The Global Warming Myth – Debunking Global Warmings 5 Commandments

The Five Things You Need To Know About The Global Warming Myth

1).  Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring element in our atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is no more a pollutant than say, oxygen or nitrogen. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth.  . Carbon Dioxide is the food which keeps plants alive. Through photosynthesis plants transform CO2 into plant food. Oxygen is produced as a waste product. All living things are dependent on this “Cycle”. 

Carbon Dioxide is called a “green house gas” because it allows visable light to pass through while it absorbs infrared and near infrared rays.  

The human body produces CO2 naturally. The Human Respiration System is the system that controls the exchange of oxygen for CO2 in the Human Body. Everytime you breath out you are exhaling CO2.

Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is a natural atmospheric element. All life on earth is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 there would be no life on earth. Compared to past history, the Earth’s atmosphere is currently CO2 “impoverished”.On average, there is less CO2 in the atmosphere today than there has been since life formed on earth.

2). Even at present levels, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas. Current CO2 levels are only a small fraction of the Earths atmosphere, CO2 represents less than 1/2 of one percent of the atmosphere today.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere is measured in terms of CO2 parts per million (ppm) by volume. At present the globally averaged concentration of CO2 is stated as 387 PPM.  For every million parts (1,000,000,000 parts) in the atmosphere 387 of those parts are CO2. CO2 levels have increased over the past 50 years from 320 PPM to today’s 387 PPM, an increase of 67 PPM.  

The CO2 level today, 387 PPM, can be compared to with a level of  8000 PPM (20X todays levels) 500 million years ago or CO2 levels of 2000 – 3000 PPM (5 to 6 times todays levels) during the Jurasic Period, when the Great Dinosaurs roamed the earth.

During the ice ages CO2 levels fell to between 200PPM and 280 PPM. During interglacial periods the CO2 Level has been measured at between 280 – 310 PPM. One does not need a calculator to see that current CO2 levels are much nearer to those recorded during the Ice Age and the interglacial periods than that time when Earth’s great green forests were first formed. CO2 is essential for plant life and growth. 

In a longer historical context – Earth’s current CO2 Levels are quite low.

In fact, in Earth’s entire history there have only been two prior periods where CO2 levels were this low, . ,   “Today, at 370 PPM our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished” climate.html . “So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise.”

“Without the warming caused by natural levels of CO2 and water vapor in our atmosphere, the average surface temperature of our planet would be well below freezing.” 

3). Human’s produce a very small percentage of  the CO2 found in the Atmosphere:

Over 95% of the total CO2 emissions into our atmosphere would occur even if humans were not present on Earth. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands, such as dead trees and grasses, results in the release of about 220 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This carbon dioxide alone is over 8 times the amount emitted by humans. There are many other sources of CO2 in the Earth’s atmopshere. 

The Earth’s Oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere. , .

If 5% of todays CO2 is produced by human activity (95% would occur if no humans existed on the planet) then a simple calculation will provide us with an absolute figure for Human CO2 production. 387 PPM CO2 x 5% = 19.35 PPM.

How does this compare to the Earth’s total atmosphere?

Well for every 1 Million (1,000,000) parts of atmosphere, there are Seven Hundred Eighty One Thousand (781,000) parts Nitrogen, Two Hundred Ten Thousand (210,000) parts Oxygen, Nine Thousand Parts (9,000) Argon and Three Hundred Eighty Seven Parts (387) CO2. All other gases account for the remaining 500 plus parts. 

Total CO2 presence in the atmosphere represents less than 4/10 of 1 percent. (CO2 is less than half of one percent of the atmosphere – If the atmosphere were a $100 dollar bill – all the CO2 in the atmosphere would equal 40 cents). . Man made CO2 represents 1/20th of that amount or 2 cents out of every $100 Dollar Bill.  

I asked a scientific friend to help me conceptualize this amount with an everyday example. Just how big is the total contribution of manmade CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere? The friend couldn’t remember where he first heard this comparison, so I cannot provide a site, he didn’t want to take personal credit, but here goes; “Imagine a Farmer’s field 100 miles long and 100 miles wide. It is filled with corn. A mouse sitting in the middle of the field farts.” Ask yourself, “Will the fart affect the crop?” As much as manmade CO2 affects our global temperatures. 

4). Temperature Impacts CO2 Level   –  CO2 levels do not drive Temperature Change

First, CO2 levels rise and fall with the seasons or time of day. CO2 levels rise in the Autumn and Winter as green plants go dormant or die. The plants cease to “process” CO2 as part of their food chain. In the spring and summer CO2 levels fall as these same plants come back to life and consume CO2 in photosyntesis. Likewise CO2 levels fluctuate in the night and day.

Read: Professor Richard Lindsen, PhD., Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, MIT

CO2 levels follow changes in temperature, not the other way around.,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf .

” There is, overall, a good match between temperature and CO2 and temperature. One important piece of information that can be determined from ice core data is whether changes in temperature follow or procede changes in CO2.” “Changes in temperature precede changes in CO2” ,

First, the total increaase in Global Temperatures over the last 100 years is ……….  7/10s of one degree. That is right, total Global warming over the Century is less than 1 degree.  During that same century the Sun’s measurable intensity or heat has increased.  

“Actual climate history shows no such correlation (that CO2 caused an increase in temperature) and there is no compelling evidence that the recent rise in temperature was caused by CO2.                                                                                 

Numerous papers published in major peer-reviewed scientific journals shows the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. , , ,

5). Current Global Warming trends are neither catastrophic nor are they unusual given the Earth’s very recent past.

Global Warming Alarmists state that man made CO2 is responsible for what is becoming a catastrophic increase in Global temperatures. (You know the 1 degree increase in the last century).

Science has told us for decades (decades prior to the Global Warming Alarmist taking the stage) that earth’s last ice age (referred to as the “little ice age”) began sometime near the year 1400 and lasted until approximately 1860.  This “little ice age” was responsible for disasters like the “Irish Potato Famine”. The end of the “little ice age” was not preceeded by an increase in CO2 levels. Other natural causes were responsible for the “global warming” which followed the end of the “little ice age” and continues to this date. ,

During the Middle Ages (1066 – 1485) a time that saw the Norman’s conquest of England, King Richard The Lion Hearted, The Crusades – all 7 of them, the Early Italian Renaissance – a period of time long before the  “Industrial Revolution”, mankind contributed very little to Global CO2 levels. The Middle Ages experienced a period of global warming that exceeds the global warming of today. Yes, temperatures were higher than they are now, significantly higher. , ,

“A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today’s temperatures are neither the “warmest ever” nor are the Temperatures producing extreme conditions “never seen before”. The findings of these 240 studies stand in stark contrast to the claims of the alarmists. The findings prove that the world had a medieval warm period between the ninth and 14th centuries, with world temperatures significantly higher than today’s. They also confirm claims that a little Ice Age began in about 1300, with the world cooling dramatically. Just before the turn of the century, in 1900, the world began to warm up, but as of today, has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.  The end of the little Ice Age is significant because it implies that the records used by climate scientists (THE ALARMISTS) date from when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today’s temperature rise. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today’s alleged “unprecedented” temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period.

The Global Warming Alarmists have choosen the “Little Ice Age” to begin their temperature measurements and comparisons. By choosing the coldest period in Earth’s history over the last 10,000 years, the Alarmists are assured of finding data that will show a warming trend. But the warming trend is not unusual when compared to all of Earth’s prior warming trends.

 Philip Stott, emeritus professor of bio-geography at the University of London, said: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion about global warming is a proper sense of history.” , , , ,

If mankind were to cease all economic production and cease buring all carbon fuels, at best, a 2% reduction in CO2 levels could be had. Additional reductions from manking would need to involve an end to “respiration” – manking would need to stop breathing. Having achieved these miniscule reductions, at fantastic cost and loss of personal freedom, nature could, in the bat of an eye, dramatically reverse any man made reduction. You see, temperature drives the CO2 level, CO2 levels do not drive temperature. ,

Recent studies call into question wether Global Warming is continuing – the studies refute the wild claims concerning the amount of  “warming” that occurred in the 1990’s. Even the ultra-green “Discovery Channel” has noted studies which indicate “global warming” is on “hold” and may not reappear for decades. That “Global Temperatures have flatlined since 2001”.

The Boston Globe has asked, “Where is the Global Warming?”, before noting, “But for many people, the science of climate change is not nearly as important as the religion of climate change. When Al Gore insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.”

UPDATE: 11/05/09

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

The pdf file located at the link below from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.

Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”              

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming” for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
One of the basic premises of Global Warming rests on the assumption that CO2 not only “holds” heat in the earth’s atmosphere, but that it, CO2, also prevents the heat from radiating out into space during earths normal cooling process. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a study, which underwent comprehensive peer review prior to publication, which demostrates the flaws or inaccuracies in this theory. Dr. Litzen’s study refutes the theory that CO2 is currently preventing heat radiation, because the study demonstrates that there has been no decrease in heat radiation as had been assumed.    
Dr Richard Lindzen, PhD Harvard University and Alfred P Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, ; “Don’t Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.” –
And this on Britian’s High Court (Supreme Court of Britian) rulings concerning the inaccuracy of Al Gore’s film, an “Inconvenient Truth”,  “If the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he, the ruling Judge, would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.” Yes, the Highest Court in England ruled Gore’s movie was political indoctrination and not science.

For a very specific review of 35 of the erroreous claims made by Gore in his film see:

Notice: WATTS UP WITH THAT can now be located at

For a very humorous, yet alarming, post on how the “scientific consensus” on the issue of Climate Change have been reached, see this post on the creation of “THE HARVARD ENERGY INITIATIVE” and the “inititaves” relationship to climate science (An insiders look at the Harvard Faculty Club?).

“On the other hand, the funding of climate science as such has grown nearly by one order of magnitude since 1988. Have you ever seen $1.7 billion, the amount that the climate science swallows annually? Or one point seven billion dollars a year worth of mostly junk science? It’s not just the overall macroscopic number we are familiar with. I also know some of the microscopic mechanisms that generate it.”

Harvard energy initiative

On Monday, we had a faculty lunch meeting at the Faculty Club and one of the topics was the so-called “Harvard energy initiative”. A short story is that a large amount of money was given to something described by these three words – and up to 10 new faculty positions are expected to be created – except that no one knows what “Harvard energy initiative” means and what people should be hired. So one of the rather well-known Earth and Planetary Scientists at Harvard decided to meet with the physics department and to ask for ideas what “Harvard energy initiative” could mean…… The well known Physicis Department Professor stated, “I know what “high energy physics” means – we study physics of high-energy particles to determine the architecture of matter at very short distances” ….. Obviously, our colleague has a different energy in mind. Energy whose main feature is that it is not conserved. Energy that does not commute with momentum because whenever energy has to commute, we lose energy. 😉 It’s more about the energy industry except that the initiative will quite obviously be anti-industry because of the very basic philosophical preconceptions of those who are trying to kickstart the project. If you think for a while, you know exactly what will most likely happen. They will probably hire a couple of not-so-intelligent people and promote them to climate scientists and energy initiative professors who will strengthen the “scientific consensus” that the “climate change is real” and the humankind is approaching a catastrophe. They won’t be developing any new energy technologies because this is what either the greedy corporations or MIT are doing. Harvard’s image is different and its energy initiative will be doing something else except that no one knows what it is.  The proposed energy initiative should include the Physics Department, Earth and Planetary Sciences, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard Law School, and virtually any other Harvard school you can think of. Great. So what kind of science will you do by combining these people? Note that the university in this story, namely Harvard University, is not such a bad school after all. In fact, it is the most prestigious school in the world. Once you see what mechanisms determine how the new money is spent at Harvard, you may guess how good an investment are the billions of new dollars that are currently flowing to the U.S. climate science every year. Most of this amount is wasted money paid to the people who don’t want to make progress in science. Instead, they have already decided that they already know the most important insights about the world – that it is approaching a climate apocalypse – and by being paid, they do what is really important, namely to increase the political power of the “true believers” who are going to “save the world”. Yes, indeed, I am talking about $1.7 billion worth of religious bigots, and I apologize to the few exceptions for this generalization.””  I reccommend the full post:

Also See: Lindzen: Deconstructing global warming    containing a PDF link to Dr Lindzen’s full report. The report sites the fact that two of the leading “proponents” of Global Warming admit that the “true science” is unsettled, however, that doesn’t matter – “we shouldn’t let that stop us from implementing “other agendas”. Read it for yourself ……. “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us….Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects. These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false'”. The actual words from the “Founders” of Climate Change Science …….. I guess they have no shame.

Dr. Lindzen’s actual presentation on this subject can be viewed here:

See the BBC produced Documentary “The Global Warming Swindle” here:

Click Start Button – wait a few seconds for buffering to complete, then click screen or move bar button slightly.

6 Responses

  1. […] to my original rant – This Smuch argued that Global warming was not a threat and listed five so called myths of Global warming. He […]

    From Mc Auley’s World: Oh well ….. Bill, you should read the posts and check the sites I provide. The “majority” of scientists around the world do not support the “theory” of global warming – it is a “theory” and is not proven fact ….check out this site …. as was suggested in my series of posts …. you’ll find international scientists posting on the site from all over the world …….

    The most recent post is quite on point ….. Is Climate Change 10 minutes of fame over?
    26/10/2009 – From

    WATTS UP WITH THAT WAS THE 2008 SCIENCE WEB LOG AWARD WINNER. Of the nearly 38,000 votes cast, WATT’s received 14,150 or 37.6% of the total. “Real Climate” received 1,446 votes or 10.9%.


    Spencer: AGW has most of the characteristics of an “urban legend”
    An Expensive Urban Legend
    by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

    McAuleys World Update: 11/05/09 – Well Bill – check out this article by Dr Richard S Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, PhD from Harvard in applied mathematics, formerly a Professor at both Harvard and the University of Chicago. Lindzen is a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Prize from the Wallin Foundation in Goteborg, Sweden. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and was named Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and a member of the United States National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate. He was a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. who offers this –

    “Don’t Believe the Hype – Al Gore is wrong. There’s no “consensus” on global warming.

    Bill, I know you know who Dr Lindzen is, because he was in on the ground floor of the current Climate Research …….

    Lindzen was one of the original IPCC researches who had to fight to have his name removed from the report after the IPCC “changed” the stated findings after the “scientists” had issued there “final findings”.

    Bill my point is that you site 1 letter signed by a group of scienitists – my point is this – Dr. Lindsen and the scienitits you may decsribe as “deniers” rank in the thousands also. I certainly hope you are aware that Dr Lindzen and many of the other you might decsribe as “deniers” have been in on the ground floor of Climate research – including the research mentioned as the basis of your post ……. a letter, absent the underlying documents and studies upon which it is based, is nothing more than a political statement …. note the following …..

    ” the IPCC was stung by criticism that the summaries were being written with little or no input by the scientists themselves, the IPCC had a subset of the scientists review a subsequent draft summary — an improvement in the process. Except that the final version, when later released at a Shanghai press conference, had surprising changes to the draft that scientists had seen.”


    “The summaries’ distortion of the IPCC chapters compounds another distortion that occurred in the very writing of the scientific chapters themselves. Dr. Lindzen’s description of the conditions under which the climate scientists worked conjures up a scene worthy of a totalitarian state: “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 the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.”

    THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE NAS – “The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: “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 and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward).”

    Your SPIN on this topic reminds me of the CNN report on the above NAS finding, “The press’s spin on the NAS report? CNN, in language typical of other reportage, stated that it represented “a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room.”

    Thanks for your comments – the total number of visitors to read this months old post doubled from 20,000 to 40,000.

    and in response to your criticisms – my article states facts – and lists 5 of the myths of Global Warming – Your retort was and remains that a letter was allegedly signed stating a group supports the theory of Global Warming – how surprising – some people believe in the hype. Gore’s movie, while incredibly inaccurate, was very entertaining for many …… Others have signed “statements” in the past, only to find that the statements to which they afixed their names, were, in fact, changed prior to publication …. how said and unscientific.

    Thousands of the worlds foremost scientists and the actual “science” dispute the “World Climate Change” hysteria.

    There is no need for me to respond – my post presents verifiable facts … the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amount produced naturally … etc, etc ……… the issue is your rant doesn’t address or hasn’t disproved any of the scientifically accepted facts relayed in my post ….. again, the post is fully linked so your readers can check the sources themselves.

    You can read a copy of this reply/post as an addendum to your original “rant” at McAuleys World.

    See Dr Lindsen’s presentation “Deconstructing Global Warming” here:


    LOL ….. in confirmation of my claim that thousands of Scientists around the globe dispute the theory of Global Warming I invite you to visit WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM, where thousands post and publish on this topic. WATTS is the 2008/2009 Weblog Award Winner as the best science blog on the NET. Upwards of 1 million (1,000,000) visitors per month visit and post on the site, one of the largests sites on the NET.

    If there is a consensus on Gloabl Warming, it is a political not scientific one ….. a consensus based on Politicians spending your tax money on their “special interest groups” and “special investment” schemes ……

    CHECK OUT BILL’S SITE …. you’ll note that he deleted the link to this article, a link that would allow his readers to read the article and research the links ………. The Boston Globe was correct …. “insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot. Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt. But if we want to understand where global warming has gone, those aren’t the tools we need.”

  2. […] the earth. Over a 1,000 scientist signed on in agreement. Now I could point out artical after artical after artical disputing the man made global warming theory. But if you listen to main stream media, […]

  3. Truly, this is a nice piece of work, but I am a little unnerved by the many English usage errors. You are correct in concluding that this has become much more a matter of opinion—or religious dogma–than a matter of genuine scientific pursuit. In reality, the AGW hypothesis is not supported by science.

    Have you someone in mind for proofreading of the text?

  4. Ah, I was just–once again–reminded of this deft summary of the AGW/GCC issue. Gosh darn gratifying to read some sound critical commentary on this subject, which has become a mainstay of Politically Correct baloney in recent history. Practically everyone, in the media and in the political world has adopted the problematic (indeed, zany) doctrine-dogma that a climate apocalypse is looming. We are being constantly bombarded with this propaganda. Even figures like Dr. Jill Stein and Senator Bernie Sanders, whom I much admire (current U.S. presidential candidates) have fallen for this bollocks position. Then, every year or so, we get yet another insipid follow-up piece ranting about how things are EVEN WORSE then predicted (trading on FEAR, much like the equally insipid and lunatic rant about Islamic terrorists). For crying out loud, do we need to recruit a witch doctor or priest to perform an exorcism?!!!

    Right this moment (at the tail-end of a “Doc Martin” episode) I am watching a little ten minute feature full of “Climate Change” hype. Nothing less than politically-based rubbish.

    At the VERY LEAST, this is a highly controversial subject…and, “No, Virginia, the question has NOT been settled!!” This has the very same flavor—of religious fervor and dogma–prevalent during the Spanish Inquisition. This is mind-numbingly wrong and highly toxic content. Wake up!!! Respectfully submitted!! ; )

  5. “If there is a consensus on Global Warming, it is a political not scientific one ….. a consensus based on Politicians spending your tax money on their “special interest groups” and “special investment” schemes ……
    ..“insisted yet again at a conference last Thursday that there can be no debate about global warming, he was speaking not with the authority of a man of science, but with the closed-minded dogmatism of a religious zealot.”

    Well said!!!

    I WILL take issue–however–with this statement:

    “Dogma and zealotry have their virtues, no doubt.”

    In my view, anyone employing the “coin” of dogma and zealotry (and hysteria) is HIGHLY SUSPECT!! We want cool heads and logic, and scientific documentation. We also want honest and open dialog…not that which restricts participation or is ready and willing to label any dissent “DENIAL!!!” Is this friggin’ Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia?!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: