Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
Some Important Points
(This section is being worked on!)
1. Why would the 97% World’s Scientists lie to us?
First, it is NOT 97% , but closer to 25% that believe man is influencing (not harming) the climate. Even that is actually meaningless. Even fewer believe we are facing harmful warming. A Recent IPCC report puts the lie to most scare stories.
2. Of course some do lie-
3. Claims of Paid by Fossil Fuel companies appear to be lies.
4. There is a long history of scary predictions, all/most have failed to come true. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/failedpredictions.html
5. The peer review system is broken http://www.debunkingclimate.com/peer-
6. Top scientists were found to be engaging in unethical conduct, including changing
data to make it fit their pre-
7. Media constantly exaggerates climate events: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/page183.html
8. Even NASA lies to us. http://www.debunkingclimate.com/CO2_didnt_warm_arctic.html, http://www.debunkingclimate.com/nasa_debunk.html
9. Predictions of warming are grossly exaggerated: http://www.debunkingclimate.com/ipcc_predicts.html
10. Published climate history is not the actual measurements, but "adjusted" data which shows much more warming than actual measurements. Data adjustments
We have little real climate data before 1979, the beginning of truly world wide coverage with satellites. No coverage of most oceans, little coverage out of USA & Europe before 1941, little coverage of Africa & Sourth America even later.
Thus any thing that relys on world climate data before 1979 is pure cojecture.
How they make cooling look like warming by choosing the starting point of data to show instead of showing all of the data
Top scientist shows the lie in the “hockeystick” used by Al Gore & the IPCC
GREEN NEW DEAL is really a plan for World Government
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally
a climate thing at all.” …Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as
Extreme Fraud In The National Climate Assessment
When the National Climate Assessment was released last fall, a massive barrage of
hysterical propaganda came with it – like this article in The Atlantic saying we
are all going to burn up, based on an increase in US heat waves since the 1960s.
Extreme Wildfire Fraud In The National Climate Assessment
Yesterday I showed how the National Climate Assessment is committing blatant fraud
about heat waves, by hiding the data which shows their claims are inverted from reality.
In this post, I show how they are doing exactly the same thing with wildfires. They
show US burn acreage rapidly increasing. https://realclimatescience.com/2019/02/extreme-
National Climate Assessment: A crisis of epistemic overconfidence
I’ve just completed rereading Vol I of the NCA4. There is so much here of concern
that it is difficult to know where to start. I have been very critical of the IPCC
in the past (but I will certainly admit that the AR5 was a substantial improvement
over the AR4). While the NCA4 shares some common problems with the IPCC AR5, the
NCA4 makes the IPCC AR5 look like a relative paragon of rationality. by Judith Curry
Alarmist Claim Fact Checks
Below are a series of rebuttals of the most common climate alarmists’ claims such as those made in the recently released Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. The authors of these rebuttals are all recognized experts in the relevant scientific fields. The rebuttals demonstrate the falsity of EPA’s claims merely by citing the most credible empirical data on the topic. https://alarmistclaimresearch.wordpress.com/ (L)
How To Tell Who Is Right In The Climate Debate Without Science
Sierra Club Leader Explains the Evidence
Former UN Climate Chief: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emxQFL2DNYA
22 Inconvenient Climate Truths
Foreign Oil Money Stopping Our Oil Production!
Climate Alarm is $100 Billion Industry
½ of Peer Reviewed Articles Wrong:
Top Physics Expert
2014 NOT warmest year ever
Evidence that planet is cooling
The 1970’s Global Cooling Compilation – looks much like today
Evidence that CO2 doesn’t cause Arctic warming or rapid warming
Compelling Evidence That Increased CO2 Did Not Cause Increased Arctic Temperature
Compelling Evidence That Increased CO2 Did Not Increase the Rate of Warming
The Best Case for CO2 Causing Warming
The best case that a leading climate researchers was able to make is that we know the warming (that statistically stopped in 1995, and slightly reversed since 2005) was caused by man’s CO2 because we cannot figure out anything else!
Impartial American Physics Society Climate Discussion
WattsUpWithThat Blog: Notes on the APS Workshop
IPCC: Not peer reviewed
Students as experts
New Study: 30% of IPCC report references ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED
Some IPCC claimed “best experts” and “top scientists” had yet to complete their PhD/Masters more more
Debunking Merchants of Doubt
List of some useful blogs/web pages
http://DebunkingClimate.com (Mostly collection of articles)
http://wattsupwiththat.com (Long time weatherman)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (Keeps one of two official satellite climate records)
http://judithcurry.com/ (Head of university department)
http://joannenova.com.au (look at her climate booklets)
http://realclimatescience.com/ (lots of old newspaper clippings)
http://junkscience.com (By a physician)
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (The guy who showed Al Gore’s hockey stick was a fraud)
http://www.climatedepot.com/ (a bit sensational but lots of good links)
Read what top climate scientists really say:
Real scientists DO NOT COMMIT CRIMES such as subverting the FOI, nor ask others to destroy data. Real scientists pursue the truth, not block publishing of opposing information.
Evidence that Man’s CO2 Is NOT Causing Global Warming
2. Earlier, warmer, warm periods: Minoan, Roman & Medieval, were warmer than now, and all were BEFORE man used fossil fuels. Are we to believe that whatever caused those earlier warm periods, each 1000 years apart, just quit causing warm periods so than man’s CO2 could take over the job right on schedule?
3. Solar cycles are a better fit to climate than CO2, thus negating the claim that the simultaneous rise of temperature and CO2 proves CO2 is causing increased temperature.
4. Recent warming is a same rate as the late 1800s but now with much more of man’s
CO2. (More of a cause should cause more effect.)
5. Our current CO2 rise is after the Medieval warm period and is broadly consistent with CO2 rise after the end of ice ages.
6. CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises, not before, and falls before CO2 falls and
thus cannot be the cause of the temperature rise.
7. No one has shown actual evidence that man's CO2 is causing serious global warming. (Still waiting for actual evidence.) Many papers show CO2 has little effect.
(Nothing unusual means there is no role for man’s CO2)
No increase in hurricanes NOAA Dr.Ryan N. Maue
It was warmer in earlier times
The above shows we DO NOT have a climate problem, thus there is not CO2 problem.
Some climate facts:
Evidence: Grootes, P.M., Stuiver, M., White, J.W.C., Johnsen, S.J., Jouzel J., Comparison
of oxygen isotope records from the GISP and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature 366,1993,
Evidence: R.B. Alley, The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland.
Journal of Quaternary Science Reviews 19:213-
Fact: A careful study of climate history showed that there is a strong likelihood that the major portion of temperature change in the 20th century was due to natural variations.
Evidence: the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined.
. . . The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations.
From: An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures, Philip J.
Lloyd, DOI: 10.1260/0958-
Evidence: Shaviv, N. J., 2005. On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget. J. Geophys. Rsch., VOL. 110, A08105, doi:10.1029/2004JA010866, 2005
More Evidence: “...most of the temperature trends since at least 1881 can be explained in terms of solar variability, with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations providing at most a minor contribution. Soon, Connolly, and Connolly
Fact: In most studies CO2 follows temperature, not leads it (a cause cannot follow the effect)
Evidence: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 (ignore the speculation that
further warming “could in fact have been caused by CO2” -
Fact: Man’s CO2 has never been proven to cause dangerous warming.
Evidence: Phil Jones BBC interview, question A, http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-
Fact: Actual sea level rise is a harmless 7 inches/century
Fact: Current ocean rise is within historical norms.
Fact: Glaciers retreated FASTER in the 1930s than recently
FACT: The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005
Fact: Water vapor causes most of the greenhouse effect
Fact: CO2 only causes 9-
Evidence: “ CO2 alone makes up between 9 and 26%” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Fact: Man only emits about 5% of the annual CO2 emissions, the rest is from nature. NASA
Evidence: Add up the numbers on the NASA drawing: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page1. php They show man emits 4.3% of the annual emissions (man: 9; nature: 210)
The evidence for the above:
IPCC covers most of those here
Warmer than now: Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm periods
Cooler than now: little ice age
faster rate of change than now (per CET): 1740, 1878
CO2 FOLLOWS temperature:
Here is What the IPCC (and some others) Say:
Using the best data we have, the USCRN, warming stopped over 10 years ago.
The IPCC says the earth warmed less than 0.8 degree from 1850 up 2012. See Pg. 209 of the IPCC WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
2. Man only emits 6% of total annual CO2 emissions (Nature emits 94%). Add the numbers on the NASA diagram of the carbon cycle.
3. CO2 only causes 26-
4. We do not have enough data to say that hurricanes have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
5. We do not have enough data to say that storms have increased. pg 178 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
6. Sea level has been rising for centuries, it HAS NOT RISEN FASTER recently. Page 306 WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
7. There is little, if any, global scale changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods. pg 230 of WG1AR5_all_final.pdf
8. Confidence is low for a global-
In view of this, why does anyone think we have a climate problem?
The above is a short version. The complete version is here ……
to Your Standard of Living!
Oregon is on the verge of increasing the cost of electricity, increasing the cost of heating your home, increasing the cost of gasoline and destroying thousands of jobs over an imagined danger.
This is the recommendation of Oregon's Global Warming Commission. The key element of this recommendation is implementation of a system that will require carbon offsets or credits for much of the fuel usage in Oregon. Amazingly, the head of Oregon's Global Warming Commission is chairman of a company that sells carbon offsets!
Oregon recently created the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute to be headed by Philip W. Mote, the Washington state climatologist, who will become a professor in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, where the institute will be located. Unfortunately, Mr. Mote has been implicated in fudging scientific data which falsely created the impression of dramatic melting of Northwest Glaciers, while long term data shows little change.
Oregon's goal of reducing CO2 emissions by 40% in just 12 years will cause major disruptions if implemented the way Oregon's Global Warming Commission advises. They ignore the one move that would actually lower our cost of energy and meet the CO2 goal at the same time: nuclear.
Instead they want to price energy so high that you are forced to use 40% less heat in the winter and drive 40% less.
Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences?
Help Stamp Out Climate Illiteracy -
1989 news: “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. “
(that date is not a typo -
The MMR vaccine scare -
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|