Here’s what REAL climate change looks like


An advertisement in The Australian describes what real climate change looks like.

The ad points out that high CO2 levels in the past (four times higher than now) did not cause dangerous global warming. The ad goes on to connect failed climate models with rising electricity bills.


Excerpt from the ad:

As William Kininmonth, former Head of the National Climate Centre of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has observed, regard for earlier climate events is required to understand the future. It is clear from past Ice Ages that the next Ice Age should be the most serious climate event for humanity. During the Ice Age 22,000 years ago there was extensive permanent ice cover up to two kilometers thick. Sea levels fell 126 metres and there was mass extinction of species.

Let’s face it. An ice age would be a far, far greater threat to humanity than global warming.

See text of entire ad:
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/advert-in-the-australian-describes-what-real-climate-change-looks-like/

See enlarged version of the ad:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/graph/energy/renewables/solar/article-rmorgan_AusHP%20v7-a.gif

Thanks to Don Brown and Laurel for this link


17 thoughts on “Here’s what REAL climate change looks like

  1. first the brave souls in Canada, and now this shot across the bow in Australia. Good job guys! Let’s hope they aren’t under criminal investigation soon. LOL

  2. This is perfect. quick and distinct summary of the minimal affects of CO2 on the environment and the real costs of global activism on people’s lives.

    (I’m going to link this to my favorite skiing forum(TGR) – political board which is highly liberal; they should go nuts).

  3. I really wish people would call it a Glacial Period instead of an Ice Age. We are in an Ice Age now it’s just a brief Warming Period which has done well for man kind! I don’t like the cold which is why I moved to Florida. Hopefully I won’t be around for the next Glacial Period!

    • Raymond, I’m so glad that there are others privy to the fact that we have been in an ice age for over 2.5 million years, with many glaciations and interglacials. All of this willful ignorance makes me shake my head in wonder.

      Anyway, hats off to you for standing up and stating the facts as they really are. You make this physical anthropologist proud.

    • You are Correct Raymond, it seems rather odd that few others can differentiate between the two, especially those who consider themselves “Scientists” ?

      But you are correct, we are experiencing a glacial period !

      FightOn from SoCal

    • Good point. I’m rather new to this, so please pardon my ignorance and attempt to get up to speed.. Am I correct in thinking that this past 10,000 years or so are part of an interglacial? So the so-called “Ice Age” as used in popular parlance, is not correct and that what is called an “Ice Age” is more correctly called a glacial period. right?

  4. both mr Kininmonth and ian Plimer both used to get invited onto ABC radio to speak
    Ian Plimer even got 3? or more Eureka prizes from them
    as soon as they dared NOT be good little sheep and expressed differing views?
    they were not considered acceptable by the very biased science(term is laughable) presenter and producers, in fact they both but Plimer especially is often spoken of in a sneering tone as one of the antiscience ones
    funny a man whos emeritus professor and well respected described as of no account?
    shows how low we have gotten here.;-(

  5. Good Gracious !!! Someone with cash to post a thoughtful well written warning…and good timing as the southern hemisphere is entering the last of winter/early spring.
    However in other news, we have the world nut cases doing their best to bring on permanent winter. At least WHEN the natural forces bring on generations of permanent cold, the resulting ice wont be poisoned with nuclear fall out.

  6. Immediately above the graph the text reads – “Nonetheless accepting the outcome of failed climate models …”

    The title of the graph reads –

    “Results derived for US standard atmosphere and cloudless sky by MODTRAN, an internationally accepted standard for atmospheric calculations.”

    So this “evidence” is nothing more than another MODEL – it is equally likely CO2 has ZERO radiative contribution at the surface.

    And to top it off the authors include a photo the likes of which the vast majority of Australians have NEVER experienced and likely NEVER WILL !!

    The photo is obviously city traffic and there is not any Australian city where such a photograph has been taken.

    Personally I think tactics like this are stupid especially as Australia enters a potentially dry summer.

    The scum at SkepticalScience must be rolling on the floor laughing about the glorious opportunity for further derision driven misleading this presents.

  7. This is what always got me about the arguments pro-global warming. I do know that before other ice ages began, the temperatures and CO2 levels were higher than they are currently. I was always of the opinion that when you saw those conditions it was time to consider if another ice age is on the way. I believe that we are on the way to at least a little ice age, if not a full-blown ice age. I am glad to see this group speaking up.

  8. Solar energy in at the poles … it seems … would force atmospheric mixing between the polar regions and the tropics; would it not? The atmospheric mixing presenting as tumultuous weather dynamics at times. Energy in at the poles … radiated out by the planet mostly at the equator … mostly between the Tropic lines North and South … so heating up in the tropics? That energy radiating out … heating the water in the oceans … hurricanes more prone to develop?

Comments are closed.