IMF Head on Climate: “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled”

Christine Lagarde, By Français : Fonds monétaire international (identité du photographe non mentionnée) -, Public Domain,

Christine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF, By Français : Fonds monétaire international (identité du photographe non mentionnée) –, Public Domain,

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

IMF head Christine Lagarde suggested we’re all in big trouble if we don’t address climate change, while speaking at a conference in Saudi Arabia.

‘We will be toasted, roasted and grilled’: IMF chief sounds climate change warning

Christine Lagarde warns of ‘dark future’ if the world fails to take steps to address global warming

The world will be in deep trouble if it fails to tackle climate change and inequality, IMF managing director Christine Lagarde has warned.

“If we don’t address these issues… we will be moving to a dark future” in 50 years, she told a major economic conference in the Saudi capital Riyadh on Tuesday.

Lagarde said that “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” if the world fails to take “critical decisions” on climate change.

In a statement following her visit, Lagarde praised Saudi reform efforts and moves to address the economic effects of persistently low oil prices.

“Saudi Arabia is also undertaking reforms to reduce constraints to women entering the workforce,” Lagarde said in the statement, pointing to a recent decision to allow women to drive.

Read more:

Just in case you missed Lagarde’s speech in Riyadh and the October climate conference in Rome, there might still time to book a seat at the November UNFCCC climate conference in Germany, to be hosted by the Fijian government. No doubt in November you will also have an opportunity to buy Fijian sovereign climate bonds.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kokoda - AZEK (Deck Boards) doesn't stand behind its product

About 30 years of the same fear-mongering. One has to be 50 years old to recognize the fraud.


We can be sure that Mrs Lagarde will get a lot of play in the MSM with that. Meanwhile almost all realist points of views and dissenting opinions are only circulated in their own little sandbox. The warmists are still winning.

Or just maybe the legacy media are losing? Does anyone other than the omnipresent loony left actually believe a single word printed in the MSM any more?

“The warmists are still winning.” — The only real victory is one that is supported by truth and reality — It is not possible for the “warmists” to “win?”.

…..And ignorance doesn’t have nearly the strength as a weapon that it sometimes seems it may have.


“U.N. poll shows fighting climate change is a dead-last issue”

Nobody is listening anymore.


It’s longer than 30 years. It started with Maurice Strong in the 1970s.

Michael of Oz

I was born early seventies and I remember the cooling scare, only one generation is lost…so far.

kokoda wrote – “About 30 years of the same fear-mongering. One has to be 50 years old to recognize the fraud.”

+0.53 C of global
surface warming
in 30 years (noaa).

(= +0.95 F)

how much more
warming do
you want?

John F. Hultquist

At least one more F degree, please.
That would make gardening so much easier and lower our heating costs.
Also, EVs would do better across the northern tier of US States.

Javert Chip

As a start to that conversation, I’d just like to see the actual, unadulterated data.

Javert Chip wrote:
“As a start to that conversation, I’d just like to see the actual, unadulterated data.”

so go download it.
what’s stopping you???

“crackers345 October 25, 2017 at 11:41 pm

so go download it.
what’s stopping you???”

Lack of doubt, lack of concern and the knowledge that NOAA’s activism has destroyed their scientific value.

Your alleged temperature increase is well within error bounds. Add in NOAA’s willful refusal to track error rates coupled with NOAA’s false belief that temperature averaging increases precision or accuracy.

Earth’s temperatures are cyclical and the Earth is still, very slowly, recovering from the LIA. Reviewing unadjusted temperature data since the 1800’s reveals that Earth is not warming unusually.

Leaving your warming question ridiculous on multiple fronts. i.e. all claim, no proof.

You, crackers, want to convince; then put together graphs, charts and tables that include all of the real data. And include all of the unadjusted data before trying.
Cherry picked dates are a giveaway to sophists, fakirs and alarmists.

The Reverend Badger

What we want and what we get are never going to coincide wherever you sit. And what we get will never be determined to any significant DEGREE by what we do in the next 10, 20, 50 or even 500 years.


Head off to Siberia, crackhead, or is your inner city ghetto just the right temperature.

I bet there is no way you could tell the difference of 1ºF ..even in your most doped up state.



Just because the estimated mean temperature of 56.7 degrees since the end of the Last Ice is used by Alarmist when temperatures are above or below it. Does not mean it is the optimal temperature for the health of the environment. In fact 56.7 degrees is the hypothermia point for many species of flora and fauna. Many forms of life would be better off if that mean temperature was 10 degrees hotter and most life would go extict if it was 5 degrees coldsr.


“how much more warming do you want?”
Like most people, i plan a retirement in somewhere around 5K hotter than where i presently work: sunny seaside; although there will be more water in the air and more mosquitoes (i cope with).
Don’t you ? in which case, you’ll just have to move somewhere closer to the pole (north or south, depending on hemisphere). Easy.

Samuel C Cogar

crackers345 October 25, 2017 at 11:41 pm

Javert Chip wrote:
“As a start to that conversation, I’d just like to see the actual, unadulterated data.”

so go download it.
what’s stopping you???

“HA”, for the past several years I have been able to access ……. NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data ……. via this url “link”, to wit:

But for some strange reason ……. it no longer works, ….. with a browser message stating ….
Hmmm…can’t reach this page”.

Maybe someone can tell me why ….. or provide me a “url” that will permit me said access.

AGW is not Science

Now perhaps you might show that CO2 has anything to do with it. As opposed to, you know, ASSUMING it does, because you have a “theory” (really just a hypothesis) about that.

AGW is not Science

Oh, and most of that alleged amount of “warming” has been the low temperatures being a bit warmer, not the high temperatures going up. So much for the “roasted, toasted and grilled” BS.

Samuel C Cogar,

Still works (again?) for me…

As alternative, you can use the “Carbon tracker” website from NOAA,
Ask for Mauna Loa, carbon cycle data, in-situ for monthly data. let the website plot and then you can download the data…

Carbon tracker website of NOAA at:


Samuel Cogar, are you talking about this stuff??? Try accessing it using the incognito thingy.

NOTE: In general, the data presented for the last year are subject to change,
# depending on recalibration of the reference gas mixtures used, and other quality
# control procedures. Occasionally, earlier years may also be changed for the same
# reasons. Usually these changes are minor.
#(Sorry, Eric, didn’t mean to use the entire page!)
# CO2 expressed as a mole fraction in dry air, micromol/mol, abbreviated as ppm
# (-99.99 missing data; -1 no data for #daily means in month)
# decimal average interpolated trend #days
# date (season corr)
1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 314.62 -1
1958 4 1958.292 317.45 317.45 315.29 -1
1958 5 1958.375 317.50 317.50 314.71 -1
1958 6 1958.458 -99.99 317.10 314.85 -1
1958 7 1958.542 315.86 315.86 314.98 -1
1958 8 1958.625 314.93 314.93 315.94 -1
1958 9 1958.708 313.20 313.20 315.91 -1
1958 10 1958.792 -99.99 312.66 315.61 -1
1958 11 1958.875 313.33 313.33 315.31 -1
1958 12 1958.958 314.67 314.67 315.61 -1
1959 1 1959.042 315.62 315.62 315.70 -1
1959 2 1959.125 316.38 316.38 315.88 -1
1959 3 1959.208 316.71 316.71 315.62 -1
1959 4 1959.292 317.72 317.72 315.56 -1
1959 5 1959.375 318.29 318.29 315.50 -1
1959 6 1959.458 318.15 318.15 315.92 -1
1959 7 1959.542 316.54 316.54 315.66 -1
1959 8 1959.625 314.80 314.80 315.81 -1
1959 9 1959.708 313.84 313.84 316.55 -1
1959 10 1959.792 313.26 313.26 316.19 -1
1959 11 1959.875 314.80 314.80 316.78 -1
1959 12 1959.958 315.58 315.58 316.52 -1
1960 1 1960.042 316.43 316.43 316.51 -1
1960 2 1960.125 316.97 316.97 316.47 -1
1960 3 1960.208 317.58 317.58 316.49 -1
1960 4 1960.292 319.02 319.02 316.86 -1
1960 5 1960.375 320.03 320.03 317.24 -1
1960 6 1960.458 319.59 319.59 317.36 -1
1960 7 1960.542 318.18 318.18 317.30 -1
1960 8 1960.625 315.91 315.91 316.92 -1
1960 9 1960.708 314.16 314.16 316.87 -1
1960 10 1960.792 313.83 313.83 316.76 -1
1960 11 1960.875 315.00 315.00 316.98 -1
1960 12 1960.958 316.19 316.19 317.13 -1
1961 1 1961.042 316.93 316.93 317.03 -1
1961 2 1961.125 317.70 317.70 317.28 -1
1961 3 1961.208 318.54 318.54 317.47 -1
1961 4 1961.292 319.48 319.48 317.27 -1
1961 5 1961.375 320.58 320.58 317.70 -1
1961 6 1961.458 319.77 319.77 317.48 -1
1961 7 1961.542 318.57 318.57 317.70 -1
1961 8 1961.625 316.79 316.79 317.80 -1
1961 9 1961.708 314.80 314.80 317.49 -1
1961 10 1961.792 315.38 315.38 318.35 -1
1961 11 1961.875 316.10 316.10 318.13 -1
1961 12 1961.958 317.01 317.01 317.94 -1
1962 1 1962.042 317.94 317.94 318.06 -1
1962 2 1962.125 318.56 318.56 318.11 -1
1962 3 1962.208 319.68 319.68 318.57 -1
1962 4 1962.292 320.63 320.63 318.45 -1
1962 5 1962.375 321.01 321.01 318.20 -1
1962 6 1962.458 320.55 320.55 318.27 -1
1962 7 1962.542 319.58 319.58 318.67 -1
1962 8 1962.625 317.40 317.40 318.48 -1
1962 9 1962.708 316.26 316.26 319.03 -1
1962 10 1962.792 315.42 315.42 318.33 -1
1962 11 1962.875 316.69 316.69 318.62 -1
1962 12 1962.958 317.69 317.69 318.61 -1
1963 1 1963.042 318.74 318.74 318.91 -1
1963 2 1963.125 319.08 319.08 318.68 -1
1963 3 1963.208 319.86 319.86 318.69 -1
1963 4 1963.292 321.39 321.39 319.09 -1
1963 5 1963.375 322.25 322.25 319.39 -1
1963 6 1963.458 321.47 321.47 319.16 -1
1963 7 1963.542 319.74 319.74 318.77 -1
1963 8 1963.625 317.77 317.77 318.83 -1
1963 9 1963.708 316.21 316.21 319.06 -1
1963 10 1963.792 315.99 315.99 319.00 -1
1963 11 1963.875 317.12 317.12 319.10 -1
1963 12 1963.958 318.31 318.31 319.25 -1
1964 1 1964.042 319.57 319.57 319.67 -1
1964 2 1964.125 -99.99 320.07 319.61 -1
1964 3 1964.208 -99.99 320.73 319.55 -1
1964 4 1964.292 -99.99 321.77 319.48 -1
1964 5 1964.375 322.25 322.25 319.42 -1
1964 6 1964.458 321.89 321.89 319.69 -1
1964 7 1964.542 320.44 320.44 319.58 -1
1964 8 1964.625 318.70 318.70 319.81 -1
1964 9 1964.708 316.70 316.70 319.56 -1
1964 10 1964.792 316.79 316.79 319.78 -1
1964 11 1964.875 317.79 317.79 319.72 -1
1964 12 1964.958 318.71 318.71 319.59 -1
1965 1 1965.042 319.44 319.44 319.48 -1
1965 2 1965.125 320.44 320.44 319.97 -1
1965 3 1965.208 320.89 320.89 319.65 -1
1965 4 1965.292 322.13 322.13 319.80 -1
1965 5 1965.375 322.16 322.16 319.36 -1
1965 6 1965.458 321.87 321.87 319.65 -1
1965 7 1965.542 321.39 321.39 320.51 -1
1965 8 1965.625 318.81 318.81 319.93 -1
1965 9 1965.708 317.81 317.81 320.68 -1
1965 10 1965.792 317.30 317.30 320.36 -1
1965 11 1965.875 318.87 318.87 320.87 -1
1965 12 1965.958 319.42 319.42 320.26 -1
1966 1 1966.042 320.62 320.62 320.63 -1
1966 2 1966.125 321.59 321.59 321.10 -1
1966 3 1966.208 322.39 322.39 321.16 -1
1966 4 1966.292 323.87 323.87 321.51 -1
1966 5 1966.375 324.01 324.01 321.18 -1
1966 6 1966.458 323.75 323.75 321.52 -1
1966 7 1966.542 322.39 322.39 321.49 -1
1966 8 1966.625 320.37 320.37 321.50 -1
1966 9 1966.708 318.64 318.64 321.54 -1
1966 10 1966.792 318.10 318.10 321.18 -1
1966 11 1966.875 319.79 319.79 321.84 -1
1966 12 1966.958 321.08 321.08 321.95 -1
1967 1 1967.042 322.07 322.07 322.07 -1
1967 2 1967.125 322.50 322.50 321.94 -1
1967 3 1967.208 323.04 323.04 321.72 -1
1967 4 1967.292 324.42 324.42 322.05 -1
1967 5 1967.375 325.00 325.00 322.27 -1
1967 6 1967.458 324.09 324.09 321.94 -1
1967 7 1967.542 322.55 322.55 321.66 -1
1967 8 1967.625 320.92 320.92 322.04 -1
1967 9 1967.708 319.31 319.31 322.19 -1
1967 10 1967.792 319.31 319.31 322.36 -1
1967 11 1967.875 320.72 320.72 322.78 -1
1967 12 1967.958 321.96 321.96 322.86 -1
1968 1 1968.042 322.57 322.57 322.55 -1
1968 2 1968.125 323.15 323.15 322.56 -1
1968 3 1968.208 323.89 323.89 322.59 -1
1968 4 1968.292 325.02 325.02 322.73 -1
1968 5 1968.375 325.57 325.57 322.87 -1
1968 6 1968.458 325.36 325.36 323.20 -1
1968 7 1968.542 324.14 324.14 323.25 -1
1968 8 1968.625 322.03 322.03 323.15 -1
1968 9 1968.708 320.41 320.41 323.31 -1
1968 10 1968.792 320.25 320.25 323.32 -1
1968 11 1968.875 321.31 321.31 323.32 -1
1968 12 1968.958 322.84 322.84 323.69 -1
1969 1 1969.042 324.00 324.00 323.98 -1
1969 2 1969.125 324.42 324.42 323.89 -1
1969 3 1969.208 325.64 325.64 324.41 -1
1969 4 1969.292 326.66 326.66 324.35 -1
1969 5 1969.375 327.34 327.34 324.57 -1
1969 6 1969.458 326.76 326.76 324.63 -1
1969 7 1969.542 325.88 325.88 325.08 -1
1969 8 1969.625 323.67 323.67 324.80 -1
1969 9 1969.708 322.38 322.38 325.28 -1
1969 10 1969.792 321.78 321.78 324.84 -1
1969 11 1969.875 322.85 322.85 324.78 -1
1969 12 1969.958 324.11 324.11 324.88 -1
1970 1 1970.042 325.03 325.03 325.04 -1
1970 2 1970.125 325.99 325.99 325.42 -1
1970 3 1970.208 326.87 326.87 325.69 -1
1970 4 1970.292 328.13 328.13 325.86 -1
1970 5 1970.375 328.07 328.07 325.27 -1
1970 6 1970.458 327.66 327.66 325.52 -1
1970 7 1970.542 326.35 326.35 325.51 -1
1970 8 1970.625 324.69 324.69 325.76 -1
1970 9 1970.708 323.10 323.10 325.93 -1
1970 10 1970.792 323.16 323.16 326.15 -1
1970 11 1970.875 323.98 323.98 325.96 -1
1970 12 1970.958 325.13 325.13 326.06 -1
1971 1 1971.042 326.17 326.17 326.25 -1
1971 2 1971.125 326.68 326.68 326.10 -1



I may be interrupting (since you addressed Kokoda) … where I live I would hope for a total of about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.

But I would settle for 2 …


Some amount that is clearly beyond normal. There is nothing abnormal about climate change. It always has and always will. Did you think earth’s temperature was static?

john harmsworth

Born in 1957. The sixties were mean cold winters and hot summers. By about 1972 the weather was pretty much exactly like today, but without the persistent smell of B.S. in the air!

Michael S. Kelly

Given that temperature measurements in the 1880s and before were good to only +/- 2 C, and today are no better than +/- 0.5 C, it’s a little difficult for me to see how one can get a second decimal digit out of the data (especially when it is actually the differences of data, which lose information).

I actually would challenge you, crackers, to figure out how much warming there has actually been, if any, and the error associated with that assertion.

Samuel C Cogar

@ Ferdinand Engelbeen

Thank you Ferdinand, for your response. I tried that “ftp//” link again, a few minutes ago, and it still doesn’t work for me, just times-out and quits. Must be this damndable System 10 ….. or its internet browser, … Cortona, or whatever it is called.

Surely it is not “bug” planted by an avid “Warminists” to prevent me from citing factual evidence contrary to their beliefs.

I tried your “Carbon tracker” site but couldn’t make sense out of it.

@ Sara

Yup, that’s the stuff I was talking about, …… the complete Mauna Los “monthly” Record, from 1958 to 2017, inclusive.

And Sara, I also thank you for your response.

Jed commented “+0.53 C of global surface warming in 30 years (noaa).”

how so?
how does that amount
of warming, 0.15-0.2 C/dec since, now,
by 1975,
compare to history?

Santa Baby

Climate and environmet have been taken over and politized by the new left. And they have build in leftist solutions for their made up problems. In fact they started with their solutions, radical change of society, before they made up the problems. The new left is afraid that they will not succeed and are getting more aggressive?

You have to be 60 years old to recognise the fraud has being going on for much longer than 30 years. 🙂

what fraud?

be specific. i bet you can’t…..


Oh that’s easy. Like Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick being so roundly discredited it no longer appears on the IPCC website?

Like the only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is a greening planet?

Like there being no credible, empirical evidence whatsoever that CO2 causes the planet to warm?


fraud 1: it’s hotter because of man’s GHG (reality: glacier have still not retreated to their MWP position, so it’s probably still colder, but actually we don’t really know; in any case man’ GVG are only a very minor cause, if any)
fraud 2: that’s a disaster (reality: it’s a boon),
fraud 3: not only “a” disaster, but THE disaster, with utmost priority dwarfing all and every problem, Poverty, War, Sickness, or whatever are at best second in line. The list of problem that this disaster brings is endless, in fact no “new” problem, whatever how big (government persecution of minorities or opponents, civil war) or how petty (tooth decay) has some root in this mother of all disaster.
fraud 4: we must stop the disaster, instead of adapt to whatever will happen (reality: adaptation beats fighting off every time)
fraud 5: to do that we must turn to global government implementing Totsky’s dream (Union of Socialist Soviet All Countries Of The World), lining the pocket of selected con men literally selling wind (and sun).

And that is just the major frauds.


“Rather than seeing [climate] models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something very useful.”
— Dr. David Frame, Climate Modeler at Oxford University

What does he call them, Crackers? FICTION. That’s right.

(Frame, D.J., Faull, N.E., Joshi, M.M., and M.R. Allen, 2007. Probabilistic climate forecasts and inductive problems. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2007. 365:1971-1992. doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2069. page 1989.)

Samuel C Cogar

So askith: crackers345 – October 26, 2017 at 1:16 am

what fraud?
be specific. i bet you can’t…..

crackers345, there are dozens n’ dozens of fraudulent claims being touted by the avid “warminists” as well as those that “mimic” anything that their pro-AGW mentors claim.

One of the most silliest, idiotic and fraudulent claims … is the claim that the “wintertime” rise (September 24th thru mid-May) of an average 8 ppm in atmospheric CO2 ….. “is directly caused by the microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere”, ……. simply because that “claim” is a biological impossibility.

samuel: 8 ppm?

no way. let’s see your data


You have your evidence of fraud, now produce your own data to prove that, say, CO2 causes the planet to heat up, empirical though, not the usual nonsense.

Or perhaps that there are other credible, observable manifestations of CO2’s effect on the planet other than greening.

Your turn, but be specific. I bet you can’t, and if not, crawl back into your hole.

Samuel C Cogar

crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 2:34 pm

samuel: 8 ppm?
no way. let’s see your data

No problem, crackers, …… here ya go …..


well, well. Imagine that. Crackers slapped down once again.

Samuel C Cogar

The bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 has been “steady n’ consistent”, …. just like clock-work, ….. for the past 59 years and counting, ….. as per the above cited Keeling Curve Graph (Mauna Loa Record), with an average 6 ppm Northern Hemisphere Summertime decrease and an average 8 ppm NH Wintertime increase.

And it is the temperature of the ocean waters in the Southern Hemisphere that is the “control-knob” (as per Henry’s Law) for the aforesaid “bi-yearly CO2 cycling”.

samuel, that’s a graph, not
data. i’d like to see the data
so i can calculate the 8 ppm
for myself.

HotScot says – “”You have your evidence of fraud”

you haven’t proved any fraud.
just claimed it.
you’ve offered no supporting


you haven’t proved any fraud.

There’s data for you, from NASA.

But then you have no data for anyting at all, do you.

Where’s the data to empirically demonstrate atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm? Don’t have any? What a surprise.



A graph is a way of displaying data.

What is so hard about reading the data off of it?

Samuel wrote:
“One of the most silliest, idiotic and fraudulent claims … is the claim that the “wintertime” rise (September 24th thru mid-May) of an average 8 ppm in atmospheric CO2 …..”

there is not an average of 8 ppm.
i downloaded all the weekly Mauna Loa
numbers on CO2.
the annual max minus the annual min
was > 8 ppm only twice: in 1992,
and in 2017.

the average since ’76 is
6.8 ppm.

samuel wrote – “microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere”

who claims that? ? ? ? ?

much of the difference is simply
due to changes in plant photosythesis

plants and trees take up co2 in the spring
and give it off in the fall.


Samuel C Cogar

crackers345 October 30, 2017 at 6:13 pm

there is not an average of 8 ppm.
i downloaded all the weekly Mauna Loa numbers on CO2.
the annual max minus the annual min was > 8 ppm only twice: in 1992, and in 2017.
the average since ’76 is 6.8 ppm.

If you had just asked …… I would have told you that, ….. to wit:

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2016
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base

CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03

The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May (5) and the end of September (9) of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of September (9) and mid-May (5) of the next calendar year.

And the average “annual increase” of 2+- ppm in CO2 is a direct result of the ocean water warming up following the end of the LIA.

The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.

The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October. (And today is October 4, 2017 and the atmospheric CO2 has surely already started its upward trend to a 2017/2018 “max” at mid-May 2018.)

crackers345 October 30, 2017 at 6:14 pm

much of the difference is simply due to changes in plant photosythesis
plants and trees take up co2 in the spring and give it off in the fall.

After reading that, ….. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Samuel C Cogar

The following demonstrates data suppression and manipulation in recent years.

The abstract tells us all we really need to know.

1942 CO2 levels at more than 400ppm!

Samuel C Cogar

HotScot October 31, 2017 at 7:33 am

The abstract tells us all we really need to know.

1942 CO2 levels at more than 400ppm!

HotShot, I can agree with that …. simply because ….. proxy data of fossilized plant stomata proves that atmospheric CO2 ppm was a lot higher that what the “warminists” are claiming, …. to wit:

The Last 15,000 Years—Reconsidered

Recent studies using plant stomata show that the currently-held view of predominantly stable CO2 levels (260-280 ppm) before the Industrial Revolution (1750 AD, i.e. 200 years B.P.) may be an inaccurate view.

CO2 levels appear to have regularly exceeded 280 ppm– the average of CO2 concentrations across the Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) appears to have been approximately 305 ppm.

Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm– not the exception.

Stomata researchers regard the plant stomata proxy as a reliable means to measure CO2 levels in the geologic past, including the Holocene interglacial period, which spans the period from about 12,000 years ago and continues to the present.

Data from various stomata studies (ref. 10-20) show CO2 concentrations over the last 11,000 years varied between 260 and 340 ppm (average: 305 ppm). In contrast, the Dome C ice core record shows no significant variability and considerably lower overall CO2 levels (average: 270 ppm).

A sharp CO2 decline is indicated between 11,500 to 12,800 B.P., coinciding with an abrupt cooling phase, known as the “Younger Dryas” (Figure 5 ). While this event is obscured in the Antarctic Dome C ice core CO2 record, it shows up clearly in the stomata CO2 record.

Based on these stomata data, the conventional Pre-Industrial baseline of 280 ppm may be understated by about 25 ppm. In other words, 24% of the presumed 105 ppm Industrial Era CO2 increase may in fact be a result of bias and poor resolution of CO2 variability in the ice cores.

While the stomata data show higher values of CO2 than do pre-1900 ice data, they generally agree with the very youngest part of the Law Dome ice data (1900-1957 AD) and also with the contemporary S. Pole Air Flask CO2 record (actual air samples) begun in 1957 and continuing today. In other words, stomata results agree with the data that are least susceptible to distortion and diffusion errors.

The stomata record offers important evidence to challenge the notion that variations in CO2 levels of 20-50 ppm over timespans of less than 1000-years are “unprecedented” or that Pre-Industrial CO2 concentrations never went above 300 ppm– both may, in fact, have been normal.

Excerpted from this source:

HotScot gave:
“1942 CO2 levels at more than 400ppm!

apparently you’ll believe anything.
where’s your skepticism?

also, consider the source

Non Nomen

also, consider the source

Please tell us all you actually know about that source. Innuendoes are useless.

SamC said –
“Excerpted from this source:

you too seem
willing to believe anything
even from a junk source.

science has standards. blog posts
dont meet them.

you need some healthy

SamC writes –
“And the average “annual increase” of 2+- ppm in CO2 is a direct result of the ocean water warming up following the end of the LIA.”

and why is the ocean warming?

it that
really your source for
all the co2 in the atmosphere?
where have all of man’s co2 emissions gone?

ps – I find the avg of
to be 7.2, using MLO’s
monthly co2 data


Nothing wrong with the source, peer reviewed, just what you alarmists demand, so I’m afraid you’re obliged to accept it.

Samuel C Cogar

crackers345 – November 1, 2017 at 4:57 pm

you too seem
willing to believe anything
even from a junk source

science has standards. blog posts
dont meet them.

you need some healthy

Crackers, ….. I graduated with an AB Degree in Biological Science ….. and I was surely knowledgeable about the growth and functioning of plant stomata ……. long, long time before [pruned, .mod], ……. so cease with your childish “clap-trap” in your futile attempts to belittle and criticize the learned individuals who post commentary hereon.

Cheers, Sam C

Sam Cougar – so you have a degree
in biology. big deal. i have four degrees in
far more relevant subjects, and it’s hardly
like one needs a biology degree to understand
the basics of stomata, co2 and water vapor.

argue the science, because citing a
biology degree impresses no one. shame on
you for trying to argue from authority.


I haven’t a qualification to my name, but I know there is no credible, empirical evidence demonstrating atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to heat up.

I also know the only observable manifestation of CO2’s effect on the planet is that it makes it greener.

Or am I just to simple to possibly understand anything?

BTW, your appeal to authority to trump Sam is just as ill advised as his appeal to authority. Thankfully, I can never be called a liar in that respect.

Hotscot – “I haven’t a qualification to my name, but I know there is no credible, empirical evidence demonstrating atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to heat up.”

being unaware
isn’t the same
as knowing.

Papers on changes in OLR due to GHGs –


Thank you for that. Very enlightening.

Now, as an eminently qualified scientist, I would be grateful for your critique on those papers, I understand that’s the job of any scientist, to objectively, critically analyse everything that’s presented to him/her.

My belief is that it’s also the job of scientist’s to present complicated science to laymen (like me) in an easy to understand format.

You have done neither. You have attempted to intimidate me by presenting papers you believe I won’t understand.

That’s not the actions of a responsible scientist, that’s the actions of an intellectual bully, which discredits you and your profession.

Shame on you.

And I’ll cite the same response you posted to the peer reviewed paper I posted earlier in this exchange:

“apparently you’ll believe anything.
where’s your skepticism?

also, consider the source”

I also not that from my first request for evidence on this question, it has taken you from October 26, 2017 at 4:43 am until November 4, 2017 at 10:07 am to provide any. Nine days to produce something that should be so overwhelmingly convincing it should be close at hand for anyone, never mind a scientist. That in itself raises suspicions about their quality and validity. They would also be mainstream news were they beyond any doubt.

Nor is it your claims to scientific abilities or qualifications that make me as cynical of you as I am, it’s your deceitful and evasive cryptic comments that discredit you. During our encounters, and having read numerous of your other comments in the past, you contribute nothing positive to any debate. Your tactics are to snipe, sneer and provoke nothing but irritation at your presence.

And your claims to scientific qualifications are as hollow as mine stating I don’t have any, on an anonymous internet blog. It’s easy to make claims, much more difficult to justify them.

In the cyberspace world, we are defined by our contributions, not our claims. And your claims overwhelmingly outweigh your contributions.

My contribution is that I can smell a rat a mile, or a continent, off. That was part of my professional education.


Another Eurotrash authoritarian money grab and con job, based on bogus science.

Jan Christoffersen


Here’s what Lagarde wants from we peons … “… billions and trillions…”. The link below reports on the annual World Bank Group meeting in April 2015 but the haughty and elitist Christine Lagarde was there front and center. Oh, and only $90 trillion is needed to save us.


Lagarde ?


Non Nomen

En garde!


Au la gare – the station – and then – ride a rail out-of-town?
May I not hope at least?
And isn’t the fragrant Christine a bit better – and less, uhhhmmm, touchy-feely – than her IMF predecessor and compatriot (the charges were later dropped . . . . make of that what you will), the absolutely innocent ‘Harvey Weinstein’ [there seem to be several competing pronunciations of that name . . . ] of International Banking?

All in jest and Dominic Party-Goer was never even in court.
I am sure he did not use the fabled Ecclestone Formula – so, when accused of giving bribes, a payment of eight figures in dollars ensures or confirms – it seems – utter innocence of giving bribes.
And Liberty have nothing to do with this now.


The Maillard reactions only start getting noticeable above 140’C. It ain’t gonna get that hot. No roasting, toasting, or grilling.



IMF Head on Climate: “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled”

Good!! Maybe then they’ll keep quiet.


These types used to get tarred and feathered when the truth was outed.


….. eyes picked out by crows on a crossroad gibbet even.

I wonder what the Internet Age equivalent is going to be. I guess we’ll know soon.

New ways to lie harder is my guess.

Samuel C Cogar

@ rocketscientist

These types used to get tarred and feathered when the truth was outed.

True, but that was then, ….. this is now, ….. now the Interntocene Age.

And given the fact that there is far, far, far too many of them to be “tar and feathering”, …… and since you can’t be “tar and feathering” a few of them to atone for the sins of all of them, ……. then no one will have to suffer punishment for the dastardly deeds perpetrated upon the populace.

Like the destructive pillaging and burning as a result of “rioting”, …… no one gets punished …… because it was done “for a good cause”.


Samuel C Cogar
‘For a good cause’
See – today : –

I am no lawyer. (thank your revered spiritual figure or figures!).

I did not think that good motivation was enough to deflect a charge.
Perhaps it is – at some level.

‘I parked illegally to take a mobile call, whilst not driving, from my doctor.’
‘I crashed into that car because it contained Manchester United supporters on their way to a game.’
‘I stabbed that man to death as h4e was a drug dealer, and I did not want him trying to push drugs to my children.’

Is the quote – “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”?
Something like that.



Maybe she should update her material… she used the same line almost three years ago:

And even then she was quoting herself from two years earlier:

“As I said two years ago, we are at risk of being grilled, fried and toasted.”

Nothing if not consistent.


I am amazed to think that there was a time when I thought Madame Lagarde an intelligent woman!


Intelligent she is. She perfectly fits in her environment, and gets rewarded for that.
It would be dumb to tell the truth and undermine IMF track record of bowing to powerful.


Sounds more like her usual breakfast order.


She should have been toasted, roasted and grilled for her involvement in extortion and bribes in France.
However, she has friends in high places (or incriminating photographs).


Lagarde said that “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” if the world fails to take “critical decisions” on climate change.

Makes one wonder if she eats bread she thinks is toasted and mostly raw food. Obvioulsy, she does not understand the meaning of the words she is using, or does not care. She’s about DRAMA, not science.


“we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” …. umm …. can I get fries with that?

mike kuzan

And this is the same Christine Lagarde that was quoted numerous times as saying “climate change is really about global wealth redistribution”? Also after all the doomsday deadlines so far exactly none-0-zero-zip- nada has occurred!

Roger Knights

IIRC, that’s Christine Lagueres (sp?) (from Central America).

Alan Robertson

That would be Christiana Figueres, UN official from Costa Rica. She is on record as saying:
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.

She even restated that goal:

This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.

While LaGarde and Figueres might appear to support similar action to achieve disparate economic goals, their goals are fundamentally the same; the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few.

Roger Knights & Alan Robertson

Isn’t that Christiana Figueres?

Paragraph 3.

Christine Lagarde is French.

mike kuzan writes – “And this is the same Christine Lagarde that was quoted numerous times as saying “climate change is really about global wealth redistribution”?”

she’s right, it is.
distribution from
bottom to top.


Wrong Christine.

Please see my earlier post.


Funny, the policies they are pushing are redistributing wealth from the middle class and poor, to themselves.
The same as all socialists.


Distribution from the bottom to the top makes no sense. Guess that’s why AGW doesn’t bother you.


I would refer her and the whole corrupt UN to Richard Lizdens quote .” Believing that CO2 controls the climate is like believing in magic “

Mark from the Midwes

She does believe in magic, the whole premise of the IMF is based on myth, magic, and mysticism.


And OPM (Other People’s Money).

too bad lindzen
has never published
a paper showing that.


Clearly you’re not up on climate science literature.

Santa Baby

More than 90 % of the factors controlling climate are not known or badly known scientifically. The claim that CO2 alone controls climate is based on belief and not science.

Who needs a paper?

CO2 has risen from 280ppm post Industrial revolution to 400ppm and the planets temperature has not risen anything resembling it.

And of course, John Tyndall himself concluded ” Water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small”.

AGW is not Science

Too bad no empirical evidence exists that shows CO2 does control (or for that matter even significantly influence) the climate. Sorry, but the burden of proof remains on those bleating endlessly about the “need” for “action” to “solve” the (nonexistent) “climate crisis,” NOT on those who disagree with such nonsense.


We’ve had CO2 levels over 5000ppm, with temperatures lower than they are today.
Clearly CO2 is not the control knob for climate.


Too bad your understanding of science is so poor you base truth on a published paper. Not ever close to the correct answer.


MarkW October 26, 2017 at 6:55 am

“We’ve had CO2 levels over 5000ppm, with temperatures lower than they are today.
Clearly CO2 is not the control knob for climate.”

High concentrations of CO2 = dry ice. And when that happened it was after the atmosphere had high methane that broke down to CO2 and water. With large deposits of Methane Ice still existing on the ocean floor, Earth has never been out of an Ice Age, even when the Arctic and Antarctic was free of Water Ice, the Methane remains from the first global freeze. If anything, in my opinion without proof, except observations, CO2 in much higher concentrations has a cooling effect by removing heat in the lower troposphere and as heat rises takes it higher where it cools by blocking more solar radiation from getting to the troposphere. How much of the ice that forms on high flying planes is water and how much is CO2 as dry ice?

AGW is not Science

Looking at a collection of Richard Lindzen quotes, this one should be plastered on billboards:

“According to any textbook on dynamic meteorology, one may reasonably conclude that in a warmer world, extratropical storminess and weather variability will actually decrease.”

Ian L. McQueen

Don’t forget that 280 ppm is only 0.00028 if you express it as a fraction of 1.0…..

R. Shearer

It’s hot in hell.


Is she confused by the goals of the North Korean leader and Obama giving Iran a path to nukes?

cat’s crack – were
you willing to enlist
to fight NKO on
the ground?


I, with I’m sure many other readers of this site, have put our cherry a$$ses on the line in Korea.

Nothing would please me more than liberating the enslaved, starved and murdered people of the DPRK. My comrades and I stand ready, willing and able to hoist Kim by his ankles, Mussolini style, so that the family members of his victims can beat him to death with baseball bats.

Gabro commented “I, with I’m sure many other readers of this site, have put our cherry a$$ses on the line in Korea.”

the korean war
ended (for the US) in 1953.

assuming you went there
when you were 18,
you’d have to be
at least 82 yo

are you?

the korean warended (for the US) in 1953.
assuming you went there when you were 18,
you’d have to be at least 82 yo now

The US has maintained a military presence to this day in South Korea as a deterrent to North Korea. There are currently 28,500 US military personnel putting their cherry a$$es on the line. I expect the majority of them are far closer to 18 than to 82.

John F. Hultquist

We have friends that served in WWII.
And we have family and friends that died in that war, or have since.
Thus, the tone of your off topic comment stinks.

Why not discuss Christine Lagarde’s knowledge of science versus her social justice interests.
Which does she actually know and care about?
What do you know and care about?

John F. Hultquist – so you didn’t
serve in the Korean War.


Despite what you implied….

davidmhoffer commented –
“The US has maintained a military presence to this day in South Korea as a deterrent to North Korea.”

yes, and my father served in S Korea for two
years in the last 1950s.

so what again
was your question?

cat’s crack – were
you willing to enlist
to fight NKO on
the ground?

Are you? Not that it has anything to do with the matter in hand.


crackers345 October 25, 2017 at 9:42 pm

1953 agreement is just an armistice, so Korean war is still on, for everyone involved. Besides, both camp didn’t respect some part of the agreement, so there is a de facto agreement while the de jure agreement is technically dead.
The war can restart at no notice, and history proved that no malice is required, just some bad line of uncontrolled event.


So in your insane opinion, the only options are “fight them on the ground” or give them nuclear weapons?


Like most socialists, the only thing crackup is willing to fight for, is access to other people’s money.

so what again
was your question?

There was no question. You made a claim which I falsified.

You really are just a troll. We used to get people coming here to argue the science with us. They generally got their butts handed to them. Now all we get is fluff comments by snotty commentators with silly (anonymous) names who can’t even carry on a logical conversation. Instead of chemists and physicists and meteorologists defending the warmist narrative, all we get are people who are crackers.


A Non Sequitur at best.

Gabro didn’t reply – is he
at least 82 yo? if not, it’s very
unlikely he served in the Korean War,
as he implied.

Greg Cavanagh

Quote: “The world will be in deep trouble if it fails to tackle climate change and inequality…”

What’s inequality got to do with Catastrophic Global Warming?

Santa Baby

UNFCCC political claim of CAGW that can only be stopped by a radical change of society, NeoMarxism.


If you want to fight inequality, the first thing you need to do is dump socialism.


Because socialists don’t fight inequality, they milk it.


Nothing, but why care? If you can sell one by faking the other, you “win”.

GregC – inequality is big here. it’s the rich who
are causing climate change, and the poor who
are/will suffer the most from it.

a redistribution of wealth upward.

[???? .mod]


Please Crackers345 name any social or economic society that doesn’t have “inequality” going back to reconstruction of cavemen societies. Inequality is a farce created by poor people that are greedy to want what other people have without actually doing everything they can to be successful. What you are promoting is total anarchy for governments and that leads right back to the strongest and most brutal is the leader of their group that gets the best of everything…like cavemen. Fully implimented socialism is Communism – like Venezuela now. Totally Free Enterprise is what America was before our current Constitution with no leadership to control or protect us from foreign influence and was Anarchy for just a few decades.

john_chi – we’re all living in
the gutter,
but some of us are
looking at the stars


“We’re all living in the gutter…” depends upon where you live and the poverty level there. Someone making the equivalent of $5.00 US a day in a village in Kenya is upper class. If you can put 1 or more than 1 meal a day on your family table there you are poor but surviving. But very few there understand what a rich person is until they see the way their leaders live. I have never worked for anybody poorer than I am. Have you?

ps – you are welcome
to join us


The IMF is one of the chief organisations pushing globalisation and their SDR currency. Imagine my shock that Lagarde supports the “climate consensus.” The organisation might as well be the Fabian Society headquarters.

I can never forget the circumstances under which she found herself being the head of the IMF. DSK (Dominique Strauss-Khan) was accused to sexually molesting a New York hotel chambermaid (are we allowed to use that term anymore?), he gets ousted by the IMF, Lagarde gets installed and the charges melt away faster than any Himalayan glacier ever did. All seemed a little too neat in my opinion.

DSK was one of the more sensible commentators in the documentary “Inside Job”, which I still think was one of the most entertaining, while still being informative, depictions of the GFC.

you can’t blame CL for DSK.

not a nice try, even


Where in my comment did I blame her? I just stated the sequence of events seemed a tad too neat. I did not say she orchestrated his downfall. Neither did I say he didn’t do it, no way I could know. It just seems convenient that people in these high powered jobs have these “slips” of morality, get ousted and replaced. It seems to happen rather a lot. I’d suggest reading a little more carefully before knee-jerking a response.


No one is allowed to any top position without some leach to pull him back if need be. DSK’s was his long and very well known sexual misconduct.
Whether he was pull back on purpose, before he got France’s President job, or he tripped himself (shit happens) is not known, and do not really matters. Lagarde would probably have got the IMF job after DSK running for president, whether he got elected or not, as he would have had to resign from IMF to run. So SHE surely didn’t pull the leash. If someone did (big IF), that would have some of his socialist “friends” not wanting him to run (while his enemies would have had waited until he began the race before revealing the trouble).


Sounds like a modern version of the medieval religious threats of ‘eternal damnation’, ‘purgatory’, ‘sulfur and brimstone’, etc. etc. Why didn’t the audience roll around laughing at this insult to their intelligence? (Or maybe they did – no mention of how the audience reacted. Oh, it was the Guardian…of course). Have we not evolved beyond believing this nonsense?


Griff swears by the Guardian, he even plagiarises it so everything printed therein must be true.

Do I need to add a #sark?


I am surprised that the November UNFCCC climate conference in Germany, to be hosted by the Fijian government, is not in Fiji. Would be easier to sell all those climate bonds with a captive audience. And probably a tad more enjoyable than would be a grey, dull November Germany.

“we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” just sounds a little bit alarmist. How does anyone arrive at that conclusion when there has been a Pause in accelerating temperatures the last 19 years. Because the data was manipulated to make the 2016 year record El Nino year higher than 1934? Or that we have televised reports of droughts that are natural, from varying places around the planet? Sounds like the toasting, roasting and grilling are a subliminal slip about burning heretics at the stake.

At what point do people just quit listening to worthless hyperbole. I guess the people on the receiving end of all the Trillions to be transferred to them don’t care what it takes to get their gravy train delivered on time. What a tangled mess these elites have made of things. And then they wonder why someone like Trump gets elected, or Brexit happens. I don’t think this ends well.

Alan Robertson

“we will be toasted, roasted and grilled” just sounds a little bit alarmist. .
Indeed it was a clear alarm signal to her fellowship, but an alarm without regard for humanity.

“we will be toasted, roasted and grilled”
Translate: If we aren’t able to implement our plans and laws with this climate scare, then we will never have another opportunity, since too much internet information is now available to the little people and they will surely rise against us eventually and we will be toast.

Earth: what “pause” in 19yrs?

M E Emberson

Are you a human? Perhaps this blog should use Captcha like the banks?

MEE: I note that you can’t describe any
“pause” in the data, or explain its


If he is responding to a bot, what difference does it make?


Actually , there are two NON-WARMING periods

1980-1997comment image

and 2001-2015.comment image

The ONLY warming has come from NON-anthropogenic El Nino events and ocean effects.

There is NO CO2 warming in the satellite data sets

There is NO CO2 signature in sea level rise

There is NO CO2 warming signature in Arctic or Antarctic sea ice

There is NO cO2 warming signature ANYWHERE


“What pause”? It really amazes me how short the memory of trolls can be.


cracker345: The pause that caused so much trouble reality was redefined, statistics rewritten and the propaganda machine (the one you appear to love) cranked up to say the scientists were caught off guard, got defensive and unwittingly gave credence to the pause. What that tells us is AGW scientists are very easily distracted (what else did they “just go along with”?) and that they are never going to give up their complete and utter faith in what they believe, even if they have to redefine reality, science and make everyone agree they have completely lost their minds. It’s as if they are a child standing in a room where a broken laptop lies on the floor, the child saying an invisible dog broke the laptop. Or a conservative broke in and broke the laptop. Or it’s not really a broken laptop, it just looks like it. (And don’t you DARE touch it or try to fix it—you’re a science “d” if you do.) It’s tedious and old at this point. AGW cried “wolf” so many times people just do not care anymore.

Sheri – that’s called ‘better data
came in.’

correction is a continual process in science…..

like the BEST results.

The IMF is International Monetary Fund. Why is there any question about their position vis a vis globalization, new world order, socialism, etc? CAGW is just the most recent vehicle for those goals.

Rob Dawg: so you
have no science points to
make here?


The alarmists certainly don’t.

Otter: for this worthless
reply, you get ignored from
here on out.


Irony is lost on trolls.


crackers345: A rather ironic comment coming from you.

Science points? Christine Lagarde is Managing Director of the IMF. She graduated from Paris West University Nanterre La Défense, where she obtained Master’s degrees in English, labor law, and social law. My comments were political because -her- comments were political.


Crackers, Your FALSE “science” has a FRAUDULENT political goal.

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”
— Mikhail Gorbachev, former President of the Soviet Union and a member of The Club of Rome in: A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes it’s War on Mankind. 1996.

When it comes to the War on Mankind —- You’re on the wrong side.


What’s the symbol for eye roll ? Good grief.


“Lagarde praised Saudi reform efforts and moves to address the economic effects of persistently low oil prices.”

Yea, they want oil prices back up because they want to save the planet. Lol!

Steve: why do YOU think
“they” want oil prices


Whahabbism needs funding.


To make more money.


To maximize the profits from their oil. Historically, economics drive behaviors…even Karl got that part right.

Duncan Smith

Why is it the people with the most money, very comfortable, food over abundance, beautiful cloths, large house(s), holiday resorts, running water and sanitation, can yell, it is my lifestyle that is killing the world, what is everyone else going to do about it.

like americans


Like alarmist Americans, Europeans, Australians, Canadians etc.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world doesn’t give a monkeys.

And in case you’re too lazy to look, it’s an online UN poll of 9,736,484 people, on 16 life priorities like education and health where “Action taken on climate change” came a miserable last, behind Phone and Internet access.

a poll of 10m people?


Yet you cheerfully latch onto a poll of 79 people to get your 97%, eh?


Like you, you bloody jerk.
Get the facts right AND the facts do not come from adulterated data.
Adulterated to fit an abstract model – what a joke (just like you).

AGW is not Science

@Hotscot – not only does “Action taken on climate change” come in last, it undoubtedly “comes in” only because it was one of the “choices” given. Ask people what is most important to them, and “action on climate change” wouldn’t get on the list at all.


cracker345: No, most Americans don’t say that at all. They just ignore the AGW theory and try to rein in the people wanting to destroy the country.



Interesting that climate change did its best among people with very high household disposable income, coming in 10th place.

Sheri October 26, 2017 at 9:09 am wrote – “No, most Americans don’t say that at all. They just ignore the AGW theory and try to rein in the people wanting to destroy the country.”

that’s not what
polls show

66% D, 18% R

worry “a great deal about climate change”


And 45% of Independents, hence fewer than that number of Americans worry a great deal about “climate change”. Independents outnumber both parties’ affiliations.


“a poll of 10m people?

There we go. Classic example of ignoring data when it doesn’t suit your beliefs.

All there in black and white, and your response is “sure”.

Then you go on to present a Gallup poll as credible. Did it have 10 million participants? I doubt it very much, more like 1,000. Quite apart from the fact that conventional pollsters like Gallup have been entirely discredited recently with their enormous faux pas with both Brexit and the US elections.

You take a hiding on here whenever you show your face because of your hysterical belief in the cult of AGW. Seriously, you’re considered a joke by most on here so just give it up, you’re humiliating yourself.


crackers can only be guided by other people’s opinions.

He has no rational thought of his own.

Suck deep on the Klimate Kool-aide, little cracked mind,

Or just inject it with all the other hallucinogenic crap you use.



Interesting that climate change did its best among people with very high household disposable income, coming in 10th place.”

Indeed. It’s an interesting poll that Crackers is too frightened to even look at, instead he issues one of his usual 2 line comments that contribute nothing. I would accuse him of being a paid troll, but no one would be daft enough to pay him, or her of course.

Non Nomen

… him, or her…

it Bots are supposedly neuter.


IMF, UN, EU, + are interchangeable for goals. Destroy Capitalism and promote their “ism”. The US needs to stop funding these organizations that denigrate the US form of economy and government. Why wouldn’t we do otherwise? This continued support doesn’t make sense. These organizations have openly said their goal is to devolve the US into a third world country


The same woman is endorsing the refugee invasion of Europe…


The elites are insulated from the refugee impact except to get cheap labor for landscaping or maid service. It is the average Joe that has to put up with the crime and rape, the elites don’t care one whit.


yes but she looks good for her age

“yes but she looks good for her age” … time for that eye check-up. old son.


Not sure about that. I think she looks roasted, toasted, and grilled

Lance of BC

Looks like a old fool to me, and when I say fool, IMFooling you……….

There’s lots of loot in them fools!


She’s 32. 🙂


From your link.

“The CJR [Court of Justice of the Republic] is composed mostly of politicians rather than judges, and handles allegations of crimes committed by cabinet ministers in office.

CJR trials are rare but in a similar judgment in 1999, it found another French politician, Edmond Herve, guilty of negligence over a contaminated blood case but did not punish him.”

Surprise, surprise. Politicians judging politicians and no punishment handed down, not even a conviction.

Non Nomen



Toasted by Big Climate, roasted by the Friars, and then, when it all collapses, grilled by a Senate committee.



What do you call a human who goes back in time to the age of dinosaurs?

ANSWER: “Fossil fuel”

Big lizards gotta eat, you know, and they don’t need no toasting, roasting, or grilling either — very energy efficient, and clean energy at that.

— more substanceless blather from RK


Yet again, whatever point you’re trying to make gets lost in trying to translate your gibberish into meaningful English.

As even you must know, few dinosaurs died in the making of fossil fuels.

A lot of Carboniferous coal swamps went into making coal, long before any dinos. Petroleum is mostly thanks to marine microbes. Nor do we have dinos to thank for natural gas.

he he

John F. Hultquist
John F. Hultquist

No, no one is kidding. The theory that dinosaurs had much to do with oil is completely rejected. Science, as usual, blames the myth on things like the green dinosaur in the photo. Oil is from dead sea life and plant life. It is claimed that the oil from dinosaurs was never taught in schools, is not taught in schools (there’s plently of evidence those are not true statements) and the theory was krill and seaweed all along. Science does just change theories, it activity tries to eradicate the wrong ones it now have changed. Deletion of data at its very finest. Death of science.


It’s a joke. Read it again:
What do you call a human who goes back in time to the age of dinosaurs?

ANSWER: “Fossil fuel”

If I have to explain it, then I’m afraid it’s over your head. Sorry, I’ll try something simpler next time.

How about this one:
When does a blond climate scientist take her scheduled temperature reading? When she’s drying her hair.

No? Okay, I give up. Just stop reading, whenever you come across my name. (^_^) Save yourself the frustration. Problem solved.


You might think it’s a joke. But it is not very funny. Most fossil fuel predates the Mesozoic.


The key word is “Most” because fossil fuels are constantly being created through the process of time on decaying Bio-Mass. What isn’t fossil fuels now, will be in the future.


They will be roasted because when the global cooling phase becomes undeniable, they won’t be able to take credit for it. The hustle and scientific fraud will be laid bare.


Wiser heads among the consensus criminals have worried about what happens when the public realizes the extent to which we have been scammed. But that’s only the younger set. The ringleaders like Hansen, Mann, Trenberth and Schmidt expect to be pensioners by then, as Hansen already is.
They totally expect to skate. Apres nous, le deluge. So to speak.

sorry, joel — there is no reason to expect
any upcoming
global cooling
Grand Minimum of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to the Little Ice Age
Habibullo Abdussamatov
November 25 2013
[..]The start of Grand Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle is anticipated in solar cycle 27±1 about the year 2043±11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060±11 (Figure 1,2).
Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-2005.[..]
It is of course perfectly possible that Professor Abdussamatov is completely wrong in his interpretation of solar cycles, but his analysis does provide some kind of reason to expect upcoming global cooling. I can’t speak for Dr Svalgaard but I suspect that he would disagree. I have no opinion on the prediction but find it interesting. At least his forecast can be tested within 30-40 years or so…


sorry, crackhead — there is no reason to expect any more warming.

Given the state of the MAIN driver of global temperature,

COOLING is, UNFORTUNATELY, the more likely future for a few decades.

It really is a pity that CO2 has zero warming effect, because with 1600 or so new coal fired power stations being built around the world, …

there will be PLENTY more plant life food for a LONG time to come.

And guess what, crackhead… there is NOTHING the AGW glitterati can do about it. 🙂


The models don’t project any cooling, therefore there will be no cooling.
So it is spoken, so let it be.


… There is no physical reason to expect (with any certainty) significant warming or cooling.

Crackers NEEDS to expect warming … without fulfilling this need there would be a short term void in his/her life and no reason to get out of bed. He would then NEED to fill that void with some other blather.

Once people like crackers have changed the filling in their void too many times they go nuts … sometimes scary nuts. It seems crackers is nearing his last void filling (& per the name he knows it).

Be careful going over the edge crackers….


The only thing being toasted, roasted and grilled is Ms. Lagarde herself, as it seems we don’t have to do it for her

Steve Zell

If Ms. Lagarde is so worried about being toasted and roasted in Europe, let’s get her a one-way ticket to Antarctica, where she can cool her heels with the penguins.

Edward Katz

What else would anyone expect her or any other IMF flunkies to say in the first place? What are the odds that she’ll ever admit the whole global warming theory is just an excuse to transfer wealth from the the West to the Developing World, and who knows how those countries will use it. Chances are good it won’t be for fighting climate change.

ed – and the 1C of
warming so far?


You’re tedious.

The single, observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2, is that the planet has greened, according to NASA.

Increased planetary temperature because of increased atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically demonstrated.

These are two recurring, irrefutable arguments you persistently hand wave away.

Wake up man.

HotScot commented on IMF Head on Climate: “we will be toasted, roasted and grilled”.
“Increased planetary temperature because of increased atmospheric CO2 has never been empirically demonstrated.”

please, don’t pretend to
stupid. this has been shown
time and time again.

+1.0 C of warming since
1880 – NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT4


“and the 1C of warming so far?”

Out of the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years, do you mean????

Let me guess, crackhead, you live in an inner city latte sipping ghetto, with fossil fuel heating in winter and air-conditioning in summer.

Move to Siberia……………………….. or STFU !!

AGW is not Science

Please don’t continually reveal your zealotry and stupidity, “Crackhead;” the temperature may have been “shown” to increase, but CO2 has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to have anything to do with it. That is all assumptions and speculations and extrapolation of a poorly supported hypothesis, and nothing else.


What of it? 90% (at least) natural.


cracker345: CO2 causing any change in the calculated average of earth based on maybe 1600 stations (since satellites lie) has never been demonstrated. The correlation is often contested, even. It can be warming (as in the calculated average of the earth) but CO2 need not cause it. Of course, the calculated average temperature of the earth may be a meaningless statistic, but that’s another problem to tackle.

AGW is not Science commented “the temperature may have been “shown” to increase, but CO2 has NEVER BEEN SHOWN to have anything to do with it.”

i don’t respond to this kind
of willful silliness


+1.0 C of warming since
1880 – NOAA, GISS, HadCRUT4”

The 1 degree of warming has not, and cannot be empirically attributed to increasing atmospheric CO2. Many have tried and they have all failed.

You just don’t get it do you.


“i don’t respond to this kind
of willful silliness”

In other words, you cant respond to it with data.

Show us your data that demonstrates empirically that CO2 causes the planet to warm.

Hotscot: you should
study the evidence before
you dismiss it

Snarling Dolphin

Insanely Misinformed Females?

J Mac

Toasted, Roasted, and Grilled
Do you serve red whine, white whine, or both with that?

Patrick MJD

Rose, to match the glasses they wear if they believe they can stop the climate from changing. They can certainly bring about the destruction of modern society.


Lagarde is just one, though high in the food chain, of the bureaucrats whose “life styles of the rich and famous” (sorry Robin) depend on fear mongering so to keep her money flowing at acceptable rates. Other than the money fueling the vanities of her own life (sorry Falò delle vanità, and Tom Wolfe) she has no concern of any living creature or any concept or idea of human thought.


Lagarde is so removed from the simple life of ordinary creatures such as human beings that she has not a scintilla of the conceptualization of … “cooking”!

If she knew about “cooking” she would have used the phrase, whether French or Swahili for that matter, “Grilled, Roasted and Toasted”!

Microwave ovens just do not do that!


And with a fine timing Mörner et al. have published a new survey in Fiji showing there is no evidence that sea levels are rising, let alone accelerating.

Bill Bracey

It is a shame to see so many commenters deviating from the subject to indulge their right wing conspiratorial fantasies. Dictators both left and right, as well as libertarians seek to concentrate wealth and power, intentionally or not. But that’s beside the point. Stick to the science if you want more leftists like me on your side.


All Available science shows that CACA is for sh!t.

Bill. Which science goes with “Toasted, Roasted, and Grilled”?

Lance of BC

“so many commenters deviating from the subject to indulge their right wing conspiratorial fantasies”

That’s pretty funny when the IMF is a (suppose)right wing organization…., I think you are the one in fantasy land. This is not about the left and right… it “IS” about the science or more about a lunatic in a high place who doesn’t know anything about the science.

Oh, I’m a lefty by the way so stop your virtue signalling to other lunatics !!!

I could not give a crap about you being on my side.


According to some communists that I have debated, there is pure communism, and everything else is right wing.

Bill Bracey

Jeez, you ought to think more rationally.

AGW has been stated as the opportunity for global wealth distribution on many occasions by individuals like Christiana Figueres.

Para 3.

The last time something similar was tried, Russia and China murdered millions of their citizens, but the wealthy remained wealthy. It is, of course, continuing with Cuba and N. Korea, amongst others, but you conveniently ignore all that in your ideological blindness, whilst in search of your planetary utopia.

Man is a tribal creature, get used to it. The best way to a largely peaceful planet is through free trade, that’s how we got here, everything you have is thanks to Capitalism, not socialism.


Under capitalism, the person who is best able to cooperate with his fellows will get rich.
Under socialism, the person with the most political power gets rich.


Bill, recognizing reality is not fantasy.
BTW, there is no such thing as a libertarian dictator.


Bill Bracey, First you need to demonstrate to us that this conflict is about science.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
— Alexander King, 1991. Co-founder of The Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution, Published by The Club of Rome
Pantheon Books (New York) edition, p.115

Where is the science in “coming up with the idea” to deceive with contrived scare stories?

Gary Pearse

The only way to make a step forward on the subject of climate effects of CO2, is to take advantage of the opportunity provided by Trump in pulling the life support plug from the Paris Accord which wasn’t really going to do anything useful in reducing CO2 emissions. Doing nothing. Carrying on with fossil fuels as usual, is the only way to step back and see what happens.

We may have considered this a reckless choice in the 1990s. BUT, after almost two decades of a PAUSE interrupted by the recent strong El Nino, observations showing that theory projected warming that was three times observed values, the ENSO at threshold La Nina, cold SH oceans and decline of multidecadal oscillations, the probability of a cool stretch of a several decades that will bring back the Pause is likely. This would connect up with, and extend the interrupted Pause (decline?). Moreover the unexpectedly high positive benefits to the biosphere and crop harvests of growing CO2 availability and moderate warming (14% more global forest cover and doubling of crop production on the same acreage) makes, let’s call it the catchy name – “The Great Climate Experiment” a low risk definitive test toward falsification of alarm science. I hope the term catches on! Oh there will be campaigns against this one!

The PAUSE signifies nothing as a statistical population does not underlie the model. Absent this statistical population, “alarm science” is not falsifiable!

Gary Pearse

If it stretches out for a couple of decades more with CO2 rising, it is indeed very significant. It means that “projections” of business as usual then become 4and 5times too hot and, for all intents and purposes it makes natural variation king. So Terry, tell me 1)how long the pause must be to be significant and 2) Why all the fuss over the pause in the climate command centres if its ho hum. It caused the affliction of a fair number of cliSci by the “climate blues” who haven’t been heard of since.

You also know the “stats” have been fiddled mercilessly. Hansen pushed the 30s-40s period down over 1C to make 1998 a new high. These were USA temps, but since, we’ve learned the same patterns existed in Canada, Greenland, Geneva, Capetown S. Africa, Paraguay, etc. essentially validating the world temp pattern was well represented in the US data before adjustment.

This means the real pause extends back to the 1930s.

Terry Oldberg

“The PAUSE signifies nothing as a statistical population does not underlie the model.”

At least you concede there has been a PAUSE.

It’s a start.

HotScot commented –
“At least you concede there has been a PAUSE.”

What pause?

How does it compare to past “pauses?”


Like this , crackhead. Lots of PAUSE..

ONLY El Nino warming… NOTHING to do with CO2.
comment image
comment image

Lagarde’s position on climate change is pseudoscientific. This does not bode well for her influence on monetary policy!

Robert W Turner

First of all, you can only toast bread. And to roast or grill anything with the back radiation of the sky, you might need manbearpigs help for that.

Ross King

I found this:
“The International Monetary Fund threw its support behind its leader, Christine Lagarde, on Monday despite her conviction in a French court on charges of misusing public funds.”
Also, I could find no record whatsoever of any educational achievements that entitle her to speak authoritatively about Climate Science.
Yet another poseuese and dilettante using what influence she has on the World stage to peddle Value-Signalling garbage aimed at self-promotion among her friends in high places …. nothing more.
Madam, you are a sham and a disgrace. Stick to your knitting … you have no qualifications to spout about what you know nothing about.

Nigel S

But, but, but she was on the French national synchronized swimming team even if she did fail to get into ENA to join the elite ranks of the énarques.

Ross King

When The Revolution comes (and come it will) the heads of the Ancien Regime will roll, as they did in the French Revolution. Put Lagarde in the tumbrils, along with Gore, Mann, Jones and gang, Obama, Pachauri, and the rest of the disseminators of unproven Science as if it were Proven and Settled.
P.S. Add the authors of the egregious 97% report … they should go first under the guillotine.


This woman should be in jail. She is Europe’s version of Hillary Clinton. “International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde has been convicted over her role in a controversial €400m (£355m) payment to a businessman.

French judges found Ms Lagarde guilty of negligence for failing to challenge the state arbitration payout to the friend of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Nigel S

Yes, if there’s any toasting, roasting or grilling going on it should be for Madame Lagarde’s role in that scandal.


So why isn’t she behind bars? Oh….different rules for the ‘high and mighty’ then? Just like some others I can think of…


Her crime is a qualification for the job. It’s standard procedure these days.


Climate change has been going on for eons. It is caused by the sun and the oceans over which Mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. The AGW conjecture is based upon a radiant greenhouse effect that has not been observed on Earth or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is sicence fiction hence the AGW conjecture is sceince fiction as well. Mankind does not have the power to stop Mother Nature from gradually changeing the climate as she has done for eons.

Who was the idiot who appointed Christine Lagarde as head of the IMF. The IMF is an organisation which has done untold damage to the Third World and wrecked dozens of economies with faulty or malevolent advice. Maurice Strong was one of the leading forces of darkness and evil in the IMF in the 1970’s and we know the damage that he has done on.Earth.

Ross King

I wonder If there is “Facilitation Fee” (aka ‘kickback’) from the beneficiaries of these GlobalWealthTranfers to those arranging the Transfers? The Cynic inside me suggests ‘Following the Money’ and that none of this Global Wealth Transfer is anything other than a fraud on the Average tax..paying Joes upon whose shoulders these Transfers are funded.

Nota bene that the jet..setting lifestyles of promoters of the AGW myth like Lagarde and the egregious Gore doesn’t come cheap.


Wealth Distribution is just Orwellian for Poverty Distribution.

Sounds a lot like ex Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change at a Senate hearing stating that:

“Our planet is cooking, and heating up, and warming”

She must have been listening…

You can find it on Youtube: Ted Cruz vs Sierra club…


Ted Cruz made mincemeat of Aaron Mair on that occasion IIRC.

Non Nomen

“we will be toasted, roasted and grilled”

Women have never been outstanding chefs de cuisine. May Auguste Escoffier haunt her for such a nonsense.

Leo Smith

IMF is just another arm of the EuroMafia. The scandals and corruption are rife and well documented, but no one loses their jobs.

If Lagarde is out there fighting ‘climate change’ you can be sure she’s been told to do exactly that, and it’s not about climate, it’s about money.

Things are really hotting up on the Future Prospects of the Petro Dollar. Climate Change particularly the AGW CO2 Narrative is clung to with religious zeal and promoted by Finance Elites, why is that?
China are rolling out the Petro Yuan, backed by gold.

The IMF wish to cling to the Petro Dollar hegemon this is best done by having the Carbon Based Dollar.

Gold had much religious significance in early civilisations, it was spread in foundations of the Delphi Temple, for instance, connecting a monetary commodity to a religious cult is nothing new.


The little-discussed Brant Plan and various post-2008 Crash Central Bank position papers show what guides Legardes public comments. Climate Politics is wrapped up in Debt based money politics and the basis of Capitalism Expect an uptick in CLimate Propaganda the Banks really can not afford to let the Absurd narrative go.


Looks to me as though she’s fond of a bit of global warming….

small wonder, since gw is happening…..

Non Nomen

…gw is happening…..

Even in case it should happen, then there is still no reason to worry. Mankind has mastered many much more inconvenient incidents just by adapting to reality, which I actually miss as far as you are concerned.

AGW is not Science

And thank goodness for a warming climate. The “start point” you use is the Little Ice Age, a cold period defined by crop failure, famine, disease and death. Only a fool sees today’s climate as “bad.”


The world is warming, it’s just that CO2 is only a tiny part of that warming.


Typical that a politician spouts off on ‘global warming’, because the entire construct is indeed political. The scientific case for catastrophe collapsed years ago and it’s only her type who keep the gravy train on the track. Not surprising when she and her pals all hold a ticket to ride.

red – does co2 not absorb IR?
or does the earth not
emit it?


Might do, but not 0.04% – jerk.


Yes it does, but the many negative feedbacks ensure that the end impact is minimal.


Yes, as does water vapor and a host of other gases.


crackpot troll crackers345 .
Why don’t you look around where ever you hide and go out side in the country side and observe the effect of how clouds aka water vapor controls the temperature . The clouds block and reflect the suns rays back into space and the temperature below them is cooler and the land below them warms less than on a cloudless sky
When the sun goes down a lack of clouds let the heat rise into the atmosphere .Desserts are hot in the day time as there is no water vapor to reflect the suns rays but cold at night as the heat escapes into the clear sky with no moisture to trap the rising heat
What does CO2 do ?
Supposedly reflect heat back towards the ground that was heading away .
Water vapor in the atmosphere can reach 4% at some places around the world .The poles have very little water vapor but snow fall comes from water and there is plenty of snow in Antarctica .
CO2 has increased in the atmosphere from .03% to .04% and any heating effect is logarithmic so water vapor has smothered any detectable signal of CO2 induced warming .
The theory of CO2 rely s on feed backs and the feed backs rely on the tropical hot spot which has not been found .
I know we should not feed you but you argue so much rubbish that some people visiting this site might be taken in by your ranting .

The Reverend Badger

crackers345 – SHE’S BACK !!

She add’s nothing to the debate, trolls incessantly and wanders off topic to deliberately wind others up.

The sensible response will be to ignore her. I recommend this course of action for the next week at least.

There are sufficient pro AGW debaters already here for “practice”. We do not need any more and frankly this one is quite nuts.

Non Nomen

Is it the alarmist’s devil in disguise or just a lost soul that loves ranting and wailing, incapable of positive thinking like: Warmer Is Better?


Atmospheric CO2 increase is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN for MANY years to come. 🙂

comment image

Nigel S

Empty barrel? Automaton perhaps?


Surely a bot would have more than 1K of RAM — Cracksherd must be human. . .?. Nah !!
But it keeps on with the same old questions, ignoring bucket loads of answers.


Notice how “inequality” was part of her narrative as her life threatening…alarmism? More attacking the rich to help the poor. People who think that rich people are greedy and fail to see the hypocrisy of how greedy poor people think they are owed something from the rich for nothing. As well as people that think other rich people should give more to those poorer people, when they themselves are richer than most of the poor people they are implying. Politicians that think just because someone has more than most people that they should give more of what they have to create equality, are usually people that have high incomes and portfolios in the millions and you don’t see them giving their wealth away to live like a begger on the street.

Bruce Cobb

In an attempt to show both more warming, and to insert a fabricated, and continuous rise in temperature, the Climatists have fiddled and bastardized the temperature record. Getting tid of the MWP was just the beginning. What actual warming there has been was completely normal, and may be ending. The Pause is just one clue. We may be in for an extended period of cooling beginning in 2019 rivalling or even exceeding the LIA. The Climate Liars have things backwards in the extreme, which is dangerous for mankind.

CD in Wisconsin

@Bruce Cobb: Thanks for this video. I’m not a scientist, but I have to say this is one of the best videos I’ve seen yet that explains why the warmist alarmists should be challenged and debated. The material was presented in a way that was was easy for me as a non-scientist (but with a college degree in computer science) to understand, as it should be for a lot of people.

If we indeed are headed into a natural cooling cycle despite the CO2 level rise we’ve seen, and it starts rearing its ugly head by the end of this decade, the alarmists are going to be red-faced and will have some explaining to do. I hope will be still be around by then to see what they have to say.

As a Wisconsinite, spending my winters in Arizona is looking increasingly attractive.


Well, if that happens, Bruce, it will all be your fault for even mentioning it, because you didn’t ask the Them! first for permission.

Walt D.

“If you invite someone over for dinner and they start talking about global warming/climate change, count your silverware before they leave”.


As it continues to get colder, the alarmists might wish they had some of that warming back.


Getting colder? The solution is just to say it’s local (as if that matters somehow—humans live locally and local is pretty much all that counts) or to say it’s actually warmer and people are mistaken, etc. Lying and misrepresenting are never bothered by reality. The marketing of the lies may take a hit, though.

Bruce Cobb

They will only be able to keep up the sham for so long though. They’ve been pushing the “extreme weather” gambit for quite a while now anyway, and that’s wearing thin. The end is nigh.


Where I live the climate changes four times a year. It is called Spring, Summer, Autumn, and Winter. .