120 Years Of Climate Scares – 70s Ice age scare


1845 – The whole of Sir John Franklin’s expedition to find the NW Passage died and their ships were crushed by the ice near Baffin Island

1909-1910 – Amundsen sailed an ice free NW Passage

1922 – The Arctic is warming and fishermen are catching species that have never been seen there before.

1970 – Kenneth Field “The world is cooling and global temperatures could drop by up to 11ºC that would freeze the North Atlantic for 4- months of the year within 20-years …”

News articles:

1970 – Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age – Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)

Read More: 120 Years Of Climate Scares – 70s Ice age scare

H/T Australian Climate Skeptics Blog

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Heat Flux From Below Melts Ice Sheets, Drives Temperatures & CO2 Variations


CO2 is 400 ppm over the parts of Antarctic that are warming and 400 ppm over the parts of Antarctica that are cooling. There is no way for CO2 to be causing that temperature differential. Additionally, CO2 cannot melt ice from below, it can only melt ice on the surface facing the atmosphere. While CO2 and warming don’t correlate, volcanos and warming do correlate precisely. News flash to all Climate Alarmists, CO2 doesn’t cause volcanic eruptions. Volcanos are melting the Antarctic ice, not CO2. BTW, unlike CO2, volcanos can also warm water and melt glaciers from below.

Considering the magnitude of heat energy required to melt polar ice sheets from below, and that central Antarctica’s air temperatures average about -55°C year-round, it should not be surprising that a significant portion of the meltwater flow from both polar ice sheets (Greenland and Antarctica) is derived from “heat flow from the deep Earth”.

Here is another article on the topic. Funny how the Climate Alarmists never mention that the Greenland Glacier is placed upon a volcano.

Melting at the base of the Greenland ice sheet explained by Iceland hotspot history

It has been argued that basal ice melt is due to the anomalously high geothermal flux1, 4 that has also influenced the development of the longest ice stream in Greenland1. Here we estimate the geothermal flux beneath the Greenland ice sheet and identify a 1,200-km-long and 400-km-wide geothermal anomaly beneath the thick ice cover. We suggest that this anomaly explains the observed melting of the ice sheet’s base,

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The Undeniable “Consensus” is That There is an Overwhelming Liberal Bias to the Press


For all their talk about “inclusion,” “equality,” “fairness,” “diversity,” and “equal opportunity,” the liberals may talk the talk, but they certainly don’t walk the walk. This kind of extreme bias is also seen regarding the staffing of our colleges and universities. While the “consensus” regarding climate change is debatable, the bias of the press is undeniable. Simply put, the extreme bias of our media, educational complex, NGOs and sympathetic politicians and government agencies undermine the public from ever getting an honest representation of the reality of climate change. Fortunately, even with such extreme biases in some of our most important institutions, the general public has the common sense to see right through the lies.


Call it “fake news” or “biased news” the result is the same. The public is being robbed of an honest debate on climate change and the public policies that come from it.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Seeing the Forest Through the Trees; Political Ideology and Federal Grants are Blinding Climate “Scientists” From Seeking the Truth


The IPCC claims that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system. The IPCC claims that the oceans are warming. Data proves the oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not vice verse.  The problem is, the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans. If the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans, it can’t explain how/why the atmosphere is warming.

No sooner did I complete the article with the previous quote than “Watts Up With That” published an article about dams causing climate change.

Claim: Dams are major driver of global environmental change

The article also supports another recent article highlighting how claiming “concensus” and “certainties” in excess of 90% is absurd if you can’t claim you understand all the factors that go into the climate model.

By the IPCC’s own admission, the vast majority of significant climate factors are categorized as having a “Very Low” level of scientific understanding (see graphic at the top of this article). Claiming a “consensus” and “certainty” upward of 90% is simply inconsistent with having a “Very Low” understanding of the majority of the factors in your model. Climate “scientists” may claim that all they want, but any real scientists knows the claims are pure hogwash.

To demonstrate how corrupted and misguided the field of Climate “Science” truly is, one only needs to read the dam article with an objective and open mind.

The Article States:

There are currently in excess of 70,000 large dams worldwide. With the continuing construction of new dams, more than 90 per cent of the world’s rivers will be fragmented by at least one dam within the next 15 years.

lab-seven-temperature-patterns-6-638 (1)

The temperature variation over a lake or ocean is infinitely less variable than temperatures above the land. Water is the great moderator of the climate. The difference between peak daytime and low nighttime temperatures taken over the center of Lake Erie is much smaller than the diurnal temperature variation over an asphalt road in Death Valley. Everyone has had the experience getting in a car and sitting on a hot black vinyl seat in the middle of Summer wearing shorts and then getting in that same car at midnight when the date is over. The temperature variation is extreme. During the day you can literally get 2nd-degree burns, and at night you have to put on a blanket so stop the shivering. That never happens with major water reservoirs. You can go swimming during the day and skinny dipping at night, and you won’t  notice the difference.

The IPCC themselves leaves no doubt that the oceans are the dominant factor driving the climate, as do temperature measurements when aligned with El Ninos and La Ninas.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}

So, given the facts that water is by far the greatest contributor to altering and moderating the climate. What would any logical, unbiased and ethical scientist do when faced with the fact that dams turn countless square miles of highly temperature volatile deserts, forests, prairies and even asphalt roads and concrete cities into highly temperature stable man-made lakes? You would think that alone would justify funding a research project to study the impact of water on the climate?

That, however, is what happens in a perfect world where climate “science” is a real science and honest and objective intellectual curiosity is the only motivating factor. This is climate “science,” so the fact that countless small, narrow, shallow fast moving rivers covering relatively little area were turned into large, deep, static lakes is irrelevant. When the Hoover Dam was built, turning the Colorado River and 250 square miles of desert into Lake Mead, climate “scientists” somehow find a way to tie the carbon cycle into the climate change that it caused. Here is the write up regarding the research:

 The study’s researchers used a novel method to determine what happens to organic carbon traveling down rivers and were able to capture the impact of more than 70 per cent of the world’s man-made reservoirs by volume. Their model links known physical parameters such as water flow and reservoir size with processes that determine the fate of organic carbon in impounded rivers…“We’re essentially increasing the number of artificial lakes every time we build a dam,” said Taylor Maavara, lead author and a PhD student at Waterloo. “This changes the flow of water and the materials it carries, including nutrients and carbon.”

Really? Changes in the carbon in rivers vs lakes is the important factor when building a dam and measuring its impact on climate change? The claim is so absurd it is laughable, and highlights just how corrupt and wasteful Federal spending on climate research truly is. Yes, I know that particular study was paid for by the Canadians, but the same thing happens in the US.

This obsession with carbon is so ridiculous that we should simply make copies of the conclusions reached in all previous Government funded research stating that CO2 is the main cause of whatever is being studied. There really in no need to fund further research, because, in this “settled” science, the conclusion will always be that CO2 is the cause. Gravity is “settled” science. We don’t have “gravity” departments continually proving gravity exists, running countless studies that all reach the same conclusion. That is a waste of money. So is funding climate “science.” No matter what the observation being studied, carbon will always be the cause. If that is the case that the conclusion is pre-determined, why go through the farce of performing the supporting research? It is simply a waste of time, effort, and money?


If climate “science” is truly settled, it is time for congress to stop wasting money paying for research that has predetermined conclusions. All the existing government funded research points to carbon, so why keep funding research that is guaranteed to support that conclusion? Anyway, climate “science” is based upon an endless string of unfalsifiable hypothesis, where CO2 can cause warming AND, cooling, more hurricanes AND fewer hurricanes, more droughts AND fewer droughts, etc etc etc. It is futile to debate real science with a climate “scientist.” They will always be right because they follow a new “progressive science” where the scientific method is nothing more than an inconvenient annoyance promoted by a minority of scientists. These heretic scientists are “deniers” that bitterly cling to their conservative scientific practices. This new “progressive science” determines the truth based on the amount of Federal funding it can generate, not by the validity of the conclusions reached. Climate “scientists” are paid to prove man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of climate change. They aren’t paid to study how the climate really works.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The Problem with Climate Change “Science” in One Picture


From the above chart one can conclude:

  1. Climate Change is nothing new and is the norm rather than the exception
  2. Climate Change occurred before the industrial age and was more variable and severe
  3. If man is causing the recent climate change, the results have been beneficial, not detrimental
  4. Ex-President Obama and other Climate Alarmists are completely wrong when they claim droughts are getting worse
  5. There is no accurate way to determine what % of climate change is caused by man and what isn’t

h/t to the Real Science Blog for the graphic.

Sorry, I was mistaken in the title, it should have been titled “The Problem with Climate Change “Science” in TWO Pictures. Here is the other one.crop-170422_Michael_Mann_027-1492877508-article-header (1)

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

OMG!!! How “Manspreading” and Climate Change Are Related. Peer Review Exposed as a Left-Wing Fraud

21MANSPREADING4web-jumboHilarious Peer-Reviewed Climate Hoax: “The conceptual penis as a social construct”

From the “phallic climate model” department, h/t James Delingpole / Breitbart – a pair of hoaxers have demonstrated that random garbage, some of it computer generated, can pass academic peer review – providing it seems to conform to left wing social prejudices about masculinity, capitalism and climate change.

Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him.

BTW, the left-wing seems to have a love/hate relationship with “Alpha-Males.” I guess if the Alpha-Male beats up on Girls the Left dislikes, they give “Alpha-Males” a pass.

Read More: Hilarious Peer-Reviewed Climate Hoax: “The conceptual penis as a social construct”

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment.

How Can You Have “Certainty” When So Many Factors are “Unknown?”


Dr. Curry has an interesting post today regarding the “UnCertainty Monster.” Climate Alarmists speak of levels of “certainty” that are simply unsustainable in uncontrolled experiments and “sciences” that are unsupported by experimentation. Weather forecasters can’t predict the weather 5 days out with any accuracy, yet climate “scientists” speak in terms of 95%+ certainty about changes in the global climate 100 years in the future. They also make claims that one factor out of an infinite number of factors that influence climate is responsible for 100% of the warming over the past 100 years. All those claims are pure nonsense.

To build a valid scientific model, one has to control for as many “exogenous” variables as possible, and have accurate data for all “significant” factors defined in the theory. For instance, a valid experiment to prove the law of Gravity would be to:

  1. Secure a standardized Vacuum tube
  2. Secure standardized 1, 3, 5, 10-ounce ball bearings
  3. Secure a standardized clock
  4. Secure a standardized distance measuring scale and drop platform
  5. Secure a standardized touchpad
  6. Identify various locations around the globe that are at sea level

I would then travel around the globe to these sea level locations, setting up my vacuum tube, dropping the various balls from different heights within the vacuum tube, and measuring the time if takes the balls to fall from the platform to the touchpad. I would then publish my research and encourage others to “reproduce” my findings. Others would then take near identical instruments and go about either validating or rejecting my findings. Because that experiment has been performed countless times, and the results are alway the same (objects fall at 9.8m/sec^2), we give it the title “Law” of Gravity. When you talk of “Laws” you can use the terms of 95% certainty. Climate Change is no Law, at best it is a poorly defined “Theory,” at worse, a politically motivated fraud.


Climate “science” isn’t like a real science, it isn’t what is called a “hard” science. Climate “science” is a “soft” science and is closer to social and political “science,” than it is to physics and chemistry. Climate “science” is what happens when political activists in the social science departments invade the turf typically held and protected by the math, physics, chemistry and engineering departments. In “hard” science controlled experiments define their discoveries, in “soft” science computer models and “normative” ideas define their output. The closest relative climate “science” has is either economic or market science. Both economics and market science rely on what are called “econometric” studies that are statistical means to “control” for factors outside of a laboratory environment.  Because social sciences can’t put a society, economy or market in a laboratory, they needed to develop statistical techniques to mimic what the hard sciences were doing in the laboratory.

The closest relative climate “science” has is either economic or market science. Both economics and market science rely on what are called “econometric” studies that are statistical means to “control” for factors outside of a laboratory environment.  Because social sciences can’t put a society, economy or market in a laboratory, they needed to develop statistical techniques to mimic what the hard sciences were doing in the laboratory. Those software packages are as abundant in marketing firms as they are in social science departments of our universities. My understanding is that the first climate models were simply edited financial market models.

While I don’t have experience building climate models, I have a great deal of experience building econometric and financial market models, in fact, it is my background in building these kinds of models that got me interested in this climate “science” debate. I was simply shocked by the obvious flaws in their theory and models. None of the stuff I was reading would have gotten anything but an F- in an econometrics 101 course, and yet climate “science” was using terms like 95% certainty. The only 95% certainty in the field of climate “science” is that their models are failing and will continue to fail miserably.

Unlike the gravity experiment detailed above, climate science can’t run controlled experiments. The global climate is simply too complex and has too many variables. To put it simply, you can’t put a global climate in a test tube. Whereas most hard science is done with single variable models where experiments isolate the variable being studied, all valid climate models are multi-variable models, and those require a separate set of statistical calculations called multivariable linear regressions. To have a valid multivariable model you need to have to meet specific criteria like including all the major/significant contributing factors, one factor can’t be a function of the other (multi-collinearity), the variation of the data needs to be constant (no heteroscedasticity), the data can’t be a function of the previous data (no serial correlation).

The classic example of a multivariable model is weight-loss. Like the climate models, it is a simple input/output model. Any valid weight-loss model would have to include caloric intake (diet) and caloric expenditure (exercise). If the model just included diet, you might get an R-Squared (explanatory power of the model) of about 40, meaning that 40% of the variation in weight can be explained by diet. If you add exercise, the R-Squared may go up to 80. Then you can add in things like sex, age, starting body fat, etc etc. Each added factor will increase the R-Squared (adjusted R-Squared) if it is a valid factor and provides some explanatory power.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

The key to these models is that you have to include all major significant influencing factors. To identify all the significant influencing factors you have to understand them and understand their interaction with the other factors in the models. By the IPCC’s own admission, the vast majority of significant climate factors are categorized as having a “Very Low” level of scientific understanding (see graphic at the top of this article). Claiming a “consensus” and “certainty” upward of 90% is simply inconsistent with having a “Very Low” understanding of the majority of the factors in your model. Climate “scientists” may claim that all they want, but any real scientists knows the claims are pure hogwash.

Even Ex-President Obama admits the “certainty” is up for debate. He recently stated that:

“Ninety-nine percent* of scientists who study climate change carefully . . . will tell you that it is indisputable that the planet is getting warmer and the only real controversy is how much warmer will it get.”

That statement is a non-sequitur when put in the context of CO2. First, just because it has been warming since the end of the last ice-age doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause, and “how much warmer will it get” covers a very very wide range from the meaningless to the catastrophic. For those nonsensical, confusing and meaningless comments, Ex-President Obama got paid over $3 million. Anyway, Ex-President Obama himself refutes the claim of the “consensus” on catastrophic warming.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.