Global Warming: Fake News from the Start

By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris

Taichung coal-fired power plant in Taiwan, the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter
Note that CO2 is an invisible, odourless gas.
President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change because it is a bad deal for America. He could have made the decision simply because the science is false, but most of the public have been brainwashed into believing it is correct and wouldn’t understand the reason. 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and indeed the leaders of many western democracies, though thankfully not the U.S., support the Agreement and are completely unaware of the gross deficiencies in the science. If they did, they wouldn’t be forcing a carbon dioxide (CO2) tax, on their citizens. 

Trudeau and other leaders show how little they know, or how little they assume the public know, by calling it a ‘carbon tax.’ But CO2 is a gas, while carbon is a solid. By calling the gas carbon, Trudeau and others encourage people to think of it as something ‘dirty’, like graphite or soot, which really are carbon. Calling CO2 by its proper name would help the public remember that it is actually an invisible, odorless gas essential to plant photosynthesis. 

Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is arguably the most misinformed of the lot, saying in a recent interview, for example, that “Polluters should pay.” She apparently does not know that CO2 is not a pollutant.

And, like many of her political peers, McKenna dismisses credentialed PhD scientists who disagree with her government’s approach, labelling them “deniers.” She does not seem to understand that questioning scientific hypotheses, even scientific theories, is what all scientists should do. That is why the official motto of the Royal Society is “Nullius in verba,” Latin for “Take nobody's word for it.” Ironically, the Society rarely practices this approach when it comes to climate change.

Mistakes such as those made by McKenna are not surprising considering that the entire claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was built on falsehoods and spread with fake news. 

The plot to deceive the world about human-caused global warming gathered momentum following creation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). After spending five days at the U.N. with Maurice Strong, the first executive director of UNEP, Hamilton Spectator investigative reporter Elaine Dewar concluded the overarching objective of the IPCC was political. “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the global governance agenda,” wrote Dewar.

The political agenda required ‘credibility’ to achieve the deception. It also required some fake news for momentum. Ideally, this would involve testimony from a scientist before a legislative committee. 

U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO) was fully committed to the political agenda and the deception as he explained in a 1993 comment, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing…” 

In 1988 Wirth was in a position to jump start the climate alarm. He worked with colleagues on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to organize a June 23, 1988 hearing where Dr. James Hansen, then the head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), was to testify. Wirth explained in a 2007 interview with PBS Frontline:

“We knew there was this scientist at NASA, you know, who had really identified the human impact before anybody else had done so and was very certain about it. So, we called him up and asked him if he would testify.”

Hansen did not disappoint. The New York Times reported on June 23, 1988:

“Today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.”

Specifically, Hansen told the committee: 
"Global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming...It is already happening now"
Hansen also testified:
"The greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now...We already reached the point where the greenhouse effect is important."
Dr. John S. Theon, Hansen’s former supervisor at NASA, wrote to the Senate Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. 
“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress.”

Hansen never abandoned his single-minded, unsubstantiated claim that CO2 from human activities caused dangerous global warming. He defied the Hatch Act that limits bureaucratic political actions, and, in 2011, was even arrested in a protest at the White House against the Keystone XL pipeline, at least his third such arrest to that point. 

Wirth, who presided at the hearing, was pre-disposed to believe Hansen and told the committee: 
''As I read it, the scientific evidence is compelling: the global climate is changing as the earth's atmosphere gets warmer. Now, the Congress must begin to consider how we are going to slow or halt that warming trend and how we are going to cope with the changes that may already be inevitable.”  
So, like Trudeau and other leaders duped by the climate scare, Wirth has either not read or not understood the science. In fact, an increasing number of climate scientists (including Dr. Ball) now conclude that there is no empirical evidence of human-caused global warming; there are only computer model speculations that humans are causing it and every forecast made using these models since 1990 has been wrong.

More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, that was bolstered by the U.N. and the popular press leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches across the world.

Trump must now end America’s participation in the fake science and the fake news of man-made global warming. To do this, he must withdraw the U.S. from further involvement with all U.N. global warming programs, especially the IPCC as well as the agency that now directs it—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Only then will the U.S. have a chance to fully develop its hydrocarbon resources to achieve the president’s goal of global energy dominance. 

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
28 Tiverton Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6L5


Note: To help ICSC cover its operating expenses, please go here:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 


  1. The irony is that James Hansen's background is astrophysics, specifically the planet Venus.

    His view of the role of carbon dioxide may well be informed by his study of the climate of Venus.

    1. The "greenhouse effect" has only one definition. An atmosphere is primarily transparent to incoming short wavelength solar radiation which heats the planetary surfaces. The planetary surfaces emit infra-red radiation and a percentage of atmospheric gases absorb a percentage of the planetary surfaces' emitted infra-red radiation, heat up as a consequence and emit radiation as a result which heats the planetary surfaces to a higher temperature than the solar radiation is capable of on its own.

      This hypothesis is nonsense in terms of Venus where the atmosphere apparently reflects about 80% of the sunlight incident on the planet and the remaining 20% never makes it to the ground.

      By ANY rational definition there is NO "greenhouse effect" on Venus !!

      It is obvious that no politicians or "greenhouse effect" advocates have ever read or understood ANY of the basic models for this impossible hypothetical "greenhouse effect".

      If they had they would have to contend with the claim that the atmospheric "back radiation" has the same heating power as the incident solar radiation as proposed in EVERY model description of the "greenhouse effect" !

      The IPCC goes even further by citing Trenberth et al who assert the atmospheric "back radiation" has greater heating power as the incident solar radiation !

      One does not need any sophisticated equipment to disprove these assertions - a simple magnifying glass will do the trick. Sunlight magnified by a magnifying glass starts fires - atmospheric "back radiation" DOESN'T !

      For those who wish to claim I am stupid because infra-red radiation cannot be focused by a magnifying glass I say my point has just been agreed by anyone claiming such a point !

      Using a parabolic metal mirror instead simply proves the absurdity of claiming the atmospheric "back radiation" has equal heating power. Solar ovens use such a mirror but they don't work without incident solar radiation.

      Academia should hang its collective head in shame for teaching nonsense to children for some obscure political gain !

    2. i have yet to understand how a "greenhouse" can produce cold areas and hot areas.

    3. Venus is a runaway 'Greenhouse' due to it's lack of electromagnetic field which Earth has.
      The lack of field led water molecules to be photodisassociated by cosmic winds and the free oxygen and hydrogen swept into space while heavier molecules like CO2 sank back down.
      Earth is an H2O-dominated climate system, completely different to Venus. Even Hawking has made errors in ignoring the electromagnetic field aspect.

  2. AGW is a conjecture and certainly not a proven theory. Based on the paleocliamte record and the work that has been done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is too full of holes to defend. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth's climate system, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction and hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

  3. Given that for each action there is an equal and opposite re-action, it is proposed that all the newly installed wind turbines are contributing to the rise in the earth's temperature by slowing the velocity of the earth's wind. Traveling in a car with the windows down is much warmer when moving at only 2 MPH vs. zipping along at 60 MPH.

    Slower wind, warmer temps... QED!


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!