My Gift To Climate Alarmists
Tony Heller does an amazing job of showing how the fraud takes place in his video entitled My Gift To Climate Alarmists.
The video is only 12.51 minutes long.
Cherry Picking
- Heatwaves increasing since 1960
- Arctic ice declining since 1979
- Wildfires increasing since 1983
- Sea levels rising since 1920
When you want to mislead people with statistics picking the start date is very important.
Alarmist Heat Wave Chart Shown vs Underlying Data
US Wildfires as Presented by Alarmists vs Actual Data
Please compare the right hand portion of the above chart with the lower half of the heat wave chart to see the actual correlation.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent
US Sea Level Since 1920
US Sea Level Since 1850
Sea Level Rising for 20,000 Years
Waverly Ohio
Climate Fraud Tool
Tony Heller devised software to automatically pick the perfect start date for climate alarmists to use to portray what they want.
“Most scientists are keeping their mouths shut because they they have to. They would lose their career and income if they didn’t.”
“Adults won’t take climate change seriously. So we, the youth, are forced to strike.”
“The Green New Deal reads like the communist manifesto”.
Redistribute the World’s Wealth by Climate Policy
The climate change activists will of course claim that such statements are out of context.
I agree they likely are. But the brainwashing of kids isn’t.
Flashback 1989
Entire nations could be wiped off the earth by 2000.
Visit Real Climate Science for more information.
Heller shows some of the tricks alarmists use, but what about the actual long-term data?
Global Warming Swindle
William Land describes the actual underlying data for thousands of years in the “Great Global Warming Swindle“.
The video is long. However, the data aspect is fully covered in the first 35 minutes. The rest covers the politics of what’s happening. Here are some clips that I made.
Facts don’t Fit the Theory
Global Warming Fraud Basics
Co2 and Temp vs Solar Activity and Temp
Carbon dioxide does not fit the global warming cycle at all. Solar activity does.
Al Gores’s Ice Core examples
Al Gore’s ice core tests show Gore is wrong. Carbon dioxide lags temperature by 800 years.
Temperature leads CO2 not the other way around.
Cosmic Rays Inverted vs Temperature
- When cosmic rays went up, temperatures went down. When cosmic rays went down, temperature went up.
- Climate is controlled by the clouds. The clouds are controlled by cosmic rays. The cosmic rays are controlled by the sun.
- Vastly different records come together beautifully.
- It all comes down to the sun, not CO2.
Patrick Moore Greenpeace Co-Founder
Deniers and Heretics
Scientists who speak out face “climate denier” drumbeats.
Anyone who keeps it up long enough is labeled a heretic or worse.
“The environmental movement is really a political activist movement,” says the Greenpeace co-founder.
Worse yet, what should be a scientific debate, is now an unwinnable religious debate with indoctrinated kids used as tools.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Good stuff. This is all about raising taxes so they can spend more. The minute Goldman Sachs was going to issue Carbon futures you knew at that point it was all BS. Another war on terror never really end. There will always be terrorists and the climate will always be changing crisis after crisis always finding new ways to restrict rights and never have to address real issues.
They had to change the name from Global warming to Climate change. They picked a good name the climate is always changing ALWAYS…..lol
US institutions Preparing for Climate Change
While some American politicians and citizens deny the reality of climate change, many US institutions are in fact preparing for it. This includes the US Military, the CIA, and many state and local governments.
Just wait until they start the “climate refugee” crisis and the importation to wealthy countries.
There are three very simple facts the Liberals will not acknowledge:
#1 This Earth can only sustain 2 billion people without burning fossil fuel – John Deere does not run on batteries… so, what to do with 5 billion dead bodies?
#2 The “deal” Trump wisely backed us out of would have taxed USA and sent this money to the #1 and #4 producers of CO2 – Chairman Mao’s China, and India…
#3 Every time you as a consumer purchase a product “Made in China” or Vietnam, you are supporting their Communist Government’s decision to move from a self sustaining food system that is mostly carbon neutral to urban factory workers (very high carbon footprint) who them have to buy food grown on commercial farms using millions of gallons of diesel fuel… plus, much of it has to be imported from USA (more heavy crude oil being burned in marine diesels)
Man made global warming is no longer a subject for debate between reasonable scientific minds, for all intents and purposes it is now a religion in which you are either a self flagellating devotee, or a heretic to be burned at the stake publicly.
The very definition of SCIENCE has even changed, where it use to include the word skeptical that has now been dropped and you can google that for yourself, not that they make a point of it, the word has just quietly disappeared from the definition. Funny yes? The very thing that makes science science, skepticism, is now what makes you an antisocial criminal bent on destruction of the world.
Man made global warming has all the hallmarks of a religion; a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The only difference is that where in past religions the cause was superhuman as in gods, it is now superhuman to the extent no one human, or small group is consciously causing the effects, but any words that can be construed as open to questioning it are just as heretical.
This article is debunked here: link to youtu.be
I don’t get it y’all. the earth’s atmosphere is a gas bubble, right? so all these arguments fighting the data that burning fossil fuels impacts that gas bubble … means nothing bad will happen if we keep doing it? didn’t we have to pass laws so that LA could get breathable again? seems pretty basic that this is essentially a debate around pollution, and I don’t understand why people are so intent on continuing to pollute?
AGW alarmists just got some serious pushback:
link to theepochtimes.com
Historical climate change might be real, but the evidence presented to date, in an attempt to prove that any recent imagined climate change is caused by man, is neither convincing nor compelling. No one has yet proven that man-made carbon dioxide emissions cause any supposed global warming or alleged climate change.
Much key claimed “data”, used to claim supposed global warming or alleged climate change, has not been, and does not become, personally verified and confirmed by people who are independent of certain governments which have a certain political and financial agenda. For example, the authenticity of most Arctic “data”, unlike some data from lower latitudes, is not verified and confirmed by people independent of governments.
However, snow cover maps or data in the coldest months, at lower latitudes, can be at least somewhat partially verified and confirmed independently of governments. Snow cover data in the coldest months shows a trend since 1967 of increasing extent of yearly maximum snow cover in the northern hemisphere. Snow cover extent, at lower latitudes, in the months of December, January, and February can be somewhat partially verified and confirmed by large numbers of people independent of governments.
link to climate.rutgers.edu“>http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=12
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=1
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=nhland&ui_month=2
Science involves the need for independent verification and independent confirmation of empirical data, observations, measurements, etc.
Saved this from 10 years ago, spot on! link to globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Thank you for this summation, I’m curious as to who is going to profit from this climate change business.
Tony Heller’s work is great but the problem is he is a terrible speaker (almost unbearable to listen to) . We should hire Al Gore to present his arguments!
Great article Mish.
Few other points:
1.
IPCC was started to analyze and collect in their reports studies about human caused climate change so if they made a report that stated that climate change is not caused by humans they would make themselves redundant and nobody ever made a report about themselves that would cause their job to be useless and lead to their firing.
2.
IPCC is a self-selecting clique and the more alarmist study one makes the more likely they will be invited to be part of IPCC. For example Michael Mann was invited to IPCC to collect studies and write the reports after his famous and debunked hockeystick so every climate change “scientist” has an incentive to make alarmist studies to get into IPCC.
3.
Once people are in IPCC they can pick their own studies to be included in the IPCC and getting your reports in IPCC reports of course increases scientists prestige and makes them famous and enables them to get more funding.
4.
EU gives grants to study human caused climate change so if you study that you get grant money for your studies but if once getting such grant you would find that there is no human caused climate change then that would be the last grant you got.
Does USA still have scientific grants like this or has Trump stopped them?
5.
There are hundreds of billions at stake in the EU cap-and-trade scheme that EU gave into private hands. Goldman Sachs runs the EU cap-and-trade scheme and those companies that have water power get carbon credits to sell to other companies like coal plants and factories. Many banks and investment companies also invest in the carbon credits and EU recently removed large amount of credits from the market to increase the fight against climate change and those that had invested in carbon credits that were not removed by EU made 400% times their investment after the price of carbon credits rose.
After this 400% increase many companies started closing their factories so the coming EU depression is partly caused by EU through their removal of carbon credits from the markets to intentionally boost the prices of carbon credits to fight climate change.
If EU had a clue they would have handled their cap-and-trade scheme themselves so that EU would have sold the credits themselves and funded all investments into fighting climate change by selling the credits and kept the prices stable or slightly increasing instead of 400% jumps.
Somebody from Goldman Sachs and energy companie with water power got into EU bureaucrats ears and convinced them that it is better to just give a gift of hundreds of billions in value to them and let bankers and investors speculate in carbon credits.
So EU created a never ending siphoning mechanism of money from coal plants and factories into the pockets of bankers and investors and companies with water power and gave hundreds of billions of money to them instead of using it for EU budget and climate change investments.
6.
The scarier the predictions and the more dire the studies the more the scientists get publicity which leads to young eager female scientists and students wanting to work with them to save the world and the more publicity one gets the easier it is to get grant funding.
7.
Many scientists hide their raw data and methods of their studies so nobody can replicate them using basic scientific process and confirm they get the same results with the data using the same methods so climate change science is a black box pseudo science.
8.
Many parts of the world have complately invented temperatures since there is no measuring stations but they still have temperatures put into these areas in the studies and “surprisingly” these invented temperatures are always very high.
9.
The temperatures are now in many studies not just measured temperatures and invented temperatures but also include corals and tree growth etc. from which the temperatures are supposedly calculated from and fail to take into account that in many places tree growth is mainly dependent on rains and not temperatures and similar biases.
10.
Urban heat island effect creates increasing temperatures when the measuring station surroundings get more asphalt roads and parking lots and more buldings which trap suns rays and get heated as a result and then release this heat.
Also increase in car traffic has an effect as does increase in air traffic for those measuring stations that are in airports due to the exhaust heat from cars and planes.
11.
The Eastern Europe closed many mesuring stations so there is less measuring stations and more invented temperatures since the 1990’s.
12.
The measuring stations have their places switched sometimes to a new place nearby and in Pokka measuring station in Kittila Finland locals are complaining that they stopped measuring temperatures from the old site and built a new site higher up and the new measuring station has 5 degrees celsius warmer measurements than the old one when it is winter so this change of measuring station caused a 5 degree celsius raise in temperatures aka 5 degree celsius global warming just by changing he place of the measuring station.
The locals are upset because Pokka, Kittila is famously the coldest place in finland with measurement of -51,5 celsius and they think that nobody they will never break that record and get the massive publicity which would follow.
13.
All the climate change models have been wrong so far when time passes and actual temperatures are measured and instead of admitting they were wrong they just adjust the models to cause their charts to copy reality so far and make just as outlandish predictions for the future.
14.
The media is in total hysteria and IPCC reports are treated as sacred truth despite IPCC being regularly wrong so far.
15.
The original report by UNEP before they started IPCC predicted up to +7 degrees celsius global warming by now and island nations should have diasappeared into the sea in the 2000’s already when in actuality island nations are increasing in size except those where erosion has a bit larger effect after the islanders have lifted huge amounts of rough sand from the seabanks surrounding their island to make cement.
The official measurement station in Canton NY was moved about a mile from an open field on the top of a hill to the north side of a hill 30′ from a house and 20′ from an asphalt parking lot. There is no notice of this in the data for this station.
They should have stopped the data at the old location, and started a new data set at the new location.
It’s now right here: link to mapper.acme.com“>link to mapper.acme.com,-75.10980&z=19&t=S
It used to be here: link to mapper.acme.com“>link to mapper.acme.com,-75.10980&z=19&t=S
What a minute… you are saying the sun warms the Earth? Incredible observation! Who could have known? All that analysis and you still blow it. 1 + 1 = 11 according to Mish logic. All those dumb climate scientists, outsmarted by an economist. If you think global warming is a fraud you are a fucking idiot.
Did you not get the memo that global warming has been re-branded climate change after the late 1990’s satellite measurements showed that warming had stopped?
With that attitude you are clearly a true believer or have built your career on studying climate change.
Very interesting – but a few questions. If there were periods where the earth was warmer in the not to distant past, is there data on what caused this. Is it possible to know whether increased solar insolution (?) or other factors caused past warming. Regarding the warming that has been occurring since about 1840, is there anything that will account for this other than the increase in CO and methane in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. There should be data that would account for alternative explanations. Everything has a cause. Maybe warming could occur due to increases in the solar radiation AND/or from an increase in CO/methane?
How do climate change scientists get results that increase in CO2 causes climate change?
It is the only variable they use in their studies so warm temperature+more carbon in air so carbon must cause global warming.
It is like a circular theory where one looks at stock market performance and notices that people use more social media so social media must be responsible for the rise in stock markets.
Many scientists think that the warming (which is exaggerated by picking low temperature decades to start the charts and further by taking away anomalies (cold periods) and making adjustments (upwards always)) is caused either by sun’s increased rays or cloud cover changes.
Iceland now has NO trees but they just found a huge forest under a melting ice so Iceland used to be a lot warmer and warm enough for huge forests to thrive.
The vikings had to build their ships from something and they were made from wood so there must have been and was huge forests in iceland before when it was warmer in earth.
Also Greenland got it’s name from being very green and with forests while vikings sailed there but now it is snow and ice mostly.
This article is fine for supporting global warming deniers, but in the real world respectable people don’t care what Tony Heller or “Lord” Monckton or the publisher of this has to say. In the real world people work hard, with integrity. In the real world publishers care about their reputations. In the real world peer review is how reality is known.
Enjoy your warming climate denial delusions, because the scale of change is orders of magnitude beyond anything we can do to slow it down. It is unlikely there will be habitat for humans by 2026.
viii Forward 1979 ‘Charney Report’
The conclusions of this brief but intense investigation may be comforting to scientists but disturbing to policymakers. If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climate change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.
You are deluded if you think there is no habitat for humans by 2026.
There is NO genuine peer review in climate change “science” since the methods and raw data temperatures and theories are not available for any scientist who wants them to test that they also get the same results using the same methods and variables.
Peer review in climate change theory is just another alarmist making editorial decisiosn in scientific journals.
They should remove all editors who have themselves studied climate change from making publishing decisions in scientific journals.
“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain
The facts are readily available and many presented in this article. However we can easily show YOU don’t believe the world be uninhabitable by 2026. I propose a binding contract. I will give you $500 now and in return you will give me half of your income earned past 2026. Since we will all be dead or at least no one will have anything like incomes then, this should be easy cash for you.
In fact I should make a website for this..
Another great job Mish! Mr Heller was on Grimerica last week too and is also well worth the listen. link to grimerica.ca
Thanks for helping to preserve freedom and Truth!
Stupid irony of the day: “It is disingenuous in the extreme to post a buffet of charts and say “see, global warming is false!”
What is disingenuous to the extreme is cherry picking dates and presenting them as evidence of global warming! That’s what happened.
Now attacking those charts, with dates, is supposed to be “disingenuous”.
Wow – Ass Freaking Backwards
Mish’s post neither proves nor disproves global warming. It does prove that the chart is bull$#!T propaganda. I’m so sick of fake news.
When the study is funded by EU grants for studying effects of human caused climate change the results better be that humans cause climate change or it is the last grant the scientist got.
Politicians are either stupid by not realising that giving funding to study human caused global warming creates a very strong bias to get that kind of result or they intentionally wanted those results so they would have something to get voters to vote for them by fighting climate change and creating new reasons to increase taxes.
Every time a see an article or TV news story about global warming causing deformed babies or obesity, my BS meter pegs and only casts more doubt in my mind about the whole thing.
Just remember that climate “science” is funded by governments that want “proof” of an imminent disaster to allow them to panic the populace into accepting higher taxes and more government control of their lives.
Pharmaceutical companies have produced many “scientific” studies on the benefits of statins. I’ve read a bunch of them because statins make me sick but my doctor tries to push them on me. In any case, I found a meta-study that compares studies that received funding from pharma with those that did not. Not unsurprisingly, pharma funded studies show overwhelmingly more benefit from statins than those studies that did not receive funding from drug companies.
Same crap here. There is a huge tendency to find results that continue your employment.
Little snow, no snow and lots of snow are now all signs of climate change.
Lots of storms, only few storms and no storms are also all signs of climate change.
When i next time have indigestion I am going to blame climate change since fires started to make farm land are also nowadays signs of climate change and natural forest fires are also sings of climate change.
I guess the youth now believes there were no forest fires hundred of years ago.
Statins are beneficial for about 10% of the people they are prescribed to and the rest just get the side effects.
If a doctor wants to put you on statins it is best to look at your diet and consider dropping wheat, potatoes, rice, cereals,cupcakes, pastries, bread and other foods that are basically like eating sugar and eat meat, chicken, fish, some vegetables like tomatoes,cucumber,broccoli, cauliflower, brussels sprouts etc.and eggs and some cheese.
It hurts my heart when I see people using statins and eating crap and it hurts my heart when I see people using insulin for their diabetes type 2 and still eating pastries.
An older relative ate crap and used insulin for their diabetes and ended up with her leg being amputated and died shortly thereafter while another eats the diet I wrote and is pushing 90’s and healthy as 60 year olds.
Statins are not beneficial to women, and are only indicated for men who have already had a heart attack. As you say, they are wildly over-prescribed and mostly do nothing. Yes, you are right about the diet. Well, maybe not about tomatoes, but that’s just a detail. Lotta carbs in them little red round things.
When analyzing research, always determine who funded the study and who might benefit from the result.
Mish, have you watched link to youtu.be
This conversation bores me for I will be dead soon enough for any of the forecasts to come to volition or not.
Not arguing for or against AGW. I will say population growth is a huge driver of fire activity. California being a great example. More people = more accidental ignition… and risk of death and destruction.
Good point. Also, the seventies were the coolest years of the 20th century.
And conservation of forests has also increased quite a lot and older forests where no trees have been cut and which have been allowed to just grow very dense with some trees dying and then drying in the forest are more likely cause a forest fire.
The government has destroyed access roads, allowed overgrowth, and stopped controlled burns. Forest fires are a man made problem, and in fact we know the specific men. They work for the federal government.
It is disingenuous in the extreme to post a buffet of charts and say “see, global warming is false!”
If you dug into any one area and googled you’d find rebuttals and clear evidence as to why the trend is real. But somehow you think the world’s international scientific community is all in on a vast conspiracy except for this lone ranger on the Internet named Tony Heller who is regularly and roundly rebutted.
But you have your agenda, clear as day. It’s personal for you. I doubt you’ve spent 5 hours learning the science behind AGW and instead search for that which supports your position in the ultimate example of confirmation bias.
It is disingenuous for democrat presidential contenders to conspiratorily proclaim that climate change is an existential threat.
None of them are panicking to cut their personal carbon footprint.
They spew carbon as the please.
23 state high temperature records were set in the 1930’s, when there was less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now.
The economic burden of climate change mitigation is for OTHERS to bear. Definitely not the Billionaire Men Of The People.
Stupid irony of the day: “It is disingenuous in the extreme to post a buffet of charts and say “see, global warming is false!”
What is disingenuous to the extreme is cherry picking dates and presenting them as evidence of global warming! That’s what happened.
Now attacking those charts, with dates, is supposed to be “disingenuous”.
Wow – Ass Freaking Backwards
There is NO conspiracy, there are just lots of grant money for studies that study human caused global warming/climate change and once you get that grant if you want another then your study better show human caused climate change.
Once you have made those kinds of studies your career as a scientist is dependent on perpetuating human caused global warming theory.
Everyone should also read the climategate emails that show deliberate coordination to keep sceptical scientists studies out of scientific journals since it would be bad for the human caused climate change scientists if studies would show that climate change is caused by solar radiation or cloud cover changes and other natural variables and trends since everyone of the human caused climate change has hithed themselves to the CO2 wagon..
Dear Mr. Runner, or may I call you Rum? It’s not a conspiracy when many people have an incentive to do something. Yes, the Hysterics are all hysterical about global warming. That’s because “science” has a “consensus” (97%!!) which real scientists never have. There are always people who doubt science, except for global warming, in which case they’re labeled “deniers”.
Thanks Mish, very interesting. I am undecided on the cause of, and effect of, any climate change. So this is food for thought certainly. What I miss though, are source references. I would love to check the data underlying the charts. Can you include sources for the data, or where the charts came from?
I just got back from cruising Alaska and one day we cruised by a bunch of glaciers. There was a Park Service guy there talking about each glacier, and he had to promote the AGW melting glaciers scam. But during his talk he mentioned that there used to be an Indian village at the base of one glacier that was much smaller some time ago, but then they had to leave when the glacier moved all the way down to the ocean. Apparently the irony of that fact and his promotion of glaciers melting now never occurred to him.
A government employee promoting any and every scam that will raise taxes… shocking
Warmer weather = global warming
Colder weather = global warming
Back in the 1970’s it was claimed the world was facing a man made ‘Ice Age’ due to global cooling with catastrophic crop failure by the year 2000 and the world being a frozen block of ice by 2020 as a result of average global temperatures falling by as much as 7 degrees
What happened.
And that’s why the CIA did an exhaustive study about the effects of global cooling on national security. Because Exxon hired an advertising agency. Bull. But I do remember winter 1978 in Chicago when the temp didn’t make it above freezing for 93 straight days.
Thank God this fraud is finally being exposed for what it is: a giant tax grab with no scientific merit to it at all.
Global temps have been oscillating for millions of years, long before homo sapiens evolved, long before fossil fuels, long before Standard Oil. They will continue to oscillate long after G7 governments have gone the way of all the other empires in human history.
The UN and Al Gore and Greenpeace all need to be held accountable for libel. These are the same jack@sses that insisted the Earth was entering an ice age in the 1970s…. and the alleged cure for that was also higher taxes. Now global warming, and the alleged cure is higher taxes again? They aren’t even trying to come up with believable bull sh!t.
If you are a left wing nut job and you want higher and higher taxes until there is mass rebellion, grow a pair and admit that is what you want. Stop trying to manufacture quack science to support your perpetual tax increases.
You know these nut jobs don’t believe their own quack science when they have a global conference, and all the fraudsters show up in separate private jets. Many of the parasites didn’t even pay for their own private jets, they had suckers (donors?) pay for all the flights. Each private jet burned more fuel on that flight than the average citizen uses in a year. The eco-terrorists don’t believe their own bull sh!t.
The Paris Accord was signed by politicians who don’t pay for their own gasoline, and rolled into their conference in heavily armored limos with dozens of escort vehicles, helicopters, and motor cycles for each crook. Once again, do what they say, not what they do. Onerous fossil fuel taxes for you, armored limos and massive entourages for us.
Tax the UN. Tax Greenpeace (and all the non-profit frauds). Make them follow the same rules as the rest of us — or shut them down. I shouldn’t be forced to pay for their free speech unless they are going to pay for mine.
And it gets worse and worse. In the last few weeks I’ve seen pieces on TV news that purports connections connections between climate change and obesity, climate change and mental retardation and climate change and birth defects. During the Roman Empire, when the earth was over a degree C warmer, the population must have been a bunch of fat, dumb gimps.
The Paris accord on Climate Change is the stupidest deal in the history of humans.
Each country could submit their proposals how they will cut their CO2 emissions and Pakistan submitted a pledge to increase their CO2 emissions by about +250% by 2030 on top of the about +150% increase they have had since 1990.
China submitted their plan that they will increase their CO2 emissions without any limit on the increases until 2030 and after 2030 their “cut” is to keep their CO2 emissions at the 2030 level so this creates an incentive for them to increase their CO2 emissions as much as possbile until 2030 and the higher the emissions are in 2030 the less they have to cut after that since the higher the level in 2030 means they might not have to cut at all after that in reality if the 2030 emissions are huge.
China has hundreds of new coal plants being built and all the old ones are in operation at least until 2030 to get more emissions and this despite China already producing 30% of the global CO2 emissions.
The only ones promising cuts NOW in the Paris accord were EU, USA and few other western countries so that accord is INSANE if people were actually worried about CO2 and wanted cuts in CO2.
It seems NO politician has read the actual pledges made by countries since they keep saying how great the Paris accord is.
So what happened to the sea ice up north? Was it melted by fire gnomes sent by Jaweh to punish us for allowing gay marriage?
Cherry picking stats, indeed.
What happened to the sea ice the last time the northern passage (north of Canada) opened up? That was hundreds of years before gasoline taxes were invented to screw G7 voters.
And what happened when there was a mini ice age and the northern passage froze over again? That was also before gasoline taxes.
Global temperatures have been going up and down for millions of years — long before Standard Oil existed.
Your idiotic suggestion that more and more taxes, more and more corruption, is somehow going to change the very natural oscillation of temperatures is offensive.
Are you aware that Greenland got it’s name because it was very green and warm and had lots of trees in the 1100’s when vikings sailed there?
Are you aware that Iceland which now has no trees because it is too cold had massive forests in the 1100’s which have been found under the ice when ice has melted in parts of Iceland?
Realist, you are the one pulling temperatures out of your ass.
There has been much warmer temperatures than now in the medieval warm period and many other times in earths history.
‘Scientific Fact’ has been used to squelch real science for a long time, and it still continues.
Read your history, even Galileo was jailed over disputing known ‘facts’ at the time. Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that dinosaurs were all cold-blooded. Or even better, it is still ‘fact’ in some places that dinosaurs became extinct, while more and more scientists tell us that birds descended from dinosaurs.
You can still read ‘facts’ about how changes occur over a period of millennia. However, evidence and recorded history note significant changes that occurred over a relatively short period of time. And that is recent recorded history.
Most scientific progress has been squelched by people claiming ‘scientific fact’.
As noted global warming is a scientific fact. An economist writing about climatology, bears just as much weight as a dentist talking about nuclear powerplants. A bunch of homemade graphs and link to youtube videos is worth very little, if it is not backed by credible (pier reviewed) research.
Good one. I guess you don’t learn proper spelling watching Rick and Morty.
Hey, leave Rick and Morty alone, they’re definitely skeptics
Relax, this is click bait to gin up the audience scores – gun control and climate science are two subjects even more reliable than Brexit to get the page hits up.
monosynpse — ever wonder why Mish gets more clicks when he writes more intelligent stuff?
Its the same reason you got outvoted in the election. Your fraud is exposed. No one wants big government and the big wars that go along with it
Go back to your “pier reviewed” echo chamber TS1. There it is much safer and you won’t have to think for yourself.
I think Pier Review is where they decide what to deep six, but it could have something to do with deciding what floats your boat, or perhaps where you decide who should take a long walk off a short pier.
“pier reviewed”. Didn’t Otis Redding write a song about that? “Sitting on a dock on the bay, watching the tide roll away…”
Aside from your careless spelling erorr, these graphs are not homemade. They are real data, and real graphs and if you were paying attention, they come from real official sites as screenshots. But … you weren’t paying attention, were you? You just had to signal that you’re a True Believer in the Cult of the Climate.
Glaciers has been reportedly shrinking. Why?!
Why did they form in the first place?
What made them shrink 700 years ago?
What made them re-form 300 years ago?
And how stupid are you to think higher taxes is going to solve anything?
One can prove ANYTHING with statistics, that much is obvious again…. Whether due to human activity or not, the climate IS changing, only blind die hards won t see this, no need for no scientist to prove that warmth records are being broken year after year ! It is indeed possible that 20k years ago it was even warmer, who knows, but we weren’ t 8 billion ruthless ecosystem destroyers at the time, for THAT is the only problem on this too tiny earthclod ; 8 bln smug Sapiens Apes aspiring eternal economic growth induced sick materialism, 8 bln and ticking, INSANE ! Just try to convince me for example that the exponential, never seen before destruction of pristine forests doesn’ t have an impact on the climate, it would be against all logic if it didn t…..
“One can prove ANYTHING with statistics, that much is obvious again…. Whether due to human activity or not, the climate IS changing, only blind die hards won t see this, no need for no scientist to prove that warmth records are being broken year after year !”
Cold records are also being broken year after year. During a recent polar vortex, a number of low temperature records were broken or nearly broken in the U.S. A story about a current cold snap in the pacific northwest talked about the possibility of record low highs being broken. It also snowed in Seattle- very unusual for September.
Of coarse climate is changing. Climate is not static, it is cyclical.
even if Seattle was snow covered in july… it is all about AVERAGES !
No one claims the climate isn’t changing.
“8 billion ruthless ecosystem destroyers”
And there is the axiom of the environmentalists: Nature is good and fragile, and it needs to be protected from human activity.
That premise is not “science,” by the way. It’s (bad) philosophy.
The truth is the reverse: human life is good and fragile, and needs to be protected from the countless dangers of the natural environment.
‘Human life is good and fragile’ ? Yeah sure , if one is deaf, blind and preferably braindead ….
If you own a car or live in a house at more than 15m^2 per person, kindly stop the hippocracy.
SO what ? I never said I lived in harmony with nature, but that doesn t undermine my opinion on a unsustainable situation in general, does it ?
So what is that all the global warming activists want SOMEBODY ELSE to make the sacrifice. YOU GO FIRST!!!
Actually forests are increasing:
This must be ‘good’ news for dummies ….Yes indeed, palmoil trees and deforestated farming land in general tend to be green while at the same time wiping out entire eco systems !
I hope one days the Chinese way of acting will be an inspiration for the world because they still apply common sense as clever people should do. In 1970 China population was near one billion. At the same period India population was around 700 millions . The Chinese imposed lately one child per family and today their population is back to one billion. Nobody is starving there. Today India population is 1.4 billions living miserably on their overcrowded country.
They behave like happy idiots over-here in overcrowded Europe (Netherland 700 inhabitants per square kilometer) when illegal migrants not ready to learn our culture with no technical background come in to avoid a population decrease!
As for the climate change Mish post prove of course that politic and money try always to corrupt intelligence (when there is some).
Everybody will be surprised in the future when science will find the right theory (in place of the anthropologicaly religious stupid big bang with their band-aid black matter and dark energy, relativity, 13 billions years dated for a finite universe and so on)
describing how our universe really work.
They just found out that even the moon has still volcanic activity which is a non sense if there is not an internal heating system promoted by some periodic field emanating from the solar system activity.(neutrinos kind possibly).
I suggest you check some facts before you post ; China s population today is a staggering 1,435, 000, 000 ! China actually abandoned the one child policy, it wants and needs more internal consumption to keep its western mirrored ponzi scheme going !
Believe me, China, together with India is the final nail in the earth”s coffin…..
Anyone who replied to Carlos likely had their comments sent to comment heaven
Odd… My link disappeared. If you want the opposing view take a look here: link to skepticalscience.com
Great site and good coverage of Tony Heller (aka “Steve Goddard”). Tony Heller’s analysis is relegated to crack-pot world for good reason. It’s just a shame that Mish associates himself with it.
A number of comments just went to the bit bucket. If you reply to someone personally call me a fraud simply for discussing what is an obvious fraud based on cherry-picking dates, then such comments are likely to be deleted
There is one simple reason we start ice coverage from 1979. We don’t have have satellite coverage before then.
Sea ice moves back and forth throughout the season and until the 1940’s observations were made using celestial navigation techniques and chronometers (first Loran stations didn’t become operation until late 1942). Sextants can be highly accurate in the right hands, but human error is certainly to be considered in the age of celestial navigation. Consider that many shipwrecks were found miles from the coordinates where they were alleged to have gone down. So its not until the satellite era that we can reliably map where the sea ice was.
We do have a very limited amount of satellite imagery is available of Antarctica from 1964? I think 65 perhaps that seems to show the ice age far further north than it is today.
Otherwise data sets are basically fairly limited and consequently of dubious reliability. If people are questioning the accuracy of modern data, why should we unquestioningly accept data of which we have no way of testing its accuracy.
I go with the consensus scientific view. They’re the men and women working in the field, measuring the glaciers, comparing the sea ice extent, CO2 levels etc etc. I’ve yet to see or read anything that convinces me that anthropogenic global warming is not a reality.
On the other hand climate alarmism is a whole different ball game, but I don’t want to write and essay so I’ll end here.
THANK YOU!
link to armstrongeconomics.com
Very good article. The best reading on this is a book by an Australian Scientist Dr. Howard Brady. Its a very short book and written for the layman. It offers very clear explanations about the myriad of things that affects our climate. Highly recommended for anyone who doubts the propaganda and wants to be well informed. Its less than $10 for the kindle version.
Mirrors and Mazes: a guide through the climate debate by Dr. Howard Brady
https://mirrorsandmazes.com.au
Seems legit …. not
Have you read the book? thought not.
Interesting chart on wildfires. I think that sometime in the ’80s or ’90s the governmetn stopped clearing brush as a measure to prevent forest fires. It was unnatural.
Native Americans have a well-documented history of using wildfire to clear the brush and therefore would prevent larger forest fires.
I believe that the forest service stopped that on gov’t land, thus bigger more dangerous fires. It is a good thing to do.
Accordiny to botanists filmed by Nat Geo they finally discovered that the sequoias and red woods needed to have burned seeds in order to open and seed new trees. For years they put out brush fires in national forests and got no regeneration of trees. Once this was discovered they started letting them burn and the regrowth started up again. They let the brush burn and fight it if the trees start burning.
You know that this crap is political when the solutions are worse than the disease.
Somehow, burning trees for energy is now ‘green’, just google ‘biomass burning Europe’ for a laugh (or a cry).
It gets better, as biodiesel is often derived from palm oil, and palms only grow in tropical environments. Which means that in order to be ‘green’, many are using fuel that encourages deforestation.
The ‘End of the World’ has been around the corner for thousands of years in one way or another, read the Book of Revelation in the Bible for example.
Experts have been calling for the end under many, many guises, including the Cold War and the War on Terrorism.
After multiple incorrect calls, logic dictates that it is all BS.
Thanks Mish,
This is the crispest compilation I’ve seen on the current mass hoax that is AGW. I intend to begin using it with my kids and grandkids in any future discussions of the subject. I expect it will save me much arm-waving, shouting, flopping on the floor and frothing at the mouth.
You would not believe the constant barrage of BS the kids are being subjected to in our California Public Schools on the subject.
I remain convinced that, given $1 Billion annually to award in grants ‘studying’ the subject, I could have 97% of “scientists” agreed that roosters cause the sun to rise, and I’ll do it before 2033, the 400th anniversary year of Galileo’s conviction.
If there was 1000 million in grant money to study the cheese level of the moon many “scientists” would study the cheese level of the moon.
One more thing that is being conveniently overlooked: Even if Man-made Global Warming™ is 100% real (it isn’t), there is no way its effects would be all negative. It may even be a net positive, but nobody is willing to consider such unimportant details…
I believe that I read somewhere that some crops grow about 25% faster due to increased CO2 in the atomosphere.
Was that on an alarmist website or did a sane person write that?
Commercial growers pump CO2 into greenhouses to a level of around 1000ppm for best plan growth. Our atmosphere is currently at 400ppm. The CO2 level in submarines is 3000ppm so humans will be just fine. Its a giant con from a green movement hijacked by Marxists. The idea is to destroy capitalism nothing more.
Its a complicated situation to say the least. I think overall the effects will be negative, particularly in my own country of Australia. On the other hand someone in Siberia or northern Canada is probably pretty happy to have ice free seas and longer growing seasons. This is one reason why wheat crop yields around the Black Sea region of Ukraine/Russia are booming right now.
There will be some counter intuitive effects as well. For instance in the high Arctic sea level is likely to fall, particularly along glaciated coasts. The reason being two fold. Glacial ice has a slight gravitational effect, thereby raising the water level locally, but the much bigger effect is the when the water is no longer held in ice more of it will be distributed to the equatorial regions by centrifugal forces. Isostatic rebound (when the ground rises after the weight of a glacier has been removed) will also be a factor as will the thermal expansion of water. But overall more land in the high latitudes, less in the low ones.
Anyway a mixed bag. Some places will prosper, others will suffer. The earth will survive and so will humanity.
The folks on the low lying islands get free water features in their yards!
All things being equal, rising CO2 levels will warm the earth and I think they have. But, I don’t believe anyone should be alarmed over it.
Correlation does not equal causation.
It’s true that higher CO2 is correlated with higher temps, but nobody has proven that higher temps are caused by higher CO2. It could be that higher temps cause higher CO2.
You can produce a simple experiment that shows increasing CO2 levels will warm a surface. It’s basic physics.
Increase in solar radiation will warm a surface and less cloud cover that allows more of the current solar radiation to reach earth’s surface will also warm a surface
It might end up making a bunch of tundra habitable. Or it might cause massive famine, war, and death. Who knows!
You know what’s alarming? About one billion people don’t have reliable access to electricity.
Of course temperature leads CO² in the ice core samples. That IS main stream climate science, not a rebuttal. The CO² picks up because of the warming (caused by changes in the distribution of insolation). But the warming is amplified and buffered by increases in CO²; the changes in temperature cannot be explained solely in terms of orbitally induced changes to the distribution of solar radiation.
Duh
No democrat politicians have been scrambling to drastically cut their carbon footprints.
That should tell you not to worry about climate.
1940-1975 the temperature dropped according to one chart above. Human carbon dioxide output was rising during that time.
HERE ARE THE 25 BULLET POINTS PROVING CO2’S INNOCENCE:
Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.
IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in man made or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (hereafter “AGW”) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) and continuance of salaries and research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality and integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm and act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.
The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 and 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.
‘Climate change denier’ and ‘global warming denier’ are despicable and dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).
The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.
IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models.
For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown.
Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere
Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.
Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.
Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).
This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !
Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).
The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.
Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here … https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi
Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value! Bullets 17 and 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…
… after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …
… before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.
This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.
Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilizations.
Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year time-lag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.
IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !
The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8).
The simultaneous rise of temperature and CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialization accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless and ineffectual efforts to reduce it.
Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21). Inescapable conclusion: IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.
Here’s some information about Dr. Higgs
Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs for this link
Contact rogerhiggs@hotmail.com for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’
KTLA “News” mentioned this morning that Seattle just had snow- this September.
A man wrote Armstrong and said it snowed Sept. 3 in Denver.
“Global Warming Swindle”
The purpose of climate change alarmism is to promote global socialism. Yet the socialist politicians are not panicking to cut their own carbon footprints and live like the Amish. The politicians don’t believe their own climate propaganda. Neither should anyone else.
There is no climate crisis.
We’re all equal but some are more equal than others 😉
No, it’s true! Global warming really does cause earlier snowfall.
Just the setup to impose carbon tax credits.
Small business won’t be able to afford tax / compliance.
Entrenching monopolies / cartels further.
Politicians will shake them down (exemptions if you donate to PACs).
Monopolies / cartels pass on increase to j6p.
Big Business … Wins Again.
Thank you Mish, for an excellent, well researched article. Unfortunately the Climate Scare Cult is unlikely to be willing to read it.
Well, maybe…like…like…like…AOC might read it, when she’s like…like…like….reading stuff or like…like…you know….surfing…
Let’s forget the global warming. If you want to scare the children, try global population growth. Here are some charts on which everybody could agree: link to susps.org
Even scarier, most of the projected population growth is in sub-Saharan Africa.
wait why scarier than somewhere like china or el salvador
El Salvador is a very crappy place, but it’s small. China – not sure why it should be an issue. Their population isn’t even growing anymore.
Once the help from stupid Westerners stops, the trend will sharply reverse.
Development aid should be stopped and only aid that should be given is free birth control clinics to give free birth control pills to women and other free birth control like hormone implants that last 5 years since now with no access to birth control and no money to buy it millions of african women are FORCED to be pregnant every year.
I’m not so sure about this. Most data appears to suggest that ex-Africa the world population is close to a peak
Unlike climate change, population growth isn’t a natural phenomenon. It’s caused by government policies of feeding people who can’t feed themselves, ie welfare redistribution systems, rather than letting them be free to develop into sustainable economies.
But yeah you feed a lot of people unsustainably long enough and you are definitely going to have a horrific ‘correction’ when the producers get squeezed.
Haw dare you, Mish!? Are you saying that the teenage girl may be misinformed? Are you saying that the girl that is being paraded around at the UN, national parliaments and all mainstream media is not a rebel speaking truth to power?
She is a chosen mouthpiece and propagandist of the elite who has been made a celebrity because it benefits some and although she probably believes herself what she is saying she is still being used by the elite.