Climate Change Information
Introduction

The purpose of this website is to consolidate the many websites, videos and news articles pertaining to scientists` concerns over the questionable way that the IPCC and other government funded agencies have portrayed climate change. There is no direct climate scientist input so there is no new information on this website, rather it is just research on existing information and organized into this central location.

For years celebrity environmentalists such as Al Gore and David Suzuki had us believe that humans were the cause of climate change, that we were heating up the earth, that all bad storms are to be blamed on this and eventually this would destroy our climate and ability to live. Below you will find why many scientists and meteoroligists to not believe this.

Menu
Show All
Definitions


Climate change alarmist/activist: A person who believes humans are causing climate change through the manufacturing of greenhouse gases such as CO2.
Climate change skeptic: A person who believes that climate change DOES exist, that humans are increasing greenhouse gases and that greenhouse gases can cause increases in global temperature but question whether human contribution is enough to affect the climate in a negative way. Rather, a skeptic believes that current climate change is the result of natural factors more than human.
Climate change denier: A term made up by climate change alarmists to refer to climate change skeptics to make it appear as though the skeptics are denying climate change. This ironically applies more to the alarmists as they seem to deny that climate change could have any natural factors affecting it.
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change. The treaty from 1992 is "The UNFCCC objective is to 'stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'". In other words, the IPCC`s objective is to only focus on greenhouse gases and not any other sources of climate change.
AGW: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory - the belief that humans are causing global warming through the production of greenhouse gases.

Climate Has Always Changed

Climate change is real. Whether you are an alarmist or a skeptic there is overwelming scientific evidence showing that earth`s climate changes over time.

According to the Utah Geological Survey, "At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth`s history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today..."

"Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, including two major changes in just the past 40 years."
"By the end of this 21st Century, a cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due again sometime soon. But, only time will tell." Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
By Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann

Based on glacier ice core samples there have been at least 4 ice ages (global cooling) followed by a period of global warming each time. Neither global cooling nor global warming is a new thing that is caused by humans.

Most people are aware that during the Medieval Warm Period Vikings had settled on the southern shores of Greenland as the temperatures back then were about as warm as they are today and could sustain some farming until the Little Ice Age. However, there was a time even before this that Greenland was even warmer. According to a Scientific American report from 2007 about 400,000+ years ago Greenland (in the Dye 3 area) had forests, insects and spiders. "And based on the tree species found, Greenland must have been warmer than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) in summer and never colder than one degree F (-17 degrees C) in winter, much warmer than present conditions." This means that Greenland has gone through previous periods of either local or global warming and what it is experiencing today is nothing new and should not be automatically assumed to be a new man-made event.

A climate alarmists article from Skeptical Science tries to state that past climate changes where both CO2 and temperatures were higher than today occurred only in prehistoric times (the Pliocene and Eocene periods) which were many millions of years ago. There is no mention of the recent warm period of Greenland as stated above.

As of 2015/2016 California is experiencing a large drought. Many climate alarmists would suggest this is evidence of man-made climate change. According to a ZME Science article "Between 6,000 and 1,000 B.C.E., during the middle of a period called the Holocene, core samples suggest that California went through a dry period that lasted 5,000 years...Sediment records show the Pacific ocean was in a La Nina-like state which drastically reduced precipitations and made California warm and dry. A similar, albeit much briefer, period was seen between 950 and 1250 C.E, which paleoclimatologists commonly refer to as the medieval climate anomaly." In other words, California's climate changed in the past without AGW so a change today does not automatically mean AGW.

According to a recent Columbia University article about core samples taken nearly 1,000 feet below the Dead Sea there were two major draughts 120,000 years ago and again 10,000 years ago there were greater than any modern day draught. Again, severe draughts existed before AGW.

Some scientists also believe that Mars is undergoing climate change. "All around the ice cap, there is evidence for a climate change from ice age to interglacial period...". On Mars, where there are no humans, the ice caps have also been shrinking. Ice caps melting due to natural climate change is not unique to Earth as seen also on Mars.

IPCC: A Closer Look

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the primary scientific organization driving the concept of man-made climate change through the production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane which is referred to as AGW. The IPCC is funded by governments from many countries around the world (an IPCC Trust Fund established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)).

A look at the 2013 IPCC climate report: IPCC`s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). This section is a quick overview of IPCC research and predictions and the flaws associated to them. For more detail, see the individual sections below this section.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4).{2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2-4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5-5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth`s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent ( high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2-4.7}

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental- scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3-10.6, 10.9}

Observing how every prediction made by the IPCC has flaws that are identified by other reputable scientific organizations such as NASA, Physics.org, Nature.com, etc. then it becomes apparent and very important for society to allow for all scientific research on the subject of climate change and not just the research endorsed by the IPCC. Please see the sections below for more detail on the issues of IPCC research.

CO2 - Infrared Absorption

In order for any gas to be a greenhouse gas it must be able to absorb infrared light being reflected off the surface of the earth and convert that to heat energy. In Earth`s atmosphere, the predominate GH gases are Water Vapor, CO2, Methane and other trace gases. See chart below.

Source

CO2 mostly only abosrbs infrared light at two wavelengths: 4.3 and 14.9. According to 2013 article from the Imperial College London that studied Infrared spectral absorption by water vapour and carbon dioxide, they stated, "The CO2 4.3um absorption coefficients are the strongest in the infrared region but are located where the radiative intensity is much weaker. Thus, although it plays a role in the upper atmosphere, this band is unimportant to the greenhouse effect on Earth.", thereby eliminating the 4.3 wavelength absorption and leaving only the 14.9 wavelength (Page 5, 2nd last paragraph).

A Harvard University study, section 7.3.3 Interpretation of the terrestrial radiation spectrum they state, "Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.". Looking at the chart above, one can see that Water Vapor already absorbs most of the 14.9 wavelength leaving little more for CO2 to absorb. In section 7.4.2 Application, final paragraph, they state, "...we see that over a 100-year time horizon, reducing SF6 emissions by 1 kg is as effective from a greenhouse perspective as reducing CO2 emissions by 24,900 kg. Such considerations are important in designing control strategies to meet regulatory goals!".

Source

SF6 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic, non-flammable compound with high chemical stability, obtained through chemical reactions between sulfur, and fluorinated gas produced by the electrolysis of anhydrous hydrofluoric acid (HF). SF6 absorbs at wavelengths 10.3 and 10.7, right where there is no absorption from either Water Vapor or CO2.

SF6 is another significant source of fluorinated gas emissions. This gas is mainly used by the electric power industry as an insulator and arc interrupter. The other important source of SF6 emissions is from its use as a cover gas in magnesium production. Total SF6 emissions equal 7160 tonnes annually.1

SF6 is used extensively in equipment for the transmission and distribution of electricity. Emissions occur through leakage and maintenance losses. SF6 is also used as a cover gas to protect molten magnesium from oxidation. Emissions are caused during the production process when the gas is released into the atmosphere. Source. Ironically, as society switches to electric vehicles and thereby increases the transimission of electricty to charge these vehicles, more SF6 will be leaked into the atmosphere which has a far greater greenhouse effect than CO2.

Given Earth`s greenhouse gas composition, CO2 does not play a significant role in temperature and therefore has little effect on climate change.

Other Planets And Greenhouse Gases

PlanetTemp. DayTemp. NightCO2 %Atmosphere PressurePPM
Mercury427 C-173 C000
Venus462 C462 C96.5908,402,9484
Earth25 C20 C0.04071410
Mars20 C-63 C950.0065,601
Jupiter725 C
-160
24,000
725 C
-160
24,000
0varies with depth0
Some alarmists reference Venus as an example of high CO2 levels and high temperatures. The purpose of the above table is to demonstrate that CO2 alone is not a driving force for temperatures. Atmospheric pressure/density has a much higher influence on temperatures. Both Venus and Mars have about 95% CO2 but vary greatly in temperatures; Venus has 540 times the atmospheric pressure of Mars. Jupiter, with little CO2, has temperatures that vary from 725 C to -160 to about 24,000 C depending on depth and therefore pressure.

Despite Mars`s low air density, it still has 5,601 ppm CO2 compared to Earth`s 410 ppm and yet is still much colder.

Water Vapour Is The Main Greenhouse Gas, Not CO2

Wikipedia: Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds
NOAA: Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere...yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change.
Based on the information above, water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas yet most climate alarmists omit this from their charts (left). Correctly displaying all greenhouse gases in the second chart shows how much less humans have an influence on these overall gases.

Let's examine CO2 more closely. Pre-industrial CO2 (naturally occurring) was 280 ppm. Current levels are 400 ppm. The human made level is 120 ppm. The left graph below shows this. During this same time period human population increased from around 1 billion to over 7 billion people. Even without industry, humans would still add CO2 to the atmosphere because 1) we all exhale CO2, 2) increased deforestation for cities and farms, 3) billions of more cows and other livestock for our food

Adding the break-down of CO2 back into the overall greenhouse gas chart, we get the following below. Notice that industrial CO2 only accounts for about 4% of all greenhouse gases. This 4% is the only thing that humans can change unless we also reduce our population (which is unlikely).

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock a major threat to environment. This report states that livestock produces more CO2 (and methane) than transportation! If livestock populations can do this than so can human population growth.

A Little Perspective

This chart shows the different milestone ranges of CO2 in ppm. They are:

Farmers and horticulturists know that their plants grow best with CO2 levels around 1200 ppm. NASA and other scientists have observed through satellite images that the earth has been greening in the past 30+ years as a result of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is nothing in farming, horticulture or palaeontology to suggest that increases in CO2 is bad. All life does better with increased levels of CO2. Our current levels of CO2 are well below the optimum level for plant growth and we should actually consider increasing this level to support an increasing world population. Trying to lower CO2 levels would likely hinder plant growth and put poor people`s lives at risk.

From this chart you can see how CO2 compares to the entire atmosphere. CO2 only accounts for 0.0407% of the entire atmosphere. Therefore, we have changed the entire atmosphere by 0.0123%. Oxygen on the other hand accounts for 20% of our atmosphere. The changes in CO2 are barely measurable. Looking at the three drivers of temperature as percentages you can see that CO2 accounts for maybe 20%. Cutting CO2 would have minimal affect on temperatures. Resources would be best spent on adaptation to climate change rather than trying to control it.

Human population on the other hand has grown exponentially during the same time period as industrialization. CO2 has grown by about 25% where as human population has grown by about 500%. It would appear that population is the far greater threat to the environment than CO2.

A GSA article estimated that "83 percent of the total land surface...is directly influenced by human activities." This influence affects Albedo.

Another interesting section of this same article from geosociety.org about transforming the Earth`s surface. They state, "...many of the problems now facing humanity will be gravely exacerbated if the population continues to increase and the land continues to degrade..."

So, 0.0123% CO2 vs 83% Albedo. Which do you think would have the greater impact on the environment?

Images of the Aral Sea from 1960 to 2009. Humans created irrigation canals that diverted water away from this sea causing it to dry up. Population growth, not CO2.

Waves of plastic garbage wash up onto the shores of Dominican Repulic whenever there is a heavy rainfall. Population growth, not CO2.

Not only does population affect albedo, it also affects CO2. Prior to industrialization (1850`s), world population was around 1 billion people and CO2 levels around 280. Since each person "leaves a footprint on the earth" (food, housing, transporation, other activities), as population increased to 7.5 billion (as of 2018), CO2 also increased by 120 ppm. There is a direct link between population growth and CO2 growth. It would be impossible to reduce CO2 without reducing population. An article named SIX INCONVENIENT TRUTHS from Negative Poluation Growth on the subject of population and the environment.

Polar Bears Doing Fine

Polar Bear Population As Of 2015
Despite some media hype about polar bears dying off because of global warming, their actual numbers seem to indicate otherwise. Polar bears survived the previous global warming where Greenland saw forests growing on it just over 400,000 years ago.

A 2016 article from NASA regarding satellite images of polar bears found that "...in some areas of the Arctic, polar bear numbers are likely declining, but in others, they appear to be stable or possibly growing."
"For example, in some parts of the Arctic, such as the Chukchi Sea, polar bears appear healthy, fat and reproducing well...". The melting ice in the Arctic has changed the habitat for polar bears but so far their overall numbers have been fairly stable. A contradiction to some doom-and-gloom statements and predictions made by the alarmists.

Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking


Antarctic ice loss has tripled in a decade. If that continues, we are in serious trouble. This is an example of a typical propaganda news headline. The article claims measurements dating back to 1992 show the ice melting rapidly away. If this were true, NASA satellites should easily pick this up. Continue reading below to see what real science says.

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new 2015 NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

Shortly after this study was published, the climate alarmists panicked and their news reports referred to this as A controversial NASA study. This is a good example of how the climate alarmists will try to invalidate any other scientific research that contradicts what they are trying to promote. The article concludes with, "regard these surprising new findings with a fair dose of skepticism - and to continue worrying about ice losses along the Antarctic coasts." It is ok to be skeptical about science that does not support man made climate change but any scientist that offers other explanations is labelled a climate skeptic or denier. Sounds hypocritical.

Another climate alarmist website, Inside Climate News, that favours AGW also had to admit that Antarctic ice is growing, "Antarctic sea ice has grown somewhat over the past 10 years. Between 2012 to 2014, it reached record-high extents each year during the winter." They further admit that their climate models are wrong, "The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."

Antarctic Air Temperatures Cooling Since Late 1990's. Although ocean temperatures have risen in the area "Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have reversed course, dropping by an average of about 0.5 degree Celsius per decade since the late 1990s while the rest of the world experienced record heat, 10 researchers from the British Antarctic Survey concluded in an article published in the journal 'Nature' on Wednesday (July 20, 2016)."

Photo: Capt Laurence Oates, Capt Robert Scott, Petty Officer Edgar Evans (standing, left to right), Lt Henry Bowers, Dr Edward Wilson (sitting, left to right). Polar explorers remembered as 'heroic failures' have provided crucial proof that sea ice around Antarctica has barely changed in size - 100 years after their expeditions

A November 2016 Cryosphere article about early Belgium and British explorers of the Antarctic states that their log books recorded ice levels that were comparible to today. This confirms the NASA satellite images from 2015. For over 100 years, the entire time of modern industrialization, there has been no global warming in the Antarctic. This absolutely contradicts the what the IPCC has been stating.

Coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F). A December 2013 article in The Guardian stated "Newly analysed Nasa satellite data from east Antarctica shows Earth has set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded: -94.7C (-135.8F). It happened in August 2010 when it hit -94.7C (-135.8F). Then on 31 July of this year(2013), it came close again: -92.9C (-135.3F)...Ice scientist Ted Scambos at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre announced the cold facts at the American Geophysical Union scientific meeting in San Francisco..." Ted Scambos however has done work for the IPCC and contributed to the most recent IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Scambos appears to be a supporter of AGW.

This article states that CO2 is above 400ppm in the Antarctic yet the area has been experiencing cooling for about 20 years and increased ice mass. This should cast some doubt as to CO2's direct affect on temperature.

Despite evidence to the contrary, David Suzuki still insists on claiming the "Antarctic ice sheet could collapse" to instill fear in people.

Without any scientific evidence, the IPCC states that, ...Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2.... A 120+ years of CO2 increase has had no effect on the Antarctic yet they somehow still try to instill fear in the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers...The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers..." Source. This means the Antarctic contains 88% of Earth's ice. Since the Antarctic is not affected by "global warming" and there is no large melting of ice there, then the IPCC predictions of the oceans rising and flooding low-lying regions are false.

The IPCC also states that, Changes around the Antarctic Peninsula: This region has experienced spectacular retreat and collapse of ice shelves, which has been related to a southerly migration of the January 0C isotherm resulting from regional warming. . What the IPCC fails to mention that this area has a fault line below the ice and that there are 2 active volcanoes also below the ice of this peninsula. Localized warming from volcanoes and fault lines does not constitute global warming.

List of Antartic volcanoes. To date, there have been 3 volcanic eruptions in the past 100+ years: 1905, 1970 and 2015.

A 2017 study by the Australian National University found that near Mount Erebus a cave deep below the ice sheet has temperatures that reach 25 Celcius.

Arctic Ice Is Shrinking, Temperature Not The Only Reason


Since 1958 the Danish Meteorological Institute has been studying and measuring the daily mean Arctic temperatures north of 80 degrees north. The above 3 graphs from 1958, 1978 and 2015 show the consistent temperatures of the Arctic. Checking out all 59+ graphs shows the same consistency. This would suggest that there is no global/local warming happening in the Arctic above the 80 degree line despite the melting ice. The red curve is based on the average 2 m temperatures north of 80 degree North. The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. The blue line is the melting point, 0 degrees Celsius.

If the Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic is doing fine, are there any local reasons why?

The new study by Dr. Stefanie Lutz, postdoc at the German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ and at the University of Leeds found that "Cosmopolitan snow algae accelerate the melting of Arctic glaciers". "The role of red pigmented snow algae in melting Arctic glaciers has been strongly underestimated, suggests a study published in NATURE Communications on June 22. White areas covered with snow and ice reflect sunlight; the effect is called albedo. It has been known for quite some time that red pigmented snow algae blooming on icy surfaces darken the surface which in turn leads to less albedo and a higher uptake of heat."

Another study published in National Geographic in 2014 found that soot and dirt can accelerate the melting of snow and ice around the world. "From Greenland's ice sheets to Himalayan glaciers and the snowpacks of western North America, layers of dust and soot are darkening the color of glaciers and snowpacks, causing them to absorb more solar heat and melt more quickly, and earlier in spring."

A 2016 study on ocean currents conducted by Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University`s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory was reported in ScienceMag.org and EurekAlert found that "...ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts - which occurred every 1500 years or so - were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa." "Those abrupt climate changes wreaked havoc on ecosystems...the ocean's overturning circulation slowed during every one of those temperature plunges - at times almost stopping."

"AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago..."

"Once warming started, it happened very rapidly, with a rise of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius in average sea surface temperature and larger changes over Greenland within a span of decades". The changes seen today could also then be for the same reasons. More research is needed to determine if today`s northern hemishphere warming is caused by CO2 or just another natural phenomenon.

A 2014 report from The Geological Society of America regarding northern Atlantic temperatures found that:
1) "Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes. "
2) "...high-resolution SST record indicates that climate in the North Atlantic regions follows solar activity variations on multidecadal to centennial time scales. "
Another compelling reason why Arctic sea ice is currently melting without any significant increases in air temperature.

A 2017 study published in Nature Climate Change found that up to 60% of the sea ice loss may be due to natural events like summertime atmospheric circulation.

These are independant and logical explanations of why the Arctic ice is currently melting while Antarctic ice is growing. CO2 is not the only possible reason as suggested by the IPCC.

Greenland Ice Is Melting, AGW Or Natural?

A 2012 study done by NASA stated Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. "Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12". This would be excellent proof for alarmists to state that AGW is real. However, looking at ice core samples, the same scientists found that, "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time".

A 2016 study published in sciencemage.org found that melting of the basins of the southeast and northwest "...have undergone profound change and have contributed more than 70% of the total ice loss to the ocean". The scientists also found that "The onset of increasing flow of the northeast Greenland ice stream (the largest flow feature of the ice sheet), for example, has been linked to a geothermal hot spot".

"A recent study by Kjeldsen et al. (19) shows that the same three basins contributed 77% of GrIS`s total mass loss over the last century (between 1900 and 1981)". Another scientific study that shows that parts of Greenland have been melting since 1900, long before any significant CO2 increases.

Despite these melting events, Greenland ice has actually grown in many parts. On July 15 1942 a P-38 fighter of 94th Fighter Squadron/1st FG along with other aircraft made an emergency landing on an ice field and abandoned and eventually buried under 268 feet of snow and ice. In 1992 the plane was excavated. Despite 50 years of increasing CO2 and many alarmists claims that Greenland ice will melt, the ice actually increased by 268 feet in this location.

Conclusion: science has found this to be a natural event and not AGW.

Is The Sea Level Rising?


Source

Since the Antarctic land ice is not melting and there has not been any long term major melting on Greenland then is the sea level rising like the IPCC claims? A dedicated website to seal level data, Sea Level Info, looks at NOAA and PSMSL sea level data and analyzes it into meaningful information. From about 1850 to present the sea level rise has been linear with no acceleration in increase. Note: since coming out of our last ice age there has been some natural sea level rise which continues today.

Another flaw from IPPC alarmists has been the claim that the oceans are heating up at an accelerated level. A recent scientific study found that there were flaws in peer-review process. The claimed heat is just not there either.

Conclusion: no accelerated sea level rise since industrialization.

Is There Anything Good About CO2? Yes!


Most people know that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a nutrient for plants. It is what they breathe and then give us oxygen in return. For years many scientists have suggested that the recent increased levels of CO2 might actually be good for the planet.

The climate alarmist website article from skepticalscient.com would have us believe that there is a very small chance that increased levels of CO2 would have a global benefit and goes on to list more doom and gloom. Below, you will find several science articles that noticed unexpected benefits from increased CO2 levels along with explanations as to why.

David Suzuki even tried to cast doubt with half-quoted scientific articles. As an exmaple, Suzuki uses a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to try and say that increased CO2 had minimul benefits to plants. However, article from PNAS states: "...water savings that plants experience under high CO2 conditions compensate for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, keeping the amount of water on land, on average, higher than we would predict with common drought metrics, and with a different spatial pattern. The implications of plants needing less water under high CO2 reaches beyond drought prediction to the assessment of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and vegetation dynamics."
Below, you will find other scientific articles that contradict Suzuki and the IPCC regarding the benefits to increased CO2 for plant growth.

An April 2016 study by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions found that "greenhouse gas CO2 produces a 'fertilization effect'... more CO2-rich conditions allow high-latitude forests to recover faster from harvest, fire and insect disturbances".

It would be logical to assume that all trees in the world along with other vegetion such as food crops would also benefit from the CO2 increases. Another fact the IPCC always forgets to mention.

Shrub growth helps counteract climate warming, says University of Alberta researcher "Changes to plant life in the arctic may actually help reduce climate warming in some regions, a University of Alberta researcher has discovered."

An April 2016 NASA report states that, "Rising CO2 levels greening earth".

A July 2013 article from Physics.org, states, "High CO2 spurs wetlands to absorb more carbon", according to a 19-year study published in Global Change Biology from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md

A November 30, 2015 article from Physics.org, states, "High concentration of CO2 protects sorghum against drought and improves seeds", according to the University of Sao Paulo`s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) in Brazil.
"The rising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), chief among the greenhouse gases fueling global warming and climate change, is beneficial for the physiology of sorghum, an economically and nutritionally important crop grown worldwide."

A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science lists a bunch of doom-and-gloom points but does not source any of these points with science articles. They are all hypothetical points and only gloss over the benefits listed above.

Despite all the IPCC doom and gloom predictions of droughts and starvation because of AGW, Africa in recent years is improving and doing very well with their food production. Africa: Continent of Plenty, a 2013 article from the IEEE,

The Agricultural Department of Manitoba, Canada has an article for farmers on how and why CO2 could be beneficial to their crops. Logically, plants cannot live on CO2 alone, they also require water and good soil conditions. Given plenty of water and good soil, the article states, "The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor, 1200 PPM, to allow a plant to photosynthesis at the maximum rate." Yes, 1200 ppm CO2 is the optimum level for plant growth, not the low levels that we are currently at.

This same article warns about CO2 levels that are too low, " At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped...The plant will eventually use all of the CO2 present, photosynthesis will stop and the plant will die.". Pre-industrial CO2 levels ranged from 180-280 ppm. This means that CO2 levels were almost too low for plants to survive properly.

A 2018 article from Science Daily, Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth`s climate, states that early farming from 2,000 years ago produced enough CO2 and Methane to prevent another ice age. This saved a lot of human life as a frozen planet would be far less capable of growing food.

Since 1880 humans have only increased CO2 by about 120 ppm. This is only a modest increase and brings the planet to a healthier CO2 level for plants to grow better. It would take centuries, perhaps up to 500 years before we reach optimum CO2 levels and need to start worrying about any more increases in CO2. By then our energy production would have changed significantly on its own. Today we cannot predict or plan how humans will produce energy in hundreds of years from now anymore than humans hundreds of years ago could have predicted how we make energy today.

Climate Change Alarmists State Major Storms Now From Man-Made Climate Change


The Ontario government states, "The effects on infrastructure are equally apparent and costly: roads that buckle in severe heat, water mains that overflow in severe rain, hydro lines coated with heavy ice that snap and leave tens of thousands of Ontario families and businesses without power."

"...significantly more variability in weather, including severe wind, ice and rain with potential effects that include flooding, soil erosion, infrastructure damage and power system outages".

"Ontarians are already paying the price for climate change impacts in terms of damaged homes, businesses, crops and increased insurance costs. The 2013 ice storm in Southern Ontario resulted in $200 million in insurance payments, and severe floods across the Greater Toronto Area caused nearly $1 billion in damages. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy estimated that the economic costs of climate change in Canada will rise from about $5 billion annually in 2020 to between $21 and $43 billion by 2050."

Severe storms existed long before humans had industry. The mutliple ice ages are examples along with one of the most devestating hurricanes in the 1950's, Hurricane Hazel, which even killed people in Toronto. There has not been a hurricane in Toronto since Hazel; nothing in the past 60 years despite increases in CO2.

The summer of 2016, an El Nino year, has been one of the warmest and driest on record. However, in southern Ontario in the Toronto area 1959 was drier.

According to a 2007 The Telegraph article, 1947 was "One of the worst winters on record was followed by floods in the Spring and the hottest summer in 300 years". A U.K. weather forecaster, Dan Suri, stated that 1947 was "The summer of 1947 is the 6th warmest on record in records dating back to 1659. Only the summers of 1976, 1826, 1995, 1846 and 1983 have been hotter". Weather cycles often repeat themselves over many years, decades and centuries.

A 2014 AMS study An Empirical Relation between U.S. Tornado Activity and Monthly Environmental Parameters found no relationship between tornados and climate change. In 2018 this was confirmed with no major tornadoes in the USA for the entire year. A 2016 AMS study on recent California droughts found that they have not been caused by long-term climate changes.

Anybody older than 50 years knows that the weather goes through large cycles where some years we have more or less precipitation, storms and other weather patterns. For a young person though, the alarmists are trying to instill fear by suggesting the weather was always calm and predictable prior to human growth.

Many alarmists state that climate change affects forest fires by increasing their frequency and use recent forest fires in Alberta and California as examples. They are at least half right in stating that these fires are partially man-made but for a different reason.

Decades ago and again in 2016, other researchers gave another reason for the increases in forest fires. The BBC news report states, "But human intervention in the last century has disrupted the natural fire regime of the Ponderosa pine forests. By grazing livestock, logging the trees for timber and systematically fighting fires before they can run their course, humans have changed the structure of the ecosystem and encouraged a build-up of forest-floor vegetation.".

This means that as a result of humans being good at fighting small to medium sized fires that should have otherwise run their natural course and cleared away decaying "fuel", mega-fires now become more frequent because of this unnatural build-up of dry vegetation.

List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes: notice that the majority of them are pre 1950 with many even before 1900, long before AGW.

Are Not Mountains Like The Himalayas Losing Ice Rapidly? Maybe Not


Indian climatologist disputes charges over Himalayan projection. A Science News article that interviewed scientist Murari Lal, who was involved with the research of melting ice in the Himalayas, stated that the IPCC had rushed him to provide data for a climate report and that mistakes were made but not realized until after publication. Although the glaciers are still retreating with the updated data, they are not melting at the rate first thought.

As a result of this Lal states, "However, under the current state of this scenario (the situation has become quite bizarre at the moment and IPCC's credibility is now at stake), I am not interested in being associated with the IPCC process any more or getting involved in political controversy/advocacy."


NASA satellite images from 2018 and 2019 show how the Sierra Nevada mountains in California have gained significant snow fall over the past year. Past low snow fall amounts do not always mean future low snow fall amounts.





Is There Anything Else Beyond Humans That Can Affect Climate?


The Sun. A Jan 8, 2013 NASA article looked at the effects the sun and its solar cycles may have on the earth's climate.

"A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), `The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate,` lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet." The sun`s EUV wavelengths can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

"Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific."

"The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them."

Although the researchers did not confirm that the sun was causing any global warming they did state that the sun is the largest source of heat for the earth and "In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming."

A March 2, 2015 Nature World News article stated "It is known that the Sun plays an important part in controlling the Earth's climate, but now researchers show that solar activity affects climate change more than previously thought, according to recent research."

A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science completely ignores the above two articles by stating, "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.". They use the now proven-incorrect hockey-stick-graph as part of their argument.

The Earth's Mantle. A 2016 University of Cambridge article stated that "researchers have compiled the first global set of observations of the movement of the Earth's mantle, the 3000-kilometre-thick layer of hot silicate rocks between the crust and the core, and have found that it looks very different to predictions made by geologists over the past 30 years."

They found that the wave-like movements of the mantle are occurring at a rate that is an order of magnitude faster than had been previously predicted. The results, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, have ramifications across many disciplines including the study of oceanic circulation and past climate change.

"Considering that the surface is moving much faster than we had previously thought, it could also affect things like the stability of the ice caps and help us to understand past climate change."

Along with the Earth`s mantle is the reversing of the magnetic poles. " Earth has settled in the last 20 million years into a pattern of a pole reversal about every 200,000 to 300,000 years...". This coincides a little with previous ice ages, not that this is directly responsible for it, but perhaps just part of the process.

The magnetic north pole has been creeping northward - by more than 600 miles (1,100 km) - since the early 19th century...It is moving faster now, actually, as scientists estimate the pole is migrating northward about 40 miles per year, as opposed to about 10 miles per year in the early 20th century. This again coincides with recent global warming/climate change. When you have this many coincidences then they might not be coincidences anymore.

El Nino/La Nina. El Nino Has Pushed Our Planet Past a Major Climate Milestone. "The monster El Nino of 2015-2016 is finally gone, but scientists are still coming to terms with its impacts on the planet. Among those impacts: charging up the global carbon cycle and pushing atmospheric CO2 levels above 400 parts per million (ppm)...The previous record rise, of 2.82 ppm, occurred during the 1997-1998 El Nino. In both cases, scientists believe that emissions spiked due to a combination of warming and drying in the tropics, which can accelerate soil carbon decomposition, and large, drought-fueled fires."

The Antarctic. Centennial-scale Holocene climate variations amplified by Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge A recent study found that the Antarctic is capable of affecting climate change and not just the other way around.

This supports what some climate scientists have been stating that temperature can also drive CO2 levels rather than just CO2 affecting temperatures. It is quite possible then that some of the extra CO2 in our atmosphere occurred naturally do to natural changes in temperature.

Green house gases including CO2. The 4% increase in industrial greenhouse gases may also have a subtle affect on the climate but as some of the IPCC scientists have stated their original calculations had errors and "that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated".

Let`s Assume Alarmists Are Correct

From 1880 to today CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Earth's population also rose from just over 1 billion to over 7 billion people. A previous United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report already stated that livestock produces more CO2 than transportation (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.). Since humans also exhale CO2 like livestock do, then it would be fair to say that human existence also is a large source of CO2.

This gain of 120 ppm of CO2 is perhaps half from living creatures such as our livestock and humans. The only way then to reduce our CO2 production to pre-industrial levels is to also reduce human population to pre 1880 levels. This means getting rid of about 6 billion people. Will these countries implement a one-child-policy the same way that communist China did from 1978 to 2015? Current population trends are still growth, meaning CO2 will continue to rise even if all power plants and factories were shut down today.

Now let's assume that the 120 ppm CO2 increase caused a 1 degree Celsius increase. Using a 1:1 ratio, prehistoric CO2 levels were around 20x higher than today (8,000 ppm). This means ((8000*1)/120)=67) a 67 Celsius increase in average temperatures. If current equatorial temperatures are around 35 Celsius, then adding another 67 would be 102 Celsius for average prehistoric temperatures. Water boils at 100 Celcius so this is not even close, realistic or possible. Therefore, the ratio is not 1:1 but rather a decreasing value with each increase in CO2. Since some IPCC scientists have admitted their computer models are wrong then we have no idea what measurable effect another 120 ppm increase of CO2 would have on temperature (1 degree? 1/2 degree? 1/4 degree? etc). All we can say for sure is that it would be less of an effect with each increase.





History Proves CO2 Is Not The Only Driver Of Temperature

The Keeling Curve is the world`s longest unbroken record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. For the past 800,000 years prior to human industrialization, CO2 levels were fairly stable between 200 and 280 ppm. However, during this same time period we know that there have been huge temperature changes with several ice ages, Greenland experiencing forests growing inland, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Something else drove all these temperature changes if CO2 was stable during this time period.

According to the IPCC, CO2 levels have been rising since about 1880 with an acceleration starting around 1998. However, during this same time period global temperatures nearly plateaued which is often referred to as "the pause".

Here we have two examples where temperature changed despite stable CO2 levels and then temperature remained stable during steep CO2 increases. Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is not likely the only cause of the earth experiencing any increases or decreases in temperature.

Food Production Produces More CO2 Than Industry

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock a major threat to environment. This report states that livestock produces more CO2 and possibly methane than transportation!

One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

A 2018 article from Science Daily, Ancient farmers spared us from glaciers but profoundly changed Earth`s climate, states that as far back as 2,000 years ago farming produced enough CO2 and Methane that humans may have already affected climate change.

Even if we eliminated all industry and transportation, we would still produce more CO2 than prior to 1880. Any attempts to tax industry will likely just hurt citizens without making any measurable impact on CO2 production.

Is Atmospheric CO2 Acidfiying The Oceans?

This image from NOAA shows the large amount of CO2 produced naturally from the environment along with the small amount produced from industrialization. Even without industrial CO2, large amounts of CO2 transfer between the atmosphere and either land vegetation or the oceans. Human contribution is about 4% annually.

A 2006 Institute of Science in Society study found that cool turbulent ocean water absorbs CO2 while warmer less turbelent oceans release CO2. The study focused on data from 1991-2000 in the subtropical NE Atlantic, stating, "...respiration rate was far in excess of photosynthesis.". If the tropical NE Atlantic is releasing CO2 then warmer equitorial oceans are likely releasing CO2 as well and not absorbing it.

In 2011, Dr.Murry Salby (a climate scientist) gave a presentation on the relationship between temperature and CO2. His findings were that temperature drove CO2 levels and not the other way around. A 2013 study by Dr. Pehr Bjornbom of Sweden verified Dr. Salby's findings.

There has been much hype that this CO2 is responsible for the recent bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef around Australia. However, CO2 likely had nothing to do with it and rather it was the warm waters caused by the 2015/2016 El Nino. Despite the bleaching in those years the reef is doing much better than the alarmists state.
1) A recent UNESCO report, The List in Danger did not include the Great Barrier Reef. Now that the El Nino is over the reef will likely recover from this natural bleaching.
2) An interview of local Australian residents and tour operators found, "Reports of its demise have been exaggerated claim locals". When one physically examines the reef and asks locals about it health, it can be seen that the reef is doing much better than the alarmists claim.

What these independent studies/reports conclude is that currently CO2 is being released from the oceans at a greater rate than being obsorbed. This means that atmospheric CO2 is not being absorbed and added to oceanic CO2 and acidifying the oceans. The source of any CO2 in the oceans is coming from within. From 1940 to about 1975 global temperatures dropped, allowing for the possibility of CO2 absorbtion into the oceans. From 1998 to 2015 atmospheric temperatures almost plateaued and depending on what the oceans were doing at the time there may or may not have been some CO2 absorbtion. So, at times the oceans are actually releasing CO2 and not absorbing it.

Is CO2 A Pollutant?

Many alarmists` websites and news articles frequently refer to CO2 as pollution. If you read this specific article from Sceptical Science you will see that they do a fairly convincing job by stretching the truth and trying to convince us that it is harmful to humans. They state, "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare". Well, let`s continue reading below to see if CO2 meets that criteria.

First, let`s look at the definition of pollution.
Dictionary.com: the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.
Oxforddictionaries.com: The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.
Cambridge.org: damage caused to water, air, etc. by harmful substances or waste.

CO2 Characteristics
Manitoba Government Agriculture: ... CO2 supplementation will enhance the productivity of the greenhouse...
NASA.gov: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
The above two links explain that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth. If CO2 levels were to ever drop to 150 ppm or lower, photosynthesis would stop and most plants would begin to die, followed by humans. Optimum levels of CO2 for plant growth are 1200 ppm. With our current levels around 410, more would be better, not worse.
CO2 Contributes To The Greenhouse Effect: CO2 along with other greenhouse gases such as water vapor help regulate and balance the earth`s temperature. Without green house gases (O2 is not one), the earth would be extremely cold and likely not able to support life. Without CO2, the earth could be almost as barren as Mars.
Medical science states "Asthma patients reduce symptoms, improve lung function with shallow breaths, more carbon dioxide". How can a pollutant help asthma patients breathe easier? Only if it is not a pollutant.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs states that:

CO2 levels around 1,300 ppm is good for plant growth. CO2 levels below 340 ppm is bad for plant growth. Life on earth depends on healthy plant growth. It is inconceivable to suggest CO2 is a pollutant and is just an outright lie.

CO2 does not meet the definition of a pollutant. CO2 is a natually occurring molecule that is benficial to plant growth because it is a plant nutrient. It is also essential to keeping the planet from freezing up. CO2 does not cause any breathing problems in humans and can actually help asthma sufferers. CO2 is no more a pollutant than H2O (water vapor) is. Any website or news article that refers to CO2 as pollution is misleading and deceiving. Water vapor (H2O) is also a greenhouse gas. Will the alarmists one day refer to water as a pollutant too?

The Albedo Effect

Albedo is the reflective properties of an object and how much energy it retains versus reflects away from itself. The earth also has an Albedo effect. Dr. Denis Rancourt gave a lecture in 2015 at the University of Ottawa on the effects of albedo and climate change. Universe Today published an article in 2004 that explains how albedo rose from 1985 to 1996 and heated up the earth. As far back as 2004 scientists already suspected that albedo might also be contributing earth`s temperature increase.

The easiest example to give on albedo would be comparing two similar objects of different colour on a sunny day, such as a white car and a black car parked next to each other in a parking lot. If you were to touch both cars with your hands you would notice that the black car is much warmer.

Since industrialization, humans have transformed the surface of the earth through deforestation and therefore its albedo effect. In the mid 1800`s there were no paved roads and few concrete cities. The cities we had were for a population of about 1.5 billion people, now we have cities for 7.5 billion people, about a 500% increase. Compare the temperature of grass on a sunny day to a paved road and there is a big difference. As of 2017 there is an estimated 38,491,768 km of roads in the world, something that didn`t even exist 170+ years ago. To see how cities affect albedo, at night take a drive in the country outside of a city then drive into that city and you will notice up to a 5 degress Celsius increase since concrete cities store energy(heat) that is then released back into the atmosphere at night.

A GSA article estimated that "83 percent of the total land surface...is directly influenced by human activities." This influence affects Albedo.

Dr. Rancourt argues that albedo can have a greater effect on global temperature than AGW. A compelling argument. Keep in mind that as the earth`s surface warms up, CO2 and other greenhouse gases trapped in the ground can also be released that goes beyond the direct control of human contribution.

Another Little Ice Age?
Image taken from NASA

Although many scientists have already stated that solar cycles of the sun (sun spots) have an affect on the earth`s climate, recent research from the Royal Astronimical Society found Irregular heartbeat of the Sun driven by double dynamo. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the `mini ice age` that began in 1645.

"Zharkova and her colleagues derived their model using a technique called `principal component analysis` of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California. They examined three solar cycles-worth of magnetic field activity, covering the period from 1976-2008. In addition, they compared their predictions to average sunspot numbers, another strong marker of solar activity. All the predictions and observations were closely matched. "

Not only does this research support natual climate change, it suggests that the climate might actually get quite cold in coming years.

If this prediction is true (ice core samples support this theory for past events), how will wind turbines and solar panels perform in extended winter conditions? In Ontario as of 2017, 20,000+ acres of wind turbines only produce 5% of our electricity under ideal weather conditions. They may also need to be retrofitted with batteries to even out supply when they are not generating electricity. Batteries are known to lose capacity in cold conditions. How will this combination work if our climate gets very cold for several decades?

Past Global Warming Predictions

A recent news article, On its 100th birthday in 1959, Edward Teller warned the oil industry about global warming states that Physicist Edward Teller made calculations about CO2 and global warming. The author of this article (Benjamin Franta (@BenFranta) is a PhD student) presents Teller`s early predictions as fact. If you look at these predictions, you can now see how wrong they were:

"It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered,..." As of 2018, CO2 has risen by 30+%, well above the 10% prediction, and yet there has been no melting of the land-based polar ice caps. In fact, Antarctica continues to grow in size and get colder.

"By 1970, it (CO2) will be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16 per cent...Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5." By 1998 the planet only increased temperature by about 1 degree then plateued for almost 20 years before the El Nino of 2016 bumped up the temperature by a small amount. Again, Teller`s prediction was grossly over estimated. Teller then adds, "Well, I don`t know whether they (polar ice caps water) will cover the Empire State Building or not...". From 1880-2009, average ocean levels have only risen by 8 inches. The Empire State building is 1,454 feet (17,448 inches) tall, so Teller`s prediction is wrong by up to 218,100%. That is an astronomical mistake, which demonstrates just how difficult it is to predict climate change. Even though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its influence on the climate is not fully understood.

"Significant temperature changes are almost certain to occur by the year 2000..." As of 2018, the 1 degree temperature change has been insigificant and current climate change can be explained naturally from past climate changes.

Looking at modern day climate predictions, examine the IPCC document Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

This article demonstrates how inaccurate early (the 1950`s) global warming predictions were and sadly how they continue to be wrong today with the IPCC and all its politicians.

NASA: Global Warming On Moon Caused By Humans

Well, almost. A study done by NASA regarding Long-Term Subsurface Warming Observed at the Apollo 15 and 17 Sites found that with "astronauts` activities, solar heat intake by the regolith increased slightly on average, and that resulted in the observed warming". In other words, they changed the Albedo effect of the surface of the moon.

A total of 12 astronaughts landed on the Moon from 1969-1972. During this time, they were able to change the Moon`s albedo enough to increase the temperature of those regions between 1 and 2 Celcius. Now, just imagine what billions of people have done to the albedo of the earth since industrialization.

This observation from NASA and the moon is supported by Dr. Denis Rancourt`s observations of Albedo and the earth and its increased temperature of about 1 degree Celsius for his explanation of climate change.

Two different planetary objects, two different groups of scientists, same conclusion. Changing Albedo changes temperature.

Technologies / Ethics

Other Technologies

Ethics and Deception

Conclusion

While CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can have some influence on our climate, it is by no means the only factor for climate change. The IPCC has only focused on greenhouse gases but there are many other scientific articles that discuss other influences such as cycles of the sun, the earth`s mantle, geothermal hot spots, albedo, etc.. This website looked at those other scientific articles.

Science articles from NASA, Scientific American, ZME Science, Columbia University, British Antarctic Survey, National Geographic, Nature Climate Change, Science Mag, etc. have all stated that there are many natural influences affecting our climate today. These articles show larger climate changes of the past may be repeating themselves today. Additionally, calling CO2 a pullutant is a lie. CO2 has caused no harm to humans, animals or vegetation; it only benefits plants. More CO2 means most plants grow quicker, bigger and stronger, something that would benefit all life on earth.

Politicians from the Paris Climate Summit have deliberately ignored and suppressed this information. They do not present climate change in a neutral and un-biased manner. By preventing scientific studies from being published that show other causes of climate change, society may make the wrong decisions in adapting to whatever climate change is coming our way in the next several decades.

The average citizen does not seem to care about what the politicians are doing. Few speak up because they don`t read and do their own research; they seem content to believe whatever the politicians present in the news.

This website has no feedback section because there is no new research presented. There are only references to previously published scientific articles. If you have a concern with any of these scientific articles, you must contact those organizations directly.

First published on Friday Feb. 19, 2016