Errors in CO² Emissions?

Is the Climate Change CO² Science Right?

A section of this post dealing with an alternative theory on how the Earth warms and cools naturally by re-radiating greenhouse gases was originally included in this post.  It attracted sufficient interest to warrant it’s own post here: Alternative Greenhouse Theory.

Science has historically not always got it right despite any “overwhelming proof” in their day.

For almost three decades the IPCC and its advocates have been saying that their scientists are right in declaring human kind responsible for causing dangerous global warming aka AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming.   Not proven, but so near that they agree it IS indeed right. So right in fact that they are squandering literally trillions of dollars around the world still trying to prove it. They believe implicitly that excess CO² greenhouse gases (GHG) produced by mankind are warming the planet higher than natural processes.

According to climate alarm sceptics which include thousands of eminent scientists among them, they believe there is sufficient evidence to at least cast some doubts on the accuracy of many of the IPCC pronouncements, if not throw out the case for AGW completely.

The question is – could the IPCC actually be right?  This article will take a look at just a few of the disputed issues that relate to CO² emissions.

The Current Warming Trend

The mainstay of the IPCC argument is that mankind is responsible for the late 20th century warming trend.  But it’s important to understand that there is a natural warming phase going on right now anyway.

As we know, the planet goes through cyclical periods of warming and cooling. The Earth is currently on a natural warming trend following on from the last Little Ice Age.  Hypothetically, how long this warming cycle  would  have lasted without mankind’s contributions is anybody’s guess.

A Caution About Global Averages

The term “global average” is often used in public discussions of climate change to demonstrate negative trends such as rising global temperatures or the amounts of global CO² in the atmosphere.  But at the end of the day it is merely a statistical figure usually based on different specimens of different data from several different sources. Data is collected and manipulated in any number of legitimate methods by different people with different statistician skills to produce different outcomes – just select the one that suits your argument best.

Images from IPCC Summary for Policy Makers AR5 showing a 0.8°C global surface temperature rise since 1850 and a 0.2mm global rise in sea levels since 1900

The IPCC in their Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 (AR5) continuously mentions global averages  in respect of temperatures, CO² emissions, sea level rises, precipitation and so on.

To be fair they do acknowledge that temperatures etc at any given region may experience more, or less, or no effects of increased global warming in the future.  But it’s a passing sentence and you need to actually read the document rather than just skim through it. It really ought to be flagged more prominently.

But of course temperatures vary widely around the Earth depending on time of year, latitude, ocean and wind currents,   For example, the coldest inhabited place on Earth is arguably the village of Oymyakon in Russia where it can reach -45ºC, and the hottest inhabited is probably Death Valley in California USA where it can get up 56.7ºC.

Whether people could actually live independently of outside sources in places like these is another story. But in general, any given place will usually have a hotter or colder climate than the stated global average.

But let’s get back to the overuse of global averages … professional writers know that the written word (and diagrams etc) are often interpreted differently depending on the reader or their level of focus at the time of reading.

It’s not likely to be stretching things too far to say that the constant use by alarmists in using global average figures can lend itself to misconceptions in some lesser educated or inattentive people that it is going to get hotter where they actually live – or that extreme weather events are going to happen in their own region.

The bottom line is that if a media presentation keeps blathering about global averages and how negative it’s going to be, and which does not relate it to your geographical region then please let me suggest you turn it off. Such stuff is neither scientific or even sensible and is more about devotion to an quasi-religious eco-alarmism … or headline seeking.

Uncertainty Errors in CO² Emission Calculations

Scientists generally refer to an “error bar” or “uncertainty range” where an exact figure is not known.

So let’s take a common method of measuring an unknown distance by asking a group of people to give a visual distance estimate and call it a range of uncertainty or as in science, an error bar.  Now remove the highest and lowest distances and what’s left is your error bar or range.  Somewhere within that range the real distance should be located – hopefully. Now either centre or else average out between the highest and lowest to find what you hope is close to the real distance or to provide a baseline point.

Average atmospheric CO2 concentrations measured in the 19th and 20th century. Encircled are the values used by Callendar (1958). Redrawn after Fonselius et al. (1956).

In a very basic sense this is how scientists originally estimated the pre-industrial levels of CO² in the atmosphere as being 280 ppm. And that’s ignoring the many scientifically recorded measurements taken during the 19th and 20th centuries which indicated higher readings. And so it’s been used during pre-industrial times and then accepted by the IPCC when it first formed.

Obviously the methodology was more calculated than that but the principles were most likely basically the same.  But let’s stick with 280 ppm because it at least provides a kind of baseline.

If we assume the GHG theory as being correct, there can be little argument that humans have contributed to the current estimate of about 400 ppm of  CO² in our atmosphere.  Nor do scientists necessarily argue that CO² is at the very least a mild GHG – though of course there is diligent argument whether it is more than that.

Yet doubts have been cast on the previously accepted levels. Examination of glacier data has often been used to determine the levels of CO² concentrations in the atmosphere during the pre-industrial era, and they are also used for important calculations in climate change research.   For example, Messrs Jaworowski, Segalstad & Hisdal in their 1992 paper discussed this in their paper, “Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming – A Critical Review, 2nd Revised Edition 1992″.

The report is believed to be the first critical review of CO² trapped in air bubbles in glaciers.   It reveals several errors in methodology and incorrect scientific assumptions which question the very validity of the AGW hypothesis. Some of the issues discussed include:

  • the subjective manner in which the value of 290 (sic) ppm was originally decided;
  • the siting of some of the observatories near volcanic activity and the methods used to edit the results;
  • the instrumentation and methods used to record historic thermometer temperatures; and
  • a new discovery of liquid found still trapped in air bubbles in ice under -73C that can significantly enrich or deplete CO² compared to an original atmosphere.
The projections of man-made climate change through burning of fossil carbon fuels (coal, gas, oil) to CO² gas are based mainly on interpretations of measured CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and in glacier ice. These measurements and interpretations are subject to serious uncertainties…
Jaworowski 1992

The Uncertainty Range of Volcano Effects

There have been some very big volcanic eruptions in recent decades causing all sorts of problems spewing out volcanic dust and CO². Major fractures, hot springs and geysers also vent CO². Over the last 10,000 years or so there have been around 1500 land volcanoes active.

The Kilauyea Volcano in Hawaii

Let’s take just one example. The Kilauyea Volcano in Hawaii has been active for a long time erupting on average about once per three years or so and is among the most watched in the world. Until recently it was thought to be emitting around 2,800 tons of CO² per day. In 2001 it was thought to be more accurately amended to 8,800 tons/CO2/day. In 2008 the USGS – the US Geological Survey changed it again to 4,000 tons/CO²/day.  That all makes for an uncertainty error bar of between 100% to 300%.

But compared to land volcanoes, not so much is known about sub-sea volcanoes which make up the majority on the planet. There are literally  thousands of them. CO² is the most common gas found in their volcanic hydro-thermals but rarely is it found in liquid form as well.

White smoking vents at the Champagne sub-sea volcano

In 2006 the Champagne volcanic site in the Mariana Trench was found to be discharging a 103°C gas rich fluid and droplets at less then 4°C of mainly liquid CO2 were also discovered. The hot fluid at a molecular level of 2.7 moles/kg of CO² was the highest ever reported. The droplets contained 98% CO². All of this CO² was being absorbed into the ocean before it had risen less than 200m. This site alone is estimated to be contributing 0.1% of the “global carbon flux” i.e. from all natural sources being sent into the atmosphere – and that’s a lot.

An example of a “global carbon flux”

See: Submarine venting of liquid carbon dioxide on a Mariana Arc volcano

Following the Champagne discovery there have been suggestions that perhaps sub-sea volcanoes may be contributing more to the global carbon flux than previously realized.  With so much uncertainty on volcanoes generally and other forcing (CO² adding) agents, how can the IPCC be so certain on the extent of mankind’s contributions of CO² compared to natural sources?

The bottom line is they can’t really know.  Very little of it is yet known. They are forced to make calculated, educated guesses and produce results that include error bars of uncertainty about accuracy. And the ranges of those error bars are also under attack by sceptics.

CO2 “Residence” Time in the Atmosphere

As of 2010 there was an estimated  780Gt of CO² of which about 210 Gt (25%) was believed to be exchanged between the oceans and land “sinks” e.g. plants etc. So how long does the remainder stay up there?

The IPCC estimates the “residence time” i.e. the time that CO² elements remain in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed or emitted to space is anywhere between 5 and 200 years or more. That’s quite a error bar range of uncertainty.  I have read where one alarmist advocate stated that the rates of absorption of CO² into the Earth varied widely depending on how it’s being absorbed e.g. by the oceans, land or sea biota.  Maybe that is possible.
See also: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis:

IPCC AR5 2014 CO2 residence time chart

Other non-IPCC aligned scientists generally estimate a CO² residence time of between 5 to 10 years.

And the observed decrease in the radioactive carbon 14C in the atmosphere following the cessation of atmospheric nuclear testing in 1963 has confirmed the half life of CO² in the atmosphere at less than 10 years.  Incidentally, the 14C radioactive element can also be present naturally.
Source: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Unfortunately the IPCC tends to rely on a longer residence time in their computer models which consistently produce a higher global average temperature result by a given time e.g. 2020.
Also read:
Don Aitkin – How Long Does Carbon Dioxide Remain in the Atmosphere.

So if the non-IPCC aligned scientists and educated others are right, then the future temperatures following the currently observed trend is going to be more likely correct?


Both the sceptic and alarmist sides of the climate change debate are prone to making exaggerated and implausible claims. So much so that it’s sometimes difficult to find the real truth about the alleged dangerous global warming being caused by humans aka AGW.

This site is about trying to find that truth.  However, these pages may at first appear to be on the sceptic side – but that is not entirely true. Information in support of AGW that can be proven from sources outside the IPCC will be accepted.

The information here is believed to be correct at time of writing. Comments to the contrary which can prove otherwise are welcome.   Only comments from rational people who can discuss AGW issues dispassionately and with common courtesy will be considered.


1. Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert M. Carter 2010.
2. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report 2014
3. Other Links as indicated in the text.

The Hockey Stick Controversy

The Climate Change Hockey Stick
Was it AGW or not?

If ever there was a single “trigger” to galvanise the average citizens of the world to accept the theory on humans causing dangerous global warming, then it would have to be the Mann, Bradley and Hughes – MBH “hockey stick” schematic diagram.

The Hockey Stick Diagram

MBH constructed their first diagram from AD 1200 to 1900 by looking at 183 tree ring records from across the Northern Hemisphere on the assumption that the width of each ring was related to temperature as the tree grew.  There was some scientific fact to this. They then added actual thermometer records to project temperatures from 1900 to 2100.  Mann et al later reconstructed the hockey stick extending it back to AD 1000.

Figure 1: Michael Mann’s hockey stick schematic diagram

The diagram was originally published in Nature in 1998, revised and published again in 1999 in Geophysical Research Letters.  Mann went on to become one of the Lead Authors of the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001 in which an updated hockey stick diagram featured prominently. It also appeared in subsequent IPCC Assessment Reports in some form.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001 also included a comment that the 1990s was the warmest period during the preceding 1000 years, even though there was abundant evidence to the contrary.  Statements like these and the use of the hockey stick diagram, which by now was being severely questioned, became central to the promotion of AGW by the alarmist cause that humans were causing dangerous climate change.

Figure 2: The Hockey Stick as published in the IPCC First Assessment Report – Summary for Policy Makers 2001

This hockey stick diagram shown at Fig. 2 was constructed using tree rings, coral, ice cores and historical records.  The red line is a “smoothed” 50-year average. The grey lines indicates the degree of uncertainties i.e. a fudge factor which is up to 5% – give or take.  From 1860 to 2000 the line is averaged annually because of more certainty in the data and now including actual thermometer records. From 2000 to 2100 shows 6 computer model “baseline” scenarios which allegedly do not take into account current or future greenhouse emissions.

Understandably the hockey stick immediately attracted attention on both sides of the debate. At least 14 separate reconstructions were done by other scientists. They could use whatever collection of proxy measurement data sets they desired, but apparently were required to only use the proxy data sets provided by the IPCC. Similar results to Mann’s et al were produced leading to an assertion that burning of fossil fuels was causing immediate and drastic heating of the planet.

Climate sceptics proceeded to analyse it to death, from every conceivable angle. Some problems were immediately noticed:

1. That the temperatures on the “shaft” showed a fairly even temperature range from AD 1000 to 1900 (prior to industrialisation), unlike “normal” climate fluctuations e.g. compare Fig 1 & 2 over 1,000 years against Fig 3 over 2000 years, both of which represent primarily tree ring calculations.

Figure 3: Southern Hemisphere tree ring records with an even temperature range and no dramatic changes.

2. That the “blade” showing temperatures rising at such an alarming fast rate just begged to be double checked, especially since other records such as quality spelotherms (mineral deposits in caves) and tree ring data from the Southern Hemisphere hadn’t shown any similar temperature rise at in the late 20th century. This appeared to negate any global warming allegations.

3. Statistician trained scientists noted a basic flaw in statistical compilation in that assumed measurements from proxy data e.g. tree rings had been combined with actual thermometer records in the same diagram and used to draw an alleged scientific conclusion. Additionally there was doubt about the conditions under which those thermometer records may have been taken and may not be standardised.

Despite the claims from non-aligned IPCC scientists, other computer modelled hockey stick versions started appearing, not a few of which were highly exaggerated such as used by Al Gore in his “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Thus the dogma of AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming started becoming widely accepted by the lay public. Anyone who did not believe in AGW were dubbed as “denialist” or “sceptic” and world opinion turned against those seeking better answers.

Any scientist labelled as such began to be stonewalled when trying to gain access to raw data from which to do further research, including as I understand it data about the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. If it could be proved that the temperature during the MWP was the same or higher than today it would negate the statement that the 1990s where the warmest in the last 1000 years.

I will explore this further in a later post.


Climate: The Counter Consensus, Professor Robert M. Carter 2010.

Road Blocks to Sensible Discussion

Human Beliefs That Prevent Reasonable Debate

Before we start to get into the nitty gritties to various aspects of the climate change, it will be helpful to have some understanding of human belief systems e.g. how people think about things and how they behave when their core beliefs are disputed.

Sometimes it’s just not possible for two people or groups on opposite sides of an argument to get together and come up with a solution. Every individual to a more or less degree may not or will not compromise because of their inherent beliefs, often even when the opponent’s view is true or provable. They just don’t want to listen.


All humans have  beliefs which are basically concepts that we hold to be true. They might be  based on science or faith or both. We start to develop them from birth and use them to “see” the world and make sense of where we belong.

It’s against these that we judge everything happening around us. They also shape our thoughts and help us mentally cope with issues that are too big for us to comprehend in full e.g. religion, an afterlife, the universe and so on.

But there’s a downside.  Strong beliefs can cause bias and a strong desire to defend or even promote what we believe in. Some will even tell a little (or big) lie, exaggerate or engage in selective arguments to convince others.

Beliefs can and often are linked to emotions. Control of emotions is deep seated and not controlled intellectually so if someone threatens one of our beliefs we can often react negatively. It’s how heated arguments can develop even over the most simplest of things.  Intellect does not control the emotions but emotions can sometimes overrule intellect.

In some cases the belief in something is so strong that it’s felt to be necessary to change the “wrong” beliefs of others, even if that means using force – for their own good.

These sorts of behaviours  can come into play at any level of a given society from individuals to groups e.g. political parties or neighbourly disputes and can be a real stumbling block when it comes to sitting down and having a rational debate about an issue.

I’ll deal with a few further below and how they relate to climate change.


Whether we are consciously aware of it or not we are all affected to some degree by tribalism.  It’s imprinted in our DNA from about 2 million years ago when the beginnings of mankind first started walking around on two legs. Your best chance of survival then was to “belong” to a group. Even today we still feel the pull of tribalism, the most common being that of family.

Basically tribalism can be anything where everyone in the group has some kind of shared relationship, values or beliefs. We mostly don’t have tribes as such anymore.  Today it’s more subtle expressing itself as belonging to a country, a city, suburb or neighbourhood, a religion, a political party or a sports club for example.

Most of us have an inherent compulsion to defend our “tribe” in some form and to some degree. This can lead to a sinister side of tribalism – gang members, cults and causes. Too often there is a biased “us” and “them” attitude and a tendency to reject “outside” views.  In prehistoric times it meant treating strangers with suspicion or hostility.

To varying degrees people who “belong” to a group will defend their views, sometimes quite heatedly or even violently. Classic examples are the football riots we sometimes see on TV when the rioters side loses a match.

With climate change there are two “sides” of belief (believers and non-believers) which can attract the more ardent about the issue. A quick glance on an internet discussion forum or panel on TV can show how advocates on each side reacting negatively when an opponent questions what they hold to be true. And unfortunately each side will often treat opposing views with suspicion instead of considering if it has merit.

The Herd Instinct

Most of us usually don’t want to stick our necks out. Nor do we normally want to shoulder the responsibility for other people. Have you ever joined any kind of club? How many people do you see sticking their hands up when it comes time to change Committee Members?  There are some who do it as a kind of duty but it’s unusual to find someone who willingly becomes the leader year after year after year.

When I was a soldier I was taught in a Leadership Course that born natural leaders are extremely rare.  Few people actually aspire to be leaders. Many end up being a leader by circumstance. Nearly all are shaped by their own life history and character or maybe in pursuit of status or money rather than any innate characteristic.  They become good or bad leaders. Bottom line is that people generally want to be led – to let someone else carry the responsibility.

So how does this relate to climate change?

I would hazard that at some primal level we are happy enough to just listen to our leaders and for them to run things.  Consider how many people actually regularly attend Local Council meetings?

Apart from politics, today we are being led by numerous doyens of our respective allegedly scientific societies that AGW – Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact and that we must do something about it to save the planet and thus our way of life. There are highly educated people – scientists, meteorologists – all sorts of people.  And not just a few either.  There’s hundreds if not thousands of them.  And there’s been some pretty convincing computer modelling.  Even governments around the world are accepting it. TV programs constantly tell us it’s a problem …

So it must be true – right? …

I mean who in their right mind would go against that!

So we start to ignore those people bleating from the sidelines that some or all of it is untrue. There’s got to be something wrong with them right?

Except that our leaders each have their own beliefs and all too often, depending on the strength of those beliefs that if you go looking for something, you’ll inevitably find it.  Consider too that historically the doyens of the day have been wrong before. And they could be wrong again at least on some of the issue of climate change.

And we should not summarily disregard an opposing viewpoint.

Resistance to Change

Another human trait I learned about during my military career was that humans dislike change. Once someone has made their mind up it’s often very  hard to shift them.  This can apply not only to individuals but also to groups e.g. a political party.  If an individual or group have been actively  supporting (say) the alarmist side of climate change, then to change their view can result in loss of face.

In political parties, their opponents will castigate them for “back flipping” and the fallout could be loss of confidence in a “wobbly” government.

First Impressions

First impressions are powerful. Whenever we meet, see or learn something new your first impression is going to be the one most likely to stick.  It can sometimes be hard to shift even if it can be proved wrong later.

In my case I watched Senator Al Gores video, “An Inconvenient Truth”. I was instantly a convert to the alarmist cause and was delighted to be able to find and watch his supplemental video.

It wasn’t until many years later that I found out by chance surfing on the internet that the video was found to be full of untruths by a High Court Judge in London. That’s when I started to question things. I wondered that if this fellow of such renown could be so wrong, could there be others?

I know of other people who simply laid the fault at Senator Gore’s door but not the alarmist cause itself. Sometimes we should think a little deeper than just at surface level.  Too often we are seeing both parties of the Australian Government sticking to obviously failed policies, because the loss of face would be too much to bear.


Mankind has forever been fascinated by the prospect of Armageddon – apocalypse – catastrophilia – the end of the world as we know it.  The Four Horsemen and the Apocalypse is carried in the New Testament of the Bible.

The human psyche is understandably drawn to any subject that threatens our continued existence attracts continued existence.

It must be said that the issue of Climate Change certainly catches more than its share of space in the public domain.  Books and movies attract blockbuster crowds even today. At some level it is essentially about causing changes to the Earth that threatens the way we live.

Doomsday pronouncements are nothing new. As recently as 1972 a 170-page book titled, “Blueprint for Survival” was published by respected environmentalists of the day propounding a comparable imminent catastrophe. It sold highly and in the opening pages listed 38 of Britain’s most honoured scientists, economists and environmentalists who endorsed it plus 18 Professors, two Nobel Laureats and seven Fellows of the Royal Society. Pretty impressive stuff. Doomsday was going to be sometime after the year 2000. By that time hydrocarbon fuel sources and a whole host of metals would be exhausted. There would also be extensive deserts.

Kind of sound familiar?

The cause? It was not global warming.  It was all about over-population.


It’s not hard to see how people and even governments (after all they are made up of individual people) can be emotionally attached when it comes to the issue of AGW.  Unfortunately it can get in the way of intellectual debate.

Politicians are the LAST people who should be making decisions on climate change and making policies such as Carbon Trading because of the potentially False God of AGW. They are not only prone to their own individual beliefs but also those of the shrillest advocates in their electorates.

It’s my belief that the only way that the issue can be solved  at least in Australia, is for a Royal Commission to be held where evidence has to be presented under oath, and only the actual facts are considered under proper Rules of Evidence.

Human Caused Dangerous Global Warming – True or False?

Welcome to this blog, –
“Issues on Climate Change”.

This is the first post and sections of it will also be placed onto the “About This Blog” page for future reference by visitors.

This blog is not going to be about whether the planet is warming up or not. Historically it’s always been warming and cooling.  But over the last 2 decades a certain United Nations organisation and other scientific institutions have been issuing alarms that the planet has been warming at an unprecedented level and that it’s because of human activities that it’s happening.

But is it really?

There is a plethora of information supporting the alarmist side of the issue. But there doesn’t appear to be as much information quite so readily available to the general public on the denial side. Maybe I’m just not looking in the right place.

So successful have been the alarmist cries for action been that my fear – and one of the reasons for starting this blog, is that people aren’t listening to an alternate view anymore. They are blindly following and swallowing anything they read or see on TV that reinforces their belief that it’s actually happening. Another is that the cries for action by climate alarmist seems to be growing ever more strident with information that is flat out wrong.  For instance a recent article was published saying that 97% of scientists supported global warming – was complete nonsense.

For those seeking a bit more information that counter many, if not most of the claims made by alarmists might refer to the book, “Climate: The Counter Consensus” by Professor Robert M. Carter.  This book will be one of the sources I will use for any arguments against global warming caused by humans. Here is one extract that resonated with me:

… the greatest damage that has been inflicted by those whipping up the hypothetical threat of human-caused global warming is that the subsequent hysteria has overwhelmed mature consideration of the much greater and proven threat of natural climate change – (Professor Carter).

Who knows if he’s right or wrong, but I personally know people who simply refuse to read anything that contradicts the alarmist claims that humans are creating a problem for the planet.

Actually the history of this debate can be traced even further back to the beginning of the Industrial Age, and particularly with the beginnings of using fossil fuels. Over time, the terms “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” have come to be understood to mean dangerous warming of the planet caused by human activities such as land clearing and emissions of CO2 “greenhouse” gases from vehicles and factories.

There is so much misinformation, deception, cherry picking of facts, exaggerations and outright lies propagated by both sides of the debate that it’s hard to know where the actual truth lies.

Here is what we DO know to be scientifically and factually true, and apparently has been accepted by scientists across the board:

 1. Global climate has always changed and always will.
2. Human activities definitely affect local climates and have a summed potential to affect global climate.
3. Carbon Dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.

The term “climate change” as its taken to mean dangerous global warming is something of misnomer. But for the sake of simplicity in this blog I’ll continue to use the term to mean “dangerous global warming caused by  humans”.

Comments are welcome but please read the rules shown on the “About This Blog” page.

Scientific Consensus and Scientific Proof?

The words “scientific” and “consensus” are two words that just don’t go together.  A scientific fact is a hypothesis that is published and rigorously  tested by a variety of other scientists to produce the same result. There is no allowance for a “logical conclusion” or a “balance of probabilities” or “circumstantial evidence suggest …” And it only needs one scientist to find the proof.

Consensus is about agreements and whenever consensus is involved there is inevitably politics – or to look at it another way, politics is all about consensus. You can have real science or consensus but you can’t have both. Claims of consensus has historically been used to avoid debate and declare that the matter is settled. It’s still not proof on an issue.

The Search for Proof

“Before human-caused global warming can become an economic, social or environmental problem, it first has to be identified by scientific study as a dangerous hazard for the planet, distinct from normal climate change” – Prof. Robert Carter

Literally trillions of dollars have been spent in the search for such proof. No unambiguous or substantive proof has yet been found despite alarmist claims that it has. Much of the “evidence” is based on computer modelling of just the last 150 years and which is vulnerable to the information that is fed into it.  Scientific papers are sprinkled with words like “may”, “could” “potential” and so on.  Since no unequivocal proof linking mankind to global warming has actually been found, the term “scientific consensus” was born. The term lends itself to the lesser scientifically educated masses that it must therefore be true.

For over the last 2 decades the average people of the world have been told that the “science is settled” on the hypothesis that humans are causing dangerous global warming. Many scientific institutions and governments have become fully convinced on the truth of it. Some Western democracies are even striving to force carbon trading tax systems onto the world in an effort to reduce CO2 into the atmosphere.

So how is it possible that something that has not been proven can be accepted as a truth?

There is no simple answer.  It lies in a myriad of reasons which will take time to explore which will be presented to you over time.  And I will be exposing the inaccuracies and deceptions used by both sides of the issue wherever I find them.

“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems”. Michael Crichton 2003: