Global Warming is Unfactual

March 25, 2009

Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming?

Take the quick poll question!


UPDATE 23 NOV 2015: The outright tampering of data is astoundingly blatant and dishonest:

Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.


UPDATE 29 SEPT 2015: Another Climategate-type scam! Almost all US temperature data is cheated:

First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.

This is the key chart. It shows “the average change to the raw value due to the homogenization model.” In other words, how the actual temperature as recorded by thermometers is being altered before it goes into the alarmists’ models:

As you can see, the temperatures are generally lowered by around .5 degree C until around 1965, when the fake warming trend begins. From that time on, recorded temperatures are reduced less, and then, in recent years, bumped up.

This is what you see if you just plot the temperatures that were recorded on thermometers here in the U.S. No warming:


UPDATE 10 JUNE 2015: See how global warming liars attempt to cheat away the 20-year no-warming evidence by blatantly manipulating the raw data:

Fortunately, it is very easy to divine such adjustments by comparing the raw data and the final adjusted data, as shown in the graph below. Note how the past gets cooler, centered around 1915 and the present gets warmer..

The overall net effect of the transition from GHCN-M version 2 to version 3 is to increase global temperatures before 1900, to decrease them between 1900 and 1950, and to increase temperatures after 1950.

Clearly, with each revision of data, NCDC is making the past cooler and the near present warmer through their adjustment process of the original data.


UPDATE 15 MAY 2015: Polar ice is not receding, NASA confirms/admits!

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.


UPDATE 30 MAY 2014: Prominent scientists reveal bias, coercion, manipulation in IPCC and climate research!:

Climate scientists and researchers who dissent even slightly from the talking points of politicians and environmental groups are intimidated and ostracized, said one congressional witness. Politics, the witness said, takes a lead role over science in the study of global warming.

“Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence in which case they are harassed and smeared,” said Richard Tol, an economics professor at the University of Sussex.

Tol gained notoriety when reports came out that he removed his name from the IPCC’s fifth climate assessment because it had become too “alarmist”. Since then Tol says he has been attacked by environmentalists and left-leaning media for not agreeing that global warming would bring catastrophe.

“Governments nominate academics to the IPCC – but we should be clear that it is often the environment agencies that do the nominating,” Tol said in his written testimony, adding that it’s “rare that a government agency with a purely scientific agenda takes the lead on IPCC matters.”

“As a result, certain researchers are promoted at the expense of more qualified colleagues,” Tol said. “Other competent people are excluded because their views do not match those of their government. Some authors do not have the right skills or expertise, and are nominated on the strength of their connections only.”

Tol’s concerns were echoed by fellow panelist Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of Princeton University. Oppenheimer is far from a climate skeptic and has participated in IPCC assessments for decades.

While Oppenheimer says the IPCC has done many great things, he agrees that there needs to be reforms to increase transparency and openness of the organization’s process. Oppenheimer did, however, say that IPCC reports’ “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) sections are effectively approved by governments that can distort the scientific findings.

“In the end, the SPM is approved by governments,” Oppenheimer said in his testimony before Congress. “Admittedly, the SPM approval process is imperfect.”

Oppenheimer added that “there have been occasions where government interventions, by causing omissions, have diluted IPCC findings.”

House Republicans have become increasingly interested in the scientific process at the IPCC and in the U.S. government after numerous reports have come out that governments have been lobbying the IPCC to omit some details or emphasize others in their climate reports.

“Not all IPCC authors are equal,” Tol told Congress. “Some hold positions of power in key chapters, others subordinate positions in irrelevant chapters. The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause.”

Numerous reports have also come out about skeptical climate scientists being bullied or intimidated because of their affiliations and dissenting views.

Recently, Swedish meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson was forced to leave the U.K.’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, a science nonprofit that is skeptical of the notion that global warming will catastrophic.

“I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a ‘questionable’ group,” he told the U.K.’s Daily Mail. “But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the U.S. resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.”

Bengtsson claimed he also had an upcoming study rejected by a prominent scientific journal for political reasons.

“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” Bengtsson told the U.K. Times.

According to Tol, this sort of treatment of dissenting scientists is not uncommon, as those who don’t toe the line on global warming are smeared by activist groups and the media.

“Other eminent meteorologists have been treated like Bengtsson was… merely for sticking to the academic literature, as reflected by the IPCC, that there is no statistical evidence that the impact of natural disaster has increased because of climate change,” Tol said.

That’s how you get the much-ballyhooed ‘consensus’!


UPDATE 8 OCTOBER 2013: Via Roger Helmer MEP, the IPCC has NEVER gotten it right:


UPDATE 7 SEPTEMBER 2013: Arctic ice expands by 60% in one year!


UPDATE 23 JULY 2013: Meteorologist Hans von Storch, Lead Author for Working Group I of IPCC admits, close to ZERO temperature rise in past 15 years!


Via Watts Up With That, 17 years no statiscally significant warming… Or it may even be a decline!


UPDATE 10 JUNE 2013: The New York Times admits, very much ‘slowed’ warming in 15 years!


UPDATE 12 APRIL 2013: The Australian admits, no warming in 20 years!

UPDATE 5 APRIL 2013: The Economist admits, no warming in 15 years!!!

OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO₂ put there by humanity since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observes, “the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade.”


UPDATE 15 OCTOBER 2012: No warming in 16 years! The preceding 16 years of slight warming was taken as proof of an inevitably warming world by global warmists, so how about this?

And this is despite continually rising CO2 levels! Doesn’t think refute global warming theory where more CO2 causing higher temperatures?


UPDATE 8 AUGUST 2012: Proven – global warmists consistently adjust the temperature data HIGHER than actual measurements! From Watts Up With That via Telegraph UK Via AoSHQ:

The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward.

Instead of adjusting the poorly sited station trends downward to the levels of the well located stations, the well sited station trends are adjusted upward to match the poor station trends. The “official” trend data is higher even than that of the raw data for non-compliant stations.


UPDATE 25 APRIL 2012: Inventor of the Gaia Theory, James Lovelock, admits – no warming in 12 years!


UPDATE 20 APRIL 2012: Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg via German magazine Focus admits, no warming in 15 years!


UPDATE 14 APRIL 2012: Data from Antarctic ice cores shows that CO2 levels continued rising for thousands of years – even as the planet cooled!

As can be seen in full on WUWT, one of its expert contributors, Willis Eschenbach, has now carefully plotted all Shakun’s data, to show how it does not confirm his headline thesis at all. Even the Nature article admits that, when the earth was emerging from the last ice age some 15,000 years ago, it was temperatures that rose first, later followed by rises in CO2. But when Eschenbach downloaded all the CO2 data he could find, he came up with a startling discovery. Shakun had only used one CO2 data source – and he had mysteriously cut off his graph about 6,000 years ago.

When the additional data was fed in, it clearly showed CO2 continuing to rise after this point, for thousands of years, at the same time as temperatures went into a long decline.


UPDATE 30 MARCH 2012: NASA via The Wall Street Journal confirms, no warming in 10 years!

What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979.


73 computer models used by climate alarmists all predict much more warming than actual historical data shows!

And some excellent and clear graphs comparing global warming predictions and models VS Subsequent Reality real measured data, compiled and presented by respected scientists via Watts Up With That – The Skeptic’s Case:


UPDATE 1 FEBRUARY 2012: The UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit admit, no warming in 15 years! Confirmed by various scientific experts on climate!

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.


UPDATE 26 AUGUST 2011: CERN of the Large Hadron Collider fame have released official results proving that cosmic rays affect cloud formation – which in turn affects temperatures and climate much more than CO2 alleged does!


UPDATE 15 JULY 2011: Forbes admits, no warming in 15 years!

Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?

There is no statistically significant warming trend since November of 1996 in monthly surface temperature records compiled at the University of East Anglia. Do we now understand why there’s been no change in fourteen and a half years?


UPDATE 14 FEBRUARY 2010: The man at the centre of the Climategate scandal, head of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit Dr. Phil Jones, admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years! (Source: BBC interview via Daily Mail UK)


UPDATE 4 MARCH 2010: The New York Times 1989 confirmed: US didn’t warm over the past 100 years!

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.


UPDATE 22 FEBRUARY 2010: Reuters admits, no warming in 9 years!

British Hadley Centre scientists said last year that there was no warming from 1999-2008, after allowing for extreme, natural weather patterns. Temperatures should have risen by a widely estimated 0.2 degrees Centigrade, given a build up of manmade greenhouse gases.


UPDATE 12 OCTOBER 2009: The BBC admits, no warming in 11 years!

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man’s influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

And so does the Telegraph UK:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).


UPDATE 25 JULY 2009: A peer reviewed study by three climate researchers in the Journal of Geophysical Research concludes that none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity!


UPDATE 9 JULY 2009: Temperatures have dropped 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit (0.41 degrees Celcius) since Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth!

(Source: Via Minnesotans for Global Warming which has links)

And this is while CO2 levels have steadily increased! (Source: BBC)

So let me make this absolutely clear to everyone reading this:

1) Global warming theory predicts that more CO2 means hotter temperatures.
2) The data shows that CO2 levels are up, but temperature is down.
3) We must therefore conclude that global warming theory is WRONG.

Can you argue with this logic? See also the first entry under CARBON DIOXIDE where once again the fundamental claim of global warming theory (more CO2 leads to higher temperatures) is proven wrong!



Anthropogenic global warming theory is the idea that human activities that release carbon dioxide are causing the Earth’s temperature to rise drastically.

Anthropogenic global warming theory has the following assumptions:

1) Carbon dioxide is the main cause of rising global temperatures
2) The main source of this carbon dioxide is from human activities
3) The temperature rise will be quick and large
4) The temperature rise will cause massive devastation and disaster
5) We must act now to stop the release of carbon dioxide

But that is only one side of the story. Have you ever heard, seen or read the other side?

The following collection of facts all come with citations and links. They are but the tip of the not-melting iceberg of data that refutes global warming junk-science.

Read on and ask yourself:

What do the following FACTS mean for purported human-caused global warming?



See this comparison of IPCC temperatue predictions against actual data:

– Meanwhile, on planet Earth, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. (Source: NASA)

– Sea ice is growing at the fastest rate ever recorded, and the Arctic sea ice is 19% increased from 2007. (Sources: Arctic Research Center and World Meteorological Organization)

– Bering sea ice is at record high.

– Arctic ice went back to 1979 levels, meaning no net melting has occurred in 30 years. The graph below is resized smaller, but see the jagged lines? That’s the levels of ice – fluctuating a bit, but always around the same amount over 30 years. (Source and full size graph: Daily Tech)

UPDATE: Arctic ice in 2009 is above 2005 levels! What is that slacker global warming doing? (Source: IARC-JAXA Information System (IJIS))

UPDATE: Arctic is has increased by 26% since 2007! (Source: US National Snow and Ice Data Centre)

UPDATE: A new study reveals that Arctic levels at the end of the 20th Century are higher than most of the past 9000 years! (Source: Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences)

– Perhaps the recent fears that the Arctic was melting is due to the fact that scientists undermeasured the amount of ice by 500,000 square kilometers (the size of California!) because of a satellite sensor glitch. So much for careful and accurate science! What else have they miscalculated thus far? (Hint: See the SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS section later on) (Source: Bloomberg)

– Antarctic ice is at highest levels ever recorded and still expanding. The purple shaded area shows the record ice cap growth this year in Antarctica. (Source: The Australian, Heartland Institute)

2012: “This has been an extreme winter for sea ice in the Bering Sea and now we have broken the records for most number of days with ice at both Saint Paul Island and Saint George Island.” – National Weather Service Forecast

2013: Higher and higher:

– The ice melting during summer in 2008-2009 was also the lowest ever recorded. (Source: Geophysical Research Letters)

– Here’s some visuals of just how much more ice and snow there is in Antarctica over 20 years. The structures below were on ground level in the mid-1960s; by the time the photos were taken in the late 1980s, they are already almost completely buried by the additional snow! And Antarctic ice is at record high levels today, 30 years onwards. (See the very purple picture on this page.) (Source: The Next Ice Age – Now!)

The electrical transmission towers above are 115 feet tall. Of that, 85 feet of height has been buried.

The above construction crane was used to build those tall towers!

– 2012, the Himalayas and nearby peaks lost no ice at all in the past 10 years!

– And despite increasing CO2 emissions, sea levels dropped by 1 inch in 2011!

– How about glacier melt? The UN’s IPCC has been forced to retract a baseless claim that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035. A conflict of interest has even been exposed – they may have lied in order to receive millions of Euros in funding! (Source: The Telegraph and Times Online)

– UPDATE: In fact, the glaciers have been increasing! (Source: Nature Geoscience via The Telegraph)

– The year 2008 saw colder temperatures across the United States. (Source: National Climatic Data Center)

– It snowed in Saudi Arabia during their coldest winter in 30 years. Yes, you read that right – it snowed in the DESERT KINGDOM! (Source: Arabian, photo from Watts Up With That? collection)

– It snowed in Iraq for the first time in 100 years. (Source: Agence France-Presse)

– In 2009, it snowed in the United Arab Emirates for the second time in history. When was the first time? In 2004! (Source: Associated Free Press and Terra Daily)

– China had its coldest winter in 100 years. (Source: Reuters)

– Pakistan had its coldest temperatures in 70 years. (Source: The Indian Express)

– Australia had its coldest summer in 50 years. (Source: Bloomberg)

– Mumbai, India had its coldest winter in 40 years. (Source: India News)

– Takijistan, formerly part of the Soviet Union, had its coldest winter in more than 25 years. (Source: npr)

– Record cold in Vietnam. (Source: Earth Times)

– Rare snowfall occurred in Jerusalem, Israel. (Source: BBC)



It is claimed that the more carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere, the hotter the planet gets. But is this what the data shows?

– Historical data shows that temperature always rises first, followed 800 years LATER by carbon dioxide levels. This is the REVERSE of what global warming theory claims. (Source: Six respected climate and environment scientists and this environmental hero)

Above: Analysis of ice core data from Antarctica by Indermühle et al. (GRL, vol. 27, p. 735, 2000), who find that CO2 lags behind the temperature by 1200±700 years. (Source here)

– Carbon dioxide, for all the hype and panic, forms only 0.0383% of the entire atmosphere. That is to say, in every 2611 buckets of air you collect, you will only collect 1 bucket of carbon dioxide. (Source: Wikipedia on carbon dioxide concentration)

– Meanwhile, how much carbon dioxide is released in a year? The amount of CO2 being released by humans is only 3.4% of all CO2 emissions!

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, only 1~2% of the atmosphere is made up of greenhouse gases. Of that amount of greenhouse gases, only 3.62 percent of it is carbon dioxide. Of that amount of carbon dioxide, only 3.4% is emitted by human activity.

So humans contribute only 0.28% of the greenhouse effect. What does this tiny little number actually mean? To put it another way, in every 40,624 buckets of atmosphere, human activities will only add 1 single bucket of carbon dioxide every year.

And we are supposed to ‘save the planet from global warming’ by halting this 3.4% of 3.62% of 2% of the atmosphere of human carbon dioxide emissions? Even if all human activities were immediately stopped tomorrow, 96.6% of the carbon dioxide would be totally unaffected! (Source: National Center for Policy Analysis, pages 5-8)

– How does this tiny amount of carbon dioxide claimed to cause global warming? Supporters of global warming scaremongering say that carbon dioxide absorbs a particular wavelength of radiation from the surface of the Earth, which would otherwise escape off into space. Thus, carbon dioxide traps this radiation and heats up the planet.

However, the wavelength of radiation carbon dioxide has been shown to absorb is actually so narrow, it is already mostly absorbed by other gases such as water vapor! (Source: Page 13 of this PDF or first graph here)

What is more, once carbon dioxide and other gases absorb this radiation, then adding more carbon dioxide does not have any effect – the radiation is already being absorbed in full. (To visualize this, imagine a flashlight beam being blocked by pieces of black paper. Once there is are enough pieces of black paper to block the beam totally, adding more pieces does nothing. All the light is already being absorbed.)

– In fact, new research now says that carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere may even stay around! The study finds that airborne CO2 has not increased in the past 150 years, including the past 50 years. (Source: Geophysical Research Letters via Science Daily)

– And now it seems that NASA confirms, Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than predicted. (Source: Study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing, via Forbes)

– The above is confirmed by satellite measurements as reported in a peer-reviewed paper published in Remote Sensing. See here for a rundown.



The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) claims that a ‘consensus’ of scientists agree that global warming is a real and urgent danger. They are basically saying that ‘all’ serious scientists believe in global warming.

But what does the science actually show?

– 50 top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter to the agency telling them to stop promoting anthropogenic global warming theory as it is unproven and unfounded. (Source: via American Thinker)

– 900+ peer-reviewed papers skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. (Source and links to each paper: Popular

– A paper by German physicists Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner with 115 pages, 144 equations, 13 data tables, 32 figures or graphs, and 205 references proves that global warming theory violates both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, and even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. (Source: International Journal of Modern Physics, March 2009)

100 + 400 + 650 + 31000 prominent scientists DENY global warming claims. (Sources: Science and Public Policy Institute, Senate Minority Report, Telegraph Newspaper UK)

– To date, 31,478 American scientists including 9,029 with PhDs have signed the Global Warming Petition Project that opposes belief in anthropogenic global warming. The PhDs alone are 15 times more numerous than the entire roster of scientists working on the UN’s IPCC:

– The American Physical Society offers mathematical proof that the IPCC’s calculations on global warming are WRONG. (Source: Christopher Monckton, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher)

– They also have 230 signatories for a petition to revise their Society’s stand on global warming, of which 77 are fellows of major scientific societies, 14 members of the National Academies, one is a Nobel laureate, and a large number of authors of major scientific books and recipients of prizes and awards for scientific research. (Source: CBS News)

– But the global warmists have been silencing any debate, so this followed: “For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.” – Harold Lewis (Source: The Global Warming Policy Foundation)

– Another scientist quits the American Physical Society, Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever, due to the Society’s stand that evidence for global warming is incontrovertible! As he says: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ … In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” (Source: Climate Depot)

– A full-time consultant for Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, with six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University, says: “I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic… The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.”- (Source: )

– More than 1000 scientists dissent against anthropogenic global warming theory! (Source: Climate Depot)

– How is temperature measured, anyway? The infra-red temperatures sensors claimed by global warmists to detect rising temperatures from heat trapped by greenhouse gases are intentionally calibrated not to detect heat from greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O! What is more, the sensors are routinely used wrongly! (Source: The manufacturer of the infra-red sensors via Climate Depot)

– Meanwhile, NASA uses ground-based measuring instruments. However, many of them are placed in REALLY STUPID LOCATIONS where they are exposed to a lot of temporary heat. Examples: Hot car parking lot, air-conditioner hot air vent, barbeque grill! Don’t you think this affects the temperature measurements? (Source and more photos: here, here and here)

– In fact, the number of measurement stations has dropped in recent decades, even as the temperature seems to have risen. Coincidence? (Source: Canada Free Press)

– Climactic Research Unit scientists have been exposed as intentionally skewing data to show global warming instead of the actual reality of cooling! (Source: Science and Public Policy Institute via Watts Up With That)

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90.

Reply: I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign — at least not without some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented and political, and that worries me.

Above from National Review Online.

See the list of Climategate scandals here.

– Year 2010 hottest on record? Only if you count doctored temperature data:



Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth has been a major influence in getting people to believe that global warming is destroying our world.

– But did you know that this film has been found to have at least 35 major scientific errors? (Source: Science and Public Policy Institute)

– This caused the British High Court to officially rule that the film was unscientific, and may only be shown to schoolchildren if the film’s one-sided political slant is clearly stated to them. (Source: Investors Business Daily)

– An Inconvenient Truth portrays the Antarctic as warming up, with the Larsen Ice Shelf melting away. However, it does not deem to mention that this part is only 2% of the Antarctic, while the rest is COOLING. (Source: Wall Street Journal)

– What about the ‘poor, drowning polar bears that are going extinct’ that Al Gore and others love to bring up in order to pull at our heart-strings? The truth is, there are 5 times more polar bears today than 70 years ago (25,000 today versus 5,000 in 1940). And the polar bears featured in the photo below? Not in any fear, suffering or danger of drowning! Basically, Al Gore either lied or was ignorant. (Source and citations: This article, and polar bear numbers from Polar Bears International)

– No change in polar bear numbers from 2007 to 2011. So what about all that supposedly melting ice supposedly threatening their population with extinction? (Source: Polar Bear Specialist Group of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature)

– It might be that the report about dying bears was a complete lie! (Source: The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, via Associated Press)

– In fact, more and more people began thinking that global warming is OVER-EXAGGERATED since around the time An Inconvenient Truth was released! (Source: Gallup poll)

– With an entire two thirds of those polled not believing it is caused by humans! (Source: Rasmussen Reports)

– While global warming is currently the UTTER LOWEST AND LEAST IMPORTANT concern on people’s minds! (Source: Pew Research Center)



Maybe global warming panic is losing momentum because Al Gore – the foremost outspoken champion of stopping global warming – has proven to be a huge hypocrite when it comes to not releasing carbon dioxide.

– His home uses 20 times the energy as a standard American home, even while he tells us to conserve energy for the sake of the planet. (Source: Tenessee Center for Policy Research)

– Sorry! That information is outdated. His home now uses 22 times the energy as a standard American home! (Source: Tenessee Center for Policy Research)

But don’t worry! Al Gore tells us to slow the advance of global warming by reducing our carbon output, but if we cannot do so personally, we can still buy carbon offsets – pay money to plant trees, support solar power, etc. So he too buys carbon offsets to make up for his polluting lifestyle.

– Guess who owns a carbon offsets company? Al Gore himself. He is the founding partner and chairman of Generation Investment Management LLP. (Wikipedia entry here)

– And where does he buy his carbon offsets from? From his own company. (Source: WorldNet Daily)

– Thanks to this marvellous scam, Al Gore has earned $35 million in profits at our expense. (Source: Bloomberg)

– Finally, how much do you trust this man on science issues? He got a D grade in Natural Sciences at Harvard, and thinks the Earth’s interior temperature is at several million degrees (FYI, Earth’s core is only 5400 degrees Celsius while our Sun’s temperature at its hottest is 13.6 million degrees Celsius). Maybe the latter is why he claims grossly exaggerated temperature increases from carbon dioxide!


UPDATE 26 JUNE 2009: The controversial American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by a squeaker margin of 219-212. With it comes the first step towards sweeping and extensive limits on how much carbon dioxide is released by American industry.

So what is in this bill? Why, surely the 219 members of Congress who voted ‘YEA’ must have read through every detail of it… All 1,300 pages of it? (Source: Hot

Um… Well then, maybe one of its two authors, Henry Waxman can tell us what’s in it (after all, it is also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill).

How’s about it, Waxman?

Henry Waxman: “You’re asking me???”


Okay, so the person who actually authored the bill doesn’t know what’s in it. How about Obama’s Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, Carol Browner, the ‘oordinator for environmental, energy, climate, transport and related matters for the federal government’?

STEVE DOOCY: “[I] know the bill is over 1,000 pages long. Have you have read it?”

CAROL BROWNER: “Oh, I’m very familiar with this bill.”

DOOCY: “Have you have read it?”

BROWNER: “We have obviously been watching this for a very long time. I am very…”

DOOCY: “I’m sure you’ve got an idea of it, but you have read it?”

BROWNER: “I’ve read major portions of it, absolutely.”

DOOCY: “So the answer no you haven’t read it. But you’ve read a big chunk of it.”

BROWNER: “No, no, no that’s not fair. That’s absolutely not fair.”

DOOCY: “No, I’m just asking you if you read the thousand pages.”

BROWNER: “I’ve read vast portions of it.”

DOOCY: “Ok.”

(Source: Hot

But here’s what I can predict for this ‘carbon cap and trade’ bill… It will accomplish the same thing that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s carbon cap and trade did for Europe in the years since it was implemented there.

23 billion Euros in penalties due to be paid by just three countries for not meeting greenhouse gas emissions limits: Italy (8.8 billion), Japan (8.8 billion) and Spain (5.3 billion). (Source: Bloomberg)

6.2 billion Euros in increased energy costs for Germany alone, in the span of year 2005 alone. (Source: Canada National Post)

A predicted 26% average increase in electricity prices and 41% average increase in natural gas prices to meet Kyoto’s targets by 2010, according to the International Council for Capital Formation. (Source: PRNewswire)

200,000 jobs lost in each of Italy, the UK and Germany and up to 611,000 jobs lost in Spain to meet Kyoto’s targets by 2010, according to the International Council for Capital Formation. (Source: PRNewswire)

Loss in GDP of 2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros), 3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros), 1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros), and 0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros) according to the International Council for Capital Formation. (Source: PRNewswire)

And absolutely NO DECREASE IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS, which was the whole point of this ridiculous exercise! (Source: Der Spiegel)

In fact, there has been an INCREASE in CO2 emissions in Europe since Kyoto and its billions in expenses were implemented! (Source: Guardian UK)


So will it actually do anything to ‘stop Gaia from getting a fever’? EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits: NO:

So what is all the money going to be wasted for????


Just like most of the global warming ‘science’ they push at us.

NO WONDER five of the eight G8 nations reject attending an update of Kyoto talks!



And remember: 34 years ago, the world was panicking about GLOBAL COOLING! (Source: Newsweek from 1975)





  1. This page presents info about the last few years as if that small period of time completely disproves the global warming theory. Thats like trying to make statements about the current economic trends based only on data from yesterday but not the days before. You have to look at all of the data…not just the little pieces that support what you want to believe.

    They sited “NASA” as a source. So I typed “NASA global warming” in google to see what NASA says about it. Here’s what I found:

    What source is more credible? “” or “NASA”? I’m not trying to prove I’m right or anything….I just want to believe whats true. All the credible sources are saying the same thing.

    I then typed in “National Geographic global warming” and this is what I got:

    All the real, credible sources are saying the same thing: Yes the globe is warming (gradually!!! not last year, but gradually!) and yes humans are most likely the cause. in a random survey, 95% of climatologists believe that the globe is warming AND HUMANS ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSE. So even if that petition is not a hoax (which it probably is), percents speak louder than numbers.

    and…seriously… I don’t care what Al Gore’s energy bill was. That is completely off the point.

    Comment by Tim — January 4, 2010 @ 6:34 am | Reply

  2. Here’s some evidence for you:

    Its called “Causual Order” -they can link the causes of the greenhouse effect to areas of the globe that are more populated by humans.

    Spread that truth!

    Comment by Tim — January 4, 2010 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  3. In response, here are some things to consider:

    1) Do the data that these ‘real, credible sources’ cite have integrity? After all, I’m sure you’ve heard about the Climategate scandal which I include above (Google for Climategate, Climategate NZ, Climategate Darwin and Climategate Russia if you haven’t). How much of the data being fed to ‘credible sources’ is similarly compromised? And if you look above, you can see examples of temperature sensors with compromised surroundings that NASA relies upon for its data – does this explain the study that manages to ‘link the causes of the greenhouse effect to areas of the globe that are more populated by humans’? If the raw and derived data is faulty, how does that affect the conclusions drawn from scientific studies?

    2) Consensus and credibility can change overnight. Again referring to Climategate, the East Anglia CRU went from premier reference for temperature data to its director stepping down almost overnight. In the past, ‘credible scientists’ supported the ‘scientific fact’ of spontaneous generation and considered plate tectonics to be fallacious.

    In conclusion, I admit that I am a mere casual blogger with no hard scientific credentials to my name. But does that automatically discount all my findings? The very reason I provide links to sources of my information is in order to prove its credibility.

    Isn’t that what you yourself have done?

    I was once a believer, but when I started looking at all the data – both supportive and not supportive of global warming theory – I became skeptical. If the evidence supports anthropogenic global warming theory, I will accept it and change my stance from skepticism.

    Comment by Scott Thong — January 4, 2010 @ 9:52 am | Reply

  4. Now the level of carbon dioxide is about
    0.4% of the atmosphere. However, before humans began adding more by burning
    fossil fuels, the level was 0.2%. The CO2 levels have doubled since humans started using fossil fuels.
    So even if your numbers on the percentage of CO2 produced by humans is accurate, this is a new variable in nature’s equation that is tipping the balance. And I wonder if your numbers include deforestation, since that accounts for the majority of man-made CO2.

    By presenting only the data from the last 11 years and neglecting to present data from the centuries prior, you are painting a very skewed picture, only exposing the data that supports your claims. A larger picture reveals a gradually increasing global mean temperature. In fact it is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community that the globe is warming -that debate is over. Furthermore, according to National Geographic, “As scientific knowledge has grown, this debate is moving away from whether humans are causing warming and toward questions of how best to respond.”

    I am familiar with climategate. It was a smear campaign -much like we see all the time in politics. Hackers illegally obtained emails sent by a few scientists then took pieces of the emails out of context in order to support the belief that global warming is all a hoax. There was some mention in the emails about trying to hide or mask some info so as not to feed the skepticism. Because, yes, the temps have actually cooled in the last decade. However, this is just a blip in the larger warming trend. Still, it could create a lot of resistance despite the overwhelming evidence of global warming. I don’t support the covering up of any info, but it doesn’t change the facts.

    A study was done to see if these emails, when exposed to moderate scientists, would change their views about global warming. They didn’t.

    “Summarizing its own analysis, FactCheck stated that claims by climate skeptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims. While the emails showed a few scientist being rude or dismissive, this did not negate evidence that human activities were largely responsible for global warming, or the conclusions of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which used the CRU as just one of many sources of data.[29]”

    -basically, the scientists were talking about doing on a small scale what you have done in your article on a large scale. They wanted to omit or draw attention away from the last 10 years, you want to omit the previous 300 years, and expose ONLY the last 10 years.

    If you want to create a fair argument, include all the data -even that which doesn’t support your claims, and remove all of the “red herring” attacks on people like Gore. Gore is one person. We are talking about the whole world.

    Yes, consensus can change overnight if new evidence is brought to the table. But in the meantime, all we have is the data before us and the overwhelming majority of scientists and climatologists believe, based on current evidence, that the globe is warming AND humans are a major contributor.

    Like you, I won’t have any problem admitting that I was wrong and changing my views if some contrary solid evidence comes to light.

    Regardless, a cut back in carbon emmissions is not a bad thing in my opinion.

    Comment by Tim — January 4, 2010 @ 9:22 pm | Reply

    • Why stop at just 300 years? Why not go back 1200 years to the Medieval Warm Period, where fossil fuel use was negligible yet temperatures were high enough to grow grapes in Iceland? Why not go back tens of thousands of years where temperature consistently rises 800 years before CO2 levels, as I described in the post above?

      I focus on the past 10 years because, in your own words: Now the level of carbon dioxide is about 0.4% of the atmosphere. However, before humans began adding more by burning fossil fuels, the level was 0.2%. The CO2 levels have doubled since humans started using fossil fuels.

      CO2 levels have increased nonstop, especially in these past 10 years with the rise of China and India. Yet temperatures have not increased accordingly. Doesn’t this show a flaw in anthropogenic global warming theory?

      This site was designed as a quick primer to introduce people to the various flaws in anthropogenic global warming theory. It is meant to be acessible and attractive to laypeople, hence my focus on recent events and the use of many images and graphs. I admit that it is sparse on in-depth discussion and data analysis, but there are already other established blogs that handle that much better than I can – Watts Up With That, Climate Audit and Coyote Blog for example.

      The CRU is not the only issue here – scientists all over the place have been manipulating data – how prevalent is this travesty? How many of the published studies are thereby flawed? How much of the IPCC’s conclusions are based on faulty assumptions?

      Climategates NZ, Darwin and Russia have shown that temperature data stretching back decades has been intentionally misrepresented. The Yamal tree ring proxy data reveals 2000 years of cherry-picked data, only a few trees of of plentiful samples were used in order to match the scientists’ preferred end result (hockey stick style warming).

      If the raw data is faulty and the computer prediction models are inaccurate, the entire ‘science’ is on shaky ground.

      Do note that I do not deny that CO2 has a heat-trapping effect, as do other greenhouse gases. I simply feel that anthropogenic global warming theory overstates CO2’s contribution to temperature changes.

      Nor do I oppose a reduction in CO2 emissions for its own sake. I merely oppose short-sighted measures taken to do so, such as crippling taxes and regulation – especially if CO2 is not the primary driver of global temperature, especially if global warming is not the doomsday scenario it is made out to be, especially if policy is being influenced by simple profit-hunting (the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, stands to make tens of millions off his carbon credit investments – just as Gore already has).

      Get me straight – I am pro-environment. I am all for stopping deforestation, conserving clean water sources, phasing out fossil fuel use and protecting biodiversity. But I see the all-encompassing focus on global warming as a distraction from these REAL issues, not an aid to environmentalism as a whole. In my own colourful comparison, “Global Warming Theory is to Environmentalism as Blood Letting is to Healthcare.”

      Comment by Scott Thong — January 5, 2010 @ 4:41 am | Reply

  5. I’m no climatologist (and neither are you), but if we must speculate about things that we don’t have any formal education about, I’m sure there are a lot of variables that can account for a deviation between the patterns of CO2 and climate. We know sunspots alone can certainly cause an increase in temp as well as the lack-there-of can cause a drop, despite CO2 levels present. So lets not pretend that we can disprove the anthropogenic global warming theory by pointing out a discrepancy between the trend of the CO2 levels verses climate. -might be a good way to convince the laypeople but it definitely wouldn’t work in a scientific forum.

    I did a search on the climate trends
    <img src=";

    If you can't see the pic, go here:

    btw, what are your thoughts about the "causual order" link I gave you.
    -they can link the causes of the greenhouse effect to areas of the globe that are more populated by humans. If humans aren't a significant contributor to CO2 levels, what is this about?

    You agree that CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. And you believe that the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are rising. And you acknowledge that humans are contributing to it. I guess you are saying that humans aren't contributing enough to it to warrant us taking drastic action.

    You could be right. Maybe all these (independent) climatologists are wrong. You and I both know there is a tremendous amount that we don't know about climate and available data…and, although I do my best to educate myself, I'm not going to give myself a Masters Degree in Climatology at my computer.

    95% of independent climatologists believe that Humans are a major cause of global warming. These are independents, meaning they are not a part of any group or organization. …so they are most likely not part of a large conspiracy.
    You believe they are wrong and its as simple as looking at some data you found on the internet to disprove the whole thing. So, its basically you and the other conspiracy theorists vs. the vast majority of people who are actually educated in this area.

    Its basically your word vs. theirs. I believe the experts over a casual blogger. Scott, I do appreciate people like you playing watchdog …cause yes, there are shady things that happen out there. But passing off your views as if they are facts on a (very slanted) website you made called "globalWarmingIsUnfactual" is a little manipulative don't you think? The "laypeople" you are targeting might just go along with you because you never presented the other side of the argument. And that, to me, is a shame. …its sorta like brainwashing people. …when upon closer inspection, all you've really done here is present the argument that the data that YOU are aware of is not solid enough to warrant drastic action.

    Comment by Tim — January 5, 2010 @ 9:24 am | Reply

    • Well Tim, I appreciate your feedback and input. Here’s my thoughts in response.

      I do not believe that climatologists are involved in some grand conspiracy to fool the public. However, I do believe that simple human nature can independently drive them to maintain the status quo and not rock the boat.

      Many researchers are running on grants awarded based on the assumption that human-released CO2 is the primary driver of climate – if their work were to contradict the pre-formed and sought after conclusions, it is highly likely to be ignored and even ridiculed. This happened with a leading polar bear expert at Copenhagen, who was excluded from a conference on these bears simply because he did not think climate change adversely affected polar bear populations.

      In addition, if the whole AGW theory were to crumble, funding for research would disappear completely. Thus, there is strong motivation to ‘give them what they want’, even without an overarching force organizing the various threads.

      And that’s not even taking into account the motivations of various public figures and lawmakers, ranging everywhere from profit (Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, financial assistance to Third World nations) to ulterior political motives (equality of wealth, control of economy). If that sounds far fetched, note that it is basically what skeptics are accused of doing (shills of big oil, anti-conservation). Btw, thank you for not raising that point with me as many others resort to.

      This explains why so many research projects have been caught skewing data, then refusing freedom of information requests, then ‘accidentally’ losing the raw data. They have little to lose and everything to gain by having their results and conclusions match the narrative. Why deny others the ability to examine and reproduce their studies if there is nothing to hide? (In fact, one of the Climategate emails was from a frustrated programmer, who – try as he might – just couldn’t reproduce the same results as the original studies even when using the same data, because so many tweaks, modifiers and alterations had been arbitrarily applied to the raw data in order to achieve the ‘expected result’.)

      I make no illusions about my site – it is to present the other side of the global warming debate. You know, the information that media, politicians, environmentalist groups etc. do not. People are free to continue absorbing the narrative from that side if they want – so why is only my nonprofit, hobbyist site ‘brainwashing’? With so much believer information out there, I find it hard to believe that anyone coming to my site has never heard their side of the argument before.

      Every point made on my site comes with a link – usually to news sites, science sites or hard data. How are these not facts? The only ‘drastic action’ I am advocating is for readers to search, look and think for themselves instead of following the crowd. That is far less drastic than hundreds of billions in taxes, skyrocketing energy costs, shooting soot into space and the like IMHO. Or even forgoing air travel, as The Age of Idiocy demands (while those involved in its production and grand opening ignore).

      I am willing to wait until the day when the experts have no choice but to concur that the skeptics were right – if I do not come to the conclusion that I am wrong before that time. Weighing the facts for myself, I am still in the skeptics camp.

      Comment by Scott Thong — January 5, 2010 @ 10:48 am | Reply

  6. This piece of writing will assist the internet people for setting up new weblog
    or even a weblog from start to end.

    Comment by reference my tenant — October 21, 2012 @ 6:27 pm | Reply

  7. Outside of Japan, Toyota first started making inroads into foreign markets in the late 1950’s.
    To provide members with low point redemption options, Carlson has added 20 new retail and restaurant partners, including Best Buy, i – Tunes, Target and T.
    NO really doesn’t have many direct uses but is produced on a mass
    scale for making nitric acid from ammonia.

    Comment by — January 9, 2014 @ 10:02 pm | Reply

  8. Hey I was promised free carbon credits if I voted for climate change senators.. So where do I go to get my free carbon credit…?> I love free stuff from the government food stamps, health care… we will just pay for it later no worries today free is good what can go wrong?

    Comment by Joe Jones — February 25, 2014 @ 3:24 pm | Reply

  9. I do agree with all the ideas you’ve presented in your
    post. They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Still, the posts are
    very brief for beginners. May you please prolong them a little from subsequent time?
    Thanks for the post.

    stopping an anxiety attack

    click through the following article

    click through the following article

    click through the following article

    stopping an anxiety attack

    Comment by click to read — May 6, 2014 @ 4:21 am | Reply

  10. Thanks for finally writing about >Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming?
    | Global Warming is Unfactual <Loved it!

    Comment by Social Engineering — October 2, 2014 @ 10:37 am | Reply

  11. Very good post! We are linking to this particularly great
    content on our website. Keep up the good writing.

    Comment by Viral Blog — November 6, 2015 @ 6:09 am | Reply

  12. It is impossible that tens of thousands of scientists, some of them Nobel Laureates, do not find the claims of Al Gore and paid “researchers” to be credible. Impossible. It is impossible that a total annual increase of ~1.3 parts per MILLION of atmospheric carbon dioxide drives earth’s climate when the total concentration of greenhouse gases is ~15,500. The Keeling Curve is a very biased, fraudulent graph, skewed in this extreme manner to create fear and move people to action that will damage everyone in the world, particularly the poorest. If the Keeling Curve is adjusted
    only to show a zero base, and include water vapor, at 1.5% or 15,000 ppmv, then the CO2 line is as flat as a pool table.

    The hypocrisy of all the advocates of this faux cataclysm in the making is insufferable. They continue to fly and drive constantly, while they preach belt-tightening to all of you groundlings.

    Comment by . — May 8, 2017 @ 3:11 am | Reply


    Did You Know the Following Facts About Global Warming? | Global Warming is Unfactual

    Trackback by — June 6, 2017 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: