Global Warming Scam Latest

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 2490
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 3:07 pm
Location: The Canadian shield

Dr. Pat Frank has finally got his peer reviewed paper on error propagation in climate models published. ... s-mark-ii/

The upshot is that future projections of climate are dwarfed by the error generated during the "calculation". GIGO
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

  • Peter:
    future projections of climate are dwarfed by the error

Finally someone with a brain nails the
Climate Change hysteria REAL good. :lol:

Edited from the above article:
The whole AGW claim is built upon climate models that do not model the climate, upon climatologically useless air temperature measurements, and upon proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions that are not known to reconstruct temperature.

Climate alarmism is artful pseudo-science all the way down; made to look like science, but which is not.

After some study, one discovers that climate models cannot model the climate. This fact was made clear all the way back in 2001, with the publication of Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. The paper remains relevant.

In a well-functioning scientific environment, that paper would have put an end to the alarm about CO2 emissions. But it didn’t.

Instead the paper was disparaged and then nearly universally ignored (Reading it in 2003 is what set me off. It was immediately obvious that climate modelers could not possibly know what they claimed to know). There will likely be attempts to do the same to my paper: derision followed by burial.

But we now know this for a certainty: all the frenzy about CO2 and climate was for nothing.

All the anguished adults; all the despairing young people; all the grammar school children frightened to tears and recriminations by lessons about coming doom, and death, and destruction; all the social strife and dislocation. All the blaming, all the character assassinations, all the damaged careers, all the excess winter fuel-poverty deaths, all the men, women, and children continuing to live with indoor smoke, all the enormous sums diverted, all the blighted landscapes, all the chopped and burned birds and the disrupted bats, all the huge monies transferred from the middle class to rich subsidy-farmers.

All for nothing.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the betrayal of science garners the most. Those offenses would not have happened had not every single scientific society neglected its duty to diligence.

From the American Physical Society right through to the American Meteorological Association, they all abandoned their professional integrity, and with it their responsibility to defend and practice hard-minded science. Willful neglect? Who knows. Betrayal of science? Absolutely for sure.

From the perspective of physical science, it is very reasonable to conclude that any effect of CO₂ emissions is beyond present resolution, and even reasonable to suppose that any possible effect may be so small as to be undetectable within natural variation. Nothing among the present climate observables is in any way unusual.

The analysis upsets the entire IPCC applecart. It eviscerates the EPA’s endangerment finding, and removes climate alarm from the US 2020 election. There is no evidence whatever that CO₂ emissions have increased, are increasing, will increase, or even can increase, global average surface air temperature.

The analysis is straight-forward. It could have been done, and should have been done, 30 years ago. But was not.

The uncertainty due to annual average model long wave cloud forcing
error alone (±4 Wm⁻²) is about ±114 times larger than the annual
average increase in CO₂ forcing (about 0.035 Wm⁻²). A complete
inventory of model error would produce enormously greater uncertainty.
Climate models are completely unable to resolve the effects of the small
forcing perturbation from GHG emissions.

The unavoidable conclusion is that whatever impact CO₂ emissions may
have on the climate cannot have been detected in the past and cannot be
detected now......

Every single model air temperature projection since 1988 (and before) is
physically meaningless. Every single detection-and-attribution study since
then is physically meaningless. When it comes to CO₂ emissions and
climate, no one knows what they’ve been talking about: not the IPCC, not
Al Gore (we knew that), not even the most prominent of climate modelers,
and certainly no political poser.

There is no valid physical theory of climate able to predict what CO₂
emissions will do to the climate, if anything. That theory does not yet exist.
Here's Willie Soon, whose work
inspired the above. 5 minutes in.

At this special event, geoscientist and astrophysicist Willie Soon
separates fact from fiction in the global warming debate. He explains
why the forecasts from CO2 climate models have been so wrong—and
why solar influences on clouds, oceans, and wind drive climate change,
not CO2 emissions.
Last edited by Fintan on Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

All NWO $cams/hoaxes, from the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries to AID$ to "Terrorism" to "911" to "man made climate change", etc., ad nauseum, have one purpose and one purpose alone:
To increase the Midas-like profits of the owners of the private central banks who loan money('created' by the usury based system) at interest to governments. And to make billionaires out of politically well-connected slimebuckets (Al Core, MIC, NASA, etc) along the way.

It is allowed to continue due to the ignorance/apathy/greed of the populace, who think they are getting something for nothing.
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:24 pm
Location: west, pa, usa

money is proof global warming is a scam

formerly known as duane in a previous registration
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Here are the 25 bullet points proving CO2’s innocence:

1) Geologists know climate change unrelated to atmospheric CO2 occurred throughout Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. Yet the IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has no geologists among the hundreds of appointed authors of its Fifth Assessment Report of 2014 and its Sixth Report due in 2022 (see my Technical Note 2019-10). Thus IPCC incredibly lacks both geological input and long-term perspective.

2) IPCC’s very existence relies on public belief in manmade or ‘anthropogenic’ global warming (AGW) by CO2 emissions. Moreover its appointed authors, mostly government and university researchers, are nearly all biased by strong vested interests in AGW, i.e. reputations (publications, lectures) & continuance of salaries & research grants. Similarly, major universities have abandoned their scientific impartiality & integrity by hosting research institutes mandated to confirm & act on AGW, e.g. Grantham Institute (Imperial College), Tyndall Centre.

3) The often-repeated ‘97% consensus among scientists that global warming is man’s fault’ (CO2 emissions) is untrue. It refers in fact to surveys of just a relatively small group of ‘climate scientists’ (a fairly new type of scientist, with strong incentives for bias; see Bullets 2 & 15), moreover only those who are ‘actively publishing’.

4) ‘Climate change denier’ & ‘global warming denier’ are despicable & dishonest terms for ‘AGW doubters’. No educated person disputes global warming, as thermometers measured 1°C rise from 1850 to 2016 (with pauses).

5) The ‘Greenhouse Hypothesis’, on which IPCC’s belief in AGW is based, is that atmospheric gases trap heat. But this old (19th century) notion is merely an idea, not a hypothesis, because it is untestable, impossible to prove in a laboratory as no experimental container can imitate Earth’s uncontained, well-mixed atmosphere.

6) IPCC computer models are so full of assumptions as to be extremely unreliable, e.g. forecast warming for 1995 to 2015 turned out to be 2-3 times too high ! A likely reason is that the greenhouse idea is nonsense, as explained in recent publications by several scientists. See Bullet 19 for an equally drastic failure of IPCC models. See also: ... the-water/ and

7) For about 75% of the last 550 million years, CO2 was 2 to 15 times higher than now. Evolution flourished, CO2 enabling plant photosynthesis, the basis of all life. Extinction events due to overheating by CO2 are unknown. !!

8 ) Through the last 12,000 years (our current Holocene interglacial period), CO2 was a mere 250 to 290 ppm (parts per million), near plant-starvation level, until about 1850 when industrial CO2 emissions began, making CO2 climb steeply. Nevertheless CO2 today it is still only 412ppm, i.e. under half of one-tenth of 1% of our atmosphere

9) Until man began adding CO2 about 1850, warming (determined from ‘proxies’ like tree rings) since the 1600AD Little Ice Age peak was accompanied by slowly rising CO2 (measured in ice cores). A simple explanation is CO2 release by ocean water, whose CO2-holding capacity decreases upon warming.

10) Supporting this sign that CO2 is a consequence, not cause, of global warming, a published study of 1980-2011 measurements showed that changes in warming rate precede changes in CO2’s growth rate, by about a year.

11) Since the 1850 start of man’s additions, CO2’s rise has generally accelerated, without reversals. In stark contrast, the post-1850 to present-day continuance of warming out of the Little Ice Age was interrupted by frequent small coolings of 1-3 years (some relatable to ‘volcanic winters’), plus two 30-year coolings (1878 to 1910, 1944 to 1976), and the famous 1998 to 2013 ‘global-warming pause’ or ‘hiatus’ (Wiki).

12) This unsteady modern warming instead resembles the unsteady rise of the sun’s magnetic output from 1901 toward a rare solar ‘Grand Maximum’ peaking in 1991, the first in 1700 years !

13) Modern warming reached a peak in February 2016. Since then, Earth has cooled for 3 years (now April 2019).

14) The ‘Svensmark Theory’ says increased solar magnetic flux warms Earth by deflecting cosmic rays, thus reducing cloudiness, allowing more of the sun’s warmth to heat the land and ocean instead of being reflected. In support, a NASA study of satellite data spanning 32 years (1979-2011) showed decreasing cloud cover.

15) Vociferous IPCC-involved climate scientist Dr Stefan Rahmstorf (Wiki) of the German government’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, recipient of a US$1 million personal research grant from a private foundation, wrongly said in his 2008 article ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’: “there is no viable alternative … [to CO2 as driver of modern warming from 1940 to 2005 because] … different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase” during that period. Yet nine years earlier, in 1999, famous physicist Dr Michael Lockwood (Wiki; FRS) wrote, in ‘A Doubling of the Sun’s Coronal Magnetic Field During the Past 100 Years’, published in prestigious Nature journal: “the total magnetic flux leaving the Sun has risen by a factor of 1.4 since 1964” and 2.3 since 1901 !! See for yourselves the striking overall 1964-91 climb in solar-magnetic output, recorded by the strong overall fall in detected neutrons (proportional to cosmic rays), in graph 3 here:

16) Lockwood showed averaged solar magnetic flux increased 230% from 1901 to 1995, i.e. more than doubled ! The final peak value was 5 times the starting minimum value ! Bullets 17 & 18 likewise back Svensmark’s theory…

17) … after the previous solar Grand Maximum (4th century, long before industrial CO2), in the next decades Earth warmed to near or above today’s temperature. Then ‘sawtooth’ cooling proceeded, through the Dark Ages and ‘Medieval Warm Period’, into the Little Ice Age, paralleling a 1,000-year unsteady solar decline; and …

18 ) … before that, between 8000 and 2000BC, Earth was occasionally warmer than today for hundreds if not thousands of years, as shown by tree rings, shrunken glaciers, etc.. Then unsteady cooling from 3000BC into the Little Ice Age paralleled unsteady solar decline following the Holocene’s ‘super-Grand’ Maximum near 3000BC.

19) This 4,500-year cooling contradicts IPCC computer models that instead predict warming by the simultaneous (slow) rise in CO2. This is the ‘The Holocene Temperature Conundrum’ of Liu et al. (2014). See also Bullet 6.

20) Embarrassingly for AGW promoters, the 8000-2000BC warm interval (Bullet 18 ) was already, ironically, named the ‘Holocene Climatic Optimum’, before today’s CO2/AGW hysteria began. The warmth probably benefitted human social development. Indeed, it was cold episodes, bringing drought and famine, that ended civilisations.

21) Cross-correlating post-1880 graphs of solar-magnetic flux versus Earth’s temperature suggests a 25-year time-lag, such that the 2016 peak temperature corresponds to the 1991 solar peak. The lag is probably due to the ocean’s high thermal inertia due to its enormous volume and high heat capacity, hence slow response to warming.

22) IPCC, ignoring the possibility of such a time-lag, claims that simultaneous global warming (until 2016) and solar weakening (since 1991) must mean that warming is driven by CO2 !

23) The last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago was warmer than our Holocene interglacial. Humans and polar bears survived ! CO2 was then about 275ppm, i.e. lower than now (Bullet 8 ).

24) The simultaneous rise of temperature & CO2 is a ‘spurious correlation’. Warming’s real cause was a solar build-up to a rare Grand Maximum, which man’s industrialisation accompanied by chance. So IPCC demonising CO2 as a ‘pollutant’ is a colossal blunder, costing trillions of dollars in needless & ineffectual efforts to reduce it.

25) Global cooling now in progress since February 2016 can be predicted to last at least 28 years (i.e. to 2044), matching the sun’s 28-year decline from 1991 to today, and allowing for the 25-year time-lag (Bullet 21).

Inescapable conclusion: the IPCC is wrong − the sun, not CO2, drove modern global warming.


Contact: for literature sources for any of the aforementioned ‘Inconvenient Facts’
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Southpark Fan
Posts: 1512
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:56 pm
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

This is very interesting:

The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (5 parts) ... l-complex/
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Great resource!

From Part 5 of that series:
“Taken all together, the value of the total global ecosystem services
has been estimated at USD 125 trillion per year, which is almost
twice the world’s gross domestic product.”

—Natural Capital Coalition, July 12, 2018

The World Resources Institute (WRI) is a global research non-profit organization that was founded in 1982 by James Speth [5] with a fifteen million dollar grant from the MacArthur Foundation. It is an international powerhouse “that works in more than 50 countries, with offices in Brazil, China, Europe, India, Indonesia, Mexico and the United States. WRI’s more than 500 experts work with leaders to address six urgent global challenges at the intersection of economic development and the natural environment: food, forests, water, climate, energy and cities.”

The WRI advisory board represents the absolute upper echelons of power within the matrix of the non-profit interlocking directorate – with a staggering amount of overlap with the hegemonic powerhouse, the Council on Foreign Relations.

With USD 98.5 million in funding in 2017, the exhaustive list of WRI donors [6] represent many of the most powerful and influential entities on Earth, including
Alcoa Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies,
Cargill, Caterpillar Foundation, Citi Foundation,
ClimateWorks Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Oak Foundation,
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Foundation, Shell Foundation,
USAID, and the World Bank
. [WRI 2017 Annual Report]


The WRI board of directors [7] include:

David Blood: Co-founder and senior partner of Generation Investment
Felipe Calderón: Former president of Mexico, chair of the Global Commission that oversees the New Climate Economy, honorary chairman of the Green Growth Action Alliance
Christiana Figueres: Executive secretary of the UNFCCC, The B Team leader, vice-chair of the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, board member of ClimateWorks, World Bank Climate Leader, Mission2020 Convenor, member of the Rockefeller Foundation Economic Council on Planetary Health, credited with delivering the Paris Agreement [Full bio]
Jennifer Scully-Lerner: Vice president, private wealth management at Goldman Sachs
James Gustave Speth: Founder of WRI, former administrator of the United Nations Development Programme, honorary director at the Natural Resources Defense Council and WRI, serves on the board of The Climate Reality Project, advisory board member at, member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Andrew Steer: President and CEO of the WRI. Formerly with the World Bank, serves on the sustainable advisory groups of both IKEA and the Bank of America, serves on the Executive Board of the UN Secretary General’s Sustainable Energy For All Initiative
Kathleen McLaughlin: Senior vice president and chief sustainability officer at Walmart Inc., president of Walmart Foundation
Nader Mousavizadeh:Co-Founder and partner of Macro Advisory Partner, former chief executive of Oxford Analytica, a leading global analysis and advisory firm, former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, member of the Council of the European Council on Foreign Relations, member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Geopolitics, WEF Global Leader for Tomorrow
James Harmon: Chairman and CEO of Caravel Management, member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Afsaneh M. Beschloss: Founder and CEO of RockCreek. Former managing director and partner at the Carlyle Group and president of Carlyle Asset Management, treasurer and chief investment officer at the World Bank, formerly with Shell International and J.P. Morgan, member of the World Economic Forum’s Investor Governors, member of the Council of Foreign Relations, recognized as one of American Banker’s Most Powerful Women in Banking
Joke Brandt: Secretary General of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands
Jamshyd N. Godrej: Chairman of Aspen Institute – India. He is the Vice President of World Wide Fund for Nature – International and was the President of World Wide Fund for Nature – India from 2000 to 2007
Caio Koch-Weser: Chairman of the Board of the European Climate Foundation. Former vice chairman of Deutsche Bank Group, held high-level positions in the World Bank, member of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate(NCE) and a Member of the Board of the Centre for European Reform (CER) in London

Unilever is a member of WRI’s Corporate Consultative Group. WRI member companies include; Abbott Laboratories, Bank of America, Cargill Corporation, Caterpillar, CitiGroup, Colgate-Palmolive, DuPont, General Motors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Google, Kimberly-Clark, PepsiCo, Pfizer, Shell, Walmart, Walt Disney Company, and Weyerhaeuser.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

5 Jun 2019
One of Piers best interviews for
his soundbyte gold nuggets of
solid climate realism.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 9044
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

In his 1998 humorous autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the
scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion,
the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology.

Mullis claimed climate change and the HIV/AIDS connection are due to a
conspiracy of environmentalists, government agencies, and scientists attempting
to preserve their careers and earn money
, rather than scientific evidence.

More Mullis - a genuine and funny guy.
This is about him trying to get a frog into space:

:lol: :lol:


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 2675
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

Thanks Fintan, and it also comes back to the usury banks and their well-paid stooges in government/media, etc., who gain many billions$ in interest payments (via IRS) from tax-slavers due to governments borrowing trillion$ more to pay for these hoaxes/scams.
And as for believing a 'scientist', first find out who is paying him, whose payroll is he on.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Remember George Orwell's books where the tax slavers believed they had to pay for enormous 'defences' against "the fiend in the east"?
it's a story as old as the hills and the people just never seem to get it
User avatar
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:46 pm

I keep hearing the name, 'usury banks', I just realized, they've done it all... can't believe we never saw it... they're real jerks.
~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~
Post Reply