“A Graph to Debunk AGW”

By 38 Comments 584 views

New CO2 report! Expect the mainstream media to begin their chorus of impending doom and gloom now that the latest annual global CO2 report has been released.

Warmist energy and climate website CO2-Handel reports here that once again global CO2 emissions have increased, reaching a record level in 2012!  Yet CO2 Handel forgets to tell us that global temperature hasn’t risen in almost 15 years:

Atmospheric CO2 has been rising for years, but global temps are going in the opposite direction! Source: woodfortrees.org (Straight lines drawn in by hand by NTZ).

According to an annual report prepared by the EU Commission and Dutch PBL research organization, man pumped another 34 billion tons of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere.  The report was made public in Italy yesterday.

The report says China now produces as much CO2 per capita as Europe. Globally, CO2 emissions in 2011 were 3% higher, despite Europe and USA cutting their emissions 3% and 2% respectively (due in large part to the relatively warm winter and the global economic crisis).

Emissions in China, however, surged 9% primarily due to growing steel and cement production. India’s emissions jumped 6%. And because these countries are a long way from being optimally developed, even greater CO2 emissions there and in the other developing countries are inevitable. Don’t expect CO2 to be curbed anytime soon.

CO2 Handel also writes:

But the experts see a shimmer of hope: The share of renewable energy foremost sun, wind and biomass in energy production has quadrupled between 1992 and 2011.”

But at what cost, and has it stopped CO2 emissions?

And looking at the above temperature chart, why would anyone even want to curb CO2 emissions? The sooner we get to 500 ppm, the better. At that point, today’s developing countries will have reached a standard of living that is humane.

Read more

Filed under Uncategorized

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 24 years.

38 Responses to ““A Graph to Debunk AGW””

  1. 1


    This is the data, but the AGW activists continue to bring in the dollars. I think they are all afflicted with a “progressive” syndrone! Even the IPCC is backing off of their position by admitting much of their supporting data was incomplete and actually faulty.

    Well, this leave California’s cap and trade law as just another way to tax people.

  2. 2


    A 15-year segment that has been selectively clipped from a long term data graph and stretched out into a graph of its own hardly tells a truthful story. You’ve got to look at more than a 15 year period to recognize a long climate term trend.

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has a number of global temperature charts providing terrestrial and oceanic data that cover far longer time periods. They’ve all been assembled in one place, here.

  3. 4


    @Randy, #3:

    No doubt you asked yourself that same question regarding the temperature readings on the graph up at the beginning of this thread. It’s interesting that they haven’t even labeled the vertical axis.

    Do you understand how goofy and deceptive that chart actually is? The No Tricks Zone (an equally misleading name for the website) obtained their falling red temperature line (drawn by hand, they admit) by starting their graph at a point in time where the temperature data has spiked upward, and by ending it at a point in time where the plot line has spiked downward. They’ve simply selected for the beginning and the end two arbitrary points that will automatically deliver a downward result.

    This is superimposed over a plot line of rising CO2 levels–there’s no difficulty there, because CO2 levels are rising at almost any point on a trend line you choose to examine–and Hey presto! “Proof” that temperatures are falling in spite of rising CO2 levels!

    The No Tricks Zone has just performed a cheap trick to pull the wool over the reader’s eyes.

  4. 5


    @Greg: No Greg, goofy is getting the world all excited about a non issue. AGW has been made up! There is no relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. If you recall previous post I have made, No one reall knows what the average world temperature, yet they worry us about it rising 2-8 degrees C. They have no means of measuring the worlds temperature to average. They use computers to model everything. Computer models are not science. You did make some progress. You recognized that short time lines are not as meaningful to determine the direction of global temperature. Yet, you and the other lefties refuse to acknowledge that the Earth has cycles that predate man! Are we recoverning from an ice age ? What is the normal average temperature of the Earth? YOu do not know and neither do your lefty climate activists! These activists are actual confidence men who are raping the world.

    Now, this 15 year chart does something. It refutes the IPCC and your bed buddy AL Gore. According to both of them, the increases of CO2 should have resulted in major temperature changes by now. This chart shows they were wrong. AGW is a hoax! Man is a punny player in nature.

  5. 6


    This chart shows they were wrong.

    The chart is nothing more than a deceptive propaganda tool. The only thing it shows is that climate change deniers are perfectly willing to use deliberate deception to influence public opinion.

  6. 7

    Liberal1 (objectivity)

    I think the writer’s last few words of the article are correct, “Believe what you want”. Fortunately, ultra-conservatives are the only ones who fill the ranks of climate deniers.

  7. 8


    @greg @liberal1 – the science of it, it’s called carbon sinks, in an enclosed environment Earth being one, excess carbon gets absorbed: trees, plants, and carbonate rocks for example.

  8. 9


    @mossomo: First, there is no proof that there is AGW. Second, There is no proof that CO2 has a direct relationship to atmospheric temperature. In fact, there has been quite a bit of information that shows Al Gore’s premis is wrong. The difficulty is that AGW scientists do not use scientific principles to reach their conclusions. They continue to use theories and computer models as scientific fact. They are not. Only fools who want to pay more for enegy, food, services and housing believe the rubbish from the AGW Activists!

  9. 10

    Mr. Irons


    Why and this is coming from someone who fails at understanding how science is done… Amazing how dense and dumb you are. Co2 is roughly .003 percent compilation of the atmsophere and constant tests have repeatedly shown that water vapor is a thermal insulator while co2 acts as a coolant or inert gas in vacuum chamber tests. Ah the scientific method, how you AGW nimwits butcher it to manipulate results and try and deny true testings….

  10. 12

    Mr. Irons

    Venus atmsophere is majority of sulfur, a chemical that insulates you mental moron. Even Earth volcanos spew sulfur or did you forget Iceland’s eruption and following temperature spikes over Europe a few years ago. Oh and it has no magnetic sphere meaning its soaked highly in microwave radiation and infrared radiation.

  11. 13


    @Greg: No see, this is an example of the scientific procedures that the AGW activists spew. Greg must be one of them. He looked at the chart, didn’t bother to look at the data behind the chart and made a typical activists assessment!

  12. 14


    @Greg: Did it ever occur to you greg that you can not compare the atmospheres of Venus and Earth? It is like comparing you with someone with common sense.

  13. 16


    @Greg: And 96% Co2 was caused by humans? That is the topic here Greg. I know you have a short attention span, but try to concentrate and stay on topic.

  14. 18

    Hard Right

    Courtesy of JohnGalt

    Greg said;

    It’s not the temperature of any particular record day that actually matters, but the trend in average annual temperatures.


    Of course, that was three days ago. Now Greg says this;

    Meanwhile, over half of the country seems to be drying up and about to blow away.

    Which is it, Greg? Do daily temperatures ONLY count when it trends towards supporting the AGW hypothesis? Trying to have it both ways is why the AGW scientists are so fouled up in their conclusions, Greg, and you imitate them nearly perfectly.

    Proof that greg is not intersted in honest debate but lying and doing anything else he needs to do to promote his marxist agenda.

    So greg, when are you going to pay more in taxes like you should you evil capitalist pig?

  15. 19


    @Hard Right: Oooh, that was hard but right! Greg is typical of the AGW activists. They change their story to match the current situation. Not that is real scientific procedures! if you are a moron.

  16. 20


    @johngalt, #17:

    With the inner planets, the distance from the Sun isn’t as important to surface temperature as the atmosphere. The side of Mercury that faces the Sun is around 100° F cooler than the surface of Venus, even though Mercury is 20 million miles closer to the Sun. Mercury has hardly any atmosphere to hold in the heat.

  17. 21

    Mr. Irons

    And Greg the layman shows his stupidity. Venus does have a high Co2 level, but it is not the factor keeping the planet in a state of pressure cooker. Geothermal activity that rages on as we discuss this, being constantly soaked in gamma radiation with microwave radiation rated at the billions of killowatts in contrast to earths measly 1 to 4 million killowatts, and oh Sulfur mixing in with oxides to create a insulating effect on a planet already closer to Sol and its ionsphere acts much like the walls to a microwave oven. It’s only recently Co2 been considered a greenhouse gas and if you are as old ad you claim you would remember in the 70s how the media and scientists panicked over CO2 leading to global ice age… So until a slew of real tests to Co2 is done with out any data manipulation to make a certain outcome your childish argument between two vastily different planets is flawed. Now if Venus was a trojan planet that shared Terra’s orbit and had duplicate magnetic sphere as Terra but still had the same problems then you’d have grounds of comparison.

  18. 22


    @Mr. Irons: It is convincing activists like Greg who make a case for similarities between two situations when in actuality, it is comparing apples to bananas! THe comparison is not scientific proof. It can lead to a fruit salad, but not proof. I asked Greg to show proof that rising CO2 causes AGW. He can not do it yet he still makes these ignornant claims.

  19. 23

    Hard Right


    Believe it or not, I am thankful for greg. He makes it so easy to expose the left for what they are- narcissistic, lying, hypocriitcal, control freaks.
    He is a big help to our cause.

  20. 24


    @Randy: I understand, but to quote Tommy Lee Jones in Lonsome Dove: ” I hate ignorance in a man!” I make an honest attempt to enlighten others with what I know and strive to learn what they know. Greg never makes an honest statement. He can never admit that maybe his hero is wrong. He can never look at the real science and think for himself. So many of the people living in this country are really no more than residents. They have lost their ability to reason and to do the right thing. They have lost their right to be a citizen. They have become leeches sucking the blood out of the country and real people who have the vision they do not! Greg is a perfect example. He will never be able to discuss the real science with an open mind. Maybe it is all our fault. We could have let them die at birth, but we invented medicines and procedures that allowed them to live, but we could never show them how to be alive. Look at the life in Skook. Greg can never experience that. Maybe he envys those who are alive or maybe he is just content to walk through life as a zombi.

  21. 25


    Oh, yes. I forgot. Tommy Lee Jones as Captain McCall, ex Texas Ranger made that statement after he nearly beat a man to death for striking his son with a quirts.

  22. 26


    I submit 3 questions to those who believe in AGW.

    1. How can there be AGW when the average temp. today is lower than it was about 1000 years, 2000, and many other times in the past?

    2. Do any of you know the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

    3. What is the percentage of that CO2 concentration contributed by man and his activities.

  23. 28



    You were already trying to compare apples to oranges, Greg. Now you introduce a potato into the mix.

    More proof that AGW zealots will use any “data” present to spin their way into believing the “sky is falling”.

  24. 29


    @Aqua, #27:

    CERN has NOT said that The Sun, not Man, Causes Climate Change. That is NOT what Jasper Kirkby, the CERN scientist heading the CLOUD project, has concluded or said, either.

    The statement is nothing more than the title of an article by Kevin Hayden. He’s expressing his own opinions, not CERN’s.

  25. 30



    More proof that AGW zealots will use any “data” present to spin their way into believing the “sky is falling”.

    What should people conclude from the graph at the top of the page–which, as is pointed out in Post #4, can be seen to be a deliberate deception by anyone who takes a moment to examine it closely?

    What’s the deal with the unanimous thumbs down votes on posts here that are nothing more than statements of easily verifiable facts?

    It seems to me that nearly all of the spin and disinformation has been coming from climate change deniers, who have been doing everything in their power to confuse the public on one of the most important issues of the early 21st Century.

    Scientific American: Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

  26. 31


    @Greg: As long as you live Greg, you will never get it! The papers you quote are not facts, they are hypothesis that were developed using again computer models. What do you not understand about the scientific process? Were you sleeping in 9 th grade science class. The skeptics are attacking the processes that the silly AGWalarmists use and portray as scientific fact. Read the papers you quote, not just the big headlines and the photos. Maybe you will learn something.

  27. 32


    The graph at the top of the page is indefensible. Totally bogus. A propaganda tool. A lie. A deliberate deception. And a clumsy one, too. Anyone can see that. (Except, maybe, for people who actually were baffled by 9th grade science class.) You should roll it up and hide it somewhere, before it becomes an even bigger embarrassment. I’ve got nothing more to say about the silly thing.

  28. 33

    Mr. Irons

    And this is why Greg you are viewed as a moron here.

    That graph comes from constant real testing, not the bunk you keep trying to shove as facts. “Try again, Bragg.”

  29. 35

    Mr. Irons

    Bahahaha, it “stands” when the data and references behind it have been found to be bunk and manipulated data? Are you really this stupid?

  30. 36



    It seems to me that nearly all of the spin and disinformation has been coming from climate change deniers, who have been doing everything in their power to confuse the public on one of the most important issues of the early 21st Century.

    So, requesting truth and adherence to science, instead of hypotheses supported by faulty data, is spin, or disinformation?

    Confuse the public? You mean like changing the name of the junk science you support from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, due to the number of data points that question, or disprove, the AGW zealots’ hypotheses?

    Interesting, Greg. You accuse the ‘deniers’ of doing exactly as the AGW zealots have done since the 90’s.

  31. 37


    Whatever helps you sleep at night Greg. When they first released their results, the Gaia worshipers lost their minds.
    Dr. Kirkby said the debate was too polarized. I agree with him. I want the science to play out, you and the other climate change alarmists just want to say “they science is settled.” It is not.
    Some of the GPS equipment my department uses is subject to solar flares, specifically CMEs. As a result, I look at SolarHam every day. http://www.solarham.net/
    The last CME, NASA’s GISS got the information so wrong it was pathetic. That’s the reason I use SolarHam, they have no climate change stance, just information. You should check it out sometime and see just what happens with the weather when the sun throws a fit.

  32. 38


    @Aqua, #37:

    That looks like an excellent site for solar info. I bookmarked it. Thanks. I often wonder what’s up with periodic variations in radio reception.

Leave a Reply

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