One-page summary on climate science

Written by Malcolm Roberts, Galileo Movement

Basic climate questions

People who care enough to attempt to understand climate quickly learn it’s not a five-minute conversation. Climate is complex and has become polarising. This summary assists people who respect and care about our natural environment and humanity, our country and economy, and our future security.Galileo Movement

The summary quickly provide a feel for key climate issues alive today. The summary stimulates thinking and consciousness and provides reassurance. It was made with assistance from many volunteers including leading international climate scientists. We hope it assists people to understand how to live in harmony and peace with our planet and Nature and to choose to appreciate and connect with the amazing species to which we belong.

It’s supported by the 25-page report entitled ‘CSIROh!’ and 780 pages of details in 32 appendices!.html or Google “CSIROH”. Appendices include hundreds of references and links to empirical scientific evidence, papers, articles, statistics, documented facts and books for easy checking. Figures below in parentheses refer to Appendix number.

The report was prepared using letters to and from prominent government agencies, academics, Lead Authors and contributors to UN climate reports and Members of Parliament. It’s supported by results from a Freedom of Information request on CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). Academics, all Members of federal Parliament, CSIRO, BOM, prominent UN climate advocates and journalists were invited in writing to specify errors in my report. All responses specified no errors.

More here: More here: and

My qualifications are similar to those of the UN climate body’s Chair, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri. I do not have his con- flicts of financial interest and in publishing my first public climate document freely declared my interests and aims:

Climate alarm is part of UN Agenda 21 introduced and summarised here: docs/JohnSmeed_Agenda21_Comment.pdf

Science is decided empirically. That means observed physical measurements not suppositions, theories, unvalidated computerised numerical models or other unsupported opinions and guesses.
Basic questions on the UN’s climate science (Appendix 4)

1. Is global atmospheric temperature rising unusually and is it continuing to rise? Atmospheric temperature flat since 1998. Cooled from 1958 to 1976. Ground-based temperatures now cooler than 1930’s, 1890’s and 1,000 years ago. It’s cooler than 80% of the 10,000 years since the last ice age. Ground- based temperature since 1860’s shows natural warming and cooling cycles. Rural American and Australian tem- peratures now cooler than 1890’s. Urban areas warmer due to urban heat sources. Answer: No unusual temperature change. All normal.

2. Does the level of carbon dioxide, CO2 in air determine temperature? Measurements used by the UN reveal seasonal tempera- ture changes precede and drive changes in CO2 levels. Overall trend in CO2 level follows changes in temperature with a lag of 400-1,000 years as oceans cool and warm in solar cycles. Medium-term CO2 levels vary naturally and enormously. During the last 200 years CO2 levels have been measured up to 40% higher than today. CO2 in air is less than 0.04%. That’s just 1/25th of one percent. Changes in CO2 level do not cause temperature changes. Changes in CO2 level are a result of temperature changes. Answer: No.

3. Does human CO2 determine the level of CO2 in air? CO2 data cited by UN proves Nature alone determines level of CO2 in air. Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 (dissolved) than in entire atmosphere. Total annual human CO2 production is estimated to be one quarter of the varimaation in Nature’s levels of CO2. Since 1998 human CO2 output rose rapidly yet no warming occurred. From 1958 to 1976 human CO2 output rose rapidly yet Earth’s atmospheric temperature cooled. For four decades from 1936 to 1976 human CO2 increased greatly yet ground-based temperatures fell. 300 million years ago Earth’s CO2 levels were 26 times current levels. 100 million years ago CO2 levels rose to 130 times current and life flourished. CO2 levels fell to half current levels during ice ages as recently as 20,000 years ago. All before human industrialisation started 160 years ago. Australia absorbs more CO2 than it makes. Human CO2 has no effect on the level of CO2 in air. It’s determined by Earth’s temperature and other natural factors. Answer: No.

4. Is warming harmful? Scientific term for Earth’s warm periods is “Climate Optimums” because plants, animals and humans thrive in warm periods. If humans controlled Earth’s thermostat we’d raise it. If we controlled CO2 level in air, we’d raise it. We affect neither. Answer: No.

To cut human CO2 output, all four questions must be answered “Yes”. If any answer is “No” there’s no need to cut human CO2. ALL are answered “No”.

Cutting human CO2 output can have no effect on CO2 levels in air and no effect on global climate. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colourless, odourless, tasteless invisible natural trace gas essential for life on Earth. It’s a nutrient. “Carbon pollution” though is a black solid virtually eradicated from developed nations. CO2 is not “carbon pollution”.

Earth’s current CO2 level is close to its lowest in 4.5 billion years and close to plants starving of CO2. Of Earth’s annual CO2 production, Nature produces 97%. Of the 3% from human activity Australia produces 1.3%. That’s 0.04% of what Nature produces. Carbon is in every cell of every living organism—plant and animal. It’s the foundation for life on Earth.

Empirical scientific evidence proves five main factors drive global climate cycles: Solar system and terrestrial changes; Cyclic regional decadal ocean-atmosphere cir- culation patterns; Water vapour and cloud cover; Ocean; Volcanoes. These are complicated by hundreds of inter- acting variables and cycles. Nature alone controls global climate. (Appendix 4)

© Malcolm Roberts | Nov 2013 |

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (2)

  • Avatar




    I visited your site at
    It demonstrates what a prodigious effort you have made to bring the problems of climate change and corruption of our institutions to public attention. I still have a lot of reading to do there.

    You assert on mulptiple occasions that No Reply means that the recipient of your letter agrees with or affirms what you have written. It seems more likely that they have decided to ignore you.

    Ignoring is a rational response while the public remains on the whole disengaged. Our problem is to bring these matters to public attention and convince them that there are serious consequences if matters continue as they have been.

    Thanks for all your work.

  • Avatar



    The last 4 summary points are concisely made and should be able to be understood by politicians and journalists and their readers.

    Point 1 is factually correct but unfortunately NASA have tampered with their historical data (again) and their latest temperature anomaly graph shows the 1930s cooler than present. It will now be more difficult to convince people that we are not at the hottest period for hundreds of years. (See graph at

    As a suggestion for everyone who writes for non scientific people don’t use 0.04% or 400ppm to describe the CO2 content in the air. 400 sounds a big number to many people (used by media) and you would be surprised how many people don’t fully understand percentages. When talking in non technical language I say something like “2500 parts of air contain one part of carbon dioxide”. Or “if say a molecule of carbon dioxide is 1mm in diameter then the next molecule is 2-1/2 metres away”. This seems to get the message across and puts the CO2 concentration catastrophe into perspective!

Comments are closed