TH!NK post

This article is archived. Comments are closed.

TCKTCK: Got only 10 years to save ourselves!

Published 26th November 2009 - 22 comments - 127571 views -


Motto: "According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet." (Jay Leno)


London (Westminster) in 2020 A.D. - according to James Lovelock


A friend in need is a friend indeed. Just days after Climategate one of Michael Mann's accomplices (Schneider) hurried to publish a report, which "confirms, the AGW science" and says, that "IPCC was really wrong... it underestimated the climatechange."

I don't think we should worry about the integrity of Schneider's working methods. They can be trusted... to use the same high standards of work as Jones and Mann.



As I wrote before (, IPCC did not expect the present cooling. Warming stopped/halted in 1998. This logically means that they should lower the estimates of future temperatures. They apparently overestimated the influence of CO2 on temperatures.

Surprisingly we see the exact opposite. The alarmists INCREASED their estimates of CO2 forcing on temperatures:

  • We are being told, that global warming will come already by 2060 (not 2100) and it will be a sudden shock jump by 4°C upwards (in some regions even more). Said by Richard Betts from Met Off at an international conference in Oxford in September 2009.   (
  • Dr .  James   Lovelock  ( the  creator of the Gaia Hypothesis) wrote in November 2007 edition of the Rolling Stone magazine, that humans will be nearly extinct by the year 2100. "By 2020, droughts and other extreme weather will be commonplace. By 2040, the Sahara will be moving into Europe, and Berlin will be as hot as Baghdad"
  • Good thing is that they invented "a tipping point". It is a sort of miracle - thought we do not observe any disastrous trends now, they may appear all of a sudden with terrible force. Which is very convenient, because you can predict just anything, although there are no signs of it observed.
  • Although warming stopped/halted/paused, we hear, it is "accelerating". Unbelievable lies (in 2009). Disgusting. (for instance:
  • We have less than 10 years to save ourselves. "Delaying concerted global efforts to tackle climate change by ten years would make it “virtually impossible” to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, according to a report published by the management consultancy McKinsey." Written in 2009. (
  • IPCC (a political committee of UNO) predicts, that CO2 emissions must peak and start falling by 2020 or we are doomed due to warming. By 2020 we should get the CO2 emissions to where they were in 1990. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, said that 2015 is the last year in which the world could afford a net rise in greenhouse gas emissions, after which "very sharp reductions" are required... And 2020 is practically tomorrow.



How can we explain this absurdity? Temperatures proved to be less sensitive to CO2 than expected. And yet the IPCC conclude the exact opposite and correct their predictions to INCREASE the estimated CO2 forcing. This eludes all logic.



Alarmists are getting hysterical. Their beloved warming is over. What if it does not resume? (Graph from: )

The predictions are all conditional clauses (If-clauses).

  • IF CO2 has strong forcing ont emperature--> Warming will be strong.
  • IF CO2 causes appearance of ghosts and dragons--> Carbon dioxide emissions will lead to an increase in supernatural phenomena.

It is all based on fictional models and speculations. Nobody knows, how strong the CO2 forcing is. IPCC itself gradually lowered the expected maximum forcing from the doubling of carbon dioxide from cca 1,5- 4,5°C to cca 1,5-3,5°C. By almost one third. They do not have a clue.

And Stephen Schneider? The autor of the latest "cofirmation that Climategate does not change the basic science of AGW"?

In 1971 (when he forecasted global cooling) Schneider claimed that an 800% increase in CO2 would be needed to raise global temperature by +2 deg. By the late 1980s, he promoted the UN view that a mere 100% increase in CO2 would be enough to raise temperature by +1.5 to +4 deg.

Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141. Available at

And according to the latest alarmist prophecies we will have some 6°C warming already in 2060s. Long before the doubling of the CO2 levels.

Conclusion: They are just pulling the numbers from their sleeve.




*(I am paraphrasing the title of Vaclav Klaus book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles - What is endangered, climate or freedom?)

The only explanation is sociologic, political and psychological. It seems, that the climatic alarmists are losing their nerves.

  1. First, their Copenhagen "deal" is slowly vanishing like water vapour.
  2. Second, we skeptics managed to sneak into this little tcktcktck propagandist event and turn it into dust by exposing the weak spots of environmentalism. Such as Eamon's article on Climategate.
  3. Third, nobody takes their "warming" predictions seriously any more, because we all can see, that global temperatures are not higher than in 1998. Although CO2 levels jumped up by 30% in the last decade, the temperatures refuse to go up. So much for the CO2 feedback forcing... The warming perhaps might resume again. Who knows. But the alarmists are very nervous about this cooling.



Why are they becoming so hysterical? Making panicking predictions?

The alarmists are not afraid of global warming. They are afraid of global cooling. If the temperatures do not start rising again soon, they will lose their credibility, funding and jobs.

The only way to save their face is to DO SOMETHING NOW and then pretend, that the COOLING IS THANKS TO THEIR MEASURES.

Then Al Gore comes: "We lowered CO2 dioxide and look - the warming stopped. We saved you."

But it is a race against time. If they do not achieve this by 2020, they will be discredited. So the Copenhagen conference is their LAST CHANCE. Either they make up some "ambitious" new Kyoto Protocol, or they are doomed.

Their future is gloomy. So far they achieved no net CO2 decrease. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure. The scientists from the network Global Carbon Project found out, that between years 2000 and 2008 the global CO2 emissions increased by 29 percent." ( And as the Copenhagen Deal slowly crumbles, there is little hope, that any net CO2 decrease will come in the next decade.



INCOMPETENT CO2 - I WILL DO IT MYSELF: Al Gore melting the icebergs manually. This warming really is manmade.



"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." (Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider( in interview for "Discover" magazine, Oct 1989)

OK, Stephen. But people finally get used to anything - it is like with drugs, you have to increase the dosage as the body adapts to it. So then you need to escalate your dramatic predictions to capture the public imagination again. And in the end you end up with completely unrealistic doomsday rubbish. Too much is too much.



We will see soon, who was right. The Judgment Day is coming.

To use the terminology of IPCC, it is "very likely" , that the climate change alarmism will freeze to death by 2020s.

And the whole AGW movement will be ridiculed for the rest of human history.

I hope the above described spasm of alarmist hysteria is the last outcry of a dying body of the slimy green monster, that has been scaring us and our children so long.


Rest in Greenpeace.


Category: Climate Politics, | Tags: cooling,


Benno Hansen on 26th November 2009:

How about spicing up your article with an illustration?

Federico Pistono on 26th November 2009:

Yep, and how about this one?

Jack Johnson on 26th November 2009:

Or this one?

Jack Johnson on 26th November 2009:

Or this one?

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

Benno, what STRAWMAN am I attacking here? Are you saying the alarmists did NOT say the warming is accellerating and that it will come sooner and will be higher? I think I quoted the escalated warnings precisely.

But the warming is not escalating. On the contrary. It slowed down/paused/stopped (who knows).

So the escalation of warnings seems to be fuelled by marketing mechanism, not new research.

Where am I wrong in this?

Aija Vanaga on 26th November 2009:

Why things go so wrong? Do u want to day that we have no clue what is happening in future with environment?

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

“We will see soon, who was right. The Judgment Day is coming.”

True. But the possible outcome matters:

- If the sceptics were right AND we did something about climate change, then wed probably spent a hell of a lot of money and have some more environment friendly tchnologies. Least expensive possibility.

- If the sceptics were wrong AND we did somethign about climate change, we’d prevent the global average temperature from rising higher than 1-2 degree Celsius and avoid a lot of the severe consequences a higher rise would cause.

- If the sceptics were right AND we did nothing about climate change, we’d be pretty lucky to have saved ourselves probably a hell of a lot of money. Lucky us.

- If the sceptics were wrong AND we did nothing about climate change, the following costs will be much higher than what prevention would have costed. Plus the consequences this warming will cause (starvation, mass migration, more hurricans/tsunamis - well, youve heard of them.

You wanna rely on hope only?

Choose your destiny.

Aija Vanaga on 26th November 2009:

It is not my choice to make .. Or is it?

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

Its everyones choice to make.

However, my comment was directed at Vitzeslav wink

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

@ Georg, nice decision-table. My comment:

Please DO NOTHING. Mercy.

No matter what alarmists do now, the temperatures will not be affected:
-Kyoto Proved you are unable to stop CO2 emissions anyway (emissions rose by 30% since 2000
-CO2 has no significant impact on temperatures

But if you do something, the risks are tremendous:
-end of democracy (NWO, Club of Rome)
-end of prosperity (subventions to alternataive fuels from our taxes)
-end of science (Climategate)

The right solution is to invent cheap alternataive technologies (which are competitive without subventions). Then we will be able to:
-maintain science, maintain prosperity, lower CO2 emissions

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

Based on the decision table:

WHAT if you are wrong, Vitzeslav?

Btw. to invent cheap technologies (mass use makes technologies cheap btw and you need pioneers who buy them when still expensive otherwise theres no reason to develop them further. its a simple mechanism you should know) you need also funding.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

Georg: In other words.

Until cheaper fuels are invented, CO2 emissions = prosperity. Low emisions = poverty

Precautionary principle will lead us into poverty NOW. Why? To avoid climate-change-induced poverty later?

It is like cutting your leg off in order to prevent the risk of breaking it later.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

As I said before. I am for funding to science. To inventors. The investments into research will eventually come back. Through patent fees.

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

“It is like cutting your leg off in order to prevent the risk of breaking it later. “

Wrong. Looking at the possible severity its more like breaking your leg to prevent losing it. A broken leg heals though and you’ll be able to walk again after a while.

Fighting climate change will of course cost money and even if those measurements are implemented very wisely there will be a temporary burden for economy. But aburden they can bare in opposite to the burden an unfought climate change may load on them.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

CBA: Cost and benefit analysis

Scenario A:we stop emitting CO2
Prosperity +1
Enviro-problems +5

Scenario B: we keep emitting CO2
Prosperity +10
Enviro-problems +5

CO2 is not the cause of climate change. So stopping CO2 does not stop climate change (warming)

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

Again you’re not able to get the point.

Of course the scenario “We fight the climate change” assumes that CO2 emitted by mankind is a major cause for climate change.

So again you didnt answer the question WHAT IF you are wrong? Or better: WHAT IF the “environemtalists” are right?

Even if I get into your (imo naive) prosperity/enviro-problem scheme, then you should be aware, that each enviro-problems scorepoint matches -5 prosperity point at the same time.

Jack Johnson on 26th November 2009:


Jack Johnson on 26th November 2009:

Get real Vitezslav.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

I have answered to this question in my blog post about dragons:

and here:

You believe every shit some moron tells you? (no offence, please)

I refuse to act without evidence. When the evidence comes, I will be the first one to stand on the baricades of climate change.

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

@Jack Johnson: “Shut up?” You litte wannabe-censor. Don’t you happen to work at CRU too?  Because your urge to silence opposition is so similar to, what the bad guys from Climate gate used to do. Read their e-mails.

Georg Pichler on 26th November 2009:

The problem is, that youre building yourself a vicious circle.

Following your argumentation so far, every evidence of climate change, even the one already measured and felt (increasing number and impact of catastrophies), is not evidence to you.

hence, even if the average tmeperature rises by 4 or more degree and everything the scientists predicted turns out to happen, you’d still say:

“It would have happenend anyway, because theres no human impact on climate change. Its perfectly natural the way it went.”

Now what kind of evidence could ever convince you?

Vitezslav Kremlik on 26th November 2009:

Georg. Wrong.

I wrote several times, what sort of evidence I need. If the warming resumes and goes on for a decade or two in the time of lowering solar activity. After the 1998-2009 cooling. It will be a proof, that the warming is not natural.

The 1980-2000 warming can be explained by natural factors. Jut like the 1998-2009 cooling. No CO2/manmade explanation needed.

Only then it will be the time to search for a non-natural explanation.

This article is archived. Comments are closed.