Why I Am a Climate Realist

by Vijay Jayaraj

In 2008, I was in my early 20s and about to complete my undergraduate degree in engineering. Despite being in a remote part of Asia with no Internet facility—except for the Internet cafes—the news surrounding global warming still managed to reach most of us.

Being an ardent lover of the environment and passionate about conservation, I decided to pursue a career in environmental sciences, especially given the “rising problem” of global warming.

Al Gore’s 2006 climate documentary An Inconvenient Truth made global warming an extremely popular topic in those years all over the world.

Like millions of others, I trusted Gore’s predictions. I had no reason to doubt them. The thought of global climate doomsday and the call to avert it struck a chord with my passion for nature and conservation.

Hence, I pursued my graduate studies at one of the world’s leading universities for climate studies, the University of East Anglia in the UK. The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) there is responsible—along with the Hadley Centre—for developing global temperature datasets, known as HadCRUT datasets.

But my perceptions about global warming and the science surrounding it were about to be shaken. As I was attending one of my lectures, we received an email from the University asking us to change our email passwords immediately.

A week later that I understood that the University’s email system had been breached, and email content scientists from the CRU leaked to the public. The event is infamously known as “Climategate.”

It took me a few more years before I completely understood the implications of that email leak. Email exchanges between scientists from the CRU and other universities revealed a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the present warming and make it appear unprecedented.

Ross McKitrick in “Understanding the Climategate Inquiries” showed how the evidence proves that “The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and WMO [World Meteorological Organization] reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers.”

Besides, upon foreseeing inquiries coming their way, “The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work.”

McKitrick noted that Phil Jones—one of the scientists from CRU—admitted to deleting emails, in a likely attempt to prevent disclosure of information subject to freedom of information laws, and had asked his colleagues to do the same.

Numerous enquiries and boards investigated the leak and declared the scientists not guilty. In two detailed, assiduously documented book-length analyses, Andrew Montford, author of the climate books Hiding the Decline and The Hockey Stick Illusion, summarized his findings in a shorter paper: “the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were rushed, cursory and largely unpersuasive.”

Commenting on Climategate, Andrew Turnbull, who served as the Permanent Secretary of Environment Department (1994–1998) and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury (1998–2002) in the United Kingdom, said, “Only if the integrity of the science is reestablished and the strengths and weaknesses of the main propositions are acknowledged will there be the basis of trust with the public that policymakers need.”

But that integrity was never reestablished.

For example, the work of the very same scientists involved in climategate is treated as the ultimate standard of climate science. Some of them, like Michael Mann, are among the most influential people in the IPCC and chart the climate blueprint for policymakers, whose policies then are implemented in many nations.

The Climategate episode certainly made me question whether the global warming was as dangerous as it is made up to be.

The answer to my question trickled in slowly over a number of years. Evidence began to emerge that scientists acknowledged a large gap between the actual observed real-world temperature datasets (from satellites) and those temperature predictions from computer climate models.

While these differences may not prove the allegations against the Climategate scientists, they do confirm us about one thing: the computer climate models exaggerate the future warming rate due to their high sensitivity to carbon dioxide emissions. As a result, the models continue to show an excessive and unreal warming rate for future decades.

Despite plenty of evidence, the IPCC continues to use these faulty model predictions to inform the public and policymakers about future changes in temperature.

A steady stream of scientific studies has documented the evidence for lack of dangerous warming—IPCC’s level of warming based on fifth- and sixth-generation (CMIP5 and CMIP6) models and the apparent absence of climate-induced ecological collapse.

In 2020 alone, over 400 peer-reviewed scientific papers took up a skeptical position on climate alarmism. These papers—and hundreds from previous years—address various issues related to climate change, including problems with climate change observation, climate reconstructions, lack of anthropogenic/CO2 signal in sea-level rise, natural mechanisms that drive climate change (solar influence on climate, ocean circulations, cloud climate influence, ice sheet melting in high geothermal heat flux areas), hydrological trends that do not follow modeled expectations, the fact that corals thrive in warm, high-CO2 environments, elevated CO2 and higher crop yields, no increasing trends in intense hurricanes and drought frequency, the myth of mass extinctions due to global cooling, etc.

Academia is filled with scientific literature that contradicts the position of those who believe climate change is unprecedented.

Also, during the course of the last decade, it became apparent that most of Al Gore’s claims in his 2006 documentary were false. Contrary to his claims, polar bear populations remained steady, the Arctic did not become ice free during the summer of 2014, and storms did not get stronger due to global warming.

In simple words, Gore misled the world and promoted falsehood as science, and he continues to do so while profiting from a renewable industry that is sold as the cure for global warming. Yet, he himself generates carbon dioxide emissions and many times higher than an average family’s.

So, not only are the predictions of models are wrong, but also the interpretations of climate data and the propaganda of a climate doomsday were also wrong.

Today, we know the modern warming rate is not unprecedented. Warming of such magnitude has happened twice within the past 2000 years. Further, ice at both poles is at historic highs, even compared with the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.

Besides, there has been no increase in extreme weather events due to climate change and the loss of lives due to environmental disasters has drastically reduced during the last 100 years.

So, I am a climate realist. I acknowledge that there has been a gradual increase in global average temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. I acknowledge that climate change can happen in both ways—warming and cooling. I do understand that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases could have positively contributed to the warming from mid-20th century onwards.

I also acknowledge that warming and the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide that has contributed to it have actually helped society. The current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, nearly 50 percent higher than in the 17th century, and the warming—which has occurred chiefly in winter, in higher latitudes and altitudes, and at night, thus raising cold temperatures but with little effect on hot temperatures—have actually resulted in optimal conditions for global plant growth, thus aiding in the flourishing of the agricultural sector.

The Bengal tiger populations have bounced back, and polar bear populations are steady, thanks to conservation efforts. Forest area in Europe is increasing every year, and countries are planting tree saplings at a record rate. Life expectancy has reached all-time highs in many countries, and more people are constantly pulled out of extreme poverty every year (although business lockdowns to fight COVID-19 threaten to reverse that trend). Access to freshwater has improved and human productivity has increased drastically.

So, there is no actual climate emergency. Instead, what we have celebrities, activists, un-elected political bodies like the UN, and even some climate scientists religiously promoting a popular doomsday belief.

The models do not know the future, and neither do the Climategate scientists. But an exaggerated view of future warming provides the ideal background for anti-carbon-based fuels policies that will undermine the economic well-being of every society in the world. We must not allow that.

Be a climate realist.

Vijay Jayaraj (M.Sc., Environmental Science, University of East Anglia, England), is a Research Contributor for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and resides in New Delhi, India.

4.8 89 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 18, 2021 6:05 am

Good fer you VJ!

Ron Long
February 18, 2021 6:15 am

Vijay, what a long path you traveled to arrive at a good destination. Us geologists, especially those trained in sequence stratigraphy, see tremendous climate variations preserved in the geologic record, stating about 600 million years ago and continuing. The CAGW crowd is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to advance their agenda, which is control and wealth redistribution. Keep up the good work.

Ian Magness
Reply to  Ron Long
February 18, 2021 7:30 am

Spot on Ron.

Clyde X
Reply to  Ron Long
February 18, 2021 8:02 am

I feel that the agenda of the “climate research scientists” is really quite simple; keep those sweet research dollars flowing.

Kai Dahlqvist
Reply to  Ron Long
February 18, 2021 11:56 am

I disagree on the “wealth redistribution” I think it is mostly “to me distribution!”. Nothing of this distribution i targeting poor people in rich or poor countries.

alastair gray
Reply to  Ron Long
February 18, 2021 1:17 pm

Nice to see that we wail from the same minaret. How about yhe rest of your classmates VJ Do they have similar doubts and if so do they just keep quiet in order to further their careers

Reply to  Ron Long
February 18, 2021 9:23 pm

“The CAGW crowd is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to advance their agenda, which is control and wealth redistribution”.

They are eftists. They can’t help themselves. Instincts. Like an outdoors cat that kills birds even when not hungry.

February 18, 2021 6:15 am

“Like millions of others, I trusted Gore’s predictions. I had no reason to doubt them.”

How about, they were coming from a politician?

Reply to  AARGH63
February 18, 2021 6:39 am

I certainly can’t speak for Vijay but Gore is different to the world than he is to Americans. Americans know gore as a bloviating politician. The rest of the world knows him as yet another bloviating American in an expensive suit. His political career was not well known outside of America.

Reply to  leowaj
February 19, 2021 9:42 am

He was a handful of ballots from becoming president of the USA.

Reply to  AARGH63
February 18, 2021 6:41 am

If Vijay were residing in the USA, I am sure that knowledge of Algore’s record would have warned him to view him (Gore) with skepticism.

Stephen Philbrick
Reply to  Kpar
February 18, 2021 7:01 am

Only if he were paying attention (which seems likely in his case.) You know that Gore can’t be trusted, I know that, but there are still millions in this country who think he made sense. There’s still work to do (Thank-you Anthony).

Gregory Woods
Reply to  AARGH63
February 18, 2021 9:43 am

At that time I was essentially unaware of ‘global warming’. But I did, and still do, follow US politics and politians and I had already arrived at an extremely negative viewpoint of Mr. Gore. So, I believe that it was Big Al that really turned me into a climate realist. Of course there were other factors, like climate having changed for some billions of years.

Reply to  AARGH63
February 18, 2021 10:09 am

When Al Gore said he “invented the internet” was all the proof anyone with the slightest bit of common sense needed to not trust Al Gore.

Reply to  AARGH63
February 18, 2021 9:29 pm

I’m worried now about my investment in Al Gore’s planned Manhattan Gondola Line, intended to carry Wall Street executives to work in lower Manhattan when the streets are flooded from rising seas from climate change.

I used my life savings ($79.95) to buy a one percent share. I had been a little concerned after finding out that Al sold 1,352 one percent shares in his SPAC (Special Purpose Acquisition Company), but now I am really worried that the science was not settled, as Al “the climate blimp” Gore promised in the prospectus.

February 18, 2021 6:18 am

My conversion was rather sudden. Dr. Mann tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) with his, now self admitted by adverse inference, fraudulent hockey stick.

More recently, by failing to take the stand and submit himself to cross examination in the Ball case, he has demonstrated that the evidence does not support him and he does belong in ‘state pen’ not Penn State.

If ‘they’ have to stoop to fraud to prove that global warming is a thing, global warming isn’t a thing.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 10:05 am

Spot on. Sadly, too few people have taken notice of Dr. Ball’s win in BC Supreme Court. They can’t seem to grasp the importance of why the Judge ruled as he did and what transpired to precipitate that ruling. The media just brushed it off and the AGW propagandists reworked the narrativ to suit themselves (in much the same way the media played Trump’s Muller inquiry acquittal).

Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 6:26 am

Simply ‘splain how/why I am wrong?

1) Without the atmos/albedo the earth becomes much like the moon which contradicts greenhouse theory. Yes or no?

2) Where do the GHGs get the warming energy that they trap/absorb/intercept/delay whatevah and re-emit?

I have demonstrated they can’t get it from the surface upwelling as a BB, so, what’s your explanation?

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 6:48 am

Are you forgetting about the most prominent heat trapping element, water vapor?

George Tomaich
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 6:55 am

Nick: Read the seminal paper by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary temperature Model.” It is a paradigm shift away from GHGs to a more elegant explanation of the atmospheric and solar drivers of climate, not only on earth but holds true for other celestial bodies in our solar system.

Reply to  George Tomaich
February 22, 2021 10:34 pm

Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller “New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary temperature Model.” 
Thanks for that. Others have previously pointed to the significance of compression heating through adiabatic processes, especially on Venus, but this adds further explanation i.e. pressure is a component of the internal kinetic energy of a gas, whereas temperature is merely a physical manifestation of that energy. This pressure-induced thermal enhancement is the product of countless simultaneous adiabatic processes continuously operating in the free atmosphere.
They also make the point that radiant-heat trapping by freely convective gases has NEVER been demonstrated experimentally.
Still ploughing through the the paper but a very interesting read indeed.

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 7:37 am

Answers to 1 and 2:
1) Albedo of moon is about 0.13. Albedo of Earth varies from .06 for oceans to .80 for clouds , to the same as the moon for continental deserts. This has nothing to do with radiative gases, only with how much sunlight is reflected. So yes or no is not applicable.
2) Sun warms the surface every day. If the atmosphere gets warmer, the view of cold outer space from the ground is reduced, and not as much heat leaves the surface. This is the Stephan-Boltzmann equation at work Q=k x [Tsurf^4-Tsky^4]. Do some calcs yourself with Tsky increasing by a degree. Since the input from the Sun is pretty constant, the surface gets a little warmer the next day. The sun provides the additional warming energy.

But a word of caution is in order. Back radiation from CO2 molecules in the air is on the order of 58 W/sq.M out of the total 330 or so back radiation. But doubling of CO2 only increases the 58 to 61 W/sq.M or thereabouts. Meanwhile a degree of surface warming over the ocean puts 7% more water vapor into the air, which attempts to cause 3.5% more clouds, on a moist air up equal descending dry air approximation. This almost exactly causes the same sunlight reflection back to space as whatever heating caused the degree increase. So CO2 is a bit player…cloud generation by water vapor controls the planet temperature except for a little local reversal where increased water vapor increases back radiation a little before the water vapour concentration is high enough for clouds to form and start locally reflecting 60-80% of sunlight back into space. That’s 200 W/sq.M reflected, not some minor 2 watt back-radiated stuff.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 18, 2021 8:05 am

So CO2 is a bit player…

Most actual climate physicists, even the alarmists, would agree that CO2 by itself won’t produce alarming warming.

The way they get the alarming warming is by postulating positive feedback. The CO2 causes a little warming which causes a bit more evaporation which causes even more warming and so forth.

The feedback theory predicts a tropospheric hotspot. The evidence is that the hotspot doesn’t exist. link

There’s no evidence the extra evaporation is occurring. Therefore there’s no positive feedback. Therefore any global warming will be small and mostly beneficial.

Bill Everett
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 8:36 am

In 1980 the atmospheric CO2 level was 338ppm and in 2019 it was 410ppm, an increase of 72 ppm over 39 years. Using five percent as the level of human contribution, that contribution was 17ppm in 1980 and 21ppm in 2019. This was an increase of only 4ppm in 39 years. Thus the annual human CO2 contribution was about one tenth of one ppm over the 39 years. If my calculations are correct then it is illogical to argue that human activity has had any meaningful impact upon global temperature or climate. It also raises the question: what was the cause of the other 68ppm of CO2 level increase?

Reply to  Bill Everett
February 18, 2021 10:40 am

Changing the temperature of the deep ocean by 0.1 C would change the solubility of CO2 enough to explain the whole increase.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 2:44 pm

Do you have any idea how much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the deep ocean by 0.1C? And where would that energy come from?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 19, 2021 3:35 am

theres an awful lot of undersea thermal vents n volcanos

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Bill Everett
February 18, 2021 2:04 pm

You calculations are completely wrong. Humans are responsible for roughly 200% of the increase in CO2 over the time period you mention (1980-2019). Every year human activity emits enough CO2 to raise atmospheric concentrations by about 6ppm while actual atmospheric concentrations increase by about 3ppm. So there is no doubt that humans are responsible for all of the recent increase in CO2.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 2:42 pm

What utter gibberish you fools write (and apparently believe). The increase in CO2 is a measurable amount and has been tracked using the Keeling Curve. Starting in the ’50s when there were approx. 280 ppm to the present at ~ 415 ppm constitutes 100% of the CO2 increase. Regardless of the time period the increase will still be 100%.

There is absolutely no evidence that humans are responsible for more than a fraction of that increase, let alone 100%. In any even, so what? CO2 isn’t warming the planet and the increase is having a beneficial effect.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 18, 2021 3:03 pm

There are accurate estimates of how much CO2 is produced every year as a result of human activities. And currently that figure is about double the amount by which CO2 increases every year. If you want to claim that humans aren’t responsible for that increase you need to find a sink that only responds to CO2 produced by humans as well as another source of CO2 that would give you the increase.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 3:46 pm

How are there accurate estimates of the CO2 produced by the prodigious amount of CO2 producing human actions constantly occurring?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 4:27 pm

There are accurate estimates of how much CO2 is produced every year as a result of human activities.

Yep … and it amounts to ~3% of the total. The rate at which that accumulates (the half life) is in a great deal of dispute. Since your “team” notoriously falsify data and publish fraudulent science as matter of policy, it’s unlikely your sources are accurate.

And currently that figure is about double the amount by which CO2 increases every year.

There are no “accurate estimates” of how much CO2 might have increased during that period without any human contribution. There is no possible way to determine that. The planet was warming, post LIA, causing CO2 to be released from warming oceans and many other sinks.

Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t even understand what “percent” means, let alone the complexities of the climatic relationship to the carbon cycle.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 18, 2021 5:15 pm

I am not sure what you mean by “~3%” of the total. Current CO2 levels can be found at
which shows that over the past year CO2 have increased by nearly 2ppm to 415ppm. This is roughly a 0.5% increase which is significantly less than “~3% of the total”.

In 2019 for example human related activities produced
36.81bn tonnes of CO2 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-fossil-fuel-emissions-up-zero-point-six-per-cent-in-2019-due-to-china)
and a rough conversion factor is that
1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide
so in 2019 human activities should have caused CO2 levels to rise by about 5 ppm when in fact they rose by about 3ppm.

So again human emissions did not amount to ~3% of the total increase. Rather human emissions amounted to about 200% of the total increase with natural sinks taking up about 50% of human emissions and the atmosphere absorbing the rest.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 5:51 pm

I am not sure what you mean by “~3%” of the total.

The symbol “~” customarily means approximate. In other words the human contribution is approximately 3% of the total. Numbers vary. (see Bill Everett, below) NOAA is notorious for inventing whatever the government wants people to hear.

which shows that over the past year CO2 have increased by nearly 2ppm to 415ppm. This is roughly a 0.5% increase which is significantly less than “~3% of the total”.

That isn’t how the human contribution would be calculated. It’s just rubbish.

so in 2019 human activities should have caused CO2 levels to rise by about 5 ppm when in fact they rose by about 3ppm.

I can now understand why you’re so confused about climate science and the reason the AGW fraud is so prevalent. You simply pull numbers out of your fundamental orifice. That paragraph was a perfect example of petitio principii.

I never said that “human emissions amounted to ~3% of the total increase“. You need to learn how to read. That’s your second error … bad references and atrocious reading skills (a common problem with ‘warmists’).

I guess my explaining that nothing can exceed 100% of a total didn’t work. A total = 100%. Please feel free to respond again once you’ve graduated from middle school. I’ll be happy to further your education.

Last edited 1 year ago by Rory Forbes
Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 18, 2021 6:17 pm

Hi Rory,
Can you explain what you mean by “~3% of the total”
Total what? The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
And can you provide any evidence for the numbers?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 6:49 pm

The context of the discussion clearly indicates that the ~3% is the human contribution to the total of all CO2 sources annually. Bill Everett has provided a range …. from EPA to IPCC. I’m more conservative.

The natural cycle of carbon in the atmosphere has been handling 750 gigatons of CO2 every year (Google) ~5%. You claim the human contribution is “36.81bn tonnes of CO2” … Google claims 35. Google likely exaggerates the highest ‘Warmist’ estimates.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 20, 2021 8:13 am

How can you claim any significant level of accuracy for your claims. We humans have been pathetically poor at measuring CO2 levels around the globe. We have relied on a single measuring site for the entire planet. Do you think the ground level CO2 level is the same in the Southwest portion of Arizona as it is in the middle of the Smokey Mountains National Forest?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 5:57 pm

Estimates are estimates, by definition not accurate

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 6:27 pm

The evolution of atmospheric CO2 is explained in Dr. Ed. Berry’s book Climate Miracle. Briefly: Anthropogenic CO2 is identical to natural CO2 and must move through the atmosphere to natural sinks as a percentage of the natural sources. It is about 5% of the natural sources but that is a guess with much uncertainty. The addition of human sourced CO2 is small enough that it doesn’t effect the rate of rise outside its uncertainty. This information has not been reasonably refuted and turns the activists’ arguments upside down. Also see Murray Salby and Hermann Harde for works that support Berry’s book and papers.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  DMA
February 18, 2021 6:39 pm

Firstly the isotope ratios in anthropogenic CO2 is different from natural CO2 since it comes from burning fossilised sources which are millions of years old. So you can track fossil fuel derived CO2 in the atmosphere. And while human sources of CO2 are small compared to natural sources they are significantly larger than the observed rise in CO2 levels.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 18, 2021 6:57 pm

I am not talking about the percentage increase but the amount of emitted CO2 as a percentage of the total increase. Suppose I gave you 6 apple while at the same time somebody stole 3 apples. You will have 3 more apples than at the beginning but I would have given you 200% of your increase in apples.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 8:24 pm

I am not talking about the percentage increase but the amount of emitted CO2 as a percentage of the total increase.

It has already been pointed out to you that those quantities are in considerable controversy and you are relying on authorities that I doubt many people here would accept as valid.

Suppose I gave you 6 apple while at the same time somebody stole 3 apples.You will have 3 more apples than at the beginning but I would have given you 200% of your increase in apples.

I know what you’re attempting to get across but it’s needlessly complicated and circumloquacious sophistry. Your example isn’t even a comparative analogy to this discussion. Whenever people use percent incorrectly, it’s usually intended to be hyperbolic.

You need to stop digging. You’re in way over your head.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 4:28 pm

Izaak, According to the EPA the human contribution to global CO2 level is 3.75 percent of that level. According to the IPCC it is five percent of the level. Where did you get your information?

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 4:37 pm

Izaak, One more thought. The more I see of the CO2 mapping done with data from the new CO2 measuring satellite the more I think that the actual source of the increased global CO2 level is the increased global vegetation, especially broad leaf vegetation.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 5:40 pm

The other possibility is that the human contribution is irrelevant. It could be that atmospheric CO2 is completely governed by the oceans.

This article refers to a study showing deep ocean warming. We don’t actually know how much the deep ocean has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA).

The solubility of CO2, at the pressures that prevail in the deep ocean, is almost entirely determined by temperature.

So, the deep ocean has warmed. The solubility of CO2 has decreased. Some CO2 has been driven to shallower depths and thence to the atmosphere. Exactly how much is beyond my pay grade. 🙂 As I pointed out before, a 0.1 C increase in deep ocean temperatures would change the solubility of CO2 enough to explain the entire increase in atmospheric CO2.

Noting that humans have generated a lot of CO2 doesn’t actually prove anything given the physics of the situation. It’s quite possible the deep ocean has warmed 0.1 C since the end of the LIA.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 6:01 pm

Noting that humans have generated a lot of CO2 doesn’t actually prove anything given the physics of the situation.

Exactly, commieBob. The complexities of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (including the oceans) cannot be brushed off with a bit of deductive reasoning and a few post hoc ergo propter hoc assumptions. Logical fallacies might be the mainstay of the media, the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and Democrat “science” advisors, but it still doesn’t hold water in actual science.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 6:13 pm

Suppose that your claim was true and that the temperature change of the ocean was sufficient to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2. What then is happening to all of the CO2 emitted by humans which is also more than enough to explain the rise in atmospheric CO2. Not only that we know from isotope analysis that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning fossil fuels.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 6:56 pm

Everything you wrote @ February 18, 2021 6:13 pm is conjecture based upon over 30 years of logical fallacies bad science, corrupted data, political expedience, monetary expedience, failed models, fraud and gross malfeasance on the part of numerous governments relying on corrupt UN information via the IPCC.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 7:12 pm

And yet, if humans hadn’t emitted a bunch of CO2 the level of atmospheric CO2 would be close to the same.

Think how a buffered solution works. It’s the same idea. Instead of acids and bases, there is the vast quantity of CO2 in the ocean that dwarfs that in the atmosphere.

Bill Everett
Reply to  commieBob
February 18, 2021 7:43 pm

commieBob, Why is it then that the highest levels of CO2 shown on the satellite mapping of the globe coincide with the locations of the highest levels of vegetation whereas the area of the ocean surface is everywhere at a lower CO2 level?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bill Everett
February 18, 2021 8:38 pm

“In 1957 Dave Keeling, who was the first to make accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, chose the site high up on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano because he wanted to measure CO2 in air masses that would be representative of much of the Northern Hemisphere, and, hopefully, the globe.”

Unfortunately it’s just a guess, now used as the ‘gold standard‘ to attribute CO2 as a “well mixed gas” with a current atmospheric concentration of ~415 ppm. However, CO2 is far from well mixed, as you’ve pointed out. Interestingly, the basic premise used to calculate the greenhouse effect relies on CO2 being well mixed (which it isn’t) and the Earth being a planar “black body” (which IT isn’t). Then it wanders off into “all things being equal” or some such.

It’s all just wishful thinking and bad conjecture, yet apparently very educated people argue its fine points endlessly.

Reply to  Bill Everett
February 19, 2021 6:56 am

That’s actually consistent with the idea of the ocean regulating the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Richard Page
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 11:33 pm

Absolute tosh Izaak – there is no difference whatsoever between CO2 isotopes released from fossil fuels and other sources. The incorrect and foolish notion that you can track fossil fuel isotopes in the atmosphere has been debunked completely. There is no ‘fossil fuel fingerprint’ and absolutely no way to tell what sourced CO2 isotopes – the sources you are using are making wild and unfounded guesses to try to support their agenda.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 19, 2021 1:16 am

I would recommend you read the paper of Wijngaarden & Happer.
It’s of little relevance what the source of the CO2 is. The absorption bands of CO2 (and water, in case you would like to invoke a hypothetical positive feedback) are completely saturated. Even a doubling of CO2 will have practically no effect on Earth’s climate for that very reason. End of the discussion, quod erat demonstrandum.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 19, 2021 6:59 am

There is an internet posting of a paper by NASA describing a Finnish study which used satellite data to map the location and level of the “excess” CO2 generated by human activity. The map of the United States shows that the locations of large areas of human activity such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas-Fort Worth, Chicago, Cleveland and more show little if any presence of “excess” CO2. Conversely, there is a marked consistency between the presence of “excess” CO2 and the location of extensive broadleaf vegetation, especially the forests of the Appalachian mountain chain from Georgia to Maine.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 9:38 pm

You are correct, Izzy, about the increase of CO2 being man made — there are no other logical explanations. … Athough we might differ on whether the added CO2 is bad news, or good news. Based on real science, and 45 years of experience with actual global warming (experienced by seven billion people), I favor a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Bill Everett
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 19, 2021 7:08 am

I think that eventually we are going to wake up to the presence of the link between the rise in the broadleaf vegetation level and the rise in the CO2 level.

Jon R
Reply to  DMacKenzie
February 18, 2021 7:13 pm

Ya back in the day that was all considered common knowledge, now it gets you kicked off social media.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 10:18 am

Simply ‘splain how/why I am wrong?

You’re wrong because you’re not asking the right questions and the questions you are asking are not good ones. Therefore, apart from being unanswerable, will not lead to any insight about Earth or the GHE.

You’ve placed yourself in a dilemma … ‘if you’re trying to get to that destination, you shouldn’t have started from where you did.’

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
February 18, 2021 7:27 pm

One single chart that anyone can appreciate:
comment image
Warmest 30C coldest -2C. Take the good distribution of water over the globe with sea ice line at -2C for both poles almost the same length as the equatorial oceans at 30C and the 97% of the available global surface heat in the ocean mixed layer it is easy to derive an average global surface temperature of 14C – simply the arithmetic average of the two possible extremes.

The “greenhouse effect” is a fantasy. It comes from people sitting at desks using computers rather then getting outside and observing what is about them.

February 18, 2021 6:53 am

I am a bit puzzled by the Environmental Science for the Stewardship of Creation .
Let’s assume this is a Creation’s goldilocks planet and we are stewards of it, hence we have to take care of the ‘just right’ stuff….
Say, I’m a tadpole in a small pond, I might think it’s a goldilocks just right pond, and I take a stewardship of it, but it happened to be a drought year and before I turn into a frog, my pond has gone and me with it.
We all can be climate realist, climate skeptic or climate alarmist (any of these can be anything), I am all of these, I think and believe that climate change is real, I’m skeptical of many climate related statements from wherever they come from and I’m global cooling alarmist.
Simply, nature will do what is meant to do, not much we can do about it except to prepare and face consequences. Texas comes to mind, they have all three, but were caught unprepared. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Vuk
Reply to  Vuk
February 18, 2021 8:15 am

Only President Biden can decide who is a climate realist. Expect an executive order soon.

Dan M
Reply to  Vuk
February 18, 2021 10:45 am

“Stewardship of Creation” is not about doing things that are impossible, such as controlling the climate, or saving every frog whose pond dries up during a drought. It’s about exercising our responsibilities to both our fellow man and nature. The Cornwall Alliance believes, as I do, that God created humanity in his own image, to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and gave humanity stewardship over the earth to develop it as well as care for it and preserve its ecosystems. It’s a biblically based Judeo-Christian environmental ethic.
You can agree or disagree with such principles and debate over their applications, but ultimately you should ask the question, “what philosophically grounds the basis of my own stance which demands truthful reporting of scientific data and vigorous debate over its interpretation and the resulting public policies?”

Reply to  Dan M
February 18, 2021 11:30 am

Hi Dan,
Human mind is free to believe in whatever it chooses; Creation or Big Bang, dark matter and dark energy, multiverse or hologram universe or the CO2 anthropocentric catastrophe. I of my own free will chose not to believe in any of the above. If Darwin was right humans would not rapidly advance while the rest of primates stagnated. Science as we know it at this moment in time has no definitive answer to many of profound questions.

Kevin kilty
February 18, 2021 7:12 am

It is difficult to imagine how a board of inquiry could exonerate people with e-mail evidence in hand of a conspiracy to thwart FOI requests, but the awful truth is that boards of inquiry are often, perhaps always, formed as a CYA attempt.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 18, 2021 7:45 am

It is called a whitewash.
Very common when the people doing the investigating are as complicit as those whom they are investigating.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 18, 2021 10:24 am

They didn’t need to do much of a whitewash because once the statute of limitations had passed on the serious stuff they could just issue hollow reprimands for the rest.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Kevin kilty
February 18, 2021 10:23 am

The simple truth of the “climategate” scandal was something no one is mentioning. There was no question of obvious fraud and malfeasance. The authorities merely dragged their feet until the statute of limitations had passed for all the serious stuff and then moved on to the trivia.

Neo Conscious
February 18, 2021 7:16 am

Yes, we need more people like Vijay exposing fraud and injecting realism into debates about environmental issues. Our biggest problem is that progressives are exploiting normal concern for the environment in order to advance their Marxist agenda, and they are ruthless and dishonest people intent on dominating our cultural and political institutions.

February 18, 2021 7:16 am

The El Nino of 1998 got me interested in this subject. Green deciduous trees in Oshkosh Wi in October were something I’d never seen before. Maybe, I thought, there is something to this global warming hypothesis. I read through literally thousands of abstracts and hundreds of papers on the subject and came to these conclusions.

1. The warming since the industrial revolution is probably real

2. The atmospheric CO2 levels are rising.

3. There was insufficient data to say that one causes the other.

4. I rejected the idea that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is “bad”. I read dozens of studies on how plants respond to increased atmospheric CO2 and concluded that more CO2 likely does more good than harm.

5. I rejected the idea that slightly higher temperatures in the 20 to 60 degree N latitudes are a bad thing, and that scenarios of weather catasrophes and droughts were mostly arm-waving spectulation.

6 At the time I couldn’t time I couldn’t rule out the idea that rising CO2 might be desorption from oceans because of higher temperatures. Since then I’ve decided that fossil fuel use has contributed to the rise in CO2, but I go back to point 4. It probably does more good than harm.

So, I have been a climate realist since 1999.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Jpatrick
February 18, 2021 7:48 am

Rising CO2 does no harm, and is all good.
Name something bad about the building block of the entire biosphere increasing from two and a half one hundredths to just over four one hundredths of one percent of dry air?
Just one thing.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 18, 2021 8:28 am

What is impossible for many to wrap their heads around is that what the alarmists say is literally the exact opposite of the truth.
They are not kind of wrong, or somewhat incorrect, or making a mountain out of a molehill.
They have inverted reality and are selling pure malarkey to the world, and most people are buying it.
Large numbers of people think that a planet which is in an ice age, which has huge sections perpetually frozen to temps that are impossible for life to survive, and which has far larger sections cold enough to to be rapidly lethal over nearly half of the year, ought to be scared to death about the average temperature increasing by tenths of a degree.
Even though life goes right on keeping on even while temperatures swing by several tens of degrees every day, and well over a hundred degrees in a given location over a period of months and sometimes weeks, and by well over 150° in the course of a year in an area like the US, all with no disruption whatsoever to a vast profusion of living creatures.
People save all the money they can scrape together to go someplace where it is hot, even if it is only for a few days of the year.
Even the hottest and driest deserts team with life, and adding some occasional rain to such places causes a eye popping burst of vitality that is a grand spectacle.
A random naked person with some water can walk out of the center of the hottest and largest deserts on Earth, but even a team of well equipped survivor types could not walk out of a polar region to safety.
The polar wastelands are a lifeless frozen hell of perpetual unsurvivability.
The onset of the current ice age, that resulted in such vast wastelands, scrubbed entire continents of what had been a profusion of life, and killed off every last living thing and then scraped the land clean down to solid bedrock.
8000 years ago, when the global average surface temperature was far higher than the levels we are falsely (and ludicrously) told are unsurvivable for life on Earth, the planet was in fact undergoing a period known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Why was it called that?
Because prior to the current era of science by obscene lies told for profit, it was clearly recognizable as the most hospitable era in hundreds of thousands of years.
The Sahara Desert itself was a verdant grassland dotted with open water and forested areas, and crisscrossed with streams and rivers.
And that was even with the feedstock of the biosphere at dangerously low levels.
Every single detail in the climate alarmist propaganda handbag is a watery gruel of outright lies.
Warmth is life, and cold is death.
But people will believe shit is shinola and monkey puke is apple pie if an “expert” tells them it is.

There is no place on Earth that heat will kill a healthy person:
Badwater Ultramarathon – Wikipedia

Death Valley becomes a green oasis by adding some water: The golf course at Furnace Creek is one of the greenest place you have ever seen:
1135-000397.jpg (620×300) (teeoff.com)

This tweet shows two pictures…one is one of the warmest places on Earth, the other one of the coldest.
Which looks better?

Hmm, will pictures post directly on this new site?

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Jim Whelan
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
February 19, 2021 8:20 pm

I like to note that the wettest places on Earth (tropical rain forests) are among the warmest. And the driest place on earth (Antarctic highlands) is the coldest.

Reply to  Jpatrick
February 18, 2021 9:45 pm

You are hereby banned from the internet for one week for including far too much common sense in one comment. That is a violation of Internet Rule 3b. The internet was intended for people to argue about subjects they barely understand, and insult people who disagree with them. That was the clear message in Al Gore’s best selling 1990 book: “Why I Invented the Internet”, which I just finished reading last week.

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 19, 2021 6:42 pm

You might be surprised at how right you are. I have been kicked off FB for about 1 yr, and Twitter will not let me make an account. Both are on fire with evil, so it’s not like I regret it or anything.

February 18, 2021 7:28 am

It has been a long trip. I was not quite a dyed in the wool Warmer back in the 80’s. I hate to admit it but I even supported Gore for president in 88. Yet by Rio the crack were forming and the last nail was Dr Mann’s hockey stick farce with his disappeared, reappeared and then disappeared again MWP. Staying the course since then has been and exercise in tolerating insult and abuse but its worth it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Scott
February 18, 2021 10:44 am

Similarly, for me it was my concern (back when we were told it was global cooling we needed to fear) that started my research. The more I read, the more it was clear we were being gas-lighted for political reasons. There is no science basis for any of it.

February 18, 2021 7:33 am

Excellent essay. Thank you sir.

One thing I’m not sure about is the ice at both poles being at historic highs. Certainly not Arctic sea ice extent in the satellite era, although it does appear to be stabilizing. Maybe some clarification here is warranted – ice volume, time-frame?

Reply to  philincalifornia
February 18, 2021 2:43 pm

As the time series plots on this site demonstrate, the Arctic and global sea ice coverage has been decreasing for several decades. Ergo, the ice coverage cannot be at historic highs.

Reply to  pnmnm
February 18, 2021 7:17 pm

Thank you, yes. Someone even gave me a down vote for telling the truth. Maybe it was Griff? The Antarctic summer sea ice extent was behaving badly – a satellite-era max in 2014 and then a satellite-era min in 2017. Seemed like some kind of instrumentation problem to me. Whatever, Antarctica is pretty much at stable levels and the Arctic seems to be at or close to the bottom of a sine curve, starting around 2007. No surprise if it’s governed by the AMO flip.

February 18, 2021 7:42 am

This is a path familiar to many of us. The problem is, how do we get politicians, MSM and industrialists to even start to consider our ideas?

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 18, 2021 7:57 am

You wont, all you will achieve is 25/30 years of frustration trying, let it go theres nothing you can do or say you have no power and there is better things to do in life .

Last edited 1 year ago by Gary Ashe
Reply to  Gary Ashe
February 18, 2021 9:13 am

BLM may be a surprising ally. To them Climate “Science” is a white supremacist myth that prevents advancement of PoC around the world. Will they realize that soon?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 18, 2021 10:48 am

It’s the politicians and MSM who are pushing the AGW narrative, each for their own reasons.

Consider what H.L. Mencken said …

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

Reply to  Rory Forbes
February 18, 2021 9:50 pm

I updated that Mencken quote on my climate science blog:

“The urge to save humanity
from harmless carbon dioxide
is a socialist false front
for their urge to rule.”
— The Honest Global Warming Chart Blog

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 18, 2021 10:36 pm

Clever aphorism! It’s a fundamental part of Marxist doctrine how to use fortuitous calamities, like global – cooling/warming/climate change,Covid-19 to further the advancement of socialism towards the eventual communist conclusion and takeover. 2020 was a perfect opportunity to watch post modern history utilizing many factors at once – a presidential election and invented systemic racism (Marxist BLM) were all thrown in for good measure.

Gary Ashe
February 18, 2021 7:54 am

It’s all post modernist bollocks VJ have a nice life son.

Bruce Cobb
February 18, 2021 8:12 am

I think the issue of “trusting Al Gore” is a bit of a red herring. Back then, unless you had a reason to suspect something was wrong with the whole “global warming” mantra, then it was easy to believe it to be true, since that is all you’d hear on the news. I wasn’t even aware that the Skeptic side existed until 2008. Once I started looking, I began to become a Skeptic myself. I was never a True Believer though. I simply wasn’t even aware of the other side.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 18, 2021 10:54 am

In science, real science there is ONLY “the skeptical side”. That was the flaw in the AGW argument. Apart from the fact that they all did a 180 degree switch away from “global cooling”, in the ’80s, “Global Cooling” (AGW) was forced on us as “settled science” that had somehow already achieved 97% “consensus”. In other words … they had NOTHING, but wind and science had been thrown out the window.

alastair gray
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 18, 2021 2:13 pm

Interesting to reevaluate ones perspective then. I watched Gore and was quite convinced that he had done his homework and there was a price to be paid for fossil fuel use. But at the same time as a geologist and sometime sequence stratigrapher I was aware that nothing in the past was fixed. I new about Norse colonisation of Greenland, MWP and LIA ,
but I assumed that the warmistas had some science behind them and Goreballs and co were not just making it up as they went along. My position was Oh well maybe, maybe not, but there is no way the world will get any agreement on an agenda to do anything about this so lets just wait and se. If it is a problem then maybe that will become clear soon and we will have to do something.

Until then weell Peak Oil will soon be here and thatt will force our nuclear age upon us. Peak oil in terms of conventional oil and gas ha never been disproven. Its just that I did not have the prescience to see the shale/Fravcking boom for the game changer it turned out to be, and I sat back and explored for all the oil I could as a geophysicist. Just before Climategate I got a bit skeptical then read a wonderful book called “Global warming and other bollocks” by Stanley Feldman et al.that pointed out some of the shkiness of the warming position. Bob Carter and finally Andrew Montford and his dissection of hockey sticks and unacademic shenanigans spurred my interest in doing my own research and ultimately to my resurection as a Skeptic.
Have we lost the war. AS near as damn it but maybe Texas Chill is the first hole in the dam
Remember the Alamo!

Jon R
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 18, 2021 7:24 pm

When I see an idea being pushed globally through all channels in unison, I am immediately skeptical. There’s absolutely no reason to spread anything like the truth with a bully pulpit like that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jon R
Danley Wolfe
February 18, 2021 8:12 am

Nicely done. Nothing new to those following the climate propaganda / charade but a fresh reminder. I continue to be amazed at how the climate lefties – politicians, academics, etc. can argue their side with a straight face while the movement is based on the hypocrisy of predictions using models that are proven to be wrong and incomplete lacking e.g., important things such as variable solar and volcanic actions. Why the climate models are based on temperature differences compared to an earlier point in time, e.g., in the 1950s is the models are not predictive and omit many variables …. and they all stand to gain personally, whether monetary, government positions, university positions and grants, etc. or expanding control of society and everything we people do.

February 18, 2021 8:32 am

mail exchanges between scientists from the CRU and other universities revealed a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the present warming and make it appear unprecedented.’

no it didn’t!

Gregory Woods
Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 9:53 am

Aaaahhh, Griffy

Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 10:14 am

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Griff still thinks no one tried to “hide the decline”

Reply to  Doonman
February 18, 2021 10:42 am

Just the fact that you (and the author) used that phrase “hide the decline” shows your ignorance and or willingness to (continue to) deceive. Here is some reading on “hide the decline.”

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said that he had used “Mike’s Nature trick” in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization “to hide the decline” in proxy temperatures derived from tree-ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This “decline” referred to the well-discussed tree-ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by global warming sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in The New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of “hoax” or “fraud” were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context “trick” was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them”

Dale S
Reply to  Simon
February 18, 2021 12:16 pm

Your quote confirms that a graph “for policy makers and journalists” ommitted proxy measurements that diverged from instrumental observations. Then it justifies it by saying that the “research community” (i.e. not the policy makers and journalists” were aware of the issue they weren’t showing. So why omit it? The OP had it exactly right: “a deliberate attempt to exaggerate the present warming and make it appear unprecedented.” You are doing the same here. That the decline hidden was proxy instead of instrumental doesn’t mean that present warming isn’t exaggerated — the present warming of ~1C in anomoly since 19th century is in absolute terms *tiny*, far smaller than the variations in actual temperature experienced on a daily basis all over the world and practically imperceptible to human senses. To make it look large, it is required to make it look unprecedented, which is where proxy measurements are so valuable. But what the divergence proves is that the measurements are *not* in fact comparable and should *not* be combined.

The way to combine different data sets “in a legitimate fashion” is to display them as different data sets *and* not to omit part of a data set because it happens undermines your narrative.

Reply to  Simon
February 18, 2021 1:35 pm

We know what happened and we know what the written English language means. They hid the decline by using “Mike’s nature trick”. Making lame excuses for people caught out by their own hand is always hilarious. You must be “part of the cause”, another self admitted ethical conflict exposed by their own hand.

Reply to  Simon
February 18, 2021 3:05 pm

The way using these treering data as thermometers was obviously wrong, else there woudn’t be a “divergence problem”.
Beside that, mixing proxy data and thermometer data in one graph without mention it is a forgery and all, but not science.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 11:00 am

Of course it did. There was absolutely no question that there had been fraud and malfeasance, not to mention a wide spread conspiracy. The authorities merely dragged their feet until the statute of limitations had passed and then white washed the rest. They then slapped a few wrists, “retired” Phil Jones, made a big show with a few more investigations then gas-lighted the world for being “conspiracy theorists.

Only a brain dead moron would not see what happened. The evidence in overwhelming.

Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 11:42 am

“no it didn’t!”



DENIAL is your only fall-back, little worm !

Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 11:42 am

I’ve read them. Have you.
If anything, the author was being generous in his description of the e-mails.

Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 2:41 pm

no it didn’t!
comment image comment image comment image

Richard (the cynical one)
Reply to  griff
February 18, 2021 7:21 pm

Griffy, I guess the view from inside the loop with Koolade in hand, is completely different than what the rest of us see. But then, when we found out we were being hoodwinked, our eyes have been focused a far more intently.

Steve Keohane
February 18, 2021 8:52 am

Gore’s movie sealed it for me, albeit I could only tolerate the first 10 minutes. Just showing the ice core proxy temps vs. CO2 exposes the silliness as we reglaciate when CO2 is at its highest levels; let alone noting that the delta for CO2 occurs 800-1000 years after the temperature changes.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steve Keohane
February 18, 2021 2:52 pm

The great big problem with this planet is the battle between LIFE and the planet’s efficiency at sequestering what little CO2 remains to sustain it. At 280 ppm we were flirting with disaster. It doesn’t matter who or what mechanism started CO2 concentrations to rise. It’s lucky for us it did. Below 180 ppm there wouldn’t be much life left on Earth. At 150 ppm life would be a thing of the past.

Rhys Jaggar
February 18, 2021 9:11 am

One of the things that always amuses me greatly is how the media tries to claim that 2008 was somehow ‘the great resistance’ year of the climate debate.

For those of us engaging with the weather in the 1980s and 1990s, the debate started a generation earlier.

We learned, without going to study at University, just what ‘natural variability of weather’ meant.

We saw unprecedentedly mild winters in 1988 and 1989 in Scotland be followed in 1991 with a good old-fashioned cold and snowy one. And that was after an incredible week-long blizzard in January 1987 which ended with rivers frozen at 200m above sea level, something more akin to Montana than Argyll.

We saw crazy ski-ing seasons in the Alps in the late 1980s being followed by entirely normal ones in 1990/91 and 1991/2. We knew that +23C at 1600m above sea level in February was within the envelope of ’20th century weather’, just as was -30C at night.

We knew that snowfall deep enough to entirely bury the ski lift system at Glencoe ski area was within the envelope of 1990s weather (1994), snow fields which were still considerable at the summer solstice on Isle of Skye.

We knew, growing up, that the best part of a decade without snow in NW London was a feature of the 1970s, something Dr David Viner might have pondered on a bit more critically.

We also knew that the hottest summer on record in the UK occurred not in 2018 but in 1976. We learned by going on holiday to the Adriatic that the climate in SE Europe may be the exact opposite to ours in the UK: the locals in Istria told us that it had been ‘the worst summer in memory’, there still being plenty of green grass after a most unusually wet spring and summer.

So by 2000, we non-graduates of climate science courses already knew the following

  1. The climate in the UK is not indicative in any way of European climate, let alone global climate.
  2. Natural variability of daily weather both in the UK and on continental Europe could be up to 40C between the highest high and the lowest high on any particular day.
  3. A mere change in prevailing wind direction can turn the mildest of mild winters into a full-blown freezing winter scene.
  4. The variability from year to year is so great that attributing any weather events to ‘climate change’ is ill advised at best and blatant nonsense at worst.
  5. Multidecadal trends concerning the times of greatest precipitation during European winters changed radically at a time similar to the Great Pacific Shift in 1977 and/or the eruption of Mt St Helens a couple of years later.
  6. Triple Big planet conjunctions in the late 1980s occurred at the same time as most unusual blocking weather patterns three winters running in Europe.

What we also subsequently learned by looking at ‘averaged data’ was that such data in no way conveys the richness of data variability when presenting the ‘average figures’. You can have a month of extreme cold and extreme mild weather with the same monthly average as a fairly routine month with little variability close to the seasonal average. The implications for human existence are radically different….

We knew all that a decade before Climategate.

Thing was, we weren’t journalists.

Climategate was a media event, it wasn’t part of the decades long investigation of weather patterns.

The media need to feel self-important, so they think that Climategate was ‘The Event’.

It is rather like saying that Davos WEF meetings are THE event for global economics.

They aren’t, it’s just that those who attend want the world to think so…..

For this author, obviously given his age, 2008 was seminal in his own journey.

But it wasn’t for many others of different ages……

February 18, 2021 9:21 am

My skepticism got turned up to 11 when the Australian Bureau of Meteorology arbitrarily dropped all weather station recorded temps prior to 1910 from their reference base.

What this did was remove the horrific 1896 heatwave that k1lled over 400 people across the continent, and also the extended “Federation Drought” period of hot, dry conditions that ravaged the newly-minted nation for a number of years around the turn of the century.

These episodes are well detailed in the archive troves of the Australian National Museum, available online.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mr.
February 18, 2021 9:29 am

Now take the next step and realize it’s a manufactured catastrophe designed to redistribute wealth and has nothing to do with the climate.

David S
February 18, 2021 9:33 am

Outstanding article Vijay. Well done!

February 18, 2021 9:47 am

‘I do understand that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases could have positively contributed to the warming from mid-20th century onwards’.


You have no measurements to prove this of your own?


To be somebody of note, you have to become a climate denialist.
And when practice shows that the theory is not right, what do you do?

Robert of Texas
February 18, 2021 10:16 am

I remember my own path from around 1989 to present, summarized:

(1989) Curious->(1992) Doubtful->(1995) Skeptical->(2001) Very Skeptical->(2006) Denier

By denier I mean am in the camp that believes about 1/3 of global warming is error in the data (mainly from Heat Island Effect), at least 1/3 is natural, and *at most* 1/3 is caused by man through various mechanisms – land change, soot, and possibly additional CO2.

Knowledge is a journey, but you have to have an open mind to get anywhere.

Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 10:41 am

About the only good thing about the Cornwall Alliance is that they are honest enough to
admit that their religious beliefs prevent them from thinking that humans are responsible
for climate change. Their beliefs are all clearly stated at:

Clearly this is a religious group with no knowledge or concern about science since
“Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say”

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 11:01 am

Izaak, your anti-religious bias is showing. The Cornwall Alliance is loaded with reputable science advisors, many of whom are regularly quoted or post here on WUWT. If you read Cornwall posts, they read very much like what is said here daily. You just hate them because they also believe in God.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pflashgordon
February 18, 2021 11:10 am

No. I am not anti-religious. I just don’t think that the Bible is inerrant and
the supreme and final authority. Any catholic would agree with me as would any muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc. Plus it is hard to think of a more anti-scientific statement that the claim that anything is the “supreme and final authority”. Whatever happened to experimental proof?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 11:22 am

You just made an assertion that cannot be experimentally verified, so your entire belief system must also be repudiated.

If you simply discount a person because of his or her world view, then you will have to ignore most people on this website and those you encounter daily in life. I am not suggesting that most people posting at WUWT are Christians, but they all have a world view and think and act accordingly.

Any and all Democrats must be ignored and considered to be scum according to your measuring stick.

Izaac, if you do not believe in God, then you will get an opportunity to take that up with God when you die (or not if He does not exist).

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Pflashgordon
February 18, 2021 2:14 pm

Who said anything about not believing in God? I am catholic (although not a particularly good one) and my issue is the false claim that the bible is “inerrant” and the “supreme and final authority in all they say”.

The issue is that a belief that the bible is literally the word of god and the supreme and final authority is incompatible with being a scientist. You cannot believe that the world was created in 7 days and believe in the big bang or the theory of evolution for example. You can be a christian and a scientist but you cannot be a fundamentalist and a scientist.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 3:21 pm

You know Joseph Blumerich, NASA engineer ?
comment image

Out of the description in the Bible he invented the so called “multidirectional wheel” and has the patent for it

After ufologists such as Erich von Däniken had pointed to the possibility of interpreting Ezekiel’s Merkabah vision as a report of an extraterrestrial spacecraft, Blumrich decided to disprove the hypothesis. However, a thorough examination convinced him that Ezekiel had, in fact, seen a spaceship. He then made detailed drawings of the alien craft. He decided the technology of the builders must have been somewhat higher than mankind’s at the present, and added he had seldom felt as delighted, satisfied, and fascinated by being proven wrong Source: 😀

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
alastair gray
Reply to  Pflashgordon
February 18, 2021 2:27 pm

I knew a sequence stratigrapher who belonged to a religion that insisted on thecreationin 7 days . I saw no evidence of insincewrity in that belief. So how can you talk about the 66.5 million year flooding surface if you believe that.7 day stuff? Ah well he said God so perfectly made the world that it looks like a 66.5 Million year event although He really did it on day 6 in the afternoon. I though that if our world view coincided on the imprtant issues of chronostratigraphy then what right did I have to lecture him on his religion, or he on mine or lack thereof? When besieged by barbarians you need all the help you can get, and never stoop to the oppositions level of intolerance.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  alastair gray
February 18, 2021 3:05 pm

This theory was eloquently laid out by Phillip Gosse in his book Omphalos in the 19h century. “Omphalos means “navel” and this is the Adam had a navel theory that to be competely human Adam would have been created with a navel, a scar that seems to demonstrate a birth that never occurred. The idea is that a complete world would, of necessity, appear to have a history: river canyons that seemingly show past centuries of erosion, sandstone that seems to show past oceans, mountains that seem to have been formed by millenia old eruptions, …

There is actually no way for science to refute this. The science is simply determining a history that could have (but didn’t) cause the observed result. One can also argue in a sort of “tree falling in the forest not making a sound” way that with no observer of the actual occurrences and only the results (like a fallen tree trunk) everything is speculation.

I don’t adhere to this theory. I, instead, take a point from Omphalos that the history had no existence except in the mind of God. But anything in the “mind of God” has an actual existence.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 11:46 am

I not that Izaak is incapable of actually pointing to any science that they are getting wrong, he just assumes, as all bigots do, that anyone who doesn’t think as he does must be wrong.

Izaak Walton
Reply to  MarkW
February 18, 2021 3:16 pm

What about this paragraph:
Today, we know the modern warming rate is not unprecedented. Warming of such magnitude has happened twice within the past 2000 years. Further, ice at both poles is at historic highs, even compared with the Little Ice Age of the 17th century.”

Every single claim in that paragraph is wrong. The modern warming rate is greater than anything found in past 10000 years let alone the past 2000 years. See
for example. There has been no similar warming (i.e. 1 degree globally over one century) over the past 2000 years.

The statement about ice at the poles is also completely wrong. Sea ice levels are currently at or near historical lows for February and the arctic sea ice has been declined steadily for decades. His statement is just plain nonsense.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 4:49 pm

no it didn’t!

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 19, 2021 10:05 am

The modern warming rate is greater than anything found in past 10000 years let alone the past 2000 years.”

No. Proxies aren’t good enough to tell us that. Poor temporal resolution. And that paper relies upon, among other things, tree rings, which have been shown time and time again to be poor consistent proxies for temperature. And judging from Neukom’s work as dismantled at Climate Audit, I’d say they’re just continuing the Mann/Briffa proxy overweighting to get the desired results.

I do agree that the polar ice statement is very odd.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 19, 2021 10:47 am

Tree rings a “proxies” for temperature, precipitation, sunlight, and, YES, even CO2 levels. “Funny” how the proxy for measuring temperature is also a proxy for CO2 isn’t it.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 11:47 am

“Clearly this is a religious group with no knowledge or concern about science


And Izzy describes the AGW farce to a “T”

Well done izzy !

NEVER let actual “science” intrude on that AGW cultism of yours, Izzy !!

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 1:45 pm

Termites emit 10 times the amount of CO2 that humans do. Why is it that they are not responsible for climate change?

Izaak Walton
Reply to  Doonman
February 18, 2021 3:06 pm

Have termites increased their numbers exponentially in the last 100 years? If not they are not the source of CO2 increases in the atmosphere?

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 4:49 pm

yes, they have.

Reply to  Izaak Walton
February 18, 2021 6:11 pm

Perhaps they did, as the planet warmed out of LIA.

Reply to  Doonman
February 19, 2021 10:07 am

Termites are “carbon neutral”, meaning they are emitting “carbon” that they ingested. They’re not digging up coal and emitting CO2.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
February 19, 2021 10:39 am

Humans are digging up coal and returning its CO2 to the air from which it originally came. If termites can return CO2 to the atmosphere at ten times the rate of humans, why is it they are not responsible for global warming? In order to say “they are carbon neutral” implies that you know the ideal carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere for the earth. So, what is that ideal content?

I don’t think you’ve thought this blame game through enough to its conclusion.

Last edited 1 year ago by Doonman
Reply to  Doonman
February 19, 2021 8:16 pm

What blame game?

I don’t think “excess” CO2 is a problem. I’m just telling you there’s a difference between the short term carbon cycle and the extremely long term.

A cow eating grass, or feed, then belching out methane or whatever, is “neutral” in the more immediate sense. Digging up coal that was sequestered millions of years ago and returning the CO2 to the atmosphere is extremely long term.

I wasn’t making a value statement, just a factual one.

February 18, 2021 10:44 am

Al Gore’s claims in his 2006 documentary were false. Contrary to his claims, polar bear populations remained steady”

Polar bear populations increasing fivefold is a population remaining steady?

Accepting PBI’s polar bear alarmism is like asking Phil Jones to turn over historical data, questionable code routines or even the maintenance programmer’s complaints.

I am glad you consider yourself a “Climate Realist”, only your quoting climate alarmist data places you far from ‘Climate Reality’.

Surely they taught you to never average a pile of averages? Yet, IPCC’s, NOAA’s, CRU’s averaging multi-model runs is exactly that.

“Today, we know the modern warming rate is not unprecedented. Warming of such magnitude has happened twice within the past 2000 years.”

Twice in a hundred years warming occurred at the same rate of increase.

At least twice in the past 2,000 years temperatures have been warmer than current temperatures.

Welcome to questioning climate alarmisms! But do not stop there!

You need to revert to a legal concept:
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” which means false in one thing, false in all.

Especially since the climate alarmists have proven themselves false in virtually every claim and prediction.

Reply to  ATheoK
February 19, 2021 8:17 pm

Polar bear populations increasing fivefold is a population remaining steady?”

