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 of www.naturalclimatechange.us)
California State 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 temperature fluctuations.
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 global warming.
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.
Award-winning 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 agendas.
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:”
“Climate 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.
President Barak Obama
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.
Dr. James Hansen, NASA scientist
Climate Change is the greatest threat that human civilization has ever faced.
Angela Merkel, German Chancellor
The planet is on course for a catastrophe. The existence of Life itself is at stake.
IPCC Principal Research Scientist
Man-made global warming has a potential to kill everybody. Michael Bloomberg
This is an emergency... It’ll make world war look like heaven.
Presidential candidate John Edwards
Our planet is just five years away from climate change catastrophe- but can still be saved, according to a new report.
The 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 have stated:
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 life.
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.
Senior Chemist Glenn Speck, Oklahoma City Isotek Environmental Lab
In my dealings with meteorologists nationwide, about 95% share my skepticism about global warming.
Ohio 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 activities.
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.
Hurricane 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…. If 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.
NASA 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.
Controlling 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 industrial age.
MIT 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.
Meteorologist 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.
Nigel 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 harvested.
Meteorologist Anthony J. Sadar
I'm not sure which is more arrogant - to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it.
Meteorologist Mark Nolan
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 use.
Dr. 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.
The whole 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.
Michael 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.
Some 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.
The heart 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 of AGW:
1. Climate is always changing and temperatures always fluctuate; daily, seasonally, and on longer time scales as well.
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 variability.
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 fluctuations.
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., 2007)
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 AD (Figure 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 drivers.)
Figure 5. Alternating climatic warming and cooling has occurred about every 27 years since 1470 AD, well before atmospheric CO2 began to increase.
Over the past 10,000 years, warmer climate prevailed during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (~9,000 to 5,000 years ago), the Minoan Warming (~1500 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, 2009).
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:
While 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.
Depending 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 ± 0.5° C, errors due to siting of a Stevenson Screen may be ± 0.3° C, errors due to wood or plastic may be ± 0.1° C, 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 ± 1.3° 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 8).
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 100 years.
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.
Aeronautical 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 "global warming"?
4. The oceans are cooling. The 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 temperatures.
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 carbon emissions.
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 16 (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.
6. 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.
7. 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 the left.
8. 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.
9. 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 fossils.
`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 quite bad.
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.
13. 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.
14. 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 25).
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 left.
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).
15. 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 present.
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 temperature:
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 meteorologist, explains:
Water 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 stated:
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 335 ppmv.
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 fuels…
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 al., 2007).
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 environmentalist, stated:
(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 the models.
Professor Chris 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:
None 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 initialized.
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.
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 atmosphere.
Here, 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:
Sophisticated 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 intentions.
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)
“The possibility 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.”
Pierre Gallois 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 Confusion (2008):
a) 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 computer models
f) 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 100 years.
h) 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%.
i) The models don’t adequately account for the dampening effects (negative feedbacks) of oceans and sea-ice.
j) They have poor spatial resolution.
k) They don’t realistically model atmospheric dust, diurnal variations in solar radiation, ocean heat capacity, and ocean circulation.
k) They don’t accurately model the climatic effects of volcanoes, orbital parameters, fluctuations in solar output, or the Pacific “heat vent.”
Australian Soil 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 unknown.
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.
A) The 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:”
“Climate 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 data say.
Likewise, Engineer 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].
Numerous scientists 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 works:
These [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.
Thus, not 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 report.
B) The fraud 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.
The individuals 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 literature is!”
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 Audit stated:
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 ClimteAudit.org.
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 whatsoever.
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 century.
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 all (Figure 38).
Figure 37. Graph from NIWA’s website, showing upward trend of mean annual temperature in New Zealand since 1853.
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:
Warming 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. 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 41).
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.
Using 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 42).
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 Jaworowski).
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.
As Dr. 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 (right).
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 contributions.
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 politically driven.
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 catastrophe alarm.”
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 persuasion….
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 power.
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.”
3) Temperate-latitude 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 al. (2007).
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 glaciers.”
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 al. (2007).
Professor Dr. 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.
Swedish geologist 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 stated:
Sea 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 al. (2007).
Renowned hurricane 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 least 3-4°C 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 (Plimer, 2009).
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 Change
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:
The 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 temperature.
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 51).
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 becomes warmer.
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 periods.
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 2030.
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, these include:
A. 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.
Many observers, 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, stated:
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.
D. “Environmentalism” 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 war:
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 economic structure). Economic 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.
E. “Creative 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 :
1) International 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 national sovereignty.
4) Implementation of a World Government (Global Governance Agenda).
5) Environmentalism” 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 organizations.
F. A 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.
G. World government. Mikhail Gorbachev, Former Premier of the Soviet Union, State of the World Forum and co-author of the Earth Charter, observed:
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.
Global government 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 transmission.
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 industrial society.
“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 consent.
In a 1959 essay, “The West in Crisis,” James Warburg,, stated:
We 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 Wikepedia)
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 American economy?
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 a scam.
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 Gigantic Scam”)
“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), Skylines (www.californiaskywatch.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 “population problem.”.
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 Rome, stated:
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.
Jacques Cousteau, 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.
Christopher Manes, of Earth First!, states the most extreme view of the radical environmental movement:
The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.
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:
Overpopulation 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 looming.
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 Governance Agenda.
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 West
Some relevant geo-political factors we should keep in mind
1. Oil cartels essentially have a monopoly on fossil fuel resources. The Rockefellers gained control of about 90% of the oil industry by1870.
2. 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 experiments, etc.
3. Central Banks have a monopoly of global money supply.
4. Monsanto and a few other multi-national corporations are moving toward monopolization of food system. (Engdahl, 2009, Seeds of Destruction).
5. 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:”
Planet 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 ours.
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?”
Data does not matter, global warming is a religion. Put your faith in Gaia and her high priestess Al Gore.
The sun, earth, moon and stars responded to CRU with: “You’re not the boss of me.”
Considering 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.
Now I 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 dead children?
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.
The light bulb will be banned in 2012.
Now’s 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 “carbon footprints.”
Chem trails can keep the temperature up. That would be government influenced warming- not mankind warming.
Maybe they will stop chem trailing the clouds now. That was for global warming right?
Articles and government reports
Baliunas, S., 2002, Warming Up to the Truth: The Real Story About Climate Change, Heritage Lecture # 758. http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/HL758.cfm
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 County Daily
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 over Phanerozoic 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 blogs.
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 Corrupt? Jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/corruption/climate-corruptions.pdf
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, 2007, Moonbattery,
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 Montana. Palaeogeography, 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 of
the Kyoto accord, http://www.fathersforlife.org/population/Kyoto_Strong_Martin.htm
Lindzen, R.S., 3/30yp/2009, LIndzen on negative climate feedback,
Linzen, R.,S., 2007, The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global
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, http://www.foxnews.cmo/story/0.2933.510937.00.html
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 Policy, vol. 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” agenda. http://www.wnd.com/?pageld=64734
U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Minority):
2007, August 20, New peer-reviewed scientific studies chill global warming
2007, December 20, U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists
Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
2008, March 6, Climate skeptics reveal “horror stories” of scientific
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 office”
2009, March 16, “Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
2009, November 24, Inhofe Launches “Climategate” Investigation
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,
Cambridge University Press, 515 pp.
Lomborg, B., 2007, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming, Vintage Books, 252 pp.
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 pp.
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 University Press,
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, 423 pp.
Lamb, H. H., Climate History and the Modern World, 1982, Methuen, London,
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, Princeton University Press, 280 pp.
Ruddiman, W. F., Earth’s Climate: Past and Present, 2001, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 465 pp.
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 Change, 2008,
www.GlobalWarmingtheExpose.com, 48 minutes.
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 Education, 2000.