New Climate Video – RCRC Climate Debate

I have finally been able to publish a video of my presentation at the climate debate held by the Regional Council of Rural Counties last September.  The entire video is about an hour long.  As usual, I am offering several ways to view it.  First, it has been posted on YouTube but had to be broken into seven parts.  The playlist of all seven parts is below:

The playlist link is here:  RCRC Climate Debate (Skeptic's Side)

Unfortunately, YouTube crushes the resolution so many of the charts are hard to read.  You can download the full resolution windows media version (about 96MB) as long as my bandwidth holds out by right-clicking and downloading form this link:  Download RCRC Climate Debate (wmv)

Also, you can stream higher resolution version of this film (and all my other climate films) at this site.  The resolution is not as good as the downloadable version but is much better than YouTube.  Again, bandwidth pending.

Finally, you can download the actual powerpoint presentation shown in this video here or you can view the presentation online here.

In the future, all of my videos and presentations will be available via the links just under the banner for this site.

  • Araucan

    Dear Warren,

    I downlaoded your powerpoint presentation and saw in the page 37 that you said : “European cap and trade systems are fraught with faulty accounting.”r
    But I don’t find references on this point. I will be very interested with your references on that point.

    Otherwise, I’m very agree with your presentation which is clear and well illustrated. But I’m not sure that a carbon tax will solve the question , because there are already taxes about fossile fuels (not so important in USA than in EU for sure).

    Thank you.

  • brazil84

    Nice presentation. It’s fascinating that amateurs are able to look at modern climate science and find serious problems. I’ve debated the global warming issue many times on the internet. Most of the time, the warmists ultimately fall back on the “consensus” argument.

  • Max

    Well, it depends what you mean as “faulty accounting”. F.e. Since there was no common experience in how much CO2 a power plant really emits, the company running the power plants could decide what level of CO2 and what amount of certificates were necessary. I think this can be described as faulty accounting (at least faulty counting =) ).

  • Araucan

    So, if I understand well, it’s also modelling for the CO2 emissions : no real control in fact … Not very serious…
    Thanks !

  • Stephen

    Due to the complexity of the climate, with so many factors that science has not yet fully explained every single process, it is difficult for a coherent picture to emerge from which we can firmly conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that there is Human-Induced Global Climate Destabilisation (H-IGCD). If it were the case, we wouldn’t be having this debate. But that is not to say there aren’t any indications.

    So let’s tackle this controversy in three different ways.

    1) For millions of years, the Earth’s climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods. But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast. Ever since the industrial revolution began, amplifying our demand for energy, we have used carbon-based fossil fuel to satiate that demand. The increasing consumption of carbon-based energy from industrialised and developing nations causes an increase in the burning of fossil fuel; an increase in carbon emissions; an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping more of the sun’s radiated energy as heat; intensifying the natural Greenhouse Effect.

    The majority of climate scientists agree upon the concept of GCD primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, and post-industrialisation emissions of green house gases having an impact on the climate cycle and environment. And the idea that H-IGCD will continue and worsen if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Just pause for a second and think, if you had a horse race and every major betting agency was saying, put your money on that horse, would you do it (just keep it simplistic)? Well, with every major institute in the first world betting on H-IGCD, ask yourself: “Which seems like the smarter bet on which to wager the world?”

    The H-IGCD is the effect of the intensified Greenhouse Effect superimposed upon the normal climate cycle. We have the average increase in temperature (Global Warming), but it is not a uniform Global Warming (hence Climate Change). The Climate Change affects different regions in different ways (H-IGCD). So it’s not the degrees of temperature that matters per se, but the fact that such a quick change in the global average temperature is like throwing a wrench into the climate system. Should it reach a tipping point, the products of the process of H-IGCD will fuel the process; such as increased temperatures melting ice sheets, which increases the size of the ocean, causing more heat to be absorbed into the climate, further melting the ice sheets. The evidence for this is certainly compelling.

    So, what are these indications?

    -Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations.

    -Rate of Warming: The rate of average global temperature increase is particularly evident in three ways I will share.

    First off, temperature graphs show the cyclical change – yet H-IGCD is evident, with the cycle of our time being abnormal:
    *“Temperature reconstruction – linear trend for from AD 1000 to 1850,” showing the change in trend since industrialisation:
    *And even more striking, the “Temperatures over the last 1.35 million years” showing the abnormal warmth and warming of our time:

    Secondly, the Polar Ice Caps are melting in unprecedented ways. It is now a common theory for the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free in summer by 2040. I have a link which shows how the minimums have dramatically changed.

    Finally, Coral. Although coral reefs have been around for millions of years, the reefs are formed of the corals themselves, which have life estimates of only a few thousand years. Therefore, as climate has gone through its cycle, coral have been able to evolve to deal with changes in temperature. But now, however, it appears, the climate is changing too rapidly for them to evolve:

    Bleaching is where the corals turn white due to a change in the ocean temperature, exceeding that which they can handle. If the temperature returns to normal, they recover. If not, the coral dies. In this way, coral are like a bellwether, sensitive instruments that detect subtle changes of temperature, reflecting both the ocean and overall climate conditions.

    The first coral bleaching on record occurred in 1979. Since then, there have been six events, each of which has been progressively more frequent and severe. In the El Niño year of 1998, when tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest yet in recorded history, coral reefs around the world suffered the most severe bleaching on record. 48% of reefs in the Western Indian Ocean suffered bleaching, while 16% of the world’s reefs appeared to have died by the end of 1998. 2002 was even worse: 60 to 95 per cent of individual reefs of the Great Barrier Reef suffered some bleaching, while reefs in Palau, the Seychelles, and Okinawa suffered 70-95% bleaching. One quarter of the world’s coral has already been lost.

    -9/11: Yes, I’ll get to it further down.

    Global Dimming is basically the antagonist of Global Warming. Both are caused by emissions. Green House Gas Emissions trap heat and result in Global Warming. Other emissions, which are more evident, damage the health of us and the environment, but reflect heat from earth, resulting in Global Dimming. Due to the emissions, Global Warming had the edge, and we detected the GCD as a result.

    We detected those emissions affecting our health first, and thus reduced them first. This reduced Global Dimming, and therefore contributed to Global Warming.

    Airplane vapor trails are a form of Global Dimming. This is where 9/11 becomes a proof of Global Warming. For three days post-9/11, all flights were grounded. For those three days, no airplane vapor trails were produced. For those three days, the average temperature was 1 degree Celsius warmer than other days. This may not sound like much, but 6 degrees colder is the difference between now and the last ice age, when the Ice Sheets extended as far south as London. It’s a huge amount of warming.

    This is just some of the evidence that I find most persuasive. The problem we have is that our knowledge of climactic processes is never 100% complete, but while we debate whether or not our actions are significantly affecting the climate, we are at the same time running the experiment. The billions of people in the world and the technology we use to sustain that population might be having an impact on the planet. And it is also conceivable that we might not be able to recover from the consequences of those impacts. No matter the outcome, we have a stake in it.

    2) Why not change the focus? No one is perfect, so our choices carry a risk if that choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that, which risk would you rather take for H-IGCD? Listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about; or listen to the skeptics and don’t take action, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about. The bottom line is which is the more acceptable risk? The risk of taking action, or not taking action?

    You might say that the choice is a false one, for the changes in the climate we see are, in fact, not H-IGCD, but part of the climactic cycle (perhaps an extreme part in that cycle, but part of it none-the-less). Are you infallible? No. Could you be wrong? Yes. So the question, which is the more acceptable risk, still applies.

    The best way to present it to you is in the form of a box divided into quarters.

    *Have one of the two rows represent: H-IGCD – True (T), and the other: H-IGCD – False (F).
    Here we can acknowledge that we are far from absolutely certain, or rather far from in agreement, about H-IGCD. All reasonable people should be able to admit to the possibility that they might have a mistake in their understanding of reality.

    *Have one of the two columns represent: Significant Action Taken – Yes (Y), and the other: Significant Action Taken – No (N).
    Obviously, these represent what actions we take.

    *So we now have a grid with four boxes, each box representing a different, plausible future.
    We can now compare these four basic possible scenarios side-by-side, by considering what each of those futures might look like. To determine this, we consider the consequences of the two factors that we are bearing in mind, on the envisioned future, from the perspective of a realistic pessimist.

    Future #1 (F, Y) – Economic cost, no positive benefits: Wasted money in unnecessary investment, opportunity cost of investment, possibly increased taxation, burdensome regulation, inutile bureaucracy, possible costs and problems of replacement technology (from carbon-based technology), retardation of third-world economic development. For the purposes of contrast let’s take it to the extreme, and go so far as to imagine draconian regulation causing massive lay-offs, sparking a recession, spiraling into a global depression which makes the 1930s look like a cakewalk. =(

    Future #2 (F, N) – Didn’t take action, but didn’t need to: we made the right decision, no big economic consequences, continued relative prosperity; sure we had some problems but H-IGCD wasn’t one of them. Everyone celebrates – the skeptics because they were right, and the activists because it wasn’t the end of the world after all. =D

    Future #3 (T, Y) – We took action, and it was a good thing too: the doomsayers were right, we still have the economic cost, but it was money well spent as it allowed as to counteract H-IGCD; it still happened but we managed it so everyone’s ok with that because we saved our bacon. It’s a different world, but it’s livable. Our actions were insurance for the survival and well-being of the human species. =)

    Future #4 (T, N) – We have granted the extreme in every other scenario, and we should here too, and in that case it gets kind of ugly: economic, social, political, and environmental catastrophes on a global scale – a disaster scenario; and the more of these you consider in conjunction, and the greater degree to which we imagine these semi-independently-occurring variables, the more severe the prediction. At the extreme we have an intense situation that makes Al Gore look like a sissy who sugar-coated the bad news, with chain reactions in which problems induce or aggravate other problems:

    Crises ranging from sea-level rise affecting mainland coasts, coastal countries, and river banks, rivers drying up as glaciers melt, changes in wind and sea currents affecting regional microclimates and ecosystems, massive seasonal droughts alternating with wide-spread floods, more intense and more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, lightening storms, blizzards, and forest fires, expansion of desertification, crop failures from climate change, the breadbaskets in Russia, the US, India, and China converted to dustbowls, extinctions and food chain disruption (vegetation can’t adapt to new conditions, animals migrate, keystone species die, habitats drastically alter, predator-prey balance shifts), population displacement (from coasts and river banks, or from areas which can no longer sustain life), south-ward and north-ward migrating of insects (mosquitoes and locusts) as regions’ climates become able to accommodate them, increased forests fires, deforestation, forest burning, forest death (either from climate change beyond what they can tolerate, or insect plagues), spread of famine and epidemics, warfare over scare resources (compounded by, in certain cases, pre-existing tensions), technology failure (particularly energy such as power grids failing due to weather extremes), and economic collapse from consecutive crises, etc. =(

    Take your pick, mix it up, consider what could induce or intensify another problem, and consider the problems to differing degrees of severity. I actually find it rather interesting to ponder the possibilities.

    Obviously this awfully oversimplifies the complexities. But we can say that the future will fall roughly into one of those four boxes. The debate is about trying to predict which row the future will fall into, which we can’t know for certain until we actually get there. What we can know, because we determine it by taking significant action or not, is which column the future will fall (Y/N) into (or rather which column it won’t). Therefore we can eliminate the risk of one of the columns. It’s like buying one of two lottery tickets. Then we sit back and wait for what the Laws of Physics deal out as a result of our pick.

    This grid attempts to isolate the risk to help us decide what the optimal action to take is. One way or the other we are taking a risk, so which risk is more acceptable? As we can only control which column the future land in, the risks associated with the columns are: (F, Y) for column (Y) – acting when we didn’t need to; and (T, N) for column (N) – not acting when we needed to. Interestingly, the risk (T, N) incorporates the general risk of (F, Y), but with some added bonus features. So the risk is the cost of a mistake, either through deliberate choice or by default of inaction (especially if we’re too busy debating the rows).

    The flaw to this logic is that the same grid argument can be made for any possible threat, no matter how costly the action or ridiculous the threat – the infinite cost of the last square on his grid. Even giant mutant space hamsters. It’s better to go broke building a bunch of rodent traps than to even risk the possibility of hamster chow right? Not quite. The grid by itself allows us to make a decision based on uncertain knowledge by changing the question from ‘are we humans affecting the climate,’ to the superior question, ‘what’s the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and the risks?’ To make the logic of the grid more applicable to reasonability, we take into consideration the factor of probability. With this risk management, we need a sense of how likely each row is – an estimate of the certainty of occurrence.

    Waiting for us to gain an even greater understanding of the climate, on which to base a decision, doesn’t avoid the risk; as it is the same as choosing column (N) – which is where we sit right now. This is where the risk of row (T) is increased, or rather made more tangible. There is, of course, the evidence indicating H-IGCD cited above. On top of which we can take recent or concurrent events: for example, prolonged droughts in Africa and Australia, the seemingly delayed seasonal rains in Africa’s Okavango Delta, the flooding in Venice, heat-deaths in Paris, abandonment of sled-hunting in Greenland due to seas not freezing over, Chinese desertification and sand storms, the frequency and severity of major hurricanes this year – Bertha (July), Gustav (August), Ike (September), Omar (October), Paloma (November) – with the 2008 hurricane season (5) breaking 2005’s record (4) of having the most major hurricanes in the 6 months of hurricane season, the accelerated melting of the Chorabari Glacier which feeds the River Ganges in India, etc. Finally we can add that whilst there will almost always be disagreement by dissenting scientists on some scientific issue, we must regard the stance of professional organizations – the more prestigious, the weightier their statements; as they’re staking their reputations on it (which they want to uphold, not tarnish with inaccuracy); from which we have a consensus.

    With organisations like the NAS and the AAAS having both issued statements calling for immediate, significant action in response to H-IGCD, by curbing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (along with the indicators cited), we can adjust the size of row (T) based on the relative probability. Think of row (T) as, now, larger than row (F) – in other words, push the line dividing the two rows in the direction that makes row (T) larger. Now the probability of (T, N) has increased, and thus the risk of (T, N) is greater than (F, Y) not just in terms of likelihood, but in damage as well. Unfortunately, our default (inaction) carries the greater risk. And with the projected rate at which this is occurring we’re talking about this plausibly occurring within a relatively short span of time – not abstract grandchildren, but you and I.

    Instead of guessing at rows, we are faced with choosing between the columns, and the arguments lead to the same inescapable conclusion: when faced with uncertainty about our future, the only responsible choice, the only defensible choice, really the only choice is column (Y), in order to eliminate the risk of (T, N) as a possibility; because the risk of not acting significantly outweighs the risk of acting.

    It seems odd that the lack of absolute certainty is holding us back. After all, we buy car insurance over smaller stakes in less probable scenarios. We buy car insurance without being certain we’ll crash or have an accident, because we want to make sure that if it does happen we don’t end up broke. To most, this is enough of a risk (along with the statistics of car crashes) to justify the action of purchasing car insurance. Yet we seem to be insisting that every scientist interviewed agree on H-IGCD, holding out until we understand the physics, and debating the finer points of climate science instead of discussing risk management.

    Why should this matter anyway? Well, this isn’t about the planet – it will still be here a century or two from now, and it can always rehabilitate itself; it’ll do fine on its own. Whether we humans will be here, our wellbeing, and the state of the environment that we need to sustain us, is what we are concerned with. Every single other issue (from the Rainforests, to pollution, from toxic waste, to government waste, from immigration, to diplomacy, from human rights, to abortion) pales in comparison to the worst of H-IGCD coming to pass. It trumps everything else because if the worst were to happen, we’ll be so busy dealing with the fallout, that all other human concerns will seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Therefore it needs to be our priority.

    The positive thing is that there’s a lot reasons to be believe that we can fix this problem, and palliate the risk, without even reducing our standing of living, if we act quickly.

    3) I feel it would be negligent not to mention the arguments that mitigate the risk of column (Y). I.e. taking significant action as if H-IGCD were true is more appealing regardless of weather H-IGCD is true or not.

    The American Energy Institute did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007 Report, and concluded that the effects of offshore drilling on production and oil prices would not be felt until 2030. Not to mention that rigs and oil pollute. But, and this is probably the biggest thing, the huge cost of drilling investment, could just as easily be put toward a green economy. After all, it will not replace oil in the absolute near future, but, as we need to eventually, we should start now.

    The last three global recessions – in 1974, 1980 and 1991 – were all triggered by an oil shock. Even if companies drill more oil or access it more quickly, there wouldn’t be enough, most experts agree, to have a significant effect on prices. We need to move to green energy, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (close to pre-industrial levels) by 2050.

    Government incentives for alternative energy production (subsidies for solar and wind, regulations on emissions) will facilitate the transition. We can’t drill our way to energy independence, the U.S. consumes almost a quarter of the world’s oil but has less than 3% of the world’s known oil reserves. And most of those reserves are in fragile ecosystems where endangered species reside, species that we can’t be sure aren’t keystone species (species on which an ecosystem is particularly dependant); such as Polar bears in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

    The bigger issue is strategically: The economy of the future can not be relying on oil and coal. We need to reduce our dependence on carbon-energy dramatically. In terms of foreign relations (given most oil reserves are held elsewhere i.e. supply), a green economy, green energy jobs, energy independence. That is why we should invest in Renewable Energy. We don’t want to encourage further oil and coal development when it firstly won’t have any impact for years, and, more importantly, when these are the energy sources that have lead us down the track to H-IGCD and pollution.

    Aside from the environmental and human health factors, the opportunity cost of investing oil is not worth it. We could just as easily invest in a green economy. If we invest in green tech, independent organizations have concluded we will create millions of jobs and stand to gain billions which will strengthen the economy, increase energy independence, and fight H-IGCD. Several institutes that I can name which endorse this are the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Center for American Progress (CAP), World Energy Efficiency Agency (WEEA), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDA), etc.

    The comparative economic viability comes from the fact that green is more efficient, thus cheaper in the long term (paying for its investment); the jobs that will be created; that long term oil supplies are diminishing, and short term oil supplies are not secure; that drilling is ineffective as concluded by AEI; that the amount of offshore oil around America is relatively insignificant and accessing it would provide no returns for decades; and that investing in a green economy is not only more cost-effective, it is beneficial to the environment and the health of species including our own.

    Cutting CO2 emissions (and maintaining our current lifestyle) is cheaper than, say, building new coal plants – screwing in CFL lightbulbs, ratcheting up appliance standards, boosting car fuel-economy, recycling the heat wasted from power plants – in Craig, Colorado, one plant was losing two-thirds of fuel energy as heat. The United States could cut of its carbon emissions and actually save money, while satisfying our energy needs. The reduction of emissions required can be achieved at a very low cost to our economy: the cost of not achieving the reductions, at national and global level, will be far greater.

    We require government regulations and investment because the changes we can reasonably expect from consumers are not enough. Policy matters when it comes to going green. Given the benefits of going green, we will have better chances of both enacting environmentally friendly, green economic policies, and producing international pressure for similar action IF there is interest and ability to use that potential.

    The best way to inspire interest is to inform people of this information. The only way we get into column (Y) is through policy change, and that will come about when enough people demand it. We need nothing less than a change in our culture itself. Using our power to persuade others will generate this change. Understanding these arguments helps increase public demand for column (Y). So I’m asking you, whom I’ve never meet, but who’s fate I’m still tied to, to make it part of our thinking and our conversations. Anything less, intentionally or not, is tantamount to choosing column (N).

    Err on the side of caution. If it’s row (F), then the solution to the problem row (T), that I believe is real, is at least a benefit. If the sceptics are wrong, their proposals are jeopardising the well being and survival of all the species on Earth, through pollution and H-IGCD exacting a widening human and financial toll. In other words, I can afford to be wrong. Hopefully this helps ends the debate. How humanity ends up, well, that’s up to you and me. This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has so far faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe; but are you so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? We only get to run this experiment once. Think it won’t happen? That’s the risk you’re taking.

  • “Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations.”

    Yes but unfortunately in the wrong direction, suggesting CO2 is not the driver. It may be an amplifier but there are problems with this argument also and it is not simple to disentangle this issue.

    “Rate of Warming: The rate of average global temperature increase is particularly evident in three ways I will share.”

    First off, temperature graphs show the cyclical change – yet H-IGCD is evident, with the cycle of our time being abnormal…”

    Unfortunately these studies have been repeatedly discredited by sceptics and as far I am aware, the sceptical position has not been successfully defeated.

    “the Polar Ice Caps are melting in unprecedented ways”

    The south pole is not. It’s been showing record ice coverage recently. There is a downward trend at the North Pole and this region has been warmer recently than earlier records suggest. But we have only 30 years of records so don’t really know if this cycle is normal or abnormal. Historical records seem to hint that this may not be abnormal.

    The “pillars” upon which you base the rest of your argument are not very stable. I think this is what the debate is about. Assuming that what is highly contentious is true, means that your conclusions become problematical.

  • An Inquirer

    You presented a very long posting which few people would have time for a point-by-point response, but here are a few reactions:
    You basic premises are shaky at best. Will Nitschke has addressed these to some extent. And here a few more details: ice sheets are different than sea ice. Certain ice sheets have been declining for 300 years and glaciers have been retreating for 250 years — would you credit H-IGCD for a development that old? Or would you credit the emergence from the Little Ice Age.
    We have not had stable temperatures for 1000 years followed by sudden increase in the last 100 years. Most skeptics perceive that temperatures have increased in the last 100 years, but the increase is neither unprecedented nor alarming. Also, the reported increase is likely overstated by algorithms and the UHI effect. Were the 1990s really warmer than the 1930s? Every camp tends to believe they were because of GISS and HadCru. However, I believe that it is safe to say that 1930s were warmer in the United States; and I am not so sure that we can rely on the temperature records in the rest of the world. By the way, did you know that the measured temperatures in the United States have shown no increase in the last seventy or eighty years? It is only because of adjustments to these measurements that we get an increase. Again, that is the U.S. and not the whole world, but many knowledgeable people believe that U.S. has better records than the rest of the world.

    Humans can have an impact on climate beyond CO2 emissions, and land use practices may be getting too little attention. AGW-driven legislation apparently has had negative impacts on climate due to land-use consequences. Also, do not neglect soot from carbon leakage stemming from AGW-driven legislation. (I am assuming that you are familiar with certain AGW terminology; please let me know if you are not.)

    Polar ice caps have waxed and waned through time. We have evidence that the Arctic ice cap had some low times before 1950. However, satellite measurements started in 1979 when Arctic ice was unusally high. And the Antarctica ice is above normal, even setting a record last year.

    You probably know that your matrix concept is an adaptation of Pascal’s wager. He presented this 2×2 matrix as an argument for humans to logically believe in God’s existence and get right with Him.
    In addition to the H-IGCD wager, would you also establish a belief in God based on your matrix and modify your behavior accordingly?

    One thing that sincere AGW pessismists typically ignore in the insurance argument is that there is a huge cost to being wrong in implementing AGW legislation and rules. Most of AGW legislation and rules so far has had significant negative effect.

    If individuals want to be more efficient (and abstain from fossil fuels) because of cost savings and moral imperative, I highly encourage them to do so. The problem is in legislation and the huge cost of direct and unintended consequences.

  • richard lanigan

    slide 10 – should read ‘unexceptional’ not ‘unexceptionable’, surely?

  • Jennifer

    “the emergence from the Little Ice Age” – this statement means nothing. You’re basically saying it got warmer because it stopped being cold. You’re also implicitly assuming that the little ice age was a global phenomenon.

    “However, I believe that it is safe to say that 1930s were warmer in the United States” – no, the records show that for the US, 1934 and 1998 were equally warm:

    “many knowledgeable people believe that U.S. has better records than the rest of the world” – many more knowledgeable people – that is, actively publishing climate scientists – know that no matter how good the record in the US, the longest sets of direct measurements come from Europe, and over the whole world direct measurements are sufficient to establish the global mean temperature back to the late 19th century.

    “Polar ice caps have waxed and waned through time” – yes, but events like the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf are unprecedented in the Holocene.

  • I would appreciate your comments on my note here. I am puzzled how anyone can consider that co2 could accelerate warming after considering the logic here. I may be missing something,and I would appreciate your help in figuring out if I am wrong and where. Thanks.
    Carbon and co2 do not accelerate global warming.The data from several hundred thousands of years show that the effect of co2 is to slow down global warming and encourage cooling.All the ice core data and tree ring data show co2 concentrations rising after any warming trend appears and cooling after the concentration of co2 rises.
    co2 in the atmosphere is roughly 3.5 % of the worlds co2.Most of the rest is in the oceans.As the oceans warm up they give off co2 as they cooldown they absorb it.A 2 degree change in the oceans temperature results in the release of co2 enough to double the atmospheric concentration.If co2 increases resulted in more warming which then released more co2 all the worlds water would have disappeared long ago,and there would be no life on this planet of any kind.
    While the mechanisms by which co2, water , and other gases effect the climate are not clear, nor will they be for many years,there can be no doubt…increasing co2 concentrations decrease atmospheric temperatures.
    .Global warming enthusiasts are wrong.They are 180 degrees off.They have the sign of the effect wrong.I am sure they will find a way to redirect much of the worlds resources their way once they acknowledge their mistake.

  • anon

    Hi – Just wanted to congratulate you on such clear, considered critique. No hysterics – Brilliant.

  • Dr A Burns

    Excellent !!! I loved the 50 year ‘signature’ temperature graphs.

    I wonder if any study has been done looking at the history of all temperature monitoring stations ?

    One of the first I’ve seen to pick up on my hobby horse of stable climate systems being based on negative feedbacks. Nice point about reversing the effects of feedbacks into history to show that the positive feedback thing that forms that basis of all the models, is rubbish.

    I don’t think that he mentioned that increases in CO2 may be an effect, not a cause of warming, especially given that only 2% of atmospheric CO2 is derived from fossil fuels.

    He didn’t mention the oceans being by far the biggest storehouse of CO2 … he could have also attacked the nonsense about man’s CO2 acidifying the oceans and causing deaths of coral reefs etc … such as trotted out by mindless idiots like Araucan and the posting of his boilerplate GW nonsense.

    He obviously doesn’t like Hansen, the renowned NASA data twister … he could have also shown the more recent IPCC models’ results vs actuals to be just as poor as Hansen’s.

    Interesting comment he made about the change from GW to ‘climate change’ … a clear sign of the political motives behind all the nonsense … ‘carbon tax’ will also probably morph into ‘climate tax’ or ‘just-another-tax-for-no-real-reason’ …

  • ‘Jennifer:’

    “yes, but events like the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf are unprecedented in the Holocene.”

    Sorry, what’s the argument here? Once an ice shelf forms it’s supposed to last forever? The poles are dynamic systems. Ice builds up, retracts, breaks off. That’s business as usual. If there was no warming trend in this region of the world (which there isn’t apparently), how would this plausibly get blamed on global warming?

    I think it’s not unreasonable to argue that global warming has regional effects, and some reasons will get warmer and some regions might even get cooler. But to then blame such an event on global warming where this no measurable global warming in that region, is only propaganda for a preconceived viewpoint surely?

    Even the paper you quote admits that the “Larsen B ice shelf has been thinning throughout the Holocene”. It also asserts that recent warming broke the camel’s back, so to speak. If that’s true, is this assessment logically flawed:

    Opinions anyone?

  • “also attacked the nonsense about man’s CO2 acidifying the oceans and causing deaths of coral reefs etc”

    Why do you think that’s “nonsense” ? Do you have any factual basis for these claims? Without links or arguments they sound like crank opinions to me…

  • hunter

    Stephen, I am so tired of AGW beleivers and promoters using so many words to rationalize the latest version of argument from authority to justify their faith in the climate apocalypse.
    There is no climate apocalypse occuring.
    There is no climate apocalypse even on the horizon.
    The hysteria that AGW depends on requires that the trivial sparrow burp changes, all within the MOE, be explained and re-explained ad-infinitum.
    Arctic ice has not significantly changed.
    Arctic ice is not doing anything dangerously.
    Storms are not increasing or strengthening.
    Droughts are about the same.
    Temperatures have moved insgnificantly.
    The focus on CO2 is a fraud.
    Coral Reefs are doing just fine.
    Show the Ph of the oceans are acidifying.

  • Adam Nealis

    Would you consider providing your videos as a torrent file?

    That would alleviate some of the strain on your bandwidth.

  • Jennifer

    hunter: none of your claims have the slightest shred of actual evidence to back them. When the data show a long term decline in Arctic sea ice extent, with the minimum extent for the last two years being 25 per cent lower than the previous record low, then saying Arctic ice has not significantly changed makes you look ridiculous. To say ‘coral reefs are doing just fine’ when coral bleaching is being observed around the world is just facile.

    If you think I am wrong, please provide links to evidence (in the form of science published in reputable journals) to back up each of your statements.

  • hunter

    Global sea ice has been up, not down.
    And the folks at cryosphere, who actually collect and keep the data on arctic ice, offer a clever link anyone can use to look at ice levels.
    To ignore the pre-satellite evidence that shows Arctic ice is highly variable and dynamic and that in the 20the century there have been previoius low cie conditions is unscientific.
    To blame coral bleaching on non-existant Ph changes, and when perfectly valid causes like toxins and disease and other human and non-human impacts on reefs are present, is what is unscientific.
    Do you even know how acidic the oceans are?

  • hunter

    While waiting on you to continue not responding, I thought it pleasant to point out that as usual, you fixate on one part of what a person says and then ignore the rest of what they say.
    remember this:
    AGW is the assertion.
    The AGW believer strategy of non-defense by way of attacking skeptics is entertaining but only shows the fundamental weakness of the AGW assertion.
    I made a long list of things that AGW prmoters claim to be happening but are not.
    Look at this day in the Arctic in 1979, the start of daily Arctic ice records, and today.
    And respond to the list, if you can.
    And just how acidic is the ocean, anyway?

  • Mike

    Wow, a lot of comments. I apologize I don’t currently have the time to read them all. I would like to add something hoping it hasn’t been added to the mix yet.

    Warren, you need to make a video getting into who the players are.

    What if I wanted to show your video presentations to man-made global warming believers? Most don’t know who the IPCC is, or what their motivations are. Is it political? Is it for financial gain?

    I have my own theories, but most people in life, myself included when it comes to any misinformation, I have to ask: “Why?”

    Who is the IPCC? How are scientists selected? I know you’ve said this in your blog before, but you videos really hit the point home.

  • Danny Farnsworth

    In the video, you say carbon dioxide has changed .01%. The percentage of the atmosphere that is carbon dioxide has increased from about .03% to .04%, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by closer to 35 or 40%, hasn’t it? I know that some audiences might get confused and think that the atmosphere is 35% carbon dioxide, which is very untrue, but you’re also technically incorrect to say that atmospheric CO2 has only changed .01%. CO2 is dwarfed by other gases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas, so its contribution is very small, and we certainly aren’t increasing greenhouse gas concentration by 35-40%.

  • Alan

    Great video and thanks for all your hard work producing it. Like you, I started out as a believer but the evidence (and non-evidence of positive feedback) changed my mind. Why on earth should I believe a bunch of environmental activists and wind turbine salesmen? Hansen/Schmidt/Mann/IPCC scientists looking at ALL the evidence and following it wherever it leads? Not!

    One thing, you introduce the PDO without explaining what it is. Before the PDO+temperature chart, how about a graphic of the PDO in it’s warm and cold phases and a chart of the PDO index… “We are also seeing global temperature being effected by regular cycles in the oceans. The biggest cycle is shown here. It’s called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and has a regular cycle with a warm phase shown on the left and a cool phase on the right”. Your next chart then superimposes the temperature on the PDO index showing the nice fit.

    Thanks again. I hope this helps.

  • An Inquirer

    Concerning the Little Ice Age, there was more ice during the LIA than before or after, so other than for ideological reasons, your objection to terminology is mystifying. On continent after continent, as glaciers recede, they reveal trees and vegetation that once grew in their paths. Reconstruction of temperatures from sediments, ice cores, etc. will have errors in their estimates, but plants (especially before hybrids) reveal physical evidence of what the climate was like. Even with the existence of the LIA, it is still possible that basic premises of AGW pessimism could be true – GW is real, caused by humans and brings significant harm – however, when AGW pessimists persist in adopting and defending the discredited works of Mann, then they cast suspicions on their other arguments. Hundreds of studies reveal the existence of the LIA:

    You are right if you maintain that GISS reports that 1998 was almost as hot as 1934. (It is humorous that AGW pessimists shouted that 1998 was the hottest year before GISS admitted its Y2K error, but after the correction as the 1934 anomaly leads the 1998 anomaly by a similar difference by which it once trailed, now AGW pessimists as saying that the years are in a virtual tie.) However, there is a significant issue in how GISS adjusts the temperatures through the decades. Recorded temperatures at rural stations show that summer temperatures were higher in the 1930s. In fact, almost half of the time, GISS adjusts urban temperatures upwards to accentuate increasing temperature trends leading to the 1990s and beyond. Often it seems like the computer gymnastics being performed is insensitive to the misery stemming from the hot 1930s summers that led to widespread disappearance of lakes and lower water tables.

    The 1930s is another case where we can look at plants for useful insights. After the 1930s, farmers needed to plant corn that had shorter maturity dates because the growing season shortened. Even now, farmers have not returned to longer maturity dates that they used in the 1930s. (I had long thought that longer growing seasons would be a useful indication of global warming. I have been surprised not to see any comprehensive study that shows that growing seasons have lengthened.)

    I do recognize that Europeans have longer temperature records than elsewhere, but they also have problems with UHI. I have not seen rebuttals to widespread reports that HadCrut does not adjust for UHI – or that HadCrut does not reveal its procedure for determining GMT. (I reluctantly refer to GMT in discussing Global Climate because the GMT is fraught with issues, but it is a measure that is commonly used by all sides.)

    Your reference to the Larsen B ice shelf in a discussion of polar ice caps suggests that you may not have a solid understanding of sea ice, ice shelves and the role of glaciers. Moreover, your site points out that the “Larsen B ice shelf has been thinning throughout the Holocene” and that recent regional warming in the Antarctica Peninsula may have been the final straw. Please note that the warming in the Antarctica Peninsula is a local phenomenon (helped by oscillating ocean currents) that is in contrast to trends in larger geographical areas.

  • hunter

    An Inquirer,
    Notice how brittle the AGW faith is.
    Spencer and Pielke do not contest the physics of CO2. They question the apocalyptic scenarios of the AGW community. For that they are vilified, censored and ridiculed.
    There is no room in AGW orthodoxy for anything except the apocalypse caused by human wickedness.
    Negative feedbacks, natural variation, history itself, must all be rationalized or ignored. I think it is because if normal skeptical and critical processes were permitted, the precious consensus the promoters depend on would collapse, and they know it.
    Jennifer, as a true believer, cannot acknowledge even the existence of well documented history. Her faithfulness is more important than anything else for her.

  • Jennifer

    hunter: your hectoring and aggressive tone only makes it clear that you don’t have any scientific knowledge backing your beliefs. If you did, I’m sure you could manage a civil conversation.

    An Inquirer: “there was more ice during the LIA than before or after” – more ice where? Everywhere? Got some papers you’d like to cite to back this claim?
    “the discredited works of Mann” – if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.
    “It is humorous that AGW pessimists shouted that 1998 was the hottest year before GISS admitted its Y2K error, but after the correction as the 1934 anomaly leads the 1998 anomaly by a similar difference by which it once trailed, now AGW pessimists as saying that the years are in a virtual tie.” – I’ve no idea if you are just misremembering, or actively making things up, but both before and after the correction to which you are referring, the 1934 temperature anomaly in the US was larger than the 1998 anomaly. The error related, after all, to a discontinuity in measurements that began in 2000, and you might notice that 1998 was before 2000. It’s all explained here: Perhaps you could provide some evidence of where “AGW pessimists shouted”
    Could you also provide a link to back the claim that “Even now, farmers have not returned to longer maturity dates that they used in the 1930s”
    If you haven’t seen any studies about growing seasons, you really can’t have looked very hard. This paper discussed growing seasons briefly – follow the references for more:
    “HadCrut does not adjust for UHI” – nonsense. Read their papers, such as the one available here:
    “Please note that the warming in the Antarctica Peninsula is a local phenomenon (helped by oscillating ocean currents) that is in contrast to trends in larger geographical areas.” – it is not in contrast to the trend observed in the largest geographical area.

  • hunter

    You never post any links.
    There is no trend for change in freeze and melt dates in either the Arctic or Antarctic.
    Antarctic ice has been growing, and Arctic ice is refreezing at record rates.
    Check with
    I am aggressive with people like you becuase all you ever bring to the table is assertions unbounded by fact and supported only by faith.
    Mann is clearly lying.
    Hansen is wrong.
    Not one thing is happening to world climate that is unusual.
    And your persistence in pretending that either the LIA or MWP did not happen is simply ridiculous.

  • Jennifer

    “You never post any links” – that’s pretty hilarious! Please, count the number of times you see the letters ‘http’ in my last post. How many links did you ever post to back your crazy statements? I don’t think you have the first clue about how to distinguish fantasy and reality.

  • Andy

    “”the discredited works of Mann” – if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.”

    Yes Jenny of course Mann’s work is “robust” and not at all a dogs dinner of statistical mistakes, no no its really good…..honest it is…no really.

    Antarctica is not warming, although how anyone could tell with such poor coverage is hard to know.

  • Lance


    “the discredited works of Mann” -if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.

    If you believe this because you have not spent a few hours time at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit you are just lazy. If you have seen the evidence presented there then you are either willfully self-decieved or dishonest.

  • RPJ

    Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit != credible source

  • ‘”the discredited works of Mann” – if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.’

    ‘Jennifer’, perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with both sides of the argument, not just the side you agree with. Hence the phrase, ‘credible sources’ = ‘those I’ve decided to agree with.’ If you want to keep insisting that the Mann study is credible you need to address the criticisms raised, rather than just ignore them and repeat a mantra robot fashion. This is really an argument you’re not going to win. I’d suggest you drop it. One bad study is not going to make or break AGW theory. If you argue out of ignorance or an ideological position, people just dismiss you and won’t listen to the rest of what you have to say, which may be more credible.

    “the 1934 temperature anomaly in the US was larger than the 1998 anomaly. The error related, after all, to a discontinuity in measurements that began in 2000”

    It’s not honest to fuss over some minor detail when the main point of the argument is that the difference between 1934 and 1998 is slow close as to be difficult to distinguish between. That is strongly suggestive of there being a lack of long term warming attributable to ‘global warming’. However, warming or cooling in certain regions of the world are of more importance to AGW than others, such as at the poles. It’s also possible that AGW is happening but just hasn’t happened enough yet to be distinguished from background ‘weather noise’.

    I agree with you though, that claims without links and appropriate references are worthless. I was not impressed with his posting either.

  • Jennifer

    Perhaps you need to reconsider how you view this scientific issue. There are two sides? That’s news to me. Can all opinions be categorised neatly as belonging to one of these two sides?

    You cannot treat blogs as reliable scientific sources. You cannot always treat peer-reviewed journal papers as reliable sources, but you’d look a lot more worth talking to if you stuck to quoting journal papers instead of blogs. Are you able to find a peer-reviewed journal paper which ‘discredits’ the work of Michael Mann and collaborators? If you are not, then evidently your beliefs about Mann papers are based entirely on ignorance or an ideological position.

    You do realise that the whole 1998/1934 statistical tie was only about the US, right? Globally, 1998 was about 0.7K hotter than 1934.

  • josh

    “Are you able to find a peer-reviewed journal paper which ‘discredits’ the work of Michael Mann and collaborators? “


    a) Are you aware of the results obtained when one removes the Tijander sedimentary proxies from the Mann reconstruction? If not, please reference previous posts on this blog.

    b) If Yes to a) – do you you think that those results are in error, if so – why? And please address specific issues, don’t rehash your blanket opprobrium for blogs. Scientists should be able to argue specific scientific points.

    c) If you think the results in a) are correct, why do you consider Mann 08 to be a valid result?It is obviously extremely dependent on a single set of proxies, which series is not valid for the past several hundred years (at least according to the researchers that created this proxy).

    d) If you find the dependency in c) to be small and unimportant, could you explain to me why scientists consider changes of 1.5 – 2 standard deviations in outcome to be “small”.

    Note well friends, Jennifer will not respond to this post. It sticks to the scientific issues at hand and asks specific targeted questions meant to get at the heart of her “argument”. As such it will be ignored.

  • hunter

    Even when Jennifer bothers to post links, they are links to works which just regurgitate the AGW dogma. GIGO and argument from authority are what the AGW relies on completely to screw up climate science so thoroughly.

  • josh

    Hunter, I am not terribly interested in links, unless a link answers a specific request for information – like, for example, error estimates for GISS surface temperature annual averages (which Jenny has yet to provide, even though she continues on about “statistical ties”).

    What I am mostly interested in is Jennifer’s ability to logically defend a position with a rational argument. It is next to pointless to engage with Jenny at a rhetorical level hunter, as you might well know from your own personal experience. Jenny’s refusal to answer my simple questions also demonstrate that it is next to impossible to engage with her on a rational level. We will have to let Jenny’s silence speak for itself.

  • Jennifer

    Josh, you really don’t get it. I have no interest in talking to you at all, because you are obnoxious and immature. If you apologise for your previous rudeness, and show that you’re interested in talking about science and not having a playground fight, then I’m sure we can have a discussion that’s interesting to both of us.

  • josh

    No Jenny, you are bent of avoiding serious scientific questions by feigning insult. This should be clear to everybody reading this exchange, even yourself. Answer the questions please.

  • hunter

    Well said on your part. AGW believers cannot engage rationally. Their entire argument and political movement has been based on using fear to gain social capital and to use that capital to define the terms of the issue. It is the AGW community that has sought, and in many cases succeeded, in suppressing the many voices of disagreement.
    It is the AGW community that cannot imagine their dogma being falsified. Watch our very own Jennifer, regurgitating used and derivative arguments instead of answering simple questions. And whoever she is, she is just a small, typical memebr of the true beleiver community.
    The fact that Arctic and Antarctic freeze dates have not varied, that world temepratures have changed within the margin of error, that a great deal of the data inputs used by the AGW promoters is of questionable quality, and the implications of the modlers using self-referential rationalizations are all way past our believer friends to deal with.
    That Hansen’s predictions have not come true and that Gore is blatantly profiteering from the fear he has mongered, and that neither will even discuss in an adversarial forum, much less debate their claims, is still accepted unquestioned by much of the AGW community.
    It is fun to watch, and would be very entertaining, if it were not fixin’ to cost us all so much money.

  • ‘Jennifer’ wrote:

    “You cannot treat blogs as reliable scientific sources.”

    But the author of the blog is a respected researcher with peer reviewed scientific work to his credit. Why not then? You’ve posted many links to the RealClimate website or other authors who link directly to RealClimate. When I pointed out that one had to be careful about reading the RealClimate blogs because the information on that site passes through a certain non objective viewpoint filter, you cried foul and asserted that the scientists who wrote that blog were ‘peer reviewed’ researchers. OK, which is it then? You need to state a position that doesn’t contradict itself when it’s inconvenient to you.

    “Are you able to find a peer-reviewed journal paper which ‘discredits’ the work of Michael Mann and collaborators?”

    Here is a good start that took 10 seconds to google:

    Or visit the Wikipedia site under Stephen McIntyre for more links.

    “If you are not, then evidently your beliefs about Mann papers are based entirely on ignorance or an ideological position.”

    Evidently not.

    “You do realise that the whole 1998/1934 statistical tie was only about the US, right? Globally, 1998 was about 0.7K hotter than 1934.”

    That’s true. That’s about 2% of the entire planet’s land surface isn’t it? Although it is still an enormous country so you can’t just brush that away. But I wonder, when you posted a link concerning Antarctic ice melt, ruminations were over the breaking of an ice shelf that only made up a few percent of that area. (When the rest of the ice mass is significantly up on the long term average.) Why was this ‘good evidence’ to prove your case but the entire continental United States is dismissed with a hand wave?

    Could you address all the valid points raised please? If you object to the criticisms please deal with them head on. Comment on specifics please.


    “Even when Jennifer bothers to post links, they are links to works which just regurgitate the AGW dogma.”

    If you’re a genuine sceptic you want to study both sides of the argument and not presuppose something you don’t agree with is dogma. ‘Jennifer’ has posted some dodgy links yes, but ‘she’ has also posted some perfectly valid ones too.

  • Chris


    I very much enjoyed your video, and have shared it with interested family and friends.

    Thank you very much!


  • josh

    Jenny, I guess Will has offended you as well? Is this why you don’t answer his questions either?

  • hunter

    As AGW continues to lose credibility, we will be amazed at the number of its believers and promoters will find their way to be silent.
    Just today, there is this regarding the unreliability of SAT data provided by GISS:
    And those are problems with current data.
    Yet Mann still claims his bs is credible going back centuries?
    The AGW community has not established that the climate has changed in any way outside of the margin of error.
    The believers who defend it are reduced to pouting silences and attempts to censor the skeptics.
    But as Galileo pointed out, “they move”, no matter the authoritarian claim to the contrary.

  • Jennifer

    Will, do you think it’s normal behaviour to describe the manner in which you desire your questions to be answered? You really are an absurdly arrogant and deeply weird character. Refer to what I said here

  • san quintin

    Lovely to see all the AGW deners here again. The usual request: why don’t you publish this stuff in the scientific literature? Because you and I know it’s rubbish? Actually, none of this really matters because the people who make the decisions (politicians, business leaders etc) are all convinced that AGW is happening. All the deniers are just an increasingly irrelevant sideshow with as much political clout as flat-earhers.

  • Rob

    Hi, Just wanted to congratulate you on such clear, considered critique. This should be the basis for study in all schools and colleges, from this balanced unbiased lecture students can go forward and find the truth behind the myth, if it is a myth. Your critique should be shown side by side with Gores film, brilliant.

    Jennifer, I agree with all you have to say, just look at historical events, geological events and forget computer models.

  • Rob


    My mistake, I thought the name came above the comment not below, you have a totally closed mind, there is NO hope for you.

  • hunter

    It is not that Jennifer,and so many other AGW believers have closed minds. It is that they are intellectual cowards.
    From san quentin’s inability to even call us for what we are- skeptics- to Jennifer’s inability to answer simple questions to Hansen’s continued rewrite of historical temperatures, AGW is populated with people who beleive, or sell, lies.

  • hunter

    I just saw your note to me. Yes, I do read everything I can on this issue.
    The interesting thing now is that as AGW implodes, its promoters are engaging in self-selection in terms of what is published. Hansen & pals are actively suppressing papers based on their agreement with the Hansen apocalypse. IOW the peer reviewed system is dysfunctional. Ridiculous papers about kidney stones or pythons living in Kansas are getting published, while papers showing the reality of igonored negative feedback processes are suppressed. Papers regularly use, Jennifer’s recent posts show, recycled GIGO data.
    NASA has admitted that GISS data is, at the least, suspect and vulnerable to a great deal of subjective ‘interprolation’. But that is ignored by our believers. The data showing that freeze and thaw dates are trendless over about 30 years are ignored by the believers. Data showing that CO2 is but one forcing of many anthro-forcings is ignored. The huge problem of corrupt ground stations, so well documented, is ignored by the AGW community.
    The AGW community still persists in falselly claiming that storm trends are changing.
    I think the challenge is not for skpetics to to continue re-read AGW propagnada. I think the chanllenge is for the AGW community to finally stop hiding behind consensus and arguments from authority and to engage the data honestly.

  • “if you believe these works are discredited, then you’re not briefing yourself from credible sources.”

    They are the worst papers I have ever read. IMO they are deliberately deceptive, based on bad data and designed to make room for the politicians to legislate. They have no basis in science. I didn’t have a good source either so I debunked them it myself.

    Here are a couple of links. They are a little math heavy but I tried to reduce it so that interested people can figure it out.

    This first one is very important if you’re truly interested. I plotted the actual data and the fake data Mann pasted on the end of 90% of his proxies. This got some play but was really missed by most skeptics.

    How the bad math makes a hockey stick.

    How the bad math distorts the signal in the hockey stick and how non-linearity affects the result.

  • 650 Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims