Skip to content

The Guardian’s “100 Months To Save The World” – Part II

October 3, 2016

By Paul Homewood




According to the Guardian’s Andrew Simms, we are two months away from reaching a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change.


So, how much has the world’s climate changed since 2008?



Atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the last eighteen years:






Arctic sea ice extent in September has remained stable:




Winter Arctic ice extent has barely changed since 2005:




Antarctic sea ice has been growing rapidly: (note that data since April is spurious, due to satellite problems).





And global sea ice is also stable:


Hurricanes keep on doing what hurricanes do:




Tornadoes remain at historically low levels:





Major droughts in the US are a thing of the past:





And the same in Australia:





In short, far from climate catastrophe, people would be excused for not noticing any change at all the the Earth’s climate.

Meanwhile, all of that extra CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to a remarkable greening of the world: 



And global food production continues to rise in leaps and bounds:






All in all, the world is in a remarkably good place at the moment. It certainly won’t be, if you take away fossil fuel.

  1. AlecM permalink
    October 3, 2016 12:05 pm

    The man’s not only a Fool but a Damned Fool.

    The Dam is breaking: the basic errors dating back to 1976 (and before that) which created the Climate Alchemy fraud are being exposed. However, 1976 is key because following the 1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ conference that called for science to be subverted to create the CO2 scare, a set of then young researchers sold their souls for quick advancement and fame, knowing they would be supported politically and with the research funding.

    Thus it was that by 1990, real scientists like Hubert Lamb were being replaced by a second generation of shysters.

  2. DreadUK permalink
    October 3, 2016 1:06 pm

    And from that article I quote verbatim:

    “The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere today, the most prevalent greenhouse gas,……………”

    I couldn’t read any further!

    I hope the idiot handed back any money he earned from that stupid article. If not I’m going to concoct a bizarre scare story and approach the Guardian, because the editors must be mugs.

    • AlecM permalink
      October 3, 2016 1:29 pm

      Agreed: Simms is a Damned Fool for making that simple error. Water vapour is 25 times more prevalent in the lower atmosphere, and controls climate. CO2 has a minor effect kept near zero by the water cycle and the peculiar self-absorption characteristics of some H2O IR bands.

  3. CheshireRed permalink
    October 3, 2016 1:46 pm

    The likes of the Guardian constantly project claims of a ‘climate crisis’. The truth is there’s NO climate crisis whatsoever. They know this full well. They’re lying and they know they’re lying.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      October 3, 2016 7:25 pm

      I think you underrate their gullibility and overrate their ability to think rationally. There is a small section of the population who think that they are destined to save the world, therefore there must be a threat that they can stop.
      The drawback is that if there was a threat then these would be the last people you would want trying to solve it.

  4. Jackington permalink
    October 3, 2016 2:06 pm

    And from the same stable G.Monbiot: “No fracking or drilling: it’s the only way to save life on earth”.

  5. Kelvin Vaughan permalink
    October 3, 2016 5:33 pm

    What we are witnessing is not the death of a planet but the death of news papers.

  6. tom0mason permalink
    October 3, 2016 6:51 pm

    Obviously to the complacently ignorant Green activist all your graphs can only spell CATASTROPHE! For they know everything must get worst from this point onwards.

    Some people are psychologically inclined to guiltily believe it is all our fault.

  7. October 3, 2016 9:08 pm

    How many time in the last thirty years have they drawn a line in the sand. Even Chicken Little is getting tired of the Bullony.

  8. October 3, 2016 9:47 pm

    It’s the opposite of ‘free beer tomorrow’ i.e. ‘meltdown and catastrophe tomorrow’.
    Give us a break Simmsy, write about something you understand.

  9. John F. Hultquist permalink
    October 4, 2016 2:36 am

    Just want folks to be aware of this: When you see CAGW types jump on news of wildfires, be prepared. It is not really about climate change.

    The statement that CO2 helps plants grow and “green the world”, while true, has a dark underside.
    We went to a presentation on Thursday evening about wildfire in the Western USA. The term “megafire” is used. Here’s why:
    Prior to settlement by Europeans there were two sources of fire on the landscape. Lightening and Natives set fire. Nature could put the fires out. Natives learned to live with this, setting fires in spring and fall when the burn rate was slow. The advantages to fire included helping the growth of food plants and depressing very large hot fires – megafires. Natives lost these lands in sometimes slow and sometimes fast processes – another story.
    White settlers and, then in the early 1900s, the government began to put out fires and learned how to do so.
    For about 100 years, especially the last 50 or 60, fire suppression has been very successful. The landscape has been filling with trees and low woody plants. These grow, die, and produce fuel. The extra CO2 helps the growth. Meanwhile the forest products industry has declined.

    The presentation we witnessed included a small amount of climate change comments but not enough to destroy the message. That being that the landscape is growing increasingly prone to big hot destructive fires and top political types are ignoring the issue.

    A problem, also, is that homes are being built in the wildland – urban interface (the WUI — woo-E) where it is either impossible to protect or very costly to protect from a wildfire.

    When you see CAGW types jump on news of wildfires, be prepared. It is not really about climate change.

    • Graeme No.3 permalink
      October 4, 2016 3:08 am

      This isn’t news in Australia. Our trees – eucalypts – are very flammable and recover well from fires because the native inhabitants had set small clearing fires for thousands of years. Despite this being widely known we’ve had disastrous fires because people opposed any fuel reduction, and built houses among the trees, and officialdom backed them. The last major loss of life was in 2009 when a lot of the State of Victoria went up, with 173 lives lost.
      One town was destroyed except for one house; the owner had cleared all trees and bushes near his house and had been promptly charged and fined over $50,000 for doing so by the Council withthe strong approval of his neighbours. After the fire raged the Council realised they would become a laughing stock and cancelled the fine, but that didn’t save the lives of many of his neighbours.
      Since then Governments have been keen to have controlled fires in spring to clear undergrowth and debris buildup. With the wet weather still on-going this year there is an enhanced buildup which cannot yet be burnt. A hot dry summer will bring trouble. A cool (and wet) summer will postpone the trouble for 12 months, and there will be some who will have forgotten about the danger and take no precautions.

    • October 10, 2016 4:08 pm

      Just to add to what Hultquist said about wildfires – exactly the same happened in Italy in late Roman times. The original Apennine farmers kept a nanny goat to provide enough to supply the needs of their family for milk and cheese – self sufficiency. Later on, impoverishment of the small farmer led to amalgamation of land use, and the introduction of cows, to yield more milk, and more cheese, to be sold into the city. Made commercial sense. But the goats ate up the undergrowth between the trees, and the cows did not: so there grew a mass of vegetation, that then died and dried, and when, rarely but inevitably in the long run a fire started, it ravaged the entire mountain forests, with loss of topsoil to follow.

  10. October 9, 2016 1:21 pm

    Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
    Detailed demolition of the Guardian’s alarmist propaganda piece 8 years ago, “100 Months To Save The World” ….

  11. October 27, 2016 3:32 am

    I have a suspicion that the Industrial Revolution is not only responsible for a loss in the planet’s ability to _get rid of_ solar energy as fast as the oceans are receiving it, but also the fact that the human population has more than doubled since 1962, when the USSR, USA, and Cuba came within a single man’s vote away from anything between 10% and 199% annihilation of civilization.
    His name was Vasili Arkhipov, and he had a one man in three veto upon the launching of a nuclear torpedo at the US flagship. The other two, the submarine being out of communication with the Kremlin, reckoned erroneously that WW III had started already. depth charges were exploding just far enough away to mean “we know you are there”.
    Nuclear annihilation is now only the third worst threat to humanity and the biosphere, but fear of it in 1962 was by no means hysteria.
    The first tow threats are human overpopulation, and the reckless rate at which we are reversing the effects of the 60 million years called the Carboniferous period.
    Quite possibly the fanatics who take literally the Hebrew Scripture, the Greek “Gospels” and “Revelation”, and the Qur’an, outrank the continued existence of nuclear weapons as a menace.

  12. October 27, 2016 3:58 am

    Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Al Gore himself recognises how serious his “Inconvenient Truth” is.
    If the entire world cut its emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and carbon tetrahydride (CH4) in half tomorrow, it would NOT immediately cut the rate of global warming in half, or even at all.
    By the same token. halving your nation’s annual deficit does not reduce its total national debt. If cuts in half the rate at which the debt is growing.
    CH4 is far worse than CO2, but evanescent –its other correct name is methane, and is lovingly called “clean natural gas” by folk who think “natural” radiation is harmless.
    I knew and lament a fried who died of the effects of cancer, caused by the relatively mild natural solar radiation called ultraviolet.
    But humans, animals, even grass and trees, have evolved in the presence of thousands of becquerels of internal radiation from potassium 40, a very long lived component of all natural potassium. That’s the element that fruit trees need for a good crop.
    Ten becquerels is ten radioactive atomic decays per second. There are Avogadro’s number of molecules of water in 18 grams of water. That number is slightly more than six followed by 23 zeroes. So when you read about trillions of becquerels of radioactivity, it may be coming from a remarkably small percentage of the “deadly” and “unnatural” element.


  1. Start up: trolling Wikileaks, Apple car slows, Obama on Silicon Valley, is Google AMP your friend?, and more | The Overspill: when there's more that I want to say

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: