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: 12159


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 bill on April 17, 2012 at 12:52pm

Reply by Nancy Lieder on Saturday

Several old astronauts and NASA scientists have sent a letter to the NASA managing director, whereby they are requesting that NASA stops advocating the unproven Global Warming theory and come clean with the empirical data in the hands of NASA for long time now. Otherwise, they say, NASA and its employees will be completely losing credibility and public face in the times to come. Is this a first step towards a cracking of the coverup? Would this be of interest for the Zetas to comment? 
[and from another]
49 Former NASA Scientists Send A Letter Disputing Climate Change [Apr 11] 
The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. 

Whatever happened to the grand old institution that put a man on the Moon and provided breathtaking Hubble images to the world? All that slipped away, by promotion or demotion, as those in charge at NASA were slowly shaped by the CIA
into an organization that reported the facts as the CIA wanted the world to see them. Integrity went out the window first, along with honesty and any right the common man had to information secured with their tax dollars. The cover-up over the alien presence was the first big lie, then the existence of Planet X fast approaching the solar system. 

So many lies piled on top of one another requires that the top management be comfortable with lying, and be driven by self-serving ambitions. It is, at this point in time, hopelessly set on this path, and the larger the lie, the harder it is to confess. We have predicted that rather than the truth ever emerging at the hands of NASA, this crowd will quietly slip away as the truth is revealed in the skies. They will hide, disappear and not answer the phones nor give interviews, cowards at the core as most in the Service-to-Self are, at base. 

Prior ZT:
NASA has been a traditional stronghold advocating the right of the elite to privileged information, and many at the top of this organization are reluctant to see this focus change. As members of MJ12, they are frequently active CIA agents, and thus these top executives play a dual role with allegiance to both organizations.

Comment by Nancy Lieder on February 28, 2012 at 1:21pm

@Jerry, because the Earth is heating FROM THE CORE OUTWARD. The melting is coming from below, not above, as has LONG been established.

>> (Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
>> You answered your own question. Check out the
>> permafrost, a permanently frozen layer of earth. Where the
>> few inches above the permafrost, perhaps a foot or two, melt
>> during the summer months due to warmed air and increased
>> sunlight, the permafrost layer, as the name implies, is
>> (End ZetaTalk[TM])

This is clearly not caused by Global Warming which has raised the air a fraction of a degree, nor has Global Warming been responsible for the permafrost or glaciers or poles melting, from the bottom up. This, as we have often stated, is due to the core of the Earth swirling about under the influence of Planet X, which has likewise created increases in volcanic activity worldwide.

SEARCH PS Ning or Zetatalk


This free script provided by
JavaScript Kit


Donate to support Pole Shift ning costs. Thank you!

© 2024   Created by 0nin2migqvl32.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service