Global Warming is “Nonsense,” says former NASA scientist

“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children.”

Man-made climate change is “an unsubstantiated hypothesis”

There is “no reproducible evidence” that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, says Woodcock, who blames the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale,” Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post. “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”

Teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon

When asked how can say this when most of the world’s scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:

“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it’s not up to me to prove it does not exist, it’s up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”

This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.

“…the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.”

See entire article:

Thanks to Terry Pack and Benjamin Napier for this link

Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a  recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)

17 thoughts on “Global Warming is “Nonsense,” says former NASA scientist

  1. Our power grid is strained to the max; never the less, we keep trying to kill coal fired power and replace it with inefficient wind turbines. These things are ugly bird and bat killers. To top things off, there are no laws in place for the removal of these eye sores once their useful life span is complete. We do all this in the name of green energy but in reality, it is a political tool to raise campaign contributions.

    • —easy, chop them down and sell them as scrap. My stepson is in the scrap metal business and would be delighted to help.

  2. Another great article, Robert!

    However, the liberals will pay this article no mind simply because it’s from

    Even if we move swiftly into a period of severe glaciation, Al Gore, et al., will claim it’s another manifestation of climate change and his global warming worshiping lemmings will believe the evil power companies are the cause of it all.

  3. How many more real climate scientists, who come out against the CO2 boogey man, will it take before the majority realizes that it has been duped? Doh!!

    • So is vulcanism Jim…and increased CO2 is good for plant life…we actually live at some of the lowest levels ever

    • I think there was an omission and he meant causing temps to go higher but

      The data for the amount of CO2 at the turn of last century 1900 was manipulated so the figures would look lower. It is quite probable that while CO2 is increasing it isn’t to as great an extent.

    • Jim, Atomosopheric CO2 is a buzz word. Show me the imperical data, without exclusion, or hedonistic adjustment, that proves that atomosopheric CO2 concentrations TODAY, not extrapolated, or interpolated, demonstrate a direct contribution to Global Warming and/or mean temperature increase of any percentile greater than de minimus. Include the effects of Solar Loading and Volcanism in your theorem. Thanks bunches….

    • It finally dawned on me why he can make that statement. He said over the last century.
      The IPCC has ignored readings before Mauna Loa came on line. Some of those earlier readings were higher than today and are by highly competent scientists.

    • sticking their most quoted reading station on Mauna Loa a bloody active volcano is hardly sane or getting decent readings is it?

  4. It is interesting that all the evangelists claim the “greenhouse effect” is simple basic science – “Physics 101”.

    Yet there has NEVER been any experimental verification of the hypothesis – NEVER !

    Mankind can send a several tonne machine to Mars to sample, photograph and roam over the surface whilst sending all this information home

    BUT we cannot demonstrate “Physics 101” ???

    If it can’t be substantiated by experiment it is almost certainly WRONG !!

    When they prove it by experiment I’ll believe it – it is simple basic science after all isn’t it ?

    What a con !

  5. Notice how it is an EMERITUS Professor who is able to speak his mind.

    Where are the IN-POST Professors who are able to enunciate such views and still retain their Professorships??

    If they don’t- or can’t exist, then University Research is no longer research, it is Government-sponsored PR.

  6. The atmosphere *MAY* be warming – after all, we’ve been warming for 22,000 years since the last ice age ended – but the incontrovertible “proof” offered by NASA, NOAA, and other big-name scientists has been polluted by data tampering. So even if it is factual, to the extent that is currently claimed cannot be trusted and so for me, gives me reason to be skeptical of how much influence humanity has had on affecting the climate. It’s the same reason why OJ Simpson couldn’t be found guilty of an obvious crime: Mark Fuhrman took his blood samples with him in his pocket to the crime scene instead of adhering to chain-of-possession protocol. That act, in the eyes of the jury, was suspect enough to give reasonable doubt, i.e. skepticism. This is no different a situation, save for the trillions of dollars of wealth redistributed in the name of averting climate change.

    To think that CO2 acts independently as a thermostat to our planet’s ecosystem is the very definition of lunacy itself.

  7. There are so many issues tangled together in the climate debate that it is nearly impossible to disentangle them without appearing to be trying to distract from the discussion to some irrelevant side track. The earth has in fact been cooling since about 8,000 years ago. It warmed very rapidly following the late glacial maximum, though interrupted by the Younger Dryas. Warming peaked in the early to middle Holocene and has been a long gentle cooling trend since that time.

    There have been both warming and cooling episodes following the mid-Holocene, but each subsequent warming episode has not warmed the planet quite as much as its predecessor. If current forecasts are correct, we’ll see cooling for two or three decades before any new warming trend, which will again be weaker than the current episode, which appears to be ending.

Comments are closed.