The Great ‘Global Warming’ Hoax Refuses To Die
Insistence not only that the Earth is getting warmer due to the actions of mankind, but that this will or even can result in catastrophic warming permeates Western governments, media, entertainment, corporations, and academia.
This is an increasingly expensive hoax.
The “follow the science” crowd, scientists dependent on government largess for grant funding and elites on trend-following for status, refuses to accept actual science, so the average voter, educated only by a biased media, continues to go along with it and insists all others do, as well.
The facts are, Earth has not warmed since 1997.
More CO2 is expelled each year, yet no warming has resulted. This is partly due to the fact that the ‘greenhouse gas’ theory is nonsense.
Detailed information on air temperature and CO2 levels disproves that a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature.
The core samples from EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau establish that temperature changes first and CO2 changes in response, some 800 years later.
If the Greenhouse theory were correct (it’s not), CO2 would drive temperature. In fact, the opposite is the case.
It may well be that CO2, the bogeyman of the Klimate Kult, the gas we are closing factories, starving and unemploying people, and shuttering economies to reduce, is the same gas responsible for the cooling of the past few decades.
A recent study by the Naval Research Laboratory showed “the biggest contraction in the thermosphere in at least 43 years.”
The National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO, announced that the thermosphere shrank by thirty percent because of a sharp drop in radiation from the sun. Whatever the media and future historians call the coming solar minimum, it may indeed be very cold.
It might be that terminating fertilizer production and natural gas in the name of fighting a man-made “global warming” that doesn’t exist, will ensure that farmers on an already-cooling Earth produce even less food, with even greater starvation.
NASA’s forecast for the next solar cycle (25) reveals it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. Perhaps this will not be as deep as the Maunder Minimum or the Dalton Minimum. Perhaps.
Earth’s oceans store most of the planet’s heat. They may be cooling. As the oceans cool, the air circulating above them, and drawing heat from them – which is how hurricanes are formed – will begin to cool. Next thing you know, Amazon.com is out of ice skates and hot chocolate.
How do we know the oceans are cooling? NASA sensors. “A map of heat change at depths of 500 meters (top) showed an unrealistically widespread and dramatic cooling of the entire Atlantic Ocean.”
However, along with altering our global temperature data sets to meet the needs of the political establishment, NASA is altering the ocean temperature readings, as well:
“When the errors had been corrected, the global-scale cooling trend disappeared.”
Earth experiences a 100,000-year ice age cycle (an ice-covered Earth is far more “normal” than a temperate Earth), a 2,200 – 2,400-year climate cycle, a 200-year “Bicentennial Cycle,” a 40-year “Relational Cycle,” and an 11-year “Schwabe Cycle.” (Dark Winter, Casey, 2014).
Each of these alters the global climate. Each of these has immeasurably more impact on Earth’s climate than the internal combustion engine or electricity generation or your natural gas stove.
If we “follow the science,” it may well be that we need to begin moving toward technologies and behaviors that warm the Earth.
Or at least stop trying to cool it. No one stops an advancing glacier.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
Hoax is not the correct word to use. A hoax is for fun and is always revealed before it gets out of hand. What is worse, is that the hoax has been revealed many times, and is done very clearly in this piece, but most people cannot see it. This is surely a decline in the general intelligence of humanity including university education. But if it is so easy to trick the majority into believing this nonsense, what is the intention? If it is a means of some people getting very wealthy from the policies, are they also so stupid not to see that they cannot avoid the consequences of net zero?
There is a simple calculation that everybody should be able to do, and they can find the calculation on the internet if they don’t. Imagine a cubic metre of air and water in contact at one surface with no heat loss from the others. Calculate the temperature that the air would need to be in order to raise the temperature of the water by 1C. Then do the calculation again for the just the CO2 doing the warming. For those who are incapable then I suggest they put their hand in an oven at 200C and discover it does not burn them, then put it into water at 60C and make a quick visit to the hospital for treatment. Temperature is not the issue, it is energy.
Reply
Tom
| #
Great analysis.
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
I agree. Hoax is too tame a word. OUTRIGHT FRAUD AND DELIBERATE DISGUSTING DECEIT would be more appropriate.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Alan,
You forgot that it is the water that is adding energy to the molecules in the air so they in turn can add energy to the water. The calculations get even more absurd when you consider that it is the CO2 molecules high in the atmosphere doing the heating and the density of the air there is even less dense than the air at the surface (by a large factor).
There is no science in the GHGT.
Herb
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I agree Alan, I usually say scam, but I was just copying the article as written.
Reply
Tom
| #
The UN is demanding 6 trillion dollars every year for fighting global warming. Where that money really will go is into pushing for a single world government. It will never get used for global warming because these kooksters are chasing a ghost.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers, Founders, Authors, Commenters,
This morning I read the headline: “The Great ‘Global Warming’ Hoax Refuses To Die”
More than once I have called the OBSERVED FACTS to your attentions, that when the air’s temperature and the air’s dew point temperature are both measured at the sane place and time, the air’s temperature has never been measured to be less than the air’s dew point temperature. This is an observed SCIENTIFIC LAW; not a scientific theory. Hence, the air’s temperature cannot be less than that measured for the air’s dew point temperature or frost point temperature. For this morning there was heavy frost on many surfaces directly exposed to the cloudless sky above.
More than once I have quoted from R. C. Sutcliff’s 1966 book “Weather and Climate”: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This is obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and a sunny day in summer or between an overcast and clear frosty night in winter.”
I can not ignore the cloudless sky I saw this morning and the frost I saw on surfaces this morning. I cannot ignore the fact, that when I used my IR thermometer to measure the temperatures of the frosty surfaces,that their measured temperatures were well less than 32F and that when I pointed my IR-thermometer upward at the cloudless sky: its measured temperature was negative 25F (rounded to the nearest degree).
Given these common observed facts; I have to ask: How stupid are most of you?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
In the Preface to Galileo’s well known, but seldom read, book: Dialogues Concerning Two New Sconces, Louis Elzevir, a Dutch publisher, wrote (1638) “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition” as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio (1914).
Somewhere and sometime I discovered a book of translations of other Galileo’s writings by Stillman Drake (1957). The title of which was: Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo. This morning I began to question the word “Opinions” as I considered a better word would be “Explanations”.
Opinion: “o·pin·ion | əˈpiny(ə)n |. noun. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”
Explanation: “ex·pla·na·tion | ˌekspləˈnāSHən noun. a statement or account that makes something clear”
I clearly consider “not necessarily based on fact or knowledge” an affront to Galileo’s scholarship.
Explanation is the result of the word “explain”, a verb “make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas”
Hopefully, you, a PSI reader, can see the point of this comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
I have been watching some of Randall Carlson’s Youtube videos and he has spoken out recently about the “Hockey stick” graph fraud. Randall has talked about past climate history and we humans think 100 years is a long time but over real long periods of time many wondrous things happen….for instance….hurricanes over thousands of years have no doubt affected every island in the Caribbean and the USA Gulf and east coasts…..100 mph + winds and massive rain and tidal surges cause big changes.
Reply