You Are Now Able To Save This Pdf (With Entered Data) To Your Hard Drive Data Using The F: Fill & Download for Free

Deception is the reason and group think is the means as the science of global warming is false. Global warming is a statistical fiction pitched by the United Nations as the consequence of human industrialization over the past 100 years. It is not real and it is not happening.Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences. WikipediaThe UN temperature statistics lack credibility. They are based on too few temperature stations covering too little of the earth and without a long enough time scale to avoid the up and down chaotic randomness of natural variability. They include fudged misleading data.Notice weather is the only measure of climate and is based on observation. Climate change including global warming is only a statistical record of weather over a long time scale at least centuries if not millennia. It is not based on observation because no lives long enough to observe.The statistical record used by the UN lacks credibility because the data has been fudged to overcome actual weather records that confirm no new weather trend of global warming. Global temperatures continue to decline has they have for the last 7000 years.It most relevant to see we have not broken out of the current ICE AGE going back 2.5 million years.An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1] WikipediaNO CLIMATE CHANGE IN TEMPERATURE.Temperature increases over the past 140 years at 0.8*C are too small and within the range of natural variability to constitute human made global warming.NASA Goddard Institute finds warming of 0.8* Celsius (1.4* Fahrenheit) since 1880. This means an average of only 0.0175 degree Celsius temperature increase annually. This minute amount is within the statistical error of data.Weather by itself cannot be evidence of global warming/ climate unless there is statistical record stretching far enough back to account for thousands of years or at least for centuries.If for example we have declining temperatures from the past 7000 years then the onus to rebut this cooling and declare a new weather pattern of warming that amounts to ‘climate change’ is high and has not happened since our industrialization.Holocene climatic optimum - WikipediaThis graph is taken from Wikipedia. It shows eight different reconstructions of Holocene temperature. The thick black line is the average of these. Time progresses from left to right.On this graph the Stone Age is shown only about one degree warmer than present day, but most sources mention that Scandinavian Stone Age was about 2-3 degrees warmer than the present; this need not to be mutually excluding statements, because the curve reconstructs the entire Earth's temperature, and on higher latitudes the temperature variations were greater than about equator.Some reconstructions show a vertical dramatic increase in temperature around the year 2000, but it seems not reasonable to the author, since that kind of graphs cannot possibly show temperature in specific years, it must necessarily be smoothed by a kind of mathematical rolling average, perhaps with periods of hundred years, and then a high temperature in a single year, for example, 2004 will be much less visible.The trend seems to be that Holocene's highest temperature was reached in the Hunter Stone Age about 8,000 years before present, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, however, superimposed by many cold and warm periods, including the modern warm period.However, generally speaking, the Holocene represents an amazing stable climate, where the cooling through the period has been limited to a few degrees.History of Earth's ClimateWe depend of proxies to decide past climate history with ice core and tree rings being the usual. These proxies are inexact so there must be high measuring error in the temperature data over thousands of years.Oral histories and paintings add support to the other proxies. Here is an example of climate change from a new weather pattern from the Roman Warm Period ended around 350-400 AD.The Cold Period of the Migration TimeLeft: Vandals, Svebes and Alans crossed the frozen Rhine in 406 AD - painting by an unknown artist.Right: Density of growth rings in larch trees at Zermat in the Alps. Time progresses from left to right. The vertical red line marks the year 400 AD - from "Climate History and the Modern World" by H. H. Lamb.The Vandals crossed the frozen Rhine New Year's Eve 406 AD Kr, thus commencing the Peoples Migration time and heralded the downfall of the Western Roman Empire. The fact that the Rhine was frozen, demonstrates a completely different climate than that, which prevailed when olive trees were growing in the Rhine Valley. I do not recall that the Rhine has been frozen in modern times.MORE LITTLE ICE AGE HISTORICAL PAINTINGS« "Russian sledges to travel during the winter and transport commodities", engraving, Jean-Baptiste Le Prince, 1764 - source: Gallica-BnF In the absence of being the coldest, the winter of the year 1709 was in France the longest, the most severe, and the most deadly. Unprepared for its rigor, more than half a million people perished. https://www.retronews.fr/catastrophes/echo-de-presse/2018/10/24/le-grand-hiver-de-1709-quand-le-froid-tuait-les-hommesThe Raft of Medusa famous painting capturing the victims of severe weather.Washington’s revolutionary army suffering during the Little Ice Age in America 1777.The UN fudged historical data to make a non existent heating by erasing the Medieval Warming period and the Little Ice Age. Al Gore used the fudged hockey stick graph to scare the public into a group think.New paper: Arctic temperatures peaked before 1950, declining sinceAnthony Watts / November 19, 2013New paper using Oxygen 18 isotope tracking finds the Arctic temperatures peaked before 1950, and have been stable to declining since. Natural variability is cited as the cause.A new paper published in Climate of the Past reconstructs temperatures over the past 1100 years from Eastern Arctic ice cores. The dating was done by Oxygen 18 isotope dating and the O18 data shows the highest Eastern Arctic temperatures of the 20th century occurred in the 1920’s-1940’s. The data shows that after that peak, there was a cooling or a warming ‘pause’ over the remainder of the 20th century.The peak in the 1920’s likely explains this classic WUWT post showing observations from 1922:NO WARMING CENTRAL ASIA 1580 – 2012“THE EARTH IS ACTUALLY COOLING”Global Temps Continue Century-Record Plunge, Despite Rising Co2 Emissions!Monday, 01 October 2018NASA Sees Climate Cooling Trend Thanks to Low Sun ActivityWritten by James MurphyThe climate alarmists just can’t catch a break. NASA is reporting that the sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age; and Earth’s atmosphere is responding in kind.So, start pumping out that CO2, everyone. We’re going to need all the greenhouse gases we can get.“We see a cooling trend,” said Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”The new data is coming from NASA’s Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry or SABER instrument, which is onboard the space agency’s Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) satellite. SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a vital role in the energy output of our thermosphere, the very top level of our atmosphere.“The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet,” said Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER.Who knew that that big yellow ball of light in the sky had such a big influence on our climate?There’s a bit of good news in all of this. When the thermosphere cools, it literally shrinks, therefore reducing aerodynamic drag on satellites in low Earth orbit. In effect, the shrinking thermosphere increases a satellite’s lifetime.But that appears to be where the good news ends, unless you prefer cold weather and increased space junk. “The bad news,” according to Dr. Tony Phillips, editor of SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids, is: “It also delays the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.”Mlynczak and his colleagues have created the Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI), which measures how much NO is dumped from the Thermosphere into outer space. During Solar Maximum the TCI number is very high. At times of Solar Minimum, TCI is low.“Right now, (TCI) is very low indeed,” said Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s ten times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle."SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, but Mlynczak and the scientists at NASA’s Langley Research Center have been able to recreate TCI measurements back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us how to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output — things that have been measured for decades,” said Mlynczak.In fact, TCI numbers now, in the closing months of 2018, are very close to setting record lows since measurements began. “We’re not quite there yet,” Mlynczak reports. “but it could happen in a matter of months.”The new NASA findings are in line with studies released by UC-San Diego and Northumbria University in Great Britain last year, both of which predict a Grand Solar Minimum in coming decades due to low sunspot activity. Both studies predicted sun activity similar to the Maunder Minimum of the mid-17th to early 18th centuries, which coincided to a time known as the Little Ice Age, during which temperatures were much lower than those of today.If all of this seems as if NASA is contradicting itself, you’re right — sort of. After all, NASA also reported last week that Arctic sea ice was at its sixth lowest level since measuring began. Isn’t that a sure sign of global warming?All any of this “proves” is that we have, at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon-credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s all right to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate. God — and that big yellow ball of light in the sky — have much more impact on our climate than we ever could.James Matkin • 6 months agoThe earth is actually cooling and NASA grudgingly begins to admit reality over the fiction of failed computer modelling by the iPCC. So much waste and damage from the futile attempt to reduce our Co2 emissions for a colder climate. The climate alarmists have ignored solar natural variability not because of the science but because of their left wing economic agenda. They have ignored leading science papers like the 400 page study THE NEGLECTED SUN Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe, by Professor Fritz Vahreholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. This study demonstrates that "the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity." As NASA admits the sun is in a cooling phase and the solar cycles make impossible "the catastrophic prospects put forward by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the alarmist agenda dominant in contemporary Western politics."https://www.thenewamerican.com/t...This book by two German scientists, FRITZ VAHRENHOLT and SEBASTION LUNING is a great example of powerful science research demolishing the alarmism view denying the role of the Sun in >400 pages and 1000 references to peer reviewed science papers.The effect of the sun's activity on climate change has been either scarcely known or overlooked. In this momentous book, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr Sebastian Luning demonstrate that the critical cause of global temperature change has been, and continues to be, the sun's activity. Vahrenholt and Luning reveal that four concurrent solar cycles master the earth's temperature – a climatic reality upon which man's carbon emissions bear little significance. The sun's present cooling phase, precisely monitored in this work, renders the catastrophic prospects put about by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change and the 'green agenda' dominant in contemporary Western politics as nothing less than impossible.AMAZONRandy A. StadtWith Climate Change, the Past is the key to the Present and to the FutureNovember 1, 2017Format: PaperbackThe words “climate change” can technically mean a number of things, but usually when we hear them, we understand that they are referring to something in particular. This would be a defined narrative, an idea which has been repeated so often in the media that it is taken as almost axiomatic. This narrative goes something like this:“Carbon dioxide produced by mankind is dramatically changing the climate and is leading to unprecedented temperature extremes, storms, floods, and widespread death. If we fail to apply the emergency brake now, and hard, then the climate will be irreparably damaged and there will be little hope for averting the approaching cataclysm. In just a few more years it may be too late. The measures proposed for averting disaster are costly, very costly, but the anticipated damage from climate change will be even more expensive, so there is little alternative but to act quickly and decisively.”Furthermore, we are told, the science is settled, it represents a scientific consensus, and opponents are rightfully called “climate deniers,” deserving the rhetorical connotations and stigma attached to the label because they might as well be denying the reality of the Holocaust.Now is this true? Are we even allowed to ask the question? If it is not true, how could we tell? The authors, coming from different backgrounds and having different reasons for developing suspicions of the received narrative, present a detailed, 400-page argument which carefully (and I think persuasively) makes the case that the sun, and only secondarily human activities, are the primary driver for climate change.This book gives public exposure to the work of many, many climate scientists whose conclusions are deemed politically incorrect and are thus ignored. In the authors’ own words, “We were able to cite hundreds of scientific studies showing that the changes in the sun’s activity and oceanic decadal oscillations are responsible for at least half of the recent warming, which means that the contribution of CO2 is at most half.”Most of us have no way of evaluating the computer models which predict, to varying degrees, catastrophic future warming with CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning being the sole culprit.The authors maintain, however, that “the past is the key to the present and to the future,” meaning that it is better to gather data on how the climate has acted in the past, and use this to calibrate projections into the future, than it is to create models calibrated to agree with a pre-ordained conclusion.This approach reveals a few surprises. First, neither the degree nor the rate of warming we are currently experiencing is unprecedented. Second, warming in the past was not caused by rising CO2 levels. Third, cycles of warming and cooling occurred at regularly repeating intervals over the past several thousand years and beyond, and closely match cycles of increased and decreased solar activity. Fourth, currently accepted climate models which are centered on CO2 cannot reproduce these past warming and cooling events. And finally fifth, the current halt in global warming since the year 2000 was not anticipated by these models, but it is completely consistent with a sun-centered approach which takes into consideration not only CO2 but also solar cycles and ocean oscillations.So here I, the average Joe, the taxpayer who doesn’t have in-depth scientific knowledge of the issues, is being asked to adjudicate between two opposing claims. And it does matter, because the choice I and the rest of society make will have a significant impact on the world our children inhabit. If the alarmists (if I may use that pejorative label for the sake of simplicity) are right, we have a moral obligation to give up our financial prosperity in order to maintain a world that is inhabitable for future generations.And it just so happens that it is this position (that of the alarmists) that “holds the microphone,” so to speak. We are bombarded with claims that the “science is settled” and only the ignorant and those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo would disagree.It seems to me that if this boils down to a matter of trust, and to some degree it does, then we are entitled to see if that trust is earned. And we can do that in a few ways. One is by listening carefully to the alarmists and trying to see if they are telling us the whole story, or are they selectively publicizing information that furthers their cause on the one hand, while withholding information that does not, on the other hand.One testable example that leaps to mind is Al Gore’s new book, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.” Early in the book he prominently displays a graph of increasing temperatures over the past number of decades. No comment is given to the stagnating temperatures between the years 2000 and 2014, but we see an apparent resumption in the warming in the final two years, 2015 and 2016.So here Mr. Gore has told us part of the story. But has he told us the whole thing? No. He has utterly ignored the vast literature cited in “The Neglected Sun” which carefully shows how natural climate oscillations, and particularly an unusually active sun, have contributed, not only to recent temperature fluctuations, but also to those seen throughout the historic temperature record.And second, he has neglected to mention what our authors have made clear, namely, that it is inappropriate to include El Niño years in long-term projections, because these phenomena, which can produce remarkable short-term increases in global temperatures, are just that: they are short-term blips that vanish after a couple of years. Al Gore leaves us with the impression that these two years are further evidence of man-made global warming when the reality is nothing more than they are in fact El Niño years.Another way the average Joe can navigate this confusing terrain is to spend some time reading “The Neglected Sun.” It is not hard to read, the citations to peer-reviewed literature are numerous, and as it does give a place, albeit a secondary one, for CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, it gives a feeling of balance, and also an admission of the infancy of much of our knowledge, an admission that is entirely missing from popular presentations from the other side, in particular from Al Gore.Spend some time reading the book and it will become clear that the claims of scientific consensus and that the science is settled are false. And it seems to me that when what we can test is found to be wanting, this gives us reason to be suspicious of that which we cannot test. In other words, it looks sneaky and it looks like they haven’t got the goods.Now the authors make it clear that they are not denying that we need to move away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, but they are arguing that because projections based on solar activity are actually going to give us a few decades of cooling, we can make the change in a rational, rather than a panicked, way.The stakes are high, as we are on the verge of decisions that can dramatically alter the prosperity of not only our children and grandchildren, but of those in developing countries that need at least short-term access to fossil fuels in order to keep from sliding further backwards in poverty.Al Gore and the alarmists are right about one thing: the climate debate is a moral issue, but just not in the way they see it. Because if our authors are right, then we are faced with the following reality: as much of an economic inconvenience that an abrupt shift away from fossil fuels would be for those of us in the wealthy West, it is actually a life-and-death situation for those in the developing world whose ability to move out of poverty would be taken away from them.And that is immoral.From the archives: The blizzard of '67Chicago Tribunechicagotribune.comThe all-time Chicago record snowfall was set in 1967. Over the course of 35 hours, 23 inches of snow fell on Chicago, clogging streets, shuttering businesses and paralyzing the city for days. Roofs…Blizzard of 1978"Blizzard of 1978" - [A web-photo of the highway south of Boston, Massachusetts after the Great Blizzard of 1978. It began in the area on February 6 1978]~[Photo courtesy of italiangerry (Gerry D.)…A webphoto of the highway south of Boston after the Great Blizzard of 1978. It began in the area on February 6th.Photo by italiangerry on flickrJaimie Foster707 followersYou saved to Climate Science416Toledo Ohio Blizzard of 1978 the town was frozen. no cars were able to drive. every one walked.History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 – 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”The Global Cooling Scare of the 1970s was real, there was a consensus, and it was all over the media. It flies in the face of the man-made warming campaign. After World War II there was a massive industrial escalation in the West. And just as coal fired power was going in everywhere, the world damnwell cooled by -0.3°C. It’s obvious that the modern Climate Witches don’t want people bringing this up.History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 - 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being “erased”Where’s that cooling gone? The modern NASA GISS dataset adjusted it away:What happened to 40 years of cooling from WWII onewards?That’s the magic of homogenisation.In 2008, Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck published “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” . The Myth paper “found” that from 1965 through 1979, there were only 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. It was published in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), showing how pathetically weak the caliber of review is there. Kenneth Richard searched, found and documents 220 papers, not 7 in the same period. He estimates there are probably many more.The Connolley there is none other than the William Connolly who abused Wikipedia’s editing rules — barred 2,000 other Wiki editors that he disagreed with, and changed over 5,000 articles to conform with his personal warming religion and his Greens political activism. Apparently he’s used the same flagrant bias in the peer review literature. Wiki took away his Admin status, which appears to be a higher standard than AMS. So much for “peer review”.It’s all on NoTricksZone where he finds 285 papers from the 1960s-’80s that reveal the Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’.It was the “prevailing view” in Stewart and Glantz, 1985:“in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2°C cooling. “According to Richards even the CIA knew the models and met experts predicted cooling:According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and “meteorological experts” were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and “violent weather”.A few papers:Nelson et al., 1975 Concerned about cooling“Concern about climatic change and its effects on man has been increasing. Climatic changes affect the production of food and the allocation of energy resources. … Even with the temperature corrections included, Indiana June, July and August mean temperatures showed a decrease of approximately 3°F [-1.7°C] from 1930 to 1976.”Douglas, 1975 — the possibility of an iceage:“According to the academy report on climate, we may be approaching the end of a major interglacial cycle, with the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age a real possibility.”Cimorelli and House, 1974 , Schneider, 1974 — A fall of 0.3CIntroduction: “In the last century it is possible to document an increase of about 0.6°C in the mean global temperature between 1880 and 1940 and a subsequent fall of temperature by about 0.3°C since 1940.Collis, 1975 – temperatures peaked in 1940“It is not clear how such favorable and relatively consistent conditions are related to the higher temperatures in this century or the peaking of temperatures around 1940. The reversal of this warming trend, however, could mark the beginning of a new ice age as some climatologists have indicated.There are many more. It’s an excellent resource compiled by Richards, see it all at NoTricksZone.See also James DelingpoleEveryone knows that before the global warming scare began in the 1980s, scientists were much more worried about global cooling and the coming ice age. At least everybody did till a cabal of lying climate alarmists – one then a senior administrator at NOAA, now a president at the World Meteorological Association – hijacked Wikipedia, published a lying paper, and rewrote history by painting the 1970s Global Cooling Scare as an urban myth.h/t Gregory R. James Delingpole. Pierre Gosselin!REFERENCESPeterson, T.C.; Connolley, W. M.; Fleck, J. (2008). “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 89(9): 1325–1337. Bibcode:2008BAMS…89.1325P. doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1Rating: 9.5/10 (89 votes cast)History rewritten, Global Cooling from 1940 - 1970, an 83% consensus, 285 papers being "erased", 9.5 out of 10 based on 89 ratingsThis one from the NOAA quarterly magazine needs to be booked marked by everyone in case of emergency.Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned.http://www.populartechnology.net...(contains link to original in PDF)Changing "global warming" to climate change means it can no longer be falsifiable.As Karl Popper pointed out with other pseudo-sciences in vogue when he was aliveI found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment.The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; and this point was constantly emphasize by their adherents. A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history;AndAstrology did not pass the test. Astrologers were greatly impressed, and misled, by what they believed to be confirming evidence — so much so that they were quite unimpressed by any unfavorable evidence. Moreover, by making their interpretations and prophesies sufficiently vague they were able to explain away anything that might have been a refutation of the theory had the theory and the prophesies been more precise. In order to escape falsification they destroyed the testability of their theory. It is a typical soothsayer's trick to predict things so vaguely that the predictions can hardly fail: that they become irrefutable.Science as FalsificationAnd here are the the impossible to falsify predictions from 2007:Shortly after these predictions were made, the Northern hemisphere suffered a run of very cold winters; the North Atlantic experienced the lowest recorded levels of hurricane activity; and global surface temperatures refused to rise for best part of 20 years with most of the extra heat assumed to be going into the oceans.Now, don't get wrong, I'm not saying climate change is demonstrably false. I'll simply leave the last word to Popper:

BADLY. Do you really think tax laws will change the climate? Fortunately, the public are skeptical and see carbon taxes as nothing more than a greedy government “cash grab.”POLLS SAY “72% of people in Ontario believe the carbon tax is a cash grab” and gallop poll shows climate change ranks the lowest in public concern.Recent science studies confirm, as the public increasingly knows, there is no climate crisis to justify more taxes especially in these economic hard times from the Covid 19 pandemic.Our non-linear climate swings HOT BOX (Civilization thrives) to ICE BOX (Civilization dies)over millions of years. Stop the madness conspiring with the Paris Accord to make the climate colder!"Bjorn Lomborg's new book offers a data-driven, human-centered antidote to the oft-apocalyptic discussion characterizing the effect of human activity on the global climate. Careful, compelling, and above all sensible and pragmatic."―Jordan Peterson, author of 12 Rules for LifeWe hear extreme heat can be deadly, but we do not hear cold weather is deadlier. There are 33 cold-related deaths for every heat-related death. In what may seem ironic, heat waves are less deadly in hot cities than in cooler ones. This is good news for a warming planet. People who are used to the heat adapt better.An overarching theme of the book is that humans are creative and adaptable. Further, the wealthier they are the better they are able to adapt and not just to extreme weather but to any adversity.This brings us to one of Lomborg’s major points. Climate policies are frequently ineffective and sometimes harmful. By ignoring the benefits of adaptation in favor of policies to cut CO2, we provide meager benefits with an unconscionable delay and at a cost that reduces the growth that will make future generations resilient in the face of all kinds of problems.A case in point is the Paris Agreement. Lomborg devotes a whole chapter to it. By the year 2030 he estimates the agreement will cost $2 trillion to $3 trillion per year and these annual costs will continue through the end of the century. Yet, these trillions will moderate world average temperature by a ridiculously small 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit. Even that tiny temperature impact will not occur until the year 2100. The intervening years will see an even more trivial cut. Saddling future generations with a $100 trillion burden whose reward is 0.05-degree moderation in average world temperature is nothing for which the present generation should expect thanks.Book Review: False Alarm by Bjørn LomborgBY DAVID KREUTZERCarbon taxes historically have not reduced emissions of carbon dioxide by industry as intended. The data is clear human agreements like carbon taxes are useless.GOVERNMENT ATTACKING CO2 FROM INDUSTRY ARE ONLY WORDSWhy? I submit the primary reason is the amount of CO2 by industry at 0.3% is overestimated and dwarfed by unpredictable volcanos and wildfires. In any case it is too little to make much difference notwithstanding that the alarmist scientists have badly overestimated the amount of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.Remember CO2 is 50% heavier than air and does not mix well with other atmospheric gases. This means significant amounts of fossil fuel emissions simply fall to the ground or sea.We have very compelling evidence of the low fossil fuel impact as a result of the world wide COVID -19 lockdown whereMay 2020 Mauna Loa data shows CO2 levels are increasing over last year. Why? Because human emissions are not that significant source of CO2. Dr Timothy Ball thinks they are misrepresented by as much as 4 X too high in order to keep up the fear mongering by alarmists about fossil fuels.The carbon tax is not really about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The real agenda is a cash grab by governments to bolster their weak revenues.…the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner“… it should be known that the term «climate» comes from the Latin word «clima», meaning «region». Thus, strictly speaking, a «world climate» does actually not exist even if interdependencies exist between the single climates.“Most people have no idea how little the carbon-dioxide content of the atmosphere really is… In spite of this, the carbon-dioxide is always washed out by rain which impedes an unlimited accumulation.” ALLMINDINGERCarbon taxes are intended to encourage consumers to use less carbon dioxide by making fossil fuels more expensive and save humanity from a climate catastrophe of a future too hot climate caused by industry. This unfounded fear is called anthropogenic global warming AGW and it ignores that the earth is in the Quaternary Ice age and more warming is most desirable to escape the brutal cycles of icing over North America for example. It also ignores that CO2 is essential to all life on the planet through photosynthesis and more is very beneficial and needed for greening the planet including the deserts.Carbon taxes are regressive like a sales tax everyone pays the same thus hurting the poor over the rich. Using taxes as an instrument of social policy only works if the taxes are high enough to be factored into the so called negative behavior - [using fossil fuels] and there must be an alternative unlike useless wind and solar. If there is no reasonable alternative then the taxes are just a money grab by governments without any environmental effect. This is exactly what the Paris Accord was about. The Accord is a scientific fraud by a grand income generating scheme for many governments encouraged to reach carbon reduction targets by using carbon taxes. Leader of the UN IPCC pushing the Accord admitted that their real agenda was not the climate or the environment. See Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer giving clarity to the purpose of the UN-IPCC:Because the purpose of carbon taxes is to change behavior they must be high enough to matter. The advocates know at current rates they only hurt industry making exports less competitive and they do not change behavior.Even once the tax reaches $50 per tonne in 2022, Harvey says it’s unlikely to induce widespread change on its own. That tax level would only add between 10 and 12 cents per litre to the price of gas, he says. “To get a wholesale shift to more efficient vehicles and to get industry to shift, … it’s going to have to rise to $100 or $200 a tonne.” In other words, the cost to fill up has to jump substantially if people are going to trade in gas guzzlers.Is a carbon tax Canada’s best option to help the environment?To raise taxes so high would be political suicide especially after the world wide economic collapse of the Covid-19 pandemic. This means the taxes harm the economy without achieving their avowed purpose. Carbon taxes are foolish and harmful virtue signally gesture- that’s all.Does this purpose mean that shoddy environmental science is to be brushed over because the real goal is world wealth redistribution? But the carbon taxes are invidious and the attack on fossil fuel has enormous harmful impacts on the bringing > 2 billion people living off the grid cheap electrical power from coal and other fossil fuels.Carbon taxes have been justified by computing a social cost of CO2 ( using disputed climate science. But the cost is dwarfed by the benefits of CO2.Social Benefit Of Carbon Is Ten To A Hundred Times The Estimated Social CostBy Ed Caryl on15. October 2015By Ed CarylWe see many articles and posts about the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) as an excuse for carbon taxes, but nothing about the Social Benefits of Carbon (SBC). The very reason civilization is consuming fossil fuels and producing carbon dioxide is ignored. Carbon-based fuels drive civilization and have done so since man’s taming of fire. They heat and light our homes and places of business, transport us and our goods, and fuel industry. All that energy production has value. Ignoring this value is as insane as if you only entered checks in your checkbook and ignored deposits.There is great argument about the value of the SCC. The amounts are estimates based on the costs of production and future pollution and impacts primarily, and range from a few dollars per ton of CO2 to a few hundred dollars, depending on the computation method. Here are the U. S. government’s most recent figures:Table 1 from The White House here.But all these computations ignore the benefits attached to consuming carbon fuels. At first glance, it may seem difficult to put a value on benefits due to all the myriad ways that fossil fuels are used. Producing electricity is one use, and this was addressed in Boosting Per Capita Prosperity And Energy Consumption Is The Only Way To Care For Our Planet posted here in June 2013. But a more fundamental way to measure the prosperity that fossil fuels provide is to simply compare the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to the per capita CO2 emissions. The plot below uses data from the World Bank found here and here. The data from 2011 was used because that year had the most complete data.Figure 1 is a plot of emissions versus GDP for 189 countries for which the World Bank has data for 2011. Both axis are logarithmic scales. For a version of this graph with country labels and population, go to this link at GapMinder.The outliers in Figure 1 are small countries with unusual circumstances, such as Luxembourg and Qatar (upper right). The United States is the dark blue dot at the upper right. The European countries are clustered to the left of the US. It is clear that a high GDP requires high emissions but it doesn’t answer the question as to the value of a tonne of CO2. The next plot answers that question by dividing the per capita GDP by the emissions per capita for each country and plotting that against per capita emissions.Figure 2. The vertical scale is the per capita GDP per metric tonne of CO2 emitted, this is the Social Benefit of Carbon in each country. The horizontal scale is the CO2 emissions per capita. The large blue triangle on the right is the U. S. Both vertical and horizontal scales are logarithmic.In figure 2, the first 19 countries on the left are in Africa, with very small emissions per capita but high GDP relative to those emissions. The European countries on the right have high emissions but most also have high GDP relative to those emissions. The three lowest GDP dots with high emissions are “‘stan” countries in central Asia. The social benefit of carbon for the 19 African countries is quite high because they use very little carbon now and would benefit greatly from using more. The U. S. SBC is $2,924.84. The country-average SBC of all the points in figure 2 is $3,774.75. The Social Benefit of Carbon is ten to a hundred times the estimated Social Cost of Carbon in Table 1.The Excel spreadsheet that generated the above graphics is available here.Carbon dioxide is vital in so many products and uses including fire extinguishers and neonatal baby incubators.Competitive Fire Extinguisher CO2 Fire Fighting High Pressure Fire SuppressionSee The role of CO2 and central chemoreception in the control of breathing in the fetus and the neonateRobert A. DarnallWhy would you want for example to make CO2 fire extinguishers and CO2 baby incubators more expensive with a carbon tax?8.1. Current uses of CO2Nowadays different applications are known that can be used for demonstrating that CO2is a useful, versatile and safe product. Figure 11 illustrates most of the current and potential uses of CO2.Figure 11.CO2 uses. Different pathways for utilisation CO2.This chart shows how diverse and amazing are the benefits and uses of CO2 that are weakened and lost by the plan of carbon taxes.Fortunately, world leaders are waking up to the reality that the science of AGW is false. I will post some recent and extensive research attacking the premise of carbon taxes ie that carbon dioxide is a temperature and climate changing greenhouse gas.Data From 2 Independent Studies Show No Correlation Between CO2 And TemperatureBy P Gosselin on29. July 2020German climatologist Professor Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke recently took data from two independent studies and superimposed them. The result shows the long claimed atmospheric CO2-global temperature correlation doesn’t exist.The first data set was global temperature anomaly going back 600 million years, taken from the results of a paper by Came and Veizer, appearing in Nature (2007) and plotted below (blue):The second data set was of atmospheric CO2 going back 600 million years, taken from a published study by Berner (2003), also appearing in Nature. These data are plotted in the above chart in blue.No correlationThe plots were combined in the above chart to see how well they correlated, if at all. The result: no correlation.For example, as the chart shows, 150 million years ago the atmospheric CO2 concentration was over 2000 ppm, which is 5 times today’s atmospheric concentration of 410 ppm – a level that some climate scientists say is already “dangerously high”. Yet, the global temperature 150 million years ago was more than 2°C below the long-term mean.450 million years ago the relationship was even far more on its head: atmospheric CO2 concentrations were more than 10 times today’s level, yet the global temperature was a frigid 3.5°C below the mean!“There’s no correlation between earth temperature and CO2,” Prof. Lüdecke concludes, observing recorded data.Carbon dioxide and fossil fuels are not the driver of the climate as the greenhouse gas theory is unfounded.Solar cycles are far more relevant and impactful. GHGs have almost zero effect (Co2 in particular) and it cannot be determined whether that minuscule effect is cooling or warming. We know making fossil fuels more expensive will have an immediate negative effect on the poor and the export industries who will immediately become disadvantaged with the majority of nations without a carbon tax.The greenhouse gas theory about trace Co2 emissions is false and many research peer reviewed papers expose the errors. Harming the poor and the economy with carbon taxes is a futile plan accomplishing nothing.Scientists: Oxygen & Nitrogen ‘Radiatively Important’ Greenhouse Gases With IR Absorption Temps Similar To CO2By Kenneth Richard on10. February 2020Earth’s atmosphere is made of 78% nitrogen (N2) and 21% oxygen (O2). The “consensus” view is N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases (GHGs) and don’t absorb infrared radiation (IR). But scientists have been saying N2 absorbs and radiates IR since 1944 and more recent (2012, 2016) studies have found N2 and O2 are “radiatively important” greenhouse gases with IR temperature absorption capacities similar to CO2.It’s been known for 75 years that nitrogen – the Earth’s most prevalent atmospheric gas – absorbs and “strongly” radiates infrared energy (Stebbins et al., 1944)Image Source: Stebbins et al., 1944Methane (CH4) is thought to be an 84 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.Image Source: Environmental Defense FundNitrogen, oxygen are “natural greenhouse gases”Scientists (Höpfner et al., 2012) publishing in Geophysical Research Lettersdispute the “common perception” that nitrogen and oxygen – accounting for 78% and 21% of the Earth’s atmospheric gases – do not contribute signficantly to the Earth’s greenhouse effect.They assert N2 and O2 are “radiatively important” “natural greenhouse gases” primarily because their concentration is “about 2000 (550) times higher than that of CO2and about 4.4 × 105 (1.2 × 105) times more abundant than CH4.”Nitrogen, oxygen combined are more potent GHGs than methaneThe atmospheric abundance of N2 and O2 compensates for their relatively weaker IR function (when directly compared to CH4).For example, “the natural greenhouse effect of N2 and O2 would be larger than that of CH4 by a factor of 1.3” when considering their combined isolated GHE influence.Further, the reduction in the atmosphere’s infrared transmission amounts to 25.7% for N2, 14.2% for O2, and only 6.9% for CH4.Nitrogen’s greenhouse gas influence also rivals CO2’sHöpfner and colleagues also suggest N2 reduces outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) by 4.6 W/m² compared to CO2’s 5.1 W/m² when assesing their solo absorption capacity. This would appear to be a rather minor difference.If the number of N2 molecules in the atmosphere were hypothetically doubled, it would produce a 12 W/m² longwave greenhouse effect forcing.Doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm only yields a 3.7 W/m² radiative forcing.The authors reject the “view that the radiative forcing of N2 increase operates only indirectly by broadening the absorption lines of other gases.” Instead, N2 has a “direct impact” (as well as an indirect impact) within greenhouse effect forcing.Image Source: Höpfner et al., 2012Experiment: nitrogen, oxygen absorb IR to about the same limiting temperature as CO2A real-world experiment (Allmendinger, 2016) assessing the efficacy of CO2’s IR-absorption temperature capacity relative to air (N2, O2) and Argon (Ar) further establishes CO2 is not the “special” GHG it is commonly thought to be.Twin styrofoam Saran-wrap-sealed tubes exposed to sunlight were used, one with pure (1,000,000 ppm) CO2 and the other with air (N2, O2) and/or Ar.The results were admittedly “surprising” given expectations CO2 would operate as a radiatively distinct GHG.The tube absorbing IR with N2 and O2 (air) and Ar warmed to a temperature limit quite similar to (55°C to 58°C) the temperature limit in the 100% CO2 tube (58°C).There was no remarkable or “special” heat absorption capacity for CO2 relative to air observed. And Argon – not considered a greenhouse gas – absorbed IR to the same temperature limit as CO2. With a concentration of 9300 ppm, Ar is the third-most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere.Because there is so little to distinguish CO2 from the most abundant gas molecules in Earth’s atmosphere, Dr. Allmendinger assesses “a significant efect of carbon-dioxide on the direct sunlight absorption can already be exluded.”Further, “the greenhouse theory has to be questioned.”Image Source: Allmendinger, 2016Scientists: Oxygen & Nitrogen ‘Radiatively Important’ Greenhouse Gases With IR Absorption Temps Similar To CO2I am posting three major peer reviewed papers published in respected science journals that demolish the radical unproven GHG theory.Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsGerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics (http://physics.ao-ph)Journal reference: Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009DOI: 10.1142/S021797920904984XCite as: arXiv:0707.1161 [http://physics.ao-ph](or arXiv:0707.1161v4 [http://physics.ao-ph] for this version)Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of PhysicsFULL TEXT PDF https://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161.pdfRole of greenhouse gases in climate changeRole of greenhouse gases in climate changeMartin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Hans SchreuderFirst Published April 26, 2017 Research ArticleRole of greenhouse gases in climate change - Martin Hertzberg, Alan Siddons, Hans Schreuder, 2017Article informationHertzberg et al., 2017“This study examines the concept of ‘greenhouse gases’ and various definitions of the phenomenon known as the ‘Atmospheric Radiative Greenhouse Effect’. The six most quoted descriptions are as follows: (a) radiation trapped between the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere; (b) the insulating blanket of the atmosphere that keeps the Earth warm; (c) back radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface; (d) Infra Red absorbing gases that hinder radiative cooling and keep the surface warmer than it would otherwise be – known as ‘otherwise radiation’; (e) differences between actual surface temperatures of the Earth (as also observed on Venus) and those based on calculations; (f) any gas that absorbs infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface towards free space. It is shown that none of the above descriptions can withstand the rigours of scientific scrutiny when the fundamental laws of physics and thermodynamics are applied to them.”GREENHOUSE IS FAKE METAPHOR OF THE OPEN ATMOSPHEREThis article on the Climate Greenhouse Theory is long and very detailed for Quora readers, but the issue is so important and the past science so shoddy that it is worth taking the time to consider it. Also Allmendinger presents and alternative to the discredited GHG theory.Review Article Open AccessThe Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful AlternativeThomas Allmendinger*Glattbrugg/Zürich, Switzerland*Corresponding Author:Thomas AllmendingerCH-8152 Glattbrugg/ZürichSwitzerlandTel: +41 44 810 17 33E mail: [email protected] date: March 14, 2017; Accepted date: April 12, 2017; Published date: April 18, 2017Citation: Thomas Allmendinger (2017) The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative. Environ Pollut Climate Change 1:123.Copyright: © 2017 Thomas Allmendinger. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Visit for more related articles at Environment Pollution and Climate ChangeView PDF Download PDFAbstractIn view of the global acceptance and the political relevance of the climate greenhouse theory–or rather philosophyit appeared necessary to deliver a synoptic presentation enabling a detailed exemplary refutation. It focuses the foundations of the theory assuming that a theory cannot be correct when its foundations are not correct. Thus, above all, a critical historical review is made. As a spin-off of this study, the Lambert-Beer law is questioned suggesting an alternative approach. Moreover, the Stefan-Boltzmann law is relativized revealing the different characters of the two temperature terms. But in particular, the author’s recently published own work is quoted revealing novel measurement methods and yielding several crucial arguments, while finally an empiric proof is presented.The cardinal error in the usual greenhouse theory consists in the assumption that photometric or spectroscopic IR-measurements allow conclusions about the thermal behaviour of gases, i.e., of the atmosphere. They trace back to John Tyndall who developed such a photometric method already in the 19th century. However, direct thermal measurement methods have never been applied so far. Apart from this, at least twenty crucial errors are revealed which suggest abandoning the theory as a whole.In spite of its obvious deficiencies, this theory has so far been an obstacle to take promising precautions for mitigating the climate change. They would consist in a general brightening of the Earth surface, and in additional measures being related to this. However, the novel effects which were found by the author, particularly the absorption of incident solar-light by the atmosphere as well as its absorption capability of thermal radiation, cannot be influenced by human acts. But their discovery may contribute to a better understanding of the atmospheric processes.KeywordsAlbedo; Measuring Methods; Stefan-Boltzmann Law; IRabsorption by gasesI have written an answer to a similar question here:James Matkin's answer to How does carbon price help reduce greenhouse gas emissions?