Santa Claus The First Climate Refugee – Science: Man-Made “Climate Change” Hoax

Image: Kavanaugh opens door to carbon rule challenge

2017: Canadian government website claims Santa Claus has signed agreement to move to South Pole because of global warming in the Arctic

Video by Tony Heller 

Canadian taxpayer money being used to scare children with mindless climate propaganda.


From 2016

Man-Made “Climate Change” Hoax

By Len Duggan

This article will show how some highly emotive issues have been wrongly linked to atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It will address the media claims that the “science is settled” and show that most climate scientists actually believe man’s emissions of gases are not responsible for global warming.

It will show that high CO2 levels are not harmful to humans but are instead beneficial to life on Earth because higher levels of CO2 enable plants to grow bigger, stronger and healthier. It will show that the ability of plants to fix vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis is completely overlooked in all climate models.

It will address the global warming / polar ice cap melt claim and show that the ice melts because it is subject to underground heat. It will also show that glaciation can only be measured properly over time periods of around 10,000 years and that Polar Bears are in fact thriving.

It will show how corrupted “cherry-picked” data was used, and that this data was further corrected by scientists, rendering doubt on its usefulness and reliability.

It will also show that no real global warming has occurred in the last 150 years and how historical data has been corrupted and is therefore misleading.

It will show that mistakes were made in the design of the climate models that were used by the IPCC to identify CO2 as the driver for global warming and that these faulty climate models were then used to make erroneous predictions of global temperature change for the future.

It will show that although atmospheric COresponds to Global temperature changes it lags global temperature and therefore can never be the driver for any temperature change.

It will outline some of the political reasons behind the CO2 scare that is propagated by the governmental IPCC and show that many respected climate scientists disagree with the IPCC prognosis.

It will then show that the Global variation in temperature is cyclic. It will show that the ice ages are driven by the changes in Earth’s orbital distance from the Sun and the modern day temperature changes are also products of natural Earth and Sun cycles.

First, we must make sure we understand what we are talking about. There are many bad things happening in the modern World we live in, but we can be sure none of those things have any connection to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

CO2 never polluted the ocean with plastic, it was never responsible for government and corporation agendas for deforestation.

It was not responsible for the Fukushima accident, it never poisoned the ground through fracking, it isn’t responsible for the microparticles of plastic in our water bottles and it didn’t poison the groundwater in Flint.

It is not responsible for any of the wars in the world.

It didn’t cause mass die-offs of fish and birds, it hasn’t killed the pollinating insects, CO2 didn’t pollute living things with aluminium and it didn’t cause pollution through oil spills.

It is also not responsible for the increase in autism and it didn’t bring down 3 towers on 911.

9 out of 10, or 97%, is used by the media to mean “almost all” and is a tool for sales and persuasion, this is why some studies have been given more publicity than others. There has been numerous media claims that 97% of scientists agree “that man is responsible for global warming” and that “the science is settled” but on closer investigation we see that this is a biased opinion and a sales pitch.

The 97% claim originated from the 1993 “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity”(40) and is quoted by the media as being a warning about CO2. However, the study was warning about ozone depletion, freshwater resources, reconstructed marine catch, dead zones, deforestation, vertebrate species extinctions and human population levels, CO2 was only mentioned as an adjunct to the main thrust of the study.

Again in 2008, the media repeated the 97% claim. However, on examination, this study hand-picked 77 replies from a planned 10,257 scientists and of the 77 hand-picked replies 75 agreed that man-made CO2 was to blame fo global warming. 75 out of 77 is 97% and these 75 scientists have been published in the media as representing a global consensus and allowed to decide the future of mankind.

Again in 2013, for the third time, the media repeated the same 97% headlines but this time relating to the 2013 study by Cook. This study used a system where authors of papers “self-rated the abstracts” from their papers allowing for a conclusion that “Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus”. Not only is this not science but after re-examination of the data it was found that only 64 of the 11,944 science studies came to the conclusion that man was responsible for global warming.

These misleading headlines are repeated many times, over a long period of time by the media, to make them seem more believable. This travesty and false science promoted by some individuals is documented in a book called “A Disgrace to the profession” by Mark Steyn.

The reporting and manipulation of knowledge by the media is further highlighted when concidering the unreported fact that a far larger consensus of 31,479 signers, of which 9,029 hold PhDs say they wholeheartedly disagree that man is responsible for global warming through CO2 emissions, and they back the study by Robinson et al.(49)  that shows man will not change the temperature of the earth and concludes “we are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed”.

The media has also claimed that CO2 is responsible for acidification of the oceans, but this is misleading too. Raven, in his 2005 study into acidification of the oceans shows that it is impossible for the sea to change pH because it is buffered by an abundant supply of calcium carbonate in the sediment. The study says “The carbonate buffer acts to stabilise the average pH of seawater at approximately pH = 8 because of the following two processes: (i) uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere and (ii) interaction of seawater with oceanic sediments composed of CaCO3. Because CaCO3 is abundant in sediments, the pH of the deep oceans cannot change by large amounts over timescales of 10 000 years”(41). It accepts that changes can occur near to the surface, but these small changes are obviously mixed by upwelling from the depths. Therefore, the pH of the ocean is still 8.1.

We are also told by the media that the sea level is rising but this is not true either. The sea level is calculated using measurements obtained from ground stations that are on land that is sinking, and satellites that are in degrading orbits and therefore erroneously showing the sea is rising when in reality this is not the case. The latest European satellite called “Envisat” is able to measure the sea level to millimetre accuracy and is able to detect the rise and fall of 4 millimetres between summer and winter as the oceans warm and cool. Envisat shows that there is no rise in sea level and this is explained by NASA scientists in a video titled “25 NASA Scientists Question the Sanity of the Global Warmists”. Their website can be accessed from and a synopsis of their findings can be found here.

The Polar ice cap melt problem does not exist in the way the media would like us to believe.

When considering the Arctic, a 2018 study found that heat from under Greenland within the Earth’s interior drives the melting of the ice cap and should be considered in the future when calculating ice growth (57).

The polar bear decline in population scare is negated by Dr Susan Crockford, a respected zoologist, when she explains in her video how this scare was not based on fact. Her understanding is further supported by science studies that have documented polar bear populations thriving and increasing in areas of sea ice loss(50).

When considering the Antarctic, there are many studies reporting an ice loss like the one recently published by Eric Rignot, however, it used an average of “drainage inventory, ice thickness, and ice velocity data to calculate the grounding line ice discharge” over a time period of 40 years when our ability to measure the ice was limited(62).

NASA 2013 study used “changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008” and recorded that the “Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001” and also said, “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise but is taking 0.23 millimetres per year away”. Even though the net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008(48). The NASA study highlights “the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica” and explains that “doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of snow accumulation that need to be done independently to understand what’s happening in these places”. It also explains that “the extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. NASA say that this small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise”(48). This study explains the large time scales that ice growth and glaciation changes over and also explains the limitations of any study that doesn’t consider snow fall.

2017 NASA article quotes a science study by Seroussi et al. (2017) that explains underground volcanic plumes are heating the ice in Antarctica through cracks in the Earth crust and causing the outflow of water through the ice stream(69).

Furthermore, a 2019 study confirmed a negative greenhouse effect occurs over the Antarctic because water vapour facilitates the loss of heat into space. The study explains that “before the satellite age in the 1960’s, Earth’s greenhouse effect (GHE) had not been directly measured”. The study explains that the discovery of the negative feedback loop was unexpected but it provides evidence to confirm CO2 is not involved and that this feedback loop is controlled by water vapour and is functioning to the Earth’s deficit for 9 months of the year. The study cites support for the new discovery in 2 other science studies, one by Loeb et al. (2009) and another by Kato et al. (2013) that both measured the “top of the atmosphere” temperatures(72).

It has been claimed that the last few years have been the hottest on record by climate alarmists but NASA reported recently (6th June 2019) that pictures from satellites show a growth in the Greenland ice over the last 3 years(60).

This understanding of the ice sheets completely negates the idea that global warming is causing the ice to melt because we have proof that underground thermal hotspots are responsible for the flow of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic, and the amount of new snow falling is similar every year, while the ice also provides a negative greenhouse effect from the water vapour feedback loop.

The wrong understanding of CO2 levels has been taught to us by the media promoted information. We have been led to believe that high CO2 levels are somehow dangerous to us and the planet, this has led people to confuse carbon dioxide with poisonous carbon monoxide in their minds.

Humans are often exposed to CO2 levels in enclosed spaces like meeting rooms, submarines (advised limit 8,000 ppm) and the space station (advised limit 5,000 ppm), without any ill effects.

A 2018 study published in Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance found no decision making difficulties at CO2 levels up to 15,000 ppm(64).

The reality is that the planet was at its most healthy when CO2 levels were at least 20 times higher (7,000 ppm) than the current levels today (400 ppm)(8). Plants use CO2 for their health, and plant growth responds dramatically when levels are increased. Higher CO2 levels produce higher yielding and better-quality crops and thereby encourages a better general health of our planet. CBS news reported that humans contributed 38.2 Gigatons of CO2 last year(46). However, plants fix CO2 from the air and the more CO2 that is present in the air, the more plants will fix using photosynthesis. At CO2 levels of 350 ppm plants will fix 51 Gigatons and if levels rise to 650 ppm, then plants will fix 64.3 Gigatons per year. This increase of 13.3 Gigatons of CO2 fixed by plants is overlooked by climate scientists.

We should think of our CO2 emissions as more food for animals to thrive on(9). If CO2 levels dropped too low (<150 ppm) we would be approaching a total world extinction event. CO2 is not our enemy and this is why CO2 generating equipment is used in commercial greenhouses(10).

We are also told in the media that CO2 has increased by 50% but this is misleading too, because in reality CO2 has risen from 0.032% in 1960s to 0.041% now. Obviously this small rise of 0.009% over 60 years would make very little difference.

NOAA say that COlevels are rising by an average of 2.5 ppm each year, that is only 0.0025% per year and this may be as a result of changes in CO2 use by trees through deforestation and not because of additional CO2 from industrialisation. I can only imagine that the “50% rise in CO2” quote is designed by the media to evoke an emotional response in its readers.

Radiative forcing is measured in watt per square metre (W/m2) and a 1998 study estimated the radiative forcing of CO2 as 1.8 W/m2(44) but a study of contrail induced cirrus cloud, colloquially known as chemtrails, has proven the clouds that grow from the exhaust of planes has a warming effect of 10 W/m2 during daylight hours and 30 W/mduring night time(45). Therefore, the clouds left by planes have a far greater effect on the warming of the planet than CO2.

The role of clouds in global warming was again highlighted in a 2019 study that confirms this part of the equation is completely omitted by the IPCC. This study goes on to conclude that low cloud is the main controlling factor for global temperature and claims a direct correlation between the amount of clouds and temperature variations(61).

Many studies take the view of Florides by saying “based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01– 0.03°C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO2” And goes on to explain “Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO2 content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon”(51).

Atmospheric CO2 is linked to Global temperature(111) but it is very easy to apply logic to this relationship to know for sure that CO2 does not drive global temperature. It is in fact temperature that drives the release of CO2 from the ocean because a warmer ocean cannot hold as much dissolved CO2 (109). This relationship can easily be proven when we consider the changing CO2 levels through history. CO2 is not a constant in the atmosphere and changes concentration in regular cycles. Night-time has more CO2 than day-time and winter has more CO2 than summer because plants use it at a faster rate for photosynthesis during the day-time and summer-time. This is explained by Beck in his 2007 study(108). Beck explains that CO2 levels rise during warm periods and notes that in the 1820s the CO2 level was approximately 540 ppm and during August 1940 a level of 550 ppm is recorded. Beck explains that “historical measurements indicating fluctuating CO2 levels between 300 and more than 400 ppm have been neglected”. He continues to explain that many thousands of investigations into CO2 levels for the time period between 1812 and 1961 have been made and we should consider “the historical data” as being “reliable in themselves” because they are “supported by the credible seasonal, monthly and daily variations that they display, the pattern of which corresponds with modern measurements” (108). This is proof that the atmospheric CO2 levels are not being considered by science correctly.

As an example of this, Hansen et al. (2008)(110) makes the same mistake as all of the climate alarmists in that he claims the drop in atmospheric CO2 50 million years ago was the driver for that glaciation period. However, the only support given for this claim is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it causes feedback loops that drive temperature change. If this were the case, why did we not have a runaway global warming event 550 million years ago when CO2 levels were around 7,000 ppm? Why did the glaciation period of 450 million years ago occur when CO2 levels were approximately 4,500 ppm? Why did the Earth warm after the glaciation period of 300 million years ago when CO2 levels were only 300 ppm? Why did the glaciation period 150 million years ago occur when CO2 levels were approximately 2,500 ppm and why did the Earth warm after the glaciation period of 50 million years ago when CO2 levels were low? None of these questions can be answered just by considering CO2 as being a greenhouse gas. If CO2 levels were the driver for temperature then why does the Earth cool when CO2 is high and why does the earth warm when CO2 is low? These simple observations and the application of logic prove that even though CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas it does not drive temperature but temperature is in fact the driver for CO2 release from the ocean into the atmosphere(109).

Further proof that CO2 does not drive Global temperature change can be found in the fact that CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes(112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117) and so CO2 can never be responsible for driving Global temperature changes.

The NOAA study (June 2014) suggests that global warming is still going on but only because they massaged their data set too(3). NOAA are claiming that their data needed to be corrected in light of the fact that the “Ships collecting temperature data did so first by gathering water either in wooden buckets, in canvas buckets, by thermometers positioned near engine intake valves, and later buoys – resulting in temperature measurements that varied slightly by collection method and requiring correction”(6).

This is obviously a flawed approach to understanding and working with the figures collected because the problem NOAA have highlighted in the methodology would have actually resulted in the recorded temperatures being higher than reality and not lower as they are suggesting.

Obviously, NOAA has corrected the figures in the wrong direction, multiplying the mistake instead of rectifying it. Temperature figures subjected to arbitrary corrections by the statisticians can never be trusted as showing reality in any way(6).

When Dr Evans used unadulterated figures from satellites he found a very different outcome that disproved a causal effect of CO2 as the driver for Climate Change(2).

Mistakes within the climate model architecture changed the results obtained from the models completely. The heat trapped by the increasing levels of CO2 just reroutes via water vapour into space. This whole category of feedback was omitted, which greatly exaggerated the calculated sensitivity to CO2. This one miscalculated fact was enough to skew the results so that they supported the misunderstanding of CO2 being the driver of climate change(1).

The big scare of CO2 being responsible for global warming was due to a simple modelling error. Dr David Evans is a very well qualified climate scientist with many years’ experience. He checked the architecture of the current climate models and discovered that while the underlying physics was correct, the climate scientists applied it incorrectly and that “two serious architectural errors were discovered in the basic climate model”(1).

These 2 errors were then fixed by Dr Evans and the original model was run again and future warming due to carbon dioxide was found to be only 10% or 20% of the previous estimates. The conventional climate models had been set up to work in a way that amplified the surface warming effect of CO2(2).

The actual recorded temperatures agreed with the new results from the model fixed by Dr Evans. Therefore, allowing us to be sure that the new model architecture is correct. This new model proves there is no global warming due to CO2(2).

Confirmation that the climate models used by the IPCC were faulty also came from a 2018 study by Lewis and Curry. It used the latest data and found that the majority of climate models previously used, gave higher results than the new version. It was concluded that previous IPCC estimates for future Global temperature if CO2 doubled were far higher than should be and any warming would actully occur over hundreds of year time periods(118).

The IPCC are using these amplified results from the faulty climate models and the NOAA faulty study to scare people into accepting their political control. They cite the melting of the ice caps as further proof of climate change, but the truth is that we have no idea of the ice thickness before the first satellite took measurements in 1973. They had to rely on information gained from Russian explorers after they returned from summer trips. No one entered the ice during the winter months. No data exists for the winter months in any way before 1973(6).

An evaluation of the IPCC report by Hertzberg (2016) identifies “nothing in the data” that “supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2”. The study points out that the “medieval warm period”, acknowledged on page 202 of the 1990 first report by the IPCC, peaked around 1200 AD and had no greenhouse gas contribution from industrialisation. The study also noted that the changes in global temperatures cycled through a time period of approximately 100,000 years and correlated with the “eccentricity of the Earth’s elliptical orbit about the sun” and confirms a recent increase in solar activity by cosmic ray intensification. Hertzberg also identifies a lack of reliable data and how it is difficult to access when it is published. Hertzberg explains how authors’ interpretations of this data have appeared “primitive” and “cherry-picked” to conform to the IPCC’s “party line” about the dangers of “greenhouse gases”(19).

A 2016 study also found no evidence of global warming during the last 150 years whilst studying chironomid remains in the sediments of Lake JR01 on the Boothia Peninsula in the Central Canadian Arctic(20).

Furthermore, a 2019 study found that the IPCC used a very large sensitivity to CO2 in order to compensate for the lack of natural radiative forcing, and the IPCC compounded this error by completely omitting the negative feedback from clouds which resulted in a further magnification of this sensitivity(61).

Identification of CO2 as the driver for climate change/global warming has been the product of powerful corporations with aims of controlling the world through domination of finance and food production.

The control of world industry and food production can best be accomplished by the control and restriction of CO2(5).

It is the will of big business, bankers and corporations to corrupt the global temperature data to initiate the control of CO2 emissions for the purpose of raising revenue by licensing.

The “World Conservation Bank” was set up in 1987 for the purpose of controlling CO2 emission taxes(5). This was formalised at the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen with the imposition of an international tax of 2% on all financial transactions. This tax would be controlled by the UN and returned to the World Conservation Bank. The IMF and Wolrd Conservation Bank are interconnected and support for their financial agenda comes from all angles(7).

There are scientists and corporations entering into an unholy alliance that enables big businesses to have the ability to influence opinion-makers on the extreme right of the U.S. political spectrum. Recently we have seen the effect of this influence in health and environmental sciences.

The purpose of this alliance has been to deny established scientific knowledge and is known as “tobacco science” because of its advice given in bad faith. “Merchants of Doubt” is a serious book written to expose a group of scientists who fought the scientific evidence to purposefully spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time.

Unfortunately, we cannot trust scientists to explain scientific findings with honesty. We must look directly at the scientific facts and check these against the politically influenced rhetoric we are given(4). We must be aware that data anomalies have been documented showing the altering of data to suit the IPCC narrative(38).

The media driven hoax has been bravely reported by great climate scientists and researchers who still have their personal integrity intact.

Dr Don Easterbrook, when he made his presentation to the Washington State Senate Committee on Climate Change(11).

Dr Patrick Moore, when he made his presentation to the US Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee, in which he also exposes the real agenda of Greenpeace(12).

Ivar Giaever gave a speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015 where he explains that the global temperature has been amazingly stable since 1880 and has only increased 0.3% during the last 135 years(13).

John Casey, the US leading expert in climate change, also made a presentation of his findings to expose the global warming scandal in which he presents real facts in a real way that makes perfect sense. Particularly when he outlines the political and financial pressures brought down on anyone who tries to tell the truth(14).

John Coleman makes numerous presentations of the fact that Global Warming is a hoax. He brings 60 years’ experience of weather prediction as a meteorologist that supports the integrity of the facts he presents(15).

Senator James M. Inhofe’s speech at the 2003 Senate commission on “The Science of Climate Change” refers to Dr. Frederick Seitz, a past president of the National Academy of Sciences, and a professor emeritus at Rockefeller University as claiming “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth(47)”. Senator Inhofe also highlighted that in 1974 the National Science Board, the governing body of the National Science Foundation, stated: “During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.” Two years earlier, the board had observed: “Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next glacial age”(47).

These people are the top scientists in the field of climate change and global warming. They are all presenting cold hard facts to support their understanding of the hoax and why it is happening. I think we should listen to what these top experts are saying.

Understanding the natural cycles effect over our climate is made easier if the cycles are divided into 2 groups, the “long-cycle” and the “short cycle” groups.

The long-cycles that affect the Earth create long slow changes that would not be noticed in at least 3 or 4 life-times, and so would never be apparent or make a difference in anyone’s life, these include:-

516-year-cycle discovered by examining the ocean sediment.

1,547-year Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle.

4,640-year Bond climate cycle.

~125-thousand-year climate cycle.

~30-million-year extinction cycle and

~822-million-year cycle in crustal formation(75).

These cycles are explained in 2 articles by Stephen J. Puetz(75, 76,) and a book by Borchardt and Puetz and are called the Extra-Universal Wave Series (EUWS). It is explained that the EUWS influence the Universe in general as well as the Earth. They correlate with many Earth bound events like volcanic activity, Earth’s magnetic field, global climate, evolution and can also be seen to influence “mass human behaviour” like the rise and fall of dominant civilisations, commodity prices, financial panics and they also influence extra-terrestrial events like star formations.

Milutin Milanković  discovered orbital variations that became known as the ~100,000-year Milanković Cycles. The changes to climate these variations bring can be seen in this video. The evidence for the Milanković cycles as the driver of ice ages throughout the history of the earth is substantial and confirmed by many science studies from various disciplines of science (21;22;23;24;25;26;27;28;29;30;31;32;33;34;35;36;37).

Da et al. (2019) found the glacial cycle had changed 1 million years ago from a ~41,000 year cycle that corresponded with the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane (the obliquity of the ecliptic), to the present ~100,000 year cycle that corresponds to the Earth’s orbital eccentricity. Da et al. (2019) went on to say that there had been no significant difference in CO2 levels over the last 3 million years suggesting that CO2 was not the driver for climate changes(58).

Earth’s orbital eccentricity was again confirmed as the driver for glaciation in a study published by NASA in 2006 where it was said that the Earth had been subjected to around 100 glaciations in the last 2.5 million years(59). It is thought that we are coming to the end of the warm period of this present cycle and the temperature of the Earth is set to rise by a maximum of 1.5 degrees before it goes into the next cold period.

The warming between the ice age cycle is confirmed by Oxford University when they studied the American mastodons, giant ground sloths, American camels, and giant beavers that made the migration south roughly 75,000 years ago from their warm “holiday homes” in the Arctic and Subarctic (39).

Some may say that natural cycles cannot be responsible for modern climate changes because those cycles represent a time frame that is too long but they are mistaken because they are only considering the long cycles.

The short-cycles that affect the Earth provide much faster changes in our climate that can be seen in much shorter time frames:-

11 years with the influence of the Sun’s magnetic pole reversal. This influences many factors within our climate that translates into vast changes in living conditions for humans. Among many other aspects of our climate the Sun influences the Pacific Climate System(93), it influences ozone(94), cloud cover(95), winter variability in the Northern hemisphere(96),  and it has been found to modulate the Artic oscillation and the East Asian winter(97) and the height of the thermosphere(98) and also creating a warming of the troposphere because “over each 11-year solar cycle the total energy output of the Sun varies by about 0.1% and its ultraviolet radiation fluctuates by 6 – 8%, with higher irradiance values during solar maxima than during solar minima”(99).

22-year solar magnetic cycle influence over global temperature is also confirmed in other studies(8586, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,92).

35- year Bruckner solar cycle influence over global temperature is also confirmed in other studies(100, 101, 102,103, 104, 105, 106)

88-year Gleissberg solar cycle influence over global temperature is also confirmed in other studies (77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,83, 84).

~200-year solar De Vries Cycle influence over global temperature is also confirmed in other studies (5354, 55,64, 65, 66, 67, 68).

FurthermoreProfessor Carl-Otto Weiss, the Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy and former President of the German Meteorological Institute used his expertise in Spectral Analysis to examine the climate data and identified solar cycles of 88, 130, 150, 208, and 350 year periods and Earth cycles of 34, 47, 61, 80 and 248 year periods as drivers for global temperature change(56). When he added the power density of those cycles together they correlated exactly with the global temperature records for the past 450 years and made a prediction of colder weather to come for the near future. He concludes in his video that can be found here, that climate change is periodic and the modern warming period is mainly due to the ~200-year solar De Vries Cycle. This understanding is further explained in the 2016 study by Lüdecke and Weiss(107).

It can be seen from this information that the Earth will conform to the driving forces of these cycles unpassionately and man cannot influence it in any way, shape or form.

It is impossible for the warming of the air to heat the oceans or the Earth. Carbon Dioxide can’t cause global warming in this way, this is explained by industrial chemistry expert Dr Mark Imisides. He explains how heat is transferred between air and water and how much heat is needed to raise the temperature of the ocean(16). We all know this to be true from our own experiences of life, you cannot heat a bath of water by putting an electric fire in the bathroom to warm the air.

After considering the information in this article we can be sure that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas and man emits it whilst burning oil based products, making fires and breathing. We can also be sure that CO2 is not responsible for any extinction events, world calamities or any of the bad things done in the name of progress.

It was shown that an unhealthy influence exists from the mainstream media over peoples understanding of the Global Warming problem and it was shown that the ideas being promoted in the media are misleading or false. The media has been found to portray half-truths at the best of times and seem to say what is in fashion.

It was shown that the ice caps are controlled by the long slow changes connected to the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. The amount of ice melt is measured in the flow of water in the rivers but that ice melt is mainly caused by an uprising of heat from the Earth’s mantle. It was also shown that CO2 has a previously unconsidered negative greenhouse affect over Antarctica.

It was shown that the oceans will not become acidic because they are buffered by calcium carbonate in the sediment. It was also shown that plant life on Earth would benefit from higher levels of CO2 because they grow best at levels of around 1200 ppm CO2 and these levels are not dangerous to human health, as is carbon monoxide.

It was shown that mistakes and alterations in data sets were made and errors in climate models were also discovered. These mistakes gave rise to faulty feedback loops which multiplied the weak greenhouse effect of CO2. It was also noted that much of the necessary information, as in the natural Solar and Earth cycles, the effect of modern aviation and the negative feedback over Antarctica were all not considered by the climate models.

We can be sure that the effect of a 0.009% increase in CO2 has been exaggerated by inaccurate models that rely on unsubstantiated feedback loops because it was reported in a 2013 study that no Global Warming has occurred since the turn of the century and we are presently in a period called the “Global Warming Hiatus”(73). A 2016 study claimed that the heat was being redistributed within the earth’s systems and the temperature of the earth would be more reliable if taken from the bottom of the ocean(74). In the meantime, CO2 has been constantly rising and the surface temperature of the Earth has not. All we can be sure of is, not every aspect of the Earth’s energy budget is understood and we are in no place to predict what it will do in the future.

It was shown that COdoes not drive temperature change but in fact COlevels lag behind any changes in Global temperature. It was shown that low concentrations of COwere not responsible for the glaciation periods and high levels of COwere not responsible for the warming periods.

It was shown that no evidence exists proving CO2 is the driving force behind climate change and has provided insurmountable evidence supporting the understanding that the orbital distance from the sun drives the long slow changes that result in the ice ages and the shorter Solar and Earth cycles drive the smaller temperature fluctuations in between. This causation has been proven many times by modern science and is therefore considered as sound evidence to show that natural cycles are responsible for all Global temperature changes including the changes we are experiencing in modern times.

We must only rely on science that is based on facts and data. We must not decide our future on faulty models, consensus or sensationalised media articles. It was shown that the real weight of science and scientists is behind the understanding that climate change and global warming is cyclic and man has no influence over it.

We should understand the climate change hoax for what it really is and make sure the perpetrators of this scam do not get their way. Restricting the release of CO2 will only succeed in killing the planet and taxing its people.



1) Dr David Evans. Discovery will Change Climate Debate

2) Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case By Dr. David M.W. Evans

Part 1-

Part 2-


4) Sherry, T.W. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Available from–How-a-Handful-of-Scientists-Obscured/10.1525/auk.2011.128.2.435.full

5) Fischedick, M., Roy, J., Abdel-Aziz, A., Acquaye, A., Allwood, J., Ceron, J.P., Geng, Y., Kheshgi, H., Lanza, A., Percayk, D. and Price, L. (2014). Industry. Available from

6) IPCC. Radiative Forcing of climate


8) Geophysical Research Letters

9) Global Climate Change and Terrestrial Net Primary Production.


11) Dr Don Easterbrook presentation at the 2013 Senate Environment Committee

12) Dr. Patrick Moore Testimony in US Senate Subcommittee

13) Ivar Giaever’s speech at the Nobel Laureates meeting 1st July 2015

14) John Casey Exposes Global Warming Fraud

15) John Coleman: How the Global Warming Scare Began

16) Dr Mark Imisides (Industrial Chemist)

17) Milankovitch Cycles

18) Inverse square law explained.

19) Hertzberg, M. and Schreuder, H. (2016). Role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in climate change. Energy & Environment27(6-7), 785-797. Available from

20) Fortin, M.C. and Gajewski, K., 2016. Multiproxy paleoecological evidence of Holocene climatic changes on the Boothia Peninsula, Canadian Arctic. Quaternary Research85(3), pp.347-357. Available from

21) Lourens, L.J., Becker, J., Bintanja, R., Hilgen, F.J., Tuenter, E., Van de Wal, R.S. and Ziegler, M. (2010). Linear and non-linear response of late Neogene glacial cycles to obliquity forcing and implications for the Milankovitch theory. Quaternary Science Reviews, 29(1-2), 352-365. Available from

22) Meyers, S.R., Sageman, B.B. and Pagani, M. (2008). Resolving Milankovitch: Consideration of signal and noise. American Journal of Science, 308(6), 770-786.

Available from

23) Tziperman, E., Raymo, M.E., Huybers, P. and Wunsch, C. (2006). Consequences of pacing the Pleistocene 100 kyr ice ages by nonlinear phase locking to Milankovitch forcing. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology, 21(4).  Available from

24) Roe, G. (2006). In defense of Milankovitch. Geophysical Research Letters33(24).Available from

25) Ruddiman, W.F. (2006). Orbital changes and climate. Quaternary Science Reviews, 25(23-24), pp.3092-3112. Available from

26) Huybers, P. and Wunsch, C. (2005). Obliquity pacing of the late Pleistocene glacial terminations. Nature, 434(7032), 491. Available from

27) Wunsch, C. (2004). Quantitative estimate of the Milankovitch-forced contribution to observed Quaternary climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23(9-10), pp.1001-1012. Available from

28) Shackleton, N.J. (2000). The 100,000-year ice-age cycle identified and found to lag temperature, carbon dioxide, and orbital eccentricity. Science, 289(5486), pp.1897-1902. Available from

29) Rial, J.A. and Anaclerio, C.A. (2000). Understanding nonlinear responses of the climate system to orbital forcing. Quaternary Science Reviews, 19(17-18), pp.1709-1722. Available from

30) Brathauer, U. and Abelmann, A. (1999). Late Quaternary variations in sea surface temperatures and their relationship to orbital forcing recorded in the Southern Ocean (Atlantic sector). Paleoceanography, 14(2) 135-148. Available from

31) Raymo, M.E. (1997). The timing of major climate terminations. Paleoceanography, 12(4) 577-585. Available from

32) Imbrie, J., Boyle, E.A., Clemens, S.C., Duffy, A., Howard, W.R., Kukla, G., Kutzbach, J., Martinson, 7., McIntyre, A., Mix, A.C. and Molfino, B. (1992). On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 1. Linear responses to Milankovitch forcing. Paleoceanography, 7(6), pp.701-738. Available from

33) Imbrie, J., Berger, A., Boyle, E.A., Clemens, S.C., Duffy, A., Howard, W.R., Kukla, G., Kutzbach, J., Martinson, D.G., Mcintyre, A. and Mix, A.C. (1993). On the structure and origin of major glaciation cycles 2. The 100,000-year cycle. Paleoceanography 8, 699e735. Available from

34) McIntyre, A., Ruddiman, W.F., Karlin, K. and Mix, A.C. (1989). Surface water response of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean to orbital forcing. Paleoceanography, 4(1), pp.19-55. Available from

35) Martinson, D.G., Pisias, N.G., Hays, J.D., Imbrie, J., Moore, T.C. and Shackleton, N.J. (1987). Age dating and the orbital theory of the ice ages: Development of a high-resolution 0 to 300,000-year chronostratigraphy 1. Quaternary research, 27(1), pp.1-29. Available from

36) HAYS, I.J. (1984). The orbital theory of Pleistocene climate: Support from a revised chronology of the marine δ^< 18> O record. Milankouitch and climate, NATO ASI Series, Series C: Mathematical and physical sciences, 126 269-305. Available from

37) Imbrie, J. and Imbrie, J.Z. (1980). Modeling the climatic response to orbital variations. Science, 207(4434) 943-953. Available from

38) &rarr;, V. (2019). NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000. [online] Real Science. Available from

39) Zazula, G.D., MacPhee, R.D., Metcalfe, J.Z., Reyes, A.V., Brock, F., Druckenmiller, P.S., Groves, P., Harington, C.R., Hodgins, G.W., Kunz, M.L. and Longstaffe, F.J. (2014). American mastodon extirpation in the Arctic and Subarctic predates human colonization and terminal Pleistocene climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(52), 18460-18465. Available from

40) Union of Concerned Scientists (1993). World scientists’ warning to humanity. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available from

41. Raven, J., Caldeira, K., Elderfield, H., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Liss, P., Riebesell, U., Shepherd, J., Turley, C. and Watson, A. (2005). Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Royal Society. Available from

42) Maria-José Viñas, &. (2019). Wintertime Arctic sea ice growth slows long-term decline: NASA – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. [online] Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Available from

(43) (2019). Unexpected ice | Earthdata. Available from

44) Myhre, G., Highwood, E.J., Shine, K.P. and Stordal, F. (1998). New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophysical research letters25(14) 2715-2718. Available from

45) Haywood, J.M., Allan, R.P., Bornemann, J., Forster, P.M., Francis, P.N., Milton, S., Rädel, G., Rap, A., Shine, K.P. and Thorpe, R. (2009). A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving into contrail‐induced cirrus. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres114(D24). Available from

46) (2019). Carbon dioxide emissions rise to 2.4 million pounds per second. [online] Available from

47) Inhofe, J. (2003). The science of climate change. Senate Floor Statement. Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate, July28.

48) NASA. (2019). NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses. Available from

(49) Robinson, A.B., Robinson, N.E. and Soon, W. (2007). En vi ron men tal Ef fects of In creased At mo spheric Car bon Di ox ide. Jour nal of Amer i can Phy si cians and Sur geons, 12, 79-90. Available from

50) Rode, K.D., Regehr, E.V., Douglas, D.C., Durner, G., Derocher, A.E., Thiemann, G.W. and Budge, S.M. (2014). Variation in the response of an Arctic top predator experiencing habitat loss: feeding and reproductive ecology of two polar bear populations. Global Change Biology20(1) 76-88. Available from

51) Florides, G.A. and Christodoulides, P. (2009). Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences. Environment international35(2), 390-401. Available from

52) Soon, W., Connolly, R. and Connolly, M. (2015). Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century. Earth-Science Reviews150, 409-452. Available from

53) Wagner, G., Beer, J., Masarik, J., Muscheler, R., Kubik, P.W., Mende, W., Laj, C., Raisbeck, G.M. and Yiou, F. (2001). Presence of the solar de Vries cycle (∼ 205 years) during the last ice age. Geophysical Research Letters28(2) 303-306. Available from

54) Raspopov, O.M., Dergachev, V.A., Esper, J., Kozyreva, O.V., Frank, D., Ogurtsov, M., Kolström, T. and Shao, X. (2008). The influence of the de Vries (∼ 200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology259(1) 6-16. Available from

55) Seidenglanz, A., Prange, M., Varma, V. and Schulz, M. (2012). Ocean temperature response to idealized Gleissberg and de Vries solar cycles in a comprehensive climate model. Geophysical Research Letters39(22). Available from

56) (2019). Prof. Carl-Otto Weiss : Climate change is due to natural cycles | The Schiller Institute. Available from

57) Martos, Y.M., Jordan, T.A., Catalán, M., Jordan, T.M., Bamber, J.L. and Vaughan, D.G. (2018). Geothermal heat flux reveals the Iceland hotspot track underneath Greenland. Geophysical Research Letters45(16), 8214-8222. Available from

58) Jiawei Da, Yi Ge Zhang, Gen Li, Xianqiang Meng & Junfeng Ji. (2019) Low CO2 levels of the entire Pleistocene epoch. Nature communications. Available from

59) Riebeek, H. and Simmon, R. (2006). Paleoclimatology: Explaining the evidence. Earth Observatory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Available from

60) (2019). Major Greenland Glacier Is Growing. [online] Available from:

61) Kauppinen, J. and Malmi, P. (2019). No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.00165. Available from:

62) Rignot, E., Mouginot, J., Scheuchl, B., van den Broeke, M., van Wessem, M.J. and Morlighem, M. (2019). Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences116(4) 1095-1103.
Available from

63) Rodeheffer, C.D., Chabal, S., Clarke, J.M. and Fothergill, D.M. (2018). Acute exposure to low-to-moderate carbon dioxide levels and submariner decision making. Aerospace medicine and human performance89(6) 520-525. Available from

64) Raspopov, O., Dergachev, V., Kozyreva, O. and Kolström, T. (2005). Climate response to de Vries solar cycles: evidence of Juniperus turkestanica tree rings in Central Asia. Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana76, 760. Available from

65) Lüdecke, H.J., Weiss, C.O. and Hempelmann, A. (2015). Paleoclimate forcing by the solar De Vries/Suess cycle. Climate of the Past Discussions11(1) 279-305. Available from

66) Raspopov, O.M., Dergachev, V.A., Kuzmin, A.V., Kozyreva, O.V., Ogurtsov, M.G., Kolström, T. and Lopatin, E. (2007). Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations. Advances in Space Research40(7) 1167-1172. Available from

67) Ovchinnikov, D., Mordvinov, A., Kalugin, I., Darin, A. and Myglan, V. (2014), June. Solar-Terrestrial relations in Central Asia paleoarchives. In SGEM2014 Conference Proceedings (No. 1, 321-324). Available from

68) Wiles, G.C., D’Arrigo, R.D., Villalba, R., Calkin, P.E. and Barclay, D.J. (2004). Century‐scale solar variability and Alaskan temperature change over the past millennium. Geophysical Research Letters31(15). Availbale from

69) Seroussi, H., Ivins, E.R., Wiens, D.A. and Bondzio, J. (2017). Influence of a West Antarctic mantle plume on ice sheet basal conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth122(9) 7127-7155. Available from

70) Loeb, N.G., Wielicki, B.A., Doelling, D.R., Smith, G.L., Keyes, D.F., Kato, S., Manalo-Smith, N. and Wong, T. (2009). Toward optimal closure of the Earth’s top-of-atmosphere radiation budget. Journal of Climate22(3) 748-766. Available from

71) Kato, S., Loeb, N.G., Rose, F.G., Doelling, D.R., Rutan, D.A., Caldwell, T.E., Yu, L. and Weller, R.A. (2013). Surface irradiances consistent with CERES-derived top-of-atmosphere shortwave and longwave irradiances. Journal of Climate26(9) 2719-2740. Available from

72) Sejas, S.A., Taylor, P.C. and Cai, M. (2018). Unmasking the negative greenhouse effect over the Antarctic Plateau. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science1(1) 17. Available from

73) Kosaka, Y. and Xie, S.P. (2013). Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature501(7467) 403. Available from

74) Yan, X.H., Boyer, T., Trenberth, K., Karl, T.R., Xie, S.P., Nieves, V., Tung, K.K. and Roemmich, D. (2016). The global warming hiatus: Slowdown or redistribution?. Earth’s Future4(11) 472-482. Available from

75) Puetz, S.J. (2010) Unified Cycle Theory: Introduction & Data. Available from

76) Borchardt, G. and Puetz, S.J. (2010) Unified Cycle Theory: Integration Toward a Cause. Available from

77) Peristykh, A.N. and Damon, P.E. (2003). Persistence of the Gleissberg 88‐year solar cycle over the last∼ 12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics108(A1) SSH-1. Available from

78) Cooper, M.C., O’Sullivan, P.E. and Shine, A.J. (2000). Climate and solar variability recorded in Holocene laminated sediments—a preliminary assessment. Quaternary International68, 363-371. Available from

79) Loehle, C. (2004). Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data. Ecological Modelling171(4), 433-450. Available from

80) Demetrescu, C. and Dobrica, V. (2008). Signature of Hale and Gleissberg solar cycles in the geomagnetic activity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics113(A2). Available from

81) Raspopov, O.M., Dergachev, V.A. and Kolström, T. (2004). Periodicity of climate conditions and solar variability derived from dendrochronological and other palaeoclimatic data in high latitudes. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology209(1-4) 127-139. Available from

82) Patterson, R.T., Prokoph, A. and Chang, A. (2004). Late Holocene sedimentary response to solar and cosmic ray activity influenced climate variability in the NE Pacific. Sedimentary Geology172(1-2) 67-84. Available from

83) Ruzmaikin, A. and Feynman, J. (2015). The Earth’s climate at minima of centennial Gleissberg cycles. Advances in Space Research56(8) 1590-1599. Available from

84) Rind, D. (2002). The Sun’s role in climate variations. Science296(5568) 673-677. Available from

85) Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991). Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science254(5032) 698-700. Available from

86) Cliver, E.W., Boriakoff, V. and Feynman, J. (1998). Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature. Geophysical Research Letters25(7) 1035-1038. Available from

87) Miyahara, H., Yokoyama, Y. and Masuda, K. (2008). Possible link between multi-decadal climate cycles and periodic reversals of solar magnetic field polarity. Earth and Planetary Science Letters272(1-2) 290-295. Available from

88 Newell, N.E., Newell, R.E., Hsiung, J. and Zhongxiang, W. (1989). Global marine temperature variation and the solar magnetic cycle. Geophysical research letters16(4) 311-314. Available from

89) De Jager, C. (2005). Solar forcing of climate. 1: solar variability. Space Science Reviews120(3-4) 197-241. Available from

90) Mitchell, J.M., Stockton, C.W. and Meko, D.M. (1979). Evidence of a 22-year rhythm of drought in the western United States related to the Hale solar cycle since the 17th century. In Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate (pp. 125-143). Springer, Dordrecht. Available from

91) Ponyavin, D.I. (2004). Solar cycle signal in geomagnetic activity and climate. Solar Physics224(1-2) 465-471. Available from

92) De Jager, C. (2005). Solar forcing of climate. 1: solar variability. Space Science Reviews120(3-4) 197-241. Available from

93) Meehl, G.A., Arblaster, J.M., Matthes, K., Sassi, F. and van Loon, H. (2009). Amplifying the Pacific climate system response to a small 11-year solar cycle forcing. Science325(5944) 1114-1118. Available from

94) Shindell, D., Rind, D., Balachandran, N., Lean, J. and Lonergan, P. (1999). Solar cycle variability, ozone, and climate. Science284(5412) 305-308. Available from

95) Svensmark, H. (1998). Influence of cosmic rays on Earth’s climate. Physical Review Letters81(22) 5027. Available from

96) Ineson, S., Scaife, A.A., Knight, J.R., Manners, J.C., Dunstone, N.J., Gray, L.J. and Haigh, J.D., 2011. Solar forcing of winter climate variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Nature Geoscience4(11), p.753.Available from

97) Chen, W. and Zhou, Q., 2012. Modulation of the Arctic Oscillation and the East Asian winter climate relationships by the 11-year solar cycle. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences29(2), pp.217-226. Available from

98) Schmidt, H., Brasseur, G.P., Charron, M., Manzini, E., Giorgetta, M.A., Diehl, T., Fomichev, V.I., Kinnison, D., Marsh, D. and Walters, S. (2006). The HAMMONIA chemistry climate model: Sensitivity of the mesopause region to the 11-year solar cycle and CO2 doubling. Journal of Climate19(16) 3903-3931. Available from

99)  Coughlin, K. and Tung, K.K. (2004). Eleven‐year solar cycle signal throughout the lower atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres109(D21). Available from

100) Halberg, F., Cornelissen, G., Sothern, R.B., Czaplicki, J. and Schwartzkopff, O. (2010). Thirty-five-year climatic cycle in heliogeophysics, psychophysiology, military politics, and economics. Izvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics, 46(7) 844-864. Available from

101) Brunt, D., 1937. Climatic cycles. The Geographical Journal89(3), pp.214-230. Available from

102) Ponyavin, D.I. (2004). Solar cycle signal in geomagnetic activity and climate. Solar Physics224(1-2) 465-471. Available from

103) Tanneliill, I.R., 1955. Is Weather subject to Cycles?. Available from

104) Gou, X., Deng, Y., Chen, F., Yang, M., Fang, K., Gao, L., Yang, T. and Zhang, F., 2010. Tree ring based streamflow reconstruction for the Upper Yellow River over the past 1234 years. Chinese Science Bulletin55(36), pp.4179-4186. Available from

105) Miller, E.R. (1936). Bruckner’s Cycle in the United States. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society17(2) 34-35. Available from

106) Clough, H.W., 1924. A SYSTEMATICALLY VARYING PERIOD WITH AN AVERAGE LENGTH OF 28 MONTHS IN WEATHER AND SOLAR PHENOMENA. Monthly Weather Review52(9), pp.421-439. Available from

107) Lüdecke, H.J. and Weiss, C.O., 2017. Harmonic analysis of worldwide temperature proxies for 2000 years. The Open Atmospheric Science Journal11(1). Available from

108) Beck, E.G., 2007. 180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods. Energy & Environment18(2), pp.259-282. Available from

109) Frankignoulle, M., Canon, C. and Gattuso, J.P. (1994). Marine calcification as a source of carbon dioxide: Positive feedback of increasing atmospheric CO2. Limnology and Oceanography39(2) 458-462. Available from

110) Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling, D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani, M., Raymo, M., Royer, D.L. and Zachos, J.C. (2008). Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?. arXiv preprint arXiv:0804.1126. Available from

111) (2019). Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Available from

112) Pedro, J.B., Rasmussen, S.O. and van Ommen, T.D. (2012). Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO 2 during the last deglaciation. Climate of the Past, 8(4) 1213-1221. Available from

113) Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y., 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science299(5613), pp.1728-1731. Available from

114) Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. (1999). Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science283(5408) 1712-1714. Available from

115) Mudelsee, M. (2001). The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews20(4) 583-589. Available from

116) Parrenin, F., Masson-Delmotte, V., Köhler, P., Raynaud, D., Paillard, D., Schwander, J., Barbante, C., Landais, A., Wegner, A. and Jouzel, J. (2013). Synchronous change of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature during the last deglacial warming. Science339(6123) 1060-1063. Available from

117) Barnola, J.M., Pimienta, P., Raynaud, D. and Korotkevich, Y.S. (1991). CO2‐climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re‐examination based on new measurements and on a re‐evaluation of the air dating. Tellus B43(2) 83-90. Available from

118) Lewis, N. and Curry, J., 2018. The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity. Journal of Climate31(15), pp.6051-6071. Available from




Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!