what you regard as normal interglacial warming (which usually stops, by the way, and did, until we started burning large amounts of fossil fuels), then why not go with the causes that science has determined: human caused greenhouse gas emissions.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            Could you please link these studies that claim EARLY 20th century warming was human-caused.

          • TonyPrep

            Gerry, I didn’t claim that early 20th century warming was caused only by humans, though it certainly played a part. I said that humans are causing warming due to their activities which result in an energy imbalance. This has become particularly noticeable since the 70s. This doesn’t mean that there won’t be noticeable effects of natural causes, from time to time, but human caused warming is currently swamping other causes and probable will for the foreseeable future.

            Here are a couple of links that talk about the warming in the early part of the 20th century, if you’re interested:



          • TonyPrep

            Not all of my comments seem to be getting through.

            To be clear, I didn’t say that the early 20th century warming was caused totally by human behaviour. There are a number of factors but, certainly, human actions, particularly GHG emissions, are part of the cause. You can search for articles on this. I found a good one from NOAA and another from skeptical science.

            What I did say was that humans are causing warming by the release of greenhouse gases and other behaviours. That is, human caused global warming is now the dominant factor, overwhelming natural factors which tend to, at the moment, cause cooling.

          • Gerry Gagnon
          • TonyPrep

            Lomborg misrepresents the IPCC report. For example, he has the sea level rise range wrong. I’m not sure where he got his range (it doesn’t appear in either the summary or the draft WG1 document). The summary shows potential sea level rise up to 98 cm, relative to the average for 1986-2005 (which can cause confusion), but doesn’t include contributions from ice sheet loss (which has been measured to be positive), though the summary says this could be ‘several tenths of a meter’, which all adds up to maybe 1.3 meters or more. Lomborg also doesn’t mention that the IPCC report describes the potential for ocean heat uptake slowing surface warming (which later science confirms) and his article was too early to include the latest research (Cowtan and Way, 2013) which suggests that even the surface warming may not have slowed in the last 15 years, when data gaps are plugged.

            So I’m not sure why you posted Lomborg’s article, in response to my comment but Lomborg at least acknowledges that human emitted greenhouse gases causes the earth to warm, though he seems to limit the notion of warming only to surface warming, which is misleading (and, as I’ve mentioned, may not even have slowed).

      • DannyE

        I am glad those of you in the uk voted to be hamstrung by carbon taxes, it does me good to see so much wealth wasted while your energy costs go thru the roof.

  • Steve Eros

    As a 40 year old I have been told the world is dying, its only a matter of a few years and the science is settled. Acid rain was supposed to wipe out all the planets forests. DDT was poisoning the earth and its already too late. Ozone layer depletion was supposed to fry us all. I was told 30 years ago that there were only 20 years left of oil deposits. Throw in Y2K for fun and you can see why I remain optimistic that the earth is going to be fine. Global warming is just the latest enviro scam.

    • Jesse4

      Doesn’t sound like you listen very well.

    • pmagn

      Why don’t u find out for ur self the science is quite straightforward.

      • OraEtLabora

        pmagn: ‘Why don’t u find out for ur self the science is quite straightforward.
        Why don’t you learn how to write English?

        • SkyHunter

          You must be very bloated by now.

          I mean, someone as anal retentive as you is likely to have only one bowel movement a year.

          • OraEtLabora

            You are the first one to mention the subject, rather suggesting you to be the anal retentive personality; another example of liberal projection?

            I simply suggest that it indicates a minimal maturity to attempt to write with reasonably correct spelling and punctuation.

          • SkyHunter

            You patrol the comment section criticizing people for the way they use the english language… and then have the audacity to say that your anal retentive behavior is psychological projection….

            How funny.

          • OraEtLabora

            Out of 131 comments a mere four exclusively criticise someone for their poor spelling or punctuation; a fith includes corrections en passant—’tis but a wind-up, and only applied to especially ludicrous posts. I am interested in Matt Ridley’s views (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/biography ) on this complex subject, and was disappointed at the sorry nature of the comments disagreeing with him; such as IanB’s ‘What a whistling in the dark tosspot of an article. … Dumbasses.’ and, of course, pmagn’s execrable efforts that I responded to.

            You could have taken it in good form, and even showed a sense a humour by using his ‘gub-smacked’ to point to a Woody Allen scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UHOgkDbVqc . You might have at least realised that pmagn’s barely literate abuse and condescension was not a good advertisement for your cause. Instead, you clambered aboard your liberal high horse: Hi-Yo Greener, Away.

            Incidentally, regarding ‘patrol[ling] the comment section’—what is your opinion of people who seek out publications that they never buy and whose world view they disagree with, to express their dissent on their pet subjects?

          • SkyHunter

            Anyone reading your posts can see you are anal retentive.

            Go have a nice bowel movement and flush it when you are done.

            You’ll feel better. trust me.

          • OraEtLabora

            You have a rather disgusting obsession with such matters; which fairly describes a personality stuck in the anal stage of psycho-sexual development, as defined by Freud. But to coin an Americanism: You kiss your mother with that mouth?

          • SkyHunter

            You are the one fixated on people using texting abbreviations.

            You should really take my advice and have a good BM.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            This is supposed to be an adult discussion forum. Grow up…

          • SkyHunter

            On the Spectator???

            You are kidding right?

    • Jules Bywater-lees

      Acid rain – stricter emission laws cut the export of sulphur to neighbouring countries forests.

      Ozone hole – CFCs were banned in international action, despite some familiar climate denying scientists saying it CFCs are just fine.

      DDT- did end up in the top predators causing loss of birds of prey- however it is not banned in Africa – it was overused in agriculture and lost it’s effectiveness.

      According to the IEA the peak in conventional oil production was 2006 [you may remember the financial collapse that followed oil hitting the all time high of $140 a barrel]. Peak oil is not the running out of oil, it is the production peak- production worldwide has stagnated despite $100+ oil prices.

      Y2K- sensibly most companies fixed their problems to avoid computer systems crashing.

      Science doesn’t have a political agenda – people do.

      • Steve Eros

        You are very selective in your hypothesis. At the time, we were told it would be catastrophic. The very existence of life on earth was in peril. DDT ended up being harmless yet because of environmentalists, millions of people needlessly died of malaria. The ozone layer was never at risk and we have discovered more oil now than ever before. All of the above causes were political. None of them were based on fact.

        • Jules Bywater-lees

          You could visit an independent web site with a few facts- if you bothered to check you would find DDT is not banned in Africa. It is still used to treat buildings but it was overused by farmers and the insects developed resistance.

          I dare you to actually do some research and not from a AGW denier blog.

          And more oil! Yes there is more oil than ever and no one is going to stop you driving around ever [sarc]- I wonder why oil is now 3 times more expensive than historic average and production has stagnated.

          • Gerry Gagnon

            “In 1972, the year of the famous “Limits to Growth” report by the Club of Rome, the world produced about 55 million barrels of oil per day. In 2011, the world produced almost 80 million barrels.”

      • Morgan Wright

        Politicians have a political agenda, which is to hire scientists to lie for them and fabricate this contrived AGW bullshizzle.

        • Jules Bywater-lees

          Yes, you have seen through the hoax- it is a scam to impose the NWO- careful now, they now know you know.

      • Gerry Gagnon

        “In 1956, geologist M. King
        Hubbert at Shell Oil Company (and later at the U.S. Geological Survey)
        predicted that oil production in the lower 48 U.S. states would peak
        sometime around 1970…

        “When Hubbert turned his sights to global oil production in 1974, his
        report was equally disturbing, especially in light of the OPEC oil
        embargo: He predicted that the world’s peak oil production would occur
        in 1995, assuming that current production and use trends continue…

        “Geoscientist Kenneth S. Deffeyes, author of “When Oil Peaked” (Hill and
        Wang, 2010), asserted that peak oil happened on Thanksgiving Day 2005.
        Meanwhile, petroleum geologist Colin Campbell, a founder of the
        ‘Association for the Study of Peak Oil’ (ASPO), once estimated that peak
        oil had occurred around 2010, but his views have shifted somewhat as
        new data have become available…

        “…an August 2013 statement from the EIA, “Proved oil reserves …
        increased by 15 percent in 2011 to 29 billion barrels, marking the third
        consecutive annual increase and the highest volume of proved reserves
        since 1985…

        “In a much-quoted (and much-criticized) report from 2006, Cambridge
        Energy Research Associates (CERA) presented an analysis that found 3.74
        trillion barrels of oil available — far more than the 1.2 trillion
        barrels estimated by some earlier analyses.

