Here’s what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat

By Tom Yulsman | March 12, 2018 2:07 pm

The relatively thin atmospheric cocoon that protects us from meteor impacts and radiation also makes for a habitable climate, thanks to the greenhouse gases it contains — carbon dioxide first and foremost. In this photograph captured by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station on July 31, 2011, the oblique angle reveals the atmosphere’s layers, along with a thin crescent Moon illuminated by the Sun from below the horizon of the Earth. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

Whenever I post something here at ImaGeo involving climate change, it’s a good bet that I’ll get a spectrum of critical responses in the comments section. These range from skepticism about the urgency of the problem to outright dismissal of humankind’s influence on climate through our emissions of greenhouse gases.

A recent post here about thawing permafrost releasing climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was no exception. For the story, I reviewed dozens scientific research papers, and used information and quotations from two interviews. Based on that reporting, here’s what I wrote at the top of the story:

The coldest reaches of the Arctic on land were once thought to be at least temporarily shielded from a major — and worrisome — effect of a warming climate: widespread melting of permafrost. But a recent study suggests these northernmost Arctic areas are likely to thaw much sooner than expected. That’s concerning because melting permafrost releases climate-warming greenhouse gases.

As always, I expected skeptical pushback — but nothing as extreme as this:

As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.

I took this to mean that a liberal scientific establishment invented the idea that carbon dioxide plays a role in Earth’s climate system to support raising taxes.

Never mind that relatively simple physics worked out in the 1800s, and since corroborated by experiments and observations, show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should raise Earth’s average temperature.

I ordinarily ignore comments like the one I quote above. Discover is a science magazine, not a platform for political grandstanding. And it is especially not a platform for ideas that run counter to basic physics and more than a century of hard scientific work by generations of researchers.

This is not to say that I and the other writers and editors here at Discover view science as being infallible. Far from it. We recognize that as a human endeavor, science is prone to error born of vanity, preconceived notions, confirmation bias, a herd mentality, etc.  Scientists know this better than anyone, so skepticism is one of their cardinal values. So is the recognition that even today’s most widely accepted theories may have to be modified or even replaced tomorrow if new evidence requires it.

Journalists are also supposed to be skeptical and self-critical. We should frequently ask ourselves things like, “How do I know this? Am I sure? Maybe I should check because I could be deceived by my preconceived notions.”

And so in this case, I thought it would be useful to delve deeper into what scientists know of the link between carbon dioxide and climate over the geologic timescale, and CO2’s overall role as a kind of thermostat for the planet.

I don’t pretend that what follows is a definitive primer on these issues. Not even close. But I thought it might be useful to share what I learned — if for no other reason that it might arm readers with some useful scientific information when they encounter people peddling politics in the name of science.

So, back to that original claim that “CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years,” the commenter wrote this to support it:

My evidence for my comment, is climate history over 600 million years, during which time, when CO2 increased, global temperature decreased, for several million years, and when CO2 decreased, global temperature increased, also for several millions of years.

He also used a graph originally posted online by someone named Monte Hieb at this website. Hieb has changed the graph a number of times over the years. The following version is one that has been frequently picked up by people who deny the science on humankind’s impact on climate, including such well known figures as Christopher Monckton:


Source: APS Physics

It purports to show that CO2 and climate really aren’t well linked.

When I sought more information about this graph, I landed first on a post at RealClimate by Gavin Schmidt, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. From his article, titled “Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?,” I learned that Hieb had hand drawn his temperature record based on the work of a scientist named Chris Scotese. And as Schmidt puts it:

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea . . . that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared . . . and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside

The “proxy” records Schmidt references are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that stand in for direct measurements — in this case, chemical fingerprints in the geological record of changing climatic conditions. (For more on proxy records, see this explainer.)

Based on Schmidt’s post, here is part of my response to the commenter claiming no link between CO2 and climate:

You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers.

I went on to say this:

. . . your alleged “evidence” is a graph, in part hand-drawn, posted to a website that hasn’t been updated in six years by an obscure person with no discernible expertise in this area, and based on the work of a scientist who is not an expert in paleo temperature reconstructions and whose ideas were long ago supplanted by better work based on actual physical proxy records.

I then pointed him toward an example of real researchers doing the truly complex and hard work of science — a peer-reviewed paper titled “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate”.

In their paper, the team of five scientists analyzed a wealth of different data to examine the role of CO2 in climate over the past 540 million years. Their conclusions are nuanced — which is to be expected for a system as complex as global climate, and especially when looking at it over such long time periods. But here is the most relevant fundamental finding:

Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods.

Other scientists have addressed particular details of the geologic record. These include a period of glaciation that occurred during late Ordovician Period. Climate change dismissives say it happened despite sky high concentrations of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 440 million years ago. This, they claim, is proof that CO2 plays less of a role, or even no role, in determining Earth’s climate.

In supporting this claim they use a geochemical model called “GEOCARB” that provides estimates of CO2 concentrations through geologic time. But the critics fail to mention that the data included in the GEOCARB model come in very long time steps of 10 million years. With this in mind, the creators of GEOCARB explicitly warned that their model cannot discern changes in CO2 occurring over periods less than 10 million years long — including shorter-term drops of the kind that scientists have shown likely occurred during the late Ordovician glaciation.

“Thus, exact values of CO2 . . . should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification,” GEOCARB’s creators said.

Yet climate dismissives do just that. And they ignore copious evidence gathered by scientists supporting lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that period. For example, a 2009 paper in the journal Geology came to the following conclusion, as described by Phil Berardelli in a story in Science:

The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the mountains’ rocks absorbed enough greenhouse gas to freeze the planet.

For more details about the Ordovician glaciation and related issues, the website Skeptical Science has an excellent overview. And for a broad overview of  CO2’s role in Earth’s climate over geological history, check out this lecture by Richard Alley, a renowned Penn State geoscientist:

Commenters on my blog also often claim that since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so low compared to that of water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, it could not possibly play the role of a thermostat. But here, too, rigorous research shows otherwise.

For example, a team of four NASA scientists led by Andrew Lacis and including Gavin Schmidt, found this: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.

So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?

The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.

The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out.  And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.

“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.

Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute? The second study led by Gavin Schmidt concluded that the CO2 in our atmosphere is itself is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 and Earth's Energy Budget

Scientists have worked out the fine details of how energy flows through Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in this diagram. It shows how energy contained in sunlight warms our planet, and how this energy becomes temporarily trapped as it flows away from Earth’s surface as longwave infrared radiation. This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of global warming. (Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR)

This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt. A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details. Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results here. But the upshot of the study was this: “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.”

I’ll finish with one recent piece of research in which a team of five scientists examined the role of greenhouse gases in temperature anomalies, including the overall warming trend, since the onset of the industrial revolution.

Here, too, commenters on this blog often claim that since recent periods in Earth’s past were almost as warm as it is now, we can’t know for sure that the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is responsible for the observed recent warming.

But in their paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists confirmed that our emissions of greenhouse gases, “especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”

Earth’s climate is clearly an incredibly complex system. And climate scientists have never contended that they’ve understood all the details, or that their current understanding isn’t subject to revision when new evidence comes along. This is why they continue to do their research – to improve our understanding of how one of Earth’s key life support systems works.

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving climate changes over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball.

And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with.

  • nik

    I have never seen a scientific report, where the scientist says, ”CO2 is definitely the major cause of climate warming.”
    What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected to,” maybe the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.
    Perhaps someone could supply a few.

    • Mason
      • nik

        Its the same article as this one!

        • Mike Richardson

          That’s the point! 😁

          • nik

            Were you born the town fool, or did you take classes?

          • Mike Richardson

            I prefer to be the best at anything I do, so I’d really need to study under a master. When are you available to teach?

          • nik

            By definition, its impossible to teach a fool anything.

          • Mike Richardson

            As you have well demonstrated in your responses to these articles, master. :)

          • nik

            …..and your contributions to the discussions?
            Which is to be expected from the town fool.

          • OWilson

            His contribution is to end all rational discussion.

            He’s moderately successful too.

            Do a dump in the middle of the classroom and you will quickly clear the room!

            Alinkyism 101

          • nik

            Having served 9+years in the military, where insults can be a matter of life or death, his attempts at insults are at the kindergarten level.
            My normal response would not be appropriate on a site which is supposed to be for polite discussion.
            In any case, one should not abuse the village idiot, one should rather pity him, as he doesn’t have the intellect to even realise that he is the village idiot.
            In times past, the village blacksmith, or some other worthy, would have taken him aside, and give his backside a good walloping, this being the closest part of him to his brain, and usually this would have persuaded him not to interrupt adults with his infantile comments.

          • OWilson

            He goes away from time to time, when he starts losing it.

            That’s when the Discover Blogs get quite chummy, respectful, and informative.

            Check it out, it’s actually in the record!

          • nik

            I’ve challenged him to point out any defects in my logic, that can justify his criticisms.
            Its gone very quiet, so far.

          • OWilson

            He eventually runs out of Ad Hominems, then he has nothing more! :)

          • nik

            When I was in the RAF in Gib, I had a bloke who decided to take the pix/micky out of one aspect of my anatomy. I’m pretty thick skinned, so that didnt worry me, but after several months of the same thing, every day, I eventually told him the joke was worn out, ‘find another!’ The following day, after I’d just come off a 16 hour night shift, without sleep, and was feeling more than a little irritable, he gave it to me again. So, I gave him some back.
            Without a word, he left the room, and did so every time I entered a room, even in mid sentence, for the remaining 6 months he was there.
            I hit him with everything he was self conscious about. The other guys in the room, didnt even notice what I’d said to him.
            ‘People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones!’ applies.
            So far, I’ve been very restrained with M. R. but that could change!
            I’ve had two or three idiots making irritating comments, until I gave some hard stuff back.
            They never came back for more!
            It comes from my school days, When I left at 15, there were 1st year kids bigger than me. I’d learned that verbal could be very effective, and physical then only as a last resort. They only made the mistake of annoying me once. Even the biggest guy in the school, who was foot taller than me, learned the hard way, and copped a wallop in the ‘bread basket.’ (I was also the second fasted 220 yard sprinter in the school:-) He never, ever, bothered me again.

          • OWilson

            Thanks for that!

            This is one thread that could end on a on an interesting post.

            Unless HE comes back! Lol!

          • CB

            “This is one thread that could end on a on an interesting post.”

            Uh huh.

            OP is denying evidence right in front of his face, and ignoring evidence that’s been around for centuries.

            Why is that?

            Will ignoring the evidence make the evidence go away?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”


          • OWilson

            As it was it scientifically demonstrated that peeing in the sea increased sea levels.

            But it does NOT cause the washing away of Tuvalu and the Maldives.

            That’s a flawed conclusion from a scientific fact.

            This is old stuff, responding to infantile and juvenile logic!

            I’m outa here!

            Time for my sunset cocktail.

            Or maybe I’m just dreaming, because the true believer above says I don’t live here, and some Kuch brothers are buying me my Presidente Lite!

            No, geez, damn, I don’t see a Western Union remittance, so I do have to stop at the ATM, and take something from my modest savings!


          • CB

            “it was it scientifically demonstrated that peeing in the sea increased sea levels.”

            …because that’s what you think global warming is about?

            …or are you playing pretend?

            If you pretend reality doesn’t exist, does that mean it cannot affect you, Mr. Wilson?

            “If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).”


          • OWilson

            “IF” :)

            “IF” I pick the right lotto numbers I will be rich!

            But why should I bore the readers with how I will spend my money when I do! ?

            ” I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out, (next year)” said Dr Serreze, Director NSIDC! –

            The Independent – Thursday 26 June 2008 23:00 BST



          • CB

            “why should I bore the readers”

            It’s a mystery only you can solve! You are well-known for prevarication. That means no one is likely to believe you.

            If you understand that, why do you bother to post anything at all?


          • OWilson

            Simple answer?

            Because I like to see the nonsense that you true believers can come up with! :)

            Free phony psychanalysis, delusion, and totally incorrect assumptions about my lifestyle, but yet, strangely no response to my request to you and others provide evidence that reputable scientists, or scientific organanizations have stated that Co2 is the “pre-eminent” “primary” or “main” driver of the climate!

            Still waiting, …..yawn!

          • CB

            “I like to see the nonsense that you true believers can come up with!”

            You are lying for attention, then. Why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you, Mr. Wilson?


          • OWilson

            You sent me to YouTube?

            I got a million of rebuttals for yer on YouTube!


            I can see where you get your authoratative science!

            (A quote would have been sufficient, not a another cheap liberal “awards” ceremony!)

            NASA, or NOAA, will be quite sufficient, thank you!

            I just dismissed NSIDC from my own list of experts due to there last two completely wrong and contradictory estimates of when we would have “an ice free Arctic”


          • CB

            “You sent me to YouTube?”

            Nope. I sent you to Dr. Richard Alley.

            Sweetheart, why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you?

            How pathetic must you be that you cannot get people to notice you in any other way?

            “An increasing body of science indicates that CO₂ has been the most important controller of Earth’s climate.”


          • OWilson

            Why do AGW fans always try to play tricks?

            I asked for a scientific cite.

            You sent me to YouTube to hear from a guy who says,

            An “increasing” “body of science” “indicates” that Co2 “has” been the most importantant controller of the Earth’s climate?

            I would expect no less from the Lead Author of the U.N. IPCC Report! (They are the ones demanding $trillions in third world reparations, and to prevent Tuvalu from sinking beneath the waves, when it is actually growing :) remember?)

            I was looking for that “body of science” he is referring to.

            So, round and round we go, down the AGW rat hole!

            I will give you the point that you did at least link me to a scientific opinion.

            Thanks, but no thanks!

            Now I’m outta here!

          • CB

            “Why do AGW fans always try to play tricks?”

            Your question assumes that which is not in evidence. AGW is a fact we can see from space. It doesn’t need “fans” to be true. Lying about it might get you attention at first, but what happens when people become bored of your sad attention-seeking behaviour and simply begin ignoring you? Did you not realise that might happen?


          • OWilson

            Black Body Emissions?

            Lawdy, who ordered THAT?

            I’m now outta here, and will go back to my “cult commune”, to pick up my cheque from Koch for posting on right wing web sites, and pretend I just spent a beautuful day at the beach with good friends on my tropical island, with karaoki at the beach bar tonight at 8!

            I’ll leave you chicken littles, to be concerned and worried about the weather a hundred years from now, like you have been tought to do by your political masters, priests and shamans.

            Go get a group hug!

            Y’all need one badly!

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s a good question. You should check out his post in reply to me about where he posts, from about a day ago. Funny thing — you can check that in the public Disqus profile. If you can’t tell the truth about something as easy to fact check as that, why would you ever expect anyone to to believe you about anything else?

          • CB

            “why would you ever expect anyone to to believe you about anything else?”

            He doesn’t, and he openly admits he doesn’t.

            He’s lying for attention, and the more brazen and obnoxious the lie, the better.

            Sort by oldest.

            Sort by best.

            Talk over him and past him.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Earf heats up at the equator, and transports that heat to the poles, via winds and currents. Hadley cells, “the Gulf Stream” current, etc. The Arctic imports more heat from this transport, than it gains do to insolation.
            Floating sea-ice insulates the warm oceans. When this ice melts, sure, the albedo is lower, but the sunshine is weak up there. The increased moisture from exposure of the water vs ice, increases cloud incidence, which helps cool in summer by restoring at least part of the missing albedo … but, the ice, which used to insulate the (relatively) warm water, is gone, and the heat transfer from the water to the atmosphere, increases two orders of magnitude … 100X … This heat increases the upwards long-wave radiation, cooling Earf.

            Kim 2016: ”As sea ice decreases, warmer sea surface is exposed to air, yielding increased upward longwave radiation in the Barents–Kara seas.”
            Kim 2016: ”The upward longwave radiation is determined primarily by the [surface air temperature]. ”

            Tietsche 2011: ”The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic, partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes.”

            Tietsche 2011: ”In summer, the oceanic heat anomaly is enhanced by the ice–albedo feedback, but in winter the excess oceanic heat is lost to the atmosphere due to a lack of insulating sea ice cover. This leads to an anomalously warm atmosphere, which in turn causes increased heat loss by long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and decreased heat gain by atmospheric advection from lower latitudes. A lasting impact of the ice–albedo feedback is not possible because the large scale heat fluxes quickly adapt to release the excess oceanic heat from the Arctic.”

          • Mike Richardson

            Cool story. But pardon me for pointing out that in this case, the bloke who started off with the insults (village fool), was you. All in response to my simply noting that you were being directed back to an article that actually provided the information you needed. You don’t sound much like that thick skinned chap from your story. Perhaps a little self reflection is in order. I’ve had little success ( but much amusement) trying to encourage Ol’Wilson in such introspection, but perhaps you can do better. As for the topic of this article, and your dispute of it, you’ve shifted your argument so many times, it’s impossible to know what you expect others to debate. You appear to agree that there are greenhouse gases, that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and that the world is warming. You appear to disagree that CO2 is significantly contributing to climate change, but plenty of folks here, beginning with the author of this article, have beaten the dead horse into glue explaining why it does. There’s not much more I can add at this point, but if trading insults will make you feel better, I suppose you can resume that, though it really won’t achieve much else of value.

          • nik

            OK, I’ll make it easy.

            If CO2 caused global warming, you would have a positive feedback system, and the much threatened runaway greenhouse, would occur.
            That has not occurred in 600 million years, even when CO2 concentrations were 17 times present.

            Therefor the alleged effect cannot be real.

            Simple enough?

            As for who started, you, with snide sarcastic comments.
            Also, as I’ve pointed out, no sensible contribution to the discussion whatsoever.

            If a fly is bothering you, eventually, you swat it!

          • OWilson

            So what do you call someone who claims that low lying coastal areas will be washed away, but lives on one that is under government flood warnings, gets flooded out, then rebuilds on the same spot?

            Not only are you a fool, but more seriously, you are a danger to your children, and first responders, who may have to come looking for you, next flood!

          • Mike Richardson

            You moved to an island nation at far greater risk of devastation from hurricanes than I am from floods. People rebuild there all the time. Do you have the same opinion of your new neighbors, or is this another example of your abundant hypocrisy?

          • OWilson

            I don’t expose my children to the risks I take in life!

          • Mike Richardson

            Sounds like your method of argument, actually.

          • Mike Richardson

            Losing it, as when one makes comments like “Get a life, please!” in response to a simple observation and straightforward question? LOL! Perhaps the reason you don’t see me with the frequency that others see you on these boards is that I actually have a life, and enjoy getting out and living it. It’s actually in the record! Now you and nik get back to devoting several more posts to me. If I had poor self esteem, you’d actually be doing me a favor! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            You’ve managed to contribute less with far more words. Arguing against well researched and supported science with nothing but your own assertions has certainly shown someone to be the fool here. However, that someone isn’t me.

          • nik

            How would you know, you dont have the intellect to make even one sensible comment.
            Oh! They are not my assertions, if you look beyond the AGW propaganda, now well discredited, as, like ”weapons of mass destruction” the alleged warming has also failed to be found.
            Silly little boy, dont interrupt adults when they are discussing things.

          • Mike Richardson

            I was never under the impression I was interrupting an actual adult.

          • nik

            Of course not, because you are the village idiot.
            How could you?

          • Mike Richardson

            Nik, how many people (with the obvious exception of Ol’Wilson, of course) have found you to be more persuasive than the author of this article? As terribly impressed as you appear to be with yourself and your accomplishments, you really don’t appear to be impressing too many other people as a towering intellect or brilliant scientific mind. Nope, you’ve been arguing pointlessly with the blog article’s author, who now seems to be ignoring you, and ironically calling other folks idiots while decrying infantile comments. You really are a lot like Ol’Wilson, unfortunately.

          • nik

            So, as I’ve said, where is your intelligent contribution to the discussion, …nowhere!
            Like all village idiots, full of hot air, and nothing more.
            I am not calling ”other folks” idiots, just you, as you merit the term.
            As I’ve shown, CO2 cannot CAUSE heating of the climate, as is claimed by the AGW lobby, no matter how much they fudge and fiddle with the data.
            The main criticism, of the graph shown, was not that the temperature was wrong, but that it was ”hand drawn.”
            Well, until PC’s reached a level and the programs were written, ALL graphs were hand drawn, and were accepted for at least two hundred years or more, so that criticism has no value.
            Only if the data is wrong, can it be criticised, and the major points that I used to show that the claims by the AGW lobby were obviously false, are all well accepted, and cannot be criticised.
            So, where’s your argument?

          • Jammy Dodger

            “… the reason I posted my credentials was to show that I have a brain”

            ‘cos there is no evidence of it in your posts? :)

          • nik

            How would you know?
            You dont have the intellect required to recognise intelligence if it bit you on the nose.

          • OWilson

            Just follow the crowd, Mikey, don’t question authority, and you’ll get to spend your generous government pension!

          • OWilson

            Why our our “best” always gravitate to government employment? :)

            What a waste!

          • frflyer

            Because the “best” are more interested in actual scientific research, rather than working in the private sector where the motive is profit and scientists can make a lot more money

          • OWilson

            So you really believe that?

            Who would you choose to build say a Web Site or a back up system for government emails for the State Department, IRS and the FBI?

            Oh yeah, the FBI spooks finally realised they could not float their “lost” communications excuse so close to Hillary and Lois Lerner’s little adventures.

            Like the purloined FBI files the Clinton White House had on their Republican opponents, and like Hillary’s lost Whitewater Billing records, they just as mysteriously turned up. Lol!

          • nik

            …and you think politicians are in government for purely altruistic purposes of course!

          • Mike Richardson

            I would have sought tutelage with you instead, but I figured with your immense popularity, you’d be booked solid. :)

          • OWilson

            Look at his emoticon.

            Take a guess! :)

    • Tom Yulsman

      Perhaps you should actually read the story carefully, and pay careful attention to the real words I wrote, and the real words said by the real scientists I quoted. You could also click on some of the links to the primary sources of real science I provided and check for yourself. But of course you won’t do that because you are obviously uninterested in what’s real, only in clinging to what you want to believe is real.

      • nik


        • frflyer

          “What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected to,” may be the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.”

          And that shows the scientific integrity of scientists, who almost never speak in terms of absolutes, since they always understand that science evolves. But deniers think it shows a weakness in the science, which is False

          • nik

            What it really shows, is that scientist do not want to compromise their integrity, but still need to appear to be complying with Government directives, to keep their funding, and their livelihoods.

            Those that do not, are sacked, blacklisted, and have their characters assassinated in the media, which primarily follows government dogma. There were several examples of this when AGW was first proposed, those remaining dont dare bite the hand that feeds them, and their families.

            Cant blame them for that.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            What, besides “denier” would you call someone who rejects the opinion of the vast majority of the world’s scientists? You do realize, I hope, that the other 194 countries in the world also have scientists. The US does not have a monopoly. Although is does have the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world to reject the Paris Accord. Whoopee, good for us.

          • OWilson

            I would call them brave skeptics like Socrates and Galileo who were “brought to jusice” by the establishment for denying the conventional wisdom of the times! :)

            Science without skepticism is Dogma!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There is a huge difference between Galileo on the one hand and climate change “skeptics” on the other. Socrates was “brought to justice” for religious heresy and doesn’t really fit with scientific disagreements.

            Galileo presented new ideas that contradicted the prevailing dogma, notably that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. I don’t know what other scientists thought AT THE TIME (obviously his heliocentric view is now accepted as fact), but he, too, was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church.

            Present day scientists who do not accept that the climate is changing because of human activity have not been able to provide an alternative explanation that stands up to scrutiny by other scientists. Nor have they – despite valiant efforts to pick holes in it – been able to disprove the accepted theory.

          • OWilson

            Freedom of speech!

            Alternate explanations?

            You ever hear of at least 6 cyclical glaciations and warming cycles, the Earth has experienced?

            Bye, again!

            Too much! :)

          • With Respect

            Where does a skeptic begin?

            Does a skeptic begin and end as a nihilist, who accepts nothing because there is no foundation the skeptic can agree to?

            Or does the skeptic accept “I think, therefore I am”, and consider true only what pure logic tells?

            From pure logic, an assiduous skeptic can with just the Peano postulates that emerge from acknowledging self-existence come to accept all of mathematics, including theorems of statistics and probability.

            Within mathematics, Newton-Raphson shows the skeptic reason to accept approximations that on iteration tend to converge to a single value in the limit. That same skeptical method is the foundation of science: hold exact or most nearly true the approximation inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation converges to amended or new inference.

            So you are no skeptic, if you do not accept that CO2 is the preeminent controller of climate, as that conclusion is what inference from all observation — over 10,000 new published studies a year, for years — tells.

          • OWilson



            “Main”, “Primary”,”above all others”

            Go away you silly person with the grandoise vocabulary!

            You also are a joke, not worthy of an adult response! :)

          • With Respect

            Ah, yes. The familiar strains of Ad Hominem from a deadbeat who must resort to abuse and absurdity to avoid facing his obligations.

            You have an interest in lands and waters. Others dump their fossil wastes upon them. You fail to charge them a fossil waste disposal fee, and let them freeload on your property, lowering property values all around.

            Shame on you.

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • OWilson

            This “cult commune” you have me living in (in your addled brain), are there any hot chicks living there too?

            Any free weed?


          • nik

            I dont reject the opinion of the ”vast majority of scientists.”
            What I reject, is the opinion of the vast majority of politicians, who claim the vast majority of scientists ….etc.
            As you, obviously consider that you accept ”the opinion of the vast majority of scientists,” name me one!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Michael Mann, James Hansen,Gavin Schmidt (extensively quoted in the article), Richard Alley, Katherine Hayhoe, Fillipo Giorgi, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Charles Keeling (and his son Ralph), and Kevin Trenberth come to mind. But it must be pointed out that the “vast majority” work relatively anonymously as part of a university department or government institute.

            You can see more names, and their affiliation, here:

          • nik

            Here’s another list;


            Of scientists who disagree. They must be the ones who are not government funded, and so cant be sacked, for not toeing the government line.


          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I saw that list and chose not to include any of the names that jumped off the page. Somehow the deniers have managed to be much more visible than their counterparts.

            That could be because they are not government funded. Whatever their academic or institutional affiliation may be, there is a pretty good chance that they are being funded by the Koch brothers and others whose wealth depends on extracting the last drop of fossil fuel while they can (among them our ex-Secretary of State).

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I must just add that some on the list have made important contributions to the body of knowledge about global warming and the resultant changes in the climate. However, with or without a financial incentive, they have drawn the wrong conclusions.

          • nik

            That may be, but, until such time as CO2 can be proven to be the SOLE cause of global warming/climate change, which is very unlikely, then it matters not one iota who funds who, or what.

            Considering the millions invested by government, to promote their agenda, and the trillions in carbon tax that they expect to receive from it, which will dwarf anything any other parties in the opposite camp is likely to benefit, you cannot assume that the governments aims are for purely altruistic purposes.
            When have they ever been?

            ”Somehow the deniers have managed to be much more visible than their counterparts.”

            Why do you think that is, as there are far fewer of them?
            Perhaps because the governments case doesn’t ring as true, to anyone with a brain that functions, and they prefer the scientists with science to back their argument, instead of political propaganda?

            In addition, governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars. If all the promises that were made by politicians before elections, and were never kept, were put into a book, it would almost definitely be the largest book ever produced in the history of the human race.

            If someone said to you, ”trust me, I’m a politician,” would you?

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You do come up with some rubbish arguments.

            The SOLE cause? That’s like saying that until we can find the one and only cause for cancer we should carry on using all the many substances that are know to cause particular cancers. Or you can keep on eating cakes, cookies and candies to your hearts content because you don’t know which ONE of them is making you so fat.

            And are you seriously suggesting that the government – this government – is about to tax carbon?

            When will you get it into your head that there are thousands and thousands of scientists around the world who are not affected by the corruption of the US political system by corporations? Or the fact that there is no “government case”. (Where have you been for the past year? Have you not noticed that the current government is almost entirely on your side? You need to modify your arguments to fit reality)

            Or the strange phenomenon that just about all the scientists you trust so much are closely connected to one or more of those corporations? Is that just coincidence?

          • nik

            ”You do come up with some rubbish arguments. The SOLE cause? ”

            Thats EXACTLY what the global warming/climate change lobby, is suggesting, so you have now supported my objections to it fully.
            Thank you.

            ”And are you seriously suggesting that the government – this government – is about to tax carbon?”

            No, I’m not suggesting it, they already have taxed carbon! Where have you been in the last decade?

            ”Have you not noticed that the current government is almost entirely on your side? ”

            Yes I have, and its the most sensible one since Kennedy.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            So now you are saying that your only objection to the “global warming/climate change lobby” is that they maintain human activity is the SOLE cause of global warming. Does that mean you accept that human activity is partially responsible?

          • nik

            ”So now you are saying that ……etc.”
            My attitude has been consistent, only your ability to understand it seems to have improved.

            Look at the worlds deforested areas, especially those deforested by humans, and what do you see?
            Mostly desert! Hot desert!
            Trees cool the climate, by putting vast quantities of water into the atmosphere, and by converting solar radiation into wood.
            Because they cool, they also promote rainfall, which requires clouds, which reflect solar radiation, and that also cools the atmosphere.
            Remove them, and all that is lost.
            There are other natural factors that reduce trees, and their cooling effectiveness, so humans are not solely responsible.
            If there were no trees, the tropical rain forested areas would be hotter than the
            Sahara. They are not!

            To summarise my position, for clarity.
            I dont accept that human caused CO2 is wholly responsible for, or even that it is, responsible for climate change, given the tiny amount of additional CO2 that can be attributed to human activity.
            At present I will accept that it may act as an atmospheric stabilising agent, I have more to read.

            That there are many other factors, that can, and do cause climate change, and have been doing so for millions of years, long before humans could have any effect, is well known. Milankovitch cycles being the obvious one, and Volcanoes being another. Volcanic effects tend to be short term, but that depends on how long they erupt for. In the past there have been eruptions that lasted for tens of thousands of years, like the Permian extinction period, amongst others. Milankovitch cycles operate over about 100,000 years.
            In addition, during its orbit of the galaxy, the sun passes through the arms of the galaxy, and intergalactic dust attenuates the solar radiation reaching Earth. So thats another, at approx 150 million year periods. These periods are associated with major extinction events. The solar system is in one now. So the ”sixth extinction event” may have nothing to do with humans, and their presence is merely coincidental.

            The problem, is that these events may happen simultaneously with human activity, so for any group to claim that human activity is solely responsible for climate change is irresponsible at best. Also, it is difficult to separate which is the main cause, so that human activity is responsible at all, is also dubious.
            Volcanoes can release more CO2 in a day than humans release in a year, and there are thousands of volcanoes erupting continuously, worldwide. The majority are under the sea, so we dont notice it.
            In geological terms humans have been around for just a pinprick in time. Their importance to climate change has been greatly exaggerated, by the AGW lobby, for political purposes.

            The whole AGW debacle was started to support a political policy, and has continued to serve that purpose ever since, even tho’ the specific political purpose may have changed.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Which political policy would that be?

          • nik

            In 79, Maggie Thatcher became prime minister, and she was determined to break the power of the unions, who had caused the fall of the earlier, Heath-the-Teeth Tory government. Especially the miners, who had been the most aggressive.
            She ‘threw’ £4 million at one of the top UK universities, as asked them to give her something to justify closing pits, and introducing nuclear power.
            CO2/global warming was what they cooked up. At about the same time, scientists were asking, ‘are we moving into a new ice age?’ Obviously the two are incompatible. So the universities forgot about the ice age, allowing the government to concentrate on closing pits, and breaking the miners union. The miners had the grip on the power generation of the country, like the Arabs have had more recently.
            The myth lay dormant for some years, until someone revived it, and refined it to collect carbon taxes, by the $trillion.
            Simple as that.
            I remember all the union strikes, the ”winter of discontent” 3 day working, and street protests, as I had to pass through them to college and later to work some times.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There are a couple of flaws in your Thatcher story.

            From 1975 until 1990 Mrs Thatcher was a vocal supporter of the climate cause. She was instrumental according to The Telegraph – in the setting up of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and she promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on “human-induced climate change”. Hadley then linked up with East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). (Perhaps that is the university you are thinking of).

            In 2003 she seemingly changed her mind, but as I read it she did not so much reject the science (she graduated from Cambridge with a degree in chemistry), as she rejected the solutions, more specifically the cost of solutions.

            Lastly, the carbon tax was only introduced in Britain in 2013.

          • nik

            ”Trust me, I’m a politician!”
            One scam lead to another.
            I dont think Thatcher was connected to C Tax. Just another group saw an opportunity to scam $trillions

            By 1988, she had achieved her objective, the miners union was divided, and under full control, as were the rest of the UK unions. Some had destroyed their employment entirely, so disappeared, like the London Dockers, as their employment was containerised, and moved to coastal locations, so they became irrelevant.
            Once she had started the ball rolling, she couldnt just drop it, as her credibility would have evaporated. So, the scam continued.

            I think the University was either Oxford or Cambridge, as being the most prestigious, would have been less likely to be criticised.

            Chemistry, is not too closely connected to biology, and the carbon cycle is part of that.
            Volcanoes spew CO2, trees and plant life absorb it, convert it to carbon, and oxygen, and animal life gets to breathe.
            Deforest, and there are less trees, so CO2 will increase, increase CO2, and trees and plant life increase, and CO2 goes down.
            While plant life proliferates, the CO2 steadily reduces, until either volcanoes increase their output, plant life reduces, or often both simultaneously. as one cause the other.

            Its just as likely that deforestation caused an increase in CO2, as it reduced sequestration. That combined with burning the trees, and then fossil fuels would have had a double effect. Planting more trees would reduce it, but at its present impoverished level, its of no danger to the world, except if it reduces.

            The falsehood that CO2 is a pollutant, and needs to be reduced, is a very effective way of eliminating all life on Earth. Reduce it to 150 ppm, and all plant life will start to die, from CO2 starvation, closely followed by all animal life, dependent upon it.
            Commercial greenhouse companies pump CO2 into their greenhouses, at not inconsiderable cost, to increase crop growth. Increasing CO2 to 1000 ppm would do nothing but good, for all life on Earth.

            The first to suffer, would be US, as we are at the top of the food chain!
            Thats part of the reason I contest the CO2/Global warming scam.

            Bankers print the money, so the more of it that gets to be circulated, the higher their apparent worth, and the greater the rest of the world becomes in debt to them.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Here and there you make good points, but they are so wrapped up in conspiracy theory that they have little impact.

            Take your statements: “The first to suffer, would be US, as we are at the top of the food chain!

            Thats (sic) part of the reason I contest the CO2/Global warming scam.”

            Yes, indeed. The US has the most to lose by facing up to the reality of global warming (and the need to do something about it). That being so, why on earth would people be inventing a problem?

            Isn’t it more logical that those – notably the fossil fuel industry – who really have a lot to lose would promote the idea that there is no problem? They want to continue extracting and selling their dirty fuel for as long as possible in order to recoup their investments. If they can persuade the gullible populace that politicians are trying to fleece them, that the science is not settled, then they will be able to carry on selling this nasty stuff.

            That is the scam

          • nik

            You have missed the point entirely.

            Please read my last post again.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I could read your last post twenty times. It would not make you any less of an idiot/moron/ imbecile/troll/menace to society.

            You can repeat 200 times that there is no global warming. Every repetition just confirms your idiocy.

          • nik

            I cant argue with religion, its mindless.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I absolutely agree that religion is mindless. But you have obviously forgotten our quite interesting comparison of rejecting religion at an early age.

          • nik

            OK, I’ll try to explain;

            When the glaciers recede at the end of an ice age, they leave behind, loads of ground up rocks, rock dust. Rock dust is an excellent all round fertiliser, so when it is colonised by trees, they grow prolifically. One mature tree can transpire 150,000 litres of water per year, which cools the atmosphere. multiply that by billions, or trillions of trees, and you have a significant effect, world wide. They also absorb large amounts of CO2, store the carbon, and release the O2.

            During the 10-15 thousand years of an inter ice age, these nutrients gradually get washed down through the soil, until they are out of reach of tree roots. The trees are then weakened, become more susceptible to disease, and as they are drier, forest fires. Obviously this means that less CO2 is absorbed, and less water is transpired. Add to this vast amounts of deforestation, carried out by humans, in the last 2-300 hundred years, and the effects will be noticeable, world wide. So, the climate warms, and CO2 level increases.

            One of the paradoxes of an end of an inter ice age, is that it first gets warmer. This warming causes more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, of rain and snow. The deeper snow takes longer to thaw, and so reflects sunlight for longer, so the climate in those areas cools. This cooling allows snow to lay for longer, which, again reflects sunlight, and causes more cooling. The cooler atmosphere causes more precipitation, and therefore more snow. This is a positive feedback loop, and the effects are asymptotic. (ie, increase very rapidly.)

            Look at news events over the last 10 years or so; the coldest temperatures ever recorded have occurred, and also the deepest snowfalls, in both hemispheres. Even snow in the Sahara desert. So have vast forest fires, world wide. All these are symptomatic, of an inter ice age, reaching its end.

            This inter-ice age has lasted around 15,000 years, which is about the average maximum, so is due to end soon. In the 70’s, scientists were asking, ”are we heading into a new ice age,” but they were subsequently drowned out by the ”AGW” fiasco. Analysis of climate data from deep sea, and lake core drillings, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age, with rapidly advancing permanent snow lines, during the last million years, has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

            So, climate changes, as the world is experiencing at present, have occurred over the last million years, without any assistance from humans, regular as clockwork. This time however, deforestation may well have accelerated the process.

            Thats why, I find the claims, and its associated misinformation, that the minute amounts of human produced CO2, of 0.002% to 0.005% have caused climate change, both ridiculous, and arrogant.

            (I’ve qualified my last statement re; global warming.)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            It’s a neat(sh) explanation. But wrong.

            It is true that the world SHOULD be cooling, but it is not.

            Global warming and climate change are not the same thing. There are three stages to the problem. The first is environmental degradation. This is caused by too many people burning too much. Too many people cutting down trees, sucking water out of the ground, developing and improperly disposing of too many chemicals.

            These various activities have led to a noticeable increase in greenhouse gases. (300 to 400 may not seem like a large increase, but it is 25% which is statistically significant). The increase is GHGs has led to a measurable increase in temperature, and higher temperatures have led to many disruptions in natural cycles, most notably water cycles. And that has led to climate change. Those are FACTS, not some tin-pot theory put out by an ex-pat Brit who is quite happy to see the global environment go to the place that rhymes with bell, as long as the fossil fuel-based economy continues to grow.

            You can go to bell as well.

          • nik

            Your whole diatribe is based on a fallacy or Phallacy. It was based on a claimed increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, which was attributed to human production of CO2. However, the 280 figure was derived from Greenland ice cores, and they have since proven to be faulty, because ice is not an impervious medium, and the CO2 can and does migrate, and in doing so, reduces the amount of trapped CO2.
            More recent calculations using plant stomata (as used in the link provided) have produced much lower figures of between 0.002%and 0.005% which is statistically insignificant.

            Therefore your whole diatribe is based on a Phallacy, Perhaps you should cogitate on that, or maybe sit on it.

            You are confusing two separate issues, pollution by human garbage, and climate change.

            If you consider the explanation that I have given, wrong, then please explain the faults. Also, it is not MY explanation, it was the explanation given in a documentary, long before the ”AGW” political fiasco commenced.

            In addition, the recent alleged ”gigantic” warming, actually amounts to a fraction of one degree.

            As I’ve said, I cannot argue with a religion, and although you abandoned the ‘god’ religion, it seems that the human necessity for a god of some sort has been filled by the ‘Global Warming’ god, by you.

            Good luck with that.

          • Donald Donovan

            I have to agree with nik. I just sat through an education seminar with a Scientist/Professor of chemistry who said the very same things that he described in regards to the CO2 and its effects on our Climate. he also said that Livestock, mainly cattle plus the deforestation is the biggest contributor to our problem.

          • nik

            Nice to have someone agreeable!

      • nik

        Hi Tom, I will give you a little on my background, then perhaps you will understand the reason for my ”Heretical” views.
        I’m educated to Chartered engineer level, which is roughly equivalent to a masters degree. Most time when I mention ‘engineer’ people think, ‘motor mechanic. In fact the term engineer has become so debased in some parts of the world, that people who clean lavatories are sometimes referred to as ‘sanitation engineers.’
        As an engineer I have to have a wide range of knowledge, with several ”..ics.” eg. mechanics, statics, dynamics, mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, ergonomics, economics, soil mechanics, electrics, electronics, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, hydraulics, gas flow, weather, chemistry, production, management, and statistics. etc, etc, etc. In fact anything that an engineered product may come into contact with.
        I also served nine years in the RAF as an electronics tech, which took me to the Near East and the far east. Travel broadens the mind and opens the eyes to the real world. i worked as fabrication welder, forklift truck mechanic, as well as a design draftsman/engineer.
        You may feel that this comment has no place on your blog, but this is the only way that I can communicate with you. However, if you decide to remove it, I will not be offended.

      • nik

        PS, thank you, yes, I have read the article and looked at the links.
        I think we need to agree on terminology. All trades and professions like to have their own terminology and jargon. eg. you cut your finger, and it bleeds. A doctor would say you have a lesion, which is haemorrhaging.
        CO2 cannot CAUSE warming, it can only modify or manipulate it. The only element that can CAUSE warming is solar radiation. Nor can it force anything, force would cause movement, by Newtons laws, eg, ”a body will remain stationary unless a FORCE is applied to it.” This is again use of inappropriate and misleading terminology.
        CO2 can act as a weak insulator, either by reflection or insulation, but as it is one of the weakest of so-called ‘greenhouse’ gasses, it is very inefficient. If it was efficient, it would be used to increase the insulation properties of double glazing units, especially as its cheap. It isn’t. Usually argon or other more exotic gasses are used.
        I note you have removed my original reply to Spider jon, which I find inexplicable, because it was based on straightforward science, no politics whatsoever.
        I would therefore be grateful if you would supply a reason, so that I can avoid ‘offending’ you or your sensibilities in the future.

        • David Rice

          “CO2 cannot CAUSE warming”

          Yet it is observed doing so, and has been observed doing so since the 1910s. How do you explain your odd assertion?

          • nik

            What proof do you have that the alleged warming is due to CO2, and not another entirely different factor?
            Government? Mr Obama?
            Governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars.
            The world still has not seen the, ”Weapons of mass destruction….!”
            So why would you believe governments or politicians, or the scientist that are funded by them, and sacked by them if they contradict government policy?

    • SpiderJon

      > “I have never seen a scientific report, where the scientist says, ‘
      > ‘CO2 is definitely the major cause of climate warming.”

      That’s probably because scientists are inherently cautious, especially when dealing with complex multi-factor issues.

      However, Anne Slinn, executive director for research of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, *has* said “CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming. That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.” Will that do?


      > “When the climate is warm, the oceans release more CO2, when
      > it is cold, they do not. Therefore CO2 is bound to be higher when
      > the climate is warm. That does not prove that CO2 is the cause,
      > of the higher temperatures, only that the changes operate in
      > tandem.”

      You’re right to be cautious about cause & effect.

      However, CO2 has been identified as a principal causal factor in climate change — see, eg,

      So, if the oceans release CO2 (rather than absorbing it) that will exacerbate warming, and, as a result, the oceans will release even more CO2, causing more warming, causing more release of CO2 – it’s a positive feedback loop.

      > Between 700 million years ago, and 600 million years ago, the
      > Earth was a snowball. What changed that? Massive volcanic
      > eruptions leading to huge amounts of CO2 being released?
      > Unlikely, as it was volcanic action that has been blamed for
      > the fall in temperature that occurred. They cannot be the
      > cause of both the cooling and the heating.

      Actually, they can.

      The ones that caused the cooling were on land. Amongst other gases they released lots of sulfur dioxide. That became reflective droplets of sulfuric acid after reacting with moisture in the atmosphere, which prevented solar radiation from reaching the planet’s surface. Hence cooling. Hence “snowball Earth”.

      The ones that ended snowball Earth were underwater. They released lots of CO2 — more than the oceans could hold — which ended up in the atmosphere and gradually resulted in warming,

      See, eg,

      • OWilson

        “Anne Slinn, executive director for research of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, *has* said “CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming. That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.” Will that do?

        Certainly not!

        Primary, (Adjective) definition:

        of chief importance, main, chief, key, prime, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, predominant, paramount, overriding, major, ruling, dominant, master, supreme, cardinal, pre-eminent, ultimate; number-one.

        • frflyer

          What nonsense.
          Global warming causes the climate to change.
          Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two different things.

          Oh, and nobody changed the name from global warming to climate change as deniers faithfully believe. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was founded and named in 1988. That’s 30 years ago. The term “climate change” is hardly new. Scientists have been using the terms climate change and global warming interchangably since at least 1970.

          A change of even one or two degrees, in global average temperature is HUGE. It took 11,000 years for the Earth to warm to temperature much like today, an increase of about 5C, when the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
          So, that’s roughly 2,200 years for each 1C warming
          We have warmed the planet by about 1C in just 135 years or so.

          That is because we have increased atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature did, in the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years, according to ice core data.

          • OWilson

            “What nonsense.
            Global warming causes the climate to change.”

            I rest my case! :)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Which case?

          • OWilson

            That the statement “Global Warming” CAUSES climate change” IS nonsense! :)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Really? The great and wonderful OWilson says that “the statement “Global Warming” CAUSES climate change” IS nonsense!” so it must be true.

            Please explain how it is that you, sitting on a third world island, know better than thousands of scientists around the world.

            Please explain what IS causing climate change.

          • OWilson

            Show me one reputable scientist that has ever made that statement!


            Bye again!

            Thanks for the laughs!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I started off by thinking that you were an amiable sort, but not any more. For you it is fun to undermine science. You are the worst kind of troll. You are doing this for laughs (and quite obviously the odd check in the mail).

            You make me sick.

          • OWilson

            You are delusional!

            You believe I don’t live where I actually do live!

            You believe I get paid to comment on a science blog. I don’t.

            You’ll believe anything!

            You really are sick, and need help!


          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Looks like you’re losing it, here. Might want to take a nice walk on the beach to calm down. Just watch out for those worms.

          • OWilson

            I’m not the one claiming to be sick!


          • Mike Richardson

            Storm surges aren’t a problem, and I’ve only flooded once. How often do hurricanes strike where you live? Better keep an eye out yourself.

          • OWilson

            I am a retired old gentleman.

            According to your new, but very sick ladyfriend, I do not live where I live, I get paid to post here, and I am:

            “a danger to the continuation of humanity”.

            I WILL keep an eye out for sick, delusional haters like you two!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yep. Triggered alright. “Three Little Piggies house made out of straw like you have!” LOL! I thought you were at middle school level maturity, but this is positively preschool! Naw, Ol’Wilson’s probably living in something more like a straw hut (if you’re living in a tropical third world island) than I am. Hope it’s built to the standards of my home, which has weathered some pretty high winds, or you’ll get the three pigs experience next time a hurricane strikes, regardless of how high you built. But I’m sure your offspring appreciate you moving off the continent and far away. Just tell them and the first responders not to bother looking for you when disaster strikes. I’d hate for you to sound like a hypocrite after what you’ve told me — but I guess it’s a bit late for that, right? 😉

          • OWilson

            YOU got flooded out, not ME!



          • Mike Richardson

            Don’t live on the coast Sherlock, and I’m more than 20 feet above sea level. The August 2016 flood event was the result of an unprecedented 2 feet of rain falling in under 24 hours, not storm surge or rising sea level. It affected areas never before flooded in over 100 years of habitation, and flooded homes in my neighborhood which had been here over 70 years without ever taking water. Yet I still got flood insurance and encouraged my older, more conservative family members to do the same, to no avail. I built my house high enough so less than a foot of water came in, while my family sheltered upstairs with electricity and plenty of stockpiled food and water. We were never at risk of actual harm.

            I’ve never been stuck in a city during a blackout, in the middle of a blizzard. Can you say the same? And I’m quite sure at some point you’ve lived with family members in an area prone to some type of natural disaster, whether blizzard, wildfire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or flood. To insist otherwise is stupid, and not credible in the least, but I expect you’ll try.

          • OWilson

            You got flooded out not me!

            Stand in front of the mirror and compain to yourself!

            You blamed global warming.

            Then promptly re-built!

            You tell us it will be getting worse real soon?


          • Mike Richardson

            Yep, people rebuild after disasters, as you’ll have to do next time a hurricane hits — unless you cut and run, and leave your less fortunate neighbors to deal with that. Seems more your speed, right? 😉

            Keep an eye out for hurricanes, and karma — you’ve got a pretty big bill coming due, I think. :)

          • nik

            ”We have warmed the planet by about 1C in just 135 years or so.”

            Not according to statistics, and your claimed ”proof” has since been shown to have been based upon faulty data. Ice core data!

            You wouldn’t know that of course as you very obviously confine yourself to political propaganda, and not science.
            Also, like all the religious fraudsters in the world, you love to deliberately misinterpret the data, ie Lie!

            So that claim falls flat, like a cowpat.

            ”Denier” is a term used by priests, who are the longest term fraudsters in human existence. So, Ha Ha, to that.

        • Elizabeth Whitehouse

          Leaving aside your possible motivations for wanting to consider climate change a hoax, do you deny that the earth is warming?

          • OWilson

            According to NOAA’s 40 year satellite record, since 1979, the anomaly above the mean is 0.20 degrees (as at February, 2018)

            I don’t argue with that!

            But please do the math!

            That’s only half a degree by the year 2100!

            Statistically scientifically insignificant “noise” given any scientific margin of error!

            Their terrestrial instrument record since 1850, shows slightly higher readings, but that record relies on proxies like ancient tidal guages, ancient ice core samples, ancient tree ring anaysis, ancient steamship intake valve records, as to be expected from an age where the North and South poles, and large portions of the Earth were yet to be explored, much less covered in thermometers, Lol!

          • cgs

            UAH satellite record (these are the folks that invented this technique) shows a trend of 0.13C/decade. Over the 38 years of the satellite record that computes to a 0.49C change.


            The RSS satellite record shows a trend of 0.19C/decade. That works out to 0.72C of change.


            The terrestrial instrument record since 1850 does NOT depend upon proxies. Proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I actually have to point that out! 😉

            The NASA GISS land + ocean trend over the same time period as the satellites (so no ship intake valve data) is 0.168C/decade or a 0.64C change.


            This is approximately 3x the 0.22C you claim for the NOAA satellite data. Not really “slightly” higher.

            Please link to the NOAA data.

          • OWilson

            “The terrestrial instrument record since 1850 does NOT depend upon proxies. Proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I actually have to point that out! ;)”

            Say what?

            How did they manage to collect temperatures of the Earth in 1850 when half the Earth had still not been explored, including both poles

            Enough of your foolishness!


          • cgs

            First, the use of the word “instrument” means the measurements are coming from just that – an instrument! Again, proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I have to point this out a second time!

            Second, you could educate yourself on the subject. Here’s a starting point:


            Third, where’s my link to the NOAA satellite data.

          • OWilson

            You need to find out how the NASA/NOAA’s average temperature (to one hundredths of a degree) was determined back as far as from 1850 before a large part of the Earth, including both Poles had even been explored!

            How much “instrument” coverage actually was there in those days?

          • cgs

            As usual, you are avoiding the specific criticism I am making. You just cannot admit that you used the word “instrumental” wrong. It’s very funny!

            And I see that you posted a graph above. That data may come from a NOAA satellite, but it is processed by an algorithm created by UAH. So that is UAH’s data. You only confuse things by being ignorant. [RSS also processes the same data, but use a different algorithm. That is why they get a different answer than UAH.]

            And we’ve discussed this before: you know you are reading that graph wrong. The full change starts from the beginning of the graph. The zero level depends upon what baseline is chosen, but the change over a particular time period does not.

            I also know, however, this concept does not penetrate your mind.

          • OWilson

            So you DON’T know how the Earth’s average temperature to within one hundreth of a degree was “devined”, back in the 1800s, before a large part of the Earth has even been explored, including both Poles.

            Your deflection is noted!

            But I’ll deal with your strawman anyway:

            This is how I described the graph, above:

            “According to NOAA’s 40 year satellite record, since 1979, the anomaly above the mean is 0.20 degrees (as at February, 2018)

            Factually correct and apparent to all but the “true believers”!

            Gotta go!


          • cgs

            So you DON’T know how the Earth’s average temperature …blah, blah, blah

            No, that’s not what I said. I said you could educate yourself on the subject if you want to know that. But you won’t.

            No strawman here. You phrase your comments to be “factually” correct, but you also are not being truthful with what the data says. You want to be just correct enough so that if someone calls you on it, like me, you can claim that you are correct. We both know better, right?

            Gotta go!

            Promises, promises! 😉

          • OWilson

            Thanks for the laughs! :)

          • cgs

            Happy to oblige! 😉

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s useful to know. I’ve provided a link to a journal article written by two of the folks from RSS describing a discrepancy they noted in the figures used by NOAA. Since you seem very knowledgeable about this topic, do you find the UAH figures more accurate, or those produced by the RSS? Has there been any dispute from other researchers and remote sensing data processors regarding the RSS findings in the article linked here?


            I know that 0.20 degrees figure is off according to both sources you discussed, but I’m just curious as to which is the most reliable source to cite. Thanks.

          • cgs

            Hi Mike,

            I know just enough to be dangerous, as they say! :)

            Both RSS and UAH went through large changes in their algorithms a few years ago and they both changed in the opposite direction! RSS went warmer and UAH went cooler.

            This has always seemed like a difficult measurement since there is a lot of calculation involved – far more complicated than surface temperatures.

            Hopefully as time progresses, these two data sets will begin to show the same consistency as the surface temperatures. But it doesn’t seem like we are there yet.

            I’ve not seen anything with regards to the paper you linked to. That doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, though!

          • Mike Richardson

            Thanks for the reply. What you’ve said just reinforces what I’ve been thinking with regards to satellite versus ground based measurements. The satellites should show the same basic trends, but there’s no reason the ground based readings should be dismissed. If anything, they should be more reliable for the actual temperature readings, though that fact appears to elude some. I appreciate any good source of information on this topic.

          • cgs

            Hi Mike,

            The one link I can give you is to a piece written by Carl Mears at RSS. Here is the link:


            In this he writes, in the Measurement Errors section:

            “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You do the math!

            And point out where you found this .20 degrees anomaly.

          • OWilson
          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            And you are basing your entire argument on the measurement for one month? Even when that measurement was taken in February, the coldest month of the year for most of the landmass of the planet.

            What are you trying to prove?

          • OWilson

            That, dearie, is the ENTIRE NOAA 40 year satellite record, plotted right up to date!

            The Earth’s average temperature is actually lower now than when Al Gore won his “Nobel”

            Bye dearie!

            No more time to waste with true believers! :)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Sigh. I realize, sweetie pie, that the chart shows 40 years of NOAA data. But you only mentioned the last point.

            Obviously your island paradise does not run to reading glasses. Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007. According to the chart you supplied, every single year since then (except for 2008) has been hotter. And 2018 is some 3.5 degrees (centigrade) warmer than the 1981-2010 average.

      • nik

        Hi! I gave a long response, which explained the reasons for the eruptions, and the primary reason for the cooling, all based on reputable science.
        However as it conflicted with the CO2 = global climate control myth, it has been removed.
        In essence its caused by astronomical factors, which reduce the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This causes cooling, at regular 150 million year intervals. When this agent is removed, the radiation levels return to normal, and so does the climate on Earth.
        These 150 million year events are well documented, as the cause major extinctions, ‘snowball Earth, and the Permian being two examples.
        These same factors also cause gravitational effects, which results in the massive volcanic long term eruptions, perhaps mare accurately termed as seepage’s, constant out flowing of magma, and gasses.

        • frflyer

          Guess what was a major player in ending every glacial period? CARBON DIOXIDE

          Glacial periods come and go when Milankovitch cycles trigger those changes in climate. [changes in Earth’s orbit and the angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane – the obliquity of the ecliptic) ]

          But those Milankovitch cycles are not strong enough to melt ice sheets and warm the world to interglacial conditions on their own. Feedbacks that kick in after the initital warming are what do much of the warming.

          Studies have shown that over 90% of the post glacial period warming happened AFTER the increase in CO2. – (Shakun et al)

          And CO2 is a major player as a feedback. But now humans are Directly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate of about 38 Billion tons a year. So CO2 is acting as a climate forcing, not a feedback. That CO2 warms the atmosphere has been known since 1859. There is no question about that.

          It’s been estimated that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are nearly 3 times as strong as radiative climate forcing, as those Milankovitch cycles.

          • nik

            You are still confused.
            You should read the article more closely.

            The beginning of the end of an ice age is as follows;
            First, net solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth increases. This causes gradual melt, as the melt proceeds, the land exposed increases, which absorbs more energy, instead of reflecting it, and the climate warms.
            As the climate warms, the oceans warm, and begin to release CO2, so atmospheric CO2 increases, in that order.
            However, the oceans form 70% of the Earth surface, and water takes longer to warm than land surface, as water has a greater heat capacity, (which is why water is used in radiators,) this delays the total heating of the whole planet, and is why the greatest heating occurs after the increase of released CO2.

            ”It’s been estimated that human emissions of CO2 …..”

            Those original ESTIMATIONS, were based upon Greenland ice core drillings, and have since been proved to be flawed, because, the CO2 trapped in the ice can migrate, so the readings are well below reality. (Ice is not an impervious medium.)

            A more accurate method is to use fossilised plants, and count plant stomata, which are a more direct reflection of CO2 levels. (In the link, given by Tom, in the article above, this method was used.) This has been carried out for the period since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and instead of the 280 ppm, a figure of 350 ppm, and above was obtained. (up to 380 ppm was obtained, but I have quoted the lowest figure).

            Therefore, the whole hypothesis of the AGW body collapses, as it is unsupported by the data.
            AGW, has since been abandoned, as the predicted phenomena failed to present itself, and was replaced by the ambiguous term ”climate change.”

            You should be aware that, in recent years, the lowest ever temperatures have been recorded, in both hemispheres, since records began, and also the greatest volumes of snow falls, even in the Sahara desert.

    • frflyer

      “When the climate is warm, the oceans release more CO2, when it is cold, they do not. Therefore CO2 is bound to be higher when the climate is warm.”

      Sorry but that is a case of turning a fact into a lie, something the denier misinformers do All The Time.
      from comment by climate scientist Daniel Bailey at NASA article on facebook

      “CO2 solubility increases with increasing difference in the partial pressures of CO2 between atmosphere and surface waters.

      In the real world, all things are not equal, our emissions have caused a difference in partial pressures, which is increasing the oceanic uptake, which more than compensates for the temperature driven change in fluxes.”…/v365/n6442/abs/365119a0.html

      • nik

        Oh dear!
        Another person who does not understand basic physics, which is becoming all the more prevalent, since the AGW debacle started.

        Lets try and explain it in common terms.

        When beer is brewed, yeast is used to do the brewing, and, as a mate of mine who brews his own beer, puts it, it gobbles sugar, and farts CO2. It is the CO2 that forms the bubbles in your beer. The reason beer is served chilled, is because it retains the CO2 longer, otherwise in a very short time, you would have ‘flat’ beer.

        If you dont believe me, try putting a beer in an oven, at say 30 deg C and another in the fridge, and see which goes flat first.

        Partial pressures, are not identical to temperature, so the comment is irrelevant.

        • frflyer

          That is utter nonsense as Every climate scientist will tell you

          • nik

            Oh yes?
            Name me one!
            Try the beer test.
            Then tell me your rubbish.

          • nik

            Here’s a response on another site, kindly provided by, ”cgs”
            John M. Quinn
            As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.

            First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic) does not drive Global Warming.

            The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon. Why? One finds on the secular time scale that both of the X- and Y- component temporal, annual-means profiles of the Earth’s Orientation mimic exactly the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) annual means profile On the decade time scale one finds that the GTA mimics the Geomagnetic Dipole variations and the variations in the Earths Anomalous Rotation Rate [i.e., Excess Length of Day (ELOD) Annual Means]. The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale. There are many other such correlations on both time scales.

            Thus, if CO2 were driving the GTA, and given the geophysical parameters that change over time in sync with the GTA, CO2 enhancements would reasonably have to drive the Earth’s dynamo which creates the Dipole Field and somehow also affects the Earth’s orientation and its rotation rate. But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it. Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity. Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years (Monin et. al., 2001). Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.

            I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail. It should be available in the book stores (e.g., Barnes and Nobel,, etc.) in late December 2009, or January 2010. Its title is:

            GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory

            Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

            ISBN: 978-1-4349-0581-9

            While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.

            Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.

            John M. Quinn
            Lakewood, CO

          • frflyer

            Your source is a quack

            “Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2”

            For starters, Mars has hardly any atmosphere, compared with Earth.

            Secondly there is no actual evidence that Mars is warming.

            from Skeptical Science

            “Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly
            (for about 57 years now)

            “All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846.

            •Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.

            •Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based onpredictions, since no warming has actually been observed

            •Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface ofboth Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken toindicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.

            •Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002.”


          • frflyer

            from your comment
            “CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), ”

            Oh my. Deniers are so good at repeating long disproven arguments.
            from Real Climate

            “A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success”

            “A number of blogs were excited after having leaked the second-order draft of IPCC document, which they interpreted as a “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing”.

            However, little evidence remains for a link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and variations in Earth’s cloudiness. Laken et al. (2012) recently provided an extensive review of the study of the GCR and Earth’s climate, from the initial work by Ney (1959) to the latest findings from 2012. ”


          • frflyer

            from Wikipedia

            “Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars due to low atmospheric pressure, which is less than 1% of the Earth’s”

            “The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to that found 35 km (22 mi)[141] above Earth’s surface.”

            not only that….
            “Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago”

            Why don’t we compare apples and oranges?

          • nik

            ”…..and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly
            (for about 57 years now)”

            LOL, I think you should revise your figure to about 30 million years or more, to when there were no ice caps, and forests existed on Antarctica, and it will continue to do so for many more.

            ” Skeptical Science” is a site set up purely to promote the AGW agenda, and cannot be relied upon.
            As, so course is the IPCC, which is a political organisation set up to promote the C Tax agenda.

            What happens on other planets in this solar system or any other, for that matter, is of no relevance to this discussion, as each planet is unique by virtue of its location, and composition, and cannot be compared to Earth.

            If you go to the site, kindly provided by cjs, you can read the response.

            So far, most of the responses I’ve read
            follow a similar theme, but then I’m only 1/4 of the way through them.

            However, the writer of the blog, specifically states in the introduction, that his intention is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to show the real effects of CO2 in the climate, (by mathematical calculations.)

          • frflyer

            Same old denier nonsense. It seems to never end.

            Skeptical Science purpose is to Debunk the lies and myths about the science, promoted by the fossil fuels industry. That they fund misinformation on climate change is a PROVEN FACT

          • nik

            Who funds Skeptical Science?
            Show me the ”facts” of the misinformation that you claim the fossil fuel industry has funded.

          • frflyer

            Here is how the deceivers spread their misinformation about climate change and “wipe the oil” off the money, by funneling it through groups like these and others.

            These 32 conservative ‘think tanks’ (really industry front groups) have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.

            They have all been involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.


            1. Acton Institute
            2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
            3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
            4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
            5. Americans for Prosperity
            6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
            7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
            8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
            9. Cato Institute
            10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
            11. Consumer Alert
            12. DCI Group (PR firm)
            13. European Science and Environment Forum
            14. Fraser Institute
            15. Frontiers of Freedom
            16. George C. Marshall Institute
            17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
            18. Heartland Institute
            19. Heritage Foundation
            20. Independent Institute
            21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
            22. International Policy Network
            23. John Locke Foundation
            24. Junk Science
            25. National Center for Public Policy Research
            26. National Journalism Center
            27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
            28. Pacific Research Institute
            29. Reason Foundation
            30. Small Business Survival Committee
            31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
            32. Washington Legal Foundation

            #5 and #9 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-enviromental PR. They also fund denial of the science saying formaldahyde causes cancer. This is no surprise, since they are major owners of Georgia Pacific lumber company.

            #24 Junk Science, which is aptly named, is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News like to feature as an “expert” on climate change. Milloy is NOT a scientist. He’s a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests and a professional PR man. Fox ever divulge that to you? I doubt it. And Milloy gets funding from, guess who? – the Koch brothers.


            “Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.”
            Chris Mooney at Mother Jones

          • frflyer

            Here are some books documenting the global warming denial misinformation PR machine and its history.

            “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”
            by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

            “The Inquisition of Climate Science”
            by James Lawrence Powell

            “Climate Cover-Up”: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”
            by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

            “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael Mann

            “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change” by Clive Hamilton
            He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science.

            “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate”
            by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery

            “Global Warming and Political Intimidation, How Politicians Cracked Down On Scientists as the Earth Heated Up” by Raymond Bradley

            “Climate Change Denial, Heads in the Sand”
            by Hayden Washington and John Cook

            “The Heat Is On” and “The Boiling Point” by Ross Gelbspan


          • frflyer

            Ross Gelbspan is a journalist who was a global warming skeptic. His books are about what he stumbled onto.

            Denial For Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money

            “Willlie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade…



          • frflyer

            W Bush administration

            The former head of he IPCC was Dr. Watson. The oil industry (American Petroleum Institute) and the Bush administration, which were one and the same, didn’t like that Watson agreed with AGW theory.

            So they maneuvered to have him removed and replaced with the new guy, Pauchari (may be spelled wrong). He was an agnostic on anthropogenic climate change. Now he agrees with the consensus.
            So, all the deniers attacked him and smeared his name.
            The Oil and Coal industries used to give 60% of political donations to GOP and 40% to Dems

            Then GW Bush was elected. His entire inner circle was conected to the fossil fuels industry. This includes Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz

            Under Bush the oil and gas industry got a $32 billion increase in subsidies for the next 5 years.

            Since then:
            The oil industry gives 79% to GOP
            The coal industry gives 90% to GOP

            And isn’t it a big surprise, that the GOP is the ONLY political party in the world to deny global warming?

            the Bush administration had a Petroleum Institute lawyer edit the federal climate study to water it down. Then this same lawyer (Cooney), headed efforts to censor scientists at NASA.

            They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.

            There was a systematic attempt to stifle the free speech of climate scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which Hansen was head of. They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
            The same Petroleum Institute lawyer (Cooney) led this assault on science.

            To learn much more about this, read the book:
            “Censoring Science: the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming” by Mark Bowen

          • frflyer

            the Bush administration had a Petroleum Institute lawyer edit the federal climate study to water it down. Then this same lawyer (Cooney), headed efforts to censor scientists at NASA.

            They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.

            There was a systematic attempt to stifle the free speech of climate scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which Hansen was head of. They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
            The same Petroleum Institute lawyer (Cooney) led this assault on science.

            To learn much more about this, read the book:
            “Censoring Science: the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming” by Mark Bowen

          • frflyer

            denier propaganda with no credibility is the movie called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. “scientific advisor” for the movie is Martin Livermore, who has no scientific credentials other than being the director of an online right wing think tank called The Scientific Alliance, which was established by the anti-green lobbying and public relations company, British Aggregates Association.
            Appearing in the film was Dr. Paul Reiter, who’s connected with the Annapolis Centre for Science Based Public Policy, a right wing think tank, which received $763,500 from Exxon Mobile.

            Dr. Paul Copper, Listed as an “Allied Expert” for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.” The NRSP also has ties to Canadian energy-sector lobbyists

            How oil and coal industry money is funneled through different foundations to bury the money trail, and “wipe the oil” off of it.

            They set up organizations like Policy Communications, The Western Business Roundtable, Partnership for America, and Americans for American Energy, to make it seem like there is this groundswell of grassroots organizations opposing the scientific theory of man made climate change and opposing the move to sustainable energy. These are actually all the same people from the fossil fuel industry and mining industry. They are all staffed by the same executives.

            It’s called “astroturfing” – the setting up of fake grassroots organizations and it’s one of the oldest tricks in the books.

            Policy Communications
            “An energy industry-backed astro-turf network concocted by a single PR/Lobbying firm that is working to undermine the efforts of environmental groups and organizations like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). that are pushing for solutions to climate change.”


          • frflyer

            Another example of “wiping the oil’ off the money is how the inaptly named Friends of Science(FOS), had money funneled to what they called the Science Education Fund. The money came from the Alberta oil and gas industry through the Calgary Foundation, who funneled it through the University of Calgary and ultimately ending up at FOS.

            FOS has funded Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling and Pat Michaels.

          • frflyer

            Some well known “skeptic” climate scientists

            Fred Singer is linked to the fossil fuel industry and was once a hired gun for the tobacco industry to give “expert” testimony that cigarette smoke is not bad for you. Fred Singer has been paid by the tobacco industry to the deny the science about dangers of tobacco, and by the fossil fuels industry to do the same on climate change

            Richard Linzen was paid $2,500/day to be a consultant for the fossil fuel industry. His trip to Washington to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuel co.

            The Heartland Insitute is largley funded by Exxon/Mobile.

            Patrick Michaels has admitted to getting 40% of his income from the fossil fuels industry

          • nik

            Well, I am not paid by anyone.
            I wish.
            However, IF CO2 caused global warming, you would have a positive feedback system, which would produce the much threatened runaway ”greenhouse effect.”

            That has not occurred in 600 million years, even when CO2 was 1700% over present, not a minute 0.125% increase, as is the present case.

            Therefor, ”As the observed facts do not support the theory, the theory is wrong!”

          • With Respect

            Feedbacks have limits.

            Every change in global climate fitting the orbital predictions of Milankovitch far exceed — by over ten times — the amplitude orbital changes alone cause. Getting a fraction closer to the Sun, tilting a little in its direction: these account for tenths of a degree, when the warming or cooling is on the scale of five degrees. All the rest?

            That’s feedback running away until they run out of room within the parameters of the global climate system.

            Humans have reset the upper bounds on the parameters, and the planet is warming 15-200 times faster than any rate of climate change (even the YD episode) in global climate, and rising higher in temperature than the globe has seen since humans evolved.

          • frflyer

            “What happens on other planets in this solar system or any other, for that matter, is of no relevance to this discussion”

            So why did your quack source talk about Mars warming?

          • nik

            I have no idea, why dont you ask him, the link is in the article.
            Perhaps because he was not involved in this discussion, dont you think?

          • frflyer

            “I think you should revise your figure to about 30 million years or more, to when there were no ice caps, and forests existed on Antarctica, and it will continue to do so for many more.”

            Really? The Sun is warming long term, not cooling. However, solar output has declined since about 1960, while 2/3 of the warming since 1880 happened – about 0.6C warming since 1960

          • nik

            The value of your ‘information’ is exceeded by your ignorance.
            Solar radiation, reaching the Earth has been diminishing steadily for the last 30 million years, with minor fluctuations during that period.

            The sun operates in a galactic system, not in grand isolation. So galactic events cause effects that can, and do change the suns radiation reaching the Earth.

            The Earths climatic temperature consistently follows a ‘saw-tooth’ pattern, so up for a period, and then down for a period.

            The real crime against science that the ‘global warming’ lobby committed was to take one minute section of the Earths climate history, over the last 50-60 years, at the end of a short cooling phase when the climate started to warm again, ignore anything before that, and then extrapolate that section into the future, which gave ridiculous results, that have consistently failed to materialise.

            As to ”warming long term” your time scale is rather distorted, 50-60 years, when compared to 30 million, is hardly long term!

          • With Respect

            You seem unfamiliar with the facts of the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

            Also, you cling to handwaved and known wrong cyclic dogmatism like a drowning man to an anchor around his neck.

            Currently a main-sequence star on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, the Sun varies due to stellar evolution as it burns its hydrogen supply along this sequence expected to last a total of roughly ten-billion years. The early Sun was approximately 70% as bright as at the present when it joined the main sequence about 4.6 billion years ago and has a current rate of increase in luminosity of 0.009% per million years (Hecht 1994). At this rate, it will take ten-million years for the background solar-brightness to increase by the 0.1 % typical of a solar-cycle variation, and another 3.5 billion years for heating from the Sun to create Earth surface conditions similar to those of the present-day Venus; although additional effects, such as feedback from enhanced ocean-evaporation, may accelerate this warming and make the Earth uninhabitable (at least to present-day complex lifeforms) in about one-billion years (O’MalleyJames et al. 2013). I

            — Kopp, G. Magnitudes and Timescales of Total Solar Irradiance Variability (2016)

            The Sun has been running contrary to global climate trends for the past six decades, and the Hale Cycle, once a reliable correlation, no longer shows up in the global temperature record.

          • nik

            Seems that the asylum door has been left open again.

          • With Respect

            And there we have sufficient samples of absurdity, the Deadbeat Hypothesis once again accurately predicts the behavior of a debtor refusing to face his debts, by flinging absurdities and abuse.

            There is no need to further observe these behaviors, and the subject joins many others who billions of people simply ignore. Thanks, Disqus Block User feature.

          • frflyer

            “IPCC, which is a political organisation set up to promote the C Tax agenda.”

            Said like a true tin foil hat conspiracy theory nut.

            Such nonsense is why deniers should not be taken seriously. It is politics, not science, that motivates you. Meanwhile deniers go on and on about how the science can’t be trusted, because it is politicized. Projecting much?

          • nik

            OK, I’ll take your criticism at face value.
            So, tell me WHO DID set up the IPCC, the boy-scout brigade?
            Please enlighten me!

          • frflyer

            from the SkS websi
            “Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers

            There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations – it’s run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love.”

          • frflyer

            The IPCC does not do scientific research. Scientists all over the world, in Universities and national science agencies, like NASA, NOAA do the research, independent of the IPCC.
            2,500 leading climate scientists review the research for the IPCC, as volunteers. They are not paid. The IPCC just presents the findings to the public and policy makers.

          • nik

            ..and you can prove those claims absolutely?

    • David Rice

      “What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected
      to,” may be the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.”

      You object to scientists using the language of science? Really? If you want absolute conviction, stay in church.

      • nik

        That is not the language of science!
        The language of science would be more like, ”The results of our work shows that …., and confirm our theory that…”

        • With Respect

          We’ve already demonstrated you know little of science; who appointed you arbiter of what is or isn’t?

          Science takes no man’s word for truth, but holds most nearly true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation leads to amended or new inference.

          So we know your fossil waste dumping has consequences bottlenecking in our air, and disposal of those wastes is performed by our lands and waters. If you use our lands and waters, you owe us Market rents set by the Law of Supply and Demand. You haven’t been paying. You’re in arrears. Pay your debts.

  • OWilson

    Does it take this level of argument and, ‘splainin’ for well understood Earth processes?

    Most scientists, except for a few notable wild eyed radical marchers, who get arrested, hedge their bets when making predictions based on their ever changing models.

    Lots of “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, qualifications, as the poster above notes!

    The problem is, politicians, their followers, reporters, journalists, schoolteachers totally ignore the “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, usually expressed in the study’s conclusions, and use the most extreme speculative interpretation to scare, pursuade, threaten, “bring all climate deniers to justice”, and denigrate, as “deniers”, “deplorables” and worse, those who question the over the top exaggerations.

    They use, stock photos of sick Polar Bears and actually show photoshopped photos of New York under 30 feet of water. If I was a school kid in NY that would scare the hell out of me! Lol! They used to be posted here all the time!

    The truth? The World’s major waterfront cities, like New York, are growing their urban area, not shrinking it!

    Another simple example of journaistic exaggeration and politics mixing with science is the conventional wisdom that Tuvalu is being washed away as we speak, and the U.N. is demanding $55,000,000,00 (per year?) to, they tell us, “prevent Tuvalu from being the last country to join the United Nations, and the first country to disappear!

    The truth?

    Tuvalu is growing, not shrinking!

    NSIDC says the odds 50/50 are that Arctic Ice will disappear completely “next summer” That was in 2009, Lol!

    So until global warmers and their liberal accomplices stop acting like Chicken Littles and more like scientists, the carbon taxcheme will continue to be a hard sell!

    (To behave like a scientists is to behave like Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Geologists, and NOT like Astrologists, Chiropractors, Homeopathists, shamans, medicine men etc)

    Respect and trust have to be earned, not enforced! :)

    • Mike Richardson

      “skepicism”[sic] based on rigid ideology and a refusal to accept and incorporate abundant evidence that contradicts previously held views is also dogma, as you’ve so frequently demonstrated.

      • OWilson

        Dogma is when the Powers that be, use force to quiet free speech.

        Your own choice for President, so you told us, Bernie Sanders is a good example!

        He almost got elected on the promise to bring “all climate deniers to justice”!

        Your left wing struggles with logic are the only reason I engage you. :)

        Aside from embarrasing yourself, and pointing out spelling mistakes, you have nothing of interest to add to these blogs!

        • Mike Richardson

          If you had the sense to be embarrassed, your ever more frequent misspellings and ironic comments about adding nothing to the blogs would embarrass you. Fortunately for you and those of us who appreciate ironic humor, you don’t. :)

          • OWilson

            To those readers who are as distressed as Mikey is with my occasional typo, my abject apolgies! I would invite them to join him in his latest crusade to spell check these blogs.

            He can FINALLY get some satisfaction there. Nobody is going to argue with his Funk & Wagnalls! :)

            The world would be a much better place without spelling mistakes!

            But please don’t claim to speak for “we” or “us”, paleface.

            Just look at our relative Disqus approval ratings.

            You and your “us” are in a distinct minority, even in your own backyard of global warming blogs! :)

            I just upticked you for your new anti-bad spelling campaign, and I’ll try to do better, but you should also take to task your trolling heros, that show up from time to time, they are positively illiterate! Lol!


          • Mike Richardson

            Man, I haven’t seen this much concern over popularity since middle school. It’s not something I worry about when posting, as I appreciate the gesture, but am perfectly fine if I don’t get an upvote. You, on the other hand, really seem to place a lot of importance on this. I’m sure you get plenty of upvotes on right-wing blogs, where you can take advantage of the less educated. But since you prefer up-to-date information over cumulative data, you might want to compare the current upvotes you have versus mine on the last blog post about melting permafrost. :)

            On topic, though, do you dispute as “dogma” the principle that carbon dioxide, which has measurably increased in the atmosphere as a result of industrial activity, is now trapping more heat and raising global temperatures? I’ve seen you minimize the impact of climate change, but do you really agree with your buddy nik that rising CO2 does not cause rising temperatures?

            And I’m glad to see you corrected “heros” to “heroes.” We’re making progress here, I think. :)

          • OWilson

            Get a life, please! :)

          • OWilson

            I disagree with even premise stated in the title of Tom’s article, namely that:

            Here’s what real science says about “the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat”.


            Why do AGW promoters use the nebulous term, “climate change”?

            And I still can’t find a “climate denier”

            I maybe need a course on bible studies to truly appreciate the subtleties of the man made global warming language! :)

          • OWilson

            I only post on Discover, NYT, WP and The Hill!

            Its on the public record!

            ” Right wing blogs”?


            More delusion, more foolishness.

            Bye Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            “I only post on Discover, NYT, WP, and The Hill!”

            … and The Daily Caller, The American Mirror, and NewsbBusters (I particularly like their tagline, especially ironic here: “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”). That’s just what Disqus shows for the past few weeks. As you say, it’s on the public record! LOL!

            You really made it too easy this time, Wilson. Is lying just such a habit for you now that you don’t even care when it’s obvious? More delusions and more foolishness, indeed. 😉

          • OWilson

            Out of some 18,000 DISQUS posts you picked an odd one, or two?

            Care to guestimate the relative percentage for our dear readers?

            I “never” eat liver, but I’m sure with your research skills you could find a dish where I did! :)

            Like when I said “half the country” voted for Trump you also pointed that out as a lie.

            Did more than half the country vote for Hillary? :)

            You need to get a life Mikey :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Not “semantics.” Facts. The truth. Things that give you considerable trouble , apparently.

            You do need to quit lying, Wilson. :)

          • OWilson

            You need to get a life and find out how adults talk to each other, Mikey! :)

    • David Rice

      “Lots of “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, qualifications, as the poster above notes!”

      That’s called “science.” If these words and phrases are not included by scientists, they are not doing science. If you want absolute confidence, stay in church where you belong.

      • OWilson

        You miss my point.

        Those words are conspicuously missing from the pronouncements of the AGW Leaders. Al Gore, Heinz-Kerry, Obama, and their Hollywood crowd.

        To them it’s “Settled Science”, we have only 5, 10, 20, 50 ………(fill in the gap) years to “save the planet”, So we “must act NOW!”

        • Elizabeth Whitehouse

          The people you are belittling are making a conscientious effort to stem what they (and the overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide) see as a disastrous tide carrying us all towards extinction.

          Personally, I see climate change as a symptom, not the problem. the problem is that certain human beings view the natural world as their own personal pantry from which they can take whatever ingredients they need create a life of luxury and ease. The problem is that they are looking for exponential growth with finite resources.

          My mission is to persuade as many people as possible to modify their consumption of energy, water, and unnecessary products and packaging, thereby reducing the enormous amount of waste that Americans generate.

          What are you doing to make the world a better place?

          • OWilson

            I live simply on a third world tropical island, have no heat, have no vehicle, walk to everything, and eat only locally grown produce!

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            As a young man one of my hobbies was planting trees!

            And you?

            But I don’t insist on telling others how to live, nor do I want to “bring to justice” all those who disagree with my own views.

            Your poster child Tuvalo, is not sinking, it is growing!

            But you can send them $55,000,000.00 or so as the U.N. demands, but please do not add it to the Natinal Debt of $21,000,000,000,000.00 that you are kicking down the road to be paid back generations unborn, long after you are dead!

            That is obscene, selfish, immoral and un Contitutional “Taxation without Representation”!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You’ve changed this, adding the stuff about Tuvalu. “My” poster child? I have never even mentioned it.

            Think you should find out more about the United Nations. Or at least share where you got the idea that the UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.

            You should also look up the history of the national debt. You might be surprised which presidents added the most. But I can assure you that I had nothing to do with it.

            PS. I no longer believe that you live simply on a tropical island. But it made a good story.

          • OWilson

            Well dearie, there’s ya problem!

            What you “believe” is complete nonsense, and should never be confused with reality!

            I can assure you I know where I live! :)

            I don’t have anymore time to waste with your delusional nonsense!


          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I’m sure you do know where you live. It’s just that so much of what you write is inaccurate, that I question the veracity of your zero carbon footprint existence.

          • OWilson

            That’s your problem, because you are wrong about that too! :)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you have no more time to waste on my “delusional nonsense” why bother to reply? As far as I can see, you have not supplied one shred of evidence to support a single contention you have made.

          • nik

            ”….UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.”
            Who controls the UN, and the USA?
            Understand that, and you have the answer to a lot of the worlds events.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            “Who controls the UN, and the USA?”

            I give up. Who?

          • nik

            He who controls the money, controls the country.

          • Mike Richardson

            So Abe Lincoln’s assassination, known to have been carried out by a conspiracy of Confederate sympathizers, was actually carried out by “anti-greenbackers”? Kennedy, too? Were the Elders of Zion involved? Freemasons? Tell us more, please.

          • nik

            There’ a simple principle, in security circles, if you want someone killed,
            remove their security and let things happen.
            In both cases, that was the situation.

          • OWilson

            I don’t know about Freemasons, but you had a communist, Oswald, with a Russian wife, and a Cuba connection, a local mafioso and sometime FBI informant, Jack Ruby, who silenced Oswald before he could be interrogated!

            Add the FBI, and CIA hatred and vendetta against the current sitting President, to whit:

            ““I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok wrote in a cryptic text message to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and his mistress.

            “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok wrote in the text, dated Aug. 15, 2016.

            Andy is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.”,

            Then we have this:

            “‘You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you,’ said CIA Director John Brennan”

            and you have more than enough potential conspiracy there to fill dozens of best selling books.

            Which it the Kennedy case, actually did! :)

            I’m not suggesting any particular conspiracy theory, but Kennedy was hated. He had political enemies at the J. Edgar Hoover FBI, and he was shot and killed! That is self evident!

            No one really knows what happened, because dead men tell no tales!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you are talking about the US, bankers is a pretty good answer. I would include corporations and special interests as well. Because, yes, absolutely, he who controls the money (and buys the politicians) controls the country.

            I don’t know enough about the assassinations to comment, but the hypothesis is not unreasonable.

            But I don’t think that the UN works the same way. I am unaware of any mechanism for bankers, etc, to buy influence.

          • nik

            Bankers dont have to buy influence, they already own it.

          • nik

            ”accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.”
            Thats why those great fraudsters, priests, constantly badger you to ”believe!”

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            At last, something we agree on. Although I have not had much contact with priests (in the Anglican Church they are called ministers) I did give up believing in the real hoax – that there is a supernatural entity in control of the universe- when I was 11.

          • nik

            I was about that sort of mind, at the same age, but my final ”confirmation” ironically, or maybe suitably, occurred in a church, by a priest!
            At 13, I was in a church during a boy scout Easter parade, and as I sat listening to the priest drone on, I thought, this is the biggest load of cobblers I’ve ever listened too!
            However, at the final year exams, I still came third overall in the school, in RI, much to the shock of the teacher, who was a lay preacher.
            After the exam results were announced, he took me on one side, and said, ”This is just between you and me. Did you copy?” I didnt understand him, and he asked me again, so I asked, ”Copy what?” He then asked me if I’d copied the results from someone else. I said, ”no, why should I do that? [I had no concept of copying from someone else.]
            ”Well.” he said, ”you’ve done no work during the year.”
            To which I replied, ”All I have to is put down on paper, what you’ve been stuffing in my ear for the last year, I dont have to believe it!”
            Oh! he said, and walked away.
            At the beginning of the year he had asked us to write an essay as to why god had said such and such to Moses, or vice versa.
            I just wrote; ”I dont believe in God, so its a stupid question.”
            I got more red ink from the teacher in my book than anything I ever wrote!
            I have cousins in the USA who originated in the UK, but have lived in the bible belt since junior school, and they’ve swallowed the religion hook, line, and sinker. Daft sods.

  • nik

    In the article above, a link to an article in ”sciencemag. org” titled ”The mountains that froze the world” where it states that volcanic eruptions, ”…belched out more carbon dioxide (CO2) than at any time in Earth’s past, creating greenhouse-gas levels as great as 20 times higher than they are today.”

    However, the writer of this article, Tom Yulsman, has already agreed in the article that he is presently criticising me for my comments, that the CO2 levels shown in the graph there, repeated above, are robust, and can be relied upon. In that graph, the highest amount that the Earths CO2 reached, ever, was 17 times present. In addition, the Earths CO2 level at that time is shown at 4000 ppm, only ten times present. So the claim in science mag, of 20 times cannot be true, which then throws doubt upon the whole article.

    It may be, that in fact only the localised climate rose to those levels, in which case the statement is misleading, at least, but the whole article ignores the fact that the Earth had entered a ‘galactic’ ice age, which was the primary reason for the cooling, and it was due to the expected associated gravitational effects that the eruptions occurred.

    • frflyer

      from Skeptical Science

      “What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

      Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.”


      • frflyer

        This topic is also covered in this one. – good article

        “Here’s what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat”

      • nik

        If you look at the much maligned graph in the article above, you will see that cold period is illustrated.

        If you look a little more at the graph, you will also see that cold periods, repeat at approximately 150 million year intervals. These cold periods are not contested, as they are accompanied by major extinctions, and have been studied intensively.

        There is no known process by which the suns nuclear system can operate on a 150 m.y. cycle. Therefore reason for it must be external, or galactic.

        The sun orbits the centre of the galaxy, and periodically passes through the arms of the galaxy. The interstellar dust in the arms of the galaxy attenuates the suns radiation reaching the Earth, so it get colder. In addition gravitational effects may cause an increase in earthquakes, and volcanic action, which in turn increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        When the solar system emerges from the arm of the galaxy, solar radiation reaching Earth returns to normal, and therefore, the climate follows. As the climate warms, the CO2 also rises, as discussed previously.

  • cgs

    This is a nice post, Tom.

    If I could, I’d like to address the issue of leading/lagging of temperature and CO2 a little more since this is a favorite skeptic argument and it can naturally cause questions for those wanting to know more.

    Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2 as necessary and sufficient evidence that the opposite could never occur. But there are two different physical processes responsible for each and each does not render the other moot. You’ve covered both of those process’ above: the physical process of a gas coming out of solution, and the absorption/emission of infrared radiation by GHGs.

    To me, the following analogy is instructive. Most analogies are not perfect, but I think this gets makes the point I am wishing to get across. When a current passes through a wire, a magnetic field is created. The field does not exist without the current. But it is also true that passing a magnet through a loop of wire will create a current. The current will not exist if the magnet is not there or stationary.

    In the former case, Ampere’s Law is derived and applicable. The latter case is an example of Faraday’s Law of Induction. Two different physical laws are derived to handle these different physical situations.

    Thus, physics does not tell us that just because a current creates a magnetic field that the opposite cannot also happen.

    • David Rice

      “Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2…”

      No, us skeptics do not make that argument: deniers do.

      • nik

        ”Denier” is a religious term, and is used to define ‘heretics’ and has no place in science. If it did, the the sun would still orbit the Earth, and the Earth would be at the centre of the universe.

        • OWilson

          The whole AGW hoax is predicated on some very unscientific mumbo jumbo like “climate change deniers”.

          I have yet to actually meet one!


          • Mike Richardson

            So you’re basically accusing the author of this article of fraud, if he’s perpetuating a “hoax,” as you call the well-established scientific principle that human greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to rising average global temperatures. Exactly what evidence would you use to support such a radical assertion?

          • OWilson

            Hi Mikey!

            Tut, tut!

            Bye Mikey!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Ooooh, what a clever, witty, informed response! I have spent the past 6/7 years arguing that climate change is a real problem, but your erudition has convinced me that I was wrong! I am now a newly converted climate change denier – pleased to meet you.

            And if you take one word of this seriously, you are an even greater threat to the continuation of the human race than climate change is.

          • nik

            Try reading the rest of the posts here, before you make equally puerile comments, because you’ve taken one comment out of context.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I did read other posts, starting at the top and working downwards until I reached the exchange between you and Mr Wilson. There was plenty of context.

          • nik

            {Wrong comment. mine was to yours that followed ”Hi Mikey!” etc.}

            Neither OWilson, or myself are ”denying” climate change. Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.5 billion years.

            What we are contesting, is the present alleged cause, by the ”global warming lobby” ie. human produced CO2! Or whether the temperature increases claimed by various entities are real, (most are not, and are grossly exaggerated), and whether those increases can be caused by other means, than CO2, which they obviously can be.

            The original figure, of 120 ppm based on ice core drillings, has been shown to be inaccurate, and figures supplied elsewhere based on plant stomata, which are considered more accurate, (as used in the data link supplied by the author of this article), give a figure of 50 ppm, max, and possibly as low as 20 ppm.

            Climate change based on that amount is hardly credible, and as the whole of the ”global warming lobby” claims were based on the 120 ppm figure, their case collapses.

            As fossils are used for these estimates, an accurate figure cannot be reached, only an averaged estimate, whatever the source. I would suspect ”that it is very likely that” the 120 ppm was a maximum, chosen to support the GW lobby.
            (parenthesis as used in conclusion to many articles produced by scientists, regarding climate.) :-)

            In ALL the GW lobby claims, only human produced CO2 is considered, which is simply a false premise, and climate history supports that accusation fully.

            One equally possible cause, of several, is deforestation, either human or natural, of which the human form commenced at the around the same time as CO2 emissions, so both CO2 increase and deforestation occurred simultaneously. So the effects of both or either are possible causes of the relatively minor temperature increase, as in the early days, charcoal was used extensively, for many industrial processes, and as you must be aware, charcoal is made from trees.

            If deforestation were the cause or even part of the cause of temperature rise, then reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, will exacerbate the alleged problem, by weakening the already suffering trees further.

            The world is approaching a new Milankovitch ice age, and paradoxically, an ice age is usually preceded by a warming period, its the warming period, that produces more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, in the form of rain, and snow, and combined with reduced solar radiation, precipitates the ice age. The snow reduces radiation reaching the soil, and each year, the permanent snow line advances. The process is asymptotic, so once commenced, can proceed rapidly.

            Analysis of deep sea and lake deposits from core drillings, covering the last million years, or approx ten ice ages, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age conditions has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

            Countries in both hemispheres, have recently recorder both the coldest temperatures, and the heaviest snowfalls, since records began, which is why,the ”Global Warming” term had to be abandoned, and the very ambiguous and cynical term, ”Climate Change,” adopted instead.

            So, do you really want to reduce the global temperature?

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There are ten myths that climate change deniers spout:

            Climate’s changed before
            It’s the sun
            It’s not bad
            There is no consensus
            It’s cooling
            Models are unreliable
            Temp record is unreliable
            Animals and plants can adapt
            It hasn’t warmed since 1998
            Antarctica is gaining ice

            Given your arguments above, I think it is pretty clear that you belong to that group.

          • nik

            Obviously, either you cannot read, or only remember the parts that suit your prejudices.

            Second para of my post;
            ”Neither OWilson, or myself are ”denying” climate change. Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.5 billion years.”

            So your list is entirely irrelevant.

            You’ll have to try to find a more intelligent and unprejudiced response, if you want to continue the discussion. Otherwise, its back to the tinfoil roll! :-)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You are quite definitely – by your own admission – denying human-caused climate change. Saying that the climate has always changed is – you will note – the number one argument put forward to explain why humans couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the sudden changes that have occurred.

            All you can do is spout irrelevant details about climate in the past – when there were no humans. Try as you might, you cannot demonstrate that human activity has not had an effect on the temperature. Nor can you come close to showing that increasing temperatures have nothing to do with the increasing severity of weather events.

          • nik

            You are confused, which is not surprising.
            First, I wrote, [above,] the possible results of a warming temperature, so your comment,;

            ”Nor can you come close to showing that increasing temperatures have nothing to do with the increasing severity of weather events.”

            Is false!

            Nor have I said,;

            ”….humans couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the sudden changes that have occurred.”

            In fact I have said the opposite!

            You really must learn to read, and understand what you read!

            Have another look at what I have written, it will be good practice for you, to that end.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you have said the humans do have something to do with sudden changes in climate, yes, I missed it. What I didn’t miss was this:
            “What we are contesting, is the present alleged cause, by the ”global warming lobby” ie. human produced CO2! ”

            I understand very well what I have read, and that is you change your stance according to the arguments levied against you.

          • nik

            No change.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Oh these tedious trolls. Always turning the discussion into a repetitive argument about semantics and definitions and exactly what they said, didn’t say, intended to say, who said what.

            The article is about the role of CO2. on the climate and the people who cannot cope with the science. As demonstrated here in the comments.

          • nik

            Especially problematic, when they dont understand even the basics of physics.

          • With Respect

            By all means, if it is the basics of physics, I’m your huckleberry.

            What is it you don’t understand?

          • Jammy Dodger

            Yes, indeed. Especially those who think they know the basics but let themselves down with basic, elementary mistakes in their posts.

          • nik

            You had better advise them then

          • Jammy Dodger

            My advice is to stop derailing the comments and discuss the topic. Don’t get bogged down in semantics, trivia and distractions.

            So, if you need some other advice. What is it you don’t understand?

            With respect to With Respect.

          • cardigan

            Demonstrate how these are myths please. All of the above are provably true.

            Why do you deny self evident and observable facts?

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Some of these statements are true in a very limited way; others are just plain wrong.

            For example, the climate has changed before. Of course. But never before at the rate of change we have seen in the past 50 years.

            It’s the sun. Yes. Everything is the sun. But again, variations in solar activity take place on a different time scale. If we look only at incoming radiation from the sun, the earth should be cooling, but it is not.

            It is bad – very bad, but I suspect you will choose not to accept that.

            There is very definitely consensus in the scientific sense -all studies, all data, regardless of the source point to the same conclusion – human activity has caused the earth to warm.

            Yes, it should be cooling, but it’s not.

            The information derived from models changes with the input. That does not mean that they are unreliable. They are not expected to be perfect predictors of future climate conditions, but they give a reasonably accurate idea of what will happen if we continue with business as usual.

            Temperature measurements become more and more accurate every day using a vast network of thermometers and satellites. It is possible that we are off on estimates of temperatures thousands and millions of years ago. However, it is clear that the current trend is inexorably upward. In my 34 years in the US, I have seen our temperature zone shift from Zone 5 to Zone 5B. This may not sound like much, but it translates to a difference in the frost free season of nearly two months. That is huge. Good for me trying to grow tomatoes in upstate New York, disaster areas that previously relied on a severe winter to control bugs.

            Humans can probably adapt, but plants and most animals are having a hard time.

            It has most definitely warmed since 1998. The RATE of increase stayed relatively stable, but the actual temperature continued to rise.

            The Antarctic is gaining SEA ICE as are and more ice slips off the continental shelf. Overall there is a loss.

            I challenge you to prove otherwise.

          • OWilson

            Warming, some 12,000 years go gave a huge boost to human civilization.

            Today the slight warming is partly responsible for Anual World Record Agricultural Food Production to feed a very hungry world!

            I’m worried about the “climate goals” set by the United Nations

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Oh, poor dear. You’re worried.

            And so you damn well should be.

            If there is not considerably more than ‘tinkering” to reverse the effects of climate change the “civilized” world will disappear altogether.

          • OWilson

            I’m worried about what you delusional haters are doing to your country and the world :)

            Rioting, looting, burning cop cars, destroying government property, ransacking your neighborhood Mom and Pop stores.

            Masked and armed thugs, marching down your sreets shouting “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

            And of course, “Piggies in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”

            Not accepting the outcome of democratic elections!

            That’s why I choose to live simply, where I do, with poor, but helpful, supportive and very friendly local people!

            Have yourself a good life, ya hear?


          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Not nearly as worried as I am about those who spread discord for purely financial gain.

            Hate has nothing to do with defending the environment, and I challenge you to support your notion that any environmentalist has shouted we want dead cops, nor ransacked a Mom and Pop store. You are taking the worst occurrences in the US (I presume that is what you mean by “your country”) by the worst members of society and blaming them on an amorphous group of people who wish to limit the damage that humans are doing to the only planet we have.

            Frankly, you make me sick.

          • OWilson

            Yes, you are sick, but an insignificant, anonymous retired old poster, did not do that to you!

            Think about it for a moment!

            Then get help, before your hate endangers others!

          • crankedyank

            I agree. The would be tinkerers are the clear and present danger. We should not blithely try to directly effect artificial changes of global scope as there would be unintended consequences. A good article on just this is here:


          • crankedyank

            How do you know that the past 50 years have seen an unprecedented in increase in temperature? Are you saying that never before in geological time has there been a similar rate of warming?

          • With Respect

            I can help you with that.

            Within the geological record, the closest rate of change of global temperature that can be derived from proxies to date is the Younger Dryas (YD) episode, though that was a cooling rather than warming event.

            YD was some 15 times slower so far as we can know from measurable proxies and reasonable inferences than the current fossil-waste-induced AGW episode.

            YD itself was almost 15 times faster than the usual rate of change between warm and cool Milankovitch plateaus.

            If you require sources, I recommend Google Scholar.

          • crankedyank

            Thanks. It’s still not clear to me what the significance of warming or cooling rate really is. Max and min temperatures of cycles would seem to be more determinative of the degree of global warming.

          • With Respect

            To clarify, within the (problematic) question of precedent, we can be fairly sure that a larger-than order of magnitude difference in rate is significant in the general case. In the particular case, the economic argument is the one that matters to me (though there are others): if a hypothetical landowner must give up my oceanfront property’s future value due the expectation that when the parties that might buy it are using it there will be new floods faster than they can economically deal with, then that person’s present value is diminished. In that case, rate matters, because warmer than now equals higher sea level than now, but if the sea level encroaches only a millimeter a year there is not much need to reevaluate a property compared to loss of two meters a decade.

            What is or isn’t ‘determinative’ isn’t always the question that hits a wallet. Should we care if we through neglect hurt the wallets of thousands or hundreds of thousands of oceanfront landowners worldwide? Those are some litigious people and parties with deep pockets and powerful lawyers; I’d say it is signficant.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Yes, that is what I am saying. Or rather, that is what the scientific record indicates.

            With Respect has given a good response below. I can just add that, in spite of scientists of all persuasions having looked really hard, they have not found anything comparable to the recent rapid rise in temperatures.

          • With Respect

            Wow. What a long diatribe to wade through.

            The fastest detected rate of change of climate prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began fossil waste dumping in a significant way, was some 15-200 times slower than the current change we see due human activity.

            That’s like the difference between a predator drone or a bullet and the speed limit in a school zone.

            One point you get so clearly wrong at the start of your post that the rest is moot.

            You are dumping fossil wastes without regard for consequence or cost. The Market has a way to deal with that: you pay for what you take from others. Fossil waste disposal is a service your neighbors’ lands and waters furnish you. When you start paying a Market rate for that service, then you can extol your pet theories.

          • nik

            ”The fastest detected rate of change ….etc.”
            You’re full of ……….well you know!

          • With Respect

            More mere ad hominem; a deadbeat will distance himself from his debts with any absurdity.

            Your neighbors’ lands and waters dispose of the fossil wastes you dump. You’re using up what isn’t yours. You should be paying your own way, not stealing from your neighbors.

          • OWilson

            I live simply on a third world tropical island, have no heat, have no vehicle, walk to everything, and eat only locally grown produce!

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            As a young man one of my hobbies was planting trees!

            And you, and Al Gore, Prince Charles, the Pope, Heinz-Kerry, the Hollywood crowd?


            Why does Bernie Sanders and his 22 State Attorneys want to “bring me to justice” if he is elected?

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            And, by the way, I have still to meet a “climate denier” if you ever find anybody who denies there is a climate, get back to us, ya hear? :)

            Then you could explain why I am a danger to “the continuation of humanity”

            That sound more like fascism and communism than environmentalism!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Congratulations and felicitations on your lifestyle. I think I would enjoy something similar (with my laptop and internet access of course).

            With regard to Bernie Sanders wanting to bring YOU to justice, I think you are exaggerating your own importance just a tad. As for the other “you”, I am flattered (I suppose) to be included with Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd, but it is a preposterous assumption on your part.

            As for “deniers”, it is very clever to omit the word “change” so that you can rightly claim to have never met a climate denier. But that is not what you said before, and it is not what I said either.

            Why are you a danger to the continuation of humanity? Because you are actively promoting the idea that climate change is a hoax, thereby giving those who believe you the excuse to do nothing to reduce their environmental impact.

          • OWilson

            “With regard to Bernie Sanders wanting to bring YOU to justice, I think you are exaggerating your own importance just a tad”.


            “I am a danger to the continuation of humanity? ”

            Twisted logic of a global warmer.

            You do not pass the Turing Test!

            Bye! :)

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            No twisted logic at all. Let me put both statements a bit more bluntly.

            I am quite certain that Bernie Sanders has never heard of OWilson (at least not the one living on a tropical island; he may well be familiar with the great biologist EO Wilson) and thus has zero interest in you.

            But you are a danger to the rest of us – not just humans, but the millions of other species on this planet that face extinction if global warming continues unabated. Humans are adaptable enough to probably survive, but it will be in greatly reduced numbers and at a completely different level of civilization.

            You are a danger because you take great pleasure in spreading misinformation and undermining serious efforts to prevent apocalyptic changes in life on earth.

          • With Respect

            Your Tu Quoque logical fallacies and obvious fibs notwithstanding, you are surely not in the clear morally.

            You have that island of yours, and all the oceans around it, that dispose of fossil carbon wastes, converting CO2e in the air back to mineral form by biosequestration and weathering, and yet you do not charge a fossil waste disposal fee, do not call on trespassers on your lands and waters to pay you a Market rate for what they take from you.

            However you zero your carbon footprint, you are flaunting your ownership responsibilities, your duty to collect pay from tenants for the fruits of your lands.

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • OWilson


            You are wrong again! I will not have you folks insisting I do not live where I live,or live the lifestyle I have chosen, in my retirement!

            That is delusion, taken to a bizzare level, but all in a days work for you true believers! :)

            I do NOT “have that island, of yours, and all the oceans around it”.

            I share a small piece of this planet with likeminded folk!

            (Who don’t deny I actually live there! Lol)

            You’re done here, too!


          • With Respect

            Dude, you claimed to live on an island; now you claim to live in a cult commune compound? Make up your mind what lie you’re going to tell.

            I don’t care who has said what that hurts your feelings. I don’t care whether you say things for pay or merely ape those who say those things for pay. You’re just another specimen of deadbeat conduct, and the Deadbeat Hypothesis predicts your hostility and absurdities. The more you post, the more you show what a deadbeat is.

            And as you’ve posted enough, adios indeed, thanks to Disqus’ Block User feature.

          • OWilson

            Now I live in a cult commune?


            I take back my adioses!

            Please continue!

            What else is your great shaman in the sky telling you?

            This is finally getting interesting!


          • Mike Richardson

            It’s about the level of response I expected. He really doesn’t like it when you point out that his generalized insults and attacks on the integrity of climate researchers and journalists is in fact impugning the author of this article (and moderator of this blog). Obviously, he doesn’t want to admit this, since that might bring him into direct conflict with someone who might hold him accountable for those accusations. He’s quite prolific with hyperbolic rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, but not very proficient with facts to dispute the substance of these articles.

          • OWilson

            Just silly logic that has no place in an adult discussion!

            Figures you would defend it!


          • With Respect

            Science is the method of discovering knowledge by holding exact or most nearly true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation lead to amended or new inference.

            That’s what’s real.

            Scientists don’t need to ‘believe’ CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver. Scientists have inferred CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission, based on more evidence than we have for gravity waves, extrasolar planets, the Higgs boson or any of a thousand of other things scientists believe.

          • nik

            Scientists, or politicians claiming that scientists….?
            Trust me! I’m a politician!

            ” Scientists have inferred CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission, based on more evidence than we have for gravity waves, extrasolar planets, the Higgs boson or any of a thousand of other things scientists believe.”

            Infer what you like, ”if the observed facts do not support the theory, no matter how elegant the theory, then the theory is wrong!”

            Show me the ‘facts’ that support the theory.

          • With Respect

            Deadbeats will hold to any absurdity to avoid facing their debts.

            Tyndall, Foote, Fourier, Arrhenius, Hogbom, Callendar, Plass, Lamb and a thousand other scientists worked out the mechanisms of CO2’s GHE and the influence of fossil waste dumping long before any politician woke up to the facts.

            Show me facts that support your conspiracy theory that this came out of politics.

            As for being shown the facts that support the inference — not the theory, not the belief, not the hypothesis but the conclusion from observation — you’re in denial, and will cling to absurdity to avoid facing your fossil waste dumping debts. We’ve seen this about you and others like you over and over again. We’ve studied that science of coping with loss, and your responses are no different than those who cannot deal with the loss of a pet or coming out on the losing side of a football game: you’ll say anything to flee the truth.

            You know this, deep down, or you would never post as you do the same failed demand over and over again to be shown what you know is real. You know you can linger in ignorance and pretend you haven’t seen it because you think this is that kind of discussion.

            It isn’t. You’re a disease-sufferer being led around on a leash in the center ring of a circus of your own making. Once I’m done showing you off for what you are, you’re of no use to me, just another deadbeat, an example of what happens when people don’t collect what they’re owed.

          • nik

            You’re still full of verbal diarrhoea.

          • OWilson

            Here’s my “inference from observation” :)

            The world faces many human threats, war, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, government lies and corruption. and soaring National National Debt.

            All political national and international attempted solutions fail to stem these real and present dangers.

            Mother Nature herself delivers, random earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, deadly diseases, and has herself killed off 99% or so of all species that ever existed.

            The slight warming of the planet, and the weather, 100 years from now is not a pressing issue, given current technology, and the fact that the we are setting World Record Agricultural Production Records, year after year.

            To believe we can tax, spend (“invest” is a word corrupted by politicians!) and regulate the world to fix the weather within a degree or two, a hundred years from now is a political belief, not a scientific one!

            We now have the statement that “Co2 is the “primary”, and “main” climate driver. I’ve followed the scientific debate, but can find no reputable scientist or organanization who have directly stated this!

            Whatever happened to the Sun, water vapour, and residual heat from the core, not to mention internal radioactivity?


            I see a lot of denial in the running up of unsustainable National Debt that is kicked down the road to generations yet unborn, to be dealt with, after the current big spenders are long dead!

            That is obscene, selfish, immoral, and actually un-Constitutional, Taxation without Representation.

          • With Respect

            What smugly irrelevant crackery deadbeats and hippies will spout when put on the spot about their unaddressed debts and duties.

            If you can claim to have followed ‘the debate’ (despicable practice of ancient Greek political classes of abusing reference to false authority, logical fallacy and appeal to base emotion to make the worse case seem the better) and not know Dr. Richard Alley’s reputable direct statements derived from observation by inference, then you’re an incompetent reader. How about the American Physics Society? A reputable scientist and organization identified within seconds by simple search.

            Google it. Better, Google Scholar it.

            Less than 0.04% of Earth’s surface heat comes from internal radiation. And while it’s true about 90% of the surface heat of the Earth is explained by the Sun, the Sun’s effects fall more than 30 Kelvin short of explaining Earth’s temperature. All of that 31 plus degrees is the result of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE); about 3/4’s of the GHE is from water vapor, a condensing gas that has a wavelength hole that lets out some IR trapped by only one other GHG: CO2. When CO2 level rises, not only does that window further close on outgoing IR, but the dew point of water vapor also rises, letting exponentially more water vapor into the air, a positive feedback warming more.

            Can the Sun’s variability account for climate change? Some, yes; a tiny fraction of that 90% of the Earth’s source heat does vary, generally by less than 0.3% every 11 years — a signal so faint it is no longer detected in the noise of AGW — and a further rise of some 0.09% per million years of TSI converts to an amount of additional heat so small its influence can only be detected on geological timescales, and some short range variability less than 3% over decades or centuries, but all changes in Earth’s temperature due changes in the Sun’s output are scaled proportional to the 4th root of the difference, so it’s not the Sun.

            It’s not volcanoes or fairy dust or the breath of the invisible sky man or dragon farts.

            It’s CO2.

            The rest of your silliness? Over 70% of Americans represent that they want something done about AGW, and most agree the fossil industry pays too little share for its dumping. In British Columbia, the government that introduced the world’s most complete carbon tax was re-elected with an increased majority because the carbon tax lowered other taxes; now the whole country of Canada following BC’s lead is raising its carbon taxes to $55/ton in the next 5 years.

          • OWilson

            Your faith in politicians and lack of direct links to the simple question, Is noted.

            “”Co2 is the “primary”, and “main” climate driver”. Or as the author of the article, says, “pre-eminent”.

            Again, no reputable scientist or organization has directly stated this!

            As for political promises, most politicians will not be around in 5 years. See Obama’s promises, North Korea’s promises. Iran’s promises. His Excellency Rajenda Pachauri the Chairman of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC to you) was unceremoniously dumped for sexually harrasing his staff!

            I don’t need advice from him, thank you!

            Nor from Al Gore, the Pope, Prince Charles, Heinz-Kerry, Obama, or the assorted miriad of your air headed, crooners, mimes, and jesters that inhabit your Hollywood Swamp.

            Also your own authority to lecture me on my “unaddressed debts and obligations”, comes from where exactly ? Lol!

            Thanks, but no thanks!

            Now you’re done!

        • With Respect

          Your denial denial ignores the scientific work of Dr. Elisabet Kubler-Ross, who is famous for her ‘stages of grief’ model, which begins with denial.

          There’s little scientific difference between a climate denier and a man too attached to his money realizing he’s being faced by creditors demanding payment for past harms and expenses he incurred carelessly from them.

          Nor moral difference, nor economic, either.

          • nik

            You’re just full of…..absolutely.
            No one ‘denies climate’ me included.

          • With Respect

            What absurd things you post alongside your inelegant ad hominem ellipses.

            Your replies keep trying to spin away and parse away and sophism away from the very plain facts you seem to feel attacked by. When you feel personally invested in lies so much that facts feel like attacks on you, it’s what Dr. Kubler-Ross’ studies revealed about humans coping with loss: people will deny by holding to the absurd to avoid facing their losses.

            Deadbeats will hold to any absurdity to avoid facing their debts.

          • crankedyank

            In the sprit of fraternal correction, you are apparently in the grip of scientism, which impels you to make an ad hominem argument while invoking the science god, in the form of psychology. This invocation doesn’t make it OK. Since climate change and the relationship of CO2 levels is the subject of discussion, the mental state or moral condition of those who disagree with you on this matter is not presently relevant. When the validity of a persons standing to even contribute to the discussion is questioned on the basis of their intellectual and/or moral fitness, as determined “scientifically” by an expert in the psychological phenomenon of denial, we have a system of thought that is circular, philosophically closed and subjective. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten people burned at the stake for heresy, as nik pointed out before you doubled down. It is fun to imagine that a neat and all encompassing causality is at play and indeed it may be. It is, however, dangerous to let the heady thought that one has a superior understanding of this erode one’s ability to maintain a distinction between fellow participants in a discussion and the subject of the discussion.

      • CB

        “No, us skeptics do not make that argument: deniers do.”

        Thank you! It’s not skeptical to demand evidence put right in front of one’s face. Maybe leaving it here will allow the Deniers to access it, because they are apparently not bothering to read the article:

    • nik

      Totally different phenomena, and irrelevant.

      • cgs

        That’s why it is termed an ‘analogy’, nik.

        This teaches us that just because one phenomenon precedes another, that does not rule out the opposite occurring. One has to look at the physical processes that can happen to determine that.

        That’s why to argue that because the rise in temperature always precedes and drives a rise in CO2 during the start of a glacial/interglacial transition is proof that the opposite cannot occur, is a wrong argument. The reason: it does not examine the underlying physical processes associated with each.

        If one understands the current/magnetic field example, then one would not make this mistake.

        • nik

          Thank you, I understand the reversibility of electro magnetism. I worked with electronics for nine years in the military. As a 12 year old, I made my own ‘lab’ motors and generators, to explore the effects.

          CO2 and heat energy does not have the same interaction, as electro magnetism.
          You cannot transform heat directly into CO2, like the electro-magnetism interchange.
          All matter can be converted to energy, including CO2, but they are not necessarily reversible processes. Only if carbon is separated from its O2, can it be burned to produce heat, but then it is no longer CO2.
          CO2 on its own does not produce heat. As the article discusses, it only can act an insulator, mainly by reflection, but very weakly, as it is one of the weakest of the ‘greenhouse’ gasses, and at 0.04%, there is almost none of it in the atmosphere.
          Its effectiveness as an insulator can be judged by looking at the Sahara desert. Scorching hot in the daytime, but within a few hours, freezing cold at night. The atmospheric CO2 doesn’t change between day and night. Only solar radiation changes.
          Therefore, Solar radiation is the major controlling component of the climate on Earth.
          My intention is to illustrate that the claims of the AGW lobby are false, and that the governmental pressure to convince the world of a falsehood, is driven purely by politics, not scientific fact. I have been castigated for bringing politics into a ”scientific discussion” but in this case, it is unavoidable.
          To ignore it would be like pretending that the elephant in the room was not there.

          • cgs


            As with the argument about rising temperature preceding rising CO2 levels being a bad argument for saying the reverse cannot happen, the argument from inconceivability with regards to only 0.04% of the atmosphere being CO2 is also bad.

            But as I mentioned in my last debate with you, it is not my purpose here to argue you from your positions. That’s an impossible task in a comments section. That is one reason that I did not address my initial comment to you.

            But these two arguments that you make are not arguments rooted in a scientific method of analysis. Again, that is what the analogy I provided is supposed to teach, and again you’ve taken it too literally.

            Before I provided a link to a website that gives a good explanation of why CO2 is not an insignificant trace gas. I provide it again:


            I challenge you to look at what is written here. I had also linked to the About page where the author describes his blog. If you look there, you would, I think, be happy with the perspective he brings to discussing climate science.

            Now my challenge is not meant to be one between us. My challenge to you to read this set of posts on CO2 is your own personal one. You can either ignore it or not. It does not matter to me because I ask for no report back from you on whether you did or not.

            The challenge to you is to see whether you can read this and still maintain your position concerning CO2’s insignificance due to it only being 0.04% of the atmosphere.

            If you can, you would have to convince yourself that you know exactly where his argument goes astray. I don’t think you can do that.

            As before I appreciate the discussion.

          • nik

            Thank you, I will read it.

            I have a post here;


            Perhaps you would like to read it and comment.

          • cgs

            I can make no comment on this.

          • nik

            Thank you again, its very interesting.
            The first response to article in the above link
            John M. Quinn
            As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.

            First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic) does not drive Global Warming.

            The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon. Why? One finds on the secular time scale that both of the X- and Y- component temporal, annual-means profiles of the Earth’s Orientation mimic exactly the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) annual means profile On the decade time scale one finds that the GTA mimics the Geomagnetic Dipole variations and the variations in the Earths Anomalous Rotation Rate [i.e., Excess Length of Day (ELOD) Annual Means]. The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale. There are many other such correlations on both time scales.

            Thus, if CO2 were driving the GTA, and given the geophysical parameters that change over time in sync with the GTA, CO2 enhancements would reasonably have to drive the Earth’s dynamo which creates the Dipole Field and somehow also affects the Earth’s orientation and its rotation rate. But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it. Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity. Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years (Monin et. al., 2001). Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.

            I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail. It should be available in the book stores (e.g., Barnes and Nobel,, etc.) in late December 2009, or January 2010. Its title is:

            GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory

            Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

            ISBN: 978-1-4349-0581-9

            While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.

            Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.

            John M. Quinn
            Lakewood, CO

            I’ve yet to read the remaining comments, there’s an awful lot of them.

          • cgs

            OK, as a trained scientist, this is how I look at Mr. Quinn’s comment:

            What he has written is a lot of words that make assertions, but for which no supporting evidence is offered except his book. I can write similar sounding words in a very short time, to wit:

            Carbon dioxide cannot be a driver of climate as any examination of the Boltzmann transport equation will show. Steady state energy balance cannot be obtained in a system far removed from equilibrium like the atmosphere and upon inclusion of convective driving forces, one is let to conclude….

            That’s just gibberish I put together. But it’s very impressive sounding gibberish, right?

            That is why Science of Doom responds with:

            Without buying the book I don’t know anything about this new theory.

            And while John Quinn has posted a comment saying that CO2 has no effect on climate, what is really needed is for him – and everyone else interested – to deal with specific points in this seven part series. Then there’s something to “get my teeth into”.

            I am surprised you want to read every comment! I’d just read the series and then skim the comments, but that’s just me…

          • nik

            At my age, I dont think I’d live long enough to read all the comments, so I’ll read a few here and there, or skim, like you. :-)

          • nik

            Another point, mathematical models are fine, but they are only as good as the assumptions made to assemble them. Those assumptions are always dependent upon the prevailing knowledge, which may be either incomplete, or overlooked.
            History is littered with engineering failures, caused by such factors, from Henry 8th ”Mary Rose,” to the Comet aircraft, and the London ‘wobbly’ pedestrian bridge. All engineering designs have a built in ”Safety Factor” otherwise called an ignorance factor.

            Given the complexity of climate systems, they are even more likely to suffer from such inadequacies. A recent article stated that not one climate model so far had been able to start with a past known climate situation, and make any predictions that did not very rapidly diverged from reality.

            So maths can accomplish a lot, but it is limited. Ultimately, the observed facts either prove or disprove any theory, no matter how elegant the theory.

            I’m also very suspicious and jargon, and as you say, impressive gibberish. If the idea cannot be expressed in plain English, then the writer is probably ‘flannelling!’

    • nik

      Having read the first chapter in the link, and cogitated on it, I will accept that CO2 may have a warming effect.
      If this effect was taken in isolation, then it would be a positive feedback effect, ie. More CO2 = more warmth, and that produces more CO2, etc. Which in isolation would cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
      If the Earth was in the same orbit as Venus, then it would probably end up in the same climactic state.

      However, that has never happened, because, the Earth has an inbuilt negative feedback system that counteracts it.

      So, I will modify my original statement from, ”As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.”

      To, ”As CO2 has had no disastrous effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.

      The inbuilt negative feedback system is the remainder of the CO2 cycle. CO2 increases, which provides more CO2 for plant life, trees being the most important, this stimulates tree growth, and as they then absorb more CO2, the system stays approximately in balance, in the long term.

      Human destruction of trees on a large scale, as has been happening since the beginning of the I.R. have destabilised that balance. First by burning large areas of trees for fuel, removing more trees for industry, and then by clearance, to farm vast areas, and in some places replacing trees with cattle, that produce methane, a more worrisome gas, as it doesn’t have the same natural negative feedback as CO2.

      So, I would consider that it is the removal of trees, which normally have a cooling effect on the Earth, first by transpiration of water into the atmosphere, and then by absorbing sunlight, and converting it into wood, and that has destabilised the CO2 cycle, which in turn has caused the warming.

      The production of CO2, by itself by burning fossil fuels, would have little effect, as it has been shown that the real increase in CO2 since the I.R. is probably nearer 20-50 ppm. than the original claim of 120 ppm. That amount wont cause the claimed effect of the AGW lobby, so that case collapses.

      So, as I see it the answer to the alleged disastrous climate change, which has yet to appear, is to cease deforestation, and plant more trees.

      The Earth has been warming steadily for the last 10-15 thousand years, due to the Milankovitch cycle, but that is due to end, maybe, in the not too distant future. There have been reports of the Antarctic sea ice advancing, even in summer. Also in both hemispheres, the coldest winter temperatures, and the heaviest snow falls since record began have occurred, including snow in the Sahara desert. The Arctic, is over water, and water cools a lot slower than land. As 70% of the Earths surface is covered by water, that tends to slow the change, and the arctic gets the benefit of the Gulf Stream, so ice will continue to melt there for some time to come.

      When Arctic ice stops melting, the change to full advance of the ice age will accelerate. Deep sea, and lake core drillings have shown that the change has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

      In summary, I dont consider that reducing human produced CO2 will have a significant effect, on cooling the planet, but increasing tree coverage might, but would that be desirable, as the effect of cooling the climate may well accelerate the onset of the next ice age,

      • cgs

        Thanks for the response, nik. I am glad you have read the first part of the post I linked to.

      • Damn Nitpicker

        Venus has no magnetic field. No plate tectonics. No molten core. Venus is not at all like Earf.

        • nik

          Living up to your moniker, I see.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝I see it the answer to the alleged disastrous climate change, which has yet to appear, is to cease deforestation, and plant more trees❞

            Not so sure about that. I like trees better than denuded area …

            Baldocchi 2001: ”Changing a landscape from forest to agricultural crops, for instance, increases the surface’s albedo and decreases the Bowen ratio [the ratio between the flux densities of sensible and latent heat exchange; i.e., increasing the latent heat] (Betts et al. 1996); forests have a lower physiological capacity to assimilate carbon and a lower ability to transpire water, as compared to crops (Kelliher et al. 1995; Baldocchi and Meyers 1998).”

            Myhre & Myhre 2003: ”A distinct feature in all the calculations is the negative radiative forcing at the northern midlatitudes due to the conversion of forest to cropland. Regionally the radiative forcing is likely to be among the strongest of the climate forcing mechanisms. … The single most important factor yielding the large range in estimated forcing is the cropland surface albedo values. This underlines the importance of characterizing surface albedo correctly.”

            ”Betts (2000) … his study revealed that the planting of trees, to reduce the increase in atmospheric CO2, in order to mitigate global warming, may actually lead to the opposite, as the vegetation changes result in a heating …”

            ”Snow-covered areas have much higher surface albedo over open land (as cropland) than in forested areas. This effect causes a temperature decrease in the case of deforestation, particularly at high latitudes, …” In areas where fire has decimated the trees, when there is snowfall, the high albedo of the snow causes excess cooling … when there were trees, the trees absorbed sunlight, lowering the albedo.

          • nik

            So, reading between the lines of Jargon, and inappropriate inventive phrasing, what you or someone else is suggesting, is that crops with roots a few centimetres, or inches deep, that probably cover 50% or less than the footprint of a mature tree, in two dimensions, have a greater cooling effect, than a mature tree, whose roots are meters or yards deep, and whose branches are in three dimensions, with a leaf cover, that may be 20-30 meters or yards tall, and in multiple layers, over the whole area.

            In addition, a tree, is there for the whole year, whereas crops are there for a few months only, and for at least half of that time, are immature.

            That will take a lot of hard evidence to be convincing.

            [One of my specialist subjects in college was thermodynamics, and phrases containing the terms, ”negative radiative forcing” and similar, were noticeable for their total absence.]

            As to snow, and albedo, snow is likely to be evident for a few months only, crops also for a few months, and bare ground for a time probably equal to both.
            So, tree cover will be constant.

            According to the CO2/AGW theory, any energy reflected by snow, will be trapped and reflected back by CO2, whereas with trees, it is trapped and, effectively, converted, into carbon so it is removed from the atmosphere.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Wow. Energy reflected by snow … I assume that is short-wave, i.e., sunshine … “…will be trapped and reflected back by CO2…”
            Um, CO2 is transparent in the short-wave, so … no.
            Gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere never reflects … that’s a conceptual error, or a very slack choice of words. CO2 can absorb certain IR photons, and, rarely, emit IR photons, but it does not reflect sunshine. At certain wavelengths, CO2 is opaque but that does not constitute reflection.
            “…whereas with trees, it is trapped …and converted to carbon…” What, Energy creates carbon? That’s news to me. (sarc) What isotope of carbon? (/sarc)

          • nik

            ”reflected back by CO2…” Not my claims, the rubbish claims of the ”AGW” lobby.

            ”Converted” does not equal ”creates!”

            Energy is used to split CO2, into carbon and O2, and the carbon is then fixed and O2 released.

            [Living up to your moniker again.]

          • Damn Nitpicker

            I call ’em as I see ’em. No quarter for anybody.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Baldocchi, Dennis, et al. 2001 “FLUXNET: A new tool to study … carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            Myhre, Gunnar, and Arne Myhre 2003. “Uncertainties in radiative forcing due to surface albedo changes caused by land-use changes.” Journal of Climate

            Lejeune, Seneviratne & Davin 2017: ”… the higher albedo of the anthropogenic croplands and pastures compared to primary forests as an important cooling mechanism in each model, particularly in winter over snow-covered areas.”

            Lejeune, Seneviratne & Davin 2017: Historical Land-Cover Change Impacts on Climate: Comparative Assessment of LUCID and CMIP5 Multimodel Experiments AMS

          • nik

            Thats fine, in principle, but as the largest areas of forest, are tropical rain forest, where snowfall is rather noticeable for its absence, and also where the greatest deforestation has occurred, its a moot point.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Sad, the deforestation in those tropical places. I’m not attempting to justify it …
            Oh, and … please come up with some justification for your opinions, please. You say the largest areas are tropical … fortify your position with quotations and citations …
            I say it is Boreal Forest, not tropical

          • nik

            Roughly 2/3 is tropical, about half remainder, arctic.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            I’m not asking for you to spout off numbers, I’m asking for you to back up your numbers with sources … that can be checked to validate your statements.

  • David Rice

    Milankovitch Cycles dictate the direction of Earth’s temperature changes; atmospheric dipole moment molecules such as CO2, H2O, and CH4 dictate how much the temperature changes.

    • nik

      Solar radiation dictates how much the temperature changes.
      Milankovitch Cycles dictate when the radiation changes.

  • Charlotte Copp

    Are you interested how climate change and remote sensing relate? or want to learn more? If so, please participate in this project, Stories Through the Bird’s Eye: Engaging with Remote Sensing. The aim of this project is to engage in conversation about remote sensing, around a topic that could be considered debatable. I want to hear (I really do) what you have to say! So please contribute your ideas!



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar