Settled Science: Snowflakes


Every winter day across the Northern Hemisphere millions of cross-country skiers rely on the settled science of snowflakes. The practical application involves the use of wax in order to “stride and glide” across the snow.

How does it work? You glide on the tips and tails of the skis, so you put on those spots a very hard wax, like paraffin, that makes little friction with the snow. When you put your foot down in order to stride forward, you need on the ski under your boot a more sticky wax that will grip the snow for traction.

The art and science of waxing means choosing the right wax for the existing snow conditions. Snow crystals have sharper points when cold and dry, and are more rounded when warm and damp. When snow is fresh, cold and dry, a harder wax will do the job. Snow that is older, warmer or damp, requires a softer, sticker wax for traction.

If you put on too soft a wax, you get a big clump of snow attached to your ski bottom, and you would do better with snowshoes. Norwegians have gotten quite expert at this and win a lot of Olympic medals racing cross-country, along with other Scandinavians and Russians.

Here in Quebec last century Cree natives were amazed to see a Norwegian flashing through the woods over the snow, and they gave him a nickname. Until recently you could still buy his waxes branded with his legendary name: “Jackrabbit Johannsen.” (In 1982, at the age of 107, Herman Smith-Johannsen (1875-1987) was inducted into the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame.)

Of course, when the snow gets deep and stays very cold as it does in the Arctic, it compacts into solid ice, part of the ebb and flow of Arctic Sea Ice extent. When the ice cover retreats, the air becomes moist from evaporation, snow falls and the ice grows. When extensive ice restricts open water, the dry air produces too little snow to replace ice melted by the sun, and the cycle begins again.

The science is described more fully in Arctic Sea Ice: Self-Oscillating System

The Climate Story (Illustrated)


The captions and most comments below come from Mike van Biezen in his recent essay published at the Daily Wire (here). To illustrate his points, I added images collected from various internet addresses. Michael van Biezen teaches physics and earth sciences at Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, and his many lectures are available on Youtube at his website (here).

Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.


Global Mean Temperature from land and ocean expressed in absolute degrees F.

Satellite temperature data do not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.



The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980. CO2 levels do not correlate consistently with temperatures.

Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations.


There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

On the graph above, the past is on the right side, time goes to the left. You can see that the Antarctic temperature starts to change first, and CO₂ responds with a 800-year lag. The explanation is obvious: oceans are large and it simply takes centuries for them to warm up or cool down before they release or absorb gases.

Higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.

The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes

The H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, has many more vibrational modes, and absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed.

Many periods during our recent history show that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution.

Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years.

“Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming.

The Moral of The Climate Story:

Global warming alarm is not supported by temperature data.



Post-Truth Climatism

This particular realization started by clicking on an article discussing how fact-checking has become irrelevant in today’s politics.
The Limits of Fact-Checking: Calling Trump (and others) out for their lies doesn’t seem to make a difference. What’s going on? (Politico here).

Trump is exhibited as the primary example: the more his comments are rated as lies, even pants-on-fire lies, the more popular he becomes. But other politicians, including Hillary, are also cited for saying false things and refusing to renounce them.

A further analysis by Michael Kinsley ( here) suggests that a candidate or an elected leader and his followers know they are playing a game, and winning depends on having the more compelling narrative, never mind the “truth.” In fact, these falsehoods are not even concerned with any “truth,” they are just making up stuff that sounds good to an audience. In other words, they are not lying, they are bullshitting. Insiders know it and are OK with it, while much of the public is naive and therefore gullible.

As it happens Harry Frankfurt of Princeton gets to the heart of the matter in his provocative essay, On Bullshit, he says:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction.

Someone who lies and someone who tells the truth are playing on opposite sides, so to speak, in the same game.

The bullshitter ignores these demands altogether. He does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

Now the parallel with climatism is obvious. The Paris COP was striking in the sheer volume of claims that were stated as truths without any attempt to provide proof or even admit the need for any. Climatism is now unconnected to facts, evidence or logical argument. It explains why both political and climate fact-checkers are widely ignored.

Frankfurt warns:

The bullshitter may not deceive us, or even intend to do so, either about the facts or about what he takes the facts to be. What he does necessarily attempt to deceive us about is his enterprise. His only indispensably distinctive characteristic is that in a certain way he misrepresents what he is up to.
This is the crux of the distinction between him and the liar.

I believe Science Matters because actual scientific understanding does inform us about the future and what we need to do to prepare. But in the present environment, bullshitting is the order of the day, and we live in the twilight of Post-Truth discourse.

More from Frankfurt:

The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These “anti-realist” doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry.

For more on the degradation of objective truth (AKA the Revenge of the Humanities) see:



Arctic Sea Ice: Self-Oscillating System

The Climate System is Self-Oscillating: Sea Ice Proves It.

Scientists have studied the Arctic for a long time at the prestigious AARI: Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute St. Petersburg, Russia. V. F. Zakharov has published a complete description supported by research findings under this title: Sea Ice In the Climate System A Russian View (here)

Below I provide excerpts from this extensive analysis to form a synopsis of their view: Component parts of the climate system interact so that Arctic Sea Ice varies within a range constrained by those internal forces.

Self-Oscillating Sea Ice System

Self-Oscillating Sea Ice System

The most probable regulator of the physical geographical process can be found from analysis of the relationships between the components of the climate system. It is not necessary to investigate the cause-effect relationships between all these components in succession. It is sufficient to choose one of them, let us say sea ice, and consider its direct interaction with the atmosphere and the ocean – in the climate system and the significance of internal mechanisms in the natural process. Pg 1

The idea that the ice area growth at present can be achieved by changes in only the haline structure of the upper ocean layer, as a result of surface Arctic water overflowing onto warmer but more saline water, is supported both by calculations and empirical data. Pg. 46

First of all, it should be noted that the signs of temperature and salinity anomalies coincide in most cases: a decreased salinity corresponds to enhanced temperature and vice versa. Such similarity in the change of these parameters is impossible to explain from the point of view of the governing role of thermal conditions in the atmosphere with regard to the ocean, as the air temperature increase and decrease can result only in the change of the thermal state of sea surface layer not its salinity. Pgs. 48-49

Thus, the presented facts suggest that the most significant cause of changes in the ice cover extent are the changes in the vertical water structure in the upper ocean layer, rather than the changes of thermal conditions in the atmosphere. These changes are induced by fluctuations in the horizontal dimensions of the halocline, which are governed in turn by the expansion or reduction of the surface Arctic water mass. Pg. 49

It follows from the above that, under present day conditions, the changes in the area of the Arctic sea ice during the colder period of the year can be induced only by the change in the haline structure of the upper ocean layer. Indirectly, this change will also affect the thermal state of the atmosphere. Pg. 56

It is important to note that the ice effect on the atmosphere is not limited to the thermal effect. That it can produce a significant effect on atmospheric circulation is already evident from the fact that the Arctic anticyclone, considered by Viese [13] as a regulator of atmospheric processes in the Northern polar region, could form as a pressure formation only in the conditions of the ice regime in the Arctic. Pg. 56


Zacharov fig.24

Zakharov fig.24

An analysis of cause-effect relationships does not leave any doubt in what direction and in what order the climate signal propagates in the atmosphere-ocean-polar ice system. This is not the direction and order usually assumed to cause present climate change. When it has become clear that the changes in the ocean, caused by disturbances of its freshwater balance, precede changes in the extent of sea ice, and the latter the changes in the atmosphere, then there was nothing left but for us to acknowledge self oscillation to be the most probable explanation for the development of the natural process. Pg. 58

Maybe the most convincing evidence of the Arctic sea ice stability is its preservation during the last 700,000 years despite vast glacial- interglacial fluctuations. The surface air temperature in the Arctic during the interglacial periods was higher by several degrees than present day temperatures. Pg. 44


The remarkable stability of our planetary climate system derives from feedbacks between internal parts of the system, providing the oscillations we observe as natural variability. Arctic Sea Ice is a prime example.

Talking Climate


One thing revealed by the recent US Senate hearing was the importance of the two basic arguments forming the alarmist position:

1. “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” (Obama tweet)

2. “There are multiple lines of evidence that show the climate system is changing.” (Dept. of the Environment, Australia)

These two zingers must be met by equally brief, pointed replies.

97% Agreement

I concede that most climate scientists think there is a problem, but 97% of all scientists is an exaggeration.

The first claim of 97% came from a survey sample of 77 climate scientists who said “Yes” to 2 statements: “It has warmed since 1850.”; “Human activity has contributed to the warming.” That survey questionnaire was deliberately not sent to those known to be skeptical: scientists not employed by government or universities; astronomers; solar scientists; physicists; meteorologists.


More inclusive surveys with more pointed questions show much more diverse opinions. Most scientists agree it has warmed since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age. Geologists have evidence that the earth was warmer than now during the Medieval Warm Period, more warm during the Roman Warm Period, warmer still in the Minoan period. So the overall trend is a cooling over the last 11,500 years.

Most agree that human land use, such as making dams, farming, building cities, airports and highways, all affect the climate in those locations. The idea that rising CO2 is causing dangerous warming is controversial, with dissenters a large minority.

Multiple Lines of Evidence Climate is Changing

All of the measures are “glass half-empty, glass half-full.” And no one has evidence separating human and natural climate changes.  (Quotes below from Australia Dept. of Environment here)

Example 1: Air Temperatures
Air temperatures have increased globally, by around 0.85 degrees Celsius since 1880, with most of the warming occurring since the 1970s. All three major global surface temperature records show that the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed since 1880.

This is true and unsurprising emerging from the Little Ice Age. Over the last 150 years there has been a steady increase overlaid with a sine wave of 30-year warming and cooling periods.  From 1979 to 1998 the warming coincided with the rising rate of CO2, but the correlation is not seen in the periods before and since those two decades.

Example 2: Sea Levels
Global sea levels have risen at an average rate of 1.8 millimetres per year over 1961 to 2003. This rate risen to around 3.2 millimetres per year from 1993 to 2012.

Sea levels have been rising with the Little Ice Age recovery, and tidal guages show no increase in the rate in recent years. The 3.2 mm comes from the GRACE satellite system which is still being calibrated and not yet reliable, according to researchers.

Example 3: Extreme Weather
Extreme weather events include heatwaves, bushfires, tropical cyclones, cold snaps, extreme rainfall and droughts.  There is increasing evidence that the frequency and intensity of many extreme weather events  are changing.

The number and strength of extreme weather events by any statistical measure have been unusually benign in recent decades. The IPCC concluded that no causal link is proven between warming and extreme weather

Example 4: Rainfall Patterns
Rainfall patterns are changing around the world. Research shows the global water cycle is intensifying with a warming climate, which means wet areas are likely to get wetter and dry regions are likely to be drier in response to climate change.

Global rainfall varies about 5% from one year to another, so if it is drier in one place, it is wetter somewhere else. The IPCC working group said there is currently no way of predicting which places will get more or less rainfall long term.

The other notions of ocean acidification, Arctic Ice melting, etc. are likewise inconclusive and subject to interpretation, as other posts here and elsewhere point out.


We simply do not know our climate system well enough to predict what will happen. Our ignorance should not be an excuse for fear and irrational actions.

Future periods are likely to be colder as well as warmer, and cold is the greater threat to human life and prosperity. To prepare for the future we should invest in robust infrastructure and ensuring reliable affordable energy. We should also focus on real and present environmental problems such as actual air pollution which kills thousands of people every day.

Animal Farm & Climate Change


Animal Farm2

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a masterpiece of a simple story suggesting so many realities of societies. Among many things, it shows how a basic dichotomy mobilizes people (or creatures) for social or political action. The image above expresses the heart of the story whereby some animals took power over the others out of fear of humans.

Consider another dichotomy:    Producers Good, Parasites Bad.

Bumper Sticker

Bumper Sticker

People who are astounded by Donald Trump’s candidacy are overlooking how widely and deeply felt is this distinction between those who produce and those who take, and not only in the Tea Party but far beyond. The power arises from the emotional investment in the branding, no matter how illogical or mistaken it may be. Those who don’t feel it, don’t “get it.” Add in the envy of someone so rich he can say anything unbounded by Political Correctness, and Trump becomes a force to be reckoned with. It remains to be seen whether his followers are voters beyond being fans.

As for Climate Change, it seems to me at its heart lie two intertwined dichotomies:
                            Carbon Pollution Bad, Clean Air Good
                         Runaway Warming Bad, Stable Climate Good

The first notion is that carbon dioxide is a pollutant making the air dirty. Since CO2 is neither visible nor toxic (plants depend on it), it requires a second assertion that more CO2 causes runaway warming upsetting the stability of our climate system. That is, by adding CO2 from burning fossil fuels, we are destabilizing the climate system and bad things will happen as a result. Interestingly, at demonstrations the negative side is quite explicit, but the affirmative side requires some interpretation.

Some of us are astounded that sentient carbon-based life forms could be so disparaging of their own composition, but there is more than a whiff of anti-humanity in this movement. And the idea that we humans can fix the climate in a favorable state boggles the mind.

How all this plays out can be seen in an excellent interview with Bill Gates. Of course, he is a very lucid person and a genuine philanthropist of the first order. He has educated himself deeply on the history of energy as shown by this:

Share of Fuels in the Global Energy Mix Across Modern History

Gates goes on to say this:

What’s amazing is how our intense energy usage is one and the same as modern civilization. That is, for all the great things that happened in terms of human lifestyle, life span, and growing food before 1800, civilization didn’t change dramatically until we started using coal in the U.K. in the 1800s. Coal replaced wood. But the wave of wood to coal is about a 50- or 60-year wave.

If it was just about economics, if we had no global warming to think about, the slowly-but-surely pace of these transitions would be okay. If you look at one of these forecasts, they all say about the same thing: What you look at is a picture that’s pretty gradual, with natural gas continuing to gain at the expense of both coal and oil. But, you know, 1-percent-a year-type change. If you look at that from a greenhouse-gas point of view—if you look at forecasts—every single year we’ll be emitting more greenhouse gases than the previous year.

The title of the article is We Need an Energy Miracle because Bill Gates is one who worries about global warming. He has accepted at face value the dichotomies of climate change, and so those blinders shape his investment plans and priorities.

He actually has a lot in common with Bjorn Lomborg, who supports the Gates energy innovation initiative. But Lomborg sees things more clearly (here responding to comments by Arnold Swartzenegger):

Power generation, traffic and industry – which is mostly fossil fuel driven and likely what you were thinking about – in total cause 854,000 air pollution deaths. Added to the 560,000 deaths from indoor air pollution caused by coal, this constitute only 20% of total air pollution deaths or about 3,900 deaths each day.

This matters for two reasons. First, it is disingenuous to link the world’s biggest environmental problem of air pollution to climate. It is a question of poverty (most indoor air pollution) and lack of technology (scrubbing pollution from smokestacks and catalytic converters) – not about global warming and CO₂. Second, costs and benefits matter.[vi] Tackling indoor air pollution turns out to be very cheap and effective, whereas tackling outdoor air pollution is more expensive and less effective. Your favorite policy of cutting CO₂ is of course even more costly and has a tiny effect even in a hundred years.

It is likely that future periods will be both colder and warmer than the present. Preparing for that means investing in robust infrastructure and in reliable affordable energy.

I agree with Lomborg. It’s important to make an energy transition and take the time to do it right. So far we are wasting time and money on the illusion that we can ensure favorable weather by reducing fossil fuel emissions.

Arctic Ice Growing, No Surprises Dec. 15


Three weeks ago I reported that after 2007 Arctic ice extent was no longer declining, and that 2015 will add another year to that stabilization. With only half a month until year end, the recent MASIE measurements are showing the expected surplus of ice.

MASIE measurements show that 2007 ice extent was lower than any year since. It is now confirmed that 2015 average annual extent will exceed 2007 by at least 300,000 km2. That difference arises from comparing 2007 annual average of 10.414 M km2 with 2015 running average through day 349 of 10.717. In the 16 days remaining in 2015, we can expect the annual average to rise to about 10.774, or 360,000 km2 higher than 2007.

masie ann est

At this point in the annual cycle, it is possible to project the annual average for the calendar year. The daily average presently is well above the running average for the year, so the year-end average will be increasing each day to the end of December. In the last decade, a typical year added about 60k km2 to the annual average in the last 16 days.

Disclaimer: Alarmists chafe at the words “growing” and “recovery”, and I use them poetically to counter “death spiral” terminology. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. The rise since 2007 is slight and not statistically important, just as the loss of ice from 1979 to 1994 in the NOAA dataset was too slight to count as a decline.


Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since.

masie day 349

MASIE Comparison 2014 and 2015 Day 349

Ice Extents Ice Extent
Region 2014349 2015349 km2 Diff.
 (0) Northern_Hemisphere 12548113 12289626 -258486
 (1) Beaufort_Sea 1070445 1070445 0
 (2) Chukchi_Sea 966006 965989 -17
 (3) East_Siberian_Sea 1087137 1087120 -17
 (4) Laptev_Sea 897845 897809 -36
 (5) Kara_Sea 933096 874256 -58839
 (6) Barents_Sea 433080 286703 -146377
 (7) Greenland_Sea 511903 600822 88919
 (8) Baffin_Bay_Gulf_of_St._Lawrence 887832 989563 101731
 (9) Canadian_Archipelago 853214 853178 -36
 (10) Hudson_Bay 1253770 1013217 -240553
 (11) Central_Arctic 3235340 3206905 -28435
 (12) Bering_Sea 176250 292268 116018
 (13) Baltic_Sea 4594 2028 -2566
 (14) Sea_of_Okhotsk 228906 145623 -83283
 (15) Yellow_Sea 940 151 -789
 (16) Cook_Inlet 130 2407 2277

There is little difference between 2014 and 2015 at this point. The major basins have recovered: Central Arctic, BCE (Beaufort, Chuchi, East Siberian), Canadian Archipelago.  Bering Sea is freezing ahead of last year.  Barents, Kara and Okhotsk are behind while Greenland and Baffin are ahead.  The major difference is Hudson Bay.

Greatest COP OUT Ever

Definition of Cop Out

n. An excuse designed to shirk responsibility;
n. Refers to taking the easy way out of a sticky situation. Placing blame on something else to make things easier for yourself is a cop out

Synonyms: pretense, dodge, pretext, fraud, alibi

Within the thousands of laudatory media reports of the Paris climate agreement, there are frequently embedded paragraphs such as this:

Scientists who closely monitored the talks in Paris said it was not the agreement that humanity really needed. By itself, it will not save the planet. The great ice sheets remain imperiled, the oceans are still rising, forests and reefs are under stress, people are dying by tens of thousands in heatwaves and floods, and the agriculture system that feeds 7 billion human beings is still at risk. here

I was struck by the list of calamities that used to be labeled as “Acts of God.”

Definition of Act of God
n. a natural catastrophe which no one can prevent such as an earthquake, a tidal wave, a volcanic eruption, or a tornado. Acts of God are significant for two reasons: 1) for the havoc and damage they wreak, and 2) because often contracts state that “acts of God” are an excuse for delay or failure to fulfill a commitment or to complete a construction project. Many insurance policies exempt coverage for damage caused by acts of God, which is one time an insurance company gets religion. here

Now insurance companies have been well-served by that excellent cop out. My father-in-law always said insurance policies were like umbrellas that won’t open when it rains. Probably that bit of folk wisdom prompted one insurer to come up with this logo:

What Paris Agreement Means

With the momentous agreement in Paris, there is now a universal cop out for all elected officials at every level of government. Why wouldn’t they all sign up? It’s a get-out-of-accountability card. Because whatever bad thing happens on your watch, it’s the result of “climate change”.

Having a drought in California? The climate did it, caused by everyone burning fossil fuels, so not the government’s fault. Never mind the lack of attention and funding for the water storage infrastructure, including the neglect by first time elected Gov. Jerry Brown of his father’s, Pat Brown’s California Water Project to provide water security. No, in his second mandate, Jerry Brown addresses the problem by setting up a carbon market, so they can sit back and collect indulgences carbon offsets while waiting for El Nino to come through.

Worried about flooding in Florida or New Jersey? Climate change causes it, so everyone is guilty and no one is accountable. Never mind that people foolishly build on flood plains, or on subsiding coastlines, or locate New Orleans below sea level between the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Pontchartrain. If only we reduce our CO2 emissions, these disasters will never happen again.

So I go on? Wildfires in old growth forests where people have built homes so that controlled burning of underbrush is not done. It’s climate change, not bad forestry practices.

No wonder such rejoicing at the conclusion of COP 21. Raise your glasses of kool-aid and recite together the IPCC Creed:

We claim for ourselves the authority,
On behalf of all needy countries,
To collect Other People’s Money,
For a solution that won’t work,
To solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
If we keep the Fear alive,
We will surely meet again and again.

Truly, it is the Greatest COP OUT Ever.

Countries claiming compensation from users of fossil fuels.

A Teenager Looks at Climate Change

Teenager's View

This is a guest post by my grandson, William Desormeaux age 17, consisting of an English translation of his essay in French to fulfill a philosophy class requirement.  The words and thoughts are entirely his own, based on his own research.  I added the images.

For a few decades, many people have given their opinions about climate change. Some are concerned by this phenomenon, while others try to prove that these changes do not actually have impact. The first group can be called warming alarmists and the second warming skeptics. For other individuals who are not part of these groups, the following question arises: Should we act against climate change? In my opinion, alarmists exaggerate much too much on the problems. In fact, the conditions of the Earth have already been worse, humans are not actually responsible for these changes and measured results contain errors.


First, I do not believe that we should act against climate change because the situation of the Earth, in respect of carbon dioxide has already been much worse. Indeed, according to Ian Plimer, Professor of geology at the University of Adelaide, several millennia ago, Earth had a rate of carbon dioxide 1000 times higher.1 Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and alarmists say that it is bad for the environment. It is true that it has an impact on our planet. On the other hand, when we look at the statistics of Ian Plimer, we realize that the Earth has already included much more of this gas and survived. Moreover, plant life depends on carbon dioxide and grows bigger and faster in higher concentrations than we have today. In short, although the concentration of greenhouse gases increases, it remains that it has been much higher without damage caused to our planet.

Greenhouse gases diagram

Secondly, in the same vein, I am not convinced that we actually have the possibility of acting against climate change since we are not responsible. Indeed, again according to Ian Plimer, human activities are responsible for only 3% of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere.2 If we take a moment to analyze these figures, we can quickly see that even if we succeed in halving our emission of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, there would still remain 98.5% of the gas that “pollutes our planet”. Further, I consider that all the sacrifices that we should take just to halve our emissions will do nothing to save the Earth. So, 98.5% means that climate changes are part of a natural cycle, and we shouldn’t be overly preoccupied about this issue.


Thirdly, the results recorded by meteorological stations are not completely reliable. Indeed, according to Anthony Watts, Chief Meteorologist of KPAY-AM radio, 89% of stations recording temperatures do not respect National Weather service standards.3 This statistic shows that some results used by alarmists are erroneous. It is easy for people to believe that the temperature is rising when different weather stations do not meet standards. For example, some of these stations have been found in the middle of parking lots, an area where heat is absorbed. So, in this way, the displayed temperatures are higher than they should be. Thus results promoted by alarmists are not typical since there are only 11% of stations that are adequate. Finally, I do not believe that action must be taken against climate change since published temperatures are misleading. In this way, it is easy to make global warming look worse than it is.


In conclusion, I am convinced that we should not take action against climate change. Several experts like Mr. Plimer and Mr. Anthony Watts have convinced me that these changes have already been worse, that they are not the fault of humans and that they are exaggerated by alarmists due to poor data collection. In addition, I believe skeptics’ thoughts are less taken into account by the population since they are less disclosed by the media. Among other things, it’s much more interesting for them to mention that a phenomenon such as climate warming may disrupt our lives than to share with readers that everything is normal. Finally, although I myself pay attention to my planet, by recycling and taking public transit frequently, I’m not convinced that it is crucial to act against climate change.