Can We ‘Trust the Science’?

Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

We have been lectured to ‘trust the science’ which was ever changing throughout the COVID threats. Increasingly, evidence grows that the ‘science’ details were largely made up as it goes and used as a cudgel for political ends including power and policy advancement.

The same has been seen in recent decades as environmentalists, woke universities, think tanks and governments and our corrupt media sought to build the case to demonize carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. The goal is New World Order or really One World Governance.

In Their Own Words

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– The Club of Rome Premier environmental think-tank and consultants to the United Nations.

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

The UN IPCC kicked it into high gear in 1995.  Ben Santer was appointed the convening Lead-author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Report titled “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.” In that position, Santer created the first clear example of the IPCC manipulation of science for a political agenda. He used his position to establish the headline that humans were a factor in global warming by altering the meaning of what was agreed by the committee as a whole at the draft meeting in Madrid.

The consensus of the large group of scientists assigned with assessing the proposed effects agreed in their summary of the main chapter of the report was:“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in Greenhouse gases.”

Santer as Lead Author replaced it with:“There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol… from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change… These results point toward a human influence on global climate.”

It was just a start of central planning and control. This was openly admitted by politicians and lead UN IPCC

“The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises – whether real or not – is expected to lead to compliance.”

– Former Washington State Democratic Governor Dixy Lee Ray

‘Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.” In simpler terms, replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled centralized, One World government and economic control.”

– UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. “It is not. It is actually about how “we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

– IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer

AOC’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted that the Green New Deal was not conceived as an effort to deal with climate change, but instead a “how-do-you-change-the-entire economy thing” – nothing more than a thinly veiled socialist takeover of the U.S. economy.

Above we have shown in their own words how the indoctrination of the world on the alleged perils of global warming evolved.

Advocacy Keeps Coming

Virtually every month and year we see stories in the once reliable media and from formerly unbiased data centers and p that proclaim the period among the warmest such period in the entire record back to 1895 or earlier (often 1850). They also claim the warming due to greenhouse gases is causing more extremes of weather and more deaths. The base data they use has serious issues and is often more model than real data.

In the ADDENDUM to the Research Report entitled: On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. (Honorary) Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Craig D. Idso, June 2017 (here) provided ample evidence that the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data was invalidated for use in climate modeling and for any other climate change policy analysis purpose.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three Global Average Surface Temperature data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever – despite current claims of record setting warming.

That is made even more true given that 71% of the earth’s surface is ocean and the only ocean data prior to the satellite era began in the 1970s was limited to ship routes mainly near land in the northern hemisphere. According to overseers of the instrumental temperature data, the Southern Hemisphere record is “mostly made up”. This is due to an extremely limited number of available measurements both historically and even presently from Antarctica to the equatorial regions. 

In 1978, the New York Times reported there was too little temperature data from the Southern Hemisphere to draw any reliable conclusions. The report, prepared by German, Japanese and American specialists, appeared in the Dec. 15 issue of Nature, the British journal and stated that “Data from the Southern Hemisphere, particularly south of latitude 30 south, are so meager that reliable conclusions are not possible,” the report says. “Ships travel on well-established routes so that vast areas of ocean, are simply not traversed by ships at all, and even those that do, may not return weather data on route.”

In 1981, NASA’s James Hansen et al reported that “Problems in obtaining a global temperature history are due to the uneven station distribution, with the Southern Hemisphere and ocean areas poorly represented,” – – – – (Science, 28 August 1981, Volume 213, Number 4511(link))

In 1989, the New York Times admitted the US data released from NOAA failed to show a warming trend since 1895. Even in 1999, the temperature still trailed 1934 – James Hansen noted “The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934.”

This finding was amplified recently by MIT graduate Dr. Mototaka Nakamura in a 2020 book on “the sorry state of climate science” titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis.

He wrote: “The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia.”

My philosophy when I taught meteorology and climatology in college was to show my students how to think – not what to think. As Socrates said, “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.” I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model’s output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data and must always used with caution.  

Responding to the claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes in the media have been fact checked and debunked here.

Carbon Dioxide, the Gas of Life

NASA imagery has shown CO2 is a plant fertilizer that has sparked mass greening of the earth and huge increases in crop yields.

It has a major positive impact. Crop yields have consistently reached record levels. The Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1980s.

Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher.  (

Dr Patrick Moore, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher. (

The claims about the climate impacts of increased CO2 are greatly exaggerated. Claims about drastic runaway warming and increasing extremes have been fact checked and debunked in detail here.

The Big Lie of the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’

The Social Cost of Carbon are actually strongly negative – it is a benefit. We pump it into greenhouses to make the plants grow. We need more not less.

The real existential threat comes would come from radical environmentalism and their prescribed remedies. The economy in every country that has moved down an extreme green path the past 2 decades have seen skyrocketing energy costs – some 3 times our 2020 levels. Now our country chose to follow them down the rabbit hole.

The world is not ready for the so-called renewables and we are seeing clear global evidence that the push away from clean natural gas and oil and nuclear has already started a super inflation era that is already hurting all the world’s businesses and people.

This is because renewables are unreliable as the wind doesn’t always blow nor the sunshine. We saw that in Europe the last 2 decades and Texas in February 2021. And don’t believe the claims that millions of green jobs would result. In Spain, every green job created cost Spain $774,000 in subsidies and resulted in a loss of 2.2 real jobs. Only 1 in 10 green jobs were permanent. Industry left and in Spain unemployment rose to 27.5%. Many households in the countries that have gone green were said to be in “energy poverty” (25% UK, 15% Germany). The elderly are said in winter to be forced to “choose between heating and eating”. Extreme cold already killed 20 times more than heat according to a study of 74 million deaths in 13 countries.

The Chamber of Commerce agreed:

U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute’s Energy Accountabilty Series 2020

“Candidates for elected office have pledged to ban the very technology that has enabled the boom (and the never thought possible energy independence) – fracking. This raises an important question: what would happen to American jobs and the economy if fracturing was banned? In this report, the Chamber’s Global Energy Institute has undertaken the modeling and analysis to answer that question.

Simply put, a ban on fracking in the United States would be catastrophic for our economy.

Our analysis shows that if such a ban were imposed in 2021, by 2025 it would eliminate 19 million jobs and reduce U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $7.1 trillion. Job losses in major energy producing states would be immediate and severe; in Texas alone, more than three million jobs would be lost. Tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels would decline by nearly a combined $1.9 trillion, as the ban cuts off a critical source of funding for schools, first responders, infrastructure, and other critical public services.

Energy prices would also skyrocket under a fracking ban. Natural gas prices would leap by 324 percent, causing household energy bills to more than quadruple. By 2025, motorists would pay twice as much at the pump ($5/gallon).”

A Call to Action

We need to IMMEDIATELY reinstate the pipeline, restart drilling and oil and gas production to meet our needs and that of the world instead of funding predator nation production that will revive their terrorist programs.

If the generals need something to do, tell them to take up knitting. We are all going to need more sweaters as there are signs the next cold cycle phase may have begun.

4.9 36 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 24, 2022 10:05 pm

“Can We Trust The Science?” No, next stupid question, please.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  2hotel9
March 24, 2022 11:36 pm

I think it might have been rhetorical.

Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 25, 2022 6:08 am

My point is not. Science is totally corrupted. Until leftists are driven out it cannot be trusted.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  2hotel9
March 24, 2022 11:40 pm

My longtime friend and co-author Joe D’Aleo is one of the most accomplished meteorologists anywhere, and he is fully aware of the state-of-play of the decades-old catastrophic global warming (“CAGW”) fraud. The predictive track record of Joe and his colleagues at Weatherbell is second to none.

We has been known for decades that climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. The only measureable impact of increasing CO2 is improved plant and crop yields – hugely beneficial.

Global warming alarmism has been disproved dozens of ways, and as Einstein famously said, “One would be enough”. Now, global warming hysteria is further disproved as CO2 continues to increase – in a COOLING world.

Global warming (aka “climate change”) alarmism is promoted by scoundrels and imbeciles – scoundrels know they are lying; imbeciles believe them.

Most people, including most politicians, are so uninformed about the Scientific Method that they believe any foolish lie, provided it is repeated often enough. They think that science is about “consensus”- it is not – it’s about evidence, hypothesis, theory, support or disproof.

In 2002 Dr Tim Patterson and I predicted natural solar-driven global cooling to start circa 2020, and that cooling appears increasingly probable.
Here is the most recent paper by Joe and me.
By Allan M.R. MacRae and Joseph D’Aleo, October 27, 2019

Last edited 1 year ago by Allan MacRae
Ron Long
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 3:10 am

Good addition to the report, thanks, Allan. Joe starts out with a horror story then offers practical analysis of the situation. I especially like the part “recovery from a carbon dioxide drought”. Joe D’Aleo and Roy Spencer (and others) are National Treasures.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 7:14 am

It has been known for decades that climate is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2. 

Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 7:43 am

Have to disagree with you mate.

The real climate crisis is its manipulation to usher in Universal Basic Income (UBI), digital currency and the New World Order (NWO) as expressly referred to by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

How did Schwab manage to write and publish a book on how Coronavirus could be used to this end, only four months into a hitherto unknown respiratory virus? That question should really bother us all.

Frankly, with the progress of technology a new cold period would be manageable for the human race. If, in 20, 50 or 100 years we are once again holding fairs and walking elephants across the River Thames we (should) have sufficient energy from coal, gas, oil, nuclear and hydro to make conditions only a bit less favourable than they are now. A full blown ice age will likely take a thousand years or so to manifest itself.

Assuming atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, whilst the growing seasons in northern climes may be shorter, they will be more productive. Furthermore, conditions in equatorial regions might be cooler and more conducive to agriculture where there is none now.

Canada and the northern parts of USA might not fare so well over winter, but them Michael Mann assures us the Little Ice Age was a localised event, confined to parts of Europe, so that should be OK then……..

Allan MacRae
Reply to  HotScot
March 25, 2022 8:12 am

HI HotScot. I don’t think we disagree. I say the WEF is a destructive group intent on making major changes to our economy, but without the good faith or competence needed to effectively do so – I predict they will do only harm, and suggest that is their true intent.

John Larson
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 6:28 pm

 I predict they will do only harm, and suggest that is their true intent.”

I agree, because gangsters don’t see it as “harm” to increase their gang’s domination of a given populace, it’s a good thing to them. They don’t like the “rule by consent of the governed” idea one little bit.

None of them like it, so they are cooperating in order to rid the world of a common enemy, which is to say any way for those who don’t want to be ruled by “the law of the jungle” to effectively join forces against them.

Through a “One World Government” that can be enforced quite easily, in this day and age when mass surveillance and mass media propaganda systems to demonize any who do try to resist, are the norm.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 11:52 am

scoundrels and imbeciles

The duplicitous leading the credulous.

Reply to  2hotel9
March 25, 2022 5:43 am

I never liked the “Emperor Has no Clothes” fairy tale. But here we are.

People pretend that biology is fluid, that solar energy can work at night, that just adding wind turbines will generate more power reliably, that there is nothing unusual about healthy teens dying from heart attacks or having strokes.

Reply to  Scissor
March 25, 2022 6:27 am

As Jim Quinn says it, the removal of certainty from society.

Reply to  2hotel9
March 25, 2022 6:58 am

If you have some science to look at, that’d be great. What we have on climate right now is not science, it is politics. And you can never trust the politics.

Tom Cummings
Reply to  2hotel9
March 26, 2022 3:15 pm

I am truly intrigued wirh the quotes exposing the “real” purpose to the global warming campaign. I wish the sources of the quotes had been included.

Tom Foley
March 24, 2022 10:17 pm

Perhaps you could do a post on how the current alleged unusually high temperatures in Antarctica are being faked?

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 24, 2022 10:19 pm

Do you mean those temperatures that only last a day and are still tens of degrees below freezing? Those modeled temperatures?

Tom Foley
Reply to  Hivemind
March 24, 2022 11:05 pm

The ones that are currently being reported for March 2022, not modelling. At Concordia Station (inland, 3233m) the temperature was reported as between -11.5 and -27 for six days, compared to usual for this time of year of between -40 and -50. I assume instrument records?\

It may have something to do with the current weird weather in Australia.

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 24, 2022 11:15 pm

That “current weird weather” was well observed by Dorothea Mackellar in her 1897 poem “My Country” –
“a land of drought and flooding rains”.

And nothing has changed including the present.

Reply to  Mr.
March 25, 2022 9:01 am

Weird weather was also observed by Dorothy Gale in Kansas in the 1930s.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Meab
March 25, 2022 9:26 am

Are you referring to gale force winds? 🙂

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 24, 2022 11:42 pm

Wierd weather is weather that people in the media can’t remember happening before, not weather that never happens.
The Anglo Saxon Chronicle described it as “as no man could remember” so back in the 8th,9th and 10th centuries England was having Wierd weather

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
March 24, 2022 11:50 pm

Then I found this in the next thing I read after commenting here!

Extreme weather is NOTHING new: Rescued Victorian rainfall data reveals the driest year on record was 1855, with widespread flooding in the winter of 1852

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 1:37 am

Tom Foley claims “current weird weather in Australia”.
What is weird?
Here are UAH Lower Troposphere anomaly temperatures for the last 106 months for the Australian geographic region.
They show cooling.
Is that weird?
Do I trust “The Science”. In the absence of valid demonstrations that the physics, chemistry and/or mathematics are wrong, yes, I do trust this science. If you wish to challenge it, show how it is “wrong” and what is then “right”.
Geoff S

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 5:32 am

So let’s try to melt all the ice and flood the world with that temperatures.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 24, 2022 10:39 pm

A fart in a model, not an actual instrumental measurement.

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 2:24 am

Why did you point this out without balancing it with the coldest ever temperatures recorded in Antartica recently?

Even the few questions asked by alarmists are dishonest.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 3:18 am

Tom, the new temperature record, set at Argentina’s Esperanza station, is due to adiabatic down-slope winds focused directly on the station site. Records at this exact point, on Hope Bay, Trinity Peninsula (selected because it was unusually free of thick snow and ice), started in 1953 so not a whole lot of time to establish normal.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 3:41 am

Perhaps you could do a post explaining how ice melts at negative celsius temperatures?

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 5:59 am

I am sure we are all beside ourselves that Antarctica is having higher than usual temperature… happy no lets move on as there is nothing we can do about it. Emissions are going to keep rising and no amount of chicken little antics is going to change that.

I should add we had a number of dropkicks protesting today about Australia was going to be the worst nation affected with climate change.and we need action now. Yet these same dropkicks fail to grasp it doesn’t matter a hoot what Australia does our emissions are 1.4%.

Last edited 1 year ago by LdB
Reply to  LdB
March 25, 2022 5:38 pm

Our emissions have been stated as low as 1.16% And that’s anthropogenic contributions. If you calculate it from total global emissions it amounts to next to nothing. And the UN says we’re not doing enough? Destroying our environment and our economy isn’t enough? And for what? A form of energy that’s not fit for purpose!

This farce needs to be called out at every opportunity. And not just on sites like this. When people hear it often enough it will seem more plausible to the masses. They are the ones who need to be educated.

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 25, 2022 4:50 pm

If actually real… LOL… probably just a volcanic burp.

Absolutely zero evidence of human causation.

Reply to  Tom Foley
March 26, 2022 5:11 am

Check the geothermal heating source underneath that warming location.

Mike Dubrasich
March 24, 2022 11:35 pm

Excellent essay by the World’s Top meteorologist. Should be required reading for everyone. The warmunists have a horrific agenda that has nothing to do with climate and everything to with oppressive and catastrophic totalitarianism.

Steve Case
March 24, 2022 11:41 pm

 The Sahara desert has shrunk 8% since the 1980s.

These three links help make the case:

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

Satellite Data Used in Study Finding Significant
Greening in Earth’s Vegetative Areas

IPCC AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750
Mean Precipitation
For a future warmer climate … Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase. 

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Case
Michael Elliott
Reply to  Steve Case
March 25, 2022 12:24 am

A very good article indeed.

But politicians on both sides like to frighten the population, so that they can save us.

While I would not wish to see another Joe Mc Carthy again, the Reds under the bed scare in the West in the 1950 tees was right.

We do not need to fear Climate Change, but we do need to fear a new form of Communism.

Ironically Putin’s invasion of the Uktaine may turn out to be a much needed “” Wake up call”” to the real threat to the West’s way of life.

Michael VK5ELL

Reply to  Michael Elliott
March 25, 2022 12:45 am

Wait, we need Putin for that?

A giant list can be assembled. Let’s add Trudeau, human 💩, seizing trucker’s assets.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Derg
March 25, 2022 5:10 am

“Mr. Trudeau: You are a disgrace to democracy. Please spare us your
The reprimand of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by European parliamentarians in Brussels has made headlines around the world. Trudeau was treated to scathing condemnation by several Members of European Parliament (MEP) after giving a speech to the European Union on Wednesday.
I tried to published the following exposé in the Financial Post in Autumn 2019 (pre-election) and the former editor helped me edit several drafts, only to have the current editor veto it. That was the first article I ever had rejected by a major Canadian paper, of the many I have published.
Justin Trudeau’s $600 million grant has bought treasonous loyalty from the disgraced mainstream media. Like Trudeau, most of them can no longer be respected or trusted. The media have collaborated in the destruction of Canada. Canada is now a corrupt, disgraced Liberal/NDP dictatorship.

