Growing Scientific Research Proving Global Warming A Myth

When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.

Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.

Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?

I can. It will look something like this.

Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:

Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In other words, nobody is denying that climate changes, nobody is denying that the planet has warmed by 0.8 degrees C in the last 150 years, while only a handful deny that carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) has the power to influence temperatures.

What they are saying in their different ways is that “global warming” – as in the big scare story that the planet is heating up at a catastrophic unprecedented rate because of man-made CO2 emissions – is bunk; or that the methods being used to combat the problem are bunk.

Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.

It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)

Li et al., 2017

It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation

Yndestad and Solheim, 2017

Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.

Tejedor et al., 2017

The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity

Climate influenced by natural oscillation (eg El Nino; La Nina)

Belohpetsky et al., 2017

It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation

Park et al., 2017

According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Lim et al., 2017

Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity

Modern climate in phase with natural variability

Conroy et al., 2017

20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models

Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017

Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).

Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate

Viterito, 2017

This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.

Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017

[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.

Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate

Blaauw, 2017

This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory

Munshi, 2017

…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.

Reinhart, 2017

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change

Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real

Blackall, 2017

The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.

Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017

Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.

Ahlström et al., 2017

We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.

Zhou and Wang, 2017

Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”

Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing

Janković and Shultz, 2017

[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality

Heard et al., 2017

While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.

Emery et al., 2017

The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.

Qiao et al., 2017

BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.

Wind Power Harming the Environment

Frick et al., 2017

Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.

Vasilakis et al., 2017

Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […]

[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.

Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.



  • Mitch A

    AGW? More liberal lies aimed at controlling your life.

  • bitterclinger

    I guess we will be seeing Al Gore and Michael Moore demanding that all of these scientists be jailed for “climate change denial” now. It would be nice if this hoax can finally be done away with once and for all.

    • Mort

      You people will believe anything. And now some FACTS from Snopes, a company that has been fact checking for over 20 years.
      “On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.

      The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

      The basic thesis presented by No Tricks Zone is that these graphs, which are inferred records of things like temperature and precipitation from specific localities through time, show that the climatological changes happening right now are neither dramatic nor man made. The charts highlight times from the somewhat recent pre-industrial past that were either warmer or more dramatically variable then they are now, or show evidence of change attributed to clear natural causes. As Breitbart puts it:

      What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
      This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim.”

      • VirgoVince

        snopes IS a liberal website, it presents LIES as Facts!

        • Mort

          If you say so but that doesn’t seem to be the general opinion.

          • Canadave

            Do your Homework Mort. Snopes has been exposed as nothing but a dysfunctional couple and not Gods like you have been conned into believing.

          • Mort

            My homework yielded this, which I find VERY persuasive (what are your sources that say they are “dysfunctional?)
            “The web site was founded by David Mikkelson, a project begun in 1994 as an expression of his interest in researching urban legends that has since grown into the oldest and largest fact-checking site on the Internet, one widely regarded by journalists, folklorists, and laypersons alike as one of the world’s essential resources. is routinely included in annual “Best of the Web” lists and has been the recipienthich of two Webby awards. personnel have made multiple appearances as guests on national news programs such as 20/20, ABC World News, CNN Sunday Morning, and NPR’s All Things Considered, and they and their work have been profiled in numerous major news publications, including The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Reader’s Digest.

            With over 20 years’ experience as a professional researcher and writer, David has created in what has come to be regarded as an online touchstone of rumor research. The site’s work has been described as painstaking, scholarly, and reliable, and has been lauded by the world’s top folklorists, including Jan Harold Brunvand, Gary Alan Fine, and Patricia Turner. Hundreds of the site’s articles have been cited by authors in a variety of disciplines, and various of their articles have been published in textbooks currently in use in the U.S. and Canadian school systems.

            The web site is (and always has been) a completely independent, self-sufficient entity wholly owned by its operators and funded through advertising revenues. Neither the site nor its operators has ever received monies from (or been engaged in any business or editorial relationship with), any sponsor, political party, religious group, outside business organization, or government agency that is not disclosed.”

          • Canadave

            Accepting Snopes as the ultimate source of truth is like believing that Hilary Clinton out of 330,000,000 Americans is by far the best candidate for Prez and would bring peace, prosperity and love to the world in no time flat. One of my biggest interests is anthropogenic global warming which I believe is literally the biggest scientific scam in history. At least the last time I checked and to make a long story short, Snopes had an obvious bias on the subject. At any rate Google “The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers” for a good article on their alleged fair and balanced objectivity.

  • jackcandobutwont

    looks like al gore will have to come up with a new schtick!! WOnder if he’ll be issuing credits for all those carbon credits he solds?? ha h ah ah

  • Charlie Silvertooth

    Its just another way Dems stole money from tax payers.

  • VirgoVince

    WE ALWAYS KNEW IT, but it’s a
    tough sell for ugly lefturd idiots!!
    NEVER learned HOW to ‘think;’ they

  • alpambuena

    climate change/global warming has always been a political ideology rather than a true analysis of what is reality. most of the problems are due to the amount of money involved to help push the climate change scenario….after all if you are a scientific research facility…you must depend on grants to survive….and those funding your grants have a specific political agenda…so….2 + 2 will equal 5 and not 4.

  • Knight56

    Want a real thrill, try to google information on wind farms to see how much of the energy they produce is directed back to the wind turbine itself to keep it ginning. I have worked in the energy field over 25 years, one thing they fail to mention is the natural gas driven motors that actually keep the props spinning when there isn’t enough air current to do so. Try googling that as well. Not a major city will sign on to using “green energy” as it’s only source of power generation. However, in order to create the façade that they do, they have had to reclassify Natural Gas as “green energy” because it is the most efficient of all fossil fuels. It’s all a farce to enrich the Oligarchs at the expense of the common peons out there.

  • Robert Kahlcke

    It would be my suggestion Gore and Moore, jump off a high building with the other operatives of the Democrat-Communist-Islamic Terrorist Organization, they will all be suicide victims soon.

  • Bruce Kellar

    Is this the end of the Oh Shit, the end of mankind led by the illustrious and totally unbeleivable Hussein Obama and his bath house bunch period in history. Let’s hope not. Moochelle O needs to sweat off some of that butt.

  • scorpian

    Al Gore and Hollywood has been pedaling this BS for decades. Gore get’s an academy award and who better to solicit than empty liberal brains with perverted intentions then Hollywood. Piss on them and when you clean up Mexico, Choking China, and India then everyone will be in compliance. While you’re doing that Arrest that Black President Obama for Treason with Hillary and the Clinton Crime family on RICO charges then Perhaps the environment will reduce collusion pollution. God Bless President Donald J. Trump and family!

  • Ozz Diessner

    If man made global warming turns out to be fraud perpetrated on peace lovings peoples, should Al Gore and his ilk be fined and sentenced to jail?

  • Kent Powers

    If a democrat proposes an idea, walk away, & wait, it will be proven a bad idea long before it comes to pass. Any thing to make a dollar, get a vote or control a citizen, that is the mantra of the democrat party, a liberal is just a dumber or crooked democrat.