We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

Fenbeagle • 5 years ago

Mr Leans Cod piece subjected to closer scrutiny. Seems to contain little of merit.

Old Gilet Goat • 5 years ago

Yes, it's certainly an alternative "angle"...

JacksonPearson • 5 years ago

O.........O........O

Scoobym3 • 5 years ago

I love watching liberals heads explode when I tell them there is no such thing as globals warming.

Now the number of Years of No Global Warming (YNGW) is at Eighteen (that's 18! Catastrophe!)...that is as long as the latest cohort of little snowflakes entering college have been walking this green Earth.

Just so you know...

Love your posts, btw...Kudos!

Expendable • 5 years ago

I certainly find his claims fishy.

SuffolkBoy • 5 years ago

Do you know where I can get scrod around here?

Expendable • 5 years ago

I'll have to mullet over.

thomaspainelives • 5 years ago

Have a perch while I look for one.

hardyharhar • 5 years ago

Ow-w-w-w!

Expendable • 5 years ago

Hard of herring?

ONTIME • 5 years ago

And his nose much longer.....

Guest • 5 years ago

"Cod piece," like reading Shakespeare. Thanks for the glimpse of culture.

hardyharhar • 5 years ago

The 'Excellence in Punnery' medal is awarded to you, beagle!

Adorbs • 5 years ago

Plenty of cobwebs in his haddock, though.

AlecM • 5 years ago

You mean he's sleeping wid de fishes?

Who'd a thunk it?

DiogenesDespairs • 5 years ago

But it may help account for that funny smell at The Telegraph...

Rush_is_Right • 5 years ago

"Sea temperatures around Britain, for example, have risen by 1.6 per cent"

And what the hell does that mean? If (for example) a temperature rises from 5 degrees Centigrade to 6 degrees, that's a 20% increase, right? But in Fahrenheit the same temperature increase from 41 degrees to 42.8 is only 4.4% And in degrees absolute its an increase from 278 to 279 which is less than 0.4%

You can't express temperature changes in terms of percentages, simples. But you can't expect an eco-tard to understand that.

Oldeagle145 • 5 years ago

My question always is as compared to what? There is 4.5 billion years of climate history, so what is their baseline? They just spew numbers because they know that there are climate zombies out there who won't question anything they say.

Individualist • 5 years ago

Even beyond the temperature claims one has to review the "evidence" that CO2 is increasing. According to what I have read they took ice core samples and designated them by year. Put that ice in a vacuum chamber and measured the CO2. Did this in Greenland and Antarctica. Greenland cores did not agree with Antartica nor did a study of the pores of ancient leaves. So they dismissned Greenland samples saying that Calcium Carbonate from vulcanism skewed it and the leaves were to seasonally affected. That left one point of observation on which to base their findings. The South Pole.
::::
There chart claims that in 50 years CO2 increased from 285 ppm to 365 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere.
::::
What they don't address is the fact that the coldest temp in Antarctica is -88 Celcisus year round it averages -4 to -81 degrees celcius. This is important because CO2 condenses to a solid in normal atmosphere at -78 degrees Celsius. South Pole blogs brag that it is so cold there the CO2 from your breath freezes to dry ice in front of you when it leaves the scarf covering your mouth.
::::
How would this not skew the level of CO2 you'd find in the upper part of the ice in the South Pole. No mention of this is made in their description of the studies.

Oldeagle145 • 5 years ago

Longitudinal CO2 data really blows up climate zombie arguments

Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!

Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!

Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVF...

Individualist • 5 years ago

Thank you for this....
By the way reading your information make their chart seem all the more ludicrous.
:::::
According to these "experts" the CO2 level was 280 ppm and is 365 ppm 50 years later. They then project that this increase will go up exponentially assuming that there is no process on earth where CO2 is removed from the atmosphere I guess. If you look at their graph in a couple of hundred years they have CO2 levels at over 5% and still raising exponentially after that based on man mande activity.
::::
Of course since CO2 in atmospheric concentrations from 5 to 10 percent is toxic to life on earth including plant life it is not possible that there is manmade activity after 5% becasue there will be no more men to make it.

Dogzzz • 5 years ago

Thank You!!!! I have been saying that for ages, Especialy every winter when the thermometer in my car goes from 2 degrees C to 4 degrees and my wife tells me the temperature has doubled. Not if we measure it in Kelvin it hasn't!

Any idiot who claims the temperature has risen by a percentage has no right writing about science at all!!!

CoffinDodger80 • 5 years ago

The one thing that mathematically-challenged psyentivists like Lean will *never* understand is percentages.

noix • 5 years ago

What about in absolute temperature? That would be more than a three celcius increase!

Chas • 5 years ago

@ R i R And in degrees absolute its an increase from 278 to 279 which is less than 0.4%

Where do you get more than 3 celcius?

noix • 5 years ago

Since it is 1.6% I divide by one hundred to get the fraction and multiply by the absolute temperature. Give a result between 4 and 5K.

Guest • 5 years ago

Which scale are you referring to? °R or K? Because any change in K is equal to a change in °C.

noix • 5 years ago

K which gives room temp of about 300K. So it gives around 5K rise for 1.6%.

Chris Try • 5 years ago

James, Please, don't hold back like this. Say what you really think! Great post

yaosxx • 5 years ago

The trouble is Lean is still having the last laugh because he knows no matter how stupid or inane his articles are, useless DT will still publish them!!!

Old Gilet Goat • 5 years ago

And we will still laugh at them.

ZipInKent, Esq. • 5 years ago

We shall laugh on the beaches, we shall laugh on the landing grounds, we shall laugh in the fields and in the streets, we shall laugh in the hills.

NutsBolts • 5 years ago

How to fight the globalaonistas.

yaosxx • 5 years ago

I agree - but what would it take for them to come to their senses???

colliemum • 5 years ago

Look James - it's perfectly obvious:
the heat which has been hiding in the oceanic depths, so strenuously sought for by climate scientists like Mr Trenberth for years now, is finally surfacing!
It's coming to the top!!
It's heating the oceans from below!!!
It's killing the fish!!!!
We're all doomed!!!1eleventy!!1!

Guest • 5 years ago
colliemum • 5 years ago

They must've gone there to escape the heat form the boiling oceans, fer sure!
;-)

Guest • 5 years ago
TheLastPlainsman • 5 years ago

Ahhh, English humor. I love me some good Delingpole and his commenters. Helps take me mind off of the unarmed invasion from the south.

colliemum • 5 years ago

Omigawd - fried polar bears!

Where are the Watermelons? There should've been one posted at every oven in the country to protect those poor poor bears, it's all their fault!

Guest • 5 years ago
colliemum • 5 years ago

Oh well done - that's the ticket!
:-))

The_RS_Gadfly • 5 years ago

The best part is, when we talk about the Little Ice Age, that gets dismissed as a Local Phenomena. Now even if I were willing to grant that it ONLY affected Europe, isn't all of Europe (including England) a good bit larger than "sea temperatures around Britain"?

Individualist • 5 years ago

Little Ice Age was not a local phenomena. In the early 1800's the Hudson Bay used to freeze over completely in the winter. That does not happen today.

ZipInKent, Esq. • 5 years ago

So. AGW must be real because... fish. Or, if you prefer, because... no fish.

Good. That's sorted then. Isn't climate science wonderful?

Old Gilet Goat • 5 years ago

It's imaginary...

ZipInKent, Esq. • 5 years ago

But the fish are settled!

Old Gilet Goat • 5 years ago

Good. Maybe Mr. Lean could sleep with them.

ZipInKent, Esq. • 5 years ago

I doubt if Mr Lean will feel so inclined.