No Cap and Trade


Danger of

Cap & Trade







Sun's &

Ocean's Role

A Century

of Cycles







Contact Us


Frequently Asked Questions


1 Question

We have been told that the science is settled on the global warming issue and that all except a few radical scientists agree that global warming is caused by mankind emitting carbon dioxide.


Proponents of man-caused global warming, including the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and former Vice President Al Gore, have claimed that there was consensus among scientists that man was causing global warming for over two decades. The media has reinforced that belief. That was never the case. A large percentage of all scientists familiar with this issue have always had doubts at some level. There was not convincing evidence either way. In recent years, however, emerging science is increasingly showing that the warming of the twentieth century was not caused by greenhouse gases, but by natural events. As this science became known, more and more scientists who once believed man-caused global warming have abandoned the theory publicly.


2 Question

Doesn't the fact that there is a high correlation between variations in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and earth's temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years prove that carbon dioxide is somehow involved in changing earth's temperature?


The answer to this question has several parts. First, a high correlation does not mean cause and effect. For instance, there is a 100 percent correlation that every one who breaths air will eventually die. That does not mean that breathing air causes death. Now, let's take Al Gore's 650,000 year graph comparing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels with earth's temperature. There is a very high correlation indicating there is some type of relationship, but it does not mean that increases and decreases in carbon dioxide levels causes the earth to warm and cool. A closer examination of the data show that a change in carbon dioxide levels does not precede changes in temperature, but changes in temperature precedes carbon dioxide levels. If there is a cause and effect relationship at all, it is that changes in earth's temperature causes a change in atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is an easy explanation for this. There is roughly 80,000 times more carbon dioxide in the oceans than in the atmosphere. As the earth warms for whatever reason, the oceans gradually warm. Warm water can hold less carbon dioxide, so the carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean diffuses into the atmosphere. It takes hundreds of years for this to happen. That is why there is a lag of 600 to 1200 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide responds to earth's warming.  The reverse is true when earth cools. Gradually the oceans cool, and the atmospheric carbon dioxide dissolves back into the ocean. This is a well established scientific fact that has been known for many decades.


3 Question

OK, so the long term carbon dioxide/temperature correlation does not show that carbon dioxide cause earth's temperature to change. But there is a high correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and earth's temperature since the start of the twentieth century. Right?


Well, not really. Most of the warming in the twentieth century occurred before 1945, when carbon dioxide levels began to increase rapidly. When carbon dioxide levels began to increase rapidly after 1945, the earth began a 30 year cooling cycle -- just the opposite of what should happen with the greenhouse gas theory. Both carbon dioxide levels and temperature increased together from 1976 to 1998, but that proves nothing. Finally, carbon dioxide levels are still increasing, but the earth's temperature has not increased statistically since 1999. In fact, they are now declining. When all this is put together and analyzed statistically, there is a 44 percent correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature since 1900. That is a poor correlation. To statisticians that strongly suggests there is no correlation whatsoever. On the other hand, there is an 85 percent correlation between ocean current/temperatures (called oscillations) and earth's temperature. While that is not statistically significant, it does suggest there is a fairly strong relationship--twice as good as the CO2/temperature correlation. Scientists don't know how it works yet, but they believe it is related to solar activity. For more on this click here.


4 Question

If carbon dioxide does not have a major impact on earth's temperature, what does?


There are a number of factors which control the earth's temperature. The earth's orbit changes over time, changing the distance from the earth from the sun. The earth's axis shifts which changes the seasons and therefore the average temperature. The intensity of the sun itself changes on an approximate 11 year cycle, as well as an 1500 year cycle which changes the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface. During the 11 year cycle, the sun becomes more active with solar flares, coronal mass ejections and other activity. The sun becomes brighter, emitting more energy, which seems to be correlated with earth's temperature. However, energy balance calculations have shown that the increased energy is not sufficient to cause the earth to warm as much as it has. On the other hand, Danish scientists have conducted some amazing experiments that show that it is not the amount of energy, but the type of energy that causes the earth to warm. Although still not fully understood, when the sun is quiet, cosmic radiation from deep space bombards the earth, which in turn causes a few more low elevation clouds to form. These clouds are very reflective of incoming solar energy, and most of the sun's energy is reflected and the earth cools. Conversely, when the sun is active, solar winds do not permit as many cosmic rays to reach the earth and therefore fewer low elevation clouds are formed and more solar energy reaches the earth, warming it. This cycle also affects ocean currents which have an affect on earth's temperature. The longer, 1500 year cycle also plays a major role. Solar activity is highly correlated with sunspots. From about 1300 to 1800, the number of sunspots declined to nearly zero, and the earth became so cold it was called the Little Ice Age. Since then the number of sunspots has been increasing, and the earth has been warming -- until about 2000. Since 2000 the number of sunspots has declined to abnormally low levels and the earth's temperature no longer increased. The solar activity and the number of sunspots should have started increasing again in 2007, but it did not. This is leading an increasing number of scientists to believe we are entering a cooling period not unlike that which occurred from 1945-1975, or worse similar to the Little Ice Age, which was accompanied by major crop failures, starvation and pestilence.

5 Question
Carbon dioxide has been declared a pollutant by the U.S. Supreme Court. Does that mean that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide can harm humans, plants and other animals?
No. There is very good evidence that the earth once had over 10 times the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide than currently exists. Life flourished. Most of the carbon dioxide that once existed has been precipitated out in limestone and other sedimentary rocks. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of research studies have shown that more atmospheric carbon dioxide causes plants to grow much faster, which increases ecosystem health. It is estimated that food production world-wide has increased by 12 percent since the 1950s because of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The reason the U.S. Supreme Court declared carbon dioxide a pollutant is because Congress wrote the Clean Air Act so loosely that it falls within their loose definition of a pollutant. In reality, carbon dioxide is essential for life (life on earth would cease without it), because it is the raw material for photosynthesis.


6 Question

The cooling since 2000 has reversed itself during the summer and early fall of 2009. Does this mean warming has resumed?


No. First, the warming has not yet exceeded the global temperatures before the cooling started in 2001. Second, many things happened during this period. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) shifted from a positive state (more warming) to a negative state (more cooling). There is a far greater occurrence of El Niņo's in the Pacific that cause warming during the positive phase of the PDO and much fewer El Niņo's during the Negative phase. However, it doesn't mean El don't occur during the negative phase. There is plenty of evidence to show they do occur during the negative phase, just fewer of them. Starting in July of 2009 a very strong El Niņo formed in the eastern Pacific causing earth's temperature to rise. Most scientists believe the cooling will return once the El Niņo fades. Another factor shocking the scientific community is the once accepted theory that when the sun is quiet like it is now, the sun's emission of  solar wind diminishes dramatically allowing more cosmic radiation to enter earth's atmosphere, which results in more clouds, and therefore cooling. (See question 4 above). For a completely unknown reason the sun's emission of solar winds suddenly increased during late spring of 2009, even though the sun was abnormally quiet. This has solar physicists in a quandary and they are now rethinking the entire physical basics of solar emissions. The question that dogs climate scientists is whether the increase in abnormal solar winds has caused the El Niņo during the summer/fall season of 2009, and what it means for climate change. One thing is for certain, however. The phenomenon has nothing to do with CO2 warming. Stay tuned.


7 Question

Twenty computer climate models clearly show that the earth will warm 2-3oC by the 22nd century because of increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Are they all wrong?


The short answer is yes, they are wrong. Very wrong. Each one has a built in assumption that as greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere the greatest warming will occur in the tropical zone (latitude 30o N to 30o S) and at altitudes between about 6 to 12 miles high. Every model shows that it will warm about 2-3oC more in that area than at the surface. However, when the models are used to project temperatures for the 1950 to 2000 period, for which there exists very good data, the models project much more warming than actually occurred. Also, see video by clicking here. The reason for this is that the greenhouse gas theory that is built into the models assumes that CO2 induces what is known as "positive feedback." In other words, a small increase in temperature induced by CO2 will be greatly amplified by fewer low-level clouds and more high altitude cirrus clouds (the high thin clouds) being formed. This in turn, results in more of the sun's energy reaching the earth, warming it and then being trapped by the cirrus clouds--hence greater warming in the tropical zone and at 6 to 12 miles in elevation. However, research is showing this is just not happening. Rather than warmer temperatures causing fewer low elevation clouds, which warms the earth, many scientists now believe there is a negative feedback. When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation changes to positive (or perhaps less cosmic radiation because of greater solar activity), the positive PDO reduces the amount of low elevation clouds thereby allowing more solar energy to reach to earth to warm it. Its the chicken and egg question--which came first. Did increasing temperature cause fewer clouds and therefore greater warming, or did the PDO (or sun) cause fewer clouds and therefore warming? While this debate is far from being settled, it offers a hypothesis that explains all the temperature variation of the 20th century and the cooling of the 21st century. If true, CO2 has very little to do with global temperature and the models overestimate future temperature by up to 80 percent. Simple models show that at most the increase will be about 0.5oC, not 2-3oC the models predict.