Greenhouse Gas Theory Omitted from Top Government Climate Report
The famous greenhouse gas theory is missing from the most important and detailed US government climate report of all time. What gives? Have Donald Trump and the Russians rigged it?
Something we are told over and over again is that the greenhouse gas theory, the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming is well-established science from over a century ago. Well, folks, the best available government evidence shows that claim is a lie. Anyone wanting to check the facts themselves need look no further than the famous ‘Charney Report’ (US government, 1979).
Readers can browse for themselves online the 13,000-word 38-year-old U.S. government report that details the role of carbon dioxide and how it might impact climate. You will see that while CO2 is mentioned no less than 112 times, nowhere in those 13,000 words will you find ANY mention of the greenhouse gas effect/theory.
And settled science always has settled nomenclature.
But it isn’t just ‘Charney’ that omits to mention the greenhouse gas theory. Prior to the 1980’s you’d be hard pressed to find it in any mainstream science book or encyclopedia. It certainly wasn’t being taught to students studying for their degrees in climatology/meteorology.
One of the co-authors of the book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ which is the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory, is Dr. Martin Hertzberg. He recalls:
“I was trained and served as a forecasting and research meteorologist for the U.S. Navy from 1953-1956. The term “greenhouse gas” never appeared in any of the texts or articles I studied during that period, nor did I or any of my fellow meteorologists ever use the concept in either short term or long term weather prediction.”
While popular Canadian climatologist and fellow ‘Slayers‘ co-author, Dr. Tim Ball confirms:
“As I recall the original greenhouse effect concept was created as a teaching analogy that was adopted and adapted into the hypothesis. Carl Sagan and Hansen were messing around with the aerosol issue because of the alarmist threat of nuclear winter. This proposed that with a global nuclear war so much dust would be put into the atmosphere sunlight would be blocked driving the world into a snowball earth. The idea was later shown to be theoretically incorrect and disappeared but not without leaving residue such as Hansen’s focus on aerosols and soot. This created his pathological hatred of coal that is the broad theme running through his career. He came to world attention because Gore and Senator Wirth heard about him and brought him to testify before Gore’s Committee in 1988.”
Indeed, the reasons why mainstream science bodies weren’t touting the greenhouse gas theory in 1979 are:
(a) No one had the confidence/belief in the ‘science’ to call such!
(b) It was widely known that the ‘theory’ had been refuted long before; first by RW Woods (1909) and affirmed as such by the American Meteorological Society (1951) in its Compendium of Meteorology (Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” pp. 1004-18 (at 1016)).
At that time, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, when writing how earth’s climate operates, make NOT A SINGLE MENTION of the so-called greenhouse gas effect/theory. Why not?
Even in 1951 the AMS was adamant that the very idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapor.” (id.)
Peer-reviewed Studies Pointing to ZERO Climate Impact from CO2
Skeptics may claim two Christmas wishes have come early: The first is the proof by omission from the crucial NAS document, ‘Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,‘ a joint publication from 1979 commissioned on behalf of the U.S. government. Second, last week’s big climate change story that yet more peer-reviewed science studies show that carbon dioxide is likely totally innocent as a driver of earth’s climate. We reported the news in ‘Null Hypothesis Beckons for Greenhouse Gas Theory” (Dec 3, 2017).
Even in the most respected peer-reviewed literature, climate scientists are ratcheting down yet again the supposed climate sensitivity to raised levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). It seems their retreat over CO2 sensitivity is because this otherwise benign trace gas can’t be any factor in our climate if there is a none existent greenhouse gas effect to begin with!
When I first wrote my original article on this issue back in 2012 it rattled the cage of Skeptical Science (Skepticalscience.com) blog owner, John Cook, among others. Cook and fellow greenhouse gas fanatics posted a slew of damning diatribes against me for daring to draw wider public attention to this most simple yet telling fact. I had dared to unsettle their settled science narrative!
It wasn’t me who has been misleading- but all those alarmists and ‘lukewarmers’. At the time, my argument was that their settled science, to be settled, must have settled nomenclature.
The cold, hard facts are in black and white and the revisionists of science history have failed to bury the truth despite billions of dollars in resources and virtual ownership of the media.
Because of it’s total omission from this key report, any rational human being may fairly infer that America’s brightest and best in climate science knew, as far back as 1979, there was no proven greenhouse gas effect for CO2 to impact.
Now let’s be clear on this. No governmental scientific body entrusted to present the best available evidence on the impacts of CO2 on Earth’s atmosphere would omit to make any mention of the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ effect unless they did not consider it a factor – however small. But omit it they did.
What we can be sure of is that the cream of old school climate science in the 1970’s weren’t as politically savvy as they are today. As Dr Ball indicates above, the political hullabaloo about man-made global warming took another decade to gather momentum. As such, the evidence above provides skeptics with the smoking gun to challenge the man-made global warming scam.
Remember, there is a widespread consensus among climate scientists, alarmists and lukewarmers, who stand together to defend the “long-settled” greenhouse gas theory and together they mock anyone who disagrees. Well, all you, folks – you are deluded!
Trackback from your site.