The Fable of a Stable Climate


Translation from the Dutch book review “Het Sprookje van een stabiel klimaat” by Hans Labohm. Posted on the blog.

My loyal readers know him as co-author of my blog: the geologist, paleoclimatologist and climate sceptic Gerrit van der Lingen, an antipode of Dutch origin who has been living in New Zealand for many years.

Gerrit van der Lingen has recently published a fascinating book, “The Fable of a Stable Climate, the writings and debates of a climate realist”, which contains a collection of his essays, lectures, discussions and letters to the media about climate and associated subjects.

Most of the public information about the climate comes from scientists who studied the weather and weather processes and who consider temperature data of 150 years already a long period. For van der Lingen this is only one heartbeat in the geological history, which forms the only correct context for judging the present climate developments.

While studying climate change in the past he realised that the present belief in man-made catastrophic global warming (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming), caused by CO2 emissions, is not supported by the science. He became involved in the climate debate, in which the protagonists of the AGW, who believe in the dominant role of mankind in the warming of the atmosphere, and the antagonists, who base their opinions on factual data and observations, are diametrically opposed to each other. It seems to be a debate between ideology and pure science.

In his introduction Gerrit van der Lingen describes his adventurous lifecycle as a geologist. After his education at the University of Utrecht, he took part in several scientific expeditions to inhospitable areas.

The first chapter contains an overview of his email bulletins “Global warming and cooling”, which he wrote over several years. These give a clear overview of the climate debate, with all its high and low points. In doing this he draws attention to the role played by important participants, protagonists as well as antagonists, such as (alphabetically) Habibullo Addussamatov, Joe d’Aleo, Will Alexander. Noor van Andel, Timothy Ball, David Bellamy, Bob Carter, Ian Castles, Michael Crighton, John Daly, Freeman Dyson, Bas van Geel, Al Gore, James Hansen, David Henderson, Warwick Hughes, Sir John Houghton, Craig en Keith Idso, Yuri Izrael, Kees de Jager, Phil Jones, Sir David King, Kirill Kondratyev, Salomon Kroonenberg, Richard Lindzen, Bjørn Lomborg, Michael Mann, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Pat Michaels, Lord Christopher Monckton, Nils–Axel Mörner, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Stefan Rahmstorf, Arthur Rörsch, Fred Singer, Hans von Storch, Rajendra Pachauri, Harry Priem, Paul Reiter, Sir Nicolas Stern, Dick Thoenes, Bob Tisdale, Kevin Trenberth, Pier Vellinga, Anthony Watts and many others.

As a Dutchman, Gerrit van der Lingen is also well informed of the climate discussion in the Netherlands. He draws attention to this in various parts in his book. As far as I know this is the first time that this happens in an English-language book.

He is all the time surprised how it is possible that intelligent people can be taken in by the AGW hypothesis and, as a consequent, have lost all sense of reality.

I select one salient detail, to which van der Lingen returns a few times, because there are still misunderstandings about it. It pertains to the Russian position in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. The Russians had a few questions on which they never received an answer. In 2004, they decided to organise a climate conference in Moscow, independently of the UN IPCC climate panel, and with the co-operation of a number of climate sceptics. At the end of this conference, Andrei Illarionov, at the time economic advisor of president Putin, presented his impressions.

Yuri Antonovich and I have mentioned the fact that this is the first seminar of its kind that we have managed to arrange and it was accidental. Over almost a year we have repeatedly asked our foreign partners who advocate the Kyoto Protocol and who insist that Russia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and we have invited them to meet and discuss these issues, present arguments and counter-arguments and discuss them jointly. But we have not received any reply for a year. These people persistently refused to take part in any discussion.

Nine months ago, at an international climate change conference in Moscow, ten questions concerning the essence of the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying theory were submitted to the IPCC. We were told that the reply would be given within several days. Nine months have passed since

then but there has been no reply, even though we have repeated our inquiries on these and the growing number of other related questions.

Instead of getting replies to our questions, we kept on hearing that replies did not matter. What was important is that whether or not Russia trusts Britain, the European Union and the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that have been exerting unprecedented pressure on Russia to ratify it. This is why it was so important for us to arrange a real meeting and a real discussion of real problems with the participation of foreign scientists who have different views in order not to stew in one’s own juice, as Yuri Antonovich put it, but to hear the arguments not only of our Russian scientists but also the arguments and counter-arguments from scientists in other countries.

We did get such an opportunity and over the past two days we heard more than 20 reports, we held detailed discussions, and now we can say that a considerable number of the questions we formulated and raised have been somewhat clarified, just as some other questions have.

I would sum up my conclusions in six points. The first one concerns the nature and the contents of the Kyoto Protocol. This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, international adventure of all times and nations. Frankly speaking, it’s hard to recall something like this of the same scale and of the same consequences, just as the lack of any grounds for action in field.

Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the “scientific” theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based been borne out by actual data. We are not seeing any high frequency of emergency situations or events. There has been no increase in the number of floods. Just as there has been no increase in the number of droughts. We can see that the speed of the wind in the hails in some areas is decreasing contrary to the statements made by the people who support the Kyoto Protocol. We are not witnessing a higher incidence of contagious diseases, and if there is a rise, it has nothing to do with climate change.

Andrei Allarionov continued by describing in detail the misbehaviour of the British delegation under the leadership of Sir David King, then the most important advisor of the British government, who did his utmost to sabotage the meeting, among others by requiring that climate sceptics not be allowed to present their presentations, and by stalking out of the meeting.

Illarionov compared the AGW with an ideology.

The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared … with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.

And that from the mouth of a Russian!

The Moscow climate conference leaves no doubt that the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be considered as supporters of the AGW dogma – a thesis that is part of the standard repertoire of the disinformation by climate alarmists.

In the course of the book all important themes of the climate debate are discussed in short, clear analyses, and all allegations of the climate alarmists are tested against measurements and observations …. and refuted! After all, the warming hysteria is not based on science, but only on non-validated computer models. As is often said: Rubbish in – gospel out.

The book is full of anecdotes, showing that the author and his allies have provoked the ire of the supporters of the human greenhouse gas hypothesis. These days, if someone admits that he does not believe in God, it will, in general, be accepted without fuss. However, if one declares not to believe in AGW, it is seen by many as blasphemy, and the “culprit” is subjected to a tidal wave of ad hominems, insults and accusations.

At the end of the book, Gerrit van der Lingen sighs that:

When future historians will be studying the present global mass hysteria about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming (MMGW), they will most likely shake their heads in total disbelief. They may well compare it with other such historic irrational hysterias, like the tulipomania in Holland in the 17th century. …

The belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause, or will cause catastrophic global warming is a … totalitarian belief. It does not allow ‘critical discussion’. Those scientists who try are vilified. Over the years I collected the following abuses: ‘climate change deniers’, ‘cashamplified flat-earth pseudo scientists’, ‘the carbon cartel’, ‘villains’, ‘cranks’, ‘refuseniks lobby’, ‘polluters’, ‘a powerful and devious enemy’, ‘profligates’. The list is endless. …

By saying that the science of climate change is ‘settled’ and not open to further discussion, clearly shows that the belief in man-made global warming is not based on proper science, but is a neoMarxist, intolerant ideology. It is anti-science, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-growth, antihumanity, anti-progress.

All in all, “The Fable of a Stable Climate” shows a wide and solid knowledge of the subject. Moreover, Gerrit van der Lingen has the talent to very clearly explain the complicated problems, which make his writings very accessible for a broad public. In other words: his book reads like a riveting novel.

The book has 418 pages and many illustrations and graphs, as well as extensive reference lists. The book, both paperback and Kindle, can be ordered here:

It is also on Amazon, here

In my opinion, this book is mandatory reading for climatophiles of all denominations.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Curious George
April 26, 2016 5:04 pm

It sounds like a voice of reason.

Tom Anderson
Reply to  Curious George
April 27, 2016 2:07 pm

True acolytes for the new “feudal Eden” will never be reasoned away from it.
Martin Durkin, a documentary producer for the History Channel among others, has posted a very concise analysis (about 25 pages) of the politics driving that gloomy warmist nostalgia. It was as well the Nazis’ anti-human dreamscape. I never miss a chance to direct people’s attention to:

Reply to  Tom Anderson
April 28, 2016 10:25 am


April 26, 2016 5:07 pm

Anthony, somebody broke your paragraph…
” Nine months ago, at an international climate change conference in Moscow, ten questions concerning the essence of the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying theory were submitted to the IPCC. We were told that the reply would be given within several days. Nine months have passed since
then but there has been no reply, even though we have repeated our inquiries on these and the growing number of other related questions. ”
Sticky fingers ?? Yea, me too…stupid beer…

April 26, 2016 5:16 pm

Anthony. the link above only brings you to the online free full version of the book.. I’d rather have a paper copy for showing certain people references…
This would probably make a great video too..

Reply to  Marcus
April 26, 2016 6:28 pm

Need a hardcopy version?–1
Check out the two-sided print option.
Glad I could help.

Jay Hope
Reply to  Marcus
April 27, 2016 1:56 pm

Where’s the link to Amazon UK and .Com?

April 26, 2016 5:20 pm

Is there any Astronomy in it?comment image

Reply to  Sparks
April 26, 2016 5:26 pm

..What does that have to do with the price of chickens ??

Reply to  Sparks
April 26, 2016 6:07 pm

That chart is fairly cryptic. Could you give us some explanation as to how Jupiter’s orbit is changing and why? Possibly you could add why these changes might be important. You did not give us a whole lot to work with.

Reply to  Sparks
April 26, 2016 6:54 pm

Sparks at 5:20
Could we please have a link and explanation for this graph…it means nothing otherwise.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
April 27, 2016 6:21 am

seems pretty clear. in 6000 years the orbit of jupiter has changed by 30.

Reply to  Alastair Brickell
April 27, 2016 3:42 pm

I bid 40!

Reply to  Sparks
April 27, 2016 12:47 pm

I think (I hope) that his point is the the CAGW scare is based on spurious correlations.

Tom Halla
April 26, 2016 5:21 pm


April 26, 2016 5:29 pm

OOPS, never ad blocker was not showing how to buy it !!

April 26, 2016 5:37 pm

The biggest climate myth is the climate was in equilibrium before being disrupted by CO2.

Reply to  jim Steele
April 26, 2016 11:30 pm

It wasn’t Jim.
But the graph above has an x-axis in 10’s thousands of years.
And we know why the changes occurred over that times span dont’ we?

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 1:33 am

All that burning of fossil fuels in the last 10,000 years? 🙂

Bob Boder
Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 4:23 am

what you don’t believe in Atlantis? Those damn Atlantians burned a lot of coal and oil you know.

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 10:34 am

We know that the climate can naturally change by way more than what we have seen in the last few decades.
Until you can prove that whatever caused previous changes is not causing the current change, then you have nothing.

April 26, 2016 5:42 pm

It’s all weather with indeterminate periods and regions of semi-stable conditions that vary widely over the Earth.

April 26, 2016 5:45 pm

Their advocacy for carbon-based reduction (i.e. “planning”) and sequestration (i.e. “abortion”) does recall practices of the secular Gaia cult.

April 26, 2016 5:48 pm

It is interesting to get the Russian take on things. I knew they were not buying the whole CAGW story, but I did not know how much they tried to engage with their western counterparts.

john harmsworth
Reply to  TonyL
April 27, 2016 11:23 am

I don’t think the Chinese buy it either but they go along with it because they don’t have a lot of oil. If the idiot West wants to deport all their industry to China, who are they to stop them? If the idiot West wants to invest trillions in “clean” energy and thereby reduce demand for fossil fuels, who are the Chinese to stop them? Every present action by the West makes the West weaker and China stronger.These countries don’t have the powerful special interest groups, assisted by a sensationalist press that are the bane of our existence in the West.

April 26, 2016 5:56 pm

“He is all the time surprised how it is possible that intelligent people can be taken in by the AGW hypothesis and, as a consequent, have lost all sense of reality.”
Me too except that I suspect there is money and power which makes people forget the reality.
Will the money last until the power gets entrenched though?

Leo Smith
Reply to  rogerthesurf
April 27, 2016 3:04 am

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful.
(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

April 26, 2016 5:57 pm

WordPress is struggling to complete loaded pages, for some reason. Other sites load normal.

Reply to  goldminor
April 26, 2016 6:18 pm

It is back to normal now.
On topic, what a great post. The public needs to be educated on the historical data.

Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2016 7:09 pm

The book looks very interesting, but $45 is a bit steep for an e-book.

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2016 8:47 pm

The price of the Kindle version is only $15!
The author (Gerrit van der Lingen)

Reply to  Walter Sobchak
April 26, 2016 9:14 pm

Walter Sobchak – You don’t think any publisher would pay to publish Gerrit van der Lingen’s book? He is not a millionnaire author – but he is a specialist in his field of science with enough faith in the correctness of his opinions to pay for the book out of his own pocket. Let us support him.

john harmsworth
Reply to  AndyE
April 27, 2016 11:27 am

I think he just needs a catchy title like” The biggest lie evah”, or Bringing the heat- the truth about climate change. With a sexy girl on the cover! Yeah, that’s the ticket

April 26, 2016 7:29 pm

From your description and the quotes Mr. Gerrit van der Lingen nails it. Totalitarian ideology. Russia and China can only be bought at this point and even the UN/EU cabal doesn’t have enough money for that because they already have the control that the cabal promises to give them so why take part and ruin their societies? India doesn’t exert the same control over its’ people but there is no way they are going to accept forgoing the fruits of industrialization at this point in time. They have an educated people that won’t be denied raising India’s standard of living. Without Russia, China, and India alone it won’t be a ‘world’ effort and everybody knows it.

Proud Skeptic
April 26, 2016 7:38 pm

I find it interesting that science based on paleo-proxy data is being used to disprove science based on paleo-proxy data. To me, the real argument against all of this is that it is impossible to measure or infer ANY of this stuff accurately enough to make any precise conclusions or predictions. We can get a sense of what may have happened in the past…but we CANNOT be certain enough of the data to attribute the level of accuracy that is required to do what the climate scientists are trying to do.
By presenting conflicting findings based on data with a high degree of accuracy attributed to them, you validate the weakest thing about their argument.
I think it is a mistake.

Reply to  Proud Skeptic
April 26, 2016 9:01 pm

The LIA never happened. Nice. U disappeared The map too

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 26, 2016 11:28 pm

Have you ever thought about taking a course in how to write in an intelligible form of English and how to put your thoughts down so that they make sense?

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 27, 2016 1:49 am

So now Mosher admits to being a climate change denier!

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 27, 2016 4:56 am

Hey, Steve. Over here in England, we call that being gimp.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 27, 2016 4:59 am

comment image
You’re welcome!

Proud Skeptic
Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 27, 2016 2:16 pm

What you wrote makes no sense. Want to try again? Maybe you can address my point rather than going off on a tangent this time.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
April 28, 2016 9:31 pm


Santa Baby
April 26, 2016 11:05 pm


Ian MacCulloch
April 26, 2016 11:05 pm

From about 1 million years BP the climate has been stable. At that point there was no ice in the Antarctica and none in Greenland. The airborne geophysical surveys over Antarctica and the drilling in Greenland both confirm and ice free in their respective locations. When the Earth’s climate changed about 1 million years ago this change saw the commencement of the virtual continuous accumulation of ice as represented by Vostok 1 and Dome C. There has been no gaps in the ice record that could be ascribed to climate at these sites as the cores are remarkably continuous and intact. From the DNA of pine seeds recovered in the Greenland cores it is clear that temperate conditions existed up to about 432,000 years BP. At this point a major change took place in the climate near the Artic circle. Ice began to accumulate and has done so ever since and without a break. Where ice has come and gone is in areas remote from the permanent accumulating ice sheets in Greenland and in Antarctica. It is also interesting to note that the rate of accumulation has been remarkably constant given that there have been several cycles of significant sea level changes in the interim.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Ian MacCulloch
April 27, 2016 2:18 am

Ian there are gaps in the ice-core as shown by the discrepancy between the Milankovitch cycle and ice-cores that gets progressively worse after a couple of interglacials. In particular the 230k interglacial is not only remarkably short, but if you look at the relationship between the Milankovitch cycle and differential of temperature, at the bottom, you’ll see a pronounced step increase in the discrepancy before and after the 230k interglacial.
Also, there is a pronounced deepening of the ice-age cycle that is occurring over time. These may not be obvious if you only have 1million years of data, but the 5million year Benthic record clearly indicates a continuously changing regime rather than a stable one:

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
April 27, 2016 2:19 am

In case it isn’t obvious the “step increase” means the ice-core melted removing many thousands of years of ice-core.

Reply to  Scottish Sceptic
April 27, 2016 6:19 am

Scottish Sceptic,
Melting of the Vostok ice core at average -40°C and the highest temperature recorded there not above -14°C seems quite difficult, even if the temperatures during previous interglacials were a few °C higher than today. Some reference to that melting? Or other possible artifacts?

April 26, 2016 11:25 pm

“The Moscow climate conference leaves no doubt that the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be considered as supporters of the AGW dogma – a thesis that is part of the standard repertoire of the disinformation by climate alarmists.”
Mmmm, I wonder why that would be?
It couldn’t just be because, well, Putin gets his wealth from oil/gas.
No of course not!
“Russia relies on energy revenues to drive growth. Containing over 30 percent of the world’s natural resources, which are estimated to be worth $75.7 trillion, Russia is the most resource-rich country in the world.[30] Russia has an abundance of oil, natural gas and precious metals, which make up a major share of Russia’s exports. As of 2012 the oil-and-gas sector accounted for 16% of the GDP, 52% of federal budget revenues and over 70% of total exports.”

David A
Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 2:24 am

Tonyb, I get it, government agenda and money corrupts Russian scientist, but not US and European scientists. (sarc)

Reply to  David A
April 27, 2016 3:12 am

This is Toneb, not I think Tonyb.

Reply to  David A
April 27, 2016 5:08 am

Correct – because Russia runs on corruption.
How else could a country so rich in natural resources be so poor …. unless you are a mate of Putin or an Oligarch …. Oh, wait, you have to be a friend of Putin to be an Oligarch.
The US isn’t corrupt or anywhere else with democracy.
Russia isn’t a democracy (except perhaps in name).

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 2:27 am

This is a fallacy, a false argument.
Briggs calls it the genetic fallacy, anyone who has even the most flimsy “link to petro chemicals is therefor lying.”
Which makes me laugh as this has been used to basically sideline the foremost experts in geophysical research. Laughable.
At the same time, Obama as senator with his Chicago climate exchange investments are not seen as relative. That the state funded science pushes his exact line to the letter.. is not questionable?
isn’t it funny when people see through a filter that filters out everything inconvenient about their own arguments

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 7:54 am

Perchance the reason Russia isn’t hysterical about it being warmer is because they wish it were warmer for obvious reasons though General Winter has kept more than one invader out.

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 10:41 am

Russia sells gas.
Replacing coal with gas is one of the mantras of your co-religionists.
So by your convoluted logic, this means the Russians should be supporting the CAGW con.

April 26, 2016 11:32 pm

IOW: Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 12:45 am

Toneb , the assumption that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas does not mean that they are misguided in not anticipating Christmas with the same degree of enthusiasm that you do.
Yes , the Russian economy is very dependent on its oil and gas exports , but that supports a reasonable standard of living for 100s of millions of people who live in a part of the world where , for 6 months , the living conditions are quite harsh. They probably assume that they as much right to “life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as the rest of us.
What is clear is that the only certain way of stopping global warming is to ban or severely restrict the use of all fossil fuels . We have all known that for more than 40 years . No such ban has ever emerged from numerous conferences , because , as Menicholas rightly commented the last time I mentioned this fact , the cost of implementing the solution to AGW is far , far worse than the benefit – a fractional drop in global temperature.
IMO,we have no moral right to criticise Russia for impeding Kyoto or its successors because of its dependence on oil and gas exports if we are not ourselves in the West prepared to totally give up the enormous advantages to our standard of living that access to fossil fuels provides.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  mikewaite
April 27, 2016 1:27 am

It can be said without any reservations that if fossil fuels were not purchased there would be no production.
If you vote for the greens and you drive a car or fly in a plane you can be a fool a hypocrite or a combination of both its that simple.

Leo Smith
Reply to  mikewaite
April 27, 2016 3:16 am

What is clear is that the only certain way of stopping global warming is to ban or severely restrict the use of all fossil fuels. We have all known that for more than 40 years .
Yep. Clear as mud.
And twice as sticky.
No, its not clear, and most of us (here) have known its not true for at least 10 years.
δT/ δ.log(CO2 ) is only one partial derivative in a complex equation with many many other variables., The game is given away by the glee with which this, and only this, partial derivative has been seized upon and made the single salient variable, not because it is, but because it is politically and commercially expedient to treat it as such.
Do not confuse science with politics.
A scientific hypothesis is falsifiable by reference to measurable data, and its purpose is to determine the future.
A political hypothesis is not falsifiable, and its purpose is to dictate the future.

Reply to  mikewaite
April 27, 2016 10:38 am

Toneb takes it for granted that everybody agrees with him.

Tim Hammond
Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 1:17 am

Try looking up logical fallacies. You’ve just committed one.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
April 27, 2016 2:32 am

I think he is funny, and the epitome of those who “believe”.
They point out stuff about their “opponents” while “forgetting” the exact same examples from their own side of the argument.
There’s a word for that..

Reply to  Tim Hammond
April 27, 2016 10:39 am


Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 2:29 am

But apparently they vote on whether science is valid or not

john harmsworth
Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 11:38 am

So every Russian scientist is corrupt and somehow they are able to produce research which is entirely false and yet cannot be caught out by all the scientists of the West. I agree then, we must cover our eyes and ears, lest we be contaminated by false prophets. Doom is certain and we must accept it. Or else not! It’s pretty sad when you’re so sure that you’re afraid to even look at the other guys evidence.

Reply to  Toneb
April 27, 2016 11:33 pm

“Toneb takes it for granted that everybody agrees with him.”
No, I take it for granted that those who have properly examined the evidence, know the science and crucially are not tainted by ideological bias …. agrees with me.
I am here only to gainsay ignorance for those who do not have the latter and wish to be appraised of the former.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Toneb
May 5, 2016 9:38 am

And Eco-Nazis (including crusading scientists) don’t acknowledge natural climate drivers as opposed to the supposed man-made ones. There’s no money in it. See, your own logic does have some merit!
But since you haven’t established that these Russian scientists are “mates of Putin,” your logic fails pretty miserably the way you applied it. Thanks for acknowledging (effectively) what we already knew about AGW pushing pseudo-scientists, though.

April 27, 2016 12:18 am

Here in Norway we’re also quite dependant on oil export, but nevertheless are we plagued by ‘environmental friendly’ politicians. (We do have the worlds highest density per capita of Teslas, partly sponsored by the government…..!) Stupidity have no limits.

Reply to  Geir
April 27, 2016 2:13 am

Not that stupid as you have 99% electricity from hydro, and the Danish do help with their (cheap for Norway) overcapacity from wind mills if there is wind and use your (expensive for them) electricity if there is no wind…
All together, better sell all oil to other countries than burning it in your own cars, as long as you have enough reserves of hydropower…
Of course, sponsoring is a bad idea, as that skews the real price of such cars, mostly owned by firms (and government) including tax deduction, thus letting pay everybody for the happy not so poor owners…

April 27, 2016 12:55 am

Our current beneficial, warm Holocene interglacial has been the enabler of mankind’s civilisation for the last 10,000 years. The congenial climate of the Holocene epoch spans from mankind’s earliest farming to the scientific and technological advances of the last 100 years.
However all the Northern Hemisphere Ice Core records from Greenland show:
• the last millennium 1000AD – 2000AD has been the coldest millennium of the entire Holocene interglacial.
• each of the notable high points in the Holocene temperature record, (Holocene Climate Optimum – Minoan – Roman – Medieval – Modern), have been progressively colder than the previous high point.
• for its first 7-8000 years the early Holocene, including its high point “climate optimum”, had virtually flat temperatures, an average drop of only ~0.007 °C per millennium.
• but the more recent Holocene, since a “tipping point” at ~1000BC, has seen a temperature diminution at more than 20 times that earlier rate at about 0.14 °C per millennium.
• the Holocene interglacial is already 10 – 11,000 years old and judging from the length of previous interglacials the Holocene epoch should be drawing to its close: in this century, the next century or this millennium.
• the beneficial warming at the end of the 20th century to the Modern high point has been transmuted into the “Great Man-made Global Warming Scare”.
• eventually this late 20th century temperature blip will come to be seen as just noise in the system in the longer term progress of comparatively rapid cooling over the last 3000+ years.
• other published Greenland Ice Core records as well as GISP2, (NGRIP1, GRIP) corroborate this finding. They also exhibit the same pattern of a prolonged relatively stable early Holocene period followed by a subsequent much more rapid decline in the more recent past.
When considering the scale of temperature changes that alarmists anticipate because of Man-made Global Warming and their view of the disastrous effects of additional Man-made Carbon Dioxide emissions in this century, it is useful to look at climate change from a longer term, century by century and even on a millennial perspective.
The much vaunted and much feared “fatal” tipping point of +2°C would only bring Global temperatures close to the level of the very congenial climate of “the Roman warm period”.

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  edmh
April 27, 2016 2:47 am

nice article!

April 27, 2016 12:57 am

You assert a vested interest as the main reason [It couldn’t just be because, well, Putin …] and then focus on the immense Russian exports.
How would ratifying Kyota affect their exports much when Kyoto targets are directed to internal emission reductions?
Equally, Shell turnover would basically be 100% dependent on oil/gas. Why would they be exhorting Govts to press ahead with renewable energy? Should we conclude Shell must be a real Xmas turkey? I think not.
The writer has given a reasonably comprehensive coverage; questions were asked and the tardy answers were rebutted with the evidence which did not accord with the Kyoto assertions. It goes much further in basically saying Kyoto is based on little or even pseudo science.
This is not too different to the conclusion that many of us have reached yet few of us depend on coal, oil or gas cheques.

Harry Passfield
April 27, 2016 1:58 am

I was rather taken by this quote from Andrei Illarionov – re Kyoto:

This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, international adventure of all times and nations. Frankly speaking, it’s hard to recall something like this of the same scale and of the same consequences, just as the lack of any grounds for action in field.

I assume the original was in Russian. That being the case, I would bet there are some idiomatic nuances to be missed in translation. Especially around the use of the word: ‘adventure’.

April 27, 2016 2:13 am

Too bad the post amounts to little more than the book’s teaser, and contains no discussion on climate stability. The Russian unofficial posture is well known, but it must be remembered that both the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian government officially support climate change consensus.
The Russian Academy of Sciences is a signatory of the Joint Academies’ Statement: Global response to climate change:
And the Russian government has signed the Paris Accord.
So even if it is all just a posture, as some people like to think, it changes nothing. The entire world is dancing to the same tune.

Reply to  Javier
April 27, 2016 3:12 am

No they SAY they are and will dance but when it comes to actually getting out on the floor to dance as they say they will most do not.

Harry Passfield
April 27, 2016 2:24 am

Now I remember where I saw this story before:
The criticism he had for the British contingent went like this:

Second, in respect to the presentation made by representatives of the so-called official team of the British government and the official British climate science, or at least how they introduced themselves at the seminar. I personally was surprised by the exceptionally poor content of the papers presented. During the past two years I took part in many international meetings, seminars, conferences and congresses on these issues both in Russia and in many of the countries, including the seminar that we had today and yesterday. Honestly, these papers and presentations differed dramatically from what is usually offered at international congresses and conferences.
Simultaneously, they revealed an absolute—and I stress, absolute inability to answer questions concerning the alleged professional activities of the authors of these papers. Not only the ten questions that were published nine months ago, but not a single question asked during this two-day seminar by participants in the seminar, both Russian and foreign, were answered.
When it became clear that they could not provide a substantive answer to a question, three devices were used. And I have to say it now although has not direct bearing on the Kyoto Protocol and the content of the extremely interesting presentations made during the past two days. The British participants insisted on introducing censorship during the holding of this seminar. The chief science adviser to the British government, Mr. King, demanded in the form of an ultimatum at the beginning of yesterday that the program of the seminar be changed and he presented an ultimatum demanding that about two-third of the participants not be given the floor.

April 27, 2016 2:36 am

“When future historians will be studying the present global mass hysteria about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming (MMGW), they will most likely shake their heads in total disbelief. They may well compare it with other such historic irrational hysterias, like the tulipomania in Holland in the 17th century. … ”
Not just the hysteria -perhaps the greater lunacy is the belief that we could actually “fix” it.

Mindert Eiting
Reply to  4TimesAYear
April 27, 2016 6:20 am

The tulipomania is not a good example and had no more to do with hysteria or irrationality than a gold rush. It was an economic bubble, with a lot of rent seeking people involved. It was the follow-up of giant profits people could earn by shares in the colonial companies. That time is still called by historians the Golden Age of the Netherlands. There are better examples like the belief in witches and the remedy to burn these women at the stake. More importantly, we should not think that AGW is a mass delusion. Majorities in several countries do not consider AGW a serious problem. It is more an elite-delusion as can be seen in the regimes of Pol Pot and Mao. A lot more dangerous than a tulipomania but that is another aspect.

Reply to  Mindert Eiting
April 28, 2016 12:03 am

If indeed it is a delusion and not an outright scam. There are times I get the sense that they are trying to convince us of something they know is not true. A “clean power plan” that they admit “is not about pollution control”…*SMH*

April 27, 2016 2:44 am

The question that needs to be answered by all the ideas about the formation of the last ice age.
“ls why did the climates of North America and northern europe/NW Russia become the extreme cold events they did”?.
Changes in the orbit and tilt of the earth do not explain these extreme changes. These changes would have brought about a much less extreme and a more general cooling of the earth. Something else was going on to cause these extreme events. Now for the last 3 years l have been convinced that these extreme changes in climate came about because of the weather. l just had to wait 3 years for the weather to behave in a certain way to prove it to me. Well over this past month that’s just what its done for me.
l now know the key factors to get the extreme cold in place over North America and europe.
1 There needs to be high pressure blocking in the Pacific from NW to NE of the Hawaii lslands. Which sets up kinks in the jet stream and allows high pressure to ridge up towards NW North America. Which then draws cold Polar air down across NE North America and then allows low pressure to form over NE America..
2 But to keep the cold in place if this pattern brakes down. Then high pressure needs to build over North America that is linked to high pressure over the Pacific side of the Arctic. When this weather pattern set up is in place then draws air from across the Arctic and then pushes it down across North America. lf the weather just spends most of its time changing between these two patterns. This is when you get the extreme cold over North America.
3 Now when this cold air dives down across North America it tends to make the jet stream rebound NE across the Atlantic. Which then tends draws warm air up from the mid Atlantic with it. To stop this from happening, there needs to be high pressure blocking over the northern Atlantic/Greenland area. Which blocks off the warm mid Atlantic air and instead drives cold air down across europe. This Omega blocking over the northern Atlantic is a key factor for the building of the ice sheets over North America and europe.
lf this type of weather patterning becomes persistent over a long time.Then its this what leads to the extreme cooling over North America and europe

Scottish Sceptic
Reply to  taxed
April 27, 2016 2:54 am


john harmsworth
Reply to  taxed
April 27, 2016 11:49 am

Unfortunately, this is not an explanation for anything beyond tonight’s weather report. For starters, figure out what mechanism might keep these patterns in place from winter to summer. Then figure out why such a stable pattern might last beyond a single year. If you get that far ( you won’t!) , then by all means come back with your progress report but a condition that can obviously last for a week or two is not an explanation for a 10-20k year cycle.

Frederik Michiels
Reply to  john harmsworth
April 28, 2016 2:46 am

i tend to agree but seen the blob and the triple R it may be that a loading pattern must exist to trigger an ice age point of no return.
a swap from what we call now “a greenland blocking” as the “normal weather” and the current weather as “blocking” might explain this.
at least it’s a good attempt to try to explain a trigger. Is it correct? honestly said: untill we live and measure a glaciation episode, we’ll never know for sure.
but i would not shoot down Taxed idea as rubbish neither would i say that’s it.”the missing link”.
all i know for sure (and that’s the obvious) is that the weather pattern must change drasticly to cause a glaciation.

April 27, 2016 3:02 am

Just to add further as l don’t think the first part of my post came out clear as l wished.
Changes to the orbit and tilt of the earth would have brought about a much less extreme cooling then we saw during the last ice age. Now this general cooling may well have aided with the ice age formation. But it was not the cause of the extreme cold we saw in North America and europe. This extreme cold was down to the weather.

April 27, 2016 3:17 am

Recommended reading …
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
by Charles Mackay.
Published 1841 so a bit too early to include the AGW/Climate Change “debate”.

April 27, 2016 4:54 am

What is the source of the measurements and excellent 450,000 year graph at the start please?
I would like to quote this to my warmist friends.

Reply to  littleoil
April 27, 2016 6:01 am

The graph is based on the Vostok ice core over the past 420,000 years, figures can be found at:
Be aware that CO2 data are direct measurements, but due to the mixing time of air at the bottom of the firn before fully closing the air bubbles, that is smoothed over 10 years (Law Dome), 560 years (Dome C) to 600 years (Vostok), depending on local snow accumulation rate.
Temperatures are based on a proxy: the 18O/16O ratio of the water in the ice layer, which depends of the temperature at where the condensation takes place in the atmosphere.
Ice sheet amount is also based on a proxy: the reverse shift of the 18O/16O ratio of N2O (in the gas phase) with ice sheet formation. I don’t know the mechanism and/or chemistry (vegetation area?) where that is based on.
Important too: CO2 follows temperature (not reverse!) with 800 +/- 600 years during warming towards an interglacial period and with several thousands of years when cooling towards a new glacial period…
The 420,000 years meanwhile is extended to 800,000 years for CO2 in the Dome C ice core:
I suppose that work now is extended for temperature and ice sheets too, as my graph is for CO2 only and already several years old…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 27, 2016 5:39 pm

Many thanks for your prompt and most helpful advice. I will include you in my next distribution of funds.
Bill Reeves below,
Ferdinand has answered your question too.
Now can anyone help with a definition of El Nino? I understand it is the wind driving away cool water but where does the energy for that wind come from? And why is this not part of Climate Change?
Great web site.

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
April 29, 2016 2:14 am

EL Niño still is a 100% natural phenomenon, which has a recurrence of 2-7 years and is known for thousands of years. It is a combination of warm waters going East, trade winds stopping or even reversing and huge changes in wind/rain patterns. No mechanism is known which drives it, as far as I know. Some background:
The main index for an El Niño is composed of ocean temperatures in several parts of the east equatorial Pacific: the warmer, the stronger the El Niño.
If you search for Bob Tisdale on this website, he is the specialist on that matter and wrote many pages on El Niño…

April 27, 2016 6:12 am

Going to buy the book. Anybody know the difference between Kindle and EBook format please? Would like to be able to copy parts out and paste into MS Word.

Tom in Texas
April 27, 2016 6:45 am

Very good article. Thank you for all you do. You may want to add the increase in military bases, by Russia. As I have been watching, Russia, as well as China, So hugh signs that they will not tolerate this U.N. new world order view. The statement in the U.N. SDG and Article 21 call for those member countries to support other members in the accomplishing of all goals. With a simple search of “INCREASE IN RUSSIAN BASES” you will see that they do not support this insanity.

April 27, 2016 7:16 am

As a geologist, I’ve always decried the concept of “stable climate” as popularized by media and politicians. But, no one listens. They either agree with me, based on their own training, or they believe the media, who “wouldn’t publish it if is wasn’t true”.
I also find a large schism between geologists in academia, who largely agree with anthropogenic global warming, and commercial geologists (none I personally know are oil company employees) who nearly universally disagree with IPCC.
Why the split? Since most have a similar education, I’d have to point to work experience and political leanings. Those in academia mostly work at government owned and operated institutions. They also tend to be believe in socialism. Even 30 years ago, several of my earth science department professors complained that the general public had too much freedom, and that individual rights should be limited to “benefit the majority”.
Geologists in the commercial world compete in the market for jobs. Since they aren’t fed by the government, they tend to have a less charitable view of socialism. There’s no such thing as “tenure”, and they have a better idea of how the economy actually works. They also tend to be libertarian, with some leaning conservative.
I have no other explanation. In order for a scientist to believe in AGW, they must ignore or modify the concept of scientific method, and they need to ignore the history of scientific discovery. This seems easiest for socialists, who must ignore or disregard history in order to believe that socialism works.

April 27, 2016 7:18 am

The climate seems to me as more stable during interglacial periods than during ice age glaciations because there is less variability of surface albedo. One minor exception is the previous interglacial, which I think partially bared the portion of Greenland that is currently covered by an ice sheet.
Before a few million years ago, before Antarctica moved to a location where it can take on yearround snow and ice cover, the world was warmer and its temperature was steadier.

April 27, 2016 7:47 am

Got it, having the ability to measure a change means one must be responsible for the change. After all, there could be no change before there are measurements.

April 27, 2016 9:49 am

One modest request: When people post ‘Kick ass’ charts like the ice age chart at the top can you please include a reference. I would like to share these charts with my more ‘religiously alarmist’ friends but I refuse to use unsourced data and graphics for the obvious reasons. It would help the cause of rationality and honest discourse if everyone rigorously sourced everything they cited. Thanks and thank you for all that you do for honest science.

Reply to  Bill Reeves
April 27, 2016 5:40 pm

Bill Reeves below,
Ferdinand Engelbeen has answered your question which was the same as mine. About 6 comments above this.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights