MMGW is a Scam. The Proof

The current wave of ignorant climate hysteria is built on lies. The 2005 film An Inconvenient Truth gave the game away when NOTHING that it predicted came true.

  • There have been many warm periods before in Earth history. HERE. HERE. The provable science is that they are caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit. Milankovitch Cycles. HERE. HERE.
  • The effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is minuscule and does not explain the current warm period. HERE. HERE.
  • Most proper scientists who are not on the MMGW gravy train think that is, as best, not provable. HERE. HERE.
  • The main effect of releasing locked up carbon that has been trapped in fossil fuels has been to green the planet. Providing food for mankind and preventing famine. Flying across the Atlantic in a jet feeds children in Africa. HERE. HERE.
  • The famous hockey stick graph that is the basis of all warmist pseudoscience was forensically, scientifically proven to be pure fiction in the book The Hockey Stick Illusion. HERE. HERE.
  • CO2 does not make the sea acid. Soda water contains an immense concentration of CO2. It is not significantly acidic. Aquarium keepers add CO2 to their water to improve their ecosystems, so any additional CO2 in the sea would be used as food by marine plant life, helping humanity. HERE.

So why do the UN, your government and media such as the BBC keep on saying that MMGW exists, when very obviously it doesn’t? They are not your friends.

The UN is working hard to grab power to become a world government (look at Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030). The MMGW scam is a tool they are using to achieve this, and it is working for them.

Your government is constantly trying to take away your rights and freedoms, to control you more and to tax you more. MMGW lies give them the perfect excuse to do this. Just look at the UK Climate Change Act 2008.

And why are so much of the media trying to create hysteria instead of telling you the scientific truth? It is because they are not neutral, they have a political agenda (just look at all the anti Trump fake news). And that agenda is globalist NWO. So using MMGW as propaganda advances their cause.

You might think that this is all conspiracy theory. But they actually admit what they are doing to us. Just look at the many quotes HERE. It really is quite frightening.

All this means that climate alarmists such as Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion are either ignorant useful idiots or malicious propagandists trying to bring you harm.

If you want even more scientific proof that MMGW does not exist then go to the Heartland Institute or the 19 great references at the beginning of THIS article.

And a final gem: …orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years and are by far the clearest case of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth (National Research Council, 1982).


  1. What utter nonsense. The evidence for climate change was overwhelming back in 1992 what I did my dissertation on the state of global biodiversity. Of course you’ll be long dead and forgotten by the time climate change affects the UK. At the moment it is tragically affecting Pacific islanders causing species extinction and the risks of not trying to stop it now surely outweigh the certainty of the damage and pain it will inflict? The way that you write is condescending as his your application that your views are correct and no one else’s views are worth listening to. I would retweet this article with the sole purpose of encouraging discussion and dissection of the views except for the fact that I see that you’re still banned from Twitter. Would you care to explain why or defend yourself? The only other person who spelt as much obfuscation and bluffing as you is Boris.


    1. Milankovitch is irrefutable.
      The Earth has an annual rotation of the Sun, controlled by its gravity. Pure Newtonian physics.
      But Milankovitch says that this rotation is slightly different every year. Because the other planets of the solar system have a small gravitational effect on our planet. Pure Newtonian physics.
      So the maths has been done on tracking the Earth’s orbit going back hundreds of thousands of years. Then matching this up to the amount of sun consequently reaching the planet, then matching this up to the climate records. And it all fits.
      The physics is utterly irrefutable. It is the only PROVEN SCIENCE that explains climate change. And the warmist pseudiscientists on the greenhouse gas gravy train are furious. Here is what NASA say:


  2. Why is the ice melting, why is sea level rising? It is true


  3. Important book: Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory

    Nine leading international experts methodically expose how willful fakery and outright incompetence were hidden within the politicized realm of government climatology. Applying a thoughtful and sympathetic writing style, the authors help even the untrained mind to navigate the maze of atmospheric thermodynamics. Step-by-step the reader is shown why the so-called greenhouse effect cannot possibly exist in nature.

    By deft statistical analysis the cornerstones of climate equations – incorrectly calculated by an incredible factor of three – are exposed then shattered.

    This volume is a scientific tour de force and the game-changer for international environmental policymakers as well as being a joy to read for hard-pressed taxpayers everywhere.


  4. The scientific data from the Greenland and Antartica Ice Cores, sea floor mud, stalagmites, archaeological & historical records all also proves that the Holocene Climatic Optimum was 7-8,000 years ago, thereafter the temperature has generally been steadily falling, but the Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm Periods were all warmer than today. Evidence summarised on eg or

    The permafrost obviously thawed out in those previous warm periods… and this scientific study confirms less Methane than expected & additionally points out that Methane bubbles readily dissolve in sea water.


  5. ‘Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?’ by climate scientist Richard S. Lindzen gives a nice brief summary of the current debate.

    The science is far from settled:

    31,487 American Scientists signed a petition supporting a Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research in 2008, concluding that: “Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions… [ceteris parabus] the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.”

    And this week, more than 500 scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have sent a declaration that there is no “climate emergency” to the UN, warning that there is no “climate emergency” & “the general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose”.

    Yet “In 2006 the BBC held a secret meeting in which it decided to block climate skeptics from appearing on the national broadcaster based on the views of the “best scientific experts.” But …only two climate scientists attended and the other 26 members included BBC’s head of comedy, Greenpeace activists, charity fundraisers and lobbyists for environmental groups. Since then the BBC relied on the findings of the meeting to block airtime to dissenters of global warming alarmism.”


  6. The total economic cost is huge. The EUR 7,600 Billion estimate for zero-CO2 Germany probably serves as a useful pro rata indication for the UK.
    Here is a useful review of the Committee on Climate Change’s plan to get us to net zero:

    And Bjørn Lomborg using UN data in 2016: “Less effective but more ambitious climate policies cost at least 6 per cent of global GDP per year and likely much more. Wind and solar, which covers less than half of one percent of global energy, costs dozens of times more than their climate benefits. Electric cars provide perhaps a thousandth in climate benefit of their substantial public subsidies. Biofuels are just hugely costly while increasing emissions.”

    A clear explanation of the economic model for ‘Net Zero’ aka New feudalism:


  7. Thanks for this site…I, for one, appreciate it!


  8. “A Dearth of Carbon” on youtube by Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore describes how sea life exoskeletons turned the CO2 7,000 ppm at the time of the Cambrian explosion circa 542Mya into huge amounts of carbonate rock (eg Chalk cliffs, Limestone massifs) far faster than volcanoes could return it to the atmosphere. Many geologists agree, eg

    ~180ppm was reached in the recent Ice Age cold period: “The Ice Age’s combined horrors – intense cold, permanent drought and CO2 starvation – killed most of the plants on Earth. Only a few trees survived” ~150ppm is said to be the ‘death of plants’ level: C3 plants cannot photosynthesise under 150 ppm.


  9. Kröpelin has been studying the Sahara for over 40 years. “When the globe is cold, the deserts expand. And when the globe is warm, deserts become greener and far more fruitful… The Sahara was massive in size during the last glacial period, and that about ten thousand years ago it greened up once temperatures shot up early in the Holocene… The Sahara changed from a desert to a savannah… We signs that precipitation is increasing and that should the trend continue, the desert is going to shrink,” similarly as it did at the end of the last glacial.


  10. The CO2 logarithmic formula is stated on P358, Table 6.2
    This means that at current 415ppm we already experience over 87% of CO2’s full potential warming effect on the atmosphere.

    IPCC cited models all assume increased water vapour which they rely on to force warming. However, NASA has monitored moisture in the atmosphere since 1980 – and water vapour has awkwardly NOT increased despite the higher levels of CO2 in the air.


    1. The mathematical flaw at the heart of every UNIPCC cited model, and why they are all “running hot” has been known since c. 2011. The mathematical proof is not complicated and, if wrong, could easily be disproved. But it isn’t – and the UNIPCC Establishment can’t. See
      (For non-mathematicians, the project team behind this are at 0.25 and the conclusions are at 33.50. The proof is also stated here: ).

      In being de-platformed Monkton et al are in good company. The de-platforming of leading 1990s climatologists is now systematic. eg Judith Curry de-platformed: and
      or Susan Crockford sacked for telling the truth:


  11. Tyranny is really insidious. Commies and Nazis say Spain, North Korea, and the USSR were calm paradises under tyranny, but who wants to live in a prison?

    Americans used to be taught to love morality, freedom, balanced budgets, and peace.

    Now Americans are told to be immoral, and embrace tyranny, debt, and war.

    People give up in police states.

    Everything is illegal.

    Why obey the law if the government and illegal immigrants don’t?

    The US is not a democracy.

    Why try if the government has taken away your right to speak, protest, go to church, own a gun, have privacy, have property, be free from TSA groping, be free from extrajudicial assassination, be free torture, and be free from indefinite detention without trial?

    You are just a slave now. Your life is over.

    Why have free college if the government can just take everything you have?

    When your life is a crime, who wouldn’t embrace terrorism? Why not just destroy government property and kill government workers?

    More destruction will lead to more repression and higher taxes. More tyranny and higher taxes will lead to more resistance until there is total war.

    There are no other options.


Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.