Ten Key Graphs Behind The Global Warming Scam

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising exponentially for the past 60 years, and climate treaties have zero impact on it.

ESRL Global Monitoring Division – Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Coal, oil and natural gas usage are all increasing exponentially.

CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Our World in Data

As CO2 has risen, agricultural productivity has increased with it.

Yields and Land Use in Agriculture – Our World in Data

Hunger has declined sharply.

Hunger and Undernourishment – Our World in Data

Poverty has declined sharply.

The short history of global living conditions and why it matters that we know it – Our World in Data

Illiteracy has declined sharply.

Global Rise of Education – Our World in Data

Life expectancy has increased sharply.

Life Expectancy – Our World in Data

And as CO2 has risen, deaths from natural disasters have plummeted.

Global natural disaster death rates – Our World in Data

And NASA shows that Earth is getting greener, as a result of the increase in CO2.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA

Meanwhile, the Washington Post says the world will end in 12 years.

Ocasio-Cortez says the world will end in 12 years. She is absolutely right. – The Washington Post

And the New York Times says it is time to panic.

NYT Opinion on Twitter: “Panic might seem counterproductive,

The climate change industry is a massive scam. It serves no purpose – and is based entirely on lies.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Ten Key Graphs Behind The Global Warming Scam

  1. Disillusioned says:

    Excellent post.

    Albeit destructive, I think there is a purpose behind the scam.

  2. Gator says:

    It serves a purpose alright. It advances the agenda of the far left, all under one umbrella. The climate change industry is a skeleton key that unlocks the doors that would lead us down a long dark corridor of tyranny.

  3. Al Shelton says:

    Thanks Tony..
    Excellent as usual.
    I will be passing this along to many people and politicians.

  4. DCA says:

    Stellar work, as usual.

    A little off topic, but I’m wondering how the SoCal quake yesterday will be blamed on AGW. And why not? Everything else is.

  5. Squidly says:

    Awesome post! .. I have sent to several of my friends and colleagues .. great resource for the next time they encounter a climate lunatic.

  6. CK says:

    Regarding the green Earth. I’m not buying the full version but the abstract states:
    “Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.”

    I presume that the increased greening because of the global increase in CO2 is estimated at 8%. The biggest factor is CO2 fertilization.

    Now even an 8% increase because of supposed AGW is a good thing to me, but I think it’s a bit misleading to imply that the global increase in CO2 is a major factor based on the study (NASA shows that Earth is getting greener, as a result of the increase in CO2.)

  7. MGJ says:

    Throughout history, humans seem to have had a burning psychological need to believe that the world is imminently ending and furthermore it is all our fault. It is a common theme of many religions.

    It is an obvious weakness that evil doers and the immoral can exploit to control us and thereby gain power and resources.

    Perhaps cAGW will ultimately die, not because of reason and evidence, but because something even more terrible will be conjured up to replace it.

  8. P. Tuvnes says:

    Quote Tony: “Illiteracy has declined sharply.”
    Except for:
    activist climate researchers

  9. Robert B says:

    What should end the debate is how well the Keeling curve correlates with SST. Even if like a number of scientists insisted, that global CO2 is degassed from a warming sea, you don’,t get correlations so good when calculating global levels from single sites.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Robert! CAGW models assume that CO2 is well mixed, so single site or multiple site shouldn’t be an issue. As for temperature correlating with CO2, it doesn’t. On the other hand, as Tony has shown, the adjustments to the temperature correlate almost perfectly. I have asked numerous times for alarmists to explain why that would be and have never received an answer. No answer at all, not even a bad answer.

  10. Mark Rubin says:

    The first graph show the continued upward rise of CO2 from 1960 through 2019. Boy does that line look alarming….but that graph is a total deception….a convenient manipulation of data. Why?

    Because the real graph would have imperceptible change.

    From 1960 to 2019 CO2 is shown to have increased from about 320 parts per million to now about 400 parts per million. That is an increase of 80 parts per million over the past 60 years.

    80 parts per million is 8 parts per 100,000 or .80 parts per 10,000. Not even one extra CO2 molecule (only .8) has been added to the atmosphere over a 60 year period from every 10,000 assorted air molecules.

    Over 60 years, CO2 as a component of all the atmospheric gases (predominantly nitrogen and oxygen…and of course the primary greenhouse gas…..water vapor) has not even increased by 100th of a one percent.

    That is a trace increase and there is nothing in the geological record indicating CO2 to be so powerful a greenhouse gas that a change of this tiny magnitude is to worry about.

    • Lord says:

      Can you explain your math?
      From my understanding of ppm, is that as it increases, you have a greater ratio of one substance to the other. For a simpler example, let’s say I have 3 red balls and 2 blue balls. The ratio of red to total is 3/5. Now let’s add 2 more red and 3 more blue balls. The ratio would be 5 red to 10 total. So even though I added more red, the ratio decreased.

Leave a Reply

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