Bipartisan Panel of Scientists Confirms Humans are NOT Responsible for Past 20,000 Years of Global Warming

“Four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible” – Quote from a press release issued by Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama.
(The”climate science experts” mentioned above truly are experts. See their qualifications below. Also see video below.)


July 11, 2019
Press Release

Washington, DC— Thursday, in a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing on climate change, under questioning by Congressman Mo Brooks (AL-05), four members of a bipartisan panel of climate science experts all admitted that humans are NOT responsible for the Earth’s global warming that has occurred over the past 20,000 years (since the Earth’s last glacial maximum).

By way of background, during the last glacial maximum of roughly 20,000 years ago:

  • Average global temperatures were roughly 11 degrees Fahrenheit COLDER than they are today (per Zurich University of Applied Science). Stated differently, global temperatures have risen, on average, roughly 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century over the past 20,000 years.
  • Sea levels were roughly 410 feet LOWER 20,000 years ago than they are today (per the United States Geological Survey). Stated differently, sea levels have risen, on average, roughly two feet per century over the past 20,000 years (roughly double the global warming enthusiasts’ claimed average sea level rise rate of one foot per century since 1993).
  • Almost all of Canada, Northern Europe, and America (north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, east to New York City) was under glacial ice and uninhabitable.

The gist of the experts’ opinions is that the earth was too lightly populated by humans to make humanity responsible for the Earth’s global warming that began 20,000 years ago.

Responding Panel Witnesses:

Dr. Robin E. Bell, Lamont Research Professor, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

Dr. Twila A. Moon, Research Scientist, National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

Dr. Gabriel J. Wolkon, Research Scientist and Manager, Climate and Cryosphere Hazards Program, Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys, Alaska Department of Natural Resources

Dr. W. Tad Pfeffer, Fellow, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder

Here’s a video of Congressman Brook’s questioning.
You can also view the video HERE 


Full transcript of Congressman Brooks’ questioning follows:

Brooks: Thank you Madam Chairman. Is anyone on the panel not familiar with the Earth’s last glacial maximum roughly twenty thousand years ago? Okay everybody is, good. For those in the audience who are not, by way of background, during the last glacial maximum Northern Europe was under ice, roughly 90% of Canada and almost all of the continental United States of America north of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers and east of New York City were under ice. According to the United States Geological Survey, during the last glacial maximum – again 20,000 years ago – sea levels were roughly 410 feet lower than today. Stated differently, for 20,000 years sea levels have risen, on average, two feet per century versus the much less roughly one foot per century rising rate since 1993 that is reflected in Dr. Alley’s written testimony. Finally, per Zurich University of Applied Science, Earth’s average temperature 20,000 years ago was 48 degrees Fahrenheit versus 59 degrees Fahrenheit today. That’s an 11 degree increase in global temperature average over the last 20,000 year period. So, my question to each of you is – and we will start over here with Dr. Pfeffer and move from my right to left – did human beings cause the global warming that started 20,000 years ago and continues through today? Or, if not, what did?

Pfeffer: So, the examples from 20,000 years ago that Mr. Brooks gave us, are excellent examples of the kind of natural variability that the Earth experiences. There is no question that in the past there have been changes in temperature, and sea level rise and weather patterns and climate generally as dramatic or more dramatic than what you may be experiencing in the future and of course they weren’t human caused 20,000 years ago or the last million years. All of these variable events have been occurring throughout the Earth’s modern history.

Brooks: Well my first question was, in your judgment, did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum?

Pfeffer: No. No. Absolutory not. It is an example of spontaneous natural variability— one of the many ways that this whole system was— whether you look at it in terms of sea levels rise, temperature, storms— can be varied.

Brooks: Are you familiar with the phrase: snowball Earth, or slush ball Earth? Roughly 600 million years ago, when we were almost entirely ice or slush…

Pfeffer: Entirely natural variation.

Brooks: …versus, the Paleocene and Eocene, thermal maximum of about 55-56 million years ago when the average temperature was roughly 73 degrees Fahrenheit which is 14 degrees warmer than what we are experiencing now? If you don’t mind, Dr. Wolkon lets go to you. Did human beings cause the global warming that began 20,000 years ago?

Wolkon: No, absolutely not. That was a product of natural variability in the climate system. Yeah.

Brooks: Dr. Moon?

Moon: Humans weren’t around in nearly the numbers we are today, so we certainly were not available to be combusting fossil fuels at the rate we are today are putting emissions into the atmosphere. You can consider, we have built America in the last 243 years and we’re changing things at a much more rapid rate.

Brooks: So, you also agree then that the global warming that has occurred over the last 20,000 years at 11 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, was not human caused, at least, when it began 20,000 years ago?

Moon: So, I would agree that when it began 20,000 years ago when we were coming out of the last glacial that was not caused by humans. The warming of the last 100 years, most certainly was.

Brooks: Out of curiosity, why do you or how do you explain that the sea level rise average of the last 20,000 years has been 2 feet per century, yet we are down to 1 foot per century?

Moon: So, much of our rise in sea levels that you are talking about came earlier in that 20,000 years.

Brooks: Over six or seven thousand years.

Moon: Over this last 10,000 years, we have been sitting with vary stable sea levels and those stable sea levels have allowed us to develop the coast of the world.

Brooks: Okay, thank you Dr. Moon. And I only have about 30 seconds left for Dr. Bell. Dr. Bell, in your judgement, 20,000 years ago when it began was it caused by humans?

Bell: In my judgment, the variation that we were seeing 20,000 years ago was part of the pulse of the planet— it pulses at about 100,000 years, glacial or interglacial. When I started graduate school, we were expecting to go into the next glacial period, except that we as human beings in the last 100 years— and you can see the pick-up since we invented the seam engine— you can see the temperature moving up.

Brooks: Alright, I’m out of time. Madam Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I just wish I had sufficient time to actually get into what the cause of the global warming that began 20,000 years ago was— if not— humans. Thank you.

Chairman Johnson: Excuse me. Go ahead, doctor.

Pfeffer: I just wanted to respond a bit further to your question. The changes in the past, there are two significant differences between those events and the events today. One of them is that they were triggered by natural variations, not by human agency. Let me just give you an analogy of your house: your house might burn down— and it might burn down for entirely natural reasons, it might be struck by lightning— but it could also burn down if you are careless and you drop a cigarette in the crack of the sofa. Both of those are triggers that result in your house burning down. The presence of one of them does not really say much about the other except that they both lead to the same endpoint. The other thing is that while there were these very dramatic temperature changes and sea level rises in the past— which were entirely natural— we weren’t there to deal with them. The problem here is with people. How do we respond to an environmental change? The earth will take care of itself, it doesn’t really care what happens. It is what people do. And if this had happened, you know, a long time ago, when the population of the Earth was a few hundred million, it probably wouldn’t have mattered either because we could have just gotten out of the way. But as it is today— with the number of people that we have and the infrastructure— we are very sensitive to changes of this kind. We do not handle change very well. For example, suppose that the conditions for growing crops that exist today in California, picked up and moved to North Dakota for a couple of hundred years, they are variations like that in the fairly recent geologic past that occurred. How do we deal with them? It is an entirely different world than what we were not here to experience, but we know about 20,000 years ago. We’re much more sensitive. We don’t deal well with change and to deal with it we need to know a lot about it.

Brooks: Dr. Pfeffer, thank you for that additional insight.

Morris Jackson “Mo” Brooks Jr. (born April 29, 1954) is the U.S. Representative for Alabama’s 5th congressional district.

Thanks to Dan Tarpley for this link


14 thoughts on “Bipartisan Panel of Scientists Confirms Humans are NOT Responsible for Past 20,000 Years of Global Warming”

  1. the way they state everything still gives an argument for warming- saying global temperatures have risen an average of (blah blah), and the sea levels have risen an average of (blah blah.

    There was no average increase, it was all at once, the ice melted all at once, the sea levels rose 400 feet rapidly (it’s why there is flood mythology in almost every ancient society)

  2. and i noted that in spite of admitting huge natural variations they still try n pin the last 100 or so directly on humans alone..
    the last bit was THE most telling
    its got stuff all to do with the health or anything else of the planet , as George Carlin said the Planet! is FINE!
    its the fact the mega rich and others of the general population have closely settled in Permanent structures that would be lost EITHER way…if it gets wetter or colder damage will happen and handling it is beyond their capabilities as governments
    of course people thamselves without govts really do seem to do ok adapting to changes.
    the term IYI springs to mind
    intelligent, yet idiots
    and todays young these people have taught are a shining example of the inability to think for themselves handle emergencies and cope with basic skill of survival let alone disasters.
    diety help us all if there is one cos the sham of those in power really will be exposed for the lie it is when SHTF!

  3. Dear me… fifty years after Paul Ehrlich’s bizarrely asinine “Population Bomb” (1968); forty years since 1he 1970s’ “New Ice Age” segued to “Global Warming”; ten years after Climategate exposed crony-kleparchs’ One World save-the-planet drivel for the conscious, knowing, willful Grand Theft scam it is– it’s news that a bunch of academics sense careerist tides have turned?

    In brute-force Reality, no-one is “expert on the future”– Nature cares nothing for your beansprout Giant’s Castle. As Richard Feynman put it, “The most beautiful theory fails before the merest grain of fact.” Though high-falutin’ “post-modern” verbalizers (typically deadhead “identity groups”) relentlessly disparage “facts”, hot air rises, water flows downhill. Get the message, kiddies?

    • “New Ice Age” projections signed and presented to U.N. back in the 1970s, projecting an approaching Ice Age around 2030, which the U.N. segued into “AGW”, taxing to hell and beyond shoring up ones hard earned money to build themselves comfy living spaces hidden under hills and mountains; is more the declaration demanded sir.

      In using common sense and not to look like the fools they are for allowing themselves to be raked in for job securities and abandonment from any government contracts, many so called climate scientist’s whom receive grants and whatnot’s from their masters, are indeed doing an about face seeing the writing upon the wall! Ya, the message was received from the hot air baggin’ liars from conception, no wool pulled over these eyes, nor the eyes of most here. Climb back up ur’ bean sprout and continue the dream world!

  4. This spin brought to you by the fossil fuel industry. I’m old enough to remember when the GOP advocated for conservation and protecting the environment for future generations. But money is more important than values to the corrupt of Washington DC. (Dems give the environment lip service but are just as bought.)

    Ask about the last 100 years of radical climate change rather than deflecting to ask about the last 20,000. But that wouldn’t please your corporate masters.

    • My corporate masters? A typical false charge. I receive ZERO funding and ZERO direction from any corporation or any fossil-fuel company or even any business for that matter.

    • I am so tired of hearing the kind of Tripe you are spouting i feel like screaming. The fossil fuel industry makes modern life possible. If it wasn’t for fossil fuels everything you take for granted would not exist. If you were even alive you wold be living in a hovel or small log cabin heated by firewood, up with the sun and going to bed soon after sundown with only a candle for light. Your life would be hard, uncomfortable and short. Its time you show a little gratitude for the energy industry people who make it possible for you to sit a home in comfort that even royalty in the past would of been envious of and complain about the fossil fuel industry. Oil and gas people work in places that are too hot, too cold or too dangerous and routinely deal with technology you could not even begin to understand. There is no conspiracy by big oil to suppress alternate forms of energy just the laws of physics and the market place. So if you believe there is something better get out of the basement invest all you have and work your butt off and compete in the market place. The world awaits you.

      • Very well said James Moody but some ears are deaf or some brains are not capable of understanding.
        Robert you’re doing a great job. Don’t let people like Kiry Phal stop you. Throwing insults or false accusation would not fool anybody. Remember: people throw rocks at fruit trees.
        We love you and your work.

    • I am assuming you are speaking rhetorically to Rep. Brooks, and in that case, I would agree with you. Although he chose his date more carefully than did you. As the dim bulb Dr. Moon chose, you use that same spread of years, I will point out that during the last 100 years, of which only 60 or 70 years has been under heavy carbon fuel usage, the temperatures were much higher in the 1930s, prior to the great increase in carbon dioxide, than they have been since. You have willingly shot yourself in the after section in your zeal to show off your ignorance. At least Rep. Brooks was forcing them to admit that natural variability caused the end of the ice age and a greater rise in temperature than has been experienced in the past 100 years, and in so doing raises the obvious question if it happened then why can’t it have been happening in the past 50 years,

  5. To Al:
    “The most recent “ice age” (glacial maximum) was about 20,000 years ago, and ended between 11,500 and 14,000 years ago when glaciers retreated from central North America and Europe.”

    That’s hardly “melted all at once”. The melting started at the glacial max, not at the very end of the glacial period. The reason it’s called a maximum is because the ice decreased, starting at the maximum accumulation point. It’s not quite as simple as someone turning off a refrigerator.

  6. In the recent past religious breakaways and cults were predicting the end of the world. To-day global-warmers climate-changers have taken over. This is the new Cult. Prophesying doom, peddling hysteria while ignoring science. Some gospel!

  7. Another baseless charge trotted out routinely by unthinking environmental extremists Is that any scientists who oppose the global warming agenda are tools of fossil fuel interests. This is a blatant lie. Add up the more than 175 billion supplied by the federal government in research grants, billions more spent by environmental groups and George Soros and Steyer and it dwarfs anything spent by fossil fuel interests. And to anyone paying attention, ExxonMobil runs ads on a regular basis that pay obeisance to the global warming cause much as medieval Catholics bought indulgences to buy their way into heaven. In short, those who this canard have no idea what they’re talking about. In fact, the money, not to mention a lamestream media, are almost all spent on behalf of the politically driven fraud.

  8. Amen, brother!

    Robert, you were the “voice crying in the wilderness”. Now everyone is starting to jump on the bandwagon.

    Thanks to you, at least some of us got a heads up. A word to the wise is sufficient.

  9. To those who would harp on “the last hundred years” and worry about “life at 2 C higher” or roughly 3F. I would suggest you listen once again to what was said in that video, where it states – and with no dissent from the panel of “scientists,” that today’s world average temperature is roughly 59F, and it was over 72F as a global temperature earlier. Earth survived that temperature, and so did those creatures that were ancestors to those that exist today, so why are you concerned about a change in temperature of 3F degrees? You make no sense.

Comments are closed.