Saturday, June 1, 2013

The Global Warming Scam: Having Failed To Promote CO2 As The Culprit Behind "Global Warming", The Scam Artists Have Turned To Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) Instead!

I read recently that in spite of my best efforts to get everyone to understand that Global Warming is a huge fraud, it appears that according to a recent "poll", some 60% of respondents still believe in the con... It does appear that we still have our work cut out for us indeed....

Recently, I presented very strong evidence here that Carbon Dioxide is absolutely NOT a so called "Greenhouse Gas".... The findings of recent studies, including one conducted by the fraud artists at NASA have shown definitive proof that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is actually a coolant, and that in spite of the claims made by the scam artists behind the Global Warming fraud, CO2 increases in our atmosphere does not lead to increase in world wide temperatures.... Therefore the scam of "Carbon Taxes" to curb CO2 accumulations in our atmosphere is a complete sham....

It does indeed appear that the fraud artists have caught wind to the idea that people are realizing that CO2 is not a so called "Greenhouse Gas" as has been claimed for almost a 1/2 century.... And they are therefore having to quickly now come up with another "culprit" for their Global Warming scam....

According to this article that was first found a few days ago from a fellow real truth seeker, "Penny", who writes the very important and informative blog "Penny For Your Thoughts" at, through a research paper released by World Scientific at, it appears that the scam artists behind the Global Warming fraud have turned to Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), as their newest culprit behind the scam.   I have the original World Scientific article right here for all to see for themselves, along with an amazing footnote from the "Watts Up With That?" website, at that calls into question this research paper's findings......I do have my own thoughts and comments to follow:

Q.-B. LU, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B DOI: 10.1142/S0217979213500732

Q.-B. LU

Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,Canada

Received: 15 October 2012
Revised: 27 February 2013
Accepted: 12 March 2013
Published: 30 May 2013

This study is focused on the effects of cosmic rays (solar activity) and halogen-containing molecules (mainly chlorofluorocarbons — CFCs) on atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Brief reviews are first given on the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced-reaction (CRE) theory for O3 depletion and the warming theory of halogenated molecules for climate change. Then natural and anthropogenic contributions to these phenomena are examined in detail and separated well through in-depth statistical analyses of comprehensive measured datasets of quantities, including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs), CO2, total O3, lower stratospheric temperatures and global surface temperatures. ForO3 depletion, it is shown that an analytical equation derived from the CRE theory reproduces well 11-year cyclic variations of both polar O3 loss and stratospheric cooling, and new statistical analyses of the CRE equation with observed data of total O3 and stratospheric temperature give high linear correlation coefficients ≥ 0.92. After the removal of the CR effect, a pronounced recovery by 20~25% of the Antarctic O3 hole is found, while no recovery of O3 loss in mid-latitudes has been observed. These results show both the correctness and dominance of the CRE mechanism and the success of the Montreal Protocol. For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R = -0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect andCO2 concentration during 1850–1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96–0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970–2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O3 hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O3 hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models.

Keywords: Cosmic rays; chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); ozone depletion; ozone hole; global warming; global cooling
PACS: 34.35.+a, 34.70.+e, 34.80.Ht, 73.20.At, 82.40.Qt


From the University of Waterloo, an extraordinary claim. While plausible, due to the fact that CFC’s have very high GWP numbers, their atmospheric concentrations compared to CO2 are quite low, and the radiative forcings they add are small by comparison to CO2. This may be nothing more than coincidental correlation. But, I have to admit, the graph is visually compelling. But to determine if his proposed cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction mechanism is valid, I’d say it is a case of “further study is needed”, and worth funding. – Anthony

NTS Notes:  I first want to thank Penny for bringing this article to my attention.... I did leave a few comments at her website calling into question these findings,  where I agree i some aspects as Anthony, from "Watts Up With That?", but I dismiss the idea of Cosmic Rays causing "Global Warming", and I will explain it right here...

A long time ago, I came across a very important video series, called "The Cloud Mystery", and first I have that video right here.... I will explain my analysis in further detail right after this video:

OK... I am not sold on the premise of Cosmic Rays causing Global Warming at all... On the contrary, I do believe much as the Danish Scientists who released this amazing video do, that Cosmic Rays actually cause Global Cooling.... This is due to the fact that cosmic rays have been shown constantly to be the major perpetrators behind fluctuations in cloud cover over our planet.... As our solar system moves around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, it encounters areas of intense cosmic rays... These cosmic rays hitting our atmosphere generate more cloud cover and therefore cause COOLING of our planet... As the scientists in the Cloud Mystery series have shown through geological records, the periods of major ice ages on this planet do directly coincide with periods of intense cosmic ray bombardment of our planet!   This evidence is very sound, and shows again that Global Warming and Global Cooling are natural phenomena that our planet has experienced for billions of years!

As to the fear mongering behind Chlorofluorocarbons... We were first exposed to CFCs being a threat to this planet back in the 1970's when scientists first discovered the Ozone holes over our world's North and South poles.... But not enough data was ever accumulated at that time or any evidence has ever been shown since that shows a direct connection between CFCs and these holes.... There may be some correlation, but tests to find out if these holes are a natural phenomena were never conducted.... And there is strong evidence that even now with major CFCs still in our atmosphere, these holes have now diminished, leading to more believing that the holes are indeed a natural phenomena....

Therefore, I am not sold on the CFC/Global Warming idea at all, and considering that the Global Warming scam artists have been proven wrong already with CO2, why would we suddenly put any trust in them with their latest fearmongering with CFCs?  Once a liar.........

I will be watching over the next while to see where they go with this CFCs causing "Global Warming" idea, and will post those findings here when they become available... So stay tuned...

More to come



Penny said...

you mention in your post you had recently put up some NASA findings re carbon as a coolant
can you leave a link for that piece?
in comment section here or at my place?
Or can you relink it in your post?
I would very much love to read that

Northerntruthseeker said...

Penny....It was in my last article about the Global Warming scam that I put out last month!

Read this:

It is surprising that I constantly put up articles in here that concern real issues and nobody seems to read them... Instead people concentrate on the false flag shootings....Troubling indeed...



Anonymous said...

The Ozone layer is being damaged by the classified Chemtrial ariel spraying program, designed to mitigate global warming, this so called science is simply cover to deflect attention away from the Chemtrail program which has been going on since 1998, and was stepped up again in 2005, and is now going into overdrive. We are in big trouble if our leaders continue to decieve us and dumb us down for the sake of protecting the economy. If we don't take serious steps to tread lightly on mother earth we are all as good as dead.

Penny said...


Thanks for putting the link there for me

Speaking for myself, I simply can't read all of them (posts) at each blog
Just not having enough time

But I do agree there is a tendency for people to go for that which is 'sensationalist'

Which is why, I am mostly staying away from the false flag stuff.
Only addressing if IMO it is absolutely necessary.

That seems to be coming almost redundant
It should be assumed that everything is a manipulation unless it can be shown otherwise

Dan Pangburn said...

Two papers on line, that you may find of interest, provide some eye-opening insight on possible cause of change to average global temperature.

The first one is 'Global warming made simple' at It shows, with simple calculations, how a tiny change in low altitude clouds could account for half of the average global temperature change in the 20th century, and what could have caused that tiny change. (The other half of the temperature change is from natural ocean oscillation which is dominated by the PDO)

The second paper is 'Natural Climate change has been hiding in plain sight' at . This paper presents a simple equation that calculates average global temperatures since they have been accurately measured world wide (about 1895) with an accuracy of 90%, irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not. The equation uses a proxy of the time-integral of sunspot numbers. A graph is included which shows the calculated trajectory overlaid on measurements.

A third paper, ‘The End of Global Warming’ at expands recent (since 1996) measurements and includes a graph showing the growing separation between the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.