Within the past few years, more than 50 papers have been added to a compilation of scientific studies that refute the primary claim of climate-change activists that CO2 causes global warming.
The papers compiled by the NoTricksZone website, now numbering 106, find that CO2 has a minuscule effect on climate.
Words such as “negligible” are used to describe CO2’s effect on the climate.
A 2019 paper, for example, noted that the “enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming.”
But the analysis by Costas Varotsos and M.N. Efstathiou of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens “did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase (in CO2) in low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory.”
“Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities,” the researchers write.
WND reported in September an MIT-trained scientist who has specialized for nearly 25 years in abnormal weather and climate change published a book explaining why he believes the data underpinning global-warming science are unreliable.
Mototaka Nakamura, who earned a doctorate of science from MIT, has conducted his work at prestigious institutions such as MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology and Duke University, reported the website Electroverse.
In his book “The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis,” Nakamura explained why global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on “untrustworthy data.”
“Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency,” he says. “Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”
Earlier in September, a group of 500 scientists and professionals in climate science wrote a letter to the United Nations contending there is no climate crisis and that spending trillions on the issue is “cruel and imprudent.”
They urged the U.N. to “follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.”
Testing ‘regarded as heresy’
Electroverse noted that today’s “global warming science” is built on the work of a few climate modelers who claim to have demonstrated that human-derived CO2 emissions are the cause of recently rising temperatures “and have then simply projected that warming forward.”
“Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.”
Richard Lindzen, an emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT who has published more than 200 scientific papers, says in a video produced by Prager University “it seems that the less the climate changes, the louder the voices of the climate alarmists get.”
He pointed out that the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, admitted in its 2007 paper that the “long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
The truth is, the professor said, that climate-change scientists and “skeptics” in the scientific community agree that the climate is always changing and that over the past two centuries, the global mean temperature has increased slightly and erratically by about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
So, why are so many people panic-stricken, including some who are warning the world has only 12 years left to save itself?
He points to politicians, activists and media.
“Global warming provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want,” he said.
For politicians, it’s power and money. For activists, it’s money for their organizations and “confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature.”
For the media, Lindzen says, it’s ideology, money and headlines.
“Doomsday scenarios sell.”