The Anthropogenic Global Warming Lie

Take the time to do your own research. I have a B.S. in micro/molecular biology and have spent a lot of years studying the philosophy of science and the history of the scientific method/process … I’m no fool in regards to these matters, so please do not mistake me for one.

The Math:

Professor William Happer of Princeton set out a straightforward calculation using the formula:

Required CO2 concentration = C0 x 2^(DT/DT2) where C0 is the current concentration, DT is the temperature rise resulting from concentration C, and DT2 is the (disputed) temperature rise for doubling.

The IPCC is asserting that mean global temperature will increase as carbon dioxide concentrations increase, according to a ‘climate sensitivity’ factor,

According to the the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014) this range is 1.5 to 4.5 °C per doubling. At least one statistical analysis of the temperature record and CO2 that I’ve found however finds no correlation between CO2 and temperature - so zero climate sensitivity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327859295_CLIMATE_SENSITIVITY_AND_THE_RESPONSIVENESS_OF_TEMPERATURE_TO_ATMOSPHERIC_CO2). I point this out to make clear that there is a wide range in view here among scientists and statisticians and the only real way forward to discover the truth is falsification. Thus far, in my view the IPCC’s views are false as their models are not in line with observations by what I (and other skeptics) see as a wide margin (much greater than 5%).

However, even if we accept the IPCC’s numbers and go with a sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling (middle of their range) , and then ask — what is the level of carbon dioxide that would be needed to produce a 4 degree rise in temperature from today? — the answer we would get, using IPCC arguments, would be 1008 parts per million. May. 2019 Mauna Loa measurement is 415 pp, which means we would need to have increased the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by around 600 ppm.

In May of 1989 the amount was 355, so a difference of roughly 60ppm over thirty years, or 2ppm per year. To get to 1008 ppm, at the present rate, would take around 300 years! Much longer than the alarmists in the media would have any believe. And this also assumes current rates of human CO2 production over that time - which IMO is clearly not going to happen as research and development in fission and fusion energy are making good strides.

Taking the lower end estimate from the IPCC, which still breaks the models versus satellite data, of 1.5 degree C and putting it into the equation gives a number of over 2600 years to get to the required level of carbon dioxide. Given the reserves of fossil fuels on Earth’s I think we can seriously doubt that they are large enough to ever reach that point even if we were able to use all of them. All of this also ignores the strong possibility that plants and algae will increase their uptake over time via the continued greening of the planet due to higher CO2 levels.

IMO that is the crux debate - not temperature - as temperature change may just be natural variability – and this goes directly to the question of whether or not humans need to take any action with regards to the use of fossil fuels - otherwise we are just debating weather.

The models used by IPCC supporting 'scientists' (political scientists IMO) are way outside of scientifically acceptable “p-values” – meaning they are INVALID models by scientific standards … and yet the media owned by a handful of elitists keep going on about IPCC’s models as if they were the word of God.

CO2 only absorbs infrared at a particular wavelength and the energy of that wavelength of light is already being fully absorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere … meaning that to trap more heat, the amount of CO2 must rise exponentially, not linearly … meaning that the models and really the whole concept of CO2 being a major factor in global warming are nonsensical.

Video links multiple from experts:

Climate Scientist Dr. Robert Holmes - “There is No “Extra Warming” to Explain”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3biTbgx_l3c

William Happer, Professor of Physics at Princeton University - “Extraordinary Popular Delusion”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKBwoO8DOPw

Professor Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics - “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyztWNW2HsM

Professor Peter Ridd - “Is the great barrier reef threatened”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSSNXjPbpOY

Atmospheric Scientist Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen - “Classic Lecture on Climate Sensitivity”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2czGg3fUUA

Climatologist Professor Bill Grey is the Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science - “Why Climate Models are Wrong”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL6ZCmmCU7c

Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

Climate Scientist Murry Salby - “Demolishing Global Warming Alarm”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCqcKYj9Oc

Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis - “Climatology is a Joke”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1FnWFlDvxE

Climate Scientist Professor Nir Shaviv - “Where the IPCC has Gone Wrong”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t5R5Bp_RXE

Climatologist Dr Richard Alan Keen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmc5w2I-FCA