Global Warming and Climate Change

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming HoaxAlan Caruba / March 31, 2014

“It is the greatest deception in history and the extent of the damage has yet to be exposed and measured,” says Dr. Tim Ball in his new book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science”.

Dr. Ball has been a climatologist for more than forty years and was one of the earliest critics of the global warming hoax that was initiated by the United Nations environmental program that was established in 1972 and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) established in 1988.

Several UN conferences set in motion the hoax that is based on the assertion that carbon dioxide (CO2) was causing a dramatic surge in heating the Earth. IPCC reports have continued to spread this lie through their summaries for policy makers that influenced policies that have caused nations worldwide to spend billions to reduce and restrict CO2 emissions. Manmade climate change—called anthropogenic global warming—continues to be the message though mankind plays no role whatever.

There is no scientific support for the UN theory.CO2, despite being a minor element of the Earth’s atmosphere, is essential for all life on Earth because it is the food that nourishes all vegetation. The Earth has passed through many periods of high levels of CO2 and many cycles of warming and cooling that are part of the life of the planet.

“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”

“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model

put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be.

Most of the reports were created by a small group of men working within the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and all were members of the IPCC. The result was “a totally false picture supposedly based on science.”

The revelations of emails between the members of the CRU were made available in 2009 by an unknown source. Dr. Ball quotes Phil Jones, the Director of the CRU at the time of the leaks, and Tom Wigley, a former director addressing other CRU members admitting that “Many of the uncertainties surrounding the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.”

The IPCC depended upon the public’s lack of knowledge regarding the science involved and the global warming hoax was greatly aided because the “mainstream media bought into and promoted the unproven theory. Scientists who challenged were denied funding and marginalized. National environmental policies were introduced based on the misleading information” of the IPCC summaries of their reports.

“By the time of the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the politics and hysteria about climate change had risen to a level that demanded clear evidence of a human signal,” notes Dr. Ball. “An entire industry had developed around massive funding from government. A large number of academic, political, and bureaucratic careers had evolved and depended on expansion of the evidence. Environmentalists were increasing pressure on the public and thereby politicians.”

The growing problem for the CRU and the entire global warming hoax was that no clear evidence existed to blame mankind for changes in the climate and still largely unknown to the public was the fact that the Earth has passed through many natural cycles of warmth and cooling. If humans were responsible, how could the CRU explain a succession of ice ages over millions of years?

The CRU emails revealed their growing concerns regarding a cooling cycle that had begun in the late 1990s and now, some seventeen years later, the Earth is in a widely recognized cooling cycle.

Moreover, the hoax was aimed at vast reductions in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power to produce the electricity on which all modern life depends. There was advocacy of solar and wind power to replace them and nations undertook costly programs to bring about the reduction of the CO2 “fossil fuels” produced and spent billions on the “green” energy. That program is being abandoned.

At the heart of the hoax is a contempt for mankind and a belief that population worldwide should be reduced. The science advisor to President Obama, John Holdren, has advocated forced abortions, sterilization by introducing infertility drugs into the nation’s drinking water and food, and other totalitarian measures. “Overpopulation is still central to the use of climate change as a political vehicle,” warns Dr. Ball.

Given that the environmental movement has been around since the 1960s, it has taken decades for the public to grasp its intent and the torrents of lies that have been used to advance it. “More people,” notes Dr. Ball, “are starting to understand that what they’re told about climate change by academia, the mass media, and the government is wrong, especially the propaganda coming from the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.”  When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.

Worse, however, has been “the deliberate deceptions, misinformation, manipulation of records and misapplying scientific method and research” to pursue a political objective. Much of this is clearly unlawful, but it is unlikely that any of those who perpetrated the hoax will ever be punished and, in the case of Al Gore and the IPCC, they shared a Nobel Peace Prize!

We are all in debt to Dr. Ball and a score of his fellow scientists who exposed the lies and debunked the hoax; their numbers are growing with thousands of scientists signing petitions and participating in international conferences to expose this massive global deception.http://blog.heartland.org/2014/03/a-history-of-the-disastrous-global-warming-hoax/

It's official: 2014 was the hottest year ever recordedBrad Plumer / Vox.com / 16 January, 2015

Global warming is still with us. 2014 was Earth's hottest year since records began in 1880, according to new analyses from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: NASA and NOAA: 2014 was a record hot year.

Global temperature anomalies compared to the 1951–1980 base period (NASA/NOAA)

The global average temperature for 2014 was roughly 1.24°F (or 0.69°C) warmer than the 20th-century average, NOAA said. That included record heat in the western United States, Europe, Australia, and much of the Pacific Ocean. Both NASA and NOAA conducted independent analyses based on satellite and ground readings, but they arrived at similar conclusions.

The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998The previous hottest year on record had been 2010, followed by 2005 and 1998. (Technically, 2010 and 2014 were extremely close, and within the margin of error, though both agencies said it was more likely 2014 was hotter overall.)

Both agencies said the 10 hottest years have all come since 1998, a sign the Earth is steadily getting warmer. "If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven't lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th-century average," noted Marshall Shepherd, a meteorologist at the University of Georgia.

More broadly, average temperatures have now risen 1.4°F (0.8°C) since the 19th century. Climate scientists expect the Earth to keep getting hotter over time so long as humans keep adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There will be short-term variations from year to year — El Niño years like 1998 tend to be a bit warmer, while La Niña years are a bit cooler — so not every year will necessarily set records. But the overall trend is up:

(It's also worth clarifying that 2014 wasn't the hottest year in the planet's entire history. The Earth has been even hotter in the distant past, before human civilization arose — a result of natural processes and orbital shifts. But the Earth's climate had roughly stabilized over

the last 10,000 years, until humans began clearing forests, burning fossil fuels, and emitting greenhouse gases. Scientists say the rise in temperatures in the 20th century is a sign of man-made warming.)2014 saw record warmth in Europe and the western US

(NOAA)According to NOAA, the northeastern United States was actually a bit cooler than usual in 2014 (compared with the climate from 1981–2010). But the western United States saw record warm temperatures, exacerbating a brutal drought in California. The Pacific Northwest and Alaska also saw record warmth.

On the flip side, this year saw extremely warm temperatures in Europe — with 19 countries likely experiencing their hottest year ever — as well as record heat over much of the Pacific Ocean. Both agencies said that temperatures over the oceans were the warmest ever recorded.

It's also noteworthy that 2014 was a record hot year even without an El Niño.

El Niño events, which occur in the Pacific, tend to transfer heat stored beneath the ocean's surface up into the atmosphere. Years that come right after a major El Niño tend to be hotter than average — indeed, that was a big reason why 1998 was so unusually hot:

(NASA)Forecasters say there's still some chance that a (weak) El Niño could reappear in the Pacific Ocean this year — which could in theory push temperatures up in 2015 to new highs. Still, that's not yet assured.Is this the end of the global warming "slowdown"?

If 2014 really is the warmest year on record, then it's definitely wrong to say that global "stopped" back in 1998 — a frequent line of climate skeptics like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).

But then again, the idea that global warming had "stopped" was never very compelling to begin with — and not just because 1998 was a cherry-picked year. Scientists have assembled plenty of evidence that adding more greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will heat up the Earth over time. Short-term blips in

the temperature record don't change this broad understanding. It's the long-term trends that count.

What has puzzled some scientists, however, is the fact that global average surface temperatures appear to have risen at a slightly slower pace over the past 16 years than they did in the 20 years before that — despite the fact that greenhouse gases are piling up in the atmosphere at a record pace. This is what's often referred to as the "slowdown." Both NOAA and NASA found that there does appear to be a recent slowdown, albeit a very small one:

(NOAA)Why is that? You can see a longer rundown of possible explanations for the slowdown in the 2000s here — hypotheses include the idea that some of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases has been stored temporarily in the ocean or that there's been an outburst of unexpected volcanic activity that muted the pace of warming in the 2000s. This is a question of some interest: For instance, if extra heat did go into the ocean because of, say, strong trade winds in the Pacific, that might set the stage for more rapid warming in the years ahead.

But the big picture is the same as it ever was — regardless of year-to-year blips. As we put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the Earth will get hotter. There will be short-term fluctuations here and there. Some years will be record hot years. Others won't. El Niño years will be a bit hotter. La Niña years will be a bit cooler. But over a long enough time horizon, global warming is still with us.

Four different agencies track global temperaturesA side note: NASA and NOAA are only two of four major government agencies worldwide keeping track of global temperature trends, using a mix of satellites, ground-based thermometers, buoys, radar, and other tools. In January, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) released its own preliminary analysis saying that 2014 was the hottest year on record. The Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom has yet to report.

All four tend to agree that the Earth is warming, though they work with different datasets and come up with slightly different numbers.

NASA has the most comprehensive coverage, with its data covering 99 percent of the globe.

Global average temperature anomaly from 1880 to 2012, compared to the 1951–1980 long-term average. (NASA Earth Observatory)There is also a separate satellite-only record, maintained at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, that shows 1998 remains the hottest year, well above 2014 (which is only the ninth-hottest year in this dataset). But scientists say that satellites alone give an incomplete picture and other ground-based measurements are needed for a full analysis.

"You will hear some skeptics say that the satellite-based temperature records don't support these findings, but we also used ground-based instruments like thermometers and rain gauges to validate these measurements," said Shepherd.

How do we know humans are responsible for global warming?Climate scientists say they are 95 percent certain that human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950. They're about as sure of this as they are that cigarette smoke causes cancer.

Why are they so confident? In part because they have a good grasp on how greenhouse gases can warm the planet, in part because the theory fits the available evidence, and in part because alternate theories have been ruled out. Let's break it down in six steps:

1) Scientists have long known that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere — such as carbon dioxide, methane, or water vapor — absorb certain frequencies of infrared radiation and scatter them back toward the Earth. These gases essentially prevent heat from escaping too quickly back into space, trapping that radiation at the surface and keeping the planet warm.

2) Climate scientists also know that concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have grown significantly since the Industrial Revolution. Carbon dioxide has risen 40 percent. Methane has risen 150 percent. Through some relatively straightforward chemistry, scientists can trace these increases to human activities like burning oil, gas, and coal.

3) So it stands to reason that more greenhouse gases would lead to more heat. And, indeed, satellite measurements have shown that less infrared radiation is escaping out into space over time and instead returning to the Earth's surface. That's strong evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing.

4) There are other human fingerprints that suggest that increased greenhouse gases are warming the planet. For instance, back in the 1960s, simple climate models predicted that global warming caused by more carbon dioxide would lead to cooling in the upper atmosphere (because the heat is getting trapped at the surface). Later satellite measurements confirmed exactly that. Here are a few other similar predictions that have also been confirmed.

Skeptical Science5) Meanwhile, climate scientists have ruled out other explanations for the rise in average temperatures over the last century. To take one example: solar activity can shift from year to year, affecting the Earth's climate. But satellite data shows that total solar irradiance

has declined slightly in the past 35 years, even as the Earth has warmed.

6) More recent c alculations have shown that it's impossible to explain the temperature rise we've seen in the past century without taking the increase in carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into account. Natural causes, like the sun or volcanoes, have an influence, but they're not sufficient by themselves.

Ultimately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that more than half of the warming since 1951 is due to human activities. The Earth's climate can certainly fluctuate from year to year due to natural forces (including oscillations in the Pacific Ocean, like El Niño). But greenhouse gases are driving the larger upward trend in temperatures.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/16/7556423/2014-hottest-year

The Global Warming Hoax – 19 Irrefutable FACTS (Video) Posted by  Cyrus Khoroushi  / 16 January 2015

Doctor Roy Spencer speaks out against the global warming hoax at the Senate Environment and Public Works committee hearing in 2008.

Here are 19 Facts about Global Warming (and why its a hoax) from Dr Roy himself.

1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the

warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.

4) But Didn’t the “Hockey Stick” Show Recent Warming to be Unprecedented? The “hockey Stick” reconstructions of temperature variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century. The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts of temperature proxy evidence — primarily tree rings — and involved questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.

5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming? Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels? I must confess, I don’t pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about

whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty.

7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn't mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.

8) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 years…which is why “most” climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.

10) But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it.

11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming? This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud

measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC’s case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, “Climate Confusion”: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.

16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It’s not that the IPCC’s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it’s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.

17) How Important Is “Scientific Consensus” in Climate Research? In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists — usually experts in variety of specialized fields — assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth — whether it needs to be saved or not.

18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses — e.g. natural climate variations — as possible causes of that warming.

19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future? I tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.

http://yournewswire.com/the-global-warming-hoax-19-irrefutable-facts-video/