ClimateTruth is published by Kirk Myers, a 30-year veteran of the advertising and public relations professions.  Myers has spent the last decade researching the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory and is an outspoken critic of climate alarmism.  He concludes that the AGW theory — now thoroughly discredited — is driven not by science, but instead by a cabal of powerful elitists who seek to dominate and control the planet’s economy through a system of confiscatory taxation and Orwellian people controls.


4 Responses to About

  1. Dennis R. Roth says:

    Dr. Mr. Myers

    Thanks for the recent Willie Soon article and especially for the article by Dr. Miskolczi. I’ve now spent almost two full years (about 60-70 hours per week) researching climate science for a book I intend to publish now titled “Global Warming: Not Abnormal, Not Alarming, Not Manmade”. I had never previously seen anything published before by Dr. Miskolczi. I found his paper fascinating and his reasoning solid as it was based on 61 years of actual radiozonde data.

    I came across another paper recently called “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” This paper showed the apparently flawed logic used that suggested that the GHG effect adds approximately 33°C/57°F to Earth’s surface temperatures. I’d read about this same information almost two years ago in a Junkscience.com paper. I was not aware that the heat contribution that was apparently attributable to GHGs, prior to their recent post industrial revolution increase, was necessarily even challenged, as I’ve heard many well-known AGW skeptics discuss the 33°C/57°F numbers.

    With regard to the heat contributions to Earth’s surface temperature, armed with my MBA (in the early 1960s) I took one look at the stefan-boltzmann equations and decided it would be pointless to explore what was meant by Earth’s surface being treated as a “blackbody”. After two years of reading and understanding something about the enormous heat storage capacity of Earth’s land and especially ocean surfaces, I was shocked that the enormous surface heat that was apparently attributed to GHGs was so easily and clearly challenged in this well-written and understandable “Greenhouse Effect on the Moon” paper. Earth’s surfaces definitely do not behave as a blackbody, which is a theoretical two-dimensional surface that is essentially incapable of storing heat. Therefore, how much of the 33°C/57°F Earth surface heat attributable to GHGs is real?

    As with Dr. Miskolczi’s recent article, every time I start to work on a “final” draft of my book, all this new information that I never even knew existed seems to “fall out of the sky.” It is a bit humbling and disconcerting.

    • kirkmyers says:


      Thanks for responding to my column featuring an interview with Ferenc Miskolczi. I’ve posted a response in the comments section, along with numerous links to other articles you may want to read.

      Kirk Myers

  2. kirkmyers says:


    Thanks for your comment. I’ve read the paper, “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon.” I’m now preparing a column that will question the entire theory of a greenhouse effect, based on data drawn from numerous sources. (Incidentally, the term “greenhouse effect” is very misleading. The warming that takes place in the earth’s atmosphere does not resemble what happens in a greenhouse.)

    Here are a few links you might find interesting:

    Gerhard and Tscheuschner

    Heinz Thieme

    Alan Siddons – former radiochemist

    Claes Johnson

    Hans Schreuder

    Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a combustion research scientist.

    Alan Siddons

  3. Dennis R. Roth says:

    Dear Kirk:

    I understand the differences between a real greenhouse and the “greenhouse” effect. It is interesting to note that plants in greenhouses do so well because the C02 levels in greenhouses are usually kept at 800-900 ppmv. What was the EPA thinking? C02 Science, the Idso brothers, have the most complete data on the measured affects of increased C02 on crop growth that I’ve seen.

    Thanks for all the links and references. I though “A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” was an elegant paper. Fortunately, without having to go into the Stefan-Boltzmann Equations, the paper appears to have debunked the heart of the GHG theory by just focusing on the definition of a “black body”, which I never focused on and how inapplicable it is when considering the various three dimensional heat storage capacities of Earth’s land and ocean surfaces. Has anyone published any estimates of what the true (and probably very minor) “GHG” warming effect really is after the appropriate amount of stored heat convection from the Earth’s surfaces is correctly considered? Of course increased heat convection from the oceans will affect cloud cover, which in itself, is a significant variable when it comes to global temperatures. I will go through your links and will inevitably learn more. Thanks again.

    With the recent completion of the ARGO Buoy System (2003), surface ocean heat content variability can now be fairly accurately estimated. Most of the heat stored in the Earth’s land surfaces during the day is dissipated over night.

    I read a very interesting paper about stored ocean heat published recently on SPPI by Dr. Robert E. Stevenson, a heavyweight in oceanography, entitled Yes, the Ocean Has Warmed; No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’, you might take a look.

    I’ll stay in touch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s