back to article 1930s photos show Greenland glaciers retreating faster than today

Recently unearthed photographs taken by Danish explorers in the 1930s show glaciers in Greenland retreating faster than they are today, according to researchers. Danish explorers in Greenland in 1932. Credit: National Survey and Cadastre of Denmark We're not worried about rising sea levels. Well, we are in a seaplane. The …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Reg editors :-

    This stopped being funny a long time ago. Please sort it out.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Dear Reg editors :-

      It is indeed not funny, but your request may not get the response it deserves...

      You do know Lewis IS the editor and runs the show here now (since last year, in fact)?

      "Full time staff hack job at the Reg has now turned into being the editor and running the show, to the extent anyone does"

    2. Alfred

      Re: Dear Reg editors :-

      What exactly do you expect the reg editors to do about Greenland's glaciers?

    3. LarsG

      Re: Dear Reg editors :-

      When the human race is due for extinction anyway what is the point in worrying about global warming?

      Here in the UK we bend over and take the green issues up our backsides. We do all this to set an example to the rest of the world....

      In return developing countries, China, India etc increase outputs of greenhouse gasses at a rate that leave the UK' s savings infinitesimal. Then of course there is the USA which does it's best to stick two fingers up at us.

      So what's the point?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Dear Reg editors :-

        >We do all this to set an example to the rest of the world....

        Except you don't actually make the durable goods you consume, just farm that out to China, India etc.

        My TV, DVD, cookware, clothes, washing machine, dishwasher, vacuum cleaner, phone, radio, speakers, hifi, cooker, microwave, blender, clothes hanger, cutlery, wallet, lightbulbs, doormat, earbuds, hard drive, cables, workwear, satnav were all made in China.

        1. Charles Manning

          Plus alll your food

          Agriculture is a BIG CO2 generator.

          Here is NZ our Greenies give us hell because our per-capita CO2 is high. But most of that is due to agriculture which is exported (eg. 90% of NZ milk is exported). That allows some hipster living in Europe to live a low-CO2 life and still eat.

          The only fair way to do any CO2 accounting is based on consumption. If you buy Chinese goods then you are contributing to China's CO2. If you buy NZ food, then you're contributing to NZ's CO2.

      2. rc

        Re: Dear Reg editors :-

        @ LarsG... "Then of course there is the USA which does it's best to stick two fingers up at us."

        That is grossly inaccurate, sir. We only stick one finger up at you. Perhaps because ours was implemented post musket? As far as I know, the two fingered 'Screw you! I've still got my bow fingers' salute is a uniquely British thing.

        So you've still got that going for you then...

        1. John H Woods Silver badge

          Re: Dear Reg editors :-

          Urban Legend Alert: 'still got bowfingers' is considered unlikely as the source of 'the Vs'

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        To set an example to the rest of the world

        "Here in the UK we bend over and take the green issues up our backsides. We do all this to set an example to the rest of the world...."

        Are you kidding? Where exactly is the UK setting an example in green issues? By building shoddy small homes after outdated construction methods from some 200 years ago? It's really amazing that in this day and age things like double glazing and wall insulation are still something special in Britain when these things are standard in most mainland European homes for half a century and not worth mentioning. But then most homes in mainland Europe also have been equipped with mixer tabs for a similar time already.

        Or are you thinking of leading by example through successfully killing off most of Britain's manufacturing industry in favor of the 'services' and financial industry which means most products sold in the UK are cheap crap from China which ultimately ends up in a landfill here or in some 3rd world country?

        But maybe Britain is setting an example by NOT heavily investing in green technology and clinging to nuclear power instead, ignoring the risks and the true costs (and probably still believing the myth that electricity in France is cheaper than anywhere when in reality prices in countries like Germany which heavily invest in green technology are actually far lower; in fact, France has often fallen back on Germany's electricity 'exports' to compensate for their insufficient infrastructure).

        If Britain is setting an example then that it is not only backwards in house building but also in green technology, way behind countries like Sweden, Norway or Germany, and even the USA.

    4. Mikel

      You're missing the point

      Poking fun at the established popular view is a key charm of El Reg. It's the spice that makes the meal. If they stop this they will have no special offer.

      If you don't like that why are you here? There are many places where you can get your preferred pablum bland though it may be. That is the common fare. Why do you have to come here and demand the common gruel when there is no lack of supply elsewhere?

      Is there some drive in you that insists that because you cannot bear spice that there must be none anywhere? What right have you to impose on all the world your intolerance of variety?

      1. Goat Jam

        Re: You're missing the point

        "Poking fun at the established popular view is a key charm of El Reg."

        Actually, I beleive that it has been some time since the belief in AGW was the popular view. These days it is just the true believers and the one world government watermelons that continue to push that barrow.

        1. Thing

          Re: You're missing the point

          'I beleive that it has been some time since the belief in AGW was the popular view'

          For 90% of the world and 99% of the worlds scientist AGW is still the prevailing view. It's only if you've been raised in a trailer in Buttfuck Alabama on a diet of Fox News, Glenn Beck and tub-thumping evangelical creationist idiocy that you are likely to think otherwise. By using the phrase 'one world government' you have very neatly saved everybody here the trouble of working out whether you were or not.

          1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

            99% of the worlds scientist are not sure about global warming. Saying such a thing just paints you as an AGW zealot without a brain.

            Thankfully, the scientific community in general is much more interested in getting all the data and building a picture as accurate as possible before drawing the conclusions that impose themselves from the analysis, rather than stupidly spouting a hastily-drawn one-sided conclusion taken from incomplete data.

            This is why such information is important, given that our understanding of meteorology is still very much in its infancy - but I understand that the masses (and the zealots) kind of miss that point since you need to be intelligent to understand that the world is the most complex dynamic system we can possibly hope to comprehend.

            1. Ole Juul

              Science and humans

              @Pascal Monet: Your view of science is excellent, or at least in line with mine. :) However, to say that "the world is the most complex dynamic system we can possibly hope to comprehend" is not consistent with that. Humans cannot hope to comprehend such a complex and dynamic system. Unless, of course, you have some private meaning for the word "comprehend".

