Uploaded December 2016 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
SOURCES:
0:05 -- youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s&t=5s
1:34 – 1990 First Assessment Report, IPCC
1:41 – Ibid.
1:51 – “Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change,”
Frame and Stone, Nature Climate Change 2012
2:43 – Ibid.
3:21 – “Global warming is a hoax” by Christopher Monckton -- youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I&t=654s
I received this error notice from a subscriber re the Monckton RSS graph:
ERROR. I think you might have made a mistake when refuting Monckton's claim about there being no warming according to the RSS data. If you look at the graph Monckton showed at 3:23 it says "TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt". TLT stands for lower tropospheric temperature. I looked at the paper you cited to refute Monckton and I think it only makes temperature measurement corrections for the TMT (midtropospheric temperature) and not for the TLT. Monckton's claim that there was no global warming for the periods he talked about is still wrong anyway because it relies on multiple layers of cherry picking. He is only looking at one part of the climate system and he cherry picks his start and end points. He chose to start his graph close to 1998 when there was a large spike in TLT due to the strong El Nino. If you look at the data on the RSS website it shows that TLT in 2016 rose above 1998 levels and if you look at the entire RSS record of TLT from 1979 to April 2017 you get an upward trend of 0.135 K/decade.
Sources:
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends
to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” – Mears and Wentz, Journal of Climate 2016
remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
03:38 – GISS -- data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs
03:42 – NOAA -- ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1989-2016
03:46 – Japan Meterorological Agency -- ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
03:51 -- metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
04:09 -- drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records
04:16 -- Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends
to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” – Mears and Wentz, Journal of Climate 2016
05:19 -- http://english.cas.cn/publications/
05:26 – link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2
05:34 -- Downloaded from: springer.com/popular/journal/11434
06:15 – From my video “Monckton Bunkum – sensitivity.” All sources are in the video description.
07:42 – “Apocalypse? No!” by Christopher Monckton
07:58 -- youtube.com/watch?v=jgKgDCR5KKQ&t=346s
Nature Geoscience 1, 735 - 743 (2008)
Published online: 26 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo337
10:01 – “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes” – Knutti and Hegerl,, Nature Geoscience 2008
12:53 -- A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.
Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation." -- National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html)
14:19 -- http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
14:22 -- Title and author shown in video
15:21 -- https://www.princeton.edu/physics/people/display_person.xml?netid=happer
15:50 -- Title and author shown in video
15:57 -- Title and author shown in video
16:02 -- Title and author shown in video
16:23 -- Title and author shown in video
17:11 – “Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future” -- Dana L. Royer searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf.html
SOURCES:
0:05 -- youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s&t=5s
1:34 – 1990 First Assessment Report, IPCC
1:41 – Ibid.
1:51 – “Assessment of the first consensus prediction on climate change,”
Frame and Stone, Nature Climate Change 2012
2:43 – Ibid.
3:21 – “Global warming is a hoax” by Christopher Monckton -- youtube.com/watch?v=UGqcweY1a3I&t=654s
I received this error notice from a subscriber re the Monckton RSS graph:
ERROR. I think you might have made a mistake when refuting Monckton's claim about there being no warming according to the RSS data. If you look at the graph Monckton showed at 3:23 it says "TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt". TLT stands for lower tropospheric temperature. I looked at the paper you cited to refute Monckton and I think it only makes temperature measurement corrections for the TMT (midtropospheric temperature) and not for the TLT. Monckton's claim that there was no global warming for the periods he talked about is still wrong anyway because it relies on multiple layers of cherry picking. He is only looking at one part of the climate system and he cherry picks his start and end points. He chose to start his graph close to 1998 when there was a large spike in TLT due to the strong El Nino. If you look at the data on the RSS website it shows that TLT in 2016 rose above 1998 levels and if you look at the entire RSS record of TLT from 1979 to April 2017 you get an upward trend of 0.135 K/decade.
Sources:
Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends
to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” – Mears and Wentz, Journal of Climate 2016
remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TLT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt
03:38 – GISS -- data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs
03:42 – NOAA -- ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/12/1989-2016
03:46 – Japan Meterorological Agency -- ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html
03:51 -- metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature
04:09 -- drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records
04:16 -- Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends
to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment” – Mears and Wentz, Journal of Climate 2016
05:19 -- http://english.cas.cn/publications/
05:26 – link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-014-0699-2
05:34 -- Downloaded from: springer.com/popular/journal/11434
06:15 – From my video “Monckton Bunkum – sensitivity.” All sources are in the video description.
07:42 – “Apocalypse? No!” by Christopher Monckton
07:58 -- youtube.com/watch?v=jgKgDCR5KKQ&t=346s
Nature Geoscience 1, 735 - 743 (2008)
Published online: 26 October 2008 | doi:10.1038/ngeo337
10:01 – “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes” – Knutti and Hegerl,, Nature Geoscience 2008
12:53 -- A typical ocean albedo is approximately 0.06, while bare sea ice varies from approximately 0.5 to 0.7. This means that the ocean reflects only 6 percent of the incoming solar radiation and absorbs the rest, while sea ice reflects 50 to 70 percent of the incoming energy. The sea ice absorbs less solar energy and keeps the surface cooler.
Snow has an even higher albedo than sea ice, and so thick sea ice covered with snow reflects as much as 90 percent of the incoming solar radiation." -- National Snow and Ice Data Center (nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html)
14:19 -- http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf
14:22 -- Title and author shown in video
15:21 -- https://www.princeton.edu/physics/people/display_person.xml?netid=happer
15:50 -- Title and author shown in video
15:57 -- Title and author shown in video
16:02 -- Title and author shown in video
16:23 -- Title and author shown in video
17:11 – “Climate Sensitivity during the Phanerozoic: Lessons for the Future” -- Dana L. Royer searchanddiscovery.com/pdfz/documents/2009/110115royer/ndx_royer.pdf.html
![Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?
SOURCES ARE BELOW
If you would like to support this channel, please dont send money to me, I dont need it. Instead, please support a charity that has a unique program designed to provide health care in exchange for forest preservation and reforestry.
Called ASRI, it’s a hospital in Borneo that provides affordable health care to villages on the edge of a national park in return for a pledge not to cut down trees, The pledges are monitored, and the result is a dramatic decrease in deforestation rates and an increase in the health of the local population. The founders are hoping to spread the idea to other countries. (see https://psmag.com/social-justice/save-the-trees-well-save-your-life-46121 for an explanation of their work.)
You can make a donation by bank transfer here…
http://www.alamsehatlestari.org/donate/
…or if you want to do it online they also have a US fundraising arm called Health in Harmony:
https://healthinharmony.org/donate/
SOURCES FOR THIS VIDEO:
Delingpole article at:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Notrickzone blog at:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
CO2 levels over the holocene can be found at: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt
Sunspot numbers
http://www.sidc.be/silso/ssngraphics
All the papers listed can be found by clicking on the links at http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.ng4wjeis.dpbs
The papers on the list that endorse climate change theory are:
Abrantes et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.5194/cp-2017-39, 2017):
Williams et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1002/2017GL073138)
Gray et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1063/1.4975498)
Zawiska et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2016.11.034):
Wang et al., 2017 (DOI: 10.1038/srep46091):
Ive been told these papers also endorse the CO2-temp link. I havent had a chance to check them yet, but I will do that as soon as I can:
Deng et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1002/2016JC012458]
The [Medieval Climate Anomaly] and [Little Ice Age] are climate anomalies that were caused by natural forcing (e.g., solar variability and volcanic emissions), but the [Current Warm Period] is linked to anthropogenic factors (e.g., industrialization and land-use changes)
Luoto and Nevalainen, 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00704-017-2139-0]
Recently, the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has raised air temperatures [...], but at the same time, there appears to be divergent trends in the precipitation dynamics between southern and eastern Finland (Fig. 2). Therefore, it is likely that the forcing factors that have dictated the T/P [air temperature versus precipitation] ratio in the past do not operate in a similar way today, or in the future, due to the persistent anthropogenic influence of increased greenhouse gases on surface air temperatures [...]. In fact, using climate model simulations, it has been demonstrated that the recent shift of the NAO [North Atlantic Osccillation] over Europe is a result of anthropogenic greenhouse forcing [...].
Koutsodendris et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1016/j.quascirev.2017.01.010]
In this study, we focus on the interval prior to 1930 AD because the environmental signals recorded in the sediments of Etoliko Lagoon over the last seven decades have been predominantly caused by anthropogenic influence
Malik et al., 2017 [DOI: 10.1007/s00382-017-3832-5]
It is evident from observational, proxy, and simulated datasets that the external forcings, i.e., CO2, [tropospheric aerosol optical depth], and [total solar irradiance] together can modulate the strength of intrinsic relationship between [Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation] and [stratospheric aerosol optical depth] on multi-decadal to centennial timescales Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/LyMaRx7gIGY/mqdefault.jpg)








![26 Science vs. the Feelies
SOURCES:
0:00 Clips from my previous climate change videos
0:38 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
0:50 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
0:54 0:54 Global Warming on YouTube, done by casiopeia project
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVASFcMwTXk (this video accepts that CO2s greenhouse effect is larger than its 0.039% presence in the atmosphere, but goes on to diminish its role on the basis that it constitutes only 4% of greenhouse gases).
1:03 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
1:07 Tim Ball, The Great Global Warming Swindle
1:10 John Coleman Global warming, the other side
1:14 Christopher Monckton, speech for Free Market Institute at St Paul Oct 2009
2:03 On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground S Arrhenius, Philosophical Magazine 1896 (First calculation of energy absorbed and re-radiated by CO2)
2:04 The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature G. S. Callendar,
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 1938 (Shows wavelengths at which CO2
absorbs radiation)
2:17 The Great Global Warming Swindlewritten and directed by Martin Durkin
4:03 Christopher Monckton testimony at Congressional hearings on climate change
4:51 Proof that Global warming is a hoax on YouTube
6:10 Arrhenius and Callendar papers from 2:03
6:30 John Shimkus at Congressional hearings on climate change
7:22 Sen. James Inhofe
8:06 Dennis Kucinich
8:30 Chad Myers on Lou Dobbs, CNN
8:34 Jay Lehr interviewed on The Ice Age cometh Lou Dobbs, CNN
9:24 Charlton Heston on Global Climate Change on YouTube
9:56 Phanerozoic CO2 levels after Berner and Royer
10:15 Map is from Cretaceous climate-ocean dynamics: future directions for IODP Colorado, July 2002
Source for sea level 50m-70m higher than today: The Phanerozoic Record of Global Sea-Level Change, Miller et al 2005.
11:16 Debating whether global warming is a threat or just media hype by Mark Putnam
www.helium.com
11:41 Creationist Seminar Beginnings #1 Eric Hovind
11:50 Where did God come from? Ken Ham
11:58 The OReilly Factor Bill OReilly interviews Richard Dawkins
12:55 Michael Coren and Tim Ball - Straight Talk On Climate Change
15:14 Penn and Tellers Bullshit!
Two other comments I anticipate Ill get:
1) You didnt understand what [insert name here] meant.
Yes, thats entirely possible. In the absence of facts and figures, a feelie argument is usually vague and ambiguous, often hinting at some elusive point thats never explained. When I read a scientific paper, on the other hand, I understand exactly what its saying. The hypothesis is laid out, the methodology explained, the observations and calculations clearly shown, and the conclusion spelled out. Thats the difference.
2) The idea that CO2 is a trace gas is not a feeling. It can be shown that it has no effect on climate.
My response: Yes, but the feeling is that because CO2 is a trace gas then it follows that it has no effect on climate. If this is correct, please cite a study that has some facts and figures to support it, otherwise it remains just a feeling. If you have a source with some other evidence that CO2 has no effect on climate, then I have probably covered it in a previous video. 26 Science vs. the Feelies](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OjD0e1d6GgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
