Government agencies say that carbon dioxide levels are rising entirely due to human activity and the burning of fossil fuels. But are they?
Professor Dilley will show that today’s temperatures and carbon dioxide levels are very close to where they should be based on historical cycles. [emphasis, links added]
He will also show that we are sliding into a long-term global cooling cycle. Global warming begins and ends at the poles—and global cooling is now occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic.
Professor David Dilley is a Meteorologist-Climatologist-Paleoclimatologist and a former NOAA National Weather Service Meteorologist.
Professor Dilley is the founder and CEO of Global Weather Oscillations (GWO), a company heavily involved in the research and development of technology for the prediction of natural climate and weather cycles.
Professor Dilley has 54 years of experience ranging from the Air Force to NOAA National Weather Service and GWO.
As the senior research scientist and forecaster for GWO, Mr. Dilley developed ClimatePulse Technology based on Geomagnetic Cycles of the Earth-Moon-and Sun, and how these cycles align with historical, present-day, and future cycles of climate and weather.
Check out other interviews on Tom Nelson’s YouTube channel.
The author is a science denier claiming the rise of CO2 since 1750 was mainly natural, when in fact, it was 100% from manmade CO2 emissions. That conspiracy myth is claptrap. Then the author makes a long term climate prediction in spite of the fact that 100% of long term climate predictions in the past century were wrong. The author is clueless on climate science and has no idea long term climate trends have never been successfully predicted.
Dear Mr. Greene! Your comment lacks any competence on the subject of climate science. Speaking of clueless without delivering data for proof is such a dumb ongoing; like gender-science in which you may be more at home. I suppose you belong to the religious group “follow the schience”.
Deliver facts or… shut up!
All science that contradicts your agenda must be conspiracy myth. Got it.
I’ve thoroughly researched the evidence and written a book (available at amazon.com), “Looking Out the Window” that clearly an unequivocally proves beyond any doubt that climate change and atmospheric CO2 change are completely unrelated at any level of atmospheric CO2 sufficient to sustain life on Earth. Mr. Green is completely dependent upon a false narrative sustain his beliefs… he, in fact, is a “climate change fraud denier” preferring to rely on fantasy rather than science. He might be interested to know that the 19th century “greenhouse” theory relied upon by “true believers” in the fiction is completely unscientific and invalid.
The Scientific Method is used to guide readers (members of a jury in the trial of carbon dioxide) through the evidence spanning hundreds of millions of years (geologic evidence), tens to hundreds of thousands of years (ice cores), and contemporary records since the late 19th century.
The relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and climate is indistinguishable from chance (flip a coin). Correlation coefficient between changing CO2 and Changing climate is so low as to be virtually nonexistent because the two are completely uncorrelated. No correlation means no causation is possible.
No “conspiracy”, no “myth”. Just the facts, Richard.
The IPCC has to ASSUME that fossil fuel emissions survive in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years (or more!) in order to fudge it’s invalid theory. In fact, the best historical science (not corrupted by one-sided “funding” sources) unequivocally shows that CO2 from fossil fuel use survives no more than 4 to 6 years in the atmosphere before being reabsorbed by Earth’s biosphere (primarily plant growth and cold ocean absorption).
Greene notes that long-range climate predictions are notoriously erroneous. That would include the enormous bias of wrongness introduced by climate activists trying to spread fearmongering by predicting sharply rising global temperatures… but those models, because they are based on an invalid theory, always “run hot” and vastly over-predict global temperature. This has been going on for decades and they bias the view of long range predictions by being 100% inaccurate.
I urge Greene to look at the evidence and come to a rational decision based strictly on the evidence, not ideology.