The Covid-19 false crisis enabled more unjustified restrictions of our freedoms, deliberately intended to trample human rights and reinforce the societal and economic destruction of Canada.
These crimes against humanity must be publicly tried, judged and harshly punished – Nuremberg 2.0!

Regards, Allan MacRae, B.A.Sc.(Eng.), M.Eng., Calgary

DICTATORSHIP October 1, 2019

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 8:18 am

Here is MEP Christine Anderson’s personal message to Canadians. Brilliant!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Allan MacRae
March 25, 2022 12:07 pm

Given what’s gone on in France and Germany, Trudeau in Canada is not an isolated example. I’d like to see the same condemnations thrown at Macron and Merkel/Scholz.

March 25, 2022 12:06 am

It’s great to read an essay that reinforces what most of us believed the case decades ago. The science presented here (on this site) has largely proven that climate change is a scam, but it’s good to see the names of the instigators in writing. Also clear confirmation of why they created this scam, and how it’s been perpetuated.

Last edited 1 year ago by megs
March 25, 2022 12:43 am

A small sliver of light for meteorology amidst all the gloom and doom-
UK’s rainfall records rescued by volunteer army (
Providing the usual suspects don’t pasteurize and homogenize it all of course.

Dave Fair
Reply to  observa
March 25, 2022 10:10 am

Fascinating UK rainfall graph! It seems to show the gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age.

Julian Flood
March 25, 2022 12:44 am

There are three questions to ask: one, is it or has it been warming? ; is the cause only CO2? ; why the blip?

Tom Wigley who was one of the instigators of climate hysteria was busily engaged in ‘adjusting’ the record from 1940 to 1945 and explained how he did it in one of the Climate gate emails – he warmed the past and slightly reduced the inconvenient bits – but he remained enough of a scientist to ask that last question.

This article is a very good run-through of the case for the prosecution, but will not be enough to prosecute. Only proof beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is not the cause of the slight and almost entirely beneficial warming from 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 2005 will break the narrative.

Examine other causes. Examine areas of the Earth which are not warming and compare them with areas warming faster than the cobbled together and creaking AGW theory says should be happening.

Look first at Lake Michigan and then at the Sea of Marmara. I can see what’s going on but lack the training to check the science, but places that warm quicker than the warmers say they should are proof that other warming factors are in play.


Reply to  Julian Flood
March 25, 2022 8:00 am

Only proof beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 is not the cause of the slight and almost entirely beneficial warming from 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 2005 will break the narrative.

I think the onus of proof is on the alarmists who, so far, have not produced a shred of credible, empirical evidence that CO2 is the agent of our destruction.

If it were proven beyond reasonable doubt there would be legions of empirical studies examining to what extent warming is caused by atmo. CO2, not whether it causes it in the first place.

Berkley Earth undertook a very costly study and claimed they had found the holy grail, but the only major media outlet to take it seriously was the Guardian. Other than that, it sunk from trace. I recall David Middleton eviscerating it on a website of his but I can no longer find it. Any help gratefully received.

When one proposes a hypothesis as specific as atmo. CO2 causing warming, it seems the scientific method requires it to be studied exhaustively before changing the world. The rest of us, rightly, say, until it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt we should stay our course and not change the future of mankind on a guess.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
March 25, 2022 10:58 am

The UN IPCC claim that CO2 causes significant warming is founded on the CliSciFi CMIP models that have been invalidated. As well as their inability to accurately hindcast, they completely missed the 18+year pause from the end of the 20th Century and, additionally, predict a tropical tropospheric “hot spot” that has consistently been shown to be absent by radiosonde and satellite estimates. Despite over 40 years of failure, the politicians refuse to direct the modelers to examine alternative theories.

Physics indicate that greenhouse gasses (GHG) on their own should increase Earth’s temperature. The problem is that there are numerous atmospheric and ocean phenomena (especially clouds) that affect any resultant temperature changes. As reflected by the failure of UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models, current science is unable to solve the complexities of the atmosphere and oceans processes and, therefore, predictions are worthless for planning purposes and making multi-trillion dollar investments.

UN IPCC CliSciFi models are not sufficient justification to fundamentally alter our society, economy and energy systems. In any case, socialism is never the answer.

Pat Frank
Reply to  HotScot
March 25, 2022 12:25 pm

It’s possible to rationalize the entire GAST since 1880 with the combination of two oscillations (graphic).

One is a 60-year cycle reminiscent of the AMO/PDO frequency. The second is a 313-year cycle similar to the 341 year period found in a European stalagmite record.

