Footnotes to the global warming article here.
a. Click here and then look at the top plot, of CO2 and global temperature for the last 600 million years; note that the dinosaurs live in the Mesooic period during which time CO2 concentration was almost always higher than it is today, often much higher, and plants and animals thrived. There is no evidence in these data to support the hypothesis that high levels of CO2 cause catastrophic global warming.
b. Click here to see a plot (Figure 3 at this URL) of the last 11,000 years of global temperature and CO2. There is no evidence in these data to support the hypothesis that high levels of C02 cause catastrophic global warming.
c. [broken link, so removed]
d. Video: "Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?" by an atmospheric physicist who has published more than 200 scientific papers and taught at MIT for 30 years and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c (Regarding this scientist's funding, please read the section above titled, "DOES THE SELF-INTERESTED GREED OF "CLIMATE CHANGE DENIALIST" FUNDERS, SUCH AS THE KOCH BROTHERS, MEAN THAT THE CAGW HYPOTHESIS IS TRUE?")
e. Some global warming alarmists say the recent rate of global warming is unprecedentedly fast and hence alarming. But click here to see that this is just not so, since equivalently fast rates of global warming have occurred in the past, following which the global temperature fell below what it had ever been for many previous centuries. These earlier fast rates of global warming did not portend catastrophe.
Regarding the above linked publication, consider this: The people who published this have less money backing them than the people (multi-billionaires such as the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, British royal family, Rothschilds, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zukerberg, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson, Jack Ma, et al) who say that human-produced CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. If you dismiss the data and their scientific interpretation presented by this publication on the grounds that "Big Money/Oil" is behind them, then you ought also to dismiss the arguments by the other side because it has even more Big Money (greed, selfishness, you know) behind them. How about simply looking at the data and arguments and, you know, THINKING FOR ONESELF about how persuasive they are?
h. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA&fbclid=IwAR2nipWTayctXBgfCilLAzQ-zPFF56gG9EKgwaGiMV3vgYu6GzdqTHbWv7Q This video explains that much natural variability in the climate (due to factors such as the sun's variability) is wrongly ascribed, in the orthodox climate models, to human-caused factors.
i. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CffMifh73ZE&fbclid=IwAR1XbLZFU6waoHIdx5XQgyFY_8jcX9nDWYTFz0OSmQ7DYndqsSMmxlJy9Ko This video shows that the alarmism about sea level rise is based on bogus "science."
j. https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/ This article is titled "Arctic Sea Ice: Unchanged from 60 Years Ago"
k. https://www.sott.net/article/420762-Tony-Heller-My-gift-to-climate-alarmists?fbclid=IwAR1K2_HJIm77An7ZIHu8J7ODxRE2a2jRfGVHd7pY6ZNk3LKflYtNPCrTGUw The video featured here shows how global warming alarmists "cook the data" to make it seem that there is a climate catastrophe happening when the full data sets (from which they show only cherry-picked parts) show the opposite.
l. https://medium.com/@pullnews/global-warming-for-dummies-a24928b51ca9 shows how the models predicting catastrophic global warming are simply not based on valid science and have been making predictions totally different from what was subsequently obseerved.
m. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4#menu Dr Willie Soon demolishes the extreme weather panic and other hysterical arguments
n. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html?fbclid=IwAR2pfo3CZVxeOLYFyBwMV9Xka-_35BYYNSkd2_HJ1yVHvKQBNMxotwaJMWY "Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation"
o. https://www.justfactsdaily.com/climate-change-fears-of-teen-activist-are-empirically-baseless/ "Climate Change Fears of Teen Activist Are Empirically Baseless," by James D. Agresti October 176, 2019
p. 46 STATEMENTS By IPCC Experts Against The IPCC : https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/?fbclid=IwAR102yhB2IW3iXBNV1F-XvZNOhM3J-TM8fFsNtFDF5ipWb3lLRBcvb5A63s
q. Video: "There is no climate crisis"
s. "Many climate change scientists do not agree that global warming is happening," in the BMJ journal.
t. A Smithsonian Institution project created a plot (Figure 1) of global temperature over the last 500 million years that puts the recent temperature in proper perspective
u. "The temperature–CO2climate connection:an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages" provides data showing that global temperature changes precede, not follow, corresponding C02 changes. Also at https://hgss.copernicus.org/articles/12/97/2021/
v. Global Warming 33 Year Birthday a Celebration of Failures https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/30/global-warming-33-year-birthday-a-celebration-of-failures/?fbclid=IwAR08z1QnpvoYloRGn0c-zzubES_S_N6p_h95W2myIw6nNkq3yrD3qGBZqwg
x. Here's one reason for thinking higher C02 concentration in the atmosphere is an EFFECT, not a cause, of global warming: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/
 http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf also see https://climatism.blog/2020/03/07/46-statements-by-ipcc-experts-against-the-ipcc/?fbclid=IwAR102yhB2IW3iXBNV1F-XvZNOhM3J-TM8fFsNtFDF5ipWb3lLRBcvb5A63s which shows leading scientists, some who were even lead authors of IPCC reports, disagreeing with the IPCC's CAGW hypothesis.
 The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 855 in 1974 to 16,253 on September 9, 2015. This is an increase by a factor of 19. Thus if the Rockefeller family's fortune increased in value at merely the same rate as the Dow Jones, it would be worth $1.33 Trillion (with a T) dollars today and more than $1 Trillion if 20% were lost to taxes.
 The Club of Rome does not say exactly where it was founded at its initial meeting in Italy in 1968; it's website merely says:
“A quiet villa and a big bang
In April 1968, a small international group of professionals from the fields of diplomacy, industry, academia and civil society met at a quiet villa in Rome. Invited by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King, they came together to discuss the dilemma of prevailing short-term thinking in international affairs and, in particular, the concerns regarding unlimited resource consumption in an increasingly interdependent world.
There are two theories about at which "quiet villa" the Club of Rome was founded, and they are given, in Italian, at this website, with the following Google translation to English:
There are two theories about the foundation of the Club of Rome:
1. thesis: Aurelio Peccei meets in Rome at the Accademia dei Lincei thirty scholars from around the world to create a sort of think tank free and independent to stimulate debate on the complex dynamics and on the interconnections between the natural systems and the social, technological and economic.
2. thesis: The Club of Rome was created at the Villa Serbelloni in Bellagio, the Rockefeller Foundation. It 'an organization of industrialists, bankers and scientists from 25 countries..."
 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-06-05/club-of-rome-member-warns-against-council/58734 (Note this also says that Bill Gates is a member of the Club of Rome.)
Also see this for a clear summary of the above: https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf
 Or may not! An article [ https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Nature_Rebounds.pdf ], authored by (interestingly) the Director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University, cites tons of data that indicate that Americans' use of non-renewable resources (land and minerals, etc.) leveled off and even in some important cases declined starting around 1970, contrary to all the dire predictions (based on the current trends) at that time. And a video [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8 ] presents data indicating that the population of the world is also leveling off, contrary to alarmist reports that it continues to be increasing exponentially.
Additionally, so-called "fossil fuel" may not actually be a non-renewable fuel; it may be renewable or at least virtually limitless for the forseeable future, as I write about here. The people pushing the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis talk with enthusiasm about nuclear energy because it doesn't release C02. But nuclear energy production DOES create extremely toxic radioactive waste (such as plutonium) and fails to even temporarily contain it when there are the inevitable accidents. This dangerous product of nuclear reactors remains dangerous for almost a million years and there is no known way to safely store it that long (i.e., prevent it from destroying its container eventually and leaking into the environment) and threatening the lives of future generations.
The URL of this article is https://www.pdrboston.org/global-warmingclimate-change ; you are encouraged to share this article by copying and pasting its URL in Facebook or other social media, etc.