(The question is there climate change is no question at all, it is a fact.
The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing and continually has gone from ice-ages to far, far warmer periods.
Anyone who doubts this not only foolish, they are blind to the facts.
However, to now claim the current warming trend is the result of man-made carbon dioxide and other gases. like methane, is as blind to the facts.
The author of the article below is an expert on the subject, and speaks for many other scientists who have not been corrupted by the political and economic powers pushing a climate change agenda for their own purposes.
And since all the major media outlets are controlled by those same powers their message, and not the one of fact and truth, has now been accepted by most people.
Nothing could be further than the truth as the article below makes abundantly clear.
Man-made climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is a scam and a hoax and until the average joe and jane wakes up to the truth this nonsense will continue to corrupt the sceintific community, which depends on grants from those same economic and political powers, and more importantly will corrupt politicians worldwide who too are dependent upon them for campaign contributions.
Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom is not the only scientist to speak out against man-made climate change and any curious reader can verify hundreds of others are, like him, brave enough, and knowledgeable enough, to likewise add their voices.
As Dr Karlstrom so eloquently put it:
"“The idea of a carbon footprint is pathetic and ludicrous propaganda, since CO2 is beneficial for life...(and) went on to explain the “global warming” hysteria, and it’s ultimate agenda:
“Global warming is phony science that was concocted to justify implementation of an international political agenda. The idea of using ‘man-caused global warming’ as a ‘surrogate for war’ and as a way to ‘destroy excess wealth’ originated in American and UN-related think tanks such as the Club of Rome back in the 60’s and 70’s.
This pseudo-science is the centerpiece of a phony environmental movement by which the UN hopes to redistribute wealth in the world (toward the super-rich and away from the people) to de-industrialize the industrialized countries (via the UN Kyoto Protocol-type carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes, etc.), and radically reduce the human population.”
Dr Karlstrom's original article can be found here:
RK has long known what a fraud man-made climate change is, what the reasons for it are, and what is the agenda behind it, and we believe it is time for everyone to learn the truth.)
Open letter to
policy makers, colleagues, students, and citizens.
the hypothesis of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming):
And proofs that AGW is a fraud.
Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom,
Professor of Geography (webmaster
University, Stanislaus, November, 2010
In this paper, I document some of the many disproofs of the
hypothesis of unprecedented, catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In the process, I demonstrate that AGW
is and has always been a fraud. I also:
2) Demonstrate that there is no consensus amongst scientists
in support of the AGW hypothesis.
3) Show that natural climate fluctuations have had a far
greater influence than humans on the climate system and that the claimed rate
of modern warming (0.6°
C in the 20th century) is well within the normal range for natural
4) Show that atmospheric CO2 does not drive
temperatures and plays a minor role in the climate system.
5) Discuss the historical benefits of relatively warm
climates vs. more damaging colder climates.
6) Demonstrate that human contributions of CO2 to
the atmosphere are minor (about 3.5%) as compared with nature’s contributions. And water vapor is by far the most
important greenhouse gas.
7) Detail the many ways in which science fraud has been systematically
and is still being used to create
the common misperceptions associated with AGW.
8) Discuss problems and limitations of the GCMs (global
climate models) that provide the basis of the alarmist claims of human-induced
9) Expose the fallacies of the many propaganda ploys,
including melting glaciers, rising sea levels, die-off of polar bears, increase
in extreme weather, etc., that are now commonly attributed to AGW.
10) Speculate on the political, economic, and social agendas
served by the AGW fraud.
Over the past twenty years, governments of the world have
spent $100’s of billions on “research” ($50 to 60 billion in US alone)
expressly to validate the hypothesis of AGW. This is in order to justify “the largest regulatory
intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human
activity” (Horner, 2010). Today,
however, this hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven by the scientific
evidence. Most people understand one
of the most basic rules of science is that when a hypothesis is disproven by the
facts, that hypothesis is invalidated and must be discarded. As Thomas Huxley noted:
The great tragedy in science- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by
an ugly fact.
Meteorologist Brian Sussman stated:
Mankind's burning of fossil
fuels is allegedly warming the planet.
This hypothesis couldn't stand the test of an eighth grade science
fair. (But) if you dare poke holes
in the hypothesis you're branded a 'denier’. Well fine. I'd rather be called a 'denier' than try to push a
scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy.
Now that satellite, radiosonde balloon, and new ocean measurements
all show the world has been cooling since about 1998, the dire warnings of catastrophic
“global warming” have been changed to dire warnings about catastrophic “climate
change” or “climate disruption.” That the normal processes of science are
not being followed, indeed, have been turned upside down, is a strong
indication that this hypothesis serves some very important political/economic
Why has there been this persistent bias toward humans,
rather than natural processes, as the main cause of climate change? If we look at article 1 of the United
Nations Environmental Program of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC): we see that
this bias is incorporated into their very definition of “climate change:”
change: A change of climate which
is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural
climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
This operational definition, adopted by the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), excludes research into or
consideration of natural climate variability, which, as we shall see, is of far
greater importance than any human contributions.
President Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address, warned not
only of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He also warned of the potential dangers
that could arise if/when the state sanctions particular scientific views:
The prospect of domination of the
nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of
money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded… We must… be alert to the… danger that public policy could itself
become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
This statement perhaps best explains why the hypothesis of
AGW persists today is considered a fact by many, even though it is disproven by
a mountain of scientific evidence.
Briefly stated, the AGW hypothesis is: Human
industrial activities, primarily emissions of carbon dioxide by industry and
transportation, are causing Earth’s climate to warm in an unprecedented and
catastrophic manner. The United
Nations IPCC computer models predict global warming of 1°
F/decade and 5-6° C (10-12°
F) by 2100. In State of Climate
in 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claims
the world is still heating up, even during the past decade when averaged
temperatures have dropped.
Over and over, IPCC officials, politicians, movie stars, and
especially the media tell us that “the science is settled” and we must act now
to avert catastrophe. The alarmist
rhetoric from prominent politicians, scientists and environmental groups has
reached a fever pitch:
Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than
combating climate change. The
science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear… We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the
future of our planet is at stake.
Humanity is sitting on a time
bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major
catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin
of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, catastrophe of our own making… I think we ought to have an immediate freeze on CO2 emissions.
Former Vice President Al Gore,
from “An Inconvenient Truth” and Congressional testimony
We are getting close to
catastrophic tipping points, despite the fact that most people barely notice
the warming yet.
James Hansen, NASA scientist
Climate Change is the greatest threat that human civilization has ever
Merkel, German Chancellor
The planet is on course for a
catastrophe. The existence of Life
itself is at stake.
Principal Research Scientist
Man-made global warming has a potential to kill everybody. Michael
This is an emergency... It’ll make world war look like heaven.
candidate John Edwards
Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe- but
can still be saved, according to a new report.
World Wildlife Fund for Nature, 2007
(Prince Charles has
calculated that we have just 100 months to avert catastrophe, whereas James
Hansen says 4 years).
Even as politicians
and media scare us with this kind of alarmist rhetoric, prominent individuals
such as film director James Cameron and Google CEO Eric Schmidt try to silence
debate by asserting that it is “criminal” to question global warming:
If business as usual
continues…. We will have extincted (sic) 70% of the species on the planet by
the end of the century. There are
people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science. People need to evolve mentally and
philosophically to something that has never existed before. We need to become the techno-indigenous
people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet.
However, I would
argue that the real “consensus” amongst scientists today is that the AGW
hypothesis is disproven by the evidence and therefore, needs to be
discarded. Although this
point of view is not well covered in the media, here’s what some real experts
The Global warming scam, with the
(literally) trillions of dollars driving it, has corrupted so many scientists,
and has carried the APS (American Physical Society) before it like a rogue
wave. Global warming is the
greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long
Dr. Harold Lewis, Emeritus
Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara
To reduce modern climate change
to one variable (CO2) or, more correctly, a small portion of one
variable (i.e., human-produced CO2) is not science, especially as it
requires abandoning all we know about planet Earth, the Sun and the cosmos.
Earth Science Professor Ian
Plimer, author of Heaven and Earth; Global Warming: the Missing Science
The global warming alarm is
dressed up as science, but it is not science. It is propaganda.
Professor Paul Reiter, world
expert on tropical diseases at Pasteur Institute, Paris, member of United Nations
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
The public has been repeatedly
misled that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. Totally false. Unfortunately, man-made climate change,
or anthropogenic global warming as it’s more commonly known, has become a
political issue rather than a scientific one. Those who want you to accept that humans have caused climate
change have a not-so-hidden agenda of imposing carbon taxes here in the United
States that will cripple our economy and make us even more unable to compete
with other nations.
Chemist Glenn Speck, Oklahoma City Isotek Environmental Lab
In my dealings with meteorologists nationwide, about 95% share my
skepticism about global warming.
meteorologists Dan Webster
“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to
increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's
NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the
Apollo 17 mission. formerly U.S. Geological Survey
I personally cannot in good faith
continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by
pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.
expert, Dr. Christopher Landsea, as he withdrew from the IPCC in 2005
I predict that the IPCC
experience will end up being the worst case of scientific malpractice in
history…. žIf the new President and Congress are not
careful, the resulting “sub-prime science meltdown” we are headed for will have
caused carbon dioxide regulations which will make the current financial crisis
seem puny by comparison.
Meteorologist and Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer
How can a barely discernable,
one-degree F. increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late
19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather
catastrophes? And how can it
translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with
misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate
science into a triangle of alarmism.
Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a
vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers
who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the
political stakes. Indeed, the
success of scientific alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending
on climate research from a few million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion (per
year) today. Scientists who
dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work
derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or
worse. Consequently, lies about
climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that
supposedly is their basis.
carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream.
If you control carbon you control life… One of the things the scientific
community is pretty agreed on is those things (carbon taxes, etc.) will have
virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions
of dollars to have no impact?
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the
early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over
a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on
the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections
combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the
meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen
Governmental officials are currently casting trillions down huge rat
hole to solve a problem which doesn’t exist. It’s misapplied atmospheric science for profit. It
is an expanding profit-making industry, growing in proportion to the horror
warnings by government officials
and former vice-presidents.
Tom McElmurry, member of the American Meteorological Society
The new religion of global warming… is a great story, and a phenomenal best seller. It contains a grain of truth and a
mountain of nonsense. And that
nonsense could be very damaging indeed.
We appear to have entered a new age of unreason, which threatens to be
as economically harmful as it is profoundly disquieting. It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.
Lawson, p. 106, “An Appeal to Reason:
A Cool Look at Global Warming,” 2008
How have we come to
universally accept this new religion based on dubious prophecy that condemns so
many poor souls to a living hell and will greatly limit the salvation offered
by free economies? That's where
the missionaries come in. These
missionaries, aka ‘teachers’ and
‘professors,’ have gone out into the fields of the education system to
disseminate the depressing gospel that the Earth is forever in big
trouble. Thus, with sustained
indoctrination from grade school through graduate school, proselytes have been
Anthony J. Sadar
I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming]
or that we can fix it.
I maintain that statements, like this, by top international
scientists available on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works website (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minotrity.SentateReport)
indicate a more accurate range of opinion by top scientists and others who now understand
that the policies being proposed to “fix” the climate (including Kyoto
Protocol-type legislation and geo-engineering) would not “fix” the climate at
all. Rather, they would be
mechanisms for increased governmental control of society and life itself that
would likely be far more damaging than any possible “climate change:”
Man cannot control the weather. But he can kill millions of people in
his vain attempt to control it, by limiting or eliminating the fuel that we
Edward F. Blick, Professor of Meterology and Engineering at University of Oklahoma
Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in
the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of
Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan
This issue has now
been with us long enough (several decades) that many thoughtful individuals now
perceive the “bigger picture:”
As a biologist, I am aware of a number
of cases in which science has been led in directions not based on hard
evidence. Examples include Malthus
and the Malthusian Theory, Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union, and eugenics in
the U.S. and elsewhere. Kyoto is a
failure and a new approach is badly needed.
Biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. Lynwood Yarbrough,
National Institutes of Health
Man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future
and the future of our children.
Environmentalism is the new communism.
Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic and new leader
of the European Union
The new green left (environmentalist)
propaganda reminds me of the old red left (communist) propaganda. The dirty word is now carbon rather than
capitalism. The game is simply to intrude and control everything. How much will the carbon tax be for
each of us to breathe?
Vincent U. Muirhead, emeritus professor,
aerospace engineering, University of Kansas
The urge to save humanity is almost always a
false front for the urge to rule.
aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed- and hence clamorous
to be led to safety- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all
of them imaginary.
Historically, the claim of consensus has
been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming
that the matter is already settled. . . Let’s be clear:
the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the
business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are
great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Crichton, author of State of Fear
Science seems to have become the Great
Dictator, and no dissent can be allowed. We refer to this as the New Scientism.
We call it new to distinguish it
from the old sort - the sort that, ironically enough, was organized by U.S.
imperialism in the Cold War. As
with the original Cold War scientism, the New Scientism perverts objective
science towards questionable political ends. Ironically, greens now rehabilitate the Cold War scientism
of RAND, which they affect to hate so much, so as to legitimize not the Cold
War, but today's war on personal behaviour - the war to colonize people's
minds, make them internalize green mores, and make them spend all their time
buying (and repairing) windmills, sorting their rubbish, and turning off their
consumer electronics equipment. Instead
of rationing access to fallout shelters, David Miliband wants a nationwide
scheme to ration carbon.
have used the IPCC summary to assert that the debate on climate change is over.
In part, this stems from the
proclamations of the IPCC itself and its supporters. For example, Achim Steiner said that 2 February, the day the
summary was published, would be ‘remembered as the day the question mark was
removed'. Anyone interested in
genuine scientific inquiry, not to mention political debate, should always be
concerned when question marks are removed.
of the problem with today's supposed consensus on climate science is not so
much a false claim to knowledge of how climate works, as an assertion that such
knowledge can tell us how to live our lives. In this sense, the real consensus
on climate change today is more political than scientific. It is a consensus
that privileges emotional fears of loss and which is based on apocalyptic
thinking and doubt about humanity's achievements and capabilities.
James Woudhuysen, a professor of Forecasting
and Innovation at De Montfort University in Britain
Disproofs of the hypothesis
Climate is always changing
and temperatures always fluctuate; daily, seasonally, and on longer time scales
The commonly accepted 0.6° C (1° F) average warming on
Earth during the 20th century is quite small compared to daily and
seasonal fluctuations, fluctuations in average ocean temperatures over the past
3000 years, etc., as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Comparison between the current U.S. temperature change per
century, the 3,000-year temperature range (of Figure 4), seasonal and diurnal
temperature range in Oregon, and seasonal and diurnal range throughout the
Earth. From Robinson et al. (2007).
2. The “modern warming” (~1850 to present)
is not unprecedented at all. It is quite small relative to past,
natural climate changes. Based on
past climate records, it is well within the range of natural climate
There has been a natural warming trend
of ~0.5 C/century since 1750
AD, as the world recovered from the Little Ice Age (~1350 to 1850 AD). Dr. Reid Bryson, Professor of
Physical Geography at University of Wisconsin, who is commonly called the
“father of scientific climatology” and “the world’s most cited climatologist,” stated:
You can go outside and spit and
have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide… All this argument is the
temperature going up or not, it’s absurd.
Of course it’s going up. It
has gone up since the early 1800’s, before the Industrial Revolution, because
we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon
dioxide into the air.
Reconstructions of average Earth temperatures over the past
2000 and 3000 years (Figures 2 and 3, respectively)
indicate that today’s temperatures are well within the range of natural
Figure 2. Craig Loehle
used 18 proxy records to produce this graph of average Earth temperatures over
the past 2000 years. The graph
clearly shows the world was warmer 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm
Period and cooler 300 years ago during the Little Ice Age. We started warming long before
coal-powered electricity was invented.
Figure 3. The last 1000
years of Arctic temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations (from NASA
data). Graph shows that average
Arctic temperature about 1000 years ago (Medieval Warm Period) was about 1° C higher than present. There is no correlation with CO2 levels.
Figure 3. Surface
temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the
Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as
determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the
bottom of the sea. The horizontal
line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate
Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from
the mean. (From Robinson et al.,
Superimposed on the “modern warming”
trend of the past ~150
year, there have been shorter-term ~30-year
fluctuations. Recently, these
include: cooling from 1882 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1944, cooling from
1944 to 1975, and warming from 1975 to 2001.
Figure 4, below (from Dr. Syun Kasofu (2009,
International Conference on Climate Change)) shows observed temperature
fluctuations between 1880 and 2000.
It also contrasts 1) United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) projections to 2100, and 2) future temperature trends based on a
linear projection of observed past temperatures.
Figure 4. This figure,
from Dr. Syun Kasofu (2009, International Conference on Climate Change) shows
observed temperature fluctuations between 1880 and 2000 and 1) IPCC projections
to 2100, and 2) future temperature trends based on linear projection of past
observed temperatures. We
are where the green arrow points.
Professor Don Easterbrook has traced
this ~27-year cycle back to 1470
5) and attributes these cycles to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
(PDO), the cyclic changes in temperature of the northern Pacific Ocean which
are ultimately probably driven by changes in solar output. (Many of the world’s climate experts
agree that, at least for decadal-century-long climate fluctuations, changes in
solar output and ocean temperatures are probably the most important climate
Figure 5. Alternating climatic warming and cooling has occurred about
every 27 years since 1470 AD, well before atmospheric CO2 began to
Over the past 10,000 years, warmer
climate prevailed during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~9,000 to 5,000 years ago),
to 1200 BC), the Roman Warming (~250
BC to AD 450) and the Medieval Warm Period (~900 to 1300 AD) (Figure
6). Average temperatures
during the Holocene Climatic Optimum are estimated to have been ~1.5 to 3 degrees C higher
than today with sea levels ~2
m higher than present. Average
temperatures during the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods
are estimated to have been ~1
to 3° and even as much as 6° C higher than present (Plimer,
Figure 6. Mean
global temperature variations of past ~10,000
years (Holocene Epoch), showing warm events.
Other natural warming and cooling
events, many of which were of much greater magnitude than the modern warming,
are shown in Figure 7 (from Plimer, 2009).
Figure 7. Some of the important, named natural climate events of the
past 110,000 years (from Plimer, 2009).
Problems in measuring
temperatures and reconstructing global trends.
In all fairness, several problems with
temperature measurement and reconstruction should be noted and
acknowledged. First, because
temperatures are always changing and because temperature records are always
approximations, many scientists point out that it is impossible to obtain a
single average temperature for the Earth.
Physicist Dr. Bjarne Andresen, of The Niels
Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, has stated:
it is possible to treat temperature statistics locally, it is meaningless to
talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one
cannot just add up and average. That
would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone
book. That is meaningless.
on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously
show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus, claims of disaster may be a
consequence of which averaging method has been used.
Dr. Ian Plimer (Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the
Missing Science) observes:
All this may appear to be
nitpicking. However, this is the
way scientific data is evaluated.
If there are claims that the global temperature has risen by 0.7 C over
the last century, then we need to know if the measurements of the temperature
are accurate, can be validated and can be repeated. Measurement errors are ±
errors due to siting of a Stevenson Screen may be ±
errors due to wood or plastic may be ±
and errors due to the urban heat island effect may be ± 0.4° C. The total errors are ± 1.3° C. Therefore, over the last century,
global temperatures have therefore risen by 0.7 ±
C. This is a meaningless
figure. The only valid scientific
conclusion is that temperature may have increased, been static, or decreased
over the 20th century.
Second, as is demonstrated below, many
modern temperature records have apparently been deliberately skewed upward to
show a warming trend. In “Is the
Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?” Dr. David Evans notes “the western
climate establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors, and obvious
biases- each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is
undeniable.” For example,
“official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air
conditioners, exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.” Evans shows many examples of thermometers
sited near cities where temperatures are skewed upward by the Urban Heat Island
effect, such as the official thermometer at Marysville, California, below (Figure
Figure 8. The official thermometer at Marysville, California clearly
records effects of extra warming from car engines in the parking lot, air
conditioner exhaust, asphalt, concrete, a wall, wind breaks and reflections
from a steel cell phone tower.
Furthermore, according to Evans,
climate officials also “ignore the hundreds of thousands of weather balloon
results that show the IPCC climate models overestimate future warming by at
least 30%,” and that they “hide the Argo (ocean temperature) data, which shows
the world’s oceans are cooling” (below).
In addition, “their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw
data from thermometers into rising trends. And they selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers
where there is less warming.”
Indeed, whereas there were nearly 6,000 thermometers in the official
global network in the 1980s, this number has now been reduced to nearly
six-fold, to a mere 1,079. The
removal of nearly 5,000 thermometers has increased the proportion of
thermometers at airports, which are warmer than surrounding rural areas, and
nearer the equator and at lower altitudes, where temperatures are higher.
Dr. Edward Blick, Professor of Meteorology and Engineering,
University of Oklahoma, discussed a part of this problem:
At the time of the collapse of
the Soviet Union (1990), they could not afford their weather stations in Siberia,
so they were closed. Hence, with
the loss of the cooler temperature data from Siberia and rural stations in
other countries, coupled with the heat island effects of the large city
stations, and errors in thermometers of the 1800’s, any increase in the average
earth temperature in the past may be an illusion.
Given the inherent unreliability of ground
thermometers where readings are commonly contaminated by the urban heat island
effect, then, satellite temperature measurements, available since 1979, and
radiosonde balloons, in operation since 1958, give much more comprehensive,
accurate coverage of our planet.
Third, whether the temperature is
rising or falling depends on the time scale you are observing (Figure
9)! Dr. Robert Carter, Professor of Earth Science,
University of Adelaide and James Cook University, states:
“Is global average temperature rising or
falling? It depends entirely on
the chosen end-points of the data being considered… For example, using the Greenland ice-core oxygen isotope
data as a proxy for temperature, Greenland has gotten warmer over the past
16,000 years. It has also gotten
warmer over the past 100 years.
Over intermediate periods, however, cooling has occurred since 10,000 and
2,000 years ago, and temperature stasis characterizes both the last 700 years
and (globally, from meteorological records) the last eight years (from
1998-2006). Considering these
facts, is the temperature in Greenland warming or cooling? (Realistically) the last eight years of
zero warming and the last 100 years of warming preceding are too short to carry
statistical significance regarding long-term climate change…. No meaningful
comparative judgments about climate change can be made on the basis of the
trivially short, 150-year-long thermometer surface temperature record, much
less on the 28-year-long satellite tropospheric record.”
Figure 9. Figure shows: A) warming trend over the
past 16,000 years, B) cooling since 10,000 BP, C) cooling since 2,000 BP, D)
slight warming since start of the Little Ice Age, and E) warming in the last
3. The atmosphere has been cooling since 1998! Reality does not match the
computer model predictions. Although United Nations’ IPCC computer models predicted average
Earth temperature would rise at the rate of 1°
F per decade until 2100, satellite and instrumental records show that the average
temperature of the lower troposphere has fallen since 1998 at the rate of -0.87° F/decade (1998-2009). This has occurred even as atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations increased by five percent over the same time
period (Figures 10 and 11). This “inconvenient truth” for global warming alarmists is why
they no longer speak of the dangers of “global warming,” but instead now speak of
the dangers of “climate change” and “climate disruption.” In trying to spin reality to conform to
their models, some have even attributed modern cooling to man-induced global
warming. This has given rise to
the goofy new acronym: HIGWIGC, or Human-induced Global Warming
Induced Global Cooling (Hayden, 2008).
Figure 10. Globally averaged satellite-based
temperature of lower troposphere, 1979-2009, from University of
Alabama-Huntsville Climate Center.
Figure 11. Average
temperatures in the lower troposphere, as measured by satellite, show a cooling
trend between 1998 and 2009 of 0.87°F/decade.
All the computer models failed to predict this early 21st
century cooling. Thus, all the
computer models are shown to be wrong and the hypothesis of human-caused global
warming is disproven. Figure
12 (below) shows the difference between observed temperature changes, IPCC
computer projections and linear projections of observed temperature trends.
Figure 12. Five computer
predictions of climate models in 2000.
These underpin the United Nations IPCC predictions and all show there is
no relationship between the predicted future temperature and actual measured
temperature over even a short period of time and that there is no relationship
between the actual temperature and the atmospheric CO2 content. Computer predictions cannot even
predict a decade in advance, let alone 50 or 100 years in advance.
engineer Eduardo Ferreyra, president and founder of the Argentinean Foundation
for Scientific Ecology, stated:
Wasn't warming supposed to be ‘global'? As our records shows, Argentina has
been cooling since 10 years ago, and the central part of the country since
1987. As Hadley Center's
recently published data shows, the Southern Hemisphere temperatures have been
decreasing for the last seven years. 2007 has seen media temperatures steadily 2º to 4ºC
lower than normal average, and our present summer shows a December with a
decreasing trend. Cold Antarctic
Polar Fronts have increased in intensity and frequency. Late frosts as the November 14th, 2007 caused
a 50-80% loss in wheat, corn, and barley crops in the humid Pampas. Similar abnormal cold weather was
observed in the rest of South America, South Africa, New Zealand and big areas
in Australia. So, where is global warming? Or these are just natural variations (when it is cooling) but
when there is a slight increase in temperature then it is human-induced
4. The oceans are cooling.
Argo network of some 3,000 ocean-going robot probes indicates the world’s
oceans cooled nearly 2°
C between 2003 and 2008 (Figures 13 and 14; Evans, 2010). Ocean temperatures were not
systematically measured until mid-2003, with the establishment of the Argo
network. These probes can descend
to 1000-meter depths, record temperatures, then come up and radio back the
results. Oceans cover 71% of the
Earth and hold ~22
times more heat than the atmosphere.
Hence, ocean temperatures have a major effect on atmospheric
Figure 13. Ocean heat content from mid-2003 to early 2008, as measured
by the Argo network, for 0-700 meters.
There is seasonal fluctuation because the oceans are mainly in the
southern hemisphere, but the trend can be judged from the highs and lows.
Figure 14. The Argo network, operational since 2003, has over 3,000
floats measuring temperature in all the oceans.
5. The “Hot Spot” predicted for the upper troposphere is
missing from observed temperature records. Computer models used by the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) all affirm that the “signature” or
“fingerprint” of greenhouse warming due to increases of anthropogenic CO2 would
be a warming in the upper troposphere (8 to 12 km) in the lower latitudes, as
shown in Figure 15, right diagram. Actual temperature measurements from radiosonde balloons,
however, do not show the predicted “hotspot” (Figure 15, left diagram).
According to Dr. David Evans, this
“missing hotspot “ is the knockout blow to the hypothesis of AGW, proving 1)
the IPCC climate theory is wrong, and 2) the recent warming was not caused by
Figure 15. All computer
models predicted that the “fingerprint” of greenhouse warming would be a “hot
spot” in the upper troposphere (8-12 km) in equatorial latitudes, as shown in
right diagram. Actual measurements
of temperature from radiosonde balloons (1979-1999, left diagram) do not show the predicted “hot
spot.” Nonetheless, these
predictions are still used by the IPCC.
David Evans states:
“The missing hotspot
(major update, March 2009) is the crucial evidence that disproves the theory
that rising carbon dioxide levels are the main cause of global warming. Two thirds of the warming predicted by
the IPCC climate models is due to water vapor feedback; in those models, the
temperature rise due to rising carbon dioxide levels is amplified threefold by
"feedbacks", the response of the Earth to being warmed a little by
extra carbon dioxide. Any extra
water vapor from feedback would expand the lower troposphere, pushing it into
the colder upper troposphere, mainly at about 10 km up over the tropics --
creating a "hotspot" in a diagram of the atmospheric warming pattern.
But radiosonde observations from
1979 to 1999, during the last warming, prove beyond reasonable doubt that there
is no hotspot. So the carbon
dioxide theory of global warming is wrong. In fact there is no extra water vapor, so the warming due to
rising carbon dioxide is not amplified by water vapor feedback, and the IPCC
predictions of rising temperatures are overstated by at least a factor of 2.5.”
6. To underscore that the magnitude of so-called
“modern warming” (now cooling) is not unprecedented, proxy records indicate there
were much more radical temperature changes from ~17,000 to ~10,000 years
ago. We can extend the
climatic record further into the past using oxygen-isotope ratios in ice cores
from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project, GISP2 (Figure 16). This proxy record indicates that
temperatures fluctuated radically between 17,000 and 10,000 years ago, with
numerous episodes of much more rapid and far more intense warming (numbers 1,
3, 5, and 7, etc.) than has occurred in the 20th century.
Figure 16. The
magnitude and timing of past climatic changes as recorded in the isotope data
from Greenland and Antarctic ice Cores.
These data clearly show that abrupt climate changes many times greater
than those of the past century have occurred many times in the past. Numbers correspond to the temperature
curves on the above figure.
Explanation of temperature trends
labeled by numbers 1-10 in Figure
(above, from Easterbrook):
1. About 15,000 yrs ago, a sudden, intense, climatic warming
(~12° C; ~21° F) caused dramatic melting of large Ice
Age ice sheets that covered Canada and the northern U.S., all of Scandinavia,
and much of northern Europe and Russia.
Sea level that had been 120 m (~400 ft) lower than present rose quickly
and submerged large areas than had been dry land during the Ice Age. This
warming occurred abruptly in only a few years (Steffensen et al., 2008).
2. A few centuries later, temperatures
again plummeted (~11°; ~20° F) and glaciers advanced.
3. About 14,000 years ago, global temperatures rose rapidly
(~4.5°C; ~8° F) once again and glaciers receded.
4. About 13,400 years ago, global
temperatures plunged again (~8°C; ~14° F) and glaciers advanced.
5. About 13,200 years ago, global temperatures increased rapidly
(~5°C; ~9° F) and glaciers receded.
12,700 yrs ago global temperatures plunged sharply (~8°C; ~14° F) and a
1000-year period of glacial re-advance, the Younger Dryas, began.
7. 11,500 yrs ago, global temperatures rose sharply
(~12° C; ~21° F), marking the end of
the Younger Dryas cold period and the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age.
During the past 100,000
years, there were over 20 major DO cycles in which sea surface temperatures
varied by up to 20° C. Sea surface
temperature reconstructions of the past 100,000 years (GISP2) also show many
warming/cooling events (including 20 Dansgaard/Oeschger warming events) that
were far more extreme than any temperature fluctuations of the past 10,000
years (Figure 17). These
figures also show the last 10,000 years (Holocene Epoch) was characterized by
relatively stable, high temperatures.
Figure 17. Sea surface temperature proxy over the last 100,000 years using
oxygen isotopes for Greenland ice sheet (GISP2 ice core). Sea surface temperatures varied rapidly
by up to 20° C in
more than 20 Dansgaard/Oeschger warming events. Ice sheets shed armadas of icebergs (Heinrich Events H1 to
H6) during glaciation and there was great temperature instability during the
last glaciation. During the
current interglacial, sea surface temperature was higher and there was far less
temperature variation than during previous 90,000 years. Present and current interglacial are to
In fact, we’re still in an
Ice Age now! Earth
history tells us that “hot house” conditions” prevailed for (80%) of the
Earth’s 4.6 billion year history whereas “cold house” conditions prevailed for
the remaining ~20% of
the time. During these colder intervals,
glaciers covered much of the Earth’s surface and overall climatic conditions
were commonly considerably colder than present. For the past nearly 3 million years (the Quaternary Period), Earth
has been in an ice age. This ice
age has been characterized by alternating glacial and interglacial conditions,
with glacial conditions (“cold house”) prevailing for ~90% of the time and
interglacials, including the present interglacial, or last 10,000 years, during
the remaining ~10%. During full glacial conditions, average
global temperatures are as much as 6 to 8°
C colder than present, and up to 20°
C colder in mid-continental areas in upper latitudes. Quaternary scientists assert that the total range of average
temperatures during the Quaternary Period was ~10-12° C and as much as 20° C. My own research
indicates that average temperatures in the Waterton-Glacier Parks area of
Montana and Alberta varied by at least
16 to 18° C (29
to 32° F) over the past two
million years (Karlstrom, 1990 1991).
