You are on page 1of 19

Global Warming and Climate Change

A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax

Alan 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 warmingcontinues 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 Earths
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 roletest 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
The IPCC depended upon the publics 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
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 nations 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 theyre 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

Ridiculous claimslike the science is settled or the

debate is overtriggered 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.

It's official: 2014 was the hottest year

ever recorded
Brad Plumer / / 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

1.24F (or 0.69C) 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

The 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 1.4F

(0.8C) 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 Nio years like 1998 tend to be a bit warmer,
while La Nia 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 manmade warming.)
2014 saw record warmth in Europe and the western US

According to NOAA, the northeastern United States was
actually a bit cooler than usual in 2014 (compared with
the climate from 19812010). 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

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

El Nio 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
Nio tend to be hotter than average indeed, that was a
big reason why 1998 was so unusually hot:

Forecasters say there's still some chance that a (weak) El
Nio 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

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:

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 Nio years will be a bit
hotter. La Nia years will be a bit cooler. But over a long
enough time horizon, global warming is still with us.

Four different agencies track global temperatures

A 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, groundbased 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 19511980 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

"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

How do we know humans are responsible for global

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

Skeptical Science
5) 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 calculations have shown that it's

impossible to explain the temperature rise we've seen in
the past century without taking the increase in carbondioxide 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 Nio). But greenhouse gases are driving the
larger upward trend in temperatures.

The Global Warming Hoax 19 Irrefutable FACTS

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 nonclimate effects. But there is no way to know if
temperatures are continuing to rise nowwe only see
warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look
back in time.
2) Why Do Some Scientists Say Its Cooling, while
Others Say the Warming is Even Accelerating? Since
there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-todecade) 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) Havent 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 cant 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 Didnt 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
5) Isnt the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of
Warming? Warming, yesmanmade 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 dont
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
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 cant 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 Im 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 yearswhich 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 longterm, 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 preindustrial level estimated to be around 270 ppmmaybe
less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in
buildings with people in them.
10) But Arent 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 cant think of anything else that might have
caused it. Significantly, its not that there is evidence
nature cant 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 EMails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate
the IPCCs 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. Its

not that the IPCCs claim that humans cause global

warming is somehow untenable or impossible, its that
political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC
almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that
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 longterm 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.