        “Their research suggested that oil production won’t simply reach a peak,
        followed by a precipitous decline. Instead, “global production will
        eventually follow an ‘undulating plateau’ for one or more decades before
        declining slowly.”

        “From their research, CERA also determined that “the global production
        profile will not be a simple logistic or bell curve postulated by
        geologist M. King Hubbert, but it will be asymmetrical — with the slope
        of decline more gradual … it will be an undulating plateau that may well
        last for decades.”




        Washington (CNN) — “Remember “peak oil”?

        “Five years ago, some oil market speculators became convinced that the
        world was nearing the limits of oil production. Sometime soon — the
        2010s? the 2020s? — oil production would begin a long steady decline.

        “Think again. World oil production continues to rise. Leading the oil
        renaissance: the United States. The International Energy Agency predicts
        that the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become
        (again!) the world’s leading oil producer by 2017. If the agency’s
        estimates prove correct, the United States and Canada together will
        become net energy exporters by about 2030, and the U.S., which uses 20%
        of the world’s energy, will achieve energy self-sufficiency by the

        “Predictions that the world would imminently “run out of oil” have been worrying oil consumers since at least the 1920s…

        “In 1972, the year of the famous “Limits to Growth” report by the Club
        of Rome, the world produced about 55 million barrels of oil per day. In
        2011, the world produced almost 80 million barrels. If today’s prices
        hold, many experts expect production of 90 million barrels by decade’s

        Our oil problem is not that “we’re running out.”


  • Paul.NZ

    Ridley begins with the bald assertion that, “Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion.”

    And what evidence of this supposed “consensus of expert opinion” does he offer? In an article of twenty-one paragraphs, he devotes the first ten to a discussion of the views of Professor Richard Tol. So by about halfway, we have a “consensus of expert opinion” in the form of a sympathetic presentation of the views of one man! Putting all your eggs in one basket like this is a very weak strategy.

    But lo, help is at hand! Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University is pulled out of the hat to ‘prove’ that the world is getting greener. We are told glibly by Ridley, that Myneni’s research shows that, “This [greening] translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.” This focus on an “increase in productivity” has the whiff of an agricultural survey about it. It may well be true of ‘vegetative productivity’ measured in conventional economic terms, but what about all the greenery that is not measured this way? For example, is the fact that the Amazon basin is swinging from being a carbon sink (probably the most important one on the planet) to a carbon source not worth considering? Clearly its percentage increase [or decrease] in ecosystem ‘productivity’, being a non-agricultural entity, may not be included in Dr Mynen’s calcs, but this is not discussed.

    Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia are then quoted to extend this somewhat shaky argument. Their satellite data shows that “Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.” But what is ‘especially pronounced’? There is a big carbon-consequential difference between grasslands and forests, but this is not mentioned. Are the African nomads settling down to be foresters and saw millers, or are their herds just mowing more grass?

    A quaint discussion of death rates follows with reference to “the independent scholar Indur Goklany” who “estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death.” OK, a 5 percent drop in food production kills 200,000 people p.a., but why can such a food shortage not be linked to the large and growing impact of the weather being three standard deviations outside the norm just about everywhere, and thus causing an overall shortfall in food supply?

    The answer, of course, is that Ridley’s prime assertion is that “Climate change has done more good than harm, etc. etc.” and once you adopt such a [quasi-religious] stance – largely propped up by a “consensus of expert opinion” with one hand-picked man! – you are obliged, like any acolyte, to follow the very selective reasoning of your in-group. A 5 percent food shortfall could well be ascribed to vermin, insect pests, or wasteful consumers or, of course, the real worry, the changing climate: but, no, Ridley remains blind to all this and in true blinkered fashion, only bellyaches about his hobby horse: biofuels! This arbitrary non sequitur neatly reflects the fact that, throughout the entire article, he avoids all rational discussion of the elephant in the room: the real science or climate change. One can only ask: if climate change has done more good than harm, why is our food supply so precarious?

    Ridley is indulging in argument by distraction. The supporting arguments used in such cases are not necessarily invalid [I agree with him on biofuels], they are just so selective as to be silly. The Titanic sank because it took on too much water. That argument is valid. One cannot disagree with it, but everyone knows the real problem on the day was the iceberg.

    The only sensible response to any argument by distraction, which is, by definition, invalid overall, is: come off the grass, mate: pull the other leg, it plays rock and roll!

  • c777

    The real inconveinient truth.

    Global warming just isn’t happening.
    Models used to scare the uneducated into compliance vs observed data.


    Its state sponsored junk science, lysenkoism.


    In a way I don’t care really if people are stupid enough to fall for it and do nothing about it then they have no excuse for the drop in living standards they are going to experience.
    I burn wood, I cut and collect it myself so my energy bills are low.
    But I do care because if there’s one thing that gets me angry its liars and crooks getting away with it.

  • Jules Bywater-lees

    Matt Ridley shows himself up as a denier of science of AGW and does the usual trick of selective cherry-picking. Tol [who likes to set himself as genuine sceptic as he accepts AGW] has been misquoted by Ridley- the paper is available to download [it also focuses on 90s papers as well as one from Tol himself].


    The quantity and intensity of the research effort on the economic effects of
    climate change seems incommensurate with the perceived size of the climate
    problem, the expected costs of the solution, and the size of the existing research
    gaps. Politicians are proposing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on green-
    house gas emission reduction, and at present, economists cannot say with confi-
    dence whether this investment is too much or too little.
    The best available knowledge—which is not very good—is given in Table 2. A
    government that uses the same 3 percent discount rate for climate change as for
    other decisions should levy a carbon tax of $25 per metric ton of carbon (modal
    value) to $50/tC (mean value). A higher tax can be justified by an appeal to the
    high level of risk, especially of very negative outcomes, not captured in the standard
    estimates (Weitzman, forthcoming). The price of carbon dioxide emission permits
    in the European Union was $78/tC in January 2009. The United States has no
    federal policy specifically to reduce carbon emissions, although many utilities
    apparently factor in the likelihood of a carbon tax of $15/tC in their investment
    decisions (Richels, personal communication). This pattern suggests that the Euro-
    pean Union may be placing too high a price on carbon emissions, while the United
    States is placing too low a price on such emissions. Outside the high-income
    countries of the world, essentially no climate policy exists—although these coun-
    tries are most vulnerable to climate change, and some of them like China and India
    are major emitters of carbon. Many of these countries subsidize fossil fuel use,
    rather than taxing it.
    There is a strong case for near-term action on climate change, although
    prudence may dictate phasing in a higher cost of carbon over time, both to ease the transition and to give analysts the ongoing ability to evaluate costs, benefits, and policy mechanisms.

    • Morgan Wright

      So basically you are all about taxing and redistributing the wealth of these evil corporations that made everything you own and where most of the people work, and using the IPCC for fining the rich countries and distributing it to the poor ones. That makes you a communist. Using the environment and a fabricated global warming threat to run your commie manifesto. Ughghgh. How disgusting.

      • Jules Bywater-lees

        I presume you are aiming your disgust at Matt Ridley and Richard Tol- I have simply reprinted his conclusions of a paper Ridley offers up as proof global warming is good.

        As for commie manifesto- what about the capitalist manifesto- you know, the one where the banks rip us off and then get the tax payer to bail them out and then the 0.01% take all that money and spend it on themselves.

        As for communism- it is just state run capitalism.

        • Gerry Gagnon

          “As for communism- it is just state run capitalism.”

          Such a simple little statement, containing unbounded ignorance…

  • Martin_Kinsella


  • Eamonn McKeown

    silly billy argument. why would we want climate change to have a positive benefit for humans – we’re the problem, after all, duh!

  • Morgan Wright
  • Rilman

    There’s just so many taxes and so much money involved, while other countries are taking our manufacturing because of power prices here, whilst still building coal power stations, even in Germany…My Spidey bulls#it senses are tingling….

  • Christopher Woolmer

    At least Matt Ridley admits that global warming is real. However he is a well know climate misinformer. His arguments are dealt with here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Matt_Ridley.htm

    • Augustus

      Talking about climate misinformation, why does the IPCC keep saying that water vapour from greenhouse gases raises ocean temperatures and sea levels causing adverse effects on the climate? This is turning facts on their head. A warmer atmosphere can’t heat the oceans. it’s the oceans which warm the atmosphere, and not the other way around. Both the thermal heat of the atmosphere, as well as radiation, are completely absorbed by evaporation at sea level. Of course, global warming is unsaleable without such falsehoods.

      • Rob Woolmer

        Augustus – I wonder who is the misinformed one here?

        Have you actually read anything the IPCC has published? I suspect you have been reading quotes out of context. Well
        I’ll help you point in the right direction by suggesting you read this http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf
        to start with. I think you’ll find it’s you who is turning the facts on their head. Why do you doubt hundreds (if not thousands) of expert scientists with solid peer reviewed, multiple lines of independent evidence – and you trust who’s exactly? Your own? Please feel free to offer the evidence (peer reviewed I hope), I would be fascinated to read it.

        As regards water vapour, it most certainly is the most dominant greenhouse gas. What your climate change denial information
        doesn’t mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

        The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct
        relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. This additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

        You state ‘A warmer atmosphere can’t heat the oceans’ In
        the latest IPCC report it states ‘The report finds with high confidence that ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010’

        To understand how the oceans are being heated more fully see
        here http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

        • Augustus

          “In physics and chemistry, especially in thermodynamics, heat is energy in transfer between a system and its surroundings other than by work or transfer of matter. The transfer can occur in two simple ways, conduction, and radiation, and in a more complicated way called convective circulation. Heat is not a property or component or constituent of a body itself. Heat refers only to a process of transfer of energy.”

          Wikipedia also mentions that heat takes place between systems that are not in thermal equilibrium, i.e. have differing temperatures. So if the Earth’s surface sends up radiation of 15 ° C and gets some of this radiation back again, there would be no workable temperature difference (more likely a negative one) to transfer heat to the surface. This is covered by the second law of thermodynamics, and thus completely destroys the myth of the greenhouse effect.

        • Augustus

          “The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt.”
          So where does the energy come from that is absorbed in the oceans? Purely from the Sun. From sunlight reaching the surface (say on the Equator) how much is reflected back, and how much reaches down and is converted into heat? also how much of this energy escapes to the surface by water evaporation? Water evaporation can only depend on the water temperature independently of the temperature of the atmosphere. In addition to the evaporation, the temperature also depends on various substance properties, air pressure, flow rates and convection (basically gravity). But to say that an increase in greenhouse CO2 warms the oceans is simply an AGW myth.The long-wave infrared radiation of the atmosphere simply hasn’t the energy to do that. With a wavelength of a fraction of a milimeter the only thing that infrared radiation can do is to help water evaporate.

          • Christopher Woolmer

            Dear Augustus, To help your understanding of the effects of CO2 I include a link that shows how satellites have measured the outbound radiation from the earth, from 1970 – 1996 “This time, we see that during the period when temperatures increased the most, emissions of upward radiation have decreased through radiative trapping at exactly the same wavenumbers as they increased for downward radiation. The same greenhouse gases are identified: CO2, methane, ozone etc. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm As for the basics of heat flow you should find this informative: http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html

          • Augustus

            “Satellites have recorded the Earth’s outbound radiation. We can examine the spectrum of upward long-wave radiation in 1970 and 1997 to see if there are changes.”

            I understand from Wikipedia that: “Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.”

            But now research has revealed that data from the SORCE satellite (2003, USD100 million) measurements of solar energy can no longer be used because there was conflicting data coming out due to sensor degradation. (Between 2004 and 2008 there was an increase in visible and infrared light, whilst at the same time the total solar radiation measured declined. And UV light apparently rose by between 3 to 10 times).

            And this from a report on space-based measurements of total solar irradiance:

            “Once on orbit, radiometric calibrations drift for multiple reasons including solar degradation of the absorptive cavity’s interior surfaces, electronic degradation affecting the measured heater power, surface degradation of the precision aperture, and varying surface emissions and temperatures that alter instrument thermal backgrounds.”

            But, no doubt, you will continue to believe that the 1970 -1997 data is set in stone, and is indicative of real and accurate terrestrial behaviour.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus – Your earlier response was quoting a closed system. Our planet is not a closed system. But sometimes I wonder why we bother with listening all these so called scientists? I mean when we’ve got Wikipedia to refer to for nice scientific sounding stuff (that turns out to be unrelated anyway, but hey – whatever!). Yes, lets ignore what hundreds of top scientists have worked on for many years, painstakingly publishing papers, getting them scrupulously peer reviewed etc. and instead reply on our own gut instincts and google some Wiki science that sounds cool and makes it seem we know something about science. Maybe though, just maybe as climate science is very complicated we should leave it to the experts in the field – they’ve already agreed (97%) on a consensus of opinion (that’s good by the way – in fact it doesn’t really get much better).

            One of your other responses was correct up to a
            point. Yes the energy comes from the sun. I don’t think I ever suggested that the atmosphere is solely responsible for heating the ocean! I think you were the one who said that. Again I implore you to read the peer reviewed science on how the ocean’s are warming – and they are. It is an energy imbalance that is being put off balance by CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
            The great thing about a relying on a site like http://www.Skepticalscience.com for good quality information is that every point it makes can be 100% backed up
            by good quality peer reviewed science. You can click on the references and see the original science papers. It puts you directly in touch with the experts in the field WHO KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. Where is your peer reviewed science? And I’m not interested in Wikipedia links.

          • Augustus

            Firstly, I don’t think anyone, scientist or otherwise, is too formidable to consult an encyclopedia from time to time. But anyway, didn’t the Met Office recently revise down its prediction for temperature changes for the immediate future? And if we are to go through a period of the next dozen years or so without global warming, despite a possible strong increase of CO2, doesn’t it mean that CO2’s role as driver of the climate’s change has now been made virtually redundant? Climate change is basically a phenomenon of natural variability. The science may be ‘very complicated’, but its mysteries won’t be made clearer by dogmatic fixation on fringe phenomena.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, Firstly, I agree that we should all be able to consult an encyclopaedia – I do all the time. However, as an analogy – would you try on your own to refute say the theory of quantum mechanics (and all the thousands
            of scientists involved) and declaring them and their theory as totally wrong due to your personal research on the internet and finding an irrelevant Wikipedia entry? I would hope not, but the analogy is fair.

            But anyway, the MET office. Yes they slightly revised their
            predictions. Does this mean global warming has stopped? NO – see here http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/why-the-met-office%E2%80%99s-revised-forecast-still-doesn%E2%80%99t-show-global-warming-has-stopped/

            You misunderstand the difference between air temps and global trends. Air temps are indeed undergoing a very slight slowing period at the moment – however, global warming is not. See here to see how ocean temps (and
            therefore global warming) have continued to rise since 1998 http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm CO2’s role in global warming has therefore NOT been made redundant.

            You are correct that there is natural variability – BUT there is still a clear upward trend in global temps. And remember that this evidence is very robust, sourced from multiple independent lines and peer reviewed in reputable journals. The only people dogmatically fixated on fringe phenomena that I’ve come across are the climate deniers. Scientists use all of the available data to see the underlying trends, deniers however love to cherrypick the data and see only the fringe phenomena that bolsters their viewpoint. See here http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking-guide.html

          • Augustus

            As we’re back to discussing air temperatures I fear we may be going round in circles a bit. Take the AGW’s warnings that higher temperatures in the atmosphere are creating faster reductions of sea ice and thus an indication of global warming, resulting in all those doom scenarios of rising sea levels in the northern hemisphere (London being moved inland, Holland practically disappearing etc.). But polar ice keeps the layer of air above it continuously at 0 degrees, so the atmosphere itself doesn’t gets a chance to heat the ice. Water, on the other hand, both at the edge and below the ice, will certainly melt ice because of its much larger mass, and its larger heat capacity and conductivity than that of air. The degree of melting depending on the degree of flow. And polar ice that changes to a liquid phase requires a vast amount of energy to do so. In order for the atmosphere to melt one kilo of ice, it would need no less than 260,000 litres of air at 1 C to cool down to zero. Thereafter this huge air mass would have exhausted its effect, with only continuous giant warm air movements able to help the melting process along. Warm air is lighter than cold air that’s just above the ice, so cannot reach the ice without the additional help of turbulent forces. So now the reverse becomes true, gravity prevents the heat transfer through warmer lighter air to the ice. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how warm the atmosphere further above the surface layer is, higher temperatures of the surrounding atmosphere have no effect on the ice. The only possibility is that the air layers can exchange heat through conduction, but air is an extremely lousy conductor and a better insulator (think of double glazing). And so one can only conclude the exact opposite of the AGW line; that the atmospheric cold air above polar ice is an insulator which prevents the melting of the ice by the atmosphere, and that higher global temperatures can’t exercise any influence on polar ice.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, show me where IPCC or any (real) climate scientist or peer reviewed paper has stated that the only way for ice or the oceans to heat up is via conductance with the atmosphere? The only people who you hear that from are the climate deniers. Go directly to the (real) scientific sources and you’ll find something different. You started well actually by correctly stating how water:-

            “both at the edge and below the ice, will certainly melt ice because of its much larger mass, and its larger heat capacity and conductivity than that of air. The degree of melting depending on the degree of flow. And polar ice that changes to a liquid phase requires a vast amount of energy to do so”.

            Great I thought – you’re going to tell me correctly how glaciers shrink – then go on to explain how difficult it would be for air to melt them – which it would be. Oh dear! No scientist thinks air melts them – how misinformed you are! You nicely informed me of how much energy it takes for air to heat the ice etc. but it’s irrelevant! Scientists already know how glaciers shrink. Antarctica is losing ice because its glaciers are speeding up. This is due to melt water lubricating the base of the glaciers and the removal of ice shelves which act as a “speed bump” slowing the glacier flow. The ice shelves are thinning due to warming ocean waters. The science of this process is well understood, thus – http://www.skepticalscience.com/Antarctica-absolute-temperatures-too-cold-ice-loss.htm
            Now I think I have an idea what your next response would be – “how then could the atmosphere heat the oceans then?” Well, it doesn’t! Basically it’s all about the energy in / energy out imbalance. Although my brother sent you something on this it’s worth going over this again so that maybe we wont have to go round in circles again!

            First though let me just put my white coat on…. Hang on…here comes the sciency bit…

            So first of all in comes solar radiation – the atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance. If the oceans are warming up (which they are), this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because they understand the energy balance of our Earth, they also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century, see http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/spm2.jpg

            So how do we know that the oceans are warming? There are hundreds of papers (as usual through multiple lines of independent peer reviewed i.e. GOOD science) confirming this and the evidence CLEARLY shows that ocean temps are rising in recent years. Also the NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the oceans – http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ As
            an example watch this video from NOAA -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs Rather interestingly it shows how ocean sediment records plot ocean temperature changes accurately up to thousands of years into the past. It is also a great way to show how these records correlate independently with atmospheric records from 130 years ago – meaning we can trust those air temp record keepers from 1880.

            If the greenhouse effect or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case. The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years. Maybe that energy might fit your requirement of “And polar ice that changes to a liquid phase requires a vast amount of energy to do so”.

            So perhaps you might also now start to realise that a short term drop in air temps doesn’t mean that global warming stops! If there’s too much CO2 there will still be an imbalance in the system and heat will continue to get stored in the oceans.

          • Augustus

            In 2007 the North Polar ice cap was at a minimum due to the sea water being 0.7C degrees warmer than average. If that 0.7C had had to have been extracted from the atmosphere less ice would have melted due to the increase in energy required to do so. Increased melting of ice usually lowers water temperature, that’s why (some) people like to have drinks on the rocks.

            Btw, you might be interested in this link on the Atlantic Ocean’s influence on a shift in European climate in the 1990s. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n11/full/ngeo1595.html

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, erm…not quite sure what point your making here. I’m having difficulty understanding you. Are you turning from the dark side perhaps and informing me of something that confirms what we’ve been telling you? 🙂 Or is it that you think we still believe that it’s the atmosphere that warms the ice / oceans? 🙁 If it’s the former then great (please correct me if I’m wrong). If it’s the latter, then I would urge you please to re-read my previous post – only more carefully.

            Nice link btw, from a very reputable journal. Interesting, but I’m not sure how relevant it is in a global context.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, one more thing, I’ve come across a great link direct from the IPCC – you remember, those guys you were initially criticising by saying:- “Talking about climate misinformation, why does the IPCC keep saying that water vapour from greenhouse gases raises ocean temperatures and sea levels causing adverse effects on the climate? This is turning facts on their head. A warmer atmosphere can’t heat the oceans.”


            Well surprise surprise, they don’t say anything remotely like that and never did. You said it. Simples. In this link the IPCC explains in detail exactly how the whole climate system works (much better than I ever could). I recommend you read it.

          • Augustus

            Thanks for the link. Whilst I do appreciate the trouble you have taken in your replies to me, I am still bound to challenge the way IPCC was so certain that rising CO2 levels would inevitably result in significant annual rising temperature levels. Simply put, things have not turned out to be as bad as predicted. Surely, if CO2 levels had risen as IPCC predicted in their various reports, then average temperature levels, should either have followed their predictions, or been even higher? But, as far as I can gather, the average temperature level seems to have peaked in about 1997. And if you look at the CO2 concentration curves (1990 to the present in ppm)) and compare it with the temperature anomaly curve of the same timescale, one can see that there is no direct relationship between the two observations on an annual basis. So, for us realists, increased global warming predictions are in tatters, all the warmists out there will just have to wait (until around 2100 perhaps?) to see their predictions for today come true.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, IPCC and others predictions have in fact been very accurate. It is normal to fine tune future predictions as they are bracketed to highest and lowest extremes. If you were trying to give a prediction according to evidence you might for instance give a high of 5 and a low of 2. It would be worrying if science could exactly predict the exact number every time! They gradually get fine tuned – that is how predictions work. It’s not easy either as there are things that can’t always be predicted like the sun, volcanoes etc. If you had REALLY looked at IPCC or other good science reports then you would realise that the real data shows the trends follow very accurately what was predicted! http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

            If on the other hand you get your information from the popular media then it’s a different story. So for example the recently mentioned MET Office data was revised down, then the Telegraph proclaimed “global warming will have stalled in the intervening two-decade period”. The Times and the Daily Mail then took a similar stance. The actual prediction figures were altered to be predicated cooler by 0.1 degrees C by 2016 than they were originally predicted to be by that date back in 2007. Bet you didn’t know that!

            It is yet another example of climate denial ‘cherrypicking’. “Look, you changed your prediction” (even though that ‘change’ is only tiny and expected) – “therefore how can we trust your science”.

            Sometimes it the other way round (and I bet you climate deniers probably don’t know this) as many IPCC predictions turn out to be too low. For instance sea level rise is actually faster than IPCC predicted. Same goes for Artic sea ice which is melting faster than expected. However, this doesn’t mean the predictions are null and void. The important thing is to see the underlying trends. And that’s exactly what IPCC is good at doing. ‘Models don’t need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects – and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you’d be in a car crash, you wouldn’t get in the car (or at the very least, you’d wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible.’

            I would be interested to know where you get your data on CO2? What source or science paper are you referring to when you talking about concentration curves. Give me the links, then I’ll give it more credence. That goes for any other claims you make. I’m not interested in how things ‘seem to you’ or how ‘as far as you can gather’ – gather from what? All I can summarise from that is that you are either misinformed, getting your information from pseudoscientific means, dubious media reports or possibly simply not understanding the science. Supply me with the links to the source of your data (like the real science does).

            Are you really willing to change your mind at all? I certainly am – if there is a preponderance of evidence. Unfortunately, the preponderance of evidence is most certainly telling us that the world is warming. As for us warmists’ in 2100. If the world is fine I will certainly be the first to be very thankful that science predictions were wrong. On the other hand, if predictions are correct (more likely), we will all be very sorry. It is acceptable though to play dice with our children’s future? What would they say of us? We knew the dangers but gambled that we’d be fine despite overwhelming evidence. They will rightly be very angry – with you guys anyway…

          • Rob Woolmer

            And another thing – just in case you want to start claiming the word has been cooling since 1998 (It hasn’t). Quite apart from all the evidence that the oceans etc. are still warming this claim that the temps are cooling since 1998 is incorrect.

            In order to see what I mean first of all you’ll need to bring this page up http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-basic.htm
            in another tab. Scrolling sown to the first diagram (figure 1) you will see averaged temp charts from 1979 – 2009 without any trend lines. Figure 2 is a black and white version with the highlighted area showing the part that the climate deniers will show you (or the out of context ‘cherrypicked data’) with the orange line showing how easy it is to make it seem like the temps are falling (which is only true in the short term). Figure 3 shows the original diagram with the brown ‘trend’ (the important bit) line showing how temps are in fact increasing in the long term. Tell me, have you ever seen that 1979 – 2009 temp chart in full before? I’d wager a bet that you haven’t. If you still think that temps are stagnant or falling since 1998 after looking at good evidence to the contrary – then clearly you will never change your mind.

            It is not the IPCC who are misleading, distorting scientific
            reports. Hopefully you will see that the exact opposite is in fact the case.

          • Augustus

            The issue I always have with ‘alarmists’ and their models is when they say things like “With carbon dioxide in the atmosphere approaching alarming levels, even halting emissions altogether may not be enough to avert catastrophic climate change”, or “”It will take centuries for the global climate system to stabilise”, or “A group of international climate scientists have written an open letter calling on participants of December’s Conference (2009) of the parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to acknowledge the need to limit cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide so as to avoid dangerous climate change”. And yet from the same archives (Science Daily) one reads “Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them, according to a surprising new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder. The study (Aug. 2012) led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate.”

            Is there really such a thing as a 100% climate scientist? Or is he/she just a physicist? Many self-proclaimed climate specialists have often graduated in inadequate or relevant fields of study, and many have never even followed some study in the natural sciences and can therefore never fully comprehend the underlying matter (Al Gore included). Their judgments, predictions and contributions can only come through their limited capabilities to understand all the necessary scientific matter. Since they possess only inadequate knowledge it will be impossible for them to cover the innumerable mechanisms that contribute to the climate in a proper way in order to interpret a proper assessment with regard to the numerous aspects that must come into play. Therefore they can only interpret perceptions of a group of which they are part, and the gospel of which they have to accept as established fact. And it is this group’s basic dogma only (often political) which they and their funding are duty bound to uphold, from which they must never deviate, and about which it becomes impossible to be scientifically fully objective.

          • Rob Woolmer

            Augustus, Not sure what point you’re making in your first paragraph. If you had good evidence that something was going to be very bad for this planet – wouldn’t you try to do something about it? Seems reasonable to me.

            Thank you for mentioning some science that I can look up. The study by Ashley Ballantyne is interesting. http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/08/01/earth-still-absorbing-co2-even-emissions-rise-says-new-cu-led-study
            So what is it that you are trying to say here? Carbon sinks are not new and are certainly included in modelling. But I can’t work out whether you are trying to use this study to back your point of view or to agree with me! Have you actually read the whole thing?!! Try now from the link I’ve provided and pay particular attention to what Ashley Ballantyne says regarding when carbon sinks become carbon sources and the rest. When you read the whole thing one thing becomes blatantly clear – that study doesn’t exactly prop up your point of view very well!

            Second paragraph – Is there such a thing as a 100% climate scientist? Probably not – I don’t know. But that’s not how IPCC or others necessarily do business. They receive studies from experts in their respective fields. Studies that deal with the oceans probably use oceanographers etc. Most studies are very specifically in their area of expertise – which sounds like a good thing too. Go back a couple of posts and watch that video of an ocean scientist guy from NOAA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRa-yvQVLrs
            – does it sound to you like he fits the description you gave? He’s an example of an excellent scientist. Only the good ones get used. Other bodies like IPCC etc. then use their data. I find it interesting how you think scientists are dogmatised and can’t deviate etc. as that’s my exact opinion of climate deniers! Good scientists always question themselves and others. They should be willing to change their opinion when good evidence is forthcoming. Are you?

            I’m sure there is poor science that does fit your description (although I thought it was a better description of a typical climate denier!). Fortunately we can be pretty sure that science published in reputable journals will have passed rigorous peer review. One of the reasons scientists are naturally sceptical of their own work is due to the peer review process. It is a filter that sorts out bad science. If scientists want any chance of getting their study published then the science they do must be extremely rigorous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed_scientific_journal
            (this is a reasonable time to quote from an encyclopaedia by the way). It’s also a good reason why not to look for science that’s NOT from a reputable journal.

          • TonyPrep

            Augustus, you’re allowed your own opinions but not your own facts. Did you know that virtually all (something like 99%) of the Greenland ice sheet surface was melting last summer? How could that be if the air above is kept at 0C?

            In fact ice sheets (not sea ice) at both poles are losing mass. That will be through melting. Much of the melt can be facilitated by surface melt forming holes directly to the bottom of the ice sheet and lubricating the sheet. It sounds incredible but has been observed as well as mathematically shown.

            Also, earlier, you said that the ocean can’t be warmed by the atmosphere, and only air temperature affects evaporation. Neither is true. Yes, the sun heats oceans directly (and the sun is a big factor in evaporation, as was seen during the flight ban after 9/11), but heat can be extracted from the air also. The oceans actually take in more than 90% of the extra heat that is currently captured by the planet (the heat that doesn’t leave the planet to equalise energy in, from the sun, and heat radiated out).

            All this stuff can be gleaned from reading the science.

          • Christopher Woolmer

            What is interesting is the relative spectrum variation, which corresponds with greenhouse gases, which is shown In the Harris 2001 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html paper. The observed changes in the spectrum from 1970 to 1996 are consistent with theoretical expectations. As the atmosphere warms, more infrared radiation is radiated to space. However, less infrared radiationescapes at CO2 wavelengths. The net effect is that less total radiation escapes out to space.

            This is independently confirmed by surface measurements which find the net result is more longwave radiation returning back to the Earth’s surface (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006). It’s also confirmed by ocean heat measurements which find the oceans have been accumulating heat since 1950 (Murphy 2009).Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
            This means that there is agreement across several methods of measurement. I am not sure how relevant your story of satellite sensor degradation between 2004-2008 is to the Harris study done which measures from 1970-1996.

        • Tom Moran

          So is there more water in the air now?

  • Rossspeak

    Only history will tell – but to counter the eco warriors and to ensure they- and their successors – cannot say they weren’t told – I hope some accredited Organisation will keep an audited record of:-
    – How much “green” policies have, are and will cost our economy
    – How many premature deaths have, are and will be caused by fuel poverty

    Should, as I expect, the answer in 50 years be we will have wasted billions of pounds and cost thousands of premature deaths – I would like to cherish a vain hope that someone will hold these sanctimonious green b******ds feet to the fire.

  • mutatron

    One researcher does not a scientific consensus make.

    • johnqp11

      Consensus is for politicians.

    • There are other kinds of climate change deniers too, for example Gustav Sporer and significantly Edward Maunder who had access to 2,400 years of data from Chinese sunspot observations. What both discovered was that when sunspot activity was low or absent, recorded instances of “little ice ages” rose. At such periods for example, a considerably more polluted river Thames than today regularly froze over leading to frost fairs being held on it.

      The eminent astronomer Sir William Herschel also conducted a survey comparing historic sunspot activity with London grain prices. He found that short supply occurred during low sunspot activity with corresponding price increases, which reversed when sunspot activity recovered. This was close to a global study as London prices reflected supply across the Empire.

      Once we know more about the sun, for example why sunspots usually have reverse polarity and why its corona at 2 million degrees is 400 times hotter than the surface; in direct contradiction to perceived scientific wisdom we might then be able to make a more informed judgement on global warming or otherwise.

  • Sir Huddleston Fuddleston

    Matt Ridley is a known climate change denier, just like Lomborg before him. Now that’s impossible to pose as a scientist and deny the fact of global warming, they’ve quietly changed their tack from “there’s no such thing as global warming” to “global warming is good for you.” They should be touting the health benefits of cigarettes any day now (“Surgeon General’s warning is a govt conspiracy!”).

    • Thomas Fuller

      You might also mention that luminaries such as Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen and Ivar Giaever share Matt Ridley’s point of view. One of them is a Nobel prize winner for physics (Giaevar) and (Dyson) another ought to be. The third (Lindzen) was merely the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT.

      There are kooks who are skeptics, just as there are knaves who are climate alarmists. Instead of pointing at the worst each side has in the field, try looking at the best.

  • mikewaller

    Will Matt Ridley never learn? He is making the same error as he made at Northern Rock. One name for it is the “it’s all right so far syndrome”, this from the joke about the guy who having fallen off a very tall building, says as he passes the first floor:”It’s all right so far”. Much as he then seems to have thought cheap credit would go on forever, he now seems to think that we can carry on “as is” right up until the point at which global warming starts to do “more harm than good”. Does not the bozo realise that putting the climate into reverse, even if possible, would make stopping a super tanker seem like hitting the pedal on a very small bag of feathers fitted with air brakes? The only possible hope of avoiding catastrophe – and unlike many on this list he does at least seem to accept that global warming is real – is to start applying the breaks decades before the break-even point is reached. Like NOW!!

  • Fact is that some interests are profiting immensely from such scams as wind and biofuels.

  • John Brookes

    Sometimes there is more than one way to do a calculation. For example, a particle’s speed at a particular place can often be calculated by conservation of energy, or by knowing its exact trajectory and the forces acting at every point on that trajectory. Both ways will give the same answer, but the trajectory method is much more difficult and prone to error.

    So it is with the effects of climate change. You can try and take into account all the changes you expect to happen, and do all the calculations, and see if there is a net benefit.

    Or you can start with the assumption that we are reasonably well adapted to the world as it is, and therefore any imposed change is likely to be negative. For example, there is an area in Western Australia known as the wheatbelt. Its where we grow wheat. Over a century of experience has taught us that other areas, though they may occasionally look attractive, won’t work out in the long term. A changing climate will change the area suitable for growing wheat. Infrastructure will become redundant in areas no longer suitable for agriculture, and new infrastructure will have to be built in areas that now become suitable for agriculture.

    Similarly for beach front property. The people who once owned prime beachfront mansions will have to abandon them as the sea encroaches, while the people a bit back will now have the expense of building mansions befitting of their newly acquired prime beachfront position.

    So put simply, I don’t trust a detailed cost/benefit analysis of global warming. It is too easy to not take everything into account. I think it is better to assume that since we are roughly adapted to the world as it is, any change is likely to be costly.

  • sandywinder

    So are you saying that it does not matter a toss what happens to the earth after 70 years? I am actually neutral on climate change, I do not take sides and so one cherry picker on one side is very much like another cherry picker on the other. Where for instance is the effect of rising sea-levels from melting ice -caps in your article, arguably the biggest threat of all? Are you going to move London twenty miles inland? Having said that I do not agree with all the insane subsidies for wind power and solar heating which is crippling not only households but businesses as well.

  • saintlaw

    Fact: 97% of internet trolls agree there is no such thing as man-made climate change.

    • Wilkins Micawber

      Fact:100% of believers in man-made climate change are chumps, suckers and gullible buffoons.

  • Dsmith

    Matt, it would be great for you to tell us what you think is going to happen after 2080 as this seems to be a short horizon (if I’m lucky I might get to see it and my children should be around to experience any changes in the climate). It seems that any changes we want to make will take some time to implement and, if I understand it correctly, there is a time-lag to any changes we make having an effect.

  • Future Grandfather

    Because, what we do today, has no direct bearing on the future. And then, in 2080, when things turn around. OOPS, we’re not prepared! Bye-bye civilization! Oh, well, they’re our children’s children, so who cares, anyway.

    • Rich Helm

      Nonsense. They can barely predict tomorrow’s weather accurately, let alone next week’s and you are foolish enough to believe they know what it will be in 70 years! Stop believing the gov’t funded junk-science FRAUD.
      Or else stop exhaling since you believe your CO2 is destroying the world.

    • silversurf

      Yup Grandad you just expressed the epitome of alarmist scare mongering

  • I like warm weather…..

  • Wilkins Micawber

    Rule of thumb, if liberal and left-wing morons believe it you know it’s nonsense.

  • GeraldWilhite

    In the Climategate e-mails, highly respected CRU researcher Phil Jones expressed his opinion about how long a global warming pause must last before it threatened to falsify the AGW hypothesis.

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005 — “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”


    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009 — ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    We are now at 17 years and 5 months without any significant increase in global warming.

    • Gerry Gagnon


    • Calvinius

      No, we are not “at 17 years and 5 months without any significant increase in global warming.”

      You refer to emails from 2005 and 2009. The warmest year in human history was 2010.

  • Warming aside, higher CO2 means better plant growth. They breathe in what we breathe out. When did this ancient knowledge fall from the mind of man?

  • Sebastian

    No mention about ocean acidification from C02 and its impact on shell fish. That problem seemed worth mentioning, if you say C02 is good for biodiversity.

    • Gerry Gagnon

      “There is not the slightest
      possibility that seawater will turn to acid, or even become mildly
      acidic, so this is drivel. Note also the claim that pH has changed by
      0.1 units over the last 200 years: it was not possible a hundred years
      ago, never mind 200 years ago, to measure pH to the accuracy necessary
      to support that assertion, so it’s just posturing. Finally, notice that
      CO2 is branded ‘human pollution’, though CO2 is an entirely natural and
      absolutely essential nutrient for plant photosynthesis, without which
      all life on earth would certainly become extinct very quickly.

      “As an aside, we should note that if lower alkalinity per se were so
      unfavourable to shellfish as is claimed then we would have no freshwater
      shellfish and snails – but we do. The freshwater mussel has lived for
      thousands of years in waters that are genuinely acidic and with highly
      variable pH, not only seasonally, but geographically. With spring
      snowmelt and high rainfall, the pH of rivers and lakes can fall to below
      pH 5, and experiments have shown that mussels can survive this acidity
      indefinitely without any deleterious effects to their shells. Note: a pH
      of 5 has 1,000 times as many ‘acidic’ H+ ions per litre as seawater,
      and 100 times more than pure water. This is not to say that sea
      creatures can survive in fresh water – they are adapted to a radically
      different saline environment – the point at issue is that the idea of a
      small change in ocean pH due to increased dissolved carbon dioxide
      having a deleterious effect on marine shells of living organisms is not
      as obvious as the alarmists make out.”




      “As multiple studies have proven before, this type of ocean acidification alarmism is lacking in empirical, scientific merit.

      A new peer reviewed study confirms that acidification-alarmism is just
      that, alarmism. This study proved that the walleye ‘Alaska’ poll0ck
      species is actually enhanced by higher levels of pCO2.”





      “Incredibly, hundreds of studies show that for pH changes that we are
      likely to encounter in the next 100 years, there is arguably a net
      benefit to underwater life if the oceans became a little less alkaline.”




      ‘Ocean acidification discussion thread’,


      • Sebastian

        You can always find evidence to support your opinion. I won’t listen to obscure corrupt organizations that get payed by petro companies to counter attack real science. It happened with tobacco, and it happens now with climate. Show me official links from prestigious universities or science journals not ‘Bob’s science blog’. Anyone can just build a snazzy site and pretend they’re the real deal.

        • Guest

          A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth
          and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

          Curry is the co-author of “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans”
          (1999), and co-editor of “Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences” (2002),
          as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the ‘Henry G.
          Houghton Research Award’ from the ‘American Meteorological Society’ in

        • Gerry Gagnon

          “Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

          “Curry is the co-author of “Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans” (1999), and co-editor of “Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences” (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the ‘Henry G. Houghton Research Award’ from the ‘American Meteorological Society’ in 1992.”

        • Gerry Gagnon

          And you ignored this study:

          ‘CO2 Effects on Hatch Size and Larval Growth of Walleye Pollock’,


        • flascrnwrtr

          I love people like Sebastian who believe that only their information is true and correct and everyone else’s must be voodoo science or the result of someone getting paid off by big oil. Why doesn’t anyone mention the fact that we were heading for the impending doom of a global ice age, just 30 years ago, in the 70’s?

          • Sebastian

            To me, people that don’t know me and are ready to throw a page of ready made content, including links to obscure sites, look very suspicious regardless to subject matter. And so should they look to you. You are generalizing here acusing me of not looking at ‘the other side’. I’d be glad to see an article in ‘nature’ saying that the science of climate change was all wrong, and I’d pay attention to that or any article from a reputable scientific establishment. There are too many examples of urban legends traveling around harming people, because some of us consider any source as valid information. To your point regarding the coming ice age, yes, it was supposed to be coming, yet now it interferes with the anthropogenic effects. How you may ask? Well, the scientist I’ve read ,said that, we’ve managed to postpone it for many thousands of years or more. (Curt Stager – Deep Future)

          • flascrnwrtr

            You know what (and I don’t say this often)… I apologize. I shouldn’t have lumped you in with so many who just spew whatever they read and ONLY what they read is the correct stuff. For me, and I have done quiet a bit of reading and research (but by no means claim to be an expert) there is little to know evidence. There has been no substantial increase in global temp in the last 17 years. In fact, there has been a slight drop. During the height of the Roman empire, it was actually warmer than it is today. But, they didn’t have cars or factories. Where did the rise in co2 come from back then? Was everyone exhaling more. The point of this is that, for the most part, we can’t even predict the weather or temperature correctly 10 days out. So, with ground level temperatures not backing up the alarmist warming theory (in fact, they refute it), this is yet another thing that is used to polarize and control.

  • Laura

    So you are saying that one paper that reviewed 14 papers shows “consensus” versus the 9,000 + papers reviewed by IPCC which show overall decline in biodiversity, impacts in ecosystems services, changes in precipitation patters, sea level rise (and the list goes on and on and on)….I mean, really? You are simply handpicking parts of some arguments to make your case. Example: it’s no news that some (not all) tree species grow faster with increase availability of CO2, yet, the combination of reduced soil and atmospheric moisture are likely to be the limiting factor -regardless of how much CO2 you inject.

    • silversurf

      The IPCC has been denounced as a joke

      • J. Allday

        That’s your answer. You might want to expand your war chest with some actual facts.

      • Calvinius

        It’s been “denounced as a joke” by those who deny science, maybe.

        • Steve Eros

          The science that states that more CO2 means higher temperatures? Even though CO2 has been increasing for 18 years with zero warming? Maybe you don’t know what science means. Maybe your just a shill for anti capitalists? Maybe you’re just too ignorant and fall for scams.

          • Calvinius

            Still peddling the bullcrap about “18 years with zero warming” I see.

          • Steve Eros

            Shows how ignorant you are when even the IPCC admits there has been a “pause” in warming. Typical lefty logic to be disappointed that the world is not coming to an end.

          • Steve Eros

            The IPCC even admits there has been no warming for 18 years. They call it a “pause”. Others call it getting busted telling a lie. I can only imagine where you get your information from if you are not aware of no warming for 18 years.

          • Calvinius

            We have these things called thermometers that prove there has been warming over the last 18 years.

          • Steve Eros

            So the IPCC is arguing against their own ideology now? I think were done here. You and your ilk were directly responsible for 50 million deaths thanks to the DDT scam. Global cooling was the scam after that. Then it was the ozone layer scam. Then it was the global warming scam, and once there was no warming, you had to change it to climate change. The warming movement is nothing but a cult for feeble minded minions.

          • Calvinius

            I see, so you’re one of the people who’s dumb enough to believe DDT was banned even though it’s still in use to this very day?

            And you’re peddling the bullcrap about global cooling, and that somehow global warming was “changed to climate change”? You’re a joke, Steve.

          • Steve Eros

            DDT was removed from the banned list only after millions died due to malaria. I know it’s hard for you to believe, but people like you are killing people without knowing it. You are outstandingly ignorant.

          • Calvinius

            No such “banned list” exists. DDT is banned in the United States, where we don’t exactly have a malaria problem. There is no such ban elsewhere.

  • Alex Hutt

    Whoever made this article can die.

    • edzuiderwijk

      Obviously, even suggesting that there might be benefits is blasphemy.

      Burn the heretic at the stake!

    • Steve Eros

      Spoken like a true left wing fascist.

  • edzuiderwijk

    What a pitty then that even the two degrees will not be reached, at least not by any emissions caused by human activity. CO2 is not a climate driver (that’s what actual data tell us) and the prospect for the next few decades is one of cooling.

  • raymond beckworth

    THE earths gravity pull on the sun and on the moon & rotation causes the liquid magma in the center of the earth,_ to flex one full cycle each 24 hr. day; The earth is
    stationed in a vacuum to prevent heat loss.
    The earth has been here for 100s of millions of years, WHY” has the core never cooled_? Plus you have trillions of BTU heat and light energy hitting the earth
    24 / 7 every-day. never missing a moment.
    YOU, are worried about the wrong thing; When you use “SOLAR-PANELS” or
    Mirrors to generate energy—-you are trapping the “ENERGY THAT WOULD HAVE
    BURNING FOSLE FUELS;___ Good Night

  • ithinkthat

    you’re so stupid. i really wish you didn’t write for a living and plague us with your opinions.

    • J. Allday

      Definitely this article is a big pile BS served on two pieces of freshly baked opinions. ENJOY!

    • Steve Eros

      Stupid is thinking that Al Gore will save you by sending him yours and my money.

  • Gloss Finnish

    Like its related ideology of liberalism, the cult of man-made global-warming is fundamentally unserious.

  • Tomas Newtham

    Folks, the gift of liberty is the gift of knowledge, prosperity, and a better way of doing things. Learn it, live it: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • Guest

    I thought if it got a mere 1 degree hotter worldwide it meant disaster.


    “an average increase of one degree across its entire surface means huge changes in climatic extremes.”


    “So far, we’ve raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.)”

  • abjit


  • abjit

    today the climate is changing quickly, is it good for us

  • Captain Hadley

    More than 600,000 bats were killed by wind turbines in 2012 – a serious blow to creatures which pollinate crops and help control mosquitoes.

    • Steve Eros

      Yet in Canada, Two ducks died in a tailing pond and the hippies went nuts. Progressives are the biggest hypocrits on the planet.

  • Lt. Lockhart

    You are a shining beacon. Glow brighter, shine bigger: http://bit.ly/theLanterns

  • Brian

    Oh my god, I could not even finish reading your complete pile of garbage.
    You are saying global warming only benefits humans because we will be able to keep up with the increase in population. THANK GOD WE ARE THE ONLY LIVING CREATURES ON EARTH! seriously every step we take we damage or destroy something, if we all live more modest lives what a better place this world really would be. I am disgusted that people actually think like you and because of people like you we are destroying this world….
    what is your answer to that? better start warming up mars? or like you said you will be long dead before it becomes a problem! that seems to be the answer for everything, let someone else worry about it. If we keep that up, it will be to late.
    Sincerely not a tree hugger, just a regular person who can think for themselves

  • lalalalala

    I suppose it’s worth pointing out that Tol has since withdrawn his comments that global warming has net benefits in light of errors found in his study..

  • disqus_htIQnh3D3l

    “climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C” Yeah because after the world has warmed by 2.2’C then it’ll be really easy to stop climate change… tbh the fact that most of our glaciers and fresh water supplies will have diminished by the doesn’t really matter.
    May I also point out that the rich industrialists will have got richer so they can all buy their way through the climate crisis while the rest of us suffer and watch our grandchildren grow up in a world where wars are fought over water supplies and the rights to rivers…

  • MostlyDisagree

    This article demonstrates exactly the wrong sort of thinking: ‘oh… for 80yrs it will be great and we’ll be long dead’. When you defecate where you eat, anyone with a lick of common sense can conceive there is a price. Humans can and do impact the world in major ways like we’ve done in Dallas, Texas where Exxon is King — pumping fracking water into the earth has brought about hundreds of earthquakes where none was before. The consensus is absolutely that long term this is bad for everything from bio-diversity to the human condition. Also, we will undoubtedly run out of fossil fuels and the investment we make now in other forms of energy will pay major dividends to our children’s children and beyond. I thought all the idiots were in the US and especially Texas. Now I know you people are everywhere.

  • tatze

    This such utter nonsense…and so wrong on so many levels. Anybody who does actually care to research only for little bit will see that.

    Or is this article just a joke?

    I guess human death’s are just collateral damage for you, so you do not have to mention it? And since you are so concerned about money, you should take a look at some conculsions:

    The Human impact report states that worldwide 300,000 deaths per
    year can be attributed to the impacts of Climate Change, while 325 million
    people are seriously affected and the global economic losses amount to $125
    billion USD.[1]

    The report by the Climate Vulnerable Forum goes
    so far as to estimate that from the year 2010 “climate change causes 400,000
    deaths on average each year today, mainly due to hunger and communicable
    diseases that affect above all children in developing countries.“ It goes on concluding that “[o]ur present
    carbon-intensive energy system and related activities cause an estimated 4.5
    million deaths each year linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and

    [1] Human Impact Report, The
    Anatomy of A Silent Crisis, ISBN: 978-2-8399-0553-4, Geneva: The Global Humanitarian Forum, 2009, p.1.

    [2] DARA and the Climate Vulnerable Forum, Climate Vulnerability
    Monitor 2nd Edition – A Guide to the Cold
    Calculus of a Hot Planet, LD: M-31813-2012, 2012, p.17, available at
    (consulted on 14.05.2015).

  • zach

    are you happy

  • hayden


  • qwertykook

    The devil bucks feces in whatever induced circumstance. Feces bashes the pleasure. The devil fudges an introductory smile. The idiom moans about feces. Feces tiles the war below the dust. How does feces move the devil?

  • Ebboney

    Utter rubbish! Look at the evidence, it’s all around you !

    • weq465tg

      The problem is the author is comparing a cold-spell in the UK to a heatwave in France.

      Heat kills a hell of a lot more people – they’re just in Africa, in Indian, Pakistan and other countries in Southern Asia.

      It’s a poor comparison by any means…

    • njaohnt

      Evidence of climate change doing more economic destruction than good?

      • Tamerlane

        Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

      • Randall Hamlet

        Ask the author how nice these benefits are when half the largest cities are under water

        • njaohnt

          What evidence do you have off that?

          • Randall Hamlet

            I just graduated and one thing I got with my degree was an environmental studies certificate (we mostly focused on climate change). The scientific evidence is 100% clear. Climate change is better understood than gravity at this point (we have multiple theories about gravity, only one for climate change: man-made emissions). You can find all sorts of articles online about predicted sea level rise given business-as-usual. There is no debate in the scientific community and it is very accessible, so I suggest you look into that.

          • njaohnt

            I’ve looked into to that and haven’t found any evidence. I will search no longer. If you have evidence, point me to a specific site.

          • 4TimesAYear

            But can you tell us what determines basic climate w/o using the terms “CO2” and “change”?
            Can you tell us what makes our winds and how they act in the different layers of the atmosphere and in the different latitudes?
            Can you tell us how the seasons work?

  • Peter Vogelsanger

    “The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.” Tough claim, Mr. Ridley. I wonder what that economist called Mr. Stern, would have to say about it, if he cared to reply to this rubbish claim. But, of course, to frankly usurp the “consensus” over and over again, including in the subtitle, makes it all seem so true. Mr. Ridley, here is my advice to you: Stick to the topics you understand and leave the science of climate change to those who understand it. Oh and yes, to add to the disclaimer stating special interests: http://endcoalnow.com/

  • Precipitation has increased in many desert regions .Bone-dry southern Algeria has seen flooding several times in the past year,building on a trend for the northern Sahel.Australia,mongolia and even the Arabian peninsula have seen greater than usual rain AND cloud cover.Greenland is benefiting as is commerce,due to the longer than usual thaw season in the Arctic passage.Noticable increase in vegetation in many parts of the world are directly atributable to increases of available atmospheric CO2.Water mark and barnacles on the pier have been the same for 50 years.
    Climate change is propitous to fulfilment of Old-testament prophecies concerning the return to Edenic like conditions on Earth.Hab 6:2 abstrusely fortells of the “3rd day” motif,generally assumed to be Kiliastic or Millenarianist in meaning,sometime after the 2000 years of Christianty(A.D.2033).If Global warming turns out to indeed have been man-made,a colusion of interests of historical magnitude can be attested to.I understand that many on this site revolt against such angle of understanding,but to ignore that the world works by synarchic structures that are in nature cryptic and esoteric would be like being forced into a kick fight with only one leg..Global warming activism and prosylitizing has at its core a messianic,heroic calling.A yearning to fulfill a most salvific enterprise.

  • Biran Falk-Dotan

    Mr. Ridley,
    You have failed to deny that the long-term effects of climate change will be negative, but I would like to discuss your claim that they should be outweighed in our current policy-making by shorter-term positive effects (up to 2080).
    1. Many of your claims are not well-cited. I understand that this is not a scientific journal article, but when you write, for example, “As Dr. Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented”, you should at least give some information about what article you are citing. Dr. Myneni has over 250 publications listed on his own website, and probably plenty of others (in conferences or the popular press) that he has not listed. I cannot help but take your uncited factual claims with at least a grain of salt.
    2. The geological record shows that temperature change, and not absolute temperature, drives mass extinctions. The most devastating mass extinction of all time, the late Permian extinction, was likely caused chiefly by climate changes, including increasing CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification (Kiehl and Shields, 2005, Geology). If you’re wondering how big a deal the late Permian extinction was, check out Wikipedia – 96% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates became extinct. We humans are terrestrial vertebrates, so maybe we should be concerned. Although modern climate change has not yet reached the same magnitude, it is occurring much more quickly and species are already being threatened. The current extinction rate is 1000 times the background rate, and climate change is among the chief causes (Pimm et al., 2014, Science). For example, as the ocean acidifies (due to atmospheric CO2, SO3, and other anthropogenic pollutants), species that are sensitive to pH changes (e.g. corals, which are a keystone species in the most diverse ecosystems on the planet) suffer. We (and our children and grandchildren) need healthy ecosystems to survive, so things that put ecosystem health at risk need to be stopped before they do irreparable damage.
    3. If you want to see the impact on humans more clearly, consider rising sea levels. The oceans respond relatively slowly to change, but by the end of this century (your grandchildren will be alive, I hope) sea levels are likely to rise by 7 m even if temperature remains stable (IPCC AR5, 2014) This threatens places like New York, Miami, much of Bangladesh, much of the Netherlands, and many others. We can’t pretend that dams are a solution. We humans have a history of improperly constructing and maintaining infrastructure, and it only takes one broken dam (or one hurricane, e.g. Katrina) to flood an entire city. In a place like Bangladesh, with 157 million people, this could be devastating in a way we have not seen before.
    4. Another important impact you don’t see as a Westerner is on droughts in Africa. About 30% of Sub-Saharan Africa is undernourished, and this is due in large part to decreasing precipitation due to climate change (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/africa_hunger_facts.htm http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf). Hundreds of millions of people are dying – I’d say that is a pretty substantial negative impact. That is about 10000 times more than the cold-related deaths you cited, so I’m pretty sure starvation is a bigger issue.
    5. Even if you were completely right, and only positive things will happen due to climate change until at least 2080, don’t we want people living after 2080 to prosper? Don’t we want our grandchildren and their descendants to inherit a livable world? All of the money in the world is not enough to reverse climate change if we wait until 2080. There are also other reasons to use sustainable energy sources (do an image search for “Beijing smog”, for example), so at best you can say that the worst is yet to come, not that we are somehow benefiting the planet.
    Other than that, cool article!

  • chc_

    One nice thing about being human, we, as a species, have always overcome any obstacles put in front of us. So what if the sun makes the sun makes the planet heat up? Build dykes (see Netherlands). So what if the sun goes into remission? Build with insulation. Are the young people so ignorant that they think we can’t overcome the issues put in front of us? People have such short term memories, most have a memory of less than half their age.
    Learn for yourselves people – you are being lied to by those who proport to be “saving you.”

  • camkay

    Why get angry? We have one story in one hundred that points out anecdotal evidence of benefits of global warming. Farms in northern areas of Canada, the Netherlands, and Russia are all enjoying an increased farm production. Canada, in particular, is enjoying the bounty from more land production. All from areas that historically have short growing seasons. This is an obvious benefit to mankind. I’m sure many of the doomsayers would rather see farmlands turn to desert so more people would jump on their bandwagon. This author agrees with the premise of global warming, and is only pointing out the potential upside.
    Brian Falk-Dotan complains the article isn’t well cited, then uses Wikipedia to back his article, in addition to wild, all but impossible to prove, speculation on the past million years or more of change.

  • daronlady620

    Professor Tol’s area is in economics, Dr. Lomborg’s is in political science. Neither of them has a shred of expertise in any hard science, let alone climate science. Why are they routinely cited as “experts” in this field?

    • Leeky

      What are Al Gore’s credentials?

      • daronlady620

        Al Gore is (or was) a politician who has supported climate science research. He is NOT the source of climate science data, nor is he cited as an expert in the field by scientists. The data on climate change comes from actual climate science researchers, not from non-scientists or politicians like Al Gore or Jim Inhofe (whose self-proclaimed “expertise” is apocryphal). If you don’t understand the distinction, that’s your problem.

  • Randall Hamlet

    Guess those benefits will be nice when Boston is under water.

  • Wayne S

    Climate change is very inconvenient for me. Therefore I choose not to accept the increasingly undeniable evidence.

  • Ribdigger

    Thanks Mr Ridley, an even more “inconvenient truth” indeed.