By Timothy Ball, Canada Free Press
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says, “Unless we fight climate change, unless we stop this trend, we’ll have devastating consequences for humanity.” Other leaders make similar silly statements. Obama claims the “threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.” But which way is it growing? Which trend are they going to stop? The one predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the one Mother Nature is providing? They’ve chosen the IPCC even though all their predictions (scenarios) are wrong. But it is worse. Global temperatures of the last few years are impossible according to the ‘science’ of the (IPCC).
What’s Actually Happening? Temperatures were predicted to increase but are declining (Figure 1). Even their lowest scenario says the world should be at least 0.3C warmer. Doesn’t sound like much but it equals half the warming they claim occurred in the preceding 130 years.
![]()
Figure 1: Global average temperature 2002 to 2009 and IPCC scenarios. Enlarged here.
As physicist David Douglass said, “If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing.”
Many people pointed to facts contradicting the “appealing” hypothesis but were ignored or marginalized for several reasons. These included; apparent support from rising global temperatures between 1980 and 1998; evidence too technical for most people; effective personal attacks on skeptics; Gore’s slick propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth despite 35 scientific errors; and the mainstream media was ignorant of the science and biased.
A plethora of evidence has not brought the hypothesis down. In the 20th century human production of CO2 didn’t fit the temperature record. From 1900 to 1940 human CO2 production levels were low but temperatures increased the most. From 1940 to 1980 human production levels increased the most but temperature declined. The models predicted the atmosphere would warm faster than the surface but the opposite is happening. These are more than enough facts to show the hypothesis is wrong. Polls indicate the public is learning, but AGW proponents and politicians are not and continue to push their political agendas.
But Nature Is Not Playing By The Rules! Now they face facts everyone can grasp. The Earth is cooling with record low temperatures everywhere, a contradiction with the IPCC hypothesis anyone can grasp without scientific understanding. Figure 2 shows 1998 was an unusually warm year attributed to El Nino. 1999 was cooler and AGW proponents correctly said the drop from 1998 was not evidence of a trend.
![]()
Figure 2: Global temperatures 1985 to 2009 and atmospheric CO2 levels. Enlarged here.
Temperatures increased slightly again in 2000 (Figure 2) seeming to support the AGW contention. However, since 2002 temperatures declined gradually, making a trend that began in the Southern Hemisphere 10 years earlier global. AGW proponents are now trying to prove the trend doesn’t exist.
They play statistical games by pre-determining the trend by the starting point chosen. Choosing 2002 as a starting point appears to play the same game, however, there’s a major difference. The decline can’t happen according to the IPCC hypothesis. Their report says, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” “Very likely” is defined as greater than 90 percent likelihood. They reinforce the point; “During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling. Observed patterns of warming and their changes are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.” But according to their Reports CO2 levels have continued to increase due to human additions. “Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004.”
The second statement is also false because they don’t include two of the three known mechanisms of solar causes of temperature change in their models. They did acknowledge, “Difficulties remain in simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller than continental scales”. They must say this because they report, “It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica).” If CO2 was causing temperature increase it should be global. So what is happening cannot happen. The hypothesis and the models built on it are wrong. Temperature declining while CO2 increased did force one change; they switched focus from global warming to climate change.
What Happens When Nature Disobeys Government? Political leaders say they are going to stop climate change. It is an arrogant, ignorant claim adopted because they accepted IPCC claims and then chose to ignore scientific evidence showing they were wrong. Now they’re ignoring nature, which doesn’t listen as the evidence shows. As Douglass says, “One finds the truth by making a hypothesis and comparing observations with the hypothesis.” The observations don’t support the hypothesis but that doesn’t matter because it fits the political objective. British MP Jeremy Thorpe said “Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his friends for his political life.” Our leaders are laying the people down for their political lives. Sadly none of them will ever be held accountable, but the people will pay the price. See more here.


Comments: 47
YOUR ARGUMENT IS MASTERFUL IDIOCY.
"YOUR ARGUMENT IS MASTERFUL IDIOCY"
Where in the article does it state anything in opposition to your post!
It does not say we should not develop alternative energy. It does not say we should not develop more efficient ways of utilizing fossil fuels.
I am not planning to give a single millimeter in the fight against "As physicist David Douglass said, “If the facts are contrary to any predictions, then the hypothesis is wrong no matter how appealing.” Which is a true statement for the past SEVEN years. The temperature trend, over the past 50 years, 100 years and 150 years has been up. This Chart covers the past 120 years. It is CLEAR AS A DESERT SKY WHAT IS HAPPENING. I could go nuts with the temps in Phoenix Since July of this year. NOVEMBER HIGHS so far this year are at record levels. I can also show you evidence that the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing. I doubt that you can show me a SINGLE continental or polar glacier that is GETTING BIGGER.
Well actually Karl it isn't.
It is an effective argument highlighting the inaccuracies of the IPCC and their continued propaganda and why we should not put any credibility in that organization.
"I am not planning to give a single millimeter in the fight against"
Doesn't matter Karl,
The facts are what they are, and if you take a look at your chart, there that pesky 40 year period from 1940 to 1980 that shows us that the temperature moderated, even lessened, the same thing that has been happening for the last 10 years or so.
During that 40 year period and the last ten years the C02 has been rising and if we look at the IPCC's predictions we should have been much warmer and these temperature moderation's should never have happened.
Sorry Karl,
You can read into the article what ever you like...but their argument is solid.
Maybe you should not rely on charts that don't support your opinion.
I personally like this chart.
Temp/C02 Larger
Shows the temperature as well as the rising C02 levels which in itself shows the error in the IPCC predictions and reason to not to accept them as a reliable source.
But you believe what you want Karl.
I show you data from the past 120 years, and you respond with another short term piece of propaganda. Sure your facts are right, THEY ARE JUST NONSENSE. It is a fact that Cows have been farting SINCE THEY EVOLVED. That has nothing to do with the consumption of fossil fuels. THE FACT IS THIS...we are putting carbon into the atmosphere that was sequestered for a few million years. And Dan, the last time that carbon was loose in the environment DINOSAURS were the dominant animals.
Name calling...The calling card of the left! LOL!
You and your science can not dispel the research being done that proves that the theory of man made global warming has no bases in fact, so you call people names.
Yup that works! LOL!
"I show you data from the past 120 years,"
And I showed you how even your chart calls the IPCC predictions into question! Which was the subject of the article I posted.
"BACK TO MY ORIGINAL PREMISE"
Not important Karl! LOL!
I don't think that we can deny that we are changing the atmosphere. I don't think we can deny that the atmosphere is NOW different than the atmosphere we evolved to use for breathing and living purposes. Even if the warming has NOTHING to do with the heat retention of high carbon dioxide atmospheres, we are not properly designed to utilize this atmosphere to the betterment of our bodies and minds.
YOU are not considering the fact that regardless of what your scientist are proving about the heat retention of the carbon dioxide, YOU have yet to provide a shred of evidence that the higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are NOT real or good for animal life.
Well Karl,
Thanks for the opportunity.
Carbon Dioxide cannot intoxicate because it is a non-poisonous non-toxic substance. The data for CO2 related to human health are next:
* The density of CO2 in the atmosphere is 0.000747 Kg per cubic meter of air.
Normal CO2 Levels. The effects of an increased level of CO2 on an adult person in good health can be summarized as:
* Normal outside levels: 350 - 600 ppmv.
* Acceptable levels: up to 600 ppmv.
* Stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppmv.
Data provided by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):
* Standards: 1000 ppmv.
* Stupor: 1000 - 2500 ppm.
* Maximum allowed concentration in an 8 hour working period: 5,000 ppmv.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels:
* Nausea and increase of the cardiac and respiratory frequencies (from oxygen deficiency): 30,000 ppmv.
* The above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppmv.
* Unconsciousness and death: 100,000 ppmv (OSHA).
But then what might be the benefits of higher atmospheric C02 levels?
"after all that man can do -- the aerial fertilization effect of the increase in the air's CO2 content that is expected to occur by the year 2050 would be just barely sufficient, in the mean, to assure the agricultural productivity required to prevent mass starvation in many parts of the globe without usurping what little of the natural world would remain at that time.
In view of these observations, not only is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content essential for the future well-being of man, it is essential to the future well-being of the entire biosphere."
As the reports show, we are nowhere near the massive concentrations of C02 that constitute a hazard to humans and the benefits of the current and foreseen elevated levels are indeed beneficial to life on earth.
Let me make my position clear (before you continue your name calling);
I support the usage and development of all energy sources, increase alternative energy usage by providing strong incentives to produce it and to use it, I think the implementation of the suggestions in this petition will lead to much greater usage of alternative energy than the current incentives that exists today!
I believe we should increase our domestic oil production to divert sending so much money overseas and back into our economy.
Although I support the use of biofuels it is a fact that todays use and supply coming from primarily palm oil is causing the deforestation of 6+ millions of acres of tropical forests annually, It would be much better for the environment to develop short trip electric vehicles and charge them with a full blown coal fired power plant than to continue this deforestation.
The Obama administration is promoting the building of large wind farms, problem is, it will create 2 to 3 thousand jobs for the wind turbine manufacturer in China!
Not here in the U.S.
We don't need to restrict C02 by way of a regressive tax and we need to be building towards alternative energy in a smarter better way.
YOU ARE MAKING A MORONIC ARGUMENT. It is not doubted by the RATIONAL scientist that the Carbon dioxide level is higher than is good for the PRESENT life on this planet.
Corals are dying because of CARBONIC ACID LEVELS IN THE OCEAN. Reason, HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE WATER.
Dan. YOU ARE A MORON. We are NOT IMPROVING THE PLANET IN ANY WAY by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. WE ARE DEGRADING IT. The only thing we are doing is increasing the probability that at some NOT TO DISTANT future time there will be an environmental catastrophe.
It's tough when your every argument is rebuffed by facts to the extent that it makes you look ignorant!
But you are ignorant Karl! And that is the reason you call people names, you can't argue it any other way.
But I like it when people like you come to my threads and act like you do because it shows how empty headed you on the left are.
To you global warming is a faith some thing to believe in, no matter what the current research/science is showing us.
To you science is to be ignored....unless it happens to fall into line with your beliefs........hmmmm......brings a name to mind....Oh yah Galileo!
Moronic? Idiotic? Hey bud look in the mirror, they will both be standing there looking back at you!
Yah I know Karl, I posted the levels for you!
And you call me an idiot and a moron?
When you repeat basically what I have already posted but just delete the important facts and figures that disprove your opinion, it just magnifys your level of ignorance.
I can stoop to your level, if you want to make this an insult fest I'm game! I'll go toe to toe with you!
The difference is, is that you are just calling names and I can prove your idiocy and ignorance!
That said No the article only points out that the climate change hype is just that and is politically motivated and not scientifically prover or even viable.
"Global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions is the über-ubiquitous issue of our times," said Nick Brown, the university's executive assistant for sustainability. "It influences and is influenced by business practices, technological choices, our philosophical relationship to the planet and personal habits. Our management of this single issue, more than any other, will define the quality of life for our descendants. Participation in Focus the Nation's Teach-in is one of many steps that the university will take in the coming year to address this issue."
I picked Arkansas by a process of Alphabetical position, and perceived political slant of the State Supported University System. If you google Earth Science, and ANY UNIVERSITY, and search for global warming articles YOU WILL find support for the hypothesis that HUMANS are affecting climate.
Or maybe:
Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.
Interesting, I know that some are suggesting that sequestering C02 in old oil fields might pressurize those fields and allow more oil to be harvested.
Good one George!
~~~
Shhhh! They don't like to be reminded!
Well Karl,
Although I haven't researched it, I'll accept your claim for now.
But you criticize the ten year research for your thirty year research! Yes Karl you presented a 100+ year chart but only the last thirty years (not quiet actually) supports your contention...there is that period from 1940 thru 1980 that represents a temperature moderation which does not reflect warming due to the addition of man made C02.
Now since you claim a longer research period is better then lets look back hundreds of years instead of decades....and what do we find? quiet varied fluctuations with very little influence of man and go back even further and we find greater variations with absolutely no influence from man.
Fact is Karl, you can't win this argument! you don't have the facts!
All your stuck with is name calling! LOL!
-- we find the mini ice age of the middle ages
~~~
Funny.
Maybe UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, and the screw balls that believe this stuff will agree with that?
UN Sec General Bunky Moon is full of Bunk.
I miss Archie Bunker some times
LOL!
Can we do that????
But rather than "Butt plugs" we could direct the methane into power generation or vehicle power....That's it I'm growin Beans! LOL!
They were developed in the 1950's I believe, that could use sewage to produce fertalizers and Methane. THe Democrats have blocked this proceedure from the time of its development on. If this could have been allowed to develop, we could have been operating on cheap methane, for cooking, making Methanol for cars (cleaner running, and more powerful), and other uses. All we needed was to have these set up in communities of 2500 or more population. This was not the Republicans blocking it, but the Democrats. Cities would have made more than enough to pay for your water and sewage, making one less utility that we would have had to pay for, and much cleaner and safer.
Yes I have Dan, but not aware of the Democrats previous roadblocking.
Too bad.
Thanks for stopping by.
Please consider posting this to Science In An Eclectic Universe.
I will