Taking a slightly longer view into the past, proxy paleoclimatic
reconstructions indicate that global temperatures have progressively cooled
through the last 6 million years. Oxygen-isotope analyses from deep-sea cores
indicate that global temperatures before the onset of the present ice age (2.67
million years ago) were several degrees C warmer than present (Figure
18). Prior to the onset of
the modern ice age (the Quaternary Period or last 2.67 Ma,)
average sea levels were about 20 m higher while atmospheric CO2 concentration
was about 30% higher (Plimer, 2009).
Figure 18, below, also indicates the magnitude of temperature
fluctuations was greatest during the last 1 million years.
Figure 18. The last 6 million years of climate
from oxygen-isotope ratios in deep-sea cores showing cooling over the last 3
million years. Since the start of
the present ice age, ~2.67
million years ago, there have been large fluctuations in temperature (as shown
in oxygen-isotope ratios). The
present climate is cooler than during the earlier Pliocene and Miocene Epochs,
when climate was closer to its “normal” temperature, despite the presence of
Antarctic ice sheets. Note the apparent
importance of the 41,000-year obliquity cycle in the earlier part of the present
ice age and the 100,000-year eccentricity cycle in the last one million
years. These cycles are attributed
to periodic variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun, and are associated
with the Milankovitch, or astronomic, theory of climate change.
Distribution of plant and
animal fossils, past sea levels, and oxygen-isotope records all show that past
interglacials in the Quaternary
Period (i.e., present ice age) were considerably warmer than the present
interglacial (Holocene, or last
10,000 years). Proxy
evidence, including distribution of plant and animal fossils, evidence of
higher sea levels, etc., indicate that numerous previous interglacials of our
present ice age (Quaternary Period) were warmer than the present interglacial by
several degrees C. For example,
the last interglacial, from 130,000 to 116,000 years BP (Before Present) had
average temperatures 2 to 6°
C warmer than today and sea levels some 4 to 6 m higher than today’s (Plimer,
2009). Earlier interglacials were
even warmer. Tables 11 and 14 (below)
indicate the estimated amount of temperature increase above today’s average
temperature that occurred during the last interglacial, based on past floristic
boundaries in Europe and North America, respectively (from Frenzel, 1973).
Temperature reconstructions from the C Dome ice core in
Antarctica also show that the last interglacial was significantly warmer than
the present interglacial (Figure 19).
Figure 19. High-resolution temperature reconstructions from the C Dome
Ice Core based on deuterium excess and oxygen isotopes.
Figure 20 (below), derived from oxygen-isotope analyses of ice
cores, also indicates that numerous previous interglacials were warmer than the
present interglacial (Holocene).
Figure 20. Cycles of glacials (grey)
and interglacials (black) over the last 400,000 years indicate that the current
interglacial is not as warm as previous interglacials, that the current
interglacial should be followed by glaciation, and that there is nothing
extraordinary about the modern climate.
10. Even longer-term paleoclimatic records
make it clear that “warmer” is “normal” on planet Earth. Again, examination of Earth history
reveals that “hot house” conditions (in which climate was considerably warmer
than the present) prevailed for about 80% of Earth’s history (Plimer, 2009,
Hoffman and Simmons, 2008.) For
the past 65 million years (Cenozoic Era), the climate has been cooling toward
the present ice age. Figures
21 and 22 show changes in estimated average temperatures during the
Cenozoic Era, based on past distribution of fossils and oxygen-isotope
studies. Today’s average temperature is
much lower than during most of the past 65 million years.
Figure 21. Climate reconstruction
over the last 65 million years from measurement of oxygen isotopes in fossilized
floating animal shells. The
present is to the left.
Figure 22 (below), based on past
distribution of fossils plant and animal species, indicates that tropical and
subtropical conditions prevailed in Western North America between about 50 and
35 million years ago.
Figure 22. Climatic estimates for western Europe
(Dorf, 1964), western North America (Dorf, 1964; Wolfe and Hopkins, 1967) and
Japan (Tanai and Huzioka, 1967).
Temperatures at boundaries between climatic zones are those assumed by
Savin (1977), from whom the figure is modified.
Figure 23 (below), based on distribution of plant fossils, also
indicates that 55 and 40 million years ago, tropical and subtropical climates
extended into the upper middle latitudes.
These climate zones are now confined to the lower latitudes.
Figure 23. Boundaries of
major biomes (vegetation zones) 55, 40 and 20 million years ago as compared
with present distribution of major biomes, based on distribution of plant
`11. Temperature was ~8 to 10° C warmer than
present for most of the past 600 million years. Figure 24, below,
provides estimates of Earth’s average temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide
content for the past 600 million years (GEOCARB III reconstructions). This figure indicates that average Earth
temperature (blue line) was some 8 to 10° C higher than present for most of the
last 600 million years.
Figure 24. Plot of temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide over
time, showing that the Ordivician Permo-Carboniferous, and Jurassic ice ages
occurred when atmospheric CO2 was higher than present. After Scotese (2000) and Bernier
(2001); present is to the right.
12. Warming is beneficial for living things. But cooling can be catastrophic. (And, by the way, it’s cooling now). Earth and human history teaches us
that during periods of relative warmth, life and biodiversity flourish,
agricultural productivity increases, life-spans increase, and human economies
boom. Thus, warming is not a bad
thing at all. Furthermore, earth
history teaches us that no catastrophic “tipping points” were reached, even when
temperatures were 10° C
higher and/or atmospheric CO2 levels were 20+ times higher than
present. By contrast, “cold house”
conditions are generally associated with reduced agricultural productivity,
shorter life-spans, social disruption, catastrophic droughts, and extinction of
species. Thus, cooling can be
Dr. Denis G.
Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at the
University of Ottawa, stated:
In a warm world, life prospers.
There is no known case of a sustained warming alone having negatively impacted
an entire population. As a general
rule, all life on Earth does better when it's hotter: Compare ecological
diversity and biotic density (or biomass) at the poles and at the equator…
Global warming is strictly an
imaginary problem of the First World middle class.
Atmospheric CO2 levels
do not drive temperature! Figure 24 (above) shows no
correlation between atmospheric CO2 (gray line) and average
temperature (blue line). In the
past, concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide were up to 20+ times greater
than the present during both “hot house” and “cold house” conditions. Note that CO2 levels in the
past fluctuated wildly and have decreased toward the present. But for most of the past 600 million
years, CO2 averaged at least 1000-2000 ppm, (parts per million) as
compared with today’s 380 ppm. During
the Ordivician glaciation (~450
to 420 million years ago (Ma)), average atmospheric carbon dioxide
concentrations were over 10 times higher than today. Thus, ecologist Dr.
John R. Etherington, University of Wales, stated: “CO2 has close to
zero correlation with temperature.”
The Vostok and Dome C ice core data indicates that over the
past 650,000 years, increases in atmospheric CO2 typically lag ~800 years behind increases
in temperature. Thus, it appears
that over these shorter time spans, temperature fluctuations drive CO2 changes
rather than the other way around.
This is primarily due to the fact that when oceans cool, they absorb
(and remove) more atmospheric CO2, whereas when ocean temperatures
increase, CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
As biochemistry researcher Dr. Thomas Lavin noted:
If you simply freeze Al Gore’s
movie when he introduces CO2 and temperature relationship through
geologic time (using the Vostock ice core data), and look at the graph, the
temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven
elevations (interglacials) recorded geologically. And this gap is on the order of a few hundred years.
Again, looking at the past
600 million years of Earth history, we see that past concentrations of CO2
were as much as 25 times higher than today and there were no catastrophic
“tipping points.” Atmospheric CO2
levels today are near an all-time low. Concentrations of atmospheric CO2 during the
Cambrian Period, for example, were some 25 times higher than today’s (Figure
Figure 25. Carbon dioxide
concentrations for the last 600 million years, expressed in parts per million
(left) and as multiples of current concentration (right). (GEOCARB III, COPSE, and Rothman
models shown.) Present is to the
Thus, even a doubling of modern atmospheric CO2 levels
would be insignificant relative to past concentrations of CO2 and
would cause very little warming.
Furthermore, a doubling of pre-industrial
levels of CO2 from an estimated 280 to 560 ppm- a common assumption
of climate modelers- and one that Al Gore demonstrates in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth (below)- would be
insignificant relative to past atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which
were up to 25 times higher than today’s levels of 380 ppm (Figure 26). Thus, Al Gore’s Vaudevillian theatrics
are, at best, misleading, and at worst, designed to deceive.
Figure 26. Al Gore
standing on an elevated platform to dramatize projected high CO2
concentrations in 50 years (left). To the right are Jurassic CO2 levels as compared
to modern levels. Modern levels of
CO2, are represented in the dark box at the bottom (Hayden, 2008).
A doubling, tripling or even
quadrupling of current levels of atmospheric CO2 would have a
negligible effect on temperatures anyway because there is a logarithmic
decrease in absorption of terrestrial heat with increased concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 (Figure 27).
Figure 27. The first 20 ppm of CO2 acting
as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has the greatest effect on
temperature. After about 200 ppm,
CO2 has done its job as a greenhouse gas and has absorbed almost all
the infrared energy it can absorb.
Once the atmosphere is at the present CO2 concentration of
380 ppm, a doubling or quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 content will
have very little effect on temperature.
This is why there have not been catastrophic “tipping points” in the
past, even when atmospheric CO2 was 25 times higher than
This explains why MIT Meteorology professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, concludes that any reductions
of anthropogenic carbon emissions that might be imposed by carbon taxes and
other political solutions would have essentially no effect on Earth’s
One of the things the scientific
community is pretty agreed on is those things (carbon taxes, etc.) will have
virtually no impact on climate no matter what the models say. So the question is do you spend trillions
of dollars to have no impact?
Another problem with the computer model projections is that
humans are probably not even capable of doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. As explained by geologist/geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, professor and head of the
Geological Museum, University of Oslo, Norway (formerly an expert reviewer with
the UN IPCC):
In the real world, as measurable by science,
CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean reach a stable balance when
the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. The IPCC postulates an atmospheric
doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50
times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium. This total of 51 times the present
amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of
fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and
oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world.
16. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 is
a much less potent greenhouse gas than water vapor. Water vapor makes up some 95% of all greenhouse gases and
accounts for at least 75% of the so-called “greenhouse effect.” Dr. Martin Hertzber, retired Navy
covers 71% of Earth’s surface.
Compared with the atmosphere, there’s 100 times more CO2 in
the ocean, dissolved as carbonate.
As the post-glacial thaw progresses, the oceans warm up, and some of the
dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, like fizz from soda. The greenhouse global warming theory
has it ass backwards. It is the
warming of the Earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the
reverse. In vivid confirmation of
that conclusion, several new papers show that for the last 750,000 years, CO2
changes have always lagged behind global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.
17. Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were
~335 ppm, not 280 ppm as the IPCC and most
climate scientists assume. In a hearing before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and
on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in
the pre-industrial atmosphere.
This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false….
The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level,
based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate
warming models. The modelers
ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric
air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was
Modern greenhouse hypothesis is based on the work of G.S. Callendar and
C.D. Keeling, following S. Arrhenius, as latterly popularized by the IPCC. Review of available literature raise the
question if these authors have systematically discarded a large number of valid
technical papers and older atmospheric CO2 determinations because
they did not fit their hypothesis?
Obviously they use only a few carefully selected values from the older
literature, invariably choosing results that are consistent with the hypothesis
of an induced rise of CO2 in air caused by the burning of fossil
In a paper in Energy and
Environment (2008), Dr. E.G. Beckstated:
Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemisphere air
has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857, and 1942,
the latter showing more than 400 ppm…
Mauna Loa does not represent the typical atmospheric CO2 on
different global locations but is typical only for this volcano at a maritime
location in about 4000 m altitude at that latitude.
18. Carbon dioxide is a miracle gas and
plant fertilizer, not a pollutant!
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is
critical in the process of photosynthesis and thus for all life on earth! It is the very basis of life as well as
a plant fertilizer. It is not a
pollutant. Thus, an increase in
atmospheric CO2 increases the biological productivity of planet
Earth- not a bad thing at all! Agricultural
specialists estimate that the slight (human-caused) increases in atmospheric CO2
of the past half century have increased the Earth’s plant productivity by
8 to 12%. Figure 28, below, shows
that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 295 to 383 ppm increases
production of some agricultural and pine species from 11 to 72% and that a
doubling of CO2 would cause production of these species to increase
by 38 to 248%.
Figure 28. Calculated growth rate enhancement of wheat, young orange
trees, and very young pine trees; a) already taking place as a result of
atmospheric enrichment by CO2 at from 1885 to 2007, and b) expected
as result of atmospheric enrichment of CO2 to 600 ppm (Robinson, et
Some research shows that U.S.
forests have increased by 40 to 50% in the last 50 years (Figure 29). This increase may be due, at least in
part, to increases in atmospheric CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels
(Robinson, et al., 2007).
Figure 29: Inventories of standing hardwood
and softwood timber in the, United
States compiled in Forest Resources of the United States 2002, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The linear trend cited in 1998 with an in crease of 30% has
continued. The increase is now 40%.
The amount of U.S. timber is
rising almost 1% per year.
Thus, Dr. David Bellamy, Botany Professor and Great Britain’s best-known
(CO2) is in fact, the most important airborne fertilizer in
the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all. Even a doubling of CO2 in
the atmosphere would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover, but
that doesn’t sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of
my fellow scientists.
It would be terrible if billions or trillions of dollars were wasted on
a problem that doesn’t exist- money that could be used in umpteen better ways:
fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy
sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.”
19. Humans only contribute ~3.5 % of all
CO2 to the atmosphere and much less than 1% to the total greenhouse
effect. As noted
previously, water vapor makes up over 95% of greenhouse gases (Figure
30). (And there have been
no proposals to tax or limit water vapor production.)
Figure 30. Atmospheric greenhouse gases showing
the proportion of greenhouse gases derived from natural and human
activities. About 98% of the
greenhouse effect in the atmosphere is due to water vapor and very little of the
effect of CO2 is due to human activity (from Plimer, 2009).
20. Projections and “scenarios” from Computer
Models (General Circulation Models or GCMs), not reality, are the basis of the climate
alarmism. Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN IPCC,
stated the AGW alarmists position as follows:
The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is
causing global warming. It is overwhelmingly because of the
combustion of fossil fuels. Thus,
the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in
our economies… All those fossil
fuel emissions need to be eliminated.
And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing
the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.
However, it is well known that these
radical proposals are based on the computer model projections and that these
computer models are fraught with erroneous assumptions, fudge factors, and
inadequacies. And many informed scientists now are deeply skeptical about
Folland of the UK Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research, admitted:
The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on
the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.
And Dr. Kevin
Trenberth, another IPCC official, admitted further that:
žNone of the models used by the
IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in
the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans,
sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any
recent time in any of the IPCC models.
There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation
that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability
that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond…. I postulate that regional
climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are
Dr. Freeman Dyson, Professor
Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, stated:
The (climate models) do not begin to describe the real world
that we live in. The real world is
muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to
sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on
winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and
the clouds. That is why the
climate model experts end up believing their own models.ž
I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. They do a very poor job of
describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and biology of fields, farms
and forests. They do not begin to
describe the real world that we live in.
They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate,
so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that
the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different
chemistry, for example, in a world with increased CO2 in the
žHere, I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the
crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their
models. The problems are being
grossly exaggerated. They take
away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and
important- poverty, infectious diseases, public education, and public health.
In “A Personal Call
for Modesty, Integrity, and Balance” (Climate
Science, 2007), Professor of Meteorology, H. Tennekes, stated:
climate models have been running for twenty years now. It has become evident that these models
cannot be made to agree on anything except a possible relation between
greenhouse gases and a slight increase in globally averaged temperatures… We should stop our support for the
preoccupation with greenhouse gases our politicians indulge in. Global energy policy is their business,
not ours. We should not allow
politicians to use fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real
1) What the IPCC
Reports Themselves Say on the Limitations of Computer Climate Models:
“In climate research
and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear
chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate
states is not possible.” (IPCC Third Assessment
Report, TAR, 2001, p. 774)
“Scenarios are not
predictions of the future and should not be used as such.” (IPCC First Assessment Report, Climate Change 1992)
that any single emissions path will occur as described in this scenario is
highly uncertain .…”
“No judgment is
offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they
are not assigned probabilities of recurrence, neither must they be interpreted
as policy recommendations” (IPPC,Third
Assessment Report, Climate Change, 2001).
“Models continue to
have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which
lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details,
of predicted climate change.” (IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report, chapter 8, p. 600)
Everyone who has ever worked with
computers knows that computer programs and models can be no more accurate than
the assumptions they incorporate.
The axiom in the computer world applies here: “GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out.”
states it more eloquently: “If you put tomfoolery into a computer,
nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery.
But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is
somehow ennobled and no one dares criticize it.”
NASA climatologist, Dr. Roy Spence identifies some of
erroneous assumptions incorporated in the computer models in his book, Climate
ža) The models falsely assume that the
Earth’s climate would be stable without human carbon dioxide emissions. Embedded in this assumption are two
erroneous assumptions: 1) that natural climate changes do not occur, and 2)
that CO2 is the principle driver of climate change. Both of these assumptions are wildly
mistaken. Hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of independent paleoclimatic records show evidence of natural
climatic cycles. Plimer (2009)
identifies the periodicities of some of the most commonly recognized natural climate
cycles in Figure 31:
Figure 31. Commonly
recognized natural climatic cycles, including galactic, Milankovitch (or
astronomical/orbital), solar, and tidal cycles that drive the Earth’s
climate. Climates always change
and are driven by a diversity of natural cyclical and random processes. What we do not see with past climate
changes is climate changes driven by changes in CO2.
b) Equally important,
by assuming that CO2 is a primary “climate drivers,” climate modelers
accept as proven that which has not be proven but instead, has been disproven. As shown above, an examination of the
Earth’s climate history reveals that there is no clear relationship between
atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
c) Models assume
climate change will be linear, thereby ignoring the entire climatic history of
Earth, as shown above.
d) The models
arbitrarily assume there will be a doubling of CO2, despite the fact that there
is an incomplete understanding of the carbon cycle and carbon sources and sinks,
and, as indicated above, that CO2 would not double even if humans were
to burn all the planet’s fossil fuels.
Modelers also fail to account for the fact that a doubling of CO2
would produce diminishing heating effects, as noted above.
2) Fudge Factors
e) The climate models
incorporate many “fudge factors” in order to “initialize” the models, i.e.,
make them conform with observed reality.
Even the IPCC admits the models are not initialized accurately. This is due to the highly complex
nature of the climate system itself, which is the product of the interaction of
virtually countless non-linear systems.
3) Inadequacies in
The computer climate models incorrectly assume that all the feedbacks from
clouds will be positive, i.e., make the temperature warmer. However,
GCMs cannot model clouds adequately because clouds are so
complex. The cloud-water vapor
component of climate is critical to an understanding of climate feedbacks. Without an adequate understanding of
clouds and water vapor, the models cannot produce valid results. For example, the models don’t
accurately account for the negative feedback involved in increased cloud cover,
moisture, etc. that occurs under a warmer climate. In fact, clouds and water vapor act as a thermostat to
regulate and moderate temperatures.
Also, cloud forcing is 15 to 20 times greater than the 2.5 watts per
square meter presently attributed to enhanced greenhouse warming.
g) Due to the
chaotic nature of weather itself, weathermen (and GCMs) can’t predict the
weather more than 5 or 10 days in advance. Thus, it is also impossible to make predictions for the next
20th century surface temperatures are skewed upward by the urban
heat island effect and other land use changes. Thus, late 20th century climate records may be
over-estimating temperatures by 40%.
The models don’t adequately account for the dampening effects (negative feedbacks)
of oceans and sea-ice.
They have poor spatial resolution.
realistically model atmospheric dust, diurnal variations in solar radiation,
ocean heat capacity, and ocean circulation.
They don’t accurately model the climatic effects of volcanoes, orbital
parameters, fluctuations in solar output, or the Pacific “heat vent.”
Scientist Vis Forbes, chairman of “The Carbon Sense Coalition,” poetically concludes:
The output of a complex computer simulation of the atmosphere is not
evidence. It is a leaky fluttering
flag of forecasts, hung on a slim flagpole of theory, resting on a leaky raft
of assumptions, which is drifting without a rudder of evidence, in cross currents
of ideology, emotion, and bias, on the wide, deep and restless ocean of the
Various United Nations IPCC
climate projections have such a wide range of temperature estimates for the
next century as to be nearly meaningless (+2 to +11° F). But due to their common (fallacious) assumptions,
all project warming, rather than the cooling that has actually occurred.
Figure 32. Projected
warming trends based on computer models for the midrange scenario for carbon
dioxide emissions, 2000-2010.
21. Scoring computer model projections against
reality: Computers get an F-,
scoring less than 3% of a possible 100%.
Solar Physicist and
Climatologist Douglas V. Hoyt, coauthor of The Role of the Sun in Climate Change, and former scientist
at both National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), has developed a scorecard to
evaluate how accurate climate models have been. Hoyt wrote:
Starting in 1997, we created a
scorecard to see how climate model predictions were matching observations. The picture is not pretty with most of
the predictions being wrong in magnitude and often in sign.
A March 1, 2007 blog post in the National Review
explained the scoring results.
[Hoyt] gives each prediction a
‘yes-no-undetermined score. So if the
major models' prediction is confirmed, the score at the beginning would be
1-0-0. So how do the models score
when compared with the evidence? The
final score is 1-27-4. That's one
confirmed prediction, 27 disconfirmed, and 4 undetermined.
23. Fraud has been employed deliberately and
systematically throughout the AGW campaign. This fraud has included the deliberate
monopolizing, manipulating, misrepresenting, and concealment of scientific
data, control of publication of scientific articles through installation of key
individuals in key editorial positions of major scientific publications, and
control of which research projects receive funding.
United Nation’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was
established as a political body with political goals from the beginning. As noted above, if we look at
article 1 of the United Nations Environmental Program of United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): we see that the bias toward AGW is incorporated into their very
definition of “climate change:”
change: A change of climate which
is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the
composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural
climate variability observed over considerable time periods.”
This is why MIT
meteorology professor, Dr. Richard LIndzen explained: “The consensus was
reached before the research had begun.”
Professor Dr. Don
Aitkin of the University of Canberra similarly observed:
Why is there such insistence that
AGW has occurred and needs drastic solutions? This is a puzzle, but my short answer is that the IPCC has
been built on the AGW proposition and of course keeps plugging it, whatever the
Alan Cheetham, stated:
The IPCC was set up as a political process. The political purpose of the IPCC can be
summed up as the former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart put it
in referring to the IPCC: ‘No
matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental
benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice
and equality in the world.’ [Calgary
Herald, December 14, 1998].
have commented on how the IPCC has largely abandoned has largely abandoned the
scientific process in favor of advancing their fundamentally political
mission. Chemist Dr. Grant Miles,
member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee noted:
There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming
trumpeted by the IPCC and there can be no such thing as an average world
temperature. The IPCC is no longer behaving as an
investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one. It is now showing its true colors in
its use of fantasy and propaganda to advance its environmental socialist
agenda. Environmentalism has
become a quasi- religion. It is
now becoming clear to scientists that in identifying the complete falsity of
the IPCC’s pronouncements they are seeing the work of an organization that used
pseudo-science to promote an ideology.
Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community. They have no interest in the genuine
investigation of the complex factors involved in long-term climate change. The IPCC should be abolished and
climate research left to existing reputable research organizations.
Physical chemist Dr.
Peter Stilbs, Chair of the Climate Seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at
the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, explains how the IPCC process
[IPCC] Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the
final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors
and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified
to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these
documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a
consensus view among experts.
Geologist Dr. A.
Neil Hutton, former District Geologist for Northwest Territories and the Arctic
Islands further noted:
In an extraordinary move last spring the IPCC released the 21-page SPM
(Summary for Policy Makers) for the Fourth Assessment Report (2007) more than
three months ahead of the 1,600-page scientific report. This was to ensure that the scientific
report was consistent with the SPM. In other words the science was not to conflict with the
politics! The general public and the media,
apparently, are quite unaware of these contradictions and are much taken up
with the emotional aspects of the reports of melting arctic ice, glaciers, and
the snows of Kilimanjaro, as well as many other weather catastrophes appearing
in the press. In the long term,
the failure to challenge the so-called consensus will be detrimental to
scientists and our future ability to legitimately influence public policy. Most of the statements from the
SPM are unproven assumptions and a review of the literature on the basis of a
truly multidisciplinary approach involving physics, geology, history, and
archaeology leads to much different conclusions.
surprisingly, the real scientific consensus today has shifted away from the
IPCC’s alarmist conclusions. Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama,
professor in Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Tokyo Institute of
Technology, was asked by reporters if there was widespread skepticism among his
colleagues about the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report that concluded that
most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century ‘is
very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas
concentrations..” He responded
that when the question was raised at the Japan Geoscience Union symposium the
previous year, 90% of the participants did not believe the IPCC
was exposed by hacked emails in “Climategate!”. On November 20, 2009, three thousands emails between
scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues at places such as Penn
State were leaked. These emails
revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew data as well as destroy and
hide contradictory data. Booker (2009) noted that the scientists involved “came
up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their
findings and temperature records were based.” CRU director Dr. Phil Jones wrote another scientist that he
had employed the same statistical “trick”
used by Penn State’s Dr. Michael Mann (lead author of the now infamous “hockey
stick” graph) to “hide the decline”
in recent global temperatures
In Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming,
author Ian Wishar, stated:
Manipulation of raw data is
at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate
science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records by his
organization were “destroyed” or “lost,” meaning researchers can now only
access manipulated data.
involved in the scandal were “the small group of scientists who have for years
been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than
any others, not least because of the role they played at the heart of the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” (Booker, 2009). The emails revealed that this
small group of scientists conspired to sabotage the work of skeptical
scientists and prevent their data from being released. In one email communication, Penn
State’s Michael Mann (of the infamous “hockey stick graph”), said about some
scientific papers he did not like: “I can’t see either of these papers being in
the next IPCC report. Kevin and I
will keep them out somehow- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review
That this system of
science fraud was systematic and sustained over an extended period is indicated
by Dr. David Deming’s (University of Oklahoma) testimony before the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee on Dec. 6, 2006:
In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal
Science. In that study, I reviewed
how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in
North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter
for National Public Radio. He
offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to
human activity. When I refused to
do so, he hung up on me. I had
another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was
published. I received an
astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, ‘We have got to get rid of the
Medieval Warm period.
The emails also
revealed that Jones, himself, had collected a staggering $22.6 million in
research grants since 1990.
C. “NASA-gate.” U.S. temperatures were also deliberately skewed upward to
show a warming trend. As noted
above, Australian researcher, Dr. David Evans (2010) noted that “the western
climate establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors, and obvious
biases- each factor on its won might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is
undeniable.” Similar cases of
fraud have now been uncovered in official governmental scientific
establishments in the UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
There is the fundamental problem of accurately recording
temperatures. Evans (2010) noted
that “official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near
air conditioners, exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt. ” Meteorologist Anthony Watts, also documented
that of the official ground thermometers used by NASA, “90% of them don’t meet
(the government’s) old, simple rule called the ‘100-foot rule” for keeping
thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influences.” In addition, the number of weather
stations used in the U.S. to calculate average global temperatures has declined
from about 6,000 in the 1970’s to 1079 currently whereas the number of
reporting stations in Canada has dropped from 600 to 35. In both cases, the remaining stations
tend to be in warmer, urbanized areas that distort the climate record through
the influence of the urban heat island effect. Data for unmonitored areas are simply extrapolated from other
stations, which are often far away.
It is important to note that climate scientists, such as Dr. Roy
Spencer, author Michael Crichton (State of Fear) and the website www.surfacestations.org have noted
that temperature records in rural locales in the U.S. actually show a cooling
trend in the 20th century.
One particularly egregious case of falsification of data
occurred in 2007, when Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute
for Space Studies (GISS) announced that October, 2008, was the warmest on
record. This was despite the fact
that NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) had registered 63
local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month and it
ranked only the 70th warmest October in 114 years. It was later discovered by readers of
the two leading warming-skeptic blogs (Watts Up With That and Climate Audit) that
the Russian temperatures had been up to 10°
C higher than normal. On further
investigation, they found that the reason for the freak figures was that NASA
had used September temperatures (a statistically warmer month) in place of
October data, using the same temperature values for both months and thereby
skewing the overall temperatures upward.
Likewise, after Dr. James Hansen announced that 1998 was the
hottest year of the past century, Stephen
McIntyre of www.climateAudit.org
exposed a NASA temperature data error in 2007. After the error was removed it was clear
that 1934, not the previously hyped 1998, was the hottest year in U.S. history
since records began. The (corrected)
temperature data reveals that four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S.
were in the 1930's while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last
decade. [Note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions
occurred after 1940). Climate
NASA has yet to own up fully to
its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the
Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at
Suspecting that NASA had consistently inflated recent U.S.
temperatures, Christopher Horner of the Competitiveness Enterprise Institute
(CEI) filed three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to NASA and
GISS. Although NASA
consistently refused these requests, as public agencies they eventually had to
release the requested internal email discussions regarding whether and how to
correct the temperature errors caught by McIntyre. Horner notes that the emails clearly show the intent of NASA
scientists to “prop up the argument for the biggest regulatory intervention in
history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity.” As of 2010, Horner has filed additional
FOIA requests for documents which NASA has thus far refused to share.
Senators Inhofe (Oklahoma), Barraso (Wyoming) and Vitter
(Louisiana), who are now investigating “NASA-gate,” note that “NASA’s
methodology had been to dramatically change the true temperature record of the
United States” by reducing the number of weather stations they use and by “cherry-picking”
the ones that remain by choosing sites in relatively warmer places” (www.surfacestations.org). Dr. Edward Long a former NASA
physicist, concluded: “GISS, over a 10-year period has modified their data by
progressively lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those
in the more recent past.” In a similar case, it was found that
NASA used “faulty sensors” in a report that recently underestimated the area of
Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles (about the size of California).
Amazingly, despite the systematic falsification of data and
despite the admission by NASA scientists (in FOIA’d emails) that NASA’s data is
less accurate than the CRU’s (Climate Research Unit) data, NASA’s climate
research programs are expected to receive increased funding of $2.4 billion, or
62% through 2015. The Washington Post reports: “The budget
increase reflects both a campaign promise by President Obama to focus far more
on the threat of climate change and what NASA officials called a “philosophical
shift’ on the issue.”
The FOIA’d NASA emails reveal other systemic problems as
well. They reveal, for instance, that
the databases maintained by NASA’s GISS, the University of East Anglia’s CRU,
and NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) “are not independent, as they
must use much of the same input observations” (according to GISS). Indeed, these agencies use each other’s
analyses as assumptions, and use each other’s data as the basis of their own
calculations. Thus, the collapse
of the CRU’s credibility (in “Climate-gate” revelations of 2009) necessarily damages the credibility of
the entire AGW industry.
Booker (2010) states:
When Phil Jones (the now disgraced and suspended director
of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia) claimed that he
had lost most of the raw data that he and others have used to pronounce the
impending doom of our little planet from anthropogenic global warming (AGW),
the official word from the warmists was that it made no difference because
the completely separate databases of NASA and NOAA showed the same
results. The fact that CRU’s raw data had been randomly and arbitrarily
twisted to fit their goals of getting massive grants to continue their
“research” supposedly didn’t alter the fact that the science was settled. In light of those pronouncements, it
turns out that NASA has only been using their own data for U.S. climate
modeling — they have been using the CRU data for world climate modeling
because they consider their own data to be inferior. It further turns out
that NASA has routinely been
adjusting its modeling based on the models of the CRU and NOAA— there’s
nothing remotely independent about NASA’s climate models. The AGW scam unravels more every day.
An interesting side-note is that Sullivan (2010) revealed
that NASA may also have suppressed equations dating back to the Apollo Moon
landings that invalidated the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory. At least since 1997, NASA scientists
have known that the fudged equations used to calculate the greenhouse effect
are so bad that they can actually show a greenhouse effect on the moon, which
has no atmosphere or greenhouse gases at all! NASA scientists had access to far better
equations during the Apollo Moon landings but ignored these in favor of the
much poorer equations that exaggerate the greenhouse effect. Specifically, Apollo mission scientists
devised a three-dimensional model for accurately determining Earth’s energy
budget that is far more practicable than the rudimentary flat blackbody
Stephan-Boltzmann equations. But
since the three-dimensional model numbers contradict any greenhouse warming
effect, they have been ignored by global warming advocates.
The Competitiveness Enterprise Institute NASA is now sueing
NASA because NASA has defied all of CEI’s FOIA requests to examine their “full
surface energy balance equation.”
A NASA publication quotes a lead “scientist” as stating,
falsely, that: “CO2 acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of
Earth.” Similarly, a NASA
web page headline reads: “Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth’s
Temperature.” However, a
graph in their own website archives indicates that whereas atmospheric CO2
rose significantly in the latter half of the 20th century, average
Earth temperatures did not (Figure 34).
Figure 34. Although NASA scientists claim CO2 acts as Earth’s
thermostat, the correlation coefficient (R2) between CO2
and temperature in this graph is less than 2, showing no correlation
NASA’s data manipulation is not confined to America’s borders. A guest post by Willis Eschenbach
showed that NASA’s GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies) took a cooling
trend at the one GHCN station in Nepal (which covers the Himalayas!) and turned
it into a strong warming trend of 9°
C/century. In addition, GISS also
adjusted over a century’s worth of temperature records in eastern Australia,
thereby creating“Australiagate!” Just as was done by the CRU at the
University of East Anglia, raw climate data was ‘homogenized’ and then the
original temperature records were destroyed. The disparity between the raw data, which yields the blue
cooling trend line, and the “cooked” data, which yields the red line showing a
warming trend, is shown in Figure 35.
Figure 35. A century of
temperature records from Queensland, Australia, showing raw data (blue trend line)
and adjusted data that yields the red trend line. “Homogenization” of data was carried out by GISS at
Columbia University and creates the false impression that temperatures rose 2° C during the past
Willis Eschenbach found similar manipulations of the
temperature record at Darwin, Australia that produced even more dramatic
effects. “Homogenization” of the
data converted a 0.7° C
cooling trend to a 1.2°
C/century warming trend (Figure 36, www.climategate.com).
Figure 36. 130-year
temperature record of Darwin Australia, showing raw data, adjusted data, and
amount of adjustment (black line).
Through the adjustment (homogenization) process, climate scientists
turned a 0.7°
C/century cooling trend into a 1.2°
C/century warming trend.
D) “Kiwi-gate.” NIWA (New Zealand’s National Institute
of Water and Atmospheric Research) is now accused of creating a warming trend
for their nation’s climate that is not born out by actual temperature record.
In a near carbon-copy of “climate-gate” at Britain’s CRU,
and NASA-gate in the U.S., New Zealand’s governmental climate agency (NIWA) has
apparently used the same alleged “tricks” employed by British and American
climate alarmists. According to
the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC), this involves the process of
“homogenization” of raw climate data that occurs when climate data needs to be
adjusted. According to a Mathematical Geosciences paper in 2009, homogenization of climate
data is necessary because “non-climatic factors make data unrepresentative of
the actual climate variation.” An
independent inquiry into Climategate chaired by Lord Oxburgh, however, found
that the homogenization process itself that was flawed because climatologists
have been overly guided by “subjective biases.”
Thus, although the massaged, “homogenized” record of average
annual temperatures in New Zealand since 1853 shows a strong warming trend (Figure
37), the raw temperature data over the same period shows no trend at
Figure 37. Graph from
NIWA’s website, showing upward trend of mean annual temperature in New Zealand
Figure 38. Raw temperature
data for New Zealand, 1853 to present, show that average temperatures have
remained remarkably steady at 12.6°
± 0.5° C for a century and a
half. There is a statistically
insignificant warming trend of 0.06°
C/century since 1850.
Clearly, strong adjustments were made to the data in Figure
37 to show such a strong warming trend. These adjustments included: 1) creating a warming trend
where none existed, and 2) exaggerating the existing warming trend. The adjustments were made by New
Zealand climate scientist Jim Salinger, a lead author for the IPCC who once
worked at Britain’s CRU, the institution at the center of “climategate.” Salinger was part of the inner circle
of climate scientists exposed by the leaked emails from the CRU.
Nonetheless, even after the discovery and exposure of this
manipulation of temperature data, NIWA
issued a press release, stating:
over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal.
Meanwhile, New Zealand’s NIWA (National Institute of Water
and Atmospheric Research) has also announced it has nothing to do with the
country’s “official” climate record.
James Delingpole noted:
The shocking truth is that the
oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially
lifted to give a false impression of warming. One station, Hokitika, had its early temperatures reduced by
a huge 1.3° C,
creating a strong warming from a mild cooling. We have discovered warming in New Zealand over the past 156
years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2-
it was created by man-adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.
E. The infamous “hockey stick” graph of
Mann, et al. (Nature, 1998) is an example of how climate data have been
statistically manipulated to deceive the public. The “Hockey Stick” eliminated the well-established “Medieval
Warm Period” (~900
to 1300 AD) and the “Little Ice Age” (~1350-1850
AD) from the climatic record (Figures 39 and 40). This was intentional.
Figure 39. The “Hockey
Stick” graph as it first appeared in the United Nations IPCC’s Third Assessment
Report of 2001. Mann’s original
paper in Nature featured a 600-year history.
Figure 40. Mann et. al.’s
“hockey stick” (upper diagram) does not record the Medieval Warm Period
(900-1300 AD) or the Little Ice Age (1300-1850 AD) but instead, shows an abrupt
20th Century warming following about 1000 years of climatic
stability. By contrast, the
temperature history of the past 1000 years derived from hundreds of studies
shows that the Medieval Warming and the intense cold of the Little Ice Age were
the most extreme events of the past 1000 years (lower diagram). The Mann et. al. “hockey stick,” which
contradicted hundreds of validated previous studies, was the centerpiece of the
IPCC’s Third Assessment Report in 2001.
The “hockey stick” graph was subsequently invalidated by two
Canadian statisticians and again by the Wegman Committee that was assembled by
the National Academy of Science for the U.S. Congress. ž Canadian
mining scientist Stephen McIntyre had recognized that the “hockey stick” graph
resembled the kind of deceptive graphics mining promoters sometimes use to hype
risky hard-rock mineral exploration projects. He showed that any white noise data set produces the same-shaped
graph when these particular statistical procedures are applied. McIntyre showed that when you remove
Mann et al.’s deceptive statistics you get- no hockey stick (Figure
Figure 41. The hockey stick appears or disappears depending on the
statistical methods employed. The
top graph portrays how Mann’s methodology evokes the hockey stick from
tree-ring proxy data. The lower
graph shows what happens using the methodology advocated by McIntyre and backed
by the Wegman Committee and other reviewers.
žUsing corrected and updated source data, McIntyre and McKitrick (2003)
recalculated the Northern Hemisphere temperature index for 1400-1980 AD, using
Mann’s own methodology, and published these results in Energy and Environment (with their data refereed by World Data Center for Paleoclimatology): They concluded that “the warming in the early 15th
century exceeds any warming in the 20th century” (Figure
Figure 42. Temperature
record of past 600 years with correct statistical methods (upper) applied to
Mann et al.’s (tree-ring-derived) data set (lower).
Just as in the “climategate” scandal at CRU, it took
McIntyre and McKitrick several years and several Freedom of Information Act
orders to get Mann to finally release the data which he used in the 1998 study.
F. Measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide is also fraught
with difficulties and alas, fraud.
A persistent error which infects the entire AGW debate is the apparently
deliberate selection of low pre-industrial CO2 values and the arbitrary
rejection of higher readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea of man-made
global warming (Figure 43).
Figure 43. Mean values of atmospheric CO2 measurements
from Europe, North America, and Peru, between 1800 and 1955. The encircled (low) values
between 1860 and 1900 were arbitrarily selected by Calendar (1958) for
estimation of 292 ppm as the average 19th century CO2
concentration. Slocum (1955)
demonstrated that without such selection these data average 335 ppm (from
Manipulation of CO2 data persists today because just
one individual, Charles Keeling, has had a monopoly on reporting worldwide levels
of atmospheric CO2 since 1958.
This data is taken from
Mauna Loa in Hawaii via infra-red spectroscopy. The raw data at Mauna Loa is edited by an operator who
deletes about 82% of the data. Again,
such editing allows this individual to show whatever trend is desired.
It is commonly reported that pre-industrial levels of CO2
were 280 ppm. However, 90,000 independent measurements
of CO2 spanning the period of 1815 to 1964 show considerably higher
values, ranging from above 300 to 450 ppm (Beck, 2007; Figure 44).
Figure 44. CO2 measurements
made by chemical methods (to within 10 ppm) in the Northern Hemisphere between
1815 and 1964 (Beck, 2007).
Figure 45 compares the
actual chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 from 1812-1961, with
CO2 levels inferred from Antarctic ice cores and the infra-red
spectroscopy CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa from 1959-present. There are very large discrepancies!
Figure 45. Determinations of atmospheric CO2 by
the Pettenkofer method (solid line of 5-year averages) between 1812 and 1961,
deductions of atmospheric CO2 from Antarctic ice cores (gas
chronmatography from 1810 to 1960), and edited measurements of atmospheric CO2
from Mauna Loa, Hawaii (from 1958 to present). The high (direct) measurements of atmospheric CO2
by the Pettenkofer method have been rejected by the IPCC, yet the lowest value
is used by the IPCC as the baseline pre-industrial value for atmospheric CO2.
Zbigniew Jaworowski, emeritus professor at the Central Laboratory of
Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland, stated:
The entire theory of man-made
global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important
consequences for politics and the global economy- is based on ice core studies
that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels. For the past three decades, these
well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed
by Ernst-Georg Beck (2006a, 2006b, 2007), were completely ignored by
climatologists- and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize
winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in
chemistry, etc. The only reason
for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of
anthropogenic climatic warming. I
regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time.
Similarly, Chemist Dr. Joel M. Kaufmann, University of the
Sciences in Philadelphia, stated:
CO2 can hardly have
been the cause of (modern) warming because its level in air has been higher
than it is now at least 3 times between 1812 and 1962 as shown by the 90,000
direct chemical measurements (Beck, 2007).
Canadian geologist, Dr. Francis T.
Manns, summarized the situation:
The UN IPCC has cooked the
books. CO2 was as high
as 400 ppm on 1940 before the recent cooling period.
G) Al Gore capitalizes on these deception in
his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, by correlating
the bogus “hockey stick” graph with the bogus CO2 curve, even while
the hockey stick represents 1000 years and the CO2 record only
represents 50 years! We are
now in a position to understand that in the scene from An Inconvenient Truth below (Figure 46), Al Gore is actually
correlating a doctored, falsified version of the 1000-year temperature record, derived
from discredited “hockey stick” graph (left), with the doctored version of the
50-year record of atmospheric CO2 (right). Both graphs have been falsified to give the impression of
upward trends and Gore completely ignores the huge difference in
time scales. Such
misrepresentation and manipulation of data constitutes scientific fraud, a
deliberate attempt to misrepresent scientific evidence in order to deceive. Furthermore, when Gore made his movie,
the Wegman Committee had already invalidated the “hockey stick” graph.
Figure 46. Al Gore comparing the 1000-year proxy
temperature record of the discredited “hockey stick” graph (left) and with the
50-year record of atmospheric record that has been manipulated by eliminating
all chemically-measured atmospheric CO2 between 1812 and 1961
H) The Wikipedia fraud is uncovered. A story in the National Post of Canada (12/8/09) by Lawrence Solomon (‘Wikipedia
implicated in “Climate-gate”’) indicated that a Wikipedia editor, UK Green
Party activist and “scientist,” William Connolley, doctored literally thousands
of Wikipedia entries to conceal the fact that the Medieval Warm Period was
warmer than today. Conolley
created or rewrote over 5,000 articles on the topic of global warming, the
greenhouse effect, the urban heat island, climate models, global cooling, and
the instrumental temperature record.
As a Wikipedia administrator, he also removed over 500 articles that he
disliked and blocked over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors from making further
I. More (recent) IPCC fraud is uncovered.
In their 2007 Assessment Report,
IPCC officials falsely claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by
2035. This estimate was based simply
on anecdotal observations of a hiker/climber, who expressed his opinion that
Himalayan glaciers were shrinking.
The IPCC report also stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in
the Andes, Alps, and Africa were being caused by global warming, citing two
papers as the source of the information. It turns out that one of the sources quoted was a
feature article published in a popular climbing magazine and the other was a
Masters dissertation that quoted observations from mountain guides in the
Alps. In other words, these claims
were not based on any scientific investigations at all.
India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated that the “IPCC’s
alarmist position that (the glaciers) would melt by 2035 was not based on an
iota of scientific evidence.” In
fact, a recent study published by the American Meteorological Society indicates
that some 230 glaciers in the western Himalayas are growing.
J. Lord Monkton shows that high
temperature projections of computer models are partly due to artificially high
values of “climate sensitivity.”
In “Climate Sensitivity
Reconsidered,” published in Physics and
Society, Lord Monkton demonstrated via 30 equations that computer models
used by the UN IPCC were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three
variables used to determine “climate sensitivity” (the assumed temperature
increase in response to greenhouse gas increases). These values overstate CO2’s effect on
global temperatures by 5 to 20 times.
He concludes that CO2 additions would add little more than 1° F to global mean surface
temperature by 2100, instead of the 5 to 20°
F, claimed by the IPCC.
K. Calls for IPCC to be abolished. In 2005, an official House of Lords
report, “The Economics of Climate Change,” called for the IPCC to be shut down
because it was a vehicle for a set policy without looking at the science, did
not listen to dissenting voices, and its process for selecting scientists was
L. IPCC reviewer Boehmer-Christiansen
describes the pitfalls of state-sponsored science and says UK government and
IPCC are one and the same. In
her testimony to the British Parliamentary Inquiry into the “Climategate”
scandal of 2009, Australian climate policy analyst and editor of the journal Energy & Environment, Sonja
Boehmer-Christiansen, summarized the situation as follows:
I was peer reviewer for
IPCC. And since 1998, I have been
editor of the journal Energy and Environment…. I interpreted the IPCC
“consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and
scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as-man-made
Scientific research as advocacy
for an agenda (a coalition of interests, not a conspiracy) was presented to the
public and governments as protection of the planet… CRU (Climate Research
Unit), working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support
the hypothesis of the man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a
hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 80’s.
In persuading policy makers and
the public of this danger, the “hockey stick” became a major tool of persuasion,
giving the CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU, and
international level. This
led to the growing politicization of science in the interest, allegedly, of
protecting ”the environment” and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK
Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate
threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return, climate science was
generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy
objectives…. Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or
persuaded into silence. The
apparent “scientific consensus” thus generated became a major tool of public
The CRU case is not unique. Recent exposures have taken the lid off
similar issues in the USA, the Netherlands, Australian and possibly Germany and
Canada… It is at least arguable
that the real culprit is the theme- and project-based research funding system
put in place in the 1980’s and subsequently strengthened and tightened in the
name of “policy relevance.” This
system, in making research funding conditional on demonstrating such relevance,
has encouraged close ties with central Government bureaucracy. Some university research units have
almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Government Departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of
their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want. It becomes hazardous to speak truth to
24. Correcting the propaganda ploys
The AGW fraud is accompanied by a whole series of propaganda
ploys. We are told repeatedly that
the ice is melting, sea levels are rising, storms are becoming more extreme,
the polar bears are dying, etc. However,
each of these statements have been refuted and disproven by the real scientific
experts and by the facts.
A. The ice is melting! But it’s also growing. Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets contain nearly 96% of the world’s ice. And these two ice sheets are thickening.
1) Antarctica. About 90% of glacier ice on Earth
occurs in Antarctica. Measurements
from NOAA show that most of Antarctica cooled between 1982 and 2004, at the
rate of 1.23°
F/decade. Dr. Duncan Wingham,
professor of Climate Physics at University College, London, has shown that 72%
of the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of about 5 mm/year. “That makes Antarctica a sink, not a
source, of ocean water.” (Although the Antarctic Peninsula- a thin sliver of
land that juts above the Antarctic Circle has been warming, temperatures in the
vast empty spaces of East Antarctica have been falling for decades.) Similarly, Antarctic sea ice has
expanded 4.7% since 1980 (British Antarctic Survey). Due to heavier than usual pack ice, supply ships have been
unable to reach their usual docking berths at the Vostok Ice Station in
Antarctica and Russian scientists were forced to abandon their base at Vostok
in 2003. Scientists at the
Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station found that it is 36 to 54° F (20 to 30° C) colder there than
computer models predicted.
2) Greenland. Recent satellite measurements indicate
that the interior of the Greenland ice sheet above 1500 m has been thickening
at the rate of 6.4 cm/year. Below
1500 m, the ice has been thinning at the rate of 2 cm/year in accord with
reported thinning of the ice sheet margins (Plimer, 2009). Data from Danish Meteorological
Institute show that over the last 40 to 50 years, there has been “statistically
significant cooling,” especially in southwestern coastal Greenland. Sea-surface temperatures in the
Labrador Sea also fell. Whereas
computer models indicate that the polar regions should have warmed 2 to 5° F since 1940,
measurements indicate that the Arctic cooled by 1°
F between 1955 and 1990 and Greenland’s glaciers actually expanded. Arctic sea ice is currently expanding
at the fastest rate since 1979, when record-keeping began. Booker (2010) stated: “The extent of
ice now is 500,000 square km (190,000 square miles) greater than it was this
time last year- which in turn was 500,000 sq. km more than in Sept. 2007.”
glaciers. Many temperate, mid-latitude glaciers have been receding since
1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions
occurred. The mid-1700’s were the
very depths of the Little Ice Age, and may have been the coldest climate of the
last 5000 years. However, in
response to recent cooling, glaciers worldwide, including both polar ice caps
and temperate glaciers, are growing.
Glaciers are now growing in Canada, Russia, France, Switzerland, New
Zealand, Ecuador, Argentina, Alaska, Washington, California, and Colorado.
Figure 47: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The
principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass
and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation. This melting
trend lags the temperature in crease by about 20 years, so it pre-dates the
increase in hydrocarbon use. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this
shortening trend. From Robinson et
4) V.K. Raina,
India’s leading glaciologist, told the Hindustan
Times (2/11/2007) that “out of 9,575 glaciers in India, research has been
conducted only on about 50. Nearly
200 years of data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these
B. The sea level is rising! But only by ~1.1
to 1.8 mm/year, less than the thickness of a nickel. Sea level has a large variability and is poorly
understood. On average, sea level has risen about
130 m (450 feet) in the past 14,000 years. An average of 23 annual tidal gauges shows a net sea level
rise of ~7
inches (22 cm) during the 20th century (Figure 48). The IPCC predictions of sea
level rise for the 21st century dropped from 30 to 100 cm (1990
prediction) to 18 to 59 cm (2007 prediction). Meanwhile, satellite GPS measurements indicate the average rate
of sea level rise for the early 21st century is 1.35± 34mm/year, or less than
the thickness of a nickle. If this
rate were to continue during the next century, net sea level rise would be ~13.5 cm or actually less
than the ~7
inches that occurred in the 20th century (Figure 48).
Figure 48. Global sea
level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 and by satellite between
1993 and 2006. Satellite
measurements are shown in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The
overall trend is an increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are
9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century, respectively. This trend lags the
temperature increase, so it predates the increase in hydrocarbon use even more
than is shown. From Robinson et
Nils-Axel Morner, Department of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at Stockholm
University and one of the leading international experts on sea levels, stated:
If you go around the globe, your find no
(sea level) rise anywhere. But
they need the rise, because if there is not rise, there is no death threat. The rapid rise in sea levels predicted
by computer models simply cannot happen.
Morner, who was
president of the INQUA (International Quaternary Association) Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution
from 1999 to 2003, has published a booklet entitled The Greatest Lie Ever
Told to refute claims of catastrophic sea level rise. Whereas IPCC scientists originally
predicted sea level rise by 2-3 m by 2100, the 2007 IPCC reports revised the
prediction down to less than half a meter. However, a study by the world’s recognized expert on sea
level changes (Morner, 2004) estimates possible sea level changes of +5 ±15 cm over the next century. Currently, sea level is rising at the
rate of 1.15 mm/year. Morner
notes that, contrary to IPCC claims, sea level has been stable in the Maldives
Islands for the past 30 years. Furthermore,
sea level in that area actually dropped by 20 cm in the 1970’s.
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and
Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, stated:
The latest estimates of sea level rise are 1.31 mm/year. With this water level increase it will
take about 800 years before sea level has increased by 1 m, if conditions do
not change before that (which is very likely).
Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of
Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania
level is rising. But it's been
rising ever since warming set in 18,000 years ago. The rate of rise has been
pretty slow - only about 400 feet so far. And recently - meaning in the
thousands of years - the rate has slowed even more. The Earth's global ocean
level is only going up 1.8 millimeters per year. That's less than the thickness of one nickel. For the catastrophe of flooded cities
and millions of refugees that Gore envisions, sea levels would have to rise
about 20 feet. At the present rate
of sea-level rise it's going to take 3,500 years to get up there [to Gore's
predicted rise of 20 feet]. So if
for some reason this warming process that melts ice is cutting loose and accelerating,
sea level doesn't know it.
C. Extreme weather is not becoming more
commonplace! Although the
media and the IPCC tout fears of increased frequency and intensity of storms as
a result of AGW, climate scientists have long known that a warming of the upper
latitudes would decrease the temperature and air pressure differentials between
the upper and lower latitudes. Thus,
with reduced air pressure gradients, storms should be less rather than more
intense. In fact, a look at the
frequency of intense tornados and hurricanes in the U.S. over the past 50 to
100 years indicates that the frequency of these storms has not increased (Figures
49 and 50).
Figure 49. Annual number
of strong-to-violent category F3 to F5 tornados during the March-to-August
tornado season in the U.S. between 1950 and 2006. U.S. National Climatic Data
Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. During this period, world hydrocarbon
use increased 6-fold, while violent tornado frequency decreased by 43%. From Robinson, et al. (2007).
Figure 50. Annual number
of Atlantic hurricanes that made landfall between 1900 and 2006. Line is drawn
at mean value. From Robinson, et
forecaster Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State
University (CSU) stated
that the recent increase in
strong hurricanes is not due to global warming but rather, is part of a
multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean
circulation patterns. Gray believes current climate
researchers rely too much on computer models, stating:
Us older guys that were around in the pre-satellite, pre-computer age,
we had to deal with the real weather. Most of these people don't forecast. They don't live in a real world. They're living in an imaginary world.
D. The polar bears
are not dying! According to fossil
records, polar bears have existed on this planet for over 200,000 years. During that time, there have been many
periods when temperatures were higher and Arctic ice significantly declined far
below what the UN IPCC is predicting for the next 100 years due to "global
warming.” As noted above, during
the last interglacial (130,000 to 116,000 years ago), temperatures were at
higher than present.
The U.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Service showed that there
are some 22,000 polar bears in about 20 distinct populations worldwide. Of these, 18 bear populations are
stable or increasing and only two, accounting for 16.4% of the total, are
decreasing, and these are in areas where air temperatures have actually
fallen. Two of the populations
that have risen (13.6% of bears) live in areas where the temperatures have
risen. The U.S. National Biological Service found that polar bear populations
in western Canada and Alaska are thriving to the point that some were at
optimum sustainable levels. The
main threats to these bears include hunters, eco-tourists, and bureaucrats
Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Director of Wildlife Research with the
Arctic Government of Nunavut stated:
“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or
increasing in number. “
E. Tropical diseases
are not spreading. Although Al
Gore states that warmer temperatures will bring tropical diseases such as malaria
to more northerly regions, the facts are quite different. Mosquitos and malaria are not confined
to the tropics, but thrive in northerly locations such as Alaska and
Russia. Many argue that the main
reason that mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria have been on the rise for
decades is ban that was placed on DDT by developed countries. This has resulted in the unnecessary
deaths of millions of Africans.
F. There is no big
extinction event or loss of biodiversity happening.
Marine Biologist Daniel
Botkin, President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor
Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the
University of California, stated:
This year's United Nations
report on climate change and other documents say that 20%-30% of plant and
animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global
warming -- a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that
scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern
climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of
species on Earth went extinct.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that
we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by
Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not
correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases;
warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in
the future, global warming or not.
The Real Causes of Climate
The real causes of climate change are complex and involve
interaction of many, many factors.
Indeed, because it involves the interaction of many non-linear systems,
the weather/climate system is by definition chaotic, and indeed, possibly the
most complex of all systems. However,
while there is much that remains to be learned about the climate system, there
have been tremendous advances in our understanding of past climate history as
well as current climate dynamics.
We know, for example, that the main climate drivers certainly include:
1) the sun, which provides 99.9% of energy for the climate system and which we
now know is a variable star, 2) the oceans, which heat and cool in response to
cycles of solar variability, and 3) cosmic rays.
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanography at the
Russian Academy of Sciences states:
real causes of climate change lie in the unevenness of the sun’s radiation, in
the precession (amendment of the rotational axis) of the earth, in the
instability of the ocean currents in the periodic desalinization and salinity
of surface waters of the Arctic Sea. The higher the solar activity, the higher the
Meteorologist Joseph D-Aleo, chairman of the American
Meteorological Society, similarly stated:
When I started really looking at
the data, I saw the signatures of urbanization and local land use factor in
global temperatures. I also saw
that temperatures cycled over time and those cycles correlated far better with
the cycles in the sun and ocean temperatures than with greenhouse gases, which
would argue for a parallel increase not cyclical warming and cooling… I have
really done extensive studies that convince me that the sun and oceans are the
real drivers and carbon dioxide is a bit player in the scheme of things. I also believe the cyclical warming has
peaked as the factors are changing and a cooling has started or will soon do.
Indeed, there is a far better correlation between
temperature and solar activity changes in the 20th century than
there is between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Figure
Figure 51. Arctic surface
air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot
cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction
of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle. Solar irradiance correlates well with
Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use does not correlate.
Nuclear scientist Dr. Michael R. Fox, explained:
Thanks to some excellent
experimental work in physics by those such as Danish scientist Henrick
Svensmark, we now know that cosmic rays and some of the debris from nuclear
collisions with atoms in the atmosphere are directly involved with the
initiating mechanisms of cloud formation.
Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the
cooler the temperature. Since many
of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun’s magnetic field, the cosmic ray
intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the magnetic field, the
fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate
Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Space Research, Pulkovo
Observatory in Russia, observed”
Mars has global warming, but without a
greenhouse and without the participation of Martians. These parallel global warmings -- observed simultaneously on
Mars and on Earth -- can only be a straight-line consequence of the effect of
the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance. It
is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then
triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. So the common view
that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has
emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations. A predicted decline in solar irradiance
is going to lead to global cooling by 2015 and will inevitably lead to a deep
freeze around 2055-60.
Dr. Dennis Jensen, nuclear physicist, also notes that “warming
is occurring on Plutio, Mars, Jupiter, and Triton.”
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition offer seven
"pillars of wisdom" that summarize many of the main facts that counter
the UN IPCC climate alarmism. These are:
1. Over the past few
thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and
cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer
2. A major driver of
climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the
sun's magnetic field and solar particles.
These may account in great part for climate change during the past
century. Evidence suggests warming
involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
3. Since 1998, global
temperature has not increased. Projection
of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about
4. Most recent climate
and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly. For example, in the 1930s the Arctic
experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.
5. Stories of
impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate
models. Not one of these models
has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.
6. The Kyoto Protocol,
if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world
temperatures. The trillions of
dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems
such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting
malaria and Aids.
7. Climate is
constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods,
droughts, and storms. The best
policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal
with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling
and warming trends.
What are the
political/economic/military agendas behind AGW?
It seems apparent that the AGW fraud serves numerous
objectives. In all likelihood,
Control of energy use and thus, society.
The U.S. and indeed, the entire world,
gets about 85% of its energy from the burning of fossil fuels,. And we also know that there is a
direct, one-to-one correspondence between energy use and wealth. Thus, a reduction in the use of fossil
fuels by 20%, for example, would result in a 20% reduction in living standards,
unless other energy sources were brought on line to replace that energy. Thus, increased regulation and taxation
of energy is a way to control the economy and the society.
including EU President, Vaclav Klaus have commented on the many similarities
between what’s happening in America today with what has happened in Communist
countries in the past. Professor
emeritus of aerospace engineering Vincent U. Muirhead, University of Kansas,
The new green left (environmentalist) propaganda reminds me of the old
red left (communist) propaganda. The
dirty word is now carbon rather than capitalism. The game is simply to intrude and control everything. How much will the carbon tax be for
each of us to breathe?
We also understand
that fossil fuels are non-renewable and that it will be essential to develop
alternative energy sources in the future.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical
Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem observed:
The inventory of fossil fuels is
fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200
years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't
last as long. The real alternative
that is presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily
produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation
when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today
and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the
general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the
anthropogenic spewing of CO2.
This transformation to nuclear energy will probably take place when oil
reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation.
B. Promotion of nuclear energy. Anton Uriarte, professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque
Country in Spain, explains it this way:
It's just a political thing and the lies
about global warming are contributing to the proliferation of nuclear energy
(September 2007 article in the Spanish newspaper El Correo).
:C. Control of the population through fear.
Certainly, there has
been sophisticated campaign to instill fear into the hearts of all citizens,
young and old. Geologist Georgia
D. Brown notes:
Fear is a means of controlling a
population, and since the cold war has ended, the government needed new fuel
for its control fire.
D. A money
grab. I.e., Follow the Money
If we follow the money, we see that many billions of dollars
are flowing into the hands of those on the man-made global warming
bandwagon. Indeed, many now refer
to the “Climate-Industrial Complex,” as the nexus of government officials and
research agencies, private contractors, and allied businesses poised to make a
killing on the “greening” of the economy. President Eisenhower’s warning in his 1961 farewell
address has come true. Companies
such as Goldman Sachs, ENRON, the oil majors, etc. have been working hard to
get Congress to pass the needed carbon regulations so ensure the success of
their next ponzi scheme. (They’ve
suffered a brief setback however, in October, 2010, when the Chicago Climate
Exchange closed down.). Of course,
if the public were to realize that there is no man-made global warming, all
this money dries up. Last year,
the finance industry traded ~$120
billion worth of carbon credits..
The US government and the EU spent between $2-6 billion and $3 billion,
respectively, to support AGW “research.”
And big oil and other foundations funded anti-global warming skeptics
only with about $2 million last year.
as a surrogate for war and the planned destruction of 10 % of GDP?
The Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of
Peace is a controversial 100- page booklet, written in 1963 by “The
Special Study Group,” and published by Leonard C. Lewin in 1967. The book, reportedly authored by members
of a secret Pentagon think tank (thought to be Rand Corporation) that included
Harvard Economist John Kenneth Galbraith, recommended that environmental
pollution, including global warming, could be manufactured as a surrogate for
Obviously, if the war system were to be discarded, new political
machinery would be needed at once to serve this vital function. Until it is developed, the continuance
of the war system must be assured, if for no other reason, among others, than
to preserve whatever quality and degree of poverty a society requires as an
incentive, as well as to maintain the stability of its internal organization of
power. (I.e, the class and
surrogates for war must meet two principal criteria. They must be “wasteful,” in the common sense of the word,
and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand system. A corollary that should be obvious is
that the magnitude of the waste must be sufficient to meet the needs of a
particular society. An economy as
advanced and complex as our own requires the planned annual destruction of not
less than 10 percent of gross national product...
It may be, for instance,
that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility
of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the
survival of the species…. But from present indications it will be a
generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however
severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible
basis for a solution.
However unlikely some of the possible alternative enemies we have
mentioned may seem, we must
emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a
transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration. It
is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented,
rather than developed from unknown conditions. Poisoning of the
air, and of the principal sources of food and water, is already well advanced,
and at first glance would seem promising…. It constitutes a threat that can be
dealt with only through social organization and political power.
Indeed, the “hidden hand” of nameless “social engineers,’
such as those individuals who wrote the “Report from Iron Mountain” seems to be
pushing our society in directions similar to those outlined above.
F. William Engdahl,
“Disproof of Global Warming Hype,” 2008, explained:
The recent global warming hysteria is in reality a geopolitical push by
leading global elite circles to find a way to get the broader population to
willingly accept drastic cuts in their living standards, something that were it
demanded without clear reason by politicians, would spark strikes and
protest. The UN’s latest IPCC
report on Global Warming calls for diverting a huge 12% of global GDP to
“prevent the harmful effects of climate change.” The UN report, for example, estimated that its
recommendations to reduce certain manmade emissions would cost about $2,750 per
family per year in the price of energy.
destruction” of industrial economies or a way to insure that developing
countries never develop?
Jim MacNeil’s (1991)
book, Beyond Interdependence: The
Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology may
also be seen as a blueprint our would-be controllers have followed. The book includes an introduction by Maurice Strong, the so-called
“Guardian of the Planet” who was Executive Secretary of 1972 Stockholm
Conference on Human Environment and Secretary General of 1992 UN Rio Earth
Summit, and a forward by David
Rockefeller, the ultimate inside.) In the book, MacNeil announced: “The purpose of this conference is to
launch a global transition to sustainable
development.” And he calls
for the establishment of :
environmental taxes (cap and trade?)
2) A “Green GNP” to
help implement central planning and control of the world’s economy.
3) The end of
4) Implementation of
a World Government (Global Governance Agenda).
as the “moral equivalent of war”
We may now see that
that this planned shift will follow the well-known pattern of fascist
partnerships, now called “Public-private-partnerships,”
that is, coordination by corporations, governments, and non-governmental
smokescreen to hide the real problems, such as the “creative destruction” or
“planned demolition” of the middle class. Dr. Denis
G. Rancourt, Professor of Physics and an Environmental Science researcher at
the University of Ottawa, similarly observed:
I argue that by far the most
destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven
corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global
warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth.
government. Mikhail Gorbachev, Former Premier of the
Soviet Union, State of the World Forum and co-author of the Earth Charter,
The emerging “environmentalization” of our civilization and the need
for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will
inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations.
Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government…..
The UN Commission on Global Governance pronounced:
Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities,
individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.
Dixy Lee Ray, former
chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, 1993, echoed these observations in Environmental
Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?:
More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called
“New World Order” or World Government under the United Nations have adopted
global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations
and the international realignment of power.
has been the consistent goal of the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) which has steered American foreign and domestic
policy for many decades. The CFR
was established in 1921 as an American branch of the British Royal Institute for International
Affairs (RIIA), also known as Round Table groups of Britain. And, if IPCC review
Boehmer-Christiansen is correct in her assessment that the IPCC and the UK
government are one and the same, it would appear that the UK is slated to be the
power behind the UN.
H. Depopulation and genocide? Maurice
Strong, a Rockefeller protégé who wrote the terms of reference for the United
Nations IPCC, and who was (among many other things) Secretary-General of the United
Nations’ Rio Earth Summit, founder of the UN Environment Programme
(UNEP), founder, and president of Earth Council, co-author of the Earth
Charter with Mikhail Gorbachev, has stated:
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized
civilizations collapse? Isn’t it
our responsibility to bring that about?
H) As a cover story
to protect, hide, and advance geo-engineering/weather modification programs.
Dr. John Holdren, Obama’s new “Science Czar,” announced in
February, 2010, that the Obama administration is considering the emergency
measure of “fixing” our “run-away” climate with “geo-engineering”
solutions. Anyone who has studied
the history of weather modification/weather warfare/geo-engineering, however,
is aware that experimentation in these areas has been conducted over the past
60+ years, often with devastating results. In 1952, for example, during Operation Cumulus, British
Royal Air Force jets seeded clouds above the small town of Linden,
England. Rains flooded the town
with 90 million tons of water that killed 35 killed people and did an enormous
amount of property damage.
Over four decades
ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated:
Control of space means
control of the world. From
space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control the earth's
weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the Gulf
Stream and change temperature climates to frigid." (from Caro, Lyndon Johnson: Master of
the Senate, p. 1028).
Thus, when physicist John Holdren compared global warming to
being “in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog,” we can see
that he is being disingenuous and deceptive in a number of ways. As a scientist privy to all the best
information available to government officials, he must certainly know that 1)
humans have not caused any damaging warming, 2) the climate has been cooling,
and 3) the use of geo-engineering as a way to “fix” the climate could have
disastrous consequences, either intended or unintended.
Most likely, Holdren is perpetuating the official myth of
AGW for geo-political reasons. For
example, a quick look at the 1996 document “Weather as a Force Multiplier:
Owning the Weather in 2025” which
was presented to the U.S. Air Force as a template for future action, indicated
that future control of weather (for warfare purposes) would require:
Technology advancements in five major areas are necessary
for an integrated weather-modification capability:
l1) advanced nonlinear modeling techniques *
l2) computational capacity *
l3) information gathering and transmission*
l4) a global sensor array
l5) weather intervention techniques
I placed an asterisk (*) after those areas which are and
have been supported by the funding of AGW research, mainly since 1990, when
government grants increased by over a factor of 10 for “climate research,” from
about $190 million/year to over $2 billion/year. Thus, the billions that have ostensibly been
poured into climate research (to support the hypothesis of AGW) may actually
have gone largely to the development of 1) advanced non-linear modeling
techniques, 2) computational capacity, and information gathering and
If this is the case, then it would seem that the entire AGW
myth was a hoax from the very beginning and that it has been used as a cover to
fund research into weather warfare and geo-engineering. If so, to now claim, as Holdren
does, that the problems of climate change are so dire that we need to now
consider using these geo-engineering techniques is a profound lie, indeed.
To make matters yet more confusing, we must acknowledge the
possibility that much of the “extreme weather” we have seen over the past several
decades may indeed have been caused by humans; not by our industrial
activities, per se, but rather by the geo-engineering capabilities of our
militaries (including the HAARP, High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
in Alaska maintained by Raytheon for the U.S. Air Force and Navy).
Plans A and B
In general, the myth of AGW seems to have been designed to
justify two major responses.
“Plan A” includes
Kyoto-Protocol-type legislative restrictions on use of fossil fuels and
therefore would provide ruling elites with the mechanisms needed to enforce and
profit from radical reductions in our use of fossil fuels. This would allow elites, if they wish, to engineer a “controlled demolition” of
“Plan B” consists
of “fixing” the climate with various
weather-modification/geo-engineering/weather warfare technologies. These technologies have the potential
to consolidate control of the entire planet into the hands of a very few. Indeed, it has been stated that one
extremely wealthy person would have at his/her disposal the means to plunge the
entire Earth into another ice age.
Both of these “solutions”, if implemented fully, have the
potential to wreck the economy and the environment, and could lead to
totalitarian regimes. Thus, it is imperative that average citizens understand
enough about the AGW fraud that they will not be hoodwinked into acquiescing to
these two, potentially disastrous “solutions.”
Over the past decades, the self-appointed ruling elite has certainly
given ample notification of their intentions Banker and CFR (Council on Foreign Relations)
member, James Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, founder of United World Federalists and the Federal Reserve system, stated to
the U.S. Senate on February 17, 1950:
We shall have global government
whether or not we like it. The
only question is, whether world government will be achieved by conquest or
In a 1959 essay, “The West in Crisis,” James Warburg,, stated:
are living in the perilous period of transition from the era of the fully
sovereign nation-state to the era of world government.
It would seem to this observer, at least, that both Plan A and Plan B have been formulated and are now being partially implemented
by forces that are more powerful than any single national government. Thus, it seems that the powers behind
the implementation of these plans must include the world’s wealthiest elite and
financiers. Their own documents
indicate that their goal is to establish world dictatorship. If these suppositions are correct, then
it might be accurate to consider Plan A
(regulation of carbon emissions) would involve institution of world government
by “consent” (as per Warburg’s prediction) whereas Plan B (geo-engineering) might provide the means through which world
government might be established by “conquest.” In either event, establishment of a world dictatorship would
most likely have disastrous consequences for all but a tiny minority of the world’s
super elite. It would almost
certainly involve the continued eradication of the middle class and democracy
and the establishment of some kind of techno-feudal totalitarian system.
“Plan A:” Political/economic “solutions”
“Kyoto Protocol”-type legislation includes regulatory
mechanisms to reduce carbon emissions such as carbon taxes, cap and trade
schemes, and trading of carbon credits on global stock exchanges. In the U.S. alone, there have proposals
to introduce over a 100 new taxes, ostensibly to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In 2000, French President Jacques Chirac, stated that “(The Kyoto
Protocol is) the first component of an authentic global government.”
Kyoto Protocol and
spin-off regulatory laws and treaties:
“The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol
is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the
European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emmissions . This international treaty intended to be
“the first step” toward making required CO2 reductions. It would require that the world’s
developed countries, but not developing countries, reduce their CO2
emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. This would have an undetectable effect on any global warming
caused by humans (an estimated 0.05 degrees C by 2050). But if implemented, it probably would have doubled energy
costs by 2012 and perhaps quadrupled them thereafter. “ (from
The Kyoto Protocol went into effect in February, 2005,
and as of July 2010, 191 states have signed and ratified the treaty. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty. It’s provisions will expire in 2012. The IPCC’s First Assessment
Report in 1990 stated that global fossil fuel use would have to be reduced by
60 to 80% to stabilize CO2 by the middle of the 21st
century (Phase 2 of the Kyoto protocol).
The Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006 was passed in California. Like the Kyoto Protocol, this legislation mandates that
greenhouse emissions be rolled back to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80% below
1990 levels by 2050.
The American Clean
Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Congressmen Waxman and Markey, passed
the U.S. House on 6/29/09 but did not pass the Senate. The bill called for implementation of
energy caps that would reduce fossil fuel emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by
2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050.
In December of 2009, the nations of world met in Copenhagen,
Denmark under the auspices of the UN Framework Committee on Climate
Change. The Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty, which was not ratified, called
for carbon emissions to be 11-19% lower than 1990 levels by 2020 and 50% below
1990 levels by 2050.
Clearly, the intent of the Kyoto Protocol and similar
legislation is to allow national and supranational authorities to control and limit
energy use. Again, 85% of the world’s
energy derives from fossil fuels.
And there is a direct correlation between energy use and wealth
(Lightfoot, “Nobodies Fuel: Energy is More Important than Climate”). Thus, a 20% reduction of fossil fuel energy
use would result in a 20% reduction in wealth and living standards unless those
energy sources are replaced by other sources, etc.
There is no question that the Kyoto Protocol-type treaties
and laws are a way to promote nuclear power and discourage the use of fossil
fuels. We may speculate as to the
reason for this. Is this designed
to reduce the impact of inevitably diminishing fossil fuel supplies, often
referred to as “Peak Oil?” Or is
it a way to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing countries,
or more drastically, perhaps, to effect the “creative destruction” of the
In addition, it is clear that that the Kyoto Protocol and
similar international treaties give more regulatory power to the United
Nations. As Gordon Brown has
stated: “Global problems require global solutions.” Thus, implementation of these regulations would in all
likelihood be a major step toward global governance.
Certainly, we must ask and demand answers to these
questions. Economist Dr. George
Reisman, author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics, stated:
Global warming is not a
threat. But environmentalism’s
response to it is. All of the
rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves
in chains. It is an attempt to lure
them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military
misadventure, one from which escape might be impossible.
In the absence of official explanations, many intelligent
observers are now doing their best to understand the real motives of the
“social engineers,” the ones who seem to be manipulating society. Richard Moore (2010) offers a rather
comprehensive explanation in “Climate Science: Observations and Models:”
One thing we always need to keep
in mind is that the people at the top of the power pyramid in our society have
access to the very best scientific information. They control dozens, probably hundreds, of high-level think
tanks, able to hire the best minds, and carry out all kinds of research we
don’t hear about. They have access
to all the secret military and CIA research, and a great deal of influence over
what research is carried out in think tanks, the military, and in universities.
Just because they might be
promoting fake science for its propaganda value, that doesn’t mean they believe
it themselves. They undoubtedly
know that global cooling is the real problem, and the actions they are
promoting are completely in line with such an understanding.
Cap and trade, for example, won’t
reduce carbon emissions. Rather it
is a mechanism that allows emissions to continue, while pretending they are
declining- by means of a phony market model. In short, it’s a con.
It’s a fake theory about what the consequences of a policy will be, when
the real consequences are known from the beginning.
Cap-and-trade has nothing to do
with climate. It is part of a
scheme to micromanage the allocation of global resources, and to maximize
profits from the use of those resources.
Think about it. Our
“powerful factions” decide who gets the initial cap-and trade credits. They run the exchange market itself,
and can manipulate the market, create derivative products, sell futures, etc. They can cause deflation or inflation
of carbon credits, just as they can cause deflation or inflation of
currencies. They decide which
corporations get advance insider tips, so they can maximize their emissions
while minimizing their offset costs.
They decide who gets loans to buy offsets, and at what interest rate. They decide what fraction of petroleum
will go to the global North and the global South. They have “their man” in the regulation agencies that
certify the validity of offset projects.
And they make money every which way as they carry out this micromanagement.
In the face of global cooling,
this profiteering and micromanagement of energy resources becomes particularly
significant. Just when more energy
is needed to heat our homes, we’ll find that the price has gone way up. Oil companies are actually strong
supporters of the global-warming bandwagon, which is very ironic, given that
they are funding some of the useful contrary research that is going on. Perhaps the oil barons are counting on
the fact that we are suspicious of them, and assume we will discount the
research they are funding, as most people are in fact doing. And the recent consent of global
cooling explains all the urgency to implement the carbon-management regime:
they need to get it in place before everyone realizes that warming alarmism is
And then there are the carbon
taxes. Just as with income taxes,
you and I will pay our full share for our daily commute and for heating our
homes, while the big corporate CO2 emitters will have all kinds of
loopholes, and offshore havens, set up for them. Just as Federal Reserve theory hasn’t left us with a
prosperous Main Street, despite its promises, so theories of carbon trading and
taxation won’t give us a happy transition to a sustainable world.
Instead of building the
energy-efficient transport system we need, for example, they’ll sell us bio-fuels
and electric cars, while most of society’s overall energy will continue to come
from fossil fuels, and the economy continues to deteriorate. The North will continue to operate
unsustainably, and the South will pay the price in the form of mass die-offs,
which are already ticking along at the rate of six million children per year
from malnutrition and disease.
While collapse, suffering, and
die-offs of “marginal” populations will be unpleasant for us, it will give our
“powerful factions” a blank canvas on which to construct their new world order,
whatever that might be. And we’ll
be desperate to along with any scheme that looks like it might put food back on
our tables and warm up our houses.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that “In January (2010),
investigators from Belgium said that in some E.U. countries, 90% of the market
volume in carbon trading was based on criminal activities.” (Washington’s Blog; “Cap and Trade: A
“Plan B:” Geo-engineering
“solutions” to “fix the climate
Plan B is
potentially much more draconian and damaging than Plan A. Obama’s science advisor, physicist Dr.
John Holdren, has stated that the Obama administration if discussing radical technologies
to “fix the climate” and cool the Earth’s atmosphere. He compared global warming to being “in a car with bad
brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog.” He mentioned the possibilities of shooting pollution
particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays, in effect,
creating an artificial volcano.
Another geo-engineering option he mentioned was to create so-called
artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the air and store it.
Given the fact that geo-engineering and weather warfare has
a nearly 70-year history already (as noted above), Holdren’s comments are
disingenuous in the extreme. In
perhaps the largest covert operation in the history of the planet, the U.S. and
other governments have been systematically spraying enormous quantities o particulates
into the atmosphere for the past two decades, creating the so-called
“persistent contrails” (aka “chemtrails”) that spread across the sky to form
artificial clouds that trap heat in the atmosphere (Figure 52).
Figure 52. Persistent
contrails (chemtrails) forming artificial clouds in various parts of the U.S.
These are covert operations that are officially denied by
nearly all government officials. In
1996, the Air Force website
referred to “chemtrails” as a “hoax.”
But the very nature of the sky has been modified. There are probably tens or hundreds of
thousands of photos available that prove it. And the spraying is occurring in most countries of the
world. In the U.S., intensive
spraying has been on-going for 20+ years now. This is well documented in a number of DVD’s such as
Aerosol Crimes also known as Chemtrails (www.carnicom.com),
Climate Engineers (www.NewYorkSkywatch.com),
Weather Warfare (History Channel, 2009), and Tom Bearden’s 1984 lecture:
“Soviet Weather Engineering over North America.’
But why are governments spraying the skies? What is the purpose? Researchers speculate that there could
be many goals of the spraying, including local climate modification, gaining
ultimate control over the food supply, or possibly even depopulation.
Is it possible that the ruling elite
has decided that the human population needs to be reduced? Yes, that is a certainty. New Science Czar John Holdren himself
co-authored a textbook with Paul and Anne Erlich (Ecosystems, 1977) in which they advocated compulsory
population-control laws, forced abortions, and mass sterilization to save the
planet. They concluded that a
“planetary regime” (i.e., world
government under the United Nations) with an international police force should
control the global economy and dictate by force the number of children allowed
to be born.
Hence, we can now draw a straight line from the
pseudo-science of Malthus and eugenics to the pseudo-science of AGW and we can
now see that both may have the same goal.
Official United Nations documents, such as the Global Biodiversity Assessment make clear their position on the so-called
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the
present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At a more frugal European standard of
living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
Actually, this call for over 50% reduction of the human
population is fairly moderate compared to more extreme statements by other
allied think tanks and environmental alarmists: In Goals for Mankind, Mankind at the Turning Point, and The
First Global Revolution, the extremely influential think tank, the Club of
It would seem that humans
need a common motivation… either a real one or else one invented for the
purpose…. In searching for a new
enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of
global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.… The real enemy, then, is
man himself.… The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500
million but less than one billion.
world-famous ecologist, United Nations (UNESCO) Courier, stated:
One American burdens he earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a
terrible thing to say. In order to
stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It’s a horrible thing to say, but it’s
just as bad not to say it.
of Earth First!, states the most extreme view of the radical
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a
Obviously, these are statements by very sick
individuals. In all likelihood,
however, they seem to believe their own very dangerous rhetoric. And unfortunately, the ruling
elite seems to subscribe to these misanthropic views. Billionaire George Soros, one of Obama’s main
“handlers” recently stated that:
should be the focus of efforts, it should be presented as an environmental threat,
and the response needs to be free of governments and the democratic
process. This is something so
nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers. They need to be independent of
government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see
It does appear that
the ruling elite is utilizing the “environmental agenda” as a means of bringing
in some new form of totalitarian government. In her book, Cloak of Green., Dewar notes that the
implementation of the environmental agenda began, in earnest, at the Rio Earth
Summit of 1992. Dewar states:
Advertised as the World’s Greatest Summit,
(the 1992) Rio Earth Summit was publically described as a global negotiation to
reconcile the need for environmental protection with the need for economic
growth. (Insiders) understood that
there were other deeper goals…. The shift of national regulatory powers to vast
regional authorities; the opening of all remaining closed national economies to
multinational interests; the strengthening of decision-making structures far
above and far below the grasp of newly minted national democracies, and the
integration of the Soviet and Chinese empires into the global market system…. a
very grand agenda- the Global
I was beginning to understand that the Rio
Earth Summit was part of a Rockefeller-envisioned Global Governance Agenda that
dated back before World War II, that it was linked to the regional trade
agreements just being negotiated – the North American Free Trade
Agreement and the Maastricht Treaty.
Like the Stockholm Conference, it was all about integrating East and
Some relevant geo-political
factors we should keep in mind
Oil cartels essentially have a monopoly on
fossil fuel resources. The
Rockefellers gained control of about 90% of the oil industry by1870.
Military/intelligence agencies and their
contractors such as Raytheon have an effective monopoly on Tesla technology, Directed
Energy Weapons, HAARP, the means to conduct large-scale geo-engineering
Central Banks have a monopoly of global
Monsanto and a few other multi-national corporations are
moving toward monopolization of food system. (Engdahl, 2009, Seeds of
A handful of multi-national companies are
now trying to monopolize the world’s fresh water supplies.
Some profound insights on
AGW from the “blogosphere:”
Earth is a giant ball of water that washes out CO2, man’s combustion
activities are not affecting the temperature of the planet. CO2 is a trace gas, man-made
CO2 is only 0.117% of the total greenhouse gases. The push for CO2 legislation
is about taxation for global government and not about the earth science.
AGW has crippled national economies, and
may still put a stake through
Dr. Phil Jones is the same guy who when
asked to get a copy of the raw
data he used to show warming, responded with: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should make the data available to you, when your aim is to
try and find something wrong with it?”
does not matter, global warming is a religion. Put your faith in Gaia and her high priestess Al Gore.
sun, earth, moon and stars responded to CRU with: “You’re not the boss of me.”
the money and productivity that this has cost many governments (with the wasted
tens of billions in global warming research being the smallest part) this is
one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on society.
want to know who is going to be held accountable for the mortality rates in
developing countries where they were forced to NOT DEVELOP. Who will pay for the lives of all the
carbon-trading schemes, and other emissions-based solutions presented by the
ruling elite’s scientific doomsayers, will not solve global warming. But, if they get their way, they will
change the lives of people for the worse.
That is part of the ruling elite’s plan.
light bulb will be banned in 2012.
the time for every city and state planner to sue the companies that extorted
money in the form of contracts for “eco-crap.” Think of all the business that took place to ready
infrastructure in the form of goods, services, logistics, communications, and
work hours (county, city, and state wages paid to employees for the planning,
purchasing, implementing, and preparing these municipalities to reduce their
trails can keep the temperature up.
That would be government influenced warming- not mankind warming.
they will stop chem trailing the clouds now. That was for global warming right?
Baliunas, S., 2002, Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story
About Climate Change, Heritage Lecture #
Ball, T., 2007, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? Canada
Free Press, February 5, 2007, http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Ball, T., 2008, Exposing the Global Warming Myth- CO2
Levels, Canada Free Press, December 10, 2008.
Ball, T., and Harris, T., 2007, Climate Extremism: The Real
Threat to Civilization,
Ball, T., 2009, Controlling Carbon a Bureaucrat’s Dream,
Ball, T., 2009, Cap and Trade and Alternative Energy: The
Real Danger in Obama’s Policies,
Bean, E., 2008, High Expectations for Climate Work, Fulton
Report. December 1, 2008.
Beck, E.G., 2007, 180 years of Atmospheric CO2 gas analysis
by chemical methods, Energy & Environment,
18 (2), 259-282.
Berner, R.A., and Kothavala, Z., 2001, Geocarb III: A
Revised model at atmospheric CO2
time, American Journal of Science, Vol. 301, 182-204.
Booker, C., 2009, Climate change: This is the worst
scientific scandal of our generation.
The Telegraph. Nov.. 28, 2009
Booker, C., 2010, Climate Change: This is the worst
scientific scandal of our generation, Centre for Research
on Globaliztaion, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16321
Brandow, D., 2008, Shock, shock…. The climate catastrophe
lobby is telling
Carter, R. M., 2008, Knock, Knock, Where is the Evidence for
Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming? Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 38,
no. 2, pp. 177-202.
Delingpole, J., 2010, Climategate: the scandal spreads, the
plot thickens, the shame deepens, Telegraph
Devine, Miranda, November 27, 2008, Beware the Church of
Climate Alarm, http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alrm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html
Evans, D., 2010, Is the Western Climate Establishment
Evans, D., 2010, Global warming or global cooling? A new
trend in climate alarmism, Globalresearch.ca
Gay, R.F., and Engdahl, F.W., 2008, Disproof of Global
Warming Hype- Mathematical Proof There is No
Climate Crisis. http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5325
Getting Rich Off the Great Global Warming Swindle, March 13,
Goldberg, M., 2009, Holdren’s Controversial Population
Control Past. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article+holdrens_controversial_population_control_past
Gow, Tom, The Global Warming Hoax, http://www.freedom/first/society.org/articles/articls/18/1/The-Global-Warming-Hoax/Page1.html
Gray, V., November 19, 2008, The Absurdity of a Reliable
Average Global Surface Temperature, http://jennifermarogasy.com/blog/2008/11/the-absurdity-of-a-reliable-average-global-surface-temperature/
Horner, C., Climategate 2.0- The NASA files: U.S. Climate
Science as Corrupt as CRU, Climate Change Dispatch.
Jaworowski, Z., 2007,
CO2: The greatest scientific scandal of our time,
Karlstrom , E.T., 1991, Paleoclimatic
significance of Late Cenozoic paleosols of Waterton-Glacier Parks, Alberta and
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. v. 85, p. 71-100.
Karlstrom, E.T., 1990, Relict periglacial
features east of Waterton-Glacier Parks, Alberta and Montana, and paleoclimatic
significance. Permafrost and Periglacial
Processes, v. 1, no. 3, p. 221-234.
Levant, E., 2003, Fight Kyoto: Why Canada promotes the implementation
the Kyoto accord,
Lindzen, R.S., 3/30yp/2009, LIndzen on negative climate
Linzen, R.,S., 2007, The Nature of Arguments for
Lindzen, R.S., 2007, A climate of alarm, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/26945
Lindzen, R.S., 2006, There is no consensus on global
warming, Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006.
Lindzen, R.S., 1992, Global Warming: The Origin and Nature
of the Alleged Scientific Consensus, Cato
Institute, Vol. 15, no. 2, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Lomborg, B., 2009, The Climate-Industrial Complex, http://online.wej.com/article/SB124286145192740987.html
Mann, M. E., Bradley, R. S., and Hughes, M. K., 1998,
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing
over the past six centuries. Nature 392, 779-787.
McLeod, J., March 13, 2007, Creators of Carbon Credit Scheme
Cashing In On It., http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/al-groe-and-marice-strong-con-artists-extordinaire/
Newman, A., 2010, Senators question flawed NASA climate
data, Climate Change Dispatch.
O’Sullivan, J., 2010, Australiagate: Now NASA caught in
trick over Aussie climate data,
O’Sullivan, J., 2010, NASA charged in new climate fakery:
Greenhouse gas data bogus, http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23800
Pann, Tony, 2009, Climategate: CEI to sue NASA Goddard for
Climate Change fraud, examiner.com.
Pielke, Jr., R., May 12, 2008, How to Make Two Decades of
Cooling Consistent with Warming, Center for
Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, http://sciencepoilicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001425how_to_make_two-deca.html
Robinson, A.B., Robinson, N.E., and Soon, W., 2007,
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon
Dioxide, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, vol. 12, 79-90.
Russell, G., 2009, U.N. “Climate Change” Plan Would Likely
Shift Trillions to Form New World Economy,
Singer, S.F., 2008, Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the
Climate, Science and Environmental Policy Project,
The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL, 40 pp.
Singer, S.F., Benefits of Global Warming,
Spencer, R.W., 2007, How Serious is the Global Warming
Threat? Social Science and Public
44, pp. 45-50.
Spencer, R. W., 2008, Global Warming and Nature’s
Thermostat, Weather Questions.com
Strata, A.J., 2008, NASA discovers 70% of global climate due
to Pacific Ocean
Oscillations- not CO2, http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5693
Thornhill, C., 2008, Global warning: We are actually heading
towards a new
Ice Age, claim scientists.
Unruh, B., 2008, 31,000 scientists reject “global awrming”
Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority):
2007, August 20, New peer-reviewed scientific studies chill
2007, December 20, U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming
Claims in 2007
2008, March 6, Climate skeptics reveal “horror stories” of
2008, April 30, “Global Warming Will Stop,” New
Peer-Reviewed Study Says
2008, July 16, Gore’s (really) inconvenient timing-
“consensus” on man-made
global warming collapses in 2008.
2008, November 20, “Planet has cooled since Bush took
2009, March 16, “Update: More Than 700 International
Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming
2009, November 24, Inhofe Launches “Climategate”
2010: February 25, 2010, “Inhofe Warns of Costs of Massive
$6.7 Trillion climate Bailout.
Alexander, R.B., 2009, Global Warming False Alarm; The Bad
Science Behind the United Nations’ Assertion
that Man-Made CO2 Causes Global Warming, Canterbury Publishing, 178 pp.
Booker, C., 2009, The Real Global Warming Disaster,
Continuum, New York, 368 pp.
Hayden, H.C., 2008, A Primer on CO2 and Climate, Vales Lake
Publishing LLC, 87 pp.
Hoffman, D.L., and Simmons, A., 2008, The Resilient Earth:
Science, Global Warming, and the Future of
Humanity, BookSurge Publishing, 396 pp.
Horner, C. C., 2007, The Politically Incorrect Guide to
Global Warming and Environmentalism, Regnery
Publishing Inc., 350 pp.
Horner, C. C., 2008, Red Hot Lies; How Global Warming
Alarmists Use Threats,Fraud, and Deception to
Keep You Misinformed, Regnery Publishing Inc., 407 pp.
Lawson, N., 2009, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global
Warming, Duckworth Overlook, 166 p.
Lomborg, B., 1998, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring
the Real State of the World,
University Press, 515 pp.
Lomborg, B., 2007, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s
Guide to Global Warming, Vintage Books,
Michaels, P. J., 2005, Shattered Consensus; The True State
of Global Warming, Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., 291 pp.
Michaels, P.J., and Balling, R.C., Jr., 2009, Climate of
Extremes; Global Warming Science They Don’t Want
You to Know, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 266 pp.
Plimer, I., 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the
Missing Science, Taylor Trade Publishing, 503
Singer, S.F. and Avery, D.T., 2007, Unstoppable Global
Warming Every 1,500
Years, Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., 278 pp.
Solomon, L., 2008, The Deniers, The World-Renowned
Scientists Who Stood
Up Against Global Warming Hysteria,
Political Persecution, and Fraud;
Richard Vigilante Books, 239 pp.
Spencer, R., 2008, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to
Bad Science, Pandering Politicians,
and Misguided Policies that Hurt the
Poor, Encounter Books, 191 pp.
Spencer, R., 2010, The Bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama’s
Global Warming Agenda, Encounter Books,
No. 6, 38 pp.
Svensmark, H., and Calder, N., 2007, The Chilling Stars: A
New Theory of Climate Change, Icon Books,
Ltd., 246 pp.
Wishart, I., 2009, Air Con; The Seriously Inconvenient Truth
about Global Warming, Howling at the Moon
Publishing Ltd., 285 pp.
Bradley, R.S., 1985, Quaternary Paleoclimatology: Methods of
Paleoclimatic Reconstruction, Allen and
Unwin Press, Boston, 472 pp.
Bryant, E., 1997, Climate Process and Change, Cambridge
University Press, 209 pp.
Burroughs, W.J., 1994, Weather Cycles: Real or Imaginary?,
Cambridge University Press, 207 pp.
Cronin, T.M., Principles of Paleoclimatology, 1999, Columbia
Hidore, J.J., Global Environmental Change; It’s Nature and
Impact, 1996, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 263 pp.
Hidore, J. J. and Oliver, J. E., 1993, Climatology: An
Atmospheric Science, Macmillan Publishing Company,
Lamb, H. H., Climate History and the Modern World, 1982,
Pielke, Jr., R., 2008, How to make two decades of cooling
consistent with warming.
Rotberg, R.I. and Rabb, T.K., Climate and History: Studies
in Interdisciplinary History,
Press, 280 pp.
Ruddiman, W. F., Earth’s Climate: Past and Present, 2001, W.H.
Freeman and Company, New York, 465
Williams, M.A.J., Dunkerley, D.L., Deckker, P.D., Kershw,
A.P., Stokes, T., 1993, Quaternary Environments,
Edward Arnold, 329 pp.
DVDs and videos
Carbon Dioxide and the “Climate Crisis:” Reality or
Illusion, CO2Science, 2008, 53 minutes.
Evangelists and Global Warming: A Formal Debate, 2006, The
Apologetics Group, 120 minutes, www.nicenecouncil.com .
Global Warming: A Scientific and Biblical Expose of Climate
Global Warming or Global Governance? Dr. Michael Coffman,
Sovereignty International and Environmental
Perspectives, 81 minutes, www.nicenecouncil.com
The Great Global Warming Swindle, 2007, Martin Durkin
documentary, 158 minutes,
The Greening of Planet Earth: The Effects of Carbon Dioxide
on the Biosphere, Journal of Environmental