Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files


The Evidence:

Smoking Gun #1: Al Gore’s Ice Core CO2 Temperature Chart
Smoking Gun #2: 600 Million Year Geologic Record                    
Smoking Gun #3: The IPCC Climate Models Fail…Miserably           
Smoking Gun #4: There simply isn’t enough Anthropocentric CO2 to make a difference
Smoking Gun #5: Water Vapor is by far the most significant Green House Gas (GHG)
Smoking Gun #6: Antarctica isn’t warming
Smoking Gun #7: Antarctica isn’t warming, but the Oceans are
Smoking Gun #8: Atmospheric Temperatures follow ocean temperatures, not atmospheric CO2.
Smoking Gun #9: Atmospheric CO2 follows ocean temperatures, not man’s combustion.                                                                      
Smoking Gun #10: Record High Day Time Temperatures is NOT evidence of AGW
Smoking Gun #11: The Scientific Method is Ignored, The Null is not Rejected
Smoking Gun #12: Doubling CO2 has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT on the lower atmosphere temperature, none
Smoking Gun #13: The ground measurement data supporting the AGW Theory is very suspect
Smoking Gun #14: The relationship between CO2 and Temperature simply isn’t linear
Smoking Gun #15: Climate “Science” Temperature Reconstructions are not reproducible outside the “Peer Review” community
Smoking Gun #16: The rate of change in the Sea level is not increasing (2nd derivative)
Smoking Gun #17: The rate of change in Temperature is unaffected by Anthropogenic CO2.
Smoking Gun #18: The rate of change in atmospheric CO2 isn’t related to Anthropogenic CO2 production.
Smoking Gun #19: The  Equatorial Upper Tropospheric “Hot Spot” simply doesn’t exist.
Smoking Gun #20: 35 Years Ago We Had A Coming Ice Age and a 10 Year Supply of Oil
Smoking Gun #21: The Climategate Emails expose scientific collusion, malpractice and highly unethical, deceitful, deceptive and unscientific practices.
Smoking Gun #22: Climate “Science” isn’t science at all. Some described it as “Politicized” science, but in reality, it is just cleverly disguised politics.
Smoking Gun #23: The costs of fighting climate change are astronomical, and the benefits are basically immeasurable.
Smoking Gun #24: What Einstein concluded Global Warming and more CO2 are bad anyway?
Smoking Gun #25: Atmospheric temperature follows atmospheric H2O, not CO2?
Smoking Gun #26: PDO/ADO and other Natural Cycles You’ve Never Heard of…and for good reason.
Smoking Gun #27: The Climate Slush Fund; wasting other people’s money, tracking where it goes, and finding better uses for it
Smoking Gun #28: The Global Warming Inquisition; documenting the Climate Bullies and their unhindered workplace harassment
Smoking Gun #29: Global Sea Ice Sophistry
Smoking Gun #30: The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science
Smoking Gun #31: CO2 Cools the Atmosphere
Smoking Gun #32: Data Chiropractors “Adjust” Data
Smoking Gun #33: CO2 is a weak GHG, it has no Dipole
Smoking Gun #34: Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry
Smoking Gun #35: All Science is Numbers, if you understand something, prove it with a valid model
Smoking Gun #36: Dr. Judith Curry has a list of her own Smoking Guns
Smoking Gun #37: The corruption of government funded research was outlined in the 1960s

The bottom line is this “science” would “not stand up in court.” The global warming movement isn’t about science, it is about persuading public opinion. Once this “science” does get dragged into court, the Climate Alarmists get convicted for sophistry. Focus on the real science, and the Climate Alarmists will lose every argument. If the Climate Alarmists do win, it will cost society an absolute fortune, and the benefits will be immeasurably minuscule.stupid-people-quotes

Coming Soon:

Smoking Gun #?: Temperature two-step, it’s all about the base, no trend

Just the Facts Ma’am

Download the PDF

Making the Case:

The Climate Files: The Prosecution’s Case

Taking Action:

The Climate Files; Taking Action


12 thoughts on “Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files”

  1. I would think that the fact that the radiant greenhouse effect, upon which the AGW conjecture is based, has never been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, on in the atmosphere of any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. The non existance of the radiant greenhoue effect implies that the AGW conjecture is just science fiction.


    1. Yep, given the design on an atmosphere that thins out as altitude increases, the physics supports radiation cooling, not warming an atmosphere.


      1. The AGW conjecture claims the surface of the earth is 33 degrees warmer then it would be without an atmosphere because of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for by so called greenhouse gases that have LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of so called greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. So to on Earth. The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect as derived on first principals depends on the pressure gradient and the heat capacity of the atmosphere and has nothing to do with the LWIR absroption properties of so called greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect as derived from first principals accounts for all 33 degrees C that has been observed. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere.


      2. Let me also add that if CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. What has been observed would be consistant with CO2 having a climate sensivity of zero.

        In their first report the IPCC published a very wide range of possible guesses as to the climate sensivity of CO2. For the IPCC there is nothing more important then making a very accurate calculation as to what the climate sensivity of CO2 actually is. In their last report the IPCC published the exact same very wide range of possible guesses as the the climate sensivity of CO2. So after more than two decades of study the IPCC has found nothing that would allow them to narrow the range of their guesses. They have been unable to measure anything that would allow them to calculate the climate sensivity of CO2. Their actions would be conisitant with the idea that the climate sensivity is actually zero and cannot be measured. The IPCC will not admit to a low value for the climate sensivity of CO2 for fear of losing their funding.

        Kyoji Kimoto has found that the basic global warming hypothesis is wrong as he reported in a November 11, 2015 article in “The Hockey Schtick”. Apparently the calculations of the Plank climate sensivity of CO2 forgot to include that doubling CO2 in our atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere because of how CO2 affects the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The slight decrease is a cooling effect and reduces the possible climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 rendering the possible climate sensivity of CO2 as trivial, less than .06 degrees C.

        The reality is that H2O has a net cooling effect in our atmosphere as exemplified by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. Hence any possible H2O feedback to any possible CO2 warming would be a negative feedback and hence attenuate any CO2 warming effect on climate. The H2O feedback has to have been negative for the Earth’s climate to have been stable enough over at least the past 500 million years for life to have evolved. Human existance is another smoking gun.


  2. The surface is not 33 degrees warmer than it should be, I cannot understand where people get this from. The calculation that gives the effective temperaturen is for blackbodies only. A blackbody is isothermal, the same temperature through the whole volume, absorbing and emitting from a perfectly black, infinately thin surface. It is the radiated average intensity, it is not supposed to be the surface temperaturen of a planet like earth. If you transform the solar constant through the volume of two spheres, the atmosphere and the solid surface, and account for the fact that the sphere is irradiated on half of the emitting surface, you get pretty much the exact surface temperature.
    If TSI=1361W/m²

    With radiative heat transfer we get the amount transferred through the surface to the atmosphere, which then is radiated as effective temperature. T(effective)=(1361-385)/4=976/4=244W/m²

    The tropopause temperature is what is transferred from the surface to the troposphere:

    By understanding the blackbody concept, that radiation intensity is dependent on temperature only, and what differs earth from the ideal blackbody (it emits from a volume, not a surface), albedo and other types of BS can be ignored and we stand on pure, established, well known physics.
    The simplest form of heat transfer gives the effective temperature,as you can see. Climate, weather and albedo is caused by temperature, and radiation intensity is transformed by simple geometri.

    So, why do people say that temperature is higher than it should be, when old standard physics show that it is exactly what it is supposed to be?

    Or, why did we leave the temperature of earth to the stupid peoples?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s