• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Madness Continues: SEC Approves Climate Rule Forcing Companies To Disclose Emissions

by Ramsey Touchberry
March 06, 2024, 2:22 PM
in News
Reading Time: 2 mins read
A A
9
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

gary gensler joe bidenSome corporations will soon have to step up their carbon footprint reporting after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday passed a climate-change disclosure rule.

The regulation, which was under consideration for two years, will require certain public companies to disclose information to investors about their direct greenhouse gas emissions and those created by the energy they consume. [emphasis, links added]

“Our federal securities laws lay out a basic bargain. Investors get to decide which risks they want to take so long as companies raising money from the public make what President Franklin Roosevelt called ‘complete and truthful disclosure,’ ” said SEC Chair Gary Gensler, a Democrat. “The rules will provide investors with consistent, comparable, and decision-useful information.”

Notably, the SEC made two significant reversals that will frustrate environmentalists and dealt a gut punch to climate-conscious ESG investing, but gave wins to businesses and others opposed to disclosures related to climate change.

Mr. Gensler [pictured above] said the changes were in direct response to an outpouring of concern from relevant stakeholders, including more than 24,000 public comments.

The Democratic-led commission dropped so-called Scope 3 emissions reporting that would have required the disclosure of indirect emissions from companies’ supply chains and customers, such as the footprint of farmers whom banks lend to or the gasoline used to transport products.

Critics warned such reporting would be overly costly and burdensome for corporations, and could negatively impact who publicly traded companies choose to do business with, including the agriculture industry. …

In addition, the SEC altered the reporting of direct emissions and those from energy usage — known as Scope 1 and 2 emissions — to be at the discretion of the companies themselves.

Only those that determine such information is vital enough to be deemed “material” for investors will need to report it. Smaller companies will be exempt.

The SEC estimates about 2,800 U.S.-based companies will need to make the disclosures along with more than 500 foreign-based companies doing business in the U.S.

The rule passed the five-member commission 3-2 along party lines, with its three Democratic commissioners voting in favor and its two Republican commissioners against.

Read full post at Washington Times

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

Democrats’ Massive Climate Agenda Loses Support With Most Americans

Jun 13, 2025
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Four GOP Senators Call For Fewer Cuts To Biden’s Green New Scam

Jun 13, 2025
Electric Vehicles (EVs)

11 States Led By California AG Sue Trump To Save California’s EV Mandate

Jun 13, 2025

Comments 9

  1. Spurwing Plover says:
    1 year ago

    They want to take away all we enjoy and tell us Its for the Common Good we know their Lying through their teeth

  2. Russell Johnson says:
    1 year ago

    Climate fascists march on requiring companies to determine a climate change rating based on GHG emissions. The ratings will become the basis for lawsuits from here to infinity! Not a shred of proof will be needed to conclude the “emissions” have harmed the environment. Never doubt the customers of these corporations will pay the judgements in higher prices for goods and services. On so many fronts in so many ways these idiots are working 24/7 to destroy us……..

    • alan stewart says:
      1 year ago

      Russel. Correct but answer this. How will the Globalists profit from a DESTROYED ECONOMY. NO COMPRENDO????

      • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
        1 year ago

        Simple. A destroyed economy means more people dependent upon government. More people dependent upon government means fewer people to protest the detestable actions of government, and it gives the government the ability to dictate everything about those dependents’ lives… up to and including whether they ‘contribute’ enough to even remain alive.

        The government crashes the global economy, people sign up in droves for government assistance just to not starve to death, the government implements draconian policies that cut off funds for anyone dissenting from government actions, and the government implements a rule that people under a certain productivity level are to face ‘progressive discipline’, failure to improve resulting in ‘voluntary’ termination (and not of the employment type).

        Boom. The climate catastrophists can claim they’re ‘saving the earth’ by culling so many “useless eaters”, and they get closer to their stated depopulation agenda goals.

        • Steve Bunten says:
          1 year ago

          But as with Socialism, at some point the government runs out of other people’s money that are paying taxes to pay people welfare. Even the US will eventually no longer be able to write checks where there’s no money to back them up.

          • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
            1 year ago

            Exactly so… socialism only prevails for as long as there is a resource abundance (accumulated under capitalism) to exploit… whether that abundance be money, oil, lumber, mineral, etc.

            Socialism preys upon capitalism. It still has what? Money. Capital. It just redistributes that capital in a way that takes from the producers and gives to the idle to buy acceptance of socialism.

            Once the producers flee, the whole scam collapses, those idle ‘useless eaters’ starve in the streets, the politicians pushing socialism are purged, and society gets on with the business of being productive under capitalism.

    • Sonnyhill says:
      1 year ago

      One thing is for sure: socialists disrespect our monetary system.
      Justine Trudeau said publicly that government budgets balance themselves. (Not!) The apple doesn’t roll too far from the tree. His father, Pierre, was a communist in his youth, became a Castro sympathizer later in life. Pierre subjected Canadians to the metric system just to piss off the Americans, our most important trading partner. Socialists seem to enjoy testing and torturing the status quo. Remember the status quo?

      • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
        1 year ago

        Strange that Justin Trudeau looks nothing like Pierre Trudeau, but does look a lot like Fidel Castro… and the fact that Pierre’s wife Margaret is rumored to have had an affair with Fidel.

        https://fotografias.larazon.es/clipping/cmsimages01/2023/08/03/1B03DE87-7DAE-4F70-9AF0-F29C7BD18EA8/justin-trudeau-fidel-castro-padre-hijo-loca-teoria-vuelve-viral-twitter-pese-ser-desmentida-2018_97.jpg

        The Apple Doesn’t Fall Far From The Tree.
        Insanity Runs In Families.

    • LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
      1 year ago

      There is a defense, but it’s a bit technical… it relies upon the proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (whereas CAGW relies upon a misinterpretation of the fundamental physical laws and a misuse of the S-B equation).

      First, remember that nothing happens without an impetus.

      Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell. So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.” Then show them dimensional analysis.

      mass (M), length (L), time (T), absolute temperature (K), amount of substance (N), electric charge (Q), luminous intensity (C)

      We denote the dimensions like this: [Mx, Lx, Tx, Kx, Nx, Qx, Cx] where x = the number of that dimension. We typically remove dimensions that are not used.

      Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
      Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
      Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
      Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
      Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]

      Explain to them that Pressure is Force / Area, and that Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill).

      Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of radiative energy, that impetus is a radiation energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.

      Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
      Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
      Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
      Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
      Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]

      Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length.

      Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units (bolded above). Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units (bolded above).

      So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy (of any form) only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.

      So just as water cannot spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient), energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density (radiation pressure) gradient.

      We live, at the surface of the planet, in what can be analogized to the evaporator section of a world-sized AC unit, with water acting as a literal refrigerant (in the strict ‘refrigeration cycle‘ sense) below the tropopause…

      ––––––––––––––-*-

      The refrigeration cycle (Earth) [A/C system]:

      A liquid evaporates at the heat source (the surface) [in the evaporator], it is transported (convected) [via an A/C compressor], it gives up its energy to the heat sink and undergoes phase change (emits radiation in the upper atmosphere, the majority of which is upwelling owing to the mean free path length / altitude / air density relation) [in the condenser], it is transported (falls as rain or snow) [via that A/C compressor], and the cycle repeats.

      That’s kind of why, after all, the humid adiabatic lapse rate (~3.5 to ~6.5 K km-1) is lower than the dry adiabatic lapse rate (~9.81 K km-1). You will note that the dry adiabatic lapse rate is due to to monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics (because we’ve removed in this case, the prevalent polyatomic, water).

      ––––––––––––––-*-

      … with other polyatomics contributing to the cooling to a lesser degree (because at prevalent Earthly temperatures, their latent heat capacity doesn’t come into play, but they have higher DOF than the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics and can thus transit energy more efficiently); and with homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics playing the part that noncondensable gases would play in an AC unit (dilution of the high DOF (Degrees of Freedom) polyatomics that transport more energy into the upper atmosphere and radiatively emit it to space).

      It is the monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics which are the actual ‘greenhouse’ gases… remember that an actual greenhouse works by hindering convection.

      Monoatomics (Ar) have no vibrational mode quantum states, and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR. Homonuclear diatomics (O2, N2) have no net electric dipole and thus cannot emit (nor absorb) IR unless that net-zero electric dipole is perturbed via collision.

      In an atmosphere consisting of solely monoatomics and homonuclear diatomics, the atoms / molecules could pick up energy via conduction by contacting the surface, just as the polyatomics do; they could convect just as the polyatomics do… but once in the upper atmosphere, they could not as effectively radiatively emit that energy to space, the upper atmosphere would warm, lending less buoyancy to convecting air, thus hindering convection… and that’s how an actual greenhouse works, by hindering convection.

      The surface would also have to warm because that ~76.2% of energy…

      https://i0.wp.com/andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/figure-2.png

      … which is currently removed from the surface via convection and evaporation would have to be removed nearly solely via radiation (there would be some collisional perturbation of N2 and O2, and thus some emission in the atmosphere)…. and a higher surface radiant exitance implies a higher surface temperature.

      The climatologists have misused the Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation (and the fundamental physical laws), and in the process, have practically flipped reality on its head… polyatomics (CO2, H2O, etc.) are not “global warming gases”, they are net atmospheric radiative coolants (radiative emission to space being the only way that Earth can shed energy); monoatomics (Ar) are not inert gases that have no effect upon climate, they are the actual “greenhouse gases” (because they cannot emit IR, and thus cannot shed energy to space); homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) are somewhere in between… they can radiatively emit IR (and thus shed energy from the system known as ‘Earth’), but only under certain conditions (collisional perturbation of their net-zero electric dipole… which happens exponentially less as altitude increases), and thus are “greenhouse gases” like the monoatomics, just not to the same extent.

      Essentially, the climatologists are treating real-world graybody objects as though they are idealized blackbody objects… with emission to 0 K and emissivity of 1 (sometimes… other times they slap emissivity onto the idealized blackbody form of the S-B equation while still assuming emission to 0 K… which is still a misuse of the S-B equation, for graybody objects).

      This essentially isolates each object into its own system so it cannot interact with other objects via the ambient EM field, which grossly inflates radiant exitance of all objects, necessitating that the climatologists carry these incorrect values through their calculation and cancel them on the back end (to get their equations to balance) by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but far too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow.

      That wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow is otherwise known as ‘backradiation’… a mathematical artifact due to that aforementioned misuse of the S-B equation.

      As I show in the linked paper, the correct usage of the S-B equation is via subtracting cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient, which determines radiant exitance of the warmer object.

      2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense states that system energy cannot spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient (remember that while 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense only mentions temperature, temperature is a measure of energy density, equal to the fourth root of energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant, per Stefan’s Law), that it requires “some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time“… that “some other change” typically being external energy doing work upon that system energy to pump it up the energy density gradient (which is what occurs in, for example, AC units and refrigerators).

      The “backradiation” claim by the climatologists implies that energy can spontaneously flow up an energy density gradient… just one of many blatant violations of the fundamental physical laws inherent in the CAGW narrative. As I show above, this is directly analogous to claiming that water can spontaneously flow uphill (ie: up a pressure gradient).

      In other words, the entirety of the CAGW industry is built upon a foundation of mathematical fraudery, and we’re all being lied to. Given that the climatologists are purportedly highly educated, there’s no way they’d slip up on such an elementary issue… ergo, it must be intentional deception. The only other possible explanation is profound incompetence on the part of the climatologists.

      This means that the offshoots of CAGW… net zero, carbon capture and sequestration, carbon credit trading, etc. are as equally useless as CAGW… because a proper interpretation of the fundamental physical laws and the proper application of the S-B equation shows that CO2 is a net atmospheric radiative coolant (two peer-reviewed empirical studies are referenced in the linked paper corroborating this), not a “global warming gas”.

      If anyone wants the full paper, it’s here:
      https://ufile.io/gb1xn4lh

      Now, all that said… the defense is a “poison the well” legal strategy which I’m sharing with the legal departments of energy companies (and will begin sharing with the legal departments of all companies)… if they are sued by climate catastrophists, they can get the information contained in that paper above entered into the record in a court of law, which destroys CAGW and all of its offshoots. The climate catastrophists have no defense against this… a judge excluding entry of provable and long-established and oft-corroborated scientific fact into the court record would be quickly removed from the bench and possibly disbarred; and the plaintiff cannot deny the scientific reality of the fundamental physical laws. Thus, the climate catastrophists have a choice to make: Either forego the lawsuit, or forge ahead with the lawsuit and in the process destroy CAGW, all of its offshoots and the entire premise for their lawsuit. They cannot prevail in any case.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • it's ot easy being greenDemocrats’ Massive Climate Agenda Loses Support With Most Americans
    Jun 13, 2025
    Democrats face growing backlash as many Americans reject Biden’s costly climate agenda and Trump rolls back key policies. […]
  • solar panel workerFour GOP Senators Call For Fewer Cuts To Biden’s Green New Scam
    Jun 13, 2025
    Four GOP senators break ranks, warn against full repeal of green energy subsidies in Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • Driving electric will now be a consumer choice.11 States Led By California AG Sue Trump To Save California’s EV Mandate
    Jun 13, 2025
    California and 10 other states sued Trump over 3 Congressional resolutions blocking the Golden State’s de facto ban on new gas-powered cars. […]
  • Ice Harbor Dam snake riverTrump Revokes Biden’s Snake River Dam Order, Citing Energy And Salmon Recovery
    Jun 13, 2025
    Trump revokes Biden’s executive action on Snake River dams, drawing praise from salmon supporters and criticism from environmentalists. […]
  • President Trump signs resolutions against California's electric vehicle mandates.It’s Official! Trump Nixes California’s Electric Vehicle Mandate
    Jun 12, 2025
    Trump ends Biden’s electric vehicle mandate, restoring consumer choice and rolling back California’s influence on national transportation policy. […]
  • cnn photo essayCNN Blames Climate Change For Man-Made Disasters In Deceptive Photo Essay
    Jun 12, 2025
    CNN uses emotional photos to push a climate narrative, but the real causes are poor policy, bad planning, and human neglect—not climate. […]
  • Ivanpah Solar FarmCalifornia’s Ivanpah Solar Plant Shutting Down Over High Costs, Low Output
    Jun 12, 2025
    California’s $2.2B solar gamble flops as Ivanpah shuts down early, while the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant quietly powers on. […]
  • Sierra Club protestSierra Club, Major Green Groups Cut Jobs As Trump Scraps Climate Programs
    Jun 12, 2025
    Sierra Club and other green groups have cut jobs as Trump kills green energy policies amid a shifting climate activism landscape. […]
  • Lee ZeldinTrump EPA Overturns Biden-Era Rules That Would Close Coal, Gas Plants
    Jun 12, 2025
    Trump’s EPA scraps Biden-era rules targeting coal and gas plants, citing energy costs, grid risks, and regulatory overreach. […]
  • NASA MSU satelliteClimatologist Details How NASA GISS And Climate.gov Drain Taxpayer Dollars
    Jun 11, 2025
    Taxpayer-funded agencies like NASA GISS and NOAA are pushing climate fear to secure funding, blurring the line between science and advocacy. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch