40 New Scientific Papers Say Global Warming Does Not Exist

40 new scientific papers in 2018 say global warming does not exist

Hundreds of scientists involved in 40 recent scientific papers say the scare about global warming is based on hysteria and false science.

Over 40 scientific papers on the global warming hoax have been published in just the first three months of 2018. What their charts show is that “nothing climatically unusual is happening.

Breitbart.com reports: In the chart below from a study by Polovodova et al, we see that 20th century warming is perfectly normal in a long-term historical context. It was no warmer – indeed, is slightly cooler – than either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period.

What we also learn from the papers is that these warming periods were global – not, as alarmists like to claim to support their scaremongering thesis, local:

A number of strident global warming scientists prefer to dismiss the significance of Europe’s temperature record, claiming that it is local in nature and does not tell us what is really happening globally. However, other papers fully contradict this. For example, a paper by Wündsch et al., 2018 shows us that the warming today in South Africa also is nothing unusual.

It’s global, stupid

Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Southeast Australia, according to  McGowan et al., 2018, Northern Alaska (Hanna et al., 2018), the Tibetan Plateau (Li et al., 2018), South Korea (Song et al., 2018), Antarctica (Mikis, 2018), to cite just a few among dozens of others.

In further bad news for climate alarmists, it seems that two of their favorite bellwethers of global warming doom – Greenland and the South Pole, are cooling not warming.

Here’s Greenland, from a study by Mikkelsen et al.

This puts Greenland’s recent warm spell in its historical context: over 150 years it wasn’t unusual. Temperatures now are cooler than they were in the 1930s.

A separate study confirms that Greenland is on a cooling trend:

Furthermore, much to the surprise of global warming scientists, Greenland temperatures have again been falling since 2000. Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018 examined the most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) and concluded that if there is any general trend for Greenland it is “mostly cooling”.

As is the South Pole:

At the other end of the planet at the South Pole, new findings by Cerrone and Fusco, 2018 confirm the large increase in the southern hemisphere sea ice and suggest it “arises from the impact of climate modes and their long-term trends”.

They write that the results indicate a progressive cooling has affected the year-to-year climate of the sub-Antarctic since the 1990s and that the SIC [sea ice concentration] shows upward annual, spring, and summer trends.

Global warming? What global warming??

  • Pray for America

    This shouldn’t surprise anyone. The real threat, in my opinion, is the garbage in the oceans, partially caused by the throwaway society. But, this makes money, just like the global warming/climate change scare. Climate change does happen, naturally, as it should. Too many products are purposely made to only last a short while, so they have to be replaced. That makes money for the seller, the manufacturer, & the stockholders. And, it adds to the economy, and the trash.

    • chartliner

      sweden burns most of it’s garbage and keeps the emmisions from the burning to a minimum, the usa and canada need to invest in their technology. it is the third world countries that are throwing plastic garbage into rivers that is causing most of the ocean plastic polution, pressure needs to be put on those contries and we need to clean it all up using coraling technology.

      • CB

        “sweden burns most of it’s garbage”

        There are even ways to do that that actually remove greenhouse gasses from the air! If people refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Earth is warming, though, it’s doubtful they will be interested in acknowledging that greenhouse gasses are the cause…

        climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

        • Gary Mathis

          LOL. Your graph, above, does not go back for enough for an adequate historical perspective. If your graph is compared to the one at the beginning of the article, you’ll see they agree and that there is no historical warming trend. LOL. Warming hysterics are such dumbasses.

          • Bull7822005

            Pretty sure that I saw an article a couple weeks ago that exposed NASA/NOAA for adding a bias to historical temperature data that reduced historical temperatures as part of their “estimations” for temperature recording stations that variously didn’t report each year… But I agree that 120 years of data is pathetically short timeframe for examining a geologic process.

          • CB

            “Pretty sure that I saw an article a couple weeks ago that exposed NASA/NOAA for adding a bias to historical temperature data”

            You did, didn’t you!

            What was the name of the “whistleblower” in question?

            It wasn’t Dr. Bates, was it?

            “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data”

            -John Bates

            http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060049630

          • CB

            “Your graph, above, does not go back for enough for an adequate historical perspective.”

            Fair enough! Point to a single moment in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it. If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b86330ccdfe2a84b1fde980320051f67bfb7bc4d51f4f501081a9595569b858.png

          • Samuel Fondren

            “98.3% of all statistics are made-up on the spot.”

          • CB

            “98.3% of all statistics are made-up on the spot”

            Right! That’s why you need a citation to prove you aren’t just a big old bag of bull$hit…

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus”)

          • Samuel Fondren

            Don’t tell me—you were that kid who in elementary school sat in the back of the class picking your nose with your elbows, while everyone else in class was studying the intricacies of sarcasm and irony?

            I have never been blessed with an excess of patience, much like you have never been blessed with a modicum of novelty or reason.

            Go away, Doofus. Do not pass go; do not collect 200 dollars.

          • CB

            “Go away”

            …and what if I did?

            If the person telling you your life is at risk goes away, does that mean there is no danger?

            “It’s too late to stop the seas rising at least 5 metres and only fast, drastic action will avert a 20-metre rise”

            (New Scientist, “Latest numbers show at least 5 metres sea-level rise locked in”, Michael Le Page, 10 June 2015)

          • http://budbromley.wordpress.com Bud Bromley
          • CB

            …and where does the CO₂ proxy in your graph come from, Buddy?

            “Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

            (Berner and Kothavala, “GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO₂ over Phanerozoic Time”, 2001)

          • http://budbromley.wordpress.com Bud Bromley

            Rocks

          • CB

            “Rocks”

            LOL! Yes, sweetheart, the proxies are derived from samples taken from rocks, and those proxies are very imprecise. They can only tell you average levels of CO₂ over tens of millions of years.

            If an ice age only lasts half a million years, can you get any useful information out of those rocks about what CO₂ was like at the time?

            “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

            (New Scientist, “High-carbon ice age mystery solved”, Jeff Hecht, 8 March 2010)

          • Yonason

            Note also that all modern life forms appeared in the Cambrian, at a time when temps were as high as they ever get, and CO2 was pretty much higher than it’s ever been. Kind of makes it difficult to believe them when they tell us how dangerous that will be for life on earth, when those were the conditions under which it exploded onto the scene.

          • CB

            “Note also that all modern life forms appeared in the Cambrian”

            Uh huh, and were there humans on the planet in the Cambrian, Yon?

            “You must go back 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels as high as they are today, Earth scientists report. “The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and sustained at those levels, global temperatures were five to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today,” said Aradhna Tripati, UCLA assistant professor of Earth and Space Sciences and lead author.”

            (Science Daily, “Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report”, October 9, 2009)

          • robert owen

            The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Wolf! Wolf!

          • Rightwheel

            So, an explosion of life and tremendous speciation does not show the benefits of CO2 and warmer planetary temperatures because there were no humans then? That’s your argument?

          • CB

            “an explosion of life and tremendous speciation does not show the benefits of CO2 and warmer planetary temperatures because there were no humans then?”

            To humans?

            Yes.

            An event that happened before there were humans could not possibly benefit humans.

            Where are you getting lost?

            (Phys Magazine, “Sea level rise will swallow Miami, New Orleans, study finds”, October 12, 2015)

          • Rightwheel

            Try to follow this; IF an event that happened before to the tremendous benefit of life were to happen again, or if it in fact is happening, humans, being a species that exists now, would benefit greatly. Increased CO2 and a warmer planet are, on net balance, a good thing for humans.
            No reputable study finds that sea levels will rise as much as that, but if they do, in a period of 100 years, I trust we humans, adaptable and self-preserving creatures that we are, will have plenty of time to get out of the way. Because we can no more turn back a rising tide than Canute.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            If CO2 is such a tremendous benefit, why was the planet decarbonizing before the Industrial Revolution? Wouldn’t it benefit the earth to keep carbon around?

          • CB

            “If CO2 is such a tremendous benefit, why was the planet decarbonizing before the Industrial Revolution?”

            Wheelhouse might be right that CO₂ is a benefit!

            …to roaches!

            Unless he is one, I’m not sure what his point might be…

            “Sea level is rising—and at an accelerating rate”

            (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Science Connections: Sea Level Rise & Global Warming”)

          • Rightwheel

            Do you think the Earth is a conscious organism? It didn’t ”decide” to decarbonize, you know. Carbon follows temperatures, it does not lead them. Carbon sequestration was caused by, not caused, global cooling.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism
          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Carbon sequestration was caused by, not caused, global cooling.

            Decarbonization of the earth is caused by weathering of rocks.

          • Kathy Bell

            There used to glaciers covering the midwest of North America. They have melted to “all gone” Are you insinuating that somehow the CO2 caused the melt? Did the dinosaurs have industrial complexes? I wasn’t aware of their complex life? Still your graph is only 6 years old which is not enough years to determine the actual behavior of glaciers. Show me a graph where it takes into account the billions of years you stated and then make an assessment.

          • CB

            “Are you insinuating that somehow the CO2 caused the melt?”

            No, Kathleen. I’m stating it outright.

            Each and every previous time in Earth’s history CO₂ went so high, the polar ice sheets melted away completely… so how likely is it there will be a different outcome today?

            This isn’t such a hard thing to figure out, is it?

            (Nature, “Convergent Cenozoic CO2 History”, Beerling & Royer)

          • Michael Castillo

            It’s the sun not the CO2 man, so chill. Oh that’s right you will get the chill during the coming solar minimum. A change from 3 molecules CO2 per in 10,000 molecules in the atmosphere to 4 pushed us into global warming without any consideration of changes in solar output?! Give me a break and go back to your basic physics class!

          • CB

            “It’s the sun not the CO2 man”

            …then you should be able to point to a single moment in Earth’s history when the sun dimmed low enough to cause polar ice sheets to form with CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it.

            Why weren’t you able to do that, Michael?

            Why didn’t you even bother to try?

            “though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.”

            (Stanford University Solar Center, “Solar Influences on Climate”)

          • Michael Castillo

            Globally ice coverage is growing at PRESENT time. Sure there are some glaciers that are melting, but overall 90% of glaciers are GROWING. I recently saw a study claiming increased precipitation in Antarctica was due to global warming. I maintain that the conclusion was written before the study and the evidence actually supports a different conclusion. That conclusion is like the Medevial Warm Period and the very warm period of the 1930’s, the very warm period of the 1980’s and 1990’s has ended and we already have entered a cooler climate cycle. CO2 levels increase during warm climate cycles precisely because of the warming. Ice and permafrost melt releasing trapped CO2. I’m not discounting man made CO2 or saying that it has no effect on the climate. I am saying that it is a trace gas and climate alarmists give it too much importance in its effects on the climate.

          • CB

            “Globally ice coverage is growing at PRESENT time.”

            How do you know, Michael?

            Where are you getting your information?

            If you know your sources of information are misleading you, why do you continue to rely on them?

            “Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland have been losing mass”

            (NASA Global Climate Change, “Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice”)

          • Michael Castillo

            Satellite imagery shows an overall increase in ice coverage in Antarctica and to a lesser extent in Greenland. Satellite imagery does not lie. Computer models give whatever “facts” the programmers want. An example of that is a report from NOAA during the Obama administration regarding sea level rise in the Atlantic Ocean. Instead of actual data NOAA used results from computer models to state there was a significant increase in sea level in the Atlantic Ocean. That report was debunked by a couple of researchers in the Chesapeake Bay area who had been recording ACTUAL sea levels for decades.

          • http://www.moonbattery.com Bodhisattva

            Point to a single moment in all 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it. If they’ve never done it before, why would you expect them to now?

            Asked and answered several times – first you deny you got an answer, then when the link where you DID get the answer is provided, you lie and claim it’s not true.

          • Rightwheel

            And then you show a chart that goes back ten years. So what?

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism
          • Rightwheel

            Yep, just like he said, no long term warming trend.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            no long term warming trend

            Prove it.

          • Rightwheel

            Read the studies. I’ll stand on those. They prove it. 40 of them, from 40 different sources of original research. Refute them if you can. Good luck with that.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Actually, above, I show how the article is misleading and is not being honest about what it led you to believe.

            that is: you didn’t read them. You believed what you were told without checking.

          • Rightwheel

            It’s true I didn’t read all 40. Neither did you, I’ll bet.
            Fact is, it’s people like you who have been misleading us all about what science “knows” for over 100 years on the subject of climate, among others. This is abetted by lots of folks who see the theory as an opportunity for a political power grab, so they finance this misinformation and alarmism and suppress the questions.
            But there are PLENTY of questions. The models are ALL wrong, 100%, and we know that for a fact.
            The studies show what the article say they show, I bet. And NOT what YOU say they show.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            The models are ALL wrong, 100%, and we know that for a fact.

            Deflection from being misled by this article aside,

            No they’re not. You can’t show that’s true.

          • Rightwheel

            Not a single one describes accurately what we have actually observed. That would be the dictionary definition of “wrong”.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            Not a single one describes accurately what we have actually observed.

            You can’t show that’s true.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            The studies show what the article say they show, I bet. And NOT what YOU say they show.

            I provided a half-dozen examples where the author misled readers about the findings of papers mentioned in the disinformation piece. Refute me.

          • CB

            “Prove it.”

            It’s difficult here since they changed their link policy! …but RightWheel would first need to first define what she means by “long term” before providing any proof of her claim…

            “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”

            (UN IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, AR5)

          • CB

            “you’ll see they agree and that there is no historical warming trend.”

            One wonders if Climate Deniers believe we’ve been burning fossil fuels for thousands of years…

            “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

            (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Global Warming 101”)

          • http://caseybrownmyers.blogspot.com/ CB MҰERS √ VERI₣IEÐ

            Of course, that’s probably why she used it.

          • Michael Castillo

            They are useful tools. If CO2 is the villain the left can justify controlling every aspect of life including what kind of car we drive and forcing us to use expensive, inefficient so called green energy technologies. If CO2 is not the villain their argument falls apart. In short it was NEVER about saving the planet. It was always about imposing Socialism.

          • Dale Smith

            Where have you been for the last two years? Wind is already less expensive than coal. Solar is almost there. With the advances in battery storage soon wind and solar will not be such sporadic energy sources.

            Wind and solar technologies are providing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US.

          • Michael Castillo

            Battery storage has many potential pitfalls and that is just the start of the problems with wind energy. The problems have not been solved and at this point nothing approaches natural gas for cost and efficiency. I’m all for research into all of the above, but I don’t pretend technologies that have a medocre record of performance are the greatest thing under the sun.

          • CB

            “Where have you been for the last two years?”

            Playing pretend? Practising the confident expression of falsehoods into the mirror?

            Who knows what Climate Deniers do with their time…

            Plant type LCOE ($/MWh)
            Coal 90% with carbon sequestration $123.20
            Natural Gas-fired $56.50
            Advanced Nuclear $99.10
            Geothermal $46.50
            Biomass $102.40
            Wind $63.70
            Solar PV $85.00
            Hydroelectric $66.20

            (USEIA, “Annual Energy Outlook 2016”)

          • Raymond A. Sirois Sr.

            For that chart to be valid, you need to go back several 10’s of thousands of years, at the very least. T his chart only goes back to 1880, a mere 140 (roughly) years. This isn’t nearly long enough to establish any trends that happen to occur on an epochal basis.

        • Rudy Patterson

          but the warming has not been 100% caused by co2

          • CB

            “the warming has not been 100% caused by co2”

            True!

            We are increasing the percentage of methane in the atmosphere as well, which is also causing warming.

            “Molecule per molecule, methane is 22 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide on a 100-year timescale, and 105 times more potent on a 20-year timescale”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20130610.html

          • Rudy Patterson

            Their greenhouse potential is not a reliable way to predict warming trends. This method of determining global warming potential of a gas is erroneous and it is rubbish. The methane gas is in the ppmvrange and co2 is in the ppm range. The scant concentration of methane compared to CO2 make the magnitude of methane 1000000 times less than CO2. I should have said all the warming is not due to greenhouse gases. Thanks for the comment, I need to clarify that in my book, before publishing.

          • Dale Smith

            “but the warming has not been 100% caused by co2”

            That is still being debated by the scientific community. Since natural factors would be causing the climate to get cooler it appears that CO2 and other GHG emissions are responsible for more than 100% of the warming. It has overcome the expected natural cooling and then contributed to all of the warming. The current data suggests GHGs are responsible for anywhere from 100% to 110% of warming.

            CO2 is by far the biggest contributor to warming.

          • Rudy Patterson

            The NOAA data I have analyzed shows you are incorrect. I’ll have my study that I have been working on since 2015 soon. I have had some Eureka moments for sure. If you don’t understand quantum mechanics and thermodynamics and power functions you will need to beef up on that to understand it.

          • Dale Smith

            What does your analysis of NOAA data show?

          • Rudy Patterson

            Ill let you read it in my book. Not giving away my research on this thread, but I will say it is almost 3 times less than they show.

          • upyersnorm

            no, water vapor is

          • Dale Smith

            Uh, yeah. Water vapor is a stronger GHG. But guess what? The atmosphere at a certain temperature can only hold so much water vapor. When the concentration of water vapor starts to exceed the atmosphere’s capacity to hold it it comes down as precipitation in the form of rain, snow, sleet, or hail.

            The hotter the atmosphere gets the more water vapor it can hold. If humans are responsible for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere—the evidence clearly shows that we are—then we are also responsible for the extra water vapor too.

            While water vapor causes more warming than CO2, it is the CO2 that contributes to more water vapor. Thus, CO2 is by far the biggest contributor to warming.

        • sherio

          a couple of observations on this graph. 1- warming flattened since about the year 2000 despite being predicted otherwise by the models. 2- the warming from 1900 to 1940 is about the same as that on the second half of the last century despite the order of magnitude more consumption of fossil fuels in the second half compared to the first half which indicates there are more factors to that waming than just burning fossil fuels

          • CB

            “there are more factors to that waming than just burning fossil fuels”

            True!

            Our greenhouse gas emissions are overwhelmingly the largest factor in play right now, and will be for the foreseeable future.

            “though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.”

            solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

          • trump blast

            The only reason for the warming of the earth is the sun !! A mega volcano blowing ash into the atmosphere causes cooling not warming so the same is true for polution gasses dont magnify the sun the way the ignorant glibalist think and the reason they spout this nonsense is because of incomplete venus records from the probes that we sent there but because of the design of those probes that were destroyed in the atmosphere of venus so they coopted the name greenhouse gasses as the reason for the volcanic planets exessive heat and yet mars has the same greenhouse gasses and is a cold planet !!

          • Dale Smith

            The sun provides warmth to the planet. But the output of the sun has not increased since the late 1960s. The sun is not responsible for any warming since then.

          • trump blast

            What warming since then ?? Ive been alive longer than the laye 1960s and its not warmer away from the blacktop jungles of the big cities the temperature runs in cycles of 7. ,12 ,25 and a100 years and the temps are the same or cooler in some areas than A 100 years ago or more the only places hotter now than then are the big cities that used to be villages back then and all the black tar and asphalt stores the heat energy of the sun !!!

          • Dale Smith

            The warming as registered by all the weather stations around the world. To deny the warming is to deny reality. Unless you already live in a fantasy world.

            And, yes it could be cooler where you live than it was in 1960. But the average global temperature is higher than it was in 1960 because most other places are warmer.

          • trump blast
          • Damien Duffy

            How is the Earth so bright and the Moon so dark in that photo?
            How foes that work?

          • trump blast

            The sun is not behind the moon and the sky reflects the light and. Most of the solar energy that causes the surface to warm up see how white the clouds are they’re very reflective but the moons soil is full of glass beads that reflect the direct sun light but theres no real atmosphere in which clouds could formm to reflect more light

          • Dale Smith

            Could you please provide the evidence that it’s the same as it was in ’69? Because NASA, NOAA, and other organizations around the world have data that show it’s more than 0.5ºC warmer than in 1969.

          • Gary Ashe

            The average global temperature is the temperature the glode emits to space at you thick sophist trolling B@stad,

            255 kelvin is the average temperature of this planet.

          • Dale Smith

            Negative. The temperature of the heat escaping into space would be the temperature of the upper atmosphere. Because of the effect of GHGs and the fact that the energy budget of the Earth is not at equilibrium, that temperature is cooler than the temperature of the air directly above the ground.

            As the rate of GHG emissions go up, the time to reach equilibrium increases. Only after the emissions drop to a rate that can be fully absorbed by the natural carbon cycle of the climate will the time to reach equilibrium stay constant. And then only when emissions drop below that does the time to reach equilibrium start to approach zero.

            If humanity were to cease all GHG emissions right now it would still take about a century more of warming for the energy budget of the Earth to return to equilibrium.

            I think you need to do a little more research so that you can fully understand what you’re talking about.

          • Gary Ashe

            The temperature an object emits at long term is averaged, thats how it is numb-nutted sophish b@stad, you have made dozens of utterly worthless wide brush stroke sophistical garbage replies.

            You push Schmidts worthless thermometer dataset as if its gold.
            Its so corrupted its as worthless as a quote from you.

          • Dale Smith

            If an object has an atmosphere that contains GHGs then the temperature the object emits at the top of that atmosphere will only equal the surface temperature if the energy budget of the object is at equilibrium.

            Brush up on your physics.

          • Gary Ashe

            Ffs, the Earth emits the exact same amount of radiation it receives per decade/century etc.

            The only way to increase the globes energy state [temperature] is to increase the inward energy or lower the planets emisivity.

            So stop bullschitting, Co2 is an optically active gaseous gas at temps of minus 30c or lower high up in the atmosphere.
            Optically active means it starts to absorb radiation [light] in the 15 micron range and emits that radiation as lwir at molecule skin temperature..

          • Michael Castillo

            How can you make such a statement? We have a clear indicator of variation in solar output which has been tracked since the mid 18th Century and that indicator is observed sunspots. During the Little Ice Age counts of obsessed sunspots were as few as in the teens and during the 1980’s and 1990’s numbered in the thousands. Solar activity has varied the ENTIRE period you claim there was no increase which makes your post FALSE propaganda!

        • hppynlifr

          NASA “adjusts” it’s numbers…they don’t use raw data, which explains why they can manipulate the results to “prove” what they want to prove. Try using unaltered data…you’ll come to the same conclusion as these other 40 studies that actually use scientific procedures to test and study!

          • Dale Smith

            Raw data always needs to be adjusted to correct for instrument bias. When the purpose is to graph temperature change over a long trend involving data sets collected from different instruments one must adjust for the differences in the different equipment.

            For example, if one has used a particular thermometer to measure the temperature in a certain spot for twenty years and then changes to a new thermometer one must compare how the new thermometer registers temperature in relation to the old thermometer.

            If the new thermometer consistently measures the temperature 0.2° lower than the old thermometer then one must either adjust new measurements from the new thermometer up by 0.2° or adjust all of the old measurements from the old thermometer down by 0.2° to maintain an accurate long-term temperature change trend.

            This is what NASA does. And it presents the reasons for the adjustments along with the adjusted data. It takes a misunderstanding of this need for adjusting raw data to propose a conspiracy. Or, a strong desire to ignore any data that contradicts one’s preconceive notion that there is no global warming.

          • Greg Munger

            What a load! Unadjusted data shows no trend. Who’s paying you? Putin?

          • Dale Smith

            Quotes from the article referenced below.

            [Speaking of data, the latest datasets are in and 2015 is (as expected) officially the hottest year on record. It’s the first year to hit 1°C above levels of the late 1800s. And to upend the inevitable backlash that news will receive (*spoiler alert*), using all the raw data without performing any analysis would actually produce the appearance of more warming since the start of records in the late 1800s.]

            [The changes around World War II led to some very significant adjustments to the raw marine data. And that means they have a big impact on the calculated global warming trend over the past century. “The single biggest effect in the climate record is the change from the buckets to the engine room intakes, and the engine room intakes are of the order of 0.6 degrees Celsius warmer than the buckets,” Thorne said. “So if we didn’t correct for that effect, we would be saying that global warming was about 0.4 degrees Celsius per century warmer than it has been.”

            “There’s your big dirty secret,” he continued. “The only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the [warming] trend.”]

            Clearly, adjustments reduce the warming trend indicated by raw data.

            https://arstechnica .com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data

          • Jim Smith

            “Or, a strong desire to ignore any data that contradicts one’s preconceived notion that there is no global warming.” That road is a two way street. I could just as easily say, ” that contradicts one’s preconceived notion that there IS global warming.”

          • Dale Smith

            Yes, you could. And there are nut job alarmists who fully believe that humanity is doomed and see confirmation where it doesn’t exist.

            I have researched the evidence for climate change over the last few years. That research changed my opinion from “global warming is happening but humans have little effect on it” to “global warming is happening and humans are almost completely responsible”.

            Until someone can present a more plausible explanation for the data I’ll accept the current consensus view.

          • Michael Castillo

            Yet Michael Mann adjusted the data the OPPOSITE of what is logical to obtain the much discredited Hockey Stick Graph. NASA and NOAA are manipulating data to push political agendas instead of true science.

        • trump blast

          You keep right on buying into the lie of global climate change !! The socalled greenhouse gases are absurbed by the green plant life as food and exhaled as pure oxygen !! Get a real education instead of this false science the left us feeding you !!

          • Shannon Mahoney

            Ummm….maybe you need to take a look at the last 100 years or so of world history and see how much deforestation has taken place. (which equal a lot fewer green plants to clean the air in general). Then take a look at how industry, from manufacturing to oil and gas extraction has added to the CO2 and Methane amounts that are entering our atmosphere. Then come back and say that we are not contributing to the atmospheric and oceanic temp rise in our world. If we never had advanced in these things over the past 100 years we would not be seeing the rise in these temps over the past 50 plus years as we are seeing now. Common sense stuff …

          • Kathy Bell

            Actually, the temperature has is decreased. Due to the cooling cycle of the Sun, REAL Scientists predict a mini ice age for the next fifty years. Could the heating cycle of the Sun be the cause of the uptick of temperature. Then there is the uptick of temperature that no correlation to uptick in CO2. Learning to read the graph and realizing that when a group of Scientist are bullying the community and hiding data generally means they have no leg to stand on except bullying and grafting data. Most Scientists and Engineers have a chuckle as people who use common sense based on headlines spew the rhetoric of celebrities. Even the news media has dropped the climate change grafting when reporting the weather.

          • Dale Smith

            No, actually the temperature has increased about 1°C globally since 1850.

            The predicted solar mimimum is not going to be strong enough to overcome the warming from CO2 emissions. It may slow the amount of warming giving humanity enough time to come to its senses and reduce GHG emissions. That is all.

          • trump blast

            All plant absorb co2 not just trees and the amazon aside most places replant trees to replace those that were cut down !!
            Next what warming ??? Every year for sixty years that I personally know bout winters been clod some colder some warmer but in Florida it still freezes during the wintee then comes summerit gets into the ninetys every year without fail and the cities get even hotter as there’s so much dark colors and black roads and roof tops that absorb the suns heating light rays and this happens every year due to the orbit of the earth around the sun and the suns ejecting massive waves of solar radiation in all firections !! Then you have active volcanos co2 gas , suffer gas and ash into the atmosphere daily but theres no records from the 1700s to compare the readings from spaces to so they are realy just a waste of time as far as tracking the levels of “”greenhouse “” gasses as they prove nothing but those gasses are in the atmosphere which we already knew !!

          • James Filegar

            Question… would the “Ring of Fire” have an effect on ocean Temperatures in the Pacific?

          • Dale Smith

            Yes. But the warming would be only a tiny fraction of the actual measured warming.

          • Dale Smith

            How does the fact that increased CO2 being absorbed by plants creating more oxygen lead to the conclusion that higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 don’t cause warming?

          • Dale Smith

            I’m not buying anything. I don’t take the word of any scientist as the gospel. I have examined the evidence and find it completely convincing.

          • trump blast

            Thats where you errored you assume its the co2 and not the dark surfaces that are causing certain ares to be warmer !! Big cities and major airports have a very big thermal mass !!! So in the green country the heat of the day hit 90° and cools down to 50° during the night but you stay near a thermal mass and it only cooks down to 78° at night and starts warming back up and gets even warmer each day as it takes less time to warm back up to the previous days temps !! But back in the green country the high temps level out at nearly the same highs as the day before !! Then you go out to the dessert and you roast each day and freeze each night as sand is a heat reflector but not a thermal mass so theres no heat storage from the days heat !! I just stated facts that have been used to build energy efficient houses !!

          • Dale Smith

            Rural temperatures show the same warming trend as urban ones. Rural temperatures are warmer now than in 1960.

            What datasets are you using to make your claim that rural temperatures are not increasing over time?

            If you aren’t using a published dataset where did you compile your dataset? Out of your ass?

          • trump blast

            I worked out doors all my life and I can tell when it gets hot !! And whats the real difference between rual and urban ?? Both are outside the city limits and away from the island effect of those heat absorbing roads and buildings ! Next like the rain gauges most tempratures are taken at major airports right ontop of the blacktop !! Go driving down a road and look at the thermometers the one surrounded by asphalt if showing a higher temp. Than the one surrounded by grass !! And I’ve seen those temps vary by ten degrees !!

          • Michael Castillo

            You’re on the right path. When the weather stations were set up more than 50 years ago most of them were at airports which were mostly in rural areas. Many if not most of those are now developed into concrete covered heat sinks. To equivocate the data from before urbanization of these with data from the present in urbanized areas, temperatures from the older periods should be adjusted UPWARDS. In many cases climate alarmists have adjusted the old data DOWNWARDS which exaggerates the apparent rise in global temperatures. That is undoubtedly what Michael Mann did to obtain his Hockey Stick graph. Since political decisions are made based on conclusions using this data affecting the distribution of many billions of dollars, this manipulation of data is not just poor science, it’s criminal fraud.

          • trump blast

            a standing joke in Fla is that they park a jetliners wing over the rain gauge to keep the total inches of rain down each year so they can claim a drought is happiness as we who work outside are getting soaked each day it rains but theres was no measurable rain collected each time it rained !!

        • Tommy Gammelpot

          Amen!

        • Art Nickel

          NASA & NOAA both ‘adjusted’ their databases to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period (1100-1375) and subsequent Little Ice Age (1450-1850) to ‘conform’ to the models that have been constructed using only the assumption that global warming is occurring because of man’s emission of CO2.
          Reality checks:
          1- original temperature data from before 1999 is no longer available from the government, only the ‘adjusted’ figures are,
          2- the graphs used to show this, like the one you posted no longer include data from before 1880 in a further attempt to hide the truth,
          3- there is no such thing a proven in science about something we have only been able to study for 100 years or less,
          4- CO2 levels are lower today than they were 1,000 years ago and at many other times throughout Earth’s history, which debunks the claim that man has increased the CO2 to record levels. This is shown in core samples from around the world and along with the temperatures those samples indicate, show that NOAA, NASA, and the Global Warming proponents assertion that the European temperature records were not global in scope to be at the very least a willful misrepresentation of the truth.
          5- Core samples from around the world show that CO2 levels rise AFTER the temperature, lagging by about 800 years.
          6- CO2 makes up about 0.3% of the atmosphere and a rise of 20% would be insignificant compared to increases of water vapor and volcanic ash.
          In short, Climate Change aka Global Warming is all about Blood & Gore.
          That is David Blood (Head of Goldman Sachs Asset Investment) an Al Gore (ex-Vice President & now chairman of GIM) and a company called Generation Investment Management (GIM) an $18-billion investment group that is all about “Green Investment” and that has made a fortune from US Tax dollars spent fighting the Global Warming/Climate Change scam.

        • Richard

          Please define what you mean as “Green House gases”.

          • CB

            “Please define what you mean as “Green House gases”.”

            So sorry to hear about your accident!

            I hope your Google fingers are healing nicely. Get well soon!

            “green·house gas. noun: a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g., carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons.”

            (Google, “What is a greenhouse gas?”)

          • YOaC

            Still upvoting yourself, CB?
            How crass, tacky, petty and desperate for attention you are.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b1fdb09603caa731817b305b4477d108f6653d944ece2c6b760afd8a6a2ea63.jpg

          • https://twitter.com/militarydisqus/status/952762116238229505 Jo

            Hahahaha

          • Popcorn Joe

            You’d better draw him some pictures.

          • CB

            Is this where we are now?

            Just refusing to accept basic definitions?

            What good does Richard think that’s going to accomplish?

            smh…

      • trump blast

        You might want to consider the tsnami effect on ocean pollution theres items not meant to be thrown away floating around in the water but has been washed there by two or three tsunamis !!

        • SpikeMike

          Why are you posting on here 15 times with ALL LIES? THOUSANDS of scientists have said that Global Warming is TRUE!!!!

          • Damien Duffy

            Consensus does not make truth.
            How many people believe planes flew through the WTC steel walls (and concrete)?
            How many scientists agree we live on a spinning ball?
            How many scientists assure us that the “Apollo” program was real?
            How many scientists agree you should all get the flu shot?
            And etc. and etc.
            We have had wrong’uns in control for a long time, so what would you expect?
            The university cult is used to control the official paradigm.
            Anyone who defers to e.g. Brian Cox for their answers should never argue with people online, really.

          • Dale Smith

            What is your current favorite conspiracy theory? LOL

          • Damien Duffy

            [What is your current favorite conspiracy theory? LOL]
            I don’t really look into “conspiracy theories”, just conspiracies that have evidence.
            Of course you would suggest that no conspiracy has ever been committed in the history of the world, and that nobody has ever falsified data relating to climate research (which of course they have we know this).
            Would you suggest Al Gore’s prediction of “the ice cap disappearing by 2014” was good scientific fact?

          • Dale Smith

            “I don’t really look into ‘conspiracy theories’, just conspiracies that have evidence.”

            And which might those be. I’d be interested in looking at your evidence.

            “Of course you would suggest that no conspiracy has ever been committed in the history of the world, and that nobody has ever falsified data relating to climate research (which of course they have we know this).”

            That is inaccurate. I accept that there was a conspiracy to cover up the Watergate break-ins. What I don’t accept are massive conspiracies on a global scale that do not have supporting evidence.

            I don’t doubt that there may have been a scientist or two that fudged data. Scientists are human and not immune to corruption. That does not equate to an entire community of scientists fudging data in some global conspiracy. Show me the evidence.

            “Would you suggest Al Gore’s prediction of “the ice cap disappearing by 2014″ was good scientific fact?”

            Firstly, Al Gore is not a climate scientist. His opinion is of no importance to me. Secondly, Al Gore did not predict that the ice cap would disappear by 2014. He said it might disappear by then. That’s an important distinction.

            Many scientists in the climate science community predict that the Arctic sea ice will be completely gone during a few weeks in the summer sometime between 2035 and 2050.

          • Damien Duffy

            Lol!
            You see THINGS DO POST as long as you don’t mention the “Mandy Mook Moax” where NOBODY DIED IN FACT THE PLACE HAD BEEN CLOSED FOR YEARS E.G. THERE WEREN’T EVEN MANDATORY DISABLED PARKING BAYS IN THE CAR PARK!

          • Damien Duffy

            Try posting it yourself with Ss instead of the Ms, see if you can work out if it’s a conspiracy to prevent free speech.
            *Note: It will go to moderation, if you say something in line with the official story it will get through, won’t it?

          • Damien Duffy

            I just tried the PDF on it’s own and it went to moderation!

            You can google “nobody died at” and the name of the place to get the pdf.

          • Damien Duffy

            Lol! it looks like my reply was disallowed because I typed the name of a fictitious school event that was reported as real news as part of a gun=control attempt!
            I will try it without.

          • trump blast

            Spike mike I’m not the one posting lies !! There is no real global warming the temperature out side my door is in the thirties as I type this as we are weeks into spring and the outdoor temps will hit freezing as they did back in 1993 & 1977 i can be sure its not co2 thats causing anything except your ability to count maybe !!

          • Dale Smith

            You are describing weather, not climate. Have you checked to see what the temperature is in every major city around the world? If you did you’d see that the average temperature today is about 1°C warmer than in 1850.

            It can be colder where you live than it has been in a thousand years. That tells you nothing about the average temperature of the planet because heat is constantly moving around the planet as it is stirred by convection currents. The planet is not evenly heated.

          • trump blast

            Have you walked barefooted one the blacktop in every city on a sunny day ?? !! Dont blame the heat retaining effect of black surfaces in the major cities on the rest of the world !! That not climate change or glibal warming its thermal mass effect where a mass absorbes vast amounts of solar heat energy a n slowly let’s it seep out keeping that area warmer than the surrounding areas !!!

          • Dale Smith

            Dude, who cares about heat retention by blacktop? If the same amount of heat goes in it will retain the same amount of heat. The problem derives from the fact that more heat is in the air to be absorbed and then retained by the blacktop due to the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            The heat retention will not effect whether the temperature over the blacktop increases over time. Only more heat added to the blacktop from the atmosphere can do that.

            What’s import is the energy balance of the Earth. More energy as sunlight is coming in from the sun than is escaping as IR (heat) at the top of the atmosphere. As we add CO2 to the atmosphere the difference between incoming energy and outgoing energy increases. The only way for outgoing energy to increase is for the atmosphere to get warmer (a hotter object radiates more heat) or for GHG levels to drop.

            Once we reduce CO2 emissions to the point where the natural carbon cycle can absorb all of what we add and the atmospheric concentration stops increasing, it will still take a century more of warming before Earth’s energy balance is restored. So, our emissions of the last few decades haven’t yet fully impacted warming. That fact means we need to reduce our emissions as fast as possible to avoid the not so good 2°C warming since the late 1800s.

          • trump blast

            No there is not more heat in the air to be absorbed !! The black and brown surfaces absorbs heat directly from the sun !! I asked if you ever walked barr footed on black top ??? You failed to answer me !! But you see I have walked bare footed on black top !! And then I walked on the white paint line !! So if your statement about excess heat in the air was true then the paintedline would be just as hot as the asphalt thats not painted white but the painted area is nearly the same temperature as the grass next to the road !! There is no excess warming !! The earth is in an eliptic orbit around the sun the nearer we get to the sun the warmer it gets the further away the cooler !! Its time to dump the fake global climate change lie !!

          • Damien Duffy

            But then what about the water?
            The water level at the harbor in Llanbedr is exactly where it was 30 years ago. What happened to all the melted ice? Has Nestle bottled it or something?

      • joe

        Actually CO2 is not a good indicator of tempeture change. It is actually Sun activity and cloud formation which has a direct correlation to tempeture. As said by other comments CO2 was much higher in past with tempetures not following the CO2 trend…

        • Dale Smith

          CO2 alone does not correlate well with temperature but then neither does the sun. Only the combination of the influences of CO2 and the sun correlate well with temperature. This makes sense since they are the two biggest sources of climate forcing.

          Since solar irradiance has been steady to slightly decreasing since the late 1960s the sun cannot be responsible for the warming since 1970. Since CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen from 320 ppm to over 400 ppm since 1970 it is the main cause of the warming since 1970.

          • joe

            Sorry but the study disagrees with your view….CO2 is not a factor…

          • Dale Smith

            This isn’t a study. It is an article containing Adl-Tabatabai’s interpretation of recent scientific studies. I would need to read the papers in question to confirm his interpretation of those papers.

            But none of the linked paper’s even deals with the correlation or lack thereof of CO2 to temperature.

            So, no. Neither this article nor the few linked studies that I have perused contradict the claim that CO2 is a driver of warming temperatures.

          • joe

            We’ll the study I read and the documentary I watched says co2 does not affect climate change. That is all I said.

          • Dale Smith

            Which documentary? The Great Global Warming Swindle? I hope not because that documentary is full of inaccurate propoganda.

            Which study did you read? I’d like to read it myself if I haven’t already.

          • joe

            Also found another one from a Dr Don Easterbrook, but have not yet seen all his research yet, still reading.

      • Don Williams

        Ha! I burn my garbage too!. In a 55 gal barrel.

      • pfitz2401

        I agree in part about the 3rd World countries not caring about disposal of trash / garbage BUT the commercial vessels and the massive amount of Cruise Ships all dump into the ocean. It is a disgrace of epic portion, in my opinion.

      • Robert

        BBC to ban single-use plastics by 2020 after Blue Planet II

        9 reasons to refuse single-use plastic

        UK mulls single-use plastic tax

        UK foreign office to ban single-use plastics

        “..it is the third world countries…”

    • beardedbuff

      garbage in the oceans and garbage in orbit

      • Pray for America

        true. I hadn’t thought of that.

      • William Ian Pfeiffer

        If we put half as much effort into our waters that we do on this carbon cash grab, we could really make a difference in the environment!

        • hppynlifr

          Heck, if we put half as much effort into making sense common again, we’d make a difference in everything! lol

        • Dale Smith

          Well, we have limited resources. Only so much to spend. But I do agree that we should find money from somewhere to spend on lessening our harm on the environment.

      • trump blast

        The garbage in orbit blocks the sunlight until it burns up upon reentry !!

        • Dale Smith

          And the amount it blocks is miniscule in comparison to what clouds block.

    • Bradley Holdner

      Obama wasted at least a $Trillion … that sure coulda come in handy…

    • revmuck

      Time to recycle the floating mass of plastic in the ocean. It is mostly in one place, free transportation, one of the primary expenses in recycling. Ha!

    • david russell

      The garbage in the oceans is a tremendous resources for the creative person who develops the technology to harvest it. Petroleum at one time was garbage, a pollutant, a danger. Then we figured out how to replace candles and later power automobiles with it (and lots of other things).

    • Megalith

      Give it up global warming cultists. You’re bullsh*t’s been called out and discovered to be a scam to tax air. Go back to shining and kissing your new world order leaders a**es.

  • Mollie_Norris

    The Illuminati banker’s global warming scam has sucked about all it can from the global economy; UN NGOs have caused enough destruction of the environment and the indigenous cultures of third world nations and deaths from fuel starvation in developed nations, and US debt incurred in financing their pseudoscience has reached a level that’s acceptable to justify moving on to other anti-human eugenics psyops.

    • Jonathon Cassell

      Wow! That must be a record for a confluence of inane conspiracy theories!

      • Mollie_Norris

        Is ignorance bliss?

        • TexanForever

          loon

      • TexanForever

        Did you actually read all that crap? … I gave up after the first thousand words.
        .

    • Thomas

      Almost all of the Global Warming cash sucking was done from US Taxpayers. If you look at the agreements signed by other global attendees to the UN sponsored agreements, you will see that almost none of the foreign entities were required to ante up except the United States.

  • Peter Ole Kvint

    The answer is that global warming exists. It began around the year 1700 and will continue until around the year 2500. Because the oceans cycle takes 800 years.

    • Terrible Teddy

      haha! you wrote this comment after reading the article and digesting the graphic

      • Peter Ole Kvint

        You will see global warming exists in the graph from Greenland.

  • Desertphile

    In the past 45 years there have been *EIGHT* papers that reject the scientific consensus, not “40.” Six of those eight were retracted and the other two were debunked.

    You will not find scientists debating the issue anywhere in the world. Sorry Free Market Justice Warriors: you’ll just have to grow up now.

  • Desertphile

    “It was no warmer – indeed, is slightly cooler – than either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period.”

    That was predicted in the 1930s by climatologists to happen by the 2000s, and it’s now what we are seeing. LOL!

  • lt

    This scare is just another way for the left to charge us more in taxes and call it carbon tax. It is a crime. Never vote for a democrat again. They are all liars and thieves.

    • SpikeMike

      Stupid SOB!!!!!!!!!!

    • Dale Smith

      The capitol building is full of despicable corrupted politicians from both major parties.

      The most popular carbon tax is a fee and dividend system. This system would add a carbon tax to any upstream product that produces carbon emissions and the revenue from that tax would be evenly divided and returned to every family or individual in the country. In other words, it would be revenue neutral.

      Those who continue to buy products with a huge carbon footprint would pay more in the tax than they get back in the dividend. Those who buy carbon friendly and carbon neutral products would pay less in the tax than they get back in the dividend.

      This would incentivize people to buy less carbon-intensive products thereby reducing significantly the money that would need to be spent to mitigate the problems caused by climate change. A win-win for everybody.

  • lt

    Global warming is a scam, they could not keep up with that lie and now they call if climate change. Does anyone remember the lie that went with global warming? All the ice caps will melt before 2012. LOL, They just keep making up stories. Not buying into the lies, fear mongers are selling.

  • Wabbit

    We do not have a constant sun we have a Variable Sun that moves through cycles like most things in nature. These solar cycles have maximums and minimums of solar storms that create cloud cycles that amplify the lower clouds and make them heaver when our sun is at solar minimum, like now. ………….——————————————————————
    In trying to understand the earth’s climate because of a trace gas, we have uncovered part of a much larger complex system of order to our own Milky Way galaxy and beyond. Our variable sun that gives us life in this cold universe goes through many complex cycles of hot and cold temperatures on the earth that we have recorded through ice cores, tree rings and other devices. Every hundred thousand years a very large cycle called a Glaciation moves ice over Toronto a mile high and we can see this also in the earth sciences. Between the Glaciation periods galactic cosmic rays fly through our universe from supernova exploding stars and hit the earth in cycles more or less depending the cycles of our sun. Our sun goes through cycles of changing its North Pole to the South Pole every eleven years. In the middle of this change over there are many electric storms, solar storms that increase the magnetism of our sun and protect us from the many cosmic rays that hit the earth. We are hit with many more cosmic ray particles when the sun is very quiet with very few solar storms at the end of a solar cycle. These cosmic ray particles hit the lower clouds, seed the clouds, amplify the volume and make them very heavy. This amplifies our snow storms, our rain storms and all our weather events while making it much colder at the same time like a small nuclear winter. All this happens because, not unlike nature, our sun is a Variable Star and moves through cycles. ————-

    • TexanForever

      Why does the climate on Mars parallel that of the Earth, in compliance with sun activity?
      .

    • Barbara Anne Smith

      Finally!!! What to me is a breath of fresh air. Thanks.

      • L R

        It’s false. They’re cherry picking data, leaving out data and making it look like something it isn’t.

    • Ronald Engels

      Wabbit, excellent explanation, my compliments.

    • Ronald Engels

      Excellent video explanation on cloud formation through Cosmic Rays bombardments from outer space, in combination with / or without solar-activity from our Sun giving Global Warming or Global Cooling of our planet.

      And at this moment because of a dead magnetic sun with almost zero sun-activity and as such strongly increased Cosmic Rays Nuclei-Ions bombardments of our planet earth with weakened magnetisme (-30 %) and as such weakened protection we have continuously since more or less june 2017 increased cloud formations and cloud cover in the lower atmosphere and as a consequence we experienced much colder average normal temperatures overhere in the Netherlands since june 2017 uptill to-day 07-04-2018.
      Will our Dutch meteorological institute “KNMI – De Bilt” admit this, “No” – I doubt this very seriously, they will keep on promoting Global Warming because of CO2 Greenhousegasses, as such promoting in the Netherlands/Europe to continue to waste hundreds of Billions of Euros on a useless Energy Transition to zero CO2 emissions without Fossil Fuels, which will be impossible to ever acheive.

      Anyhow at below 200 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere all life on our planet will slowly completely die out.
      Wabbit: Regards from the city of Hulst, The Netherlands.

  • TexanForever

    Old News, in spite of the pompous, ill-informed scammers’ declaration that Global Warming is settled and there can be no further discussion.
    .

  • DrSteveofTX

    yournewswire.com is a highly biased, fake-news-oriented, ultra right wing propaganda machine. Take any and all things they put out with a very small grain of salt. I personally have criticized the sociology behind the climate change “science” movement. Their early prediction models were laughable. They also do not challenge their assumptions. However, there are data that show a modest trend toward global temperature increases. Many of the explanations and predictions are preposterous, however.

    • Samuel Fondren

      Why anyone reads this garbage is beyond me. Global Warming may be hogwash—but so is this fake-news site.

      • Troof Detector

        When one cant attack the message, one attacks the messenger.

        • Samuel Fondren

          Dude—I am somewhere to the far right of Ronald Reagan when it comes to politics—but that website is pure fiction; and they make no bones about it. This is not a matter of a Socialist-Snopes opinion—this is fact.

          They refer to their ‘fiction’ as ‘satire’.

          Try again, Doofus.

    • david russell

      A rational, thoughtful, and plausible post. You must have just arrived from the 1950’s using you time machine. Reasonable peopled have largely died out since then or been bludgeoned into silence.

    • Arne Bang

      At this moment i look out of my Kitchen windov, and what i see are a veritable wall of snow, I have been living in this area for 47 years, and have NEVER seen this much snow. What global warning ???? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c1ca4b0c9cf05234f968aa051eab0b83f643cbeb96c6e76bf71e44551bc016d9.jpg

  • louis greene

    I never believed in Global Warming and thought it a hoax to sell carbon credits to ignorant peoples that didn’t have a clue. Millions have been spent in order to change something that God is in control of.

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    Hilariously poorly done propaganda.

  • Guy321

    I am more conservative than not, and I think humans are ruining the Earth. Get rid of your political agenda.

  • Disqus-ed

    Richard P. Feynman Quotes… The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. Trying to understand the way nature works involves a most terrible test of human reasoning ability….

  • P Elliffe

    If you look at the Australian McGowan study, it seems to support global warming.

  • Horned One

    Stop posting this nonsense. Anthropogenic climate change is a fact.

  • http://budbromley.wordpress.com Bud Bromley

    Let me suggest being a bit more accurate with the wording of the title. The globe has been in a long term warming trend since the low temperature point of the most recent ice age. Technically, we are still in an interglacial period of that ice age so long as there is year-round ice at the poles. The ice sheet on Antarctica is increasing. Measurements from satellites show a statistically significant albeit slight global warming trend, less than 1 degree, although the number of years of satellite data is very small for this purpose. However, the temperature “hockey stick” increase does not exist in the real world, though it was very widely proclaimed and forecasted as dangerous by global warming alarmists. Further, we do not have a good correlation of the trend of atmospheric CO2 versus the trend of global temperature. In fact, those two trends are diverging. That divergence is very strong, exculpatory evidence that temperature is not being forced by CO2, which was the hypothesis of the global warming/climate alarmists. We all know that correlation does not prove cause. But alarmists proposed that CO2 was the cause, the trigger, which was said by them to be forcing global warming. If CO2 were the cause, then there must be a strong correlation. But there is nothing of significance. If CO2 were forcing significant or dangerous warming, then temperature trend and CO2 trend must be parallel or converging, not diverging. The data show that the climate is not sensitive to CO2 concentration. In fact, CO2 concentration is about as low as it has ever been in geological history. There are sound arguments that higher CO2 would be better. Since the beginning, the alarmist CO2 hypothesis was a “plug” in their climate models, a hypothetical cause which was presumed, not measured, by eliminating or categorizing other climate variables. The primary example of that is the consensus definition of water vaper and clouds as feedback, rather than the dominant greenhouse gas. If water vapor and clouds are defined as greenhouse gas in climate models, then the ERROR in the measurement of temperature change due to water vapor and clouds is larger than any warming effects caused by CO2. Then, instead of CO2 being at the top of the list of greenhouse gases, CO2 becomes trivial, statistically insignificant, less than noise in the measurement. Then It would be too obvious to the public than CO2 is not dangerous pollution, therefore no rationale to eliminate fossil fuels, no rational for taxpayers and NGOs to fund billions of dollars of “greenhouse gas” projects and research, no money flowing into crony pockets for “sustainable” solar and wind projects, no money into politicians campaign coffers. It’s an expensive fraud of global proportions. Eventually, some lawyers will be enriched by triple damages awarded by juries. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/93454e60db2c3a13c925bc2b6615b1a2b83e79f6e014f4ba83df400687476c58.gif https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f97410be56df5845d2f30285a21aeb3911f26060582315424233b89b72cc644.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ea512292b8862bb014e5f260dfcd8a14175d44d554c510bf2f3ebfcbe9acaae1.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5929a45eebe9cde8b065693a4e3cf7310ba5cbf6bd27e7c1decdd89e950fa786.jpg

  • Steven D. Warren

    I’ve seen through the hoax since day one. As they say, “to discover the lie, just follow the money.” Regrettably, my own agency has bought into the hype. When I was a child, we were told we were entering a new Ice Age. They were lying then, and they are lying now!

  • david russell

    Therefore, climate science is pseudo science. It’s tea-leaf reading. It’s metaphysics, not phsyics. It’s the astrology of sciences

  • Ronald Engels

    We all now by now that Global Warming based on CO2 Greenhousegasses is a Fraude, a worldwide organised conspiracy by the “ruling Elite”.

    It is all about “Power, Money and Controll over the people of this planet”, benefitting only the Elites like Al Gore, benefitting only all worldwide politicians and governments elites, universities elites and business leaders and creating huge poverty and misery through, higher taxes, increased non-democratic governments bureaucracies, lack of energy and lack of food for the Billions of Poor People of this planet, the real victims of the Paris 2015 Agreements..
    Whether we like it or not we are for sure in Global Cooling mode with our planet ever since 7000 years ago, due to the Milankovitch Cycles and variations in Solaractivity.
    In the period 1780 to 1998 we had a 220 year planet earth global warming period with a planet earth temperature increase of plus +1.3 degrees celcius and since 1998 we have started a 220 year planet earth global cooling period with a minus – 1.3 degrees celcius temperature decrease and on this moment in the period 2018-2026 we have a completely “Dead” Sun with little to zero sun-activity for probably the next 35 years, so yes our planet earth, all our oceans will be cooling, ice/snow/glaciers will increase worldwide including the Artic and Antartica and all our oceanlevels will drop somewhat worldwide.
    So to “All worldwide including Al Gore and all Global Warming Scientists and believers”, I can say without any hesitation, you better start accepting the fact of the coming more severe Global Cooling of our planet earth with at least a temperature drop of minus -1.3 degrees celcius of our planet earth in the next 200 years.
    Whether we like it or not our planet earths climate is regretfully worldwide becoming a lot colder due to considerable less solaractivity from our sun and increased Cosmic Rays-Nulei-Ions bombardments of our planet out of space, creating increased cloud formations on our planet worldwide and as such also a colder planet earth.
    Just inform yourselves on the Milankovitch Cycle, El Nino`s and Al Nina`s and solar activity variations, and so on. Regards to All.

  • Sam Lovejoy

    Can we get the citations for these findings? If they’re scientific papers, we need those citations so we can have a valid discussion.

    • Ronald Engels

      Sam,
      Just for your info, if you read others peoples comments, you would have noticed the excellent comment from “Wabbit” from 5 days ago and studied his excellent attached Denmark science video: “Science proving Climate Change is not Manmade”, describing in detail Cosmic Rays influence on Global Cooling due to a dead sun with practically zero Solar-Irradiation from our sun as is now the case in 2018.
      All information to know the truth of the now on-going Global Cooling with minus -1.3 degrees celcius for the next 200 years and much more colder over a longer period of 48.000 years can be found by searching / reviewing hundreds of scientists documents/citations and then its a question of reducing and combining of all this scientific information and you have a truthfull answer to all your questions.
      Of course the University Establishment does not like and will not accept this common sense intellect, outside the universities establishments you have some excellent minds, who through Overview, Knowledge and livelong Experiences and Curiosities on many many subjects have accumulated more knowledge than the Universities Establishment, who I consider rather limited in Overview different subjects Knowledge and Curiosity.
      Sorry to have to say this but University Graduates and Professors are often rather disappointing in curiosity outside their respectiv field and knowledge and have mostly the same opinion as expressed on their respective Universities,

      Lack of real Democracy of Opinion is the rule on most Universities, as you can also notice in the Denmark Scientific Video from Wabbit.
      Sorry I know I will get hate mails, but for me this is the reality of my experiences with the University Establishment in my own country, The Netherlands.

      • Derpitudinous_Neologism

        You know a commenter is unhinged when you read this: the now on-going Global Cooling

        No need to read any further.

        • Ronald Engels

          I understand you are an on-going Global Warming CO2 Greenhousegas believer.
          Sorry for you and your friends, you are wrong and the coming years and centuries will prove this when our planet earth`s temperatures are dropping further.

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            you are an on-going Global Warming CO2 Greenhousegas believer.

            I don’t deny scientific findings to keep cognitive dissonance away.

          • Ronald Engels

            If you want to stop accidental or on purpose wrong doing, you sometimes have no choice but to be clear and if possible openly friendly in your believes. I agree with you, you can lose a lot of aquaintances / friends when discussing a subject like Global Warming or cooling. In our lifes however its all about money and power and we the average normal people better start defending ourselves against abuses by our governments and the more well-off establishments, dictating our lives.
            Very regretfully most people just accept everything, just believe everything and will turn their back away from goverments, politics, establisments and so on, as such slowly but surely things become only worse. Good talking to you!

    • Dale Smith

      The article has links to the referenced papers. Just click on the citations that he lists in the article text.

      Of course we still need to read the papers to make sure that Adl-Tabatabai is not misrepresenting the conclusions of those papers as so many other climate change “skeptics” have done.

  • xteeth

    Well, no one ever said that you guys would give up and recognize the truth.

  • Nightand Fog

    Regardless of what we learn, anthropogenic global climate change theory is a religion and true believers will find a way to confirm their testimonies while condemning the heretic non-believers. We may even see burning at the stake again if the true believers work themselves into a frenzy. Their prophet is about profit. Their indulgences granted to net gain too. Their priests are hypocrites who preach the message but transgress the doctrine in private and justify when exposed.

  • Jeremy Potter

    Oh. 40 huh? As opposed to hundreds, and hundreds of peer reviewed scientific journals that say it does? Well golly, I’m convinced. LOL

    • Bill Mastrippolito

      Funny how the 40 mentioned (with no link to even see them) did not claim to be peer reviewed, wonder why?

  • James Filegar

    Question; would the “Ring of Fire” have any effect on the ocean temps in the Pacific?

  • timeklek

    Full Steam Ahead; AGW is a LIE.

  • rockin rex

    where is the list of the papers?

  • Art Nickel

    Having read the discussions it is obvious that there is one problem convincing a PLSD Global Warming Alarmist, the fact that the PLSD establishment and the people who need Global Warming aka Climate Change to keep their jobs are not willing to provide any evidence that shows their claims wrong and that quoting them is like quoting Hitler when he blamed Germany’s unemployment on the Jews.

  • BubbaBrown

    Plastic and other trash in the oceans is the real problem, Globull Warming was and is all political B.S.

  • Dave L

    You alarmists that just don’t get it, try to open your eyes and read what these guys are telling you. Global warming is a farce! It is not real! It is a political hack job. You have been fooled into believe the lie. I am 70 years of age….wake up…weather just changes, and the wind blows here and there. Some of you here still can’t believe the truth….there is no global warming.

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism

      Physics and chemistry are political hack jobs?????

      Gosh!

      • Grumnut1

        It’s no wonder Walter White turned bad when he found THAT out.

        • Derpitudinous_Neologism

          Exactly.

  • Kimberly Creighbaum

    its a hoax made up by the elite so they can make money off it

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    This is disinformation by the author and this site: 20th century warming …was no warmer – indeed, is slightly cooler – than either the Roman Warm Period or the Medieval Warming Period.

    False:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e456b18778b14adff1e213d1e988311846aa2221dbea4b9f9b2db7ddc7aa1b73.jpg

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    The first chart in this disinformation piece is not found in the paper:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89201cdab3de2a354ab89be62987638a9fbed902e33fc56e4fa9817d59d9dc0a.jpg

    Take a look at and compare an actual figure in the paper (page 33):
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/58c0e5fc39b81284301388b9b613d886abb8819ae12ab009ab31ab30e768bccf.jpg

    This author is not telling the truth. Why?

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    The author misleads here:

    Over 40 scientific papers on the global warming hoax have been published in just the first three months of 2018. What their charts show is that “nothing climatically unusual is happening.“…For example, a paper by Wündsch et al., 2018 shows us that the warming today in South Africa also is nothing unusual….Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Southeast Australia, according to McGowan et al., 2018,

    But that is not what the paper (McGowan et al., 2018) says at all:

    Here we show for a marginal alpine region of Australia using a carbon isotope speleothem reconstruction, warming over the past five decades has experienced equivalent magnitude of temperature change and snow cover decline to the RWP and MCA. The current rate of warming is unmatched for the past 2000 years and seasonal snow cover is at a minimum. On scales of several decades, mean maximum temperatures have undergone considerable change ≈ ± 0.8 °C highlighting local scale susceptibility to rapid temperature change…

    also

    Our record suggests the Australian snowpack is now at a 2,000 year low, while reconstructed alpine Tmax temperatures are beginning to approach Tmax values around the height of the RWP at 150 BCE and MCA 1390 CE. Observed annual Tmax values are only now exceeding our reconstructed Tmax for the past 2000 years. The rate of temperature increase from 1970 to 2005 was approximately 2.6 times faster than the fastest rate of warming during the MCA.

    The author of this piece misleads. On purpose? Or too incompetent to check and understand for himself?

    (figure 2 from paper) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/72eec3be321354e23fb8b37eb341316889ce9907c7100872784ca95b39fee88a.jpg

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    The author misleads here as well:

    In further bad news for climate alarmists, it seems that two of their favorite bellwethers of global warming doom – Greenland and the South Pole, are cooling not warming…Here’s Greenland, from a study by Mikkelsen et al.

    Here’s the supplement figure with the temperature reconstruction:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7fd51f0f4963b63f94cce26aa29cc9942cf831eff774af25c4fa633051c03ed6.jpg

    Here’s what the paper says:

    (nothing).

    The paper is about ice sheet mass balance and explicitly states nothing about temperature.

  • Derpitudinous_Neologism

    The misleading headline 40 New Scientific Papers Say Global Warming Does Not Exist and the author’s disinformation here: What their charts show is that “nothing climatically unusual is happening.“…Temperature reconstructions show the same is true in Northern Alaska (Hanna et al., 2018), and Global warming? What global warming??

    Tells you that you are being misled. How are you being tricked?

    They count on you not reading the papers and seeing that they are lying about the contents of said papers. The Hanna et al states

    Abstract
    The significant and ongoing environmental changes in Arctic regions demonstrate the need for quantitative, high-resolution records of pre-industrial climate change in this climatically sensitive region; such records are fundamental for understanding recent anthropogenic changes in the context of natural variability.

    also

    Arctic regions are highly sensitive to both natural and anthropogenic climate forcings, as evidenced by the recent warming trend over the past century and the significant climate variability observed throughout the late Holocene . Instrumental temperature records from North America over the past century indicate that the greatest warming has occurred in the highest latitudes , leading to significant and pervasive environmental changes including enhanced permafrost degradation , extreme rates of coastal erosion increased rates of glacial melt , and decreases in the duration and extent of sea ice and snow cover . (page 1, references omitted for brevity)

    and

    Contemporary warming over the past 150 years is characterized by a temperature increase of ~1.5°C, resulting in a modern surficial temperature value of
    3.40 ± 0.62°C. (page 5)

    Clearly it is warming. Why does this site and the author mislead you in this way?

  • YOaC

    Her avatar is a pic of a young girl, so I take that to mean she is female. She has stalked me for about three years trying desperately to become one of my followers. I won’t allow it and whatever unrequited passion she has just continues to intensify. There’s not enough Summer’s Eve on the planet for her to get over me. She stopped feeling April fresh a long time ago.

  • YOaC

    Man, thanks for the laugh. I’m dying here!

  • Grumnut1

    Yeas, it doesn’t take long to find pearlers like:
    At the same time the spring SST reconstruction from the
    Chesapeake Bay (Cronin et al., 2003, Fig. 6 herein) shows that the 20th century warming clearly exceeds the temperatures
    observed during the prior 2500 years. The shallow Chesapeake Bay displays large seasonal temperature and salinity
    variability (Cronin et al., 2003) in contrast to Gullmar Fjord, Malangen Fjord and Loch Sunart, which all have slightly/ less
    variable bottom water conditions during the year and similar “fjordic” circulation with annual or less frequent basin water
    10 exchanges. Also the SST record from the Chesapeake Bay is the shallowest temperature reconstruction (12-25 m w. d.)
    among the temperature records considered herein (Loch Sunart: 56 m; Gullmar Fjord: 120 m and Malangen Fjord: 218 m w.
    d.), which also may explain why its recent warming is unprecedented in a 2500-year perspective.

    From the Mikkelsen et al. paper.

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism

      Authors like this writing on sites like this count on the iron-clad fact that readers of sites like this don’t click on links to check if a paper actually says what the author claims it says.

      This is how the American right is grifted so easily.

  • classicalmusiclover

    “Breitbart reports….”

    Intelligent readers will simply read that phrase, stop reading, and roll out of their chairs laughing.

  • Marleyne Krell

    I agree global warming is nothing but fear mongering. If they keep people stirred up they will believe anything.

  • Trollhunter

    Let’s just argue about what name the changes in our weather are due to. Let’s not understand if we have anything to do with them or take the moment to protect ourselves from adverse climate changes, whatever they are. Deniers get no points from these arguments. None of us lived back then or will live that long individually, but there are 7 billion of us and perhaps Malthus was not just full of hot air? Are we sustainable as is?