Debunking The Myth Of Global Warming

The climate-related catastrophes already begun …. or has it?

Today’s media constantly bombards us with the supposed threats and risks of man-made “Global warming”. As the story goes, the rise in temperature of the Earth and ocean will lead to an overall change in the climatic pattern of the earth that will destroy all life on earth (the version might be bit less dramatic depending on the protagonist).

Then we have the dreadedgreenhouse effect”. This effect describes gases like carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, water vapor, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) among others that allegedly enable more heat absorption from the sun’s radiation, penetrate the protective layer of the atmosphere, leading to more heat being retained within the atmosphere rather than reflected back into space.

So the question is: is there any substantiated truth to these global warming claims? Is it only a matter of time until we can no longer live on earth or is it rather propaganda by the elites to increase their control of our everyday lives by banning the products we use and by creating excessive new regulation and increased taxation? Let’s have a look.


For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has backed theories and predictions regarding the greenhouse effect and global warming on the infamous “hockey stick curve”. The reason they chose this name is because the graph, as Figure 1 shows, resembles a hockey stick.

This hockey stick curve, presented by the IPCC in 2001, is meant to provide clear “evidence” that global warming is a scientifically proven fact and not just an assumption or guess.


Figure 1: Hockey stick curve by Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley and M.K. Hughes (1999)

“Figure 1” shows that for the past 1000 years the global temperature has had a falling trend and suddenly, with the first availability of measuring equipment around 1900, the global temperature drastically started to rise. It seems convenient that temperature increases coincided with the availability of temperature measuring devices. Global warming advocates claim that this is due to the industrial revolution despite the fact that it began in the first half of the 1800s and heavy industrial production was not widespread until the mid-1900s.

After independent scientists from all over the world examined the graph it turned out that the computer program that generates the curve is flawed! It always calculates drastically rising temperatures irrespective of the data inputs. To this day, Prof. Michael Mann, the creator of the program that calculates the hockey stuck, refuses to disclose the methodology and data that were used to generate the computer program.

Prof. Will Happer from Princeton University said this about the hockey stick curve scandal:

The existence of climate variability in the past has long been an embarrassment to those who claim that all climate change is due to man and that man can control it. When I was a schoolboy, my textbooks on earth science showed a prominent ‘medieval warm period’ at the time the Vikings settled Greenland, followed by a vicious ‘little ice age’ that drove them out. So I was very surprised when I first saw the celebrated ‘hockey stick curve’ in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. I could hardly believe my eyes. Both the little ice age and the Medieval Warm Period were gone, and the newly revised temperature of the world since the year 1000 had suddenly become absolutely flat until the last hundred years when it shot up like the blade on a hockey stick. This was far from an obscure detail, and the hockey stick was trumpeted around the world as evidence that the end was near. We now know that the hockey stick has nothing to do with reality but was the result of incorrect handling of proxy temperature records and incorrect statistical analysis. There really was a little ice age and there really was a medieval warm period that was as warm or warmer than today.

Taking the clear manipulation of data by the IPCC I have described above into consideration, trusting other models and papers by the IPCC seems questionable at best. It would be intellectually dishonest to accept IPCC claims or arguments without significant scrutiny as it has yet to account for its dubious claims and manipulated models in the past.


First, I should mention that it is not disputed that CO2 is a gas that has a warming effect. This has been proven through scientific laboratory testing. The dispute is rather regarding the effect that a rise in CO2 has on the earth’s atmosphere.

The pro global warming scientists believe that with a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the result will be that the amplification will triple. That means an increase in temperature 1.1 °C will actually increase by 3.3 °C due to the carbon dioxide multiplier effect (1.1 °C × 3=3.3 °C).

They believe the earth’s reaction due to the heat will lead to increased water vapor in the atmosphere which will, in turn, trap more heat inside the earth and this will continue perpetually with the increase of CO2.


Figure 2: Mises Institute “The sceptic’s case”

Meanwhile, the sceptics do not agree with the points stated by government climate scientists. If the CO2 level doubles, sceptics estimate that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.

The sceptics have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The disagreement is entirely about the outcome.


Figure 3: Mises Institute “The sceptic’s case”

The feedbacks will reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half. The main feedback involves the evaporation of water which then creates vapor and will convert into clouds.

Therefore, extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will create extra clouds. These extra clouds will reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming and creating a natural balance which has been going on like that for more than 10’000 years.

Nature’s job has always been – and will always be – to create a balance of all existing parameters and not running off into the extremes as the government scientists frightfully try to have us believe.


The Geological Research Center (GFZ) in Germany, together with the scientific community and several academic institutions created a map called “The Natural Climate Variations of Historic Times”, where they examined the temperature history of the last 11’000 years.


Figure 4: Graphic of the Geological Research Center GFZ

It is clear that in the last 11’000 years after the last major ice age, the global climate fluctuated between cold periods and hot periods. Some hot periods significantly exceeded current temperature levels.

Previous data, facts, claims and predictions made by government scientists about air temperatures, ocean temperatures and atmospheric hotspots have constantly differed when compared to most recent authentic findings.

The predictions and likely trends did not go as anticipated. Both sceptic scientists and government climate scientists agree on the effects of CO2. The main point of contention is the extent of the feedback loop, the earth’s reactions to these processes.

Also, the effects of greenhouse gases are highly disputed. The greenhouse gas CO2 is a result of combined human respiration and combustion of fossil fuels. This gas is vital for photosynthesis listing it as contamination is misleading as it is non-toxic.

The natural photosynthesis process subtracts this CO2 from the atmosphere transferring it into useful oxygen. There is no scientific proof that links significant climate change to human CO2 emissions to date.

From these overwhelming facts, it is obvious that the climate models that are represented by government scientists were grossly exaggerated.

Proven facts that debunk the effects of global warming are never brought to the awareness of the global citizenry. Much of the global warming headlines are mere political propaganda rather than facts. It is more of politics, power and control to the detriment of scientific truth and liberty.


Could it be that the hysteria, wrong predictions, assumptions and calculations from manipulated computer programs are all just a way to create a certain public opinion?

After being exposed as a fake, the wide-spread media and defenders of the government scientists still use the manipulated and discredited hockey stick curve to prove some kind of human caused climate change.

While there are so many problems in our world which deserve a lot more attention and dedication, the government puts so much focus on the climate change myth.

Why is that so?

Is it to create a global guilty conscience?

Are the environment and the natural climate being used to blame the people and to impose new laws to further restrict and control a free way of living?

National regulations and international laws are being imposed on the global citizen to empower the already too powerful elites with more control over aspects of their everyday life.

All of these newly created laws and regulations over CO2 emissions then lead to “justified” new and higher taxes on the citizens.

In Summary

The natural pattern of the climate has always varied over the decades and centuries. It went from a balanced average to hotter and colder periods.

And it always created a natural balance no matter what circumstances accrued. That is what Mother Nature does best. That’s her job.

To be selling the natural climate variations as a result of human actions and the upcoming of climate catastrophes by using manipulated and fundamentally flawed data, is just a cheap way to restrict the everyday citizen in their freedom and to impose further regulations and taxes upon him.

So don’t buy into the hype of global warming. It’s fake.

TIPPreserve your financial liberty with physical gold and silver  >>