The claim that humanity is causing significant and harmful, even catastrophic, climate change is a complete fraud. In this blog, you will find an index into some of the documentation I published over the last few years.
For regular updates and an archive of news about the climate hoax, sign up to this Minds group here:
A very brief refutation of the climate propaganda lies:
The term "greenhouse gas" is a total misnomer, as it misrepresents what is going on in a greenhouse and draws a completely false analogy from this with what is happening in the atmosphere:
Even the claim that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 since the 1960s is mostly or entirely caused by human emissions is on very shaky grounds:
Essential speeches by a Nobel Prize laureat in Physics, Professor Ivar Giaever
Climate Alarmism is based on a flat earth model
Everything they tell you about the climate is a lie
CO2 is not causing global warming
Extreme weather events are part of normal climate variability
The lies about the "End of Snow"
The absolute joke of fearmongering about Methane
Man-made climate ... alarmism
Typical pseudo-scientific "study" assuming that man-made climate change is real without even trying to justify the claim. Contradicted by massive scientific evidence:
"Economic damage due to sea level rise" ... not so much!
From 1998 to 2015, there was practically no measurable warming - in complete contradiction with the models. This fact led many to question the underlying, false claims about CO2. In 2015, Obama's NOAA "found" the "missing heat" by changing historical temperature measurements. Here is the full documentation:
Absence of warming denialism
More pseudo-science published in Nature - a "model" shows the alleged "man-made climate change" causing more precipitations, but these cannot be detected in the actual climate data. This is why I call it modern Lysenkoism.
Back when scientists dared to state the obvious: "Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists"
Near record snow and cold over Southern Hemisphere
Fearmongering fail about the Great Lakes
There are no "climate refugees"
Are Electric Cars better for the environment?
Dr. Steven Koonin, undersecretary for science at the U.S. Department of Energy in the Obama administration, rejects claims of climate fanatics
Study finds that warming or cooling of measurement stations is a matter of their exposure to ocean winds:
XKCD pushing climate hoax propaganda.
Article dénonce le délire anti-scientifique du GIEC (IPCC)
Réfutation de la fraude climatique en 5 minutes
Antwort auf Deutsche Klima Propaganda
Full experimental refutation of the claim that CO2 causes warming in a laboratory setup:
This laboratory experiment demonstes that Argon has an almost identical warming effect as CO2 in a cylinder, proving that warming cannot be based on radiosity - it is only caused by the increased gas density:
UN "Climate Change" publication 1973 August - September; read pages 18ff:
NOAA Volume 4 Number 4 October 1974 "Man-made climate disasters causing global cooling"
NOAA's paper from 1977 about the continued global cooling
Climate change and its effect on World Food - Walter Orr Roberts, Aspen Institute (a Marxist organization which also invented the claim about "systemic racism"; today, they promote the global warming myth):
A study published in 2020 about the entire climate issue, providing all the essential information about the physics of climate science and an estimate of the potential influence of of humanity - which turns out to be pretty much non-existent:
Comprehensive Analytical Study of the Greenhouse Effect of the Atmosphere
A large library of articles refuting the climate fraud:
This is a fantastic resource - a web site that provides real time data for temperatures, precipitations, storms, thunderstorms, waves, snow cover, various types of pollution etc.:
You can select "Air Quality" and "CO2" - you'll be surprised to find that the worst sources of emission are not places with heavy traffic or industry...
Temperature Global was created by professional meteorologists. It uses the exact same data as NASA, NOAA etc. but they do not "process" the data, they just deliver the raw global temperature based on the actually measured data, while NASA & NOAA first perform a lot of "processing" so that the data is more "conform" to their models...
Consensus is completely irrelevant, in science. Not a single progress was ever achieved through "consensus". Quite the opposite - every single scientific breakthrough was the result of someone going against the "consensus" of his day and age. Anyone who brings up "consensus" as an argument to support his views is violating the basic principles of science. In climate science, he'll also be a liar, as there is no "consensus" about the claim that CO2 is causing climate change:
Humanity simply does not control enough energy to affect the climate:
Solar energy information as a handy meme:
This geological study finds that humanity's contribution to global temperature is less than 0.01C over the last century:
Over 425 million years, there's only a very small correlation between CO2 and temperature - and it's a negative one! Probably an artifact. Absolutely ZERO support for the claim that CO2 causes warming!
Climate events were far more deadly from 1900 to 1980 than from 1980 to the present, with a massive concentration of deaths caused by floods and droughts from 1920 to 1970:
The conjecture that CO2 could cause warming is based on a flat earth model:
A real model would have to represent all the air currents that evacuate heat consistently through a global circulation system:
The simple fact is: all the models that assume that CO2 causes warming are wrong. They diverge from each other by more than 3x the estimated global warming:
Not a single model ever got close to the real temperature trend. Why would we assume that they will do better in the future, given that they all have an ideological bias instead of being based on observation?
The fact that the models are completely wrong is well known and documented:
Those who promote the myth of CO2 warming try to defend the failure of their models by claiming that they are just not good enough ... yet. They claim that the science is "settled" (which in itself is an incredibly unscientific thing to say) without any evidence. If the climate really was "settled", they should have no problem producing accurate models!
At least they admit that they downplay the problems, though they use a euphemism: "deemphasizing" information that contradicts their hypothesis could also be stated more clearly as "hiding evidence".
Occasionally, a former believer breaks with the "consensus" - and is immediately censored:
NASA & NOAA altered the temperature record in what has to be considered massive scientific fraud: the cooled the past before and up to 1940, almost completely wiped out the massive cooling from 1940 to 1978 and heated the present, to hide the fact that there is no correlation with CO2 at all.
They "revised" the data several times in ways that should be considered criminal:
Here is a representation of the 1999 vs 2015 data. Note that the scale is ridiculously enlarged, which makes tiny changes in average temperature look significant. Also missing is the indication that the error margin is about 0.5C, i.e. adding up all the errors from all the measurements, the calculated average could be up to 0.5C warmer or cooler than indicated.
In other words, the actual warming is within the error margin, as the record from 1999 shows barely 0.4C warming from 1880 to 2000. The 1C warming they worry about only exists in the altered data set.