Carbon Dioxide (CO2) :
Over the past several decades, there have been many statements made about higher levels of CO2 and how this increases the planet’s temperatures. Many of these people have been influenced by positional arguments. Many independent scientists present the position on natural variability, as the most causal factor of climate change. Scientist. In support of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say climate change is the fault of humans and their rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels since the Industrial revolution. The latter group of scientist discounts the natural variability of Climate Change in favor of human causes, primarily through the increased use of fossil fuels and therefore they contend the decreased use of fossil fuels is the only way to curb increase in our planet’s temperature.
Lets have a quick look at what has been said on both sides of this debate.
Pro Con Org explains it this way:
Some scientist report temperatures on earth have increased approximately 1.8°F since the early 20th century. Over this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. Most scientists on both sides in the debate surrounding Global Climate change agree on these points.
The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts. They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate change.
The other side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the earth’s orbit, the sun’s heat, and ocean currents.
These scientists also say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science.
It should be added that the discussions on both sides of the debate gets a bit more animated than that in the above explanation.
The pro-side claim the wicked ingredient is CO2 and the culprit is ‘we the people’ thus; the anthropogenic or human induced climate change is the cause.
Before we go on, lets first understand the magnitude of CO2 in our atmosphere.
Atmosphere Composition consists of: (total 100 percent of the atmosphere)
Nitrogen: 78.080 %
Oxygen: 20.950 %
Argon: 0.930 %
Carbon Dioxide: 0.038 %
Trace Gases: 0.040 %
One can readily see in the Earth Science Graph that Carbon Dioxide is a very small portion of the gases that make up our atmosphere.
Figure 19: With such a small percentage of our atmosphere being made up of Carbon Dioxide, it is certainly in the Trace Gas category and not in the group with Nitrogen and Oxygen and not even Argon.
The bottom line; CO2 is only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere and about the same as the of total of other trace gases. If CO2 levels were doubled, it would still be less than 0.08 % of the total atmosphere. As stated before, that is not very much. With that understanding lets begin a review some other aspects of CO2 that might be informative and interesting.
Over the last 50 years our CO2 levels have been between 300 and 400 PPM. Before we go on, we need to make sure we all understand more about PPM.
This is an abbreviation for “parts per million” and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means virtually the same thing.
One ppm is equivalent to the absolute fractional amount multiplied by one million. A better way to think of ppm is to visualize putting four drops of ink in a 55-gallon barrel of water and mixing it thoroughly. This procedure would produce an ink concentration of 1 ppm. Some other analogies that may help visualize the scale involved with ppm.
One ppm is like:
- One inch in 16 miles,
- One second in 11.5 days,
- One minute in two years
Now with that, let’s take a look at historical CO2 levels, and in doing so let’s start with the real early years on our planet.
During the Ordovician Period, which was about 450 million years ago, the planet had CO2 level of 2400 to 9000 PPM. That’s 6 to 25 times as much as the CO2 level today.
During the dinosaur years, or about 65 million years ago, CO2 was about five times that of today, that’s about 1,500 to 2000 PPM
Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been up to sixteen times higher or (16 x 400 = 6,400 PPM) about 60 million years ago without producing runaway greenhouse effects.
Other periods experienced two to four times current levels of CO2 with some warming. For virtually all of the period from around 125 million to about 75,000 years ago, CO2 levels were markedly higher than now.
New research suggests that the CO2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today.
Based on the best science available, CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD, or during the Medieval Warm or about 800 years ago.
Let’s review a graph from Chapter One in the context of CO2 and temperatures. If CO2, created by fossil fuel burning, causes the planet’s temperatures to increase, why did the temperatures increase before the burning of fossil fuels?
Figure 2 and 20 Institute of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz Germany
Well, the above graph certainly indicates our Planet Earth experienced both warming and cooling thousands of years before the burning of fossil fuels.
Professor Carl-Otto Wiess, advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy. A former President of the National Metrology Institute of Germany Braunschweig used spectral analysis of all long-term climate data to show that all climate change is due to natural cycles and there is no signal at all from our CO2 emissions.
Dr. Weiss makes the following conclusions is his presentations:
- Climate change during the recent centuries is periodic
- Warming since 1870 attributed to CO 2 is in reality caused by the -200 year De Vries Cycle
- Present cooling and increased warming 1970 to 1997 is due to 65 year period Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations and Pacific Decadal Oscillations (AMO/PDO)
- Measurements: No trace of warming by CO2. All change is natural.
Do you remember AMO and PDO from our discussion on the oceans?
With all of this said about Global Warming, Climate Change, and CO2 levels; what are the reasons some people try so hard to convince everyone of their distorted human causal opinions
Two Reasons: Power and Money
Yes, it’s all about power and money. Let’s start with the power issue.
Earlier, it was said that most Democrats jumped on the Global Warning and Climate Change bandwagon. While that’s probably true, it is perhaps more precise if we say most “Globalist” jumped on the Global Warming and Climate Change bandwagon. So, you might ask why is that true. Globalist and United Nations needed a global purpose that is greater than any particular country to push their desire for Globalism and One World Government. It has become a Religion to Globalist, from those in some governments, some academic institutions, and of course, virtually every department in the United Nations. The Globalist and the folks in the United Nations seek Power to further their cause and they believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, IPPC can provide that through Global Climate Change Initiative.
Virtually everyone involved in academics, scientific endeavors, and research activity has a chance to receive some money for their work, if it relates to Global Warming and Climate Change. MIT Technology Review says worldwide expenditures on Global Warming, Climate Change, and anthropogenic or human induced CO2 will be US$44 Trillion between now and 2050. One goal of the Paris Agreement is to raise US$100 Billion a year by 2020 and Globalists want that money to keep flowing at the expense of United States and other large funding countries. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office the US Government funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaption has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to #11.6 billion in 2014 with another $26.i billion in the American Recovery and Restoration act of 2009.
Globalization, United Nations, and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
The Global Warming and Climate Change story is the fundamental pillar of Globalization, the United Nations and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The United Nations loves every degree the temperature goes up and down, as they blame both warming and cooling on Global Warming and Climate Change. The more emphasis they can place on Global Warming, the more money they can extract from developed nations for their pet projects. The United Nations love the Carbon Tax to fund their Global Government.
To aid in their quest for increases funding for their agenda, it has been reported by a number of sources that IPCC’s climate models are not accurate. They have simply overstated the temperature increase. In fact, the overstatement has become known as Climategate. Now that we have mentioned Climategate, It might be interesting to review an article titled “Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate,” written by James Taylor and was in Forbes on November 11, 2011.
“A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.”
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories,and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in this area of science would be to delete all emails at the end of the process, “writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept. of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?”
Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
Since the article mentions Judith Curry, it would be worthwhile to review a bit more about her, as she is very knowledge about the Climate world.
Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.
Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.
Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the “Uncertainty Monster”in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a “wicked problem.” Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.
Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.
Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[
In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate.”
In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface, She wrote: “I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments.” She gets “zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting,” but hopes that “social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.”
Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.
In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.
In April 2015 Curry gave evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge. She summed up her evidence:
The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100… The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.
A September 2017 article published in the Nature Geosciences Journal, the largely UK-based climate scientists corroborated the claims in the media that IPCC climate models are “wrong” and have significantly overestimated the observed warming of the planet. Climategate has become a leading search among people wanting to learn more about IPCC.
The United Nations and their IPCC are becoming so emboldened that they now even openly admit their true agenda. Mark Morano a climate writer says: Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth.’
The following is what he is referring to:
“Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, ‘One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.’
Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
Some have asked, were the Obama Administration Official’s complicit in supporting the United Nations and IPCC.
“A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.
NOAA’s politically sensationalized 2015 Thomas R. Karl study retroactively altered historical climate change data to eliminate a well-known “climate change hiatus” . . . a temperature period between 1998 and 2013 during which global temperatures remained flat despite much ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Instead, the report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperature had been rising even faster than expected.
Although satellite measurements since 1979 show virtually none outside underreported margins of error, the altered record data now makes 2010 appear just enough warmer to suggest a media headline-prompting upward trend.
Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s, while U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. In fact, there have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.”
This is truly a massive ‘redistribution of wealth’ program. The United States has been paying a disproportionate share. In fact, we do not even know how much we are paying as the Obama Administration made many desperate commitments.
It is estimated that we are spending $77bn on climate change programs and the expenditures are spread across many government agencies, Bloomberg states: ‘That will make it difficult for the Trump administration to sweep all of it away in this budget.’
Thus far, we have pledged $3bn to United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF) and have paid $1 Billion. In one of his last acts as president, on January 17, 2017, with only three days remaining in office, Barack Obama sent $500 Million to the fund.
Through the Global Climate Change Initiative(GCCI), the State Department is a major funder of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), providing roughly 20% of its operating budget.
The Paris Accord is voluntary and Our Congress never approved the agreement. It was therefore, was certainly open for change and/or being dropped by any country.
The question is why stay in any Climate Change Accord developed by the United Nations and the IPCC, especially when it is not based on scientific fact and the United Nations’ officials even admit it is a scheme to redistribute wealth.
Let’s now look at the ice coverage on ourplanet, as that has also received a great deal of coverage in the press.
There is one other areas that we should at least comment on, as it has also been talked about a great deal in the Climate Change news.
Our Planet’s Ice Coverage:
There has been so much said about our planet’s ice coverage. Some say it is rapidly melting and will cause a drastic rise in the planet’s seas and oceans. Because of this, we should review what has happened in with ice levels the past and what is currently happening.
Let’s first examine the past with some comments about he largest concentrations of ice and that means Antarctica as number one and Greenland as number two.
Antarctic Sea Ice:
A NASA study uses satellite data from NASA’s ICEsat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) and the European Remote-sensing Satellite to derive its results, which are based on precision measurements of the elevation of the ice sheet and how that is changing over time. The key finding is that snow-related mass gain atop the ice sheet is more than compensating for the flow of ice outward in glaciers that reach the sea.
“Our interpretation is that this has been going on since the beginning of the last ice age when the snowfall over the continent doubled, the accumulation over the continent doubled, as shown in ice cores,” says H. Jay Zwally, the lead author and a longtime NASA expert on the planet’s ice sheets and methods for studying them with satellites.
More specifically, the research asserts that a “dynamic thickening” of ice over time has occurred as a result of this snowfall. Or as a NASA explanation puts it, “This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.”
However, this contradicts many other results, including those derived using a different NASA tool — the Grace satellites, twin measurement devices that orbit the Earth and measure the changing mass of ice based on differential tugs of gravity on the spacecraft as they pass over it. Accordingly, numerous scientists have expressed skepticism, to varying degrees, about the new research.
Andrew Shepherd, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds in the UK who was an author of one of the recent studies cited above finding net Antarctic mass loss, puts it this way in an e-mail to the Post:
Zwally and his team have tried to account for snowfall, which masks changes in the thickness of the polar ice sheets. It’s right to attempt this, but in places where nothing much happens – like the interior of Antarctica, which is a vast desert – it’s really quite difficult to be sure that snowfall can be simulated with enough precision to detect ice imbalance. Fortunately we now have many different ways to examine Earth’s ice sheets – from space and on foot – and I’m confident that we can get to the bottom of this contradiction by taking everything into account.
Geoscientist Christopher Harig made the following comment about the measurement.
Harig defended the GRACE measurements and the finding that Antarctica is losing mass, and said that a key part of the difference between his research and the new study involves how researchers handle something called “glacial isostatic adjustment” or GIA, which refers to the rising of land as the weight of ice has been removed from it since the last ice age.
The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.
The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles. Furthermore 10th Century Vikings lived, farmed, and grazed livestock on the grasslands of Greenla
Figure 21: Studies indicate the 10th-century Vikings were able to colonize Greenland because of unusually warm weather and fertile grazing lands. This photo is of the Hvalsey church. It is the location of the last written record of the Norse settlement in Greenland, a 1408 wedding.
From the genetic material of organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.
“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.
Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.
“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.
The findings, detailed in the July 6 2017 issue of the Journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach.
“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” study team member Matthew Collins, a bimolecular archaeologist at the University of York, said in a related Science news article.
Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples.
The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as Antarctic. “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom.
Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said.
“There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.
There is plenty of ice in Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland. The ice experts in the above organizations say; “Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims.”
Some added climate facts: We’re in the 17th year of NO increase in global temperature. 2. Sea level continues to rise at about 7 inches every 100 years. 3. Temperatures have also risen 0.6 degrees C each 100 years. Point 2 and 3 will continue more or less until next Ice age.
We should be thankful we are not living during a major ice age or even the little ice age. Most of North America and Europe was covered in thousands of feet of ice during the last big ice age. In the most recent little ice age, you could walk from Sweden to Germany. In addition, The River Thames was frozen over with all kind of winter activities,
Yes, we have had Climate Change, in the past, in the present and will have in the future as well. Between 1900 and 2000 a number of dire predictions were made. These ranged from the total melting of sea ice, the extinction of Polar Bears to Global Temperatures rapidly escalating. It was even said, “Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within 10 years, the world would reach a point of no return.” With that said, lets review some climate related facts.
Some Interesting Climate Facts:
We know we have very good proxy temperature records going back 5000 years
We know that Planet Earth both warms and cools
We know we are recovering from little ice age since Valley Forge
We know we were warming from 1978 to 1998
We know we have been cooling since 1998
We know there are a number of natural cycles of warning and cooling
We know that five times more people die from a cold climate than from a warm climate
We know that the Worldwide Glacier Mass is growing faster than it is shrinking
We know the Polar Bear count has gone from 5000 in 1960 to 25,000 in 2015
We know during the days of the Dinosaurs, the CO2 was 1800-PPM
We know the CO 2 in a meeting room with 20 to 25 people is around 2000-PPM
We know from physics that CO 2 as a part of greenhouse gas that keeps the planet warm
We know that temperatures go up first and higher CO 2 levels follows
We know CO 2 is a by product of warming and that warming is not a by product of CO2
We know CO 2 is food for plants and higher CO 2 levels increase crop yields
We know CO2 is a trace substance
We know when the atmosphere warms the CO 2 dissipates. Check your next soda drink
Summary of Closing Thoughts
- Scientific Investigation supports historical and ongoing climate change and variability
- Science should be allowed to be scientific without being influenced by any political ideologies
- Science is never settled and the debate is never over
- Science is not a set of settled known facts and values
- Science is a process, not a conclusion
- Scientific Reality and Consensus are not always compatible
- Science shou ld be sacred to the truth
- Science is not a religion or an ideology
References Sources: (Chapter 1 – 6)
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Ice and Snow Data Center
National Center for Atmospheric Research
United Nations International Panel on Climate Change
CERN — European Organization for Nuclear Research
North Carolina State University
Arizona State University
University of Cincinnati
University of Alabama
University of Winnipeg
University of Delaware
California Institute of Technology
University of Adelaide, Australia
Real Climate Change
The Heartland Institute
Real Climate Science
Oppenheimer Ranch Project
Nature Geosciences Journal
Principia Scientific International
Jay H. Lehr, PhD, is the senior scientist at AR Environmental Services Inc. and Science Director at The Heartland Institute.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. He has studied global climate change for five decades.
John Casey, Consultant and Writer, national space policy advisor for USA, a field engineer, as well as a NASA consultant and author. His first book, Cold Sun, was published in 2011.
Tim Ball, PhD taught in the Department of Geography at University of Winnipeg. He is Canadian public speaker, writer, and a historical climatologist.
Ivan Giaever, PhD is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in 1973 in Physics. He is a Professor Emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
John Christy, PHD is a climate scientist at University of Alabama, with interest in satellite remote sensing of global climate. His MS and PhD is in Atmospheric Science
Judith Curry, PhD is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Piers Corbyn, has BS in Physics from Imperial College of London and MS in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College. Piers is the owner of Action Weather
Attila Kilinc, PhD, Geochemistry – Geology is a professor of experimental and computational geochemistry University of Cincinnati
Professor Carl-Otto Wiess, Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy; former President of the German Meteorological Institute, Braunschweig.
Joel M. Kaufman, PhD Organic Chemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emeritus, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Science in Philadelphia, PA