Heated climate debate continues

Professor Bob Carter

It can’t be over yet. When people are still being fired for not believing in global warming, it’s far from over. The war continues.

Professor Bob Carter (an expatriate Kiwi) lost his job the other day at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. He had worked there for 31 loyal years, his professional life devoted to stratigraphy, understanding events in the deep past recorded in ocean sediments, and teaching.

Significantly, because it led to his dismissal, Bob made an honourable name for himself and earned a world-wide reputation for remaining faithful to scientific principles while analysing the outrageous predictions from global warming alarmists. He was never afraid to speak out against the alarmists and their dubious claims.

Dismissing him with a blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry will deepen the shame of its perpetrators whenever the history of “man-made” climate change is recalled.

This contemptible action comes from academic leaders with a responsibility to uphold traditions of academic freedom and rigorous debate. The present office holders at JCU must know they owe a duty to their staff to defend them from attacks on academic freedom.

Poisonous thinking close to home

We need them to uphold the university’s honourable and ancient traditions — for nobody else can do it.

It’s troubling that the poisonous, irrational thinking that reviles dissenters and would prevent informed debate reaches its noisome tendrils so close to home. I hope my fellow citizens might wake up to this. If Kiwis thought comfortably that perhaps the more extreme or fanatical edges of the climate “debate” had passed them by, they will be reminded by the recent visit here by Wild Bill McKibben and by this despicable treatment of an honoured Kiwi son in what can only be described as an academic abomination that blind ignorance here in Australasia is no less vigorous than in far-off places such as Germany, Scotland and Uganda.

The climate debate exists because there are differing interpretations of the climate. Some people predict climate calamity, others disagree.

It’s hard for those of us who are not scientists to understand some of the scientific arguments surrounding global warming, but that’s no reason to avoid mentioning them. They’re vitally important, for they underpin the policy arguments on both sides. So what’s the principal argument against manmade global warming?

No theory, nothing to disprove

I’m not sure, but there are several that destroy it, including the little-known fact that there’s no properly constructed scientific theory behind anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Because it’s not a proper scientific theory, it’s impossible to disprove — the goalposts just get shifted on you. We ought to remember that, because there is no rigorously defined theory, it cannot assist our understanding. When the planet’s every weather event, no matter if it’s wet, dry, cold or hot, can be caused by global warming, calling it manmade doesn’t clarify anything.

To destroy the AGW theory there’s also the little-known fact that there’s been no warming for a long time now, even though our emissions of carbon dioxide keep climbing. This is particularly damaging as it directly contradicts the strident warnings from the alarmists. They’ve always maintained that more CO2 equals more warming.

Finally, claiming “ever-increasing” warming when warming is not being observed is either negligent or deceitful.

Views: 137

43 Thoughts on “Heated climate debate continues

  1. Mike Jowsey on 30/06/2013 at 3:15 am said:

    “When people are still being fired for not believing in global warming” – Welcome to 1984, Richard.

    “So what’s the principal argument against manmade global warming?”

    Wrong question. The onus is on Them to conclusively prove it. They call me a denier, but cannot tell me exactly what I am denying.

  2. Richard C (NZ) on 30/06/2013 at 10:39 am said:

    Carter and Spooner’s ‘Taxing Air’ might have been the catalyst for the purging. Jo Nova “…the School of Earth and Environmental Studies had discussed the issue (without any consultation with Carter) and decided that his views on climate change did not fit well within the School’s own teaching and research activities”. “So much for “higher” education”, as Jo puts it.

    Dr Nickolas Drapela, PhD, was fired from Oregon State University for being an outspoken critic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. What happens then, when the theory is proven to be false? Do all those behind these blackballings get to keep their jobs with impunity? In Carter’s case:

    * Head of School, Professor Paul Dirks
    * Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Jeffrey Loughran
    * Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Chris Cocklin (Lead Author for the IPCC’s 2007 Report)
    * Vice-Chancellor, Professor Sandra Harding

    >”So what’s the principal argument against manmade global warming?”

    The question and onus, as Mike points out, is what is the evidence for it?

    The Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF) et al has lodged a petition for a writ of certiorari (review basically) from the US Supreme Court of the EPA’s evidence for the endangerment finding, “et al” is eleven scientists (termed “amici”) of similar credentials to Carter. From the petition:

    “Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer-reviewed journals and are respected in their fields of expertise by their peers.”

    Carter or Drapela, in different circumstances, could have been among of those petitioning the US Supreme Court with contra-EPA/AGW evidence but taking issue with AGW by published book or personally expressed views got them fired. Six of the Supreme Court petitioners are University employed, what awaits them?

    The SLF et al petition excerpts and background here:


    Petition link:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/06/2013 at 7:58 pm said:

      Possibly another legal challenge, this from Monckton:

      “The difficulty, though, is that the IPCC, as one of a proliferating number of supranational agencies, is not answerable to any jurisdiction, except possibly that of Switzerland, where it is headquartered.” […]

      “The Swiss authorities have established a specialist bureau to investigate frauds, the Bureau de l’Escroquerie. Its expertise is considerable, and it is well used to dealing with frauds a great deal more complex than those of the IPCC.

      Whether the Swiss authorities will act on my complaint to them remains to be seen. Don’t hold your breath. However, now that the IPCC knows that a formal complaint has been submitted, it had better tread more carefully. If the Swiss police were to receive multiple complaints about different aspects of the IPCC’s misconduct – the Himalayan glaciers affair, for instance – they would not be able to look the other way indefinitely.

      So, if the IPCC wishes to survive (and, frankly, it has had its day), it will have to be a great deal more careful in future to comply with the scientific method – and with the criminal law.”


      Slim chance but who knows? At least Monckton can’t be fired from some University.

  3. Andy on 30/06/2013 at 11:20 am said:

    Bob Carter’s position was an honorary one. As an “adjunct” Professor, I don’t think there was a salary and it was a position that Prof Carter took up after his retirement from full-time paid employment at the University
    Nevertheless, it was a pretty disrespectful act to not renew the position after 33 years of service to the University and academic life.

    The University presumably decided that Prof Carter was “not a good fit”, or “not a team player”, the kind of corporate BS we expect not from Universities.

    I expect that there will be finger pointing to Bob’s connections with Heartland, his submissions against windfarms, his appearance on the Bolt Report, etc.

    This kind of political activism is “intolerable”, of course, for learned institutions such as JCU.
    Conversely, it is perfectly fine for activist scientists for the IPCC cause to work for Greenpeace, to get arrested outside the White House, to misrepresent science in the media, etc

    “The Cause” implies a different set of moral and ethical criteria.

    • Andy on 30/06/2013 at 3:31 pm said:

      Ken reckons this is all a conspiracy theory, and that Bob Carter’s tenure was just expiring.
      It’s a bit of a shame for Ken and all his acolytes that some of us have had private correspondence with Bob Carter that confirm the viewpoints expressed in this post.

  4. Pingback: The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists | Open Parachute

  5. Richard Christie on 30/06/2013 at 8:09 pm said:

    Maybe they were just allowing Bob more time off so he can get a paper round and contribute to NIWA’s costs. After all, I expect all of you here are chipping in for the cause.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/06/2013 at 8:39 pm said:

      Maybe they were just allowing Bob more time off for a book signing round.

    • Andy on 30/06/2013 at 8:43 pm said:

      I thought we were all in the pay of “Big Oil”

      Still waiting for the cheque, though

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/06/2013 at 9:03 pm said:

      Joolya to Tim re Bob Carter before she was dumped for her “carbon” tax:


      Readership est 850,000 – now THAT’s a paper round!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 30/06/2013 at 9:33 pm said:


      Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery (top picture)

      “Tim, sorry to drag you in like this. I’m not that upset that you were so wrong about water shortages now that we’re drowing in the stuff. And how were you to know that there would be no statistically significant increase in warming for the last 15 years of increasing CO2 emissions.”

      Julia Gillard to Tim Flannery: (lower image)

      “No! I want to know why I pay you 10 times what Bob Carter gets and he still wins the argument!”

    • Magoo on 01/07/2013 at 9:54 am said:

      Richard Christie: Guess what’s going to happen in Australia when the election comes around. That’s right, the Australian Labor Party are going to go down in flames and their carbon tax will too. So will the governmental funding to the climate change alarmists at the James Cook University.

      When Australia no longer has a carbon tax it will reinforce New Zealand’s stance and we’ll probably dump our ETS as well. The EU and Chicago carbon markets have collapsed and the US is very unlikely to introduce anything substantial, regardless of the noises Obama is making, as they’ll never get it through the house of representatives.

      Feel free to make a donation yourself if you believe so strongly about it though – buy some carbon credits as an investment for your future prosperity.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 01/07/2013 at 9:17 am said:

    >”The climate debate exists because there are differing interpretations of the climate. Some people predict climate calamity, others disagree.”

    Here’s one of those interpretations:

    Kevin Drum 2012 – “liberals need to stop nattering on about the latest research. It may gall us to do it, but anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth”


    H/t Tom Nelson, ICECAP.

    • Mike Jowsey on 01/07/2013 at 10:50 am said:

      Indeed they do milk it for everything it’s worth. I watched a doco last night on National Geographic about “Superstorm Sandy”. Although it was interesting to see the extent of the storm and its destruction, the 40-min piece was all a lead-in to the last 5 minutes of super-hype. Scott Mandia featured prominently. It got me angry, I’m afraid, so sleep was a problem for the next hour. The meme was – this is the new normal: bigger storms more often. Which is counter-indicated by the evidence (e.g. ACE index). Pure scare-mongering on the back of a real tragedy.

    • Andy on 01/07/2013 at 11:08 am said:

      Mike, I am enjoying the “global warming” in our neck of the woods, having been cross country skiing every day for the last 11 days. The snow outside the house is showing a small inclination towards a thaw

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/07/2013 at 12:08 pm said:

      Make the most of it Andy, snow will soon be a thing of the past.

      Heavy snow right now is just a clear indication that climate change is happening before our very eyes.

    • Andy on 01/07/2013 at 12:31 pm said:

      Pictures here. Lots of “rare and exciting events” all from the last week and a half.

      The ones at the bottom are from Tekapo a few days after the big storm

    • Mike Jowsey on 01/07/2013 at 1:53 pm said:

      Looks like you had a ball Andy. Envious. Hanmer Springs got a huge dump too, the snow pack sliding off our roof dislodging the Sky aerial. Never happened before in 20 years, but it’s just a bit of weather. Enjoy the winter, burn logs, set the carbon free!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/07/2013 at 2:35 pm said:

      Looks just like Norway right now:

      ‘Unprecedented summer snow in Norway June 29th’


      Rare events in both hemispheres simultaneously – what are the odds?

      [Check out the johnpaily comment at the bottom]

    • Andy on 01/07/2013 at 2:58 pm said:

      Wow that John Pailly comment is pretty off the wall

      The French Pyrenees have also had some record snow this winter. My friends who live there were out ski-touring last weekend.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/07/2013 at 4:59 pm said:

      I’m guessing that particular manifestation of climate looniness was inspired by ‘Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis, and Volcanoes’ by Bill McGuire. Not necessarily an extreme POV among climate loons either, I have Dr Kevin Trenberth on email record expressing something similar.

      See: ‘Climate change will shake the Earth’

      “A changing climate isn’t just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too”


    • Richard C (NZ) on 01/07/2013 at 11:55 am said:

      Peter Williams reporting the US heat wave on TV1 news (I think I recall this correctly):

      “One person even died….”

      Was that really newsworthy? Steven Goddard has a post on 1936 and an article from The Bend Bulletin titled:

      ‘Heat Wave Toll’
      Over 12,000 in 86 Cities in Week

      And another from the Owosso Argus – Press with the subtitle:

      1,000 Perish on 12th Day of Hot Spell in Nation


      Rounded to nearest nominal 1000 I assume. I wonder how those print editors/reporters from 1936 would react to Peter Williams’ prime time TV news reporting in 2013 where a total of 1 makes news in the same context.

  7. Peter Fraser on 01/07/2013 at 7:43 pm said:

    Captain Cook this University’s namesake was a scientist in the true sense of the word although he never attended a University. His navigational accuracy using “lunars” (requiring substantial mathematical ability) was renowned. Indeed the life of himself and his crew depended upon it. He showed himself to have an open enquiring mind on many subjects. He would turn in his grave.

    • Andy on 01/07/2013 at 9:13 pm said:

      It occurs to me that earthquakes may be on the rise because of the collective grave-turning of all the late scientists brought up on Popperian principles.

  8. Simon on 01/07/2013 at 11:08 pm said:

    Why are most sceptics in academia well past retirement age and non-experts in climate science? Why aren’t there bright young sceptics coming though? Maybe it’s because the science really is settled and those left behind were simply too old to accept the paradigm shift.

    • Australis on 01/07/2013 at 11:29 pm said:

      Very good question, Simon.

      Isn’t it weird how not a single bright young scientist, anywhere, has any doubt regarding any angle or aspect of the UN’s orthodoxy regarding dangerous anthropogenic global warming?

      No young scientists questioning ECS or TCR? None with any interest in natural variability? No skeptics, doubters, or questioners? Nobody who is curious about any of the anomalies?

      Nope. There’s not a single individualist or independent thinker who wants to go the way of Bob Carter. Not in any university – anywhere in the world – that relies upon Government funding for its research programmes.

      Why is this? Must be because the science is settled. There’s just nothing left to learn about climate science.

    • Andy on 02/07/2013 at 8:02 am said:

      Maybe it is because you don’t get grants and you get bullied by colleagues and students if you don’t preach the scriptures according to the prophets Mann and Hansen.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/07/2013 at 10:29 am said:

      >”Why are most sceptics in academia well past retirement age and non-experts in climate science?”

      Who is expert in climate science? There’s plenty of older academics with highly developed transferable skills in the various aspects (physics, mech/chem/elec engineering, IT, statistics, data analysis, etc – think McIntyre’s recent vindication vs The Team) and fully functioning and finely tuned BS detectors that have got to grips with the intricacies better than young rote learners who see their government sponsored travel ticket awaiting them and dare not question (and haven’t the objective critiquing skill for that anyway).

      >”Why aren’t there bright young sceptics coming though?”

      Because they’re pursuing productive vocations where their smarts are of more use.

      Any more questions?

    • Magoo on 02/07/2013 at 12:10 pm said:

      That’s a simple one to answer Simon, just look at the way Chris de Freitas was treated in the climategate emails. One wonders what has been going on behind the scenes with Bob Carter.

      If you’re unaware of what happened to de Freitas then I suggest you read this:


      It’s all very unscientific don’t you think, imagine the impact such goings on would have on a young up and coming scientist. If the AGW evidence is so ‘robust’ then the question has to be asked, why are sceptics seen as such a threat. The truth is that there is no evidence for AGW and the only defence of it is to silence or ridicule those who point this out. The reason the retired scientists speak out is because they aren’t at the mercy of those who would vandalise their careers in an effort to silence them – although even then it’s still attempted, just look at the smears made about Fred Singer.

      I hope that answers your question.

    • Gary on 03/07/2013 at 5:44 pm said:

      I call it Peer pressure and bulling as to why the young ones are not stepping up.

  9. Richard C (NZ) on 02/07/2013 at 2:53 pm said:

    ‘Heat Waves Validate the Skeptics’

    Essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus, Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

    The heat wave and near record-breaking temperatures in Death Valley provides a superb teaching moment to show why CO2 has nothing to do with heat waves whether the record is ever broken or not.


  10. Richard C (NZ) on 02/07/2013 at 8:09 pm said:

    Results for #climatesilence


    Roger Pielke Jr. ‏28 Jun

    “Not a single response to my open invitation to defend Obama Admin’s claim of increasing disaster costs due to climate change”

    # # #

    See The White House “infographic” ‘Climate Change and President Obama’s Action Plan’

    [Note: Climate Action Plan, by sheer coincidence = CAP, as in Cap-and-Trade bill that failed to pass Congress legislation (law) in 2010 ]


    “…a series of executive actions to reduce carbon pollution…”

    “Due to climate change, the weather is getting more extreme”

    “Climate and weather disasters in 2012 cost the American economy more than $100 billion”

    “We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it’s too late.” —President Obama

    Propaganda at its best – Goebbels was right:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
    – Joseph Goebbels

    • Richard C (NZ) on 02/07/2013 at 8:20 pm said:

      Roger Pielke Jr. ‏29 Jun

      “What does it say about the climate science community that the Prez says something easily shown false and no one says a peep?” #climatesilence

      Retweeted 65 times

  11. Richard C (NZ) on 03/07/2013 at 9:33 am said:

    ‘Exhibit #7 of the Drama Queen Files’

    by Donna Laframboise

    Emergency! Catastrophe! Earth is turning into an unprecedented hellhole – according to an Oxford professor and Microsoft official.



    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/07/2013 at 10:01 am said:

      And one for the Obama Files:

      “Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy,” – President Barack Obama


    • Andy on 03/07/2013 at 10:34 am said:

      I have been getting begging emails from Obama’s campaign team. I signed up for some email newsletter and they keep pestering me to give them $5. I can’t anyway as I am not a US citizen, but they are quite insistent and not at all polite

      I think the campaign might be to stop the planet from boiling over but I am not quite sure

    • Richard C (NZ) on 03/07/2013 at 10:56 am said:

      It might be for green fees

    • Andy on 03/07/2013 at 11:08 am said:

      That puts a whole new spin on the “green economy”

  12. Richard C (NZ) on 04/07/2013 at 12:17 pm said:

    ‘Business Journalists: Climate Change Deniers Have No Place in Our Reporting’

    Veteran Financial Scribes React to CNBC Voices Denying Climate Change


    Felicity Barringer, a New York Times reporter who has covered both business and the environment, said bringing in a climate change denier to a business story on climate change serves no purpose when so much evidence is in the other direction: “If there’s nobody in the business transaction, no analyst, no banker, no insurance agent who’s questioning the basic facts of climate change and the business risks this might entail, I don’t see why you need to pull someone else in to question it, it seems kind of irrelevant.”

    James Madore, a business reporter at Newsday on Long Island, N.Y., has reported on the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy as a resident of a town hit severely by the storm. He said it has made denying climate change unacceptable among small businesses he has covered.

    “Like a lot of places, climate change is something people think about in the back of their mind, they have read about it,” he said. “But then you have a disaster happen, events like this, show there is something to global warming, it is not an isolated incident.”



    # # #

    Of course, analysts, bankers and insurance agents, are perfectly able and informed enough through the news reporting they’re exposed to – not to mention their general focused attention on scientific developments and metrics pertaining to climate change – to question “the basic facts of climate change” (whatever Felicity means by that – probably that humans are the cause of every weather event nowadays) if they had a mind to aren’t they?

    So no need to determine the human causation factor (if any) in any weather or climate risk they might consider – it’s a “basic fact” that humans caused “hurricane” Sandy for example and that disaster is a perfect example of “climate change”. Case, and minds, closed.

    The dumbing down is complete – with the assistance of business journalism.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/07/2013 at 6:30 pm said:

      ‘Quote of the day … appalling journalism promoted unsustainable “renewables”.’

      Hilary’s musings & miscellaneous missives

      Peter C. Glover has a way with words that I’ve always admired: he calls a spade a spade. He has an article today in the U.K.’s The Commentator, in which he discusses the weaving and unravelling of the myths of renewable energy.

      “…aided by aggressive and heavily-funded green lobbies, leftist social engineers, appalling journalism, naive politicians and unscrupulous opportunistic renewable energy entrepreneurs, wind turbines and the photovoltaic industry quickly became established facts on the ground, giving the appearance of economic ‘viability’.”



      Hilary too, has a way with words that I admire.

      See also some interesting Bloomberg reporting re the WMO report:


    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/07/2013 at 6:49 pm said:

      >”Hilary too, has a way with words that I admire.”

      On Peter Gleick:

      There was a time in days of olden
      When ’twas said that silence is golden
      Yet thanks to a scientist, an expert on water
      Who dared not speak, though many thought he oughtta
      His inactions are leading to conclusions unvarnished
      That Gleick, by his silence, has glitter much tarnished!

      On Burton Richter

      There once was a laureate named Richter
      Who issued an obiter dicta:
      That I am be-medalled
      Means the science is settled
      I can tell by one glance at the picture

      – Hilary Ostrov

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/07/2013 at 7:25 pm said:

      Also from Hilary’s The View From Here:

      ‘WWF-Russia rolls out scare-machine in advance of IPCC’s AR5’

      [Hilary] To my ears this sounds an awful lot like “next chorus, next verse, a little bit louder and a whole lot worse”:

      [Bellona interview] ‘Climate experts to announce global climate time bomb will go off by 2040, says WWF’s Kokorin’

      The climate time bomb

      Bellona: Can we speculate as to what will be said in this report?

      Alexei Kokorin: The main thing that is expected to be there is data saying that the climate “time bomb” may blow up sometime around 2040. Whereas earlier it was believed that man’s impact on the climate was gradual, and that the situation was deteriorating in a gradual way, now – in contrast to the previous report, which was being put together seven years ago – much more information has been obtained on ocean cycles and other natural fluctuations. Scientists have realized that today, in the 2010s, man’s impact is being mitigated by natural cycles that are offsetting the impact made on the climate by man. This situation will hold for about another twenty years. But it is completely clear that after that, this mitigation will yield to escalation.

      We are having a sort of a breather now, but soon enough, we’ll see an onslaught of both – both natural and man-made processes that are causing the rise in temperature.

      And temperature will surge dramatically. Yes, temperature rise will then slow down again, sometime in the 2070s, but it will soar up again after that. Understanding this is what makes this new knowledge principally different from what was known seven years ago.

      A “respite given by nature”: a lucky break to turn the crisis around

      Bellona: What must be done in this situation?

      Alexei Kokorin: When you’re told that in the past fifteen years, the temperature of surface air on the planet has not been rising, this should not in any way be construed as proof that humankind’s impact on the climate has ceased. Scientists know it hasn’t. They know it’s because of how natural fluctuations are superimposed on the impact made by man. This is just a respite that nature gave us. And we must use this respite not for wishful thinking and inaction, but for reducing emissions, because after this respite, a double effect will ensue. [emphasis added -hro]


      WWF’s Kokorin must have missed the “4 Hiroshima bombs worth of heat per second” memo.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 04/07/2013 at 7:59 pm said:

      >”We are having a sort of a breather now, but soon enough, we’ll see an onslaught of both – both natural and man-made processes that are causing the rise in temperature. And temperature will surge dramatically. Yes, temperature rise will then slow down again, sometime in the 2070s, but it will soar up again after that”

      It has to be acknowledged that this analysis by Kokorin is corroborated to a certain extent by Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre (as channeled by Sean Thomas in The Telegraph):

      “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”

      Kokorin appears to be making a detailed prognosis for the longer term past 2070, Belcher’s is more near term ending prior to 2070 but corresponding to Kororin’s “a sort of a breather now” (“But now not hot. Not hot now”) and “temperature will surge dramatically” (“Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot!”).

      No word yet on whether Belcher concurs with Kokorin’s post-2070 “slow down” in his longer term view.

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation