Category Archives: Arctic ice

Talking about the unthinkable: we’re going to overshoot planetary boundaries. Discuss.

It’s time – to begin the conversation we’ve avoided; the discussion that sensible communicators condemn; to end the self-imposed censorship; that which cannot be said must be spoken; we will overshoot planetary boundaries; we have ushered  in a new geologic age.

De rerum natura;

We will overshoot the 2 degree limit.

A plain without a feature, bare and brown

Average temperatures may rise by 5c by century’s end.

No blade of grass, no sign of neighborhood

We’re seeing a rapid escalation in extreme weather events.

I sat upon the shore; Fishing, with the arid plain behind me

Food and water security will be compromised.

The real world is outrunning our models

Sea level rise may increase by 2-3 feet by 2100.

Climate change is an engineering problem

More people will die over the coming century then should.

A problem from Hell

Our media report climate catastrophes as isolated incidents – a typhoon off the coast of China; a drought in the US; the Arctic’s death spiral.

– a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun

Note: why write this, and not a blog post or essay? Because I believe enough has been said by too many people, both well intentioned and by those wishing to deceive. Because we have talked ourselves into catastrophe. And now that we are here, it is time to discuss the geography of this brave new world. There needs to be a different conversation: the one about the world of 2 degrees+.  

Don’t fret readers, WtD will not turn into a platform for bad poetry – normal blogging services will resume. I could think of no other way to say: “Stop messaging, and start truth telling”.  

New sea ice record reached: breaks 2007 record low

From the NSIDC:

August 27, 2012 – Arctic sea ice extent breaks 2007 record low

Arctic sea ice appears to have broken the 2007 record daily extent and is now the lowest in the satellite era. With two to three more weeks left in the melt season, sea ice continues to track below 2007 daily extents…

…Arctic sea ice extent fell to 4.10 million square kilometers (1.58 million square miles) on August 26, 2012. This was 70,000 square kilometers (27,000 square miles) below the September 18, 2007 daily extent of 4.17 million square kilometers (1.61 million square miles). 

Including this year, the six lowest ice extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012).

Nothing beside remains.

Reprint: Groundhog Day, the ice extent in the Arctic Ocean reaches a new minimum

A reprint under the creative commons license granted by The Conversation (first published 27 August 2012) by Carlos Durate, Director, Oceans Institute at University of Western Australia.

A new historic minimum in Arctic sea ice provides additional evidence of rapid acceleration of Arctic ice loss, propelled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Norwegian scientists just announced that the extent of Arctic sea ice has reached a new minimum, below that reached in the (boreal) summer of 2007 when an unprecedented catastrophic decline was reported. The 2007 minimum has been exceeded at a time when there is still a good 10 days of additional ice melting in the Arctic to go, and following reports of unprecedented widespread surface ice melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

Meanwhile Europe is leaving behind the northern heat wave this boreal summer, the US continues to struggle with crop failure due to unusually high warm temperatures and extended drought, and the Caribbean and Asian nations prepare for an intense cyclone season.

I received a phone call from a journalist this week interested in my thoughts on the new minimum of Arctic ice sheet, since I published a paper earlier this year, arguing that the dynamics of the Arctic ice sheet is signaling at the proximity of a tipping point.

In our conversation he asked whether I was prepared to speculate on the possible causes of this new minimum. I found the question a little perplexing and conveying an intense sense of deja-vú, as this is a recurrent experience every month of August for at least the past 6 years.

In the 1993 movie Groundhog Day, Bill Murray is a TV weather reporter who finds himself locked onto the same day, waking up to same sequence of events repeating themselves over an over on a loop.

I too have the sense that I am locked onto a time loop, where journalists declare themselves perplexed to report that the Arctic is actually melting, and convey this sentiment of surprise to the public, despite a wealth of research that

  • identifies the Arctic as the region most rapidly warming on Earth (e.g. ACIA 2004)
  • predicts the steepest warming rates for the Arctic as a consequence of anthropogenic green-house emissions (e.g. Meehl et al. 2007)
  • predicts an acceleration of ice loss in the Arctic (e.g. Holland et al. 2006, Velicogna and Whar 2006).

If this was a one-off event, I could understand the surprise and questions around the causes of Arctic ice loss and its prospects for the coming years. However, there has been a series of recurrent minima starting in 1996 to date.. Given the close match between predicted and realised trends, perplexity at a new record melting event either signals that the robust scientific understanding available on the response of Arctic ice to climate change is met with skepticism or that this knowledge is still confined within the scientific community and does not percolate to media or the public.

Either option is unsatisfactory, because the developments in the Arctic are not locked in the realm of Arctic ice experts, but every citizen can follow daily the status of Arctic ice, and even check this on a smart phone through an app. The changes in the Arctic are broadcasted as if this would be a remake of the movie Death Watch, but this time involving the opportunity for a global audience to watch the demise of Arctic ice in real time.

Possibly, we scientists are to be blamed, as we cherish uncertainty so much that we deliver messages to the media crowded with caveats and cautionary alerts to possible uncertainties. The consequences is the messages passed on are confusing, with uncertainties overplayed relative to robust understanding, supported by both evidence and validation of predictions by observed trends.

For instance, earlier this month NASA scientists reported a surprisingly rapid spread of surface melting from affecting 40 to 97 % of the ice-covered surface of Greenland in only four days. However, the press release included the statement by Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analysing the satellite data, that:

Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time. But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.

This suggests that :

  1. this event was not yet worrisome, and
  2. that it was due to occur as expected from an apparent 150 year recurrence.

No connection was made in the note and associated statements to anthropogenic climate change, recent trends or predictions of climate models on the de-stabilisation of the Greenland ice sheet. So the notion conveyed was that this was a one-odd event that may be expected once every 150 years, unconnected to any previous trends or regional climate trends. With so much evidence there, how can we continue to ponder on the possible ultimate causes of Arctic ice loss?

The noise on the climate change debate has reached such level that my colleagues in the US, particularly scientists within Federal agencies, tell me that they avoid taking a position on climate change in public conversations and news releases.

The noise on the climate change debate has reached such level that my colleagues in the US, particularly scientists within Federal agencies, tell me that they avoid taking a position on climate change in public conversations and news releases. The reluctance of the US public to agree with the wealth of scientific information pointing to an on-going and future warming of the climate due to anthropogenic green-house gas emissions seems to be curving now with the severe heat, drought and crop failure in the US this year. This curving NASA scientists now connect these heat waves to anthropogenic climate change (Hansen et al. 2012).

Nevertheless our predictions may turn to be wrong and our models can break in the future. Indeed, the statement “all swans are white” was almost a truism until black swans were discovered to the western world at the landing of Dutch navigators in the Swan River, WA.

We are certain to find “black swans”, now used as a synonym for the unexpected (Taleb, 2010), with ice trends in the Arctic, but, if anything these “black swans” are likely to consist on a yet faster acceleration of ice than expected, with the associated impacts on global climatic regulation.

The changes in the Arctic now meet the requirements to be considered “dangerous climate change” under the UN Climate Convention (Duarte et al. 2012a). The risk of ignoring these signals and taking serious action to mitigate climate change rests on the possibility that “dangerous climate change” will propagate, through existing tipping mechanisms in the Arctic, to the entire planet (Duarte et al. 2012a,b).

The changes in the Arctic now meet the requirements to be considered “dangerous climate change” under the UN Climate Convention (Duarte et al. 2012a). The risk of ignoring these signals and taking serious action to mitigate climate change rests on the possibility that “dangerous climate change” will propagate, through existing tipping mechanisms in the Arctic, to the entire planet 

With all due consideration to uncertainty, policy makers need to accept the reality that ice loss in the Arctic is accelerating further, propelled, beyond a reasonable doubt, by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission, and take due action.

Taking no action to mitigate climate change will eventually get us out of Groundhog Day to experience a new, unprecedented series of events.

But only to find a new reality of dangerous climate change spread, unchecked, throughout the planet.


  • ACIA. 2004. Impacts of a warming Arctic: Arctic climate impact and assessment, ed. S.J. Hassol.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
  • Duarte, C.M., T. M. Lenton, P. Wadhams and P. Wassmann. 2012. Abrupt climate change in the Arctic. Nature Climate Change 2: 60–62.
  • Duarte, C.M., S. Agustí, P. Wassmann, J. M. Arrieta, M. Alcaraz, A. Coello, N. Marbà, I. E. Hendriks, J. Holding, I. García-Zarandona, E. Kritzberg and D. Vaqué. 2012. Tipping elements in the Arctic marine ecosystem. AMBIO 41:44–55
  • Hansen, J., Sato, M. and Ruedy, R. 2012. Perception of climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA .
  • Holland, M.M., C.M. Bitz, and B. Tremblay. 2006. Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice. Geophysical Research Letters 33: L23503. doi:10.1029/2006GL028024.
  • Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A. Noda, S.C.B. Raper,I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007. Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
  • Taleb, N.N. (2010). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable (Second ed.). Penguin.
  • Velicogna, I., and J. Whar. 2006. Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004. Nature 443: 329–331.

Death spiral: Arctic ice loss 50% higher than predicted

Arctic sea-ice extent (Source: Open Mind)

Via the Guardian:

Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth’s polar caps. 

Preliminary results from the European Space Agency’s CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year. 

This rate of loss is 50% higher than most scenarios outlined by polar scientists and suggests that global warming, triggered by rising greenhouse gas emissions, is beginning to have a major impact on the region. In a few years the Arctic ocean could be free of ice in summer, triggering a rush to exploit its fish stocks, oil, minerals and sea routes. 

Using instruments on earlier satellites, scientists could see that the area covered by summer sea ice in the Arctic has been dwindling rapidly. But the new measurements indicate that this ice has been thinning dramatically at the same time. For example, in regions north of Canada and Greenland, where ice thickness regularly stayed at around five to six metres in summer a decade ago, levels have dropped to one to three metres.

So, is the European Space Agency part of “the conspiracy” as well? I’m sure they’re just faking the data to get funding. How else are they going get their greedy hands on more satellites…


The new normal (part 12): day of the tipping point

Greenland is bad, the melting was so bad NASA scientists thought they’d made a mistake:


However the tipping point we should really be worried about is a sudden release – or pulse – of methane into the atmosphere, triggering a runaway greenhouse effect.

In short, rising temperatures help unlock the billions of tonnes of carbon locked up in the under the Siberian permafrost.

The permafrost is a lid, under which is billions of tonnes of methane. Methane is a far more potent GHG than carbon (it traps more heat). More methane, more heat. More heat, more warming. More warming, the greater the risk of other tipping points.

It’s called the clathrate gun hypothesis, because it’s the equivalent of pointing a loaded Magnum 44 at the planet.

How does such an event rate on the scale of probability?

Well it depends.

Do we really want to find out?



The maths: the must read article by McKibben, the implications we must consider

Bill McKibben’s powerful Rolling Stone article is currently being pinged around Twitter.

It is essential reading: powerful, insightful, reasoned and passionate.

I implore you to read it and pass it around:

When we think about global warming at all, the arguments tend to be ideological, theological and economic. But to grasp the seriousness of our predicament, you just need to do a little math. For the past year, an easy and powerful bit of arithmetical analysis first published by financial analysts in the U.K. has been making the rounds of environmental conferences and journals, but it hasn’t yet broken through to the larger public. This analysis upends most of the conventional political thinking about climate change. And it allows us to understand our precarious – our almost-but-not-quite-finally hopeless – position with three simple numbers.

McKibben highlights what he calls the “three most important” numbers you did to know.

Firstly, the so called “2 degree safe limit”:

The accord did contain one important number, however. In Paragraph 1, it formally recognized “the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below two degrees Celsius.” And in the very next paragraph, it declared that “we agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required… so as to hold the increase in global temperature below two degrees Celsius.” By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets.

To maintain global temperatures under the “safe level” we need to restrict the amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere – no more than 575 gigatons:

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (“Reasonable,” in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

However, there are close to 3000 gigatons worth carbon locked up in the available reserves of fossil fuels:

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it’s the fossil fuel we’re currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

And that the economic imperatives and self interest of fossil fuel companies will drive us beyond the 575 gt:

If you told Exxon or Lukoil that, in order to avoid wrecking the climate, they couldn’t pump out their reserves, the value of their companies would plummet. John Fullerton, a former managing director at JP Morgan who now runs the Capital Institute, calculates that at today’s market value, those 2,795 gigatons of carbon emissions are worth about $27 trillion. Which is to say, if you paid attention to the scientists and kept 80 percent of it underground, you’d be writing off $20 trillion in assets. The numbers aren’t exact, of course, but that carbon bubble makes the housing bubble look small by comparison. It won’t necessarily burst – we might well burn all that carbon, in which case investors will do fine. But if we do, the planet will crater. You can have a healthy fossil-fuel balance sheet, or a relatively healthy planet – but now that we know the numbers, it looks like you can’t have both. Do the math: 2,795 is five times 565. That’s how the story ends.

As I tried to say, with far less eloquence than McKibben we are locking in the March of folly. There is much to say and debate about how to respond to the issues outlined in the article.

The new normal (part 9): things fall apart, the glaciers will not hold

Via Think Progress and Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

Greenland’s Petermann glacier continues to break up, recent satellite images show another piece – roughly the length of two Manhattan Islands – has calved off:

Arctic Sea Ice Blog has all the details, as well as some fascinating video.

Discovery and the missing Frozen Planet episode… no longer keeping viewers out in the cold

Quite a few bloggers have picked this up, but I’d thought I’d say my piece as well. 

The Discovery Channel in the US initially bought only six out of seven episodes of David Attenborough’s new series – Frozen Planet – on the natural history of the polar regions.

The episode they didn’t buy?  

Oh, the one about climate change and its impact. 


Not me.

Does this matter?.

Discovery has significant reach: it reaches 92 million households in the US. It’s global audience is estimated at 431 million homes in 170 countries.

Discovery’s self stated mission is to help popularise science. Yes, its a commercial enterprise and they have to be profitable. I have no issue with that.

But Discovery claims to have broader goals outside the profit motive if you read and believe their corporate speak

High-quality, mission-driven programming has been synonymous with Discovery since John Hendricks launched the company’s first network, Discovery Channel, in 1985 with a mission to satisfy curiosity and make a difference in people’s lives. Today, that mission remains the driving force behind the programming strategies across Discovery’s networks as they strive to provide viewers with the highest quality nonfiction content that not only entertains and engages, but also enlightens, educates and inspires positive action.

Ignoring climate change is not quite inspiring positive action. More like imposing apathy.

Yes, let’s pretend climate change is not real. We won’t deny it, we’ll ignore it. Oh that’s right. It’s just one form of denial.

Jerry Coyne over at Evolution is True helped raise the issue, and now it seems Discovery is going to screen the episode on climate change.

Coyne urged action on his blog: 

Does anybody really believe that this is anything other than a television station bowing to potential political pressure? And this isn’t trivial, either—it’s the deliberate withholding of scientific information from the public because that information doesn’t serve certain special interests. It’s a travesty.

Attenborough has largely avoided politics to concentrate on nature, but when humans threaten his beloved planet, he speaks out. He’s done that before about population growth, and now is concerned about global warming. To present his first six episodes and omit the last is to leave out what, for him, is the moral of the tale.

I don’t urge reader action very often, but this is a worthy cause.  I seriously doubt that Discovery will bow under the trivial pressure that a website like this can exert, but we should nevertheless make our voices heard. If you’re American and object to the omission of the global-warming episode, go to the Discovery Channel’s “Viewer Relations” page and register your opinion.

Let’s hope Discovery was flooded with suggestions. If so, it’s a great example of the power of the interwebz. And kudos for Jerry  for urging action. I’m a fan of his blog and his brilliant book that takes a subtle, evidence based sledge-hammer to creationism.

Still this episode is yet another example of how the mainstream media has dropped the ball on climate change. I’m not suggesting every front page should be dedicated to the issue.

What there has been is a systematic failure to properly inform the public coupled with a perverse campaign of deceit (yes, I’m looking at you News Corporation).

Doubleplus-ungood: the language of deniers restricts their critical thinking on climate change (and a helpful dictionary of Denyspeak)

“The climate is not changing. The climate has always changed”

I’ve been paying close attention to the denial movement for almost a year know, and while I do not consider myself “the expert”, I believe I have more than a passing familiarity with not only the tactics of the deniers, but their language.

Like all subcultures, the “deniers” have a language all of their own with key words and phrases loaded with meaning.

For example:

“The climate has always changed”

Is really shorthand for:

“Clearly climate is magic. It changes for no reason, usually on a whim and we’ll never have a clue as to why. I refuse to consider these extraordinary weather events, because clearly that would upset me!”


“There is no consensus!”

Is actually short hand for:

“I’m comfortable with the idea that there is a massive global conspiracy and that scientists, governments, socialists, greens etc. are all after the loose change in my pocket. I prefer the opinion of unqualified journalists such as “Lord” Monckton. I really like his ties.”.


“It’s the sun”


“Perhaps I accept the theory the earth goes around the sun, but only if it is the primary driver of climate change…”

These simple mantras are repeated again and again (viz the comments on my blog).

Climate change: ungood

In a sense, the language of denial is a form of “Newspeak“, Orwell’s fictional language:

“…Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term was also used to discuss Soviet phraseology. Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—”thoughtcrime”, or “crimethink” in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

After all the logic and language of the deniers revolves around three simple arguments that are repeated ad museum but in different iterations:

  • The scientists are wrong
  • There is no evidence
  • It MUST BE something else, a natural process

I’d note the mild panic that normally accompanies such statements.

After all, repeating these on a daily basis surely reduces one’s anxiety or growing realisation that; climate change is happening; it is happening faster than anticipated; will must likely profoundly impact our civilisation; engenders uncomfortable feelings of guilt, powerlessness and anxiety.

So how do they deal with this?

By using carefully chosen words, phrases and metaphors to inhibit their critical thinking facilities:

“Did I just hear the Arctic is melting faster than anticipated… well it is not melting But it has melted, it melted in the past therefore it is just natural! Now, what’s on the television?”

Honestly, I feel for these guys.

So here’s a little something to help our denier friends simplify the whole process: they need their own “Newspeak”.

By ridding language of such pesky words as “science”, “climate forcing”, “tipping points” and positive feedbacks” they never need confront uncomfortable facts.

The principles of Denyspeak and the English-Denyspeak dictionary

Obviously we need to keep things simple, removing “all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies“. I’ve adopted definitions from the site “Newspeak dictionary“.

Denyspeak (deniers speak) is a simple language to learn, and I anticipate its rapid adoption across the blogosphere and then into the English language itself.


Anthropogenic climate change (ACC) = thoughtcrime


Bolt, Andrew = goodthinker; “One who strongly adheres to all of the principles of Newspeak. (goodthinked, goodthinking, goodthinked, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinkwise, goodthinker” (See also Monckton, Lord)


Climate change = ungood

Climate models = doubleplusungood

Climate Depot (blog) = two-minute hate – “Daily telescreen specials in which various elements of crimethink were packaged into a parade of horrible images and sounds, at which, the viewers were expected to boo, hiss, curse. and release any negative emotions upon.”

Coal = Doubleplus good


Denial = goodthinking


Evidence, scientific = crimestop; “The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. In short protective stupidity.”


Freedom, economic = free “…Only exist in the sense of “The dog is free of lice”. The concept of political freedom has been replaced by the word crimethink.”


Gore, Al = Goldstein; “The supreme enemy of the state. He was once a high-ranking member of the party, until he supposedly betrayed the party and begin engaging in revolutionary activities. He is the supposed head of the “resistance”. Goldstein is to Ingsoc what Satan is to Christianity… The embodiment of pure evil”


Hansen, James – Goldstein (see Gore, Al)

Heartland Conference (think thank organised conference questioning the science) = hateweek; “…Week in which Oceanian citizens all attend rallies and parades to inflame hatred of Party enemies and heighten their efforts on behalf of Oceania.”


Ice = good

Ice, melting = crimestop (see also “Evidence”)


Jones, Phil = Goldstein (see also “Gore, Al”)


Kilimanjaro, loss of ice not caused by climate change negates all climate change = goodthinking


Mann, Michael – Goldstein

Markets, free = free (see “Freedom”)

Monckton, “Lord” = goodthinker; “…One who strongly adheres to all of the principles of Newspeak. (goodthinked, goodthink, goodthinked, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinking, goodthinkful, goodthinkwise, goodthinker”


NASA = the resistance; “…The resistance was the revolutionary group which was supposedly led by the arch-traitor, Emmanuel Goldstein. There is some question as to whether or not this group actually existed. The novel seems to imply that the resistance was simply fabricated by the government, or at the very least, that the police had agents posing as real resistance members in order to catch possible recruits.

The only thing that is for sure, is that the party blamed every possible woe of society on this group. The resistance was blamed for spreading herpes, contaminating the water supply, forging government documents (which was the reason for so many “misprints” in the papers), abducting party members, helping to aim rocket bombs to targets on Airstrip One, and destroying industrial machinery. Every single thing that ever goes wrong is blamed on this group. For instance: Whenever the trains don’t run on time, it is said that the resistance has alter the train schedule … When a department does meet their production goal, it is said that the resistance has altered the original data, resulting in a over-estimation of production for that year.” (see also “Scientists”)


Orwell, George = “Who?”


Paleoclimate = memory hole; “…A system of pipes, similar to pneumatic tubes, which were used to destroy documents. A document stuffed in the memory hole would be conveniently whisked away to the furnaces below – quickly & easily wiped from history.


Queensland, floods of 2011 and attribution to climate change = thoughtcrime


Russia, fires of 2010 = memory hole; “…A system of pipes, similar to pneumatic tubes, which were used to destroy documents. A document stuffed in the memory hole would be conveniently whisked away to the furnaces below – quickly & easily wiped from history.


Sceptic = goodthinker (see Monckton)

Science = Thoughtcrime, (see also “Evidence” and “NASA))

Scientists = the resistance (see NASA)


Tipping point (concept feedbacks could push climate into potentially dangerous state) = crimestop (see also “Evidence”)


Vostock ice core = ungood


Watts up with that? (Blog) = blackwhite; “…the ability to accept whatever “truth” the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be.”

Weather = weather; “…because they can always mention the weather, but not long term trends associated with climate change.”

How do I use Denyspeak in everyday thought and language?

The creators of Denyspeak do “not want people to be intelligent in multiple fields” thus there is no word for “science“.

However, to be effective one must internalize Denyspeak. Do not allow other forms of language to infect your consciousness.

Thus the sentence from a scientific paper:

“…Seasonal near-surface temperatures have increased in many regions of the World. Previous work has shown that this has led to rapidly increasing frequencies of very warm Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures.”

Can easily be translated:


By adopting the principles of “Deniers Newspeak” (Denyspeak) the average denier saves time, energy and the necessity of thinking.

Doubleplus good!

%d bloggers like this: