Contributed by Kenneth B. Gregory, P. Eng. © 2019   

Note to readers – climate ‘models’ are computer simulations that are used to forecast future effects of climate. Based on those forecasts, carbon taxes and climate policies are set by policymakers.

Human-caused climate change is a major issue of our time.  Unfortunately, governments and most news media rely on a political organization of the United Nations called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for assessments about climate science and policy. The IPCC relies on climate models that assume all the warming recorded by instruments was caused by human activity despite the overwhelming evidence of large and rapid warming and cooling events before humans could have had any effect on global temperatures.  The sun’s activity has increased through the 20th century. Its magnetic flux in the 1990s was the greatest of the last 3000 years. The IPCC falsely attributes natural warming and urban warming to greenhouse gas (GHG) emission warming. It ignores the compelling evidence of natural climate change before 1950 that correlates well with indicators of solar activity. It ignores the fact that most surface temperature measurements are warmed by the urban heat island effect that warms cities and towns. These effects must be removed from the instrument temperature record to determine the warming effect of human-caused GHG emissions.

Current global temperatures are likely similar to that of the Roman Warm Period (1 – 200 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (800-1100 AD), but much warmer than the Dark Age Cold Period and the Little Ice Age which ended about 1850. The temperature history shows an obvious millennium cycle, which strongly indicates that a large portion of the warming since 1850 was a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.

The IPCC ignores the evidence that the sun’s impact on climate is much larger than what can be explained by the changes of the sun’s total heat output.  The conduct of the IPCC in this regard is contrary to fundamental scientific principles. Science requires that theory is tested against observational evidence, and where there is disagreement, the theory must be modified. Natural climate change also includes long-term ocean oscillations, volcanic activity and other processes.

The energy balance study of climate sensitivity to emissions by Lewis & Curry 2018 shows that if all the warming was due to GHG, the expected warming due to all emissions would cause 0.9 °C of warming from 2018 to 2100. Carbon dioxide (CO2) causes 90% of GHG warming. When the natural warming and the UHIE is accounted for, the effect of CO2 emissions is projected to cause only about 0.6 °C of warming from 2018 to 2100.


The average of the climate models project a warming trend of the lowest part of the atmosphere from 1979 to 2018 that is 215% of the actual measurements, so the models are wrong. The model trend of the global bulk atmospheric temperature is 250% of the trends of the weather balloon and satellite data. This is because the models are far too sensitive to greenhouse gases. The bulk atmosphere warms more than the surface in the models because they increase water vapour, which is a strong GHG, in the upper atmosphere, while the measurements from weather balloons and satellites show declining water vapour.


FUND is an economic model that simulates the welfare impacts of GHG emissions in various regions of the Earth. It shows that Canada’s personal wealth is projected to increase despite climate change by a factor of 2.5.

Dr. Richard Tol, an author of FUND, wrote in his book “Climate Economics” published in 2014 “The impact [in Canada of climate change] is positive throughout the 21st century, as are incremental impacts”. He shows the net impact continually increases to 1.78% of GDP by 2100, equivalent to over C$100 billion benefit per year. The largest benefits for Canada are reduced space heating costs and higher agricultural production. CO2 is plant food. It helps crops growth faster.

On a global basis, the FUND model calculates that the net annual benefit of GHG emissions from 1900 is around US$3 trillion/yr at 2100, or 0.85% of global GDP with 1.3 °C of warming from 2018. That is, global warming to 2100 is likely net beneficial.

So why are we putting a huge burden on ourselves to prevent a benefit to the extremely wealthy people of the future? If the economic forecasts are correct and future Canadians in 2100 will be 2.5 times wealthier than us today, they can afford to pay for adaptation measures if and when temperatures increase to levels that start to cause damages.

For further information and references: 




Canadians Cause Global Warming – in Simulations

(Aug. 5, 2016)

Dr. Ross McKitrick on Climate Change 

Dr. John Christy at the French L’Association des Climato-Realistes  (In English, French introduction)

(March 2019) Note the hot Canadian model forecasts/projections at 15:28.

Global Warming Policy Foundation 

Rupert Durwall on APS Workshop and Climate Model (Simulation) Exaggerations 

APS Workshop Transcript (referred to in Rupert Durwall post above)

Donna Laframboise – IPCC is a Political Organization Driven by Green Agenda ENGOs 

Drieu Godefridi – The IPCC: A Scientific Body?  (English) 


Drieu Godefridi – Le GIEC est mort : Vive la science ! (French)

The ClimateWorks Foundation – Green Billionaires pushing Climate Hysteria via ENGOs and IPCC  

ClimateWorks Foundation – WikiLeaks

Cavemen, Climate and Computers – by Prof. Christopher Essex ( on computer models)