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


The best way to argue for the science, and against the climate alarmists is to simply go back to the basic physics of the greenhouse gas effect (GHG) and how CO2 contributes to it. Stated simply, the GHG effect is the trapping/absorbing of outgoing infrared (IR) radiation by various greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. These molecules then either thermalize the energy by turning it into kinetic energy or re-radiating the energy in all directions to be absorbed by other molecules.

The key steps are:

  1. High energy visible radiation warms the earth and oceans
  2. The warmed earth radiate IR radiation
  3. GHGs absorb the outgoing IR and either thermalize or re-radiate the energy
  4. This process acts to slow the cooling of the radiating body, much like insulation slows the cooling of a home
  5. At no time does the GHG effect warm the atmosphere above the temperature of the radiating body. The GHG effect does not ever add energy to the system, it only helps contain some of the existing energy

The introductory graphic above identifies the contributions each GHG contributes to the entire GHG effect. The bottom part of the graph demonstrates the IR radiation absorbed by the entire atmosphere, which is a summation of all the GHGs listed above it. The IR absorption spectrum of H2O is almost indistinguishable from the total absorption of atmosphere and is why H2O is by far the most significant GHG.  The entire contribution of CO2 is to absorb 3 very narrow bands of IR at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns. In reality, the only wavelength applicable to the GHG effect is the peak out at 15 microns. 15 microns, by the way, is very low energy and consistent with a blackbody of temperature -80º C.

What makes a GHG is it’s molecular structure. Molecules with a “bipole” are strong GHGs, molecules that don’t have a bipole are considered weak GHGs. Here is a link to help understand the concept; Understanding the DiPole.

DiPole Key Points:

  1. Bent molecules have a permanent bipole, H20 is bent
  2. Linear molecules have no permanent bipole, CO2 is linear
  3. “Bending” of a molecule is easy, and low energy
  4. Compressing and stretching a molecule is hard, and higher energy

This graphic explains how CO2’s IR spectrum is created. The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. That comment is worth repeating; The bending of CO2 at 15 microns is it’s only defined contribution to the GHG effect. Any claim of CO2 caused climate change must be explained through that mechanism.co2-dipole-spikes

This graphic provides an understanding of the molecule motions that cause the IR peaks. The center bending is what causes the IR absorption spike at 15 microns/wavenumber 667. That simple weak-energy bending is all CO2 contributes to the GHG effect, that is it. Every claim that identifies CO2 as the cause, must explain how weak-energy bending and the resulting IR absorption/radiation of 15 microns resulted in the observed climate change/global warming/extreme weather. Once again, that weak-energy bending is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change, the only one. co2-ir-bipole

Taking a closer look at CO2, this chart is a linear CO2 absorption chart. It highlights the weak-energy of the 15 micron IR band. The absorption band at 4.7 microns is of much higher energy, but is outside the IR spectrum emitted by the earth, and does not play a part in the GHG effect.


This is a logarithmic chart of CO2’s IR spectrum.


It is worth reviewing that the earth emits radiation at a peak 9.8 to 10 microns, which is consistent with 18º C, or basically room temperature.ghgabsoprtionspectrum

Taking a closer look at H2O’s IR spectrum reveals a much more potent GHG, absorbing the much higher-energy/shorter-wavelengths. This is the linear H2O spectrum.spectral-calc-h2o-lin

This is H2O logarithmic IR Spectrum. H2O simply absorbs across the entire IR spectrum, with its main and densest peaks in the high-energy end. This is the IR signature of a very potent GHG.spectral-calc-h2o-log

This is a linear chart of H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The relevant peaks of CO2 are located at the low-energy end of the spectrum, and H2O is focused on the high-energy end of the IR spectrum.spectral-calc-h2o-co2-lin

This is a logarithmic chart of the H2O and CO2’s IR spectrum. The key point is that H2O largely overlaps all of CO2’s spectrum, so in the troposphere, if H2O is present, CO2’s contribution becomes irrelevant. With or without CO2, H2O will absorb the outgoing IR. CO2, however, does not overlap all of H2O’s spectrum, so the absorption at the high-energy end between 5 and 10 microns is dominated by H2O.spectral-calc-co2-h20-log

The consequence of H2O being the dominant GHG in the warmer IR range is that tropospheric atmospheric temperature is basically controlled by H2O. CO2 is basically irrelevant. That is why using ground based temperatures to measure the impact of CO2 is pure nonsense. Even doubling CO2 has no impact on the lower troposphere at all as these two MODTRAN charts demonstrate.  400


The other important physical property of CO2 is that it’s IR absorption isn’t linearly related to absorbed energy, it is logarithmically related. That is partially why doubling CO2 in the above graphics had no impact on the energy balance in the troposphere.co2_modtrans_img1

The result is that tropospheric atmospheric temperatures and tropospheric water vapor are almost indistinguishable. The same can not be said about CO2, which is a constant 400 ppm all the way up to 80 km.h2o-and-temperature-cross

One last chart defining the relevant physical properties of CO2, and it’s IR absorption spectrum. The oceans are warming. Ocean warming and atmospheric warming are often conflated, and the claim is that atmospheric CO2 is contributing to the warming of the oceans. In reality, visible light is warming the oceans, and the oceans are warming the atmosphere above it. IR between 13 and 18 microns simply doesn’t penetrate or warm water. Atmospheric CO2 can’t be the cause of the warming oceans.slide_4

The take home message is that CO2 is a weak GHG that has no permanent dipole, whose main absorption peak is in the cold/weak-energy end of the IR spectrum. If anything CO2 helps to act as a temperature floor for the globe, as it’s main contribution is to thermalize energy consistent with a blackbody temperature of -80º C (-50º C to -110º C). H2O, on the other hand, is a much more potent GHG that totally dominates the temperature of the troposphere. It all boils down to “can CO2, a weak non-dipolar GHG, affect catastrophic climate change through “bending” and the resulting absorption/radiation/thermalization of 15 micron IR (13 to 18 micron range). Once again, that is the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can execute the GHG effect, and affect climate change.hed-stop-it


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


Post publishing this article, this new information was released: Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data

I was going to write an article on the lack of integrity of the climate data, but Anthony Watts does a far better job that I could ever hope to do. Here is a video of him explaining the issues.

Stephen Goddard has a wonderful blog tracking all the data Shenanigans:

    1. Alterations To Climate Data
    2. CRU Temperature Fraud
    3. Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS
    4. Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
    5. Hide The Decline
    6. NASA Sea Level Fraud
    7. The Definitive Data On The Global Warming/Climate Change Scam
    8. Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA
    9. 1970s Global Cooling Scare
    10. 100% Predictable Fraud From Government Climate Scientists

Weather Stations are inconsistent everchanging samples

The Hockeystick was a data construction joke

Hide the Decline” exposes unethical and dishonest behavior at best

A half truth is often twice the lie, hiding the truth from the public

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures.

This one is just too funny not to highlight.

Global Temperature Data Manipulation

The solution to this problem is to have “Open Source” data sets, where any “adjustments” are transparent, documented, publicized and critiqued. Additionally, the raw data is never altered. The same approach should be used for the opaque, sequestered, and unchallenged climate models used to support public policies.


Climate “Science” on Trial; Evidence Shows CO2 COOLS the Atmosphere


While much has been made about CO2 causing warming “in theory,” the reality is just the opposite. The above chart demonstrates the rate of cooling of the atmosphere ( blue is the fastest cooling, dark gray is the fastest warming). CO2’s impact can be seen at the wavenumber 600 to 700/wavelength 13 to 18 microns.

Important Take Homes From this Chart:

  1. CO2 has basically no impact what so ever in the lower troposphere where all ground measurements and most glaciers are located.
  2. The condensation of water has the greatest impact on the temperature in the troposphere. As the altitude increases, more H2O precipitates out, releasing radiative latent heat.
  3. Heat travels through the atmosphere by conduction, convection, condensation and radiation. CO2’s and the greenhouse gas effect’s main mechanism is through radiation. Radiation travels at the speed of light.
  4. Nowhere on the chart does it show CO2 causing warming.
  5. If one envisions greenhouse gasses as nets that capture radiation and then release that radiation in all directions and the higher the altitude the bigger the holes in the nets,  it becomes clear why an evenly distributed (400 ppm) greenhouse gas like CO2 would cause cooling. Radiation directed towards the earth is highly likely to be captured because the atmosphere is denser and have smaller holes (more CO2 molecules/m^2). Radiating back out towards outer-space, the holes become bigger (CO2 molecules are less abundant per m^2).
  6. To put it simply, the path of least resistance is for CO2 to radiate energy out of the atmosphere. Radiation easily passes through a thin atmosphere because there are few molecules to interrupt their path. In the graphic below, the red molecules are CO2, and it is easy to see how “radiative forcing,” is far more likely to sent radiation into outer-space than back to the earth. Because the atmosphere thins with altitude, the average path length of a radiated photon going up is longer than the path length of a photon going back towards earth. The photon takes 3 steps up, and 2 steps back, then 3 steps up, then 2 steps back. The physics of the atmosphere simply don’t favor CO2 trapping heat, they favor releasing it to outer-space.pressure

