Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories

science, Antarctica, global warming, modern warming, opinion

science, Antarctica, global warming, modern warming, opinion

The big news from Antarctica these days is the record low temperature of -135.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the coldest temperature ever recorded on the planet. What seems to be going unreported, is that on top of the record cold in Antarctica, the southern ice sheet is growing at a pace faster than Global Warming theories can account for. Sea ice around the Antarctic averaged 17.16 million square kilometers (6.63 million square miles) in November. The long-term 1981 to 2010 average for November is 16.30 million square kilometers (6.29 million square miles). The arguments from the Climate Change camp all seem to be “no matter what happens, it is still evidence of Global Warming.”

If contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperatures- can be sited as equally proving the same hypothesis, can it really be called science? Had the lowest temperatures in Antarctica been seen to creep steadily upward, while the ice dwindled quickly away (which were the predictions being made for the past dozen or more years) those happenings would also have been stridently sited as “proof” of Global Warming. Is their any evidence or occurrence, which the proponents of Climate Change will accept as contradictory to their claims?

When questioned about the utter lack of warming recorded over the past few years, the Climate Change camp will quietly, grudgingly, admit to a “pause.” A pause indicates only a brief halt to this lack of warming, which they know is going to resume, any day now. As if they have ever been able to accurately predict what the climate is going to do, in the past. This “pause” is occurring right now today, when “greenhouse gases” are being pumped into the atmosphere at record levels by countries like China, which seems to have no interest in crippling its economy in deference to the “scientific consensus.” Perhaps, the chill of growing ice and the record cold in Antarctica have caused China to theorize that global warming is a hoax.

 A ‘Consensus of Scientists’ Works Both Ways

An analysis of scholarly literature, found in such august journals as the Geophysical Review Letters, Science and Nature, shows that more than 500 scientists have published articles contradictory to the current Anthropogenic (man made) Global Warming theories. Most of the articles produced evidence that a 1,500-year cycle is responsible for more than a dozen “warmings” linking back to the last Ice Age. Which Man can have had no impact on, whatsoever. It is much more reasonable to come to the conclusion that our modern warming is also linked primarily to fluctuations in solar irradiance, just as past warmings always have been.

“This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a ‘scientific consensus’ blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow, Dennis Avery. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.”

The peer review process itself has come under a lot of scrutiny lately, as well. Traditionally, in order to eliminate potential bias which might be caused by personal friendships or philosophical differences, an editor would remove an author’s name, then send the article to peers who would review and comment. A “double blind” peer review process, kept everyone honest. Unfortunately, in today’s politically charged, grant-hungry world of “climate science” where billions of dollars in research money influence trillions of dollars in policy, peer review has become something far less than honest. There is simply no “double blind” practiced anymore. All of the major climate journal editors have taken to leaving the authors’ names on the documents sent out for review so the “in crowd” reviewers can rubber stamp one another’s papers.

That system can also work to keep evidence refuting global warming from being printed, until a suitable rebuttal from the “in crowd” can be crafted: When the University of Rochester’s David Douglass submitted a paper to the International Journal of Climatology, showing that a large warming at high altitudes in the tropics -one of the key factors by which the “enhanced greenhouse effect” purportedly changes the climate- just isn’t happening (thus proving, unequivocally, that the IPCC computer models which foretold of “global warming” have little to do with the actual observed data) the editor held up printing until the right players could write a counterpoint.

All of the “proofs” of global warming seem to be embarrassed by the observed data. Sea levels are failing to rise in any significant amount. Storms are less frequent and milder, which completely contradicts the dire warnings issued about the dangers of global warming. In fact, a mere 13 named storms formed in the Atlantic for 2013, only two of which became hurricanes. Tropical Storm Andrea was the only one to make landfall in the U.S. About 70 percent of the earth’s post-1850 warming occurred before 1940. So it’s a safe bet that the post-WW2 build up of industry and the global economy had nothing to do with it. More significantly, the total net post-1940 “warming” totals only a minuscule 0.2 degrees C.

Fifteen years ago, no one in the Global Warming camp would have dared predict a “growing ice sheet” or “record cold temperatures” in Antarctica for 2013. Saying those things out loud could have gotten someone’s sanity questioned, or at least their credentials. Why are we now to believe those things have been expected, all along?

By Ben Gaul


Guardian LV
Arctic Sea Ice News
NY Daily News
Canada Free Press


87 thoughts on “Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories

  1. Everyone loves what you guys tend to be up too. This kind of clever work and coverage! Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve included you guys to my own blogroll.

  2. Riso is rice in Italian. RIZZO has nothing to do with RICE.

    As for this opinion piece, just another right wing hack.

    1. Have you ever heard about the evolution of words and names?
      Riso, Risso, Rizo, Rizzo, all of them have the same root.

