Not reading or watching television whenever propaganda pops up may lead to blissful ignorance, but active engagement is better when supported by awareness. “That horse bucks every time”, (facts) will likely lead to a better decision over statements about its “beauty and fame” (propaganda.)

Propaganda does not mean that it’s always bad. “stop smoking ads” have produced beneficial results, while “eliminating weapons of mass destruction” may not have a positive outcome, albeit the catchy phrase sounds good.

IPCC Organizing Papers dictate its policies. The organization wrote a seven page manifesto (Guidance Note for Lead Authors) on propaganda techniques to guide authors in writing reports, [2] which was used and adopted ( [3] , p. 1¶2), ( [4] , pp. 30¶7, 34¶4.2) ( [5] , pp. 1¶2, 45¶4.2) All IPCC documents are available on its web site. This manifesto plays a significant and key role ( [5] , p. 4¶5.4). Members are encouraged to undergo media training ( [5] , p. 39¶22). Whenever low probabilities appear, climate consequences (emotions) with high certainty are to be included [2] . Authors are to list their positions with positive words, and state their findings as if they were “statement of facts without using uncertainty qualifiers” [2] . Expressions showing lack of knowledge must be avoided [2] . Where a zero probability negative to their position appears, (Honey, I will lasso the moon and pull it closer.) the author can use the word “unlikely” as opposed to impossible ( [2] , p. 3). When communicating low probability the authors are cautioned to use “calibrated language” [2] and if the author chooses to use language of low probability, then “the reasons for their presentation should be carefully explained” i.e. a written justification is needed [2] . Governments may review and comment on the reports before approval [6] .

The US Climate Change Group mirrors the IPCC manifesto plus adds another 89 pages. The title describes the content―“Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making.” [7] . At page 8 it recommends that when communicating uncertainty, one must use psychology and decision science [7] . Spending a billion dollars on more research would likely result in their opinions being less accurate ( [7] , p. 58). In most cases formal analysis (fact based science) plays a lesser role than emotions and feelings ( [7] , p. 65), open ended interviews (mock trials) are recommended ( [7] , p. 68) to test the effectiveness of the message. Assuming a result, and then working backwards is an effective tool in making critical decisions ( [7] , p. 74).

The IPCC members are obligated to uphold, maintain, and implement its principles and promote its products, and act in accordance with the manifesto ( [3] , p. 24¶8). They must proactively communicate with the media and correct any incorrect representations that may be damaging ( [3] , p. 33¶2&3). Bureau members must not express any views beyond the scope of the reports ( [3] , p. 36¶6). All members, including all lead authors ([4] , p. 16¶1-7,) must sign a conflict of interest form ( [4] , p. 19¶5), which indirectly obligates them to uphold the IPCC principals and products.

It is undisputed that not only does the IPCC recommend propaganda, it teaches and promotes it.

The climate studies that are addressed are the multiple assessment reports published by the IPCC from 1990 to 2014. All of these reports―all of them―deal with one fundamental position, i.e. carbon dioxide from man- made sources causes the earth’s temperature to rise via a mechanism called the greenhouse gas effect.

The term “warming” or “global warming” by itself has no meaning since the earth warms up and cools down every day, month, year and century. A Warming Period or Warming Cycle, on the other hand, means sustained (often thousands of years) warming periods normally involving a 10˚C or more rise [8] . A cooling cycle is the other direction, but usually slower [8] .

Agencies currently measure surface air temperatures above the land and near-surface ocean temperatures (depth less than 2 meters), and then calculate a global average temperature from thousands of locations, for each month and each year [9] . Absolute temperatures vary from place to place, so the temperature changes (anomalies) are reported at each location. A global average anomaly is then calculated. This anomaly is very rough since vast amounts (90+%) of the earth’s surface are not included, i.e., temperatures of the soil and rock (centimeters not meters down), mountains, and oceans below the near surface. Because the temperatures from these areas do not change significantly from year to year, [10] , ( [11] , p. 263: Figure 3.3a,) their exclusion can and does exaggerate the anomaly.

In addition, the computer program (HadCRUT4) that calculates anomalies was changed in 2012 and skews the anomalies even higher [12] . Hence, the calculated rough anomaly is tipped higher than actual.

