Interests | Me | OPINIONS| Works
Events | IDEAS| People | Things
CLIMATE| Computers | Dns | Economics | Internet | Language | Legal | Medicine | Music | Open minded | Pharma | Public | Rants | Myths
97 | Animals | Arctic | Climategate | Co2 | Cosmic | Env | Extinctions | Fraud | Glaciers | No consensus | Oceans | Oil | Ozone | Poles | Pollution | Rhetoric | Scientists | Weather | Cool | Cooling | Dark uk | Data | Stalled | Upenn | Mast
Climate anomolies

Climate: it's just math.

Never mistake consensus for truth.

Why you look foolish when you say "97% of the world's..."

Never mistake consensus for truth.

Executive summary
The IPCC wanted to show all its contributors endorsed the IPCC conclusions, but the problem is they didn't at all. So a grad student and her thesis advisor - associate professor Peter Dolan tried to prove they did. Using a list of 10,000 scientists they threw 7000 away who might potentially disagree with the IPCC summary, only to find not as many as hoped endorsed it (~80%). After several sessions of removing disagreeing members, 77 people were identified as "proper" respondents and 75 of them believe the AGW hypothesis.

So, 75 scientists (97.4%) agree with the IPCC and 99.97 of the worlds scientists disagree with them.

How much does it actually matter that some people will say this is "warming" ?

Now, how does this compare to what the models said would happen in this century?

Past and current Malaria spread

Not one of these doomsday scenarios has ever come true and without exception, 100% of them were wrong and badly wrong. You don't need to make an industry, institutionally lying about the weather to actually prove something is true.

There is less ice today there compared to 1979 which is back when we were all fretting about another Ice Age. Still looking for the arctic death spiral.


They're liars. Here's how and why.


Co2 was 10% higher 200 years ago and 30X hiher in the past.

Earth is a carbon based planet that entirely revolves arond carbon chemistry. Carbon dioxide is the currency of this ecosystem and is the way carbon moves through both air and water to become the building blocks of all life on earth. if it so important there is an entire branch of chemistry dedicated just to carbon ans carbon compounds: organic chemistry.

Carbon dioxide has never been proven to warm the planet: the earth's atmosphere s not a greenhouse. Heat moves more quickly through Co2 and entire atmosphere radiates more heat into space as Co2 increases and this more than offsets heat generate dnu the"greenhouse effect".

The Co2 industry for growing plants alone is in the millions. All plants on earth, terrestrial and aquatic are rate limited by the amount of carbon dioxide. Double it and plants will grow literally twice as fast and twice as big. Now they consume more co2. Double it again and it happens again. Do the math here, runaway Co2 is not an issue, running out of Co2 is. Look at the yellow graph here from Wikipedia, it reads right to left. That isn't co rising that's Co2 augering into the ground. Although we won't run out for millions if not billions od years, when we do, we're Mars.



Cosmic rays (as a function of megnetosphere strength) have a large if not overwhelming effect on climate. These papers explore that.

Metrics from the environment.

Data on extinctions.


Never mistake truth for consensus.

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver


The hole in the ozone layer opened when it got warm (1976 - 1998) and began contracting in cooler years which are now so frequent the hole will be closed by about 2040.

As for CFC's, well, the models all failed and instead of a consistent drop in upper atmospheric chlorine by two parts per trillion per year, it measured out at +200 to -150 and there was no trace of a signal whatsoever.

So after ten years of looking there is no data to support in any way the idea that CFC's had anything to do with the ozone hole. The proof that verified the models an expensive global engineering change justified turned out to be false.

The expiry of DuPont's CFC based Freon (tm; "R12") Patent and subsequent taxpayer funding to remove all R12 in the world and replace CFC's with R34 based HCFC's that are "only 98%" as harmful must have been a coincidence. Be that as it may, the old CFC had economic advantages in cases and have been banned at great cost to the taxpayer for political and not scientific reasons.

"Perhaps the greatest use of TCE has been as a degreaser for metal parts. The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser."

"TCE is also used in the manufacture of a range of fluorocarbon refrigerants[11] such as 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane more commonly known as HFC 134a." Perhaps the greatest use of TCE has been as a degreaser for metal parts. The demand for TCE as a degreaser began to decline in the 1950s in favor of the less toxic 1,1,1-trichloroethane. However, 1,1,1-trichloroethane production has been phased out in most of the world under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, and as a result trichloroethylene has experienced some resurgence in use as a degreaser.


Without the manufactured crisis of the ozone layer hole DuPont would have had to pay for extraction of the R12, all the equipment to extract it and for the replacement materials and all that equipment to replace it. Instead they were paid to do this at taxpayer exp

Earths engine, whose spin creates our magnetic field

Meta problems with the understanding of climate.

Dyson founded the field of climate science and "got out when money corrupted it". Currey is an IPCC contributor and an expert on arctic ice. Linzen has some good proofs while Spencer is a NASA climate scientist and professor.


8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

Looking back beyond just a couple of hundred years a different picture emerges: the world is cooling, not warming.

The UK is in danger of going dark.

Catastrophe Denied

A Critique of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Theory

Warren Meyer's excellent report analyzing the same data the the IPCC uses but without the tricks to prove a predetermined conclusion. Read the full report (90 pages) and decide for yourself. See also for co2 saturation data.

Why did Earth’s surface temperature stop rising in the past decade?

"Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero."

"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly." Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

A hypothesis that the heat was sequestered in the ocean abyss was proven incorrect by NASA in October of 2014 - "the cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005", according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. It started in 1978. But there really has been no warming this century.

Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fails to stand up to scrutiny.

Mastodons killed off by global cooling not global warming.

"It is the scientific community’s responsibility to ensure that, where possible, scientific findings are portrayed to the public via mass media outlets in a correct and responsible manner to prevent the perpetuation of misleading or erroneous findings."
- Alan J. Jamieson, and Paul H. Yancey, "On the Validity of the Trieste Flatfish: Dispelling the Myth"

“Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best, he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear his shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.”
- Heinlein

That article you just read... did you understand why what they said is true? or did you take their word for it? How does it compare to what we actually know about the planet? Global warming hysteria takes focus away from pollution .

The fundamentals of life on this planet:

"“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said."

'I made a mistake'
"As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

"Leading (emph mine - rjs) the fight against climate change."
More like upcycling polluters dollars into fake news about the weather.

xs sm lg
xs sm lg