True Pundit

Politics Science TV

Tucker Carlson Embarrasses Pompous Fake Science Guy On Climate Change: “You Are Doing A Great Disservice To Science” (VIDEO)

Follow on FacebookFollow on Twitter

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″]

Tucker Carlson Embarrasses Pompous Fake Science Guy Bill Nye On Climate Change: “You Are Doing A Great Disservice To Science” (VIDEO)

Follow on FacebookFollow on Twitter

  • Marie Bahl McKenna

    Bill Nye you A) Don’t make a good argument B) Can’t support any claim you make with fact C) 31K scientists agree that the SCIENCE doesn’t support any human impact on climate.

  • Grimm Bastard

    Bill’s belief that the overwhelming evidence for “climate change” is based on a falsified “consensus” from John Cook’s group which got busted during a forum hack. They were exposed for not being able to find anything that supports “climate change” and instead resulted into creating a document claiming that 97% of “scientists” for the purposes of creating a perception.

  • thinkwell

    I worked with Bill Nye before he became the science guy. He was a competent mechanical engineer and a very funny guy, a natural crack-up who made work fun. He most certainly understands the scientific method, but he is way off base in claiming that climate change is caused by man. He has apparently spent far too much time in La-La land.

  • nomoredoublespeak

    Tucker brilliantly discredited this guy simply by asking straight questions that Nye could not answer scientifically.
    And what was up with Nye’s bizarre and unsolicited comments about leaks from DC at the end?! The guy is clearly not qualified to speak from any position of authority on climate matters so he veers off into liberal talking points?! Puh-leeze!

  • pcm

    The fact that Bill Nye once advocated the imprisonment of climate deniers makes him a dangerous fanatic as spokesperson. And I hardly believe ‘The Science Guy’ would tell other actual climate scientists whose decades-long studies disagree with the climate change zealots that they should be imprisoned. If anyone hasn’t seen the YouTube video “The Great Global Warming Hoax” I recommend it. It’s an older video, but makes clear factual sense. The scientists in that video pretty much trashed the IPCC back then, as they deserved.

  • USAPatriotSC

    This is the entire conversation in 3 sentences.
    BN: The science is settled.
    TC: What are the facts in the science?
    BN: I don’t know.

  • waxliberty

    The modern spectacle – shouting TV tabloid host pretends to want scientific evidence summarized in seconds, shouts at guest, creates “uncertainty” theater.

    In general you can see the shape of what climate was doing in global multi-proxy reconstructions: we had a long slow cooling before modern warming kicked in, pretty much lockstep with greenhouse gas increases, right alongside the development of human civilization (land clearing & greenhouse gases).

    We’ve been pretending to be “just asking questions” for three decades now while the warming piles up, and now we lost a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef in a single season to ocean heating and thermal stress, with oceans only getting relentlessly warmer. The physical processes are pretty well understood, and they don’t turn on a dime, they turn more like the Titanic. Please try to be open to the possibility that what *is* known is more than enough to be concerned about, even when interesting questions still have different degrees of uncertainty.

    Every national academy of science in the world endorses the mainstream view in science and physics, as taught in introductory textbooks. As the American Geophysical Union puts it: “While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential”

  • Gail

    Why is it necessary for NOAA fudge temperature data that was then presented to the Paris Summit as fact? This isn’t the only time data has been tampered with or misrepresented, is it. It’s all about money, unfortunately.

  • waxliberty

    A number of things have been severely exaggerated to make that story. For one thing, the NOAA data set was not particularly critical to Paris, it is one of a number of data sets and the changes were not that big.

    All global temp data sets get regular updates. This particular update was because of a fairly straightforward weighting bias as they added more buoys to the program over time. They explained in advance that they would need to do this way back in 2008. The resulting change was tested against related data sets like the measurements of the ARGO buoy array as well as some satellite measurements, which demonstrated that the updated NOAA data appeared to be much more consistent with other measurements than it had been, consistent with fixing the bias that had been introduced by increasing buoys.

    Basically, not fixing the data would have meant using known bad data.

    More discussion here, for example:

    and AP article here:

    ‘Whistleblower’ Bates: “”I do not believe Tom Karl was cheating and did not mean to imply he was.” “No data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious”

  • Truthsayer

    “Happening at an extraordinary rate…..” Can anyone tell me exactly which islands have been inundated? And for those on the East Coast of the US, why they are still doing beach replenishment projects on barrier islands? Why are we not condemning the million dollar mansions on the beach if they will really be under water in the near future?

    Cyclical weather patterns are a hallmark of this planet. We all know it and the real science bears out that narrative.

  • teppo

    Last ice-age wasn´t 10´s of thousands years ago, but ended little over 10000 years ago. This current warming trend started in 17th century, undulating upwards at roughly same rate as it is now, without there having been significant human output of emissions that are claimed to cause this warming until late 19th century. One thousand years ago temperature was roughly same as now, as Vikings were able to harvest barley in Greenland. It has been too cold for agriculture there until recently.
    What doesn´t get mentioned is that interglacials have occurred roughly at an interval of 100000 years, at peak temperatures couple of degrees C higher than we are experiencing currently.

  • teppo

    BS graph.

  • Hope

    I wish Tucker would have Steve Goddard on with Bill..I don’t know if it’s drugs I don’t get it I guess he invested in the global scam…

  • Tom Huck

    Carlson needs to get Kevin Anderson from Tyndall in UK, as well as Paul Beckwith from Canada, and Guy McPherson or EO Wilson from the US. And give it more than 9 minutes.

  • RevJules

    Watched this segment on the Carlson show. Nye kept squirming throughout the whole thing. Never did answer Tucker’s questions, with anything valid nor scientific, just kept alluding to the scary leftist BS spouted by some of the left supported “scientists”, as it being “settled”.
    Nye appeared more as a clown than a credible science guy. Fun watch.

  • huntress

    Except the overwhelming evidence there is NO climate change created by man. Yes, there are cyclical changes, ya know the ones that have been taking place since man inhabited the earth. Overwhelming evidence this is a complete and utter hoax.

  • Robyn B Holmes

    climate doesnt change at the rate of millions of years… climate changes very quickly.
    when did the last ice age end?
    end of argument. bill is wrong :p

  • Quantummist

    Give you a better example… In Darwin’s logs of his expedition on the Beagle in 1834 he wrote of visiting the islands of the Galapagos, Tahiti, Falkland and many other islands… some just a couple of feet above high tide lines at their highest points… Today you can take a cruse and retrace his trip and step foot on every tiny island he notes in his book.. Most have plaques and signage telling of his visits and there is not a single tiny speck of land he stood on in his book that you cannot stand on today…

  • Truthsayer

    Well done. Thanks for that example.

  • Badenuff

    Hypothesis: Follow the polar caps of Mars. If the delta is different than those of Earth, man is affecting the climate.

  • nworder

    Allegedly 1 cent degree rise in 100 years – how do you measure that miniscule increase using 100 year old thermometers with new methods like satellite recordings . How do you measure the temp of all the sea waters in the world , the land down to a depth and up to the mountains and the air up to 60.000 feet . It is fake pretended accuracy – you would need a trillion x trillion thermometers.

    The only main input is the sun and the main warmer/ cooler is water vapour ie clouds .

    BUT the temp is NOT rising and the ice is NOT melting and the Romans grew grapes in Britain 1600 years ago .
    There were warm periods and cold periods like when the Thames froze every year and you could barbecue a pig on the ice .

    The Vikings grew grains on Greenland 1500 years ago and had to leave because of the cold and invade other countries.

    Camel bones have been dug up in the arctic together with other tropical animals remains.

    The only thing rising is Al Gore’s et al’s bank accounts and Nye’s as he was bought out a long time ago. Pity his bow tie
    does not light up when he tells pork pies .

  • Carter_Burger67

    Tucker tees off on guys like this every, freakin’ night. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

  • Oak Tree Lady

    What I got out of this – Bill Nye is a bully who thinks the climate would not have changed since before the revolution if not for us and Carlson Tucker is the master of the quizzical expression.

  • Gail

    Other reports of manipulating data have been reported in past years as in the “hockey stick” graph that was later found to be fraudulent and other examples. As I stated, money and greed seem to be the basis for the global warming/climate change phenomena. Al Gore and his papal dispensation-like carbon credits sham are an example.

  • waxliberty

    The ‘hockey stick’ graph being found to be fraudulent is also not true – eight separate committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. Here is a fact check article:

    The science behind the greenhouse effect and climate change is two centuries old – the greenhouse effect first (roughly) postulated by the famous scientist and mathematician Joseph Fourier in 1827. The basis for global warming/climate change is absolutely physics (our understanding of physical science), not money. This is why literally every national academy of science and every other scientific agency and association you could hope to consult endorse the opinions you hear from mainstream scientists.

    Carbon credits are definitely a fuzzier concept at best, and quite susceptible to scam (scam operations have been prosecuted, if I recall – not performing the carbon offsetting action that people pay for.) Often the idea is to plant trees or do something that has a net effect of slightly reducing carbon in the atmosphere, but the best response to the problem is to reduce carbon pollution in the first place.

  • Azsteve53

    Nye has decided politics and science are one in the same, and his politics is settled science no matter the facts to the contrary. Nye is a useful idiot for the cause, not just for climate change but also for other religious issues. Nye is using science as his armor, and in reality Nye is the emperor with no clothes

  • Azsteve53

    YOU cannot accurately measure the temperature change due to the technology of the thermometers, what one can see happening is that data is being falsified to support a conclusion someone started with and will do anything legal or illegal r=to convince sheeple to support it.

  • mark carpenter

    Useful idiot – you hit the Alinsky nail on the head.

  • mark carpenter

    Tucker should’ve asked him why the scientific community had us headed into an ice age back in the 1980’s when air pollution/CO2 was much worse than it is today. (Hopefully these numbers aren’t fudged, but who knows) He also should’ve asked him why some climate scientists today are saying that we’re headed into another ice age in the next ten years due to decreased solar activity – not CO2 levels. This whole climate thing IS NOT settled – especially with all the number fudging these climate alarmist scientists are pulling to keep their billions of dollars for their research/propaganda rolling in. Seems like every few months or so, we read another story about a climate scientist whistle blower who pulls the curtain back on what’s become the biggest scam in the history of the world. By the way, that’s all the grant money/funding is for these days climate-wise. If you want to research anything about global cooling or something other than global warming – forget it, no money for you. That is NOT how science is supposed to work, but when you’re trying to keep the government grants flowing and fleece the world with your carbon tax credit b.s. and redistribution of wealth – who cares? Remember this one Bill? The problem here Bill, is we the consumers are forced to pay more for these “environmentally/politically correct” items that often times don’t work too well (“low flow” toilets) and cost many times more than what we’d ever see in carbon tax credits.
    One last question from Tucker: hey Bill, explain to me how that stone age settlement ended-up under what became the English Channel thousands of years ago when the Ice Age ended – was that due to man-made global warming too?

  • mark carpenter

    That’s not what the whistle blower from NOAA said – do your homework.

  • mark carpenter

    Yes it is a spectacle, Bill Nye helping carry the water for those running the world’s biggest scam.Your little “proxy” picture graph is nice – only problem is, satellite imagery has shown the earth in a cooling trend for at least the last 18+ years. Here’s some more pretty graphs and info to check-out and there’s a lot more where this came from.

  • cunudiun

    Are you kidding? Nye made mincemeat of Carlson. When he could get a word out without Carlson interrupting him.

  • cunudiun

    More than David Rose who wrote that dishonest Daily Mail piece you linked to, at least.

  • nworder

    Yes carbon dioxide is now a weapon that you can use to kill populations .

  • nworder

    It changes 4 times a day where I live .

  • nworder

    Bill Nye would make a marble statue have a quizzical expression !

  • nworder

    The hockey stick was pure fraud – CO2 will make more vegetation grow – it is a self balancing cycle .
    Termites give out more CO2 than all of human activity – google ” I LOVE CO2 ” website

  • waxliberty

    “The hockey stick was pure fraud”

    As discussed above, this is a heavily-repeated urban legend. The general shape found in the MBH98 hockey stick has been broadly reproduced by other reconstructions using different proxies, which is the final answer on questions of ‘fraud’ in scientific method and logical reasoning.

    “CO2 will make more vegetation grow”

    It can have a positive effect but total vegetation impact is complex, and in general other climate change impact tends to overshadow, e.g. from the IPCC working group II survey of all research on crop impacts: “Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)”. Typical paper:

    Lobell et al, “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980”
    “Models that link yields of the four largest commodity crops to weather indicate that global maize and wheat production declined by 3.8 and 5.5%, respectively, relative to a counterfactual without climate trends.”

    “it is a self balancing cycle”

    Absolutely untrue – the paleoclimate record (including ‘ice age’ cycles) shows strongly that the climate tends to ‘drift’ quite far into new states when pushed by changes to incoming or outgoing energy.

    “The paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilizing, the Earth’s climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts even to small nudges,” climate scientist Wallace Broecker, in 1995.

    “Termites give out more CO2 than all of human activity”

    I believe this is untrue, this paper shows ~3.5 Gt/year emissions from termites, compared to emissions in the 26 Gt/year range for humans.

    In any case termites are part of the natural process of plant matter decomposition, which is part of the normal global carbon cycle. It’s true human emissions are only ~4% of annual *total* natural emissions, but the emissions and absorption of the natural cycle had found a general balance and human emissions piled on top, causing a 40% global increase in CO2 concentration (validated by many lines of evidence including isotope analysis – this is also not a controversial result in science.)

    It is a fairly common sense thing as well – notice that global increase in CO2 happened exactly in lockstep with human civilization’s increase in CO2 emissions.

    “google ” I LOVE CO2 ” website”

    There are many, many pseudo-scientific web sites claiming that mainstream science as taught in textbooks is a hoax, using reasonable *sounding* arguments. Just as there are many web sites documenting that 9/11 was an inside job, that the moon landing was faked, and so on. It’s great to explore the internet, but necessary to do so with a skeptical mindset.

  • waxliberty

    “satellite imagery has shown the earth has not been in a warming trend for the last 19+ years”

    This is a long-debunked argument; the RSS data set of troposphere temperature that showed flatter warming in this period was known to be suffering from an orbital decay problem (it was measuring temperature at a drifting time of day, giving spurious cooling results). Sites dedicated to rejecting global warming took advantage of this, but there are many, many ways to show that warming has not stopped (including environmental response such as mass coral mortality due to thermal stress, continuing sea level rise which is mostly thermal expansion, etc.)

    The RSS problem is described in this paper from the RSS team:

    You can see the increasing cool bias relative to in situ radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements in charts like this:

    The updated v4 total troposphere measurement shows more consistent warming over the past two decades in the troposphere:

    But more telling for total global warming is to simply look at the massive increase in ocean heat, which is where most of the heat trapped by the greenhouse effect goes. This is measured by the newer global ARGO array of diving buoys.

    Full NOAA page here:

    The polar bear argument is also mostly noise – old counts of polar bear population are not reliable, so claims of increases in population are not generally supportable.

    In general, be skeptical of science articles presented in political publications that have a strong ideological point of view.

    Polar bears are not generally one of the most concerning wildlife threats relative to human welfare, although they are obviously losing their habitat rapidly. We lost a full quarter of the Great Barrier Reef in a single season last year due to ocean warming. Coral reefs are a cornerstone of ocean food sources and given current projections of ocean warming they are not long for the planet.


  • waxliberty

    The Daily Mail is a tabloid, and this story has been thoroughly debunked.

    Funding is not the question. The science behind global warming is global, cross discipline, and 200 years old. The US National Academy of Sciences consists of our top research scientists nominated for success in their fields, and it is private and independently funded. Like all national academies of science in the world, it endorses mainstream science as taught in all textbooks.

    National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society, “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes”
    “Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The evidence is clear. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.”

    Joint science academies’ statement from the National Academy of Sciences, United States of America, Royal Society, United Kingdom, Academié des Sciences, France, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, Indian National Science Academy, India, Science Council of Japan, Japan, Royal Society of Canada, Canada, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany, Academia Brasiliera de Ciências Brazil and Accademia dei Lincei, Italy:
    “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”

    American Geophysical Union
    “Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes… While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.”

    American Physical Society
    “Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe… human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century … The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate, and to support research on technologies that could reduce the climate impact of human activities”

    Geological Society of America
    “global climate has warmed and human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species.”

    European Federation of Geologists
    “The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.”

    American Meteorological Society
    “There is unequivocal evidence that Earth’s lower atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming… The dominant cause of the warming since the 1950s is human activities. … Avoiding this future warming will require a large and rapid reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.”

    American Chemical Society
    “comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem”

    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    “The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) and other leading scientific organizations have reaffirmed the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities… The impact of climate change on natural resources and biological systems will be profound.”

    Scripps Institution of Oceanography
    “The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause.”

    American Statistical Association
    “The Fourth Assessment Report finds that “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising mean sea level. … Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. … Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.”


  • nworder

    If this data was real there should be bigger variations from the only input – ITS THE SUN STUPID !

    The data shows no increase in temperature which is what it is all about so they had to fake it and the highest they fakers could get was only 1 degree centigrade .

    Plus there is no evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and also no evidence that humans produce most of it.

    Termites and volcanoes produce more CO2 – extinct volcanoes pour out CO2 for hundreds of miles around
    as do underwater volcanoes .

    I am busy just now but I will debunk every daft point you make – THERE IS NO WARMING.

    King Canute tried to stop the tides – you lot will try to starve the world to pretend you can lower it
    It is not science but an economic weapon to control and depopulate .

  • cunudiun

    He already refuted most of your points, but you just ignored it. You’ve obviously been brainwashed well.

  • jmac


  • waxliberty

    This is a long string of false claims that are easily shown to be false and somewhat infamous.

    There is a lot of bunk information on the internet, and it is clear you do not apply a skeptical filter when consuming it. If you wish to defend your points, try to link to scientifically credible sources: published peer-review papers, etc., as I did above. Simply claiming things on the internet is a waste of time – you are not an expert, and no one has any reason to listen to your unsupported opinions.

  • waxliberty

    I’m sure believers wish that leading “9/11 was an inside job” conspiracy theorists were brought on to talk about modern terrorism topics as well.

  • Hope

    Yeah okay A fake scientist vs a real scientist one that is respected at that.

  • waxliberty

    You are talking about ‘Goddard’? He’s not a scientist, he’s a popular conspiracy theorist online. His main gig is to claim that nefarious forces are “adjusting” the temperature data. I’ve asked him directly to explain why, if this is true, that the global *net* effect of homogenization of temp data is to *decrease* the amount of observed global warming over the last century. He appears to know this is true but generally evades and tries to misdirect to other topics. The reality of net adjustments does not help his conspiracy theory, and advancing the conspiracy theory is his entire online career at this point.

  • nworder

    You’re a troll bot surely – there is no temp increase – its a con and there has always been climate change.

    GW scientists are after dollars – they want to be as wealthy as Al Gore – the man who is living a lie.

  • alaskaal

    He doesn’t understand chaos theory and turbulent flow. He claims that models will show disaster. If we were to have had another ice age, that would have been a disaster, warm good.

  • nworder

    in 100 YEARS , PEER REVIEW of any sort = fakers patting each other’s box ticking ,

    NOT so much the SCIENCE guy more like the DOLLAR guy . He’s a science prostitute .

  • Hope

    First #FakeNews now #FakePosts Well done idiot.

  • waxliberty

    “Those who believe without reason cannot be convinced by reason” – Randi

  • nworder


  • waxliberty

    Except according to measurements, observations, and corroborating environmental response.

    But perhaps you are using all caps, and that is causing the laws of physics to bend to your will.

  • waxliberty

    Such is the quality of the arguments against climate science…

  • CB

    “31K scientists agree that the SCIENCE doesn’t support any human impact on climate.”

    Has one of those alleged scientists proved that greenhouse gasses are transparent to infrared radiation?

    …or did you not realise that’s what they would have to do to prove humans don’t have an impact on the climate?

    “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation, which heats the lower atmosphere.”

  • CB

    “I appreciate the honesty of your comment.”

    If you are making fun of Climate Deniers, you need to use a snark tag.

    …otherwise, people will just think you’re one of them.

    This is science that’s withstood over a century of testing.

    Only someone profoundly mentally ill would dismiss it without any evidence.

    “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

  • nworder

    BUT your theory falls flat – the temp did NOT rise in the 100 years .

    I suppose if you are too thick to become a real scientist you can always be a $2 dollar an hour troll

  • nworder



    Better to resit your standard grade biology .

  • nworder

    MEASUREMENTS HA HA – if you can count the grains of sand in the seashores of the world accurately I will believe
    you can measure the temperature of the sky , sea and land – lol

    You have the pride of King Canute – you dollar loving troll !

  • nworder

    Too boring to read your lies – get a proper job stoking a furnace or getting lost in the expanding Antarctic ice looking for
    millions of happy polar bears .

  • mark carpenter
  • mark carpenter

    Yes , all very nice gov. fund sucking entities that rely on tax dollars to stay afloat. They can debunk anything if it keeps their precious funding flowing.

  • waxliberty

    Your theory is trivial to falsify. The US National Academy of Sciences was founded by Lincoln in 1863 to advise on critical scientific questions relevant to policy. Members are elected in recognition of distinguished and continuing achievements in original research, still considered one of the highest honors in science. See Chapter 1503 of Title 36 of the United States Code – NAS is non-governmental and funding is guaranteed / not subject to politics. The fact that NAS (and every other national academy of science in the world) strongly endorses the major findings of climate science immediately falsifies your “funding” theory.

  • waxliberty

    You are embarrassingly citing a famous photoshop hoax of a Time magazine cover.

    Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age

    In terms of the common urban legend about a supposed scientific consensus around cooling in the early 70s, that’s an urban legend – there was no such consensus or scientific predictions, at all.

    Some scientists did raise concerns about cooling in the early 70s, because of a real effect – anthropogenic aerosol cooling. Which is still the #2 forcing on climate, but even in the 70s the emerging consensus was that greenhouse warming would dominate, as Hansen’s accurate predictions in 1981 claimed.

    More discussion:


  • nworder


    THEN the hoaxers came up with their plan to use the harmless gas of CO2 to scam the world since it relates to human activity . So they picked the greedy AL Gore to start the lie scam and its been cash ever since with all the fake scientists jumping on the bandwagon – including bottom feeders like yourself .
    Only on the day of judgement will the majority see this lie for what it is – and living a lie puts you where Mr Waxliberty
    when you finally go ?

  • waxliberty


    Hilarious. How did you assess the existence of this scientific consensus, pray tell? Photoshopping fake Time magazine covers, was it?

    In the U.S., the main authority for policy is the National Academy of Sciences. They didn’t endorse global cooling, at all – quite a contrast with their strong endorsement of global warming in subsequent decades.

    “So they picked the greedy AL Gore to start the lie scam”

    The ravings of conspiracy theorists. Anthropogenic global warming via CO2 was first hypothesized formally in 1897 by Svante Arrhenius.

    If there is an opposite to a voice of reason, you are it.

  • nworder


    Svante Arrhenius. ???? Who else are you going to pull out the hat to impress us ?
    Svante was wrong then since nothing has happened since 1897 just normal weather

    There were more weather disasters the further back we go – like the mini ice age in
    the middle ages – even years without summers .
    Keep taking your fantasy pills in the basement.

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    Because you say so?

    Got it.

    Try not to tire yourself out and remember the medication, it really will help you.

  • Anaussieinswitzerland


    I love it when deniers link to the “scientists” in the Oregon petition (when the only qualification asked for by the petition was a degree) and then support comments questioning Bill Nye’s qualifications.

    Cognitive dissonance at it’s finest.

  • nworder

    You are just another troll fake identity – go get a proper job and wake up feeling honest – breathe fresh air and come out of your basement of lies – you will find that furtive look disappears from your face . Read in the Bible the scripture tells you your face eventually reflects your character . You can test this for yourself – look in the mirror and say CO2 is good
    – very good ! over and over – it may take a while for you going from darkness to light .

  • Anaussieinswitzerland


    See the medication is starting to kick in – you managed a whole post with no caps.

  • nworder

    BILL NYE’S QUALIFICATION = Mechanical Engineer who then spots a buck buys a bow tie and tells lies.
    HE IS A FAKE scientist but he can smell a dollar a mile away

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    So you dismiss the Oregon petition as a fraud because the people who signed it only needed a degree to qualify as scientists?

  • nworder


    Even if it had gone up it is impossible to measure – I know a scam when I see one and a troll when I see one .

    Can I sell you some ice from Antarctica hah ha

  • Anaussieinswitzerland

    I think you need to back to the doctor and ask about upping your dose.

  • waxliberty


    Trivially falsified. The US National Academy of Sciences consists of our top research scientists across fields. NAS funding is not subject to political review. There is no cash involved in whether they endorse or criticize climate science. They strongly endorse it.

  • nworder

    THERE IS ALWAYS CASH INVOLVED like your troll pay . The love of manoey is the root of all evil and will take you to hell .

    Look in the mirror and say the temp has NOT gone up over and over .

  • waxliberty

    NASA’s climate director Gavin Schmidt was helpful enough to reinforce the answer for Carlson:

    “Hey @TuckerCarlson – All of the change in the last 60 years is due to human activity”

    “the best estimate is 110% (5-95% range is [80%,130%]”. See Figure 10.5 in AR5 WG1.”

    The thread also includes the helpful comment “the annoying thing about Twitter is that you cannot shout down the answer while pretending to ask again”.


  • waxliberty

    And his credulous viewers are misinformed enough to believe he was brilliant. Epistemic closure…

  • waxliberty


  • nworder

    BUT ITS ALL BULL SINCE THE TEMP HAS NOT GONE UP – THE WEATHER SEEMS SO QUIET NOW COMPARED TO MY CHILDHOOD – there is no way you can spin it waxy – we need facts not numbers of scientists of paid for woolly opinions.

    facts = no temp rise in 20 years
    fact = impossible to measure small temp rises worldwide
    fact = equipment 100 years ago was sparse and different compared to now
    fact = the weather is not changing
    fact = the poles are not melting like Al Gore said
    fact = sea levels are not rising
    fact = sea levels were much higher in the past evidenced by raised beaches all round the world
    fact = CO2 was much higher in the past
    fact = human activity CO2 is tiny compared to volcanoes , CO2 offgassing round volcanoes Co2 from sea vents
    termites , marshes and insects

  • nworder

    WAX THE TROLL GUY – I bet you run outside every time the weather changes and shout ” THIS IS IT ! THIS IS IT !
    Lets all kill ourselves ( but not me – I am needed) .

    Its about depopulation , starving people etc etc . nothing to do with science – AL GORE bought a house on the beach
    he knows its bull – wouldn’t you love his cash .

    “Those who hate me love death” – GOD !

  • CB


    You are correct that CO₂ was much higher in the past!

    …but not quite nothing happened because of it.

    In fact, each and every previous time in Earth’s history when CO₂ went so high, complete polar meltdown followed.

    …so how likely is it there will be a different outcome today?

    “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 118 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 281 gigatonnes per year.”

  • CB

    “the temp did NOT rise in the 100 years”

    Is that true!?

    How do you know?

    If you know your sources of information are misleading you, why would you continue to rely on them?

    “Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880”

  • nworder

    But a surface temp is not even a part of the story – its the “volume” of heat that counts and the only medium that has enormous calorific value is the sea – the surface of the earth will come well after the atmosphere and well behind the sea and the ice at the poles – so we cant just measure the surface which is very thin and is about cloud cover.
    Anyway I dont trust any figure from the GW scientists – they are involved in a scam and they have sniffed money.

    The poles have got bigger and we wont see camels in the arctic for a while .

    The thermometers in 1880 no matter how good cannot compare with todays technology ie you are not comparing like with like .

    For me in my little part of the world I would say everything is more stable than when I was a boy – so the climate seems to be more stable and the seasons are the same give or take “weather”
    Read history eg the Venerable Bead – a monk who took an interest in the weather – you wont believe how bad
    the weather disasters were in his time around a 1000 years ago – google .

    God is in total control of every atom in the universe and never sleeps and is never caught out with his creation
    But in the future one third of the greenery will be burned up by the sun – since this is a revelation prophecy no one can stop it – only delay it – but it will be the sun not CO2

  • nworder

    The pole figures are made up – the antartica ice is higher than ever .
    Greenland was farmland 1000 + years ago – then the vikings had to leave due to the cold spell
    Plus losing sea ice will not make the sea rise – Archimedes

    Nasa are deep state freaks – dont listen to them – they are CIA – they have an agenda

    There has been no temp increase to melt any ice – there was less pole ice a few hundred years ago
    Three ww2 planes were 260 feet down at 60 years after the war in Greenland – they thought rings were annual layers
    but 10 layers of snow can form in a day – so the 100,000 years of ice is B.S.

  • Carter_Burger67

    when did we start talking about MSNBC?

  • waxliberty

    What full scale science denial is common on MSNBC? Don’t get me wrong, happy to pile on if there is.

    Otherwise we’re talking about Carlson and you.

  • CB

    “the antartica ice is higher than ever”

    Well, how do you know!? If it were true, would it change the history I just outlined?

  • CB

    “the only medium that has enormous calorific value is the sea”

    That’s true!

    …but you didn’t tell me how you know what you know…

    Why is that?

    If you know your sources are misleading you, why would you continue to rely on them?

    “Oceans Are Absorbing Almost All of the Globe’s Excess Heat”

  • nworder



    Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
    Editor’s note: Antarctica and the Arctic are two very different environments: the former is a continent surrounded by ocean, the latter is ocean enclosed by land. As a result, sea ice behaves very differently in the two regions. While the Antarctic sea ice yearly wintertime maximum extent hit record highs from 2012 to 2014 before returning to average levels in 2015, both the Arctic wintertime maximum and its summer minimum extent have been in a sharp decline for the past decades. Studies show that globally, the decreases in Arctic sea ice far exceed the increases in Antarctic sea ice.

  • nworder

    But why do you assume there is excess heat – who told you the heat is excess heat ?

    How do you know there is excess heat – is this not God’s job

  • Americana

    Tucker Carlson is choosing to use the lowest possible intellectual tactic to fight the question of global climate change.

  • mark carpenter

    A hoax – are you kidding me??? Those time magazine covers are real – I read the damn issues when they were published back in the 70’s and 80’s. They are full of articles by and interviews of global cooling alarmist scientists with lots of pretty graphs and pictures of U.S. cities frozen in ice and farmland perpetually covered in snow. What are you, 20 something years old and still wet behind the ears gullible?

  • mark carpenter

    If you think ANYTHING in this world has not become politicized you are amazingly naive. The NAS receives 85% of it’s funding from the federal gov. and 15% of it’s funding from state governments and other public entities. How on God’s green earth could it not be subject to politics monetarily? These days, even the damn Boy Scouts have been politicized for Christ sake.

  • Carter_Burger67

    “science denial”? You provide definitive proof that global warming is going on and we’ll talk. Otherwise you are just pissing in the wind.

  • waxliberty

    You look at changes to outgoing and downwelling infrared matching predictions of atmospheric physics. You monitor incoming solar radiation. You apply the first law of thermodynamics. You measure with thermometers and see warming as predicted, for decades – on the surface, and to ocean depths of 2,000m, making it clear no internal ocean cycle-driven rearranging of heat can possibly be responsible for the change. You measure sea level rise, due partly to thermal expansion and partly to increasing polar ice melt. You observe many other lines of evidence, all corroborating the same climate change – for example, losing a full quarter of the Great Barrier Reef in a single season to global coral bleaching from thermal stress in warming oceans.

    If that’s all too much, you look at summary attribution studies showing >95% that >80% chance of observed warming is anthropogenic. Or, if you are wise, you simply listen to literally every national academy of science (composed of top scientists elected for distinguished and continuing achievements in original research) in every major nation, every professional association of physical scientists (geophysicists, physicists, geologists, oceanographers, chemists, statisticians, biologists etc.), and every national science agency (space, oceanic, meteorological agencies etc.) in the world, who universally support the mainstream understanding of earth’s climate and energy budget including high-impact anthropogenic global warming.

