Multiple Sources Now Confirm; Climate Data “Adjustments” are Obvious Fraud to Anyone Choosing to Look

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Published on CO2isLife 04/07/2018

Not only are the “adjustments” suspect, the temperature reconstructions are a complete and utter joke. Just look at the “Hockeystick” graph. The thing “dog legs” 2 times EXACTLY when the construction methodology changes.

Source Document

Published on RealScience 05/21/2018

Amazing how a break in slope appears when they switch methodologies from tide gauges to satellites, including adding a completely fake GIA (global isostatic adjustment) – which if it was legitimate, would have been equally valid for the tide gauge measurements.

Source Document

The above two quotes document two different applications of data manipulation fraud on two different climate data sets from two different sources. The first is in reference to global temperature data and the construction of the debunked “Hockeystick” chart, and the second is the global sea level data. The quotes are from two totally independent sources, looking at totally different data sets, and identifying the identical pattern of data fraud. If it isn’t fraud, it is at least criminal incompetence.

Facts are, anyone with even an elementary understanding of working with data sets should know that if the behavior of the data suddenly changes after an “adjustment,” then something is likely wrong with the adjustment. The likelihood of the underlying variable suddenly changing behavior to correspond exactly with the application of an “adjustment” is negligible, especially with global macro variables like global temperature and sea level. “Adjustments” can’t CAUSE the underlying variable to alter its behavior, yet that is what the timing of alteration of a slope implies. Something impacted the variable at exactly the same time the date adjustment was applied. It makes even less sense if one is dealing with a historical data set and apply the “adjustment” to only parts of the data set.


Additionally, there is nothing that can be tied back to CO2 that would ever cause a sudden and rapid change in temperature or sea level. CO2 increases at a near-linear rate and lends itself to gradual changes, not sudden slope changing shocks. In fact, CO2’s absorption shows a logarithmic decay, so if it did ever cause a “dogleg” it would be to slow the accent, not increase it.


In conclusion, there is nothing regarding the underlying physics of the CO2 molecule or the rate of change of atmospheric CO2 level that would justify a “dogleg” in the global temperatures or sea level. The very fact that the “Hockeystick” and NASA’s Sea Level charts are demonstrating “doglegs” proves that CO2 CAN’T BE THE CAUSE OF THE WARMING!!! Their attempts to tie warming and sea level directly to CO2 is completely inconsistent with the reality of the physics supporting the Greenhouse Gas Effect, providing further evidence that this is an obvious fraud, and not simply criminal incompetence.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


Kanye, Candice Owens, Diamond and Silk are the Best Weapons Against Climate Change Folly


We at CO2isLife have always maintained that CO2 driven Climate Change isn’t a real scientific issue, it is a classic Progressive Political Campaign. CAGW is red meat for the distant far-left environmentalist wing of the Democratic Party, a wing that has much more clout than the most important wing of the Democratic Party…the black vote.

Misguided environmental groups fund the Democratic Party, blacks provide the votes needed for victory. Those who fund the party, however, get the loudest voice when public policy is determined. Environmentalists get showered with crony capitalism regulations that force unsuspecting consumers to buy worthless products, enriching left-wing groups who in turn donate a portion back to Democratic Candidates. Blacks, on the other hand, get meaningless symbolic platitudes like “Democrats are for inclusion, equality and are anti-racism.” Blacks get a blue and yellow equality or Rainbow bumper sticker, Environmentalists get to loot the taxpayer. Taxpayers get Solyndra, the Black Community gets neglected schools, neither benefits from Democrats wasting taxpayer dollars.

For one of the most outrageous example, simply look at California. Just this week they are proposing a $9,500 tax on homeownership by regulating Solar Panels be placed on all new homes. Please tell me how that benefits the Black community? The Black Community needs School Choice, not solar panels. Additionally, last time I looked, racists aren’t causing the black-on-black crime, 70+ illegitimacy rate, appallingly awful inner-city schools, a welfare program that forces the break up of the black family, the high incarceration and high school drop out rates and the decline of the inner cities…the Democratic Party and their self-destructive policies are. Racists can only dream of being as successful as the Democratic Party at harming the Black Community. The Democratic Party, not the KKK, control the governments of almost every major failed inner city and its school system.

Unfortunately, the Black “Leadership” in Congress plays along with this egregious exploitation. That failure, however, has created a window for the Republican Party, and a basis for President Trump’s all too truthful comments about Blacks having nothing to lose by voting Republican.

If the CAGW Issue is reframed from a Scientific Argument to a Political Argument, the solution becomes obvious…and far more effective. Arguing the “science” of CAGW is important, and a few skeptics’ voices have fought the consensus to a standstill, but they are unlikely to win the war. To win the war against Climate Folly, a clear and undeniable message must be sent to the Democratic Party that if they continue down this path of Climate Folly they will be thrown out of office, and the Black Community has that power.

Hillary Clinton got 88% of the Black Vote and Lost. Let me repeat that. Hillary Clinton got 88% of the Black Vote and lost. The Democrats have 0.000000 of ever winning a Presidential election without a near-monolithic Black vote. The Black vote simply decides the direction America takes by keeping the Democratic Candidate competitive. Without it, the Democratic Party simply isn’t viable.

The problem for Climate Change Folly is that the Black Community gets basically ignored for their loyalty to the Democratic Party. That misguided loyalty, however, is beginning to wear thin, and people are beginning to sit up and take notice.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Candice Owens makes the observation that during the State of the Union Speeches under President Obama the Black Congressional Caucus stood and cheered the expansion of welfare and unemployment benefits, but when President Trump celebrated the record low Black Unemployment Rate the same Black Congressional Caucus sat on their hands. That is the harsh reality the Black Community lives with, and with that kind of absolute and complete failure of leadership, it is understandable why any dissenting voices are vociferously attacked. You simply don’t attract the amount of flack that Kanye and Candice receive unless they are over the target.

After Kanye showed support for President Trump, President Trump’s support among Black Men DOUBLED. If that trend is simply maintained, let alone strengthens, the Democratic Party is over as we know it.

Support for Trump among black men doubles after Kanye’s endorsement

Kanye’s support received the unfortunately too predictable result. Death Threats, Mocking, Ridicule, Bullying, Insults, and Boycotts. Kanye is simply a victim of Racial McCarthyism, a modern Darkage Inquisition, a Democratic Party Heretic who dared to challenge its Self-Destructive Dogma.

Yes, Kanye West Is Taking Threats Against His Life Stance Seriously

Boycott Kanye West


President Trump intends to hold a “Race Summit” which is a pure genius move, and mimics his approach to exposing “secret science.” Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the more Democratic lies that are exposed, the fewer people will support them.

President Trump is ‘planning a race summit and wants to invite Kanye West and NFL star Colin Kaepernick’ despite vilifying him over kneeling protest

If Kanye and Candice promote redirecting Climate Change Research Funds towards rebuilding our Inner-cities they will stand in stark contrast to Colin Kaepernick who offers the Black Community nothing but a confusing and misguided message that doesn’t solve any real problems. The number of blacks killed by white cops doesn’t even register when compared to the black on black murder in Chicago alone, and encouraging resisting arrest and misguided civil disobedience is never a good policy.

While Obama was Pouring Trillions Down the Climate Science Sewer, The Black Community Suffered

Trillions of Dollars Wasted on a False Alarm and Fraud

Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities

How Slimate Clience and the NFL Kneelers are Related

The True Cost of Fighting Climate Change is Measured in Missed Opportunities

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

Facts are if the Black Congressional Caucus and Colin Kaepernick want to defend wasteful Climate Change Spending while the Black Community suffers, President Trump should do everything possible to host a Race Summit so they can spread their destructive and counterproductive message to as many potential voters as possible. The more people know about the Democratic Party and the results of their policies, the less they are likely to vote for them. To the Democratic Party, the truth is the enemy. Kanye will be quoting Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, the Black Congressional Caucus will be quoting Karl Mark. Most people have common sense and a knowledge of history, and that means Kanye wins hands down.

Kanye Thomas Sowell

Simply put, the Democratic Party doesn’t represent progress for the Black Community, they represent the status quo. The problems of the Black Community are the result of Democratic Party Policies, and the Democratic Party’s power base depends on treating the symptoms, not offering a cure. The Democrats don’t want to and won’t ever solve the problems that are keeping them in power. That is why they spend money on fighting climate change and not school choice and job training programs.

More on this Topic:

Debunking the Claim That Republicans and Democrats Switched Sides on Race

WILLIAMS: Before And After Welfare Handouts

PRAGER: The War On Wisdom

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


Climate “Science” on Trial; The Forensic Files: Exhibit A

Exhibit A: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart


Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.

Talking Points:

  1. Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
  2. Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
  3. Every glaciation began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent a glaciation.
  4. The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
  5. For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. This video does an exhaustive review of the research. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking. (Must Watch Video Clip)
  6. There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
  7. There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.
  8. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.
  9. In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore discusses how his classmate challenged the “consensus” of the continents never having been joined. The teacher mocked Al’s friend for challenging the “consensus.” The arrogant and close-minded teacher spouting the “consensus” view was wrong. Today, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists are acting like the closed-minded and very wrong Teacher. Albert Einstein, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Galileo aren’t remembered for agreeing with the “consensus,” they are remembered for shattering the “consensus.”
  10. Because the data collected are “proxies” they represent smoothed averages, so the actual true peak temperature or CO2 levels aren’t actually known. Every data point in the Ice Core data represents a time span that can exceed 1,000 years or more. In data lingo, we would say that this data isn’t very “granular,” and doesn’t provide a lot of specific details. It is extremely possible, in fact highly likely that the actual peak temperatures exceeded the level represented in the chart.
  11. The error bars are not included on the chart so it is impossible to true understanding of just how accurate/reliable those numbers are.
  12. Along with this chart, Al Gore presented many more questionable findings in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”
  13. No other climate variables are presented on the chart. There may be far more explanatory variables that are excluded, such as the amount of radiation reaching the earth’s surface, cloud cover, cosmic rays, average humidity, particulate matter in the atmosphere, orbit of the earth, tilt of the earth, “wobble” around the axis of the earth, location of the earth is the galactic orbit, etc etc. In other words, Al Gore and the climate alarmists only provide you with enough evidence to reach the conclusion they want you to reach. For instance, I could show you a chart of the government debt and global temperatures and they both fit together pretty well. As the debt increased, so did temperatures, but that chart is pretty meaningless, and represents nothing more than a coincidence. In other words, correlation does not prove causation.
  14. The honesty and integrity of Al Gore and his “friend Lonnie Thompson” are questionable.
  15. Climate has been extremely variable for the past 800,000, and none of the volatility was due to anthropocentric CO2 prior to 150 years ago. Natural causes clearly dominate the variation in climate, most of which are poorly understood.
  16. The data in the chart combines proxy ice core data for the historical record, and instrumental data for near-term up to the current. Those data sets appear to have different volatility characteristics, and is most likely due to the instrumental data being more “granular.” The problem is that this data set isn’t consistent, and is some ways is a combination of apples and oranges. The temperature from the ice core is taken from one location, whereas thermometer data is taken around the globe.
  17. Here is another chart that shows more information than Al Gore’s. From this chart one can see the problems with ice core data. The farther back in time one goes, the dust data seems to dilute, unless for some reason dust concentrations were different during past ice ages. We are also near a record low, which would imply that more visible/warming radiation is reaching the earth. From this chart, it is more logical to conclude that less particulate matter is what is causing the warming than CO2. Maybe that is why Al Gore fails to present the data.


18. This chart demonstrates the variability of the Holocene in greater detail.


19. This chart highlights how dust, particulate matter, and solar output are extremely important to global temperatures.



High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd

In the above video, it highlights many of the principles that we’ve discussed on this blog, and are not taught in your average high school climate change high lecture. This video, however, provides much of the information to debunk the climate change alarmism.

Term Paper Points:

  1. In the video, it highlights that CO2 has 3 Long Wave Infrared (LWIR) Absorption Bands. One at 2.7µ, another at 4.7µ and the last, and most important at 15µ. Those bands represent CO2 stretching and bending. The bending is at 15µ and is the absorption relevant to global warming. More information can be found by clicking here. (Note: In the video, it is stated that CO2 absorbs 7µ. That is immaterial as highlighted in the data I’ve seen)
  2. The 15µ +/-2µ band is associated with a black body temperature of -50 to -110°C, a peak of -80°C temperature. This can be verified by clicking here.
  3. Both CO2 and H2O absorb 15µ LWIR, so the overlap makes CO2 irrelevant in the troposphere. CO2 is 400 Parts Per Million or PPM, whereas H20 can be as high as 4 parts per hundred. 400 ppm is the equivalent of 1 CO2 molecule for every 2,500 air molecules.
  4. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through “thermalization” of LWIR of 15µ +/-2µ. What that means is that by vibrating 1 molecule out of 2,500, somehow you can cause catastrophic warming. That is absurd given that the only place you even see the CO2 signature is up over 3 km when the air is starting to get thin.
  5. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause cooling. Its only mechanism is thermalization which converts LWIR from electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy. The Greenhouse Gas Effect is done through the conversion of one form of energy to another and is consistent with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
  6. CO2’s absorption of LWIR isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. What this means is that its effect has a rapid decay, much like taking painkillers. The first shot of morphine relieves 90% of the pain, and any following shot has a smaller and smaller impact. Another analogy is painting a window black. The first coat blocks out 90% of the light, and any following coats block out less and less light. CO2’s thermalization effect is most noticeable between 0 ppm and 300 ppm, after which the additional absorption rapidly decays. A graphic highlighting this can be found by clicking here. More details can be found by clicking here.
  7. The computer models all fail because they assume a linear, not logarithmic, relationship between CO2 and temperature. The physics don’t support that relationship. Click here for an example of a linear climate model, and click here to see the results of the models. Click here for more information.
  8. As mentioned above, CO2 and H2O absorb the same LWIR bands, and H2O absorbs a whole lot more making CO2 irrelevant in the troposphere outside Antarctica. H2O is by far the most significant greenhouse gas (GHG). More details can be found by clicking here. A graphic detailing the LWIR absorption of GHGs can be found by clicking here.
  9. To isolate the impact of CO2 one would need to remove H2O from the atmosphere. The closest environment to that is Antarctica which has very cold and very dry air. Antarctica has shown no warming in over 50 years, even though CO2 in Antarctica has increased substantially. Learn more by clicking here.
  10. Because ground measurements are located near the ground, any warming that can be attributed to the GHG effect would be due to H2O, not CO2. The first a CO2 signature can be identified is up over 3 km. Learn more by clicking here. The program for modeling the atmosphere is called MODTRAN, and can be found by clicking here.
  11. Note in the video at 3:30 it is clearly stated that H2O overlaps and dominates CO2. Click here for the video clip.
  12. In the video, it is stated that H2O is responsible for 30°C of the total 33°C GHG Effect, and CO2 is due to 3°C. That may or may not be true due to the inability to separate out the impact of H2O and CO2 in the lower atmosphere. Also, CO2’s major contribution to warming is when it increases from 0 to 300ppm, additional CO2 does very little to impact the energy balance. Lastly, CO2’s signature is firsts noticed up above 3km, well above the most glaciers and ground-based thermometer measurements.
  13. The temperature of the earth is around 300°K, so CO2’s 3°C contribution is only 1% of the total energy balance, and decays exponentially with additional CO2. Additionally, to reach this conclusion scientists convert W/M^2 into temperatures, which may or may not be applicable to the lower atmosphere with regards to CO2. This can be observed using the MODTRAN program by clicking here.
  14. At 6:50 in the video, it covers how increasing CO2 from the current level will do very little if anything to atmospheric temperature. Click here for the video clip. The reason for this is once again, the logarithmic relationship of the CO2 concentration and absorption. You can only absorb and thermalize 100% of the LWIR of 15µ, once 100% is absorbed by H2O and CO2, adding more CO2 and H2O can’t absorb any more. If you place a hose in a 1-gallon bucket and leave it running, the bucket will never hold more than 1 gallon, any additional water simply spills out of the bucket.
  15. Note, at the end of the video the professor states that he is simply explaining the physics, and not explaining the climate. Only when the interpretation is made by climate scientists do things go off the rails. As the video demonstrates and has been explained on this blog, the physics don’t justify CO2 being a major contributor to warming.
  16. There is no way for CO2 to cause record high temperatures. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from the earth. Incoming radiation is what drives the system’s temperature higher, and CO2 and H2O slow its cooling. Putting a blanket on something doesn’t warm it, it slows its cooling. Click here to learn more. Click here for another article.
  17. Lastly, as pointed out in the video, the atmospheric window between 8 and 15µ really determine the climate. That range is essentially the earth’s chimney giving free passage of radiation to outer space. That range is also centered around 10µ which is consistent with the earth’s temperature, the 15µ represents a floor, helping to keep the atmosphere above -80°C. Remember the longer the wavelength the less energy it possesses, wavelength and energy are inversely related. If you want to explain the climate you have to explain what happens in the atmospheric window. If something changes in the atmospheric window that alters the amount of energy reaching the oceans, then you will see real climate change. If the earth is warming, we shouldn’t be looking at CO2, we should be looking to see if more incoming warming visible radiation is reaching the oceans. Click here for more detail. Clouds are like shades to a room, and the more clouds you have, the less radiation reaches the earth. Cosmic Rays regulate the clouds in the sky, and those are determined by the sun. Click here for more detail.
  18. The explanation in the video is not complete and did not associate CO2, 15µ and its blackbody temperature of -80°C. CO2’s influence is to the far right of the atmospheric window, representing the long end of the long wave IR spectrum. That is very low energy radiation and puts a floor in temperatures. Additionally, CO2 isn’t a blackbody, so the energy represented in its absorption may not truly represent -80°C.  -80°C is a max temperature. This can be explored by looking at the MODTRAN output. CO2’s signature distorts only a fraction of the blackbody curve.

Click here for many more scientific arguments applicable to a climate change paper.

More Sources:

Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher
Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming

Another video worth watching that covers H2O.

Please Like, Share, Subscribe, Comment and pass on to any student you know working on a climate change project at school

h/t Commentor Georg Thomas for the video and concept


Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher


If you are a young rebellious free-thinking independent truth-seeking student that is sick and tired of being force-fed by your teachers the junk science of climate change and global warming, this is the place for you. Are you sick and tired of this “settled science” not allowing debate and discussion? Force the issue and turn in a real scientific paper challenging the authoritarian rule of the “consensus.” Prove to your teacher how little they know about the subject.

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #1: Isolating the Impact of CO2

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #2: Climate Change Science Fair 

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #3: CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #4: 4 Charts That Rule Out CO2

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #5: NASA GISS Charts

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #6: Understand the Oceans

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #7: Trillions of Dollars Wasted

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #8: Climate “Science” on Trial

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #9: If Something is Understood

Climate Change Global Warming Homework Paper #10: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

More Sources:

High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd
Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Share with Students taking High School Science


Climate Change Science Fair Project; CO2 and Global Warming


To understand CO2’s contribution to climate change, one has to understand a few basics. The first is that CO2 is evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere up to 80 km. CO2 is 400 ppm at the surface, and CO2 is 400 ppm up 80 km, CO2 is 400 ppm at the equator and the poles. Water vapor, by far the most significant GHG, on the other hand, is not. H2O can be as high a 4 parts per hundred at the surface, and eventually precipitates out of the atmosphere by about 10 km. It is important to remember that the atmosphere thins with altitude, so 400 ppm up 80 km has far fewer CO2 molecules than 400 ppm at the surface.


As one can see from the altitude temperature graph, temperature decreases with altitude up to about 10 km, the same level at which H2O is no longer present. Temperatures then “invert” and warm with an increase in altitude due to incoming radiation creating ozone or O3.  The Temperature then begins to cool again with altitude through the thin mesosphere where CO2 starts to exhaust. Temperatures once again invert in the very thin thermosphere as incoming ionizing radiation warms the very thin air. The coldest part of the atmosphere is the mesosphere at about -90°C.


CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change, is through thermalization, i.e. warming, of the 13 to 18µ (peak of 15µ) wavelengths of the LWIR spectrum. Once again, that is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change. Water vapor absorbs the same LWIR spectrum as CO2 and much much much more of the IR spectrum. H2O is by far the most significant GHG.

BBCThe “thermalization” of LWIR peak of 15µ results in a blackbody temperature of -80°C, or basically the floor temperature of the mesosphere. Note, thermalizing a gas to -80°C won’t warm anything on the surface, not even the poles.


From the cooling rate graphic, we can see how all these GHGs impact the atmosphere. CO2’s 13 to 18µ (peak of 15µ) wavelengths is the 600 to 700 wavenumber range, and spectrum colors represent slowing of cooling whereas dark gray represents actual warming. As one can see, H2O dominates the troposphere where all the glaciers exist and ground measurements are taken. Using ground-based thermometers identifies warming (actually slowing of cooling) due to H2O, not CO2. The 600 to 700 wavenumber range shows slowed cooling up to the tropopause and lower stratosphere.

That very small dot, up about 20 km is the only area CO2 warms, and that warming is dwarfed by the warming at that layer and above by ozone. CO2 then slows the cooling in the stratosphere due to the thermalization of CO2’s 13 to 18µ (peak of 15µ) wavelengths, but the lower stratosphere is -60°C. Whereas CO2 slows the cooling, it is immaterial to O3, which actually warms the atmosphere. This is evidenced by the fact that once the O3 effect isn’t involved, the temperatures once again collapse in the mesosphere. The CO2 does nothing to prevent the collapse of temperatures in the mesosphere except by putting in a temperature floor around -80°C. Once again, thermalizing a gas to -80°C isn’t going to warm anything on the surface, and it certainly won’t melt polar ice caps and glaciers.

From the above analysis, it is clear that CO2 is not a threat to mankind, and it certainly isn’t the cause of climate change. Water vapor and O3 clearly dominate the temperatures of the atmosphere, and what impact CO2 has is overlapped and exceeded by H20 and O3. In other words, CAGW is a fraud, and the real science proves it. Piss off your liberal teacher and use this as the foundation of a science fair project.

More Sources:

High School Climate Change Term Paper for Those Who Don’t Want to Follow the Herd
Climate Change Global Warming Homework to Piss Off Your Teacher

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.


How Do You Know Climate Alarmists Are Lying? Their Lips Are Moving

Let me begin by thanking the bipartisan group of U.S. governors who convened this meeting.

Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

Claim #1: Few Challenges Facing America – And The World – Are More Urgent Than Combating Climate Change.

Response to Claim #1: Climate Change has always occurred, and it has nothing to do with CO2. CO2 once reached 7000 ppm and there was no catastrophic warming. The earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4000 ppm, or 10x the level it is today. Never in the history of the earth has the climate not been changing. A changing climate is the norm, not the exception, and man’s ability to stop climate change is about the same as man’s ability to stop the seasons, and night and day. Fighting climate change is the Quixotic venture of all Quixotic ventures. Terrorism, unfunded pension liabilities, job displacement, poor inner city schools, poor inner-city healthcare, run away college inflation, China blackmailing the US with their US Debt holdings, cleaner water, protecting natural treasures, rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, job training, energy independence, promoting freedom worldwide, etc etc etc. If fact, fighting climate change ranks near dead last on the public’s priorities.

Claim #2: The “Science” Is Beyond Dispute.

Response to Claim #2: Real Science is never settled, and real science relies on experimentation and application of the scientific method. Climate “Science” claims to be “settled” and relies on unprovable hypothesis where CO2 can cause both warming and cooling, and uses computer models in place of the scientific method. What evidence the slimate clientists do present to support their hypothesis, fails miserably. None of the IPCC Computer Models accurately model CO2 and Temperature, and 100% of them overestimate warming. That is evidence of a systemic bias, not evidence of sound science. Real scientists would use the results on the computer models to change their conclusion that CO2 drives climate change.

Claim #3: The Facts Are Clear

Response to Claim #3: If the facts were clear, the computer models would be producing results that support the conclusion that CO2 is driving climate change. They don’t. To complicate this matter, the data supporting these “facts” are highly “adjusted.” Also, how can the facts ever be clear when CO2 can cause both warming and cooling? Who decides which is better, and what is the desired outcome? Do the climate alarmists claim they can manufacture a stable global climate? That is absurd.

Claim #4: Sea Levels Are Rising

Response to Claim #4: When haven’t sea levels been increasing? Sea levels have been increasing since the end of the last ice age, and the rate of change is near the lowest in the past 15,000 years. A rising sea level is evidence that we are no longer in an ice age, not that we have produced too much CO2. If the global temperatures were, in fact, increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers would be melting at an increasing rate, and sea levels would be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t. There is no evidence that sea level rate of change has been accelerating. Even if sea levels are accelerating, and temperatures are accelerating, that still doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause. There are plenty of periods in world history when temperatures and sea levels have accelerated without CO2 being the driver.

Claim #5: Coastlines Are Shrinking

Response to Claim #5: See Response to Claim #4. Coastlines are shrinking, and they are also growing. Earthquakes, tectonic plate shifting, volcanic activity, construction, etc etc etc all work to shape the coastlines and they have nothing to do with CO2. The oceans are warming and expanding. That will increase the sea level and shrink the coastline, but the wavelengths CO2 absorbs won’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation warms the oceans.

Claim #6: We’ve Seen Record Drought

Response to Claim #6: Drought isn’t even an expected outcome of a warming globe. Warmer air holds more water vapor. Droughts haven’t been getting worse, in fact, according to NASA, the earth has undergone substantial greening. CO2, after all, is plant food, and plants are huge producers of air humidity.

Claim #7: We’ve Seen…Spreading Famine

Response to Claim #7: This is the most absurd claim. CO2 is plant food, and higher CO2 levels result in higher crop yields. That BTW is about as settled as science can be and easily demonstrated in a lab. Higher CO2 is the answer to ending famine, not the cause. If there is famine today it is due to a food distribution problem, not a food production issue. Most likely, the cause of famine is a war, tyrannical government or other man-made causes blocking the delivery of food to needy people.

Claim #8: We’ve Seen…Storms That Are Growing Stronger

Response to Claim #8: The evidence simply doesn’t support this claim. Tornados have not been becoming more frequent or strong, and they certainly aren’t tied to the rate of change of CO2. Once again, warming isn’t evidence that man is causing the warming. Unless you can explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, there must be some other factor causing the warming. The most likely cause is simply fewer clouds over the oceans allowing more visible radiation to reach the oceans.

Claim #9: We’ve Seen..Storms That Are Growing Stronger With Each Passing Hurricane Season

Response to Claim #9: Hurricanes are actually growing less frequent and less severe, and once again, any trend isn’t tied to CO2. Almost all claims that current weather events are getting worse crumble under analysis. If you want to learn about extreme weather read the Bible, or study the history of the collapse of the Bronze Age.

Claim #10: Climate Change And Our Dependence On Foreign Oil, If Left Unaddressed, Will Continue To Weaken Our Economy And Threaten Our National Security.

Response to Claim #10: That is true, but the solution isn’t building wind and solar farms.  Blocking the Keystone Pipeline, fracking and drilling simply prolonged and worsened our position and strengthened the terrorists. President Trump’s position of promoting US Energy DOMINANCE by drilling, deregulating, opening Federal Lands and promoting revolution in Iran is an infinitely better approach. An approach that will actually deliver results.

Other nonsensical claims made by the climate alarmists also crumble under analysis.

  1. Polar Bears aren’t being harmed by global warming, in fact, their populations are growing. BTW, polar bears thrive in warm zoos and have survived countless periods of growing and shrinking Arctic ice. The Arctic was ice-free in 1959, before the surge in CO2.
  2. Here is a list of many other nonsensical claims made by the climate alarmists, and the supporting research was largely paid for by tax dollars.
  3. Universities are centers of higher learning.
  4. Climate Activists Suffering From Factophobia… Host Of Studies Show No Drought/Forest Fire Trend
  5. Alarmists Were Scrambling To Show Cold Winters Fit The Global Warming Model, Then A New Study Came Out

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment


How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart


Ironically, some of the most damning evidence again the AGW or Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory comes from Al Gore himself.

This post has been updated and reformatted since being published.

Talking Points:

  1. Climate change is the norm. Never in the 800,000-year ice core record is climate not changing.
  2. Four Temperature Peaks in the last 400,000 years were all above today’s temperatures and occurred at lower CO2 levels.
  3. Every ice-age began when CO2 was at or near peak levels, in other words, high CO2 levels were not enough to prevent ice ages.
  4. The current record high level of 400 parts per million(ppm) CO2, a full 33% above any previous level on the chart, has failed to carry temperatures to a record high.
  5. For any cause and effect relationship, the cause MUST lead the effect. CO2 does not lead Temperature, it follows it by 800 to 1,500 years. This video does an exhaustive review of the research. The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking. (Must Watch Video Clip)
  6. There is no mechanism defined that explains how or why CO2 would lead temperatures to pull the globe out of an ice age.
  7. There is no mechanism defined to explain how or why high levels of CO2 would trigger an ice age.
  8. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is by trapping outgoing long-wave infrared (LWIR) radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can only result in warming, there is no mechanism by which it can result in cooling. CO2 can only trap outgoing radiation, that is it.
  9. In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” Al Gore discusses how his classmate challenged the “consensus” of the continents never having been joined. The teacher mocked Al’s friend for challenging the “consensus.” The arrogant and close-minded teacher spouting the “consensus” view was wrong. Today, Al Gore and his fellow climate alarmists are acting like the closed-minded and very wrong Teacher. Albert Einstein, Christopher Columbus, Michelangelo, and Galileo aren’t remembered for agreeing with the “consensus,” they are remembered for shattering the “consensus.”

Smoking Gun #2: 600 Million Year Geologic Record


Talking Points:

  1. The current CO2 level of 400 ppm is at the extreme low end of the past 600 million years. Plants and therefore most life will die if CO2 falls below 180ppm.
  2. CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm, or 17.5x today’s level and the earth has NEVER in 600 million years experienced catastrophic global warming, NEVER.
  3. The earth fell into an ice age when the CO2 level was at 4,000 ppm, or 10x the level of today.
  4. Modern reefs and sea life developed over the past 220 million years when CO2 and temperatures were much higher than today. Coral Reefs only exist in the warm parts of the oceans and rely on dissolved CO2 to form their CaCO3 shells.
  5. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2 can allow the globe to cool, the only defined mechanism it to trap outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns.
  6. Over the past 600 million years, CO2 and Temperature simply aren’t correlated, and regardless of the level of CO2, temperatures cap out around 22 Degrees C.
  7. CO2 caused ocean acidification is simply not a possibility due to the huge buffering capabilities of the ocean, once again, the coral reefs developed during periods of much higher CO2 levels.

Smoking Gun #3: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably


Talking Points:

  1. Climate “science” is a “model” based science, its entire credibility is dependent upon the accuracy of its computer models. The very precise climate models are very inaccurate.
  2. The confidence of the climate science “consensus” increased as the climate models increasingly deviated from observations.
  3. 100% of IPCC Climate Models overestimated the expected increase in global temperatures, 100%. A 100% overestimation rate involving that many models represent a systemic bias, not a random error.
  4.   The climate models assume a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. That relationship does not exist and will be covered in a later smoking gun.
  5. Real science relies on the scientific method, and reaches a conclusion through falsification (rejecting the null), experimentation, data collection, data analysis and reproduciblity. Climate “science” relies on none of the classical scientific practices, and relies on computer models, peer review and consensus. Albert Einstein isn’t remembered because he agreed with the “consensus,” he is remembered because he shattered the existing consensus.
  6. The extreme failure of the IPCC Climate Models to accurately model global temperatures means that the IPCC Modelers failed to include significant variables, failed to properly model CO2 or both. Regardless of which is true, the IPCC has failed on an epic scale to make the case that CO2 is the cause of the recent warming.
  7. If climate “science” was a “settled science,” the climate models would be able to accurately predict the climate. They don’t even come close.
  8. In real science if something is understood it can be modeled with great accuracy. Things fall at 9.8 m/sec^2 in a vacuum can be tested over and over and over again and the results will always be the same. If something isn’t understood, it can’t be modeled with any accuracy. If something really isn’t understood, the experts won’t even be able to agree on what is wrong with the models. The vast number of different and unique excuses (52 documented here) to explain why the models have performed so poorly proves just how little the expert climate “scientists” truly know.
  9. How can any real “science” have a “consensus” on something that they can’t even remotely model, and whose conclusions aren’t supported by empirical evidence/natural observation? Additionally, all these models passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”
  10. If this “science” is truly “settled” why are there so many different models with widely different results? The only thing that all the models seem to agree upon is that they are all wrong. I imagine that is because the most significant factors used in these models is CO2. To properly cure an illness, one must first properly diagnose it. Prescribing eyeglasses for headaches caused by a brain tumor will only lead to the death of the patient. Climate “scientists” can model CO2 and temperature all they want, the models will never be accurate.
  11. The climate models ignore significant factors like the Sun, Clouds and Water Vapor.
  12. Scott Adams of Dilbert fame even weighed in on this one.

Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference


Talking Points:

  1. OSU Stadium holds 100,000 Buckeye Fans and atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm. If every Buckeye Fan represents one atmospheric molecule, then 40 Buckeye Fans would represent atmospheric CO2. Man however is not responsible for all the atmospheric CO2, and is responsible for at most 15 of those 40 molecules of CO2. Man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is the equivalent of 15 Buckeye Fans in OSU Stadium.
  2. CO2 is a trace gas at 400 ppm, and its contribution to global warming is to trap a very narrow band of outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. More on this topic is covered in a later smoking gun.
  3. CO2 is 0.0004 or 0.04% of the atmosphere. Is it plausible that “activating” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere can actually result in a material temperature change?
  4. Unfortunately, simple experiments to demonstrate even the basics of this “science” haven’t been properly run or even tried. What efforts have been attempted are complete jokes from the perspective of real science. Anthony Watts shows no mercy when he “peer reviews” Al Gore’s and Bill Nye’s effort to demonstrate the GHG effect of CO2. It is truly alarming how such foundational figures can’t even demonstrate even the basics of the “science” that they have manufactured and promoted at great tax-payer expense.
  5. Does it seem plausible that “thermalizing” 1 out of every 2,500 molecules can make a material difference upon the remaining 2,499? Especially when its energy if consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius?

Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)


When discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, be sure to always tie things back to how CO2 could be the cause. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping outgoing radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns.

Talking Points:

  1. Incoming visible radiation has a wavelength between 0.4 and 0.7 microns and is consistent with a black body with a temperature around 5,200 degrees C (the Sun). CO2 is transparent to these wavelengths. (The importance of this will be addressed in a later Smoking Gun)
  2. The earth emits IR mostly between 6.5 and 12.5 microns, with a peak near 9.5 microns. 9.5 microns is consistent with a black body of temperature  18 degrees Celsius. CO2 is mostly transparent to those wavelengths.
  3. CO2’s absorbs between 13 and 18 microns, with a peak near 15 microns. Those wavelengths are consistent with a black body of temperature -80 degrees Celsius. CO2’s signature would be to cause warming in Antarctica, which is addressed in a later Smoking Gun.
  4. H2O is by far the most significant GHG, and absorbs across the IR Spectrum. Where there is water vapor in the atmosphere, there is warmth. The same can’t be said about CO2.
  5. CO2 absorbs a small fraction of the IR Spectrum having 3 narrow peaks at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, all of which largely miss the peak outgoing  IR radiance of the earth at 9.5 microns.
  6. H2O largely absorbs the same IR spectrum as CO2, and is at much higher concentrations in the atmosphere. H2O IR absorption usually makes CO2 contribution to warming inconsequential.
  7. CO2 has changed from 0.0003 to 0.0004 over the past 100 years and absorbs a very very very small % of the outgoing radiation. H2O can change from 0.001 to 0.04 in a day and absorbs a vast majority of the outgoing IR spectrum. Neither H20 or CO2 have ever caused catastrophic warming of the globe.
  8. Given that the GHG effect only slows cooling, and can never actually “warm” the atmosphere, the dynamics of the GHG effect is to put in a temperature floor. If you notice from the above graphic, as the earth warms, it enters what is called an “atmospheric window” where little energy is trapped. As the earth cools, more and more of the outgoing wavelengths are trapped (note the near solid black to the right of 13 microns)

Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming


If there is anyplace on earth that is a natural control for the impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 it is Antarctica. Antarctica’s average winter temperature is -60 degrees Celsius which is close to the peak absorption of CO2 of -80 degree Celsius. Most importantly however is that the Antarctica air is very very very dry, so there is no impact from water vapor. The only significant GHG in the South Pole Troposphere is CO2.

Talking Points:

  1. Satellite measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 36 years. During this time CO2 increased from 330 ppm to 404 ppm.
  2. Ground measurements show no South Pole warming over the past 59 years. During that time CO2 increased from 315 ppm to 405 ppm.
  3. Increasing CO2 nearly 30% had no impact on temperatures in the region most likely to be impacted by an increase if CO2.
  4. The North Pole is not a “control” for CO2 because its temperature is largely influenced by ocean currents. BTW, an ice free North Pole is nothing new or anything to be alarmed about. The graphic is of the USS Skate SSN-578.
  5. What efforts to prove Antarctica has been warming with the rest of the globe have failed.

Smoking Gun #7: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are warming


Once again, when discussing CO2 caused climate change or global warming, the question that needs to be asked is how does CO2 cause the observation. CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is to absorb IR radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns, that is it. CO2 can only cause warming by “trapping” outgoing radiation.

Talking Points:

  1. Only incoming visible and ultraviolet light penetrates and warms the oceans. IR radiation does not penetrate the oceans, has very little energy and most likely results in cooling the oceans through surface evaporation.
  2. The oceans hold over 1,000x more energy than the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough energy in the entire atmosphere to warm the oceans. The oceans are warmed by incoming radiation and geothermal sources.
  3. Warming oceans also outgas CO2 into the atmosphere. That is why CO2 lags temperature. It takes time to warm the oceans, and as the oceans warm they release CO2. That is also why CO2 falls during ice ages. Cold water absorbs more CO2. This is due to  Henry’s law and can be observed by warming a glass of Coke.
  4. The fact that the oceans are warming is evidence of more incoming high energy visible radiation reaching the earth’s surface, not evidence of CO2 trapping outgoing low energy IR.
  5. Climate models almost exclusively focus on CO2 levels and ignore incoming high energy visible radiation and atmospheric H20 levels which likely explains why they are so inaccurate.
  6. What is warming the oceans is also most likely what is warming the atmosphere.
  7. Either there are two distinct phenomena occurring, one caused by man and one caused by nature, or there is only one natural phenomenon causing both (which has been the case throughout all of history). Either something natural is warming the oceans and man’s CO2 is warming the atmosphere, or the same natural cause is warming both the oceans and the atmosphere above it.

Smoking Gun #8: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.


Talking Points:

  1. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is near linear, atmospheric temperatures are not.
  2. Atmospheric CO2 and Atmospheric Temperatures simply aren’t correlated, and their certainly isn’t the linear relationship that exists in the IPCC Models.
  3. In reality, atmospheric temperatures follow the ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2. Ocean temperatures are dependent upon the amount of incoming solar radiation that reaches them combined with ocean cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO/El Nino/El Nina) and others. The balance of incoming and outgoing radiation is why the atmospheric temperature forms spikes and steps instead of a smooth linear increase.

Smoking Gun #9: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.


Talking Points:

  1. Man’s rate of CO2 creation is increasing, yet the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly variable.
  2. The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with atmospheric temperatures, which are highly correlated with ocean temperatures and cycles.
  3. Man’s production of CO2 can not explain the large variation is either the atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Ocean temperatures can explain both.
  4. There is no mechanism by which CO2 would allow global temperatures to cool, CO2 only increases, and it only absorbs more and more energy. CO2 can’t explain the large rapid coolings which frequently occur.

Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW


Once again, when discussing AGW you always have to tie the observation back to CO2, and its lone mechanism to affect climate change through absorbing long-wave IR between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 traps outgoing radiation from an already warmed earth, CO2 and IR doesn’t warm the earth. CO2 is transparent to incoming warming visible and UV radiation.

Talking Points:

  1. Daytime temperatures are determined by the amount of incoming radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
  2. CO2 traps outgoing radiation, record high temperatures require new energy to be added to the system. CO2 does not add energy to the system.
  3. During a hot summer day you can fry an egg on the hood of a car, but that has nothing to do with AGW or CO2 and everything to do with incoming radiation.
  4. If AGW and CO2 was the true cause of the warming, you would be able to fry an egg on a hot day in the shade of a tree using only the back radiation from the atmosphere.
  5. True evidence of AGW and CO2 caused warming would be that the spread between day and night temperatures would be narrowing in the very dry deserts. I’ve found no evidence of that happening, in fact the South Pole proves otherwise.
  6. Water vapor dominates the heat trapping in the lower atmosphere, and is why you can sleep naked in a rain forest, but not in a dry desert.
  7. The fact that record daytime temperatures are being set is evidence that more energy is being added to the system. That alone can explain the warming, and CO2 has nothing to do with it.

Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected


Classical science is done through the “Scientific Method.” An observation is made, a hypothesis is formed, experiments are designed, data is collected, the data is analyzed and the hypothesis is either accepted or rejected. In most fields of science the “null hypothesis” is the status quo or the accepted explanation. If in that rare case the null hypothesis is in fact rejected, the research is published and others will rush to “replicate” the experiments to validate the findings. True science is based upon skepticism and the “belief in the ignorance of experts.” Science progresses through falcification, over-turning the apple cart, proving the experts wrong, angering one’s “peers” and defying the “consensus.” Classical science is not done by following the bandwagon, agreeing with the consensus and being welcomed, accepted and celebrated by like-minded “peers.” Real science is done by proclaiming that “the earth is not flat dammit, and I’m going to prove it, and I don’t care what anyone else thinks.” How then would the scientific method be applied to the field of climate science? An observation is made that both temperatures and CO2 have been increasing since the dawn of the industrial age. A hypothesis is made that man-made CO2 must be causing the increase in temperatures, the commonly accepted/status quo belief is that climate change is natural. Experiments would be designed and data would be collected and then analyzed. For this smoking gun we will ignore the design experiments part because the field of climate science doesn’t rely on experiments, it is almost completely dependent upon data samples and computer models. I’ll address some experiments in a later smoking gun, this smoking gun will focus on the ice core data to determine if the temperature variation during the period when man has been producing CO2 (the past 150 and 50 years) is statistically different from the previous 12,000 years of the Holocene.

Talking Points:

  1. Using the scientific method and applying it to the available ice core data, the null hypothesis that climate change is natural IS NOT REJECTED.
  2. The relevant data is the temperature and CO2 data for the “Holocene.” Download any ice core data set and test the hypothesis yourself. I have yet to find a single ice core data set that shows the temperature variation over the past 150 and/or 50 years is statistically different from the previous 12 to 15,000 years of the Holocene. Note, you have to use surface temperatures for the most recent 50 years.
  3. There have been many previous temperature peaks during the Holocene, all of which reached temperatures above today’s level. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods were all warmer than today. Archaeological evidence of a warmer past are Roman vineyards in Northern England and the Vikings inhabited and farmed Greenland.
  4. I have yet to find a single ice core data set demonstrating that current temperatures are at a peak for the Holocene. It is important to note that when NASA/NOAA, the Main Stream Media or Al Gore report that “we are experiencing the hottest year on record,” they are referring only to the past 156 years of instrumental records, not the ice core data or the entire Holocene. Those data set begin right when an unusually cold period called the “Little Ice Age” was ending. Much of the warming since 1860 is nothing more than the earth rebounding from an unusually cold period.

Smoking Gun #12: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none


The main data sources used to support the AGW Theory are ground level surface and ocean thermometers. There are all sorts of problems with this approach such as the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” and the non-transparent process of “adjustments.” Those issues aside, once again, the warming has to be tied to CO2 and trapping outgoing radiation between 13 and 18 microns. Fortunately, NASA has a program to define and answer many climate-related questions. MODTRAN is a wonderful tool to use when discussing global warming with a climate alarmist, it will save you countless headaches.

Talking Points:

  1. Looking down from 1 km (the atmospheric layer where all thermometers are located) the Upward IR Flux when CO2 if 400 ppm is 407.572 W/M^2.
  2. Ceteris paribus, doubling CO2 to 800 ppm results in an  Upward IR Flux of 407.572 W/M^2.
  3. According to MODTRAN, doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the energy balance is the lower 1 km of the atmosphere that contains all the ground/surface/ocean temperature measurements. The net change to the energy balance is 0.000 W/M^2.
  4. Simply cutting the humidity in half changes the UpWard IR Flux to 409.456 W/M^2.
  5. Adding a simple stratus cloud base will change it to 396.896 W/M^2, in other words, when clouds and water vapor are considered, CO2 becomes irrelevant.
  6. For the entire atmosphere (looking down from 70 km), changing CO2 from pre-industrial 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm changed the Upward IR Flux from 282.600 to 280.999 W/M^2, or less than 2 W/M^2 throughout the entire atmosphere. A simple cloud layer alters the balance by over 10 W/M^2.

Smoking Gun #13: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect


 Talking Points:

  1. Ground measurements are continually subject to opaque “adjustments.”
  2. Ground measurements do not correlate well with Satellite and Balloon measurements.
  3. Satellite data shows no significant warming since 1997, and much of the warming is clearly due to El Nino caused temperature spikes.
  4. CO2 has substantially increased during this period that is referred to as “the pause.”
  5. The data adjustments aren’t similar to adjustments for random errors, where the adjustments are also random in nature. Temperature “adjustments” almost universally increase the slope of the temperature graph, lowering distal and elevating proximal data. The result is to suspiciously make the temperature increase more linear and in line with the CO2 increase. This issue will be addressed in a later smoking gun.

Smoking Gun #14: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear


One of the most damning smoking guns is that the entire field of climate “science” appears to believe that there is a linear relationship between CO2 and Temperature. The IPCC models focus exclusively on CO2, and the relationship they model is a simple linear regression. If you try to model a logarithmic relationship as linear you can be 100% certain that the predicted value will overestimate the actual observation and that the error will grow over time. That is exactly what has happened with 100% of the IPCC Models, 100%.

 Talking Points:

  1. The vast majority of the heat-trapping capability of CO2 occurred as it increased from 0 ppm to the pre-industrial level of 280 pp. The Downward Forcing changed from 230 to 258 W/M^2, an increase of 28 W/M^2.
  2. Increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm increased the Downward Forcing from 258 to 259 W/M^2, an increase of 1 W/M^2.
  3. Doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm would increase the Downward Forcing from 259 to 263 W/M^2, an increase of 4 W/M^2.
  4. That additional energy is dispersed throughout the entire 70 km of the atmospherics.
  5. Doubling CO2 has no measurable impact on the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere, and a simple addition of H20 or a cloud layer dwarfs the impact of the additional CO2.
  6. CO2 only impacts the energy balance in the upper atmosphere once H2O has precipitated out.
  7. The fact that the “adjustments” to the historical temperature records makes temperatures more linear and more correlated with the increase in CO2 makes the “adjustments” very suspect, and inconsistent with the real physics behind atmospheric CO2.
  8. The climate models are simply designed to “prove” CO2 is the cause of the warming, not to accurately model the real climate. The bottom line is that the climate is impacted my an infinite number of variable, not just CO2.
  9. The best analogy to explain this concept is painting a window. The first coat of paint blocks out a lot of light, but each additional coat blocks less and less light. In economics, it is called “the law of diminishing returns” and the example is always a thirsty party goer that really enjoys his first beer, but by his 20th beer the enjoyment per beer has been greatly reduced.

Smoking Gun #15: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community


One of the most Orwellian and suspect foundations of the AGW Theory is the temperature reconstruction on which it depends. The original IPCC Report in 1990 used the bottom chart as its temperature reconstruction. The chart accurately identified the well documented Medieval Warming period and Little Ice Age. The problem is, the original chart used by the IPCC did not support the narrative that CO2 was causing global warming. A campaign was then started to rewrite history to make a more convincing argument to convict CO2 and eliminate the inconvenient Medieval Warming period. The IPCC ultimately replaced the problematic chart with the problem-ridden and sharply criticized and widely debunked “Hockey Stick” Chart.

 Talking Points:

  1. The “Hockey Stick” is not reproducible due to its reliance upon unconventional researcher independent/manufactured statistical techniques such as “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline.” (Must Watch Video Clip)
  2. The Hockey Stick and other following temperature reconstructions include proxies with extremely large errors such at tree rings, coral and even ice cores.
  3. Even though thermometer data was available, and in fact used by NASA and NOAA in their global temperature reconstructions, Michael Mann did not include instrumental data until 1902. Its addition dramatically altered the trend of the chart. Proxy data was included until 1980, and once discontinued the trend of the chart was dramatically altered again.
  4. The Hockey Stick shows a full 1.1 degree Celsius increase between 1900 and its publication in 1999. NASA’s global temperature chart shows an increase of about one half that value at 0.6 degree Celsius.
  5. The longest continual thermometer record spanning over 350 years shows no warming until a suspicious rapid increase starting in 1980. Nearly 100% of the warming in the 350 year record has occurred since 1980, which is completely inconsistent with the AGW Theory and all other temperature reconstructions.
  6. The “Hockey Stick” passed “peer review,” and helped solidify the “consensus.”
  7. The Medievel Warming period has been widely demonstrated to be a global phenemenon.
  8. There are serious problems with the ground measurements used to in the temperature reconstructions.

Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)


If in fact, temperatures are increasing at an increasing rate, glaciers should be melting at an increasing rate and therefore sea levels should be increasing at an increasing rate. They aren’t, in fact, the most recent data shows that the rate of increase has been DECREASING since 2004.

Talking Points:

  1. The rate of change of the sea level has not been increasing, which would be expected if in fact we are warming at an increasing rate.
  2. Sea levels are increasing at a rate of 3 mm/year, or the height of 3 dimes.
  3. The rate of sea level increase is nothing alarming on a historical scale.
  4. It is far more likely that we will experience sea level decreasing ice age long before Manhattan gets flooded.
  5. James Hansen predicts a sea level rise of 2 to 5 meters over the next 84 years, or 24 to 60 mm/yr. During the ending of the recent ice age, sea level increased 100 m over 6,000 years at a rate of 17 mm/yr, and that was melting mile high ice over North America. NASA’s James Hansen in his “peer reviewed” paper claims sea level we will increase at a rate higher than what existed at the end of the ice age. Does that even seem remotely possible considering there are far fewer glaciers to melt and the actual rate of sea level increase has been DECREASING?

Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.


Talking Points:

  1. Most anthropogenic CO2 was produced post-WWII.
  2. Temperatures increased 0.6 degree Celsius between 1910 and 1945, before most anthropogenic CO2 was produced. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
  3. Temperatures remained flat between 1940 and 1980, even though CO2 increased.
  4. Temperatures increase 0.6 degree Celsius between 1975 and 2010. 0.6 degrees over 35 years.
  5. Anthropogenic CO2 has not accelerated or altered the natural rate of temperature increase.

Smoking Gun #18: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.


The above chart must be analyzed in the context of the largest CO2 sink, the oceans, are warming and degassing CO2 during this period.

Talking Points:

  1. In 1959 man produced 2.25 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
  2. in 1987 man produced 5.5 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 2 ppm/year.
  3. The huge spikes in 1987 and 1997 are most likely due to El Ninos, and not related to anthropogenic CO2.
  4. In 1992 man produced 6.1 GtC per year, atmospheric CO2 increased by 1.75 ppm/year.
  5. Anthropogenic CO2 increased by nearly 5x between 1959 and 2014 from 2.2 GtC to 9.8 GtC in an almost linear manner.
  6. The rate of Atmospheric CO2 increased from 2 ppm in 1959 to 4 ppm in 2012 with a great deal of volatility that could not be due to anthropogenic CO2.
  7. Man’s production of CO2 production has actually exceeded IPCC projections during a period when temperatures “paused.”

Smoking Gun #19: The  Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.


A crucial/critical outcome predicted of the AGW Theory is an Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot.”

Talking Points:

  1. As the above graphic demonstrates, the observed temperature change of the upper equatorial troposphere is the exact opposite of predicted.
  2. When models are a full 180 degrees off they simply can’t be more wrong, and useless for explaining the observation.
  3. The field of Climate “Science” is the only field that I know of outside politics where you can be wrong on such an epic scale and still keep your job.

Smoking Gun #20: 35 Years Ago We Had A Coming Ice Age and a 10 Year Supply of Oil


Basically every major and even minor prediction of the nascent field of Climate “Science” has been wrong on a biblical scale.

Talking Points:

  1. The climate models demonstrate an epic level of incompetence, ignorance, scientific malpractice and inaccuracy.
  2. In the 1970’s and 80’s the environmental scare du jour was the coming ice age.
  3. This video clip debunks the claims of disappearing Snow Cover and Sea Ice, Hurricanes, Extreme Weather, Tornados, Droughts, Floods, Heat Waves, etc etc.
  4. This video clip debunks the extreme Sea Level change claims.
  5. Polar bears are not endangered, in fact, they have been thriving during the claimed warming period.
  6. This video clip debunks the claims of ocean acidification.
  7. This video highlights why the “experts” avoid publicly debating Global Warming…they lose.
  8. Ehrlich lost his bet.
  9. This video highlights why Climate Alarmists don’t like to debate…they lose.
  10. I truly feel sorry for Bill Nye and Al Gore, Anthony Watts simply destroys their credibility.
  11. British courts disagree with Al Gore.

Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.


Talking Points:

  1. Climate “Science” is the first social media science where the number of likes and friends determines the truth. In a real science, the purpose is to debunk the “consensus,” not agree with it.  Peer pressure isn’t part of the scientific method.
  2. Smearing people that disagree with the “consensus” as “deniers,” “flat earthers,” “Skeptics,” and  “anti-science,” isn’t part of the scientific method. Science by “authority” isn’t science.
  3. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food, and a fundamental molecule of life. Plants die when CO2 falls below 180 ppm, and Submarines have CO2 levels 20x the level in the atmosphere.
  4. There are very serious problems with the exclusive/non-inclusive “peer review” process. It is better called “pal review.” Very bad “science” supports the “consensus.”
  5. The “solutions” presented don’t solve the problem and are extremely expensive.
  6. The “solutions” do nothing to materially slow the growth of CO2 and/or temperatures.
  7. There are serious problems with NOAA temperature measurements.
  8. There are serious problems with the temperature data “adjustments.”
  9. The historical data has been adjusted.
  10. There are serious problems with the sea level measurements.
  11. There are serious problems with the glacier claims.
  12. “Independent” climate agencies appear to be colluding.
  13. There is evidence of extremely disturbing unprofessional/unethical/dishonest behavior among climate scientists.
  14. There are problems with claims of a “consensus.” Here is another Video.
  15. The “Climategate” emails expose extreme misconduct.
  16. Climate “scientists” believe warming has nothing to do with the disappearance of Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier.
  17. Eisenhower warned of the possibility of the corruption and politicization of science.
  18. The field of Climate Science lacks diversity and inclusivity, and condones/encourages a hostile work environment towards those who don’t join the herd.
  19. CO2 is not a “pollutant,” it is essential for life. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm.
  20. Fraud has already been discovered at the highest level.
  21. Methods of measuring CO2 differ.
  22. Because CO2 can cause both warming and cooling, it is an untestable hypothesis. Science is dependent upon falsification, therefore climate “science” is no science at all.
  23. This graphic demonstrates that water vapor and temperature are almost indistinguishable in the lower atmosphere, temperature does not follow CO2.

Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.


Whether it is a coming ice age or global warming, the “solution” is always the same; less freedom, greater government control over our lives, fewer choices, higher costs and a lower standard of living.

Talking Points:

  1. The documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” highlighted the political foundation of Global Warming movement early in its development.
  2. Another documentary “Iron Mountain; Blue Print to Tyranny” was another documentary, but made before the Global Warming movement. It highlights the MO used by left-wing politicians to gain control and power.
  3. Unlike the Free Market, socialism isn’t self-sustainable. Socialism is dependent upon funding from taxes generated from the free market system. If a capitalist wants more money, they produce a good or service for the market. If a socialist wants more money, they have to motivate the public to want to pay higher taxes. Preventing global warming, saving the earth, fear mongering and other tactics are all commonly used by the left-wing. The key point, however, is that the truth isn’t important, the ability to raise money is what is important.
  4. Anti-capitalism and anti-human politics dominate the environomental movement.
  5. Bigger government, less freedom more interference in our lives.

Smoking Gun #23: The costs of fighting climate change are astronomical, and the benefits are basically immeasurable.


The costs of waging a war on climate change are astronomical and measured in percentages of GDP. The benefits are basically immeasurable. For the following talking points, I’ll use the lower estimate of $42 billion per year.

Talking Points:

  1. At $50,000/yr, $42 billion could pay 840,000 teachers/year.
  2. At $2,000,000 each, $42 billion could build 21,000 bridges/year.
  3. At $4,000,000 each, $42 billion could build 10,500 schools/year.
  4. At $1,000,000,000 each, $42 billion could develop 42 new drugs/year.
  5. With a population of 320 million, $42 billion could give every American $131/yr.
  6. At $500,000/mile, $42 billion could paive 82,000 miles of road/year.
  7. The same argument can be applied to buying up and preserving the rainforest, building endangered species breeding farms, hospitals, water and sewage treatment facilities and/or any number of projects that will make a real impact on humans and the environment.
  8. Even the smartest, most arrogant, idealistic and naive kids in the room, the know-it-alls at Google failed miserably at developing an alternative energy solution. All that time, effort and money could have been spent on solving real problems and making a real difference. Silicon Valley just seems to think that solving the energy problem is as easy as writing code and that everyone else should pay for their naivety/ignorance/ideas/failures.

Smoking Gun #24: What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?


Talking Points:

  1. Civilizations and nature thrive during warming periods, they die during Ice Ages.
  2. Crop yields increase with higher CO2, reducing starvation, improving the standard of living and lowering the cost of food.
  3. CO2 has lead to a “Greening of the Earth.
  4. One of the easiest ways to greatly improve the lives of people is to get them an inexpensive energy source, and the cheapest energy sources are carbon based.
  5. The Little Ice Age was defined by starvation, plaque, hardship, social unrest, and violent revolution. People tend to move out of cold regions and into warm regions.
  6. While catastrophic global warming is 100% pure speculation and something that has never occurred during the past 600 million years, even when CO2 was as high as 7,000 ppm. The likelihood of an Ice Age is almost a 100% certainty. Wind and solar power won’t work when covered in a mile of ice. Preparing for global warming leaves society completely unprepared for the far more likely and catastrophic event of an ice age.
  7. This graphic says it all, we simply get far more food out of far less land with higher CO2. I would think that would he every environmentalist’s dream come true considering we are cutting down the rain forest to grow food/fuel crops.
  8. The push for biofuels has resulted in the destruction of the rain-forest and other sensitive ecological areas. Oil and fracking are infinitely more environmentally friendly requiring an extremely small foot-print to deliver vast amounts of energy, whereas biofuels require plowing, planting, fertilizing, herbiciding, pesticiding million and millions of acres of land that could be used for far better uses. BTW, you have to burn huge amounts of petroleum-based diesel to run the tractors, trucks and production facilities required to produce the extremely inefficient biofuels like ethanol.

Smoking Gun #25: Atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric H2O, not CO2?


Talking Points:

  1. The above graphic about says it all. Where there is H2O in the atmosphere, there is warmth. Atmospheric temperature does not follow CO2 which is and even 400 ppm all the way up to 70 km.
  2. Water vapor by far is the most significant greenhouse gas.

Debating Tips: Talking Points to Win the Argument


Debate Talking Points:

  1. Evidence of Global Warming is not evidence man or CO2 is causing the warming.
  2. Climate change is the norm. No one doubts that the climate is changing or that temperatures have increased since the end of the last ice age.
  3. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming.
  4. Always tie the observation back the CO2’s mechanism to affect climate change. CO2’s only mechanism is through absorbing long wave IR (LWIR) between 13 and 18 microns. Yes, the oceans are warming BUT how does CO2 cause it? LWIR between 13 and 18 microns won’t warm water.
  5. The Climate Alarmist will almost certainly point to disappearing ARCTIC Ice, which has been declining, but global sea ice has not. How can CO2 cause more ice in the South and less ice in the North? Artic ice floats on water and is influenced by the ocean temperatures. Ocean temperatures aren’t impacted by CO2.
  6. Ice ages begin when CO2 is peaking, and end when CO2 is hitting a minimum. There is no mechanism by which CO2 could either end or start an ice age. Clearly, other major forces control the climate.
  7. CO2 and temperatures simply aren’t highly correlated, and what correlation does exist shows CO2 lagging temperature.
  8. There is nothing abnormal about the temperature variation over the past 50 and 150 years when compared to the entire Holocene.
  9. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warming periods all had temperature peaks above today’s level and lower CO2.
  10. The Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is not melting, it is at 19,340 ft and temperatures never get above freezing. Ask the Climate Alarmist how a glacier “melts” is sub-zero temperatures.
  11. No IPCC climate model accurately models global temperatures, and all overestimated the current temperature change. Climate “Scientists” have a “consensus” on a theory that their models disprove.
  12.  Meteorologists can’t predict the weather 5 days out, Wall Street Investment houses can’t predict the S&P 500  5 days out, Climate “Scientists” can’t predict the infinitely more complex global climate 100 years out.
  13. The costs of fighting the war on climate change far outweigh the benefits. The fortunes being spent would be far better spent on solving real problems.
  14. The same people that told you we had a coming ice age, a 10 year supply of oil, that you can keep your doctor, that Obamacare would lower health care costs, that raising the minimum wage will create jobs, that a baby is a choice not a life, that ISIS/ISIL was the JR team, that giving Iran nuclear material will make us safer, that competition is bad for the public schools, that tough gun control laws lowers crimes, that “safe spaces” are appropriate for our Universities, painting cops as pigs is “art,” and that Trump had no chance of getting elected are the same people telling you that the coming ice age, global warming, climate change has a “consensus” and is “settled” science.
  15. Record high daytime temperatures are evidence of global warming, BUT NOT AGW, they are evidence that more incoming energy is reaching the earth. The GHG effect only traps OUTGOING LWIR, and has little or nothing to do with daytime temperatures.
  16. There are no trends of worsening droughts, tornados, hurricanes, floods, extreme weather, accelerating temperatures or accelerating sea level increases. None.
  17. Global warming is more religion and superstition than science.
  18. Coral reefs and sea life developed during periods of much higher CO2 levels. Coral is made out of calcium carbonate, and like plants needs CO2 to survive.
  19. When the answer to “are we warming” is best answered with “it depends on what data set or time period is chosen,” you know there are real problems.
  20. The temperature reconstructions like the “Hockey-Stick” are not independently reproducible. No independent unbiased researchers would accept statistical methods like “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” or start with an objective of “getting rid of the Medieval Warming Period.

What Can You Do?

  1. Balance must be restored to our Research Universities. Current staffing statistics demonstrates an extremely concerning systematic discrimination against conservatives. Both sides of the story must be known to reach the truth.
  2. An open source approach must be taken towards the global temperature reconstructions and climate models. Way too much power is entrusted into the hands of a very few, highly biased and unethical activists masquerading as “experts” and “scientists.” Transparency is needed to ensure accuracy and appropriateness of the temperature “adjustments” and factors and data used in the models. No open source temperature reconstruction would accept “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline,” and no open source model would put so much weighting on CO2, or accept the highly inaccurate and biased results of the current models.
  3.  Research grants can no longer be given intending to produce a given result. Public policy should be based upon the science, the science should not be based upon the public policy.
  4. Any research used to support a public policy that will result in spending taxpayer dollars must be independently verified using statistical methods like double-blind testing. The data and research conclusions reached in the field of climate “science” would never pass the rigors required by the FDA for drug approval. If Wall Street brokerages used the statistical methods and “adjustments” similar to the climate scientists the SEC would have them all behind bars. Bottom line, we need a watchdog to ensure the accuracy, validity, reproducibility, efficacy and that the benefits outweigh the cost to society.
  5. Federal grants should be limited to Universities that demonstrate a staff inclusive of conservatives, and the research projects should be broken apart similar to building a new weapon system where no one researcher knows the big picture. The key is, the desired result can not be known to the researcher in order to ensure an objective conclusion. Financial conflict of interests must also be removed.
  6. Fight back against the left-wing climate bullies, don’t support their causes or unAmerican boycotts, blacklisting and/or censorship efforts.
  7. Demand Environmental NGOs start delivering products to the market. If a commercially viable solutions exist, produce it, and stop encouraging the spending of taxpayer dollars on unproven concepts. Left-wing groups use the US Treasury like it’s their piggy-bank and treat agencies such as the EPA like they are a venture capital firm.

Please like, share on Facebook and Twitter, re-post, re-blog, and comment. Pass this on to your representative, school science teacher, skeptical friend, neighborhood climate alarmist and/or anyone that may have an interest. E-mail a link to 10 friends, local and national media, and include a link when commenting on articles. Help spread the word that there are legitimate arguments against the AGW/CAHG Theory. The climate alarmists win when they are allowed to stifle/avoid debate. This document provides a turn-key solution to starting and winning the debate. If you have a smoking gun of your own, please post it in the comments.

Important Websites:

Watts Up With That

Real Science

Climate Depot

Climate Audit

Climategate E-Mails (My Favorite Video Clip on this issue)

Wood for Trees

Heartland Climate Conference

No Consensus .ORG (More)

Prager University (More)

Climate Weather Data Pages

James Delingpole

Michael Bastasch

700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Documentaries and Video Clips:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

The Changing Climate of Global Warming (Buy/Rent)

Cool it Cool It DVD

The Big Chill; The Little Ice Age

In Search of The Coming Ice Age

The Climate Hustle

Freeman Dyson

Global Warming or Global Governance

Geologist on Global Warming

Michael Crichton on Global Warming (More) (More)

Iron Mountain Blue Print to Tyranny

Nobel Laureate on Global Warming

George Carlin on Global Warming

Judith Curry Quits (More)

Climate Catastrophe Canceled

Mann’s Hockey Stick “Whitewash” – Steve McIntyre

Mark Steyn – The Fraudulent Hockey Stick – 10th ICCC

Dr. Baliunas on Weather Cooking

IPCC exposed by Donna Laframboise

Climate I: Is The Debate Over?

IQ2US Debate: Global Warming Is Not A Crisis

4 Professors Explain the Science of Climate Change

Climatologist Dr Richard Keen – Show Me The Data

Physics of Carbon Dioxide – Prof William Happer of Princeton

Important Graphics:

Atmospheric Temperatures

Long-Term Sea Level

Long-Term CO2 and Temperature

Atmospheric Temperature Cross Section

Atmospheric H2O and Temperature Cross Section (Link)

Global Sea Ice

Download and pass this Report/Presentation along to others:

Download a PDF

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment. Help Spread the Word.

Scientists Have Found The ‘Missing Link’ From Sunspot Activity To Cosmic Rays-Clouds To Climate Change

Cosmic-Rays-Missing-Link-Between-Sun-and-Climate (1)

Hailed as ‘the last piece of the puzzle’ in codifying our understanding of the mechanism(s) that cause climate changes, scientists are increasingly turning to Sun-modulated cosmic ray flux and cloud cover variations as the explanation for decadal- and centennial-scale global warming and cooling. In other words, climate changes are increasingly being attributed to natural variability, not anthropogenic activity.

Continue reading

We here at CO2isLife have always supported the idea that it is the sun, not CO2 that is driving climate change. The main pieces of evidence we provide is that the oceans are warming. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, and satellite temperatures clearly tightly follow ocean cycles like El Niño and La Niña. Therefore to understand climate change, you must understand what warms the oceans. CO2’s only defined mechanism to cause climate change is by thermalizing  13 thru 18µ LWIR radiation…that is the only defined mechanism. Those wavelengths don’t penetrate or warm water.

To warm the oceans, you need visible radiation from the blue end of the spectrum. What warms the oceans and atmosphere isn’t trapping outgoing radiation, but not trapping incoming radiation. The atmosphere is transparent to incoming warming visible radiation. Anything that alters the amount of incoming radiation from reaching the earth’s surface will impact warming.

Climate alarmists often claim that the sun isn’t the cause of warming because its output is constant. First, that isn’t true. Sunspots clearly demonstrate the sun’s output is variable. Second, and most importantly, it isn’t the sun’s output that is important, it is the amount of radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and oceans. If you have a hot sun, but a dense cloud cover, the earth will cool. Cosmic rays provide the missing link between the Sun’s output and global temperatures. CO2 has nothing to do with it.

More on this topic:

Spot the Similarities; Oceans Clearly Drive Atmospheric Temperatures

Understand the Oceans, Understand the Global Temperatures

Cosmic Rays; The Rheostat of the Globe

The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Congress Must Investigate Climate Metrics “Adjustments”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Gavin is claiming a 250% jump in sea level rise rates on the exact date when they switched methodologies, and a further jump after 2010. There is not one tide gauge on Earth which shows this break in slope. Here is the tide gauge by Gavin’s office. There is no increase after 1993, and since 2010 sea level has fallen.

The above quote alone should raise suspicions, but this following quote raises a red flag of all red flags because it replicates the issue We’ve highlighted countless times here on CO2 is life with the Hockeystick chart. The slope change corresponds to the methodology change. To anyone familiar with dataset construction, this is clear evidence of at best criminal incompetence, at worst outright fraud.

Amazing how a break in slope appears when they switch methodologies from tide gauges to satellites, including adding a completely fake GIA (global isostatic adjustment) – which if it was legitimate, would have been equally valid for the tide gauge measurements.

Continue reading

More on this topic:

Scott Pruitt Needs to Go Further; Demand Transparent Peer Review, Temperature Reconstructions and “Adjustments”

NASA’s “Adjusted” Temperature Charts Prove CO2 Driven Warming is a Hoax

Open Source Science is an Idea Whose Time Has Come

Climate “Science” on Trial; Data Chiropractioners “Adjust” Data

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

“Any honest scientist should be a skeptic, most of all, a skeptic of his (or her) own scientific work, and the work of others,”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For Hayhoe, the term “climate doubter” fails in the same way. Constant, nagging doubt about results drives scientists to ask novel questions and make new discoveries, she says.

And what about the label “climate denier”? That tends to draw complaints, too — not so much from climate scientists but from those who question them, and resent any hint of a comparison with those who deny the Holocaust happened. ‘”Climate science denier’ is an accurate description, but can get some people’s hackles up,” Hassol said. “It is not, as some say, a reference to Holocaust denial.”

Indeed, Princeton physics professor William Happer pushed back against the term “denier.” Happer is one of the scientists I mentioned in my story as among those researchers who reject the notion that climate change is all that severe — and who was working with Pruitt’s EPA on the “red team-blue team” exercise.

When reached by email, Happer said the term “denier” is “designed to cast me and others like me as a Nazi apologist.”

“Any honest scientist should be a skeptic, most of all, a skeptic of his (or her) own scientific work, and the work of others,” Happer wrote to me. “If you insist on categorizing me as anything other than an honest scientist (and somewhat immodestly, a very good one),” he added, “you might call me a scientist who is persuaded that doubling or tripling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere will be a major benefit to life on Earth.”

Continue Reading

More on this Topic:

Climate Alarmists Don’t Understand the Basics of the Scientific Method

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Climate Alarmists Don’t Understand the Basics of the Scientific Method


Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the committee, entered into the record an opinion piece published in The Wall Street Journal yesterday that claimed sea levels are not rising because of climate change, a view that rejects thousands of scientific studies. The piece was written by Fred Singer, who is affiliated with the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Illinois, which promotes the rejection of mainstream climate science.

The above quote highlights two of the most popular sophistry tactics of the Progressive Left and Mainstream Media. As the quote mentions, Dr. Fred Singer is affiliated with the Heartland Institute…so what? Almost every other climate researcher is on the payroll of a Liberal University, the Federal Government or an Environmental Group. Sanctimonious and arrogant Progressives groups seem to believe they are the only ones that can perform climate research. The ability of the research to withstand scrutiny determines the quality of the research, not who funded it. These Progressive attacks on funding are simply a brand of scientific censorship or scientific McCarthyism.

The second sophistry tactic is to brand scientists whose research rejects the conventional wisdom as not being sound science. News flash, that is how science is advanced, scientific discoveries must by definition reject the null. When scientific studies showed that the earth was flat, no matter how many experiments were run supporting the belief that the earth was flat, they didn’t change the fact that they were all wrong. The number of experiments doesn’t determine the quality of the science, the ability to accurately represent what is being studied does.

Climate alarmists simply start with CO2 causes climate change and then find countless data sets that correlate with the CO2 trend. That isn’t real science, that is nonsense. Everyone knows correlation does not prove causation. In fact, they write books about it.


There are countless experiments that can be run demonstrating that temperature and climate change correlate with CO2, but there are also countless other experiments that can demonstrate something else is the cause. There are infinite experiments that must be run to prove CO2 is the cause, but only one is needed to disprove it. That is why real science rejects the null, it doesn’t prove the null.

Sea level is a great example of this principle. Climate alarmists will simply claim CO2 is causing the sea level to rise. That is convenient, but they can’t explain how CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ can warm water and melt ice. There are infinite other factors that could be causing the sea level to rise. Shifting fault lines, rock slides and erosion, volcanic activity, visible radiation causing thermal expansion, moon orbit, development draining swamps, etc etc etc. To prove CO2 is the cause one would need to rule out all other causes…which is simply impossible as the Einstein quote above highlights.

Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up.

Representative Mo Brooks (R–AL)

While Climate Alarmists approach Climate Change in the impossible unscientific manner to “prove” CO2 is the cause, skeptics approach it scientifically and search for the one experiment that CO2 can’t explain. That is how real science is performed.

That one experiment is Antarctica, a natural control for isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature. Antarctica has very dry cold air, void of H2O, and whose only main GHG is CO2 which has increased the same as the rest of the globe. What do you find when you isolate the impact of CO2 on temperature? CO2 has basically zero impact on temperatures. Climate alarmists simply can not explain how CO2 has increased 30%+ in Antarctica and there has been 0.00°C change in temperature. They also can’t explain how no warming in the Arctic is causing the ice to melt more than in the past. Hint: Warm water, not the atmosphere is melting the ice. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ don’t warm water, visible light does. Visible light also causes thermal expansion of the water and sea level increase. CO2 is transparent to visible light.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The “settled science” behind AGW doesn’t support the claims of warming, nor do the possible experiments.

  1. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through thermalization, i.e. warming of the LWIR spectrum between 13 and 18µ.
  2. CO2 represents only 1 out of every 2,500 air molecules, so the thermalization is greatly diffused in the atmosphere.
  3. The thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ has a blackbody temperature of -50 thru -110°C.
  4. The W/m^2 absorption of LWIR between 13 and 18µ has a logarithmic decay, meaning each additional molecule absorbs less and less energy.
  5. The oceans control the climate, and LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm water, visible radiation does.
  6. CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm and never caused catastrophic warming, the earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 ppm.
  7. Analogies between Earth and Venus are completely misleading and scientifically dishonest.
  8. CO2 follows temperature in the geologic record, it doesn’t lead it. There is no mechanism by which CO2 should cyclically increase to end an ice age and decrease to start an ice age.
  9. MODTRAN demonstrates that CO2 has zero impact on atmospheric temperature in the lower atmosphere where H2O is abundant. The CO2 signature only appears once H2O is no longer present in the atmosphere.
  10. If data sets are identified to control for H2O and the Urban Heat Island Effect, they show no warming with an increase in CO2.
  11. CO2 is evenly distributed around the globe, there is no way for CO2, a constant, to cause regional, hemispheric, or pockets of warming. CO2 would cause a parallel or near parallel shift in the global temperature. There is no way for CO2 to cause warming in one area and cooling in another.
  12. The earth cools through conduction, convection, and radiation. Radiation moves energy much faster than the other two methods. CO2 may actually work to cool, not warm the atmosphere. Evidence actually shows that.

Read more on this topic: Scientific Experiments that Debunk AGW ignored by the Alarmists

Isolating the Contribution of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature

Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Temperature Reveals No Warming over the Past 100 Years

Controlling for H2O and Urban Heat Island Effect; Greenland Validates CO2 Doesn’t Drive Warming

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Climate Sophistry In San Francisco; Half-Truths are Twice the Lie

How Does CO2 Melt Ice FROM BELOW? The Right Questions Must Be Asked to Put the Climate Alarmists on the Defensive

CO2 Can’t Explain Ground Measurement Variations

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

Climate “Science” on Trial; CO2 is a Weak GHG, it has no Permanent Dipole

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment



The National Academies meeting comes at a time when scientists, critics, and the public alike are deep in discussions about reproducing findings in science. There’s been vigorous debate among scientists about how well results in social science and clinical medicine hold up when others try to duplicate them. Distressing findings—one effort to reproduce 100 top psychology studies found less than half of them worked a second time—have led to calls for fixing the system.

Meanwhile, critics of the idea of human-driven climate change have long called for more transparent data as a kind of distraction technique, Schmidt says. This, some argue, is what’s happening now with a hotly contested proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule. The rule says the science used in EPA policy-making must be publicly available, purportedly so that others can reproduce it.

When it comes to climate science, the current state of transparency—”almost all” climate data is now public, Schmidt says—grew in part out of a real scandal and change of heart. In 2009, hackers stole and posted online a series of emails between leading climate scientists, which had been saved on servers at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The emails revealed conflicts of interest among climate scientists conducting peer review on papers that contradicted their own work, and a reluctance among climate researchers to share their data, the Guardian reported.

Continue Reading

Trump is Healing the Earth When Obama Failed

Earth Cooling Fastest In A Century – Since Trump Took Office

Earth has cooled 0.54C since the year Donald Trump got elected. That is the fastest 24 month cooling since 1916.


Continue Reading

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment