Dit boek, samen met Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas
Theory, waarvan u binnenkort de notities mag verwachten, vormt de beste weerlegging van de "global warming"-hypothese die u kan lezen.

• Is ecologisme een vorm van imperialisme waarmee het Westen de industrialisering van de ontwikkelingslanden wil verhinderen?
  For example, a reader of this book could benefit from reading Michael Crichton’s State of Fear which illustrates Crichton’s belief that environmentalism is a form of imperialism used by the West to suppress industrialization in the developing world. To his critics, Crichton is off the mark. Those who have studied State of Fear (e.g. William Kay), argue that the environmental movement’s primary target for economic suppression is North America. As Kay tells us: Case in point, and Crichton’s main focus, is the Kyoto Accord which does not apply to the newly industrializing world and was designed to inflict grievous harm to the economies of Canada, Australia and the United States (i.e. the “West”). A concept of European cultural-political imperialism does not reside in Crichton’s mind. Crichton compares environmentalism to the eugenics movement of the first half of the 20th century. Both movements were junk science and both were embraced by the Establishment. Crichton’s point that—just because a large number of scientists are paid to say something is true does not make it true—is a valid point, but he is missing something when he claims eugenics vanished after WWII. To his credit he does say: “Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in a disguised form.7 The eugenics movement is vastly larger now than it was in the pre-WWII era.
• Is ecologisme de voortzetting van de eugenistische beweging? Er is in elk geval een analogie tussen beide bewegingen:
  As Kay tells us, the American Eugenics Society is now the Society for the Study of Social Biology. Sociobiologists like E.O. Wilson exert a profound influence on both the U.S. scientific and environmental movements. Of course, this book is not about eugenics, but about climate science. But we include mention of it here to show readers just how insidious and all-encompassing are the dangers when science is in the service of evil. Outspoken eugenicists like Margaret Sanger (whom Crichton disapprovingly quotes) went on to help found Planned Parenthood which is now a vast multinational enterprise.
• Wat is het "greenhouse effect" eigenlijk?
  What many people assume is the ‘greenhouse effect’ is not a radiative phenomenon driven by the atmospheric infrared optical depth as presently believed. Instead, it is a pressure-induced thermal enhancement analogous to adiabatic heating and independent of atmospheric composition. As skeptics, we remain open to reading explanations that might better explain our climate. Indeed, we heartily promote and endorse serious scientists, like Nikolov and Zeller, who are adding to our body of work. However, we baulk at their claims they discovered the adiabatic gravitational component of the climate system. That’s clearly shown described in Slaying the Sky Dragon where we show how atmospheric pressure on many planets in our solar system is a key player in surface temperatures.
  Or, to put it simply, not all solar energy entering Earth’s atmosphere has left the planet. Instead, a larger proportion is being locked-up in that increased plant growth (locked in these natural chemical bonds). To argue against this simple analysis is to argue against the very premise of the ‘fossil fuel’ theory. Our watery-green planet (due to nature) converts solar energy to form organic chemical bonds and grows organic structures (plant life on land and sea). Later this energy will be released during natural decomposition. If this was not how life works on Earth then there would be no fossils, no coal, and maybe no oil.
• De zon, klimaat en het leven op aarde:
  Over climate epochs, during warm periods, the total solar energy used by all life expands (the amount of solar energy returning to space diminishes), life sequesters more solar energy. The paleoclimatic record indicated when life reduces so less solar energy is stored. During the transition between warm and cold epochs, such stored energy gets released via decomposition or held for longer in peat and coal reservoirs.
  Keep in mind natural decay is exothermic—a functioning compost heap is very warm. Also, peat bogs can be very warm while they are release more CO2, methane, etc. to the oceans and atmosphere.
• Wat klimaatmodellen missen...
  The gravest omission in modern climate computer modelling is how all natural living flora and fauna are not allocated ANY role in the ebb and flow of CO2-driven of climate change. If you examine any of the ‘expert’ diagrams (...), you would think Earth was a  lifeless planet.
  Do you see anywhere in the diagram above where the biosphere’s impact on climate has been accounted? We don’t either. It is very grave omission from a vibrant, life-filled pulsating planet. If you have read or heard of the James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis you will be convinced of the huge importance. We see Lovelock’s basic claim as reasonable. This is that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet.
• James Lovelock had dus gelijk. Het niet in rekening brengen van de biosfeer is een onvergeeflijke fout.
  No attempt is made by government climate experts to factor in how the biosphere would impact global temperatures. The greenhouse gas believers have nothing green in their house—no plants or fauna grow there. Yet these are the very people who want us to believe they are champions of the green movement!
• Het optimum van CO2 voor plantengroei is wellicht 1200PPM (we zitten nu aan 400PPM)
  The Sun’s power increases about one percent per 110 million years. Despite this, the Paleozoic and our present Cenozoic Eras had ice ages but in the intervening Mesozoic, not so much. And our current ice age is probably not over, despite the alleged effect of humans on global climate. Let’s enjoy the Holocene interglacial while we can. Too bad we can’t get CO2 back up to an optimum of 1200PPM from today’s low level of 400PPM, which so suppresses C3 62 plant growth. Authors Dr. Tim Ball, Dr. Claus Johnson, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, Joseph A. Olson, Alan Siddons, Dr. Charles Anderson and John O’Sullivan were roundly vilified and mocked as much by so-called fellow skeptics (the lukewarmers) as by the government-sponsored alarmists. Dr. Ball was sued in the Canadian libel courts by UN IPCC climatist, Dr. Michael Mann; Dr. Johnson was severely censured by his employing university; O’Sullivan had his reputation trashed by Huffington Post in a fake child sex scandal and more recently, our good friend and inspiration, Martin Hertzberg passed away. So, while we may fairly title this book our Victory Lap, it came at great personal cost to us. Tragically, students are indoctrinated with Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick graph. They were never told about Mann’s corrupt Nature trick to “hide the decline” or about Climategates 1,2 and 3.
• Het bedrog van de Hocky Stick:
  In 1998, former University of Massachusetts researcher Michael Mann, unveiled his infamous and contemptible ‘Hockey Stick’ graph shown below, which completely removed both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. In 2001, the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report, in which the previous Medieval Warm Period illustration had been removed—replaced by Mann’s Hockey Stick graph as seen below.
  The Hockey Stick was favourable to the IPCC as it accentuated the 20th Century warming, and thus helped promote their human-caused warming agenda. Also, look at the scale on the left. By putting large gaps between each half-degree increase, you artificially inflate any given warming.
• Het Hocky Stick bedrog maar onderdeel uit van de perversie van de klimaatwetenschap:
  Conversely, what passes as science among government researchers today has been exposed as capricious, agenda-driven, anti-empirical and backward-looking; an exercise in damage limitation to cover the cracks of a half-baked hypothesis. Frankly, the greenhouse gas theory, the very cornerstone of science blaming human emissions of carbon dioxide for unprecedented global warming, is slain as a credible scientific explanation of how our Earth’s climate operates. Government-funded climate research is pseudo-science concocted elaborately by biased activists who were more interested in pursuing a one world global government than in understanding how climate actually works. While the scientific arguments we have presented in our two books may be lost on many who are turned off by science, few can argue that when scientists will not and cannot show their evidence, something is gravely amiss.
  Dr. Michael E. Mann’s resounding courtroom defeat by Dr. Tim Ball should be taken as a stark warning to those basing key international public policies on secret science. Never again should citizens permit politicians to coerce, browbeat and deceive them into surrendering to unproven, incomprehensible and unverifiable ‘science’ bought and paid for by a self-serving political elite.
• Radiatie of iets anders? Wetenschappelijke "detour":
  It needs to be pointed out that the “official” four points are from a radiation-only viewpoint. This is too simplified a viewpoint when addressing what happens inside our planet’s atmosphere. But beyond the atmosphere, Earth is simply warmed by radiation from the Sun and cools by radiating excess energy into the void of space. More importantly, the GHE theory as explained in more detail later in this chapter, and as calculated in all computer climate models, is based upon the notion that radiation does not follow the known Laws of Thermodynamics!
  Presumably they are asserting that without an atmosphere Earth’s surface would on average be minus 18 degrees Celsius, but with an atmosphere the GMT (near surface air temperature) is 15 degrees Celsius. Yet, GHE theory explains a surface temperature with an atmosphere of 30 degrees Celsius, which is a 48 degree Celsius GHE! With climate alarmists, like tossing a coin, it’s heads they win, tails you lose (and thus they always win).
  The history of radiation theories reflects the history of science: concepts, or theories, are born and discarded as further research and further observation failed to cohere with old concepts. What was initially a valid concept accepted by all or the majority of scientists for a time can cease to hold with the emergence of new knowledge and eventually become recognized as a misconception. A telling example of this is Rumford’s “frigorific” waves. Tyndall thought he had measured absorption when he experimented with different gases (among them carbon dioxide and air free of carbon dioxide) but had apparently only measured opacity which, in contrast to absorption, still includes a measure of reflected radiation. Other scientists, like Arrhenius, appear to have misunderstood Tyndall and also Fourier and additionally relied on inappropriate data sets to develop their theory. Arrhenius’ theory of carbon dioxide as major warming agent of the atmosphere due to absorption and back radiation of heat is thus not credible. Additionally, his belief of a greenhouse being heated by trapped radiation was clearly refuted by Wood only some years after Arrhenius’ proposal. Arrhenius emerges as seemingly not as noble as his involvement in setting up the Nobel committee implied:
  Thus, for over a quarter century (he died in 1927), Arrhenius exerted his enormous bias in all Nobel Prize winners of that time. All in all, it is most remarkable that Arrhenius’ flawed theory could have survived for as long as it did and be the historical basis of today’s AGW religion. This may be because Arrhenius was  awarded the Nobel Prize and Wood was not. However, Arrhenius did not receive a Nobel Prize for his climate theory but for his discovery of ions dissolved in aqueous solutions, the fundamental difference being that Arrhenius’ discovery of ions was based on EXPERIMENTS unlike his climate theory which was only a theory based on someone else’s —flawed—data set. The historical development of radiation theories clearly showed that heat transported from the atmosphere to the Earth’s surface by back or downwelling radiation is incorrect for a very simple and indisputable reason: Both Prevost’s and Planck’s particle-based theories are just that: theories. There is and has been NO factual evidence for their validity. Just as there is NOT A SINGLE shred of factual proof for downwelling radiation warming the Earth or retarding its cooling.
• De global warming hypothese is verdacht en helemaal niet bewezen. Het is een theorie (ook wel wetenschappelijke consensus genoemd) en niet een door experimenten bewezen feit (zie boven):
  Thus the basis of AGW remains unproven and highly suspect. To capitalize on the above: there are two possibilities for a scientific proof. The hard proof involves experimental results reproducible and reproduced by other scientists. Ohm’s law is a classic example of such a law proven by experiments. Even a non-scientist, can verify Ohm’s law with simple experiments and measurements. The other, weaker, proof is one which arises from conviction and common acceptance or scientific consensus: a theory is most convincing for other scientists to explain certain observations which cannot be easily measured or not measured at all with the instrumentation available at a given time. Prevost could not measure particles flowing from one body to the other in his igneous fluid—just as Kirchhoff could not measure and verify that in-going and out-going radiation of a blackbody were equal (therefore, he had to rely on thought experiments only). Equally, Planck could not measure his proposed quantified photons.
• Enkele feiten die de theorie tegenspreken:
  Initially as Earth’s temperature was increasing along with increasing emissions of carbon dioxide there had been a certain justification for the AGW stance in assuming that this simple proportional correlation could prove correct even though correlations do not in itself constitute proof. Now that the very little increase of Earth’s average atmosphere temperature—less than 0.4°C measured by 11 different NOAA satellites between 1984 and 2010-2011—has achieved a preliminary maximum, this correlation and the AGW theory has failed. This should be the time to reconsider the theoretical basis of AGW and the theoretical explanations given for back or downwelling radiation by many scientists all over the world.
• Klimaatsensitiviteit, CO2 en vleesconsumptie:
  So, why has it gone so wrong for ‘climate sensitivity’ to carbon dioxide? True believers will tell you Climate Sensitivity (CS) is real and measurable in Nature and that there exists a carbon dioxide/temperature logarithmic relationship (CO2/Temp log). We are then glibly told that “for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere our planet’s temperature will increase by [you fill the blank] degrees.” So, you would think such a ‘formula’ had been derived in a laboratory, with simulated conditions to that of the atmosphere, because such an experiment would be impossible to perform in the real atmosphere.
  But here is the first problem for GHE believers. Our atmosphere is an open system and every laboratory a closed system, so how can any such CS formula devised in a lab have any validity? Well, it can’t. It’s that simple.
  Dr. Ball tells us that the need for climate sensitivity began back in the early days of attacks on cattle as the source of methane causing warming. It was triggered by animal rights people and promoted by a campaign and book, Beyond Beef, by Jeremy Rifkin, a long-time provocateur and promoter of misinformation. The bias was disclosed in the failure to mention the 250 million cows in India or the replacement of buffalo with cows in North America among other factors that don’t produce any foodstuff, but that’s another story.