1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!

Claims that the earth is rapidly heating up because of man-made CO2 and thus heading for a “climate catastrophe” have taken a serious body blow over the past three years as a huge and fresh body of science emerges.

More than 1000 peer-reviewed papers published over the last 3 years expose climate alarmism as fake science.

1000 papers in three years

Yesterday Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe skeptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers published in 2015, and the 248 papers published in 2014, bringing the total number of peer-reviewed papers published over the past three years to more than 1000.

As a result the once many dramatic hockey-stick shaped curves put out by some climate scientists over the past two decades showing the earth is headed for disaster have been exposed as fake science, which of course had spawned some 20 years of nonstop fake news – much of it designed to spread panic among the population.

Needlessly hyped

According to Richard, the vast collection of fresh papers show that natural factors play a much larger if not a dominant role when it comes to climate change. The expected global warming has been needlessly hyped, experts are now saying.

Puts IPCC to shame

Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon thinks the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strayed way off track. “I’m not surprised by the large number or empirical evidence that rejects the CO2 dangerous global warming alarmism,” wrote Soon in an e-mail. “This sort of literature review ought to put the sort of biased, if not anti-science, reports by the UN IPCC to shame.”

Dr. Soon has long been a sharp critic of the mainstream institutionalized climate science. He added: “It is high time for the wider public to not only bear witness to the unbalance and corruption of our science institutions, but also to demand answers on why there has been such a disregard for truth and fact.”

Climate well within natural variability

Many among the 1000 peer-reviewed scholarly papers show that extreme weather events are in fact NOT increasing in any unusual manner, that they were also common in the past, and that today they are still well within the range of natural variability.

Other papers show that biodiversity is not under any serious threat. Hundreds of other papers have found that solar activity and oceanic cycles are in fact the driving factors behind climate change. In short the latest fresh batch of scientific literature is telling us that all the past alarmism likely has been needlessly shrill and that it’s time to take a step back and to seriously refocus.

Although most of the papers listed by Richard do not refute global warming and that man plays a role – they do cast undeniable doubt over the cause of the warming, especially the warming over the past 35 years. The recent literature clearly shows that natural factors indeed play a major role, and CO2 much less so.

Climate science a UN charade

Not mincing any words, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball feels that global warming became a charade years ago and that it has gone on too long.

He offers an even harsher assessment of the UN climate science, writing that the IPCC is made up of “bureaucrats” who harbor a political agenda. “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming,” he wrote to NTZ in an email.  “The political message and funding were directed to only research that proved their hypothesis. Only journals that favored the objective were used and encouraged, so the preponderance of research and publications supported the predetermined message. It is a classic case of Lysenkoism

Dr. Ball authored the climate science critical book: Human Caused Global warming – The Biggest Deception in History.


55 responses to “1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophysicist!”

  1. Newminster

    Of course the IPCC “harbours a political agenda”. It’s a political oranisation. It was set up to investigate man-made climate change, nothing else.

    And like all governmental (or in this case ‘intergovernmental’) bodies it found what it was told to find.

    Nobody should be surprised that it has continued to hold lush international conferences in lush parts of the world and claim (on the flimsiest of evidence or none) that it has found this global warming and it, and it alone, has the solution. This being the UN after all!

    Nor should we be surprised that every “developing country” has been encouraged to come out of the woodwork with its begging bowl and demand restitution from “the West” for polluting the planet and keeping the oppressed oppressed. This being the UN after all!

  2. Mindert Eiting

    “Extreme bias of climate research was deliberately created through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis that human CO2 was causing runaway global warming”
    Compare the notoriously false hypothesis “p and not-p”. Everything follows logically, e.g. that we will get more snow and less snow. Each time we harvest by observation both a confirmation and a falsification. The IPCC was there for collecting the confirmations. This demonstrates that we may get overwhelming evidence for a monstrosity. Let 2017 be devoted to showing people how they were deceived.

  3. Magma

    Willie Soon is not a Harvard astrophysicist and Tim Ball is not a climatologist.

    1. tom0mason

      Dr. Willie Soon attended the University of Southern California, receiving a B.Sc. in 1985, followed by a M.Sc. in 1987 and then a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering [with distinction] in 1991. His doctoral thesis was titled Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases.
      He received the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Graduate Scholastic Award in 1989 and the Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award from the University of Southern California in 1991.

      After completing his plasma physics Ph.D., Soon took up a post-doctoral research position at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. He has been doing research in astrophysics and earth science there as an externally funded employee since 1991. He has also been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory, a senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute think tank, the chief science adviser Science and Public Policy Institute, and an Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies of the University of Putra, Malaysia.
      In 2004, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness awarded Soon the “Petr Beckmann Award for outstanding contributions to the defense of scientific truth”. In 2014, Soon received the “Courage in Defense of Science award” from the George C. Marshall Institute think tank.

      He is certainly more equipped to be called “astrophysicist” than most other people. To pretend that he is not is just the usual smear tactics employed by those against science professionals who’s independence of thought and action allow them to not kowtow to the consensus of lesser profesionals.

    2. yonason

      You’re confusing them with Michael Mann and Al Gore.

    3. tom0mason

      From Wikipedia –

      Astrophysics is the branch of astronomy that employs the principles of physics and chemistry “to ascertain the nature of the heavenly bodies, rather than their positions or motions in space.”[1][2] Among the objects studied are the Sun, other stars, galaxies, extrasolar planets, the interstellar medium and the cosmic microwave background.[3][4] Their emissions are examined across all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the properties examined include luminosity, density, temperature, and chemical composition. Because astrophysics is a very broad subject, astrophysicists typically apply many disciplines of physics, including mechanics, electromagnetism, statistical mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear and particle physics, and atomic and molecular physics.

      Dr. Soon is very much in this field of expertise!

    4. tom0mason

      From Wikipedia

      Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry. Basic knowledge of climate can be used within shorter term weather forecasting using analog techniques such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Madden–Julian oscillation (MJO), the North Atlantic oscillation (NAO), the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) which is also known as the Arctic oscillation (AO), the Northern Pacific (NP) Index, the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). Climate models are used for a variety of purposes from study of the dynamics of the weather and climate system to projections of future climate.

      Dr. Tim Ball most definitely qualified in this domain.

    5. tom0mason

      See here [http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf ] for why Dr. Tim Ball is qualified to be called a climatologist.

    6. tom0mason

      At the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, all proposed scientific works must be pre-approved by heads of divisions (in Dr. Soon’s case, the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Physics Division of the Center for Astrophysics) as well as by the Institution’s director’s office.
      In the late 1990s, the then Director of the CfA, Dr. Irwin Shapiro, issued an express instruction that all staff should list their affiliation on published papers as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,” an instruction that Dr. Soon has always complied with and that remains standing today.

    7. Eduardo Ferreyra

      Willi Soon is an astrophysicist in the Harvard Smithsonian Institute, not Harvard University. Also there he works with Dr. Sallie Balliunas, also an astrophysicist that is also an astronomer.

      There is not a university that teaches climatology and/or gives a diploma in Climatology. James Hansen, Michael Mann and many other are called climatologists while they have no degree in climatology. BTW James Hansen is an astronomer…

    8. David Johnson

      Magma, that’s you well and truly put in your place

      1. Newminster

        But the damage is done, David. He has succeeded in derailing the thread and that is all he cares about.

  4. tom0mason

    You would struggle to find a better assessment of the current situation than that from House Testimony of John R. Christy, Feb. 2016 — HERE

    The term “consensus science” will often be appealed to regarding arguments about climate change to bolster an assertion. This is a form of “argument from authority.” Consensus, however, is a political notion, not a scientific notion. As I testified to the Inter-Academy Council in June 2010, wrote in Nature that same year (Christy 2010), and documented in my written testimony for several congressional hearings (e.g., House Space, Science and Technology, 31 Mar 2011) the IPCC and other similar Assessments do not represent for me a consensus of much more than the consensus of those selected to agree with a particular consensus.

    The content of these climate reports is actually under the control of a relatively small number of individuals – I often refer to them as the “climate establishment” – who through the years, in my opinion, came to act as gatekeepers of scientific opinion and information, rather than brokers. The voices of those of us who object to various statements and emphases in these assessments are by-in-large dismissed rather than accommodated. This establishment includes the same individuals who become the “experts” called on to promote IPCC claims in government reports such as the endangerment finding by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    As outlined in my previous testimonies, these “experts” become the authors and evaluators of their own research relative to research which challenges their work. This becomes an obvious conflict of interest. But with the luxury of having the “last word” as “expert” authors of the reports, alternative views vanish. This is not a process that provides the best information to the peoples’ representatives. The U.S. Congress must have the full range of views on issues such as climate change which are (a) characterized by considerable ambiguity (see model results) (b) used to promote regulatory actions
    which will be economically detrimental to the American people and, most ironically, (c) will have no impact on whatever the climate will do.

    Dr. John Christy is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. He’s a Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments, awarded NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and has been elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

  5. Edward.

    Who cares, whether he is a Harvard Astrophysicist or an Astrophysicist from Cleckheaton, what Doctor Soon tells us, indubitably is, the truth:

    “man made CO2 causing global warming is: a crock of ***t”.

  6. James Stamulis

    Thank God for some sanity! I live in Florida and despite what Al the whore Gore said we still are high and dry and in fact i see no noticeable rise in the ocean over the last 25 years i have lived here. Remember Gore said we would be under water by now? Funny how they never seem to mention our sun when it comes to climate change which is what climate does!

  7. Tony Lamb

    Climate change is just the excuse to raise your utility and gas rate and BLAME YOU for causing Global Warming and THAT will be their excuse when the start doing population control. The question is? Where does the line form for that?
    see my site at: http://www.iplantosurvive.info

  8. There must be a creator – Jerusalem Cats

    […] 1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame,” Says Harvard Astrophy… […]

  9. John Henry

    Holy Cow Batman!
    Have you read this on EXXON’s web page?

    Our position on climate change
    We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
    The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

    ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

    Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

    If what all of the climate change deniers is true WHY would such a huge oil producer with 10s of billions of dollars in profits at risk, WHY would they agree with those “lying” scientists?

    I guess they’re all just part of the global conspiracy.

  10. John Henry

    Look what I found on Chevron’s website!~

    Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs contributes to the rising concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere. GHGs contribute to increases in global temperatures. We apply cost-effective technologies to improve the energy efficiency of our base business operations and capital projects. As we work to address climate risks, we must create solutions that achieve environmental objectives without undermining global economic growth and our aspirations for a better quality of life for all.

    It’s worse than we thought! Even the fossil fuel companies have fallen under the spell of the “lying” government scientists!

    1. Kenneth Richard

      John, the logic being employed here seems to be this:

      “If even Chevron agrees that humans cause climate change, therefore the predictions of one million species extinctions by 2050 or 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065 or glacier collapses and an ice-free Arctic by 2050…must be true.”

      Do you think it is possible that humans may have a contributory influence when it comes to climate change, but that this contributory influence is quite minor when compared to the natural forcing factors that have dominated for millions of years (and continue to do so today)?

      Most of us here understand that this is a question of magnitude when it comes to human influences on climate. We don’t believe that companies are “falling under the spell” of “lying government scientists.” That’s just your own concoction in an attempt to marginalize. Of course, it is politically correct and good for business to appear “green.” That’s why you’ll find most fossil fuel companies issue statements like these. Again, most of us here understand this.

      So what are your beliefs? How much influence do you believe that humans have on changing the temperatures of the oceans, melting the Antarctic ice sheet, or causing animal species to die off? What’s the percentage? Do you believe humans cause 100% of weather and climate changes? 50%? What?

      The whole you-must-believe-in-a-communist-conspiracy straw man is rather uncreative. Do you have anything more substantive?

      1. yonason

        “Do you have anything more substantive?” – Kenneth to “John Henry”

        No, they don’t.

    2. tom0mason

      John Henry,
      Please understand we — Joe and Jane Public — are being lied to because right now there is one almighty fight going on between the energy (and fuel) providers.
      Coal has been stuffed off-shore for a while. Natural gas is making a big play to be in the mix as the major electricity provider. No one touches new nuclear.

      So BIG oil sides with ‘eco’ energy because it cut big profits out from under the gas providers without affecting their bottm-line too much. After all if coal is out, gas is market is ruined because of over subsidized wind and solar, who provides the back-up? Diesel, oil, gasoline, and at a premium — so BIG oil does not lose.

  11. John Henry

    OH NO!

    What’s happening?

    Even Shell has fallen victim to this phony, globalist conspiracy!
    I think we should start boycotting these oil producers immediately for spreading these communist lies!


    1. yonason

      It’s politicians, not (honest) scientists who are driving this trillion dollar insanity. Governments are bigger than businesses, and if the business doesn’t play along, it gets thrown out of the crony capitalism pay to play scheme.

      Also, and more importantly, they may be fearful that if they don’t appear “green” many pension funds, also valued in the trillions, will stop investing in them. You can’t run a business without investment capital.

      Bottom line, it appears to me to be a PR survival strategy, nothing more.

    2. DirkH

      John Henry 5. January 2017 at 2:17 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “OH NO!
      What’s happening?
      Even Shell has fallen victim to this phony, globalist conspiracy!
      I think we should start boycotting these oil producers immediately for spreading these communist lies!”

      ??? John Henry wonders why Globalist companies want to get their snout in the trough of taxpayer money used for subsidation of oherwise uncompetitive technology ??? Or ANY company for that matter?

      John Henry thinks the purpose of a company is to be an arbiter of truth, or a maker of policies? Why do you think that, John Henry? Have you grown up in the USSR so you never figured out what that “company” thing is good for?

  12. Climate refugee

    Methinks Exxon hath fooled thee

    1. AndyG55

      Sounds like John is the type of AGW cultist who is easily fooled.

  13. Climate: Consensus and Skeptics - iGeek
  14. Crispin in Waterloo

    Big oil has been trying to get into alternative energy markets for decades. Nothing wrong with that. BP got into the supply of wood pellets as part of their ‘beyond petroleum’ policy to develop a market for improved cooking stoves at the ‘Bottom Of the Pyramid. BOP ideas were accepted and a team of a dozen people was formed called ‘Emerging Markets’.

    Big Oil takes a long term view. Public statements in favour of the political wind is a long standing PR methodology. This same approach is taken by bidders for research grants. Is anyone surprised by this?

    1. yonason

      Right. If a market opens up, whether naturally or artificially, someone will try to supply that market. It’s not a validation of the market, just making the most of whatever situation they are in.

  15. Liza

    The article above did what it set out to do. Cause discussion of the subject. I quote from the article “Other papers show that biodiversity is not under any serious threat. Hundreds of other papers have found that solar activity and oceanic cycles are in fact the driving factors behind climate change. ”
    For me, the oceanic cycles are the key concern – they are not cycling like they used to … we do seem to be influencing them due to CO2 absorption, recent NOAA numbers appear to show.
    1) Many people used to say that if there is so much extra CO2, why isn’t the O2 dropping. It is. This was confirmed recently.
    2) Does such a small increase in CO2 make such a big difference? Here is an analogy, so don’t flame me for it, but why does double glazing make such a difference when compared to single glazing in a window? (and yes I understand why) This just points out that a little of something can have a big impact, bigger than you might expect.
    3) They thought the temperature has stabilized (this has been the main argument for saying climate change doesn’t exist), but again NOAA has shown that the oceanic temperature has not stabilized like they thought.
    Snow in California, Severe flooding worsening in Europe. Whether or not its man made, we don’t have to make it worse by ignoring the fact that we need to help our neighbors – we might need their help in return one day.

    1. AndyG55

      “2) Does such a small increase in CO2 make such a big difference?”

      NO. Except to plant growth.

      You are welcome to cite a paper that empirically shows that CO2 causes ANY warming in a convective atmosphere..
      You would there would be at least one, wouldn’t you !!

      Waiting !!!!

      “3) They thought the temperature has stabilized (this has been the main argument for saying climate change doesn’t exist), but again NOAA has shown that the oceanic temperature has not stabilized like they thought”

      NO, they have shown no such thing.

      They fudged the data using a very feeble excuse, and gullible fools bought it.

    2. AndyG55

      December 2016 was 5th warmest December in UAH, and 9th warmest in RSS

      Snow in California.. from Global WARMING , obviously. !! 😉

      And Europe has NEVER had floods before.. did you know that ?????

      A look at history ALWAYS destroys the AGW Scam, that’s why they spend so much time trying to re-write it.

  16. Liza

    Yes, the following is a government source, so you can take it or leave, I would just like to ask that it not be censored, since this site appears to hold itself to higher standards than the government:

    Appears to show that the US is suffering too.

    1. AndyG55

      Who says its suffering?

      Would you rather it was under 1km of ice live it was during the last ice age.

      The very slight warming and the increase in aCO2 over the last century or two has been nothing but beneficial to plant growth, and hence food supplies over the whole globe.

      No-one in the USA is “suffering” from the slight warming since the COLDEST period in the last 10,000 years.

      What they are “suffering” from at the moment is a anomalous COLD spell, creating hardship for many.

  17. Liza

    Here is a thought. Take 1000 woodworms and apply to a house that is proportionately on a scale of a US state to 1000 humans. Watch and learn. Can the population of the world make that big a difference? In the last 100 years we have applied concrete and asphalt over the surface of the planet. We have lit up the night sky to the extent that it can be seen from space. Consider just the great wall of china – (or mexico)… also seen from space (will be seen from space?) – can man influence the planet globally on a scale that changes the balance of our environment – we have been doing it very obviously for the last 100 years. Why not less obviously too …
    That woodworm house collapses by the way …

    1. AndyG55

      Analogies are NOT science.

      How about some facts…. plug that hole in your bucket.

  18. Andrew Turner

    What an absolute load of old rubbish. And you’re playing with the planet. Shame on you.

  19. Liza

    The fault of this entire debate lays squarely at the individual who coined the phrase “Global Warming”. It is a huge oversimplification of a very complex process. Climate change is a more accurate term, but still oversimplifies.
    AndyG55 CO2 itself does not warm anything. However, to go back to the window analogy – if you put CO2 in the gap between your double glazing, would you be warmer or less warm than if there were just normal air between the two. Just a straight forward science concept. Its not a better insulator per se, but it will absorb more heat. It may in fact make the house feel colder? Just because we do not yet understand the mechanisms for our impact does not mean that there is no impact, we would be foolish to think otherwise – see my note above regarding lighting the planet at night.
    And … if it affects plant growth, and we eat plants, then it will affect us, whether we eat more, or in fact less due to invasive species taking over.
    My brother at the tender age of 7 figured out that “Warming” was the wrong word, when he said – of course if the planet gets hotter, then the poles would melt and there would be more cold water, coming down, but the seas would heat up and make more clouds, which would block the sun and make it colder again… so it will actually be global cooling.
    Again an oversimplification, but actually a good example of self correction by mother nature.
    My point is that the science may not be fully there, and the implications therefore are not clear. But we should be spending more, not less on research into this as a result. To deny our impact on the planet is to deny the last 200 years of industrialization, which has literally changed the face of the planet .. how can we think that we have not change the face of the atmosphere too?

    1. AndyG55

      There’s a hole in your bucket dear liza, dear liza.

      The planet does not exist between two panes of glass.

      Find even ONE paper that shows CO2 causes any warming in an open convective atmosphere.

      Without that.. you have NOTHING but empty rhetoric.

      1. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

        That one is a good discriminator – since it reveals a lack of any genuine scientific knowledge. Funny how “greenhouse effect” is actually a strained analogy (like most scientific analogies), yet so many interpret it literally.

        But this is even more telling: “(H)ow can we think that we have not change the face of the atmosphere too?” This is the real root of the whole climate thing – it’s not science, but a belief system based on “We’re putting all this stuff into the air – it has to be doing SOMETHING, right?” That’s a statement of belief, not a statement of science. It isn’t even able to contemplate that the amounts of “stuff” might be negligible, or that the Earth system is well-buffered (as evidenced by it not going off to either an ice ball or Venusian bake over the past 5 or so billion years) and hard to knock off its pins.

        Good science involves making educated guesses and then devising tests for them. Bad science involves deciding that the guess MUST be correct and then only looking for corroboration. Really bad science involves deciding that the guess MUST be correct – and then just stopping there since it’s obviously obvious. Take the last and slather on a layer of politics under which the guess MUST BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT OR ELSE and you get where those people are now.

    2. tom0mason

      Anti-science Liza,
      I have done such an experiment — Professor Woods experiment. I suggest you do it.
      I did it to convince others of the crass stupidity of CO2’s ability to do anything but be a gas. It did not, would not, and can not “absorb more heat”(whatever you mean by that).
      In the part of the atmosphere where we live CO2 can not ‘hold heat’ or any other spurious argument. CO2 lets plants live that is all. Oceans can not get acid because of it (when all those chalk cliffs dissolve get worried), ice on glaciers and the poles still melt due to NATURAL variations in climate, climate will not change because of this atmospherically rare gas. It’s at 0.04% of the atmosphere, you exhale a far higher concentration with no ill effects. Submariners and astronauts live OK in very much high concentrations (and not overheat!) — some for many months in those CO2 rich confines.
      CO2 changes climate — there is NO OBSERVED PROOF!

      You believe man has a big influence on the planet? Hubris! Nature dictates how this planet proceeds, our impact is very small by comparison. Just consider a few billion tons of silt and sand is carried around the shore-line everyday just by tidal wash. Consider all the volcanic outflows across the globe, and under the seas, easily outmatch all of our concrete and our hazardous gases emissions.
      We have yet to devise a bomb that is equivalent to Krakatoa, Stromboli or any of the other great eruptions. Compared to nature we are bit players.
      Yes we need to clean-up our industrial methods, our waste disposal, etc., but CO2 is not the problem.
      If we aggressively restrict CO2 emissions then out goes concrete, steel, aluminum, glass, manmade fibers, and so goes buildings, phones, windfarms, TVs, solar cells, medicine. You wish to go back to the dark-ages?

    3. Kenneth Richard

      “we should be spending more, not less on research into this as a result”

      If we spend more money on climate research, what would the substantive effect on climate actually be? Will it change hurricane frequencies or intensities? Will it change drought frequencies or intensities? Will it affect sea levels? How much of a difference can we as humans make when it comes to impacting the temperatures of the deep ocean? And to what extent will that difference be obtained by doing more research if all we ever hear that we need to do to stop the climate from changing is reduce our CO2 emissions?

    4. yonason

      “…put CO2 in the gap between your double glazing,…Its not a better insulator per se, but it will absorb more heat.” – “Liza”

      Since it has a lower specific heat than air, how do you propose to pull that off?

      1. AndyG55


        Take-away line……

        “What was discovered was that under stringent lab conditions it can be shown that regular air delays/traps heat better than greenhouse gases such as CO2!”

        1. yonason



        2. tom0mason

          Nice link Andy:)

      2. The Indomitable Snowman, Ph.D.

        Well, also, the purpose of the inner gap in “double-glazing” isn’t to “trap heat.” The inner gap serves to provide a layer with a much lower thermal conductivity than glass – as a method of reducing the amount of heat that escapes via window glass because of thermal conduction.

        In the base case, air is pretty good for that purpose. Argon is also commonly used since it has a lower thermal conductivity than does air.


        1. tom0mason

          And there is 23 times more (non life supporting) Argon (0.93%) in the air than CO2(0.04%).

          So yes lock it up in double glazing were it will do a little good.

  20. tom0mason

    Something I did a few years ago so not all the links may not work but hopefully you’ll get the message…
    If it’s ‘Settled Science’ where is the definition for the greenhouse effect.

    an atmospheric heating phenomenon, caused by short-wave solar radiation being readily transmitted inward through the earth’s atmosphere but longer-wavelength heat radiation less readily transmitted outward, owing to its absorption by atmospheric carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other gases; thus, the rising level of carbon dioxide is viewed with concern.
    such a phenomenon on another planet.
    from /dictionary.reference[dot]com

    greenhouse effect
    The greenhouse effect is defined as when the Earth’s atmosphere becomes thick with gases and substances which trap the sun’s radiation, making the Earth warmer.
    An example of the greenhouse effect is global warming.

    from yourdictionary[dot]com

    greenhouse effect

    the warming of a planet’s surface and lower atmosphere caused by trapped solar radiation: solar shortwave radiation penetrates to the planet’s surface and is reradiated into the atmosphere as infrared waves that are then absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor, etc.

    from Webster’s New World College Dictionary Copyright © 2010

    greenhouse effect

    A phenomenon in which the atmosphere of a planet traps radiation emitted by its sun, caused by gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane that allow incoming sunlight to pass through but retain heat radiated back from the planet’s surface.

    from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edition Copyright © 2013 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.

    greenhouse effect

    (plural greenhouse effects)

    (ecology) (with the) The process by which a planet is warmed by its atmosphere.
    The greenhouse effect could lead to global warming or, at least, climate change.

    from English Wiktionary. Available under CC-BY-SA license

    Best Answer

    Ricky answered 6 years ago
    The greenhouse effect refers to the change in the steady state temperature of a planet or moon by the presence of an atmosphere containing gas that absorbs and emits infrared radiation.[1] Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane, warm the atmosphere by efficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. As a result of its warmth, the atmosphere also radiates thermal infrared in all directions, including downward to the Earth’s surface. Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system.[2][3][4][5] This mechanism is fundamentally different from the mechanism of an actual greenhouse, which instead isolates air inside the structure so that the heat is not lost by convection and conduction, as discussed below. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in the year 1858 and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in his 1896 paper. The emissions of the UV light is reflected by clouds.

    In the absence of the greenhouse effect and an atmosphere, the Earth%

    from answers[.]yahoo[dot]com/question/index?qid=20090305074822AAsKWHf

    [I think this page is now broken – TM]

    Wiki blathers on for too long to quote. It basically comes to the point near the end of the first section with…

    Earth’s natural greenhouse effect makes life as we know it possible. However, human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels and clearing of forests, have intensified the natural greenhouse effect, causing global warming.[11]

    EPA at http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html says

    The Greenhouse Effect

    If it were not for greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a very cold place. Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect. Play the video to learn more …

    The Earth gets energy from the sun in the form of sunlight. The Earth’s surface absorbs some of this energy and heats up. That’s why the surface of a road can feel hot even after the sun has gone down—because it has absorbed a lot of energy from the sun. The Earth cools down by giving off a different form of energy, called infrared radiation. But before all this radiation can escape to outer space, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of it, which makes the atmosphere warmer. As the atmosphere gets warmer, it makes the Earth’s surface warmer, too.

    Learn more about radiation.
    Learn where the term “greenhouse effect” comes from.
    Greenhouse gases keep the Earth warm through a process called the greenhouse effect.

  21. graham peach

    Forget politicians, big business or government backed science – all of whom have a huge vested interest in nay-saying the truth about manmade factors accelerating climate change – but simply run an analysis across all of the many thousands of independent scientists’ results. Then make up your mind! Having balanced the independent science facts against the vested interest group results (and one must include in the vested interest group those such as Kenneth Richard, who plainly have a reputational vested interest in perpetuating their cant) I have run my own independent ruler over both groups and am happy to share my own conclusions: That the independent evidence of a clear manmade factor behind the acceleration of climate change is incontrovertible.
    Let’s hope Gaiia has more natural countermeasures up her sleeve than Man has current and future harms …

    1. tom0mason

      Sorry your logic is a best spurious.
      Just because a whole bunch of scientists, using a similar mindset, perform computerized virtual reality experiments does not ‘prove’ a reality.
      Verified observations, measurements and validated experiments is what will prove the case. There is no such thing proving CO2 causes global warming. The case is unproven!

    2. tom0mason

      Consider that CO2 has been as high at 7,000 ppm, or 17.5x today’s level and the earth has NEVER in 600 million years experienced catastrophic global warming, NEVER.

    3. AndyG55

      Then why is it that the ONLY warming in the whole satellite data comes from NON-CO2 forced El Ninos.?

      And why is it that in all your “deep thought” you have neglected to find one single paper that empirically proves that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      You really are a peach, a rotten squishy one, with zero to back up your baseless contentions.

      The so-called independent evidence you are sucked in by is actually the singular brain-washed groupthink brought about by MASSIVE amounts of grants and rewards for supporting the scam and the fact that those grants disappear if you do not support the scam. The amount of funding supporting the scam outweighs real independent funding by some 1000:1.

  22. Recent Energy And Environmental News – January 16th 2017 | PA Pundits - International

    […] 1000 Skeptical Peer-Reviewed Climate Papers “Should Put UN IPCC To Shame” […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy