The Atlantic Magazine's '5 Charts About Climate Change That Should Have You Very, Very Worried'… Worried about scientific illiteracy.

Guest post by David Middleton

I ran into this gem on Real Clear Energy this morning…

Figure 1. The only thing to worry about here is the scientific and mathematical illiteracy of the authors of this article.

The article cites terrifying new reports commissioned by the World Bank and the CIA and then launches into a graphical cornucopia of nonsense.

The Five Charts of Doom

“1. Most of Greenland’s top ice layer melted in four days” (The World Bank)

Figure 2. Chart number one is a map.

I previously addressed this “chart” here: 2012: The Year Greenland Melted (AKA Alarmists Gone Wild).

The “melt” is based on measurements of albedo. These measurements date all the way back to the year 2000.

The “normal” summer melt season albedo minimum at 2500-3200m is in the range of 0.79-0.82. This year, it briefly dropped to just below 0.74.

Figure 3. Greenland ice sheet albedo 2500-3200m elevations (

So… We have barely a decade’s worth of data and no idea if the modern melt rates and albedo changes are anomalous relative to the early 20th century Arctic warming, Medieval Warm Period or any of the other millennial-scale Holocene warming periods.

I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that unless some alarmist can tell me what the albedo was in 1899, 1127, 1143 and 1939, during the vast majority of the Holocene or during the Sangamonian, my response is, “Very interesting. Now, move along, there’s nothing more to see here.”

Figure 5. Late Pleistocene-Holocene temperature reconstruction for Central Greenland.
(After Alley, 2000)

Figure 6. North Greenland temperature reconstruction since Late Sangamonian.

2. America just had its worst drought in over 50 years (The World Bank)

Figure 7. Chart number two is another map.

They chose the U.S. Drought Monitor “map” to support the World Bank’s claim that the U.S. just had its worst drought in 50 years… The U.S. Drought Monitor only has a 12-year record length. If they had only bothered to look at the historical drought trend (or lack thereof) they would have found that we just had the worst drought in a bit over 10 years (not 50) and that droughts of this severity occur about once every 8 years.

The drought of 2012 was pretty bad, about as bad as the droughts of 2000-2001, 1988, 1981, 1963, 1940, 1925, 1917 and 1910… But not nearly as bad as the protracted droughts of 1953-1956 and 1933-1936. And there is no increasing trend of drought severity or decreasing trend in precipitation over the last 117 years.

Figure 8. No trend in drought severity or precipitation since 1895. Source: NOAA National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS).

3. Coral reefs are doomed (The World Bank)

This one is really funny!

Figure 9. Chart number three is a cartoon.

The Mesozoic Era atmospheric CO2 was pretty well always 2 to 4 times the level at which the World Bank cartoon indicates that coral reefs will dissolve, yet the Mesozoic Era was full of coral reefs.

Figure 10. Coral reefs of the Mesozoic Era seemed to like CO2.

For that matter, the modern Great Barrier Reef also seems to like a CO2-enriched diet…

Figure 11. The average calcification rate of the Great Barrier Reef seems to be increasing along with atmospheric CO2. Data from De’ath, G., et al. 2009

A recent paper in Geology (Ries et al., 2009) found an unexpected relationship between CO2 and marine calcifers. 18 benthic species were selected to represent a wide variety of taxa: “crustacea, cnidaria, echinoidea, rhodophyta, chlorophyta, gastropoda, bivalvia, annelida.” They were tested under four CO2/Ωaragonite scenarios:

409 ppm (Modern day)

606 ppm (2x Pre-industrial)

903 ppm (3x Pre-industrial)

2856 ppm (10x Pre-industrial)

The effects on calcification rates for all 18 species were either negligible or positive up to 606 ppm CO2. Corals, in particular seemed to like more CO2 in their diets…

Figure 12. Coral seems to be A-OK with CO2 levels of 1,000 ppmv. This might explain how they thrived in the Mesozoic Era.

4. Wildfires are multiplying (NRC report for the CIA)

Figure 13. Chart number four is another map.

Are Colorado’s wildfires caused by global warming?

The wildfires devastating Colorado have been linked to a streak of unusually hot weather, but that does not necessarily mean that global warming is the culprit.

By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer / June 28, 2012


“You can’t say it’s climate change just because it’s an extreme condition,” said Colorado state climatologist Nolan Doesken. So far, Doesken told LiveScience, the spring of 2012 looks much like the spring of 1910, when warm temperatures hit early. That year, he said, was a bad one for fires.


The immediate driver of these fires is a lack of moisture and a ridge of heat that has settled over the central United States, said New Jersey state climatologist Dave Robinson, who also directs the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University. After record snowpack last year, the Rocky Mountains did a 180 this year, Robinson said, seeing little moisture and early snowmelt.

“March and April are supposed to be your snowy months [in Colorado], and they weren’t,” Robinson told LiveScience. “Thus, the fire danger.”

Meanwhile, a high-pressure system in the central part of the country is preventing cloud formation and allowing the sun to bake the ground, heating things up. On Tuesday (June 26) alone, 251 daily heat records were broken across the nation, according to the National Climatic Data Center. In the past week, more than 1,000 new daily heat records were put on the books.


“Some would say there is a pattern, because we have had several years with exceptionally large fires over western states, particularly the Southwestern states, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado in particular,” Doesken said. “Others would say, no, not enough data points yet to show that.”

This year has been extreme in terms of heat and dryness, he said, as was 2002 (a record-breaking year for fires in Colorado). So far, 2012’s weather looks very similar to the weather of 1910. That year, spring was warm and dry, which fed into a hellish fire season. Among the blazes was the Great Fire of 1910, also known as “the Big Burn,” which destroyed 3 million acres of forest in Washington, Idaho and Montana.


More recently, an analysis of 1,500 years of fire and tree-ring data revealed that a combination of climate change and human forest use could explain modern “megafires,” the kind that destroy large swaths of forest.



The modern climate is virtually identical to the Medieval Warm Period, yet the wildfires seem to be worse and humans may be somewhat responsible (just not in the way Warmists would like)…


Ancient Fires

The researchers combined previously collected fire data from Ponderosa Pine forests in the southwest United States during the Little Ice Age (from 1600 to the mid-1800s) with climate data derived from existing tree rings to determine the annual fire activity 1,500 years ago.

They discovered that this time period, the Medieval Warm Period, was no different from the Little Ice Age in terms of what drives frequent low-severity surface fires: year-to-year drought patterns.

“It’s true that global warming is increasing the magnitude of the droughts we’re facing, but droughts were even more severe during the Medieval Warm Period,” Roos said. “It turns out that what’s driving the frequency of surface fires is having a couple wet years that allow grasses to grow continuously across the forest floor and then a dry year in which they can burn. We found a really strong statistical relationship between two or more wet years followed by a dry year, which produced lots of fires.”

Changing Climate

The researchers found that even when ancient climates varied from each other — one hotter and drier and the other cooler and wetter — the frequencies of year-to-year weather patterns that drive fire activity were similar. Furthermore, the findings implicate as the increase in megafires is caused not only modern climate change, but also human activity over the last century, the researchers said.

These human activities include livestock grazing and firefighting, which combine to create more dense forests with accumulated fuels that make them more vulnerable than ever to extreme droughts, and these droughts bring on huge wildfires that wreak havoc on even the tops of trees.



The modern warming (AGW in Warmisteese) began in ca. 1600 AD, at the nadir of the Little Ice Age.

Figure 14. The ups and downs of climate change since the dawn of the common era.

Capitalism might be adding 0.1 to 0.3 °C worth of extra warming relative to what would have happened in a globally Third World; but our primary contributions to the change in wildfire patterns are land-use change and firefighting (and arson)… Not greenhouse gases.

The weather this year is “extreme.” According to NOAA’s Climate Extremes Index, the spring of 2012 set a new heat wave record. The previous record heat wave was 1910, the first year of the time series. The “anomaly” is the fact that it took over 100 years to set a new record. In a random time series, the 1910 record should have been broken 5 times by 2012. There is no correlation between climate change and extreme weather events.

The following chart is adapted from NOAA’s Climate Extremes Index

Figure 15. The NOAA CEI has no trend (Slope = R-squared = 0.0081). Using the same reference period as the Hadley Centre and East Anglia CRU (1961-1990), we can see that the CEI exceeded natural variability (2 standard deviations) during eight years from 1910-1954 and eight years from 1977-2011.

The NOAA CEI has no trend (Slope = R-squared = 0.0081). Using the same reference period as the Hadley Centre and East Anglia CRU (1961-1990), we can see that the CEI exceeded natural variability (2 standard deviations) during eight years from 1910-1954 and eight years from 1977-2011. The CEI is just for the contiguous USA and only goes back to 1910.

However, a recent paper coauthored by Gilbert Compo, of NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) also found no evidence that climate change was causing any increase in the atmospheric circulation patterns that would be indicative of such an increase.

Figure 16. Figure 16 from Compo et al., 2011.

According to Compo, “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years. So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

Not only is there no statistically meaningful correlation between the climate changes of the last 40 years and extreme weather events, there’s also no evidence that the recent climate changes are unusual and no evidence that extreme weather events were less common when the climate was significantly cooler than it currently is.

These charts have enabled me to worry less about the CIA’s wild fire map.

5. Civil wars on the rise

Figure 17. Chart number five is actually a chart!!!

This is even funnier than the coral reef cartoon! Wikipedia’s List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll seems to indicate that the climates of the past were a lot more hazardous than the climates of the post-Cold War era.

Figure 18. War really was hell during the transition periods before and after the Medieval Warm Period!

I suppose one could argue that the frequency of wars is on the rise, they’re just smaller wars. A Malthusian would probably say that the world population has grown so large that 10-12% death tolls are now unachievable.

Articles like this one make me think of the old Eddie Murphy Saturday Night Live skit, “The mind is a terrible thing…”

Any and all sarcasm and humor were purely intentional.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

When will people learn that global warming is inversely proportional to the number of pirates? I have graphs. Won’t anyone think of the children and start a trade school for pirates to help stop global warming?

john robertson

The panic is full blown, tempting to list 5 groups of con artists who are doomed if the scam freezes up. Lets see, Bankers, policy advisors, NGO’s, media fear mongers, politicians (all the fully committed ones) Greenpeace, WWF, and so on.
The shrieking will hit a crescendo very soon, look for peak freaking, this is the normal behaviour of liars when called on their lies, tell more, louder and wilder fabrications.
And then bargaining, excuses and blame the victim.
Thanks David way too funny, better archive this stuff as it strikes me that,the move to seize the internet is the next logical act. Otherwise the wisdom of throwing their greed and gullibility open for all to see, escapes me. Where the out? Can’t say we never said that if the wayback machine is still intact.

Here is the antidote to all AGW nonsense:
Summers never get hotter, but winters are getting less cold.

Jim G

It seems obvious that doom sells, newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, it does’nt matter. We need to come up with a doom scenario for too low a CO2 level. Like maybe all the plants start to die. Make a movie. Call it “The Day Before Yesterday” or something. Put some zombies in it, make up some charts, computer models, what have you. We need to fight fire with fire!! Come on guys, be creative. Get some grants, make up some junk science and win this war of ignorance.

David Larsen

Damn it, I thought that gruenelande meant the snow was green back during the medieval warming period. How could that land be green from medieval warming? Snow was green back then. Just ask the Vikings who were in the Das Neues Welt a half of a millenium before Columbo.

They should have gone for 10 charts. Then they could have been a perfect 10 for 10 – wrong.

Peter Miller

Tropical storm (not hurricane) Sandy and the alarmist jamboree in Doha has precipitated a lot of nonsense on ‘climate change’ like the article above.
This one is from Aljazeera.
And how about this advert at the top of WUWT today:

“Most of Greenland’s top ice layer melted in 4 days” Just how much ice melted and what was the temperature? Looks like a heck of a lot of melting in a very short time. This skeer ought to fail on a casual review of the amount of energy required to melt that amount of ice in 4 days.

Doug Huffman

Are “charts” the post-modern incarnation of the narrative fallacy, the shaman-witch-homeopath key to success? Read Tukey on chart-junk. Read Popper on falsification.


It’s funny how Boreal forest fires have been decreasing since the end of the Little Ice Age. I wonder why they don’t like to trumpet such news. It’s always going for the “It’s worse than we thought!” angle.


I’ll be happy to start such a school; having been boarded twice by pirates I count myself an expert on them.
I’ll let you know soon where the IPCC, the World Bank and the CIA should send the money.
But where did the winter go? I didn’t realise it was the 1st. of April already.
Seriously, where do they find people daft enough to write stuff like that? I’m worried that the World Bank actually believes this rubbish.

john robertson

Jim G@1.38 I have it, we can hype the vague correlation between Chinese CO2 output over time and the flattening, then slight drop in the temperature data (I hesitate to say global temp).
My thesis,Chinese CO2 = cooling effect. Western CO2=warming effect.
And in homage to the UN, we are all going to freeze if we do not match the Chinese CO2 output.
Take it from there, endless possibilities.

Pat Frank

This quote from the linked WSJ article reveals the source of the entire problem: “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” [said] atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, [a climate modeler] at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”
Climate modelers believe their climate models. They really believe that “model response” = climate response; implying that if it happens in the model, it must happen in the climate, even if the climate response is actually far below the physical resolution of the model.
Modelers can sustain this remarkable view because they never propagate model errors through their projections. Published projections never show physically valid error bars. They show ‘model variability‘ and represent that as predictive uncertainty. It’s not. Climate modelers seem to have no concept of physical error or its propagation. They seem to have no grasp on the meaning of model error or resolution, on the uncertainty of their projections, or, finally, on the inability of their models to predict anything at all about climate. With their own internally peculiar and non-physical standards of merit, climate modelers have hermetically sealed climate modeling away from the rest of physics. In their hands, climate modeling is not science. It’s a liberal art with math.
Hence, modelers are certain, are sincere in their beliefs, have infected policy-makers with their naivete, are “surprised” when their models fail, and are highly valuable stooges for the ideological, the venal, and the just plain corrupt.


Atlantic’s readers will be convinced by this. It’s preposterous. And effective.

Where did all the water go after the massive Greenland melt? We should have see a massive rise in the seas. London, New York and many more harbor cities should have flooded. Could it possibly be that the media didn’t report the disasters?


I’m betting the World Bank executives involved in this publication are looking for a slice of carbon credits and are dismayed that the reality is no closer now than years ago.

Curious George

The “Explanation of the US Drought Monitor”,, proclaims proudly “Drought Monitor: State-of-the-Art Blend of Science and Subjectivity”.
There is probably much more subjectivity than science. I still don’t know how they define drought and how they measure it.


Pet peeve:
The only reason the CIA puts out information, is to monitor its effect.
That said, I will now try to digest the post.

Thanks, David. This is emergency mode time for CAGW acolytes.

Hot under the collar

Well, they are right about one thing – I am very very worried – about the stupidity of their 5 charts about climate change.

Thanks David,
Such a lot of s**t shovelled in such a short time. Impressive.
From time to time I get to shovel the real stuff, and find that it helps to restore normality in the face of all this nonsense. Breath of fresh air …
There’s a pdf version in my dropbox:
Hope that’s ok.

lurker, passing through laughing

My position, that AGW is a social disorder, is underscored by this ridiculous Atlantic article.
The problem is that this sort of dsfunctinoal thinking leads people to seek blame whentheir beliefs fail to work out, not reapprasial and progress. The believers will blame skeptics for the failure of AGW, or alternatively, for nearly any weather that is not a pleasant day. Think of druids in the Holy roman empire


john robertson says: My thesis,Chinese CO2 = cooling effect. Western CO2=warming effect.
Well done JR because, damn it, I missed the bleeding obvious. Between you and me now that you have pointed it out I’m seeking a Chinese company that will export their CO2 in granulated form so I can sell it to Atlantic readers and become rich. I’m not going to miss this gravy train! Pssst wanna buy a harbour bridge?


Don’t know about pirates but I do know that the brightest kids come from homes with 2 toilets (bathrooms) so howzabout that third toilet I have to sell you catastrophists?
As one wit put it these people come from the Homer Simpson School of Philosophy-
“Facts are meaningless, They can be used to prove anything.” (Homer Simpson, et al, The Age of Computer Modelling Graphics and Animation)


That World Bank report was written by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics.
According to the following site, Greenpeace had a hand in that report:
The only surprise in 2012 was that the report by the World Bank was prepared by a former director of Greenpeace (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics 2012).
One of the people who runs the Potsdam Institute is Hans Schellnhuber. Notrickszone has done a good job of keeping track of him:
And for some historical trivia, the World Bank was mainly the creation of Harry Dexter White:
Harry Dexter White was also identified as a communist spy according to the NSA:
(I’m sure White had the preservation of the Constitution, free markets, and liberty in mind when he created the World Bank…) /sarc


NYT Updated: Nov. 26, 2012
“Warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests.”
“Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades.”
The Age of Cognitive Dissonance, confabulation and post-modern constructs.
May you live in interesting times.


More on the World Bank, originally from The Green Left Weekly apparently:

G P Hanner

Here’s a graph of the water level at Lake McConaughy in western Nebraska. A real drought is reflected in the levels of around the year 2000. Last year the reservoir was nearly refilled by a big inflow.

anyone else pick the problem with this article.
where’s the ‘climate change’??
this is going to be fun in 10years time when millions of Brits want to be sentenced to life in Queensland. hahaha

Thanks David for an excellent post, but you forgot to mention the CO2 produced by these morons jetting off to various exotic destinations to formulate and discuss these idiotic theories!


The Atlantic is owned by David G Bradley who bought it from Mort Zuckerman in 1999. Bradley is a board member of the New American Foundation which promotes the CAGW scare with articles such as, ‘Climate Change Kills 400,000 a Year, New Report Reveals’ and ‘Hertsgaard: Why Aren’t Parents Protecting Their Kids From Climate Change?’.
According to its website, The New America Foundation “invests in outstanding individuals whose ability to communicate to wide and influential audiences can change the country’s policy discourse in critical areas, bringing promising new ideas and debates to the fore”.
It is very well funded by the likes of The Ford Foundation, Google, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Eric and Wendy Schmidt and many others and it takes “a venture capital approach”.
It also houses the influential Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget which published the following in September this year: “Still, the idea of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade remains out there as a way to both curb GHGs and raise revenue….Many economists on the left and right advocate taxing more of what is bad and less of what is good, such as taxing carbon or congestion. Policymakers looking to raise revenue may find such taxes palatable alongside a comprehensive reform of the tax code.”
Bradley also serves on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations which is alarmist about CAGW. Its latest report on Doha states: “Delegates by and large remain seized by the challenge of global climate change, which threatens intensifying damages primarily in the future but requires strong action to curb emissions now.”
Another article consisting of interviews includes:”The Doha Conference should be seen as an opportunity for enhancing economic sectors during crises by linking climate-resilient economy and low-carbon development.”
The CAGW scare and money are always linked.

What Did I Tell You!?

How yew no wichwun uh thim bore holes is caluh…braydid.


But damn it, we have spent a lot of time and grant money to show what is really happening and nobody seems to want to understand and it is just not right that these deniers keep coming up with more reasons why the stuff we produce is all wrong using facts they say are correct and everything.
/sarc off

What Did I Tell You!?

How do you know which one is the global warmer? She’s the one telling her friends at lunch she “heard there was more infrared light in the atmosphere, but here’s no way to check, so they are going to talk to people in Africa, and get them to stop having families, until we have the instruments and stuff to find out they shouldn’t be breeding.”

Dr T G Watkins

Thanks for your post David M.
One can understand nonsense from Potsdam and all the other scare stories from the usual sources. But what is behind this total corruption of science that prevents any serious challenge from the MSM? I don’t mean the activist scientists and the ‘take us back to the Stone Age’ environmentalists and scientifically challenged politicians but the major players in the world who are below the radar but in control.
I re-read John Costello’s excellent analysis of Climategate today at La and, for any competent reader, scientific or arts educated, the whole CAGW fraud should have been exposed immediately and possible prosecutions should have followed. Yet here we are 3 years later landed with the same energy policies etc which are set to destroy our Western economies.
Please can some of our computer literate rationalists find out the real power behind this scam.
Maurizio ?

David Larsen

I have a question for a specialized, well educated PHd in real science. If carbon and oxygen are the second and fourth most common elements in the universe, or say the planet earth, what then are the:
1. Approximate volume of carbon and oxygen molecules on earth
2. What is the percentage then being realized by coal plants etc.
3. Why does that insignificant amount of release heat the earth
How’s that for inquiring minds?
Thanks for help. I will bet the number of molecules being released by coal plants in relation to the total number is in the order of magnitude of -20 exponentially.

I guess it is anything to sell magazines. Perhaps the Atlantic has begun to employ staff from the National Inquirer. Next they will be seeing the face of some saint in the satellite cloud patterns.

If current warming is “unprecedented”, why do the forest fire records for Vancouver Island show that the climate 6000 years ago was much different in the Pacific Northwest than today? Why was the Pacific Northwest much dryer 6000 years ago? How can today’s climate change be unprecedented, when there was huge climate change long before CO2?
How do we know that human beings don’t owe their very existence to our ability to adapt to past climate change? How do we know that without climate change, the human species would have long ago gone extinct? Does it not seem more likely that if climate did not change, there would be less evolutionary advantage in intelligence? Perhaps the Giant Sloth or the Saber Tooth Tiger would have long ago displaced humans from the planet, had it not been for climate change.
Approximately 20% of the sites have not burned for over 6000 years; these are on low fire-susceptibility landforms (i.e., north aspects and low terraces), which burned mainly in the early Holocene.

David Larsen says:
November 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm
If carbon and oxygen are the second and fourth most common elements in the universe, or say the planet earth, what then are the:
FACT: By weight Human Beings are 66% carbon pollution:
The most abundant element in the human body is oxygen, making up about 65% of the weight of each person. Carbon is the second more abundant element, making up 18% of the body.
the math:
C = 12 molecular weight
O = 16 molecular weight
C=18% by weight
O2=36%/12*18 = 48% by weight
CO2 = 18% + 48% = 66% by weight.


While a lot of people are making fun of what looks like them to completely incompetent science, I see the World Bank entering the debate in the manner they have as one of the most alarming changes to world politics regarding CAGW that we have seen since Kyoto itself.
Ask yourself: Why would the World Bank commission such a study? For what purpose is the World Bank suddenly studying climate when we supposedly already have a world body doing that, namely the United Nations IPCC?
By positioning itself as an authority on climate change, the World Bank can eliminate and additional discussion of the science. When the World Bank meets with the finance ministers of major governments and presents their “science”, do you think that a room full of financial experts are even going to start questioning the science?
Why do you think that the IPCC was not invited to Doha?
They’re irrelevant, that’s why. The purpose of the World Bank is:
“The World Bank’s official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to the World Bank’s Articles of Agreement (as amended effective 16 February 1989), all of its decisions must be guided by a commitment to promote foreign investment, international trade, and facilitate capital investment.”
And what is the goal of the CAGW movement (the REAL goal)?
“One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
~ Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-Chair, UN/IPCC WG-3
Read the World Bank’s mission statement again in the context of that quote. What better venue to advance the cause than a room full of the most powerful financial decision makers on the planet, and not an engineer or physicist among them. No one to call bullsh*t on the World Bank’s bullsh*t. The game now is to achieve the massive transfer of wealth that the World Bank and the IPCC envisioned, but behind the closed doors of meetings of the world’s financial leaders.
This is a dangerous turn of events. Doha is now just a side show, the real game is elsewhere.
Fortunately China will tell them in no uncertain terms to go to h*ll and Russia also. Japan and Canada are very likely to stick to their positions that if countries like China and Russia aren’t going to do their fair share, then neither will they, and so the dominoes shall fall in a row with any luck at all.
If at some point you Americans wake up and retake your long worn mantle as leader of the free world, I for one would appreciate it. I’m just not comfortable with all that stands between the naked power grab of the World Bank and the UN/IPCC being China and Russia.

Gunga Din

RSB says:
November 28, 2012 at 1:22 pm
When will people learn that global warming is inversely proportional to the number of pirates? I have graphs. Won’t anyone think of the children and start a trade school for pirates to help stop global warming?
I think you’ve got it wrong. The warming stopped 15 or so years ago yet the number of pirates promoting it has increased.

John F. Hultquist

Add this to the list of pre-CAGW fires:
Star Date ‘Black Sunday’, September 24th, 1950
The afternoon sky hazed-over, the sun turned red, and the sky went dark as night. We lived in western Pennsylvania about 65 miles NNE of Pittsburgh, PA. Cousin Ethel (now age 94) was so taken by the darkening sky that she saved newspaper clippings in daughter Pat’s baby book. With the scant details from those, finding additional information via the “web” is quite easy. Our dark-sky/red-sun event was caused by a number of large fires in northern B.C. and Alberta, 2,000 miles to the west (& north). Scars show on satellite images today.
Another tale:
Search with: Alberta fires 1950; one of many hits
Good post, David – Thanks!

Davidmhoffer says:
Fortunately China will tell them in no uncertain terms to go to h*ll and Russia also. Japan and Canada are very likely to stick to their positions that if countries like China and Russia aren’t going to do their fair share, then neither will they, and so the dominoes shall fall in a row with any luck at all.

You’re right:
China teamed with the European Union and envoys from the bloc of 48 Least Developed Countries to dial back expectations for United Nations climate talks, indicating that there probably aren’t any new promises for aid or cuts in greenhouse gases on the horizon.
China ruled out the idea of capping growth in fossil-fuel emissions from developing nations before 2020, while EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said she can’t provide specific details about how the bloc’s 27 countries plan to meet meet commitments for boosting aid to poorer nations.

Jeff Alberts

I can see Jesus in that Wildfire graphic.
Or maybe it’s Charles Manson…


Dear David
I’ve asked many CAGW people to explain me the missing heat from CO2 (from their quack theory) according to Figure 5 above.
The problem I have with this is, that pre-holocene CO2 values were at ~180 ppm (Vostok ice core) increasing to ~280 ppm at the holocene optimum ~8000 years ago, “causing” a warming of ~20 degC [Fig. 5] (Vostok ~9 degC) by a deltaCO2 of ~100 ppm.
My question to CAGW people was:
If an increase of 100 ppm CO2 at the beginning of the holocene caused such a huge temperature increase of ~20 degC (~9 degC), then where the hell is the missing increase in temperature nowadays with another CO2 increase of ~110 ppm from preindustrial 280 ppm to 390 ppm?
Aren’t there some 20 degC missing? At least 10 degC… or 5 degC?
Until today none of them was able to answer my question.
Thanks for your article and your attention.


davidmhoffer says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm
“If at some point you Americans wake up and retake your long worn mantle as leader of the free world, I for one would appreciate it. I’m just not comfortable with all that stands between the naked power grab of the World Bank and the UN/IPCC being China and Russia.”
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”
Winston Churchill
We will, and God help those that doubt it.

davidmhoffer says:
November 28, 2012 at 6:09 pm

It is a creeping takeover by ideologues and unelected bureaucrats, who being generally constrained in democracies have turned to unelected world bodies.

Gail Combs

Jim G says:
November 28, 2012 at 1:38 pm
It seems obvious that doom sells, newspapers, magazines, TV, movies, it does’nt matter. We need to come up with a doom scenario for too low a CO2 level….
You can use this paper, it is even from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
That should be enought to scare you witless since most of our food plants are C3 like trees.

Gail Combs

oldseadog says: @ November 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm
… I’m worried that the World Bank actually believes this rubbish.
NAH, the World bank has been in on the scam from the start.
Maurice Strong, Chore of the First Earth Summit in 1972 and later Kyoto was a senior World Bank Advisor. Robert Watson works for the World Bank and was Head of IPCC before Patchy. Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak: Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN’s negotiating role… The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank

John Blake

“Against stupidity, the Gods themselves are helpless.”