Climate “Science” on Trial; A Weaponized Generation


“In order to do this kind of stuff, we have to recruit from a certain demographic,” he said in reference to government surveillance. “And I don’t mean to judge them at all, but this group of millennials and related groups simply have different understandings of the words loyalty, secrecy, and transparency than certainly my generation did.”
He continued:

“So we bring these people into the agency – good Americans all, I can only assume – but again, culturally, they have different instincts than the people who made the decision to hire them, and we may be running into this different cultural approach.”
He singled out Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, both millennial whistleblowers who made massive waves when they revealed nefarious activities on the part of the federal government.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The above quote comes from an interview of Ex-CIA Boss Michael Hayden, and he is describing what can only be described as a “weaponized generation,” a “Manchurian Generation,” a generation that has been raised for the same purpose the totalitarian pigs raised the puppies in Animal Farm. We have allowed the wrong people to educate our children, and they have turned them into a “fifth column.”They just mindlessly follow a failed self-destructive ideology that relies upon censorship, selective education/re-education, propaganda, “safe spaces”, “participation trophies,” and “faux/perpetual outrage” that benefits only a select few at tremendous costs to the many. Many of the issues seen at the CIA parallel the social just warriors’ other cause, fighting climate change. Only a generation raised to hate America would ever voluntarily support such self-destructive policies. Policies that result is support for an Iranian nuclear program, opposition to domestic nuclear power, and the destruction of our domestic energy production. Back in 1963 the blueprint for the Communist destruction of America was entered into the Congressional Record.  The plan wasn’t to defeat America on the battlefield, the plan was to erode the moral foundation, love of individual freedom and patriotism that defined America so that America would defeat herself. The main tools of the communists? The media, artists, politicians, journalists and educators.995964535-57737-Vladimir_lenin_famous_quotes_4

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
-Abraham Lincoln

If Fascism Ever Comes To America, It Will Come In The Name Of Liberalism.
-Ronald Reagan


A few of the goals that apply to the global warming movement.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.Lenin_Got_Rope_Capitalists

“There are no morals in politics; the is only experience. A scoundrel may be of use because he is a scoundrel”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost.”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State. Lenin, “State and Revolution”,”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

“Medicine (Read Obamacare) is the keystone of the arch of socialism.”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

““The establishment of socialism in capitalist nations requires only targeting their supply of energy.”
― Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

a useful idiot is a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause.


The bottom line is this entire man-made climate change hoax is simply one aspect of a much greater multi-pronged approach to undermine the free market system, individual freedom, and the American way.c5_qhemwmae8kv0

For the Communists/Fascists/Socialists to win, they have to get America to destroy herself from within. From the looks of things, they were doing pretty well…until President Trump got elected and reminded America how it feels to be great again. The sad Irony is that the CPUSA’s goal is to take America and turn it into the next North Korea, China, Russia or Cuba. Somehow someone has convinced them that that is an improvement over the current system. The moral, character and ideological bankruptcy of the political left can not be overstated. These following quotes demonstrate why I say “to understand global warming you have to understand the politics behind it, not the science, the “science” is simply an ends to a means.” Global warming simply follows the pattern leftist have been using for over a century, a century of evil, tyranny, murder and destruction.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Whole is Greater Than the Sum of Its Pieces

albert-einstein-quotes-25The nice thing about this field of climate “science” is that so much had been published before the focus changed from understanding the climate to looting the energy sector through the guise of CO2 caused catastrophic global warming. This has forced the climate alarmist to go back and rewrite not only the data history but also the science books, erasing any lesson on proper scientific practices, ethics, honesty, integrity, and most importantly the scientific method is considered blasphemy.  The most famous example is the 1990 IPCC temperature chart being replaced by the nonsensical “Hockeystick.”mwp-hockey-warming_graph (1)The “Hockeystick” used highly accurate (sarc) measurements from proxies like coral, tree rings, and ice cores to re-write the climate history of the past 1,000 years. Thermometer/instrumental records, some being available from the mid-1600’s, were not included until 1902, and the proxies were not dropped until 1980. By far the most accurate of atmospheric temperature measurements, the NASA Satellite data, was never used. This article will provide the motivation as to why a world renowned climate “scientist” would ignore using thermometer data when creating a temperature reconstruction.

The “Hockeystick” isn’t the only example of data manipulation, the practice of data “adjustments” is systematic throughout the entire field of climate “science.” That is how they get the results they want. There are countless examples of where the NOAA/NASA/GISS data has been “adjusted” to manufacture a greater and more rapid rise in global temperatures.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

There are even nice animated GIF files demonstrating the manipulation.Hansen 2


One of the main goals of the CO2isLife Blog is to not only expose the fraud but to do so in a manner that is easy to understand and to create arguments that would hold up in court with a scientifically illiterate jury. The end goal is to create a rock solid legal case against the climate alarmists and document the arguments the prosecution can/should use in court. Fortunately for the prosecution, the climate alarmists are more keystone cops than hardened criminals. They clearly never thought through how to successfully perpetrate the greatest scientific fraud in history. Their own data convicts them, and it provides all the evidence one needs to get a guilty verdict.Child_Fever

It is important to understand just what those charts represent. Those charts aren’t the charts of a magical thermometer placed at some secret location in the atmosphere that gives the global temperature reading. It isn’t like the earth is a baby and some climate “scientist” places a thermometer in its mouth. Those charts represent the compilation of temperatures readings from thousands of weather/temperature stations from all over the world. Over the past 150 years, there have been huge changes in the composition of that unified global temperature data set. Weather stations have been added, removed and moved. Suspiciously, the average latitude of the weather stations has been moving closer to the equator.Screen-Shot-2017-03-05-at-4.17.26-PM

By doing these slight-of-hand data manipulations, by cherry-picking locations, by “extrapolating” data, the climate alarmists have been able to manufacture graphics that show an alarming almost linear trend in global warming.graph1

The problem with “adjusting” just the final compilation, a much easier task than “adjusting” the thousands of data sets of which it is comprised, is that it leaves the raw data, the data needed for evidence, untouched. Fortunately, we have Phil “Hide the Decline” Jones to thank for the needed research to debunk the current NASA GISS/NOAA/HadCRU global temperature chart.

Way back in 1992, before the IPCC and the Global Warming propaganda really took off, Dr Phil Jones, head of the CRU at East Anglia, actually wanted to develop an honest temperature reconstruction. How would an honest scientist try to reconstruct the temperature record of the globe? Would he use tree rings? Nope. Would he use coral? Nope. Would he use ice cores? Nope. How would anyone with an ounce of common sense create a temperature reconstruction? How would a 2nd grader with a D- average GPA make a temperature reconstruction? Believe it or not, Dr. Phil Jones actually earned the right to use the title Ph.D. by attempting to create a temperature reconstruction using, wait for it, wait for it, you got it, thermometer data. Can you believe it? A climate “scientist” actually took the time to look at the historical instrumental temperature record? Here is a link to the actual research.

Why haven’t you heard of this before you ask? The problem is that if you look at the actual data from the most accurate data sources available, there is no warming. Gasp!!!! I said, “there is no warming.” Here, I will repeat it again, “according to the longest available and most accurate instrumental temperature data available, there has been no global warming over the past 150 years.” Don’t take my word for it, it is from Dr. Phil “Hide-the-Decline” Jone’s research. Here are the longest thermometer/instrumental temperature data records available, showing that not only has there been no warming, but that both hemispheres show no warming. If you add all these charts up to create a global temperature reconstruction, you would get no warming. To get warming the whole has to be greater than the sum of its pieces. In a real world where energy can be neither created nor destroyed, these charts mean game over for the climate alarmists.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Here are graphics of the longest continual instrumental record on earth, the Central England Data Set. It shows no warming over the past 350 years.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Now there are problems with thermometer data, but it is infinitely better than tree rings, coral and ice cores. This slideshow demonstrates the difference between West Point NY and NY City. The NY City data is corrupted by what is called the “Urban Heat Island Effect.” NY City shows warming, whereas West Point doesn’t. The warning is real, it just isn’t due to CO2. The key to the “Urban Heat Island Effect” is that it always causes an erroneous warming. To adjust for this effect, the “adjustments” should be to systematically lower the value for those readings it impacts. In reality, the global temperature “adjustments” have been to systematically increase proximal and lower distal temperatures, creating the illusion of linearity and warming.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

These aren’t the only charts that make the case for no warming over the past 350 years or even the entire Holocene. There is plenty of data that there has been no warming, that there was a Little Ice Age, that there was a Minoan, Roman and Post-Little Ice Age Warming, and none of these climate cycles were/are due to CO2, and are simply a natural phenomenon. Here are just a few charts to make the case. Note, pay attention to the X-Axis, some go back in time, others do the opposite.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Any real science would also look for “confirmation” and “reproducibility.” In any real science, you measure 100x and cut once. The “Hockeystick” and “ground measurements” are not reproducible. The “adjustments” like using known bad data, and “Mike’s Nature Trick…to Hide the Decline” are researcher, corrupt and unethical researcher specific techniques. They would never be reproduced or repeated by an ethical scientist. (Note: Taking the same corrupt model and corrupt data and running it on a different computer doesn’t count as reproducibility, that is replication, not reproducibility). The ground measurements also aren’t confirmed by the most accurate data source, the satellite data. The satellite data is however confirmed by the balloon measurements, so out of the 3 main temperatures sources, 2 of which confirm each other and are highly accurate, the climate alarminsts have to rely on the lease accurate data source that isn’t only not confirmed by the more accurate sources, it isn’t even confirmed by the raw data supporting it.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In conclusion, man has caused global warming and climate change. Man, meaning the corrupt and unethical climate “scientists,” has in fact manufactured the illusion that man is causing global warming and climate change through the manipulation of computer codes and data “adjustments.” But in that context man, or more specifically, a few corrupt men, are the cause of 100% of the warming since the beginning of the industrial era. Put in that context, these following graphics are 100% correct. The problem for the climate alarmists is that the solution isn’t to tax Exxon and give them more research grants, the solution is to put the corrupt “scientists” behind bars.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“Adjusting” data simply won’t change the physical reality that CO2 is a trivial player in naturally changing climate.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Snowflakes are Staffing the EPA

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

No wonder the EPA fears global warming, it is staffed by a flurry of snowflakes. Further global warming threatens to melt the entire staff at the EPA. Fighting global warming is literally a life-or-death struggle for the staff at the EPA. My advice to President Trump would be to turn up the thermostat and make those sensitive, participation trophy winning, safe-space seeking snowflakes at the EPA feel the heat.Snowflakes
BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; A Series of Unfortunate Events

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If you think you’ve been having a rough day, just imagine what it must be like to be a climate alarmist. It has been nothing but non-stop bad news recently.

The Series of Unfortunate Events:

  1. President Trump gets elected
  2. Scott Pruitt, a longtime adversary of EPA, confirmed to lead the agency
  3. The California drought ended exposing the dangers of trusting gullible politicians
  4. NOAA had a Whistleblower start singing
  5. Ex-Exxon CEO named, Rex Tillerson, names as Secretary of State
  6. NASA is getting its climate change research funding cut
  7.  Polar winds look to be reversing, likely resulting is thickening of the Arctic sea ice
  8. The current solar cycle looks to be a weak one
  9. The El Nino ended, and temperatures immediately collapsed
  10. The Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines are back in business
  11. The Arctic still has ice
  12. The criminal case against the alarmists is growing
  13. After forests were destroyed in Germany to build a wind farm, the people are paying attention
  14. NOAA is getting its funding cut
  15. Climategate favorite Phil “hide-the-decline” Jones is stepping down at the CRU
  16. The “Social Cost of Carbon” appears to be a benefit
  17. This event happened, and these people were caught on video.

All in all, these are a series of unfortunate events for the climate alarmists but represent a very fortunate series of events for America as a whole. To “Make America Great Again,” POTUS Trump appears to be willing to ignore and defy the climate alarmists.windfarm

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?

polar-bear-sea-ice-snow-dark-clouds-open-mouth-hd-wallpaper-1600x1200One of my biggest complaints about how the climate change battle for the truth is being fought is that the real scientists, the climate realists don’t seem to understand, or are unwilling to accept that this isn’t a scientific argument, this is a political campaign. The climate alarmists have virtually unlimited government funded resources to draw upon, the real scientists, the climate realists, the people actually seeking the truth have virtually none. The government literally has a monopoly on the hiring of climate scientists and funding climate research. Only government or government funded entities collect and “adjust” the temperature data. The IPCC is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.”Anyone that decides to disagree with the “consensus,” can have serious consequences. The government didn’t hire these climate “scientists” to help define and understand the climate, they were hired to vilify CO2. Why? Because that is where the money is. Now that the tobacco settlement money is running out, the parasitic organizations that depend upon government funding and regulations need another source of revenues. It is that simple, the NGO hunter gathers (trial lawyers, watermelon environmental groups, anti-capitalists, and socialists) need to be fed.c5_qhemwmae8kv0

Because this isn’t a real scientific debate, the old rules don’t apply. The scientific method doesn’t apply. Getting to the “truth” isn’t the goal of this “scientific” debate, getting income redistributed to your cause is the goal. The “truth” has absolutely nothing to do with it. The real climate battle isn’t being fought in our labs, free universities, debate/science clubs/organizations, the real battle is being fought in congress, elections and the courts, none of which require a model with a high R-Squared to win the debate. Climate “science” is so far removed from real science that the entire “science” is based upon a series of untestable hypotheses, and relies on computer models instead of experimentation. Because this isn’t a real science, climate “scientists” are free to make endless nonsensical claims like coming ice age/global warming/climate change can cause more/less snow. more/less rain, more/less draught, and the list goes on and on and on, all based up taxpayer-funded research.


Because the poorly funded real scientists don’t have a chance at fighting against the well-funded climate alarmists, they must change their tactics. As it is right now, climate alarmist will make a nonsensical claim and the few real scientists and “denier” blogs will immediately run out to disprove the claim. Bill Nye and others climate alarmists can make an infinite number of nonsensical claims, the real scientists simply don’t have the resources to refute an endless number of intentionally distracting nonsensical claims. Even if they could, real scientists will never have the microphone the government funded climate alarmists do. In this linked video Dr. Judith Curry refutes the countless false statements made by the then POTUS Barrack Obama. How many saw the stream of dis/misinformation spewed by POTUS Barrack Obama? Billions. How many people saw this video on the NBC/CBS/ABC Nightly News? Answer? 0.00. How many Youtube Views? 11,115. While I greatly admire the work of Dr. Curry and others, their approach of trying to answer every bit of disinformation/misinformation/deception/distortion/fake news/fake science/pseudo-science/junk science is simply ineffectual. The people fighting in this war for the climate change truth must adjust their tactics and POTUS Trump is giving us a great case study.fabian-socialist-wolf-in-sheep-clothing

The tactics used by the climate alarmists are simply tried and true political tactics embraced by the political left. They are all well documented in books like “Das Kapital,” “Rules for Radicals,” and white-papers like “The Politics of Evasion,” “The Weight of the Poor,” and articles like  “Democrats Forever Changed.” The symbol for the Fabian Socialist Society is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The strength of the Democratic Party is its ability or organize people, for good or ill, that is what they do. The scientific truth is meaningless to them, the political ends are all that matter. The politicization or science isn’t an ill to be fought, it is the desired outcome. Even this much-vaunted “consensus” is a giant ruse. The scientific consensus is that the earned income tax credit is far superior to a minimum wage, the scientific consensus is that competition and school choice is far superior to a government-run educational monopoly, the scientific consensus is that life is a continuum and at no time does a fetus/baby cease to be alive, the scientific consensus is that there are countless differences between the races and sexes and that we are not all equal, in fact, we are all quite unequal in many ways. Democrats will only appeal to “consensus” when it favors their position. It is nothing but a political tool, nothing more.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

POTUS Trump approaches the Russian issue in much the same way real scientists should address the climate change issue,  simply assume everything being published by the climate alarmists is a lie. If in fact, climate change is the greatest scientific fraud in history, everything supporting it must be a lie. Once one accepts that, the way to fight the battle becomes much easier. Real scientists actually have the much easier task as this quote from Albert Einstein highlights:

 No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Real scientists only need to find that one example that resonates with the public to win the battle. And as this quote from Albert Einstein highlights, not even the “consensus” can save one from defeat. Eventually, the truth will win out.

Einstein was shown a German newspaper that claimed “One hundred German physicists claim Einsteins theory of relativity is wrong.” Einsteins reply was,  “If I were wrong, it would only take one.”

POTUS Trump’s response to the Russian charges is a great case study for real scientists addressing the political climate change issue. The Russians didn’t “hack” Hillary Clinton’s server, it was discovered during an FBI investigation into Anthony Weiner. The Russians didn’t “hack” John Podesta’s email password, he accidentally gave it to the hackers through phishing malware. Wikileaks’ founder denies the hacks were from the Russians.


POTUS Trump knows his involvement with the Russians, POTUS Trump alone knows the real truth, so he is in the unique position to know what is “fake news” and what is the actual truth. By knowing the real truth, he has a much easier way exposing the lies, because if he had no nefarious contacts with the Russians, everything that claims otherwise must be a lie/disinformation/misinformation/fake news/propaganda. He simply accepts the fact that they are lies and responds accordingly by putting his accusers on the defense. When Democrats attack him for meeting with the Russians, he publishes pictures of his attackers meeting with the Russians, when his attackers make false claims about him meeting the Russians he fires back with claims that Trump Tower was bugged.

Trump wants congressional probe of evidence-free claims about Obama

POTUS Trump doesn’t give his attackers the benefit of the doubt and tries to address every one of their manufactured claims as if they are sincere, he assumes they are disingenuous and politically motivated and responds accordingly. If there is no penalty for leveling unfounded baseless claims supported by nothing but a paranoid delusion or evil intent to unethically undermine an opponent, why not fight fire with fire? If this is the bed Democrats want, make them sleep in it. For every unfounded, unsourced, unsupported claim the Democrats make, POTUS Trump should simply respond with two of his own.


Barack Obama denies ‘ever ordering surveillance on any US citizen’ following bombshell accusations he tapped Donald Trump’s phone during US presidential election

Real scientists fighting for the climate change truth can learn a lot from POTUS Trump. The real scientists fighting in this climate change war for the truth simply have to accept that this is politics, not science and that by trying to refute every single lie manufactured by the climate alarmists simply strengthens their position. The general public will never read the scientific research needed to win the scientific arguments, what matters is putting pressure on those that get elected and pass the laws. When POTUS Obama accuses POTUS Trump of colluding with the Russians, POTUS Trump accuses POTUS Obama of wiretapping the Trump Tower. POTUS Trump takes the offense, and make it real clear that there are serious consequences for lying and spreading misinformation/disinformation. Unlike the climate alarmists, POTUS Obama has learned that disingenuous actions have consequences. The climate scientists fighting in this war for climate change truth simply need to take the offense and put the climate alarmists on defense for a change.

The real scientists need to focus their very very very limited resources on the issues that have the biggest bang for the buck, the greatest energy density, the issues that will most resonate with the public.

Case Study: Here is an article claiming that 20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability. None of those papers will ever be read by a large number of people. None of those papers will ever be featured on the major networks. None of those papers will ever be mentioned in an IPCC Report. None, nada, zip. They are all fine scientific works, but will ultimately have zero impact on the climate change war. Once again, this a propaganda war, a battle for the hearts and minds of the public, the real science doesn’t mean diddly squat. Because of the highly technical nature of the “science” every arguing the truth in a congressional testimony doesn’t do much good. The topic is much too easily confused, and every claim is met with a disingenuous answer or counterclaim, and the opposition can alway appeal to the “consensus.” The problem is, most decision makers aren’t real scientists, some are high school dropouts and felons/ex-felons, and they wouldn’t know the scientific truth if it punched them in the face, and many if not all don’t want the truth, they want the votes.


This video highlights what happened when a scientifically illiterate politician skilled in the arts of deceit and deception went up against honest truth seeking real scientists. The truth doesn’t always win. The real scientists are forced to explain a Ph.D level education to people that are being paid not to understand the truth, and who will be politically punished by it. For every scientific “fact” named by the real scientists, bully Senator Markey could easily counter with his set of “facts” and the people on his side get to make the “adjustments” to the facts. The real scientists were immediately put on the defensive trying to counter an endless stream of falsehood, all supported by the “consensus.”It simply isn’t a level playing field, the opposition gets to hire and pay the referees, run the scoreboard, write and edit the rule book real time, and determine what parts of the game the public gets to watch.6a6krzctxfsv-6g78foiflpmcczp8ahlzog_up41bfc

Now imagine if instead of being put on the defensive, the real scientists took the offense? Imagine if the bully Senator Markey had been asked this simple question: “how does ice melt in sub-zero temperatures? Anyone above the age of 6 knows ice doesn’t melt in sub-zero temperatures. The bully Senator Markey would have either had to answer honestly, or be exposed as a climate alarmist fraud. The real scientists could have simply used the data used by the climate alarmists against them. One of the greatest symbols used by the climate alarmists is that the arctic sea ice is disappearing, presumably due to “melting. The problem is, rarely does the arctic ever have temperatures above freezing. This loss of sea ice is occurring in sub-zero temperatures.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The arctic ice follows a pattern of peaking in May and bottoming in August. It loses ice between May and August, and gains ice between August and May. The problem is, most of the time the Arctic is losing ice, the temperatures are sub-zero. Only between mid-late June and mid-late August, about 100 days, are the atmospheric temperatures warm enough to melt ice. Most of the year, the Arctic is gaining ice. The reason the Arctic is losing ice is due to warm water bringing the heat into the Arctic, and wind patterns blowing/moving the ice to warmer oceans.

Warmer Arctic Ocean temperatures delay sea ice formation
‘We are headed to a world in which we are going to have no sea ice in summer,’ says scientist

The air seems to be cold, but the sea water must be warmer temperature,” he said.

“It’s causing it to delay the forming of the ice.”

CO2 doesn’t warm the oceans or determine the Arctic wind patterns. The other problem is that 90% of the Arctic sea ice is below the surface of the oceans, totally removed from the atmospheric warmth. Place a well-insulated thermos filled with ice and water in the freezer and then move it to the refrigerator and measure how long it will take for the ice to melt. I would love to have seen bully Senator Markey explain why the natural laws of physics cease to exist in the Arctic, and that CO2 and IR between 13 and 18 microns can warm water, and ice can melt below its freezing point.41f8e2fnq1l

A similar approach can be applied to the Mt. Kilimanjaro Glacier. The documentary “The Changing Climate of Global Warming” documented this tactic in action. The climate alarmists claim that the Mt. Kilimanjaro Glacier is “melting” due to global warming, or at least it is implied that CO2 is causing the glacier to disappear. The problem is, the Mt. Kilimanjaro Glacier is at 19,340 ft above sea level, and it NEVER gets above freezing. Imagined if bully Senator Markey would have been forced to explain this one. From the video, even Al Gore’s friend, the climate “science” legend Dr. Lonnie Thompson, runs and hides from answering that question. The facts are, the climate alarming win when the real scientists allow themselves to be put on the defensive, they will win if they take the offense and force the alarmists to defend the indefensible. The best thing that can happen is that this issue ends up in court, and the climate alarmists are forced to defend this purely pseudo-science against a prosecution’s case like the one outlined in this linked article.Captureq.PNG

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees

360_wbiofuels_0407The problem with a biased media and a complicit “scientific” community is that the public is only given half the story to reach their conclusions. “Fake News” even makes things worse because the public will make decisions based on the wrong information. There is a reason one must give “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”  in court hearings. To reach the truth, one needs all the relevant information, and that information must be honest and accurate. Unfortunately, journalism schools and climate “science” departments seem to have dropped those lectures from their curriculum.


The Clean Energy Scam

Ethanol increases global warming, destroys forests and inflates food prices. So why are we subsidizing it?

Case in point, how many people would support Wind Farms if they knew you often have to clear cut old growth forests to build them? Well, it turns out, not many. Just recently that fact was brought to light over in Germany, and the people were horrified.

Germans nationwide have been horrified by the mass deforestation taking place to make way for industrial wind parks

In this videoGreen Illusions author and environmental architect Ozzie Zehner tells of a client cutting down century-old shade trees to install inefficient, ineffective and environmentally unfriendly solar panels. The facts are so unfriendly to the “green economy” that he calls them “Fairy Tales.

Just recently I visited Oil City PA, the birthplace of oil discoveries in America. At one time, it was a complete and absolute environmental disaster…that powered the American economic engine and all the progress that came with it.


100 years later, I was pleasantly surprised that this extremely economically beneficial environmental disaster was an absolutely beautiful, rich, dense, and thriving forest. Where once stood countless men and derricks pumping oil and powering progress, now stand countless trees. Oil City proves beyond any reasonable doubt that oil is by far one of the most environmentally friendly energy sources out there. The damage is only temporary, the benefits received are gianormous, and the relative footprint is minuscule compared to other “environmentally friendly” energy sources. What makes oil so environmentally friendly is its “energy density.” You simply get a lot of bang for the buck with oil. A simple relatively temporary 1-acre fracking site can produce far more energy than hundreds of acres of wind and solar farms. This is how oil city is described today, proving the temporary environmental damage is far exceeded by the benefits received.

The Oil Region National Heritage Area offers lots of history, as well as extensive hiking, biking, equestrian trails and water sports

What is most ironic however is how John D. Rockefeller and Kerosine did more for the environment than Green Peace, Sierra Club and The World Wildlife Fund could ever dream of doing.  John D. Rockefeller and Kerosine single-handedly saved the whales from extinction. Kerosine was a cheaper alternative than whale oil and its discovery ended the era immortalized in classic novels like Moby Dick. Polar bears also seem to thrive in the warming climate as well, regardless of its cause.


Wall Street isn’t blind to the inconvenient truths supporting the green economy myths,  and the short sellers have become emboldened with the election of President Trump, and the redirection of the EPA and NASA.

Gordon Johnson of Axiom Capital Management Inc. is the short selling 3rd Avenue Financial Analyst Solar Energy companies are learning to hate. His business is making money from the the failure of unsustainable renewable business models.

To add injury to insult, “going green” is often the worse for the environment. It turns out that inefficient, ineffective, wasteful and expensive “green solutions” often do more harm than good…if any good at all.

Study: Being An Environmentalist Generally Isn’t Good For The Planet

Trying to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by using green energy often does more harm to the environment than good, according to other research.

Not only are there direct costs, there are tremendous opportunity costs and the most insidious unintended costs/consequences.

Green Lunacy #1: £450 Million Lost Over Failed Green Power That Is Worse Than Coal

Green Lunacy 2: Household Solar Storage Increases Co2 Emissions, Study Concludes

Green Lunacy 3: Protected Forests In Europe Felled To Meet EU Renewable Targets

To make matters worse, fighting CO2 and climate change easily exposes the Climate Justice Warriors or “CJWs” as misguided illogical sanctimonious hypocrites. Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio both live in coastal homes that are most threatened by their dire predictions of catastrophic sea level rise and extreme weather and increased hurricanes.  Both sanctimoniously lecture on conserving energy while living in homes that use more energy an entire village in India and ceaselessly travel the world in their private jets and black Suburban SUVs. Even the grass-roots protesters can’t live by the demands they expect of others. The North Dakota Access Pipeline protesters used gas and diesel generators to survive while protesting. I guess wind and solar just didn’t cut it.

What was once a bustling makeshift city is now a largely abandoned garbage pit. Teepees and yurts, thousands of sheets of plywood and tents, kerosene and propane stoves, diesel and gasoline generators, food, clothing, cars and mountains of human waste lie in what was once a pristine floodplain that abutted the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

One would think that for all that effort, the CJWs would be able to point to countless benefits. They can’t. Their efforts are the epitome of misallocation or resources, inefficiency, ineffectiveness, pure folly paid for by others, misguided utopian visions, counter productivity, hypocrisy, ignorance, blind dogma, waste and the politicization of good intentions and science.

EU Sees Almost No Fossil Fuel Consumption Progress Despite Hundreds Of Billions Of Euros Invested!


Oh, and no complete discussion on this topic can fail to mention the schizophrenic position the environmentalists/Democrats have regarding nuclear power. Environmentalists/Democrats rarely show more true passion than when they are attacking the nuclear energy industry. Some of my most vivid memories as I child were the protests about 3-Mile Island. Even before 3-Mile Island, Hollywood was making movies undermining the industry. When it comes to aiding and abetting our sworn enemies, the environmentalists/Democrats sing a different tune. Environmentalists/Democrats may fear President Donald Trump’s finger on the button, but they are doing everything possible to put the Ayatollah’s finger on one. America is an oil-poor energy importer that has legitimate economic needs for nuclear power. Iran is an oil-rich oil-exporting nation with no real economic need for nuclear power. Even the most gullible environmentalists/Democrats don’t believe Iran wants nuclear power to generate electricity, that is just the plausible story used to sell the policy to the public. Just like climate change was the motive for more UN control over the globe, creating an Iranian nuclear threat accomplishes the same objective, only that threat when unleashed will cost more than coal jobs.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Bottom line, if we are going to expend all these resources, we should at least expect some form of positive return. There are two sides of cost-benefit analysis, and so far, the public has only been given the greatly exaggerated and most likely fraudulent claims of costs associated with atmospheric CO2. With friends like environmentalists, the earth, animals, wildlife and rational and civilized societies don’t need enemies.

Leading Renewable Energy Expert Says Germany Sacrificing Nature For “Green” Energies

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists

sherlock-holmesI am not a climate “scientist.” I don’t have a degree in “climatology.” I’ve never stepped foot through the doors of NOAA, NASA GISS or HadCRUT. I am not an expert on the climate. Therefore I should not be able to write an article today that will prove 100% correct 10 years in the future, rejecting the climate models built by the “experts” who are backed by billions and billions of dollars in funding. If climate “science” is truly a valid science, an amateur climatologist shouldn’t be able to make better forecasts than the experts.  That is a testable hypothesis. If climate “science” is a valid science, and the ground measurements are not being manipulated to get a predetermined answer, then over the next 10 years, both satellite and ground measurements should fall in line with the “expert” IPCC climate model predictions. In my amateur opinion, there is a 0% chance of that happening. Over the next 10 years, the spread between the average IPCC climate model predicted temperature and the UAH Satellite Data will widen. I am 100% certain of that, and this article will cover why.  Here is how the situation looks today. The climate models do an awful job forecasting temperatures, and my bet is that over the next 10 years, the gap between reality and predicted are certain to grow.b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

While I don’t have a background in climatology (whatever that is), I do have a background that includes multivariable modeling, properly applying the scientific method, advanced statistics and mathematics, quantum physics and chemistry both inorganic and organic. I view not being a climate “scientist” as a benefit, more than a hindrance, because I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’m only interested in the truth. I wasn’t taught to think only one way, I draw upon my extensive and diverse educational and professional background to formulate what I consider to be the most reasonable explanations of what is happening. I’m not the only one that sees problems with the existing climate models. Bob Tisdale wrote an excellent 353-page ebook on the subject of why climate models fail. Keeping with the spirit of this blog, however, I’m going to condense the arguments down so that they will fit on a napkin, and can easily be explained over drinks at a cocktail party.goldman.PNG

Fails the Stink Test:

The first clue that climate “science” is a fraud is how they speak about certainty. They make outrageous claims as to the confidence levels and certainty of their models. We only have maybe 50% confidence in weather forecasts that go out 1 week, and we are being told the climate models have a 95% certainly level forecasting the climate 100 years in the future. Anyone that has ever build a multivariable forecast model knows those kinds of numbers simply don’t exist. How do I know climate “scientists” don’t truly have the ability to forecast the infinitely complex climate 100 years in the future? Simple, they aren’t working on Wall Street. If climate “scientists” could truly model something as infinitely complex as the global climate, modeling the S&P 500 would be a walk in the park, and climate “scientists” would easily be the wealthiest people in world history. Facts are, we can’t even model the stock market with any certainty, and we certainly can’t model something infinitely more complex with greater certainty. When you see Goldman Sachs advertising to hire climate “scientists” starting at 1,000 x a professor’s salary, you can start to believe their claims, but until then, it is simply nonsense.

Say What?!!

Real science uses a common language, and it usually involves numbers. In real science you apply the scientific method, and, through experimentation, either accept or reject a hypothesis. Climate science does very little that is consistent with classical science. First off, applying the scientific method to the hypothesis “the temperature change over the past 50 to 150 years (the industrial age) is of natural causes” is not rejected. Don’t take my word for it, simply take any ice core data set and test the temperature variation over the past 50 to 150 years compared to the temperature variation of the entire Holocene. There is nothing abnormal about the recent temperature variation. Failing to reject the null means game over in any real science.

Second, science talks of confidence levels and certainty. A hypothesis is rejected at the 95% confidence level. Climate Alarmists talk of “consensus” and use ad hominem attacks or worse to silence critics. The 95% confidence level is often mentioned by Climate Alarmists, but it isn’t from some statistical analysis of data, it comes from a survey that claims 95 out of 100 scientists agree man is somehow impacting the climate. BTW, I would have agreed with the survey questions, as would anyone with an ounce of common sense.

Third, Climate “science” is a model based science. There is very little if any experimentation and empirical evidence supporting it. What experiments are performed to convince the public are complete jokes, and work more to discredit the science than to validate it. Ironically, much of the evidence we do have doesn’t implicate CO2 very well, if at all.

Fourth, if something is understood, it can be modeled. From the top graphic and all the evidence, the IPCC isn’t even close to accurately modeling the climate.

Lastly, real science published charts with error bars around them. This is extremely important for sciences that try to boil an entire year’s worth of data into a single point. Climate “science” takes an entire year, where the winters may be sub-zero, and the summers may be over 80 degrees C, and represent it as a single point estimate. They then fret about fractions of a degree variation of data sets that may include unreliable proxies such as tree rings and coral. While many of the official reports may include the error bars, many of the charts published for public consumption do not. I’ve never seen the error bars put on Al Gore’s famous chart.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Fails Econometrics 101:

Now for a more serious rebuttal of the models. To model something, one has to first start with a hypothesis that includes the most “significant” variables. For instance, if I were to model weight loss, a valid model would almost certainly have include exercise and caloric intake, a basic input/output model. I would imagine that exercise may explain 40% of the weight loss, and caloric intake (dieting) may explain 40% as well. If I ran a model “weight loss is a function of exercise” I would get an R-Squared of 40, meaning that my simple single variable model can explain 40% of the variation of weight around its mean. R-Squared is the “explanatory power” of the model. If I ran a regression of “weight loss is a function of exercise and caloric intake,” I would get an R-Squared of 80, meaning that 80% of weight loss can be explained by exercise and dieting. The other 20% is explained by factors outside the model or “exogenous” factors. Possible exogenous factors in this example would be genetics, sex, any illnesses that occurred during the testing period, starting physical condition and possible medications taken.

Now let’s look at a climate model. This graphic details one of the IPCC models. Click here to view the reference video.


My first thought after studying this model was, “we’ve spent billions of dollars to create a single variable piece of crap model of the climate?…You have got to be kidding me!!! This counts as ‘settled science?'” If climate “scientists” think this is a good model, they simply don’t understand what a good model is. This kind of model would get any Econometrics 101 student a grade of F—, it is truly that pathetic. My weight loss model had more factors in it than this climate model, and the climate is infinitely more complex. Goldman Sachs’ models for the S&P 500 have hundreds, if not thousands of variables, and they still do a poor job. To think the climate is controlled by a simple single variable is absurd on a biblical scale. This is what is called an “underspecified” model on an epic scale. An “underspecified” model fails to included all the significant variable of a model. This flaw alone guarantees that I will win my bet (except for the chance of a coincident/non-causative event). The following quote highlights just 3 of the countless factors Goldman Sachs includes in their analysis of the stock market.

In a research note out this week, Goldman Sachs’ top strategists predict that stocks will once again disappoint next year. Goldman predicts the S&P 500 will go nowhere in the coming year, ending 2016 at 2,100. The stock market index is already at 2,090. Include dividends and Goldman predicts that stocks will return just 3% in 2016. Stocks are up a measly 1.5% in 2015.

Goldman says the market will hit a headwind of rising interest rates, a strengthening dollar, and stalled profitability.

I’m not the only one to have made this observation. Dr. Curry has reached the same conclusion as well.

“The climate model simulation results for the 21st century reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not include key elements of climate variability, and hence are not useful as projections for how the 21st century will actually evolve.”

Boil it down for me:

Because CO2 is the most significant of the insignificant greenhouse gasses, the above climate model basically reduces down to “temperature is a LINEAR function of CO2,” or ΔT=f(ΔCO2). The “linear” relationship between CO2 and temperature defined within these models is the criminal motivation for all the suspicious “adjustments” made to the ground measurements, and why I consider the perpetrators of these “adjustments” outright frauds, and this article will defend that claim. If Goldman Sachs ever tried to do what I will explain in this article, their CEO would be wearing a striped shirt and afraid of taking showers.

The Case of the Missing Factors:


The greenhouse gas effect impacts only the radiative transportation of energy, so modeling only the greenhouse gas effect leaves out the major methods of heat transfer; conduction and convection. Conduction and convection are relatively very slow means to transport heat, radiation travels at the speed of light. Place the tip of an iron rod in a fire, and it will take a period of time for the heat to travel up the rod and burn your hand. That is heat transported through conduction. Place your hand above a gas burner and turn it on. It will take a short period of time for the hot air to rise up and reach your hand. That is heat transportation by convection. Both are relatively slow when compared to the greenhouse gas effect that absorbs and reradiates photons at the speed of light. Because air density and altitude are inversely related, the probability dynamics created favor radiation carrying energy out of the atmosphere. Evidence shows that the greenhouse gas effect may actually aid atmospheric COOLING more than warming. Further evidence that CO2 doesn’t permanently trap heat in the atmosphere, or even effectively retain it for an extended period of time, are the rapid drops in atmospheric temperature post-El Ninos. Once the oceans stop adding the additional warmth to the atmosphere, the atmospheric temperatures rapidly return to a level relatively consistent with the pre-El Nino levels.

The effects of conduction and convection aren’t the only factors suspiciously excluded from the model. Just look at the above graphic of the climate system. H2O and the sun are mentioned multiple times, yet are not included in the IPCC model. The IPCC model is literally like the above-mentioned weight loss model, but not including exercise and caloric intake. Climate models should be infinitely complex input/output models. The sun is the only material input factor providing energy to the earth. Not including the sun in a climate model is like not including caloric intake in a weight loss model. Water vapor and the oceans should be by far the most significant output factors. H2O and the oceans simply dominate the climate dynamics. Not including the oceans, water vapor, latent heat transportation, clouds, and precipitation is like not including exercise in the weight loss model. If you don’t include exercise and caloric intake in a weight loss model, what do you have left? You are left with the 20% not explained by the two most significant causative variables.  What that means is that the IPCC climate models will never have R-Squares significantly above the level explained by the relatively insignificant variables. What excluding the impact of the sun and water really means is that people that know better are deliberately manipulating models to reach predetermined outcomes. To manipulate the models in this manner proves that the manipulators clearly understand what variables need to be excluded, and what ones need to be included. Do that in any other field and you end up wearing an orange jump-suit, just ask Bernie Madoff.

The Case of Data Malpractice:

The IPCC models clearly define a LINEAR relationship between temperature and CO2; ΔT=f(ΔCO2). The people that created that model are to quote Bill O’Riley “either liars or morons, and I don’t know which one.” Either way, neither option is good. Once again, the people that made the IPCC models are “experts,” they either know better or should have known better, than to make the mistakes they have made. The LINEAR model of ΔT=f(ΔCO2) will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER work. It will NEVER work for the same reason a linear model of gravity will never work. Why? BECAUSE THEIR RELATIONSHIPS AREN’T LINEAR!!! Clearly defined and natural laws explain these relationships. Objects fall at 9.8m/sec^2, not 9.8m/sec, a linear model will never explain how an object falls. The absorption of infrared radiation between the wavelengths of 13 to 18 microns by CO2(the only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect the climate) is not linearly related to CO2 concentration levels, it is a logarithmic relationship. The experts that are manipulating these models know that the relationship ΔT=f(ΔCO2) is wrong, they know the physics are all wrong. The experts know the real relationship is ΔT=f (Δlog(CO2)). To prove my point, the program NASA uses called MODTRAN adjusts for the logarithmic relationship, so the manipulators can’t deny knowledge of the relationship. To win this point in a court case, one would only need to run the climate models using Δlog(CO2) instead of the ΔCO2 as the independent variable and I’m 100% confident the R-Squared would increase (assuming, of course, that accurate temperature data is being used). Throw in the sun and water vapor and the R-Square would increase exponentially, and suddenly, the climate “experts” would be having their requests for bail denied. Note how MODTRAN calculates an R-Square of .997 for that relationship. A perfect/highest possible R-Square is 1.co2_modtrans_img1

The Case of Your Lying Eyes:

Everything one needs to prosecute the climate “science” fraud is captured in the top graphic in this article. “A picture paints a 1,000 words,” and that picture paints the crime story of the century. The results of the IPCC models tell a forensic investigator everything they need to know:

  1. 100% of the models overstate observed temperatures. This is not a random error, this is a systematic bias.
  2. The forecasts represent a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature that is not supported by the fundamental physics of the CO2 molecule.
  3. Satellite temperature measurements, by far the most accurate measurements, show very little relationship between CO2 and temperature.
  4. Any real science that produces multi-variable models also publish the resulting R-Squared. That is how you determine the validity of the models. R-Squared is the “explanatory power” of the model. The IPCC doesn’t report the R-Squareds of the models, at least not that I’ve seen.
  5. Simply looking at the above IPCC models, I would estimate the R-Squared to be below 20. In a real science, that low a score would result in the rejection of the hypothesis.
  6. Because the R-Squared of the models is so low, by definition they have either ignored significant variables and/or used the wrong scale for CO2 (log vs non-log). The IPCC models do both.

OK, Connect the Dots for Me:

To the casual observer, the recent NOAA Whistleblower and past Climategate email leaks appear to be a complicated much-ado-about-nothings, but to the forensic investigator, they establish the motive for the crime. Like a well-painted mosaic, you can’t see the picture from up close. Each individual infraction doesn’t add up to much, and the climate alarmists can easily explain it away. It is only when all the infractions are taken in their entirety that the crime begins to take shape and becomes clear. The root of the problem is CO2. CO2 has a near linear pattern of increase.mlo_full_record

The linear pattern of CO2 simply doesn’t correlate well with the non-linear pattern of atmospheric temperatures. Between 1980 and 2012, CO2 increased from 335 to 395, a nearly 20% increase, while temperatures were essentially unchanged. Note how temperatures “spike” during El Ninos, and then rapidly fall once the oceans stop providing the extra heat. A linear relationship between CO2 and temperature can’t explain temperature drops, let alone rapid temperature drops, nor can they explain temperature spikes. CO2 changes gradually and always increase, temperatures don’t.uah_lt_1979_thru_january_2017_v6

Faced with the above dilemma, what can a climate alarmist do? Clearly, the ΔT=f(ΔCO2) model is not supported by the data. To “fix” this problem, the climate alarmist only has one option, manipulate the data to make the model work. To do this, the climate alarmists have to focus on the least accurate and most accessible data sets. Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer, combined with the standardized and transparent methods of satellite data temperature constructions, force the climate alarmists to rely on the highly inaccurate and “adjusted” ground measurement data sets. As Stalin once said, “it isn’t who votes that count, it’s the people that count the votes.”  The Climategate emails prove the climate alarmists are the Stalinesque vote counters for the ground measurements, and the satellite data is beyond their control.1_salby2012temp_co2_observed

To make the linear CO2 data and the non-linear temperature data fit the model ΔT=f(ΔCO2), the temperature data has to be made more linear, and that is exactly what has happened.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

While I’ve written about this is the past, I’m not the only one that has documented this fraudulent data manipulation.

Over the course of the last few decades, overseers of the 3 main 19th century-to-present global temperature data sets — NOAA, NASA, and HadCRUT — have been successfully transforming the temperature record to the shape dictated by climate models.  Namely, there has been a concerted effort to cool down the past — especially the 1920s to 1940s warm period — and to warm up the more recent decades, especially after about 1950.  In this way, a trend of steep linear warming emerges that looks similar to the linear shape of anthropogenic CO2 emissions for the 20th and 21st centuries.  A better fit between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and surface temperature helps to imply causation, and this ostensible correlation-turned-causation can then be used to justify policy decisions aimed at eliminating fossil fuel energies.

To Catch a Thief:

Criminals succeed because most people with a solid moral foundation simply can’t understand the criminal mind. The climate alarmist relies on the general public not connecting the dots and quickly losing interest regarding the highly complicated and boring topics of data construction and climate modeling. I’m only interested in it because I’m very familiar with the topic of multivariable modeling, and what I saw alarmed me. There is clear intent to deceive the public, as I’ve tried to explain in this article. While the general public would never connect the dots, forensic investigators can, and this article details the approach and methods to do so.

The motive is clear, to maintain the illusion that the model ΔT=f(ΔCO2) is valid, and therefore, is justification for continued funding.

The method is clear, to manipulate the data and model variables to make the model produce the desired outcome.

The criminal intent is established because the data and model variables were in fact manipulated in a manner that would improve the validity of the ΔT=f(ΔCO2).

The models clearly have very low R-Squareds, yet the climate alarmists claim they are valid.

The evidence to prove the models are fraudulent is that the difference between the forecast and observed measurements are growing and will continue to grow over time. If the IPCC understands the climate, they should be able to model it.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The other “game-over” piece of evidence is that there is an almost perfect R-Squared of 0.98 between the “adjustments” and atmospheric CO2. The probability of that happening randomly is in the same ballpark as an arthritic drunk monkey typing War and Peace while riding a bike backward. Any educated jury would only need this evidence to convict. The SEC uses this kind of evidence all the time to discover financial fraud. The numbers are simply too perfect, so perfect they make Bernie Madoff look like an amateuradjustments.

Courtroom Demonstration to Prove the CO2 Emperor Has No Clothes:

From the above explanation, the way to expose this fraud should be obvious. It’s all a numbers game. A computer won’t lie, and R-Squared doesn’t have an agenda. Because it is obvious the IPCC models are fraudulently constructed, it would be almost impossible to build a worse climate model right there in the courtroom. All one would need to do is build a common sense climate model using satellite temperature data and ΔT=f (Δlog(CO2) combined with data for solar radiation, water vapor and El Nino’s and El Ninas. The judge and jury would be able to witness before their eyes the R-Squared going from insignificant to significant, and the “consensus” verdict for this “settled science” would be guilty of defrauding and deceiving the public. Pay attention to the temperature and solar charts in this slideshow. The relationship demonstrated in these charts in far far far greater than CO2 and temperature. The R-Squared of some of those charts look to be 70 or higher, easily beating anything the IPCC will ever be able to produce with its ΔT=f(ΔCO2) model. That is all the proof one should need to expose the greatest scientific fraud in history. Even if this approach fails, there are plenty more flaws in the theory that could be addressed. The holes in this “theory” are simply too many and too large and too costly for anyone to truly think this is a valid science.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Proc This!

Another more technical way to debunk the Climate Alarmists and their models in court would be to simply have a panel of real scientists present the data sets they feel are most appropriate for a climate model. Dr. Willie Soon would present his solar data sets, Dr. Spencer and Christy would present their satellite data, someone else would present data for the oceans, El Ninos and El Ninas, humidity and precipitation. Data for CO2 and other greenhouse gasses would also be provided. All the data sets would then be entered into a multivariable linear regression program like SAS. These programs have a procedure called “Stepwise”, PROCSTEPWISE was the code I used in SAS, which will run countless regressions searching for the ideal model. The computer will tell you which factors are significant which ones aren’t, and I assure you, no computer in the world will ever assign a high level of significance to CO2. If the judge uses this unbiased and objective approach to determining the verdict, the Climate Alarmists will leave the courtroom in cuffs. The Climate Alarmists have abused the public’s trust, holding themselves up as the “technological elite” that Eisenhower warned us about, and abusing that undeserved position to push a personal agenda that is contrary to the best interest of the public as a whole.james-hansen-arrested

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.