By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Pause lengthens yet again, and this time by three months. The double-dip la Niña is now manifesting itself in the UAH data, so that there has been no global warming for 7 years 3 months, up from 7 years on the basis of the previous monthly data.
Recently a correspondent who follows these columns and posts climate-skeptical videos on YouTube reported that a new form of invisible censorship has been in place since last summer. YouTube, rather than banning videos or creators outright as it did with Naomi Seibt, has now furtively reprogrammed its internal search engine so that if one enters terms such as “Monckton climate”, which would previously have returned inter alia a small number of YouTube videos by me on the climate question, does not return those videos at all. I have been unpersoned, just as my correspondent has been. I had no idea that this had been done.
At a certain Gothic legislative building on the banks of the Thames yesterday, I discussed this matter in the Committee Corridor with one or two of my Noble Friends, and suggested to them that HM Government should enact legislation requiring all market-dominant internet platforms openly to disclose their censorship regimes, and in particular to give any content creator on their platforms notice when his content is censored (whether visibly or invisibly), and to state the alleged reasons for the censorship, if any.
There would then be a right of appeal before an independent arbiter, and both parties would agree to abide by the arbiter’s decision.
If Google (which owns YouTube, and announced its intention to start censoring its platforms as soon as the electorate in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election had given the wrong result) failed to comply with the new provisions, it would be banned from operating at all in the United Kingdom and in all allied countries.
These proposed measures generally found favour with those of Their Lordships to whom I spoke, but it was felt that the present Conservative Government had not sufficiently understood the evolving problem of censorship.
The law of the United Kingdom recognizes only two principles of natural justice: Audiatur et altera pars (hear both sides) and nemo sit iudex in causa sua (let none be the judge in his own cause). The tech minnows currently flout both these principles. By not telling content creators why they are being censored (and now by not even telling them that they are being censored), they flout the first principle. By acting as judge, jury and executioner in relation to their own decisions rather than using an independent arbiter, they flout the second.
The two principles of natural justice are not recognized in totalitarian countries. The tech sprats, by riding roughshod over those principles, tellingly reveal the extent to which they are in thrall to the totalitarian regimes – such as Russia and China – who are the chief beneficiaries of the global-warming scam. Just look at the price charts for gas in Europe or for lithium carbonate for electric buggies worldwide.
Meanwhile, you may like to visit scc.klimarealistene.com, the website of the new peer-reviewed learned journal Science of Climate Change, whose first issue came out last year. Many of you will know of the climate realists of Norway, whose initiative the new journal is. Geir Hasnes and Stein Storlie Bergsmark, the two editors, have taken very great pains to ensure that the journal is of the highest quality.
They kindly invited me to write a thesis-length paper, What is science and what is not?, for the first issue – which is apparently selling out fast. On the strength of that paper, they asked me to write another paper which, like the first, was based on the application of Classical mathematical techniques to present-day theoretical and practical problems.
That paper has now been through the peer-review process and has been published online at the journal’s website. It is available free for all to read for the next few weeks, after which it will be paywalled.
The paper gives an account of the control-theoretic error that has led climatologists to imagine that unabated global warming will necessarily be large enough to be dangerous, when in fact that is merely one (and not a very likely one) of a range of possible outcomes. The paper shows that after correction of the error it becomes impossible to predict global warming accurately at all, since a mere 1% change in the feedback regime compared with 1850 would increase equilibrium doubled-CO2 sensitivity (ECS) by 250%.
If, as seems likely, the feedback regime today is exactly as it was in 1850 (the climate system being essentially thermostatic), then ECS will not much exceed 1.1 K.
There is also a discussion of the simple, probabilistic equation in epidemiology that allows combination of several pre-existing inexpensive, safe and plentiful medical treatments each of which has been shown to cause a statistically-insignificant reduction in ICU transfers and deaths from the Chinese virus.
In combination, these medications cause a reduction in risk of harm from the pathogen that is no less statistically significant than the risk reduction brought about by the vaccines themselves. Combine these treatments with the vaccines and the risk of harm becomes vanishingly small.
I ought to know, because I contracted the Chinese virus recently. It had no more effect than a bad cold, and I had no respiratory symptoms at all. I was in bed for a few days, and somewhat peely-wally for a few days after that, but am now find and walking several miles a day to get fit. I have had three vaccinations, and have for two years been taking four medications which, in combination, have proven more efficacious than the vaccines.
The Indian States of Goa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh implemented a similar protocol, by which, long before the vaccines became widely available, they distributed to everyone who reported Chinese-virus symptoms a two-week supply of four medications. The Communist-led World Death Organization tried to stop them, but they carried on regardless and more or less wiped out the adverse effects of the virus in their territories.
My latest paper also provides short but in my submission complete proofs of two of the longest-standing hitherto-unsolved problems in number theory – the Binary Goldbach Conjecture to the effect that every composite is the mean of two primes, and the Twin-Prime Conjecture that there exists an infinitude of pairs of primes {p, p + 2}. If you are like me in having number theory as one of your hobbies, you will enjoy this one, which uses the Sieve of Eratosthenes, the librarian of Alexandria until his death in 194 BC.
Read all about it at scc.klimarealistene.com,
“if one enters terms such as “Monckton climate”, which would previously have returned inter alia a small number of YouTube videos by me on the climate question, does not return those videos at all. I have been unpersoned…”
I entered that term and got a stack of videos. You have been repersoned!
I think you need to read this section again since you missed the critical distinction of the search:
bolding mine
=====
Yes, there are a lot of videos posted ABOUT Monckton but none of them are posted BY him, that is the critical difference you failed.
Well, I see a great deal of Lord M talkng, so he is hardly unpersoned. Radio interviews and the like. But I see a channel, “Climate of Freedom”, which seems to be BY him (with Naomi Seibt).
Nick, Your inability to differentiate and see the fundamental difference, between self produced videos that are no longer presented, and the allowed/acceptable videos that happen to have Monkton mentioned in them, speaks volumes.
I will leave it there.
OK, what are these videos that are no longer presented?
I pointed to the “Climate of Freedom” series, which Lord M produced, and is there. Any others?
Not a question for me, is it? You need to ask the author and producer of said, missing videos. I am sure Lord Monkton will advise should he feel the need to do so.
Yes, it is. You claim that there are “self produced videos that are no longer presented”, but have no idea what they may be.
because you cant get them?
Geez you are dumb
Nick is not dumb; just ideological Left.
I think he is more than that…his thread responses are quite odd.
His goal is to distract and obscure. He’s very effective at that.
But, Dave, doesn’t dumb define the ideological Left? In my experience, the two are synonymous.
Ignorant rather than dumb. Some of them are quite clever in how they manage to turn every conversation towards what they want to talk about.
Winston S. Churchill supposedly once observed that anyone who was not a liberal at 20 years of age had no heart, while anyone who was still a liberal at 40 had no head.
Yeah, I was also pretty stupid about social and economic issues during my college years. Then I had to go get a non-entry level job and started raising a family. As an aside, it is frightening that almost 50% of U.S. wage earners pay no Federal taxes but instead receive cash payments (welfare) from the IRS.
There is a difference between “dumb” and “ideological left”?
Who knew?
So the censorship has worked then, nobody knows thwy are there even when told they exist you can’t find them.
Which in your mind proves YouTube aren’t censoring,
Good Grief
It is no surprise that Mr Stokes dutifully toes the totalitarian Party Line by trying to maintain that YouTube is not using its internal search engine to prevent people from finding my YouTube channel or the climate videos therein. And, as the head posting makes clear, I am not the only person to whom this has been done. If Mr Stokes enters “Monckton channel” or “Monckton climate” into the YouTube search engine, he will not find either my channel or my climate videos. If he enters “Monckton Goldbach” into the YouTube search engine he will find my conjecture lecture explaining the proof mentioned in the head posting. From this, I infer that the Party Line on the Goldbach conjecture does not require that my video on it be banned, but the Party Line to which Mr Stokes has long been paid to defer requires that videos by me and by others like me must be furtively hidden.
I haven’t used the Google search engine in years. The push should be to get people off of it. I don’t log into any google product and I certainly don’t have an Echo (or Alexa) in my house. My Apple phone has no google apps. I know Apple/Verizon is tracking me but pick your poison.
His Lordship did say the internal youtube search and not external google.
Youtube is a google subsidiary!
Lord Monckton is correct. I admit that I am a YouTube user. I searched both terms listed by Lord Monckton and neither of those channels came up.
Yes, there were ‘other’ content creator channels that showed talks or discussions related to the topics that had him actually talking but none of the results brought up HIS actual channel. If Lord Monckton does indeed have a YouTube channel, it does not come up when doing a search on YouTube.
I live in Arizona, USA. So, not sure if that makes a difference or not. But as it stands, he is censored and viewers are being kept from seeing HIS specific content that HE uploaded to YouTube via HIS YouTube channel(s).
use Rumble instead.
Begging your Lordship’s pardon, but I entered “monckton christoper” at YouTube and the top return for my search was your channel. Perhaps there is an issue related to the origin of the IP address of the searching computer?
And, can you not tell how old the videos on that particular channel are?
I can reasonably assume that His Lordship would be keeping his own account current regarding content, don’t you think? I’d be happy to peruse something more current, if available.
“YouTube is not using its internal search engine to prevent people from finding my YouTube channel”
I searched for “lord monckton channel” and it was third on the list:
All Youtube asks for is a bit of respect for nobility.
I searched using different combinations with Monckton. On some searches, a somewhat recent video would appear but they had nothing to do with climate change. The most recent ones regarding CC, were 4 years old. Most of his videos YT showed me were 10 to 12 years old. On one search, YT finally showed me his channel. Going to it only yielded videos that were 4 yrs. old, or older.
Sorry, Nick, your gotcha moment is an Epic Fail. Give it up.
“Going to it only yielded videos that were 4 yrs. old, or older.”
Do you know that there should be more recent videos?
If you look at the comments to the most recent Musing (Episode 4) people are asking why have they stopped.
Even if one finds my channel, the videos on climate do not show.
“Even if one finds my channel, the videos on climate do not show.”
I see talks titled:
“The Fraudulent Science of Global Warming, Climate Communist Scientists and much more. . .”
“Monckton’s Maths discovers how they exaggerated Global Warming Predictions”
“Lord Monckton’s Presentation at the Heartland’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change”
This seems to be a constantly shrinking target:
“I have been unpersoned”
No, there are stacks of videos listed
But they are not by Lord M
What about the “Climate of Freedom” series?
But they aren’t showing my channel
Yes, here it is
But videos on climate do not show
Yes, they do
So what are we down to? What exactly is missing?
I just typed it into you tube and found none by himself. I scrolled for around 15 pages. If you search for an exact match it should come up early.
I found stacks of critical videos.
It’s like when you try to search wuwt and get desmog and all sorts of rubbish websites like skeptical science.
That whooshing sound is the sound of the point going right over your head. I guess that you are so used to it that you don’t hear it any more.
Unless the silencing is perfect, it didn’t happen.
Nick demonstrates how bias people can’t sperate simple concepts.
You are really slow these days since being unpersoned is Christopher Monckton himself all those listed videos we see are from OTHER people which means they are NOT FROM him.
You should stop moving the goalpost as it is now in the parking lot.
LOL
Yes, SST, I found the same thing.
I also entered that search term in Bing and clicked the “Video” tab, and got a ton of videos on you tube and elsewhere which feature CM of B, but as far as I can tell in a quick visual scan, are all posted by others.
I suspect it would be problematic for the censors to block all links to any video that has a certain name in the title of the video. After all, that would risk blocking videos critical of the intended, not just those they want to erase.
I am most grateful to Sunsettomy for correcting Mr Stokes, who seeks to conceal the extent and impact of furtive censorship in the form of shadow-banning.
You Welcome Sir.
I had the same experience Nick. 17 pages of video titles showed up on Google under the search tag of “Monckton climate”; about 3 of them on each page were Monckton lectures… somewhere around 50 in total.
Check the age of those videos. None are recent. If they are, they are of videos critical of Monckton, not videos done by him.
It’s Her, not her, Choice.
M’Lord, speaking as a ‘Merican’, a great many techno-chaps wouldn’t know natural justice from a hole in the ground. Their own cranial swelling is now all about their ‘saving the world’, whatever that saved world will actually turn out to be for its lock-step inhabitants. I’d lay it to too much rote programming at the expense of any familiarity with the ancient overview you’ve pointed out that would illuminate how they have been programmed, for of course as those oldest of texts detail, the darkness may yet lie a good deal deeper than their current ken foresees.
Morning Christopher,
Too early to say yet but the big Tonga volcano could trip us into another la niña next year. Could be an interesting time….
Tony C makes a good point. I have not yet seen a comparison between the volume of the aerosol ejecta from the Bunga-Bunga-Aloha eruption and the annual volume of anthropogenic particulates, but if the former constitutes a significant fraction of the latter some cooling is to be expected, though whether that cooling would manifest itself as an extension of the current double-dip La Nina is beyond my expertise.
Aerosol particulates (dust) are not that important but Sulphur Dioxide output is ! Which when contacts water converts to Sulphuric Acid in the upper atmosphere and S Acid is a potent sunlight scatterer but apparently the Tongan Volcano did not release as much SO2 as other volcanoes. A minimum of 5-10 million tonnes is required to make a difference in earths temperature .
Silly you. YOU forgot about the “Adjustment” factor. After adjustment, I just read we are still in the top 5 all time.
BTW, “adjusted” =FAKED!
There is something not quite right with UAH. It is very much the outlier when compared with the surface and tropospheric temperature alternatives.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/another-dot-on-the-graph/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/10/16/an-honest-appraisal-of-the-global-temperature-trend/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2021/10/18/an-honest-appraisal-of-the-global-temperature-trend-part-2/
Note also that the variation in troposphere satellite data is much bigger than for surface data. This is because they respond so much more dramatically to known fluctuation factors such as ENSO and volcanic eruptions.
Doesn’t fit the narrative? Cancel it.
Simon, your comments about UAH are not going to change my belief that Dr. Roy W. spencer is a real Scientist and will always try to present correct data.
I am most grateful to Mr Long for his kind comments about Dr Spencer, who, like his colleagues Dr Christy and Dr Braswell, are dedicated to drawing honest scientific conclusions. Dr Spencer, in particular, regards it as his moral duty to ensure that the truth emerges, as best it can be discerned from the data. He is an exemplar of the dictum of the late Fr. Vincent McNabb, OP, that “truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion”.
Ahh the Colluuuusion clown at it again. I see your Trudeau said Russia conspired with the truckers. Lots of colluuuusion everywhere.
You are a human 💩
[deleted this and two other comments. Off topic. I don’t care if they went off topic first~cr]
I have a falsifiable hypothesis: This comment will win the idiot award for this thread.
By “something not quite right” I assume you mean “doesn’t fit the globalist warming narrative”, so “must be wrong”.
“Simon” cites two notoriously partisan and unreliable websites peopled by known Communist agitators paid to promote the Party Line on the climate question. We stopped using the RSS dataset when Dr sMears, its keeper, acted as I had predicted he would act once the previous Pause became long enough to be an embarrassment to the Party, and rejigged the data, describing those who disagreed with the Party Line on the climate question as “climate deniers”.
And the fact that lower-troposphere and surface datasets show different degrees of variability does not invalidate the length of the Pause.
Finally, if it were my intention to make the Pause as long as I possibly could, I wouldn’t use UAH. Other datasets – HadCRUT, for instance, show a longer Pause, because the surface datasets, for obvious reasons, pick up el Nino and La Nina changes a few months before the tropospheric datasets such as UAH.
Surface station “data” aren’t. They’re fake.
There are three big problems with the surface data.
1) There aren’t enough stations in enough places to generate a reliable world wide average.
2) Most of the stations are too poorly maintained, and/or subject to growing UHI to produce reliable data.
3) The infilling process used to create the missing data is designed to maximize the temperature increase.
HadCRU’s Jones admitted to heating up SST “observations” because they weren’t keeping up with his adjusted warmer land station “data”.
I had to mark this down even though I usually don’t do this. You don’t even know that UAH doesn’t even claim to be equivalent to the “surface” data. It measures something entirely different than a thermometer at 6′ above the ground.
There is something not quite right with the non-UAH data. They are the outliers when compared with the UAH Lower Tropospheric temperature data.
UAH LT is the gold standard. Roy Spencer and John Christy are the best in their business.
Anyone who disagrees can meet me at the Coliseum in Rome for a discussion between men.
High noon local time 1May2022 – second tier North Side. No girly guns or knives.
If it’s still cold in Rome, instead make it the Coliseum in El Jem in the arena.
Ciao! 🙂
When compared with fake data, honest data always looks like an outlier.
UAH corresponds almost precisely with radiosonde data. What other tropospheric “temperature” alternatives are you talking about?
I shall await Simon’s answer to this question.
It doesn’t actually.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/
Are you foster grant, now?
Bogus!
The uah temperature record has the best match to balloon radiosonde data.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
We seem to have a redirection issue with your hypertext link. The text is correct, but the hypertext directs the browser to the Norsk language site beginning with the www. prefix. Manually replacing the text from ‘www.klimarealistene.com’ to ‘scc.klimarealistene.com’ in the navigation window directs me to the journal with mostly English language. This redirectlon may be an automated wordpress feature, single quote marks seem to help..
The English language version seems interesting. I will add it to my list.
Many thanks to dk_ for explaining how to work the link to scc.klimarealistene.com. If anyone would like to watch a conjecture lecture explaining the proof of the binary Goldbach conjecture, just go to YouTube and put in “Monckton Goldbach” as the search term.
I think this is the link to the article.
https://scc.klimarealistene.com/produkt/the-application-of-classical-simplicity-to-present-day-mathematical-problems/
Ha
Yes you can really trust the Parliamentary dictatorship – to screw us all
And it will
Wow! A single paper that proves the twin prime conjecture, the Goldbach Conjecture and disproves global warming. All in less than 15 pages and published in a journal that no-one has heard of. Am willing to bet that none of the supposed proofs are valid. The number theoretic proofs appear at best to be probabilistic arguments with huge holes where a real proof would need to be inserted.
Izaak,
We await your own disproof in fewer than 15 pages.
Clever dick!
Geoff S
Geoff,
The easiest observation is that going from Eq. 5 to Eq. 6 is not valid. Mr. Monckton appears to saying that
Floor[Floor[a]*b]=Floor[a*b]
and that can easily be disproved. For example
Floor[Floor[8.9]*0.9]=7
while
Floor[8.9*0.9]=8.
Thus going from Eq. 5 to Eq. 6 is not valid and the whole proof fails apart.
There is however a more fundamental flaw. Mr. Monckton assumes without proof
that the partitions are randomly distributed amount the odd integers. This then allows
he to say that “Estimated minimum survivors 𝐸𝑛 will be ⌊𝐸(𝑛+1)(𝑝(n) − 2)/𝑝(𝑛)⌋”. I am guessing he knows this since he uses the phase “estimated” rather than anything more rigorous. That claim has not been proven is the crux of the entire proof.
Mr “Walton” has failed to understand – or to take any account of – the proof that the expressions for the estimated minimum quantity E_1 of surviving Goldbach partitions in equations (5) and (6) are equal. The proof occupies just two lines of the text, and it is not – as Mr “Walton” imagines – a proof that any product of nested floor functions are equal to the open floor function on that product. It is a proof that the two expressions are equal for the specific product in question.
Secondly, Mr “Walton” imagines that partitions are randomly distributed among the odd integers. In fact, no such assumption is made, either explicitly or implicitly. The point of the proof is that the estimate of the minimum quantity of Goldbach partitions will necessarily exceed zero and will necessarily be no greater than the true quantity of Goldbach partitions.
We just need one more model for settled climate science 😉
And you thought Benghazi was started by an internet video…are smoking the same stash as Simon?
Mr “Walton” slavishly follows the climate-Communist Party Line that he is handsomely paid to follow. The proof of the Goldbach Conjecture occupies only two pages, and the proofs of the twin-prime and cousin-prime conjectures another two pages between them. Therefore, Mr “Walton” may care to obtain his paymasters’ permission to read these four pages and, if he finds any defects therein, enlighten us.
But he might like to consult a mathematician first. That mathematician would soon inform him that the proof (whether or not it be correct or complete, as I maintain it is) is a proof not in probabilistic but in deterministic combinatorics.
Then, perhaps, he may be able to point out all the alleged “holes” in the argument. The learned professors who were kind enough to examine the paper before publication found two apparent defects. One considered that it was not possible to assume that the set of nested floor functions whose product is the estimated minimum Goldbach partitions E_1 are equal to the single open floor function on the same product. He was satisfied when I proved that in just two lines of algebra. The other had misunderstood the argument and had produced a defective counterexample. Let us see if Mr “Walton” can do better than these eminent number theorists.
I’ll reserve judgement on the validity of your proves as it’s way beyond my pay grade. But if you really have proven two of the most famous open problems in maths, have you considered getting them published in a mathematical journal?
The paper is indeed accepted for publication in a mathematical journal: Science of Climate Change, vol. 1, no. 2, and is posted online at https://scc.klimarealistene.com. Google “Monckton Goldbach” and you will find a conjecture lecture by me explaining the proof.
Science of Climate Change announced itself in its first issue as a journal not only of climate science but also of mathematics and the philosophy of science: what in Scotland we call philosophia naturalis. It is a worthy home for the paper.
Could you explain
As far as I can see that’s the proof of the Goldbach Conjecture, but I don’t see any explanation for why that has to be true.
The paper explains that, in the product of the nested series of floor functions that constitutes the estimated minimum quantity E_1 of surviving Goldbach partitions, the presence of composite-denominated proper fractions that are absent from T_1, the product of the nested series of floor functions that is the true quantity of such partitions, ensures that T_1 cannot exceed E_1. It is a very simple proof.
That’s easy for you to say !
Thanks, I hadn’t realized that section was part of the proof.
But the fact it’s a simple proof is why I remain highly skeptical. Either the best minds of the last few centuries have failed to spot this simple solution, or you have made a mistake. Until people who understand this better have had a chance to examine the proof I’ll remain unconvinced.
There speaks the totalitarian. The furtively pseudonymous Bellman, unable to find an error in an argument that he admits is beyond him, says he will wait for the Party Line on the proof to be handed down to him by the Politburo rather than making up what passes for his own mind.
Well, that escalated quickly.
You call it totalitarianism, I call it skepticism. You call them the Politburo, I call them the experts.
I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but if you insist I make my own mind up, I’d have to plump for you being almost certainly wrong. There are dozens of self-proclaimed simple proofs of the Goldbach Conjecture, some similar to your method, but none have been accepted as correct.
The hapless “Bellman” says I insist that he makes up what passes for his own mind about the validity of the proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. No, I don’t. I merely point out that he expresses a negative opinion on it without any rational basis for doing so. That is all too typical of him.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
I suspect the error in the proof is your definition of
. It’s simply stated as an approximate equation with no attempt to proof it. It may be intuitively correct, but that’s the problem with the Goldbach Conjecture – we know it’s almost certainly true, but proofing it is a different problem.
Here’s the same argument being made just before the start of the pause
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/957024/goldbach-conjecture-whats-wrong-with-this-proof
“Bellman” has failed to understand the main point of the simple proof, which is that the minimum quantity of Goldbach partitions (which necessarily exceeds zero) may be derived exactly, and that the true quantity – whatever it be – must exceed the minimum quantity.
The argument at stackexchange to which he refers makes no reference at all to the estimated minimum quantity E_1 of Goldbach partitions on a given interval and is, therefore, irrelevant.
Correction: the true quantity of Goldbach partitions must be at least equal to the minimum quantity.
I understand the point you are making. I’m saying you haven’t given any proof that E_1 is a lower bound of T_1. Your proof doesn’t work unless you can proof that the approximate formula for T_1 is good enough to prove that T_1 could never be so far below it to be less than E_1.
Sorry to keep going on about this, but it’s been bugging me for the last couple of days, and I think I’ve finally realized what’s wrong.
Your equation for the true number of remaining prime pairs is essentially saying that at each iteration p_n you are removing 2/p_n pairs from the surviving pairs. But what’s actually happening is it’s removing 2/p_n from the original set of pairs.
In practice the result is likely to be the same assuming an even distribution, but you cannot assume that, and in a worst case all the removed pairs at a given iteration could come from the surviving pairs. So the lower bound for T_1 using just the sieve is not (floors removed for simplicity):
but
Of course, the true value will be much closer to your value but you can’t assume that without proof.
Nonsense. Just look at the worked examples in the tables. Bellman continues not to understand that the estimated quantity E_1 of surviving Goldbach partitions is derivable; that it must exceed zero; and that it must be no less than the true quantity of Goldbach partitions.
Oh dear, worked examples aren’t proof. You need to show that your argument will work for all even integers.
“…the estimated quantity E_1 of surviving Goldbach partitions is derivable; that it must exceed zero; and that it must be no less than the true quantity of Goldbach partitions.”
The final part of your argument doesn’t follow from the first two. Your proof has three elements: E_1 the estimate of the surviving partitions, T_1 the true number of surviving partitions and what I’ll call A_1 your approximate formula for T_1.
There’s no question that E_1 > 0.
There’s no question that A_1 >= E_1.
The problem is you have no proof that T_1 >= A_1, hence no proof that T_1 >= E_1.
All you have is a probabilistic argument that in all probability T_1 is going to be close to A_1, but it isn’t a rigorous mathematical proof.
You simply can’t assume that each iteration of the sieve will remove no more than 2/p_n of the surviving partitions. It will remove 2q/p_n because it’s removing every (p_n)th number from the original set of partitions, but you cannot guarantee that a large proportion of those removed will be from the surviving partitions, and hence that T_1 won’t be much lower than A_1, possibly zero.
But don’t take my word for it. Explain why I’m wrong, provide a proof that T_1 > 0, say bey establishing a limit on the error between T_1 and A_1 or that T_1 must be greater or equal to A_1. Make sure your proof is rigorous and have proper expert mathematicians check your work. You’ll be one of the most famous mathematicians in history and people might take the rest of your work more seriously.
Oh dear. Bellman seems unaware that the purpose of worked examples is not to provide proof but – for those with open minds, at any rate – to assist in the understanding of the proof.
He may care to meditate on the fact that the primes are relatively prime to one another. One of the consequences of that fact is that after each sifting stage, not just after the final such stage, the true quantity of surviving partitions (which, after all stages, are Goldbach partitions) is at least equal to the estimated minimum quantity. The worked examples show this clearly.
As for “the rest of my work”, it has been taken seriously enough to have been published in peer-reviewed papers a couple of dozen times. And, since I am not a Communist, I am unconcerned about whether people take my work seriously. I am, however, concerned about whether my conclusions are, objectively speaking, true.
The conclusions of our paper on the error of control theory perpetrated in climatology are demonstrably true. That fact is, of course, most inconvenient for those who, like Bellman, are paid to disrupt these threads and to promote climate Communism. But there it is. Global warming caused by us was, is and will remain too small to cause net harm, and nothing need be done to abate it. Indeed, since every region of the world shows many more deaths from cold weather than from warm weather, continued warming at the slow rate observed since the end of the Second World War will be net-beneficial.
“He may care to meditate on the fact that the primes are relatively prime to one another. One of the consequences of that fact is that after each sifting stage, not just after the final such stage, the true quantity of surviving partitions (which, after all stages, are Goldbach partitions) is at least equal to the estimated minimum quantity. The worked examples show this clearly.”
Then prove it. Again, a worked example is not proof.
Again, Bellman – no mathematician he – fails to understand that the purpose of a worked example is not to serve as a proof but to assist the genuinely interested reader in understanding the proof.
The proof that Bellman requests is in the published paper. Briefly, as he now accepts, it is possible to determine the estimated minimum quantity of partitions which survive after all sifting stages and are, therefore, Goldbach partitions, and, as he now accepts, that quantity is necessarily positive.
The true quantity, however, does not contain the composite-denominated proper fractions in the series that constitutes the product that is the estimated minimum quantity of Goldbach partitions. Therefore, that true quantity – whatever it be – cannot be less than the estimated quantity, which itself necessarily exceeds zero. And that is all that need be said.
Clever how you deduced I’m not a mathematician after I said I don’t consider myself to be one.
“The true quantity, however, does not contain the composite-denominated proper fractions in the series that constitutes the product that is the estimated minimum quantity of Goldbach partitions.”
Which as I pointed out is the problem. You have not proved this. You have a formula in (4) which your paper describes as an approximation for the true quantity. This approximation is equal to or greater than your estimate and hence greater than zero, but that does not mean the true quantity is necessarily greater than zero as your formula is only an approximation. To constitute a mathematical proof you have to show that the error in your approximation can never be greater than the difference between the approximation formula and E_1. It’s as simple as that.
It’s almost certainly true that T_1 is > 0 because it’s almost certainly true that the Goldbach Conjecture is true. But being probably correct doesn’t constitute a mathematical proof – and if it did the conjecture would have been proven ages ago.
Given that everyone who has worked on the conjecture over the centuries knew that primes are relatively prime to each other (duh), and know how sieves work, why would you assume that nobody else has managed to see this trivial “proof”? Do you think there were all missing something only you could see, or do you think it’s just possible they realized it couldn’t be proven like that?
bellman is a skilled propagandist.
Another valuable contribution to the argument from Master Monte.
So are you saying you believe Lord Monckton of Brenchley has proven the Goldbach Conjecture? Could you explain to me why T_1 must always be greater than E_1, given that Monckton only presents an approximate formula for T_1? Maybe you could explain it to Monckton so he can include that vital part of the proof in his next paper.
Bellman is a handsomely paid but unskilled propagandist, and a remarkably poor mathematician. If he is incapable of understanding, or unwilling to understand, that the primes are relatively prime to one another, and determined not to realize the implications, I cannot assist him further.
I’ve never described myself as a mathematician, it’s just a hobby, but if I was I’d certainly be a poor one in any sense of the word. Which is why I suggested that if you really thought you had solved one of the greatest mysteries in number theory, you should try to get it published in a respected mathematical journal and let the better mathematicians test your proof.
Bellman, ever the totalitarian, insists that I should publish my proof of the Goldbach conjecture in what he calls a “respected mathematical journal”.
Science of Climate Change (scc.klimarealistene.com) is a fine, though new, journal, whose editors, together with the professors who have seen the proof, have found no fault therewith. If the proof be true and sound and complete, those who are interested will find their way to it. If not, they will point out any defect.
That is the difference between the totalitarians (such as Bellman), and the libertarians. We who value the freedom to think and to do are not interested in whether people think we are wonderful (for otherwise I should not have endured the unpersoning that all who succeed in questioning the Party Line to which Bellman is paid slavishly to adhere must endure). Nor are we spellbound, as he is, by that or any Party Line. We think for ourselves, and we do not need any “repected” journal to tell us we or our works are wonderful. Instead, we are interested in what is true and right and good, however unfashionable the truth may often appear to be.
Yes, it’s so totalitarian of me to suggest you publish your work in a place people can see it. That’s exactly what Stalin would have done.
“If the proof be true and sound and complete, those who are interested will find their way to it.”
If it was true and complete wouldn’t it be better to lead mathematicians to it rather than hope someone will chance on some obscure contrarian Norwegian journal on climate science.
“Nor are we spellbound, as he is, by that or any Party Line. We think for ourselves, and we do not need any “repected” journal to tell us we or our works are wonderful.”
The thing is, in one sense, mathematics is totalitarian. For a theorem to be accepted it has to not only be correct, but to be proven to be correct. It’s not something you are free to believe in or not (at least not if you claim to be a mathematician).
Ad hominems aside I do like the idea that somewhere there’s a department of the International Communist Conspiracy paying me fast somes of money just to ensure that nobody finds out that the Goldbach Conjecture has been proven.
Bellman, who is indeed paid by a Communist front group to disrupt these threads, is desperately anxious to find fault with my proof, for otherwise, as he has already pointed out, credibility might be reflected upon my scientific research on global warming, and his paymasters would not like that one little bit.
But Bellman has not yet landed a blow. Perhaps he should consult the Politburo and ask it to invite one of its faithful mathematical drones to invent a proper argument against the proof – if any such argument exists.
“Bellman, who is indeed paid by a Communist front group to disrupt these threads…”
I know it goes against your usual practice, but are you ever going to provide the evidence you base these claims on? I presume you have a whole team of Stasi routing through my accounts to dig up all this dirt, so would you mind at least telling my which Communist front group are claiming to pay me, who much they do, and why does none of this money end up in my bank account? If you can’t provide that information I think any free thinker reading this can form their own opinion as to why you keep up with these deflections.
“…credibility might be reflected upon my scientific research on global warming, and his paymasters would not like that one little bit.”
Yet elsewhere, you insist that you don;t want to publish this proof in a serious journal but would prefer it if people just find it for themselves.
“But Bellman has not yet landed a blow.”
I’ve pointed to the lack of an actual proof in your paper, and pointed out which specific part you need to prove. For someone who doesn’t find that a problem, you’ve spent a lot of time trying to discredit me.
Don’t whine. Instead, study how floor functions work, recall that primes are mutually prime, study the worked examples and think.
Whine? I’m loving how far you are prepared to go to make a fool of yourself.
Don’t whine. Think.
Do your own homework. If you could think up a proof you would have published it. And, if I could think of a way of proving your hand-waving, I’d publish it under my own name.
But the more I look into it, it seems obvious that not only do you not have a proof, you couldn’t have one using a simple sieve. The totalitarian nature of mathematics doesn’t allow it.
Not to mention saving lives from COVID-19.
There are indeed many meta-analyses demonstrating the efficacy – individually and still more in combination – of safe, cheap, widely-available, pre-existing medications which, while they may not individually reduce the risk of severe outcomes to a statistically-significant degree, are capable of doing so if taken in combination. The States of Goa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh in India, a nation of mathematicians, adopted such a protocol despite the worst efforts of the destructive, Communist-led World Death Organization to stop them, and greatly reduced severe outcomes long before the vaccines were available. The paper explains the simple probabilistic equation that establishes why such protocols work, and provides an instance of such a protocol by kind permission of an eminent Professor in the United States who had implemented the protocol and had testified before his State Senate that it had worked. Passing on such good news is one way of helping to reduce the harms done by the Chinese Virus, and Bellman (were he not paid to disrupt these threads by a climate-Communist front group) would not sneer about it.
Yes, real world experience in real time was providing indisputable evidence from many qualified, experienced medical practitioner sources worldwide (> 20 groups) that the readily available, cheap, approved, POST PATENT medicines being applied to early detected COVID were proving highly efficacious.
Meanwhile, Fauci, Collins, Gates et al were faffing about with experimental “vaccines” that cost $billions, took over a year, and ultimately proved inadequate expressly by the objectives put forth by the NIH – WHO – Gates cabal.
How did this disappointing situation come about?
As “Deep Throat” advised – “follow the money”
Not sure that Goa is currently the best example of a state that has reduced
the risk of COVID. Currently it is in the top ten of worst effected states in India with a test positivity rate of 45% and about 1 in 55 people are sick.
See:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/at-45-n-goa-ranks-10th-on-all-india-district-vity-list/articleshow/89026624.cms
“were he not paid to disrupt these threads by a climate-Communist front group”
Do you really think anyone here is daft enough to believe this?
Believed it long before Lord Monckton wrote it.
You provide the evidence every time you visit.
OK, that’s one. I should have asked if he thinks most people here are daft enough to believe it.
The Izaac Clown Show will be here all week folks, step right up and get your tickets early!
And once again, Izaak demonstrates that he prefers politics over science. That is, his imagined consensus is always right.
I’ll take the “journal that no one has heard of” over, say, any of the Nature publications. Less likely that nine out of ten “papers” should be marked “paid advertisement.”
FYI Using only “Monckton” as search criteria, the Odysee platform returns several videos by or about you. Youtube returns many videos about Moncton, New Brunswick – possibly more videos than there are residents.
The issue with YouTube seems to be, for me, in the auto-fill search text box, and not in the returned videos. Multiple attempts to enter identical text often auto-selected before my typing was complete. Cut-and-paste+enter always yeilded a consisten result. None of the YouTube searches came back with anything recent or positive, while other platforms returned more recent and more positively oriented videos. Neat, if deliberate, since Gluggle could legitimately claim that their search algorithm isn’t censoring — they’ve removed recent and positive videos and used the input tool to pre-select the same skewed result.
And what of the RSS data?
you can’t present this UAH data in isolation and claim it and only it shows what’s happening.
And what does the surface temperature data show?
There isn’t a pause, is there?
UAH shows temperature data while the others contain tamperature data favoring the Warmunist mantra, which of course you would like.
For any newcomers, in this specific context the “pauses” referred to are defined as :
“The longest period with a trend of (just) less than zero, with the latest value as the fixed end-point”
As shown below, when using this definition all surface and satellite datasets show a “pause”, with start-points ranging from March 2014 (HadCRUT4) to April 2015 (Copernicus / the ERA5 reanalysis).
Yes, a 7-year trend doesn’t count as “climate”.
Also yes, investigating this particular phenomenon counts as an “interesting” intellectual exercise.
NB : With my computer setup, the “Add image (from a local hard disk)” button only allows one image file to be added per post here.
When looking at what would be required for the “new” UAH pause to be extended, and lowered, enough to “merge” with the original (1997 to 2015) pause, wishing it would occur within 4 years (by the end of 2025, just as an example) is unrealistic.
That would require an average anomaly value of -0.2 (°C) to be sustained throughout the next 47 months.
Looking at what would be required for the proposed “merge” to occur by the end of 2030, however, you end up with an average value of “only” -0.05 or so over a period of nine years instead … Hmmmmmmmmm, the (solid) orange line doesn’t look that “impossible” for a future UAH trajectory, does it ?
I think you would need a couple of very significant volcanic eruptions to extend the pause to 2030. The current +0.8 W/m2 [1] energy imbalance can only get buffered so much by the ocean, land, and cryosphere before the atmosphere is forced to warm as well.
Ouija board time again, bzx?
Teacup using heavily masticated tea leaves.
Maybe … and maybe not.
Since the large 2015/6 El Nino UAH appears to be “strangely attracted” to the orange and teal (light blue) lines even without any “significant” (Pinatubo levels of stratospheric aerosols) volcanic eruptions.
Again, we don’t have enough actual data right now (February 2022) to say for sure, but it’s definitely worth keeping an eye on how the situation evolves … especially if it actually manages to break below the purple line in a “significant” way for an extended period ….
I think it will break below the purple line. But, it’ll likely only be temporary as the La Nina will surely wane.
Yawn. It’s ALL temporary dude. That includes the current scare.
I think so too, but it is worth noting that it still hasn’t actually done so … yet !
Since (April) 2015 there have been only 4 negative UAH anomaly values :
September 2018 : -0.033
March 2021 : -0.005
April 2021 : -0.049 [ Close to “less than -0.05″, but no cigar ! ]
June 2021 : -0.008
Actually getting a “break below the purple line” would be an indication that UAH is generally “trending lower”, even without those “very significant volcanic eruptions” you mentioned.
Note that the rebounds from 9/2018 and 4/2021 look like active “scalded cat jumps” from the purple line to me.
It will only get really “interesting” if we have a future passive “dead cat bounce” that then breaks decisively (precise level TBD) below the -0.05 “threshold” …
– – – – –
That’s why I carefully included the phrase “for an extended period” in one of my posts above.
To get an average anomaly value of -0.05 you need an “extended period” (precise definition TBD) where half of the values are above my -0.05 “threshold” … and (roughly) half of them are below it.
Even one print “below the purple line” would count as being “interesting” (using my particular vocabulary), but it’s only when we can look back and see an “extended period” of values below -0.05 that it’ll really make more people (including myself) take the issue as anything other than an intellectual curiosity.
NB : As the old saying goes, “Time that you enjoy wasting is not wasted time”.
This graphing exercise is all fun and games, but as long as the UAH6 trend (now about 0.14 C/decade) remains below 0.2 C/decade the whole “existential climate crisis” remains a joke. The fact that the current UAH6 record occurred during an upswing of the approximately 70-year climate cycle should tell everybody that there is nothing to worry about.
I would have used “mostly” or “mainly” or “principally” rather than “all”, but basically I agree with the sentiment (and the rest of your comment).
Mark BLR,
Unrealistic, impossible???
The same probabilities that are now shown by recent RISES are relevant for future FALLS. The rate of change going up has every reason to be the same as going down, in physical terms like thermal inertia.
You have to move from statistics to physical mechanisms. That is what leads to rises and falls.
I know of no mechanism that prevents a steep fall from commencing today, but would be pleased to be educated otherwise by hard, accurate data. Geoff S
You mean in the same way that “stomach ulcers can be caused by bacteria” was considered by “the medical experts” in the early 1980s to be “impossible” ?
That’s at least one supposition, and more likely several suppositions, on your part.
NB : I don’t think that statement rises to the full “argument from authority” level, but it’s definitely a step in that direction.
No I don’t.
I may well be wrong not to do so, but I don’t “have to”.
Read any “popular science” level article about the history of the conversion from the “continental drift” conjecture to the “plate tectonics” paradigm.
Even today the “convection in the mantle” explanation of the “mechanism” that pushes plates of ocean floor up to 5000km wide and only 5km thick around the surface of the Earth without them “ripping apart” is at least partially a “hand waving” argument rather than a “fully understood from fundamental physics / basic principals” one.
Griff, who is handsomely paid to regurgitate the Party Line, asks about the RSS data. If he will take the trouble to go to the RSS website, he will find an introduction to the data by Dr sMears, its keeper, who refers to those of us who question the Party Line on the climate question as “climate deniers”.
As if that were not enough to cast grave doubt on the integrity both of Dr sMears and of his dataset, when Ted Cruz displayed our graph of RSS data showing the previous Pause as having endured for 18 years 9 months, I forecast that Dr sMears would soon find a way to alter the data so as to shorten the Pause. He not only altered it the very next month, but did so in such a way that it now falsely shows far more warming than has occurred.
There is a pause, isn’t there? It’s actually even longer on the HadCRUT4 dataset than on the UAH dataset.
And the pause will continue in accordance with a distributed lag from multi solar cycle trends.
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1976%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
If someone is paying griffter they’re not getting their money’s worth. Griffter very nicely plays the role of Simplicio in Galileo’s treatise on the Tides. Griffter, like Simplicio, makes idiotic claims that get soundly refuted by reasonable people who use actual data, rational logic, and reproducible analyses.
NOAA has not yet put its thumb heavily enough on land station and floating sea observations fully to hide the decline since February 2016.
Earth has been cooling for six years now, with more in the offing. Yet CO2 has relentlessly increased, despite the pandemic-induced collapse in economic activity.
Soon we will go from a pause to an actual decline on the graph. There are cold records falling all over the northern hemisphere including record snows. The cold water from the surface to 200m deep from 80W to 150W in the tropical Pacific is still firmly in place as confirmed by the Oz BOM.
When the warming finally returns to the Northern Hemisphere, it is going to take a while just to melt the ice and warm the frozen ground. Let’s see how the SH does during their winter. Last years was a colder one.
I had to mark this down even though I usually don’t do this. You don’t even know that UAH doesn’t even claim to be equivalent to the “surface” data. It measures something entirely different than a thermometer at 6′ above the ground.
The problems with RSS and surface data have been explained to you many times.
Pauses, pauses, pauses Griff. There is the 18+ year pause that every dataset showed to be statistically significantly existent compared to CliSciFi model outputs. Even the CliSciFi modelers admitted a pause of 15 to 17 years would falsify their models. The current 7+ year post-Super El Nino double-dip pause is a fun talking point to use when discussing CO2 forcing with climunists.
I can confirm that there is a pause. CMoB calculation is correct. Over the last 87 months the UAH TLT trend is <= 0.00 C/decade.
BTW if you search on ‘climate videos by Monckton’ you immediately get a video of Lord M, on youtube, pop up – numerous links.
(do I get a commission?)
“do I get a commission?”
Check with your handler
Griff continues to trot out the Party LIne. If you go to YouTube and search for “Monckton channel” or “Monckton climate”, none of my climate-change videos on my channel appears in the listing. They used to appear. Now, however, the YouTube algorithm has been reprogrammed so that searching for “Monckton channel” or “Monckton climate” will not produce any climate videos by me on my channel. The same thing happened to a correspondent of mine, who drew this new and furtive species of climate-Communist censorship to my attention.
Shadow banning is insidious and sick.
I entered “Monckton channel” in the Duck Duck go search engine and got a link to his youtube channel right after “Recent New” and “Videos”. I cannot abide the censorship and data mining used by Google.
How about a good swift kick instead?
You get first prize for being the best at total lack of comprehension. Second prize is Nick although I suspect he does it on purpose.
Christopher,
Your last visit to Australia was in 2010 IIRC. We would welcome another visit, though the weather has not changed systematically since then in any way that people can sense.
A no-frills Bing search of “Monckton climate” on my Microsoft PC returned practically nothing written by you, but did strangely include a reference to “Temperature” with discussion of human body temperature.
Geoff S
It would give me great pleasure to visit Australia again for a speaking tour. My brother and his three strapping lads dive off the Great Barrier Reef every year and, like Jennifer Mahorasey, they say it has never been in better condition. The predictions of permanent drought by climate Communists such as the dreadful Tim Flannelly have been proven spectacularly wrong in Australia. In time, people are going to notice that the dire predictions of the climate Communists are simply not coming to pass, and eventually someone will tell the Government.
But will the Government listen?
Would you debate Graham Readfearn again?
I’d definitely debate Redfearn again, but he won’t debate me. He lost heavily last time, and was very sour about it.
Once in a lifetime event ’cause of global warming:
Sea Freezes In Greece In “Once In A Lifetime Phenomenon”
In what local media outlets are labeling a “once in a lifetime phenomenon”, sea ice, usually found in more northern and polar oceans, has formed off the coast of Greece as the country continues to be ravaged by record snow and sub-zero cold.
Arctic Sea Ice being on something of a tear this year –currently standing at an 15+ year high— is one thing, but the ocean freezing-up in Greece demands a whole new level of denial from AGW proponents.
Wow!.. that must’ve been a whole lot of globular warmening to make the Med freeze!
The link is useful. Pictures of significant snow around palm trees is eerie.
Sad to see that Greece is generally not prepared for such weather and that it is suffering significant economic hardship.
Perhaps Al Gore is on the job.
Hello Lord M,
RE UAH LT global temperature, now +0.03C for January 2022. More very-scary “global warming”. Be very afraid – shut down coal and nuclear power generation, demonize CO2, burn wood at Drax, rely on intermittent wind-and-solar power generation often providing less than 10% of nameplate capacity – the green-energy policies of scoundrels and imbeciles, the geniuses at Number 10, Berlin, Brussels and the WEF. I expect colder weather still in February, depending locally on the vagaries of the Polar Vortex.
We published starting in 2002 that the world would cool naturally circa 2020 and green-energy would be a costly debacle, both now correct. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives were wasted worldwide by Climate and Green Energy fraud.
Re your recent “relatively mild” Covid-19 illness – sounds like the Omicron variant – correct?
My physician friend, twice-Pfizer-vaxxed, caught Omicron recently and was quite sick. The Covid “vaccines” often make it worse by harming immune systems. Fortunately, he had some (human) Ivermectin and immediately started taking 12mg/day for five days. He felt better on Day 2 and on Day 6 he skied at Whistler. Total cost was Canadian$1 for 10 x 6mg pills – cheap and effective. I know of two similar cases – noticeable improvement within one day of starting Ivermectin and a full cure by end of Day 5 – with only some residual tiredness, a few days of longer sleeps thereafter, and done. Typical of worldwide experience, yet Ivermectin remains banned in many countries, including Canada.
Compare Ivermectin to the Covid-19 “vaccines’ that are now proved expensive, ineffective and highly dangerous. Covid-virus-caused deaths continue in small numbers, primarily in the very-elderly and infirm (average age ~82), but Covid-“vaccine”-caused deaths are soaring in workforce ages 18-64 – up ~40% from the baseline. A 10% increase in workforce deaths is “3-sigma” and actual experience in the USA is up 40% – a huge deadly deviation caused by the toxic “vaccines’ – Schlachthof 6.
Millions have now experienced quick, effective cures with Ivermectin & Zinc (plus Vitamin D & C & Melatonin etc).. Millions have died or will die or be injured-for-life by these toxic “vaccines’. The solution is obvious and I published it for our governments here in Canada 13 months ago, on 8Jan2021..Every Covid-19 death since then can be categorized as negligent homicide, or murder.
It is obvious that the banning of highly-effective Ivermectin here in Canada and elsewhere was a scam to peddle expensive, ineffective Covid-19 “vaccines” and line the pockets of our corrupt politicians and health authorities. A prosecution is proceeding to the International Criminal Court from the UK, led by my new friend lawyer Hannah Rose.- I expect she will get more senior legal help. She tells me a similar case is being lodged from Canada. I’ve urged her to take extra care of her personal safety – this is a very big, very dark business. Trillions of dollars and millions of lives have been wasted by Covid vaccine fraud and the needless, costly lockdowns.
From the beginning, Covid-19 was a fraud. Willis E and I independently published on 21March2020 that the Covid lockdowns were wrong. Willis correctly predicted that the costs of the lockdowns would exceed the benefits. I correctly stated that all we needed to do was to over-protect the elderly and infirm – six months later world experts published the Great Barrington Declaration – essentially the same. For me, the only difficult part of these conclusions was finding uncorrupted Covid data – Covid data has been systematically corrupted since Day 1, especially in the USA, consistent with the covert outsourcing of the Fauci-sponsored function-gain research from the USA to Wuhan and the fraudulent “animal-wet-market” attempted coverup of the virus source at the Wuhan lab.
I remain unvaxxed, whereas you, Willis and my physician friend took the jabs. I spotted the scam early – the same people were behind the Climate scam and the Covid scam, they used the same Lenin-Goebbels propaganda tactics, and were connected with the WEF and cronies. Our challenges now are to bring these criminals to justice, and develop treatments to detox the Covid-vaccinated
Regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
You climate denier 😉
… and a Covid-19 lockdown denier and a Covid-19 “vaccine” denier.
Please hold your applause ’til the end.. Thank you! Thank you! 🙂
SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE – THE ABILITY TO CORRECTLY PREDICT October 20, 2021. Update November 8, 2021, Update January 14, 2022
https://correctpredictions.ca/
CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19, AND THE GREAT RESET – A Climate, Energy and Covid Primer for Politicians and Media March 21, 2021, Update 1e May 8, 2021
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/climate-change-covid-19-and-the-great-reset-update-1e-readonly.docx
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE January 10, 2020
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/the-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-warming-cagw-and-the-humanmade-climate-change-crises-are-proved-false.pdf
Lots of “sudden collapse” happening to football/soccer athletes:
Greek footballer aged just 21 DIES after suffering a cardiac arrest on the pitch at a stadium where there was NO defibrillator and the ambulance took 20 minutes to arrive:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10471803/Footballer-suffers-cardiac-arrest-pitch-dies-stadium-no-defibrillator.html
Thank you Monte for your important post. Sudden deaths, typically by heart attack, are hammering our youth, up 400% from the norm. Similarly, all-cause deaths in the workforce in USA are up 400% from background levels. These deaths are definitely being caused by side effects of the vaccines, the most serious of which are heart attacks and strokes. In addition, the immune system of those who receive the vaccines are compromised and over time this is leading to an increase in deaths from all other causes, especially the resurgence of cancers in remission and other illnesses that were thought to be cured. I have estimated that approximately one person in 500 who receives the COVID-19 vaccines dies within 14 days of their first injection. David Archibald, who has posted on this site in the past, estimates from UK data that one person in 60 will die within the first year of being injected. I hope he is wrong but his analysis looks robust to me. So, with respect, I must disagree with Lord Monckton in that I believe the Limited protection provided by the COVID-19 injections is far outweighed by the consequent deaths and lifelong injuries caused directly by the vaccines, especially the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna.
I was able to source human ivermectin from India and have made it available to three people to dare to heal a severe case of Omicron and they were all fully cured after five days with no side effects whatsoever.
For those who cannot access ivermectin, I recommend quercetin (also a zinc ionophore) plus a small quantity of zinc that is typically contained in a daily multivitamin, 15 mg or less. I take that as a preventative daily, available online from Walmart for about $20 a bottle or twice third at health food stores.
Apologies for typos in this post, which I dictated. I have devoted myself for the last year too discouraging the injection of children with these toxic vaccines, regretfully with limited success. Do not inject your kids!
I never thought it would be this difficult to prevent people from killing and harming their children. Best regards, Allan
Thank you, Allan. We have been using quercetin for over 3 months now, plus D, C, and zinc.
typos corrected:
“I was able to source human Ivermectin from India and have made it available to three people to DATE..”
“available online from Walmart for about C$20 a bottle or twice THAT at health food stores.”
“I have devoted myself for the last year TO discouraging the injection of children with these toxic vaccines, regretfully with limited success.”
This is nonsense. Consider the claim that
“David Archibald, who has posted on this site in the past, estimates from UK data that one person in 60 will die within the first year of being injected.”
In the UK vaccinations started roughly a year ago and a sizeable majority of the population is vaccinated. Are we really to expect that 2% of the UK population will die in 2022? in 2019 roughly 500000 people in the UK died. If we add to that 1/60th of the population that would increase it to roughly 1.5 million. Covid itself only killed about 100k people in the UK in 2020 so Allan is asking us to believe that the vaccine is 10 times more deadly than the virus.
Typical false extrapolation from Isaak – “If one element might be false, it’s all false.” Scammer. Go vaxx yourself Isaak. Mucho boosters.
I believe David Archibald has posted here before – I looked at his analysis and it seemed logical – I did not review all data. I did publish previously that I hoped he was wrong.
I’m confident everything I wrote is correct, with this possible exception.
Furthermore, everything our governments have said and done to “defeat Covid-19” has caused more harm than good, and has proved wrong, suspect, and corrupted.
There is a powerful logic that says no person or group could be this wrong for this long – they knew Covid-19 was a scam from the start…. … just like alleged catastrophic global warming – “Wolves stampeding the sheep for political and financial gain.”
I strongly recommend those boosters Isaak – just for you. Join the Frequent Pfizer Club – after 8 shots you get a free toaster.
MEDIA DEPLOYS FULL BLACKOUT AFTER SENATOR’S FORUM EXPOSES REPORTS OF HORRENDOUS VACCINE SIDE EFFECTS
by Jack Davis January 26, 2022
https://www.westernjournal.com/media-deploys-full-blackout-senators-forum-exposes-reports-horrendous-vaccine-side-effects/
During the hearing, attorney Tom Renz, who represents clients who say they have been harmed by the vaccine, offered what he said was information given to him by whistleblowers, whose names were given as Army Lt. Col. Dr. Theresa Long, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff, and Lt. Col. Peter Chambers, currently of the Texas National Guard.
“All three have given me this data. I have declarations from all three that stated … this is under penalty of perjury,” Renz said. “We intend to submit this to the courts.
“We have substantial data showing that we saw, for example, miscarriages increase by 300 percent over the five-year average, almost. We saw almost 300 percent increase in cancer over the five-year average,” he said, saying that the impact of the coronavirus vaccine on cancer is barely being looked at.
“We saw – this one’s amazing – neurological, so, neurological issues, which would affect our pilots, over a thousand percent increase,” Renz said.
Renz said cases increased from 82,000 per year to 863,000.
“Our soldiers are being experimented on, injured and sometimes possibly killed,” he said, about he 2:23 mark of the video
He said on Sept. 28, a Department of Defense report said 71 percent of new cases and 60 percent of hospitalizations were among those who had been vaccinated, noting that this was at the same time unvaccinated Americans were largely being blamed for the spread of the coronavirus.
“This is corruption at the highest level,” he said. “We need investigations. The secretary of defense needs [to be] investigated. The CDC needs [to be] investigated. And thank you so much, Senator, for having the courage to stand against these special interests.”
This is Sen. Ron Johnson’s official announcement of the virus forum:
https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/1/video-release-sen-ron-johnson-covid-19-a-second-opinion-panel-garners-over-800-000-views-in-24-hours
Here is the full five hours of video:
And the full roundtable:
https://rumble.com/vt62y6-covid-19-a-second-opinion.html
No, he is wondering if it, the gene therapy shot, really works. It certainly doesn’t work for all People. Why?
Thank you Derg. I called the Covid-19 “vaccines” dangerous-and-ineffective 13 months ago, in an open letter to our Alberta and Canadian governments sent 8Jan2021. I only write such strong conclusions when I am certain. In this instance, I rejected the propaganda of the NIH, CDC, WHO and their corrupted minions and relied on the top physicians and medical researchers on the planet. My distrust of the government health authorities had been aroused by their misbehavior in early 2020.
Almost two years ago, I correctly published that the Covid-19 lockdowns were wrong, on 21Mar2020, six months before world experts published their essentially-identical Great Barrington Declaration. To his credit, Willis E independently on the same day wrote against the lockdowns and correctly stated that they would do much more harm than good – also correct.
So here is the question: “How do two men who are not medical professionals make major correct written assessments that contradicted the top government minions in the world on such an important subject?”
If anyone claims similar early and accurate predictions, let’s hear them, in published quotations complete with links. [If they only said it in the bar over beers, unpublished, that does not count.]
Mr MacRae is right that various inexpensive, safe, widely-available medications, particularly where taken in combination, have proven as efficacious as the vaccines against the Chinese virus. Of course, taking the medications together with the vaccine is the best way to reduce the risk of harm to almost nothing. I had had three doses of vaccine and had been taking four medications. I would have taken Ivermectin as well, but my doctor forbade it: he did not realize that a substantial body of peer-reviewed papers attests to its efficacy, whether alone or in combination with other treatments and with the vaccine. Anyway, here I still am!
Did you get a vaccine or a gene therapy shot?
First two doses were Astra-Zeneca; third dose was Pfizer-Biontech.
You will need a 4th and then a 5th and then a 6th…good luck sir.
No, I won’t need any further shots. The progression of all initially fatal pandemics is well understood. The pathogen will tend to mutate towards greater transmissibility but lesser harm to its host. That stage has already been reached with COVID-19, and, in due course, governments will realize that the less harmful variants that now dominate (and will continue to do so because they are more transmissible) will not cause grave illness or death provided that everyone takes 5000 IU vitamin D3 and small doses of anticoagulant, corticosteriod and antiparasitic daily. Vitamin C is best obtained from red meat, fruit and vegetables.
You can buy veterinary Ivermectin at feed and seed stores in the US. My brother accidentally ODed on it by a factor of 25x while deworming himself from Bolivia, with no ill effects.
The livestock formulations are an apple-flavored paste for horses and injectable for cattle. Just adjust the dose down to your weight. The single dose for a 1250# horse means ten for 125# human or five for a 250#er.
Squirt the injectable into water, juice, green tea or whisky. Green tea is said to be an ionophore for zinc, but I can’t verify that. HCQ would be better, but again, you need a prescription.
In any case, vitamins D and C.
Quercetin is also a zinc ionophore and is available over-the-counter in the US; an extract of apple peels.
A form of HCQ is in every drink of Gin and Tonic, after all quinine is what gives Indian Tonic Water its kick.
You’re right, but quinine doesn’t have the ionophoric affect.
Whether pronounced kweye’nine or kwi-neen’.
Not enough though – you’d need to drink over 9l of Indian Tonic Water per day to get even the lowest recommended dose.
I counsel strongly against taking veterinary Ivermectin. One should not even take the version designed for humans except on medical advice.
Ivermectin is safer than HCQ.Even its veterinary formulations are well tolerated. Those friends of mine who took it early survived COVID as if it were a cold or at worst three day flu. The one who didn’t, died. But he was fat.
The only drawback to some animal preparations is that they contain PEG, which can be toxic. But so do the mRNA vaccines. Dunno about the vector vax.
Here in Canada doctors who prescribe ivermectin are de-certified by their colleges, which have become corrupted.
The reason ivermectin has effectively been banned in Canada is to enable the drug-pushing of expensive and ineffective COVID-19 vaccines. This drug-pushing scam has made fortunes for big Pharma, corrupt politicians and health administrators.
I discovered circa December 2020 that there was no increase in total deaths in Alberta and in Canada to July 1, 2020. No death bump means no real pandemic, full stop! Scamdemic, yes! Casedemic, yes! Pandemic, no!
The average age of deaths in Alberta attributed to COVID-19 was 82 and that was true until the commencement of the toxic vaccinations. That number has now declined to about 78 as more and more young people die from the vaccines.
I also discovered circa December 2020 that per capita deaths attributed to Covid in Alberta were approximately 1/10 those of the USA. A more recent detailed analysis concluded that actual deaths attributed to Covid in the USA were 1/16 of those reported, which were actually deaths with a positive Covid test, but not deaths caused by Covid.
This analysis has been relatively easy, but made much more difficult by deliberately corrupted data, which is especially bad in the USA. In both Canada and the USA, the PCR tests have been run at a concentration factor of about 45, which gives an enormous bias towards false positives. In both Canada and the USA, people are deemed unvaxxed until two weeks after their second job, which means that all those that die in the first six weeks or so from the injections are classified as unvaxxed. As mentioned above, deaths attributed to Covid in the USA have been exaggerated by more than tenfold.
The alleged COVID-19 pandemic has been a huge scam from day one.
This message is dictated, so there may be typos.
Best regards, Allan MacRae
Hospitals in the US were/are being paid by the federal government to report as many virus deaths as possible. A person taken to the ER with lead poisoning (i.e. a gunshot) was given the PCR test (regardless of symptoms); if they subsequently died, this was reported as a “covid death”.
Correct.
Outpatient treatments had to be suppressed because Emergency Use Authorization can’t be granted if effective treatments are available. Pfizer and its captive FDA, NIH and CDC were OK with suffering and death as long as pharmas and the agencies, via patents and trials, made money.
Off label use of offpatent meds known to be safe after billions of human doses, and showed effective in multiple clinical studies, threatened profits.
Correct.
There is no need for emergency-use authorization of pre-existing medications that are long out of patent and long known to be safe in humans. It is only new preparations – such as the vaccines – that, in emergencies such as that which the Chinese virus precipitated, require emergency-use authorization. Pre-existing medications may be freely used for off-label treatment provided that they have been prescribed by a competent doctor to his patient in accordance with the magistral formula.
By the magistral formula, which dates back to Hippocrates and is even enshrined in the law of the otherwise useless European tyranny-by-clerk, any duly-qualified doctor may prescribe any treatment to any patient provided that that doctor, having examined the patient, has determined that in his professional opinion the patient would come to more good than harm by the treatment.
The problem is not so much the medical colleges – for they can be shown the numerous studies demonstrating the efficacy of antiparasitics against the Chinese Communist virus. It lies with the medical negligence insurers, who withdraw cover automatically from any doctor who, in the exercise of his magistral-formula rights, prescribes any treatment for a patient that is not regarded favourably by the government/medical/industrial complex. I am hoping that a Bill to outlaw such unlawful interference with the magistral formula by medical-negligence insurance corporations will be introduced shortly.
At 73 years of age, I’ve had the WuFlu (from the ChiCom virus) four times, twice after the two jabs. From the third bout in October 2021 and, especially from this last one from mid-December, I’ve had some significant lingering aftereffects: Dizziness, tiredness, chest congestion & etc.
Like the common cold, the ChiCom virus and its variants will be with us forever. Living in fear is not a rational response.
Most adult colds are caused by four coronaviruses, two of which are in the same genus as the WuWHOFlu virus.
Now we have a fifth endemic CoV.
Mr Fair may like to ask his doctor about taking cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) at a dose of 5000 international units daily. That has been shown efficacious against all respiratory pathogens, including the Chinese virus. See eg Borsche et al. (2021), a beautifully clear paper.
My doctor prescribed 2000 IU of D3 (continuing) during my first bout of WuFlu. I double-up the dose when I think I’ve fallen under the influence of the ChiCom virus. I also get extra D3 from my Calcium supplement.
Mr Fair may like to consult his doctor about taking at least 5000 international units of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) daily. That is 12 times the UK NHS’ pathetically inadequate recommended daily dose. After a few days, the lassitude and airway constriction will pass.
Mr [sic] Fair has consulted [with] his doctor and, in addition to over 2200 IU of D3 supplementation daily, gets plenty of sunshine (he lives in a desert) and his good diet provides additional D3.
Lord Monckton should reflect on the difference between reporting his experiences and giving medical advice to individuals.
allan, thanks for the great post. i almost submitted to the shot in early 2021. i started looking at the data available and by mid summer said eff it, not going to submit. early november 2021 tested positive. so did my double shot wife. we started hydroxy, zinc, vitamin c and d. i was back to normal in two weeks. taste and smell back in a month. wife was down for about ten days. i wont speak for others but for me it was the correct choice.
natural immunity is your friend. it takes time to learn the truth, it only takes a moment to believe a lie.
joe
Joe should be made aware that the best protection against harmful outcomes is the vaccine in combination with the remedies he and his wife took.
Any of you who are planning to climb Mt. Everest- take notice, according to MSN. It COULD be more dangerous. I added the bold to “could” and “suggest” in the text though I’m sure most of you will stop at the first “could”.
“Mount Everest loses DECADES of ice annually thanks to climate change”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/mount-everest-loses-decades-of-ice-annually-thanks-to-climate-change/ar-AATqJDU
Might, could, may, should…a climate clown’s weasel words.
From the paper’s introduction
“Logistical constraints (oxygen and weather) restricted the time available to drill and package the ice core to two hours resulting in 10m depth retrieval of ice from what is estimated to be ~30 – 50m thickness”
“model estimated depths of ~2000 years ago at 108m”
“Whilst a definitive ice thickness loss cannot be determined we suggest that…..our ice thinning estimate is reasonable”
https://www.nature.com>articles>s41612-022-002340-0
Whatever this paper is, it isn’t Science. Shame on Nature for publishing such drivel.
The woke journal, Nature, has no shame.
Models are not data. Models do not produce data.
Global warming models resemble the real world climate in the same way that Disney animated Snow White’s behavior resembles a real teenage girl.
Looking at the graph, the UAH temperatures are defined to a precision of 0.01°C, and I’m not sure that that precision and accuracy can be justified. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/ for Dr. Roy Spencer’s explanation of the processes by which he produces the final figures from the input data, which uses around 9000 lines of FORTRAN code. Note that I’m not trying to diminish the effort or thought that has gone in to trying to take account of calibration drifts, orbital drifts, and other errors, just that the stated precision seems to be not really possible in practice. Statisticians assert that you can improve the accuracy and precision by averaging a lot of measurements, so reading a stick thermometer graduated in full degrees 1000 times results in a temperature measurement precise to 0.01°C, but I would still see the uncertainty in that result as to within 1°C.
Other datasets based on ground measurements have errors, too. Some have been “corrected” several times to allow for a different time-of-day for measurement, and have used homogenisation to a site relatively far distant to try to “improve the accuracy” of the local historical record, and again I’d question the validity of that practice – what was written down at the time is the only valid data, and has an uncertainty of around a degree. Since I’ve personally measured variations of several degrees by moving a few tens of metres, and the temperature at a location does depend on the local vegetation or surroundings (which vary over time) it’s actually really hard to be sure you’re comparing apples with apples and not kumquats or squirrels. Add to that that over time the remote weather stations are being retired since they cost more to run and there are few people living in those locations, and that more airports and cities are in the database since that’s where people want to know local conditions (important for take-off weights and speeds for aircraft), and producing a valid “average temperature” gets difficult if not impossible.
I suspect that we can only really see a long-term trend in temperatures when we have a temperature record at a location where urbanisation has not changed, the local vegetation hasn’t significantly changed, the method of measuring temperature hasn’t changed, and the Stevenson screen is of sufficient capacity and regularly re-painted with the same paint. Not that many weather-stations where that applies.
I know there’s a tendency to regard satellite measurements as high-tech and thus reliable. On the other hand, satellite measurements of sea-level rise come out as around 3mm/year, but tide-gauge measurements come out as around 1.8mm/year, and I can’t see a reason for the disparity except that there must be some systematic error in the satellite measurement that hasn’t been noticed and corrected for. I’d trust the tide-gauges to be more accurate inherently.
So here we are with “record” temperatures for the 1st of January of the order of 1/10 of a degree higher, when the daily range can be 20°C (and 60°C in some places). I think that plants and animals won’t be able to sense such a small difference relative to the daily and yearly range – it’s really not going to make any difference. Is the UK really going to have a problem with growing lettuce in future when it’s a degree or so warmer still, when they’re already buying lettuce from Spain where there’s a good 5°C difference? Our children won’t know what lettuce is….
There’s a reason I mentioned the squirrel earlier. Although it seems everyone is concentrating on the effect that more CO2 will have on our climate, and it seems like a reasonable estimate (if all else remains equal) would be around 1.1°C per doubling, if you look at the (uncorrected) temperature series from 1659 onwards such as the CET, you can’t see a signal of the rise in CO2. There’s something we’ve missed that appears to counter it. According to the ice-cores, during the MWP and the Little Ice Age, the CO2 level remained around the same, too – certainly not enough of a variation to account for the temperature changes. Yep, the downwelling radiation is a measurable thing, and must change with CO2 concentration, but nevertheless it seems to have not affected the actual temperatures. The rate of temperature rise before 1950 (when CO2 started to really rise faster) and after seem to be very comparable. During the MWP the Vikings were growing barley in Greenland, and that’s not possible today.
We’re missing something…. Yep, I know the data has errors, but it looks like the only effect of more CO2 is that plants grow faster and better.
I’m not sure Lord Monckton’s arguments are going to change the belief that CO2 is the control knob of the climate. Somewhat like Tulip mania, that bubble will have to burst on its own when enough people notice that the dire predictions aren’t eventuating. Funny thing is that the thing we really need to prepare for is a temperature fall, which is probably due sometime in the next few hundred years and might have started already.
SD said: “Looking at the graph, the UAH temperatures are defined to a precision of 0.01°C”
Christy et al. 2003 say the uncertainty of the UAH dataset is ±0.2 C for monthly anomalies.
Hopefully a new model will solve this settled science 😉
I have my doubts. RSS uses a different model for estimating the global average TLT temperature and yet Mears at al. 2011 get the same result for the uncertainty. I believe the issue is that both models are significantly constrained by the way the satellites view the atmosphere. Because it is a conical view the degrees of freedom on the observations is pretty low. For example, UAH has 9504 grid cells but Christy et al. 2003 say the DOF is only 26.AFAIK RSS would be hamstrung by this as well since they are using the same satellites. I therefore speculate that another party with another model would inevitably fail to transcend that limitation.
Please explain how measurements of oxygen microwave radiation collected from satellites in motion ~300km up can be converted to temperature and achieve uncertainties three-times smaller than the best uncertainties attainable with temperature sensors on the ground:
I can’t. Their uncertainties are not three-time smaller than the best uncertainties attainable with ground based datasets. See Christy et al. 2003 for details.
Um, bzx, 0.2*C = 0.6°C / 3.
Too bad you know nothing about real instrumentation.
That comparison is not equivalent since the former is a global average measurement and the later is an spot measurement. The global average surface temperature has an uncertainty on the order of ±0.05. So for the same horizontal space UAH TLT has 4x the uncertainty as the surface datasets. I know…you’re going to “nuh-uh” that without posting any evidence. I’m only posting for the benefit of others. And for the others who are curious what is actually documented I’ll also refer you to Rhode et al. 2013, Lenssen et al. 2019, and Haung et al. 2020.
Yadda, yadda, yadda, same old ignorant schpeel. Arguing anything with you lot is quite pointless.
I don’t think it is possible. I know from dealing with microwave transmissions when I worked for Southwestern Bell Telephone that H2O in all forms was a dreaded absorber and refractor. In the atmosphere I would expect a pretty large uncertainty factor.
In addition, lets look at the power differences in a temperature difference of say 288 vs 288.5.
L = (5,670374×10^-8)(288.0)^4 = 390.105 watts
L = (5.670374×10^-8)(288.5)^4 = 392.821 watts
L = (5.670374X10^-8)(289.0)^4 = 395.551 watts
I sincerely doubt the space craft has that kind of resolution. I suspect we are seeing the same old claim of the Standard Error of the Mean (SEM) being the precision of measurement.
That paper he quotes endlessly for the 0.2C number is not an uncertainty analysis, rather it is a comparison against radiosonde data. He refuses to recognize the difference.
The UAH FTP site doesn’t have the absolute temperature versus time data, only the anomalies. Only one file has monthly absolute T versus grid position numbers, which they call “annual cycle” data—this term is used without any definition that I could find. bwx claimed this was the baseline temperature data used to calculate anomalies, but I am suspicious.
I posted a couple histograms of the “annual cycle” numbers last month. All of them have a conspicuous spike near 0C which drops to zero by about 4-5C.
If you look at where the spike data originate on the globe, it turns out that all the points are from the tropical deserts between 30N and 30S, especially Africa and Australia. This led me to suspect that atmospheric water vapor is playing some kind of role.
Same old claim that no one actually claims. Jim, you are hopeless.
bozo-x chimes in with his oft-spammed link to the UAH “uncertainty”.
Do you think it would be better if there was some visual indicator (e.g. shading/bars) on the graph to make this 0.2C uncertainty clearer to people who look at it?
I’m not trying to have a crack at the legitimacy of the data btw, but that amount of uncertainty covers quite a portion of the y axis – doesn’t this amount of uncertainty mean it’s possible we’re seeing trends (in either direction) that aren’t there?
(Genuinely trying to get a better understanding of these graphs)
Yes. It would also be nice if they published the uncertainty on the trends which per Christy et al. 2003 is ±0.05 C/decade.
That still leaves the UAH6 43-year trend below 0.2 C/decade (0.14 + 0.05 = 0.19). And that’s during an upswing period of an approximately 70-year temperature cycle.
Run and hide little sheepeople! And spend 100s of trillions of dollars while you are at it.
As of 2022/01 the trend is +0.13 C/decade. So that makes the 95% CI range +0.08-0.18 C/decade. You might want to check your solar data though. The data I’m looking at says solar activity has been on a secular decline since around 1960. And two notable scientists favored by the WUWT audience claim we are already in a solar grand minimum (Soon & Zharkova).
In response to Mr Nisbet, I do publish the HadCRUT4 dataset from time to time, showing the uncertainty region.
A great summary of the uncertainty in measurements. Uncertainty simply can’t be removed using statistics. If measurements have uncertainty then the means of those measurements also carry that uncertainty. Calculating anomalies can’t remove those uncertainties.
The precision of a measurement defines the information available in that single measurement. You can not increase the information available by averaging with another measurement and then claim you have increased the information content in the mean.
“Uncertainty simply can’t be removed using statistics.”
Agree. Who doesn’t?
What rational evaluators want is to quantify it. That is easily done, for any statistically/physically significant combo of error banded data. Homoscedasticity not required, and since uncorrelated values result in worst case standard trend error, no need to consider them either.
Any decent laptop with the right freeware can bootstrap thousands of sample trends in a second, and give you valid results. FYI, for both statistically/physically significant temp and sea level trends, any credible extant inputs into datum error bands results in either standard errors still low enough to result in evaluable 2t’s, and/or tiny increases in those standard errors, when data point error bands are included in the evaluation.
Even the 1980 on incredible error bands in Pat Frank’s 2010, citation free, paper, are evaluable, in spite of the fact that he spaced on doing so. They show a statistically durable, positive, inflection of over 1 degC/century, between pre and 1980 on data.
Threadjack:
bdgwx, I’m digging out right after dark tonight. The snow will give enough luster of midday to do so safely. Both my place and my mom’s, ~1 mile away. I’ll work out soon, but that will be my evening workout. I think you’re getting it worse, so I’m guessing that you’ll wait for tomorrow AM.
Another world-famous blob techno-word-salad, well done blob!
They haven’t touched my cul-de-sac at all and only did one pass over the main residential road leading up to me yesterday. We got several more inches of “global warming” after that so it would require a bigger 4 wheel drive SUV to make any progress around here.
You don’t even know what bootstrapping does or what it is used for. Here are questions for you. Is bootstrapping used on a population of data or a non-normal distribution of sampled data? How do you calculate the standard deviation of the population from a bootstrap distribution of a non-normal sample distribution?
Read this and learn: https://towardsdatascience.com/bootstrapping-statistics-what-it-is-and-why-its-used-e2fa29577307
Please note:
This means you have ONE sample from a population that should have the same distribution as the population. Instead you are using a LARGE number of samples of the population (think stations). Why would you need to bootstrap? Do you even know what a “random variable” in statistics is? Hint; It is not just one dtaa point.
“You don’t even know what bootstrapping does or what it is used for.”
I do, which is why I now use it. Your article is very good, but your quote from it has nada to do with the evaluations I’m describing. I am indeed evaluating trends by describing the input data “appropriately”. Even Pat Frank’s unsupported temp distributions are reported as I evaluated them – by him.
“This means you have ONE sample from a population that should have the same distribution as the population.”
Not true, which is why your link does not say that it is. And you miss one of the useful aspects of bootstrapping. That this not required for successful bootstrapping Either in the real world, or in evaluations. For examples, both distributed BEST temp data and station sea level data can easily be evaluated – both with and without bootstrapping – even though their error bands are reduced as time went by.
“Why would you need to bootstrap?”
Strictly speaking, you don’t. Any of these evaluations can be made from known statistical laws. Bootstrapping is merely a useful, convenient method of arriving at the same solutions.
“Do you even know what a “random variable” in statistics is?”
Yes. What they all have in common that:
Apparently your ad hom objections to analyses that don’t meet your prejudgments centers on your fact free claims that these “random variable” can’ be stochastically quantified. Hint: They can, and are…
Word salad Bob into the thread.
“Word salad”
Pretty much your all purpose reply for anything you don’t understand and are too lazy to learn to. Predictably, never expanded upon with any specifics…
Lol…I get that english is your 2nd language, but dude…you are funny.
In response to Mr Gorman, the UAH monthly temperature anomaly data are expressed to the nearest hundredth of a Kelvin. Therefore, I show the trend (which is not an “average” but a least-squares linear-regression trend) to the nearest hundredth of a Kelvin.
“Therefore, I show the trend (which is not an “average” but a least-squares linear-regression trend) to the nearest hundredth of a Kelvin.”
The trend should be shown to the first appearance of a sig fig on the r.h.s. of it’s standard error. That can go either way.
I don’t question your use of the data as it is provided. I do question whether the resolution of the satellites is such that 1/100th of a degree is obtainable. 1/100th of a degree requires a very accurate detection of the observed radiance.
One should understand how data-based science works. The data are obtained and recorded to the greatest precision of which the instruments are capable (with the very precise platinum resistance thermometers on the satellites, referenced in real time to the known temperature of the cosmic microwave background, it is 0.001 K). But then one may round the trend to any desired precision, particularly where the trend is vanishingly different from zero, as it is ex definitions in these posts.
I think you misunderstand how the satellites instruments are used to derive temperature in the lower atmosphere.
I do agree with your rounding comment. By rounding you limit the precision, i.e., the amount of information contained in the number.
“We’re missing something…. Yep, I know the data has errors, but it looks like the only effect of more CO2 is that plants grow faster and better.“
Plant food along with humanity thriving.
In response to bdgwx and Mr Derricutt, the UAH temperatures are expressed in the dataset to the nearest hundredth of a Kelvin. Therefore, my model calculates the trend to the same precision. A zero trend is equal to 0.00000 … to any desired degree of precision.
They are actually published to the nearest thousandth of a Kelvin.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
I use the UAH dataset that Roy Spencer publishes on his blog, which has a precision of 0.01 K.
It’s the same dataset. It all comes from here.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
No, and there are actual rules that govern this. Please peruse the section “To determine the number of significant figures in the slope and intercept” in the link. Please note that, in their example, the input data was good to one sig fig to the right of the decimal point. OTOH, the trend was good to three…
Wen presented to one of the Gorman’s, he went uncharacteristically silent.
https://www2.chem21labs.com/labfiles/jhu_significant_figures.pdf
Rules 😉
Lord Monckton – given the available data, your analysis does show that best-guess is that temperatures are not currently rising. Dr. Spencer has put a lot of work into getting his analysis as accurate as possible too. Though the average level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise at around 2ppm per year, the maths shows that the average temperature is not rising as it should do if CO2 was in fact the control-knob for global temperature. This can also be seen in the rate of rise of global average temperature from 1910-1940, the fall from 1940-1970, and the rise from 1970-2000.
Put another way, the sky isn’t going to fall with additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
However, as far as I can see the majority of people believe that CO2 is a major problem that will kill us all if we don’t produce less of it, and it’s worth destroying our civilisation now to avoid that overheated future that the Global Climate Models predict. This belief in the models persists despite all the previous predictions of doom having been proven false. I lived through the ’70s when it was being confidently predicted that by the year 2000 we’d be glaciated, and that there would be global famines with billions starving. Of course, Malthus also predicted that the maximum human population couldn’t exceed 1 billion or so – in fact we became very much better at farming and producing far more food.
Despite my cavils about the actual uncertainties in the data, and the problems in producing a representative average, the main thrust of your argument (that there’s a pause in warming) is, I think, totally valid.
I do see a problem with over-use of averages, though. We take the maximum and minimum temperatures, add them together and then halve that to give the average. One problem with this is that that if the time for which the temperature is higher than average versus the time for which it is lower than average is not the same, then the average does not represent the integral of temperature over time. Take this to an extreme, where for 23 hours we’re at the top temperature and it only drops for 1 hour, and the average of the high and low temperatures doesn’t represent the reality well as regards energy radiated to space.
Another more major problem is that the Earth can only receive and lose energy by radiation, though there is a small (and generally negligible) contribution from the internal heat of the Earth that reaches the surface by conduction from the core. The energy emitted by radiation varies as the 4th power of the absolute temperature, so given that the ground temperature varies through the day then the quantity of energy radiated when it is hotter will be a lot more than when it is colder. Thus our mathematical average temperature does not tell us the total energy radiated each day. A location that has the same average temperature but a larger range of temperatures will emit more total energy over the day if that location has a normal somewhat-sine-wave temperature plot. If the time for which it is at the high temperature is short, however, it may emit less total energy than the mathematical average would imply. Basically, the average temperature doesn’t tell us how much energy that location will lose to space by radiation, and it doesn’t even give us an accurate amount of energy that is conducted away by the atmosphere. We should be using joules as the measure, not simply temperature.
Using an average always loses information about the thing you’re averaging. Sometimes that loss of data isn’t important, or is acceptable. Here, where we’re trying to look for energy balances, though, that loss of information is important, and to get it right we’d need to look at the integrals of radiated energy and take into account the spectral absorption of the atmosphere. It gets a lot more complex.
As to losing information when averaging, that is why variance is such a necessary part of quoting a mean. You never see this fact given with an average temperature or even anomaly. Simply averaging temps from different hemispheres lose the increases the variance tremendously because of the summer/winter difference.