Debunking the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming - LATEST MATERIALS +VIDEO
The concern over man-made catastrophic climate change is "based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking." Prof. Richard Lindzen - 10-08-18
"An Alarmist Bias in Global Warming Research Has Corrupted the Academic/Scientific Community." Dr. Roy Spencer - 8-10-18
By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
Originally published December 25, 2009. Additional material added since original publication includes:
• January 28, 2010; including latest revelations of the "Email Scandal" and UN IPCC "Peer
Review Study" fraud
• Wikileaks' documents in December 2010 reveal the entire movement to be
just a 'gold rush'
• Joe Bastardi interview added on Aug. 26, 2011
• Exclusive Report from ClimatDepot.com: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns from
Premier Society Over False Global Warming Claims on Sept. 14, 2011
• Ancient Civilization Collapsed Because of "Global Warming" - Added May 29, 2012
• Professor Les Woodcock interview on April 3, 2014
• Professor Freeman Dyson interview April 2015
• Dr. Richard Keen: Show me the Data (2010 lecture) - added July 19, 2015
• Investor's Business Daily Report: "Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare"
added March 29, 2016
• CNN Report: 11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change - added March 26, 2018
• Wall St. Journal: Climate Alarmists Get the Wind Knocked Out Of Them - added April 2, 2018
• Dr. Kary Mullis: Climatology is a joke (2010 lecture) - added May 3, 2018
• Dr. Roy Spencer: Why CO2 Emissions Are Not Creating a Climate Crisis Lecture on August 10, 2018
• Professor Richard Lindzen Climate Lecture on October 8, 2018
• Tony Heller Dismantles the "Green New Deal" on February 23, 2019
I am very definitely not a meteorologist, climatologist, geologist, biologist, or a proctologist, even if I am at times a pain in the rear end. As a friend of mine, who is an environmental scientist, says about me, I have no scientific background with which to evaluate and analyze scientific data related to the issue of global warming (regardless of whether it exists or not and if it’s caused by natural climatic cycles or the effects of industrialization). I readily agree with this assessment.
Additionally, I know how to research and uncover information, and I actually like doing so. Even as a street kid growing up in Brooklyn, I had a peculiar side to me that loved being sequestered in libraries to research stuff. One of my favorite series of books as a child was the family encyclopedia.
In the twenty years or so that I have been hearing about man-made global warming (as well as the 20 years of so of hearing about man-made global cooling) it never made sense to me; it never struck a realistic chord. And again, my opinion wasn’t based upon the decades of scientific study that I never conducted, it was based on the feeling that the information was wrong, incomplete, biased, and overly politicized by groups whose general purpose in life is to dismantle western free-market economies. Moreover, I think the movement to be a believer in the global warming theory has become overly confused with the desire for a cleaner, healthier environment. It’s as if many well-meaning people can’t simply embrace the idea of clean air and water without having a catastrophic reason for doing so. I think the desire to live in a world with blue skies, clear water, beautiful untouched forests and fields and to be free from terrorist intimidation needs no added incentives or invented hyped-up rationale.
My opinion on this subject has crystallized over time and I think I was able to clearly articulate my skeptical position in an editorial I wrote on November 27, 2009, titled “Why Global Warming Must Be A Fraud.” You’re welcome to go back and read it by clicking on the link, however I can summarize the point I made in the editorial by saying that I believe global warming is a fraud because there has been virtually no serious action taken by any government administration anywhere in the world (including the current Obama Administration) to counteract the effects, if true, of a catastrophic man-made situation that would destroy human life and most other living species.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m no Pollyanna when it comes to recognizing politicians as being susceptible to outright bribes and veiled financial inducements to back them off from supporting any hard and fast actions to curtail so-called contributing causes of man-made global warming. I get it that they are all in the hip pockets of the gasoline industry, for instance. But if the doomsday visionaries are correct, and there is no ‘tomorrow,’ as crooked as our politicians might be, even they can’t be so irresponsible as to let life come to an end for a few million dollars. If, for example, the United States is willing to enter into a world war to defend against the Machiavellian designs of a foreign dictator, how could we not be willing to force any other country to adopt the measures that would save all life from extinction? By the way, there’s no need to over-think this point; we either have a drastic situation that requires immediate drastic action, or the situation is not what global warmers would like to imagine that it is.
Therefore, although I don’t have the scientific background to be able to analyze scientific data and know if man-made global warming is true or not, I feel safe in relying upon logical circumstantial evidence to form the opinion that it is not true. Remember, circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict a person of murder and send him or her to the gallows.
Incidentally, my lack of belief in man-made global warming does not mean that I don’t want to see an end to polluting fuels and technologies. You’ll find no greater advocate for mandating clean fuels, renewable energy sources, blue skies and clear water. And if you doubt this, you can read a whole bunch of editorials that I’ve written on the subject, such as a piece from June 2008, titled “No New Gasoline-Powered Vehicles in the U.S. By 2014…”
BEYOND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Of course, you may not be as inclined as me to accept mere circumstantial evidence of the fraud in the global warming argument, and that’s fair, you should do your own research. You may want to learn about the peer-reviewed scientific studies that dispute the findings of all the peer-reviewed* studies that we hear so much about that claim that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man’s activities. In fact, contrary to the arguments you’ll hear from supporters of the global warming theory who would like you to believe that there are only peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove global warming, and that the overwhelming numbers of credible scientists in the world agree that global warming is happening, nothing could be further from the truth. Perusing the proceedings of the well attended 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, as one instance, will be a great eye-opener to many. Also take a look at this special report and links about Dr. Ivar Giaever's resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. (Watch Dr. Ivar Giaever's July 1, 2015 video presentation below)
Furthermore, the data that disputes man-made global warming is at least as voluminous as the data that is shown to support the theory. I say this without reservation because much of the pro-data can actually be used by debunkers since those who dispute global warming are able to show that the pro-data is being wrongly interpreted.
Even John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama-Huntsville and lead author of the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, disagrees with the catastrophic predictions and alarmist theories that the 'Al Gore' crowd screams about. SEE What if global-warming fears are overblown?
(* On Jan. 24, 2010 The Sunday Times of London broke the story of the UN IPCC Peer Reviewed Studies fraud. CLICK HERE for more details)
So, with this in mind, I’d like to direct you to some of the information that I’ve found through alerts from our audience members and from research that I’ve conducted.
To start: I think you should review the videos and text documents produced by John Coleman. Among his other achievements, John was the co-founder of The Weather Channel television network. John is also well known to many North Americans as the original on-air meteorologist for ABC Television’s GOOD MORNING AMERICA and he’s served in that post for numerous local TV stations around America. Currently, he is Chief Meteorologist at KUSI-TV in San Diego, California.
As I said earlier, my lack of scientific background makes it impossible for me to scientifically analyze the data produced by the pro-global warming crowd, so needless to say, I’m equally ill-equipped to scientifically analyze the data that supports the no-global warming crowd. I can only watch, listen and read, and arrive at a conclusion based upon the factors previously mentioned. So then why do I like John Coleman’s arguments in particular and side with the data and materials provided by the anti-global warming theorists? Three reasons: First, as far as I can tell, John has no political ulterior motives in expressing his opinion. I don’t know if he’s on the left, the right, Democrat or Republican, capitalist, communist or a Yankees or Red Sox fan. He doesn’t use his time to campaign for any specific side; he just lays the information out there. There’s no underlying feeling that he’ll be running for some elected government job at the first chance he gets.
Second: Being a skeptic of the man-made global warming theory is far, far less financially lucrative than being a global warming alarmist. It may even be detrimental to one’s career and earnings ability to argue against global warming. So you really have to believe and be committed to the position and not just have an interest in an issue that’s tied to the size of a paycheck.
Third: Within the pro-global warming community there is just no consensus of scientific opinion that global warming is entirely man-made, what stage it’s at, or when it will result in the end of life on Earth. Bob Gordon and I met a scientist/professor at an alternative fuel conference with excellent credentials who says that it is already too late; that within just the next few years there will not be enough breathable air to support human life. He’s read the data; he’s studied the evidence; why is his interpretation different than the ones that say we must make sufficient change by 2030 or 2050? Ironically, this professor’s predictions are met with great scorn and ridicule by others in the pro-global warming crowd, as if he was an ardent non-believer. It’s like devoted followers of the same basic religion who espouse different view points on minor nuances and are ready to kill each other to prove who is correct. This is the kind of confusion I’m talking about. As compared to a religion, which is based solely on subjective mythology, this is supposed to be “science” with hard data, temperature measurements, photographic evidence, etc. Why are there differing opinions from the same scientific information, if the information is valid?
On this same point, there is a sizable portion of the pro-global warming scientific community that believes the warming trend has been caused by efforts to clean the air over the past 3 decades. Google "Is clean air causing global warming" for yourself. Ironically, if this is correct, it would call for an almost complete reversal in how the other GW alarmists propose to deal with the situation.
Every age has had its crack-pot predictions of doom (the last being the controversy over the change from the year 1999 to 2000). This is merely the latest crack-pot prediction…in my un-scientific opinion. - The following are some selected citations and events added since the original December 25, 2009 publication of this paper:
• On May 29, 2012, LiveScience.com published a report that an ancient huge Harappan civilization centered in India collapsed because of climate change that pushed temperatures over 110 degrees everyday. This civilization dates back to about 4,000 years ago - just a bit before industrialization. In other words, the Earth goes through significant climate change cycles without any man-made influence.
• On April 3, 2014, the Yorkshire Evening Post published an interview with Leslie Woodcock, former NASA researcher and emeritus professor of chemical thermodynamics at the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, in which he ridiculed the notion of 'climate change' and the alarmist CO2 theory.
In part, Woodcock stated, "The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed... The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences...The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent." He goes on to say, "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years... Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything in science, it's not significant." And then Woodock adds, "If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people."
• On March 29, 2016, Investor's Business Daily publishes Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare, a report that quotes former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer as saying "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015, was then asked what is the goal of environmental policy? He responded, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Five years ago Edenhofer said “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” The IBD report also reveals that last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made this statement: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
The real intention of the man-made climate change movement is to make the world change in order to destroy free-market capitalism. To "frighten, intimidate and then assume command" to create a global welfare state.
• On March 26, 2018, CNN publishes "11,000 years ago, our ancestors survived abrupt climate change," a story that is made incredible by the fact that CNN (you know, the Climate-change Nuts Network) would publish a story that acknowledges that humans experienced drastic short term cooling periods in the past. The CNN story gives details on not just one episode, but three - one was 11,100 years ago; the next was 9,300 years ago, and then 8,200 years ago. According to the researchers mentioned in the story, each episode lasted about a century.
What this really tells us is that there weren't just at least three episodes of drastic short term cooling periods from 11,100 to 8,200 years ago; there were also at least three episodes of drastic short term warming periods. We know this because in order to mark the delineation between the "normal" periods to cold periods the temperature would have to have risen to the "normal" temperatures. Therefore, image a man living about 11,070 years ago who is experiencing the drastic cold and telling his children stories handed down from his grandparents about how there used to be lovely warm days and fields full of fruits and berries. And now they have to struggle to put food on the table. The children would look at the father like he's crazy. Fast forward 60 years to a time when the man's grandchildren are now living. They've adopted and adapted to the cold conditions, but then the temperatures start to climb. Do you think they started freaking out and worrying that that their world was coming to an end; that the melting ice and snow pack would destroy all human life. They might have.
• On April 1, 2018, The Wall Street Journal publishes an article by Phelim McAleer titled "Climate Alarmists May Inherit the Wind". The article summarizes initial proceedings in a federal lawsuit brought by the California cities of Oakland and San Francisco against five petroleum oil companies for contributing to climate change and of conspiring to cover it up so they could continue to profit. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup requested a 'Tutorial on Climate Change' in order to "set forth the best science now available on global warming, glacier melt, sea rise, and coastal flooding." Alarmist groups and individuals had been touting this court case as the Scopes Monkey Trial of the man-made climate change issue.
However, as it turned out, the plaintiff's explanations and witnesses were hammered by the judge and he reprimanded them for using misleading materials. For years, climate change alarmists have claimed that the oil companies have smoking gun documents that prove they know man-made climate change to be real. Judge Alsup was anxious to get his hands on this evidence. It turns out that this vaunted evidence was nothing more than the slide show of a public UN IPCC report on climate change. It was in the possession of the oil companies for no reason other than wanting to know what the "other guy" is thinking of you. Another bad moment for the plaintiffs occurred when the defendants' attorney pointed out that "the city of San Francisco — in court claiming that rising sea levels imperil its future — recently issued a 20-year bond, whose prospectus asserted the city was unable to predict whether sea level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur.” The next hearing on this case is scheduled for late May, 2018.
Fourth: The Global Warming related documents released by WikiLeaks in December 2010 reveal and portray the Global Warming Advocacy as nothing more than groups of rival high school-like cliques battling over who will be the Prom Queen, who will get to decide what to do with the prom ticket revenue, and who will be assigned the plum job of booking the event's entertainment... hardly the kind of unified, socially concerned collaboration we would see if the world was truly threatened by environmental catastrophe. (Read about the series of WikiLeaks' global warming related documents at the Guardian newpaper.)
In any event, the following videos are of John Coleman talking about the myth of man-made global warming. We present them with his permission. You’ll also find links to some of John’s text documents and additional documents authored by others. A great deal more information about John and his work on the global warming issue, with other supportive no-global warming materials can be found on his Wikipedia page by CLICKING HERE.
ALERT: John Coleman and KUSI-TV recently completed a new one-hour TV special that's filled with great interviews and information. We have all the segments of that TV show plus four additional videos. You can watch the videos below first or CLICK HERE to watch those videos first
Click PLAY to watch videos
TEXT REPORT: The Truth About Arctic and Greenland Ice
Now I’m going to do something that I don’t think you’ll find in papers written by people arguing the opposite side of the debate, I’m going to offer some information from my friend that I mentioned at the top of this story. His name is Dr. Matania Ginosar. I do so not because I think there should be “balance,” since you don’t need me to help find information on the theory and you won’t get “balance” from pro-global warming supporters, but because I respect the man. His credentials are very impressive and I don’t know him to have any political perspectives, aspirations or financial ambitions that have caused him to believe in man-made global warming. His conclusions are based upon his study of the data. His opinion, right or wrong, may be the most honest you’ll find from someone on the pro-global warming side. Incidentally, Matania is also very critical of Barack Obama’s inaction on global warming. So while he is on the opposite side of the fence from me on the overall issue, he seems to be just as puzzled as to why a President, who claims to believe whole-heartedly in man-made global warming and had promised such decisive action on this matter, could be so indifferent: why waste time fixing the medical industry if global warming is going to kill us all anyway. Matania’s website is www.ginosaronglobalwarming.org.
If you have an opinion on this matter or some real information that you’d like to share, let us hear from you. Send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.