Global Warming … The Left’s New Religion

The Gazette article “Hundreds turn out to talk Climate” would seem to be a bit of an over stretch. Over the past few decades billions of dollars which have been spent promoting the global cooling then global warming then climate change theory.  And yet, when our NDP government calls for a climate change conference they are only able to attract about 500  people according to their own report.  The reason for this dismal turnout for what Obama called “the most important crisis of our time” is because, like the end of the world religious zealots their frantic end of the world predictions have worn thin as the actual scientific data has continuously shown their theory to have no foundation in fact.

Here is their propaganda:

 The world’s climate has changed at an unprecedented rate since the 1950s due to rising greenhouse gas emissions, the panel wrote in its discussion document for this consultation. That’s led to warming oceans, more extreme weather, and less snow and ice.

 “Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that, without significant action on a global scale, the consequences will be severe,” the panel wrote.”

 Here are the actual facts.

   The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 224 months from January 1997 to August 2015 – more than half the 440-month satellite record.

  1. There has been no warming even though one-third of all anthropogenic forcings since 1750 have occurred since the Pause began in January 1997.
  2.  The entire RSS dataset from January 1979 to date shows global warming at an unalarming rate equivalent to just 1.2 Cº per century.
  3. Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
  4. The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.75 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
  5. The Central England temperature dataset in the 40 years 1694-1733, (the medieval warming period) which was well before the Industrial Revolution, equivalent to 4.33 C°/century which is much more than our global warming trend since 1900.
  6. In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, was higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
  7. The warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1 Cº per century. The IPCC had predicted close to thrice as much.
  8. The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than 15 years that has been measured since 1950.
  9.  The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
Recent extreme-weather events cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming to speak of. It is as simple as that.

It is interesting that the global warming crowd cleverly say that “Scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests  ...." because in the world of hard physical science the data either proves or does not prove a theory ... it doesn't "overwhelmingly suggest" propositions are true.   If it doesn't prove its true ... it remains a "theory" and that is all the global warming crowd have got ... a religious theory about the end of the world. 



Quote 1 0

As you can see, this goes back 50 years...   You can go back further as well, and even further until you note the mini ice age that occurred after years of above normal temperatures.  That was 700 plus years ago.     If you want to focus on clear air, water, better technology to make all vehicles - land and sea - more efficient, then you would stand for something. 

Tired of these man made global warming twits.
Quote 3 0
All the hype about "climate change" is a recycled way for corporations and governments to spread fear in order to obtain more dollars and control over people.  With the help of official names (Gore) or official sounding groups (IPCC), the masses have fallen for the propaganda and are encouraged to shout their morals from the rooftops against those who expect sound proof of this new mass brainwashing.  Sheeple. Baaaa.
Quote 2 0
News Flash! The earth has been warming up since the last ice age! As an ice cube melts and gets smaller it melts faster. Same as for glaciers and polar ice caps. The ratio of warm to cold gets bigger as ice melts. Also as earths population exponentially increases so does its consumption of resources. How ever people look at the earth as being contained in a ballon (the atmosphere). The earth is a living breathing entity. It off gasses, it creates oxygen. It's atmosphere is fluid it moves around - it is not static and stay in one spot. Areas are experiencing snow where their was non decades and centuries ago. Areas are experiencing warmer climates that used to be cooler. It's FLUID it moves around! What ever happened to the fear mongering about the hole in the ozone layer that was the catch phrase 30 yes ago? Now it seems a non issue.

When people like Al Gore admit that they "embellish the facts" (ergo lie) to further their cause they lose all credibility. But he was the Vice President of the U.S. He must know what he's talking about!

End Rant.
Quote 2 0

For those who are interested in why we are shutting down the coal industry, demonizing the oil and gas industry, and spending billions to subsidize things like windmills, it seems that the computer climate models which are the foundation for all the global warming hype are fundamentally flawed.  

In an article titled Scientists Finally Admit Climate Models Are Failing To Predict Global Warming” it is noted that

“A group of scientists recently put out a new study confirming the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming. That study made headlines, but what went largely unnoticed was a major admission made by the paper’s authors: the climate models were wrong.

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” John Fyfe, Canadian climate modeler and lead author of the new paper, told Nature. “We can’t ignore it.”

To Read more see :

Quote 2 0
The Global Warming ideologists do not seem to have any limits.  If you thought witchhunts were a thing of the past, check out this Wall Street Journal article.  The Global Warming Crowd are now attempting to use that American RICO laws against their opponents which brings up images of the old Soviet Union.  See
Quote 0 0
HH.  Came across an interesting article re climate change. I wonder how many can recall the following.  "England's most powerful super computer -- capable of 1,000 billion calculations per second -- was designed to predict climate change. After it was installed in 2009, however, critics noted that the massive, hanger-sized machine requires 1.2 megawatts of energy to operate. Using that much power produces 12,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year, making it one of Great Britain,s single worst contributions to climate change."
Quote 1 0

As 171 Nations Gather to Sign the so-called Landmark Climate Agreement, John Kerry, America's Secretary of State enters the world of fantasia and makes this public statement “The power of this agreement is what it is going to do to unleash the private sector,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said. “The power is the message that it sends to the marketplace.”

So now that we've heard from the Global Warming Crowd's about their dreamworld, lets take a look at some boring facts. The sobering fact is that Solar Companies have been going bankrupt in record numbers. For example, Solar-power company SunEdison Inc. which was worth nearly $10 billion last summer filed for bankruptcy protection on Thursday. Unfortunately SunEdison is the rule not the exception.

Here is a list of bankrupt solar companies in the past few years.

2009 to 2010 Bankrupt, closed Solasta (nano-coaxial solar) closed, SV Solar (low-concentration PV) closed ,Senergen (depositing silane onto free-form metallurgical-grade Si substrates) closed, Signet Solar (a-Si) bankrupt, Sunfilm (a-Si) bankrupt, Wakonda (GaAs) acquired by Siva EPV Solar (bankrupt Stirling Energy Systems (dish engine) bankrupt

2012 Bankrupt, closed Abound Solar (CdTe) bankrupt AQT (CIGS) closed Ampulse (thin silicon) closed Arise Technology (PV modules) bankrupt, Azuray (microinverters) closed, BP (c-Si panels) exits solar business , Centrotherm (PV manufacturing equipment) bankrupt and restructured CSG (c-Si on glass) closed by Suntech Day4 Energy (cell interconnects) delisted from TSX exchange ECD (a-Si) bankrupt, Energy Innovations (CPV) bankrupt, Flexcell (a-Si roll-roll BIPV) closed, GlobalWatt (solar) closed, GreenVolts (CPV) closed, G24i (DSCs)
bankrupt in 2012, re-emerged as G24i Power with new investors, Hoku (polysilicon) shut down its Idaho polysilicon production facility, Inventux (a-Si) bankrupt, Konarka (OSCs) bankrupt, Odersun (CIGS) bankrupt, Pramac (a-Si panels built with equipment from Oerlikon) insolvent, Pairan (Germany inverters) insolvent, Ralos (developer) bankrupt, REC Wafer (c-Si) bankrupt, Satcon (BoS) bankrupt, Schott (c-Si) exits c-Si business, Schuco (a-Si) shutting down its a-Si business, Sencera (a-Si) closed, Siliken (c-Si modules) closed, Skyline Solar (LCPV) closed, Siemens (CSP, inverters, BOS) divestment from solar, Solar Millennium (developer) insolvent, Solarhybrid (developer) insolvent, Sovello (Q-Cells, Evergreen, REC JV) bankrupt, SolarDay (c-Si modules) insolvent, Solar Power Industries (PV modules) bankrupt, Soltecture (CIGS BIPV) bankrupt, Sun Concept (developer) bankrupt

2013 Bankrupt, closed Array Converter (Module-level power electronics) bankrupt, IP to VC investor , Avancis (CIGS) discontinuing production, Bosch (c-Si PV module) exits module business, Concentrator Optics (CPV) bankrupt, Cyrium (CPV semiconductors) bankrupt, Direct Grid (microinverters) closed, EiQ (Module-level power electronics) closed, GreenRay (microinverters) closed, Helios Solar (c-Si modules) bankrupt, Hoku Solar (silicon) bankrupt, Honda Soltec (CIGS thin-film modules) closing, Infinia (Stirling engine CSP) bankrupt, Nanosolar (CIGS) closed, Pythagoras Solar (BIPV) closed, Solarion (CIGS) went bankrupt but restructured and in limited production, SolFocus (CPV) bankrupt, Sunsil (module level electronics) closed, Suntech Wuxi (c-Si) bankrupt, Tioga (project developer) closed, Willard & Kelsey (CdTe panels) bankrupt, ZenithSolar (CHP) bankrupt

Somehow I'm getting the feeling that this Solar Panel Industry is not all sunshine. After all, if memory serves me correctly when Solyndra went down it cost the American taxpayers about 780 million ... so I'm wondering what is the true cost to the taxpayer when you look at the list above. 

Quote 2 0

The drama in the U.S. over which bathroom a transgender is required to use is, at first glance, a absurd political drama. However, underneath the rhetoric and posturing is a more serious question, namely: how are we going to define Truth?

The transgenders take the position that gender is a matter of "personal identity" rather than physical facts. In other words their "true gender" is simply a matter of a deeply felt subjective belief. Those who oppose the claim that transgenders should be able to choose which public bathroom they use, hold the position that gender is a matter of physical realities which can easily be verified.

This raises the question .... how is truth defined? Is "truth" a matter of a deeply felt belief [subjectivism] or is it a scientifically verifiable fact? [objectivism]

This dispute about "truth" in the transgender bathroom debates seems rather supercilious. However, when this debate about "truth" migrates into areas like the global warming debate it takes on a more serious and sinister significance. The global warming alarmists have a deeply held belief that man-made CO2 is a major driving force causing catastrophic global warming. They say this is the "truth" because it is a deeply held belief by an "overwhelming consensus of climatologists." This is truth by subjective consensus. The global warming skeptics argue that there is no historical scientifically verifiable correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and global increases in temperature. They argue that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere occurs centuries after the planet has experienced a global warming and therefore CO2 does not cause global warming. This is truth by correspondence between objective facts and perceptions.

Since this global warming alarmism has taken political centre stage, it has cost the taxpayers and the economy billions of dollars which could have been directed to other priorities. Maybe if society would spend less time on their "deeply held feelings" about issues and took a quick look in their pants they might find rational solutions to actual problems rather than expending time, money, and energy on non-existent issues like transgender public bathrooms for less than 1% of the population and global warming which has been repeatedly predicted but never occurs.

Quote 1 0
Head Honcho
I thought theskeptic might enjoy this.

Quote 1 0

"Shouting down the opposition?"

Two months ago Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted during congressional testimony that Justice Department attorneys were looking into punishment for the fossil fuel industry and certain individuals, including academics and researchers. Their crime? Rejection or denial of climate change and therefore being opposed to President Obama's agenda on the issue. 

Now that's what I call "shouting down the opposition."  They started out calling anyone who challenged their global cooling/global warming/climate change theory as "deniers"  and "flat earthers' but their ad hominem attacks didn't seem to "end the debate" so now they plan to use the legal system and the Courts in an effort to silence their opponent.  The Spanish Inquisition has nothing on this modern religion.
Quote 0 0

In another fear mongering effort, the United Nations has just put out a report warning the world that due to rising seas as a result of global warming/climate change, the Statute of Liberty could soon be underwater.

Since the Statute of Liberty is 161 feet above present sea level, it would seem that if the oceans rise by 160 plus feet civilization will have a lot more concerns than worrying about the Statute of Liberty.  (You just can't make this stuff up! ... it's beyond absurd)

Quote 0 0
Do you have a link to this United Nations Report?

I have found a few articles referring to the possibility that rising sea levels coupled with extreme weather events such as Hurricane Sandy may cause flooding of Liberty Island but nothing that talks of submerging the Statue of Liberty. Authorities are moving electrical systems 20ft above sea level but I can find no reference to water levels possibly rising to the height that you suggest, i.e. 161 ft.

Quote 0 0
forchatonly:  check this out

The base of the Statute of Liberty is about 160 feet above the present sea level ... hence the fear mongering greatly exceeds the bounds of reason..... but it does keep the tax subsidies flowing.
Quote 0 0
What is it about climate change politicians who are willing to blow two to three tons of carbon each trip flying back and forth across this country to do a face to face when technology has evolved to do a face to face without contributing to their carbon footprint? And where is the outcry from climate change believers? Hypocrisy at its best.
Quote 1 0

So when our omniscient provincial government starts on their program to eliminate coal as a fuel to generate cheap electricity, bear in mind that modern clean coal technologies have scrubbers that are capable of reducing sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, mercury, acid gases, and other emissions from coal generation plant by 90% to 99.9%.

However, I bet that our politicians won't be willing to admit they are destroying the coal industry and eliminating a source for cheap energy with no effective difference occurring to air quality. I'll bet they will all be out taking bows and pinning anti global warming medals on each other's chests.

Quote 0 0

It is curious as to how St. Albert politics is often a microcosm of movements occurring on the much larger national scenes.

In St. Albert we have just experienced the City's Administration attempting to use the legal system to stifle free speech and political dissent. Draper, as the front man for the City, initiated a trumped up defamation action against Hennigar to create a "day of reckoning" for those who had the temerity to criticize City Hall. It became obvious this whole legal exercise was nothing more than a fishing expedition to discover the names of other citizens who opposed many of the things going on at City Hall. It seemed that political discourse which the Administration did not approve made you a potential defendant in their defamation action. George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" seemed alive and well in St. Albert.

In the United States we now see the Global Warming crowd, through the auspices of the Attorney Generals offices, are issuing subpeonas against Exxon and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a not for profit organization which is skeptical of the global warming theory) , seeking decades’ worth of climate-change research and communications with scores of third-party think tanks, foundations, universities, scientists, and others. The justification for this draconian action is that, in the Global Warming Alarmist's opinion, the risks of global warming are so important and the scientific basis for them so settled that disputing them constitutes fraud. George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" seems alive and well in the United States of America.

So here is a crowd who can't win their global warming argument simply because (a) the empirical data does not correspond to their global warming theory, (b) their predictions of future catastrophes never materialize thereby casting much doubt on their "science", and (c) their attempt to revise climate history and revise research data have been exposed. [climategate]  So now, in an attempt to stifle dissent, the high priests of Global Warming have launched an Orwellian effort to outlaw research that dares question the soundness of computer-predicted climate catastrophes or costly policy proposals aimed at mitigating unproven man-made climate change.

It is time to put an end to this technocracy and return to democracy.

Quote 0 0

Thanks for the link


I checked it out and it does not support what you said  viz. “the Statute of Liberty could soon be underwater. “ and neither does it say that the pedestal would be submerged. I found the original report upon which this story is based


Page 7 discusses Ellis and Liberty Islands and again there is no mention of the statue or its pedestal being submerged. It refers to the island having been  inundated with water after Hurricane Sandy and recommends that steps be taken to protect the island against even worse events. To this end the authorities are raising important utilities a height of 20 ft. Obviously they are predicting something considerably less than 161 ft.


I think you have read too much into the report.

Quote 0 0
forchatonly:  Yes and all that talk about the oceans rising ... with the innuendo that it is abnormal and man-made has no foundation in fact ... the oceans are rising a miniscule amount each century as a normal result from the end of the ice age.  

So why are the fear mongers talking about the Statute of Liberty .... answer ... to create an innuendo that the oceans are rising and going to put an end to the American way of life as people know it ... as symbolized by the Statute of Liberty.  in other words ... crass propaganda since the actual scientific data does not support their alarmism.

For a balanced account re: oceans rising ... check out
Quote 0 0

It seems that most people accept the anthropogenic global warming/climate change theory simply because they understand that 97% of all climate scientists believe that global warming is caused primarily by human activity. So this raises the question: is the 97% consensus theory actually the case?"

The 97% consensus theory is based on the Cook study which is now discredited because:

(a) it simply analyzed how many scientists believe that human acctivity has some influence on climate .... and almost every scientist will admit that human activity has some influence on climate as that is not the issue in contention. The actual issue is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

On this last question there is no where near a 97% consensus in fact some 31,487 scientists signed the Oregon Petition expressly denying the AGW theory.

(b)to get their 97% figure 

(i) they deceptively categorized many scientific papers as supporting the AGW theory when in fact they simply acknowledged the human component as part of the climate equation, and the authors were known skeptics, and

(ii) they simply didn't count and ignored the thousands of scientific papers which were silent on the global warming issue because the causes were considered uncertain.

"By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question in the global warming debate and then demanding an explicit, unsolicited refutation of the assertion in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian, Cook and colleagues misleadingly induce people to believe 97 percent of publishing scientists believe in a global warming crisis when that is simply not the case." [See: Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims by James Taylor ]

So it is this one misleading study which is relied on for the 97% consensus rhetoric and the very fact that they are using the "truth by consensus theory" to muster support for a scientific theory shows how embarrassingly feeble are foundations upon which the AGW actually rests.

Quote 0 0

The philosopher Santayana once said " "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." and it looks like we are doomed.

In 1998 Michael Mann developed his theory of measuring global warming using tree rings as a proxy. Mann rewrote climate history to eliminate the midieval global warming period and his graph showed temperature was relatively flat and stable until about 1900 whereupon it took a dramatic upward trend forming the blade of the "hockey stick." Two Canadians, MacIntyre and McKitrick eventually exposed this fraud and demonstrated that the algorithm were "fixed" so that no matter what temperature data was inserted ... you ended up with a hockey stick graph. In the meantime the UN's. IPCC and Al Gore had used this graph as the foundation stone for their global warming propaganda and the climate alarmism movement was off and running.

Today, in Alberta we have the Pembina Institute, a climate change extremist group, which has produced a study on coal emissions titled "Costly Diagnosis" purportedly showing the health problems caused by coal fired electricity plants. The Pembina Institute report is based on a health-illness computer model, not actual patient records and misrepresents the facts about coal-fired power plant emissions, exaggerating them by 15 fold. Their study states states that coal emission particulate into the atmosphere is about 6% of human-made emissions and that carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants cause climate change and wildfires.

Examining the actual empirical data, the Environment Canada's 2011 study shows that coal-fired emissions are only 0.4%. In fact Alberta has an excellent legislative record in controlling emissions from coal fired electrical plants and our current laws require the latest technology (scrubbers) be installed to prevent over 90% of particulate emissions. In fact, coal plant emissions cannot possibly contribute to "global warming" since Alberta’s carbon dioxide emissions barely register on NASA’s recent satellite observations of earth. Human-made carbon dioxide emissions are only 5% of 0.039% of the atmosphere. In actual fact, Alberta's coal fired electrical plant emissions contribute neither to Alberta's health problems or the so called "global warming."

Will the actual empirical facts interfere with this current governments plans to irradicate the coal industry and coal fired electical generation plants? Not likely as the propaganda is all too pervasive and the global warming ideology is a vote getter for Left Wing political parties.

Further why should anyone oppose this anti scientific global warming/ climatechange ideology? Cheap electrical energy, as is produced in coal fired plants, is one of the foundation stones upon which our health care system and other modern conveniences is dependant. Ontario has embarked on this war against electrical coal plants and they are now facing a 27% rise in power prices and will be reducing health service in order to manage. Moving from coal fired power plants in Alberta would not only dramatically increase power costs it would require an estimated cash outlay of about 11 billion dollars and produce not one demonstrable benefit.

However, it is probably worth it because we can all sit back an feel "warm and fuzzy", intellectually superior to those "deniers", and morally self satisfied because we did our bit to solve climate change even though the economically disadvantaged and indeed the whole society will suffer immensely.

Possibly if the general public were aware of the history of Michael Mann's climate hockey stick graph they would recognize that this Pembina Institute's study“A Costly Diagnosis: Subsidizing Coal Power with Albertans’ Health” is simply a sad repetition of history. However, the best guess is that Albertans will sit back and listen to the media drum up hysteria about coal fired electrical plants, accept it as gospel and do nothing because after all they "heard it in the news so it must be true."

Quote 0 0

In an act of blind, if not religious, devotion to the Global Warming/Climate Change ideology, Notley has announced a plan to phase out our 18 coal fired power plants even though it will cost 10,000 jobs, ruin those communities, and impair Alberta's ability to function in the global markets. According to the President of the Coal Association this move will triple the cost of electricity for the consumer.

And what is Notley's response??? She replies “I think they are making up numbers at this point."

Of course Notley, with a BA in Poli Sci and a law degree would have a complete grasp on the cost of producing electricity and an intricate understanding of the coal industry. Hence, there would be no reason to believe the President of the Coal Association, Robin Campbell, in the face of her unchallengeable expertise in the field.

However, just on the off chance Rachael actually has no idea what she is talking about and is simply proceeding on Left Wing ideology, lets take a peek at what happened in Kathleen Wynne's utopia otherwise known as Ontario.

Ontario's auditor general filed a report which states: "Ontarians have paid $37-billion more than market price for electricity over eight years and will pay another $133-billion extra by 2032 as a result of haphazard planning and political meddling,..... The Liberal government has repeatedly overruled expert advice – and even tore up two long-term plans from the Ontario Power Authority for the electricity system – in favour of political decisions that drove up power costs for consumers..."

In other words, this whole Global Warming/Climate Change ideology in which Ontario doled out piles of corporate welfare behind closed doors to subsidize windmills and solar panels is, combined with the uncertainty this political interference has produced in the market place , has destroyed cheap energy in Ontario. As a consequence, their manufacturing sector cannot compete in the global market, their population on lower incomes are suffering from high electrical bills, and nature is continuing to effect climate completely oblivious to Kathleen Wynne's dictates.


Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
Who do one believe?

Desperate Claim: Greenland’s 2015 melt records consistent with ‘Arctic amplification’

Quote 0 0

It seems that the question is not whether there has been a cut off of a high pressure system in the Greenland area during the summer of 2015.  And the question is not whether such a cut off results in warmer temperatures for Greenland.  Those events are apparently agreed upon by scientists and such cut offs have occurred naturally in the past. 

The question is as to whether man-made CO2 CAUSED that cut off of a high pressure system to occur or whether it was simply a natural variability since weather is always chaotic and changing.

In order to believe that this high pressure cut off was the result of manmade CO2 you have to believe:

1)       That CO2 increases occur BEFORE climate temperature increases; and

2)      The % of CO2 that mankind emits and adds to the greenhouse gas composition constitutes a significant and material change to produce this global warming.

3)      That increase in temperature caused the high pressure system cut off.

So here is the causation problem for the man made global warming proponents:

First, does CO2 CAUSE global warming?

1)      For event A to cause event B … event A must occur before event B (This is why for example there are no cases of posthumous suicides and no … Hitler’s defeat in Russia in 1942 did not cause Napolean’s defeat at the doors of Moscow in 1815)

2)      The historical data shows that increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere occur after AFTER there has been a recorded global warming.  The reason is because as the global temperature increases [due to the sun’s variation in heat emissions ]… the oceans gradually warms and emits CO2 into the atmosphere

 Secondly, does man-made CO2 constitute a significant and material change?

 Here is the data showing the % of CO2 in the atmosphere and the % of CO2 that is man made


Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics

 % of Greenhouse Effect

% Natural

% Man-made

 Water vapor




 Carbon Dioxide (CO2)




 Methane (CH4)




 Nitrous Oxide (N2O)




 Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.)









Even though water (H2O) is the most voluminous and most important greenhouse gas, you are being asked to believe that the man made 0.117 % of the CO2 in the atmosphere caused an increase in global temperature which caused a cut off of a high pressure system in Greenland when these cut offs have also occurred in the geological past before the industrial age.  

Thirdly, you are asked to believe that increased temperatures caused the high pressure system cut off?  The problem here is that there has been no increase in temperature for about 18 years (the hiatus) which leaves open the question …. How could a non-existent temperature change cause the high pressure system cut off?

The choice is yours.  

Quote 0 0
Head Honcho
And now this:

Spot the problem: Man-made emissions flat, but global CO2 hits record high
Quote 0 0