Climate Fraudster Michael Mann Guilty, CO2 Innocent!
Mann and his hockey stick recently lost a crucial Canadian court case. Mann must pay Dr. Tim Ball’s legal expenses. Several years ago Mann brought the suit, after Ball, a climatologist, apparently referred to Mann’s “work” as fraudulent.
There were several earlier global warmings during this interglacial period, and each was also likely at least as warm as it is now. And carbon dioxide (CO2) had NOTHING to do with any of these earlier global warmings since all were before CO2 began increasing. Each warming was obviously caused by natural forces, so why are alarmists so certain that our current warming (such as it is) was instead caused by CO2 increase?
Instead of considering this historical data, the alarmist computer models ASSUME that CO2 increase causes warming. At least some of the CO2 increase was brought on by human activity, so claiming humans are responsible certainly makes the climate science more interesting (and powerful) but does that claim have anything to do with reality?
There is no evidence that CO2 has ever had any impact on our global temperature, even over geologic periods when CO2 was 10 to 20 times higher than now. The only justification is not only a lie but an argument which appeals to ignorance “there’s been nothing like this before….”.
A rational approach to modeling the climate strongly indicates that past history be considered rather than resorting to pure speculation that CO2, a trace gas, is causing our current warming.
The alarmists brushed off these earlier global warmings, apparently believing that these were not global. However, there was some uncertainty since one of their members, Dr. Phil Jones (Univ. of East Anglia), stated publicly, that if the MWP was global and at least as warm as now then it was a “different ballgame”.
Why didn’t he bother checking? It is not difficult to demonstrate that the most recent past warming, the Medieval Warming Period, (about 1,000 years-ago) was global and at least as warm as it is now.
https://principia-scientific.com/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/
But the alarmists went a step further, compounding their theory with additional speculation, namely the ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback was the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the carbon dioxide increase.
Why would any rational scientist rely on carbon dioxide speculation to project future temperatures when there is historical data showing that co2 was not involved? Worse, why deny the historical data? Where are the considerations about the fact that carbon dioxide has already doubled 8 times (40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} since 1800s) and we know that the supposed impact by co2 on temperature dissipates rapidly as co2 level increases?
Henrik Svensmark and his associates have come forth with a theory (back in the 90s, as I recall) where carbon dioxide is not even a consideration. Svensmark’s theory involves cosmic rays modulated by solar activity which influences cloud cover. (CERN has long since quietly validated that cosmic rays can influence cloud cover.)
We are apparently entering a period of low sun activity and if this low activity lasts for sufficiently long a forthcoming cooling is expected. (LOL. Al Gore is now (presumably unrelated to Svensmark theory), predicting “bitter cold”.
Since we are indeed contributing to the atmospheric CO2 level, however small, and scientists report our planet is now 5 percent greener as a result, it appears that botanists and health researchers will prove more useful than climate researchers.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Charles Higley
| #
“And carbon dioxide (CO2) had NOTHING to do with any of these earlier global warmings since all were before CO2 began increasing.”
Dr. Mann’s temperature graph was fraudulent, but so is Callendar’s graph and his conclusion that CO2 has been low until just recently. Calendar cherry-picked the known CO2 data from the last 200+ years and created a CO2 Hockey Stick Graph. He only chose low CO2 values for pre-1950 because he “knew” CO2 had been historically low, giving no evidence for this serious bias and data cherry-picking.
Check out Ernst Beck’s paper on 80,000 chemical CO2 bottle data and you will see that CO2 has been higher than today during three periods of the last 220 years, most lately in the 1940s, after which it plunged, which is where Calendar decided to start his graph and the assume all CO2 was low for all previous history.
Ice core CO2 concentrations have been conveniently assumed to be absolute, true values. However, experts estimate 30–50% loses during the trauma of ice core extraction, including massive decompression and widespread micro fracturing. It you back caclulate 40% loses, ice core CO2 indicates that CO2 over the glacial/ interglacial periods are the same or hight than now. Nothing at all is happening now that is unusual, which the alarmists do not want to be known.
So, we have two false hockey stick graphs, one for temperature and one for CO2. I wish most people knew about both of these junk science products and not operate under either, thinking they are fairly discussing the temperature-CO2 relationship.
As, currently, CO2 has been rising linearly and our emissions going up logarithmically, we are having no effect on atmospheric CO2. As a result, nothing we do to decrease emissions will have and cannot have any effect. It matters not whether CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas or not. That means that all efforts to force the world to decrease emissions are either based on very poor understanding of the facts and science or it is a political agenda that has nothing to do with the climate and all about power and money.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Charles, you are perfectly correct about Callendar’s bogus CO2 graph. Tim Ball is someone is most keen to expose that lie on top of Mann’s fakery.
Reply
Dr Roger Higgs
| #
This posting by “PSI contributor” and the comment by Charles Higley are beautifully written, perfectly truthful and a joy to read. Thank you both. Any intelligent layperson reading these items will immediately see that CO2 has been falsely vilified. Thank you John for publishing.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332245803
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Roger, thank you and agreed!
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Carbon Dioxide is a benign, trailing artifact of temperature change and a linear factor in increased photosynthesis up to 1600 PPM, providing more sugar, starch and cellulose for our planet.
Reply