Warmth is no Worry but Cold Kills

Guest opinion by Viv Forbes

It was ice, not global warming, that killed and entombed millions of mammoths and woolly rhinos in Siberia and Alaska.

It was unrelenting cold and then ice, not global warming, that forced the Vikings out of Greenland.

It was bitter winters, not heat waves, that finally defeated the armies of Napoleon and Hitler in Russia.

Russian Winter: “Napoleon’s Retreat from Moscow” Painting by Adolph Northen/Wiki Commons.

George Washington’s army also suffered from an unusually bitter winter at Valley Forge in 1778, in the depths of the Little Ice Age.

Snowy blizzards periodically kill more cattle than heatwaves in Colorado, South Dakota and Texas.

When the Tambora volcano exploded in 1816 it spewed massive volumes of ash and “greenhouse” gases including carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. There was no global warming from the greenhouse gases, but the heat-blocking ash-filled atmosphere and a quiet sun caused “the year without a summer”. Failed crops and famine stalked Europe, Asia and America.

It is icebergs, not warm oceans, that sink ships like the Titanic, and spreading sea ice trapped “The Ship of Fools” in Antarctica.

Every major geological era has ended with massive volcanism on land and under the seas. Molten lava heats the seas and eruptions on land fill the atmosphere with dust which blocks incoming solar energy. There is rapid evaporation from the warm seas followed by rapid condensation in the cold dark atmosphere. This process dumps massive snowfalls which become ice sheets on land, starting a new ice age and bringing the extinction of many species.

It is lethal global cooling we need to fear, not life-sustaining global warming.

305 thoughts on “Warmth is no Worry but Cold Kills

  1. AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.

    “It is lethal global cooling we need to fear, not life-sustaining global warming.”

    That’s one of the stupidest statements I ever read

    • Yes, we know. Your magical mystical CAGW means whatever you want/need it to mean.
      What about the concept of warming is better than cooling do you not grasp?

      • Griff doesn’t garden. Griff gets all his food from the store. When there’s a blizzard or a very bad summer storm like Harvey or Irma or Katrina, he waits for someone to bail him out.
        Because Griff is an uninformed individual repeating the same things over and over again, without even a nod to the need for warmth for plants to grow to put food on his table, then when spring is later and later every year, autumn comes earlier and earlier every year and the growing season called summer is barely long enough for tomato plants to flower and start to form tomatoes on the vines, he will be wondering why the grocery store shelves are empty.
        Pity him. Just don’t feed him.

    • Going to drop to around 8 or 9ºC in your area tonight, isn’t it griff.

      Got the heater going yet ?

      Lots of blankets, thick doona. ?

      • AndyG55 commented – “Going to drop to around 8 or 9ºC in your area tonight, isn’t it griff.”

        avg global surface
        T difference between
        holocene and last glacial
        period = 5 C.

        are you claiming that what
        happens in his back yard is
        more severe than the earth
        during its last ice age?

    • Griff,
      Please explain why this is one of the stupidest statements you have ever heard. It is a undisputed fact that cold kills more than warm unless that data has been adjusted as well?

      • He doesn’t have a rationale. He just throws out statements like that because he knows that they annoy you. You’re giving the silly twit far too much attention. Let him go hungry.

      • Griff doesn’t annoy me at all. I actually like differing ideas/opinions because of the exercise and learning I get from analyzing them.

    • “AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.”

      ….actually, yes it does

      • Griffaud

        Even by IPCC a double of co2 should increase the global temps by 1.8 degrees C, that means from the preindustrial 280 PPM until 560 PPM and since the increase is logarithmic most of the heating from that double has already happened, so yes Griff as usual you are full of it, AGW does mean “that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.” per your own religion.

      • Latitude commented >> “AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.” <<
        "….actually, yes it does"

        Lat: what are the effects of
        higher temps on plant

        at what point did Venus lose
        any plant life it might have
        had — since it clearly had plenty of
        plantlife-sustaining co2?

      • “crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 6:01 pm

        at what point did Venus lose
        any plant life it might have
        had — since it clearly had plenty of
        plantlife-sustaining co2?”

        Wait, what, Venus *HAD* plenty of CO2? Interesting. Funny how people who know nothing about planets and atmospheres always talk about Venus and CO2 as if it means something on Earth.

      • Crackers: Venus’ atmosphere is 96.4% CO2, at a pressure of 93 (earth) atmospheres. Are you seriously comparing the two? Earth has far less total mass of CO2 in its atmosphere than does Mars, whose atmosphere is almost a vacuum. You really need to get a sense of proportion.

      • Pat/Michael: i’m simply
        asking at one point in its
        evolution could Venus cease
        to host plant life?

        for extra credit: why is CO2 on Venus so high?
        double it: why is surface pressure on Venus so high?

    • Let’s play pretend:

      30 years ago we ask environmentalists about large scale ways that we could make the environment more bountiful what would they have recommended?

      1) Temperature, warmer or cooler? Clearly warmer has more growth potential for life. So we would definitely want a warmer climate
      2) Bio diversity, how do we improve it? How about using CO2 for plant fertilizer. At 300 ppm we are very low in CO2, if we could raise that a bit it would help plants grow.

      What are the drawbacks? Well clearly ice will melt raising the oceans, but people are remarkably adaptable and we would manage. A small sacrifice to improve bio-diversity and strengthen eco-systems.

      It really is hard to argue that a cooler world and lower CO2 is actually good for the planet as a whole.

    • You’re right, Griff. The only temperatures going up are in the models and records operated by your fellow political activists.

    • Did you ever have a close friend or loved one die from the heat Griff ? If the piece is correct, there will be people here who have lost someone to the cold. Hypothermia kills, please try to be a bit more understanding.

    • It’s one of the stupidest ststements you’ve ever read but also seems to be a statement you can’t refute.

    • “AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.”

      Yes, it does. If we ever reach a CO2 doubling by the end of this century, the total warming since 1900 would be around one degree C. That comes from the physics. CO2 warming is a log function and is a classic example of the law of diminishing returns.
      There is no sign of any positive feedback from increased water vapour. The IPCC predictions of multiple degrees of warming by 2100 is pure political fantasy.
      Still, we seem to agree on one thing: as you say, a few degrees of warming would be “comfortable” and good for plants!
      That’s exactly what this thread is about. History repeatedly shows that when it gets warmer mankind prospers, and when it gets colder mankind suffers. Do you seriously want to live on a colder planet?

      • Chris Wright commented – “If we ever reach a CO2 doubling by the end of this century, the total warming since 1900 would be around one degree C.”

        warming is already 1 C now.

      • crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 6:24 pm

        Please ignore me. You like to ignore reality.

        In 1995, the gatekeepers said that earth was 0.5 degrees C warmer than in AD 1850. Do you really think that the planet has warmed 0.5 degrees since 1995, ie during the Pause in warming?

        Or have the gatekeepers cooked the books?

      • Griff is entertaining us, please don’t discourage him.

        Big Green is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt, Griff has been fudded and it is obvious he’s very fuddable.

    • “AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.”

      You are correct…………it’s not likely to warm by that much. Maybe 2 degrees?

      With regards to weather/climate so far, the last 40 years have been the best for life in at least the last 1,000 years, since the Medieval Warm Period that was this warm.

      Of course we can ignore all that and believe the busted global climate models that have been too warm. Anybody that states they have not been too warm is immediately dismissed as being objective by me.

      But I’m a denier……….not of the real world warming but in the skill of global climate models to predict global temperatures over a 20 year period or any period, let alone the next 100 years. We are in the Twilight Zone of climate when using these models to predict regional climate and weather.

      Regardless, you are correct, that plants WILL grow better because we might not be able to model the atmosphere well enough to project it 100 years, but you can bet that the law of photosynthesis will still be valid in 2100 and beyond.

    • So global warming is global cooling. So what do we get If we draw the CO2 down as prescribed. Much maligned though it be, logic is even a friend to a social scientist like yourself.

      • We’ve known for a long time that he doesn’t read the articles he cites as proof of his positions. Since most of them end up contradicting what he writes.

    • By complaining that the glaciers are retreating, the alarmists confirm that the Earth is still in an ice age and the present climate is a cool period (~5 K less than average global temperatures) roughly half-way between normal temperatures and advancing walls of ice.

      During normal temperatures, life abounds. In the Carboniferous Era, every rock with enough soil to anchor a tree sprouted one and treeless rocks hosted lichens and mosses that produced soil that would eventually support a tree. The Earth does indeed support more life when it is warmer, so your comment must be even more stupid than the comment that you replied to.

      • crackers345

        We know how fast the climate is changing now because of direct temperature measurements and other instrumentation, but we do not have instrument records for previous episodes of climate change. To compare how fast the climate is changing now to how fast the climate was changing then, we have to measure the changes by the same method, so your claim that it is changing faster now than it was changing then either has no basis in fact or you can provide a link to the research of someone that has done a comparison with the proxies used to gauge the earlier climate change rate and the same temperature proxies as the current climate lays them down.

        What we do know is that the Sahara desert is shrinking and vegetation is getting denser. Polar bear populations have only grown since Al Gore’s first pack of lies. While there are many headlines about coral bleaching, you must dig to find out the most of the reefs that suffered coral bleaching in the past have recovered.

        Regardless of the comparative rate of climate change, it does seem to be a good thing to be warmer.

      • Crackers: “how does life fare in the interim, when climate is changing?

        especially when it’s changing as fast as it is now?”

        When someone contradicted your statement, you asked for proof. Well, whatever evidence someone offers as a reply, you’re just going to say there is no INSTRUMENTAL data to prove it, and you are right. But here’s the thing. YOU made the first claim about how fast climate is changing, so the burden of proof is on YOU. And you don’t have any instrumental evidence either. So you can just go ahead and score one in your LOSS column, Crackers.

        Also, if we are talking about the effect of temperature on an organism’s survivability:

        If it is the RAPIDITY of change in temperature that is crucial to an organism’s survival (and I readily agree that it is), then the greatest concern over this change and its rapidity is correctly placed on SHORT-TERM temperature variation. Like that which occurs EVERY DAY in EVERY LOCATION on this planet. It’s called the “Diurnal Temperature Range”, and it’s generally 10 to 20 degrees C, though it can be smaller in urban areas. The longer an organism has to adjust to temperature change, the less likely that change is to pose an existential threat to the organism. So what kind of mental disorder must one have to arrive at the conclusion that a 1-2 C change in temperature, over the course of a CENTURY, is more harmful to an organism than the 10-20 C change in temperature that occurs EVERY DAY in just about every non-urban environment on the planet? The 1-2 C change (one-way) in temperature that you are worried about occurring over the next hundred years, that happens 20 times a day, in both directions, at intervals of a few minutes during sunrise and sunset. And despite your fears, we don’t see massive extinction events every time the sun rises or sets.

        That said, it is well known that global warming (not climate change in general, but specifically the warmer side of it) tends to decrease Diurnal Temperature Range. (I’ll be happy to provide some proof if you insist, but this is so well-known that global warming researchers sometimes use Diurnal Temperature Range as an INDICATOR of climate change.) This is true because, during a period of global warming, the coldest times of day warm by more than the hottest times of day warm. So, even if the “climate” is changing faster than ever before, as long as it’s changing in a warmer direction, the temperatures are changing (on smaller time scales, where an organism’s ability to survive temperature change is most critical) more slowly.

        • That said, it is well known that global warming (not climate change in general, but specifically the warmer side of it) tends to decrease Diurnal Temperature Range. (I’ll be happy to provide some proof if you insist, but this is so well-known that global warming researchers sometimes use Diurnal Temperature Range as an INDICATOR of climate change.) This is true because, during a period of global warming, the coldest times of day warm by more than the hottest times of day warm. So, even if the “climate” is changing faster than ever before, as long as it’s changing in a warmer direction, the temperatures are changing (on smaller time scales, where an organism’s ability to survive temperature change is most critical) more slowly.

          The only thing that changed was the dew point in the mid latitudes on the northern hemisphere, as both PDO and AMO at various times went positive.
          the 70’s disturbance is a large drop (80%?) then increase(2 or 3 times the # prior to the drop) in station count.

    • Don’t be lazy, give us some evidence to work with.

      It’s true that the Holocene Climatic Optimum produced some areas that didn’t benefit in terms of plant growth (ie. desert like conditions in the Midwestern US). The net effect was beneficial by a pretty wide margin.

      The evidence is that the Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm Period, and Medieval Warm Period were beneficial to plant life.

      • Too difficult for crackers, hey.

        Natural LUVS warmth and CO2

        And guess what, apart from the other substances you abuse, you rely TOTALLY on that CO2 for your very existence and survival.

        And with 1600 coal fired power stations being built around the world, nature is going to LUV the build-up of even more of that HIGHLY BENEFICIAL plant-life, ALL-life, CO2 in the atmosphere…

        … and there is NOTHING the AGW child-minds and bed-wetters can do about it . 🙂

    • Front up Griffy.
      Prove your statement that you have taken on board from the constant brainwashing the general public are subjected to in the news media and in our schools and universities .There is no proof that the temperature of the planet will escalate with rising CO2 .Front up or shut up.

      • gwan comented – “There is no proof that the temperature of the planet will escalate with rising CO2 .”

        so why do
        you think all scientists
        in the entire
        world think this?

      • “crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 6:29 pm

        so why do
        you think all scientists
        in the entire
        world think this?”

        ALL scientists? That’s a very bold claim, actually no, it’s crackers. And with no supporting evidence.

    • If 7000ppm didn’t kill all life on the planet, than 400ppm isn’t going to either.
      There isn’t a shred of evidence that increased CO2 will increase temperatures by more than a few tenths of degrees, much less the 2C that causes you to wet your diapers.

    • Stupid and ignorant is not knowing that fuel poverty kills tens of thousands of Britons every winter. The idiotic fear of nonexistent catastrophic man-made warming has murdered millions of innocent, fossil fuel-starved people worldwide since Hansen’s diabolical plot in 1988.

      • Crackers,

        I’m American, but went to grad school in Britain.

        People die of fossil fuel starvation in other countries as well.

        When it’s too hot, in countries with water, you don’t need a/c to survive. Just get in a full bathtub until it cools off.

        But when it’s too cold, you have to pay to heat your house. Renewables make energy too expensive for the poor, including old age pensioners.

      • LOL @ Gabro: “when it’s too cold, you have to pay to heat your house.”

        You use “renewable” biomass (firewood) to provide heat.
        In fact, renewable biomass (firewood) is the least expensive alternative going.

        • You use “renewable” biomass (firewood) to provide heat.
          In fact, renewable biomass (firewood) is the least expensive alternative going.

          Another idiot. Haiti is energy starved, and has no forests left, DR, which has an energy infrastructure still has forests.
          What do you do when you cut all the trees down?

      • “Mark S Johnson October 27, 2017 at 8:01 pm

        You use “renewable” biomass (firewood) to provide heat.”

        Not in built up areas in the UK for instance you don’t. Open home space heaters (Fires) are BANNED!

      • Mark S Johnson October 27, 2017 at 8:01 pm

        Firewood is also the most CO2-productive method of heating.

        I note that you don’t bother to challenge the fact that tens of thousands of Britons die every year from energy poverty.

      • Gabbie wrote – “I note that you don’t bother to challenge the fact that tens of thousands of Britons die every year from energy poverty”

        my god, what is wrong
        with the Britons, letting all
        their poor people die for what of
        a small energy subsidy?

        doesn’t anyone there care???????

      • Crackers,
        No subsidy can make up for the outrageous cost of heat in Britain, thanks to the CACA anti-human conspiracy.
        And it’s not just in Britain.

      • “Mark S Johnson October 27, 2017 at 9:27 pm”

        Yes, Drax burns wood to make electricity, not domestic heating. We then use that electricity. Electricity generated at Drax now generates more CO2 emissions per KW, because more wood has to be burnt, after being shipped across the Atlantic after being cut down in the USA, chipped and transported to a port. Converting Drax to wood fired was totally insane given the reserves of coal it sits on.

      • Patrick,

        Yes, the British renewable campaign is clinically insane. Only educated idiots could dream up such a system.

        That’s what happens when you have a political system in which parties pick their own candidates for office rather than letting the people elect them.

      • David,

        Yes, it would be more accurate to state that Haiti is severely deforested, rather than that it has no trees left at all.

        It is presently about 30% forested, down from 60% in 1923. However, the trees that are left tend to be younger and smaller than in previous decades. Haitians have been poaching wood from the Dominican Republic to meet their energy needs.

    • Griff subscribes to the irrational view that not all degrees centigrade are the same.

      Ones that nature produces are nice, safe and wonderful.

      Ones he/she chooses without any rational basis to 100% attribute to man, are mad bad and deadly.

    • how about providing facts for your argument, instead of ad hominem attacks? Oh wait, that’s all you have left.

    • Griff, what do you imagine that the earth is going to become a barren hot desert or a planet ravaged by huge super hurricanes 24-7? You really haven’t being paying attention at all. You certainly do not understand the history of the planet Earth not even the last thousand years. We know from history that the Earth’s average temperature can increase several degrees and about the only bad thing that might happen is folks living in low lying areas may be flooded. You must imagine Al Gore and his ilk are some sort of gods.

      • Crackers.

        In the 1920s to ’40s. It was much faster for longer however in the first half of the 18th century.

        But nothing in the recent past can compare with glacial termination events like the Dryases and the 8.2 Ka event.

    • Griff is a denier. He believes that there is an optimal climate, more or less the one that mimics conditions of 1950-1954. He denies that climate changes without those nasty humans and their filthy habits.

      So, no cooling since that would mean we’re polluting the air with sulfates. And no heating, since that’s all due to our greed and CO2. No matter what happens to temps next year it will be Catastrophic and it will be your fault.

    • Yes, it means what it says and is correct. Keep eating my friend, and soon your body and mind will contain the same amount of fat, which when converted to lard still wouldn’t grease a very big pan.

    • The article presented facts along with a logical deduction based on the facts presented. An intelligent person would respond by challenging the facts presented, presenting additional facts, or pointing out the flaws in the logic behind the deductions made. You called the statement “stupid”

      Statements can not be stupid, only people can be stupid. You have self identified as such a person.

    • Griff, there is no such word as “stupidest” – it’s “dumbest”. Something you know nothing about but are the epitome of.

    • “AGW does not mean that all the temps just go up a comfortable few degrees and that the plants grow better.” Yep, that is exactly what it means and life on planet Earth has never seen it so good in a very long time. That’s one of the smartest statements I ever read.

    • Griff, you mostly combat stupid statements about the Sun, baricenter junk, and other ludicrous conceived drivers (that you give a pass to anthropogenic CO2 baffles me). But your rebuff about extended cold being a stupid statement must have been made before your morning coffee. Periods of glaciation bottle necks flora and fauna gene pools. Sedimentary fossils show this.

    • Griffy-wiffy-do-duh!
      When Mt Pinatubo erupted we had the likes of David Suzuki hysterically bleating to anyone who would listen that the monumental amounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere was going to precipitate a run away warming holocaust….he told us that Pinatubo was pumping out hundreds of years worth of CO2 at the current rate of human activity each day and that at the end of it all the entirety of all human CO2 pumped into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution had been completely dwarfed by the colossal emissions emitted by Pinatubo….
      And what actually happened? Over the next few years we had a slight cooling phase and pretty sunsets.
      To me, Griff, Suzukis panicky chicken little blatherings are the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. But you rate a mention for sure.
      We are at 400PPM CO2, Griffy. 400PPM, a record equaling low level of CO2 over the geological timeframe. The only other time in Earths history that we had such low levels of CO2 was at the Permian Carboniferous border, and the geologic average CO2PPM is over 2,000PPM and has been well beyond 8,000PPM.
      And Griff…no run away greenhouse forcing global warming holocaustic shock horror then. And since the end of the little ice age and inc. all of the industrial revolution both extra water vapour and emissions have only increased the CO2 concentrations by a measly 100PPM, from 300PPM to 400PPM.
      So Griffy, let us have your statement, in your own words, as I have just done, that shows us how 400PPM CO2 is going to drive us into a runaway global warming disaster?
      And for the rest of you “non-believers,” we may be about to hear a new contender for the stupidest thing that we have ever heard! Although Suzuki will take some beating.

  2. Finally, someone who gets it. This is the truth of the matter! I hope CO2 is responsible for a degree or 2 of warming, since a significant cooling period is something to be truly terrified about. Especially now that the people of the good Earth have developed a civilization of 7.6 billion people within one of the most stable climate periods that the planet has had in the last 2.5 million years of glaciation. Any deviation from this stability towards a much colder climate is an absolute death sentence for hundreds of millions of people. And it usually comes like a thief in the middle of the night. Global warming is good!

    • Unfortunately CO2 does not drive the climate. It does not produce the 2 degrees warming at any realistic concentration. Therefore it will not bail us out of the big freeze.

      • Maybe not Ed, but we can hope. At least the convective heating we get from the UHI and land use change will help. That is in part, IMO, what is driving wild wacky weather in close proximity to where this heat is being created. But since sacrifices must be made, CO2 gets all the blame. No one even talks about the thermal waste heat out of billions of tail pipes and smoke stacks. We can measure that heat, and it all adds up, but is not part of any equation on any side of the debate. Or the additional water vapour that is being continually created which is also the most potent GHG. Just CO2…the alarmists have a pretty weak argument and really aren’t all that bright. Sort of like Griff…

      • It will not help…farm fields are not one of the places that receive any relief fro cold nights from UHI or land use changes.
        Open fields do not hold heat in at night.

      • The point was menicholas, the land use change already did its work during the day time, contributing excess convective heating to the atmosphere that still must shed its heat to the sky/universe before thermal balance is restored. Over and above what would have been, if things had been left in a natural condition. A story here just the other day was saying that the palm plantations were contributing excess heat, as compared to the natural jungle nearby, making the whole palm plantation/biodiesel a moot point in so far as stopping any warming utilizing renewable biofuels.

        The city heat urban island does store its heat overnight in the vast concrete/steel, asphalt etc and represents 1% of the land surface of earth. Land use change is orders of magnitude higher than the area affected by cities, so it is significant. The only argument would be, is how much heat is generated and contributing to the heating budget of the planet. We all agree it is happening, the question is, is it significant.

        IMO, the UHI and land use change of all types including massive water storage reservoirs are what may be responsible for the smidge of human induced warming that they think is accumulating. More than theoretical CO2 warming of 1 degree C for doubling of CO2 for which there is maybe negative feedbacks. If that is the case, then it is the human footprint of 7.6 billion people on the planet causing some small warming, not a ‘carbon’ footprint. And warming is good, although erasing a good percentage of the Amazon jungle may not be.

      • A closer looks reveals that the “warming”, if it is even there, is all in less cold nights, less cold winters, and less cold Arctic.
        Very little in the way of data indicating warmer daytime temps…paved surfaces and buildings aside.
        The biggest and most immediate harm from markedly colder temps would be reduced growing seasons and more frequent killing frosts and unseasonable freezes.
        UHI will not help protect croplands from cold, at least, not in my experience…and that was my only point.
        Protective effects from buildings and pavements does not extend far from the actual structures and surfaces.
        I do not disagree (much) with the other things you are saying, although I think, compared with the heat of the sun and moisture from evapotranspiration, the heat and water we add to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is teeny tiny.

      • ed, i’m really curious about your motivations

        you’re wrong, of course, as every
        academy on the planet has made clear

        so why do you persist in such claims?

        again, i’d really like
        to know

      • Do you know what a logical fallacy is?
        If so, prove it.
        Your short repetitive please for everyone to do your homework for you prove you are just trolling.
        Do you ever say anything interesting, intelligent, or funny?
        I mean…ever?
        Prove it.

  3. Cold is a killer? Yes, it is.

    Humans started domesticating plants +/- 18,000 years ago. Grasses like wild wheat and barley in the then-Fertile Crescent bore edible seeds. Rice was domesticated in Africa and China long, long ago, corn and squash were domesticated in the Americas.

    You can’t plant, grow or harvest crops in ground that is covered by thick ice sheets.

    I’ve had the furnace running since Tuesday. My zinnias are still blooming, but that won’t last much longer. Migration flights are to the west of me. Maybe I can get photos again this year.

    Thanks for the article and a nice dose of reality. I wholeheartedly appreciate it.

  4. Yes, one of the amazing events of our time is the triumph of propaganda that has convinced a huge segment of the world’s population that a warmer climate and warmer world constitutes a catastrophic disaster. That more CO2 produces non-nutritious food, that more water vapor produced by a warmer world will result in droughts, that shrinking glaciers will cause rivers to dry up, that methane from cattle needs to be regulated, that … etc. … etc. … etc. Number Watch hasn’t been updated in a long time – but it’s still a valid eye opener.

  5. Napoleon didn’t actually stick around for the winter – he hurried back to France to take control of the situation before the full scale of the Russian defeat became apparent. Most of the lost army had actually been recruited from Germany, so while his overall power base was diminished, his French one was still intact. It still took the joint forces of Austria, Russia, and Prussia to actually, finally defeat him at Leipzig in 1813.

    • It should be noted in both the cases of Napoleon and Hitler, the Russians had something to do with their defeats. Wet muddy Autumns followed by tough bitter winters and the sheer depth of area being invaded were certainly critical in thwarting both invasions. But tough resistance by the troops and in both cases a scorched earth policy leaving little shelter and succor for the invaders to live off the land were also important factors in their respective defeats. And then there was the fact that both invading Armies were not provided the necessary winter gear to help protect them when the winter came. Bitter cold, lack of adequate clothing, and lack of adequate rations for the conditions is a formula for defeat over the long haul.

      • Most definitely the Russians had something to do with it – they fought hard and refused to surrender. For all his strategic genius, Napoleon was very conventional in assuming that the Russians would admit defeat once he had captured their capital. At that point, the Russians defeated him simply refusing to negotiate or surrender. Also, it should be noted that Napoleon’s troops had already been very substantially diminished when he took Moscow, depriving him of the ability to force another battle that might prove decisive.

      • In US WW II military history we find times when the troops were not adequately equipped or clothed but still held out. But when one combines those to factors with lack of adequate nutrition, then it becomes tougher. Guadalcanal and the siege of Bastogne are examples of when even despite the lack of everything, including adequate food, US forces held out. But they didn’t go on the offensive and win until the situation with rations and clothing had improved considerably.

        It should also me noted that the that the winter camp conditions at Valley Forge were not the worst Washington’s Army endured, though I don’t blame the blogs author for using it as an example because most people believe they were. The winter was much colder and snowier and the rations were just as short near Morristown, NJ during the winter of 76-77. It was only the victories at Trenton and Princeton that sustained the Army over that winter.

      • Russians didn’t ‘refuse to surrender’. Rather, they were used to push every last drip of blood out of their slaves.

    • I bet if you tried to model something as simple as Napoleons invasion of Russia, you would end up with Napoleon going straight through to China, if you fiddled with the initial parameters enough.

      • You call yourself an optimist.

        What should stop him from crossing the Bering Strait?
        Models walk on water!

      • Actually, his plan was to reach India, in order to strike at the treasure chest of the British Empire.

        He couldn’t get there via Egypt, but thought maybe he could via Russia, the Caspian Sea and Persia.

    • Hitler flat out ignored the advice and suggestions of hos generals in the field.
      Insane people who think they can do no wrong are not good military leaders…for long.

  6. Simple common sense but well worth repeating Viv Forbes. Javier’s magnificent cartoon showing global temperatures against the track of earth’s obliquity – interspersed with some cracking human and natural ‘milestones’ – is still one of he best things I have ever seen on Anthony’s superb blog. I keep it bookmarked and revisit it regularly. Viv’s commentary reminds me of its ongoing relevance.


  7. Having been a cold weather and winter backpacker all my life, with cold you need merely to dress well. But you can only take off so many clothes in the summer. I wonder how frequent severe heat events like last year in India will occur in the future.

    Note that in the cold weather, your sweater is actually colder than you are, but it warms you. I wonder how that could work…a cold object like the atmosphere warming the surface…

    • You are being absurd,RS since statistics show that cold weather kills far more people than hot weather.

      Besides you BREATHE in the cold air,which stresses the body,why do you think people get more tired in the Winter than in Summer?

      Why do you think colds and fevers are are more common in the Winter than in Summer?

      • Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather

        May 20, 2015
        The Lancet
        Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.


      • Correlation doesn’t mean causation. Winter in the semi tropics also has more deaths. I have always heard that in the winter, being indoors is the main cause of colds. So I’m going with darkness being the cause…

      • RS

        personally I will take a very hot day, just be lazy and sit in the shade with an ice tea you will just fine, a good book helps too.

      • Risk increases slowly and linearly for cold temperatures below the minimum mortality temperature, although some locations (eg, London and Madrid) showed a higher increase for extreme cold than did the others. By contrast, risk generally escalated quickly and non-linearly at high temperatures.

      • One of my takeaways, after reading this a few years ago, was that pushing just a few degrees into the warm zones, where “risk generally escalated quickly and non-linearly at high temperatures”, will have dire consequences.

      • RS

        it’s not heat that kills its lack of water in hot climates,hot climates are teaming with life as long as there is water. In fact the tropical regions house the greatest diversity of life on the planet. If cold is better than why did civilization arise during warming periods, why don’t colder regions host as much life as warmer regions?
        More importantly global warming has had little effect on the tropical regions of the planet most of if not all of the warming has happened in the far northern latitudes. Because of global warming habitat regions are expanding all over the planet.

      • Grade school science is too difficult for reallysceptic to understand. What is convection anyways? That’s the same as radiating quantized energy levels, right? I guess it is if you’re merely a climate cult troll.

        As for how many heat events will occur in the future, I predict they will happen once each year for each the Northern and Southern hemispheres.

      • Here is a picture of the last heat wave in London. See the suffering and human misery?


        Meanwhile, here’s an interesting list of the UK’s biggest tragedies of lost life.


        It’s not even close as to which one is more costly to human life. I mean, we’re only a tropical species and all, it’s not difficult to understand, and any sensible person knows that there’s much more to it than simply putting on more clothing.

        The Great Famine is an interesting one:

        “During the Medieval Warm Period (the period prior to 1300), the population of Europe exploded compared to prior eras, reaching levels that were not matched again in some places until the nineteenth century…The onset of the Great Famine coincided with the end of the Medieval Warm Period. Between 1310 and 1330, northern Europe saw some of the worst and most sustained periods of bad weather in the entire Middle Ages, characterized by severe winters and rainy and cold summers.”

        And also notice that there were severe hurricanes in the 18th century, which matches geologic and anecdotal data for the time showing that the period had more and larger tropical storms than today.

      • Correlation doesn’t mean causation, unless you can finagle a grant out of it.
        All you have to support a belief that CO2 causes temperatures to warm is the fact that temperatures have more or less been going up during a time when CO2 was also increasing.

        Ignoring of course the many times when temperature went down or stayed the same, while CO2 was rising.

      • As anyone who has actually studies the issue (leaves reallyGullible out) knows, it’s not heat or cold that kills, it’s changes away from the norm that kills.
        90F, results in heat related deaths in NYC, but is just a warm spring day in Pheonix.
        50F would have them opening emergency shelters for the homeless in Miami, while in Bismark, 50F would have the locals walking about in shorts and tank tops.

        Even if CO2 did manage to increase temperatures by a degree or two, people will adjust and the excursions from the norm will be the same.

      • PS, with all the humidity in the air in Bangkok, extra CO2 won’t have any impact at all.
        Even the IPCC has noted that there will be little if any CO2 related warming in areas that are already humid.

      • suns: if you’re cold, put on a jacket or
        pipe up your furno.

        are you really suggesting we should
        warm up the entire world in order to
        keep your house warmer?

        what a waste of energy!!

    • reallystupidbeliever, you are confusing and conflating weather with climate. Typical. And your comparison with how a sweater works and how warming of the earth occurs is laughably absurd, showing your blinding ignorance.

    • A cold weather backpacker would know that it is not just clothing. Adequate hydration and nutrition are critical factors, along with the knowledge of how to deal with the dangers of the specific terrain and conditions one is working in and using the equipment and clothing one has to minimize the loss of calories to the environment.

      As an SF medic that served on teams that specialized in extreme cold weather and Alpine operations for 8 1/2 years and trained people in that mode of operations for the better part of a decade, the thing I am proudest of is that no soldier under my charge ever had to be evacuated for a cold weather injury.

      • Yep, that is part of knowing how to use what you’ve got. Many a times when ascending a slope the whole team was stripped down to just their light Poloypro from the waist up even though the ambient temp was -0. Always better to be a little cold than to sweat. Seating now means bitter chills later and in a tactical situation the only way your going to dry anything out is with body heat. And over the long haul when you get above the tree line in those temps water becomes critical. One is carrying what they are going to have for two weeks or more on their backs and melting snow or ice for water really eats up the stove fuel. One can’t do much to prevent the loss of water from respiration, but they can minimize the lossby perspiration.

        There is a lot more too it for sustained operations than the layman would think of.

      • Agreed.
        Really sucks when you are benighted on a mountain with just your backpack and an extra down coat…

      • If a storm blows in while you are “benighted’ on a mountain, and you are not very well prepared for it, you will not think it sucks, you will be trying to figure out how not to die before you can get your ass out of there.

    • reallyabsurd!

      “Note that in the cold weather, your sweater is actually colder than you are, but it warms you.

      No such thing happens. (Unless you are a warmista). Your food provides the heat that warms you, and the inside of your sweater. Absent that heat source, the sweater’s outside and inside are at the same temperature. The sweater’s sole function is to provide a layer of insulation, by trapping air in the inter-fiber cells and preventing convective cooling of your body.

      Your claim that you “… need merely to dress well.” is a half truth. You also need to eat well. That requires that there be sufficient crops for you and the mere survivalists to consume. That requirement can only be met on a planet with sufficient water, soil nutrients, and sunlight for photosynthesis to occur efficiently.

      “. . . I wonder how that could work…a cold object like the atmosphere warming the surface…

      Just like your sweater example above, you confuse “warming” with insulation. The sun warms the earth. Core heat also, to some extent. The clouds insulate it, with the atmosphere providing the mechanism for clout formation. Surely you have noticed, in all your cold-weather camping, that clear nights are colder than cloudy ones. Even when it isn’t all that cold.

      It would appear that you aren’t really as skeptical as you would like to claim.

      • RS is right that’s why everybody moves to Siberia when they retire and not somewhere like, ick, hot Florida. Gime those cold Sibirian nights every time.

      • The sweater slows conduction and radiation, but you need a hard shell to provide much protection from the wind.
        Using ones experience backpacking to try to prove heat is more dangerous to life than cold is just silly.
        Moronic really.
        People in Florida live through every single Summer with the heat and humidity at levels that would be considered a terrible heat wave in NYC…it never cools off below about 75 degrees from May to the end of September…at the very least.
        People in places like NYC die because they are living in dwellings that are not set up for handling hot weather…and many are afraid to open windows because of crime.
        Let me know when thousands of people converge on Antarctica to run a super marathon.

    • Absolutely. -273C is a question of dressing. 273C is a question of pizza.

      Now every statistic tells cold days kill people in every country, so your fellow backpackers did’t pack their long johns. Shame, but it still is a kill.

    • reallyskeptical, if you don’t admit that a knit fabric like a sweater acts as an insulator, you are intentionally being obtuse. You have no argument. Sweaters do not absorb cold. They form a barrier between your skin and cold air.
      You really need to stop making yourself look ridiculously uninformed. I do not believe that you have done any backpacking in the cold. If you had, you would not have posted such a ridiculous statement.
      Because you’ve posted something that utterly dumb, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously EVER.

    • Just like the nonsensical “you won’t feel the benefit of it later” spouted by my ignorant, know-it-all, warmunista brother-in-law when I put on my thickest coat to sit in the car and drive to a cold rugby game. When it’s that cold, I want to start off as warm as possible and stay that way for as long as possible, thank you very much.

  8. Not only that even if the earth warms substantially we are the only humans in history to be able to cool ourselves artificially with air conditioning – if only we could afford it with the inflated price of electricity

    • Gerard,

      What you suggest is a local solution that aggravates the global problem. The AC may make you cooler, but it surely pumps more heat into the system.

      • How does it aggravate the problem, Mike? My air conditioner certainly does not produce heat. Perhaps you can explain your lack of information some day.

      • Sara,
        Air conditioners and refrigerators are produce net warming, since they are using electric power, which all ultimately is turned into heat.
        If you had an AC unit or fridge running inside of a closed space, it would get warmer in that space.
        The pump heat from where it is not wanted, and physical barriers and insulation keep the cold region cold for some amount of time…not very long once the power is discontinued.

      • Hmmm….”they pump heat from where it is not wanted.”
        Umm, no. They do not pump heat [away] from anything. The fridge circulates freon, a coolant, through the refrigeration and freezer cabinets to keep frozen and fresh foods at specific temperatures. The air conditioner also uses freon, a COOLANT in liquid form, to cool the air being circulated through my house. There is NO heat pumped away FROM my house, because the windows are closed when the A/C is running. If anything, cooled air is pumped INTO my house. It takes longer for the house to cool if the humidity levels are higher than usual.

        If you don’t know how a cooling system works, fine.

        It was discovered in the late 19th century that fresh water piped through a salt water solution got cooler than its source. It was used in an effort to reduce temperatures in hospitalized patients. The salt water absorbed heat from the piped fresh water. Salt water cooling systems are still in use in some places.

      • Maybe a better way of saying it Sara, is go stand outside your A/C unit when it is working, and feel the warm air coming out. The same for your fridge, if you feel the coils on the back of the fridge, that is the heat being pumped out of your fridge into your house. Other than the work (friction losses) done by the electric motors, the heat exhausted from both equals the heat removed from the house/fridge. More or less…

      • “There is NO heat pumped away FROM my house”

        Sorry , Sarah, but there most certainly is. .

        As said. Go and stand outside in front of your air-con unit. !

      • Gerard, I didn’t characterize the origin of the problem. It is a result of the Second Law.

        Sara, I can’t add anything to the comments posted by the others. Do study up some, though. TANSTAAFL!

      • Gerard, I didn’t characterize the origin of the problem. It is a result of the Second Law. Your AC is not 100% efficient at pumping heat from one place to another. TANSTAAFL!

        Sara, I can’t add much to the comments posted by the others. Do study up some, though. Your understanding of AC and refrigeration (and salt water) is flawed.

      • Sara, I do not wish to criticize you, I really do not, but for someone who knows nothing about the physics of refrigeration or air conditioning to say what you are saying…well. you oughta stop digging.
        There is no such thing as “coolness”.
        Freon is used to transfer heat from a warm place to a cool place.
        It takes work to do this, supplied by electricity. That work ends up as heat.
        The heat expelled on the other side of the AC unit is equal to the heat removed from your home, plus the heat from the fan and compressor running.
        Those are facts.
        What you said is physically meaningless and wrong.

      • Actually, I misspoke, meant to say the Freon is used to transfer heat from a warm place to CREATE a cool place.
        In doing so, it makes the whole rest of the world a little hotter.

      • Oh, I see. You guys don’t know the difference between either an air conditioning or refrigerating system, which requires a liquid coolant HCFC to absorb heat and circulate air or liquid at a cool temperature, and a heat pump which does NOT require a coolant.

        At least you made that clear.

        • You guys don’t know the difference between either an air conditioning or refrigerating system, which requires a liquid coolant HCFC to absorb heat and circulate air or liquid at a cool temperature, and a heat pump which does NOT require a coolant.

          Actually Sara, both types of heat exchanges use a coolant/heating fluid. We learned a long time ago that evaporation and condensation make for higher efficiency exchangers.

          Which is exactly how the planet regulates cooling at night, is uses the sensible heat from water condensing to preserve a warmer Tmin. It is what is regulating surface temps, not co2.

      • Sara,

        I’m sorry, but you’re totally and completely off base here.

        What happens with both refrigeration and air conditioning is that the so-called coolant carries heat from the fridge or your house and moves it someplace else. That’s how it cools.

        In the case of a fridge, the heat goes into your kitchen and house. In the case of air conditioning, it goes outside.

        “Coolants” are chemicals which switch easily from gas to liquid and back again, taking up and giving up heat in the process.

        I don’t know how to make the process any plainer.

      • Sara…I think you are mixing up a ‘salt water cooler’ with a swamp cooler, which is also known as evaporative cooling. I am sure you must have heard of this. I just use a wet towel on my head in the heat of summer, in a pinch. Or maybe explain the process how the salt water cooler works in the hospital you were talking about. I am very interested if this is something I have never heard of.

        With regards to A/C and your fridge exhausting heat, what do you think happens to the heat in your house, or in the fridge. The heat disappears and it gets colder right? I really urge you to do the simple test of touching the coils on the back of your fridge. If everything is working properly, the refrigerant is being pumped through those coils inside the fridge, and then on the back side of the fridge to shed the heat it took out of the fridge. The same for your house A/C…go stand out in front of it while its working and see if there is hot air being expelled from the A/C unit. It does have a fan, and is doing something, right?

        I don’t know about the light inside the fridge since that is bit like quantum mechanics. Is the light still on when you close the door, or does it go out? We may never know the answer to that one, but then you didn’t comment on that. Just kidding….

      • Sara…I think you got a ‘salt water cooler’ mixed up with a swamp cooler, otherwise known as evaporative cooling. When it is really hot in the summer, I put a wet towel on my head, which carries heat away from my head via evaporation. The swamp cooler does the same sort of thing. It is a poor mans A/C.

        Maybe you refer to something else that is a salt water cooler? I would be very keen to hear what this is, and how that works. Re: the fridge and A/C? Just try feeling for the heat that comes out both. You know what we mean…where/how do you think the heat gets out of the house or fridge?

        The light in the fridge is sort of like quantum mechanics. We will never know if the light really goes out when we close the fridge door. But you didn’t ask about that…just kidding. (wink)

      • Earthling2 October 27, 2017 at 11:20 pm

        Actually, there are simple ways of testing whether the light goes out when you close the refer door.

      • I think a salt water cooler must refer to the fact that when water is mixed with a salt, it cools off.
        Depending on the salt, it may get very cold.
        I use water soluble plant food that comes in one pound packets, or in bulk. You can place a pound of it in a dispenser and top it off with water, then use a hose to fertilize your plants. When you add the water to the salt, it gets very cold.
        When I had an operation on my hand last week (Carpal tunnel) they gave me a chemical ice pack as I was leaving, to keep the hand cool on my drive home, in order to minimize swelling. Of course, I was more interested in what was in the pack than in trying to cool my hand while I was driving. It had a chamber with a salt and one with water. When folded, the two mix, and cools way off.
        Of course, anyone can simply look up the history of refrigeration, and get the entire story.
        I have a nearly complete set of trade skills, but a weak spot when it came to HVAC, until recently, when I studied up on the subject ahead of replacing my home AC unit. Fascinating subject, lots to read about.
        It turned out I would never save enough money for the new system to pay for itself…my current one is not that inefficient after all. Best bet is to get a supplemental unit or two…some window AC units are very cheap, and if you do not want a window unit, the way to go is a split ductless system, can be bought online and self installed for GOT $1000 and have very high SEER ratings.
        Of course, I already knew very well how AC and refrigerators work, even before several classes in physics, and those classes where thirty years ago.
        I first learned the principles involved when reading a SciAm article about Albert Einstein when I was about 11 (many may be unaware that one of Einstein’s 50 or so patents was for the refrigeration systems he and Leo Szilard designed)
        On to cases.
        Sara, you are really mixed up, and since you are persisting in pretending you know what you are talking about, i have to call you out…you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
        You may think you do, but you are conflating several different forms of cooling, and have misstated every semi-true assertion.
        Plus, you have made a whole slew of flat out strong statements while telling others that they are wrong and started off not doing so very politely either.
        the principle of salt water cooling relies on a giant supply of salt. It was originated in the 17th century by a Dutchman named Cornelis Drebbel. There are no modern systems that have or do use salt to cool buildings…it would simply be too expensive. You must be referring to using ice to cool air.
        Salt is sometimes used in making ice cream, because adding salt to the ice water mixture both lowers the freezing point of the water and cools the mixture off even more. Ice by itself does not conduct heat rapidly enough to make creamy ice cream…you need a liquid for that.
        One of the first mechanical means of refrigeration was the invention of an icemaker using a compressor, and was achieved by a Florida physician in 1842. His name was John Gorrie, and he use the ice to cool air for his patients in his Apalachicola hospital. (Perhaps that is what you meant to say…the most generous thing I can think is you read about all of this a long time ago and got the details all mixed up in your head, and did not bother to go look up the facts even after being told you were wrong by several people who now what they are talking about.) But Gorrie was never able to make his invention a practical reality. And it was unlikely he could have competed with the then common method of storing ice in Winter for use in Summer, although in the South he might have had a 50 year jump on things had he succeeded.
        In fact, the first viable commercial air conditioners relied on using ice for cooling…and that is why even now air conditioners are rated in tons. It is not a measure of the weight of the unit, but of the amount of cooling as compared to the amount of cooling that a ton of ice provides when you blow a fan over it.
        Read about the Ice King, Frederic Tudor, for a look at hard nosed business and daring entrepreneurship in the 19th century.
        Swamp coolers, on the other hand, rely on what is known as evaporative cooling…the same process our skin uses to cool our bodies.
        Ben Franklin did experiments using various volatile chemicals to measure this effect, but not towards any commercial end.
        Swamp coolers have limited usefulness and are not at all the equivalent of modern systems using the refrigeration cycle, as they do not reduce the humidity, but instead increases it, thus being useless in a place like Florida in Summer. They only work when the relative humidity is low, and increasing it some is not objectionable.
        This method can be traced back thousands of years…the ancient Egyptians would hang reads in a windward window, trickle water over the reeds, and the airflow past the wet reeds cooled the air in the house.
        The Romans used to pipe the water from aqueducts through certain structures, cooling off entire buildings.
        (Building using heavy stones is another way to keep a place cool…thick enough and the effect is like being in a cave.)
        People have using such means as evaporative cooling, and using ice for cooling air, for a very long time and all over the world, but modern air conditioning and refrigeration, using the refrigeration cycle of compression and expansion of a coolant, thus taking advantage of the huge energy of the change in state from a liquid to a gas, only became commercially practical in the 20th century, 1902 to be exact, when Willis Carrier invented his electric air conditioner.

        As for your assertions regarding heat pumps…in modern parlance, a heat pump is exactly the same thing as an air conditioner, but it is one which has the ability to be run backwards, so that it can function as a heater in winter. Where viable, it is more efficient that resistance space heating, since it extracts heat from the outside air and moves it inside. But they are very inefficient when it is very cold…below about 40 F.
        And they are expensive to build, so not a good value in places where heat is only occasionally needed, like in Florida. On the East Coast of the US, the sweet spot for them is around North Carolina (like I said, I did my homework on this).

        So, Sara, I really meant it when I suggested you stop digging the hole you are in, although I suspect few will read this post as the thread is now long in the tooth.
        If I were you I would be terribly embarrassed to have made such a jackass of myself, telling people who are correct that they do not know of that which they speak, when it is you who has it completely wrong.
        In fact, even your assertion that HCFCs are required is wrong…propane works just fine, and is actually one of the ones that was used a long time ago and is recommended by use nowadays because of the ozone hole bugaboo.
        And these working coolants are pretty much al gasses at normal temps and pressures…they become a liquid when compressed, and this liquid is hot due to the adiabatic process. The hot liquid is then run through a heat exchanging coil, cooling it off substantially. The liquid, still hot bit not as hot as it was, is them run through a pinhole valve whereupon it flash expands and cools dramatically, again from the adiabatic process, and then the cold fluid is run through another heat exchanger where it absorbs heat and becomes a gas again before exiting the coil (before researching this a few months ago, I was under the impression that the liquid becomes a gas instantly, but this is not the case in modern systems…it only becomes a gas somewhere in the heat exchange coil).
        In a air conditioner, the first heat exchanger is outside and is called the condenser, and the second one is inside, and is called the evaporator, and is inside or adjacent to what is called the air handler…where the air from your house is blow past the cold coils and is cooled. Since the coils are so cold, they also cause water to condense on them, thus drying the air in your home, and providing the important function of reducing the humidity.
        The same arrangement exists in a refrigerator, and are named alike.
        I have no idea how you suppose these things work, as your explanations are physically impossible or conceptually meaningless.
        Try reading more when people disagree with you.
        We are all wrong occasionally, but being a jackass about it is dumb.

  9. To be fair, the catastrophic global warming theory doesn’t say the average temperature will go up a few degrees and stop. It predicts it will keep going up a few degrees or more each century. If that happened indeed it would certainly at some point start causing major upheavals in ecosystem and climate beyond the serious sea level rise problems. It would be bad. Really bad. It might not happen gradually either if the idea of tipping points does exist.

    The problem with CAGW is that the theory is obviously flawed and is being used politically, not that it wouldn’t be a true concern if it wasn’t flawed.

    • No, the catastrophic theory of global warming does not predict that the average temperature will go up a few degrees each century. It predicts a few degrees warming for every doubling of atmospheric CO2. If we make it to 560 ppm CO2 by the year 2100, we would need to hit 1120 ppm by the year 2200 for another couple of degrees warming, and we don’t have that much available carbon in the ground to hit that level.

      There are no tipping points for runaway global warming in the history of the planet, and as long as we stay a water planet, there won’t be any.

      There is much to celebrate in the slow increase of atmospheric CO2, and little to be concerned about, scientifically speaking. You would probably get more positive results in climate control by putting fresh flowers on the altar of some god every day, then reducing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    • TD Braun,
      There is zero reason to suppose that CO2 was, is, or ever will be the temperature control knob of the atmosphere.
      There is likewise no reason to suppose that whatever factors that have causes the continuously variable temperature patterns of every single location on Earth has been magically discontinued.
      The long term (hundreds of millions to billions of years) stability of the surface of our planet within the habitable range for life is factual…if there were tipping points they would have long ago been reached by any one of a vast multitude of catastrophic events.
      And if higher CO2 caused temps to increased steadily, then we would not see the pattern we see revealed in the ice core data…that CO2 lags changes in temperature by hundreds and hundreds of years.
      The glaciers have advanced when CO2 was high and increasing, and the glaciers have retreated when CO2 was low and falling…over and over again.
      In the longer term paleo reconstructions, CO2 and temp are not correlated.
      Over the scale of human events of the past few thousand years…they are not correlated.
      Putting an exclamation point on the ridiculousness of starting out with a conclusion, and studiously ignoring and disregarding everything that disproves the conclusion, and instead resorting to all manner of underhanded and outright fr@udulant shenanigans including falsifying what little data we have gathered by direct measurement over the past few hundred years, is the fact that about one third of all the CO2 emitted has occurred during a time when temps were actually flat.
      The only way one can believe this “theory” (it aint one) is to be a scientifically ignorant jackass. The warmistas that are not scientifically ignorant jackasses are an assemblage of liars and criminal sociopaths.






      Our planet is in one of the coldest periods in it very long history, CO2 levels have rarely if ever been lower, ice = death, CO2 is literally the molecule of life…the base of the entire food chain of our biosphere, it is sure looks like we will be lucky if it gets warmer not colder unless all of those graphs are wrong.
      You have to ignore so much to believe CAGW, it is shocking any rational human could buy it, let alone be worried about it.
      Question…why has there been no tipping points that wiped out life when CO2 was ten times higher for hundreds of millions of years, even after all manner of volcanic and asteroid strike catastrophes?

      • A very good post, thank you menicholas.

        And CO2 also LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record.



        There is incontrovertible evidence that global temperature T drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives global temperature. This fact was demonstrated in my January 2008 paper at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdfand verified by others, such as Humlum et al 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658

        My conclusion does NOT mean that current temperature change is the only or even the primary driver of increasing CO2 – other major drivers of increasing CO2 could include fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, deep ocean exsolution of CO2, etc., and any or all of these could explain the observed baseline increase in atmospheric CO2.

        The strong correlation of dCO2/dt vs T and the resulting 9-month lag of CO2 after T demonstrates that CO2 is NOT a major driver of temperature – if it were otherwise, the close correlation of dCO2/dt vs T and the resulting 9-month lag of CO2 after T would not exist.

        Many seem reluctant to accept of even discuss this reality, or confuse it with unnecessary complications that obscure the basic fact:
        “Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales – the future cannot cause the past.”

        I think that the observed ~9-month lag of CO2 after temperature is important to understanding the carbon cycle and the true relationship between temperature and atmospheric CO2. I think this CO2 vs T relationship is important – far too important to be ignored, as it has been for the past decade.

        Regards, Allan

  10. The difference between heat and cold as far as humans are concerned is that in cold weather conditions you need energy (i.e. food) to maintain body temperature, whereas in hot weather you need water (i.e. perspiration) to maintain body temperature. Lack of either in extreme conditions can kill. However, all other things being equal, in conditions of scarcity water is generally easier to obtain than food.

    Of course, some people have had different views in the past. General Phil Sheridan, of Civil War fame, once remarked that if he owned both Texas and Hell, he would rent out Texas and live in Hell.

    • Today from Texas–windy (30mph+) and cool. Forecast for tonight—28f rather early for our first freeze. Was much easier to be out and working in yesterdays mid 80f than today, and not looking forward to tomorrow morning out feeding all the critters depending on me for their calories.

  11. Fifteen days with no resupply in February in the Green Mountains of Vermont during a cold and snowy winter with people trying to chase you down will separate the men from the boys. Never got above zero the whole time.
    In my Graduating class of the SFQC in September there were four other medics besides me that went to 10th SFG(A). After the winter warfare training that winter, there were two of us left. The others had quit or found to be unable to deal with it.

    They learned that the qualification course was nothing compared to what was required to make it on a team. And perhaps that is why purely academic qualifications don’t impress me much. I don’t care if a person has multiple doctorates. If they haven’t left the Ivory towers and proven their competence in the real world, then their abilities are questionable.

    • I’m with you, RAH. I love hiking in the winter, but it is absolutely necessary to learn to be prepared for it.

    • Nearly every year a few people die when they go for a pleasant day hike and are unprepared when a storm blows in. This invariably happens because weather got suddenly colder than they were dressed for.
      The pleasant day hike becomes a grueling race to survive, and the unprepared often die.
      Ever notice how stories involving people resorting to eating their fellow travelers almost always happen in very cold rather than very hot places?

      • Long Pig. It’s a question I have pondered more than once. The answer is that if the situation demanded it for my survival I would partake.

  12. How about we totally ignore Griff !
    I get tired of having to plow through his BS and all the replies .
    Don’t give him the attention he so desperately needs.
    Perhaps he will get bored and go away.

    • I would welcome a dissenting opinion if it came without appeals to consensus and ad hominem attacks. Isn’t there someone out there who can defend this ‘settled science’ by actually talking about science, and responding intelligently to arguments?

  13. Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
    and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

    See Fig 12 to see cooling forecast to 2100
    “3.1 Long Term.
    The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.
    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed. Easterbrook 2015 (32) based his 2100 forecasts on the warming/cooling, mainly PDO, cycles of the last century. These are similar to Akasofu’s because Easterbrook’s Fig 5 also fails to recognize the 2004 Millennial peak and inversion. Scaffetta’s 2000-2100 projected warming forecast (18) ranged between 0.3 C and 1.6 C which is significantly lower than the IPCC GCM ensemble mean projected warming of 1.1C to 4.1 C. The difference between Scaffetta’s paper and the current paper is that his Fig.30 B also ignores the Millennial temperature trend inversion here picked at 2003 and he allows for the possibility of a more significant anthropogenic CO2 warming contribution.”

  14. Viv Forbes – I agree with your opinion but please don’t make blanket statements about historical geology like “Every major geological era has ended with massive volcanism on land and under the seas.” Some may have and others demonstratively not.

  15. Warm is deadly, cold is fine:
    Here is my proof: Many more people dies annually in California than in Alaska.
    Case closed.
    ( A wee bit of sarcasm is included)

  16. Griff. My salutations. Once again a stimulating sentence (not even particularly outrageous this time), then you can sit back, without any further effort, and watch the affronted go on the boil, spewing thousands of words. So very economical.

    • I think there was a little more to it than that.
      Give modern agronomy it’s due.
      Besides, those predictions were ridiculous and overblown from the get go.
      There was no reason to suppose any such disasters were in the offing.
      Rantings of misinformed panic-mongers are not predictions so much as dumb things said.

  17. The current Modern Warming Period is still cooler than previous 1000-yr warm cycles (Medeival, Roman, Minoan and Holocene Maximum.

    The greatest global economic,societietal, political, technological advancements occurred during these past Warming Periods, followed by widespread famine, political and social upheaval during the cold periods which followed.

    Unfortuantely, with the developing Grand Solar Minimum and 30-year PDO/AMO cool cycles, we’ll likely have to face 100 years of cooling global temperatures..

    The Mother of All Ironies is that the tiny amount of CO2 forcing will help ameliorate some of the coming cooling…

    • Samurai: ‘The greatest global economic, societietal, political, technological advancements occurred during these past Warming Periods…’

      Galileo and Newton would probably take issue with that claim. The scientific revolution began during the Little Ice Age, encompassing ground-breaking discoveries in astronomy, physics, chemistry, electricity, as well as downstream technology such as telescopes and microscopes, steam engines and the like.

      The Little Ice Age was also the age of discovery. Europeans sailed to the New World, opening up an entirely new and significant chapter in history. They circumnavigated the globe, helped by technological advances in ship design and navigation instruments.

      The industrial revolution began during the Little Ice Age, made possible by the major political, economic and technological changes occurring at the time.

      Interestingly, CO2 was also discovered during this period, right at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

      • The Romans came within a hairs-breadth of sparking the industrial revolution.
        It was just bad luck and lack of the right sort of imaginative thinkers in the right place at the right time.

      • Romans lacked a few key innovations, such as the horse collar, gunpowder and an economy based upon free labor rather than slavery. The power of steam was known, but not applied to work, since there was abundant water and wood, so no need for coal.

        Of course cotton for the dark satanic mills was still produced by slave labor until 1865.

        The Industrial Revolution was helped by LIA cold climate, as the forests were burned and turned into houses and ships, making coal essential. The first steam engines were used to pump water out of coal mines.

        Remarkable that so many astronomical observations were made during the cloudy LIA, especially the naked eye sightings of Tycho Brahe.

      • I do not think the way it actually did happen was the only way it could happen.
        I stand by the statement, although it is pretty far off topic so no reason to go into the entire story.
        There is a logical case to be made, although since it is a maybe/coulda thing, anyone can disagree and not be wrong.

        Innovations tend to build on innovations…one spark can light a fire of unlimited size.

  18. I have developed a theory which explains why the Antarctic is cooling while the Arctic is warming. It also explains long term cycles. Give me an hour to plow through my website using a desktop monitor. It is new science, and it might turn out to be true.

    [???? .mod]

    • I think Harry’s desktop computer maybe crashed, so I will copy his abstract from his website below. Maybe time to upgrade to a shiny new Mac laptop Harry?


      A previously undiscovered relationship exists between tropospheric oxygen and the wandering magnetic poles of Earth’s core. All oxygen is paramagnetic, the colder the better. In the southern hemisphere the Ozone Hole boundary is being held open by the eccentric South Magnetic Pole, and Antarctic sea ice expands to match that latitude. In spite of the curtailment of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol, the Ozone Hole has not shrunk in three decades. In the northern hemisphere rampant carbon dioxide warming is being stirred by elongated jet stream loops melting ancient Arctic sea ice with subtropical air masses. Comparison of daily satellite maps of total ozone to maps of jet stream velocity show a close physical relationship. The old standard Brewer-Dobson equatorial ozone migration theory is inadequate for modeling the factors involved in actual documented stratospheric ozone generation.

      A new thesis is proposed for stratospheric ozone formed in situ at higher latitudes. It is based upon tropospheric transport of paramagnetic oxygen to a lower-altitude polar tropopause. Data obtained from internet sources show maps of high-latitude ozone conversion associated with polar magnetic force fields and also show detailed cross sections of mid-latitude exothermic ozone conversion associated with jet streams. Tropopause ozone conversion accelerates the jet streams and elongates the Rossby wave loops, exacerbating extreme weather patterns. The data confirm the thesis. The paramagnetic process responds to wandering magnetic poles, and new climate change models need to incorporate this rapidly moving global effect. The process might even explain the cycles of Pleistocene glaciation.

      Wandering magnetic poles control cold oxygen which controls ozone conversion which controls jet stream velocity which controls Rossby wave loops which control the weather. Therefore, wandering magnetic poles control the weather!

  19. Don’t worry, the cold will come and then “they/alarmists” will pronounce it caused by using fossil fuels and be twice as bad as the warming.

  20. The physical impossibility of any civilization (technological, agrarian, hunter/gatherer, et.al.) arising under mile thick layers of grinding, crushing, continent spanning glacial ice demonstrates emphatically that global warming is beneficial to life on Earth… and global cooling is not.

  21. It was unrelenting cold and then ice, not global warming, that forced the Vikings out of Greenland.

    The alarmists don’t like that. As a result, it’s easy to find articles asserting that the Vikings died out in Greenland for other reasons … historical revisionism at its finest.

  22. George Washington’s army also suffered from an unusually bitter winter at Valley Forge in 1778, in the depths of the Little Ice Age.

    My 5th Great Grandfather John Crow and his brother Dennis were at Valley Forge that winter with Washington.

  23. Well written Viv.



    Joe d’Aleo and I had written a paper on Excess Winter Mortality based on other evidence when the major Lancet study was published, so we revised our paper to include that excellent study. Our summary reads:

    “Cold weather kills. Throughout history and in modern times, many more people succumb to cold exposure than to hot weather, as evidenced in a wide range of cold and warm climates.

    Evidence is provided from a study of 74 million deaths in thirteen cold and warm countries including Thailand and Brazil, and studies of the United Kingdom, Europe, the USA, Australia and Canada.

    Contrary to popular belief, Earth is colder-than-optimum for human survival. A warmer world, such as was experienced during the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period, is expected to lower winter deaths and a colder world like the Little Ice Age will increase winter mortality, absent adaptive measures.

    These conclusions have been known for many decades, based on national mortality statistics.”

    Cold Weather Kills 20 Times as Many People as Hot Weather September 4, 2015
    by Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae

      • Typhus was what weakened Nappy’s army early on, then devastated it even more on the retreat.

        Only a month into the campaign, Napoleon had already lost 80,000 soldiers either incapacitated by or dead from typhus.

        So it was the heat of summer, making the louse infestation even worse, as well as the cold of winter which did the invasion in.

        Tens of thousands of horses also died from lack of clean water and fodder on the way into Russia. Poland was particularly bad, as the retreating Russian army had previously devastated it.

      • http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/pandemics/2012/12/napoleon_march_to_russia_in_1812_typhus_spread_by_lice_was_more_powerful.html

        So Napoleon and his sick, weary soldiers continued on. Smolensk fell to Napoleon on Aug. 17, and Valutino fell quickly after that. The Russians retreated as the French advanced, drawing Napoleon deeper into Russian territory. Napoleon had split his army into three parts. By Aug. 25, Napoleon had lost 105,000 of his main army of 265,000, leaving just 160,000 soldiers. Within two weeks, typhus had reduced the army to 103,000.

  24. Lecture video, “Georg Feulner – The faint young Sun paradox” on LLIONTV Youtube channel explains the theory, popularized by Carl Sagan, that 4 billion years ago our Sun was 30% less luminous, which if all other factors had been the same would likely have meant the Earth would have frozen over. However evidence suggests that the Earth was never totally frozen over so there are various theories as to why not, chief one being that there was up to 100 times higher % carbon dioxide in our atmosphere compared to present and other greenhouse gases.

    Looks to me like carbon dioxide has been a main factor which helped nurture life on Earth.

    Burt Rutan’s 2011 article, “An Engineer‟s Critique of Global Warming ‘Science’ ” on page 14 has a graph which estimates carbon dioxide levels 600 million years ago were ten times as high as present at over 5000 ppm. How did our Sun’s luminosity at that time compare to present ?
    If there hasn’t been run away warming in the past then why would it happen in the next 1000 years ?

    • The sun’s power increases about one percent per 110 million years, so at the start of the Cambrian Period, it was some 5% weaker than now. But CO2 was probably around 7000 ppm then, as opposed to 400 ppm now.

    • “If there hasn’t been run away warming in the past then why would it happen in the next 1000 years ?”
      Why? Because Algore, midkeymann, et alia, have decreed it. They have proclaimed it and thus it shall be!
      How did you not know that, Alex?

  25. These pages would be just that much duller without periodic appearances by Griff the Clown to amuse us all with inane comments and support for the sinking CAGW theory.

  26. Lets see now Malibu Beach or Antarctica ? Why is it the bulk of the scary global warmies chose to live in a desert climate ? Cold kills and warmth creates hypocrite liberals .

  27. During the LIA harvests failed repeatedly in the 1690’s in Scotland, which combined with other economic and trade woes led to famine. Estimates of 5-15% population loss, with worst hit areas losing 25%. Cold is bad at our latitude. Warm is better.

    • From the abstract in the linked study…

      “Using a novel probabilistic model…”

      Models are not evidence crackers!

    • Crackpot crackers you are at it again .What a lot of twaddle .The small rise in temperature can not be blamed on CO.2 .We get all this sort of bilge in our news papers in New Zealand .The scientists who contributed to the fourth assessment of the UN IPCC stated that the human fingerprint was not able to be identified .Ben Santer a young lead author ignored this information and wrote that the human signal was real and would cause dangerous warming .The following climate conference embraced this lie without ever doing any checks or asking for other opinions.
      If you took the time to research with an open mind you would see what a fraud and hoax has been orchestrated by a very small number of corrupt scientists and politicians greedy for power trying to move the world their way .We dont know where you live but when food starts to become very expensive because of short growing seasons you will be pleased and I guarantee you are against water storage for irrigation and any thing else that grows food for 7 billion people .

    • The study claims 0.5 degree celsius increase from 1960 to 2009 in India; during that time, the population almost tripled (440m to 1.2B), so I suspect that most, if not all, of that temperature increase is from land use changes.

  28. Someone needs to calculate the probabilities of a cold spring combined with an early heavy frost. Follow this with an analysis of the effect on corn yields. We take our harvests for granted. A devastating crop failure due to cold is not inconceivable. Read about the year 1859 in Ashland County, Ohio. The EPA’s endangerment finding was incomplete for not putting possibilities of cold summers into the balance. One sure thing that is known about the climate is that large volcanos can produce cold summers.

    • This has been discussed on these pages numerous times.
      I myself have made the point you make…an unseasonable cold snap or even one bad and ill-timed storm could be catastrophic.
      Few people are aware of how much food there is in the world, in terms of days or supply at any given time to feed the entire world.
      The loss of an entire North American harvest would be very bad for the poor people in the world.
      Preppers know all of this well…they may overestimate the odds, but others surely underestimate those same odds.
      I am sure any such calculation would be pure guesswork…if it ever happens it will be due to unforeseeable events.
      How can the odds of something that has never happened be calculated?
      I have seen where the odds of a person being killed by an asteroid strike are higher than the odds of being killed by lightning…and yet no one has ever died in an asteroid strike (meteors do not count), and every year people are killed by lightning.
      So, you know what they say about statistics…

      • UK, 1976, hottest summer on record. I’m still alive and now live in the southern hemisphere in an even hotter country, Australia. Very few people die in winter here. UK, 10’s of thousands largely due to energy (Heat or eat) poverty.

      • “crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 9:38 pm”

        1976 was the hottest UK summer on record. It has not been hotter since. The trend is downwards (For the UK at least).

      • “crackers345 October 27, 2017 at 9:43 pm”

        If that were true then the last UK summer would be warmer than 1976. It wasn’t neither was any summer since 1976.

      • Cracked Peppers cracker.
        The trend is that as the temperatures fail to accelerate the people in charge adjust ie drop the earlier temperatures to make a trend towards warming .They then readjust them down further This is happening all around the world .In the USA in Australia and New Zealand and many other countries .There are many temperature records around the world that show no warming in the last 100 years and the two longest temperature records in the world show that it was warmer in the 1930s and 40s than at present .The world has been taken in by the greatest elaborate fraud ever perpetrated . You are a troll cracker , bring some proof or go back to the ghetto or under your rock .

  29. There were no ice ages.
    Global temperature has never changed until now.
    That is the message that the climate research community is now telling us:


    I have been predicting this for a while, and now it is happening. That the establishment will deny ice ages. This has clearly been carefully planned and choreographed. In the coming week the world’s media will be full of this story. The entire discipline of geology and palaeontology are going to go the way of Catalonia. A concerted attempt will be made to remove all geological knowledge from human society.

    It’s official. Climate has never changed – until now. And you’d better believe it.

  30. Always trust your body.

    My body tells me cold can hurt; it can actually cause pain.

    My body tells me warmth itself cannot cause pain.

    It’s not ideology. It’s common sense.

    Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

  31. Always trust your body.

    My body tells me cold can hurt; it can actually cause pain.

    My body tells me warmth itself cannot cause pain.

    It’s not ideology. It’s common sense.

    Warmth is good. Cold is bad.

    • While I agree that warm is better than cold, do not confuse pain of cold with no pain of heat. Too much heat will make you unconscious so you do not feel pain prior to dying. If you have ever seen anyone with heat exhaustion or heat stroke you would understand.

  32. Since I started reading this blog, I’ve learned a great deal from some well-informed and wise people. This has helped me sneer and harumph at those politicians and their paymasters who are trying to frighten me into ludicrous alarmist panic…. But whenever I come across any mention of the Tambora eruption – just like the Carrington Event – I’m reminded just how precarious life on this planet actually is. And don’t get me started on the Younger Dryas: I know it only lasted circa 1200 years, but even so….

    • The Carrington Event was only an event because of the then recently installed telegraph wires and other such long runs of conductors.
      While such an event now may well disrupt our lives and cause many deaths due to the collapse of our infrastructures, it is not a threat to life in general.
      Likewise a cold summer may cause a lot of people to starve, but not everyone. Some lives will be lost, but not life in general.
      Even after huge cataclysms like an asteroid strike, when many life forms are wiped out, others are not, and for the survivors life goes on.
      Everyone and everything dies…just not all at once.

  33. IPCC final editors shouldn’t leave the country . Funny how silent they have become now that AL Gore has told them the science is settled .
    What ever happened to Paccuri ? Beat those sexual harassment allegations yet ?

Comments are closed.