ActivismEconomyGovernmentMilitarySocial IssuesUS PoliticsWorld Politics

Climate Change Caused by CO2 - Is it True?

Updated on August 24, 2016
Buildreps profile image

The author proved the mathematical relation between Earth Crust Shifts, ice ages, and orientations of pyramids and temples around the world.

How accurate are the midterm predictions actually when we fail to predict accurately just a few days ahead? Don't be a fool. Think carefully before you believe anything.
How accurate are the midterm predictions actually when we fail to predict accurately just a few days ahead? Don't be a fool. Think carefully before you believe anything.

What Do You Think?

Does CO2 Cause Climate Change?

See results

What is Climate?

When you climb in your car and switch on the climate control you expect the temperature in your car to reach the desired setpoint as quickly as possible. During the trip the temperature in the car will swing a bit around its setpoint. Engineers call this (these minute temperature swings around the setpoint) a negative feedback mechanism.

The climate debate has become hotter than ever. There are many internet forums where supporters and opponents of carbon induced global warming incessantly bombard each other with arguments. It's a jammed trench warfare. The discussion hasn't made one inch of progress over the years.

Where is climate actually made of? Temperature, humidity, wind speed, rainfall, and sunny hours give a good indication of what climate actually is. When the patterns of these five variables permanently change on a significant scale we could speak of a changing climate. Is this ever done properly on a global scale? No, it isn't. It's because earth's climate system is an amazing complex system, and still far beyond the reach of human comprehension.

Is our climate really changing? And if that is so why could it be changing?

World Map Temperatures - Based on Ground Stations

This map gives a good indication what happened over the last decades. Some areas are heating up, and some are cooling down.  The Southern hemisphere cools down, the Northern hemisphere warms up. The global result is a warming up. The cause?
This map gives a good indication what happened over the last decades. Some areas are heating up, and some are cooling down. The Southern hemisphere cools down, the Northern hemisphere warms up. The global result is a warming up. The cause? | Source

How Sun Spots and SST Correlate

The amount of sun spots and the Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) show a clear relation. But sun spots can only account for  temperature swings up to plus/minus 1 degree Celsius.
The amount of sun spots and the Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) show a clear relation. But sun spots can only account for temperature swings up to plus/minus 1 degree Celsius.

Own Research Versus Copy-Paste Believes

It is widely believed, also in the climate change discussion, that we can control the climate like in our cars by reducing CO2 emissions.

A glimpse on the historical data shows us that the temperatures changed constantly over the history. Who or what made this CO2 a few hundred thousands years ago? Or is CO2 the effect and not the cause? Because that would explain more then vice versa.

Is our climate changing? And when that appears to be the case, what is the cause? Are we able to find out ourselves what is really going on? Yes, we are able to find out much more by ourselves than we tend to believe at first hand. But that requires a lot of work. Not many people are willing to do that for just a song.

Climate Change Based on Weather Stations

The Northern hemisphere warms up, and the Southern hemisphere cools down. The net result of both, based on about 100 weather stations, is a global warming over a period of about 50 years. Is that true?
The Northern hemisphere warms up, and the Southern hemisphere cools down. The net result of both, based on about 100 weather stations, is a global warming over a period of about 50 years. Is that true? | Source

The Only Evidence for Carbon Induced Global Warming is Based on Circular Reasoning

Relation Between CO2 and Temperature is Obvious

The relation between CO2 and temperature change is obvious. Denying there is a relation equals to stupidity. But the real question must be; is CO2 the cause of temperature change? Or are we mistaking an obvious effect as the cause?
The relation between CO2 and temperature change is obvious. Denying there is a relation equals to stupidity. But the real question must be; is CO2 the cause of temperature change? Or are we mistaking an obvious effect as the cause?

The Relation Between CO2 and Climate Change

The relation between CO2 and temperature is obvious. Whether we look at recent records, or at ice core data, the relation is always present. What can we say more than the simple conclusion that CO2 is responsible for climbing temperatures? But is that conclusion really so simple?

The relations are so obvious that only a fool dares to say that CO2 is not responsible for climate change.

Some cases of cause and effect are simple and obvious: does asbestos cause cancer, or does cancer causes asbestos? Because asbestos preceded the cancer, it is the cause.

But not all cases are so obvious. Does CO2 cause climate change or does climate change cause CO2?

