A woman in California discovered a completely original way to denounce global warming and raise awareness about it.

Jade Martens is a 26 year old Greenpeace activist. She has just spent a full 12 months inside a small commercial freezer as a protest against the poor performance of the Obama administration on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions. She wants to continue her stay in the freezer till the time the government does something concrete.

This young woman slept, ate, and even relieved herself inside the small chest freezer of 6′x3′x4′. The freezer was kept in the hall of the San Francisco Congress Center. Jade just gave herself the liberty of standing up a few times every day for stretching.

She hoped that this incredible stance will draw public attention and educate people on the urgent need to protect the environment, and this will force the government to finally take positive action.

And like she hoped, she was able to certainly draw attention. Speaking to the reporters, Jade said, “The government and the corporations aren’t doing anything for the environment. Somebody had to do something, so I decided to take action myself. I hope that my actions can help raise awareness about global warming, and can eventually bring some political change”.

Miss Martens agrees that her action is putting a great strain on her mental and physical condition. However she insists on staying inside the freezer for another year at least. It could be even more if my health permits, she says.

Danish filmmaker, Hans Mitzbërg, has already decided to make a documentary about her militant action.

However, most people passing by at the San Francisco Congress Center seem to be either indifferent or amused by Jade’s stunt. But she is undeterred. Miss Martens says, “My sacrifice is necessary for a better world”.

  • nigelf

    A foolish delusional woman…

    • leroy jenkins

      hahaha does this idiot realize how the electricity is generated to power that freezer?

      • SemperRectus

        Of course she knows that. She just taking one for the team. And being an idiot

        • Guest


          • BillyHW

            What new and wondrous things are they shoving up their asses now?

          • CB

            I dunno, Babs, but I’m pretty sure the comments about mental illness are projection.

            The greenhouse effect is a scientific theory that’s withstood over a century of testing.

            What besides mental illness might explain why Climate Deniers haven’t gotten the message?

          • will_ford

            numbnutts you are

          • CB

            “numbnutts you are”

            Who is the “numbnut” you’re talking about, Will?

            Is it someone in this conversation?

            “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

            (NASA Earth Observatory, “Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle”)

          • planet8788

            There also wouldn’t be water.

          • CB

            “There also wouldn’t be water.”

            No… no, there would be water, it would just be frozen.

            Greenhouse gasses warm the planet, and because you produce more of them every time you get in your car and turn the ignition, that means you are warming the planet.

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            (NASA, “Climate change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Consensus”)

          • OregonCityTom

            Silly, CB. Planet8788 is correct. Sublimation will always provide water vapor, no matter the temperature. There is no exception. If there are no “greenhouse gases”, then there cannot be any water, even in the form of ice. How can you READ, and not know that? There would be a “greenhouse effect” on earth even if there were no life and no CO2, just because of water vapor.

          • CB

            “If there are no “greenhouse gases”, then there cannot be any water”



            Why in the world would you think something so ridiculous?

            “Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface”

            (Berkeley Lab, “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface”, Dan Krotz, February 25, 2015)

          • OregonCityTom

            I wrote: “If there are no “greenhouse gases”, then there cannot be any water”. You responded: “Why in the world would you think something so ridiculous?”

            It is only ridiculous to you because you are unaware of simple vapor pressure laws in Physics. If there is water — in any form — there will be either evaporation (liquid to vapor) or sublimation (solid to vapor). If there is vapor, there is radiative gas — “greenhouse gas” — in the atmosphere.

            Please don’t speak with your foot in your mouth. I am a Mathematician and Physicist by training. Try to learn something, and try reading a textbook or two before flapping your gums about such a clear physical property of water under the laws of Physics.

            And yes, I’m certainly aware of the observations of radiative return at the surface, but you fail to grasp the fact that both water vapor and CO2 return energy to the surface, and water vapor returns far more than CO2 does, or ever could. What you also fail to realize is the effect — energy return to the surface, causing the rate of cooling of the surface to be reduced (it cannot heat the surface, because the surface temperature is already higher, and is therefore always emitting more energy than is returned) — is not a certification of the crisis assertions.

            Greenhouse theory — misnamed, but that happens when ignorant people plug a name on something entirely different in behavior — is accepted by all but a few skeptics. Just not the abuse of it, with innumerate claims, abuse of large numbers, and unobserved claims of positive feedbacks alleged to be potential “runaway” events

            I say “unobserved” because that core claim by “warmists” — that more CO2 causes warming which causes more water to evaporate which causes more warming still — is immediately falsified by the fact that it has absolutely no restraint, and which, if true, would already have boiled the planet lifeless: if 1C warming by paltry CO2 levels caused 1.5C warming by water vapor, then that 1.5C warming by water vapor would cause 2.25C additional warming, ad infinitum. It is a senseless and unscientific claim.

          • CB

            “that core claim… that more CO2 causes warming which causes more water to evaporate which causes more warming still — is immediately falsified”

            Uh huh, and is it likely you’ve falsified the claims of the people who actually study the subject?

            What do you think?

            Have you been published in any peer-reviewed journals lately?

            “In general, the amount of water vapor in the troposphere does not vary significantly over time so long as temperatures remain stable. However, if some external forcing causes tropospheric temperatures to increase, there will be a water vapor feedback.”

            (Yale Climate Connections, “The Water Vapor Feedback”)

          • OregonCityTom

            Since you are not a trained Physicist, CB, you are in no position to argue either way. But with regard to basic Physics, I’m certainly qualified to comment professionally on such a con as the assertion of a infinite feedback loop which does not exist in nature (because it would have already asserted itself at 25C, ages ago, or even in during the 1997-1998 el Nino temperature spike. I am a qualified signer of the Oregon Petition, a qualification granted because of my education by the PhD who started that project, and agreed to by other PhD and doctoral signers with whom I work or socialize. I don’t publish because I’m not a grant-driven scientist. Why should I?

            You can’t intimidate me, CB. I’ve argued with people on both sides of the debate, for varying reasons, always to promote getting closer to the complexity. I did my first bit of climate data tracking in 1973 (helping a Nat. Hurricane Center programmer build a tracking program), so you can’t even begin to suggest I’m some pajama-wearing troll.

            When I write, I refer to data provided by sources who disagree with me (trust no one) or which both sides agree upon, and I refer to textbooks for Physics going as far back as necessary, and through to the current day.

            You — let me guess — refer to writers who you agree with. Pity. That’s not scientific, or even rational.

            Read the Yale piece again, and note that (1) water vapor increase is a result of temperature increase, (2) if EXTERNAL forcing causes temperatures to increase, there will be water vapor feedback (that is, an increase in humidity). “External” means “from the outside”. In this case, a change in insolation, or a change in cosmic ray bombardment (which is affected by solar magnetic field shielding).

            That piece does not contend either that INTERNAL forcings — like CO2 — cause water vapor feedback, or that the water vapor increase does anything to increase temperature again. Indeed, since both radiative gases do most of the job of making our planet habitable at lower densities, with higher densities having minor effects only (logarithmic response, approaching zero additional effect), what becomes more significant about the gases behaviors is what they do to COOL the atmosphere, and both are quite important.

            This, again, is where innumeracy shows its ugly scab on warmist thinking: the cooling effects are ignored when attempting — succeeding, in your case — of convincing people that the CO2 sky is falling.

            Water vapor carries large amounts of heat away from the surface as latent heat — the heat required to convert liquid water to gas. That heat is carried aloft with the warm water vapor, and is shed as thermal radiation when that vapor condenses to liquid again. Water vapor also absorbs and emits radiation, and it emits it in all directions — about half going down, and about half going up. The radiation going up stands a better change of escaping immediately with altitude, and all that radiation repeats the process — in just a few fractions of a second — until it is ejected from the atmosphere all together into space. The same process occurs with the thermal radiation emitted by condensation, but it begins closer to space.

            Now, the thermal gradient effect — that “greenhouse effect” — is limited by the logarithmic nature of the absorption cycle: more and more water has less and less effect. But the thermal radiation ejection effect doesn’t have a limit: the more emitter molecules are in the higher atmosphere, the quicker that bouncing energy can make it out into space, from which it does not return.

            CO2 goes through the same process, and is a much more efficient emitter in the stratosphere, but does not have latent heat characteristics that water vapor does, and is only 1 50th as present in the atmosphere.

            Put a little closer to earth, where you might grasp the facts a little easier: as radiative gas density increases, the additional effect on temperature approaches zero (diminishing returns nearing saturation), while at the same them the number of effective emitters of energy into space increases (more energy being shed). These functions are wonderfully balanced, with only the INPUT into the system — how much sunlight actually gets TO the earth — outside their control.

            So that Eli? carefully crafting words, in his case perhaps trying to avoid making a fool of himself. Or perhaps he just forgot to say what he really meant.

            In any event, if additional heat makes there be more water vapor which then causes it to be hotter still (in a factor greater than 1 — that is, if 1C heating causes water vapor-induced increase of 1.1C), that is an immediate runaway feedback, which would occur starting on any sunny day. All done. It is a trivial logical fallacy, and falsified by the temperature record. Actually, we wouldn’t have ever existed were that the case.

            By the way, the flux of energy from a molecule is proportional to the fourth power of T in degrees Kelvin, so increases in temperature VASTLY increases the energy flux which removes it from the earth. That’s called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You should read it, if you actually do read other than your scripts.

          • CB

            “you are not a trained Physicist”

            Who is not a trained physicist, Tom?

            If the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature is as weak as you claim, why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it?

            “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

            (Harig, et al, “Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 415, 1 April 2015)

          • RealOldOne2

            More repetitive blathering idiocy of the same false claims that have been debunked claim: “why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO2 as high as we’ve raised it.”

            You know that I and others have totally debunked your claim, as we have pointed out that an ice age BEGAN with CO2 levels >5,000 ppm.
            HelenW documented a couple hundred examples where you repeated this same debunked, false claim: breitbart(dot)com/london/2014/03/06/chevrongate-capitalism-finally-grows-a-pair-in-the-war-on-big-green/#comment-1279556845

            i totally debunked your claim here: dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042

            “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein , brainyquote(dot)com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991(dot)html
            No matter how many times you blather your false ice age claim, it will NEVER make it true. But thanks for confirming once again that you are an insane mindless scientifically illiterate climate cult fanatic troll.

          • CB

            “we have pointed out that an ice age BEGAN with CO2 levels >5,000 ppm.”

            I see!

            When did that ice age happen, Old One?

            “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

            (New Scientist, “High-carbon ice age mystery solved”, Jeff Hecht, 8 March 2010)

          • RealOldOne2

            There you go again demonstrating your insanity by posting debunked nonsense that proves you WRONG!

            The Hecht article is mere reality denying propaganda, as neither Hecht nor the Young(2010) paper shows any low CO2 values. Your claim that they do is based on your misunderstanding of δ¹³C ratios. As I said above, and you continually ignore, I exposed your total ignorance of this two years ago here: dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042

            You made the hilariously stupid claim “Marine organisms only use ¹³C when ¹²C has been completely used up, and given that ¹²C makes up 99% of the carbon on Earth, this means that CO₂ dropped to 1% of the previous baseline amount, from 5,000PPM to ~50PPM.” You based that claim on you ignorantly thinking that the change in δ¹³C represented a drop of 99% in atmospheric CO2. I showed you that rather than representing the ¹²C being “used up”, the δ¹³C change merely represented a change in ¹²C of 0.008%, not 99%!

            You have yet to admit that you were wrong. But then, scientifically illiterate, duped doomsday cult fanatics typically demonstrate their denial of reality when the predictions of doom from their cult fail to happen as predicted. So sad.

            You have yet to produce a single piece of empirical evidence showing a CO2 level less than 4,000 ppm during the Hirnantian glaciation at the end of the Ordovician Period. You merely make baseless evidence-free claims, and ignore all the empirical data and evidence that proves you wrong. Another common trait among delusional duped doomsday cult zealots. So sad.

          • OregonCityTom

            You are not a trained physicist, CB. It’s blissfully obvious. You can’t respond to any point without a sideways-skewed quote. And you repeat the same claims even though refuted by YOUR OWN SOURCES. Your arguments are always burdened by the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority, never by appeal to Physical laws.

            For example, Seth Young suggests — the lowest suggestion to date — that CO2 was only “a few times” today’s level during the first ice age. You provided the link to his research, and even though he’s still probably wrong — his isotope behavior theory doesn’t ring true, and it’s a guess — he still makes no claim that’s even close to CO2 being as low, or lower, than today. And at that HIGHER level, the majority of the earth was covered with ice, not just the ice caps. So, yes, absolutely, YOU PROVIDED A RESEARCH LINK to proof CO2 has been MUCH HIGHER than today, with solid ice caps top and bottom.

            So, when you write , “If the effect of CO₂ on planetary temperature is as weak as you claim,
            why isn’t there a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets
            withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve raised it?”, as you have multiple times on this thread, you show your lack of science training by simply having no data to support your claim, and not even being able to recognize that your own link to Seth Young’s research actually falsifies your claim, all by itself.

            Then you wander off again to the Antarctic ice melt — a natural phenomenon during an inter-glacial period, which seems to be entirely too sophisticated an understanding for you to grasp — and again require being reminded that the rate of melt would require more than 200,000 years to complete. Since we’ve been at higher solar activity for the better part of the last century, that melt rate will subside again, and perhaps grow for a while — small increase and decrease perturbations in a general trend … until the NEXT ice age.

            Not a trained Physicist? That’s right, you aren’t. You can’t even put numbers into perspective properly, either in sheer quantity or time-rate relativity — innumeracy. So I’ll bet you probably don’t have Calculus education, either. After all, Calculus was invented as the language of Physics.

          • RealOldOne2

            The cogent points that you make about CB’s irrational, illogical comments make me sometimes think that CB may be no more than a poorly programmed bot, recognizing key words and then mindlessly spitting out stock boilerplate propaganda talking points, never addressing the valid points which totally destroy her arguments.

            That’s why I seldom reply to her comments, except to point out to others examples of her delusional denial of reality and a few links to where her comments were totally debunked previously.

            But then again, her behavior is typical of delusional duped cult fanatics who deny reality, so she may be a real person who is as ignorant, scientifically illiterate, illogical and stupid as she demonstrates with her comments.

          • OregonCityTom

            Yes, but… we should always try to save people from their delusions. Ever wake up one morning, and realize how much you had humiliated yourself, and wonder why nobody bothered to challenge you? Yeah, I hate that feeling.

            But I LOVE what happens when somebody challenges me with penetrating facts. An uncle of mine did that while I was busy, at the age of 21, telling him how much I knew about the economic realities. He said, “Tom, you’re an idiot…”, and then proceeded to prove it with one more sentence. This Dartmouth Sophomore — no wonder “sophomoric” means what it does! — rocked back on his feet, drooled on his shirt, and stood speechless while the propaganda I had swallowed was torn from my thinking. That was an awesome, life-changing event that I will never forget.

            I don’t think CB is a bot, though. too many quotes from posts she is responding to.

          • S Graves

            wrt feedback claim…which my be correct…I posted the following above;

            So, since we are not seeing a “water vapor feedback”, other than a possible tiny increase in average global atmospheric H2O vapor, can we assume that no external forcing is causing “tropospheric temperatures to increase”?
            Provide the science

          • OregonCityTom

            The sun is fairly constant right now, but about to shift down toward spotless days, with a weakening magnetic field. Water vapor does provide radiative return, as all except the “slayers” agree. So, too, does CO2, but much less.

            The data is the place to start, for the science, in spite of the fiddling that seems to go on regardless of being “outed” every time it’s done. Try this, partly for the comments on newest fiddle, and partly as a place to start with the science (you’ll have to remove the spaces to follow that link):

            || ht tp s: //bobtisdale . wordpress . com / 2015/09/14 / august-2015-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-model-data-difference-update /||

            The absence of a water vapor feedback is really the falsifiable concept of water vapor being an amplifier without restraining negative feedbacks: if no restraint exists, it’s not possible for it to not have already boiled the world. There is still question of whether CO2 and H2O moderate each other’s behavior (for example, additional water vapor means more rain, which scrubs CO2 into the oceans). But the idea that a positive, unrestrained feedback by increase in water vapor is central to the claimed climate sensitivity of the models, and this is not observed. There is evidence — rather obvious to even a casual observer — that higher temperatures increase evaporation. But that also increases convection aloft, and latent heat release when that vapor condenses.

            That science is the hydrological cycle, and it’s still not well modeled by anyone, AFAIK. Hence the hypothesis that CO2 and H2O may moderate, to maintain a fairly constant radiative return to the surface.

            Is that a beginning?

            My point to CB was the falsification of the idea of the positive feedback, described without restraint, and that’s not possible. Note the climate before the Quaternary: peaking at about 25C, which definitely shows restraint, and it’s unrelated to CO2 levels (which fluctuated a huge amount while that top temperature was pretty solid.

          • S Graves

            So, since we are not seeing a “water vapor feedback”, can we assume that no external forcing is causing “tropospheric temperatures to increase”?
            Is that what you meant to say, CB??

          • Dano2

            since we are not seeing a “water vapor feedback”

            Another big fibbin!


            I detect a pattern…



          • S Graves

            Another meaningless dead link.

          • Dano2

            Smart people figured it out. Then there’s you.



          • S Graves

            YES DRANO…you got it dip sh#t. Then there’s me……the SMARTER person who already knew.
            Thanks Drano. But I have to go now. You are once again so pathetically insipid that I just can’t spend another second on you.

          • OregonCityTom

            Oh, spare us your innumeracy, CB! Do you not have the background to understand what increased presence of a radiatively active gas does? Or how that behavior is distributed across the radiative gases in the atmosphere? Do you even NOTICE that that quote neglects to specify WHICH “greenhouse gas” contributes what percentage of thermal insulation to the surface? That’s deception, to which you are complicit.

            Increasing radiative gas density decreases optical depth at absorbable wavelengths. The innumerate imagine this is a linear, or even exponential relationship. But it is not. It is logarithmic, with each doubling of the density adding only the same amount of energy emission delay — that’s how the process influences the temperature we feel.

            But before you jump up and down and cry “Crisis!”, figure out how much of a contribution to earth’s temperature is CO2, and how much is water vapor. And then observe that from space, the earth is already opaque to the wavelengths absorbed by both CO2 and water vapor. That is, all those photons are already being trapped and re-emitted, so the future warming caused by adding more is minor, even if there actually were a positive feedback with water vapor.

          • CB

            “Do you not have the background to understand what increased presence of a radiatively active gas does?”

            I have the background to understand that’s a big bag of word salad…

            “Do you even NOTICE that that quote neglects to specify WHICH “greenhouse gas” contributes what percentage of thermal insulation to the surface?”


            “The innumerate imagine this is a linear, or even exponential relationship. But it is not. It is logarithmic”

            That’s true! The relationship between greenhouse gasses and planetary temperature is roughly logarithmic!

            Does a logarithmic function have an upper bound, totally not-innumerate Tom?

            “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

            (NASA Science, “Blazing Venus”)

          • OregonCityTom

            That bag of word salad had more nutrition than you have been serving up, CB.

            That missing attribution of percentage of effect is a deliberate and significant deception, trying to paint CO2 as the culprit when water vapor is by far the most important radiative gas in the atmosphere. Remove ALL the CO2, and almost all the warming by radiative return would remain… but all plants would die, and after that, all life.

            Absolutely a logarithmic function has an upper bound. It’s called saturation. Maximum effect of increases in density are at minimal total density. As total density increases, increments have less and less effect, At some density, the effect is no longer measurable. We are approaching that now with CO2, with the atmosphere opaque to those wavelengths.

            And please tell me you are not so stupid as to imagine the conditions on Venus, with insolation far higher than we receive, are comparable to earth. Not even NASA believes there is a comparison.

            A troll with a script, you have confirmed. A troll with a mind for numbers, no.

          • CB

            “water vapor is by far the most important radiative gas in the atmosphere.”

            That’s true! Water vapour is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO₂!

            It’s also a multiplier of the warming effect of CO₂.

            What’s your point?

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            (NASA, “Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change”)

          • Joe Dick

            Let’s see. In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was “The Next Ice Age” and “Global Cooling” and even “Nuclear Winter” that were the in-vogue scares of the day. “Global Warming” is more recent scare-mongering that came into vogue after the “Ozone Hole” scare of the late 1980s. So just how do you get that it’s “withstood over a century of testing”? I’d love to see some evidence to back that claim, such as research reports dating back to 1915 on the subject. 🙂

          • CB

            “In the late 1970s and early 1980s it was “The Next Ice Age” “


            No, it wasn’t.

            Who informs you of this and why did you believe them?

            If you know your well-being is at stake, do you think you might want to be a bit more skeptical of your sources?

            (“The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”, Peterson et al, American Meteorological Society, 8 February 2008)

          • planet8788

            There was a strong consensus that the Earth HAD COOLED.

            Not about what would happen next….

            That cooling was erased to make the hockeystick.

          • OregonCityTom

            Now that’s simply a lie, CB. I lived through that era, and that was the thinking of much of the scientific community, given that post-WWII had seen declining temperatures.

            Consensus, of the phony style cited by you and too many others to count, as if it actually meant anything “scientific”? No, of course not. Because in those days the line had not formed for the grant gravy train, and “global cooling” provided no way for politicians to use the “crisis” to gain more power.

            The “97% consensus” lie is a modern invention of people who’ve lost the integrity required to act independently.


            The so-called ‘climate scientists’ were indeed saying we were entering another ice age in the late ’60’s and the ’70’s. My memory is all I need to cite that. I remember it well. Assertions to the contrary are nothing but lies.

          • TexasTeaFinder

            What is in the way? How about hard data?

          • Bruce Rodd

            Ah! no! Not one model for the theory has produced accurate results. Not one!

          • CB

            “Not one model for the theory has produced accurate results. Not one!”

            How about the model of 4.5 billion years of Earth’s history?

            If you understand that each and every previous time CO₂ went so high, complete polar meltdown followed, how likely is it there will be a different outcome today?

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

            (NASA Global Climate Change, “Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice”)

          • OregonCityTom

            CB, that’s just nuts. CO2 has been more than 10 times current levels during an ice age. Even folks on the crisis side of the debate have referenced the graph I pointed out to you.

            If you claim scientific literacy, let’s see the math. The models project warming by claiming positive feedback by water vapor, which has not been observed. In fact, no crisis claim is made which suggests that CO2 does the job by itself, but instead CLAIM that positive feedback makes the air dripping wet — again, not an observed phenomenon. So is it your assertion that CO2 — by itself, at somewhere less than 0,05% of the atmosphere, CONTROLS temperature? You would be alone in that.

            How about this? How does energy escape the earth? By radiative emission from… CO2, primarily. Yet another factor ignored by the models.

            If you only listen to one side of the arguments, you will of course imagine the debate is all sewn up. It just isn’t so.

            My degree is in mathematics and physics, from Dartmouth, with honors. You should dial back the dogma a bit. There’s still a lot to understand, but your “data” is lopsided, plucking only parts that serve your purpose.

          • planet8788

            Shes a paid troll.

          • CB

            “Shes a paid troll.”

            How do you know?

            Is it likely the research institutions I’ve been pointing you to are all being paid to perpetuate a conspiracy that’s lasted over a century, Planet?

            You have, of course, thrown the citations into google to verify those sources say what I’m claiming they say…


            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 100 cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice per year since 2002.”

            (NASA, “Is Antarctica Melting?”)

          • S Graves

            How many cubic kilometers are there in Antarctica? If you know the answer, why are you whining about 100 Ggt?

          • planet8788

            It hasn’t lasted over a century. The Climastrology disease only started talking hold around 1980.
            Go look at Hansen et. al 1981…. Look at the global temp graph… Compare it to the latest today…. It’s unrecognizable.

          • OregonCityTom

            Put a hungry untenured scientist in a room with a politician, and it’s not hard to see the union. It doesn’t even take a planned conspiracy, just the natural yearning to eat, and the natural tendency of government to grow at the expense of liberty (Jefferson coined that last part).

            More innumeracy, CB? Yes, again, we are an interglacial, so ice loss is the trend… right up until the precipitous drop into the next ice age. But try not to panic. Antarctica has 200,000 more years of ice. How incredibly ignorant does a person have to be, to not be willing to simply get the full numbers, and understand this? It is sheer irrationality to think that ice mass always grows, always shrinks, or stays the same. During ice ages, it grows and seas recede. During interglacials, ice mass shrinks, and seas rise. Do you not even understand these obvious facts? Are you not aware that we are far above the lowest sea levels, and far below the highest?

          • S Graves

            I don’t think anyone would pay her. More likely just a lonely sole with no friends, nothing to do…it’s her hobby. Or she might just be mentally ill.

          • CB

            “CO2 has been more than 10 times current levels during an ice age.”

            State when that happened, Tom.

            If you were telling the truth, isn’t this something you should be able to do?

            “Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”

            (NASA Global Climate Change, “Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice”)

          • OregonCityTom

            OK, enough with the innumeracy statistics, CB. It is just plain unscientific to quote tonnages without referencing total mass, or rate of change from era to era, or whether loss is due to actual melting or sublimation, or even the regional differences on those massive land areas you mention. That’s a childish way to approach a scientific argument.

            And it’s even worse when you don’t — a result of your failure to report the total mass involved — extrapolate to how long it would take, at that loss rate, to melt/sublimate it all.

            We are in an interglacial period. Is this not obvious to you? In such periods, land ice and sea ice melt more than grow (across significant time spans, punctuated by both warmer — more melt — and colder — more growth — periods. In general, only a moron would expect land ice to NOT be melting, or at least — like northern Greenland and the central regions of Antarctica — losing ice mass to sublimation.

            And you are entirely mistaken in your assertion that CO2 increases have always caused a “polar meltdown”. Or even that CO2 levels are causal. For example, when was open water first spotted at the North Pole, in the last century? I’ll bet you get that one wrong.

            If you want to insist that assertion is right, at least cite the references, because snowball earth disagrees: since CO2 can only be reduced by green plant life, and is a natural result of carbon and oxygen cohabiting space (burning is not even necessary), the thriving of plants is a necessary precursor to CO2 levels dropping below toxic levels. So much for your “4.5 billion years” of history, penned by someone who doesn’t even have organic chemistry to make her case. It is not possible for earth to have shed so much carbon dioxide so early in the Paleozoic (more innumeracy, if you suggest otherwise).

            You certainly write like a paid troll: same old tired arguments, always telling only part of the story.

          • TashaTchin

            The only “deniers” out there are those denying interglacial climate. Take a look at the Greenland ice core sample GISP 2. We are experiencing a cooling trend that is 5,000 years old. The 20th Century Warm Period was the weakest of the last four. The Minoan Warm Period was warmer than the Roman Warm Period. The Roman Warm Period was warmer than the Mediaeval Warm Period. The Mediaeval Warm Period was warmer than the 20th Century Warm Period. That child had better get used to living in a freezer because the insignificant 20th Century Warm Period is over and maybe the interglacial of this current Ice Age, as well.

          • CB

            “Take a look at the Greenland ice core sample”

            Why stop there!?

            Take a look at the entire combined history of the ice on the planet, going back 800,000 years (Lüthi, et al, “EPICA Dome C Ice Core 800KYr Carbon Dioxide Data”, 2008).

            Find a single point in the data where CO₂ goes anywhere near as high as we’ve pushed it.

            If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t the polar ice caps record a single instant of CO₂ so high?

          • OregonCityTom

            That’s not much of an argument, CB. The ice cores only cover a span as wide as the dark right-hand box line, on the widely-accepted — not even Seth Young claims results outside the grey error bar on it — graph below (note “Quaternary” with an arrow). You have to go to ROCKS to get long history proxies of atmospheric composition. Even Seth Young, who you erroneously consider proves your side of the argument, did that.

            Do you read the stuff you link to?

            The point to the full history is… CO2 is not causal to temperature, but only linked, coincident.

            The link to the table keeps causing the post to not pass moderation, so I’ll paste this way (remove the bars and spaces): ||www . geocraft . com / WVFossils / PageMill_Images / image277.gif||

          • S Graves

            C Dome cores don’t demonstrate ANY evidence of the behavior of ice caps with CO2 above 400 PPM, do they CB? You citation is irrelevant to ice cap behavior at current levels of CO2. More baffle ’em with BS from CB.

          • Fecal Matter

            They say the arctic ice would be gone by now…….all predictions have been wrong……..

          • CB

            “They say the arctic ice would be gone by now”

            Did they?

            If Arctic sea ice isn’t going to be gone within years at its current rate of decline, how long will it take?

            If you know you depend on this sea ice to stabilise the climate that grows the food that keeps you alive, why wouldn’t the question interest you?

            Does being alive not interest you?

            “The sea ice extent minimum for 2015 was likely reached on Sept 11… The value for 2015 is 300 km³ above the value for 2013 and constitutes a continuation of the long-term declining trend”

            (University of Washington Polar Science Center, “PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis”)

          • OregonCityTom

            “Does being alive not interest you?”

            ROTFLOL! Now that’s even funny! That only makes sense if one is strapped to a fixed point on the beach, with an air supply portal only 10 centimeters above high tide (we’ll allow for storm survival).

            You certainly have a goofy view of the world, and clearly no sense of history.

          • CB

            “Now that’s even funny!”

            Nervous laughter is frequently the response to being confronted with the suicidal nature of Climate Denialism…

            Why are you talking about air supplies, Tom?

            The question I posed you was about the agricultural system upon which you rely for your survival.

            Why are you pretending your use of fossil fuels isn’t likely to have an effect on that agricultural system?

            “Our results indicate that future reductions in Arctic sea ice cover could significantly reduce available water in the American west”

            (“Disappearing Arctic sea ice reduces available water in the American west”, Jacob O. Sewall and Lisa Cirbus Sloan, Geophysical Research Letters, 24 March 2004)

            “With California facing one of the most severe droughts on record, Governor Brown declared a drought State of Emergency in January”

            (State of California, “California Drought”)

          • OregonCityTom

            Who said “nervous laughter”? I almost spit coffee onto my screen, reading you going all “chicken little” from a position of complete inability to scientifically judge any part of what you are writing.

            Confirmation bias clouds your thinking, CB. By the way, since the internet is one of the largest users of “fossil fuel” power, you probably should forswear further writing, if you really meant that.

            And as a non-scientist, you have to find a better way to test your beliefs. You consider your position informed enough to not have to challenge it further — precisely the opposite of the scientific method — but do not have the education to know how to challenge the assertions you read. On the other hand, I find my most significant education events are when arguing a point — on the opposite side from where I end up! — so I’m reading to challenge my positions all the time. I’ve probably read more Physics material this month than you have in your life.

            Your comment about water is simply laughable, since the number and intensity of droughts across the world is not trending in either direction. You should not confuse advocacy writing — governments advocating for more power over energy, scientists dependent on “climate” jobs to eat (or in Shukla’s case, to get a new Mercedes) — with actual data.

            For example, I just visited the NOAA site Palmer drought forecast page. Clicking on the first map of each year, as an example, the “green” and “brown” regions of the maps change, but the distribution hasn’t. NOAA even verified that the California drought — by far not the worst in West Coast history — was not caused by “climate change”, but by natural events (as stupid as that sounds to me, because climate change IS a natural event).

            You should also remember how silly the thought of “more drought” sounds when placed in the context of “more water vapor”. Consider why the Sahara became a desert long before there were SUVs. Consider why the longest persistent drought is Antarctica. Consider why the Sahara is actually greening today. Consider that the tropics are the hottest places on earth, and yet are also home to vast, wet rainforests.

            You sound just plain foolish when you speak without summoning rational argument to the audience.

          • S Graves

            She IS full of BS, Tom. She loves to contextualize and misapply quotes and citations. Keep up the good work. Your claims are right on.

          • RealOldOne2

            CB is a real HOOT isn’t she? It doesn’t get any more STUPID than she demonstrates! Mindless blathering idiocy.

          • S Graves

            Arctic SI is currently at virtually the same extent that it was at this time in 2005, ’08, ’09, ’10 and 14, and well ahead of 2007, ’11 and ’12. Only 2006 and 2013 were somewhat ahead of the extend for this time of year.
            What’s the trend for the last decade? Why does your citation begin the LTT at 1979…the exact end of 30 years of planetary cooling? Could it be cherry picking the start date? But you ARE fun and funny, CB.

          • Dano2

            Hopefully my detailed refutation to your standard fibbin will be released soon out of moderation.



          • S Graves

            Hopefully you will wonder off and the mods will recognize that your “detailed refutation” is nonsense. I know it IS…in advance… because that’s what you post.

          • Dano2

            It not only includes data detailing your fibbin, but links to your exact same lies that you told previously, so all can see you say these misleading things on purpose.



          • S Graves

            “so all can see”
            Drano…no one is watching you. Probably because you are a simpleton troll hiding behind a blocked account. But you ARE fun and funny…in a pathetic trollish sort of way.

          • Dano2

            Huff, puff, bluff, deny.

            You are lying.



          • S Graves

            What!? You don’t have a blocked account behind which you hide like the trollish coward you are? Let me look again. I may be wrong and if I am, I’ll want to apologize.
            Nope…I’m right. You are as I claim.

          • CrismaFire

            Funny thing about Science it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Man Made Global Warming is impossible. I say lock her away along with all you sickos who don’t believe plain facts. I would unplug the freezer then using a back hoe dig a big grave and lower her in it freezor and all and tell her when she is right I will pull her out. Maybe I can convince you too join her?

          • draidt

            A century of testing well that settles it. NOT do you have any idea beyond your can’t think for yourself brain realize a 100 years is but a blink of an eye in the age of the earth ? Of course not you have been brainwashed.

          • Goldminer

            The Greenhouse effect on earth has zero effect on the driver of climate the SUN, see how that works.

          • jrashleigh

            B s

          • OregonCityTom

            Innumerate BS, CB. The “greenhouse effect” (terrible misnomer, but alarmists like you have stuck us with it, even though earth has no “roof” comparable to a greenhouse, which preserves heat by preventing convection) is agreed to, but not as an unstable (in scientific terms, not self-regulating) phenomenon as described in alarmist texts.

            You claim the understanding of radiative effects of atmospheric gases translates into agreement of impending crisis, and that is simply a lie: an irrational leap of logic.

            Only a handful of “skeptics” disagree with the idea of the — here comes that misnomer again — “greenhouse effect”, they just recognize the system is logarithmic, and loaded with negative feedbacks to regulate it. The latest was found only a short time ago: a non-organic process that produces cloud-germinating chemicals in water boundary layers, which escape into the atmosphere to reduce insolation.

          • LINER011

            Man made CO2 affects the climate about as much as hitting a flea will slow down a speeding locomotive.

          • CB

            “Man made CO2 affects the climate about as much as hitting a flea will slow down a speeding locomotive.”

            Uh huh, so point to a single moment in Earth’s history when polar ice sheets were able to withstand CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it.

            If such a moment existed, why hasn’t a single person been able to identify it?

            “multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate”

            (Harig, et al, “Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volume 415, 1 April 2015)

          • laurie66bay

            Another high priestess of this the weird religious cult centered around pretending global warming is science
            She needs mental health counselling, not a sweater.

          • CB

            “Another high priestess of this the weird religious cult centered around pretending global warming is science”

            The first person to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans warm the planet by emitting greenhouse gasses was someone named Eunice Foote.

            She did so in 1856.

            Is it likely she was founding a religious cult that all scientists on Earth have been part of ever since?

            …or is it more likely you’re attempting to take your own religious mental illness and apply it to someone else by fiat?

            “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

            (Raymond P. Sorenson, “Eunice Foote’s Pioneering Research On CO₂ And Climate Warming”, Search and Discovery Article #70092, 2011)

          • OregonCityTom

            Wow. Cool. Pity she didn’t have access to the instrumentation by which her theory could be falsified. Or the geological history of the earth, where concentrations of CO2 more than 10 times today were found… during an ice age. Of the ice cores that — all of them — show that CO2 levels FOLLOW temperature, not precede it (yeah, even that wonderful graph Al Gore used in his presentation. Or the behavior of the sun’s magnetic field in the control of high altitude reflectivity.

            Like many theories, the introduction of new measurement capabilities — topside albedo of clouds, behavior of CO2 in facilitating immediate absorption and re-emission to space of some of solar input, radiative spectrum of our emissions to space, as examples — often put an “oops” to what seemed likely prior to those new capabilities.

            What looks quite religious is the dogmatic insistence that “the debate is over” when satellite data just doesn’t defend the dogma.

          • CB

            “Pity she didn’t have access to… the geological history of the earth, where concentrations of CO2 more than 10 times today were found… during an ice age.”

            19th century scientists actually did have access to that history, which is what led them to suggest CO₂ is the primary driver of Earth’s temperature.

            When did the ice age you speak of occur?

            “How come a big ice age happened when carbon dioxide levels were high? It’s a question climate sceptics often ask. But sometimes the right answer is the simplest: it turns out CO₂ levels were not that high after all. The Ordovician ice age happened 444 million years ago, and records have suggested that CO₂ levels were relatively high then. But when Seth Young of Indiana University in Bloomington did a detailed analysis of carbon-13 levels in rocks formed at the time, the picture that emerged was very different. Young found CO₂ concentrations were in fact relatively low when the ice age began.”

            (New Scientist, “High-carbon ice age mystery solved”, Jeff Hecht, 8 March 2010)

          • RealOldOne2

            CB is a scientifically illiterate troll. She endlessly peddles her debunked propaganda talking points all over the internet, even though her junk science has been exposed as pure rubbish.

            She tried this same ‘there’s never been an ice age with CO2 levels this high’ hundreds of times in a single month, as documented by HelenW here: breitbart(dot)com/london/2014/03/06/chevrongate-capitalism-finally-grows-a-pair-in-the-war-on-big-green/#comment-1279556845

            She tried and FAILED to peddle this Young2010 paper to me as representing low global CO2 levels (she claimed 50ppm!!! which would have caused total shutdown of photosynthesis) and I soundly trashed her sorry behind here: dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042

            She is absolutely clueless about carbon isotopes, as I exposed in my comment above. She ignorantly claimed that the δ¹³C ratio spike in Fig. 1 of Young2010 ( upload(dot)wikimedia(dot)org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Carbon_13_and_time_scale_during_the_Ordovician(dot)png ) represented a drop of 99% in ¹²C when in fact it
            represents a drop of only 0.008%! She was only off by four orders of magnitude.

            These delusional, reality-denying climate cult religion nutjobs like CB are real pieces of work.

          • CB

            “scientifically illiterate troll.”


            Who is the scientifically illiterate troll you’re talking about, Old One?

            “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”

            (NASA, “Feature Articles: John Tyndall”)

          • RealOldOne2

            Hilarious that the dimwitted flat-earth CAGW-by-CO2 scientifically illiterate troll, CB, now laughs at her own stupidity. Priceless!

            To remind everyone of her abject stupidity and ignorance of science, here are a few of her idiotic and moronic quotes:
            “What fault do you find with measurements suggesting CO2 dropped to almost zero during the Hirnation glaciation at the end of the Ordovician.”
            The problem was that the Young(2010) paper that she references shows NO data that CO2 dropped to almost zero.

            Then she further exposes her ignorance of science when she totally misunderstands δ¹³C ratios, and makes her next stupid comment:
            “The spike in ¹³C in marine invertebrate deposition indicates a drop in CO₂ to limiting levels. Marine organisms only use ¹³C when ¹²C has been completely used up, and given that ¹²C makes up 99% of the carbon on Earth, this means that CO₂ dropped to 1% of the previous baseline amount, from 5,000PPM to ~50PPM

            After I exposed her total ignorance of ¹³C/¹²C ratios, which shows a mere 0.008% change, not a 99% change, she resorts to her fallback “mentally ill” response after people expose the idiocy and moronicity of her stupid claims.

            The entire exchange can be found here: dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042

            ps. It is pointless to reply to scientifically illiterate ideologically blinded trolls who refuse to admit when they are wrong. It’s only worth exposing who she is so others don’t waste time interacting with such an ideologically blinded ignorant dupe, because no matter how many facts and how much empirical data you show them, they ignore it, because they BELIEVE in their climate cult religion. This is why eminent scientists have said:

            warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] :
            Global warming has become a religion. … people with no
            other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” –
            Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT.
            Source: jpands(dot)org/vol18no3/lindzen(dot)pdf

            And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious
            And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” –
            Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

          • CB

            “AGW-by-CO2 scientifically illiterate”

            The fact that CO₂ warms the planet has been known for over a century, old one.

            Does CO₂ warm the planet?

            “In 1895, Arrhenius… described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth”

            (NASA, “Feature Articles: Svante Arrhenius”)

          • RealOldOne2

            “Does CO2 warm the planet?”
            CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs longwave IR, but empirical data and science says anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing the slight planetary warming that has occurred in the last ~century.

            Evidence supporting this:
            1) “Conclusions … Data for mean annual global surface temperature anomaly and the rate of emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement manufacture from 1850 to 2014 are studied with detrended correlation analysis of moving averages. … The data do NOT show evidence of a causal relationship between the rate of emissions and the rate of warming. The data do NOT show evidence of a causal relationship between emissions and warming in a decadal frequency response range. The results are consistent with prior works which FAILED to find a correlation in the detrended data between rate of fossil fuel emissions and the rate of growth in atmospheric CO2” – Munshi(2015) , papers(dot)ssrn(dot)com/sol3/Delivery(dot)cfm/SSRN_ID2662870_code2220942(dot)pdf?abstractid=2662870&mirid=1

            2) In the last ~19 years, humans have added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is ~50% more than had been added in the previous few centuries, and it has caused NO global warming: woodfortrees(dot)org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

            3) There is not a single peer reviewed paper in existence that shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent planetary warming during the late 20th century as the IPCC and climate alarmists claim.

            4) The cause of the climate warming of the last century has been natural, just like every other climate warming in the history of the planet.

            “We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. … the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. … These changes are natural changes.” – Akasofu2010 ‘On the recovery from the Little Ice Age’ , scirp(dot)org/journal/PaperDownload(dot)aspx?paperID=3217

            The accepted null climate hypothesis is that climate change is caused by natural climate variation. This is based on the entire 4.5 billion year history of the planet. The way science works is that if you have an alternative hypothesis, you must first empirically falsify the null climate hypothesis. No one has ever done this. Then you must empirically validate your new alternative CO2-drives-climate-change hypothesis. No one has ever done this.

            You have been duped CB, as I have shown you over and over and over again from empirical data and science. You are merely mindlessly blathering CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 doomsday climate cult propaganda which you are too scientifically illiterate to recognize is absolute rubbish. So sad that you are so ideologically blinded that you will put your fingers in your ears, bury your head in the sand, and ignore these facts and data that expose that you are a fanatical doomsday cult zealot who chooses to believe rather than accept empirical facts and data.

            ps. Are you ready to admit your FALSE claim that CO2 dropped by 99% to 50ppm in the late Ordovician, as I exposed your stupid claim here: dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042 ? Or are you going to remain in denial of reality?

            pps. Readers, I don’t normally reply to delusional reality-denying global warming cult zealots, but periodically it is once again worth directly exposing their denial of reality and refusal to admit their errors.

            ppps. Readers, I predict that CB will either:
            a) ignore my facts and data and not reply, demonstrating her denial of reality ,
            b) ignore my facts and data and not respond to any of the points I made exposing that her whole cult’s false pseudoscience meme of the pending anthropogenic CO2 caused doom, and mindlessly post more propaganda talking points from her cult dogmas , or
            c) create a new obfuscation to distract from the fact that she can’t address the empirical data and science that exposes her cult’s nonsense.

          • CB

            “CO2 is a greenhouse gas and absorbs longwave IR”

            Good! That’s right, CO₂ warms the planet by absorbing longwave infrared radiation.

            If you understand CO₂ warms the planet, and you understand there isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ as high as we’ve pushed it…

            …how likely is it they will today?

            “Data from NASA’s Grace satellites show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass.”

            (NASA Global Climate Change, “Vital Signs of the Planet: Land Ice”)

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFMAO @ CB, the mindless scientifically illiterate dupe!

            Yep, a doubly idiotic combination of b) & c) it is! Ignore my facts and data and not respond to any of the facts and data that I posted AND blather on mindlessly with her cult’s dogmas. A hilarious display of stupidity! Where does the climate cult religion dredge up these morons and idiots?

          • CB

            “it has caused NO increase in global mean temperature. Why not?”

            lol! Your question assumes that which is not in evidence.

            Who informs you there’s been no increase in global mean temperature and why did you believe them?

            If you understand there isn’t a single example in Earth’s history of polar ice sheets withstanding CO₂ so high, how likely is it they will today?

            “The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.”

            (NOAA, “Global Analysis – Annual 2014”)

          • wzxcvbbvcxz

            The planet warmed. Ice melted. then the C02 rose.
            While C02 is a greenhouse gas, and can warm, the big moves have been the other way around. Warming brings out the C02, about 800 years later.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your question assumes that which is not in evidence”
            There you go again denying reality! This is why it is pointless to try to have a rational discussion with you delusional, duped doomsday climate cult zealots. Empirical data and science means nothing to you, because you have chosen to belief your cult dogmas in spite of the FACT that empirical data proves you wrong.

            Here is the empirical evidence which you deny: woodfortrees(dot)org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend
            NO global warming for over 18 years, even though humans added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is 50% of the amount which had been added over the few hundred years prior to that. This is conclusive empirical evidence that shows anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. So sad that you are such a denier of reality. So sad that you live in a delusional fantasy land. But that’s what doomsday cult fanatics do.

            And you there you go again demonstrating your insanity as you stupidly repeat debunked propaganda of your cult leaders, as you blather about the false claim that 2014 was the hottest year. it was not. 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2010 were hotter. Here’s the empirical data that proves it: woodfortrees(dot)org/data/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

            The propaganda you peddle is debunked rubbish. It is NOT from the actual measured data. It is from corrupted-by-adjustment land-ocean datasets. It is worthless for scientific purposes since it makes replication impossible as the past historical data changes every month. Conclusions that are true today can be false next month because the keepers of the fabricated datasets change the past historical values next month.

            The satellite data sets are the best global data we have because they cover ~99% of the Earth’s surface and are accurate to 0.03C according to NASA. “The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” – science(dot)nasa(dot)gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

            You are one deluded duped foolish doomsday climate cult fanatic who denies reality. So sad. But so typical of scientifically illiterate cult zealots who defend their religion with jihadist zeal.

            “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism] : Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT. Source: jpands(dot)org/vol18no3/lindzen(dot)pdf

            And “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: youtube(dot)com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48

            And you mindlessly repeat your debunked “ice sheets” nonsense. This has been debunked countless times, as I did 3 days ago here heraldweekly(dot)com/activist-spends-a-year-in-freezer-to-oppose-global-warming#comment-2306767927 and a year ago here dailycaller(dot)com/2014/02/28/excuse-9-nasa-says-pause-in-global-warming-just-a-coincidence/#comment-1277972042 . Irrefutable evidence that an ice age BEGAN when CO2 levels were over 4,000ppm, yet you demonstrate your insanity by blathering your debunked claim again. Another display of denial of reality and insanity. So sad.

            I know you won’t accept these facts and data because they expose that your doomsday climate cult is a steaming stinking pile of male bovine excrement, but thanks for the opportunity to show others your delusional denial of reality and insane behavior.

          • S Graves

            Can you demonstrate with facts and data…i.e., peer reviewed work…that your ice caps and the history of the Earth is supported?
            Uhhhh…NO, you can’t. Prove me wrong. Don’t fecklessly try the C Dome citation you usually toss out since it is temporally constrained at 800ky…unless you believe Earth is only 800ky old. Is that what you believe?
            WHERE’S YOU SCIENCE!!!

            Do the agencies also say that it is “less likely than likely” that 2014 was actually the warmest year?

            —There is, however, a measure of uncertainty for annual rankings in any of these due to uncertainty in the underlying annual global temperature anomalies themselves. Following the Arguez et al. (2013) approach for characterizing the uncertainty of annual global rankings, there is an estimated 48% probability that 2014 was in fact the warmest year over the 1880–2014 period in the NOAA record.—

            NOAA; Global Analysis – Annual 2014
            Calculating the Probability of Rankings for 2014

            Is NOAA lying? You can read about the truth on factcheck dot org. Just google ”

            Obama and the ‘Warmest Year on Record’

            —Most recently, Obama remarked on the 2014 temperature data in his April 18 weekly address to the nation, when he said “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

            This sounds like an undisputed fact, but it is not.—

            So no one who cares should believe you CB. Unless they really like Chicken Little.

          • S Graves

            Yes OO…I have called this to her attention a score of times when she has fecklessly attempted this citation.

            —The problem was that the Young(2010) paper that she references shows NO data that CO2 dropped to almost zero.—

          • RealOldOne2

            Sadly, facts and data don’t matter to delusional reality-denying climate cult zealots like CB.

            They are so duped and scientifically illiterate that they make the mindless, logic-defying jump that just because CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, it is now the primary cause of global warming. Once again they demonstrate their denial of reality, as during the last ~19 years, humans have added over 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is more than 50% more than had been added in the previous several hundred years, yet it has caused NO global warming!

            They also deny the reality that there is not a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the most recent climate warming in the late 20th century. Not one.

            As the quotes I provided from eminent atmospheric scientist PhDs Lindzen & Happer show, zealots like CB are part of a religious cult. It is not science, because their dogmas are based on a belief, not empirical data. The empirical data exposes their cult beliefs as false.

          • CB

            “facts and data don’t matter”

            Who is the person that doesn’t care about facts and data, Old One?

            If you ignore a threat to your well-being, does that mean you won’t be affected by it?

            “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”

            (NASA, “NASA, NOAA Find 2014 Warmest Year in Modern Record”, January 16, 2015)

          • RealOldOne2

            CB once again proves the SHE is the person who doesn’t care about facts and data.

            CB once again proves that she is a delusional denier of reality, as there is NO empirical evidence that there is a “threat to anyone’s well being due to anthropogenic global warming.

            CB once again proves that she is scientifically illiterate and stupidly accepts the propaganda that she is spoon fed, like an imbecile, as she mindlessly repeats the ‘2014 warmest year’ propaganda based on fake, corrupted-by-adjustment numbers. According to the satellite data, which covers ~99% of the globe’s surface and which NASA says is accurate to 0.03C ( “The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” – science(dot)nasa(dot)gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/ )

            Nice job CB for displaying that you are a gullible stupid scientifically illiterate DUPE! You just can’t make up STUPID like CB repeatedly demonstrates. Hahahahahahaha

          • S Graves

            Well said.

          • Scoobym3

            San Francisco murder rates up 70% and rapes up 370% since 2012. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the influx of illegals. It’s just an act of love right.

          • planet8788

            Rape is a form of love I guess.

          • LINER011

            Mostly, it’s climate change.

          • carl6352

            it’s the pet laws! you have to be allowed to bring your pet to work!

        • Dustoff

          Plus much of CA power isn’t clean. What a loon

        • yvehc_telorvehc

          GO TEAM IDIOT!

      • gadsdenamn

        Not very well informed, like the rest of the global warming knuckleheads.

      • M S

        She’s in short sleeves, I don’t think the “freezer” is turned on.

      • TxSon

        Notice she has on short sleeves. She may be in a freezer but it isn’t operating.

        • Sud1

          Its operating every bit as well as the global warming temperature models

        • John Galt

          The back of it probably opens up into her living room.

          • Joe Dick

            She really did it to save on rent.

          • JWood-the-other

            Like a Bugs Bunny cartoon!

      • Homebrook

        I don’t think its plugged in. Or else she has found a way to keep warm in subfreezing temperatures hatless and in a short sleeve shirt. So its not really a freezer at all, but just a small cabinet. Big deal.

      • carl6352

        it uses none as it’s unplugged. if it was she would be a frozen roast rump

      • Bemani Dog

        Not to mention the refrigerant.

      • OregonCityTom

        Um… where does it say the freezer was ON? I doubt she was THAT stupid!

    • BackToBasics

      Agree and even that’s the understatement of the year! Did her parents or anyone try to intercede? She sure needs it!

    • Jim Greaves

      Maybe NOW she can get that spread-eagle in Penthouse she always wanted?

  • darryl

    Imagine the carbon footprint left by that one freezer

    • SRVDisciple

      She’s a total moron. She’s the kind if idiot who would tell everyone to leave their refrigerator doors open to cool down the planet. 🙂

  • ™- Iggy

    That should tell you… Most of these globalwarming zealots are insane.

    • TashaTchin

      Pathological altruism (psychotic) and probably xenophilia as well. By deporting all the illegals, we could drop the global carbon footprint by 100s of million tons per year. Deport just one Guatemalan back to Guatemala and you reduce world carbon by 21 tons per year. Deport one Mexican back to Mexico and you reduce world carbon by 17 tons. Deport 10s of millions of these invaders and we are talking about some serious greenhouse gas reduction, but the Warmists generally demand we do the exact opposite. This makes them certifiably insane.

      • planet8788

        How does deporting them save fossil fuels… They can’t drive cars in Mexico? Or the druglords will kill them?

  • darryl

    Where did she relieve her oh never mind i don’t even want to know

    • Lex loathar

      Must of let her turds freeze before handling them?

  • RegisteredUser2

    Looks like a health code violation. At least she’s happy.

    • Vladimir Jones

      One thing’s for sure – there’ll be no getting the fish smell out of that freezer.

  • JohnWolf

    It is a Religion

    It is not based upon scientific prinicples.

    • Jizzmolio


  • JohnWolf

    It is a $17,000,000,000,000.00 SCAM

  • Lex loathar

    A total brain washed, whacked out Loon. I knew it was Kalifornication before I clicked on the link.

  • JohnWolf

    How much money has Al Gore made off of his religion?


    A woman in California also found out that NOBODY CARES about her loopy activism.

    • M S

      But that won’t keep her from doing it for another year.

      • Vee_Kay

        Good, hope she goes for two more years.

    • YesMeansNOMeansYES

      I don’t think she’ll ever figure that out…. unfortunately….

  • ~JFH~

    This is using idiotic theatrics to fight a fictional problem.

    In a way, it has a perverse sort of symmetry.

    • Tim Jonson

      And it’s a metaphor for liberal illness in general.

  • Lex loathar

    Gee, I wonder who paid for her keep during this stupid stunt?

    • JohnWolf

      Probably either Gore or Soros

    • ~JFH~

      I wouldn’t be surprised if she saved up and/or payed for a least a substantial portion of it herself.

      People are willing to make pretty hefty sacrifices in order to feed their own self-aggrandizing delusions.

  • JohnWolf

    Who is more corrupt, Obama or Hillary?

  • johnnytoot

    I hope other alarmists follow her lead. With the idiots out of the way for a year, the productive members of society can fix some things.

  • David Wells

    Liberalism is a Mephistopheles disorder…

  • LibsRinfants

    Can she pack more believers in there with her? It’s only right.

    • Miles to Code

      You’re right. She is being selfish by not sharing her living situation with those less fortunate than her.

    • ~JFH~

      Good point, that way they’d be protesting overpopulation too! Two birds, one stone.

  • craigzimmerman12

    Ha Ha. I needed a good laugh.


    From the article:

    Miss Martens agrees that her action is putting a great strain on her
    mental and physical condition. However she insists on staying inside the
    freezer for another year at least. It could be even more if my health
    permits, she says.

    However, most people passing by at the San Francisco Congress Center
    seem to be either indifferent or amused by Jade’s stunt. But she is
    undeterred. Miss Martens says, “My sacrifice is necessary for a better

    #1 It’s your sacrifice for a better world? Yet it seems that your mental health (already obviously deteriorated) and your physical health might be more important than a better world… Hey but whatever right?

    #2 Millions of people could “sacrifice” themselves for a better world and nothing would change. I bet even 1 billion people could “sacrifice” themselves for a better world and nobody would even bat an eye.

    • M S

      She needs to “sacrifice” herself by getting a job.

  • You Didit

    Put her back in the freezer.

  • JWood-the-other

    Wouldn’t it be funny if someone plugged it in while she was sleeping.

  • Darth Awesome

    Will the Pope make her a saint?

    • Tim Jonson

      And will she win a Nobel prize?

      • VegasDude73

        she should have built a clock and taken it to school… would have gained much more notoriety! lol

      • planet8788

        She’s done more for peace than Obama. That’s for sure.

  • jimpim

    She just waisted a year of her life being stupid

    • John Galt

      It’s “wasted.” And she would have wasted it anyway.

  • djs1138

    “Miss Martens agrees that her action is putting a great strain on her mental and physical condition. However she insists on staying inside the freezer for another year at least. It could be even more if my health permits, she says.”

    I disagree… I’d suggest it’s her “strained mental condition” which has led to her bizarre actions… still here’s wishing her all the best to “soldier” on and hopefully exceed her expectations… perhaps remaining in the freezer many many years…

    Check back on your “strained mental condition” next year Girlfriend… keep up the good fight!

  • Miles to Code

    Why is she coming out of her freezer?

  • JWood-the-other

    She could really show her solidarity to the cause by living in a functioning freezer for a year.

  • ~JFH~

    Some people will do anything to make themselves feel important.

  • Joel

    So…. she has the money to sit in a freezer for an entire year how exactly?

  • Oldtreker

    ” Its sick out there and getting sicker” Bob Grant

  • Emil Carstens

    No not drawing attention at all. Save the planet and unplug the fridge.

  • TopMonkey

    This freezer is the hermitage of her environmental religion.

    How is sitting in a freezer, doing nothing, a “militant action”? She says, ““My sacrifice is necessary for a better world” making her totally oblivious to reality. Her so called sacrifice will do nothing but run up the electric bill by running a freezer to no one’s benefit.

  • jim

    Why should I freeze for a year in a fridge because Al Gore feels hot and sweaty.

  • SemperRectus

    A year wasted. Such stupidity

  • rob bennett

    WHO FREEKING CARES??? If your foolish enough to buy into Algores scam, your dumb enough to sit in a freezer for absolutely no reason. Let us know how that works out for ya.

  • Just Thinking

    “agrees that her action is putting a great strain on
    her mental and physical condition”.

    This happened long before her freezer dive…When one denies that a creator has
    made this world, He (the God of the Bible) turns people over to a mental dullness
    and an inability to reason clearly. (Read Romans Chapter 1 and 2.

  • Daniel Haney

    Doing nothing in a freezer is STILL doing nothing.
    Any time I see or hear the word “Awareness” I cover my wallet.

  • TruthInSpending

    Hey, if she wasn’t in the freezer, she might have to work. Oh the horrors. Perish the thought.

  • White Bear

    Turn down the temperature, lock the freezer and check back in a month or so. I certainly wasn’t shocked to see that this was in California.

  • cavern9

    LOL! What a nut!

  • Galt2100

    Do you think we could get all of them to move into freezers?

    And stay there?

  • Defiant

    Pfffft! What a lunatic. That’s the Left for you…ESPECIALLY Leftists from California! I wonder what her carbon footprint will be…having lived in a running freezer for a year. LOT of energy to cool that space–especially with a living human in there, warming the air.

    Can’t we get the REST of the Warmers into freezers? All over the world??

    Also, if one is living in a freezer…why the sunglasses on her head!?

  • Ryan Cooner

    All this woman has called attention to is that her sanity is questionable, at best.

  • OutfieldDan

    I don’t believe this article.

    • James The 87,679,756th

      It’s BS for sure…

  • whoami

    If one is protesting global cooling one would think of a freezer however global warming an oven would be more fitting. .

    • Natronic

      Can I turn it on? Never had protestor on a stick.

  • Jizzmolio

    A Global warming fundamentalist spends a year in a freezer? Is this a joke? Global warming is truly a new religion.

  • Tay-shawquanerel Jackson

    Anybody got some super glue?

  • Sierra Bravo


  • porcer34

    Well, she looks happy. In a maniacal sort of way.

  • M. N.

    Now she can go to hell…she’s that stupid.

  • Trilobite

    “Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman …”

    especially brain-dead

  • VHG1

    “The Moron Vote” supporting “The Imbecile Class”! This is what mental illness and climate delusionalism looks like, smells like and acts like! Pitiful!

  • TimeHasCome

    This woman needs help .

  • M S

    “A woman in California discovered a completely original way to denounce global warming and raise awareness about it.”

    A woman in California discovered a completely original way to be a dumbass.

  • James The 87,679,756th

    Calling BS on this woman.. I believe she has spent a LOT LESS time in that freezer than she professes. Such BS…

  • andyring

    If a lefty TRULY is dedicated to a “sacrifice” for preventing “human-caused” global warming, the only genuine way to do that is to sacrifice themselves. I mean, if humans are destroying the planet, then just remove yourself from existence and you’ll have made a difference.

  • Greg Kells

    I for one applaud her brave and selfless act, and encourage anyone who shares her passion for regulating industry into complete submission to join her. Please, help save our delicate planet by getting into a freezer as soon as possible. Don’t worry, we’ll hire more people to generate the energy needed to keep your freezers adequately cold, and we’ll come get you when it’s over. If you can’t find a freezer, an old refrigerator will do.

    • James The 87,679,756th

      And have a friend LOCK it from the outside just to keep you safe

  • djs1138

    She should work for NASA… possibly volunteer for the Mars mission…it takes a special person to live in a freezer for a year… and then look forward to the next year with a smile… that’s some kind of “special”…

    • James The 87,679,756th

      lobotomy special

  • JWood-the-other

    Freezer…Big deal. You want to get people’s attention? OVEN

    • James The 87,679,756th

      LOL THAT is a great idea and it made me laugh out loud – spitting my coffee across the room.

      • JWood-the-other

        So glad you liked it.

  • James The 87,679,756th

    A member of the The Imbecile Class of voters spends a year in the freezer… But hey, it wasn’t even turned on and she really didn’t spend all that much time in it.

    If she wants to be serious… then I want to see her STAY in the freezer, set to 18 degrees, and no getting out at all (for NOTHING) – for a year. THEN call me and tell me about the crazy woman.

  • jaz

    Wow. Over the course of a lifetime one so rarely encounters a true idiot. I hope she doesn’t reproduce. It would be really bad for the environment.

  • Butch

    I bet the boy/girl friend had a good time

  • yellowjacket

    I DON’T BELIEVE any of that crap. It was a hoax.

  • Jim Greaves

    I wonder how much “traditional energy” it takes to keep a freezer going for an entire year. Why didn’t she just have herself frozen so she could be thawed out a few years later when that technology will allow it. Instead she uses more energy than I do for my entire house to keep herself SMUG.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    Now this is the definition of a real idiot.

  • Is frozen idiot better than fresh?

  • SofaKingCool1

    She seems really committed…in fact, maybe she should be committed.

    Then again, guys who light themselves on fire show real commitment to their cause, too.

    Step up your game, toot!

  • Tim Jonson

    Wow, that sure convinced me…. not.

    • Fecal Matter

      I guess all those SUVs and coal power plants were causing CO2 to go up in the middle of Mesozoic era towards the end of the Jurasic period

    • CB

      “Someone ought to hand a print of this chart to her”

      …and someone should hand you the source of that data to you.

      Why did the people who made that graph superimpose a CO₂ proxy with a 30 million year resolution over ice house phases lasting a tiny fraction of that time?

      That’s a little bit dishonest, don’t you think?

      “Calculated paleolevels of atmospheric CO2 from the GEOCARB III model, which models the carbon cycle on long time scales (here a 30 million year resolution).”

      (Berner and Kothavala, “GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO₂ over Phanerozoic Time”, 2001)

      • OregonCityTom

        Silly, CB. How else do you get data from mYa times? Proxies based upon age of rocks, with chemical signatures indicating the availability of CO2. Even you use these numbers, when you liked to the study that claimed that CO2 was at most “a few times” greater than today during the first ice age. Sort of hypocritical to complain about proxies when you use them, too.

        Did your script get too fuzzy to read?

  • M S

    Nice picture in short sleeves, sweetie. That “freezer” is freezing about as much as the globe is warming.

  • Gotham Knight

    Wouldn’t it have made more sense for her to spend a year in an oven?

  • Richard_Wiggler

    “She wants to continue her stay in the freezer till the time the government does something concrete.”
    why not take the freezer, with her in it, and bury it in concrete..

  • djs1138

    Being California… it also stands to reason for the last year there’s been someone living in the box that freezer came in…

  • Greg Kells

    Here’s a nice little theme song for her

  • JJ Orlando

    And all she got was this story in a minor weekly.

  • cjhsa

    What a brain freeze nutjob. I bet her vibrator had batteries.

  • ah.1960

    Look at the picture. She is wearing sunglasses and short sleeves. It is highly unlikely that she is actually staying in the freezer all the time or that the freezer is actually plugged in or is set to “normal” freezer temperatures.

  • doug1961

    How does staying in an artificially air conditioned space raise awareness of anything except the fact this person is an indoctrinated fool?

  • trudat

    Fastest way to stop Global Warming: put an end to migration and breeding. The single largest group of breeders are immigrants. The single biggest threat to the planet is population growth.

  • bioya1

    Just when you thought someone couldn’t be possibly dumber than Hillary…

  • Sheepleherder

    Man is undoubtedly contributing to global warming but has any truly unbiased, unpressured, independent, and QUALIFIED research been done to confirm if we are doing anything even fractionally relevant to the natural processes we have no control over? Near as I can tell, the answer is no … but plenty of folks are sure making a lot of money by pushing the idea that we are. Lots of work by folks with agendas, not much by folks who should be looking at this with clear, unbiased eyes.

  • JCM

    San Francisco Congress Center, where is that. I can’t find it. Where is it?
    She has sunglasses perched on her head, why?
    Why are the stories dated at the end of her year in the freezer, no mention at the beginning or during the “protest”?
    This smell more than a fish left in a broken freezer for a year.

  • John Galt

    Her parents must be so proud. She has a place of her own.

  • BillyHW

    Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

  • powerwiz

    Nice to see the global warming people conducting themselves like the animals they are. Excrementing in a container right next to where you sleep.

    Bravo I am sure now all of us will instantly see the light hold our hands up to the gods and cry.

  • david

    What an idiot

  • david

    what a waste of time. She should have spent the year learning the truth about climate. With people like this there is no hope for this country . The real issue we have is liberalism . It is more destructive tha nanything.

  • david

    I would say her mental condition was strained before she went into the cooler.

  • Reid Blackwell

    Is this the Onion?

  • oldspeak

    I wonder if “activists” like this have ever taken the time to educate themselves and actually understand the “science” they claim is undeniable? I notice none of them ever speak on the substance of it, just the emotional part of it.

  • FokkerD6

    She’s not doing the planet any harm in an unpluged freezer, I say leave her there.

  • Sonja Smith

    What a moron.

  • jaguar

    How Stupid can you be, she wasted a whole year of her life…and she physically abused her body…you have to exercise in order to keep your muscles functioning properly… What a moron!

  • 2Honest

    Wow what a way to make a difference. I bet her parents are proud. All of that time and money and her daughter is not only an idiot but she wants the whole world to know it too.

  • Wild Hog

    Let me see, I don’t want to work and have no tangible talent, so how can I feel important and be my lazy azz, worthless true self at the same time? I know, I’ll be an environmentalist.

  • ricardo_maxwell

    Wouldn’t it be nice if they all spent eternity in the freezer?

  • ✓Rex Manning

    I wish someone would do that around here so I could pi$$ on them and then bolt the lid shut.

    Do we need anymore proof that liberals are insane?

    Sometimes violence is the answer.

  • Vee_Kay

    She is just tired of paying her high electric bill for air conditioning. This way she gets someone else to pay.

  • agreatsign

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

  • GaryT

    It’s ok, the nearest taxpayer funded, mental health facility is keeping a bed warm for her.


    Since she is insane – and clearly mentally ill – I agree with democrats that she should not be able to own a firearm.

  • jaz

    A year ago these idiots said the Maldives would be under water by now. So, she traded a year of her life away for a fairy tale and all the frozen fish sticks she could eat. Some day she’s going to wake up and feel pretty freaking stupid!

  • The Masked Avatar

    So typical of liberals. Stunts, photo ops and slogans … never committing to actual action that would get results. No substance.

  • NavyVet1964

    I am sure this “freezer” is powered only by solar and wind power, and all her clothing is recycled grocery bags.

  • TimeHasCome

    The poster girl of the Nutty Left.

  • Greg Kells

    On a side note, what is the modern preoccupation with “raising awareness” all about? It seems to me that the best way to make someone aware of something is to point directly at it and say “hey look at that !” Instead we have people wearing different colored rubber bands, plastering ribbons on everything they own, dumping water on each other, and now living in freezers. Not that any of that is doing any harm, but it is it really doing any good, other than providing jobs for people who make rubber bands and ribbons?

  • I call hoax. One year in and just now trending? Plus 1) She’s to pink and healthy for a year like that and 2) I don’t care how young you are she would be locked up and crippled from that. Go try to punk someone else dear.

    • Jim West

      I tend to agree.

  • 1911

    goes into a freezer – how much Co2 did that put into the atmoshpere to keep it running?

  • Cajun Exile

    It is difficult to determine who is the most silly. the woman in the freezer of the author of the article. Both demonstrate ample evidence of severe mind-numbing stupidity.

  • Human8675309

    What an idiot… Doing something stupid to support falsified data and out right lying by scientist on the hook to say what government wants them to say or lose their funding for their grants. All in the name of socialism and stealing from the hard workers of the world, to give to the lazies of the world.

  • AH_C

    Must not be effective as this is the first I heard of it after supposedly spending a year. Whatevs.

  • Curmudgeon

    Awesome. Come out and announce you just spent a full year in that little chest. Don’t tell anyone beforehand. Just say “yup, just logged a full year in that little box. I crapped in there and everything…you believe me? Great!”.

  • Tangair

    Please, please plug-in that freezer!

  • Jim Sweet

    Can she just hand me an Eskimo Pie?

  • Kurt Smith

    seriously this is for an SNL skit, right?

  • J Lu

    Now if we can just get the rest of her fellow loons inside a freezer as well.

  • Hillaryfarsalot

    Someone should have unplugged the freezer. A needlessly running freezer uses electricity which is produced by burning fossil fuel.

    This dumb libette is stupider than WasserschitnSchultz, Hillary, Fauxpohantas, Oprah and Boxer combined!

  • yvehc_telorvehc

    these are the crazy one’s that are great in the sack but you have to leave town- with a generous trail of falsehoods about yourself that you’d carefully cultivated since the moment you knew she was batsh1t crazy- when you break up with her.

  • me1952

    You expect what from California.

  • Poisoned1

    Brainwashed into stupidity…when she figures out its global cooling..she will kill herself

  • Poor, crazy girl…..I would go down there and show her it’s a carbon credit scam and she does no good hiding in a freezer. At least try to help her…damn!

  • yvehc_telorvehc

    forcing herself to sit in that thing, day after day for a damn year, must’ve surely made her mental illness worsen… i bet she muttered something like, “i’m a coconut ice cream… i’m a coconut ice cream” continuously for a year.

  • DirtyHarry.44

    Just buy her a one way ticket to Antarctica and she can stay there until she freezes or the sun warms it up so she could spend the day at the beach in a bikini. What a nutcase, wasting her life away stuffed inside a small freezer. Symbolism over substance.

  • xerakis

    LOL, another left wing piece of garbage who will do anything not to work and produce, so instead takes up a scam to be supported by the forced redistribution of the producers to the lazy/stupid and unabashed….beyond pathetic! the left has no pride or shame , and that will be there downfall!

  • Pegleg Pinelli


  • Fried Chicken

    Proves the point that progressive want to live in cages and be told what to do. Very dangerous.

  • Huge Knuts

    Liberal and no job. Big surprise.

  • yvehc_telorvehc

    what are the sunglasses for? to protect against snow blindness?

  • ProudHillbilly

    Somebody please lock the thing the next time she goes in.

  • yobobbyb

    Hey, at least it kept her from propagating and passing on her mutant genes for a year. We should buy a freezer for any lib who wishes to live in one.

    • Verbotene Gedanken

      I know a couple street people who’d kill for that place…


  • Verbotene Gedanken

    More pertinent today that *ever* before.

    “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”
    – H. L. Mencken

    I’m beginning to think we need a near-extinction event to cull these people from the herd…

  • bonetired

    Idiocy truly knows no bounds.

  • John Galt

    Wow, what an idiot. In a world teeming with abominations, she chooses to protest a made-up one.

  • aPEON

    I will donate to keep her their

  • Fire Marshall Bill

    I’ll bet the little lemming drove home in her car each nite & turned up the heat in her home.

  • Zoey Nestor

    Let’s think about this for a minute, seriously.

    This wacked out Hillaryite is taking a YEAR of her life to park her warped butt in a freezer to protest a bogus concept?


    She makes Republicans seem almost rational.

  • Becca

    The story is b/s…she only stayed in the freezer a few minutes of each day for 12 months, while the power cord was unplugged, while she went home each day. Phony stunt, phony story.

  • carl6352

    must be getting stinky in there if she won’t come out to be smiling. i am also sure it’s unplugged. hey stay in there till the ice age comes!

  • N37BU6 .

    “Stop the climate from changing!”

    I can’t fathom the egotism…

  • libsarescum


  • hammerstamp

    She should stay in there until the next ice age.

  • So Cal Guest

    Carbon dioxide is essential for life and the ecosystem. Plant more trees – gheesh.

  • Major

    Unfortunately when she grows up she will realize the damage she did to herself mentally and physically. Unfortunately for us she has chosen a self destructive way to communicate and we will have to pay for it in the form of disability checks.

  • Brutus974

    She must have forgotten to plug it in.

  • Brutus974

    That’s the leftie mentality for you:
    “Somebody has to do something,” followed by doing something stupid.

  • Bulldog

    I thought it was global warming. Why couldn’t they have stuck her in a oven for a year?

  • AuH2O

    She “even relieved herself inside the small chest freezer”….LOL truly crazy.

  • Carbonicus

    Poor puerile ideologue Eco-Leftist.

    Imagine her anger when she finds out the whole thing was a scientific fraud!!!

    • Dano2

      Hapless Polluto-Rightist has zero facts to support its beliefs or validate its self-identity.



  • Fishsnot

    Actually, YOUR sacrifice for a better world, as you state it, might be suicide. Ever think of that, my dear?

  • Deez Nuts

    Does she have those sunglasses on for when the imagined throngs of reporters show up to photograph her?

  • Peter

    It never happened. See where the photo came from.

    • Yup

      That’s disturbing. This does not bode well for our future on this planet. Time to play a hit DEVO song. Jocko Homo.

    • Zach Smith

      Those pictures definitely bring out my claustrophobia.

  • What a freaking moron. I guess she doesn’t have a job. Taxpayers probably foot her bills for her, or maybe she comes from a rich family and she leeches off them.

  • FiaT__LuX

    How is this woman not being taken into custody for mental health issues. Everyone in the world can see that she is crazy, yet the authorities allow her to abuse herself in public.

  • Cornholio

    “Danish filmmaker, Hans Mitzbërg, has already decided to make a documentary about her militant action.” Another moron looking to make a buck from her idiocy. Good luck toots, grab me a Ben and Jerry’s Chunky Monkey while you’re in there…idiot.

  • Tami Morris

    Liberalism is most definitely a mental disorder.

  • PropaneC3H8

    And yet life goes on.

  • Jim West

    I don’t believe this. No one could be this deluded.

  • Shears-of-Atropos

    Wonderful. She’s making a point by staying in a freezer (why not an oven? It’s about global “warming” isn’t it?), and ignores the carbon required to produce the electricity to keep that freezer cold.


  • Jim West

    She likely has not spent the entire time there. Wouldn’t she be more pasty white and unhealthy looking if she was sedentary that long?

  • Larry Taylor

    You want to show real activism? Put a lock on the outside of it.

  • Sniffachoo

    Wow, that must be an exciting documentary! I can’t wait to have the friends over to watch some mindless college clone living in a deli-case. I’m sure the intellectual stimulation will be inspiring. beyond words.

  • Jim West

    Miss Martens says, “My sacrifice is necessary for a better world”.

    Delusions of grandeur, She believes she is some super-hero or something. She thinks she is single-handedly saving the world through her sacrifice.
    I would agree it is a sacrifice but, really, it is all for naught. Poor girl wasting some of the best years of her youth.

  • I’d be willing to bet she has trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time…

  • n301

    There is a bright side; while in the freezer, she can’t breed. Small place. We have plenty of idiots to go around

  • Alamo

    That doesn’t make any sense, even if this was true? There actually are already vast numbers of Americans who are all living inside of small rooms where they also sleep, eat and go to the bathroom and some have lived inside for decades and all are in there against their will in our staggering number of prisons and some people are even innocent, but why would this insane person sitting in a freezer care about all people who really live in cells not that much bigger really?

  • compustrat

    Hah Drudge doesn’t even realize this is a fake story! No wonder his crowd thinks Ben Carson and Trump have good ideas!

    • Jeeprn

      Yet you linked to it from Drudge, too.

  • I would respectfully suggest that what we have here is a hoax article which missed the April Fool’s day deadline by over 6 months.

  • Mike Smith

    I think the Herald Weekly has been spoofed.

    There is no San Francisco Congress Center and no film maker called Hans Mitzbërg.

    The photo was copied from this page:

  • DFDalton

    Quick. Somebody close the lid. You’re letting the stupid out.

  • VertexWolf

    This is why men rule the planet. What a mental basket case, global warming isn’t even real, it’s actually global cooling for the next 15-20 years. LMAO!

  • Sally Shears

    Gosh, this is an efficient way to prove a point! I mean, the amount of natural resources used to power that freezer for a year pales in comparison to all the jet fuel our superiors such as Bono, DeCaprio, Gore, and Obama use to fly to Global Warming/Cooling/Change conferences, concerts, Tahiti, Bahamas, Hawaii and the like

  • 57Bootsy

    Somebody lock that thing up……

  • RollingBlockShooter

    It’s too bad she could not spend a year in the church and with the parishioners where the shootings occurred in Charleston, SC. If she did she would learn a lot about what the world is really about!

  • Jeff Justice


  • muffychops

    Idiots abound…

  • 57Bootsy

    Plus, that thing is a cooler, not a freezer. If she was in a real freezer for any serious length of time, she sure as hell wouldn’t be smiling. Another batch of $hit brought to you by the libtard-tree-hugging commies.

  • Jeeprn

    Hoax. Besides, the two measurements given would only be area (square feet) where a freezer/box would have volume requiring three measurements (cubic feet).

    • breerb

      99% of the people here have no idea what you are talking about….

      • Jeeprn

        Exactly. That’s why they believe this global warming bull droppings.

  • breerb


  • will_ford

    make sure an put the temp on 0 Degrees an LOCK the doors!

  • John in OK

    Another idiot liberal who thinks that her meaningless gesture makes her superior to everyone else. Never mind that she has accomplished absolutely nothing.

  • breerb

    GLOBAL = All over the entire world…..EVERYWHERE ON EARTH
    WARMING = Rising temps…..
    HOW are record cold temps possible ANYWHERE, if temps are rising EVERYWHERE…
    Democrats can’t even name their lies w/o lying……

    • Jeeprn

      Since when did logic get in the way of true insanity?

      • Yup

        It hasn’t, that’s why there are Climate Change Cultists.

        • Jeeprn

          “Climate Change Cultists” is an excellent description. Hope you don’t mind my using it.

          • Yup

            Go right ahead. It’s even more fun when you are challenged by one of them, then you connect the dots.

            ….and Al Gore is the high priest of the Cult of Climate Change.

    • JRjr

      But…But…But…George Bush…..

      • Jeeprn

        George Bush has been gone for 7 years. Give it a rest and

        • JRjr

          But ….But….But….Dick Channey….

          • Jeeprn

            Really? Again?

          • JRjr

            You still don’t get it do you.

          • Jeeprn


          • JRjr

            Maybe you should go to the Moveon website. They are good at lies.

          • Jeeprn

            OOOOH! What a burn.

          • Jeeprn

            My apologies JRjr. Mistook you for someone else.

    • Dano2

      Get yourself some science and maths.



  • Killroy101

    So now the nut jobs have to come out of the freezer

  • Judge Doom

    Does that gig come with free ice cream?

  • JRjr

    Here is an inconvenient fact:
    When Barak Oblow recently visted the Mendenhal glacier, none of the news outlets reported that the retreating glacier just exposed tree trunks, still attached to the ground, that grew during the warming period, from 900ad-1300ad.
    That means that the glacier naturally retreated during the warming period, allowed the trees to grow, then re-grew during the mini ice age between 1600-1710 and covered them back up.

    PROOF Globull warming is a crock.

    • breerb

      yore raycessists, an thoughs trre rootz be raycessists…

      • JRjr

        Facts are facts. I guess that means I am “raycissts”.

  • Judge Doom

    Poor thing has been brainwashed by the public schools and the media.

    She’s too young to have experienced many summers and winters. She’s probably not well traveled, either.

    So she makes an idiot of herself, and becomes a poster-girl moron.

  • Judge Doom

    The mentally ill sure are getting a lot of face time as “normal heroes” these days.

  • Pepperjack


  • TexasTeaFinder

    This chick has wayyyyyy too much time on her hands.

  • breerb

    I had multiple Thermodynamics Classes in College, and am a Licensed Professional Engineer and can tell you unequivocally that “man made global warming” has absolutely no basis in reality with regard to the LAWS of Thermodynamics……
    Now you can trust me, or you can trust some jackas$ Democrat who doesn’t even know what the term thermodynamics even means.
    Maybe one of you ridiculous Democoward clowns could explain how “HEAT IS HIDING IN THE OCEANS”….from a Thermodynamic perspective….

    • Joe Dick

      As a graduate of Purdue in Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering, I too took lots of thermodynamics and studied atmospheric science as well. I agree. It’s all bunk.

      • breerb

        aaahhh wet bulb, dry bulb, RH, psychometric charts….

  • JRjr

    Honey, please do the rest of us a favor and stay in the freezer. You should not be allowed to reproduce.

  • breerb

    Climate and Weather are synonyms…..Unless GOOGLE is lying about “CLIMATE DEFINITION”….

  • breerb

    the very same heat HIDING IN THE OCEANS, froze a shipload of GLOBAL WARMING LIARS into the RECORD SUMMER SEA ICE…..while they were studying the “disappearing sea ice”… Antarctica…..

  • breerb


  • 2cruise2

    Parents? Probably, loonie left professors or some such. Too busy campaigning for Bernie to care that she’s wasting her youth in a freezer.

  • Jon Fye

    and she is likely on welfare to have all that time on her hands.

  • flying dachshund

    i guess when youre dead because youve spent the last couple of years living inside a freezer then you wont have to worry about GW anymore.

  • Joe Dick

    Dear Hearald Weekly,

    As others have pointed out below, we doubt the freezer is actually running, as she is in short sleeves. I personally doubt she spent a year in it, as she appears clean and well-groomed. Also, if it is a proper freezer, how does she get enough air? Or does it have air holes for ventilation to complete the fraud?

    Shame on you for publicising this. If some kid crawls into a freezer to emulate her stunt and suffocates or actually freezes to death, will you take responsibility? Magicians always say, “You should never, ever try this at home” for a reason. I see no such warnings in your article, so again, shame on you!

  • Vladimir Jones

    Wow, if only we could get all loopy lefties to spend the next year in the freezer, or preferably, all the way through the next election.

  • Bob Bradley

    I think it would be better if her kind spent a year (or at least till done) in a pizza oven to protest global warming. I wonder if she’s getting her full govt bennies?

  • Bill Boinkr

    What an idiot and I bet her freezer smelt so good as she was relieving herself in there. Yuck

  • Ruckweiler

    These lefties ARE nuts!

  • The silent one

    eco-fascists. they want to implement a carbon tax for each person. its all about control.

  • breerb

    Rachael Madcow just said we should all vote for Hillary because she has a vuh-gina…..

  • Crystal Rose

    Libtards can do that, they don’t work! They collect from the stupid taxpayers to live as they please!!!

  • Fecal Matter

    If she is really worried about carbon dioxide emissions she needs to realize that she emits CO2 when she breathes out…… she could do something about that……and besides what kind of life is that…..what does she do for money?

  • Pentax Princess

    It is finally been proven. Liberalism is a mental disorder. What kind of nut does this? Doesn’t she have a job or financial obligations? It would be great if there was a long-term power outage and her freezer started to warm up?

  • authemis

    as if global warming cares, even if it existed.

  • BobL

    It’s difficult to believe a human being could turn out this stupid.

    • MisterWonderful

      Not really.

      They’re usually labeled “activists”.


  • MisterWonderful

    You can’t fix Stupid.
    And whatever the high water mark was for Stupid, this nitwit just set a new high.

  • Deserttrek

    an obama and hillary voter for sure

  • bo1921

    So if we go into a mini ice-age is she going to live in a tanning bed?

  • Joe_E_in_the_IE

    Then the scene faded from color to black and white while the camera swung 180 degrees, stopping on a medium shot of a short man with black hair in a perfectly tailored Kuppenheimer suit. A lit Chesterfield smoldered in his right hand as he addressed the camera in deep sonorous tones that belied his lack of height:

    “Submitted for your approval, . . . “

  • Stilla Finch

    what an idiot. wasting her life on a lie.

    • zlop

      She just wants attention, similar to an anorexic.

  • Tootrue4you

    Big deal.
    Who cares?
    So what?
    Accomplished nothing.
    All of the above.

  • Truthsayer

    What the Fa……. #1 Does she really think this would work? #2 Does anyone actually believe this article?

  • Robert C

    Is this site the Onion with bad photoshop?

  • Carbonicus

    Hmmm. I suppose she’ll change to a sauna when she grows up and gets some intellect and realizes we’re headed for the next Little Ice Age.

  • Ben Around

    She’s adapting to the coming ice age. Smart woman.

    • Dano2

      Ridiculous assertion.



  • AmazonRedHead

    My first thought was, “Boy, bet it was RIPE inside that freezer if she didn’t bathe for a year.” Blech.

  • planet8788

    FTA: Danish filmmaker, Hans Mitzbërg, has already decided to make a documentary about her militant action.

    Uh… Yeah… sign her up for the military…. What a stupid sentence. Nothing militant about being a corndog.

  • Ralph1001

    And we have another climate alarmist fake story.

  • Midas Mulligan

    What a moron.

  • J_Waller

    It seems obvious that this has to be a hoax. She is not dressed for those temperatures. She could not eat, the food would be hard and COLD. She could not drink as there would be no liquid that be healthy for her to drink. She would be at risk from suffocation. What about toilet issues?? Doing it in that environment would be painful, if at all possible.

  • Rho

    It’s a hoax.

  • Scott Tate

    How us it possible to describe the idiocy of this woman this this story. Was she in an operating freezer for a year? Wouldn’t she be frozen? Why does this story have any legs at all?

  • Gary Gold

    Where did she take a dump?

  • Ronald Barbour

    HOAX! But it’s impressive how many people actually believe a Leftard POS would do a crazy stunt like this one 🙂

  • grrretchen

    She appears to be pretty, but I wonder what she smells like. And are those sunglasses on her head?

  • barrashee

    The extremes some people will go to to avoid dealing with real life. And a real lack of warming.

  • brantc

    CB, its too bad the earth is an open system. You can post all climate alarmism you want but the earth is influenced by the solar wind as well as the ocean is heated from deep inside the earth…
    Mans CO2 signal is in the noise….

  • Ron Barringer

    I hope she just stays there.

    • zlop

      “I hope she just stays there.”?

      You do not want to deprogram her? Are you a psychopath, have no empathy, for a woman demented by the propaganda of the Rothschild, Gore and Blood, Carbon Tax extortion racketeers?

  • Ben Simpson

    That won’t educate anyone or change even one person’s actions. Ice ice baby.