Like all rational people and lovers of truth I reject the hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW); the belief that drives NASA, NOAA, the IPPC and the great, so-called "settled authoritative science consensus" that human caused global warming from fossil fuels is an existential threat to our society and to future life on planet Earth. That the continued massive use of these cheap, reliable, efficient, wealth creating fuels will eventually make this world so devastatingly hot that no living thing will be able to live upon it. Truth is, however, this horrific, infernal, life ending global holocaust will inevitably happen over time; but it will be an ACT OF GOD AND NATURE having nothing to do with man's activities and energy behavior (see section on heliogenic warming below).
200 years of progressive industrial capitalism and billions of tons of human CO2 emissions has been more than enough time to test this man caused climate doomsday hypothesis; and what do we see? A modest, non-threatening increase in global temperatures compared to past global warm periods going back 3100 years: Medieval, Roman and Minoan (see); and the miracle of ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL GREENING: the vast, amazing, rapid greening of the planet due to the fertilizing effects of human CO2 emissions.
Decades ago this CO2 induced greening was ridiculed as an impossible crackpot theory by "consensus scientists" who confidently predicted that the very opposite would be happening today: soaring, sizzling out of control temperatures, rainlessness, droughts, desertification and catastrophic crop destruction causing global famine, disease and the death of millions. And because, fortunately, the terrible future never arrived as authoritatively predicted, and now is now being pushed off to later dates (2030, 2050, 2100 take your pick) is it any wonder there's so much skepticism and doubt about CAGW? Repeated bad predictions a true science doesn't make.
If climate alarmists like Jim Hansen (back in the 1980s and early 90s) were right about the catastrophic warming impact of human CO2 emissions much of the Earth by now would look like the terrible picture on the left. But instead it's undergoing a huge, worldwide greening transformation as even NASA scientists grudgingly admit (see).  
With increasing atomospheric concentrations of green house gases greening planet Earth and making it more fruitful I say:
Consider this:
 With close to 1 billion starving people on this Earth, and 3 billion more mouths to feed in 33 years
we need to do this:
for a healthier, wealthier, greener Earth - needing a doubling of crop production by 2050 to avoid looming, devastating, mass killing famines from overpopulation and too little food.
The fertilizing effect of enriching the atmosphere with human CO2 (and whatever nature provides) will save billions from starvation, disease and premature death.
"You reject CAGW? Like a child who doesn't want to hear that it's bedtime? Well it's not up to you.


Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities and are a very serious threat. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
CO2 is not the only thing that can warm the Earth. In the distant past many things have proven they can become the main driver of temperature increases or decreases. But right now, the world body of climate scientists are quite certain, they say 'very likely' or 'extremely likely', which is 90-100% sure and 95-100% sure respectively that right now, and for the last 50 years CO2 took over as the main driver of temperature as was predicted long before that based on physics and simple calculations of how much CO2 we were producing and were expected to produce from burning fossil fuels."
Al Gore: 'Forget the other apocalyptic movements in history which proved     misguided and false. Put your faith and trust in me. I'm the real deal. The doomsday prophet mankind has been waiting for to lead you to the holy land of a   cooler, safer, climate stable, fossil fuel free world. Deny me and you get this: 
You blindly, uncritically and religiously put your TRUST AND FAITH in a prophetic "consensus?" of improbable future doom with the fundamentalist certainty of a Jehovah Witness, and judge me as childish and immature? Like an apocalyptic END TIME fanatic your mind is so obsessed with catastrophism (a mental illness) that in a delusional sense it's a clear and present danger to you as if the apocalypse were unfolding before our very eyes. Like events in Israel and elsewhere used by some as signs of the "Countdown to Armageddon" every extreme weather event for you warmunists becomes an ominous sign prophetically anticipating "Climageddon" (global doom), if sinning humanity doesn't repent and stop using fossil fuels: the dirty, foul, destructive energy from hell extracted by greedy, satanic, world-be-damned oil companies for power, gain and huge bonuses for oil execs./sarc
Big Oil is your Great Beast of the Apocalypse; your infernal 666 anti-Christ condemning the Earth to hell fire, destruction and ruin. And Barack Obama, Al Gore, Michael Mann, Jim Hansen and other holy crusading eco-alarmist leaders are your God sent saviors hijacking science in a messianic cause based on conjecture, speculation and faith. You warmunists want to destroy industrial capitalism (see), and spend $trillions trying to save a world that's not in peril; and you call me childish?
After mankind has survived countless horrific wars, threats of nuclear holocaust, devastating plagues, earthquakes, tsunamis and other terrible disasters (that's killed hundreds and millions) now we're warned by a mastermind climate "consensus" of Nostradamus's that CO2, a tiny amount of essential, life sustaining greenhouse gas (plant food that supports ecosystems and the biosphere) is dooming mankind to perdition? Dooming us to greater frequency of droughts, floods, plagues and extreme weather events culminating in a horrific final apocalyptic extinction (that'll happen who knows when?) if we continue to make this parts per million trace gas fractionally larger? This is intellectual idiocy! And you call me childish?


What is the catastrophic AGW movement? It's a mindless politically driven ideological war against CAPITALISM and FOSSIL FUELS  using fake dogmatic science, propaganda, fearmongering and lies about CO2's power over nature         and warming effects to end their massive use. 

That such minuscule amounts of CO2 can have such large effects on climate more powerful than the sun, oceans and volcanoes combined is preposterous and defies sound science and common sense: A tub of warm water can't be blackened with a few drops of ink; then made boiling hot with a cup or two of scalding water. But you warmunists stand the laws of nature on their head: for you if CO2 becomes slightly more than .04% of a complex atmosphere it's warming effect will be amplified a hundred thousand fold triggering a runaway greenhouse effect violently heating the earth, making it uninhabitable like hellish Venus-where CO2 is 96% of the atmosphere. And you call me childish?
 The burning surface of Venus. Only mad men and fools believe that an uptick in CO2 by hundreds or even thousands of parts per million can do this to our planet. In fact, there is no evidence of high levels of CO2 (up to 7000 ppm see) ever catastrophically overheating this world, and killing all of life. Not now, not ever.  
Fact is, John, I use much more of my brain in thinking about fossil fuels, CO2 and climate change than you do; which makes me the adult in this conversation.

"The difference between science and religion is the difference between repeatable tests which validate a theory and a belief in something through faith which is unproven or even unprovable, reinforced by dogma.

NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC are scientific organizations that use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusions. Your failure to accept those conclusions [CAGW] does not show that science has failed, but that your scientific education has failed. Unless you are a trained scientist, you are on the wrong side of the argument of any scientific consensus conclusion if you do not accept the scientific consensus position."



Given the inconvenient truth that Earth's climate is a big, complex, dynamic system of many moving, variable known and unknown parts that interact unpredictably in known and unknown ways how then can climate doomsday scientists be "90-100% sure" of their extinction predictions? How can predictions and projections of future time be the equivalent of empirical observations? To treat  the catastrophic future and the present here and now as the same, which many climate scientists and activists do by saying there's a "clear and present danger" of disaster, is absurd and unscientific!



What repeated tests can climatologists run to validate a theory of man caused global disaster from CO2? It can't be done. Detonate all our nukes and millions will die; but the human race will still survive (nuclear winter and all). And to raise the threat of CO2 to a level passing DEFCON 1 is insane. But that's what you lunatics do.



Indeed, how can climate scientists make accurate, long term predictions when there are too many variables and climate unknowns? When they have no way of knowing if human CO2 emissions can substantially heat the earth, or by how much and what degree? Climatology itself is a long, long ways from being a "settled science" Currently it's a  hodge podge potpourri of conjecture, speculation and hypothesis; it doesn't rise to the level of a true settled science repeatedly making valid predictions like physics, chemistry, astronomy and meteorology. 

< p style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; margin: 0px 0px 15px; line-height: 21px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 

 The 18 yr 8 month global cooling trend (the so-called "pause") interrupted by a powerful warming El Nino. Now that El Nino has ended will the cooling trend resume despite 400 plus ppm of CO2 in the air? I'm betting it will.

Heck, "the consensus" which predicted a 21st century of soaring temperatures in the short and long run couldn't foresee the so-called " hiatus" or "pause" a few years down the road; this is when there was statistically no warming for just under 19 years until El Nino heated up the planet again. If "the consensus" was taken by surprise in their short-term predictions (on temperature, catastrophes, global greening, etc) think how much more difficult or impossible it is to make accurate predictions for the long tomorrow where so many surprises and outcomes are possible?



To put it another way, due to our very limited knowledge and understanding of El Ninos and La Ninas, ocean oscillations, ocean currents, volcanoes, natural cooling aerosols, tilt of the Earth's axis, plate tectonics, water vapor, methane, clouds, forest and grasslands, wind, sun spots, Milankovich and water cycles etc. how can accurate predictions and projections be made on the "disastrous warming effects" of human CO2, when it is just one factor in a big, complex, constantly changing system of rearranging combinations (see)? 


Global cyclone energy is in decline despite global warming. How is that possible (see)?

Indeed, catastrophic AGW is an uncertain, subjective, pessimistic vision of things to come; a mental illness afflicting people in love with catastrophism, convinced without evidence that man is destroying himself with fossil fuels and CO2; and to believe with absolute, doubt free certainty that a future "extinction event" is INEVITABLE because of rising, human caused CO2 levels (whose buildup in the atmosphere isn't stopping), isn't rational, real, fact based science. It's an emotion driven ARTICLE OF FAITH; an INFALLIBLE ORTHODOX DOGMA akin to religious belief, and hysterical crackpot END TIME theologies-which at best have symbolic meaning for the real, inevitable, nature caused apocalypse to come.  



Those who dogmatically promote this vision of future CO2 caused doom are either liars, charlatans and frauds mindlessly at war with fossil fuels and industrial civilization (which unstoppably grows and thrives lifting millions out of poverty); or they're useful gullible idiots and fools; poor souls needing a great global purpose and messianic cause to give their lives some grand, morally elevating significance and meaning; and what could be grander than saving collective humanity and planet Earth from destruction (though neither are in peril from human causes)?

W440_zonef.jpg (67794 bytes)

The scientific evidence from reconstructing Earth's climate going back millions of years is overwhelming and conclusive (see): there is absolutely no correlation between high levels of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. The above chart shows that around 445 million years ago (the Upper or Late Ordovician Period) the CO2 count in the atmosphere was 4000 plus ppm (10-12 times what it is today), and the Earth was in a period of frigid ice age glaciation with average global temps at 10 degrees C (50 degrees F); in other words, it wasn't scorching, blistering, life destroying hot as we are told will happen in future time by the all wise, all knowing, "settled science consensus" if the atmospheric ppm count goes to just 450-500 or more.

And contrariwise, climate reconstructions for the Middle Ages when the CO2 count was at 280 ppm (120 ppm or 40% lower than today) show warmer global temperatures by 1 to 2 degrees C than today (see). In fact, California, which just ended five years of drought, experienced two devastating megadroughts during the Middle Ages of 240 and 180 years each - with sweltering local temperatures higher by 3 degrees F than today (see and see). How was that possible with way less heat trapping CO2 in the atmosphere?



   In short, despite the billions of tons of CO2 industrial man has emitted since the late 18th century there's nothing unusual, abnormal or anomalous about modern global warming when compared to its medieval counterpart - or even going back two or three thousand years to Roman and Minoan times. In other words, what caused the higher temperatures and worst droughts in medieval California was a greater and more extreme threat to human society and the world than anthropogenic CO2, as temperatures now are milder. But if not CO2 then what was the cause of the higher preindustrial age temperatures?




 Putting the question another way, if 444 million years ago a super high CO2 count coexisted with frigid global temperatures, and during the Minoan, Roman and  Middle Ages (see, see and see) a lower CO2 count than today coexisted with warmer global temps then what was it that caused these extreme differences? The answer is provided I believe by Nir Shaviv a distinguished professor of astrophysics and climatology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.



Building on the work of other scientists going back to 18th century astronomer William Hershel Prof. Shaviv discovered that SOLAR ACTIVITY (variations in the sun's heat and energy output) and COSMIC RAYS (the presence or absence of its high energy radiation ionizing or not ionizing the atmosphere) are the two major forces driving climate change; this is proved by the correlation of both forces (as shown by the good professor in the video below) with cycles of global warming, cooling and sea level changes throughout Earth's geologic history. 


Moreover, as Prof. Shaviv points out, both natural forces (SA and CR) are unscientifically excluded or minimized from IPCC and other mainstream warmunist science climate models. Why the omission? Because when added they forecast a modest, unfrightening, noncataclysmic rise in global temps of 1 degree C or less over the next 100 years. IPCC claims that a 2 degree rise could be dangerous; and that if man doesn't drastically cut CO2 emissions, temperatures over the next 100 years could increase 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C. In other words, more precise, honest scientific climate modeling is useless for the purpose of alarming people; it undermines long term doomsday CAGW predictions exposing them as fraudulent, fake science akin to the end time dogmatic religious movements.


This chart shows a correlation of sunspot numbers to the rise and fall of global temperatures. 

Skeptics, deniers and doubters opposing the refuted, deceptive CAGW hypothesis speak TRUTH TO POWER (and are branded criminal sinners and infidels): Earth's climate is measurably changing for the better as it grows moderately warmer, greener and more fruitful; and 200 years of industrial, technological and economic PROGRESS continue to make Earth a better place for humankind. And in the meantime human genius and ingenuity are developing the means to move us off this planet and into deep space to populate distant worlds out of existential necessity. It's no accident we're in the SPACE AGE. For one day the blazing nuclear furnace at the center of our planetary system called the SUN will unleash all hell upon this Earth wiping out human, animal and plant life in a devastating holocaust. 


Global cyclone energy is in decline despite global warming. How is that possible (see)?





The Red Giant: the Sun turned into a death star.

And that brings me to the title of this blog. In truth, the only valid, provable science of catastrophic, cataclysmic world dooming global warming is HELIOGENIC (Sun caused) not ANTHROPOGENIC (man caused). Astrophysicists like Nir Shaviv tell us that the power of the Sun over Earth's climate is such that a sudden, slight variation in its heat and energy output could heat or freeze this world in devastating ways. And what is certain from the observation of greatly aged stars across the universe is that when the Sun enters its dying phase it will collapse into a RED GIANT, expand its scorching radius by 200x and turn the Earth's surface into a desolate burning hell world like lifeless, scorched, blistering Venus.

The life and death of this world is in the hands of the central, sovereign, violently hot, infernal SUN, not mankind. And because man's existence on this planet is limited by the Sun's life and death cycle this is the God's honest truth:












Earlier this evening our friend X-Man posted the following comment: "Apollo, you were right!  The "PAUSE" is alive and well and continuing. The satellite data is in: the surface global cooling trend that started in the late 1990s and was interrupted by El Nino has resumed."


Yep. The post-El Nino global climate is looking good for climate realists and their war against CAGW.







  1. I love this story on climate change lying from American Thinker.

    April 3, 2017

    When climate change warriors can’t keep their stories straight

    By Brian C. Joondeph

    Mark Twain, author of the now politically incorrect Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, once said, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Good advice, especially for those who play fast and loose with facts and truth. And relevant in the internet age when articles, headlines, words and photos are preserved in perpetuity.

    Lies, built upon lies, eventually become so tangled that the truth may be forever lost down the rabbit hole. Rather than starting with the truth, to avoid having to remember the labyrinthine path taken by each additional falsehood.

    CNN, the network famously referred to by President Trump as “fake news”, should heed the advice of Mark Twain. Otherwise they are likely to be tripped up over their own contradictory stories, in this case only a few years apart.

    In 2015, CNN ran a story with the headline, “Did climate change cause California drought?” Less than two years later, CNN ran this headline, “California’s drought is almost over.” Is the irony of these two headlines lost on the journalistic mavens of CNN? Probably. But the internet remembers, happy to take CNN to task over their contradictions.

    After all, CNN totally missed the humor in a Sean Spicer quip during a recent White House press briefing. In response to reporters pestering him about mythical Trump-Russian collusion, Spicer responded, “If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that’s a Russia connection.” CNN, missing Spicer’s joke just as they missed the irony of climate change causing then somehow stopping a drought, ran a fact checking story to tell us that Russian dressing isn’t really Russian. Thanks, intrepid journalists. Did CNN ever fact check Barack Obama’s claim to have campaigned in 57 states with a news report telling us that there aren’t really 57 states?

    Back to the California drought. Despite the accusatory headline tying the drought to climate change, buried in the article is a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration arguing that the California drought is not due to climate change. In fact, this region suffered “megadroughts” eons ago, long before humans were driving SUVs and burning coal for electricity.

    In other words, the recent California drought is one of many in this arid region. Likely made worse by water supply and demand, rather than climate change. A growing population in Southern California, consuming ever increasing amounts of water. And the cyclical nature of droughts.

    Those who only scan headlines, without reading the entire article, only see “California drought” and “climate change” linked together. The few who read the article completely recognize the “fake news” headline for what it is. Much like another recent story in CNN with a similarly misleadingheadline, “Is there a link between climate change and diabetes?” Buried in the article is the truth that such a link is speculative, an association rather than causation. Regardless of the headline proclamation.

    Human activity “may” cause this or “could” cause that. Maybe. Or maybe not. It’s irresponsible to imply one thing in the headline and within the article backtrack to the truth, that it’s all speculation. Perhaps these headlines are just click bait, unworthy of serious news sites. Or it’s CNN’s way of promoting the left’s climate change agenda via a flashy headline, walked backed within the actual article.

    Going further, if we accept CNN’s premise that the California drought was caused by “human-induced climate change”, then how could the drought be “almost over” in less than two years? What human activity ended the drought? After all, if humans did something to cause it, then what did they stop doing to stop causing it?

    Are Californians driving less? Running their air conditioners less? Using less water for cooking, cleaning and bathing? Yet the population of California is steadily increasing. CNN was not clear on how the drought ended, other than through moisture rich storms and large snowfalls, both of which are not influenced by human activity.

    CNN can’t have it both ways, saying human activity caused a drought and then not explaining what new or different human activity was responsible for ending it. Rather than acknowledging the obvious, that droughts, as one aspect of climate change, are cyclical. And continue to occur regardless of human activity.

    If CNN was honest in their first story, they would not have to remember how to reconcile their initial claims when they are contradicted two years later. “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”

    How much easier and honest for CNN to report on the California drought in proper context. How does the current drought compare to past droughts, including the “megadroughts” of pre-historic days? How long do droughts typically last? When might this drought end? This would provide useful information to farmers and others dependent on a steady water supply.

    It also makes subsequent stories more credible and relevant. After all, droughts begin and end. Same for warm and cool spells. Or stormy seasons and calm seasons. If the causes are unknown, just admit that without the misleading headlines.

    Speculating, via erroneous headlines, about spurious associations between unrelated events, is dishonest. And not scientific. Instead it’s more of the “fake news” pervasive within modern journalism. Science deals with causes and effects. While associations are interesting, let science take the next step determining association versus causation.

    Alarmism over “fake news” diminishes what little credibility remains within big media. When they do report real news, it will be tuned out just like the boy who cried wolf one too many times.

    1. That’s why the change from global warming to climate change was brilliant. Anything and everything, not matter how polar opposite, can be blamed on change. They can never be wrong. And a lot of people have bought the garbage, including several in the Trump admin.

      1. That is the beauty of using “Climate Change” as the moniker. It is completely non-falsifiable.

        If it gets warmer, climate change.

        If it gets colder, climate change.

        If it stays the same, climate change is coming.

        Drought – climate change.

        Flood – climate change.

        The climate is always changing.

        1. “It is completely non-falsifiable.”

          If a theory isn’t falsifiable, then it isn’t a scientific theory; and your examples show why.

        2. “If it gets warmer, climate change.
          If it gets colder, climate change.
          If it stays the same, climate change is coming.
          Drought – climate change.
          Flood – climate change.”

          If ALL observations are “proof” of a theory, that is proof that the theory is complete pseudoscience.

          CNN is fake news, Climate science is fake science.

    2. The comments at the article at Am Thinker are great.

      One guy, a AGW apostle said: yes there were reports in some publications that the earth was cooling back in the ’70s.

      But those guys were “fringe scientists”, the earth has ALWAYS been warming.

      “Fringe scientists” in the ’70s?

      How about every major outlet back then?

      Time, Newsweek, Scientific American, all of the major TV networks, etc.

      Was this dope alive 40 years ago?

      It was taught as gospel in my schools, the earth was DEFINITELY headed for another ice age, and how it will ruin cities, destroy crops, and cause massive starvation if not wars.

      Who were the “fringe scientists” of the ’70s?

      Why would they push a lie about a coming ice age?

      Oh, that’s right, back then nobody, not even the biggest leftist was blaming human activity for it.

      No dinero in scaring people, so the Left decided that global warming, cough, I mean climate change could be their ticket to untold wealth.

      Ask Al Gore.

      For just three easy payments of $19.99, you too can unlock the secrets of financial success using my foolproof methods.

      And Al will DOUBLE the offer.

      Just pay separate shipping and handling.

      1. I remember PROGRESSIVE FARMER magazine getting on the Ice Age bandwagon saying crops grown in Illinois would soon be grown in Alabama because of the summertime cold weather in the north.

        A few years back, PROGRESSIVE FARMER magazine hopped on the global warming bandwagon.

        I cancelled my subscription after fifty years with them.

          In today’s lingo that seems like an oxymoron.

          Most people who farm are not progressive in the leftist sense.

          They get up early and work their buttocks off, so they tend to lean towards the conservative side.

      2. According to this 1974 CIA report the global cooling hypothesis was adopted by the US government and two of its science agencies; NOAA and the National Academy of Sciences

        1974 NOAA Paper – Global Cooling Will Starve the World

        And most importantly:

        Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’

    1. The Environweenies will go into hysteria when life higher up the food chain puts more poo into the environment. The CO2 menace will be forgotten and “No mo poo!” will be the new mantra.

  2. From an article I read on global greening in Africa

    “Experts from the university engaged in a study that ultimately showed that the West African Sahel, the strip south of the Sahara desert, has been “regreening” ever since droughts in the 1970s and 80s killed more than 100,000 people. They maintain that increased rainfall caused by climate change has led to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has spurred more plant growth and community-led farming efforts.

    The region is turning around and experiencing a vast change from the drought and deaths that once plagued it. The area is greening, plants are growing, and people are coming together. These changes bring improvements in the physical and emotional well-being of the region’s inhabitants, which can ultimately bolster relationships and reverse poverty levels.”

    So much for desertification.

    1. This is terrible, terrible I tell you! Who is going to stand up for the scorpions and giant camel spiders who may become endangered if the deserts disappear? Who?

      1. Increased rainfall in those regions has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the greening – mere coincidence. It is definitely manmade CO2 causing these areas to lose their desert status and all the harm to desert creatures – oh woe is us ….

        What’s a “camel spider”?

    1. Here are quotes from some of the world’s leading scientists to remind us that the science is not “settled,” nor is there a consensus. Both very unscientific terms, by the way:

      “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

      “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

      Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

      “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

      “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

      “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

      “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

      “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

      “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

      “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

      “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

      “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

      “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

      “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

      This collection of quotes comes courtesy of Mark Morano, dedicated staffer to Senator James Inhofe, Republican, Oklahoma. Senator Inhofe uses his good offices to expose the Global Warming panic. Go to to see his official Senate web site and the latest report.

    2. I sincerely doubt that 97% figure.

      However, there was a time when 97% of scientists believed in a Geocentric Universe.

      Those advocating a Heliocentric Universe (which was STILL inadequate!) were treated as heretics.

      So we “deniers” are in good company! :-)

      1. Consensus among scientists isn’t scientific truth. Science is not a democracy where the most popular idea or theory wins.

        Often times real science overturns consensus, as it’s been slowly doing to political CAGW for years now.

        1. — consensus is not truth.

          But agreeing with the required consensus keeps the grant money coming, so…

          Remove that incentive and truth will win out.

      2. In the late 1800s the “general infallible all knowing and wise scientific consensus” was that heavier-than-air craft could never fly, and was said to be a “physical impossibility” by the world’s greatest scientist, Lord Kelvin. Two bicycle makers from Ohio made Kelvin and the world’s scientists look like fools.

        1. So true. History is filled with examples where dissenters broke the existing “consensus” and showed the truth. Science needs to always be questioned, if the idea is solid, it will withstand any rigid questioning.

    3. Michael Crichton spoke of “consensus science”:

      Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

      There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

      1. Michael Crichton’s STATE OF FEAR should be required reading. It’s also an exciting action novel and should be made into a motion picture.

    4. [[The 97% AGW scientific consensus is total bullshit]]

      Bullshit it is. it is not 97% of all scientists- it was only 97% of a small group of scientists questioned, many of whom didn’t answer- and their non answers were thrown out in order to come up with their ridiculous 97% figure.

      Nothing about ‘man-caused climate change’ is genuine or truthful- NASA was just caught making up numbers and throwing out evidence to support their idiotic claims.

    5. It seems quite remarkable that the percentage has held absolutely steady at 97% for at least the past fifteen years. Having not dropped down to 96% or popped up to 98% makes me a wee bit suspicious that someone is not being entirely honest here. I’ll have to ask a lefty about this.

  3. Outstanding AS. A devastating piece of anti-AGW analysis. You didn’t just defeat your opponent. You drove a stake through his heart

  4. Apollospeaks is on the payroll of the Koch brother oil barons, Exxon-Mobil, The Petroleum institute, etc via The Heartland Inst. He is paid to twist and distort the truth. Pointing out all the falsehoods and incorrect statements in this article…it is built on dis-honest cherry picking of the facts… BE WARNED!

  5. I thought that the Paris Accord on Climate Change saved the world from fossil fuels? Why then are the warmists still bellyaching?

    1. They’re bellyaching because the Paris Accord is a failure. It’s going the way of Kyoto. World leaders are not going to sacrifice their economies on the alter of CAGW bullcrap and scary fairy tales.

    1. Thanks for bringing this latest piece of alarmist nonsense to my attention. Omitted from the article is any mention of the vast consequential fertilizing effects that anthropogenic CO2 is having on the growth of plants, trees, vegetables and the like.

      Plants produce oxygen through photosynthesis. Whatever oxygen molecules are destroyed by anthropogenic CO2 are being replaced by anthropogenic global greening. It’s simple science.

    1. Ya think that they ONLY want to destroy a (bleeping) BOOK?!?

      Tree…It comes for THEE! (Lock and Load, boys and girls.)

    2. “Public school classrooms are no place for anti-science propaganda”

      Said the people who believe gender is chosen.

    3. Won’t burning books contribute to global warming? Surely there’s an environmentally friendlier way of ridding the world skeptical literature.

    4. Raul Grijalva of Arizona is a Marxist. He is also a very stupid individual who manages to be reelected thanks to Arizona gerrymandering.

Leave a Reply