The Agenda Behind Global Warming Alarmism

Published July 18, 2017

Here’s an intriguing question for you: In a room 20 feet by 20 feet with a ten foot ceiling, how many matches would you have to light for the air in that room to have the same percentage of carbon dioxide as is emitted into the atmosphere annually by all the automobiles (about 800 million) in the world ? The answer is provided by Ivar Giaever, a Nobel laureate in physics, who says the calculation is relatively simple. The answer is one match. Incredible, isn’t it? The number of vehicles is huge. But the atmosphere is so vastly larger that mankind’s carbon dioxide emissions are trivial to our survival or that of the planet. Of course, if people understood that, they wouldn’t support regulating fossil fuels to prevent global warming. Ergo, the need for global warming alarmism.

The alarmism got a big push in June 1988 when James Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute, testified before a senate committee that he was “99 percent” sure that global warming was already underway. He was a very small minority in the scientific community, but that’s not the impression the media gave. The same media that scarcely a decade earlier were publicizing warnings of a coming ice age pounced on Hansen’s statement and were now filling the public with warnings of the opposite threat and familiar claims that something must be done “before it’s too late.”

The scientific community was less impressionable than the public. At the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union a few months after Hansen’s testimony, only a single scientist could be found who thought the greenhouse effect had begun. Jerome Namias, who spent 30 years with the National Weather Service before moving to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, said other factors explain recent weather “quite adequately without the greenhouse effect.” William Sprigg, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said, “The case has not been made that greenhouse gases explain what we see.”

Andrew R. Solow of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution wrote in December 1988, “Some will say that the scientific establishment demands an unreasonable degree of certainty before accepting a new idea. But in the case of climate change, and particularly with regard to detecting change with existing data, it is not a question of evidence being tenuous. It is a question of there being no evidence at all.” (Italics added.) Yet the media in general continued to discuss the greenhouse effect as though it represented a widely-held scientific opinion, if not an incontrovertible fact.

Then came the 1995 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It brought dramatic change in the public’s acceptance of global warming. The report had two parts: one was the long text of the research by scientists; the other, the “Summary For Public Officials”—which is the only part most people ever read—was written by persons who received political appointments. They were not politicians but public servants who were taking orders from the governments that signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.The Summary was supposed to be based on the research—but it was written before the research was done. And the research was then “adjusted” to fit the summary, rather than the other way around. Here is a description of the process by climatologist Vincent Gray, Ph.D., who is the only person to have been involved in all the publications of the IPCC since its inception.

“The Environmental Movement is an anti-science pseudo religion which believes that humans are destroying ‘The Planet.’… In the 1980s a group of rogue scientists, who supported this dogma, suggested that the public and governments would accept it more readily if it was a ‘settled’ opinion of a sufficiently large group of scientists. They invented a new pseudo-scientific model of the climate which ignored the scientific understanding of the climate built up by generations of meteorologists. It claimed that climate is controlled by human–related emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.

“They persuaded the World Meteorological Association and their own United Nations Environment Programme to set up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to gather together scientific material to support this project in preparation for the Rio Earth Summit in 1991 which launched the deception….

“The IPCC has now issued five major Reports. These have been amazingly successful in persuading governments all over the world that they can prevent what is alleged to control “global warming” by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases. The main mechanism for ensuring uniformity of thought is applied by the presence in all of the IPCC Reports of a “Summary for Policymakers” at the beginning. This is really a Summary BY Policymakers, because it is dictated, line by line by the government representatives who control the IPCC to a group of reliable ‘Drafting Authors.’

“The Chapters of each Report are arranged in such a way as to promote the idea of climate change caused by greenhouse gas increases. Actual climate observations are either obscured, or ‘smoothed,’ ‘filtered’, ‘linearized’, ‘interpolated’, with ‘outliers’ eliminated, in order to try and find ‘trends’ which can be fitted into the mould decided for them.”

When the final version of the 1995 IPCC Report did not agree with the Summary, Ben Santer, whom the IPCC had appointed as the lead author of the report, was given the task of altering the full report to coincide with the Summary. After the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers were shocked to discover that major changes had been made after they had signed off on the science chapter’s contents. Santer’s changes had reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report! Here are examples of some of his changes:

“Viewed as a whole, these results indicate that the observed trend inmean temperature over the past 100 years is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin.

Here is a sentence he deleted: “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

Here is a sentence he added: “The body of statistical evidence in Chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points toward a discernible human influence on global climate.”

Here’s another he deleted: “no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes.”

And another he added:  “The Majority of these studies show that the observed changes in global-mean, annually-averaged temperature over the last century is [sic] unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system.”

There is plenty of other evidence that CO2 is trivial to climate change. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, providing 96 to 98% of any greenhouse effect. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and comprises only 0.04% of the atmosphere—and 97% of CO2 is produced by nature, not mankind. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, even insects and bacteria produce CO2 as well as methane, another greenhouse gas. Termites alone emit far more CO2 than all the factories and automobiles in the world (See Science Nov. 5, 1982.) Natural wetlands emit more greenhouse gases than all human activities combined. If we could eliminate not only all human use of fossil fuels but all natural sources of greenhouse gases as well, 96% of any greenhouse effect would still remain, because of water vapor.

Carbon dioxide produces only tiny changes in atmospheric temperature; however, all computer models projecting “runaway” global warming are based on the small warming from CO2 being amplified by water vapor. But such an amplification has never occurred even with much higher levels of CO2. At the time of the dinosaurs, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere was 3 to 5 times what it is today, but there was no runaway global warming. During the Ordovician period, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 12 times what it is today, but the earth was in an Ice Age. If a theory contradicts reality, the theory must be wrong.

During the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher. From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide. The theory that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is determining the earth’s temperature is therefore wrong.

The key to the earth’s climate is the sun, not CO2. Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, Saturn and even distant Pluto are all experiencing global warming. Is the sun warming them while our warming is due to CO2?

The sun’s radiation is varied by ‘sunspot cycles.’ Magnetic fields rip through the sun’s surface, producing violent disturbances and changes in the ‘solar wind,’ the stream of charged particles emanating from the sun. The solar wind, by modulating the galactic cosmic rays which reach the earth, determines both the formation of clouds and the carbon dioxide level in the earth’s atmosphere.Sunspot cycles cause only slight changes in the sun’s radiation, but these changes are amplified many fold by interaction 1) with ozone in the upper stratosphere, and 2) with clouds in the lower troposphere. Clouds have a hundred times greater impact on climate and temperature than CO2.. When the solar wind is strong and cosmic rays are weak, the global cloud cover shrinks. It expands when cosmic rays are strong because the solar wind is weak. Or, as scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski put it, rather poetically, “the sun opens and closes a climate-controlling umbrella of clouds over our heads.”

‘Here is a chart showing a strong correlation between earth temperatures and the sun’s magnetic cycle, which is a proxy for its variations in brightness (irradiance). You will not find a chart anywhere showing such correlation between earth temperature and carbon dioxide.


The historical temperature record should settle the issue of whether global warming is occurring, but it doesn’t because the numbers have been manipulated. Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre documented that NASA has been “rewriting history time and time again.”  Website notes that 20% of the historical record was adjusted 16 times in two and one-half years. Other adjustments alter data going back several decades.

The U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) provides actual temperature measurements, i.e. “raw” data. James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies(GISS), took USHCN data and applied secret adjustments. USHCN reported a temperature decline of nearly one-half degree Celsius during the twentieth century, while GISS reported an increase of one-half a degree. Hansen refused to explain how and why he made these adjustments. His secrecy raises an ethical and perhaps legal question of whether the head of an agency federally funded by U.S. taxpayers can refuse to disclose how those funds are spent. It also raises the question of whether the adjustments are legitimate or merely deliberate manipulations contrived to produce a desired result.

There is a far larger and more serious distortion in the global temperature data than falsifying the reports from the individual measuring stations. Temperature records throughout the world have been falsified by manipulating the locations of the reporting stations. Beginning about 1990, higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations were removed from the network in order to create a false warming trend. The global temperature record that used to be based on 6,000 reporting stations now is based on fewer than 1,500. The thoroughly-researched 106-page report by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts documents the effect with this graph:


In many cases the stations are still reporting, but their data are no longer utilized. Often the stations have been replaced by others more likely to show warming from lower elevations, lower latitudes, or urban development. Here are some examples from the D’Aleo/Watts report:

“In the cold countries of Russia and Canada, the rural stations in the Polar Regions were thinned out leaving behind the lower latitude more urban stations. The data from the remaining cities were used to estimate the temperatures to the north. As a result the computed new averages were higher than the averages when the cold stations were part of the monthly/yearly assessment.

“In Canada, the number of stations dropped from 600 to less than 50. The percentage of stations in the lower elevations (below 300 feet) tripled and those at the higher elevations above 3,000 feet were reduced by half. [The] depicted warmth comes from interpolating from more southerly locations to fill northerly vacant grid boxes, even as a simple average of the available stations shows an apparent cooling.  Environment Canada reports that there are 1400 weather stations in Canada, many reporting even hourly readings that are readily available on the internet but not included in the global data base. Canada has 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] uses just one.

“The Russian station count dropped from 476 to 121 so over 40 percent of Russian territory was not included in global temperature calculations….The Russians found that the 121 sites used gave mostly warmer reports than the 355 unused sites. In some cases stations records going back into the 19th Century were ignored in favor of stations with less data but which pointed to warming. The IEA [Institute for Economic Analysis] team stated, ‘Only one tenth of meteorological sites with complete temperature series are used.’

“In Europe higher mountain stations were dropped and thermometers were marched toward the Mediterranean, lower elevations, and more cities. The station dropout was almost 65 percent for Europe as a whole…

“Most mountain stations of the [U.S.] west are gone. In California the only remaining stations are in San Francisco, Santa Maria, Los Angeles and San Diego.

“As recently as 1988, temperature records for China came from over 400 stations. In 1990, only 35.

“The raw temperature data show no trend in temperatures in Northern Australia in 125 years. The IPCC, however, uses ‘adjusted’ data.” The D’Aleo/Watts report says, “We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? NOAA added a huge, artificial, imaginary trend to the most recent half of the raw data.” The raw temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 C. per century. After the NOAA adjustment, the temperatures were rising 1.2 C per century.”

Neither falsifying the temperature records nor moving the locations of the thermometers will have any effect on global warming. They will have political effects, but political regulations won’t affect CO2 worldwide in any meaningful way because 97% if the earth’s CO2 emissions are produced by nature. The equatorial Pacific ocean alone produces 72% of the planet’s emissions of it; human emissions are miniscule, as the “one match” answer to the question beginning this article demonstrates. And millions of years of geologic evidence prove that the greenhouse effect does not drive climate change. So hundred of billions of dollars have been spent pursuing an environmental policy that is unattainable (and would be detrimental if attainable)—unless you believe the money was well spent for political regulation for another purpose.

In 2010 a leading member of the United Nation’s IPCC said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.” Now it’s not about saving the environment but about redistributing wealth, said Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III and a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (2007). “We redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Investors Business Daily reported:

“Developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community” said Edenhofer,” and so they must have their wealth expropriated and redistributed to the victims of their alleged crimes. U.N. warm-mongers are seeking to impose a global climate reparations tax on everything from airline flights and international shipping to fuel and financial transactions….

Edenhofer told a German news outlet (NZZ AM Sonntag ) that the climate summit in Cancun was “not a climate conference but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.” The Cancun agreement set up a “Green Climate Fund” to administer assistance to poor nations suffering from floods and drought due to global warming. The European Union, Japan and the United States have led pledges of $100 billion per year for poor nations up to 2020, plus $30 billion in immediate assistance.

“No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits….Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”—Christine Stewart,  Canada’s Minister of the Environment, 1997- 1999.

“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 terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”—Tim Wirth, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs and the man most responsible for setting up the Kyoto Treaty.

“Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind their people and nature friendly terminology, the adherents of environmentalism make ambitious attempts to radically reorganize and change the world, human society, our behavior and our values….They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced….

“The followers of the environmentalist ideology, however, keep presenting us with various catastrophic scenarios with the intention of persuading us to implement their ideas….Their recommendations would take us back to an era of statism and restricted freedom….The ideology will be different. Its essence will, nevertheless, be identical—the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of the common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of the proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea reality…. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom.”—Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic. (link link link)

E.Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is a scientist who attended the Copenhagen climate conference and reported a very different experience than was conveyed to the American people by their news media. In the Cornwall Alliance NewsletterJanuary 2010, he wrote:”We were a small group (about 30 or 40 of us) in the midst of a roiling sea of protesters (almost all on the ‘other side’), probably twenty thousand or so, in downtown Copenhagen, waving signs, shouting slogans, etc. The biggest groups seemed to be the Communist Party (yes, their signs said that), the International Socialist Youth Movement, the Radical Climate Activists, and Greenpeace.” When speaker Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez spoke, the crowd applauded vigorously when he said, there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room–’capitalism.'” But when he said “socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell…Let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us; the crowd of official delegates gave him a standing ovation.”

On June 23, 2008, exactly twenty years to the day from his momentousunsupported Senate testimony that he was 99% sure global warming was occurring, James Hansen appeared before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. There he conjured up images of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals by claiming the CEOs of fossil fuel energy companies “should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.” See this.

From 2010 to 2016, Christiana Figueres was the top UN climate change official. She was the Executive Secretary of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. She openly stated in 2015 that the goal was to overturn capitalism — in her words, “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”