The 60 year cycle reproduces the embarrassing and late-lamented 1940’s blip. The whole warming trend since 1880 can be rationalized with two natural cycles. No need for a CO₂ effect at all.

When the 60-year and 313-year cycles are summed, they turn down right about now into a 140-year temperature decline; reaching a minimum near 2160. The 60-year period puts small warm bumps in the declining trend near 2065 and 2125.

Predictive? No physics. Indicative? Who knows. A poke in the eye of CO₂ alarmism? Definitely.

2019 GISS Global Anomaly 2 Cos Fit.png
Dave Andrews
Reply to  Julian Flood
March 25, 2022 8:50 am

Tom Wigley also said Mann’s hokey stick was cr*p

“I have just read the M&M stuff criticising MBH. A lot of it seems valid to me. At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work–an opinion I have held for some time”

(Climategate email)

March 25, 2022 3:08 am

Nullus in verba

Reply to  fretslider
March 25, 2022 4:44 am

The irony of nullius in verba is that The Royal Society no longer adheres to that motto.

Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences.

The Royal Society has produced a series of briefing documents on the implications of a variety of aspects of climate change for UK policymakers, drawing from special reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Reply to  leitmotif
March 25, 2022 6:21 am

“The irony of nullius in verba is that The Royal Society no longer adheres to that motto.”

Gosh. Really? Do you think so?

The Royal Society’s new motto is:

Accipies clima verbum physicus

Take a climate scientist’s word…

Last edited 1 year ago by strativarius
Reply to  fretslider
March 25, 2022 6:41 am

Would I lie to you?

Or the new motto could be:

Ostende mihi pecuniam.

Show me the money.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
March 25, 2022 11:22 am

Those statements prove The Royal Society is corrupted by politics and/or doesn’t know what it is talking about: 1) The only climate change is a slight warming and rainfall increase since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA) – There have been no increases in the frequency or severity of adverse weather events since 1900; 2) Numerous analyses show that all modeled climatic metrics measured at any geographic scale do not track observations; 3) There are no “fingerprints” differentiating between human and natural causes of warming; and 4) UN IPCC reports do not reflect the actual science because they are manipulated to meet current governmental policy objectives.

glenn holdcroft
March 25, 2022 4:01 am

Never mind what Putin/Russia are doing or Xi/CCP are contemplating , lets just worry about the day to day weather and how many grants we can get from whatever predictions or obscure observations we can scare everybody with .

Peta of Newark
March 25, 2022 4:46 am

Quote:”We are all going to need more sweaters as there are signs the next cold cycle phase may have begun.

Thank you – my “wrap up warm” words exactly

Not because it’s ‘a phase‘ unless you can point to something definitive and potent that operates in cycles.
e.g. Yes Jim Steele – we all already know that fish can swim – now tell us something new such as: Why they swim

Deserts are cold places and we are expanding them – exactly as humanity has always done – and extinguished its ‘advanced civilations‘ in the process.

But previously, those were just small-scale local events although they changed the Global Climate exactly like ENSO does.

Quote:”Dr. Will Happer, Princeton Physicist talks about the great benefits of CO2 to the biosphere and to all of humanity, says we are coming out of a CO2 drought and humanity would benefit from CO2 being 2 to 3 times higher

Why is that Dr Happer?
Just because there are squillions of absorption lines for dozens of gases does not mean that the energy absorbed becomes a Climate Forcing.
Entropy says so.

Is there A Table of Numbers anywhere detailing the absorption of solar energy by clean dry unpolluted Oxygen Nitrogen mixture – and NOT endless low-resolution hedgehog graphics, usually acompanied by the word ‘transparent’
Somebody, huge numbers of somebodies, are Lying By Omission.

Then, if dust soot & smoke can lower the albedo of ice, why don’t they lower the albedo of the atmosphere while still airborne?
Yes that would cause a temp drop at the surface but would that (at altitude) absorbed energy cause the air at whatever altitude to become warmer than otherwise.
Is it beyond the bounds of belief and modern science that that is what Spencer’s Sputniks are recording?

Insane as it seems, expanding greenery in the Sahara is a sign of increased desert area.
Because the observed greenery is mostly comprised this stuff (Mesquite)
Quote:”Mesquite was introduced on purpose from the New World, but the dream of a helpful tree soon turned into a nightmare.

The mesquite is overtaking abandoned farms
Why were the farms abandoned – surely Shirley not because they stopped growing anything useful. hell no. Western Science said mesquite would save them so why it’s now called ‘nightmare
And if Maize isn’t the western-world’s equivalent to mesquite, someone tell me what it is.
OK. I’ll tell.
Maize is a recently introduced crop of nearly Zero Nutritive Value – like mesquite.By being a recent introduction, it is seen to grow well with big yields of nothing because of the age-old principle of crop rotation.
IOW Maize is still a long way off (timewise) reaching it’s Liebig Limiting Nutrient.
But it will.
Nothing else can possibly happen and then what will you grow, eat and burn?

What about this stuff….
Quote:”Salt cedars, originally brought to Arizona in the 1800s, take over native plants’ territory. Only one to two cottonwood trees grow per acre along the river bed, Copeland said. About 3,000 to 4,000 salt cedars, also known as tamarisks, crowd into one acre.

Greenery elsewhere primarily caused by farmers in the North turning from growing spring-planted cereals to autumn-planted ‘winter crops’
So there’s greenery on the ground for at least 10 months of the year instead of barely two months.
How does Sputnik account for that?
How does CO2 account for that

Why did farmers do that? What was the need?
Surely Shirley not because the summer growing season was getting shorter, colder and simultaneously drier?
After 55 years of farming livestock at 55° North I saw that happening.
It took a while to realise but I now know why.
And ain’t that the craziest thing – a desert with over a metre of annual rainfall?
Some people call that place ‘Scotland’ – I came from just south of there
(Thank <fexpletive> for the Gulf Stream else that would be 50 feet of snow)

When a Climate Computer Model works that out I’ll be King of England
When a Sputnik sees that I’ll be The Emperor.
But I’ll be wrapped up warm, tha’s fo’sure

(Nice try Mr Joe but do try to get out-of-doors a bit more. Go talk to some farmers)

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 25, 2022 6:36 am

Surely Shirley not because the summer growing season was getting shorter, colder and simultaneously drier?”

Not according to agricultural scientists in North America. The growing season is getting longer, damaging high temps are moderating, and low temps are increasing (causing the last spring frost to come earlier and earlier and the first fall frost to happen later and later).

Pardon me if I trust the ag scientists far more than the CAGW climate scientists.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Peta of Newark
March 25, 2022 11:33 am

Peta – “Why they swim?” Because fish can’t ride bicycles.

March 25, 2022 5:34 am

Remember when South Korea was so highly praised for following the science in their use of masks, contact tracing and how their low rates of cases and deaths proved the effectiveness of these measures?

Strangely, they must have abandoned their principles or something else is going on because cases and deaths are exploding even in the face of one of the highest rates of vaccination.

Last edited 1 year ago by Scissor
Reply to  Scissor
March 25, 2022 10:56 am

“even in the face of one of the highest rates of vaccination”

I have no knowledge of anyone who has had the China virus thus gaining natural immunity and NOT had a “vaccine” and hen caught the virus again. Not “tested positive” but actually got sick again.

I have heard of people who have had the virus more than once but they were all “vaccinated” after having had the virus.

So the problems in Korea are self inflicted.

When this crap all started, and all the sports leagues were beginning their “protocols”, which are still in effect, I suggested they get all the players/coaches/staff in one building, bring in infected people and ensure EVERY person associated with the teams/leagues get infected.

After that, NONE of the mask of vaccine crap would have been necessary, and provably so.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Drake
March 25, 2022 12:34 pm

Not only that, but a recent paper warns that the usual face masks contain varying amounts of nano-particulate titanium dioxide; known to cause cancer in a rat model.

Eric Vieira
March 25, 2022 6:38 am

Up to maybe ten years back, output from the scientific community was respected, and science was more or less conducted and peer reviewed with a relatively high standard.
The main problem is that politics has taken over and “science” has become more or less a commodity which can be bought and published as seen fit, or censored if the content doesn’t
fit the narrative. I even personally have the impression, that the downfall of science is something that is desired from the political side. Uncontested religious statements make it much easier to govern the masses, than having to arrange with scientists who don’t support
the desired narrative. Just discredit the whole lot and move on. Even the education systems
are “tuned” to less and less scientific or critical thinking.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Eric Vieira
March 25, 2022 12:40 pm

I have the same impression Eric. The hard points of science frustrate demagogues and sociologists. Their solution is to wreck science.

The worst of it is that there are so many weak-minded scientists who are very willing to help the wrecking in the name of so-called diversity, inclusion and equity. Science departments nation-wide are subverting integrity, discarding merit, and destroying themselves.

jeffery p
March 25, 2022 7:15 am

Can we trust the scientists?

Curious George
March 25, 2022 8:56 am

“we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
What makes you so sure? When you change things, the “right thing” can be better (0.01% chance), or worse (49.99% chance), or much worse (50% chance). Been there. Survived.

March 25, 2022 9:05 am

Outstanding article. If only all the useful idiots would read it…

Gary Pearse
March 25, 2022 10:18 am

Looking at the quotes of totalitarian UN bureaucrats and antisociologist professors, they all know the science is iffy. The “scientists” may have been believers before the new millennium, but the need for massive adjustments to temperatures to save the theory and an 18 year “Pause” interrupted (temporarily?) by the 2016 el Niño, despite galloping CO2 emissions, means they don’t believe in it anymore. They are hanging in for the pay and pensions to come.

As Max Planck observed, science advances one funeral at a time. New scientists will benefit from the basically virgin territory that has been left them. There has been no advancement made since the 1979 Charney report on climate sensitivity of CO2 (1.5 to 4.5).

Pat Frank
Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 25, 2022 12:44 pm

The horror show is supported by every single scientific organization. It’s more than just money.

If the APS announces they’d made a huge mistake, and turns their support into opposition, we’d have a chance. But they’ve not done it, and dismiss the skeptical challenge.

It’s not just money. Some deep psychological weakness is at play. Present in most, it seems, absent in some.

March 25, 2022 11:20 am

Who decides the “optimal” temperature?
How is the average temperature defined?
Who decides where and where not to measure?

Answers to these questions will show you who benefits. Qui bono?

March 25, 2022 12:43 pm

NASA imagery has shown CO2 is a plant fertilizer that has sparked mass greening of the earth and huge increases in crop yields.

All the while, soil organic carbon is declining (along with soil moisture) as it oxidizes from the Earth under deep tillage. Nitrogen fixing native plants and microbial biodigesters are in steep decline. Latent heat flux is most definitely impacted, resulting in increasing ground surface temperature and marginal increase to growing season in higher latitudes. Synthetic fertilizers are propping us up, for better or worse, along with increasing proportion of atmospheric oxidized carbon. This causes increased IR reflectance from optical satellite sensors giving a “greening” impression under their normalized differenced vegetation indices.

Last edited 1 year ago by JCM
Gerald Hanner
March 25, 2022 12:46 pm

Well, YES and NO.

There are limits to our scientific knowledge, and new discoveries are coming all the time. Some of the information science deals with is misinterpreted or just plain wrong.

Reply to  Gerald Hanner
March 25, 2022 5:20 pm

Whether or not scientific information is right or wrong was once decided by the scientific method. Since science has been so intrinsically tied to politics, science that does not fit or further still proves theories wrong is simply dismissed. Or worse, discredited.

March 25, 2022 12:46 pm

Actual science results from the practice of honestly using Scientific Method. It does not even matter who does it, IF it is done correctly. Accepting the word of political “authorities” & “experts” can almost never be relied upon as having anything to do with actual science. Founding belief on the proclamations of politically appointed “authorities” is unwise & has nothing to do with actual science. Even authorities recognized as such by their peers for having long careers contributing to their fields may not support accurate scientific statements. But those who depend upon the funds given by politicians for their careers are highly suspect when they parrot the political agendas of politicians who can hire or fire them or their institutions.

Recently we have had a powerful political Party proclaiming an authority who has NO credentials, experience or recognition in the fields he is appointed to dictate policies on. In fact, he is the one most responsible for funding Gain of Function work in an enemy nation that sent infected people all over the planet to spread that particular virus, blocked the HCQ cure that he is documented to have know worked to cure the virus, demanded the entire population be injected with a new technology that killed ALL of the test lab animals & had never been tested on humans (although a short partial test was doctored & hidden by Pfizer), he blocked the President, hospitals & physicians from offering this cure to infected citizens, allowed particular groups of people to be exempt from injections, said nothing of thousands of illegals not being tested or injected & transported secretly all over the US, mandated that his ineffective & dangerous Remdesivir be the only protocol allowed as “treatment”, & mandated the horrible Lock Downs that destroyed the Middle Class by losing them their jobs, businesses, homes, life savings & making them dependent upon government just as the Communists have planned for decades. This one “authority” has NO background at all in virology or epidemiology but he does have the support of the Deep State & makes more money than anyone else in government. He is almost single-handedly responsible for the Plandemic and its use to ruin the economy of the us & the world (except for China’s). Yet he is still in POWER & no one connects these dots & asks why.

March 25, 2022 9:56 pm

Nice report.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights