I came across this superb comment by someone named “Odin2”

There is no scientific evidence showing that CO2 emissions have ever been the primary cause of global warming.
Both of the U.S. satellite data sets for the lower troposphere (RSS & UAH v6) show that there has been no global warming in the past 18+ years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. If CO2 emissions were a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18+ year pause. We did not.
There is no empirical evidence showing that CO2 emissions have been the primary cause of global warming at any time.
The hypothesis about human caused global warming (AGW) is not supported by empirical evidence. The hypothesis is based on computers which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidence. Ninety-eight percent of the climate models relied upon by the IPCC failed to predict the 18 year and eight month pause and their projections of future temperatures during the last 20 years substantially exceeded the observed temperatures during this period.
The outside atmospheric levels of CO2 are currently around 400 ppm. During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.
We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). CO2 emissions were only 3-4% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012 to 0.0016 % of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL AND HAS BEEN OCCURRING SINCE THE FORMATION OF THE PLANET. The 18 year and 8 month pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate.
AGW is about power, politics and greed. Every time the facts change due to nature’s failure to cooperate with the AGW hypothesis , the Believers move the goal posts . They have at least 66 excuses for the 18+ year pause in global warming and the failure of the computer climate models to predict it. The Believers blame any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming based on modeled projections and with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda and profit from the AGW industry (which we must perpetuate at all costs).

I’ve occasionally encountered alarmists who in their own area of specialism were a “challenge” but seldom if ever have I seen such a comprehensive put down by a sceptic.
Indeed, I was gong to waffle about “who is this sceptic”, but another comment has caught my eye and looks really useful. (link to article)

Following another article “A new Dark Age Looms” in the New York Times, I attempted to make a comment ….
There was a book “eats shoots and leaves” which was no doubt a favourite of those journalists at the NewYork Times, Independent and Guardian, who now engage in a form of “debate” in which they will spew up some vile green trash, shoot it out on the internet and then leave anyone unfortunately enough to come across their vile hatred against the rest of humanity with no means to put the sane point of view.
I can’t understand their mentality, surely comments are one of the best way to get readers and they must know that if the only way they have to win any “debate” is to silence the opposition, then they have already lost.
There’s now a growing number of outlets who ban comments altogether or like the UK Guardian ban commenters like me who they don’t like because I come in and have the gall to list the scientific evidence without getting into a street brawl that allows them to ban other sceptics “legitimately”. Surely this trend marks a growing desperation amongst the green=gullible fanatics in the media and other vile bloggers? (And I must admit I was glad to be banned from the Guardian as it saves me having to read their anti-science garbage)
But, it is very noticeable that it is the same outlets who have been most vocal about “freedom of speech” who are the very first to ban us sceptics. Yes that’s hypocritical, but a much more important point, is that these outlets endorsing these extremists views on climate seem to be genuinely perplexed to find that most people don’t support them. I’ve seen them trying to rationalise all the comments – they try to imagine there’s some “mastermind” behind the commenters, but we sceptics are as likely to argue with each other if we spot errors – so if it were a “co-ordinated plan” the co-ordination is pretty abysmal.
But, gradually, the comments have come to be dominated by sceptics – individuals who are usually far more knowledgeable than the journalists and very easily able to show them up for the copy and pasters they are.
This shows these journalists have been living in a bubble … a bubble where everyone agrees with them and somehow they either believe (or are very convincing in their lies) that “the system” is working against them.
But the reality is completely the reverse. In reality those like the Guardian and BBC are the establishment and it is they who are trying to stop everyone outside the establishment being heard.
Indeed, almost everything these journalists claim to be true about sceptics, has turned out to be the reverse:

• It is greens who are the conspiracy theorist (dark forces behind everything we do!!)
• The greens are funded by fossil fuel companies (Shell/BP were the big companies pushing wind)
• They are the ones destroying the environment (Birdmincers)
• They are the ones attacking the poor (higher fuel prices & wood burning)
• They are the ones who want to stop the world turning green (through enhanced CO2)
• They are the ones using big PR companies and massive budgets to silence the “little people”
• They are the ones who are against freedom of speech
• And they are the mouthpiece of the establishment.

So, it is now my firm belief, that the only people who still support the global warming scam, are those who for whatever reason are able to maintain this “bubble” around them. A bubble that keeps out the sceptics, keeps out the evidence from the climate and most importantly of all keeps in the funding.

A strange coincidence occurred today. I came down to start doing some work and I noticed that it was snowing.
And what should I then find in my email. A paper from Nils-Axel Mörner (who is running the London climate conference) entitled: “When Will the Present Interglacial End?”
Of course it would have snowed irrespective of whether I received the paper, and I would have received the paper irrespective of whether it snowed, but what is the chances of both a very very late snow shower and a paper regarding the timing of the next ice-age from one of the world’s top scientists on the same day?

Mid March I started writing a “brief outline” of the Caterpillar Effect and how thermal induced tectonic plate movement drives the ice-age cycle.
I have already missed two of my self-imposed deadlines and with several key issues still needing “ironing out” which inevitably means adding even more detail. This “brief” article (only covering the essential details) is now 35 pages long, over 10,000 words with approaching 30 figures.
I am looking at publishing it as a short book.
The book will contain at least four new, revolutionary … oops  five! …  new revolutionary ideas, three of which I’ve either not mentioned at all or said very little about on my blog. In the process I’ve looked down the throat of the global warming dragon and seen the vile contents of its stomach, only to realise that it’s just my old caterpillar in disguise and I can now say with complete confidence that there’s no chance whatsoever (or to use appropirate scientific notation – there’s a very low chance that) of us ever suffering from global warming. My main aim now is to try to get the thing finished, that is to say, to complete  full description of the ice-age cycle even if parts have to be speculative.

Josh had a great tweet today:

The #Pause its 58 years old! https://t.co/w1aEk3oZoV … from @SteveSGoddard

— Josh (@Cartoonsbyjosh) April 5, 2016

Which took me by surprise as I’d just been speaking to Josh about the same article. But yes! I suppose technically, although I’ve not checked the data myself, the meteorological balloon data does seem to show around 58 years of pause:

A combination of some old balloon data which Tony found in an old publication (oh how the alarmists must hate these old publications) and recent balloon data which corroborates the lack of recent warming seen by the satellites.

As we wave good bye to El Nino at the end of the warming phase of the 60 year temperature cycle, barring another and stronger El Nino in the next few years, it looks unlikely that we’ll see another global temperature as high until 2070 – which for most climate sceptics means it will probably be the highest temperature we ever see.
But then an even more sobering thought hit. The world is now on the long downward slope heading to the next ice-age. And unless one of the next few peaks tops 2016, then it will get increasingly difficult for natural variation to bring global temperatures up to current temperatures.
Then an even more depression thought hit me …. which is that the next ice-age could last up to 130,000 years (if we miss the Milankovitch “pace-maker” hit at 90k, then it’ll probably be another 40k till the frozen earth gets another few millennium of the inter-glacial.)
Now I think about it, I really should have bought some papers when they had the headline “warmest evah” headlines, because they could become quite valuable – not just for the stupidity of the view that warming is bad, but because very soon children might not know what a newspaper is.
 

Sometime soon, I’m going to be publishing a major work outlining various processes that are/may be responsible for the ice-age cycle. At least one is a new re-interpretation of a common feature of the climate which as far as I know has never been proposed before (even by me), so it will be good!
My intention has to put everything together in one “brief” article, which means I have to assume a certain degree of understanding in the reader. But this is very difficult when a paper combines ideas from many disciplines and covers at least three major new theories both from geology and climate each of which need explaining to a readership. So, I will inevitably have been too brief in some areas, and could cut down in others.
So, if anyone fancies getting a pre-release version in return for checking whether it makes sense, which parts need expanding and which parts could be cut, please get in touch.

Today, I spotted this article “University of Cincinnati Cover Up Pro Fracking Study” on “NotALotOfPeopleKnowThat”, which demonstrates a clear intention by the climate extremists to withhold public information which doesn’t support their doomsday cult:

“I am really sad to say this, but some of our funders, the groups that had given us funding in the past, were a little disappointed in our results. They feel that fracking is scary and so they were hoping this data could to a reason to ban it,” she said.

Two things are important:

1. We get to see a glimpse of the rational and funding criteria for this kind of research. Unlike for example Exxon who funding research to be better informed about an issue so that they knew where there was real issues and so knew how to invest their money, this funding is purely and simply to create scare stories and unless it creates the scare stories, it is then dumped.
2. Even though they are academics – and academics are overwhelmingly left-wing and “green” in their outlook – particularly in this area of work, it appears that the researchers are not entirely happy with having their research dumped as it appears it was they who released the information. So, clearly even on the extreme wings of academia, splits are developing between what I would POLITELY call “environmental fascists” and less extremists but still pro-green academics.

FU list? A while back, I started collecting links to all those useful articles that have the ability to shut up the stupid alarmists that don’t know anything themselves but instead make their “argument” by copy and pasting a link to some PPP website (pathetic-paidfor-propaganda). I call it my “FU” list – because most of these have at one time shut up some alarmist. (now promoted to a menu it).

The SNP are amongst the biggest hypocrites in history. On the one hand they constantly suggest that “Scotland could be independent paid for by our oil”, on the other hand, they are doing all they possibly can to destroy that oil industry through their obsession with global warming.

Written by Erikka Askeland – 25/03/2016 7:47 am
Aberdeen marked the 15 month of decline in hotel occupancy rates as the crash in oil and gas prices continued to take its toll on the local hospitality industry.
Average occupancy of Granite City hotel rooms was just 55.7% in February, down almost 20% on the same time last year, according to the monthly LJ Forecaster Scottish Intercity Report.
Read More