Another case of cause and effect; are the wheels of a car responsible for the turning of the steering wheel or is it vice versa? There might be some odd cases where former situation counts. The steering mechanism is so tightly connected to eachother, that if we wouldn't know better, we would have a very hard time to find out objectively what is the cause and what the effect. The tolerance in the system, when we change direction would be the only way to find out the cause. This is called hysteresis. The thing that would lag behind would be ipso facto the effect. Grasping this principle is crucial, also for our climate.

An Obvious Example of Cause and Effect

An obvious example of cause and effect. Not all systems are so easy to break down in cause and effect.
An obvious example of cause and effect. Not all systems are so easy to break down in cause and effect.

The Elephant in the Room: CO2 Lags Behind

If we analyse the data by zooming in we see that CO2 lags behind on temperatures. Who knows that? The climate scientists know about it, but ignore this problem stubbornly. It is the elephant in the room. A huge problem.

In a feedback mechanism the cause is always ahead of the effect. When the alleged cause is lagging behind we can ipso facto not speak of a feedback mechanism. When you want to make something responsible as the cause, but that "thing" is lagging behind we might have a problem on our hands in our theory. We could try to deal with it as a feedforward mechanism. It must look into the future. But these systems:

  • function only properly when effects of disturbances are predictable;
  • function only properly when they don't generalize to other conditions;
  • destabilize when the system changes.

None of these three conditions comply to earth's climate. The climate system is no feedforward mechanism, because the earth changed significantly over the many hundreds of millions of years, while the 'setpoint' temperature remained the same. It shows clearly we are dealing with a feedback mechanism where cause and effect follow each other.

To become aware of the fact that CO2 is lagging behind you must zoom in on the data. I collected the data from Vostok and Dome-C, and processed them. How many people have done this? Just a few. How many people just swallow what's presented to them. Most. What if everything that's presented to you is wrong?

It is crucial to grasp that if you want to know which is causing what, you need much data where the direction changes, like the graph below. The lag between input and output is called hysteresis.

In the graph below there is not one single example where CO2 is not lagging behind on changes of temperature.

Temperature Leads CO2 by an Average of About 2,000 Years

The Vostok Data from Antarctica show a clear relation between temperature and CO2 levels. The CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures about 2,000 years. In simple words, CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature changes by definition.
The Vostok Data from Antarctica show a clear relation between temperature and CO2 levels. The CO2 levels lag behind on temperatures about 2,000 years. In simple words, CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature changes by definition. | Source
Long term records show a very strong negative feedback mechanism. Our climate always returns to a certain 'setpoint'.
Long term records show a very strong negative feedback mechanism. Our climate always returns to a certain 'setpoint'. | Source

Positive and Negative Feedback Mechanisms

The Greenhouse effect is often presented as a mix of both positive and negative feedback mechanisms.

The essence of negative feedback is that such systems have a tendency to stabilize itself at a certain setpoint, or always swing around the setpoint, while positive feedback systems have a tendency to run out of control or to block completely.

There are many climate scientists who believe (note that it's never been proven) that CO2 is the cause and the effect. Does anyone remember the bootstrap problem? The man who lifted himself from the swamp by pulling himself out by pulling on his boots. That's an example where cause and effect fuse. But how does that work scientifically? This is the kind of 'science' climate scientists believe in without any solid foundations.

Did the climate ever run out of control? No. If we look at long term climate records, the temperatures always returned to a certain 'setpoint'. Therefore we can say that there is a strong negative feedback mechanism at work in the climate system, much stronger than any possible positive feedback mechanism. Since CO2 lags on the temperatures it cannot be the cause. By definition not. It doesn't help to construct amazing difficult theories. Never ignore Occam's Razor!

CO2 lags behind on temperature and is therefore ipso facto not the cause. CO2 is the effect, and temperature is the cause. Now, what causes the temperatures to change then?

Reasons Why Temperatures Increase in Urbanized Zones

About 85% of the measuring stations are on land, while land covers just about 33% of the planet. It is not difficult to see that when we use these data we introduce major errors when we try to calculate an average global temperature.

About 50% of the stations which are used to measure global temperature are situated on airports. Many of these stations are incorrectly located, which means they collect heat from the exhaust of airplanes or from the tarmac runway. Since the air traffic has increased, the heat collection by the sensors from the jet exhausts increases as well. The short, intense heat bursts of the engines accumulate to serious errors in many of the measurements.

