CLIMATE Skeptics Have Valid Reasons To Question Manmade Global Warming


A MUST read op/ed written by Craig Rucker, Executive Director of CFACT and CFACT President David Rothbard.

THIS excellent piece focuses on an important part of the climate debate often overlooked – the heat absorption ability of the carbon dioxide molecule as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.

THE article received “coast to coast” attention via a media usually dismissive of sceptical arguments to the supposed “climate crisis”…

RUCKER’s forward received via email …

“Newspapers coast to coast”


This CFACT Op Ed appeared in the newspapers above and more!

Media bias against climate realism is rampant – especially on the national level. Some major publications, like the Los Angeles Times, have actually positioned themselves in opposition to free speech by imposing bans on opinions running counter to the Al Gore narrative.

Fortunately that is not the case with many local media outlets.

I’d like to call your attention, for a couple reasons, to a recent op/ed I co-wrote with CFACT President David Rothbard.

First, as we’ve discussed so often before, the contents of our article reveal that the hysterical case for global warming doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. There are good reasons, scientifically speaking, why those who are skeptical of climate alarmism have their doubts.

Secondly, and most encouragingly, our op/ed hasn’t been circular filed – as it might have been by the establishment media. In fact, it appeared in a host of local newspapers from one end of the United States to the other!

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming

by and

Many people are actively worried about global warming. And it frustrates them that skeptics and “deniers” refuse to acknowledge the “science” of such an urgent, manmade problem.

But there may be valid reasons to dispute the theory that man is responsible for climate change. And to demonstrate why the issue isn’t so clearcut, here’s a basic climate question to ponder:

As the level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere increases, does its ability to absorb heat increase, decrease or remain the same?

Most people will assume the answer is “increase.” After all, CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas. Adding more of it to the atmosphere should mean more heat being “trapped.”

The correct answer, however, is decrease.

How do we know this? Because the U.N.’s very own, Al Gore-friendly Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acknowledged in its reports that CO2 loses the ability to absorb heat as its concentration increases. The IPCC explains that CO2 follows a “logarithmic dependence,” which means that it takes ever-doubling amounts of CO2 to keep adding the same amount of heat absorption in the atmosphere. In fact, CO2 absorbs only a certain narrow spectrum of infrared radiation, and the IPCC recognizes that the middle of this band is already “saturated.”

People who fret about manmade warming may find it hard to believe that CO2 actually loses “heat-trapping” ability. But they should know that even the very climate-concerned IPCC admits to such limitations. They still argue that we need to fear manmade warming, however. And their reason is simply that they believe any additional heat absorbed by CO2 will be greatly amplified by water vapor feedback.

This begs the question … are they right? The answer is “No.”

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere — and responsible for most of the warming that keeps the Earth habitable. In order to make their case, the IPCC theorizes that any additional warming from CO2 will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere. And this water vapor will trap more heat, raising temperatures further. It is this “feedback loop” that is used to justify their predictions of catastrophic, future warming.

It’s an interesting concept, but it contains an inherent problem. Water vapor added to the atmosphere inevitably transitions to clouds. And cumulus clouds not only reflect solar radiation back into space but also produce rain. And rainfall not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. This is why water vapor feedback remains heavily debated in the scientific community, and even the IPCC admits that “an uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.”

One thing we can all agree on, though, is that the Earth has warmed over the past 150 years, and by roughly 0.85 degrees Celsius. But the cause of this warming may well be the significant increase in solar activity during that time. In 2016, Norwegian scientists Harald Yndestad and Jan-Erik Solheim reported that solar output during the 20th century reached the highest levels in 4,000 years. And also in 2016, at least 132 peer-reviewed scientific papers suggested a solar influence on climate.

The IPCC rejects claims of solar variability, though. They argue that changes in solar “irradiance” (brightness) are relatively small. But recent research from scientists like Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark demonstrates that variations in the sun’s output also affect the solar magnetic field and solar wind — which directly influence ionization in the troposphere and cloud formation.

As the IPCC observed in its first assessment report in 1990, global climate in recent millennia “has fluctuated over a range of up to 2 degrees Celsius on time scales of centuries or more.” It’s very possible that the heightened solar activity of the past century has driven recent global warming. As such, there are valid reasons to question the theory of manmade climate change, and to urge greater study of the issue.

Climate skeptics have valid reasons to question manmade warming | CFACT


CO2 Related :

CO2 – “The Stuff of Life” – Greening The Planet :



The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

― Michael Crichton



The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.


November 30, 2009, 7:44 p.m. ET

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and


because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

The defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas is that it is relatively transparent to visible light from the sun but can absorb portions of thermal radiation. In general, the earth balances the incoming solar radiation by emitting thermal radiation, and the presence of greenhouse substances inhibits cooling by thermal radiation and leads to some warming.

That said, the main greenhouse substances in the earth’s atmosphere are water vapor and high clouds. Let’s refer to these as major greenhouse substances to distinguish them from the anthropogenic minor substances. Even a doubling of CO2 would only upset the original balance between incoming and outgoing radiation by about 2%. This is essentially what is called “climate forcing.”

There is general agreement on the above findings. At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim. Keep Reading »

The Climate Emails

The Economics of Climate Change
Rigging a Climate ‘Consensus’ 
Global Warming With the Lid Off 
Climate Science and Candor

UN-Settled Science

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. The observed rapid warming gives urgency to discussions about how to slow greenhouse gas emissions.” – James Hansen

The pace of global warming is accelerating and the scale of the impact is devastating. The time for action is limited – we are approaching a tipping point beyond which the opportunity to reverse the damage of CO2 emissions will disappear.” – Eliot Spitzer

“Climate change is a global problem. The planet is warming because of the growing level of greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. If this trend continues, truly catastrophic consequences are likely to ensue from rising sea levels, to reduced water availability, to more heat waves and fires.” – Malcolm Turnbull


We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member


Screen Shot 2013-08-26 at , August 26, 12.22.16 PM

UN Charts ‘Unprecedented’ Global Warming Since 2000 – Bloomberg July 3 2013

Global Warming alarmists tell us that the world is heating at an unprecedented rate due to the unprecedented output of human greenhouse gas emissions.

True, global emissions have risen sharply since the post World War II industrial boom from 1945 onwards, and at an unprecedented rate over the past 15 years due largely to the China and SE Asian industrial booms. However, the dramatic increase in global GHG industrial emissions has not been accompanied by the UN IPCC’s predicted rise in global surface temperatures over the past 15 years, at all.

Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years! — Dr Roy Spencer


Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

China emits a quarter of the world’s industrial emissions, with its CO2 output having increased by around 300% from 1998 to 2011. Total world CO2 emissions have increased by around 30% over the same period:

Screen Shot 2013-08-26 at , August 26, 11.19.18 PM

International Energy Statistics


A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), as presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that CO2 emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”  Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise.


Although temperature is not a measurement of ‘heat’ in the climate system, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), former directer James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicised, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of AGW alarmist projections made by the IPCC.

Atmospheric surface temps have been used and marketed since the end of the last global cooling phase from 1945-1976 and explicitly through the 1990′s as the definitive measure of ‘theorised’ human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming.

The warming through the 1980′s and 90′s, that gave birth to the man-made global warming scare, has been theorised as a result of the steady increase in human greenhouse gas emissions.


OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. This has become one the biggest mysteries and most controversial issues in climate science today, throwing doubt over the assumed climate sensitivity to CO2.

The distinct lack of any warming has compromised greatly the ability of climate models to accurately predict short and long-term climate trends, and in my opinion goes a long way toward the ‘critical failure’ that falsifies the very hypothesis and foundation of the anthropogenic global warming theory.


Satellite temperature records on six different data sets show that there has been no atmospheric global warming since 1998 or any statistically-significant warming for between 18 and 23 years. A distinct lack of any warming evident, despite a dramatic rise in industrial greenhouse gas emissions over the same period:

Peer-Reviewed studies that confirm the lack of any global warming since 1998:



A Study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

WattsUpWithThat on the IPCC AR5 leaked findings:

When somebody hits you with that new ‘IPCC is 95% certain’ talking point on global warming, show them this

Here is the statement again, emphasis mine:

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities – chiefly the burning of fossil fuels – are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

OK, so here’s the 64 thousand dollar questions for IPCC cheerleaders:

  1. Which side is which time period?
  2. What caused the warming before CO2 became an issue to be essentially identical to the period when it is claimed to be the main driver?
  3. How is the IPCC 95% certain one side is caused by man and the other is not?


Early warming period 1917-1944 (280-300 ppm CO2) had the same rate of warming (with less CO2) as late warming period 1976-2012 (350-400 ppm CO2):

observed warming rates

The case against CO2 – 100 years of temperature change: After 50 years, 1961 had a greater mean temperature increase with less CO2:


Last 100 Years of CO2 & Temperatures: The IPCC’s HadCRUT Data Confirms CO²’s Small Impact On Global Warming

The UN IPCC claim humans 0.0012% or 12 parts per million addition of CO2 into the total atmosphere (versus natures 97%) is driving temp/climate change and potential CAGW. Their workings discount natural influences; solar radiation, clouds, volcanic eruptions, ocean currents PDO/AMO as having any real effect on the climate. The IPCC’s original brief by UNEP & WMO was to isolate the effect and human fingerprint of only human CO2 emissions and NOT natural variation. 20 years on and $100 Billion later, the IPCC is still yet to find the global signature of human CO2. See missing hotspot »

Sceptical scientists and climate realists, contest natural variation; solar magnetic effects, volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, ozone depletion, ocean currents PDO/AMO, clouds, all play a much more significant role in the climate system.



‘Club Of Rome’ an environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations (founders of the IPCC), published these thoughts in their 1991 book The First Global Revolution:

The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself

The First Global Revolution 

Founder of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) Maurice Strong:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialised civilisations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
– Maurice Strong

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.

– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

UNEP Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement/Habitat Development Zones

UN Agenda 21 – global action plan for sustainable development into the 21st century: 238 Australian councils currently operate UN’s Agenda 21 Sustainable Development program through ICLEI Oceania:

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– UN Agenda 21

The UN’s goal of de-industrialising the world by limiting the use of carbon based energies (whilst offering no viable alternatives) embodied here by Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation:

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.

– Timothy Wirth

Timothy Wirth is a follower of the teachings Thomas Malthus, the British economist who predicted in 1789 that the planet’s rapid increase in population would soon outstrip the planet’s ability to produce food resulting in massive worldwide starvation.

Upon Wirth’s election to Congress in 1974, he asked: “Are we going to blow ourselves off the face of the globe or are we going to propagate ourselves off the face of the globe?”

The science of global warming means little to AGW zealots who use the guise of environmentalism to pursue radical ideological, social and political change:

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment


Every true genius is bound to be naive …

“If Margaret Thatcher took climate change seriously and believed that we should take action to reduce global greenhouse emissions, then taking action and supporting and accepting the science can hardly be the mark of incipient Bolshevism.” –  Malcolm Turnbull


ATMOSPHERIC Physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen, examines the politics and ideology behind the CO2-centricity that beleaguers the man-made climate change agenda. His summary goes to the very heart of why Carbon Dioxide has become the centre-piece of the ‘global’ climate debate:

“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”


Afterthought: If mother nature emits 97% of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere, does that mean she emits 97% ‘Carbon Pollution’?