Has there actually been a scientific debate over global warming?

Written by T L Winslow

Royalty Free Debate Clip Art, Vector Images ...

To this question the answer is yes and no. The orthodox U.N. IPCC catechism goes like this:

“For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase. Among them, Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827; Eunice Foote in 1856; John Tyndall in 1859; Svante Arrhenius in 1896; C.J. Fox in 1909; John Henry Poynting in 1909; A. Angstron in 1918; Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916; Alexander Graham Bell in 1917; E.O. Hulburt in 1931; S.G. Callendar in 1937; Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956; Carl Sagan in 1972; Stephen Hawking in 1960; Isaac Asimov in 1968; Wally Broecker in 1975; Richard Feynman and ‘The Jasons’ in 1979; and over 660 science organization in 35 countries with one dissent.” – David Rice

For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global…

Here’s some history nuggets from my cool, er, hot free Climatescope, best on the Web, showing highlights.

TLW’s Climatescope™, by T.L. Winslow (TLW), “The Historyscoper”™

In Oct. 1824 French mathematical physicist Baron <a href=”Joseph Fourier – Wikipedia“>Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768-1830)</a> published the paper <a href=”Fourier (1824) Translated by Burgess (1837)“><i>Remarques generales sur les Temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires</i></a> (General Remarks on the Temperature of the Terrestrial Globe and the Planetary Space) in <i>Annales de Chimie et de Physique</i>, in which he calculated that the Earth would be far colder if it had no atmosphere, allegedly discovering the <a href=”Greenhouse effect – Wikipedia“>Greenhouse Effect</a> (talking about a glass box) and launching climate change science.

“In short, if all the strata of air of which the atmosphere is formed, preserved their density with their transparency, and lost only the mobility which is peculiar to them, this mass of air, thus become solid, on being exposed to the rays of the sun, would produce an effect the same in kind with that we have just described. The heat, coming in the state of light to the solid earth, would lose all at once, and almost entirely, its power of passing through transparent solids: it would accumulate in the lower strata of the atmosphere, which would thus acquire very high temperatures. We should observe at the same time a diminution of the degree of acquired heat, as we go from the surface of the earth. The mobility of the air, which is rapidly displaced in every direction, and which rises when heated, and the radiation of non-luminous heat into the air, diminish the intensity of the effects which would take place in a transparent and solid atmosphere, but do not entirely change their character. The decrease of heat in the higher regions of the air does not cease, and the temperature can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat.”

Too bad, Fourier never mentioned CO2 as having anything to do with it. That’s where the other scientists in the list above came in. We’ll skip them for brevity, except Arrhenius.

In Apr. 1896 came Swedish chemist “Svante Arrhenius – Wikipedia“”http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf” who wrote:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Earth which first describes the effect of CO2 in raising atmospheric temps via the greenhouse effect, using values for the radiant heat of the full moon at different elevations above the horizon supplied by Samuel Pierpont Langley to compute the heat absorbed by the atmosphere, calculating the effect of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) to be an increase in surface temp of 5C-8C, while a halving of it would produce a new ice age, with the conclusion:

“If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.” Too bad, he only proves that atmospheric CO2 absorbs and blocks infrared energy before returning it to space, not that it can return any of it to the surface.

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.”

From “Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity” –

Natural or Forced by Human Activity

In Jan. 1901 Swedish meteorologist <a href=”Nils Gustaf Ekholm – Wikipedia“>Nils Gustaf Ekholm (1848-1923)</a> (lifelong friend of Svante Arrhenius and believer in the ability of atmospheric CO2 to control the mean temp of the Earth) pub. the article <a href=”A Timeline of Climate Science and Policy“>On the variations of the climate of the geological and historical past and their causes</a> in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society>, containing the soundbyte:

“Yet we must expect that secular variations of the quantity of carbonic acid in the atmosphere will occur and cause climatic variations of the same kind as those revealed by geological science. Thus a future Ice Age might possibly occur. But here we find a remarkable circumstance that has hitherto been unexampled in the history of the earth. This is the influence of Man on climate… Thus it seems possible that Man will be efficaciously to regulate the future climate of the earth and consequently prevent the arrival of a a new Ice Age. By such means also the deterioration of the climate of the northern and Arctic regions, depending on the decrease of the obliquity of the ecliptic, may be counteracted. It is too early to judge of how far Man might be capable of thus regulating the future climate. But already the view of such a possibility seems to me so grand that I cannot help thinking that it will afford to Mankind hitherto unforeseen means of evolution.”

In 1906 after winning the 1905 Nobel Chem. Prize, Arrhenius -“https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf“>The Probable Cause of Climate Fluctuations></a>, amending his views, lowering his estimates to 1.6C-3.9C and considering increased CO2 to be beneficial;

“Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree.”

Too bad for modern climate alarmists, in 1906 Arrhenius pub. <a href=”Worlds in the making; the evolution of the universe : Arrhenius, Svante, 1859-1927 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive“><i>Worlds in the Making: The Evolution of the Universe</i></a> (“Världarnas utveckling”), which is trans. to German in 1907 as “Das Werden der Welden”, and to English in 1908, containing the soundbytes:

“Another process which withdraws carbonic acid [carbon dioxide] from the air is the assimilation of plants… [If] the percentage of carbon dioxide be doubled, the absorption by the plants would also be doubled. If, at the same time, the temperature rises by 4C, the vitality will increase in the ratio of 1:1.5, so that the doubling of the carbon dioxide percentage will lead to an increase in the absorption of carbonic acid by the plant approximately in the ratio of 1:3. An increase of the carbon dioxide percentage to double its amount may hence be able to raise the intensity of vegetable life… threefold”;

“We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

Hurray, in 1909 Am. physicist Robert W. Wood laid the greenhouse warming theory to rest in his paper “Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse”, with the soundbytes:

“There appears to be a widespread belief that the comparatively high temperature produced within a closed space covered with glass, and exposed to solar radiation, results from a transformation of wave-length, that is, that the heat waves from the sun, which are able to penetrate the glass, fall upon the walls of the enclosure and raise its temperature: the heat energy is re-emitted by the walls in the form of much longer waves, which are unable to penetrate the glass, the greenhouse acting as a radiation trap. I have always felt some doubt as to whether this action played any very large part in the elevation of temperature. It appeared much more probable that the part played by the glass was the prevention of the escape of the warm air heated by the ground within the enclosure. If we open the doors of a greenhouse on a cold and windy day, the trapping of radiation appears to lose much of its efficacy. As a matter of fact I am of the opinion that a greenhouse made of a glass transparent to waves of every possible length would show a temperature nearly, if not quite, as high as that observed in a glass house. The transparent screen allows the solar radiation to warm the ground, and the ground in turn warms the air, but only the limited amount within the enclosure. In the ‘open,’ the ground is continually brought into contact with cold air by convection currents”;

“Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere bycontact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

Robert W. Wood – Wikipedia

R. W. Wood: Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse

This didn’t stop the erroneous CO2 greenhouse warming theory from spreading, as seen by an article in The Pueblo Leader on Jan. 28, 1913 claiming that because of the work of “one of the greatest scientists in the world… Arrhenius of Sweden” who pontificated that the

“proportion of carbon dioxide in the air will make the climate warmer, by acting like the glass roof of a green house. With the carbon dioxide increased from two and one-half to three times, the temperature of the whole world will be raised 3 to 9 degrees centigrade – and Greenland will have a good climate for farming. All the good soil of Canada will be in as temperate a climate as that now enjoyed by Missouri…. The increased heat will cause more evaporation of water vapor from the oceans – and as what goes up must come down, this will cause moister climates almost everywhere, and our dry-farming sections will become as wet as Ohio. And thent the passengers on this Good Ship Earth will have vast fields of good land, which are not good now, upon which to multiply – as it seems to be their fate to do. All this will take place in a time shorter than the history of England since the Norman Conquest – in twice the time which has elapsed since the governor’s palace was built in Santa Fe New Mexico – our youngest state!”

“The Coming Exodus To Siberia And Canada”

In Apr. 1938 using 147 widespread land-based weather stations, Montreal, Canada-born British steam engineer “Guy Stewart Callendar – Wikipedia” Guy Stewart “G.S.” Callendar (1898-1964) wrote his paper “http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/callendar_1938.pdf

The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, announcing the Callendar (Greenhouse) Effect (“sky radiation”) caused by the burning of fossil fuels, assessing climate sensitivity at 2°C and claiming that it would be beneficial, delaying a “return of the deadly glaciers”, meeting with widespread skepticism until 1950 then leading to attempts to measure atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Hawaii in 1958; only about 60 stations are needed?

“By fuel combustion man has added about 150,000 million tons of carbon dioxide to the air during the past half century. The author estimates from the best available data that approximately three quarters of this has remained in the atmosphere. The radiation absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide and water vapour are used to show the effect of carbon dioxide on ‘sky radiation.’ From this the increase in mean temperature, due to the artificial production of carbon dioxide, is estimated to be at the rate of 0.003°C. per year at the present time. The temperature observations at 200 meteorological stations are used to show that world temperatures have actually increased at an average rate of 0.005°C. per year during the past half century.”

On May 28, 1956 Seattle, Wash.-born geologist-oceanographer Roger Revelle – Wikipedia

published the article “Science: One Big Greenhouse” One Big Greenhouse in Time mag., containing the soundbyte:

“As the air gets warmer, sea water will get warmer too, and CO2 dissolved in it will return to the atmosphere. More water will evaporate from the warm ocean, and this will increase the greenhouse effect of the CO2. Each effect will reinforce the other, possibly raising the temperature enough to melt the icecaps of Antarctica and Greenland, which would flood the earth’s coastal lands.”

In 1957 Revelle and and Vienna, Austria-born Am. chemist-physicist “Hans Suess – Wikipedia“Hans Eduard Suess (1909-93) published the paper “Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades”  which suggests that the rate of absorption of excess CO2 by Earth’s oceans is lower than previously estimated, threatening a greenhouse effect leading to global warming, and proposing the “Revelle factor – Wikipedia” the resistance to absorption of carbon dioxide by the ocean surface layer due to bicarbonate chemistry, which is higher in warm waters, leading to more anthropogenic CO2.

Revelle goes on to help create the Internat. Geophysical Year in 1958, and the Committee on Climate Change and the Ocean (CCCO), help found the U. of Calif. San Diego (UCSD), and become Al Gore’s professor and mentor at Harvard, becoming known as “the Father of Global Warming”.

Revelle later uttered the soundbyte: “Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”

In 1958 American scientist”Charles David Keeling – Wikipedia” (1928–2005) began measuring atmospheric CO2 concentrations in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, showing a steady yearly increase, giving atmospheric scientists ideas about the CO2-driven greenhouse theory heading to a runaway condition some time in the undefined future, although the levels back then were in the 300 ppm range. Too bad, they ended up falsifying 19th century readings of 400+ ppm.

The Great ‘CO2 is Rising’ Keeling Curve Fraud | PSI Intl

By the 1970s there was far more talk about a coming ice age than global warming:

“Climate experts believe the next ice age is on it’s way…within a lifetime…”

The History Of The Modern “Climate Change” Scam

Analysis: ‘Climate Change’ Has Been A Routine Scare Tactic Since The 1930s

On June 12, 1974 the Greeley (Colo.) Tribune published. the article Greeley Daily Tribune from Greeley, Colorado on June 12, 1974 · Page 20 Boulder scientists see end of period of favorable weather” by Bill Jordan, which starts out:

“Observers of the global climate at the National Center for Atmospheric Research believe the favorable weather of the past 15 years is about to give way to a period of unstable climate, crop losses, food shortages and death by starvation for millions. Underlying Schneider’s ideas on food shortages i the knowledge that the world is moving into a period of cooler temperatures.”

About the same time NCAR dir. Walter Orr Roberts – Wikipedia published the article https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/16505796265.pdf“”Climate Change and Its Effect on World Food” which starts out:

“In February of 1972 earth-orbiting artificial satellites revealed the existence of a greatly increased area of the snow and ice cover of the north polar ice cap as compared to all previous years of space age observations. Some scientists believe that this may have presaged the onset of the dramatic climate anomalies of 1972 that brought far-reaching adversities to the world’s peoples. Moreover, there is mounting evidence that the bad climate of 1972 may be the forerunner of a long series of less favorable agricultural crop years that lie ahead for most world societies. Thus widespread food shortages threaten just at the same time that world populations are growing to new highs. Indeed, less favorable climate may be the new global norm. The Earth may have entered a new “little ice age”. Perhaps this future period will not be extreme as that around 1700 AD, but it seems likely, at least, to be a cooler period resembling the hemispheric climatic regimes of the period from 1880-1920.”

In 1975 the Nat. Research Council’s U.S. Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program published the paper ”Full text of “Understanding climatic change” Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action”  which talks about recent global cooling and only casually mentions CO2 as a potential source of AGW, waffling about the future trend and calling for more research:

“A striking feature of the instrumental record is the behavior of temperature worldwide. As shown by Mitchell (1970), the average surface air temperature in the northern hemisphere increased from the 1880’s until about 1940 and has been decreasing thereafter. Starr and Oort (1973) have reported that, during the period 1958-1963, the hemisphere’s (mass-weighted) mean temperature decreased by about 0.6 °C. In that period the polar and subtropical arid regions experienced the greatest cooling. The cause of this variation is not known, although clearly this trend cannot continue indefinitely.”

“These climatic projections, however, could be replaced with quite different future climatic scenarios due to man’s inadvertent interference with the otherwise natural variation (Mitchell, 1973a). This aspect of climatic change has recently received increased attention, as evidenced by the smic report (Wilson, 1971). A leading anthropogenic effect is the enrichment of the atmospheric C02 content by the combustion of fossil fuels, which has been rising about 4 percent per year since 1910. There is evidence that the ocean’s uptake of much of this C02 is diminishing (Keeling et al., 1974), which raises the possibility of even greater future atmospheric concentrations. Man’s activities are also contaminating the atmosphere with aerosols and releasing waste heat into the atmosphere, either (or both) of which may have important climatic consequences (Mitchell, 1973b). Such effects may combine to offset a future natural cooling trend or to enhance a natural warming. This situation serves to illustrate the uncertainty introduced into the problem of future climatic changes by the interference of man and is occurring before adequate knowledge of the natural variations themselves has been obtained. Again, the clear need is for greatly increased research on both the nature and causes of climatic variation.”

Full text of “Understanding climatic change”

Meanwhile on Aug. 8, 1975 Chicago, Ill.-born Columbia U. geophysicist Wallace Smith Broecker – Wikipedia published the paper https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu//files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdfClimate Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?  in Science mag., coining the terms “global warming” and “climate change”, predicting an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 403 ppm by 2010 along with a global temp increase of 1.10C, with the soundbyte:

“If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide. By analogy with similar events in the past, the natural climatic cooling which, since 1940, has more than compensated for the carbon dioxide effect, will soon bottom out. Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.”

He went on to utter the soundbyte: “Climate is an angry beast and we are poking at it with sticks”, becoming known as “the Godfather of Global Warming”.

Clear through 1979 papers were being published in the peer-reviewed scientific journals about global cooling, and had been increasing every year since 1960, although they were being overtaken by global warming papers.

So, the debate was far from settled in 1981 when NASA head climate scientist James E. Hansen hooked up with Canadian Marxist Maurice Strong of the U.N. and American Democratic politician Al Gore to hijack the debate into a plot for Marxist world government, first by resurrecting the almost dead greenhouse theory and later by inventing incredible “back radiation” powers for CO2 to get around its limitations.

James Hansen – Wikipedia

Maurice Strong – Wikipedia

Al Gore – Wikipedia

On Aug. 22, 1981 The New York Times published a front-page story by Walter Sullivan titled


about NASA’s James Edward Hansen and his forthcoming global warming paper in Science, conceding that the past century’s warming lays within the range of historical averages but predicting the emergence of an anthropogenic global warming signal, with the soundbytes:

“A team of Federal scientists says it has detected an overall warming trend in the earth’s atmosphere extending back to the year 1880. They regard this as evidence of the validity of the ‘greenhouse’ effect, in which increasing amounts of carbon dioxide cause steady temperature increases.

“The seven atmospheric scientists predict a global warming of ‘almost unprecedented magnitude’ in the next century. It might even be sufficient to melt and dislodge the ice cover of West Antarctica, they say, eventually leading to a worldwide rise of 15 to 20 feet in the sea level. In that case, they say, it would ‘flood 25 percent of Louisiana and Florida, 10 percent of New Jersey and many other lowlands throughout the world’ within a century or less.”

“Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is primarily a result of mankind’s burning of fuels, is thought to act like the glass of a greenhouse. It absorbs heat radiation from the earth and its atmosphere, heat that otherwise would dissipate into space. Other factors being equal, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the earth should become, according to the theory.”

“Dr. Hansen and his colleagues cite the observed surface temperatures of Mars and, particularly, Venus as support for their predicted greenhouse effect. The surface of Venus, with an atmosphere formed largely of carbon dioxide, is at about 900 degrees Fahrenheit.”

“The possibility that the greenhouse effect could alter the earth’s temperature has long been debated. Scientists have agreed that carbon dioxide is increasing, but disagree on whether temperatures are also increasing. The major difficulty in accepting the greenhouse theory ‘has been the absence of observed warming coincident with the historic carbon dioxide increase,’ the scientists wrote.”

“Researchers were further confounded by an apparent cooling trend since 1940. As a result, many atmospheric scientists concluded that the climatic effects of increased carbon dioxide might not become detectable for many decades. But the Government scientists say they see clear evidence that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution has already warmed the climate.”

“Their conclusion that the climate has warmed by almost one degree in the last century is based on a re-analysis of global observations, paying special attention to the Southern Hemisphere.

‘The common misconception that the world is cooling,’ they say, ‘is based on Northern Hemisphere experience to 1970.'”

Notice where it says Federal Government scientists. James Hansen was their leader, coopting NASA’s Goddard Inst. of Space Studies (not the entire space org., just one part connected with Columbia U.) to his views to this day. From day one they’ve had an agenda to push CO2-driven global warming with not even the slightest hint of fairness and objectivity. So much for debate.

So no surprise, in 1988 Hansen, in cahoots with Al Gore, Tim Wirth, Maurice Strong and other leftist and globalist Marxist scientists and politicians gave a big speech to Congress claiming that global warming has been detected and is due to CO2, launching the globalist Marxist U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with much fanfare and funding, like a NASA rocket taking off from Cape Canaveral. Ever since it has compromised scientists, academics, and journalists to push their agenda and shut down all debate, so if there ever will be a real honest fair one it will be possible only after they’re gone, sorry. Only Pres. Trump is attempting to organize a fair panel to investigate, which predictably is drawing howls from the IPCC octopus, who don’t want any debate to mess up their plans to bilk trillions in order to end capitalism and set up a Marxist utopia.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – Wikipedia

How The IPCC Created A ‘Scientific Consensus’ On Climate | PSI Intl

Opposition was weak and sputtering. In summer 1992 the article <a href=”https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e66/9c695effa8fa73ce3fa6bea331c2f85b107a.pdf“>”What to do about greenhouse warning: Look before you leap”</a>, by Austrian-born U. of Va. physicist-engineer <a href=”Fred Singer – Wikipedia“>Siegfried Fred Singer (1924-)</a> and electrical engineer <a href=”Chauncey Starr – Wikipedia“>Chauncey Starr (1912-2007)</a> was published in Cosmos: A Journal of Engineering Issues, containing the soundbyte:

“Drastic, precipitous – and, especially, unilateral – steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent economic controls now would be economically devastating particularly for developing countries.”

It concludes:

“The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time. There is little risk in delaying policy responses.”

Too bad, Seattle, Wash.-born geologist-oceanographer (“Father of Global Warming”) <a href=”Roger Revelle – Wikipedia“>Roger Randall Douglas Revelle (1909-91)</a> added his name to the article after Singer allegedly hoodwinked him, causing Al Gore to call Revelle “senile”, Revelle’s grad student Justin Lancaster to to call Singer’s actions “unethical”, after which Singer sued with the support of the Center for Public Interest in Washington, D.C., receiving a letter of apology from Lancaster sans admission of wrongdoing, only to withdraw his letter in 2006 after Robert Balling et al. continue to claim that Revelle is the article’s real author, while Revelle waffled until his 1991 death.

In 1998 after doing research on paleoclimatology, newly-minted doctor of geophysics Michael E. Mann took the IPCC CO2 hoax over the top with his infamous hockey stick graph, which seemed to show recent global avg. temps taking off like a, rocket, no surprise, in line with increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration. No mater that it was picked apart by real scientists, who were not given the same stage, instead having to wither the IPCC climate agitprop machine, which tried to defame and marginalize them.

Michael E. Mann – Wikipedia

Hockey stick graph – Wikipedia

Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” Update: Now Definitively Established To Be Fraud | PSI Intl

After that, there was no stopping the IPCC, which took a smug intolerant attitude that it was right and everybody else was wrong, and wouldn’t tolerate boat-rockers, forcing the real climate scientists out to work independently and publish on blogs instead of academic journals to this day, while the IPCC sucked in megadollars and formulated grandiose plans for the complete destruction of the fossil fuel industry and capitalism itself, which took 20 years to out.

So much for a real honest open publicized scientific debate over global warming.

Speaking of open and honest, did you ever hear of the 2009 Climategate scandel, when hackers exposed emails by scientists of the Climatic Research Unit of the U. of East Anglia, one of the most prominent proponents of the CO2 AGW theory, discussing how they want to tamper with historical temperature data to make their theory look better? No surprise, the Royal Society whitewashed it to keep any real open honest debate from happening.

Climate Science Proves Scams Don’t Die From Exposure | PSI Intl

Delingpole: Climategate 10 Years On – The Bastards Got Away With It!

Media Whitewashes Climategate Scandal One Decade On | PSI Intl

John Walker’s answer to Why were those involved in the “climategate” fiasco completely absolved of any wrongdoing?

On July 3, 2015 Minneapolis, Minn.-born geophysicist <a href=”Marcia McNutt – Wikipedia“>Marcia Kemper McNutt (1952-)</a>, ed.-in-chief of “Science” mag. in 2013-16 published the paper “The beyond two-degree inferno” in “Science” mag., which starts out:

“In the history of humankind, there is a dearth of examples of global threats so far-reaching in their impact, so dire in their consequences, and considered so likely to occur that they have engaged all nations in risk mitigation. But now with climate change, we face a slowly escalating but long-enduring global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet to support a population of more than 7 billion people. The projected costs of addressing the problem grow with every year that we delay confronting it. In recognition of the shared risks we face and the collective action that will be necessary, an international meeting of stakeholders will convene in Paris next week, ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in December, to discuss solutions for both climate mitigation and adaptation. The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed.” – “The beyond-two-degree inferno

That’s right, her dictum “The time for debate has ended” really ended all semblance of debate in the IPCC, because now they’re all action, demanding that world govts. cough up huge oceans of baksheesh to pay for their alleged CO2 emission sins. – Climate science has died. The effects will be big.

The moral is: The IPCC won’t let any real open honest publicized debate over global warming happen, because they have almost nothing to gain and everything to lose. All along the politician-run IPCC has been telling their kept scientists what results to produce, like cage hens laying eggs for their owners to keep getting their chicken feed.

“The AGW climate scare of the last 30 years did not come to the forefront from individual scientists beginning to coalesce around the idea that rising levels of CO2 might pose a serious future climate threat to society. This threat was, by contrast, imposed upon the world from ‘above’ by the coming together of globally influential politicians, environmentalists, internationalists, etc. who knew little about climate but saw great political opportunities by using the rising CO2 levels as a scare tactic in order to exercise control over them. People respond best out of fear. But lasting response to fear must have a firm basis in truth. The AGW scare does not.” – Colo. State U. atmospheric scientist William M. Gray (1929-2016) The Physical Flaws of the Global Warming Theory and Deep Ocean Circulation Changes as the Primary Climate Driver

“The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.” – Dr. Vincent Gray, PhD chemist and IPCC Reviewer – THE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM by Vincent Gray pdf. My annotations added.The global warming scam is the result of the widespread belief in a new religion, based on the deification of a nebulous entity, “The Environment”.

DR TIM BALL MUST READ : Environmentalism – Evidence Suggests It Was Always And Only About Achieving World Government

The U.N.’s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson

To Take Down Fossil Fuels, We Must Abandon Capitalism

This is how UN scientists are preparing for the end of capitalism

TL Winslow’s answer to What is environmentalism ideology?

Thirty Years Of The James Hansen Clown Show

A Red Team Review Of Climate Crisis Assertions

Climate Alarmists Panicked Over “Climate Review Panel”

Science’s Untold Scandal: Professional Societies’ Sell Out on Climate Change | PSI Intl

Vilifying People Who Question Global Warming Is Anti-Science | PSI Intl

The Great ‘CO2 is Rising’ Keeling Curve Fraud | PSI Intl

Read more at www.quora.com


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.

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    Good article, what real scientist doesn’t want their hypothesis tested. The more it is tested without being disproved the more it becomes believed. When people don’t want any testing done they are simply snake oil sales people

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton


    Excellent TLW. [please note that I did not leave off the W ;^D]
    This article has it all.
    Thank you.

  • Avatar



    “Al Gore to hijack the debate into a plot for Marxist world government, first by resurrecting the almost dead greenhouse theory and later by inventing incredible “back radiation” powers for CO2 to get around its limitations.”

    Indeed the mythical “back radiation” some how take some high energy radiation, which excites the CO2 molecule (makes it vibrate more), then in less than a microsecond this CO2 molecule releases a much lower energy radiation, and apparently (according to the CO2 supposition) this radiation massively warms the atmospheric water molecules and all this makes the atmosphere so much warmer than it would normally be by the sun’s radiation alone.
    That is to say this theoretical radiative process puts normal entropy into reverse — lower energy radiation causes more warming!
    Meanwhile in the real world, CO2 excitation happen at a logarithmic rate, as atmospheric CO2 levels rise the less the effect — e.g. doubling from 200ppm tom 400ppm has a tiny effect, doubling from 400ppm to 800ppm has much smaller effect.
    Also of note is most CO2 molecules whether excited or not, bump into other particles in the atmosphere, when bumping they may loose some energy and therefore can not re-radiate — and that is the destiny of the majority of atmospheric CO2 molecules, bumping into other atmospheric particles and each other.
    Overall this process with atmospheric CO2 at about 0.04% (400ppm) by volume — it is a rare gas in the atmosphere, and it’s apparent thermal effects are so far immeasurable, lost as they are in the noise of all other more substantial thermal processes.
    However the optimal level for vegetative life appears to require a level closer to close to 0.1% (1000ppm).
    😉 So onward to a greener world of 600ppm or more! 🙂

Comments are closed