Man-made climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is a scam and a hoax and until the average joe and jane wakes up to the truth this nonsense will continue to corrupt the scientific community, which depends on grants from those same economic and political powers, and more importantly will corrupt politicians worldwide who too are dependent upon them for campaign contributions. (Dr Eric T. Karlstrom)
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. And if it quacks like a fraudulent narrative, the same applies.
The climate change project was officially launched in the US on June 23 1988, when NASA’s James Hansen told a Congressional committee that global warming had begun: that the then-current heat wave in Washington was caused by the relationship between ‘the greenhouse effect and observed warming.’ (To get the point across, Hansen and sponsor 98ii+68/Senator Tim Wirth chose what promised to be an exceptionally hot day and then sabotaged the air conditioning in the meeting room the night before.)
Global warming is one of those plain sight conspiracies, where the primary movers hardly bother to conceal the contrived nature of the project, or the vast sums of money they make from it. The Club of Rome in 1990 put out a report called The First Global Revolution saying:
‘In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…’ (p. 75)
The motivation, then, was not to solve an urgent problem, but to find a threat, real or not, that would ‘unite’ people. And divert them from real issues.
The Club of Rome was founded in 1967, one of a group of organisations committed to a globalist agenda, including the Committee on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Forum. The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid: it drives the global climate change project as well being concerned with population control and vaccinations. Members are world leaders and captains of industry, and have included Al Gore, Tony Blair, George Soros and other people you’d buy a used car from.
Climate alarmism is seen as fraudulent by many (probably all) top scientists, who have described it as a scam, a hoax and dangerous nonsense. As the science for significant anthropogenic global warming does not exist, the position relies on falsified data and especially on diversion from factual-based debate through emphasis on apocalyptic scenarios on the one hands, and spurious (and patently false) references to ‘consensus’.
Anthropogenic Climate Change: the Official Position
The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was founded with the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change. Major points of its 2007 report are as follows:
- Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
- Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
- Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming.
- Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
- Notable achievements of the UN and its Kyoto Protocol include the creation of an international carbon market.
Scientific rejection of the IPCC’s position
The IPCC’s findings were opposed by scientists worldwide. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, for example, slammed the IPCC report as ‘dangerous nonsense’ and produced a list of pillars of wisdom to counter the UN IPCC climate report.
- 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.
- A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun’s magnetic field and solar particles. […] Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
- Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
In essence, proponents of the theory of significant anthropogenic climate change need to show two things:
- There is significant and dangerous global warming
- This global warming is caused by human activity, ie greenhouse gas emissions, primarily co2 emissions.
Whereas sceptics need only show one thing:
- global climate is not significantly or dangerously affected by human activity
It’s the Winning that Matters
The AGW cause has the richest people on the planet promoting and exploiting the narrative, including the late David Rockefeller, Bill Gates, several members of the Rothschild family (e.g. David Rothschild and Edmond de Rothschild, see also here and here). All of these are closely associated with the Club of Rome and related globalist organisations like the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg. Vast sums of money are made available for research that produces the right results, and most of the corporate media is on message, churning out alarmist messages almost on a daily basis. The fact that neither science nor nature itself support the theory hardly seems to matter.
Like all narratives pushed by the powerful onto the masses, the global warming hoax is supported by relentless fallacious argument, so that the public are battered with endless ad hominem, cherry-picking and appeals to authority. Much of the data is suspect, to put it mildly, and a very large part of the ‘debate’ consists of apocalyptic scenarios, with threats of doom unless the public pours more money into the coffers of those profiting from the carbon hoax.
In 2009 Climategate scandal broke, when 3000 leaked emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew data as well as destroy and hide contradictory data.
After the second lot of climategate emails was released in 2011, James Taylor wrote:
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:
- prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
- these scientists view global warming as a political ’cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and
- many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
[Source of image]
The IPCC’s position is still that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years, increasing at an exponential rate as we pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Many scientists disagree, pointing to higher temperatures in the 30s, and a cooling since 1998. During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
Data to promote the idea of runaway global warming has been questioned, for example the graphs used by NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA have been shown to have been ‘updated’, as it were.
In 2015, German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations’, i.e. of intentionally and systematically rigging the official government record of global temperatures
‘A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own data sets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.’
Back in 2008, the UK Telegraph reported NASA as claiming October as the hottest on record, by using September figures.
The name ‘hockey stick graph’ was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperature, specifically applied to the findings of ‘a little known climate scientist named Michael Mann and two colleagues’ as described here by the Atlantic Council.
Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional principal component analysis but it handles data in such a way that whatever data was fed in, it produced a hockey stick. Mann has queried their findings, but refused to provide necessary additional data (McIntyre and McKitrick’s adventures with Mann are described here).
Michael Mann has been suing various critics for libel, including Mark Steyn, whose A Disgrace to the Profession is a compilation of scientific commentary on Michael Mann and his work Steyn has also termed Mann a Big Climate huckster), and also emeritus Professor Dr. Tim Ball, who likewise suggested Mann was guilty of data fraud. Mann has been reported as being in contempt of court in the Ball case for failing to provide essential data.
When the promised global warming failed to eventuate, the phrase ‘global warming’ gave way to ‘climate change’. So when cherry-picked claims of extreme heat are met with examples of low temperatures, they are countered with, ‘there you go, extreme climate change!’.
The cause of ‘runaway global warming’ is, according to alarmists, the production of CO2. Not carbon monoxide, note, the one that is poisonous (we’re not worried about that), but carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life, and which greenhouse owners often add to improve the growth of their vegetables. (See New York Times Hysterical over Global Greening)
Scientists have pointed out in vain that the level of carbon dioxide has been far higher in the past, during the Cambrian period about 18 times higher. Moreover, during the glaciation of the late Ordocivian period, CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, according to one report. (This study has similar results.)
Winter is Coming
From the early 14th to the mid nineteenth century, Europe and other parts of the world experienced what is called the Little IceAge. It led to much misery, with cold and hunger from the failure of crops, political upheaval, and the decolonisation of Greenland. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII recognized the existence of witches and echoed popular sentiment by blaming them for the cold temperatures and resulting misfortunes plaguing Europe. (N.b. Greenland still has not recovered from the Little Iceage.)
For some years, scientists have been predicting the coming of a new mini-iceage. In 2009 Professor Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Technical University of Denmark, advised that ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning – enjoy global warming while it lasts‘.
The response of British institutions like the Met Office and University of East Anglia has been interesting. In 2012 they released data that showed that the warming trend ended in 1948, but insisted that cooling from natural sources will be offset by carbon emissions. See Scientists Predict Coming Iceage.
The thought of the world’s governments being able to serious affect the climate is not a comforting one: ‘If we didn’t have the greenhouse affect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse affect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.’ (Augie Auer)
Evidence of the Earth cooling has not given any pause to alarmist claims of dramatic warming, which have been present from the outset. In 1989 Nasa’s James Hansen was predicting that global temperatures would rise up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050. In his film An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore warned that increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. (The claims and predictions of An Inconvenient Truth were scrutinised 10 years on by Michael Bastasch in An Inconvenient Review.)
In his review of the book that accompanied Gore’s film, Hansen claimed: ‘As explained above, we have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions’.
To give a sense of urgency, the global warming threat has been described in the most extravagant terms. Hansen warned of a ‘global warming time bomb’ when he spoke to the Club of Rome in 2009. The concept of a ‘tipping point’ came into vogue, the peak of climate alarmism. Marc Morano prepared a full list of apocalyptic declarations, exclaiming ‘Hours, days, months, years, millennium – the Earth is serially doomed’. Some examples:
It is suggested that the only authentic climate ‘tipping point’ is the one proposed by New Zealand’s Augie Auer, who predicted in 2007 that it was all going to be a joke in five years time. (Auer reckoned without the powerful forces behind the climate hoax.)
The Melting of the Polar Icecaps
[Source of image: Climate Science In A Death Spiral For At Least 10 Years]
Melting of the icecaps would be a truly dramatic event, a serious indication of warming. Accordingly climate alarmists have seized on this ‘danger’, in defiance of all the evidence. In 2007 — during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech — Al Gore mooted that the northern icecap could be gone by 2014.
‘One study estimated that [the North polar ice cap] could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years. [pause for effect] Seven years from now.’
In 2015 NASA data indicated that the polar icecaps were not receding, but in fact growing. This did not deter Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University from predicting in 2016 that the icecap at the North Pole would be completely melted in the next year or two, ie by the end of summer 2018 at the latest. As it is now August, and the Polar caps seems to be doing well, his prediction is hardly odds on.
Others are sure that the icecaps will be gone by at least 2050. This view is expounded in an article by Gilbert Mercier, who is sure that by 2100, the countryside will be parched earth and major cities like London and New York will be under water.
The End of Snow
In An Inconvenient Truth Gore claimed that Kilimanjaro, Africa’s tallest peak, would be snow free within a decade. On March 20, 2000, the British Independent reported that snowfalls were a thing of the past.
‘Global warming is simply making the UK too warm for heavy snowfalls. […] Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.
The source of these claims was Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, of Climategate fame. The Independent article appears to be gone from the Web, melted away as it were, but was well reported, and certainly criticised.
Apocalyptic predictions are supported by a relentless reporting of supposedly extraordinary events proving a trend towards global warming. The cherry-picking in many cases is both obvious and ludicrous, and often the actual facts open to question.
Earlier this year, for example, it was proclaimed that Nawabshah, Pakistan, had provided the hottest shaded temperature ever recorded for a reliable weather station in April, anywhere on Earth. ‘It’s only May, and this year is setting new standards in terrifying extreme temperatures.’
Coincidentally, it was also recorded that 2018 had the coldest April in the US for 30 years. At the same time New Zealand and Australia (the Daily Mail always nice pictures, if nothing else) were predicting the coldest winter on record -so far this has not come to pass, in NZ at least. It is probable that one could find (or contrive) an extreme temperature somewhere on the globe at any time in history.
Discrediting the Opposition.
(There are, of course, a LOT of bankers behind the climate hoax.)
There is no science behind the Club of Rome’s global warming project, and nature itself is not cooperating. In order to eliminate scrutiny of the facts, the campaign relies very heavily on totally discrediting the opposition. Sceptics are attacked with a barrage of fallacious argument: namecalling is inevitable (climate denier, climate change denier, flatearther etc), with an assumption of vicious motives or great stupidity.
The 97% Consensus
The claim that 97% of the world’s scientists support the climate hoax (99.9% according to George Monbiot) is a mantra repeated ever more shrilly in the face of unwelcome factual evidence. One might well ask, who cares? The argument is an appeal to authority, a red herring fallacy, and the beliefs of a claimed 97% of ‘scientists’ don’t actually change the scientific facts.
As often happens with the use of fallacious argument, the premise is completely false as well. It is clear that the there has been concerted and substantial opposition from scientists to the AGW narrative and the carbon fraud. Essentially the 97% claim is a bare-faced lie, designed to make sceptics look like loonies.
Over 31,000 American scientists signed a petition in response to the 1997 Kyoto Accord:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Attached to the petition is a summary of peer-reviewed research with 132 references.
Marc Morano has given a breakdown of more than 1000 international scientists who dissented over man-made global warming claims from 2008 to 2010. Morano refers to, for example:
- U. S. Senate Minority Report:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 & 2009.
- 712 Prominent scientists from 40 countries signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). The 2008 declaration states in part, ‘Global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life’.
- In 2009, more than 100 international scientists rebuked President Obama’s view of man-made global warming. The scientists wrote: ‘Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.’
- December 8 2009, an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General from 166+ scientists declared ‘the science is NOT settled’.
- 2010, 130 German Scientists called climate fears ‘pseudo religion’ and urged the Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ her views.
- In 2010, more than 260 scientists who are members of the American Physical
Society (APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr.
Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made
- A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 showed 90 per cent of
the participants do not believe the IPCC report.
The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008. It prominently featured the voices of scientists sceptical of man-made global warming fears. This report from the conference, by someone, who does not himself appear to question the AGW narrative declares that ‘skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ (full reports here & here ]
Professor Larry Bell of Houston University has also debunked the 97% claim, reporting.
- A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
- A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
- A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that ‘…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’ Only 26% of them attributed global warming to ‘human activity like burning fossil fuels.’ Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, ‘We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.’
Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, and supervisor to James Hansen, Dr. John S. Theon has called Hansen an embarrassment, and added himself to the list of NASA scientists who dissent from man-made climate fears. Others include:
- Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA,
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA,
- Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
- Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt,
- Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7,
- Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor,
- Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center,
- Climatologist Dr. John Christy,
- Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer,
- Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility].
In a New Zealand context, scientists who have opposed the man-made global warming narrative have included some of New Zealand’s top academics and scientists, including:
- Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, and Chief Meteorologist with the MetService
- Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
- David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research
- Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations,Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
- Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics
Rather than there being a consensus of 97% of scientists who believe in climate alarmism, the opposite is more likely to be true: that 97% of scientists of integrity and without a financial interest believe that AGW alarmism is fraudulent.
Given that most scientists in fact reject the AGW scenario, and the public itself is growing increasingly sceptical, why has Augie Auer’s prediction, that it would be seen as a joke by about 2013, not come to pass? Carbongate is seen as a victimless crime – ok, the taxpayer is paying out a fortune, but afterall, who hasn’t nicked a Biro from a government office? The other reason, of course, is money: AGW alarmism is a construct of the rich and (thus) the very powerful, who are practically unstoppable. And getting richer.
Climate Change: a Hypothesis. This is an article which aimed to address the relationship between war and global warming. Unfortunately it relies on graphs provided by NASA which are almost certainly false, and so the article has little value except for some background information – I am probably the only person who has written about climate change who actually believed those graphs.
David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat. This should be of interest to New Zealand readers as, once upon a time, Kear would have been considered NZ’s top scientist.
Guy McPherson – Human Extinction Within 10 Years [Video]. Good example of climate alarmist propaganda (the first 9:30 mins can be missed). McPherson predicts an ice-free arctic by 2019, and the end to human existence by 2028.
Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The Green Agenda: Using false science to create a ‘global crisis’
In Is Man-Made Climate Change a Hoax and a Scam? Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, provides an analysis of the global warming fraud (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:
- Demonstrate that there is no consensus amongst scientists in support of the AGW hypothesis.
- 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.
- Show that atmospheric CO2 does not drive temperatures and plays a minor role in the climate system.
- Discuss the historical benefits of relatively warm climates vs. more damaging colder climates.
- 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.
- Detail the many ways in which science fraud has been systematically and is still being used to create the common misperceptions associated with AGW.
- Discuss problems and limitations of the GCMs (global climate models) that provide the basis of the alarmist claims of human-induced global warming
- 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.
- Speculate on the political, economic, and social agendas served by the AGW fraud.’