The debunking of

Global Warming Theory


(anthropogenic climate change)




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


"The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible" - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)


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


"Climate scientists need there to be a problem in order to get funding" -- Dr Roy Spencer


"Tens of thousands of jobs depend upon global warming right now." -- Professor Patrick Michaels, Department of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia, US


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


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


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


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



We have been told by the media, politicians, corporations, and other bad actors that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is causing the earth to warm, that this is dangerous, and that we can/must stop it. They show us charts that depict a sudden and drastic rise in temperature that correlates with the industrial revolution, and tell us that such-and-such glacier is shrinking at an alarming rate, and that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing the planet to overheat. The debate is over and The Science™ is settled.



ABOVE: Wikipedia's climate change propaganda - image credit


Alarmists claim that earth's surface temperatures have risen about 1 degree since 1940. They tell us that this sudden rise is exceptionally divergent compared to previous centuries. But, even if true, correlation does not prove causation. Earth's climate has changed since the dawn of time. Ice core data suggests that the earth's climate has changed drastically at times. The Medieval Warm Period (485 papers written) and the Little Ice Age (1,413 papers) are well-established climatic events that humans cannot be responsible for. Yet, somehow these anomalies have been magically smoothed over by the people who are pushing anthropogenic global warming. Anyone who understands how easy it is to lie with statistics will start to question both the magical disappearance of these climactic events as depicted by their reconstructions, as well as the claimed drastic rise in temperature. The more complex something is, the easier it becomes to lie with statistics.


Measuring temperature is an imperfect science. Due to margin of error, there could actually have been no warming from 1880 to 2000.


Thermometer data only goes back to 1880, and over time, may have become gradually and artificially skewed to the upside by localized urbanization (heat absorbing roads, etc), and therefore unreliable in reconstructing global temperatures. To estimate temperatures before 1880, scientists analyze, among other things, tree rings. However, tree ring data from the last 50 years actually contradicts thermometer data. Thermometers indicate warming, while the tree rings indicate cooling. This calls into question how reliable tree rings really are at reconstructing data going back many hundreds of years. That's a problem for climate change alarmists. Remember, that to even begin to argue that humans are causing the climate to change, you must put our recent climate in perspective versus the past.


The pandemic serves as a great learning experience about how governments, the media, and other presumed trusted sources (e.g., the World Health Organization, Cambridge University, etc) can rush to judgment and be so completely wrong and/or so dishonest about The Science™.


Common Sense: How little CO2 we humans have released

(and a lesson in how they lie with statistics)

Finding the truth often begins by observing the obvious. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that constitutes only about 0.042% percent of the earth's total atmosphere. That's just four 100th's of one percent. Climate change alarmists purposely like to express CO2 concentration in parts per million. As of April 2022, CO2 levels were at 420.23 ppm. 420 is scarier than 0.042%. They increased the resolution in order to augment fluctuation. That's your first lesson in how to lie with statistics.


Of course, humans did not add all of that 420.23 ppm. 150 years ago, CO2 concentrations were at 280 ppm. Therefore, we humans have only added a little more than one 100th of one percent CO2 (or 140 ppm) to the atmosphere! That's 1.4 of 10,000. Common sense dictates that adding such a tiny amount of CO2 cannot have a major impact on temperatures.




Another way that alarmists create fear with statistics is to tell us that 33% of CO₂ in the atmosphere is from human activity. Never mind that it's still 1.4 parts out of 10,000. 33% sounds scary.


It's even scarier to talk in terms of molecules! Never mind that it's still 1.4 parts out of 10,000.




Another stunt used by alarmists is to create lab experiments showing that CO2 creates warming -- except that they pump in very large quantities of CO. What would happen if they only added 1.4 parts to 2.8 parts per 10,000 parts of air? We're still waiting for that experiment. And, as described earlier, how do you replicate the earth's thousands of feedback mechanisms in a lab experiment?


Does CO2 cause warming?

CO2 causes warming to some degree in an isolated environment, such as in a controlled science lab experiment. However, earth is not an isolated environment! Earth has thousands of feedback mechanisms, each of which responds in different ways to climate forcings such as temperature or CO2 changes. These feedbacks may either reinforce or oppose the warming effects of extra CO2. For example, warmer temperatures cause water vapors to condense into clouds which in turn reflect sunlight, thus reducing warming. According to Dr. Roy Spenser, "Adding more [CO2] 'should' cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But, I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point [that CO2 should cause warming]. Stranger things have happened in science before."


CO2 may contribute as little as only 9% to greenhouse effect

CO2 is just one of many greenhouse gases. There is disagreement as to how much CO2 actually contributes to the greenhouse effect. These are the top greenhouse gas contributors...


Water vapors and clouds: 36% - 72%

Carbon Dioxide: 9% - 26%

Methane: 4% - 9%

Ozone: 3% - 7%


What is the 'normal' CO2 level?

Earth's CO2 levels have been determined to have been as high as 7,000 ppm, long before there were humans. During the dinosaur age, CO2 levels ranged between 1,000 and well over 2,000 ppm. At 411 ppm we are at levels so low that they have not been reached since about 300 million years ago. Yet websites like this one perpetuate the notion that "the very future of our planet earth is in peril" because CO2 levels of 411 ppm represent some sort of danger level.




Is CO2 a pollutant? No

No. CO2 is vital for plant life. At current levels, plants are on a starvation CO2 diet. Global warming alarmists claim that species will become extinct if the planet warms. In reality, warmer weather has increased biodiversity. Yet politicians, the media, and alarmists have portrayed CO2 as a pollutant.



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


Monopolist funding

Follow the money

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


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


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


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


The IPCC was created for the purpose of finding a human impact on global warming. That is their agenda and therefore the IPCC is biased.


Correlation does not prove causation

Just because two things correlate does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. We don't even know for sure that there is a correlation between the small rising CO2 levels and supposed rising thermometer temperature over the last century. For example, the urban heat island effect causes localized temperatures to go up due to human activities (example: Installing more and more heat-retaining pavement over time).


Furthermore, if we are to assume that thermometer data is an accurate proxy for the last century, we still have to put it in perspective versus the past. We must compare it to perhaps the last 1,000 or more years. Can we really rely on data extracted from things like tree rings? Or do temperatures readings get compressed in the isotopic analysis, thus making the last century of thermometer data look anomalous? And do we even have enough tree ring, sediment, and other samples from various regions from which to come to conclusions about temperatures on a global scale?


Al Gore's massaged 'Hockey Stick'

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


Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann created a temperature reconstruction chart (below) which doesn't have a medieval warm period. Without a medieval warm period, you inevitably help create unprecedented 20th century warming for the hockey stick formation. In fact the data before the year 1421 was constructed from rings of one single alpine tree!


He also attached instrument data to tree ring data. This has the effect of increasing post world war 2 economic boom warming. The tree ring data shows no warming over the last 50 years. The fact that tree ring data and instrument data don't match up is an issue for climaphobics.




Al Gore's 'Hockey Stick' collapsing in court

Thankfully, the truth is coming out in a libel case in which Dr. Mann sued scientist Dr. Tim Ball for stating that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State". Dr. Mann has refused to turn over his data related to this hockey stick graph for court examination. Under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’ it could be ruled that this 'state pen' comment is true if the court rules that Mann hid the data because it is fake. According to Principia Scientific International, the "Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S."




Evidence of data tampering by the IPCC

In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced this chart showing average global temperature changes over the past 1,000 years (based on proxies). Low and behold, it shows a “Medieval warm period” and a “Little Ice Age”!


Somehow we went from that to this...



Evidence of data tampering by NASA, GISS, etc

Altering old data to reflect new conclusions, agendas?

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


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





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


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


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

-- Science and Public Policy Institute


1880 to present is too small of a sampling size

Thermometer records (AKA "instrument records") only go back to 1880. Even if you choose to believe that temperatures have gone up since the industrial revolution, which is disputable, 140 years is just a blink of an eye in geological terms. It's not a long enough time period to jump to any conclusions. It would be like trying to determine Babe Ruth's lifetime batting average by looking at just one month.


Instrument records may not even be reliable

Thermometers located near cities may not provide reliable data due to the urban heat island effect. Temperatures in cities are increasing due to human activities. For example thermometers that were once situated next to undeveloped land are now in close proximity to heat absorbing pavement. One 10 year study found that 60 major US cities were 2.4°F hotter than rural areas. Urban heat island effect is even more intense during the summer. On average, major cities were 4°F hotter than surrounding rural areas. But this is a localized effect that may be falsely and gradually skewing global temperature estimates to the upside over time.


Thermometer records margin of error: Possibly no warming at all!

A study determined that there could actually be no warming from 1880 to 2000. The margin of error was found to be plus or minus 0.46 C (for a total range of 0.92 C). Thermometer data indicates a global land-ocean temperature increase of only 8/10 of one degree. So 8/10 of a degree is statistically indistinguishable from zero degrees Celsius!




Climategate blows the lid off global warming

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


One guy is in charge of gathering

and massaging temperature data!

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



Climate Records and Reconstructions

globalBackground: Instrument temperature records only go back to 1880. In geological terms 140 years would be a blink of an eye. But CO2 emissions did not even begin to accelerate until about 1950. So in reality we're scrutinizing a time period of only 70 years. 70 years is far too tiny of a time period to leap to any conclusions about humans affecting temperature change.


In this NASA temperature chart we cannot see how temperatures fluctuated before 1880, but we can at least see that from 1880 to 1910, temperatures were dropping at about as steep of a pace as temperatures rose from 1950 to 2000 (during the post-war economic boom when CO2 emissions spiked). Temperatures have to rise before they can fall. So by looking at this chart alone, even a non-scientist can deduce that temperature fluctuations without human "help" was/is normal.


And from 1910 to 1940, temperatures spiked up at about the same rate of increase as from 1970 - 2000, again, without any significant humans "help". If we're supposed to get alarmed by temperature fluctuations, any reasonable skeptic must ask how the hell did these fluctuations occur on their own without significant human "assistance"?



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






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


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


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




There is nothing unusual about the last 100 years

says northern hemisphere reconstructions

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





There is nothing unusual about the last 100 years

says the Greenland and Antarctica temperature reconstructions

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


It was 1 degree warmer than today in Europe during Roman and Medieval times



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




Going back 11,000 years...




Going back 420,000 years...




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


Climate alarmist's smoking gun becoming a dud

Over the last 5 years (2012 - 2017) arctic sea ice has increased by 40%!


Study finds human impact on temperature no more than 0.01%


A study out of Finland has found that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures. The paper explains that the IPCC erred when they failed to account for the influences of low cloud cover and how it impacts global temperatures.


Fits like a glove: Correlation between sun spots and temperature

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


Ice Caps on Mars have been diminishing

ARTICLE: Simultaneous warming on mars suggests the sun, not humans, is causing warming.

STUDY: Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change.


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




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


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


75% of 8% of cherry picked articles is not a consensus: NASA cited a highly partisan Australian blogger named Naomi Oreskes (AKA "the socialist historian") whose opinion editorial was not peer reviewed. She claimed that 75% of scientists believe that humans were responsible for most of the observed warming of the last half-century. She cherry picked scientists by searching for "global climate change" instead of "climate change". In doing so she weeded out 92% of articles for her study! She is not a scientist and so she misinterpreted many articles. A follow up study aimed at updating her 75% figure found that only 7% of recent papers support the "scientists agree" claim.


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


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


97% after using questionnaire trickery and conveniently tossing out 7,930 papers: NASA's 4th source is an Australian global warming activist named John Cook. John Cook runs a partisan website called where he attacks global warming skeptics. He also has a partisan book entitled "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". In other words John Cook is not the objective researcher you would want to conduct this study.


Cook claimed that 97% of articles published from 1991 to 2011 endorsed the view that human activity is responsible for some warming. The operative word is "some". To a scientist 'some' could mean very little. So most scientists were already likely to agree with the question. Like other flawed studies, he looked at only abstracts.


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


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

100% - 11,944 abstracts reviewed

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

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

0.7% - 64 marked as endorsing consensus as defined.

0.3% - 41 actually endorsed consensus as defined.

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


In David Legates' follow up study, the 64 papers that John Cook claimed were marked as endorsing the consensus as defined, and found that 1/3 of them did NOT actually endorse the consensus as defined. Only 41 of this specific group of 64 actually endorsed the idea that global warming is mostly man made.

In response to Cook's study, Richard Tol (a prominent economist in the global warming debate) said "the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid, and unrepresentative". Mr. Tol discovered that marketing of the Cook paper was being planned before the research had even begun!

Christopher Monckton said "this project was not a scientific investigation... but a public relations exercise".


Another 97% lie: Anonymous online survey subjects

with likely critics of AGW excluded

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


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


Another Fake Study

The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency conducted a so-called study that claimed that 66% of climate experts believed that humans were mostly responsible for warming since 1950. However Jose Duarte, a specialist in survey design, noted that they diluted their sample of experts by including large numbers of psychologists, pollsters, philosophers, political scientists, and other non-experts.


What is the real consensus, if any?


A study out of Finland found that over the last century the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures as a result of CO2 is just 0.01°C. That's 1/10th of 1/10th of a degree of global temperature rise due to CO2.


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


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


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


In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) conducted a survey of its 7,000 members. 1,800 responded. 52% of those 1,800 respondents believe the warming of the past 150 years has happened and is mostly man-made. The remaining 48% believe that it's mostly natural, didn't happen or they don't know. Only 40% believe man-made global warming could be dangerous. As for the opinions of the 5,200 members who did not respond to the survey, one has to believe that alarmists are more likely than non-alarmists to answer these types of surveys. Therefore it may be that less than 52% believe that earth has warmed and humans are to blame.


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


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


Putting it in perspective, science is not determined by consensus anyway. It's determined by proof. Dr. Roy Spenser says that in the case of global warming, “scientific consensus” is nearly worthless.


Empirical evidence that does not support AGW

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

ARTICLE: Southern Greenland may have once been green.


Cities only take up 2% of the earth's landscape.


Their most important projections missed the mark

The scientists over-estimated rises in air and ocean temperatures. And their predictions of an atmospheric hot spot completely missed the mark.


BELOW: In 2008 the ABC propaganda network hysterically predicted that New York would be under water by 2015.



Alarmist scientists also predicted that water vapor would amplify temperatures thus causing a greenhouse effect. In reality two decades of satellite data has showed that the earth gives off more heat when its surface is warmer.


The "Scientists" predicted that arctic sea ice

was to have melted by 2016

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


Antarctic ice sheet is growing... and it represents 90% of the world's glaciers!

According to even NASA, satellite data indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet gained 112 billion tons of ice per year from 1992 to 2001. And from 2003 to 2008 it gained 82 billion tons of ice per year. Antarctica represents 90% of the world's glaciers, and it is growing. Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.




Conflating localized melting with global melting

Article: Climate alarmists love to cherry pick certain glaciers that are declining in order to declare that earth is over-heating. But a shrinking glacier is merely a localized phenomenon. It is intellectually dishonest to declare cherry-picked glaciers as proxies for temperature of the entire globe. Most importantly, nobody can know if any actual melting of a glacier is manmade or natural.


"Glacier National Park Glaciers will melt by 2020"

Oooops... They are growing!

Glacier National Park had posted signs declaring that all glaciers would melt by 2020. That prediction ended badly. To save embarrassment, they quietly removed the signs when the glaciers were found to be growing -- not melting.


They claim that California droughts are unprecedented and caused by humans


LYING BY OMISSION: Failed presidential candidate, Tom Steyer's TV ads (via his NexGen Climate

group) summarily claiming that humans are causing California drought...



LYING BY OMISSION: A study published in PNAS, Diffenbaugh et al., which was co-authored by none other than the dubious, Michael 'Hockey Stick' Mann, claims that there is accumulating evidence that anthropogenic climatic changes are influencing the frequency, magnitude, and duration of drought in California. The study claims that 10 of the past 14 years have had below normal precipitation and water runoff in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins, and the past 3 years have been the driest and hottest in the full instrumental record (presumably since 1880). Is this an unprecedented irregularity?


TRUTH: What propagandists like Tom Steyer fail to mention is that evidence from tree rings shows that historically, droughts in the West coast have been widespread, including a 240-year drought that started in 850, and another one 50 years later that lasted 180 years.



Scientists in 2017: CO2 levels are past the point of no return

March 2017: Scientists who believe in anthropological global warming now agree that we are past the point of no return as far as the carbon threshold. In other words if you believe that humans are causing warming, there is nothing we can do about it.


They move the goal posts again... and again

October 2018: A year and a half later scientists are now saying that magically we have a reprieve of 12 more years to avert climate disaster. So much for being past the point of no return. By 2030 we humans must reduce CO2 by about 45 percent (from 2010 levels), and have zero emissions by 2050.


July 2020: Time Magazine declared 2020 is our last chance to save the planet. Panic!


June 2021: "It’s now clear we are coming to a point of no return." -- António Guterres, UN secretary general


October 2021: Time Magazine propaganda cover says "Last call" (to save the planet).


Inconvenient facts about electric cars

Transportation contributes to only about 28% of U.S. carbon emissions.

61% of electricity is produced from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum).

Electric cars are on average 35% more expensive than gas-powered cars. The price disparity is likely to increase as demand for critical minerals grows.

Lithium, cobalt and nickel are the key minerals used to make lithium-ion batteries used in electric vehicles.

There isn't enough lithium to switch to electric cars.

China owns 70-80% of the entire supply chain for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries, thus putting the US at geo-political risk if we were to become overreliant on EVs.

Battery production causes more environmental damage than carbon emissions alone.

There are a lack of charging stations.

Most EVs today can’t go more than 250 miles on a charge (and less in cold weather).

It takes 7911 kWh of energy to manufacture just the battery for an EV (contributing 184 pounds of CO2). A gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 33.6 kWh of energy (the equivalent of 235 gallons of gasoline). This amount of gasoline could allow a Toyota Corolla to drive 6,345 miles at 27 MPG.

The energy needed to manufacture the average EV is 31,757 kWh, which is 28% higher than an internal combustion engine car, at 22,794 kWh.


Cutting CO2 wouldn't make a difference anyway

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


Climate activists' complete lack of foresight:

Joe Biden's war on fossil fuels without a viable replacement is proving to be disastrous. High gas prices are causing inflation, a recession, and stock and bond market collapse. Once real estate collapses, then we will be in danger of a depression. Meanwhile, high gas prices are helping Russia fund its war on Ukraine.


Conservapedia's global warming summary - Must read


Q&A with former NASA climatologist


What warming? Greenland hasn't warmed since 2001 - - Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change


Delingpole: Global warming almost entirely natural


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


Massive Climate Funding Exposed -


Climate Truth File - Required reading


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


Government scientists got their major climate predictions wrong - Feedback


Climate Change Driven by Ocean - Required reading


World leaders duped by manipulated data -


18 Spectacularly wrong predictions - Scientists and their blunders.


External article


External video - The Great Global Warming Swindle


External article - Correlation of global temperature with solar activity


Next article: Most desperate and absurd truther lies about 911