Most other stations are located in expanding urbanized areas. The measurements are affected by growing traffic and growing heat radiation of buildings over the last decennials. The explosive growth of air conditioners on buildings added an enormous heat source to cities that also influenced the measurements of urban situated weather stations.

The slick looking presentations made by computer programmers of NASA, the WMO and the IPCC are based on flawed material, like a flag on a mud barge. Unbelievable, isn't it? You're actually looking at a lie that looks awesome. Because it looks great it makes most people believe it is therefore true. The fact is that these climate models have no scientific value at all.

The measurements from some of the stations in large urbanized areas have to be corrected by other nearby remote stations before they can be used to present a global warming map. And even if we do this, we still present only the temperatures at ground level. We have no idea what happens high up in the atmosphere, and deep down in the oceans.

There is a striking relation between the dropping amount of weather stations and the global rising temperature.  After the collapse of the USSR about half of the cold stations fell into disuse, and so the data as well.
There is a striking relation between the dropping amount of weather stations and the global rising temperature. After the collapse of the USSR about half of the cold stations fell into disuse, and so the data as well. | Source

How Accurate Are the Temperature Measurements?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the amount of weather stations dropped dramatically from about 12,000 in 1990 to about 6,000 stations in 1995. In the same period the alleged global temperature started to rise like a rocket taking off.

  • Cause: the "cold" stations were gone from the statistics. Mainly the warm urbanized stations remained.
  • Effect: the statistics started to present a distorted picture of the global temperatures.

Is that science? Not really. We might call it science of the delusion. The current models as shown by NASA, WMO or the IPCC are not representing the truth.

Recently a far better way of collecting data has come into use: Remote Sensing Systems, or shortly RSS. Satellites gather data over large areas by using microwave sensors. This data is much more reliable and much better to process than the old fashioned weather stations where most of the climate models are still based on.

If you don't trust the results I present here, you can verify it yourself at the site of Remote Sensing Systems. The data shown here is not made in just one afternoon. It is the result of original research and hard labour. If you want to know what is true and what is false you must be prepared to work hard for scratch. Or just believe the data I present here is correct.

Results of RSS: The Atmosphere is Cooling Down

Over the last two decades the WHOLE atmosphere unmistakeably cools down. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2 deg C over the last 20 years.
Over the last two decades the WHOLE atmosphere unmistakeably cools down. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2 deg C over the last 20 years. | Source

RSS Results Over the Last Two Decades

Channel
Zone (m)
Density
+/- deg/yr
Net Ratio +/- deg/yr
1
0-10,000
65.00%
+0.0132
+0.008580
2
0-12,000
85.00%
+0.0179
+0.015215
3
1,000-25,000
80.00%
+0.0029
+0.002320
4
10,000-30,000
34.00%
-0.0262
-0.008908
5
10,000-33,000
33.00%
-0.0232
-0.007656
6
15,000-38,000
15.00%
-0.0358
-0.005370
7
18,000-45,000
8.00%
-0.0470
-0.003760
8
24,000-50,000
3.50%
-0.0496
-0.001736
9
28,000-55,000
2.00%
-0.0719
-0.001438
10
13,000-45,000
18.00%
-0.0389
-0.007002
ACCUMULATION:
 
 
 
-0.009755
This graph combines the 10 channels as shown above. When the channels are combined together in the right way, we see a small cooling down of the whole atmosphere.
This graph combines the 10 channels as shown above. When the channels are combined together in the right way, we see a small cooling down of the whole atmosphere. | Source

The Atmosphere is Cooling Down

Over the last two decades is the atmosphere as a whole unmistakeably cooling down. The whole atmosphere cooled down 0.2°C over the last 20 years. It is just a matter of time before the troposphere looses its warmth to the stratosphere.

The greenhouse gases may trap partially the collected warmth in the troposphere, but when the temperature difference (ΔT) between the lower and higher atmosphere increases, the troposphere will cool down. The cause: the second law of thermodynamics (energy flows from hot to cold) is much stronger than the greenhouse effect.

The CO2 levels will still rise for the next decades to come, while the temperature curves of the ground stations will level off. The climate movement will be confused how that is possible, because they still believe that CO2 is responsible for warming. The fact will become clear that the data analysis was incomplete and infantile. Pollution is the real problem, CO2 was never a real problem.

Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

An example map how the PDO works at one certain moment. It reverses every 30 years. A total cycle is therefore 60 years. It is still fairly unknown terrain.
An example map how the PDO works at one certain moment. It reverses every 30 years. A total cycle is therefore 60 years. It is still fairly unknown terrain. | Source

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

A fairly unknown phenomenon in the climate discussion is the PDO cycle, which offers a short-term (<60 yrs) explanation for the small temperature variations (and so for the release or absorption of CO2 by the oceans).

The Pacific Ocean covers a whopping 33% of earth's surface. Even the minutest cooling or warming of this vast ocean has colossal impact on the release or absorption of CO2. That also explains why CO2 is lagging behind on the temperatures as shown above.

The most likely driver of the PDO are the Bretagnon cycles that oscillates over the much larger Halstatt cycles. Both these cycles are sun cycles. What else is the best candidate for the temperature changes than the sun itself?

Midterm Hallstatt cycles and Short-term Bretagnon Wave Osculation

The Hallstatt cycles and the Bretagnon wave cycles offer the best explanation of the PDO cycles. PDO at its turn causes absorption and release of CO2 of the oceans.
The Hallstatt cycles and the Bretagnon wave cycles offer the best explanation of the PDO cycles. PDO at its turn causes absorption and release of CO2 of the oceans. | Source

Where Does All the CO2 Come From?

The increase of CO2 from 290 ppm to about 400 ppm over the last 100 years is caused by the warming of the oceans. The oceans contain about 98% of all the carbon in the biosphere. The release of CO2 is partially caused by the above mentioned sun cycles, and by the rebound effect of the last (little) ice age.

What many people don't know is that especially seawater is able to dissolve huge amounts of CO2. When temperatures of seawater drops it will dissolve more CO2. Logically, is this CO2 again released when the oceans temperature rise again. There is ipso facto a strong correlation between temperatures and CO2. But the water temperature of the ocean decides which levels of CO2 are released to the atmosphere.

This is in a nutshell what happened after the ice age ended. The ocean temperatures bounced back up again. On top of that accumulate a few midterm oscillations that cause constant small swings around the "setpoint". This is why CO2 is lagging behind on temperatures.

The small CO2 variations we saw over the last three decennials are caused by ocean currents driven by a varying sun activity. The large CO2 increase over the last 12,000 years is the rebound effect of the last ice age.

What Caused the Large Temperature Changes?

The big question is then: what caused the very large long-term temperature swings of the last glaciations?

  • Sun spots? No.
  • El Nino and El Nina? No.
  • Bretagnon oscillations? No.
  • PDO? No.
  • Hallstatt cycles? No.
  • Earth Crust Shifts? Yes!

Earth Crust Shifts are rejected and even ridiculed by geologists, while they offer the only true explanation for the very large long-term temperature swings around the "setpoint". It is said there is no evidence for crustal shifts, while the paleomagnetic records provide the best evidence one can get. And what happens with ice core samples with the assumption that the crust was fixed? The interpretations will lead to conclusions of very large temperature swings, which in fact never took place. The location of the drill core changed location to another latitude, hence the other "readouts".

Read the seemingly unrelated article below and you might understand how it works. The article "How Old Are Pyramids Around the World?" proves that the last four glaciation cycles were in fact Earth Crust Shifts. It might be a very tough reader for some people.

The only rational explanation for the ice ages are crustal shifts. They are caused by large eccentric orbits of earth around the sun (large tidal effects). That is the reason why ice ages relate so well to the Milankovitch cycles, which is also a confusion between cause and effect.

Do not confuse pollution with climate change. Pollution is a problem. Is carbon induced climate change a hoax? Yes. A very big one too. So nothing appears what it seems to be!

This topic and many related topics will be covered in a book that's currently in the making under the working title "Atlantis is Here". The title refers to the idea that Atlantis was never gone. Only our own perception and consciousness temporarily left us, making it much harder for us to perceive the ultimate truths.


© 2016 by Buildreps

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      7 months ago

      plant growth and ocean plankton also affects climate change or at least climate pollution.

    • retrojoe profile image

      Joseph Ritrovato 7 months ago from Vancouver, WA (nextdoor to Portland, OR)

      Hi Buildreps,

      You've written a very interesting article as usual. You did a good job of making a complex set of factors seem almost simple. Your refutation is of course not so simple since, as you point out, the cause is a multifaceted one. There are long, medium, and short term cycles that are involved in the climate change. Pollution would be one of the short term causes, being a factor for only a bit over a century. Solar cycles would be both a medium and a short term cyclic cause (perhaps a long cycle too, which may be connected to the next one). Your opinion that crustal shifts are a cause would be of the long term variety.

      It may have taken over a century to reach this point, but we may already be in a spiral of weather effects that is now unstoppable by human intervention. I believe that the pollution elevated the CO2 levels, and then the heat increase caused more CO2 to be created so that there is an apparent lag of increased CO2 after the effect (if what you state in the article is not in error). In other words, both the common scientific opinion of what causes global warming, and your opinion may both be in part true. Their reasoning is simpler or more one-dimensional than yours however, because they only point to the CO2 increasing.

      I do have a question of you at this point. What do you think of the unprecedented, 15 month long stretch of time, where each month since May 2015 has beaten the previous record for each of those consecutive months. There is a graphic I have seen recently that shows the yearly global increase in temperature since 1900 and there is a noticeable gap between this past year and the year before, which is not nearly as clear for any previous year. My first thought was that it might correspond to a marked decrease in gas prices in the United States for a long stretch of time in our recent past. I do not think it is that simple. I think that it is a sign of a tipping point rather than caused by any immediate factor. I fear that the planet is in deep trouble. What do you think?

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 7 months ago from Europe

      Hi Retrojoe, and thanks for your comment. Regarding your question, I don't think the planet is the one who is in troubles, the inhabitants might be in troubles. They built capital cities along most of the coastlines.

      Like I explained in the article, is the data as collected by ground based stations pretty flawed. There might be records on a row, it might be a serious glitch in the data. One thing is sure, the data of the RSS is more reliable than the stations. They show an increase at ground level as well, but a serious drop of temperatures at higher levels. The overall picture shows a cooling down. There is clearly a correction mechanism at work in the atmosphere. It's just a matter of time that we will see the result of that.

    • retrojoe profile image

      Joseph Ritrovato 7 months ago from Vancouver, WA (nextdoor to Portland, OR)

      ..an extended solar minimum measured in at least several decades (such as the Maunder minimum of the mid 17th century to early 18th century), might just do the trick.. and it is apparently quite likely to occur in our near future (say to begin anywhere from a few years from now to 30 years from now).

    • billybuc profile image

      Bill Holland 7 months ago from Olympia, WA

      The science of it all is beyond my intellect, but thanks for trying. LOL Seriously, I live my life causing as little impact as possible on the environment. That's the best I can do. I try to be a conscientious citizen of the world and do a minimum of damage....and hopefully others feel the same.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 7 months ago from Europe

      I tried to make it as simple as possible. :) Living as conscious as possible is what we do as well. That's indeed the best we can do. Thanks for your contribution, my friend.

    • profile image

      Don Woods 6 months ago

      Excellent post. As all 33 IPCC climate models have failed, you would think that there would be a few more non-believers in the CO2 AGW hysteria. I had a discussion with the head of the physics department at my alma mater and I wanted to know why major universities are not speaking up about the CO2 AGW farse. His answer was that it was just too political. As we enter another cooling cycle it is going to harder and harder for the believers to come up with excuses for the lack of continued warming.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 6 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for your comment on the Hub, Don. Human caused global warming is a political matter, or maybe solely a financial matter. We will enter a cooling cycle, there's hardly any doubt about that. I also don't doubt about the scientific nonsense that will be produced to explain this phenomenon as being an unbreakable part of the global warming.

    • Larry Rankin profile image

      Larry Rankin 6 months ago from Oklahoma

      Very important analysis.

    • profile image

      Buildreps 6 months ago

      Thank you for reading and commenting, Larry. Climate change is something natural and has been something of all times. Our society though has become too vulnerable for this natural phenomenon.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Wow, you have done an execellent job with this hub. I have been debating doc_snow on this topic for the past year. I was beginning to think I'm the only skeptic of AGW.

      Just wondering your opinion on the scientific community who in large part buy into this theory. Do you have any opinion as why? Don't they realize their professional credibility in on the line?

      I am more pragmatic than most and not ideological. If the prediction models were accurate, I would be convinced. So far, as it is pointed out, they have failed. How can they be trusted?

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 4 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for your comment, Jack Lee. Most scientists do not deserve to wear the title 'scientist'. I know a few real scientists in my surrounding who also proclaim that global warming is a hoax. There is nothing that can sustain the conclusions that GW advocates are claiming.

      The fact is that if you are able to actually prove that CO2 is responsible for AGW, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you. No one has been able to do that so far.

      AGW is solely a political matter, and 'scientists' who dare to say something else can go find a job shovelling pig poop somewhere - they won't find a job anywhere anymore.

      Just follow the conclusions in this hub. I am a scientist who is completely independent. Time will prove I'm right.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      You've got quite the contrarian Gish gallop here, however your points are all old hat.

      --During the Quarternary, CO2 levels followed temperature, because the forcing was Milankovitch orbital cycles. CO2 rises then acted as a positive feedback. Today, however, the situation is quite different. Fossil CO2 from human activities is forcing the climate. At some point, of course, it will also begin to act as feedback.

      --The RSS data is now known to be biased by an uncorrected time of observation drift. Well, formerly uncorrected. There is now a new version of RSS which corrects this. However, the more fundamental problem is that under greenhouse warming, the stratosphere does not warm, but actually *cools*. If you'd read those 'infantile' climate scientists even a little bit, you'd have known that. The stratospheric cooling you invoke as 'proof' is in fact a well-known fingerprint of greenhouse warming.

      --The PDO is not 'little-known' to climate scientists, who detected it, named it, and continue to study it. It's also not a sufficient explanation of observed temperature trends. See, for instance, this graph I made comparing the PDO index to global temperature:

      http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mea...

      --No, the CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't come from warming oceans. Both accounting and isotopic studies show definitively that it is of fossil origin--the only source of which is anthropogenic.

      --Finally, you complete neglect the fact that the physics of how CO2 and other GHGs cause warming is well-understood. If we did not understand that mechanism, it might make sense to speculate about other possibly correlated factors. But as it is, we know that CO2 warms; we know that we are introducing it into the atmosphere; and we know that the warming we observe is pretty much what climate models predict.

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 4 months ago from Europe

      Thanks for your lengthy comment, Doc Snow. All studies you're copy-pasting cover an insufficient range to draw global conclusions from. As all mainstream climate believers you also reject all the data that point to a contradictory outcomes. It's just a new religion.

    • Doc Snow profile image

      Doc Snow 4 months ago from Atlanta metropolitan area, GA, USA

      "Copy-pasting?" Not at all; my comments were my own.

      And just what 'studies' do you think I referred to, since you apparently know their 'range'? Let's see how well you know the literature.

      Lastly, your 'new religion' crack might grow something like legs if you offered up substantive responses yourself. Got any?

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 4 months ago from Europe

      I just keep your comment as spam.

    • jackclee lm profile image

      Jack Lee 4 months ago from Yorktown NY

      Here is another story that demostrate how science is corrupted -

      http://realclimatescience.com/2016/11/noaa-septemb...

      Where is Wikileaks when we need it?

    • Buildreps profile image
      Author

      Buildreps 4 months ago from Europe

      True, Jackclee. Science, and especially climate science is contaminated with irrational, false, and adhoc theories. Thanks for the link.

      Just one of the many examples. You might remember what the prophets told us in the 70s? The pumps of Greenland would stop, because the sweet water from the ice sheet would interfere in the salty gulf stream! They are now pumping stronger than ever. The movement understands not one iota about our climate system.

    • Glenn Stok profile image

      Glenn Stok 2 months ago from Long Island, NY

      I enjoyed reading this very much. It's clear that you have presented your arguments based on true research and accurate scientific knowledge. When I get into arguments with people about global warming, I always ask them if they had studied it from a scientific standpoint. The answer always is — they have not. They claim that they get their knowledge from listening to the news. What good is that? At least now I can refer them to your article, if only they would actually read it!

      As for pollution, that's a totally different problem, as you had mentioned twice in your hub. When friends tell me global warming is destroying the earth, I try to correct them by telling them that polluting the planet will destroy the earth.

    • profile image

      Buildreps 2 months ago

      Thanks for your comment, Glenn. I am glad you enjoyed it and added something to the debate. Much appreciated.

    Click to Rate This Article