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science


One of the most interesting/unfortunate/dangerous aspects of climate “science” is how it has attempted to redefine how science is performed. Real classical science follows the scientific method, not by taking votes and winning popularity contests.consensus1

Scientific Method:

  1. Make an observation
  2. Formulate a falsifiable hypothesis
  3. Formulate and perform experiments
  4. Collect data from experimentation
  5. Analyze the data from experimentation
  6. Allow the data to determine the conclusion through accepting or rejecting the “Null Hypothesis.”

Climate “science” is the only science I know of that doesn’t rely on the scientific method. Climate science is a computer “model” based “Science.” It doesn’t rely upon experimentation, it relies upon simulations, “peer review,” and phony and misleading claims of “consensus.” Worst of all, the IPCC admits what there are huge areas of this “science” where extremely significant variables are virtually unknown. How can you have a “consensus” on the whole when so many of the parts aren’t understood? Understanding the role of solar radiation is listed as “very low.” That is like having a “consensus” on a weight-loss theory without understanding excercise and caloric intake.


One of the main problems with the “consensus” approach is that this is an almost entirely Government funded “science,” which has allowed/condoned intimidation, threats, bullying and harassment to influence people’s opinions. It is easy to reach a consensus if you fire, threaten or prosecute anyone that disagrees with the pre-determined “consensus.” That form of “science” defined the Soviet Union’s approach to science, which had disastrous results.  Any real scientist should be horrified by the well-documented actions of the “Climate Alarmists/Bullies.global_warming_skeptics

All science is numbers,” “the Greeks determined the earth was round because the numbers told them the earth was round, not because people believed it was flat.” Real science simply isn’t done by consensus, it is done through the application the scientific method.concensus

Other problems with “Consensus.”

  1. The “Consensus” excludes those who disagree with it.
  2. If a scientific “Consensus” is truly valid, models would be able to accurately forecast the future outcome. Climate models fail miserably.
  3. The “Consensus” consists of a highly biased population of “self-selected groups.”
  4. Most if not all “deniers” and/or “skeptics” are part of the “Consensus.” The debate isn’t about whether or not the climate is changing, climate change is the norm, or if man influences the climate, it is about how much anthropogenic CO2 impacts the climate.
  5. The “consensus” survey was very poorly designed.
  6. Research money only goes to the “researchers” that promote the “consensus.”
  7. Other surveys show just the opposite, that there isn’t a “consensus.”
  8. Journalists haven’t fairly reported on this issue.
  9. Professional Organizations, not their members, tend to support the “consensus.”
  10. Science by authority” isn’t science, it is dogma and propaganda.
  11. Science doesn’t progress through “consensus,” science progresses through “falsification,” and rejecting the “consensus/null hypothesis.”
  12. As the introductory graphic highlights, there are extreme financial conflicts of interest regarding maintaining the “consensus.”
  13. “Consensus,” and “politicization of science,” are one in the same.
  14. Climategate emails and other sources expose a corruption of the “peer/pal review process.
  15. The proponents of the “consensus” are well funded and organized propagandists.
  16. There is no “consensus” with the people that count, the common sense voters.
  17. These people are part of the “consensus.”


Climate “Science” on Trial; Sea Ice Sophistry


One of the favorite arguments of the Climate Alarmists is that we are losing Arctic Sea Ice. This is pure sophistry and exposes why Climate Alarmism is more theater than science. Real science simply doesn’t rely on half-truths, gimmicks, one-sided explanations and deliberate sophistry to deceive the public. This topic is so well known to be sophistry, it has even been identified in congressional testimony. It is also a frequent topic of Q&A, often asked by an ill-informed Climate Alarmists that end up getting an answer that doesn’t fit with their climate dogma.

What makes this Arctic Sea Ice such a great topic for the Climate Alarmists is that it is true, we are losing Arctic Sea Ice. No doubt about it.figure3

What makes this such great sophistry, is that it is so convincing, but it is only a half-truth, only half the story. The Earth has two poles. Why do the Climate Alarmists only focus on one pole? That alone is a dead giveaway that something isn’t passing the “stink test.” When you look at the South Pole, you get the exact opposite chart. Funny how this fact is never mentioned. Oddly, the NSIDC has a dedicated page for Arctic Sea Ice but doesn’t have one for Antarctic Sea Ice, yet if you dig deep enough you can find they do track the Antarctic Sea Ice. This chart highlights why the Climate Alarmists only talk of the North Pole, and not the South. Antarctica hasn’t been losing ice, it has been gaining ice. 2016 looks to be an outlier, but the trend since 1980 has been an upward slope of 1.2%/year.


When the two data sets are combined into a “Global Sea Ice Area” chart, the global sea ice has been basically unchanged over the past 37 years, with the gains at the South Pole offsetting the losses at the North Pole.


Before you get too alarmed however due to the data only going back to 1979, there is plenty of evidence that the North Pole has had less Sea Ice prior to this time, when CO2 was at a much lower concentration.



Using Arctic Sea Ice also has another problem. The Arctic Sea Ice is contained with the borders of continents and has a rather limited Maximum size. The data, unfortunately, starts during one of the coldest periods in modern history. Back in 1979, the Climate Alarmism Du Jour was the coming ice age, so the data sets begin during a period of unusually large sea ice areas in the North Pole.n_bm_conc_web_file

The real problem the Climate Alarmists have with scientifically explaining the loss of Artic Sea Ice is the same problem they have everything else, how to tie the loss of Arctic Sea Ice to CO2’s only mechanism by which to affect climate change, that being absorbing infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns.

Trying to blame CO2 for the loss of the Arctic Sea Ice presents the same problem Climate Alarmists face trying to explain the loss of the Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier. For something to “melt” physics demands that the temperature must be above the “melting-point.” The North Pole’s atmospheric temperature rarely gets above freezing. How do you melt Sea Ice with below freezing temperatures? Temperatures in the Arctic are only above freezing for a very short period of time each year.


In reality, it would be very difficult for such short time periods of warmth to melt such vast areas of ice. The needed energy simply isn’t there considering melting is an endothermic reaction, and would pull vast amounts of energy out of the atmosphere. To melt that much ice, you need a lot of energy. The logical supply of this needed heat would be the extremely dense heat sinks of the oceans, and sure enough, the Arctic Ocean has been warmingfig5-2-timmermans

If it is concluded that imported energy from the oceans is the culprit, then the Climate Alarmists need to explain how CO2 trapping infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns is warming the vast oceans, and they simply can’t. The physics don’t exist for CO2 to warm the oceans.

The other problem the Climate Alarmists have is trying to explain a variation with a constant. CO2 doesn’t vari around the globe or through most of the atmosphere. Unlike water vapor, CO2 is 400 ppm at the North Pole, it is 400 ppm at the South Pole, it is 400 ppm at the equator, it is 400 ppm at the surface and it is 400 ppm 70 km up in the atmosphere. CO2 evenly blankets the globe. How can CO2 cause Sea Ice loss in the Arctic, and Sea Ice gain in the Antarctic? It can’t under any falsifiable hypothesis approach.co2-h2o-atmospheric-concentration

Not only can constant CO2 not explain the differential in Sea Ice, it can’t explain the differential in temperatures between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Northern Hemisphere is warming at a rate greater than the Southern Hemisphere. In any regression model (defined as Y = mX + b), that is dependent upon the location on the globe, CO2 is considered a constant. In the linear regression model Y = mX + b, CO2 is the “b,” and has no impact on the variation of “Y,” which is usually temperature. In any real science, constants are used to explain variations, that is why they are constants and have no slope assigned to them.glnhsh

Once the cause is narrowed down to the oceans, the explanation for the loss of the Arctic Sea Ice becomes easy…the sun and the polar winds.


Unlike CO2 which is constant, the solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface and the impact that it has on global climate is anything but constant, and explaining variations in temperature and climate with a variable is easy. In addition, the Northern Hemisphere has a disproportionate amount of land when compared to the Southern Hemisphere, so solar radiation that reaches the Northern Hemisphere has a different impact on the global climate as solar radiation that reaches the Southern Hemisphere.

Changes in the earth’s “eccentricity,” “obliquity,” “precession,” cloud cover, atmospheric particulate matter and sea ice extent all impact the amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. More solar radiation reaching the Southern Hemisphere would result in warmer oceans. Additionally, warmer oceans, especially previously cold oceans, would outgas CO2 (Henry’s Law), so an increase in atmospheric CO2 is highly correlated with warming oceans, but warming oceans have nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. Visible radiation, not infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns, warms the oceans. Recent research, in fact, has demonstrated the concepts detailed in this article to be valid, and the 100,000 year ice age cycle does link orbital periods and sea ice.

Polar winds also impact the polar ice. When the polar wind blows the ice out into the Northern Atlantic, more of the ice melts. In this case, the warmth isn’t brought to the ice, the ice is brought to the warmth. When the winds blow in the opposite direction, it contains the ice in the cold polar region.1988-1996_oldice21.gif

Now that the wind is reversing, the ice has begun to thicken. If this trend continues, it is going to be interesting to see how the climate alarmists blame the thickening of the ice on CO2.arctic-ice-thickness-2-15-2017-12-15-2016

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?


Update: Post publishing this article new relevant data was released. It looks like much of the data used to support these spending projects is fraudulent, “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” The question now becomes, do we want to spend a fortune based upon GIGO models and forecasts?

Before reading this article, watch this video to put things in perspective. Remember, there are two aspects to cost and benefits. The real question is, are we getting our monies worth for what we are spending or the climate alarmists hope to spend.

According to the SPPI’s original paper “Climate Money,” the US Government alone spent $79 billion between 1989 and 2009 fighting “climate change,” with the spending accelerating. The “Climate Policy Initiative” states that in 2013 global spending on fighting climate change reached $331 billion, which was $28 billion below 2012 levels (No, those aren’t Typos). What benefits did the world get from all that spending? Not much…if anything. CO2 increased from 355 to 395 PPM and seems to be slightly accelerating. Temperatures simply laughed off the spending, and according to ground measurements just recently hit an all-time high. Wind and solar make up less than 0.5% of the world’s energy production. It was as if we never spent a dime.


In reality, I could argue that spending money on fighting climate change results in global warming. The correlation between dollars spent fighting climate change and temperatures is much greater than between CO2 and temperatures. Anyway, how much do we need to spend to “save the Earth?” Would you believe $7 Trillion, Trillion with a capital T, per year, and then boost spending in the future!!!trillion

“The International Energy Agency estimated in a recent report that the world needs to spend $359 trillion between now and 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. “

Spend $359 Trillion for what? Would you believe at most, 0.9 Degree C of relative cooling? According to “Climate Earth Tracker,” that is the expected benefit by the end of the century. Here is a video that details the numbers.

“But here’s the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free; quite the contrary.

The cost of the Paris climate pact is likely to run to 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year, based on estimates produced by the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. In other words, we will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature, by the end of the century, by a grand total of three tenths of one degree.”

So now we have some numbers to play with; $7 Trillion/yr, $359 Trillion by 2050, $100 Trillion by 2100, all for 0.9 Degree C of relative cooling. BTW, 0.9 Degree C would fall within 2 standard deviations of the thermometer’s error.

The most widely used instrument in US airports and other locations for temperature measurement is the Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS). The user’s guide for ASOS states the specifications for accuracy of the temperature measuring instruments in the form of Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Maximum (MAX) Error. For an ambient temperature range of -58ºF to +122 ºF the RMSE is 0.9 ºF and the Maximum Error is plus or minus 1.8 ºF.

Relevant Statistics and Figures:

US Population: 325 Million
World Population: 7.5 Billion
US GDP: $18 Trillion
World GDP: $78 Trillion
Mile of Road: $500,000
FDA Drug Approval: $1,000,000,000
Hospital: $800,000,000 or $1,500,000/bed.
High School: $250,000,000
Teacher’s Salary and Benefits: $100,000/yr
Family M.D: $250,000/yr
Manhattan Project: $26,000,000,000
DARPA Annual Budget: $3,000,000,000/yr (The Internet, GPS, Stealth)
Apollo Moon Mission: $200,000,000,000 (Rocket engines, Semiconductor)
Acre of Rain Forest: $10,000
Endangered Species Breeding Farm: $10,000,000

$7,000,000,000,000/year is the equivalent of:

Giving every American $22,000/yr
Giving every person on the face of the Earth $933/yr
7,000 new drugs/yr
8,750 new major hospitals, or 4.7 million new hospital beds
14,000,000 miles of new road/yr
28,000,000 Family MDs salaries
70,000,000 Teacher’s salaries
35 Apollo Missions
Preserve 700,000,000 acres of Rain Forest
70,000 endangered species breeding farms

$359 Trillion is the equivalent of:

4.6 years of the entire World’s gross production
20 years of the entire gross production of America
359,000 new drugs
448,000 new hospitals

To make matters worse, much of the money US taxpayers spend on fighting climate change goes to the UN, where they have little if any say into where it goes. One thing is for certain, it isn’t going to fund many if any projects in the US.

I could go on and on playing with these numbers, but I think my message is clear. We have real problems in the world, with real solutions available to solve them. Unfortunately, many problems won’t be solved because money is being misallocated to fighting a war on climate change that simply can’t be won. Even if we do everything the Paris Accord wants, the benefits will fall within 2 standard deviations of a thermometer’s error. In other words, we would spend a fortune measured in multiples of global GDP for absolutely nothing. The absurdity of that statement is beyond comprehension to anyone truly wanting to make a positive difference, and make the world a better place.

The bottom line is, the most effective, efficient, affordable and achievable way to improve the lives of countless people living in poverty is to get them a reliable, accessible and inexpensive energy source. If the people voting to waste other people’s money on fighting climate change had to live a single day without the cheap energy they are accustomed to, they would immediately change their attitudes. Fighting climate change is an agenda of the elites detached from reality.

Post publishing Princeton Physicist Dr. Happer gave an interview to the NYTs that pretty much captures the spirit of this article.

German Power Consumers Now Saddled By Staggering 35 Billion Euros In Taxes, Feed-In Tariffs

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





Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print


The Liberal Arts Universities portray themselves as open-minded, tolerant, inclusive, and diverse centers of academic freedom that promote equality and determine the truth through a rigorous application of the scientific method. In reality, if you are a Christian, Conservative or Climate Scientist seeking the truth, Liberal Arts Universities are close-minded, intolerant, exclusive and homogenized centers of leftist ideology indoctrination and Orwellian group-think, not interested in seeking the truth or understanding. Left-wing Liberal Arts Universities instead promote politics as scientific truth, and ruthlessly discriminate against and punish those who don’t follow the herd, fall in line, kiss the ring and/or surrender to the “consensus.”20170208_tolerant_0

This blog post will document the hostile workplace environment that appears to be condoned by the University’s Administrations and the EEOC. We can only hope that under a President Trump administration the workplace regulation against hostility and discrimination will finally be applied equally across the political spectrum. BTW, it is easy to reach a “consensus” if you fire, bully, intimidate, threaten, exclude and prosecute those who disagree. The results, however, of allowing this kind of behavior to persist can be horrifying.

EEOC Workplace Protection Laws

Evidence of discriminatory hiring practices, and another, and another.

Tell President Trump to “deny” Federal Research Funding to any University that demonstrates a discriminatory bias in its staffing against conservatives, or shows a history of research that exclusively focuses on CO2. Additionally, President Trump should use the “creepy” black lists highlighted below as recruiting tools for his new science advisors. Eisenhower warned us about the dangers the technological elites pose when money gets involved, and this climate change issue has proven him correct on an epic scale.

Caught on Video:

Judith Curry Quits over Climate Craziness and funding discrimination
NDP are calling for the firing of the Wildrose Electricity and Renewables shadow minister, Don MacIntyre
Climate change denier and professor Nicholas Drapela has been fired from Oregon State University
Bill Nye “the Science Guy” says that climate change skeptics should be charged criminally and thrown in jail.
Obama’s Attorney General says the FBI is pursuing criminal prosecution for denying “climate change.”
Al Gore’s good friend Lonnie Thompson
Environmental Group Censorship
EPA Official Compares Agency Enforcement to Roman Crucifictions
Senate Climate Bully Markey rudely and arrogantly questions experts, calls people “deniers.”
One of the Professors behind the claims of “consensus” calls for prosecution of skeptics.
Intimidation from the highest level of government.
Dr. Ball discusses the deliberate corruption of Climate Science.
A Half Truth is Twice the Lie Part #1
A Half Truth is Twice the Lie Part #2
Hide the Decline
OOPS! Former Obama EPA Chief denies ‘War on Coal’ next to a ‘Coal Sucks’ poster
Former Obama EPA Chief concedes: ‘Climate change has become a religion
IPCC exposed by Author Donna Laframboise
Prosecute the “Deniers!!!” “I’m a scientist.
Bill Nye, the Spanish Inquisition Guy

Scaring our children:images

  1. Blowing up the free thinkers
  2. Unfriending” those who don’t fall in line
  3. Running our children over with trains
  4. Killing Polar Bears
  5. Hanging Monkeys
  6. Giving our children nightmares
  7. Fears of starvationc2o6go_uuaaod-2

Caught in Print:


BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures.
U.N. Climate Panel Chief Quits Amid Harassment Case
Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned from his post at the University of California after admitting that global warming was a big scam, in a shocking resignation letter.
Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming
Global warming smear targets
Creepy “list” keepers
Creepy EcoWatch Posts McCarthy-esque Hit List of ‘Climate Change Deniers’
My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic (His “Crime“)
Another Creepy List
New Video: Dr. Murry Salby – ‘He was fired from his university for pointing out holes in the global warming story’
Al Gore at SXSW: We Need to ‘Punish Climate-Change Deniers’ and ‘Put a Price on Carbon’
16 Democrat AGs Begin Inquisition Against ‘Climate Change Disbelievers’
Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?!
The Merchants of Smear
NYT suggests ‘deniers’ should be stabbed through the heart – like vampires
Climate Scientist Michael Mann’s Defamation Lawsuit Against Critics Can Proceed, Rules Court
Climate Scientist Arrested for Fraud
The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison
Scientist fired for becoming climate change skeptic
French TV weatherman sacked for book questioning ‘hype’ over climate change
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda
Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming
Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’
Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change
Creepy Wikipedia List
Israeli government scientist fired for his views on evolution and climate change
James Cook University (JCU) has blackballed Professor Bob Carter
International bullying, unfair “targeted” punishment suggested by The Royal Society over climate change
Johnny Ball on how he has been vilified
Psychoterratica — environmentally induced mental distress
Former NOAA Meteorologist tells of years of censorship to hide the effect of “natural cycles”
The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet
If Global Warming Is Real, Why Do Government Scientists Have To Keep Cheating?
Wikileaks shows climate researchers targeted to be silenced
Politics and science are a toxic combination – And the long list of warmists lying and cheating in past years
The committee aide said they had heard from other NOAA whistleblowers as well
A whistleblower challenges NOAA’s climate data
Trump Agrees With Princeton Physicist That Global Warming Is A ‘Cult Movement’
Opinion Journal: Climategate 2.0
U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
NOAA’s criminal behavior
Dr. Mann engages in the debate often to silence rather than to illuminate
There is a history of ‘adjusting’away inconvenient data
University of Oklahoma: Plot to Punish Professor for Political Beliefs, Whistleblowing
DAVID ROSE: How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth
Climate science is dangerously corrupted and co-opted by multiple anti-science forces and players.”
Snopes Fact Checker: You can’t make this stuff up
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: How Rachel Carson Cost Millions of People Their Lives
IPCC Intentionally Uses Catastrophic Non-Science To Incite Policy Action
Not Funny: Monty Python’s Eric Idle: Climate skeptics should be put on trial for ‘crimes against humanity’
Scientist tells Congress: Obama science czar ‘put a target’ on my back due to ‘my heretical view’ on climate
Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
Queer Dance Party for Climate Justice (warning: strong language).
The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen called for decertification of meteorologistsImage864_shadow

Caught in Quotes:

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” -ex UNEP Director Maurice Strong

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.” -David Rockefeller, Rich Liberal / Warmist

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we [leftists] came up with the idea that the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill… in order to realize world government.” -Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pg.75


Other Notes:

The producer of this documentary was audited 3 times under Obama
I was audited 3 times under Obama

Please help me grow this list, please post links in the comments of videos and articles documenting harassment and intimidation of climate realists just trying to do their jobs.