Please post all scholarly articles opposed to anthropogenic global warming here

[Old Rocks]

Yet ALL of the available evidence shows the planet COOLING... Not warming...

This nonsense has been advanced for a GENERATION and the planet keeps getting cooler...

AGW is a deamned LIE... as was the LAST "Progressive" farce... "Eugenics"... it's a lie... a deception and it's not supportable, no where... no how and only the most PATHETIC FOOLS BUYT IT!

Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus
Jump to Comments

Yet another idiotic claim by “sceptics”: Netpune is brightening, therefore global warming on earth cannot be caused by humans. This has already been ripped apart by tamino and Stoat. Actually, all you need is look at the pictute to the left: Neptune had an increase in cloud formation, increasing its brightness. And why? It’s called summer. One Neptune year is 164.88 years, so the seasons can be quite long.

And another thing: its brightness changed by 0.15 magnitudes, this translates with 2.512^0.15 = 1.15 to 15%. So if the sun were responsible, it would have to have changed its brightness by the same ratio. Clearly, stellar models must be wrong, the sun is entering its red giant stage. We are all doomed, and that’s what climate scientists are trying to hide from us.


Okay, and now for something completely different. According to a paper by Leslie A. Young et al., Uranus is cooling! So, do we now conclude that the sun is getting dimmer?
Brightening Neptune, Cooling Uranus « Fermi Paradox

Care to demonstrate your ignorance some more there, Pubes, old boy?

Old Rocks...can you get me some of this global warming stuff...it's been snowing here all day.

Here also. A cooler and dryer winter here than normal, at least for the last 30 years. Not nearly as cold, and much dryer, than the winters here 50 years ago. One winter, one place, proves nothing concerning AGW. Now, if the next ten years all trend downward, then you might have an argument.

 

[FactFinder]

Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun’s changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again.

“We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun’s surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles’ behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%.”

NASA: Solar cycle may cause “dangerous” global cooling in a few years time « Aftermath News

 

[FactFinder]

Here are the predicted and then the observed sunspot numbers. The observed show that the number is still declining. Pray that we aren't at the beginning of a "Maunder Minimum".

IPS OBSERVED AND PREDICTED SOLAR INDICES FOR CYCLE 24

Prepared by IPS Radio and Space Services

Issued on Mar 01 2009

------------------------ SMOOTHED SUNSPOT NUMBER ---------------------------
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 113.0 116.9 120.0 120.9 119.0 118.8 119.8 118.7 116.3 114.5 112.7 112.1
2001 108.7 104.0 104.8 107.5 108.6 109.8 111.7 113.6 114.1 114.0 115.5 114.6
2002 113.5 114.6 113.3 110.5 108.8 106.2 102.7 98.7 94.6 90.5 85.3 82.1
2003 81.0 78.6 74.2 70.4 67.9 65.3 62.1 60.3 59.8 58.4 57.0 55.0
2004 52.1 49.4 47.2 45.6 43.9 41.7 40.2 39.3 37.6 35.9 35.4 35.2
2005 34.6 34.0 33.6 31.7 28.9 28.8 29.1 27.5 25.9 25.6 25.0 23.0
2006 20.8 18.7 17.4 17.1 17.4 16.4 15.3 15.6 15.6 14.2 12.7 12.1
2007 12.0 11.6 10.8 9.9 8.7 7.7 7.0 6.1 5.9 6.1 5.7 5.0
2008 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.2 2.7 2.6 2.3e 2.2e 2.4e 2.7e
2009 3.2e 3.9e 4.8e 5.6e 6.5e 7.7e 9.2e 10.8e 12.6 13.6 15.3 17.4
2010 20.2 22.6 25.2 29.6 34.5 39.8 44.2 48.8 53.8 59.4 64.5 68.8
2011 72.8 79.0 85.5 91.3 94.7 98.0 101.4 105.2 109.1 112.6 116.6 120.2
2012 122.4 125.4 127.1 127.9 129.2 130.9 131.8 133.9 134.7 134.7 133.9 131.8
2013 131.3 130.0 130.0 129.6 129.6 130.0 130.0 129.2 129.2 127.9 125.0 122.0
2014 119.3 116.6 113.5 110.0 107.7 105.7 104.1 102.2 100.1 97.4 94.3 89.3
2015 84.2 79.4 76.3 73.5 70.9 68.5 66.0 63.2 60.1 57.7 56.0 55.2
2016 54.3 53.1 51.4 49.1 46.4 43.6 41.3 39.4 37.5 35.3 33.0 30.9
2017 29.2 27.9 26.6 25.3 23.9 22.8 21.8 21.1 20.6 20.0 19.3 18.2
2018 17.3 16.8 16.5 15.9 14.9 14.2 14.1 14.3 14.3 14.0 14.0 14.2
============================================================================

Last updated 09 Mar 2009 13:03 UT


OBSERVED MONTHLY SUNSPOT NUMBERS
1995 24.2 29.9 31.1 14.0 14.5 15.6 14.5 14.3 11.8 21.1 9.0 10.0
1996 11.5 4.4 9.2 4.8 5.5 11.8 8.2 14.4 1.6 0.9 17.9 13.3
1997 5.7 7.6 8.7 15.5 18.5 12.7 10.4 24.4 51.3 22.8 39.0 41.2
1998 31.9 40.3 54.8 53.4 56.3 70.7 66.6 92.2 92.9 55.5 74.0 81.9
1999 62.0 66.3 68.8 63.7 106.4 137.7 113.5 93.7 71.5 116.7 133.2 84.6
2000 90.1 112.9 138.5 125.5 121.6 125.5 170.1 130.5 109.7 99.4 106.8 104.4
2001 95.6 80.6 113.5 107.7 96.6 134.0 81.8 106.4 150.7 125.5 106.5 132.2
2002 114.1 107.4 98.4 120.7 120.8 88.3 99.6 116.4 109.6 97.5 95.0 81.6
2003 79.5 46.2 61.5 60.0 55.2 77.4 85.0 72.7 48.8 65.6 67.2 47.0
2004 37.2 46.0 48.9 39.3 41.5 43.2 51.0 40.9 27.7 48.4 43.7 17.9
2005 31.3 29.2 24.5 24.4 42.6 39.6 39.9 36.4 22.1 8.5 18.0 41.2
2006 15.4 5.0 10.8 30.2 22.2 13.9 12.2 12.9 14.5 10.4 21.5 13.6
2007 16.9 10.6 4.8 3.7 11.7 12.0 10.0 6.2 2.4 0.9 1.7 10.1
2008 3.4 2.1 9.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 0.5 0.5 1.1 2.9 4.1 0.8
2009 1.5 1.4


IPS - Solar Conditions - Monthly Sunspot Numbers

 

[Old Rocks]

A Maunder Minimum would be a godsend at this time. It would give us time to get our house in order in relationship to the emmission of GHGs.

 

[Bern80]

You can't disprove my point can you?

CO2 makes Venus hotter than Mercury because it is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

Among just a few other variables. Seriously is this really poor 'scientific' analogy what you are trying to pass off as evidence?

 

[Chris]

You can't disprove my point can you?

CO2 makes Venus hotter than Mercury because it is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

Among just a few other variables. Seriously is this really poor 'scientific' analogy what you are trying to pass off as evidence?

No, you are not serious.

An atmosphere that is 96% CO2 is the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury.

 

[Bern80]

You can't disprove my point can you?

CO2 makes Venus hotter than Mercury because it is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

Among just a few other variables. Seriously is this really poor 'scientific' analogy what you are trying to pass off as evidence?

No, you are not serious.

An atmosphere that is 96% CO2 is the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury.

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

 

[Chris]

Among just a few other variables. Seriously is this really poor 'scientific' analogy what you are trying to pass off as evidence?

No, you are not serious.

An atmosphere that is 96% CO2 is the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury.

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

 

[elvis]

No, you are not serious.

An atmosphere that is 96% CO2 is the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury.

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

have you been jerking off to Al Gore's movie again, chrissie?

 

[Chris]

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

have you been jerking off to Al Gore's movie again, chrissie?

Why are Republicans so obsessed with gay sex?

Self loathing perhaps?

 

[elvis]

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

have you been jerking off to Al Gore's movie again, chrissie?

Why are Republicans so obsessed with gay sex?

Self loathing perhaps?

hey dipshit, I didn't say to al gore, i said to his movie.

I'm not self loathing. I loathe yellow anti-american fuckheads like you.

 

[Bern80]

No, you are not serious.

An atmosphere that is 96% CO2 is the reason Venus is hotter than Mercury.

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

If you are rational answer my previous question. Why do you disregard every piece of counter evidence to man made AGW? Do you have the ability to OBJECTIVELY weigh a counter argument? Could you be persuded by a good counter argument? Part of the definition of rationality is being void of bias and being objective. I can't really see how you can claim you are objective given your disregard for counter evidence and poor rationale for doing so. It would seem prudent that a non-scientist, such as yourself, would avail themselves of as much information as possible in pursuit of the truth. Yet when presented it wasn't the science that was argued (because you don't really have the intellect to do that), you make non-scientific excuses as to why counter arguments don't warrant the time of day or, even worse, attempt to twist what is being said to fit your position.

Your feable attempt to compare Venus to Earth proves how naive you are. But maybe you can get this little part through your skull so you can stop bringing it up and we can move on. NO ONE IS DEBATING WHETHER CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, OR NOT. We know it is. If you think that somehow makes Venus and Earth comparable because they both happen to have the same gas in their atmosphere (in vastly differing quantities, along with vastly different quantities of OTHER gases, along with vastly different orbits, along with vastly different climate patterns) your best bet would be try a different argument.

I don't deny the possbility and in some cases probability of man's impact on climate. Any honest person on either side of this debate would have to admit however they could be wrong. As a said before scientists very rarely enter into the realm of actually proving anything. And yet you, a non-scientist, is already certain they no the truth. Yes Chris, you are most certainly the epitamy of rationality.

 

[raceright]

'Yes, this is the completely asanine comparison I am trying to make' is really all you needed to say. If you for one second a fucking PLANET a few hundred millions miles away with a totally different atmosphere somehow proves man is the main cause of global warming on earth than it is obvious that you are clearly unable to discuss the topic with any rationality.

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

If you are rational answer my previous question. Why do you disregard every piece of counter evidence to man made AGW? Do you have the ability to OBJECTIVELY weigh a counter argument? Could you be persuded by a good counter argument? Part of the definition of rationality is being void of bias and being objective. I can't really see how you can claim you are objective given your disregard for counter evidence and poor rationale for doing so. It would seem prudent that a non-scientist, such as yourself, would avail themselves of as much information as possible in pursuit of the truth. Yet when presented it wasn't the science that was argued (because you don't really have the intellect to do that), you make non-scientific excuses as to why counter arguments don't warrant the time of day or, even worse, attempt to twist what is being said to fit your position.

Your feable attempt to compare Venus to Earth proves how naive you are. But maybe you can get this little part through your skull so you can stop bringing it up and we can move on. NO ONE IS DEBATING WHETHER CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, OR NOT. We know it is. If you think that somehow makes Venus and Earth comparable because they both happen to have the same gas in their atmosphere (in vastly differing quantities, along with vastly different quantities of OTHER gases, along with vastly different orbits, along with vastly different climate patterns) your best bet would be try a different argument.

I don't deny the possbility and in some cases probability of man's impact on climate. Any honest person on either side of this debate would have to admit however they could be wrong. As a said before scientists very rarely enter into the realm of actually proving anything. And yet you, a non-scientist, is already certain they no the truth. Yes Chris, you are most certainly the epitamy of rationality.

The geniuses of the past were sure the world was flat. Anyone have any documentation for that. Some of the dumbest people I have ever meet went to 13Th 14Th 15 Th 16Th grade and received a sheep skin didn't make them smart just means they went to school longer than others

 

[Old Rocks]

You are the one who is not rational.

CO2 causes the earth to warm. We have increased CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years. The scientists who study the sun say the sun's variation can only account for 20-30% of the temperature increase that we are seeing.

The temperatures on Venus show what CO2 can do to warm a planet. It is a very good example, since it a planet of similar size as Earth. But no one denies that CO2 is the reason for Venus being so hot, since there are no oil and gas companies on Venus.

If you are rational answer my previous question. Why do you disregard every piece of counter evidence to man made AGW? Do you have the ability to OBJECTIVELY weigh a counter argument? Could you be persuded by a good counter argument? Part of the definition of rationality is being void of bias and being objective. I can't really see how you can claim you are objective given your disregard for counter evidence and poor rationale for doing so. It would seem prudent that a non-scientist, such as yourself, would avail themselves of as much information as possible in pursuit of the truth. Yet when presented it wasn't the science that was argued (because you don't really have the intellect to do that), you make non-scientific excuses as to why counter arguments don't warrant the time of day or, even worse, attempt to twist what is being said to fit your position.

Your feable attempt to compare Venus to Earth proves how naive you are. But maybe you can get this little part through your skull so you can stop bringing it up and we can move on. NO ONE IS DEBATING WHETHER CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, OR NOT. We know it is. If you think that somehow makes Venus and Earth comparable because they both happen to have the same gas in their atmosphere (in vastly differing quantities, along with vastly different quantities of OTHER gases, along with vastly different orbits, along with vastly different climate patterns) your best bet would be try a different argument.

I don't deny the possbility and in some cases probability of man's impact on climate. Any honest person on either side of this debate would have to admit however they could be wrong. As a said before scientists very rarely enter into the realm of actually proving anything. And yet you, a non-scientist, is already certain they no the truth. Yes Chris, you are most certainly the epitamy of rationality.

The geniuses of the past were sure the world was flat. Anyone have any documentation for that. Some of the dumbest people I have ever meet went to 13Th 14Th 15 Th 16Th grade and received a sheep skin didn't make them smart just means they went to school longer than others

First, the people of the era that thought that were the religious people, any sailor of the era with observational skill knew better. Second, most people that make that statement about others who have sought higher education are almost invariobly willfully ignorant, and proud of it.

 

[DavidS]

Fuck!

 

[Sinatra]

I suggest - as a start on this topic if you are actually sincere regarding a review of those within the science communities who are skeptical of the doom n gloom predictions and multi billion dollar industry that is global warming propoganda, to look into the works of French climatologist Doctor Marcel Leroux. He repeatdly warned against the political/financial motivations behind the global warming/climate change movement that he saw taking place first hand - and to a growing audience within the science community I might add.

My personal feelings are that Leroux's Mobile Polar High theory and other scientists who correlate climate changes in conjunction with solar activity (or lack thereof) are the ones on the right track to understanding the immense complexities of the earth's ever-changing climate.

IngentaConnect "Global Warming": Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the We...

This is a link to a book he wrote on the topic:

GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH OR REALITY? | Article from Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society | HighBeam Research

And here is a link to the more famous and recent book he wrote on the topic. (best book on the subject IMHO)
[ame]http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Climatology-Springer-Environmental/dp/354023909X/ref=sr_1_1/179-4578308-6202425?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236974819&sr=1-1[/ame]

I post the book links in conjunction with one of his research-specific articles to show how Doctor Leroux is not some political hack, or media personality - he was in fact a highly regarded, much respected, and longtime member in good standing of the scientific community. (though he certainly made serious enemies among the global warming proponents whose funding is directly linked to this issue being continued into the next decade and beyond...) Sadly, Leroux passed away about a year ago.

Perhaps the most useful link for you regarding this topic will be this one, written of Leroux following his death. Within the article you get a taste of the man's depth of understanding, the growing frustrations he had regarding the misinformation being churned out repeatedly over the years regarding man-made global warming, as well as providing some further links to previous works by Leroux.

Enjoy.

European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

 

[Old Rocks]

An interesting fellow, indeed. However, his observations concerning CO2 do not explain the PETM. Nor does his polar circulation theory explain the rapid heating that we are seeing in the Arctic. He seems to have been in a very small minority of climatologists that claim that the CO2 increase has no affects on weather.

 

[raceright]

If you are rational answer my previous question. Why do you disregard every piece of counter evidence to man made AGW? Do you have the ability to OBJECTIVELY weigh a counter argument? Could you be persuded by a good counter argument? Part of the definition of rationality is being void of bias and being objective. I can't really see how you can claim you are objective given your disregard for counter evidence and poor rationale for doing so. It would seem prudent that a non-scientist, such as yourself, would avail themselves of as much information as possible in pursuit of the truth. Yet when presented it wasn't the science that was argued (because you don't really have the intellect to do that), you make non-scientific excuses as to why counter arguments don't warrant the time of day or, even worse, attempt to twist what is being said to fit your position.

Your feable attempt to compare Venus to Earth proves how naive you are. But maybe you can get this little part through your skull so you can stop bringing it up and we can move on. NO ONE IS DEBATING WHETHER CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, OR NOT. We know it is. If you think that somehow makes Venus and Earth comparable because they both happen to have the same gas in their atmosphere (in vastly differing quantities, along with vastly different quantities of OTHER gases, along with vastly different orbits, along with vastly different climate patterns) your best bet would be try a different argument.

I don't deny the possbility and in some cases probability of man's impact on climate. Any honest person on either side of this debate would have to admit however they could be wrong. As a said before scientists very rarely enter into the realm of actually proving anything. And yet you, a non-scientist, is already certain they no the truth. Yes Chris, you are most certainly the epitamy of rationality.

The geniuses of the past were sure the world was flat. Anyone have any documentation for that. Some of the dumbest people I have ever meet went to 13Th 14Th 15 Th 16Th grade and received a sheep skin didn't make them smart just means they went to school longer than others

First, the people of the era that thought that were the religious people, any sailor of the era with observational skill knew better. Second, most people that make that statement about others who have sought higher education are almost invariobly willfully ignorant, and proud of it.

Found another one who is a pompous asshole. Yous pelled invariably wrong. Must be you missed some classes while the world went by. Do not use the higher education card will only bite ya.

 

[JohnStOnge]

On the Mercury/Venus thing: I've never seen anybody argue against the idea that having an atmosphere makes a planet warmer than it would otherwise be. Here is a comment on that phenomenon from Mercury :

"Because of its small mass and closeness to the Sun, Mercury isn't able to hold on to much of an atmosphere. As a result, temperature variations on Mercury are the most extreme in the solar system ranging from -183°C (-298 °F) to 427 °C (800 °F), although its average surface temperature is 167 °C (333 °F). In contrast, the average surface temperature on Venus is actually hotter at a very stable 464 °C (867 °F) because of its thick atmosphere. Mercury has a very thin atmosphere consisting of surface atoms blasted off its surface by the solar wind. Because Mercury is so hot, however, these atoms quickly escape into space."

Also, neither Mercury nor Venus has a biosphere. Comparing a planet that has almost no atmosphere and no biosphere to a planet that has a thick atmosphere and no biosphere is not the same as comparing a scenario in which a planet with a thick atmosphere and a biosphere has certain percentages of gases to another scenario in which the same planet has somewhat higher percentages of certain gases in it. And that's particularly true when you're talking about a gas, like CO2, that makes up between 3 and 4 one hundreths of a percent of the atmosphere.

 

[FactFinder]

An interesting fellow, indeed. However, his observations concerning CO2 do not explain the PETM. Nor does his polar circulation theory explain the rapid heating that we are seeing in the Arctic. He seems to have been in a very small minority of climatologists that claim that the CO2 increase has no affects on weather.

It's volcanic activity. Same thing for arctic ice. Global warming hoax does not account for glaciers that are expanding.

Geological Society - Puddingstone - second slice

An early (and still favoured) explanation is that the PETM was triggered by destabilisation of subsea methane hydrate deposits at quite shallow depths within the sediments draping the continental slopes (Dickens, 1999). But what could cause such destabilisation? One possible process is uplift of the sea floor – reducing the weight of water bearing down on the unstable hydrates (Maclennan and Jones, 2006). The key to their idea lies in modern-day Iceland, with its volcanoes, and the hot springs in which field geologists can relax happily in the worst of the weather (Figure 6). The Iceland hotspot already existed 55 million years ago (Figure 7).