Myths about global warming are not facts

protestWell-intended citizens have recently written letters and articles in the Tribune expressing anxiety and creating fear about their perception of global warming.

They state the earth is heating up because of man-made pollution that’s melting polar ice caps, shrinking glaciers, dangerously raising oceans, and hurting flora and fauna. As a solution, they quote national prophets preaching that we need bigger and more oppressive governments to regulate the established beneficial freedoms that they feel cause these problems.

I am concerned these good Montanans have fallen for an atmospheric ideology that is based on pseudoscience perpetrated by national figures with an extreme, far-left nation-damaging political agenda. Extensive reading and study on this subject have convinced me that the politically unaltered empirical science countering their global-warming beliefs is much more solid, proven, factual and prevalent than the science that supports their fears.

The most inclusive report debunking global warming I have found is a broad mega-study done by a team of national scientists and presented as the Petition Project:

That petition presents massive scientific information disclaiming global warming. It is signed by 31,487 degreed scientists, professionals, and qualified specialists including 9,085 PhDs; 3,805 scientists trained in atmospheric, environmental and earth-related subjects; 5,812 professionals who specialized in physics and aerospace; 2,965 biological and agricultural specialists; 3,046 medical professionals; 10,102 engineers and general scientists; and a broad spectrum of other eminently educated and qualified individuals.

The petition clearly states there is “ … no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases are causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

The most quoted information in the Tribune about the global warming movement comes from summaries written after each of five conferences of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, or IPCC. But several decades of examination by the world’s science community is finding these summaries fraudulent. A very respected German scientist, Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, considered the father of his country’s environmental movement, has identified constant “incompetency and misrepresentation” in those summaries. In particular, he challenges the climate models he says exaggerate temperature increases.

Even the chairman of the IPCC admitted in an article in the London Guardian last year that “The IPCC is a political body masquerading as a scientific body.”

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    Left wing activist websites and social media campaigns are in hyper-drive, telling the faithful that [b]”The climate can’t wait!”[/b]… THIS IS A FIVE ALARM FIRE!!!!!

    This despite a lack of broad catastrophic events beyond normal variations.

    Q: So why the rush?

    A: The masters of this movement realize that the jig is up. The data doesn’t match the rhetoric, and there is no real public support for “the cause”.

    A: The [u]cause[/u] is the “[b]solution[/b]”.
    [i]”As a [b]solution[/b], they quote national prophets preaching that we need bigger and more oppressive governments to regulate the established beneficial freedoms that they feel cause these problems.”[/i]

    Let’s help the movement be more transparent by offering them a new slogan:

    “Socialism can’t wait!”


  • Avatar

    Brian Angliss


    I’m afraid that Mr. Forsyth’s information on the Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) is incorrect. The criteria for signing the GWPP are so broad that a stay-at-home parent with a veterinary degree who has never read a single climate study or worked a single day as a scientist is considered equally informed as a professional climatologist. This is obviously absurd, so we can’t assume as Mr. Forsyth does that the signers are “eminently educated and qualified individuals.”

    Furthermore, the GWPP’s criteria are so broad that the total number of degreed individuals who could have signed it is about 12.7 million. 31,487 out of 12.7 million is only one quarter of one percent (0.25%). That’s a tiny minority of the people who could have signed the petition (source: [url][/url])

    Comparing the GWPP’s claimed signatures to the number of people employed in the GWPP’s own selected fields turns up 7.2 million employees. 31,487 out of 7.2 million is about one half of one percent (0.44%). And the GWPP signers are small minorities of most US professional organizations too. Other posts at the link above have the data to back up these claims, but I won’t link them here.

    Suffice it to say, actual data doesn’t support the GWPP’s, or Mr. Forsyth’s, narrative.


  • Avatar




    The GWPP isn’t claiming proof of anything but is citing objection to the fantastic claims of uncredentialled warming alarmists who are seeking to drive forth an enforceable political agenda of great economic consequence to the world even though it is founded by nothing but conjecture and no scientific proof whatsoever.


  • Avatar



    Yes… Cause the IPCC “climate” scientists are so much more qualified?

    [quote] Included as contributors to WGII are Patricia Craig, Judith Cranage, Susan Mann, and Christopher Pfeiffer, all from Pennsylvania State University. It’s not that these people aren’t experts in their field – they probably are. Our problem with their inclusion on the list of Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment report is that their jobs are (in order) website-designer, administrative assistant (x2), and network administrator.[/quote]

    The real test of the Scientific Method is not an appeal to authority, or how many support your claims, but in your predictive skill. [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” [/quote] The IPCC has failed abysmally in that regard. Not one of it’s Models has shown any skill.

    “This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

    John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.”

    No wonder, all the alarmists have are fiddled data, unproven assumptions and Che Guevara T- Shirts..



Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.