Not since 2006. Since the 1950s, yes.

Inspector kemp
February 18, 2021 10:48 am

The answer is painfully obvious in the data.

Climate change is based on three separate factors. One is the direct response of the climate to increased carbon dioxide. That is true, but it is a diminishing effect and unlikely to be catastrophic. the second is climate sensitivity, which seems to be nearly zero. That was where most of the warming was supposed to come from. Finally we have the natural climate of the earth, which seems to be cooling. Ergo, the sum total is a slight bit of warming and a non-crises.

That said I’m perfectly comfortable moving away from hydrocarbons, but in a careful, well reasoned way.

February 18, 2021 11:16 am

Go Tigers! Thks VJ, great essay!

Will Wallace
February 18, 2021 11:39 am

Great article!

Jim Whelan
February 18, 2021 11:57 am

Very interesting. I have often thought that most climate scientists became such so they could help “save the planet” but most of them are unable to get past the cognitive dissonance of having to deny their life’s mission.

As a side note, when the “panic” about global warming first raised it’s head in the 90’s I was curious about it. At thaty time the Internet was in its infancy and I had access to it and was able to look up all kinds of details. Very few if any universities had any kind of protections or paywalls. All the research and information was publicly available.

I looked up papers by the warming proponents and had access to the discussions about on going research. I remember one comment in particular that essentially said, “Some of you have questioned my leaving contrary observations out of my supporting document. Then theoiry is so obviously correct that any contrary observations must be false.” I immediately said to myself, “this isn’t science” and ever since have been very sceptical of any claims. When “Climategate” occurred I knew it was true because I had seen it first hand.

Mr. Lee
February 18, 2021 11:58 am

I am sure your alma maters will be deeply disappointed in themselves for failing to brainwash you enough to prevent you from thinking for yourself. But, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for rebate from them.

Inspirational story Vijay!

February 18, 2021 12:06 pm

Well said! Thanks

February 18, 2021 12:10 pm

Vijay, I’m glad you survived the indoctrination at UEA and managed to make an informed choice.

However, you do not come over as being objective and even minded when you describe yourself as a “climate realist”. That is a really smug way of saying “I’m right, don’t bother disagreeing”. I don’t doubt the M.E. Mann claims to be a “climate realist” too.

For the record, the UEA email system was not compromised, an archive of emails ( likely being prepared in the need for a possible response to a FIOA request ) was left lying around on a public FTP server and got picked up by someone. A 2 year investigation by UK’s top cyber crimes unit failed to establish any “hack” or other illegal intrusion even happened.

It’s cool to have been at ground zero when this occurred, though you were probably less aware of what was happening than those of us here at that time.

BTW, there is no such thing as an “undergraduate degree”. You do undergraduate studies, then, hopefully, you graduate and get awarded a bachelor’s degree ( or is environmental studies a B.A ? LOL ) .

Once you have graduated you become a graduate and start doing post-graduate studies.

“undergraduate degree” is an oxymoron.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg
Reply to  Greg
February 18, 2021 4:58 pm

rich & poor
black & white
up & down
graduate degree & undergraduate degree

People that define the a bachelors degree as an “undergraduate degree” are the same ones that don’t know there is a middle class, can’t see shades of grey, and don’t know about lateral paths.

They are the ones running ACADEMIC institutions & thinking of everyone else as IGNORANT.

February 18, 2021 12:40 pm

Thank you, Vijay. We need more insights like this.

Richard (the cynical one)
February 18, 2021 12:57 pm

Hey Vijay: You are NOT supposed to tell the truth. That is uncollegial!

Richard M
February 18, 2021 1:04 pm

 I do understand that anthropogenic CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases could have positively contributed to the warming from mid-20th century onwards.

Nope, they didn’t. No need to bow down to the fake science any longer.

Our atmosphere needs to be inflated to support life. Once that happens nature opens the windows and lets out additional heat. The opening of the windows happens every night and exhausts any extra energy that may have been accumulated during the day.

There are a few variables in place that can affect the overall temperature but more greenhouse gases is not one of them. What happens was clearly shown in a paper out of Norway. They ran an experiment to simulate what happens in the atmosphere. They ran the experiment with a standard atmosphere and again with 100% CO2 atmosphere. Here you can see the extra energy built up due to the extra CO2.
comment image

And here you can see how that energy has no effect on the temperature.
comment image

The extra energy built up gets radiated away at night in an analogous way to opening the windows in our homes letting heat out overnight.

Lawrence Brown
February 18, 2021 1:11 pm

You wrote an inflammatory series of words, VJ, so you will now lose your job. And your Facebook page, Twitter and Instagram accounts…and if you have a webpage hosted by a server with Goog or the big South American jungle company?

Click, offline.

Welcome to the road to Babylon, you Climate Insurrectionist, you are EXILED.

John Sandhofner
February 18, 2021 1:47 pm

Great article Vijay. Glad you saw the light. Hope you can reach your fellow scientists with the truth.

February 18, 2021 5:54 pm

Nice one Vijay! Thank you!

February 18, 2021 8:49 pm

VJ, didn’t you notice that the AGW line was pushed into international politics by Margaret Thatcher, and that she set up the Hadley Centre? It was, for a while at least, connected to the CRU at UAE.

With that political background, surely a bit of scepticism would be one’s first instinct.

February 18, 2021 9:20 pm

A very good article written as if you are talking to the audience, which is what all writers should do.

If we consider what we know about the climate in the past 20,000 years, the best climate for humans was probably the warmer Optimum 5,000 to 8,000 years ago. In the past 300 years, the best climate for humans, animals who live outdoors, and plants too, is NOW.

It can’t be a climate emergency if the current climate is wonderful and has been getting better for over 300 years, since the colder climate in the late 1600s during the Maunder Minimum.

We have all lived with global warming for about 45 years, since the mid-1970s, and it has been wonderful. The greatest warming was in the higher colder latitudes, mainly in the coldest half of the year, and mainly at night. The ideal locations and timing for warming. There is no logical reason to believe that continued warming for the next 45 years would not be EVEN BETTER NEWS than the past 45 years of warming.

Global warming and more CO2 in the atmosphere are both good news that should be celebrated, not feared.

Those people who think CO2 is the devil in the sky are very confused — CO2 is the staff of almost all life on our planet. More CO2 in the atmosphere will support more life on our planet, by optimizing plant growth. People who are ‘anti-CO2’ are anti-life.

February 19, 2021 12:55 am

Its interesting how this climate change crap emerged after the demise of the attempt at global communism. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the globalists started the climate change cult (CCC) as an alternative, and it appears to be succeeding.

But since the earth formed 4 billion years ago, the climate has always been changing – from boiling hot to freezing cold. Not to mention the occasional meteor impacts that resulted in extreme climate change.

What then is the ideal “climate” for the earth? When will the CCC cooks be happy that the climate is perfect in their view? What is the ideal temperature of the earth? 98.6?

Obviously, this an open-ended goal, which is the strategy. Like the so-called war on drugs, the “fight” against CC will have no end…so there will be ever growing power handed over to the state and the UN to run our lives.

And, why… oh why… do the CCC cooks keep saying the consequences will be dire? They are like Chicken Little. I for one welcome a warmer world, because now cold, largely barren places, such as Siberia and Northern Canada, would see a flourishing of flora and fauna as nature will move in to take advantage of the warmer climes, and this will also open up these areas to human habitation.

Reply to  Joe
February 19, 2021 7:47 am

“What then is the ideal “climate” for the earth?” – I’ve never seen an answer to that, but based on what they keep saying, a lot colder that it is currently seems to be what they think.

Hutches Hunches
February 19, 2021 4:42 pm

Glad to see that at least one young scientist has the gravitas to see through the BS and draw an intelligent conclusion. Let’s just hope that VJ doesn’t disappear down some academic black hole…these guys pushing this global warming BS may become dangerous if their little scheme is actually exposed to a world that will listen.

February 19, 2021 8:53 pm

A recent deadly tragedy at a hydro project in the Indian Himalaya was quickly blamed on Climate Change induced glacial collapse. Now a local marxist had to admit that this project had applied for carbon credits from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in early 2012.
He now labels it an avalanche but in the end it was a stone landslide into the river which created a slurry tsunami.

Ever read a local Chinese marxist writing negatively on Internet about the dozens of Tibetan hydro projects there? Never, as the Chinese Fire Wall works both ways.

%d bloggers like this: