Skip to content

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever

December 2, 2016

By Paul Homewood

ScreenHunter_01 Dec. 02 10.24


Mike van Biezen, who is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and Earth Science, covers a lot of the bases in this critique of global warming theory:


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 his full analysis here.

  1. Ex-expat Colin permalink
    December 2, 2016 10:44 am

    O/T ..sorry. Just seen this today in our UK local paper:

    “Hartlebury wind turbine companies go into administration”

    Endurance Inc – Vancouver, Canada

    Is this old news..certainly not locally

  2. December 2, 2016 10:50 am

    A fair analysis. I hope his job as adjunct professor is secure. Perhaps when Trump takes up the reins, more people will speak out.

  3. AlecM permalink
    December 2, 2016 11:07 am

    No professional agrees with IPCC science fraud because R D Cess’ 1976 paper, the basis of the fraud, has the scientific howler defining Earth’s radiant emissivity as OLR (-18 deg C)/surface radiant exitance (+15 deg C). You must use the same temperature.

    This created 40% more SW thermalisation than reality and the fake 33 K GHE. Cess’ derivative deductions were then ‘confirmed’ by science fraud – Wang et al (1976), a 1-D model which offset the 40% extra energy by ‘negative convection’, which cannot exist. 24 years later, Hansen admitted the fraud to an AIP interviewer.

    These two 1976 papers led to the Charney report (1979), wanted by the Globalists to replace gold as the basis of currency with CO2, now the ‘carbon pollution’ loved by the lefty totalitarians, the shock troops of the real totalitarians.

    Happily, real scientists are now waking up to how Science has been replaced by state-funded propaganda. We now face a desperate struggle to censor the internet and jail dissenters in a new, World-wide programme using Islamic fascism (based on the Na$ism at the heart of the Moslem Brotherhood since 1928) as its spearhead.

    UK politicians who espouse fake climate science and Sharia are tools of the carbon traders. Whereas Galileo was threatened with the rack and terrible crimes against his daughter, modern scientific dissent is controlled by the need to pay the mortgage, unless you are retired.

    • Shooter permalink
      December 3, 2016 6:25 am

      The story about Galileo is mostly false. He wasn’t punished for saying that the Earth revolves around the sun or whatever. It was that he personally insulted the Pope and other scientists, and the Pope was a mathematician. Most folks already accepted Kepler’s theories. Galileo was just a scrooge. He was their James Hansen.

  4. December 2, 2016 12:54 pm

    Public Service announcement

    The “Inside The Environment Agency” whistleblower blog has had a Lazarus moment.

  5. David Richardson permalink
    December 2, 2016 1:48 pm

    Yes I read this article last year when it first came out, linked from somewhere I don’t remember – very logical and easy to understand. As Phillip says above I hope it doesn’t cause him trouble.

    O/T – one tide is turning now though. I caught a bit of Smooth Radio the other day in the car (stop sniggering at the back) – while trying to avoid listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2, as I usually end up with high blood pressure, which I don’t have. The adverts on Smooth have moved from “how would you like some solar panels on your roof and make some money” to ” how would you like us to help you sue a solar company for inflated expectations”. Hope that is sign of the times.

  6. Edmonton Al permalink
    December 2, 2016 1:53 pm

    This worth reading IMHO.

    • wert permalink
      December 2, 2016 5:26 pm

      Nice crackpot stuff.

      The term “heat trapping gas” is scientific fraud. Heat cannot be trapped, because it is too dynamic. It flows into and out of the atmosphere in femto seconds. Almost all heat leaves the earth from the atmosphere, not the ground.


      • AlecM permalink
        December 2, 2016 5:42 pm

        There is net zero trapped heat, surface IR passing energy to the atmosphere.

        Real heat trapping is stored latent + some sensible heat in the temperature gradient needed to transfer surface warming by convection to the upper atmosphere, where it is converted to IR to Space.

        In the absence of clouds, there would be ~0.85 K CO2 climate sensitivity from the effect it has on reducing surface IR to Space, raising equilibrium surface temperature.

        However, adaptation of relative humidity, increasing H2) band spectral temperature almost exactly offsets such theoretical warming to near zero.

        Simples to any professional scientist.

  7. Broadlands permalink
    December 2, 2016 2:03 pm

    This “comprehensive” article says little that hasn’t already been said here in one of the many previous posts. In some ways, this professor has “rediscovered the wheel”. Example: his discovery that the data have been “adjusted”. Hopefully, his job is secure.

    • Dave Ward permalink
      December 2, 2016 7:35 pm

      “This “comprehensive” article says little that hasn’t already been said here in one of the many previous posts”

      That may be true. But the fact that a name we haven’t previously heard of comes (independently) to the same conclusion, is an important point when trying to get through to the masses of believers.

      • December 2, 2016 10:22 pm

        A positive indication the tide has turned. Note he teaches in California, land of nuts and fruits.

  8. December 2, 2016 2:20 pm

    I posted on this a year ago and added some illustrations to strengthen the presentation.

  9. Dung permalink
    December 2, 2016 3:05 pm

    The daftest thing about AGW is that many on the other side do not believe in it. I seem to bore people when I mention it but consider the following statements:

    I do say to those who are sceptical about Climate Change…..clearly there is no need to talk about Climate Change because we have got to do all these things anyway if we are going to meet “the needs of 9 billion people

    Lord Deben 4th Sept 2012
    Interview with DECC Committee.

    Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.

    Connie Hedegaard Sept 2013

    When we eventually force them to admit that CAGW is bunk then they fall back on Sustainability, UN Agenda 21 and now Agenda 30. Fighting global warming is just one of many targets in Agenda 30. However sustainability has never been explained to the public and nor has the public agreed to its imposition in the UK. Millions of people in the UK have to explain what they are doing to include sustainability in their jobs (including our armed forces and the NHS).

    • tom0mason permalink
      December 2, 2016 4:31 pm

      Millions of people in the UK have to explain what they are doing to include sustainability in their jobs (including our armed forces and the NHS).

      Re: armed forces and the NHS

      They’ll probably contract out to some global outfit like “Cadavers International” for recycling of body bits.

    • Athelstan permalink
      December 2, 2016 4:47 pm

      “Sustainability” became the new buzz word for the western SJWs aka, the Marxist doctinaires and bums, aka the US + UK/EU liberal tosserati.

      Where, the corporate blob cottoned on, the investment banks not least Goldman Sachs have made an enormous financial killing out of the taxpayers financing and enforced underwriting of the ‘green agenda – and therein, egregiously enacted by a set of unaccountable politicians [klinton Klan, merkel, bliar, obummer and with the UN/ EU Mafia] who were and still are the world’s foremost, compulsive and inveterate liars.

      Forthwith, what is required, to Drain the swamp [where are you Donny?]…. and to do that, UNEP needs nuking along with the UN and hopefully soon the with the EU going tits up global warbling will die a deservedly painful and terrible death.

      Conclusion: take away the money the whole shebang is gone.

    • December 2, 2016 9:41 pm

      Tim Firth is on record as saying that even if they turned out to be wrong on climate change they would have been doing the right thing by the environment. (Sorry I can’t find the exact quote).

      Edenhofer (vice-chair of WG 3) said before Cancun:
      “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

      I have several more pages of similar quotes. This has never been about climate; it has always been about environmental politics. By casting CO2 as a demon the eco-activists have been able to pursue their neo-Malthusian policies, the aim always to halt civilisation in its tracks — and I have a couple of quotes from Strong that lend credence to that theory!

      • markl permalink
        December 3, 2016 2:01 am

        Mike Jackson commented: “…I have several more pages of similar quotes….”

        Would you share please? I’m thinking of putting together a “conspiracy theory” rebuttal to silence the real deni*rs.

  10. December 2, 2016 3:08 pm

    A nice simple summary – but a more complex explanation is really needed. As such you’ve got to start with the apparent correlation between CO2 and temp (and point out that CO2 lags Temp), but then go on to say that this “could suggest” or some other weasel words that the effect of CO2 on temperature is much greater than science predicts.

    Actually, then we need to talk about what else “could have done it”, plus do some very theoretical stuff on the causes and scale of natural variability. And, it gets too complex.

    OK – perhaps the simple summary was best.

    • AlecM permalink
      December 2, 2016 6:23 pm

      A false comparison. [CO2] is related to ocean temperature, proved by its fall in the early Carboniferous as Pangea moved South; ocean cooling by Thermohaline Circulation.

      Climate Science is populated by really stupid people.

  11. markl permalink
    December 2, 2016 4:33 pm

    Easy for the average Joe to understand. Getting it out to the average Joe is the problem that needs to be addressed.

  12. December 2, 2016 6:26 pm

    There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
    Alarmist use all 3 methods.

  13. December 2, 2016 6:59 pm

    There is a simpler CAGW rebuttal, in my opinion. The most important number in the climate debate is the equilibrium (or effective) climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of CO2. If high, there may or may not be future problems. But if low, there surely are not any concerns. The observational ECS since ~1880 is ~1.6 (e.g. Lewis and Curry 2014 using only IPCC AR5 values). CMIP5 model median is 3.2. So which is right?
    It cannot be the models, for two reasons in addition to the stark observational discrepancy. 1. They are running 2-3x hotter than both balloon and satellite estimates since 2000. 2. They produce a tropical tropical troposphere hotspot that does not in fact exist.

    There is a more fundamental math reason it cannot be the model ECS. To adequately resolve crucial climate processes like convection cells (tstorms, which convey surface heat to altitudes above most of the GHE where it can escape to space), grids on order of 1.5-4km are necessary (for a visualization, see essay Models All the way Down in Blowing Smoke). The finest resolution in CMIP5 is 110km at the equator; typical is 250km. Every doubling of resolution (halving grid side length) requires ~10x computation according to UCAR/NCAR. So adequate actual convection simulation is 6-7 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE computationally intractable. These climate model processes have to be parameterized, and in CMIP5 the parameterization was explicitly tuned to best hindcast from YE2005 back to 1975. This inescapably introduces the natural/anthropogenic attribution problem.

    The attribution problem is best understood by comparing the warming from ~1925-1940 to that from ~1975-2000. The two periods are essentially indistinguishable (Lindzen point). AR4 WG1 SPM fig. 8.2 explicitly says the former period was mostly natural; not enough change in CO2 level to be attributable to AGW. Both points are illustrated in essay C?AGw in ebook Blowing Smoke. Yet the models attribute 1975-2000 warming to GHE, mainly CO2. That is logically just wrong, since natural variation did not stop in 1975. The pause in temperature rise after 2000 proves it did not, despite ~1/3 of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958 (beginning of the Keeling curve) occuring AFTER 2000.

    The whole basis for alarm/concern/mitigation simply falls apart by comparing two ECS estimates then showing one cannot be correct. (The high ECS ‘tail’ precautionary principle counter fails via the same analysis, as well as via economic rationality. Commenters can devise that refinement themselves.)

  14. December 2, 2016 7:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  15. Johgn Brydon permalink
    December 3, 2016 2:20 am

    This is a very useful synopsis BUT without referenced graphs to back up the statements, it is very difficult to use in arguing with other scientists. Is it possible to have a companion set of referenced data/graphs to make the arguments watertight (as it were) ?

  16. Dung permalink
    December 3, 2016 1:01 pm

    As usual I have not got my point across at all well, most people have moved on to discussing the science without understanding that it is pointless to do so. Surely it is obvious that man is largely in the dark when it comes to understanding how everything around us works. Accepting that we are lacking a great deal of knowledge means we accept that there are questions we can not answer (yet!). The causes of climate change are things that we do not totally (or even significantly) understand, so forget the science and focus on the facts (of which there are many).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: