True Facts of Climate Change: Part 3

Part 3: See Part 1 - HERE See Part 2 HERE
By M. Ray Thomasson and Lee C. Gerhard
Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences 
Figure 19: Map of greening of the Earth owing to increased CO2. The increase in CO2 has been beneficial as CO2 starts to recover from a near record low. The world is greening because of the modest increase in CO2.  Redrafted after [22].

  • That temperature and CO2 go up together. FALSE (Figure 20).

Figure 20: This graph shows the most recent relationship between CO2 and temperature. CO2 is steadily increasing because of somewhat higher temperatures, land use, ocean activity, and fossil fuel use. Temperature has flattened out (and may go down). Satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA.

  • That models can be used to predict climate. FALSE (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Computer model results are plotted vs. actual data from observations, 1975-2015. The models have been consistently wrong and yet major policy decisions have been and are still being based on their results. Redrafted from [23].

  • That the so-called pause from 1998 to the present in the increase in temperature is not real. FALSE (Figure 22).

Figure 22: These graphs show the data from all 4 major keepers of data. Both NASA and Hadley HadCRUT have had scandals. Remember Climategate at Hadley a few years ago and NASA has been shown to fiddle the data making older data lower than actual and later data higher than actual. Nonetheless one can discern a definite flat period in all four curves from 1998 (an extra powerful NINO) to 2017. The spike in 2016 is another very powerful NINO. Data is taken from (,,, http://vortex.nsstc.

  • There is a 97% consensus that humans are causing climate to change: False.

Figure 23: The media make much of what they term a “Scientific consensus.” There are many scientific disciplines that contribute to our understanding about climate change. These include physicists, astrophysicists, astronomers, meteorologists, geologists, climate scientists, oceanographers, geophysicists, and others. All of these were ignored in the analysis. 
The Global Warming Petition Project resulted in 31,487 individuals with scientific backgrounds (9,029 with PhD degrees, and 7,157 with MS degrees) who approved the following statement “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produces many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” 
The “97% consensus” is based on 77 scientists out of 10,257 questioned and 3,146 responses [24,25]. Out of 77 climate scientists, 75 answered “Yes” to the question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” They were not asked whether human carbon dioxide emissions control temperature (Figure 23). The term “Significant” was undefined. 
Climate change can best be understood within the larger context of geological history. In the Doran and Zimmerman study, there were 103 responses from geologists, and 53% of those answered “No” to that same question. The authors believe the 97% scientific consensus promoted by the media is a myth.


The authors believe that truth will always come out in any research project that has a scientific basis. We have shown that CO2 is not a pollutant, but instead is a critical source of plant food and therefore animal life (and man) on this earth. We have shown that CO2 does not have a significant negative effect on weather patterns or on temperature. 
We have shown the forecast climate models to all be wrong. More importantly, we have presented evidence that emphasizes the importance of climate control by the sun. Several lines of evidence suggest that the global climate will be going into a colder phase in the near future, and may last for decades. It is with a great degree of concern that we point out that population is projected to increase from seven to nine billion people by the year 2100. Will the projected increase in CO2 be sufficient fertilizer to counter balance a cooler climate in the world in which more food will be needed to feed our burgeoning population?


1. Ljungqvist FC (2010) A new reconstruction of temperature variability in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere during the last two millennia.
Geografiska Annaler 92: 339-351.
2. Alley RB (2000) The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19: 213-226.
3. Cuffey KM, GD Clow (1997) Temperature, accumulation, and ice sheet elevation in central Greenland through the last deglacial transition. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 26383-26396.
4. National Climate Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA 2017 National Hurricane Center 2017
5. Robinson Arthur B, Robinson Noah, Soon Willie (2007) “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” Petition Project website. Published by Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12: 79-90.
6. Hieb M (2003) Global Warming: A Closer Look at the Numbers, in Hieb M, Hieb H 2003 Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective.
7. Lindzen Richard S, Choi Yong-Sang (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophys Res Lttrs 36: L16705.
8. Archibald D, Donze T (2008) “Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States”, Int’l Conference on Climate Change.
9. Petit JR, Jouzel J, Raynaud D, NI Barkov, JM Barnola, et al. (1999) “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica”. Nature. 399: 429-436.
10. Berner Robert A (1990) Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozoic Time. Science 249: 1382-1386.
11. Berner Robert A, kothavala Z (1994) 3Geocarb II: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time. American Journal of Science
294: 56-91.
12. Boretti AA (2012) Short term comparison of climate model predictions and satellite altimeter measurements of sea levels. Coastal Engineering 60: 319-322.
13. Hoyt DV, KH Schatten (1997) The Role of the Sun in Climate Change: Oxford University Press, New York, 279 p.
14. Bond Gerard, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N Evans (2001) Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.
15. Landscheidt Theodor (2003) New Little Ice Age instead of Global Warming? Energy and Environment 14: 327-350.
16. Satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA Science@NASA, Long Range Solar Forecast, 2006.
17. Abdusamatov KhI (2007) Optimal Prediction of the Peak of the Next 11-Year Activity Cycle and of the Peaks of Several Succeeding Cycles on the Ba sis of Long-Term Variations in the So Lar Radius or Solar Constant. Kinematika i Fizika Nebes. Allerton Press 23: 141-147.
18. SILSO graphics ( Royal Observatory of Belgium 2017 July 5.
19. Idso CD, Idso KE (2000) Forecasting world food supplies: The impact of the rising atmospheric CO2 concentration. Technology 7S: 33-55.
20. Idso Craig D, Idso Sherwood B (2007) “Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion” Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
21. Idso Craig D, Idso Sherwood B (2011) “Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future Pursuing the Prudent Path”.
22. Donohue RJ, Roderick ML, McVicar TR, Farquhar GD (2013) Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments 40: 3031-3035.
23. Christy JR (2016) US House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 2 Feb 2016 Testimony of John R. Christy University of Alabama in Huntsville.
24. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos 90: 22-23.
25. Cunningham Walter “The Global Warming War (Alarmists Vs. Realists)”. (2016) The institute for Energy Efficiency.