The ‘Heartbeat’ of the Deep State, Climate, Corruption, and Lack of Accountability.

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The anthropogenic global warming deception was about deliberately misleading the public with false, misleading, and selective science, from the start. It was also about plausible deniability to avoid accountability for deliberately deceiving the world. Elaine Dewar reported in her book Cloak of Green that she asked Maurice Strong what was wrong with the planet. He speculated that the problem for the planet was the industrialized nations. Dewar asked if he intended to run for politics to seek resolution. He said no, you cannot do anything as a politician. Dewar wrote that he was going to the UN because,

“He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”

In short, there was no accountability. This has continued for all involved with the deception.

The deceptions about the false claim that human-caused global warming (AGW) continue. Recently we witnessed a campaign to deceive from both government and non-government sources. For example, on June 28, a non-government DC-based group Public Citizen, working through two members of the Public Citizen’s Climate and Energy Program, issued a heads-upNOTE TO REPORTERS AND EDITORIAL BOARDS” with the headline:

“As Extreme Heat Warnings Sound in New York This Weekend, Remember to Connect the Dots Between Extreme Heat and Climate Change.”

The sub-headline was even more definite:

“Extreme Heat and Record-Breaking Heat Are Linked to Climate Change.”

Then we have Benjamin Santer talking about the Earth’s seasonal ‘heartbeat’? Maybe it is the pulse of Al Gore’s three bears who were the analogy to his claim that the Earth was not too hot or too cold, but just right. In the original Santer article, the anthropomorphism extends to them seeing the ‘fingerprint’ of human activity. It is not surprising they can see so much at once because there are 14 authors. It is reminiscent of the selection simply for the inclusion of authorship disclosed in the Climategate leaked emails of which Santer was a central figure. The more, the merrier and supposedly the greater the credibility. Not to mention the longer the individual Curriculum Vitae (CV).

Santer et al., work with self-serving, self-perpetuating, deep state government agencies to back their claims about changes.

Climate change is much more than rising temperatures and melting ice. In a new study, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and five other organizations show that human action significantly affects the seasonal temperature cycle in the troposphere, or lowest layer of earth’s atmosphere — the layer that we live in where weather occurs.

This media quote shows why the 14 authors are valuable because it allows them to claim a consensus argument that Santer at Lawrence Livermore is supported by “five other organizations.” Both groups, government and non-government, are exploiting a perfectly normal pattern of weather and getting away with it because neither they nor the public understand climatology and climate change. Santer et al., try to hide their ignorance with colorful language and histrionics. The Public Citizens group is purely political, and so they don’t care about the truth. There is a difference in culpability.

In his WUWT guest essay, Eric Worrall wrote,

“Ben Santer is one of the more colourful climategate characters. He rose to fame after his email threat to beat the cr*p out of Pat Michaels was uncovered in the Climategate archive.”

I will dissent slightly with Eric’s comment about Santer rising to fame over his Pat Michaels comment. I suppose that gave him notoriety in the sense of it being such an unprofessional comment among scientists and academics. The prime point of notoriety for Santer and the reason he wanted to punch Michaels was because of the infamous Chapter 8 debacle. This occurred almost ten years before Santer achieved his pugilistic fame as part of the notorious Climate Research Unit (CRU) group. The important thing to remember is that so many of the CRU people were also members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The first action that exposed how the IPCC Reports were manipulated occurred with the 1995 second assessment Report. Santer was a CRU graduate. Tom Wigley replaced Hubert Lamb at the CRU and, as Lamb explained in his autobiography, diverted its purpose to computer models and political exploitation. Wigley was the power behind the entire CRU and thereby the IPCC. When you read the leaked Emails, it becomes obvious that when there were disputes, either scientific or political, they turn to Wigley for arbitration. Wigley supervised Santer’s Ph.D., titled, Regional Validation of General Circulation Models.” He used three top computer models to recreate North Atlantic conditions where data was best. They created massive pressure systems that don’t exist in reality – so he knew the failure of the models under the best conditions from the start.


Phil Jones, Ben Santer, and Tom Wigley in the early days.

Santer was appointed lead-author of Chapter 8 “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes” of the 1995 IPCC Report. In that position, he determined to prove humans were a factor despite no evidence. His fellow chapter authors agreed to a final draft at a meeting in Madrid. Here are the four agreed to comments

1. “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

2. “While some of the pattern-base discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.”

3. “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

4. “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”

Here are the entries that appeared after Santer rewrote them.

1. “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change … These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

2. “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”

It didn’t take long for disclosure of Santer’s actions. It required a quick cover up to provide a peer-reviewed paper to support Santer’s claim. It appeared in Nature on July 4, 1996, under the title, “A Search for Human Influences On the Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere” with a self-serving long list of authors – Santer, Wigley, Jones, Mitchell, Oort, and Stouffer. It claimed to provide observational evidence that proved the models were accurate and Santer’s claims were justified.

It was at this point that Patrick Michaels earned the enmity of Santer and his justification for a bloody nose. He and others identified the errors, but Nature delayed publication for 5 months until December 12, 1996. One of the errors was the cherry picking of the graph shown in Figure 1 of the full record produced by John Daly.


Figure 1

The cherry-picked graph used is shown in Figure 2. The other rebuttal provided a normal explanation for the pattern.


Figure 2

The delay was sufficient to launch a PR cover-up. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a letter of defense to Santer on July 25, 1996. It said there were two questions, the science, and what society must do about scientific findings and the debate they engendered. In a constant theme of the people at CRU, they said science should only be debated in

peer-reviewed scientific publications – not the media.

This was because they believed as the Emails exhibit that they controlled the peer-review process and the media.

“What is important scientific information and how it is interpreted in the policy debates is an important part of our jobs.” “That is, after all, the very reasons for the mix of science and policy in the IPCC.”

No, it isn’t. Daly referred to this thinking as ‘scientism.’ It is difficult to measure the impact of Santer’s actions. In 2006 Dennis Avery and Fred Singer noted that,

“Santer single-handedly reversed the ‘climate science’ of the whole IPCC report and with it the global warming political process! The ‘discernible human influence’ supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the ‘stopper’ in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

Santer did not admit the changes at the time and got his “discernible human influence” message on the world stage. According to one source, he later admitted that

“…he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.”

Santer’s action and message were not as critical to pushing the false AGW story as James Hansen’s 1988 appearance before the senate hearing, However, it added enormous momentum in the early stages. However, it was critical because it occurred at a time when the IPCC was losing credibility over failed forecasts in the 1990 Report. They completely redesigned the 1995 Report with its switch to scenarios and projections was a carefully orchestrated reinvigoration of the AGW message. They also tackled the troubling 7c graph from the 1990 report that showed a warmer world in the Mediaeval Warm period. It was a prologue to Mann’s rewrite of climate history known as the hockey stick.

Now we have the ‘heartbeat’ nonsense as the public turn away from a failing message. The people at Public Citizens are political agents pushing an agenda, and I would not expect them to understand. They should, but they won’t and only pretend to know. Santer et al., are a different matter because they present themselves as experts. The fact that their assessment and comments demonstrate lack of understanding of basic climate patterns and mechanisms is another matter altogether.

Figure 3 shows the climate conditions on July 1- 2, 2018, in North America. It is a classic example of a Meridional pattern of flow that results in specific contrasting weather conditions on each side of the continent. Public Citizens drew media attention to the warm temperatures of the northeast. They failed to report the record cold temperatures set in the northwest on July 3, 2018, Eugene, Oregon, recorded their coldest temperature for that day of 38°F in 107 years of record. The State recorded below freezing temperatures at 21 of their Remote Automated Weather stations (RAWS).


Figure 3

Similarly, patterns of very warm and very cold readings are occurring around the world, especially in the middle latitudes. If Santer had shown any interest in what Professor Lamb was doing at the CRU, he would know that Lamb was reconstructing and determining these patterns in the middle latitudes through most of his career. Unfortunately, and I witnessed it, Lamb was ostracized in the unit even though he came and worked diligently every day. His work of reconstructing past weather patterns to understanding causative mechanisms was ignored by all those working on failed computer models. If he studied the literature, Santer would know that Marcel Leroux, author of Global Warming – Myth or Reality was also studying these predominant mid-latitude patterns and mechanisms.

We witnessed the lack of understanding of basic underlying mechanisms and patterns and their exploitation for advancing the AGW agenda when John Holdren, Obama’s Science Advisor, created the name “Polar Vortex.” He did this to explain the cold weather that was upsetting the claims of global warming, but also to imply that this was a new phenomenon that resulted from AGW. What he did was pick a single wave in what is properly called the Circumpolar Vortex. This refers to the zone associated with the boundary between the warm subtropical air and the cold polar air commonly called the Polar Front. Figure 4 shows a very simple schematic of conditions in the Northern hemisphere.


Figure 4

The diagram also shows the relationship of the Jetstream to this boundary. Above the surface in the upper atmosphere away from the frictional surface effect, the temperature difference across the Polar Front translates into a strong geostrophic wind. Since it is a river of air flowing through the air, it develops sinuosity that is sine waves of varying amplitudes. This pattern of sinuosity is found throughout nature when a flow of liquid or gas occurs through a uniform medium.

The waves that develop in this circumpolar flow are called Rossby waves after Carl Rossby (1898 – 1957). A biographer wrote,

The Bureau was headed by unimaginative administrators who had no interest in Rossby’s scientific brilliance but rather found the young Swede, with his schemes for revitalizing meteorology in the United States, a great nuisance.

In this uninspiring atmosphere Rossby turned his attention to a careful study of atmospheric turbulence, preparing three manuscripts which were published in the Monthly Weather Review in 1926 and 1927. These papers summarized the subject and showed a remarkably clear insight into the great problems besetting studies of flow in the friction layer near the surface of the earth.

Sadly, today, the unimaginative administrators are replaced by political administrators who hire people like Santer and many of the authors of this article to carry forward their political agenda.

Fortunately, Rossby lived long enough to know about the discovery of the high-level winds of the Circumpolar Vortex detected by pressurized military aircraft able to fly at high altitudes on bombing missions in the Pacific War. His biographer notes,

The jet stream ideas were published under the authorship of “Staff Members” in 1947 in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, and Rossby’s theories appeared in the same volume under his own name.

The high honor awarded Rossby was that they named the planetary waves that form in the Circumpolar Vortex after him. Rossby would appreciate this especially because of his views.

His accomplishments, which were mostly in the field of theoretical meteorology, were in part made possible by what he liked to call the heuristic approach, that approach which is concerned with finding a useful answer without the impediments of all of the small-scale effects. As practice has shown, especially in such efforts as machine forecasting, the neglect of certain factors has led to greater accuracy than is attainable when these factors are taken into consideration.

Two general patterns of Rossby Waves develop. The first is Zonal Flow (Figure 5) typified by low amplitude Waves that create a general northwest/southwest wind flow, with low amplitude variations in temperature and precipitation.


Figure 5: Zonal Flow

Figure 6 shows the second pattern known as Meridional Flow.


Figure 6: Meridional Flow

It is not hard to see that conditions in the middle latitudes from 30 to 65° of latitude and sometimes beyond are markedly different. Meridional Flow sees high amplitude Waves that create predominantly north/south winds, greater extremes of temperature as polar air pushes well south and subtropical air well north, and greater extremes of precipitation. The interesting phenomenon not fully understood is what meteorologists call ‘blocking.’ For some reason, under extreme Meridional conditions, the Rossby Waves that normally migrate from west to east stall. This leads to prolonged periods of whatever condition a region is experiencing and people become uneasy.

The historical record shows the length of time a predominantly Zonal or Meridional Flow persists, varies considerably. For example, weather patterns in the 14th century were predominantly Meridional for most of the century. It got so summers and winters, as reported by diaries throughout Europe, were almost indistinguishable. Crops failed, people were malnourished, but insects and diseases survived the winter causing extensive outbreaks of plagues in vulnerable people. We saw similar conditions in the 17th century as harvest failures and plagues struck again. Indeed, one winter was so mild that diarist Samuel Pepys reported that King Charles ordered a day of prayer for colder conditions. It didn’t help because the plague hit London in 1665.

Notice that both these periods are transitional with the onset of colder world temperatures. That is what is happening today because if Santer and the media were reporting everything, they would note the cooling that began at the end of the 1990s, and the record cold temperatures set worldwide including a new satellite low for Antarctica. In June, 2018, a new low was recorded of approximately -144°F and reported in the academic journal Geophysical Research Letters by team leader Ted Scambos. The trouble is, as long as Santer et al., keep reporting selective ‘heartbeats’ and the political activists push their political agenda and the media amplify their grossly distorted ill-informed stories, the deceptions about climate and the lack of accountability for those who spread the false climate stories will continue. Fortunately, it appears that in Santer’s case at least, the old French saying, “Plus l’arbre monte, plus on voit de son âne” is in play here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gordon Dressler
July 28, 2018 5:25 pm

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” — Bible, Romans 1:22, King James Version (KJV)

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 28, 2018 6:11 pm


July 28, 2018 5:34 pm

Plus l’arbre monte, plus on voit de son âne

The higher the tree grows, the more one sees of its donkey.

Are you sure that quote is correctly quoted?

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2018 5:47 pm

The higher he climbs the tree the more you see of his arse.

Reply to  otsar
July 28, 2018 5:55 pm

Arse and you shall receive I guess.

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2018 5:58 pm

From le Figaro:

«quand on monte à l’arbre il faut avoir le cul propre»

Which I would translate as

When you climb a tree you better have a clean butt.

Sorry – that’s what it says. 🙂

July 28, 2018 6:21 pm

That’s more like it. I’m not a native speaker but I don’t think Tim’s version works in standard French.

There’s also the adage, “The higher the monkey climbs, the more of his butt you’ll see. link

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 10:30 am

I’m not a native speaker either Bob, but I grew up in small-town Quebec, and was taught Parisian French in school when the locals spoke a ~17th Century dialect from Brittany and Normandy – it made for highly ineffective communications.

I saw the separatist idiocy starting so I left Quebec in the late 1960’s, and wound up a political refugee in Alberta. There is nobody I used to know left in my old hometown – almost all the “Anglos” (aka “les maudits Anglais – the damn English) have left for English Canada.

The irony is that Quebec has been a carbuncle on the backside of Canada for generations – a parasitic “taker” of hundreds of billions of dollars in “transfer payments” from the Rest of Canada, and the cause of the worst types of federal government corruption. Now we have Trudeau Jr. as Prime Minister – a certified imbecile – need I say more?

When the separatist threat was at its peak, English Canadians wrung their hands and pleaded for Quebec to stay. BIG MISTAKE! We should have urged them to separate, negotiated a split of Quebec Territory, got them to accept their fair share of the national debt (about half), and wished them Bon Voyage!

Canada would be infinitely better off today, and Quebec would be heading towards where it would have been without the British conquest – much like Mexico, with a monthly income for a hardworking man of about US$150 per month.

Regards, Allan

Steve Keppel-Jones
August 1, 2018 12:18 pm

And Allan, don’t forget that if Quebec were to actually separate, I have been informed that fairly large chunks of it (not occupied by the French) would probably separate from Quebec and stay with Canada. So it might get a lot smaller in the process! Not improving its economic prognosis any, I would expect 🙂

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 3:43 pm

I agree. The French is very archaic and I’m not sure it makes sense in modern French.
According to Larousse:
Mammifère voisin du cheval, à longues oreilles et au pelage généralement gris, domestiqué comme bête de somme ou de trait. (Cri : l’âne brait ; famille des équidés.) [L’âne est assez voisin du cheval pour avoir avec lui un accouplement fécond et dont il existe deux espèces : l’âne de Nubie, surtout domestique, et l’hémione, sauvage et en voie de disparition.]

âne does translate to donkey in modern French but it can also mean an idiot.

Greg Goodman
July 29, 2018 12:53 am

Must be why HRC took to wearing trouser suits.

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2018 5:59 pm

The higher you go up the tree…the more we see your ass

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 1:40 am

When looking at the stratification social rank, what you see depends on your point of view.
Those at the top look down at shiny faces looking up, those at the bottom see nothing but asses.

Reply to  tom0mason
July 29, 2018 2:18 am

It is usually quoted as “…smiling faces looking up, those at the bottom see nothing but assholes.”

Reply to  Hivemind
July 29, 2018 12:07 pm

I know it as ‘The higher up the mountain, the greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs, the more he shows his a—-‘ dating from an era when some words weren’t printed!

Reply to  tom0mason
July 29, 2018 9:05 am

To any but the lead dog, the view is the same.

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 3:36 pm

The quote “He doth like the ape, the higher he climbeth, the doth he show his arse” is attributed to Francis Bacon.

Andre Den Tandt
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 5:37 pm

Given the two clear errors in this quote, it looks to me like a failed translation from English to French

Reply to  commieBob
July 30, 2018 1:54 am

Pretty sure this was supposed to be ‘soul’ ‘ame’.

July 28, 2018 5:52 pm

The nail is in the coffin, and has been since Climate Gate. AGW was fraud to begin with, and could only be perpetrated through a controlled media, and scientific process that labeled itself as unquestionable truth.

People that argue in favor of AGW are completely ignorant on the subject of global climate, or worse, are in fact spreading the lie of AGW, if only to further an ideological cause.

Linda Goodman
Reply to  Daelyn75
July 29, 2018 10:58 am

Climategate was my red pill, along with millions of others, but as long as the fraud has a pulse it could roar back to life under the ‘right’ circumstances. Many witnesses suspect the fires in California and elsewhere are caused by directed energy weapons [DEW], but the media asks no questions about the bizarre, unprecedented destruction, calls the fires the ‘new normal’ and blames them on ‘climate change’. Are they paving the way for ‘the big one’?

With their NWO at stake, the deep state is certainly diabolical enough to cause a climate false flag with a massive DEW firestorm that kills thousands to re-ignite the fear of global warming. Think of the visuals – everything is theater to these psychopaths. And calling out the fraud after that would be like spitting on the victims’ graves.

Most people don’t even know that AGW is the foundation of totalitarian world gov; they think it’s about money from thin air, and even fewer know DEW is operational, so who’d believe the truth if the worst happened? How many still believe sporadic fires dissolved the twin towers and building 7, because the media says so?

Reply to  Linda Goodman
July 29, 2018 12:42 pm

[snip – off-topic, and unwelcome content on 911 conspiracy – Anthony]

Reply to  Daelyn75
July 29, 2018 12:58 pm

A lifetime fighting fires in personal homes makes one an expert on high rise construction?

Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2018 10:08 pm

MarkW- what the heck is wrong with you? I’ve seen many of your comments but before this I thought you were a reasonably intelligent person. I guess not.

It doesn’t take much if a leap to see that a high rise building built to withstand multiple large airplane collisions, and could withstand temperatures beyond that of burning jet fuel wouldn’t just collapse. This, is a reasonable understanding that a battalion chief in the Vancouver Fire Department would have. Especially since a high rise in Spain burned for weeks and at a higher temperature around the same time back then and didn’t collapse.

But then maybe you still ascribe to the propaganda that the jets alone took down the buildings.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Daelyn75
July 30, 2018 2:37 am

The steel frame of the twin Towers failed after the intiial explosion from the aircraft impact blew off the fire-resitant cladding, exposing the steel to the flames & heat! That iswhy the buildings collapsed. Alan, Chartered Structural Engineer!

honest liberty
Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 30, 2018 8:00 am

Oh dear Alan… how sad you parrot such an obviously false narrative.

Please explain why NIST originally refused to acknowledge building 7 fell at free fall speed, then later, under intense pressure recanted and claimed it fell at free fall speed for 2.3 seconds.

Additionally, why did Underwriters Laboratory lie about the inspection and quality of the fire resistant cladding on building 7? (BTW, regarding Eric Worrals post the other day about google down-voting “fake news” which is actually, down-trending reality (since ALL of MSM is bought and paid, and on the dole of the globalists). Go try to find the information about how NIST refuses to this day, to release their model data that supposedly shows how building 7 initiated global collapse due to one section of vertical beams. Mind you, this building was not hit by a plane. But seriously, spend some time and try to find information that isn’t main stream talking point narrative filth; good luck. It is going to take pages upon pages of searching. You have to know exactly who to look for and what they said.

I’m disturbed at the cognitive dissonance by many of the regular commenters’ here, who clearly continue to play the left/right paradigm game, being both the builder and enforcer of their own mental prison.

2 planes took down 3 buildings, with one being the first ever to collapse due SOLELY to fire, the two big ones being PULVERIZED right before our eyes, with most of the steel being ushered away to China and recycled without a true crime scene investigation, and then NIST cites national security to prevent release of the model data they created to illustrate the initiation of global collapse of a building not hit by planes, that supposedly was demolished by fire.

Give me a break. and oh by the way, since folks still need to appeal to authority because of inherent emotional weakness… my close friend and best man of my upcoming wedding is a licensed and practicing structural engineer who sat down and went through all the math with me on building 7 and claimed there is no doubt that something else other than fire brought down that building.

Don’t even worry about buildings 1 and 2, just go and look at the history of the narrative of building 7, and then get back to us.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 8:08 am

Kevin Ryan worked for UL and was canned for asking questions. He highlights the entire history of what happened regarding the narrative of building 7:

Richard Grove with Peace Revolution Podcast and the Tragedy & Hope productions has incredible compilations of that day and the history. BTW, this guy was supposed to be in that building that day, and he discusses how he was attempting to expose the backdoor software installed by the company he represented. I can’t recall the details but he went to court and gives a pretty damning recount of how that court case was dismissed, even in light of actual evidence presented.

he has tons of other stuff but the information is saturated on this point and if you want to remain ignorant, and continue to trust government in this scenario, yet recognize the massive corruption and collusion regarding CAGW then you are hypocrites, religious, or childishly naive. Possibly all of them.

I have no patience for self-deceit and internal conflict. You don’t get it both ways people. You don’t get to lambaste government and academia on one issue, but then appeal to their authority in another field, simply because the implication of reality is too harsh for you to tackle.

challenge yourselves.

Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 8:26 am

Well, we can’t fix your blind stupidity here but keep on trying, you just might get there someday !

…D’OH !

Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 30, 2018 9:36 am

WTF – Alan. Apparently there are many ignorant people among the climate sceptics as well. Funny you say due to the heat . . There is a picture half an hour after the plane collided with one of the buildings and in that great big hole, there was no fire, and a bunch of people standing there.

The buildings were brought down by thermite charges placed there by the intelligence community.

It was a real attack but fake reasons were given as to why the buildings collapsed.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
July 30, 2018 9:50 am

Thanks, Alan the Brit. As a fellow engineer, I agree. Not difficult to understand at all. The new Freedom Tower would not come down from that kind of attack since its strength is in the center steel-reinforced concrete core, not the outside steel-shell.

Reply to  Daelyn75
July 30, 2018 8:19 am

One of the engines took out a main support column surrounding the center elevator shaft, causing additional structural pressure on the remaining columns. The fire retardant was blown off by the huge explosion and various flying debris , lowering the heat failure point of all the center columns and some of the outer columns! Steel only has to soften, not melt, to fail !! As an Iron Worker that put up these buildings, I know that structural steel cuts very easily with a simple torch ! No buildings were ever designed to withstand impacts from these kinds of aircraft !!

honest liberty
Reply to  Marcus
July 30, 2018 9:17 am
not according to the official NIST account
oh they weren’t you say?

Interesting. History says otherwise:
When interviewed in 1993, Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling told The Seattle Times:

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

oh btw, that was LEAD WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling.
So that should cover your appeal to authority, seeing as how this guy was instrumental in the design of that building.


honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 9:22 am

Well, we can’t fix your blind stupidity here but keep on trying, you just might get there someday !

…D’OH !”

as is typical of those who claim they have won without citing any factual evidence, ad hominem logical fallacies are the first low hanging fruit to be called upon. I would appreciate an apology.

Interestingly, I find it suspect that anyone would recognize the rampant yellow journalism of MSM and academia, previous administrations of bureaucracy, NGO’s, etc… (even as recently as was just listed on here about NBC continuing to run with absolute falsehoods as facts)
But then simultaneously you cite such authors as credible in other fields, in so far as they fit your worldview. Have you not studied the allegory of the cave? Can you not recognize your internal conflict? It is known as cognitive dissonance, or easier as explained: holding two opposing viewpoints simultaneously.

My worldview is consistent and is not littered with significant conflicts of interest. I cannot say the same for you.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 9:30 am

pretty recent stuff here, and he appears to address quite a bit of NIST’s version and likely what I’ve seen from pro-statist-quo types

and my apologies for weighing in and multiple off topic posts. I have said what I needed.

Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 9:44 am

Reading people’s comments help to put articles in clearer perspective sometimes, and can provide new information on the issue.

However if there are still so many clueless idiots here who believe the conspiracy begins and ends with AGW, then maybe I shouldn’t bother.

Mark, Alan, you guys are an embarrassment to the cause. You know a bit but attack others who know more of the story. There is much more to the false reality we find ourselves in than just the AGW movement.

Read and learn from others. Stop parroting the propaganda put out by the globalists. Once you learn enough, you will find very few things are as the official narrative dictates.

Honest liberty
Reply to  Daelyn75
July 30, 2018 10:38 am

I don’t think it’s beneficial to hurl insults at them, and saying they are an embarrassment is such. It would be better for us to continue to point out their internal conflicts, so that they have the awareness to eliminate them. I’m Irritated as well because cognitive dissonance is devastating to aligning oneself with reality. We’re not collectivists so it’s fine to disagree.

A good example is how these folks claim government science in climate is corrupt and fake, how the media lies about Trump and climate (which they do, they lie about everything), yet immediately turn around and buy into NIST official narrative (which doesn’t mention the engine like had been claimed. It was fire that brought down building 7, with column 79 walking 5.5″ due to thermal expansion).

Or how they demand climate scientists release model data and raw data, i.e. Phil Jones, yet back up NIST refusal to provide model data for the initiation of global collapse and connection points, because of… National security!!!!

Or what else? I’d wager high likelihood of this happened during Obama’s reign of terror, they would be picking apart NIST and demanding transparency just like us.

They are in the paradigm, so we need to engage with physical data and physics, on their terms and let the information work itself out. You have to give them credit and don’t take any personal attacks personal: hypocrisy isn’t just the suit the left wears

Reply to  Honest liberty
July 30, 2018 10:49 am

Good call, Honest liberty. I spend what little time I have in disqus and on liberty sites, and I deal with the worst of the worst. The couple of trolls here are nothing. When I attack, I don’t hold back and am anything but polite. I tear them apart, sometimes in the most rude way possible using words. This site I just visit on my phone, and use spare time reading through and now commenting while I put my 3 year old son to sleep.

I don’t really have the time to deal with sites where many people are still stuck 10 years ago.

Anti AGW is great, so is pro Trump, but one has to realize that these sites are led by the owners and article creators, and though the deep state is mentioned here, it is still way to shallow to show the big picture, or at least half the picture. Talking about George Soros is also a plus, but I am sure most frequenters of this site still don’t know of the guy.

honest liberty
Reply to  Daelyn75
July 30, 2018 10:57 am

I can understand, but on this forum…it is moderated with great care and most of the commenters are polite. We all slip, but it certainly isn’t par for the course. I would just urge you to be polite on this forum, at least, because I’ve learned: It’s easier to attract bees with honey instead of vinegar.

It doesn’t help positive discourse to lay it on thick with attacks, etc.
It’s taken me 15 years of investigation, and just 2 years ago, given everything I’ve read, I was still uncertain about CAGW. Just two years ago! So… not everyone is on the same wavelength or at the same steps in their journey, and also, many of these folks come from hard science backgrounds and are older than us, which means that strength of indoctrination into statism is much stronger. Also, it is highly unlikely, even if for arguments sake we are correct, that many folks will ever challenge themselves to such a degree as to forsake some of their learned bedrock foundations.

we have to argue the scientific evidence to the best we can and let it stand on its own merits.
I appreciate your passion.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 11:10 am

MINUTE 35:14 “with all that being said we were not able to do that”
meaning, after all the exhaustive study and modelling after 2 years, they couldn’t match NIST’s initiation of global collapse using their own thermal data.

I would recommend listening to the entire interview. It is dry but Dr. Leroy is very explicit in his explanations.

honest liberty
Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 1:24 pm

No apology from Marcus… hmm..
imagine that.

July 28, 2018 5:57 pm

How do you end an article with a quote in French without telling its meaning!!!!

Google is little help.

Tim Ball
Reply to  Bob Shapiro
July 28, 2018 6:10 pm

Because I live in a bilingual country

Reply to  Tim Ball
July 28, 2018 6:24 pm

Please see the discussion above.

Reply to  Tim Ball
July 28, 2018 6:53 pm

l’esprit de l’escalier

Even in a bilingual nation, one needs to understand the concept, if not the architecture of the time to understand the meaning of certain phrases. And BTW … America IS a bilingual nation, mi amigo.

Greg Goodman
Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 12:50 am

One would imaging that you could write French that made sense then. “Plus qu’on monte l’arbre …” maybe. Not sure where your donkey comes into it.

Sounds like Canadian version of one of GW’s gaffs.

Apart from that thanks for a very good summary of Santer’s fraudulent corruption of IPCC chapter 8.

The prime point of notoriety for Santer and the reason he wanted to punch Michaels was because of the infamous Chapter 8 debacle.

I thought it was pretty silly what Eric wrote in the last article. Thanks for putting the record straight and providing clear refereced quotes for Santers’ skullduggery. I’ll bookmark this as ref.

Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 2:20 am

“Because I live in a bilingual country”

I take it you mean Quebec? It isn’t really a bilingual country. It is actually French, with English tolerated as a very second cousin. The law requires any document written in English to be translated into French. There is no such requirement for documents written in French. People that only speak English are looked down on as very much second class citizens.

Reply to  Hivemind
July 30, 2018 8:31 am

“It is actually French, with English tolerated as a very second cousin”

Actually no, it is “Canadian French”, which even in France is looked down upon !!

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 9:04 am

Is that part of the LBQerty brigade.

Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 9:52 am

Canada bilingual?
In concept only, and then only needed to rise in the uncivil service. Eh?
Bob Hoye, Vancouver, B.C.
Otherwise, Tim, another good essay.

DeLoss McKnight
Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 1:46 pm

When I googled the exact phrase in quotes on Google, I got only 1 hit: this article.

Reply to  Tim Ball
July 29, 2018 3:47 pm

The Brits are only 22 miles from France. Some of us can speak the language but it doesn’t make us French!

Reply to  Bob Shapiro
July 28, 2018 7:26 pm

if you add the word ‘translate’ to the phrase you’ll find Google helps.

Joel O'Bryan
July 28, 2018 6:00 pm

This is the Figure 4 from Santer, et al. ‘s Heartbeat paper published by Science Magazine last week.

comment image
Fig. 4
Zonal mean trends over 1979 to 2016 in monthly averages of corrected TMT.

Results are for the latest versions of the RSS, STAR, and UAH satellite datasets [(A to C), respectively] and for the multimodel average of the CMIP5 HIST+8.5 simulations (D). The plus symbols in (D) indicate multimodel average trends that exceed the between-model standard deviation of the zonal-mean monthly mean trend by at least a factor of 1.5. As in Fig. 3, all satellite and model temperature data were transformed to a common 5° × 5° latitude/longitude grid prior to zonal averaging.

His seasonal “Heartbeat” is the Annual Climate (AC) in his 1979-2016 comparisons between the Hist+RCP8.5 CMIP5 multi-model ensemble average (MMA) splice in panel D with the satellite observations in panels A-C.

side notes:

– TMT refers to Temperature of the Mid-troposphere as measured by the satellite AMSU’s with the “lower stratospheric” of the AMSU measured TMT part subtracted out by an adjustment algorithm. They call this their TMT.

The “Hist” refers to a hindcast re-creation of historical climate CMIP5 models from 1979 to 2005, and to “RCP8.5” forward simulation 2005 to 2016, they then spliced these two past and future model runs together to get the 1979-2016 MMA from CMIP5 models. They used a “noise” pre-industrial (CO2 at 280 ppm constant) as the baseline to pull out the “signal” of significant (greater than a S/N ratio of 1.0) climate temp change due to AGW in the model projections with CO2 forcing (actual CO2 levels in HIST) and then the RCP8.5 CO2 rise in the future projection part of the splice.

– Note the band between 40N and 60N. This is Santer’s “heartbeat” band. Looking at Panel D, (the CMIP MMA), in January-March, there is a cooler spot, and in July-August-September, there is a warmer spot at those latitudes. This is the model predicted seasonal “heartbeat” of AGW’s fingerprint, according to Santer. Now compare that model AGW heartbeat to the same locations in the satellite observation panels A, B, and C. Ben wants you to think it exists there in the satellite (RSS, STAR, and UAH) observations. Pretty sketchy if you ask me, especially the warmer spot at 40N in February that is not in the model panel D.

– Also note that panel D clearly shows the predicted mid-tropospheric tropical hotspot that is constant across the seasons (all 12 months) from 20N to 20S. This hotspot is *NOT* in the satellite observation panels A-C. Oopps!!!

Santer’s own figure just disproved the only unique CO2 AGW fingerprint predicted by the models — the tropical mid-tropospheric hotspot. Over a 38 year period of steadily rising CO2, the hotspot is Not there at all.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 29, 2018 6:51 am

Regarding the last sentence of the italicized title block description of Figure 4 of your excellent post (Thanks!) . . . said figure extracted from the Santer et. al paper . . . how many sins are contained in the phrase “all satellite and model temperature data were transformed to a . . .”?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
July 29, 2018 1:06 pm

That italic text is Santer’s figure legend verbatim from the paper.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 30, 2018 10:14 am

Joel, I’d say Santer’s “heartbeat” is the one of psoriasis. 🙂

July 28, 2018 6:03 pm

“Deep State”
“Lack of Accountability”

Whats Up has gone off the rails lately. What rubbish.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 6:19 pm

Then you should feel at home, Oscar.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 6:51 pm

Given that CAGW science is garbage, there has to be some ulterior motive behind the fact that some folks are pushing it as hard as they can.

The UN has admitted the reason behind CAGW is to uproot capitalism.

Capitalism has raised the condition of the Earth’s population to a condition of unprecedented health and longevity. Trying to wreck that and replace it with what … Marxism … is vile.

Marxism has brought nothing but suffering and death.

It’s hard to characterize Tim’s musings as conspiracy theory when the UN has admitted to the conspiracy.

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2018 7:10 pm

from your link:
“At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.”

Right. What kind of fool would believe that?

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 7:25 pm

Really skeptical

Right. What kind of fool would believe that?

Right. What kind of enviro would be that foolish to say that absolute truth in public?

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 7:49 pm

Get out of your trash can once in awhile.

“…The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability. So long as this order is in place, the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault.

As an increasing number of environmental groups are emphasizing, it’s systemic change or bust. From a political standpoint, something interesting has occurred here: Climate change has made anticapitalist struggle, for the first time in history, a non-class-based issue…”

Taylor Pohlman
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 30, 2018 5:53 am

Yes, struggle against Capitalism can no longer be ‘class-based’ because it has now been proven that capitalism has improved the condition of the ‘working classes’ and in fact provides access to the ‘upper classes’ to those talented enough or willing to work hard enough.

They need to bury that little secret, and invent some other reason (forced austerity) to keep the masses under control.

Peter R
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 10:23 pm


Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 29, 2018 1:48 am


“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said February 3rd during a press conference in Brussels.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 29, 2018 1:00 pm

A documented quote, but RS declares that it’s just fake news.

chris riley
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 29, 2018 9:56 pm

Brussels is the undisputed stupidity capitol of Earth, and perhaps the Universe. This cannot be disputed.

Reply to  commieBob
July 28, 2018 7:18 pm

Well said Commie Bob .
Really Skeptical should bring some counter argument to this forum instead of slagging it off .Tim Ball has put the truth before us and RS can not or will not or has such a belief in CAGW that he does not want to see the facts.
A lot of so called scientists have stated that increased green house gasses will cause runaway global temperature but they have not proved that it will happen and they have not proven it at this point in time .
RS put forward some proof other than stating unproven theories and climate models that run far to hot .

Reply to  Gwan
July 28, 2018 10:23 pm

Here is a counter argument Gwan, for what it is worth:

The evidence that “runaway global temperature” will not occur is in the kitchen where it will be observed that no matter how high you turn up the heat the kettle never boils above 100C at sea level. You can repeat the experiment on the top of Everest if you like but the temperature will be around 68C. These two being points on the trace of temperature with pressure across the world, determined by gravity.
Added to this is the fact that when the vapour pressure of water equates to the Partial Pressure the temperature is around 30C. and this is why the oceans rarely get much above this 30C ; but as with all things, nature hunts about equilibrium states and rarely settles down so this figure varies a bit.
That is the evidence and it is backed up by proof in that the Earth’s temperature has remained remarkably constant over millions of years. Not sure of the figures here; but I guess at roughly +/- 4% on the Kelvin scale.

The science that explains how this is done is well known and may be described as The Rankine Cycle which we continue to use in our power generation; whereby large amounts of energy are transferred up through the atmosphere and beyond in response to the energy received from the sun.
For every kilogram of water evaporated from the surface some 680WattHrs of energy are removed and sent up into clouds and beyond for dissipation.

In fact water is a very efficient global thermostat and incidentally keeps me cool when I sweat and stops the engine in my car from overheating.

It is all there in the Steam Tables just waiting for the honest scientists to cotten on to it; but they all seem to have their statistical heads stuck in their computers these days.


Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alasdair
July 29, 2018 1:05 am

“For every kilogram of water evaporated from the surface some 680WattHrs of energy are removed and sent up into clouds and beyond for dissipation. ”

Alasdair, Could you provide us with your calculation of what this means in the Energy budget diagrams that Trenberth and a 100 others have constructed. The latest NASA one gives 86.4 W/m^2 for evapotranspiration which is evaporation and transpiration added together. That figure seems low when looking at your

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 29, 2018 2:15 am

(to melt or vaporize lead (the metal) requires more energy than to melt or vaporize water)

atomic mass H2O = 18.01528 g/mole

enthalpy of vaporization, 40.65 kJ/mole (more than five times the energy required to heat the same quantity of water from 0 °C to 100 °C)

1000g /(18.01528 g/mole) =55.508435061791989910786843168688 moles

(55.508435061791989910786843168688 moles) * (40.65 kJ/mole) = 2256.4178852618443898734851748072 kJ

1 kiloJoule ( kJ ) = 0.28 watt hours

(2256.4178852618443898734851748072 kJ) * (2256.4178852618443898734851748072 kJ) = 631.79700787331642916457584894601 WH

And, if the vapor came from melting ice, you do the math!

for every kg of rain that comes down, 631.79700787331642916457584894601 WattHours of energy are radiated to space.




Alan Tomalty
Reply to  gnomish
July 29, 2018 12:48 pm

So Is NASA’s number of 86.4 W/m^2 for evapotranspiration correct or not?

Reply to  gnomish
July 31, 2018 12:11 pm

global annual precipitation average: 5.1 × 10^14 m3 (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008)

Surface Area of Earth = 4 * pi * (Radius of Earth)2 = 5.1 × 1014 m2

A cubic metre of pure water at the temperature of maximum density (3.98 °C) and standard atmospheric pressure (1013.25 kPa) has a mass of1000 kg

annual average vaporization of water per sq meter surface on this globe = 63179.700787331642916457584894601 W

[bold]somebody check my math- the numbers are saying nasa is off by orders of magnitude![/bold]

old construction worker
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 30, 2018 3:07 am

I don’t understand: The + was at 2 and when I click the + it when to -1. what’s up with that?

Reply to  Alasdair
July 29, 2018 1:12 am

Properties of R718 at atmospheric pressure……

Reply to  Gwan
July 29, 2018 3:51 pm

At the time of the Copenhagen summit, Hermann van Rompoy said that global warming was an opportunity to impose global government.

Most of you won’t know who H van Rompoy is. He was one of EU Presidents (the Council) and a devious Belgian. He was famously described by Nigel Farage as ”
having the charisma of a wet dishcloth”.

Reply to  RCS
July 30, 2018 8:51 am

“having the charisma of a wet dishcloth”….

That is an insult to all ” wet dishcloths” !!

Reply to  Marcus
July 30, 2018 1:06 pm

Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2018 12:35 pm

Watch George Hunt’s videos or read their transcriptions; the history of
the AGW Rothschild banking scam documented by him as a staff observer
at the1987 Fourth World Wilderness Conference, attended by Maurice
Strong, David Rockefeller and Canadian banker C. Michael Sweatman;,

Who benefits from the trillions of dollars spent on bogus research
justifying bogus infrastructure to ameliorate the bogus AWG problem? –
the capitalist bankers who loan money to finance these scams and their
affiliated NGOs who confiscate the resources of nations used as
collateral for these loans – the same plutocrats who funded Karl Marx
and who control the global media.
I congratulate Dr. Tim Ball for his decades of perseverance in against
the forces of darkness in the mainstream population and on both sides of
the scientific debate on AGW.
Speaking of capitalists, I’m glad I bought Elaine Dewar’s banned “Cloak
of Green” while it was available on her website – check out Amazon

Reg Nelson
Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 7:18 pm

Yes, corruption at the highest levels in the FBI, DOJ, and other US government agencies must be ignored LOL.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 28, 2018 11:49 pm

Case in point – either ReallySkeptical is an ignorant fool or he’s pushing an agenda. By now he would have grasped the obvious, so it only leaves the latter.

Reply to  Daelyn75
July 29, 2018 12:55 am

I think the explanation for his silly comments here is very simple .He is bored . He does not know what to do. Cannot get involved in any real science. No one wants to talk to him. So he comes here and makes nonsensical remarks certain to attract some temporary attention.
I feel sorry for him – he needs to get a hobby.

Reply to  mikewaite
July 29, 2018 1:03 pm

Sadly, derailing conversations appears to be his hobby.

Reply to  ReallySkeptical
July 29, 2018 12:59 pm

Would you for once, care to actually support your accusations?
Or is just heaving insults all you are paid to do?

Komrade Kuma
July 28, 2018 6:08 pm

I wrote at another post about a sea level data with a clear oscillating pattern set being used to confect sea level rise via a line of best fit where the real driver was starting on a rough and ending on a crest. The ‘trend’ would still appear if the data came from a pure sinusoid.

The ‘cherry pick’ shown in Figs 1 and 2 is essentially the same.

I know from experience that CFD models will converge to false solutions if too coarse a mesh is used compared to the variation in the parameter being modelled so I can just imagine what sort of crepe models Mr Santer et al produce. The only issue is whether they do so out of fundamental and fully informed fraud or just fundamental incompetence. I actually don’t really care, because either way their work is out there with that of IS, the Kim Jong regime in NK or the Khmer Rouge when it comes to civilisation and everything it stands for.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Komrade Kuma
July 29, 2018 12:10 am

“The only issue is whether they do so out of fundamental and fully informed fraud or just fundamental incompetence…”

Santer et al. aren’t dummies, therefore, fundamental and fully informed fraud would be my guess.

Ed Reid
Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
July 29, 2018 5:52 am

Frantic Researchers Adjusting Unsuitable Data

Gary Ashe
Reply to  Ed Reid
July 29, 2018 2:21 pm


Robert Kernoble c 2017.

Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 6:20 pm

Whoa…they really took the data in Figure 1 and published only Figure 2 data? How in the hell could they justify that? That is even beyond Mikey Fraudpants stuff!

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 9:54 pm

Actually, not really MJ. These are his ‘climate science’ besties who did this so its all from the same ethical slime pond.

Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 28, 2018 11:34 pm

Seconded, Fig 1, 2 should be written up as a simple cue card, another could be Jones’ hide the decline. I like the simplicity of the fraud, even the most rabid believer would have to pause when shown that

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  IanH
July 29, 2018 8:40 am

They have been shown that, many times. It fazes them not a jot.

They are wholly convinced of the virtue of the scientist profession and that every scientific organization on earth is in agreement with them. Of course this is part of their own delusion, but it’s real for them.

July 28, 2018 6:33 pm

A couple of famous quotes by Maurice Strong. All of which is mentioned below is under attack today by the people who would destroy civilization its self if they were allowed to. Using the climate change scam as means to and end.

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that theindustrialized civilizations collapse?Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

– Maurice Strong Rio+20 Earth Summit 1992,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

– Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio+20 Earth Summit, 1992.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  Rob
July 28, 2018 7:03 pm

Are Leo DiCaprio, Cate Blanchett and the like exempt from these restrictions and part of the Nomenklatura? 🙂

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
July 28, 2018 7:16 pm

They must believe they are.

Reply to  Rob
July 29, 2018 1:04 pm

Like most elite, they want to limit what the masses can have, so that they can keep it all for themselves.

honest liberty
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2018 8:17 am

winner winner chicken dinner!

Reply to  honest liberty
July 30, 2018 9:02 am

Gee, that almost made sense !!

July 28, 2018 7:20 pm

“Elaine Dewar reported in her book Cloak of Green that she asked Maurice Strong what was wrong with the planet. He speculated that the problem for the planet was the industrialized nations. ”

Well, Maurice is an idiot.
I would answer the question, the problem with Planet Earth is there is too many primitive people and Maurice Strong is a primitive person.
Or rather then primitive, having too many people who are Lefties.
What else is wrong with this Planet? Too many wars- which related to too many Lefties.
I would say what is good about the Planet is industrialization.
But one should NOT use industrialization as model for Education- or one can carried away
with the success of industrialization and apply it wrongly to other things [which only a dumb primitive person would imagine is a good idea].
I guess my only other complaint is that recently, we have had a lack of exploration.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  gbaikie
July 28, 2018 7:51 pm

Maurice is dead.
He certainly was no idiot.
A committed socialist? Yes.
Fully committed to using whatever means necessary for a desired end of One World Socialism administered by the UN.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 28, 2018 9:00 pm

Well, since he is dead, it seems it might be nicer if you could provide some evidence that Maurice was not an idiot.

Is there anyone who is living and who is not out to lunch, which believes that: “One World Socialism administered by the UN” is a rational idea, vaguely desirable, or possible?

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  gbaikie
July 29, 2018 12:29 am

Agenda 21. Google it.
comment image

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  gbaikie
July 29, 2018 1:13 am

A lot of those believers are very smart people. Smart enuf to steal your wallet when you arent looking. These days with carbon taxes about to hit Canada in 5 months, they are are smart enuf to steal your wallet even when you are looking. Mr gbaikie, I must inform you that our PM in Canada Justin Trudeau falls in to that category.

Ed Reid
Reply to  gbaikie
July 29, 2018 6:56 am

I fear that it is possible, even though irrational and highly undesirable.

I believe the ultimate goal is a global vegan commune of about 1 billion souls, run by some subset of the tinpot despots represented in the UN General Assembly. (The current membership of the UN Human Rights Commission provides some insight into both plausibility and desirability.)

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 28, 2018 11:59 pm

joelobryan – commitment doesn’t equal intelligence. I’d say you’d have to be a complete idiot to want a one world socialism order or The New World Order to begin with. On top of being an idiot, a psychopath, liar, and as close to evil as humanly possible also qualify for pushing the NWO.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Daelyn75
July 29, 2018 12:53 am

You are conflating being evil with being stupid. Two quite different human qualities.

Defining evil: A complete uncaring disregard for your fellow human’s life, liberty, or happiness in the pursuit of raw power.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 29, 2018 1:33 am

That would be Atlas Shrugged from Ayn Rand. Real evil is Bertrand Russel – just 1 quote would be enough : “I hate the world and almost all the people in it. . . . I hate the planet and the human race. I am ashamed to belong to such a species,” wrote Russell to Colette (Lady Constance Malleson) in 1916, expressing the view he sought to propagate.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  bonbon
July 29, 2018 1:23 pm

As for Bertrand Russel world view of humanity, the horrors of WW1 trench warfare would do that to anyone.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 29, 2018 12:53 pm

joelobryan – I am. Defining it to what it is and not what leads someone to be that way is only a half measure.

You don’t need to feel empathy for others to realize that controlling and destroying the human race is insanity and will never lead to anything positive.

I can hardly fathom the type of damaged person that would support the NWO. There are cowards in it and there are evil people. Either way, they are ignorant, short sighted, self absorbed individuals that certainly at the least are afflicted with a real lack of perspective on life.

I would attribute short sighted people to suffering from lower IQ. These people never seem to perceive where they will end up if they keep going in the direction they are headed.

Tom Abbott
July 28, 2018 7:29 pm

From the article: “The trouble is, as long as Santer et al., keep reporting selective ‘heartbeats’ and the political activists push their political agenda and the media amplify their grossly distorted ill-informed stories, the deceptions about climate and the lack of accountability for those who spread the false climate stories will continue.”

NBC News was promoting the new Santer climate study and connecting every hot event on Earth to CAGW in their news report tonight. The reporting suggested CAGW was settled science and happening right now and the Santer claim was just the latest confirmation.

No evidence for any of that, of course. But that doesn’t stop them from making the claims.

Johann Wundersamer
July 28, 2018 9:41 pm

Elaine Dewar reported in her book Cloak of Green that she asked Maurice Strong

What happened to the planet?

He speculated that the problem for the planet was the industrialized countries. Dewar asked if he wanted to run for politics to find a solution. He said no, you can not do anything as a politician.

Baldur Benedikt von Schirach was a politician and Reich Youth Leader of the NSDAP during the Nazi era.

Baldur von Schirach’s last words were:

What was wrong with ME ?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
July 29, 2018 1:29 am

Baldur von Schirach was one of only 2 men(Albert Speer (Hitler’s armaments and industrial czar) was the other) to denounce Hitler at the Nuremburg trials and both got only 20 year prison sentences even though Baldur von Schirach was responsible for sending 65000 Jews from Vienna to the Nazi concentration camps and thus most of them to their deaths.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
July 30, 2018 2:13 am

Yes, Alan T –

But the difference is between asking

– What was wrong with the planet?

when the prior question FOR THE GREEN BELIVERS LIBDEMS in fact should be

– What was wrong with ME ?


July 28, 2018 9:57 pm

Seems to me, the tricksters are still at it. The greenies are saying, make the government mandate solar, then the price will drop…??? *Cue Tim Taylor hungh?* See, high demand, even artificial demand created by the government mandates, makes prices rise. Low demand causes prices to fall. So, just as with education, when the government starts throwing money at it, the price will rise. So when these trade magazines keep telling me how the price of solar panels is going down down down, I always go to their charts and reports, and I can’t find the subsidies. All I find is the price the consumer paid. What is the real price of the panel? Or of the solar installation? Why won’t they show me that?

It’s my contention, and I’m inviting anyone who has actual figures to prove me wrong, that the actual price of solar has been rising for the last 10 years. Probably likewise for wind installations. I know that every place that has jumped in bed with unreliables has seen the price of electricity rise, that’s another data point that I believe supports my hypothesis. So, where are they? Where are the real figures? The real prices paid for the installations (include all money from all sources), and the real production, in actual kW and kWh, and what does that work out to be, in $/kW and $/kWh?

Given the amount of government money thrown at it, any “renewable” installation built in the last 10 years should be fully subject to FOIA. With that much of the Public’s money sunk into those things, the Public has every right to know how it is performing. All we have to do is ask. So what do you think that will reveal? Has anyone asked for this information? Anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Anyone?

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
July 29, 2018 2:22 am

At 1st glance the costs of renewables looks like zero running costs and very low installation costs . Take utility-scale photovoltaics. At $46 to $53 per megawatt-hour of generation, it handily beats coal ($60) and natural gas ($68).
1) But pairing a battery and inverter with the system for 10 hours of storage raises the cost to $82 per megawatt-hour. Lazard’s analysis shows stored energy costs ranging from $184 per megawatt-hour to more than $250.

2) Specifically, via subsidies the rate paid to solar generators was more than seven times the rate paid to nuclear generators and more than eight times the rate paid to hydroelectric generators in Ontario.
3) Spinning costs of cycling up the backup power when wind and solar are not available at certain time of day and the original cost of having backup power doing nothing or at a lower level of capacity when the wind is blowing or sun is shining.
4) The average cost in 2017 to install solar systems ranged from a little over $2,000 per kilowatt (kilowatts are a measure of power capacity) for large-scale systems to almost $3,700 for residential systems. A new natural gas plant might have costs around $1,000/kW. Wind comes in around $1,200 to $1,700/kw.
5) new transmission infrastructure is needed—and transmission costs money, and needs to be sited. Both the financing and the siting can be significant.
6) The danger of putting private backup power sources out of business because of the decreasing upfront non hidden costs of wind and solar.
7) Regulations that require wind and solar power to be used first over other forms of power. This can result in longer term costs of continuously starting up and shutting down backup power forms.
8) Some utility solar systems use steam plants to generate electricity and use water for cooling. Because solar farms are often very dry climates, any increase in water demand may threaten local resources.
9) Net metering customers are often paid exhorbitant prices for their solar.
10) Shorter estimated life of a wind turbine of 20 years

SO as a test take off the solar and wind subsidies and let us see which fuel wins.

July 28, 2018 11:07 pm

Dewar wrote that he was going to the UN because,

“He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”

In short, there was no accountability. This has continued for all involved with the deception.

Did Dewar say this or did Strong? Its just that a lot made up quotes get attributed to Strong.

July 28, 2018 11:43 pm

I’ve ben telling you all about the significance of zonal versus meridional flows for over ten years now and have crystallised it all into a coherent working hypothesis that deserves proper investigation.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 29, 2018 11:04 pm

I have read your theory and disagree. There are no supporting charts or data that I have seen. Having recently studied zonal winds and vortex, your reference given on zonal winds is weak at best. In most literature they are poorly described or understood. There is not one word as to why the SH wind speed may rise and fall abruptly especially during May to September.

To claim that atmosphere is descending down the vortex – sorry you need to show me some proof.

Ozone moves between hemispheres on a seasonal basis, your theory gives no clear details of season variances. Your theory needs more detail.


Reply to  Ozonebust
July 30, 2018 6:25 am

The polar stratospheric vortices are known to comprise air descending through the stratosphere. Look it up.
The effect on the amount of ozone descending through those vortices is superimposed on the background seasonal variation so one need not consider the latter.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 31, 2018 1:14 pm

Reply to your comments above.

Reply to  Ozonebust
July 31, 2018 1:11 pm

Yes, I have looked it up in great detail prior to your kind advice, thanks. Following that analysis I am skeptical of a number of claims including zonal winds, spring warming mechanisms and the direction of vortex atmospheric flow.

Your last sentence is pure speculation – “ozone descending through those vortices”. Have you not seen the vortex side profile imaging produced in 2014 by Douglass, Newman, Salomon. I attach the image link below. That looks a lot like upwards dilution to me.

If your theory deserves further investigation, why would you not continue yourself.

comment image

July 28, 2018 11:50 pm

The cited National Geographic article by Alejandra Borunda has an odd coda. After all the report about the record cold, she appends a sound-bite from one John Turner (presumably her goto from the British Antarctic Survey) :
“As we see increases in greenhouse gas and water vapor concentrations, we’re expecting warming across the Antarctic of about 3 to 4°C,” says Turner.

According to Nature Turner claims that “Unprecedented ice melting in Antarctica last year seems to have been triggered by the channelling of warm air from lower latitudes into the sea-ice zones.”

Alejandra Borunda also wrote the recent article “The Internet Is Drowning”, a scare story based on NG’s map of what the world would look like if all the world’s ice melted.

I guess these days no story about actual cold measurements is immune to having as its final paragraph a recycled speculative alarmist quote “for balance”.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  SuffolkBoy
July 29, 2018 7:46 am

“As we see increases in greenhouse gas and water vapor concentrations, we’re expecting warming across the Antarctic of about 3 to 4°C,” says Turner.

Sorry to inform you, John Turner, but the UAH satellite data for Antarctica (60-85 deg south) for 1980-2016 say’s it ain’t gonna be so. See:

If one examines the data from 1991 to 2016, inclusive (a span of 26 years), there is a slight-but-obvious decline in the measured composite temperature. Meanwhile, during this interval, mankind released about 45% of all of human-originated CO2 emissions since 1750.

July 28, 2018 11:51 pm

Liberals like to demonize wall street execs as fraudsters for much less damage to society as these charlatans have done.

Reply to  WR2
July 29, 2018 1:41 am

Trouble is WallStreet is up to its ears in this – just look at Bloomberg, for example.

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  bonbon
July 29, 2018 7:12 am

bonbon, thanks for the link, but let’s not fail the general WUWT readership by forcing them to link to get the key, alarming first sentence of the article, which is posted verbatim here:
“Michael Bloomberg joins Leonardo DiCaprio and the Angry Birds character ‘Red’ as a UN appointed climate envoy.”

I am sure the depth of knowledge of climate possessed by each of these three characters (one, literally) will do wonders for the advancement of mankind. NOT!

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has obviously lost whatever credibility he once had. Likewise all UN delegates that did not publicly protest these appointments should be ashamed of themselves.

July 29, 2018 2:00 am

Who invented the Deep State meme? According to whistleblower Edward Snowden, “the deep state is not just the intelligence agencies, it is really a way of referring to the career bureaucracy of government. These are officials who sit in powerful positions, who don’t leave when presidents do, who watch presidents come and go…they influence policy, they influence presidents.”
Omitted there for some reason, for example, Maurice Strong was a co-founder with Prince Philip of the secretive 1001 Club, the main “piggybank” of the green-genocidalist World Wildlife Fund (WWF). It is difficult for Americans, even Snowden, to handle such facts, but Canadians?

July 29, 2018 3:56 am

Jail time would appear to be the best reward to Santer and the rest of his gang of fraudsters.

July 29, 2018 7:28 am

What, exactly, is the earth’s average temperature?

Reply to  Jim
July 29, 2018 12:56 pm

The Earth’s average temperature is a popular myth, brought into being by those who wish to portray a complex, chaotic atmosphere as a relatively easy to quantify system, to which we can apply a simple metric thingie that everybody can be deluded into believing they understand.

Other than that, it’s a fun thing to manipulate and talk about in minute detail — to hundredths of a degree, … and use to draw cool-looking (hot-looking?) graphs to convince anybody of anything we wish. The graph-drawing thing is really an art form, often described as statistical analysis. The guys who practice this art form are the true masters of the myth.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Jim
July 29, 2018 1:32 pm

Many people consider it a useless statistic. However people have tried to figure it out from 1st principles using the Stefan Boltzmann equation and have concluded it as 288 K or 15 C. Has any body any info if UAH has aggregated their data into one world troposphere average?

Reply to  Jim
July 29, 2018 3:54 pm

The tropical zone is about 40% of entire Earth surface and has average yearly temperature of about 26 C [79 F]. Or on high side of room temperature.
And remaining 60% of planet has much lower average temperature which when averaged is about 15 C [59 F]. Or much colder than room temperature.
The largest two countries in world are Russia and Canada and they have average temperature of about -4 C. Or average temperature is like a freezer- though gets much warmer in summer and much colder in winter.
The average global land temperature is about 10 C. And average global ocean surface is about 17 C. Land 30% and Ocean is 70% of entire surface and average of land and ocean is about 15 C

Reply to  gbaikie
July 29, 2018 4:15 pm

And reason global average temperature is about 15 C is we been in an Ice Age for millions of year. Or it’s called an icebox or icehouse global climate.
An Icebox climate has cold ocean- or the entire ocean average temperature which is in range of 1 to 5 C. And we have been at around 3.5 C for thousands of years.
Another aspect belonging to an icebox climates is having polar ice caps- which we have had for more than million years.
In glacial period the ocean can get as low as 1 C and during interglacial can warm to about 5 C.
What makes global temperature of 15 C is ocean surface temperature of about 17 C, and warmer or colder entire ocean is limits the range of the temperature of the surface waters.

And in our last interglacial period about 120,000 years ago the ocean volume temperature reached a temperature of about 5 C and Germany was quite warm, or better description is Germany was closer to being like the tropics or had semi-tropical climate. And sea level was higher due to warmer ocean and was about 5 meters higher than present sea levels. And apparently these higher sea level affected glacial ice shelf of Antarctica which cause the total sea level rise of about 9 meters- or 5 + 4 meters. And the last interglacial period was called Eemian, wiki:

July 29, 2018 2:09 pm

During WWII Rossby taught meteorology effectively to thousands of Air Corps cadets at the University of Chicago in the Army’s 9-month officer training program, my father among them. Also among them was Reid Bryson, Rossby’s greatest pupil, who discovered the Jet Stream during WWII and went on to pioneer satellite meteorology and early climatology — and who later labeled global warming as “junk science.”

Alan Tomalty
July 29, 2018 2:09 pm

This was last updated on July 26 2018.

Susan Callery of NASA is responsible for the info. However if you look closely you will see that the chart in the bottom right attributes it to Trenberth et al 2009. However Trenberth’s original back radiation of 324 W/m^ has increased to 340.3 in this latest diagram. In any case this is fictitious because any emission of photons from the CO2 and H2O is in all directions and neither diagram shows that. They show only back radiation going 1 way; downward. NASA has yet to explain this. The reason is that they can’t. As soon as any amount for back radiation is included for all directions, the diagram will never balance. Back radiation is a fictitious concept. NASA uses pyrometers /pyrgeometers that are set to e = emissivity =1( a black body). CO2 never emits at e =1 (more like (0.02) Even water vapour doesnt emit at e =1.

If NASA could measure the back radiation properly then this could get resolved. The problem is the only valid equation to use is the Voigt profile. Modest says there is no closed form solution for that equation. It is too complicated to reproduce here. The most important sentence with respect to CO2 in Modest’s textbook on page 315( the chapter on gases) is the following. I quote

” we note that ,at moderate temperatures , the rotational partition function causes the line strength to decrease with temperature as 1/T or 1/(T^1.5), while the influences of the vibrational partition function and of stimulated emission are very minor . ”

What this means to me is that at the temperatures we see in our troposphere, the vibrational effect is small for gases and the rotational effect decreases with temperature increase.

On page 309 Modest says and I quote “while symmetric molecules such as CO2 show a rotational spectrum only if accompanied by a vibrational transition.”

So Modest seems to be saying that even though CO2 absorbs IR, the line strength of absorption/emission at moderate temperatures is too weak to worry about, especially since the rotational partition strength of the spectrum decreases with temperature increase. So not only CAGW is impossible, it seems that AGW is impossible to any significant degree (pun not intended). I contend that if the back radiation could be measured properly, it would be a negligible quantity.

If only Michael Modest would clear this up, but I suspect he is too afraid. Such is the strength of the CO2 inquisition. My suspicion is valid because I sent him an email questioning him on this including the terms AGW and CAGW. He wrote back asking what those terms meant. I answered him and never got an answer back.

If the average DWIR back radiation at 340W/m^2 is 1/4 the power of the sun on a hot summer day (1361W/m^2) without any albedo, then how come I have never felt it. I havent felt it when standing out of the sun’s rays and open to the sky and I haven’t felt it at night, even if it was a cloudy night. The global warming hypothesis asks us to suspend our belief in the laws of physics.

July 29, 2018 11:01 pm

Thanks for this very interesting article about two of our heroes in climate and dynamical weather forecasting: professor H.H. Lamb and C. Rossby. Rossby was part of the Bergen School of researchers (1914 – 1940), under V. Bjerknes and C.L. Godske (their statistician).

The funny thing is that Lamb’s book of 1995 is used for teaching of Archaeologists at Tromsø University, in Norway, even today ! This shows how important his work still is: Reference: Lamb, H.H., 1995. “Climate, History and the modern world”. Routledge, 433 pp.

Mark - Helsinki
July 30, 2018 1:47 am

Santer is not a scientist, he’s a scumbag.

July 30, 2018 1:55 am

Of course all this is so obvious, such a con, that the populace is fully aware and has completely lost interest in CAGW.

July 30, 2018 3:27 am

A pity that the French quote discussion in the comments took over from the main content, which is excellent and a good reminder of the history of this charade and the actors responsible.

July 30, 2018 8:22 am

I have always believed that the AGW, Global Warming, Climate Change, IPCC reports, etc were all constructed just like Michael Crichton’s books – 99% truth and 1% BS/Fiction. Each of his books seemed as if he had exposed a hidden or unknown fact. Many of the facts parallel facts that I knew were true some of which were military secrets. One of his last books “State of Fear” reinforced that belief, which i think was written to expose the farce.

July 30, 2018 8:52 am

That pic would look appropriate for a movie featuring 3 evil “scientists” working to destroy the world. They just look the part….

July 30, 2018 9:04 am

xkcd inadvertently explains Global Warming “Science.”

Gordon Jeffrey Giles
July 30, 2018 10:29 am

Thank you again Dr. Ball for continuing to expose the truth of the extent of the fraud.

August 7, 2018 5:05 pm

It is Promoting a political agenda aimed at humans as a plague on Planet Earth by discounting basic established principles such as the water cycle we all study in our pre college years… the transport of vast amounts of solar energy by water evaporation and condensation to space, along with reflection from cloud tops… Its all about clouds controlled by the Sun’s Solar Winds, controlled by the larger planets. Carbon Dioxide does not change to a liquid at all, and only to a solid at minus 109 Degrees F, that never happens on the surface of the earth. Carbon dioxide does not have the dramatic power of water changing phases from liquid to gas to liquid to solid in normal temperature ranges on Earth.
This model at works and does not have to be stuffed with cheating variables. The evidence is so clear from measurements… not the manipulated temperature measurements from NASA and GISS. See Paullitely for the complete Universal Field Theory of Global Thermodynamics driven by the Sun, the position of the larger planets, and the position of the solar system in the Milky Way Galaxy. It is complete to explain mini iceages and great iceages. See Credit for the basic research goes to Theodor Landscheidt, Carl Smith and Geoff Sharp, plus former ISRO clairman U. R. Rao demonstration that Cosmic Rays are responsible indirectly for at least 40% of Earth’s Climate Change. Recognition of the basic impossibility of claims for CO2 controlling the Earth’s Climate, and the economic havoc of trying to control Natural climate change goes back all the way to a Russian slide presentation at the seminal Kyoto climate meeting. This is also at

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights