There are an abundance of scientists refuting the idea of Manmade Global Warming
or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) with some very solid research. Representatives from almost 200 countries met last month at COP 21 (the Paris Climate Change Conference) to push forward the New World Order agenda of a World Court and a worldwide carbon tax, but fortunately for freedom lovers the final agreement which was signed lacked enforceability. However, you can be sure they will be back to try again. The fearmongering around manmade global warming is a favorite trick of the manipulators, who long ago hijacked the environmental movement. The manmade global warming movement is riddled with corruption, having been exposed numerous times for fudging the data and cooking the books, notably in the Climategate scandal of the leaked East Anglia University emails. The science is far from settled. There are a plethora of scientists and researchers all over the world opposed to the notion of AGW, including the 1000+ dissenting scientists who signed the Climate Depot report, and the 31000+ who signed the OISM Global Warming Petition.
Below is a small sampling of well-known and respected scientists who explain why manmade global warming is a fallacy with a very political agenda – to bring in the One World Government. Even mainstream politicians acknowledge it; for example, Maurice Newman, chairman of former Australian PM Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, stated that “The real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook [to create] a New World Order.” AGW is about controlling you, not the climate. Climate has been the master excuse for decades now, ever since the idea was hatched and exposed in documents like Report from Iron Mountain in 1966, The Club of Rome’s The First Global Revolution? in 1991, and by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987.
Here’s what these 10 people have to say about AGW:
Scientist #1 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. David Evans
Dr. David Evans used to work for the Australian Greenhouse Office (the main modeler of carbon in Australia’s biosphere) from 1999 to 2005. He has 6 degrees, including a PhD from Stanford in electrical engineering. Evans believes that CO2 has been causing global warming over the last century, but investigates the question: how much global warming does CO2 cause? In 2012, Evans pointed out how the IPCC (the very political Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) models were flawed. These models are based on data sourced by NASA and Argo satellites, and assume that CO2 is the only warming agent. They fail to take into consideration other warming agents. He shows how the models, both for air and water, have consistently over-estimated, predicting warming that never happened.
Evans shows data from Envisat (European satellites) which reveal how the sea level is rising 0.33 mm per year (3.3 cm per century), far below what the IPCC predicts (26-59 cm per century) and fearmonger Al Gore predicted (20 feet per century!). Evans compares the models vs. reality, and concludes:
“The climate model’s understanding of the atmosphere is incompatible with the data … the data is being suppressed … this is not about science and truth, it’s about power and politics.”
“The Copenhagen Treaty that was almost signed in 2009 would have created a worldwide bureaucracy that could override, tax, and fine national governments. This was a narrowly-averted silent coup, with clearly flawed climate “science” just an excuse … (we still face) the threat of a bureaucratic coup using climate as an excuse.”
Scientist #2 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Denis Rancourt
Dr. Denis Rancourt believes that the idea that global warming, on its own, could negatively impart the environment, is tenuous at best. He describes manmade global warming as a psychological and social phenomenon backed by no solid scientific evidence. The problem is that the AGW movement has become a giant gravy train (estimated to be worth anywhere between $22 billion to $1.5 trillion per year). It’s hard for scientists and politicians alike to get off such a comfortable and profitable moving vehicle, since their prestige, reputations and salaries all depend on it. He reveals how real activists understand that the AGW is not true activism, but rather an invention of the privileged world:
“NGOs and environmental groups who agree to buy into the global warming thing benefit from it a lot, in the sense that the powerful interests … fund them.
They have to pretend they are doing important research without ever criticizing powerful interests.
They look for comfortable lies … they look for elusive, sanitized things like acid rain, global warming … it helps to neutralize any kind of dissent … if you’re really concerned about saving the forest, habitat destruction and so on, then fight against habitat destruction; don’t go off into this tenuous thing about CO2 concentration …”
Scientist #3 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Freeman Dyson
The 91-year-old mathematical physicist and scientist at Princeton University, Freeman Dyson, started studying the effects of carbon dioxide on vegetation 37 years ago! His work has shown how the increase in CO2 has been overall very beneficial for the Earth:
“There are huge non-climate effects of carbon dioxide which are highly favorable … The whole Earth is growing greener as a result of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, so it’s increasing agricultural yields, forests and all kinds of growth in the biological world – and that’s more important and more certain than the effects on climate.
It’s enormously important for food production … “
Scientist #4 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Judith Curry
Dr. Judith Curry is Professor and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She used to be on board with the AGW agenda, but after the November 2009 ClimateGate email scandal, she changed her mind. She saw a lot of “sausage-making and bullying” was needed to build a consensus. She realized she had fallen into groupthink, based on second-order evidence: the (mere) assertion that a consensus existed. She was subsequently labeled a climate heretic. This is interesting, and suggests parallels between the religious fanaticism of the manmade global warming movement and the Inquisition – which persecuted and killed those who thought differently. Many have said that AGW is a religion. In her testimony Curry states:
“No one questions that surface temperatures have increased since 1880 … however there is considerable uncertainty and disagreement about the most consequential issues: whether the warming has been dominated by human causes vs. natural variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, and whether the warming is dangerous.
We have been misled in our quest to understand climate change by not paying sufficient attention to natural causes of climate variability, in particular to the sun and from the long term oscillations and ocean circulations. How, then, and why, have climate scientists come to a consensus about a very complex scientific problem, that the scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties? Climate scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious political debate …”
Scientist #5 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor & Nobel Laureate in Physics Ivar Giaever
Professor Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, talks about how manmade global warming has become the new religion which cannot be challenged. He likens CO2 fearmongering to the story of the Emperor’s new clothes. The purported 97% consensus and the hockey stick graphs are both utterly fake. He states that:
“Global Warming is pseudoscience … from 1880 to 2013 the temperature has increased from ~288K to 288.8K (0.3%) … the temperature has been amazingly stable.
Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of “global warming”, not the CO2?
CO2 is not pollution.”
Giaever also mentions the solution proposed by Steven Chu, former US Energy Secretary and 1997 Nobel Prize winder in Physics. Chu suggested painting all roof tops white – which would help reflect sunlight and lower warming, if in fact global warming is occurring.
Scientist #6 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Dr. Don Easterbrook
While the above 5 scientists believe there is some kind of global warming occurring (manmade or not), the following 5 scientists refute AGW by claiming the world is undergoing global cooling. Dr. Don Easterbrook (in his presentation of 2013), Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, exposes how the data has been tampered with (by NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation). He points out that:
– all high temperature records were set in 1930s before the rise of CO2;
– global cooling has been in effect since 1998, according to ground and satellite measurements;
– both the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets are growing;
– CO2 is incapable of causing global warming (given that it constitutes 38/1000th of 1 percent of atmospheric gases);
– there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature;
– CO2 follows temperature rather than preceding or causing it;
– the sea level is rising (Seattle in specific) and falling (US Pacific Northwest in general) depending on where you are, and that the sea is rising at a very slow and constant rate;
– extreme weather (such as hurricanes) has not increased;
– snowfall has increased across the US; and
– that the oceans are still very alkaline (pH 8.2) not acidic.
Scientist #7 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Meteorologist & Physicist Piers Corbyn
Meteorologist and physicist Piers Corbyn, brother of UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, claims the world is cooling. He states outright that “there is no such thing as manmade climate change“. He also states that “the truth is the IPCC of the UN is a political not a scientific body, and it even amends scientific documents before publication to conform to diplomatic niceties.” The scientists are politically appointed to the IPCC. Corbyn explains that “science” as we think of it gets so entrenched in its current thinking that it’s often difficult for new theories or more accurate explanations to break through the status quo. As esteemed scientist Max Planck once said:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Scientist #8 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Professor and Geologist Bob Carter
Former Professor and marine geologist Bob Carter points out that 280 ppm (parts per million) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, or even 390 or 560 ppm, is suboptimal for plant growth. There could be way higher levels and it still wouldn’t be anything like “dangerous”! In this presentation on climate change, he exposes how kids are being trained to spy on their parent’s energy usage and become “climate cops”, and how the UN predicted 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 (whoops!!). Interestingly, although he is Australian, Carter quotes the former US President Eisenhower in his famous farewell speech to show how Government money corrupts honest science and free, critical thinking:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity … the prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
That is exactly what has happened now around the world – Government in general has become too big and is interfering too much in many things, including its paid-for “science”, so mainstream research has lost its independence and credibility.
Scientist #9 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Engineer & Former White House Advisor John Casey
John Casey is a former White House national space policy advisor, NASA headquarters consultant, space shuttle engineer and author. He wrote the book Cold Sun which contains his research into global cooling. Casey investigated solar activity and concluded that we are now in a solar cycle or phase which could will lead to global cooling, not global warming, for the next 30 years to come. He claims this new cold climate will have a severe and dangerous affect on the world. In Cold Sun he provides evidence for the following:
– the end of global warming;
– the beginning of a “solar hibernation”;
– a historic reduction in the energy output of the Sun;
– a long-term drop in the Earth’s temperatures;
– the start of the next climate change to decades of dangerously cold weather; and much more.
Casey experienced firsthand in the White House how the US Government fired anyone not toeing the line with AGW propaganda – and has the power easily destroy the career and livelihood of any contractor (scientist) who dissented.
Scientist #10 Refuting Manmade Global Warming: Meteorologist John Coleman
Meteorologist John Coleman has studied the facts about global warming and asserts that the data shows we are not undergoing global warming, manmade or not. He reveals how a great scientist named Roger Revelle happened to have Al Gore in his class at Harvard – and thus the Global Warming campaign was born. Revelle tried to calm things down years later, but Gore went on to become Vice President, make a documentary, win an Oscar and win the Nobel Peace Prize. Gore said Revelle was senile and refused to debate him. Coleman shows how tax dollars are perpetuating the manmade global warming alarmist campaign despite the hard evidence.
Conclusion: The Science is FAR from Settled
This list of 10 is a tiny sample – and also noteworthy in that almost none of the above have been shown to be bought off by Big Oil, a charge often aimed at so-called climate deniers. All of the above scientists appear to be acting from a pure motive of telling the truth for truth’s sake. In actuality, there are thousands of qualified scientists all over the world opposing AGW. A few more that didn’t make the list were Piers Forster (Climate Change Professor, Leeds University) who said:
“Global surface temperatures have not risen in 15 years. They make the high estimates unlikely.”
and Dr. David Whitehouse (Global Warming Policy Foundation) who stated:
“This changes everything. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of economic or energy policy.”
How much longer before humanity wakes up to the manmade global warming hoax?
Want to Help the Environment? Focus on the Elephant in the Room: Geoengineering
In conclusion, it’s important to connect all the dots and realize that if there is even such a phenomenon as manmade global warming, the main cause is unquestionably one thing: geoengineering. The spraying of toxic aerosol chemtrails (composed of oxides, nitrates and iodides of silver, aluminum, barium, strontium and other elements) is a grave crime against humanity that is still being denied by Governments all over the world.
If you care about the Earth and environment, and want to put your energy into useful activism, focus on that – not the manmade global warming scam which is an invention of the privileged world.
Want the latest commentary and analysis on Conspiracy, Natural Health, Sovereignty, Consciousness and more? Sign up for free blog updates!
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the global conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance.
There are multi-dimensional levels of atmospheric research. We are slow to pick-up on and very much afraid to approach the subject from an investigative level that combines metaphysical data collection of controversial data points.
There is a much deeper understanding attainable when one uses all data, including extra-sensory research, then ties it back to 3rd Dimensional Earth experiences combined with 3rd Dimensional physics.
A group of Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technicians (QHHT) http://tinyurl.com/nwbltj2
for example, adds the very difficult group of data points the see beyond or conscious awareness of reality. (a) All things have consciousness. This is lost wisdom slowly being retrieved and almost incomprehensible to understand. (b) Our arm of our galaxy is passing through a consciousness stimulating region changing our DNA, modifying the natural base rate all the building blocks of nature vibrate. (c) It appears possible to access and communicate constructively in this other dimension through more than one method.
Going into this drug free alternate dimension to find answers brings forward many uncomfortable truths and helpful discoveries. The findings address even our atmospheric science and offers insights for compatible solutions.
states as they are, the errors of our ways, changes we can make,
Wow. That’ a lot of big words, Rich. I have spent all my life as a natural resource scientist and, to be frank, I don’t understand one thing you tried to say.
No doubt this is my fault, however… it is probably that I’m simply not intelligent enough to follow your argument.
Thanks, Makia – Great article! Sending this out to everyone who might be receptive
Already shared. Another wonderful piece. Keep it up Makia.
Great post! Thanks for sharing Top 10 Scientists Refuting AGW (Manmade Global Warming)
Many thanks for sharing this! There’s so much deception, misinformation and outright B.S. circulating about global warming that it’s hard to tell the truth from a lie anymore. One thing is for sure…when you follow the money, you normally get the real root of the whole issue.
Thanks for this nice summary, Makia. I live in probably the most enthusiastic AGW advocacy region of the world, the United States Pacific Northwest. I have worked in the field of natural resource management since 1976 and have degrees in both Forest Technology and Environmental Science. In my line of work we use a LOT of models and, trust me, I have seen how far off target a model’s predictions can be! I have tried in vain – and will continue the quest – to convince my AGW acolyte friends to at least CONSIDER an alternate view. I frequently send out links to articles such as yours and have done so with this article.
But, alas, I hold out little hope with the “See no evil, hear no evil”, “I’m burying my head in the sand now, goodbye!” reaction I almost always get. But, anyway, thanks for this one.
Thanks for your comment Michael.
Of course the wacky left will claim that this list doesn’t count because they are not all “climate scientists”. They claim there is a high correlation between consensuse and “expertise” in climate science per se, and that other disciplines like physics, meteorology, engineering, etc, are just not suitable from a body of knowledge and a climate scientist discipline perspective.
I have a question. Has anyone else noticed that that the majority of the scientists focus only on CO2 emissions which is only apart of the man made climate change problem. There are also other greenhouse gases like methane which has not been addressed in the article by any of the scientists above. Chemical fertilizer are used more than ever and they trap much more heat than CO2 as well.
“For climate change, there are many scientific organizations that study the climate. These alphabet soup of organizations include NASA, NOAA, JMA, WMO, NSIDC, IPCC, UK Met Office, and others. Click on the names for links to their climate-related sites. There are also climate research organizations associated with universities. These are all legitimate scientific sources.
If you have to dismiss all of these scientific organizations to reach your opinion, then you are by definition denying the science. If you have to believe that all of these organizations, and all of the climate scientists around the world, and all of the hundred thousand published research papers, and physics, are all somehow part of a global, multigenerational conspiracy to defraud the people, then you are, again, a denier by definition.
So if you deny all the above scientific organizations there are a lot of un-scientific web sites out there that pretend to be science. Many of these are run by lobbyists (e.g.., Climate Depot, run by a libertarian political lobbyist, CFACT), or supported by lobbyists (e.g., JoannaNova, WUWT, both of whom have received funding and otherwise substantial support by lobbying organizations like the Heartland Institute), or are actually paid by lobbyists to write Op-Eds and other blog posts that intentionally misrepresent the science.”
The issue is NOT climate change! The issue is “MANMADE climate change” !!!!!! The earth has a history or ‘climate change’,therefore, the issue is whether or NOT current climate change is due to the operations employed by mankind worldwide to live.
Dr. Judith Curry writes:
“I agree that it is extremely likely that fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the warming observed since 1951.”
So what is she doing in this list?
Thanks for your comment. She has changed her views since I wrote this article in January 2016. She has said conflicting things over the years. Perhaps she no longer belongs on this list, however I think she has a foot in both worlds (AGW-affirming and AGW-denying).
Like the the loss of many species of animals and many beautiful places, man is not responsible. Get a life and Grow a brain before we loss the lot.
Any discussion about climate should consider the degree to which the global geoengineering program is exasperating the perceived problem. Those guys from “Report From Iron Mountain” were precient when they suggested using climate as a replacement for war as a way of managing economies and people.
Now, apply the same ‘group think’ and religious hysteria to the other piece of nonsense known as ‘Darwinian Evolution’. Same lies. Same ‘concensus’. Funding by the same hidden hands. Same hysteria if one attempts to refute it. Same cover-up of dissenting data, etc.
As David Icke says, ‘If you want to know if something is part of the Agenda , just look at what happens to someone who dissents.’