I Completely Agree

Experts now say that an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2 caused all warming over the past century.

Humans Caused 100% of the Past Century’s Global Warming

Alarmist John Cook says that simply isn’t true.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

  1. Increasing solar activity; and
  2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun)

What caused early 20th Century warming?

I’m inclined to go with the original claim that humans at NASA and NOAA are responsible for almost all of the perceived warming. They tamper with the data to create fake graphs and fake news.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to I Completely Agree

  1. RAH says:

    The true believers perceive significant warming, ocean “acidification”, increased coral bleaching, increased severe weather, increased droughts, increased wild fires, etc. etc., but the rest of us don’t. In large part because of work like yours Tony and the natural skepticism that common sense demands.

  2. garyh845 says:

    “I’m inclined to go with the original claim that humans at NASA and NOAA are responsible for almost all of the perceived warming. They tamper with the data to create fake graphs and fake news.”

    Edited a bit there Tony . . .

    I’m inclined to go with the original claim that humans at NASA and NOAA are responsible for almost all of the perceived warming. They tamper with the data to create man made graphs and man made news in their attempt to sell man made global wraming.

  3. After analysing the global temperature I am coming more to the view that we did cause global warming!! The evidence now points toward the crazy reckless acts of the 1970s when we got rid of all that beneficial cooling from pollution. And because global warming is the world greatest problem – if follows that the greens will immediately demand to have all that pollution back again – to make the world a fraction of a degree cooler.

    There’s also a possibility of contrails (remember research shows green voters fly more often than anyone else – eco-journalists & eco-academics love flying to exotic places to pontificate about a minuscule change in global temperature).

    Solar activity is a strong contender, volcanoes obviously and there’s something else I’ve forgotten – oh yes CO2 ought to cause some change but it’s so small it’s just theoretical.


  4. CheshireRed says:

    From Paul Homewood’s ‘Not a lot of people know that’ blog. A clinical and undeniable take-down of Cook’s ‘97%’ bullsh*t ‘paper’.

    ‘It is clear that. from the very start, Cook and his colleagues were intent upon providing an eye-catching “consensus” which they could sell to the media, and which would be picked up by politicians and others in the establishment, regardless of what the evidence actually said.

    The reality is starkly different. After searching through 12000 scientific papers, spread over 20 years, all they could only come up with was 65 which supported the supposed consensus.’


    • Gail Combs says:

      Any doubts about the evil intent and ‘honesty’ of the ClimAstrologists was completely removed by that Cook paper. What he proved is ClimAstrologists will LIE in return for $$$$.

      The Lewandowsky papers (co-authored by John Cook) made it clear that universities are not concerned with education or honesty either.

      The amount of damage done to the fields of science and education by these snake oil salesmen is immeasurable.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    Editing or “adjusting” the data doesn’t change the physical reality. The evidence simply isn’t there.

    Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?

  6. David Reich says:


    As reported in the notrickszone, this peer-reviewed paper concludes that only 15% of the CO2 growth since industrialization is due to fossil-fuel emissions (about 17 ppm of the 390 ppm). It further underscores the belief of many of us that temperature drives atmospheric CO2 content (due to CO2 outgassing from the oceans as predicted by Henry’s law).

    • gator69 says:

      And CO2 residency of only 4 years, not the 100 years the IPCC claims and that alarmists use in their models. When I was a climatology student, CO2 residency was considered to be 5-7 years. How is it that the IPCC gets away with this crap?

      • Rud Istvan says:

        Dont confuse the efold time of net concentration with the residency time of individual molecules. The actual,efold time is something between 35 and 50 years. It is declining with greening.
        The IPCC Been model is wrong because it assumed sinks saturate. Greening proves they don’t.

      • Hallo Gator,we haven’t spoken in a while but everyone is missing a trick here. I went to grammar school in 1967. I remember my first science lesson very well indeed. I was taught about the composition of the atmosphere. 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, the noble gases made up most of the other 1% and c02 was about 400 parts per million. NOT 330 NOT 350 AND NOT 370! The study showing rising c02 was conducted by two fellows by the name of Wrigley and Callander and was cherry picked. Professor Jaworoski later testified before congress to that effect. By the way you still say what I want to say but quicker!!!

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Richard! Yes, alarmists are not real good with numbers, or science.

          Svante August Arrhenius (19 February 1859 – 2 October 1927) was a Swedish scientist, originally a physicist, but often referred to as a chemist, and one of the founders of the science of physical chemistry. He received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903,…

          He is acknowledged as the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis and supposedly one of the greatest scientists of his time. In 1910 he is quoted in a newspaper article thus:

          “The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

          Arrhenius thought doubling the CO2 levels would provide huge benefits by increasing the available land for agriculture.But the point I want you to note is this,

          “The present proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is about one part in 2,500.”

          If there was 1:2,500 CO2 molecules in 1910 which is 4:10,000 which is 400 ppm by volume as quoted by the greatest scientist of the day where is there any evidence that we have increased the concentration to current record levels of 400 ppm, 1:10,000 or !:2,500 ???

          If it is unchanged according to the father of the CO2 driven global warming hypothesis- 400 ppm in 1910 and 400 ppm now – why do we have any alarm ?

          I guess modern alarmists are saying Arrhenius was totally wrong about the only thing he actually had any data on – the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.


          And alarmists love their cherries!

        • AndyG55 says:


          When you pre-choose the data that shows the trend you want… that is cherry picken.

    • Rud Istvan says:

      The paper is badly wrong. The C14 bomb spike experiments show the residency time is 11-12 years.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        You maybe correct,but the main point is SHORT Resident time is agreed on by most skeptics,whether it is 4 years or 12 years.

        That is far less than the absurd IPCC 100+ years number.

        • gator69 says:

          I think we can all agree that CO2 resdency times are criminally exaggerated by the IPCC and their doomer goons.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      David, the comments there from CO2 lovers are so absurd,wonder if they are ill.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.