Media interest in global warming appears to have declined somewhat after it had peaked in 2009 when the UN Copenhagen Conference was held.  Except for a spike before and after the UN Paris conference in November, the graphs below show a declining number of news articles on the subject.

World Newspapers AGW Click to enlarge

World Newspapers 
Click to enlarge

Aust Newspapers on GW Click to enlarge

Aust Newspapers 
Click to enlarge

Limited Coverage Japan Click to enlarge

Limited Coverage 
Click to enlarge

The diminishing media interest appears to correlate with the majority of public opinion who now agree the planet is warming but believe it is a natural phenomenon.  The IPCC policy of exaggerating the consequences of global warming and blaming mankind, appear to have backfired. In an attempt to get the world’s attention its advocates have been competing with each other on who

can come up with the most dire of outcomes.. e.g. Melted polar ice caps, polar bear extinction, major cities inundated and Australia’s dams will never fill again etc etc .

The following is an excerpt alleged to have come from a IPCC document justifying its policy “Our key result– that over pessimism alleviates the under participation problem–implies that the propaganda of climate skepticism may be detrimental to society”

When asked to explain why 48 of the last 100 years showed no warming at all the IPCC explained that the world had been gradually warming throughout the century and the  long “pauses”, when land temperatures readings were stable, was because heating was being absorbed deep into the oceans.

David of Doncaster sent us the following excerpt from an IPCC document.

Section 14 2.2.2. 2001 IPCC assessment report 

In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.

“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present and is gravely to be regarded”.
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite”…. Dwight Eisenhower

There was the Global Cooling scare in the seventies which was perpetrated by a number of scientists who were later to embrace Global Warming in the eighties.  Scientists had looked at world temperature readings from 1940 and were convinced there was definitely a cooling trend. The link below includes propaganda, letters and statements seeking government funding for the cooling concept during the seventies.

Cooling or Warming

If carbon dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming why had the Paris conference not fully addressed the problem of deforestation which is occurring at the rate of 20 football fields per minute. According to some studies the amount of deforestation so far is equivalent to adding 20% to the total of the world’s CO2 emissions. It was announced that some countries had pledged that they would employ measures to limit deforestation and in return receive rewards from wealthy countries but no details have been published.

If we are to reduce deforestation we must also address overpopulation because they go hand in hand.. Huge tracts of land would have to be cleared for agriculture and housing to accommodate the 8.5 billion people expected to be living on the planet by the year 2030.

Article below by Stephanie Fox

No Mention of Human Overpopulation in Paris at the U.N. Climate Conference.

I wondered how much of that discussion, IF any, deals with human overpopulation.

So…I did some more online searches.

This write-in question to The New York Times asks about just that, and the only response was that SCIENTISTS aren’t ignoring the issue.

It doesn’t answer the question. The link below contains various aspects of the Paris agreement.

How Important Is Population in the Climate Change Discussion?

Overpopulation Click to enlarge

Click to enlarge

This next link points out that unless and until the people who focus on lifestyle changes work together with those who work to halt growth, the train wreck of ecosystems collapse due to human overpopulation will soon catch up with us. (It doesn’t put it quite like that, but it says it similarly enough.)

Population Growth: The Elephant in the Room at the Paris Climate-Change Conference

Finally, I went onto the United Nations website itself looking for something about human overpopulation. Guess what I found? It was a definition of the term!

   Environment Glossary

Term Overpopulation
Description exceeding of certain threshold limits of population density when environmental resources fail to meet the requirements of individual organisms regarding shelter, nutrition and so forth. It gives rise to high rates of mortality and morbidity. See also carrying capacity.

This is ridiculous. They aren’t bothering with this topic at all.

The United Nations isn’t facing it – it is avoiding the issue altogether.


  1. Damian says:

    Alternative Energy

    Proponents of restrictions on the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy appear to believe that this is eminently practical and all that it is really needed is to decide to flip some switch from “FOSSIL” to “RENEWABLE”. Things like fundamental physical limitations, resource constraints, economics and the foreseeable potential of known technologies are only boring details which “they” will work out.
    Walter Stark….Quadrant

  2. Barry Evans says:

    The Paris meeting was just another junket. Like all the conferences before it, nothing has been done about the most important issues…overpopulation and deforestation.

  3. Anonymous says:

    This is what they said..
    “At the same time, much of the climate change discussion has been focused on how to use energy more sustainable, and how to move toward energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy — in part because the question of addressing population control is sensitive“.

  4. Valcurl says:

    The Paris accord requires fairly robust actions on climate change finance. It requires developed countries to disburse money to help poorer countries adapt to the loss and damage caused by climate change, and to aid their transition to clean energy sources and away from fossil fuels”
    But wind and solar aren’t free, and developing nations have argued that they shouldn’t have to forgo economic growth. If developed nations have been able to increase their standards of living, based on economies fuelled by coal, oil, and gas, developing countries should be able to do the same.

    1. Douglas says:

      China already has 2,363 Coal Fired Power Plants (CFPP) with another 1,171 approved.
      The USA has 600 CFPPs that produce nearly 18% of the world’s electricity.
      Additional CFPPs are planned in; Europe 27, Japan 45, South Korea 26, South Africa 24, Turkey 93.
      How can the developed countries convince India, which has 589 existing CFPPs with another 446 approved or under construction and the Philipines with 19 existing CFPPs and another 60 in the pipeline, to go with cleaner energy when they are not.

  5. Moderate says:

    We need the media to keep people aware of climate change even if it is overdone. We also need the scientists to release their data like they did in the 70s regarding global cooling. They were well intended at the time but later studies were to prove them wrong but no damage was done.
    There are temperature readings that need explaining e.g.According to the Australian Government Bureau Of Meteorology in the 100 years between 1880 to 1980 Australia had an increased warming of only 0.30 Celsius which is hardly significant. Yet between 1980 to 2015 mean temperatures have risen by 0.33 Celsius. The total warming in Australia since 1880 was 0.63 Celsius…slightly cooler than the Northern Hemisphere.

    1. Ted Again says:

      Why should climate scientists have to release the warming data when the skeptics only aim is to find something wrong with it?

  6. Climate Poker says:

    I’ll see your submission that polar Bears will become extinct within 15 years and raise you with my submission that Florida will be underwater within 12 years.

  7. Courvent says:

    I am all in favour of renewable energy if it can be made viable, not because of zero CO2 trace gas emissions, but because we could have cleaner air in our cities.

    1. Haller says:

      The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is generally the same everywhere, but temperature changes are not the same everywhere.

  8. J. Kimpton says:

    If we can rely on the early temperature readings, what caused the warming of the planet from 1880 to 1940 when there were limited CO2 emissions. Deforestation was not like it is today, the motor car only got going after 1930 and war reparations did not get into full swing till after 1940 in which time the earth cooled slightly then remained stable for 30 years. We have solar panels and low energy light globes so we are not deniers but would like an explanation.

    1. Gavin says:

      There were several volcanic eruptions during the 1800s that could explain the increase temperatures at that time due to carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano at Krakatoa. Krakatau erupted in 1883, in one of the largest eruptions in recent times. Krakatau was an island along the Indonesian arc, between the much larger islands of Sumatra and Java.

  9. Anonomye says:

    We were warned not to mention the word overpopulation at the Paris conference…I did, but I think I got away with it!

  10. Alexander Vere says:

    Money provided for mickey mouse power sources of electricity only for developing countries, not the existing coal fired stations that we have and the ones we have planned, will not help the living standards in the developing nations. We must ignore the scientific elite and address the real problems of the world.
    Increasing the distribution of clean water, establishing sanitary living conditions, maintaining sufficient food supplies, administering widespread vaccinations and medications, providing prenatal and maternal care and educating people about disease prevention and malnutrition

  11. Russ says:

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite”…. Dwight Eisenhower
    This is an excerpt from his farewell speech made on the 17/1/61. He was a visionary…
    look what is happening today!

  12. Mardene says:

    Future generations looking back on the global cooling and warming scares, perpetrated by our scientists over the past 40 odd years, will be shocked at the flimsy data on which both were dependent.
    World temperatures from 1945 through to 1976 did show a slight cooling but were mostly stable in this period. In 1971 scientists declared that there was enough evidence to show the beginning of an ice age was at hand but were forced to abandon the theory and go with global warming when world temperatures began to increase slightly after 1976. But the warming trend ended in 1997 and has remained stable ever since…. a period of almost 19 years. If the current period of stable temperatures is to continue in a similar fashion to what occurred after 1945 what happens then…will they still say the world is still warming because it is a period where the heat is going into the oceans and not the land?

  13. Anonomye says:

    “If we torture the data for long enough nature it will always confess”..Ronald Coase

  14. Geraldine Sharp says:

    If the current 19 year global temperature “pause” was to continue for say another five years till 2020 and include several cooling periods, similar to what had occurred after the second world war, will they still argue for global warming? It would mean that out of approximately 80 years (since the war) only 20 years (76-96) would have shown a warming trend.

    1. Broughton says:

      The IPCC should not count on the media to support the science for much longer, if it smells fraud it can be brutal. The explanation the IPCC give for these long pauses in global warming, which included some global cooling, are not convincing.

  15. Begone says:

    CSIRO chief executive Larry Marshall said changes would see the organisation move away from measuring and monitoring climate change, to instead focus on how to adapt to it. ABC news 8/2/2016

    1. Sceptic says:

      Why are the alarmists and junketeers objecting to mitigation? Maybe they are not so sure the science is settled after all. Now who would have have thought that?

  16. Helen says:

    Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.
    From the Gobal Warming Petition Project 31,487 scientists

  17. Denier says:

    10/2/16 Perth has recorded its fourth consecutive day of temperatures above 40 degrees Celsius, equalling a record that has stood for more than 80 years, as a heatwave continues to grip the city.The temperature peaked at 40.3C in Perth at 11:30am on Wednesday. The last time the city recorded four consecutive days above 40C was in 1933.
    Interesting statistic.

  18. Chaotic Readings says:

    You can maximise or minimise the rate of global warming over a century depending on what year you choose to begin with and what you want to believe. According to the CSIRO chart, the hundred years from 1910 to 2010, the mean land and ocean temperature rose from – 0.40 to + 0.60 Celsius, a rise of approximately 1 degree Celsius equal to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit..three times the recorded warming rate between 1880 to 1980 when the temperature rose from – 0.11 to + 0.20 a rise of only .31 degrees Celsius equivalent to approx 0.6 Fahrenheit.

  19. Charles says:

    I believe in global warming and global cooling because that is the nature of our planet. Scientists acted responsibly when they announced global cooling in 70’s after world temperatures readings had confirmed the trend after 1940 but the cooling period ended around 1976 when temperatures began to rise again. The scientists released their data and that was the end of it. The global warming concept got going in 1986 after a decade of rising temperatures which ended in 1997. World temperatures have remained stable for the last 18 years so why is that not the end of it.

    1. Maurice Wilkinson says:

      Because 97% of the scientists who know anything about it agree that “that is not the end of it”, the planet is warming, we are a major contributor to the warming through the build up of carbon, methane etc. in the atmosphere, and the outcome if we do not change course is catastrophic. The science is conclusive; what we now need to study (and why CSIRO should not dismiss most of its climate scientists) is how soon and how bad the catastrophe will be, and what effects we will see, to what extent, in different geographical locations. If we don’t know, it’s very much harder to design appropriate mitigation methods.

      I had wondered where all these denialists came from; now I see; they live in Doncaster.

      1. Mont Albert says:

        The CSIRO have made the right decision to not continue monitoring temperatures. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose if global temperatures remain stable for any further length of time. The denial extremists could have a birthday and have all the ammunition they need to have funding removed which would be a disaster for the religion.

      2. Aquanita says:

        Published on Feb 2, 2015
        Coldest Year on Record So Far in 2015, Where is Global warming?
        2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
        The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20th century temperatures were the “warmest ever”. This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.
        Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) said,
        The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.

        1. Anonomye says:

          They published the same false data last November before the Paris conference. The ABC made a big thing of it… they rely on government handouts too don’t they.

      3. Battered Talford says:

        The IPCC removed the alternative option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, “It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off.”

  20. Cyril Washbrook says:

    As early as the 1800s, the island villages of Chesapeake Bay of Maryland USA began to submerge. James Island was abandoned in 1910, Barren Island in 1916. The Holland Islanders left in 1920, and most of the houses went with them, disassembled, put on boats, and reassembled in Eastern Shore towns such as Cambridge and Crisfield. Clear proof that sea levels are rising due to global warming. What further proof do we need?

  21. Noholme says:

    We no longer need temperature readings to prove that the earth is warming…Just count the number of islands disappearing due to sea levels rising. We should be doing what Larry Marshall of the CSIRO has suggested and that is to adapt as best we can.

  22. Following the money says:

    Global warming was not a big deal until the money came for it, like in a racecourse betting plunge. “Advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars and got involved”. Roy Spencer. Ph. D. Climatologist former NASA Scientist.

  23. Nev says:

    The atmosphere contains .04% of carbon dioxide (carbon pollution) and mankind produces 3% of the .o4%. Australia produces 1% of the world’s 3% of .04%. (miniscule)
    I still believe there is such a thing as global warming, temperature readings don’t lie, but it is clear that it is not associated with increased carbon dioxide as first thought.

    1. Wilma says:

      It is the Government grants that are causing the global warming.

  24. Carbonara says:

    If leonardo Dicaprio says there is global warming, and it is being caused by man, that’s good enough for me.

  25. C P says:

    The Bureau of meteorology has recently changed its Melbourne monitoring site from the Royal Society of Victoria on La Trobe Street in the city to Olympic Park, near Rod Laver Arena. Maximum temperatures recorded at the new site were on average 1.2 degrees cooler, particularly on cool days, because air coming from the south and west was travelling over park lands rather than the through the city. This makes me wonder how we can accurately measure temperature trends given the chaotic variability between monitoring locations.

  26. Ginger says:

    Ten Facts & Ten Myths On Climate Change
    By Prof. Robert M. Carter
    James Cook University, Queensland, Australia

    1. Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

    2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warmingsince 1958. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

    3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

    4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

    Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

    5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

    6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

    Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz”.

    7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

    The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism”. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

    8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

    9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

    10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

    The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.


    Myth 1 Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

    Fact 1 Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

    Myth 2 During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

    Facts 2 The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

    Myth 3 AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

    Facts 3 The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

    Myth 4 Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

    Facts 4 Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

    Myth 5 Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

    Facts 5 A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

    Myth 6 Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

    Facts 6 No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

    Myth 7 Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

    Facts 7 The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

    Myth 8 Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

    Facts 8 Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

    Myth 9 Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

    Facts 9 SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

    Myth 10 The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

    Facts 10 Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

    Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *