View Article

view the latest news articles
Reply to video: Richard Lindzen: Response To The Critique Of My House Of Commons Lecture
Thursday, April 12th 2012, 6:43 AM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
Richard S. Lindzen

Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT. Cambridge, MA 02139, USA


On February 22, 2012, I gave a lecture at the House of Commons explaining the nature of the arguments for climate alarm, and offering my reasons for regarding the concern as being unjustifiably exaggerated. The slides of this lecture were widely circulated. Not surprisingly, the lecture led to a variety of complaints from those supporting alarm. The most thoughtful of these (by Hoskins, Mitchell, Palmer, Shine and Wolff) was a detailed critique posted at the website of the Grantham Institute that Hoskins heads. While there was a considerable amount of agreement between the critics and myself, the overall tenor of the critique suggested that I was presenting a misleading position. The following is my response to this critique. Since both the critique and my lecture focused on the science, the discussion is, of necessity, technical. Moreover, there are distinct limits to what can be covered in a one hour lecture. The following provides more detail than could be included in the lecture.

The critique by Hoskins et al. of a lecture that I recently gave seems to be primarily a statement of subjective disagreement, though it has important errors, and is highly misleading. The critics are, for the most part, scientists for whom I have considerable respect. The following response to their critique will, I hope, be considered to be part of a constructive exchange. Such constructive exchanges are new in the field of global warming, and, perhaps, represent a return to the normal process of scientific discourse.

The critique begins with reference to points that I accept (such as that CO2 has increased as have temperatures, and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that should contribute some warming). It should be pointed out that acceptance by scientists is always qualified by a willingness to reconsider. I will come to this point later. It should be noted that, in my lecture, my observation was that these points did not imply anything alarming, though, to be sure, if they were untrue, there would be nothing to even talk about. The critics are, of course, correct on one point (namely my suggestion that anthropogenic greenhouse forcing was already almost equal to that which is associated with a doubling of CO2). According to the IPCC fourth assessment report, anthropogenic greenhouse gases have only added about 3 Watts/m2 (at least by the time of the report) and this is only a bit over 80% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 though the IPCC allowed that the value might be as large as 3.51 Watts/m2. However, my point was simply that we are hardly far from the equivalent of a doubling of CO2. It is by no means a matter for the far distant future, and predictions based on large response to a doubling of CO2 imply a significant impact now though, given that response time is proportional to sensitivity, we would not yet expect the full equilibrium response at larger sensitivities.

The critique’s introduction ends by agreeing that there may be uncertainty, but that our ignorance is not total. They argue that “Contemporary science suggests unambiguously that there is a substantial risk that these feedbacks will lead to human-induced surface temperature change considerably larger than 1 degree C in global average this century and beyond.” Drilling through the peculiar syntax of this statement suggests that the only thing that is unambiguous is precisely the claimed large measure of ignorance needed to maintain the possibility of risk. As usual, no attention is given to the possibility that the response will be much smaller.

The critics next turn to “Temperature and other data.” The critics complain that I regard the global average of temperature deviations from 30 year means to be an obscure statistical residue. This is a matter of opinion, but I see no basis for claiming that the result in my slide 14 is restricted to short time scales on the order of a decade or less. While my slide 12 contained an error in failing to notice the difference in two downloaded files, the increase in warming that this error pointed to was 0.14C/century not 0.14C/decade (as stated by the critics). The error did nothing to change my main stated point: with uncertainties on the order of 0.2C, adjustments could be made that were well within the realm of possibility, but that such changes, while frequently argued about with great intensity, do not alter the primary fact that such changes are small. That an error that has no impact on an argument is nonetheless taken to be major seems a bit of a stretch. It is also a stretch to claim that questioning the normal process of auditing the data is inconsistent with accepting that there has been a small net warming over the past 150 years. The critics next express surprise that I appear confident that fluctuations on the order of a tenth of degree are present on virtually all time scales. Since, I think that the critics agree with the statement, their surprise seems misplaced. As to the models being able to simulate various reversals in trends, there are enough adjustable parameters to simulate almost anything, but predictions have been another story. They explicitly fail the test of prediction.

On the question of Arctic sea-ice area, the critics simply repeat my point. Namely, that in summer there is always much less ice coverage, and hence changes appear as large seeming percentages. Thirty years is not a long record in this business, and while the satellite data is certainly better than what we had before, there is little question that Arctic sea-ice has been subject to large variations in the pre-satellite past. Of course, the more important question is what these changes actually have to do with increasing CO2, and this question remains open simply because the small changes in summer sea ice can have a number of causes.

The critics’ last remark in this section seems to obfuscate the rather obvious point that we currently cannot say that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating. Without such evidence, the choice of whether to be concerned or not is essentially a matter of personal preference.

The critics next turn to “Paleo data and climate.” The critics attempt to insist that CO2, as a feedback, is responsible for the magnitude of glacial cycles. However, it should be noted that the critics are claiming that a fluctuation in radiative forcing on the order of two watts per square meter is a major factor. Even the illusive phrase ‘consistent with’ hardly covers the implausibility of this speculation. But, the remainder of the comment points to a major misunderstanding of how the glacial-interglacial system works. The critics claim that I am confusing correlation with causality. In fact, for decades, attempts to relate ice volume to the Milankovitch parameter (solar insolation at 65N in June) failed to show a good correlation. Recently, however, it was realized that it should be the time derivative of ice volume that one compares with the Milankovitch parameter (viz Roe, 2006, Edvardsson et al, 2002), and the correlation turns out to be superb (1). However, this is not simply a superb correlation. The Milankovitch parameter was based on a very specific physical idea: namely that the growth of glaciers depends primarily on the survival of winter ice accumulation through the summer. The Milankovitch parameter varies over a range of about 100 watts per square meter, which is indeed capable of having a dominant influence on the survival of accumulated snow and ice. The notion that the small changes in globally and annually averaged insolation are the crucial driver is implausible to say the least, but it stems from the current simplistic view of climate consisting in a single variable (globally averaged temperature anomaly) forced by some globally averaged radiative forcing – an idea that permeates the critics’ discussion despite their noting that current GCMs are in fact 3 dimensional with moderate horizontal and vertical resolution. Given the numerous degrees of freedom in the climate system, any such imbalances resulting from the much larger Milankovitch forcing are easily compensated. It is rather unlikely that the small compensation called for is actually the major forcing. Moreover, there is, to the best of my knowledge, no proposed mechanism whereby small globally and annually averaged radiative changes could produce the major glaciations cycles, whereas the Milankovitch mechanism is transparently clear and provides a driver that, in its large magnitude and in its appropriate spatial and seasonal properties, is exactly what is needed and is simple to boot.

As to the possibility suggested by Berger and Loutre (2002) that the present interglacial will be unusually long, it is an interesting one, but it is not based simply on the current low eccentricity, but rather on an extraordinarily simplified climate model where CO2 has to play a major role. Still, I would like to think that Berger and Loutre are ultimately correct despite the limitations of their analysis. However, whether it proves true has nothing to do with the arguments over the role of anthropogenic CO2 and climate.

The critique next turns to the matter of “Models.” That the general circulation models are based on an attempt to numerically solve well known equations does, I suppose, distinguish them from models used in other fields like economics, but given the fact that there is currently no hope of numerical models having sufficient temporal and spatial resolution, these models must, of necessity, cease being simple evaluations of the basic physical relations that the critics point to. Thus, the fact that the models are nominally based on well established physical principles provides no basis for trust since we are not actually dealing with solutions of the basic partial differential-integral equations. In contrast to normal numerical analysis, we don’t even have mathematical error analyses or proofs of convergence.

The critics tacitly acknowledge significant problems with the existing modeling approaches when they state their preference for a hierarchy of models rather than the use of well established physical principles to check models. The ideal procedure that the critics describe (where what I refer to as ‘well established physical principles,’ they wish to call, somewhat perversely, ‘simpler models in the hierarchy’) is, indeed, what one might hope for, but it is currently far from the present practice which primarily involves the intercomparison of the coupled General Circulation Models, and little attempt at objective testing. Indeed, the reductionist approach to modeling described by the critics could ultimately lead climate modeling back to ‘theory,’ and traditional methods of testing and progressive improvement. Instead, comparisons with observations are currently referred to as validation studies, and, to an uncomfortable extent, seem to lead to modifications of conflicting data, rather than adjustment of models. None of this implies that the models must invariably be in conflict with the ‘well established physical principles.’

Whatever my skepticism about various aspects of coupled GCMs, there is little question that they do display the moist adiabatic profile of temperature in the tropics, and, with respect to this specific matter, the models must, indeed, be correct. Why this should seem to be ‘interesting’ to the critics is hardly clear. Moreover, they agree with my conclusion (that the moist adiabat profile must be present as a matter of atmospheric physics, not as a ‘fingerprint’ of greenhouse gas influence). The data, in this instance, do seem to be in contradiction to the physical principle, and the debate cited by the critics is a good example of the contortions that have become commonplace to correct data in order to bring it into conformity with models though, in this case, the contortions are undoubtedly needed. Both the critics and I agree that there is something wrong with the data that fail to show the ‘hot spot’ required by the moist adiabat. Therefore, in my lecture, I suggested (rather than claimed) that the surface data might be at fault. The reason that this might be the case is simple. The tropics (which are what this disagreement deals with) are notoriously poorly sampled. Now, it is well established that above the trade wind boundary layer, temperatures are relatively uniform over very large distances (thousands of kilometers) determined by what is known as the Rossby radius of deformation. However, within the boundary layer, it is also known that there is much greater spatial variability. Thus, sampling problems are a much more serious matter in the boundary layer. This does suggest that the problem might reside in the surface data, but, as the critics note, the matter continues to be debated. However, given our substantive agreement on this issue, I have no idea why the critics again find my suggestion ‘surprising.’

The critics then make the remarkable suggestion that the fact that the models display the moist adiabat in the tropics argues for their reliability in the arctic. In point of fact, the moist adiabat is such a trivial theoretical construct that one would be appalled and surprised if it didn’t pop out of a model. Their speculation does nothing to counter the obvious fact that the arctic temperatures offer no evidence of a significant role for CO2, though the mechanism found in these models may offer a partial explanation for the stability of summer temperatures in the arctic.

The critique turns finally to “Climate forcing and sensitivity,” the latter being one of two major questions in the argument over the seriousness of global warming concerns (the other being how global warming might be related to the numerous claimed catastrophic scenarios). The critics begin with a confusing defense of the fact that existing models can only be brought into agreement with observations by taking account of ocean delay (which is itself directly proportional to climate sensitivity), and the existence of other sources of climate forcing. The models focus on aerosols and solar variability, and generally assume that natural internal variability is accurately included and accounted for. That models each use different assumptions for aerosols and solar variability makes clear that these are simply adjustable parameters. I was hardly arguing that solar variability, per se, leads to higher estimates of sensitivity. Rather, I was arguing that the adjustable parameters allow modelers to adjust the behavior of their models to simulate observations regardless of the model sensitivity. As to natural internal variability, the inability of these models to reasonably reproduce ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the Quasi-biennial Oscillation shows that the assumption that the models adequately represent natural internal variability is seriously mistaken.

While the critics correctly note that there are difficulties with all attempts to determine sensitivity directly from observations of how outgoing radiation changes with changes in surface temperature, they rather profoundly misrepresent the implications of the various studies they cite. In particular, three of the studies they cite (Trenberth et al, 2010, Dessler, 2011, and Forster and Gregory, 2006) all use simple regressions (implying zero time lag), but as Lindzen and Choi (2011) show, when much of the variation in outgoing short wave radiation is unrelated to feedbacks to surface temperature, such ‘noise’ is aliased into the appearance of positive shortwave feedback at zero time lag. The ‘noise’ acts as a forcing, and the general problem in analyzing these data is to identify and isolate forcings and feedbacks so that their proper relationship can be established. To isolate feedbacks, one must consider the behavior of lagged regressions. The claim that the results ‘from climate models which include a detailed representation of the oceans’ are ‘consistent’ with observations stretches the word ‘consistent’ beyond its normally highly elastic definition. This is certainly not what Lindzen and Choi (2011) found. Finally, the claim that temperature variability is dominated by El Nino events is not at issue in Lindzen and Choi (2011). As Lindzen and Choi noted, the important feedbacks in current models involve very short term processes (order of a week or less), and are thus best studied by considering relatively short term fluctuations in temperature – certainly shorter than El Nino variations. Indeed over long time scales (varying from months to decades depending on the actual climate sensitivity), the radiative balance is restored leading to the spurious result of finite changes in temperature being associated with minimal changes in radiative forcing.

Finally, the critics claim that I asserted that the water vapor feedback may be negative. This may well be the case, but that is not what I have been suggesting (2). Rather, we find that the total longwave feedback (to which the water vapor feedback is one contributor – thin upper level cirrus are another, and the two are so intrinsically dependent that ignorance of the latter leads to ignorance of the former) is negative, and unambiguously so (that is to say, it was identified clearly even at zero lag). This has actually been confirmed by Trenberth and Fasullo (2009) who find in their analysis that feedbacks are primarily shortwave feedbacks. Given the noise in the shortwave component, claims of positive feedbacks in the shortwave based on simple regression are highly suspect. I would suggest that the claimed ‘body of observational and theoretical evidence’ for a positive water vapor feedback is largely a product of wishful thinking. As to so-called modeling “evidence,” it is the models that we are testing; the model results should not be confused with evidence. The critics allow for the possibility of negative shortwave feedbacks, but claim that most models do not have a strong shortwave feedback anyway. There are a number of important points buried in that innocent sounding claim. The amplification depends on one over the quantity (1- the sum of all feedback factors)=1/(1-f). The long term defense of the water vapor feedback stems from the fact that it provides, in current models, a value of about 0.5 to f. This already provides a gain of a factor of two. But, more importantly, if one then adds 0.3 to f from shortwave feedbacks, the amplification jumps to five. Add 0.5 and it jumps to infinity. It is this extreme sensitivity to small additions that allows models to suggest large amounts of warming rather than the relatively modest amounts associated with the assumed water vapor feedback. As recent studies have shown (3), the feedback is likely to be much smaller than appears in current models, and hence, the potential for large warming is also dramatically reduced.

In their concluding comments, the critics accuse me of doing a disservice to the scientific method. I would suggest that in questioning the views of the critics and subjecting them to specific tests, I am holding to the scientific method, while they, in exploiting speculations to support the possibility of large climate change, are subverting the method. As one begins to develop more careful tests, there is, contrary to the claims of the critics, ample reason to cast doubt on the likelihood of large risk. While the critics do not wish to comment on policy, they do a disservice to both science and the society upon whose support they depend, when they fail to explain the true basis for their assertions.

1) It is an indication of how undeveloped climate science is that it took decades to realize that forcing should be related to the rate of change rather than to the change itself.

2) In Lindzen and Choi, 2009, what was said was “Thus, the small OLR feedback from ERBE might represent the absence of any OLR feedback; it might also result from the cancellation of a possible positive water vapor feedback due to increased water vapor in the upper troposphere [Soden et al., 2005] and a possible negative iris cloud feedback involving reduced upper level cirrus clouds [Lindzen et al., 2001]”

3) For over thirty years, the ‘evidence’ for positive feedback has essentially been that models display it. However, numerous attempts to evaluate feedbacks independent of models have arrived at the conclusion that these feedbacks are small or even negative. In this footnote, we mention only a few of these investigations. Such studies include far more than the studies mentioned above (‘hot spot’ and the measurement of changes in outgoing radiation accompanying temperature fluctuations). They also include analyses based on the temperature time series (Schwartz et al,2010, Andronova and Schlesinger 2001) and related studies suggesting a relatively small role for greenhouse gases in the temperature record compared to the impact of various internal modes of variability and their nonlinear interactions (Tsonis et al,2007, Swanson and Tsonis,2009), calorimetric studies of the ocean-atmosphere system (Shaviv,2008, Schwartz,2012), and estimates of sensitivity based on response time (Lindzen and Giannitsis,1998, Ziskin and Shaviv,2011).


Andronova, Natalia G. and M. E. Schlesinger (2001) Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res., 106, 22,605-22,611

Berger, A and M F Loutre, 2002: An Exceptionally Long Interglacial Ahead? Science 297, 1287-1288. doi: 10.1126/science.1076120

Dessler, A E , 2011: Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701. doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236

Edvardsson, S., K.G. Karlsson and M. Engholm (2002) Accurate spin axes and solar system dynamics: Climatic variations for the Earth and Mars. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 384, 689-701, DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020029

Forster, P M D and J M Gregory, 2006: The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget data, J. Climate, 19, 39-52. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3611.1

Lindzen, R S and Y-S Choi, 2011: On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47, 377-390. doi: 10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x

Lindzen, R.S. and C. Giannitsis (1998) On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. J. Geophys. Res., 103, 5929-5941

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/2009GL039628.

Lindzen, R.S., M.-D. Chou, and A.Y. Hou (2002) Comments on “No evidence for iris.” Bull. Amer. Met. Soc., 83, 1345–1348

Roe, G. (2006) In defense of Milankovitch. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 33, L24703, doi:10.1029/2006GL027817

Schwartz, S.E. (2012) Determination of Earth’s transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities from observations over the twentieth century: strong dependence on assumed forcing. In press Surveys in Geophysics.

Schwartz, S.E., R.J. Charlson, R.A. Kahn, J.A. Ogren, and H. Rhode (2010) Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?, J.Clim., 23, 2453-2464.

Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989

Soden, B.J., D. L. Jackson, V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, Xianglei Huang (2005) The Radiative Signature of Upper Tropospheric Moistening Science 310, 841 DOI: 10.1126/science.1115602

Swanson, K. L., and A. A. Tsonis (2009), Has the climate recently shifted?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L06711, doi:10.1029/2008GL037022.

Trenberth, K E, J T Fasullo, C O’Dell and T Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of –atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702. doi:10.1029/2009GL042314

Trenberth, K.E. and J.T. Fasullo (2009) Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation. Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 36, L07706, doi:10.1029/2009GL037527

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov (2007), A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Ziskin, S., Shaviv, N.J. (2011) Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century. J. Adv. Space Res., doi:10.1016/j.asr.2011.10.009

See also:

Opposing Views: Reply to video: A critique of the scientific content of Richard Lindzen’s Seminar in London, 22 February 2012: Updated by Lord Monckton and Gordon J. Fulks
Source Link:

Show #11-20

Arctic Snap Feed
  • » Feed Error
Current Poll
» How much "Man Made" CO2 Is In The Earth's Atmosphere?
  • I think ALL of the CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere is from man.
    graph bar 0 1%
  • I'm not sure how much "Man Made" CO2 is in the Earth's Atmosphere.
    graph bar 1 13%
  • There is .04% CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere and of that "Man" has added an extra 4% (1 part in 62,500)
    graph bar 2 86%

you have already voted

Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

10:10 No Pressure
2010 Forecast
2011 Forecast
2012 Forecast
2012 USA Election
2013 Forecast
24 Hours of Reality
A Chart to Debunk AGW
A Graph to Debunk AGW
A Moment Of Clarity
Acidic Oceans
Adam Yoshida
Adrian MacNair
Adrian Sach (Donation)
African Drought
Ahmed Boucenna
Al Ritter
Alan Broone
Alan Carlin
Alan Caruba
Alan Cochrane
Alan Jones
Alan Moran
Alan Nicholl
Alan Siddons
Alan Smith (Donation)
Alan Tenczar (Donation)
Alan Tichmarsh
Alberta Election 2012
Alberto Miatello
Alec Evans (Donation)
Alec Pearson (Donation)
Alex Epstein
Alex Jones
Alex Newman
Allan Macrae
Allen Quist
Alok Mukherjee
Amanda Baillieu
Amazon Rain Forests
American Meteorological Society
Amy Ridenour
An Inconvenient Truth
Andre Bijkerk
Andrew Bevan (Donation)
Andrew Bolt
Andrew Duncan (Donation)
Andrew J. Hoffman
Andrew Kenny
Andrew McKillop
Andrew Montford
Andrew Neil
Andrew Orlowski
Ann McElhinney
Ann Widdecombe
Anna Sanclement
Anthony Bright-Paul
Anthony Cox
Anthony G. Martin
Anthony J. Sadar
Anthony Watts
Anton Evseyev
Anton Yevseev
Antonio Mario Lorusso (Donation)
Arcady Tishkov
Arno Arrak
Art Horn
Arthur Rorsch
Arthur Wiegenfeld
Arvid Pasto
Astrophysics v Meteorology
Aubrey Vaughan
Augusto Mangini
Barrington Davey (Donation)
Barry Brill
Barry Cooper
Barry Napier
Barry Schwartz
Barry Woods
Barun S. Mitra
BBC Review
Ben Fordham
Ben Pile
Benny Peiser
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project
Berthold Klein
Beverly K. Eakman
Bill Board
Bill DiPuccio
Bill Frezza
Bill McKibben
Bill Stratton
Bjarne Andresen
Bjorn Lomborg
Blast From the Past
Bo Christiansen
Bob Ashworth
Bob Berman
Bob Carter
Bob Ellis
Bob Godfrey
Bob Lutz
Bob Tisdale
Bob Webster
Boris Johnson
Brendan O'Neill
Brent Bozell
Bret Stephens
Brian McNair
Brian Sussman
Brice Bosnich
Bring It On
Bruce Thompson
Bryan Fischer
Bryan Leyland
Burger King Sign
Buzz Aldrin
By Jove I Think They've Nearly Got It
C. R. de Freitas
Calem Smith
Cameron English
Campaign Against Climate Change
Carbon Trading
Carey Roberts
Carl Brehmer
Carrington 2012
Cathy Taibbi
Catlin Arctic Survey
Cause & Effect
Charles Anderson
Charles Booker (Donation)
Charles Memminger
Charles O'Connor (Donation)
Chip Knappenberger
Chris de Freitas
Chris Smith
Chriss W. Street
Christian Gerondeau
Christmas Donation
Christopher Booker
Christopher C. Horner
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Essex
Christopher Jones (Donation)
Christopher Pearson
Chuck Rogér
Claes Johnson
Claude Allègre
Claude Sandroff
Climate Cognitive Dissonance
Climate Fools Day
Climate of Doubt
Climate Protest
Climate Reality Project
Climatic Research Unit
Clive James
CO2 Experiment
CO2 Is Green
CO2 Level
CO2 Propaganda
Coldest Journey On Earth
Comet C/2013 A1
Comment On Article
Conrad Black
Copenhagen Conference
Countryside Party
Craig Idso
Craig Rucker
Crop Yield
Daily Quake
Dan Miller
Dan Pangburn
Daniel Compton
Daniel Croak (Donation)
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Hannan
Daniel Henninger
Daniel M. Sweger
Danielle Smith
Daren Jonescu
Darren Pope
Darren Samuelsohn
Dave Clewlow (Donation)
Dave Dahl
Dave Epstein
Dave Hatter
David Appell
David Archibald
David Becker (Donation)
David Bellamy
David Bennett (Donation)
David Bredenkamp
David Brockless (Donation)
David Brook (Donation)
David Child
David Deming
David Dick
David E. Sumner
David Evans
David Garner (Donation)
David H. Douglass
David Hanna (Donation)
David Hathaway
David Henderson
David Howse (Donation)
David Icke
David Ivory
David Klenk (Donation)
David Lappi
David Legates
David Lungren
David R. Legates
David Rose
David Schnare
David Smith (Donation)
David Spady
David Spiegelhalter
David Whitehouse
Dean Grubbs
Death Threats
Debra J. Saunders
Denis Ables
Denis Rancourt
Dennis Ambler
Dennis Boothby
Dennis Byrne
Dennis T. Avery
Derek Alker
Deroy Murdock
Des Moore
Dexter Wright
Diana Allan (Donation)
Dick Warburton
Dominic Lawson
Dominik Jung
Don Blankenship
Don Easterbrook
Don Parkes
Don Petersen
Don Pierce (Donation)
Don Surber
Donald Trump
Donald Williams (Donation)
Donna Laframboise
Doreen Alli Linder
Doug L. Hoffman
Doug Wyatt
Douglas Cohen
Douglas Cotton
Douglas J. Keenan
Duggan Flanakin
Duncan Davidson
E. Calvin Beisner
Earthquake Research
Earthquakes (>=7.5) 2012
Earthquakes (>=7.5) 2013
Earthquakes (>=7) 2012
Earthquakes (>=7) 2013
Ed Berry
Ed Caryl
Ed Hiserodt
Ed Hoskins
Ed West
Edward Barnes
Edward F Blick
Edward Lane
Edward Moran
Edward R. Long
Edward Wimberley
Edwin X Berry
Elisa Pardo
Elizabeth Auld (Donation)
Emily Oster
Energy & Fuel
Erik Kempers (Donation)
Erik Wemple
Erl Happ
Ernst Georg Beck
F. Swemson
Falling Birds
Fan Page
Ferenc Miskolczi
Film & TV
Finis Gillespie (Donation)
Fire James Hansen
Floor Anthoni
Forrest Mims III
Fortunato F Condo (Donation)
Frank Davis
Frank J. Tamel
Frank J. Tipler
Frank Lansner
Frank Sherosky
Fraser Nelson
Fred Dardick
Fred Singer
Frederick Forsyth
Freeman Dyson
Fritz Vahrenholt
Front Page News
Frozen Al Gore
Gai Lehn (Donation)
Garrett Bastardi
Garth Paltridge
Gary DeBois (Donation)
Gary Novak
Gary Sutton
Gary Thompson
Gary Williams (Donation)
Gavin Cooke
Gayam Walter (Donation)
Geert Groot Koerkamp
Geoff Sharp
Geoffrey Lean
Geoffrey Lehmann
Geoffrey Temple (Donation)
Geological Society of America (GSA)
George Carlin
George Christensen
George Gardner (Donation)
George Giles
George Jonas
George Kukla
George Pell
George Will
Gerald T. Westbrook
Gerald Traufetter
Gerald Warner
Geraldo Luis Lino
Gerhard Kramm
Gerhard Loebert
Gerrit van der Lingen
Giora Shaviv
Girma Orssengo
Glenn Beck
Glenn Czulada (Donation)
Glenn Schleed
Global Warming Meltdown
Global Warming or Global Governance?
Global Weirding
Godfrey Bloom
Gone Fishing
Gordon J. Fulks
Graham Stringer
Grant R. Jeffrey
Green Bonds
Green Cars
Green Ideology
Green Religion
Green Tax
Green Tories
Greg Sullivan (Donation)
Gregg Thompson
Gregory Fegel
Gregory Young
Guillermo Gonzalez
GV Chilingar
Habibullo Abdussamatov
Haiti Earthquake
Hank Campbell
Hans H.J. Labohm
Hans Jelbring
Hans Kelp (Donation)
Hans Schreuder
Hans von Storch
Harold Ambler
Harold W. Lewis
Harrison Schmitt
Harry Binswanger
Harry Eagar
Harry Jackson
Harvey M. Sheldon
Headline Story
Heather Brown (Donation)
Heinz Lycklama
Henri Suyderhoud (Donation)
Henrik Svensmark
Henry Lamb
Henry Payne
Hide The Decline Video
Himalayan Glacier Data
Holly Martin (Donation)
Horst Borchert
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
How About That!
How to Comment
Howard Bigham (Donation)
Howard Hayden
Howard Nemerov
Hurricane News
I Can Change Your Mind About Climate
Iain Murray
Ian Clark
Ian Drever (Donation)
Ian McEwan
Ian Plimer
Ian Ridpath (Donation)
Ian Wishart
Ice Chart
Ileana Johnson Paugh
Important Announcement
Important Notice
Indur M. Goklany
International Climate Science Coalition
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
IPCC Review
iPhone App
Irina Shlionskaya
Ivan Kenneally
Ivar Giaever
Ivo Vegter
J. D. Longstreet
J. Winston Porter
J.R. Dunn
Jack Dini
Jack Kelly
Jack Van Wingerden
James A. Marusek
James Delingpole
James E Steelman (Donation)
James Hawes (Donation)
James Heiser
James Inhofe
James Lewis
James Lovelock
James M. Taylor
James Macdonald
James Maropoulakis Denney
James R. Barrante
James Randi
James Rust
James Stewart (Donation)
James Tully (Donation)
Jan Janssen
Jan Suhr (Donation)
Jan-Erik Solheim
Janet Albrechtsen
Janet Daley
Janice Meyer (Donation)
Japan Earthquake
Jarl R. Ahlbeck
Jasper Kirkby
Jay Ambrose
Jay Lehr
Jay Richards
Jean Michel (Donation)
Jean-Michel Bélouve
Jeb Bush
Jeff Jacoby
Jeff Kuhn
Jeff Mirus
Jeff Poor
Jeffrey Bossert Clark
Jeffrey Folks
Jeffrey Glassman
Jeffrey Jagmin (Donation)
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Jennifer Marohasy
Jeremy Clarkson
Jeremy Ross
Jerome Bastien
Jerome J. Schmitt
Jerry Taylor
Jet Stream Shift
Jill Farrell
Jim Berkland
Jim Chiodo
Jim Crawford
Jim Elsner
Jim Guirard
Jim Hollingsworth
Jim Lacey
Jim Luse
Jim Macdonald
Jim McConalogue
Jim O'Neill
Jim Peden
Jim Salinger
Joanne Nova
Joe Bastardi
Joe Daleo
Joe Fone
Joel Gehrke
Johannes Schreuder (Donation)
John A. Shanahan
John Abbot
John Barnhart
John Brandt
John Brignell
John Burtis
John Christy
John Coleman
John Daly
John Droz, Jr
John Dunn
John Griffing
John H. Sununu
John Hinderaker
John Humphrys
John K. Swayze
John L. Casey
John Leonard
John Lott
John Lucas (Donation)
John Mackey
John Mangun
John McLaughlin
John McLean
John Nicol
John O'Sullivan
John P. Costella
John Rabb (Donation)
John Ransom
John Redwood
John Reid
John Robson
John Rosenthal
John Spooner
John Stossel
John Sutherland
John Vennari
John Ziraldo
John Zyrkowski
Johnny Ball
Jon E McCloskey (Donation)
Jon Ferry
Jonathan A. Lesser
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake (Donation)
Jonathan DuHamel
Jonathan Powell
Jonathon Moseley
Joseph A Olson
Joseph Bast
Joseph Bencini (Donation)
Joseph E. Postma
Joseph Farah
Josh Fulton
Judith Curry
Julia Reid (UKIP Member)
Julian Kenny
Jürgen Krönig
Jurriaan Maessen
Jyrki Kauppisen
Karin McQuillan
Karl Bohnak
Kelly O'Connell
Kelvin Kemm
Ken Cuccinelli
Ken Green
Ken Ring
Ken Stewart
Ken Ward Jr.
Kenneth Haapala
Kenneth P. Green
Kesten C. Green
Kevin Baldeosingh
Kevin Klees
Kevin Libin
Kevin Mooney
Kevin VS Marshall (Donation)
Kevin Watts (Donation)
Kingsley Guy
Kirk Melhuish
Kirk Myers
Kirtland Griffin
Kjell Stordahl
Klaus L.E. Kaiser
Klaus-Eckart Puls
Lance Endersbee
Larrey Anderson
Larry Bell
Larry Cosgrove
Laura Hills (Donation)
Laurence I. Gould
Lawrence Solomon
Lee C. Gerhard
Leighton Steward
Len Srigley (Donation)
Leo Hickman
Leon Ashby
Leon Clifford
Leonard Weinstein
Let It Be
Lewis Page
LF Khilyuk
Little Ice Age - BIG Chill
Lona Landowski (Donation)
Lord Beaverbrook
Lord Lawson
Lord Monckton
Lord Turnbull
Lorne Gunter
Lorrie Goldstein
Louis Woodhill
Lubos Motl
Lucka Kajfež Bogataj
Luke Barnard
Lyn Jenkins
M. Paul Lloyd
Mac Johnson
Madhav L Khandekar
Magnetic Polar Shift
Malcolm Colless
Malcolm Roberts
Mann Made Climate Change
Marc Morano
Marc Sheppard
Marcel Meyer (Donation)
Marcus Brooks
Marie Luise Dött
Marita Noon
Mark Howarth
Mark Landsbaum
Mark Lawson
Mark Paquette
Mark Phillips (Donation)
Mark Piney (Donation)
Mark R. Warner
Mark Schumacher
Mark Shea
Mark Vogan
Mark W. Hendrickson
Martha Montelongo
Martin Cohen
Martin Durkin
Martin Hertzberg
Martin Hodgkins (Donation)
Martin Hurd (Donation)
Martyn Brown
Matt and Janet Thompson
Matt Dempsey
Matt Gurney
Matt Philbin
Matt Ridley
Matthew Cawood
Matthew Penn
Matthew Proctor (Donation)
Matthew Sinclair
Matti Vooro
Maurice Newman
Maurizio Morabito
Maxwell T. Boykoff
Meet The Sceptics
Melanie Phillips
Merv Bendle
Met Office
Met Office BBQ Summer
Met Office Climate Scam
Met Office Decadal Forecast
Met Office Long Range Forecasts
Mexico 2010 Cop16
Michael Andrews
Michael Asher
Michael Asten
Michael Atkinson (Donation)
Michael Babbitt (Donation)
Michael Barone
Michael Beenstock
Michael Boyles (Donation)
Michael Buerk
Michael Cejnar (Donation)
Michael Coren
Michael Crichton
Michael F. Haverluck
Michael Hammer
Michael J. Economides
Michael Lind
Michael Miller (Donation)
Michael O'Leary
Michael Oberndorf
Michael R. Fox
Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shermer
Mike Foreman (Donation)
Mike Lockwood
Mike Norton-Griffiths
Mike Sneddon (Donation)
Million Kid March
Miranda Devine
Mobile Site
Mohib Ebrahim
Mojib Latif
Monthly Eclipse
Mr. FOIA (hero of Climategate email's)
Murdo MacDonald (Donation)
Muriel Newman
Murry Salby
Mytheos Holt
Name Calling
Nancy Greene-Raine
Nancy J. Thorner
Nancy Neale
Nasif S. Nahle
Neal Bennet (Donation)
Neil Collins
Neil Henderson
Neil Mahony (Donation)
Neil McKnight (Donation)
Neil Reynolds
Neil Snyder
Neville Nicholls
New Site
Newspaper Article
Newt Gingrich
Nicholas Drapela
Nicholas Ricketts (Donation)
Nick Minchin
Nigel Calder
Nigel Farage
Nigel Sitwell (Donation)
Niger Innis
Nikolai Dobretsov
Nils-Axel Mörner
Nir Shaviv
Noel Matthews
Noel Sheppard
Noor van Andel
Norm Kalmanovitch
Norman Alexander (Donation)
Norman Page
Norman Rogers
North Sea Storm Surge
Not Evil Just Wrong
Occupy Wall Street Protest
OG Sorokhtin
Ole Humlum
Oliver K. Manuel
Open Letter/Fax
Opposing Views
Orrin G. Hatch
P Gosselin
Pachauri Conflict of Interest
Pal Brekke
Papers Challenging AGW
Pat Michaels
Patrick Henningsen
Patrick McMahon
Patrick Moore
Patrick Q Collins (Donation)
Patrik Jonsson
Paul Biggs
Paul C. Knappenberger
Paul Chesser
Paul Crovo
Paul Driessen
Paul H. Jossey
Paul Hamaker
Paul Homewood
Paul Hudson
Paul M. Murray
Paul Macrae
Paul Mulshine
Paul Murdock
Paul Oakley
Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Shlichta
Paul Vreymans
Paul Wornham
Penn & Teller
Penny Rodriguez
Peter A. Ziegler
Peter Ainsley (Donation)
Peter Buxton (Donation)
Peter C Glover
Peter Farrell
Peter Ferrara
Peter Ferro (Donation)
Peter Foster
Peter Foukal
Peter Gill
Peter Heck
Peter Hitchens
Peter J. Havanac
Peter LaChance
Peter Landesman
Peter Lilley
Peter Ravenscroft
Peter Schwerdtfeger
Peter Sissons
Peter Spencer
Peter Taylor
Peter Wilson
Petr Chylek
Petter Tuvnes (Donation)
Phelim McAleer
Phil Bottomley (UKIP Supporter)
Phil Brennan
Phil Green
Phil Valentine
Philip Foster
Philip J. Klotzbach
Philip Sherwell
Philip Stott
Phillip A W Bratby
Phillip Leavitt (Donation)
Pierre Latour
Pierre R. Latour
Piers Akerman
Piers Corbyn
Please Donate
Press Release
Prop 23
Public Poll (Climate Realists)
Public Polls
Public Warning
Q & A
QR Code
Queensland Flood
Rael Jean Isaac
Ralph Hostetter
Ralph Percy
Ralph Selman (Donation)
Randall Hoven
Randy Fardal
Raven Clabough
Ray Bates
Raymond Richman
Rebecca Terrell
Repeal The Act
Reply To Article
Reply To Letter
Reply To Media
Reply To Video
Rex Burr (Donation)
Rex Murphy
Reynold Stone (Donation)
Rhodes Fairbridge
Rich Apuzzo
Rich Lowry
Rich Trzupek
Richard Baehr
Richard Bruce (Donation)
Richard Cohen
Richard Courtney
Richard F. Yanda
Richard Haddad
Richard Holle
Richard J. Grant
Richard James
Richard Lamb (Donation)
Richard Lindzen
Richard Littlejohn
Richard Mackey
Richard North
Richard Pollock
Richard Treadgold
Richard Wellings
Rick Moran
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Rik Myslewski
Ritesh Arya
Rob Lyons
Rob Smith
Robert Bryce
Robert Coombes (Donation)
Robert D. Brinsmead
Robert Donnelly (Donation)
Robert Ellison
Robert Ferebauer (Donation)
Robert Ferguson
Robert H. Austin
Robert Hodges
Robert Laughlin
Robert M Wagner
Robert Matthews
Robert Rohlfing
Robert Sprinkel
Robert Tracinski
Robert W. Endlich
Robert W. Felix
Robert W. Wood
Robert Wood (Donation)
Robin Horbury
Robyn Wolfe (Donation)
Rod Liddle
Roger Andrews
Roger Aronoff
Roger F. Gay
Roger L. Simon
Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger Pielke Sr.
Roger Tallbloke
Roger W. Cohen
Ron House
Ron Johnson
Ron Nurwisah
Ronald D. Voisin
Ronald Pate (Donation)
Ronald R. Cooke
Ross Clark
Ross Kaminsky
Ross McKitrick
Rosslyn Smith
Roy Clark
Roy Eappen (Donation)
Roy Spencer
Royal Society Review
Rupert Darwall
Rupert Wyndham
Russell Cook
Russian Temperature Data
Ruth Dudley Edwards
Ruth Lea
Ruth Rodger (Donation)
Ryan Maue
Salvatore Del Prete
Sammy Benoit
Sammy Wilson
Samuel Rodriquez
Sarah Palin
Science Under Attack
Scott Armstrong
Scott Denning
Sea Chart
Sea Level Gate
Sebastian Lüning
Selvaraj Kandasamy
Selwyn Duke
Shannon Goessling
Sherman Griffith (Donation)
Shunichi Akasofu
Simon Heffer
Simon Turnill
Site Announcements
Skeptic's Guide
Social Networking
Solar Climate Change
Solar Cycle 24
Solar Cycle 25
Solar Flare & Earthquake 2013
Solar News
Sponsorship Donation
Sponsorship Donation InfoComm Engineering
Spot The Deliberate Mistake
Spot The Difference
Stanislav Mishin
Stanley J. Penkala
Stefan Gorzula
Stephen Ashworth
Stephen Doughty
Stephen Glover
Stephen Murgatroyd
Stephen Wilde
Sterling Burnett
Steve Bettison
Steve Dickman (Donation)
Steve Fielding
Steve Goreham
Steve Hansen
Steve Jobs
Steve LaNore
Steve McIntyre
Steve Running
Steve Watson
Steven F. Hayward
Steven Goddard
Steven H. Yaskell
Steven Milloy
Stewart Franks
Stewart Meagher
Stuart Blackman
Stuart Clark
Svend Hendriksen
Swine Flu
Syun Akasofu
Tait Trussell
Ted Nordhaus
Teena Clipston
Terence Corcoran
Terence P. Jeffrey
Terrence Aym
Terri Jackson
Terry Crowley
Terry Hurlbut
Terry McCrann
The Branch Carbonian
The Emperor's New Clothes
The Geological Society
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Green Swindle
The Greenhouse Conspiracy
The Marshall Institute
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Rules Of The Game
Thomas Costello
Thomas E. Brewton
Thomas Fuller
Thomas Gillan (Donation)
Thomas Lifson
Thomas Richard
Tim Ball
Tim Blair
Tim Channon
Tim Coleman
Tim Cullen
Tim Schowalter
Tim Stanley
Tim Worstall
Timothy Birdnow
Timothy Casey
Timothy Crome (Donation)
Todd Kuipers (Donation)
Tom Bethell
Tom Chivers
Tom Harris
Tom Nelson
Tom Quirk
Tom Russell
Tom V. Segalstad
Tony Abbott
Tony Elliott
Tony Hake
Tony Newbery
Tony Pann
Tony Phillips
Tony Rose
Torben Sørensen (Donation)
Transit of Venus
Tree Ring Data
Trevor Kavanagh
Tropical Storm "Power Up" 2013
Trudy Schuett
True or False?
True Stetson
Truth Squad
Try this at home
Tyler Watts

Click to get your own widget

CO2 Contributed by
Human Activity:
12 to 15ppmv

  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Articles Recently Viewed


  • » Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
Recent Most Read

Show #11-20

See Stephen Wilde's Latest Article

Show articles by Stephen Wilde

All Time Most Read

Show #11-20

Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error