Breaking News

David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Last week Climate Intelligence, “CLINTEL,” announced the thousandth signatory of their World Climate Declaration.  The thousandth signatory was David Siegel who has been following the climate debate for a long time. He recently uploaded an interesting 40-minute video presenting his current view on climate change. For this presentation, he used a lot of input from the international CLINTEL network.

CLINTEL, a global network of critical scientists and engineers, has a simple message: “There is no climate emergency.”

Yes, climate change exists and cannot be ignored, but CLINTEL emphasises that there is NO cause for panic and NO cause for alarm. The CLINTEL scientists strongly oppose the misleading, unrealistic, and destructive global net-zero CO2 policy (“NetZero”).

“CO2 budgets are not based on science, but they are based on fear. They destroy the energy system, limit human rights, feed extremism and push mankind into a deep physical, mental, and financial crisis,” CLINTEL wrote.

To sign the World Climate Declaration, follow this LINK. Go HERE for instructions.


The Exposé reports the facts the mainstream refuse to. Let’s not lose touch, subscribe today to receive the latest news from The Exposé in your inbox…

Follow The Exposé on Telegram
Join The Exposé’s Telegram Discussion Group


Seigel is an entrepreneur and author. He wrote his first book about climate change in 1991.  In recent years he’s made videos on several topics from macroeconomics to woodworking to investing to climate change. 

“I believed Paul Ehrlich about the Population Bomb and I believed Al Gore that CO2 was causing warming. Then, in 2016, someone told me that “the science is settled.” Knowing that if it’s science, it isn’t settled, I decided to look a bit deeper and see what I could discover. So, I spent most of a year investigating and wrote a big Medium.com post that over 300,000 people read. Since then, I continue to study, learn, and communicate what I have learned about climate and other misunderstandings,” Siegel told CLINTEL in an interview.

“We still don’t know what really drives our climate. There’s no way we can predict the next 100 years of climate with any accuracy. To me, it’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate, and the big drivers are orbital mechanics and plate tectonics. But there’s still a lot to learn.

“I’d love to follow the money. I’d love to see a big report showing how money flows to NGOs, how much the UN spends on public relations, how universities rely on the Climate Industrial Complex, and how motivated most groups are by money, not by helping the environment. If they are going to use polar bears, forest fires, storms, and lies, it’s clear their goal is fundraising. And there is a lot of money at stake now.”

The earth’s climate is changing, it has always been changing

The earth’s temperature has been rising for over 200 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. It has nothing or very little to do with humans emitting carbon dioxide (“CO2”). Despite hysterical headlines, no scientist has ever measured the effect on the climate of CO2 added by humans.  CO2 is not a poisonous gas; it is coming out of your nose right now, Siegel notes on his webpage.

In his latest video on climate change, below, he began: “We know temperatures are going up but they might not be going up as much as you think and the cause may surprise you.  This video gives a new perspective on climate science by looking at the evidence for the greenhouse effect and for other possible causes let’s start with a definition of climate.”

“Climate is whatever happens to temperatures over at least 30 years everything else is ‘weather’.

“Greenhouse gases cannot trap heat. They don’t act like a blanket. They can’t store heat. All they can do is absorb and re-radiate the heat in random directions.  Greenhouse gases don’t exactly reflect heat they absorb it and re-radiate it very quickly … The special conditions in Antarctica cause greenhouse gases to radiate heat directly to space cooling the earth – it’s like there is no troposphere in Antarctica.”

Using a graphic illustration, he demonstrated how doubling CO2 to 800 parts per million would increase temperatures by 1 degree. “To double [CO2], to get to 800 parts per million, we’d have to burn about three times more fossil fuel than we have ever burned and maybe it would add one degree,” Siegel explained. “Did you know that commercial greenhouses usually run at about 1 000 parts per million to help plants grow?”

Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule.  “Contrary to what you’ve heard methane isn’t raising the equilibrium temperature by very much at the moment.  At our current rate of producing methane, it would take almost 300 years to double the amount of methane,” Siegel said.  And, again, he illustrated what would happen if methane was doubled.

“Methane, CH4, which is measured in parts per billion is so rare that doubling the amount we have now would raise the equilibrium temperature by about 0.012 degrees Celsius … adding a lot more methane would have virtually no effect on climate.  All climate scientists know this but many would lose their jobs if they said it.”

Having destroyed the myth about greenhouse gases being the cause of global warming, Siegel then went on to describe the impact of orbital mechanics, the mechanics of the Earth orbiting the Sun.  “The Sun’s influence changes as the Earth’s axis tilts and wobbles,” he explained.

Siegel then demonstrates how, by comparing their data to unadulterated data, climate change alarmists “lie, manipulate and torture data” to serve their agenda.

“I’m also [going] to show you how the earth’s climate really works.  We’ve seen that the greenhouse effect is minuscule and that orbital mechanics is the driver.  But our climate is far more complex than ‘energy in, energy out’.   The earth’s energy balance is strongly modified by its geography. The second type of equilibrium is what I call ‘thermal equilibrium’.  And it happens on scales of tens and hundreds of years and this is where our climate lies.”

The Intertropical Convergence Zone (“ITCZ”) is what “defines the tropics and determines the weather patterns in each hemisphere.  And it changes according to the Sun pattern and the layout of the continents,” Siegel explained.

Cutting Through The Noise: Climate science 101 with David Siegel, 12 April 2022 (39 mins)
David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate”
Share this page to Telegram
5 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
62 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Walter Frantz
Walter Frantz
13 days ago

Almost?!……CO2 has NOTHING to do with climate. Anyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry knows this. With this knowledge and a reasonable degree of common sense, one is convinced.

trackback
13 days ago

[…] Go to Source Follow altnews.org on Telegram […]

John, The Ol' Hippy
John, The Ol' Hippy
13 days ago

CLINTEL is a notorious climate denial group based in The Netherlands. They are wrong on just about everything having to do with CO2, Methane, and other toxins spewed into to the atmosphere by the industrial civilization we all inhabit. Most info in the Expose` is accurate this is particularly egregious. By the end of this century Earth will be drastically different than today. It’s irreversible BTW as well. Sad but true. Peace

Dave
Dave
Reply to  John, The Ol' Hippy
13 days ago

I agree with you John on the toxins and methane front. Also mans effect on loss of habitat and wrecking of ecosystems around the world. Not the CO2 pseudoscience agenda though. Peace

John from Lancashire
John from Lancashire
Reply to  Rhoda Wilson
13 days ago

No he isn’t because there isn’t any. CAGW is a scam to control us just as covid is. If anyone speaks out against the covid narrative they are ignored, silenced, ridiculed or worse. Their career is ruined, they never get published. Exactly the same has been happening to anyone who goes against the climate narrative regardless of their qualifications.

John from Lancashire
John from Lancashire
Reply to  John, The Ol' Hippy
13 days ago

The earth has been warmer in the past (a lot warmer) without man’s influence. The earth has been colder (a lot colder)without man’s influence. Co2 has been way way higher (average for last 600 million years was between 2000 and 2600 ppm) without man’s influence. You say they are wrong on just about everything, the last 500 years have been the coldest in the last 10000 years. The elites aren’t just using covid to control us, they’ve been trying it with catastrophic anthropogenic global warming for at least 30 years. The warming fanatics have been scaring us with prophecies of doom for decades, so far they have a 100% failure rate. Not one of the prophecies of doom has come true. Why do you believe people with such an appalling record. Co2 has been higher than 5000 ppm and as low as 180 ppm yet no tipping point has been crossed, no catastrophe the world is still here. Two questions for you. 1 what happens if if Co2 gets to 150 ppm or lower?. 2 what temperature should the world be?.

Sorin
Sorin
Reply to  John from Lancashire
12 days ago

T (minus) 10 degrees Celsius, according to the linear and mechanical model we’ve been brainwashed about.

I don’t see any of the elites worrying about real issues, like: plastics, teflon, short lifespan of the electronics (and even cars, soon), environment contamination with many toxins, including all the pollution to poison the population with more jabs, hunger, proper education (maybe it will help to fix any of the above ?).

Whatever produces money and causes chaos works… I live in a city where the heating plant is seriously in debt with those lovely CO2 credits…

Dr. Stromberger D.S
Dr. Stromberger D.S
Reply to  John, The Ol' Hippy
11 days ago

GOOD. Stick your pecker in a tree you Sodomite.

Paul Watson
Paul Watson
13 days ago

You can argue about your “science” until you’re blue in the face and you’ll never agree, because the polluters couldn’t care less about what harm they do and they like to rub the noses of those that do care in it. It’s the same with vegans — all the killers love to brag about how many creatures they’ve killed today. At the end of the day it’s obvious anyway. Everywhere the humans go they concrete and pollute. With an endlessly increasing number of humans the planet will eventually die. The oceans are already 90% dead. The ones spewing out all the brats will say “the falling birth rate” and claim that the “population will reach its peak in such and such a year”. This is all BS. The humans will never stop until all other life on earth is gone. Even the ones that claim to care have brats. The worst thing you can do in your life is have children. If you bother to look, you’ll see an ever increasing number of everything — sewage plants, roads, factories, houses, airports, and all the rest. In the english lake district there are two famous lakes — coniston and windermere. Both have a nice big sewage plant right on the shore, hidden behind trees of course, but they’re there, pouring all the people’s poo and wee into those “pristine lakes” 24/7. All the rivers in the uk are dead once there’s a farm or factory or sewage plant on its bank. The thames, mersey, etc are brown sludge. Look at the mouth of any major river and you’ll see a huge spray of brown sludge emitted from it 24/7. That’s why the oceans are dying. But all the clever ones will deny it, because, like the slaughterhouses and the battery farms, it’s all hidden away so that you can pretend it isn’t there and it isn’t happening. For all of these reasons, and many others, I hope your owners succeed in their plan of wiping out billions, because that’s the only hope this planet has. Ironically, this actually makes these people heroes, although they’re hardly benevolent.

C Jones
C Jones
Reply to  Paul Watson
13 days ago

What makes me laugh (or cringe) is all the people who go onto the internet and read this and that and suck it all in and believe it. It doesn’t make any difference which side of the argument it is, they’ll believe whatever they happened to come across. This article is an example of that.

“Seigel is an entrepreneur and author. He wrote his first book about climate change in 1991. In recent years he’s made videos on several topics from macroeconomics to woodworking to investing to climate change.”

So? There are tens of thousands of people in the world who’d claim to be “experts” in the world’s demise, and hundreds of millions hanging off of them. If “science” was the great carbunkle that it’s supposed to be, they’d all agree right? So why don’t they? Because the “experts” are either being paid by whoever to lie, or they’re just writing books and papers to make money for themselves on whichever side is more profitable. Clearly, the mighty science, should ferret out the truth without a hitch, but no.

All you need to do is look for yourself. Pick some place and look at what happens to it over years. It will slowly be destroyed by building or pollution or whatever else man decides to do to it. It isn’t “natural” for the rainforest to be chopped down to make toilet paper. It isn’t “natural” for the ocean to be full of plastic, or for all the fish to be a thousand miles from shore. It isn’t “natural” for the thames flood plain to be a huge concrete slab. It’s humans. Go anywhere they are and it’s nasty. Go anywhere they aren’t and it’s nice. Any fool can see that. I can’t imagine how dead you’d have to be inside to prefer to live in a city than on a desert island.

dreen
dreen
Reply to  Paul Watson
13 days ago

Just as the truth about the j’ws can be seen in Palestine, the truth about the human race can be seen in Africa. The developed world has turned it into an overpopulated starvation and disease filled hell hole. Before they did their thing there it was what the rest of the world must have been like a very long time ago: a natural place. The developed world wants to turn it into a huge farm/factory/housing estate so that they can exploit all the people there. All the other life will die, just as it has in the uk and europe. The british government claim to be green (whatever that means), yet they’re building seven new nuclear power stations, 330,000 new houses (together with all the roads, factories, schools, hospitals, etc that go with them), and they’re increasing the size of the biggest pollution centre in europe: the london airports. Very green. There won’t be anywhere in the uk that won’t see new houses and the immigrants to fill them, except where the rulers live of course.

Dr. Stromberger D.S
Dr. Stromberger D.S
Reply to  dreen
11 days ago

Afrika has always been a squalid krap hole. It is filled with a cursed race of negroes that have an IQ of 39. They have never and will never make any technology, just like the Squatters known as indians.

John from Lancashire
John from Lancashire
Reply to  Paul Watson
13 days ago

Do you own anything made of plastic, do you drive a car, do you have central heating, hot and cold running water, are your shoes made of synthetic materials, do you have clothing made of polyester, nylon, fleece. Does your underwear have elastic in it. Does your home have electricity or gas. Where does your sh*t go when you flush your toilet. Hypocrite. If animals evolved and have the right to be here then so did humans and we have a right to be here too, if life was created then so were we,and again we have every right to be here. You were once a brat. Currently their are 1.4 billion Chinese, Do you know how many there will be by the end of this century?. The air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago, there are millions of km2 more trees than there were at the end of ww2. We grow more crops off less land almost every year and more land is given protected status than ever before. No we are not perfect but we are not as bad as human haters like you think we are. If you want to argue with me please use facts not feelings, emotions or insults.
.

A Pope
A Pope
Reply to  John from Lancashire
12 days ago

“moderated” away. What word caused it? Who knows?

Last edited 12 days ago by A Pope
A Pope
A Pope
Reply to  John from Lancashire
12 days ago

also “moderated” away. LOL.

Last edited 12 days ago by A Pope
franz
franz
Reply to  John from Lancashire
12 days ago

You’re one of those people that is always quoting this or that without anything to back it up, but you’re also one of those people that likes to call people names whilst claiming you’re being abused. Are you a j_w?

“If animals evolved and have the right to be here then so did humans and we have a right to be here too, if life was created then so were we,and again we have every right to be here”

So, if it were the other way around, and you and yours were kept in crates and force fed until your throats were cut you’d be ok with that? You throw a fit if someone hits a kid but you torture and slaughter trillions of creatures every year because you have “rights”. Sickening.

“The air is cleaner than it was 50 years ago”

No it isn’t. I’m betting you’re rich and live out in the country somewhere. Try living next to a power station or an airport or a dockyard or a motorway or in an inner city.

“there are millions of km2 more trees than there were at the end of ww2.”

No there aren’t. I can’t give you “facts” because any “fact” I give you you’ll go and find a “fact” to contradict it, but here you are:

“There were an estimated 6 trillion trees or roughly double the number of trees there are today. Before the dawn of man and civilisation, most historians estimate that the world’s forests took up around 6 billion hectares of land. Today, only a fraction of that remains, with the forest cover in the world down to approximately 3 billion hectares. This loss can be attributed to the intensive agricultural practises and modern civilisation infrastructure. Annually, the world loses nearly 10 billion trees each year.” (from http://www.gotreequotes.com/how-many-trees-in-world/).

Another thing about all your trees is that they’re only being planted so that they can be chopped down to wipe your a’se with. They are “managed” woodlands – which means the tress have their lower branches cut off to keep them straight for planks, and every living thing that can be killed is killed to “protect the trees from damage”. Look at the trees (stumps) in the lake district to see an example – “managed” by the “national trust”. Ask anyone that knows about the “national trust” what they think of it and the people that run it.

“We grow more crops off less land almost every year”

By increasing the amount of poison. The pesticide that is used today is 50 times more poisonous than when you started poisoning the earth after the war. That’s why all the bees are dying. The farmers kill every creature they can get at. Go to a farm any summer and see the lines of birds strung up on wires. It’s lovely. Or look in the “woods” for the traps and poison. I’m guessing you have never been anywhere except the tourist trails. Try doing some “trespassing” in the “private” woods and land to see the truth.

“and more land is given protected status than ever before.”

Like the “south downs national park”? All they do is draw a line on a map and then colour it green. They do that because the people that own the land can then start claiming money to “protect” it. Most of the land in that park is owned by the “duke” of norfolk, and he gets an estimated £50m a year from your taxes because it’s “protected”. Half the people in that area were against it being made into a “park” for that very reason. Nothing else changed. You still can’t go into the “private” land, the “management” stays the same (ie. the killing) and all the pollution stays the same (the spraying, the sewage, the cars, the houses, etc).

“No we are not perfect but we are not as bad as human haters like you think we are.”

“Human haters”? LOL. Let’s say I do hate humans. I’d have good cause. But so what? Are you a woke? “Everyone must (pretend) to love everyone else”? Why? Humans are nasty. Ask any other species. Ask most of the humans. Only the rich hiding in their great big houses think the world is rose coloured.

“If you want to argue with me please use facts not feelings, emotions or insults.”

Why? You won’t believe anything I say. You’ll dismiss it all as rubbish, then restate what you think.

For example: there are 80m more people this year, just as there were last year, and the year before, going back decades. There are people that will say the “birth rate” is falling, but the 80m extra continues to appear year after year after year. How much extra pollution do you imagine 80m people create? How much total pollution do you imagine 7.8 billion create? At the same time, your meddling in “third world countries” increases the amount of pollution from large numbers of people who previously polluted hardly at all. Look around you. There are houses being built everywhere. Why? The answer is money. Do you want all those houses to be built? Are you a “builder”? 99% of people object to new houses being built anywhere near where they live – because it makes it worse to have more people around. All those houses won’t be filled with the homeless british people – they’ll be filled with i_mmigrants – but only after the rich have bought them up so that they can “rent” them back to said i_mmigrants for 90% of their “wages”. Anyone that runs out of money gets mauled by all the money men, all the while being told there’s “help available” – which is a complete lie. You, as a british “citizen” have no rights whatsoever. None. Yet you’ll claim you live in a democracy. Everything in your “society” is a fake. Everything.

By the way, it’s laughable what you have to do to avoid tripping the censorship flag of this site. The words above with the random characters in them? That’s to avoid be moderated away due to (fake) “freedom of speech”.

Last edited 12 days ago by franz
John from Lancashire
John from Lancashire
Reply to  franz
12 days ago

I asked Paul Watson a few simple questions, he didn’t answer them neither did you. Do you bury your own sh*t or do you flush it away? You take part in the system you criticise because you are a hypocrite. You refuse to accept facts that refute your fantasies. Instead of offering a competent argument to my points, you say I can’t be bothered because you would just counter with more pseudo scientific objections. Frankly that’s pathetic. I asked about the Chinese population, do you know the answer. Here’s another for you- When will the global population go into decline?

I’m not Jewish, I’m not rich, I don’t live in a country house

You obviously dislike jews, so your a racist. You obviously hate anyone you suspect is wealthier than you, so your a failure.
You hate the thought that I have more than you and yet you think the poor should continue with inadequate housing, why shouldn’t they have as much as you or at least enough to have a device that would allow them to read and respond to your hate filled comments. After all you have such a device and the means to keep it charged.

With regards to trees a few years ago in Scotland they cut down 18 million trees to make way for a wind farm. I think that’s criminal what do you think?

Wirral In It Together
Wirral In It Together
Reply to  Paul Watson
13 days ago

I’ve lived a few hundred yards from the Mersey for 62 years. When I swam in it as a child, I shared the water with condoms, poo, and toxic chemicals from Lever Brothers and others way upstream. But now, it runs a lot clearer. Fishing in the old times we’d catch dabs, flounders and eels. Now, we catch bass, dogfish, plaice, huss. So the cleaner water North Wales fish are steadily migrating North to the Mersey estuary. I’d say that was proof of the pudding. I spoke to an old guy in his 90s back in the 1970s on the sea wall in New Brighton. He told tales of catching salmon and sea trout by Vale Park when he was a kid in the late 1800s. We’re not there yet, but it could be on the cards one day. “Brown sludge”?? Naaaah!

A Pope
A Pope
Reply to  Wirral In It Together
12 days ago

If that’s true, and I’ve no idea if it is or not because I don’t live there, then all it means is that they’re flushing the sewage and poisons further out into the ocean. They did the same thing where I live. They ran a pipe a mile out under the ocean. Out of sight, out of mind. Or do you imagine that millions more people are producing less pollution? Remember when your house wasn’t full of crap? And when food wasn’t wrapped in plastic? And when you weren’t flushing endless chemicals down the drain?

