Our mission is to educate the largest number of citizens possible on the fraudulent science, politics, and business of the deceptive carbon dioxide based anthropogenic global warming hypothesis through rigorous scientific experimentation and analysis, and the false viability of “renewable” energy sources; thereby negating the green energy agenda of America’s elected leaders, leading to the removal of carbon dioxide from the U.S. EPA’s 2015 Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all carbon regulation, taxes, and trading worldwide.
G.V. Chilingar, et al., adapted from “The Evolution of the Earth’s Climate”, 2018, Scrivener Publishing, John Wiley & Sons Download PDF This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it.
Anthony Watts / July 16, 2019 My latest podcast – this one has some eye-opening discussion. Dr. Judith Curry is a climatologist, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and president of Climate Forecast Applications Network. She is in the forefront of the climate skeptic movement, often drawing fire from others in the scientific community. Dr. Curry and Anthony Watts discuss her experience within the scientific community, changes in sea-level and how climate change is not a clear and present danger.
Climate Change Dispatch Cheryl K. Chumley | July 11, 2019 Sen. Bernie Sanders, on the presidential campaign trail, put out a video announcement of legislation he introduced with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Earl Blumenauer declaring climate change as a national emergency — nay, as a global emergency. And that raises the very respectable, rational question: Do these people really believe what they say? Honestly. How could they? It’s beyond bizarre. “I introduced legislation,” Sanders said, “declaring that climate change is a national emergency. … Anybody who does not appreciate that climate change is not only a national emergency—but a global …
Is the “Global Climate” really in Danger? By Klaus Ermecke, June 2010 Summary of our most important results: The Earth has a natural “cooling system”. It continuously radiates energy into space. Any increase in temperatures automatically boosts this radiation. The cooling power jumps up. “Global warming” (i.e. a general increase of temperatures) requi-res this incremental cooling to be compensated by an increase in heating power. Accordingly, in order to achieve “global warming”, CO2 had to in-crease the flow of energy from outside the system to the Earth’s surface. But this is beyond even the claimed capabilities of this gas. Therefore …
Clips from the popular BBC series the New “Yes, Prime Minister”. Global Warming, Parts 1 and 2. Surprising, isn’t it! Global Warming Part 1 Global Warming Part 2
Principia Scientific July 8, 2019 Written by John Turner B.Sc. Dip. Ed.; M. Ed. (Hons); Grad. Dip. Ed. Studies Governments are spending vast amounts of taxpayers money on policies designed to control the Earth’s climate. The present concern is the fear of global warming but the initial scientific challenge in the early years of the 19th century was to understand global cooling which the Earth was subjected to during the Ice Ages.
A new study by researchers at Turku University in Finland found that the human contribution to a rise of 0.1°C in global temperatures over the last century is just 0.01°C. The paper, titled ‘No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change’ was published by Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Malmi. The study found that, “During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.” Kauppinen and Malmi conclude that global temperatures are controlled primarily by cloud cover and that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration …
Principia Scientific July 4, 2019 Written by University of Copenhagen Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. Professor Andresen has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada.
Principia Scientific July 2, 2019 by Peter Schwartz There is an intellectual orthodoxy being imposed by political figures, abetted by much of the news media. Certain viewpoints are forbidden — not simply regarded as wrong, but not permitted to be considered. We can observe this attitude at our colleges, where speakers who challenge leftist premises have been forcibly silenced. But it is most entrenched in discussions about global warming, in which non-orthodox views are treated the way religionists treat challenges to biblical dogma. A striking example is provided by a recent New York Times front-page story. The print-version headline reads: “In …
WUWT July 2, 2019 Dr. Patrick Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist has some strong comments about climate models during an interview with Mark Levin: “It is nowhere near as warm as it’s ‘supposed’ to be,” says climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. “The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors.” There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate, all of them run by government entities. And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality. Because they are “parameterized” (fudged), says Michaels. “We put in …