Is Global Warming The Greatest Scientific Fraud In History?
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
—Albert Einstein
In 1912, amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered the “missing link” between ape and man, known as “The Piltdown Man.”
He had found part of a human-like skull in Pleistocene gravel beds near Piltdown village in Sussex, England. Dawson submitted the find to Arthur Smith Woodward, keeper of geology at the Natural History Museum. [bold added]
Smith Woodward made a reconstruction of skull fragments, and the archaeologists hypothesized that the find indicated evidence of a human ancestor living 500,000 years ago.
They announced their discovery at a Geological Society meeting in 1912. For the most part, their story was accepted as fact. However, subsequent chemical testing showed that the skull and jats actually came from two different species, a human and an ape.
The conclusion: Piltdown Man was an audacious fake and sophisticated scientific fraud. Forty-one years elapsed between the discovery of the “Piltdown Man” and the determination that it was a fraud.
In 1988, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (U.N. IPCC).
In its seminal report in 1990, the U.N. IPCC stated that “at the then current rate of world emissions of CO2, the global mean temperature would likely increase by 1°C by 2025.”
This statement formed the basis for the hypothesis that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming resulted from the increased concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower atmosphere resulting from man-made activities.
Central to the hypothesis was that the temperature of the lower troposphere would increase as the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere increased.
Therefore, in its 1990 report, the U.N. IPCC established a direct linkage between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the lower troposphere.
The scientific method of inquiry has guided scientific research and investigation for over 400 years. In summary, the scientific method requires that a researcher observe a phenomenon, postulate a hypothesis for the cause of the phenomenon, and then conduct experiments or scientific investigations to falsify the hypothesis.
In adherence to the scientific method, a climate scientist who thinks that man has caused global warming should develop a complex hypothesis as follows:
- Global warming has occurred; that is, the temperature of the world’s oceans, landmass, and relevant atmosphere has risen during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.
- Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.
- The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth.
If any of the conjectures in the complex hypothesis above are found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is determined to be falsified and either discarded or modified.
In 1978, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to launch a series of satellites to polar-circumnavigate the globe using microwave-sounding technology to measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (first 8 km of the Earth’s atmosphere).
The results show that during the period 1979–1998, the average monthly temperature anomaly of the lower troposphere decreased approximately 0.3°C each year, while the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 335 ppm to 370 ppm.
Sometime during the period 1979–1998, an unbiased climate scientist at the U.N. IPCC should have observed that the temperature of the troposphere had significantly cooled while the concentration of CO2 had increased, contradicting the fundamental precept of the global warming hypothesis.
A committee should have been assembled to verify the accuracy of the temperature and CO2 concentration data.
The man-made global warming hypothesis should have been declared falsified if the data were accurate. No such action occurred.
Until the advent of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the Piltdown Man was the most remarkable scientific fraud in history. The anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has now assumed that title.
Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a new book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception: The Triumph of Dollars and Politics over Science and Why You Should Care. Published on Amazon.com on January 4, 2022.
Read more at American Thinker
Trackback from your site.
VOWG
| #
To answer the the headline question in one word, YES. Next to the great and continuing “covid” fraud.
Reply
Greg Spinolae
| #
ClimateScam and CovidScam
are two pillars of the greatest fraud in history…
The GreatReset Fraud.
Other pillars include the WokeScam, the TechScam and the DemocracyScam.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I believe the wasted time and money is over a trillion dollars and counting……nothing in history is close….the most diabolical scheme in history…..ultimately all for nothing.
Reply
Russ D
| #
There is no such thing as “global warming” or “climate change”. It’s a fantasy. The truth is that lunatic Libs simply hate fossil fuels because they are emblematic of unfettered capitalism. Fossil fuels power the capitalist engine, and if they can shut them down, they shut down capitalism. But they also hate the cleanest, safest source of energy: nuclear power. They’re simply nuts. –
Reply
Roy Everett
| #
A trillion dollars is about right but that’s merely for the UK over the last year or two and just Covid! Multiply that by (say) ten to get a global estimate for the West for covid, and another ten for Climate. In round figures (for Covid), everyone in the UK has either been robbed of about one year’s income to pay for this scam, or their children have been lumbered with repaying the debt later. Taken together, these Climate, Covid and other scams are a massive wealth transfer from West to East, from poor to rich, all based around a handful of Mencken Hobgoblin.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Yes, this is the greatest fraud in history. Not by mistaken, honest science, but deception and trickery.
All gases in our atmosphere produce a net cooling effect. Substituting O2 for CO2 only increases the cooling effect.
Ozone layer protects and cools Earth.
Clouds (i.e.-water vapor H2O) cool our planet.
Evaporation of water cools our planet.
CO2 does the same, as would floating lead bricks in the sky.
If anyone questions this, please educate yourself on the climate of the Moon.
Reply
Atmospheric Physicist
| #
Read about this major breakthrough in understanding the effect of greenhouse gases … they actually cool us according to the physics explained here and in the cited papers and video.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/digital-id-and-the-climate-scam-with-maria-zeee/#comment-1701
Reply
Andrew Harding
| #
Yes it is and I have the proof!
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
This is from the website at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, their observatory is in Mauna Loa, Hawaii. This is the World’s official record of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Note what happened during the Covid 19 Pandemic, no flights, roads empty, factories and offices closed. If mankind was creating the bulk of the rise in atmospheric CO2 the graph would show a decrease in the amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, there is no statistical difference, whatsoever.
The only possible conclusion that can be reached, is that we achieve nothing by trying to limit CO2 ’emissions’, except impoverishing humanity?
I have spoken to others about this and they think that there must be a time lag between, CO2 being emitted and being measured. I would agree totally with this idea, if CO2 was added from one source on one part of the globe only, but it isn’t. There are airports, sending airliners across the continents & oceans, roads with traffic, homes and businesses all over the world, creating CO2.
Of course Fossil Fuels are a finite resource but we have nuclear fission and hopefully in a few more years, nuclear fusion too?
Reply
Dr Tim Ball
| #
<www.generalistjournal.com>
Book: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’
Book: ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’
https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/
https://www.technocracy.news/tim-ball-the-evidence-proves-that-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas
martyball39@icloud.com
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
Dr. Tim,
Gases are ‘fluids’, similar to liquids but with lower density than liquids.
All liquids radiate energy. All gases radiate energy.
If the incoming solar radiation were equivalent to a piano with 88 keys (7 octaves), then Ozone would absorb more than half the keys of the upper octave. CO2 would absorb two keys in the low octaves, which are transferred to adjacent Nitrogen and Oxygen atoms in the atmosphere.
Most of the middle octaves are dominated by H2O putting it’s foot on the pedals.
Do you see how ridiculous this subject is for serious discussion?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks for these links, Marty. Am scheduling for PSI to re-post. Best wishes, John
Reply
John Kelly
| #
The presence of Co2 in the upper atmosphere is achieved by Co2 hitching a ride on the back of evaporated H2O particles and acts as a protective layer that reduces the penetration of harmful solar radiated energy reaching the surface of our planet.
My question is this if Co2 particles can stop the passage of Solar radiated energy then it must follow that as the density of Co2 increases then the greater the restriction of Solar radiated energy passage to the surface. Which makes the claim that Co2 prevents reflected Solar energy from the surface escaping back into space utterly ridiculous.
Reply
Kevin Doyle
| #
John,
Agreed.
Energy hitting Earth from Sun is twice as great as that leaving Earth on crude average, as incoming sunlight only hits one half, while energy emitted is from two halves.
The intensity of that energy being greater across the entire spectrum is susceptible to interference from gases in our atmosphere, which shield us from harmful rays. E.G. – Ozone, H2O, and yes CO2.
As outgoing energy is half of incoming, then net result is cooling.
If a ‘climate scientists’ claims that CO2 stops 2 watts of energy from escaping the surface, then ask her if she also accounted for the 4 watts of incoming energy intercepted before it reaches the surface?
Answer: What? They never mentioned that at ‘Climate Science School’.
Thus, net coolant.
Reply