The Green Swastika Environmentalism in the Third Reich

From Malthus to Mifepristone: A Primer on the Population Control Movement

The History of the Population Control Movement 1798 to 1998

Dictatorship of the Landlords - The Green Roots of the Housing Crisis

Cultural Marxism and the Alt-Right

The Meaning of Corporatism

356 Enviro-critical Websites and additional info about the organized enviro-critical movement

Pierre Trudeau: Eco-fascist

A Primer for the Paris Climate Talks

Jorge Bergoglio's Green Encyclical

Environmentalism and Aboriginal Supremacism (Part 2): The Mobilization of Aboriginal Opposition to the Northern Gateway Pipeline

Environmentalism and Aboriginal Supremacism in Canada - Part 1 - Idle No More

Of Buffalo and Biofuel - More Tales of Environmentalism in Alberta

War on Coal

In Praise of the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act (Bill C-38)

Environmentalism and Edmonton Land Use Politics

The "Tar Sands" Campaign and the Suppression of North America's Energy Potential

Desertec and Environmentalism's North African Campaign

The Environmental Movement in Alberta

Environmentalism 400 BC

Spirit of NAWAPA

Waldheim's Monster:
United Nations' Ecofascist Programme

Early 19th Century British "Environmentalism"

Environmentalism's Appropriation of Christianity

Environmentalism's Environment

The Continental Counter-Enlightenment

The American Eco-Oligarchy update

If Only This Were About Oil


Who is Affraid of The Big Green Wolf

The Gore Presidential Bid

The Groundbreaking Career of Doctor Science

The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming, and The Anglican Church

The Great Global Warming Hoax

The American Oligarchy's Economic Warfare Campaign on British Columbians


By William Walter Kay


Grounds for Scepticism

The Old Guard gets Guarded
The Political Climate for Climatologists
The Condenser's Conclusion


In 2006 Canada’s National Post newspaper employed well-known enviro-careerist Larry Solomon to interview key sceptics of “global warming” science. The interviews were worked into a 235 page bestseller: The Deniers (Richard Vigilante Books, 2008). Deniers is so repetitive as to be a fraud upon the consumer. Every statement is made twice, often verbatim, sometimes on the same page. As well, Larry, a confused and opinionated egocentric, refers to himself over 100 times. The book contains egregious errors and is padded with redundant, confusing but “looks-like-science” graphs. Larry’s scientific paraphrasing doesn’t pass the laugh test. However, once the scientists and their comments are wrested from Larry, what remains is a decisive 14-page counter-claim to the Big Lie of “global warming.”

Grounds for Scepticism

The main organization developing and disseminating “greenhouse gas,” “anthropogenic global warming” and/or “climate change” propaganda is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This organization was established in 1988 by the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, with UNEP in the driver’s seat. The IPCC party line is: burning hydrocarbon fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) increases the amount of heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere; thus, artificially warms the planet. The party line (hereafter: “global warming”) further contends this artificial heating causes: droughts, storms, floods (as sea levels rise due to melting glaciers) and plagues (due to increasing mobility of disease-bearing insects).


In 1971, George Kukla (now an award-winning researcher at Columbia U) was a Czechoslovakian Academy of Science member studying ocean-floor strata. He concluded: “changes in the Earth’s orbital geometry caused the ice ages. The evidence is so strong that other explanations must now be discarded.” (1) In 1972 Kukla helped organize a conference at Brown U – “The Present Interglacial: How and When Will it End?” Conference goers agreed: “deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the processes which produced the last ice age.” (2) After the conference Kukla et al. wrote about “global cooling” for Science magazine and alerted President Nixon in a letter warning of “substantially lowered food production” from “extreme weather anomalies” like killer frosts and floods. In 1973 the State Department established a Panel on the Present Interglacial. In 1974 the US government’s new “United States Climate Program” was justified by a litany of climate change indicators such as: “A killing winter freeze, followed by a severe summer heat wave in the United States...Drought in the Soviet Union (and)...anomalously low precipitation in the US Pacific Northwest.” In 1975 Newsweek ran a “Cooling World” cover story and Congress passed the National Climate Program Act (NCPA) – the first of several bills funding climate research and contingency planning. In 1979, Carter signed a revised NCPAto better anticipate and combat “global cooling.” (3) Today Kukla’s opinion’s are unchanged: “the principal driver of weather patterns and long-term global climates is the temperature difference between the high latitudes...and in the tropical belt...Only when the resulting ice...flows toward the low latitudes, does the global area-weighted mean surface temperature start to drop...we enter the global cooling period by a global warming.” (4) The 1975-1998 warming was neither surprising nor confounding as “none of us expected uninterrupted continuation of this trend.” (5)

An oft-cited cause of “global cooling” was aerosols (airborne particles) emitted by industry. Nir Shaviv (PhD, Physics) is the author/co-author of 40 scientific papers. He reckons human activity mightbe cooling the Earth. Hydrocarbon fuel burning releases CO2 and aerosols and these may counter-act each other’s temperature impact. (6) Aerosols alter clouds in mysterious ways. In either event, Shaviv is convinced “things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.” (7) He thinks 80% of 20th century warming resulted from natural causes. (8) Shaviv subscribes to the “Coca-Cola fizz” theory which uses CO2 fizzing from a glass of Coke to illustrate how CO2 rises from warming oceans. Increasing levels of CO2 in the air may be the result of warming, not the cause. If the sun gets hotter, oceans spew more CO2. Historically, CO2 increases follow temperature increases. (9) Shaviv’s original research involves the relationship between Earth’s temperature and the sun’s location in the Milky Way. The sun revolves around the Milky Way’s centre at 500,000 mph. Shaviv’s study of meteorites showed that ones hitting Earth when the sun moved through star-populated regions sustained more cosmic ray exposure than ones landing as the sun travelled through emptier space. Fluxes in cosmic ray intensity synchronise with the Ice Ages; they affect Earth’s climate. (10)

Eigil Friis-Christensen’s climatology career began during the 1970s “global cooling” scare when he co-authored a study in Science on correlations between Earthly temperatures and sunspot cycles. He has a PhD (Geophysics) from Copenhagen U and chairs the Danish Space Consortium. He was formerly with the European Space Agency’s Solar System Working Group and VP of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy. He has authored/co-authored 100 papers including one published in 1991 using data up to 1985 (the latest available) again showing correlations between temperatures and sunspots. In 1992, when attending an IPCC conference, he was stunned by the IPCC’s rejection of solar change as a valid topic. They were interested in anthropogenic climate change. The correlation between sunspots and temperatures broke down in the late 1980s so Friis-Christensen revised his theory to focus more on how variations in the sun’s magnetic field regulated Earth’s cosmic ray exposure which in turn influenced cloud formation and temperature. Eventually the correlation between the sun’s magnetic field and temperature also broke down. Because he persists in connecting solar change to Earth’s temperature, Friis-Christensen is a climate pariah. His revisions, a normal scientific practice, were leapt upon by doomsayers as evidence of sinister intent. One critic described his revisions in an article entitled, A Strange Pattern of Errors. (11)

Also pointing to the sun is Habibullo Abdussamatov (PhD, Math/Physics, Leningrad U). He runs the Space Research Laboratory at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Observatory. (12) His principal argument against “global warming” is that Mars is also warming. To him, “parallel global warmings – observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth – can only be a straight-line consequence of the effect of the same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance.” (13) IPCC scientists claim Mars’ temperature changes result from axis tilts, but Abdussamatov counters that “the tilt of the axis of both Mars and Earth varies on the time scale of tens of thousands of years, and these variations cannot increase the value of solar irradiance of Mars during so short a period of time.” (14)He views “Total Solar Irradiance” (TSI), not merely solar heat, as the main climate changing factor. Like Shaviv, he believes after TSI-driven temperature increases, “gigantic amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere through the evaporation of water.” Thus “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause-and-effect relations.” TSI changes caused half the recent warming. The other half was “caused by the natural greenhouse effect and by the natural variations in the albedo of the Earth’s surface but almost none of it stems from a manmade greenhouse effect.” He fears the warming boon is over and we are in for a bitter global cooling. (15)

Henrik Svensmark directs solar research at the Danish National Space Centre and was formerly a prof at Berkeley and the Niels Bohr Institute. He is interested in the relationship between cloud cover and surface temperature. Low cloud cover can fluctuate by 2% over a five-year span, thus varying the amount of solar energy hitting the Earth’s surface by 1.2 watts per square meter. Svensmark notes: “That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the IPCC for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.” Instrumental records of cloud cover begin with the satellite era; hence, little is known about this variable which may account for all recent warming. (16) In 2006 his “cloud chamber” experiment showed electrons contribute to water droplet formation thus supporting the idea that cosmic ray flux changes climate. (17) His team summarizes:
The varying activity of the sun is indeed the largest and most systematic contributor to natural climate variations...Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years. When solar activity is high, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced due to increased magnetic shielding by the sun. The cosmic rays may influence Earth’s climate through formation of low lying clouds...Cosmic rays ionize the atmosphere and...the production of aerosols...depends on the amount of ionization. Since aerosols work as precursors for formation of cloud droplets, this is an indication that cosmic rays affect climate.” (18)

Another experiment aimed at understanding how cosmic rays influence climate is Jasper Kirkby’s CLOUD project (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) hosted by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Kirkby is author/co-author of 250 scientific publications. He earned degrees from Oxford and London and was at Stanford for 12 years before joining CERN where he originated and led several experiments. CLOUD began in 2007 and was to run until 2012 but securing funding has proven challenging as Kirkby is on record as believing sun-driven cosmic ray flux accounts for “between a half and a whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” (19)

Two other solar-oriented sceptics are Sami Solanki and Rhodes Fairbridge. Solanki received his PhD in Switzerland and taught at Dutch and Finnish Universities before becoming director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute of Solar System Research. He is convinced: “The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years...The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.” (20) Fairbridge is author/co-author of 100 scientific books and 1,000 papers. He edits the 90-volume Benchmarks in Geology and the Fairbridge Encyclopedia of Earth Sciences. He believes the sun’s orbit has an eight-phase cycle determined by the varying centrifugal pull of planetary alignments. The sun is hottest when its rotation is smooth and circular. He believes sea levels have been rising for 16,000 years, albeit with oscillations. On neither sea level nor temperature change does Fairbridge view atmospheric CO2 levels as significant. (21)

Vincent Gray (PhD, Cambridge, Physical Chemistry) has published 100 scientific papers and participated in all IPCC assessments. He calls the IPCC process a “swindle.” He doubts there has been any warming at all. Temperature stations are not randomly distributed – 90% are land-based even though Earth’s surface is 70% ocean. Temperature stations are disproportionately near heat emitting cities. Many stations originally sited in the country have had cities grow around them. (22)

The US House of Representatives asked Edward Wegman (PhD, Iowa U, Statistics) to assess the work of Paleoclimatologist Michael Mann – an author of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. (23) Wegman directs the Center for Computational Statistics at George Mason U and sits on the American Statistical Association board. His CV lists: chair of the National Academy of Sciences’ statistics committee, head of the Office of Naval Research’s Math Sciences Division, and director of a Strategic Defense Initiative computing department. He has published 160 papers and eight books. (24) His team of statisticians presented their “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction” in 2006. “Hockey Stick” refers to the line on Mann’s graph of the last 1,000 years of global mean temperatures. The Middle Ages were widely believed to have been warmer than the present and to have been followed by a cold period known as the “Little Ice Age”. Mann, however, argued temperatures were constant for centuries before the Industrial Revolution, then suddenly increased. His 1,000-year graph-line is flat with a post-industrial upward tick at the end; hence, resembles a hockey stick. Because reliable temperature records begin circa 1860, Mann relied on “proxies” such as tree rings, which don’t measure temperature directly and are subject to non-temperature influence. His graph was a statistical extrapolation from these proxies. Flaws in Mann’s methodology were exposed by scientist Stephen McIntyre who teamed up with economist Ross McKitrick to show Mann’s formulas produced hockey stick shaped graph-lines even when fed vastly different data-sets. They applied Mann’s method to 10,000 sets of random numbers and got hockey sticks 99% of the time. Using the Internet and other mediums, they created sufficient fuss to prompt Congress to ask Wegman to investigate. Wegman rejected Mann’s hockey stick and vindicated his critics. Wegman said Mann’s approach “puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey stick shape.” Regarding Mann’s tree ring series, “the hockey stick shows up when the data are decentered, but not when properly centered.” Wegman further argued Mann’s errors were obvious to statisticians. He noted only two of nine American Meteorological Association statistics committee members belonged to the American Statistical Association, adding: “the atmospheric science community, while heavily using statistical methods, is remarkably disconnected from the mainstream community of statisticians in a way, for example, that is not true of the medical and pharmaceutical communities.” The IPCC then dropped the hockey stick despite having beaten the public over the head with it for several years. (25)

Media reports of a melting Antarctica made a sceptic of Duncan Wingham (PhD, Bath U, Physics). He formerly chaired University College of London’s Department of Space & Climate Physics and now oversees their Department of Earth Sciences. The media focused on spectacular collapses of ice shelves on Antarctica’s Northern Peninsula – a sliver of the continent stretching north of the Antarctic Circle. Antarctica covers 14 million square kilometres. Wingham’s team used satellites to survey 72% of the continent and concluded the ice sheet was growing 5 mm per year. In the following year (2007), based on additional research, they concluded the ice sheet might be shrinking, but by trivial amounts. He believes: “Antarctica has had only a modest (+/- 1 to 2 mm) impact on sea levels this century” and that the celebrity Northern Peninsula shelf collapse has natural causes. (26)

It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,” says David Bromwich (PhD, Meteorology, Wisconsin U). He is in charge of the Polar Meteorology Group at Ohio State U and is a former member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Geophysical & Environmental Data Committee. According to IPCC models, snowfall in Antarctica is increasing but his study found no snowfall increase since the 1950s. He points out: “global warming” depends on models which, if they got Antarctica wrong, got everything wrong. (27)

An incredulous Cliff Ollier (PhD, Geology, Bristol U) fumes: “After three-quarters of a million years of documented continuous accumulation, how can we believe that right now the world’s ice sheets are collapsing!” He is Professor Emeritus of Western Australia U and author/co-author of 500 papers and ten books. He came out against a National Geographic article depicting glaciers sliding into the sea. He stresses the article’s glaciers are imaginary ones, not the real ones on Antarctica or Greenland. Cartoon glaciers are shown “sliding down an inclined plane on a base lubricated by meltwater.” This is impossible because “Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins and cannot slide down a plane.” He explains: “Ice sheets do not melt from the surface down, only at the edges.” Contrary to tales of ice sheets pouring into oceans because of a mild warming trend, he notes glaciers accumulated snow and ice for eons, even during periods much warmer than now. (28)

Robert Carter, (PhD, Cambridge, Paleontology) is an award winning research prof at Australia’s James Cook U where he supervised Earth Sciences from 1981 to 1999. He has published 100 papers. (29) He stresses “forming a consensus” is not to be confused with scientific investigation. Here’s Carter:
“...discussion on global warming is underpinned by two partly self-contradictory assumptions. The first is that there is a ‘consensus’ of qualified scientists that dangerous human-caused global warming is upon us; the second is that although there are ‘two sides to the debate’, the dangerous-warming side is overwhelmingly stronger. Both assertions are unsustainable. The first because science is not, nor ever has been, about consensus, but about experimental and observational data and testable hypotheses. Second, regarding the number of sides to the debate, the reality is that small parts of the immensely complex climate system are better or less understood – depending on the subject – by many different groups of experts. No one scientist, however brilliant, ‘understands’ climate change, and there is no general theory of climate nor likely to be one in the near future.” (30)

Carter views the warming controversy as tactical. Greenland is warmer now than before the Industrial Revolution. But it is also warmer than it was 16,000 years ago and in the interim there were pronounced cooling episodes. Greenland’s cooling vs. warming depends on arbitrarily selected time parameters. Carter insists there has been zero global warming since 1998 and the 100 years of intermittent warming before 1998 is too brief a period “to carry statistical significance regarding long-term climate change.” No meaningful judgements can be made “on the basis of the trivially short, 150-year-long thermometer surface temperature record, much less on the 27-year-long satellite tropospheric record.” (31) More intriguing data comes from satellite-mounted microwave sounding units (MSU). Carter reveals: “the MSU record is accepted to be the most accurate and globally representative. Once the effects of El Nino warmings and volcanic coolings are allowed for, this record shows no significant warming since its inception in 1979.” (32) Al Gore’s chart showing stark recent increases in CO2 levels relative to the previous 600,000 years betrays the fact that during this period temperature changes either preceded changes in CO2 levels or did not correlate to them at all. Major glaciation occurred between 444 and 353 million years ago when CO2 levels were 17 times higher than now. (33)
Carter’s comprehensive survey of “global warming” literature, The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change (2007), contains gems from many scholars, to wit:
“CO2 levels have fluctuated in the past, including fluctuations on time scales measured in decades or centuries, suggesting 20th-century fluctuations are not unusual. In the relatively recent, but pre-industrial past, CO2 levels have spiked as high as today’s level of about 380 ppm (parts per million).”
“CO2 levels during the recent past are very low by the standards of earlier geological history... planetary CO2 values have declined from around 1,000 ppm in the early Cenozic, 60 million years ago.”
“...evidence from fossil plant stomata indicates that CO2 levels during the Holocene (beginning 9000 BC) were variable... and reached at least the present day (post-industrial) value of 380 ppm.”
“As CO2 levels rise it takes more and more CO2 to produce additional temperatures increases.”
“Most of the CO2 warming should have already have happened, suggesting future CO2-driven warming should be trivial: In increasing from perhaps 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 380 ppm now, CO2 should have produced 75% of the warming of the 1 C that would be caused by the doubling to 560 ppm”
“...there is no reason to assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of 500-1,000 ppm are dangerous, or that such levels would have dramatically adverse effects. Rather, increasing atmospheric CO2 over this range is mostly beneficial.” (34)

Syun-Ichi Akasofu (PhD, Geophysics) is founding director of Alaska U’s International Arctic Research Center. He is author/co-author of 550 papers, ten books, and numerous encyclopedia articles and was twice named “top 1,000 cited scientist”. (35) He believes the 20th century’s 0.5 C warming is the continuation of a trend dating to probably 1660. His ice research detects a clear and steady warming signal from 1800. Alaskan and New Zealand glaciers “have been receding from the time of the earliest records.” There are “a large number of similar records from the European Alps” and “the southern edge of sea ice in the Norwegian Sea has been continuously receding from about 1800.” (36) He supports his theory that, “the Earth may still be recovering from the Little Ice Age” with quotes from many scientists. (37) Because the IPCC is only claiming a 0.65 C per century temperature increase, Akasofu’s 0.5 C per century of natural warming undercutstheir assertion that “most” of the present warming is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions. He is sure CO2 is not the warming’s cause. Arctic temperature data shows a dramatic (1.6 C) warming from 1920 to 1940, then a temperature fall from 1940 to 1975. This fluctuation occurred during a constant increase in CO2 levels; hence, temperature and CO2 are not in sync. Thus: “it is not possible to say with any confidence that the rise after 1975 is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect.” (38) Regarding sea level rises, Akasofu relies on a 2007 study comparing periods before and after 1960 showing sea levels rose more in the earlier period when there was less CO2 in the air. Over the century sea levels rose merely 1.7 mm (7/100ths of an inch) per year. (39) Akasofu “hind-casted” IPCC models. They “predicted” dramatically different past temperatures than ones obtained from actual readings. (40)

Since 1958 real-time measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels have been consistently recorded at a facility on Mauna Loa, Hawaii. To estimate pre-1958 CO2 concentrations, IPCC scientists rely heavily on ice-core proxies. Zbigniew Jaworowski contends “ice is not a closed system suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.” (41) He has written 300 scientific papers and four books. He is past chair of the Warsaw-based Laboratory for Radiation Protection’s scientific committee and has been a participant (often chair) in over 20 groups set up by the International Atomic Energy Agency, UNEP, and the US EPA. He has been Poland’s rep on the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) since 1973 (chair from 1980-2). (42) For UNSCEAR he monitors fallout from nuclear-weapons tests and reactor accidents, work requiring ice-sampling trips to glaciers on six continents. He deems glaciers unreliable CO2 archives:
“...because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice which could dramatically change the chemical composition of the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals...the coldest Antarctic ice contains liquid water...More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice...In the highly compressed deep ice, all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of the pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates which are tiny crystals...Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole. Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of the cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding as if they were microscopic grenades...the explosions form new cavities and new cracks. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by the sheeting, a part of the gas escapes. (43)

As well: “in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change.” (44)

Ice-core and other CO2 proxy readings vary erratically. IPCCers proclaim CO2 was a stable 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution, then spiked upwards. Ice cores taken at Siple, Antarctica gave a reading of 328 ppm for 1890. According to IPCC Thought, the 1890 level should be 290 ppm. 328 ppm was not recorded at the Mauna Loa facility until 1973. (45) To fudge over this discrepancy, scientists assumed air must be 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected ice data” then agreed with the Mauna Loa record. The “Siple Curve assumption” appears in countless publications. (46) Jaworowski claims “glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the ‘age assumption’” but failed. He further alleges: “Improper manipulations of data and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on manmade global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases.” (47) Ice cores from Antarctica’s Taylor Dome show CO2 levels over the last several thousand years varied merely from 260 to 264 ppm while “fossil leaf stomata show that CO2 levels over the past 7,000 to 8,000 years varied by 50 ppm between 270 and 326 ppm.” (48)

Jaworowski has other criticisms. The Little Ice Age occurred 750 to 130 years ago; hence, he queries: “If the ice-core record was reliable, and CO2 levels reflected temperatures, why wouldn’t the ice-core data have shown CO2 levels to fall during the Little Ice Age?” (49) Particularly galling Jaworowski is we don’t need ice proxies because scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, measuring CO2 since 1800 “have left behind a record of tens of thousands of direct real-time measurements.” Thesemeasurementsshow: “CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have fluctuated greatly and that several times in the past 200 years CO2 concentrations have exceeded today’s levels...the IPCC rejects these direct measurements... They prefer the view of CO2 as seen through ice.” (50) He summarizes: “ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless – the IPCC has based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions it is now clear, are false.” (51)

These views are shared by Oslo U’s Geological Museum director Tom Segalstad. This reviewer for the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report calls “global warming” propaganda “a fiction.” (52) The idea that CO2 levels increased in the 20th century because of human activity is a “false dogma” because CO2 levels fluctuate naturally and current levels were common in the 1800s. (53) His main concern is CO2’s “residence time” in the atmosphere. The IPCC claims CO2 emissions hang in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years before absorption by oceans or plants. Prior to the “global warming” campaign it was believed CO2 couldn’t last in the atmosphere for more than ten years. This was the mainstream view. Concerning this shorter CO2 residence time, Segalstad states:
“This time period has been established by measurements based on natural carbon-14 and also from readings of carbon-14 from nuclear weapons testing. It has been established by radon-222 measurements. It has been established by measurements of the solubility of atmospheric gases in the oceans. It has been established by comparing the isotope mass balance. It has been established through other mechanisms, too, and over many decades. And by many scientists in many disciplines.” (54)

Thirty-six studies contradict the IPCC’s claim of lengthy CO2 residence time. If they are correct, hydrocarbon fuel burning does not account for recent CO2 increases. Those claiming CO2 resides in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, lacking physical evidence, use models to trump real-world measurements. As for IPCC efforts to overturn established views of CO2 residence time, Segalstad pines: “They don’t even try. They simply dismiss evidence that is, for all intents and purposes, irrefutable. Instead, they substitute their faith, constructing a kind of science fiction or fantasy world in the process.” Segalstad also explains oceans hold 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere and these two CO2 reservoirs operate in equilibrium. Doubling atmospheric CO2 (an IPCC bogeyman) requires increasing ocean CO2 by a factor of 50. This would require a bonfire of all known hydrocarbon deposits and then some. (55)
Christopher Landsea (PhD, Colorado State U, Atmospheric Science) is with the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory and formerly chaired the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology. He was honoured by the AMS for “best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting.” A frequent writer for meteorological journals, he penned the tropical cyclone section for the second IPCC report (1995), contributed to their third report (2001) and was invited to work on the fourth. (56) Landsea was prodded into activism by a 2004 Harvard conference where top IPCC official Kevin Trenberth was a keynote speaker. Their press release started: “EXPERTS TO WARN GLOBAL WARMING LIKELY TO CONTINUE SPURRING MORE OUTBREAKS OF INTENSE HURRICANE ACTIVITY.” The conference made headlines like this one from Reuters: “Global Warming Effects Faster than Feared – Experts.” (57) This disturbed Landsea, who knew of “no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming, and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” (58) The IPCC itself had stated: “Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity are dominated by inter-decadal to multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends over the 20th century.” (59) Landsea postulates the 1995-2005 increase in Atlantic hurricanes was “a manifestation of a natural multi-decadal cycle.” He notes: “the period from 1944 to 1950 was particularly infamous for Florida – with 11 hurricanes hitting the state in those years.” Regarding growing hurricane damage: “increased destruction from hurricanes is to be expected because of the massive development and population increases along the US coastline and in countries throughout the Caribbean and Central America. There is no need to invoke global warming.” (60) Thus, Landsea wrote the IPCC complaining: “Where is the science... What studies are being alluded to...As far as I know there are none.” The IPCC washed their hands, saying the Harvard conference was not an IPCC event. Then they chose Trenberth to be lead author for their 2007 report on tropical storms. Landsea resigned. The controversy arising from his break (and a weak 2006 hurricane season) compelled the IPCC to cancel hurricane scares. In 2007 they confessed: “There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” Media outlets which earlier hurled hurricane hullaballoo swept the topic under the carpet. (61)

Two other scholars taking issue with IPCC storm scares are Richard Lindzen and William Gray. Lindzen (PhD, Harvard, Mathematics) taught at Harvard and Chicago before becoming a senior meteorologist at MIT. He is a member of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council’s Atmospheric Sciences and Climate board and has been honoured by the American Meteorological Association. Lindzen has written 200 papers and was a lead author of the 2001 IPCC Report chapter on “Physical Processes”. Lindzen concedes temperatures rose during the 20th century along with increases in CO2 and that increased CO2 can raise temperature. He does not believe these facts justify the “doomsday case”, adding: “It isn’t just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know are wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.” (62) Regarding storms, Lindzen argues: “global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extra-tropical storms, not more.” IPCC supremo Sir John Houghton claims storminess varies directly with evaporation and heat. Lindzen responds: “the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less – hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.” (63) Gray (PhD, Meteorology/Geophysics, U of Chicago) is Professor Emeritus at Colorado State U where he runs the Tropical Meteorology Project. He has 50 years’ forecasting experience and a team with a 95% accuracy rate in predicting next year’s number of major storms. Insurance companies set their premiums, and emergency preparedness ministries set their budgets, by his forecasts. Gray describes “global warming” science as “mush” pumped out of simple computer models which track a smattering of weather factors while ignoring a myriad of others. Gray clinches the storm debate with “Although global mean ocean and Atlantic surface temperatures have increased by about 0.4% C between two 50-year periods (1900-49 compared with 1956-2005) the frequency of landfall numbers actually shows a slight downward trend for the latter period.” Warming corresponds with declining tropical storm frequency. (64)

Like Gray, many sceptics take aim at the “models”. Hendrik Tennekes’s CV lists: research director of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, and Professor of Aerospace Engineering at Penn State. He says climate models do not replicate reality. His motto is, “No forecast is complete without a forecast of forecast skill.” Simplifications required to design models render them useless as predictive devices. Models can’t predict rain. A computer’s power is irrelevant if the information plugged into it is defective. Tennekes is emphatic: “No amount of improvement in the quality of the observation network or in the power of computers will improve the average useful forecast range by more than a few days.” He avows: “Blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate ‘realistic’ simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate sceptic.’” (65)

Freeman Dyson (PhD, Cambridge, Physics) declares climate models: “do not begin to describe the real world” and “do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms and forests.” Climate modellers compensate with “fudge factors” and: “There are many fudge factors concerned with processes such as snow melting and vegetation-growth that cannot be modelled in detail.” Dyson is a Professor at Princeton and a fellow of the American Physical Society and the Royal Society of London. He dismisses “the fluff about global warming” the dangers of which are “grossly exaggerated”, adding that “increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has other consequences that may be at least as important as global warming – increasing crop yields and growth of forests, for example”. (66)

Antonino Zichichi says IPCC computer simulations “are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view” and are loaded with enough approximations to model a flying elephant. He is Professor Emeritus of Physics at Bologna U, President of the 10,000-member World Federation of Scientists, and author of ten books and 800 papers. He complains the IPCC has conned people into thinking “science has understood all about climate...but it’s not this way.” To predict climate one needs models of past climates including past behaviour of aerosols but of these things we “know little or nothing”. According to Zichichi: “if we ever come up with a mathematical structure capable of describing the past of the solid and liquid surfaces of earth, and only then, it will be possible to confirm what is being advocated today.” He adds, “It is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes.” He thinks solar activities caused most of the recent warming. (67)

The most damning indictment of computer climate simulations comes from Kevin Trenberth a veteran IPCC official and leading contributor to their Fourth Assessment Report (2007). Trenberth’s confession in Nature magazine’s “The Climate Change Blog” warrants a long quote:
None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state, and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate...the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Nino sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, yet it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes, and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors...regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.” (68)

Paul Reiter (PhD, Medical Entomology, Sussex U) became head of the Pasteur Institute’s Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit after being an insect specialist at the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control. He was a contributor of the IPCC Third Assessment Report’s section on insect-borne disease but does not buy their line that “global warming” widens the range of bug-borne diseases like malaria and yellow fever. He states: “I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC...On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements.” Doomsayers claim warming allows bugs to survive at more northern latitudes and higher altitudes. Regarding latitude, Reiter asserts: “Until the second half of the 20th century malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s – the coldest period of the Little Ice Age – malaria was an important cause of illness and death in several parts of England...yellow fever also killed tens of thousands in many European countries until the end of the 19th century.” Regarding altitude, IPCC assertions are “more nonsense... the records show cases from 1880 to 1945 that were 500-1,500 m higher than in the areas that are quoted as examples.” Curtailment of these diseases was due to: “changes in agriculture and lifestyle that affected the abundance of mosquitoes, their contact with people and the availability of anti-malarial drugs.” He furthers attacks the IPCC report: “Not one of the lead authors had ever written a paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire careers as environmental activists. One of these activists has published ‘professional’ articles as an ‘expert’ on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines.” (69)


The Old Guard Gets Guarded

Claude Allegre (PhD, Physics, U of Paris) has been a director of the Global Physics Institute (Paris) and an Education Minister of France. He has authored 100 scientific articles and 11 books. He is a member of American and French National Academies of Science. (202) Allegre is also an environmentalist. In 1988 he wrote: “By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half of a degree in the last half century.” He since concluded the models and studies fail to establish manmade causes of the warming and that the problem was “overhyped”. His break with IPCC orthodoxy came in a 2006 article, The Snows of Mount Kilimanjaro, affirming Antarctica was gaining ice, Kilimanjaro’s retreating snowcap was natural, and that the “cause of this climate change is unknown.” (70)

Roger Revelle (PhD, Oceanography, Berkeley) ran Scripps Institute of Oceanography until his death (1991). He co-authored a 1957 paper suggesting hydrocarbon fuel use increased CO2 levels in the air. In 1965 he led the President’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Environmental Pollution’s drafting of the first official report problematizing CO2. He wrote a widely-read 1982 Scientific American article on “global warming”. For being “grandfather of the greenhouse effect”, Bush Sr. awarded him the National Medal of Science. Al Gore claims to be a Revelle disciple, but Revelle’s sermons on warming/CO2 are not faithfully relayed by Gore & Co. In 1984 Revelle said: “whether the increase will lead to a significant rise in global temperatures, we can’t absolutely say,” and, “People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes.” He accentuated the positive: “Increased CO2 in the air acts like a fertilizer for plants... Increasing CO2 levels also affect water transpiration, causing plants to close their pores and sweat less. That means plants will be able to grow in drier climates.” In 1991 Revelle co-authored What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap, arguing more research is needed on CO2 and warning against reckless policymaking. (71)

Reid Bryson (PhD, U of Chicago) joined Wisconsin U in 1946 where he founded the Department of Meteorology and was Professor Emeritus in the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences until his death (2008). He was a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Meteorological Society. He received accolades like “the father of scientific climatology” and “the world’s most cited climatologist”. His 230 articles and five books made him the world’s fifth most cited Physical Geographer. A hero to environmentalists, his papers in Environmental Conservation were twice “papers of the year”. He made the UN’s Global 500 Honour Roll for “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment”. His “global warming” verdict: “There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion where you have to believe in anthropogenic global warming or else you are nuts...I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion.” About Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, he moaned: “Don’t make me throw up, it is not science. It is not true.” (72)

David Bellamy (PhD, Botany, U of London) has written 45 books, 80 scientific papers and 400 environmentalist television programs. While holding down two university Botany teaching posts, he was President of the Conservation Foundation, Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts, Plantlife International and the British Naturalists’ Association. His environmentalism dates to the 1967 Torrey Canyon oil spill. He was jailed for protesting dam construction in Tasmania. He maintains global warming is “a problem that does not exist.” In 2004 Bellamy wrote: “Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth.” CO2 is not a “dreaded killer greenhouse gas” but rather “the most important airborne fertilizer in the world.” He concluded: “Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.” His Climate Stability: an Inconvenient Proof (2007) asserts even the dreaded, and unlikely, doubling of CO2 levels would raise temperatures by less than 1 C. (73)

Richard Tol (PhD, Amsterdam U, Economics) is an environmental economist involved with several European institutes and journals. He was thrice an IPCC contributor and wrote for, and edited, the UN’s Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies. In 2006 Tol became sceptical after headlines blared “global warming” would cause global economic catastrophe. These headlines heralded the release of the British government’s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and were accompanied bydemands for immediate action from Tony Blair. Distressing to Tol was Stern’s hysteria was based on Tol’s work. Tol also feared such alarmism discredited the climate change campaign. Tol’s study gave a range of estimates on CO2 emission costs. He thought $14 per ton of CO2 was high. Stern picked the maximum: $29 per ton. Stern quoted Tol that “millions were at risk” from sea level rise but deleted Tol’s qualifier that risks were reduced by human adaptability. Sternconcluded: “costs and risks of climate change will be the equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever.” Tol says the “now” part is absurd and “forever” assumes societies cannot adapt to slightly higher temperatures – “a rather dim view of human ingenuity.” The Stern Review is larded with unspecified fudge like: “market impacts” (annualized at 2.1% of GDP), “non-market impacts” (5.9%), and “catastrophic risk” (2.9%). Stern calculated a 10% chance of “global warming” wiping out humanity by 2100. Tol accused Stern of “cherry picking” studies and conjuring data: “The Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies... Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.” Tol’s view was shared by Yale’s W. Nordhaus, who sits on the National Academy of Sciences’ global warming policy panel. The media showcased the Stern Review and ignored its critics. (74)


The Political Climate for Climatologists

The public is unaware of these sceptics because of media censorship. The closest sceptics came to the big-time was an August 13, 2007 Newsweek cover story, The Truth about Denial – a muckraker accusing them of being agents of Big Oil. (75) Scott Pelley of CBS’s 60 Minutes justifies censoring sceptics with: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” (76) Al Gore, who told Ted Koppel to investigate a sceptic’s funding sources, bunches sceptics with flat-Earthers and people who think the moon launch was faked. (77) In 2001 a White House-summoned panel of National Academy of Science members declared: “Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative.” CNN spun this as: “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.” (78)In 1996 when Danish sceptics returned from a conference, they were greeted by local headlines like Strong UN Critique of Danish Researchers above articles trashing them as “extremely naive and irresponsible.” (79)

Professor Tennekes thinks “politicians...fake doomsday projections as a cover-up for their real intentions.” (80) Professor Lindzen sees a “triangle of alarmism” comprised of climate scientists, advocates, and policymakers. His theory goes as follows:
“Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes...success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today.” (81)

Lindzen accuses the IPCC of encouraging journalistic and political misuse of scientific information through systematic misrepresentation of studies and through exaggerating the accuracy and authority of undistinguished scientists. The IPCC, after five-year cycles of conferences and submissions, issues two documents – a tome of scientific studies, Assessment Reports,and abbreviated Summaries for Policymakers. Lindzen complains “coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers, which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.” The 2001 Summaries for Policymakers distorted the Assessment Report. The Summary stated: “Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea ice dynamics and ocean heat transport” thusgiving the impression climate models were reliable. The Report indicated the opposite as scientists “found numerous problems with model treatments.” The Summary statement, “Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations,” ignored numerous qualifiers of the scientists. Lindzen describes collective writing for the IPCC: “Throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed co-authors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defence of their statements.” (82)

Professors Reiter and Wegman criticize the IPCC peer review process. Normally, explains Reiter, identities of a study’s reviewers are kept confidential while deliberations between a study’s co-authors are aired. The IPCC keeps internal deliberations secret but publicizes reviewers’ names. (83) Wegman statistically analyzed the pro-global warming Paleo-climatology community and concluded it was a clique of several intensely coupled groupings wherein every member had “co-authored relationships with every other member.” He discerned “a strong tendency to work with different cliques of closely connected co-authors [and] it is precisely in a small, specialized discipline that the likelihood of turning up sympathetic referees is highest.” Studies written by this clique although basically statistics papers were never reviewed by persons qualified in that field. (84)

IPCC secretiveness creates difficulties, even for contributors, in accessing data upon which IPCC “facts” are based. Professor Carter complains: “The data to construct the version of the global surface temperature used by the IPCC is not released to the public; the curve is therefore unreproduceable in the sense that it cannot be checked independently.” (85) Veteran IPCCer Vincent Gray laments: “Penetrating questions often ended without answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely... I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.” (86) Reiter’s efforts to pry information from the IPCC disabused him of the notion it was a science-centred operation. He had the revelation: “The Intergovernmental Panel is precisely that – it is a panel among governments,” not scientists. The IPCC responded to his inquiries about internal decision-making with: “The brief answer to your question below is ‘governments.’ It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit, and direction.” (87)

Along with bribing scientists with research funds, the “global warming” establishment also persecutes doubters. Lindzen claims: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grants disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, hacks or worse.” He recalls 1992 when Senator Gore “ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting climate alarmism.” He discloses: “Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the UN’s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate research funding for raising questions.” (88) Tennekes was driven out of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute for disrespecting doomsayer’s forecasting abilities. (89) After Professor Bellamy wrote an article referring to “global warming” as “poppycock” he was forced out of the Presidencies of Plantlife International and the Wildlife Trusts (positions he held for 15 years). (90) After Professor Gray, the storm forecaster, aired his scepticism he suffered substantial funding cuts. (91) When Professor Jaworowski proposed a research project on the reliability of CO2 determinations in polar ice, 30 prospective sponsors (including several oil companies) refused funding. One oil executive explained: “We would gladly pay you the money provided that all the other Norwegian oil and gas companies will also pay. Otherwise our competitors will report on us to the Norwegian government and to Greenpeace.” Jaworowski wrote an article for the Norwegian Polar Institute criticizing CO2 estimates and doubting “global warming”. The Institute director warned, “This is not the way one gets research projects.” When the study was published, the Institute came under intense criticism, never faulting the study’s science, and Jaworowski’s contract was not extended. (92) Solar scientists are specifically ostracized because environmentalists insist climate change be blamed on industry. The IPCC’s 2007 Report decreed the sun all-but-irrelevant to climate change. Solar scientist Kirkby was called an oil industry dupe for minimizing the human role in “global warming” and his promised funding suddenly put on hold. (93)


CONDENSER'S CONCLUSION: Weather-wise and Otherwise

The “global warming” campaign is Earth’s umpteen millionth warming trend intersecting with the umpteen thousandth time groups have declared the weather a portent signifying the need to change policy. Leading the augurs this time around is the United Nations Environment Programme – the parent body of the IPCC. As its name implies, UNEP is every bit as much an environmental movement organization, driven by the same goals and prejudices, as is Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. UNEP’s remedy for “global warming” is: shifting humanity away from oil and coal in favour of “alternative energy” and conservation; the criminalizing of wilderness clearances and the pro-active forestation of vast regions; the statist tethering of industrial entrepreneurialism with yards of green tape; restricting growth and constraining expansion, etc. These were UNEP objectives before they invented “global warming” in 1980. These were environmental movement objectives before they invented UNEP in 1972. These were objectives of the fascist movement before it rebranded itself “environmentalism”. The aims remain the same. The ruses are subject to revision.

“Global warming” is just another “action” by activists. The difference between this project and other social movement initiatives is environmentalism is the largest social movement. Moreover, in the 1970s the environmental movement semi-institutionalized itself by establishing beachheads, Environment Ministries, within every major government. Environment Ministries seek to colonize their host states and frequently clash with other state ministries. Thus, it is superficial and apologetic to call the IPCC a “panel of governments” for it is a panel of Environment Ministries, and environmental NGOs, bent on hijacking governments. Part of this heist involves the co-opting of entire academic disciplines. Atmospheric Science was appropriated after 30 years of “acid rain,” “ozone hole”, and “global warming” campaigns. Green Climatology is not a science but the ancient statecraft of aeromancy.

In December 2008 a US Senate Minority Report cited scores of new studies and quotes from 650 scientists dissenting from IPCC “global warming” orthodoxy. This was up from the 400 who went on record opposing “global warming” in a 2007 Minority Report. (94) The petition project of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has collected 31,072 signatures from American scientists (9,021 with PhDs) on a petition unequivocally rejecting the main tenets of the anthropogenic “global warming” hypothesis. (95) The burden of proof pertaining to the utility of a policy change falls upon those advocating the change. The standard of proof is a widespread acceptance of the facts supporting the case for the policy change. The scientists advocating windmills and forests to fend off planetary warming have demonstrably failed to win over their fellow scientists to an agreed statement of facts. If ever there be a band of scoundrels hoist upon their own petards, it is the IPCC’s 3,000 lying whores accusing sceptics of abusing science for mercenary motives.

A warming Earth is better than a cooling one. Rising levels of CO2 in the air are better than declining ones. The feared “Climate Change” is really climate improvement. Sadly, Earth is cooling. We should consider burning more hydrocarbons to stop this but the cooling properties of the aerosols released by this combustion may overwhelm the greenhouse effect of the CO2 emissions. Who knows?


  1. Solomon Larry; The Deniers; Richard Vigilante Books; 2008 p 171
  2. Ibid p 169
  3. Ibid p 169-71
  4. Ibid p 168
  5. Ibid p 171
  6. Ibid p 88-9
  7. Ibid p 86
  8. Ibid p 89
  9. Ibid p 94-5
  10. Ibid p 152-3
  11. Ibid p 135-41
  12. Ibid pages 161 & 167
  13. Ibid p 162
  14. Ibid p 166
  15. Ibid p 162-3
  16. Ibid p 144-5
  17. Ibid p 155-6
  18. Ibid p 154-5
  19. Ibid p 156-8
  20. Ibid p 149-50
  21. Ibid p 172-5
  22. Ibid p 59-60
  23. Ibid p 13
  24. Ibid pages 10 & 20
  25. Ibid p 12-21
  26. Ibid p 37-42
  27. Ibid p 110-2
  28. Ibid p 180-2
  29. Ibid p 46-7
  30. Ibid p 48
  31. Ibid p 61
  32. Ibid p 62-4
  33. Ibid p 93
  34. Ibid p 91-3
  35. Ibid p 65
  36. Ibid p 69-70
  37. Ibid p 65-7
  38. Ibid p 73-4
  39. Ibid p 71-2
  40. Ibid p 78-9
  41. Ibid p 103
  42. Ibid p 97 & 101
  43. Ibid p 104-5
  44. Ibid p 98
  45. Ibid p 99-101
  46. Ibid p 102-3
  47. Ibid p 103
  48. Ibid p 99
  49. Ibid p 99
  50. Ibid p 106-7
  51. Ibid p 98
  52. Ibid p 85
  53. Ibid p 81
  54. Ibid p 80-1
  55. Ibid p 81-4
  56. Ibid p 29 & 36
  57. Ibid p 30-2
  58. Ibid p 31 & 38
  59. Ibid p 34
  60. Ibid p 38-9
  61. Ibid p 31-5
  62. Ibid p 50
  63. Ibid p 53
  64. Ibid p 178-80
  65. Ibid p 112-8
  66. Ibid p 120-5
  67. Ibid p 126-9
  68. Ibid p 130
  69. Ibid p 183-9
  70. Ibid p 200
  71. Ibid p 192-5
  72. Ibid p 201-5
  73. Ibid p 204-6
  74. Ibid p 24-9
  75. Ibid p 136
  76. Ibid p 3
  77. Ibid p 3 & 136 & 195
  78. Ibid p 55-6
  79. Ibid p 145
  80. Ibid p 118
  81. Ibid p 54-5
  82. Ibid p 49-52
  83. Ibid p 188-9
  84. Ibid p 20-1
  85. Ibid p 60
  86. Ibid p 58-9
  87. Ibid p 189-90
  88. Ibid p 52-5
  89. Ibid p 119
  90. Ibid p 205-6
  91. Ibid p 178
  92. Ibid p 103-6
  93. Ibid p 157-9
top of the page


Review of Snyder's Black Earth

How Green Were the Nazis

The American Environmental Movement - The American Counter-Movement Perspective

Aboriginal Supremicism Part Three - Gallagher's "Resource Rulers" condensed and critiqued

Gasman's The Scientific Origins of National Socialism

Darwall's The Age of Global Warming

Musser's Nazi Oaks

Biehl and Staudenmaier's Ecofascism Revisited

Nickson's Eco-fascists

Gasman's Haeckel's Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology

Delingpole's Watermelons

Dowie's Conservation Refugees

Macdonald's Green Inc.

Laframboise and McKitrick on the IPCC

Markham's "Environmental Organizations in Modern Germany"

Petropoulos' Royals and the Reich

Plimer's Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science

Dominick's German Environmental Movement 1871 to 1971

Jacoby's Hidden History of American Conservation

Cahill's Who Owns The World

The Persistent Profundity of Professor Mayer

Fascism 101 (Oxford Handbook)

The Nazi-Enviro Connection: Uekoetter's "Green and Brown"

US "Environmentalism" in the 1930s (Review of Phillips' "This Land, This Nation")

Gibson's Environmentalism

"The Deniers" Condensed
(Global Warming Hoax Part II)

Review of Moore's Social Origins of Dictatorship

Review of Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature

Review of The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements

Bramwell's trilogy on The Hidden History of Environmentalism

Review of Degregori's Agriculture and Modern Technology

Review of Nichols Fox's Against the Machine

Review of Brian Masters' The Dukes

Review of Joel Bakan's The Corporation

Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear

Review of Paul Driessen's Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death

Review of Janet Beihl's Finding Our Way

Review of Bradley's Climate Alarmism Reconsidered

Review of Pennington's Liberating the Land

Precedents for the "Global Warming" campaign: A review of Richard Grove's Green Imperialism
Designed by W3Media. Hosted by W3Media