Natural Climate Change Deniers

The United States and the world are being threatened with proposals of much greater taxation, to pay for global warming studies and reduction of man-made C02's.  Since the global warming hoax took ground in the 1990's, over 50 billion dollars has been spent on global warming studies. 

Such people are " NATURAL CLIMATE DENIERS" contradicting basic science and simple common sense, as well as ignoring significant inconsistencies in global warming theory. They simply wish to DENY the obvious, that climate change- to the extent that it may or may not be happening, is due to "natural" causes. These global warming theory advocates DENY a 4.5 billion year history of natural climate change and wish to attribute current variations in climate and weather- something we've ALWAYS observed in the past, to man-made (anthropegenic) C02's.

These basic science deniers wish to "push" an agenda in which some "may" knowingly produce false data (i.e climate email scandal) for possible financial gain. Natural climate deniers hope to keep jobs, obtain grants and funding, sell books and C02 reducing technology and equipment, as well as attract investors to their bio-companies- i.e Al Gore.

The global warming advocates, who deny natural climate change, wish to avoid the elephant sitting in the room, such as the SUN, as the primary driver of temperatures, climate, ocean currents, tides, etc.   Instead, these deniers of natural climate change focus on a natural, non-polluting element such as C02 of which man-made C02's comprises a minute 3.207% [1] of greenhouse gases. Aside from ignoring the SUN as our primary climate and weather driver, in the case of greenhouse gases, water vapor- being by far the major greenhouse gas is practically dismissed and sometimes not even included in climate change models. [ibid]

The climate-scare, pseudo-science campaign continues to bombard us with daily supposed "threats" to our biosphere, however, they consistently ignore the concept of "adaptation." Our biosphere has, over the past "hundreds of millions of years" proven to be extremely adaptable to changing and even threatening conditions. The biosphere can adapt to the environment, we have done it before and we will do it again, no matter man-made C02 emissions.

The "natural climate change" deniers use straight line extrapolation methods of worst-case scenarios to gain headlines for garbage science. Straight line extrapolations over long periods of time hardly ever bear out, meaning, utilizing such methodology is of little to no value. We are not in an ice age anymore because conditions "changed" and the earth warmed up. Science cannot follow straight line paths, temperature warmed and cooled naturally and in cycles due to "natural" events.

Natural forces and "adaptation" of the earth's environment is an ongoing dynamic for which straight line extrapolations cannot account for, and as such- is FAULTY science with limited predictive values.

Using extrapolation method, Malthus long ago predicted- that based on food supply and population growth, we would all starve.

Al Gore's 2006 so-called documentary film, possibly more aptly named "An Inconvenient Farce" may have been aimed at increasing revenues of his vested bio-companies. [2]

In reviewing the film several times, in this author's opinion, the film strongly depicts the damage caused by hurricane Katrina as a "result" or "consequence" of global warming. Upon review of the storm by experts, in fact, Katrina was only a category 3 hurricane (when it hit New Orleans) [3] and not some super-devastating monster child of global warming. Although recorded as among the top ten most powerful Atlantic hurricanes (see first chart below) several stronger hurricanes were much less devastating because they did not hit areas so precariously depending on weakened levees' and dikes. [4]

In fact, the aftermath report concluded that New Orleans itself was subject to Category 1 and 2 winds and not Category 3 winds. [5] For people who lived through the storm, they witnessed that the damage to New Orleans was not "primarily" the result of Katrina- but rather by weak levee's and dikes which collapsed and over-flowed [6]- THAT is what caused the vast majority of the damage to New Orleans. It was a problem of neglecting the poor, bad designs, and decay of levee's because they were located among an impoverished populace to which local and state politicians took no care about. The media and Al gore "twisted" the truth by depicting the New Orleans disaster as a result of global warming when in fact it was a result of economics and budgets. [ibid]

Did the levee's collapse due to the fact that Katrina was a super-strong global warming induced hurricane ? Well, the Army of Engineers said NO (see the report directly below) the wall did not fail because they were overloaded, they failed because of design flaws ! – nothing to do with global warming or man-made C02's ! [ibid]

"independent investigators had demonstrated that levee failures were not caused by natural forces beyond intended design strength, Lieutenant General Carl Strock testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water that " we have now concluded we had problems with the design of the structure" April 16, 2005 [7]

Furthermore, the report stated:

" A storm of Hurricane Katrina's strength and intensity is expected to cause major flooding and damage. A large portion of the destruction from Hurricane Katrina was caused not only by the storm itself, however, but also by the storm's exposure of engineering and engineering related policy failures. The levees and flood walls breeched because of a combination of unfortunate choices and decisions, made over many years, at almost all levels of responsibility. [ibid]

Over 53 levees were breached and floodgates were never closed- what does that have to do with C02 ?

Al Gore's film was "possibly" a contrived attempt, ignoring facts in order to deceive the general public using a recent and well-known event to stir the emotions of the people in agreement with faulty global warming science- to DENY "natural" climate change. It was a bold deception of the American public to display the damage and deaths in Gore's film and relate that to global warming which may have led to increased interest in the bio-companies Gore owns or invested in.

In fact, the Katrina review gives SHOCKING conclusions that point the responsibility of the majority of deaths on the failures of the levees and dikes and NOT the storm itself ! Contemplate this conclusion from the engineers review of Katrina related deaths;

chapter 7 " A modeling exercise conducted by the USACE compared expected deaths from the hurricane protection system failure with scenarios in which the system did not fail. Results of this modeling indicate that had the levees and flood walls not failed and had the pump stations operated, nearly TWO-THIRDS (author emphasis) of the deaths would not have occurred." [ibid]

In Chapter 7 continues:

DIRECT CAUSES of the Catastrophe

What is unique about the devastation that befell the New Orleans area from Hurricane Katrina – compared to other natural disasters – is that much of the destruction was the result of engineering and engineering -related policy failures." [ibid]

October 4, 2010- Agence Press France

"but scientists say that devastating floods in Pakistan and China this year, as well as fires in Russia, are a taste of extreme weather that humans will endure if world leaders do not curb greenhouse emissions soon"

So this implies that before the so-called, claimed, rise in C02 levels- the world did not have devastating floods or fires ? Yes we did, in fact, a cursory glance at your world almanac sitting next to you would reveal that we have had much more extreme weather in past decades with no upward trend.

In terms of earthquakes, record high and low temperatures, hurricanes, tornados and floods- the United States has experienced the most extreme weather from 1930-1937. [8] That decade is long before natural climate deniers claim a steep rise in C02's. Global Warming theory and their denial of natural climate change and short term spikes in weather is simply garbage science easily disproven.

Natural climate change DENIERS got it wrong on hurricanes.

The mainstream global warming theories claim that since man-made C02s are increasing temperatures this will stimulate more intense and more frequent hurricanes. This is on the basis that warmer temperatures will warm the ocean, warmer oceans stimulate and feed hurricanes. [9]

This theory- linking global warming and increased hurricanes is also touted by the Fourth IPCC report.

It stated: " The report considered that it is likely that storm intensity will continue to increase through the 21st century and declared it more likely that not that there has been some human contribution to the increases in tropical cyclone intensity."

However, upon review of the recent records of the number of hurricanes experienced, we are actually experiencing a 33 year low in global hurricane activity. [10] Not more hurricanes, as natural climate change deniers claim, LESS hurricanes- which is also further proof that there is no such thing as consistent- GLOBAL temperature change. Temperature and changes thereof are regional, NOT global.

" current year to date analysis of Northern Hemisphere and Global Tropical Cyclone Accumulated Cyclone Energey (ACE) and Power Dissipation Index (PDI) has fallen even further than during the previous 3- years.  The global activity is at 33-year lows and at a historical record low where typhoons form in the Western Pacific." [11]

This information, which contradicts natural climate change deniers, would normally be quite upsetting.  These days however, they turn to "feedback" loop theories to explain anything that contradicts their core pseudo-science.  Global warmers now claim that global warming in fact- REDUCES hurricanes via the feedback loop !

Hurricane expert – Kerry Emanuel (in the March 2008 issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) wrote that "new climate modeling data" indicates "global warming should REDUCE (my emphasis) global frequency of hurricanes."  (Houston Chronicle reprint)

What ? Amazing !  The very foundation and baseline theory of global warming is turned on its head !  Global warming theories being disproven by the low frequency of hurricanes is now turning around to support the lack of hurricanes.  So which theory is correct ? The IPCC or Kerry Emanuel ?  In this case, global warming then is a POSITIVE factor to reduce the destruction of hurricanes and Al Gore got it wrong ?

In fact, the most intense and costly hurricanes have occurred BEFORE major man made C02 emissions could have had any effects on climate change.  One can see on the chart below that of the 10 most costliest hurricanes, five were before WWII, before the enormous boom in factories and autos.  Only two recently were very destructive, Katrina and Andrew in 1992.

According to mainstream global warming theory, the most destructive hurricanes should be geometrically increasing- BUT- they are NOT !  The theory, once again, can be easily be disproven by simply looking at your almanac sitting on your shelf or the internet to research this data.  You would also find the same results if you look up hurricanes by "intensity" (measured by low pressure- millibars). 

Costliest US Atlantic Hurricanes [12]

Rank                  Season            Cost in damages(in 2005 dollars)

1. Miami            1926             157 bill

2.  Galveston      1900            99.4 bill

3. Katrina          2005              81. bill

4. Galveston      1915             68 bill

5. Andrew          1992             55.8 bill

6. New England  1938           39.2 bill

7. Cuba-Florida   1944           38.7 bill

8.  Okeechobee    1928          33.6 bill

9.  donna              1960        26.8 bill

10.  Camille          1969        21.2 bill

 No upward trend correlating to increased C02. (author note)

 Hurricanes by Intensity (mainland USA)  [13]

Rank     Hurricane                  Year       Pressure

1           Unnamed (FL keys)  1935       892 mb

2.       Camille                        1969         909 mb

3.        Andrew                       1992         922 mb

4.      TX-Indianola                 1886        925 mb

5.    Unnamed- FL keys TX    1919         927 mb

6.      Lake Okeechobee        1928         929 mb

7.     Donna                           1960         930 mb

8.     New Orleans                 1915          931 mb

9.  LA (Last Island)                1856          934 mb

10. Hugo                                 1989         934 mb

11.  Unnamed                        1926          935 mb

12.  Galveston TX                   1900          936 mb

13.  Brunswick GA                 1898           938 mb

14  Hazel                                 1954         338 mb

15.  unnamed (TX coast)        1921         338 mb

As one can see, of the top 15 hurricanes to hit the US, TEN were before the post- WWII industrial CO2 boom !  In this context, hurricane frequency and intensity has NOT increased along the claimed increases of C02 and warmer weather.

SAVE the Polar Bear !

Time and time again Global Warmers obviously do not feel comfortable with direct data to support themselves, but rather, feel the need to convince the general public using popular icons such as Polar Bears. Natural climate deniers suggest, directly and indirectly- especially with photos of a lone polar bear floating on an iceberg on the edge of extinction, that global warming will kill off the polar bear.

" Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have evolved and persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate. Polar bears have become the poster-species for doosmday prophets of global catastrophe from anthropegenic climate change. It makes a great story because it is simple and intuitive. However, the reality is much more complex. Predicted effects of climate change on polar bears must take into account the differences in latitude and ecological circumstances of the various populations. The same papers warn of possible negative effects on polar bears from climate change also suggest that polar bear habitat in some areas will likely improve (e.g. Drocher et al. 2004). It seems clear that things in the Arctic will change, but not all changes will be negative for the polar bear. … there is only evidence for delerterious effects from climate change for one polar bear population (Western Hudson Bay) at the southernmost extreme of polar bear range."

 This is the testamony of Mitchell K. Taylor, Manager at the Canadian Department of the Environment, Wildlife Research, Govt. of Nunavut Territory Canada [14]

Other experts confirm that the polar bear is simply not threatened and any changes in their habitat due to global warming is none to minimal. It's very apparent how Al Gore's film, as well as many global warming organizations (Al Gore, World Wild Life Fund, Bear Planet, Save BioGems, National Wild Life Federation, etc. ) MISUSE and ABUSE the polar bear as an example to bolster their unscientific arguments. The way these GREEN organizations use the photo of the polar bear on the isolated floating piece of ice- sitting in dispair waiting for his imminent doom is tantamount to FRAUD.

 "Listing the bears is so controversial because, in many experts mind, the polar bear simply doesn't seem to be threatened. 'At this time, the bears are as numerous as they've always been across their range.' says Matt Cronin, a professor of animal genetics at the university of Alaska Fairbanks. This is unusual for a species considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. One U.S. Study, for example, showed that the animals listed as "threatened" had a median population size of 4,000- a far cry from the estimated 25,000 bears on the planet. 'Realistically, we've probably only lost a couple of hundred bears in the world due to climate change." says Lily Peacock a polar bear biologist in Nunavut." [15]

In fact, all studies show an enormous increase in the polar bear population from the lates 1960's, from approximately 500 to the current 22,000-25,000. [16]

 MINISTER of ENVIRONMENT: Polar Bear Not an At-Risk Species (CANADA)

 Iqaluit, Nunavut Canada: (May 28, 2010) The Honorable Daniel Shewchuk, Minister of the Environment, today announced a change in the Government of Nunavut's position on the proposed up-listing of the polar bear as a species of special concern under the Federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Due to a lack of evidence indicating that polar bears meet the criteria for Special Concern designation, the Government of Nunavut is NOT supporting Environment Canada's proposal to change the listing.

 Inuit hunters have a close relationship with the land and wildlife. They have observed that the overall population of polar bears in Nunavut is not declining as some suggest, but rather is thriving. No known environment or other factors are currently posing a significant or immediate threat to polar bears overall. Furthermore, Inuit knowledge and science corroborate that the species can and will adapt to changing and severe climatic conditions as it has done for centuries.

 …. It is important that we rely on the science and local observations and not cave to external pressure and uninformed opinions. There is simply no clear evidence to support a proposed up-listing." [17]

 The vast majority of Natural Climate Change Deniers make outlandish claims about the polar bear but themselves do not live out on the ice.  Much of their work derives from a handful of transponders put on polar bears and use extrapolation methods and guesswork to proclaim the coming demise of the polar bear due to supposed global warming. The people out on the ice, the Inuit, Canadian Rangers, the Nunavut Government, are exposing "arm-chair" polar bear experts as remote and isolated with no broad foundation in their claims.


 The media is abundant in stories about past CO2 levels being significantly lower than today. The idea that man is creating C02 levels which may be harmful gives greater impetus to the urgent need to cut down on man-made C02's.

 Rising C02 Levels:

In fact, analysis of ice core samples indicate that when ice cores are retrieved to the surface, the change in pressure cause the release of portions of trapped Co2 and thus the readings are lower than what they actually were. [18]

In this case, one can realize that C02 levels have probably NOT, in fact, risen over the past 100 or 200 years, but in fact, the ice core data is faulty becauses its measurement is below what the actualy levels were in the past. This makes it "seem" that recorded C02 levels have risen but in fact they have not.

Ice core dating is NOT an exact science, there are several competing methods of dating liberated gases from ice core samples and a lot of guess work and estimates are made to fill in gaps. There are significant questions about dating C02 levels. [19]

Current levels of C02 approximately stand at: 320-380 parts per million (ppm) and is variable according to changes in the season. One must understand that inside your place of work or home, Co2 levels can vary from 400-5,000 ppm !! Co2 is NOT a pollutant, Co2 is NOT carbon MONOXIDE, Co2 at most levels is totally safe, and in fact, required for life !!

In fact, in the context of human tolerance to C02 levels, one must know that the "claimed" (but not true) rise in C02 levels from 150 years ago- supposedly 260 ppm (1760) to today's recorded 'average' outside level of 380ppm is INSIGINIFICANT to humans ! Humans can tolerate levels of 30,000 ppm !! [20] C02 toxicity levels don't occur until about 5% (50,000 ppm) [ibid]. That means humans, as well as animals can sustain ONE HUNDRED and THIRTY (130x) times the levels of Co2 which currently exists in our atmosphere as of October 2010. (see chart below)

 US Department of Labor: Occupational Safety and Health Administration [21]


 OSHA General industry Pel: 5000 ppm

OSHA Construction Industry Pel; 5000 ppm

NIOSH REL: 5000 ppm TWA 30,000 ppm STEL

 Films like " An Inconvenient Truth" make it seem that if C02 rises to 400 or 500 ppm we are all going to choke and die ! Fact is, when you walk from your front yard, at which C02 levels may be 300-400ppm, you may enter your kitchen and live in C02 levels of 500-1,000 ppm and you don't notice or feel any difference physiologically.

 Let's understand clearly, although the current reported level of C02 in the atmosphere is about 380ppm, we often live and work in levels much higher than that. C02s are an "essential" greenhouse gas and "essential" to life !

 The main thrust of APGW is that rising Co2 levels push up temperatures which will result in several major problems, mainly that of melting polar caps and rising sea levels. Past history shows that during the medieval warming period- temperatures were higher and Co2 levels- global warmers claim, were much lower than today- thus, there does NOT seem to be a correlation between temperture and Co2 levels. In fact, a cursory look at what ice core samples reveal historically indicates quite clearly that Co2 levels follow temperature increases, NOT the other way around- in contradiction to what Al Gore stated in his film. Spend two minutes looking up ice core samples on the internet and one would see that any and all scientific institutions which conduct research with ice core samples CLEARLY state that temperatures DRIVE Co2 levels and NOT Co2 driving temperature. Co2 increases lag BEHIND temperature increases 400-800 years. In this author's opinion, a 400-800 year time lag does not even constitute a correlation.

Weather records DISPROVE climate change/global warming theories.

Extreme weather is NOT trending upwards, in decades before the C02 post industrial boom, there was as much if not slightly HIGHER levels of extreme weather- disproving the idea that supposed rising C02 levels causes and is causing rising levels of extreme weather. This furthermore proves that the global warming theory is essentially, "garbage science."

Record High Temperatures by State by Decade USA (global warming disproven !)

NOAA National Climatic Data Center NESDIS US Dept. of Commerce

1880 x                              1

1890 x                              1

1900 0                             0

1910 xxxxx                       5

1920 xx                            2

1930 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 23

1940                                  0

1950 xxxxx                         5

1960 xx                              2

1970 xx                              2

1980 xxx                             3

1990 xxxxx                          5

2000 x                                 1

After the point of the great industrial boom, proliferation of cars, factories, etc. we have "18" record highs set, YET, BEFORE industrialization and the rapid increase of man-made C02's, before WWII we have " 32 " record HIGHS !! Global warming theory says that temperatures are ever increasing and at a faster and faster pace, this in turn would lead to higher and more frequent "record high" temperatures, YET- this data set DISPROVES the suppositions of global warming theory. Facts over " 130 " years clearly disprove global warming theory. If one looks at the graph, there is NO trend upwards of record high temperatures or extreme weather. These facts are simply ignored in global warming- peer reviewed literature.

Naturally, global warming advocates will reply that these record highs are limited to the USA, and not the world. In response, see below "GLOBAL" record high temperatures- by continent and year that the record HIGH temperature was reached- according to global warming theory- we should see most record highs set most recently- the FACTS reveal otherwise !

AFRICA               El Azizia Libya                 136F             1922

N. AMERICA       Death Valley, CA             134F             1913

ASIA                    Tirat, Tsvi, Israel            129F              1942

AUSTRALIA         Oodnadatta Australia   123F              1960

S. AMERICA        Rivadavia, Argentina    120F              1905

EUROPE             Athens, Greece            118.4 F             1977

OCEANIA            Tuguegarao, Phil          108F                1912

ANTARCTICA      Vanda Station                 59F                1974

 Source: World Weather Extremes Archive, World Meteorological Organization for Climatology:

[link edited for length]

Does one observe an "upward" trend in global high temperatures by decade ? Obviously NOT, global warming disproven. Five of the record highs were set BEFORE the industrial boom, only 3 after post-WWII. No upward trend whatsoever. Glaring proof that so-called increased C02 levels are NOT driving temperatures upward.

POLAR ICE CAPS melting ? Where will Santa live ?

The media often regales at the "melting" of the polar ice caps (note: caps in the plural denoting the melting of both the North and South polar caps). This, often cited, erroneous information that both the North and South polar caps are melting is simply NOT TRUE, but even the opposite is true- the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding ! [22]

The National Snow and Ice Data Center indicates that over the past three decades (1979-2009) the ice sheet in the Antarctic has actually INCREASED- not melting away as global warming pseudo-science so frequently reports- incorrectly. This is simple basic science that we learned in the third grade- the Antarctic is TOO cold to melt. Yet, so called scientists of the global warming farce attempt to scare the public with the idea that rising sea levels due to melting polar caps will flood the world and the ice caps will disappear- as early as 2013 !! and its all YOUR fault !

A simple examination of the argument glaringly reveals just what kind of garbage science is being shovelled: First, the same institute, "National Snow and Ice Data Center" indicates that there is a "slight" "melting" of the NORTH polar (Arctic) cap over the same period (1979-2009). [ibid] If true- would that result in "rising" sea levels ? If you remember back to your third grade science class, you might recall that the Arctic polar cap SITS on the Arctic Ocean- which means that if ALL the North polar cap ice melted- it would result in a ZERO rise in sea levels. One might realize that despite the team of so-called 2,500 scientists behind the IPCC report, my eight year old daughter can explain that since the North cap sits on water – NOT land- then the water displacement has ALREADY occurred !, As you drop an ice cube in your glass of water, displacement occurs and the water level in your glass rises- however, as your ice melts- the water level remains the same since displacement occurs weather the water is in liquid or solid form. There is an argument that the warm melted ice cap water would cause "thermal" expansion- which would result in a rising sea level. Yet, thermal expansion happens all the time, naturally, due to changes in solar radiation levels, axial tilt, etc. so even melting ice water could hardly be called "warm" water. It's like throwing a glass of warm water into an Olympic size swimming pool of freezing cold water- the effect would hardly be measurable (and it takes hundreds to thousands of years to warm up an ocean and discern any thermal expansion effects).

Considering the possibility of melting ice in the South Pole (Antarctica) is much more important because Antarctica contains 70% of our existing fresh water and South Pole ice mainly sits on land- so if it were to melt it would indeed change sea levels. (melting ice on land has not yet displaced ocean water levels, thus if South Pole ice melted off the land and into the ocean, displace would indeed occur.)

The good news is that since Antarctica is in the SOUTH- receiving very little sun exposure and a very low level of solar radiation- it's simply TOO COLD to melt in the forseeable future. Antarctica is much colder than the North Pole and Antarctica would have to sustain a very high increase in temperatures for any significant melting. Temperatures there over the Winter season are -80c to -90c and -130c in the interior areas, which would mean that even if global temperatures rose 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30c it would be impossible to melt Antarctica. Global warmers are talking about rising temperatures of 1-3c, over the next 100 years- so how could that POSSIBLY melt the South Pole ? (impossible).

Global warmers spew outlandish feedback loop and ocean thermal expansion theories to speculate melting the South Pole which would push up sea levels by over 200 ft !

The sheer thickness of the ice in the South would require Winter temperatures to rise to unprecedented levels in a short amount of time and be sustained for many decades or hundreds of years to even begin metling the thick ice in the South Pole region. Such spikes in temperatures would make rising ocean levels the least of our problems.

What is the "reality" of the Antarctica melting ?

Actually, not only is the South Pole NOT melting- its actually INCREASING in size !! [ibid] This news is hardly mentioned in mainstream media, but is easily researched on any website which studies Antarctica, in fact, even the pro-global warming "Climate Institute" itself confirms this by stating:

Before describing the major factors contributing to climate change, it should be understood that the melting back of sea ice (e.g. in the Arctic and the floating ice shelves) will not directly contribute to sea level rise because this is already floating on the ocean ( and so already displacing its mass of water.)

[link edited for length]

Therefore, one can see that any melting in the Arctic simply "cannot" contribute to any rising sea levels and Antarctica is actually increasing in size and too cold to melt. It cannot be more apparent how outrageous media reports and global warming advocacy of the fear of melting polar caps is.

It is a wholly adequate adjective to describe much of global warming theories as garbage science, fraudulent, disproven and an outright lie and hoax.

In fact, "regional" increases in sea levels are limited and usually due to fresh waters deposits from the continental shelf which are streaming into the ocean. In addition, tidal wave data does not indicate any global increases in sea levels. [ibid]

Fraudulent climate change science focuses on it being man-made so that the finances will flow to the people and institutes which can save man-kind from impending disaster. If climate change cannot be attributed to man, funding levels to this area of science will go back to previous low levels in the 1970's and 1980's.

Natural climate change deniers often, may not, have the best interests of the earth at heart, but rather the dollars which flow to their pockets. Certainly Al Gore will profit from this science hoax.

In fact, these fraudsters are hurting the earth by diverting time, money and resources away from real pollutants, carbon monoxide, sulfates, clean water, etc that need continued attention. Focusing on C02 does NOT clean our air nor secure our children's futures.

Global Warming has STOPPED:

The most recent evidence, in any case- no matter the fraud of global warmers, has shown that temperatures are on a cooling trend- not warming. The very CORE of global warming theory is that as we continue to pump C02's into the atmopshere- thereby thickening our greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise- WRONG.

Data shows that for the past 15 years- global warming has reversed. The IPCC predicted that 2010 would be the "warmest" year on record- but recent data from the UK's Met Office indicates that 2010 is the "third" warmest- behind 1998 and 2005. In fact, high temperatures of 1998 and 2005 are clearly attributable to the El Nino effect and NOT any trend in line with supposedly increasing C02 levels. In fact, with rapid industrialization in China and India, temperatures should be rising even faster- they are NOT- its reversing- which completely destroys the very core of global warming theory.

The author of the now famous "hockey stick" graph, Michael Mann has recently admitted that there had "indeed been a medieval warming period around 1000 AD when the world may well have been hotter than it is now"

(Article by David Rose "What happened to the warmest year on record- the truth is global warming has halted" 5 December 2010)

Even the Director of the CRU, which was at the center of the "climategate" leaked email scandal has admitted in an online interview with the BBC that there has been "no statistically significant warming since 1995." [ibid]

The SKY is NOT falling;

Natural climate change DENIERS, are constantly repositioning themselves when their garbage science is exposed- for example- they are increasingly dropping the use of "global warming" in favor of "climate change" so as to encompass contradictory evidence such as tempertures are now cooling not warming, or the lack of hurricanes, etc. Climate change ? Yes, does anyone deny that the climate changes ? This same group which clung so closely to global warming theory have been so delegitimated but refuse to give up- and now, so falsely, jump to a new bandwagon- that of climate change.

It's ridiculous for the public to have even accepted global warming vocabulary such as "global temperatures"- as there is no such thing as a "global temperature." There is no "baseline" world temperature from which to base temperature trends by which we can compare using such short time frames. Temperatures are not consistent and highly varied throughout the entire world- therefore there is no value in extrapolating any trends from an artificially constructed "global temperature."

Global temperature statistics are the result of the averaging of temperatures taken in various locations from the surface and atmosphere. Over time, certain weather station readings have been dropped from the data sets in order to mask falling temperatures in certain parts of the world.

Does the public realize that there is NO ONE agreed upon global tempearture ? – different agencies have different results- NASA, NOAA, unversities, etc. The IPCC defines global temperatures using "mean surface average" temperatures- which of course, will be different each year, from location to location- realizing that different locations are at different altitudes- so they are using apples AND oranges to compile their averages. This is NOT a scientific method and has little analytical value. The data compiled is so complex that the IPCC can manipulate the data in order to publish whatever results suits it.

The idea behind a "global temperature" is to have a baseline in which any increases can be attributed to man- and not natural forces. By definition, there cannot and is not such a thing as a "global temperature" and therefore there cannot be "global warming." There can be "partial", "regional", "short-term" warming- or cooling, as defined by the NOAA.

As long as the global warming scare pays financial and employment dividends, we will continue to see the pseudo-science dominate objective climate science. Because of the complexities of climate, science cannot answer many questions, let alone, offer all the precise data and predictions that global warmers claim. If one googles what the weather will be like in your location in 30 days- there is no answer or prediction given- why ? Current science simply cannot predict weather beyond what atmopsheric changes are already in process. We are, as yet, unable to predict climate and weather phenomenon before a change in weather or climate has already begun. This is why global warmers like to offer time periods of their predictions like 100 years- so that they cannot be proven wrong in their own time. Global warmers do not make short term predictions because they and their science would be exposed as complete frauds. Even the few short term predictions global warmers have made have been proven quickly to be completely wrong, i.e. current temperatures should be getting warmer but in fact we have been experiencing cooling which has wiped out temperature gains of the last 50 years. Their predictions of increased hurricanes have been completely inaccurate as we are in a 33 year low of hurricane occurances.

The debate here is not about the theory of global warming per se, the debate is that the theories of global warmers rely on many variables and much of their science is not fact, but guesses and estimates computer models and extrapolations of what "could" happen. In addition, to the extent that there is natural climate change, this author sees no trends that indicate any sort of disaster or catastrophe.

Global warming catastrophe scenarios depend on "high-end" estimates of the most extreme computer models- given those type of odds for such disaster, we could also be hit by a comet or astroid, at those odds "anything" is possible- maybe catastrophic global warming- or cooling- BUT NOT LIKELY.


[1] 11,880 man-made co2/370,484 total green house gas= 3.207%

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, US Dept. of Enery, Government of the United States

[link edited for length]

[2] Al Gore's involvement, ownership and interestes in bio-companies smack of conflict of interest. Al Gore is the Chairman and co-founder of "Generation Investment Management" which invests in renewable energy in 2004, two years before the release of his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth."

In addition, GIM istelf owns a 2.98% stake in the "climate exchange" which owns the "Chicago Climate Exchange" which trades carbon credits. Therefore his promotion of "global warming" theory directly impacts his financial status.

 [link edited for length]

[link edited for length]

 [3] Tropical Cyclone Report, 23-30 August 2005, National Hurricane Center 20 December 2005

"After reaching category 5 intensity over the central Gulf of Mexico, Katrina weakened to Category 3 before making landfall on the northern Gulf coast."

[link edited for length]


Hurricane Severity Index

 Hurricane                      Year           Severity

Carla                             1961             42

Hugo                              1989             40

Betsy                              1965             40

Camile                            1969             36

Katrina                           2005              36

 [link edited for length]

 [5] The 2007 NHC (National Hurricane Center) report concluded that much of the city experienced sustained winds of Category 1 or Category 2 strength.


 [6] Hurricane Katrina: Why did the levee's fail?

American Society of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Graduate Program Chair on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers: Before the Committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs US Senate

[link edited for length]

 [7] The New Orleans Hurricane Protection System: What Went Wrong and Why: A Report by the American Society of Civil Engineers

[link edited for length]

[link edited for length]

[link edited for length]

 [8] World Weather Extremes Archive, World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

[link edited for length]

 [9] This theory is promoted by no less than America's prestigious National Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research NOAA… who say…..

" The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. "

[link edited for length]


[link edited for length]

 [11] [link edited for length]

[12]  Pielke, Gratz, Landsea, Sanders, Nov. 6 2006 "Normalized Hurricane Damages int he United States 1900-2005.

[13]  United States National Hurricane Center (NHC)

 [14] Testimony of Michell K. Taylor, Manager at the Canadian Department of the Environment, Wildlife Research, Government of Nunavut Territory Canada

[link edited for length]

In fact, Mitchell K. Taylor has been "banned" by global warmers for inclusion of his expert opinions in their reports because of his contention that global warming does not threaten the existence of polar bears. See this link:

[link edited for length]

[15][link edited for length]

 [16] IBID, Canadian Encyclopedia

 [17] [link edited for length]

 [18] [link edited for length]

 [19] [link edited for length]

 [20] [link edited for length]

 [21] IBID

 [22] [link edited for length]

National Snow and Ice Data Center


James Luko

Former United Nations Official, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Deputy Head of Office- ICTY Office of the Prosecutor, Canadian Defense Department-Ottawa Canada, National Council for Soviet-East European Research- Washington DC