9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?

Washington’s Blog readers: Do you agree or disagree with the premise of this post?

By David Ray Griffin. Originally published at Information Clearinghouse.


September 11, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  Some people have argued that global warming is a conspiratorial lie, deceiving the public for pernicious reasons. The most well known of these people is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, who in 2012 published a book entitled The Greatest Hoax, which warns people against “the global warming conspiracy.”

Some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have endorsed this view. Believing that the Bush-Cheney administration conspired with others to claim falsely that America was attacked by Muslims on 9/11, they say that the government’s false conspiracy theory about 9/11 should make us suspicious that other governmental claims may also be conspiracies to mislead the public.

Suspicions about governmental conspiracies are not baseless. Claims that the U.S. government has given a false account of this or that event are, however, generally rejected by the press. Since the time of The Warren Commission Report, which did not quiet suspicions that the assassination of President Kennedy had been an inside job, beliefs about huge government crimes have been derided by the CIA and the press as “conspiracy theories” in the pejorative sense of the term. People who give voice to such beliefs are ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists,” a label that implies that the conspiracy claim is obviously false.

Nevertheless, as Lance deHaven-Smith has discussed in his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America, it is well known that the U.S. government has indeed orchestrated conspiracies with enormous consequences, such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the Iran-Contra affair, as well as, more recently, the claims that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks and was prepared to use weapons of mass destruction.

So if people, believing that there is good evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, are aware of the U.S. government’s involvement in these other conspiracies, there is no good reason to doubt that there are additional examples of conspiracies that have been engineered at the highest levels.

In particular, if it is assumed that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, would this assumption provide a good basis for suspecting that the theory of global warming has resulted from a deceitful conspiracy?

The phrase “theory of global warming is used here as shorthand for a fourfold conviction:

  1. Increases of the percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are raising the planet’s average temperature.
  2. The main cause of these increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases is the burning of fossil fuels.
  3. The global warming produced by these fossil-fuel emissions is starting to change the climate.
  4. This climate change, if it continues, will become increasingly destructive.

Because this fourfold conviction is held by virtually all climate scientists around the world, the theory of global warming can also be called “the position of climate science.” Individuals and organizations who dispute climate science in this sense are referred to as “climate-science deniers,” “climate-change deniers” or “global-warming deniers.” Often the term “denialism” is used for the active argument against climate science, with those engaged in this argument called “denialists.”

I ask the question about the relevance of 9/11 to climate science not only because many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have supported global-warming denialism, but also because the success of this denialist movement has been disastrous.

As I have documented in a 2015 book, the denialist movement was formed and financed by the fossil-fuel industry, and the doubt it created has been used to delay legislation to restrict the use of fossil fuels – a delay that may result in the destruction of civilization. Climate deniers call this fear “alarmism.” But there are times when alarm is appropriate and, my book argues, this is the supreme example.

Believing that it is a shame that many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have been misled into supporting self-interested propaganda by the fossil-fuel industries, I ask whether this movement’s basic conviction – that the official story about 9/11 is a lie – provides a basis for accepting climate-science denial.

The transition from the one to the other is typically made on the basis of two beliefs:

  1. Climate scientists’ claims about global warming are analogous to the government’s claims about 9/11.
  1. Just as evidence proves the falsity of the government’s 9/11 account, evidence shows the falsity of the idea that the burning of fossil fuels is threatening civilization by warming the planet.

The first two parts of this article looks at these two beliefs in order; the third part argues that we do indeed have a climate emergency.

Part I: Are 9/11 and Global Warming Analogous?

Because the claims about global warming are analogous to the government’s false claims about 9/11, some people believe, these claims are also probably false. But the Bush-Cheney administration’s claims about 9/11 are not at all analogous to the widely accepted views about global warming.

9/11, Global Warming, and Science

A well-known member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who writes under the name “Victronix,” has argued that standard beliefs about 9/11 and global warming are not only very different, but also different in ways that prevent 9/11 beliefs from providing an analogy to scientists’ belief about global warming. The idea that global warming is a lie, she pointed out, implies that “the vast majority of the scientific community is working in collusion to create a worldwide hoax – including Russia and China and the entire industrialized world – that a worldwide environmental crisis is unfolding.” In other words, thousands of scientists from many countries around the world, including countries that are strongly opposed to each other, all agreed to tell a huge lie.

By contrast, she said, 9/11 involved “a single national government (and collusion by other intelligence and government leaders who also benefit) with highly limited and controlled science whose evidence is completely controlled, destroyed or hidden.” This “controlled science” is very different from the science supporting global warming belief: “Scientists all over the world can and are investigating and confirming the same findings over and over.” Unlike the purported events used to claim that Muslims attacked America on 9/11, the science of global warming is based on “ongoing events whose evidence is available to everyone all over the world to examine simultaneously using the scientific method and simple tools to measure and analyze.”

Making this point more succinctly, Australians Will Grant and Rod Lamberts wrote: “The idea of an international conspiracy across dozens of disciplines, hundreds of institutions and thousands of individuals is honestly laughable.”

The different relations to science can also be stated in another way: The theory of global warming is analogous not to the U.S. government’s account of the 9/11 attacks, but to the 9/11 Truth Movement’s rejection of the government’s account: Just as the 9/11 Truth Movement is supported by scientists from various fields, including physics and chemistry (as well as by students of architecture and engineering), the idea that fossil fuels are causing global warming and hence climate change is supported by most of the scientists who publish about climate change – indeed, at least 97.5% of them.

So this is the appropriate analogy: The 9/11 Truth Movement, which is supported by scientific evidence, is disputed by the U.S. government, which the 9/11 Truth Movement regards as behind the 9/11 attacks. And the theory of global warming, which is based on scientific evidence, is disputed by the fossil-fuel industries, which climate scientists see as primarily responsible for global warming.

So in each case, the views of independent scientists are disputed by huge enterprises, which clearly have self-interested reasons for challenging the scientific evidence.

Accordingly, the idea that 9/11 skepticism is similar to global warming skepticism has the relationship backwards. When it is claimed that “they” are deceiving the public about global warming, just as “they” deceived the public about the 9/11 attacks, it is necessary to determine the identity of the “they.” The best clue to the likely “they” in each case is to determine who would have benefitted from deception.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has considerable consensus on the question of who benefited from the official account of 9/11: The Bush-Cheney administration (which wanted Afghanistan’s minerals and natural gas and also planned to attack Iraq for its oil); the biggest U.S. oil companies (the CEOs of which were covertly members of Dick Cheney’s 2001 energy task force); Israel (as stated by the 9/11 Commission Report’s executive director, Philip Zelikow); the U.S. military (the budget of which went way up); and the U.S. intelligence agencies (whose budgets doubled after 9/11). But who are the “they” with regard to global warming?

Who Benefits from Climate Denial?

Victronix concluded her discussion of global warming by asking, “who benefits from the claims that human involvement is a hoax?” The answer to that question is, of course, fossil-fuel companies, which have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to promote denial of climate science.

For many years, the main promoter of climate-science denialism was ExxonMobil, the world’s most successful corporation, earning roughly $40 billion a year and paying its CEO over $30 million a year.

Besides giving millions of dollars to scientists, lobbyists, and politicians to promote climate denial, ExxonMobil gave at least $25 million since 1998 to support some 100 climate-denying front groups. ExxonMobil thereby created the impression that climate denial had arisen spontaneously from scientists, politicians, and ordinary citizens. According to a 2009 article by Raw Story, a “group promoting climate skepticism has extensive ties to Exxon-Mobil” (it was on a website responding to this article that Victronix posted her comments).

The group in question, which is named the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, published a report entitled Climate Science Reconsidered. Arguing that global warming is not human-caused, this report said: “Nature, not human activity, rules the planet.” In addition, reported the highly praised book Merchants of Doubt, the report said that global warming is “unequivocally good news,” because rising CO2 levels “increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.”

This denialist report was released and promoted by the Heartland Institute, which between 1998 and 2009 had received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil. The lead author of this report was S. Fred Singer, who has had a notoriously bad scientific career, having previously been proven wrong in a series of issues in which he contested the scientific consensus. But his career path has been financially successful.

In 1998, Singer started an organization called the Science and Environmental Policy Project, in order to begin a book on global warming, and for which ExxonMobil gave him $20,000 between 1998 and 2000.

As Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway reported in Merchants of Doubt, Singer had previously helped the tobacco industry’s effort to avoid regulations about environmental smoke, also called secondhand smoke. Singer used this project to promote what he called “sound science” and to denounce “junk science,” by which he meant, specifically, the EPA’s 1992 report that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Singer also became an advisor to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, which was funded by Philip Morris to attack the EPA’s report, even though Philip Morrisand hence Singer knew that the EPA report – which was based on scientific studies from around the world – was sound, not junk, science.

Singer had earlier earned money by joining the efforts of industries that wanted to prevent legislation to reduce acid rain. By 1983, there was an overwhelming scientific consensus that acid rain was produced by the sulfur released during the burning of fossil fuels, and the United States and Canada were set to sign an agreement to reduce the emissions of sulfur. But the Reagan Administration, which strongly opposed any such legislation, appointed Singer to an acid-rain task force, for which he was allowed to write a separate appendix, claiming that the science was still uncertain. As a result, the United States did not sign the agreement with Canada, and sulfur dioxide levels did not begin declining until 1990 when legislation based on the scientific consensus was finally passed.

Singer also, while serving as the chief scientist for Reagan’s Department of Transportation, argued against the scientific consensus that a growing hole in the ozone layer was caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were used in spray cans, refrigerators, and air conditioners. The aerosol industry, seeking to prevent legislation, hired scientists to dispute the scientific consensus, and Singer joined in, arguing that an “ozone scare” had been created by “corrupt scientists.” The scientists who had shown that the CFCs in the stratosphere destroyed ozone won a Nobel Prize, so Singer attacked the Nobel committee! But eventually, Singer’s argument “was proved wrong, when CFCs were banned and the ozone hole began to repair itself.”

Nevertheless, after having been wrong time and time again, Singer was asked by the Heartland Institute to be the lead author of its report, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which claims that the burning of fossil fuels is not creating dangerous global warming. Besides whatever money Singer made for writing this book, he has also served as a consultant by several other organizations funded by ExxonMobil, including Frontiers of Freedom (which ExxonMobil gave at least $1,272,000) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (which ExxonMobil gave $615,900).

id Singer actually believe his arguments about secondhand smoke, acid rain, the ozone layer, and fossil fuels? This seems unlikely, especially given information learned from leaked documents. For example, by 1965, showed one document, tobacco industry scientists were “unanimous in their opinion that [tobacco] smoke is . . . carcinogenic.”

The same pattern appears to have occurred with regard to global warming. A document shows that in 1995, the oil industry’s own scientific advisors said: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases is well established and cannot be denied.”Nevertheless, just as the cigarette companies continued to deny the existence of evidence showing that cigarettes cause cancer, ExxonMobil not only continued to deny that oil and gas emissions cause climate change but also paid tens of millions to hire others, such as Fred Singer, to support this denial.

In the meantime, Koch Industries, which is invested in various kinds of fossil fuels, including the Canadian tar sands, has begun providing even more financial support for global-warming denialism than ExxonMobil: Between 1997 and 2010, Koch Industries gave over $67 million for this purpose. At that point, the Kochs no longer allowed their contributions to be traced. But these contributions may have become even higher, as suggested by stories in the Guardian and the Washington Post.

Two dark money trusts (which promise their contributors complete anonymity), named Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund, between them doled out $118 million to 102 groups, reported the Guardian. The purpose of the money was to help “build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising ‘wedge issue.’” This funding stream, said the Guardian, “far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers.”

However, it is possible that much of this money actually came from the Kochs: A 2014 Washington Post story suggested that these two dark money trusts were simply part of a “Koch-Backed Political Network,” which raised over $400 million for right-wing political causes in 2012.

In any case, whether Charles and David Koch have given over $100 million to support climate denialism, or “only” $67 million, this is pocket change for them: By 2010, their company, Koch Industries, was worth $35 billion; by 2013, they had brought their wealth up to $68 billion. They evidently find the use of a little pocket change to promote climate denial, and hence to head off legislation to restrict fossil-fuel burning, a worthwhile investment.

Who Would Benefit from Fabricating Global Warming?

There is a clear answer, accordingly, to the question of who benefits from climate denial. But if climate science is a lie, who would benefit from spreading this lie?

The idea that the “government” – perhaps the U.S. government, or U.S. and European governments, or perhaps most of the world’s governments – fabricated global warming would make this lie parallel to the 9/11 lie, with each being a government-created lie. But this would make no sense. Neither the U.S. government nor governments in general have wanted to reduce their burning of fossil fuels. The climate scientists of the IPCC – indeed, most climate scientists everywhere – have been pleading with governments to reduce their fossil-fuel use, but in almost all countries, the use has continued to rise.

Some people suggest that the “government” in question is the United Nations. But the U.N. is not a government and has no power to act apart from the willingness of the nations to follow its suggestions – or, in the case of the Security Council, of the nations constituting it. The U.N. did create the IPCC and supports its work, but it has no power to act on climate change other than calling meetings and publishing reports. And the IPCC did not create the idea that emissions from fossil fuels are causing global warming, which in turn causes climate change. Rather, the IPCC was formed in response to a growing consensus among climate scientists about these connections.

So, if there is a culprit for a global warming hoax, it must be the scientists themselves. And that is, indeed, what many deniers claim. For example, a 2007 documentary film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” argued that “the publicized scientific consensus is the product of a ‘global warming activist industry’ driven by a desire for research funding.”

Some climate scientists do indeed apply for grants, and a few of them actually receive them. But there are five reasons to doubt that the desire by scientists for funding could explain their published statements about global warming:

  • Although there is considerable fraud in science – as has been extensively documented – scientists who engage in fraud are a small minority. Although there are many reasons to criticize mainstream science, few scientists would consciously engage in fraud. Of course, scientists who work for corporations or government agencies must sometimes either falsify evidence or lose their jobs. Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement believe that this was the case with the scientists at NIST(the National Institute of Standards and Technology), which was tasked with writing the reports about the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. But this was an example of “controlled science,” which, as Victronix said, “is very different from the [peer-reviewed] science supporting global warming.”


  • Even if a few important climate scientists had published false evidence for global warming, they would not have been able to persuade most of the rest of the world’s thousands of climate scientists to support their false claims. The fact of fraud by individual scientists provides no evidence that thousands of scientists around the world could be persuaded to engage in fraud.


  • The support for global warming comes from a wide variety of types of evidence. The idea that all of these different experiments and tests could have been coordinated to support the same bogus conclusions makes the mind boggle.


  • If most scientists are primarily motivated by money, they would have gone into some other line of work. It is true that a few people, after going into science for noble reasons, have become devoted to making money to an unseemly degree. But getting government grants is seldom a road to riches. As Grant and Lamberts said: “Tell the TCCD [Typical Climate Change Denier] to go to any university car park and count the luxury vehicles parked near science buildings. They won’t even need all their fingers to keep track.”


  • There are indeed scientists who have made significant amounts of money by writing about globl warming, but these are scientists who have argued against climate science. For example (in addition to Singer), take Patrick Michaels, who has written many books and articles with titles such as “Global Warming Myth” and Climate of Extremes. Michaels has served as a consultant for a large number of climate denial organizations funded by ExxonMobil. And in 2006, a furor was raised when it was revealed that a coal-burning electric association had, at its members’ expense, paid Michaels $100,000 “to help confuse the issue of global warming.”

Again, if there is an analogy between 9/11 and global warming, it is not between the official 9/11 story and the theory of global warming. It is between climate science and the 9/11 Truth Community’s position. Just as large numbers of independent scientists have rejected the official 9/11 story, most climate scientists reject the idea that global warming is a hoax.

And just as a few scientists whose salaries are paid by the U.S. government have supported the official account of 9/11, Singer, Michaels, and some other scientists paid by the fossil-fuel industry have endorsed climate-change denial. In the one case, independent science is opposed by Big Government; in the other, independent science is opposed by Big Carbon. In both cases, the scientific evidence is overwhelmed by Big Money, whether this be governmental or fossil-fuel money.

The relation between climate denial and the 9/11 attacks has been described as even closer by a former U.S. Senate candidate from Vermont, Craig Hill. “[W]hat the 9/11 false-flag op and denying global warming have in common,” wrote Jerry Mazza in a summary of Hill’s thesis, “is oil, and gas . . . , and the desire to quench an unquenchable thirst for these fossil fuels.” Moreover, Hill said, just as the perpetrators of 9/11 shrouded it in unscientific myth and lie, the oil companies have also “shrouded the evil effects of warming in unscientific myth and lie.”

In other words, said Hill, both the Bush-Cheney administration and the climate deniers funded by ExxonMobil and the Kochs have foisted a false, unscientific theory on the world, especially the American people, for the sake of oil. (To be sure, Hill’s statement would need to be qualified by the fact that, as mentioned earlier, oil did not provide the only motive for the 9/11 attacks.)
Part II: Does Scientific Evidence Disprove Global Warming?

In addition to suspecting global warming to be a hoax, some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have endorsed the view, promulgated by climate denialists, that the true facts do not support the global warming theory. Instead, these denialists argue, the facts show the global warming theory to be a fabrication.

One of those members is Australian chemist Frank Legge. Besides warning Victronix that she should “be careful about using global warming in the argument,” because it is “looking pretty shaky from a scientific point of view,” he in 2008 wrote an article called “The Global Warming Emergency.” Because this was so many years ago, I wrote Legge in November 2014 to ask if he still stands by that essay. He replied that if writing it now, he would update a few items, but “the general thrust would be exactly the same.”

Legge said that the conclusion that there is a climate emergency would require a threefold argument: (1) Global warming is occurring, it is not trivial, and the claim that the temperature and sea level will continue to rise must be based on good science; (2) “the current and predicted temperature is unusual and dangerous”; and (3) “the warming is largely caused by man-made carbon dioxide.”

  1. Is Global Warming Significant and Destined to Rise?

Suggesting that global warming, if it is occurring at all, will be minor and short-lived, Legge based this suggestion on several claims, which he derived from climate-science deniers.

Satellite Data

In one of his arguments, Legge wrote: “The recent warming period is giving signs of coming to an end: satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperature have been declining this decade.” In support of that argument, Legge referred to an argument by Roy Spencer, one of the handful of climate scientists who reject the consensus view. But citing Spencer’s claim about satellite measurements hardly adds credibility to Legge’s argument.

In the 1990s, Spencer and fellow climate denier John Christy argued that the satellite data showed no warming – that the troposphere was not warming in conjunction with surface warming.

Joe Romm, a physicist who founded Climate Progress – one of the most highly respected websites dealing with climate science – said that Spencer and Christy had “created one of the most enduring denier myths,” namely, “that the satellite data didn’t show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.” A scientist on the RealClimate website wrote:

“Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but . . . did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess.”

Spencer and Christy’s treatment of this issue, along with some others, led Romm to write an article asking, “Should You Believe Anything John Christy and Roy Spencer Say?”

Urban Heat Island Effect

Besides supporting Spencer’s argument for preferring satellite to other evidence, Legge said: “There is also ongoing debate about whether proper allowance has been made for the confounding effect of urban encroachment on temperature stations.” Legge was here referring to the so-called urban heat island (UHI) effect, which can occur when weather stations are situated in urban areas, where the air tends to be warmer than rural areas. Fellow climate denier Patrick Michaels has claimed that at least half of the alleged global warming is due to this phenomenon.

Legge, however, cited the climate denialist who has made this case most strongly, former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, who has a website called “Watts Up With That.” Watts had long argued that temperature recordings have been skewed by the fact that most recordings are made in urban areas. In 2010, Watts wrote: “UHI is easily observable. I’ve been telling readers about UHI since this blog started.”


In 2010, when Watts made this comment, it seemed for various reasons that a project called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, organized by UC Berkeley professor Richard Muller, was soon to verify Watts’ claims. As Joe Romm explained:

  • Muller had long been critical of climate science, believing that many scientists and their admirers, including Al Gore, had exaggerated the evidence. Moreover, the “Climategate” charges made him suspect that climate scientists had “concealed discordant data,” about which he examined the claims of denialist bloggers.
  • Muller chose as a climate scientist Judith Curry, who, according to Romm, has “now taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogosphere” and who has, in fact, “abandon[ed] science.”
  • Climate denying billionaire Charles Koch was to fund the study, and Watts and other deniers were even allowed to work with the BEST team.

However, Muller chose good scientists to carry out the study, including lead scientist Robert Rohde, and the study did not work out as deniers expected. Based on data from some 40,000 weather stations around the world, the study’s results, reported the BBC, were “remarkably similar to those produced by the world’s three most important and established groups, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles” – namely, the reports by NASA, NOAA, and the “collaboration between the UK Met Office and UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), from which the emails that formed the basis of the ‘Climategate’ furor were hacked.” Muller told the BBC: “Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.”

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Muller said:

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. . . . Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

Writing in the New York Times, Muller called himself “a converted skeptic.” He now believes, he said, that the prior estimates of the rate of warming increase were correct and that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

Before Muller’s report had been published, Watts had written: “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. I’m taking this bold step because the method has promise.” However, after learning what the result actually was, Watts reneged. He first refused to accept Muller’s report on the grounds that it had not yet been peer reviewed. “When the science and peer review is finished,” Watts predicted, “the results are likely to look different.”

However, when the report was published (in a peer-reviewed journal), the results, contained in five papers, were not different. In an interview, moreover, Muller emphasized the report’s main point about UHI, saying “urban heat islands contribute essentially zero to the warming.” This report, which challenged Watts’ main claim to fame, was never accepted by him, in spite of his promise.

Sensitivity: Feedback as Negative

Climate scientists acknowledge that they have an imperfect understanding of “climate sensitivity,” meaning the amount the planet will warm because of the various feedbacks affecting the climate. Sensitivity is usually discussed in terms of the temperature increase to be caused by a doubling of the preindustrial CO2 concentration of 275 parts per mission (ppm) to 550 ppm. If the sensitivity is extremely low, then doubling the concentration of CO2 would not raise the planet’s temperature much. But if sensitivity is very high, the doubling will be catastrophic. The IPCC puts the likely temperature increase to range between 2 and 4.5°C, with 3°C being most likely, and James Hansen, whose ideas are taken very seriously by fellow climate scientists, believes the increase to be near the top of that range.

By contrast, Roy Spencer argued that the sensitivity is much lower – so low in fact, reported Legge, that the feedback will be negative, not positive, so that “there is no cause for alarm.”

In 2011, Spencer argued this case in a paper that was severely criticized by climate scientists. For example, Kevin Trenberth wrote:

“[I]t is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published [because] there is no merit whatsoever in this paper.”

The fact that it was published led the journal’s editor to resign, saying that Spencer’s paper was “fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted” by the team of reviewers, which he (the editor) had chosen.

  1. Current and Predicted Warming: Not Unusual and Dangerous?

In line with Legge’s claim that insofar as there is currently some global warming, it is minor and short-lived, he also argued that the warming is not unusual and dangerous.

Medieval Warm Period

He based this view primarily on the Medieval Warm Period, citing denialist stories claiming that during this period – which occurred between the 10th and 15th centuries, A.D. – the planet was warmer than today. Referring to the fact that the Vikings had farms in Greenland, Legge said that “it appears that the present temperature is not yet quite as high as during the Medieval warming.”

However, a Skeptical Science article reported: “The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions.” There were indeed areas that were warmer than they were in 1990. However, “Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth.” When considered globally, “temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.”

In addition, a 2012 report in the journal Geology, headed by a scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said that “the MWP wasn’t all that warm after all – and certainly not as warm as the climate is today.” Even islands 400 miles north of Norway during the past 25 years, he said, have been “3.6°F and 4.5°F higher . . . than the summers the Vikings enjoyed.”

Present Warm Period

On the question of whether today’s temperature is dangerous in the sense that it might lead to runaway global warming, Legge argued that this “seems unlikely . . . as it did not happen in the previous warm periods.” However, that probability cannot be judged apart from the question of what has caused the recent warming, which Legge assumed to be just one more example of natural variability.

Legge’s assumption does not fit the facts. One problem is that, after a long period of decline, there was an unprecedented increase in global temperature in the 20th century. A graph tracking the temperature over the past millenium shows the 20th century as a virtually vertical line, making the graph look somewhat like a hockey stick – a change that could not be considered natural. Ever since physicist Michael Mann used this graph in a 1998 paper, denialists have argued that it was based on errors – saying, for example, that the “hockey stick is broken.” However, Mann’s conclusions have been confirmed by several studies using different sources, including boreholes, corals, ice cores, stalagmites, and tree rings.

The attempt to explain the 20th-century increase as an example of natural variation is made even more difficult by a 2013 study in Science of the global temperature for the past 11,300 years. This study showed that the planet, after the Medieval Warm Period, had been cooling for 5,000 years. But in the 20th century, this long period of cooling was abruptly ended, with the rate of warming since 1900 being 50 times greater than the rate of cooling in the previous 5000 years.

Climate deniers try to explain this 20th-century uptick in the global temperature by increased radiation from the sun, which was true of the Medieval Warm Period. However, the increase in solar radiation leveled off after 1950, so that since about 1970, greenhouse gases have clearly been the main contributor to warming. Since 1970, in fact, the sun and the climate temperature have been moving in opposite directions: While the sun has had a slight cooling trend, the climate has been getting warmer and warmer. As one scientist put it, “We should be cool, but we’re not.”
This contrast has been articulated by physicist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “Within a hundred years, the cooling of the previous 5000 years was undone,” said Rahmstorf. “[W]ithout the increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans, the slow cooling trend would have continued.”

  1. The Role of Carbon Dioxide

In arguing his third claim – that CO2 cannot explain whatever recent global warming there has been – Legge employed several of the common denialist points, all of which have been answered in the literature, most systematically at Skeptical Science.

CO2 Minor Compared with Water Vapor?

One of Legge’s reasons for claiming that increased CO2 cannot explain much is that “it plays a minor role compared with water vapour.” His argument is that, because water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, constituting most of the greenhouse effect, CO2 is insignificant.

However, although water vapor is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, it is also the dominant feedback agent. And as CO2 emissions make the temperature go up, evaporation increases, putting more water vapor in the atmosphere, which further increases the temperature. There is, accordingly, a positive feedback loop. The water vapor feedback doubles the warming that would be caused by rising CO2 alone. As Skeptical Science explained:

“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included . . . , the total warming from a doubling of CO2 emissions is around 3°C.”

Another important factor is that, whereas the water vapor in the atmosphere is short-lived (it arises from evaporation and then falls as rain and snow), CO2 stays there for about a century. So after CO2 enters the atmosphere, it will increase the water vapor, with its powerful greenhouse effect, for a long time.

Accordingly, one should not denigrate the importance of CO2 by comparison with water vapor. Rather, they work together. It is the positive feedback relation between them that explains why the climate is so sensitive to additional CO2 emissions.

CO2 Increase Followed Temperature Increase?

According to Legge, it is an “inconvenient fact” for Al Gore “that the temperature rises about 1000 years before the CO2 level rises.” Legge was referring to the fact that, based on Antarctic ice core data from the past 400,000 years, changes in CO2 level followed temperature changes by some 600 to 1000 years. This fact has been used by climate deniers, such as U.S. Congressman Joe Barton of Texas, to argue that today’s global warming could not possibly be explained by the increasing percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.

However, whereas the initial increase in temperature during this period was due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, this increase led to a positive feedback process: The rise in ocean temperatures led to releases of CO2 from the oceans into the atmosphere, which increased the planet’s warming, which in turn led to the release of more CO2 from the oceans, and so on. As Skeptical Science explained:

“This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation.”

In fact, as Skeptical Science continued, “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurred after that atmospheric CO2 increase.“

Global Temperature Pause?

In a third argument against the role of rising CO2, Legge said that “it is hard to see any correlation between the rising CO2 level and temperature during the last decade.” This statement reflects the apparent fact that, although CO2 and the surface air temperature of the planet went hand in hand in the 1980s and ‘90s, the two seemed to diverge in the present century: While the CO2 ppm continued to rise, the increase in the air temperature seemed to slow down. This appearance led to the conclusion that there has been an end to – or at least a pause in – global warming.

However, that conclusion was based on the equation of the planet’s temperature with its surface air temperature. This is a very big mistake, because about “90 percent of the warming of the planet is absorbed in heating the oceans.” Accordingly, there has not really been a pause, but only – in Joe Romm’s phrase, a faux pause. All that has happened is that a higher percentage of the warming than previously went into the deep ocean, evidently because of changes in the trade winds.

Global Warming’s Evil Twin

About half of the human-caused CO2 produced since the beginning of the industrial age has been absorbed by the ocean, and this absorption has resulted in ocean acidification, which Jane Lubchenco – who headed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – called global warming’s “equally evil twin.”

Ocean acidification results from the fact that about 30 percent of our CO2 emissions have been absorbed by the ocean. This absorption keeps down the warming of the atmosphere that would otherwise be produced by these emissions. But this absorption also reduces the ocean’s PH level, thereby making the water more acidic. Tests have shown that since the industrial revolution, there has been a 30% increase in the ocean’s acidity. This acidity increases when CO2 mixes with water, resulting in carbonic acid. Just as carbonic acid eats out limestone caves, it does the same for animals with chalky skeletons, which make up a big percentage of sea life. Elevating the percentage of carbonic acid makes it increasingly difficult for these organisms – such as plankton, corals, crabs, clams, mussels, oysters, and snails – to calcify to make their skeletons.

The planet’s CO2 is now slightly above 400 ppm. If it reaches roughly 500 ppm, says one expert, “you put calcification out of business in the oceans.” If this happens, phytoplankton and corals will die, which will mean the death of all sea animals, from plankton to fish to whales. And this will greatly increase the food problem, because the ocean serves as the primary source of food for 3.5 billion people.

Part III

Climate Emergency

Once it is seen that the recent temperature increase is not due to natural variability, but instead to the increase in greenhouse gases, it is obvious that climate change is dangerous, not only because of the risk of seafood extinction and runaway global warming, which is likely to occur if global warming continues, but also because of various features of climate change, such as sea-level rise.

While admitting that the sea level had been rising, Legge said that “in the last few years [it] appears to be falling or at least to have leveled off.”

However, if the percentage of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise, the sea level, which rose about 8 inches (20 centimeters) in the 20th century, will rise much faster in our century. Until recently, IPCC scientists expected it to rise 3 feet (roughly 1 meter) by 2100, with some scientists predicting more like 6 to 7 feet (2 meters). But in 2015, leading climate scientist James Hansen and 16 fellow scientists released a new study saying that, if fossil fuels are not radically curtailed, the ocean could rise 10 feet (about 3 meters) before the end of the century.

The sea has already risen enough to force people – such as those in Bangladesh, the Sundarbans, and the Carteret islands – to move, because their lands flooded or at least became too salty to farm. Also, the same fate threatens the coastal areas of many countries, including Australia, China, Japan, and the United States. “If you live in South Florida and you’re not building a boat,” said a geology professor in Florida, “you’re not facing reality.”

In addition, although sea-level rise may be the most obvious danger created by global warming-caused climate change, there are dangers in every feature of climate change – as I have documented in the first part of my Unprecedented:

  • The weather, which has recently become extreme, will continue to get more extreme.
  • Heat waves will become hotter, eventually becoming so hot that humans and plants will not be able to survive.
  • Droughts will last more often and longer, with some places becoming permanently dry; and the drier weather will result in more and worse wildfires.
  • Storms of various types – rain storms, snow storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes – will become more deadly.
  • Fresh water will become increasingly insufficient, due to various factors, including loss of snowpack and the melting of glaciers (which provide the major source of water for billions of people).
  • Food will become increasingly insufficient, due to drought, excessive heat, sea-level rise, and fresh-water shortage (as well as loss of seafood because of ocean acidification).
  • Sea-level rise and other features of climate disruption will increasingly create climate refugees and climate wars.

Contrary to Legge’s supposition, therefore, we do have a climate emergency.

The website for Skeptical Science – which advocates “getting skeptical about global warming skepticism” – has rebutted (under “Arguments”) over 175 denialist claims, beginning with the most popular ones, such as “climate’s changed before,” “it’s the sun,” “it’s not bad,” and “there is no consensus.” In most cases, these claims can quickly be seen to be false with only a little study, so people who support them are either deceivers or deceived.

The deceivers are the fossil-fuel companies, along with their hirelings, who make these claims while knowing them to be false. As pointed out above, the oil companies have known this since 1995, just as tobacco companies have known cigarettes to be carcinogenic since 1965.

The deceived are those who believe these claims while being unaware, as journalist Mark Hertsgaard said, “that they are mouthing talking points originally developed by big money interests.”

Many climate deniers identify with the Tea Party, which was originally portrayed in the press as if it were a spontaneous grassroots movement. In reality, however, it is an example of astroturfing, in which seemingly grassroots campaigns have been manufactured to mask the sponsor’s identity. In this case, the Tea Party was created by the Koch brothers (whose father had been one of the founders of the John Birch Society), especially by David Koch through his organization, Americans for Prosperity. Although Americans for Prosperity claimed to be a grassroots organization, and although David Koch tried to deny responsibility for it, the evidence shows it to be largely his creation – as indicated by the title of Jean Mayer’s New Yorker article “Covert Operations,” along with the title of a New York Magazine article, “The Billionaire’s Party.”

The covert operations of this billionaire’s party are carried out only on behalf of causes that support Koch interests, which generally are not the interests of the members of the Tea Party. Frank Rich wrote:

“When David Koch ran to the right of Reagan as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian ticket . . . , his campaign called for the abolition not just of Social Security, federal regulatory agencies and welfare but also of the F.B.I., the C.I.A., and public schools — in other words, any government enterprise that would either inhibit his business profits or increase his taxes.”

Although the Kochs call themselves libertarians, they are “libertarians who hate the free market” (as pointed out by an article discussing the Koch brothers as “America’s Greediest”).

In an essay entitled “The Tea Party Movement: Deluded and Inspired by Billionaires,” George Monbiot said that the Tea Party is “mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting.”

Likewise, Frank Rich wrote that the agendas of the Kochs often run counter to “the interests of those who serve as spear carriers in the political pageants hawked on Fox News,” after which Rich added: “The Koch brothers must be laughing all the way to the bank knowing that working Americans are aiding and abetting their selfish interests.” And the Koch brothers do, incidentally, keep going to the bank: From 2010 to 2013, as mentioned earlier, they raised the value of their company from $35 billion to $68 billion.


I wrote this article because members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should not let themselves be deceived by the fossil-fuel corporations and the front-organizations they have created. Holding that the Bush-Cheney administration gave the public a completely unscientific account of what happened on 9/11, the members of this movement should not accept the completely anti-scientific denial of global warming and climate change. Seeing the official story of 9/11 as a self-serving lie sold by Big Government, the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should not fall for the self-serving lie told by Big Money.

David Ray Griffin is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion at Claremont Graduate University and Claremont School of Theology. His most recent book is Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis? (Clarity Press, 2015).

This entry was posted in Energy / Environment, Politics / World News. Bookmark the permalink.
  • colinjames71

    NO. 9/11 was an event. Either persons in the MIC did or did not participate. End of story. Climate Change is a natural process, AGW is a scientific hypothesis, and there are numerous competing agendas on either side arguing over a science and natural processes which we do not fully understand; it’s not a matter of either AGW is a hoax or it isn’t. It’s ridiculous to compare the two in this way. Apples and oranges? No, apples and Space Shuttles. You can compare the mind set of the people who believe that one, the other, or both are conspiracies as some kind of sociological study, and there are some good points made within this piece but the PREMISE is all wrong. Imnsho.

    • diogenes

      colinjames71 nails it.

      The baffling question is, what is the motive of this curious exercise? What purpose does it serve besides confusion?

      • colinjames71

        Thanks. And I really like DRG for the most part. As for your question, what purpose- I can see how one might want to examine the govt hoax claim re AGW; deconstruct the arguments, go about it logically… But then for a respected author to commit such a basic logical fallacy as the very foundation by which to examine it just kills me. I have more to say but not the time at this moment.

  • kimyo

    Who Would Benefit from Fabricating Global Warming?

    simply, it’s kochco who will benefit. when aetna/cigna/humana/wellpoint’s lawyers wrote the 800 page gorilla known as obamacare, the goal was most certainly not to provide better or complete coverage to the uninsured american.

    when the kochco/exxon lawyers deliver their 800 page magnum opus on carbon, it’ll become quite clear who benefits. kochco’s coffers will overflow from the ‘carbon mitigation’ tax credits and rent extraction from the 99%.

    the war on terror serves only to enrich the banksters. the war on poverty, likewise. the war on drugs as well. why are we to believe that all of a sudden the government has gone noble and is acting in our best interests as they roll out the ‘war on carbon’?

    it’s a shame drg has chosen to engage in selective skepticism.

    • wunsacon

      >> why are we to believe that all of a sudden the government has gone noble
      and is acting in our best interests as they roll out the ‘war on

      I’m confused by this one sentence.

      The government — right-wingers and DINO’s — have been resisting attempts to do anything to stop global warming. They opposed protecting the ozone, protecting people from second-hand smoke, etc. Opposing a carbon tax looks like typical behavior.

      Yes, the Koch bros will engineer the eventual legislation to their benefit (e.g., grandfather their own factories). Fight that. Don’t fight the science. By fighting the science, you politically undermine the scientists/progressives on this issue and thereby GUARANTEE that the eventual bill will be an ungodly compromise that protects the Koch bros.

      • kimyo

        The government — right-wingers and DINO’s — have been resisting attempts to do anything to stop global warming.

        please. flip the dial to cnn or msnbc or the nytimes or even the wsj and what do you get? there’s no greater threat to humanity than climate change”

        are you truly confused or just pretending?

        • wunsacon

          >> please. flip the dial to cnn or msnbc or the nytimes or even the wsj
          >> and what do you get? obama: there’s no greater threat to
          >> humanity than climate change”

          Consider these possibilities:

          1. He says that as he approves pipelines (other than Keystone) and drilling in Alaska. So, maybe he’s just being a politician.
          2. He’s actually correct or moderately close to correct. He can be a broken clock, can’t he? The MSM isn’t *always* wrong, yes?

          >> are you truly confused or just pretending?

          kimyo, I don’t know what makes you so special that you feel the need to be arrogant. But, I don’t appreciate it.

          • kimyo

            i wonder if you agree that comments here are being posted by people who are paid to deceive and disrupt. a great example is that ‘dds’ in the fluoridation thread. and then there was that guy who was trying to argue that nuclear power receives no govt subsidies.

            i don’t know where you’re from. i’m in the states. imagine spending a day without once hearing the words ‘climate change’.

            zuesse was attempting to argue that ‘climate change’ was one of the two most under-reported issues of 2014. either he doesn’t live in the states, or, he’s foamenting.

            if you do live here, you just cannot argue that the government ‘has been resisting attempts to do anything about global warming’. a person making such a contention is either confused or pretending. we’re being clobbered over the head with carbon taxes and carbon credits on a daily basis.

            as always, cui bono? simple answer: goldman sachs.

            The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

            Here’s how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions: President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

    • Voodude

      “Who would benefit”??

  • Ozz

    He begins with an ad populum falacy, i.e. that because “97.5%” of scientists agree on the issue, this somehow gives it more certainty. Of course we know from history (and from current events!) that it’s very possible for the majority of scientists to be wrong on any particular topic.

    Also, just because someone is skeptical about the opinions of a majority group, doesn’t mean they believe that a “vast majority of the scientific community is working in collusion to create a worldwide hoax.” Most people who are supporting mistaken scientific viewpoints are doing so innocently and with good intentions. Only the people at the top are the liars who are perpetuating a hoax for self gain.

    • ProgHunter

      Also the paper that claims the 97.5% consensus has been proven to be a false talking point. To quote just one of may articles on this: “To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.” The 97% falsehood is simply repeated in the media over and over again until the pubic accepts it as true.

  • Mark Branham

    Man-made global warming is an argument. That’s all it was ever intended to be, a simple premise that would keep “the people” engaged in another argument, as most things are these days . That’s because we’re at the end of this particular debt-cycle. When paradigms end, shit is likely to happens… and the Oligarchs need issues to keep the sheeple distracted while they re-wire the world to maintain their advantage.

    It’s just that simple.

  • hsxnl

    One major point is missing: The real (hidden) motive for CO2 control is control of the carbon cycle, which means control of all terrestrial life.
    It was Edmund de Rothschild who started this with the statement (at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987) that “CO2 is the cause of global warming” and that combating it needs money, for which reason he founded the World Conservation Bank, in 1991 renamed in “The Global Environment Facility (GEF)”.
    Allowing the banking maffia to acquire control of the carbon cycle (in the same manner they now control the monetary system via the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, ECB) is the real danger.
    For that reason alone, one should be extremely skeptical on the CO2 Global Warming (Now “Climate Change”) discussion.
    Please check the CRU Climategate emails to find out that meteorology is an immature science with many immature and incapable scientists, fiddling their pathetic computer models.

  • climate change is shit science. It’s easy to prove and I don’t need any corporate help.

    The earth is a sphere.
    The surface are is 196.9 million square miles.
    Heat is measured as flux through a surface.
    All the thermometers on earth equals less than a square mile of surface area.

    The heat flux being the signal we are looking for the resolution of the data is 196.9 million to 1.

    Can you tell what the picture is in a 196 million piece jigsaw puzzle when you have a single piece?

    The truth is we don’t have enough data to draw a conclusion.

    • wunsacon

      >> Can you tell what the picture is in a 196 million piece jigsaw puzzle when you have a single piece?

      What’s pictured on a single jigsaw puzzle piece can change dramatically from one piece to another. In contrast, for miles around a thermometer, the temperature of the air will be close to the same.

      Accordingly, I think this “jigsaw puzzle pieces” analogy is greatly flawed. But, the question about fidelity (“how well do these measurements capture the global temperature?”) is interesting.

      • kimyo

        oceans (wiki)

        Saline water covers approximately 72% of the planet’s surface (~3.6×108 km2) and is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas, with the ocean covering approximately 71% of Earth’s surface.[6] The ocean contains 97% of Earth’s water, and oceanographers have stated that only 5% of the World Ocean has been explored.[6] The total volume is approximately 1.35
        billion cubic kilometers

        argo (wiki)

        Argo is a system for observing temperature, salinity, and currents
        in the Earth’s oceans which has been operational since the early 2000s.
        The real-time data it provides is used in climate and oceanographic

        let’s switch to 4d for a moment. we have less than 15 years of data of ocean temps at depth (ie: not surface only, and not limited to trade routes).

        a number of observed cycles exist, some which repeat every 11 or so years, and others which range up to 12,000 or more. without MEASURED data MODELS are MEANINGLESS.

        it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to model the earth’s oceans without the source data. 15 years of measurements on less than .01% by volume simply CANNOT PROVIDE MEANINGFUL RESULTS.

        • wunsacon

          >> it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to model the earth’s oceans without the source
          data. 15 years of measurements on less than .01% by volume simply

          If this were the only data source available, you’d have a strong point. However, AGW theory predates this measurement and is based on other measurements (e.g., reading ice cores) which date back a long time.

          To convince me of AGW, scientists need not collect data for 1 million years from *every* possible different source. By that time, it’d be too late to take action anyway.

          • kimyo

            the ice core data provides a wealth of information (including the inconvenient truth that temps have been higher than today at least 4 times in the last 450,000 years).

            however, even though they’re obviously related, ice core data cannot provide useful information on ocean temperatures at depth, for the simple reason that we have less than 15 years of data with which to verify any theoretical link.

            the ‘it’ll be too late by then’ argument is fundamentally a religious one.


          • Voodude

            ”The accuracy with which the Argo profiling float dataset can estimate the upper ocean temperature and heat storage in the North Atlantic is investigated. A hydrographic section across 36°N is used to assess uncertainty in Argo-based estimates of the temperature field. The root-mean-square (RMS) difference in the Argo-based temperature field relative to the section measurements is about 0.6°C. The RMS difference is smaller, less than 0.4°C, in the eastern basin and larger, up to 2.0°C, toward the western boundary.”

            ”…outside of the western boundary, the mixed layer monthly heat storage in the subtropical North Atlantic has a sampling error of 10–20 W/m^2 when averaged over a 10° X 10° area. This error reduces to less than 10 W/m^2 when seasonal heat storage is considered. Errors of this magnitude suggest that the Argo dataset is of use for investigating variability in mixed layer heat storage on inter annual timescales. However, the expected sampling error increases to more than 50 W/m^2 in the Gulf Stream region and north of 40°N, limiting the use of Argo in these areas.”

            ”The Argo project aims to have one float in every 3° square of ocean, equivalent to roughly 3000 floats globally”

            ”The noise is less than 0.5°C in the eastern basin and below 1000 m in the western basin. However, there are two main regions centered at 500 m in the western basin where the noise exceeds 2°C.”

            ”Over much of the section, the Argo-based estimates of temperature agree with the cruise measurements to within 0.5°C. However, there are several regions in the 500 – 1000 m layer west of about 40°W where the differences exceed this value (Figure 9a). Furthermore at the western boundary, west of 74°W, the temperature is more than 2°C warmer in the Argo section than in the cruise section.”

            ”Decomposition of the RMS differences into errors associated with estimating the temperature field (Figure 12b) and errors associated with estimating the mixed layer depth (Figure 12c) indicates that the former is generally the higher source of error. This is particularly true of the Gulf Stream region where errors arising from inaccuracies in the estimated temperature field result in heat storage errors of more than 200 W/m^2 . The error arising from inaccuracies in the estimated mixed layer depth are typically less than 20 W/m^2 . However, within the Labrador basin where large fluctuations in mixed layer depth occur, the errors arising from estimating the mixed layer depth from a subsampled temperature field become large, exceeding 200 W/m^2 . It should be noted that the two sources of error are not linear. The discrepancy between the total RMS difference (Figure 12a) and the sum of the RMS differences arising from the two error sources (Figures 12b and 12c) is shown in Figure 12d. Nonlinear effects are small in the subtropics but exceed 100 W/m^2 in the Labrador Sea”

            Hadfield, R. E., et al. 2007 “On the accuracy of North Atlantic temperature and heat storage fields from Argo.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans


        • Voodude

          ”Argo data have also been analyzed by Roemmich and Gilson (2009, 2011) and Willis et al. (2008, 2009). However, Argo data are incomplete in spatial coverage, with gaps over the Indonesian region, the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, the Mediterranean Sea, the Sea of Japan, and similar marginal areas, as well as the entire Arctic Ocean.”

          Trenberth, Kevin E., John T. Fasullo, and Magdalena A. Balmaseda 2014. “Earth’s energy imbalance.” Journal of Climate


      • Voodude

        Take, for example, the measurements made from space towards the sun: the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). It used to be called the “solar constant” but it obviously isn’t constant.

        “Global Warming” is an imbalance between what strikes the earth from the sun (the TSI), and the infrared “heat” that escapes the earth towards space. It is cited by James Hansen (NASA dude) as 0.58W per square metre. So, to measure the TSI, you need to be able to resolve about 0.058W per square metre (about ten times’ smaller than the stuff you’re trying to quantify). Needless to say, the accuracy of the measurement must be really high, as well. The satellites reported all kinds of different values

        1,372.1 =NIMBUS 7
        Δ 4.7W
        1,367.4 = SMM
        Δ 0.5W
        1,366.9 =ATLAS1
        Δ 1.0W
        1,365.9 =UARS
        Δ 0.5W
        1,365.4 =ERBS

      • Voodude

        “how well do these measurements capture the global temperature?”

        I’d like to expand that, a bit … not only “global temperature” but all of the pieces of the “puzzle” … from the time the sun strikes the upper atmosphere, past clouds reflecting sunshine back into space with little warming, past ice on the earth’s surface reflecting sunshine back into space with little warming, some sunlight being absorbed and convered to heat, some heat evaporating water and transporting that heat upwards, forming clouds ….

        Incoming sunshine is called TSI, measured by satellites. The best calibration facility
        prior to 2008 was ±4W, (compared to all of “Global Warming” = ½W) and that is before you consider mis-aiming, sensor degradation, aperture fowling, temperature and voltage drift, doppler correction, orbital perturbation and orbital-determination accuracy.

        … the need for future instruments with <0.01% uncertainty on a absolute scale. No facility currently exists [in 2007] to calibrate a TSI instrument end-to-end for irradiance at solar power levels to these needed accuracy levels. The new TSI Radiometer Facility (TRF) is intended to provide such calibrations. … designed to achieve 0.01% [0.136 W/m^2] absolute accuracy.” Completed in 2008.

        The ‘standard’ before 2008, before this “TSI radiometer facility”, had uncertainties of nearly 0.3%; that is 4W/m^2 when considering a 1,360W/m^2 input.

        ”Davos’s World Radiation Reference (WRR) is a >30 year comparison of measurements from several ground-based TSI instruments. The average of a small set of these instruments gives a measure against which other radiometers can be compared on a relative scale. While this allows for comparisons of similarly-designed instruments and a link to an established time record, the link to absolute, or SI, units has uncertainties of nearly 0.3%”

        Kopp, Greg, et al. 2007 “The TSI radiometer facility: absolute calibrations for total solar irradiance instruments.” Optical Engineering+ Applications


        Here is a reasonable summation of possible inaccuracies of the recent “Picard” spacecraft. All of “Global Warming” amounts to an imbalance of 0.58W per square metre, ½W or ¾W, and the tabulated inaccuracies are on the order of 1½ W (i.e., inaccurate enough to doubt the ability to say that there is ½W of excess).

      • Voodude

        Stephens 2012 is a paper that tried to account for each piece of the “Global Warming” puzzle. In the diagrams repeated below, you can see that Stephens says the “surface imbalance” is 0.60W per square metre, i.e., ½W.

  • USA_objector

    Many thanks to WB for posting David Ray Griffin’s in-depth and intriguing summary. I agree with most of those who have commented here — 9/11 vs climate change is an odd juxtaposition. DRG’s 9/11 work is phenomenal, and this is a very thorough compare/contrast of the two topics. But would DRG have been better off comparing climate change to GMOs or to chemtrails?

    The problem with global warming — oops, make that “climate change” — is that the solutions being offered by the private-jet-flying elites (give up your way of life to save the planet) is roughly the same as what was offered after 9/11 (trade in your liberties for your safety).

    Plus, there’s no mention here of Agenda 21 or Maurice Strong. How about the climategate hack of emails from the Penn State professor who was conspiring with other “climate scientists” to falsify the results of tests? Al Gore’s near-billion dollar net worth through his “green tech” private equity fund. Oh yeah, and how about that mansion of his?

    [indent]Armed with Gore’s utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president’s 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

    “If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn’t care,” says the Center’s 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. “But he tells other people how to live and he’s not following his own rules.” http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888 [/indent]

    There are constant real world examples that suggest global warming is a hoax. This from The Guardian on how NOAA/NASA falsified historical temperature data:

    When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

    At the end of the day, I’m not entirely convinced either way that global warming is real or not — but I do know I don’t want to pay crippling “carbon footprint” taxes to a newly formed division of the UN, abide by Agenda 21, or be told I can no longer travel by car or airplane.

    And finally, for all the global warming alarmists, elites and scolds — why don’t we see the same measure of urgency from you people for the ongoing Fukushima situation or the near-daily spraying of chemtrails with toxic heavy metals all over the world? Fukushima is truly an ELE — Extinction-Level Event.

    • wunsacon

      >> 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

      Why would you compare:
      (a) electricity usage at a mansion in the deep south


      (b) electricity usage of the average home nationwide (which includes cooler areas that won’t use as much AC)

      The attempted comparison seems not only unfair but silly.

      • USA_objector

        wunsacon – ah, true, but I never used the word “hypocrite.” Res ipsa loquitur.

        I’m less concerned about Gore’s carbon footprint than his private equity fund that’s rapidly transforming him into a billionaire. Hegelian-esque, is it not? Problem-reaction-solution. Reminds me of how Michael Chertoff was on CNN scaring the country into accepting the next generation of Homeland Security / Rapiscan scanners, while secretly profiting personally from their sales.

        That said, I take the point you made with regard to “shooting the messenger.”

        • wunsacon

          >> wunsacon – ah, true, but I never used the word “hypocrite.” Res

          ipsa loquitur.

          objector, are you on the one hand saying “I never used the word” (explicit) and on the other saying “the facts speak for themselves” (implicit)? …. 😉

          The original author appears to have selected “facts” not to support a fair comparison but to satisfy the goal of painting a picture of a hypocrite. Painting people as “hypocrites” is a common tactic in politics. Often, the criticism is interesting if not valid. But, I don’t think so in this case.

          Oddly, I’ve seen that “20x” figure before and didn’t question the numbers behind it.

          >> I’m less concerned about Gore’s carbon footprint than his private equity fund that’s rapidly transforming him into a billionaire. Hegelian-esque, is it not? Problem-reaction-solution. Reminds me of how Michael Chertoff was on CNN scaring the country into accepting the next generation of Homeland Security / Rapiscan scanners, while secretly profiting personally from their sales.

          Yes…like Bush family and Carlyle, too.

    • wunsacon

      >> Fukushima is truly an ELE — Extinction-Level Event.

      I’m worried about the spent-fuel pools potentially melting off. Is that what you’re referring to?

      /Short/ of that, I don’t think F is an ELE. After reading a fair amount on this subject and watching any Gunderson interview I could find, I’m not worried about the amounts released so far.

      If current releases were a problem, I would expect it to show up here: http://www.radiationnetwork.com/

      That hasn’t happened.

      • kimyo

        the massive marine life die-offs up and down the west coast are (for the most part) not being examined for cesium/strontium exposure.

        however, the real problem is that as fukushima bankrupts japan (see the recent toshiba scandal/ceo stepdown) ALL of the spent fuel pools at the 54 plants are in jeopardy.

        the costs are enormous. the plants are offline, yet they still require massive amounts of energy and personnel. casking the spent fuel is a 30-50 year job. they have no place to store the casks.

        add in the likelihood of another serious quake sometime in the next 10 years and it is entirely possible that we’re facing an ELE.

        • wunsacon

          I share these concerns as well.

          Was just checking whether we were on the same page. Thanks.

        • Voodude

          “massive marine life die-offs up and down the west coast are (for the most part) not being examined for cesium/strontium exposure.”

          (1) Yes, they are being examined. See attached.
          (2) Caesium “exposure” to marine life has not exceeded the “exposure” to marine life from totally natural sources, like 40K (potassium) and 210Po (Polonium), in general. Radioactivity in seawater is normally 13,000 mBq/litre. Caesium contamination from Fukushima adds another 10mBq/l to that 13,000 mBq/l … maybe …

          • kimyo

            examining one whale? we’re talking millions of dead animals across dozens of species.

            With her dewy brown eyes, velvety fur and glossy whiskers, TVA is a lovely specimen of an elephant seal.

            Except for the hunchback.

            The month-old pinniped – rescued in Tennessee Cove, part of Marin County’s Tennessee Valley Authority, and now undergoing treatment at the Marine Mammal Center in Sausalito – has an extra vertebra in her spine, bulging into a pronounced hump on her blubbery back.

            Several of her compatriots at the center also have birth defects – cleft
            palates, scoliosis, extra brain lobes. For years, staff puzzled over why
            elephant seals have a rate of deformities more than twice that of
            harbor seals and 10 times higher than sea lions.

            Now they think they have the answer: inbreeding.

            inbreeding? or radiation exposure? can’t tell unless you test.

          • Voodude

            Dunno about the USA, but Japan tests marine life; Canada tests Marine life.

          • kimyo

            according to buesseler:

            “As the plume begins to arrive along the West Coast [it] will actually
            increase in concentration… no public agency in the US is monitoring the
            activities in the Pacific
            … Without careful, extensive, consistent
            monitoring, we’ll have no way of knowing how much radiation from
            Fukushima is reaching our shores, and how it could affect life in the

            ask yourself why “no public agency in the US is monitoring the
            activities in the Pacific
            “. what’s the likeliest answer?

          • Voodude

            ” … why “no public agency in the US is monitoring the activities in the Pacific”. what’s the likeliest answer?”

            Well, like I said in another post, Canada monitors, Japan monitors. Researchers do. Avail yourself to their data.

            … what is the the likely answer? Well, if it was me, I wouldn’t spend money “testing for Fukushima contamination” when I know darned well that all the Fukushima contamination will never amount to a hill of beans east of 180° longitude. “What difference, at this point, does it make” what the measure of Fukushima contamination is? Right now, out to 200 miles of the Western North America coastline, the left-over Caesium contamination from the atomic bomb tests is larger than Fukushima Caesium (Bomb test Caesium is 0.5 to 3 mBq/litre). Even if Fukushima’s Caesium reaches 10, 100, or even 1000 mBq/litre, that doesn’t amount to a gnat’s mass, compared to the totally-natural radioactivity of ordinary seawater that measures 13,000 mBq/litre. 10, 100 or even 1000 compared to 13,000 … IT DOESN’T MATTER and I wouldn’t waste time going out and measuring it. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7443c387ef0399957d4be659511046fbbcd041af48a7d78df15ee50e45f2cd33.jpg

            TAKE A LOOK at what Caesium contamination levels were like in 2008, before Fukushima. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e50047164b4a7977f82a2cbf3154d8c6122bb40840f4f1311b4bf486b170395.jpg

          • Voodude

            “no public agency in the US is monitoring the activities in the Pacific… Without careful, extensive, consistent monitoring, we’ll have no way of knowing how much radiation from Fukushima is reaching our shores, and how it could affect life in the ocean.”

            … a sick plea for more research funding

          • kimyo

            no measurements = no science.

            this is why i have no respect for the celebrity science writers like kurzweil, monbiot, degrasse-tyson, nye. if they were truly scientists, they’d be demanding measurements.

            you could get a year’s worth of pacific coast measurements for the cost of a single cruise missle.

            if these measurements were made, and found to be a non-issue, the discourse would be over. the nuclear power industry would be saved.

            instead, no measurements, aka: no science. why? kinda simple if you ask me.

            ps: what’s the approx cost and timeframe for casking all the reactor/spent fuel material at fukushima? who’s going to be paying for that?

          • Voodude

            “no measurements = no science.”
            Ok, kimyo. Your turn. I’ve provided you with click-n-read research appropriately targeted to your complaint. I’ve even summarized the essential points applicable to the topic – you don’t even have to click.

            Now, provide us with some research that does indicate that Fukushima actually is responsible for pinniped death.

          • kimyo

            if this were my responsibility, i’d start by looking for thyroid cancer clusters. then i’d look to see if the clusters were located in areas of high contamination.

            so, step 1: Malibu teachers allege cancer, illnesses linked to school

            A group of teachers believes a 2011 construction project helped lead to the illnesses that they believe affect up to one-third of the staff at Malibu High School in Malibu, Calif., CBS Los Angeles reported.

            According to The Malibu Times, 20 middle and high school teachers signed the letter that said three faculty members have been diagnosed with stage 1 thyroid cancer within the past six months, another three have thyroid problems and seven teachers suffer from persistent migraines.

            The letter also added that other teachers have been treated for unexplained hair loss, skin rashes, bladder cancer and several respiratory illnesses.

            step 2: radioactive dispersion along the west coast – notice the concentration centered around malibu: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/1383/4293/original.jpg

            next, if i was the scientist in charge, i’d start measuring the school grounds for radioactivity.

            but, as we’ve established: no measurements = no science.

          • Voodude

            Papillary carcinomas of the thyroid are very common. They are present in 16 year olds at 3% and 21yo at 6%. Very few ever present as “thyroid disease” in a clinical sense. Something like 30 in 100,000. Modern ultrasound is being deployed to non-invasively screen for thyroid cancer, and fine-needle aspiration samples show that it is real cancer. Real cancer that, in the vast majority of cases, will cause the bearer no problems.

            Thyroids taken from people at autopsy, for those who died with no signs of thyroid problems, were examined, and about a third of people had papillary carcinomas of the thyroid. It is that common.

            Only 6,000 cases were reported from Chernobyl (#3) which was far worse. Chernobyl vented all the 131Iodine available, and the radioiodine fell over population centres across Europe, while most of Fukushima’s radioiodine was carried over the North Pacific Ocean – towards your teachers, but filtered by all that precipitated into the ocean, and lessened by the transport time, which took about half the 131I, because of the short half-life. The radioiodine is 98.4% gone in two days; it takes four to six days for winds to cross the North Pacific.

            (A) More than ten times the radioactive iodine was emitted by Chernobyl, than Fukushima. (#1, #8, #9, #10, #11).

            Some sources say Chernobyl was only six times that of Fukushima (#13).

            (B) For the estimated dose to the thyroid, in the small group of highly contaminated areas of both accidents, Fukushima doses are half that of Chernobyl doses … 200 vs 500 (Reference #3) and for the larger population, the thyroid dose from Fukushima is tiny {1 to 10, compared to 200, (#3, #7)}. In Chernobyl, a threshold dose of about 200mGy was determined (#6) … which is right where the estimated dose is, in Japan, for the few “worst case” scenarios. (#3).

            (C) The people of the Belarus and Ukraine areas were more deficient in iodine, thus their thyroids absorbed the radioiodine more readily than the people of Japan (whose diet is not generally deficient in iodine). (#4, #5, #12). Californian school-teachers would not likely be iodine-deficient, because iodized salt is sold in most grocery stores.

            (D) Authorities were immediately notified of the Fukushima accident and nearby populations were evacuated and iodine tablets distributed before significant venting occurred. (#3, #4, #5, #12)… the stable iodine was not ingested by the populous in and effective and timely manner, in many communities.

            (E) Milk from the contaminated areas was consumed, around Chernobyl, and milk from anywhere near Fukushima was not consumed. (#3, #5) The US EPA monitored milk for several years after Fukushima.

            (F) “Intense screening” – really, fear of radiation, causes action (like thyroid surgery) when, in the absence of fear, the doctors might say, “Yes, it is a lump. Let’s check up on it in six months to a year and see how it is doing” (Reference #2, J Orient 2014)


            #1: “The source terms for 131I, … from the [Fukushima Nuclear Accident] were about 60-390 PBq… which was about 10% of that of [Chernobyl Nuclear Accident] and less than 1% of global fallout.”

            Wuhui Lin, et al. 2015 “Radioactivity impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on the atmosphere.” Atmospheric Environment


            #2: ”The only cancer reportedly observed in excess [after the 1986 Chernobyl accident] is thyroid. However, Jaworowski contends that this is probably an artifact of intense screening, as [hidden, undiagnosed] thyroid cancer is extremely common. 33”

            Orient, J. 2014 “Fukushima and reflections on radiation as a terror weapon.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons


            #3: “…Exposure to radioactive iodine, mainly in food, led to increased thyroid cancer in children living in the [Chernobyl-]affected area. …An increased level of thyroid cancer among children was one of the significant radiation-induced health impacts from the Chernobyl NPP accident. The contamination of milk with 131I, for which prompt countermeasures were lacking, resulted in large doses to the thyroids of the public. Over 6000 cases of thyroid cancer have been reported, with 15 deaths reported by 2005. … The average thyroid dose to evacuees was about 500 milligray (mGy) (UNSCEAR 2008). For thyroid dose, 1 mGy is about the same as an equivalent dose of 1 mSv. The World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated thyroid doses from the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP accident to range from 1 to 10 mSv in most of Japan, and from 100 to 200 mSv (equivalent dose) in the most affected area of the Fukushima prefecture (WHO 2012). These doses are significantly lower than those seen following the Chernobyl NPP accident.”


            #4: ”222 … The occurrence of a large number of radiation-induced thyroid cancers in Fukushima Prefecture —such as occurred after the Chernobyl accident—can be discounted, because absorbed doses to the thyroid after the FDNPS accident were substantially lower than those after the Chernobyl accident”


            #5: [Chernobyl] Thyroid doses exceeding 2 Gy were observed almost exclusively in younger children aged less than 4 years [30] and they usually were higher in the residents of rural than in urban areas with similar contamination level [29]. It is worth noting that organized administration of prophylactic or thyroid-blocking doses of stable iodine was not common.””Importantly, a strong modifying effect of iodine deficiency was observed: relative risk for developing cancer was 3.2 in iodine deficient areas … The major route of 131I ingestion by residents [near Chernobyl] was its incorporation into the food chains of pastured cattle, mostly cows, and consumption of fresh milk as well as from vegetables and fruits grown in open soil … excess relative risk estimate of 5.25 per 1 Gy. ”

            Saenko, V., et al. 2011 “The Chernobyl accident and its consequences.” Clinical Oncology


            #6: ”… the Chernobyl accident, where thyroid doses ranged up to 1 Sv (123). The increase in thyroid cancer among young children is correlated with dose (124), and a threshold at 200 mSv is compatible with data (125).”

            Tubiana, Maurice, et al. 2009 “The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data 1.” Radiology


            #7: “The average annual absorbed dose to the thyroid from naturally occurring sources of radiation is typically of the order of 1 mGy.”


            #8: ”… the total amount of radionuclides released to the environment [from Fukushima] was in the range of 100 – 500 petabecquerels (PBq) for iodine-131 (I131) and 6 – 20 PBq for cesium-137 (Cs137) [5]”

            Nishimura, Takeshi, Harutaka Hoshi, and Akitoshi Hotta 2015. “Current research and development activities on fission products and hydrogen risk after the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.” Nuclear Engineering and Technology


            #9: “…the 131I … released by the Chernobyl accident was only about 0.1% of that released by the weapon tests.”

            Gudiksen, P. H., T. F. Harvey, and R. Langen 1989. “Chernobyl source term, atmospheric dispersion, and dose estimation.” Health Physics


            #10: ”Maximum 131-I activities in rain resulting from Fukushima were a factor of 10 lower for rainwater and a factor of 40-80 lower for seaweed compared to similar measurements made following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.”

            ”Depending on location, activities of 131-I in rain peaked between March 20-24 and were observed to decrease to background levels in the first week of April.”


            #11: “Iodine-131 in tap water exhibited high levels shortly after the accident in several affected prefectures, but no exceedances of the limit were observed after March 2011.”

            Merz, Stefan, Katsumi Shozugawa, and Georg Steinhauser 2015. “Analysis of Japanese Radionuclide Monitoring Data of Food Before and After the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.” Environmental Science & Technology


            #12: [Chernobyl:] ”The estimates from the amount of 131I released vary, but are of the order of 1.7 10^18 Bq [1700 PBq]

            ”Little effective distribution of stable iodine prophylaxis to block uptake of radioisotopes of iodine [like Potassium Iodide pills] was made at the time, indeed the majority of the population were not told of the dangers until days after the accident, children continued to play outside and continued to drink cow’s milk.”

            ”One feature that is relevant to some of the findings in the occurrence of thyroid carcinoma after exposure to fallout from Chernobyl is that much of the area where the fallout occurred is iodine deficient. Iodine-deficient thyroid glands will of course show a high uptake of radioactive iodine, leading to the prediction that the risk of developing thyroid carcinoma after exposure to radiation would be greater in areas with greater iodine deficiency”

            Williams, E. D. 2006 “Chernobyl and thyroid cancer.” Journal of surgical oncology


            #13: Radiation [Radioactive material] released into the atmosphere from the Fukushima accident was estimated to be approximately 900 petabecquerel (131I: 500 petabecquerel, 137Cs: 10 petabecquerel).… approximately one-sixth of the 5,200 petabecquerel calculated to have been released by the Chernobyl accident.3”

            ”Aside from the screening in Fukushima Prefecture that is the subject of this study, Watanobe et al.6 conducted a screening exercise from 2012 to 2013 including thyroid ultrasonography for 1,137 Fukushima residents ages 18 years and younger at the time of the accident. No thyroid cancer was detected in this screening. In regions of Japan other than Fukushima, the Japanese Ministry of Environment conducted thyroid screening of 4,365 children and adolescents ages 3–18 years living in three prefectures (Aomori, Yamanashi, and Nagasaki) using ultrasound in the 2012 fiscal year7 ; one thyroid cancer case was detected.8”

            ”However, Nagataki et al.15 reported that thyroid radiation doses in children in the evacuation and deliberate evacuation areas were estimated to be 10 mSv in 95.7% of children (maximum: 35 mSv) among 1,083 by screening and intake scenario.”

            Tsuda, Toshihide, et al. 2015 “Thyroid Cancer Detection by Ultrasound Among Residents Ages 18 Years and Younger in Fukushima, Japan: 2011 to 2014.” Epidemiology


          • kimyo

            The radioiodine is 98.4% gone in two days

            actually, radioiodine has a half-life of 8 days. plenty of time for it to cross the pacific and cause cancer clusters.

          • Voodude

            oops, that calc was done on 8 hours, not 8 days. Sorry.

          • Voodude

            The skill applied, and the equipment utilized during “thyroid screening” has a great affect on the outcome. A 2009 paper by Guth et al. showed that the better resolution of new 13 MHz ultrasound scanners over older 7.5 MHz ones increased the detection of nodules in one population from 33% to 68% per person.

            ”The prevalence of thyroid nodules in a healthy population is high: in the German Papillon study, nationwide ultrasound screening of more than 90 000 people using 7·5 MHz scanners revealed the presence of thyroid nodules in 33% of the normal population. ”

            ”Using the 13 MHz technology, we found a substantially higher prevalence of thyroid nodules (68%) than the Papillon study (33%). Even if our population is older than in Papillon, the difference remains in comparable age groups. This is due to the higher sensitivity of 13 MHz scanning”

            Guth, S., et al. 2009 “Very high prevalence of thyroid nodules detected by high frequency (13 MHz) ultrasound examination.” European journal of clinical investigation


          • Voodude

            100 Thyroid glands were taken at autopsy, from people who died with no thyroid-related diseases. 22% Papillary Carcinomas of the thyroid were found.

            “… [occult carcinoma of the thyroid] at autopsy … In Series A, 625 [autopsy] cases were studied, and sections were taken only from grossly visible lesions. In Series B, the whole thyroid glands of 100 autopsies were cut into blocks and all blocks were histologically studied. … Series A found 33 [occult carcinoma of the thyroid] (5.28%), … Series B found 22 [occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid] cases (22%) containing a total of 53 tumor foci.”

            ”The first one, Series A, consisted of the thyroid glands of 625 autopsies …”
            ”The second, Series B, comprised 100 consecutive autopsies with no thyroid-related diseases,…”
            ”Series A[:] Two hundred eighty-one women (45%)and 344 men (55%) were studied. Patient age ranged from 6 to 94 years. The average age for men was 66.13 years, and for women 70.12 years; 67.9 years was the average age for the total population. … The age of the individuals with [occult carcinoma of the thyroid] ranged from 27 to 90 years (Fig. 6; mean, 68.8 years). The statistical study did not show any relationship between age and [occult carcinoma of the thyroid] in either sex.”

            ”Series B[:] Thirty-four thyroid glands from women and 66 from men were studied. Patient age ranged from 14 to 91 years. The average ages for women, men, and the entire series were the same, namely 58 years. No positive cases were found in patients under 40 years of age, but not enough young people were included in this series for this to be significant. Although [occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid] appeared in a high number of patients aged between 61 and 80 years, no statistically significant correlation was found between the prevalence of [occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid] and patient age.”

            ”… the prevalence of [occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid] in our study (Series B) corresponds to a moderately high range. The highest incidence has been reported in Finland, followed by Japan and Hawaii, and the lowest in Colombia, followed by Poland and Canada…”

            ”This report shows that the large differences found in the published reports on the prevalence of [occult carcinoma of the thyroid] in different series most likely depend on two factors: (1)the technical method used to process the samples; and (2) the histologic criteria used in the study of these lesions.”

            Martinez‐Tello, Francisco J., et al. 1993 “Occult carcinoma of the thyroid. A systematic autopsy study from Spain of two series performed with two different methods.” Cancer


            ”Ten thyroids were found to contain [latent thyroid carcinoma] (8.6%). All were of the papillary type. … The prevalence of latent papillary thyroid carcinoma (LPTC) was 6.6% (n = 4) in females and 10.5% (n = 6) in males. The mean age of the subjects with [latent papillary thyroid carcinoma] was 67.7 +/- 14.4 yr, range 37 to 77 yr. … The incidence of [latent papillary thyroid carcinoma] in Austria is similar to that in nongoitrous regions. The adult population at large seems to be uniformly exposed to factors involved in the initiation and early growth of papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC).”

            Neuhold, Nikolaus, Hubert Kaiser, and Klaus Kaserer 2001. “Latent carcinoma of the thyroid in Austria: a systematic autopsy study.” Endocrine pathology


            Before Chernobyl, before Fukushima, ”The thyroids from 101 consecutive autopsies from Finland were subserially sectioned at 2- to 3-mm intervals. From 36 thyroids, 52 foci of occult papillary carcinoma (OPC) were found, giving a prevalence rate of 35.6%, …”

            ”Apparently the great majority of the [papillary carcinoma] tumors remain small and circumscribed and even from those few tumors that grow larger, and become invasive OPCs, only a minimal proportion will ever become a clinical carcinoma. According to the study, OPC can be regarded as a normal finding which should not be treated when incidentally found. In order to avoid unnecessary operations it is suggested that incidentally found small OPCs (less than 5 mm in diameter) were called occult papillary tumor instead of carcinoma.”

            Harach, H. Rubén, Kaarle O. Franssila, and Veli‐Matti Wasenius 1985. “Occult papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. A “normal” finding in Finland. A systematic autopsy study.” Cancer


            1975, before Fukushima, before Chernobyl: ”The prevalence of occult papillary thryoid carcinoma was significantly higher in Japan (28.4%) and in Hawaiian Japanese (24.2%) when compared with Canada (6%), Poland (9.1%), and Colombia (5.6%).”

            ”Most papillary thyroid carcinomas grow slowly, and probably remain occult [undiagnosed] for the life of the patient.”

            ”THYROID GLANDS OBTAINED AT autopsy … The 102 glands from Japan were collected at Tohoku Medical School in Sendai [prior to 1976]. Sendai is a coastal city in the Miyagi prefecture in the northeastern part of Honshu, [~60 km N of the future Fukushima nuclear disaster,] the largest of the Japanese Islands.”

            ”There is considerable variation in the reported prevalence of occult thyroid carcinomas. … This variation may be due to the lack of standardized methods of examination and diagnostic criteria.”

            ”There is a markedly increased number of occult thyroid carcinomas in the Japanese of both Hawaii and Japan when compared with the native citizens in Canada, Poland, and Colombia. However, the incidence of clinical thyroid cancer in the Hawaiian Japanese and native Japanese does not appear to differ significantly from those of the other countries.”

            Fukunaga, Francis H., and Ryuichi Yatani 1975. “Geographic pathology of occult thyroid carcinomas.” Cancer


          • kimyo

            people suffering from thyroid dysfunction should heed your words – (in hillary’s finest shrill-speak) ‘what does it matter?’. horrific periods, chronic constipation, headaches galore, cancers a-plenty are a small price to pay. still-births? no big deal.

            what matters is that the nuclear industry reigns supreme, unchallenged. tepco is making the world safer (repeat ad infinitum).

          • Voodude

            Where you live, and your lifestyle, changes your dose from the “world average” of 2 to 3, to easily 6, 10, or even 250 – the units are mSv.

            Orlando: about 3 mSv annually

            Denver: about 6 mSv – twice that of Florida

            Cervo Valley (Province of Verceli, Piemonte, Italy) – about 3X the normal dose

            Yangjiang, China (pop. 80,000) 35 mSv/year

            Kerala, India (pop. 100,000), 38 mSv/year

            Guarapari, Brazil (pop. 73,000), 50 mSv/year

            Ramsar in Iran, about 2000 people are exposed to at least 250 mSv/yr

            Studies of these places (Yangjian, Kerala, Guarapari, Ramsar) show no ill effects from living in the high-radiation ares. No increase in cancers, no increased genetic or increased birth defects. No increases in stillborn children.

          • kimyo

            is there a difference between external radiation (such as x-rays) and internal?

          • Voodude

            β rays do much more damage, internally, than externally. Maybe a sunburn-like damage on the outside. Clothing mostly stops them.

            α rays (essentially, helium nuclei, stripped of electrons, hurled out at high velocity) don’t do squat on the outside, but concentrate all their damage in the first cell wall they strike. Outside, ‘cept for the eyes, they exhaust most of their energy slamming into dead skin cells. A significant α-emitter is 210Po.

            γ rays penetrate, and leave bits of damage in their wake. 137Cs is a γ source. X-rays are weak γ -rays.

          • Voodude

            ” start measuring the school grounds for radioactivity
            … and how would you interpret your readings? Radionuclides are everywhere.

            Man-made Plutonium can be found in every soil.

            “The world-wide use of coal in 1991 was about 5,100 million tonnes. When that coal was burnt, some 6,630 tonnes of uranium and 16,320 tonnes of thorium were released into the biosphere.”“In fact, just a single 1,000 megawatt coal-fired power station releases enough uranium-235 to make a World War II-style atom bomb each year.”


            ”… Elevated concentrations [of uranium] were also observed near a coal-fired power station (0.25-0.38 microgram/g U). Isotopic analysis revealed significant deviation from the natural uranium isotope ratio (235U/238U, 0.00725) at four nuclear installations (235U/238U, 0.0055-0.0097). ”

            Bellis, D., et al. 2001 “Airborne uranium contamination—as revealed through elemental and isotopic analysis of tree bark.” Environmental Pollution


            Uranium is natural, and is found, extensively, in the western regions of the North American continent.

            137Radiocaesium coated all of California at 2kBq/square metre from the bomb tests. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/905c074b1432a145cd35802d3bfa7f2c592388b510b55642d9c54efda358a5df.jpg

            Radon and Radium coat the entire USA (the world, actually, but this map is USA-centric) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/34b5ac0366cc579f024b660b0ae7d90a46ea572e6ca00410c1a6fad41afccfc7.jpg

            Radioactive 40Potassium:

            Monazite sands are frequently found on California beaches, and way inland, in (alluvial deposits) what used to be beaches, long ago… Monazite sands contain uranium and thorium (amongst other radionuclides).

            Some, of what your hypothetical geiger counter would read, would come from Cosmic sources:

          • Voodude

            “no measurements = no science”
            Seeing as 131Iodine has an 8-day half-life, little is left in the thyroid gland from Fukushima… What radionuclide would you look for, in the thyroid gland, to estimate the iodine dosage from 131I?

          • kimyo

            i’d look for strontium.

          • Voodude

            Why? Strontium isn’t concentrated in thyroid. It is chemically like calcium.

            My answer: 129Iodine. It has an enormous half-life. Elevated isotopic ratios of stable Iodine vs 129I probably are proportional to the dose delivered to that particular thyroid. Being iodine, it would concentrate in the thyroid, like 131I.

          • kimyo

            the presence of strontium 90 on the santa monica schoolgrounds would indicate a higher likelihood of radioactive iodine exposure, thus providing a logical explanation for the increase in thyroid disorder/bladder cancer and symptoms such as hair loss.

          • Voodude

            Why would a construction project preferentially expose these teachers, while teachers 5km away at the next school, would be different?

          • kimyo

            clearly, the construction project has nothing to do with the cancer cluster. radioactive deposition from a nuclear disaster is going to result in multiple areas with high concentrations, dilution is a fragment of your delusional imagination.

            when 1/3 of the staff experience health issues known to be caused by radioactive exposure, more investigation is REQUIRED, if one were a sensible, decent, honest human being.

          • Voodude

            Well, then, investigate. When conclusions can be reached based upon measurements and science, then publish.
            Engaging in speculation about a current event only inflames the “fear of radiation” that so many people have. Fear actually causes damage, even if the “thing” doesn’t cause damage. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9d1fe99e6942ebc9dc2ea4a85f183fde14d01b58581f34c3fe5baa4c41ecdbe7.jpg

          • kimyo

            the fear argument is one of the most bogus of all arguments. proof: are the mutant daisies around fukushima mutating cause they spend too much time reading the national enquirer? fearful daisies? or, honestly, is it radiation?

          • Voodude

            Those “mutant daisies” – as well as other fasciated plant life, have been documented by botanists since 1590 (or before) … for centuries.

            Bacterium fascians: Corynebacterium, Phytomonasi, Pseudomoms, Rltodococcus, Rhodacoccus; viral infections (cauliflower mosaic virus, saguaro cactus virus), even nematodes are common causes.

            Yes, they can be caused by radiation. Documented cases of fasciation are at much, much higher levels of radiation.

            ”The phenomenon is called fasciation. And although it can be the result of a mutation that affects the meristem’s ability to maintain its shape, it can also be caused by anything that can simply kill off a few meristem cells: bacterial or viral infections, mechanical injury to the plant, even a heavy rain after a long drought. According to University of Massachusetts plant biologist Elsbeth Walker, it’s actually pretty easy to find plants with this condition if you’re looking for them. «If you go into any greenhouse to buy a houseplant you’ll probably find at least one–they’re a dime a dozen.» Even more likely, you’ve eaten one—strawberries sometimes fasciate into enormous fan-shaped berries.”

            ”The malformed, band-shaped stems called fasciations, which have been observed in many plants, have drawn the attention of mankind for centuries. The grotesque shapes of the huge plants of the Arizona cactus (Carnegiea gigantea) and the araucarias of Australia (Araucaria cunninghamii) are well known. Other fasciations are objects of superstition; a fasciated Cucurbita pepo growing in the well-manured garden of a merchant in Coïmbatore (South-India) is believed to be the incarnation of Nagasarpa or King Cobra and huge crowds of people come with offerings to worship it. Since 1590 botanists have paid much attention to this curious phenomenon, which can be classified among the monstrosities.”

            Gorter, Christine J. 1965 “Origin of fasciation.” Differenzierung und Entwicklung/Differentiation and Development. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

            ”Because of its widespread occurrence among vascular plants, fasciation has become a relatively well-known plant monstrosity, or teratological abnormality.”

            White, Orland E. 1948 “Fasciation.” The Botanical Review
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8f8aee822660fae5db103a51e5ddf0619a66f5b89dac7d4718a9243311d33551.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e4ff09611a1d54383bc850ab562d5eabaf6d6834c8d896e1ab3e8221acd74322.jpg

          • Voodude

            “the fear argument is one of the most bogus of all arguments.”

            Have you ever considered that you are causing more ill-health effects than Fukushima? You are spreading fear, anxiety, and hatred … which cause documented damage to humans. From that angle, you are more of a problem than Fukushima.

            “… raises enormous fear about the safety of exposures to small doses of radiation (and chemicals). Linking low radiation to a “risk of health effects” and the emergency measures to mitigate exposure to low radiation levels has caused and continues to cause many premature deaths and enormous psychological suffering of large populations who received small radiation exposures.”

            Cuttler, Jerry M. 2014 “Leukemia incidence of 96,000 Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors is compelling evidence that the LNT model is wrong.” Archives of toxicology


            ”However, there is a lot of health and healthcare problems caused by the nuclear accident, which is not owing to radiation.”

            ”… long-term evacuation to temporary housings deteriorate health of the elderly. Health check-ups conducted by Soma City local government revealed increased risks of muscle weakness, obesity and diabetes are apparent 1 year after the disaster.”



            ”There were 8717 respondents reporting psychological distress. Respondents who believed that radiation exposure was very likely to cause health effects were significantly more likely to be psychologically distressed than other respondents”

            Suzuki, Yuriko 2015. “Psychological distress and the perception of radiation risks: the Fukushima health management survey.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization


            Fear of radiation causes much harm. Expressed particularly in government edicts following the Fukushima accident (and also Chernobyl), it has caused much suffering and many deaths.”


            Psychological stress was the major adverse health effect, due to fear of the potential consequences that the radiation protection authorities have been predicting. The permanent relocations have been very stressful. Throughout the world, there was widespread fear of the radioactive contamination and there were very strong social and political reactions”…

            Cuttler, Jerry M. 2007 “What becomes of nuclear risk assessment in light of radiation hormesis?.” Dose-Response


            ”… the fear of low dose radiation based on the LNT model has dominated our society’s response to low dose radiation over the past five decades, preventing any prospective human studies of radiation hormesis. If the hormetic effect observed in the atomic bomb survivors is confirmed in prospective human clinical trials, and applied to the whole population, it may result in a significant reduction in cancer mortality.”

            Doss, Mohan 2012. “Evidence supporting radiation hormesis in atomic bomb survivor cancer mortality data.” Dose-Response


            ” 170 Mental health problems and impaired social well-being were the major health impacts observed following the accident. They were the results of understandable reactions to the enormous impacts of the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, as well as fear and stigma associated with radiation exposure. Psychological effects, such as depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms, among the public have been observed [Y4, Y5] and may have serious health consequences.”

            ”185. Initial observations have identified severe psychological effects among the FDNPS workers engaged in emergency work [M8, S7, S8, W1]. These effects are attributable to a number of causes, including … worries about possible effects of radiation in the future and discrimination and stigma associated with being a radiation worker.”


            ”… In Fukushima Prefecture, the casualties from radiation terror number more than 1,600, exceeding direct deaths from the natural disaster in that area, because of government-mandated evacuation that forced people from their homes and usual support systems into crowded evacuation centers. … The effects of low-dose radiation are in fact grossly misstated. The resulting fear-based regulatory regime deprives people of life-saving technology. In the event of a nuclear detonation or dispersal of radioactive material, panic could cause preventable mass casualties, and ignorance- or fear-based official directives could thwart rescue efforts and produce disastrous economic and social disruption.” …

            “Psychosis is the most grave and wide impact of this accident, both at the regional and global scale. It caused the greatest medical, economic and societal harm,” Jaworowski concludes.33”

            Orient, J. 2014 “Fukushima and reflections on radiation as a terror weapon.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons


            “The Chernobyl accident showed that overestimating radiation risks could be more detrimental than underestimating them. Misinformation partially led to traumatic evacuations of about 200,000 individuals, an estimated 1250 suicides, and between 100,000 and 200,000 elective abortions …”

            Tubiana, Maurice, et al. 2009 “The Linear No-Threshold Relationship Is Inconsistent with Radiation Biologic and Experimental Data 1.” Radiology


          • kimyo

            the simple way to dispel fear? test the dead animals for radioactive exposure. test the new thyroid cancer patients.

            knowledge and science will trump fear any day.

            it’s those, like yourself, who blithely say ‘everything is fine / thyroid disorder is really no big deal / measurements are completely unnecessary’ who CAUSE fear.

          • Voodude
          • kimyo

            dozens of citations

            and monsanto has provided us with hundreds of studies showing that roundup / glyphosate is safe.

            it’s not alarmism when millions of animals are dying, some with lesions and mutations, others from starvation. it’s common sense to demand testing.

          • Voodude

            “it’s not alarmism when millions of animals are dying, … to demand testing.

            You are not actually “demanding testing” – What you are actually doing is deliberately remaining ignorant of actual testing, taking place because it doesn’t support your alarmist ideas.

            Apparently, when testing is presented, segue from Fukushima into “Monsanto and Glyphosate” … or, dangle a baited line, “agree or disagree:” … kimyo, bring something to the discussion.

          • kimyo


            “no public agency in the US is monitoring the
            activities in the Pacific”

            stop pretending that actual, independent testing is being performed. realize that japan, if they admitted the true scope of the issue (multiple cores out of containment) would be a done deal. this might have a small impact on the outcomes of their ‘scientific tests’. kinda like: the epa: the air is safe to breathe (9/11 asbestos inferno)

          • Voodude

            TESTING of Cetaceans that beached themselves and died, in Northern Japan, were published. Some contained Fukushima contamination, but that is to be expected, swimming around, as they do. The majority had no detectable contamination. The worst affected was a whale, and it had edible levels of “contamination” – even according to Japan’s strict 100Bq/kg limit. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e884cd0dd65e31dc201c1069ae18954ef35dbe513574f90c3599c4419c82c4f6.jpg

            The majority of beaching deaths studied, had not contamination: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b29217441f64f62df1d17a53c4d3d9673b878841d7bdb76c7fd7366088ce0a98.jpg

            Nakamura, Tsugiya, et al. 2015 “Radiocesium contamination of cetaceans stranded along the coast of Hokkaido, Japan, and an estimation of their travel routes.” MEPS


          • kimyo

            agree or disagree?: “the reactors are in a state of cold shutdown”

          • Voodude

            “examining one whale?”
            That one whale sampled a whole lot of ocean, and brought back: zero.

          • Voodude

            URL in above .JPG is a dead link.
            URL for the above: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/27-1_buesseler.pdf

            These tests by researchers – in local Japanese waters – show you that lots of testing is being done. Avail yourself of this information. Educate yourself. I shouldn’t have to spoon-feed you results. Look at the dots – each one represents one or more fish – caught, weighed, analyzed, cataloged … that is a lot of work.


          • Voodude

            Here’ I’ll test the pinnipeds for you.

            ”Polonium is responsible for the majority of the radiation dose that fish and other marine organisms receive,”


            Marine organisms’ ”…doses, in all cases, were dominated by the naturally occurring alpha-emitter 210Po, and that Fukushima-derived doses were three to four orders of magnitude below 210Po-derived doses.”

            ”Doses to marine biota were about two orders of magnitude below the lowest benchmark protection level proposed for ecosystems”

            ”The additional dose from Fukushima radionuclides to humans consuming tainted [migratory Pacific bluefin tuna] in the United States was calculated to be 0.9 and 4.7 μSv for average consumers and subsistence fishermen, respectively. Such doses are comparable to, or less than, the dose all humans routinely obtain from naturally occurring radionuclides in many food items”

            ”··· dose estimates generally need to be put into perspective, by comparing them to the background dose from naturally occurring radionuclides, such as 40K and 210Po ···”

            ”With the exception of the most contaminated fish in Fukushima waters, all of the calculated doses to humans are less than that caused by [naturally occurring] 210Po. Using a mean activity concentration of naturally occurring 210Po, reported for [migratory Pacific bluefin tuna] near Japan before the Fukushima accident (79 Bq·kg−1 dry) (8), the 210Po ingestion dose for humans can be compared with that obtained from the Cs isotopes from Fukushima. The resulting committed effective dose from 210Po, using representative seafood consumption rates in Japan, would be 1.3 mSv, and in the United States, where seafood consumption is 2.3-fold lower, the dose from 210Po would be 0.6 mSv. Thus, the dose from [naturally occurring] 210Po would be more than 600 times greater, than that from the radiocesium isotopes”

            Fisher, Nicholas S., et al. 2013 “Evaluation of radiation doses and associated risk from the Fukushima nuclear accident to marine biota and human consumers of seafood.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences


            ”We address risks to public health and marine biota by showing that, though Cs isotopes are elevated 10–1,000× over prior levels, in waters off Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring radionuclides

            Get that? I’ll repeat it: “…below those from naturally occurring radionuclides“. Even though Fukushima contamination is present, 10-1000x over prior levels, IT DOESN’T MATTER compared to natural radioactivity.

            ”In terms of potential biological impacts, radiation doses in marine organisms are generally dominated by the naturally occurring radionuclides when organisms are exposed to anthropogenic radioactivity discharged to coastal waters (14). [Just to] be comparable just to doses from 210Po, 137Cs levels in fish would need to range from 300 to 12,000 Bq·kg−1 dry weight, some 1–3 orders of magnitude higher than what we observed ≥30 km off Japan. Thus, radiation risks of these isotopes to marine organisms and human consumers of seafood are well below those from natural radionuclides.”

            “Finally, these levels are several orders of magnitude lower than those used in one study that assumed exposure to the most heavily impacted water discharged from the Fukushima NPPs to predict marked reproductive effects and possible mortality in marine biota (15).”

            Buesseler, Ken O., et al. 2012 “Fukushima-derived radionuclides in the ocean and biota off Japan.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences


            ”…, our data did not support the notion that zooplankton grazing on phytoplankton results in a biomagnification of 137Cs.”

            Baumann, Z., et al. 2015 “Fukushima 137 Cs at the base of planktonic food webs off Japan.” Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers


            ”Concentrations in sea fish were found to vary between 0.27 and 27.48 Bq kg−1 [210 Polonium] fresh wt, and 0.05–0.38 Bq kg−1 [210 Lead]fresh wt. … On the other hand, in fresh water fish, the concentrations were relatively low and varied between 0.61 and 3.08 Bq kg−1 fresh wt for [210 Polonium] and 0.04 to 0.10 Bq kg−1 fresh wt for [210 Lead]. These variations in and content in different species are due to differences in metabolism and feeding patterns. …”

            Al-Masri, M. S.,et al. 2000 “210Po and 210Pb concentrations in fish consumed in Syria.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity


            “Radiation doses from naturally-occurring radionuclides in the marine environment (e.g. 210Po) are on the average two orders of magnitude higher

            2005 Worldwide marine radioactivity studies (WOMARS) Radionuclide levels in oceans and seas International Atomic Energy Agency


            Read: Beck, B. F., and F. D. Martin 1972. “Radioactivity in the Marine Environment.”


        • Voodude


          Fukushima adds, maybe, 10mBq/litre to seawater that has 13,000 mBq/litre in it from natural sources. Compare 10 to 13,000 …

          If marine life hadn’t died from being exposed to 13,000 for all of their lifetimes, what added insult is 10? Even if Fukushima adds 100 or 1000 … nothing significant comes from it. Other oceans have a lot more of totally natural radioactivity.

          If you had a chance to be a tourist in the Dead Sea, would you swim in it? I would. The excess salt makes a tremendous buoyancy. The Dead Sea has more than 183,000 mBq/litre of radioactive material in it. ” … found in the Persian Gulf (22 Bq/kg) [22,528 mBq/litre], the Red Sea (15 Bq/kg) [15,360 mBq/litre], and the eastern Mediterranean (14.6 Bq/kg) [14,950 mBq/litre]. ”The average activity (both natural and anthropogenic) for the world’s oceans is 13.6 Bq/kg water. [13,926 mBq/litre] More than 88% of this activity is due to the naturally occurring potassium isotope 40K [12,255 mBq/litre]”. P. Varskog 2003 Naturally occurring radionuclides in the marine environment – an overview of current knowledge with emphasis on the North Sea area Norse Decom AS http://www.forskningsradet.no/csstorage/vedlegg/radionuclides_marine_environment.pdf

        • Voodude

          The North Pacific Ocean was contaminated to a much, much larger extent, from the bomb tests. The Pacific ocean didn’t “die” then. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a80b1cbd7e7ca4a01a247eb4054e4309d90efb852c7d0cc2770acfe534edb84c.jpg


          Most of the Northern Hemisphere was bathed in Caesium (and other radionuclides, including Plutonium) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d650cfd969eb43ec94628c9538bc3bb050787778ad60c12347fcf1e887bca3ad.jpg

          The Irish Sea has been, and is now, more contaminated with radionuclides. The Irish Sea hasn’t “died” – so, why should the North Pacific ocean “die” (from radionuclides) … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82dea5c748043dc53fec615d7f40357f8b540f7a671f58d1df9dadb643a7d7e2.jpg

          “Instead, the study said the mass mortality was likely caused by a harmful algal bloom… “

          From University of California at Davis, June 3, 2015: http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/egghe

          “There has been substantial speculation in the media that the disease could be a result of increased radiation from the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima, Japan. We have no evidence to suggest that radiation is a likely culprit.” (Jan. 21, 2014) From University of California at Santa Cruz: http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacifi

          “The recently published paper by Hewson et al. “Densovirus associated with sea-star wasting disease and mass mortality” provides evidence for a link between a densovirus (SSaDV) and sea star wasting syndrome (SSWS).” (November 20, 2014) From University of California at Santa Cruz: http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacifi

          “As noted in the previous update, disease has also been seen in urchins in some locations along the coast. It is still unknown whether this is related to sea star wasting syndrome. Warmer than usual water temperatures may be playing a role, as has been the case in past events. In the last few months urchin disease symptoms have been reported in southern California and Baja California.” (March 13, 2015) From University of California at Santa Cruz: http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacifi

          “Researchers have found no evidence of a link between the ongoing Fukushima disaster and the starfish die-off, Raimondi said—“very massive sampling” indicates that the outbreak began before waterborne radiation reached the coast.” From The New Yorker, April 21, 2015, quoting UC Santa Cruz marine biologist Pete Raimondi


          hat tip: Potatoe http://www.mvariety.com/cnmi/cnmi-news/editorials/77797-health-in-the-cnmi-what-you-are-not-being-told-about-fukushima#comment-2072991878

        • Voodude

          ”The radionuclide food monitoring campaign that followed the nuclear accident proved to be unprecedented in human history. Tens of thousands of samples were analyzed in the weeks and months after March 2011, (8,19) adding up to almost one million measurements by the end of 2014. Basically, all radiation detection capacities of the country, including those of universities and research laboratories, were used to gather crucial information on the radionuclide contamination levels in various regions and prefectures in Japan.”

          ”In summary, the Fukushima nuclear accident triggered an unprecedented monitoring campaign for radionuclides in food. Vegetables from Fukushima prefecture exhibited high radiocesium activity concentrations soon after the accident. However, by late summer of 2011, it was mostly mushrooms or dried vegetarian foodstuffs that exceeded the provisional regulatory limit. A similar picture was observed in other affected prefectures: after an initial high, activity concentrations in vegetable dropped quickly, but peaked again due to mushrooms and dried vegetables. This confirms the necessity to monitor mushrooms as sentinel species for radiocesium.30 Monitoring of meat/eggs started with significant delay after the accident, especially in prefectures other than Fukushima. Due to the constant intake of contaminated pasture, radiocesium concentrations in animal products from Fukushima built up relatively slowly and peaked for the first time in early July 2011. In this initial period, it was mainly beef responsible for exceedances of the provisional regulatory limits. After the peak, activity concentrations dropped again to rise back from September 2011. This time, it was mainly boar meat that was highly contaminated. Iodine-131 in tap water exhibited high levels shortly after the accident in several affected prefectures, but no exceedances of the limit were observed after March 2011. Radiocesium levels in tap water were rather low. Given the high monitoring density, the mostly rapid response of Japanese authorities and the rapid decrease of very high initial contamination levels of the most common foods, it seems very unlikely that more than very few members of the public in Japan exceeded the maximum permissible internal exposure of 1 mSv/year. ”

          Merz, Stefan, Katsumi Shozugawa, and Georg Steinhauser 2015. “Analysis of Japanese Radionuclide Monitoring Data of Food Before and After the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.” Environmental Science & Technology


      • Voodude

        “…the spent-fuel pools potentially melting off…”
        I cannot say what will happen in the future, but as for the past, Fukushima’s spent fuel pools maintained adequate coverage (thanks to heroic efforts). Visual inspection, sampling of pool water, and comparisons of radioisotopes’ ratios all indicate that none of Fukushima’s spent fuel has made any measurable contribution to the mess. It is quite likely that the spent fuel assemblies are undamaged.

    • wunsacon

      Regarding the GS scam attempts, I agree. But, you should fight the politics — not the science.

      The more difficult you make it for real progressives to “win” a political victory on AGW, the more likely that “win” will be gained only by selling out to big business in the form of the neoliberal (i.e,. Republican-favored) “pollution rights” and trading schemes.

  • wunsacon

    Hello Skeptics,

    I’d like to ask you a couple of vaguely related questions:

    1. Without looking it up, what do you guess the temperatures are on Mercury and Venus? After you look it up, how close were you and why did they differ (if by “much”)?

    2. If you could drive your car straight up to the sky, for how many hours would you have to drive in order to reach “space”?

    I suspect you know these answers as well as I do. (If not, surely you know other things that I don’t know off the top of my head.) Nevertheless, I’m just curious…TIA.

  • dji9424 .

    I’m surprised that DRG would be so gullible as to believe the idea that global warming (now known by the more encompassing term climate change) is actually scientific. Show me the actual science behind it, most of what is offered as “scientific” is pure conjecture based on questionable climate models, which regularly fail to predict or come close to replicating actual climate observations. Thus, the primary aspect of climate change that is man-made are these models and the idea that we should believe them as scientific fact is sheer lunacy.

    Who benefits? Is it just “Big Money” interests? No, it’s anyone that gets a piece of the action that will be doled out by the controlling international body, whoever that is determined to be. The issue is control, just as 9/11 was designed to deceive Americans into relinquishing their freedoms so that it would be possible to implement more unconstitutional controls, the notion of climate change is designed to implement global controls of the world’s population.

    As with any issue involving control, there is no desire to actually solve the problem (if there was one in the first place), to the contrary, it is to perpetuate the problem so continuing and more restrictive actions will “need” to be taken. After all, what is the true nature of government? As George Washington is reported to have said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force.”

    That observation about government is self-evident and to assume otherwise will only place our remaining freedoms in peril.

  • jadan

    No comparison, no relationship between 911 and AGW, or climate change.

    Climate scientists pontificate about a problem they know little about. Without going into the extremely tedious arguments pro and con, simply ask this question: if climate science actually understands the phenomenon of climate change, and it is problem, then how do they propose to fix it?

    Answer: they have no fix that is not Edward Teller bullshit science: spray the atmosphere to make fake clouds and other foolishness. How’s the chemtrail program going, fellas? Are you fixing the problem or making it worse, and how can you prove it one way or another?

    The idea that we can geo-engineer anything is self-delusion. If we have created climate change, IF, it’s a goddam stupid thing to do, and this should not inspire anyone with the confidence that we can fix it.

    There’s no policy that can stop climate change. What we need to do is rehabilitate the natural environment to the best of our capability. This means stop nuclear power, invest heavily in alternative sustainable energy generation, begin population reduction education, eliminate WMD and militarism, eliminate the economics of scarcity. There are many things we can do that we have some hope of actually achieving, but fixing climate change is not one of these doable things. We are not even capable of creating sustainable energy generation. Hang on to your toupee.

  • al

    ok david or anyone…..I think we should look at climate change on its own merits…and the following is a big question/obstacle to the theory that remains unanswered…………if we double the current level of co2 you estimate is currently available of 400ppm to 800ppm….with adequate water, sun and nutrients….we would significantly see a significant increase in green vegetative growth on earth… which I think would improve the planet’s temperature, humidity, air and soil…..if we lower the co2 from current levels to 200 ppm we’ll see a significant decrease in green vegetative growth on the planet, no?….lower humidity/water levels…..co2 for plants is like oxygen is for us…in fact the less co2 available on the planet would mean there would be less oxygen, right?….plants exhale oxygen like we exhale co2,right?….maybe someone can make sense of all this for me….thanks al

    • Voodude

      Plants suffocate and die at levels just below 200 ppmv

  • sector7

    “The idea that the “government”….fabricated global warming would make this lie parallel to the 9/11 lie…. But this would make no sense.” Carbon tax and control over way of life come directly to mind.

    “Although there is considerable fraud in science – as has been extensively documented – scientists who engage in fraud are a small minority.” Purely opinion. How about the fraud not documented?

    Man-made global warming is a ridiculous notion. This guy says it best. https://youtu.be/iEPW_P7GVB8

  • wunsacon

    Hello Skeptics,

    I’d like to ask you a couple of vaguely related questions:

    1. Without looking it up, what do you guess the temperatures are on Mercury and Venus? After you look it up, how close were you and why did they differ (if by “much”)?

    2. If you could drive your car straight up to the sky, for how many hours would you have to drive in order to reach “space”?

    I suspect you know these answers as well as I do. (If not, surely you know other things that I don’t know off the top of my head.) Nevertheless, I’m just curious…TIA.

  • Both sides are responsible

    100% of pure scientists concede that the climate is changing. This is due to the fact that climate is always in a state of flux. Temperature varies by the hour, winds change direction, cloud cover is not static. We are exiting a glaciation and natural variation dictates the outbound side of an ice age is marked by warming.
    The point of contention is causation. The IPCC which is not comprised of the brightest minds in science is promoting a hypothesis that continues to prove itself wrong. The claim of human causation fails at almost every turn. To date not one of the 105 IPCC climate models has even come close to being correct. This is easier to understand if you examine the origins of the IPCC; which is the Rio Summit in 1992
    Enter Maurice Strong con man extraordinare and promoter of the pseudo-science premised on human causation. Maurice Strong was the Secretary General of the 1992 Rio summit on the environment and took great liberties when establishing the criteria that would govern the IPCC studies.
    Human causation was the only thing within the scope of study which should have set off alarm bells because the sun and its emitted solar radiation is the number 1 external influence on planetary climate; nothing else comes close. The climate models do not factor the sun in anywhere.

    CO2 is presented as a pollutant and it is an essential building block of life. In fact if the IPCC goal of ZERO CO2 were even remotely possible the effort top achieve it would destroy all life on the planet. At a cost of $1,000,000,000 per 0.001 degree reduction in temperature adaption should be on the table

    That is if AGW were science driven instead of politics driven. This whole exercise is yet another conspiracy; global governance. The EPA’s clear air rules simply raise the cost of electricity and significantly reduce the reliability of the US energy infrastructure without providing benefit to the environment. The IPCC hypothesis does not fit in the same reality that governs all other fields of science (with the exception of subatomic physics where nothing seems to make sense). That’s a major alarm bell
    It uses consensus (opinion) and not scientific observation and measurement as it’s foundation. The IPCC claims cannot be reproduced (strike) modeling does not relate to actual measurements (strike) the need to constantly adjust the data sets to make the model work (strike 3) makes the hypothesis highly improbable.
    While the 9-11 truth movement raise valid issues there is still many unknowns yet to explore, The IPCC version of climate science only works when you isolate it from reality. The best it can show is a weak correlation and correlation is light years from causation. A majority of the worlds scientists are skeptical and they should be.
    The commonality between 9-11 and AGW is conspiracy. On that we can agree