Climate Science


Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013“Summary for Policymakers”


The IPCC has retreated from at least

11 alarmist claims promulgated in its

previous reports or by scientists

prominently associated with the IPCC.

The SPM also contains at least 13

misleading or untrue statements, and

11 further statements that are phrased

in such a way that they mislead readers

or misrepresent important aspects of

the science.




Russians Scientists — Next Little Ice Age Near



Russians Scientist are suggesting the next Grand Minimumin this paper: Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth

SEE RESEARCH BY Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Pulkovo Observatory of the RAS












  • Ross McKitrick, Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
  • Ian D. Clark, Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa 
  • Jan Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa-
  • Timothy Patterson, Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University












Prof. Judith Curry (Georgia Tech): "A Critical Look at the IPCC AR4 Climate Change Detection and Attribution"













Climate Change Reconsidered:

2011 Interim Report

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under severe criticism for violating the requirements of academic peer review and relying on secondary sources, comes under attack again in a new report released August 29 and co-produced by three nonprofit research organizations titled Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report.

According to the new report, “natural causes are very likely to be [the] dominant” cause of climate change that took place in the twentieth and at the start of the twenty-first centuries.

“We are not saying anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) cannot produce some warming or have not in the past. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a substantial role.”

The authors of the new report go on to say,“the net effect of continued warming and rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants, and wildlife.” Both conclusions contradict the findings of the widely cited reports of the IPCC.

Key findings, as outlined in the interim report’s executive summary, include:

  • “We find evidence that the models over-estimate the amount of warming that occurred during the twentieth century and fail to incorporate chemical and biological processes that may be as important as the physical processes employed in the models.”
  • “More CO2 promotes more plant growth both on land and throughout the surface waters of the world’s oceans, and this vast assemblage of plant life has the ability to affect Earth’s climate in several ways, almost all of them tending to counteract the heating effects of CO2’s thermal radiative forcing.”  
  • “The latest research on paleoclimatology and recent temperatures [finds] new evidence that the Medieval Warm Period of approximately 1,000 years ago, when there was about 28 per cent less CO2 in the atmosphere than there is currently, was both global and warmer than today’s world.”
  • “New research finds less melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and on mountaintops Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), and no changes in precipitation patterns or river flows that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels.”
  • “Amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, lizards, mammals, and even worms benefit from global warming and its myriad ecological effects.”
  • “Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations, by increasing crop yields, will play a major role in averting hunger and ecological destruction in the future.”

You can download a free PDF copy of the full 2011 Interim Report at:





A leading environmental economist has called upon governments to either radically reform or abandon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In his report What is Wrong with the IPCC? Proposals for Radical Reform published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Ross McKitrick (University of Guelph/ Ontario, Canada) reviews the IPCC's own procedures in detail and highlights a number of serious flaws and weaknesses.

McKitrick’s report shows that, under current procedures:

  • The IPCC’s managing bureau unilaterally selects Lead Authors, giving it direct influence on the content of reports;
  • IPCC Lead Authors are frequently asked to review their own work and that of their critics, placing them in a conflict of interest;
  • The IPCC peer review procedures allow Lead Authors to overrule reviewers, and to rewrite the text after the close of peer review, rendering it ineffective at preventing bias;
  • Government review and oversight through the plenary panel is cursory at best, with the vast majority of member governments failing to take any    active role.

McKitrick presents a number of case studies that illustrate how these various procedural flaws have had material effects on key sections of past reports.

McKitrick proposes a set of rule changes that would aim to make IPCC editorial procedures as rigorous as those of a standard academic journal. Even this modest target would require substantial changes.

"If such a process of reform cannot be initiated then those national governments that seek objective and sound advice on climate change issues should withdraw from the IPCC and begin the process of creating a new assessment body free of the deficiencies identified in this report," said Professor McKitrick.

In the foreword to the GWPF report, the Hon John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, writes:

"The intellectual bullying, which has been a feature of the behaviour of some global warming zealots, makes this report necessary reading if there is to be an objective assessment of all of the arguments. The attempt of many to close down the debate is disgraceful, and must be resisted. Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods. It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in an agnostic state on this issue."


The full report What is Wrong with the IPCC? is available here


There are a number of topics that can get our British correspondent James Delingpole going: Herman Cain, David Cameron, WWII, the many varieties of hummus (you'll have to trust us on that one), but if youreally want to get him revved up, ask him to talk about climate change. So when he rang us up earlier today and excitedly told us he had author and fellow climate change skeptic Donna Laframboise ready to do a podcast, we of course could not refuse him. This one is for all you climate junkies. Dig in:


You can listen to the show below (direct link is here), but if you want it on iTunes or on Stitcher, you must be a member. Join today!




Reflecting the diversity of the communities involved in this assessment and progress in science, several of the definitions used in this Special Report differ in breadth or focus from those used in the AR4 and other IPCC reports.

Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.

[INSERT FOOTNOTE 2: This definition differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.]

IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers, page 2

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore Visit Site 

Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page 

'Consensus Buster' Report 

By Marc Morano  –  Climate Depot

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report





Prof Phil Jones  gives startling evidence to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into Climategate about his behavior and scientific standards brought to light by his leaked emails.


Andrew Montford: The Climategate Inquiries

A detailed assessment of the Climategate inquiries set up by the University of East Anglia and others which finds that they avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations. The report The Climategate Inquiries, written by Andrew Montford and with a foreword by Lord (Andrew) Turnbull, finds that the inquiries into the conduct and integrity of scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia were rushed and seriously inadequate.

 For the full report click here


IPCC/TERI chairman Rajendra Pachauri denies the existence of additional false data in the IPCC report. Recall how he accused India’s leading Glacier Scientist of “Voodoo Science” when Pachauri was denying the Glaciergate false predictions.

Pachauri denies IPCC errors


The BBC’s Andrew Neil squares off with Professors Robert Watson and Fred Singer to discuss the theory of Mann made Global Warming and the perilous state of the IPCC under Pachauri’s mismanagement.


The ClimateGate investigation is examined by the BBC’s Radio 5 interview with Dr Richard North, the investigator who uncovered three of the gates revealing false data in the IPCC AR4 report on Climate Change and others.

ClimateGate: Science Under The Microscope from ClimateGate2009 on Vimeo.




The list is quite extensive see the GWPF’s IPCC Corner here and False Alarms here

And also see the excellent blog and recent book by Donna Laframboise on the IPCC here























October 28, 2011: "Sea Level Changes in the Indian Ocean: Observational facts" by ICSC science advisor Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Maldives: "there is no ongoing rise in sea level at all. At about 1970, sea level fell by about 20 cm, and has remained quite stable there after (i.e. for the last 30-40 years)."

Bangladesh: At "the Sunderban delta area in Bangladesh--no rise in sea level. The stratigraphy, morphology, vegetational evolution and habitation record a minor sea level lowering at around 1960, followed by 40-50 years of stable sea level."

Laccadives Islands (India): "the locals are quite aware of the fact that sea level is not at all in a rising mode today, rather that new land has been added, leaving previous shore to become overgrown and invaded by terrestrial plant climbers (just as in the Maldives)."

Goa (India): "there is no ongoing sea level rise, sea level has been stable for the last 50 years or so, sea level fell some 20 cm at around 1960." 

Global trend: "In case of a global sea level rise, the Earth must slow down (following the law of conservation of angular momentum). After 1972, the Earth rotation has speeded up, however. This is a strong argument against a global sea level rise."

Read whole paper.


Sceptical Berkeley Scientists Say, “Human Component Of Global Warming May Be Somewhat Overestimated”


The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project has released its preliminary findings though not in a research journal but to the scientific community and the general public. Their trumpeted finding is not surprising - the world has gotten warmer in recent decades - or at least the land has. This is consistent with the other global temperature datasets.


Berkeley Earth's land surface temperature data from 1800 to 2009, showing deviation from the mean temperature over that period – and overall global warming since the industrial revolution. Video: Berkeley Earth Link to this video


press release issued by the project said, “Global Warming is real,” adding that it can find no evidence of a heat island effect, and that even weather stations considered to be of doubtful quality still show relative warming over the 1950 - 2010 period in question.

Whilst the results are not that surprising, the findings of the research have been used by some to talk about the nature of climate skepticism bearing in mind that the impetus for the Berkeley initiative came from self-avowed skeptical scientists. But the results, and how they have been portrayed, also says something about the nature of today’s environmental reporting. In particular it reveals a narrow focus on trouncing sceptics at the expense of putting the science into its proper context.

The Guardian is notable not for what it says but for what it doesn’t say. The article has far too narrow an outlook, providing no overall context. It does not even mention that the Berkeley researchers themselves say they cannot determine why the world has warmed. It makes no mention that those sceptics who doubt that the earth is warming are few in number, and that there is a widespread and respectable group of scientists who, in peer reviewed journals, debate the relative mix of influencing factors concerning that warming.

The Guardian also allows Jim Hansen to misrepresent scepticism and go unchallenged. He says, “as I have discussed in the past, the deniers, or contrarians, if you will, do not act as scientists, but rather as lawyers….as soon as they see evidence against their client (the fossil fuel industry and those people making money off business-as-usual), they trash that evidence and bring forth whatever tidbits they can find to confuse the judge and jury.” The number of sceptics included in the article is zero.

The Economist (not in my opinion noted for its deep thinking on climate science) article was clearly written by someone unfamiliar with the subject. Like the Guardian it failed to put this research into its proper perspective. Its sceptic count was also zero.

The report in Nature was much better, in my opinion because it actually included comments from the sceptics in that Steve McIntyre said he has found some problems with the Berkeley research. Given Steve’s track record this is something worth noting. The Berkeley team is posting their raw data on the web and no doubt many statistically adroit bloggers will get to work (for me one of the main things to come out of “Climategate” was that professors of climate science were not in the same league as some on the web when it came to statistical analysis.) Nature’s sceptic count is one.

New Scientist did a good job in that they did provide perspective for the research emphasising just how irrelevant was the Berkeley finding to many sceptical questions today. New Scientist sceptic count, three.

But, for me, the worst treatment came from Forbes. This spiteful article says that the scientific community been saying for decades that the earth is warming up? I don’t think so. It goes on;

“Indeed, even most remaining climate change skeptics and deniers have moved away from saying there is no warming. Now, their major talking points are that it isn’t caused by humans, or only a little bit, or it won’t be bad, or we can’t afford to fix it, or… Denial is a moving target.”

This prejudiced, intolerant and inaccurate, article completely misrepresents sceptical views, and is a good example of the problem facing the debate about climate science within and without of the scientific community. We must surely rise above such sour and divisive comments that have no place in scientific discourse. The author is in an old sterile paradigm that is inherently anti-science, and is more of the problem facing progress than some at the extreme end of climate scepticism.

Trivial Headlines

There are very few people who do not believe the world has warmed, in various episodes, since the instrumental record began about 150 years ago. We are today warmer than the Little Ice Age, warmer than the Victorian Era, indeed warmer than the 1970s. The proper question is, of course, why? The Berkeley team have no conclusions about this.

So all the headlines that basically say sceptics have been trounced because the world really is warming are trivial. The Berkeley team confirm what has been found in three other datasets and what “both sides” of the debate already agree on. I could say “so what,” and “is it news?” Well, news is what reporters print.

There are significant questions about the research however. Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre say they have found some serious issues that will no doubt come out in due course.

The 39,000 or so weather stations cover 29% of the planet and a third of them showed no warming over the 60-year period under consideration, indeed they showed cooling. How does the distribution of these two sub-sets of data compare? One would not expect global warming to be even across the globe (indeed most of it seems to take place in the Arctic) but if the cooling stations were well mixed in with the warming stations geographically then that would be interesting. The Berkeley researchers interpolate temperatures between stations and I wonder if the cooling stations fit into this interpolation? Indeed, perhaps one way to look at the data would be that only a third of weather stations (the difference between the warmers and the coolers) contribute to the final conclusion. To my mind that’s a very different stance from saying that two-thirds of temperature stations show warming.

Other things that emerge from the data is that it confirms that the Nasa Giss dataset is anomalously high with respect to the other datasets especially in the past decade. Thus we should be careful, as I have said previously, about claiming temperature records based on Nasa Giss data alone.

The data also confirm the post-2000 standstill, Nigel Calder has noted this. Looking at the data I do not agree with the study’s lead author that the recent standstill is not present in the data.

The British government's chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir John Beddington, stressed that the study needed to be peer-reviewed before being factored in to the debate, but that if it was found to be correct, it would conform with US work at NASA and NOAA and that of Phil Jones and his colleagues at the UK Hadley Center-UEA Climatic Research Unit. "This work adds to the evidence about how climate change is happening," he said.

Actually the researchers say they cannot say how global warming is happening just that it is, though one could be charitable and say that Sir John’s comments about how global warming is happening might refer to geospatial data, but refer to my previous comments about that.

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, director at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, said he hoped that if and when the study was peer reviewed and published, the focus could shift to "the implications for the future of this warming rather than wrangling over whether the warming is really there.”

I hope not. The implications for the future must be framed in the context of our understanding of what is actually going on. That should be the next focus.

But there is something really important in one of the four papers issued by the Berkeley team, and a considerable irony that it has been missed by all reporters and commentators.

If you do something that most of the reporters haven’t done, and usually never do, study the research paper itself (why bother when there is a press release) you will find something remarkable.

"Human Component Overestimated"

The findings of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project are important because they emphasise the growing realisation that science has underplayed the unknowns and uncertainties in the attribution of the causes of recent climate change. Without doubt, the data compiled, and the analysis undertaken, by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project is unambiguous evidence that the root causes of global warming are poorly understood.

The researchers find a strong correlation between North Atlantic temperature cycles lasting decades, and the global land surface temperature. They admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the“human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

There is the headline missed by all: Scientists say human component of global warming may be overstated.

Why isn’t it there? It’s just as valid as the headlines used, scientifically more interesting and journalistically light-years better than what has been reported.

The BBC did mention the North Atlantic decadal oscillation aspect of the story saying, “The Berkeley group says it has also found evidence that changing sea temperatures in the north Atlantic may be a major reason why the Earth's average temperature varies globally from year to year.” But it then fails to explain what this means and gets itself into a twist and doesn’t mention the conclusion reached by the Berkeley researchers.

Now, here’s the irony, the Berkeley team are actually sceptics about the matter where the real debate lies - the question of the mix of human and natural contributions to the recent warming. Now why didn’t any of these “reporters” pick up on that?

Why was this nugget missed or ignored? It is because environmental reporters are too obsessed with bashing sceptics, and reading press releases, than in reporting science.



Professor Richard Lindzen’s Heartland 2010 keynote address


At the 4th International Conference on Climate Change MIT Atmospheric physicist Professor Richard Lindzen gave his keynote address and, as always, made some very salient points about the science and the politics of global warming alarm. See the edited video of this lecture and slides.

Lindzen_Heartland_2010  Lecture slides (PDF)







Professor Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat.

For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn't and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.

It turns out that there is a much more fundamental and unambiguous check of the role of feedbacks in enhancing greenhouse warming that also shows that all models are greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Here, it must be noted that the greenhouse effect operates by inhibiting the cooling of the climate by reducing net outgoing radiation. However, the contribution of increasing CO2 alone does not, in fact, lead to much warming (approximately 1 deg. C for each doubling of CO2).

The larger predictions from climate models are due to the fact that, within these models, the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever CO2 does. This is referred to as a positive feedback. It means that increases in surface temperature are accompanied by reductions in the net outgoing radiation – thus enhancing the greenhouse warming. All climate models show such changes when forced by observed surface temperatures. Satellite observations of the earth’s radiation budget allow us to determine whether such a reduction does, in fact, accompany increases in surface temperature in nature. As it turns out, the satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior. This analysis makes clear that even when all models agree, they can all be wrong, and that this is the situation for the all important question of climate sensitivity. Unfortunately, Lindzen and Choi (2009) contained a number of errors; however, as shown in a paper currently under review, these errors were not relevant to the main conclusion.

According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for  which  the sensitivity  to  a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that weshould already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man. This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years. Modelers defend this situation, as we have already noted, by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming (viz Schwartz et al, 2010), and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. 

However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCC’s iconic attribution (Smith et al, 2007). Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past fourteen years is acknowledged. It should be noted that, more recently, German modelers have moved the date for ‘resumption’ up to 2015 (Keenlyside et al, 2008).

Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth.

Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased and that the case for such warming 

as was seen being due in significant measure to man, disintegrating. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, for more serious leaders, the need to courageously resist hysteria is clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever present climate change is no substitute for prudence. Nor is the assumption that the earth’s climate reached a point of perfection in the middle of the twentieth century a sign of intelligence.



“Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now.” 

“For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause.”

“Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.”  

“satellite data from the ERBE instrument (Barkstrom, 1984, Wong et al, 2006) shows that the feedback in nature is strongly negative -- strongly reducing the direct effect of CO2 (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) in profound contrast to the model behavior.”

“This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years.”

“Climate alarmists respond that some of the hottest years on record have occurred during the past decade. Given that we are in a relatively warm period, this is not surprising, but it says nothing about trends.”



Barkstrom, B.R., 1984: The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 65, 1170–1185.

Douglass,D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearsona and S. F. Singer, 2007: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions, Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Keenlyside, N.S., M. Lateef, et al, 2008: Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature, 453, 84-88.

Lindzen, R.S. and Y.-S. Choi, 2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, accepted Geophys. Res. Ltrs.

Lindzen, R.S., 2007: Taking greenhouse warming seriously. Energy & Environment, 18, 937-950.

Ramanathan, V., M.V. Ramana, et al, 2007: Warming trends in Asia amplified by brown cloud solar absorption, Nature, 448, 575-578.

Santer, B. D., P. W. Thorne, L. Haimberger, K. E. Taylor, T. M. L. Wigley, J. R. Lanzante, S. Solomon, M. Free, P. J. Gleckler, P. D. Jones, T. R. Karl, S. A. Klein, C. Mears, D. Nychka, G. A. Schmidt, S. C. Sherwood, and F. J. Wentz, 2008: Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, Intl. J. of Climatology, 28, 1703-1722.

Schwartz, S.E., R.J. Charlson, R.A. Kahn, J.A. Ogren, and H. Rodhe, 2010: Why hasn't the Earth warmed as much as expected?, J. Climate, 23, 2453-2464.

Smith, D.M., S. Cusack, A.W. Colman, C.K. Folland, G.R. Harris, J.M. Murphy, 2007: Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model, Science, 317, 796-799.

Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288

Wong, T., B. A. Wielicki, et al., 2006: Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV Data, J. Climate, 19, 4028–4040.




Scientific facts about CO2 by Dr Tim Ball

A list of scientific facts about CO2, anthropogenic global warming, and climate change showing how people are misinformed by the “official climate science” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The claim that CO2 is causing warming/climate change is the greatest deception in history. The IPCC makes the incredible case that

…past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.

This means CO2 from human activities overrode the effects of the sun, the oceans, and the atmosphere, which is scientific nonsense. 

  • Greenhouse gases are a mere 0.4392 percent of total atmospheric gases.
  • CO2 is only 0.039 percent of total atmospheric gases.
  • CO2 is less than 4 percent of total greenhouse gases.
  • Water vapor is 95 percent of total greenhouse gases.
  • CO2 levels currently at 390 parts per million (ppm) lowest in 600 million years.
  • Levels were as high as 9000 ppm over last 600 million years. Average levels for the last 300 million years is approximately 1200 ppm.
  • In every record, temperature increases before CO2. In other words, CO2 is not causing temperature increases, contradicting the basic assumption of the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
  • Even if CO2 is causing temperature, doubling or tripling only raises temperature by a very small amount. This is known as climate sensitivity. The IPCC invoked a positive feedback that doesn’t exist to overcome the problem.
  • Carbon and CO2 are terms used interchangeably, but are completely different things. Carbon is an element, and CO2 is a gas.
  • CO2 is essential to life on the planet. Reduce the levels and plants suffer. Plants are most efficient at approximately 1000-1200 ppm as research and use of those levels in greenhouses attest. Plants are malnourished at 390 ppm.
  • Fewer plants means less oxygen; no plants means no oxygen and no life on Earth.
  • IPCC define climate change as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.” This makes human impact the primary purpose of the research, but you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.
  • As a result, the IPCC only consider nine “radiative forcings”, but admit its “level of scientific understanding” is high in only two of them. Even that claim is incorrect; it is low and medium-low in the other seven.
  • They estimate these cause 1.6 watts per square meter, which is much lower than most natural forcings.
  • Global temperatures increased from 1990 on because they reduced the number of weather records used.
  • All modern temperature records have been adjusted to lower the old temperatures, and thus increase the slope of the increase in temperature.
  • The “hockey stick” graph rewrote history by erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. This was achieved by the false assumption that tree rings area measure of temperatures, and by inappropriate statistical methods and analysis.
  • Current temperatures and weather patterns are well within long-term normal patterns.
  • The IPCC does not make predictions – they make projections.

Every projection to date has been wrong, well above the actual trend and in the wrong direction as cooling continues. They are wrong because their computer models have temperature increase with a CO2 increase, which doesn’t happen in reality.

Global temperature has declined since at least 2000 while CO2 has increased. If the IPCC was correct and it is overriding all other mechanisms, the increase should not happen. This is why senior IPCC member Kevin Trenberth said in a leaked email of Wed, 14 Oct 2009, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”