A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists

What physical evidence supports the contention that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are the principal cause of global warming since 1970?

(You may remember that in the 1970s climate scientists and the media were predicting a pending “ice age” as the globe cooled.)

I have posed that question to five “climate scientist” professors at the University of Arizona who claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of dangerous global warming. Yet, when asked the question, none could cite any supporting physical evidence.

Some of the professors would claim that computer models, when corrected for natural variation, required carbon dioxide emissions to correlate with observed warming of the late 20th Century. But computer modeling is not physical evidence; it is mere speculation. And correlation does not prove causation. One could easily substitute any increasing time series of data to produce similar results. In fact, an Australian group did a tongue-in-cheek exercise by comparing the historic price rise of a first class U.S. postage stamp with temperature. Results are shown on the graph below. The rise in the price of a stamp shows a remarkable correlation with the rise of global temperature.
In seeking an answer to the initial question, I also read the many reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The reports provide no physical evidence, only various scenarios generated by computers. The outputs from computer models diverge widely from observational evidence because the models attribute too much warming influence to carbon dioxide emissions and too little to natural variation. (See Why Climate Models Run Hot by Rud Istvan.)

It appears that there is no specific physical evidence showing that carbon dioxide emissions have a significant effect on global temperature. There is, however, physical evidence that our carbon dioxide emissions are not having any significant effect, see my article Evidence that CO2 emissions do not intensify the greenhouse effect for details. That article examines four predictions made by climate alarmists of what we should see as atmospheric carbon dioxide content rises. In each case, what really happened was the opposite of what was predicted.

The benighted, eco-faddish, Tucson City council wants to reduce the City’s carbon footprint by installing 100 percent renewable energy for all city government operations so Tucson will not get as hot as Phoenix. (Source) If they do that, they really will be in the dark. In another article, Impact of Paris climate accord and why Trump was right to dump it, I present research which shows that even if all countries fulfilled their pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions made in the Paris Climate Accord, it would make a difference of only 0.17°C by the year 2100.

One other complication, Fake warming: A new peer-reviewed study finds that nearly all reported warming in the 20th century is a result of historic adjustments made to the original data. The study concludes: “The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets [Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data, produced by NOAA, NASA, and HADLEY] are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.” Read the study

For those who claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are the principal cause of global warming, I say show me the evidence.

See also:

Note to readers:

If you like murder mysteries, type the name Lonni Lees (my wife) into Amazon or Barnes & Noble sites to see her novels, a book of short stories, and reviews. For synopses and more reviews of her books see: https://wryheat.wordpress.com/lonnis-murder-mysteries/




  1. Ask the question: where do you find the support for co2 having the ability to increase the emissive power of the heat source heating it? This question gets to the hea(r)t of the problem. I have searched through a century of experimental data on co2 and heat absorption, and I have found 0 support for such stupid claims. I knew from the start that it was an unphysical claim, but you need to look through the literature to be confident. You can take my word for it, and my word is worth nothing. But I assure you, when you put the pressure on this specific question you will experience what I have. There is no support, I repeat, NO SUPPORT, for a claim that the power of a heat source(earth surface) can be increased by adding co2. Remember that co2 is dry ice. Have anyone ever experienced that you can heat something with dry ice? I didn´t think so.
    Then why would an atmosphere work backwards? The greenhouse effect is the largest deception of human history. And it is no mistake, the people behind this needs to be put in front of a court of law. All of them. We need to investigate in detail what Mann, Gore, Branson, Trenberth, Jones, John Cook and the rest have been up to. This is global deception, the ultimate conspiracy. And it is scary as hell.

  2. The world needs to build the freedom ship ( http://freedomship.com/ ) Would be it’s own Country autonomy to handle global warming as proposed. Then anchor that in the Yellow Sea or the East China Sea see how far he governing influence goes. It would clearly be the ship of fools and 45% of Tucson would be booking passage

  3. When I read the carbon credit boondoggle of graft and control. Starting with Gore’s Tennessee home of $4,000 a month electric bill as Senator and veep. So Gore’s remedy was to keep such opulent abuse of resources as his right and be able to downscale and sell his abuse for profit. The only way this could work is if you control the output of resources. cant control that market. Gore was able to sell this in third world countries as they would get a percentage of the tax and other countries would pay a surtax to even the playing field for energy. Of course the governing group would be a commission of the U.N.

    One of the biggest miscalculations while these emerging countries quickly become competitors in the need to energy/oil. The countries that are needing to update and overhaul generating/distribution of energy resources are costing alot more to reconstruct and divert than to build new. Just think what it would cost Gore to refurbish his home he would like to keep the abuse it and get paid turn off the lights in the shed and then to the path to the shed and so on. Such sacrifice our leaders have to endure.

  4. Thanks for the graph “proving” that global warming causes the increase in US Postal prices; I knew there was a lot of hot air coming out of Washington DC but didn’t know about this important consequence. It might have been worse except for the evaporative cooling from licking all those stamps; it surely mitigated the effect.

  5. easy enough – move our proximkty – problem’o solved’o – and now back to the game

  6. It has and always will be about the money. Taking from the haves to give to the have nots. America is evil because we have. The history of this country though is that no one else combined, has given more to the have nots. This whole Paris accord revealed that information.

  7. There is a general confusion in the public enable by ignorant and lazy media about the difference between climate change and the now uncommonly heard words (too hard to say) “anthropogenic climate change.” Those who doubt the latter is occurring typically do not doubt the former is occurring but are called “deniers.” We all should do our part to minimize wasteful use of non-renewable mineral and energy fuel resources but our proximkty to the Sun and activity on the Sun are the biggest drivers of Earth’s climate change.

Comments are closed.