Why Did We Stop Saying Global Warming?



How polar bear you.

South Pole froze over in coldest winter on record (MSN)

Sponsored Link

123 thoughts on “Why Did We Stop Saying Global Warming?

  1. anolderman

    And…. The global number of polar bears stands between 22,000 and 31,000, or a midpoint of 26,500. The simple fact is that polar bears are not going extinct. Well holy God who would a thunk it. Funny old world this.

    1. K. Cavan

      Not to mention the fact that Polar Bears & their darker, more southerly cousins are not speciated & are capable of interbreeding.
      The Polar Bear is an environmentally adapted Grizzly Bear, a sub-species at best. Should they actually become extinct, they would re-emerge from the existing Grizzly population, upon the return of the correct, temporary conditions, as we head into the next ice age.

  2. Cui Bono?

    Just like with covid, it’s all about money, control and power.

    The wealthiest psychopaths run the world and have done so for centuries.

    1. chris

      Indeed, they knew it would take time to reach their current objective. Geopolitics is akin to a game of chess and we’re perilously close to check mate.

    1. chris

      That the ‘climate change’ theory is built on nonsense, lapped up by those that believe the propaganda.

        1. chris

          Sure, cult’s are impervious to logic. You can show them the money trail, the research grant funding, the corporate capture of once independent institutions/media – but their eyes glaze over.

          They quickly forget and are back defending points you demolished mere minutes later.

          1. Nigel

            You can make all your claims about that stuff, but the scuence is pretty definitive. This hereis a wonderful example of cherrypicking, on the same level as ‘parts of the Antarctic ice gorwing thicker.’ Yes, they are, because climate change is not uniform, it is however measurable over time, and those measurements are clear.

          2. K. Cavan

            Indeed, chris, it’s easier to fool someone than to convince them they’ve been fooled. Climate Change, a global constant, has become more of a Religion, indeed a Cult, than a Science & it lacks far more of the latter than it’s adherents even realise, since they get all of their ”Science” from the corporate media.

          3. Nigel

            It’s the lack of constancy that has drawn so much attention to the current state of the climate.

      1. Cian

        We had the hottest summer ever AND the coldest winter ever. Dispute thus you are saying climate change is nonsense…

        1. E'Matty

          Climate is always changing. The idea manmade carbon emissions are driving our climate to change is complete and utter nonsense.

          1. chris

            ^ This. It’s very easy to measure and tax and ultimately control a populaces movements/purchases – as is already happening.

            If sea levels are rising why are billionaires building (and getting insured) at coastal area’s, island’s etc? Because they know.

          2. spud

            This is where the whole ‘net zero’ push will probably fail.
            The same reason we should never labelled it as ‘save the planet’.

            We need to save humanity.
            On one level, there’s a climate issue, but the bottom line is we’re using our natural resources in a manner that’s simply not sustainable.

          3. Nigel

            ‘Climate is always changing.’

            This, of course, is lying through chilish over-simplification.

          4. Nigel

            ‘This is where the whole ‘net zero’ push will probably fail.’

            The only reason it will fail will not be because of labels or names or messages, but because of a blockage at policy level – politicians unwilling to go against economic power interests (represented by the same people/institutions conspiracists claim invented climate change) despite the overall wishes of their citizens. That is and will remain the problem until that blockage is shifted.

          5. Lurch

            @ E’Matty
            “The idea manmade carbon emissions are driving our climate to change is complete and utter nonsense.”
            I’d love to hear your logic regarding that statement. Love your imagination in terms of the big conspiracy but how do you explain away the science.
            As you allude to, humans do emit vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. That is an undeniable fact. burning oil, gas, coal, etc.
            Two more facts:
            *CO2 levels were approx 280 ppm (parts per million) before the industrial revolution and are now approx 415 ppm.
            *CO2 is a greenhouse gas, i.e. it has a warming effect on the planet, in fact without any CO2 in our atmosphere earth would be frozen and lifeless.
            So how can you say human carbon emissions have no effect? particularly when all of the predicted climate outcomes, increased flooding, drought, wildfires, food shortages, famine, etc etc. are already being observed.

          6. K. Cavan

            Lurch, CO2 is one of the minor greenhouse gasses, the biggest is water vapour, clouds, in other words. CO2 represents 0.04% of our atmosphere & humans are only responsible for a small part of even that.
            While CO2 increases track climate change, so do shark attacks & ice cream sales. Causality has not been established.

          7. E'Matty

            @ Lurch – to add to K.Cavans solid reply Carbon makes up 0.0391 percent of the earth’s atmosphere. About 3.75% [15 ppm] of that 0.0391% of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the approximately 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration. Therefore, manmade carbon emissions form approximately 0.0014625% of the earth’s atmosphere, yet Athropogenic Climate Change fanatics would have you believe that by controlling/regulating this one single element, we can control the entire earth’s climate. Let’s just ignore Ocean cycles, tilt of the earth’s axis, clouds, water vapour, volcanoes, Sun’s solar cycles, Sun’s solar flares etc which have driven climate change for millenia, until now.

            It is anti science to suggest that one can a) stop the climate from changing by cutting carbon emissions to zero, and b) that carbon alone can have such a significant positive or negative impact on the global climate where it forms such a tiny portion of the overall numerous elements actually influencing our climate.

            As K.Cavan rightly says too, the causal link between the changing climate and manmade carbon emissions has never been established.

        2. K. Cavan

          Cian, the fact that you are suggesting that a recent hot summer & a recent cold winter has any bearing at all on climate changes which move in cycles the shortest of which is about 7,000 years & the longest 100,000 to 140,000 years just exposes the fact that you simply haven’t grasped the scale involved.
          Your statement is ridiculous, I’m afraid.

          1. Nigel

            That the only scales you can operate on are ‘any single winter that happens to be cold’ and ‘140,000 YEARS’ is just more lying by selective omission.

          2. Lurch

            what cycles are these?
            You’re hardly talking about Milankovitch cycles I presume as the time frames are all wrong.
            Of course Milankovitch cycles are one element of a complex system and it would be stupid to say that they were the only element that effect climate systems.
            Interested to hear what cycle you are referring to. I will have a good read about them later.

          3. Nigel

            ‘that’s a pitiful reading of what he said.’

            Maybe when he starts adressing hundred year trends which are more immediately relevant to humanity, then he’ll prove me wrong.

  3. Boe__Jiden

    not content with being anti-vaxx covid deniers we’re veering off into climate denial insanity, brilliant

    1. Cui Bono?

      All you’ve done here is parrot multiple derogatory terms that do not represent the scientific and data driven arguments of those who are informed.

      Ignorance is bliss……

    2. E'Matty

      Yeah, it’s kind of the same elitist gang behind both conjobs. Both serve the same objective. Absolute and total control over all life on the planet. But you geniuses think the most powerful people in the world are looking out for your interests and not their own.

      1. Nigel

        This literally makes no sense. Of course there’s a power elite of billionaires, corporations and politicians, and they’re horrible, but the idea that they perpetrated the pandemic and cooked up the idea of climate change for nefarious purposes is just laughable. That they might look for ways to opportunistically profit from them is a given, and they need to be thwarted in every way possible, that doesn’t mean they’re ‘behind’ them.

        1. Nilbert

          There is a link though. The anti-vax movement is a propagandist tool, used to promote the notion that scientists cannot be trusted, that there is a global conspiracy of elite liberals trying to enforce a totalitarian takeover. Its like the Nigerian Prince strategy, cast the net so widely and ludicrously low, that you can pinpoint those who are easily manipulated.

          The main driver is that scientists and experts cannot be trusted, that they have hidden nefarious motives.

          Why though? One major goal is to deny Human consumption as a driver of climate change, so we can mindlessly continue to burn fossil fuels and build the global oil-based profit machine.

          1. Nigel

            There is documented evidence of oil companies agreeing to suppress findings of the effects of carbon emissions on the atmosphere and laying out strategies of denial and deceit, a la tobacco denying links to lung cancer, as far back as the late 1960s. There’s an entire pseudo-scientific industry funded by millions of petro-dollars for this purpose. The idea that these same people actually invented climate change for inscrutable purposes is flabbergasting, but I’m sure the oil companies appreciate the boost as well as the irony.

            What’s partcularly sickening is that hundreds of eco-activists are murdered every year for going up against corporations and private companies and governments out to burn down forests for cattle and palm oil and other efforts at exploitation devastating for biodiversity and the climate as well as local communities, and people here have the cheek to imply they’re stooges of Big Oil, or whatever. Sickening.

          2. Nilbert

            Meanwhile, as the World begins to burn, people are bleating about satanic cults, vaccines made from HIV, and magnetic arms riddled with nanobots.

            Its chilling to see it in action – how the exact same commenters on here are anti-vax, anti-lockdown, and now anti-climate change.

          3. K. Cavan

            Strawman, Nilbert. To chacterize those who disagree with you as supporters of unfettered consumerism is facile nonsense.

    3. K. Cavan

      Boe, you are a Corruption Denier, your position is entirely dependent on believing that those who control the media are, out of the goodness of their hearts, telling us the truth, rather than choosing the facts or fictions that might benefit them.

      1. Nigel

        Rupert Murdoch’s Australian media reporting on the bush fires and how they had nothing to do with climate change and how coal is awesome, for example.

        1. K. Cavan

          Nigel, Sky Australia is a grain of sand compared to the log of a complicit worldwide legacy & online media & you know it.
          If you believe there’s a provable, even probable connection between bush fires & climate change you really are very far down the rabbit-hole.

          1. Nigel

            Oh I agree, that’s why environmental activists and climate scientists have had to fight tooth and nail to get their message out for decades against opposition, poor reporting and both-sideism that gave platforms to oil-funded ‘science’ for ‘balance.’

            ‘If you believe there’s a provable, even probable connection between bush fires & climate change you really are very far down the rabbit-hole.’

            Again, you seem to be arguing passionately against the existence of something while demonstrating absolutely no clue what it is or how it works.

  4. Junkface

    Hang on! Isn’t the ice melting up around Greenland in very large chunks at the moment? I believe it is, plenty of evidence of it too.

    1. Mr.T

      The Arctic ice melts every summer up until Sept or so, then re-freezes.
      The melt this year was much less than the average also

      1. Nigel

        And if you were to draw a graph of ice melt over the last hundred years or so, what would that look like?

        1. Chris

          So what? You like to keep the planet in stasis is it? Keep it exactly as it is (exiting the last Ice Age) forever? Stop all natural process? Don’t you and your cohorts realise that this is a mental proposition? Obviously not.

          1. Nigel

            So, this is a concession that climate change is real but we might as well roll with it? Climate change is currently not a natural process, it is a man-made phenomenon, which is why we distinguish it through the term ‘anthropogenic.’ We are trying to control the effects of our own actions on our own environment, which seems sensible to me.

          2. chris

            So somehow the planets natural processes stopped and we took the reigns. Hubristic nonsense. And I gave no concession, I never stated that the planet at anytime in it’s history was at a point of statis.

          3. Nigel

            ‘So somehow the planets natural processes stopped and we took the reigns.’

            You keep denigrating the science behind climate change, then you say something like this that shows you haven’t even the most basic understanding of what it says.

          4. E'Matty

            @Nigel – climate change is real and cannot be stopped. Climate change is not manmade. It is a naturally occurring process that has been in action since the dawn of the planet. Do you actually believe that we can control the global temperature and climate just by removing carbon? That’s some special kind of crazy there.

          5. chris

            I tuned out from the doom mongering over a decade ago, I know it’s utterly corrupt. Why should I care what it says?

            Should I constantly read astrology even though it’s bunk? Though as much of a ‘science’ as the gematria re-branded ‘Climate Change’.

          6. Nigel

            ‘Do you actually believe that we can control the global temperature and climate just by removing carbon? ‘

            Yes, by reducing thr amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere and by restoring natrual carbon sinks like bogs and swamps and forestry we can reduce the effects if climate change. (We do not want to ‘remove carbon’ from the atmosphere, since a certain amount is required to maintain the climate at a more or less optimum level.)

            ‘I tuned out from the doom mongering over a decade ago’

            So as ignorant as you are confident.

          7. hmmm

            The earth loves Carbon Dioxide.

            (And the authors of this report seem to support the Paris Accord)


            Several lines of evidence point to an increase in the activity of the terrestrial biosphere over recent decades, impacting the global net land carbon sink (NLS) and its control on the growth of atmospheric carbon dioxide (ca). Global terrestrial gross primary production (GPP)—the rate of carbon fixation by photosynthesis—is estimated to have risen by (31 ± 5)% since 1900, but the relative contributions of different putative drivers to this increase are not well known. Here we identify the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration as the dominant driver. We reconcile leaf-level and global atmospheric constraints on trends in modeled biospheric activity to reveal a global CO2 fertilization effect on photosynthesis of 30% since 1900, or 47% for a doubling of ca above the pre-industrial level.

          8. Nigel

            There is a limit to growth benefits to plants of incresded CO2 before it becomes damaging. Increased CO2 causes brain damage in humans. Also you can’t grow plants in places that have turned to desert or washed away or gotten torn up in resource conflicts.

        2. K. Cavan

          Glaciers are not a feature of the Earth’s geography, just a phenomenon that sometimes manifests itself, to a greater or lesser degree, at various times. Ice melts when it gets warmer, glaciers covered most of Europe once, should we regret the fact that they retreated?
          The fact that the Climate Emergency brigade obsesses about them does not mean they are in any way an important indicator of a beneficial climate.

          1. Nigel

            They’ve been existence for pretty much all of humanity’s existence, so they’re fairly signficant to us and how we live on the planet, both as a sign of the changing climate and, crucially, as a source of fresh water for people who live in their drainage areas.

    2. E'Matty

      Yeah, it’s almost like ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter. Who would have thought? Oh, you thought melting ice meant Armageddon Climate Catastrophe!!!

      1. Nigel

        ‘Yeah, it’s almost like ice melts in the summer and freezes in the winter.’

        This is lying through infantile over-simplification and gross omission.

        1. E'Matty

          @Nigel – kind of like your laughable man’s carbon emissions are driving the planet to doom nonsense. You’re just too gullible Nigel.

          1. Nigel

            The 1980s rang and greedy reactionaries who voted for Reagan and Thatcher want their boorish overconfident ignorance back.

        2. K. Cavan

          No, Nigel, you are guilty of infantile over-simplification and gross omission, taking the reduction of ice coverage as some sort of universal measurement of the health of the planet.
          A spike in atmospheric CO2 , of unknown origin, allowed the evolution of ocean life by allowing organisms to combine the CO2 with naturally-occuring salts to create shells, allowing these soft-bodied organisms to increase, massively, in size, a crucial development in the evolution of life on this planet.
          As Chris stated, at no time ever has the climate been in stasis & any attempt by humans to place it there is ridiculous, hubristic nonsense.
          Farming has had far more impact on the planet than CO2 production which only represents 0.04% of our atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses, by preventing the heat of the sun from reflecting right back out into space, are essential to life, in fact to the emergence of life, on this planet.
          By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, why not attempt to eliminate clouds?

          1. Nigel

            ‘taking the reduction of ice coverage as some sort of universal measurement of the health of the planet.’

            Go back up and look at the top of the page, then come back down here and say that again. Ice coverage is only one of many metrics.

            ‘at no time ever has the climate been in stasis’

            One way of knowing the climate is changing rapidly is because it was quite stable for hundreds if not thousands of years, only changing quite slowly over time.

            ‘Farming has had far more impact on the planet than CO2 production..’

            Since farming as it is currently practiced also produces lots of CO2, this is a weird argument for you to make. Intensive agriculture is wrecking biodiversity, damaging the soil, polluting the environment and pumping out CO2.

            ‘…which only represents 0.04% of our atmosphere.’

            Never mind the science look at the tiny percentage! How could a tiny percentage do us any harm? Childish.

            ‘Greenhouse gasses, by preventing the heat of the sun from reflecting right back out into space, are essential to life, in fact to the emergence of life, on this planet.’

            Your arguments are so incoherent I don’t even know where to start. We don’t actually want to retain too much heat. That’s the whole problem. In fact, if we lose the ice at the poles, the planet’s albedo goes down and we absorb even more heat. The equator will be uninhabitable.

          2. Nigel

            ‘By far the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, why not attempt to eliminate clouds?’

            Can’t believe I forgot to include your attempt to use whataboutery on chemical reactions and the laws of thermodynamics and physics.

  5. Bye bye

    So Broadsheet is now a source for anti-vaccine content and climate change conspiracy theories. This used to be a good website – it is truly awful agenda-driven rubbish now.

    1. E'Matty

      Look, there’s plenty of media catering to the gullible naive herd who never research anything and just want to be fed the same comforting crap. Head over to the Journal or the Irish Times. They’d be more your cup of tea. Nobody questions anything over there.

    2. K. Cavan

      “Agenda-driven”, that’s as dumb as the American who said they could spot Americans or Europeans by the fact that Europeans have accents but Americans don’t.
      I think most intelligent people who comment here are sick & tired of morons commenting just to complain that articles don’t reflect their own personal prejudices. For goodness sakes, grow up.
      Bye bye, Bye bye, go away.

  6. Micko

    Of course Climate Change is real.

    It’s how bad it is and how much we are really willing to do about it – that’s the issue.

    The way some people got on about it, they talk like it’s an apocalyptic threat on par with a meteorite coming to hit the Earth

    We adapt – that’s what we do. It’s one of the main reasons we’re even here as a species.

    Bjørn Lomborg’s latest book ‘False Alarm’ is a good read to put some perspective on it.


    1. paul

      it’ll have the same effect as the meteorite in the (very) long run if we don’t change our behaviour. We might see some colder winters and warmer summers, but the next generation will see worse and so on. The real money is being made in the same way as before, oil and gas and who cares about future generations as long as the shareholders are happy.

      If we could live in such a way that we take as little negative from our environment as we can and give as much positive back, we’ll be grand. Solar, tidal, geothermal, wind power are the way to go. The best case scenario as far as I can see is if the human race can survive long enough to get off the Earth before we completely ruin it.

      1. Gavin

        Space and other planets are pretty inhospitable places for life of any sort…we’d be better off trying to plug the holes in the one viable habitat we have.

        1. paul

          Oh I know. If we can cop on, as a species, we might be able to get this planet into a state that we can survive long-term but when I read about huge companies like Nestle, Google and Monsanto, I don’t have a huge amount of faith in people acting in concert.

          Realistically as well, if humanity were to vanish overnight, the Earth would be grand. It’d balance out in a few centuries. We’re not battling climate change for the planets sake, we’re doing it for ourselves.

      2. K. Cavan

        Paul, your first paragraph contained some sense, oil companies are voracious, capitalist mosters, we all know this.
        Your second paragraph strays into pure fantasy with the assertion that “green energy” can power our societies & economies or even give us enough power to survive the next few thousand years. That is simply scientifically, mathematically impossible.
        Extinction Rebellion is financed largely by solar & wind power corporations, ask any XR member what they believe in & these two will repeatedly crop up. You can’t blame the solar & wind power industries, though, after all they’re voracious, capitalist monsters.

        1. Nigel

          People say ‘solar and wind’ because they’re the two most obvious alternatives with development already in progress.

    2. Nigel

      ‘We adapt – that’s what we do.’

      And there are so many things we need to do to acheive that adaptation – such as end fossil fuel extraction and combustion.

      Lomborg is not a great source of information on climate change. Read Michael Mann instead.

      1. K. Cavan

        So, Nigel, what are we going to use for power? Without it, our species will face extinction, we’re too far down the evolutionary path to revert to being able to survive without it.
        Don’t bother with that Solar & Wind nonsense, that can’t even provide ten percent of what we need.
        So, what’s the real alternative?
        We all know it’s depopulation & of course, as Bill Gates stated during his Tedtalk, we’re making a start on that with “new vaccines”.

        1. Nigel

          That’s funny, our species managed to avoid extinction for centuries without burning masses of fossil fuels, and evolution doesn’t work that fast, or in any way like that at all, even if it was relevant to switching to alternative forms of energy and modes of consumption. Yes, solar, wind, tide, geothermal, ultimately sattelite power transmission from orbital arrays but until then or some other tech miracle we will have to make do.

    3. Fred

      The book may seem superficially plausible because of the citation of academic references. But when you check the papers to which Lomborg refers, you often find that they do not state what he claims. When I contacted some of the researchers about Lomborg’s characterisation of their work, they said that their findings had been misrepresented.

      Overall, this book will appeal to those who, like Lomborg, arrogantly believe that they know better than the experts and think that the risks of climate change have been exaggerated. But the informed reader will be able to spot that this book is an exercise in motivated reasoning and is not a serious or credible examination of the issue.

      1. K. Cavan

        In fact, Fred, while most climate scientists absolutely agree that “they think” (it’s literally impossible to know) we are contributing to a warmer earth, only a tiny minority, about 0.3% of them, see this as catastrophic. The greening of the planet, caused by more atmospheric CO2, has helped eliminate hunger. While it’s a recent development, more people in Africa die from diseases of over-consumption than famine or malnutrition, today.
        There were times when sea-levels were 20 metres, 40 metres and more, higher than they are niw & inevitably, that will happen again, even if you wiped humanity out of existence, right now.
        You are entirely overestimating our impact on a planet that’s 4.5 billion years old.
        Meanwhile, the hijacking of the Ecological Movement by the Left, to use it against Capitalism, has caused us to ignore many other serious ecological challenges.

        1. Nigel

          ‘The greening of the planet, caused by more atmospheric CO2, has helped eliminate hunger. While it’s a recent development, more people in Africa die from diseases of over-consumption than famine or malnutrition, today.’

          What the, and I mean this most sincerely, actual feck? God luck feeding the planet when droughts and floods and shifts in temperature and rainfall norms disrupt agriculture and supply chains, leading to scarcity and conflict and mass migration.

          Appeals to false humilty, too. God almighty the density of a neutron star.

    4. K. Cavan

      Yes, Micko, you’re correct but I don’t expect the Climate Change Death-Cultists to peruse such perfidious, heretical writings.

    5. K. Cavan

      Micko, not just what we’re willing to do but what we can do, without all just topping ourselves. We’ve reduced emissions from our cars drastically but that’s been offset by the emergence of Third World countries from poverty, so they’re all buying cars.
      The activists in the West can only torture us, they can’t do a thing & don’t even try, about the really big contributors to CO2 emissions, China for example & it’s huge coal electricity generating plans.
      In reality, as you’ve said, I think, we have No Choice but to adapt, while limiting our emissions as much as possible. The West cannot cut emissions enough to save the planet, while the rest of the world increases emissions but that’s exactly what the Elites have decided is our destiny, which is simply pointless suicide.
      Not to mention that the industries which benefit these same Elites are far bigger contributors to emissions than those who being asked to shoulder the whole burden.

  7. Rosette of Sirius

    I’m curious. For all you conspiracists, what if any of the more commonly referenced conspiracy / theories are just so bat poop crazy for you?

    1. Chris

      Conspiracy – ‘to breath together’. Do people sit around tables & talk? Round tables, Steering Committees, NGOs etc dictate & direct policy. The policy is always to the benefit of the elites, they direct ‘research funding’ & quell any scientific debate that doesn’t fit their narrative.

      It’s the fifth column that decides the policies & get politicians on board – they’re rewarded ‘revolving doors’ for their compliance. Any that fall out of line are smeared by media organizations (now firmly entrenched within the fifth column.) as is academia.

      Intelligence services, MI5/6, CIA, Mossad etc may be funded by their host populations but their operands is & always has been at the service of these elites. They’re private police/army, ready to deploy at the drop of a hat.

      This is all exhaustively documented – often by academics that were on the payroll, they’re often apologetics for this system. So calling people ‘conspiracists’ that aren’t doing the actual conspiring – merely commenting on it is kind of a moot point.

      1. Nigel

        It’s one thing to agree that people with power and money conspire, that they do so in secret, that they do so undemocratically and against people’s overall interests, but the trick is in correctly identifying what these actual conspiracies are, who is involved and what they are trying to acheive. You do not have license to call everything a conspiracy or attribute all things to a conspiracy just because conspiracies exist.

        1. chris

          The only ‘trick’ is not to confuse malevolence for benevolence. The only tool for this is an understanding of deep politics. That’s something you’re obviously missing.

          1. chris

            Yet you’re the one that believes in fairytales, not I.
            As I’ve said it’s all been academically researched and documented. That you’re too lazy to read it, doesn’t make it fantasy. But as other’s have noted, you are quite prone to ignorance and conjecture.

          2. Nigel

            That’s funny because the gaps in your theory about Big Oil inventing climate change has enough holes both in its history and its logic that supertankers could use them to sail through the Arctic ice.

        1. K. Cavan

          The fact that you used the term “conspiracists” tends to indicate you don’t believe such things are possible, a ridiculously naive position to take.
          I don’t care if you’ve been to the moon, it doesn’t make you an astrophysicist.

  8. Gavin

    The article could be used to support either side of the argument, but I’ll go with what this lad is saying.

    “One cold winter is interesting but doesn’t change the long-term trend, which is warming,” Eric Steig, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, told the Post. In the long term, Antarctica, like the rest of the world, is warming and rapidly losing sea ice.”

    1. K. Cavan

      Gavin, at best, man-made global CO2 production & the warming it’s alleged to cause is a medium-term trend. The long-term is very, very long, which is about the next ice age & which climate alarmists have entirely failed to grasp.
      We may be heating the atmosphere but we are heading into an ice age & cold not heat has always been by far the biggest threat to life on the planet.

      1. Nigel

        Arguing that we should take the 10,000 year view over the 100+ year view is headwreckingly stupid.

        1. K. Cavan

          Nobody suggested we should take a 10,000 year view, Nigel but the study of the atmosphere, meterology, starts from observing daily weather & must encompass all influences being brought to bear.
          We’ve been told repeatedly by the likes of the UN that disaster would befall us at several, long gone, points in time. Are you suggesting we now have to believe we’ll be wiped out in a century if we don’t all freeze ourselves to death, right now?
          Just like the plastic pollution problem, the climate emergency propaganda is all about dumping the entire responsibility on consumers, who’ve benefitted very little from most of the CO2 produced. Carbon Taxes are an absolute joke but a perfect example, fuel to heat our homes is & always has been a cost, nobody was ever spending more on it just for the hell of it but that’s the exact assumption these taxes are based on.

          1. Nigel

            You keep dismissing trends that are relevant to the here and now in favour of the long, long term view, which is stupid. And yes, the fossil fuel industry does want to put all the responsibility onto the consumer which is why the focus of activism has switched from individual behaviour to pressurising politicians to act on the national on international level. I see plastic pollution and waste is also a conspiracy. Jaysus.

  9. Nigel

    Isn’t it funny that I’ve frequently posted links to stories about the ongoing effects of climate change and about current findings in the scientific study of climate change, but hey, you go with this bit of lazy cherrypicking for a story? There’s no excusing this.

    1. Rob_G

      *I hope this comment doesn’t get deleted again within two mins. I wonder why the editor does not like his given name mentioned in relation to this site; pretty odd *

      Is it any wonder why Gene Kerrigan, along with any other
      respected journalist, has jumped ship from Broadsheet long ago?

      I wonder how ‘EDIT: Bodger’ would have reacted if you had have told him 12 years ago that this website, instead of being the Irish Gawker/BuzzFeed, would end up as the Irish Infowars?

      Anyway, peace out ✌️

    2. Lurch

      It’s akin to yer man who proved it’s a hoax by bringing a snowball into the US Senate. Lazy is the word.

  10. realPolithicks

    What a shocker it is to discover that the covid “skeptics” are also climate change “skeptics”.

    1. K. Cavan

      It’s not like the Climate Change hoax & the Killer Cold hoax are in any way connected, like around the subject of overpopulation, maybe, no?
      Another Corruption Denier.
      The 1% cannot lie.

    2. Man On Fire

      Lols @ rP, funny how the WEF and extinction rebellion have the same ideals. Complete coincidence of course..

  11. K. Cavan

    Neo-Liberalism concentrated weath, therefore power, into the hands of a tiny elite. These people are often eugenecists & the vast majority believe the planet is overpopulated. Their wealth is unprecedented in human history, they can move mountains. They diverted the Occupy Wall Street movement into gender & race nonsense, they finance everything from BLM & Antifa to the development of the killer vaccines currently being imposed on those of us in the West. They control & corrupt institutions from the WHO, to the EU, to universities, NGOs, museums & art galleries, both legacy media & online social media, they own everything that they can buy & what they can’t take ownership of, they corrupt with grants & bribes.
    There is only one conspiracy on this planet & it’s sitting there, right in front of our eyes, only wilful blindness can prevent everyone from seeing the extent of it’s power & the malevolence of it’s plans.
    Wake up, before it’s too late, people, if it’s not already.
    Stop prosecuting the wars & disputes they have prescribed for us that are not much more relevant than what sports team you support.

  12. Lurch

    Humans are responsible for approx. 45% of CO2, and rising, hardly an insignificant amount of an, as you admit, confirmed planet warming gas.
    Yes CO2 levels do match closely with temp. over tens of thousands of years based on ice cores and climate proxys. I did not know ice cream sales records went back that far but I can imagine a T- Rex might murder an iceberger so I won’t argue with you on that one!
    BTW… I asked a question about the climate cycles you mentioned previously

  13. Sham Bob

    Wonder what broadsheet’s at.


    Fair play to ya Nigel et al for still plugging away against the tide and not letting them away with their republican party/Tory talking points.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link