logo2

 

The debunking of

Global Warming Theory

(anthropogenic climate change)

 

"They never really tell you what [the 97%] agree on. It is propaganda.

So all scientists agree it's probably warmer now than it was at the end of the

Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2 you will have

some warming. Maybe very little warming. But it is propaganda to translate

that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2, etc."

-- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

 

“The Sun is a primary driver of climate change — and has a far greater impact than changes in CO2." "This warming and cooling of arctic temperatures agrees almost perfectly with the changes in the sun's energy output.” -- Dr. Wie-Hock “Willie” Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

 

"there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere" -- 31,478 scientists

 

This debate was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and "follow the money" corruption, never about "science" -- James Delingpole

 

"There are vast quantities of scientists who at least question the concept of man-made global warming. It is true that the ones who go public are usually scientists either who have retired or who come from other disciplines. They’ve got nothing to lose. In this day and age it can be fairly dangerous to one’s career if you are a climate scientist and express some vociferous objection to the concept of dangerous global warming." -- Professor Garth Paltridge, Atmospheric Physicist

 

"The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago." - Dr Roy Spencer, Ph D, former NASA scientist

 

"Renewable energy can't do the job. Government should switch green subsidies into R&D" -- Bill Gates

 

How much CO2 is there?

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that constitutes only about 0.04 percent of earth's total atmosphere. That's 4 100th's of one percent! Concentration is expressed in parts per million. As of Spring 2015 levels were at 401.5 ppm. CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gases. Water vapor constitutes about 95% of greenhouse gases.

 

Does CO2 cause warming?

CO2 causes warming in an isolated environment. Earth is not an isolated environment. Earth has thousands of feedback mechanisms, each of which responds in different ways to temperature changes. These feedbacks may either reinforce or oppose the warming effects of extra CO2. For example warmer temperatures cause water vapors to condense into clouds which in turn reflect sunlight, thus reducing warming.

 

CO2 may contribute as little as only 9% to warming

There is disagreement as to how much CO2 actually contributes to the greenhouse effect. These are the top greenhouse gas contributors...

 

Water vapors and clouds: 36% - 72%

Carbon Dioxide: 9% - 26%

Methane: 4% - 9%

Ozone: 3% - 7%

 

What is earth's "normal" CO2 level?

Earth's CO2 levels have been determined to have been as high as 7,000 ppm, long before there were humans. During the dinosaur age, CO2 levels ranged between 1,000 and well over 2,000 ppm. At 403 ppm we are at levels so low that they have not been reached since about 300 million years ago. Yet websites like this one perpetuate the notion that "the very future of our planet earth is in peril" because CO2 levels of 400 ppm represent some sort of danger level.

 

levels

 

Is CO2 a pollutant?

No. CO2 is vital for plant life. At current levels, plants are on a starvation CO2 diet.

Global warming alarmists claim that species will be come extinct if the planet warms, yet warmer weather has increased biodiversity. Yet politicians, the media and alarmists have portrayed CO2 as a pollutant.

 

gas

ABOVE: The Liberal city of San Francisco reinforcing the lie that "the debate is over" and "the science is settled".

 

Monopolist funding

Follow the money

Thousands of scientists are being paid handsomely to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been paid to debunk anthropogenic global warming. Much of the debunking work is left to grass roots volunteers.

 

From 1989 until 2009 the the U.S. government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies. They additionally spent another $79 billion on climate change related technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy." This does not include funding from other governments and is not adjusted for inflation.

 

Grant-seeking scientists and others can get really rich from a career in global warming. If you put global warming in your article or proposal then you qualify for a lucrative govenrment research grant!

 

People like Al Gore earn $100,000, plus travel, hotel, security, and per diem expenses per speaking engagement.

 

The IPCC was created for the purpose of finding a human impact on global warming. That is their agenda and therefore the IPCC has no credibility.

 

Al Gore's massaged 'Hockey Stick'

The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are well established. Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and 1,413 papers on the Little Ice Age, yet the IPCC 3rd report concluded that neither the Medieval Warm Period nor the Little Ice Age were global climatic events.

 

Adding insult to injury, Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann created a temperature reconstruction chart which mysteriously erased the medieval warm period from history. This helps to create unprecedented 20th century warming for the hockey stick formation. In fact the data before the year 1421 was constructed from rings of one single alpine tree!

 

He also attached instrument data to tree ring data. This has the effect of puffing up post world war two economic boom warming. The tree ring data shows no warming over the last 50 years. The fact that tree ring data and instrument data don't match up is a red flag that something is very wrong here.

 

midi

 

Evidence of data tampering by NASA, GISS, etc

Altering old data to reflect new conclusions, agendas?

NASA, GISS, NASR, and others have a recent history of revising old temperature charts from years and decades ago to the upside to show more warming. Here's the problem: Old data does not change! This suggests data tampering, or some sort of lack of reliability.

 

Here's just one example from this website which has many more examples of revisions:

upward

nasa-2

Source

 

At first NASA said that surface temperatures were cooling, then they said there was no warming from 1876 to 1976, then they decided that it was warming from 1940 to 1970. They did this by cooling the past.

 

Furthermore in 1974 the National Center For Atmospheric Research reported cooling of 0.4 degrees from 1940 to 1970, and no warming from 1870 to 1970.

 

"There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get traction."

-- Science and Public Policy Institute

 

Agenda

The United States has a vested interest in preaching global warming in order to reduce dependency on foreign oil. In becoming oil self-sufficient the US also doesn't have to get involved in wars in the middle east. Politicians also have an Orwellian plan to get people out of suburbs and into urban cities using mass transit rather than cars.

 

Climategate blows the lid off global warming

Emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia revealed that scientists may be trying to conceal data and discussions, they view their job as political rather than scientific, and they admit to themselves that much of their science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

 

One guy is in charge of gathering

and massaging temperature data!

A professor named Phil Jones, head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, is the sole person in charge of the database of global temperatures. The original raw data no longer exists. All that remains is the massaged, homogenized, altered data. Mr. Jones was also part of the ClimateGate scandal discussed above.

 

 

Climate Records and Reconstructions

Background: Instrument temperature records only go back to 1880. In geological terms 135 years is globalnothing more than a blink of an eye. This time period is far too tiny to leap to any conclusions about humans affecting temperaturechange. In this latest NASA temperature chart we can't see how temperatures fluctuated before 1880, but we can at least see that from 1880 to 1910 temperatures were dropping at about as steep a pace as temperatures rose from 1950 to 2000. How did that happen? Temperatures have to rise before they can fall. So by looking at this chart alone, the know-nothing person can deduce that temperature fluctuation is normal.

 

carbon

And it is a fact that we are currently releasing 6 times more CO2 today than we did back in the 1940's. This is a problem for global warming alarmists because temperatures spiked upward from 1910 to 1940 (at the same rate of acceleration as they did from 1965 to 2000)? What caused temperatures to spike if humans were releasing much smaller amounts of CO2? This strongly suggests that temperature changes are normal.

 

 

 

 

post

ABOVE: According to NASA's temperature chart, from 1910 to about 1942 temperatures spiked up at about a 45 degree angle. This is about the same 45 degree angle as from 1966 to 2004, yet we were producing 50% to 85% less CO2 from 1910 to 1942.

 

And from about 1943 to 1976 temperatures dropped despite the fact that CO2 emissions gradually increased 5 fold.

 

BELOW: And for 18 years there was NO global warming, yet a whopping 25% of ALL human caused CO2 gas was released during this very time period.

 

18

 

There is nothing unusual about the last 100 years

says northern hemisphere reconstructions

(Page 38) This climate reconstruction indicates that at least in the northern hemisphere (on mostly north American land) there isn't any hockey stick to be found. Global warming alarmists' rebuttal is that this is dampened somewhat by southern hemisphere records. But this doesn't pass the smell test. Why would an area of land this large not show any spike in temperature over 2,000 years?

h1

 

h3

 

There is nothing unusual about the last 100 years

says the Greenland and Antarctica temperature reconstructions

iceYou simply cannot jump to any conclusions about recent warming without putting it in perspective versus longer time periods. Through isotope analysis scientists have been able to extract temperature data from ice drilled out from sites in Greenland and Antarctica. The ice years read like rings on a tree. Some of this data goes back 420,000 years. Unfortunately this ice core data is localized and it only goes up to the year 1850 (apparently because scientists must wait many years for recent snow layers to compact before they can extract recent temperature data). Conversely instrument records don't begin until 1880. For now the ice core sample data is some of the best we have in putting the 1950 to 2000 temperature rise in perspective.

 

Going back 5,000 years with Al Gore's hockey stick reconstructed: As you can see, temperature spikes every 500 to 1,000 years is normal. It suggests there is nothing out of the ordinary about our recent warming trend...

 

500

 

Going back 11,000 years...

 

100

 

Going back 420,000 years...

 

420

 

If you look at the 420,000 year trend you would agree that we are eventually heading back into another ice age! Cold weather is BAD for most life! If you believe that higher CO2 levels cause warming then we need to release more CO2 -- not less!

 

Fits like a glove: Correlation between sun spots and temperature

Scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute compared sun spot data with temperature records and discovered an incredibly close correlation.

sun

 

The 97% lie that traveled around the world

obama

 

NASA's false and fraudulent claim that '97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made and dangerous'

 

There is actually NO consensus on whether humans are causing the planet to warm is complicated. Watch this You Tube video by Joseph Blast for an in depth understanding. Here are cliff notes of the video...

 

What it boils down to is that the people conducting these fake "studies" used flawed methodology to inflate the numbers. NASA nevertheless cited these 4 flawed studies in their footnotes explaining their statement that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made and dangerous. The fact that NASA picked false and fraudulent studies is a clear indication that NASA is either dishonest and has an agenda or they are hasty and incompetent.

 

NASA cited a highly partisan Australian blogger named Naomi Oreskes (AKA "the socialist historian") whose opinion editorial was not peer reviewed. She claimed that 75% of scientists believe that humans were responsible for most of the observed warming of the last half-century. She cherry picked scientists by searching for "global climate change" instead of "climate change". In doing so she weeded out 92% of articles for her study! She is not a scientist and so she misinterpreted many articles. A follow up study aimed at updating her 75% figure found that only 7% of recent papers support the "scientists agree" claim.

 

98% of 79 cherry picked scientists is not a consensus: Maggie Kendall Zimmerman a student at the University of Illinois and her professor Peter Doran, conducted a two minute online survey of "earth scientists" working for government and universities. Only 5% of these scientists identified themselves as "climate scientists". She essentially asked all of the wrong people! She omitted the people whose opinions we would value most, namely solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers. She also asked all the wrong questions. For example she asked if human activity was a "significant contributing factor". To a scientist the word "significant" could mean a very small amount! She found that 98% of scientists agree, but only after surveying the views of.... wait for it.... just 79 climate scientists!

 

98% of 50 cherry picked scientists is not a consensus: After cherry picking scientists, Stanford student William R. Love Anderegg based the opinions of only 50 scientists to come to his "98% of scientists" statistic that was cited by NASA. He cherry picked the "most prolific" scientists. In doing so he assumed that just because a scientist has written lots of papers then their opinion was more important than someone who had written just a few papers. He used Google Scholar to select publications. The problem with Google Scholar is that it's a poor way to collect a database of studies. It includes not just peer-reviewed journals, but op-ed pieces (opinion pieces). He just looked at abstracts because he's not a scientist. Abstracts are inaccurate and misleading.

 

NASA's 4th source is an Australian global warming activist named John Cook. John Cook runs a partisan website called skepticalscience.com where all he does is attack global warming skeptics. He also has a partisan book entitled "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". In other words John Cook is not objective! Cook claimed that 97% of articles published from 1991 to 2011 endorsed the view that human activity is responsible for some warming. The operative word is "some". Some could mean very little, so most scientists were already likely to agree with the question. Like other fake studies, he looked at only abstracts.

 

The John Cook study essentially broke all kinds of rules of scientific data collection and scientific method by massaging results, cherry picking researchers who supported his alarmist views, etc. A follow up study found that in reality only 32.6% percent of papers endorsed the claim of some human caused warming. In other words if you believed that humans were contributing to just 1% of all warming, then you were lumped in with those who believe that humans are the proximate cause of global warming. A whopping 66.4% expressed no opinion. Those respondent opinions were conveniently thrown out in order to create the false 97% headline!

 

"Scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current global warming (AKA anthropological global warming)"

100% - 11,944 abstracts reviewed

66.4% - 7,930 were EXCLUDED for expressing no opinion on AGW!!!

32.6% - 3,896 marked as agreeing we cause some warming, but how much is "some"??? Miniscule amounts?

0.7% - 64 marked as endorsing consensus as defined.

0.3% - 41 actually endorsed consensus as defined.

0.0% - 0 marked as endorsing man-made catastrophe.

 

In response to Cook's study, Richard Tol (a prominent economist in the global warming debate) said "the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid, and unrepresentative". Christopher Monckton said "this project was not a scientific investigation... but a public relations exercise".

 

Another 97% lie: Anonymous online survey subjects

with likely critics of AGW excluded

Only 25 out of 2,500 IPCC related scientists agreed with the 2007 IPCC report. So then two University of Illinois researchers conducted a 2-minute anonymous online survey. They solicited 10,257 earth scientists but only 77 chose to take the survey! 75 anonymous people agreed with the survey's two questions. Also from the get go, these two "researchers" did not survey any scientists who would be critical of anthropological global warming, including solar scientists, atmospheric physicists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. Clearly these crackpot researchers had an agenda.

 

It gets worse. Only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. 80% of the UN’s IPCC membership are experts in other fields and have no dealing with or expertise in climate change as part of their academic studies!

 

What is the real consensus?

 

According to Klaus-Martin Schulte, 2008, "the proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% [Oreske's claim] to 45%.

 

According to peer reviewed research by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, on 54 scientific questions, one third are alarmist, one third are skeptics, and one third say they are uncertain.

 

The peer reviewed journal Verhaggen, et al found that only 42% agree with the IPCC's claim to be highly confident that more than half of modern warming is due to human activity.

 

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) found that 52% of AMS members who responded to a 2012 survey believe the warming of the past 150 years was man-made. Only 40% believe man-made global warming could be dangerous.

 

31,478 American scientists, including 9,021 with PhD's, signed the Oregon Petition which says in part: "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". The Hardline Institute printed the names, specialties, degrees and states of residence of every one of these scientists is compiled in a directory.

 

Phil Jones, is the one guy who has database of global temperatures was asked if the scientific debate is over. He said "I do not believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view". It should be noted that the original data no longer exists. All that remains is the massaged, homogenized, altered data.

 

Putting it in perspective, science is not determined by consensus anyway. It's determined by proof.

 

Instrument records may not even be reliable

Thermometers located near cities may not provide reliable data due to the urban heat island effect. Thermometers that were once located next to corn fields are now next to airports. Pavement absorbs heat. Temperatures in cities are higher due to human activities.

 

Empirical evidence that does not support AGW

ARTICLE: About only 20,000 years ago New York sat under a mile thick glacier. OMG! The glaciers melted!

ARTICLE: Southern Greenland may have once been green.

 

Their most important projections missed the mark

The scientists over-estimated rises in air and ocean temperatures. And their predictions of an atmospheric hot spot completely missed the mark. They also predicted that water vapor would amplify temperatures thus causing a greenhouse effect. In reality two decades of satellite data has showed that the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer.

 

The "Scientists" predicted that arctic sea ice

was to have melted by 2016

Experts predicted that the arctic ice sheet would melt by 2016. They were wrong. Now they are saying that there's a 66% chance of being ice free by 2050. This tells you that scientists really don't know much about climate. Furthermore even if it does melt at some point, this doesn't mean that it is man-made.

 

Antarctic ice sheet is growing

According to even NASA, satellite data indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001. And from 2003 to 2008 it gained 82 billion tons of ice per year.

 

Scientists: CO2 levels are past the point of no return

Scientists who believe in anthropological global warming now agree that we are past the point of no return as far as the carbon threshold. In other words if you believe that humans are causing warming, there is nothing we can do about it.

 

Cutting CO2 wouldn't make a difference anyway

Even if you believe that humans are causing the planet to warm, cutting CO2 will have little effect. In order to forestall just 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming, humans would have to produce no CO2 for 33 years. That means no cars, no trains, no planes, no electricity, no hospitals, not factories, etc. This 33 year number is calculated based on the United Nations' own accepted CO2 emissions numbers. We burn 30 billion tons of CO2 per year (or 2 ppm into the atmosphere). The UN says we are going to increase CO2 by 468 ppm in the next century.

 

Q&A with former NASA climatologist

 

CO2science.org -

 

Climatechangereconsidered.org - Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

 

Delingpole: Global warming almost entirely natural

 

Article - The Hockey Stick Collapses: 60 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable

 

Massive Climate Funding Exposed -

 

Climate Truth File - Required reading

 

Debunking Al Gore's exaggerated hockey stick - An exercise in poor mathematics that was massaged and doctored to create a predetermined conclusion.

 

Government scientists got their major climate predictions wrong - Feedback

 

Climate Change Driven by Ocean - Required reading

 

World leaders duped by manipulated data -

 

18 Spectacularly wrong predictions - Scientists and their blunders.

 

External article

 

External video - The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

External article - Correlation of global temperature with solar activity

 

Next article: Most desperate and absurd truther lies about 911