Thanks to Rep. Mike Nearman for challenging the Climate Cult

Dr Gordon Fulks

by Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

In an essay published on Saturday May 7, 2016, Oregon Legislator Mike Nearman asked those who objected to his skepticism about Anthropogenic Global Warming to provide the evidence (data) that convinced them we are headed for a climate catastrophe. In response, he got the typical name-calling and other bad behavior we have come to expect from those thoroughly sold on the prevailing paradigm.

Most of us who actually are scientists realize that Nearman was precisely correct to request the robust empirical data that should back up all science, but in the case of Global Warming is substantially missing. Proponents like to confuse the issue by providing evidence of warming that could come from several natural sources and ignore the crucial question about a link to human activities. And when confronted with the ruse, some resort to calling opponents “absolute idiots.”

Of course, the only “absolute idiots,” are those who believe that science is too sacred to be questioned.

Scientists continually question prevailing wisdom to see if we can improve on it. When science first emerged out of the politics and religion of the seventeenth century with the formation of the British Royal Society, the founding members chose the motto “Nullius in verba” or “Take no one’s word for it.” That expressed their determination to avoid the domination of authority and to decide scientific matters by an appeal to data gathered by experiment. Once freed from the domination of politics and religion, science made amazing progress.

Let me provide the robust empirical data and sturdy arguments that Representative Nearman requested.

We need not concern ourselves with the great complexity of the earth’s climate but only the predictions of those who claim to be able to predict climate catastrophe from man-made CO2. Their predictions stem from billion dollar Climate Models that one would hope could justify their cost. But they do not.

Here is a comparison of their predictions with robust empirical data from NASA satellites and radiosondes. The two satellite data sets come from the two official NASA contractors (UAH and RSS), one alarmist and one skeptical.


If anyone prefers a similar comparison from climate alarmists, he should look at the very last page of the supplementary information for Santer et al., PNAS 2013. There he will find a table that shows the Climate Models running hot by a factor of about two in temperature trend. While not exactly the same as the comparison from Professor John Christy above, it is also proof that the models are fatally flawed, and even alarmists who are members of the US National Academy of Sciences recognize it.

For those unfamiliar with “fatal flaws,” these are deficiencies so egregious that the entire paradigm collapses.

The government’s case against carbon dioxide is based on what they call “Three Lines of Evidence,” or three arguments. In addition to their assertion that the Climate Models are able to accurately predict the future, they assert that the slight warming we have observed has to be from carbon dioxide because of a ‘hot spot’ in the tropical mid-troposphere. And they assert that we have observed unusual global warming recently. None of these are remotely correct.

Over the seven decades since the end of the Second World War when human emissions of carbon dioxide increased substantially, temperatures have risen over only two of those decades. Two of seven decades is not a very good correlation. And we know that the increase that began in the late 1970s occurred in concert with a change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) known as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977. That was ocean warming not greenhouse gas warming. It is similar to the El Nino warming we are currently experiencing that originates with warmer than normal sea surface temperatures in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific off of the coast of Peru. These last about a year and are typically followed by several years of the opposite condition known as La Nina.

When the PDO is in its warm state, we get more and stronger El Ninos over a period of several decades and hence generally warmer conditions followed by several decades of cooler conditions. We observed one complete PDO cycle in the 20th century, with the earth warming up to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and then cooling off to the cold of the 1960s and 1970s. The cyclical nature of the earth’s climate is readily apparent in many individual station temperature data sets but not in the compilations cooked by alarmists. It is especially visible in the Arctic which responds strongly to ocean cycles.

Hence, the robust temperature data we have shows that our climate is cycling normally. The fact that there is nothing unusual going on that we have not seen before is another fatal flaw in the Obama Administration’s climate science.

The third fatal flaw is the complete absence of a hot spot in the tropical mid-troposphere. That is very obvious in this comparison:


The government’s case against carbon dioxide is fatally flawed in three ways (3 LoEs), and carbon dioxide is innocent, as Representative Nearman suspected.

Nearman’s very proper request for robust temperature data completely vindicates him. And his worry about the quality of scientists coming out of Oregon universities is unfortunately well founded too.

Thank you Mike!

For those who would like to research this further, they can find the government’s 3 LoE arguments in official Environmental Protection Agency documents and in President Obama’s very lengthy National Climate Assessment – 2014. Our detailed rebuttal to the NCA – 2014 can be found many places, including here:

This was written in an essay style to be easily accessible to a wide audience. It was signed by fifteen accomplished scientists and economists. For those who prefer similar arguments presented in a legal style and submitted under oath to the US Supreme Court, they can look at our merit stage brief here:

and at an earlier cert brief.

For the best global temperature measurements we have from NASA satellites, readers should go to Dr. Roy Spencer’s website:

where they will find not only the latest Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) but a complete table of all the NASA MSU satellite temperature data from 1979 by region, and useful commentary from Spencer.

Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at [email protected] He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 09:05 | Posted in Global Warming | 71 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Besides the lack of scientific proof (Climate change may still be real but not scientifically provable, at least, to anywhere near the degree the models forecast); there is just the practicality of the issue. Conceptually it requires a global compact which is very likely not enforceable nor probably effective. Then too the economics of trying to chase Climate Change to the extent the green profiteers want to chase it reduces prosperity, making it possibly unaffordable; noting climate change government documents suggest compensating the less well off for the cost of government climate change actions.

    Finally, it is very questionable the government itself is very good at combating climate change, if it actually significantly exists. The biggest gains in carbon dioxide emission reduction has come from the free market substituting cleaner burning natural gas for coal in power generation, here in the U.S. (Methane emissions are only recently being addressed but the industry can and will reduce these with efficiency and technology.)

    • G.Fulks/C.Wiese, praise’m

      Quintessentially well stated.

    • DavidAppell

      Bob: Yes, climate change is real, and, yes, it is due to man.

      Climate models do quite well:

      • Guest

        David A – even if climate change is real and is due to man. How do you think anyone is going to get China or India on board to reduce fossil fuels or enact clean air standards for vehicles? All you are imposing is to cripple the US and overtax the few taxpayers we have left. After that happens it will be one of those 3 or 4 world countries running the place and climate change will be the least of the worries. The only thing that worries me is when people like you throw up graphs from Facebook and try to tell the rest of us we are stupid for not believing.

        • DavidAppell

          The US is the world’s energy hog.

          We’re already caused about 26% of global warming. China: 12%. India: 3%.

          It will be decades before either catches up to the US.

          And our per capita emissions are much higher than either. An American doesn’t have some special right to emit carbon dioxide that a Chinese or Indian does not have.

          • Doff with their headings

            Blogwarts, ewe shameful eel!
            Tectonic plates and sun overhead control the factors, not sum numskull goreons with sulfurous rants airing in outa their oracle-nucleus rants

    • DavidAppell

      “Then too the economics of trying to chase Climate Change to the extent the green profiteers want to chase it reduces prosperity, making it possibly unaffordable;”

      Bob Clark would sacrifice hundreds of future generations so that he can selfishly get cheap fuel, freely dumping his garbage into the atmosphere.

      But US data proves him wrong — the economy and CO2 emissions are not linked.

      Since 1972, per capita real GDP has risen 99%, while per capita CO2 emissions have *DECREASED* by 27%.

      The data proves you wrong, Bob.

      • Penelope’s Pet Loves Ewe

        Behooven aft your golden cavalry, loose maverick canon befallen road Appell.

  • thevillageidiot

    climate “change” is happening continuously. if Man is influencing it or not remains debatable. unless you believe like some people it has been settled by consensus. US co2 output since about 2006 has been falling and is near 1990 levels. see link

    so the US is already meeting all those stupid goals of reducing CO2 emissions.

    and just to show how far the “renewables” have to go to make up for the fossil fuels.
    and just what does the world have against the developing countries using cheap fossil fuels to grow? all the industrial powers of today were built on cheap energy. and the climate will continue to change no matter what is done to stop it. Remember the fable about the King who tried to command the tide to stop.

    • DavidAppell

      1) There’s no debate that man is influencing climate. He is, and he is the dominant factor, by far.

      2) Fracking natural gas cannot decrease CO2 emissions forever. In fact, at current levels of energy consumption it can’t decrease them below about 15 t CO2/yr, from today’s 17 t CO2/yr, which is still a very high value compared to the world average.

  • Ron Glynn

    The science does not matter. It is the sincerity of our motive which is important. Humans must have a cause to rally around. It there anything more noble than saving the Planet? The battle plan for our crusade will decided by groups of highly intelligent people in high government positions. The common man is simply not prepared for the task. Ordinary people can not be trusted with making the right decisions in order to insure mankind’s continued survival. If we are unable to save the Earth in the next 50 years, we need to have backup plan which is colonizing Mars.

    • JoJo

      Forgot your /sarc tag.

    • DavidAppell

      It isn’t about “saving the planet.” The planet will survive just fine.

      It’s about the impacts on organisms — others, and us.

      • Allah Tutor SnacBarista

        Life is eternal, love immortal and death a horizon, savor the limit of sight. DA, go back to your ruminations and recognize your lick-spittle lack of insight. Sharia, shillgrim.

  • Ron Swaren

    There’s always technological change taking place, so I think there will be efficient non-fossil fuel consuming energy sources that we can take advantage of. No one burns cordwood to make a steam engine work, anymore—hydroelectric proved a lot more practical.

    And that isn’t to say that fossil fuels could not become more efficient, either. Frankly, I’m shocked that with hybrid vehicles they haven’t taken a very close look at the fact that it only takes a small fraction of the aggregate power to move a vehicle DOWNHILL, not that much going flat, and most of it is consumeg GOING UPHILL. So why run an ICE engine all the time, when you really only need its full power about a third of the time?

    Anyway, innovation is coming. We will be better off or it.

    • Eric Blair

      But what if those advancements are too slow to fully develop? And, until those are developed, wouldn’t it still be good to limit those technologies that are causing the problem? In fact, limiting those technologies could spur research into replacement technologies that are cleaner.

      • JoJo

        ” … wouldn’t it still be good to limit those technologies…” No.
        Best spur for new technologies is high cost of old technologies. And that does not mean subsidizing the new technologies to try to equalize the real cost to the consumer.

        • DavidAppell

          It does when the old technologies have significant negative externalities, as fossil fuels do.

      • DavidAppell

        Fossil fuels are sending our economy backwards.

        Generating power with coal and oil creates more damage than value-added, according to a 2011 study that included noted Yale economist William Nordhaus:

        “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).

        Summarizing that paper’s findings: for every $1 in value that comes from coal-generated electricity, it creates $2.20 in damages.

        Total damages: $70 billion per year (in 2012 dollars).

        Petroleum-generated electricity is even worse: $5.13 in damages for $1 in value.

        The National Academy of Sciences estimated that fossil fuel use causes damages of _at least_ $120 B/yr to health and the environment:

        “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
        National Research Council, 2010

  • Johnq_public

    What happens if the Co2 falls below 150ppm?

    • redbean

      Now, there’s a question you rarely hear in the globalist media.

      Answer: Plants can’t grow below that CO2 level, so it would mean the end of all plant life on the planet. Of course, long before the 150 ppm level is reached, humans will have starved to death. There’ll be no one around to hear the final proverbial tree fall.

    • DavidAppell

      There is absolutely no chance of that happening — nor was there before the Industrial era.

  • no empirical evidence that the changes in atmospheric CO2 can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions

    or that warming can be attributed to fossil fuel emissions

    in fact, we can’t measure natural flows with sufficient precision to detect the effect of fossil fuel emissions

    more at

    • David Clark

      Jamal, thanks for the useful contribution.
      You might like DebunkingClimate.Com
      (still waiting for David appell to show up!)

    • DavidAppell

      Baloney, Jamal. Why don’t you get your claims published in a peer reviewed journal, and then people will start taking you at least a little bit seriously. Your essays are obviously from an amateur.

  • WorthKnowing

    The lying lunatics are in charge.

    It is an unimaginable turn of events that a school board would do such a thing today.

    “In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

    “It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,” said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. “Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.”

    The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for “curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.”

    • DavidAppell

      Would you prefer students grow up ignorant of the science, to be ostracized in college classes and laughed at in job interviews?

    • Donna K. Becker

      Interestingly, many, if not most, of the studies I’ve read feature weasel words like “could,” “might,” “possibly,” etc., which also express doubt–to the careful reader, that is. Therefore, what could be wrong with using the same words in other arguments?

  • HBguy

    Most of us non scientific but analytical types think the science is pretty clear on this because We see that the overwhelming number of qualified scientists accept that the climate is changing due to human activity, that it will cause some real economic and human displacements, and that we should be aware of what those could be, and try to avoid or mitigate the danger.

    Yet, there is a very strong belief by some within the Republican base – most of whom don’t have the credentials to absorb, and analyze all the various data and science that’s out there – yet for some reason, side with the Climate change doubters. (Is it because Democrats like Obama and Gore are big on the climate change issue? Is it being contrarian? Do the untrained GOP base think they have the ability to anaylize all the science? Do they just not trust all the environmentalists so are natural contrarians when it comes to any enviro issue? Is it a combination? I don’t know)

    And, because of the very strongly held climate doubts held by many in the base, the GOP candidates and officials are loath to take a contrary position. Even if they don’t agree with the doubters.

    But it’s these types of strongly held beliefs that the GOP base holds dear that are driving membership down. Because most independent voters, and i’d wager that 90% of voters under age 30 accept that climate change, spurred largely by human development, is happening, and it’s an important issue.

    • MrBill

      You’re correct that there are a lot of people within the Republican base who lack to credentials to absorb, and analyze the data out there. But that cuts both ways. It’s equally true that there are a lot within the Democratic base, who also lack the credentials to absorb and and analyze the data, who accept the AGW hypothesis. Not on the basis of data and analysis, but simply because someone told them so.

      Having an engineering degree, I’d consider myself a semi-scientific type. I don’t have the background to speak as an expert, but I can read charts and graphs and form opinions about the data. The charts shown above are pretty clear and illustrate the disparity between observed temperatures and temperatures that are predicted by models. This is a disparity that seems to be growing. That fact alone shows the science is far from settled, that there’s a lot that we don’t understand, and that there’s a strong possibility that there are other causes to whatever warming is taking place. So why is it that the alarmist side goes to the lengths it does to suppress opposing points of view (such as within the Portland Public School system)?

      • HBguy

        IMO unless you are an expert in the field who has studied all the data and analysis, I don’t see how you can draw any conclusions. Regardless of how intelligent one is or if they have a scientific background. Now you may have read all the literature and studies from both sides of his debate, but most of us haven’t. So it makes the most sense to me to accept what the overwhelming number of experts in the field are concluding.
        I think that’s what most independent and younger voters believe as well. Not all.

        • MrBill

          I think you need to give yourself more credit. Unless you’re an expert, you probably wouldn’t be doing research. But even if you aren’t, you can still understand a lot of their output. More than you might think.

          • Eric Blair

            Because not all scientific debates cannot be reduced to two “equal” positions. The climate change deniers simply don’t have the current state of the science on their side. Much like the “debate” over evolution versus intelligent design.

          • MrBill

            That has no bearing on whether they’re right or wrong. History is full of examples of people who bucked the prevailing science of their day and were eventually vindicated.

          • DavidAppell

            History is FAR MORE FULL of those who accepted the science of their day, because that science was right.

            But it’s not history that settles the climate change debate. It’s the science that does.

          • MrBill

            It’s the history too. If you have a history of being wrong, it needs to be considered.

          • DavidAppell

            That’s why climate change deniers are losing traction — a long history of being wrong.

          • guest

   Can’t Handle Climate Science Truth

          • HBguy

            Here’s the problem though. I may be able to read a study or three, and think I’ve got it figured out. But I can’t possibly read all the peer reviewed studies in the discipline and correctly evaluate them, as well as the current state of the science.
            You’re an engineer. If you and thirty or forty of your fellow engineers told me a particular building was going to fall down, and I found three or four who told me it wouldn’t, and they showed me their calculations. I may be able to follow their calculations and think they made a good case. But, I’d be foolish to build that building as designed just because I sort of followed the minority’s calculations.
            Thats just basic logic IMO.

          • MrBill

            But if the 30 or 40 had a track record of being wrong you’d want to follow the minority. That’s what the charts above are showing.

          • HBguy

            Are those charts prepared by this minority opinion? And perhaps my engineer analogy wasn’t perfect, because climate science is predictive and requires some educated/informed estimates or guesses. But, even if you use the engineer analogy, what if the engineers in the minority simply don’t show you the calculations that they don’t think are relevant.
            A non expert, regardless of their innate intelligence, has absolutely no ability to really weigh the value of the predictive analysis, or determine if an important factor was discounted or ignored by some of the experts. So, you go with the majority opinion. Wether it’s Doctors prescribing cancer treatment for you or climate scientists. At least that’s what I do.

          • JoJo

            Predictions are based on past evidence. Where the AGW predictions fall down is in lack of verifiable, findable, original (actual measurement) evidence.

          • DavidAppell

            See this from the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Sciences:

          • MrBill

            Looks like he’s trying to close the gap between projected and observed by adjusting model projections downward and observed temps up. Maybe from not using running averages on the observed temps. It looks like the divergence at 2015 is relative to 1990 or so rather than 1979 so it appears to be less in 2015.

            Funny, this seems to be doing the very thing you were hyperventilating about in another post. There are probably some other things going on as well since the projected temps appear to have been revised downward.

            I think you’re still running into the same problem we’ve been discussing all along which is illustrated in Dr. Fulk’s post. There’s a growing disparity between projected and observed temps.

          • DavidAppell

            The model projections NEED to be adjusted, to reflect the emissions that actually occurred, instead of what emissions were assumed.

            All temperature data is adjusted, to remove biases. These reductions reduce the long-term warming trend.

          • MrBill

            What these charts are showing is deviation relative to a given base point. The underlying problem is still the same. You have climate models that project a rather steep rate of warming versus real world data that shows a much flatter rate of increase.

          • DavidAppell

            You are clearly ill-prepared to look at the mathematics behind these charts.

            So you just accept what you’re told to accept, with no critical thinking at all.

          • DavidAppell

            There is a reason Fulks’ first graph has never appeared in any scientific journal: it’s junk. Here are its problems, specifiedin great detail.


          • MrBill

            This is the same link you referred to earlier.

            The first point deals with baselines. This is something you yourself have already rejected (something we both agree on).

            The second point takes issue with how data at the ends of the temperature record are handled. This criticism is minor since it only affects data points at the ends of the graph.

            The third and fourth points criticize the fact that single lines for averages are shown and that accompanying confidence limits are not. The objective in doing that is that by showing confidence limits for both the projections and observations some overlap might be found that would allow Mr. Schmidt to claim that projections are in agreement with observations. It looks like he is trying to make that claim in the graph you posted.

            But he doesn’t really overcome the underlying problem which is illustrated in the graphic in Dr. Fulk’s blog. The underlying problem is that observed temperatures simply aren’t keeping pace with what the climate models are projecting.

            On a side note, Mr. Schmidt also claimed that deniers (so-called) base all their objections on satellite data. This is patently false. Read “Unstoppable Global Warming (Every 1500 Years)” by Fred Singer. He spends considerable time piecing together climate records based on proxy data ranging from ice cores, dendrology, historical evidence, etc. to demonstrate that climate changes all the time. Sometimes things get warmer, sometimes colder. And what we’ve observed in recent years is nothing out of the ordinary.

          • DavidAppell

            For the Nth time — scientific conclusions are independent of baselines!!

            I don’t think you can follow the mathematics.

          • MrBill

            All you’ve done here is try to argue with the one thing we agree on and say nothing about everything else.

            This is no more than sound and fury signifying nothing.

          • DavidAppell

            They stop mentioning baselines. Scientific conclusions don’t depend on what baseline is chosen.

          • DavidAppell

            “The underlying problem is that observed temperatures simply aren’t keeping pace with what the climate models are projecting.”

            Only if you believe that deceptive graph that has never appeared in the scientific literature.

          • DavidAppell

            Climate models do not make “predictions” — that is impossible. They make projections, based on assumptions about carbon emissions that will never be close to being exact.

          • DavidAppell

            No, it isn’t. And you haven’t proven that, in any way whatsoever.

      • DavidAppell

        Observed temps vs. modeled temps:

    • Ron Swaren

      Whether or not industrialized societies could be blamed because somebody on the other side of the world got flooded out is just a distraction. The earth is in a warming cycle that started long before coal and gasoline or diesel power. Like I said below technological change is just going to happen, and using a lot of fossil fuel just isn’t that good enough of an economic model for anyone who wants to see the US continue to prosper. Shifting to the production of alternative energy systems would be a good opportunity for us. We had a similar opportunity after World War 2 in selling diesel engines (like GM and Ford) to the world, so they could start modernizing their economies. It wasn’t just selling automobiles that made those companies succeed—-they were also marketing their technology to the world.

      But nowadays, the demand is for consumer electrical products—-and because they use less power other countries don’t have to build big hydroelectric or nuclear power projects. They can combine smaller scale energy sources with smart grid technology. So, alternative power devices would be a large market. But if the US doesn’t act—China will step in and manufacture those.

      • DavidAppell

        “The earth is in a warming cycle that started long before coal and gasoline or diesel power.”

        Prove it. You can’t.

        • Guest

          David – How did the Ice Age melt? It must have been a “warming cycle”

          • DavidAppell

            Go look up “ice ages” and learn something for a change.

    • JoJo

      So, what you are saying in so many, many words, HBguy, is that you didn’t read Dr. Fulks’ article above, right?

      • HBguy

        Pretty much. I scanned it. I do read stuff like this.
        Dr. Fulks doesn’t have to convince me anyway, because my opinion is as worthless on this difficult scientific matter as most of the other readers here.
        But when Dr. Fulks and his supporters convince 97 % of the published peer reviewed experts, get back to me.

  • DavidAppell

    Gordon Fulks should know, claiming to be a scientist, that that data on the hot spot is too uncertain to make a determination one way or the other, and that includes the new UAH dataset (v6beta5). See here:

    The real scientists are Real Climate show this in great detail, here:

    • G Fulks & C Wiese 101 Strong

      Shift your tectonic palate down toward to the core before elevating your burbles upward, monsieur David Appell- ate

  • DavidAppell

    Fulks is wrong about the tropical hot spot — it is expected to occur with *any* warming, not just greenhouse warming.

    A 2007 paper by Thorne et al concluded there was too much uncertainty in the data to rule in or rule out the hot spot. GRL, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875

    Fulks is also using obsolete data. The two groups who calculate atmospheric temperatures — no one measures it directly; the results come from measuring microwaves from oxygen atoms — use quite complex models, and those results have jumped around considerably as the model flaws have been corrected. They recently come out with new model versions. The numbers for the middle tropical troposphere have changed significantly — signficantly warmer for RSS, and somewhat cooler for UAH. It’s not clear at all which, if either, are closest to reality.

    The tropical hot spot is still an open question.Better data are needed, especially reduction of the error bars.

  • DavidAppell

    Fulks’ first graph has never appeared in a peer reviewed scientific journal, only on a blog. There’s a reason why it’s never appeared in a scientific journal — it was produced as fodder for deniers just like Fulks to try and impress those who can’t understand the actual science. See

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)