The climate of our planet is extremely complex, and is influenced by many factors that are not fully understood. Here are a few things that we do know, based on evidence and research:
Carbon dioxide currently makes up just 0.04% of the entire atmosphere. Deep ocean cycles and solar activity have a far greater impact on our climate.
The climate naturally cycles between warmer and cooler periods. The most reliable data shows no warming in the U.S. since 2005.
Major hurricanes and strong tornadoes are becoming less frequent in the U.S. Technology just makes it easier to see disasters when they happen.
Consider how the climate has shifted back and forth over the last century (years are approximate):
1930s-1950s: Hot with large areas of severe drought (the 1930s "Dust Bowl"), but also with significant hurricane activity (1930s) and many landfalling hurricanes (1950s). The all-time record high temperature in 27 states still dates back to this period.
1960s-1980s: Cooler with lower overall hurricane activity; environmentalists were concerned about the threat of global cooling, especially during the 1970s.
1990s-2010s: Warmer with above normal hurricane activity, though less extreme than the 1930s-1950s. Just 8 states set all-time record highs during this period.
Everything presented here is based on evidence (with many sources provided on the "Explore Article Links" tab). This is climate realism instead of climate alarmism. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the debate tend to use emotional arguments while forgetting about history and facts. Others--perhaps including you--have good intentions and get caught up in the excitement of trying to save the planet without fully understanding both sides of the debate. I encourage you to continue reading with an open mind.
Short Introductory Videos on Climate Realism
Check out these short videos (around 5 minutes each) to learn about different aspects of the climate change debate:
Begin with this general introduction to this topic from an experienced, credentialed climate scientist.
Teenager Naomi Seibt, a former climate change alarmist, explains how she became a climate realist.
View an explanation of how three different groups of people view the issue of climate change.
See an overview of the issue from an economic perspective, including an analysis of the Green New Deal. Click here to watch video
To explore further, the Cloud Mystery offers a series of 11 short videos that explain different aspects of our climate. Click here to watch videos
The Real Climate Change Agenda
There is a certain group of people who want to gain power and increase government control over our lives, and they are using the false narrative of human-induced climate change, coupled with our society's general ignorance of history, as they attempt to accomplish their goals. This has even been admitted by people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg. Ponder this quote:
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." - H.L. Mencken
Now, with that quote in mind, consider these three groups of people:
Politicians: Convincing people that there is a crisis, then convincing them that you know how to solve it, is a great (though deceitful) way to gain votes and win elections.
Media: Creating hype about weather events that are actually quite normal is a great (though deceitful) way for the news media to attract (and influence) viewers.
Scientists: Some are seeking power, fame, and research funding. Meanwhile, those who do have doubts are reluctant to express their views because others who have done so have encountered great difficulty in securing grants and funding for research.
Think about it: If catastrophic human-induced climate change is happening, and if the evidence is clear...
Why are there a number of serious, respected, credentialed scientists speaking out in opposition? They would have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
If the atmosphere could be divided up into 2,500 equal parts, just 1 of those parts would contain CO2. Isn't it more reasonable to think that oceans, which cover over 70% of the Earth's surface and contain immense amounts of heat, would be a much more significant factor in our climate?
Climate change, global warming, and global cooling activists have made many predictions since the 1970s, which have almost always ended up being wrong. Why should we trust those same types of predictions today?
There are many documented instances of data being altered in order to fit the climate change agenda. If man-made climate change were obviously occurring, why would this be necessary?
We should always be wary when the people on one side of an issue refuse to debate with those on the other side, instead labeling them skeptics and deniers. Why would they need to act in such a way if the science was clear? Obviously, the evidence is not in their favor, so they attempt to discredit, scare, and silence those who have an opposing viewpoint.
You May Be Wondering... "Who Are You and What is Your Agenda?"
I am a longtime observer and follower of the weather, and a well-respected forecaster in my community. I earned a degree in Atmospheric Sciences in 2006 but have been observing and forecasting the weather since the mid 1990s. Some people just seem to be born with a love of the weather, and I am one of those people.
I have no monetary stake in either side of this debate. I make no profit from this website, similar to most people on my side of the debate. The other side is where the money, fame, and power is found. I simply have a desire for people to understand the truth, and I do not like to see people being routinely deceived.
Still, I don't want you to take my word for it. I simply ask you to read the information presented here and do your own research.
You will find a variety of perspectives on this website. Some believe that people are having absolutely no impact on the climate, while others think we may have a minor impact. Still others question the data itself and put forth good reasons for doing so. Regardless of those differences of opinion, the overall theme here is climate realism. Climate realists have a desire to research the actual data, as opposed to climate alarmists who have already reached their conclusion and dismiss evidence to the contrary.
Climate Change: Harmful to Science
Climate change has become a political issue, harmful to science, because proper, unbiased scientific research is not being done as it should.
Most scientists agree that humans may be having a minor impact on our climate, and that doing sensible things to take better care of our environment should be encouraged.But it is harmful and irresponsible to give up our freedoms and harm our economy to solve a supposed climate crisis that does not actually exist.
Massive amounts of time, energy, and money are being poured into conferences and regulations to supposedly fight climate change. All of that could be used to affect real change toward problems that are actually occuring right now. We could do sensible things to clean up our environment and help fight disease and malnutrition around the world. So much is wasted on fighting an imaginary problem when we could be solving real problems instead.
I appreciate you reading this brief introduction and I hope you have done so with an open mind. I now encourage you to check out the article links below, which contain far more details and evidence.
The word "science" comes from the Latin word for knowledge. So research intensely. Seek knowledge. Don't blindly believe everything the news media and politicians may say. Study the issue for yourself until you are absolutely sure that you have discovered the truth.
Links to News Stories and Scientific Explanations
More than three dozen article links can be found on the next tab. (Click "Explore Article Links" at the top of the page.) Some are short news articles, while others are longer and more scientific. This is just a small sampling of the available evidence; I encourage you to do further research beyond the information presented here.
Links to News Stories and Scientific Explanations
More than three dozen article links follow. Some are short news articles, while others are longer and more scientific. This is just a small sampling of the available evidence; I encourage you to do further research beyond the information presented here.
Do 97% of Scientists Really Agree?
Dr. William Gray, who was widely known as one of the world's top hurricane experts, warned against climate "fear mongering" and explains why CO2 increases can cause only minimal warming. Article #1 • Article #2
Similarly, founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, has appropriately called global warming the "greatest scam in history" and explains why there is no significant man-made warming. Article #1 • Article #2
Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi shows that ocean temperatures have dropped significantly since 2015, arctic ice is expanding, and the U.S. is becoming wetter, not drier. Article #1 • Article #2
Have you heard that 97% of climate scientists supposedly agree about climate change? That figure is actually very misleading and has been proven to be factually untrue, but many continue to use the 97% figure as if it is a fact. Link #1 • Link #2 • Link #3 • Link #4
In fact, more than 440 scientific papers were published in 2019 alone that cast doubt on the idea of catastrophic climate change and pointing out that climate model forecasts are usually wrong. Clearly, this is not "settled science." Article Link
NOAA's New Climate Reference Network
NOAA's new Climate Reference Network, which was "specifically designed and deployed for quantifying climate change on a national scale" (according to NOAA), actually shows no warming since 2005. If anything, there is a slight cooling trend. Article Link
Data from the Climate Reference Network (CRN) showed primarily below-normal temperatures in the U.S. in 2019, revealing systematic problems with other methods that supposedly indicated that 2019 was the second-hottest year on record. Article #1 • Article #2
Data from the CRN strongly disagreed with the claim that July 2012 was the hottest July on record. NOAA continues to use the older network, which is plagued with problems, for its data rather than the new, state-of-the-art CRN. Article Link
Numerous Proven Errors
A Y2K computer programming error incorrectly led to 1998 being labeled the hottest year ever. This was corrected in 2007, but it was corrected silently, with little or no media coverage of the error. Article #1 • Article #2
A former NOAA scientist confirms that his colleagues manipulated climate records to make the data show more warming than what actually occurred. Article Link
The first Earth Day was celebrated in 1970. Countless doomsday predictions made then and in subsequent years have failed miserably. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3
In September 2019, the scientific journal Nature admitted errors in a global warming study that it had published. Despite the fact that these errors were easily discovered, they were somehow missed by multiple peer reviewers before the article was published, and it took the journal a full year to publish the retraction. Article Link
Research has shown that as much as 61% of U.S. temperature data collected in recent years is actually derived from computer models, where people are able to introduce formulas to easily alter the data. The result is a significant amount of altered, fake data which does not correspond well to actual observations. Article Link
Many other past climate predictions have frequently been proven wrong. For example, in 1989, the United Nations warned that "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth" by 2000. What reason, then, do we have to trust current predictions that are similar? Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3
Accurate History & Evidence
Atlantic hurricane activity is known to go in cycles of about 60 years. Though there are normal year-to-year variations, we are currently in a period with declining Atlantic hurricane activity overall. Between 2005 and 2017, there was an unusually long period where no major hurricanes made landfall in the United States. Article Link
In the summer of 2019, there were many news reports, attempting to create fear and hysteria, about the fires in the Amazon. However, NASA states that in 2019, the Amazon is burning at near average rates. Creating fear and hysteria, though, is right in line with the overall agenda of those pushing the idea of climate change. Article Link
Are you concerned about the supposed increase in forest fires? There is actually no need for concern. Based on the data, global fires have declined 25% since 2003, thanks to factors such as economic growth and re-forestation. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3
Have you been told that higher CO2 levels have led to warming temperatures? There is evidence which shows that temperatures may actually increase before (not after) CO2 increases. Article Link
Even if the Arctic has shown significant warming over the last couple of decades, are we certain it's because of our actions? Those who know and understand climate history "recall rapid Arctic warming has happened often and naturally." Article Link
Tornado data has been kept in the United States since 1954. The total number of tornadoes has remained fairly constant over that time, but the number of strong tornadoes has decreased. Article Link
Even If You're Still Unconvinced About the Data
Sensible care of the environment is good for all of us, but excessive government regulation is not. Even without extreme regulation, the U.S. was the world leader in CO2 reduction in 2019. In fact, our emissions have dropped about 15% since peaking in the early 2000s. Article Link
The climate change agenda has the worst impact on the poor and on working families, who ultimately pay higher prices for the goods and services they need due to unnecessary policies and regulations. For evidence of this, look no farther than Democrat-controlled California. Article #1 • Article #2
Even if you are still unconvinced and believe the Earth is warming, why it is such a common assumption that a warmer Earth is a bad thing? The Earth has been warmer during periods in the past, and there are numerous benefits that come from a warmer planet. Article Link
If climate change activists really believed what they were saying, wouldn't their lifestyles show it? There may be a few examples where such people actually are practicing what they preach, but the vast majority of climate change alarmists live comfortable, high-carbon lifestyles which are full of hypocrisy as they fly around in private jets and lecture the rest of us on sacrifices we should make. Sadly, what these people are seeking is not necessarily a cleaner earth but power, money, and control. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3
In 2015, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change admitted that the goal of activists is not to save the world from disaster but to destroy capitalism. Others have made similar admissions. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3
Recommended Books for Further Reading
Here are some books that are recommended for further reading on this subject:
Fossils are not formed under normal conditions. So, why do we have so many fossils around the world?
Scientifically, the fossil record we have must have been created by one or more great catastrophes involving water. This lines up well with the fact that many cultures around the world have stories of a great flood that have been passed down from the ancient past.
The Epic of Gilgamesh may be the most well-known, but Greeks, Mexicans, the Choctaw people, and the Chinese Miao also have ancient flood legends, along with the account that is given in the book of Genesis in the Christian Bible.
While these stories differ, they all have some key things in common. So many historical accounts of a great flood from such a variety of distinct, widely separated cultures make it likely that there was indeed a great, worldwide flood at some time in the past.
This matches the evidence that we see in the fossil record quite well.
Often, fossils appear out of place or rock layers are upside-down from what geologists expect. These discrepancies are typically just explained away, because they don't match the predetermined evolutionary timetable.
There is also the well-documented Cambrian explosion, a relatively brief period during which most major species of animals suddenly appeared in the fossil record. This also fits well with the idea of a global flood.
If there was a great flood, all types of animals and people would have been buried simultaneously, while the significant amount of water would have created massive sediment deposits and rock formations.
Even short-lived local floods can quickly reshape land formations, so it is easy to see how a global flood would be so catastrophic that it would massively reshape rock formations all over the world.
Therefore, if we consider the plain evidence and keep an open mind to all possibilities, the worldwide geological evidence actually fits much better with the idea of a global flood where animals and people were buried together, in a great catastrophe, all at the same time, as opposed to a long evolutionary history.
In view of a global flood where most of the fossils we have were buried together, the fossil record no longer supports Darwin's theory of evolution.
What About the Other Scientific Evidence for Evolution?
If there have been one or more great catastrophes in Earth's past, dating methods become useless. Even though they appear to give very old ages for rocks, those already questionable methods assume that processes on Earth have always been as they are now, with no great catastrophes.
It is a well-known fact that no transitional fossils exist. If Darwinian evolution were true, one would expect to find millions of fossils of in-between species. Darwin himself expected that future paleontologists would find many transitional fossils, but that simply has not happened. The few that have supposedly been found were later proven to be either fake or the product of a wild imagination.
Images often shown in science textbooks (such as Miller's experiments involving how life could form in a supposed early-Earth atmosphere or the similar-looking embryos that Haeckel drew of various species) have been shown by later scientists to be patently wrong. However, these images are among those still used in many science textbooks as supposed evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Natural selection presents perhaps the biggest obstacle for Darwin's theory. Natural selection that we observe always, without exception, results in information being lost. There is never any new information gained.
How, then, could natural selection account for simple lifeforms developing into more complex lifeforms? Quite simply, it can't.
In his well-known book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", Charles Darwin stated, "To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
Still, Darwin believed his theory was true, and he thought that future scientists would make new discoveries that would alleviate his concern.
Instead, new scientific discoveries (such as DNA and the complexity of the cell) have made his theory of evolution even more absurd.
It is also sadly true that Darwin's theory of evolution provided inspiration to Hitler during World War II as he sought to purify the German race. He believed Germans were the evolutionary favored race, an idea that came from Darwin (notice the full title of Darwin's book above, which is seldom used today).
Other atrocities such as eugenics and abortion find their roots in the Darwinian theory of evolution as well. How can any of those things be wrong if we randomly evolved from nothing, if life is meaningless, and if only the fittest survive? Evolution has become a strange kind of religion, with many devoted followers who refuse to look at plain scientific evidence with an open mind.
For evolutionists, anything that might go against the theory of evolution cannot be considered. Clear evidence is simply ignored while reasonable alternative explanations are ridiculed.
How Has the Field of Science Reached This Point?
In 1764, Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles Darwin) founded the Lunar Society in Great Britain, with an intended purpose of pushing the Bible out and creating a more secular society rooted in socialism.
The Lunar Society then founded the Royal Society. One of its well-known members was Charles Lyell, considered by many to be the father of modern geology. Lyell's theory of uniformitarian geology states that the earth's processes have remained basically unchanged over time, negating a great catastrophe like a global flood.
Unfortunately, these men were not neutral scientists. They were intentionally looking for ways in which they could undermine the Bible's influence on society.
They knew that the Bible, along with those who believe it, was the most significant hurdle in their path to creating a secular, socialist society.
Since their time, influential people in society have continued along the same lines, promoting ideas such as uniformitarian geology and Darwinian evolution and ignoring the massive amount of compelling evidence to the contrary.
They aren't necessarily concerned with the science being correct, which explains why images that supposedly provide evidence for Darwinian evolution continue to appear in science textbooks decades after being proven wrong. Instead, they are more concerned with accomplishing their goals for society.
Of course, socialism has failed every time it has been tried, and it has accounted for roughly 100 million deaths in the twentieth century. Still, those in the "progressive" elite of our day are thirsty for power, and eager to push God out of society.
The most effective tool at their disposal is the public school system, along with many colleges and universities, where those in influential positions continue to push false ideas. They teach that evolution is a proven fact, along with other ideas like capitalism is bad and socialism is good. All the while, they are rendering our young people ignorant of true history.
Make no mistake: Public schools, colleges, and universities are not neutral. They are intentionally pushing a secular humanistic vision for the future, based in questionable ideas from science that are pushed as fact with no room for questions or debate.
Hopefully this brief article left you with some things to ponder. In closing, consider this quote:
"Our schools may not teach Johnny to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends to lead towards the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other alleged myths of alleged history." (Paul Blanchard, "Three Cheers for Our Secular State", Humanist Magazine, March/April 1976)
An Extended Quote to Consider
The following excerpt is from the landmark book The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris (pages 328-330), after the authors present a very plausible framework for interpreting geology from a Biblical perspective. In the end, it is really more of a philosophical and religious issue than a scientific issue.
We realize that such a thorough reorganization of the geologic data raises many questions and must be subject to modification and revision in many details. Nevertheless, we believe that this type of analysis comes much more realistically to grips with all the basic data than does the commonly accepted theory of uniformitarianism.
But the latter theory will undoubtedly die hard, mainly because it is the chief bulwark of evolutionism, and evolution is the great "escape mechanism" of modern man. This is the pervasive philosophic principle by which man either consciously or sub-consciously seeks intellectual justification for escape from personal responsibility to his Creator and escape from the "way of the Cross" as the necessary and sufficient means of his personal redemption.
...in the last analysis, it is likely that on questions so fundamental and basically emotional and spiritual as these, each man will continue to believe as he "wants" to believe. We can only show that those who want to believe the Bible can do so in full confidence that the actual data of geology are consistent with such a belief, even though the apparent weight of scholarly opinion for the past century has been on the side of those who want to believe otherwise.
The words of Dr. Leonard Carmichael, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, in the Phi Beta Kappa address at the 1953 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science are worth noting in this connection:
"...This point of view had not previously characterized all great scientists. Such a giant in logic as Sir Isaac Newton saw no inconsistency between a thoroughly scientific cosmology and great reverence for the dogmas and customs of the orthodox Christian tradition."
The decision between alternate theories does not therefore depend only on the scientific data but is ultimately a moral and emotional decision. Dr. Barrington Moore, senior research fellow at the Russian Research Center at Harvard University, has said:
"Few people today are likely to argue that the acceptance of scientific theories, even by scientists themselves, depends entirely upon the logical evidence adduced in support of these theories. Extraneous factors related to the philosophical climate and society in which the scientist lives always plays at least some part."
Recommended Books for Further Reading
This short introduction to the topic was primarily influenced by these four books. I recommend them for further reading on this subject:
While laws that raise the minimum wage sound good in theory, they always result in lost jobs and reduced hours because many businesses cannot afford to pay higher wages. High school and college students in particular encounter great difficulty in finding entry-level jobs. In addition, few people realize that minimum wage laws have racist roots. The original minimum wage laws were put into place because certain people were unhappy that "colored labor" was cheaper than "white labor" (quoted from Congressman Miles Allgood). Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3 Video #1 • Video #2 • Video #3 • Video #4 • Video #5
Proposals that raise taxes on the rich also sound good to many people, but cause a lot of unintended consequences. Such taxes tend to harm small businesses that are unable to afford those higher taxes. Similarly, excess government regulation also leads to significant extra expenses. Furthermore, when tax rates are high, wealthy people find loopholes, so that the total amount of money that the government collects actually stays about the same. In the U.S., wealthy people already pay more than their fair share in taxes, because their tax rate is higher. Video #1 • Video #2 • Video #3 Video #4 • Video #5 • Video #6
Abortion is the premeditated murder of an unborn baby, it is medically harmful to women (though you may have been told otherwise), and abortion has a very racist history. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated for eugenics and abortion as a way to (in her own words) "exterminate the Negro population." Still today, Planned Parenthood targets black communities, and far more black babies than white babies are murdered in the womb through abortion. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3 • Printable PDF Handout Video #1 • Video #2 • Video #3 • Video #4 • Video #5 • Video #6
Guns save lives, help stop crime, and allow law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Most mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, because the shooters know they will encounter less resistance. Even with strict gun laws, criminals will find a way to get guns if they are determined to do so. A well-armed populace is the best deterrant against gun crime. It is also a deterrant against a tyrannical government, which was the original intent of the second amendment. Article #1 • Article #2 • Article #3 • Article #4 Video #1 • Video #2 • Video #3
People You Should Know
Here are a few people that you may have never heard of, but each one is definitely worth getting to know!
Finally, here are a few articles concerning President Donald Trump from a reasonable Christian perspective. Though he is a flawed man with many faults and a massive ego, he has nevertheless done a lot of great things for the people of the United States. These articles detail some of those accomplishments, many of which you probably haven't heard about from the extremely biased mainstream media.