The Climate Decade that Was: Failed Predictions, Tour De Paris, and the Gretas

by Vijay Jayaraj

As we step into a new decade, here’s a look at the climate drama that just ended.

The 2010s were dominated by the failure of doomsday prophecies, the adoption of a fantasy climate agreement, unexpected weather trends, and the beginning of the climate emergency cult movement that reminded many of the overpopulation hype of the 1970s and 1980s.
Al Gore Prophecies

Al Gore’s legacy of lies continued to spill into the second decade of this century. Contrary to his predictions in the famous climate documentary An Inconvenient Truth, polar bear populations increased, the Arctic and Antarctic remained relatively unaffected, and no major coastal economy was threatened by rising sea levels.

Gore would have had nightmares when the Canadian authorities in 2019 pondered culling polar bears because of their excess numbers caused trouble for residents in Nunavut.

No Snow Australia

Australia may be embroiled in historic wildfires—mostly caused by arson—right now. But climate scientists were caught red handed when their predictions of a snow-free Australia failed by massive proportions in the past decade.

The reason was obvious. The warming was not as pronounced as it was forecast to be, and snowfall in Australia is controlled by regional weather patterns. Moreover, there has been no significant change in the number of very hot days since World War I.
Paris Agreement

The biggest climate event of the decade was a political event in 2015. Unelected bureaucrats of the United Nations got leaders of world states to sign the Paris climate agreement.

The so called “landmark agreement” was meant to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to levels that would keep global warming rate below 2˚C in this century.

But apart from exuberance, the agreement lacked everything else. The forecasts used for policy decisions were based on faulty computer climate models, and developing countries demanded an insanely unrealistic amount of money to achieve their emission reduction targets.

Things went downhill quickly. The U.S. announced its pull-out in 2017. A host of other nations—like India, China, Russia, Poland, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Africa—continue to defy its principles by increasing their dependency on fossil fuels.

Now, experts say the agreement will not achieve any meaningful change in the current climatic trend. The United Nations itself admits that the proposals outlaid in 2015 won’t prevent climate doomsday. Their yearly climate ritual always ends with news of hopelessness or failure for the world.

Woke Generation: Courtesy of Greta

The star attraction of the decade was Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg, who became famous for her climate school strikes. Global media, Greta quickly made her the face of the climate strike movement.
UN held special events with Greta as the main speaker. In return, Greta took every opportunity to threaten world leaders. She calls them “enemies” and “traitors.”

Despite her ignorance of climate science, the UN and other doomsayers identify Greta as the voice of the next generation. And so the decade ended with the global mainstream media hitting an all-time intellectual low, treating a mentally disturbed child as an authority on climate and energy policy.

Despite all the drama, global climate itself showed no signs of danger. The warming rate remained far lower than predicted. Even some high-ranking doomsayers acknowledged a slowdown in warming.

One could go on and on with more amusing and interesting drama that took place in the past decade, but let us end it here. Cheers to the next decade, a decade that may very well end with global cooling doomsayers dominating our news headlines.

Why? Look up into the sky. See that bright, fiery ball? It’s in a cooling cycle.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

5 2 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 8, 2020 10:38 am

“the Arctic and Antarctic remained relatively unaffected”

Arctic sea ice extent is very close to the baseline 30-year average. Some deficiency in the Bering Sea, but that is due to earlier wind direction, and not temperature.

Here’s a curious tidbit that might interest someone. The MOSAIC team that is currently camped out at the North Pole ( posted two days ago (6-1-2020) that they were baffled that Fridtjof Nanson didn’t mention what hand protection he wore in 1894 in his description of the clothing he wore while visiting the Arctic then, in which he “sweated like a horse”; because they are having extreme problems working with their glove-covered hands in -35C temps.

I have no interest in pursuing the details of what the weather was like then, but somebody who is knowledgeable might know something about what the temps there were like then.

Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 11:11 am

What temperature they ever have, they are waiting for rain !!
Text for km 4266

Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 11:22 am

Alarmists are insisting on so called ‘Arctic amplification’ which simply is a nonsense. In the past decades the Arctic was warmed by the extra inflow of warm N. Atlantic current; I pointed this to someone called Russell Seitz, but instead following a rational discussion he ended with some kind of I thought to be a convoluted ‘insult’ (no idea what he meant by it) on the Climate and Energy News Roundup here

Reply to  Vuk
January 8, 2020 3:54 pm

I clicked on that and didn’t understand it either, but I do want to know what Russell had in mind. Hopefully, he’ll see this and expand.

….. and hopefully before Mosher comes along and says “bEst wibbje Learn. dEnali tresh)Ld” or something like that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  philincalifornia
January 8, 2020 10:39 pm

“….. and hopefully before Mosher comes along and says “bEst wibbje Learn. dEnali tresh)Ld” or something like that.”

Keyboard splatter.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 9, 2020 12:27 am

Hey, if that’s what it takes to be a leader ……

Reply to  Vuk
January 9, 2020 1:33 am

After I posted above comment, I googled R. Seitz, in case he commented elsewhere, had a good chuckle when found who he was, and was determined to decipher his comment:
“Still , it is good to see that the grand tradition of K Street bafflegab lives on in S. Fred’s minions.”
“Still, it is good to see that the grand tradition of HBO television series about lobbyists and politicians in Washington, D.C incomprehensible and pretentious verbiage lives on in Fred Singer’s minions.”
Exactly, Prof. Seitz, your comment is an excellent example of ‘bafflegab’.

Reply to  Vuk
January 9, 2020 2:40 am

“‘Arctic amplification’ which simply is a nonsense. In the past decades the Arctic was warmed by the extra inflow of warm N. Atlantic current”
Do you have a source?

More thermal energy enters the Arctic in the form of warm air and water vapour than in ocean currents. See page 6

Reply to  Loydo
January 9, 2020 3:39 am

Hi Loydo
If you are sceptic then you know that the thermal capacity of water is up to 3 orders of magnitude of the atmospheric air one.
If you do believe in the AGW hypothesis than Guardian is a good enough authoritative source (there are links in there)
“Global warming is melting Antarctic ice from below”

Reply to  Loydo
January 9, 2020 10:39 am



Arctic and north Europe warms when AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) and AO (Arctic Oscillation) are in warm cycle. AO have already switched to cool phase and when AMO switch to cool it´s going to be instant ice age threat. Again. And it begins very soon. Weak Gulf Stream (in MSM headlines, again) is the first thing. And the result is the sound of AGW collapse.

Those two currents bring warm water to arctic and the result is warm air and water vapour.

You can find source to these events when you look 1900s unbastardised warming record. You can see those cycles there (60-65 years).

Gary Pearse
Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 5:12 pm

‘Gloves’ are temperate zone protection. We don’t have to ask Nansen, ask someone from the Canadian prairies, or the Inuit or Siberian residents. Mitts! Keep your fingers together. Nansen would have worn fur mitts. Many’s the time I retracted the thumb from its separate pouch and kept it with the rest of my fingers!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 8, 2020 6:06 pm

I remember when he said that!

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 9, 2020 12:15 am

For cold weather (sub zero) cycling I use Lobster Claw mitts. Gives advantage over four finger mittens for brakes and gears

Gerry, England
Reply to  icisil
January 9, 2020 5:49 am

What? I thought it was so warm up in the Arctic that you wouldn’t need gloves anymore. I am sure this is true as it was on the BBC, in The Guardian and David Attenbollox said so – probably St Greta too.

January 8, 2020 10:55 am

“a mentally disturbed child”

Woketards call such autism, “neurodiverse”. I’m cereal.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 11:27 am

Cap’n Crunch? or Wheaties?

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 8, 2020 12:05 pm

Great Nuts

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 8, 2020 12:22 pm

Steel Cut Oats!!! He’s hard core 🙂

Michael Burns
Reply to  icisil
January 9, 2020 8:31 am

And you know…what about autism? Exactly what you have been told.
I bet your one who believes it is caused by vaccination.

“Woketard” did you think that weaponized word up all by yourself ici…
When will WUWT be done with your type.

Reply to  Michael Burns
January 10, 2020 12:08 pm

Actually I think “woketard” is good word, well worth using. I will refrain from using it on commentards here though 😉

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Michael Burns
January 21, 2020 2:24 am

Michael Burns, for psychology expertise visit psychology experts sites.

Here’s for plain ol’ common sense.

January 8, 2020 11:17 am

The woke generation is a certificate of attendance and many of the college educated today in the U.S. are unemployable except in long economic expansions. Gender Studies graduates and History majors make great restaurant service help unless higher mandated minimum wage rates alter the business model.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 12:52 pm

Don’t knock History majors.

Popular pre-law majors that are great preparation for law school include philosophy/classics, economics, political science, history, English, and engineering. link

The important thing is the academic rigor and the thinking and research skills learned. Gender Studies, on the other hand, is a joke consisting mostly of made-up BS.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  commieBob
January 8, 2020 2:51 pm

As an engineer, I’m often asked what the most important things are for young Americans to learn. My reply is always: Learn to read, write, and speak the English language as well as you possibly can. And while you’re at it, learn world history from beginning to today. The first is your path to learning anything else, including history. Learning history is your path to understanding how you can best function in human society (personally, socially, and politically).

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
January 8, 2020 5:05 pm

M S Kelly

Your words are good advice and, as a scientist, I suggest that it is critical to learn how to learn including critical analysis and the ability to deconstruct a complex problem and identify the first-order questions or controlling factors. Astute contributors to WUWT display this ability every day. In addition, your advice concerning communication skills and functioning in human society is apropos and I will detail the subject to include the ability to work within multiple multidisciplinary teams.

To learn how to learn seems especially important in the fast-moving modern world.

Reply to  Bill Rocks
January 9, 2020 5:42 am

Critical analysis of how this whole alarmist global warming/climate change/ climate deception infiltrated so many aspects of our lives needs to be examined and exposed thoroughly in 2020. Reverse engineering racketeering crimes that are occurring because of the deception will take the collaborative focus and effort of the most intelligent people in our midst. This can all be done using the technology we already have. Could WUWT be the forum for this work?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
January 21, 2020 2:40 am

Michael, “And while you’re at it, learn world history from beginning to today.”


First in “History”:

– never speculate what would have been “if” – that’s reserved for science fantasy, good entertainment.

Second in “History”:

– consider what happened, consider why it happened THAT way, what’s the difference / what’s to learn from.

John Endicott
Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2020 7:41 am

Popular pre-law majors

Just what the world needs, more lawyers! :rollseyes:

Reply to  commieBob
January 9, 2020 9:43 am

Okay, okay change that to Climate Psychology. There are so many to choose from.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 1:52 pm

Gender studies: the reclassification of masculine and feminine sex-correlated physical and mental attributes. They conflate sex: male and female, and gender: masculine and feminine, for sociopolitical progress. In general, they conflate logical domains.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  n.n
January 8, 2020 10:48 pm

Yes, and it bugs the crap out of me.

I’ve been filling out job applications lately, and the vast majority of them as what my gender is, not my sex, but present sex options (male and female). Stupid.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 11, 2020 4:36 pm

I went in for a colonoscopy in Reno, NV. The form I was given to fill out included the following:


What does it matter if you’re getting a colonoscopy? I get it if you’re getting your genitals checked, but this is a digestive health clinic! Idle curiosity?

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 1:56 pm

Bit harsh, Resource Guy. True history buffs are naturally skeptic in disposition, as they’ve seen all this ‘unprecedented’ weather before, albeit in manuscript form a lot of the time. Hannibal didn’t get his elephants over the Alps on skis you know! As a history major, many moons ago, I now delight in debunking modern claims of ‘unprecedented weather’ with selective anecdotes from times past when the weather was a damn sight worse than any ‘Millenial’ has ever experienced. And, you don’t need to be a History Major to find ample evidence of how, returning to the weather of ‘pre-industrial times’, i.e. The Little Ice Age, which some loons seem to regard as a period of ‘Green Nirvana’, without the advantages of cheap, reliable, fossil furled energy, will lead to misery and early death for many of the poorest and most vulnerable in our societies. An experience that is all to evident on a daily basis in Africa for example.

Reply to  Mack
January 8, 2020 2:49 pm

Please excuse the typo. I think ‘fossil furled’ is when you get lucky with someone much older than yourself. I should be so lucky, most of the people older than me are dead already!

Curious George
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 3:22 pm

Why such a negativity? From the positive side – many college majors leave you fully qualified for welfare.

James A. Schrumpf
Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 4:30 pm

Don’t knock History majors. My wife turned her BA in History into a $75/hr job as as technical writer/proposal editor for many commercial and government clients.

As she put it, “What’s history but documentation?”

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 8, 2020 8:59 pm

Reply to  ResourceGuy
January 9, 2020 5:59 am

I’ve started three IT companies and my two best ever programmers were English majors and quite a few of the good ones were as well. Not sure why but don’t fight the current.

My wife also is one and she started and runs a medical device company using radiation to treat cancer.

Some of the other majors, not so much.

Paul R Johnson
January 8, 2020 11:21 am

Now we know what to call award for the Most Absurd Climate Alarmism of the Year – the Greta.

Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 4:25 pm

It is so good to have a laugh icisil, thank you, that was very funny!

Reply to  Paul R Johnson
January 8, 2020 3:42 pm

A ‘Greta’ is something so dense that nothing intelligible can come from it.

Reply to  Alex
January 10, 2020 5:17 am

AOCite falls into that category.

January 8, 2020 11:24 am

Why? Look up into the sky. See that bright, fiery ball? It’s in a cooling cycle.

It’s supposed to have been in a cooling cycle for the past 15 years at least – yet there’s precious little sign of any actual cooling. The warmest December (& November) on record have recently been reported by Roy Spencer & John Christy at UAH.

It’s all very well finding fault with some of the more wilder alarmist claims but the general trend isn’t in doubt. Reading Jack Barrett’s website to-day I couldn’t fail to notice that he is expecting a near 2 degree increase in response to a doubling of CO2. Jack has often been described as a denier in climate science circles.

Reply to  John Finn
January 8, 2020 12:46 pm

Source? I can only find up to Dec5/19.

Also average per decade is 0.13 C or 1.3C over 100 years. Start date is 1979 when satellite records became available.

NASA report 0.86C rise since 1880.

This is over 140 years! Not too significant compared to Middle Ages warming, Roman period warming, Minoan warming.

Reply to  Robert
January 8, 2020 3:33 pm

Source? I can only find up to Dec5/19

December +0.56
November +0.55

This is over 140 years! Not too significant compared to Middle Ages warming, Roman period warming, Minoan warming

Why – how much warming was there during the “middle ages”? And how are the middle ages defined and over what regions did the warming occur and was the warming synchronous across all regions. I find evidence is pretty shaky on all points. Hubert Lamb’s temperature reconstructions don’t suggest it was any warmer in the MWP than it is now.

Jim McKenzie
Reply to  John Finn
January 8, 2020 8:20 pm

You don’t need temp reconstructions. They did not have thermometers 1,000 years ago. But don’t be stupid. History tells the Vikings successfully settled Greenland. Grew crops and fed and raised livestock. You need some definite real warmth to do that. When it got too cold there again at the beginning of the 14th century. They left. Thats all they could do or starve to death.
Of course all they had to do was call home in Europe on their cell phones and ask their buddies to fly in and pick them up.

Reply to  Jim McKenzie
January 9, 2020 1:58 am

The Viking settlements were regional. That’s exactly the point I was making. Greenland and the Arctic in general have always experienced more variability than the most other parts of the planet.

Your dismissal of Lamb’s reconstruction is odd since it is this very reconstruction which is used by those who wish to promote the importance of the MWP.

Incidentally, the Thames froze over regularly during the MWP – just as it did during the LIA. Does this mean there was no LIA – or no MWP. The evidence for that either was a global event is sketchy at best.

Reply to  Jim McKenzie
January 9, 2020 9:58 am

Here in Finland in it´s northern part Lappland has medieval oaks in swamps. Today oak is growing some 1000km south of that point. It was warmer. Oak don´t lie.

And this AGW is also regional like MWP was. Btw. has Thames been frozen lately?

Reply to  John Finn
January 9, 2020 10:56 am

Every warm period has been colder than previous. We live now coldest warm period.

This alleged warming is not synchronous across all regions.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  John Finn
January 8, 2020 1:58 pm

If we knew the state of the oceans before and during the Dalton minimum we would have a better idea of what to look for, be it cooling or continued warming. Also, this modern minimum follows a higher recent maximum and average than the Dalton. The oceans have more heat stored in them.

Have you considered that the world might have to warm 2 degrees to allow the CO2 to double?
I’m not so sold on the idea that the CO2 leads the temperature, myself. It requires that I accept the more complicated theory despite Occam’s razor.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
January 8, 2020 3:19 pm

If we knew the state of the oceans before and during the Dalton minimum we would have a better idea of what to look for, be it cooling or continued warming.

I can find very little evidence of a deep cooling during (or following) the Dalton Minimum. There are some reports which suggest that the ocean in and around the Arctic were unusually warm in the second decade of the 19th century.

I’m not so sold on the idea that the CO2 leads the temperature, myself. It requires that I accept the more complicated theory despite Occam’s razor.

CO2 can both lead and lag temperatures. Fossil fuel burning is providing an additional source of atmospheric CO2 which, because, it’s not being sequestered by the land and oceans is causing an accumulation in the atmosphere. There’s nothing complicated about it.

Following the last glacial maximum atmospheric CO2 levels rose from 180 ppm to 280 ppm in response to a temperature rise of over 5 degrees C but this process took thousands of years to complete.

Since 1850, CO2 levels have increased by round 130 ppm (280 ppm to 410 ppm) during which time the global temperature has increased by just ONE degree C – i.e. a larger increase of CO2 that at the end of the LGM in a tiny fraction of the time following a fraction of the temperature change.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  John Finn
January 9, 2020 12:26 am

Your second name triggered a memory of something I read long ago. During the LIA Inuit made it to the North of Scotland. Suggests the possibilityoof a shorter journey over open water than today

From Wikipedia
Finn-men, also known as, Muckle men, Fion and Fin Finn, were Inuit sighted around the north of Scotland.

The first recorded sighting was in Orkney, in 1682.[1] James Wallace, writing in about 1688, described a Finn-man in his “little Boat” at the south end of Eday being seen by the people of the island from the shore, and then fleeing swiftly when the islanders put out a boat to try and apprehend him.[1] In 1684, a Finn-man seen at Westra was connected with the disappearance of fish from the area.[1] A boat was captured in Orkney, and sent to the Physicians Hall in Edinburgh.[1][2]

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 9, 2020 2:10 am

Read my response above. Arctic regions exhibit much grater climate variability than the rest of the world. We’re now in what should be an Arctic cooling phase.

The President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty once wrote

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”

When was this? 20th November, 1817 – slap bang in the middle of the Dalton Minimum – during the LIA.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
January 9, 2020 10:49 am

John Finn

*We’re now in what should be an Arctic cooling phase.*

Not yet. When AMO first switch to cold phase. Then.

Joel O'Bryan
January 8, 2020 11:26 am

“And so the decade ended with the global mainstream media hitting an all-time intellectual low, treating a mentally disturbed child as an authority on climate and energy policy.”

Yep. That one sentence is the bottom-line takeaway about our current media.
Staffed and stuffed full of Liberal Arts majors from top to bottom. Mostly a mainstream full-Leftist tilted propaganda industry who know little about science and engineering other than what they are told by their owners and senior editors to write.
The rot in the media starts at the top, not the bottom. The bottom rot only reflects the hiring policies and priorities that come from the top-down for the staff writers and reporters. If you were an honest reporter and knew something about science and tried to report on that honestly, objectively, and acknowledging the uncertainties, you’d be replaced. Which is what has happened. The reporters and writers in place now are the result of that hiring bias to push a propaganda narrative. Which also explains why now so many of them are suffering from TDS.

January 8, 2020 11:42 am

Don’t forget the appearance of the worst doomsday cult ever – namely Extinction Rebellion and its ecoloons.

Steve Z
January 8, 2020 11:50 am

“The star attraction of the decade was Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg, who became famous for her climate school strikes.”

Calling Greta Thunberg a “school girl” is an insult to school girls everywhere–she’s been playing hooky to sail across the Atlantic to shout “how dare you” use fossil fuels to heat your homes, run your business, or travel from point A to point B.

Greta Thunberg should become a school girl and finish high school and learn about basic math and the uses of fossil fuels. She might learn faster if her school room was unheated, left at the current ambient temperature of Sweden.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steve Z
January 8, 2020 2:40 pm

delinquent is more appropriate.

January 8, 2020 12:05 pm

Wait, the author graduated from the university of east Anglia?? THE university of global warming HQ?? The university of Phil Jones?? They’ll revoke his degree for writing this!

Ron Long
January 8, 2020 12:50 pm

The decade ended with no traction shown in any polls about global warming fears. However, the AGW crowd is not going quietly as they turned wholesale to arson to say, see, the fires prove it’s warming up. This is the most troubling aspect of closing the last decade, the AGW crowd is all in with death and destruction.

January 8, 2020 12:54 pm
Reply to  icisil
January 8, 2020 4:47 pm

Another brilliant link icisil, I’ll be forwarding this one on!

col from Oz
January 8, 2020 1:14 pm

I am NOT ascientist however i would like a opinion on these ‘papers’ I have read which call into play the whole question of CO2 regukating tempures.
Also Thomas Allmendinger has published a paper that disproves CO2 as a greenhouse gas..
From ‘The Journal of Physical sciences’
Vol. 11(15), pp. 183-205, 16 August, 2016
DOI: 10.5897/IJPS2016.4500
Article Number: E00ABBF60017
ISSN 1992 – 1950
Copyright ©2016
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article
The thermal behaviour of gases under the influence of
Thomas Allmendinger
CH-8152 Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland.
Received 21 April, 2016; Accepted 20 June, 2016
In contrast to the usual spectroscopic methods, the temperature of a gas embedded in a tube was
measured here and not the intensity loss of the radiation. In order to minimize the interference by the
tube, light-weight building materials were used, preferably Styrofoam, transparent plastic foils and
aluminium foils. Sunlight as well as infrared (IR)-bulbs was employed as radiation sources, whereby
near-IR is predominant and not medium-IR as it is usually assumed. Different gases were tested, not
only air and carbon-dioxide but also the noble gases argon, helium and neon. In each case, a
temperature increase was detected up to a limiting value. While the warming-up rate was independent
of the gas type, the limiting temperature turned out to be gas-specific. Surprisingly and contrary to the
expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air, pure carbon-dioxide and argon
were nearly equal while the light gases neon and, particularly helium, exhibited significant lower
limiting temperatures. Applying the kinetic gas theory, and assuming a direct correlation between
limiting temperature and radiative emission power, a stringent dependency of the product on mean
kinetic energy and collision frequency could be deduced. Moreover, the adsorption degree could be
calculated, turning out to be very low. The absorption was assumed as a result of vibration of the
atomic electron shell, induced by the electromagnetic waves. Comparing the results in sunlight to those
obtained in artificial light, the effective wavelength could be assessed delivering the value of 1.9 μm.
Therefore, the greenhouse theory has to be questioned.
Key words: Solar-tube, gas-temperature, radiation-absorption, radiation-emission, kinetic-gas-theory, nearinfrared,

January 8, 2020 1:53 pm

Climate change causes predictions to lose value at an even greater depreciation rate than earlier.

It’s now a race between agenda climate predictions and the Bolivar for the greatest value decline rate.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 8, 2020 2:39 pm

I think it is time to invent a new board game – “Climate Change, The End.” In which players have to race around an ever decreasing circular board (bored for us sceptics) with the winner reaching a total Earth destroying conflagration before disappearing in flames. On the way they have to collect money from various dodgy sources, obtain qualifications entirely irrelevant to any serious science, collect temperature hike charts , visit every continent to attend a COP talkfest and save at least one coral reef, polar bear and glacier.

Before entering the final circle of climate hell they have to stage an auction of their accumulated green virtue points cards in exchange for carbon credit bonds which enables them to buy a winning
Wooly hat of Doom.

Each player has a counter which is a replica of a climatista hero/ heroine : El Goro, the Great Green Orca, Greta, Attenborough, etc. Please feel to select your choice.

John Endicott
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 9, 2020 7:52 am

enables them to buy a winning Wooly hat of Doom.

Which is pink and has cat ears, I’m sure.

Gunga Din
January 8, 2020 3:09 pm

What generation of teenagers didn’t think they were “woke”?

Reply to  Gunga Din
January 8, 2020 6:06 pm

Woke and drowsy. Rebels with a cause.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 8, 2020 8:42 pm

What rebel generation wasn’t woke and stoned as superposition of those two states, at least in their own minds?

And with the relaxation of MJ laws across many US states now, simultaneous stoned-wokedness is legit state for those dealing with chronic TDS.

alastair gray
January 8, 2020 3:12 pm

I like your contribution but what do your pals at U E A think? You speak double damned climate heresy Don’t you fear the scourge of the orthodox keep up the good work in the halls of the unbeliever

Reply to  alastair gray
January 9, 2020 2:46 am

Hyper-conservative, creationists. I’m guessing they’re on the same page.

January 8, 2020 4:24 pm

“Now, experts say the agreement will not achieve any meaningful change in the current climatic trend.”

The “now” is nonsense.
Experts had calculated not only global, but regional contributions for all major countries who participated in the Paris agreement.

Any offsets or reductions to global warmth from the Paris Agreement are numbers imperceptible to human science; and this was known almost immediately after the specious Paris shindig ended sending tens of thousands of attendees flew home.

January 8, 2020 4:30 pm

Great post and history.
Thank you sir.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Mississauga
January 8, 2020 6:37 pm

Two things:

1. The next decade starts at the end of this year.

2. “…developing countries demanded an insanely unrealistic amount of money to achieve their emission reduction targets.”

Actually they demanded it for “adaptation”. Please refer to the text of the Copenhagen for clarification.

Absolutely any development need counts as a financial requirement for “adaptation and restitution”.

So if the sewers are clogged in Guinea Bissau it is caused by climate change – you know the drill.

No one thinks developing countries are going to reduce emissions. That is why the whole ” fairness” argument arises. If there is a limit on total emissions then it has to be equitably distributed. You know that drill too.

Dick Burkel
January 8, 2020 7:36 pm

Gender studies grads are now manning the growing diversity offices at all universities. Who else would hire them?

January 8, 2020 7:36 pm

“Why? Look up into the sky. See that bright, fiery ball? It’s in a cooling cycle.”

So what? We don’t need it. We’ve got CO2 to keep us warm.

Michael S. Kelly
January 8, 2020 7:47 pm

“Aye,” said Goodgulf. “Evil Ones are afoot in–”
“Not now,” interrupted Dildo impatiently. “Just tell Frito what you told

“What your rude uncle means,” began the Wizard, “is that there have been
many signs I have seen that bode ill for all, in the Sty and elsewhere.”

“Signs?” said Frito.
“Verily and forsooth,” replied Goodgulf darkly. “In the past year
strange and fearful wonders I have seen. Fields sown with barley reap
crabgrass and fungus, and even small gardens reject their artichoke hearts.
There has been a hot day in December and a blue moon. Calendars are made with
a month of Sundays and a blue-ribbon Holstein bore alive two insurance
salesmen. The earth splits and the entrails of a goat were found tied in
square knots. The face of the sun blackens and the skies have rained down
soggy potato chips.”

“But what do all these things mean?” gasped Frito.

“Beats me,” said Goodgulf with a shrug, “but I thought it made good
copy. But there is more. My spies tell me of black musters gathering in the
East, in the dead Lands of Fordor. Hordes of foul narcs and trolls have
multiplied and every day red-eyed wraiths skulk even unto the borders of the
Sty. Soon there will be much terror in the land from the black hand of

Bored of the Rings

Some thing are to bizarre to parody…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
January 8, 2020 11:08 pm

Been ages since I read that.

“Six foot is your height,
180 your weight,
You cash in your chips,
around page 88.”

January 9, 2020 6:06 am

The warming rate remained far lower than predicted.

The IPCC 2007 (AR4) report states:

“For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.”

[IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. WGI, The Physical Science Basis. Page 12, citing chapters 10.3 & 10.7 of the main report.]

Thirteen years of the two decade period since the IPCC 2007 ‘prediction’ have now passed. According to UAH_TLT the warming rate over that period has been +0.32 ±0.30 °C/decade (2σ). UAH is the coolest of all the global temperature data sets over that time, yet even it shows statistically significant warming since 2007 and at a rate considerably higher than the IPCC’s 2007 estimate.

In what sense can it be claimed that the observed warming rate has remained “far lower than predicted”? In all cases it has been considerably higher than the IPCC’s 2007 projection so far.

American Mongrel
January 9, 2020 7:55 am

+0.32 ±0.30?
Meaning warming was somewhere between 3 times worse than expected or didnt happen at all? SCIENCE!!

Reply to  American Mongrel
January 10, 2020 2:02 am

+0.32 C/dec being the ‘best estimate’ trend in UAH_TLT, compared to the +0.20 C/dec best estimate projected by the IPCC in 2007. UAH’s best estimate of the warming rate since 2007 is therefore more than +0.12 C/dec faster than that which the IPCC projected. The claim that “the warming rate remained far lower than predicted” is demonstrably false.

Ferdinand Berfel
January 9, 2020 9:37 am

I’m 80yo and the only climate change I’ve ever experienced in my life is when I moved from New Jersey to Arizona. I’ll believe that climate change is a serious problem when the people who keep telling me climate change is a serious problem, start acting like climate change is a serious problem themselves.

Verified by MonsterInsights