[Steve]

Understanding the global carbon cycle -

Most CO2 is bound up in Earth’s core, which is why CO2 levels rise when continents move
Mainstream media would have you believe that the fluctuations in the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere are completely man-made. They insist that technological advances as well as overpopulation have driven our planet to a state of crisis – one evidenced by a rapidly warming atmosphere. However, a basic understanding of the global carbon cycle would suggest otherwise. A new study, headed by the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences in Potsdam, has concluded that rifting (the breaking up of the continents) greatly contributes to the higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/sc...rbon-cycle



Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering-

https://www.livescience.com/40451-volcan...ering.html



How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswitha...5543155cbf



Recent research shows that the volume of volcanic CO2 currently being emitted into Earth’s atmosphere is far greater than previously calculated, challenging the validity of the man-made global warming theory....

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discover...ing-theory

[Steve]

Guess How Much CO2 Humanity Contributes to 'Global Warming'?
(By Makia Freeman)

You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming ......


https://www.davidicke.com/article/498213...al-warming



You would think manmade CO2 output levels must be sky-high, given all the relentless guilt-tripping propaganda we are fed about how humanity is the cause of global warming. The agenda to push AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) or manmade global warming started around the 1980s and has been gaining momentum for decades, fooling many people along the way. Yet, despite all the publicity it has gotten, it has still failed to make clear a very fundamental point: exactly how much and what percentage of carbon or specifically CO2 (carbon dioxide) does humanity contribute to the atmosphere? If man is really driving global warming (now conveniently called "climate change"), surely this level must be pretty high or at least significant, right? The answer may shock you ... and give new meaning to the term global warming hoax. 

Manmade CO2 Output Levels ... Straight out of the IPCC's Mouth

One of the difficult things about ascertaining the truth in the climate change debate is that there are so many different sets of measurements. Which one do you trust? How can you tell the truth when one side using one set of data to prove its point, and the other side uses another set of data to prove its (diametrically opposed) point? 

To bypass this dilemma, we are going to get the figures straight of the horse's mouth so to speak by using data from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The IPCC is not a scientific body as you may imagine but rather a political one with a very clear bias towards promoting AGW and climate change alarmism. It's their job to push the AGW agenda onto the public, even though they disguise that with claims that they "provide rigorous and balanced scientific information." Here's what Wim Rost had to say in his article IPCC ≠ SCIENCE ↔ IPCC = GOVERNMENT: 

"IPCC is government and not science. And the workers of the IPCC prepare the work in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the IPCC. 

In order to be scientific the scientific method has to be adhered. The use of many scientists to fill important parts of IPCC reports does not mean that everything is science. A report is just a report. In this case, a report from the IPCC. And the IPCC is (inter-) government. Scientists involved can produce their own scientific papers about their own specialised part of science, but a small group of writers writes the summaries and the conclusions – for the IPCC. And IPCC is government. 

... 

The IPCC’s stated mission is not to discover what accounts for climate change, but to assess “the risk of human-induced climate change.” Consequently, there is almost no discussion in its lengthy reports of other theories of climate change. Policymakers and journalists took this to mean the AGW theory was the only credible theory of climate change, and the IPCC’s sponsors and spokespersons had no incentive to correct the mistake."

CO2 in the Atmosphere

Here are the simple facts. Earth's atmosphere consists of the following gases at the following levels: 

Nitrogen (N) – 78% 

Oxygen (O) – 21% 

Argon (Ar) – 0.9% 

Trace Gases – 0.1% 

So far, so good. CO2 is a gas in such small concentrations that it hasn't yet entered the picture. So, the next step is to break down the composition of trace gases (which are also the greenhouse gases) in our atmosphere: 

Water Vapor (H2O) – 95% of trace gases / 0.95% of overall atmosphere 

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 3-4% of trace gases / 0.03 or 0.04% of overall atmosphere 

Neon (Ne) – 0.1% of trace gases / 0.001% of overall atmosphere 

There are also some gases at tiny concentrations, including helium (He), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone (O3), as well as halogenated gases (CFCs) released by mankind which have damaged ozone.

Water vapor is far and away the largest greenhouse gas, but the IPCC chooses to ignore it! Check out these tables below where you can see that water vapor is excluded from the percentages. The IPCC and other AGW proponents claim they need to exclude water vapor from their calculations because it varies so much from region to region. Yes, it does vary greatly all over the Earth, but to just exclude the largest greenhouse gas (and a massive driver of temperature too) from your calculations because it's inconvenient or varies too much is grossly misleading and unscientific. 

Humanity's Contribution to CO2 Levels

To recap: trace gases are 0.1% of the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide makes up 3-4% of these trace gases, so therefore CO2 is 3-4% of 0.1%. For simplicity's sake, let's call it 3%, so CO2 comprises 0.003% of the atmosphere. That's pretty damn small, but we can't stop there, because the next question to ask is: how much of this is caused by human activity? The IPCC has conflicting sets of data here, but both are within a small range of each other, either 3.0% (using the 2007 figures) or 3.6% (using the 2001 figures). 

No matter which set of data you use, the IPCC data shows that manmade CO2 output levels are ~3%. How do you figure this out? The 2001 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (119 + 88 + 6.3 = 213.3) and the human portion as 6.3. Divide 6.3 by 213.3 and you get 2.95%. The 2007 data shows the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere (29 + 439 + 332 = 800) and the human portion as 29. Divide 29 by 800 and you get 3.63%. 

Manmade CO2: 3% of 3% of 0.1%

So here's the bottom line. According to the IPCC's own data, manmade CO2 output levels are 3% of 3% of 0.1% of the total Earth's atmosphere. That's 0.000009%! That's 9 millionths. CO2 is measured in ppm (parts per million) because it is such a tiny and insignificant gas, yet somehow, the propaganda has been so successful that is has sprouted into what some state is a US$1.5 trillion industry. 

The IPCC Can't Deal with Water Vapor

The IPCC is basically stuck on water vapor. It can't actually measure it, since the variability across the world is so high, H2O vapor changes so quickly, and it takes place above a variety of different landscapes/topographies. There are too many variables to calculate to produce a good model. So it just shuffles it to the side and states it has no "confidence." Here's exactly what the IPCC says: 

"Modelling the vertical structure of water vapour is subject to greater uncertainty since the humidity profile is governed by a variety of processes ... because of large variability and relatively short data records, confidence in stratospheric H2O vapour trends is low."

It doesn't suit the IPCC's agenda to really dive in and better understand the role of water vapor as the key greenhouse gas driving climate temperature. It's far easier to just pretend it doesn't exist and only focus on the tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere instead. 

Manmade CO2: A Massive Diversion

The idea that manmade CO2 output levels is a big problem, in the scheme of all of Earth's eco problems, is a giant hoax. It diverts environmentalists' attention away from the true issues that need addressing. Does it make any logical sense to spend so much money, energy and attention on 0.000009% of CO2, when there are very palpable, tangible and dangerous threats to our environment? What about geoengineering, the aerial chemtrail spraying of barium, aluminum and strontium all over us, and the flora and fauna of the Earth? What about the release of synthetic self-aware fibers that cause Morgellons' Disease, in line with the NWO synthetic agenda? What about unstoppable environmental genetic pollution caused by the release of GMOs? What about the contamination of waterways with industrial chemicals, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, poisons like dioxin and DDT, heavy metals and pharmaceutical residues? Why are people wasting their energy on 3% of 3% of 0.1% when we have MASSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL issues facing us as a species? 

Final Thoughts

Despite all the politicians, celebrities and soul-for-sale scientists AGW has recruited to its cause, there is no real basis for the fearmongering. At the very top, those pushing the manmade global warming hoax know that's its a scam, so rather than focusing on the facts, they appeal to emotion with fake images of starving polar bears (to arouse anger) and underwater cities (to arouse fear). The truth is that the green movement has long been hijacked by the very same NWO manipulators who helped to ruin the environment in the first place, through their ownership of oil, chemical and pharmaceutical multinational corporations. These manipulators rely on the average person being too busy or lazy to check the facts or think critically. They promote scientific illiteracy via their control of the MSM, the educational curriculum and their numerous think tanks. 

Finally – if you dare – dig into the birth of the modern environmental movement, and you may be shocked to find how deeply it is steeped in eugenics and depopulation. It's time to realize that those pushing this gigantic scam aren't interesting in saving the environment – but rather depopulating it. 

***** 

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom....ming-hoax/






Climate Change is a matter of Astro-Physics (I.e the distance of the Earth from the Sun during its orbits and the amount of Sunspot activity) and NOT Chemistry. The Chemistry Model is completely irrelevant i.e. The basic facts of Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions:


1. Percentage of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere –   0.03 to 0.04%. (Studies vary).

2. Percentage of that 0.04, worldwide, created by human beings – 5%

3. Percentage of that 5% created by Australia – 1.3% (that’s 0.00006% of the atmosphere)

The governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of 0.00006% =...0.000012% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

The 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere that is Carbon Dioxide is not spread evenly around the world, so it would be impossible to form a `Blanket'. It is also heavier than the other gases so it sinks gradually to the Earth and nourishes plants etc. Without that, all plant life will perish.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/30653336...83?sfns=mo


THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN IS MAKING ITS GAME PLAY -


https://electroverse.net/the-synagogue-o...game-play/

[Steve]

Audit of global warming data finds it riddled with errors

Just ahead of a new report from the IPCC, dubbed SR#15 about to be released today, we have this bombshell- a detailed audit shows the surface temperature data is unfit for purpose. 


https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/cl...ith-errors

[Steve]

Man-Made Global Warming is a HOAX - Piers Corbyn 7th April 2018 -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrCxNbsyHLA

[Steve]

Serious errors found in widely cited global warming study


In Brief

• The Facts:
  A study claiming that the Earth’s oceans have retained 60% more heat than previously thought over the last 25 years, suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed, has turned out to be false.
  
  
• Reflect On:
  Many scientists within the field have been quite outspoken about the politicization of climate science, and how it's a serious problem. We see it in all fields, like the medical field, for example. Ridicule has been used to suppress discussion.
  

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/cl...ming-study

[Steve]

Disproofs of Man-induced Global Warming - Natural Climate Change -


https://naturalclimatechange.org/disproo...l-warming/





Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?

https://naturalclimatechange.us/the-poli...t-corrupt/




New satellite data from NASA show how carbon links everything on Earth -

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/ge...g-on-earth

[Steve]

The Great Global Warming Swindle (full movie)

The Great Global Warming Swindle caused controversy in the UK when it premiered March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4. A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times." According to Martin Durkin the chief cause of climate change is not human activity but changes in radiation from the sun. Some have called The Great Global Warming Swindle the definitive retort to Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Using a comprehensive range of evidence it's claimed that warming over the past 300 years represents a natural recovery from a 'little ice age'.
According to the program humans do have an effect on climate but it's infinitesimally small compared with the vast natural forces which are constantly pushing global temperatures this way and that. From melting glaciers and rising sea levels, The Great Global Warming Swindle debunks the myths, and exposes what may well prove to be the darkest chapter in the history of mankind. According to a group of leading scientists brought together by documentary maker Martin Durkin everything you've ever been told about global warming is probably untrue. Just as we've begun to take it for granted that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, Durkin's documentary slays the whole premise of global warming.
"Global warming has become a story of huge political significance; environmental activists using scare tactics to further their cause; scientists adding credence to secure billions of dollars in research money; politicians after headlines and a media happy to play along. No-one dares speak against it for risk of being unpopular, losing funds and jeopardizing careers."

Main contributors to the video: 
1. Professor Tim Ball - Dept. of Climatology - University of Winnepeg, Canada 
2. Professor Nir Shaviv - Institute of Physics - University of Jerusalem, Israel 
3. Professor Ian Clark - Dept. of Earth Sciences - University of Ottawa, Canada 
4. Dr. Piers Corbyn, Solar Physicist, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action, UK 
5. Professor John Christy - Dept. of Atmospheric Science - University of Alabama, Huntsville - Lead Author, IPCC (NASA Medal - Exceptional Scientific Achievement) 
6. Professor Philip Stott - Dept of Biogeography - University of London, UK 
7. Al Gore - Former Presidental Candidate 
8. Margaret Thatcher - Global-Warming Promoter 
9. Professor Paul Reiter - IPCC & Pasteur Institute, Paris, France 
10. Professor Richard Lindzen - IPCC & M.I.T. 
11. Patrick Moore - Co-Founder - Greenpeace 
12. Dr. Roy Spencer - Weather Satellite Team Leader - NASA 
13. Professor Patrick Michaels - Department of Environmental Sciences - University of Virginia, US 
14. Nigel Calder - Former Editor - New Scientist 
15. James Shikwati - Economist & Author 
16. Lord Lawson of Blaby - Secretary of Energy - UK Parliament Investigator, UK 
17. Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu - Director, International Arctic Research Centre 
18. Professor Fredrick Singer - Former Director, US National Weather Service 
19. Professor Carl Wunsch - Dept. of Oceanography - M.I.T., Harvard, University College, London, University of Cambridge, UK 
20. Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director, Danish National Space Centre 
21. Dr. Roy Spencer - NASA Weather Satellite Team Leader 
22. Paul Driessen - Author: Green Power, Black Death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ




The extent of global warming deception

...  and the damage is not hyperbole

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball.


Normally, I don’t respond to comments about my articles. However, comments about my last article raise questions that I think require context and explanation in the ongoing search for openness and free debate on climate. This applies to even the most extreme challenges to the status quo. Many of the comments are predictable because they come from people who constantly beat the same old drum. It is usually possible to predict who will respond to any subject and what they will say. They are not necessarily trolls, although trolls are ever present, and are usually called-out or ignored. The critical issue is the danger of skeptics becoming a narrow-minded, tunnel-vision group that attacks, rejects, or simply ignores skepticism about the skeptic’s position or views. This is always a problem but is particularly problematic when the prevailing view in this polarized world is that if you are not with me, you must be against me.

The global warming debate has divided into promoters of the claims of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the skeptics. It is the nature of any group behavior to become increasingly dogmatic. It is part of the conditions that create Groupthink. The promoters are de facto ensnared in Groupthink. The skeptics are in danger of falling into the same condition. Anthony does a very good job of publishing material from across the spectrum. He also struggles with censorship of comments, being as accommodating as possible under the circumstances. It is imperative that as skeptics we keep open minds – that is, skeptics must be open to skepticism about their skepticism.

One of the comments said the article was more reasonable than those I usually produce. The writer said he could understand my anger because of the attacks I experience. While I appreciate his claim, I reject it because the one thing you learn when you choose to challenge authority is that you have no idea how nasty and demoralizing it becomes. People have a sense of the cost, and that is enough to make the vast majority remain silent. There is a reason they pass whistleblower laws, even in America where free speech is championed. As Voltaire said,
“It is dangerous to right in matters where men in authority are wrong.” 

The truth is I consciously moderate my writings because of Ingersoll’s comments. Unfortunately, because of events and facts fading into history and the relentless spin and cover-up by AGW proponents, the level of deliberate deception and extent of the damage done is not appreciated by most anymore. But don’t just take my word for it. Consider the words of the late Professor Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of physics, when he discovered that the executive of the American Physical Society (APS) had given their support, without consultation with the membership, to the AGW story. He resigned in a very public protest. As he wrote in his October 2010 resignation letter,

“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”
Challenges to official climate science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began small and gradually grew. It was pushed harder than normal for a few reasons;

• The people selected to participate in the IPCC were picked and controlled by the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
  
  
• Because of protests, a charade of external examiners was created. It was a charade because none of the early submissions were included.
  
  
• Several prominent people, like Richard Lindzen and Chris Landsea, resigned from the IPCC in protest about the practices and procedures.
  
  
• By 1995, the first major scandal involving Benjamin Santer and unauthorized alterations to Chapter 8 were exposed.
  
  
• After the forecast failures of the 1990 Report, the IPCC created a range of projections to improve chances of being correct.
  
  
• The IPCC did not follow scientific method because they set out to ‘prove’ the hypothesis rather than disprove it.
  
  
• The attacks on scientists who dared to practice proper science by challenging the hypothesis drew concern and attention.
  
  
• Growing awareness of the disparity between the Science Report and the Summary for Policymakers.
  
  
• Many knew that Al Gore’s claim that the science was settled is wrong.
  
  
• Important early skeptical web sites, like John Daly’s Still Waiting for Greenhouse, Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That?, Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit, and Sherwood Idso’s CO2 Science, provided forums for the skeptical view suppressed by those trying to prove the AGW hypothesis.
  

The shameful behavior was and continues to be by the business world, especially the energy sector. They profess to have a social conscience and care about the environment, but their actions belie those claims. If anyone has the expertize to know that the science of anthropogenic global warming was wrong, it is the energy companies. Despite this, they chose to appease the environmentalists. They are now learning that you cannot appease extremists. Besides as Churchill said,
“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
Donna Laframboise wrote about the millions of dollars the appeasers paid out in a 2012 article titled, “Big Oil Money for Me, But Not for Thee.”
When I think of the devastating cost to me, both financial and emotional, all based on lies and misinformation made by these receivers of oil money, it is surprising I am as calm and controlled as I am. Remember, the basis for their proof is that I am a liar and totally compromised because they say I received money from oil companies. The sad part is I never received a single penny from any oil company. Presumably, the environmentalists who did receive the money are the ones compromised. At the very least, they are absolute hypocrites.

The truth is the oil executives didn’t care about the scientific truth regarding global warming or carbon dioxide. It was profitable public relations to say they were saving the environment and the planet because they received tax write-offs for the contributions and simply passed on other costs to the consumer. They were also able to practice advocacy advertising, an activity environmentalists condemned in the 1970s and 80s. This was the charge that corporations were advertising political positions rather than a selling a product. Environmentalists, who said they could not afford such advertising, wanted a law requiring the corporation provide money, or pay for equal time and space, for their opposing view.

Perhaps the ultimate irony in all this expensive game-playing, or by its official name, politics, is that it could occur at all. The impact at the political level was not consequential or damaging, besides it is likely they were being paid off. The trillions of dollars Lewis speaks about all came out of the pockets of the people. Worse, it came at the expense of development and improvements in all sectors of the economy. This was starkly brought home when India said that the claimed damage to the environment that justified restrictions and imposition were as nothing compared to the number of people starving to death or without electricity. In this fatuous world, it is no surprise that the US Senate made somewhat similar first-world comparisons of hardship when they voted not to vote on the Kyoto Protocol (KP). They put on the cloak of green by avoiding a vote on the KP. Instead, they voted on the Byrd/Hagel resolution, which asked if they should vote on KP. The debate involved consideration of the socio-economic costs and benefits of implementing KP. They voted 95-0 not to vote on the KP.

A similar situation exists today concerning the Paris Climate Agreement. The energy companies and politicians could easily show that the science doesn’t justify the policy, but they continue to be complicit. They could also show that the environmental and climate impacts from implementing the complete Agreement are laughable. Bjorn Lomborg says,

The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. (His emphasis).

Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030 and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.

Notice that even if he is 100% wrong it is still inconsequential. How many real-world problems of suffering, misery, and death, could be eliminated using the billions of dollars wasted every day on the completely false claim of AGW? The underlying objective of the AGW deception was to reduce world population. It is not a problem, but if it was, the best solution is development using fossil fuels.

Climate is a vehicle for wealth transfer in the naive belief it will help ‘poor’ people. Ottar Edenhofer, co-chair of the IPCC WGIII from 2008 to 2015, explained.
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
It is another aid program, but like them all, it doesn’t and can’t work.

I listened to a professional emotion-laden plea for money for children starving in Ethiopia because of a drought. The problem is there are always droughts in Ethiopia. How did these people manage in the past? The children are dying because of the decisions of their parents and government and the abetting provided by our giving to such appeals for funds or our foreign aid. Why aren’t the adults and government of Ethiopia helping? They always have money for guns and bombs.
Ethiopia spent $5,438,000,000 on their military budget in the 12 years from 2001-2012. They reduced the amount as the civil war ended, although they still spent $329 million in 2012, but by 2015 it was back up to $404.5 million. Yes, the children are the innocent bystanders, but it is pure exploitation of emotions to make it my concern when the parents and people of Ethiopia can’t get their priorities right. Worse, we further the failures and distortions with any aid. As it is said, foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of the rich country and giving it to the rich people of the poor country. What this tells me is that there is a failure of leadership at both ends of the transfer of funds. I believe it will continue until we get angry enough to expose and stop it. Environmentalists and energy companies are complicit with the politicians in the perpetuation of abuse, death, and destruction.

I know this article will trigger the predictable narrow responses and the trolls. However, I also hope it will remind others of the extent of the deception, and loss of lives and lost opportunities of this greatest deception in human history.

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/cl...-deception

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/04/t...hyperbole/


Professor Richard Lindzen confirms that Climate Alarm is based on bogus science -
(Nov 2019)

Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric scientist, was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT from 1983 until his retirement in 2013. Currently he is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science.

This talk is a brilliant takedown of the alarmists' bogus arguments. It is extracted from his 2018 Global Warming Policy Foundation lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2q9B...). He provides both the political and scientific reasons why the climate scare is unwarranted and that additional CO2 is to be welcomed as plant food. (The fuller talk, for those interested, also outlines the way the climate actually works.)

Pseudo science and pretend pride of the fool intellectuals that they also "know" and "respect" science (he cites CP Snow's brilliant insights into this tendency, which I've edited out of the talk to keep it short) keeps this nonsensical and harmful alarm going.

But as he rightly notes, the middle classes are not fooled. The middle class have universally (except possibly in India, yet) rejected climate alarm. That is the only saving grace in this evolving socialist nightmare. Our only hope is the common sense of the middle class...



https://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/holocaust...estinians/

[Steve]

Al Gore’s 10 Global Warming Predictions, 12 Years Later — None Happened!


https://prepareforchange.net/2018/01/01/...-happened/


TEN YEARS AGO TODAY AL GORE PREDICTED THE NORTH POLE WOULD BE COMPLETELY ICE FREE IN FIVE YEARS

https://electroverse.net/ten-years-ago-t...ive-years/

Al Gore Made Nearly $200 Million from the Global Warming Scam — Likely to Become the World's First 'Carbon Billionaire'

http://humansarefree.com/2016/11/al-gore...-from.html
[/url]

[url=https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/monday-funnies-19]

Al Gore, who predicted North Pole would be ice-free by 2016, was paid $320k by Australian govt to conduct ‘climate training’ ....

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/al-gore...e-training





Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax...

http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30...imate.html



Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 by: Daniel Barker

https://www.naturalnews.com/055151_globa...ZlX-7mdLjk

[Steve]

Martin Armstrong on the coming mini ice-age

https://www.nexusnewsfeed.com/article/cl...ni-ice-age

[Steve]

Climate scientist retires, then declares ‘I am a skeptic’ – Offers to debate – Rejects ‘denier’ label: ‘We don’t live in medieval times’ .....



http://www.climatedepot.com/2019/01/10/c...val-times/




Global Warming Debunked ...


https://www.facebook.com/511780537/posts...771130538/



Danish Professor Henrik Svensmark is a leading physicist of cosmic radiation. At the end of last year he made a presentation at the 12th International Climate Conference in Munich, where he demonstrated that the climate is indeed modulated in large part by cloud cover, which in turn is modulated by solar activity in combination with cosmic rays....

http://notrickszone.com/2019/01/22/munic...l-climate/