reminder-nobel-laureate-and-inventor-of-the-pcr-test-kary-mullis-referred-to-global-warming-as-trash-science-said-humans-have-negligible-impact-on-climate

Reminder: Nobel Laureate and Inventor of the PCR Test Kary Mullis Referred to Global Warming as ‘Trash’ Science, Said Humans Have Negligible Impact on Climate


Here are two talks that Nobel laureate and inventor of the PCR test Kary Mullis gave in 2010, which clarify his belief that the supposed science underpinning the climate change narrative is “trash.” Mullis, who had no qualms about speaking his mind, notes in the talks that humanity has had a negligible impact on Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures, and that real, experimental evidence (as opposed to computer modeling) has shown that, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2, Earth has not been warming with any significance.


Although most people know Kary Mullis as the inventor of the PCR test and a big critic of Tony Fauci—if they know of him at all—the Nobel Prize winning chemist had proverbial hot takes on a lot of issues; including the inability of the PCR test itself to determine whether or not somebody has a disease. Concerning the phenomenon that has come to be known as “climate change,” Mullis also thought the science supporting the narrative was “trash.” In the two talks below, we get a glimpse of why Mullis thought climate change—i.e. “global warming”—science is dead wrong about its conclusions; including the claims that humans are the cause of the warming of the planet, and that the warming itself is significant.

“[I]t’s really silly for people to walk around saying ‘Save the Earth from us.’ We are like the moss that grows on the rocks here. We’re not a very big part of it. We’re really not,” Mullis says in the talk excerpt above, taken from a 2010 lecture at Saddleback College in California. “We’ve overblown our presence here. And that is a foolish paradigm that we have allowed to sort of permeate a whole field.”

In his talk Mullis explains that field, climatology, has been perpetrated by climate “scientists” who only bother to do computer modeling for the Earth’s climate; not any of the practical science required to investigate whether or not the phenomenon of “climate change” is indeed happening.

“Guys are sitting there with their little computers and they’re doing all that stuff and they don’t really know all the much about climatology, in my opinion,” Mullis says. “And climatology has become kind of a joke. The people who are real climatologists… think about things like all the global epochs that our Earth has gone through and our way of looking at it.”

Mullis, of course, offers up his reasoning for why he believes the climate change narrative is junk science. He notes, for example, that climate scientists don’t even understand what caused the climate to change from one geological epoch to another in the past. Despite their having far more evidence of what occurred during those epoch transitions than what we have available to us about the one we’re in now.

“Nobody understands how [Earth’s climate changed] from the Eocene to the Miocene to the Pliocene, to the Pleistocene,” Mullis says, referencing three geological epochs spanning back nearly 60 million years ago. “All those names that you’ve maybe heard about, refer to long periods in geological history where we have evidence that there was this and then there was that… [and] we don’t have any evidence and we don’t have any real ideas [regarding] ‘How did [the epochal climates] change?’ Why did the Eocene go away? Why was it replaced by the Miocene?”

A chart showing the epochs to which Mullis refers. Image: Thanaben

Mullis notes the transition from the Eocene to the Miocene couldn’t have been due to anything related to primate activity, as there were no primates. He also notes, facetiously, that “there wasn’t a lot of CO2 being made by cars [either].” On the contrary, Mullis says the epochal transition “probably had something to do with the fact that the Earth in its orbit is not always exactly pointed in the same direction.” Indeed, he highlights the fact that there are many factors that affect climate stemming simply from the way Earth wobbles, as well as the irregular rate at which it spins.

“The nature of [Earth’s climate] is that it undergoes… fairly catastrophic changes from time to time and sometimes they’re quite uncomfortable for people and species…” Mullis says. He adds that during the Holocene (the current geological epoch) humans “became quite successful as a species because the climate was changing rapidly. And we were able to adapt to it.” The Nobel laureate makes it clear: “That’s the natural state of things here. And it isn’t because of us that it happened. It’s because that it happened that we’re here.”

Mullis puts things succinctly when he says “global warming is one of those cool things where there is not a shred of evidence [for its existence]. And I’m not lying to you, I’ve been studying this for a long time, I’ve read a lot of books about it, I’ve read a lot of the research papers. There isn’t a shred of evidence that human beings have had any effect on this planet other than just, billboards.”

In a TED talk, also from 2010, Mullis again clarifies his position that climate change science is absolute garbage, with even more specific evidence to backup his claim.

“[I]f you actually measure [Earth’s] temperature over a period… in fact the temperature hasn’t really gone up,” Mullis says, referring to the supposed scientific findings of the International Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mullis notes the IPCC—a United Nations body that “evaluates climate science”—has “these big meetings where they try to figure out, how [are we going to] continually prove that the planet is getting warmer, when that’s actually contrary to most people’s sensations.”

Mullis goes on to note that there has been a minuscule uptick in global temperatures, but not because of anything to do with the CO2 output of humanity nor its machines. He says, for example, that:

“The average temperature has gone up a tiny little bit because the nighttime temperatures at weather stations have come up just a little bit. But there’s good explanation for that. And that’s that the weather stations are all built outside of town where the airport was and now the town’s moved out there, there’s concrete all around and they call it the skyline effect and most responsible people that measure temperatures realize, you have to shield your measuring device from that and even then, because buildings get warm in the daytime and they keep it a little warmer at night. So the temperature has been sort of inching up, as it should have been. But not a lot.”

Mullis brings up Svante August Arrhenius—a Swedish physicist and chemist from the turn of the 20th century who used principles of physical chemistry to estimate the extent to which increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for the Earth’s increasing surface temperature—noting that when he predicted a rise in global temperatures due to an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, he didn’t peg it as a bad thing. On the contrary, Arrhenius thought it could be a good thing, particularly for farmers who’d have longer growing seasons.

“[Arrhenius] was thinking the Earth is kind of like a completely insulated thing with no stuff in it really, just energy coming down and energy leaving. And so he came up with this theory and he said this will be cool because it’ll be a longer growing season in Sweden…” Mullis says. “But a lot of other people started thinking later on that it would be bad. But nobody actually demonstrated it.”

Mullis goes on to say that “the temperature as measured—you can find this on our wonderful internet, you just go and look for NASA’s records and the weather bureau’s records—you’ll look at it and you’ll see, the nighttime temperature measured on the surface of the planet has gone up a tiny little bit, so if you just average that into the daytime temperature it looks like it’s gone up .7 degrees in the century, but in fact… it was [only] the nighttime [temperature].” The Nobel laureate notes the daytime temperatures didn’t go up in tandem with the nighttime temperatures, which flies in the face not only of Arrhenius’ predictions, but also those of “all the global warming [guys]” because, according to their greenhouse gas effect theory, daytime temperatures should’ve gone up too.

A video from NASA explaining how it uses data collected by satellites to model Earth’s climate

The PCR test inventor also brings up two specific papers in his TED talk that offer evidence that, despite a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth’s surface temperature is not actually warming to any significant degree. The two papers, both published in Science, are titled “Evidence for Large Decadal Variability and the Tropical Mean of Radiative Budget” and “Evidence for Strengthening of the Tropical General Circulation in the 1990s.” And while both papers are still behind a paywall—despite the fact that they were published 20 years ago—Mullis’ description of them is crystal clear.

“Those papers were published by NASA and some scientists at Columbia,” Mullis says. “And those two papers came out in Science Magazine February the first, and the conclusion in both of [those] papers and also in the Science editor’s descriptions for [those] papers for the quickie, is that our theories about global warming are completely wrong.”

Mullis again puts his opinion of climate change science succinctly when he says “These papers should’ve been called the end to the global warming fiasco.” He even goes as far as to call the theory “trash.”

The Nobel Laureate goes into a fair amount of detail describing why the two cited papers debunked the climate change theory, but, in essence, he notes that, at the time of his TED talk, NASA had been measuring the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere meticulously for 20 years using satellites and found that it is not going up. He notes the authors of the papers measured the heat “imbalance” of the planet—that is, how much heat Earth is absorbing from sunlight versus how much it is losing as that heat dissipates—and found that the Earth’s surface temperature is, in fact, not warming; meaning the “greenhouse gas” narrative that underpins climate change is false. I.e. an increase in greenhouse gases like CO2 does not equate to more heat being trapped in Earth’s atmosphere and on its surface.

“[I]n the bottom lines in their papers what [the papers’ authors] have to say is… that what we’ve been thinking was that global circulation model that would predict the Earth would get over-hearted is all wrong,” Mullis says. “It’s wrong by a large factor. Not by a small one. [Pushers of climate change have] misinterpreted the fact that [with] Earth, there’s obviously some mechanisms going on that nobody knew about. Because the heat’s coming in and it isn’t getting warmer.”

Mullis ends his TED talk by noting that “some science is done for other reasons than just curiosity and there’s a lot of things like global warming and ozone hole and a whole bunch of scientific public issues that if you’re interested in them, you have to get down to details” and actually read papers like the ones mentioned. The Nobel laureate adds that “if you just listen to the guys who are hyping those issues and making a lot of money, you’ll be misinformed and you’ll be worried about the wrong things.”


Feature image: Saddleback College via novaxer420

(Visited 36 times, 1 visits today)

Accessibility Toolbar