Some Thoughts on Climate: Difficult Not to be Skeptical

Guest essay by Michael Greer

I was surprised, pleasantly surprised, UCLA allowed the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department to have Professor William Happer speak skeptically about Climate Change at a Physical Chemistry Seminar, until I learned two Conservative Chemistry professors had to do it under the radar. Nevertheless, in a room that could hold under 100 there were at least 50 standing with many in the hall outside. I’m told there has never been such an overflow attendance for any previous seminar in the past.

William “Will” Happer is an American physicist who has specialized in the study of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Emeritus, at Princeton University, and a long-term member of the JASON advisory group, where he pioneered the development of adaptive optics. From 1991 to 1993, Happer served as director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Science as part of the George HW Bush administration. Happer invented the Sodium Guide Star that most telescopes now have.

Dr. Happer was invited because of his accomplishments in atomic physics which would be acceptable to the other very Liberal professors in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. What wasn’t know to them was that Happer was allowed to pick the subject of his talk and he chose Climate Change.

Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.

Happer admitted he, himself, had grossly over predicted the effect of increased levels of CO2 during the 1980s. He said the hysteria over climate change is caused by computer models not observation. He pointed out the model predictions don’t come close to the observations. They predicted an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last decade but the temperature has only increased 0.05 degrees. He put up a slide that showed what the computer models predicted and what has actually been observed. The models show dramatically higher levels than have been observed. (see slide #1)


The Professor believes carbon dioxide is a minor contributor to climate change. In fact, the earth has had a CO2 famine for millions of years. CO2 was 1000 to 2000 parts per million during prehistoric times. We have a little more than 400 parts per million now. We could double that amount and little would happen. Happer pointed out the classroom we were in would have at least 2000 parts per million. The CO2 we exhale is 40,000 PPM. Each of us exhales two pounds of CO2 daily. The only effect increased CO2 has is more greening of the planet. (see slide #2)


Happer explained that water vapor is what greenhouse gases mostly consisted of and he explained how the molecules of the various greenhouse gases react. That part was a bit over my head but it wasn’t for the students in the room. He went on to explain how atmospheric circulation transports heat from the equator to the poles.

We’ve heard a lot about the acidification of the ocean caused by increased CO2, however, as Happer explained (as well as Willie Soon at the IMPROV debate) if CO2 was the cause of acidification warming would be happening on the surface, but it isn’t. The warming and acidification occurs deep in the ocean. The claim is that if acidity increases 1pH it’s a disaster but Happer pointed out that the ocean surface varies 2 to 4 pH every day. (see slide #3 and #4)



Happer then addressed rising seas. He showed several slides that show sea levels rising no faster than in the past. (see slides #5)


During Q&A a student thanked the Professor saying he gave a compelling argument with data to back it up. He then asked why so many scientists disagree. Happer gave several examples of a consensus of scientists who disagreed with scientists who were later proven right. (see slide #6)


One student said Happer neglected to include the effects of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. Happer said the data didn’t reflect any increase. Another student didn’t think Happer’s presentation was scientifically rigorous. He said Happer was ignoring mountains of data that contradicted him. I wondered what mountain of data the student was talking about. Since the claim is that increased CO2 is causing warming and there hasn’t been any significant warming in 20 years what data contradicts that? Many students, however, appreciated the presentation and believed it was scientifically valid, one mentioning he appreciated the data from satellites in the presentation.

A man who identified himself as a science teacher said he would be out in the hall to discuss the fallacies of Professor’s position. I went into the hall and listened for a while. All they said was that Happer was offering opinion that disregarded data but offered no examples.

Several months ago when American Freedom Alliance brought Dr. Willie Soon to Los Angeles to speak, Dr. Soon, Dr. James Enstrom and I spent the day at UCLA trying to get any of the Professors in the fields that study climate to speak to him and none would. (see DR. WILLIE SOON AT THE IMPROV 10/2/2017; see REMEMBER THE DEBATE? NEITHER DO I 2/12/2017)

Apparently, since Dr, Happer’s seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department, as well as several other departments, are up in arms. They want to know how this happened. Who is responsible for allowing a skeptic to speak? They can’t have students questioning the Climate Change narrative. I’ve always believed when you are told not to listen to opposing opinions that’s exactly when you should. The truth can stand scrutiny.

It’s difficult not to be skeptical of the claims made by climate Alarmists when they are unwilling to even enter into a discussion with a colleague who might question their conclusions.


Michael Greer retired from the film/television industry and is the co-organizer of the Santa Monica Tea Party and the Los Angeles Tea Party, on the board of directors of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights and was a member of the Republican Central Committee for the 41st Assembly District.  She is also vice president of American Freedom Alliance.  Her website is:


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

CAGW has become an inquisition, run by high priests in parts of academia that were green lighted by the politicalized by the Al-gore-ithm most recently. I believe ultimately, it has its roots in cold war mentality by our enemies with applied destabilizing forces in environmental misinformation. What a way to win a war, without firing a shot, by getting our own people to make energy usage a ‘crime’.


I don’t imagine that, even in their wildest imagination, our cold war enemies could have conceived a plot as barmy as CO2 derived climate change. Had it been suggested, their scientists would have been rolling on the floor splitting their sides laughing, that anyone would be so stupid as to fall for that one.

Seriously, I don’t think anyone’s specifically to blame other than a few self seeking, self opinionated scientists from the West, and a bandwagon. It really is our own fault, nor is it the first time. Happer’s example of tectonic plates bears that one out.

Curious George

Let’s face it: It is a war. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 2500 years ago.

Curious George

Hardly a positive indictment of anything. Mao used it, as did a certain German gentleman. Our business environment is littered with combatve principles and terms predicated on combat, yet business is about cooperation, not conflict.

Nor is the climate change debate about conflict, it’s about the entire human race. There is no point in turning into a conflict, it should be about scientific cooperation, although I accept, it has been turned into a punch up.

Curious George

Hot, exactly. It is not about scientific cooperation. It is about a transfer of wealth. Arrows and bullets are not yet flying, because the “Progressives” and other do-gooders don’t feel strong enough – yet.

Curious George

I’m not sure I can recall a nation waging war from a position of strength, unless it was threatened by a credible force. e.g. US/Vietnam, UN/Iraq, UN/Afghanistan. Not great examples but I hope you get what I mean.

Powerful countries like the US, the UK, France, Germany etc. engage in commerce, business and trade rather than conflict because for long term gain, it’s far more profitable than profits made from war. Nor will I go back into ancient history over it because times have changed significantly and the world is now a more peaceful place than it has ever been.

In my opinion, the progressives are on top at the moment, of that here is little doubt, but they don’t wage physical war against the opposition, nor, significantly, do the opposition against them. Nor do I think progression is a bad thing, without it we wouldn’t be where we are now. But there’s always a ‘tipping point’ between theoretical progression and realistic progression. Somewhere between the two, people suffer.

And I do get what you’re saying, it’s a metaphorical war, in which case, fine. I’ll accept that challenge and simply wait until our youth recognise they are being lied to. They will revolt against the status-quo, as they always do, as you and I did, to a greater or lesser extent, but we all grow up eventually.

The whole political thing is cyclical, as is climate change. You and I are drawing the line in the sand saying enough is enough and our youth, as usual, are saying ‘we must be more radical’. OK, fine, be radical, we adults know it’s futile, so you pay for it in your adulthood and stop whining about us flushing your future down the toilet.

In short, shut up and listen to your seniors or suffer the consequences of your naive meddling.


“I’m not sure I can recall a nation waging war from a position of strength,”
How about Nazi Germany in 1939?
If it hadn’t been for some incredible strategic errors by AH, especially attacking the USSR, we would all be speaking German now.
Remember also, if he hadn’t chased off his most effective scientists, it would have been the Nazis that acquired the atom bomb, and then the attack on the USSR wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
Plenty of other historical examples too, the Romans, Ghengis Kahn, Atillia the Hun and Mahommed spring to mind.


Germ theory took a while to break through? Lots more failed consensus opinions in the dustbin of history. Perhaps we should list a few. The old theory of geosynclines was full of holes and contradictions.


Why can you not imagine it ? Our opponents did exactly this – “dezinformatzia” – in order to demoralize the West (meaning, people cannot think straight and cannot accept reality even when it is right in front of them):

“Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete)”

“Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)”

Or read the book from Lt Gen Ion Mihai Pacepa – the highest ranking defector in the Cold War:
“Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism ”

The UN IPCC AGW Hypothesis and related propaganda are classic disinformation – spamming false memes from all sorts of difference sources so that the truth is obscured by the falsehoods.

The goal of the AGW crowd isn’t merely about transferring money, it is about transferring SOVEREIGNTY. The goal is control.


I don’t accept global, or even national conspiracies of mind control, disinformation or anything else like that as it’s largely impossible to control a few streets out from the source.

Samuel C Cogar

HotScot – December 1, 2017 at 3:47 pm

I’m not sure I can recall a nation waging war from a position of strength, unless it was threatened by a credible force. e.g. US/Vietnam, UN/Iraq, UN/Afghanistan.

OH MY MY, ….. and on another thread you questioned ripshin by asking …….

[quoting HotShot] “Or did I miss a #sarc you didn’t include?

If any posted comment needed to be defined as satire, your response to Curious George surely was.

I don’t recall any country since WWII, threatening the US, other than the recent BS crapolla being mouthed by North Korea.

Samuel C Cogar

I’m not sure if I’m understanding you properly.

I posted a genuine query to ripshin. Was he being sarcastic and just left off a #sark tag, or was he being serious?

Nor am I sure what you’re driving at with your comment about N.Korea. Kim is rattling sabres from a position of weakness. He’s not even remotely close to the military capabilities of the US, but is openly challenging it.

It rather supports my point.


“If it hadn’t been for some incredible strategic errors by AH, especially attacking the USSR”

Says it all really. Apart from AH expecting to defeat Russia, France, Poland, the UK and the US whilst fighting on numerous fronts. Germany was punching well above it’s weight.

“Remember also, if he hadn’t chased off his most effective scientists”

IF…….But he did.

Samuel C Cogar

HotScot – December 2, 2017 at 11:42 am

I posted a genuine query to ripshin. Was he being sarcastic and just left off a #sark tag, or was he being serious?

Horsefeathers, t’was not a genuine query because you knew there was no #sark tag … yet you asked if you missed it. Same as asking someone, …. “Do you still smoke marijuana”?

Was he being sarcastic and just left off a #sark tag, or was he being serious?.

HotShot, ….. why ask me ….. a genuine query would have been you asking ripshin that question instead of me.

Nor am I sure what you’re driving at with your comment about N.Korea. Kim is rattling sabres from a position of weakness. He’s not even remotely close to the military capabilities of the US, but is openly challenging it.

“DUH”, North Korea is far more military capable than the ones YOU cited previously, to wit …. “US/Vietnam, UN/Iraq, UN/Afghanistan”.

Nuff said, clean up your act.

Samuel C Cogar

““DUH”, North Korea is far more military capable than the ones YOU cited previously,”

DUH! But they are still far weaker than the US, which is precisely my point.

I’ll ignore the rest of your puerile comment.


Nuclear winter was a creation of our Cold War adversary, the originator confessed, more likely claimed credit. But didn’t think it would amount to much, much less having Carl Sagan bought it hook line and sinker.
But I think this one is criminals on our side.


CAGW has a history. One of its primary founders was Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil multi-millionaire who went into UN politcs. He was at an early UN conference on the environment and authored a quote to the effect “we need an enemy to raise fears” (which has appeared on WUWT but I can’t find it just now). He suggested CO2 caused warming of the atmosphere as an ideal cause to pursue because it could be made scary enough as “human caused climate change”, easy to put together evidence for and hard to refute. The result was a UN conference on climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The Climate has been mainly a political environmental cause ever since.

Correct. Maurice Strong introduced Agenda 21 at the UN and there needed to be a world wide threat to justify implementing it. AGW fit the bill perfectly.

tony mcleod

What is staggering is that this:comment image

…is NOT seen as a possible “world wide threat”. How could such an abrupt (and probably accellerating Christy 2017) rise, not be a threat? I think what you underestimate is not the change but the rate of change.


Al Gore or Bill Nye would bury this guy in a debate. Wouldn’t they? Well, then Neil deGrasse Tyson surely would! Seriously, I’ll bet a week’s pay Michael Mann would never debate Happer in a public assembly. He would resort to “Beneath my diginity. After all, Happer’s not even a climate scientist!”

LOL! Not a “climate Scientist”?? You just proved how little you know about science. Bill Nye couldn’t bury anyone. Are you under the impression Bill Nye is a “climate scientist”? LOL!


You should read three times before responding. Your sarcasm antennae need work. Sad!


Perhaps I should have been more specific in my hypothesis that CAGW is more of a Marxist/Leninist doctrine, in that now, the ‘means of production’ is access to energy and the price that is paid. And what type of energy will be allowed. The ‘revolution’ is the alarmists taking away the right to inexpensive energy, which is what made our modern world what it is today. Instead of overthrowing the capitalist bosses/owners, the revolution is now waging war on energy itself, which is the means of production. Ironically, the Marxism is now home grown, and they are indeed suicidal because what they do to everyone else, they do the same to themselves.

It also probably predates cold war mentality, in that the Marxist reasoning was very alive in the West, from the 1930’s on. I am sure that there has been a serious effort by our enemies to sow seeds of revolution and discourse into our political system, including our institutions of higher learning and the advance of the leftist marxist mentality we see so prevalent in universities today. In another modern day example, I would bet dollars to donuts that the Ruskies will now be more than happy to throw Trump under the bus with less than flattering ‘leaks’ that just may end up in his untimely impeachment. Having the West in turmoil and conflict can only be a dream come true for our enemies, and they have done and will do whatever they can to continue the chaos they create. If we make energy so expensive for our economy immediately without some slow steady change to an alternative energy source such as nuclear as FF get more expensive, then we crash our economy. President Trump is currently the last hold out on the politics of climate change, so now they will go after him with a extreme vengeance.

Marxism: A system of economic, social, and political philosophy based on ideas that view social change in terms of economic factors. A central tenet is that the means of production is the economic base that influences or determines the political life. Under Marxism, outdated class structures were supposed to be overthrown with force (revolution) instead of being replaced through patient modification.

I’ll bet that stung.

Well done Prof Happer.

Richard M

Why is it no one can ever actually show anyone that “mountain of evidence”? Could it be it is more like a molehill?


“Moutain of evidence” is climastrology codeword for “I am talking out of my arse”.


funny, butt that ass always appears to be under their nose!!

Ben of Houston

Well, when you’ve been told something over and over for decades, it’s hard to comprehend that there is so little behind it.

I would suggest reading “The Big Fat Surprise”, which concerns this very problem in diet. While it’s a little heavy on the rejection, analysis shows that there was never overwhelming evidence to support mass reduction of dietary fat or cholesterol. In fact, almost all of the evidence goes towards it being either a positive or an unimportant player in health. However, every source from our health books to the Berenstein Bears taught us this for decades. My father’s doctor still tells him to never eat eggs. People cannot comprehend that we were so wrong for so long and that there just wasn’t any significant backing.

On a more depressing note, you could also read “No One Would Listen”, where people who could have and should have known better refused to believe that Madoff was running a Ponzi scheme because so many people followed him off a cliff.

Finally, read Dr Curry’s account about how she left the IPCC. She simply assumed that so many of her peers had strong evidence backing such powerful opinions. It took quite a while for her to accept the truth even when she saw it simply because it’s that unbelievable.

Steve Keppel-Jones

I’m pretty sure they’re referring to graphs of cooked data and highly implausible model runs. There certainly are mountains of those.


The evidence is always the same, just rehashed and represented as if it “new”, namely temperature reconstructions, computer models and claims that tweaking this or that can show that in fact the temperature is something other than what we thought.

I honestly don’t think I have seen anything new for at least ten years, just ever more odd ways of “proving” that the forecasts were right.

That is the problem with this sort of politicised, all-in science. All the efforts go into defending it instead of moving it on.

Caligula Jones

No, there is a mountain. Its just photocopies of the same bad science, piled higher and higher…

Quantity, not quality, and hoping nobody who can count will notice, and everyone else will be awed by the sheer volume of crap.


“No, there is a mountain.”

I agree. There is a mountain of unsubstantiated claims by the Alarmists. Somebody ought to tell that guy that claims there is a mountain of evidence supporting CAGW, that just because a claim is made does not make it true.

Alarmists make a lot of claims. Just like this claim that there is a mountain of evidence supporting CAGW.

How about supplying just one example of this supporting evidence.

Evidence of CAGW is requested on numerous occasions but none is ever presented. Claims are not evidence, but claims is all we get from the Alarmists.

george e. smith

Well as Einstein told us, it only takes ONE item of contrary data to falsify a “mountain of data.”


Gary Pearse.

Com’on George, you know that’s old fashion stuff. You don’t provide evidence to anyone who just wants to prove you wrong so there is no “one person” to do that.


Some of that data would include Hansen’s Hockey Stick. Doesn’t bear up under scrutiny, but works for the believers.

Eamon Butler

Yeah. You would think that this would be good reason to establish a debate. ”Hey, we got a whole Mountain of stuff for you to deal with.” They should have stood up to be counted. Invite him back for a face to face, up on the stage in front of everyone. Let everyone see that mountain. No, instead we got an idle assertion and ”I’ll be out in the corridor” to speak quietly and re programe you. I’m sure there were probably a few who needed a shoulder to cry on, after the bad man said some nasty things about their religion. But, I wonder if any went out to the ”corridor man” to put him in his place.



I have said it before. When our youth recognises the scam they have been labouring under, there’s going to be one hell of a backlash.


Scot, doubtful… Nobody really pays much attention to the climate science debate except climate change junkies. As long as the world goes happily along, there won’t be any backlash. It’s only if agw begins to impact the bottom line in a serious way that there will be any backlash. (and i think that there are too many negative political feedbacks for that to happen)…

Roger Knights

Well, a backlash is beginning in Germany as a result of the costs of going Green beginning to bite.


Fair comment, but the debate is largely confined to a knowledgeable few. So when the knowledgeable youth find themselves betrayed, they’ll be mega pissed off. They’ll in turn influence the up an coming ideologiczl journalists searching for ‘truth’ and of course a scoop.

Kind of the same cyclical phenomenon as the climate itself.

I agree HotScot, there will be a lot of very pissed off people. I was a believer for a long time being busy with my own stuff unrelated to the climate – as most people are – and so I trusted my climate colleagues to get things broadly correct. Trouble was, what they were claiming was always at odds with my general scientific world view and with each hysteria ramp-up that disconnect got worse.

I really don’t like it when things don’t fit with my world view and it means either the new thing is wrong or there is an opportunity here to quantum improve my own world view. Eventually I took time out to dig in and have a closer look. What I immediately found hidden away on the internet were genuine scientists like Happer and Easterbrook and Soon and Curry amongst many others who were all saying things which did accord with my general physical world view. Then I looked at the actual supposed science from the alarmists and found it to be utter risibly idiotic junk pseudoscience. After the initial jaw-dropped disbelief faded I recall flushing with real anger. Now I’m a generally amiable soul but I want these bent jokers to face the consequences of what they’ve done. All of them and none of that “I was only following orders” bs.

Larry Hamlin

Great article !! Thanks.


Free and open discussion of ideas is the bedrock of Western enlightenment. I don’t object to Creationists, Flat-Earthers, anti-vaccine activists, anti-evolutionists being given time. Let them speak, let them show their evidence, have them defend it.

I am automatically sceptical about those who will not defend their work. I am extremely sceptical about those who worry that their work can be so easily overturned in people’s minds that that they try and prevent people hearing alternative views.



About vaccines. And similar those that challenge the climate science are called Deniers, so it goes Antivaxxers gets created in the field of medical science.

Just as the climate’ skeptic’s argument is nuanced beyond man-made warming, no man-made warming so it is as nuanced here.

There’s two types of vaccines: those that are strictly dead or attenuated live viruses; the others which do not work unless adjuvants are used.

We conclude that the MMF lesion is secondary to intramuscular injection of aluminium hydroxide-containing vaccines, shows both long-term persistence of aluminium hydroxide and an ongoing local immune reaction, and is detected in patients with systemic symptoms which appeared subsequently to vaccination.

Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.

Behavioural analyses in these mice revealed significant impairments in a number of motor functions as well as diminished spatial memory capacity. The demonstrated neurotoxicity of aluminum hydroxide and its relative ubiquity as an adjuvant suggest that greater scrutiny by the scientific community is warranted.

The present morphological data evidenced that Al (aluminum) is capable to potentiate the GLU-induced degenerative changes in hippocampal neurons in vitro.

Aluminum, zinc, copper, and iron cause the conformational changes of Alzheimer’s amyloid-β protein. Al causes the accumulation of tau protein and amyloid-β protein in experimental animals. Aluminum induces neuronal apoptosis in vivo as well as in vitro.

The results support the following possibilities in the brains of patients with Alzheimer’s disease: Al could be involved in the aggregation of Abeta peptides to form toxic fibrils; Al might induce A beta peptides into the beta-sheet structure; and Al might facilitate iron-mediated oxidative reactions, which cause severe damage to brain tissues.

A number of problems are encountered in the development and use of adjuvants for human vaccines. The biggest issue with the use of adjuvants for human vaccines, particularly routine childhood vaccines, is the toxicity and adverse side-effects of most of the adjuvant formulations. At present the choice of adjuvants for human vaccination reflects a compromise between a requirement for adjuvanticity and an acceptable low level of side-effects.

There’s a strong correlation between adjuvant vaccines and the rise* of Alzheimer’s & Autism or neurological affects that are masked as being those two conditions.

(*when vaccines rates started falling, so to then did the drop of A&A, slightly).


the forcing of multiple vax in one hit, which would never ever be probable or possible in natural scenarios..d to the huge volume of them in a short time
especially before blood brain barrier is frankly, criminal.
singe doses were available and then halted in favour of 3 or more in one
not for the patients comfort or improvement..but for the cost savings to pharmas.
even trying to get single dose pet vaccines is damned near impossible Parvo and bordatella yes but the rest? they now push 7 in one
bad enough to pretty much be forced to 3 in one, if you can find it.
an yes ive had a pet come down with neurological symptoms within 2 weeks of being vaccinated.

Just not the Irish. We don’t want the Irish to be given time.

As an Irishman…this is one of my favourite bits in the movie. The conversation about Anthrax just before Mongo appears is my actual favourite.

Mel Brooks is indiscriminate! Equal opportunity roasting.


Hmm, not sure about those pH figures, but the message is entertaining, as is the author’s link to her trip around UCLA with Willie Soon.

The extraordinary and far-reaching conspiracy to ostracise, vilify and, perhaps worst of all, ignore the doubters will be the subject of the most fascinating dissection by future historians and psychologists. I would not have thought it possible in an age when information is so widely and freely disseminated as it is today, but it is happening before our eyes, quite brazenly. And it is succeeding, at least where it matters, in the corridors of power. Where are those proud defenders of our freedoms and warriors against evil in the investigative media? Silent? Dead? Compromised? How can this be?


“media” “Compromised?”

We’ve seen that recently with Rose, Lauer, Oreskes ect.

Blasphemy. They are prosecuting blasphemy. If there were any stakes left on which to burn people, they would.

The Revered Badger

You are not allowed to burn anything these days, apparently it has a nasty gaseous byproduct.


Exceptions and waivers will generously be granted for burning climate skeptics.

“how circulation transports heat from the equator to the poles”
There are two mechanisms.

EPTG = temperature gradient.
EPPG = pressure gradient.
The second is the primary driver of atmosphere especially during El Nino events. Where the atmosphere goes is dominated by blocking mechanisms, some of which are enhanced by the atmospheric relocation.

george e. smith

The ocean currents transport oodles of excess tropical heat to the polar regions. Just imagine how cold the poles would be if it wasn’t for the convective flow of heat from the tropics to the poles via the non condensed phases of the earth.
PS I’m quite certain that Prof “Will” Happer knows that; perhaps Michael left that out of her essay.
I really appreciated learning some of the details of Prof. Happer’s background. I never quite knew what his areas of specialty were. He sounds like someone I would like to sit with and share a beer, and some optics stuff.


George e
Agreed, that he understands EPTG, but no one talks of EPPG. That is the driving mechanism. When pressured displacement occurs and blocking mechanisms at mid to high latitudes coincide primarily between May to October, cyclonic activity occurs.
As Judith Curry stated recently there is no understanding of what causes rapid intensification. Blocked pressured displacement is the cause.
Why would a cyclone go from zero to cat 3 then to zero in three days, in the middle of the ocean?.
There are data sets that record this phenomenon.


Pat Frank

Apparently, since Dr, Happer’s seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department, as well as several other departments, are up in arms.

Proof beyond doubt that the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department and other departments at UCLA include no scientists.

They’re mere methodological hacks; able to carry out experiments and write papers without any concept of the necessary intellectual integrity.


It wonder if it could be something simpler
.Every publication has to have an opening sentence or paragraph which sets a context and justifies the work (and the grant – and I am speaking from some experience) like :
– ” Given the increasing evidence of irreversible climate changes related to the use of fossil fuel it is necessary to investigate the change in …. etc , etc. “-
You cannot say, for example , “No one has yet obtained blood samples from red eyed frogs in the mountains of Costa Rica and I want to be the first to do so ” . That might be the truth, but you will not get a grant from the Govt , when people are dying of obscure cancers for lack of research.
But if you say the changes in the biochemistry of red eyed frogs could possibly be an indicator of global extinction due to climate change then everything becomes easier.
Just wondering.


Here is a real example of how institutions ask for grants.

[…] solves problems […] to, for instance:
* reduce crime and catch criminals;
* analyze weather patterns to forecast global warming effects; and
* design complex molecules for innovative new drugs.

Pat Frank

Mike, how is slanting one’s research different from being a methodological hack?


Spot on. In Victoria (Aust) in the ’80’s guidelines for Govt Depts. seeking new project funding were updated to required a comment on climate change implications. Hence conjecture became belief and the industry grew . Probably still do. Probably the same everywhere – even China – cunning buggers

Yes of course. That is how grant funding has always worked. Things become bandwagon topics and receive preferential funding if they are generally viewed to be useful things to be researched. One of the more recent ones which comes to mind was ‘graphene’. Graphene was the new wonder material of the age and if you could link your research effort to it in some obscure way then your chances of success were enhanced.

It’s a system which tries to fund the most valuable things and there ought to be some such mechanism but it is an obviously flawed system which is open to abuse. Not sure how you might realistically arrange things better but in the case of CAGW the system has been totally corrupted through political influence. We really, really badly need some absolute way of keeping politics permanently out of the research funding loop. I’m not in academia any longer and wouldn’t even consider going withing parsecs of it so politically corrupted has it become.

richard verney

Dr Spencer has just released the latest satellite data. Temperatures appear to be falling in response to developing La Nina conditions. Another example of natural ‘climate change’

Whilst short term events do not tell us anything of significant, it will be interesting to see how December develops if La Nina conditions deepen, and the NH has a cold/harsh winter, as many are predicting.

Dr Spencer reports:

he Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2017 was +0.36 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2017 value of +0.63 deg. C:

Richard Verney,
“Temperatures appear to be falling in response to developing La Nina conditions.”
It has fallen from the peak (warmest October in record). But it is warmer that Jan, Mar, April, June July of this year. Only Sep, October were substantially warmer.

Bob boder


Is it inside the average predicted range of the models?


Ah Nick, but then there’s 2016.

richard verney


As you know, La Nina has not yet developed and there is a lag of several months.

Further, the satellite is less sensitive to cool oceans than it is to warm oceans, quite possibly because with warm oceans there is more warm air driven convection up to the altitude at which the satellite takes its measurements.

We will have to wait and see whether La Nina develops, and what impact that might have on the satellite temps will probably not be known until early next year, say around February.

Roger Knights

The first “October” in Spencer’s quote should be “November,” right?

richard verney

i presume so.

Everyone knows what will happen if it’s a cold NH winter. They will claim it’s extreme weather due to human-induced ‘climate change’. They now have every conceivable or even inconceivable outcome covered under their forever unfalsifiable and non-scientific ‘climate change’ non-hypothesis.

This is I presume why they say “the science is settled” since there is no even in-principle climate scenario which is not explained by the ‘hypothesis’ and which is not caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. From their warped and twisted anti-scientific standpoint this ‘hypothesis’ is the climate equivalent of a fully validated Grand Unified Theory of everything or GUT in physics.

This strong decline in UAH LT temperatures was predicted by me several times, most recently circa Nov.4, 2017 on wattsup.

I expect global cooling to continue to decline for several months more, possibly with a few bumps along the way, to reach ~0.0C for the UAH LT global anomaly

The basis for this prediction is that the Nino3.4 temperature anomaly provides a good 3-month predictor of the UAH LT Tropical temperature anomaly, and a good 4-month predictor of the UAH LT Global temperature anomaly.

Similarly, the East Equatorial Upper Ocean temperature anomaly provides a good 5-month predictor of the UAH LT Tropical temperature anomaly, and a good 6-month predictor of the UAH LT Global temperature anomaly. [H/T to Bill Illis.]

All this is from memory, so please don’t get excited if I messed up a minor point. No time to re-check the details now – maybe later.

And for all you warmist trolls, “I TOLD YOU SO!”

And NONE of the very-scary predictions by the IPCC and its minions have ever proven correct. They have a perfectly NEGATIVE predictive track record, and thus NEGATIVE CREDIBILITY.

Time to play the BIG SHORT on global warming alarmism…

Regards, Allan 🙂

The correct quote from is

UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2017:+0.36 deg. C
December 1st, 2017

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for November, 2017 was +0.36 deg. C, down substantially from the October, 2017 value of +0.63 deg. C:

(I am out of the office until Dec. 6, and cannot provide the plot of data until then.)

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 23 months are:

[end of excerpt]

This is the plot of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly, lagged 6-months to show the ~5-month lag of UAH Tropical LT after the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. UAH Global LT temperature follows UAH Tropical LT ~1 month later.

There is a typical pattern after major El Nino’s, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship between LT temperature and the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. I suggest that the relationship will converge again soon, as atmospheric cooling resumes.

The temporary divergence is caused by the time it takes this excess heat to dissipate from the LT into the upper atmosphere and then into space.

Based on this generally-robust long-term relationship, I expect that within ~6 months, the UAH LT Global anomaly will decline to about 0.0C. I have no time to work on this further now, my apologies,

See also my related correspondence with John Christy, posted on this page.


From: John Christy
Date: November 4, 2017 at 7:28:22 PM GMT+7
To: Allan MacRae
Cc: Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Joe D’Aleo, Joe Bastardi
Subject: Re: Sorted – atmospheric cooling will resume soon

Yes. We’ve seen this correlation since our first paper about it in Nature back in 1994. The Pacific gave up a lot of heat between July and October – and some of it is making its way through the atmosphere. We think the anomalies will drop soon too.
John C.
Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 4, 2017, at 6:03 AM, Allan MacRae wrote:

FYI friends.
I was curious why the UAH LT was diverging above its predicted value based on the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly – I re-plotted the data vs UAH LT Tropics (instead of UAH LT Global) and the situation became more clear- atmospheric cooling will resume soon, imo.
Best, Allan

Sorted – atmospheric cooling will resume soon. See the plot below of the UAH LT TROPICAL Anomaly vs the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly and the situation becomes more clear.

This is a typical pattern after major El Nino’s, in which atmospheric (LT) temperature diverges above the level predicted by the long term relationship with the East Equatorial Upper Ocean Temperature Anomaly. The pattern will converge again soon, and atmospheric cooling will resume. WHY this happens after major El Nino’s is still to be explained. Perhaps the El Nino heat in the atmosphere just needs time to dissipate.

– Allan M R MacRae

John Bell

Evidence matters not to the Left, they know they are right and have only ad hominum.

OH yeah? Says YOU!

John W. Garrett

“If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
-Mark Twain

John W. Garrett

Santa lives!



“In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Author unknown.

Roger Knights

I Googled for that quote and got this on the results page:

“I think George Orwell said in his book 1984 that in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”


there is a lot of debate over who said it.

Andy Pattullo

I have great admiration and appreciation for Professor Happer. I would be thrilled if he became the science advisor to the current US administration. Events such as this show that no matter how hard the myths and lies of unfounded environmental radicalism tread water they will eventually sink and only the truth will float to the surface. When it does it will be in the form of people like Will Happer and others who still do science as we all understand it. Though there may be much consternation among the liberal academic leadership of UCLA after this event, the students have been well served and will not be able to unhear the truth. I suspect most in attendance would have recognized a well-argued and fact-supported presentation.


If he’s going to sneak around the sensors and other thought police on campuses he might as well go all the way and mention the massacre in Tienanmen Square and other air brushed and banned thoughts. A short history lesson on the academic thugs of the ether theory of physics might also be in order.


“A man who identified himself as a science teacher said he would be out in the hall to discuss the fallacies of Professor’s position.”

… the wagons

george e. smith

Why didn’t he discuss them IN the hall with Prof. Happer present ?? Sort of like the character in the alley with a big overcoat: ” Psst buddy; wanna buy a cheap Rolex watch ??”



Thank you for getting my point.


That ploy may work in the art or poly sci department but not in the chem department at UCLA. Most chemistry undergrads at UCLA are probably smarter than most K-12 science teachers.

Teaching science at the K-12 level requires a master’s degree in teaching, nothing more.

Tom O

To me, these statements are the heart and soul of the non-debate –

“I’ve always believed when you are told not to listen to opposing opinions that’s exactly when you should. The truth can stand scrutiny.”

How true, how true. Applies to a lot of things that can’t be discussed, for PC reasons or whatever.


“Applies to a lot of things that can’t be discussed for PC reasons.” How true.

There are so many hidden assumptions today. You aren’t even allowed to talk about them. Maybe they are true or maybe they are not. But if you discuss them you can be fired from your job, branded as some kind of monster, or be forced to apologize for bringing them up. These are just three examples of hidden assumptions that you aren’t allowed to discuss:

Is the book the “Bell Curve” right – are there real differences in average intelligence based on race?

Does poverty really cause crime?

Does a college education really increase earning potential or is college just associated with other factors that increase earning potential?

I stress these are just examples of forbidden topics we aren’t allowed to discuss. Why can’t we openly and rationally discuss topics like this?

Of course the “Bell Curve” is right. It’s based on settled science. It’s just that nobody wants to hear about it. What can soften the blow, is the knowledge that individual variation in intelligence is far greater than the average variation between races. Treat a arbitrary black man as your intellectual inferior, and you have wrong-footed yourself.

The Revered Badger

Maybe I live in a different world ? I’m in the UK. I have always felt free to talk about anything and never lost a job or had to apologize. (I’m retired now). Maybe had some interesting arguments with head of HR or line manager but whenever cases were pushed as far as potential disciplinary proceedings I fought back (as I knew I was right) and they backed down. You do have to be prepared to stand up for yourself in EVERY sphere of life, it has something to do with integrity and self respect. Otherwise life is a choice of how brown your tongue is and who is the lucky recipient. Not pleasant!

Only since the advent of the online blog-o-sphere have I seen myself being called a “monster” (actual word used last month in a discussion about mink farming) or been “fired” i.e. banned from various online communities or blogs. Mind you one nice blog offered to reinstate me if I “apologized” but had no response (tumbleweed moment) when asked how you can apologize for making a statement of fact (what the bible says about homosexuality).

On the other hand the online opportunities for speaking your mind are quite open to every view imaginable PROVIDED you start your OWN blog. If you are still a “pussy” you can even avoid using your own name.

I like blogs where the REAL name is used. So I say “Well done!” to both Anthony Watts AND Doug Cotton.


Bitte das auch übersetzen. Interessant, dass ich eine so nette Namensvetterin in LA habe. mit freundlichen Grüßen Ihr Michael Limburg



“Please translate that as well. Interesting that I have such a nice namesake in LA. Best regards, Michael Limburg”

Guten Tag, Michael! Danke für das Kommentieren!

“Happer gave several examples of a consensus of scientists who disagreed with scientists who were later proven right.”

I don’t even think it should be called consensus science. It’s politicized science.

The leftists talk about the “overwhelming consensus.” That’s baloney. Among conservatives that are scientists you can not find a single conservative scientist that agrees with the leftist climate change premise, at least in the US. It’s near unanimity against the supposed consensus! This is politicized science. The consensus is a consensus of leftists.

Bruce Cobb

So thats;
Climastrology 0 (despite “mountains of data)
Skeptics/Climate Realists 1
Truth, science, and humanity 1000


News flash, our local winery just announced they are carbon neutral and that was the biggest news flash on our local news outlet yesterday. I’ll sip to that.

Oh since the temp was slightly above freezing and not twenty below that day, they announced that was proof of “climate change”. Worth another sip.


Why stop at a sip, they apparently enjoyed the entire bottle.

John F. Hultquist

I’ve not figured out how to make wine without producing CO2. Then there is the pomace that at some point becomes a source of methane.
To be “carbon neutral” must mean they have purchased indulgences, perhaps for all the gases involved in the upstream and downstream making of wine. For example, do the workers get to the vineyards and winery on footpaths or are vehicles involved?
Some folks can be efficient without being obnoxious – apparently not wineries.

They plant more grapevines. Which they would do anyway, and nobody would care, but now they get a press release out of it.


My wife used to work for the agriculture department of a local university. One of her jobs was to apply for grants for research money from different sources to conduct studies. The monies were supplied the research was done and the papers were generated. A seminar was scheduled once a year for different departments and a number of papers were submitted, reviewed and presented in an open forum. One of the biggest forms of status and recognition within the department was the amount of money each Professor generated through his grants. I was able to read a number of these papers over the years and it was interesting that some of the research had been conducted at some other facility but the local establishment would do it again to get a local result for the same studies. it goes to show in a lot of cases it is all about the money and very little of it is about the quest for new ideas and findings.


Interesting, so the rot to the institution is from the inside out.


Yes, the academic accolades of a researcher is always presented by how much grant money they can scrounge up, it’s usually the first thing that appears on their extended resumes. And when a researcher gets a grant, a big percentage of that grant actually goes to the university for uses that have nothing to do with that research, department, and often not even used on academics at all.

When my thesis adviser was approaching retirement, he stopped applying for government grants and stopped reporting private research grants to the university, so 100% of the grants went towards the research and the department. This put the robotic bureaucrats running the university into some sort of mental breakdown because there was nothing they could do to a tenured rockstar status professor nearing retirement. To administrators running universities it is all about money, and therefore the quantity of publications and grants, not the quality of the work.

At my university, 50% of all money coming in goes to the university for “overhead”. Building space, heat, light, internet, water, sewage, etc.

” He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.”
No-one tries. Scientists calculate average anomaly, which deals with this problem. Happer should know that.

“They predicted an increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius over the last decade but the temperature has only increased 0.05 degrees.”
More of this tiresome pea shift. They were predicting surface temperature. Over that decade (Nov 2007-Oct 2017, Happer’s choice of period) the increases (trend diff) were:
GISS 0.384 °C
NOAA 0.346 °C

“Each of us exhales two pounds of CO2 daily.”
Returning it to the atmosphere whence it came. We don’t eat fossil fuel. Our food is derived from photosynthesis.

“if CO2 was the cause of acidification warming would be happening on the surface, but it isn’t”
Pretty muddled. Warming is happening on the surface. Most of the global rise reflects SST rise. And acidification is usually sampled at the surface; I don’t know of any evidence that it is greater at depth.

Bob boder


“No-one tries. Scientists calculate average anomaly, which deals with this problem. Happer should know that.”

Has nothing to do with his comment.

K. Kilty

“Each of us exhales two pounds of CO2 daily.”
Returning it to the atmosphere whence it came. We don’t eat fossil fuel. Our food is derived from photosynthesis.

The time scale for this process is very long, but the carbon making up fossil fuels most assuredly passed through the atmosphere as CO2 before being buried in oceans and swamps.

“We don’t eat fossil fuel.”

Well actually we do, at least in the sense that if we phased out fossil fuel we could not feed the world’s population. The US could not feed its own population.

It takes about 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food.

(Units in calories, not Calories = 1000 calories).


Grain DOES eat fossil carbon as carbon dioxide. Plant food argument: agriculture is much more efficient due to fossil carbon that ends up in our bread. So we do eat fossil carbon at three levels.

As required energy to produce our food
As improved agricultural productivity by increased growth and optimized water consumption.

Nick is also objecting to something that was never said. Very typical of him.

“Grain DOES eat fossil carbon as carbon dioxide.”
The CO2 that we exhale was recently taken from the air by plants, possibly lodging in some other animal along the way. This process does not increase the total amount of carbon in circulation. Of course, human farming etc, like most of our activities, now involves fossil fuel use. It doesn’t have to; three centuries ago people were still exhaling CO2 without benefit of FF.

“Nick is also objecting to something that was never said”
I quote what I am commenting on, as here. It was said.


Nick –
You may know I appreciate your inputs here and I’ll always listen, but you are aware that the reporter of the piece is not a scientist, and you’re not debating Happer, which would be an entirely different matter.

The interesting part is the allusion to a conspiracy to silence or ‘no platform’ the sceptic scientists. You are usually pretty fair in your comments – will you challenge the existence, or perhaps the extent – of that conspiracy?. I see it is overwhelming, and very worrying. Should be worrying to honest warmists as well.

“The interesting part is the allusion to a conspiracy to silence or ‘no platform’ the sceptic scientists.”
There may be an allusion, but no evidence here. She says it was organised “beneath the radar”, but no evidence that that was necessary, and the only “radar” aspect seems to be that Happer was free to choose topic. And then she says that some unnamed people were “up in arms”. There is a lot of confusion between disagreement and suppression.

I don’t think there is a conspiracy to silence. People have a choice about, for example, which speakers to invite, and some may give low priority to skeptics. They too have to compete in the marketplace of ideas. A lot of the fuss I have seen recently about rejected papers seems to relate to correct scientific judgment by reviewers. And of course, skeptical scientists get plenty of political boosting, as with congressional platforms, for example.

Curious George

Nick, haven’t you noticed that the “peer review” has been redefined?

“has been redefined”
I guess you can argue about what it means after a paper has been published.


Nick –
You are probably right that evidence of a conspiracy in a legal sense might be hard to come by, but when you are plugged into a meme as heavy as this, and hear and see what others of like mind are doing, you can still be part of a conspiracy with only minimal or even zero contact with your co-conspirators. Many ISIS terrorists have never had any contact with the organisation whose purposes they serve.

At a minimum, surely you can agree that there is a prima facie case that-
1. Establishment climatologists go out of their way to avoid any debate with sceptics, and this abnormal reaction is certainly more than an individual choice. And they are not condemned for doing so.
2. That sceptical scientists are routinely treated with contempt more or less universally by said establishment.
3. That major scientific journals including Nature and Science have loaded the dice heavily against publication and even discussion of sceptic papers.
4. That the very large volume and variety of papers which ARE published, and which if looked at in a bit more detail beyond the headlines are seen either not to support, or even to actively undermine, the assumptions of CAGW (such as those collated by Kenneth Richard and presented over at Notrickszone) are rarely if ever discussed by the mainstream establishment, or at least their implicit scepticism is glossed over or misrepresented.
5. That the most influential parts of the mainstream media are actively censorious of sceptical views, or present them in an unfair context. There is certainly evidence that our own UK BBC, still widely respected – including a bit at least by me – has established in collusion with green groups an editorial policy to this effect.
6. That very many major teaching institutions are operating a ‘de facto’ no-platforming policy towards sceptics.

I suppose you could say that all of this occurs because all right-thinking folk KNOW just how dangerous scepticism is for the planet, and act individually according to conscience.
Well, I am not buying that.

On your minimum points
1. “Establishment climatologists go out of their way to avoid any debate”
It’s an unusual expectation. Did Feynman engage in debates? Einstein? Darwin? But the article refers to reluctance of some UCLA scientists to engage in debate with Willie Soon, and this was the topic of two articles at WUWT in about Feb this year. That proposed debate was to be organised by the American Freedom Alliance. And their poster advertising the forum started out:

One of the more persistent and pernicious lies in recent years has been the “Crisis” of Climate Change or whatever it is they’re calling it these days in order to crush and control us with ever more regulation.

Do you see the problem in inviting scientists to join in a forum that describes what they do as “persistent and pernicious lies”?

2. See above. Respect is rare.

3. There is much talk of “loaded dice”. But I see many complaints of papers rejected that are actually just plain wrong. I’d like to see an example of a meritorious paper that was rejected. There was a lot of talk about the O’Donnell etc paper on Antarctica, with complaints about lengthy reviewing. But it was published, in J Climate no less.

4. This point seems to undermine 3. They can’t be published and yet look, there are so many of them, but ignored. I think what makes it so hard to get good faith debate is the amount of bad information circulating. And Richards’ lists are one. I noted here and in nearby comments that in an earlier version, at least half the authors said that they weren’t disputing AGW at all, and in many cases pointed out that their topic had nothing to do with AGW. As I noted there too, when Delingpole, who had been extravagantly promoting this stuff, was challenged on that, he said the authors (his former heroes) were just gutless, caving in to their feeding troughs etc. How can you make progress here? I tried to get people to just look at the papers to see whether they really did say something negative about AGW. It’s no use producing examples; they just say, well, those may be muted out of fear, but there are so many more! The lists are nonsense.

5. Plenty of media (Breitbart, Fox, Express, Murdoch etc) will latch onto anything that sounds skeptical (like the Richard lists). But you said influential. Well, maybe they are influential because they have a reputation for accuracy.

6. “no-platform”? I think all of this over-rates the importance of skeptics. Most university administrations don’t give that much thought to the climate debate at all. I doubt there are many examples of central intervention. It’s quite possible that seminar organisers just don’t invite skeptics to speak very often. They may have other priorities.


Of course there is an average global temp, the geographical differences just means the variance in any sample will be high. But contrary to Nick’s comment, absolute temps are central to any attempt to model the global weather or climate, and these do get averaged and reported. Otherwise what would your nightly TV weather forecast report but an attempt to give an idea of the average absolute temp? (“temp anomalies over the USA today were -2 degrees”).

Michael Jankowski

“…No-one tries. Scientists calculate average anomaly, which deals with this problem. Happer should know that…”

Therefore scientists treat the earth and atmosphere as if physics, chemistry, etc, are the same at any given average temperature and simply react to a given change in temperature (i.e., anomaly) – and always react the same way to a given change in temperature, regardless of what the base temperature was before. It’s nonsense. Not everything works as m*c*deltaT.


Lame, Nick. Go ski your Bandini Mountain.


The anomaly allows alarming predictions and claims.

What is the ideal temperature? We can show warming and cooling trends easily by just picking a 30 year period as is done now. So the anomaly use is B.S.

What is the goal we are trying to reach with reverting to 18th century existence?

15 deg C? 13? What? Say it! Dammit say it!

December 1, 2017 at 11:21 am

Yes, exactly. While they’re at it can they please advise just what is the ideal level of CO2. Shouldn’t be hard…I assume it’s less than 400ppm.


“And acidification is usually sampled at the surface; I don’t know of any evidence that it is greater at depth.”

Nick, do you mean acidification at depth?….or greater CO2 at depth?

…CO2 is about 10% greater



Nick, you are just absolutely barmy! No sane person goes to the beach and thinks ‘oh its a positive anomaly day today, must put on the sun cream’; or go skiing thinking ‘ must put on that extra jumper , its an anomaly negative day today’. Human’s live in a real world with temperatures. You might live in an alternative universe made up of silly computer models.
Personally I think the outbreak of mildness ( ever so slightly warmer winters and nights, and ever so slightly less extreme heat) is a good thing. And its nothing to do with ‘plant food’.


When the Arctic is ‘superhot’ I think it is not a temperature but an anomaly. So at least some people at the Washington Post wind their sunscreens and swimming suits at -5oC – which is about the average high in Anchorage, Alaska in January…


Nick at last you admit that we cycle CO2 every time we breath out as we don’t eat fossil fuel .Go tell your mates that livestock also don’t eat fossil fuel but your mates are stating that the methane that livestock emit will warm the world.
.How can this happen when methane is oxidized into CO2 and H2O ,and the average life of methane in the atmosphere is around 8.4 years .And methane is around 1.9 parts per million in the atmosphere
I will await your response Nick.

Methane, mol for mol, is a more powerful GHG than CO2. Although it oxidises, it is emitted fast enough to maintain that 1.9 ppm, which has a significant warming effect.

Patrick MJD

“Nick Stokes December 1, 2017 at 4:12 pm

Methane, mol for mol, is a more powerful GHG than CO2.”

Because CH4 absorbs *ALL* LWIR in 2 specific bands that are transparent to CO2 and H20. At 1800 ppBILLION/v, we would have to remove all forests and termites from this rock if we wanted to have any effect on CH4 emissions.


This is the most stupid argument warmists can ever promote .
In New Zealand we have a scientist Andy Reisinger who is head of the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Center and he says that if emissions continue unabated the world temperature will rise by 4 degrees C
Quite obvious that he has his hand out for further funding increase .
Methane comes from many sources natural and man made but to include livestock as man made is bordering on criminal ..
LIVESTOCK .DO NOT ADD ANY GREENHOUSE GAS TO THE ATMOSPHERE .A very small proportion of the fodder that they ingest is changed to CH4 and is emitted and is oxidized into CO2 and H2O which is recycled back in the atmosphere to grow more fodder .
Methane emissions from livestock are an absolute NON problem .

“and is emitted and is oxidized into CO2 and H2O which is recycled”
All methane emitted is eventually oxidised. Methane from agricultural livestock is no different. It stays long enough to build up the concentration of methane in the atmosphere.
comment image

It’s the concentration at any time that has the GHG effect. It’s less important than CO2, but not nothing. And ag methane is manmade. How many sheep were in NZ in 1800?

Sorry, methane plot is here (I hope):
comment image

What’s the range and standard deviation of the station anomalies averaged to get the global average anomaly? From the bit of station data I looked at, I’d bet they’re nearly half a degree C.


.I have to disagree with you ..
Your graph really proves my point .Between 2000 and 2008 the methane level stabilized and the there was no reduction in the number of livestock world wide .
Some other factor is moving the methane levels slowly higher .It is most probably methane from coal mining and natural gas extraction and general fossil fuel use .
Some is probably an increase from natural emissions from many sources with a slightly warmer world .
When you count the warming effect from livestock methane you are effectively counting twice as these emissions are a closed cycle with no carbon being ADDED to the atmosphere .
If you have a hose running into your swimming pool the level will increase but if you pump from the pool and put the water through a pool filter and then back to the pool there will be no increase in water level..
Just think of the filter as the livestock and the oxidizing of the methane .
Have a think about it Nick

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing


We most certainly eat Fossil Fuels! Anthropologist Cecil Cook Jr has been pointing out for decades that fertilisers and fuel are oil-based and that we effectively are eating oil. In terms of nitrogen and sulphur, it is literally true.

From bright and sunny Beijing…

AGW is not Science

The “man who identified himself as a science teacher” is akin to those who “identify as” being a different sex than they actually are, i.e., he’s only what he “identifies himself” as in his mind, not in reality (hard to “teach” something you don’t have the ability or the honesty to employ yourself, i.e., SCIENCE as in the use of the scientific method to search for TRUTH, as opposed to PRECONCEIVED CONCLUSIONS). Except in his case, he can’t get “reassignment surgery” to actually become what he thinks he is.

I always have to laugh about the faithful yammering on about “mountains of evidence.” Evidence of WHAT?!

That the temperature has increased by some piddling amount too small to accurately measure over some cherry-picked period of time so as to “look” like it tells us something it really doesn’t?! (And based on data that in any REAL hard science field would be dismissed as UTTER CRAP?!)

That the “weather” is getting worse (when the reverse is closer to the truth)?!

That a “catastrophe” will ensue from 400ppm CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere when it’s been as much as 17.5 times as high in the past and the supposed “catastrophe” (the “runaway greenhouse effect”) never occurred?!

Until they have empirical evidence that CO2 actually drives the temperature of this planet, AND that man’s CO2 emissions drive the CO2 level, they should just STFU already. Their fantasy world just isn’t borne out in reality.


“That a “catastrophe” will ensue from 400ppm CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere when it’s been as much as 17.5 times as high in the past and the supposed “catastrophe” (the “runaway greenhouse effect”) never occurred?!”

As investment promoters the world over say, “this time it’s different”.


The fact that this issue is never asked in the MSM tells us something.


There are other failures than runaway greenhouse, which is a pretty desperate doom mongering attempt.

You downplay at the wrong end. The disasters which are plausible, are more at the sector of local weather pattern changes that are, arguably, difficult to confidently or completely attribute to AGW, but yet very inconvenient to people trying to live their daily lifes.

I don’t rule out for example the possibility Carteret will be emptied because it is eroded badly in near future, but it will be difficult to attribute the people moving away to AGW related sea level change. Carteret has a small population and a strong birth rate, but no future as a place to educate oneself, or work at. So it probably will empty. But at the moment, it recieves wellfare that has boosted the population growth, but not evacuation by Tulele Peisa. Rakova has been accused of a failure.

Carteret has now more inhabitants than ever. It was supposed to be evacuated by 2015. Poster child.


“… there isn’t no average world temperature….”

Shouldn’t that be “…there isn’t any average world temperature.”?

Rhoda R

How about: The idea of an average world temperature being in any way meaningful is ridiculous.


“One student said Happer neglected to include the effects of increased water vapor in the atmosphere.”

Apparently the student is unaware of NOAA data for atmospheric water vapor which show a decline in recent decades, not an increase. The data is available at Click on the Climate + Clouds button for a brief discussion and data on total column water vapor and relative and specific humidity at various altitudes in our atmosphere. Dr. Trenberth has, I believe, suggested that the NOAA data are wrong but I am not aware of any of the details of his criticism. If NOAA is wrong on this, they have been wrong for about 60 years.


This whole non-debate reminds me of Macroeconomics theory in the 1970s. The vast majority of economists, backed up by huge econometric models, believed fiscal policies (taxes and government spending) were all that mattered. However, a small group of economists at the University of Chicago, led by Milton Friedman, argued that amount of money in circulation mattered as much or more. They were ridiculed by mainstream (consensus) economists. Indeed, my undergraduate macroeconomics text book devoted a whole paragraph to explaining why these eccentric monetarists were wrong.
The stagflation of the late 1970s proved the monetarists were right. For a while, the pendulum swung too far in the other direction. Now we are seeing more of a balance.
For those who despair about how ingrained the belief in the cult of AGW is becoming, many (Friedman, Stigler, Lucas, Becker, and Schultz) of those eccentric economists at the University of Chicago ended up as Noble Laureates.

Trouble is the ‘tax and spend’ hypothesis wasn’t hysterically indoctrinated into children throughout their entire education. Nor did the tax and spenders propose the imprisonment of Friedman and Co.

Peter Morris

Dr. Happer helped start my skeptical journey. I just called him on the phone, drove over to Princeton, and had a conversation with him (this was in ‘07 or ‘08 maybe). It was great, because he broke it down in easily digestible chunks without being condescending or overly simplistic.

The stuff he told me about science decisions from his days working with the govt was alarming.


One large skeptic problem is failure to write & speak with clarity, to get bogged down in nonessentials, rather than use a simple metaphor or shift gears to get to the heart of the problem. We also need to stick to the “tell ’em what I’m gonna tell ’em, and then tell ’em, and then tell ’em what I told ’em” approach.

Nice work, Peter Morris and Dr. Happer.

my results also showed a bit of decline in RH values around the world, in line with a decline in global minimum T, now running at around -0.01K per annum.
there must be connection between the two?


It’s also hard not to be skeptical when climatrologists (C-rate scientists) and astronomers (cream of the crop) are at complete odds on atmospheric physics.

Great article. College campuses were once a place for discussion and debate about hot topics. Let’s hope to see more of it.

Suggest double-negative edit when you say: ..” because there isn’t no average world temperature.”
to : ” there is no average world temperature”

Jim Heath

We need more goats.


“We need more goats”

Parliament is full of them down here !!

Patrick MJD

And a lot of them a dual citizens too.

How can one believe ANYTHING claimed by leftists?

They feel socialism works better than free markets?

And open borders are best for a prosperous nation?

The best way to help poor people is to give them money?

Confiscate guns (except from criminals who won’t turn them in) and crime will go down?

Raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour and young, unskilled youths will benefit?

You can keep your doctor?
You can keep your medical insurance plan?

Using fossil fuels will lead to runaway warming that will end all life on Earth?

With leftists, its just one emotional belief after another!

The only surprise would be if they actually recognized CO2 as the staff of life,
and realized the current amount of CO2 in the air is unusually low.

But you just can’t expect logic, data and reason from a leftist —
even those with advanced degrees — leftist beliefs ARE their religion.

Leftist beliefs based on faith, to this atheist,
seem a lot like conventional religious beliefs
based on faith.

Both are nonsense, to me, but what do I know?

I want more CO2 in the air
to accelerate the growth of C3 plants used for food.

And I think runaway global warming is a fairy tale!

Unlike leftists, I admit that anything I write could be wrong.

New information can make me change my conclusion.

Nothing can change a leftist’s conclusion …
although sometimes they do show some flexibility
… when they move further left !

Leftists — you can’t debate them, and you can’t shoot them.

You just have to live with them.

And tolerate their frequent virtue signaling,
and telling you how to live your life,
and telling you what words can’t be used anymore,
and what new words replaced them

Modern climate junk science is just another symptom of leftism.

If CO2 was not demonized, they would demonize the hole in the ozone layer,
or acid rain, or DDT, or ocean acidification, or … (you fill in the blank).


////Leftists — you can’t debate them, and you can’t shoot them.

You just have to live with them.///

My brother the M.D., I know he is smart but his politics tell me that intelligence does not necessarily imply any sort of critical thinking ability. He kind of scares me. But yes I will live with him and I may shoot him with a BB gun or something if he doesn’t tone it down at Christmas. At Thanksgiving he informed us that is a unbiased source of facts. Thank god for whiskey at times like those.

At a family gathering last winter a relative over age 60 stated out loud
that Trump ra-ped a 13 year-old girl.
My quick response was “No he did not”.
I was accused of drinking the “conservative Kool Aid”, whatever that is.
Of course this liberal reused to debate the claim.
They rarely debate — only if they have memorized some talking points!
I would not have believed it if I had not been there!


“I know he is smart but his politics tell me that intelligence does not necessarily imply any sort of critical thinking ability.”

Don’t matter how big your boat’s motor is, if you never untie from the dock . .


Excellent report. But I think that “isn’t no average” should be “is no average” in this paragraph

“Happer started by saying we all agree that climate changes. It has since the beginning of time and will continue to change. He also mentioned that no one can tell you what the “average temperature” should be because there isn’t no average world temperature. The temperature at sea level is very different than the temperature 3000 feet up a mountain just a few miles away.”

Why allthe blogging regardinga simple typingerror. Surely we all know what hemeant……………


The “mountain of evidence” is a justification used by the left. Like “it’s been debunked repeatedly” tact taken by HRC. It’s used to catch the questioner off guard by implying their being ignorant.

“Mountain of evidence” = because we say so!

you’ve got to learn the leftist language!


OT.. It appears that South Australia has bought some large diesel generators to back up their wind/battery electricity supply.

Such progress 😉

Three cheers for Dr, Happer. The seminar and the overwhelming interest in it, will drive a grand witch hunt and inquisition in the Chemistry & Biochemistry Department. Other departments, will be drawn into the wild
Maelstrom of fury at the Truth being exposed to students and public. There will be an inquiry into how this could have been allowed to happen. A scapegoat will be found for allowing a skeptic to speak publically. Climate Change Dogma cannot be challenged and is supported by 97% of funded researchers.


Is there a video of Prof. Happer’s seminar?

Tom Judd

“We could double that (400 PPM) amount and little would happen. Happer pointed out the classroom we were in would have at least 2000 parts per million. The CO2 we exhale is 40,000 PPM.”

Before anyone starts to consider CO2 as pollution or high CO2 levels as dangerous remind them that a life-saving emergency medical intervention that is taught in every First Aid course is mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. 40,000 ppm CO2 does not mitigate the oxygen provided to the person in dire need.

However, never allow yourself to receive this from my sister. My older sister. She’s a vampire.

Joshua Smith

Did he happen to speak about the melting glaciers and returning snow line? To paraphrase, observation contradicts the data.
Look around, more forest fires, shorter winters, the Antarctic is falling apart. There are satellite images showing the earth getting warmer.
I was also under the impression, the average temperature is not based off the global temperature but specific recordings taken from the pre industrial time. The recordings for selected areas around the world were averaged yearly and now they use that data to compare to today’s yearly averages.


Satellite 🛰 images also show the earth getting greener. Because of CO2. Which is good.


Some glaciers are melting, as you’d expect coming naturally out of the Little Ice Age. Others are growing and staying the same. No evidence supports a connection with CO2.

The world has lately been getting snowier. If there is anywhere where the snow line is retreating, it has nothing to do with CO2.

Far from falling apart, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most freshwater on earth, is gaining mass. Parts of the tiny West AIS are losing mass due to volcanic activity.

Satellites show far less warming than the cooked book so-called surface “data”, which are a mix of faked surface and phony below ocean surface lies. Reconstruction of past temperatures are constantly tampered with, i.e. “adjusted”, to cool the past and warm more recent decades.

And even the made up “data” don’t come close to the GIGO computer model projections.


Fantastic heart-warming story, getting the ecofasc1sts jowlflapping and making them look stupid on multiple levels. Prof Happer is the towering scientific hero that Elon Musk is not.

Pat McAdoo

Asked before, but what is the climate we are shooting for? We need to define the “goldilocks climate”, ya think?

All I see is if we go up a degree or two in 100 years we are doomed. So is the temp of 1950 or 1850 or 2000 what we are shooting for? Was our temp in 1980 the ideal?

Somehow, humans and many animals survived a really significant change in global temp and actual weather about 14,000 years ago. Sea level rose by dozens of meters. Humans figured out how to grow crops and raise herds of animals for milk and meat.

I am not sure about what the alarmists are going for other than that we are gonna be miserable due to heat and at the same time we will revert to 18th century technology. I want my iPad!!!! Ba waaaaahhhhhh!

Gums rants….


Goldilocks climate for whom and where ?
Goldilocks for central Kazakhstan probably a bit different to goldilocks for Florida.

And then there is that crop growing business.
There’s a body of opinion that suggests it has all been downhill for humanity since agriculture started.

Your iPad is similar to cropping. Cropping forces you to stay in the same location.
You are now a prisoner of iTunes

John Finn

I’d love to be fully sceptical about human induced climate change- I really would. But I can’t. I don’t believe AGW will be catastrophic but I can’t see any way that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will produce a negligible effect.

The problem is that, as CO2 levels increase, it will accumulate in the higher colder layers of the atmosphere. This means that a higher proportion of terrestrial radiation will be emitted to space from those higher COLDER layers. Basic physics (S-B Law) tells us that the rate of energy emission is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. This MUST mean the rate of emission will be reduced so the earth will be cooling at a slower rate while it is still receiving a constant source of energy from the sun.

In other words more CO2 means – The EARTH MUST WARM.

The MODTRAN program can be used to simulate outgoing energy spectra with remarkable accuracy from any location on earth. If we double atmospheric CO2 levels MODTRAN calculations tell us that (without an increase in temperature) there will be an energy imbalance (incoming greater than outgoing) of ~4 w/m2 at TOA. Restoring equilibrium would require a surface temperature increase of between 1 and 1.5 deg C (ignoring feedbacks).

Sorry, folks, I’ve thought about this for some time and pretty much ALL serious “sceptical” scientists agree with this analysis. Spencer and Lindzen might argue for a lower sensitivity figure based on a negative feedback but the basic theory remains sound.

Robert Austin

John Finn,
Granted you get 1 to 1.5C for doubling, the idea that this temperature increase is more harmful than beneficial is still dubious. The CAGW hypothesis is much more tenuous than the the temperature increase with CO2 doubling hypothesis. The models still don’t reproduce the data so the climate is obviously more complex than MODTRAN calcs.

John Finn

1. I never said warming would be harmful. The net effect could indeed be beneficial.

2. The models include positive feedbacks which give enhanced warming projections. To date CO2 is responsible for about 2 w/m2 warming above pre-industrial levels. This has resulted in an increase of 0.8 deg C (about 0.4 per w/m2) Doubling CO2 will change the TOA flux by 3.7 w/m2.

0.4 x 3.7 = 1.48 deg C – almost exactly in line with MODTRAN (no feedback) calculations.


The effect of doubling, i.e. 1.1 to 1.2 degrees C is negligible due to net negative feedbacks on our self-regulating water planet.

Due to the logarithmic GHE, much of whatever warming will occur in going from a starvation level of essential trace gas at ~280 ppm in AD 1850 to ~560 ppm around AD 2100 has already happened, at present ~400 ppm.

So, no worries. More CO2 is good for plants and other living things. Optimal would be 1200 ppm, as De. Happer has noted.

John Finn

The feedback effect is not yet clear. I suspect it’s slightly positive.

Due to the logarithmic GHE, much of whatever warming will occur in going from a starvation level of essential trace gas at ~280 ppm in AD 1850 to ~560 ppm around AD 2100 has already happened, at present ~400 ppm.

CO2 is still effective at higher colder layers. Logarithmic doesn’t mean negligible.

Delta E = 5.35 x ln(c1/c0) where c1 is current/future CO2 levels; c0 is pre-industrial CO2 levels.

Plug in 400 ppm and 560 ppm

at 400 ppm Delta E = 5.35 x ln(400/280) = 1.9 w/m2
at 560 ppm Delta E = 5.35 x ln(560/280) = 3.7 w/m2

So we’ve had about half the warming we can expect from doubling CO2. However, some of that warming will be due to increases in other ghgs such as methane so we might have had a bit more than half



Of course logarithmic does not mean negligible. But we have already had about half of the warming to be expected from a doubling, without feedbacks.

Even if feedbacks are positive, which I highly doubt, the effect of two v. one degree is indeed negligible, as occurring mainly at high latitudes in winter at night.

The fact that there has been no warming at the South Pole, where it should be the greatest, suggests however that either the GHE is much weaker in the climate system than in the lab, or feedbacks just balance it out.


How odd that the ONLY warming in the satellite record has come from El Nino and ocean “events”

No sign of any CO2 warming at all.

The two periods before and after the 1998 El Nino are basically trendless.

John Finn

ENSO is cyclical. El Nino warms while La NIna cools. The atmosphere supports a warmer temperature now than it did 30 years ago.

John Finn

Further to my earlier post. Energy accumulated in the climate system isn’t just realised as an increase in surface temperature. Much of it is stored in the bulk of the ocean. We will, therefore, see fluctuations in the rate of surface warming which will be determined by ocean oscillations.

However, the long term trend will continue to be upwards.


“However, the long term trend will continue to be upwards.”

Brain-washed mantra.

Will be funny watching you as the global temperatures start to drop over the next year or so.

Worm and squirm around the FACT that there is NO CO2 warming signature n the satellite dat.

Only warming has come from the El Nino, which have absolutely nothing to do with CO2 or anything else to do with humans.

There is no “A” in CAGW and certainly no “C”…..

…. just a slight, but highly beneficial, solar based GW.


You missed out the second part of the iteration. As the heat increases the LWR cooling increases to compensate. GHE is net zero. Real GHE in real glasshouses works through convection because they have roofs.


You are 100% right
.CO2 is not a roof but clouds act like a shade cloth .Clouds keep the temperature cooler when the sun is shining and hold the heat from dissipating once the sun sets .
On a clear night the heat accumulated in the surface of the land heads out to space and in the winter frosts occur when the temperature rapidly drops sometimes up to 20 degrees . .

John Finn
The problem is that, as CO2 levels increase, it will accumulate in the higher colder layers of the atmosphere. This means that a higher proportion of terrestrial radiation will be emitted to space from those higher COLDER layers. Basic physics (S-B Law) tells us that the rate of energy emission is proportional to the 4th power of temperature. This MUST mean the rate of emission will be reduced so the earth will be cooling at a slower rate while it is still receiving a constant source of energy from the sun.

But you’re missing the sweetest part of it.
CO2 makes the equilibrium radiation level (ERL) go higher.
So granted – as you say – it will be colder so less radiation.
But the added CO2 in the atmosphere – which has caused the elevation of the ERL – also increases the emissivity of the air at the ERL.
More radiation from higher CO2 x less radiation from higher colder ERL = NO CHANGE.
This is what the geological record overwhelmingly shows – CO2 following ocean temperature changes with a delay but NOT driving temperature.

What a cruel betrayal – CO2 radiation itself defeating CAGW.

Et tu – CO2? Then fall, CAGW!

John Finn

But the added CO2 in the atmosphere – which has caused the elevation of the ERL – also increases the emissivity of the air at the ERL.

NO! Without greenhouse gases radiation would be emitted directly from the surface at much higher temperatures. In the presence of ghgs, this energy is absorbed higher in the atmosphere where it is emitted at lower temperatures.

You need to think about this.

The Revered Badger

ERL is not a real physical layer/level from which the earth loses most of its radiation. Radiation leaves the planet from all over the place at all levels in the atmosphere (and in all directions too, lots sideways). Some leaves the surface of the earth without interacting with a single molecule of atmosphere.


Do you dispute that increased CO2 confers the atmosphere higher IR emmissivity? If so, why are we talking about CO2 at all, except as a plant fertiliser.


“Without greenhouse gases radiation would be emitted directly from the surface at much higher temperatures”

Oh, so you are saying that GHGs keep the surface cool. Thanks. 🙂


I just keep asking as to why the statistical correlation between CO2 increase and Temperature (anomaly for your sake Nick) is not trotted out to shut us up. Could it be that there is none or very little?
Just asking.


The state of science on any topic is always somewhere between incomplete and completely wrong. At best the currently accepted working hypothesis and is progresses by testing, refining and often discarding those hypotheses. Or it should.
Continental Drift, is now established “science” but … it’s been pointed out (with maps to illustrate) that the continental fit is best at the bottom of the continual shelves – seems worth considering – sea level is transient – why should today’s coastline be more relevant than any other elevation? But cue derision. The earth would have to be smaller – how did it grow and on and on….
It was known that waves needed a medium through which to propagate, so when radio waves were found to travel through a vacuum, the “Ether”, stuff out there we couldn’t detect, was invented. Fast forward about 100 years and the sums told us there must be stuff out there in the Universe that we can’t detect, so cue “Dark Matter”. This year it was thought a smidgin of DM had been detected for the first time. About the then it was also reckoned that if you redo the sums you don’t need DM. Neither should be critised for pursuing either line of research
Big Bang – terrific headline grabber but is its hypothecation the result of backward extrapolation beyond the limits of the equations used (don’t claim to be able to do the sums, but limitations on the range of values for which an equation is valid are common)? And again there’s a paper about out there that proposes an alternative starting scenario.
Then there’s the really serious stuff like – eggs: good/bad/good. Animal fat: good/baaad/good …

Following the scientific method, the burden of proof must shift to those claiming CO2 controls global temperature. What is the compelling evidence for this? The claim has been falsified by the 800-year lag in CO2 increase vs. temperature in the Vostok ice core. Sherwood Idso published this contrary evidence in 1988. Up to now the alarmists have no compelling evidence for their claim. That so many people and politicians believe it can be described as mass delusion. International climate agreements are the modern witchcraft trials for the crime of weather cooking.

Oh boy but how they just HATE those damned ice cores. In the endless fruitless search for an anthropogenic smoking gun they turned up with a smoking howitzer which blew the foundations of the whole rotten edifice clean out instead. They really, really HATE those damned ice cores which cannot be vanished.

You might think being scientists and everything that when ice core after ice core completely refutes their hypothesis they might begin to entertain the idea that just perhaps the hypothesis is wrong. But not a bit of it! This is how it is patently obvious to any with eyes to see that here we have a full-blown religion which has nothing to do with science whatsoever.

“We don’t eat fossil fuel.”

Well actually we do, at least in the sense that if we phased out fossil fuel we could not feed the world’s population. The US could not feed its own population.

It takes about 10 calories of fossil energy to produce one calorie of food.

(Units in calories, not Calories = 1000 calories).


In the US and probably elsewhere, half of wheat crop yield is from oil and other fossil fuels. What was 35 bushel land is now 100 bu/A land thanks to improved seeds and fossil fuel-based fertilizer, pesticides and vehicle fuel.

Yet another pro-climate sceptic article on WUWT. It has now been shown how whacky some of the arguments put forward by the sceptics are and this is yet another example. This study shows very effectively how sceptics rely on sources that simply confirm their own arguments, even though they are not based on science or written by people who are unqualified on the topics they write about:



Dana Nuccitelli? Seriously?

Actually, far from being vast, there is no evidence supporting man-made global warming. It’s possible that humans have had some effect, just not detectable. We don’t even know whether that effect is net to warm or cool the planet, but in any case, not measurable.

Please present some if you think there be any at all. Might be a Nobel in it for you. As usual, Dana didn’t.

OTOH we do know for sure that more CO2 in the air has been highly beneficial for plants and all living things which depend upon them.


Poor Ivan.. ZERO evidence of anything, yet again.

Just mindless propaganda yapping from the Gruniad, which you fall for every time.

Do you REALLY think there is one single bit of science in that childish link of yours?

Stop injecting Klimate Kool-Aide , maybe your mind will actually start to think for itself, instead of being so easily swayed by mindless propaganda.

That’s VS and you know it :). It is extremely convincing research proving the scientific research underpinning climate change … and the totally random unscientific sceptic fallacies. Keep up the good work my friend but it is to an increasingly shrinking audience.



Convincing research… to a 5 year old, perhaps.

If you think that guardian article was anything but a slimy ad hom attack, you are mindlessly wrong, as always. There is ZERO science in that article, just a meaningless mantra based attempt to slime realist blogs.. FAILED miserably.

Arctic sea ice has been steady for 10+ years after a highly beneficial drop from the extremes of 1979.. still in the top 10% of Holocene extents. The sea ice bed-wetting is based purely on IGNORANCE.

There is little to no “human caused global warming”, except by data manipulation.


Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012.

Nice cherry you picked there Gabro. Everyone knows that 2012 was the record (satellite era) low point for Arctic sea ice.

AndyG55, 10 years is not long enough to determine a trend.


Its CYCLIC, there will be no long term linear trends.

Go and learn something before commenting next time.

AndyG55, where is your data that shows it is “cyclic?” You need a lot more than 30 years to show it.

.comment image


Your second graph is pure BS from the SkS, fakers.

The first graph illustrates the drop from the extreme level of the late 1970s

REAL data shows that level as being up with the extremes of the LIA.
comment image

Do you REALLY want the world to drop down to that freezing period again?

If so, move to Siberia.

Every bit of REAL data shows the temperature in the region strongly linked to the AMO
comment image

The AMO is now starting to turn back downwards.

Arctic sea ice is still within the top 10% of extent for the Holocene.

During the first 7000+ years it was often close to “summer ice free”.

Current levels are ANOMOLUSLY HIGH….. onely just a bit down from those of the LIA

do you comprehend !!!!
comment image


Here is the Arctic sea ice against the AMO. (ice extent is flipped)

And you can see why the AGWers are now starting to PANIC as they KNOW that the sea ice will start to increase over the next several years.

They are not as ignorant as they put forward in their façade to fool their brain-washed apostles.
comment image

You can see why they have to either start around 1979 or fabricate the data before that.

There is plenty of evidence that there was a huge increase of sea ice leading up to the late 1970’s

No AndyG55, the 2nd graph comes from NSIDC.

Your first graph ends in 1998, and show no “cycle” besides the fact that the y-axis units of “Koch” is not well defined.
Your 2nd graph doesn’t show Arctic sea ice, which happens to be the subject we’re discussing.
Finally, thank you very much for presenting your last graph. It defiantly shows there is NO CYCLIC BEHAVIOR in sea ice.


MASIE has current Arctic ice level above 2006, 2007, 2010, 2016.

The recovery from the extremes of the late 1970s has , unfortunately come to a halt.

A lower sea ice extent, even down to that of the MWP would have been highly beneficial to the whole region.

Commerce, travel, fishing, mining etc would have become possible for more than a couple of months a year.

But that dream will not come to pass, as Arctic sea ice starts to increase over the next several years.


comment image


comment image

The MASIE data product only begins in 2006, so it’s not good for comparison

Item #5:

“The initial MASIE product had a nominal gridded resolution of 4 km x 4 km that spans 01 October 2006 to present at a daily resolution”

Andy, please refrain from linking to FAKE NEWS New York Times


comment image


NYT used to be solid…. then it got taken over by the leftist agenda, and became totally unreliable.

Anything INFECTED by that agenda become unreliable, because it means that facts become irrelevant.


There is ZERO trend in the whole of the MASIE data since 2006
comment image

It is behaving exactly as it should with its relation ship to the AMO.

The AMO is starting to turn downwards

Arctic sea ice bed-wetters are starting to panic.


NSIDC has 2017 ahead of 2006, 2010, 2012 and 2016.

It will be hilarious watching you guys if it tops out above every year back to 2006, which is looking a distinct possibility.


Andy, 10 years of data is not sufficient to discern a “trend”
Besides, your data doesn’t show any type of cyclic behavior, and doesn’t even show correlation with the AMO.

Throwing out irrelevant data doesn’t help prove your point.


comment image

warming in 1922.

And we all know there was a global cooling scare after 1940

CYCLIC !!!!!


Cooling.. Arctic sea ice INCREASING

Leading to the peak in the late 1970s
comment image

Newspaper reports are not “data” and scientifically unreliable.


Denial of facts.

All you have left.

Why would anyone be writing papers about that back then.. No money in it.

Do you DENY that these are real comments from real scientists?


“scientifically unreliable”

You mean like SkS, Gaurdian etc 😉

When you talk about ZERO evidence, what do you mean exactly? That is just a wild claim made by a sceptic who cannot accept that his argument is now a hollow one. Sceptics are simply talking to each other now in echo chambers while the rest of the world – and the majority in the USA – move on:

Yup Greenland is cooling. Yup Anderson Cooper and Clarissa Ward have never seen this chart


“Yup Greenland is cooling. Yup Anderson Cooper and Clarissa Ward have never seen this chart”

Seems you haven’t “seen” that that chart is not up to date and (although posted ad nauseum on here) is disputed by this very website.

How about this one, that includes modern warming ….
comment image

Oh, and the top of the Greenland plateau is not a proxy for the whole of Earth.
Would you accept it as one if it “proved” warming?


there is evidence of settlements in Greenland made a thousand year ago that are only becoming visible now.
indeed the Vikingers thrived in this period and it is claimed they even were in America.
We also know from various investigations that there is a 1000 year SC named after Eddy who determined it.
And indeed, all the historical records indicate that the arctic warming has been with us before, 1000 years ago.
hence we found in the 16th century my countryman Willem Barentz trying to find the ‘passage’ to the east.
Sadly, as you know, he died trying to find it. Do you think he would have risked his life unless there was some persistent evidence that the passage existed?
Like I showed you [earlier on this thread] there is no man made warming. It is all natural, i.e. variation in irradiation and /or shifting of earth’s iron inner core.


must say, you pushed in another graph there, showing the increase in atmospheric CO2 (g)
is this supposed to scare us?///

I remember that was the punch liner of Al Gore as well, stepping up on a special staircase to show how bad we really are.., leaving me and my big 4 x 4 diesel truck feeling guilty,
as I often times take my dogs up the hills..
It did not take long for me to figure that there are causes and effects:

Namely, there are giga tons of bi carbonates in the oceans and any sort of heating would release .the CO2 (g), [as it did in the past}

warming + HCO3- => OH- + CO2 (g)

This is like boiling a kettle, and you know that the first smoke you see is that of the CO2 coming out?

Michael 2

“Yet another pro-climate sceptic article on WUWT”

What a surprise!

Leo Smith

The Right deals on facts.

The Left deals in perceptions.

That’s all you need to know.

I agree with mothcathcher that there must be something wrong in his referencing to the pH of the oceans. We are talking about such minute changes here (hundreds of a pH unit) that even most modern pH meters cannot detect it as it falls within the error range – unless they have somebody to calibrate the pH meter every hour or so?

John Finn

On what paper would you base your decision that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming rather than cooling?

Sorry to disappoint you.

There is no man made warming caused by CO2. Here is the result of my investigation on that:

Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:comment image
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:comment image
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.