There Is No Climate Change Disaster Except The One Governments Created

Guest opinion; Dr. Tim Ball

At the Paris Climate Conference of the Parties (COP21) we witnessed the biggest display of failed leadership in history from 195 countries. They established incorrect and misdirected policy based on failed and falsified science. It is a classic circular argument on a global scale. They invented the false problem of anthropogenic global warming/climate change and now they want to resolve the problem, but with a more disastrous solution.

Most countries were puppets that aspired to lead the deception but lacked the power so they contributed by serving as lackeys. Either way, all were purchased with promises of money. The majority receives money from successful countries, but all of them have an excuse for another tax. As George Bernard Shaw said,

“A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.”

These leaders are all examples of Lord Acton’s dictum that,

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

In fact, the entire quote is even more revealing.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you add the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Obama used the Paris to advance his personal agenda regardless of the evidence. John Kerry said this when he admitted the agreement was not binding. Rules or agreements are meaningless without enforcement mechanisms. Kerry said it was unenforceable because Congress would not approve it. This allowed Obama to blame Congress when it was Russia, India, and China who wanted a non-binding agreement. Kerry knows Congress wouldn’t approve it because as a Senator he voted against the Kyoto Protocol, arguing it would cost jobs and hurt the economy. Of course that did not prevent him claiming the Paris Agreement would create jobs and economic opportunity against all evidence.

The Climate Green Fund (GCF) was a replacement for the Kyoto Protocol. As a Senator in 1997 Kerry voted against Kyoto. Technically, they did not vote directly against Kyoto. They voted on the Byrd/Hagel resolution explicitly that said the US Senate would not approve anything that harmed the US economy. Kerry and the Senators agreed 95-0 that Kyoto was harmful. Their green image was faded but intact.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) requires COP act on the science created for them by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is why the leaked emails exposing the scientific corruption were so effective in diverting them away from Kyoto at COP 15 in 2009. They recovered quickly because the following year at COP 16 in Durban they introduced the replacement GCF that became central to the Paris Conference.

What is the situation post-Paris? They created a global policy to take money from a few developed nations and give it to the developing nations. The Paris communiqué says,

Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries.


Governments also agreed that a major share of new multilateral, multi-billion dollar funding should be channeled through the Green Climate Fund. At the G7 Summit in June 2015, leaders emphasized GCF’s role as a key institution for global climate finance. Many developing countries, too, have explicitly expressed their expectations from the Fund in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs).

The acronym INDC is bureaucratese at its best. This charade is an unnecessary waste of taxpayer’s money based on the false IPCC science exposed by the leaked emails. The falsifications continued because the public didn’t understand and as the Senator Cruz hearings demonstrated it is a widely accepted and essentially unchallenged story. The redistribution of wealth continues almost exactly as the Kyoto schemers planned. But the problem is worse than that because the money is to offset warming when all the natural mechanisms of climate change indicate the world is cooling and will get colder.

IPCC proponents realize that this is the trend so they did what they always do, produce a paper claiming another human activity is likely to make their predictions invalid. Gavin Schmidt and the NASA GISS gang did this recently in a paper titled, “Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings.” It produced the intended headlines such as Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA” in the UK Express. Maybe they could blame the government Chemtrail program?

The final socio-economic cost of Paris is almost incalculable. For example, how do you put a value on the loss of credibility of science? What are the lost opportunities for improving the quality of life through science and technology restricted by the extremism of a few Green Luddites?

I recently participated in a Skype interview on a live Nigerian broadcast about Climate Change. I don’t know how the producer got my name, but it was immediately evident that they were not aware or welcoming of my views. Fortunately, they couldn’t shut me off because it was live. However, they did shuffle me off quickly and went to another guest. The other person, as I understand, was a representative of the Nigerian government promoting the real danger of global warming and the dire need for action – send the money.

He began his rejoinder with the phrase, “With all due respect to the good professor…” a euphemism for “What you just heard is completely wrong.” The person is saying I am not qualified to say this, but if I don’t make this argument, my job is gone. I did not hear his entire response, but it was built around the precautionary principle that even if the “good professor” is right, we should act.

Maurice Strong and the drafters of Agenda 21 anticipated such a situation when they wrote Principle 15.

Principle 15: In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

This means don’t let facts get in the way of policy. You don’t need evidence just “threats” are adequate reason. My portion of the Nigerian interview began with the host referencing the University of Notre Dame ND – Gain Country Index study that lists the countries of the world and their preparedness for climate change. Figure 1 shows those countries deemed best prepared and Figure 2 those least prepared. Others produced similar measurements and show the results in world maps (Figure 3).


Figure 1


Figure 2

Figure 3 shows the ND – GAIN index on a world map. It shows that prepared countries are middle and high latitude while unprepared are in the tropics. Some produced similar indices but with a different emphasis (Figure 3). The map shows regions “most” or “least” at risk. In other words, they need to be the best prepared, but the ND-GAIN index shows they are the least prepared.


Figure 3

The IPCC claim global warming is almost certain, so their policies are designed for that inevitability. They also claim that the greatest warming will occur in high latitudes, so Figure 3 is incorrect. Figure 1 shows that those high latitude countries are best prepared, but that is also incorrect because they prepare for warming.

The predominant message says global warming is a potential worldwide disaster with only negative impacts. Thirty years ago global cooling was presented in a similar singular way. Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book The Cooling


It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.

Change one word “cooling” to warming and the governments are exploiting the same fears. On the cover of The Weather Conspiracy prepared by a team of investigative journalists in 1977 it says,

What does it mean? Many of the worlds leading climatologist’s concur. We are slipping towards a new Ice Age. Why is this so? How will it affect food scarcity, rising costs? How much is it a threat to the quality of life – the very fact of our existence on this planet? What is going to happen? What can – and can’t – we do about it?

In the 1970s political pressure for action only came from a general concern about adapting and preparing for the future. In 1973, the US Office of Research and Development (ORD) was confronted with the forecasts of global cooling. Statements like Ponte’s required further research and planning. The CIA produced two reports, one titled “Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate” (Office of Political Research – 401, August, 1974). The report notes,

“The precarious outlook for the poor and food – deficit – countries, and the enhanced role of North American agriculture in world food trade outlined above were predicated on the assumption that normal weather will prevail over the next few decades. But many climatologists warn that this assumption is questionable; some would say that it is almost certainly wrong.”

The CIA used the word climatocracy to describe the role of climate in political action. (Amusingly and perceptively, the spell checker tried to replace climatocracy with cleptocracy). Climatocracy is more applicable today. Political involvement in climate research is global and profound. Demand for action is very strong. Frighteningly, the demand is for action to deal with only one possibility based on the false assumption that today’s forecasts for the next 50 and 100 years are more accurate and certain than the belief in 1970 that cooling was inevitable. That forecast was wrong, as was every forecast the IPCC made since anthropogenic global warming became the scare in the late 1980s.

The sensible policy when you lack understanding is to do nothing. The proper course of action is for governments to face the truth and admit the science is wrong. Unfortunately, the lack of leadership they’ve already demonstrated guarantees that will not happen. They are obliged to do something in response to the hysteria they created.

There is a policy that can salvage something out of this self-inflicted chaos. It is a classic game theory challenge based on the knowledge that cooling is a much greater threat than warming, especially for middle and high latitude countries. It is important for those nations listed as “well prepared” in Figure 1 because they prepare for warming when the probability of cooling is much higher and more threatening. All nations, but especially them, must ready for cooling. If you prepare for cooling, and it warms the adaptations are much easier. If you prepare for warming and cooling occurs the adaptations are difficult and in some instances impossible. But don’t expect any such logical, rational, leadership from the Paris world leaders, they only like games they create and control to improve their image of saving the planet and humanity.

Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become more important in the eyes of more trivial men.

George Jean Nathan

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 27, 2015 3:07 am

That is not news to us all here

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 6:24 am

Right? And don’t think for one minute the “Smart Money” hasn’t known all along the “problem” doesn’t really exist. My “BS Meter” first went off about AGW when I realized that “Cap & Trade” did nothing to stem pollution, just moved money around. Because none of this is legally binding, (and who would enforce it and how if it were?) the recent Paris conference is IMO nothing but More Noise to keep the now-entrenched “climate” blather industry afloat. The people have long since ceased listening, except for that 3% of NPR hand-wringer types who’ll worry about anything when off their meds. I don’t really think anyone’s going to wind up paying any taxes for this.

K. Kilty
Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 8:25 am

Except to the extent that the scammers can get their revenue stream embedded implicitly into various products, fees, fines and so forth. They are an ingenious lot; and the people paying for it are woefully unprepared to resist, as they are poorly organized politically, misled by the media, generally ignorant of science, and often enthusiastic for authoritarianism in the first place.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 11:09 am

The original UNIPCC financial mechanism plan involved creating a Carbon Trade market place and then take a percentage of the (National) receipts to fund the Adaption / Mitigation projects they were dreaming up. I believe it is called skimming. Imagine auditing that process.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 1:07 pm

I believe you are wrong in your final assessment. Kilty is right. We already pay in many different ways. We are shifting 44 Billion annually to our debt payment and from that redistribution there are a lot of academic, bureaucratic, scientific mortgages being paid at taxpayer expense. Add the cost of regulation and fees to the cost of goods sold that inflation may as well be called a tax. This is the greatest money laundering scheme in the history of man.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 1:52 pm

Goldrider asks: “and who would enforce it and how if it were?”
I think they’ve intentionally divided enforcement into different, more potent acts.
Buried in the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) is language allowing any member country to sue any other member country for reparations in the event damage is done (by any country) that effects trade. Damage includes environmental damage or failure to comply with international mandates to mitigate the threat of environmental damage.
As worded, I’m pretty sure the TPP would allow India to sue the US for failures to curb CO2 emissions by Nigeria. The US would then be subject to trade sanctions until the situation was corrected.
It’s a recipe for imperialism and of course, war. Coupled with the most recent fake science and COP21 signatures, it would essentially give the right to invade and occupy any country that signed both documents to anyone who thought they were exhaling too often. It looks a lot like the NATO agreement but it’s much worse.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 5:07 pm

There will be a Carbon Tax in Canada soon. I think that each province will run it’s own Carbon Tax scheme. I hope it does not become a Canada Carbon Tax plus your province’s Carbon Tax. This is the reason the UN had to get rid of Stephen Harper because he would not do it. I do not know what this will do to Canada and Canadians. I guess we will see.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 9:27 am

‘Climate Change Adaptation: A Priorities Plan for Canada’
Forward by Dr. James Lovelock, Founder of Gaia Theory & follow the link to this report.
Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission
Carbon tax and/or cap-and-trade
Also follow the links > The Commission > People Behind The Commission

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 4:27 pm

Climate Change Adaptation Project Canada
Chair. Dr. Blair Feltmate also Expert at INET/Institute for New Economic Thinking (New York) founded by Jim Balsillie, Wm. Janeway and George Soros.
Jason Thistlethwaite, Director ( has Ph.D in Global Governance) and Fellow at CIGI/Centre for International Governance Innovation (Waterloo, Ontario) founded by Jim/James Balsillie.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 5:21 pm

London Free Press, London, Ont., Nov.29, 2015
5,000 MW or about 1,600 wind turbines planned for Ohio side of Lake Erie. Has support of Ohio environmental groups according to LEEDCo’s website. These will be offshore in Lake Erie.

Reply to  Barbara
December 28, 2015 6:31 pm


5,000 MW or about 1,600 wind turbines planned for Ohio side of Lake Erie. Has support of Ohio environmental groups according to LEEDCo’s website. These will be offshore in Lake Erie.

Just in time for the snow and ice buildups around their bases to cause failures, and the ice and snow build ups on the blades to cause failures, and the ice and snow buildups on their cabs and gears to cause failures …. So the ones that survive 5 years can run at 20% capacity factor. Sometimes.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 6:58 pm

They know exactly what they’re doing: fleecing the taxpayers.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 7:30 pm

RACookPE1978 don’t worry, the manufacturers of wind turbines know what they’re doing

Yes. Taking as much money from the taxpayer as possible by “enhancing” political support and tax dollars for their turbines and their green energy ENRON-designed carbon-trading schemes.
This from our regular WUWT contributor pat.

2 Dec: Wind Power Monthly: Siemens investigates turbine collapse
DENMARK: The nacelle and rotor blades of a 13-year-old 2.3MW Bonus turbine at the Samso offshore project in Denmark broke from the tower and fell into the sea on 28 November…
Siemens, which took over Bonus in 2004 and is responsible for the maintenance of the turbines at the 23MW project, commissioned in 2002-03, is investigating the cause of the unit’s sudden collapse.
“As a precautionary measure, the customer initially decided to take the remaining nine turbines out of operation until physical inspections could be conducted,” said a Siemens spokesperson…

Two more recent turbine failures reported by pat.

4 Dec: RENews: Vattenfall deconstructs Stengrund
Vattenfall has kicked off decommissioning at the 10MW Yttre Stengrund offshore wind farm in the southern Kalmarsund off Sweden…
Vattenfall said the 15-year-old turbines at Yttre Stengrund are an “obsolete model” and not commercially viable to upgrade.
The final unit was shut down last year following a series of issues including gearbox failures. “In total, only around 50 of these turbines were manufactured and spare parts and no longer available,” said Vattenfall.
The utility will dismantle the turbines and remove offshore cables. Foundations will also be cut off level with the sea bed. The majority of the wind turbines, foundations and cables will be sold or recycled as scrap.
Yttre Stengrund was originally due to be dismantled last year, which would have made it the world’s first offshore wind decommissioning. Eon has since beaten the Swedes to the punch by removing two Vestas V90 turbines at its Robin Rigg wind farm off Scotland
14 Dec: Wind Power Monthly: Cracked shaft possible cause of Repower turbine collapse
FRANCE: Preliminary results of an investigation into a turbine collapse in France indicate a fault in the machine’s shaft caused the rotor to fall to the ground
Senvion, which was known as Repower when the turbines were installed, said that it could not comment until the full investigation to identify the exact cause was completed.
The project, comprising seven Repower MD77 turbines, was commissioned in 2007. It was developed by Wpd and built by ABOWind, and is now owned by Eoliennes Suroit SNC, based in Colmar, north-east France…
The remaining six turbines are still out of service, waiting for permission from the French authorities to restart them, Wpd Windmanager said.

And these too:

24 Dec: WindAction: SWEDEN: 400-ton turbine has turned over
A Vestas wind turbine fell over during Christmas Eve morning in Lemnhult, Korsberga in Sweden. The model belong to one of the tallest land-based wind turbines with a height of 185 meters …and weighed about 400 tons, according to Stena Renewables CEO Peter Zachrisson…
“We just saw that it had turned over, it’s totally kaput,” says Nathalie Petersson who was in the area.
An alarm was received about two o’clock on Christmas Eve afternoon concerning oil leaking from a wind farm in Lemnhult, Korsberga. There was a risk the pollutants might leak into a lake but following an investigation it was discovered that a larger wind turbine had fallen – and split in two.
High winds were not reported in the area. There was no known explanation for what happened…
An unknown amount of oil from the plant gearboxes has already leaked into the ground. He is in contact with the municipality and Stena Renewable, to prevent further environmental impact…
It belongs to the highest land-based class of wind turbines, they say according to Morgan Miledal…
(Editor’s note: Other sources state that Stena Renewables’ Lemnhult project in Vetlanda municipality consists of 32 Vestas V112 3MW turbines. The project was placed in service in Spring 2013. Translation into English was completed with Google translate.)
24 Dec: RENews: Vestas V112 collapses in Sweden
A Vestas V112 3MW turbine has collapsed at Stena Renewable’s 96MW Lemnhult wind farm in Sweden.
The company said the machine failed during the morning of 24 December and that the wind farm’s other 31 turbines were shut down immediately as a precaution.
No one was injured in the incident, a technical investigation is underway and local authorities and other stakeholders have been briefed.
“It is now currently known how long the investigation will take,” said Stena…
He (Vestas spokesman) added that incidents involving structural integrity are very rare. “We have not experienced a megawatt-class turbine collapsing before. The main priority at this point is to determine the root cause”…
Lemnhult was built staring in 2012 with full operations kicking off in 2013.
A third-party video image (LINK) of the felled turbine has been posted online.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 8:13 pm

Obviously you are ignorant. RACook posted several links, while you posted… your opinion.
Every vendor of windmills is living off a giant subsidy: the difference between the 30¢+ that wind power costs, and the 6¢ – 8¢ that coal power costs. Because if the government didn’t mandate monumentally stupid ideas like windmill power, consumers would have lots more dollars in their pockets that are diverted instead to windmill producers.
Whenever I read one of your comments, my meter pegs:

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 8:42 pm

For example remember the Deepwater Horizon? Well, there was loss of life in that case. Now, I don’t see any reports of loss of life in your posting. Of course I suppose you can find a maintenance or construction worker that fell from a wind turbine, but things like that happen on cell towers too.

How many do you want killed by wind turbines producing no valuable energy and no reliability while they break ? One obviously does not bother you very much.
Ten enough?
50 enough?
100 enough?
From the Media Research Center

The dangers of nuclear power, while serious, need to be put in perspective. To that end, here’s an interesting fact you won’t be hearing from the mainstream press: wind energy has killed more Americans than nuclear energy.
You read that right. According to the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, there were 35 fatalities associated with wind turbines in the United States from 1970 through 2010. Nuclear energy, by contrast, did not kill a single American in that time.
The meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 did not kill or injure anyone, since the power plant’s cement containment apparatus did its job – the safety measures put in place were effective. Apparently the safety measures associated with wind energy are not adequate to prevent loss of life.
Nuclear accounts for about nine percent of America’s energy, according to the Energy Information Administration, and has yet to cause a single fatality here. Wind, on the other hand, provides the United States with only 0.7 percent of its energy, and has been responsible for 35 deaths in the United States alone. So if we’re trying to weigh the costs and benefits of each, it seems wind fares far worse than nuclear. Yet no one seems to be discussing plans to halt production of all new wind farms until Americans’ safety can be guaranteed.
– See more at:

And this from Forbes about the wind-caused deaths in the UK in just one year.

Last week a study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers on the number of eagle deaths by wind turbines ruffled some feathers in the industry (Wildlife Society), but industry supporters were quick to note that other human activities kill more, so who cares?
Does this same philosophy hold true for human deaths? A colleague at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent me a paper from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2013 (Wind Farm Accidents and Fatalities) that was rather enlightening.
In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 8:52 pm

So now there are webcams to show the fleeced public how their money is being wasted?
Compared to you I am Albert Einstein, so let me school you on some basic econ and freedom:
1. Government is force

2. Good ideas do not have to be forced on others

3. Bad ideas should not be forced on others

4. Liberty is necessary for the difference between good ideas and bad ideas to be revealed

#2 & #3 say it all. Without the gov’t forcing windmills down peoples’ throats, you wouldn’t be able to find a windmill. Now they desecrate the countryside, and every one of them lines the pockets of special interests at the expense of ratepayers — and you defend that!
You just pegged my meter again:

Reply to  dbstealey
December 28, 2015 8:58 pm

Just that a webcam shows wind mills turning gives NO indication about little energy they are actually producing.
Far better to show the minute-to-minute production stuttering up and down between 5% and 30% 90% of the time.
With a thick red line far up the page at “advertised capacity” = 100.
Or a big green line (always rising) labeled ” Your tax subsidy paid the owner this much this hour.”

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 8:53 pm

So Einstein, why don’t you explain to us how 30 years ago, in 1985, the Lalamilo Wells wind farm was built with Jacob wind turbines? They didn’t offere ANY subsidy back then. Must have been cost effective right?

No. My Wind Turbine histories ALWAYS include subsidies and NASA-funded turbines dating to the 70’s, and Boeing and McDonnell-built US government turbines … going back well into the 60’s. Fewer in the late 30’s ans 40’s and 50’s, but that’s because the government was smarter then than in Carter’s 1970’s and early 80’s. Subsidies were STOPPED under rational government programs, but had been running for years before they were RESUMED as the CAGW scam began.
The turbines are BUILT with subsidy money and tax deferrals and tax offsets and with government bonds and guarantees and rebates for land, services, recruitment and training, etc. at ALL levels of research, fabrication, shipping, EPA and enviro rulings, research and design, and ports (to import the huge blades from overseas), and ALL OF IT enabled ONLY by the subsidies and tax breaks and “demand energy use” going to the owners.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 8:59 pm

Einstein here. Your link misrepresents. Why am I not surprised?
Here are the facts.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 28, 2015 9:12 pm

Give it up. Economics is not your strong point.
Get a clue.
~ Einstein

Reply to  Goldrider
December 29, 2015 5:22 am

Anything involving George Soros is a communist scam at crippling democracy and the west. That he is involved in the AGW movement means it’s really a bad thing.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 29, 2015 10:44 am

You refuse to listen to Einstein, so you’re hopeless.
For everyone else, the non-profit uses widely available, published numbers. If they were wrong no doubt some treehugger organization would point out exactly where they were wrong, and why. And he decided that info from 2004 is not real, or whatever his senile old mind tells him.
No matter what evidence and verifiable information I post, old1 will refuse to accept it because if he did, his entire argument would be demolished. It is anyway, in every reader’s mind but his.
Anyone who believes that windmills make economic sense is a fool. It only makes sense for the gov’t bureaucrats and the sellers of windmills. Everyone else is a victim of the hoax.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 29, 2015 7:27 pm

Still an econ illiterate, I see.

Bill Powers
Reply to  dbstealey
January 1, 2016 2:59 pm

Mark your calendar and on March 12, 2025, check to see if Bloomberg does a follow up to their claim that Wind energy without subsidies is cheaper than fossil fuel energy. I will likely be dead but if 1oldwisefool is alive smart money says he won’t be posting a linked follow up. And if he does post a link even better odds that is will be reporting the likelihood that wind energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel at some distant date beyond 2025.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 29, 2015 8:34 pm

Senile Old1 says:
Enjoy reading.
So the links I posted showing the actual cost of coal power, and the actual, hidden costs of wind power are either “ten year old data” (as if data expires after 10 years), or the non-profit think tank doing the analysis is somehow suspect because you don’t like its conclusions.
But your cherry-picked links show “a lot more links to turbines that are functioning properly than ones showing failure.”
Got it. Old1 picks what he wants, and that’s A-OK. But no one else’s links are acceptable; senility on display.
Unable to produce any convincing arguments, old1 wishes evil on others:
I will say one thing. I do hope you still are paying taxes.
Oldy, I’m retired. Sorry to disappoint you. But I suppose that’s the best argument you can make.
I also note that you avoided my comment on December 28, 2015 at 8:52 pm. The average economic illiterate can’t refute those 4 points, and when it’s a senile economic illiterate who isn’t happy unless government forces inefficient, unreliable windmill power on the populace at the point of a gun, the game is over. You lost the argument at the first subsidized windmill.
Wind power is far costlier, much less reliable, more heavily subsidized, and unwanted by the general rate-paying poublic. It only benefits a few, and that’s only after they’ve gotten the government to force inefficient, accident prone, unreliable, costly, wasteful windmill power on the public — which just wants cheap electricity.
No doubt you’ve gone through life being impotent and unable to get your way, so now you see a way to get back at everyone who has been more successful than you: by getting the government to force a really stupid, inefficient power source on an uninterested public. That’ll teach ’em!
But in reality land, windmill power makes no economic sense at all. Out of all the ‘green’ power sources, the most stupid, inefficient, costliest, and wasteful form of electricity is produced by windmills. Once again, you’ve pegged my meter:

Reply to  dbstealey
December 30, 2015 4:49 pm

You’re still avoiding my points posted on December 28, 2015 at 8:52 pm. I can see why: they demolish your lame argument. But that’s because all you have is a baseless opinion. That’s worth exactly nothing; furthermore, it’s flat wrong.
Economic illiterates believe that forcing buyers to purchase a high priced, unreliable product is a good thing for society. I would suggest you try to argue the 4 points I posted, but you consistently tuck tail and hide out from them. You just don’t like consumers having the freedom to choose what to buy. No doubt you love Obamacare, it’s the same thing.
I only minored in econ, but it’s clear that’s about 1,000% more econ education than you’ve had. Made the Dean’s List, too. And I understand what you can’t, or won’t: freedom produces the lowest cost for consumers. See, freedom applies to everything, including the markets.
Your senile delusion convinces you that government coercion must be a good thing. No doubt Uncle Joe Stalin was your hero. You are abysmally ignorant of basic economics. If the country followed your wacko views, we’d be broke in no time…
…oh, wait…
And once again you peg the meter:

Reply to  Goldrider
December 30, 2015 8:51 pm

Maybe the situation with wind turbines in Lake Erie is that the public doesn’t know about these plans?
Lake Erie is a major Ohio recreation/tourist place and there is a 2016 election coming up.

John McClure
Reply to  Alex
December 28, 2015 11:51 am

LOL Alex,
Looks like Anthony and the Mods are dozing – sweet Turkey doze ; )
When they wake and post my last comment, let’s look at Dr Bell’s comments in context.
Love his muse yet it doesn’t go back to the source of “game” and fails to expose the true Point.
The UNFCCC caused the fraud and no one is identifiying them and their policies which created this chaos.
The RAND Corp in the 50’s is a nice starting point for a muse “game theory”. The first German AI expert system is equally insightful. The issue “game theory” in this current mess is retarded as the past is far more insightful.
Thanks Dr. Ball for a taste of the conflict.
Best to You and Yours this Holiday Season

December 27, 2015 3:16 am

Another great post Dr. Ball. Thanks for that analysis.
I notice that the top five prepared countries in the graphic look to be countries near the pole where it is darn cold. Is this just a coincidence? After all, these five counties could use a lot of warming if Mother Nature decided to be kind to them.
We have been in a slight warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age and what goes up seems to come down. If many are correct and we are headed for another “little ice age” or (god forbid) a full scale ice age soon, then the politicians will claim they stopped the “boiling of the oceans” and saved the planet.
But the fact is that the planet earth could use a lot of warming. I can imagine Canada and Russia being very productive agriculturally if those countries were much warmer than now. And what would be wrong with that?
Your main point is that the governments are using this false hobgoblin of man-made catastrophic global warming to seize ever more power. I agree with that 120%. ( I hope Dr. Griggs does not come along and scold me for the 120% thing!)
~ Mark

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 3:29 am

If we go into another ” Little Ice Age ” , Canada will no longer exist !

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 10:26 am

NZ spans about the same southern latitudes as the US (ex Alaska) the north.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 7:38 pm


December 27, 2015 3:18 am

I have a simple question..If increased CO2 concentration causes runaway, uncontrollable warming, And Green House owners add 1200 PPM to their Green Houses to make them more productive….Why don,t Green Houses explode from all the uncontrolled runaway heat ??

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 3:20 am

They have a sprinkler system

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:25 am


Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:28 am


Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:47 am

Wait a minute…doesn’t CO2 increase the potential for water to be an explosive additive to the Green House effect ??

Curious George
Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 12:57 pm

I had once a bottle of Coke almost explode on me.

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:26 pm

So does earth, it,,s called rain

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 3:26 am

The plants will immediately gobble up the extra CO2.

David Charles
Reply to  jaymam
December 27, 2015 1:27 pm

That’s because they (the pants) are smarter than the warmaenistas.

David Charles
Reply to  jaymam
December 27, 2015 9:50 pm

Oops! Meant to say the plants are smarter

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 3:29 am

I have read that the green house owners add 1200 ppm CO2 to the green houses because that is what the plants love and grow best at. I have also read that they don’t add much above that because it does not do any more good. It looks like the plants evolved in a time of higher CO2 levels. (if you believe in evolution — if not, well …)
I have also read that the planet may have been as high as 7,000 ppm CO2 at one point. Did life die out back then? (send grant money and I’ll research that — I already have a good lead)
~ Mark

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 3:35 am

Mark, thanks for your reply, but it was not a serious question…See Alex’s reply above !!.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 8:25 am

Actually, as I understand it, the plants would benefit from more than 1200 ppm CO2, but not enough to repay the greenhouse proprietors for the cost of the additional CO2.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 9:52 am

According to OSHA, humans can safely exist in up to 5000ppm.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 10:32 am

A friend of mine has one of those smart home monitors, which also monitors CO2. He told me, that starting from 1200 ppm, humans may get headaches. This may also be a reason.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 2:15 pm

It looks like industrial guidelines say some people will begin noticing symptoms of hypercapnia at 10,000 ppm, most will at 20,000 ppm and 50,000 ppm will begin killing people.

Reply to  markstoval
December 27, 2015 9:50 pm

USA nuclear submarines operate safely in the 5000 ppm range and this is safe according to the Navy. Some submarines have operated with levels as high as 8000 ppm. 

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 7:40 pm

Air conditioning……

December 27, 2015 3:28 am

I am the only real ” Climate Refugee “…. I live in Canada, and it’s too dang cold for my liking !! So when do I get my money ????

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 3:36 am

Sorry Marcus
You have to be hot and drowning if you want money

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:38 am

I have a bath tub and a hot water spigot….I will, not survive UNLESS you send me money …LOL

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:41 am

I miss editing function !! Doh ….

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:41 am

Cheque is on the way.. Will $3.50 do?

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:49 am

Hey, it’s a start !! LOL

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 3:54 am

It’s for a washer for your spigot

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 4:02 am

In liberal Canada ??? That’s not even a down-payment for a washer !!!!

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 4:12 am

I’m from liberal Australia with Turnbull of the multicolour coat. If you’re a muslim refugee/ terrorist he will bring you over here and give you $58,000. I also heard that was sending several container loads of buckets to help the people on the sinking islands to bail out the water. It’s only about $1bn or so

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 4:15 am

Soooooo, do you have a Koran I can borrow ??

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 4:16 am

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been fighting off this jurassic sized spider. I had a problem with drop bears this morning

Reply to  Alex
December 27, 2015 4:18 am

Not anymore. Would a picture of Mahomed help?

Lance of BC
December 27, 2015 4:04 am

iframe width=”560″ height=”315″
frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen>

December 27, 2015 4:08 am

Aerosols cause cooling says NASA. If it gets warmer it’s AGW, if it cools it’s AGC. Gotta applaud them for using the old “heads we’re right, tails you’re wrong” schtick. Works on small children, the incurably gullible and those who defer their opinion making to government scientists.

Reply to  Malcolm
December 27, 2015 4:13 am

Soooo , you mean liberals ??

Reply to  Marcus
December 28, 2015 11:51 am

Liberals with their fingers crossed.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Malcolm
December 27, 2015 11:05 am (Molecular understanding of sulphuric acid–amine particle nucleation in the atmosphere)

Tom Anderson
Reply to  Malcolm
December 27, 2015 12:23 pm

Doesn’t Gavin weasel out of the result by claiming (paraphrasing) that today’s net aerosol cooling “masks” TCR and ECS which will come back to bite us in some indeterminate and distant future? Wouldn’t he say that?

Reply to  Malcolm
December 27, 2015 3:22 pm

AGC? What does the “C” stand for? Caliphate?

Lance of BC
December 27, 2015 4:11 am


December 27, 2015 4:12 am


Lance of BC
December 27, 2015 4:18 am
December 27, 2015 4:30 am

We should be preparing for an increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes, that is the norm in solar minima. That is associated with an increase in El Nino episodes and conditions, and a warmer AMO, both increasing drought states in continental interior regions. That is a larger scale problem globally than the more maritime regions turning cooler and wetter, like West Europe.

December 27, 2015 4:37 am

England is certainly not among the top prepared countries.
Few years back in south of England there was ‘unprecedented biblical’ drought, hose bans were introduced as early as April or May. Now the north of England is hit by ‘unprecedented biblical’ floods.
England gets its rain from the N. Atlantic evaporation, where the temperature has natural variability cycles of 9 and 60+ years.
In addition if houses are built on the flood planes and you don’t dredge rivers, then watercourse is not deep and wide enough to take any sudden water surge flowing into it, you’ll quickly get major overflow and flooding of nearby houses.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 27, 2015 12:13 pm

Give us a break, a drought in England is if it doesn’t rain on Wednesday.

Reply to  vukcevic
December 28, 2015 12:03 pm

I despair at the so-called edjumakated Planning Committees, boldly approving ‘River-side Dwellings’.
What part of ‘Flood Plain’ do they not understand.
A Flood Plain does exactly what it says on the tin.
Auto – thirty metres above the Valley, here.

Timo Kuusela
December 27, 2015 4:39 am

The whole area of Finland has not warmed at all for 80 years (FMI records).And, because in the summer it can be +35 degrees C and in winter -35 degrees C, there is no reason for panic if the temperature rises a bit…No one will notice.A week ago northern Finland was -28 C and southern part +11 C, so we are indeed prepared for 1 degree C difference or more…

Reply to  Timo Kuusela
December 27, 2015 6:33 am

As has been pointed out before…1 degree is what happens between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM most mornings.

December 27, 2015 4:40 am

My dear country the UK has had it’s ability to look after it’s self by becoming a member of the EUSSR, we are suffering our biggest floods in history in the north, not because of record rainfall, but because the EUSSR has decreed that we are not allowed to dredge our rivers, we have been subjugated without our by your leave, oh how the mighty have fallen for the warmist and green propaganda.

Reply to  Steve
December 27, 2015 5:56 am

Uptick! Uptick! Uptick!
There was bad flooding in Somerset levels a couple of years ago, the initial response to which was wringing of hands and cries of “climate change”. But it turned out that the Environment Agency hadn’t dredged the water courses regularly, so that rain they would have coped with in the past (when they were dredged) overwhelmed them on that occasion. The EA apparently had a vision of restoring parts of the levels to wetland habitats to improve their ecological diversity, regardless of the impact on people!
In the past month Appleby in Cumbria has flooded three times, but only after the last time did I hear a local interviewed who said that the real problem is that the EA has changed its river dredging programme to protect a population of freshwater snails.
The panic now is in York, where the riverside floods regularly and where peak water is expected to be well below the previous record, but where water got into the power unit for the flood barrier, which meant it had to be lifted allowing more water into the city area. Two obvious questions: why was the barrier around the power unit not high enough to cope with at least the previous record river level? And has there been any change to the dredging patterns on rivers above and below the city that might have affected the movement of river water through the area?
Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting on the floods this morning. I hope he’s remembered the dredging issue in Somerset and is asking the right questions of EA about its real very management policies and practices.

Reply to  Questing Vole
December 27, 2015 6:38 am

I believe that the past environment minister for protection FNSS (frogs, newts, slugs and snails) who banned river dredging is now sitting in house of Lords.

Reply to  Questing Vole
December 28, 2015 12:13 pm

You highlight a due reward for a job well done!
[For FNSS (Note to MI5, is this another splinter of Daesh/IS?), and brown-nosing]
Auto, aware that there are some decent folk in the bastardised Upper House – they’re mostly not proper Lords or Ladies there. Little people (and some big ones) have been fiddling with how Britain works for centuries; some of the recent innovations may prove eminently reversible!

December 27, 2015 5:03 am

The Government has used the implementation of false scientific research to create on a major global catastrophe! back in the 60,s.none other Sen,s George McGovern Albert Gore Sr. Go to minute 26 to 28 and 50 to 53 the later on climate.

John Brookes
December 27, 2015 5:37 am

It keeps on warming. Was there a post here about the New York City temperature on Christmas Eve?
Lets face it, you guys are 100% right on everything, as long as you ignore the obvious.

Reply to  John Brookes
December 27, 2015 9:12 am

Let’s face it, John, you’re wrong about just one thing: your belief that human CO2 emissions cause “climate change”.
You go on believing that, kids will go on believing in Santa Clause, Muslims will go on believing…
Get the picture?

Reply to  John Brookes
December 27, 2015 9:37 am

And Christmas eve was very cold where I live, so whats your explanation. I hear warming is a global phenomena.

Reply to  Mick
December 27, 2015 3:42 pm

Mick, my dear fellow, as I understand it — cold is weather but hot is climate. Real hot is global climate. See?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John Brookes
December 27, 2015 11:05 am

John B.,
Read this:
There are many examples of these sorts of things but one ought to be enough.

Eugene WR Gallun
Reply to  John Brookes
December 27, 2015 11:16 am

John Brookes
You are a low information person. Christmas in 1955 in New York City was much warmer than it was this year. You know what “natural variation” is?
Also you neglect that though the east coast is warm the rest of the country is experiencing record cold. On average the US is having a colder than normal winter.
People like you are 100% right on everything as long as you ignore the data.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
December 27, 2015 3:47 pm

“People like you are 100% right on everything as long as you ignore the data.”
What a great line! I may steal borrow that one from time to time. 🙂
And you were spot on target to boot.

Gunga Din
Reply to  John Brookes
December 27, 2015 1:05 pm

Really? Did you miss having something to shovel?
For my little spot on the globe (Columbus Ohio) the record high for Christmas Eve was 66*F set in 1889.
The record low was -12*F set in 1993.
This year the high was 60*F.
Not as warm as 126 years ago but A LOT warmer than it was 22 years ago.
(But I guess 126 years ago it was due to “weather”. Since 22 years ago it has been due to “climate change”.)

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 31, 2015 11:21 am

Gunga Din, you learn fast.

Richard G
Reply to  John Brookes
December 28, 2015 12:35 am

Yes while it was 20+F above normal in New York, it was 18F below normal in Bogota and 20+F below normal in Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  John Brookes
December 28, 2015 2:50 am

I don’t know about 2015, but February 2003 there was at least 2ft of snow all over the city, whiteout conditions (I actually got lost, even walking, because I could not see where I was going), and very very cold, and I am from the UK originally so a bit used to cold (Thankyou to the train conductor that let me ride free in to Penn station). Fell A over T in a 4ft pile of snow outside Maceys and the doorman had a bit of a chuckle as the sort of clothes I was wearing the snow stuck and I looked like a big “snowman” that spoke in a well spoken English accent and asked for directions to the perfume section.

December 27, 2015 5:50 am

The precautionary principle (15) is ridiculed when applied to climate change, as a threat or risk is not scientific proof.
Failing to take precautionary action when faced with risks that if realised have very material consequences is akin to a head in sand strategy. Most, either in the US or Europe would not apply that thought to other risks with significant consequences – eg: international terrorism, national defence, healthcare/immunisations, water/food contamination etc etc.
The right action is mitigation consistent with the potential threat, probability, affordability and consequences.
A climate threat (of some size) probably does exist. It is unquestionably not the major threat facing humanity.
Scientific analysis of the threat may have been somewhat skewed – an over reliance on climate models which have some serious limitations, a focus on negative rather than positive aspects of a changing climate, supportive media where unusual events are evidence of impending climate catastrophe.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption may make good economic and environmental sense. But what is required is a far more balanced analysis of what the outcomes from a climate change threat could be, and what the real costs and impacts of mitigation are. Only then can a rational choice be made free of unjustified, ill-informed hype, scaremongering and misinformation.

Reply to  Terry
December 27, 2015 6:26 am

“A threat or risk is not scientific proof?” Tell that to all the ee-jits eating statins! 😉

Pat Paulsen
Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 6:37 am

Smart marketing. Captive buyers. Weak science? Maybe.

Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 8:56 am

Check out Dr Dzugan’s work on hormone replacement instead of statins. Almost 100% get much better and 80+% are back in the reference range.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Goldrider
December 27, 2015 2:20 pm

Having never heard of Statins before, I had to do a wiki:
“Statins are a class of drugs often prescribed by doctors to help lower cholesterol levels in the blood. By lowering the levels, they help prevent heart attacks and stroke. Studies show that, in certain people, statins reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, and even death from heart disease by about 25% to 35%.”
So: it affects “certain” people.
And: What is the base risk? if that risk is reduced by 25%, what then is the risk?
My pet hate is risk increase/reduction by a percentage amount. It hides what the base risk is, and they never say what the base risk is.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Terry
December 27, 2015 7:22 am

You confuse real threats with the false one “climate change”. Even your use of the emotionally-laden, meaningless phrase “climate change” is disingenuous.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 27, 2015 1:26 pm

“+” quite a few.
Man CAN”T prevent the cyclical changes in the weather. All we can do is be prepared for it.
(And maybe not build our homes on a flood plain.)

Reply to  Terry
December 27, 2015 10:57 am

The interesting thing about climate change is that it has characteristics that make the possible responses to it suitable for analysis by real options. We gain knowledge/reduce uncertainty with the passage of time.
Better to follow Weyant’s critique of the Stern review (“Climate change is a long-run problem that will provide us with many opportunities to learn and to revise our strategy over many decades. Thus, it is best conceived of as a problem requiring sequential decision-making under uncertainty rather than requiring a large, oneshot, “bet-the-planet” decision”) than a precautionary principle that is pretty near impossible to operationalise objectively.

Pat Paulsen
December 27, 2015 6:27 am

Well if science works by consensus, let’s all agree that ISIS will be done in by…tornadoes (why not?) Let’s all just wish really, really hard and believe. Hey if it works for climate science, why not the other branches of science? Total silliness.

Pat Paulsen
December 27, 2015 6:35 am

I remember when Tim Ball did interviews incognito because he feared the retaliation from the alarmists, likely. I found an old interview but the voice is so recognizable to me now. I’m glad he was able to come out of the non-consensus closet and provide us with such useful information – especially the pause in warming. When the coming cooling turns against the alarmists, they will become even more desperate, I think. Even now, after changing the name from global warming to climate change, they are trying to change the story – as in Nasa’s recent comment that auto cause global cooling. (I’d say that they are already hedging their bets – wouldn’t you?)

Bruce Cobb
December 27, 2015 6:42 am

The thing that sometimes gets overlooked is what is being done to economies worldwide in the insane push towards the far more expensive, much less reliable “green” or “renewable” energy. In the mad rush to “reduce carbon emissions” for absolutely no reason, coal plants are being shut down and new ones not being built. Some are being converted to gas or other forms of energy, but these conversions themselves would be expensive, and the energy chosen, with the possible exception of gas, would be more expensive. There is a great deal of mindless group-think driving all this.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 27, 2015 7:38 am

There are 100’s of coal plants being built as we speak……in China and India !!

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 8:20 am

Yes, and Japan too – 43 plants are planned, to take the place of nuclear. Greenie “logic”.

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 8:29 am

China now has 2,400 coal-fired power plants, with more being built all the time.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 27, 2015 10:04 am

Trumps first words as POTUS should be ” EPA…YOUR FIRED ” !!!!

Reply to  Marcus
December 27, 2015 4:21 pm


December 27, 2015 7:25 am

Actually the purpose of the NDC is to provide a funds that will be “misappropriated”(stolen) by individuals in the UN that has a well established history of “waste and inefficiency”(theft). What actually gets through the UN “bureuacracy”(corruption) to the countries it was intended will then be “mismanaged” (stolen) by tin pot dictators for their personal pet projects to cement their power. Although Acton is widely quoted, the reality is that power attracts corruptable people.

Reply to  Billyjack
December 27, 2015 8:37 am

Yes…money will be taken from poor people in rich countries and what isn’t caught in the UN money filter will go to rich people in poor countries.

December 27, 2015 7:35 am
Reply to  brentns1
December 27, 2015 8:35 am

The UN and the EU have a common goal–the Islamification of Europe along with suppression of indigenous groups like the Swedes, Germans, French, Norwegians, etc. etc.
Their goal of decarbonisation is simply another way of taking us back to the 7th Century. Destroy Western industrialization and they’ll be able to accomplish their goal of world-wide domination.
How stupid can a religion be?

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 27, 2015 8:52 am

See George Carlin on that last question. I still have a hard time understanding how one group can claim that their imaginary friend is more real than other peoples’ imaginary friend and gives them rights over them including death. Sad state humanity is in. Very sad.

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 27, 2015 5:29 pm

“I still have a hard time understanding how one group can claim that their imaginary friend is more real than other peoples’ imaginary friend…”
I still have a hard time understanding how people who supposedly understand the scientific method, lapse into a “Anything that can be classified with a word, is the same as anything else that can be classified with that word”, mentality. I wasn’t a “believer” till I was in my forties, but I never fell for that level of simplistic irrationality.
This is the same level of thought, to me; Catastrophic global warming is a scientific theory, and it is false, so all scientific theories must be false.
(I flush things more logical than that every day, I suspect ; )

December 27, 2015 7:37 am

Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it! and commented:
New Zealand is 2nd best prepared country

December 27, 2015 7:43 am

How does spending money on climate change research, funding universities, building wind and solar farms prepare one for climate change? Wind and solar aren’t solutions for climate change. Making lawyers isn’t preparing for climate change. The real threat of climate change is the 100% certainty of a coming ice age. Wind and solar won’t work under a mile of ice. The world will rely of crops that can thrive in low CO2, and power sources like coal, oil and nuclear. Nothing the Government are doing today are preparing us for the real climate change threat, that being the coming ice age. The current climate change preparation is making us more vulnerable, not more prepared. That is the unfortunate reality. Society ignores the evidence provided in ice cores at their own peril.
Reply to  co2islife
December 27, 2015 7:46 am

“Wind and solar won’t work under a mile of ice.”
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to
December 27, 2015 8:01 am

“Wind and solar won’t work under a mile of ice.”
That is so true.
Neither will coal, oil and nuclear.

You make an internal combustion engine or nuclear reactor mobile, wind and solar mot so much. Nuclear subs could power any coastal city, so could train based oil and coal powered oil powered generators.

Reply to
December 27, 2015 8:12 am

Ah! So, you think the submarines at the North pole were a hoax?
Reply to
December 27, 2015 8:13 am

“Nuclear subs could power any coastal city”
(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to
December 27, 2015 8:14 am

That was to Buster.

Reply to
December 27, 2015 12:25 pm

Oh, by the way, doesn’t a typical “city” require thousands of megawatts of power?
100% of the time.
And that Buster is why renewables don’t work.

Gunga Din
Reply to
December 27, 2015 1:51 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

“The names have been changed but the nonsense is the same.”
I suspect that had “he-she-it” had stuck with one name (and kept within site policy) the comments would remain.
Saying stupid stuff isn’t censored here. Repeatedly saying the same stupid stuff regardless of the topic might be. Trying to repeatedly sneak in the same stupid stuff as a “multi-name-shifter”? That brings the character, honesty and motives of the commenters into question.
“Stupid stuff” is tolerated here. Dishonesty? Not so much.
(I’m not a mod but that’s my impression of how things work here.)
(Reply: Correct. Opinions on articles are always welcome here. It is the dishonesty we can’t abide. ~mod)

Reply to
December 27, 2015 2:35 pm

Dear mod…great idea, but it might take a while..he reeeeally likes to hear himself talk / type / whine…..LOL

Bruce Cobb
Reply to
December 27, 2015 2:39 pm

Henceforth to be known as Busted Brown.
Reply to
December 27, 2015 2:44 pm

Somebody has to keep you mods busy….

It’s a thankless job you know
[Reply: We decided to leave that as your last comment. It’s enjoyable to point some things out:
Many of your 300 comments were long, involved explanations, which obviously took a lot of time to compose and write. A conservative guess would be at least ten minutes per comment on average, probably more.
This part of the job isn’t work, it’s pleasure to delete site pests. Once the initial reply is written, a click is all it takes for the rest of them. A few seconds vs ten minutes per comment. That seems fair from this perspective.
And despite your hopes, this is not a thankless job. We constantly get thanks, as you certainly know. Readers appreciate it when we give the boot to fakes, and especially dishonest identity thieves like you. No doubt the half dozen or so people whose identities you’ve stolen are happy about it; everyone hates identity thieves. A couple of the commenters whose names you’ve stolen have emailed us with some pretty intense hatred. You had best pray they don’t find out your own identity.
Your 300+ comments at ten minutes = about 50 hours of wasted effort. Now that is thankless busywork. It took very little time to delete fifty hours of your life. And it was truly enjoyable. We look forward to the next time. ~mod]

Reply to
December 27, 2015 6:22 pm

[Mod, I think he meant keeping you busy is a thankless job . . Apparently whoever pays him to spend time messing with WUWT is not also giving him pats on the head on a regular basis ; ]

December 27, 2015 7:44 am

Dr. Ball is one of the very few that not only understands the AGW Scam, but is able to present his understanding to the audience so that they understand it.

December 27, 2015 7:53 am

This article is a complete joke. Never before in the history of man has the world been so mislead by its leaders. If ever there was a reason to disband the UN, this is it.
These countries will be 1 mile under ice with the next ice age. Their wind and solar farms will be useless. They will rely totally on the N Sea Oil to survive, if they survive at all.
These countries will be the epi-center of the ice age survives. There greatest threat isn’t climate change, it will be the well armed Swedes, Vikings and Dutch invading their lands.
Americans will invade Mexico and S and C America. That is the harsh reality of the impact of climate change. The consequences of this happening again will be catastrophic, and it is a near certainty to happen again. We should be praying for continued warming.

Reply to  co2islife
December 27, 2015 8:44 am

That or we open up the Panana-South America channel and go back to the world as it was 3+ million years ago. Now that would cause changes. A lot of the Arctic would melt but the northern hemisphere would be safe and it has a lot more room for immigrants from areas that will be flooded.
Aside from that I’d say that the countries best prepared for “climate change” are the ones who’ve spent the least on “global warming” and CO2 mitigation because they will have the most to spend to adapt to the cooling cycle.
The only saving grace is that coming out of a glaciation is like a rocket and going back in is like a downhill ski run. So we should have time to get ready. Now what will we do with all these clueless warmuniststs? Send them to paint the advancing glaciers black (with biodegradable paint naturally).

Reply to  co2islife
December 27, 2015 11:36 am

I’ll be playing polo in Argentina . . .

Jay Hope
Reply to  co2islife
December 27, 2015 11:59 am

It’s amazing to see Sweden, Norway and Denmark on the list. They’re getting more and more snow every year? Are they stupid? Or is it some kind of weird joke?

Reply to  co2islife
December 27, 2015 5:02 pm

Remember that, with a new ice age, sea levels will fall and a great deal of new real estate will appear for development. A hot market for a few thousand years!

Reply to  Stan Kerr
December 28, 2015 12:29 pm

Most of that ‘new’ real estate will be flood plain for its first hundred years – but will get built on anyway – thanks to ignorant and greedy developers and ignorant and malleable Planning Committees.
For the UK – long after I’m gone, I suspect – Doggerland will re-emerge . . . . . perhaps until the next Storegga Slide.

December 27, 2015 8:11 am

Climate Change is the resurrection of the “North- South Dialogue” in the 70’s.The left will never give up on this concept.

December 27, 2015 8:22 am

Not much global warming around here this morning with a temperature of -18 degrees C.

Reply to  Rob
December 27, 2015 10:48 am

mid 70’s yesterday—mid 30’s today.
I much preferred yesterday’s “climate”

Bernie McCune
December 27, 2015 8:24 am

What is interesting is that in Fig 3, those countries that seem to be at risk from global warming are also going to have issues soon (if they aren’t already having them) from population growth. Is population pressure morphing into global warming? As global warming did with climate change? A misplaced aid program.
Thanks Dr. Ball. Much of this is self evident to most of us here but so many of these issues are not getting any serious exposure in the rest of the world. As pressure to fund the Green Climate Fund increases, we in the developed world need to push back by de-funding all of these wasteful UN boondoggles.
I completely agree that we had better get ready for the cold and those places where it is already cold need to be especially wary. It looks like some of that is already happening, though it is in the name of global warming. How silly is that?

December 27, 2015 8:33 am

Tim Ball wrote (in his WUWT article on December 27 2015),
“IPCC proponents realize that this [“the natural mechanisms of climate change indicate the world is cooling and will get colder”] is the trend so they did what they always do, produce a paper claiming another human activity is likely to make their predictions invalid. Gavin Schmidt and the NASA GISS gang did this recently in a paper titled, “Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings.” It produced the intended headlines such as Climate change shock: Burning fossil fuels ‘COOLS planet’, says NASA” in the UK Express.”

It is worth the effort of the skeptic community’s intellects to anticipate and prepare for the strategic moves of the leaders of the community sustaining anthropomorphic pseudo-science focused on climate. This is a reasonable intellectual’s step in the overall role to remove the pseudo-science.

December 27, 2015 8:42 am
Reply to  Robertvd
December 27, 2015 10:57 am

Thanks Robertvd I was not aware that this guy Klaus asked the UN 9/24/07 for competing IPCC Science with equal funding for and against Climate Change. What Happened

December 27, 2015 9:00 am

I have friend who used to shovel snow in Canada. He moved to the Caribbean. He is a climate refugee.

Reply to  Alx
December 27, 2015 9:13 am

Alx on December 27, 2015 at 9:00 am
– – – – – – –
I would estimate ~~50% (or much much greater %) of the residents of the state of Florida are climate refugees from America’s colder northern regions.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 30, 2015 10:23 pm

It’s a debatable point depending on your definition of the term ‘refugee’ … any case your estimate is grossly inflated and detracts from your point. 5% might be nearer the mark in relation to what you’re saying. It would be more true to say 50% of the population of Florida are hispanic economic migrants.

Reply to  John Whitman
December 31, 2015 7:47 am

Doug on December 30, 2015 at 10:23 pm
– – – – – –
Refugees indeed. It is probably more like 2/3 of FL moved there over the past century for climate benefits.
I do not understand your racial remark.

Reply to  John Whitman
January 2, 2016 7:39 am

OK John.
First I did not intend to make a racist remark, and in fact it is not racist. Hispanics are not a racial group but a demographic one including several racial sub-groups. As a counterpoint to your first remark I suggested it would be more accurate to say 50% (using the same number you put forward) of Florida’s population were economic migrants from Hispanic countries. As a matter of fact neither suggestion is anywhere near the truth, and my point is that it detracts from your argument if you use unfounded or spurious numbers.
The actual Hispanic or Latino population of Florida is 24.1% according to official US census data.
A high proportion of the Hispanic or Latino population are immigrants, many of whom came to Florida for a better economic life, not for a better climate. This is consistent with a high ratio of foreign-born residents of Florida (19.4%). Florida also has a substantial 16.8% black population, mostly born in Florida, many of whose ancestors came to America not by choice but by force, certainly not for the climate.
You suggested in your first point that more than half of Florida’s population are climate refugees, I simply wished to point out that your estimate was rather exaggerated, suggesting an alternative estimate of 5% that might be more realistic, depending on how you define refugee status. Even 5% would be a substantial overestimate in my opinion. Strictly speaking, climate refugees might be defined as people who have had to move away from their home and livelihood due to a real risk to their life and wellbeing as a result of extreme climatic events (weather-related natural disasters) or extreme climatic conditions (whether existing or changing). The largest groups of ‘climate refugees’ worldwide are people displaced by floods and droughts.
Same is true in the USA historically, refugees from the 1930’s ‘dust bowl’ drought, numerous Mississippi floods, Hurricane Katrina, tornados, etc. As far as I’m aware very few people have lost their homes and livelihoods to inundation by snow or ice, although this may very well happen in future centuries or millennia if the world becomes much colder and glaciers and ice caps advance into populated areas.
Now you have amended your phraseology, saying 2/3 of Florida moved there over the past century for ‘climate benefits’. That is very different from claiming them to be refugees! Sure Florida is a great place to live with a great climate and economy, which is really all you intended to say, perhaps, just that people prefer warm pleasant tropical and sub-tropical climates such as that enjoyed by Florida, and therefore maybe a little climatic warming would not be a bad thing, at least in the American context;
However I would still say your use of exaggerated erroneous numbers detracts from your point. To say that over 50% of Florida’s population are climate refugees, or otherwise 2/3 of Florida moved there over the past century for climate benefits, is patently ridiculous. For a start we already have 40.9% of the population represented by Hispanic, Latino, and Black demographic groups, and adding small numbers of Asians and other demographic groups, according to the census not much more than half of Florida’s population (55.8%) are non-Hispanic, non-Latino whites (mostly Americans and some Canadians and Europeans) some of whom (a small proportion) certainly did choose to move to Florida for its fine climate. How many really fit this description? Well Florida’s birth rate is around 11 to 11.5%, which is a little lower in the white demographic group (10.3%) compared to 14.5% in the non-white demographic groups.
19.4% of the population are foreign born, therefore 80.6% were born in America, no doubt the great majority of them were actually born in Florida and did not move there for climate benefits, although some of their ancestors may have done. So you can’t really put an accurate number on this but the absolute maximum would be about 4%, which is suggested by the difference between the white and non-white birth rates cited above, which is probably partially a representation of a real difference in birth rates for families in these demographic groups and partially a representation of a higher proportion of older, mostly white people from colder states in the USA, or from Canada or Europe, who chose to retire in Florida.
There is an important point to this discourse, which is to remind all of us not to use numbers without foundation when making any point or putting forward any argument. Wrong numbers will detract from your argument and damage your credibility. This is exactly what has happened to the CAGW alarmist campaign, as real data and statistics have shown their shrill scare-mongering and exaggerated numbers to have been unfounded in truth.
Now let’s close this little diversion from the real debate here and concentrate on the right climate data, and what this means for our future social political and economic wellbeing.

Reply to  Doug
January 2, 2016 8:02 am

You are focusing on Central American “climate refugees” fleeing north from some assumed climate disaster occurring further south. Re-read the original comments, and all responses between now and that one, but substitute Northern American “climate refugees” fleeing the frozen winters to go to a warmer FL climate that also happens to have better economic conditions.
The writer is (slightly exaggerting to make his point. But! Many millions have moved south to FL to get away from the harse climate up north. Many many millions more trying to make a shorter seasonal move – even more important. Those millions of seasonal moves show that we want to go ANYWHERE to a warmer winter and a cooler summer, despite the expense and hassles of moving twice a year.
Those coming north? 99.7% are economic moves: Coming to get a better life (more welfare, more work, more freedoms, more opportunity.) Most moving are illegals, the wait for legal immigration is 7-10 years. The south and central American illegal immigration is NOT climate related in any way.

Reply to  John Whitman
January 2, 2016 9:01 am

Thanks RA Cook. Please read my post through to the end. Hopefully my point will become clear.
No further comment.

Roger Welsh
December 27, 2015 9:52 am

I am not an accredited scientist, just a 75 year old whose schooling and interests are for facts and truths.
The question posed but never explained is, ” what does this mean to me?” We and you will never win the argument until we can gain the simple understanding of the truth. All the power hungry warped minds, for ever part of the human race, will use the simple expedient of ” fear” .
Those of us who have an understanding of what is being perpetrated must do more than expose the short term ” clutches” of those seeking money for ” research” . It will take much courage and determination to bring understanding to all citizens.
I wish I knew how! It must be done. We face a great peril.

Reply to  Roger Welsh
December 27, 2015 11:38 am

FEAR is what it’s all about. It’s being used to sell everything today–EVERYTHING that includes giving up personal common sense and autonomy and ceding same to “experts” who will take your money and tell you what to do.

December 27, 2015 9:55 am

Those billions being given to under-developed nations is to create customers for the developed world, not competition. It is fascism (before it was redefined) in its prettiest dress. The unholy trinity of government, industry, and military. To that we add corrupted science (a bastard child of corrupt government).

John C
December 27, 2015 9:55 am

As a small business operator for thirty eight years I have had to problem solve with the most cost efevtive solutions. I have never understood why the answer isn’t to prepare for both possibilities of a warmer or a cooler climate. With better insulation, reliable power, water and even some green energy, we’ll be equipped to cope with whaever nature throws our way. Trying to control it or affect it with co2 reduction seems a waste of money and effort. But then again I do understand it’s political, not rational.

Reply to  John C
December 31, 2015 6:57 am

At last a straightforward view in which common sense prevails! Thanks John.
This one small paragraph embodies the voice of reason and pragmatism that should be the dominant influence on policy-making decisions in relation to climate variability and change, but unfortunately it remains that of a seemingly quiet and often silent majority who tend to stay in the audience and fear to take to the stage in the theatre of politics, and common sense pragmatism is not in the interests of any of the money-and-fame-motivated ‘scientists’ who clamour for ‘climate disaster’ research funding, or any of the power-and-popularity-hungry politicians who have hijacked and coerced the whole emotionally-driven catastrophist environmentalist movement into supporting this farcical hoax that CAGW scaremongers have been trying to foist on us for the past 30 years ever since the other lot who failed to convince us that the world was under imminent threat of a new ice-age back in the 1970s.
In both cases the same alarmist and sensationalist language was used to try to push an extremist point of view underwritten by bad science. The whole CAGW campaign is built on the psychological ‘Fear of Disaster and Death’ syndrome that has been exploited by people in positions of power and influence to dominate population groups throughout history. The CAGW campaign has, through the irresponsible and cynical use of grossly exaggerated short-term trends in manipulated climatic data, successfully misled the public and many politicians into believing the hoax and actually taking major political and economic decisions under the influence of this misguided belief. The politicisation of science and mainstream science’s dependence upon politically controlled funding has very seriously compromised scientific integrity in this whole debacle, but again this is nothing new. The history of civilisation is littered with examples of erroneous ‘consensus’ views or belief structures that dominated society and always attempted to subdue opposition and crush true scientific endeavour and it is largely if not only through the bravery and conviction of scientific heretics that science has been able to advance us to our present state of endangered enlightenment.
The ‘warmists’ say the science is settled and incontrovertible with a 97% consensus, but this is only a measure of the degree of misinformation being promulgated by the socio-political movement that has arisen on the back of the CAGW scare. In fact the science is by no means settled and there is no consensus.
The article we are commenting on here is headed ‘THERE IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE DISASTER EXCEPT THE ONE GOVERNMENTS CREATED’ It laments the political corruption of climate science through the foundation and actions of the IPCC and outlines the foundation of the Green Climate Fund through the several stages of IPCCs on-going campaign for political power and influence and the pitfalls of the politicisation of science…
The whole bureaucracy that has been set up on the back of this hoax is now massively funded by tax-payers money and has graduated from hoax to fraud. Vested interests are by now too great to deny and dissenting voices, of which there are many, are subdued and silenced, or ridiculed with the object of discrediting anyone who tries to stand up for truth and scientific integrity. Terms such as ‘climate denier’ are used to brand the heretics and cast them out of the populist movement that moves on relentlessly like a runaway train committed and confined to the tracks already laid by alarmist propagandists despite the increasingly obvious evidence that they are wrong.
Dissenting voices have nevertheless managed to coalesce into various nuclei of rational resistance one of which is this particular site, ‘Watts Up With That’, and another, ‘The Right Climate Stuff’, which was founded by a group of retired NASA scientists and has gathered a growing band of professional supporters and contributors in all the fields of Earth Sciences, Planetary Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics, which seeks to bring scientific rigour and rationality back to the fore and have some counterbalancing political influences to defuse the CAGW bomb.
The Right Climate Stuff recently published their scientific findings and analysis presenting a properly balanced view of the real global warming ‘threat’, which is actually no threat at all compared to other much more immediate issues impacting on the state of humanity and the planetary environment.
Their advice is neatly summarised in the paragraph quoted below…
‘Using the new Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) metric, we demonstrate that burning all remaining economically recoverable fossil fuel reserves on earth cannot raise global average surface temperatures more than 1.2o C above current levels. This AGW limit results from the much lower climate sensitivity range defined by TCS for the next 300 years, and a necessary market-driven transition to alternative fuels caused by escalating fossil fuel prices that result from dwindling world-wide reserves and rising energy demand of growing economies. This transition must begin before 2080 to meet energy demand, and should be completed by 2150 when alternative fuels will be more economical than recovery of any remaining fossil fuels. We demonstrate use of the GHG TCS metric that has an upper bound of 1.6o C, to compute “worst case” transient global temperature rise from all GHG for a realistic atmospheric CO2 scenario, where the concentration rises from the present value of 397 to a maximum of 600 in 2130 due to dwindling, more expensive fossil fuel use, and then declines back to below current levels by 2300.’
There it is folks, the ultimate perspective on the size of our total impact on climate. If we burn all the remaining fossil fuels on the planet we might just manage to warm the Earth by a degree or maybe 1.6 degrees… and our political leaders are committing themselves to saving us from this disaster by spending trillions of dollars to prevent a rise in AGW beyond 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Well! it’s already a fete accomplis! We need not impose any tax or spend any money or change the status quo at all, in order to come home under target! At the end of it all the warmists, having driven unfounded fear into the hearts and minds of the politicians and the general populace and having misappropriated trillions of dollars in funding, will walk away from it all congratulating themselves on a great scam and all of us on a great triumph.
This is the extent of the real disaster folks, it is a shameless and harmful fraud being perpetrated on all of us and the worst affected as always are the poorest of the poor, while the whole scam creates boundless opportunities for the rich to make themselves richer.
‘The sky will fall on your heads!’ they have repeatedly screamed in alarm, ‘stop polluting the atmosphere with CO2! Stop what you are doing! Run! Hide! Give us all your money and we will try to stop this disaster from happening!’ knowing full well all the while that no such disaster is ever likely to happen; at least not as a result of our impact on the global climate.
They have used SELECTED AND MANIPULATED DATA, ALARMIST LANGUAGE, EMOTIVE ISSUES, and DELIBERATE MISINFORMATION to dupe the well-intentioned public and well-intentioned politicians into believing their scare and having successfully done so, thereby winning power and influence, they appear to have won a temporary victory through the use of POLITICAL INFLUENCE and PEER PRESSURE, to overrun their critics and seize control of a huge share of the global economic pie, thereby actually diverting much needed funding from much more imminent and pressing needs in the developing world and depriving millions of people of access to basic resources and opportunities such as coal and cheap electricity.
If all the trillions of dollars being committed to fighting this CAGW folly were committed today to writing off third-world debt and ACTUALLY ACHIEVING the MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (remember them?) and the SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (2015) immeasurably greater good could be achieved for the benefit of humankind and indeed for the planet.
Two key provisions, to ensure everyone has access to supplies of safe drinking water, and to provide access to electricity, would cost far less than the ‘Global Warming Defence Strategy’ and would accomplish far more to bring greater welfare, opportunity, and economic equity to the people of this world.
It is quite ridiculous that the IPCC and UNDP (MDG & SDG) are both administered by bureaucracies under the aegis of the United Nations and yet to a very great extent they are not communicating common goals and one is undermining the other.
It is time to stop this madness. The IPCC should be immediately unplugged from the funding stream that they have misappropriated and it should be disbanded. Scientists and politicians alike, who have deliberately exaggerated the scare should be prosecuted for bad ethics and criminal deception with intent to defraud. The funds we have already committed to this non-cause should be diverted to direct poverty alleviation measures and working towards sustainable development and the solving of a fast approaching WATER, FOOD AND ENERGY NEXUS, which if not addressed now will do infinitely more harm than a degree or two of temporary warming of the global climate.
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is good for Earth to have this gas in the atmosphere at levels between 300 to 1,000 ppm. Higher CO2 at double, triple or even 7 times today’s levels do not present any threat to the global environment at all, but lower levels do. CO2 is plant food. Plants cannot survive in an atmosphere with CO2 levels below about 180ppm and during the recent ice ages Earth was dangerously close to this critical threshold. Levels up to 1,000 ppm are good for enhanced plant growth and food production. This increased productivity is an observed phenomenon of the 20th Century rise on CO2 levels.
I am not advocating the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels, and in fact I agree strongly that the present scale of burning of fossil fuels must be reduced and phased out before the resources are completely consumed, not because of global warming but for much more relevant and real reasons. Hydrocarbon resources must be conserved for the long term sustainability of the petrochemical, plastics and pharmaceutical industries, and for essential fuels to sustain efficient food production far into the future.
What of actual climate change? Well a one or two degree rise in global average temperatures is nothing to worry about, even 3 to 5 degrees would do very little harm and would probably bring about greater good through enhanced forest growth and food production thanks to the elevation of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Climate has always been changing throughout the history of the Earth, and always due to natural or astrophysical causes that we cannot influence one iota. Ocean Currents (controlled by Continental Drift, the Coriolis effect due to Earth’s rotation, and thermo-haline circulation), Volcanic Activity and occasional asteroid impacts, Orbital perturbations (Milankovic Cycles) Solar luminosity, sunspot cycles, cycles and sudden changes in the Solar and Terrestrial Magnetic Fields all have strong influences on the dynamics of Earth’s atmosphere that we cannot change.
If you want to predict the future don’t rely on misguided assumptive computer models, but look to all of the real data that records the past 4.5 billion-year history of the Earth environment. In past geological periods the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was many times higher than it is today and life evolved and thrived in great diversity, surviving extreme events that caused mass extinctions and allowed new evolutionary paths to develop. Throughout time the global climate changed radically through phases with different characteristics. In our present time we are in the Holocene, a warm interglacial period that represents part of the Pleistocene, an epoch of cyclical climate variability with long ice ages and short interglacial periods every 100,000 years or so. Carbon di-oxide levels in the atmosphere at Pleistocene present are lower than at any time in the Earth’s past except perhaps the mid to late Carboniferous period when there were also ice ages. Examination of the pattern of Pleistocene glacial cycles recorded in the ice-core data, and many other proxies, shows that we are ALREADY past the peak of the Holocene interglacial period and are due for a decline into the next ice age any time soon… If a little temporary global warming can stave off that inevitable future a little longer, it’s not a bad thing, but we must in the longer term prepare ourselves for a cold future that is likely to last about 60,000 to 80,000 years before the next Natural Global Warming cycle.
[Long message.
…” ‘The Right Climate Stuff’, which was founded by a group of retired NASA scientists and has gathered a growing band of professional supporters and contributors in all the fields of Earth Sciences, Planetary Science, Physics, Chemistry, and Mathematics” Thank you for the info about that web site. .mod]

Bill Powers
Reply to  Doug Bates
December 31, 2015 3:18 pm

What happened did the book publisher turn you down?

Reply to  Doug Bates
January 2, 2016 9:55 am

Very funny Bill,
So what your considered opinion about all this climate panic?

December 27, 2015 10:02 am

Actually, Paris was an enormous and very positive breakthrough. It consisted of two parts, neither “enforceable.” So we can ignore the expected garbage about reducing emissions, thus strangling the life of Earth.
More important by far was an agreement to promote healthier soils by regenerative agriculture. I have said several times on WUWT that only some of the increased carbon dioxide in the air is coming from fuels. Most is coming from poison-based agriculture (and dams) killing enormous quantities of soil organisms. That was the actual environmental disaster in the first place.
Reducing soil fertility is obviously not sustainable in the long run, and now the greens are finally catching on to something that is actually GOOD for “the environment” (biosphere) and is also do-able and practical. It will even help the economy more than it will hurt it. We can put our shoulder to the wheel now, and work WITH them.
Now, I dearly love a good fight, and I am sure that many of you do, too. But I also like to WIN and dropping the antagonism is how to do that. Helping the greens actually heal the biosphere is what will make them RIGHT enough to take an honest look at the real science about temperatures.

John Robertson
Reply to  ladylifegrows
December 27, 2015 11:05 am

For sure.
I am gonna line right up alongside a bunch of eco-nasties who have lied for financial gain and for power over me for the last 5 decades, now they accidentally get something right, I should forget their dishonesty and corruption?
Fools and bandits have no friends.
I doubt,”More important by far was an agreement to promote healthier soils by regenerative agriculture.”
Empty words from useless parasites,seldom produce anything good for productive society.
As for;”Helping the greens actually heal the biosphere is what will make them RIGHT enough to take an honest look at the real science about temperatures.”
The greens are the problem,emotionally saturated fools, they refuse to learn enough science to understand any biosphere, they feel.
Their chosen “solutions” have done real harm and solved nothing.
Arrogant and ignorant, they have chosen their path.
By being willing to lie to further their cause, they have doomed their cause..
I do not love a “good fight”, I fight to win, if I must fight at all.
In war, with an aggressor who attacks without reason or rationality, there are no rules.
Nor is compromise possible.
Stupid really cannot be fixed.

Ian W
Reply to  John Robertson
December 28, 2015 12:14 am

”More important by far was an agreement to promote healthier soils by regenerative agriculture.”

This type of ‘nobody could possibly be against this‘ statement is normally the prelude to draconian regulation, much like EPA’s clean water regulations. I would imagine that ‘regenerative agriculture‘ will be defined and it will disallow standard farming practices based on weak science from decades ago with no supporting data. The UK Environment Authority’s ‘Making Space for Water’ sounded like saving wetlands for birds but became flood the farms and villages on the Somerset Levels.

Eugene WR Gallun
December 27, 2015 10:58 am

I admire the clarity of Dr. Ball’s writing. Clarity is the mark of an honest man.
Eugene WR Gallun

Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
December 27, 2015 7:53 pm

Practicing what one preaches is another, I feel, Eugene, and you just hit both those marks it seems to me.

Chris Hanley
December 27, 2015 12:18 pm

“Figure 3 shows the ND – GAIN index on a world map. It shows that prepared countries are middle and high latitude while unprepared are in the tropics …”.
If figure 3 can be taken seriously it also shows there is a correlation between GDP per cap. and ‘preparedness’ which is what climate rationalists have been saying all along viz. the best defence against climate change of any kind is economic development which requires the supply of affordable reliable energy for the entire population.

December 27, 2015 12:21 pm

The Earth is made up of 3/4 water. The deep oceans are absorbing the heat. As far as the cold and polar vortex. Imagine a lot of ice in a glass of warm Coca Cola that was just poured. The ice dissipates the heat as it is displaced. Spreading the heat with cold until there is no more ice left to cool it. The same as a tornado or hurricane. The oceans warm all summer for hurricanes to form. Then cool all winter. Warm and cold air displace each other starting a spin in the atmosphere. Displacing each other as in a battle for space The same for polar vortexes. Warm air from the equators where the sun hits more directly going north pushing or displacing the cold air south as it melts more of the ice to dissipate the warm energy. Until there isn’t any ice left like in the glass of coke. You can see more surface ice from the spread of the cold air as it’s pushed out. But it’s not as thick as it once was. It’s melting like that ice cube in your glass. Or like spring in Canada. The oceans absorb a lot of energy and spread it around. That’s why it’s hard to see to conveyor belt. But you know it’s there. Just like it took millions of years to store carbon dioxide drop by drop as plants absorb carbon dioxide and grow. Then they die off storing some of it a drop at a time. MILLIONS of years is hard to fathom. Count to a million once number by number. It will take you over two weeks. Try it. Then imagine 100 million years. We are releasing those carbons in 200 years. The same carbons that the Earth had in the atmosphere when it was a lot hotter before carbon was stored by living plants.
Would you pour a barrel of oil into a swimming pool and swim? Then why burn it and pour it into the pool of Earth’s atmosphere? Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean that magically it’s not there. Billions of tons of carbon being released each year. Use common sense. But common sense isn’t that common. There wasn’t an infrastructure for oil at one time. We do have the technology to get us away from burning carbons now. But $$$ and greed prevent it. Ask yourself why oil companies would buy battery patents? Hmmm.

R Shearer
Reply to  Steve
December 27, 2015 3:18 pm
The surface of the earth is ~70% water by area but by no means is 3/4 of the earth made up of water. Please learn the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Steve
December 27, 2015 5:04 pm

“Count to a million once number by number. It will take you over two weeks. Try it. Then imagine 100 million years. We are releasing those carbons in 200 years.”
Actually, you’re a little bit off; it would take about 11 1/2 days. But, your example is useful. CO2 is currently measured, at the high end, at 400ppm. If you or I were to count to 400 we’d get there in a wee bit over 6 1/2 minutes. I think we can all agree that over a time span of close to two weeks that six and a half minutes is likely to be inconsequential. So, what is your point? These are not large numbers. And, yearly human contribution is about 3ppm. If you counted to three you’d get there in, well, three seconds: Tiny. No, we’re not releasing those carbons in 200 years.
“Would you pour a barrel of oil into a swimming pool and swim?”
Of course not. But, I don’t think I’d give it one second’s thought if someone poured a couple of shot glasses of oil in it. Your example of a barrel is way over the top. A backyard pool is about 10,000 gallons. A gallon is 128 ounces. At 3ppm it would be the same as about the 3 one and a half ounce shot glasses I use for a dry gin martini. I’d never notice that martini in the pool anymore than I’d notice the oil.
You seem like a nice guy. Save your energy for the real problems in life: things like making rent or mortgage payments on time; surviving a job layoff; or your girlfriend telling you that all her orgasms were fake and it would satisfy her to watch you spontaneously combust. And fix yourself a good martini by the poolside.

December 27, 2015 12:36 pm

Agree! Most of the politicians present at COP21 didn’t know much about climate change: And I’m sure that in few months those agreements made there will be broken. It’s a never ending story.

December 27, 2015 12:36 pm

I think it’s time to brand them with a flag with a green swastika surrounded with a field of bullshit brown.

December 27, 2015 12:38 pm

Dr. Ball states, “The proper course of action is for governments to face the truth and admit the science is wrong.”
I don’t think the science was actually wrong. The distortion of the data and the politically driven interpretations were wrong but for the most part, the “true” science has been fairly accurate “if” we look at all the data.
Selectively choosing which data to accept and then only after it had been politically massaged has been the real problem, not the science.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  spock2009
December 27, 2015 2:36 pm

The only science they got right is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the extra CO2 we’ve added could have caused some warming. Of course, to them, that’s a catastrophe and we’ll destroy our planet if we don’t stop.

December 27, 2015 12:45 pm

These countries have real problems. Poverty, AIDs, Milaria, War, Lack of clean water, lack of education, lack of health care, lack or infrastructure, lack of badly needed social services, starvation and the list goes on and on and on. Anyone that thinks the main problem these countries face is beyond clueless. These countries spending money of climate change represents the greatest allocations or resources in the history of man. What a joke, and what a waste.comment image
This clip says it all:

Patrick MJD
Reply to  co2islife
December 28, 2015 2:32 am

December 27, 2015 at 12:45 pm”
In 2006 I stood at the ruins of a tomb on a hill just outside Axum, Ethiopia. I was told that roughly 40kms north east-ish was the disputed border between Ethiopia and Eritrea. All I could see, as far as my eyes could, was desert. This border has been in dispute for many many years, even hundreds maybe, and I thought to myself “Why?”.
It seems to me that humans will always be in dispute, throwing rocks and pointed sticks at each other. And throwing rocks is an analogy used to describe the Voyager missions. So far, those “rocks” have been the farthest thrown.

December 27, 2015 12:53 pm

The last 542 million years of substantial atmospheric CO2 with no sustained temperature change is compelling evidence CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no effect on climate. This is documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845 and also at which also discloses the two factors that do cause reported average global temperature change (sunspot number is the only independent variable). The match between calculated and measured is 97% since before 1900

December 27, 2015 1:12 pm

The ENSO regions are starting to show signs of an end to the warmth. The regions could turn negative by February, if the solar conditions keep on as they have been doing.
The problem faced with an above average cooling period has to do with not having adequate food storage capabilities to make it through a period of multiple years of a reduced crop output in the NH. In that respect the world is in great danger from such a scenario. The only proper way to address the danger would be through preemptive storing of food stocks for the proverbial rainy day, as well as having adequate fossil fuel reserves on hand. Once the cooling sets in, it will then be too late to easily remedy the problem.

December 27, 2015 1:59 pm

Thanks for another great post, Dr Ball. It seems to me that we need to amend the quote to: “A government with the policy to rob Peter and Paul can be assured of the support of both Peter and Paul.” How this has been achieved by COP21 Paris is by a meaningless and seemingly harmless agreement that lays the groundwork for continuing government robbery and ‘Cap and Trade’ that churns bad money about with added fraud but has no effect on the Climate, at all.

Pamela Gray
December 27, 2015 2:02 pm

But…but…the standard reply to the medieval warm period is that it really only affected Northern Hemisphere regional areas. So it stands to reason that the least prepared (which seems to be primarily in the Southern Hemisphere) for any kind of modern warming need not worry, nor apply for recompense?
Of course, it could also be that the Southern Hemisphere WAS affected by the medieval warm period but such evidence was suppressed in order to toe the Mannian Message Line in the Sand? Nah. Couldn’t happen.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
December 27, 2015 2:10 pm

Shame on you for even hinting.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pamela Gray
December 28, 2015 6:36 am

The Minion, the Roman and the Medieval Warm Periods were all only Northern Hemisphere (along with the Little Ice Age)?
If the Hockey Stick etc. show that Global Warming started when Mr. Scrooge first let Bob Cratchit put that extra lump of coal on the fire, then where’s the evidence that the Southern Hemisphere was doing the opposite during those times to keep the Globe’s temperature level?
If they had it, they’d be shouting it.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Gunga Din
December 28, 2015 6:40 am

“The Minion,”
Should be
“The Minoan”
(I don’t think Gru and his little twinkies had anything to do with it.8-)

Joel O'Bryan
December 27, 2015 2:11 pm

“Politics is the diversion of trivial men who, when they succeed at it, become more important in the eyes of more trivial men.”
A society can survive getting a lot of things wrong. But if it gets its politics wrong, the results are usually catastrophic for its population.

Tropical paradise
December 27, 2015 2:16 pm

I have been living in what is classed as a tropical paradise for the last 10 years. 600 000 people visit the region every year for the tropical weather and is classed as one the most desired tourist destinations in Australia. As well, this area is not connected to the grid so every person that lives here are on solar, hydro or generator. So I live in an area that is a greenhouse climate. Terrible! If the population here was 20 000 there would be mains power (blackouts) and it would be classed as a disaster area every year from disastrous flooding due to probable inept government infrastructure…the fact there are only around 1200 permanent residents who manage their own situation and preparedness for weather events means we cope. Warming or cooling you are at the mercy of your local environment/climate and council planning…do your own research and be aware of your own possible extreme situations be it fire, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. All I know is that a lot of people around the world would be happier with a warmer temperature and if it gets colder everyone will want to move here (Nooooooo!) Bring on the warmth. 🙂

December 27, 2015 2:30 pm

Politics is only the diversion of trivial men if powerful others ensure that political processes become irrevocably gridlocked, static, tribally partisan and controlled by minority, hyper-powerful interests.
The more important question is whether humanity is ever capable of that not being so?
Clearly, the hyper-rich wish it to be so, so that they can remain hyper-rich by acting in untrammelled ways.
Clearly, ‘climate change’ has trivialised politics and attracted sycophants, blowhards, blusterers and charlatans.
But actually, preparing professionally for changes in climate through the judicious mobilisation of cost-effective solutions is one of the highest callings of proper politics.
Perhaps you guys would like to ask the billionaire extortionists, the darker parts of the security services and any others who seek to foist biddable, blackmail able mouthpieces into senior positions of political power, in order that whole nations can be subverted, infantilised, subjugated and demoralised through never-ending implementation of bad solutions benefitting the rich and powerful?
Let’s be clear about one thing: the only way the current false climate dogma is being allowed to proliferate is because very rich, very powerful interests consider it in their interests that it does so.
Let’s also be clear that I’m not being anti-capitalist or pro-socialist by saying that, since I have no evidence that those who might mobilise millions of ordinary citizens would behave more professionally in this sphere either.
I’m just saying that plenty of multibillionaires are betting considerable fractions of their very sizeable ranches in ‘climate change’.
And multibillionaires tend to have a track record of playing to win, not being too bothered if a few people get hurt on the way.

Reply to  rtj1211
December 27, 2015 7:45 pm

And multibillionaires tend to have a track record of playing to win, not being too bothered if a few people get hurt on the way.

Please provide a list of ‘multibillionaires’ – “not being too bothered if a few people get hurt on the way.”

Ian W
Reply to  clipe
December 28, 2015 12:29 am

You could start with The Bilderberg group, The Club of Rome and The Committee of 300. Then read the definition of Malthusian and some of the works of Ehrlich and Holdren.

December 27, 2015 3:17 pm

“ You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the buying public” not sure who said this but those in power pushing the climate change agenda believe this with all their heart. Seems to me that in the past as well as the future humanity is destine to live where “ misunderstanding rules the world”.

Brian H
Reply to  David
December 27, 2015 4:50 pm

H.L. Menken

Leon Brozyna
December 27, 2015 3:32 pm

climate change – a cross between religion and politics; its credo – blame the victim for not sacrificing enough and conforming to the wise guidance of the political elite.
Put another way .. heads they win, tails you lose.

December 27, 2015 4:13 pm

Yet another example of why so-called “Climate Change” is an Anthropomorphic phenomenon, and not an Anthropogenic catastrophe.

December 27, 2015 6:08 pm

Wealth to a very few.

December 27, 2015 6:15 pm

In 1974 I listened as my economic professor told us about climate change and the negative effect it would have on the world economy. Pretty good professor, not only did I gain an appreciation for economics, I also started following climate change. If the people on this planet weren’t so busy arguing with each other about what to call it i.e global warming/climate change/global cooling/THERE IS NO PROBLEM blah blah blah we could have all gotten together by now and forced TPTB to identify and work on resolving the problems climate change is and will create. Last year I nearly froze to death in NYC, this winter we are out walking around with no coats on, couple of years ago Sandy liked to kill us us all! ALL you brilliant people commenting in this forum (and others) need to shut up and do something to IDENTIFY what the heck is going on, and then make sure something is done about it, If you don’t like your government and their policies band together and CHANGE the government and their policies. If everything is KUM BA YAH that sounds great to me too! I’m 61 years old with two grands and would love to hear it, but for pete’s sake lets figure this thing out already.

Reply to  Dru
December 27, 2015 7:15 pm

Dru says:
…we could have all gotten together by now and forced TPTB to identify and work on resolving the problems climate change is and will create.
Dru, the government is behind the climate alarmists who are feeding you all that nonsense. What you describe is LOCAL or REGIONAL weather. But the scare is global warming.
Their climate alarmism has turned out to be a false alarm. The past century and a half has been the mildest, most benign, flattest temperatures in the entire historical/geologic record:comment image
Who are you gonna believe? The climate alarmists? Or Planet Earth?
One is right and the other is wrong.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 28, 2015 8:29 am

Thanks for that. I never get tired of seeing that graph posted. 🙂

Reply to  dbstealey
December 28, 2015 8:34 am

Thanks again for that reminder, I send it repeatedly to my friends to document the CAGW is about wealth redistribution and progressive control of us, not catastrophic climate.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 28, 2015 2:53 pm

mark & cat,
Since you liked that graph, here’s one in ºK:
And in ºF:
And this chart in Watts:
Some others:comment image
And then there’s Marcott’s scary ‘realclimate’ chart:
You can send them to friends, to show them the difference between actual temperature measurements and government sponsored alarmist propaganda.

Reply to  Dru
December 27, 2015 8:20 pm

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary to not make a decision.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dru
December 28, 2015 2:21 am

December 27, 2015 at 6:15 pm
In 1974 I listened as my economic professor told us about climate change and the negative effect it would have on the world economy.”
The world is a much nicer place than it was in 1974. It’s warmer and cleaner. I would not pay too much attention to an economics professor when they start blabbing on about climate change (It was global warming back then matey), and in 1974, they would have been blabbing on about an ICE AGE!

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Dru
December 28, 2015 3:10 am

December 27, 2015 at 6:15 pm
In 1974 I listened as my economic…”
Do you know how many times economists have been wrong about predictions? Mostly all of them, mostly all of the time.
The “architect” of Australia’s “proice ohn cahbon” (The tax that was never voted on, unless you voted for Brown. Thanks Gillard) was Ross Garnout, an economist. He made millions being paid to be on the chair of the Ok Tedi (Sp?) gold and copper mines in Pappa New Guinea (PNG). He was also instrumental, in about the mid 1970’s (Funny that), in negotiating with the PNG Govn’t in SELLING land to MINING companies. Now “carbon” mining is the target. You don’t have to dig anything out of the ground and add value, simply turn on a light and BINGO! You have made some money in the carbon market! To give credit where credit is due he was “involved” in clean up operations in PNG while at BHP.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Dru
December 28, 2015 4:26 am

Dru, there really is no problem with our climate. The climate is doing just fine; it’s the people who are schlonged.
Weather is now being hyped as “climate change”, and you seem to have bought into that. The slight warming we experienced in the 80’s and 90’s is in no way cause for alarm, and entirely within what is to be expected from natural climate variation. In fact, in the coming decades, we can very likely expect cooling. Hopefully, it will not be much, perhaps bringing us back to conditions similar to the 50’s thru 70’s.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Dru
December 28, 2015 11:28 am

DRU says: “In 1974 I listened as my economic professor told us about climate change and the negative effect it would have on the world economy.”
Humor finds it home in the truth and an old joke goes: If you lined up all the economists in the world head to toe they would all point in different directions.
Dru it looks as if your economics professor was pointing in the wrong direction. Although the 21st century hype over climate change has had a positive effect on the growth of government and the enrichment of the few who buy the politicians.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 28, 2015 12:09 pm

Alternatively, it is said that if you put 5 economists in a room and asked them a question you would get 6 replies because John Maynard Keynes always changed his mind! To be frank, as a retired chemical engineer I would place scant confidence in the prognostications and pontifications of economists and accountants. Their ability to model systems is no better than the ability of climatologists to model climate.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
December 28, 2015 1:12 pm

Good one. I will borrow that thank you. Robert Reich and Paul Krugman are both Keynesian’s, both advise the Left on how to spend our way out of recession. Both are consistently wrong. I assure you that your skepticism toward economic models is as warranted at skepticism toward NOAA/IPCC Climate models. Time consistently proves them wrong.

Gary Kerkin
Reply to  Bill Powers
December 28, 2015 1:22 pm

To be fair, the Keynesian theories did work for some places during the Great Depression. Germany was an example. New Zealand was another, where the Government introduced large (for NZ, at least) public works programs, which got the “money-go-round” turning again. I’m not an economist but I doubt that would work in the current economic situation where few countries are insulated from global pressures. Witness the shenanigans in Europe (Greece, for example). If I had been trained in economics I rather think I would be advocating hedging against cooler climates that warmer!

Bill Powers
Reply to  Gary Kerkin
December 28, 2015 2:48 pm

Just as climate science is a very complicate dynamic so are economic systems. I wouldn’t argue that good things have come out Government spending programs. In the U.S. from the TVA, to an interstate freeway system, to moon landings. Upon careful analysis these endeavors would have cost far less to accomplish in a free market environment but that opens a whole can of “supply & demand” worms and whether they could have been accomplished.
There are very compelling arguments that the great depression lasted decades because of FDR’s spending programs and in fact the 2nd World War pulled the U.S. out of the malaise created by excessive Government Spending. Contrary to what primary news outlets will suggest the U.S. economy is sputtering along in a decade long malaise once again thanks to government created programs that created a housing bubble and then a trillion dollar toxic asset relief to bail out the wealth holders with middle class indebtedness followed by a Trillion dollar “stimulus” that on close examination stimulated nothing but trouble government pension plans.
The reality is that in 2007 before the housing bust, the government budget was in the 500 Billion neighborhood. Since then annual spending has escalated to the Trillion dollar neighborhood. U.S. Debt has doubled in the last 8 years. That is Keynesian economics. It can create short term stimulus if very targeted and very limited. When adopted as a permanent economic policy Ala the Reich/Krugman school, it fails miserably. Your children/grandchildren will live to see the devastation created by the next Great U.S. Depression. Unlike CAGW it will be real and it will be deadly.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Dru
December 28, 2015 12:02 pm

DRU Says: “Last year I nearly froze to death in NYC, this winter we are out walking around with no coats on, couple of years ago Sandy liked to kill us us all! ALL you brilliant people commenting in this forum (and others) need to shut up and do something to IDENTIFY what the heck is going on,”
Hyperbolic much? DRU you have either drunk too much of their Kool-aide or you are a bell ringing alarmist who peddles fear with every mention of climate change. Never forget that when the condition was called Global Warming the Alarmists would admonish anyone mentioning abnormally cold weather that they cannot conflate Weather with the climate. Yet now that the globe has stopped warming they want you to forget and listen to the new meme that they meant climate change all along and that can be evidenced by, wait for it, the WEATHER! The once non-conflatable weather!
Now here is the truly salient point in your comment. The “…need to shut up and do something to identify what the heck is going on.” point.
Identifying a problem is different then determining the root cause which is different from developing a solution to the identified problem. We have identified the climate changes, no debate. The root cause has been incorrectly identified as a trace element CO2. The government already admits there is nothing they can do, even with all the accumulated worldwide wealth, to stop the climate from changing even if their root cause was correct.
Bottom line: man must adapt to climate change which is naturally occurring and forcing a reduction in the use of fossil fuel energy will only hinder man’s ability to adapt and survive.

Reply to  Bill Powers
December 30, 2015 8:32 am

Bill Powers, your numbers for the U.S. Federal Budget are incorrect.
The Federal Budget in 2002 it was $2.367 TRILLION, and by 2007 it was $2.962 TRILLION. For 2012 it was $3.563 TRILLION. Your number for 2007 is off by a factor of about 6. But your point that it is ever increasing is correct.
I want people to realize how out of control the Federal spending is.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Stevecsd
January 2, 2016 4:31 pm

You are correct and will get no argument from me Steve. But for clarification I wasn’t including mandatory spending which includes Social Security, medicare, et al.
I was talking about the discretionary budget which BOb’s tenure elevated from the 500 Billion range to the 1.5 Trillion neighborhood and is the primary reason that Harry Reid and his gang of crooks never submitted a budget. the NYTimes did a piece in 2014.
touting the budget has been reduced to the 680+ Billion. That is not a reduction in the budget it is in reality less overspending than Obama’s first term when the Democrats controlled the Senate. .
Using your reality of Mandatory Spending the Federal Debt of nearly 20 Trillion is actually at 90 Trillion with the unfunded future liabilities of Mandatory Spending.

December 27, 2015 6:21 pm


December 27, 2015 6:22 pm

More like a “Mutant Golden Calf Operation”.

December 27, 2015 6:25 pm

The CO2 crap reminds me of Lysenko under Uncle Joe Stalin
‘Lysenko’s doctrines and claims varied with the amount of power that he held. Between 1948 and 1953, when he was the total autocrat of Soviet biology, he claimed that wheat plants raised in the appropriate environment produce seeds of rye, which is equivalent to saying that dogs living in the wild give birth to foxes.”

Michael Jankowski
December 27, 2015 7:40 pm

[Comment deleted. “Jankowski” has been stolen by the identity thief pest. All Jankowski comments saved and deleted from public view. You wasted your time, David. What a sad, pathetic, wasted life. -mod]

Jim R.
December 27, 2015 8:36 pm

Beer, soda, and carbonated water are all infused with carbon dioxide gas, which escapes into the atmosphere after the bottle is opened. How many thousands or millions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere every year because of this? Are Coke and Budweiser destroying the earth?
When are President Obama and the UN going to call for a worldwide ban on carbonated beverages? It seems to me that any global warming alarmist who drinks a carbonated beverage is a rank hypocrite.
I wonder if this will have any effect on beer sales during the Super Bowl.

December 27, 2015 8:56 pm

I like Fig 1 — New Zealand has become part of Scandinavia . . . yippeee!
Do we get one of those all-blonde, six foot tall, women’s volleyball teams? Do we get . . . aaah, what else does Scandinavia have? I know their harness racing is good, but so is ours.
And what if Christchurch became a Malmo . . . I think we’d better pass.

Ian W
Reply to  Graphite
December 28, 2015 12:41 am
richard verney
Reply to  Graphite
December 28, 2015 7:51 am

Sothern Sweden has become the rape capital of Europe, I think that it is the 2nd or 3rd worst place in the world for rapes.

Robert S
Reply to  richard verney
December 29, 2015 10:21 am

That’s why Julian Assange liked to go there for a spot of raping. I’m sure that if he gave himself up he would get off as it appears to be a way of life in S Sweden. However he appears to be too much of a coward and daren’t risk it.

Reply to  richard verney
December 29, 2015 10:34 am

You’re confusing Assange with Muslims.

Robert S
Reply to  richard verney
December 29, 2015 11:29 am

Did not realise Muslims were being referred to! They certainly do a lot of raping all over England; whilst the authorities stand idly by, in the interest of racial harmony, not wishing to upset them. A fresh scandal crops up nearly every week with no one dare saying boo to a Muslim lest they are offended.

Patrick MJD
December 28, 2015 2:11 am

I find it rather interesting (Or should that be worrying for my friends who live there?) that New Zealand (NZ) is ranked No. 2 in best prepared countries to handle climate change and yet the real threat in NZ is earth quakes and volcanos. Lake Taupo (Toe-pour) is, now, a submerged volcano and is a dangerous one at that. In fact standing on the northern point of the lake looking south you can see the peaks of Mts. Tongariro and then Ruhapeu in the central north island along a very active fault zone. Ruhapeu erupted in 1995 when had I just arrived in NZ. The crater wall failed in the 50’s (I think) causing a lahar that destroyed a rail line and caused a train to crash. Well documented disaster in NZ. The crater wall collapsed again a few years back, not sure when it was or what the damage was (I used to work for the company that managed a Windows NT4 server that was used to monitor for lahar risk. Almost every week the server needed, physically, a “digitally induced 3 finger restart”). Then there is Mt. Tarawera on the east side of the same region, near Rotarua, which buried a village in ash in the late 19th century as well as destroying the pink and white terraces. The NZ Govn’t doesn’t seem to be doing anything to mitigate the real and present risks of those events, most recent example of which was Christchurch. A good example of what not to do in a such a high risk area.
NZ *WILL* experience quakes and eruptions in the next 100 years and it is not a question of modelled “if’s”, it *IS* a matter of when. I know that usually Wellington, the Capital, experiences at the very least 1 quake per day, albeit a small one and mostly not felt. Now as for a bit of different/predicted/projected/modelled weather in 100 years? I would not be too worried about that.

December 28, 2015 3:58 am

The Aussie nickname for New Zealand up to the 1960s, maybe ’70s, was the Shaky Isles. Good name. I’ve felt plenty of earthquakes in my time, most notably 1968 in Wellington — a city, incidentally, just waiting for the big one.
It’s not true that the government is doing nothing. Building codes have been tightened in recent decades and civil defence measures are in place. Christchurch suffered badly for a number of reasons, one of which was a second major shake finished off the work of the initial earthquake, another was because a lot of Christchurch was built way before any earthquake risk was known, and a third reason was, in one large building’s case, incompetent-bordering-on-criminal design work.
But you can’t live in fear. Let an aversion to risk rule your life and you’d never go swimming, never go fishing, never go skiing or skydiving, never get in a car, never get married. And you can’t pull down three-quarters of a city on the off-chance an earthquake will strike — that’s just not practical.
The slight possibility of being caught in an earthquake is a small price to pay for living in the best country in the world.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Graphite
December 28, 2015 4:45 am

Christchurch suffered mostly from liquefaction. As has most of NZ in big shakers (Napier). Built on alluvial plains (You can see it from aerial images these days). Wellington is, largely built on rock. Apart from the airport, Killbernie and other places that rose up in the 1809 (? Lambdon Quay?) quake. The Beehive is mounted on “bearings”, so is the National Museum, Te Papa, (And you can go see them too).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Graphite
December 28, 2015 4:48 am

December 28, 2015 at 3:58 am
The slight possibility of being caught in an earthquake is a small price to pay for living in the best country in the world.”

Curious George
Reply to  Graphite
December 28, 2015 11:47 am

“But you can’t live in fear.” You are totally unworthy of living in a modern democratic society. Or any other.
Happy 2016.

December 28, 2015 5:52 am

“They created a global policy to take money from a few developed nations and give it to the developing nations….”
This is all made possible because all the central banks of every major country can create near-infinite amounts of money as their governments signal the need. Spending is no longer limited by how much in taxes the citizen is willing to send in. It is true: near-infinite money enables near-infinite government.

richard verney
December 28, 2015 7:48 am

It would be ironic if the warmists begin to lose their poster child of Arctic ice decline.
Obviously, it is early days, and the AMO may yet turn negative which may have a significant impact on future years, but this year’s recovery from the September minimum has been stark, with ice extent now standing over 10 million square km, which is the highest December figure these past 10 years.
See generally;

Reply to  richard verney
December 28, 2015 2:44 pm

My goodness. It sure does look like there is some sort of natural variability involved with Arctic Ice cover. Who could have possibly guessed that?

richard verney
Reply to  markstoval
December 29, 2015 3:12 am

Arctic ice decline can only be a poster child for warmists when it is accepted that its cause is the greenhouse effect, which it isn’t

Now you are talking like a scientists, but this campaign is led by activists (in which I include people like Mann, Hansen and the rest of the Team), and PR men, not scientists.
It will be a long time before anyone is interested in the science since the ‘science is settled’ and the ‘debate is over’. It is only when those claims can be shown to be patently false, that the debate will open up, and the science will get reviewed. The continuation and lengthening of the ‘pause’ will obviously help (should the current El Nino result in nothing more than a short lived peak with a following La Nina bringing temperatures down and then should the temperature anomaly settle and continue around the 2001 to 2003 level).
it is easy to adjust the data, but not so easy to adjust everyday experience and photographic evidence. If the world begins to cool, people experience colder winters, photographs show Arctic ice increasing etc, then people en mass, will begin to question the drip fed misinformation forced upon them by the MSM who are in the pockets of the warmists.

Reply to  richard verney
December 28, 2015 7:02 pm

Richard – Arctic ice decline can only be a poster child for warmists when it is accepted that its cause is the greenhouse effect, which it isn’t. I showed in 2011 that Arctic warming has nothing whatsoever to do with carbon dioxide greenhouse effect but is caused by a change in the flow pattern of of North Atlantic currents at the turn of the twentieth century. There was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide at the turn of the century which makes the greenhouse effect impossible. The warming is due to the change in currents directing the northward flow of the Gulf Stream into the deep Arctic. I estimate that as a result the total ice cover of the Arctic is a third less than it would be in the absence of warm water reaching it. This also explains why the Arctic is warming but the Antarctic is cooling. They would both be cooling if it wasn’t for the warm water carried north by currents. Prior to the start of this warming there was nothing there but two thousand tears of slow cooling. The start of warming was hesitant and was interrupted by thirty years of cooling in mid-century. Warming resumed in 1970 and is still going on. Among other things it is responsible for opening up the northwest passage to shipping. I can understand that warmists would deliberately want to hide these facts but there is no excuse for you not to know my paper in E&E 22(8):1069-1083(2011).

richard verney
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
December 29, 2015 3:13 am

My reply is posted above you. Whoops!

December 28, 2015 8:30 am

Forcing everyone to pay for clean energy is wealth [redistribution], just like paying allabor workers is wealth redistribution! We must return to both slavery and pillage and plunder as the core of economic activity. Slaves to serve our needs. Pillage and plunder to get the goods we want. We should never be required to pay for anything. We should never be forced to pay people to work.
Liberals are destroying the world with the nonsense that paying more for what we want will benefit everyone.
No, we are better off when we take what we want from whoever has what we want without paying for it!
[Then again, perhaps if “reducpstribution” is “reducing re-distribution” you might have spelled it write the first time. .mod]

Reply to  mulp
December 28, 2015 9:51 am

How is imposing a carbon tax and giving it to windmill power promoters helping anyone except the windmill operators?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  mulp
December 28, 2015 1:54 pm

Come back when you have something remotely coherent to say.

December 28, 2015 11:01 am

December 28, 2015 11:01 am

[Note: Please include a few words of explanation when posting videos. ~mod.]

December 28, 2015 1:21 pm

“Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. ”
100 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what gets spent on WAR. If your going to spend this much on military funding , then you better have wars to justify your spending. When a leading nation only has military equipment to sell to the world, then said nation is responsible for the disruption to peace and happiness . It’s not that hard to understand that , if I’ve got a bag of marbles and no one else has got any, then I’ll have to give you some of mine so you can play . To create changes in our lives , first you have to stop doing what your been doing first, otherwise nothing has changed .

Bill Powers
Reply to  jmorpuss
December 28, 2015 4:25 pm

How much we spend on defense is a separate argument and since it is the only responsibility outlined for the U.S. Federal Government under the Constitution, it is necessary. It is worthwhile to debate how much and on what, tax dollars should be spent but it is not a justification for spending money on non-defense issues.
The most sophomoric comment one can make, in order to justify wasteful spending, is to point to military spending and then say, well if we can spend x to conduct war then no need to worry about spending x-1 to redistribute money for any old cause we can cook up.
You don’t even get “nice try” on that one jmorpuss.

December 28, 2015 2:18 pm
Alex B
December 28, 2015 2:32 pm

Having lived in Norway since 2008 I can say that claiming that this country is the best prepared for climate change is complete and utter bollocks. There have been som heavier than normal rain and snow melding events in the past few years and houses that were built too close to rivers got ripped, cellars inundated, roads and railroads flushed away and closed for days up to months. Nothing has been done, nothing is being done as the social system gobbles up all tax revenues. My choice is my old home country the Netherlands. When you live in a densely populated land with about 30% being below sea level one must be on the alert all the time and generally speaking the authorities are. It is one of the few things these days that go relatively well there.

December 28, 2015 2:41 pm

Thanks for the post. I enjoyed that.

Robert S
December 29, 2015 5:13 am

Im Winter das Wetter ist kalt; es regnet oft und es schneit manchmal.
In England due to left wing socialist legally binding legislation (no other country has this not even Deutschland) there is a statutary requirement to reduce CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2030. To do this Labour has ensured that the coal and steel industries are both shut down to the great applause of the Green Party
residing in Brighton (as far away from the coalfields and steel plants as you can get) .The socialists used shamefacedly to court the miners and steelworkers but have worked harder than anyone including Mrs Thatcher (who is innocent in all of this) to close their industries down and in the process export their jobs abroad. The socialists also cunningly contrive to ensure that the industry closures take place after they have been voted out of office by the electorate and the Conservatives are in power to conveniently take the blame. The socialists also left the country bankrupt with massive debts and huge borrowings forcing the next Conservative government to reduce spending (except in overseas aid) and make economies. However the heavy winter rainfall mentioned in line 1, unprecedented this year, has caused massive flooding in the Lake District which normally gets >60 inches of rain a year anyway. The socialists then blame the Conservatives by reducing expenditure on flood defences for the flooding conveniently forgetting that it was their bankruptcy policies of profligate government spending on a massive scale that caused the funding problem in the first place.

Patrick MJD
December 29, 2015 8:59 am

December 28, 2015 at 4:42 am
And when you use the proper law – the one written for the atmosphere named the Ideal Gas Law – you can, just with a calculator on your desktop, calculate the temperature the surface of Venus should be, if CO2 is a standard, universal gas – what’s called an ideal gas- that operates according to the mathematics of all the other gases, like nitrogen, oxygen, etc –”
When in the 80’s the news that as a result of adding CO2 Earth will experience run-away warming simmilar to that on Venus. Read up on the Venus probes, which I knew about anyway, especially the very first, short-lived, Russian one. So, I too went to find out the gas laws and soon worked out Hansen was talking rubbish! His models were rubbish. His science was demolished right there and then. Why anyone listens to the man is anyone’s guess.

December 29, 2015 3:34 pm

Thank you Tim and Happy Holidays.
Coincidentally, I have been reading “Climate of Hunger” by Reid Bryson and Thomas Murray, published in 1977 about the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to ~1975.
I think we are due for another bout of global cooling, to commence before 2020, and I suggest we will look back at this brief warmer period with great fondness.
Global warming alarmism has always employed the BIG LIE, and the tactics thereof.
Global warming alarmism is inherently evil, because it misappropriates trillions of dollars in scarce global resources to fight an alleged crisis that does not exist in reality.
These trillions of dollars are confiscated from individual taxpayers and electric power consumers and given to the best friends (and financial contributors) of the warmist politicians – in financial terms, it is probably the largest fraud in the history of our civilization.
Further harm has been done by excessive investment in “green energy” schemes that are not green and produce little useful energy, and also destabilize the electrical grid. If I am (we are) correct about imminent global cooling, this deliberate harm done to the electrical grid could have very serious, even tragic consequences.
Regards, Allan

December 29, 2015 5:19 pm

The chart confirms that if you forgo defense spending you can be most prepared for climate change. I just hope the Russian interest in the Baltic continues to be held back by the hard work and long hours of workers elsewhere. Did these countries make even a micro dent in the last military aggression in that region—— from the Nazi Party?

December 30, 2015 11:57 am

For example, how do you put a value on the loss of credibility of science?

Science will increase in credibility ;
this arrogant global statist nonscience will continue to expose their willful ignorance and thus criminal malfeasance .

December 31, 2015 6:50 am

The Ponzi scheme “global warming/climate change” is using every con tactic known to gain acceptance. Looking back on the rhetoric we were told run away high temps were imminent-due to CO2. Now, we’re told carbon taxes will hold the rise to 1-2 degrees C. Bait and Switch at its best. Nothing will be done about “climate change” but the collection of taxes–because nothing needs to be done.
CO2 is not a pollutant or controller of the Earth’s “thermostat”, it’s an excuse for government bureaucrats to micromanage all human activity.

December 31, 2015 8:21 am

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.