Global warming: Fake news from the start

Senator Tim Wirth, scientist James Hansen and others manufactured the climate “crisis”

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America.

He could have made the decision simply because the science is false. However, most of the American and global public have been brainwashed into believing the science is correct (and supported by the faux 97% consensus), so they would not have believed that explanation.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they understood those deficiencies, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax on their citizens.

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, and how little they assume the public knows, by calling it a “carbon tax” on “carbon emissions.” But CO2 is a gas, the trace atmospheric gas that makes life on Earth possible. Carbon is a solid, and carbon-based fuels are solid (coal), liquid (oil), or gaseous (natural gas).

By constantly railing about “carbon emissions,” Trudeau, Obama, and others encourage people to think of carbon dioxide as something “dirty,” like soot, which really is carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis.

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview that “polluters should pay.” She too either does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant, or she is deliberately misleading people.

Like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed Ph.D. scientists who disagree with her approach, labeling them “deniers.” She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do, if true science is to advance.

That is why the Royal Society’s official motto is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody’s word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.

Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising, considering that from the outset the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news.

The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum right after the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) created the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.

After spending five days at the UN with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded that the overarching objective of the IPCC was political, not scientific. “Strong was using the UN as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda,” she wrote.

The political agenda required “credibility” to accomplish the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee.

U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception. As he explained in a 1993 comment, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.…”

In 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump-start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize and orchestrate a June 23, 1988, hearing where the lead witness would be Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Wirth explained in a 2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

Hansen did not disappoint. The New York Times reported on June 23, 1988: “Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99% certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation, but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

Specifically, Hansen told the committee, “Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming…. It is already happening now.”

Hansen also testified: “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now…. We have already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important.”

Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was predisposed to believe Hansen and told the committee. “As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth’s atmosphere gets warmer,” Wirth said. “Now the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend, and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.” 

More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, which was bolstered by the UN and the popular press – leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches all across the world.

Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009: “Hansen was never muzzled, even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied Hatch Act limits on bureaucratic political actions, and in 2011 even got arrested at a White House protest against the Keystone XL pipeline. It was at least his third such arrest to that point.

Like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Senator Wirth either had not read or did not understand the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming. There are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it, and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong – with actual temperatures getting further from predictions with every passing year.

President Trump must now end America’s participation in the fake science and fake news of man-made global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all UN global warming programs, especially the IPCC, as well as the agency that now directs it – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He should also launch a “Red Team” exercise that lets non-alarmist scientists examine climate cataclysm claims and the purported evidence for them.

Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president’s goal of global energy dominance and long-term prosperity for America and the world.

———-

Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. 

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

 

Categories

About the Author: CFACT

CFACT defends the environment and human welfare through facts, news, and analysis.

  • Ian5

    “[Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna] either does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant, or she is deliberately misleading people”.

    >> Untrue statement. It is Ball and Harris that are deliberately misleading people. Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (“an Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development”) includes substances that are considered to be toxic as defined in Section 64 of the Act.

    CO2 was added to the Schedule in 2005.and gives the federal government the ability to require actions to control CO2 under the Act. The reporting on releases of CO2 to the atmosphere is regulated under section 46 and is required from large industrial and commercial facilities that meet a certain threshold for their combined emissions.

    • pkwz

      So if I go visit Canada, I’m going to be emitting the toxic substance CO2? Do I need a permit first or does Canada expect me to die? And what would happen to life on earth if we eliminated all of the toxic substance CO2?

  • Ian5

    “…from the outset the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news.”

    >> Noting that Tom Harris has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Hasn’t published any climate science. None. Ever. And Tim Ball hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science in at least 25 years. And their position on climate change is diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific academy including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and the American Geophysical Union. Why should we believe these ignoble disinformation professionals?

    • RealOldOne2

      Your ad hom attack refutes nothing in what Ball & Harris said.
      And evidence supporting what they said is found in Ben Santer’s violating IPCC rules and reversing the conclusions of the 32 contributing author-approved Chap. 8 of IPCC SAR to fabricate “a discernible human influence” claim, which has been assumed to be true and built upon ever since. It was fabricated because Santer’s own paper on which he justified his reversing the authors’ conclusions, cherry picked the radiosonde temperature record to use only 1963-1987 portion of the 1958-1995 dataset. Using the entire dataset, the exact opposite conclusion is reached. Falsehoods, fraud, shoddy science, just as Ball and Harris stated. Here’s the evidence of Santer’s corruption of science: http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

  • Ian5

    The doctored image of the May 2014 Scientific American magazine cover is such an appropriate image for this article. Fraudulent, manufactured rubbish just like Ball and Harris’ writing.

    • RealOldOne2

      “Fraudulent, manufactured rubbish just like Ball and Harris’ writing.”
      You believers in climate alarmism are so good at making baseless, evidence-free claims, which why your religion should be called claimit science.

      You are just defending your CO2 climate religion “with jihidist zeal” as Dr. Lindzen pointed out you climate alarmists do, and it should be noted that you were unable to quote a single thing that Ball & Harris said and show that it was incorrect.

  • Dave James

    Dr. Tim Ball and Mr. Tom Harris are climate change hoaxers. They claim human caused climate change is “the biggest deception in history.” They offer an unsupported conspiracy theory climate change was created during a single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. They assert that climate change is not a scientific question but a function of “an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, which was bolstered by the UN and the popular press.” They claim it is a hoax being perpetrated against, “governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches all across the world.”

    Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. John S. Theon and Mr. Tom Harris are all associates of the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank. According to the New York Times, Heartland is “the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism.”

    Dr. Tim Ball was not a “former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba.” Dr. Ball was a geography professor. His only contribution to climate science was handful of papers mostly on the historical weather records of the Hudson Bay Corporation mostly published in the 1980’s. Dr. Ball has a history of misstating his resume.

    Tom Harris is a political partisan who promotes coal and deregulation of coal. Mr. Harris wrote the United States should withdrawal from international climate agreements because “(President) Trump needs to Democrat-proof his agenda” and “Actions that significantly reduce CO2 emissions would entail dramatically cutting back on the use of coal…” 5/8/2017 Daily Caller.

    • RealOldOne2

      “Dr. Tim Ball and Mr. Tom Harris are climate change hoaxers.”
      You’ve got it reversed. You promoters of climate alarmism are the hoaxers, fraudster, scammers, peddling pseudoscience that is not supported by real world empirical data. There isn’t a peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, like your climate alarmism religion claims. Neither is there any peer reviewed paper the empirically shows that natural climate change isn’t the primary cause of the late 20th century warming. Your hypothesis lacks empirical science support.

      The empirical evidence shows that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming. The 1975 NAS ‘Understanding Climatic Change’ shows that temperature increase by ~0.7C from 1880-1940. Humans added ~150 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during that period.
      From 1940-1970 humans added ~250 billions of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was ~2/3rds of all the human CO2 produced up to that point, and temperature decreased by about as much as it had increased in the previous 60 years, bringing temperature right back to where it was in 1880. Here’s the graph from the report which shows this: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402
      Clear empirical evidence that CO2 is an insignificant cause of climate warming.

      During the decade of the 1970s humans added ~170 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and temperatures barely changed, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:1979/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1970/to:1979/trend .
      More empirical evidence that CO2 isn’t a significant driver of climate warming.

      During the last two decades of the 20th century humans added ~460 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere and temperature increased by ~0.3C, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:2001/plot/uah6/from:1980/to:2001/trend . And peer reviewed science shows that during those decades natural climate forcing (more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface) increased by ~10 times more than CO2 forcing increased, so again the data doesn’t support that CO2 was the primary cause of that warming either.

      And over the 21st century up to the point of the natural warming from the 2015-2016 El Nino, humans have added ~450 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which was ~1/3rd of all the human CO2 ever produced to that point, and temperatures didn’t increase at all: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend .
      Yet more empirical evidence that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

      So the alarmist talking point ‘CO2 is the earth’s thermostat’ and that humans are now the primary cause of climate warming fails the real world empirical data test. The empirical science doesn’t support it.

      This is why the theory that CO2 was the cause of climate change was never widely held and was dismissed in the mid-20th century:

      “Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned … burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.” – 1951 Compendium of Meteorology, ‘Theories of Climate Change due to terrestrial causes’, ‘Variations of Carbon Dioxide’, p. 1018

      Climate alarmism is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which predict too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t predict future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013).

      There’s lot’s of other real world evidence that CO2 has not been a significant factor in causing climate warming, such as the fact that the highest recorded temperature at an official measuring station occurred in 1913 . 95% of all the human CO2 ever produced, 1.5 trillion tons worth, has been added to the atmosphere since 1913, and it hasn’t caused a higher temperature to be recorded at any temperature measuring station on the face of the planet. More clear empirical evidence that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

      That’s why as a scientist, I reject your Catastrophic CO2 climate hypothesis and along with tens of thousands of other scientists accept this correct statement about the climate which has been shown to be correct in the two decades since it was signed by 31,000+ scientists:

      “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 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 carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” – http://www.petitionproject.org/

    • CB

      “Dr. Tim Ball and Mr. Tom Harris are climate change hoaxers.”

      You’re too charitable!

      Mr. Ball and Mr. Harris are prostitutes.

      They’re paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel.

      …and they’re in the right place, because the entire website is a fossil-funded propaganda outlet.

      “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

      • halush

        Any reason you continuously call others prostitutes? Are you looking for a second career?

      • colion

        If funding source is a matter of concern then what should we say about the numerous studies that were funded by the federal government during the Obama years when AGW was an administration mantra? This line of attack impunes the integrity of the researchers without any basis in fact which smacks of McCarthyism. Rather than attacking the integrity of researchers based on funding source it would be much more fruitful to objectively critique the research and thereby contribute to the science and takes the discussion out of the belief system realm.

        • CB

          “what should we say about the numerous studies that were funded by the federal government during the Obama years when AGW was an administration mantra?”

          “Good”?

          Are you sure you meant the Obama administration and not the Pierce administration?

          “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

          http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

          • colion

            Not responsive, off topic.

  • Robert

    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

    ” This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.”
    http://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx?la=en

  • pkwz

    The wacky Global Warming fanatics are out in force today.

    • Dave James

      Name calling is no substitute for rational discussion

      • RealOldOne2

        “Name calling is no substitute for rational discussion.”
        That’s why there’s no rational discussion with members of your climate alarmist religion, because you resort to Holocaust-tarring “denier” name calling when climate realists ask simple questions such as: “Cite one peer reviewed paper that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.”. Your inability to provide empirical science evokes anger and results in name calling, logically fallacious arguments, and general handwaving in order to distract from the fact that you have no answers.

        Eminent scientists recognize that your climate alarmism isn’t science, it’s belief, religion, cult religion:

        “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

        “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )

        “global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/

        “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

        • Dave James

          Your quotes from Dr. Lindzen are no excuse for name-calling.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Your quotes from Dr. Lindzen are no excuse for name-calling.”
            Your lie that I have called names just exposes your dishonesty. Just because you are angry and can’t face the reality that you aren’t doing science, and you are doing religion is no excuse for lying. Sad.

            • Dave James

              I point out that name-calling is no substitute for rational discussion. RealOldOne2 seems to disagree because he writes “That’s why there’s no rational discussion with members of your climate alarmist religion, because you resort to Holocaust-tarring “denier” name calling”

              Not only is RealOldOne2 calling me an religious alarmists. He creates a straw-man argument to knock down rather than address my actual comments. I never tarred anyone with the Holocaust nor have I called anyone a “denier.”

              In contrast, Tom Harris compared the Sierra Club to the Nazis and coal, nuclear, gas and hydro industries to the victims of the Nazis in the Houston Chronicle 4/23/2016. http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/magnolia/opinion/article/TOM-HARRIS-Coal-s-troubles-should-concern-all-9733678.php

              • RealOldOne2

                “Not only is RealOldOne2 calling me an religious alarmists”
                Note that Dave James is avoiding any rational discussion by using the logical fallacy of fabricating a strawman, claiming that I called HIM a religion alarmist, when I did no such thing, as my comment clearly was a factual generalization “members of your climate alarmist religion”. I never said all members. I never said “you”, referring to David James. In context, my “you” was plural for the generalization of members of his climate alarmist religion.

                He dishonestly feigns that he has been insulted in order to accomplish a handwaving distraction in order to avoid having a rational discussion about the climate facts in my reply to his first comment on this article. He avoids at all costs discussing the science that I presented which clearly shows using real world empirical data that CO2 is obviously not the primary driver of climate warming as his climate alarmism cult religion claims. Distraction like this is common among members of his climate alarmism religion, as their dogmas/beliefs can’t stand the scrutiny of empirical science and data. Their religion is built upon flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which predict too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t project future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013). And I would note that his warming stagnation continued for 2+ more years, only ending with natural warming caused by the 2015-2016 El Nino, which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

                And I would also point out the tremendous hypocrisy that Dave James displays when he distracts with his “name-calling” strawman, when his first comment on this article begins with name-calling: “Dr. Tim Ball and Mr. Tom Harris are climate change hoaxers
                Hypocrisy is also a common trait among members of the climate alarmism religion. Their antics make it appear that they use Alinsky’s rules for radicals as their playbook to accomplish their political agenda.

                And if the overly sensitive James takes exception to his being part of a climate religion, his beef is with Dr. Lindzen, Dr. Happer & Dr. Ivaer, for I quoted them who pointed that out.

                It’s obvious to me that Dave James’ logical fallacies, dodging the discussion of science and ad hom attacks against Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris is because he is extremely frustarated and angry because his cherished climate alarmist belief system is being exposed as rubbish pseudoscience by Mother Nature, as the real world data shows the alarmist claims that ‘CO2 is the thermostat that controls the earth’s temperature like Andrew Dresser falsely claims, is pure nonsensical rubbish.

                • Dave James

                  RealOldOne2 does not know the difference between name-calling and rational discussion. RealOldOne2 claims his comment “That’s why there’s no rational discussion with members of your climate alarmist religion” is a “factual generalization” but RealOldOne2 has no understanding of my religious beliefs and calling someone an alarmist is derogatory.

                  RealOldOne2 claims pointing out his fallacious argument is “handwaving distraction in order to avoid having a rational discussion.”

                  If RealOldOne2 read the op ed upon which he is commenting then he would realized Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris called human caused climate change is “the biggest deception in history” and a “hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches all across the world.”

                  • RealOldOne2

                    “RealOldOne2 does not know the difference between name-calling and rational discussion.”
                    Dave James continues to lie and claim that I called him names.
                    Dave James continues to refuse to admit that he was the name-caller when he said: “Dr. Tim Ball and Mr. Tom Harris are climate change hoaxers
                    Thus Dave James’ comments show that he is unable to be honest.

                    And as I predicted, Dave James dodges and avoids discussion of science at all costs because he can’t support his climate cult (per Dr. Happer) beliefs with empirical science.

                    Dave James’ total failure to address any of the climate science issues that I addressed in my previous comment and in my extensive comment to his first comment, shows that he has no interest in having a rational discussion about science, and shows that he is just trolling, attempting to get me angry and call him names. I don’t engage in that kind of childish behavior. I leave that to the angry climate alarmists who can’t support their cult-like beliefs with empirical science.
                    “If RealOldOne2 read the op ed upon which he is commenting…”
                    I did read it. And Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris are correct when they state that the current popular groupthink CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmist movement IS “the biggest deception in history” and a “hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools and churches all across the world”. And I would add that it’s not just a deception and hoax, it’s a fraud and scam too, since it is based on corrupted and fraudulent data, and is bilking people and countries out of hundreds of billions of $ which will have no significant impact on changing the climate.

                    • Dave James

                      That RealOldOne2 agrees with Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris that human caused climate change is hoax does not change the fact that Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris also make that claim in this op ed.

                      RealOldOne2 does understand that “alarmist” has negative connotation and that his speculation about my religious beliefs are a personal attack.

                      RealOldOne2 not only claims human caused climate change is a deception, hoax, fraud and scam, he also believes name calling is valid substitute for rational discussion. RealOldOne2’s reasoning is not sound.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “That RealOldOne2 agrees with Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris that human caused climate change is hoax does not change the fact that Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris also make that claim in this op ed.”
                      Notice Dave James’ total failure of logic with his non sequitur.

                      “RealOldOne2 does understand that “alarmist” has negative connotation and that his speculation about my religious beliefs are a personal attack.”
                      Notice Dave James’ denial of reality that his climate belief system alarms the world about climate catastrophic and climate doom if humans do not curtail emissions of CO2.

                      “he also believes that name calling is valid substitute for rational discussion”
                      Notice Dave James’ continued dishonesty by lying again, saying that I have called him names as a substitute. He couldn’t be any more dishonest, because I have presented much rational discussion of science in my previous comments.

                      And notice Dave James’ projection of his faults onto me, since it is Dave James who has totally failed to even attempt to have any rational discussion of science. He is using logical fallacies and dishonest statements to avoid having a rational discussion. This is because he knows that he can’t refute the science that I have presented which shows that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming, and that the recent climate warming can be explained by solar activity.

                      Dave James’ continued handwaving antics of distraction give evidence that he is becoming very angry and is melting down as he is making less and less sense.

      • RealOldOne2

        This demonstrates the level of intelligence of Dave James’ fellow members of his climate alarmist religion. Quite pathetic.

  • messup

    12,000 years ago, glaciers covered the North American continent (so say some scientists who study these matters). Short while later, these immense sheets of ice receded, thus forming what today are called the “Five Great Lakes” in continental North America (Lake Erie, Huron, etc.). Was this from CO 2, as well? Ice sheets melting in Artic are a result of land ice mass being extremely small while sea water ice is extensive (in Winter months and recedes in summer months). Antartic ice formation is just the opposite…a large land mass, small sea water ice mass…thus less loss of ice sheet formation. But Climate Change Guru’s (touting Carbon Exchange Commission…a redistribution of income scam) won’t state these facts. Pray. Amen. God Bless America and All Americans. Read A Bible. NKJV Psalm 128. For real FACTS study “Anthropic Constants” (all 144 of them).