Population Control? Sustainable Development IS The Proven Solution

Dr. Tim Ball makes an important correlation that development drives population down, not up. This was likely well-understood by the creators of Agenda 21 in 1992, when they called for a reduced global population in order to achieve Sustainable Development. In other words, the concept of population reduction is implicit in the concept of Sustainable Development. ⁃ TN Editor

The claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was the final strategy used to bully the world into accepting that the world was on a path of self-destruction. The sequence promoted by the Club of Rome (COR) was that world population was growing at an unsustainable rate relative to the resources. It took the Malthusian idea that population would outgrow food supply and applied it to all resources. The increasing pressure was a combination of increasing overall population, amplified by development, so each person was demanding more each year.

The socialists in the COR like Mikhail Gorbachev, who said in 1997 “We are moving to a New World Order” and Maurice Strong, who speculated that the problem for the world was the industrialized nations, saw the political opportunity. CO2 was the byproduct of burning fossil fuels that those industrialized nations were using resources at an unsustainable rate. The political objective was to create a world government with the power to punish the developed nations by making them pay and redistribute that ill-gotten wealth to the under-developed nations who were suffering the impact of global warming. The science was deliberately created to prove CO2 was the problem and the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and its successor the Green Climate Fund (GCF) were designed to collect the fine and transfer the wealth following classic socialist principles.

Most of the world still thinks that global warming is the problem, but an increasing number are aware it is a contrived problem. However, most of those who know it is contrived still believe overpopulation is a problem. It is not; it is also contrived. Most of the world’s population occupies about 4 percent of the total land surface (Figure 1). Don’t believe me on this, Paul Ehrlich, who started the false overpopulation claim with his 1968 book “The Population Bomb,” said it. His credibility is determined by his failed predictions. For example, he wrote,

“The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.”

On the second day of a search and rescue mission out of Fort Chipewyan in northern Alberta, we carried the brother of the missing plane owner and his wife. After a morning of searching along the flight path to Edmonton, the man came into the cockpit and angrily accused us of flying circles, and he was going to report us to former Governor Brown of California. I showed him the map of the approximately 10,000 square miles we had covered that morning in a regular search pattern (CLA). He said I have not seen a road, a house, a village, a person, nothing. I said welcome to Canada. His only ‘apology’ consisted of saying as he left the airplane, “I will never believe in overpopulation again.”

Most of the world is unoccupied with population concentrated in flood plains and deltas. Canada is the second largest country in the world with approximately 33.6 million residents (2009). California had a 2008 population of 36.8 million people. Statistically, the entire population fits certain islands or regions. For example, Texas at 7,438,152,268,800 square feet divided by a world population of 6,774,436,692 gives 1098 sq. ft. per person. Fitting them in is different from the ability to live there. Population geographers distinguish between ecumene, the inhabited area, and non-ecumene, the uninhabited areas. Habitable areas change all the time. The area of the earth that is habitable has changed because of technology, communications, and food production capacity.

Figure 1

Governments and academics talk about population statistics as if they know what is going on. For a more realistic perspective consider numbers given for world population. The US Census Bureau provides a running estimate of population, and it was 6,994,551,619 on February 15, 2012. This contradicts the UN claim that it passed 7 billion on October 30, 2011. The difference is 5,448,381. This is more than the population of 129 countries of the 242 listed by Wikipedia. It is greater than Finland or Ireland. It illustrates how most statistics are crude estimates, especially those of the UN who rely on individual member countries and no accurate census exists for any country. This includes the US that spends more money and effort than any other nation.

Everybody knows about Al Gore’s involvement in promoting the deception of global warming, but few know his influence in organizing the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, Egypt. It was the third conference after the first in Budapest in 1974 and the second in Mexico City in 1984. The Cairo conference emerged from the 1992 Rio conference where they linked population to all other supposed problems.

“Explicitly integrating population into economic and development strategies will both speed up the pace of sustainable development and poverty alleviation and contribute to the achievement of population objectives and an improved quality of life of the population.”

John Holdren, a co-author with Paul Ehrlich of the 1977 book “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” and later Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, linked the three and recommended drastic almost total population control including compulsory abortions. In his confirmation hearing, Holdren said he no longer held the extreme views expressed in the book. There are two problems. First, he still believes the world is overpopulated. Second, even if a majority of his views are changed, they are still extreme.

Claims of human-caused global warming are the biggest deception in history and claims of overpopulation are a close second. It is no surprise that they engender a massive misdirection. While they are blaming development for overpopulation, the evidence is that the best way to reduce population is development.

The climate predictions were wrong, but more important another pattern had emerged that they ignored and therefore is unknown to most of the public. They ignored it because it completely contradicted their basic belief that development is bad. This was encompassed in the phrase “sustainable development.” I said years ago, it means everything to everyone and nothing to anyone. It implies development is not sustainable by implying a contradiction that development is unlimited and, of course, that is unsustainable. This fits the narrative that the combination of population growth and development is unsustainable. All you need to do is turn the phrase around, and it works. We need to develop a sustainable society, and that is done through development.

In fact, what happens is that as a nation develops the population declines. It is known as the Demographic Transition (Figure 2).

Figure 2

It shows, and statistics confirm, population declines as nations industrialize and develop. It is so dramatic in developed countries it means there are too few young people to support the massively expensive social programs for the elderly. Figures 3 to 5 show the population pyramids for three different nations and illustrate the real story of population and migration.

Figure 3

What happens in developed countries like Canada is they do not produce enough children to maintain the population. So, most of them offset the deficit by encouraging immigration. The debate about how many and who you allow in is raging in the US right now.  Regardless of the outcome, and it appears the US is looking at the Canadian model of merit-based immigration, they do not address the larger problem of the global impact. When they take the skilled people from the developing nations, they reduce their ability to develop.

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows the pyramid for India and the opposite problem of not enough young people – too many. These are generally unproductive members of the society and place a huge burden on funds available for development. Japan (Figure 5) is at the other extreme. They do not offset a declining population with immigration and as a result, do not have the people to support the aging population. Compare the percentage of the population between 80-84 in Japan and India.

Figure 5

Political exploitation of the valuable concept of environmentalism usually creates situations where the proper solution is ignored. The eco-bullying that occurs with all these issues combines with politics to stifle debate, marginalize experts, and ignore solutions, both proven and potential. Overpopulation is a classic example. It was never a problem and even if it was the solution is development, the very thing they blame for the overpopulation.

Dr. Tim Ball Sets The Record Straight On The Deliberate Deception To Demonize CO2

Many years ago, I compared the claim that human CO2 was causing global warming was analogous to determining what was causing your car to falter. To simplify the analysis, you decided to not look at the engine, the transmission, the gearbox, the drive shaft, the differential, the axle, and the wheel, to focus attention on one portion of the thread of one bolt of one nut on the right rear wheel.

Figure 1 is a systems diagram of the atmosphere and atmospheric processes.

Figure 1 is a systems diagram of the atmosphere and atmospheric processes.

It appears complex, but is, in reality, a simple representation. The people who created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) decided this system, analogous to your car was faltering. Through their definition of climate change as only those changes caused by humans, they narrowed the search to human CO2. In the diagram, it is one thread on one bolt in the section labelled “Atmospheric composition.” That section includes all the gases of the atmosphere and the billions of tonnes of particulates. These gases and particles affect the incoming solar radiation and outgoing long-wave heat energy. They also vary over time, but we have virtually no idea of quantities or the variability. Of all the gases in the composition, the so-called greenhouse gases (GHG) comprise approximately 4 percent.  And of that 4 percent total, carbon dioxide (CO2) is 4 percent, and human CO2 is approximately 3.4 percent. It is one thread on one bolt of the complex system. The actual amount of human-produced CO2 added to the system is an estimate produced by the IPCC. It is, like all other numbers used, a barely educated guess presented with the authority that it is accurate and real.

Figure 2

The first use of CO2 for a political agenda was by Margaret Thatcher. She wanted to break the coal miner’s union that was holding the country to ransom and also to promote nuclear power. She used Sir John Houghton, head of the United Kingdom Meteorological Office, to produce the science. He later became the first co-chair of the IPCC. Houghton was an ideal candidate because he believed human industrial development was a sin and wrote articles on the subject. He is entitled to his personal opinions, but science must be amoral and apolitical, but that, apparently, does not apply to Houghton. Later in life Margaret Thatcher, to her credit, accepted that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis was wrong, but a dangerous precedence was set.

The precedence was to maintain the lie that CO2 was a dangerous gas. They ignored from the start its role as a life source for plants, without which there is no oxygen or any lifeform. A major assumption was that an increase in CO2 would result in a temperature increase. In 1990 the Antarctic ice core was produced that appeared to show confirmation (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Within 5 years it was shown that the graph showed that temperature increased before CO2. They claimed that the residency time in the atmosphere of the CO2 humans produce was 100 years. The argument was that even if we stopped production now, the problem would persist for a very long time. Also, failure to stop prolonged the problem. It didn’t take long to show that the actual residency time was at most 6 years. Figure 4 shows a comparison of independent research measures against that of the IPCC.

Figure 4

Before CO2 became the focus more attention was paid to methane (CH4). This was pushed by groups battling the cattle industry. Jeremy Rifkin wrote a book and led a campaign titled, “Beyond Beef.” The basic claim was that cattle were the cause of virtually every ill, both environmental and socio-economic, afflicting the world. They conveniently ignored the 210 million “Holy Cows” in India that produce no foodstuffs whatever. The biggest challenge involved the fact that methane, although a greenhouse gas, is only 0.36% of all the GHG by volume and just 0.00017% of all atmospheric gases. Compare this with water vapor (H2O) that is 95% of GHG.

They tried to inflate the impact of CH4 by introducing an effectiveness scale. This claimed, without evidence, that the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4 was 50 times greater than CO2. GWP became an official designation, but even with the multiplier, the actual effect is a fraction of that for H2O. All you need to know is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates for the GWP for CH4 is between 28 and 36. The GWP became important again later when the focus shifted from CH4 to CO2 because it was pointed out that CO2 is only 4% of the total GHG. The IPCC included a GWP Table for all GHG, almost all are man-made elements, but they do not include H2O. This is statistical manipulation of the worst kind and central to the estimates of the GWP is the residency time, which we already discussed. This process is a standard practice of the AGW claim. There are virtually no actual measures of anything including temperature and precipitation, but especially GHG. What they do is produce data in a separate computer model and then use it as real data in another model. This practice is the basis for the data on which the global climate models (GCM) are built. We have no real weather data for 85% of the Earth’s surface and less than 1% above the surface. They create data in a process called parameterization and use it as real data to build the GCM.

When the deception began, they assumed the increase in CO2 and temperature was unlimited. Very early it was shown that the atmosphere was virtually saturated with CO2’s capacity to slow down the rate of heat escape to space. I describe it using a black paint analogy. If you want to stop light coming through a window, apply one coat of black paint.  That coat is equivalent to the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Add a second coat of paint and only a small fraction more of light is blocked. This is the same as increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Figure 5 shows estimated temperature increases for doubling CO2 by 3 different scientists. The fact they disagree all using physics shows how imprecise the understanding is of the dynamics.

Figure 5

In response to this problem, a positive feedback was proposed. This claimed that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase and this increased the rate of evaporation. A higher level of H2O in the atmosphere would enhance the warming started by CO2 would continue.

The first problem is that with more H2O in the atmosphere the more cloud potential which acts as a negative cooling feedback. Second, there are not even crude measures of the amount of H2O in the atmosphere, so it is impossible to determine the effect of a human addition. Third, measures of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are also very crude estimates. For example, two of the major natural sources of CO2 are the oceans and rotting vegetation. The error of the estimate for annual production both these sources exceeds the gross amount estimated for human production.

Finally, the IPCC says the current atmospheric level of CO2 is 400 parts per million (ppm). Al Gore and others will have you believe this is the highest level ever. People like Bill McKibben of an organization called 350.org join with Gore demanding a reduction in that level. Their name implies this is an optimal level. Let’s put this in context by looking at a reconstruction of CO2 and temperature levels inferred from a variety of geologic and biologic sources (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Some important points;

  • The current level on the right side shows 400 ppm was only matched 300 million years ago (y.a).
  • The highest reading is 7000 ppm.
  • Around 438 million y.a., with atmospheric CO2 at 4500 ppm the Ordovician Ice Age occurred.
  • For most of the last 300 million years, the CO2 level averaged 1200 ppm.

The last point is important because research by Sherwood Idso and others show this is the optimum level for plant growth. It is confirmed over the last 100 years by commercial greenhouses injecting this level to achieve four times greater yield.

So, fix that car and keep on driving because the CO2 it produces is not causing global warming and is essential for both flora and fauna (that includes you) on planet Earth.

Dr. Tim Ball: The Disastrous Economic Impact of CO2 Reduction Policies

Ontario, a Province in Canada, a country with almost unlimited energy resources and the same population as California, has exorbitantly high electricity bills. So high, that people march in protest. How did this happen? It is hard to believe, but it is primarily the result of deliberate energy policies recommended by the UN to world leaders.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It is true of socialism. It fails every time, but socialists never stop trying. Global warming uses pseudoscience to achieve a socialist political agenda. It was chosen because it was a global threat that required global governance.  It was created through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), sponsored and organized by Maurice Strong. It is the originator of what is broadly called the Green Agenda, an economy based on eliminating CO2 and shifting to alternate energies through Agenda 21. It failed everywhere it was tried, with Germany being the largest and latest to scramble for their energy and economic lives.

The sad part is we need environmentalism; it is foolish to soil your own nest. What we don’t need are people using environmental issues for political agendas.

Many countries and regions have experimented with green agendas, especially energy policies, but there is one that is more instructive than all the others. In the Province of Ontario, the energy policy was put in place and controlled by Maurice Strong who created the deception that human CO2 was causing global warming. He practiced what he preached, and it is an unmitigated disaster from which all should learn. He found welcome political ground in Ontario exemplified by Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart who said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits…Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” 

As a member of the Club of Rome (COR) Strong took their neo-Malthusian view set out in their report Limits to Growth that Wikipedia defines as, “a 1972 report on the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources,” and translated it into organization and bureaucracy. Elaine Dewar, a former investigative reporter for the Hamilton Spectator, wrote in Cloak of Green that Maurice Strong’s objective, based on Limits to Growth, was to get rid of the industrialized nations because they were using resources at an unsustainable rate. He told her he would achieve his goal through the UN where, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” After five days with him, Dewar concluded, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

How do you cause industries to collapse? Simple, fossil fuels drive the industrial economies, and CO2 is a byproduct. Show that it’s causing irreparable life-threatening global warming and you can demand alternative energy replacements that don’t provide adequate replacement and close industries producing excessive amounts of CO2. Strong did it through the IPCC using the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The IPCC produced the science by deliberately restricting the definition of climate change in Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to only human causes. Of course, it is impossible to know that, if you don’t know how much it changes naturally. Strong controlled who participated in the IPCC through the bureaucracy of the WMO. As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen explained, “IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries”. Using national Weather Departments gave bureaucrats ascendancy over politicians. Witness the activities of the US Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) under Obama that fulfills Mary McCarthy’s warning that “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Strong formalized all these actions, agencies, and agendas at the UNEP 1992 Rio Conference. In the keynote speech at the Conference he organized, he said: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” There is no evidence that any of these are causing any problem and there is no empirical evidence that human CO2 is causing any temperature change. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels at 400 ppm are approximately one-third the optimum required for plant growth as commercial greenhouses demonstrate by raising levels to 1200 ppm for increased yields.

In the same year, 1992, that he chaired the Rio Conference, Strong was appointed Chairman of Ontario Hydro. This is what Canadians call a Crown Corporation to pretend it is not government controlled, but regardless, it acts like a socialist government because it controls all power in the Province.

Strong began Ontario Hydro’s problems when appointed Chairman by NDP Premier Bob Rae’s socialist government. A 1997 article titled “Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future” says, “Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires.” It concludes, “The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.” This applied to his UN role, but also applied to his Ontario Hydro job.

One report says, with biased optimism, that “Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.” Sounded good, but it was a path to inadequate supply, soaring costs and economic disaster.

Strong created the mechanisms and false science to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies, at the UN. Now he applied them in total to the Province of Ontario. Thomas Jefferson said,

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. There is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels. Replacing them with alternative energies compounds the problems. A major problem is no proper comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of alternate power. It is undoubtedly avoided because they would not do very well. For example,  A US Senate report notes,

“Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power… Wind and solar’s’“capacity factor’ or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.”

In Ontario, Strong canceled nuclear projects and installed wind power. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometers. With average wind speeds of 24 kph, it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2,590 square kilometers to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. To put this in perspective Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal-fired plants. Besides the land, you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for what is called “spinning generation,” in case the wind stops blowing.

The full impact of what Strong did in Ontario is currently being masked by another Canadian socialist strategy. Canada has a federal process called “equalization payments.” Formalized in 1957, it initially planned to give residents of each province the same per capita revenue as those in the two wealthiest provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, using personal, corporate, and inheritance taxes. Provinces are designated, ”have” or “have not,” based on their ability to generate tax revenue.

It changed significantly in 2009-2010 because Ontario, the only “have” province, from the start, became a “have not” province as Strong’s policies took hold. In contrast, Newfoundland and Labrador, a “have not” province from the start, became a “have” province because of the oil discoveries on the Grand Banks (Hibernia). The Federal government takes money from the “haves” and gives it to the “have nots.” Some claim that Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world. It does what all such equalizations schemes do; it masks the real problem thus precluding any demand to fix it. This occurs despite people in Ontario are paying unnecessarily high prices for energy. And they will be paying for the bad policies for decades. Policies that took one of the most dynamic, powerful, and wealthy economies in Canada to one of the weakest. The Province is providing one benefit to the world, namely, what happens if you adopt the energy and environment policies based on the ‘science’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Promoting energy policies based on falsified science and alternative energies fail. No better example is  Ontario, Canada that saw the architect of the entire global warming deception. It is incredible anyone would continue to promote them. If you think the green agenda policies evolved from the UN Climate program will work just look at Ontario where the architect of the plan has already proved they don’t.

Dr. Tim Ball Crushes Climate Change: The Biggest Deception in History

With a 50-year academic career focusing on Historical Climatology, Dr. Tim Ball is uniquely qualified to address man-made climate change, and he demonstrates that it is a flat-out hoax. Thinking people everywhere should get multiple copies of this book and hand them out to everyone they know.  TN Editor

President Trump was correct to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement. He could have explained that the science was premeditated and deliberately orchestrated to demonize CO2 for a political agenda. Wisely, he simply explained that it was a bad deal for the United States because it gave a competitive economic edge to other nations, especially China. A majority of Americans think he was wrong, but more would disagree if he got lost in the complexities of the science. I speak from experience having taught a Science credit course for 25 years for the student population that mirrors society with 80 percent of them being Arts students. Promoters of what is called anthropogenic global warming (AGW) knew most people do not understand the science and exploited it.

Dr. Tim BallThe plants need more atmospheric CO2 not less. Current levels of 400 parts per million (ppm) are close to the lowest levels in 600 million years. This contradicts what the world was told by people using the claim that human production of  CO2 was causing global warming. They don’t know the UN agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established to examine human-caused global warming, were limited to only studying human causes by the definition they were given by Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is impossible to identify the human cause without understanding and including natural causes. Few know that CO2 is only 4 percent of the total greenhouse gases. They assume that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. It doesn’t, in every record the temperature increases before CO2. The only place where a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in the computer models of the IPCC. This partly explains why every single temperature forecast (they call them projections) the IPCC made since 1990 was wrong. If your forecast is wrong, your science is wrong.

I studied weather as aircrew with the Canadian Air Force, including five years of search and rescue in Arctic Canada. After the Air Force, I went to university to study weather and climate, culminating in a Ph.D., in Historical Climatology from the University of London, England. When I began in the late 1960s global cooling was the consensus. I was as opposed to the prediction that it would continue cooling to a mini-Ice Age, as I later was to the runaway AGW claim. I knew from creating and studying long-term records that climate changes all the time and are larger and more frequent than most know. I also knew changes in CO2 were not the cause.

The Club of Rome (COR), formed in 1968, decided that the world was overpopulated and expanded the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply to all resources, especially the developed nations. COR member Maurice Strong told Elaine Dewar in her book Cloak of Green that the problem for the planet were the industrialized nations and it was everybody’s duty to shut them down. Dewar asked Strong if he planned to seek political office. He effectively said you cannot do anything as a politician, so he was going to the UN because:

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

After five days with him at the UN she concluded:

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

He created the crisis that the by-product of industry was causing global warming. Even Obama claimed that 97 percent of scientists agree. If he checked the source of the information, he would find the research was completely concocted. It is more likely that 97 percent of scientists never read the IPCC Reports. Those who do express their concern in very blunt terms. Consider German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls experience.

“Ten years ago, I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day, I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”

He discovered what I exposed publicly for years. My challenge to the government version of global warming became increasingly problematic. They couldn’t say I wasn’t qualified. Attacks include death threats, false information about my qualifications posted on the Internet, and three lawsuits from IPCC members. Most people can’t believe that such things occur about opinions in a democratic society. Test the idea by telling people that you don’t accept the human-caused global warming idea. The reaction from most, who know nothing about the science, will invariably be dismissive at best.

I documented what went on in a detailed, fully referenced, book titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. A lawyer commented that it lays out and effectively supports the case, however, it was “a tough slog.” I recently published a brief ‘non-slog’ handbook (100 pages) for the majority of people, not to insult their intelligence, but to help them understand the science and its misuse for a political agenda.  Titled, Human Caused Global Warming: The Biggest Deception in History. Presented in the logical form of a criminal or journalistic investigation it answers the basic questions, Who, What, Where, When, Why, and How.

It provides the motive and method for the corruption of science to substantiate and bolster Trump’s decision.