Gregory Wrightstone

Harold Sterling Burnett: Over time, the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have radically fluctuated throughout the Earth's geologic history. They have been in the past as much as 5000 Parts per million. They are currently about four hundred and twenty parts per million. So over long periods of time they have fluctuated, but in general they have fallen. 

Gregory Wringstone: There doesn't seem to be any correlation whatsoever with increasing CO2 and temperature, And in fact, if we look out, one of the things we're being asked to believe is that our modern temperatures are unusual and unprecedented. We've never seen temperatures like this in thousands of years. That's just not the case. 

Ole Henrik Ellestad: We have a map showing temperature changes over the last 11,000 years - these are Greenland ice cores.

Hans Borge: As we can see, a thousand years ago, about 2,000 years ago and about 3,000 years ago, we had warm periods, and everything indicates that these were periods of global warming. It was long before man-made CO2 emissions had any considerable volume, therefore, we know that the natural variability can be large.

Jan-Erik Solheim: In this graph here may also show what the IPCC does. It prolongs, more or less, this current going to infinity, that it becomes warmer and warmer because of the CO2 release or climate. And that's what we think is wrong. Our prediction is that it will soon start cooling, and we have to be prepared for that.

Gregory Wringstone: The warming trend we're in right now though started more than three hundred years ago. But again, two hundred fifty years of warming took place before we started adding CO2. But we're asked to believe that those natural forces that have been driving temperatures since the dawn of time suddenly ceased in the 20th century!?

Hans Borge: CO2 is a gas that has very little effect on the climate. The IPCC models assumed that the higher is the CO2 level, the higher the water vapor level. And water vapor is the gas with the greatest impact on the climate. But the assumption that “the more CO2, the more water vapor” has never been proved. 

 Jan-Erik Solheim: I must also tell you that with some colleagues, I have done experiments to see if CO2 can heat or can’t heat. So we have built small greenhouses and tried to heat it by the sun outside or inside with artificial heating. We were able to show that carbon dioxide stops radiation, but we were not able to show any heating. That is a mystery which... So, CO2 cannot heat, but what can heat is water. The water vapor.

Gregory Wringstone: Temperature changes first and then CO2 levels follow that. It's not the other way around. If man, if increase in CO2 is going to drive temperature, CO2 should change first and then temperature should change

Jan-Erik Solheim: The blue curve is the temperature of the sea, that is, sea temperature, the ocean temperatures. The red is the land temperature, which we get from in this case HadCRUT, which is the official temperature series. First comes the change in the sea temperature. A little bit later, the land temperature, red, and then about one year, 11 months or 10-11 months, the carbon dioxide changes. And when temperature of the sea goes down, the carbon dioxide goes down 10-11 months later. 

Hans Borge: Well, let me show you another table that might tell you a little bit about the CO2 content. (Let's see ... Take it to share ...) There, take a look: there are three thousand billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. And the total man-made emissions per year are twenty to thirty billion tons. But if you look at the ocean, it has far more CO2. So the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere totally overshadows human activity.

Jan-Erik Solheim: So a more detailed analysis [is] telling that this red part here is currently what anthropogenic has or mankind-produced carbon dioxide, which is about less than 3 percent of the increase from 1960. But the nature produces the rest, this variable curve here. So 97 percent of the increase comes from nature, according to these scientists.

Ole Henrik Ellestad: The IPCC also claims that the sun has no effect on us. It’s a great paradox, not clear how they arrived at that. Moreover, today we see that the warming is happening not only on our planet, but also on other planets. And on the moon too, where there is a completely different atmosphere that has nothing to do with CO2. So clearly, there is a sun factor, which is missing in their model.

Gregory Wringstone: Well, the IPCC, if you look back on their charter, it was chartered to present the data that supports warming. They weren't tasked to provide all the data. They started with an assumption and went from there. So that's their task. They're doing a darn good job at it. You better have some good science behind you. And it's just not there.

Harold Sterling Burnett: The world's governments, through the U.N., formed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Now, you would think that would be studying climate change, but they specified that you study the human causes of climate change. 

So they ruled out all natural factors. They said, “No, no, we're not going to study whether the Sun plays a role. We're not going to study whether volcanoes play a role. We're not going to study whether ocean current shifts play a role. And we don't really understand clouds, so we're not going to count them much. What we're going to study is human CO2 emissions because that's what we can get a handle on.”

That's not the way science is supposed to work. If you make faulty assumptions or incomplete assumptions, your models are going to be weak. Because they're only as good as the accuracy of the stuff that's put in them.

Now, climate models have failed to predict past temperatures or to accurately reflect past temperatures. They fail to accurately represent present temperatures. But we're told we can trust their projections of future temperatures. That doesn't seem reasonable to me. 

Gregory Wringstone: If, on the other hand, you like the scientific process, we're not getting much data out there. Dr. Will Happer is our Chairman here, at the CO2 Coalition. He's got a paper that he and Dr. Wijngaarden have done on climate sensitivities. They're not able to get it in any prestigious journals. It's a landmark study. They need to shut people like me down. I was just banned on LinkedIn, which should be a professional social media network. I don't talk those things that are controversial, I post scientific facts - and they were being removed. And they got back and said, “No, you're done. We don't allow that kind of information on LinkedIn.”

Ole Henrik Ellestad: This debate is so violent! And if you go to the media, you can express your opinion, but you will be strongly criticized, and then you won’t really have an opportunity to defend yourself. But most importantly, you won't get into the media with your first articles.

Hans Borge: This is what we see now in the academic world, for example, at universities, so academic freedom is endangered. What I have to say is that many people who join the ranks of climate realists do so when they retire, because until retirement they just don’t dare. Researchers who claim something different, don’t get grants, they don’t have their say in either published media or in edited journals.

Harold Sterling Burnett: First off, you're having a difficult time getting published because journals don't want to hear it. Well, that affects your tenure track position. And your colleagues are frowning at you. And you're not getting government grants because government doesn't give grants to study natural factors of climate change or to study things that prove humans aren't causing climate change. Because government has a motive expanding its reach. I know researchers who've left the field because they feel like they can't get their honest assessment and get it either published or get tenure. 

Ole Henrik Ellestad: Climate and environment are often lumped together. But being against climate change doesn’t mean being against the environment. That is, we are not against climate, but we are skeptical of CO2 which is not the same as being skeptical of the environment. So important environmental issues should be discussed and resolved.

Harold Sterling Burnett: That volcanic activity, subsurface volcanic activity in Antarctica and even in parts of Greenland and Iceland are contributing to the melting of the glaciers there. That is not controlled by CO2. We don't control the ocean currents. We don't control the magnetism of the Earth and how it shifts or can shift over time — magnetic poles. We don't control our orbit. If we don't control those things and they're really what's driving, that's why we should study them! Because if they're really what's driving climate change, and we think it's bad - we should know that too. I want an adaptable society. An adaptable society is one that does not lock itself in to solving the wrong problem.