Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism

Global Warming Hoax - Leading Scientists Debunk Climate Alarmism

One of the main establishment lies is Global Warminga cover for the Earth changes anticipated to be caused by Planet X.

In their recent article in the Wall Street Journal“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” a group of sixteen world-renowned scientists decry the unscientific alarmism over “global warming,” citing numerous inconvenient facts that dispute global warming claims. Here is a video interview with signatory William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University:

Their message to policymakers?

There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically. . . . Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

This statement follows up on the public resignation of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever from the American Physical Society (APS) in which he states:

I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

The group of scientists note the following facts that refute climate alarmist claims:

1. The lack of global warming for well over 10 years now:

This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections–suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

2. CO2 is not a pollutant:

CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

3. The smear campaigns by the warming establishment are outrageous:

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the Journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

4. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before–for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

The scientists then address the key issue of why there is so much intolerance and corruption among global-warming proponents, and the answer they give is sadly, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.


Claude Allegre, former Director, Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris
J. Scott Armstrong, Co-Founder, Journal of Forecasting and International Journal of Forecasting
Jan Breslow, Head, Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University
Roger Cohen, Fellow, American Physical Society
Edward David, Member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences
William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Michael Kelly, Professor of Technology, University of Cambridge
William Kininmonth, former Head of Climate Research, Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT
James McGrath, Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Technical University
Rodney Nichols, former President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. Senator
Nir Shaviv, Professor of Astrophysics, Hebrew University
Henk Tennekes, former Director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service
Antonio Zichichi, President, World Federation of Scientists, Geneva

Views: 8508


You need to be a member of Earth Changes and the Pole Shift to add comments!

Join Earth Changes and the Pole Shift

Comment by Stanislav on August 11, 2017 at 8:14pm

Australian Bureau of Meteorology temperature data faked?

BoM faces storm over weather data inaccuracies

3 August, 2017. "Bush meteorologist Lance Pidgeon had hard evidence it was cold near Goulburn in the early hours of July 2 this year because his cold water pipes froze, bursting in the wall and breaking the toilet. To be certain, Pidgeon checked the Bureau of Meteorology website and saw the temperature had plunged to minus 10.4C.

Scientist Jennifer Marohasy and amateur meteorologist Lance Pidgeon at the Goulburn airport weather station that recorded minus 10.4C on July 2. Picture: Jane Dempster. Source of image:

“But then I saw something truly bizarre,” Pidgeon says. The temperature recording on BoM’s website adjusted itself to minus 10C and then disappeared from view. That early morning observation by Pigeon has forced BoM to admit shortcomings at an undisclosed number of cold weather locations within the automatic weather station network. A complete review is being undertaken of the network equipment and BoM’s temperature data handling. It is the biggest public scandal for BoM since furious debate was sparked three years ago over its treatment of historic and contemporary temperature records to compile its new homogenised national temperature data series known as ACORN-SAT. For an agency that screams from the rooftops every time the mercury nudges to the slightest record high, losing a half a degree Celsius here and there at the lower extremities is a pretty poor look.

<...> William Kininmonth, a former head of BoM’s National Climate Centre, says he is puzzled that after decades of service the bureau now claims the automatic stations are not fit for purpose at some cold weather locations.

<...> “Why this is happening now, unless they have changed their manufacturers who they get them from, I don’t know." <...>

The major concern has been the secrecy of BoM’s methods, the value judgments involved where changes are made without documented evidence of site changes or other factors, and the inability of those outside the bureau to replicate the adjustments.
Concerns have also been raised when homogenised temperature trends have diverged sharply from the raw, observational data.
In her introduction to the Institute of Public Affairs book Climate Change: The Facts 2017, Jennifer Marohasy says it is generally stated that without homogenisation, temperature series are unintelligible."

GRAHAM LLOYD (3 August, 2017). BoM faces storm over weather data inaccuracies. Retrieved August 11, 2017, from

Comment by Stanislav on June 19, 2017 at 6:45pm

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change

  • Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he does not believe CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary driver of climate change.
  • That view is at odds with the conclusions of the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  • EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt also told CNBC in March he does not believe global warming is primarily caused by CO2.

DiChristopher, T. (2017, June 19). "Energy Secretary Rick Perry told CNBC on Monday he does not believe carbon dioxide emissions from human activity are the main driver of climate change, joining the EPA administrator in casting doubt on the conclusion of some of the government's top scientists.

Asked whether CO2 emissions are primarily responsible for climate change, Perry told CNBC's "Squawk Box": "No, most likely the primary control knob is the ocean waters and this environment that we live in."
Perry and Pruitt's views are also at odds with the conclusion of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Despite those conclusions, Perry said, "This idea that science is just absolutely settled and if you don't believe it's settled then somehow you're another neanderthal, that is so inappropriate from my perspective."

Being a skeptic about climate change issues is "quite all right," he said, suggesting that skepticism is a sign of a "wise, intellectually engaged person." <...>"

DiChristopher, T. (2017, June 19). Energy Secretary Rick Perry says CO2 is not the main driver of climate change. Retrieved June 19, 2017, from

Comment by jorge namour on June 15, 2017 at 7:38pm


That's why Global Warming does not depend on man ...

That is why Rubbia and Zichichi express themselves in certain terms: the graph that dismantles the theories of Obama and Al Gore

In recent days we have published articles in which we discussed the thought of renowned Italian scientists, Rubbia and Zichichi , about climate change and the influence that man can have in determining them.

The widespread opinion, particularly the American one linked to the political figures of Al Gore and Obama , is that human activity is at the basis of Global Warming (so-called Global Warming) and causes a causal action in provoking Climate change by man. So they tell us ... ..

None of the two scientists we mentioned above ever agreed that it is Man to Determine Climate Change.

Well, a recently published graph, which reports the authoritative Met Office and NOAA data , highlights Global Global Temperature Anomaly, which is the global warming trend over the past 150 years. The orderly value, very simply, is the global thermal variation value, that is, what is now called Global Warming

As can be seen from 1900 to 1950, the trend is increasing. But industrial activity, the one that caused the greenhouse effect and everything else, was virtually absent at that time. There were no industries at that time.

Instead, from 1950 to 1970, the trend is decreasing, ie decreasing. And it decreases just during the period of maximum industrialization, in the period when man acts in a very marked way with industrial processes.

If the man were to cause the GW, it is obvious that the trend should be contrary, decreasing until 1950 and growing until 1970 ...

This means that Zichichi and Carlo Rubbia are right: it is not the man that determines with its action global warming, but are other causes from which global warming is born, and they are all natural.

Comment by Stanislav on June 14, 2017 at 10:04pm

Climate Change Mentions Are Deleted From the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Website

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before and after, taken on June 14, 2017.

14 June, 2017. This is the second website to remove all mentions of the manmade catastrophe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has made some subtle, but telling, changes on its website. It recently removed all mentions of climate change from its Tribal Climate Resilience Program website. Now, it is called Tribal Resilience Program.

Here’s an image of the original website:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website before, taken on June 14, 2017.

And of the current one:

Colorlines screenshot of Bureau of Indian Affairs' website now, taken on June 14, 2017.


It’s unclear when exactly the site changed, but Internet archives show the old site as it read in May. The previous site said:

Mainstreaming climate change considerations into all Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) activities, and supporting federally recognized Tribal Nations to do the same, is a high priority for the administration and the Department of the Interior (DOI). Climate change will bring new challenges to Indian Country and Alaska Native Villages.

That entire section is now gone. And, as BuzzFeed noted, the Tribal Climate Resilience Awards, which go towards helping tribes prepare for climate change, faces nearly $10 million in cuts under President Donald Trump’s proposed 2018 budget.

This isn’t the administration’s first attempt at clearing climate change off federal websites. The EPA’s climate change website was all but removed in April

Funes, Y. (2017, June 14). Climate Change Mentions Are Deleted From the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Website. Retrieved June 14, 2017, from

Comment by Stanislav on June 11, 2017 at 9:54pm

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) : Man Made Climate Change Is A Hoax

5 June, 2017. Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe joined Brian Kilmeade to discuss President Trumps decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord and said, "Climate is always changing, but the myth that the world is coming to an end due to climate change is a hoax." He went on to say that he's also is not surprised about Left's uproar over pulling out. "These are the same people perpetrating the myth theory." Senator Inhofe also sits on the Armed Services committee and said while not enough money has gone into that military he doesn't blame the President because he inherited a "Hollow Force" similar to what the U.S. was saddled with in the mid-80's.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) : Man Made Climate Change Is A Hoax. (2017, June 05). Retrieved June 11, 2017, from

Comment by Stanislav on June 1, 2017 at 10:53pm

Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out'
1 June, 2017.  <...>The decision amounts to a rebuttal of the worldwide effort to pressure Trump to remain a part of the agreement, which 195 nations signed onto. Foreign leaders, business executives and Trump's own daughter lobbied heavily for him to remain a part of the deal, but ultimately lost out to conservatives who claim the plan is bad for the United States.
"In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but being negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction under terms that are fair to the United States," Trump said from the White House Rose Garden.
"We're getting out. And we will start to renegotiate and we'll see if there's a better deal. If we can, great. If we can't, that's fine," he added.
In talking points delivered to Trump's allies, the White House characterized the Paris agreement as a job killer that placed undue burdens on American taxpayers.
"The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President's action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first," the talking points read. "The accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy."
"The agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of the United States and ships them to foreign countries," Trump said from the Rose Garden. "This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States." Source:

Comment by Stanislav on May 5, 2017 at 10:03pm

New report about Antarctica is horrible news for global warming alarmists

30 April, 2017. Warming on the Antarctic Peninsula has long been touted by supporters of the theory man is destroying the planet by using fossil fuels as proof of the dangers of global warming. Al Gore, the face of the world-is-going-to-end climate movement, has visited Antarctica on at least two occasions to highlight the alleged problem.

“This prediction has proven true,” Gore wrote about the claim Antarctica would warm faster than the global average. “Today, the West Antarctic Peninsula is warming about four times faster than the global average.”
Climate realists have rightfully pointed out the evidence shows total ice accumulation on Antarctica has outweighed losses, a claim bolstered by a 2015 NASA study, which found, “An increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.” But even many climate change skeptics have accepted some significant parts of Antarctica are warming.

All that is about to change.

A study published in the journal Science of the Total Environment in February is now getting the attention of prominent climate change skeptics. The study claims the Antarctic Peninsula is cooling and that the previous warming in the second half of the 21st century is “an extreme case.” The researchers also found the recent cooling trend, which they say began in 1998-99, has already had a significant impact on the Antarctic Peninsula’s cryosphere, slowing down “glacier recession.” 

New report about Antarctica is horrible news for global warming alarmists. (2017, April 30). Retrieved May 05, 2017, from

Comment by Scott on May 3, 2017 at 2:11am

EPA Removes Climate Science Website, Announces ‘Changes’ to Reflect Trump Administration (April 29, 2017)

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removed several web pages about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions from its homepage as the agency announced Friday that it would be “undergoing changes” to better reflect the Trump administration’s priorities.

Officials took down one website that appeared to contradict EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s statements on climate change and removed another that provided information about the Clean Power Plan, an initiative of the Obama administration, the Washington Post reported.

The climate change website now redirects to a page that says that “this page is being updated” and that “we are currently updating our website to reflect EPA’s priorities under the leadership of President Trump and Administrator Pruitt.”

Comment by Stanislav on April 25, 2017 at 2:46pm

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy

24 April, 2017. Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.

Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.

He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect

“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported there “is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”

Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.

Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, the committee’s chairman, will “move forward as soon as possible” in asking NOAA to hand over documents included in a 2015 subpoena on potential climate data tampering.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.” NASA and NOAA’s actions, he said, are problematic, because “public opinion is formed by the data that is formed from those organizations and appears in newspapers.” Neither agency responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Former Obama Official: Bureaucrats Manipulate Climate Stats To Influence Policy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from

Comment by Scott on March 18, 2017 at 1:12am

OMB Director Mulvaney: We consider spending on climate change to be a waste of money (March 16, 2017)

Trump budget director Mick Mulvaney: "Regarding the question as to climate change I think the President was fairly straightforward. We're not spending money on that any more. We consider that to be a waste of your money to go out and do that so that is a specific tie to his campaign."

[OMB = Office of Management and Budget]

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said of climate change science: 'We consider that to be a waste of your money' 

'We consider that to be a waste of your money': Trump budget trolls the global warming lobby by cutting climate change research agency, NASA's 'Earth science' mission and UN programs (March 16, 2017)

Climate science is one of the biggest losers when it comes to President Trump's proposed budget, which the administration unveiled today.

...The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration could be cut by $1.5 billion...

Over at NASA, the Trump administration wants the space agency to push funds away from researching climate, while the Trump budget also calls for zeroing out funding for climate change programs through the United Nations.

SEARCH PS Ning and Zetatalk



You can support the ning by using the above button. Ning Fund Raiser for 2017 fees GOAL MET.


© 2017   Created by lonne rey.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service