• 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

Too Wet? Too Dry? Just Blame It On Climate Change

by Brian C. Joondeph, M.D.
January 16, 2023, 11:48 AM
in News and Opinion
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
17
Share on FacebookShare on XwitterShare on Linkedin

floodingClimate change, as defined by the United Nations, “Refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. These shifts may be natural, such as through variations in the solar cycle.” That’s actually a good definition.

But not willing to leave well enough alone, the UN goes further, spoiling a simple and straightforward definition with, “But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas.” [emphasis, links added]

It is amazing that before humans burned fossil fuels two centuries ago, it was only natural cycles that changed the climate, not backyard barbecues, gas stoves, and SUVs.

Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling, followed by melting of mile-thick ice over the upper Midwest due to global warming, multiple times over the Earth’s history, long before there was any significant human activity.

It seems that a changing climate was a thing long before Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, and the UN thought they figured it all out.

Not only does climate change, based on both short- and long-term cycles, but much of it is also unpredictable.

According to the Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Climate change had other names over the years. In the 1970s, it was “global cooling” with predictions of a coming ice age. NPR, the guardians of all proper knowledge and thought, first used the term “global warming” in 1989.

It doesn’t make sense, at least to most logical people, that the planet can be both warming and cooling on a global scale, outside of normal seasonal variations, so the term “climate change” was popularized to encompass all weather events.

“Climate change” was first mentioned in 1975, but this was a time when climate scientists could not decide if temperatures were rising or falling, attributing sinister causes rather than natural and cyclic warming and cooling trends that have long preceded humans and their activities.

Since then, climate change has engulfed more than temperature, adding weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, droughts, and flooding.

It seems that any deviation from a sunny day with temperatures in the mid-70s with a light breeze is evidence of climate change and Republicans scheming to destroy the planet.

Democrats, the left, and the media have an uncanny ability to balance two contradictory propositions in their minds, believing both can occur simultaneously due to the same cause.

It would be like Goldilocks finding all three beds or bowls of porridge just perfect, regardless of whether they were too hot or too cold, too hard or too soft.

The New York Times ran an opinion piece in 2014 titled, “The end of snow?” predicting the demise of winter sports and the Winter Olympics due to global warming.

Eight years later in 2022, the New York Times told us, “How climate change can supercharge snowstorms.”

Or also in 2022 how, “The deadly freeze that swept the United States was extraordinary, but while scientists know that global warming can intensify extreme weather, the effects on winter storms are tricky to untangle.”

Tricky indeed. Climate change causes both not enough and too much snow. How does that work?  But it’s not only snow but water, both not enough and too much, all due to omnipotent climate change.

Let’s look at droughts in California.

According to the California Department of Water Resources,

California is no stranger to drought; it is a recurring feature of our climate. We recently experienced the 5-year event of 2012-2016, and other notable historical droughts included 2007-09, 1987-92, 1976-77, and off-and-on dry conditions spanning more than a decade in the 1920s and 1930s.

Paleoclimate records going back more than 1,000 years show many more significant dry periods. The dry conditions of the 1920s-30s, however, were on a par with the largest 10-year droughts in the much longer paleoclimate record.

Unfortunately, the scientific skill to predict when droughts will occur – which involves being able to forecast precipitation weeks to months ahead – is currently lacking. Improving long-range weather modeling capabilities is an area of much-needed research.

In a nutshell, droughts are nothing new in California, have been far worse in the past, before anyone talked about global warming or climate change, and they are impossible to predict, as the IPCC noted above.

Floods are much the same. The same California agency notes,

California is prone to potentially devastating impacts of periodic floods. All 58 counties have experienced at least 1 significant flood event in the past 25 years, resulting in loss of life and billions of dollars in damages.

Floods are naturally occurring phenomena in California.

Again, floods are normal and expected. They are nothing new. Here are some photos of floods going back 150 years. [Example photo below]

The Great California Flood of 1861-1862 was a series of four floods from December 9, 1861, Dec. 23-28, January 9-12, 1862, and January 15-17. The winter rains started early in November and continued nearly interrupted for four months. Marysville and Sacramento suffered the worst damage in the Northern California valley. This scene shows the floodwaters along K Street looking west from 4th Street in Sacramento, Calif. Photo was taken January 1862.
Courtesy photo California State Library

But look at media headlines claiming droughts and floods are new and due to climate change rather than a natural phenomenon.

From National Geographic last month, “Climate change and California’s drought.” A local ABC News affiliate explained, “California Drought: New research ties specific extreme weather events to climate change.” They went further, “California Drought: How will climate change affect California’s ski industry?”

Drought is due to climate change. Yet at the same time so is flooding.

Last week Vox claimed, “California’s floods reveal a likely climate change symptom: Quick shifts between opposing weather conditions.”

Climate pseudo-scientist Ellen DeGeneres unsuccessfully weighed in, “Ellen DeGeneres mocked for video blaming California flooding on climate change.” USA Today at least asked a question, “Are California’s storms normal, or is climate change making them worse?”

It seems all manner of weather is due to climate change, ignoring past and far more extreme weather when the world’s population and activity were much less than today.

Perhaps a historical perspective is necessary. After all, history didn’t begin when Greta Thunberg or writers at Vox or the New York Times came of age.

The climate has been changing for millennia, since the Earth was formed, and will continue to do so in the future. Most change is due to earth and solar cycles some of which we understand, none of which we can alter or control.

Market Watch reports: “Climate change has cost the government $350 billion” as of 2018 and that number is rising. Yet it’s still snowing in Colorado and both dry and wet in California.

We are pissing away money we don’t have, ignoring far more important and fixable problems at home, and attempting to fix the unfixable. Government at its finest.

Is this really about “saving the planet” or is the climate movement about money and control, similar to the COVID pandemic, the new homes of communism and tyranny?

Read more at American Thinker

  • 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
  • Skype
  • 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

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

Gavin Newsom Is Seething After Congress Repealed California’s Gas Car Ban

May 27, 2025
Energy

Congress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault

May 27, 2025
Health

No, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears

May 27, 2025

Comments 17

  1. Drewski says:
    2 years ago

    Wind and solar for the grid (plus other things), electric, hydrogen or hybrids for vehicles (theoretically H2 for ships and planes too). Improved house batteries, solar panels and building materials for homess and businesses.
    Check out the Disruptive Investing YouTube channel for some new and improved technologies happening now – I am especially impressed with the liquid battery from MIT.

    • Randy Verret says:
      2 years ago

      The “kryptonite” will be SCALE. While the technologies cited are exciting, the full development of many of these will hinge on material supplies. Meaning, you will have to mine multiple times the amout of lithium, cobalt, copper, etc., not to mention smelt/refine those ores into usable materials. You won’t do ANY of that without petroleum for extraction, transportaion & industrial heat. At the moment, China controls (somewhere) between 80-90% of the supply chain in these critical minerals. Don’t believe me? Just check out the IEA critical minerals report from last year. Increase domestic production of critical minerals? Good luck. As a 30 year regulatory veteran I can assure you the environmental NGO’s will continue to make that next to IMPOSSIBLE. Like I’ve mentioned before. No “Easy Button” on this upcoming energy transition…

  2. Randy Verret says:
    2 years ago

    Electricity is currently about 20% of our primary energy. You have the other (large) segments of transportation, industrial heat & residential & commercial uses. It is going to take a LONG time to make the transition from a predominent fossil fuel energy system to whatever the “next big thing” is. That won’t be wind & solar. Good luck getting the materials to scale up renewables and batteries. Plenty of barriers. I do think thorium & modular reactors & geo thermal have promise. In the long haul, fusion is most likely, the “silver bullet” by the end of this century. There is no EASY BUTTON in the energy arena,. I learned that first hand with 40+ years in the trenches…

  3. Drewski says:
    2 years ago

    You are confusing scientists with salesman, engineers and policy makers – makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

    But in regards to scalable electric grid power – start with a new smart grid that crosses state boundaries. The existing grid is the oldest in the world and is basically an accident waiting to happen.
    A smart grid is able to use the wind where it is blowing, the sun where it is shining, water where it is flowing and also allows for the replacement of dirty fossil plants without affecting the load AND with a substantial reduction in power loss across the wires.
    Plus, new or improved technologies such as thorium reactors, geo thermal and solar thermal can be integrated into the mix without disruption.
    Finally, liquid batteries (using cheap and plentiful materials) look especially promising for storage back up on a large scale.

  4. Drewski says:
    2 years ago

    Nope, nope and nope.
    The MWP was NOT warmer than today and it was regional in scope and not GLOBAL.
    The change in orbit results in in a + or – 3% change not 30%.
    Interglacial events are measured in tens of thousands of years NOT hundreds.

    • Randy Verret says:
      2 years ago

      You know, I’m not qualified to have an expert opinion on climate science. I’m more practical in my approach. Assuming the theorum that we are in a “climate crisis,” I think there is a more productive debate. So as a qualified expert in regulatory affairs, I’ll pose the SAME question (to you) that I have posed to many environmental “activists” for a number of years. “What clean, SCALABLE, sustainable & cost effective alternative do YOU suggest to REPLACE fossil fuels, 80% of the worlds primary energy?” No one EVER answers THAT question. EASY to vilify your energy producers. Problem is, slogans like “100% renewables by X Date” or “Net zero by 2050” are just that. No more WORTH than a bumper sticker. I’ll get more aspirational. How about openly DEFYING GRAVITY by 2050? Do your research. You can’t produce ONE creditable, peer reviewed engineering study that supports the proposition that you will replace fossil fuels anytime soon. Just fact. The SOONER we can begin a rational, well informed discussion about a coherent national energy strategy & attendant policy, the better. Energy POVERTY is not a good look. We are well on that road unless the debate changes…

      • Sonnyhill says:
        2 years ago

        The debate is over. Thus spoke Albert Gore. Of course you’re correct, Randy. Renewables can only replace traditional forms of energy in small portions. Fossil fuel consumption globally continues to grow for that reason

      • Drewski says:
        2 years ago

        You are confusing scientists with salesman, engineers and policy makers – makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion.

        But in regards to scalable electric grid power – start with a new smart grid that crosses state boundaries. The existing grid is the oldest in the world and is basically an accident waiting to happen.
        A smart grid is able to use the wind where it is blowing, the sun where it is shining, water where it is flowing and also allows the replacement of dirty fossil plants without affecting the load AND with a substantial
        reduction in power loss across the wires. Plus, new or improved technologies such as thorium reactors, geo thermal and solar thermal can be integrated into the mix without disruption. Finally, liquid batteries look especially promising for power back up on a large scale.

  5. Drewski says:
    2 years ago

    What an absolute joke of an article. Full of bald-faced lies.

    “Yet the UN does not explain how previous ice ages developed due to global cooling. . . ”
    Of course they do, you learn about it in 9th grade science – it is called Milankovitch Cycles.

    And the reason that it can be warmer and colder is because the jets streams are slowing down and consequently meander higher and lower across the lattitudes. Jet streams are powered by the difference in temps between the equator and the poles and because the poles are warming at double the rate of the equator, jet streams are losing energy.

    Such a moronic article geared to only the most gullible of readers.

    • Russell Johnson says:
      2 years ago

      Nope, nope and nope. Go troll elsewhere……

      • Drewski says:
        2 years ago

        So you got nothing.

        Why am I not surprised?

  6. Alan Stewart says:
    2 years ago

    Kudos Brian.
    Your last paragraph sums up this insanity to perfection.
    Cheers

  7. Barry Bateman says:
    2 years ago

    Excellent! The UN’s statement that recent climate changes are caused by humans is not proven – or even tested. Tested against past temperature natural maximums! The Roman Warm period was warmer than today. The Medieval Warm period was warmer than today. The Minoan Warm period was warmer than today. The simple fact is that temperatures ALWAYS change normally and naturally over time. The largest influence is our naturally varying shape of the earth’s orbit. From a warm, near-circular shape as today. To a colder more oblong shape fifty thousand years from now – and back. With a consequence of 20-30% rise and fall in solar insolation – because oblong orbits mean earth’s average distance from the sun is greater. Even interglacial phases temperatures rise and fall (in much shorter nine hundred year cycles). To put that in perspective, the thermometer has only been around during the warming phase of one interglacial “Eddy cycle” (Dr. Judith Curry). Bottoming out in the 1600s’ “Little Ice Age” – WHEN THEY COULD ICE SKATE ON THE THAMES. People haven’t been able to do that for 200 years! And do the over 100 CO2 driven climate models reflect reality? Not even close. EVERY one of those models OVERESTIMATE IN THEIR PROJECTIONS of temperature vs actual measurement by weather balloons and satellites. Science is defined and respected because it depends on empirical data matching the hypothesis. A CO2 driven climate does not. Making the ongoing faith in a CO2 driven climate a cult. Not science.

    • Drewski says:
      2 years ago

      Nope, nope and nope.
      The MWP was NOT warmer than today and it was regional in scope and not GLOBAL.
      The change in orbit results in in a + or – 3% change not 30%.
      Interglacial events are measured in tens of thousands of years NOT hundreds.

      • Andrew Dickens says:
        2 years ago

        Warmists came up with this “regional” warming notion in a desperate attempt to convince themselves that their version of events was right. They may have believed it but no-one else did.

        • Drewski says:
          2 years ago

          “Warmists” = scientists

          “No one else” = the intellectually challenged

    • Drewski says:
      2 years ago

      Nope, nope and nope.

      The MWP was NOT warmer than today and it was regional in scope and not GLOBAL.
      The change in orbit results in in a + or – 3% change not 30%.
      Interglacial events are measured in tens of thousands of years NOT hundreds.

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

  • Gavin Newsom PresserGavin Newsom Is Seething After Congress Repealed California’s Gas Car Ban
    May 27, 2025
    Gov. Newsom is steamed after Congress repealed a Biden EPA waiver letting California ban gas-powered cars and said he'll fight back. […]
  • Capitol Hill DCCongress Resurrects Fight Against The Climate Cult’s Regulatory Assault
    May 27, 2025
    Congress eyes bills to rein in climate overreach, challenge secret science, and expose hypocrisy fueling the elite-driven climate change narrative. […]
  • mosquitoNo, Climate Change Isn’t Behind Britain’s Mosquito Fears
    May 27, 2025
    The Guardian asserts that climate change will make the UK more hospitable to mosquito-borne diseases, ignoring established drivers. […]
  • wind turbine blades landfill‘Green’ Waste Piles Up As Solar Panels And Wind Turbines Pollute Landfills
    May 27, 2025
    Solar and wind waste is piling up with no clear plan for disposal, raising new questions about the cost of going green and the myth of net zero. […]
  • new orleans blackoutMISO Ignored Warnings Before Holiday Blackout Left Blue City In The Dark
    May 27, 2025
    Nearly 100,000 lost power in New Orleans after MISO cut the grid, raising alarm over blackout risk tied to green energy replacing coal and gas. […]
  • protest FFF world on fire‘Doomed From Birth’: How Climate Alarmism Is Stoking An Epidemic Of Youth Anxiety
    May 26, 2025
    Hollywood heirs like Ramona Sarsgaard and Violet Affleck are spiraling into climate panic—fueled by activism, media hype, and elite institutions. […]
  • Biden touting green economyGOP’s Big, Beautiful Bill Would Rescind $500 Billion In Green Energy Handouts
    May 26, 2025
    The House-passed BBB would repeal $500B in green handouts, slash subsidies, and undo key parts of the inaptly named Inflation Reduction Act. […]
  • humpback whale ny coastHow Climate Buzzwords Hijacked The Language To Hide Environmental Harm
    May 26, 2025
    Climate buzzwords like ‘carbon footprint’ and ‘green energy’ mislead the public and mask real environmental damage. […]
  • north sea oil rigTrump Urges UK To Cut Sky-High Bills With More Drilling, Less Renewables
    May 23, 2025
    Trump urged the UK to slash sky-high energy bills by expanding oil and gas drilling, embracing fracking, and ditching costly renewables and imports. […]
  • Ocean waves near pierMeteorologist Slams CNN For Stoking Debunked Fears Of A Collapsing AMOC
    May 23, 2025
    CNN pushes debunked AMOC collapse claims to fuel coastal flooding and economic panic—ignoring data, expert doubts, and real insurance cost drivers. […]

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