View Full Version : Why AGW is a hoax and a lie

08-07-2011, 02:54 AM
Read below the list of predictions that did NOT come true:


TIM Flannery, an expert in bones, has made a fortune from books and lectures warning that we face global warming doom. He scared us so well that we last year made him Australian of the Year.

In March, Flannery said: “The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

In fact, Adelaide’s reservoirs are now 75 per cent full, just weeks from 2009.

In June last year, Flannery warned Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”.

In fact, 18 months later, its dams are 46 per cent full after Brisbane’s wettest spring in 27 years.

In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry in just two years.

In fact, three years later its dams are 63 per cent full, not least because June last year was its wettest since 1951.

In 2004, Flannery said global warming would cause such droughts that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”.

In fact, Perth now has the lowest water restrictions of any state capital, thanks to its desalination plant and dams that are 40 per cent full after the city’s wettest November in 17 years.

Lesson: This truly is a land “of drought and flooding rains”. Distrust a professional panic merchant who predicts the first but ignores the second.


PROFESSOR Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, of Queensland University, is Australia’s most quoted reef expert.

He’s advised business, green and government groups, and won our rich Eureka Prize for scares about the Great Barrier Reef. He’s chaired a $20 million global warming study of the World Bank.

In 1999, Hoegh-Guldberg warned that the Great Barrier Reef was under pressure from global warming, and much of it had turned white.

In fact, he later admitted the reef had made a “surprising” recovery.

In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.

In fact, he later admitted this bleaching had “a minimal impact”.

In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef.

In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.

Lesson: Reefs adapt, like so much of nature. Learn again that scares make big headlines and bigger careers.


IN April this year, the papers were full of warnings the Arctic ice could all melt.

“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.

“It’s hard to see how the system may bounce back (this year),” fretted Dr Ignatius Rigor, of Washington University’s polar science centre.

Tim Flannery also warned “this may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”, and the ABC and Age got reporter Marian Wilkinson to go stare at the ice and wail: “Here you can see climate change happening before your eyes.”

In fact, the Arctic’s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year’s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?

Yet Barber is again in the news this month, predicting an ice-free Arctic now in six years. Did anyone ask him how he got his last prediction wrong?

Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.


AL Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane.

Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: “It is now generally recognised that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It’s going to lead to more hurricanes.”

In fact, there is still no proof of a link between any warming and hurricanes.

Australia is actually getting fewer cyclones, and last month researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.

Lesson: Beware of politicians riding the warming bandwagon.


ROSS Garnaut, a professor of economics, is the guru behind the Rudd Government’s global warming policies.

He this year defended the ugly curved steel roof he’d planned at the rear of his city property, telling angry locals he was protecting himself from climate change: “Severe and more frequent hailstones will be a feature of this change,” he said.

In fact, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits “decreases in hail frequency are simulated for Melbourne. . .”

Lesson: Beware also of government advisers on that warming wagon.


A BAD ski season three years ago - right after a great one - had The Age and other alarmists blaming global warming. The CSIRO, once our top science body, fanned the fear by claiming resorts such as Mt Hotham and Mt Buller could lose a quarter of their snow by 2020.

In fact, this year was another boom one for skiing, with Mt Hotham and Mt Buller covered in snow five weeks before the season started.

What’s more, a study this year in the Hydrological Sciences Journal checked six climate models, including one used by the CSIRO.

It found they couldn’t even predict the regional climate we’d had already: “Local model projections cannot be credible . . .”

It also confirmed the finding of a study last year in the International Journal of Climatology that the 22 most cited global warming models could not “accurately explain the (global) climate from the recent past”.

As for predicting the future. . .

Lesson: The CSIRO’s scary predictions are near worthless.


THE CSIRO last year claimed Perth was “particularly vulnerable” and had a 90 per cent chance of getting less rain and higher temperatures.

“There are not many other parts of the world where the IPCC has made a prediction that a drop in rainfall is highly likely,” it said.

In fact, Perth has just had its coldest and wettest November since 1991.

Lesson: As I said, don’t trust the CSIRO’s model or its warnings.


THE seas will rise up to 100m by 2100, claims ABC Science Show host Robyn Williams. Six metres, suggests Al Gore. So let’s take in “climate refugees” from low-lying Tuvalu, says federal Labor. And ban coastal development, says the Brumby Government.

In fact, while the seas have slowly risen since the last ice age, before man got gassy, they’ve stopped rising for the last two, according to data from the Jason-1 satellite.

“There is no evidence for accelerated sea-level rises,” the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute declared last month.

Lesson: Trust the data, not the politicians.


The British Met Office is home to the Hadley Centre, one of the top centres of the man-made global warming faith.

In April it predicted: “The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’.

In fact, in August it admitted: “(This) summer . . . has been one of the wettest on record across the UK.”

In September it predicted: “The coming winter (is) likely to be milder than average.”

In fact, winter has been so cold that London had its first October snow in 74 years—and on the very day Parliament voted to fight “global warming”.

Lesson: If the Met can’t predict the weather three months out, what can it know of the climate 100 years hence?


SPEAKING of the Met, it has so far predicted 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007 would be the world’s hottest or second-hottest year on record, but nine of the past 10 years it predicted temperatures too high.

In fact, the Met this month conceded 2008 would be the coldest year this century.

That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.

As Roger Pielke Sr, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University’s Department of Atmospheric Science, declared this month: “Global warming has stopped for the last few years.”

Why should we believe someone who has been wrong again and again and again....

The Night Owl
08-08-2011, 10:46 AM
Read below the list of predictions that did NOT come true:

Why should we believe someone who has been wrong again and again and again....

According to Wikipedia, Tim Flannery has a background in biological sciences. He shouldn't be considered an authority on climate and so it really doesn't matter that his predictions have failed.

It seems to me that if you want to knock down climate science you ought to at least try to refute what climate scientists are saying, not what climate activists are saying.

08-08-2011, 01:58 PM
It seems to me that if you want to knock down climate science you ought to at least try to refute what climate scientists are saying, not what climate activists are saying.

We've done that time and time again, but global warming idiots such as yourself, can't seem to come to terms with the reality that it is all based on bullshit and that the bullshit is being used to fertilize the growth of "green energy"!

Feel free to shove your're head back in the sand or up your ass, whichever feels better.

The Night Owl
08-08-2011, 06:08 PM
We've done that time and time again, but global warming idiots such as yourself, can't seem to come to terms with the reality that it is all based on bullshit and that the bullshit is being used to fertilize the growth of "green energy"!

Feel free to shove your're head back in the sand or up your ass, whichever feels better.

Wow! I guess you told me.

08-15-2011, 12:30 AM
It seems to me that if you want to knock down climate science you ought to at least try to refute what climate scientists are saying, not what climate activists are saying.

I already have, and you dont read those either.

08-16-2011, 07:02 PM
Night DUmmy, watch this, I dare you.


Oh, BTW, there are REAL climatologists in this series.

08-17-2011, 01:36 PM
According to Wikipedia, Tim Flannery has a background in biological sciences. He shouldn't be considered an authority on climate and so it really doesn't matter that his predictions have failed.

It seems to me that if you want to knock down climate science you ought to at least try to refute what climate scientists are saying, not what climate activists are saying.

Many of the so-called "scientists" on the warming bandwagon are out of their fields of expertise. Paul Ehrlich, for example, was an expert on butterflies, not climatology or meteorology. It's just like Noam Chomsky, who is an expert in linguistics, but holds forth on issues that he is utterly unqualified to discuss as an authority, such as politics.

However, let's see what the climate scientists are saying, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming:

Position: Accuracy of IPCC climate projections is questionable

Individuals in this section conclude that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences:
"We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future."[6]

"[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."[7][8]

"It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1 °C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. ... This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5 °C for a doubling of CO2."[9]

"Motivated by the observed relation between cloudiness (above the trade wind boundary layer) and high humidity, cloud data for the eastern part of the western Pacific from the Japanese Geostationary Meteorological Satellite-5 (which provides high spatial and temporal resolution) have been analyzed, and it has been found that the area of cirrus cloud coverage normalized by a measure of the area of cumulus coverage decreases about 22% per degree Celsius increase in the surface temperature of the cloudy region. ... The calculations show that such a change in the Tropics could lead to a negative feedback in the global climate ... The response to a doubling of CO2, which in the absence of feedbacks is expected to be about 1.2°C, would be reduced to between 0.57° and 0.83°C (depending on y) due to the iris effect."[10]

Garth Paltridge, Visiting Fellow ANU and retired Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired Director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre:

"There are good and straightforward scientific reasons to believe that the burning of fossil fuel and consequent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to an increase in the average temperature of the world above that which would otherwise be the case. Whether the increase will be large enough to be noticeable is still an unanswered question."[11] "The bottom line is that virtually all climate research in Australia is funded from one source – namely, the government department which has the specific task of selling to the public the idea that something drastic and expensive has to be done."[12]

Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute:

"The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic."[13]

"It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future."[14] "The political dichotomy about climate change is fueled by gross exaggerations and simplifications on both sides of the fence."[14]

Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists:

"Models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".[15] "It is not possible to exclude that the observed phenomena may have natural causes. It may be that man has little or nothing to do with it."[16]

"Not only do we need to improve the ‘mathematics’ of the models but it is also necessary to improve the measuring devices and their sensitivity. ... Cloud characteristics are very important in order to allow a comparison between model forecasts and experimental data. ... When a proton enters our atmosphere, it acts as a nucleus of condensation for water vapour and thus contributes to cloud formation. ... In the last half billion years, earth has lost, four times, its polar caps: no ice at the North Pole and none at the South Pole. And, four times, the polar caps were reconstituted. Man did not exist then, only the so-called cosmic rays, discovered by mankind in the early twentieth century. The last cosmic ice age started 50 million years ago when we entered into one of the galaxy arms."[16]

08-17-2011, 01:37 PM
Position: Global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

Attribution of climate change, based on Meehl et al. (2004), which represents the consensus view
1979-2009: Over the past 3 decades, temperature has not correlated with sunspot trends. The top plot is of sunspots, while below is the global atmospheric temperature trend. El Chichón and Pinatubo were volcanoes, while El Niño is part of ocean variability. The effect of greenhouse gas emissions is on top of those fluctuations.
1860-1980: In contrast, earlier there was apparent similarity between trends in terrestrial sea surface temperatures and sunspots (related to solar magnetic activity: TSI varies slightly while UV and indirectly cosmic rays vary somewhat more).
Both consensus and non-consensus scientific views involve multiple climate change influences including solar variability and internal forcings, plus human influences such as greenhouse gas emissions and land use change.[17] However, they can differ in which factor(s) gets considered quantitatively major versus more minor.[17][18]Individuals in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
[INDENT]"Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy – almost throughout the last century – growth in its intensity."[19][20][21] "Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 degrees Celsius in the past ten years — however, it never happened."[22] "By 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle, and a deep cooling period will hit the Earth approximately in 2055-2060. It will last for about 45-65 years and by mid-21st century the planet will face another Little Ice Age.”[22]

Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

"Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities--over 80 percent--occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural."[23]"The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change."[23]

"[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."[24]"One can have surface warming from a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air. ... Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree."[23]

George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California:

"The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible."[25]

Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa:

"That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."[26]

Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland:

"There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done."[27]

David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:

"The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."[28]

Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:

"Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 years were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods. ... Georef lists 485 papers on the Medieval Warm period and 1413 on the Little Ice Age for a total of 1,900 published papers on the two periods. Thus, when Mann et al. (1998) contended that neither event had happened and that climate had not changed in 1000 years (the infamous hockey stick graph), geologists didn't take them seriously and thought either (1) the trees they used for their climate reconstruction were not climate sensitive, or (2) the data had been inappropriately used."[29]

"Glaciers advanced from about 1890–1920, retreated rapidly from ~1925 to ~1945, readvanced from ~1945 to ~1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. ... Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100."[30]

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University:

"This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[31] "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."[32] "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[33]

William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University:

"All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it's not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide"[34]