Settled Science Update : O3, Not CO2 Is Causing Imaginary Global Warming

As the Earth cools, climate scientists are looking for new ways to explain their fake temperature data.

Ozone Depletion, Not Greenhouse Gases Cause for Global Warming, Says Researcher

Apparently the lack of deodorant is the culprit behind NASA data tampering.

2001      2015

Good to know that this spotless object has nothing to do with Earth’s temperature.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Settled Science Update : O3, Not CO2 Is Causing Imaginary Global Warming

  1. GW says:

    Dr Leif Svalgaard doesn’t seem to think so. As much as I’d like to I haven’t seen any hard evidence to contradict or dismiss his evidence. Just sayin…..

    • Gator says:

      I have yet to see much from Leif that I consider correct when it comes to climate and the Sun. In fact the Sun has pretty well made a mockery of all those who have attempted to predict its cycles of late. It’s too bad that so many in positions of authority can’t seem to ever admit they do not know something.

  2. arn says:

    After recycling the fearporn scenario of the ice age scare
    now depleted ozone is having its comeback.
    The circle is closing.
    Same old same old.

    • Macha says:

      There is 30 odd chapters of observations regarding ozone, presure and temperatures charted and discussed here by Erl Happ. Very compelling stuff. This is chapter8.

      The real question is. for greenhouse effects to be significant should be a generalized warming at all latitudes without any marked seasonal bias. If there were to be a seasonal bias it should be present as an increase in temperature above the norm when outgoing long wave radiation is maximal in the summer season. There should be no great difference between the hemispheres. That is far from what is actually observed. The evidence suggests that natural variation rather than anthropogenic influences drives climate change.
      A more complete discussion is here..from 2009 no less, and yet the debate still misses this topic in preference for CO2.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Darn , I thought they were going with methane, and was looking forward to increasing my meat intake.

      Oh Well. :-(

      • arn says:

        Well then,
        I’ve got good news for.

        Methan will win the silver medal(co2 as undisputed no1)
        anyways,as methan is something that has a bigger impact on average joe’s mind((you know how strong alcohole is)).
        Methan exists in huuuge numbers hidden somewhere below sibirias perma-ice
        +methan never suffered a defeat and it is not as worn ofg as ozon.((during the ozon scare they also started to use
        surface ozone as fearporn(at least in germany).As the cfc’s and the ozonelayer became insignificant and the daily prediction dose of ‘toxic’ ozone that may harm joggers and other sportman went down))
        As soon as they try to missuse ozone for AGW people will instantly pointing out at the fearporn and failures of the 80ies ozon swindle and that nothing has changed since the end of cfc=ozon layer as big as always with the usual huge fluctuations in size.
        And the hole is bigger in the south where cfc-use was just a tiny fraction of that in the north.
        And average joe will realise:
        “All those scientists at that time cried wolf and pretended to be 100% right and that they had to save us;but all of them were wrong.
        The same scenario as in global warming.
        While in real science noone is crying and scientists are mostly right fearporn science always fails-maybe because they are so obsessed with being right and having the same opinion.”

        Methan does not have this downside.
        A virgin in term of fearporn and abuse-therefore it still has the full indoctriational potential
        (+methan has been slowly but constantly built up
        as new villain (the right hand of satan co2).
        We hear on a regular basis about farting cows and billions of tons of methan in russias permafrost regions that’ll disrupt our climAte once sibiria starts to melt.

        So the future rankings will be:
        no1=hitler co2
        no2=putin methan
        no3=saddam ozone

        (and i would not be surprised if they invent a completely new threat as soon as they find a really good evil gas.

        • Robertv says:

          Strange that Mao doesn’t create that fear affect. The school system can be proud of that achievement. Even Stalin is loved these days on many universities.

          • arn says:

            Wether Hitler/Stalin is loved or hated does not depend on what he has done
            but only how the mainstream treats him.

            That’s the reason you can be Stalinist/Maoist but not Hitlerist.
            People fear no backlash or loss in status quo when they admire Stalin or Mao but with Hitler they do,though he killed far less people than Mao or Stalin.(and Lenin planned the gulags=he’s no better,but died before the real great killing started)

            Nowadays you can admire Hitler=in Muslim countries his book “Mein Kampf” is always a bestseller.

            You can(and even must noawadays) admire Hitlers best friends=muslims.
            They were his allies and whereever he appeared where muslims lived(bosnia=hanjar/
            krim=tartars) they joined him and started massacres.
            But when you oppose islam you are a nazi.

            As long as people don’t start thinking for themselves and judge by numbers and results instead of repeating the mainstream fairytales nothing will ever change.

            And the numbers of mainstream “science” in term of climate are a carastrophy as all their predictions turned out to be BS.
            And that’s why they have to rely on name calling and intimidation etc.
            The bigger the lie is that you tell
            the more you need to lie/deceive/intimidate to
            compensate the gap your lie is away from the truth.
            You don’t need a construct of fear or pseudointellectual talk when you say the truth.

  3. Steve Case says:

    Climate science makes it up as they go along.

    • czechlist says:

      “Parts changers”
      Over the past 2 decades I’ve noticed a dearth of competent mechanics, plumbers, electricians, HVAC …
      They lack analytical knowledge and troubleshooting skills and have become parts changers – they change parts until the problem is resolved.
      Seems “Climate Scientists” are following suit.

      • annieoakley says:

        I like this.

      • Russ Wood says:

        A fair number of doctors do that, including my son’s previous psychiatrist. It’s called something like ‘diagnosis by prescription’, in which the MD tries different medications until he finds one that works – and THAT confirms his diagnosis!

  4. Richard M says:

    Not a new idea.

    “WATERLOO, Ont. (Thursday, May 30, 2013) – Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.”

  5. Ozone hysteria may have been a factor in the Crash of 1987: Daily Digest – Wednesday, October 28, 1987; pages D1410 – D ? (Bound vol. D758-D764)
    Committee on Science, Space, and Technology: Held a hearing to review the results of the 1987 Antarctic Expedition to Study Ozone Depletion. Testimony was heard from John D. Negroponte, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State; A. James Barnes, Deputy Administrator, EPA; Robert T. Watson, Chief, Upper Atmospheric Research Program, NASA; Adrian Tuck, Aeronomy Laboratory, NOAA, Department of Commerce; and from the following officials of NSF: Robert Corell, Assistant Director, Geosciences; and Peter E. Wilkniss, Director, Polar Programs. OUTCOME: The report shrieked that coercion was needed immediately.

  6. GoFigure says:

    The proponents of human-caused global warming have another problem, namely that the MWP was global and warmer, despite the (already debunked) hockey stick graph.

    The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require on increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP.

    With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing more than natural climate variation. It becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level.

    It’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who deny that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A large subset of this group also claims that the “science is settled”. A brief meta-analysis follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locals required to obtain ice core data. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it was a different “ballgame”. More important, studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

    The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.

    These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. These studies also now span several decades.

    Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature estimates. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

    There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study consists of straightforward activities. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.

    There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran at least until 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase following 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

    Any current considerations about global warming must therefore be constrained to a starting point no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has acknowledged another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” was wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. It’s clear that the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as much as one degree.

    So, all this current controversy involves just two decades, and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

    Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by have been cherry-picked. Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

  7. Mike says:

    Reasonable hypothesis deserving more research. Ozone layer damage & depletion is likely one reason for sky spray that puts a haze over our skies across the globe. One major reason for holes in our ozone is experimentation and use of energy directed weapons that pass through ozone layer. Good luck getting Department of Defense records on land and space-based directed energy weapons use and testing.

  8. Charles says:

    Solar output and its interaction with the dominant (by far) atmospheric “greenhouse gas,” water vapor and the covering of 75% of the earth’s surface, water, are obviously the prime drivers of climate. Why is this so hard to understand?

Leave a Reply

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