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

Exhibit W: 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. The current spending simply produces a marginal amount of extremely expensive and unreliable energy sources.percentage-of-electricity-produced-with-renewable-resources-in-g20-countries-combined
  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 or 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.cartoon-gw-dollars

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

Exhibit V: 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.cartoon-gw-dollars
  4. Anti-capitalism and anti-human politics dominate the environomental movement.
  5. Bigger government, less freedom more interference in our lives.ab91d8b7c91b300c59e28e96388036b3
  6. In any real sciences, results like this would result in a rejection of the hypothesis. In the field of climate “science” it results in greater confidence.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc
  7. No real science would ignore evidence like H2O, ocean temperatures and the sun contribution to the warming, and instead, reduce the infinitely complex climate down to a single variable CO2.h2o-and-temperature-crossmilankovitch_cyclessolartemperature-co2
  8. Climategate emails expose the “cause” converting science into political activism.
  9. Even the IPCC admits that very little is known about some of the most important factors impacting climate. How can one “settle” a real science and reach a “consensus” without largely understanding the major significant factors?ipcc-forcings
  10. The arguments presented against the “skeptics/deniers/flat-earthers,” are largely strawman arguments.  Everyone agrees the climate is changing, changing climate is the norm. Everyone agrees it has been warming, it has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the greenhouse gas effect traps outgoing radiation resulting in an atmosphere warmer than it would be without the greenhouse gas. Everyone agrees man can and does impact the climate through the urban-heat-island, agricultural production, building roads and producing greenhouse gasses. Those are all points of agreement, not disagreement. The point of disagreement is about how much of an impact man-made CO2 has on the climate, not whether or not there is an impact. urban_heat_island_celsius

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

Exhibit U: 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. managed-forest-contribution-to-carbon-sequestration-under-a-rising-carbon-dioxide-regime-chris-maier-research-biological-scientist-usfs-southern-research-station-rwu-4160-forest-genetics-and-ecosystem
  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.”screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-4-51-42-am-adj
  9. The historical data has been adjusted.screen-shot-2016-12-28-at-5-45-44-am-1
  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.hide_the_decline
  16. Climate “scientists” believe warming is causing the disappearance of Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier. The Mt Kilimanjaro glacier is at 19, 340 ft, and the temperatures never get above freezing. Glaciers and ice don’t melt in sub-zero temperatures. The glacier is disappearing due to sublimation and has nothing to do with warming.average-temperature-chart
  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.liberals
  19. CO2 is not a “pollutant,” it is essential for life. Plants die when CO2 drops below 180 ppm. The lowest level of CO2 i’ve found in ice core data is 170 and the highest pre-industrial level was 298.6. CO2 is the “exhaust of life.” CO2 is required to regulate the pH of blood. CO2 can reach levels of 40,000 ppm in the human lung during an exhalation. Without CO2, there is no life. Without CO2 there are no “carbon based life forms” to discover on Star Trek.
  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. (Here is the list)
  23. This graphic demonstrates that water vapor and temperature are almost indistinguishable in the lower atmosphere, temperature does not follow CO2.h2o-and-temperature-cross
  24. There are serious conflicts of interest in the field of climate “science.”1b1a8-jo_nova_ipcc_consensus_vote
  25. Man didn’t cause the end of the ice age, nor did man cause the start of past ice ages, neither did CO2. The CO2 centric AGW can’t explain how ice ages begin or end, and it can’t explain how elevated CO2 levels could ever result in lower temperatures.global_warming


Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

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

Exhibit T: 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.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc
  2. In the 1970’s and 80’s the environmental scare du jour was the coming ice age.iceage
  3. This video clip debunks the claims of disappearing Snow Cover and Sea Ice, Hurricanes, Extreme Weather, Tornadoes, 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. BTW, coral and sea life developed during periods of much higher CO2 levels and coral only exists in warm
  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.
  12. Global can cause just about anything you can imagine, “The List.”
  13. The people making these claims have serious conflicts of interest. The entire field of climate “science” depends on CO2 being the cause.1b1a8-jo_nova_ipcc_consensus_vote
  14. This is a weather report from 1922, it could have been written today.

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

Exhibit S: 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.

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.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcchotspotmim

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

Exhibit R: 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.temperature-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. Here is another look at CO2 production, they all tell the same story, man is producing more CO2.glikson_11_06_09_5
  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.co2-yearly-anthro-atmospheric-1959-2012-1
  7. Man’s production of CO2 production has actually exceeded IPCC projections during a period when temperatures “paused.”clip_image0022
  8. CO2 increased at a linear or geometric rate, temperatures controlled for water vapor are almost random.antarctica1

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

Exhibit Q: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.


Talking Points:

  1. Most anthropogenic CO2 was produced post-WWII.glikson_11_06_09_5
  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/accelerated.
  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.
  6. Satellite measurements demonstrate that there has been very very very little warming over the past 40 years, while CO2 increased from 340 to 400 ppm, or 50% of the CO2 increase from pre-industrial to 280 to the current level of 400 ppm.monckton1.png
  7. Atmospheric temperatures follow ocean temperatures fluctuations like El Nino, El Nino’s, PDO, etc etc, not CO2.  2016 was a strong El Nino year.figure-1
  8. Post the 2016 El Nino where was a record drop in atmospheric temperatures, CO2 didn’t drop, it continued to increase. BTW, climate alarmist talk of a 1 degree Celsius change over 100 years. Satellite temperatures just dropped 1.6 degrees Celsius over a matter of months, an none of the increase or fall was due to CO2.screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-8-25-43-pm