Coffee House

There is something very wrong with climatology

19 May 2014

4:33 PM

19 May 2014

4:33 PM

In the last few days climate scientists have found themselves back on the front pages, and once again it’s for all the wrong reasons. The furore this time has been prompted by an eminent climatologist named Lennart Bengtsson, who agreed to join the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Nigel Lawson’s sceptic think tank.

Within days of his agreement, Bengtsson felt obliged to resign, apparently having been subjected to a wave of protests and threats of ostracisation from colleagues, one of whom publicly insinuated that the 79-year-old Bengtsson was senile. When it also emerged that a reviewer of one of Bengtsson’s scientific papers had recommended its rejection because, among other reasons, its findings might be helpful to sceptics, the story started to go viral.


The rights and wrongs of the paper’s rejection are hard to gauge since few have seen the paper. But the Bengtsson affair is only adding to the sense that something is very wrong with climatology and the way that some climatologists conduct themselves. The flood of allegations that emerged from Climategate – the 2009 publication of internal emails of scientists at the University of East Anglia – were at the root of these misgivings, with one of the most important claims being that scientists appeared to be involved in attempts to ‘nobble’ journal editors so that papers by sceptics never appeared in print. What actually happened has never been uncovered, because the Muir Russell inquiry into Climategate completely failed to examine these allegations, but the impression that problems were being swept under the carpet was hard to avoid.

Now that we have seen the public and private pressure put on Bengtsson and the political justification given for rejecting his work, it looks very much as if the problems with climatology continue unabated. Some scientists at least seem to have taken the whitewash of the Russell report as a nod and a wink, one that allows them to carry right on as they have done before. But the public has noticed, and their doubts continue to grow.

Andrew Montford writes extensively on global warming at Bishop Hill and is also the author of several reports for the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • Mervyn

    The only way to bring credibility to the field of climate science is for a new broom to sweep clean through the governing bodies of the major science academies that abandoned the scientific method in favour of political dogma. The Royal Society is the biggest culprit.

  • global city

    This reporter obviously never read any of Delingpole’s blobs when he graced this publication’s website?

    What a naive piece?

  • Mrs Josephine Hyde-Hartley

    I suppose he could publish his paper “on-line” somewhere. Isn’t there a new thingy for open research knocking about?

  • AlecM

    IPCC ‘science’ uses “Forcing’, net energy transfer to the surface by solar SW and atmospheric LW. Standard physics assesses it as the difference of ‘Irradiances’ from ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ equations. The IPCC does it differently.

    The Sun is 5,500 deg.K. The cooler surface SW heating = Sigma(F1.T_sun^4 – F2.T_surface^4). Sigma is the S-B constant, F1 and F2 are parameters dependent on clouds etc., Ts are temperatures. It comes to +160 W/m^2 (mean). This heat transfers to the atmosphere as 97 W/m^2 convection/evapo-transpiration plus 63 W/m^2 real net IR emission, of which 40 W/m^2 goes to Space.

    In standard physics, net LW surface heating is minus net LW flux = Sigma(F3.T_atmosphere^4 – F4.T_surface^4), numerically: -63W/m^2=333 W/m^2 – 396 W/m^2. Conservation of energy: 160 W/m^2 (SW heating) -97 W/m^2 (convection) -63 W/m^2 (LW cooling) = 0 W/m^2. As net surface IR emission in the main GHG bands is zero, there is no GHG-absorption of this IR.

    However, ‘Climate Alchemists’ assume 396 W/m^2 surface LW IR, ‘black body’ level for 16 deg C, is real when it’s the potential energy flux to a sink at Absolute Zero. Only 63 W/m^2 is real. They make up the difference by assuming 333 W/m^2 atmospheric LW measured by ‘pyrgeometer’** (‘back radiation’) provides extra surface heat when standard physics shows for a normal temperature gradient, atmospheric LW IR can’t transfer any energy to the surface. This failure to understand what their main instrument outputs is a serious scientific mistake.

    Adding 97 W/m^2 convection makes 493 W/m^2, 3x real heating rate, never proved experimentally. As it’s far too high they offset 238.5 W/m^2 by falsely applying ‘Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation’ to the semi-transparent emitter at ToA. The residual c. 60% more heating than reality is, with 3x real GHE, used to purport imaginary ‘positive feedback’. They then use c. 25% extra low level cloud albedo in hindcasting to pretend the extra energy doesn’t heat the atmosphere above reality.

    IPCC ‘science’ is nothing less than fraud, the cynical manipulation of data to purport more heating than reality. The GHG-absorbed component is exaggerated by a factor of 5.1. This scam deceived all but real heat transfer experts of which I am one.

  • cerberus

    Politicians have been able to get away with the kind of massive large scale fraud of which the climate scam is a prime example for years, decades even, without the public being able to respond in any obvious way. Now thanks to the internet we can at least make public the fact that some of us know the whole thing is a hoax and a fraud. Unfortunately we still can’t do anything to stop them. Everything we say falls on dead ears, so determined are they to continue ramping up the hysteria.

  • Perpetually Astonished

    Glad to see that you are not letting the facts of the case, or indeed the views of the
    supposed ‘suppressed’ scientist get in the way of a story that panders to the ill informed. Bengtssen has said there is no systematic attempt to suppress findings in climatology, and that he was only concerned about one comment in a lengthy referee report which appeared to make a political point. That referee report and the others make very clear that the paper was rejected because it contained errors, but it also makes positive suggestions for how the research team might properly substantiate their claims.

    The Times article on which this blogpost is based is highly misleading. For a better summary of what happened, including Bengtssen’s rejection of the charges made in this blogpost, you could start with

    This will also lead you to the on-line publication of the referee reports, which you can read for yourself. Doing so will make it clear that the claims in this blogpost are plain wrong.

    • IskurBlast

      From what I read of the “review” what the reviewer called an error wasn’t an error at all. The reviewer said that the models and observations shouldn’t be consistent. To me this is the reviewer making up his own truth. The models and observations should be consistent. To expect such is not an error.

      You can challenge others to read the reviewers but those of us who have see right through them. You might not be smart enough and fall for words like error and simplistic. But those of us with any competence see right through them.

  • Redrose82

    Anyone who wants to know the tricks that these green science warm-ongers get up to should visit the Mark Steyn blog. He is currently in long running litigation with one of the most devious global warming freaks and his blog makes very interesting and often amusing reading.

  • Eyesee

    You can understand why prominent people belong to Scientology, as it almost has the sacred word ‘science’ in it. Surely all Global Warming advocates are also Scientologists (or astrologers at least). We have taken the word of experts far too seriously for far too long without demanding evidence. For instance, just because the University of East Anglia has the word ‘University’ in its title, doesn’t mean it is an academic institution.

    • Peter Ford

      You don’t need to demand the evidence, you just need to download & read it.

      • Eyesee

        Yes indeed and don’t forget – don’t doubt what you read or check sources etc!

      • cerberus

        You’re reference is to AR5, a document written by politicians and published by a political organisation, the IPCC. If you seriously believe that the bilge politicians concoct to suit their ends is any kind of evidence then you are to be pitied.

        • Peter Ford

          Here is the list of AR5 Working Group 1 authors. It’s 7 pages long. I didn’t count how many unique individuals, but I’d guess over 100. The first 2 examples I picked out:
          Donald Wuebbles – Currently at University of Illinois. “Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California at Davis, 1983”
          Vladimir Kattsov – Currently at “Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory” in St. Petersburg. “Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences”

          These seem to be geeks, like me. I bet they’d make awful politicians, like me.

          Yes, I do seriously believe their evidence, and your pity is misplaced. I pity our grandchildren, who will have to bear the consequences of our generation’s disregard for the environment.

  • Frederick Colbourne

    The problem was set out by the one reviewer whose comments were released by the publishers.

    In his Conjectures and Refutations (1963), Karl Popper said “The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, “When is a theory true?” nor “When is a theory acceptable?” my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth.”

    Popper concluded his thoughts with this, “The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.”

    Professor Bengtsson and his coauthors had submitted a paper that compared the projections of models with the climate as actually observed. More specifically, the paper was concerned with inferences about climate sensitivity from observations and climate sensitivity as estimated in IPCC reports.

    Now the reviewer who rejected Bengtsson’s paper did so because he said that the comparison between the IPCC estimates and inference drawn from observations is not relevant to the discussion about climate change.

    The reason given was that no correspondence should be expected and therefore nothing could be gained by the science community by examining the differences between the IPCC (model) estimates and inferences drawn from observations. At the same time, harm would be done to the science community if skeptics were able to point to the paper as a reason for skepticism about the more alarming aspects of the IPCC work

    I believe that Popper’s thoughts are apropos:

    “The criterion of falsifiability is a solution to this problem of demarcation, for it says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.”

    If the work presented by the IPCC is not ever capable of conflicting with observations because they are not expected to be consistent with observations, then what the IPCC is producing, would in the view of Karl Popper be an elaborate and expensive form of pseudoscience.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      Warm winters = evidence of climate change
      Cold Winters = evidence of climate change
      Drought = Evidence of climate change
      Floods = Evidence of climate change

      Who needs evidence when you have all bases covered

      • Bonkim

        You will die of cold or hunger waiting for scientific certainty.

  • Peter Stroud

    What other branch of science has got more cosily into bed with politicians? Now it has become a matter of faith, by some politicians. Miliband has said of the Environment Secretary: “He doesn’t even believe in climate change.” Not much different to accusing someone of not believing in God. Science does not ‘do’ faith, and it is clear that climate science is not very rigorous, if its believers treat it like a religion.

  • NikFromNYC

    Is it all just a scam? A single glance answers this question, finally:

    • CheshireRed

      Correct. Brutally exposed as the con-trick it is and always was. Now that’s inconvenient.

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Too many snouts in the trough for an honest debate.

  • Bspin

    There Is a very thin line between Climatology and Climastrology.

    • NikFromNYC

      I dubbed it The Green Bank Authority:

  • HenryWood

    But … but … why didn’t the poor fellow just sign up to be a member of UKIP? He would have had a slightly easier ride, no?

  • lookout

    Try reading the comments of the co founder of the weather channel in the USA

  • you_kid

    Is that chap having second thoughts about his life’s work? Why should I care when I switch my Russian coal fuelled electrical appliances or my Norwegian gas fuelled heating on?

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Yeah, why should you care when you’re a socialist greenie nutter with a dozen sockpuppets blathering everywhere?

      • you_kid

        What would I care about greenie nutters when I switch on Russian coal fuelled electrical appliances or Norwegian gas fuelled domestic heating systems?

        • the viceroy’s gin

          Yeah, why should you care when you’re a socialist greenie nutter with a dozen sockpuppets blathering everywhere?

    • Inverted Meniscus

      Well you are a socialist nutter and that is something worth worrying about.

    • Bonkim

      Both will be exhausted soon – with polulations exploding across the world and resources running out fast, give or take a century or two – will make no difference to what you say about climate change science or use of cal against gas.

      • Fergus Pickering

        We’re doomed! Then why bother?

        • Bonkim

          Because cerrtain sections believe their world will continue as it is and others are too frightened to contemplate that there will be no tomorrow – in any case Newton’s inertial law means a body continues to travel in a given direction unless forced to change course or speed by some external force – mankind will not change course until hit by something they cannot control. Until then Fergus buy another smart-phone or go on holiday to the Bahamas.

  • Kitty MLB

    Climate Scientists are just like all scientists, just trial and error, make things up as you go along. And those who wish to follow the foolish Green fallacy agenda and say its all
    our fault and use emotional blackmail by showing us Polar Bears on melting icecaps.

    • RobertC

      Many Scientists make things up as they go along, that is what part of Science involves and makes it a very creative activity, but there is also the ‘compare theory with experimental results’ phase and ‘act in an honest manner to the results’, which appear to have been missed by the climate ‘scientists’ !!!

      They have substituted them with pleasing Governments with their findings , to garner more grants, and jetting off to far away lands for conferences where they tell the rest of the world that we need to reduce our carbon footprints!

      • IskurBlast

        Ironically if you read the “review” the error the reviwer points to is Dr. Bengtsson’s claim that the the models should be consistent with the observations. While most of us scientist or not would regard the needed consistency as a simple truth the reviewer goes to great length to reject this truth and argue that models should not be consistent with observations.

      • Bonkim

        There is more to climate modelling than making up things as you go along.

        • cerberus

          Hmm. In fact there’s a well known process going on which is generally referred to as garbage in, garbage out.

          • Bonkim

            Nigel Lawson is no scientist.

    • Jeffrey Vernon

      Eh? Making things up would rapidly discredit a real scientist, as you can see by looking at the Retraction Watch website. Other scientists would try to replicate your result, and would realise you’d cooked the books. Making things up wouldn’t have led to the polio vaccine, the Higgs boson or the solved structure of chlorophyll. Climate science is a misnomer; very few people working in this field are making physical measurements of the ocean or atmosphere; a lot of it is low-level computer modeling based on questionable assumptions and circular reasoning. In this kind of work there are no actual experiments, no random sampling, no controls, no statistical analysis, no attempts at replication.

      • Mc

        As with all with all walks of life, some scientists are brilliant while others are utterly useless. And there are scientists with integrity and those who are complete rotters, such as some of those working for pharmaceuticals who don’t disclose their full workings in order to massage their results.

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          On competence, I agree – there are bad scientists as well as bad doctors and lawyers and teachers. But making things up is hard to do – it would be obvious when you showed your lab book to a colleague, or gave a lab talk.

          Company drug trial data should certainly be a good deal more transparent, but this falls into the area of ‘spin’ rather than outright fabrication. The result of spin is of course drugs of only limited use, so the net result might be the same as making it up, or at least false expectations.

          • braqueish

            Actually, drug trials do fall into the same bracket as climate “science” (and much Public Health research). There are important financial imperatives upon the principals to get the findings “right”. That’s why follow-up trials upon drugs which have achieved approval often find their efficacy to be far lower than the primary research. Take Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor anti-depressants as an example.

            • Jeffrey Vernon

              In cases I know about, the research was fine; double blind, randomised, etc. What then happens is that the companies hire medical writers to put the best spin on the story. There’s actually a profession dedicated to jazzing up the story in this way. SSRIs might well have ‘worked’ on long-term depressed women in their 50s who’d had more than one child; in everyone else, they’re no better than placebo.

              • braqueish

                There’s also the vexed question of subject exclusion. Clinicians may be operating within a double blind, crossover methodology but they still have a wary eye upon their next “conference” jaunt to Cancun and departmental funding to consider. The preponderance of evidence is that many drugs become “less effective” over time. This is not just about spin, but is a systematic feature of drug trials.

      • braqueish

        The main difference is that very few Government officials and politicians have a dog in the race to find the Higgs Boson. There are also no, to my knowledge, publicly funded PR NGOs with the clout of WWF or Greenpeace running misleading campaigns about the fundamentals of matter.

        • Jeffrey Vernon

          If you mean that climate science is mostly driven by pressure groups and lobbyists and professional congress-hoppers, then that is indeed a striking difference from science in the conventional sense

  • ClimateLearner

    Where shall we find a Hercules to clean the stables of climate science? The stench is getting worse with every passing year.

    • cleanwater2

      The greatest friend of the “climate skeptics” is the weather, it does not give a dam what the Climatologists say , if it wants to be cold it will be cold, if it wants to be very cold it will be very cold.

      quoting from above “The stench is getting worse with every passing year” change to every passing minute” is more correct.
      There is no credible experiment that proves that the greenhouse gas effect exist! There are many experiments that prove that the GHGE does not exist.

  • Quarzill

    You didn’t mention that his paper was described as shallow and simplistic. That was why it was rejected. See

    • Billy___Bob

      It was “simple” in the sense that anyone can find data to point out the core of AGW alarmism are models that are a total failure.

      But the Klimat Kult Kommunity won’t allow anyone to point out the models are a failure.

    • Rhoda Klapp8

      And that is how the gatekeepers operate. We will know if the paper is made available to read, or if we can see all the comments. No reason not to show us, is there?

    • Billy___Bob

      “However it emerged that one reviewer had admitted that its ‘potential impact’ on the climate science was ‘high’ but was worried it would have a ‘strongly negative’ effect.”

    • IskurBlast

      Anyone can use the words “shallow and simplistic”. Its a cowards way out of actual analysis. Howerver, a clear reading of the reviewers comments show that the sum of his complaint is that Dr. Bengtsson expects the models the to be consistent with observations.

      The reviewer tries to flip logic, reason and truth on its head and argue that the models and observations should not be consistent. This isn’t a case of science. This is a case of power mad little kings who think that it is their power to make their own reality. This “review” was borderline insane. Up is down. Black is white. Good is evil. And observations and models shouldn’t be consistent.

      The reviewer is insane.

      • Keith D

        Spot on. Sadly, like Cosmology, Climatology has become religious in its demands for adherence to its established tenets.

      • braqueish

        But that’s the motherlode. Most climate “science”, as someone else remarked earlier, has no relationship to, um, measuring the climate (except in the sense of using heavily manipulated headline figures like the global surface temperature anomaly). Most papers use the model run outputs as their raw material. A good example is the egregious Michael Mann’s recent attempt to show that zero temperature rise this century is, in fact, dangerous temperature rise. Similarly, most of the newsworthy “impacts” papers (e.g. turtles will all become de-sexed, coffee beans will go extinct) are based upon combining climate model run data with simplistic population modelling. Nary a turtle or coffee bean or an actual real world measurement to be seen.

        Knocking out the climate models as the useless tools they have shown themselves to be would invalidate decades of climate “research” based upon them. That’s why they are sacrosanct.

  • Latimer Alder

    If they talk like shysters, hide like shysters and sue like shysters………

  • Hexhamgeezer

    ..and no mention of this on the Beeb yet but the website leads in it’s science section on Antarctic ice melt which is also getting airtime this afternoon on R5Live.

    • itdoesntaddup

      They don’t even bother mentioning the record ice extent in Antarctica, and see no need to explain any apparent conflict with that.

      • Hexhamgeezer

        or record ice in the Great Lakes after a cripplingly cold winter in N America.

        • In2minds

          The wrong kind of ice?

          • Teddi

            Global (AGW) Warming = Man Made Lies

        • Bonkim

          Ice sheets on exposed lakes are relatively thin and localised – those on Antarctica accumulated over hundreds of thousands of years. Melting massive ice sheets there need considerable heat whereas the Great Lakes ice sheet floats on relatively warm water.

          Like it or not man’s activity during the past century or so has injected huge quantities of heat in the earth’s land, water, and air systems, which the annual or short term weather cycles cannot even out.

          Like it or not, human populations are exploding and resources running dry. Unlikely man will survive beyond a century or two if not decades.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Bollocks! Megabollocks?

            • Bonkim

              Famous last words.

          • cleanwater2

            The longer it stays cold the thicker the ice gets. It is a design standard that blocks for breakwalls in the Great Lakes are never less that 5 tons otherwise they are lifted by the ice and float away. It is not uncommon to drive cars and trucks on the ice to go ice fishing, that’s until the spring thew.

            • Bonkim

              Not clear the point. World climate overall is warming up regardless of whether lake ice is more or less year by year or whether the Niagara falls freezes up occasionally. You will find coastal locations are seeing gradual increase in sea levels – arising from melting of the antarctic icecaps and shrinking of glaciers in the great mountain ranges of the world and also in Greenland, etc. North Polar Sea will be ice-free in a matter of decades. Permafrost is melting in Alaska and Siberia. These are long range events and not simply an annual cycle.

              • cleanwater2

                Bonkim you better get some more up to date data. You are totally wrong. The sea level
                while it has raised at the rate of less than a centimeter per decade and it appears to be decreasing

                There has not been an average temperature for 18 years.

                The sea ice of the Arctic and Antarctic are a record high.

                Antarctic Sea-Ice
                Coverage Continues Breaking Records

                by ROBERT on MAY
                19, 2014 · 15 COMMENTS

                Facebook Twitter

                Sea-ice coverage
                grew about 43,500 square miles per day in Antarctica this summer,
                according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDC). April 2014
                beat the previous sea-ice coverage record from April 2008 by a
                whopping 124,000 square miles.

                In fact,
                Antarctic sea ice coverage hit 3.5 million square miles in April—
                the largest on record.

                miles! That’s bigger than Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine,
                Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Maryland combined, with
                enough room left over for an additional 184 Manhattans.

                And it’s not
                over. “Record levels continue to be set in early May,” reports
                the NSDC. Sea ice levels have been “significantly above”
                satellite data averages for 16 consecutive months.

                If a chunk of ice
                the size of Manhattan breaks off of a glacier, the worldwide media
                wrings its collective hands. But if sea-ice coverage grows by the
                size of seven states plus 184 Manhattans, you hear nary a word.

                I wonder why that

                Viciously attack
                anyone who doesn’t go along with the program

                • Bonkim

                  Will leave it to those charged with looking at such things professionally rather than loose discussion.

                  The earth is overpopulated, resources depleting fast, nature’s recuperative processes inoperative; land, water and atmospheric systems polluted beyond repair, give a century or two mankind’s tenure on earth will come to a close – whether sea level rises or falls would not matter.

                • marque2

                  I have been hearing that the earth is depleting since I was a kid. 1990’s we were suppose to run out of oil. 2000 we were suppose to run out of metals and food.

                  We have more of all of these now and the average wealth of the world has increased tremendously over the last thirty years.

                  There are always folks wanting to scare us preaching doom and gloom and they are never right.

                • cleanwater2

                  Very well said, the Fear -mongers want to control the world not help it.

                • Bonkim

                  Agree you won’t notice when you are fully cooked like the proverbial lobster being brought to boil slowly not noticing the gradual increase. Enjoy is as long as it lasts.

                • cleanwater2

                  As a professional engineer I examine the facts not the fantasies of the Cult of AGW. Mankind is a very adaptive creature, and given we have survived the last 9000 years since the last ice age, we ‘ll survive the next 1000 years to the next ice age. It may be difficult considering the total stupidly of 99 % of the people in the world that will fall pray to the politicians and bullies that are in control of the UN, and most counties. When real scientists and engineer present facts but the media and government bullies prefer to ignore the facts and promote plans to enslave the population it will be very difficult.

                • Bonkim

                  Surprised a professional engineer comparing man’s existence in small groups of hunter-gatherers living in tune with nature 9000 years ago and the resource hungry man of the last two centuries helped by engineers (like you and I) to scoop out the earth’s resources at an ever accelerated rate to fuel our inexhaustible thirst for material consumables, transport and wanton enjoyment – much of the demand being created artificially.

                • Ian W

                  I am not surprised by a strawman waving troll using poor arguments. At the height of the Holocene optimum (optimum means good) there were the hunter gatherers. We are now way down at the cold end of the Holocene colder than the Medieval warm period which was colder than the Roman Optimum, which was colder than the Minoan optimum….. so we are getting colder – despite the industrial revolution and the increase in CO2 output in the post war years. Your viewpoint is narrow and blinkered.

                • Bonkim

                  Have you just woken up brain-dead?

                • cleanwater2

                  Bonkim you claim to be an engineer will you never learn to be a critical thinker. First lets start with some information , the use of land for the total population is about 5% of the land surface. I’m guessing that less than 20% of the land surface is used growing food. The world is terrible at recycling, so when the cost of fresh minerals from the ground gets to high,we will start to doing a better job of recycling..
                  The next important information is found at
                  The next important thing is related to recycling: There have been two movies that relate Solongreen and Blade Runner. The bases of the recycling is faulty based only on age. We need a better criteria namely benefit to mankind. Politicians should be at the head of the list for recycling. Politicians are needed but are a dime a dozen. Exceptions should be given for the rare good one,about 1 /1.000,000 .
                  more later.

                • Bonkim

                  You should travel around a bit and see how human beings use land and also supply of water, energy and other basics of agriculture, the consumption machine, aspirations of the young and population explosion across the globe and also flash points arising from population pressure. Come back – then check balance of essential energy and mineral resources and do a few back of the envelop calculations. I don’t need to satisfy you – best to have a go yourself.

          • marque2

            Record Ocean ice extent. Antarctica above average for 66 months. What heat? The problem is once one set of facts becomes inconvenient – the alarmists make up another set of facts which get broad asg around the world until the rest of us catch on – Rinse and Repeat.

            The West Antarctic media scare of the last week has been totally debunked. Now what?

            • Bonkim

              Now good luck – I will be gone soon and not regretting that.

      • bengeo

        Antarctica has a different ice formed on the land, and so not much affected by global temperature, Arctic ice floats in the sea, and as sea warms, it is disappearing.

        • Billy___Bob

          Antarctica has record sea ice. It is not formed on the land. It is growing.

          • bengeo


            • Billy___Bob

              Yes, there are differences.

              The biggest difference is that Antarctic Sea Ice grows when the AMO goes from low to high, while Arctic Sea Ice shrinks when the AMO goes from low to high.

              The AMO is peaking or has peaked and winter AMO is nearing 0. When it goes negative I predict Arctic Ice will grow and Antarctic will start to shrink.

              About 20% of Antarctic Sea Ice remained at minimum in 2014.

              But that was more ice than the Arctic minimum of 2012.

            • Bonkim

              Yes but the sheet ice on land is melting at an alarming rate and forming ice floes.

              • marque2

                Actually it is not. Antarctica is actually getting thicker. The extra weight from the extra ice has to eventually increase flows due to the pressure from the ice causing it to become elastic – global warming or not.

                This is why much of the science is bogus. An increase in flow is automatically attributed to global warming and other normal, more reasonable factors are purposely covered up – to make a scare story.

                • Bonkim

                  Good luck – someone should nominate you for a Nobel price in physics.

                • marque2

                  Thank you, but I wouldn’t want to be nominated for something that is as easy as googling “how do glaciers form”

                  It would have been a good first step for those scientists with their bogus study last week. The glacier will slide into the sea they say – well no kidding glaciers build at the top and then transform and slide as the top continues to build.

        • Teddi
          • bengeo

            From a prominent employee of the Saudi family?


            Think harder…

            • Teddi

              eff off !!!