Tuesday, 1 February 2022

Missing the obvious

 Until I was on social media I didn't actually realise this phenomenon existed. And even more so I never thought I'd be explaining what I assumed was obvious to other people, and then having my explanations rejected. I don't know the details about how and why people have become blinded to reality, but it's real and for me quite terrifying as it means we can be run by lunatics who are voted for by similar lunatics and there aren't enough sane people to stop it. Some examples.

Heat pumps. Costing around 10 times the price of gas boilers, but can't heat water to a safe heat or work properly under about 10C. Yet our government will be forcibly cutting off our gas and leaving us with no other option. The facts are there and very few people care.

Wind turbines. These use coal to make the steel and concrete, use huge amounts of land, and work within about 10-30mph, when they go too fast they are stopped or they will burn out. The power can't be regulated to demand, and when it's producing during low demand the power is wasted. Yet the government paid billions of our taxes to cover the sea and land with these things despite needing constant backup to keep the supply constant. Therefore we only need the backup and can get rid of the wind farms.

Driverless cars. If I have to explain why these will not work I will recommend you to hire one for a day and let me know how it goes.

Changing sex. If you can change your birth certificate if you change genders, you are not changing your gender but your sex, which under current conditions is only possible for a few fish and lizards. Mammals as yet have not managed to switch their genes from XX to XY or reverse, but the activists insists changing gender means changing sex, and men now go to gynaecologists for cervical smears. No, I'm not joking. And the basis for this is mainly 'I feel like a man/woman'. Obvious point two. How do you know what it feels like to be the opposite sex? How do you even know what it feels like to be another person? It's impossible, you can't. You can and will only ever feel like you. Not a man or a woman, but you. If anyone thinks they can prove they can feel like the opposite sex they will get a Nobel Prize.

Friday, 28 January 2022

Climate change claims

 The UN IPCC and media daily turn out claims about the results of a rise in world temperatures. Having had about 40 years to test them I will quote both the IPCC and others in similar authority to see if the figures match the claims.

IPCC summary for policymakers 2021:

A.1.4 Globally averaged precipitation over land has likely increased since 1950, with a faster rate of increase since the 1980s (medium confidence). It is likely that human influence contributed to the pattern of observed precipitation changes since the mid-20th century.

A good start.

A.1.5 Human influence is very likely the main driver of the global retreat of glaciers since the 1990s and the decrease in Arctic sea ice area between 1979–1988 and 2010–2019 (decreases of about 40% in September and about 10% in March). There has been no significant trend in Antarctic sea ice area from 1979 to 2020 due to regionally opposing trends and large internal variability. Human influence very likely contributed to the decrease in Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover since 1950.

A.2.2 Global surface temperature has increased faster since 1970 than in any other 50-year period over at least the last 2000 years (high confidence).

It depends who and when you get it from.

There are plenty more conflicting diagrams out there from equally important sources. You decide.

A.2.4 Global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3000 years (high confidence).

Seems like they hoped no one would check up on this one. As a directly measurable parameter at any time since we invented rulers, collected sea level data from tide gauges, floats and measuring poles worldwide are the most direct proxy for world temperature. It is directly connected to rising temperatures, half through expansion and half through melting land ice. Taking into account the variations between different estimates, the only common factor here is that the IPCC claim is wrong, as the sea level rises feet in a decade coming out of the regular ice age recoveries alone, and clearly far more than the period quoted by the IPCC from the diagrams.

A.3 Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened since AR5.

In fact two of these claims are fairly new. Hurricanes and tornados were not expected to increase until this report, and as they actually haven't it makes you wonder why they have now lumped them in with all the other extremes.

A.3.4 It is likely that the global proportion of major (Category 3–5) tropical cyclone occurrence has increased over the last four decades 

Maybe a visit to Specsavers is required.

A.3.5 Human influence has likely increased the chance of compound extreme events18 since the 1950s. This includes increases in the frequency of concurrent heatwaves and droughts on the global scale (high confidence), fire weather in some regions of all inhabited continents (medium confidence), and compound flooding in some locations (medium confidence).

There isn't much available on floods, but as we found the rainfall was indeed increasing then this would follow. But the others, not so much.

Friday, 5 November 2021

Man made climate change is fraud

How dangerous is warming? Here we see the latest comparative figures.

Whether based on scientific claims or imaginary ones, I have discovered the entire basis of man made climate change to be based on blatant and confessed fraud. I hope once you have read this I will have presented the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Oh really?

When sceptics offer graphs we are usually accused of cherry picking. However, when an average is not made from the total of the results but just the ones you wanted it's a little more serious than that. Using the total the average CO2 from the 19th century would have been 335ppm.

And how much CO2 is really in the atmosphere ?  

In law you do not need an evidential trial where the defendant pleads guilty. Therefore a nice bunch of confessions will allay the need for some to destroy the faux-scientific claims, but for most the science needs to be fully dismantled to make the case fully watertight.

The Club of Rome, in its 1991 publication The First Global Revolution, free to read on their website, openly stated the genuine reason for the problem-reaction-solution formula for global warming, that is to have a diabolical policy which no one would go near unless you convinced them it was to prevent something worse, in this case a slightly warmer planet, which history confirms was better for us all in nearly every way. "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

The joint head of the IPCC Ottmar Edenhofer, clearly stated in a report in a Swiss newspaper "We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate politics." "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

Phil Jones, from the Climate Research Unit who were the main protagonists involved in the climategate leaked email fiasco, stated it very clearly:

"When making comparisons you have to remember they are essentially long runs of weather and the long-term change from the 19th century to the present is only about 1C. This 1C is small compared to natural variability". There he has stated the exact claims the sceptics have made straight from the source.

Mike Hulme, his colleague, also confirms what the skeptics have always said: "Trying to pin evidence on human influence on ,any, discrete weather event is a pretty poor way to proceed", confirming the advice in each IPCC report.

Between themselves they often tell the truth, as that's all there is, and they know it better than anyone else as they are doing all they can to get around it.

The value of long-term climate predictions was dismissed by the IPCC directly in 2001, saying exactly what its opposition had always said: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible"

14.2.2 Predictability in a Chaotic System The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, “future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises’. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system

14.4 The elimination of models because they are in conflict with climate-relevant data is particularly important.

There are many more such confessions, both explicit and leaked, and they all say pretty much the same things, frequently from the very top.

So the climate hasn't actually changed yet then? 

He's very consistent, he keeps maintaining his position but doesn't get into any trouble.

Plenty more confessions here

It's fraud

For example, and one typical of many, Channel 4 had a programme on McCains Chips on May 4th 2022, and blamed  variations of potatoes on climate change. They then showed pictures of the recent British floods to illustrate their claim, as if one caused the other. In a few minutes I proved they were liars. This is almost an everyday event for TV programmes and totally fraudulent. 

Graph from the London School of Economics.

In fact, by discouraging dredging and labelling dredged sediment as hazardous waste, it is now so expensive to dredge rivers that they flood more often with the same rainfall as before as they are shallower. It's man made for certain, but not related to the climate. The same goes for the speed wildfires now spread, as many governments ban isolating scrub by cutting firebreaks so now they all connect, including to some residential areas. They have simply allowed the fuel to be in a single collection meaning wherever a fire starts it is now almost guaranteed to spread to the entire area, which was imposed by force of law.

Looking at the science, used in its very loosest sense of the word, people have been saving and comparing the raw temperature measurements for points around the world, which are all freely published, and then collected to create the daily averages used for the total annual graphs. Over a long period and wide area the predominant adjustment, ostensibly to even out anomalies such as urban heat islands, creates a hockey stick.

Not only is the new material adjusted upwards, but NASA actually had to 'fix' their own satellite data to create almost the same alteration. At best this proves you can't rely on their findings as they are open to be revised at any time. And as errors should tend to zero, and below zero for heat islands, why are all the USHCN figures almost entirely responsible for all the measured warming on their own?


They've actually done it twice. With the best equipment and scientists in the world.

Here are the old and new graphs direct from NASA/GISS




Apparently the satellite orbits were decaying.


We know warming is not equal, and the southern hemisphere, Antarctica in particular, is not warming. However, something we are not told is neither is the Arctic, where nearly all the ice is which would melt to cause the sea level to rise.

The two hot days in England in July 2022 had the media and politicians out in droves blaming mankind. However, England has the oldest continuous directly measured temperatures in the world. It took me a minute to find this.

The two elements we could measure better than anything else as they can be seen directly are sea and ice levels. They appear to suggest no trends whatsoever.

So where's the warming? Additionally, weather extremes are mainly caused by increased energy due to differences between the equatorial temperatures and the poles. As warming is alleged to increase more at the poles this would reduce the energy difference between them and hence any extreme weather. It appears the UN are breaking the basic rules of physics in their diabolical projections. One classic is that the sea level may rise three feet by 2100. Science says there are two things wrong with this. One is that you have to be able to witness the completion of an experiment. How many of you will be here to see if they're right? Secondly, as the UN have said directly, is you can't predict in a non-linear complex chaotic system. The extreme limits of weather forecasting are 3-6 months, with the error bars exceeding the data after that. Think about it.

The medieval, along with the Roman, Holocene,  Minoan  and eemian warm periods were also adjusted away to nothing, leaving a steep recent slope (as seen above mainly from alterations) and flat beforehand, the hockey stick, entirely different from known diagrams until Michael Mann made his own version. Imagine an engineer revising their specifications for a bridge twice after it had already been built?

What's this? 

Not just once either.

In hard science such variations in data opinion would be impossible. 

In fact there are temperature peaks every 100,000 years or so, and today's peak is the lowest as yet. 

The claims made by the activists that you have to be a scientist to question climate change, and then when hundreds of scientists are named who do, then they say they have to be a climate scientist (many actually are) is simply a deflection of irrelevancy. Yes, you do need to be a scientist to calculate climatic models factoring in pressure, airflow, daily temperature changes and how they all affect temperature, but a primary school child can read a graph and see it doesn't follow their alleged results. Here, CO2 clearly follows the cyclical rise in temperature. The point where mankind starts burning masses of fossil fuel it increases, but notice how it corresponds with the temperature rise. Firstly the rises to current levels of temperature are clearly cyclic (this pattern can be seen wherever in the world measurements are taken) but that the recent spike in CO2 is independent of any temperature changes. Therefore whoever makes these graphs will need to be climate scientists, but anyone can read their basic outputs and we are told we can't to try and delay the point where everyone realises their flies are indeed open.

Like a sausage machine, whichever way they look when they go in they nearly always come out looking the same.

If you magnify them, the current temperature/CO2 graphs continue to show CO2 rising after the temperature, as it had in every single previous warming period. Some people have read this and still accuse me of cherry picking, so I add more and more graphs confirming one is not an isolated example.

It also turns out that the IPCC estimate of Co2 lasting hundreds of years was different to everyone else's. Clearly an exception to their use of consensus science.

The media do nothing to help.

Natural cycles, large from Milankovitch cycles and small from Atlantic and Pacific multidecadal oscillations, combined with total solar output, show a very close comparison with temperature.

The IPCC recognises very little warming from solar changes. Maybe their researchers are allergic to such papers as it took me a few moments to find the relationship.

The fewer the clouds the greater the sunshine, the more sunshine the more heat. Even if the sun were constant if clouds reduce the air becomes warmer.

However, if both the clouds (certain)  and solar changes both affect warming then we can see the actual causes.

Tip: Oceanic decades oscillations also provide underlying cycles. 

Warmer air is lighter and rises. Therefore the greenhouse effect is from water vapour, while regardless of the composition of the gas they all do the same thing at the same pressure.

You would think the average temperature of the earth would be pretty easy to agree on, especially as all global warming is based on a departure from the alleged 13.8C we appear to have had ever since the year Michael Mann started his data from. However if you look around official estimates seem to vary by far more than the changes since 1880, and not only that, in both directions, up and down over time. Now, if the UN and its branches can publish such random numbers, how are we expected to trust those relying on them by claiming it is getting consistently warmer?

 I'm sure there's a perfectly sensible explanation for this anomaly.

There is also the media's favourite claim, not supported by the IPCC but very much by politicians, that extreme weather increases with warming. In fact the genuine statement was there is no connection but the events may become more intense, and there is no historic connection between warm periods and extreme weather, which is why they are called climate optimums. There is more food production, less energy use, and fewer deaths from cold. In fact 80% of climate related deaths are still due to cold whatever the temperature is doing. Svente Arrhenius, who thought up the greenhouse effect from CO2 did not see it as a problem either as he knew the same benefits I have just mentioned. In fact the crop yields and greening of the planet have increased from any warming and increased CO2, as have lifespans and economies. All you need is a set of photos of coastal areas 100 or so years ago and now. Amazingly none of them look any different now than they did then. You don't need complex graphs or models to find that out.

Dr John Everett: “It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios.”

Someone just blamed the current food shortages on climate change.

Earlier IPCC reports listed all the benefits of global warming, taken from human history, of more food, fewer climate related deaths, fewer wars and less energy use. Nothing changed this time around.

Warmer air holds more water vapour, so as it condenses overall rainfall should increase. But the politicians still tell us warming is causing more droughts. Even though it doesn't.

It's very difficult to adjust sea levels, but almost impossible to adjust ice levels. They are online from satellites and visible to anyone.

As I learnt in primary school, even primary school pupils can accurately measure rainfall. Here's one they made earlier. Look at all that climate change as warmer air holds more water. Unless it's not in which case maybe it's not warming.

Every time an activist shows you a picture of the latest drought and blames you for it show them this.

There are plenty more of these showing no trends anywhere in the world for floods, droughts or any other extreme events. The recent German floods (on known flood plains) were proven to be typical by the gauges on the walls showing the height this year was about average and there were many higher going back hundreds of years. Yet the media unanimously reported it as special. The prime example though is heatwaves, which are presented as the most convincing reason man has screwed the atmosphere. It can be found in diagrams like this one from America.

Secondary consequences such as coral bleaching and ocean acidification are also used to further frighten people to turn down their heating. The fact coral is one of the oldest organisms on the planet and survived regular 8-10C swings in and out of ice ages holds no relevance to the true believers. And when it declined in the 21st century they were the first to blame it on a 1C rise in temperature. But wait...

Further official confirmation

To the wise guys who occasionally ask me 'if the warming isn't down to us then what is it down to?', remember firstly when you are defending an accusation you only have to show it was not good enough to stick, not find what was responsible instead of the accused. Otherwise not only would a jury need to decide on guilt but also track down the perpetrator if it was someone else. But clouds have been the largest measurable cause of cooling by creating shade by blocking out the sun. The world's oldest temperature records, not split by the usual proxy/thermometer/satellite splices we normally see, in Central England, tell us nearly all we need to know. When the clouds part then the sun warms the surface. As the average pressure has stayed the same that can be excluded, and as CO2 has risen you would need to look for an additional CO2 effect which is absent.

Now if you were to find world cloud cover has also led the temperature changes then you can effectively rule out atmospheric composition changes (CO2/methane etc) altogether.

It is possible to keep going and pick apart every claim made by the activists (often refuted in private by them when they think no one will hear it), but the material provided here creates a thorough view that not only do they break every single rule of science with their official claims, but they are happy to admit it both in public and private. In fact Ottmar Edenhofer's open confession had never been found on any other site except the original interview in German. Had it been on the BBC that day COP26 may well never have gone ahead.

Ultimately the climate scientists beat me to it. In a Guardian interview with the Climate Research Unit's Dr Phil Jones, he explained Funtowicz & Ravetz's concept of  'Post-normal science'. Let him explain in his own words:

Hulme tells us that if the scientists are going to be listened to in the future, they must "recognize the social limits of their truth seeking" - WOW. ;-) They must thus "trade truth for influence" - WOW. He also says that the "climate change is too important to be left to scientists" - WOW - "least of all the normal ones" - WOW. Hulme promotes the idea that the climate science should become a "post-normal science" - WOW. He says that the "danger" of the "normal science" is that it assumes that the truth is found before the policies are created - WOW.

The Wows are courtesy of Lubos Motl who has analysed this on his website.

I challenge anyone to read three of these quotes and not be in shock, let alone the entire account which is only a small fraction of the entire picture. Had the media reported it even once, let alone in equal measures, the entire scam would have folded long ago. 

Occasionally, however, they can be honest.


IPCC 1996 report edit. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/1/1520-0477-78_1_81.xml?tab_body=pdf

Warming peaks. Pettitt et al 2001 https://www.climate4you.com/ReferencesCited.htm

Peer review fraud. 
Adjustments: 2007 https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/16/adjusting-ushcn-history/
2020 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/03/recent-ushcn-final-v-raw-temperature-differences/ (All using official USHCN data.)

100,00 year cycles: Jouzel et al,/ Augustin et al https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-EPICA-Dome-C-data-with-other-palaeoclimatic-recordsa-Insolation-records4_fig1_8517651

US hurricane frequency (N Atlantic total cyclone energy) chart: NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201813

US Heatwaves: EPA https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures_.html

Hurricane frequency chart: Dr Ryan Maue http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Natural oscillations: D'Aleo and Easterbrook http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf

CO2 lags temperature: Pavlides https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-35095-0_85
Humlum https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Does+global+warming+lag+or+lead+a+rise+in+greenhouse+gas+concentration%3F

IPCC quote: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

Extreme weather review. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900--an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155.pdf (Kelly, 2016)

Antarctic temperature graph https://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/oceans-atmosphere-landscape/atmosphere-weather-and-climate/climate-change-past-and-future/

NASA temperature graph https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ 2022
https://web.archive.org/web/20050914112446/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ 2005

Article sources:

Post-normal science: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

Ottmar Edenhofer quote and many more: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/?sh=28e1fbab68a3

Club of Rome: The First Global Revolution (1991) https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-first-global-revolution-1991/

Leaked communications intercepts:


Solar influences on warming. https://co2coalition.org/news/20-more-new-papers-link-solar-forcing-to-climate-change-now-80-sun-climate-papers-for-2017/

IPCC unpredictability: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

Sahara desert is greening by 30% http://www.co2science.org/articles/V21/oct/a12.php