"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.
Sunday, 8 December 2013
An open climate goal
I always knew this was the case but didn't have any special quotes in particular, but this one has just been sent to me, from the godfather of warming himself, who convinced Bill Clinton to tell the UN it was a serious issue, James Hansen.
"Although I’ve spent decades working on [climate models], I think there
probably will remain for a long time major uncertainties, because you
just don’t know if you have all of the physics in there. Some of it,
like about clouds and aerosols, is just so hard that you can’t have very
Anyone not familiar with climate and related models, think of accounts. You need everything to balance, including management account budgets (I passed an exam in it, so I do know), where you do a
year's projection, ie a model. If you for some reason don't have the
sales box (back then it was still in books or boxes) you have to find
it, or you can't get audited. What Hansen has said here, which I knew to
be 100% certain, was models cannot factor the two main coolants, clouds
and aerosols (dirt and dust) into their projections, so without the two
major coolants (from the same source as positive feedback, oceanic evaporation, and from volcanoes and burnt fuel etc) the result is guaranteed to be too warm as you've simply ignored the coolants. That is like Enron adding profits from the future they'd never made to balance the books, or a firm needing a tax loss 'forgetting' most of its sales. Either way it's false accounting,
and wherever you go in the world is a crime. What difference is there
in leaving out two sales accounts in a climate model, getting a false
positive, and then people wonder why 20 years later all the models
(there were over 70) ran many times too hot? This is a direct and open confession it is physically
impossible to model ahead properly as they simply can't factor in
around half the data. As the entire world's climate policy is based
totally on these failed and inadequate models, which have demonstrated themselves useless after 20 years as they all assumed positive feedback despite water evaporating being equally able to form clouds as vapour, which current findings from the present show exactly that. Whatever else is or isn't known, this alone is enough to kill the entire global warming proposition. Within all the material, its very founder also slipped the truth in, they can't forecast the effects in models. Add the twenty years of demonstrable proof, and the game is over.
I will add a comment made today by an engineer. He could make a 150mm steel bridge across the Thames as long as no one actually tried to use it. This is the same as the models, they only work when not tested by reality. And how could anyone test their models without a tardis in 2100?