Impacts of Climate Change Policy in The Real World

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

Every man wishes to pursue his occupation and to enjoy the fruits of his labors and the produce of his property in peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought to be established are answered. -Thomas Jefferson

This week I experienced first hand another example of how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception and the policies it engenders is negatively impacting people’s lives. A small group of private land wood-lot operators were facing challenges to their survival created by false climate science and unnecessary and misguided government reactions. I say “another example” because much of the last 40 years involved helping people understand and cope not only with the weather, climate and climate change, but the draconian, unnecessary policies, rules, and regulations created by ignorant politicians who put on the cloak of green. It is supposedly the green of environmentalism, but that is a cover up because it is the green of tax money and the political control it provides.

Most of my work beyond teaching and researching involved working with primary producers in agriculture, forestry, mining and natural resources. For example, I served as technical advisor to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association for 17 years as they dealt with a series of unsubstantiated charges. Leading the charge were animal rights groups and environmental exploiters including people like Jeremy Rifkin. He wrote a book and organized a campaign titled Beyond Beef published in 1994 in which he effectively blamed cattle for all the problems in western society. He conveniently ignored the 250 million holy cows in India, among many other things.

This latest group to feel the brunt is an association of private forest landowners in British Columbia. Their concern was the growing squeeze between increasing government regulations, the weak economy, and the lure of government money from carbon credit and sequestration schemes. The title of my presentation summarized the challenge. Business Today: A Balance Between Government and Reality.

I experienced the same challenge several times over the years. One involved Forage Crop producers who were struggling with low prices, poor yields caused by cold, wet, conditions and increasing and limiting government regulations. They were offered cash for participation in methane and CO2 remediation programs. This was part of the $6.8 billion Environment Canada (EC) spent while they failed to fulfill basic weather and climate forecast obligations.

EC failures caused public protest forcing them to commission an internal study and report titled “Action Plan for Climate Science Research at Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC)” prepared by a group called The Impact Group. This was obtained by Canada’s Access to Information (ATI) provision. Ken Green wrote an article in the National Post on December 12, 2003 identifying some of the issues.

The Report was devastating because it was internally organized, but told the truth because it was prepared by an outside agency, Price Waterhouse.

Elements of an “Action Plan for Climate Science Research at MSC” (obtained through an Access to Information request) indicate that Canada’s climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs.

The Forage producers who decided to sign up to the program found themselves trapped when bureaucrats told them how to operate their farm. As one farmer told me, they wanted me to drop completely all previous practices developed over years to fit the soil conditions, soil moistures, and microclimate conditions including abandoning my tried and trusted crop rotation. Despite a desperate need for the money to feed his family, he abandoned the program to recover management control.

How We Got Here.

In a first-year university history class (1968), I wrote a term paper (essay) on the impact of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) on European history. The professor gave it an F grade with a brief comment that it was “climatic determinism nonsense”. As a mature student, I was not intimidated by the feudal academic system. I appealed the grade to the dean and received an A+. The experience, combined with my flying and weather experience over the North Atlantic and in the Canadian Arctic, was influential in directing my Masters and Doctoral work to reconstructing climate records. The result was an interest in the impact of climate change on history and the human condition. Climatic determinism exists and understanding it provides a reasonable explanation of human history.

For most of human history, we were passive recipients of weather and climate changes. Gradually, we developed technologies to increase our adaptive abilities. Fire and clothing created microclimates that technically expanded our survival regions and opportunities. Technologies as diverse as climate controlled buildings and plant breeding all provided more and more control over self-preservation. The total effect is that people are living longer in better health everywhere in the world. Indeed, through the 200-year industrial period that the AGW people decry as problematic, life-expectancy increased steadily (Figure 1).


In short, we must be doing something right. As always, a cartoon summarizes the situation succinctly (Figure 2).

As I explained in my presentation to the wood-lot group, this progress ran headlong into the new paradigm of environmentalism. This was a necessary new paradigm, but like all of them it is initially seized by a few who see political and or financial opportunity. Global warming quickly became a subset of this narrow and self-serving agenda. This effectively ended the debate and not because the science was settled. Those who even thought of opposing found themselves confronted by those using the moral high ground of pretending to care for the Planet, the future, and the grandchildren. This came with the added burden of not fully understanding the science.

The group had already received lectures from government bureaucrats as part of the Climate Action Plan of British Columbia. Look at the participants of the Committee, including Andrew Weaver, IPCC Lead Author on four Reports (1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013), now Leader of the Green Party in BC and elected member of the Provincial Legislature. (Disclosure; Weaver filed a lawsuit against me five years ago and nothing has happened since.) The wood-lot producers were introduced to the application of the climate portion of Agenda 21 set out by the BC Government.


Figure 2

Exploitation of environmentalism and global warming made growing, pervasive inroads into every aspect of society. It was reinforced by the unrelenting bias of the media.

A summary of some of the problems the wood-lot people faced explains why the siren song of government subsidies was attractive. They were increasingly burdened by rules and regulations from all levels of government including Municipal, Provincial, and Federal. They were confronted with decreasing returns because of the weak economy. They were confronted by local environmental activists opposed to business of any kind but especially those resource based. This despite the fact it is in their interest to maintain a healthy forest. Money is increasingly difficult to get as lending institutions have a growing list of environmentally driven requirements. They are generally remote from markets. They are viewed unfavourably by the giant forestry companies. Finally, they have little opportunity for adding value to the raw product.

So the question is how would you address their concerns? Remember, they only know what the media feed them about climate. It would be an easier task if they knew nothing. Discussing all the problems with climate science will achieve little. I have discussed this challenge of explaining the skeptical view to the public on many occasions. Three main themes set the stage for saying you now know enough to see there is no scientific basis for the policy, but that is only a minor part of your decision to become involved in a government subsidy. The three themes require;

· Explaining the severe limitations of the deliberately restricting definition of climate change given to the IPCC by the UNFCCC of only considering human causes. Conclude this with the statement that you cannot determine human causes if you don’t know or understand natural causes.

· Explaining the fallacy of the claim that the world is warmer than it has ever been. Show how they got rid of the Medieval Warm Period because it contradicted that claim. In this case, I showed the following slide because it is related to their understanding (Figure 3). They understood the temperature increase necessary for a tree to grow to those dimensions at that latitude.


Figure 3

· Explaining that science is about the ability to predict and that if your prediction is wrong, the science is wrong. Then show slides of the failed weather and climate forecasts of Environment Canada and the IPCC.

At this point, it doesn’t matter if they understand or accept the problems with the science. They have to make a real-world decision. Here is a brief summary of the issues they must consider.

1. The science doesn’t support the call for action. While this doesn’t affect your decision now, it is necessary to keep in mind because as the public and politicians learn and change your decision will be affected. For example, this could change quickly if Trump is elected.

2. CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It became the focus to blame industry and developed nations. The agenda was political from the start as exemplified by these quotes.

Ottar Edenhofer Co-chair U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

US Senator Timothy Wirth (Later at the UN).

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

3. Plants need more CO2 not less. Commercial greenhouses inject up to 1200 ppm of CO2, three times the current atmospheric level of 400 ppm to achieve four times better yield with less water use.

4. Polls show global warming and climate change are not an issue among the public.

5. Despite this, the pressure for CO2 control will continue because politicians see taxing and control opportunities and are still afraid of being accused of not being ‘green.’

6. If you participate, know the real cost. Find out what happened to other businesses that participated in such programs. Be extremely careful and determine how many strings are attached to the cheque. Check with a lawyer if necessary.

7. The main attraction is the investment in carbon credits but be aware that most carbon credit markets have failed. You need to know that Canadian Maurice Strong, the mastermind of the entire IPCC scam, was on the Board of the now defunct Chicago Carbon exchange. He also chaired Ontario Hydro and drove it into the ground taking the Province with it by applying the energy policies based on the false science.

The good parts of the trip was the opportunity to provide a different perspective and a trip from Victoria to Campbell River with a day at a superb Canadian fishing lodge. My final comment was the same I give to any group, including students going to university, if you can do it on your own it is always better.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 5, 2016 1:52 pm

Its 104 now in Phoenix at 1:50. The internet has it at 111. Mine is in the shade and not near metal object that can radiate heat.

Reply to  Brad
June 5, 2016 3:17 pm

The Weather Network said 113 c in the afternoon…and FEELS like 111 c …in Phoenix, Arizona…

Owen in GA
Reply to  Marcus
June 5, 2016 5:54 pm

I hope that was 113 f. Boiling water on the front step would not be conducive to life…

Reply to  Brad
June 6, 2016 11:10 am

Phoenix getting hot in the summer.
That has never happened before.

Tom Halla
June 5, 2016 1:54 pm

CAGW is mostly Arcadian Luddite Socialism, with various groups pushing one or more parts of that characterization. I did forget about Jeremy Rifkin, though, adding in veganism to the mix.

Reply to  Tom Halla
June 6, 2016 11:11 am

Rifkin has a long history of being against scientific advancement.

June 5, 2016 2:03 pm

“…strings are attached…”
Amen. That is why we have so much government regulation/control/social engineering. We send our tax $$ to the government and they tell us how we must live in order to get some of it back! I quit participating in local government and the school system 30 years ago because everyone else just saw $ signs and not the consequences.
All of my life I have heard the left suggest that conservatives want to control what goes on in my bedroom. Meanwhile the left has infiltrated every room of my house as well as my garage.

Andras Gulacsi
June 5, 2016 2:08 pm

This wrong graph over and over again.
Before present (BP) means before 1950, not before 2000. GISP2 data ends in 1855. Average temperature of the GISP2 site is 29.9 °C for the period between 2001 and 2010. See Takuro Kobashi et al. (2011). Still, there were warmer periods than today with more friendly climate.comment image
Kobashi study:

Reply to  Andras Gulacsi
June 5, 2016 3:24 pm

..In case you have bad eyes, the graph stops at approximately 1950….

Andras Gulacsi
Reply to  Marcus
June 6, 2016 2:33 am

In case you are wondering, I created a graph in Excel just for you with a lot of tick marks.comment image
Here are the last data points. I not added HadCRUT or or other data to it.
Year (AD) Temp. Anomaly Absolute Temp. (°C)
1805 -1.9098 -31.8098
1811 -1.8583 -31.7583
1818 -1.8235 -31.7235
1825 -1.7656 -31.6656
1831 -1.7002 -31.6002
1831 -1.698 -31.598
1837 -1.7026 -31.6026
1843 -1.722 -31.622
1855 -1.6913 -31.5913
Are proxy datasets like ice cores showing global average temperature in the past? Are they representative this way? Is GISP2 showing global average temperatures? I don’t think so.

Reply to  Andras Gulacsi
June 5, 2016 3:56 pm

What a load of unmitigated BS.!!
Even in the most mal-adjusted data there is less than 0.8C warming since 1950
That puts the current temperature BELOW as shown in this corrected graph

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:11 pm

Whoops. 1950 is the top of the little rise at the end
This is the corrected graph
The original is still UNMITIGATED BS !!!

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:17 pm

And of course reality is there has probably only been about 0.4C warming since 1950

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:18 pm
Gentle Tramp
Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:25 pm

To be fair: Your 0.8 C is a global mean temp, whereas we can expect higher variations in Polar Regions as Greenland.
But still, there is a big amount of worldwide evidence that the Holocene Optimum and other warm periods like the RWP or the MWP were warmer (or at least as warm) than today. For example, here is a big collection of studies for a global MWP:

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:26 pm

sorry, last graph didn’t show up first time.
morning down here…. need more coffee, I reckon.

Andras Gulacsi
Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:33 pm

Dataset ends in 1855, not 1950. Local average temperature is 29.9 °C. I calculated the anomalies from this local mean. I checked my R code again. There is no mistake in that. You are talking about global temperature increase of 0.8 degrees from 1950. I am talking about local temperature. Still, Don Easterbrock’s graph is a misrepresentation of the GISP2 data.
Check the data if you want:
And also see this other graph:

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:35 pm

” whereas we can expect higher variations in Polar Regions as Greenland.”
No proof of that
Antarctic has cooled.
Apart form the El Nino, no warming in the Arctic this century
And here is UAH NoPol during the period GIIS fabricates a warming trend.

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:47 pm

No.. 1850 was the end of the LIA.
That’s the bottom of the graph.
And only an anti-scientist would use GISS/Hadcrut for anything except propaganda.
Which is what you are doing.

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 4:50 pm

And only a anti0-scientist would use high resolution data attached at the end of low resolution.
But you go right ahead.

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 5:22 pm

comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 5:41 pm

Andy, you right… phil makes the same mistake by adding 1.44C to the end of the graph which is 1950. 1.44C should really be add to the 1855 temperature which is where it bottoms out there before the rise to 1950. (if this is the alley graph, the rise at the end is the mann hockey stick spliced on and if not, that at least looks like what was done…)

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 5:51 pm

“add” should read “added”…
The word “graph” refers to the 10,000 year graph being disputed…

Reply to  AndyG55
June 5, 2016 6:47 pm

Ha! Phil gave me the wrong graph! (folks, i just don’t trust phil, always screwing things up…) Still, if GISP2 was -31.5C in 1855, then that’s only a difference of just over 1.5C (and not just over 2C)…

Andras Gulacsi
Reply to  AndyG55
June 6, 2016 2:47 am

Dataset ends in 1855, not 1950. I did not use a lot of tick marks here. It was generated by R automatically.
See my comment I posted to Marcus above showing an Excel graph with the same data with a lot of tick marks. See the table of the last data points. There is no added data from 1855 to 1950!

Andras Gulacsi
Reply to  AndyG55
June 6, 2016 4:11 am

This dataset ends in 1855. That increase at the end of the graph is not from 1855 to 1950. 1855=-1.69 °C from the 2001-2010 average. I should have used more tick marks. But my graph ends in 1855 not 1950.
Still don’t get it.
These are the last data points from GISP2 ice core
1. Temperature in central Greenland
Column 1: Age (thousand years before present)
Column 2: Temperature in central Greenland (degrees C)
Age Temperature (C)
0.0951409 -31.5913
0.10713 -31.622
0.113149 -31.6026
0.119205 -31.6002
0.119205 -31.598
1950-95=1855 which is -31.5913 °C. -31.5913 +29.9 = -1.6913
It is clearly visible that my graph ends at -1.6913 °C. It ends in 1855, not in 1950. I did not added HadCRUT or whatever data from 1855 to 1950 to my graph.
Your accusation of me being an anti-scientist has no ground. Your correction is still an unmitigated BS!

Reply to  AndyG55
June 6, 2016 7:41 am

comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
June 6, 2016 7:50 am

Andras, here’s the much maligned “Alley graph” and as you can see they have the rise at the end designated as the “mann hockey stick”. OTOH, Dr. Ball’s graph is consistent with what you are saying. I guess that’s the big QUE. Is that the mann hockey at the end or not?

Andras Gulacsi
Reply to  AndyG55
June 6, 2016 10:53 am

afonzarelli, that is not Mann’s hockey stick in the red circle on the graph you linked! That stick shows the temperature increase between 1778 and 1855.comment image
Year (AD) Temperature
1704 -32.0117
1711 -32.0213
1719 -32.0263
1727 -32.0254
1735 -32.0128
1742 -32.0198
1749 -32.022
1749 -32.0291
1756 -31.9954
1763 -31.9689
1771 -31.9872
1778 -32.038
1785 -32.0241
1791 -31.9559
1798 -31.8415
1798 -31.8813
1805 -31.8098
1811 -31.7583
1818 -31.7235
1825 -31.6656
1831 -31.6002
1831 -31.598
1837 -31.6026
1843 -31.622
1855 -31.5913
The GISP2 dataset is not necessary showing the changes of global average temperature. I am not sure It may be representative in the Greenland region? Temperature increase was higher at higher latitutes than at the tropics. This 1.69 °C increase is twice as large as the global average. It does not question the existence of MWP. (I am well aware that Mann tried to eliminate MWP with his hockey stick.) The modern warming may have exceeded the temperature level of MWP. Still, there were warmer periods than today based on GISP2. Modern warming in not unprecedenced in the past 10,000 years.

Reply to  Andras Gulacsi
June 5, 2016 4:02 pm

The problem I have with any statement that the period in the past was not warmer or colder is that the data in the past whatever proxy you use is necessarily drought with some variance which is unknown. To make the curves appear smoother usually a smoothing takes place either with the proxy itself or later. This is then compared with current data which is not smoothed. We have no way Of knowing if the temp in the past was warmer and by how much nor if it was colder. Neither do we know if it wasn’t warmer. We have probability. We can say that over a period of hundreds of years temperatures were warmer. Maybe warmer than today or not but we have other evidence that it was warm for a long time and this likely it was warmer. We can look at the extent of glaciers in greenland, the extant of certain plants. We can deduce that it was warmer than the last 50 years on average than the last 50.
Even when we look at the 30s and 40s we see that reliable data for the Arctic shows that time was warmer than today. We know of ships traversing the northern passage that cannot do so today. We know that there was a dustbowl in the us and that cities recorded the highest number of >100 F days. Yet the adjusted temperature records put out by man show that the 30s were cold. About 2F colder than today but we don’t have a dustbowl and you can’t go the northern passage and there were not 16 above 100F days in wash DC last summer in a row. Our history books show that after this temperatures declined and people feared an ice age yet the adjusted records of Mann and Hansen show the 60s and 70s as flat or even climbing after their careful adjustment. It is so bizarre that the this can happen and no one seems to bother going back to fact check these adjustments to see if they make any sense at all. Whether 500 years or 1000 or 60 years ago we are told everything written and all data is now known with such precision we can say unequivocally it is hotter now than anytime in 1400 years. Why stop there?

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
June 5, 2016 4:19 pm

GISS/HadCrut are worthless for anything except climate propaganda.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
June 5, 2016 4:21 pm

Here are temperatures from 8 different Arctic stations.

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
June 5, 2016 4:24 pm

And since there was zero Arctic warming from 2000-2015, we can pretty much say that the last decade has not been as warm as the decade around the 1940’s

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
June 5, 2016 6:03 pm

Then there are the ice ages graphs in which ice ages dominate and are the rule; and since there are only theories as to what causes them (meaning that no one has a clue), that would imply that one could hit at any time and really cause chaos:comment image

Reply to  logiclogiclogic
June 6, 2016 7:22 am

This is soooooo logical and has been the primary source of my skepticism of AGW since I first began to read about it. In my opinion, this is where all scientific debate should begin. If you can’t get past this, what’s the point in going any further.

Reply to  Charles Hall
June 6, 2016 8:01 am

I was initially accepting of the idea of co2 creating significant warming back in 90s when I first started to pay attention. The first doubt I had was when I realized they had discounted the ocean as having any long term impact. With 1000 times the heat capacity and with so little known about the oceans I realized this was an unsupportable assumption. I also had problems with the dismissal of the MWP and LIA. these were supported not only with data but records of tangible irrefutable information. For instance drawn pictures of faires being held on the Themes. My argument was they could be regional but how would the tenperatures of these regions be so different for so long? How could that be possible? No one could answer. So they accepted the nonexistence of the MWP for example even though having no explanation for how if would be possible for whole regions of the earth to be thermodynamically out of whack with the rest of the world. This made no sense. They also argued that in the MWP only one pole was warm. Well it turns out even now the south pole is significantly cooler than the north pole and also that records show there were regions in the south that were warmer then. In other words they just guessed. These things were the busting points for me.

June 5, 2016 2:14 pm

The problem is 2 fold. The media love disaster stories and by making journalism a profession through university, the left leaning people succeed, so the disaster stories are slanted to socialist outcomes.That is true in western civilization, except the ones that have thrown the USSR out of their country.
Using stealth, politicians have finagled a lot of damaging green legislation through. In Queensland, Australia, the Greens are trying to bring in legislation that is draconian in its effect on farmers. It is driven by inner city greens.

Reply to  Jack
June 5, 2016 2:33 pm

That’s a big part of the problem. Rural areas need to be innoculated politically from their brain-dead city cousins. They should be redistricted to split away from the insane policies coming from the cities and totally control their own destiny.

Reply to  nigelf
June 5, 2016 4:28 pm

“The Ivy League bourgeoisie who sit at the helm of the non-profit industrial complex will one day be known simply as charismatic architects of death. Funded by the ruling class oligarchy, the role they serve for their funders is not unlike that of corporate media. Yet, it appears that global society is paralyzed in a collective hypnosis – rejecting universal social interests, thus rejecting reason, to instead fall in line with the position of the powerful minority that has seized control, a minority that systematically favours corporate interests.” ~ Thank you Cory Morningstar

Reply to  nigelf
June 5, 2016 5:41 pm

Inoculated? An interesting word 🙂
Personally I think the problem is systemic in urbanized post-agricultural democratic society and can’t see an easy way around it. Farmers operate in low population, low density areas by necessity. People in urban areas outnumber them by orders of magnitude and have no idea at all about agriculture or animal husbandry. Maybe they’ve been on a grade school field trip to a farm? Unless they have relatives living in rural areas they have no idea, but they’re the majority and it looks like they will be for the foreseeable future. Democracy tells us this majority will be maing the rules farmers will obey; it’s that simple.
The chance of educating millions of people to a level that would allow them to make correct “democratic” decisions about how livestock and land should be managed is too low to even think about as a real plan.
In the end all agriculture will be taken over by the state and the state will f*ck it up beyond all recognition. That’s the only way this *can* play out without a very strict return to private property rights, which doesn’t appear possible much less likely.
So prepare for Soviet style mass starvation. Because that’s exactly what about to happen.

Reply to  nigelf
June 6, 2016 11:17 am

Most states were set up like the US congress, one house based on population, another based on political divisions.
Until the Supreme Court in a fit of self righteousness threw out all such schemes as violating one man/one vote.
Ever since then, cities have dominated the states and made everyone dance to the socialist’s tune.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Jack
June 5, 2016 2:46 pm

“It is driven by inner city greens.”
This curious fact is very true for Europe as well. Green-leftist majorities rule many big cities in e.g. Germany, Switzerland or Austria, because most green and left leaning voters (BTW: There is nearly no difference between green and socialist parties anymore) prefer a very urban lifestyle despite their alleged love for nature.
This strange contradiction could maybe explain why green-leftist voters are so indifferent to the many killed birds and bats by wind energy turbines and the mutilation of landscapes by these and other “green” energy sources.

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 3:53 pm

Agreed, who can’t see that world war 3 is about to happen, is happening!

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 4:37 pm

Obama claims the most dangerous thing facing mankind is Climate change, I sooner deal with a mildly warming plant a world ending Nuclear war.
Your right the West is playing a big game of Chicken with the Russians, It makes me wonder just WTF NATO is doing?
NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?
By Uwe Klußmann, Matthias Schepp and Klaus Wiegrefe
Der Spegel – Germany.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 4:40 pm

I see no connection between my comment and this very off-topic YT video by dblackal. Please don’t misuse the wuwt discussion space here and use other ways of promoting your YT business…

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 4:47 pm

The inner city Greens, who are the left essentially and would vote for Clinton, are the ones who believe the catastrophe is global warming, when nuclear war brought on by NATO is the catastrophe, already unwinding in Syria. Second is the pollution from Fukushima. The nuclear industry is also a benefactor from the global warming scare as they promote nuclear energy as safer than coal. Margaret Thatcher did this on behalf of GE in 1989. There’s your coonection.

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 4:50 pm

BTW Gentle Tramp, I definitely did NOT write that post. I wrote the second post. Anthony, there must be a glitch.

Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 4:51 pm

They also like to see expensive flood defence schemes for their cities.
But, they do not believe in simple river management measures or coastal defences for the protection of rural populations.
In simple terms – they are interested in protecting their own comforts and liberties whilst destroying the lives of other elsewhere.
And if that involves covering the rural landscape with ugly and noisy wind-turbines, then they are delighted to see the rural population suffer.
Farmers are also considered to be low-life. The urban greens hate both farms and factories, due to their inability to perceive that farms and factories produce all of the cheap goods which they themselves consume with abandon.
They are seemingly confused about the world.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Gentle Tramp
June 5, 2016 6:01 pm

Hypocrites can easily say one thing and do another. Self examination requires integrity an humility.

June 5, 2016 2:24 pm

Canada has two specific advantages for investigating past climate changes, both centred in the general vicinity of the Hudson Bay:
– variability in the rate of the isostatic postglacial uplift
– until some time around 1995 it had strongest magnetic field in the Northern Hemisphere.
Both of these events (one rising the other falling) on the general trend have superimposed a variable component, one has periodicity in 40s and the other in 60s year ranges, and surprise, surprise both of which are found in the N. Hemisphere temperature data.
And what Canadian leaders are concerned about? The small rises in temperature that could only be beneficial to people and economy of this huge country.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  vukcevic
June 5, 2016 6:28 pm

Not to be selfish but, hell yeah! There’s hardly a country on the planet that’s likely to benefit more from a little warming. I live in the West. Seen a few hundred nights in the -30s. A few dozen in the -40s. F or C, take your pick. It doesn’t matter much down there. A little bad luck will kill you on those nights. If we can reliably get 90 days frost free we can grow crops a little further North and keep feeding the world. Drought? Alberta’s a little dry right now. It sits in the rain shadow of the Rockies and tends toward dryness. I guess that’s why they crisscrossed the South with irrigation in the thirties. Crazy bastards reacted to a real problem. Meanwhile, just East of there we’re doing just fine thanks!

June 5, 2016 2:29 pm

In a nutshell AGW a more sinister form of climate determinism. Lol.

June 5, 2016 3:07 pm

… CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It became the focus to blame industry and developed nations. The agenda was political from the start as exemplified by these quotes. …

Exactly so. CO2 needs to be at much higher levels and if it were doubled (and even doubled again) the effects would be positive for life on earth.
The CO2 delusion has always been about the governments controlling the people. It is about raw power over the masses.

June 5, 2016 3:11 pm

The professor gave it an F grade with a brief comment that it was “climatic determinism nonsense”.

I guess he never heard of Harold Innis. Some (bad) professors will punish students who disagree with their pet theories. Good professors will reward good scholarship. The gulf between indoctrination and education is vast.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  commieBob
June 5, 2016 6:50 pm

Way too many unprincipled profs. addicted to the power they have over young minds. The time for costly, lousy bricks and mortar education has to end. On line delivery will feature only the best lecturers,with students supported by peer learning groups, undergrads and online guides. Uni will be a small place, mainly for lab work in less politicized subject areas. The fantastic amount of money spent on extremely mediocre educations for fundamentally untalented millions of kids is a bigger rip off even than global warming. It needs to be superseded! Sorry, Prof. Ball and other honourable academics, but I believe your kind will survive this “great die-off”!

Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 6, 2016 10:51 am

The time for costly, lousy bricks and mortar education has to end.

I’ve been thinking something like that for nearly two decades. For some reason it hasn’t happened. Why? I don’t really know. Maybe it’s just that nobody has discovered the ‘secret sauce’ yet.

June 5, 2016 3:15 pm

Waiting for someone here in oz to claim the current storms lashing the east coast are due to CAGW , one thing that I’ve noticed with a lot of these storms is they coincide with King tides anyone know if there’s a link .

June 5, 2016 3:27 pm

I am weary of battles. For my money, I say let’s just try to stall all their efforts, and let Mother Nature prove to the world that warming is not happening. Since they built their entire economic/control/road to wealth using global warming as the foundation, their whole movement will collapse.

Reply to  Jtom
June 5, 2016 4:57 pm

I’m all for that approach. I think that that is the best thing that the skeptic movement can hope to achieve.
The alarmists need time to discover that their greatest fears have no basis in reality.
We can possibly help to provide them with enough delay to aid them in discovering their error.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 5, 2016 6:57 pm

With every little victory the Warmists achieve they consolidate their hold on the public in adjacent areas like economic and industrial policy. They’re Socialists. AGW is just the horrible means to their more horrible end.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 5, 2016 7:03 pm

By which I mean, we can’t give up. Socialism is MORE successful in a poor society. That’s where we’re headed now. When people become desperate and afraid, they will listen to even bigger lies than the Socialist-Warmists tell now.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
June 11, 2016 6:04 am

A great sentiment, but misplaced I am afraid. “The alarmists need time to discover…..” No, time has nothing to do with it. The same alarmists have had plenty of time in regards to seeing the failure of the population ‘crisis’, and of the pollution ‘crisis’, and of a dozen other “crises” that they were panicking about, but have they, at any time, ever paused to reflect when Armageddon has had to yet again be postponed? These “end of the world” narratives, and the resultant belief in the need for humanity to unite and save itself, is their deeply held religious faith.

Reply to  Jtom
June 6, 2016 8:37 am

That’d be great to let nature prove there isn’t any warming except that there could be snow on the ground in Florida year round and the cause would be global warming. Global warming is the cause and destroying the west is the agenda. Of all the statements about climate change, the ones I believe are the ones about destroying us. They fully intend for the US to be a third world country…. some parts of the country and actions of the government already are. Free lead in your water! Who was held accountable for that? Lead posioning? Just a fine. Arguing against CAGW, why that’s criminal! Jail time for that or worse!

June 5, 2016 4:31 pm

The next hurricane to hit the USA – no matter how strong will be blamed on Global Warming ie. Climate Change. I grew up from the 50’sw and almost every year a hurricane hit the US somewhere. You wait and see what is said if a real hurricane hits the US anywhere…It is a safe bet that it will happen this year. It’s a normal thing.

Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 4:47 pm

Climate alarmist science is exemplified by failed climate models ( which most scientists realize are flawed but the heavy handed politics that is the driving force behind climate alarmism precludes rational action being taken to address these flaws.
Regarding failed climate models Steve McIntyre noted that (
“I, for one, have never been sold on the idea that inconsistency between models and observations on one issue makes them “worthless” or renders concern moot. Over the years, I’ve discouraged this interpretation of Popperianism, if indeed it is a valid interpretation of Popperianism.
If this was something uncontroversial like modeling smelter or refinery throughput, a similar degree of inconsistency would prompt re-tuning of the models, not throwing them out. However, academic climate modelers have stubbornly refused to do so. Since they have refused to do so, it is entirely reasonable for me to comment on the inconsistencies. I have a particular annoyance on this topic as McKitrick et al 2010 was misrepresented in AR5 and an earlier submission pointing out false results in Santer et al 2008 was rejected, thereby permitting Santer et al 2008 to be used in policy relevant documents by US CCSP and EPA.
If change over the next 50 years is more likely to be of the same order as change over the past 50 years, as opposed to the accelerated changes contemplated in the climate models, that is surely relevant to the development of policies that are commensurate with and appropriate to the actual problem. Unfortunately, it also seems to me that much of the climate science community has, in the name of doing “something”, promoted feel-good but pointless or resource-dissipating self-indulgences such as windmills. In Ontario, unwise subsidization of wind resulted for example in purchase of 3 TWH of power from wind crony at a cost of $450 million in 2015-4Q alone, which was sold to neighboring jurisdictions for $5 million. We not only lost $400 million in one quarter, but over charged hard pressed industry in Ontario while subsidizing competing industry in Michigan, New York and Ohio. A more toxic policy is hard for me to contemplate. And yet our politicians want to expand this program.”
Additionally claims of man made CO2 emissions driven coastal sea level rise acceleration have also been grossly exaggerated and failed to materialize ( acceleration/).
Climate alarmist have continually mislead and misapplied measurements, estimates and forecasts of global mean sea level changes as applying to coastal locations which is simply wrong.
Regarding claims of accelerating sea level rise and allegations of impacts on coastal regions Judith Curry writes (,
“With regards to coastal planning, I absolutely agree with the paper linked to above. Locations where sea level rise is a problem invariably have rates of sea level rise that are much greater than even the altimeter values of 3.2 mm/yr are caused by local geologic processes, land use, and or coastal/river engineering. Global values of sea level rise have essentially no use in coastal planning; rather they seem mainly relevant in terms of motivating ‘action’ on carbon mitigation policy.”
For the U.S. in particular CO2 emissions are stable and not forecast to increase in the future negating the need for heavy handed and costly government mandates to reduce future CO2 emissions ( significant-contributor-to-increasing-global-co2-emissions/).
The climate models don’t work. Everybody knows it but politically driven climate alarmist scientists won’t admit it or take rational action to improve the flawed models. Three decades of climate alarmist claims of sea level rise acceleration threatening our coastal cities have proved false and exaggerated. U.S. CO2 emissions have, because of free energy market driven lower cost natural gas increased use and changed energy mix, stabilized at lower levels precluding heavy handed and costly action being needed through government mandate.
For the irrational climate alarmist crowd the pieces of the puzzle just aren’t coming together. The jig is up.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 5:39 pm

Canada just put in a looney Left socialist as its leader. Hillary (or Biden if she drops out) will drive even more renewable energy lunacy for Tom Steyer and George Soros profits.
The jig is only “up” if enough men and women of good character stand up to the charlatans and liars in the Climate Change scam.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 5:52 pm

The climate models cannot be made to work. See my previous guest post here on basic model problems. To adequately model convection cells (Lindzen adaptive infrared iris concerning cirrus, Eschenbach Tstorm regulator) requires about a 7 order of magnitude increase in computational power. Impossible. So models resort to parameterization, which inherently introduces the attribution problem between natural and anthropogenic. So far, we can only prove the IPCC anthropogenic attribution post 1975 is wrong. We do not know what is right.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 6:08 pm

Larry, your quote from Steve McIntyre seems apologist and also off target all at the same time. When he writes:
“If this [failure of climate models] was something uncontroversial like modeling smelter or refinery throughput, a similar degree of inconsistency would prompt re-tuning of the models, not throwing them out”
He doesn’t address the issue. Public policy isn’t advocated on smelter or refinery performance models. My personal life is only very indirectly effected by the performance of smelter models. It isn’t likely to influence the price of energy I depend on, what products I can buy or the price of food.
I can’t really even agree with the second part of the statement, that failure of a smelter model might not result in throwing it out. In fact, my industrial experience is exactly opposite; a failed model of an industrial process will very likely be “thrown out” and the person responsible for promoting it may be dismissed and replaced by someone else. You rarely get more than one chance in a high stakes game.
I’m aware of the role McIntyre has played in resisting overreaction to climate hysteria, but I find this particular citation apologist in the extreme. Failed models, and the people responsible for them, should be tossed and a new batch of wannabe experts brought in from the wings immediately, no quarter given. This isn’t a sport and it’s not an academic pursuit; we taxpayers fund this stuff and we have a right to expect results. If those results aren’t forthcoming we fire the current lot and bring in the next.
And we *never* make policy on unsubstantiated “theory”.

Christopher Hanley
Reply to  Bartleby
June 5, 2016 9:57 pm

The models simply serve to accord the appearance of bogus authority to a (failed) climate theory .
“… It would hardly be untrue to say that though Bacon is the parent of modern science, his methods contributed nothing to its actual discoveries; neither by possibility could they have done so. The great and wonderful work which the world owes to him was in the idea, and not in the execution. The idea was that the systematic and wide examination of facts was the first thing to be done in science, and that till this had been done faithfully and impartially, with all the appliances and all the safeguards that experience and forethought could suggest, all generalisations, all anticipations from mere reasoning, must be adjourned and postponed; and further, that sought on these conditions, knowledge, certain and fruitful, beyond all that men then imagined, could be attained …” chapter 8, Bacon, R W Church (1884).

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 7:24 pm

Let’s call a spade a spade. If you can’t “tweak” your model to make it work, you have to change the fundamental assumptions if you want to fix it. If you refuse to even test those fundamental assumptions, it is a clear fact that the veracity of the model is unimportant compared to the predetermined outcome. No integrity in the process.

Reply to  Larry Hamlin
June 5, 2016 8:08 pm

Ontario is using demand side management. The public has to be conditioned to using less electricity even if this results in giving away electricity to other places.
People have to be forced to live with less! Price electricity beyond the means of the people.

Joel O’Bryan
June 5, 2016 5:19 pm

Here’s another quote on the Climate Hustle exposed.
The senior US senator from NY has said on record:

“At a recent environmental event on Capitol Hill, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a congressional heavyweight expected to become his party’s leader in the Senate and steer future legislation, asserted that “we’ve been starving the government for revenues” and enacting a carbon tax is “the best way to fund the government.””

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
June 5, 2016 7:47 pm

“Starving the government”? A few highlight points on the idiotic choices said government has made should put the lie to that! Applicable to: Every. Government. Everywhere. Always.

June 5, 2016 5:44 pm

Dr. Ball, your excellent post convolutes a few independent things. AGW, gov environmental bureaucracy, other agendas.
Let me comment only on the second, and only from my part time farmer perspective. I have owned a fairly large (260 acres, 300 dairy head total (combined with 2 other properties so >600 acres total working, three barns), 140 milking) dairy farm in the Wisconsin Uplands for now over three decades.
We had in the 1990s a main well pump give out. The state forced us to plug and abandon despite perfect water quality, and drill a new well three feet over to the new code rather than just install a new pump in the perfectly good but no longer code old well.
Three years ago they passed a new law on septic systems. Makes sense in the towns, but not where we are out in the boonies (coyotes, migrant wolves, errant black bears, lots of wild turkey and deer, no cell service…). Old system could not pass new inspection. $17k for a new, less desirable (needs electric, old was just gravity) system. Now, that wasted expense does NOT do anything for the cows shitting not 100 yards away in the barnyard, whose manure we spread when deep enough on the crop contours. At that heifer barn, we let it get about 2 feet thick before bucketing and spreading owing to economics of labor. Absurd and illogical.
City slickers need to get the hey out of the way of country folk who know what they are doing as good stewards of their own land. As you point out concerning BC woodlots. I pulled my three woodlots out of the state land tax rebate program when one was butchered by a state mandated logging done by a state certified logger. Took saplings, left wolf trees, did not repair the skidder ruts running vertically downslope inviting erosion. Took me three years to repair the land damage and cut for firewood the remaining wolf trees on that 60 acres. Been there, done that.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  ristvan
June 5, 2016 7:54 pm

Wow! That’s two times government did bad! They really need to hustle with an endless list of things to screw up and citizens to screw over.

Reply to  John Harmsworth
June 6, 2016 11:25 am

I counted 3, well, septic system, wood lot.

June 5, 2016 5:46 pm

..Hey, how come the models didn’t predict this ?? Only 2 days warning for a tropical storm hitting Florida !!

Grey Lensman
June 5, 2016 6:50 pm

Australia, most expensive food in the developed world, rich fishery unfished, cattle farmers driven out of business. Even the tourist industry destroyed. Nuff said. Nobody cares or notices because it is so small.

June 5, 2016 7:02 pm

Root Cause Analysis Applied to Societal Issues
Mankind applies Root-Cause-Analysis for industrial errors and issues to determine where the root problem resides. The process looks into all aspects in the chain that lead to the issue, including manufacturing defects, maintenance issues and of course the human element. Timelines are recorded throughout the process, revealing how long the problem existed, how it came to be and what actions are needed to correct the issue(s).
For all of the issues plaguing society today, approaching these in a logical and straight-forward manner reveal the roots, which are definitely anchored in our past.
We as humans are simply products of Nature’s diversity, the one and same that we celebrate in all of nature, including all living things, from plants and birds to insects and the entire Animal Kingdom. Nature produces variety in all species and sub-species in order to survive in varying environments, where some may flourish with changes as others are diminished or even eliminated. The diversity is a product of varying conditions that have happened over the millennia and have left their print in many ways, with the end result of producing the diversity needed for s survival.
The variations we see in humans are certainly normal and as necessary as those seen in all of nature, to simply provide survival for at least part of the race, as the environment undergoes drastic changes.
Unfortunately, a huge portion of humanity do not understand these fundamental facts, only because they do not understand nature and her built-in tools to develop diversity.
The answer to asking how diverse is the human race, can be partially found by looking at the rest of Earths living species and how long we’ve been in our current form as a race, and the number of variations within our race.
Since there are no doubts we are all products of nature’s diversity, our individual and herd traits can be traced to 10’s of thousands of years in the past.
Our varying temperaments, levels of anxieties, fears (varying from mild concern to paralyzing), strengths, perceived weaknesses and intelligence levels can be traced to survival of the herd during challenges by nature throughout long periods of time. Our reliance in tribal survival through diversity of it’s population has been replaced by the thoughts of the forceful and persistent among us as our lives have become void of survival activities.
The consequences of not understanding or ignoring our diverse past, leads to a repeat of death and destruction again and again.
The larger animal kingdom is mostly void of the thought and emotions that lead to conflict amongst their own, so the big question is “will mankind accept reality and his fellow products of diversity”?
As we continue along the same old path and the one that finds us in our current state, we can be fairly certain of our demise.
It is quite ironic that our own intelligence in a diverse world, is what leads us to our end!
Our smartness gives us the authority to define ourselves, our planet and universe, our neighbors, our friends and our enemies, without realizing that it is our natural diversities that lead to conflict.
Our inherit properties ingrained over the past 40,000 years cannot be changed over night, and some can only be changed by nature!

June 5, 2016 8:14 pm

Interestingly the warmist pseudo-scientists who have the ear of politicians speak of global warming caused by greenhouse gases but when it comes to regulating the greenhouse effect they concentrate exclusively on control of atmospheric carbon dioxide. They even have a greenhouse theory that goes back to Svante Arrhenius in 1896 which will calculate how much global warming we get from addition of a given amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They are of course right to speak of greenhouse gases in plural. But the next step that sees fighting warming as simply keeping carbon dioxide under control is a sleight of hand. It so happens that carbon dioxide is neither the only nor even the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Water vapor is both. As a percentage of atmospheric greenhouse gases, water vapor takes up 95 percent of it while carbon dioxide is only one third of a percent. Exactly how accurate can the predictions of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory be if it leaves out more than 95 percent of the greenhouse gases that cause warming? Not very. That can be determined directly by looking at its recent performance. We are experiencing a hiatus or no-warming period that has just been interrupted by the 2015/2016 El Nino. Prior to its appearance there was approximately an 18 year period during which atmospheric carbon dioxide kept increasing but global temperature did not. According to the Arrhenius greenhouse theory this is impossible – it predicts that increasing carbon dioxide must cause temperature increase, yet we did not get that. This was so disagreeable to the pseudo-science clique at the UN that they arranged to have past temperature records changed so that one Karl could claim the hiatus non-existent. I simply ignore this. But it happens that there is another greenhouse theory that can handle both the effect of carbon dioxide and of atmospheric water vapor simultaneously. It is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory or MGT. According to MGT, water vapor and carbon dioxide form a a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness in the IR is 1.87. This value comes from his theory you can access below. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as Arrhenius predicts. But as soon as this happens water vapor will begin to diminish and the original thickness of the absorption window is restored. This also prevents the greenhouse warming predicted by Arrhenius from happening. Looking from the outside we see carbon dioxide increasing but temperature standing still – exactly what we observed during the hiatus that lasted for 18 years. To learn more about MGT, read this article below:
Arrak, A., 2014 : The Miskolczi Greenhouse Theory.

June 5, 2016 8:22 pm

As always Dr. Ball brings enlightenment the the climate issue.
ristvan – I feel that so many farmers and land users like you are being hammered by the heavy hand of bloody minded, heavy handed bureaucrats and governments of all strips, their intent is to drive you mad with regulations and eventually get you off the land, It’s a total travesty, hang in there!

June 5, 2016 9:39 pm

they have holy cows in india, yet they sell dogs to china for yulin festival !!

June 5, 2016 9:55 pm

[pruned .mod]

Reply to  601nan
June 5, 2016 10:06 pm

Moderator – that’s so far over the top it is obscene. It doesn’t belong on this blog. Or any other.
[Done. .mod]

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 5, 2016 10:31 pm

John Bellamy Foster broughtout a book “The Vulnerable Planet: A short economic history of the environment”, 1999 [2nd edition]. Prajashakti Book House translated this book in to Telugu titled “Ayyo bhugolam: Paryavarana ardhika charitra”. The Prajashakti daily newspaper asked me to present a review of this book — appeared in 15th July 2001. Here the book discussed at length the pattern of births & deaths prior to industialization and after industrialization.
Prior to industrialization more births and more deaths [childhood — due to no cure to certain health problems] and thus average age was lower. The people were hale and healthy. After industrialization, less biths and less deaths [Childhood — due to cure to certain health problems] and thus the average age is higher. The people suffer with innumerable health problems created by humans.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 6, 2016 11:27 am

People only appeared to be hale and healthy because the first time they got really sick, they died.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 5, 2016 10:32 pm

please restore my comment

Grey Lensman
June 5, 2016 11:17 pm

Mine too,it was about sky high Australian food prices

June 5, 2016 11:45 pm

Here again is an example of a “science writer” who has to spout green garbage, although you would think her 10 years as a paleoclimatologist would have given her some perspective. Catherine Jex wrote:
Climate change is in part responsible for the emergence of these grolar hybrids, as polar bears that live and hunt on the ever-shrinking Arctic sea ice are forced on land during mating season in spring and summer.”
Smug ***

Michael 2
June 6, 2016 1:43 pm

“The good parts of the trip was the opportunity to provide a different perspective and a trip from Victoria to Campbell River with a day at a superb Canadian fishing lodge.”
Been there back in the early 1960’s. I spent several summers with my grandmother at a cabin on the beach south from Campbell River. What a glorious place it is.

June 6, 2016 4:19 pm

Tim, please forget about reporting longevity. It may be factual but doesn’t resonate. Much more powerful with much better imagery is the history of child mortality (number of live born children who die before age 5).
For 200,000 years as homo sapiens and for 12,000 years with argricultural civilizations child mortality was stuck at 400 to 600 per 1000. Whether from famine, disease, infanticide, murder, predation, violence, war, or yes, even cannibalism humans were very poor protectors of our children.
But the human miracle of the past 200 years is that in every country on earth child mortality has plummeted by an order of magntude or more. Some cling to the idea that it is all due to modern medicine but that is easily shown to be a fallacy. No, it is the modern mastery over energy which gave us dominion over the enviroronment which allowed us to protect our children. And yes, a return to scarcity will cost children their lives.
For more, go to Hans Rosling’s beautuful project at gapminder. com.

Frederik Michiels
June 13, 2016 4:44 am

i usually say this
AGW scare propaganda science says: “glaciers retreat to unseen levels uncovering 4000 year old trees”
real scientist would ask: “what would the climate be and look like if trees did actually grow there?” and “as glaciers move, where did that tree originate from”? definitely not from the place where it was found but as glaciers move downslope from somewhere higher up in the valley where there is still ice.
so most of the time the world was a lot warmer then it is now.
and then i would finally ask
“what will the retreating ice reveal what is not discovered yet?”

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights