Comments on: Climate change doesn’t have to be all bad A clear-eyed view from Zachary Karabell Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:10:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Miner49er Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:46:10 +0000 Excuse me, but before the data was “adjusted” by warmist researchers, the hottest years by far were in the 1930’s.

See 01/09/2012-didnt-crack-the-top-ten-for-r ecord-maximums/

By: edmh Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:21:12 +0000 Look at the longer term to assess climate change.

Never forget that the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD, according to ice core data, was the coolest of the current benign Holocene epoch, since the last real ice age. At ~12,000 years our happy Holocene, the period responsible for the development of all human civilizations is getting long in the tooth. Overall it has been cooler than the previous Eemian epoch and its end is now overdue when compared with earlier shorter more intense warmer interglacials.

So whether the diminishing sunspot cycle and changing ocean circulation patterns lead to another Little Ice Age or perhaps to the impending real end of the Holocene epoch during this millennium, the one thing that the world should not be concerned about is a little Global Warming, well within the level of natural variations that have been seen in the past 12,000 years.

A cooling, rather than a warming, world leads to both a reduction in agricultural productivity with huge deprivation for Mankind and natural life worldwide. It also probably leads to more extreme weather events, (possibly even like hurricane Sandy). There is very good reason to expect worsening weather events in a cooling, rather than a worming world because the temperature differential between the tropics and the poles is enhanced.

But now the Western world is continually being pressured by propaganda and has widely enacted legislation about “Global Warming / Climate Change / Global Climate Disruption”. These definitions have meant that any adverse weather event can be ascribed to “Climate Change” and thus be blamed on the destructive actions of Mankind.

The Catastrophic Climate Change Alarmists back every horse whichever way it runs. Nonetheless all Alarmist policy recommendations are only intended to control excessive Global Overheating by the reduction of Man-made CO2 emissions.

It is not clear how reducing CO2 emissions would help save the world from a climate change towards a cooling world which now seems to be occurring nor how it could ameliorate severe weather events.

It may be that the climate establishment is gradually coming to its senses. Not only has the Met Office admitted that warming has stopped but also NASA, no doubt much to the chagrin of James Hansen, has now released information that it believes that the sun, rather than CO2 influences climate.

See ence-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

By: OldFarmerBrown Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:26:31 +0000 Nobody is looking at the long range picture. We are carbon based life forms and CO2 is a vital component of the carbon cycle. CO2 is the carrier of carbon ,from dead plants and animals, back to living, growing plants. The atmospheric content of CO2 was at a peak in the carboniferous period at about 2500 PPM. The earths plant and animal life was at an optimal maximum back then. Geologic events buried 80% of this carbon, took it out of the cycle, reducing atmospheric CO2 to our 400PPM we have today. Un-coincidentally, those of us with greenhouses know that increasing the CO2 content of our hothouses to that 2500PPM level provides maximum plant growth. With earths population approaching 10 billion, we should be doing all we can to increase food production. We can’t increase sunlight or land but we can increase CO2. Will doing so increase climate change? Probably, but this will just have to be dealt with. Additionally,warming up useless land in Canada and Siberia as well as freeing the arctic of its non productive ice is a plus. This is the reality mankind will eventually realize, and the STUPID OPPORTUNIST politicians are not helping.

By: Visionar Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:41:28 +0000 Not only has the world stopped warming from 1998, the US’s hot year of 2012 is a hoax, remove the post 1930s weather stations in urban areas the US is much colder.

The world well may have to face an increasingly colder plant with high crop failures due to the weakening sunspot cycles of 23, 24 and the nearly flat cycle 25 that is predicted. 25% of all Scottish died from crop failures in the last grand minimum.

In the past 10,500 years since the last ice age, earth has been warmer or much warmer that today’s moderately cooler climate 9,800+ years. It really is the sun’s interaction with the earth, cosmic rays, UV radiation variations. CO2 is plant food.

By: patjenn Mon, 14 Jan 2013 20:03:34 +0000 We’re not going to stop India and China from continuing to pump out greater and greater amounts of CO2 without unpalatable efforts, so mitigation of the effects is the best option available.

The other advantage of mitigation is that whether or not the climate change is anthropogenic, we have a solution. If punitive cuts in CO2 emissions don’t lead to colder temperatures, we’ve wasted trillions of dollars with not much to show for it.

By: segesta Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:32:48 +0000 But then, liberals couldn’t invent new taxes and new ways to control me.

By: DoubtingRich Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:34:07 +0000 Sorry but the very premise of this article, that 2012 was the warmest on record, is not only inane (the record is so short as to be meaningless in terms of climate variation) but it cannot even be said to be true with any confidence whatever.

Not only are US temperature trends being overstated by poor choice of site for recording stations (until recent changes after an amateur blogger exposed this scandal over 90% of sites could not give temperature to the nearest 1 degree C (well over 1 degree F)) but the past temperature records are corrupt. They have frequently been changed, for no apparent reason. It is estimated that over 2/3 of those changes are to reduce temperatures in old records, increasing the apparent trend. When asked no sound reason was given for making the change, just some bizarre claim that it makes the temperature records better. No explanation as to how this bizarre claim can possibly be true.

So how do we know 1934 was not warmer? We no longer know how warm it was then, and we don’t know how warm it is now.

By: TallDave Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:13:50 +0000 Usually “obstacles” are real, rather than the product of environmentalists’ fevered imaginations, junk science, or noble cause corruption.

By: Parker1227 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:27:40 +0000 So is Reuters ever going to report the fact that average global temp has not increased since the highs of 1998?

Even IPCC scientists have been forced to admit that their forecasting has been an epic fail.

Yes, the US has been warmer than average this last year – but Russia, China, Northern Europe have been colder than average.


When is Reuters going to stop misleading the American people?

By: Albak Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:25:28 +0000 Adaptation is the challenge, yes. But there are already “good” things going on.

Greenland is growing potatoes and barley, for the first time in 550 years.

Britain is growing grapes.

Sub-tropical fruits are growing in the temperate zone in many places.

Rain is coming to places that never had enough (though they still don’t know what to do about it!).