The global warming fraud revealed in one graph

Two highly distinguished emeritus professors — William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus of Princeton and Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus of MIT — have called out the corruption of science in the global warming/climate change fraud.

Their emeritus status is vital in giving them the freedom to speak frankly, because they are not dependent on a continuing flow of research grants to fund their work.  Ever since the alarm was raised that global warming was an existential threat, billions of dollars a year has flowed to scientists willing to support the alarmist position, and thereby keep the money flowing.  Were the threat to be acknowledged to be illusory, that money flow would stop and there would be a lot of unemployed climate scientists.

They recently filed a 28-page statement with the SEC, which is contemplating a proposed rule, "The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors," laying out the reasons why the warmist alarm is unjustified.  Chris Morrison summarizes:

Two top-level American atmospheric scientists have dismissed the peer review system of current climate science literature as "a joke". According to Emeritus Professors William Happer and Richard Lindzen, "it is pal review, not peer review". The two men have had long distinguished careers in physics and atmospheric science. "Climate science is awash with manipulated data, which provides no reliable scientific evidence," they state.

No reliable scientific evidence can be provided either by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), they say, which is "government-controlled and only issues government dictated findings". The two academics draw attention to an IPCC rule that states all summaries for policymakers are approved by governments. In their opinion, these summaries are "merely government opinions". They refer to the recent comments on climate models by the atmospheric science professor John Christy from the University of Alabama, who says that, in his view, recent climate model predictions "fail miserably to predict reality", making them "inappropriate" to use in predicting future climate changes.

But for a really quick understanding of the depth of the fraud, take a look at this graph put together by John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville that they cite comparing the predicted temperatures of the global warming models with the actual temperature record:


Note that since the actual temperature record shown on the graph continued, temperatures leveled off in subsequent years.

As Happer and Lindzen summarize their conclusion:

Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence marshalled in support of the theory of imminent catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2.

Hat tip: James Lewis.

If you experience technical problems, please write to