2. Science Facts: why 'global warming' was rebranded as 'climate change'
The world faces serious humanitarian and environmental challenges. Honest science is needed to overcome these challenges.
The goal of science is to understand Nature to understand the world in which we live. Science is based on independent and objective measurement of Nature. Science then develops understanding consistent with proven laws of science
Development of the scientific process enabled humanity to begin escaping political bullying, the rule of superstition and the cowering to fear and ignorance. Science helped free us materially, emotionally, mentally, politically and spiritually.
It is essential that we protect science and the scientific process.
In section 1, Scientific Untruths readers discover corruption of science from allowing politicians, bureaucrats and vested interests to control science's funding and focus.
Now it's time to let Earth speak. Listen to Earth by exploring real-world science. We start by examining basic facts on carbon dioxide.
Examining real-world data in clear, concise simple bites bring truth, understanding and clarity.
Throughout this web site, red text represents the money trail. Discover for yourself who's eyeing your money.
For quick skimming, sub-headings convey simple summaries. Reading the text as needed provides deeper understanding. Checking the links provides verification or more information.
An introductory quiz to assess your basic knowledge.
Discover details on carbon dioxide (CO2) for yourself below. Then explore the wide range of topics covered in the link provided with the quiz by Melbourne's Michael Spencer.
Carbon dioxide & climate change - irrefutable basic facts
A four-page summary of facts on CO2 is available here.
A four-page summary of facts on CO2 with supporting material and references is available here.
A four-page summary of facts on CO2 with supporting material and references plus intriguing questions is available here.
'Thriving with Nature & Humanity' provides references, pages 16-17 and pages 53-55:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf
If you'd like to experience how the government has misled community perceptions about CO2, first do this quick survey prepared by Gregg Thompson. Needs less than a minute.
Questions with brief answers - short version
Questions with detailed answers - Long version
Each molecule of CO2 combines a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Every cell of living organism contains carbon, essential for all life on Earth.
CO2 is 0.0385% of Earth's atmosphere. That's just under 0.04%, or four 1/100th's of 1%. Or 1/26th of 1%. In every 2,600 molecules of air, only one (1) is CO2.
CO2, like oxygen, is a naturally occurring colourless, odourless, tasteless, invisible gas, non-toxic in concentrations many times levels in air, and essential for life. Unlike oxygen though, CO2 is only a trace gas.
Earth's annual production of CO2 is almost entirely by Nature, 97%. Human activity including industry and transport produces just 3%.
A question for our Prime Minister, Climate Change Minister and the Greens: why is Nature producing so much of what you call pollution?
Discover for yourself the proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere depicted in the first page of this download.
Then discover the proportions of annual human CO2 production to Nature's CO2 within Earth's atmosphere. You'll need to scroll - a lot.
CO2 is a consequence of temperature - not a cause
Professor Murry Salby, Macquarie University confirms the global CO2 trend driven by natural sources of CO2. He discusses its significance in contradicting the UN IPCC's unfounded core claim. He confirms what scientists have long understood: CO2 does not drive temperature. Instead, temperature determines CO2 levels.
Even the UN IPCC admits that oceans contain, in dissolved form, 50 times the CO2 contained in Earth's entire atmosphere.
Seasonally, as ocean temperatures and biomass activity vary, atmospheric CO2 levels vary. As vast southern ocean surfaces cool each winter CO2 is absorbed in huge quantities while northern hemisphere summer biomass absorbs CO2. Atmospheric CO2 levels drop, as Nature completely overpowers relatively constant human CO2 production. Nature's might prevails. Human production of CO2 is not significant in determining global atmospheric CO2 levels.
Professor Tim ball reveals the startling truth about CO2.
Although CO2 is intimately mixed in the atmosphere, it is one and a half times the weight of air. It's relative heaviness means "it finds its way to the sea surface as surely as water flowing in a river". (Bob Beatty) The oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface.
To learn more about the fundamentals of CO2 interacting between ocean and atmosphere visit this site:
Quote: "It does not matter how much CO2 is pumped into the air, it will always find an equilibrium concentration ... always dependent on the sea temperature."
And this site: www.bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
Note the effects of ocean temperature, salinity levels, ocean convection currents, atmospheric winds. Conclusions are provided on pages 29 and 30. Note conclusion 9.8, quote: "Ocean temperature has a dominant influence on the level of carbon dioxide gas present in the atmosphere".
You can check for yourself using this link to the Mauna Loa recordings, the source of the UN IPCC's CO2 measurements:
Seasonal and other intra-annual natural variation in CO2 levels within each year is far greater than inter-annual variation between years. ie, variation between years is far less than the variation within each year.
Total human production of CO2 is much less than just the natural variation in global atmospheric levels. Analysis shows it is highly unlikely that humans caused the overall increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
Palaeoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter's excellent book 'Climate: the Counter Consensus' explains the huge errors in estimating CO2 levels, and then states quote: "One estimate, by Canadian climatologist Tim Ball, is that the human production of carbon dioxide (7.2 Gt C/year; IPCC, 2007) is more than four times less than the combined error (32 Gt) on the estimated carbon dioxide production from all other sources' ... 'even were human emissions to be reduced to zero, the difference would be lost among other uncertainties in the global carbon budget. What is presently missing from the public debate, then - and it is not provided by computer models, either - is an appreciation of both the small scale (in context) of human emissions, and the range of uncertainty in the carbon budget.' Pages 70-86.
Nature recycles CO2 out of the atmosphere within 12 months to 18 years.
'Climate: the Counter Consensus', Professor Bob Carter.
'Sources and Sinks of Carbon Dioxide', Tom Quirk, Energy and Environment, Vol 20, No.1, 2009.
Viscount Monckton exposes how the UN IPCC distorts even the definition of CO2's atmospheric residence time:
CO2 does not warm the oceans. The sun's energy warm's the ocean and then oceans determine atmospheric CO2 levels.
Human production likely has no impact on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Even if human production of CO2 is far greater than the 3% reported by the UN IPCC, it's clear that Nature controls atmospheric CO2 levels.
Scientist Timothy Casey clarifies carbon isotopes in CO2. The isotope in CO2 produced by human combustion of fuels containing carbon is indistinguishable from the isotope in CO2 from volcanoes.
Human production is less than the natural variation in CO2 levels. Nature's production overwhelms human production by 32 times. Nature alone determines reabsorption of CO2 from the atmosphere into oceans, biomass, soils and near-surface rocks. Despite continuous human production of CO2, Nature reduces CO2 levels seasonally. Nature controls atmospheric CO2 levels.
Seasonally, CO2 is a consequence of temperature, not a cause.
What about the overall rising trend? It is well known and accepted that finer resolution of ice core data shows temperature increases lead increases of CO2 levels by 400-800 years.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf page 21.
This was known in 2003 at least two years before production of Al Gore's movie 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Yet Al Gore implied the graph showed CO2 levels drive temperature. That's one of many falsities in his movie. Review quantitative analyses of his movie at:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 41-43 and pages 31-34.
After release of ice core research data proved temperature drives CO2 levels, advocates of human warming acknowledged temperature rises lead CO2 increases. Yet claimed that once CO2 reaches a certain level it takes over as the driver.
That's interesting. If CO2 is such a powerful driver of climate, what caused the CO2 levels to then plummet cyclically? How do they explain seasonal driving of global CO2 levels by temperature?
CO2 is a consequence of temperature, not a cause. Seasonally and on a lag of 400-800 years, CO2 levels follow temperature.
Earth has had three main atmospheres. During Earth's current atmosphere, CO2 has been far higher in Earth's relatively recent geological past. Scientists estimate that 550 million years ago it was as much as 18%, 470 times higher than current; 250-320 million years ago it was 1% (26x); 100 million years ago it was 5% (130x). Larger birds and even pterosaurs flew in Earth's past because the atmosphere was then denser. The atmosphere and its constituents vary naturally.
'A Short History of Planet Earth', by international award-winning geologist Plimer (2001), page 128.
Jo Nova references Berner and Scotese claiming that 550 million years ago CO2 was between 0.4% - 0.8%, 20 times higher than currently
For discussion of CO2 levels in more recent times consider:
Beck and Jaworowski separately point to 90,000 measurements during the last 180 years showing atmospheric CO2 levels up to 40% above current levels.
'Climate: the Counter Consensus', Professor Bob Carter, pages 70-86.
They refer to measurements being by Nobel Prize winners in Science, awarded after deliberation by a panel of scientists. Compare that with the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the UN IPCC - a political process within the Norwegian parliament.
Jaworowski exposes UN IPCC fraud used to fabricate a key graph on CO2 by sliding one of the graph's axes.
'The Deniers', by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon
Jaworowski's article exposing what he sees as the greatest scientific scandal of our time is here.
CO2 is not a 'pollutant'
CO2 is a natural and essential component of Earth's atmosphere. All vegetation depends on CO2. CO2 is not black soot as depicted by the ALP state government; it is colourless, odourless and non-toxic. It is a key component of our food cycle and our food. We exhale it. It's in our fizzy drinks. It's used in medical procedures. Like oxygen, carbon dioxide is essential for our life. Carbon is in every cell of every living organism.
During the last 100 years, corn yields have increased six fold in part due to science and in part due to naturally increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.
CO2 is not changing Earth's balance. CO2 is not overabundant. CO2 is non-toxic. CO2 is not a pollutant.
CO2 is essential for life on Earth - a perfect revenue base for controlling people
Although not a pollutant, CO2 it is the ideal tax base. It is intimately part of human respiration, an essential part of our food, in every cell of our body, fundamental to all life on Earth, and the key to affordable energy.
More enticing for politicians wanting to control, it is difficult to measure human production of CO2 at the source (factories, proportion of coal-fired electricity, cows' backsides, human respiration, belches, ...). This makes it ideal for using surrogate measures and proportions controlled not by measurement and science but by political whim and dictate. It provides perfect control of people and our activities.
How can human production of CO2, being just 3% of Earth's annual production, be harmful? It cannot.
Nature's 97% production of Earth's annual CO2 production is a wonderful blessing essential for all life on Earth. How can humanity's 3% be harmful? It cannot.
Especially when the variation alone in Nature's CO2 production is more than all human output?
New Satellite Data Contradicts Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory. The author John O'Sullivan is a science writer, legal adviser and contributor to the team that produced the acclaimed book "Slaying the Sky Dragon".
Real-world climate science - Basics needed to prove human causation of warming
To prove human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming, the following would need to be observed:
- Sustained unusually high global atmospheric temperatures;
- Ongoing rising global atmospheric temperatures;
- Clear evidence that carbon dioxide raises Earth's global atmospheric temperature;
- Clear evidence that human production of carbon dioxide controls global atmospheric CO2 levels;
- Clear evidence that warmer temperatures are catastrophic.
For each of these there is no scientific proof. Yet there is much real-world scientific proof showing they are not occurring.
Real-world climate science - Temperature facts
For a succinct introduction to real-world (empirical) science download 'Summary Findings'. Skim sections 5 through 15 by reading the orange text. Read in detail as needed.
Real-world science shows:
Accurate measurement of global atmospheric temperatures by weather balloon and later by satellite show no net warming since 1958 - just inherent variation in natural cooling, warming, cooling cycles;
Weather balloon temperature data graph:
Thorne et al, 2005, Revisiting radiosonde upper air temperatures from 1958 to 2002, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110, D18105, doi:10.1029/2004JD005753
Satellite temperature data graph:
After gradual slight cooling from 1958 through 1974 the media exploded with headlines implying the end of the world due to supposed forecast imminent, irreversible, catastrophic global freezing - blamed on human use of fuels containing carbon, such as coal and oil.
Now our government wants us to believe that the opposite forecast catastrophic consequence - warming - was caused by the same supposed culprit, fuels containing carbon.
The UN IPCC forecast rising atmospheric temperatures. Weather balloon and satellite measurements are the only known measurements of global atmospheric temperature. These show no net warming, just inherent variation in natural cooling, warming, cooling cycles.
Contrary to the UN IPCC's computer model projections, there is no hot spot in the atmosphere. Atmospheric temperatures are not rising abnormally. Since 1998, temperatures have been flat or falling slightly. In the last four winters many parts of the world have endured record cold winters
The missing hot spot:
Physical science from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.
Summary for Policymakers.
Eminent palaeoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter's books, papers and articles on climate science are here: members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm
Global warming: anthropogenic or not? An alternative view from Down Under by Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, geologist & environmental scientist:
UN IPCC shuns accurate atmospheric temperature evidence. Uses corrupted ground-based temperature 'records'
The UN IPCC claims rising atmospheric temperatures yet refuses to use recordings of atmospheric temperature. Instead it uses corrupted ground-based temperature recordings.
Ground-based recordings are proven to be faulty. They have been inaccurately measured, unscientifically manipulated, selectively used to increase apparent global temperature and exaggerated by use of the Urban Heat Island effect in cities where hot engines, bitumen and concrete replace cooling vegetation.
Independent findings show that even the USA meteorological office's temperature records have errors of up to 5 degrees at many stations and that 90% of stations do not meet standards. Yet America's records are the world's most accurate.
There is concern that temperature measurement stations have been removed from the compilation of global temperature to inflate temperature. This concern seems justified.
Explanation at www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
Australia's measurements are under a dark cloud. In December 2010 a group of concerned scientists, citizens and Senator Cory Bernardi formally requested the Auditor General to audit the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The group is concerned about unscientific tampering of temperature recordings that appear to fabricate or exaggerate warming. The Bureau of Meteorology is funded by the government.
Our mates in New Zealand are exposing their faulty records:
The UN IPCC's global average temperature is meaningless because it uses only corrupted ground-based measurements. Yet oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface. The UN IPCC data is biased toward city temperatures and excludes many rural measurements and those in colder regions, swamps, mountain ranges, deserts, and tundra.
Global temperatures in Earth's recent past were warmer than present. eg, USA in the 1930's. Record high temperatures on all continents' were set many decades ago. The most recent was Antarctica in 1974, at a time of low global atmospheric temperatures. Australia's record highest temperature was in 1889 (or 1960). That highlights the difficulty and possible irrelevance of calculating global temperatures when Courtillot explains regional variation seems more significant.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 18-21.
Uncorrupted rural temperature measurements across Australia and the USA show no net warming since 1890. Yet the UN IPCC deliberately excludes many rural stations.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 18-21 and 21-23.
Temperatures globally during the Medieval Warming Period 800 years ago were 0.5 to 2 degrees warmer than today. Temperatures in America during the 1930's were higher than those of the 1990's and since 2000. The Arctic's warmest recent decade was the 1940's.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf page 20, Archibald.
Science writer Jo Nova advises Huang and Pollack, 1997 state that the Medieval Warming Period was 0.5-1.5 degrees warmer than today.
Temperature changes have been less than half a degree, so slight that the human body cannot detect it. Temperature records before the 1980's are highly inaccurate because older thermometers could not read to an accuracy better than 1 degree - not 1/10th as claimed.
Temperature on all planets correlates with solar activity. Venus and Mars each have atmospheres around 97% CO2. Neither has any runaway greenhouse effect. No cars, farting cattle or industry have been discovered on other planets.
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo presents a succinct and easily understood paper:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 21-23 summarise D'Aleo's excellent paper.
D'Aleo's paper shows with simple diagrams that temperature does not correlate with CO2 over periods of several decades. Scientific studies show global temperature does closely correlate with ocean-atmosphere oscillations and to a lesser extent directly with solar activity. Climate is complex.
Brian Leyland's forecasts of temperature based on Southern Oscillation index are proving accurate. The UN IPCC's computer projections are hopelessly in error. Leyland uses science, while the UN IPCC relies on politics to drive its models.
Oceans temperatures falling
Oceans hold far more heat than does our atmosphere. Since 2003 ocean temperatures have been flat or falling slightly.
Why does the government continue spreading inaccuracies? How is Professor Wil Steffen assisting government errors? Note diagram top of page 9. Then read on for reality.
It is the oceans that warm the atmosphere, not the atmosphere that warms the oceans.
The UN IPCC downplays the known effect of solar and ocean-atmosphere oscillations such as El Nino Southern Oscillation Index. Yet variation in solar irradiance and especially in magnetic field and particle emissions explain temperature variation. Solar activity drives ocean-atmosphere oscillations, known to explain temperature variation in recent decades. These explain the 12 years of cooling since 1998 and the higher temperature of 1930 and that whole decade.
www.conscious.com.au for Dr Vincent Gray's work and especially
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray documents/Chapter 9 UN IPCC WG1 AR4 Vincent Gray.pdf (search for El Ni)
Science shows Earth's latest, modest warming from 1976 to 1998 was neither unnatural nor exceptional. Science shows it is explained by complex, multiple sources. Real-world measurements contradict the UN IPCC's claims.
Neither the amount nor rate of temperature variation is unusual. Compared with many past climate variations and changes, Earth's most recent climate warming variation was mild and slow.
Ever wondered about the energy in a hurricane and how it compares with human generated energy? Vincent Gray has. See his article here:
What about horror stories on sea level, insect-borne diseases, storm activity...?
Depending on location, sea level is static or rising at a constant rate of just 0.3 millimetre per year in Australia and just 1.6 mm globally as it has for 100 years and is not accelerating. Sea level in Pacific islands is not rising at all.
www.icsm.gov.au/SP9/links/msq_tidalreferenceframe.html And go to 'Sea Level Rise'
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/ABC transcripta.pdf
At current rates of sea level rise in Australia, in 100 years sea level will be around one inch higher.
Gold Coast resident Gregg Thompson thoroughly investigated and audited sea levels to understand whether or not his investments are threatened. They're not. They're safe.
Updated version: Have we been told the truth about sea level?
Natural extreme weather events such as storms, floods and droughts are not increasing
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Karoly E-mail January, 2011.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/Notes for web site.pdf
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic experts/E-mail reply.pdf
'Climate of Extremes', Michaels and Balling
'Air Con', by New Zealand investigative journalist Ian Wishart
'The Deniers', by Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon
'Unstoppable Global Warming' by distinguished Emeritus Professor Fred Singer and Dennis Avery
Antarctic ice shelves not melting at all, new field data show
Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time - and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.
"Previous ocean models ... have predicted temperatures and melt rates that are too high, suggesting a significant mass loss in this region that is actually not taking place," says Tore Hattermann of the Norwegian Polar Institute, member of a team which has obtained two years' worth of direct measurements below the massive Fimbul Ice Shelf in eastern Antarctica - the first ever to be taken.
According to a statement from the American Geophysical Union, announcing the new research:
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team's results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
Hatterman and his colleagues, using 12 tons of hot-water drilling equipment, bored three holes more than 200m deep through the Fimbul Shelf, which spans an area roughly twice the size of New Jersey. The location of each hole was cunningly chosen so that the various pathways by which water moves beneath the ice shelf could be observed, and instruments were lowered down.
The boffins also supplemented their data craftily by harvesting info from a biology project, the Marine Mammal Exploration of the Oceans Pole to Pole (MEOP) effort, which had seen sensor packages attached to elephant seals.
"Nobody was expecting that the MEOP seals from Bouvetoya would swim straight to the Antarctic and stay along the Fimbul Ice Shelf for the entire winter," Hattermann says. "But this behaviour certainly provided an impressive and unique data set."
Normally, getting sea temperature readings along the shelf in winter would be dangerous if not impossible due to shifting pack ice - but the seals were perfectly at home among the grinding floes.
Overall, according to the team, their field data shows "steady state mass balance" on the eastern Antarctic coasts - ie, that no ice is being lost from the massive shelves there. The research is published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
This is good news indeed, as some had thought that huge amounts of ice were melting from the region, which might mean accelerated rates of sea level rise in future.
Disease incidence and severity are not increasing. Science is enabling reductions in disease apart from those areas where UN politics has corrupted science such as malaria.
Every period of warmer temperatures has been enormously beneficial for human and environmental health and for environmental diversity. Earth's warmer periods have been highly beneficial economically. History and science show we need fear only global cooling.
Do you wonder why more people choose to take holidays in warmer climates? Ever wondered why there are far more deaths from extreme cold weather than from extreme warm weather?
The forebears of humans and higher order species alive today evolved and thrived in temperatures 2-3 degrees warmer than today. That includes polar bears. We and most of Earth's species prefer warmer temperatures.
'Climate: the Counter Consensus', Professor Bob Carter, pages 38-43, figure 1.
Warmer temperatures increase diversity of species. This makes life easier for animals, including polar bears.
We are fortunate to be living in a warm period. It won't last forever. People misrepresenting climate are preventing funds from being spent on the real climate challenge - how to adapt to cooler temperatures. What will the poor do? Will our political systems cope with people facing freezing? How much will food and crop yields decrease with temperature?
Despite spending an estimated $100 billion dollars on research since the 1980's no evidence of any human impact on global atmospheric temperature has been found.
What does drive climate change?
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf page 24 summarises factors really driving climate.
The impact of solar activity (irradiance and more significantly the sun's magnetic field and particle emissions) is clear.
www.conscious.com.au and refer to the work of Vincent Gray especially
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/gray documents/Chapter 9 UN IPCC WG1 AR4 Vincent Gray.pdf
According to Plimer, the sun sends to Earth every hour as much energy as humans generate each year.
'Heaven and Earth', by international award winning geologist Professor Ian Plimer
The UN IPCC downplays solar and El Nino SOI that are known to hugely influence climate. These explain temperature variations.
Three differing scientific groups on the Greenhouse Gas Effect Theory/Supposition
In honour of its namesake, The Galileo Movement encourages debate, preferably based on accurate real-world observational data and consistent with the laws of Nature. We welcome diversity of opinion and value integrity in resolving differences scientifically.
Basic questions on the UN's claimed greenhouse warming mechanism are in Appendix 19 of a report into CSIRO here. For the direct link to Appendix 19.
There are three broad scientific views on the UN IPCC's greenhouse gas effect theory/supposition. There are eminent scientists in all three groups. The links provided in each group are merely starters for those wanting to explore. Readers with more effective links are invited to send them to The Galileo Movement.
1. Those aligned with the UN IPCC believing that carbon dioxide has a potentially catastrophic effect on climate because they claim increasing atmospheric CO2 levels invoke positive feedbacks:
2. Those believing in the greenhouse effect yet believing its impact is either insignificant or more than offset by negative feedbacks from Nature. Real-world measurements show negative feedbacks:
3. Scientists who believe that carbon dioxide in the open atmosphere has a cooling effect and that the supposed greenhouse effect contradicts laws of Nature. They combine the laws of thermodynamics, mathematics and radiative physics:
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/understanding-thermodynamic-atmosphere.html leading to the next link,
Restoring scientific integrity and inquiry at principia-scientific.org
Scientist Timothy Casey reviews the 'original' papers that reportedly spawned the supposed 'greenhouse' effect.
Including John Tyndall's 1861 work.
Timothy Casey goes on to question the 'greenhouse' supposition:
A British citizen exercising his objective thinking raises profound questions and answers.
Members in the second and third groups agree that there has been no significant warming due to human production of CO2. Both see claims of human causation of warming as being based on faulty science or corruption of science.
Healthy dissent and debate are at the heart of science's quest to understand Nature. Respectful dissension can stimulate higher learning beyond what could be achieved without dissension. Objectivity is assured by access to and verification of real-world data and by consistency with proven laws of Nature/science.
Read how a superb climatologist like Roy Spencer is challenged by a team of scientists on his belief that the atmosphere acts like a heat-trapping 'blanket':
In science, there is no room for fear-based exclusion of views or adhominem attacks and disparaging labels. Such behaviour can cover for fear of being in error. It hinders scientific progress.
Members of The Galileo Movement can call on, and have called on, scientists and colleagues in each of the three groups above.
True scientists are sceptics
When given new data or theories, true scientists immediately take a sceptical position. They request access to the data and the proponents' methods. They audit both data and method. They scrutinise consistency with existing laws of physics. If they can replicate the conclusions without error, the theory is accepted. If not, the theory is rejected.
Scepticism is a fundamental part of science and a fundamental responsibility of scientists.
There is no real-world evidence of unusual global warming. There is no real-world evidence of human causation of temperature rises. There is much real-world evidence proving human activity did not cause global warming.
Asking Basic Questions
Climate Realists Resource FaceBook site. A group to reference when you need information to debunk Alarmists. Run by Cole Pritchard.
Post-normal science - the modern political cancer
Riddled with corruption, 'post-normal science' has replaced science. 'Science' has become a political tool and weapon to control people. Unless stopped, misrepresentation of 'science' could return humanity to the dark ages.
Real science relies on consistent repeatable observations of Nature combined with proven laws of Nature. This can be supplemented by use of computer models, providing the models are based on fundamental factors that are well understood.
The UN IPCC fails on all three. Its reports contradict, disregard, manipulate and/or misrepresent real-world scientific observations. The UN IPCC distorts or misrepresents accepted theories.
The UN IPCC and government rely on unvalidated computer models to fabricate temperature, sea level and other projections. These consistently contradict real-world observations in Nature.
Failed global warming projections and false predicted catastrophes:
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_CO2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf Figure 3 on page
The models fail because they use an assumed outcome and faulty relationships to produce results aligned with the political agenda that drives them. Their core premise that CO2 levels drive temperature is false. In Table 2-11 of its 2007 report, even the UN IPCC itself admits that of 16 forcing factors on which the models depend, 13 have low or very low levels of understanding. The sole factor for which the UN IPCC claims high level of understanding is disputed in the real world and contradicted by real-world data.
The models omit or poorly model many significant climate drivers, including clouds and microphysical electrical aspects of clouds known to explain temperature variation far greater than those measured in the atmosphere in recent decades.
The models assume positive feedback with increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Real-world measurements show this is false.
Geophysicist Professor Dr Vincent Courtillot's comment on the UN IPCC's reliance on computer models: "... it's not falsifiable. Hence it's not scientific".
The models are thus destined to be erroneous and their projections repeatedly fail.
Yet the UN IPCC and government base their claims on computer projections, wrapped in words implying the claims are supported by real-world evidence. Models have become the tool to produce what is falsely implied to be 'evidence' of the politically necessary outcome.
Post-normal science is practised by the United Nations with support from political and academic financial beneficiaries. It is characterised by:
- Opinion and belief replacing objective evidence. That advocates of human causation of global warming cite 'scientific consensus' shows ignorance of science. Science is determined by data and verifiability in the real world, not by marshalling of opinion. Politics depends on consensus or power of position and numbers. Regardless, there is no such consensus. The claim it exists is false and reveals further ignorance or dishonesty;
- Appeal to authority to legitimise falsehoods and to prevent scrutiny by media;
- Smearing those who dissent even though scepticism is a fundamental part of science;
- Failing to provide real-world evidence;
- Using emotive language and glossy publications to imply evidence that does not exist;
- Condensing complex topics like climate and the Murray-Darling River Basin into simple but false claims that are easily understood and difficult to later dislodge using real science's complexities;
- Penalising and preventing genuine research. Scientists failing to comply with the UN IPCC's position are denied research funding and even employment. Many dissenting scientists have been shut down;
- Directing research to produce outcomes aligned with political objectives implied by government funding. Refer to McLean's references in this web site's Section 1, The Corruption;
- Uncertainties are either grossly underestimated or ignored when the aim is to produce support for political agenda. www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
- Entrenching authority and trusting government despite personal and political agenda;
- Use of propaganda techniques such as repetition of falsities and implying association with entirely separate known facts. eg, implying CO2 caused global warming by presenting accurate data on humanity's large tonnages of CO2 production without mentioning Nature produces 32 times more and while avoiding data that CO2 is less than 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere.
It's significant that in the topic of climate, almost all errors are in one direction - to overstate global warming and human contribution. This is statistically highly unlikely and thus appears deliberate and systematic.
These and other tools are used to control information and prevent dissent. Science has become a religion and a political tool.
See this for yourself by reading the UN IPCC's sole chapter 9
See that it claims warming and attributes it to human carbon dioxide - yet has no real-world evidence.
Bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science and prominent universities' climate institutes have been formed to tap government funding. Despite their cleverly worded implied claims these fail to provide any real-world scientific evidence of global warming caused by humans. It seems that some academics think glossy publications and vague statements implying human causation can replace real-world science.
Yet we're paying taxes to give these institutions grants to supposedly research climate.
It seems they merely take the money and become unscientific advocates for government taxes. We pay, they play, so we can pay even more taxes.
Yet science originally ended political bullying while freeing humanity from superstition and persecution. It's vital we return to real-world science.
Basic understanding of variation is lacking in UN IPCC's claims
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 35-37.
The UN IPCC's claims demonstrate faulty understanding of variation. The UN IPCC seems to not understand, or misrepresents, the difference between 'process changes' and 'inherent variation'. As in management, this leads to wasting resources chasing inherent variation in the delusion it is a process change. It means that such resources are diverted from real problems and opportunities.
In a world with significant real environmental challenges and enormous humanitarian challenges, the opportunity cost of the UN IPCC's falsities is huge - and deadly.
Instead of unlocking Nature's secrets, politicised 'science' is disrespecting Nature
Until the advent of climate corruption, science was focused largely on exploring our world to understand Nature and unlock her secrets for improving people's safety and lives. The UN IPCC and its political forces and associated aligned interests now say humans control our planet. Science is now being misrepresented to disrespect Nature.
The UN IPCC's efforts disconnect humans from Nature. Yet we are a product of and part of Nature. Individually and as a civilisation we benefit from confirming, appreciating and celebrating our inherent ties with Nature.
When Nature's annual CO2 production is 32 times greater than humanity's production and is recognised as a life-giving blessing, how can human production of CO2 be catastrophic ? It cannot - human CO2 is beneficial.
Nonetheless, lets assume human CO2 causes warming:
Lets consider percentages and rough proportions of molecules. The latter accurately depict the order of magnitude.
Proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere: less than 0.04%, actually, 0.0385%. That's roughly 1 molecule of CO2 in 2,600 molecules of air.
Proportion of Earth's annual production of CO2: Humans 3%, Nature 97%. In the long term, that's roughly 0.0385 x 0.03 = 0.0001% or 1 molecule in 85,800 molecules of air.
Australia's share of global human production is around 1.3%. Lets assume it will increase, say 1.5%
Australian CO2's share of Earth's atmosphere is 0.00001733%, that's 1 molecule in every 5.7 million molecules of air.
Wait, we're not finished. If the government succeeds in destroying the economy by cutting Australia's production by 5%, that would reduce Australian human produced CO2 to 0.00001646%, that's 1 molecule in 6 million molecules of air.
According to Professor Tim Flannery, the government's Chief Climate Commissioner, after considering the growth in population and the economy from the year 2000 to 2020, the 5% cut in CO2 production would be 26% per person. That's slicing more than one quarter of the economy to reduce Australian human CO2 from 0.00001733% to 0.00001646%.
(Comments made at Climate Commission's Ipswich meeting, Thursday, April 7th, 2011)
Using broad calculations, this leads to a temperature drop of 0.0000005 degrees, half of one millionth of a degree. If all nations cut CO2 output by 5%, that would reduce temperatures by 0.00005%, half of one ten thousandth of a degree.
Viscount Monckton used the UN IPCC's own equations to calculate the temperature reduction from Australia's 5% reduction in CO2 output would be: 0.00005 degree.
Using Kyoto Protocol methods, Viscount Monckton calculates that the reduction in global temperatures by 2100 from Australia cutting all CO2 production (shutting down all industry and transport) would be 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit.
All of these are far less than the accuracy of temperature measurement which is really only +/- 0.1 degrees C. It's many times less than the inherent natural variation in Earth's temperature. It's far less than the temperature difference when a cloud passes overhead.
The government's own Chief Climate Commissioner, Tim Flannery admits that even if all nations were successful in reducing CO2 output, we wouldn't see any effect for 1,000 years. Yet the same man says the catastrophic impacts of not reducing CO2 output will be visible within decades, possibly within years.
He earlier forecast that Brisbane and all mainland capital cities would be out of water by 2009. It's now 2011 and the problem this year is too much rain. Brisbane's dams are overflowing. That's one of many failed and unfounded alarming forecasts.
Remember, CO2 does not determine temperature. Temperature determines CO2 levels.
The push to price carbon dioxide is futile, it can produce no impact no climate.
Not just futile, deadly
When confronted by lack of real-world evidence for their claims, some advocates claiming human causation of global warming cite the Precautionary Principle.
That states that the risk of not doing something about supposed human global warming is too high. They imply that there is no damage by taking action even if action is not needed. The precautionary principle says the cost of doing something is much less than the cost of not doing anything.
The cost of reducing global human production of CO2 by 5% would be trillions of dollars. The benefit is zero.
Thus the cost:benefit ratio would be infinite. As internationally eminent American meteorologist and UN IPCC contributor Professor Richard Lindzen says, quote: "who could possibly argue that Australia's proposed actions would have any discernible impact on Australia's climate. Nonetheless, there seems to be (government) support for a policy where the cost benefit ratio is essentially infinite. Why is that?"
The UN IPCC's predictions are false. Pushing a price on carbon dioxide can have no impact on temperature. Remember, on a seasonal basis and with an 800-year lag, CO2 levels are a consequence of temperature not a cause.
Even if human production had a miniscule impact on atmospheric CO2 levels, how can Australia make any meaningful impact when Australia produces 1.0-1.3% of all human production of CO2? How could it have any impact while just the annual increase in human CO2 from China alone is greater than all CO2 produced by Australians?
Where else could those trillions be invested to protect humanity and the environment? Curing HIV-Aids, ending starvation and malnutrition, improving third-world access to clean water supplies, curbing real pollution of air, water and soil, giving the poor access to cheap, reliable electrical power, ...
Those claiming humans caused global warming are diverting valuable finite funds from research into ending the greatest humanitarian threats. Proponents of human causation of global warming are sentencing tens of millions of people to needless misery or even death.
The cost benefit is horrendous.
Will you stand by idly and allow the irresponsible uncaring sentencing of millions of people to unnecessary hardship and even death?
Remember DDT? The United Nations Environmental Program is reportedly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 30-50 million people after UNEP advocated banning DDT despite DDT's remarkable success eradicating malaria. Typical of UNEP, that ban was politically motivated and completely contradicted the science.
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/The Eco Fraud_Part 3.pdf
Challenge to a debate
The eight Australian academics prominent in promoting human causation of warming are challenged to debate publicly at a mutually acceptable venue with a mutually acceptable chairperson. The debate will include:
- The UN IPCC - the basis of the government climate policy
- Real-world science - the only sound basis of climate policy
- The economics - the impacts of climate policy
Followed by an open forum for audience to hold speakers accountable for data sources.
The government's Climate Commission is holding sessions around the country to convince the community of its case. Based on personal experience attending the Climate Commission, it's not a conversation it's a contrivance. It's not presenting science, it's misrepresenting science. It's not educating communities, it's misleading communities.
We challenge the Climate Commission to jointly hold a second session the day after or day before its community events.
This debate challenge is addressed to any of the eight Australian academics prominent in promoting climate alarm.
Discover for yourself
Given that the 'science' is corrupt and there is no real-world evidence for the UN IPCC's claim and much real-world evidence that humans cannot affect global climate, browse this web site, check links for yourself, visit other sites and make up your own mind.
Consider what UN IPCC Lead Author Professor John Christy has to say on global warming and on the UN IPCC's corruption of science at:
Read New Zealand investigative journalist Ian Wishart's detailed and thorough investigation in his book 'Air Con'.
See Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon's interviews of internationally eminent scientists - experts in their fields - in his book 'The Deniers'.
Check for yourself comments by the late writer Michael Crichton at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2097
We need to forgive those who have corrupted science. True forgiveness brings clarity of mind. Clear thinking is needed to restore integrity to science.
Please help restore scientific integrity by ending misrepresentation of science
Please help us access mainstream media to inform the public of the real-world science so people can be reassured that climate fear and guilt are unfounded and that integrity can be restored to science. You can make a donation here.
Please ask your members of federal parliament to take action to end the corruption by demanding a royal commission or independent judicial investigation requiring evidence under oath to investigate the corruption of science. Offer them your vote and support if they vote against any carbon dioxide tax or 'trading scheme'.
Parliamentary contact details:
House of Representatives: list of Members
Senate: list of Senators
Further reading - Discover for yourself
Based on a list compiled by Gregg Thompson. Jo Nova provides many sites and books for exploring.
Please feel welcome to send us your recommendations for listing.
For discussion and answers to a variety of global warming topics:
joannenova.com.au/about provides comprehensive material, sources and links
For a huge variety of presentations and papers by eminent scientists:
The Heartland Institute, international conferences on climate, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2010, 2010:
members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm Professor Bob Carter
greenhouse.geologist-1011.net Tim Casey
For a variety of views from many angles:
Palaeontologist Professor Bob Carter on testing the claims of warming caused by humans:
The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary
This may be available on the internet in some nations
Comments by scientists including meteorologists:
Analysis on Al Gore's predictions and what real scientists say:
Objective quantified analysis of Al Gore's statements and movie:
www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Thriving with nature and humanity_single.pdf pages 41-43, 31-34.
Climate scientist Roy Spencer:
UN IPCC Lead Author John Christy:
Independent contribution by John Penhallurick
Two independent contributions from John Curtis and Colin Brooks on Climate & Solar Flux:
First Principles perspective
An independent contribution from Colin Davidson:
Emission of radiation from the Earth
Books and other further reading:
UN IPCC, 2007, chapter 9, Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change. Check for yourself the IPCC's lack of real-world evidence, reliance solely on unvalidated models and wording that falsely implies scientific evidence
Archibald, 2010, 'The Past and Future of Climate', self-published
oker, C, 2009, 'The Real Global Warming Disaster', Continuum
Booker and North, 'Global Warming: the myth'
Carter, 2010, 'Climate: the Counter Consensus', Stacey International
Comby, J, 'Global Warming: myth or reality'
Copley et al, 2011, Energy Security, ISSA
Crichton, Michael, 'State of Fear'
Endersbee, 2005, 'A Voyage of Discovery', self-published
Goreham, S, 'Climatism: The full compendium - the science, the ideology, the UN & the history'
Hayden, HC, 'A Primer on CO2 and Climate'
Horner, Christopher, 'Red Hot Lies'
Horner, C, 'The Poltiically Correct Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)'
Idso, C, 'CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs'
Idso, C, 'The Science of CO2 and the Oceans'
Innis, 2009, 'Energy Keepers, Energy Killers', Merrill Press
Johnson, Leo, 'Understanding the Global Warming Hoax'
Kininmonth, W, 'Climate Change - a natural hazard'
Klaus, 2006, 'Blue Planet in Green Shackles', Competitive Enterprise Institute
Lawson, Mark, 'A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy: bad forecasting, terrible solutions'
Lawson, Nigel, 'An Appeal to Reason'
Lomborg, 2001, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist', Cambridge
Mackay, 1841, 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions', Harriman House Classics
Marks, Vincent, 'Global Warming and Other Bollocks'
Michaels Ed, 2005, 'Shattered Consensus', Rowman & Littlefield
Michael & Balling, Jr, 2009, 'Climate of Extremes', Cato Institute
Millloy, Steve, 'How Environmentalism Plans to Control Your Life and What You can do to Stop Them'
Moran, A, Ed, 2010, 'Climate Change: the Facts', IPA
Mosher, S, 'Climategate: the CRUTape Letters'
Murray, Iain, 'The really Inconvenient Truths: seven environmental catastrophes liberals don't want you to know about - because they helped cause them'
O'Sullivan and international team of scientists, 2010, 'Slaying the Sky Dragon'
Paltridge, G, 'The Climate Caper'
Plimer, 2001, 'A Short History of Planet Earth', ABC
Plimer, 2009, 'Heaven & Earth', Connor Court
Singer, Ed, NIPCC. 2008, 'Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate', SEPP
Singer & Avery, 2007, 'Unstoppable Global Warming', Rowman & Littlefield
Solomon, 2008, 'The Deniers', Richard Vigilante Books
Spencer, Roy, 'Climate Confusion - How global warming hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians and misguided policies that hurt the poor'
Spencer, Roy, 'The bad Science and Bad Policy of Obama's Global Warming Agenda'
Spencer, Roy, 'The Great Global Warming Blunder'
Svensmark, H and Calder, N, 'The Chilling Stars'
Wishart, 2009, 'Air Con', Howling At the Moon publishing
Watch for Dr Wes Allen's forthcoming book, 'The Weather Makers Re-examined'.