      On the other issue, it seems that you can´t refute data and numbers with your own, so you have come to rely on an ad hominem attack

      All in all, you are showing an evident ignorance.

      1. That’s not an ad hominem attack. Because your name sounds like riso, doesn’t mean it’s derived from it. That’s like saying your name means direction because of indirizzo. Anyway – every post you made on here is very defensive. There is no need.

  3. Mr Wilson:
    My last name comes from italian “rice” (do you know what it is?), and I am proud of it.
    Of course you couldn’t insult me, no matter how hard you could try. I will not bother to tell you why because surely you wouldn´t be able to understand it.
    Any way, I rely on facts and data, and on studies and papers on them, not on Youtube videos. And facts say there is a lag that AGW hypothesis cannot explain.
    Your efforts to dismiss those facts is proof of desperation, nothing else. Your ad hominem attacks are proof too.
    But don´t worry. I don´t want to change your mind, because I know it is impossible. Religious beliefs are impervious to reason.

  4. Justin Wilson:

    You warmists are fanny. When something seems to prove your hypothesis, like the Vostok ice cores at first, you make a lot of noise and even put it in a film.
    But when it backfires, you try at first to minimize losses with crazy postulates, like CO2 increasing warming. And finally, when you see that everybody is laughing at you, you try to discard the evidence.
    Yes, there are some discussions about CO2 levels in Vostok ice cores, but the sequence is clear enough (in Greenland too): CO2 lags temperature by 400~1000 years, with an average of about 800 years.
    That is final, Mr Wilson; it is settled evidence.
    But, of course, you warmists do not rely on evidence (after all, there is no evidence at all that CO2 manages climate); you only rely on dogma and GIGO computer models, the same models that have failed completely.

    1. Mr. Rizzo (no offense, but I can’t help but think of the Muppet rat when I read your name)

      I’d love to continue about the Vostok Ice Core data. I’ve read the papers published on the topic and they couldn’t disagree with your position more. There is nothing I can say or do to change your mind, but if anyone else reading your comment wants to know about the lagging co2 in Vostok please view this video:

      There are a lot of video’s online and this one of SUPER dry and boring, but it’s one of the better jobs done to address Mr. Rizzo’s (Muppet’s again) misunderstanding.

      1. Justin its hard to believe what you say because of your emotional ranting. Ad hominem attacks are used by people with weak arguments because they don’t have facts to support their argument. All these comments about “Muppet” would probably appeal to a child and not an adult.

        From what I have seen of the arctic ice shelf it seems that warming is what is happening but when I see a well reasoned article like this it makes me question if global warming is the correct hypothesis.

        Seeing emotional attacks from warming supporters makes me think they don’t really have any proof. Was hoping for a rational discussion where people from both side would discuss rationally and science would be the winner.

  5. There can be no “concentration of heat” in the oceans because heat is a process, which exclusively follows a temperature gradient.

    you’re wrong: for convection, heat can follow a density gradiant. So as surface salt water heats up it can become more dense due to evaporation and sink taking the heat with it. You should also read up on the “mechanical/dynamic” effects in the up/downwelling gyres.

    BTW note that the Antarctic record low is the lowest temperature MEASURED. It’s only because we have the new technology to measure it that it’s been found. Kinda reminds me about the deniers’ ballyhoo about newly discovered volcanoes under the Arctic a while back: the volcanoes had been there for yonks.

  6. 15 years ago, the climate change camp predicted 2 to 20 feet of ocean rise, by today. 13 years ago, the climate change camp predicted snow would be a rare and special treat, by today. Five years ago, the climate change camp predicted the northern polar ice-cap would be substantially melted away, by today.

    Your high priests of doom have been wrong about everything they have predicted, and yet you still cling bitterly to your deeply religious faith in their holy utterances.

    Science and the truth are not subject to consensus or political ideology. Using either of those tropes as “evidence” is evidence in itself, that you are NOT using science.

    1. Ben, Again your noise is just noise. Could you please let us know who was making the claim? 2-20 feet is a big claim and would require analysis. To me, all science deserves review which is why your last sentence is complete bull. As for the polar ice cap it grows and shrinks annually. We call that natural variability and it’s usually measured over the course of years. As for my political ideology, I’m a liberal with some serious conservative reservations ranging from topic to topic and I don’t drive a hybrid. I’m only here to debate the science though.

      According to the longest measured records sea ice has continued to shrink (calculating out mean averages) since 1979. This data doesn’t predict its future. It could rebound completely, but with what we know about an overall warming planet it seems unlikely. I put the data into context and hope for the best. Glaciers have been recorded shrinking and there are some beautiful photography examples of it.

      All the best to you and yours. I look forward to your next random post about how climate change is bunk.

      1. Sorry I’ve been over a week answering your initial question, Justin.

        The answer is Al “Inconvenient Truth” Gore, in the movie adaptation of his book by the same title. I’d post in the relevant video if I could put a link in this response.

        Al also famously said that the Arctic Icecap would be GONE by 2013. It would appear that the Goricle has failed to have ANY of his predictions come true.

        1. Ben,

          First – Merry Christmas and I hope the New Year brings you good fortune.

          Second – An Inconvenient Truth is a piece of work released in 2006 citing cutting edge research that had not been vetted by the peer review process. Cherry picking errors in the film are easy, but then again Al Gore is presenting complex science that takes years to grasp in a 108 minute documentary designed to provoke an emotional response.

          I don’t much care for his film, but he points out a possible 20 foot rise if all of Greenland melts and that would be about correct. He simplifies this issue and omits that Greenland will not likely melt to that level and that Greenland has even experienced these temperatures before in the 1930s. If you want to critique the film – I’m in, but much of its science has withstood the peer review process and has only solidified the link between human activity and overall climate change.

          I know that at the moment Gore is speaking about the Navy submarine data he says, “There are now two major studies showing that in the next 50 to 70 years in summertime it will be completely gone.” That’s from the film. I can’t find a claim about 2013. I know John Kerry said in ’09 the quote you’re attributing to the film. Maybe there was some disconnect in your attribution.

          1. Thank you, Justin. Merry Christmas to you and yours!

            Al the Goracle, in spite of the data manipulation, backwards heat/Co2 correlation chart and propensity to demand happy endings, is one of the most visible spokesmodels for AGW. He shared a Nobel Peace Prize for it, in fact.

            A scientifically under-educated population has allowed the more inflammatory predictions of his award winning Docuprop, to be what informs most of the civilians on the AGW side of the discussion.

            The monetary and social costs of “fighting” global warming, clearly indicate a Leftist agenda is being pursued as the “answer” to the problem. Most of the elements within the UN, as well as whole bureaucracies here in the United States, seem bent on placing all the World’s resources and their distribution into the hands of a Selected Elite.

            Nothing short of “impending global catastrophe” would offer the opportunity, so THAT is all that is allowed into their official dialogs.

            Anyone -or any group- willing to point out the flaws in their arguments are summarily labeled “deniers” (and many less printable words) in a disinformation/defamation campaign which dwarfs anything Joseph Goebbels could have imagined.

  7. “Antarctica: Record Cold and Growing Ice Chills Global Warming Theories ”

    The scientific illiteracy of that headline is remarkable. The measurements made in Antarctica have no bearing on AGW, as the scientists who made them will gladly tell you.

  8. Justin Wilson:

    There is no proof nor evidence that supports AGW. Please remember that correlation is no causation, and that the burden of proof goes to proponents of a scientific theory. But even then, no matter how many positive proofs (pieces of evidence) you may have; it is the capacity to better explain a phenomenon plus the lack of negative proof that makes a theory a good and useful aproximation to truth.
    In AGW hypothesis there is no good explanation to past phenomena (for example, CO2 lags temp in Vostok ice cores, or previous warming episodes in the last 5000 years), there is no explanation to last 17 years of temp stall (all of them negative evidence to the theory), and there is no positive proof of its action on Earth atmosphere. It exists only in models, models that are incapable of making right predictions.

    1. “There is no proof nor evidence that supports AGW. Please remember that correlation is no causation”

      Correlation is a form of evidence. What we have here is a cargo cult version of science — right wing deniers who have no idea what they are talking about spouting talking points that they read at WUWT etc.

      1. No. Correlation is no evidence; it is just a datum. Together with more data and depending of the hypothesis you want to prove, it can be a piece of evidence… or not.
        For example, and as Vostok and Greenland ice cores show, CO2 lags temperature for about 800 years. In this case, correlation plus time is evidence against AGW hypothesis.

        1. You’re still on about the Vostok data? Okay! I downloaded the data and looked it over. The “lag” says nothing in-and-of-itself, but here is what the data shows from Vostok: co2 and temperature have a very close correlation. There are artifcats in the Vostok data that shows a slight rise of co2 could possibly alter the temperature enough to cause positive feedback systems to respond. But, I don’t put much stock in it because the co2 data from Vostok is extremely sparse. The deuterium data for the temperature seems to be very detailed, but the co2 data is not very detailed at all. You’re making broader claims about data that you do not fully understand. The data is free to download – go do it.

          Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core
          Petit, Raynaud, et alii

          Historical CO2 Record from the Vostok Ice Core
          Barnola, Raynaud, et alii

        2. “Correlation is no evidence; it is just a datum”

          If you have access to a dictionary or encyclopedia, you might want to look up “evidence”.

          “correlation plus time is evidence against AGW hypothesis”

          It is if taken out of context, but overwhelming physical data together with a physical understanding of the lag greatly overshadows it. To focus solely on the lag is the worst sort of intellectually dishonest cherry picking.

  9. Ok, seriously… have you guys ever heard of “climate change”? Stop focusing on ‘combatting’ global warming. Fluctuating temperatures and severe weather are not something to laugh off. Ignorant people like you are ruining the planet for people younger than you and the generations to come. Stop being so greedy and taking from your grandchildren!

    1. Bryar – don’t bother. It’s better to point out flaws in logic so that others reading the conversations might get a glimpse of how poor their arguments really are.

  10. Chris “in black”:

    You are a believer in the warming religion, so you are impervious to facts and evidence and prefer dogma, no matter how nonsensical it is.
    But facts, that is, evidence from reality, says that there is no proof of AGW, that temperatures have stalled since 1997 and are descending since 2002, that antarctic sea ice is increasing since at least 1979 and, of course, that there cannot be much melting at below zero temps.
    Those are facts, that is reality, and what you and your friends in religion believe cannot change them.

    1. You’re right. There is no proof, but there is 200 years of evidence that supports the anthropogenic climate impact theory. It becomes the last 200 years of warmth are not relater to the PMO, AMO, or other shorter oscillations when you put it into context alongside paleoclimate research. Saying that 1997 to present shows no significant rise is like saying that frame 3,045 of a movie was black ergo there is no movie.

  11. I love that all who believe in AGW quote their favorite AGW gurus and the “consensus of gurus”, but never seem to actually give any real data. “But the models show…” “But you don’t understand science…” “But there are no climatologists that disagree…” “But 2/3s of the sample of scientists who support the THEORY of AGW say it’s so…”

    Whenever, it seems to me, real data is offered, the concept of anthropogenic climate change seems just plain dumb. But then, sometimes, religions can be like that.

  12. Even double blind studies have issues. Lets say there are 100 people doing studies on the same subject with a 5% false positive. 5 people get good results, and so publish, and are reviewed, and the data seems fine, but the results are wrong just due to plain randomness.

  13. Las Vegas even has a ‘newspaper’? Little surprise then that it would print this hackneyed misinformation. I wont try and change anyone’s mind; if you don’t understand science behind the theory of anthropogenic climate change by now then you never will and that’s ok – it is a person’s right to deny the existence of things that frighten them.
    While I sincerely hope that the author is correct, my respect for science suggests otherwise.
    And your ‘references’? The NY Post? Forbes? The Heartland Institute? C’mon Ben, you’re not even trying. Your one scientific source – the NSIDC says the following:

    “The pattern over the last 100 years has been characterized by overall warming, with signals of natural climate variability.”

    “The underlying cause of sea ice decline—atmospheric warming caused by high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere—has not changed.”

    It took me about 30 seconds to find that. I guessed you missed it. What cereal box was it you get your credentials from?

    Again, I hope I’m wrong but if LV does become uninhabitable I for one won’t have too much sympathy for the homelses residents. Too bad they’ll all be heading north like a swarm of hungry locusts, with guns.
    By necessity I guess we’ll have to be ready for them…

      1. Ben, Ben Ben….you’re still not trying very hard – you’re quoting an article by James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. You might as well reference a press release from Exxon. Taylor is a well-versed climate change denier; it’s his job to disseminate confusion and red herrings at the behest of Heartland’s corporate backers (again, just do a little research). In this case he’s quoting a paper by Spencer and Christy – Spencer being notable because of his pitiful record as a scientist – he is one of a small number of ‘academic prostitutes’ who despite their lack of credibility are lovingly paraded by the likes of Taylor because they believe it will add credibility to their pro business-as-usual agenda. Feel free to do a little research on Spencer’s record and you’ll see what I mean. I would also mention that his commitment to science includes creationism over evolution…
        Anyway Ben, I dont know why you feel the need to keep hammering away with the denier message – the fact is you’ve already won, no government in the industrialized (or industrializing world, for that matter) is going to do anything to stop the fossil fuels free for all – we’re all way too addicted to allow that. We will continue this highly dangerous experiment and hope like hell that you are right because if you’re wrong the future will be very, very ugly.
        What will you tell your kids then?…God’ll fix it?

      2. Ben, the work of Spencer and Braswell in 2011 deals with heat loss into space. The work has been questioned by their peers, but I won’t speak to that. The work is however a narrow perspective in response to heat feedback in the atmosphere. This is a TINY piece of the climate puzzle and their research ignores larger data sets. NASA data is used by hundreds of scientists and this does not mean NASA supports the findings. Linking to that article didn’t help your credibility.

        1. “The work has been questioned by their peers…”

          Justin, you have just beautifully summed up the primary disinformation tool of the AGW crowd: Cast Doubt and Aspersions on the Source.

          Forbes is a NEWS organization of impeccable reputation. They do not exist solely to forward the grant-hungry goals of their “in-crowd” peers and Fellow Wizards of Smart. Forbes does not require government endowments or subsidies to remain in publication. Forbes is forced to compete in the Real World’s arena of ideas, where printing false information can end careers and entire businesses.

          If you truly believe Forbes has printed lies, you go sue their pants off. Let me know how that works out for ya, huh?

          1. Ben, you’re using cloudy two-way logic. Forbes is a business magazine/new site. They have contributors from almost every large company imaginable. The money Forbes makes by floundering to large corporate interests make science grants look like lunch money. So why wouldn’t they protect their financial interests by the occasional bone to whatever industry they need to cooperate with to stay relevant to the corporate world. Forbes is in the lobby of almost every business. Scientists make trouble for businesses when they aren’t making them money. Forbes can print lies – they are protected by the freedom of the press and unfortunately we have writers (like yourself) who are not scientists, but option columnists.

          2. So, you’re saying ther NASA data is wrong?

            Co2 is NOT reflecting more heat AWAY from the Earth than the computer models were programed to assume?

            Is that your stance?

          3. NASA’s position doesn’t matter – only anomalous data that can be distorted to support the “AGW is a lie claim” is relevant. Of course I only posit AGW is statistically very likely based on current evidence. I enjoyed you comments btw.

          4. If you want an example of a lie. There is satellite data all the way to 1974 and this was presented in the 1990 IPCC report. Why was the data before 1979 removed in future reports? Because 1974 was as unusually low as 1979 was high and you would see 1979 was just a one off peak. Now removing earlier data makes it look like ice has been in constant decline – when in fact it is greater than in 1974 – 1978!

            When your side has to manipulate and hide data like this to prove their case – and this isn’t the only time – something is wrong.

            Please Google “Steve Goddard ignoring inconvenient arctic data” for the article which provides the 1990 ipcc report link.

          5. Goddard displayed the data he had. He used satellite data from the SMMR instrument. Older date goes back using ESMR instruments, but the data collected is different between them and needs to be interpreted. The IPCC did the best they could in 1990 to fit this new data into the report. Meier and Strove of University of Colorado compiled SMMR/SSM/I data from 1953 to 2013 and found a negative trendline. They display the monthly anomaly data along with the 12mo. mean. I’m not saying our sea ice can’t rebound, but the evidence doesn’t support your sea ice is greater than from 74-78 hypothesis. Also your “hidden data” hypothesis is laughable.

          6. Oh you don’t recall Mann’s hide the decline – the missing Chinese weather station scandle. The ARU missing study data issue.

            You are now lying through your teeth to support your political agenda. In my opinion more of the data in AGW studies has been falsified than not.

          7. The “hide the decline” email was in reference to tree ring data diverging away from observed data in the northern most latitudes. This is a familiar issue for anyone who studies climate and is not, as you say, dishonest. “Climategate” turned out to be a manufactured controversy for those who don’t take the time to understand complex topics. I think Cuccinelli spearheaded that.

            As for a political agenda – I don’t think have one. I promote science and I use discussions like these to outline some of the missing complexities in simplistic arguments. While it is your right to have the opinion that AGW studies have been falsified, and I’ll defend your right to have that opinion, the science moves on. While you’re yelling about EUREKA climate scandals that are nonsense, you are missing the remarkable discussion about how our climate really works.

          8. No more arguing with Prevaricators and those who support prevarication. Sorry this can is cooked. Over and Out.

          9. ” In my opinion more of the data in AGW studies has been falsified than not.”

            That conspiracist ideation entirely predictable of right wing ideologues who know nothing of climate science other than what they been fed by disinformation sites like WUWT.

          10. “No more arguing with Prevaricators and those who support prevarication. Sorry this can is cooked. Over and Out.”

            In other words, you’re too cowardly to respond to the point that you have no idea what “hide the decline” referred to:

            If you don’t like that one because it isn’t from an approved denier source, try


          11. “Forbes is a NEWS organization of impeccable reputation.”

            Once could say the same of the Guardian, but that doesn’t make what you write here any less ignorant, imbecilic, or intellectually dishonest.

      3. Ben, you’re a right wing crank with no scientific training or understanding … what you claim about “observed scientific data” is irrelevant.

        1. demi, I’m almost surprised you didn’t call me a “doodi-head” at some point in your rants. Did you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly as you read the article, so you wouldn’t have to hear what you were reading?

          I’ve listed links to articles corroborating my points. You’ve insisted I’m wrong, primarily and evidently, because YOU say so.

          Why not write an article of your own, showing all of the data and evidence of an ever warming globe, and allow the facts to shut me up? I sincerely and eagerly look forward to the challenge.

          1. Ben, let’s go source by source, but before we start I notice you didn’t source any of the actual scientists or any of the original research related to the coldest temperature recording.

            1.) GUARDIAN LV – Kimberly Ruble’s article is quite good. She uses expert interpretations and makes note that this recording has no implication to global climate.

            2.) NSIDC – The article here explains that Antarctic sea ice growth for this month was average and ice was more in some areas and less in others. It’s nothing new for the oscillating growth and loss of ice every year. They put it in context over time and the article shows a decrease in Arctic sea ice extent over years and this one comes nowhere near making up the difference. Note the difference between Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice.

            3.) PHYS.ORG – This article explains well how sea ice constantly changes over time, but points out how this does not deteriorate any scientific understanding of climate change and the observed data is not completely unexpected.

            4.) DAILY NEWS – This article is about how there were fewer hurricanes in the Atlantic this year. We did dodge a bullet thanks to some dry air, but our pacific friends didn’t get so lucky this year.

            5.) CANADA FREE PRESS – The information provided here more follows your logic. They claim that arctic sea isn’t changing much over time and when it comes to sea ice – this is generally the case. The Antarctic is COLD. Ice grows every winter and thaws completely ever summer. But sea ice doesn’t really matter in the scale of things because it will be back. Dr. Jeff Masters does a thorough explanation on his blog at wunderground. Check it out (January 15, 2009).

            6.) FORBES – This article by Patrick Michaels is a lot like your article here. He picks nonsense climate battles to make noise. His argument about double blind doesn’t really apply to climate science and he doesn’t seem to understand the peer review process. Peer review takes years while he can write whatever he wants every day…

          2. Justin,

            The people who wrote those source articles and I, cannot thank you enough for visiting all our websites. You sir, are a publisher’s dream reader. Given the opportunity, I intend to buy you some coffee.

            Now, the links I post in my articles are not always going to agree with my central themes. I often look for Pro Climate Change authorities to source my facts. I cannot have people like you accusing me -or the Liberty Voice- of only using data from single sided sources.

            Therefore, the links I provide are to source articles which contain specific facts I list in my own work. It keeps people from falling into the mistaken assumption that I come up with figures or datum on the fly.

            But thanks again for taking the time to thoroughly vet my work. I sincerely owe you a coffee.

          3. I’m happy to read the material. I think it’s important to have these conversations so other readers who stumble upon the article can read legitimate criticism to the article. You and I may not agree on climate change and likely share different political ideology, but I’d still share a cup of coffee with you. There’s always something to agree on.

          4. That’s a poor attitude, making personal attacks on people shows you don’t have much of an argument your self and only helps push people away from your point of view because it seems based on emotion (blind religious faith?) and not fact.

            I like the comment by Justin ” I think it’s important to have these conversations so other readers who stumble upon the article can read legitimate criticism to the article.” as well as his prior post where he goes through the different citations and ratially evaluates/reviews the content.

            The reason I am here is to read legitimate rational conversations on the subject to get a better feel for the subject not to read childish name calling which doesn’t further the discussion.

          5. Blah blah blah.

            “making personal attacks on people shows you don’t have much of an argument your self ”

            No it doesn’t; that’s an ad hominem fallacy. My argument is the science. You can’t find that or discuss it in enough depth here.

            “The reason I am here is to read legitimate rational conversations on the subject ”

            You’re in the wrong place.

          6. Is that your way of saying you aren’t willing to invest the energy necessary to write an entire article on your own?

            Also… What have I lied about?

  14. You’d think the WaterMelons enviro foot soldiers would back off the Elitist’s Global Warming for global Carbon Tax bull, but no, they are actually blaming the record cold on Global warming.

  15. The ocean warming has been falisified several times now. Are you some political hack, or do you get funding for some green project that makes you want to propogate lies?

  16. The burden of proof is not on us ‘deniers’ Mr. Wilson. And evidence of rising temperatures is not evidence of man-made global warming. And neither does the number of scientist that make these MMGW-CAGW claims matter. Science is not a democracy. It only takes one scientist to be right. And models of reality, however fancy or sophisticated, are not reality itself. Their usefulness depends on how well they predict reality accurately. And if that accuracy is not there, then all you are left with is a fancy science-fiction computer game.

  17. This article is utter nonsense. A climate denier’s wet dream! What a bunch of hooey. Citing a cold day in one place on Earth to refute a global trend? That would be like observing a hot dry day in Seattle, Washington and insisting it’s not a cool wet climate. If anyone has a financial incentive to lie and obfuscate it’s the industries who crank out greenhouse gases and make billions in profits by externalizing their costs and the public relations hacks who defend them How are you so blind? How many millionaire climatologists do you know of? Who really has an incentive to lie? Please open your mind to scientific facts and evidence. Remember all those years the tobacco industry knew about the link between disease and smoking and lied about it because it would cost them profits. It’s the same strategy used by the greenhouse gas producers. Only instead of individual lives these guys are risking our whole ecosystem. Shame!

    1. Gia. I’m curious if you actually read the article or any of the links I sourced the material from. Everything I wrote into the article, insofar as datum, dates and degrees is concerned, is 100% accurate.

      Please, if you’re going to use words like “nonsence” and “hooey,” can be so kind as to be specific as to which facts you’re contesting?

  18. I am a business man. And I will concur that there is no PROOF that climate change is man made.

    However, in business as in life, one of my primary functions is risk mitigation. I try and control or respond to the risk of new competitors, changing technology, employee turnover, changing demographics, etc. etc. etc.

    Think of it this way. Our species is currently in the Dakkar Rally. We are in first place. We have the best team, the most expensive equipment, we have trained the hardest, and we are the most aggressive on the course. As one concession to safety, we have 10 scouts surveying the terrain ahead to mitigate the risk of being surprised by something unexpected and potentially lethal on the course.

    Currently one of our scouts is screaming over the radio that there is a cliff around the next bend and we, the driver, won’t be able to stop in time so we will die. One is screaming that there is a cliff, we won’t be able to stop and the likelihood of survival is limited. Six of our scouts say there is an anomaly ahead on the course and it would be wise to slowdown, or stop and check out what the anomaly is as we are well ahead in the race and our chance of losing is minimal. One of our scouts is calmly saying that he doesn’t see anything ahead and we should be fine. The last of our scouts is screaming into the radio that all the other scouts are idiots and we need to go faster if we are going to win the race. Oh, and two of the scouts are in chase vehicles behind us, six are in helicopters surveying the course around us, one is in a fixed position at the same point we are on the course, and the last one is at the finish line.

    So given what we can see of the course ourselves, which is that something appears different than the practice run, and the inputs from our 10 scouts, what is the best risk mitigation strategy that we, the driver, can employ?

    1. B. Reynolds. LOVE the Dakkar Rally comparison. The problem is that the “forward scouts” who are declaring a cliff around the corner, are the same scouts who have proclaimed a cliff around the past 20 corners. They are uniformly WRONG with every cliff prediction. No cliffs ever actually exist, nor can they with the road we’re taking. Short of a Nuclear Bomb.

      They’re on the take from a team who wants us to lose, so they say everything they can to get us to slow down.

      1. Ben, so your risk mitigation strategy is pedal to the metal? We should believe the scout screaming that everyone else is an idiot and everything is fine, even though he is standing at the finish line and has no first hand knowledge of what is happening on the course?

        I want you working on risk mitigation for my competitors.

        1. How many times do those scouts have to be dead wrong, before you’ll stop listening to them? Particularly in light of the fact that SO many other scouts are telling you that A) the cliff-criers are only predicting cliffs so they can justify all the money you pay them for scouting, and B) the cliffs they describe cannot exist on the road you’re traveling?

          1. A: There is more money involved by those who do not want policies based on this evidence than will ever be made by the researches in the field. So your “A” is crap. B: You showed your hand. You’re working from the conclusion that it can’t exist. You quote mine and cherry pick every small piece of any study that supports your conclusion even though every detailed look exposes your cherry picking. You don’t believe evidence exists because you don’t think it can exist without lies and deceit. You’re working backwards… we look at evidence to form a conclusion, not look for anything to support a conclusion. If we suddenly found a source of co2 that looks man-made but is completely natural and accounts for all the data – my opinion would change with the science. Because that’s how it works.

          2. Over the past 150 years, CO 2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased from 280 to 370 ppm. 90 Parts Per Million is a rise of .00009 percent. Perhaps you’d better stop exhaling.

            In general, tropical waters release CO 2 to the atmosphere, whereas high-latitude oceans take up CO 2 from the atmosphere. CO 2 is also about 10 percent higher in the deep ocean than at the surface.

            The CO 2 that is recycled at depth is slowly carried large distances by currents to areas where the waters return to the surface (upwelling regions). When the waters regain contact with the atmosphere, the CO 2 originally taken up by the phytoplankton is returned to the atmosphere. This exchange process helps to control atmospheric CO 2 concentrations over decadal and longer time scales.

          3. Ben, you’re not helping yourself here. I think you’re getting the .00009% figure because you think you can represent a numerical difference as a percent by taking the difference and just slapping percent after it. In reality (where I live) this isn’t how it works. 90ppm into 280ppm is an increase of 32%. You can look at it like this if you want: .00028 parts to .00037 parts (.00009 parts difference) is an increase of 32%. That’s significant over 150 years.

            Anywho – you’re right about some of the feedback systems, but I don’t know how this helps your point. We understand a LOT of feedback systems and we even find new ones occasionally, but they don’t account for the observed increases in temperature or co2.

  19. @ Chris – December 12, 2013 at 6:05 am

    Common sense…

    Ok Chris, let’s look at your scenario. During the minuscule (in term of the planets climate history) trend line that the global warming (AGW) movement was built on – which was approx. 1988-1998 – where warm temps were common, the heat was not stored in the deep ocean. It must have been (in very timely fashion) released for those 10 yrs.

    But now that cooling is common, the (AGW) heat has hidden itself in the deep-water layers where the average temp is 36°F (2°C).

    Seriously ? At what point do you wake up and realize that you’ve been lied to beyond even reasonable common sense ?


      They need segways for the extra distance they need to walk across the “shrinking” ice sheet!

      “This year’s maximum extent was 3.6% higher than the 1981 to 2010 average Antarctic maximum, representing an ice edge that is 35 kilometers (approximately 22 miles) further north on average. Overall, Antarctic September sea ice extent is increasing at 1.1% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.”

  20. The belief that bad weather is caused by humans angering the weather gods, is the oldest superstition of mankind. And we have always believed that sacrifices of wealth might appease those gods, and there has never been a shortage of middle men to accept those sacrifices on the gods’ behalf..

    using computer simulations to scare people instead of masks doesn’t make this belief any less scientifically illiterate

  21. “contradictory evidences -like record cold vs. rising global temperature”
    Record cold in a single location vs. a rising average GLOBAL temperature. You sure you should be writing about science when you can’t see a difference there?

      1. They don’t look at the simple global satellite measurements at all, they prefer anecdotal weather stations in parking lots, preferably next to exhaust fans..

  22. Well… considering that there is not a single proof of anthropogenic global warming (models are not evidence and correlation is not causation), and that all of geological evidence from anciente times contradicts it, this is not surprise.

  23. My reply to the person who commented at 6:05 am.

    The only shameful thing around here is your lack of scientific knowledge and ethics! There is NO scientific consensus that MMGW is occurring despite the lies of the warmers to the contrary. Its a hoax. A cottage industry designed to keep the public on edge about the environment. Well, this time the doom and gloom “Chicken Littles” have over reached. This thing is unraveling. As far as the “extra” heat being somehow channeled to the deep oceans. Where is the proof? There is none. Ocean temps have not risen! Arctic ice coming back to normal and Antarctic ice is at record levels!!

    1. Where is the proof? Proof only relates to mathematics and liqueur. The evidence for increasing ocean temperatures and raising average temperatures are published in respectable science journals by the thousands of scientists who have worked on understanding paleoclimate models and modern climate models. The truth is that the vast majority of these scientists did not set out to find man-made climate change, but rather uncovered it as a fact. It’s just how it is. I wish you all the best at your line of argument, but history will recall you as a contrarian and denialist.

      1. CO2 can increase temperature, but the amount that CO2 can contribute compared to the actual amount that has been predicted is, to be honest, ridiculously small. I have been covering the Global Warming scare ( yes it is a scare ) for over two and a half decades. Now does that mean that it is bunk that CO2 has no warming, no, but is it likely that we will see more than additional degree of warming for a doubling of CO2? Yeah pretty much. And the benefits of this WAY outweigh the negatives. So… please let me know when you stop denying the positive impacts of CO2.

  24. Finally, an objective look to published, long term data and facts. “Double blind” peer review is so similar in concept to “double blind” clinical studies, the most objective approach that can deliver results unscathed by personal, political or business influences.
    Good article! Thanks!

      1. “Can’t you deniers be a teensie weensie bit honest”

        I got to say it is hard because we don’t have all the fake and falsified data to support us.

  25. The ignorance and arrogance in this rant is shameful. It’s sad that some of the people who read it won’t be aware of the false claims and omissions required to take such a silly position. It’s well known that the “Pause” you speak of isn’t a pause at all, but a concentration of heat in the oceans as opposed to the atmosphere. Hand this rant off to a climatologist and they’ll systematically tear down every talking point. Please people, ignore this little bit of uninformed quackery.

    1. There can be no “concentration of heat” in the oceans because heat is a process, which exclusively follows a temperature gradient. For this heat storage to occur you would need an artificial heat pump on the ocean floor (i.e. similar to a ground source heat pump used to heat radiators). I should add that there is no data whatsoever from the Argo Buoys to suggest that such an impossibly unnatural process is occurring. This means that climate alarmists would have you believe that it is mainly happening beneath the Weddell sea where data is conveniently not being collected…

Comments are closed.