Comments on to us on Climate Change – please submit any comments on the playlist to

Substantive Comments:

“Recent reports say that Antarctica is melting and it is unstoppable – you say it is gaining ice.”
First, the part exposed to the air, our emissions, the global temperatures, is getting colder. Second, the portion shielded from the cold by a layer of ice and snow is getting warmer from underneath. The reports of melting are about mostly the west Antarctic sheet, and claim it to be underwater volcanos and a natural phenomenon of the currents / not man-made- meanwhile, I said the rest is gaining record surface ice. There are significant questions as to the role played by ocean floor heat venting, which is omitted in nearly all models (as shown in the playlist), including the ones talking about the melting ice sheet. I cannot help but wonder, if a huge chunk of ice breaks off (likely) would it cool the ocean currents like an ice cube floating away?.

The news says the north pole will be free of ice soon.
First, there is no chance that would be the case in wintertime even if the planet was warming. Second, you can see it on the charts, as of October 2014, the Arctic has been about 50% higher in terms of surface ice compared to just 2012.

Other comments:

“It’s just some guy on the internet” – this and similar variations represent at least half of all comments.
This information is cited only from sources like NASA, University professors, etc., and the bar is quite high. “Ben is a guy on the internet…” who has a Juris Doctorate and years of experience in professional due diligence. There is no tougher research than the predictive analysis in due diligence. I have worked in technology, natural resources, and biology/chemistry – but again, I am mostly presenting literature reviews of other works.

“He is bought by petro or oil” or “he is favoring pollution or deregulation.”
Both are patently false. I detests pollution more than most people, I do not advocate deregulation and in-fact call for further regulation outright in the first minute of the speech found in c(lie)mate page. I and KAHB are independent of any political or economic agenda. This is about the truth, and nothing else.

“The science is settled.” or “There is a scientific consensus on the topic.”
1) If true, this consensus has been an abysmal failure for 20 years. The point is to keep focus ON CLIMATE CHANGE despite this failure, and to add a critical aspect to the discussion involving the sun.
2) That consensus is being strongly challenged. The reports of bullied scientists are decades old and now this is extending to some of the most notable names in science, like John Coleman and Lennart Bengtsson; there are 1000s of scientists who now dissent and dozens who claim to have been censored or even threatened over their skeptical views. That behavior has no place in science. This was a big part of the playlist you should have watched before you here.
3) The ‘consensus’ is derived from a highly selective field of studies, which is dominated by billions of dollars every year going to one side of the argument.

“They have determined that the sun is not a factor in climate change.”
“They” is the same people who have been wrong for 20 years. The c(lie)mate page is largely about that very topic – the experts do not say what the mainstream media says. The censorship and bullying of skeptical climate scientists has often been on this point.

“They have ruled out natural variability with 99% accuracy as the cause of climate change.”
“They” (the ones wrong for 20 years) have ruled out the notion that humans have no role in climate change. I do not know any logical person who thinks that humans have zero effect – EVERY factor has an effect, to some degree.

“Recent reports say the IPCC is now more certain than ever.”
After 20 years of failure, and almost no changes to their models, this is one heck of a claim. Maybe THEY are certain, but you will find that many experts are not. Claiming certainly does not change the past or their enduring ineptitude. This was a self-serving statement with insufficient back-up.

“He is a climate denier!” or “He is speaking against climate science.”
Buzz words do not make for accurate discourse. This entire thing is about REAL climate change and the promotion of climate science.