Man-Made “Climate Change” Hoax

By Len Duggan | June 2, 2016

COClimate Change Hoax 

This article will show how some highly emotive issues have been wrongly linked to atmospheric COconcentrations. It will then address the media claims that the “science is settled” and show that most climate scientists actually believe man’s emissions of gases are not responsible for global warming. It will then show that mistakes were made in the design of the climate models that were used by the IPCC to identify COas the driver for global warming and that these sub-standard climate models were then used to make erroneous predictions of global temperature change in the future. It will show how corrupted “cherry-picked” data was used and that this data was further corrected by NOAA, rendering doubt on its usefulness and reliability. It will outline some of the political reasons behind the COscare that is propagated by the IPCC and show that many respected climate scientists disagree with the IPCC prognosis. It will also show no real global warming has occurred in the last 150 years and how data has been corrupted and is therefore misleading. It will show that high COlevels are not harmful but are instead beneficial to life on Earth because high CO2 levels enable plants to grow bigger, stronger and healthier. It will show that the ability of plants to fix vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere is completely overlooked in all climate models. It will list testimonials from many respected climate specialists who believe man is not responsible for the non-existent global warming that we now call climate change. It will then show that the variation in distance between the Sun and the Earth as a result of the orbital cycles of the Earth known as the Milanković Cycles are the real driver for any climate change. This fact and understanding of the Milanković Cycles as the driver for global temperature change will be qualified with reference to many scientific studies.


First, we must make sure we understand what we are talking about. There are many bad things happening in the modern World we live in, but we can be sure none of those things have any connection to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. COnever polluted the ocean with plastic, it was never responsible for government and corporation agendas for deforestation, it was not responsible for the Fukushima accident, it never poisoned the ground through fracking, it isn’t responsible for the microparticles of plastic in our water bottles, it didn’t poison the groundwater in Flint, it is not responsible for any of the wars in the world. It didn’t cause mass die-offs of fish and birds, it hasn’t killed the pollinating insects, CO2 didn’t pollute living things with aluminium, it didn’t cause pollution through oil spills, it is not responsible for the increase in autism and it didn’t bring down 3 towers on 911.


There have been claims made on numerous occasions in the media that 97% of scientists agree “that man is responsible for global warming” and that “the science is settled”. This claim originated from the 1993 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”(40) and is quoted by the media and others as being a warning about CO2, but the study was warning about ozone depletion, freshwater resources, reconstructed marine catch, dead zones, deforestation, vertebrate species extinctions and human population levels too. CO2was mentioned as a warning by the scientists in relation to the information gleaned from IPCC climate models without the knowledge that they were erroneous. Again, the media repeat the 97% in 2008, however, on examination this study hand-picked 77 replies from a planned 10,257 scientists, of the 77 hand-picked replies 75 agreed that man-made CO2 was to blame. 75 out of 77 is 97% and these 75 scientists have been published in the media as representing a global consensus and allowed to decide the future of mankind. Again the media repeated the same “97%” headlines but this time relating to the 2013 study by Cook. This study used a system were authors of the papers included “rated the abstracts” and  “self-rated” their papers allowing for a conclusion that “Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus”. Not only is this not science but after re-examination of the data it was found that only 64 of the 11,944 science studies came to the conclusion that man was responsible for global warming. These false headlines are repeated many times over a long period of time by the media to make them seem more believable and this travesty of false science promoted by some individuals is documented in a book called “A Disgrace to the profession” by Mark Steyn. The reporting and manipulation of knowledge by the media is further highlighted by the fact that a far larger consensus of 31,479 signers, of which 9,029 hold PhDs, who say they wholeheartedly disagree that man is responsible for global warming through CO2 emissions and back the study by Robinson et al.(49).


The media has also claimed that CO2 is responsible for acidification of the oceans, but this is misleading too. It is impossible for the sea to change pH because it is buffered by calcium carbonate in the sediment. This is clarified by Raven in the 2005 study into acidification of the oceans. The study says “The carbonate buffer acts to stabilise the average pH of seawater at approximately pH = 8 because of the following two processes: (i) uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere and (ii) interaction of seawater with oceanic sediments composed of CaCO3. Because CaCO3 is abundant in sediments, the pH of the deep oceans cannot change by large amounts over timescales of 10 000 years”(41). It accepts that changes can occur near to the surface, but these small changes are obviously mixed by upwelling from the depths. Therefore, the pH of the ocean is still 8.1. We are also told that the sea level is rising but this is not true either. The sea level is calculated using measurements obtained from ground stations that are on land that is sinking and satellites that are in orbits that are degrading and therefore erroneously showing the sea is rising when in reality this is not the case. The latest European satellite called “Envisat” is able to measure the sea level to millimetre accuracy and is able to detect the rise and fall of 4 millimetres between summer and winter as the oceans warm and cool. Envisat shows that there is no rise in sea level and this is explained by NASA scientists in a video titled “25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists”. Their website can be accessed from and a synopsis of their findings can be found here.


We are also told in the media that COhas increased by 50% but this is misleading people too, because in reality COhas risen from 0.032% of the atmosphere in 1960s to a grand total of 0.041%. Not only is it obvious that this small rise in COconcentration of 0.009% over 60 years will not make any difference at all, but considering the Mauna Loa observatory is next to an active volcano the data set arising from that place could be unreliable. NOAA say that COlevels are rising by an average of 2.5 ppm each year, that is only 0.0025% per year and this may be as a result of changes in COuse by trees through deforestation and not because of additional COfrom industrialisation. I can only imagine that the “50% rise in CO2” quote that is being used to describe the COincrease is designed by the media to evoke an emotional response in its readers. Radiative forcing is measured in watt per square metre (W/m2) and a 1998 study estimated the radiative forcing of CO2 as 1.8 W/m2(44) but a study of contrail induced cirrus cloud, colloquially known as chemtrails, has proven the clouds that grow from the exhaust of planes has a warming effect of 10 W/m2 during daylight hours and 30 W/m2 during night time(45). Therefore, the clouds left by planes have a far greater effect on the warming of the planet than CO2 ever could.


The NOAA study (June 2014) suggests that global warming is still going on but only because they massaged their data too(3). NOAA are claiming that their data needed to be corrected in light of the fact that the “Ships collecting temperature data did so first by gathering water either in wooden buckets, in canvas buckets, by thermometers positioned near engine intake valves, and later buoys – resulting in temperature measurements that varied slightly by collection method and requiring correction”(6). This is obviously a flawed approach to understanding and working with the figures collected because the problem NOAA have highlighted in the methodology would have actually resulted in the recorded temperatures being higher than reality and not lower as they are suggesting. Obviously, NOAA has corrected the figures in the wrong direction, multiplying the mistake instead of rectifying it. Temperature figures subjected to arbitrary corrections by the statisticians can never be trusted as showing reality in any way(6). When Dr Evans used unadulterated figures from satellites he found a very different outcome that disproved a causal effect of COas the driver for Climate Change(2).


Climate scientists made a simple mistake within the climate model architecture and this mistake changed the results obtained from the models completely. The heat trapped by the increasing levels of carbon dioxide just reroutes to space via water vapour. This whole category of feedback was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to carbon dioxide. This one miscalculated fact was enough to skew the results so that they could be used to support the misunderstanding that claims COdrives climate change(1). The big scare of CObeing responsible for global warming was due to a simple modelling error. Dr David Evans is a very well qualified climate scientist with many years’ experience who checked the architecture of the current climate models and discovered that while the underlying physics was correct, the climate scientists applied it incorrectly and that “two serious architectural errors were discovered in the basic climate model”(1). These 2 errors were then fixed by Dr. Evans and the original model was run again and future warming due to carbon dioxide was found to be only 10% or 20% of the previous official estimates. The conventional climate models had been set up to work in a way that amplified the surface warming effect of CO2(2). The actual recorded temperatures agreed with the new results from the model fixed by Dr. Evans therefore, allowing us to be sure that the new model architecture is correct. This new model proves there is no global warming due to CO2(2).


The IPCC are using these amplified results from the faulty climate models and the NOAA faulty study to scare people into accepting their political control. They cite the melting of the ice caps with Greenpeace as further proof of climate change, but the truth is that they have no idea of the ice thickness before the first satellite took measurements in 1973. They had to rely on information from Russian explorers after they returned from summer trips. No one entered the ice during the winter months. No data exists for the winter months in any way before 1973(6). A review in 2016 identifies “nothing in the data” that “supports the supposition that atmospheric COis a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2”. The study goes on to explain how the “medieval warm period” acknowledged in the IPCC data and peaked at around 1200 AD with no greenhouse gas contribution. The study also noted that the changes in global temperatures cycled through a time period of approximately 100,000 years and correlated with the “eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the sun” and confirms a recent increase in solar activity by cosmic ray intensification. The study also identifies a lack of reliable data and how it is difficult to access when it is published. It explains how authors’ interpretations of this data have appeared “primitive” and “cherry-picked” to conform to the IPCC’s “party line” about the dangers of “greenhouse gases”(19). It was also found by studying chironomid remains in the sediments of Lake JR01 on the Boothia Peninsula in the Central Canadian Arctic that although “Indices of both aquatic and terrestrial biological production increased in the last 150 years the reconstructions do not indicate warming”(20).


The wrong understanding of the consequences concerning raised CO2 levels has been taught to us all in the media promoted information. We have been led to believe that high CO2 levels are somehow dangerous to us and the planet. The reality is that the planet is at its most healthy when CO2 levels are at least 20 times higher (7,000 ppm) than the current levels today (400 ppm)(8). Plants use COfor their health, and growth responds dramatically when levels are increased. Higher CO2 levels result in higher yielding and better-quality crops in our fields as well as encouraging the better overall health of our planet. CBS news reported that humans contributed 38.2 Gigatons of CO2last year(46). However, plants fix CO2 from the air and the more CO2 that is present in the air, the more plants will fix using photosynthesis. At levels of 350 ppm CO2 plants fix 51 Gigatons and if the levels rise to 650 ppm, then plants will fix 64.3 Gigatons per year. This increase of 13.3 Gigatons of CO2 fixed by the trees is completely overlooked by climate scientists. We should think of our CO2emissions as more food for animals to thrive on(9). If CO2 levels dropped too low (150 ppm) we would be approaching a total world extinction event. CO2 is not our enemy and this is why COgenerating equipment is used in commercial greenhouses(10).


The identification of CO2 as the driver for climate change/global warming has been the product of powerful corporations with aims of controlling the world through domination of finance and food production. The control of world industry and food production can best be accomplished by the control and restriction of CO2(5). It is the will of big business, bankers and corporations to massage the global warming figures to initiate the control of Carbon Dioxide emissions for the purpose of raising revenue by licensing industrial CO2 emissions. Edmund de Rothschild founded the “World Conservation Bank” in 1987 for the purpose of controlling the CO2 emissions(5). This was formalised at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with the imposition of an international tax of 2% on all financial transactions. This tax would be controlled by the UN and returned to the Rothschild World Bank. The IMF and Rothschild are interconnected and support for the Rothschild controlled financial agenda comes from all angles(7).


There are scientists and corporations entering into an unholy alliance enabling big business to have the ability to influence opinion-makers on the extreme right of the U.S. political spectrum. Recently we have seen the effect of this influence in health and environmental sciences. The purpose of this alliance has been to deny established scientific knowledge and is known as “tobacco science” because of its advice given in bad faith. “Merchants of Doubt” is a serious book written to expose a group of scientists who fought the scientific evidence to purposefully spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time. Unfortunately, we cannot trust scientists to explain scientific findings with honesty. We must look directly at the scientific facts and check these against the politically influenced rhetoric we are given(4). Data anomalies have been documented showing the altering of data to suit the IPCC narrative(38).


In Senator James M. Inhofe’s speech at the 2003 Senate commission on “The Science of Climate Change” he quoted Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University as claiming “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth(47)”. Senator Inhofe also highlighted that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.” Two years earlier, the board had observed: “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next glacial age”(47).


Let us all be sure that the global warming, climate change, polar ice cap melt problem does not exist in the way the media would like us to believe. A NASA 2013 study recorded that the “Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001” and also said, “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise but is taking 0.23 millimetres per year away”. Even though the net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008(48) this is further proof that the global temperatures are not responsible for ice depletion because that depletion would be worldwide and not limited to the northern hemisphere. The polar bear decline in population scare is negated by Dr Susan Crockford, a respected zoologist when she explains in her video how this scare was not based on fact. Her understanding is further supported by science studies that have documented polar bear populations thriving and increasing in areas of sea ice loss(50).  The media driven hoax has been bravely reported by great climate scientists and researchers who still have their personal integrity intact. Dr Don Easterbrook when he made his presentation to the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change(11).  Dr Patrick Moore when he made his presentation to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, in which he also exposes the real agenda of Greenpeace(12). Ivar Giaever gave a speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015 where he explains that the global temperature has been amazingly stable since 1880 and has only increased 0.3% during the last 135 years(13). John Casey the US leading expert in climate change also made a presentation of his findings to expose the global warming scandal in which he presents real facts in a real way that makes perfect sense. Particularly when he outlines the political and financial pressures brought down on anyone who tries to tell the truth(14).  John Coleman makes numerous presentations of the fact that Global Warming is a hoax. He brings 60 years’ experience of weather prediction as a meteorologist that supports the integrity of the facts he presents(15).


These people are the top scientists in the field of climate change and global warming. They are all presenting cold hard facts to support their understanding of the hoax and why it is happening. I think we should listen to what these top experts are saying. We should understand the climate change hoax for what it really is and make sure the perpetrators of this scam do not get their way and succeed in killing the planet and its people by restricting the release of CO2. It is impossible for the warming of the air to heat the oceans or the Earth. Carbon Dioxide can’t cause global warming, this is explained by chemistry expert Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist). He explains how heat is transferred between air and water and how much heat is needed to raise the temperature of the ocean. We all know this to be true from our own experiences of life. You cannot heat a bath of water by putting an electric fire in the bathroom(16).


The sun goes through an 11-year cycle of varying heat production, but this small variation in output does not have the vast influence that the varying distance of the Earth from the Sun has over our climate, in accordance with the inverse square law of energy transfer (18). The distance of the Earth from the Sun is by far the greatest influence on the strength of energy received. The Earth does not circumnavigate the Sun in a perfect circle. The effects of this variation in distance can be seen every six months. During the month of January, the Earth is at its closest 146 million kilometres (Perihelion) during the month of July the Earth is at its furthest 152 million kilometres (Aphelion). This varying distance every 6 months is why the southern hemisphere experiences more extreme weather when compared to the northern hemisphere.


Everyone understands the procession of the equinox and how it is a 25,920-year cycle but Serbian mathematician and astronomer Milutin Milanković found other variations in our orbit. When he added all of the 3-dimensional variations of the Earth’s orbit together he found the full variation in distance of the Earth from the Sun. This understanding of the complete cycles of the earth became known as the Milanković Cycles. The Milanković cycles are responsible for the variations in our climate. When these cycles are considered in their entirety, they produce an overall variation in our climate that results in a 115,000-year cycle. We are just coming to the end of the warm period of this present cycle and the temperature of the Earth is set to rise by another 1-1.5 degrees before it goes into the next cold period. The Sun provides the heat for the Earth and the distance of the Earth determines the energy received, nothing else matters. The Earth receives more heat when it is closer to the Sun and the variations in orbit happen over a 115,000-year cycle and has nothing to do with CO2 (17). This understanding has been supported by many studies from many avenues of science (21;22;23;24;25;26;27;28;29;30;31;32;33;34;35;36;37). The 115,000-year cycle is further confirmed by Oxford University when they studied the American mastodons, giant ground sloths, American camels, and giant beavers that made the migration south roughly 75,000 years ago from their warm “holiday homes” in the Arctic and Subarctic (39).


After considering the information in this article we can be sure that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and man emits it whilst burning oil based products. However, the effect of a 0.009% increase in CO2 added to the existing 1.8 W/m2 effect of CO2 radiative forcing has been exaggerated by inaccurate models. This article has shown COis not responsible for any major disasters in the world or any of the bad things done in the name of progress. It has shown an unhealthy influence of the mainstream media over peoples understanding of the Global Warming problem and it has shown that the ideas being promoted in the media are misleading or false. It has also shown that no evidence exists proving CO2 as the driving force behind climate change but has provided insurmountable evidence supporting the understanding that the Earth’s temperature has a direct relationship to its varying distance from the Sun. This correlation has been proven many times by modern science and is therefore considered as sound evidence to show that the Milanković Cycles are a far larger driver of climate change than CO2. We must only rely on science that is based on facts and data and not decide the future on faulty models, consensus or sensationalised media articles.




1. Dr David Evans. Discovery will Change Climate Debate


2. Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case By Dr. David M.W. Evans

Part 1-

Part 2-




4. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.




6. IPCC. Radiative Forcing of climate




8. Geophysical Research Letters


9. Global Climate Change and Terrestrial Net Primary Production.




11. Dr Don Easterbrook presentation at the 2013 Senate Environment Committee


12. Dr. Patrick Moore Testimony in US Senate Subcommittee


13. Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015


14. John Casey Exposes Global Warming Fraud


15. John Coleman: How the Global Warming Scare Began


16. Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)


17. Milankovitch Cycles


18. Inverse square law explained.


19. Hertzberg, M. and Schreuder, H. (2016). Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change. Energy & Environment27(6-7), 785-797. Available from


20.Fortin, M.C. and Gajewski, K., 2016. Multiproxy paleoecological evidence of Holocene climatic changes on the Boothia Peninsula, Canadian Arctic. Quaternary Research85(3), pp.347-357. Available from


21. Lourens, L.J., Becker, J., Bintanja, R., Hilgen, F.J., Tuenter, E., Van de Wal, R.S. and Ziegler, M. (2010). Linear and non-linear response of late Neogene glacial cycles to obliquity forcing and implications for the Milankovitch theory. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(1-2), 352-365. Available from


22. Meyers, S.R., Sageman, B.B. and Pagani, M. (2008). Resolving Milankovitch: Consideration of signal and noise. American Journal of Science, 308(6), 770-786.

Available from


23. Tziperman, E., Raymo, M.E., Huybers, P. and Wunsch, C. (2006). Consequences of pacing the Pleistocene 100 kyr ice ages by nonlinear phase locking to Milankovitch forcing. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, 21(4).  Available from


24.Roe, G. (2006). In defense of Milankovitch. Geophysical Research Letters33(24).Available from


25. Ruddiman, W.F. (2006). Orbital changes and climate. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25(23-24), pp.3092-3112. Available from


26. Huybers, P. and Wunsch, C. (2005). Obliquity pacing of the late Pleistocene glacial terminations. Nature, 434(7032), 491. Available from


27. Wunsch, C. (2004). Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23(9-10), pp.1001-1012. Available from


28. Shackleton, N.J. (2000). The 100,000-year ice-age cycle identified and found to lag temperature, carbon dioxide, and orbital eccentricity. Science, 289(5486), pp.1897-1902. Available from


29. Rial, J.A. and Anaclerio, C.A. (2000). Understanding nonlinear responses of the climate system to orbital forcing. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19(17-18), pp.1709-1722. Available from


30. Brathauer, U. and Abelmann, A. (1999). Late Quaternary variations in sea surface temperatures and their relationship to orbital forcing recorded in the Southern Ocean (Atlantic sector). Paleoceanography, 14(2) 135-148. Available from


31. Raymo, M.E. (1997). The timing of major climate terminations. Paleoceanography, 12(4) 577-585. Available from


32. Imbrie, J., Boyle, E.A., Clemens, S.C., Duffy, A., Howard, W.R., Kukla, G., Kutzbach, J., Martinson, 7., McIntyre, A., Mix, A.C. and Molfino, B. (1992). On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 1. Linear responses to Milankovitch forcing. Paleoceanography, 7(6), pp.701-738. Available from


33. Imbrie, J., Berger, A., Boyle, E.A., Clemens, S.C., Duffy, A., Howard, W.R., Kukla, G., Kutzbach, J., Martinson, D.G., Mcintyre, A. and Mix, A.C. (1993). On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 2. The 100,000-year cycle. Paleoceanography 8, 699e735. Available from


34. McIntyre, A., Ruddiman, W.F., Karlin, K. and Mix, A.C. (1989). Surface water response of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean to orbital forcing. Paleoceanography, 4(1), pp.19-55. Available from


35. Martinson, D.G., Pisias, N.G., Hays, J.D., Imbrie, J., Moore, T.C. and Shackleton, N.J. (1987). Age dating and the orbital theory of the ice ages: Development of a high-resolution 0 to 300,000-year chronostratigraphy 1. Quaternary research, 27(1), pp.1-29. Available from


36. HAYS, I.J. (1984). The orbital theory of Pleistocene climate: Support from a revised chronology of the marine δ^< 18> O record. Milankouitch and climate, NATO ASI Series, Series C: Mathematical and physical sciences, 126 269-305. Available from


37. Imbrie, J. and Imbrie, J.Z. (1980). Modeling the climatic response to orbital variations. Science, 207(4434) 943-953. Available from


38. &rarr;, V. (2019). NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000. [online] Real Science. Available from


39. Zazula, G.D., MacPhee, R.D., Metcalfe, J.Z., Reyes, A.V., Brock, F., Druckenmiller, P.S., Groves, P., Harington, C.R., Hodgins, G.W., Kunz, M.L. and Longstaffe, F.J. (2014). American mastodon extirpation in the Arctic and Subarctic predates human colonization and terminal Pleistocene climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18460-18465. Available from


40. Union of Concerned Scientists (1993). World scientists’ warning to humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available from


41. Raven, J., Caldeira, K., Elderfield, H., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Liss, P., Riebesell, U., Shepherd, J., Turley, C. and Watson, A. (2005). Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Royal Society. Available from


(42) Maria-José Viñas, &. (2019). Wintertime Arctic sea ice growth slows long-term decline: NASA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. [online] Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Available from


(43) (2019). Unexpected ice | Earthdata. Available from


(44) Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J., Shine, K.P. and Stordal, F. (1998). New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical research letters25(14) 2715-2718. Available from


(45) Haywood, J.M., Allan, R.P., Bornemann, J., Forster, P.M., Francis, P.N., Milton, S., Rädel, G., Rap, A., Shine, K.P. and Thorpe, R. (2009). A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail‐induced cirrus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres114(D24). Available from


(46) (2019). Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second. [online] Available from


(47) Inhofe, J. (2003). The science of climate change. Senate Floor Statement. Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate, July28.


(48) NASA. (2019). NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses. Available from


(49) Robinson, A.B., Robinson, N.E. and Soon, W. (2007). En vi ron men tal Ef fects of In creased At mo spheric Car bon Di ox ide. Jour nal of Amer i can Phy si cians and Sur geons, 12, 79-90. Available from


(50) Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W. and Budge, S.M. (2014). Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology20(1) 76-88. Available from