Many believe that the earth is warming although few know how much. Al Gore’s book alarms the reader that the ice caps are melting, the coastal cities will flood, droughts will parch the earth, and people will die. If asked whether a temperature rise of less than one degree centigrade over the last 5 - 10 thousand years would constitute going into a global warming cycle, essentially no one would consider that a problem. Strange as it sounds, that is what the data show. Figure 1 describes a temperature change (anomaly) of about 0.8˚C [11] . The anomaly zero line was arbitrarily selected as 1880. The arbitrary selection can influence the results. If one selects 1944 as the zero line to start the analysis, then the anomaly would be 0.3˚C―almost a third lower. The “anomaly” terminology is confusing since it does not exist in nature, and few non-experts really know what it means. By using this expression most non-experts see only the slope. When coupled with cataclysmic projections nearly

all believe that all hell’s breaking loose.

Figure 1 illustrates a potential “misdirection” by camouflaging actual observation data (black line) with modeling projections set out in thick enveloping colors to trick the eye into seeing an upward trend. The actual data show several upward and downward slopes¹, and illustrate a problem associated with short time periods to predict trends. Useable trends and cycles are established by thousands of years.

The temperature of the earth goes through many solar and natural cycles. Sun spots cycle every ±eleven years, the earth’s orbit changes every ~100,000 years, the earth’s tilt varies every ~41,000 years [14] and large meteorite impacts occur every 130,000 +years [15] , all can affect the earth’s temperatures. The earth also goes through its own natural cycles such as tectonic plate movements, massive volcanic eruptions, magnetic fields variations, weakening of atmospheric and oceanic tides, winds and ocean current fluctuations, and changes in the biological inputs. All of these factors have an influence the earth’s temperature.

Historical records capture temperature fluctuations over geologic time. Figure 2 reports anomalies over the last 800,000 years [8] . Temperatures are not measured directly but are extrapolated from oxygen isotope ratios from Antarctic ice cores [16] . The figure indicates Antarctic temperature changes and not global temperature anomalies [17] . The Earth began its climb out of the last global cool period about 18 thousands years ago and finished 10˚C warmer about 12 thousand years ago. For the past 5 thousand years, the temperature has been “exceptionally stable” with variations of ±0.5˚ from average. There have never been “back to back” warming events (~10˚ rise [8] ) as some are foretelling. The IPCC acknowledges that it takes an increase of at least 1˚C to be considered

the start of a signal ( [18] , p. 253). The earth has not reached that point today and the evidence does not indicate that the earth is in or entering a second “warming cycle”.

The fact that earth is very stable today, and that “back to back warming events” have never occurred in the entire geologic history, does not mean that something could not alter that course. Many believe that such event is now occurring based on CO₂ from burning of fossil fuels.

Figure 3 visually displays a dramatic increase in CO₂ levels since 1900 and particularly since 1950. Jumping to a quick conclusion from a figure indicates an emotional response and should be viewed with caution, i.e. propaganda triggers emotions.

A closer look shows that the scale in Figure 3 was expanded 10,000 times over the normal. The actual composition of atmospheric air is 78% N₂, 20.9% O₂, and about 1% water vapor at sea level. This makes up 99.9 percent of the air. Small amounts of argon, hydrogen, helium, make up the difference with CO₂ coming in at a distant 0.04 percent.

Figure 4 is a bar chart of the actual composition of atmospheric air. Water vapor concentration is the green line. The highest concentration of CO₂ is 25 times less and so small that it cannot be seen on the chart.

Historically, the CO₂ concentrations have varied from near zero to over 4500 ppm. That is more than 100 times greater than today. During the Juristic period it varied from near zero to 2000 ppm [19] . Between today and 310 million years ago the CO₂ varied from 100 ppm to over 2200 ppm [20] . Ice cores for the last 160,000

years show CO₂ concentrations varied from 180 to 300 ppm ( [18] , p. xv).

These records confirm that a concentration of 400 ppm is neither unexpected nor unusual.

The term greenhouse effect is a misnomer since it does not function like a regular greenhouse ( [21] , p. 28). The greenhouse theory suggests that high energy sunlight passes through atmospheric greenhouse gases unimpeded and warms the earth. The earth emits low energy long-wave radiation known as infrared. This infrared radiation travels up through the atmosphere where it is absorbed by the greenhouse gases increasing the gases kinetic energy (temperature.) There is no question that this process slows global heat loss, i.e. a blanket analysis. The greenhouse theory adds a controversial extra step and proposes that the greenhouse gases re-radiate a portion of the infrared radiation back to the earth ( [18] , p. xiv) and that this is the dominate mechanism for keeping the earth warm.

The greenhouse theory assumes that only radiation heats and cools the earth and that greenhouse gases are why the earth is not −18˚C, or 33˚ cooler than a black body without any atmosphere ( [18] , pp. xxxv, & xxxvii). The heating and cooling process of the earth is more complicated than a simple greenhouse effect. There are many factors that affect the Earth’s temperature and ignoring them creates serious errors. [Suns radiance variations [22] (Milankovitch solar cycles); Gravity; Earth’s declining magnetic fields; [23] Earth’s nuclear core; [24] earth’s natural processes, chemical processes, radioactive decay, biological processes, convective transfers, latent heat, etc.]

To confound the matter, blaming everything on CO₂ as the single most important perpetrator in the greenhouse theory cannot be done. Water vapor has absorption spectra many times larger than carbon dioxide ( [18] , p. 48), overlaps carbon dioxide absorption spectra at several wavelengths, and is some 25 times more concentrated. [25] Water vapor is by far the most dominating greenhouse gas ( [21] , p. 205). A CO₂ reduction to the 1800 year values (120 ppm less) would have very little measureable effect over and above water vapor in the lower atmosphere. Some studies go even further and reject a CO₂ connection in favor of an ozone link [26] .

Satellite observations report infrared radiance coming from the upper atmosphere with a 15 micron wavelength, [27] which happens to be the major absorption band for CO₂. According to Kirchhoff’s third law a thin cool gas in front of a hotter solid emits radiation at its absorption lines. This means that CO₂ is probably a significant source of the 15 micron radiance and may be a factor in cooling the earth. This may also provide an additional explanation why the stratosphere has been cooling during the industrial period ( [28] , p. 38: Fig. TS.7). However, satellite observations from space only record outgoing radiation, and not what’s going on below. For example, watching a person leave his house does not reveal what he did inside.

The earth has an average temperature of about 15˚C, which is considerably warmer ( [18] , p. xxxvii) than the gas and particles in the stratosphere. The second law of thermodynamics holds that heat travels from a hot source to a cold source, that is, something cold cannot heat up something hot [29] . Hence, radiation at an effective temperature of −80˚C cannot heat up a warmer object, i.e. the earth. Although radiation travels in all directions, the net flux is always from hot to cold. This also creates some strange glitches, i.e. the temperature of the tropopause is constant even though troposphere below and stratosphere above are both warmer². Radiation in general is an exceedingly complicated process. This is not surprising since there are many unresolved theories as to whether radiation is a wave (Maxwell), a particle (Newton), or both (Bohm) or neither (Eddington) [30] . This uncertainty provides a degree of support for or rejection of almost any theory. Until a clear theory can be established, confirmation must lie primarily with empirical evidence.

Laboratory experiments with greenhouse gases have been limited to absorption and re-emission spectra. There has been no laboratory or small scale experiment supporting the greenhouse gas effect. Experiments with enclosed systems, i.e. actual greenhouses, are not applicable because the air is trapped and heated by convection. (The sunlight heats the grounds and the air heats by contacting the ground.)

Particles, including droplets, are different from gases. Crops freeze (radiation frost [31] ) on clear nights but not on cloudy nights because the clouds (water droplets, ice crystals) reflect/re-radiate infrared radiation back to earth. The Pictet experiment proved that infrared radiation can be reflected [29] . On cloudless nights farmers burned wet rice-straw to recreate clouds, some even added black soot by burning tires, with limited success. It illustrates, however, that a narrow greenhouse type effect likely exists―but associated with particles. Assigning all of the back radiation to gases ( [32] , p. 58: Figure 1.3) and none to particles is conflicting.

An observational study is displayed in Figure 5 [18] [33] visually suggest CO₂ and temperature anomalies are related. It illustrates that CO₂ levels and anomalies go up and down in roughly the same geological time period. A longer geologic time period [19] [34] [35] reveals a more complete picture showing that there were exceptionally high CO₂ concentrations (over 1000 ppm) during ice ages. If increasing CO₂ levels force a rise in temperature, logic suggests that CO₂ concentrations 3 to 5 times higher than they are today would not support an ice age. It may suggest the opposite, i.e. a cooling component to CO₂. There were studies showing very high CO₂ concentrations during cool periods [36] . During the mid-Pliocene period (3.3 - 2.9 Ma) the CO₂ levels were similar to what they are today (350 - 450 ppm) but the sea levels were 21 meters higher. This suggests a decoupling of CO₂ to temperature [37] .

Several studies reported that a rise in CO₂ concentration actually lagged behind a temperature rise [38] - [41] . This supports a CO₂―temperature connection, but places temperature as the driver and CO₂ riding shotgun. This is supported by standard chemistry and engineering principles. Carbon dioxide prefers to dissolve in cold water over warm [42] . When the oceans warm, CO₂ bubbles into the atmosphere. With ninety three percent of the total global carbon reserve residing in the ocean and accounting for 57% of the global CO₂ emissions³,

( [32] , p. 77: Figure 2.1) science easily supports that temperature is a licensed driver.

The IPCC’s vice chairman, along with others, performed a study of one warming cycle (Term III), [43] and confirmed a lagging CO₂, but only in the Southern Hemisphere. No conflicts there. Oceans absorb the largest portion of the earth’s thermal radiation, and the Southern Hemisphere accounts for 60 percent of the total ocean surface. Logic supports a leading Southern Hemisphere warming.

Selecting the location of measurements creates a potential for confusion, i.e. misdirection. All of the pH measurements were done near the air-water interface, i.e. the top several centimeters, and not in the deeper zones comprising 99.99+ percent of the ocean. There is direct CO₂ contact at the surface and a measurement at this location would expect to have a higher response. As such, surface measurements are seriously constrained and should not be extrapolated to the entire ocean without a substantial impartial investigation.

Misunderstandings about basic chemistry create serious drawbacks. The IPCC 2013 report [11] at page 297 states that only 1% of the CO₂ remains as a dissolved gas, the other 99 % disassociates and forms bicarbonate and carbonate ions. Support for this position was an article [54] co-written by two lead authors of the IPCC reports. [55] That article did not present any investigation, tests, or analysis supporting the 1% CO₂(aq) position. It is believed that they reported it incorrectly or were confused. The hydration constant for sea water―Kh i.e. [H₂CO₃]/[CO₂] is 1.2 × 10⁻³. [53] This shows that almost all of the CO₂ remains as CO₂(aq) and not as carbonic acid. A detailed study of this issue was done [56] and showed by actual tests that the carbonate solution was dominated by CO₂ gas. Confusion over potential verses actual may have occurred, i.e. there is a major difference between the potential of CO₂ to form carbonic acid and the amount that actually formed carbonic acid. Only the latter produces hydrogen ions and depresses the pH while the former merely stands ready. An analogy would be the difference between a large number of registered voters (potential) and those who in fact voted (actual.)

In addition, the IPCC report [11] shows in Figure 3.18 at pg. 294 that the H₂CO₃ dissociates entirely to carbonate ions as opposed to bicarbonate ions. This has the effect of doubling the amount of hydrogen ions, i.e. pH. The disassociation constants do not support the formation of plentiful carbonate ions, but rather show that it should be at least 1000 times less than bicarbonate ions [53] [57] . These two mistakes result in an overstating of the effect of the CO₂ in reducing ocean pH.

Figure 7 is from the IPCC 2013 report [11] . On the right hand side of the chart is a plot of the ocean pH visually displaying nearly the same slope as the CO₂ except one positive and one negative. That diagram implies the two are inversely related. The scale for the pH is not the same relative scale as for the CO₂. The CO₂ plot shows a 12 percent rise. In order to show the same linear scale of pH for a slope of 12%, it would have to go from a pH of 8.4 to 7.5. Because the pH only went from 8.12 to 8.08, that is a slope of less than 1 percent (0.49 percent.) To make the plots look related, the pH scale was expanded so that they each visually appeared similar. If the same relative scale were used it would reveal that they are not related. Another complication is that the chart incorrectly compares a linear CO₂ progression to a logarithmic pH regression. Logarithmic functions are exponential and not linear.

Observations appear to negate CO₂ as the cause of ocean pH changes. The IPCC presents a color chart illustrat-

ing where the lowest pH is located ( [11] , p. 295: Box 3.2, Figure 1 bottom). It reveals that pH is lowest in the warm parts of the ocean and the highest in the colder waters. As discussed earlier, cold water (0˚C) holds almost twice as much CO₂ as warm water (23˚C.) Therefore, the lowest pH should be seen in the colder water and the highest in the warmer waters. Yet, the actual observations reveal the opposite, i.e. a higher pH in cooler regions and a lower pH in warmer sections, and particularly in the areas known as the ring of fire. Volcanoes put out enormous amount of water soluble SO₂, and SO₂ forms sulfuric acid. Sulfuric acid (pH 0.3) is 678 times stronger and more stable than carbonic acid. It is likely that SO₂ and other acid gases are affecting the pH. This is supported by the fact that there are 21 times more sulfate ions in surface sea water than carbonate and bicarbonate ions combined [58] .

The evidence is overwhelming that CO₂ is not the cause of any measurable pH change in ocean. Whether it affects the top several centimeters (inches) is likely.