‘New Scientist’ – old Alarmism about Global Warming

Written by

The magazine increasingly regarded as a sock puppet for the cause of climate alarm, ‘New Scientist’ trumpets another hollow, science-free cry to readers to stay scared about climate change. Below we dissect this Chicken Little nonsense.

You know you’re about to be flim-flammed from the very start in “Is it Time to Stop Worrying About Global Warming?” (December 7, 2013) when the opening shot cries out, “Climate sceptics are finding it ever harder to persuade the public that the climate isn’t changing.” 

new scientistNow hold on a cotton-picking minute. I’ve been posting articles about man-made global warming for five years and in all that time neither I, nor any of my science advisers asserted climate doesn’t change – it always changes – that’s the point!

Any scientist worth his or her salt knows our planet is subject to awesome and unstoppable shifts in and out of periods of natural warming and cooling –  all cyclical in pattern and driven by cosmic forces far, far outside of our planet. Indeed, for the last 11,000 years Earth has been in one of those increasingly rare warming phases. It’s called the Holocene Period, the warmest part of which occured 5,000-9,000 years ago and termed a ‘Climatic Optimum’  don’t you know!  An ‘optimum’ because warmer climates are better to support life. [1]

While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published five reports over two decades using the metric of global surface temperatures to alarm us of a slight warming trend between 1975-1997, ‘New Scientist’ now assures us reliance on such empirical evidence is “misguided.” Wow!

Unsurprisingly then, as we appear to be dealing with con artists, that ‘New Scientist’ thereafter doubles down from this straw man opening gambit in its ‘scientific’ argument to pursue the lame “missing heat” hypothesis promulgated by Kevin Trenberth. Trenberth is among that small coterie of favoured UN climate “experts” who pursues a faith-based (post-normal) brand of science based on computer models that treat our planet as a flat disk bathed by 24 hours of insipid twilight. It’s all part of the over-simplified and dumbed down ‘flat earth’  climate physics that leaves experts from the ‘hard’ sciences cold.

Bereft of the proof from ground thermometers of any increase in global warming for the past seventeen years ‘New Scientist’ hangs its hat on Kevin “missing heat” Trenberth’s unscientific 2009 speculation that all that nasty added heat from human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) must be somewhere where we can’t see it – wait for it – in the deepest recesses of the oceans!

Yes, you see ‘New Scientist’ will have you know that “in the last 60 years the Pacific’s depths have warmed 15 times as fast as at any time in the past 15,000 years.”

The implication being that human CO2 emissions over half a century are the cause. Nothing, of course, to do with the fact earth’s core is in excess of 5,000 degrees Celsius or that there are believed to be thousands of yet undiscovered undersea volcanoes also in the climatic mix.

But it’s got to be due to us humans right? Well, we think not. Especially so when the whole argument of man-made global warming requires we adopt the pseudoscience of the anthropogenically enhanced “greenhouse gas effect,” (GHE) which is premised on the notion that human emissions of CO2, once emitted, are “trapped” in the atmosphere preventing added heat escaping out to “colder” outer space. Well, as ‘New Scientist’ implicitly concedes, according to the temperature evidence it’s not so “trapped” in the atmosphere after all; a crucial fail for the GHE believers.

As analyst Malcolm Roberts reports in ‘Newly-released Letters Expose Aussie Govt Minister in Climate Fraud‘ (March 22, 2014), “since the start of global atmospheric temperature measurements in 1958 atmospheric temperature cooled from 1958 to 1976, rose in 1976 as a result of the entirely natural Great Pacific Climate Shift and thereafter rose very modestly until 1995 / 1998. Since 1998 every year has been cooler than in 1998. The UN IPCC’s claimed greenhouse mechanism is a supposedly atmospheric effect purported to be warming Earth’s surface. Yet in the 57 years of atmospheric temperature measurements, temperatures have shown no warming or been cooling for 34 years. That’s 60% with no warming. The current trend is 16 years of ongoing lack of warming despite ever-rising human CO2 output due largely to China and India.”

These discredited Armageddon salesmen are now playing hide the global temperature pea under the thimble. On the one hand, for 30 years they’ve been crying about the outpouring into the skies of emissions from our industrialized cities building up a “blanket” of heat in the sky. Now they flip-flop and tell us the (missing) heat didn’t really head skyward, it took itself down (unseen) into the deep.

So, all you scientifically illiterate fools not as smart as an IPCC “super genius” like Kevin T, heat no longer rises, it falls. We must all abandon scientific first principles learnt at school. Instead, ‘New Scientist’ wants us to buy into another junk theory that the gases from your car’s tailpipe, the steam from the chimneys of those power plants, etc. aren’t rising inexorably into the skies by the laws of entropy. No, out of sight of you and me and those legions of searching “climate scientists” who for decades spoke of that added “heat blanket” we are now to understand that all such heat performs a “one-eighty’” and dives deep into the recesses of the oceans by a hitherto unknown energy process, but will surely jump out and bite us in the butt “soon.” It’s all nonsense – sci-fi fantasy stuff that would turn on its head the science of heat transport well established since the days of Carnot and Clausius.

But we climate realists are sticking with Carnot and Clausius and the first statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously from a hot to a cold body. In short, we would like to leave ‘New Scientist” with one paraphrased message from Carnot and Clausius that contradicts their claims – “heat rises, not falls, you idiots!”

[1] Nahle, Nasif. (2007) Warming Periods in the Holocene Epoch. ©Biology Cabinet Organization. 22 March 2007. http://www.biocab.org/Holocene.html.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    I would like to see a study on the links between New Scientist, Scientific American, MacMillan, Reed Elsevier, and their principal shareholders, and carbon trading.

  • Avatar



    New Scientist is a tabloid magazine. It does not attempt to teach any real or true science. Same with Scientific American these days.

    I used to enjoy reading both.

  • Avatar



    I think you are right Doug,

    Where I live the meteorology service flies their balloon about 10am, which is unfortunate from some points of view.

    Can you advise a website where they give data on pre dawn flights?

  • Avatar

    D o u g  C


    PSI members and all readers: this is important.

    Skeptical Science team member Neal J King writes on Lucia’s Blackboard, referring to thermodynamic equilibrium: “a transfer of energy δE between two sub-components, j = 1 and j = 2, will change neither E_total nor, to 1st order, S_total”

    Yes, and that is exactly what happens when there is a thermal gradient such that the difference in mean kinetic energy per molecule (temperature) exactly matches the negative of the difference in mean gravitational potential energy per molecule.

    You can see this in the second stage of the four molecule experiment: when thermodynamic equilibrium is attained we have homogeneous entropy (which must take PE into account) and every collision involves molecules with equal KE, and so KE for the system does not change, but is different per molecule at different altitudes. Similar happens in diffusion in a horizontal plane – KE of all molecules approaches homogeneity. But in a vertical plane you have to remember that KE changes because PE changes whenever there is a non-zero vertical component in the free path vector between collisions.

    The gravito-thermal effect is blatantly obvious when convection stops in the early pre-dawn hours. It is then that the pre-determined thermal profile has a “supporting temperature” at the base of the troposphere on any planet. That is what explains all the observations on all planets with surfaces, and even planets without surfaces. Temperatures are set based on radiative balance and the gravito-thermal gradient.

    The probability of these thermal gradients being so close to the -g/Cp value on all planets with significant tropospheres just because of some assumed warming by the Sun (whose radiation barely reaches some planetary surfaces) is absolutely infinitesimal. The evidence for the gravito-thermal gradient is blatantly obvious everywhere, as is the theory behind it.

    And as for radiation from carbon dioxide supposedly helping the Sun to attain greater maximum temperatures each day (despite the Second Law) or even just slowing radiative cooling – so what? Oxygen and nitrogen slow non-radiative cooling and outnumber carbon dioxide 2,500:1. Radiation from carbon dioxide (with its limited frequencies) is like a picket fence (with most of its pickets missing) standing up against a torrent of full spectrum radiation from the surface. The mean temperature of carbon dioxide molecules in Earth’s troposphere is far colder than the mean temperature of oxygen and nitrogen molecules colliding at the boundary with surface molecules. Rates of cooling depend on temperature gaps, so think!

    But arguing with lukes and warmists is like playing chess with a pidgeon. No matter how good a player I am, the pigeon knocks over the pieces, craps on the board and struts around looking victorious.

Comments are closed