  • nworder


  • cunudiun

    Do you think capitalizing that made any of it true?

  • nworder

    do you think NOT capitalising your posts made them true ? The WEATHER has ALWAYS been CHANGING
    AND the world was much WARMER in THE past .
    and you have no way of KNOWING THE temp of the SEA , sky and GROUND
    and THE poles ARE not MELTING .

  • cunudiun

    A simple ‘No” would have sufficed. Now you’ve doubled down on idiocy.

  • waxliberty

    “NO TEMP INCREASE” – except according to thermometers, satellite observations, many lines of environmental response, etc.

    “NO MELTING POLE ICE” – except according to satellite, ship-based and other observations

    “NO RISING WATER LEVELS” – except according to tide gauges, many lines of environmental response, etc.

    You’re unhinged from the world of verifiable objective reality.

    The all caps isn’t helping matters.

  • waxliberty

    After all these years, still!

  • cunudiun

    30,000 scientists have signed a petition arguing that there is no convincing scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.


    A petition that has been in circulation since 1998 claims to bear the name of more than 30,000 signatures from scientists who reject the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

    The petition was created by individuals and groups with political motivations, was distributed using misleading tactics, is presented with almost no accountability regarding the authenticity of its signatures, and asks only that you have received an undergraduate degree in any science to sign.

  • nworder


  • cunudiun

    Same info available elsewhere. All of it true. The issue is your idiocy, not Snopes’.

  • Ian5

    “…but [Nye] is way off base in claiming that climate change is caused by man.”

    Your statement is misinformed. Nye’s position is completely mainstream and consistent with the positions of NOAA, NASA, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Environment Canada, and virtually every other American and international scientific academy.

  • nworder

    So was global cooling when I was a boy – are you going to stop the sun ?

    Answer this question has GW happened in the past ?

    AND who is in charge of the planets temperature ?

  • cunudiun

    Nothing matters but the facts.

  • Ian5

    Solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. However, multiple lines of evidence show that current rate of warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun.

    Many factors affect the planet’s temperature including intensity of the sun, changes in earth’s orbit, quantity of greenhouse gases, CO2 content of the oceans, ocean currents, land cover, and their complex interactions. Human activity including the burning of fossil fuels has increased the quantity of greenhouse gases significantly over the past century.

    The scientific evidence for human-caused warming of the planet’s climate system is unequivocal. Why not educate yourself about the science, evidence and implications of climate change:

  • nworder

    ITS ALL FLAK AND CHAFF TO PROMOTE THE CARBON TAX AGENDA . What none of you GW’s dont seem to be able to admit is there is NO increase and NO current rate of increase .
    1 degree in 100 years is NOT measurable due to change in technology and the vast amount of variables that no computer model can measure . Forecasters can barely measure a week ahead let alone 100 years ahead .

    Why would scientists on this massive gravy train not fake their evidence – who wants to be a scientific martyr by telling the truth.
    Trillions have been wasted on this scam – the poor of the world are starving due to forests being cut down to grow grains for vegetable diesel oil that they could have eaten – even though there is tons of oil in the ground .

    This crazy policy actually puts more CO2 in the air since the forests are being cut down and the vegetable diesel oil still puts out CO2 – it also increase food prices . Whoever thought up this ” remedy” should never be allowed to practice science again.

    Pollution will kill the planet – glyphosphate (round up pesticide) will kill us all as will fluoride mercury and other heavy metal toxicity etc etc – these are the things you should be protesting.

    But human nature is take the easy route and pick on a fake straw man to look caring and noble and altruistic

    That’s why Hollywood bums support the scam – to play to the gallery – the support of most Hollywood bums should ring your alarm bells . These people are poseurs to the core and love a good posture for their image while they spout out more CO2 on their lifestyles than a country full of peasant farmers .

  • Ian5

    “There is NO increase and NO current rate of increase. 1 degree in 100 years is NOT measurable due to change in technology and the vast amount of variables that no computer model can measure . Forecasters can barely measure a week ahead let alone 100 years ahead .”

    You are misinformed. Global temperatures are indeed rising. The evidence is unequivocal.

    Yes deforestation and ethanol production are poor policy responses to climate change, but the practice does not change the fundamentals of the science.

    Your ridiculous statements are diametrically opposed to the positions of NOAA, NASA, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Environment Canada, and virtually every other American and international scientific academy. There is no international conspiracy.

  • nworder

    Listing acronyms is not evidence – hard to believe people with your depth of naivety can survive – do you ever consider an alternate view from many competent scientists who contradict what the paid scientific prostitutes say.

    The fact that these scientists are going out on a limb and damaging themselves does not seem to trigger an intelligent question from you – WHY ? .
    Do you not realise that truth is in the minority and despised most of the time so it needs brave people to counter the majority lies which are driven by bribery and corruption and America is in this medium right now .

    Do you study history ? can you not see that everything you are told turns out later to be lies and propaganda for one reason or another aka power and filthy lucre.

    Lies and propaganda are not “science” – facts are science – and history tells us that the majority of the sheeple just follow the mob – they have no discernment – they dont have the questioning and skeptical nature of a scientist or of an intelligent person who can analyse the financial motives of the “science”.

    I am sure Global temp have increased and decreased throughout the millennia but the sun and clouds and dust cause it not CO2 (which is a trace gas) – Why is CO2 blamed ? When dust has a million times the effect .

    Just now we are not experiencing more “weather” than we have always experienced – I remember the weather being far more volatile when I was young . AND if you look back through history the climate went through gigantic
    changes in the last 2000 years and even more before this period . You are as blind to the truth as a bat .

  • Ian5

    Inform yourself; the evidence is unequivocal:

  • Ian5

    “…many competent scientists…going out on a limb and damaging themselves”.

    Tell us who these ‘competent scientists’ are and the organizations they represent. Provide some evidence that the climate scientists at NASA, NOAA, Environment Canada and virtually every reputable western university are “paid scientific prostitutes”. Otherwise your remarks are just lazy, conspiracy fluff.

  • nworder

    Quite simply if the “theory” has zero , zilch , nada evidence other than fake computer models then these scientists are paid prostitutes.
    You need evidence that the temp is rising – you have a pretend 1 degree rise in 100 years after using every kind of fakery known to science so we know that even the 1 degree is faked. You are just a sheep following the herd since
    its trendy – its not like fighting glyphospahte or vaccines – its Hollywood star stuff – populistic – not backed by rationality .

  • Carter_Burger67
  • Ian5

    “you have a pretend 1 degree rise in 100 years after using every kind of fakery known to science so we know that even the 1 degree is faked”

    >> More lazy, misinformed conspiracy fluff. You have presented nothing to refute the observed data or provided any evidence that the climate scientists at NASA, NOAA, Environment Canada and virtually every reputable western university are “paid scientific prostitutes”.

  • Ian5

    The evidence is unequivocal. Inform yourself and also take a basic critical thinking course:

    * climatedepot is a rubbbish site run by lobbyist Mark Morano. The article is about a silly publication by the Heartland Institute…not peer-reviewed or recognized in scientific circles. The mission of the Heartland Institute is to intentionally misinform and mislead the public.

    * aproundtable is the American Policy Roundtable – a religious group that has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Its website merely repeats the long-debunked talking points of Heartland and others.

    * nypost – a link to an article by Michael Fumento, a “journalist” who has not climate science credentials whatsoever. He makes a number of misleading and irrelevant statements eg, “…Arctic ice increased by almost a third this past year” , but doesn’t back them up.

    All in all, you’ve just provided junk references.

  • nworder

    So since it (the whole scam ) is all based on the temp – what do you think the temp increase was .?

    CO2 was much higher in the past – so where did it go and why are we still here

  • Ian5

    “So since it (the whole scam ) is all based on the temp”

    >> No, AGW is not all based on average global temperature temperature. There are multiple lines of evidence including status of the major ice sheets, rates of glacial retreat, sea-level rise, ocean temperature and acidification and extreme weather events.

    “What do you think the temp increase was .?”

    >> It’s not what I think or believe. It’s what the accepted data indicates. I’m not doing your homework for you:

    “CO2 was much higher in the past – so where did it go and why are we still here”

    >> Current CO2 levels are over 400ppm – a level that hasn’t been experienced on earth for hundreds of thousands of years. The planet’s climate was clearly much different then. A key difference between then and now is the rate of change in CO2 and temperature. The changes occurred over thousands and thousands of years whereas at present, the impact of human-caused GHGs are creating significant change in the order of decades and centuries.

  • Ian5

    I also asked you a question that you have not answered:

    >> Tell us who these ‘competent scientists’ are and the organizations they represent. Provide some evidence that the climate scientists at NASA, NOAA, Environment Canada and virtually every reputable western university are “paid scientific prostitutes”.

  • nworder

    THE EVIDENCE = NO TEMP INCREASE – so thats the end of the story
    Computer models cannot predict tomorrows weather to within one degree – what about 100 years lol

    Can you not discern between a political movement and scientific evidence .

  • nworder


    Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

    Debunking the “97 percent” lie
    On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

    More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

    From the National Review:

    “A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

    Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

    And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

    Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

    Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax
    But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.


  • nworder

    SORRY PAL IT IS BASED ON THE AVERAGE TEMP OF THE EARTH SEA AND SKY – is there evidence that the temp is rising – NO ! Its called a thermometer . It only the sun that counts – dust and water vapour
    CO2 IS ONE MOLECULE IN 2500 MOLECULES OF AIR – and they dont even know if CO2 is a warmer or a cooler.

    So where did the CO2 go to if it was much higher in the past – soda pop – lol

    Human input is minuscule compared to one class of insects – termites – so what about counting the rest of the insects
    – how do you get rid of termites – you all need to take a module on logic –

  • Ian5

    All misinformed rubbish:

    Natural News is a known rubbish site and not a source of peer-reviewed science. Junk.

    National Review and Wall Street Journal are media sources – neither of them even has a science reporter.

    The Oregon Petition Project (31,000 American scientists, etc) has been thoroughly debunked. Go look it up.

    John L. Casey hasn’t published a single peer-reviewed article on climate science. His extreme views are not supported by the evidence and published climate research.

    Al Gore’s wealth went up so climate change must be a hoax is a ridiculous argument. Al Gore’s wealth has no impact on climate science anymore than its impact on gravity. If his wealth decreased, the planet and scientific principles wouldn’t care either.

  • Ian5

    “CO2 IS ONE MOLECULE IN 2500 MOLECULES OF AIR – and they dont even know if CO2 is a warmer or a cooler.”

    >> What is your point? One molecule of chlorine gas in 25000 molecules of air causes toxic pneumonitis. So what?

    “So where did the CO2 go to if it was much higher in the past – soda pop – lol”

    >> Carbon cycle. Human input is not “miniscule” and the effect is cumulative over time. Inform yourself:

  • waxliberty

    Preferring the industry-funded Heartland Institute’s NIPCC ‘alternative science’ crackpots to the National Academy of Sciences and all other conventional scientific organizations.

    It’s human nature to be gullible, so no judgement. Not everyone’s educational training, discernment, or even IQ are the same. It’s a grand tragedy unfolding at global scale.

    These same ‘alternative’ experts predicted solar-driven global cooling (in contradiction to obvious, basic understanding of radiative physics and conservation of energy) starting ten years ago – and indeed we saw steep solar minimums as real solar scientists expected, but what happened in the climate system? Another decade of aggressive warming, now widespread mass mortality of coral reef from thermal stress, a process that is unlikely to be stopped at this point (reefs not likely to make it). Watch the next few years, see if your crackpots’ predictions of solar cooling finally shows up. They won’t, and that won’t convince you, but watch a few more years after that.

    Imagine a decade from now, and the result the same – measurements show another decade of warming, more environmental destruction, a few crackpots still claiming it hasn’t warmed, or that it will cool Any Day Now. Scientists politely saying they are still crackpots. Ask yourself why your opinion won’t have changed, in the same way the last decade didn’t change it. Ask yourself if it is even possible that you can be convinced of basic scientific facts. What answer do you tell yourself?

  • Ian5

    “THE EVIDENCE = NO TEMP INCREASE – so thats the end of the story”

    >> Misinformation. The evidence is unequivocal. You cannot refute it:

    You are mixing up weather with climate, a typical strategy used by contrarians to intentionally confuse readers. They are not the same thing.

  • CB

    “Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum”

    Uh huh, and is most of the ice near Antarctica on the land or in the sea?

    “Most of Antarctica’s ice lies in the ice sheets that cover the continent, and in recent decades, that ice has been melting.”

  • CB

    “How do you know there is excess heat”

    …because all the world’s researchers say there is excess heat.

    How do you know there’s not?

    Want to take a guess where you’ve been getting your information?

    “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

  • cunudiun

    You’d better check what happened to the Antarctic sea ice after “returning to average levels in 2015.” How’s it doing right now?

  • Carter_Burger67

    Now, how did I know you were gonna dismiss my links? And you accuse me of needing to be educated. Bye Felicia

  • nworder


    BUT it cant be cumulative over time or it would not have dropped from its past high point .

    Human output of CO2 is minuscule compared even to termites ONLY ONE insect .

    You are either a troll or brain washed and unable to think independently .

  • nworder

    And ice has been breaking off since the beginning as you would expect .

  • waxliberty

    Sounds like you’re trying to convince yourself I dismissed out of hand, when of course I discussed one of their standout claims (solar cooling) and pointed to the long history of failed predictions by these groups.

    It’s not that your fringe sources are not read, Carter, it’s that they’re wrong – can be reproducibly shown to be wrong.

    Yes, run along, quickly. Think about that last paragraph I wrote though.

    (Trivial for example to highlight actual published research on solar role in climate relative to such claims from ‘Heartland Institute science’:)

    Jones et al 2011, “What influence will future solar activity changes over the 21st century have on projected global near-surface temperature changes?”
    “Even in the event of the Sun entering a new Maunder Minimum like activity state the climate response is very small compared to the projected warming due to anthropogenic influences”

    Gray et al 2009, “Solar Influences on Climate”
    “Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC‐related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes.”

    Turns out physics doesn’t agree that “everyone is entitled to their own opinion”.

  • nworder

    THE biggest problem for the warmists is that there is NO warming and they cant get face up to this ONE fact .

  • Ian5

    “You are either a troll or brain washed and unable to think independently .”

    >> The Anti-Vaccine Movement: A Lesson in Ignorance:

  • cunudiun



  • waxliberty
  • Ian5

    nworder is also a hardcore anti-vaxxer and all-round conspiracy theorist.

  • TreeParty

    “True Pundit” is a lying crock of spit fake news site. I suggest that those of us who understand what is actually happening in the world IGNORE this site and do not feed the trolls who gather here. Remember that when you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it. People like nworder cannot be convinced of actual fact by electroshock; it is a waste of time to try to talk sense to them.

  • Ian5

    Not true, you are misinformed. The data show a clear warming trend:

  • nworder

    ANSWER ME DIRECTLY – and stop posting fake GW psyop websites – can you use your brain – probably not that’s why you had to become a troll

  • nworder

    THE data shows after much manipulation a minute increase of ONE DEGREE OVER 100 YEARS !
    This is .01 degrees per year – lol
    There is no equipment that can measure the temp of the earth sea and sky to this level of accuracy and certainly not
    100 years ago .

    In fact the increase is so small that we know its faked since we would expect bigger variations . So it was probably
    a drop.
    Can you not tell the difference between power politics and science ?

    Even if CO2 was a greenhouse gas (its not) 1 molecule of CO2 in 2500 of air has no effect whatever compared with clouds and dust – oh and TERMITES – lol

  • nworder

    How much do you get from that post – tea party troll – $1.25 – lol You will not make Al Gore type wealth
    just a few dollars supporting him – go get a proper job and wake up feeling honest .

  • nworder

    AND YOU are a hardcore pro vaxxine and global warming troll who will troll any subject for a few dollars since
    you are unable to get proper honest employment and use a fake picture . Get back to your basement.
    You are acting in a troll tag team and should be blocked

  • nworder


    Now answer a simple question for ALL to see. After your many years of studying fake science

    How much do you think the temp has gone up in a 100 years – no fake websites please

    AND if CO2 was very much higher than the past – WHERE DID IT GO ????

  • Ian5

    I’m not going to do your homework for you. You haven’t answered my questions either. Go to your local library and read up on the carbon cycle. Then come back and tell us what you learned.

  • Ian5

    You didn’t address the conspiracy theorist comment. Your fringe views are diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every reputable scientific academy the world over. Regarding the science and efficacy of vaccines, here is a good article for you:

  • nworder

    So 100 years ago they measured the temp of the earth sea and sky with a few old shiny brass thermometers and the
    planet’s temp went up by .01 degree .
    BUT how would they measure the sky without satellites and planes ?

    How would they measure the temp of all the seas and oceans in the world from surface to sea bed ??????

    Lol – you must be on something strong or lots of dollars are flowing your way .

  • nworder

    THIS record maximum was 2014 not decades ago ??
    Will you put in an order for some unpolluted antarctic ice – 2 gallons delivered to your door for $9.99 plus $2000.99 for post and package .

  • nworder


    There was NO global warming so you scam merchants had to adopt climate change
    since you knew the climate always changed – – you are collecting cash though – you should get a proper
    job since you lies will spill over into your private life and you wont be able to stop – going mad over time

    You cannot lie for a long time without going bonkers

  • nworder


    I started to read your boring GW propaganda then could not stop yawning at your utter trolling garbage
    so stopped reading

  • nworder

    They can make the figures do anything by choping off or adding bits to the data as having been proven.

    Natural news was just reporting – its a great site – you can only get a job as a troll – do you tell people and your family
    that you are doing research -lol





  • nworder




  • nworder




    100 YEARS AGO

  • nworder

    IF THE TEMP IS NOT GOING UP So I suggest you move on and get a proper job . I could not do your job – telling lies over and over – living a lie like Bill Nye . God hates all liars

  • Daniel Lang

    Where do you get the idea the earth is not getting warmer? Evidence please

  • Daniel Lang

    Would you be demanding these higher standards of evidence if all the best data showed cooling instead of the warming it does now?

  • nworder


  • nworder

    WAIT A MINUTE – ( you new troll identity for Ian ) – YOU say the earth is getting warmer by .01 degrees per year.

    So the onus is on YOU to prove it . Its YOUR hypothesis now YOU prove it.

  • TreeParty

    Like I said…

  • Ian5


    >> The average global temperature has indeed been rising. You have been unable to refute it:

    “telling lies over and over”

    >> Ridiculous fluff. My position is consistent with the positions of NOAA, NASA, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, Environment Canada, and virtually every other American and international scientific academy. That would make them liars too and part of a global conspiracy according to you. Not plausible. You have no credibility.

  • Ian5

    No, you have been provided with evidence and have been unable to refute it:

  • Ian5

    Amusing use of Caps


    >> Have a look at the carbon cycle link that I sent you where it talks about carbon sinks. Plants sequester carbon through photosynthesis over millions upon millions of years. Dead organic material accumulates and the resulting heat and pressure forms fossil fuels. By burning fossil fuels we are effectively releasing millions of years of stored carbon back into the atmosphere in a matter of decades.


    >> Mercury thermometers have been around since the 1700s.
    Instrumental temperature records extend back over 250 years in some locations (the Central England temperature data series starts in 1659). Since the late 19th century has there been a sufficient number of climate stations to estimate the average temperature. More information on specific stations and associated data here:

  • nworder

    YOU SAID IT – THE CARBON (self balancing) cycle that according to you has been around for millions of years or billions of years as Bill Nye the lie guy would say.

    So for billions of years (allegedly) the carbon has balanced out to where we are now which seems near perfect although we could do with more for plant growth. So if we have got “millions” or billions of years of carbon stored it must have been in circulation in earlier periods – so no CARBON has been added to this cycle and we are all here with only 1 CO2 molecule to 2500 of air – so your ” cycle” seems to be working .

    BUT how would you get rid of marshes and one species of insect – termites – that produce more CO2 than human activity – what about volcanoes that spew out CO2 all around even when dormant – what about undersea vents that
    breathe out CO2 all the time – will you put a cement plug into them .

    You are a scientific fantasist if you think that the oceans and sea temp can be measured worldwide even with a trillion thermometers .
    AND the truth is the seas are the main receptacle for heat – so you are Bill Nying there.

    AS OF NOW – NO ONE CAN MEASURE THE TEMP OF THE EARTH SEA AND SKY ACCURATELY AT A POINT IN TIME – perfect for science hoaxers to get paid for this political scam


  • nworder

    BOUGHT AND FAKE EVIDENCE – The only real evidence is the temp has not gone up !
    AND humans have almost zero contribution to CO2 compared with other inputs
    AND the sun is the only source of heat
    AND dust , water vapour ( clouds) are 99% of greenhouse working for cooling and warming.

    I never look at fake websites – especially when a troll provides it

  • nworder

    TELL ME – how much you think the temp has gone up in the 100 years – do you agree with the 1 degree cent in 100 years
    BUT just naming a bundle of fake evidence is useless if the temp has not gone up
    AND what about the output of termites and marshes dwarfing human activity output
    HOW would you measure the temp of the earth sea and sky 100 years ago with a few thermometers.
    THE sea would be impossible as would the sky – due to lack of satellites – lol


  • mark carpenter

    So, what do you think of the fact that less than 1% of what is spewed by most these folks you have listed above follows scientific method? . Should you decide to take the time to watch this, pay particular attention at 6:53:20 and then 7:01:30 – where he talks about the seduction of people like you. Never mind Breitbart, they are just the conduit.

  • mark carpenter

    Famous photoshop hoax? Unlike you, I was alive in the 70’s and I read the issue(s) when it/they were published. Go ahead and Google Time magazine April 1977. You really think they’d have this photoshopped cover of Time? Maybe it is you who should be embarrassed. What are you 20-something years old?

  • nworder

    He is paid to lie – a troll – it will get to him in the end

  • nworder

    Trolls dont repent and Al Gore’s not a scientist just a liar for the deep state with a obsessive interest in the $ sign

    Like the child sacrificing Druids who used eclipses to scare the masses the deep state uses fake GW to scare the
    sheeple .

  • waxliberty

    Yes, Mark, this particular image at top of your link is a photoshop hoax:

    But yes, there were also some real media articles talking about aerosol cooling. That in and of itself has nothing to do with questions of “settled science”.

    Yes, it is true that there is more confidence in the total picture of global warming now than there was in, say, 1975 – that’s not surprising, the scientific community intentionally called for investments in improved global monitoring and observation systems, such as the thousands of diving buoys in the ARGO system now documenting the relentless warming of the oceans, global warming which is corroborated by obvious and major environmental response (acceleration of ice sheet melt, the frying of a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef in a single season due to thermal stress last year, etc.)

    In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences did not scream about “global cooling” because there was nothing close to a strong case or consensus on that. They emphasized uncertainty, the risks of greenhouse warming and the need for improved global measurement systems:

    “Understanding Climatic Change” from the National Academy of Sciences in 1975
    “Observations are essential to the development of an understanding of climatic change; without them our theories will remain theories… A leading anthropogenic effect is the enrichment of the atmospheric CO2 content by the combustion of fossil fuels, which has been rising about 4 percent per year since 1910… Man’s activities are also contaminating the atmosphere with aerosols and releasing waste heat into the atmosphere, either (or both) of which may have important climatic consequences.”

    Today, as you should be aware and per other thread, the National Academy of Sciences like every national academy of sciences in nations all over the world strongly endorses the evidence supporting high-impact anthropogenic warming:

    National Academy of Sciences and the U.K. Royal Society, “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes”
    “Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth’s climate. The evidence is clear. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes.”

    The fact that science advances as more studies and better data become available is not really a scandal.

    Not to be too blunt about it, but to use your language: you are being an idiot.

  • nworder

    YOUR MAJOR PROBLEM is no matter how much irrelevant GW politics you spew out there is NO temp increase
    – no matter how much wishful thinking science you post there is NO way of measuring a temp increase in the whole earth sea and sky to an accuracy of .01 degrees per year for 100 years .
    It would be easier to count the sand grains on the seashore -lol

  • waxliberty

    Measuring changes is not as hard as measuring exact average surface temp. You deploy thousands of thermometers all over the world, in the ocean and on the land, and you look at the spatially weighted averages. Statistics applies.

    Deniers make rather comically miseducated claims, like the idea that the statistical uncertainty of in the average of thousands of measurements must be the same as that from an individual one. The is a profoundly elementary stat fail.

    Because you do not like what science has found, your psychological denial has to extend to everything – the basic laws of physics and mathematics, and scientific method itself.

    What makes all this particularly unhinged is the constant corroboration of warming by other observations – satellite estimates of troposphere temperature, acceleration of ice melt, frying of coral reef exactly sync’d to the spatial pattern of sea temperatures in each year (that you think can’t be measured.)

    Howling out your insanity in the wilds of the internet doesn’t do anything. Yes, I realize there are a lot of you, and some of you can even get your hands on political power. Having power isn’t the same as being sane, or able to apply rational and empirical logic.

  • nworder

    Are you saying you are not a troll ? You actually believe the scam ? You are crazier than I thought !

    So you think with a few old style thermometers mainly on the surface of the earth and not in deepest oceans
    or sky the boffins could measure the temp of the earth sea and sky 100 years ago – and you say you know “science” .

    The reason why they changed the GW to climate change was precisely because there was NO temp rise
    so they had to think up a new scam for your likes to follow – ie weather , which always changes.

    I think you should take a course in logic but also take a history lesson in great ” cons ” of the past .

  • mark carpenter

    I’m not the one that said or believed NYC would be underwater years ago or that we’d be burnt to a crisp by now – like you and your ilk. So who’s the idiot? Enjoy your insanity.

  • waxliberty

    “I’m not the one that said or believed NYC would be underwater years ago or that we’d be burnt to a crisp by now – like you and your ilk”

    Yeah, no they didn’t. Straw man isn’t even a particularly advanced fallacy.

    “So who’s the idiot?”

    Hmm… oh, still you.


  • mark carpenter

    Your global warming crowd has been predicting bs like that for years. Time to get back down in your mommy’s basement and take your meds – you’re hallucinating again.

  • nworder

    Al Gore bought a house on the shore !

  • waxliberty

    You could so easily be someone parodying climate contrarians. But you actually are one.

  • waxliberty

    You mean, the folks in your echo chamber have been spinning stories like this about what “the global warming crowd has been predicting” for years. To pull your strings (which turns out not to be hard.)

    After all this discussion, you still think you’re right? Well, again you have the opportunity to prove it with some facts (and you shouldn’t be discouraged just because you’ve failed so epically on that front so far – even a broken clock etc.) Provide some documentation of this prediction by the scientific community that NYC should already be underwater.

    Helpful note: Here’s a trick we skeptics use to debunk the sort of internet shlock credulous folks such as yourself repeat: before you declare victory, challenge yourself to find and read the original full context of whatever quote you find on a knucklehead blog to see if your quote holds up in context. (You will hear some old-fashioned people refer to this as “fact checking”, although this is really just a baby step in that direction.)

    Sound unfair? Tough, you don’t have the power (yet) to force people to repeat objectively false BS as if it were true.

  • nworder

    BUT IT DIDN’T SO NY IS NOT UNDER WATER -its too simple for your GW nut

  • nworder

    Look in the mirror and say over and over – ” the climate has always changed ” .

    And the temperature stays the same – which is remarkable when you think about it – considering the sun’s varying input and all the other trillions of variables.

    Maybe God needs a lesson from the great Wax – lol

  • waxliberty

    ‘The climate has always changed, and the temperature stays the same’

    One imagines you can’t get any stupider, and yet you strive ever onward for greatness in that category.

    If you stop watering your lawn, does God prevent it from dying as well? In general, do you believe God guarantees that you will suffer no consequences from your own actions while on earth? Which novel biblical passage are you leaning on there, one wonders.

    Not really uncommon for crank theology to be paired with crank pseudo-science.

  • waxliberty

    Of the top Time covers, one is a photoshop hoax (“the coming ice age”), and none of the others refer to predictions of global cooling. They’re about the weather or the energy crisis.

    You unapologetically believe propaganda nonsense. Indeed, you are the kind of true doublethink practitioner described in 1984 – you take *pride* in believing what you are told for the cause, especially if it is obviously false or self-contradictory. It is a badge of loyalty in your mind that you will repeat whatever you are told, even knowing it is false – indeed attacking truth as a subversive concept which must be smothered for its own sake.

    You’re groupthinking mammalian stupidity is at once hapless and profoundly dangerous en masse.

  • nworder

    THE COMMANDMENTS SAY NOTHING ABOUT ” THOU SHALT NOT PRODUCE CO2 ” Indeed it is a God designed self balancing system – CO2 is why the planet lives and we live . More CO2 = more vegetation and trees – bring it on !

    There is plenty of BAD things for you like the poisoning of the planet with herbicides pesticides mercury vaccines
    GMO’s , Monsatan , drugs , pollution of all types – plenty for you ! But you prefer to be a poseur , grandstanding
    and posturing like a Hollwood actress over poor little CO2 the 2nd most necessary gas next to oxygen.

    Did King Canute make the sea turn back – can you pull the sun away – lol

  • nworder


    YOUR 2ND PARAGRAPH IS A PERFECT DESCRIPTION OF YOURSELF – it is surreal that you can put
    on me your own traits exactly but not realise what you are doing . GW is pure propaganda and you swallow
    it like an obedient MK Ultra creation – lol

  • waxliberty

    Yet you are the one literally circulating photoshop hoaxes as truth. Not even a hint of regret.

    No I don’t “KNOW IT”. I just told you it’s not true. Because it’s not.

    This is why the word “denier” is used.

  • nworder

    FOR teenage imaginings then they decided that GW was easier to fake for eejits like yourself .
    Wake up and get a proper job man – dont be a useful idiot fpr Al Gore’s cash mountain – lol

  • Daniel Lang

    The people who study it have. You’re way behind, YOU disprove THEM. Get to work. You have the responsibility.

  • nworder

    Daniel the gullible guy – the “people” who “study” it have come up with nothing – there is nothing to study
    – there is NO warming . These warmist scientists study their paychecks and grants – its driven by political cash
    and threats . How many thermometers would you need 100 years ago ???????? lol

  • Daniel Lang

    The data is available to the public. Temperature wasn’t magic 100 years ago and it isn’t now.

  • nworder

    So how many thermometers were there 100 years ago at the bottom of the pacific or at the top of mount everest lol
    Making fake data available does not make it less fake .
    No one said anything about “magic” (straw man) its about no of thermometers .

  • jim_robert

    And what is the actual presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? Around 400 ppm, or less than 0.04%, up from 320 ppm, or 0.032% 50 years ago. Of the remaining percentages, nitrogen amounts for 78%, oxygen 21%. Of the 1% that then remains, 90% of that is argon, with less than 4% of that 1% being carbon dioxide (these percentages exclude highly variable water vapor, which is usually around 1 – 4% of the atmosphere – and a much more major contributor to global warming, estimated at being 50-90% of the greenhouse effect). Of course the logarithmic effect of CO2 means each additional increase has less impact that the prior, same sized increase. Even more, about 96 to 97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay and volcanoes. , In fact, relative to volcanoes, former FDA investigator Dr. Arthur Evangelista, noted that the 2010 eruption of Eyafjallajokull in Iceland emitted, in four days, enough CO2 in four days to negate every single effort mankind made that year to reduce CO2. But this volcano was a piker compared to Mt. Pinatubo, which when it erupted in the Philippines in 1991 “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth.” And this doesn’t include that fact that, as he notes the “bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.”

    Jeff Jacoby, writing in the Boston Globe re. Trump’s EPA head’s comment re. the presence of C02 as the “primary control knob,” has a similar comment on CO2:

    “…CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm. Adding more CO2 molecules to the atmosphere is like painting over a red wall with white paint — the first coat does most of the work of concealing the red. A second coat of paint has much less of an effect, while adding a third or fourth coat has almost no impact at all.There is a popular theory that atmospheric CO2 amplifies the creation of water vapor, thereby increasing warming through a “positive feedback loop.” But that theory so far is mostly speculative; climate projections using models based on it have consistently failed, nearly always predicting far more warming than has occurred. It should go without saying that if scientists cannot yet make accurate predictions about future climate change, then their understanding of climate science remains highly incomplete.

    Earth’s climate system is unfathomably complex. It is affected by innumerable interacting variables, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one. The more variables there are in any system or train of events, the lower the probability of all of them coming to pass. Your odds of correctly guessing the outcome of a flipped coin are 1 in 2, but your odds of guessing correctly twice in a row are only 1 in 4 — i.e., ½ x ½ Extending your winning streak to a third guess is even less probable: just 1 in 8.
    Apply that approach to climate change, and it becomes clear why the best response to the alarmists’ frantic predictions is a healthy skepticism.

    The list of variables that shape climate includes cloud formation, topography, altitude, proximity to the equator, plate tectonics, sunspot cycles, volcanic activity, expansion or contraction of sea ice, conversion of land to agriculture, deforestation, reforestation, direction of winds, soil quality, El Niño and La Niña ocean cycles, prevalence of aerosols (airborne soot, dust, and salt) — and, of course, atmospheric greenhouse gases, both natural and manmade. A comprehensive list would run to hundreds, if not thousands, of elements, none of which scientists would claim to understand with absolute precision.
    But for the sake of argument, say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change, and assume that climatologists have mastered each one to a near-perfect accuracy of 95 percent. What are the odds that a climate model built on a system that simple would be reliable? Less than 50/50. (Multiplying .95 by itself 15 times yields 46.3 percent.) Is it any surprise that climate-change predictions in the real world — where the complexities are exponentially greater and the exactitude of knowledge much less — have such a poor track record?

    Pruitt got it right: Measuring human impacts on climate is indeed “very challenging.” The science is far from settled. That is why calls to radically reduce carbon emissions are so irresponsible — and why dire warnings of what will happen if we don’t are little better than reckless fearmongering.”

  • jim_robert

    Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records.

    Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.”

    Indeed, when I was conducting research in Iceland at Skaftafell Nat’l Park several years ago, Icelandic historians know from extant deeds – and have put in the displays at the park – that somewhere around FORTY old Viking era farms are currently buried under the Vatnajokull glacier system (the largest in the world outside of Greenland and Antarctica). In other words, it was simply much warmer in the Icelandic settlement era than it is today. We are routinely informed of the melting of Greenland glaciers today at lower altitudes, but demonstrably there are at bare minimum low altitude glaciers in roughly the same geographic area that had seen more melting and more pronounced glacial recession one thousand years ago than we see today. Al Gore may want to visit Skaftafell National Park in Iceland on one of his many jet-setting, carbon burning trips to check the facts himself. More evidence: There are records of grape growing occurring in places in northern Europe back during this optimum where they can’t grow today. Gregory McNamee, in the Weather Guide Calendar (Accord Publishing, 2002) noted that wine connoisseurs might have gone to England for fine vintages (can’t grow fine vintage grapes there today!), that heat loving trees like beeches carpeted Europe far into Scandinavia, and Viking ships crossed iceberg free oceans to ice free harbors in Iceland…”. Art Horn writes that “In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? “ On the other side of the world, research by Panin and Nefedov in 2010, where they analyzed rivers and lakes in the Upper Volga and Upper Zapadnaya Dvina areas in Russia, also found evidence of a Medieval climatic optimum in that part of the world Even worse for the warmers, recent research has found evidence for the Medieval Climatic Optimum in the central Peruvian Andes, southern South America, China, see,, where the author XJ Zhou notes “temperatures in the Medieval Warm Period are comparable to those in the current warm period over China,” and Antarctica, Li, Y., Cole-Dai, J. and Zhou, L. 2009. Glaciochemical evidence in an East Antarctica ice core of a recent (AD 1450-1850) neoglacial episode. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011091 (summarized at Amazingly, there is even clear evidence of the LIA and MWP in Antarctica- see as well as Western Canada, as illustrated by the picture of a white spruce found on Canada’s Arctic Ocean.

    At thie link below is a pix of a icea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra,
    some 100km north of the current treeline. Photo by Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. See for this picture, as well as other AGW info.

    Similarly, two recent papers, reported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, one in Earth-Science Reviews and the other is in Chinese Science Bulletin, reported studies of “key chemical contents in micro-drilled giant clams shells and coral samples to demonstrate that in the South China Sea the warm period of the Middle Ages was warmer than the present. The scientists examined surveys of the ratio of strontium to calcium content and heavy oxygen isotopes, both are sensitive recorders of sea surface temperatures past and present. The aragonite bicarbonate of the Tridacna gigas clam-shell is so fine-grained that daily growth-lines are exposed by micro-drilling with an exceptionally fine drill-bit, allowing an exceptionally detailed time-series of sea-temperature changes to be compiled – a feat of detection worthy of Sherlock Holmes himself. By using overlaps between successive generations of giant clams and corals, the three scientists – Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Yuhong Wang of Fudan University, Shanghai – reconstructed a record of sea-surface temperature changes going back 2500 years. The Roman and Mediaeval Warm Periods both showed up prominently in the western Pacific and East Asia. Sea surface temperatures varied considerably over the 2500-year period.” Dr. Soon concludes :” “The UN’s climate panel should never have trusted the claim that the medieval warm period was mainly a European phenomenon. It was clearly warm in South China Sea, too.”

    Another study, by earth sciences professor Zunli Lu (formerly of Oxford, now at Syracuse Univ.), studied samples of crystal called ikaite, which forms in cold water, and will melt at room temperature. Samples were taken by Lu and colleagues, examined for variation caused by temperature fluctuations during formation, and dated. The result? Lu writes: “This ikaite record qualitatively supports that both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age extended to the Antarctic Peninsula.” What does this mean? It means that the MWP was not simply a localized event in northern Europe, or even the northern hemisphere. And if it was as warm 1,000 years ago as now all over the world, Al Gore is simply wrong. Study summary by the UK Register at

  • jim_robert

    I suggest you show some intellectual honesty and find out what the Vostok ice core is.

  • jim_robert

    Thank you for asking for evidence. That is good. Here you are:

    Oswald Bergman wrote in the Chemical & Engineering News, Oct. 23, 2006 about the self-limiting nature of global warming, outlining the Stefan-Boltzman law (see also Wien’s law). This law of blackbody radiation says that energy, or E, which is emitted from from a body with a temperature, or T, is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, or E=oT4 . What does this mean? Since the average in-radiation from the sun at any specific location at the same time of year is pretty much a constant, “any heating due to a greenhouse effect would be expected to reach a self-limiting equilibrium very quickly after only a modest rise in temperature. The reason is that ‘out-radiation’ will overpower the greenhouse effect after a very small temperature rise because of the enormous countervailing effect of the Stefan-Boltzman law.” I’ll bet you won’t see this fact anywhere, anytime, in the popular media. In a similar vein, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT notes “studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions” and cites another fact: he believes clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse emissions. Dr. Lindzen discussed this, along with Dr. Spencer and others, where they noted climate system has a negative feedback mechanism — a dampening effect on carbon dioxide-caused warming rather and suggest that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce a warming of no more than 0.5 degrees Celsius, well within natural variation.
    An article by well-known weatherman John Coleman at also discusses the forcing, or runaway global warming phenomenon at noting “It is true that CO2 can absorb heat a little faster than nitrogen and oxygen but it becomes no hotter because it cannot absorb any more heat than there is available to the other gases. This is against the laws of thermodynamics. All gases share their heat with the other gases. Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions. That’s why the air is all one temperature in any limited volume.• Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated. For a detailed explanation go to:” As evidence, the article cites Venus and Mars, that have atmospheres that are almost entirely CO2 (97%), yet have no runaway global warming, as well as noting that in the past the Earth has had CO2 concentrations hundreds of times higher, yet there were ice ages at the same time.

    Dr. Fred Singer, states about water vapor in the Aug., 2007 edition of Imprimus: “…it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of CO2.” . Singer notes this could be done several possible ways: if CO2 increases warming of the ocean there could be a higher rate of evaporation, leading to more cloudiness and humidity. The resulting low clouds would then reflect incoming solar radiation back into space, thus cooling the earth. It appears even the water vapor issue is, uh, cloudy, and in any event, any way you cut it, examples like these illustrate the self-regulating nature of earth, within a broad range, which is seen throughout the ages, again and again.

  • jim_robert

    Wow. Incredible intellectual dishonest. In fact, there has been no rise worldwide since 1998, leading lead global warming Ken Trenberth to write his famous “hide the decline” email. But then, you haven’t had the intellectual honesty to look at that, have you. In fact, Phil Jones, who ran the East Anglia AGW team, was forced to admit on BBC TV that the MWP (which I doubt you even know what that is) was as warm as, or warmer than today. Similarly, the Roman Warm Period, and the Minoan Warm Period. But you leftists really haven’t a shred of intellectual honesty left, do you!

  • jim_robert

    Besides, Einstein, we are still emerging from the LIA – which of course, you don’t even know what that stands for. As a matter of fact, a major study by Kegwin, et al, published in Nature, of marine radioisotopes on the Sargasso Sea, show that we are MUCH above the nadirs of the LIA… but we are *** still below the 3,000 year average temperature.***

    But… I don’t expect you leftists to have the intellectual honest to look that study up either, will you!

  • jim_robert

    As a matter of fact we are still emerging from the LIA – which of course, the BIG GREEN MONEY leftists here don’t even know what that stands for. As a matter of fact, a major study by Kegwin, et al, published in Nature, of marine radioisotopes on the Sargasso Sea, show that we are MUCH above the temp nadirs of the LIA… but we are *** still below the 3,000 year average temperature.*** Is it warmer than the 1800s? Yes. But only an incredibly stupid person who knows nothing about the LIA, or the MWP, would actually be ignorant enough to think that proves something. In fact, in the 1990s, when the earth was going thru one of its natural warming cycles, there was warming on Pluto (Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard Smithsonian), Mars, (CalTech) and Jupiter (as observed by the Hubble telescope which noted Jupiter’s famed red spot was growing larger, due to – you guessed it – global warming.

    No word from the BIG GREEN MONEY warmers if our SUVs will take out Saturn next

  • Ian5

    I think you mean the work of Lloyd Keigwin not Kegwin. Citing his work — most of which was done in the 80s and 90s serves only as a silly distraction. There is nothing wrong with his work, but to suggest it somehow calls the science of climate change into question is misinformed and intentionally misleading.

  • Ian5

    Complete rubbish specifically aimed to confuse and misinform. There is no conspiracy, only in your imagination. No less than eight separate inquiries examined the allegations and concluded there was no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. And name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists and the poorly educated.

  • nworder

    TRUTH ACTUALLY – just you get paid for lying Ian “eight” ????? inquiries – on what ? – lol You are the paid namecaller as we all know.
    Q – How many thermometers would you need at the bottom of the Pacific to calculate the temp to within
    1 degree centigrade – get you calculator out – lol

  • nworder

    Q – How many thermometers did you need to measure the temp of the pacific ocean 100 years ago to within
    an accuracy of 1 degree centigrade ????

  • Ian5

    Here is the data…accepted internationally and freely available:

    Sea surface temperature increased during the 20th century and continue to rise.

  • Ian5

    “You are the paid namecaller as we all know”

    No, I don’t call people names just call them out for spreading misinformation and ignoring the science, evidence and implications of climate change. Inform yourself:

  • Ian5

    “here has been no rise worldwide since 1998..”

    Untrue and unsuppported statement intentionally designed to mislead.
    Average global temperatures have indeed risen:

  • nworder

    “Surface” temperature is NOT the temperature of the whole world earth sea and sky.
    Accepted internationally means nothing if the temp has not risen in 20 years.

    I repeat my question – How many thermometers would the pacific ocean need to measure a change as small as 1
    yes ONE degree centigrade in 100 years AND 100 years ago starting point – give me a number !

    No fake websites

  • nworder

    YOU avoided the question – How many thermometers would you have needed in the world’s oceans and sky 100 years
    ago to be accurate to ONE degree centigrade – THIS is the science – not endless fake websites.

  • nworder

    AS you are demonstrating it is impossible to measure the temp of the earth seas and skies to within ONE degree centigrade over 100 years since we would need an almost infinite number of thermometers and averaging software.

    So how many thermometers do you think you would need – lol

  • Ian5

    “Accepted internationally means nothing if the temp has not risen in 20 years”

    Yet the science clearly indicates that it has risen and you have provided nothing that refutes it.

    Learn more about temp-aerature measurements here:

    Your question is a distraction and a question about uncertainty and precision. Learn more here:

  • Ian5

    Untrue. You are misinformed. Take a basic statistics and sampling design course.

  • nworder

    The sample size to detect such a small change as .01 per year in the earth with any confidence would have to be enormous ie nearly 100% sample .

    The data is not fixed eg currents are moving and the air is moving – there is changing cloud cover etc etc – a trillion x trillion variable inputs – including the bottom line – ITS THE SUN !

    So sampling does not work in this situation – we would almost 100% sample size – ie not sampling at all
    I do sampling – by the way .

  • nworder

    NO – Fake science indicates a rise. If you have no way of measuring the temp to an accuracy of 1 degree in 100 years
    then you cannot say it is rising – even more so when there is a hiatus for 20 years.

    There is no precision in measuring the temp of the whole earth sea and sky – just a warmists dream for pockling the stats any way they want to get those freebie grants

  • Ian5

    Nope. Intentionally misleading or just plain lazy. There are 4 major global datasets: HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, MLOST and JMA. Go read up on them. Maintained independently yet they are all consistent and all show the same trend. There is no conspiracy.

  • Ian5

    Untrue. And even if it were, it could not explain how four independent global temperature datasets, are all consistent and generate the identical trend.

  • nworder

    You are a fantasist – you actually seem to believe in GW whereas these fake useless stats are prepared by scientists who want funding and the grants .
    CO2 does not cause warming
    1 degree centigrade over 100 years CANNOT be measured
    Easier to count the grains of sand on the earth than measure temp of sea sky and land

    No matter what graph you produce and how nice they look if they are based on fake temperatures
    then the graphs will be fake .

    AND how many thermometers would you need 100 years ago to measure the temp of earth sea and sky
    AND 30.000 feet under the Pacific – lol

  • nworder

    WE know when they all look the same there IS a conspiracy – impossible to look the same with so many variable inputs – there should be differences – there was no way to measure the temperature of the earth sea and sky accurately in 1880 or even in 2015 – what about 1880 planes with thermometers going up to 40, 000 ft lol or submarines with thermometers going down to the pacific floor in 1880 – lol
    How many thermometers would you need on this planet ????
    You are either a troll or as naive as a baby lamb . If the temp data is faked the graph will be faked – simple

  • Ian5

    Great, thanks for making it clear that you think it is all a conspiracy yet not providing any evidence whatsoever. Its extreme, implausible view.

  • nworder

    NO evidence that CO2 has risen more than in the past – the opposite in fact
    NO evidence that Temp are greater than in the past – the opposite in fact
    No evidence that temp have risen for 20 years – even admitted by warmists
    NO evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
    No evidence that the temp of the deep oceans , sky and earth can be measured to an accuracy of .01 degree per annum lol
    No evidence that human activity CO2 output is greater than marshes or termites on their own

    Carbon credit billion and millionaires have executed a conspiracy to make vast profits from fake science
    and they have succeeded with sheep like you.

    Heat comes from the sun only , clouds and water vapour balance the equation – trace CO2 has nothing to do with
    it – if you are not a paid troll you an an Al Gore dupe – gullible for fake science .

  • Ian5

    All ridiculous and intentionally misleading statements. Shameful fluff.

    “NO evidence that CO2 has risen more than in the past – the opposite in fact”

    >> Untrue: The rate of increase and level is unprecendeted in the last 800,000 years.

    “NO evidence that Temp are greater than in the past – the opposite in fact”

    >>Untrue. You are ignoring the evidence from multiple datasets and lines of evidence.

    “No evidence that temp have risen for 20 years – even admitted by warmists”

    >> UNTRUE. You are out of date and besides, the 20-year interval is an intentionally misleading denier talking point. Inform yourself:

    “NO evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas”
    >> Untrue and a ridiculous notion. The science on this was established over 100 years ago:

    “No evidence that the temp of the deep oceans , sky and earth can be measured to an accuracy of .01 degree per annum lol”

    >> Misleading statement, Over the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.85° Celsius since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade. Inform yourself:

    “No evidence that human activity CO2 output is greater than marshes or termites on their own”

    >> You first need to understand the climate cycle. CO2 from human activities accumulates in the atmosphere. CO2 levels have not been this high in over 800,000 years. The cause is human activity primarily the buring of fossil fuels, not termites.

    “Carbon credit billion and millionaires have executed a conspiracy to make vast profits from fake science and they have succeeded with sheep like you.”

    >> You forgot to preface the above statement with “No evidence that”. You making a ridiculous unfounded statement doesn’t make it true.

  • nworder

    are insurmountable on any software model .
    Science works on data and you do NOT have it . Put up all the fancy graphs you want but it is the UNDERLYING
    data that is faked and you know it.

  • nworder


    WW2 P51 fighters and B bomber planes were found 250 ft down in ice in only 45 years .
    They had not sunk and were in their original horizontal landing positions .

    So in 4000 years we should have had 22000 feet of ice whereas even at the deepest level there is only 10,500 feet
    showing that the ice cores are much less than 4000 years – so you are AT LEAST 96000 years OUT in your data – lol

    4000yrs /45 yrs x 250 ft = 22200 feet .

    This just shows how basic data is faked – the “LAYERS” of snow were NOT ANNUAL layers but just snowfall layers
    where there had been a temperature change – so you could get lots of layers in one year

    It may take you a while to get your head round this and give you a more skeptical outlook which you need badly .

  • Ian5

    Why not submit your thesis to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and see how far it gets. As I said, all ridiculous and intentionally misleading statements. Made up fairy tale concepts, unsupported by any scientific evidence.

  • nworder

    PEER REVIEW IS A BOX TICKING EXERCISE THAT CHECKS THE SYSTEM NOT THE EVIDENCE OR LACK THEREOF – Its really about prostitutes admiring one another in turn – its the reason why poisonous drugs have killed millions and you obviously know nothing about it

    Science is about FACTS . And the fact is these planes had been covered in 250 feet of ice in 45 years – making
    ALL ice core science suspect .
    This is a fact you cannot dispute so you waffle and wiffle like you have been doing all the way through .

  • Ian5

    “[Peer review is] really about prostitutes admiring one another in turn…”

    Clearly you have never been involved in a peer-review process, nor do you have any understanding of cryology. Educate yourself:

  • Ian5

    You’ve provided no evidence that the data I have cited is fake. None whatsoever. You calling it fake doesn’t make it so.

  • nworder

    the ice core readings are 100, 000 years of snowfalls whereas it is only 2000 years using the WW2 planes
    as a guide of current snowfalls .
    The vikings grew crops on Greenland – it was much warmer

  • nworder

    I AM A PROFESSIONAL WHO LECTURED FOR A LIVING – So I know about peer review .
    But do trolls like yourself do peer review ??? Get a job !

  • Ian5

    Wow! Professional lecturer in block caps even. What were you lecturing about?

  • nworder

    THE BLOCK CAPS are just a way of heading the post – you make a big thing of trivia since you are left
    with nothing but trollese . You could get an honest job though – how can you face the day swimming in a sea of lies .

  • Ian5

    More weak rubbish but no science. Educate yourself:

  • nworder

    I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT ONE OF YOUR FAKE WEBSITES – So there is no point in you hiding behind them.

  • Ian5

    Of course you haven’t. Because you can’t accept the position of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society and virtually every US and international scientific academy. It’s a conspiracy in your narrow mind just like 911 and vaccines.

  • nworder


    AL GORE et al getting billions on the basis of ONE molecule of CO2 in 2500 molecules of air must be the most brazen
    and craziest con trick in the history of the world . You are such a gullible sod . Your average idiot probably believes that CO2 is poisonous instead of being 100% necessary for life .

    PLUS there is no way any scientists could accurately measure the temperature of earth sea and sky in 1880 .

    I mean how many thermometers would you need to measure the temp of the pacific in 1880 – do you realise the stupidity of this assumption .
    SO HOW MANY THERMOMETERS WOULD YOU NEED ? You avoid answering this question – no websites
    give me the number of thermometers and where they were sited in 1880 .

  • Carl Gottstein

    You do know you are getting owned …Right? It’s the sun….

  • Ian5

    The heat trapping properties of CO2 have been well established for over 100 years. CO2 and the planet don’t care about democrats or republicans or conservatives or liberals. The first step towards solutions is to inform yourself:

  • nworder

    CLOUDS AND DUST are 99.99 % of heat trapping effects – CO2 is 1 molecule in 2500 of air .
    Gases dont trap heat – the rays pass back and forth but 1 in 2500 – are you joking – you cant think
    for yourself – you are full of fake websites driving this greatest of scams .

  • Ian5

    No. Untrue. The physics behind the greenhouse effect has been well known for over 100 years and most highschool students today will understand the mechanism. If you are too lazy to learn the basic principles, i can’t help you.

  • nworder

    A theory which is wrong could go on for a 1000 years – that will not make it correct.
    The temp has stopped and CO2 is up which means the theory is bunkum .
    Not that they can measure the temp of the world – not easily done – lol

    BY the way you never answer the question – how many thermometers would you need at the bottom
    of the pacific in 1880 to measure the temp at the alleged stating point – give us a number ?