Wirralinittogether
Wirralinittogether
Reply to  A Pope
12 days ago

I don’t lie. Yes, they did that here with the sewage, which used to pump through the sea walls and straight into the estuary. That’s now pumped further out into the Irish Sea. Out of sight, out of mind. As for the toxic industrial waste, they’ve had to clean up their act. Years ago, even after environmental rules were tightened, plants, farms, etc. in the basin would dump their slurry straight into the river. Not so much now. Ask the locals, they will confirm the above.

Last edited 12 days ago by Wirral In It Together
A Nonymous
A Nonymous
Reply to  Wirralinittogether
12 days ago

The industrial waste either goes out through the same pipe into the ocean or it gets packaged up and dumped in third world countries like nuclear waste does. Ask the people of somalia how “clean” britain is. It’s like everything to do with britain, it’s always hidden away so that the people can pretend it isn’t happening, but that doesn’t stop it actually happening. Ask the people in pakistan about britain’s “waste disposal” system. Or take a trip out to the deep ocean and have a look at all those canisters laying about on the ocean floor. It’s like all those “lords” in their mansions with all the peasants living in slums — let’s pretend it’s all mansions, when really it’s 99% slums.

Last edited 12 days ago by A Nonymous
Kenan Meyer
Kenan Meyer
Reply to  Paul Watson
11 days ago

The sound of modern day communist misanthropy and genocide mindset . Incapable of logical arguing

trackback
13 days ago

[…] Read More: David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate” […]

trackback
13 days ago

[…] Read More: David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate” […]

trackback
13 days ago

[…] Read More: David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate” […]

trackback
13 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
13 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
13 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

Wirral In It Together
Wirral In It Together
13 days ago

Great article. A brilliant resource. Thanks Rhoda!

Mary Tyler Moore
Mary Tyler Moore
Reply to  Wirral In It Together
12 days ago

Yeah, more propaganda from “rhoda”. I wonder who’s paying her? This one was probably funded by the oil companies or the billionaire building companies, or perhaps the immigration “charities”. But of course not. rhoda is just your ordinary person just trying to help people out (by posting endless stuff for years for no payback whatsoever).

Wirralinittogether
Wirralinittogether
Reply to  Mary Tyler Moore
12 days ago

Anonymity is so, so useful, eh Mary? And you’re playing the man, not the ball. A batsman needs to SEE the bowler to deal with the spin. Otherwise it’s not cricket, is it?

Last edited 12 days ago by Wirral In It Together
A Nonymous
A Nonymous
Reply to  Wirralinittogether
12 days ago

Who wants to play cricket? It’s infested with foreigners now like everything else. I’d rather fight for britain for the british, and ‘rhoda’ isn’t british — she says things like “NATO appears to care less about the people”. She’s most likely a front for the foreigner who runs this site (“awaiting for moderation” is one of her’s). As she’s a front, your comment about anonymity is ironic don’t you think?

Paul Cardin
Paul Cardin
Reply to  A Nonymous
12 days ago

Thank you Mr A Anonymous…!

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] by Rhoda Wilson, Daily Expose: […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] respuesta es no , y especialmente en lo que respecta al dióxido de carbono (CO2), que casi no tiene impacto alguno sobre el […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…]   David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate”  BY RHODA […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] – David Siegel: “It’s clear that CO2 has almost nothing to do with climate” […]

trackback
12 days ago

[…] The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

Eyes of Horus
Eyes of Horus
11 days ago

Several years back some planetary scientists made an observation. They said that not only is there a bit of a temperature rising on the Earth, it is also happening on Mars and other planets as well. So, the sun seems to be contributing to “climate change” as well.

trackback
9 days ago

[…] real? The answer is no, and especially so with regard to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has almost no impact whatsoever on the […]

trackback
13 hours ago

[…] Wilson, The Expose) Pred pár týždňami medzinárodná sieť pre klimatické spravodajstvo „CLINTEL“ oznámila […]