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

sunworshiper • 2 years ago

One thing is for sure. The UN lackeys in the government have no intention of dodging anything. Adhering strictly to the absurd "Climate Change Act" they continue to get rid of cheap abundant energy that works (fossil fuel) and replace it with expensive energy that doesn't work (renewables). With pretending to save the planet the excuse for the absurdity. Why though is a cretin that no one voted for (Ed Davey) in charge of the department that controls the most important commodity of all --------ENERGY? He can ofcourse soon look forward to having a little gold star from the UN pinned on his lapel as his reward for helping to impoverish the people, hardly any of whom voted for the clown.

pauldirac • 2 years ago

The USA congress will shoot down any hint of green policies, this will mean that apart from the hapless EU, no one is willing to fund this nonsense.
As others have pointed out here, any money given for this cause will disappear into the pockets of the "elites" in those countries.

The summit was a an abject failure, as will all future ones, my prediction is probably more certain to come true than the 3C rise in global temperature by next year.

Pale Ryder • 2 years ago

In a related video we find a useful intro to the cult of man-made global-warming: http://bit.ly/GreatGlobalWa...

aintbuyinit0412 • 2 years ago

!!!!! It is truth that sets us free!

Why listen to silly global warmng wacktavists like Ed Davey, Al Gore, Emma Watson or Leonardo DeCrapioa, Barbra Streisand about climate change. Each of these hypocrites has already scorched the earth with a carbon footprint which is the size of 100 normal people and now they want to keep some poor Chinese/India guy from upgrading from a bicycle to motor scooter in order to feed their AGW fantasies. These people live in compounds which are so lighted up at night that they look like Disneyland.

Here, instead of listening to bunch of hypocrites and bureaucrats let us inread the following is congressional testimony from a true giant in the new science of climate science? Dr. Richard Lindzen, Ph D in applied mathematics - Harvard, , MIT professor of Meteorology from 1983 to 2013, a former lead author for chapter 7 of IPCC AR3 - Ch7 Physical climate processes and feedback.

Richard Lindzen career highlights..

"He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983,[1] until his retirement which was reported in the Spring 2013 newsletter of MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences"

"As of January 2010, his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009. He is the author of a standard textbook on atmospheric dynamics, and co-authored the monograph Atmospheric Tides with Sydney Chapman."

Lindzen's testimony to US congress in 2010


and Brian, from Dr. Lindzen's pen to your eyes is what this climate science giant recently testified... get ready..

"Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition. Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible. Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from climategate and other instances of overt cheating.

In the meantime, while I avoid making forecasts for tenths of a degree change in globally averaged temperature anomaly, I am quite willing to state that unprecedented climate catastrophes are not on the horizon though in several thousand years we may return to an ice age."

See more at: ..


aintbuyinit0412 • 2 years ago

Meet Ed Davey..

Climate Scientist.. NO

Career Politician .. YES



“Edward was educated at Nottingham High School and Jesus College, Oxford, where he studied politics, philosophy and economics. He gained an MSc in economics from Birkbeck College, London University.”

Note: Mr. Davey has ZERO technical background.

Next meet Gregory Barker.. Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Career Politician - YES

Climate Scientist - NO

Former Employee of Russian energy giant - YES


“Barker also developed strong links to the Russian oil companies, being Head of Communications at the Anglo Siberian Oil Company from 1998–2000 and also worked in Russia for the Sibneft Oil Group, owned by Roman Abramovich.”


Gregory was educated at Steyning Grammar School, Lancing College, and London University where he studied history, economic history and politics.


And of course, we all now know what kind of a man Chris Huhne was!

IMHO, For the party leaders to have chosen Hune, Davey and Barker who are so poorly qualified for their rolls - to shape the future British Energy Policy - is an affront to the British people. David Cameron should be ashamed of himself.

aintbuyinit0412 • 2 years ago

Let’s understand why this war on CO2 makes no sense. Our leaders have foolishly chosen to engage in a Gore_Bull warming war that is both a wrong war, whiich even if it was a sensible war to wage, they have chosen to fight this silly war on the wrong front!

Al Gore’s team of science deniers)can’t handle the truth!!!! Please ead and you will understand why Britain, Europe, the USA are not only fighting a phoney war, but they are compounding this foolishness by fighting this phoney war on the wrong front!

CO2 = wrong war!

Between 1910 and 1943 the earth warmed by .6C even though there was only the slightest increase in atmospheriO2. Clearly CO2 did not drive this change. Next we see that from 1943 to 1965 the earth actually cooled even though man made CO2 steadily increased. Next we se I e that from 1965 through 1998 the earth warmed at the same rate it warmed between 1910 and 1943. Think about that, the same amount of warming occurred for these two sample periods even though atmospheric O2 for the early period did not increase by any appreciable amount (about a 7 ppm increases in CO2 from 1910 to 1943 vs CO2 increase of 46 ppm from 1965 to 1998). And now we see that from 1999 through today the earth has not warmed, even though mankind is now producing new man made CO2 at the greatest rate ever resulting in an increase in atmospheric CO2 at the rate of 2 ppm/yr. There is simply not a correlative argument here that makes sense to any objective person. See for yourselves...


Ever wonder why the AGW pushers use a temperature change graph which begins in 1880, even though thermometers have been in existence since the 17th century? Well simply put, if the temperature change charts went back another 100 years, it is clear that there has been NO global warming. Here, have a look…


So we see that CO2 is the wrong war, but even if it were sensible to attempt to reduce the production of manmade CO2, we are fighting this battle on the wrong front.

Wrong front .. Its China and the rest of the developing nations stupids!

China already consumes as much coal as the rest of the world combined. In addition, between now and 2040, 91% all incremental CO2 will come from nations like China, India and Brazil, which, as poor developing nations, all have ZERO commitment and ZERO intention to reduce their future consumption of fossil fuels.

Not only is Europe fighting a silly war against CO2, a gas without which the earth would die, to compound this foolishness, its leaders have chosen to fight this stupid war on the wrong front! Nothing that could be done by Europe or even all of the developed nations collectively, could have any meaningful impact on the future level of atmospheric CO2.

For the scientifically illiterate green Marxists who might read this, its a simple math thingee…

CO2 forecast by region through 2040 - data source, US DOE

CO2 production in billion metric tonnes per year 2014 vs …. 2040

*Europe: 4.1 bmt/yr >>> 4.3 = +.2 bmt/yr; 1.6% of total incremental CO2 by 2040 (If Europe does nothing)

All Developed Nations Combined >>> 12.8 >>> 13.9 = +1.1bmt; 8.9% of total

Developing Nations (China, India, Africa etc.) >>> 20.4 >>> 31.6 = + 11.2 bmt; 91.1% of total increase!

World: 33.2 bmy/yr >>> 45.5 bmt/yr = +12.3 bmt = 100%


and ...


* To fully understand how little impact Europe can have on future atmospheric CO2 we must not only compare Europe’s potential CO2 change against the rest of the nations of the world, but we must also measure the potential result of Europe’s war on CO2 against CO2 already existing in the atmosphere. For example, examine the impact on atmospheric CO2 if Europe reduces its annual CO2 production by a whopping and almost certainly unachievable 80% or 2.1 billion metric tonnes by 2040. The atmosphere now contains about 3,000 bmt of CO2. So an 80% reduction on Europes part from 4.1 bmt/yr to .8 bmt yr = - 3.3 bmt from the current level vs 3,000 bmt of CO2 which is currently in the atmosphere would equal only .0011 of total atmospheric CO2.

Knowing these facts, what reasonable person could think that spending 20+ trillion Euros over the next three decades to accomplish so little could make sense? Surely such an enormous amount of tax money could accomplish a great deal of good for all Europeans if we do not allow these foolish bureaucrats to simply vaporize these trillions of Euros pursuing this phoney pointless war on CO2.

Guest • 2 years ago

"The fact that CO2 and other molecules trap infrared energy had been known since the middle 1800's"


aintbuyinit0412 • 2 years ago

Think about this. For every CO2 molecule there are 50 H2O molecules in the atmosphere!

Guest • 2 years ago

"Other causes of warming can be ruled out mathematically"


aintbuyinit0412 • 2 years ago

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when combined with a weak mind!


Guest • 2 years ago

2 of whom study the climate...

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

"Other causes of warming can be ruled out mathematically"
ROTFLOL @ your delusional denial of reality!
Sorry, those "ruled out" studies are all based on the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can't even project future temperatures at a 2% confidence level! "We find that the continued warming stagnation of 15 years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections, even at a 2% confidence level." - vonStorch2013

Guest • 2 years ago

they're not based on models, no

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Yes, they ARE based on the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models. As usual, you don't have a clue as to what you are blathering on about.

Guest • 2 years ago

actually, I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I posted a PhD research scientist saying as much. What've you got? Did you review my post, or did you just wildly type your response?

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Sorry it's a baseless claim by that deluded fool.
Cite the evidence. Put up or shut up.

Guest • 2 years ago

you clearly didn't bother to watch

Guest • 2 years ago
Guest • 2 years ago

What on EARTH are you talking about? YOU didn't post ANYTHING but your own nonsensical declaration. I, on the other hand, posted a comprehensive lecture by a well-respected research scientist. Every single one of his charts is labelled. You want me to type out the bibliography for you? You people are so demanding, so whiny, yet you've got NOTHING. My original post contained an actual lecture, you have yet to support any of your claims.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Like I said. Cite the evidence that you are claiming isn't based on models, or kindly stfu.

Guest • 2 years ago

Dr. Richard Somerville, 2013. Link IN MY ORIGINAL POST

bookmarked to the minute.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Where? What min:sec of the video?

Guest • 2 years ago

this is hilarious

you accuse me of not citing

the source I POSTED in my initial post

which is bookmarked to skip to the exact minute when you click the link

All his charts are labelled

And you never, ever clicked the link

How do you even take yourself seriously. Your response makes no sense, your accusation is preposterous. I mean seriously I gave you the link IN MY ORIGINAL POST, how can you possibly not understand that you need to click the link I'm referencing and accuse me of not citing. It doesn't even make sense

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Yep, I KNEW you could back up your baseless claim that it was not based on models. You are so deluded it's pathetic.

Guest • 2 years ago

your posts don't even make sense

"cite the source you posted in the first place!"

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Hahahaha. Still refusing to point to WHERE min:sec in the video that propaganda-blathering fool cited EMPIRICAL evidence that other cause were "ruled out mathematically"!
You doomsday climate cultists are SO easily duped! Hilarious.

Guest • 2 years ago

Oh, I was addressing your stupid claim that this somehow hinges on models

I bookmarked the video to where it explains how we know what the other possible causes might be...through paleoclimatology

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

ROTFLMAO @ your handwaving obfuscations & trying to avoid point out where in that blathering propagandist empirically showed that it was based on empirical data!

It was based on models! You can't cite ANY empirical evidence that "rules out" natural climate variability as the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. NONE! It's all based on the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models!

Guest • 2 years ago

You're confusing the chicken and the egg.

I showed you exactly how we quantify various effects of climate. Through paleoclimatology. Models are predictive, experimental instruments. I realize you know nothing whatsoever about this, but it boils down to this. We know how much the sun contributes. We know the scale of greenhouse warming. Climate sensitivity is a measured value, not a predicted value. You don't know the difference between a recorded observation and a prediction. One is evidence, the other is a hypothesis.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

ROTFLMAO @ your handwaving AVOIDANCE of citing WHERE in your silly propaganda video that charlatan empirically showed that "other causes of warming" can be empirically and mathematically be ruled out! You are SO funny!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are more than sufficient NATURAL climate variations to explain ALL of the late 20th century warming.
1) Solar activity has been higher in the late 20th century than in the many previous centuries since the end of the Little Ice Age. Peer reviewed science says: "The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years" - Usoskin2003 The high solar activity is confirmed in Tapping2007, Pelt2012, Scafetta2009, Krivova2010, Krivova2011. It is graphically shown here: bit.ly/1jvkr15

2) Reduced global mean cloud amount during the late 20th century has allowed more solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface, thus increasing GST. This is graphically shown here: tinyurl.com/ykw7be8

This is confirmed in Hatzianastassiou2005 which found increased solar radiative heating of 4.1W/m2 between 1984-2000, and in Herman2013 which found increased solar energy reaching the Earth's surface of 2.7W/m2 between 1979-2011. This dwarfs the IPCC's alleged 1.6W/m2 increase in anthropogenic forcing since 1750.

3) PDO was in its warm phase in the late 20th century:

4) There was a predominance of El Ninos in the late 20th century, contributing to GST: bit.ly/19UbT00

5) AMO was increasing (higher SST & atmos temp) during the late 20th century: 1.usa.gov/1sGAKgP

Those natural climate variables are more than sufficient to explain all of the late 20th century warming. CO2 was an insignificant factor, as shown by the fact that ~500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere over the last ~17 years has caused no ghg-induced global warming.You have no valid explanation for this fact that destroys your claimed human CO2 driven doomsday climate cult scare.

Guest • 2 years ago

I would LOVE to see how "solar activity has been higher"

please, show us where you got that one

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

"I would LOVE to see how "solar activity has been higher" please, show us where you got that one"
Hahaha. I already DID! From Judith Lean's peer reviewed science, and from the World Radiation Center: http://bit.ly/1jvkr15
What's the problem? Afraid to click my links because you thought the cognitive dissonance might cause your brain to explode? LOL!

Guest • 2 years ago
RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

Hahaha. Sorry, that's only the direct TSI change. Now multiply by 5 to 7, then consider that global mean cloud amount has decreased by ~3% allowing 2-4 W/m^2 more solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface during the last few decades, which is more natural climate forcing that the entire claimed anthropogenic forcing since 1750! And tell me again how "other causes" have been "ruled out mathematically"! ROTFLOL @ your delusional gullibility!

Guest • 2 years ago
RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

He only considers the direct TSI effects.
1) He ignores the 5 to 7 times positive amplification found by Shaviv2008
2) He ignores the ~3% reduction in global mean cloud amount during the late 20th century
3) He ignores that the PDO and AMO were in warming phases
4) He ignores the predominance of El Ninos during the late 20th century, which he admits @ ~43:00 bring heat out of the oceans into the atmosphere
5) He ignores the fact that the stored heat in the oceans which is released during El Ninos is a result of the Sun, not ghgs : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

Sorry WVVW but you totally FAILED to provide empirical evidence that natural climate factors were "ruled out mathematically"!
Typical delusional doomsday climate cult CLAIMS without any empirical evidence to support them. The only basis of the claims are fantasy outputs of the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

Guest • 2 years ago

and yet you declare these things as though they are facts

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

And yet those thing I've said ARE facts. Every one of them.

Guest • 2 years ago

ok, so you're showing a variation on the order of .05%... Do you know how to divide?

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

"ok, so you're showing a variation of .05% ... Do you know how to divide?"

1366.1 (late 20th century) / 1363.5 (1700 pre-industrial revolution) = 0.2% You were only off by a factor of FOUR!

Then there's: "We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism." - Shaviv (2008) ' Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing'
Do you know how to multiply? 0.2% * 7 = 1.4%! That's just direct TSI effect. Sure, "other factors" have been "ruled out mathematically"! LOL

Then we have that all-important question of how much of that solar radiation reaches the Earth's surface:
Have you learned greater-than or less-than yet?

Which is greater, 4.1W/m^2 or 1.6 W/m^2?
Which is greater, 2.7 W/m^2 or 1.6 W/m^2?

I showed peer reviewed science that showed more natural climate forcing in the last few decades that the ENTIRE IPCC claimed forcing since 1750! and you still claim that "other causes" have been "ruled out mathematically"! You are f-ing DELUSIONAL!

Guest • 2 years ago

right, you don't know what they're talking about, but that's ok

Guest • 2 years ago
Guest • 2 years ago

well, had you compared the climate forcing of solar irradiance to the climate forcing of CO2, then you might have a basis for comparison. You haven't shown that, so when you make stupid claims, try to actually back them up.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

I've backed up my claims with peer reviewed empirical science.

Guest • 2 years ago

no, you're confusing what they're saying with your claims. You've proven that science knows the sun's irradiance affects climate. pretty elementary stuff that was never, ever in contention. What you haven't proven, because you reject the basic physics, is that this affect is greater than the effect of DOUBLING CO2 in earht's atmosphere.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

~17 years,
~500 BILLION tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere (over 1/3 of ALL the human CO2 ever produced on the planet),
and it has caused NO global warming!

Your "basic physics" is broken! Hahahahaha.

Robin101 • 2 years ago

“The biggest thing that is really, really unresolved is the money”

Well, what a surprise. The climate is firmly in second place compared to the money. In time global warming will be known as the biggest scam of the 21st century

John Duggan • 2 years ago

No global warming since 1998. Oh, wait. 2014 is in line to be the hottest year ever. Now, DT climate change sceptics, get out of the way and let the adults deal with it. If you're too dim to deal with reality, at least have the sense to shut up.

Robin101 • 2 years ago

Oh dear, if you want to pretend to be an adult at least check your facts before posting. The only thing you have shown is your own level of gullibility.

RealOldOne2 • 2 years ago

"Oh, wait. 2014 is in line to be the hottest year ever."
No it's not: http://stevengoddard.wordpr... Not even close.