Scientific Reports Confirm Catastrophic Climate Change

There are new reports confirming not only climate change but escalating losses of arctic ice. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s annual Arctic report card has found that this is the hottest year on record in the Arctic and it is now twice as fast as any other place on Earth. Another international study found that the rapid loss of glaciers is caused by climate change to a certainty of 99 percent.

NOAA found a “massive decline in sea ice and snow” in the Arctic region with temperatures near the North Pole reaching an unprecedented 20°C (36°F) warmer than average in November.

The data from 61 scientists in 11 countries showed that air temperatures over the Arctic from October 2015 to September 2016 were “by far the highest in the observational record beginning in 1900”.

In the meantime, warmer ocean water has reached the largest glacier which is shrinking at a record rate.

The impact could well be catastrophic for the planet. The permafrost holds a huge amount of carbon which is released with the melting — releasing more CO2 and methane into atmosphere. That will further speed up climate change . . . which will result in more ice melting in an accelerating downward spiral.

191 thoughts on “Scientific Reports Confirm Catastrophic Climate Change”

    1. Obama has been taking names too and posting their pictures on his website urging people to go after them and ‘call them out.’ What’s the difference?

  1. We are doomed. Trump and Perry and the rest of Trump’s plutocrats are climate change deniers. Big oil and gas men rule us and they only care about the almighty $$$$$$$ and not our children’s future.

    1. Joe – Obama already put our children in debt that they will never pay off. What are you worried about?

        1. Joe – there is no reason for an unreasonable debt on my children and grandchildren to breath.

      1. Absolutely. Especially with that massive budget surplus and thriving economy he inherited.

        Years back Dennis Miller asked his young son how he felt about all the debt imparted upon his generation. With similar wit, the son responded by saying it was fine, because it’ll just be passed down again in the same way, when he’s his father’s age.

        Of course $20 trillion is insane. But somehow it hasn’t already gutted our society with inflation and all the rest. And the Steak-Salesman, the king of debt, wants infrastructure projects and to “rebuild” the military, which I can’t imagine come cheap. (Because ~$600 billion annually isn’t enough.)

      2. Paul –
        Our children or grandchildren or even remote descendants will never have to pay off the federal debt. It can always be rolled over. The federal government can always set the interest rate for servicing that debt. Why are you worried about the federal debt? We still have leftover debt from WWII, but so what? National finance is not like personal finance.

        1. Jay S – paying off interest on the debt is our major financial obligation as a government. If we were not paying of the interest we would not be worrying about the cost of any other program.

  2. There are those in China, NYC, Europe, who complain about smog– as they smoke their cigarettes.

    Seems like total silence– is the only thing they have.
    Bowl of oatmeal tried to stare them down…
    And won.
    Guns are quicker.
    Silence is golden.
    Turnabout is fair play.

    Til death do us part. Or fart.

  3. I have enormous respect for JT. But his Chicken Little posts are seeming almost perfunctory, Like he wants to stay in the Cool Club..or Warm Club, as it were. I have to believe a critical thinker like JT has at least a little doubt on the integrity of these political, scientists. The more oil found, the more shrill the warnings become.

      1. Dave137, Any OBJECTIVE assessment of my comment would say I was not shrill. Point out what I said that is shrill.

        1. Let’s see:

          Chicken Little
          Cool Club
          Warm Club

          A typical Spinelli post, no substance at all.

            1. It was you, Spinelli, that asked the question of objectivity re: your post above. It was answered.

              Good luck with your inconsequential posts that bore all with your oh so full life experiences.

            2. Have Darren remove my posts, Spinboy; as you have done for years here — and continue to disgrace this blog as you have done on many others for such a long time.

              Are you ready to put Olly back in his place, as you did so long ago? He’s pressing.

              Why don’t you tell us of your fount of wisdom, again; as you’ve done many times over the years, on many blogs?

              Your homilies are threadbare, Spinboy.

    1. Democrats are in the tank for their corrupt politicians and right wingers are mesmerized by the carbon industry and the pony tailed pink unicorn called free market. And we all deeply respect Turley until he says something we don’t agree with – and then we tip-toe out with a little blast of snark,

      Like he wants to stay in the Cool Club..or Warm Club, as it were. You call that snark respect?

      And so it goes…

    2. Nick-
      Just out of curiosity, what sort of climatic events would it take to persuade you that maybe the sky really was falling?

      1. Jay, Your question shows you have flawed thinking on this topic. Weather “events” should not be a reason to spend trillions of dollars. Weather is chaotic, and has been long before man existed. My thoughts are this. Firstly, I travel through the Utah canyons annually. You can see rock strata from eras when Utah was covered in ice, when it was an ocean, jungle, and now arid. Virtually all of this occurred before we evil humans existed. The climate is always changing. It is arrogant to think there is little we can do to change that, and it is ignorant and arrogant to think we are the sole or even the primary cause of these changes. As I have said many times. I an a conservationists. I do my part, from driving smaller vehicles, walking instead of driving whenever possible, reusable grocery bags, recycle, compost, etc. I simply don’t buy the sky is falling and the more apocalyptic the warnings get, the more I chuckle and the more I see this is about money, not science.

        1. Nothing you have said contradicts human contribution to gloabl warming. At all. That the weather changes naturally has no logical bearing on what our activity does or doesn’t do any more than the revolutions of the moon have to do with our landing on it or manipulating it subsequently.

          Humankind’s arrogance is a novel, but hardly satisfying and certainly not scientific way of refuting global warming. It’s more like forecasting by the throwing of chicken bones. And so is the notion that human effort is incapable of bringing it about. To ignore the industrial revolution and what machines orders of magnitude greater than anything ever seen before are capable of when used over a hundred years by populations orders of magnitude greater than anything ever seen before, is like saying we can only invent explosive devices the strength of a fire-cracker and anything more than that is mere human arrogance. Tell that one to the atomic-bomb.

        2. Nick — Weather events are not the reason there is a discussion over how much, if any, to spend to mitigate the consequences of global climate change. When we are discussing climate change we are not talking about day to day weather patterns. No one is disputing that climate has changed throughout Earth’s history. That isn’t even the topic of discussion. The issue is not over the fact that climate changes, but the rate at which it changes. Climate change — mostly in the form of global temperatures — is occurring at a rate that is well above the rates at which it occurred during the times you mention in connection with the rock strata you observe on your walks through the canyons of Utah. The science and data on the subject persuasively points the finger at human activity for this accelerated rate of change.

    3. It bothers me that the scientists whose papers were used as the basis of the “97% of climate scientists agree” meme actually disagree with that statement. They have commented that the conclusions of their papers were misrepresented.

      There is actually great debate about how much humankind influences the climate, and whether it’s even the greatest cause, over 50%. Most scientists agree humans affect the climate. Examples are how manmade desertification immediately affects local climate. Chop down a rainforest and you immediately affect humidity levels, erosion, runoff, etc. In fact, all life affects climate. The reason why lifeforms evolved that breathe Oxygen is because photosynthetic life produced the oxygen in our atmosphere, and other life contributed the nitrogen and carbon to it.

      But how much of our current climate is impacted by humans is actually not settled by science at all. It’s quite difficult to determine a percentage contributory factor. In the meantime, we seem to focus all our money and efforts on the elusive climate change, while there are so many immediate dangers clamoring for our attention – access to clean drinking water, recharging underground aquifers (note that Saudi Arabia has almost emptied its millennia old Deep Aquifers trying to farm in the deep desert), the ocean polluted with mercury, drifting plastic islands, heavy metals, hexane and other pollutants in our ground and water. If we keep focusing on carbon, we’ll have nothing left to clean up the environment.

      We must be cautious about making energy prices too steep. Already, I’m seeing an increase in marketing for pellet stoves and wood burning furnaces, to combat rising energy prices. Chopping down trees and producing more smoke pollution will cause a net negative result for the environment.

      1. You are always reasonable in your assertions. I don’t think the scientific consensus is necessarily a meme, and even if that number is much lower than 97%, there is enough agreement at this point in time that we should take the warnings very seriously lest we end up like frogs in a pot that can not be turned off. Happy at first, bragging about it later, getting a bit hot but hey – who can prove it, and then just dying before anything can be done. The point at which the frogs start to notice is 2 degrees Celsius. After that, extinction is mostly a question of how fast.

        Weather events all over the world and changes to the ocean seem to be also giving us warnings – to assume they are purely natural weather patterns is dangerous at the very least, and to assume further (as if they were both synonymous) that we can’t do anything about it regardless of origin seems reckless in the extreme.

        The link you provide is to an individual, Alex Epstein, who makes his living for the oil and carbon products industry by raising doubt about the scientific consensus. He has no formal scientific training beyond a B.A. in philosophy, snort.* The scientific community has every right to push back on such biased critiques and they have. You are far more reasonable than the individual you link to, btw.

        I confess I am pretty much beyond hope that we will do anything significant about it at this point until something really severe happens such as Miami more or less disappearing under water one day. At that point, I assume the right will take credit for discovering man made global warming in the first place and if that means something finally gets done, it will be fine with me. I’ll be the first to say it; brilliant detective work! Also, Clinton would not have been all that much better than Trump. All appearances, all show, both of them.

        * I would agree that lack of formal training in both science and climatology is not a final disqualification, but it sure merits a healthy dose of skepticism. Global warming is a science, a very complicated one as you point out, and is thus best critiqued by a scientist specializing in climatology, but ultimately it’s the argument that counts.

  4. I think it is easy for people to dismiss items that are A) to difficult for them to understand and B) that do not directly affect them. I think this statement is true of many of the posters on this site. Take a look at, Unless you are an ascetic who thinks you can survive without any social interaction (in which case you are probably not reading this post), you or your offspring will be affected by sea level rise. People are great at act like ostriches with their head in the sand. But we aren’t ostriches, we do live in a social context. Everyone will be affected when much of Bangladesh goes underwater, when major coastal cities all over the globe have significant ocean intrusion.

    I used to work at NOAA. I never met anyone that did not firmly hold to a principle of learning growing. I never met a single person with an agenda that disregarded or made up facts. Just sayin. But don’t believe me, go to your local NWS office and talk to the people that work there. They are not crazed money grubbing people that all voted for Obama and Hillary. Just sayin.

  5. What do people think happens to the 38.2 billion tons of carbon emissions spewed out annually mostly by vehicles, power plants and other industrial uses? Our atmosphere is a closed system. Pollution is not escaping into the universe.

  6. If true the question is why is it happening and what to do? Are governments the cause? Between 1958 and 1962 the U.S and the Soviets both performed high altitude nuclear explosions. Has H.A.R.P caused an irreversible event, tests again by both the U.S and the Soviets, maybe China?

    If the regular guy tries to uses less fuel
    the government tells you they are losing money and ups your tax. China and India are biggest violators do you think they care? Al Gore cries about this all the time as he flies about in his private jet does he really care or is it about money?

    Some scientists say yes some say no. Some say it’s a natural event some say it’s human caused. I don’t know and I don’t think anyone here does either.

  7. Dumb carbon-denyers livin’ in smoggy L.A. or London before new laws stopped DEADLY emissions, woulda LURVED hookin’ straight into a stinkin’ deisel turbo or dirty ole smokestack and – do us all a BIG Favor!!

  8. It should disturb everyone. It’s a pattern alright. But not one we should be following.
    Hosea 4:1-3. (KJV)

    Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land.

    By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.

    Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.

  9. Billions of people pollute industrially 24/7 for a century and there’s no impact; scientists are lying to get funding while Exxon extracts oil out of love; the Steak-Salesman’s sons Uday and Qusay hunt animals because the pair adore nature; up is down, down is up, and Earth is infinite in resources while maintaining a cooling atmosphere due to increasing levels of both carbon dioxide and methane from the widespread melting of permafrost. Ok, got it.

  10. I’ve always been amazed at some people’s seeming repulsion to erring on the side of caution. even if one does hesitate to accept global warming as a reality, why wouldn’t one also think along the lines of ‘Well, just in case it is happening maybe I should alter things and play it safe for my kids.’ Holy hell it’s not as if erring on the side of caution is all that hard.

    1. Scientists don’t have absolute truth to sacrifice present on something some idiot is trying to cook up , while exploiting imperfect data

  11. Don’t forget that the accumulation of ice at the poles led to mass extinctions of any species living there. The Miocene warming saw forests diminish and open grasslands and deserts spread, with the spread of massive ungulates and megafauna, and massive tectonic shift. The Pliocene cooling caused the land bridges that helped species migrate, more massive tectonic shift, and the proliferation of new species. It’s believed that the entire Mediterranean Sea went dry during the Pliocene. It was still warmer than it is today. Granted, we evolved and flourished during the colder Pleistocene, but really, the Pleistocene couldn’t seem to make up its mind if it wanted to commit to Ice Age or Warming. We evolved in a rapidly changing climate. Let’s hope we haven’t lost the knack, because the Earth’s climate never remains in stasis.

    1. The issue isn’t the warming but the rate of warming. That’s the link with our collective behavior.

      1. They attribute the so called warming to climate change. The 99% link above did not go any further to claim the climate change was man-made.

        Fortunately the American voters recognized the disastrous cultural change our country has experienced and we just might be in time to reverse those effects.

        1. Not the majority…… And how do you know that those that did vote for Trump consciously voted for further destruction of the planet?

          1. Neither Presidential candidate got a majority in the popular vote. Only one got a majority where it mattered; in the Electoral count. The House and Senate have a majority, governors – majority; state legislatures – majority.

            “And how do you know that those that did vote for Trump consciously voted for further destruction of the planet?”

            I would only know that by watching fake news outlets like CNN.

            1. Clinton did win the certified popular vote but Trump is the the winner of the presidency. Don’t assume that the new administration’s attempts to plunder the earth and its resources will not be met with resistance. Solar energy is both cheaper and greener than are fossil fuels.

              1. “Don’t assume that the new administration’s attempts to plunder the earth and its resources will not be met with resistance.”

                There are plenty of people that will ignorantly assume a GOP administration will be the greatest thing or worse thing ever, depending on their progressive worldview. What those people still won’t be able to determine is if they are right or wrong as measured by the constitution.

                I do like your choice of the word, “Plunder”. Frederic Bastiat in his work, “The Law”, uses the phrase “Legal Plunder” to describe those ideologues that are not concerned with using the law to secure our natural right to life, liberty and property. They will use the law contrary to its intended purpose.

                ” But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

                How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

                The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy.”

                So no, I will not assume anything. This incoming administration will not be given a pass because of party or agenda. If they do honor to the office, work within the limits of the constitution, promote the separation of powers and better secure the rights of everyone equally, then they will have my support. Step outside those limits and they should and will be opposed.

                1. i think one one can safely say they will be bad for the environment. Don’t really think Ivanka can save us. 🙂

              2. As long as Calif now votes 2:1 for D’s, R’s will never ‘win’ the popular vote which is an example of why we have the Electoral College, not a popular vote contest. Remember, Calif used to vote Republican under Reagan and Bush…

                1. “As long as Calif now votes 2:1 for D’s, R’s will never ‘win’ the popular vote…”

                  This is flat-out wrong. In this election 14,030,351 presidential votes were cast in California out of a total voting-eligible population of 25,278,803. In this election 136,962,058 votes were cast nationwide for the president. Based on current vote counts, Trump received 62,979,636 and Clinton received 65,844,610 votes. To win the popular vote Clinton would have at a minimum had to receive at least one vote more than Trump. That of course would be 62,979,637 votes. So as anyone can see from these numbers it is impossible for California alone to decide who will win the election. Even if every eligible voter in California voted for the democratic candidate, that candidate would need at least majority wins in at least several (or more) of the other most populous states.

              3. “Don’t assume that the new administration’s attempts to plunder the earth and its resources will not be met with resistance.”

                Oh he’ll be met with resistance every step of the way for certain….but ‘plunder the earth’? Not so sure about that. Trump’s number one focus is the economy and creating jobs. Trump is a builder, an entrepreneur, he likes a challenge, and he wants results. He’s been meeting with people like Bill Gates….and one of Gates’ top priorities is finding ways to provide affordable energy without contributing to climate change. Trump knows that innovation can lead to building companies that create millions of jobs…so….in my view it’s worth watching with an open mind….

  12. If we cannot adapt to a changing planet, then we will go extinct like all the other species before us.

    There have been periods of time when the polar caps were completely melted. Indeed, we’ve come out of a recent Little Ice Age. It is inevitable that the planet will warm. When you look at all those expensive homes on the beach, look up to the cliffs behind them and see the ancient shorelines carved upon them. I found fossilized shark teeth 30 miles away from the ocean.

    Dragonflies, crocodiles, and frogs all survived in the time of dinosaurs, when the planet was far hotter. Yet they persisted through several ice ages and warming periods. Were they better able to adapt than humans are today? The most pressing threat should the planet warm notably would be relocating farther from the ocean, and mosquito born disease. It is true that a warm moist environment teems with life, but it also teems with disease. What an interesting time to hold the key to genetic manipulation that can wipe out entire mosquito species without pesticides. I think bioethics will be a hot topic, pardon the pun.

    The climate has always changed and will continue to do so. We can argue about the degree of human interference, but in the meanwhile, welcome to the tragedy of the commons. I seriously doubt that China will stop creating their own toxic poison cloud, or that we’ll stop buying their goods. Let’s clean up the pollution that we can, and we should always have an eye towards adapting to the environment, including a willingness to move, and help others to do so.

  13. At the same time, the Antarctic Ice Sheet has grown to record size, according to NASA.

    If scientists believe that Artic ice is receding because the earth is warming, then these same scientists should be able to make the argument that Antarctic ice is growing because the earth is cooling.

    Could it be that ocean currents are warming the Arctic in the same way Iceland is warmed by Gulf current, while 700 miles west, at the same latitude, colder current maintains Greenland’s ice sheet?

    Sure, there is climate change on earth, the same as there is climate change on the sun. Because there was a mini Ice Age not too long ago, before widespread use of fossil fuels, climate change today seems more likely caused by climate change on the sun, less likely caused by man.

    By the way, who do these climate scientists work for anyway? The establishment? Sure, so why should we even believe them? Everything they’ve been telling us for the past 40 years has been lies, all to further their agendas and enrich themselves.

        1. That’s Antarctica, not the Arctic. NASA explained that climate change affects regions differently and with complexity. The pressing concern is the Arctic, certainly Greenland.

          1. That’s why I said “Antartica.” If climate change has no universal effect — thus benefiting some areas and concomitantly damaging others — then why worry about it’s global effects. Selective change would make it a common geological process like the San Andreas fault shifts. It would also call into question human intervention in the matter. I think global warming in the 2000s is like global cooling in the 70s — natural but probably exacerbated by human agency.

    1. What the hell is this nonsense about climate on the Sun? What we call and describe as climate is not applicable to the Sun. Yes, the Sun experiences cyclical phenomenon, but this is not climate. The Sun does have cyclical changes in energy output. But this is not a climate variation. I taught Earth Science for 20+ years. This included numerous lessons on Earth weather and climate as well as the impact of the Sun’s energy output on Earth’s weather and climate. The Sun does not experience anything that can be remotely or appropriately described as climate. You are incorrectly applying a phenomenon — climate — to a body which does not experience that phenomenon. I challenge you to cite even one credible source or climate textbook or peer-reviewed journal article that makes the claim that climate is a phenomenon that occurs on the Sun.

      The Sun is not the source of the rising global temperature trend on Earth for the simple reason that the data shows that the Sun has been experiencing a declining temperature trend for the past 35 years. This means that the Sun’s energy output has been decreasing. A decreasing energy output from the Sun cannot produce an increasing temperature pattern on Earth. (

      Enrich themselves? This is sheer ignorance talking. The ones who are really enriching themselves are the executives of the world’s fossil fuel corporations. Compared to these people, what scientists earn is the equivalent of a pittance.

    2. You mean to tell me we are in yet another mini ice age? This one is supposed to be about 200 years and lower average temperatures by 1degC. You must mean the one that brought us cold weather around 1950 or so. Personally i’d be looking for normal weather cycles instead of proclaim a 1 degree temperature change as an ‘Age.’

  14. Lawyers think scientific “reports” are like laws , god save us from the elites half of them are lawyers . Enough of lawyers in high positions !

  15. NOAA does not have a solid track record on these announcements. They have a habit of ‘adjusting temperatures’ to fit their model rather that deal with the raw data. Right now I do not believe anything that NOAA says is true. It could be true. But it will take more than NOAA to prove it.

  16. Disturbing news, but the more important question is, what will happen, will this be catastophic, and when will it be so. There are a lot of things that will be catastrophic at some point, but the important question is when it will be so, and whether there is anything we can do about it. If the scientists and policy wonks can’t figure this out, then I will continue to consider climate science with skepticism.

    1. “catastrophic’ according to the researchers, who will lose their fat grants and cushy jobs. “catastrophic” for the politicians and sleazy types who prey on people’s fears. “catastrophic” for those who would see us serfs in the dark ages.

      For normal folk, if the warming trend were real, it would mean an abundance of food, peaceful trade, innovation, and progress (toward a more perfect union).

      1. Really? If the American Southwest becomes a permanent dust bowl, and Florida sinks beneath the waves, then what? If tornadoes become 2X or 5X or 10X more common, what about that? How would that lead to “an abundance of food”?

        I am perplexed that many people just cannot see past how climate scientists make their living. Are you saying that none of their results and predictions are legitimate, solely because of who pays their salaries? Is everyone to be judged entirely by their employers?

        1. Jay S – I know I am talking about weather and not climate. I live in the Southwest. We are dominated by two monsoons. One from Mexico and one from California. I was here when we got 3 100 year floods within 18 months. Has not happened for 30 years. We get dust storms every year, we are in a desert. Sometimes there is rain behind it, sometimes there isn’t. I have seen it rain sideways in what are called microbursts. You are driving and you cannot see either the road or the car ahead of you. That is how hard the rain is hitting your windshield. I have lived here 53 years and the weather is always the same, but different. Right now it is different, it is below normal.

        2. Nah, I’m not saying that. I’m just saying their full of SH*T, period!

          Go to Adrian Vance’s website: Two Minute Conservative. Write to him, asking nicely for a PDF of his book “Vapor Tiger”.

          This is a hard science and math book which offers you in conclusive analysis the refutation of anthropogenic global warming.

          I know you value the truth, and will take all avenues to reach it. I present you with this one 🙂

          1. If wishes were horses beggars would ride. IF BS were Facts a whole subject might rise to a level of the concern it may or may not deserve. To be real blunt the proponents come from a part of society I have learned not to trust. That’s Me. I. Myself. I don’t care about the opinions that others may have. The only opinion that counts with me is my own. But then I’m an independent thinker using common sense, facts, and reason. I’m not a pre-programmed humanoid clone.

      2. Steg – we are still one degree below the mean for the Medieval Warming Period. Already they are wetting themselves. Given the Polar Vortex we are in, we are NOT going to be the hottest year on record. That is a given.

        1. When scientists report about the hottest year on record, they are not speaking of just the United States. They are speaking of the planet as a whole. So while one region of the planet may not experience the hottest year on record for that region, this does not means that the planet as a whole is not experiencing the hottest year on record. Just because the U.S. is experiencing unusually cold weather is not evidence that the planet as a whole is not experiencing a warming trend.

          1. dogfightwithdogma – however, we know from the Michael Mann emails that they are guessing about the temperatures in some areas because they do not have thermometers there. And then this guess is treated as accurate data. The whole climate change game is a hoax designed to drive research money.

            1. Exactly what email or set of emails is this statement by Mann made? Provide a link to the specific emails. I do not trust your reading of these emails. I’ve not seen these emails, so since you are making the claim about these emails it is your obligation to support the claim with the evidence.

              Even if what you say is true, these educated guesses do not call into question the reliability or accuracy of the various locations around the world where actual thermometer readings have been and continue to be taken. This data confirms that there is a global warming trend.

              1. dogfightwithdogma – if you have not read the emails you cannot be part of the discussion.

        2. You are cheery picking Paul. Comparing the current trend to a narrow period of time in the past, especially a time that has data that would appear to support your denialist position, is the very definition of cherry-picking. Scientists take into consideration not only the time referred to as the Mediieval Warming Period but the time before and after this. Any intellectually honest person would do the same. Furthermore, there is a myth about the Medieval Warming Period which you seem to have swallowed whole. This period refers to a warming trend that occurred in some parts of the planet, such as the North Atlantic. But there is evidence that other parts of the planet, such as the tropics, were much cooler than today. When all the data is taken into account — not just the cheery-picked data to which you refer, it is very likely that the overall warmth of the Medieval Period was similar to the mid-20th century warming. You can read about this (and better educate yourself on this subject at the same time) here:

          1. dogfightwithdogma – read your link that some unnamed person wrote. I found logical fallacies that must only stand in science. I want to thank you. Michael Mann is still lying. Nice to know he is consistent.

            1. It is essentially irrelevant who wrote the article. What is at issue is the substance of the article not the author. While I can’t tell you exactly who wrote the article, it was one of the members of the team of writers at the website. A complete list of the writers with their bios can be found if you go to the pop down menu under About at the top of the page and them click on Team.

              If you are to dismiss the argument and evidence in the article then do so by offering a rebuttal to the argument and the evidence. It is not sufficient to say that you found logical fallacies in the article but not actually identify them. Your response is a complete failure to actually address the substance of the article.

              Saying that Michael Mann is lying does not establish that he is lying. If he is lying then establish this claim with an evidence-based argument. I could just as easily say that you are a paid mouthpiece for the oil industry. But saying so does not establish that it is true.

              1. dogfightwithdogma – as we have already established you have not read the Michael Mann emails, so you don’t realize he is lying. You are out of the loop.

                1. Paul — then direct me to where these emails can be found and read. Provide a link to a source.

                  I read the report of the investigation that was conducted at the University of Pennsylvania into the charges made against Mann based on the emails. That report completely exonerated Mann. As I recall there were something like seven different investigations by different entities into the more than 6000 emails that were part of what was incorrectly labeled climategate. Not one of those investigations found any wrongdoing of any kind by any of the scientists who wrote or received those emails. All of the false charges leveled against the scientists were based on distortions and out-of-context misrepresentations of the content of the various emails. Again, you must demonstrate with evidence your claim that Mann lied and continues to lie to this day.

                  1. dogfightwithdogma – I do not know where you would find the emails today. You could try the Way Back Machine. Having read those emails I could not understand why at least Michael Mann was not fired. However, he did move on to a new university, which may have been part of the deal. Maybe Wikipedia has a link to them.

        3. Right? The medieval period was fantastic for human prosperity! Why do these folks hate peace and progress so much?

          1. Steg — Who among us said that the medieval period was fantastic for human prosperity? Seems to me you have created a huge strawman here.

            1. I was replying to Paul who mentioned it above- that we have not yet breached the high point in terms of global temperature that was experienced during the medieval period. A time which saw human progress and expansion, much more peaceful beyond the norms of our history.

              I was following the logic- that if the warming were real, it would be a time again of human progress, prosperity, and expansion, and much more peaceful versions of it than our collective history would suggest.

              I therefore posit that since people don’t realize this and are clamoring to stop the ‘warming’- I logically conclude that you dislike progress, peace, and prosperity.

              Did you read Vapor Tiger yet?

  17. I’m sure that there will be posters who claim that this isn’t true, can’t be true, is a plot by Obama or Hillary or faceless bureaucrats or ????

    What I never understand about these arguments is why some people don’t WANT to believe it could be true.

    1. The weather is nothing to be alarmed about. You might consider the his sources. They are funded by those who are trying to promote man made climate change. They simply won’t get funding if they don’t agree-Obama, Hillary or the UN. I would imagine this is just to put pressure on the new administration so the won’t lose their funding. Even though we’ve only 30 days left of the current administration, it’s worth a shot. They’ve nothing to lose but their income. They’ll likely lose that anyway.

      1. In the first place, climate is not the same as weather. Do you appreciate that?

        Second, do you think there is any possibility at all that climate change could be real, and that humans are responsible for it? What sort of event or events would it take to make you reconsider your views?

        Or is your view simply that, since many scientists are funded by the government, they can’t possibly be telling the truth?

      2. While your remarks about the funding sources of scientists is not actually an argument in opposition to the science and substance underlying the climate change arguments, I am always left wondering why the climate change denialists who parade out this non sequitur comment never say anything at all about the funding source of those who spend their time peddling the “climate change is a hoax” nonsense. Lots of money flows from the fossil fuels industries to fund these deniers. There’s a cottage disnformation industry there propped up by the dollars from those who have the most to gain from denying the science of climate change: the fossil fuel industries.

          1. BTW, I would love to hear exactly what giant industry it is, or what combination of industries, than has/have such a giant monetary interest in pimping a fake story by so many scientists about man made global warming – never mind about the need to control carbon emissions regardless of origin. I mean seriously, a conspiricy on that scale gets to be expensive. Fast.

            The nascent solar panel industry? Next to oil, that’s like comparing a three year old to the entire US Navy! Good luck kid. Maybe wind turbines? Well, same thing; the entire industry might scrape together a few hundred million if they stopped all research and development cold. Enough to get cuff-links for a few dozen senators, or at least the only kind they like (convertible to a Swiss bank account). Next to oil industries alone, they would be like like a grade school nerd lined up against an entire Super Bowl team! Go Charlie Brown!

            Perhaps that is one reason they never, ever, ever, never, never, ever mention who these dark shadowy people with such incredibly deep pockets are. For us it’s easy to name and easy to prove: Oil/Coal/Carbon Based.

            As far as the scientists themselves go, a large majority would keep on getting a check regardless. Studying the weather is something we will continue doing with or without global warming as long as we have farmers or industry of just about any sort, or just plain people.

Comments are closed.