May 072014
 May 7, 2014  Posted by at 7:54 am Finance Tagged with:

Gottscho-Schleisner New York City view from Central Park February 12, 1933

This just in from, of all sources, CBS. It’s quite a milestone we’ve passed here. Time for some contemplation perhaps. Time to wonder if enough people will care enough soon enough. Doesn’t look like it. Looks like we’re too busy drilling in the ever scarcer remaining pristine locations we haven’t yet exploited, and too busy preparing to go to war over access to the very resources that lifted us all the way up over 400ppm in what’s really no more than the blink of an eye in the 800,000 year timeframe. We’ll all just get into our cars again this morning and tell ourselves we’re looking out for number one. Maybe we need to be reminded what number one really is.

First time in 800,000 years: April’s CO2 levels above 400 ppm (CBS)

Less than a year after scientists first warned that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could rise above 400 parts per million and stay there, it has finally happened. For the first time in recorded history, the average level of CO2 has topped 400 ppm for an entire month. The high levels of carbon dioxide is largely considered by scientists a key factor in global warming, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth System Research Lab. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a part of the University of California, San Diego, reported that April’s average amount of CO2 was 401.33 ppm, with each day reading above 400 ppm.

Scientists, using the Keeling Curve, show the increase of CO2 levels over the course of 800,000 years. Scripps Institution Of Oceanography

According to the Institute, CO2 levels have not surpassed 300 ppm in 800,000 years. It is estimated that during Earth’s ice ages, the C02 levels were around 200 ppm, with warmer periods — as well as prior to the Industrial Revolution — having carbon dioxide levels of 280 ppm. Past levels of CO2 are found in old air samples preserved as bubbles in the Atlantic ice sheet, according to Scripps. Throughout the year, there are changes in CO2 levels that occur naturally from the growth of plants and trees. Carbon dioxide levels often peak in the spring due to plant growth, and decrease in the fall when plants die, according to NOAA. However, human CO2 production has exacerbated the effects, causing global warming and climate change.

Scientists have been measuring the levels of carbon dioxide over the past fifty years. Since 1958, the Keeling Curve – named after developer Charles Keeling – has been used to monitor the levels of greenhouse gasses atop Hawaii’s Mauna Loa. When Keeling first started monitoring CO2 levels, the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere was 313 ppm. After Keeling’s death in 2005, his son Ralph, a professor of geochemistry and director of the Scripps CO2 Program, continued the measurements. In a statement last year, he warned that CO2 levels would “hit 450-ppm within a few decades.”

Home Forums First Time In 800,000 Years: April CO2 Levels Above 400 ppm

This topic contains 16 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  stefano 4 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)
  • Author
  • #12707

    Gottscho-Schleisner New York City view from Central Park February 12, 1933 This just in from, of all sources, CBS. It’s quite a milestone we’ve passed
    [See the full post at: First Time In 800,000 Years: April CO2 Levels Above 400 ppm]



    In her book “The Sixth Extinction” Elizabeth Kolbert says we are living in a special time in the earth’s history. There have only been five occassions in history like the current – the previous five mass extinctions. She chronicles the rapid demise of amphibians in South America. These creatures have survived all previous extinctions but are under severe stress now – across the globe. That gives you an idea of how things are now.. 400ppm is a serious number. But life seems to carry on as if nothing much of note is happening. The UK recorded one of its biggest car sales this month. It’s civil servants are drafting plans for a big road building programme to accommodate anticipated growth in traffic. That’s just here in the UK today.

    It’s like a bad dream.


    Diogenes Shrugged

    The association of CO2 with climate “change” is a tax scam. And being a tax scam, you can correctly assume that it’s a banking scam underneath. Congratulations. This website has helped to expose and explain banking scams in all their destructive and criminal glory, and has provided a crucial public service in doing so. But now it throws its weight in support of a destructive and criminal – – banking scam?

    “Global warming” (and all its renamed bastard children) is indeed a banking scam — turned political scam — turned religious movement, but it has never been scientific except on the part of the “deniers” (an ad-hominem meant to be synonymous with “genocidal lunatics”). Supporters (I call them “suckers”) not only fail to observe scientific evidence objectively (if at all), but succumb to doom hysterics every time they feel nature has deviated a little too far from room temperature.

    There’s a whole herd of elephants in the room – – you know: the ones that piety requires us to ignore:

    1. Government funding for so-called climate “science” REQUIRES conclusions supporting the CO2 climate change dogma. “Deniers” lose their funding, and there is a lot of money at stake.

    2. The U.S. Interior Secretary has condemned “deniers” department-wide. This is not science. This is religious dogma (she calls it a “moral imperative,” in fact).

    3. Geo-engineering is in full swing all over the globe, creating blankets of clouds that not only reduce solar flux to the Earth’s surface, but also reduce IR radiation back into space during the night. The effects of “chemtrails” and “solar radiation management” on both climate and weather are profound, but you still regard a few ppm CO2 as disastrous? Keep in mind that 100 ppm = a single one-hundredth of one percent, so virtually supernatural properties are being bestowed on this tiny population of molecules. Compared with water vapor, CO2 is totally inconsequential.

    Imagine a scientific experiment investigating the effects of a few ppm of arsenic in drinking water, but the researcher secretly floods the water with cyanide. When test animals keel over, you’re still calling for a reduction in arsenic in drinking water. Why can’t you see that the atmosphere on Earth is no longer a valid laboratory for observing the effects of CO2 concentrations? If climate is changing, it’s because they’re deliberately changing it through geo-engineering. And where do you suppose the money comes from to do that?

    4. The record of prominent “climate scientists” popularizing “global warming” is one of forged data, dishonest manipulation of data, cherry-picking of data, ignoring of data, deliberate placement of test instruments in urban environments where heat is bound to be higher (e.g. near buildings and asphalt roadways), and recorded communications between researchers admitting to these activities. Those activities disqualify them as scientists. The mainstream media have been cooperative in publicizing the scams as “science,” though, and in vilifying “deniers.”

    5. The recorded history of weather and climate worldwide shows much greater extremes than those we’ve witnessed in the last several decades. Climate extremes are the rule on Earth, and climate is, and has always, been perpetually changing. Climate change is a planetary given, and not something you should ask politicians to monkey with.
    You can scroll backward in time with that link and see endless reports of climate extremes throughout history.

    6. There are two great sinks for atmospheric CO2: green plants (that convert it into living tissue) and water (think oceans). The higher the CO2, the more is incorporated into green plants, and the more is dissolved in oceans. In other words, Earth already has massive buffers that keep CO2 concentrations in check. How much energy do you think mankind should devote to competing with those already-existent buffers? How much CO2 from fossil fuels must be generated – – how much waste from nuclear power plants – – how many Chinese solar farms on what used to be southwestern cattle ranches – – to sequester some amount of CO2 that compares with what oceans and green plants sequester? Just to satisfy your religious certainty that 350 ppm CO2 would save the world from certain fire and brimstone? Surely you’ve gone completely mad.

    State Of The Climate Report
    Posted on April 17, 2014
    by stevengoddard
    The IPCC says the world is burning up
    The real world says differently.
    ▪ No global warming for over 17 years
    ▪ Global sea ice area is near an all-time record high for mid-April
    ▪ Great Lakes ice cover is the highest on record for mid-April
    ▪ Antarctic sea ice area is the highest on record for mid-April
    ▪ Arctic multi-year ice way up over the last three years
    ▪ Record low tornado activity in the US since the start of 2012
    ▪ Near record low hurricane activity in the US over the past five years
    ▪ No major hurricanes in the US for almost nine years – a record
    ▪ No hurricanes in Florida for almost nine years – a record
    ▪ Last year was the quietest Atlantic hurricane season in decades
    Coldest four months on record in much of the midwest

    Wake up, people. You’re getting robbed by the same crooks yet again.


    Ken Barrows


    It seems you are hanging your hat on a plateau in land temperatures, which have still seen most months in the top 10 of a 140 year record. Fair enough. But why no mention of deep ocean temperatures or acidification of said oceans? If you want to make the case against climate change, please offer more than What’s Up With That talking points.



    Here in Northern California, Dr. Jeffrey Abel, chair of the Oceanography Department at Humboldt State University, reported a reading of 400 ppm CO2 in April of 2013, taken at the department weather station at Trinidad Head, known for the clearest air on the west coast.


    Diogenes Shrugged

    Ken, I’m disappointed that my long comment wasn’t enough for you to chew on. Perhaps you skipped the “chew on” part. Now you need a scholarly assessment of ocean currents for some reason – – because that’s largely what ocean temperatures are dependent upon. With links, of course. Why didn’t you provide that information yourself if you thought it made the case for Obama’s carbon regulations, taxes and punitive fines?

    Ocean acidification? Same thing. Break a leg. I’ve spent enough time here trotting out evidence today.

    But I’ll indulge you briefly just the same because I’m such a nice guy. Carbon dioxide dissolved in water produces carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is a very weak organic acid and it takes an awful lot of it to make significant changes to ocean pH. Early Earth had atmospheric CO2 levels of more than 20% if I recall correctly (it’s been a long time, and my memory is fading). The thousands of feet of limestone sediments in various places around the globe represent that atmospheric CO2 having been fixed into stone by various marine processes including coral reefs. The upshot is that the system is buffered. Don’t lose sleep over acidified oceans. The fact that marine life shows resilience against minor temperature and acidity changes indicates that this isn’t a new phenomenon. Earth’s history has been overwhelmingly more hostile (has presented far greater selective pressures against living things) than your SUV is capable of generating today.

    And Livedeadcat, as you know, CO2 is clear and colorless. And though recognizing your comment wasn’t directed at me, I’ll maintain that even 10,000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere is as benign and unimportant as the tenth’s place in tomorrow’s temperature forecast. So, 400ppm CO2 wouldn’t be newsworthy in the least except for the fact that people in control want to use it as a pretext to rape you repeatedly for the rest of your life. And while I thought that might be considered an undesirable thing, it turns out there is no shortage of cheerleaders, true believers and tyrants who want to see it happen.

    AGW, global warming, climate change, carbon taxes, CO2, ocean acidification and ocean temperatures have nothing to do AT ALL with anything but separating you from your money.

    When will human beings grow a brain and recognize that H2O is the only greenhouse gas of any importance? Alas, probably not until Al Gore becomes the appointed King of the New World Order. Bummer.


    Deadcat, the article deals not with the first time CO2 has reached 400 ppm, but with the first time it has remained over 400 ppm for an entire month.

    Diogenes, that’s a lot of scam detection. Do they pay all the scientists, are they all part of the scam, or do they start teaching them false science in high school?



    In about one year’s time, the CO2 content in the earth’s atmosphere has gone from a first reading of 400 ppm to consistently reading over 400 ppm. When Keeling developed the first accurate method of measuring CO2 back in the 1950’s, the first thing he noticed was that his measurements varied day-to-night (attributed to lower photosynthesis in darkness) and summer-to-winter (attributable to seasonal changes in the ratio of hours of daylight to darkness). That is why the “Keeling Curve” has a saw-toothed pattern over time. The next thing Keeling observed was the inexorable upward trend in the amount of CO2, year-over-year. This trend had been suspected since the turn of the twentieth century, and Keeling’s measurements merely proved it. Even before the trend was accurately measured, the principle source of the extra CO2 had been clearly identified as combustion of fossil fuels.

    Carbon dioxide may seem to to some to be “clear and colorless” (a distinction without a difference and perhaps a misstatement of “colorless and odorless”), but it is actually photochemically active, absorbing photons and then reradiating them in all directions. One result of this property is that CO2 in the atmosphere redirects some of the light reflected from the surface of the earth back toward earth, where its energy excites molecules to produce what we call “heat.”

    The atmosphere has always contained “greenhouse gasses,” like the small amounts of CO2 and much larger amounts of water vapor. These gasses can be thought of as a blanket that retains the warmth of the sun. Without them, earth would be as cold as its moon. The problem for us (and for all of life on earth) is that CO2 formerly sequestered over millennia in fossil form is now being reintroduced into the atmosphere at a rapid rate, perturbing the ratio of insolation to reflection, which in turn perturbs weather (a large part of which is the interaction between relatively warmer areas and cooler areas). Weather over time is what we call “climate,” and systemically increasing greenhouse gasses fundamentally changes the weather. We call that climate change.

    It gets worse: For instance, it is true that CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It is also true that, as the oceans warm up, they lose their ability to retain absorbed CO2, which is then released back into the atmosphere, further warming it (and the oceans as well). This is positive feedback, like holding a microphone in front of a loudspeaker. And then there are the clathrates. Don’t get me started on that….

    Ironically, the relatively stable climate of the holocene is what permitted humans to develop agriculture and then “civilization,” which seems to be responsible for climate destabilization.

    The sad truth of our circumstance may well be summed up in my epitaph for mankind, “We played with fire.”

    I should not drink coffee after noon.



    It’s pretty clear that the earth, as a whole, is warming. It’s pretty clear that humans have become the prime cause (particularly since the 1970s – the IPCC report documented that the warming since 1950 is pretty much all human caused). It’s pretty clear that the deniers have won the battle of minds (where is there any significant actions to alter BAU?) and that seems mainly because they can lie, whilst those with scientific evidence on their side (the 97%) use the science.

    CO2 levels will continue to increase and positive feedbacks will continue to ramp up. I’m not sure how to prepare for what’s coming, but do what you can.



    While I would agree that the idea of a carbon tax is asinine (“I can pollute as much as I can ‘pay’ for; hurray for me, and you-know-what to everybody else.”), this appalling conceit that humans know more and are smarter than hundreds of millions of years of symbiotic natural processes has won itself a place in the arena of the obscene (not bordering on it; firmly implanted in it.)

    Since we’re bandying conspiracies around and about, I pose one myself:
    Those who scoff that we’ve entered the Anthropocene (a dangerously hubristic Era), are well-financed and supported by the institutions that the Oligarchy now have complete control over. There is a concerted effort to shut down all opinion (and squelch all evidence) that sustaining the unsustainable, BAU (business as usual), maintaining the status quo is a suicidal and ecocidal pursuit. Why would they do such a thing, you ask? In answer, all you have to do is to observe who is raking in (or getting control over) every ‘asset’ in sight, or that you can possibly think of. There be profits to be made, mateys, and they shall make very dead all those who would stand in their way of makin’ ’em!

    “In the end, the deepest insight of the Anthropocene will probably be a very simple one: we live in a world of millions of interdependent species with which we have co-evolved. We sunder this web of life at our peril. Earth’s story is fascinating, rich in detail, and continually self-revealing. And it’s not all about us.” — Richard Heinberg

    There you go; how was that? Too far beyond all reasonable suppositions?
    “Fee, fie, fo, foal; I smell the blood of a hired troll.”


    Dr. Diablo

    Look at the climate CO2 chart above: it tells you everything you need to know to disprove CO2-caused anthropogenic global warming. Going back 800,000 years–when man couldn’t affect the climate of a parish, much less a planet–the CO2 levels have steadily gyrated between 175 and 250ppm. Especially since 500,000 the rhythm has been perfectly steady at 100,000 years–suggesting some larger planetary/sun/solar system cycle at work. That’s no less than 5 and possibly more than 8 100,000-year cycles that rose dramatically off the 175ppm level and shot up without pause to 250ppm: where we are today. The chart is not scaled well, but this vertical leap began perhaps 10,000 years ago, not exactly the coal age. And this rise is right on schedule, right on target, exactly to the level predicted.

    IF MAN WERE DOING ANYTHING HERE, WOULDN’T THE CHART HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE WERE DOING NOTHING? By definition? This is the best chart I’ve ever seen disproving either CO2 effect or Anthropogenic global warming. There is also nothing on this chart to suggest CO2 will rise higher than present; quite the contrary: this 800,000-year chart STRONGLY suggests CO2 is at its natural height and will reverse over the next hundreds of years through processes we don’t yet understand. A million years of natural reversal suggests no need for alarm. (From other AE thread where same chart is posted. This looks like the more appropriate location)

    @tonyprep Yes, the earth is probably warming right now. It has been both warmer and cooler in the past. But we’ve got a number of odd items to fit in. One, all planets in the solar system are warming. Two, according to their chart, CO2 has been rising for some 10,000 years–yet up until 1900? 1990? it wasn’t having much effect on temperature, including some relatively nasty drops like the Medieval Cooling period. That’s 8000-8100 years off the mark. Further, it hasn’t been warming any further in a decade. And although a decade is a blip, it’s beginning to be evidence.

    But let’s go further: So in that CO2 has risen up from its 100,000-year low to it’s 100,000-year high does that mean it will continue to rise this time and only this time despite dropping 8 times in a row for a million years straight? If it continues over 400ppm, will it continue up from 0.3% of free atmosphere to 100% of earth atmosphere? If not, what will stop it? If for example U.S. summer temperatures have risen from 90f to 100f, does that mean they will rise to 140f, 160f, 200f? Why not? Doesn’t that mean there is some natural process regulating this?

    If humans are the cause, then how did it rise from 275ppm to 400ppm the last 7 times, and from 10,000 years ago until, say 500 years ago, when we may have begun affecting it? Likewise, if humans are the cause of warming, why is it precisely on geological schedule, and why has the temperature varied just as widely and on the exact same schedule as during the previous Ice Ages and inter-warming periods?

    I don’t understand how any of this can be.

    Suppose that humans are the cause of warming, AND that CO2 is the cause, both of which are discredited by their own evidence. In that case we humans should rejoice that the world will be warmer, with more landmass available for habitation and agriculture, as a great deal of landmass is disproportionately near the 60 latitude. The astonishing landmasses of Russia and Canada become habitable, opening up untold hectares to food production. It might be the only way the globe COULD support 7, 8, 9Billion. Commercial greenhouses pay good money to INJECT CO2 into the air because of the superior growth it puts on with even a small addition. With every PPM rise, crops will boom, sequestering the carbon, making fields and forests grow.

    But suppose it’s actually heating, AND it’s human caused, AND it’s also bad (which is another difficult argument with tenuous evidence), AND it doesn’t regulate itself. Then, and only then would we humans address it. So we in the US and Europe drastically reduce our CO2 emissions. And suppose somehow we do NOT do this by using nuclear or some even worse choice. (And mind you, I don’t mind doing this and I think a lot of progress is dumb) And suppose we do not collpase the world economy with the attempt when Energy=GDP in every measurable sense.

    India and China will not. Neither will Russia, nor most of the 3rd world. China is now the world’s 2nd largest economy. China has 1.3B people. India has 1.2B. The US has 0.318B. 8 of 10 most populous countries comprising 4B people won’t do it. If they don’t follow suit–and it’s a lock that they won’t, since they’ve said so–they will not only counter any reduction in CO2 we cause, but also burn/use every resource we don’t, raising their GDP and relative national power while reducing ours. In addition, even were this not true, measurable oil depletion means we as humans wouldn’t have to limit our useage on purpose in any case. The carbon is not there to burn.

    On every level, this thing cannot be done. Any engineer could calculate this for you with a pencil and a napkin. But these guys, who are so smart, cannot. Why? I find this hard to follow.

    Is it because they only get paid if we get taxed and their power increases while our lives and our power decreases?

    There is no CO2-caused global warming. It is not caused by man, and you yourself gave me the evidence. I don’t mind reducing power, increasing green, doing things well, but we should act on true premises and for the right reasons. Please investigate this further when you have time. I’ll be here.


    Diogenes Shrugged

    “Diogenes, that’s a lot of scam detection. Do they pay all the scientists, are they all part of the scam, or do they start teaching them false science in high school?”

    Ilargi, the money for climate research comes chiefly from government, and it’s a lot of money. The government isn’t the least bit interested in whether global warming is real or not because they’re already committed to massive national and international programs that presuppose anthropogenic global warming (AGW) for justification.

    Climate Science: follow the money

    If AGW was scientifically shown to be absolutely, unmistakably, undeniably, provably, demonstrably wrong, does anybody think for a moment that the governmental and academic empires built on the foundations of its being true would be dismantled? Not a snowball’s chance. That train left the station – – moving swiftly – – long ago.

    Climate research grant proposals must be written in a way that already presupposes the validity of AGW. So researching the projected effects of warmer temperatures and drought on butterfly mating gets funded. Funding is simply not awarded to any researcher whose objective is to honestly re-evaluate whether or not AGW is bogus to begin with. So in effect, yes, they really are paying the scientists to be on the AGW bandwagon.

    But there is a larger issue having to do with all the high-brow claims from politicians, journalists and teeming masses of non-scientists eager to express their oh-so-enlightened opinions. Scientific conclusions are not arrived at through consensus. Scientific theories aren’t established with men in lab coats lining up at a ballot box, but rather through exhaustive accumulation and re-evaluation of evidence. Most of the statements in support of AGW that I’ve read over the years have pointed to some mythical percentage of scientists, or some absolute number of scientists, who presumably supported the AGW conclusion in some poll. Ignoring for the moment that the most publicized polls have been shown to be bogus, what difference does it make? Before Galileo, 99% of scientists agreed with each other, but they were flat-out wrong.

    When people in power make grand plans, sometimes they tell us about them and other times they don’t. When a citizen notices that something’s amiss and suggests that the government is doing something secretively because it’s probably also illegal, he’s accused of being a conspiracy theorist. George Bush scolded the nation in a speech after 9/11 to never tolerate conspiracy theorists. The NSA recently changed the “conspiracy theorist” ad-hominem to “terrorist.” So you tell me, why do you suppose scientific terrorists (a.k.a. “deniers”) don’t receive government funding for projects disproving AGW, and what effect do you suppose that has on the percentage of scientists “found to be in support of”AGW conclusions?



    @ Devil Doctor,
    ” That’s no less than 5 and possibly more than 8 100,000-year cycles that rose dramatically off the 175ppm level and shot up without pause to 250ppm: where we are today. ”

    Um, you DO understand that the number 250 is different than the number 400? (This may come in handy when a clash of warring tribes is about to commence and you find yourself in the 250 group.) Look at that chart again if that’s a complication or a perplexity. (No, over there on the far right. It’s that tiny, thin line that goes up and up all the way to the tippy-top of the chart, corresponding to the 4 with two zeroes after it.)


    Well, that’s not an answer, is it? Not very convincing. I get the feeling the conspiracy is not where you think it is. Do all these scientists get paid to issue reports they know are not true, or do they get fed false information while training? Or maybe I should ask: who pays the deniers? Or: if there are no changes in the climate, why is Arctic ice vanishing (or is that all trick photography)?



    Sadly, CO2 continues to increase, and the speed of increase continues to rise. This takes place without any ‘black swan’ events – just our own increasing use of fossil fuels, releasing more and more into the atmosphere.

    The problem with corporate financed opposition, devoted to finding ways to spin evidence to try to make it look like there is no problem (also known as “confirmation bias”), is that when the predictable happens, the corporations can file bankruptcy, and their owners will take the money and run. Or they think they can, at least. For them the ONLY thing that matters is next quarter’s 10-Q, and their next bonus.

    There is once excellent website, known by most of us I am sure,, that will debunk all of the bogus statements (one example, Diogenes’ assertion: “No global warming for over 17 years.” Facts: warmest year ever was 2010; only 1998 was warmer than any year since 1999. 9 of the 10 warmest years were since 2000. by trolls like Diogenes Shrugged (trying to intimate he/she is a Libertarian?) and Devil Doctor. If anyone thinks these folks should be taken seriously, I would suggest they go to that site and they can find all of these arguments have been made and refuted.

    Bottom line: real scientists use something called the “scientific method.” Most are employed, not by government, but by private universities and colleges throughout the world. If one of them could come up with a way to disprove AGW, they would get richer than you could imagine. Most – again, not all – take their work seriously. There are a few who seriously debate the premise of climate change, and that is part of science. If a theory is not challenged, how can it be proved? Science never says, “always” or “never.” It’s statements are hedged with levels of probability. And, that makes it easy for deniers to say, “Well, they (climate scientists) are not even sure.” Propaganda, though, comes at you in black and white – no shades of gray. With sufficient funding, you can repeat a lie often enough that people may believe it. Especially when the truth is difficult to accept.

    Wizzard’s First Rule is, “People believe lies due to desire or fear.” Terry Goodkind.



    Diogenes Shrugged

    Ilargi, your mind’s made up; I’ve done what I can but wasted my time. Lesson learned. “Who pays the deniers” is a lot like “when did you stop beating your wife?” It appears you’re having a hard time figuring out what the question that you want to ask is.

    Nobel Laureate Says The Arctic Will Be Ice-Free In A Few Weeks

    Zaphod42, your mind’s also made up. Your labels and attacks on me are uniformly incorrect (and juvenile and offensive), but that’s the kind of “argument” I’ve come to expect from AGW fans. You’re wrong about private universities doing most of the research, and you’re mistaken to think a government website can be trusted.

    Reply if you wish, but I’m done with this particular thread.



    An interesting thread. Diogenes Shrugged quotes Steven Goddard and claims the IPCC and government funded climate science is hokum and Al Gores prediction being wrong means, in a straw man manner, that climate warming is false; other people scratch their heads and sigh and quote the IPCC and claim Steven Goddard is a crazy poor science quality climate denier shill.

    Certainly, on doing my own investigation, I quite like the following ‘Arctic ice circle of doom’ diagram I found here:

    If these polar science center numbers are correct, I find them quite compelling evidence. Not to mention various other tidbits I have seen or heard over the years; the before and after shot photographic evidence of glacier decline over the last 50-150 years; the anecdotal general consensus among climate scientists in Antarctica that the climate there too is warming.

    Nevertheless, for every piece of anthropogenic climate warming evidence I might find compelling, a climate change denier can potentially provide another they find compelling for their case. Either way, following James Lovelock, if I’m right it’s too late to fix it.

    So let’s agree to disagree. I will opt out the world of high finance as much as possible, and buy a modest relatively self sustaining home, in a rural area with low population density, several dozen meters above sea level, in an area with a cool climate, moderate rainfall, potable rivers, and good draining soil. I’m super lucky to be able to do so.

    Diogenes Shrugged is in my opinion very welcome to follow their dream too, whatever that is, too. I just hope for their sake that, if I’m right, it’s neither a beachfront apartment, nor somewhere else low lying, nor somewhere already very warm or very rainy, among other dystopian options.

    As an aside, when do you think the oil and coal and car and industrial plant companies will help the poor old government out and shoulder a fair share of the burden of funding – potentially independent and impartial – climate science? If only to assuage the corpus of – potentially fair and reasonable – accusations of government bias and conspiracy?

Viewing 17 posts - 1 through 17 (of 17 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.