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Science and humans @Ole Juul

                Going by my Concise OED, the word you *should* be quibbling over is "hope", with expectation being in the definition. Nothing wrong with his use of "comprehend" at all. Too bad - your comments were uncommonly reasonable until you tried to be patronizing in your last sentence

          2. csmac3144

            Re: You're missing the point

            Touched a nerve, did he?

            Watermelon rage.

            1. Anomynous Coward


              I've missed the development of this insult. What does it mean? To whom should I apply it?


              Judging my the pattern of voting here there are far more "Global warming panic is just religion not science" people than "We're killing Gaia" people around and yet there also seems to be fear / anger that green types are swamping the place.

              I think the anti-hippy contingent can probably relax a little, they seem to be ahead in the battle for hearts and minds on the Reg.

    5. Fibbles

      Re: Dear Reg editors :-

      Every time Lewis posts one of these trolling articles the eco-tards start summoning the troops on mailing lists and forums. They then come and spam the register comments section with cookie-cutter arguments because dissenting opinion seems to be something they can't handle. Lewis is laughing all the way to the bank of course because they're just increasing page views and therefore advertising revenue for the site of which he is editor.

      If the regulars disabled their adblockers for el reg perhaps Lewis could stop subjecting us to this asshattery every week?

      1. Graham Wilson

        @Fibbles -- Re: Dear Reg editors :-

        "If the regulars disabled their adblockers for el reg perhaps Lewis could stop subjecting us to this asshattery every week?

        Now, now, that nasty barbed comment's a bit below the belt. Trying to make us feel guilty or something?

        El Reg readers? Nuh, not possible....

  2. Michael M

    Industrial Revolution

    I was taught it started in the mid-18th century and was virtually over by the 1840s. All that coal being burnt in steam engines for 100 years might have begun to have an effect.

    I note that in figure 2 of the article you can see how much more melting is going on in the 2000-2010 decade.

    1. Just Thinking

      Re: Industrial Revolution

      But in those days the world population was about 1 billion, most of them not in industrialised countries. UK population was around 10 million, the US not much more.

      The steam engines might have had a seriously bad effect on local air quality, but I don't know if there was enough to have a significant global effect.

      1. Dave Bell

        Re: Industrial Revolution

        What I see, some of the vocal promoters, on both sides of these arguments, can't even do that sort of simple arithmetic. Some of the environmental scares seem to depend on almost homeopathic thinking. Cutting down of fossil-fuel use--carbon neutral energy--is something we shall have to do, whatever the global warming reality. And it is something we can do.

        1. itzman

          Re: Industrial Revolution

          ..though sadly not with renewable energy, which doesn't reduce emissions overall measurably at all.

  3. TheOtherHobbes

    "We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming."

    See also the difference between short-lived local variations and an easily observable planet-wide trend.

    1. Graham Wilson


      In a lifetime, the average person consumes about 100 tonnes of food. In addition to the energy required to feed a person over a lifetime, add his/her consumption of everything else from goods, housing, transport, plasma TV etc. etc. and the figure's gawd-awful huge.

      It's brain-dead simple. Stop breeding and global warming will go away.

      (Of course, the global-warming do-gooders never mention population growth, as that's much too close to home.)

      1. Joe User


        So people need to cut out the high-friction sex?

      2. Anomynous Coward

        @Graham Wilson

        "the global-warming do-gooders never mention population growth, as that's much too close to home"

        Eh? Aren't they always on about population growth being a huge problem?

        They certainly used to be when QE2 was having her silver jubblies.

  4. Connor

    Self Justification

    It is amazing that after a decade of absolutely nothing happening that these climatologists and 'climate change' experts are still managing to justify their existence - if only the Minister for Industrialisation had the same kind of mentality as these climate nuts during the 1800s, we'd still be in the age of steam.

  5. Cheapster

    Lewis is getting desperate

    Even the piece in the Mail admitted in the text that it was only a minority that had suffered faster decline. This trolling to support big oils $60bn taxpayers funding is sounding a little hysterical now. Nice reference too to the Glacier melting more slowly (than a general estimate in 2008, they are still melting faster than the IPCC projections just like global warming is still exceeding IPCC projections)

    1. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Big Brother

      Nah this is what desperation is ....

      Eco-loons organising trolling into a fine art:

      whenever a "climate holocaust denier" story appears on any major news site or blog ..

      the CACC mailing list kicks into action... alerting all "right thinking" ecotards with the url

      and if you don't believe it ->

      PS: But, since you’re here now eco-loons .. look at the article that woke up the apathetic majority and put the Reg on the eco-loons hitlist

      (and as an added bonus it's guaranteed to make any watermelon explode)

    2. The Axe
      Thumb Down

      global warming is still exceeding IPCC projections

      Well we've had twenty years of IPCC predictions and none of them have turned out right. The IPCC was projecting a warming of a nearly 6 degrees by 2100. Over the past twenty years the earth has warmed by about 0.5 degree, so how will it suddenly shoot up exponentially to reach 6 degrees in another 80 years.

      1. Burb

        Re: global warming is still exceeding IPCC projections

        You used the word 'prediction' in one sentence and 'projecting' in the next. Do you understand the difference?

        1. The Axe

          projecting predicting

          Yes there is a difference, they are spelt differently. They are synonyms for the same thing, looking into the future. Predicting tends to means more guess work than projecting, but considering that the IPCC's forcasts (another word to mean looking into the future) have always been wrong, predicting is just as valid as projecting.

      2. Sirius Lee

        Re: global warming is still exceeding IPCC projections

        But this isn't about science. It seems to me that in the mind of a dedicated warmer, if you say something often enough it's going to be be true. It's a religion for the modern age and this sort of blind repetition helps keep the faith. Posting the same 'it just is' comments on 'denier' articles seems to be a bit like a modern equivalent of praying and that by doing it the practitioner will receive salvation in the next life.

    3. TheWxMan

      Re: Lewis is getting desperate

      Yet, the entire state of Alaska has had a net increase in glaciation, and so have other regions. Nice try. The truth is that the warmingistas have no clue regarding actual atmospheric dynamics and climatology, and more studies than not prove that there is no AGW. So far no min/max ice coverage extent, sea-level fluctuation, nor temperature change has been witnessed which exceeds the threshold of well established natural variables, hence, no backing proof exists of such absurd notions as those presented by the IPCC. As a matter of fact, regarding Greenland, much of its glaciation didn't even exist before the LIA, so even if much of it were to sublimate or melt, it would only be reforming itself to the era preceding the aforementioned. Again, none of this can be formulated as proof of AGW, at least not if you understand the real science behind it (Best believe it as well, the air temperatures in most of Greenland are still far too cold for ice to melt).

  6. The Envoy

    And always remember:

    Predicting the future of the planet is a competition!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "but nobody worried about it". But it still caused acid rain and other problems. How is this helping the argument against AGW? Or is this a neutral article?

    1. Mikel

      "the argument against AGW"

      I want to point out that this is ambiguous. There are a set of arguments against the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming as a factual condition. Some take issue with each of the three words of the phrase individually (Anthropogenic, Global, Warming), some each subset of two words in the three-word phrase in three pairs (Anthropogenic Global, Anthropogenic Warming, Global Warming), and some all three words as a group (Anthropogenic Global Warming). Another opposing class presumes the existence of the condition expressed by the trio as proved fact and is opposed to its evolution and is committed to its reversal. All can be said to "argue against Anthropogenic Global Warming", so your meaning is completely unclear.

      The rare few who care you've left out are those who may acknowledge the cause and condition with varying degrees of certainty but welcome its effect as a boon, like me. If I must choose between warming or cooling then for me and mine I choose warming because it's hard to grow crops on a glacier and a lack of crops leads inevitably to some unpleasantness for future generations. Of the cause of this needful warming, I don't care from whence it comes as long as it does.

      It's doubtful that it matters. The vast mass of humanity we can put in the "don't know and don't care" group anyway. Most of us have more immediate concerns. Since reversing global warming - whether it exits and by whatever cause - would require a global unanimous concerted effort centuries long directly against the immediate interests of most participants, and that's not going to happen, the whole thing seems moot to me. You may as well ask the world to agree to and achieve a 300M static global human population as a sustainable load. There are 7 billion of us and each has considerable freedom of action and genetic motivation to prevent this outcome. A global event or government that could achieve this end would be dire, and is not to be wished.

      My main point here though is that you've said something and linguistically it amounts to almost nothing. You may as well have not bothered. Words mean things. If you're going to express yourself please try to be clear about what you're trying to say.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "the argument against AGW"

          "I live 50 metres above the Oslo Fjord. When someone knocks on my window from a rowing boat, then I might start caring."

          The majority of the world would already have drowned by then as they live next to the sea.

          Maybe you don't care because you are from a very rich oil producing nation?

          1. Connor

            Re: "the argument against AGW"

            Sea levels are not rising, despite what people living in the Maldives would have you believe. The majority of the world is not going to drown. When someone paints a scary scenario for you, then asks you for money to 'solve' the problem (as the people of the Maldives have been doing for 20 years!) it should sound alarm bells for you. The problem is, once paid these shysters then have to come up with an even more compelling scare story for more money, and then more money and then more. That is why these scenarios have become more and more ridiculous and further and further away from any semblance of real science.

            Frankly, if you believe any of it these days then you must be a salesman's dream.

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Graham Wilson

          Re: "the argument against AGW"

          "I don't care. :)"

          Right. We had this argument a week or so ago with the editorial about the more scientifically literate one is the less one is concerned about the problem.

          So there's global warming! Big deal! I was taught this fact back when I was a kid in the 1960s.

          There's really only two issues: the effects of lots of scaremongering which has made half the world go mad and the second is to ensure technology is on course for a solution sometime in the future.

  8. Matt Bryant Silver badge

    Oh dear.

    It's always so darn annoying when your hockey stick pops up in the wrong decade!

    Here's my solution to the AGW sheeple - tell them it's all caused by smoking grass. I'm sure all that does have a minor impact on warming, and it must release some tiny amount of nasties like sulphur trapped in the leaves, but watch them shut up when their second favourite past-time threatens their first.

    1. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Thumb Up

      Re: Oh dear.

      You know Matt ... that makes perfect sense, I believe you may have discovered the real cause of global warming !

      The increase of emissions of TetraHydroCannabinol does correlate perfectly with the increase in global mean temperature.

      and there's no need to fudge a hockey stick chart to support that fact

      Although looking at the down votes your getting, It seems the spliff huffing greentards won't be too pleased.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Oh dear.

        Or maybe it's just that you don't have to be a tree hugger to enjoy the odd smoke?

        Why would one huff a spliff anyway? Despite what every politician seemed to think whilst they were at university, you're supposed to inhale, not blow smoke out of the end of it.

      2. Matt Bryant Silver badge

        Re: Re: Oh dear.

        ".....I believe you may have discovered the real cause of global warming !...." Crap! A silly thought turns out to be a "major scientific discovery" / coincidence and the Gubbermints of the World are already milking it for cash (AKA the War on Drugs). I thought I was on to something of Real Benefit To Mankind (AKA good for my bank balance) then.

  9. Graham Marsden

    "Box theorises that this is likely to be...

    "...because of sulphur pollution released into the atmosphere by humans"

    So what you're saying is that mankind's activites *DO* have an effect on the climate...?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "Box theorises that this is likely to be...

      That's the strange thing about the article. "Oh, everything was dire, they did not worry and they suffered. So no need for us to worry either".

    2. The Axe

      Re: "Box theorises that this is likely to be...

      "Climate deniers" don't deny that human activities do change the cimate. Where they disagree with the AGW lot is in terms of the degree of change. We don't think it'll be 6 degrees by 2100 and we think human activities could just as easily cause the temperate to drop with negative feedback. We just don't know what will happen as climate is such a complex mechanism and don't believe that models which aren't backed by any emperical evidence can predict the future.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Box theorises that this is likely to be...

        I cannot speak for the AWG "crowd" but I thought the comment usually went along the lines of "stop peeing in the bath water".

        1. Oninoshiko

          damnit make up your mind

          I thought we where supposed to START peeing in the bath water, to save water and energy used to process it.

          We can't WIN with you greenies!

  10. ChrisM

    Was it only me.....

    Who didn't see much comment on this (and much less than usual for LP and AO).

    My read was 'scientist A discovers old photos, he gives explanation for glacier loss, two groups of other scientists offer alternate explanation. This information should be used to further inform our models.'

    So why the ad-hominems?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Was it only me.....

      "So why the ad-hominems?"

      Its the usual rent-a-mob; the idea of drowning out specific individuals has been around for a number of years in various areas on t'internet - it goes back to the glory days of usenet.

      Some of them can be spotted by their over-reaction to the actual content of something posted by a target.

      { anon to avoid having another email alias added to a hit list (wasn't AGW last time). }

      1. hplasm

        Re: "So why the ad-hominems?"

        It seems an increase in solar output leads to an increase in the number of arseholes.

        I wish the sky would fall on the lot of them.

    2. Sean Timarco Baggaley

      Re: Was it only me.....


      Turns out some people just can't distinguish between "reportage" and "journalism".

      Strange how we named our own species "Homo Sapiens", yet so few of us seem to understand the meaning of the second word.

    3. Yamal Dodgy Data

      Re: Was it only me.....

      Yup you've sussed it out correctly,

      the ad-hom's against Lewis (and Andrew Orlowski etc.. ) are from mindless ecotards who don't read the article .. note how quickly they always appear (within minutes of the article posting)

      From Eco-Troll Central here is why:

      "Are you fed up with sceptics and pseudo-scientists dominating blogs and news articles with their denialist propaganda? Well, fight back! We are trying to create an online army of online volunteers to try and tip the balance back in the favour of scientific fact, not scientific fiction."

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Great job Lewis as always! =)

    Great job Lewis as always! =) Let's just hope that humankind comes to its senses fast enough and starts to focus on productivity instead of "spook" problems such as the "three" horsemen of the apocalyse:

    * Greenhouse effect.

    * Capitalism.

    * Terrorism.

    No matter what happens, pick at least one of the above and you can motivate any nr of tax increases. Personally I have never seen a terrorist, the summer is record _cold_ (but of course that is because of CO2, and if it should be too warm, that is CO2 as well) and capitalism allows me to buy strawberries at the local supermarket in the winter.

    Wake up people! A couple of years ago the ozone layer was going to disappear, I also remember all forrests dieing because of acid rain, and numerous indian gurus constantly predict the end of the world.

    Can we just focus on our jobs and on enjoying life without having to pay 100% in tax?

    Great post Lewis, you are desperately needed in the world!

    1. David Pollard

      Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

      "Wake up people! A couple of years ago the ozone layer was going to disappear..."

      The main reason that the ozone layer has not been more seriously depleted by CFCs is that the Montreal Protocol was internationally agreed and put into effect:

      Fortunately the threat of ozone depletion was recognised and action taken early enough to avert long-lived and damaging changes to the environment.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

        Who on earth downvotes someone for posting information on the subject being discussed?

        1. Arctic fox

          RE:"Who on earth downvotes someone for posting information on the subject being discussed?"

          A certain type of commentard when they fear that the information concerned might contradict something they prefer to believe. Try doing the equivalent on virtually any thread about, for example, "A Certain Major Software Company" or maybe "A Famous Mobile Phone Producer" - just don't be surprised if you get hosed with down-votes.

    2. Thing

      Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

      'enjoying life without having to pay 100% in tax?'

      WTF has any of this got to do with tax? Always suspected the people who came here to support this garbage were republicans. It would be nice to put a firewall around the US to keep the opinions of cousin Cleetus contained in whatever century they're living in.

      1. Philip Lewis
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

        I think because in most western nations, where the eco-tards have acquired a measure of power, "Green Tax" is seen as the biggest taxation opportunity for governments, and explicitly so.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

      "No matter what happens, pick at least one of the above and you can motivate any nr of tax increases. Personally I have never seen a terrorist, the summer is record _cold_ (but of course that is because of CO2, and if it should be too warm, that is CO2 as well) and capitalism allows me to buy strawberries at the local supermarket in the winter."

      Ignorance is apparently a bliss for you.

      "Can we just focus on our jobs and on enjoying life without having to pay 100% in tax?"

      Oh, I see, you're American. That explains it then.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

        "Oh, I see, you're American. That explains it then."

        So Brits enjoy paying 100% taxes? Or was 'American' just the worst insult you could think of at the time?

    4. Anomynous Coward

      Re: Great job Lewis as always! =)

      "capitalism allows me to buy strawberries at the local supermarket in the winter"

      Perhaps (though why would another system not allow this?), but they are shit strawberries.

      I'd rather have nice ones even if I can only have them in summer.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I stared at that photo for a long time

    but I could not see any shrinking or expansion of glaciers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I stared at that photo for a long time

      IIRC I saw a lot of pictures from the KR expiditions many years ago, before the AGW nonsense took hold. The pictures indicated a great deal less ice than now.

      The "black helicopter" view is that this dissenting evidence is being generally suppressed, directly or indirectly, in order to feed the AGW machine which will in turn feed the bank balances of greedy corrupt politicians

  13. Tony Paulazzo

    For cripes sake, everything causes change to everything else, stars die so we may be created, probably best to not worry overly. We are stardust after all. Peace out.

  14. jason 7

    Hey I remember a time when we were told.....

    ...we'd all be dead from AIDS.

    25 years later and thankfully I still don't know anyone personally that's died from it or has it.

    Isn't hyperbole great?

    They said 6 years ago we'd all be using Netbooks.

    1. Volker Hett

      Re: Hey I remember a time when we were told.....

      I do, and everybody who used a condom might have been saved because he was told to use one.

      1. Connor

        Re: Hey I remember a time when we were told.....

        Er..I don't think it was the condom's that saved us, it was little facts like 1 in every 100 people are actually immune to aids, and cannot catch it and that despite John Hurt's scary advert - AIDS isn't as contagious as made out, with only a 25% chance of passing it on. Five times more people die of flu every year as AIDS; it was never the epidemic we were led to believe it was or should i say, panicked into believing it was.

        The vast majority of new cases in the UK come from African immigrants and even then it is in decline.

    2. Patrick R
      IT Angle

      Re: Hey I remember a time when we were told.....

      this was a site about IT.

    3. Dave Bell

      Re: Hey I remember a time when we were told.....

      And then there is Linux.

      I've only had my Linux Netbook for 4 years, so we shall have to wait and see, won't we.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    1840 the start of the industrial revolution?

    "as early as 1840, before the industrial revolution and human-driven carbon emission had even got rolling".

    Sorry, completely factually wrong. 1840 was towards the end of the industrial revolution, the industrial revolution started in the mid 1700s. To take one example out of hundreds, the well known Iron Bridge in Shropshire, for instance, dates from 1775.

  16. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

    No chance of a rational debate then?

    I see that Science has prevailed and any one asking any questions, is not only questioning Science itself, but is a filthy Climate Holocaust Denier to boot.

    Well, seeing as I'm not allowed to ask questions, gather resources, evaluate data, 'Be Sceptical' and use the Scientific Method, as I understand it, I suppose I will have to use the Scientific Method as others understand it and are forcing on me - 'shit or get off the pot'.

    I've seen many things purporting to be and masquerading as Scientific Method, but this is a new one on me.

    You climate trolls made one rather silly mistake: You all pounced at once like rabid dogs totally disproportionate to the argument (if indeed it even was an argument) at hand. You made fence/pot sitters like me sit up and take notice, saying to themselves 'whoah, bloody 'ell, what's goin' on 'ere then?'. (Please feel free to ad hominem me over a misplaced apostrophe ;-))

    You CACC heads are stifling scientific debate. The game is up according to you. You are starting to resemble a certain country on Planet Earth that is constantly bringing up all the terrible things that happened to them, to further justify doing just as horrible things to others. Can you guess which country I mean. In short, you are behaving like *****.

    To quote a great scientific mind of our times, a man of the Scientific Method as I understand it:

    "I'm not really concerned whether the world is heating up, boiling or just about to explode. I couldn't care less."

    And I have to thank the CACC heads for turning me on to the GWPF, never heard of them before - thanks.

    I particularly like that when searching on Google for said organisation, my WOT goes through the roof warning me that this is a malicious site. Agenda much? Free time too much? One particular wag said of his reasoning for the red-circling: "Climate change denial website which rails against the predominant scientific opinion on climate change, that the Earth is in an ongoing phase of global warming primarily caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect due to the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. "

    Yes, you stupid fuckstick it is called balanced debate, necessary to the Scientific Method as I understand it.

    It is good that you little climate trolls are coming out of the closet and showing yourselves for what you really are. Let's not even get into the falsification of Scientific Data. Your mob mentality, really has me scratching my chin here, as to what your game is. I think I know. Your behaviour is only consolidating my opinion. There's a bit more going on with this than meets the eye, isn't there?

    Do you think we even deserve to survive as a species? Do you? Do you jump to your keyboard so quickly about matters and affairs in the Democratic Rebublic Of Congo. Don't ever say you are humanists, because you are not. You make me sick.

    Well played little trolls. Kinda back fired a little bit that one didn't it?

    </off pot>

    Actually, I lie, I am still on the fence. If anyone has any scientific data they can point me to, to make me swing the other way, I would be most grateful. Genuinely. If that is ok with you? If you don't mind? If you will 'allow' it?

    And more than that, if someone could actually tell me what the question was in the first place, I would be even more indebted.

    1. jason 7

      Re: No chance of a rational debate then?

      So errr...which side are you on then?

      You went off ranting and lost the plot a bit.

      1. Fibbles

        Re: No chance of a rational debate then?

        This is science not football. There should be no 'sides' just reasoned debate and healthy scepticism.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: No chance of a rational debate then?

          @Fibbles: But: The debate isn't reasoned, and the scepticism isn't healthy.

          There is no real debate, it's just people shouting at each other, neither side of which is qualified in any way to comment. The scepticism isn't healthy because there is no deference to people who actually know about the subject in question. I actually got told in a "debate" here by someone that when I quoted a climate scientist, who has a phd and post doc research career of many years, that the opinion quoted didn't count because the person I was speaking to didn't recognise authority.

          Yet I bet he still goes to the doctor.

          I despair at the piss-poor ability demonstrated in debate at this site, particularly on this subject. Arguments are childish, poorly argued and often resort to non-sequitur, straw man and the like in order to hammer a point across.

    2. TeeCee Gold badge

      Re: No chance of a rational debate then?

      Only five downvotes for that?

      Looks like the climate miltia hit squad can't be arsed to hang around for the long game and we're getting past the kneejerk sniping and into the discussion at this point in the comments.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    An Unfortunate Truth

    Looks like yet another black eye for the climatologists. But this isn't a game. The warmists want us to spend billions on their pet fixes for the AGW problem, while ignoring any evidence that the Sun impacts us much more then autos.

    We may in fact be tipping into another cool minimum. This would be bad, since the impact on growing seasons in our most productive farming areas would be serious. But, a lot of places would need much more oil, and perhaps here we see a convergence of needs. Whether we are trying to alleviate AGW, if it exists, or handle a mini-ice-age, we will need to prepare for oil scarcity.

    At base, the warmist movement is intended to stretch out our fossil fuel reserves, while an ice-age would increase demand. The solution ends up being identical. We need replacement energy sources. Sadly, we have such a hangup about nuclear power that we are not actively exploring a thorium cycle reactor, which promises very abundant power at low cost, with little radiation risk. The alternatives of wind and waves really don't offer much benefit in comparison.

  18. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

    Which 'side' am I on?

    I'm on the side that says 'Let me make my own mind up. Don't harangue and harass me and get all Ad Hominem just because I have not come to the same conclusion as you, yet'.

    Yes it was a rant, but surely not that incoherent for a Reg reader to debug? Oh well.

    With all the dirty tricks it is not looking good for the AWG movement.

    And if you had read my previous 'rant', I made the point - Maybe the Earth is warming up, maybe Mankind is causing it. But why do you care? And why do you try to intimidate me so much to tow your line? There is obviously a not-so-hidden agenda working here. That is all I care about and am focusing on from now on.

    And why does there even need to be a side to be on? What good is the polarisation of debate? That thing is best kept for political arguments. Oh wait a minute....

    1. Geoffrey W

      Re: Which 'side' am I on?

      Complaining about ad hominem attacks after your own post had many ad hominems in it..(.fuckwits)?

      No one harangued or harassed you. You're the one who started ranting thus drawing response in similar vein. I really do look for sensible discussion on both sides of this debate but you weren't debating or offering anything useful.

    2. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Thumb Up

      Re: Which 'side' am I on?

      @Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance

      That wasn't a rant .. It was pure poetry

      The irony is the CACC heads and Guardianista greentards who now flock to the Reg to diss every Andrew Orlowoski and Lewis Page article have no doubt massively boosted the coffers of El Reg via their Google doubeclick adverts..

      One commentard above even posted demanding to know who the sinister force is funding Lewis !

      I reckon Lewis could have a bought his third SUV just from the revenue the greentards generate for him here last month.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Which 'side' am I on?

      @Bradley - How are you making your mind up? Are you taking an evening course in environmental chemistry/physics? Maybe you're going the whole hog and taking a phd in climate science or related disciplines? Maybe you're researching the literature and making your own meta study?

  19. Volker Hett

    Like radioactive cadmium in fish caught in California

    but according to the gospel of Lewis Fukushima was a good example for how good a small nuclear incident can be handled.

    1. IvyKing

      Don't you mean radioactive cesium?

      Note that radio-isotopes can easily be detected at levels far below what would be considered harmful. As an example, Carbon 14 dating works because all food sources have some carbon-14 in them, but there has been no hysteria about removing carbon 14 from the food chain.

      The global impact of radiation leakage from Fukushima is still dwarfed by the remnants of atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. It is also even less of an issue on a global scale than naturally occurring radioactive materials such as the potassium 40 in your body.

      1. Yamal Dodgy Data

        Re: Don't you mean radioactive cesium?

        IvyKing: Be gentle on Volker Hett he's a Apple fanboi you know

        cesium, cadmium... meh .. it's all silver and shiny to him

        1. jake Silver badge

          @Yamal Dodgy Data (was: Re: Don't you mean radioactive cesium?)


          "Silvery and shiny" just about sums up most of the loudmouth AGW set. If only the sorry sods could take three or four steps back and see how daft they sound, at least from a scientific perspective.

          On the other hand, from a human psychology perspective, it's fascinating to watch the pack behavior. Sheeple will believe anything that a shamen repeats often enough, even if they don't have enough knowledge to actually understand it for themselves.

        2. IvyKing

          Silver and shiny

          Cesium needs to be in an inert atmosphere to say silver and shiny. Perusing an MSDS on metallic cesium would discourage most people from wanting to deal with the non-radioactive stuff.

          1. Omgwtfbbqtime

            Re: Silver and shiny

            "Perusing an MSDS on metallic cesium would discourage most people from wanting to deal with the non-radioactive stuff."

            However it would encourage the rest to throw a chunk into a bath full of water and post the video to youtube.

    2. The Axe

      Re: Like radioactive cadmium in fish caught in California

      And if you read the actual reports about the cesium-134 (not cadmium so you probably haven't read the reports) then you'll find that the levels were 10 times previous levels, these new levels were still 1/30th of natural levels of radioactivity in marina life. It's only because the measuring equipment is so accurate that such tiny levels can be detected.

      Finally, cesium-134 has a half life of just ove 2 years (cesium-137 has 30 year half life but that comes from bombs), so within a decade the levels will be very low and nothing to worry about. Ignore the phrase "there is no safe level of radioactivity", there is; emperical evidence proves with areas like northern Iran and the Rockies in Montana where natural levels of radiation are high and no one there are dropping like flies, in fact they are healthier than the average.

  20. Anonymous Coward

    Hipster cause

    Global warming is probably happening, human behaviour may or may not be the cause.

    What is true, however, is that the trendy hipsters are driving the agenda, regardless of what's actually happening. How else can we have a situation when people say "The ice glaciers are melting faster than ever before, this proves we need to act now" and then go on to say "The ice glaciers are not melting faster than ever before, this proves we need to act now"?

    There's a whole lot of stuff being driven through governments on dodgy evidence simply because it's trendy, politically correct and is driven by influential people (the rich and famous).

    Whatever is actually happening in nature, this is what's actually happening in human society.

    1. Jeebus

      Re: Hipster cause

      Even getting in a dig at POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Proving what you think worthless.

  21. cosymart

    The Planet

    I do wish that when people discuss climate change they would refrain from using the phases "Damage The Planet", "Destroy The Planet" or "The Earth Is Going To Be Destroyed". What tosh! none of these things is going to happen. The Planet Earth has been happily orbiting the Sun for about 4.5Billion Years and any actions of the puny human race that has only been around for the blink of an eye in comparison are not going to stop The Earth carrying on spinning for the next 4.5+Billion Years.

    What might happen is that we might make the planet too hot, too cold or otherwise inhospitable for mankind and the other species that share our narrow ecological comfort zone. Sad but there you go.

    1. jason 7

      Re: The Planet

      Too true!

      Whilst I strongly believe you should behave in a responsible manner and not 'shit in your backyard', I too am annoyed with the constant aligning of planetary cycles and changes in terms of a human lifespan.

      A human lifespan is just too small. It's like trying to work out the plot of a book from one sentence. Looking at data from say just 100 year is daft. You need to analyse over thousands to find any sense of scale or pattern (if there is one).

  22. Mikel

    The carbon in fossil fuels was once in the air

    How the carbon in fossil fuels came to be trapped there is through the miracle of photosynthesis. It was captured from the air by plants. The Earth was warmer then, and will be warmer again - but it wasn't toxic to humans even then. It's been colder since, and not a good habitat for Men because cold is toxic to men. For the most part the plants were not on land but in the sea - since most of the world is covered by sea. Sea algae made oil, and there's a lesson there. It may yet be possible to close this cycle and harness the solar energy storing powers of algae on the open sea.

    Regardless, if all the fossil fuels yet discovered were in an instant burned, it wouldn't turn the air toxic nor cause Venus-like conditions because it didn't when that carbon was previously in the air. Much of the carbon then in the air has since been subducted into the mantle, absorbed in metamorphic rock (marble, for example) and forever lost - so we cannot even approach dinosaur levels of CO2 even if we wanted to, and certainly not Venus level runaway greenhouse conditions.

    Between now and then we're likely to harness the energy in Methane Clathrates, which cover the world's oceans some six feet deep on average and are a many-times greater carbon fuel resource than all the oil yet discovered. We had better because as the world warms if we don't use it, it may accelerate warming beyond a tolerable pace on its own.

  23. Unicornpiss

    Cause and effect?

    I think we should do what we can to reduce emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. That said, I think that climate researchers are assuming the role of the little boy that hit a power pole with a stick and thought he caused the great blackout that affected the US in the 1960s.

  24. Gerhard den Hollander

    rhone gletcher

    Well, the rhone gletcher has been melting since the late 1800's, and retreating rapidly ever since.

    I would think the warm spell we had in the 30's would hardly be news ?

    Just as the fact that we were worried about global cooling in the 70s would hardly be news

  25. Steven Roper

    This is interesting

    "Other scientists have said recently that late-20th-century temperature rises in the Arctic may result largely from clean-air legislation intended to deal with acid rain: some have even gone so far as to suggest that rapid coal- and diesel-fuelled industrialisation in China is serving to prevent further warming right now."

    So, as I see it, AGW is happening because we've stopped pumping shit into the atmosphere? Now that's AGW I can believe in. Let's bring back the old mile-per-gallon big-block V8s and get those factory chimneys belching!

    1. TeeCee Gold badge

      Re: This is interesting

      "Let's bring back the old mile-per-gallon big-block V8s....."

      Typical Yank overengineering. A 4.5 litre Blower Bentley will easily chew through a gallon in every mile using only four cylinders. Let's here it for British craftsmanship!

    2. itzman

      Re: This is interesting


  26. ericinwisconsin

    The 1930's vs the 2010's

    Here in the technical vastness of the future, we can guess that surely the past was very different.

    Our children's children will LOL at us, especially over the great Global Warming Hoax.

    1. Martin

      Re: The 1930's vs the 2010's

      I hope they will LOL at us - I'd like nothing better.

      But I suspect that they are more likely to say "How the FUCK could our grandparents have been so stupid as to let this happen without at least trying to do something about it?"

  27. kestrel27

    Global warming is the biggest Liberal hoax ever perpetrated on the people of this planet and notice that somehow it only affects civilized countries, but somehow misses third world holes and all communist countries. Why is that? First it was global cooling, then it was the ozone hole, which fluctuates constantly, then thirty years ago the oceans would be depleted in twenty years, then it was global warming, and when that was proven to be a fantasy, it was climate change. All brought to you by environmentalists that have never been right about anything and using a "consensus" in science to claim they have facts. What is so laughable is the idiots that willingly bend over and grab the ankles for the greenies who use all these fantasies to "control " people and then fleece them of their hard earned money with gimmicks like "carbon" offsets. Environmentalism is the new home of the worlds communist control freaks. You people really need to get a grip and get over yourselves. The earth has taken care of itself for millions of years, always has, always will and you are nothing more than an insignificant bump in the road. You morons are reacting to the call of the greenies like Pavlov's dog reacted to the bell. What's so funny is you don't even question the crap you are being fed, you just lap it up, without a single skeptical thought in your heads as you feel so good about your recycling and using the green products that you buy, probably even wear a ribbon proclaiming your fealty to environmentalism. Amazing the amount of ludicrous gullibility in people that were given a brain, but never seem to use it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Just signed up to post that? I hadn't noticed that JackDRipper had gone as a handle.

  28. Ted Sbardella


    You made the Drudge report

  29. JakeUS


    Two points. The glaciers have been receding now for 11,000 years. The other is that John Muir was shocked at the glacier recession he saw in 1890.......

    So all you chicken little's take heart.

  30. enoughAlready911

    Facts are pointless to AGW believers

    Show opposing information to the AGW believers and all you get in return is name calling, "you grew up in bum Fnck Alabama", "you are a glenn beck idiot", "you are a faux news fool" and so on.

    You pro AGW folks can no more PROVE the cause of warming than non-believers can disprove it. Yet somehow you feel justified in name calling, questioning their intelligence and claiming they are propagandist working for "big oil".

    So when images like this come out and you respond with name calling it just goes to show everyone that you have no firm you go to the liberal "backstop" of personal attacks.

    A tactic as old as time and employed (generally) by those on the wrong side of the argument....sort of the "nuts and sluts" argument that politicians use when caught with a woman who's not their wife.

    So instead why don't you explain the variations in both ice coverage and temperatures which have occurred over the centuries? Not with made up data(as has been PROVEN on more than one occasion)....not with theory but irrefutable proof.

    And claims that "scientists have declared it case closed" are the equivalent to the consensus that the earth was flat....yet so many treat it as heresy to even question. Remember all fact are true until new information make them false(flight, space travel, gravity, flat earth, global cooling??)

    Perhaps explain how we "keep earth happy" when one volcano can completely undo in a few weeks (and by orders of magnitude) all best case reductions we could possibly achieve over multiple decades and $trillions of spend.

    Face it, the equation(the sinks and unexpected counter actions the earth constantly surprises us with) have too many variable and you understand too few of the exceptions that occur DAILY to say with any kind of certainty what is happening.

  31. The MaD HaCkER


    The situation has completely changed. But don't stop panicking over global warming. We don't want to let a perfectly good crises go to waste. So just keep on doing what we tell you and we will keep control...

  32. tnmccoy
    Big Brother

    You probably won't be seeing this story in the Mainstream Media [MSM.] It doesn't mesh well with the phony Global Warming [GW] hype. The only purpose of the GW hysteria is to increase Al Gore's income. Gore lost more than the 2000 election. He's a complete loser, a hypocrite, and a destroyer of manufacturing, mining and retail businesses and jobs. Those of us who managed to stay sane through all the nonsense, knew that the GW hysteria was a false God---named Al Gore. He got rich, won the peace prize for his hysteria, and the rest of us paid through the nose for baseless hype. The Earth warms and cools as it and the Sun dictate. Gore should be tried and convicted for crimes against mankind.

  33. Dan Paul

    Understanding why they call it Anthropogenic is key.

    Unfortunately it means that "Man" is just full of him/herself. A bundle of cells with the greatest Ego ever conceived. For man to believe that he has ANY effect upon the Earth, is among the most conceited and egotistical acts ever purpetrated. Perhaps that is the "original sin"?

    The Earth and the Universe have been in existence longer than anyone can measure. Man's tiny little mind cannot comprehend that fact, so he makes up stories that make him feel better, starting with "Religion". Now, it's "global warming". The utter vastness of the Earth or the Universe just scares the living shit out of Man without a whole pantheon of little bedtime stories to put things in perspective.

    Nature, Earth, Universe do not care what man does because all humanity is just an insignificant speck of festering DNA and bacteria. Man has had and will have no effect in terms of millions or billions of years , which are the time cycles of the Universe.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Understanding why they call it Anthropogenic is key.

      Yes, Yes, man has no effect on the earth.

      The ozone hole didn't happen

      The planet can't be seen lit up from space

      I didn't use a road to get to work this morning

      The 1980s smogs in California didn't happen, likewise the pre-clean air act smogs in London.

      There are no heat islands around cities.

      I mean, this has to be about the most piss-poor argument possible.

  34. billorris

    800 to a 1,000 years ago it was warm enough to farm, and raise live stock like sheep and goats.. Sweeds. Norweegwns and Danes did well there a good fishing business too.And then it got too colder ,again..

  35. jgfox

    Until it was put into the Memory Hole, most of the geological and climate research of the early 20th Century related to understanding the understand the ebb and flow of ice ages over the last few million years.

    “The Earth is in an ice age now. It started about 2 million years ago and is known as the Quaternary Period. Despite the many warm periods since then, we identify the entire time as one ice age because of the continuous existence of at least one large ice sheet—the one over Antarctica. (The glaciers and the Greenland ice sheet are also of long standing, but they are more recent). We are currently enjoying a warm interval: our climate represents an interglacial period that began about 10 000 years ago. The preceding glacial period lasted about 80 000 years” Canadian Museum of Nature

    We are still recovering from the last one which covered Europe and North America in mile high glaciers and extinguished many species under the weight of ice and fierce cold weather.

    We will know when we are fully recovered when Greenland glaciers disappear and the Arctic and Antarctic Ice is gone. Then the next Ice Age will start.

  36. sbr108

    What About the Sea Level?

    The big fear of the glaciers melting is the sea levels rising so high that coastal cities and low lying islands are flooded.

    If the glaciers in Greenland had partially melted back in the 1930's was there a corresponding rise in the global sea level?

    If people and more importantly scientist weren't worried back in the 30's they must not have noticed an asociated problem. Perhaps the global warming alarmist predictions of a killer sea level rise is exaggerated.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: What About the Sea Level?

      My family has had boats in Noyo Harbor (just south of Fort Bragg, in Northern California) since roughly 1860. Sea level hasn't changed appreciably in that time frame.

      1. Mike G

        Re: What About the Sea Level?

        You wouldn't notice, because the boats are lying lower in the water, as each generation of yank bible-bashing anti-science hamburger munching fucktards that fills said boats is a little bit more grossly obese.

        At least in centuries gone by, you tidally bobbing sea-turds could only whoop and holler within waddling range of the nearest barbecue or baseball game. Now that we have internets y'all gonna spread your righteous, homely fisherman's 'wisdom' over in parts of the world where we read books n stuff and rightfully pour scorn on hill billy bubbas homespun yarns.

        1. Connor

          Re: What About the Sea Level?

          You wouldn't know this this, as clearly judging by your manners it is unlikely you're allowed out of your garden gate without a strong tether, bit and Hannibal Lecter-esque entourage but most harbours have water level meters so folks capable of being in charge of vehicles not made by matchbox, know how much water is under the keel. Presumably that is what the gentleman was talking about.

          His observations are also backed up by the science, there has been no increase in sea levels.

  37. itzman

    Ad hominem attacks

    ..are the last refuge of the factually challenged.

    Keep at it Lewis. I for one am fed up with these denialists who simply cant accept that the world is not getting any warmer and certainly not fast enough to even remotely support IPCC projections. :)

  38. Alan Brown Silver badge

    @Graham Wilson

    FWIW quite a number of the scientific community are adamant that the best way to deal with global warming is to somehow limit the human population.

    9 billion people wanting fridges/cars/clean drinking water/etc has a lot more impact than 6 billion, etc.

  39. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    There are a lot of people signing up for new accounts to post rabidly anti-AGW posts in this subject.

    Funny really because someone earlier in the thread was accusing the Pro-AGW people of doing the same thing.

  40. 1 Million Dollars

    So basically the article is saying that Human activity does cause climate change ? All that is different is the rate of change.

  41. pdxuser

    Pollution = Bad, then and now.

    This was near the height of deadly permanent soot smog. The melting of glaciers was due to pollution, just as it is today. But in 1952, after a four-day smog killed 4000 Londoners, the UK passed reforms to clean up their act. We're not stopping the rise of CO2 today.

This topic is closed for new posts.