Climate Craziness of the Week – have we had our fill yet?

From Reuters:  The sky will soon be full, view it while you can.

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”

Analysis: Extreme steps needed to meet climate target

At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full, meaning every extra tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted would have to be removed to stay within safer climate limits, one lead author says.

Other experts say it isn’t clear how far specific changes are the result of emissions or simply natural effects.

“There’s no final decision,” said the Potsdam Institute’s Vladimir Petoukhov.

For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second. Natural weather effects partly explained the previous record in 2007, scientists say, and may help explain this year’s, said Petoukhov.

h/t to Tom Nelson

“At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”

About these ads

117 thoughts on “Climate Craziness of the Week – have we had our fill yet?

  1. The atmosphere is good, right?

    And extra co2 is means extra atmosphere! Let’s get that atmosphere stretched out as far as we can! Then we have more room for flying airplanes!!!

  2. I expect to see chunks of CO2 precipitate out of the clear blue sky in only a few years’ time. Should be quite lovely. I will watch from my houseboat floating above the former coastline.

    These people should pitch this as an idea for a disaster movie.

  3. So, ignoring the fact that there is not enough carbon based fuel in the world to “fill the sky”, and the fact that at time in ancient pre-history that CO2 concentrations have been many times greater than today, …. Where the hell does one even begin to get the faintest notion of the merest possibility that the sky could ever be “full” of CO2?

    WTF?

  4. Not surprising coming from Reuters, in my opinion one of the most openly climate alarmist news services in the world.

    Its interesting when one digs around and uncovers who owns Reuters and what other climate related companies the owners posses. It explains a few things.

    Reuters has no credibility in my eyes.

  5. Artful vagueness of this level deserves a prize: Splendid though they are, the IgNobels need a competitor in the field of EcoTrash.

    Perhaps visitors to this site could vote (or contribute to its funding).

  6. Will it snow solid CO2 then?

    My guess would be that you need a lot of global cooling to achieve that, but maybe that’s what they are hinting at :)

    Coolists became warmists, becoming coolists again…

  7. Heh heh, I suppose this is a new version of the saturated greenhouse effect theory, only in reverse. :)

  8. The Bear thought the skies were already full of Chickens with the surname `Little’.

    So where will the `missing space’, yet to be filled, come from?

    Maybe Trenberth has the answer?

  9. I’m interpreting “full” to mean :
    “has reached an arbitrary value that is deemed to be dangerous by the authors, even though the uncertainty bounds on the modelling process used allow almost any observational data however good or bad to be “within predicted limits”. And further that reaching this threshold mandates expensive and far-reaching countermeasures even though no valid technical appreciation or cost benefit analysis has been performed”

    Is that about right?

  10. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” – and then the sky will fall.

    Right.

  11. At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full of burning climate papers and IPCC reports

  12. What do they mean by “The sky would be full”? Are there empty spaces now?
    Since clouds are 17 times more important than a doubling of CO2 levels (yesterday’s peer reviewed paper) there would be less than 0.3 degree C temperature rise for every doubling of CO2 levels. An optimum level of CO2 would be about 1180ppm. This has a moderate temperature rise, but allows vegatation to grow at an average of 70% faster than present growth rates, which would alleviate hunger on the planet. Why is that not a good thing?

  13. There will be so much carbon dioxide that we will all suffocate. To prevent the creation of the C02, we should all stop breathing.

    That is the only sensible solution.

  14. When I was much younger and at a summer camp where I spent time working with the cyclotron at the Chalk River particle accelerator, a local reporter came to talk to us students. The next day when I came in, everyone was laughing themselves silly at my expense.

    The journalist’s story had me quoted as saying something like ‘at any moment a neutron could fly out of the accelerator and hit me in the head’. But what else could one expect from a journalist’s interpretation of some young kid’s attempt to explain how a particle accelerator works?

    I mention this because it’s a very silly statement, although less silly than ‘the sky will be full’. Another great moment in the history of climate science.

    O tempora, o mores.

  15. Come on, guys! They are trying to relate to the common (assumed stupid) man.

    Statements like, “The atmosphere is sick and needs an enema.” The sky is sick and needs an exfoliation.” “The world is sick and needs a high colonic.” “The Earth has gangrene and needs to have a leg (aka, humans) cut off.” all appeal to the people at levels they can understand. “The Earth has acne.” is not very alarming.

    Telling them that a trace gas that is critical plant food is going to kill us by creating less temperature rise than putting on a shirt just does not get their attention. It’s really hard to get excited about an ant crossing the road: (1) You can’t see (detect). (2) You do not worry about ants, they are pretty much self-replacing. (3) You would not swerve your car any way as saving an ant is inconsequential and just puts undue stress on the car, perhaps causing an accident.

  16. Is this first class primary school stuff?

    No it is too stupid for that.

    Get a grip on reality alarmists!!!!

  17. Alan D McIntire says:
    September 21, 2011 at 5:37 am
    My immediate response is, “Full of what?”
    ===========
    Just “full”, OK? These people are experts so don’t ask silly questions!

  18. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”

    We should be thankful we won’t be running on “empty” anymore.

    :)

  19. People are noticing
    Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said the following at a conference on Tuesday:

    In the United States, “the Republican faith-based right gets all sorts of power and authority from the overreaching and overstretching of the scientific left
    The emphasis is mine. The quote comes from today’s KW Record.

    “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” is stretching things beyond the elastic limit. Smart people are starting to notice.

  20. We can convert all those windmills, fit them with giant plungers to help stuff more into the sky. Going to work on my application for stimulus funding, 500 mil ought to do it, a least a good start.

  21. The sky is full. Game over. Please reboot climate and start over.

    The Team would litterally fling dog poop at a skeptic for saying something like that.

  22. “For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second. Natural weather effects partly explained the previous record in 2007, scientists say, and may help explain this year’s, said Petoukhov.

    In other climate changes, a study last week found rapidly rising temperatures in the northeast Atlantic Ocean driving major shifts in fish stocks.

    And scientists say they can now detect a human fingerprint on trends in global rainfall.”

    Notice how the first example is admitted to be likely natural, the second is not supported as a definitive result of AGW (most likely natural) and with the third they say “And scientists say…” conflating all three examples and leaving the impression that they are all man made. Absolute junk reporting with an agenda.

    The best (/sarc) solution they present is to “burn biomass and capture the CO2 and then bury it underground.” In other words, we have to burn the earth to save it. Brilliant! Use productive crop land not to grow food, but to produce crops that can be burned for the sole purpose of feeding carbon capture and burial operations. Perfect! Pure cost that starves civilization at the same time! Starving people means less CO2 production! Unless they are talking about burning the forests. Or maybe they are talking about setting up global scale alge production, but not using it for fuels, just burning it off with some kind of CO2 capture. And how much will that cost? And besides, why in fact bother to burn them at all? Just stuff them in caves deep underground, like the unused nuclear waste facility in Nevada. Oh wait, the citizens would rise up in protest that this deadly pollutant might leak out and prevent them from reaching their state carbon reduction targets! (/sarc off)

    While these people are fond of talking about the unintended consequences of geo-engineering, they are uniquely blind to the unintended economic consequences of their schemes, like shutting down fossil fuel use within 20 years or creating a completely useless industry like burning plants just to capture and bury the carbon. As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies?

  23. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”

    Who comes up with all this s _ _ t?

    Crikey… I have only one suggestion… CHILL OUT … get a life… enjoy some George Michael!

  24. I have to agree with “klem”, Rueters has no credibility anymore. Not just for climate issues. But . . . “the sky will be full”. WUWT? In 20 years (or maybe already?) the earth will be full of scientifically challenged people and it will not matter what is going on in the sky!!

    Bernie

  25. If a glass is full as you pour more in that amount will spill out to the surroundings. Usually a valuable rug or shirt. Where does this fellow think the overflow will go?

  26. Notice how the sky will be ‘full’ in 20 years?

    Wasn’t it ‘just about full’ (i.e. near the ‘tipping point’) just a few years ago?

    Convenient how the end is always near and coming fast, but never seems to get here …

    Religonists.

  27. I need a set of them expert climate scientist credentials, but I can’t find the PO box number and address to send in my box tops and check for $25 for postage and handling. Do they give IQ tests and if you score too high you can’t be one? You know, if I were a climatologist, I’d be terribly embarrassed by folks like this putting out junk like this and claiming to be real climate scientists.

    This is one of the silliest reports I’ve seen.

  28. commieBob says:
    September 21, 2011 at 6:26 am

    “,,,, Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, said …

    ‘…. Republican faith-based right …. … the scientific left’ ”

    So, Martin assumes republicans are faith based and assumes (claims) that the left is scientific? What, is this guy an idiot? Interesting how the cretin mixes terminology. Not right vs left, but republican vs left. Not Republican vs Democrat. Not evens conservative vs progressive socialists.

    A more accurate way of stating his … “view”, would be liberal republicans vs socialist democrats since they are nothing more that different facets of the same domineering and meddling control freak mentality.

  29. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full” requiring drastic measures to keep the climate within safe limits.

    So, the CO2 content would be up to, what? 400ppm? 420ppm? Wow! Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 3.8, 100ths of one percent, to 4.2, 100ths of one percent will cause Earth’s temperature to drastically increase and destroy all life. And, the ocean’s will become so acidic that corals and other creatures with calcareous shells or skeletons will cease to exist.

    Just curious: How did the dinosaurs and all the other plants and beasts, including our ancestors, manage to live during the Mesozoic, when Earth’s atmospheric CO2 averaged up to 10 times higher than now? How did corals, brachipods, bivalves, ammonites, bryozoans, and everything else manage to survive in Paleozoic oceans when atmospheric CO2 was even higher?

    Oh, wait. I understand…it all becomes clear. They were too ill-informed to understand they couldn’t survive in such excessive CO2. If only Michael Mann and Al Gore had been there; they could have set everything straight about the non-survivability of CO2 concentrations above 400ppm.

  30. We need to create big vacuum cleaners to suck ‘carbon’ out of the skies and send it someplace.

    Send it into the sun! Yeah, that’s the ticket! Right into the sun!

    REPLY: Its been done:
    Spaceballs Vacuum

    Thanks, Mel Brooks – Anthony

  31. Did you know that on the internet, an area the size of the UK is now devoted to climate change?

  32. When one considers that fossil fuel use contributes about 1 percent of total global emissions from all sources, including natural (~96%), there would appear to be a very large buffer in the system that makes this short time period seem highly improbable if not laughable.

  33. I found that article physically painful to read. Now that Reuters is fooled, just who are they trying to kid? In a couple of weeks this flotsam will be added to the frantic cut-and-paste blatherings of the blog commenters who come out to bash the skeptics. Please wake me when it’s over and we set about solving some real problems.

  34. That’s funny, I thought 350 was the magic number. Now they’re saying, what, 420 or 425 is the new magic limit? Must be goalpost moving time. Again.

  35. I believe Lubos’ article on Le Chatelier’s principle and climate would be an interesting read for these people: http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/11/le-chateliers-principle-and-natures.html

    Below are some paragraphs from this article.

    “One possible way to describe Le Chatelier’s principle is to say that feedback mechanisms in stable systems are negative. When you add CO2, various processes that consume it (such as photosynthesis) become more frequent. So the ultimate increase in CO2 will be lower than if those processes didn’t exist. For the concentration of CO2, it is essentially a standard example of the principle in action. No one doubts it.

    What about the clouds? Well, I think that the observations make it rather likely that the clouds are a stable system. For example, the temperature during the glaciation cycles never started to run out of control. It had the tendency to stay in a certain interval. If it is true that the responses of clouds on the external temperature and CO2 concentration were a good description of the effective laws of physics governing these processes, it follows that we deal with a stable system. Le Chatelier’s principle must apply and feedbacks must be negative.

    But the idea that positive feedbacks dominate or that they are the ones who win at the end simply contradicts basic laws of thermodynamics.”

  36. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
    “Did you know that on the internet, an area the size of the UK is now devoted to climate change?”

    We need a way to ‘Like’ individual comments, this one is going on my Facebook status

  37. The earth is flat, if you sail too far west, you’ll sail off the edge. And from there, it’s turtles all the way down.

    Not laughing is becoming quite difficult.

  38. I suppose the sky could become saturated with CO2, in the sense that it becomes essentially opaque to the frequencies CO2 absorbs. but then any additional CO2 would have no further GHG effect, and so would not be a concern from an AGW point of view.

  39. Maybe, as a result of the atmosphere being full, the Arctic Ocean will be covered with frozen CO2. Staggering possibility, since they’ll be able to point to that as an example of extreme drought: “Even the ice is dry!”.

    Personally, I’d like to see it, especially in the summer when it would be sublime…

  40. So the fuller the sky, the denser the air, the easier is to generate lift on aircraft…so Gore can reduce his carbon footprint.

    (Disclaimer: Any faulty physics/logic/maths is merely the by-product of a malfunctioning local reality inhabited by the reader)

  41. Luboš Motl takes a surgeon knife to this …

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/09/ipcc-sky-will-be-full-in-20-years.html

    Here is a great paragraph which I am still ROTFLMAO at …

    “Nothing will get full. People will be able to move through the atmosphere. To fill the atmosphere with CO2, the concentration would have to increase to 1,000,000 ppm. One million ppm, also known as 100%, would mean that the atmosphere is full of CO2. You would need to increase the concentration by 2 ppm per year for half a million years. You won’t find a sufficient amount of fossil fuels for that. ;-) Moreover, as the concentration of CO2 increases, the natural processes trying to reduce the concentration back towards 280 ppm will be significantly strengthened.”

    Hehehe. :-) For the single-minded one-dimensional chicken-little alarmist out there, he is pointing out that high CO2 levels would lead to higher plant growth (greening, that’s good right?), which would be a ‘feedback’ of sorts which will increase the scrubbing of the naughty CO2 molecules. Think of it as another example of a natural braking mechanism, like Willis with the Thermostat Hypothesis and equatorial thunderstorms.

  42. ‘Instead of mopping up CO2, an alternative geo-engineering approach is to screen out sunlight, for example, by spraying sulphur into the upper atmosphere. This causes water droplets to form and create hazy clouds and is to be trialled by British engineers next month.

    The problem is a threat of unforeseen consequences.

    ‘It’s not the same as just rewinding things back to where we were in terms of greenhouse gases. You’re doing another change which will potentially bring the temperature back but could lead to less rainfall,” said Reading University’s Peter Stott.’

    This is perhaps the scariest part of the article. Messing with the atmosphere so we could have possibly less rainfall – I’m sure the people suffering in the Horn of Africa will be ecstatic to hear of such a development.

    These people are becoming unhinged.

  43. Kelvin Vaughan says:
    September 21, 2011 at 7:27 am
    I can see the Abominable Snowman on the south pole web cam!

    If commieBob’s (6:26 am) quote of Roger Martin is correct [“Mem>the Republican faith-based right gets all sorts of power and authority from the overreaching and overstretching of the scientific left”] that would be the Obamanable Snowman on the south pole web cam that you see.

  44. Fifty years ago I remember the weather in the UK being pretty much like it is now. So why should another 20 years make any difference?

  45. Clearly the man is barking mad, probably as much as that other Potsdam Institute nut case, Stefan Rahmsdorf.

    And this bit from Reuters “…Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second”. Or a close third, or fourth, or fifth. Just depends where you want to get your information from. They just chose known warmers NSIDC.

  46. Dear Warm-mongers,
    When the sky is ‘full,’ do I have to stop exhaling?
    Or should every human only inhale?
    Breathlessly Awating Your Reply,
    Rick K

  47. Alan D McIntire says:
    September 21, 2011 at 5:37 am
    My immediate response is, “Full of what?”
    ———————
    If I recall, it’s already full (at 100%)
    Let’s see its …..78% nitrogen
    …..20% Oxygen
    …… 2% Trace gasses (incl CO2)
    That sounds full to me.

  48. Tsk. Tsk. Ze amosphere is a gas. Put in more, ze sky will expand. I vill be able by fly my airship to ze Moon!

  49. The left now forbids discussion of the details of climate dogma. Since “consensus” has been declared, the msm won’t cover any science that might question their fantasy. Climate hysteria has replaced communism in the left’s religion. The left believed no matter how many Stalin enslaved and slaughtered. Now the left has climate change magic so ethanol can starve the poor but who cares.

  50. If the sky is full of CO2, won’t the excess just run off somewhere harmless?

    At first I thought this post was about CO2 saturation, whereby the concentration of CO2 becomes high enough that all the IR in a particular wavelength is being absorbed, so that adding more CO2 does not increase the greenhouse effect. Is there any science to validate that hypothesis?

  51. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full.”

    Gerard Wynn reports (Reuters) quoting the new research

    ————————-

    Let me give that quote a little help with a non-alarmist context:

    “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”, but not as full as during the dinosaur era of the Cretaceous period which was atmospherically a veritable wonderfully benevolent lifegiving hothouse. [bold words by JW]

    John

  52. You guys don’t understand how bad it is. We need to get it down below measurement detection levels. The plants will need to evolve to not need CO2, so will we. We can not be too careful. AND, some of you will need to do more than your share because I am not going to help.

  53. Ah, yes, the Potsdam Institute, which had the “AVEC” (A.ssessment of V.ulnerable E.cosystems under Global C.hange http://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/ ) Summer School, where the one in 2005 featured Sybille van den Hove ( http://www.pik-potsdam.de/avec/peyresq2005/talks/0928/van_den_hove/welcome.html ). Her PPT on the “Business ethical dilemmas” slide page #22 on “Exxon’s progression of statements” had words eerily similar to the 2nd sentence in an April 2005 Mother Jones magazine interview of anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan: ““First time around, they said global warming is not happening, [t]hen after the science became pretty powerful, they said, ‘Well it’s good for us.’ Now they’re saying that the impacts will be pretty negligible.” ( http://motherjones.com/politics/2005/04/hot-and-bothered-interview-ross-gelbspan )

    Actually, Gelbspan’s narrative on that goes back to 1999. Combine that with Ms van den Hove’s two schoolroom case studies from 2001 on her AVEC page, “Should business influence the science and politics of global environmental change? The oil industry and climate change”, which cited Gelbspan and enviro-activist groups Ozone Action and Greenpeace for proof that skeptic scientists are funded by big coal & oil, and you’ll guess that maybe the above Exxon PPT slide of hers isn’t so eerie after all.

  54. It was a mistranslation. What the Celts told Alexander they were afraid of was not ‘the sky falling’ but ‘the sky filling’.

  55. Maybe it’s just me and my bad hearing, but the phrase “The sky is full of it!” sounds an awful lot like “This guy is full of it!”

  56. Reuters from Thomson Reuters is a green propaganda machine that serves its investment interests. The Woodbridge Foundation is its multi billion dollar investment arm. A trustee of this foundation is no other than Sir Crispin Tickell, a UNEP stalwart who recomended Monbiot for some college fellowship, who has been at the heart of the early 1990s UN discussions on climate:

    “Sir Crispin was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows. Green College merged with Templeton College in 2008 to become Green Templeton College, located at what was previously Green College.”

    “Sir Crispin’s close relationship with the Climate Institute began in June 1988 when he was the luncheon speaker at a climate change symposium organized by the Climate Institute for UN Missions under auspices of UNEP. A few months later he joined the Board of the Climate Institute and has been an active member since. In September 1990, a few days after retiring from the British diplomatic service, Sir Crispin became Chairman of the Climate Institute, a post he held until November 2002 when he became Chairman Emeritus. With Sir Crispin as Chairman and under auspices of the IPCC and UNEP, the Institute held Presidential and Ministerial briefings on climate change in 22 nations, the first in Mexico at Los Pinos in March 1991. Soon after this Sir Crispin chaired a steering committee of the Climate Institute overseeing a major study of an emerging environmental refugee challenge. During three years of his service as Climate Institute Chairman, Sir Crispin was President of the Royal Geographical Society.”

    Woodbridge is also invested in Point Carbon:
    “Point Carbon, a Thomson Reuters company is a world-leading provider of independent news, analysis and consulting services for European and global power, gas and carbon markets. Point Carbon’s comprehensive services provide professionals with market-moving information through monitoring fundamental information, key market players and business and policy developments.

    Point Carbon’s in-depth knowledge of power, gas and CO2 emissions market dynamics positions us as the number one supplier of unrivalled market intelligence of these markets. Our staff includes experts in international and regional climate policy, mathematical and economic modeling, forecasting methodologies, risk management and market reporting.”

    In Canada, the Globe and Mail owned by the Thomsons, the richest family in the country, has recently relayed the Trenberth nature missing heat paper but is alawys mum on anything going against the global warming consensus… now we know why!

  57. “At present emissions levels, in less than 20 years the sky would effectively be full”

    This sure sounds like something an edumacated psyentist like algore would pontificate….

  58. “Full sky” they say? It never will be, I say.

    For their pronouncement is all just a point of view. Consider the famous glass of water:

    The pessimist looks as the glass of water and, with an audible sigh, says it is half empty.

    The optimist looks at the same galss of water and, with a hint of satisfaction, exclaims it is half full.

    The engineer, on the other hand, looks at the glass of water, strokes his chin, thinks about it for a moment, and says: “Ya know, that glass of water is twice as big as it needs to be.”

    The same goes for Earth’s atmosphere–it will never fill up (it has all of space to expand into), and it will never be empty (there’s just no place to sequester all that gas). So cheer up–these idiots will one day wish they had never said about 99% of what they’re saying, and we’ll all be around to rub their noses into another bogus climate claim and exhult:

    “Full sky, my glass.”

  59. It looks like they have already written the Summary for Policy Makers for AR5. so now all they have to do is fill in the details. [/sarc]

  60. DirkH says:
    September 21, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Thanks for the link to the mad climastrologists of Potsdam. They are using their models to predict GHG concentrations out to the year 2300. I believe Buck Rogers is going to help them extend their ‘science’ to the 25th century

  61. BigWaveDave says:
    September 21, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    It looks like they have already written the Summary for Policy Makers for AR5. so now all they have to do is fill in the details. [/sarc]

    —————

    BigWaveDave,

    I saw that also in the Reuters article.

    Please, that isn’t (unfortunately) sarcasm.

    John

  62. Chuck Nolan says:

    September 21, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Alan D McIntire says:
    September 21, 2011 at 5:37 am
    My immediate response is, “Full of what?”
    ———————
    If I recall, it’s already full (at 100%)
    Let’s see its …..78% nitrogen
    …..20% Oxygen
    …… 2% Trace gasses (incl CO2)
    That sounds full to me.

    Wait – does that mean that as we add CO2 we are causing the atmosphere to overflow?

    Where does the spilliage go?

    Or, are we taking something else out to make room for the additional CO2?

    OK, we need some serious funding to get to the bottom of this atmospheric filling.

    The rest of you are not taking this seriously. This may be a real problem. What if we overfill the atmosphere and it explodes? We are discussing warming when we should be concentrating on a potential atmospheric overfilling catastrophy.

  63. Hu McCulloch says:
    ” it becomes essentially opaque to the frequencies CO2 absorbs.”

    I think we are rather close to that now, from the charts on previous WUWT threads.
    As I have previously commented, except for government programs, you cannot asorb more than 100% of something.
    “A long time ago, when the Earth was green, there was more CO2 than you’ve ever seen”
    (with apologies to an ancient songwriting duo)

  64. Retired Engineer says:
    September 21, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    ————————

    Retired Engineer,

    From me, an almost (semi-retired) engineer, I offer the following in good cheer.

    The final stanza,

    You’ll see a lot of alligators
    And a whole mess of geese,
    You’ll see hump back camels
    And chimpanzees.
    You’ll see cats and rats and elephants
    But as sure as you’re born
    You’re never gonna see no unicorn.

    : )

    John

  65. Went to Reuters, read the article and just have one thing to say – This just HAS to be some kind of joke, Right? I mean really, it is meant to be a joke? No one, and I mean no one, would seriously believe this stuff, right? Someone please tell me this was published as a joke.

  66. I can only assume that by full he means pissed and coming from “rooters news agency” its all understandable.DON’T LET THE TRUTH GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY>presstitution!

  67. “For example, last week it emerged that Arctic sea ice this summer melted to a record low extent, or a close second.”

    If it was a close second it wasn’t a record low then was it? Not that little details are important in the world of reality or anything. How can you produce ‘minus CO2′? is that a little like negative growth from ‘green’ economies?

  68. AGW Cynic says:
    September 21, 2011 at 5:53 am
    There will be so much carbon dioxide that we will all suffocate. To prevent the creation of the C02, we should all stop breathing.

    That is the only sensible solution.
    ==============================

    So you got me thinking … as an expression of his AGW cult devotion, Al Gore can organise a ’24-hr CO2 free expression session’ wherein AGW cultists all around the world, including Himself, are commanded to hold their collective breath for 24-hrs … sceptics can sponsor them :) … the free biodegradable plastic bags are an absolute must have accessory.

    Now THAT is what I call an ACTION in the interests of Mankind!

  69. This reminds me of the Gary Larson “Far Side” cartoon (8 Sep 1986) where a kid with a small head raised his hand and said, “Mr. Osborne, may I be excused? My brain is full.”

    The joke here is obvious. Neither the human brain nor the atmosphere can become “full.” I think these authors need to ask Mr. Osborne if they can be excused, because their brains are full of it.

    Jim

  70. If the atmosphere becomes full, would then the sky begin to fall?
    Weather for today: 100% chance of CO2 showers with possible thunder & Carbon Sharing storms.

  71. Am I the only one who thinks this is chilling and not funny? The link takes us to an article that talks about the need to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

    “This is a crucial change in perception, that there is a point and it is very close at which time if we put CO2 into the atmosphere future generations will have to take it out again.”

    Is it all groundwork for a new approach? Instead of looking to reduce carbon emissions the warmists will look for public money to ‘clean up’ the carbon?

  72. This “Full” phenomenon has occurred before! On “Married With Children”, Al pumps Kelly full of sport memorabilia so she can win a contest for him. (He had been banned) Finally, after many hours, Kelly is “Full”, And any additional fact added to her mind will push out one of Al’s Trivia tidbits.

  73. Oh Dear! My first, and second, reaction on reading the headline was “Full of what? That which has hit the fan?…eh?” Whatever next?

  74. I read the story and then started to read the comments. The story is a load of rubbish but the comments are hilarious. Thanks to all for the good laugh.

  75. jpfife says:

    September 22, 2011 at 2:27 am

    Is it all groundwork for a new approach? Instead of looking to reduce carbon emissions the warmists will look for public money to ‘clean up’ the carbon?

    Well, we must only remove the nasty human released atmospheric CO2. The natural CO2 is part of what mother nature intends.

    Of course, they’ll need more money to do that.

  76. So the AGW fear mongers are literally to the point of saying “The sky is falling”.
    And they think this is going to gain their cause credibility.

  77. Let’s assume for just a nanosecond, that I have supped from the cup of coolaid. Fast forward 20 years. Which “sky is full” would I rather have?

    CO2 (can’t see it, can’t smell it, don’t have to avoid it, and it is a tiny bit warmer)
    vs
    behemoth whirly gigs (can see those, can hear them 24/7, the smell of ozone is in the air, and me and the birds have to go out of our way to avoid them) and acres of dirty, dusty, weed encroached solar panels

    The voting public needs to be careful for what they ask for.

  78. There seems to be a continual drop in TSI (Total Scientific Illumination).

    Global dimming is already in effect.

    Time to water the plants with Brawndo “The thirst mutilator” (It has electrolites).

  79. Pamela, you forgot the part about people and animals skewered with ice and blade shards from those whirly gigs and the drought from the lack of water after cleaning those now dirty solar panels. Somewhere I read (reference needed!) that it takes over a million gallons of water per year to clean a million watt solar farm. A megawatt of electricity won’t do squat for our needs, we need lots of gigawatts. Meaning many giga-gallons of water. Which, because of the ethanol mandate, we won’t have.

    I can live with more plants and a tad more warmth.

  80. Geoengineering is the idle threat they always like to use, as in “Don’t make us have to use geoengineering!” Idle because all they have are harebrained, very possible dangerous, and certainly monstrously expensive ideas, and they know it, whether it involves C02 removal or various schemes for blocking sunlight.
    In less than 20 years the CAGW worldwide delusional hysteria will be in the history books, though the fallout from it will be felt for decades.

Comments are closed.