Alarmists get great news but spit vitriol.

Image: C3 Headlines
You would think that the alarmists would be cheering. The good news keeps coming.

First - CO2 Emissions down:

The US carbon dioxide emissions have declined for four of the last six years.

Declined! (Alarmists cheering heard in background?)

From the Consumer Energy Report: (Link)
The United State Energy Department announced this week that carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy production declined in the country in 2011, the third time in four years and fourth time in six years that this has been the case.

The Energy Department measured a 2.4 percent drop in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions last year, most of it due to the slower economy than any “green” measures, though the department’s report did note that energy produced via natural gas increased by 3 percent, while energy produced from coal decreased by 6 percent. (See also: Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions — Facts and Figures)
Second - Planet temperatures down:

The planet has been cooling since 1997. (Alarmists give wild rebel yells and champagne corks pop across the planet?)

C3 Headlines (link)

Global Cooling Since 1997 - The IPCC Global Warming Prediction Due To CO2 Emissions Was Wrong, Spectacularly

The IPCC predicted that global warming would result from increased atmospheric CO2 levels - however, since the beginning of the 1997 Super El Nino, global cooling has been the result.

The RSS satellite global temperature measurements indicate that the 1997-98 Super El Niño started from the low of April 1997. From that point, and all the way through July 2012, the global atmosphere has cooled - a total of 184 months. 
Therefore we should be hearing outburst of applause and cheering from the alarmists.

Do you hear them?

No?  Why not?

James Taylor writing for Forbes explains why: (link)

Global Warming Alarmists Seek More Power, Not Emissions Reductions

As U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to decline, one would think global warming alarmists would celebrate the ongoing achievement. Instead, alarmists are ramping up their vitriol. The alarmists’ increasing vitriol reveals that for many alarmists, the true goal is not a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, but instead a transfer of wealth and power from individuals to government.
Why is it that so many alarmists are ratcheting up their vitriol and hateful rhetoric precisely when U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly declining? The answer is the alarmists are motivated more by a desire to reshape society into a government-centered model than they are interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions are rapidly declining, yet money and power remains largely with the people rather than the government. Accordingly, activists ratchet up their hateful rhetoric.

For those who truly care about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, now is a time for celebration. For those who truly care about transferring money and power to government, now is a time to intensify their attacks.

Read more at C3 here and Forbes here.

UPDATE: More Good News


That’s ½ million square kilometers more ice than average – Where are the breathless headlines?

193,000 square miles – That’s the size of Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Maryland combined.


  1. us carbon emmisions directly linked to the switch from coal to gas and also the decline in us production.
    why don't you deniers all buy houses down on the coast. Fancy that in florida you can not get any insurance for costal properties wonder why. Interestering that shell is now drilling within the artic circle. I can not imagine shell taking on this without detailed analysis on future climate (guess what: is an Ice free artic is their position). No doubt you will find things to sort of prove your position but industry/business is already incorporating rising sea levels, increased storms, instability of supply (food, equipment, parts etc), insurance risk & water security among other climate issues into their short, medium and long term planning. Take a look at shipping companies plans on using the northwest passage as an example. Something tells me being a denier is like putting your head in a sand pit. You really should lift your head up and see what is happening. Still doubting then go and work on a farm for 6 months.

    1. You prove you know nothing about climate history or history in general. The Vikings used the arctic routes that are currently frozen over, and that was more than 700 years before the industrial revolution. My point it that these areas freeze and thaw regardless of what we do as humans and it is simpletons like you that either chose to ignore this to assert AGW (anthropogenic global warming, for you the uneducated), or actually don't know anything about climate history.
      Here's another point, CO2 levels have been much higher (over 900ppm) pre-humans, and increased at greater rates than we are seeing today, before humans even existed. I bet you didn't know that or simply chose to ignore it to suit your warmist agenda.
      "Fancy that in florida you can not get any insurance for costal properties wonder why." More proof of your ignorance. Insurance companies believe the predictions of the warmists (massive rises in sea-level) and simply don't want to risk it. It is purely economics nothing to do with scientific reality.
      How do I know all this ?. Unlike you I am well educated in this field. I have a Bsc and masters in climate sciences, a Ba with majors in history and geography, and am currently completing my PhD (doctorate for the uneducated like you)in climate history.
      So it is you who needs to get your head out of the sand and learn the truth.

    2. As you can see I am happy to provide my name, and the reason is that like Geoff Brown I have put in a trifle of investigation into the history of the notion of 'anthropogenic global warming/climate change'. This has meant a great deal of reading of material on 'both sides' of the so-called debate.

      The result of this is an 'information resource' that you can download and look at critically, and where via many Internet hyperlinks you can check things out, including being able to go and take a look at the Arctic - literally (via a number of webcams)!

      There are two themes: "Don't believe everything you've been told; check it out for yourself" and, of course, that wonderful old stand-by "Follow the money!" (And it's hard to go wrong if you do follow the money!)

      So, anonymous - here's a challenge from another 'denier'. Go and take a look at "Reconsidering Climate Change" which you can download from The Galileo Movement at Mind you, it will take a long, long time to go through it all but I'm sure you might just learn something.

      By the way: there is a some very good news about which you probably have not heard because "good news does not sell newspapers"! (Think about that ....)

      And a further 'by the way': there is the opportunity to win $10,000 (details in the 'information resource'). All you have to do is to prove with empirical data that burning fossil fuel drives global climate warming. It should be easy you would think, except that the challenge has been extant for about two years now and it's a funny thing, but so far not one 'expert' has taken the money.

      It couldn't have anything to do with having to prove it in Court, where evidence subject to cross-examination is required and where witnesses are subject to the Law of Perjury - now could it?

      Ah well! I suspect that you will most likely not want to look, but you could surprise me (and Geoff) by actually taking the risk of looking.

      Unless you are frightened of discovering a few facts?

    3. Read about the $10,000 challenge:

      As Michael says - still available after two years.

    4. Interesting. response is agressive and negative, not structured and composed. Like you, I know the viking sailed along the artic ice shelf - not through the north west passage. (it has been closed for 60 million years)
      But when every large company in the world has global warming issues as a serious and extensive part of their planning - it is obvious that you are in the minority. You may go on about lies and cheating and government control but simply not true. Not every business is sucked in, not every business is part of the conspiracy. Apologies for the spelling. I have my head out of the sand and hear what the farming community are saying, what the fishing community are saying. Not just the science community.
      cheers and good luck with your beach side housing.

  2. Thanks for your comment, Anonymous.

    I am sorry that you have not got a good command of English. Also you could try running "costal" and "artic" through a spell checker.

    And - an ice-free Arctic?

    Here is just one shipping company's thoughts: "Stephen Carmel, senior vice president for Maersk Line, Limited "pooh-poohed" the notion of a sea lane over the Arctic." (see

    There have been previous times in history where the planet has experienced an ice-free Arctic.

    But thanks for proving the main point of the post.....

  3. Warning, sceptics may find the following image disturbing

  4. Where is the cause for celebration?

    1. See, John, provided you are polite (and not spitting vitriol) we will publish your comments.

      Unfortunately, your deniers mates don't publish my comments.

      Still, thanks for your contribution.

    2. I will ask the reason geoff.

    3. "Where is the cause for celebration?" Dunno, maybe over here,truth be known.

    4. Aha bastardi's temperature graph from DMI,

      DMI explains

      I admit it can be difficult to see, but actually the light gray color is in the colorbar, in the triangle to the far left.
      This means that all temperatures (including sea ice) below -1.7 are marked light gray.
      Hope this helped.

      Best wishes,
      Jacob" DMI

      How can you possibly in all honesty not believe that the Arctic sea ice is the lowest for at least 1400years?

  5. Michael, I see a lot of links to radio interviews and talks but no scientific papers, may have missed them, please provide a few peer reviewed references so that your understanding can be confirmed,
    your own papers would be fine.

    1. Clearly you have not looked - there are lots of genuinely peer-reviewed papers. Go away and do so, and then come back with something sensible. And don't rely too much on peer-review! Much of it would seem to be phoney as quite a few verifiable investigations have demonstrated both fraud and chicanery, to say nothing of the deliberate suppression of any dissenting views!

      Horrors! How could you suggest such a thing of highly-respectable organisations? (And yes! You will find plenty of evidence of this via the slide show - but only if you are prepared to look, something I suspect that your belief system would seem to preclude.)

      Sure: there are lots of interviews, most of which are most enlightening; but there are also a lot of very serious 'in depth' investigations including some most revealing instances of scientific and political fraud, including data and software manipulation to achieve a predetermined outcome. If you think that such actions provide 'proof' of your contentions then you must also believe in unicorns.

      Some of the interviews are more than somewhat revealing because had the interviewers - and some of the interviewees - said something publicly (and what could be more public than a radio or TV broadcast) that was libelous then surely they would have been sued - wouldn't they? Well, not if what was said is the truth. Think about that!

      Go and read a number of the books concerning the origins and history of AGW that you will find via the slide show. You will find that these are most comprehensively referenced. Go away and try one or two of the experiments shown as well; you might find a revelation or two.

      By the way, I have read quite a lot of alarmist literature as well as the opposite. I find that those promoting alarm tend only to have read the said alarmist literature and do not read anything else. The word "incestuous" comes to mind.

      However John, I fear that you are more happy to argue that black equals white rather than accept the possibility you might - just might - be somewhat mistaken in your apparent quasi-religious fervour in this matter.

      And rather than carry on about often-manipulated data go and take a look at a few webcams in the Arctic regions - bearing in mind that it is almost the end of summer there at present so naturally there will have been ice melting!

      By the way, as I write this the present temperature at Summit Station in Greenland is -22C at which temperature I don't believe ice melts too well - but what do I know? I'm not academically trained in this discipline. But then perhaps you might be clever enough to convince us all that it does!

      By the way, you cannot possibly check through everything in the slide show in an hour or two, or even a day or two. Try a month or two and then you might be in with a chance.

      Good luck!

      And have a nice day ....

    2. Telling reply Michael, I will see that you get a broad audience with that,
      As a matter of interest, do you understand the difference in energy required to melt an ice sheet that is at minus 45degc and one that ends the winter at minus 25Degc?

      The changes in the winter Greenland ice sheet temps helps to explain why the near complete surface of the greenland ice sheet melted this year about 600 years ahead of schedule, possibly a hoax though?

    3. John, why don't you just take a trip up to Summit Station on Greenland and go up and tell them that the ice is melting?

      Be prepared for hysterical laughter ....

      Go and take a look:

  6. 2nd anonymous, please provide a paper that the Arctic ice was less than it currently reveals, 700 years before the IR,

    here is a paper that would seem to suggest that may be wrong .

    the only update to this paper is that another 2 million sq Kms has melted this year.


  7. Michael you posted your DVD to me over twelve months ago. I found it to be much the same as this guy did.

    1. Oh dear, oh dear! Doug Evans!

      Several little comments John. Firstly it's not a DVD it's a CD, although I agree that's a trivial quibble worthy only of those who quibble.

      Secondly, it's become a lot bigger since I sent you a CD, especially so as there is more and more factual information that's been emerging progressively, and perhaps exponentially.

      The reason for this would seem to be that the AGW 'thing' just crept up on us all starting from a relatively innocuous beginning many years ago. It's only now because of the research and investigations by a myriad of people from a wide variety of backgrounds who have become appalled at the nonsense being touted as 'science' and of the manipulation of data to 'prove' things that gradually all sorts of things have been uncovered. And no, I doubt very much if many of those doing the investigation have 'been in the pay of Big Oil' (or 'Big Whatever') - quite the contrary. Many of those who have contributed in more recent times have been scientists now-retired and able to speak their minds without the restrictions they might have been under due to their previous employment.

      But I suspect you know that John. Thus you are happy to subscribe to everything that the good Douglas has to say, and no amount of facts will stand in the way of that.

      One thing has become quite clear as a differentiating ethos though and that is those who are branding people like me as 'deniers' are more and more inclined to indulge in 'ad hominem' attacks. It is notable that to the best of my knowledge the so-called 'deniers' do not indulge in this themselves. There is a legal proverb which is presently included in the slide show that sums up all of this perfectly:

      "If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the Law on your side, argue the Law. If you have neither, attack the witness."

      And let me know when you have checked out the non-melting ice at Summit Station, but please make sure when you go there that you tell the local residents that the ice is melting! The great pity about you visit though would be that all of us 'deniers' would not be there to enjoy hearing the derision from the said residents.

      And I'm flattered that Douglas thought enough of my correspondence with him to take all that trouble to denigrate me. Again, I refer you to the legal proverb ....

      P.S. (1) Oh dear, oh dear - again:

      P.S. (2) The last thing you would want to hear about is new technology that can clean up REAL pollution (as distinct from supposed 'carbon pollution' that does not appear on the Australian Government's official list of pollutants) in a completely organic process. It can absorb CO2 if you really think that is a problem. But, oh dear oh dear yet again! It's produced by modifying that much demonised substance, lignite!

      P.S. (3) It's much more exciting forecasting doom and gloom and end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it prognostications so I will leave you to it with a suggestion that a lengthy spell of omphaloskepsis could be most efficacious for your future well-being ....

    2. Michael you seem to be denying the almost total surface melt of the greenland ice sheet this summer, over ten thousand years it has occurred on average every 150 years but has been quite rare over the last 7000 years, the melt in 1889 took 700 years of reducing albedo to trigger, the next melt would not have occurred for another 700 years in a stable climate, it happened this year for these reasons; predicted by jason

      . looking at the summit now will not reveal what happened last month.

    3. Michael, this increased Antarctic sea ice is modeled and understood under global warming

      see Zhang

      … an increase in surface air temperature and downward longwave radiation results in an increase in the upper-ocean temperature and a decrease in sea ice growth, leading to a decrease in salt rejection from ice, in the upper-ocean salinity, and in the upper-ocean density. The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period 1979–2004 and the extended period 1948–2004.

      the fresh water is coming from the ice sheet Michael, mainly WAIS

    4. Oh thank you John for saying "almost total surface melt.."

      The "almost" is your saving grace. See the web cam shot in this post:

      "NASA claims that the Greenland ice sheet recorded record melt this summer, because temperatures rose just barely above freezing for a couple of hours this summer. Their interest is propaganda, not science."

    5. Here is the shocking truth about the "almost total surface melt", John.

      Thanks for pointing it out to us _

      Errr....which part is melting?

      John? John?

    6. Oh yes! Where are you John?

      Oh dear, oh dear! Think of the polar bears!

  8. Bill, here is the DMI graph,

  9. I can see what is coming,

    this will help

    Fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), but the freezing point of sea water varies. For every 5 ppt increase in salinity, the freezing point decreases by 0.28 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit); thus, in polar regions with an ocean salinity of 35 ppt, the water begins to freeze at -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

    the big storm in the arctic this year brought a lot of saltier water to the surface,

    the rapid decline in the sea ice started and remained on tren from the 1st of August the storm was days later,

    see trend map

    1. As a Physicist said this morning:

      "But it is funny that the sum of Arctic and Antarctic ice has been nearly constant for 30 years. Not predicted by models of course."


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!