CO2 Prediction

by Richard on January 27, 2011

It’s true. Both Exxon and BP are predicting that CO2 will continue to rise.

How long will a minority continue to promote the fiction that there is any real doubt about climate change?

More Throbgoblins cartoons…

{ 28 comments… read them below or add one }


doug 01.28.11 at 10:23 pm

funny how those who used to use the term “global warming” are now using the term “climate change”. However, we do know that climate changes every day. Last week in the midwest it was around 20 degrees F for a high while today it was 45 degrees F for a high and a few weeks ago it was 12 degree F for a high. :)


doug 01.28.11 at 10:24 pm

… and last June it was 85 degrees for a high. so on… and so on…


Richard 01.28.11 at 10:59 pm


What you’re describing is weather, Doug. I think it’s possible that the climatologists have come across it.


Kim 01.28.11 at 11:04 pm



Tony Buglass 01.28.11 at 11:49 pm

Doug - we’ve just had the coldest December for about a century. Hard facts, measured in weather stations all over the country. (I bought a new car in early December, and it was after the New Year before the temperature gauge showed a reading above zero) That coldest month was part of the world’s hottest year so far - again, hard facts, measured at weather stations all over the world. It isn’t a straight line on a graph, and it isn’t uniform - it’s an average (like the statistician says, if you have your feet in an oven and your head in the freezer, on average you’re comfortable…); the climate is changing (and that’s not the same as weather, which is relatively superficial), and the planet is generally warming. Playing the terms off against each other really cuts no ice. Especially if it’s melted… :P


doug 01.31.11 at 3:48 pm

and weather is climate changing. Isn’t it? Sounds to me scientists are having a difficultly coming up with a term to use for their underlying reason to support climate change which is “redistribution of wealth” and more money for their grants, studies, etc. to support their continuing predispositions.


doug 01.31.11 at 3:49 pm

…and the weather was way more hotter in the 1600’s than now so how can one say it is “generally warming”? None of this climate change is manmade.


doug 01.31.11 at 3:50 pm

that is why climate change is what we call weather.


Richard 01.31.11 at 4:34 pm

No Doug. The variability of weather is not climate change. And you must know that.

I thought you had integrity than to be rehashing such obvious nonsense as “it’s just a bunch of scientists after research grants”. Honestly, I thought better of you. But if you’re going to go on to say “it’s just communism in disguise” there really is no basis for a conversation because you’re not just on a different planet from me, but living in a different universe.

“…and the weather was way more hotter in the 1600’s than now”
That’s an interesting line. Partly for it’s interesting grammar, but mostly because I thought it was colder in the 1600’s than now. I’ll have to get back on that one.


Tony Buglass 01.31.11 at 5:09 pm

Doug: “and weather is climate changing.”

No. Weather and climate aren’t the same thing. If you like, weather is a symptom of climate. So it is entirely possible for climate change on a warming trend to result in colder weather in certain parts of the world. So, for example, if global warming were to result in the melting of the polar icecap, and the consequent increase in fresh water in the North Atlantic causes the loss or diversion of the Gulf Stream, UK and Western European winters would be very much colder than at present. To compare, I asked an Estonian friend whether being on the edge of the continental landmass gave them a milder climate like ours or whether they had real Russian winters. He said he didn’t know what I meant by ‘real winters’ but they generally averaged about -25 C. I reckoned that was real enough… So global warming would cause colder weather for a lot of people. I suspect there would be similar effects through the changes in the Labrador current, but I haven’t read anything about that.

“None of this climate change is manmade.”

Well, that begs a whole heap of questions, and the jury is still out. What can be said with no doubt whatsoever is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we are producing a heck of a lot more CO2 than a couple of hundred years ago, so there will be some effect on the climate. The debate is how much the observable change is man-made, and how much it is part of the usual swings in the earth’s climate. Nobody can be so dogmatically certain that none of it is anthropogenic. It is highly probable that some of it is, but as to how much, and how reversible it may be, the jury is still out.

The problem is, if we (and your denial in particular) are wrong, the future is truly apocalyptic.


Kim 01.31.11 at 5:23 pm

No Doug. The variability of weather is not climate change. And you must know that.

If he does, he’s a knave, ideologically driven. If he doesn’t he’s a fool, just plain ignorant. He’s got form on both counts, so it’s anyone’s guess.

But to be helpful - the relationship between weather and climate, Doug, is well put with this image: Climate trains the boxer, weather throws the punches. Memorise it. And don’t misbehave again!


doug 02.01.11 at 4:33 pm

I still don’t see how a person can say climate change and weather change aren’t the same. That seems very funny to me. When I was in high school and talked to educated people in the 70’s and even now weather people will say “We will be having a change in climate this week compared with last week”.

Richard, “I thought you had integrity than to be rehashing such obvious nonsense as “it’s just a bunch of scientists after research grants”. Honestly, I thought better of you.” Do you remember the emails about global warming that had incorrect and false data? I thought better of you than you not recognizing all of the false data and propaganda by scientists regarding “global warming”/”climate change”, etc.


Richard 02.01.11 at 4:58 pm

In a nutshell: “Weather is the mix of events that happen each day in our atmosphere including temperature, rainfall and humidity. … Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years.” (Source)

Those emails. You mean ‘Climategate‘? We’ve been over and over that.


doug 02.02.11 at 8:49 pm

Listed below we have PHD Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental organization Greenpeace view on “Global Warming/Climate Change” and Senior Scientist:

Here is a PHD Geologist’s Lee Gerhard Scientist Emeritus from a major University and his view on the subject as well:


Richard 02.02.11 at 9:13 pm

I followed the first link. Found myself on a site which is touting the lie that “global warming stopped in 1998″. Sorry, but I can’t take that seriously. Will the other links be a similar waste of time?


doug 02.02.11 at 10:47 pm

If you read further there are specific quotes by Dr. Patrick Moore: Here is his wikipedia page:


doug 02.02.11 at 10:55 pm

sorry, that was the wrong Patrick Moore: Here is the REAL Patrick Moore:

The others aren’t wastes of time because they are quotes from specific scientists who are experts in their field who do not hold the view of Global Warming.

Do you take the founder of Greenpeace Dr. Patrick Moore seriously? or Dr. Gerhard Scientist Emeritus seriously?


Richard 02.03.11 at 11:06 am

I tried to look at those articles, Doug. There were a lot of broken links, and claims that I know to be false. So no. I don’t take them seriously.


doug 02.03.11 at 4:31 pm

Richard, I see your closed minded to environmental scientists and environmental activist scientists who do not support “global warming”.

Dr. Patrick Moore, Founder of Greenpeace:

Here is a book you ought to read about the above individual:

Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist: is Dr. Patrick Moore’s engaging firsthand account of his many years spent as the ultimate Greenpeace insider, a co-founder and leader in the organization’s top committee. Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to environmentalism. Confessions details Moore’s vision for a more sustainable world. From energy independence to climate change, genetic engineering to aquaculture, Moore sheds new light on some of the most controversial subjects in the news today. In Confessions Moore persuasively argues for us to rethink our conventional wisdom about environment and, in so doing, provides the reader with new ways in which to see the world.

Here is a link to an interview that supports the comments that I have stated before.


Richard 02.03.11 at 5:37 pm

Closed-minded? I’d prefer ‘of a settled mind’. We’ve been talking about this stuff for a long time — long enough for you to know that I’ve encountered most of the ’skeptics’ arguments. There isn’t any point in dragging up old stuff. I’d be interested in anything genuinely new. I’m not very interested in reading regurgitated book blurbs, especially when it isn’t put in quotes.


doug 02.03.11 at 6:12 pm

Richard within the body of the urls I sent ARE quotations in quotes by the the people referenced. I find it interesting that scientists who ARE experts in environmental science and in fact founded Greenpeace, environmental scientists emeritus, etc. who have solid evidence to the contrary of those who support “Global Warming and the like”. I find it interesting that you cannot at least look at or view scientists who happen to used to be “global warming” supports who in light of the evidence are not now. Doesn’t that at least seem intriquing? and if not why. These are not “old stuff” but new from the Founder of Greenpeace and the scientist emeritus of a major University and both ex-global warming/climate change supporters.


Richard 02.03.11 at 8:01 pm

OK Doug. Seeing as it’s you… is a link to a short piece which basically just promotes Moore’s book. The only quote there is ‘global warming is a “natural phenomenon,” [there's v. strong evidence it isn't] there’s no proof of man-made global warming [strictly true, but there's that strong evidence again] … “alarmism” is driving politicians to create bad environmental policies’ [a political statement not a scientific one]. is two years old, and contains nothing new. appers to be old. Many of the links don’t work. The first working link points to a page which begins “Our weather experts don’t seem to be able to accurately predict the weather a few hours hence - and we are going to let them…”. If they don’t understand the difference between weather and climate, it isn’t a site to be taken seriously. (x2) is a link to a wikipedia article about British astonomer (and xylophone player) Sir Patrick Moore, and of no relevance to this conversation. repeats what was in the first link you gave, ie not much.


doug 02.03.11 at 8:34 pm

If you reread my previous post you would see how I corrected myself to the proper Patrick Moore.

Also, much of the body of the posts on the blog have specific quotations with quotes from Patrick Moore. It maybe promoting a book but maybe we all need to read that book? Maybe we all need to be open to other scientists views beside just the onesided global warming hesteria? If one remembers there were global warming scientists who predicted that the children of today would not be able to recognize snow for it would be non-existent. How can we believe global warming when the very scientists who believe in global warming at one time believed that?


doug 02.03.11 at 8:41 pm

Interesting comment in 2000 by a phd in climatologist.


Richard 02.03.11 at 8:47 pm

No. You posted the same link twice. Three times now. Click it and see. The one you meant to post was this one. Life’s too short to read every book that comes out: we have to make judgements about how worthwhile they’ll be. This one doesn’t make my list.


Richard 02.03.11 at 8:59 pm

No one is trying to claim that every prediction made by climate scientists has turned out to be accurate. That would be madness. Nonetheless, despite the hard winters that we’ve experienced recently, the world has continued to warm.


Doug 02.03.11 at 9:25 pm

Richard, but doesn’t past false predictions made by these people make it rational for myself and others to second guess what else they predict or conclude? What if what happens in the future actually gets colder not warmer based on the fact if one looks from 1998 to now the world actually has gotten colder? If that trend continues and people believe the opposite doesn’t that make for a dramatically worse situation? Shouldn’t it also make one second guess global warming and the like when scientists and others who used to believe those things don’t anymore?

I find it very interesting that the founder of Greenpeace is a skeptic on these things. Especially when he at one time wasn’t. Things that make you go hummm.


Adam 06.01.11 at 8:23 am

Patrick Moore is someone I thought moderated after he left Greenpeace. But I think he just moved from one insane position to another. The guy is not very credible, just like Greenpeace is not credible on *most* things (they are credible about diversity loss, clear cutting and overfishing, but that’s about it).

And Doug is either a troll or simple “doesn’t get it”. Maybe after he goes “huummm” he drools some too.

As for taking Global Warming seriously, sorry, politicians don’t care. They just pretend to care but all they really care about is votes. “Green”, like “green party” is just lip-service. Moving off of fossil fuel will only happen because they run out, not because of Climate Change. Funny thing is, any radiation (Cs) emitted by Fukushma will be loooong gone and climate will continue to warm from the coal burnt by Germany (and others) because they didn’t want “nukular”. +20C is probably closer to what it will end up being within 200-300 years.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>