Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
Observed Climate Change and the Negligible Effect on Greehouse Gases in the State of Ohio , by SPPI , Friday, 06 February 2009
In December of 2008, the environmental organization Environment Ohio released its report “What’s at Stake: How Global Warming Threatens the Buckeye State” in an effort to apply pressure on the government of Ohio to enact legislation to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases from the state. SPPI’s report rectifies a multitude of omissions by performing the types of analyses that Environment Ohio should have performed itself if its goal was to provide a complete picture of climate change and the effects of actions to mollify it.
"Warming freezes the Southern Ocean,"Another Mann-
In late January 2009, the once-
Alaska Climate Change, by Staff , Sunday, 25 January 2009
The climate of Alaska has changed considerably over the past 50-
Instead, the timing of the swings of a periodic, natural cycle-
United States and Global Data Integrity Issues, by Joe D’Aleo , Sunday, 25 January 2009
Issues with the United States and especially the global data bases make them inadequate to use for trend analysis and thus any important policy decisions based on climate change. These issues include inadequate adjustments for urban data, bad instrument siting, use of instruments with proven biases that are not adjusted for, major global station dropout., an increase in missing monthly data and questionable adjustment practices.
Arizona Climate Change , by SPPI, Wednesday, 10 December 2008
In February 2005, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, citing concerns of global climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, issued an Executive Order creating the Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG). The CCAG was tasked with:
• Establishing a baseline inventory and forecast of greenhouse gas emissions in Arizona, and,
• Producing a Climate Action Plan with recommendations for reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The Action Plan developed by the CCAG was accepted by Governor Napolitano and in
September 2006 another Executive Order was signed which established a statewide goal of reducing Arizona’s future greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 emissions level by the year 2020, and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040. A Climate Change Executive Committee was created to oversee implementation of the recommendations of the Climate Action Plan
Observed Climate Change in Florida, by Robert Ferguson , Tuesday, 04 November 2008
In October 2008, the Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change released
a draft version of its 14-
Climate Action Plans Fail to Deliver:, by Robert Ferguson, Saturday, 20 December 2008
(REVISED) Around the country, localities, states and multi-
As the name suggests, these groups have been created to develop Climate Action Plans that are intended to lessen the projected impacts of anthropogenic climate change around the world in general, but more particularly, in each state
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future, by Dr. Craig Idso, Monday, 12 January 2009
One of the long-
Why the IPCC should be disbanded, Written by John McLean, Friday, 09 November 2007
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organization that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias.
Arctic Sea Ice Losses, by Chip Knappenberger , Friday, 31 October 2008
Already various countries are setting into motion plans to take advantage of the
potential opening of important shipping lanes through the Arctic waters. In the November
2008 issue of The Atlantic magazine, the potential opening of reliable shipping routes
through the Arctic is described in the following way (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/map-
Proved: There is No Climate Crisis, by Robert Ferguson, Tuesday, 15 July 2008
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations
that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-
Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming? , by Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monkton of Brenchley, Wednesday, 22 August 2007
THE FACT of warming tells us nothing of the cause. Yet the scientific consensus is that, though the rapid climatic warming from 1906 to 1940 was a natural recovery from the historically low temperatures of the Little Ice Age, it is we who are chiefly to blame for the equally rapid warming from 1975 to the present. Since some climatologists challenge this consensus, can we settle the debate by predicting with models and then detecting by observation a characteristic “signature” in the climate data that allows us definitively to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural warming of the Earth’s atmosphere? This paper answers that key question.
35 Inconvenient Truths, The errors in Al Gore’s movie, By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, October 18, 2007
... in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.
A Glimpse Inside the Global Warming Controversy, by William DiPuccio, Thursday, 18 December 2008
“Do you believe in Global Warming?” I have often been asked this question by people with little or no scientific background. It seems like a simple question that demands a “yes” or “no” answer. But in reality it is a complex question that cannot be reduced to an unqualified “yea” or “nay”. The intent of this paper is not to resolve this question by rallying evidence for or against Global Warming (as if that can be done in a few pages!), but rather to lay bare the complexity of the climate change issue. Those who come to appreciate this fact will likely agree that simple answers are not only bad education, but can lead to bad policies.
Prejudiced Authors, Prejudiced Findings , by John McLean, Tuesday, 15 July 2008
The IPCC is a single-
More than two-
Demographic and Ecological Perspectives on the Status of Polar Bears, by Dr. Mitchell Taylor and Dr. Martha Dowsley , Friday, 14 March 2008
Although two polar bear subpopulations (Western Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort
Sea) no longer appear to be viable due to reduction in sea ice habitat, polar bears
as a species do not appear to be threatened by extinction in the foreseeable future
from either a demographic or an ecological perspective. Ecological perspectives that
suggest the reductions to survival and recruitment rates for two populations (Western
Hudson Bay and Southern Beaufort Sea) have occurred because of a long-
Fallacies about Global Warming, Written by John McLean, Friday, 07 September 2007
It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming.
Peer review? What peer review?, Written by John McLean, Thursday, 06 September 2007
The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story.
Shining More Light on the Solar Factor: A discussion of Problems with the Royal Society, by Dr. Joseph D’Aleo, Friday, 20 July 2007
When Lockwood and Froehlich go on to say that the intensification of solar activity seen in the past hundred years has now ended, we don't disagree with that. We part company only when they say that temperatures have gone on shooting up, so that the recent rise can't have anything to do with the Sun, or with cosmic rays modulated by the Sun.
The Myth of Dangerous Human Caused Climate Change, by Bob Carter, Thursday, 19 July 2007
Whether dangerous human-
“Is It Me, or Did the Oceans Cool? A Lesson On Global Warming From My Favorite Denier” Article By Josh Willis
It is worth reading. The article chronicles his experience with correcting the error in his original analysis, but also in presenting us with an effective summary of the current science and engineering of diagnosing ocean heat content. He presents two informative figures in the article, which are reproduced below (thanks to /climatesci.org for the link)
As discussed in Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull.
Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-
Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system, Stephen E. Schwartz, Atmospheric Science Division, Brookhaven National Laboratory
The short time constant implies that GMST is in near equilibrium with applied forcings
and hence that net climate forcing over the twentieth century can be obtained from
the observed temperature increase over this period, 0.57 ± 0.08 K, as 1.9 ± 0.9 W
U.S. Temperature Rankings Rearranged, Problems and Concerns with Temperature data sets, Written by Robert Ferguson,
Thursday, 23 August 2007
Trumpets were blaring at the Washington Post when, on the front page of the January 10th, 2007 edition of the paper, they proclaimed “Climate Experts Worry as 2006 is Hottest year on record in U.S.” The Post was relying on temperature data supplied to them from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Fallacies about Global Warming, by John McLean Friday, 07 September 2007
It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.
This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Selected Article Links (Most from climate-
“Consensus”? What “Consensus”?Among Climate Scientists, The Debate Is Not Over , by Viscount Monckton of Brenchley , Thursday, 19 July 2007
It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate
change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The
present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus”
was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion
in the peer-
Most Useless Phrase in the Political Lexicon: “Peer Reviewed”
The main goals of peer review are:
* Establish that the article is worthy of publication and consistent with the
scope of the publication in question. They are looking to see if the results are
* Reviewers will check, to the extent they can, to see if the methodology and its presentation is logical and clear — not necessarily right, but logical and clear. Their most frequent comments are for clarification of certain areas of the work or questions that they don’t think the authors answered. They do not check all the sources, but if they are familiar with one of the sources references, may point out that this source is not referenced correctly, or that some other source with which they are familiar might be referenced as well. History has proven time and again that gross and seemingly obvious math and statistical errors can easily clear peer review.
* Peer review is not in any way shape or form a proof that a study is correct,
or even likely to be correct. Enormous numbers of incorrect conclusions have been
published in peer-
The IPCC under the Microscope Here are 50 articles that seriously question the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims.
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming , By Associated Press
SANTA FE, N.M. -
"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.
"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone
along with the so-
Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts The authors show that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Nino variability in the 20th century.
List of quality articles about the solar connection: http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/solarirradiance.php
Global warming alarmists out in cold Name just three clear signs the planet is warming as the alarmists claim it should. Just three. Chances are your "proofs" are in fact on my list of 10 Top Myths about global warming.
A Brief Response to the Wrath of 2007: America's Great Drought from Independent UK,, by Robert Ferguson, Monday, 11 June 2007
The June 11th issue of the U.K.’s The Independent contained a story written by Andrew Gumble titled “The Wrath of 2007: America’s great drought.” The story leads “America is facing its worst summer drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Or perhaps worse still.”
Or, more accurately, perhaps not
IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group says its global population estimate was “a qualified guess”
... the global estimates were “…simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand” and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used (see footnote below).
All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count.
For example, the PBSG’s most recent global estimate (range 13,071-
See the rest of the deception here:
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|