Return to Notes on Global Warming Page 1                                                                                               

Updated Nov 24, 2017


Notes on the Topic of Global Warming (Page 2 of 3)

For those who care about truth, and the integrity of science!


Page 1

Page 3


Items on This Page

  1. Leading Chinese Scientist Says Global Warming Not Man-Made

  2. The Position of Those Scientists Who Say Climate Change is (almost all) Natural

  3. Some Good Internet Videos and Audio Recordings on this Topic

  4. Climategate

  5. Climate change: This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

  6. James Corbett on, "Taking back the environmental movement"

  7. Letter by Prof. Seitz to the Wall Street Journal, 1996

  8. Prof. Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

  9. Nobel Prize Winner Resigns Over an ‘Incontrovertible’ Stance on Global Warming

  10. There is No Scientific Consensus at the UN

  11. A Petition signed by more than 30,000 scientists in the U.S.A. alone

  12. Members of World's Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears

  13. Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim

  14. Other Long Lists of International Scientists Dissenting Man-Made Global Warming

  15. Dr. Willie Soon

  16. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  17. Dr. Tim Ball

  18. Piers Corbyn

  19. A Few Other Well-Known Experts


1) Leading Chinese Scientist Says Global Warming Not Man-Made

(I am not sure if Chen I-Wan is a scientist himself but he is a spokesman for some important scientists in China.)

You can start your education about this topic by thinking about a statement made on China's CCTV Dialogue program. This statement was made in the January 14, 2010 episode of Dialogue on CCTV9. Here is the archived copy of the program: That program was about the Haiti earthquake but, strangely, Yang Rui (the host) asked a question about global warming to Chen I-Wan, Advisor (advisor to the Chinese government), of The Commission of Natural Hazard Prediction. Fast forward to 20:30 minutes (if you can) in the video and watch it until 23:19.

     Chen I-Wan


Below is a transcript of the question, and Chen I-Wan's answer.

Yang Rui: "Do you believe the hurricanes and this 7.3 magnitude earthquake are an integral part of what we call the, "global warming"? Do you think the extreme patterns of weather conditions have all contributed to the unpredictable calamities, such as the one that took place and befell Haiti on Tuesday?"

Chen I-Wan: "This relates to a related issue about global warming. Myself, and a number of experts in the committee that I work with, The Commission of Natural Hazard Prediction, as well as quite a number of experts abroad, agree with the global warming, which means the temperature during the past several years is increasing. This is a fact. However, we disagree that the main reason causing the global warming is human, mankind's activities. So I believe that, ... um ... because what we see is, there is natural cycles in the history of the earth. And especially, ... you know..., China with a very long history of, ... you know ..., several thousand years of written history, there are massive records that show that during different periods of time there are times of warming and there's also times of cold, coldness. And the warming go warmer than today and there's also times that go very cold. So, what we see is that, ... eh ... these ... eh ... what we call these extreme meteorological events are more natural cycles and natural developments."

In other words, Chen I-Wan and many other scientists in China (and elsewhere) do not see any evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is causing (or significantly adding to) global warming. Therefore, if Chen is correct about mankind not causing any significant global warming, then all this talk about "low carbon" this and that is a waste of time and is fraudulent!

It is an established fact that several hundred years after the world goes through a warming period, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level shows an increase, i.e., increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a result of global warming, not a cause. The oceans release large amounts of CO2 after the climate becomes hotter and, when the climate becomes colder, the oceans absorb large amounts of CO2.

Not only that, he says that the recent global warming is not unprecedented in its extent and he implies (he does not say so specifically) that the recent warming is no reason for alarm

Chen I-Wan agrees that average global temperatures have been increasing in "recent years" but this was in a relatively short period between about 1975 and the late 1990's –  since about 1998, there has been no statistical increase in temperature and, from 1940 to 1975, there were three decades of moderate global cooling. Overall, we are talking about an average temperature increase over the past 300 years of about 0.5 °C per century, during the current recovery from the "Little Ice Age", a period of relative coldness that existed from the 1500's to the 1700's.

Here is an audio recording of this 3 minute exchange:

China is very concerned about air pollution, i.e., the health effects of the particulates in the air that result from burning fossil fuels. But carbon dioxide is not a particulate and is not considered to be a pollutant.


    2) The Position of Those Scientists Who Say Climate Change is (almost all) Natural

  [Another excellent article explaining this is here:]

 "Man-made Global Warming" is also called "Anthropogenic Global Warming" or, AGW.

  In opposition to the AGW theory, many scientists claim that an unbiased appraisal of scientific research results shows that –


  • There is No Unprecedented Warming Taking Place

The earth has been steadily warming to a moderate degree for the past three hundred years as we recover from what is known as "The Little Ice Age" that existed from the 1500's to the 1700's. This is shown in the three graphs below that represent approximate historical average global temperatures. (Science does not have a way to know exact past temperatures.)

We can see from the graphs that the world has been warming for the past 300 years at the rate of about 0.5° per 100 years. Today’s average global temperature is about equal to the average for the past 3,000 years. There does not seem to be anything unnatural or catastrophic from these temperature graphs. Even if future temperatures were to increase to those levels seen at the Medieval Climate Optimum, or shown at -500 and -1,000, this would certainly not be catastrophic for mankind. In fact, humanity prospered in those previously warm periods.

Furthermore, and very significantly, there is the fact that the world has not warmed at all since about 1998, despite continuing increases in atmospheric CO2! (See Even the leading proponents of man-made global warming, such as James Lovelock and Dr. Jones of the CRU acknowledge that fact. (See and


Fig. 1 Average Global Temperatures for the Past 3,000 Years    (From



Fig. 2 Average Global Temperatures for the Past 1,000 years  (From the IPCC 1990 report. As reported at


        Figure 3 shows that, of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 years were warmer than 2010!


            Fig. 3 Greenland Ice Core Data Temperatures for the Past 10,000 Years  




             This is Fig. 3 above, showing the curve of best fit.


  • Rises and Falls in CO2 Levels Follow Rises and Falls in Temperature by Hundreds of Years

The non-AGW scientists maintain that, instead of causing an increase in global temperatures, increased atmospheric CO2  is a result of increased global temperatures. Paleoclimatic data (climatic data for the past millions of years) show that these increases in CO2 levels occur about 800 years after increases in global temperature.

( We are now roughly 800 years past the Medieval Climate Optimum so recent natural increases in CO2 are not surprising. The following screenshot, taken from the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, gives an example of this approximately 800 year lag.





  • It is the Sun that Drives Temperature, not CO2

The non-AGW scientists say that CO2 has a relatively minor Greenhouse Effect, compared to the major greenhouse gas, water vapor. Furthermore, the amount of CO2 that mankind produces is not enough to significantly influence temperature changes that happen naturally, mostly as a result of variations in the sun's activity. Many scientists estimate that even a doubling of man-made CO2 emissions would only result in a very mild temperature increase. Conversely, a drastic cut in mankind's production of CO2, at the cost of trillions of dollars, would result in only a minor, almost insignificant reduction in global average temperatures.

In other words, instead of CO2 being a significant driver of temperature, the non-AGW scientists still believe in the traditional view of climatology, i.e., that the sun drives temperature and climate in general on the earth. Recent  research (see Svensmark and Soon) strongly reinforces this claim.

When we look at the average global temperatures over the past 120 years, we see that temperature actually fell for 35 years between 1940 and 1975, at the very time when the world was experiencing a post-war industrialization boom and mankind was producing much more CO2 than previously. This does not fit the theory that increases in CO2 lead to increases in temperature. The screenshot, below, from the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, show this temperature drop.

So, what is the explanation for this drop in temperature? Well, the scientists Eigil Friis-Christensen and Henrik Svensmark found the explanation by studying the activity of the sun (the magnetic field strength of the sun) over the periods shown in that graph above. There was a near perfect fit between solar activity and temperature! (See The graph of their results is shown below. (As explained by Svensmark, it is the increase in the sun's magnetic field strength that results in rising temperatures on earth.)

This result was the same when solar activity was compared to temperature for the past 400 years, as shown below.


In a related study by Nir Shaviv and Jan Veltzer ( ), global temperature was shown to very closely related to cosmic ray measurements. As explained by Svensmark, increases in cosmic rays result in decreases in global temperature. That is, there is an inverse relationship between cosmic rays and temperature. The graph shown below of the work of Shaviv and Veltzer shows how temperature and cosmic ray measurements are aligned when Shaviv and Veltzer's plot for cosmic rays, in yellow, is inverted. (The original graph shows the yellow line going down when the blue temperature line goes up.)


         In other words, the sun is the overwhelming driver of temperature on earth, not CO2!


  • Land-Based Temperature Data Do not Accurately Reflect the Whole World

The non-AGW scientists say that the raw global temperature data that the AGW scientists use (primarily the scientists at the CRU) are far from being scientifically valid samples because of, a) the fact that many thermometers in the world are placed where the temperature readings are biased, such as on airport runways and near air-conditioner exhaust vents, b) the fact that most thermometers are placed in cities where their readings are affected by the "urban heat island effect" and, c) the further skewing of this data by the elimination over the past few years of thousands of temperature collection sites that previously existed outside of urban areas.

Furthermore, not only is this data originally biased, the AGW scientists have "cherry picked" (selectively chosen) what temperature data to use, rather than treating all the data in a scientifically balanced way. It is these temperature data bases that Dr. Jones of the CRU was so adamant about not sharing with other climate scientists. In fact, he deleted much of this raw data!

       The Urban Heat Island Effect has been proven to significantly increase the temperatures shown in urban areas. Here is one web page explaining this:  


  • The Rise in CO2 Might Not be a Problem

Carbon dioxide, a natural compound that comprises about 0.04% of the atmosphere, is "food for plants". At different periods millions of years ago, the earth experienced levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that were much greater than the levels we are experiencing now, without catastrophically high temperatures.  

However, it does seem to be a fact that, at present, CO2 and methane levels are at levels that have not been seen for the past 400,000 years, with the CO2 level being 30% higher than the highest (estimated) levels in the past 400,000 years and methane being, until recently, 130% (!!) higher. 

Ice-core studies have shown that CO2 and methane levels have historically gone up and down together. But there is some good news about methane. Apparently the amount of methane in the atmosphere has "mysteriously" stabilized in the past few years and may even be decreasing. See and

If the following article is correct in the science that it states about methane, then there's something very fishy about the demonization of this natural trace gas that has taken place

But, even if all these recent methane and CO2 measurements are accurate and the past estimates are also accurate, there is no evidence showing that this phenomenon will lead to significant global warming, since major changes in CO2 and methane levels have been shown to result from temperature changes, (with a lag of about 800 years), not cause temperature changes.

(It seems strange to me that the main place where CO2 and methane levels are measured is Muana Loa, in Hawaii, on the northern flank of the world's largest active volcano! Such a place would surely produce much larger than normal amounts of CO2 and methane. Apparently the measurements are "adjusted" to account for the CO2 and methane produced by volcanic activity but, as shown by the Climategate scandal, we need to be cautious about trusting these "adjustments".)                 

It is, as yet, unknown exactly why the current atmospheric CO2 and methane levels are so high but to ascribe the cause to mankind's emission of CO2 simply because no other explanation has been found, is not very scientific. It is certainly indisputable that mankind has been pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere since we started burning coal on a large scale about 150 years ago, and oil in the past 80 years or so. (See "flaring".) But it seems to be universally agreed by all scientists that mankind is the source of only about 4% of the atmospheric CO2. [See here for information about mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2. See also for a Powerpoint presentation of the argument that CO2 does not drive global temperatures or climate change.]


  • CO2 is a Relatively Minor Greenhouse Gas

The key point here is how much warming will result from the greenhouse effect of this elevated level of CO2. The AGW advocates (such as the CRU scientists, see below), are trying to convince us that this warming will be huge but scientists such as Richard Lindzen (see below), say that the warming resulting from the greenhouse effect of these (and future) elevated levels of CO2 and methane will be in the tenths of a degree, which is barely significant.


  • The Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists Have Produced No Valid Evidence for Their Theory

Those scientists who maintain that man-made global warming is a fact, and will become worse, acknowledge that CO2 alone is not sufficient to produce the catastrophic global warming that they predict. The basis tenet of their theory is that a series of "positive feedback" mechanisms resulting from the temperature increase produced by CO2 will magnify this temperature increase. For example, the higher temperature from CO2 will increase evaporation from the oceans, which will produce more water vapour, which will in turn produce more rises in temperature. Their theory predicts that this will continue until a certain "tipping point" is reached, after which the warming increases exponentially and catastrophically.

However, all natural systems also have "negative feedback" mechanisms, which act to cancel out the positive feedback effects and attempt to return to an equilibrium point.  For examples, greater evaporation from the oceans will produce more clouds, which are known to be a major cooling mechanism of the earth (if not the major mechanism) , protecting us from the sun's radiated heat.

Although the man-made global warming scientists claim that they have taken the negative feedbacks into account in their calculations, they also freely admit that virtually all of these feedback mechanisms are poorly understood, especially anything related to clouds. Therefore, their theory and their computer models are little better than speculation. Small changes in the assumptions that are made to the models could drastically alter the outcomes in either direction. These AGW scientists have arbitrarily chosen to use the story of what could possibly happen IF the positive feedbacks were much greater than the negative feedbacks and base the whole theory of man-made global warming on that. This is far from "valid scientific evidence".

As Richard Lindzen says in the latter part of this interview, if natural systems behaved the way the AGW proponents claim then the earth would not have lasted as long as it has.

Perhaps most significant is the fact that real-life measurements of the upper atmosphere show a complete absence of the so-called, "hot spot" that the models and the AGW theory of "positive feedbacks" assume to exist. All climatologists, no matter whether pro or anti-AGW, agree that this hot spot should exist if the "positive feedbacks" are actually taking place. But the fact that the "hot spot" has never been found therefore completely invalidates the "positive feedbacks" theory.

The video called, "Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case", at and based on the work of Dr. David Evans very succinctly shows how the anthropogenic global warming theory is not supported by any scientific evidence at all!


  • The AGW Scientists Have Been Shown to Have Committed Fraud in their Research

A study of the "Climategate" emails reveals what many scientists have long suspected – that the main AGW scientists, i.e., those at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in England, have produced fraudulent research results.

Most of this fraud has involved manipulations of past temperature data to show cooler than actual temperatures in the past along with manipulations of more recent data to show hotter than actual temperatures, in order to exaggerate the recent temperature increase. The infamous "Hockey Stick" graph was the main result of these manipulations and it was this fraudulent graph that formed the basis of the position of the United Nations IPCC reports from 2001 onwards.


  • The Computerized Climate Models of the AGW Scientists are Deeply Flawed

It is important to understand that the whole AGW theory is based on computer models of the climate system. These models, i) assume that CO2 is the main driver of temperature (not a result of temperature increases), ii) do not include the effects of the sun's magnetic field output on cloud formation, iii) do not include the cooling effects of clouds because clouds are still not well understood and, iv) do not include several of the other important factors that determine climate for example, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

In other words, these climate models are such poor representations of the climate system that they cannot be used as a basis for "evidence" at all. Current computer models of weather can only predict a few days into the future with any accuracy so it is ridiculous to suggest that similar models can be used to predict climate far into the future.

The invalidity of the climate computer models has recently (2011-2012) been demonstrated to a level of certainly that is almost beyond doubt. See these two videos by Dr. David Evans: and,

Another article on the topic of the invalidity of the climate models is this:


  • Conclusion

Although we are experiencing historically high levels of atmospheric CO2 and methane, some of which is no doubt a result of human activity, the future effects of these high levels on the climate are not known. It may well be that these elevated levels of greenhouse gases will have some effect on the climate but it has not been proven that this effect will be significant enough to overcome the effects of the sun and dominate the climate! 

(One factor contributing to the rise in the level of atmospheric CO2 would undoubtedly be the massive and continuing loss of the world's rainforests, which are natural sinks, or consumers of CO2. But this is rarely mentioned.)

People who are not experts on this topic can choose who to believe. But many people, such as me, choose not to believe the advocates of man-made global warming because:

i) The facts don't fit the theory of man-made global warming, including the way the theory ignores the effect of the sun's magnetic field on cloud formation, which seems to be the key to understanding the earth's temperature, and including the fanciful idea of cascading positive feedbacks that supposedly will greatly magnify the slight warming that CO2 produces, which is what the whole theory of AGW is based on

ii) So much of the research, and predictions, of the AGW advocates is based on faulty computer models of the climatic system;

iii) There is obviously a political agenda that is driving this, accompanied by an insulting amount of scare-tactic propaganda and abusive, intolerant treatment of any alternative scientific investigation of this topic – this is not the way genuine scientific inquiry is done!

iv) The AGW advocates have already proven themselves to have engaged in scientific fraud and generally unethical behavior, which strongly indicates that they are unable to generate genuine evidence for their theory (see 'Climategate', below);

v)  The predictions of the AGW advocates are obviously not coming true, as seen by the fact that the world has not warmed at all since about 1998;

vi)  The theory of man-made global warming is being primarily pushed by banksters (Wall Street, the City of London), who most of us know are only interested in making money, who most of know are liars, and who many of us know completely control our national governments and major news media; and

vii) Very many non-AGW scientists are speaking with such strong conviction in opposition to the theory of man-made global warming. 

Besides, even if the earth did warm by several degrees, for example, to as hot as the Minoan Warming period of 3,400 years ago, the benefits of a warmer world, such as greater food production, would almost certainly greatly outweigh any negative effects. Mankind always prospered in these previous warm periods.



3) Some Good Internet Videos & Audio Recordings

In these videos, you will see many of the scientists who are mentioned elsewhere in these notes.

1.   "The Great Global Warming Swindle"  (This is a MUST SEE!)

This excellent film explains all the key points concerning the fraud. In addition to explaining how CO2 (whether produced by man or natural) cannot be responsible for global warming and explaining how the only "evidence" for AGW are faulty computer models, the film includes information on the origins of the "man-made global warming" theory and on the origins of the politicization of this theory. I suggest you watch it more than once, considering every point that is made in the film. Note that the locations of this film on the internet change from time to time, an indication of internet censorship.

The most significant parts of the film are the statements of climatologists, most of whom have actually been contributors to past IPCC reports. Furthermore, their statements are more evidence that the contributing scientists to the IPCC were not all in agreement about mankind's contribution to global warming, as Prof. Seitz writes, here.

The film is currently available here -  (Now unavailable)

Another copy of the video is available here:  (Now unavailable)

A preview to the video can be found here: (Now unavailable)

A transcript of the film is here:  (This seems to have been written by, or for the benefit of Carl Wunsch, who has expressed regret that he took part in this film.)

(That transcript is now only available at the Wayback Machine –


2.   "Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off"

Very good film, similar to "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

Also at Youtube: Part 1, Part 2, Part3, Part 4, Part 5.


3.   "Global Warming or Global Governance"  (80 minutes)

This is another excellent film, similar to "The Great Global Warming Swindle". In fact, some scenes from that film are included in this second film. But this second film has content that was not included in the first film.


4.  "The Greenhouse Conspiracy"


5.  "What We Are Not Being Told About The Climate"


6.   "The Cloud Mystery"  (This is VITAL information for understanding the topic of climate!)

To see it as one, 52-minute video, go here:

To see the video in 6 parts, go here: 

This is about the work of Dr. Henrik Svensmark, in Denmark. Information about the video can be found here,

The theory behind the research shown in this film is this:

- cosmic rays from outer space, which are bombarding the earth constantly, create the "seeds" from which clouds are formed;

- clouds are the main way in which the earth is cooled by reflecting some of the heat from the sun or conversely, a lack of clouds leads to a heating of the earth;

- the sun has cyclical periods of heightened or lowered activity. When the activity is strong, the sun's magnetic field, which extends far out into the solar system, becomes stronger and deflects some of the incoming cosmic rays away from the earth so that fewer cosmic rays hit the earth. This results in less cloud formation and hence less cooling of the earth.

- In this way, the sun's cyclical activities determine the heating or cooling of the earth.

More and more research is indicating that clouds, resulting from cosmic rays from outer space, in combination with the sun's activity, play not only a large role in determining the earth's climate, but the dominant role.

The following article explains how CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, has recently done experiments to verify Svensmark's work:

The information from this research, in combination with the Growing Consensus of an Upcoming Period of Global Cooling, which is actually starting now, gives a completely different picture to the story that man-made CO2 is causing global warming that will become become catastrophic to the planet.


7.  "The Sky is Not Falling"

Video of a lecture, along with Powerpoint slides.


8.   Denis Avery Discusses Global Warming

This is an excellent Powerpoint presentation explaining the natural, cyclical global warming that occurs about every 1,500 years.


9.   Lecture by Prof. Bob Carter

Bob Carter is a professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia. This lecture is in four Youtube video clips. He covers much of the same material that Denis Avery covers (see 8, above.)  Unfortunately, he speaks a little fast at times so it might be hard to catch everything he says. 

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:


9.5  Article by Bob Carter

Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change


10. “Hide the Decline”

This is not a scientific video clip. Instead, it is a humorous commentary on Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph. The title, "Hide the Decline" comes from an email written by Dr. Jones of the CRU, in which he wrote, "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." (File: 0942777075.txt) 

There are two versions of this video clip. Version 2 is more informative because it shows what "hide the decline" refers to. An even better explanation of "the decline" is given here:

But if English is not your first language, Version 1 is useful because it shows the words to the song. The key point here is that the CRU scientists committed scientific fraud by secretly substituting one set of temperature readings (i.e. thermometer readings) for another (the inferred temperatures from tree-ring data) in order to create the graph they wanted. The significance of the "hockey stick" graph is explained at  (Version 2)  (Version 1)


11.  "I Can Change Your Mind about Climate"  

A copy of this film is available for viewing at The first three minutes are also shown at

In addition to those two, Joanne Nova and Dr. Davis Evans made their own recording of their full, unedited 2-hour interview, parts of which were used in the ABC program. They recorded their interview with the permission of the ABC film crew. That can be seen at their webpage,  and at An alternative copy (recorded by a different camera) can be seen here - That copy is a bit clearer to listen to at times than the other copy but the audio cuts out about 3/4 of the way through the video.

This 2012 video, from the Australian government-owned ABC television channel, tries to give the impression that it is presenting both sides of the "man-made global warming" debate in a balanced way. To some extend it does successfully do that so it is worth watching but I believe the film also contains several examples of serious bias or in fact, brainwashing propaganda.

For example, the program begins with the words, "The earth's climate is constantly changing, driven by a multitude of natural forces. But now, a new force is disrupting the climate system – humans are driving dangerous global warming." This is stated in an authoritative, factual, non-debatable way. In other words, this so-called "impartial" program begins by stating that it is a fact that humans are driving dangerous global warming!  Then, after a long pause, that statement is followed by the words, "Or at least, that's what the world's scientists are telling us." And then the video proceeds to tell us that about half of the Australian population "don't believe climate change is man-made". The logical interpretation of this statement, following immediately after the statement about, "the world's scientists", is that half of all Australians don't believe in science, and are therefore ignorant and stupid. In reality, many of these people do strongly believe in science, and many are in fact very scientifically literate but they don't believe in false science! (not "mistaken" science but consciously false science.)

Certainly, some scientists are telling us that climate change is man-made, but far from all the scientists, as the words, "the world's scientists" imply. It is well-known that those many climate scientists who don't support the "man-made global warming" theory are often unpublished in the scientific literature, receive little or no publicity in the mainstream media and receive little or no research funding while those who support the theory are quite generously funded and heavily promoted by the media. There is a huge institutional bias against those scientists who question or criticize the man-made global warming theory, resulting in the impression that they don't exist.

A further example of the bias in the program is the series of voices that are heard in the background as the introduction quoted above is spoken. We hear the words, "... dangerous level of carbon dioxide and it's going to increase more ...", "... used to be manageable now threatens ...", "sea ice is melting, glaciers are receding ...", and the words, "...human activity has adversely affected our climate ..." are heard in the long pause that is mentioned above. These voices in the background act as a form of hypnotic brainwashing, a way to pre-condition the viewer to favour one side of the argument before the film even begins. So much for impartiality!

Another example of what I believe to be bias is the presentation of the interview with Professor Richard Lindzen. Anna Rose accused Lindzen of having previously supported the tobacco industry because he had criticized the research that was used to verify that passive smoking can cause lung cancer. In the video, Lindzen says, "I have argued as most people who have looked at it that the case for second-hand tobacco is not very good." However, in the full transcript of the interview, but not in the interview as shown in the film, he added, "That was true of the World Health Organization (which) also said that." In the transcript of the interview, but not shown in the video, he goes on to explain that he was questioning the statistical methodology that was used in this research (although some people might not understand exactly what he was saying).

The full transcript of the Richard Lindzen interview is available, here. Search the page for "tobacco" to find exactly what he said.

Since this attempt at vilifying the character of Lindzen is, I believe, a serious issue and an example of attacking the man rather than attacking his science, it would have been only fair to let viewers of the film see Lindzen explain himself. But this was not done; it was edited out of the interview. The result is that some viewers who are not familiar with the work of Lindzen will simply dismiss him as someone who is a paid propagandist for big corporations such as the tobacco industry and the oil and coal industries. Compare the portrayal of Lindzen in that film to his contributions to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (#1, above) and to the many other audio, video and written examples of his statements HERE and you will then clearly see the propagandistic nature of this ABC film.

The ABC website of the video does not, for some reason, clearly indicate that full transcripts of the interviews are available at  It is only when, on the main page about this video, you click on "Characters" and then click on, "Read More" that you may be surprised to discover that these transcripts exist.


12. Scary Global Warming Propaganda Video Shown at the Copenhagen Climate Conference – 7 Dec. 2009


13.  Don’t Panic – Flaws in Catastrophic Global Warming Forecasts

This is an excellent 10-minute video explaining the idea of positive and negative feedbacks and showing, in a graphical form, how the forecasts of catastrophic global warming are incorrect. It was made by a scientist or engineer so it requires some understanding of mathematics to follow the video but it should not be too hard for most well-educated people.


14. Propaganda Videos, Especially Created to Scare or Otherwise Influence Children  (1 minute 6 seconds)

Here we see depressed animals committing suicide as a result of global warming. Show it to your kids to help improve their mental health! You know, like your 7-year-old kid who has never thought of, or heard of the concept of suicide.

---------  and

More propaganda to gladden the hearts of children.


A scary Greenpeace video about the cancellation of Christmas.

You're going to love this video! Show it to your 6-year-old kids to "educate" them about man-made climate change! And then send a donation to Greenpeace.

An Urgent Message From Santa


15.  "Policy Peril: Straight Talk About Global Warming (40 mins)

This video tries to explain why we have more to fear from global warming policies than from global warming itself. It points out how current predictions about global warming are exaggerated. In other words, it admits the possibility of mild global warming in the future, without discussing too much whether mankind's activities will cause this warming.

Basically, the video criticizes the measures that have been advocated for lowering mankind's CO2 emissions and instead, suggests combating any changes caused by any global warming, if it occurs, by various forms of adaptation. Overall, it looks like this film was produced at the behest of the oil and especially the coal industries, but that fact should not matter if what is shown in the video is scientifically valid.


16.  An Informative Radio Broadcast from Australia (27 minutes)

This is quite an informative radio interview from Australia, interviewing Marc Moreno, founder of 


17.  Nine Very Informative Interviews Conducted by Topher Field  (These are MUST SEE videos!)         

Topher Field is an Australian actor and activist. He is active in "The 50 to 1 Project", which publicizes the fact that the costs of trying to reverse the projected "man-made global warming" are fifty times greater than would be the costs of adapting to any such a climate change, were it to occur. His web page on this point is or you can go directly to the video at

On Topher Field's website at there are eight videos of interviews with some well-known scientists and others who have spoken out about this topic. If you are interested, there are many comments and some discussion about these interviews at

Below are the Youtube addresses of these videos but you should also read Topher Field's introduction to each video if you are not familiar with these people. Several of these people explain how they changed from being believers in man-made global warming to disbelievers. 


Joanne Nova, scientist -

This video is a "must see" if you are a believer in man-made global warming or if you are new to this topic and undecided. She used to believe in made-made global warming because, as she says in the interview, she used to believe what the media tells us. I think she explains things particularly clearly in this interview. Joanne Nova, a scientist, is the wife of Dr. David Evans. She has a website at  

    Other excellent videos of Joanne Nova are:  (an  interview)  (a speech)  (a video in which she mentions how she used to be "a Green" but then she "grew up". In this video, she gives us some information about the bankers' interest in man-made global warming)


David Evans, scientist -

More information on David Evans is here.  A website jointly written by Dr. Davis Evans and Joanne Nova is  


Anthony Watts, Investigative Journalist, former weatherman, prominent activist -

His website is


Christopher Essex, mathematics professor and climate modeling expert -

His website is


Donna Laframboise, investigative journalist and author -

Her website is


Marc Morano, Investigative Journalist, prominent activist -

His website is


Fred Singer, atmospheric and space physicist -

Fred Singer has set up the two websites, Science and Environmental Policy Project, and, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC),


Henry Ergas, economist -

His website is


 18.  Australian Climate Change Conflict of Interest!

This is a hard-hitting political video that was made before the 2013 Australian federal election. It reveals the conflicts of interest and links between prominent politicians and important climate-related advisors to investment banks, environmental groups and the U.N. Agenda 21 movement. It was produced by the group,


19. Brilliant Satire on Tim Flannery

Professor Tim Flannery was formerly the Head of the Australian Climate Commission, a federal government body. (The Commission has now been disbanded.) The following video shows him in a 2011 interview by The Guardian newspaper and website - And here is a brilliant satire of what Tim Flannery said in that interview - If you don't know about "Gaia", which this satire is based on, you can read about it here. Remember, this man is supposed to be a “scientist”.


20. Sexing Up Climate Change  Satire on the fear-mongering propagated by the ABC (The Australian Broadcasting Commission)


21. Dr William Happer Destroys Climate Change Hysteria in 7 Minutes

 Dr William Happer speaking before the U.S. Congress.


22. Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria

 Australian journalist Andrew Bolt interviews three climate scientists.


23. IPCC Doomed as AR5 is Panned by Climate Scientists


24. Climate Scientists Jump Ship as CO2 Theory Collapses


25. The video called, "Climate Change in 12 Minutes - The Skeptic's Case", at and based on the work of Dr. David Evans very succinctly shows how the anthropogenic global warming theory is not supported by any scientific evidence at all!


4) "Climategate"

If you are truly interested in whether the "proof" of "man-made global warming" is scientific fraud or not, you definitely should spend some time reading about the "Climategate" affair, including actually reading some of the released emails! People with some scientific and political sophistication can see that there is clear evidence of scientific fraud here.

Summary of the "Climategate" Affair

There is a unit of the United Nations called the "IPCC" (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), formed in 1988. The purpose of this unit is only to assess man-made climate change, not to investigate the whole topic of climate change. This purpose is expressed in this sentence:

"Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

       Notice that if any scientific research does not make it into the "latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature", it is then excluded from assessment by the IPCC scientists when they make their report. This is a key point.

If you read more about the IPCC, you’ll see that not only are they only concerned about man-made climate change, they start with the assumption that significant, measurable man-made climate change is already taking place and their purpose is to gather evidence to assess the seriousness of this man-made climate change. In other words, their purpose is not to investigate if measurable man-made climate change is taking place but to assess how much and how fast this man-made climate change is taking place. This is clearly biased and unscientific when there is no evidence that any measurable man-made climate change exists in the first place.

The main group of scientists who were advising the IPCC was a small group at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, in England. This group gathered statistics from around the world and co-operated with a relatively small number of other scientists around the world (although the total number of scientists who supplied their raw data was quite large).

However, many other climate scientists have long suspected that the CRU scientists were engaging in scientific fraud, especially since the CRU always refused to share their basic data with other scientists, the data from which they formed their conclusions. The law states that they must share their data if another scientist (or even a journalist) requests this. It is also good scientific practice to share raw data – the purpose of scientific research is to seek the truth, not to win some game (although data from scientific research that has commercial or military value is, understandably, often kept secret). In the case of the CRU, they had a legal  and scientific responsibility to share their data because it is a publicly funded body that is supposedly doing extremely important research for the benefit of all mankind. 

In November 2009, just a few weeks before the Copenhagen conference on climate change, someone, apparently a whistle-blowing insider, released thousands of emails and documents from the CRU, including the source code of their computer models. These computer models were key to developing their predictions about future climate change. The emails and documents revealed that:

As stated above in the outline of the purpose of the IPCC, any papers that are not published in the major scientific journals cannot be considered when the IPCC scientists create their periodic reports.

Only peer-reviewed research papers are published in the scientific journals. In scientific peer-review, scientists are not supposed to choose which other scientists review their research papers before these papers are published in the scientific journals. See: "Climate Change Peer Review Hypocrisy" at

Conclusion:  It is obvious that, instead of objectively seeking scientific truth, these scientists were only focused on strengthening the case for man-made global warming, by whatever means possible, including scientific fraud, because this was, and still is, the narrow mandate of the United Nations IPCC. 


Analysis and Discussion of the CRU Emails

To repeat: If you say you believe in man-made global warming but have never actually read any of the Climategate emails, and if you have never read the types of analysis that are outlined below, then you are not being honest with yourself because you cannot have an honest belief by only considering one side of an argument such as this.

Furthermore, if you naively believe what the mainstream media has said about Climategate, i.e., that it is just a storm in a teacup and not significant, then you are also not honestly investigating this topic – you should make your own judgment on whether this is insignificant or not, not rely on the opinions expressed in the mainstream media.

You believers in man-made global warming cannot deny that, if the assertions written on these pages of scientific fraud are true, then surely it is indeed a serious matter for all of society! Therefore, you owe it to yourself to spend some time seriously considering what those on the other side of this argument are saying.

Dr. John P. Costella

There are several websites that discuss and analyze the Climategate emails. One of the best ones is this: by Dr. John P. Costella, a physicist. If you read his credentials, you can't deny that this man has the intellect to know scientific fraud when he sees it.

Here is a copy of Dr. Costella's page, "Why Climategate is So Distressing to Scientists".

The following is his 2010 pdf book called, "The Climategate Emails" in which he analyzes and explains the importance of some of the key emails:

Another pdf book (probably the same as above) written by Costella has this url: articles/ greenhouse-science/ climate-change/ climategate-emails.pdf

This book is an expanded version of the contents on the front page of Costella's website. It also includes the above-mentioned article, "Why Climategate is So Distressing to Scientists".

You can also download that book from this page: or

Note: if you want to avoid using Adobe Acrobat to read pdf files, I suggest downloading the free pdf reader, "Evince" from here:


List of Some of the More Notable Emails


Some Other Articles or Videos Explaining and Discussing Climategate

Climate Change: Concocting the “Consensus” by Andrew Gavin Marshall

This is another article analyzing the same source code as the article above. It's hard to understand much here if you're not an expert but his conclusion is straightforward:

"CRU's evidence is now irrevocably tainted. As such, all assumptions based on that evidence must now be reevaluated and readjudicated. And all policy based on those counterfeit assumptions must also be reexamined."

        These articles are from December 2009 or early 2010. an interview with Alex Jones, a U.S. radio host Another interview of Alex Jones in which he talks about banks being behind the fraud.

Included in these recordings, Tim Ball talks about the politics of the IPCC and how the IPCC was set up.

Here are the download urls:


"Climategate is Still the Issue 

This video and transcript is dated 19 November, 2010, the one-year anniversary of the "Climategate" exposure. It is a powerful video, full of facts, including some examples of the leaked emails. I urge you to watch it.

The url for the video is,

If you cannot get the Youtube video, you can watch my two-part copy of the video here: and  The transcript of the video is at


Climategate 2

On November 22, 2011 a second batch of emails from the same time period as the first batch was released. See the following: Climategate 2.0 - More Emails Released from the CRU! (Nov. 22, 2011). There you will find information on how to download a spreadsheet of both the Climategate 1 and 2 emails in chronological order, as well as a link to a major search engine on the internet for reading any of the emails.


Other Searchable or Downloadable Databases of The CRU Files

Some other searchable databases of the released emails and documents are at the locations listed below:

The following page has an index of the Climategate emails:

The following page has an index of the Climategate documents:

Here is a zip file of all the leaked Climategate files: 

This page has the same contents as above, including the zip file:

Also, searchable databases are at these three locations:  This database contains both the "Climategate 1" and "Climategate 2" emails.

Note that the file, ECLAT2.doc has a trojan called "Hack.Exploit.CVE-2009-0565.a". This is in every copy of ECLAT2.doc in all the locations shown above. Make sure your computer is protected by an anti-virus program! Apparently this has not been reported outside China but my Chinese anti-virus program, 'Rising', found it. Rising did not simply 'clean' the file ECLAT2.doc - it deleted the whole file.  All the other files are safe.


5) "Climate change: This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation"

This article is referring to not just the scientific fraud called "Climategate" itself but also the scandal of the "whitewash" of the official investigation into the Climategate Affair. When this article was written, shortly after the Climategate exposure, the author feared that a whitewash would occur and, as it turned out, this is exactly what did happen.


6) James Corbett on, "Taking back the environmental movement"

This speech concerns the fact that environmental activism and environmental organizations have, in the recent years or decades, moved away from a concern for real environmental problems (or even ignored these problems) in favour of an erroneous focusing on CO2 as a "pollutant" and on "man-made global warming". In other words, the environmental movement has been "usurped" by political (= financial) interests.

James Corbett is a political commentator who has a website at A week after the Climategate scandal was revealed in November 2009, he made an impassioned plea to environmentalists to, "take back the environmental movement" from the financiers, who have hijacked the movement and made "CO2 pollution" the main, if not the only environmental issue. In his speech, Corbett mentions some of the real environmental problems that have been sidelined by the focus on "man-made global warming", although there are other environmental problems that he doesn't mention, such as saving the native rainforests from near-complete destruction.

You can see the video here: On that page, you can read the transcript of his speech as you listen to him (although he deviates from the transcript a few times). The video is on Youtube at You can also hear an audio recording of his speech here:

James Corbett's website has many excellent articles, audio interviews and videos (shown via Youtube) on the topic of the fraud called, "man-made global warming". If you go to his website, click on the "search" button and enter any of the search words listed below, you'll find dozens of articles, interviews and videos on this topic. He also has a website,, devoted entirely to the topic.

Search words: climate, carbon tax, global warming, climategate, IPCC, Copenhagen, Lindzen, Tim Ball, ...


7) Letter by Prof. Seitz to the Wall Street Journal, 1996

In 1996, The United Nations IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) published a report called, "The Science of Climate Change 1995". This report was based on the work of many climate scientists.

However, after reading this report, the former President of the United States National Academy of Sciences, Professor Frederick Seitz, wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal in which he wrote, "  ...... But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

Seitz continued,

"...... Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following statements are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases." 

"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes." 

"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."


Copy of the Letter

A full copy of Seitz's letter is here.

I have also made a full copy here,, with certain parts highlighted by me.

It is noteworthy that copies of this letter are disappearing from the internet! Obviously, some people feel that this letter is damaging to the cause of promoting "man-made global warming" and it is significant these people are able to cause copies of the letter to be deleted from websites. However, copies can probably still be found in some of the "good" websites that I list at the end of Page 3.

Explanation of the Letter

Although I have not read the 1995 IPCC report, I have read what other scientists besides Seitz have written about it (and other IPCC reports). The case of this 1995 report is quite well-known among climate scientists.

From my understanding, the report contained scientific papers written by scientists all over the world, and included a section containing recommendations and opinions from IPCC scientists who had studied these papers. (It should be noted that several of these IPCC scientists were not believers in the theory of man-made global warming and others simply had an open mind regarding the possibility that mankind's activities were seriously influencing climate, rather than being strong believers in it.)

The report had a summary, which, I believe, summarized the recommendations and opinions mentioned above, rather than being a full copy of all those recommendations and opinions. I believe it is this summary that Seitz claimed was changed (and distorted) after the contributing scientists had agreed on the wording of the summary. Possibly the original recommendations and opinions still existed deep in the report, where policy makers would be unlikely to read them. But if any of those recommendations and opinions were completely deleted from the report, as Seitz claimed, then that is a serious case of a politically-based corruption of science.

The key point concerning this 1995 report is that several of the IPCC scientists wrote that,  based on the research papers, man-made global warming was far from proven or even far from likely, but the summary of the report implied the opposite, i.e., that the research seemed to indicate that man-made global warming was highly likely to be true.

It is important to understand that policy makers (government officials) around the world who receive these reports are usually not scientists so they don't fully study the complete reports – they usually base their decision-making only on the summaries of the reports, which are supposed to represent policy advice from the IPCC. In fact, many governments have agreed (like a legal agreement) to accept the advice from the IPCC.


8) Prof. Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society

Hal Lewis is a well known American physicist and professor. The link below shows a copy of his resignation letter, sent October 6, 2010 to the American Physical Society (APS), which he has been a member of since 1943.

Here are his qualifications:

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

Below are two key sentences from his resignation letter;

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist."


Note (Written Feb. 4, 2011)

The original page, shown above, has disappeared from the internet, as have some other copies of the letter. But there is still a copy here:

In case that copy also disappears, I have reproduced that page, here.


9) Nobel Prize Winner Resigns Over an ‘Incontrovertible’ Stance on Global Warming

September 15, 2011

Ivar Giaever, a 1973 Nobel laureate in physics, resigned this month as a fellow of the American Physical Society (APS) to protest the organization’s official position that evidence of manmade climate change is “incontrovertible’’ and cause for alarm. In an e-mail explaining his resignation, Giaever challenged the view that any scientific assertion is so sacred that it cannot be contested.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS:

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM

Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS


Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973


PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.

This copy of the email is from

Also see here for more discussion and explanation:

(A copy of that page is here.)


10) There is No Scientific Consensus at the UN

This article is dated 20 December 2009, just after both the Copenhagen climate conference and the "Climategate" scandal. The author explains some aspects of  the politics behind this fraud.


11) A Petition signed by more than 30,000 scientists in the U.S.A. alone (i.e., not including international scientists) opposing the theory of "man-made global warming"

The page on that website called, "Purpose of the Petition", states the following:

 "The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.

It is evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."

Especially important on that website is the page called, Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research. In addition to agreeing to the actual words of the petition, the signers of the petition are expected to have read this paper, which can be viewed here - HTML version of the article.

Although the article was written for scientists, even non-scientists (and non-native English speakers) should be able to understand some of or most of the key points in that article. Some key sentences from that article are:

"The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1",

"While CO2 has increased substantially, its effect on temperature has been so slight that it has not been experimentally detected", and

"Human production of 8 Gt C per year of CO2 is negligible as compared with the 40,000 Gt C residing in the oceans and biosphere." (Gt C = gigatons of carbon)

(The atmosphere at present contains about 380 parts per million of CO2 and this is currently increasing. In other words, 0.038% of the atmosphere is CO2. The amount of  CO2 in the atmosphere has always increased and decreased over time. Mankind's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is estimated at  about 2.75%, which is insignificant when compared to the natural variations of CO2 in the atmosphere.)


12) Members of World's Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears  (2009)

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”


13) Moonwalkers Defy Al Gore's Claim (2009)

At least two of NASA's astronauts who were involved with the "first landing of a man on the moon", Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt and Award-Winning NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin have declared that they reject Al Gore's theory of man-made global warming.

In a related article:

"In an unprecedented slap at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists--including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center--claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency." Continue reading at's-global-warming-endorsement/469366 or see screenshot.


14) Other Long Lists of International Scientists Dissenting Man-Made Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims - Challenge UN IPCC & Gore  

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims 


15) Dr. Willie Soon

Dr. Willie Soon is one of the leading experts on climate change. He is an astrophysicist and a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Video: Dr. Willie Soon on Global Climate Change

The key point of Dr. Soon's talk is that no correlation was found between CO2 levels and arctic surface temperatures over the past 100 years, while a strong correlation was found between solar activity and the arctic temperatures. The screenshot below, from the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, illustrates what Willie Soon says in the video.

See here for a transcript of this video.  See here and here for audio copies of that video.     

Additional article: Dr. Willie Soon Interview


16) Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

(MIT is the best science university in the USA)

Richard Lindzen is one of the leading climate scientists (among many other climate scientists and tens of thousands of scientists in general) who oppose the idea of "man-made global warming". I recommend any website article written by him or any video that features him. However, for many people, the degree of scientific sophistication needed to read and understand his points is sometimes a bit advanced, usually because he is addressing other scientists. But what he says in normal, "layman's terms" is well worth reading or listening to.

From Wikipedia:

In a 2007 interview on the Larry King Show, Lindzen said:

"we're talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios -- of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less. ... I think it's mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves." (On video at

And, (also from Wikipedia):

In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen points out that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and concludes that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were "based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc. ... Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."


Below are a few articles, audio interviews or videos of Professor Lindzen

Interview, November 22, 2010: James Corbett interviews Richard Lindzen or here,  See here for the transcript of this interview.

Article, Nov. 2009: "The Climate Science Isn't Settled"  (This article is also found at:

Article, Dec. 2009: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Video of Lecture, Dec. 2009: "Deconstructing Global Warming":

Article, March 2009: "What We Are Up Against and What To Do"  A video of this talk is here:

Video (TV interview): Is the Debate Over?

Article, 2008: Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

Article, 2006: There Is No 'Consensus' On Global Warming:

Testimony before the US Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 (Summary)

Testimony before the US Senate Commerce Committee on 1 May 2001 (Full testimony)

Statement, Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, June 10, 1997:

Article, 1992: "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus"


17) Dr. Tim Ball

Dr. Tim Ball is a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. He has been an outspoken opponent of the "man-made global warming" for decades and you can find many articles, videos and audio recordings of him on the internet. In the James Corbett interview shown below, he discusses some of the main scientific flaws in the theory of anthropogenic global warming and the political agenda behind it.

Interview: 2007/07/04 James Corbett interviews Dr. Tim Ball

The following is another interesting, informative and easy to listen to interview with Dr. Ball. He talks about gathering historical weather information, about the politics of the man-made global warming movement, about the Climategate emails and about the "hockey stick" graph:

See also the audio files of interviews with Dr, Ball about Climategate, above.

A lecture by Dr. Tim Ball:

The following is a 2016 interview of Tim Ball -


An Excellent Interview of Tim Ball

This (downloadable) audio recording is an excellent introduction to this topic. However, if you are really new to this topic, you will hear references to a lot of things that you probably don't know much about. This will show you how complex this whole topic is but hopefully it won't leave you confused and lost.

It is a 2013 interview of Dr. Tim Ball, a retired professor of climatology in Canada. He is a good talker (a good story teller), very easy to listen to, and very good at explaining things in terms that a non-scientist can understand. He talks about many different things related of the topic of climate change, including the fraudulent science, the persecution of scientists who question the man-made global warming theory, the United Nations I.P.C.C., and other political aspects of this fraud. He certainly knows the details, both scientific and political, of this topic.

There was a second interview of Tim Ball on Oct 4, 2013. However, most of this second interview is a discussion of the political philosophy of the Club of Rome, the main political group behind the man-made global warming movement and the current global governance movement, a philosophy that is similar to the old theories of Malthus. The fact that the Club of Rome is behind all this is not even debated here until half way through the interview when Tim Ball is asked if it is true – it's assumed that people familiar with this topic know who is behind it.

However, I disagree with their description of the global governance plan of the Club of Rome as "collectivist" and "Marxist". It's fascist, not socialist – both are "collectivist" but each of these "isms" is a mortal enemy of the other. For example,  Hitler's Nazi Party and Soviet Communism were mortal enemies. Socialism is precisely the "ism" that the Club of Rome wants to eliminate, worldwide! Who do you think is behind the current worldwide push for the privatization of state-owned assets and services? Santa Claus? 

Besides that misconception, (resulting from carefully cultivated propaganda by the very same forces that are behind this global governance movement), this interview is worth listening to in order to learn a few new things, including a couple of good jokes from Tim Ball. Listen or download at this page:

A 2016 video of Tim Ball is

Tim Ball's website is


Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

July 4, 2017

Tim Ball wins in Canadian court lawsuit brought by Michael Mann against him.


18) Piers Corbyn

Dr. Piers Corbyn, an astrophysicist, is the originator of a revolutionary solar weather technique of long-range forecasting and a founder of Weather Action Long Range Forecasters. His first scientific publications were on aspects of meteorology and astronomy. He also carried out astrophysics research at Queen Mary College London and published work on galaxy formation and the mean matter density of the universe.

From his research into the causes of weather change, he totally rejects the carbon dioxide-based theory of global warming and climate change. Piers Corbyn is another scientist who has made his voice heard on the topic of global warming fraud. You can find many videos, television interviews and articles on the internet featuring him. Below is one interview.

He has also done considerable research on the upcoming global cooling, very possibly a mini Ice Age.

He was interviewed by the international television channel Russia Today, concerning the 10-10 video, shown on Page 3.


19) A Few Other Well-Known Experts

Scientists Abandon Global Warming Lies

Ask yourself why you have never heard of this, why it wasn't on the TV you watch or in the newspapers you read.

There are hundreds of climate experts who disagree with the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming. Even if you don't fully understand the science, there must be good reasons why these scientists adopt such strong  positions in opposition to the theory of "man-made global warming". (Note that Wikipedia articles always have a pro-man-made global warming bias.)

Article: Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW Alarm

Article: Prominent Climatologists Skeptical of AGW Alarm


Dr. Judith Curry:

Curry interviewed by Ron Paul


Professor Judith Curry Quits over Climate "Craziness"

Judith Curry: “The deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists."

Professor Judith Curry Blasts Obamas Climate Alarmism

18 Apr 2015 ... Prof. Curry blasts Obama's climate lies, and his climate 'deal' with China, in a House hearing on the 15th April, 2015.
Professor Judith Curry - The State of the Climate Debate

Dr. Judith Curry

Mar 30, 2017

Dr. Curry appears before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology - Climate Science Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method


Judith Curry’s Statement to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the US Senate


Dr. William Gray:

Dr. Tim Patterson: and

Dr. S. Fred Singer:

Dr. Patrick Michaels:

Dr. Will Happer:

See also - "Dr William Happer Destroys Climate Change Hysteria in 7 minutes" and, - "Physicist William Happer Schooled The CNBC Crowd On Global Warming"

Dr. Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winner in physics):

Dr. Roy Spencer:

Video of Dr. Spencer - "What do we really know about global warming?"

Dr. Henrik Svensmark:

Dr. David Douglas: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."

Dr. Ian Clark (geologist): "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."

Dr. Sallie Baliunas: "The recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."

Dr. Chris de Freitas: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."

Dr. Habibullo Ismailovich Abdussamatov, Russian astrophysicist:

Dr. Kiminori Itoh (UNIPCC Japanese scientist and award-winning environmental physical chemist): Calls warming fears: "Worst scientific scandal in the history"  "When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists."

Dr. Freeman Dyson - "Top Scientist Calls Out Nuclear & Climate Change Science"

Dr. Ed Berry
Read here

"Why our CO2 emissions do not increase Atmosphere CO2"

(One quotation from this article - "... a generation of science deniers, some with PhD's ...")


Page 1

Page 3