Skip to content

Physics Professor lists 10 reasons to challenge ‘Global Warming’ claims

January 3, 2016

By Paul Homewood




There is an excellent summary by Mike van Biezen of everything that is wrong with standard global warming theory.

There is nothing new in what he says, but it is a good round up of the points many of us have been making.

Van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science. 


It made sense.  Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise.  But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd.  It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked.  There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit.  As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more.  Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.

Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct.  The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s.  Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months.  The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures.  But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.  The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:


Read the full story here.

  1. Adrian permalink
    January 3, 2016 1:31 pm

    I’ll wait for the BBC’s unbiased view of this before I believe any of it.

  2. January 3, 2016 3:11 pm

    Thanks, Paul.
    Mike van Biezen wrote a good article, he correctly states some facts about the controversy on “global warming”. He points out the cooling of -0.1°C from 1941 to 1975, which I consider very powerful evidence that 20th century CO2 emissions are not in control of global temperatures.

  3. manicbeancounter permalink
    January 3, 2016 11:27 pm

    Something that I quite like from van Biezen’s article is trying to obtain corroborating evidence for global warming.
    Point 2 on satellite data comparisons to surface temperatures is well known. Point 1 is more original with respect to the United States. Looking at record temperatures for each State for each month (50*12 = 600) under warming one would expect in the majority of cases for the record highest temperature to be set more recently than the record lowest. Instead he claims that in the vast majority of cases (without stating the numbers) it to be the other way round. It would be nice to have the analysis.
    I did a quick parsing of the records by State on Wikipedia

    In only 27 of the 51 states was the record high before the record low. Of these 23 records were set prior to 1975, and 21 prior to 1950. In total 38 of the 51 record high temperatures were set prior to 1975. This compares to just 33 of the low temperature records set prior to 1975.

  4. January 3, 2016 11:39 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  5. manicbeancounter permalink
    January 3, 2016 11:42 pm

    One of the anomalies is how the 1930s can be the warmest decade in many places, but not show up in the global figures. Part of the answer comes from GISTEMP. They very usefully divide the average global temperatures (after adjustments) into 8 unequal bands. For these I graphed the five year MAVs.

    The most northerly and southerly areas each cover 5% of the earth’s surface and slightly more area than the polar regions. Note that in the North, the early twentieth century warming was just as large as the recent warming. But in the South, there was cooling in the early twentieth century warming, that cancelled the extreme warming in the far North. But where did they get the figures from when there were no permanent bases in Antarctica until the late 1950s? The answer is that GISTEMP largely used Base Orcadas data, slightly to the North of the area, with its own unique temperature trends.

  6. January 4, 2016 12:08 pm

    It was really refreshing to read the whole article as it was written in terms a botanist could understand. I sent it to my brother who is a PhD physics. I also sent it to a local statewide radio show host. He really tries to be good, however, as I’ve pointed out to him he tends to be too enamored by “experts” and “scientists.” Hopefully, this article will resonate. Mike Van Brizen has done a great service on this issue.

  7. January 4, 2016 1:14 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.

  8. Doug Holman permalink
    January 4, 2016 1:23 pm

    Fascinating article – but before I share it, could anyone help clarify what appears to be an inconsistency in the first of the ten problems? The second sentence reads:

    “By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records.”

    To be compatible with the rest of the paragraph, shouldn’t “all-time high” and “all-time cold” be the other way round?

    The tenth point about date “adjustment” ought to reduce those still pushing dodgy global warming science to Flat Earth Society status.

  9. January 4, 2016 10:50 pm

    Of course, the Earth’s climate has been following cycles of cooling and warming, throughout it’s history. Now we are living in the Holocene era, a period of gradual warming of the climate, following the ice age, which has ended over ten thousand years ago.
    Some are saying that the climate is changing in a more rapid manner starting with the 20th century, mainly because of human influence. The greenhouse emissions are the most pointed cause of climate change, especially global warming. Some other theories exist, however, which point to the oceans, which are considered to be the main influence on global climate. The two world wars of the past century, especially the naval battles are thought to have had an important role in changing the climate. Have a look here – – to see an analysis on how modern climate evolved.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: