About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Senators Fiddle While Deep Ocean Temperatures Rise

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

Source: League of Women Voters

The latest evidence that average temperatures are increasing around the globe comes from the deepest parts of the ocean, Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University told a Senate committee hearing on climate change on Wednesday. (His ten-minute testimony begins just after the 126 minute mark and is well worth a listen.)  As it happens, what to do about climate change is the second of 14 questions that is asking President Barack Obama and likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney to answer as part of a quest to get more discussion about science and scientific issues in the run-up to this year’s U.S. elections.

Scientific American is a partner in this quest because we believe that most of the current challenges, threats and opportunities that the U.S. faces require a better grasp of some key scientific question or research field. I posted the full set of question here and will be looking more closely at the questions one by one each week from now through mid-October. Then my colleagues and I will grade the presidential candidates on all 14 science-related questions and rank the positions of various key Congressional leaders on a sub-set of eight of those questions.

As a newcomer to reporting on climate change (I usually cover health and medicine), I was particularly struck by McCarthy’s presentation on deep-ocean temperatures. There is so much water in the oceans, which cover so much of the word at an average depth of 12,000 feet, he told the committee, that the deepest parts are extremely well insulated from any transient temperature changes at the surface. As decades and even in some cases more than 100 years of data show, water temperature does not usually vary much in the deepest parts of the ocean.

Over the past ten years, however, the average temperature of even this deepest water has started to rise. Given that the deep ocean is so well protected from the kinds of measuring problems that can confound temperature results on land, the deep water trend provides some of the best evidence to date that average temperatures on the Earth are climbing.

“There is no debate that the earth’s temperature is increasing,” McCarthy concluded. “Over the last half century the atmosphere, land surface, ocean surface and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions have all confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases.  There is no scientific evidence that refutes this conclusion.” (Download McCarthy’s prepared remarks here.)

Unfortunately the Senators engaged in pointless political debate rather than grappling with the bitter reality of global warming, how we might mitigate its impact and how we can do it in a way that is fair to the many citizens of the poorest parts of the world who haven’t yet had the opportunity to grow their economies without counting the cost to the planet or our collective future.

Below is the question on climate change that we are asking our political leaders and those who would govern us. I look forward to reading and responding to your comments.

Question #2 Climate Change. The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change—and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?

Update (Sept. 5, 2012): Click to see the answers to the top 14 science questions from Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama.

Election 2012 button used under Creative Commons license BY 2.0.


About the Author: Christine Gorman is the editor in charge of health and medicine features for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. Follow on Twitter @cgorman.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 43 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. ribguy 2:25 pm 08/3/2012

    Republican Science is out of control.

    Link to this
  2. 2. drafter 3:58 pm 08/3/2012

    Answer to Question #2
    Ignoring that there is no proof that a warmer planet will be of any harm. Requiring a Cap and trade system will only harm the industries that may actually find a solution to CO2 levels. Free market advances have always been the fastest way to any solution, Taxes only slow that progress down and harm more people then they help.

    Link to this
  3. 3. priddseren 4:02 pm 08/3/2012

    Yet more nonsense. The idiotic computer models didnt even have the deep ocean programmed in until a few months ago, when the warmists predictions for warming of the last 10 years did not happen. So they rigged the models and decided it must be in the deep ocean. Then miraculously they have 100 years of deep ocean temperature data? The last SA article on this, they was no data, now there is and we are expected to believe somehow the humans living 100 years ago had some method to measure the deepest parts of the ocean and get enough data to have any kind of meaning? Even if this were all true and possible, a few months ago science knows almost nothing about deep ocean interaction with heat in the atmosphere and now everyone is an expert and we know it all? What a load of nonsense.

    Then the claim there is no evidence refuting the theory about the deep ocean trapping heat or having risen in temperature? Science is about what you can prove, not posting theories and assuming they are right when no evidence refuting the theory exists.

    By the way, where are the links to any sort of experiments or tests in the deep ocean that prove this theory?

    All we have is someone’s speech to politicians where he claims the planet is warming(no actual evidence this is actually bad for humans) various temperatures at the surface, ice melts and the deep ocean are all proof(implying it has never ever happened before) and somehow CO2 the cause of all of it. Implying both CO2 is a toxin and somehow unnatural and that there is no other possible reason or combination of reasons. No links to anything proving it, just statements that declare fact as if he is talking about believing in a deity.

    And the complaint here is senators fiddle while deep ocean temps rise? Maybe the moron politicians were fiddling because there is nothing here to talk about. Even the senators are bright enough to know when they are listening to bullS*** and know taking action on this nonsense serves no purpose.

    Link to this
  4. 4. krohleder 4:03 pm 08/3/2012

    While the earth burns and massive drought hit the our core agricultural land, while the global economy tries to fend off massive debt and collapse; we are focused on things like the Chick-fil-a debate. Our carefully selected leaders, who are filtered out of the best and brightest (trying not to laugh), should at least rise above the nonsense and tackle the important issues. Forgive me if I am skeptical or even cynical, but issues of climate change are most likely the furthest thing from their agenda.

    Link to this
  5. 5. the Gaul 4:23 pm 08/3/2012

    Ignoring that drafter is a plant, and that prid is just plain ignorant, absolutely no doubt exists that whatever this Congress finally chooses to address climate change will ONLY benefit the already wealthy few. [and NOT solve the problem] The “tipping point” has been passed. Adaptation is going to be the only way forward.

    But no matter, as the article pointed out – with U.S. science and math scores ranking near the bottom, it’s not as though anyone understands what needs to be done. Further, even if they did, they would be incapable of devising any solutions. Why do you think there are so many H1Bs? Meanwhile, drafter and prid cheer us on to the bottom.

    Link to this
  6. 6. krohleder 4:25 pm 08/3/2012

    priddseren, Computer models assist in the total theory and supplement the multiple lines of evidence. Computer models, in and of themselves, are not the core evidence. We have millions of years of temperature data for example via ice cores. Have you ever looked into that one aspect?

    Anyway a critical thinker would realize, even if they had no understanding of science, that the likelihood that almost every scientist on the planet being in on some kind of massive multi-billion dollar hoax for only millions of dollars of payout is beyond reasonable. So every scientist including, Christian scientists, Muslim scientists, Republican scientists, Democratic scientists, oil company scientists, countries without grant money scientists, and many other human beings with complex beliefs who are scientists, all came together to trick not only everyone who does not know about how science works but also those who would be able to see though the charade? And the only people who are not tricked are the scientific illiterate who happen to be pro conservative, big oil, or right winged libertarian? And we do not question the oil companies blatant disinformation campaign, the ones who do have a real unified agenda? We just ignore that explanation all together?

    So we are supposed to be convinced by you, and Internet commenter that misuses scientific principles, and logic: over Scientific evidence and reason? You are asking us to accept Ideologically driven Internet commenters over the Scientists and educated? Really?

    Link to this
  7. 7. Gaspar_Ramsey 4:34 pm 08/3/2012

    @pridddseren “A primary measure of (past) ocean water
    temperatures lies in the chemical analysis of
    calcite shells of marine organisms called
    foraminifera.” http:\\…/mitrie_sediment_marine.doc
    Perhaps if you knew a little science, you could understand that indirect methods are often used to reconstruct past events. And simply asserting that you have not seen evidence does not mean there is no evidence, but merely means that you have not taken the time or trouble to educate yourself on matters which you deign to have an opinion. You are the problem, and people like you. Please go learn some science before you sound off on things about which you know nothing.

    Link to this
  8. 8. geojellyroll 5:01 pm 08/3/2012

    Scintific American…get out of politics!!!!

    Carbon taxes, cap and trade…blah,blah…blah.

    If someone wnats to get NOTHING done for the environment, politicize issues

    Link to this
  9. 9. geojellyroll 5:04 pm 08/3/2012

    “Scientific American is a partner in this quest because we believe that most of the current challenges, threats and opportunities that the U.S. faces require a better grasp of some key scientific question or research field.”

    hint…nobody gives a damn what Scienctific American is a partner of. This has ZILCH impact on anything. It’s like promoting motherhood and apple pie.

    Link to this
  10. 10. krohleder 5:10 pm 08/3/2012

    geojellyroll, Science encompasses everything including politics. Furthermore climate change is not even in the realm of politics. Carbon taxes, cap and trade is a solution that not every scientists necessarily supports. Equating a political strategy with Scientific American in general is not justified.
    Also scientists did not politicize this issue; it was key members of our congress. (and people like yourself perhaps).

    Get used to climate change being front and center for the next 100 years. Science follows evidence and consequently reality.

    Link to this
  11. 11. Anne Ominous 5:13 pm 08/3/2012

    McCarthy’s only credible evidence of ANYTHING is that ocean temperatures have been rising. We already knew that temperatures have been rising… they were for decades.

    However: (this is Scientific American, after all) he offers NO evidence — even the slightest shred — that there is any connection between this and CO2. He makes a bald statement to that effect, but offers no evidence.

    Therefore, his testimony on this particular issue carries very little weight.

    Link to this
  12. 12. krohleder 5:14 pm 08/3/2012

    geojellyroll , Your quote – “hint…nobody gives a damn what Scienctific American is a partner of. This has ZILCH impact on anything. It’s like promoting motherhood and apple pie.”

    If you believe that then you have no reason being here and posting. You are literally wasting your own time via your own logic.

    Link to this
  13. 13. Anne Ominous 5:16 pm 08/3/2012


    You could probably take a few lessons from science, yourself. Proxies are not MEASUREMENTS. They are estimates based on indirect data, and are prone to outside influences.

    To equate proxies with actual measurements is disingenuous in the extreme. Shame.

    Link to this
  14. 14. frankblank 5:29 pm 08/3/2012

    The denial crowd here has not yet reacted to the fact that one of the chief deniers, one with actual scientific credentials, has recanted and reversed his position of denial.

    But that aside, what it is necessary to know that there can be no action on this issue until:
    1. Even more varieties of corporate crime are legal.
    2. The top ten percent possess 90% of the US’s income and assets.
    3. Gays have no access to their constitutional rights.
    4. Conservative men assume their god-given roles as heads of the family, commanders in chief of women, and Dictators of American Morals.
    5. And Willard gets his desperately needed tax reduction, along with a bigger deduction for Ann’s hobby horse.

    Link to this
  15. 15. krohleder 5:32 pm 08/3/2012

    From satellite observations, it has been observed that sea levels worldwide have risen at a pace of 2.95 mm every year since 1993. This exceeds the prediction from just ice melting. The Meteorological Agency claims that about one-third of the rise, or about 0.88 mm, can be to thermal expansion by increases in seawater temperatures up to 700 meters deep. Although data have been acquired since the 1950′s we still need more research done in this area I think.

    Link to this
  16. 16. geojellyroll 9:37 pm 08/3/2012


    “Therefore, his testimony on this particular issue carries very little weight’

    So true. It’s not science but speculations and then it becomes politics driven by an agenda based on specualtion. This is suppose to panic senators to do exactly what?….let alone matter a hill of beans to China, India, indonesia, Brazil, etc.

    Link to this
  17. 17. geojellyroll 9:43 pm 08/3/2012

    “What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change”?

    they are all useless crap…that’s what most in the US Senate have decided and neither Demos or Reps will be so stupid to add energy taxes to even further increase cost of production vis a vis China, India, etc.

    Link to this
  18. 18. sbrowne 11:00 pm 08/3/2012

    For Priddseren to claim the climate has not warmed in the past 10 years indicates to me he reads the deniers false propaganda. There is plenty of it out there. Fact is the years 2000-2012 have been the warmest on record. Warmer than the 1990s which were warmer than the 80s which were warmers than the 70s. Glaciers are melting; the ice cap is melting; sea levels are rising; ice in dates are later; ice out dates are earlier; we are seeing more Cat. 4 and 5 hurricanes; more intense droughts; more intense floods; lots of record highs; fewer record lows. All of these were predicted by climate scientists decades ago.

    Very telling is the fact that the Koch brothers hired well known denier Richard Muller to disprove the warming. Muller and his scientists pored over billions of data sets and what did they find? Ooops the climate has warmed about 1.6°in the last century. Muller changed from denier to global warming believer.

    1.6°F may seem small but keep in mind but that means the atmosphere can hold about 8% more water. That explains severe flood/drought cycles we are witnessing.

    Link to this
  19. 19. jimmywat 12:54 am 08/4/2012

    Deep ocean temperatures are rising due to underwater volcanic activity, not men. The air cannot touch the deep ocean regions. They are finding more and more underwater volcanoes all the time. They represent 90% of all volcanoes

    Link to this
  20. 20. Trent1492 2:08 am 08/4/2012


    Why do you clowns think that making unsubstantiated claims are the same as fact?

    >The air cannot touch the deep ocean regions.<

    We are talking about heat.

    Link to this
  21. 21. sbrowne 5:28 am 08/4/2012

    Our CO2 emissions are changing the chemistry of the entire planet. (This has never happened before in the history of our planet, ever). The chemistry of the atmosphere, the oceans, all of it.
    CO2 content of the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm to nearly 400 ppm and climbing. CO2 accounts for 75% of the greenhouse gas* in the atmosphere (*Besides water vapor and water vapor is increasing quickly too)
    Bottom line is this is not political it is science. Some political parties always believe “we need to tax that”.
    I went solar. My summer electric bill went from $200 to $40 per month. Lots of AC here in Texas. It was the best investment ever. No taxes either.

    Link to this
  22. 22. G. Karst 10:09 am 08/4/2012

    krohleder 4:25 pm 08/3/2012 challenges:

    “We have millions of years of temperature data for example via ice cores. Have you ever looked into that one aspect?”

    Yes, and the one unambiguous fact that emerges is that temperatures lead CO2. It is therefore impossible that CO2 is the causative factor in increasing temperatures. First global temperatures rise – this causes CO2 degasification mainly from the oceans.

    Is this what you wanted us to observe or do you have the cart in front of the horse?? GK

    Link to this
  23. 23. G. Karst 10:33 am 08/4/2012

    sbrowne declares:

    “Our CO2 emissions are changing the chemistry of the entire planet. (This has never happened before in the history of our planet, ever).”

    Good God sbrowne, study up on some palentology:

    Where is the CO2 drawing straight lines and where do you find correlation?? GK

    Link to this
  24. 24. kphuser1 12:33 pm 08/4/2012

    “Free market advances have always been the fastest way to any solution” Converting the environment into liquid capital has been the problem, not the solution.

    Link to this
  25. 25. evosburgh 1:19 pm 08/4/2012

    18. sbrowne: could you spout any more unsubstantiated nonsense in one thought? So for the past 100 years (or so) it appears to have been getting warmer in what has been a 2000 year downtrend and it has been reported that the orbital forcing cause 4 times the forcing of CO2. Since that cooling for the past 2000 years appears to be related to orbital forcing maybe we should attempt to keep the Earth’s orbit stable. Nonsense you say well nonsense (or at least unsupported scientific conclusion) that there is any increase in hurricane strength melting glaciers (let us not forget that silly 150 year Greenland cycle that keeps getting swept under the rug).

    Link to this
  26. 26. evosburgh 1:24 pm 08/4/2012

    21. sbrowne : SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?!?!

    You need to read some more about the CO2 levels in Earth’s history before making such outrageous claims. I would be interested to hear the source of your information. I am reasonably certain that atmospheric CO2 has been found, thorough research, to have been in the thousands of ppm in Earth’s atmosphere. While I am sure you will be shocked by this information it turns out that the climate system has gone on after such ‘catastrophic’ levels of CO2. Maybe we should just go ahead and plug all of those nasty volcanoes (and really the mean super volcanoes) along with each and every other source of CO2 and then maybe we can stop this horror! Darn it I forgot, plants need CO2 so I guess that we are screwed because if we cut off the CO2 then we kill the plants and then no more oxygen!?!

    Link to this
  27. 27. sbrowne 2:53 am 08/5/2012

    I stand 100% by what I stated. Every fact was true. For the first time in this earth’s history humans are changing the chemistry of this entire planet. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything. We have thousands of years of ice core samples to verify that. If you think we do not, you are mistaken.

    Link to this
  28. 28. Cramer 12:42 pm 08/5/2012

    Evosburgh and Karst are using a fallicious argument of indeterminate PRONOUN ANTECEDENTS. sbrowne’s antecedent was not indeterminate, however.

    This is how deniers operate (aka right wingers). They have no real argument so they have to twist your words. This is exactly the same as the “they didn’t build that” attack on Obama by Romney. Don’t know how to counter this — it would be very cumbersome to communicate without using pronouns such as this or that. Hopefully reasonable open-minded people recognize this as a simple lie (and the right wingers can believe what they want).

    G. Karst gave a link to the 4.6 billion year history of CO2 concentration. I guess he is arguing that “[human] CO2 emissions [have changed] the chemistry of the entire planet” over the past 4.6 billion years.

    Link to this
  29. 29. Martin Wirth 3:06 pm 08/5/2012

    The pied piper of global warming denial, Richard Muller, collected every available temperature measurement and recanted. He finally admits that the Earth is getting warmer that humans are causing it with carbon dioxide emissions.

    That doesn’t mean that global warming deniers are going to quit polluting science message boards with nonsense. If the Pope converted to Islam, there would still be Roman Catholics.

    What we know about the cause of atmospheric global warming may inform us as to the cause of deep ocean warming. There are probably a number of force factors involved such as thermal conductance, currents, and the acidification of oceans by higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Acidification usually causes an exothermic reaction. Lower pH surface waters mixing with higher pH deep waters may generate enough chemical heat to increase the temperature.

    We talk about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in terms of parts per million, so we’ve gone from 280-ppm to nearly 400-ppm now. These numbers are fairly meaningless to uneducated trolls or politicians collecting bribes from coal and oil corporations. They think: what’s the big deal with a mere 120 parts in a million?

    Maybe we should talk in terms of gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere. A gigaton of carbon can do a lot of damage when it’s in the wrong place in the wrong form. Toss a gigaton of carbon into some water in the form of carbon dioxide to drop the pH and you see a tremendous load of heat being generated from the exothermic reaction.

    If they still don’t understand, take a ton of carbon compacted into a cube and drop on it them.

    Link to this
  30. 30. sbrowne 7:53 pm 08/5/2012

    G. Karst and evosburgh are typical deniers. They took my statement and twisted it into something unrecognizable. The statement was, for the first time in the history of this planet humans are changing it’s chemistry. The atmosphere, the oceans, everything.

    The deniers are becoming more shrill every year. Next argument will be that its the volcanoes. Seriously? Volcanoes have been around since the beginning of time and the earth’s biosphere came into balance with that fact stabilizing CO2 levels around 280 ppm. Now its 400 ppm and rising. The answer why it rising is obvious. We are dumping over 30 billion tons of it into the atmosphere every year.

    Next argument is it’s cows flatulence. Really? Methane levels are less than 2 ppm and even though methane is a stronger greenhouse gas by 20 times it is still less than 10% the influence of CO2. And before cows there were thundering herds of Buffalo.

    Next, it’s just democrats that believe in Global Warming. Mitt Romney stated it correctly. The CEO of Exxon/Mobil got it right too. I know Mitt is not a democrat.

    I meant what I said. I said what I meant. I stand behind it 100 per cent.

    Link to this
  31. 31. Bops 9:17 pm 08/5/2012

    Ok, lets just tax companies for the amount of pollution they don’t clean up.
    Tax Dirty Companies.

    Link to this
  32. 32. just wondering 3:14 pm 08/6/2012

    When I am in an air-conditioned room with 50 people and the temperature is pleasant; and then half the people leave, the room gets cold. Isn’t the converse true? Since 1980, the population of the world has doubled. More people, more emissions, more cutting of rainforests, more of everything. Doesn’t that in large part contribute to global warming?

    Link to this
  33. 33. kienhua68 12:14 am 08/7/2012

    With rare exception, politics and politicians are
    pretty much ignorant of science as it applies to
    large changes such as climate.
    After all when was the last time we elected a president
    based on his science knowledge?
    The President has a greater chance of understanding current climate issues than the opposition could even
    come close to.

    Link to this
  34. 34. G. Karst 11:29 am 08/8/2012

    Martin Wirth advises: “If they still don’t understand, take a ton of carbon compacted into a cube and drop on it them.”

    You are going to have to suck a lot of 393.48 ppm atmosphere, to get a ton of carbon, but hey, I’ll take all the carbon cubes you can drop off. Not only will it heat my farmhouse all winter, but any left over, can be plowed into the farmland, for improved soil. My answer is “more please”. GK

    Link to this
  35. 35. delspace 1:19 pm 08/8/2012

    By comparing the USGS estimates of all volcanic emissions of CO2, including the majority from underwater volcanoes, with the human release of fossil carbon and CO2 from cement production, we know that humans are releasing more than 100 times the CO2 from volcanoes annually. The estimates for CO2 from just electric production can be checked by working back form the worldwide production of electricity. Doing this gives about 10 billion tonnes of carbon emissions. The rest of the 30 billion tonnes comes largely from cement, heating, cooking, and transportation. Volcanoes are not the problem, we are. For the effects of massive super volcanoes, there was a small article on the effects following such an eruption that suggested that the climate warmed for 5-7 million years, meting the poles, raising sea level by 200 feet. This is what awaits we humans by following the deniers plans of drill and burn. How do the deniers plan to pay for the loss of many hundreds of trillions of dollars in infrastructure when the coastal cities (and most of Florida) are inundated? What about the billions of people who will die, just so oil and coal companies can continue to make $$ while the climate is destroyed? The earth will survive despite us, but will probably purge us in the process.

    Link to this
  36. 36. delspace 1:30 pm 08/8/2012

    One more comment. Climate change has enormous positive feedback systems. These include larger concentrations of water vapor with increasing temps, melting of ice that normally reflects most solar energy where it exists, and release of large methane deposits from tundra and deep ocean clathrates, to name a few. Why is this important? Positive feedback systems will change exponentially with large positive feedback. The fact that the linear projections of the rate of change in temps and sea levels have been consistently lower than what has been measured is suggestive that we live in a climate system that is changing exponentially. If this is true, the earth’s climate will change much more rapidly than we expect and stabilize at a temperature that will lead to massive extinctions, as the earlier super volcanoes did.

    Link to this
  37. 37. Fanandala 11:55 am 08/9/2012

    To change the temperature of the deep oceans takes hundreds maybe thousands of years. That is why they are very effective in balancing surface temperature on earth.

    Link to this
  38. 38. delspace 2:07 pm 08/9/2012

    One of the main points of McCarthy’s presentation is that the Argo Float Data on deep water temperatures shows that the deep water ocean temp has been rising. The polar oceans have seen larger temperature changes and this is precisely where the methane clathrates are stored. Release of these large stores of methane will be a major turning point in climate change that will be disastrous.

    Link to this
  39. 39. KJM 6:13 pm 08/9/2012

    C G these are extremely low pickings.

    Link to this
  40. 40. Unksoldr 12:39 am 08/10/2012

    There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion…. Lord Acton

    Wait and see.

    Link to this
  41. 41. delspace 8:07 pm 08/11/2012

    wait and see is the last thing that is needed to stop global warming!!!

    Link to this
  42. 42. Quinn the Eskimo 7:42 pm 08/12/2012

    What do you expect the senators to *do*?

    In fact, given $8 Trillion, what can UCLA DO about it?

    GE is already working on a nuclear powered ice maker for Hawaii. What, and be specific, do you suggest we do to cool the DEEP OCEAN?

    Link to this
  43. 43. G. Karst 11:29 am 08/14/2012

    delspace spews:

    “What about the billions of people who will die, just so oil and coal companies can continue to make $$ while the climate is destroyed?”

    What would the point be to make $$, if the world is depopulated. Can silliness get any sillier.

    Has it not occurred to you that these energy experts may know something you don’t. These corporations consist entirely of mothers and fathers, who love their children, just like you. They do not want their children growing up in a workers paradise like North Korea, on your say so.

    Just because you really, really, really believe and have faith in something, doesn’t mean there is one iota of truth contained therein.

    Not a single individual, has ever been documented, as being a fatality of Anthropogenic GW. Warmists also declared, by 2012 there would be millions and millions of climate refugees… Can I ask where all the bodies are hidden or are you just spewing alarm for kicks?? Get real, for once in your existence, as a deafening Klaxon.

    There may be catastrophe ahead (might even be probable), but it will have nothing to do with CO2. Our nearest star’s perturbations, still warrant our attention, as well as a myriad of other dangers. GK

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article