Summary of articles in this blog

This free blog was launched in late 2014 to supplement the second global warming article I wrote for my economics newsletter.

My first article was in 2007, but seven years between feature articles didn't mean I ignored the subject for a long time.
 
I have been reading about global warming since 1997, and following average temperature data -- that's why I was disappointed that climate scaremongering had not stopped after the rising average temperature trend stopped in the early 2000s.

This blog is a summary of climate articles and papers I've read, most written by scientists, with a focus on data and logic to refute the false claim that a climate change catastrophe has been happening since 1975, and will end in runaway global warming.

I write about global warming because, for the past three decades, the mainstream media have been filled with wild guess computer game speculation that runaway global warming is on the way ... as real people, using common sense, observe a wonderful climate that has barely changed in our lifetimes!
.
When I first studied global warming, it soon became obvious that:
(1)  CO2 never controlled the climate in the past, 
(2)  More CO2 in the air 'greens' the Earth, and 
(3) The slight warming since 1850 has been mainly at night, and mainly in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, where few people live !

Burning fossil fuels does add toxic substances to the air, such as soot, nitric oxides, sulfur dioxides, and trace amounts of radioactive material.

Burning fossil fuels also adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the air, but CO2 is not toxic.

CO2 is an airborne plant food that is greening the Earth.

The carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels is a benefit of using fossil fuels, not pollution.

If CO2 causes global warming, and that is only a theory based on laboratory experiments, the warming would be mild, and at night.

The claim that CO2 will cause runaway warming is based on arbitrarily tripling the warming discovered by the CO2 lab experiments, based on a bizarre positive feedback theory that makes no sense.


Earth has had more CO2 in the air than today for most of the past 4.5 billion years -- up to 10x to 20x higher at the peak -- if high CO2 levels caused runaway warming, then we would not be here today to discuss climate change !

 

The coming climate change catastrophe is a hoax because the future climate can not be predicted.

It is a hoax that morphed into a 'secular religion', where wild guess predictions of the future climate are more important than real data and facts.

This hoax created a 'green' industry, that stays alive with huge government subsidies ... and that means it is also a scam to make money, for some people.

I do not read about climate change with any pre-existing climate 'beliefs'.

I do not claim to be able to predict the future climate.

In fact, no one can predict the future climate --  that's my main point.
.
.
.
Are you going to believe me, or this New York Times headline: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776"?
.
Well, I admit that I tried to trick you -- that "Longest Warm Spell" headline was from the March 27, 1933 New York Times!
.
.
.
There has been no evidence CO2 has ever been a 'climate controller', at any time in the past 4.5 billion years.

There are laboratory experiments suggesting that every doubling the CO2 level will increase the average temperature by one to two degrees C.

There is no scientific proof that actually happens in real life.

But even if it was true, a one to two degree C. rise, mainly at night, would be harmless -- actually good news if you were outside at night !

The greenhouse theory claims more CO2 will increase night time low temperatures (by slowing night time cooling, especially near the poles) ... with little or no effect on daytime high temperatures (because CO2 is invisible to sunlight.)
.
.
.   
Based on studying climate change 
since 1997:
 
(1) 
Celebrate more CO2 in the air.

More CO2 is greening the Earth.



(2) 
Celebrate the mild warming since 1850.

Hope the warming continues, because the ONLY other alternative is cooling.



(3)  
Stop listening to smarmy leftists trying to gain political power by scaring people, using the false claim that a climate disaster is coming, unless everyone does as they say without question.

The claim of a coming global warming catastrophe must be false, because no human can predict the future climate.



(4) 
Environmentalists clearly exhibit cult-like behavior:
- They ridicule and character attack skeptics.
- They refuse to debate.
- They refuse to admit they could be wrong.
- They have a "Pope" (Al Gore) and a "Bible" (UN's IPCC Summary Report) -- and think both 'could not possibly be wrong'.
.
.
It's bizarre that most environmentalists today reject real science, in favor of wild guess predictions of the future climate.

Their computer game climate predictions are climate astrology.

Their computer games have been grossly overestimating actual warming for three decades so far.
.
.
.
Two periods of mild global warming since 1900:
(1) 1910 to 1940, and 

(2) 1975 to the early 2000s 
 (mainly from the early 1990s to the early 2000s).
.

No one knows what caused these warming trends.
.
No one blames CO2 for the 1910 to 1940 warming ... but many people blame CO2 for the similar warming from 1975 to the early 2000s.

It makes no sense to claim that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change stopped, and suddenly, with no explanation, man made CO2 became the 'climate controller' in 1975.
.
The claim that climate computer games can predict Earth's average temperature many decades into the future is a hoax, but does scare a lot of people.

Scaring people is a centuries-old strategy that leaders use to gain power over gullible people (originally used by religious leaders).

Environmentalists used to care about real, visible pollution, which was justified ... but then started promoting imaginary environmental boogeymen to scare people, get attention, and get government grants for further study.

Environmental groups attract people who used to call themselves Marxists, because every environmental "crisis" is claimed to have the same "solution": 
A bigger, more powerful central government.

And Marxists love big, powerful central governments.
.
.
.
My Definition of '
"Environmental Boogeyman":
Any environmental issue, real or imaginary, claimed to be a "crisis" that will end life on Earth as we know it … unless everyone follows "environmentalist" orders without question.

When an environmental boogeyman stops scaring people, it is replaced by a new boogeyman, and then the old boogeyman quietly "disappears".

The 'coming catastrophes' never happen -- they are always off in the future -- but people don't seem to notice the scam.

The goal is to scare people into wanting their government to seize more power over the private sector, to fight a (false) boogeyman ... and to do that, the coming global warming catastrophe predictions don't have to be correct at all -- they just have to be believed by enough people to affect elections.

When I hear the 'global warmunists say: 
'Do as we say, or a climate catastrophe will get you', 
I know they are trying to trick me 
... and I don't like to be tricked.

I hope you feel the same way.
.
.
.
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century’s developed world went into a hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”    
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD
MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)