4 votes

Warming Forecast: New-and-Improved 'Hockey Stick' Graph (Be afraid...be very afraid.)

Along with this doozy:

As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up.

Look over here, not over there. Here, here's the warming. Er...huh?

ARTICLE & GRAPH LINK: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/08/18/2484711/ipcc-rep...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cyril's picture

I may be about to shock a lot of people on this thread

I may be about to shock a lot of people on this thread, but even though I consider myself having very little clue on what is actually (read: scientifically) the crux of the matter, I'd like to make a strong statement:

my intuition is whether or not human activities alone did impact significantly (or even, uncontrollably) the planet global heat...

... well, in the end, it doesn't matter as much as something else entirely, albeit with an impact on human condition at the scale of nations' populations heavily dependent on "it" (i.e., that very nature - God knows which - of the earth's heat "function").

And that is... human populations' freedoms.

Freedom to produce, consume, degrade, recycle. Freedom to grow or to diminish. Freedom to evolve or stabilize. And first and foremost! Freedom TO MOVE!

Do you take the latter for granted, these days? Well, I DO NOT. Not anymore. At this pace of human affairs (perpetual wars - aka WWIII)... its days are counted. And that scares the hell out of me. :(

Yes, because even if it would hypothetically turn out that "the global warming" (pseudo-)scientific** debate is a complete deception - again: hypothetically only, might just as well distract reason from the true threats, in a complete mistake - my (very personal) out of the box thinking tells me:

"Wait. Who cares, really, if that tends to go up or down, if, at the same time, the brutal force of government can concentrate further populations here or there at the will of perverted laws, just as it has started, already?"

I am not crazy enough to make the claim that there aren't things needing a most careful attention urgently, of course, but with a long term perspective in mind : what can possibly matter "the worst", including in regard to energy and global heat, when an Orwellian global state is already in place?

There might or might not be an elephant in the room. I believe we ought to not lose sight that there is a room, to begin with.


** I write "pseudo-" because from day 1 two (or three?) decades ago, it was mixed with politics and special interests. "Duh!"

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

I'm about to shock even more people

by completely agreeing with you. There is no logical reason this issue 'should' result in less freedoms or more control over us but in either case of the GW debate, it will. That's a definite issue to be dealt with.

I see there being two ways to do so.

First one is to convince everyone that it's a hoax and to drop the CO2 based regulations that we know eventually lead down a dark path. To this, I say good luck. I'm done the science and believe it's a building problem 100% and I'm positive the the majority of other scientists have too. But even if none of us are vocal, there's still the propaganda machine to fight. Sorry, but this way is a losing battle.

The second option is to simply stop using fossil fuels to make our energy. People who state that this costs more are simply uninformed and listening to paid off experts telling them "THE" only renewables (implying PV and wind) can't do it. Sure, those can't do it cheaper, yet (they are getting very close though), but what's not being said is that there are others out there that CAN do it better, cheaper and 100% clean of CO2 emissions.

Even our farming, fishing and cattle raising techniques can be overhauled for INCREASED PROFITS and yield if we just stop listening to the "centralized system is best" people and start doing things locally, using distributed models. Right now, if you combine multiple proven techniques on about 3 acres of land, you can produce enough beef, pork, poultry, fish, shrimp, veggies, spuds and assorted other foods to feed nearly 100 people year round. If the entire US wanted to eat from people doing this, all of those mini-farms would fit inside Texas with room to spare and with no farms outside that state.

All I've been saying this entire thread is that both halves of the problem (the freedom and the GW issues) go away if we go renewable, so why don't more people embrace it?


I understand your points and can sympathize with your sentiments regarding local, decentralized farming techniques and effective distribution.

A few issues beginning with warming gases...

I live in California and am under the looming implementation of AB32. And let me tell you, the busy-bee policy implementors are busy implementing. This disastrous legislation with a so-called “market-based” “solution”--the cap-and-trade slush fund scheme--is slithering its way into all conceivable areas of the Golden State. See, I can’t walk around the block without producing CO2--and maybe some occasional methane. Meaning every aspect of life, from mom-and-pops to the building up of larger industries to the products I buy for my household to the “wilderness area" that I visit to fish and hunt, will be impacted by this scheme. Yes, indeed. Oh sure, maybe the bureaucrats begin with specified "most egregious" offenders in industry, but the mandated costs indirectly fall to the consumer--and directly, when bloat and agency incompetence settles in and additional revenue generating is demanded. Additional taxes on the very air I breathe. And all based on the theory of anthropogenic global warming...or should I say climate change. As I see it, do we let unelected, bureaucratically minded do-gooders mandate and policy the way a free individual lives, undeniably based on collectivists’ utopian notions and solely prescribed on the hysteric proposal of the sky is falling...egad...it’s man-made global warming?

As for renewables...

Let a true free market determine that. If costs are comparable or become relatively less expensive, then I’ll embrace the newfangled with all the vigor and enthusiasm of a cost-conscious, penny-pinching consumer...of which I am. And watch people follow suit. What I don’t need is the boot of an overzealous, overweight nanny telling me that my carbon footprint is too large and, by dear Gaia, I’ll abide by my carbon allotment if I knew what was good for me. Particularly when that allotment is designed to steal the product of my labors to further fund a liberty-stripping agenda. No not this Life, Liberty and Property loving free individual….

That’s the crux, at least from my free perspective, and find it somewhat missing in your GW argument and plea for “embracing” renewables.

"Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations! And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Frederic Bastiat

“The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.” - Ron Paul

Ok, so we're now in agreement on current status.

So what do we do about it?

Your fear is that the GW regulation will get out of hand. I fully agree that it's definitely headed there. The difference is that I disagree that we can stop the political agenda. Just like ending the Fed, we. will. never. get. enough. people. behind. it. to. compete. with. the. Fed. Oh, sure. We'll make "progress" and we'll get more people on our side and we'll feel good and hold rallies and protests and get some token law passed, but they will always hold that swing vote up their sleeve. Why fight this way? They're just going to nickel and dime us to death until they gain total control and power anyway.

My belief is that if we can get off fossil fuel burning, then this political problem (not to mention most of the monetary, war, resource war and growth based problems) simply go away. If no one wanted oil anymore, how could they justify, even to themselves, going to war over Iran's oil?

So my question came down to cost. After researching this extensively, I found that the technical solutions exist and if used, they would be much, much cheaper... but they can't get done with the banks and energy experts stopping all investment into them. One only needs to ask why a bank or angel investor would agree to give money to a "known" risky venture like this. The answer is "only if it got good reviews by experts". So now ask yourself what "experts" would they go to? That answer is the energy companies that want nothing to do with a really game changing technology. Sure, they'll support PV and wind but that's because THEY WILL NEVER hurt their business at these kind of scales.

So, I promote those technologies by telling people that they are the solution to the GW problem (which they are). I don't promote them as a cost savings as much because many will take economies of scale to get that to become truth. Just look at the Tesla car line. First was $110k and very niche. Second one is just over half that at $62k and it's possibly the best overall car ever built. If people actually did the long term math, it's already cheaper if you kept it for a decade but it will get there for others soon too.

With all this in mind, I really hate when people use pseudo-science and half learned or half applied principles to argue that an issue as massively complex is as simple as a rock in the sun. That's just an arrogant insult to people who spent decades learning and know that they still have more to learn.

Cyril's picture

Thank you

This just read as a thorough and well thought comment for me.

I wholeheartedly agree. If there's one thing across the board of sciences and technologies that humanity has learned is "working generally better" than anything else more, say, driven... it's oh! surprise, surprise! decentralization... freedom... and locality... and oh! surprise, surprise! what are TPTB still trying hard to reinstate by the hours, minutes, seconds, contrariwise?... big central control...

For me, Bastiat was right already with his "liberty molecules" metaphore... [ http://www.dailypaul.com/280094/to-the-youth ]

And you are too, now, I think.

Side note: I've read attentively all the comments on here so far, and despite my not being interested in taking a firm position on either side (besides my own point)... I was very surprised to see your being down voted that much(?) I do not think it was deserved. Not deserved at all, for the explanatory effort you put in those. Rather weird, if one asks me.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


Daily Mail: Why HAS global warming slowed? Scientists admit they don't know why - but are '95% sure' humans are to blame for climate change


The climate of the planet is

The climate of the planet is not my fault. It's the Sun's fault.


If anyone chooses to do a little research on the North pole

they will find that the ice is increasing. In 2012 the North pole was only in the thawing temps for 45 days. This was the shortest time ever recorded. Some scientists are even saying the earth could be entering a mini iceage.

The sun is the entity that really controls the temps on earth, we are just at the mercy of the sun.

This stuff is always good for a laugh anyway!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

The warming seas are caused

The warming seas are caused by a more intense sun. The heat from a stronger sun penetrates hundereds of feet into the water, whereas a warmer atmosphere caused by green house gases only warms the immediate surface of the oceans.

One can demostrate this very easily. Put 2 clear glass 5 gallon bottles of water, starting with the water at the same temperature, outside next to each other, except...put one in direct sunlight, shade the other bottle. Monitor the temperature of each bottle, and it is easily seen the one in the sun will warm MUCH faster, even though the air temp surrounding both bottles is equal.

Oceanic warming is due ENTIRELY to a warmer sun. Warming by air would take many many times longer, likely hundreds of years. This hockey stick graph is actually showing that temps are not rising from air, but from the Sun. If it were rising from increased air tempts the rise would be far more gradual.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You're skipping just a 'few' steps here

You claim that more sun heats deeper into the water and heats it more. While this is true, in a balanced environment it would be exactly offset by the increase in heat loss from the warmer ocean water to the atmosphere.

Water evaporates from the surface and moves heat from the ocean to the air. Also, the water radiates heat into space (black-body radiation) based solely on its temperature. Together, these have been in balance with the energy coming from the sun since our atmosphere was formed. As the sun sends us more, heat lost back out to space increases. This is rapid because heat transfer due to radiation is proportional to THE FOURTH POWER of temperature. That's massive. It means that with a nearly immeasurable increase in temp, the Earth would dump much more heat back into space. Very small concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, including water vapor, regulate this. This is why a tiny change in their concentration has such an extreme effect on heating. They throw the energy in vs. energy out completely out of balance. We call the over/under shooting an ice age or a warming period. These have taken thousands of years to show the effects with the ideal fastest natural time being calculated at around 700 years PER DEGREE. You simply can't heat something as large as a planet up any faster... unless you insulate it from losing heat back out to space. If you do that, like we are, you get warming of one degree in centuries or even decades. This is huge because no feedback system on Earth can get rid of that kind of heat in less than 'around 700 years'.

In 'natural' warming periods, the temp rose from a combination of factors working in concert. This warming caused an increase in CO2 which eventually caused more warming. It was only when other negative loops kicked in enough that we returned to regular temps.

This time, we're forcing the CO2 to cause the warming at a rate that nothing can catch up and stop it. Never before has CO2 risen so high so quickly.

Now, take that CO2 effected warming and note that it decreases the CO2 absorption of the ocean, leaving more of it in the air to stop heat from radiating to space. Now add in an increase in water vapor. Now add in sublimated methane ice (which is 20X more insulating to heat loss. These feedbacks dwarf the little things like 'darker oceans absorb more heat while ice re-radiates more to space'. Those are 1X feedbacks and what we're talking about is multiplication factors on 4X magnifiers. It's not even in the same playing field.

This entire issue is NOT for the light hearted or the entry level science layman. Keep in mind that I'm NOT saying people aren't trying to game both sides for profit. They definitely are but that has no bearing on the real science. They are simply two separate debates.

Water vapor, the most

Water vapor, the most significant green house gas, accounts for 95% of the "greenhouse effect". All the gases studied in the IPCC account for 5% of the greenhouse effect. They don't include water vapor in their study though they do acknowledge, in fine print, that it accounts for 95%... Increasing evaporation increases the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does NOT cause an increase in heat loss into space. Quite the opposite. Water vapor results in a heat retention from the sun heat. Evaporation TRAPS heat.

Evaporation does not destroy any heat, it transfers heat. As water evaporates the vapor retains absorbs heat while the surrounding air loses the heat that the vapor absorbs.

Each greenhouse gas absorbs a PART of the light spectrum, a frequency range. 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns are the light ranges that CO2 absorbs. Water vapor overlaps ALL of CO2's absorption ranges except for one TINY sliver, I forget right off hand which, you can find that data in the IPCC #2 (the IPCC acknowledges that water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse effect, BUT they completely ignore water vapor in their studies, as well as the sun). Water vapor's absorption frequency is HUGE, covering a majority of the infrared light spectrum and overlapping many of the other insignificant greenhouse gases. When I say insignificant gases, I'm referring to those that the IPCC names as THE greenhouse gases. These insignificant gases only become significant in the IPCC because they exclude water vapor and only look at the gases that are responsible for 5% of greenhouse effect.

CO2 in the atmosphere is evenly distributed over the globe. It is the same in the southern hemisphere as in the north. Yet looking at the IPCC it is clearly seen that THERE IS NOT GLOBAL WARMING. Their own data and maps clearly show there is NORTHERN HEMISPHERE warming, the south is stable or even cooling. Water vapor is NOT evenly distributed over the globe. There is more water vapor in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. If CO2 were the culprit then the southern hemisphere should be warming with the north. CO2 is NOT the culprit, water vapor is. A stronger sun, evidenced by rapidly increasing oceanic temps, increases water evaporation which increases air temps. Increased oceanic temps lead to an increase in CO2. But the increase in CO2 is meaningless as the increase in water vapor dramatically dwarfs the effects of CO2. As the sun moves toward a weaker output, water vapor will fall out of the sky resulting in cooling that CO2 will not compensate for, no matter how much CO2 is present. CO2, compared with water vapor, is VERY WEAK greenhouse gas. Remove ALL of the water vapor from the atmosphere and we would likely enter an ice age in a matter of months. The areas of the world that are the coldest have the least water vapor, The areas that have the largest temp swings from day and night are the areas with the least water vapor. Desert areas, low in water vapor, can warm to very high temps during the day, then lose all the heat during the night due to a lack of water vapor to retain the heat. This high/low overnight extremes are called "diurnal temperature range". Diurnal temperature range is reported as decreasing in recent years. This would be consistent with increasing water vapor, or greenhouse gases. A study of showing changes by latitude show that the northern hemisphere is experiencing less diurnal temperature ranges. Since CO2 is consistent over the globe, but water vapor is higher in the northern hemisphere, this study points to higher levels of water vapor as the culprit, although, of course, these studies exclude water vapor all together, and point to CO2 as the cause.

Warmer oceans do indeed lead to an increase in CO2 being released from the oceans. This is why CO2 increase FOLLOWS warming, not LEADING warming. Warming results in an increase in water vapor and CO2. The CO2 is not the danger as water vapor absorbs virtually all of the same light spectrum as CO2.

If we want to do our part to stop global warming then we should seek ways to reduce water vapor. Vegetation is a major contributor to the release of water vapor. Cut down a tree, stop watering your yard..... hold a protest against commercial irrigation.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Lots of true statement without context

Water vapor is a self regulating, repeating process. If you increase the water vapor by adding heat, you increase the number of rain storms that remove that heat. Overall, the average remains relatively constant with only the frequency increasing. So, yes it does increase the planet's insulation but only while it's in the air.

CO2, methane and the others to much lesser degrees, stay in the atmosphere constantly. They build up and cause a rise in the baseline from which water vapor's changes oscillate around.

I commend you on your awareness of these events but I would caution you to keep an eye on the big picture.

An analogy I often use is that of a steady hose filling a swimming pool. If there are some pinholes at various heights in the side of the pool, the water will eventually equalize wherever the input/outflow balances. Closing one hole will raise that level to a new stable level. Allowing leaves to fall into the pool will constantly block an increasing number of holes and make the level constantly rise. It's not a perfect analogy but it works for the most part.

If you increase the heat,

If you increase the heat, then more water vapor remains in the air after precipitation, more heat allows a higher amount of water vapor to REMAIN after precipitation. The water cycle is about 9 days. It rains when the air is saturated, but rain does not remove the water vapor from the air, it removes the EXCESS water vapor from the air. As I'm sure you know, the higher the temp, the higher the saturation point. Thus the higher the air temp the more water vapor in the air, period.

If the sun goes throw a weakening period, then the saturation point will drop, water will come out of the sky creating a further cooling effect, which will result in further lower saturation point...rinse and repeat...

Again, if CO2 were the culprit we would be seeing global warming, not Northern hemisphere warming/ stable to cooling southern hemisphere.

Water vapor DOES vary with temperate. If you increase the temperate the the saturation point increases and more water vapor must be in the air before it precipitates. With warmer sun, more water vapor, more heat. Cooler sun, water vapor precipitates and leads to cooling.

On the other hand, CO2 and other greenhouse gases, as you've noted, remain relatively constant. The IPCC gives an "exact" life cycle to CO2 of 5 to 200 years. They build their models from this "exact" life cycle... how you build any knid of dependable model when you are not sure whether the cycle is 5 years or 200 years is beyond me, by hey, they're the experts here. WHY QUESTION THE IPCC? Anyway, back to CO2 and it relatively constant levels... If CO2 is the culprit, and CO2 is constant, but H2O varies with temperature...why did we just go through a decade of cooling? That doesn't make sense if CO2 which is constant (and increasing), that temps would fall. It does however make sense if H2O is the culprit, because H2O has cycle of only about 9 days, increases with sun output and decreases when the sun weakens. The IPCC argues that it is all CO2, and that water vapor and the sun's intensity have no effect on the whole thing.

And this is without getting into MANY other things, such as they IPCC data clearly showing the CO2 LAGS temperature rises, and the mimicking occurring on the Martian atmosphere. Of course that MAN MADE rover they sent could be the problem up there...

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Agree on most but...

I question one piece of what you're saying. I'm not sure that after a rain, the water vapor remains higher. I'll concede that it CAN but not that it is a given. I think it depends on the specific storm and how it played out.

What this would mean is that if excess heat was received from the sun, it would always lead to higher vapor content which would always lead to higher insulation against thermal heat leaving to space which would lead to more increased heat and more insulation and so on. In short, it would mean a runaway condition with the first occurrence of higher than normal solar activity. So either the water cycle is a self regulating process, which is what I've always been told, or there is some other factor mitigating the runaway situation. Occam's Razor suggests that rain is the great balance to this potentially catastrophic imbalance.

Another (possibly small but worth mentioning?) factor may be that rain does not always occur JUST by the content surpassing the saturation point. If this were the case, cloud seeding would not work. Is it possible that CO2 could affect this process, either by offering contamination for rain to form on or by insulating it from them as in a MIG welder's gas envelope?

There is not a runaway

There is not a runaway condition. Holes in the pool. There are always areas on earth where water vapor is very low. Some of those areeas a very cold, antarctic. Some are very hot, deserts. Deserts allow a great deal of heat to escape, holes in the pool. But with a continually hot sun even those regions will begin to have some water vapor drift over them, Leaves in the pool.

But, unlike CO2, water vapor has a VERY short cycle of about 9 days. And the sun's output is not constant. It varies, hourly, daily, monthly, yearly, ect. When we go through a short period of solar wakening, water vapor only takes 9 days to respond, likewise with solar strength. Now if water vapor had a 5 year to 200 year cycle, then we WOULD be in trouble. Heat would be retained during a solar minimum, and increase further during a solar maximum. If CO2 were the culprit then this is exactly what we would see. But this is not what we're experiencing. We just went through a solar minimum and we experienced cooling, just as would be expected.

Rain does not occur at the saturation point. Clouds are far beyond the saturation point, that's why you can see them, they are masses of water vapor that have already begun to precipitate. They continue to gather more water vapor until they hit a trigger, some dust, a hot air mass, artificial seeding...

The sun's intensity is the water cycle's regulator. The IPCC ignores the Sun's cycles and water vapor. To include them would completely destroy their case. The water cycle is far more powerful at BOTH cooling and warming than CO2 could have any effect upon. The Sun's intensity regulates the water cycle. The IPCC, with their ever so accurate models, has predicted in 2000 that by 2010 temps would rise 1C degree. They were wrong, temps declined. Did CO2 decline or were we experiencing a solar minimum? Maybe their models would be improved if they included solar forecast.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

No light beyond 200m is barely detectable

The ocean data is a little troubling. I just don't know how reliable it is.
His complaint about air temperature is bull however. Just remember two things in about a thousand years we will run out if coal, gas and oil to burn so earth will survive and we might alter the earths temperature while we do that so there's an experiment going on

200m is 600ft. Which do you

200m is 600ft. Which do you think warms the oceans faster:
Warming the upper 600 ft of water? (heat transfer from sun acting to the depths of penetration)
Warming the upper 1/16 inch of water? (heat transfer from atmosphere acting on SURFACE)

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Just Because You Can't See Light

at that depth doesn't mean the sunlight isn't effecting the temperature.

If you understood basic economics you would know we will never run out of those materials. I don't have the patience to explain it to you so here is a decent link that will catch you up to speed.

The article showed different temps in different layers of ocean

The photic zone is above 200m. The aphotic zone is below 200m, where photic references the presence of light. What the article showed that was disturbing was different temperatures in these layers, suggesting the lower ocean has been absorbing an unusual amount of heat these last couple decades. By eye, it looks like convection, that mixes the layers, is associated with storms (El nino/la nina).

Now I suppose if you express the energy as percentages, it would be like a 0.000000000001 percent change.

Economics article says we will always have coal, oil, gas because some remaining fraction wont be worth extracting. Point taken but thinking about it there are renewable sources of fuel so we will probably burn some kind of fuel forever. This means that someday we may discover what change in the amount of CO2 is the real amount needed to cause global warming.

Michael Mann

The author quotes an e-mail from Michael Mann in his article. By including that, the article loses ALL credibility. Michael Mann should have crawled under a rock and stayed there after his e-mails were released. As the original person who "wet-dreamed up" the first hockey stick graph and helped sustain it by blatant cover-ups of actual conflicting data and threats to peer-reviewers to prevent publishing of opposing research and opinion, he has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. I'm thinking there may be a violation of law somewhere and he should probably be in prison. Or, at a minimum, sued by people involved in the economy (that is every man, woman and child on the freaking planet) for economic loss due to his malfeasance, obfuscation, cover-ups and outright lies. Gimme a break.

Without a "supposed crisis" these researchers would be standing in a bread line tomorrow because the research grants would dry up. They have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth of global warming. And in Michael Manns case, we were able, thanks to some hackers, see just how far they are willing to go to do so.


Paul C. Hanson

Was He The Same UN Scientist

who's emails were hacked and was exposed for saying, "its important to embellish the global warming statistics to get more people on board"?

For the most part, yes.

I think he was associated with some university's climate center in the U.K and I think he actually lives in the US? Colorado maybe?? But yes, the UN relied heavily on his work. He was one of 8 authors on the IPCC report. The embellishment of data and the threats to others in the scientific publishing world were all part of his hacked e-mails. Actually, I'm not sure he made threats directly to publishers, he may have just enticed his fellow "scientists" to do so en mass thereby making the threat more dangerous to someone who was unwilling to heed it. But if he was enticing his colleagues, he probably sent a few himself.

It's been a couple of years since I read the incriminating e-mails so I'm having to exercise my brain a bit to remember all this. I should just find them (if all sources haven't been scrubbed off the net) and post some excerpts. I just know that when I read them, I went Whooaa... this guy is off the rails and the watermelons are in deep doo-doo now... His colossal screw-up is the primary reason the chicken-littles had to change the name from "global warming" to "climate change. I gotta better name to call it than either of those 2 though and that is 'pure bullshit".

Google him and stay off the environmental websites when reading about him.
Also, it appears that his wiki entry is pretty much a whitewash. It mentions the e-mails, but doesn't quote them at all. The watermelons are pretty much the activists and have tight control over what gets on that page apparently. They don't want their "god" besmirched.


Paul C. Hanson.

The earths climate has been

The earths climate has been changing for over 4.5 billion years. If we but the earths life on a clock, with 00:00:00 being the instant it was formed, and 12:00 being today, then humanity has only been around since 11:58:41. Scientists can't even say for certain if we are in a current interglacial period - meaning they don't know if we are in between another ice age as the earth has gone through time and time again.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

Darn, I thought breast implants were the cause of global warming

Isn't that in the TNA...er...TSA handbook?

A temporary local high pressure area

is in the forecast.

OMG we have to stop

OMG we have to stop this!
Where do I send my money?

Southern Agrarian



OP doesn't understand the words he quoted

"As for the seeming slowdown in global warming, that turns out to be only true if one looks narrowly at surface air temperatures, where only a small fraction of warming ends up."

This isn't slight of hand. This is saying that there's an inherent problem with looking only at the air temperature. Since most of the heat of the planet is stored in more solid things like water and land, they take longer to show an apparent rise.

This doesn't mean it's not heating up. Quite the contrary. It means it's been sinking the heat for the whole time and effectively hiding lots of the heat the Earth has absorbed. When this mass catches up, it will also mean that the current standard measure of using air temp will rise tremendously faster.

A good analogy is putting a large frozen bowl of water in your oven. Turn the heat on low and wait. You'll see a rapid small temp rise in the air but it will be limited to the point that the ice is sinking what the burner is sourcing. When the ice melts, this balance is shifted by about 80:1 (the heat content of fusion vs. the latent heat while temp is rising). At this point, you'll see the water temp rise much faster but the air temp will almost immediately jump to the oven's setting.

Our ice is melting but it's not all done yet so deniers who still focus on air temps feel this can be ignored.

This whole issue is extremely important and not to be screwed around with because of politics. Sure, some people want to monopolize it for profit and power but that has no relevance to it being true or not. If you need more incentive, just consider that the denier alternative is a world where Exxon, Shell and BP control all the world's energy and thus power and economy. Is that what you really want?

I love your last paragragh,

I love your last paragragh, dude you are being conned. You talk about those evil power hungry big oil, first off they will never control the world energy market, in fact they are actually chump change in that market, the ones controlled by several foreign governments dwarf them.

If you think exxon and shell etc are stupid and somehow won't be involved with what ever ideas in energry are out they will be involved in wind or solar or whatever it may be still makeing a profit to your maddening contempt even if oil was gone tommorow.

You have no idea the potential money that is would come about if the groups pushing this crap through would be trying to make, it would make the oil companies look like a toy. There is huge massive financial incentive to try and scare your little ass pantless to get you to cough up your dough, they don't even have to provide you with any thing other than your own fear. Trying to regulate CO2 one of the most common gasses out their are you mad(and yes I mean insane not upset)

You're the naive one

You obviously don't know the first thing about any of this, do you? Sure, big energy WANTS to control all future energy but they're fighting a losing battle unless the likes of you deniers keep them propped up.

They WANT to control PV and wind and they've done a great job so far. But those aren't the big winners and they know this. This is why you aren't hearing anything about the real renewable winners in the media. Those systems are not as controllable because they're much more efficient and they're distributed (owned by the home owner). This would mean an end to their oligopoly and they are fighting that the whole way.

Promoting climate change doesn't help their cause because it pushes more people to renewables and it just might bring the new tech to the market that much sooner. They could care less about things like the carbon tax otherwise because they'll just ramp up their entire business model and pass it on to the customer.

The NWO, however, does want the carbon tax as you suggest because it will definitely bring in a whole new bubble of income for them. And we all know that will translate into a global governance as well. However, you're missing the who benefits question.

By denying climate change, you're postponing the adoption of renewables that reduce it. By doing that, you're giving the carbon tax groups justification to keep pushing that crap. If you would promote more renewables and actually begin lowering CO2, they would not be able to sell their tax to the people and we would not only pay less there, we would pay less for our energy because it was no longer monopolized.

Was that clear enough to understand?