Never believe the Official Story

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period" - Michael Crichton

Michael Crichton is of course famous for authoring a book that correctly predicted the Jurassic Park disaster before it happened and long before they made a movie about it. While the scientists were busy in their labs playing with dinosaur jeans, a science author who understood science better than any scientist ever could predicted the theory that life always finds a way and that velociraptors would learn how to use door handles.

Ivory Towers

As soon as Neil deGrasse Tyson mocked the idea the Earth was flat I knew the geometry of the Earth to be in doubt. A quick google confirmed my suspicion and I have since discovered dozens of bloggers out there documenting numerous problems with the official theory. If there really was overwhelming evidence that the Earth was round why would Neil deGrasse Tyson be mocking the idea that it was flat?

The consensus, AKA the official story, can never be trusted, because trust no-one. Always suspect They are out to get you. That way if they are you at least weren't fooled. That's why I will never trust textbooks. Science textbooks and history textbooks in particular are full of official stories written by official writers. Only when textbooks are written by the uneducated (ie free thinking) bloggers of the internet with ideas that scientists openly deride will I take textbooks seriously.

At the center of every university is a tower made of ivory. These towers are probably in excess of 80 feet tall. Question: from such a height why haven't academics noticed the lack of curvature of the Earth? Just a question, nothing more. Unlike the Earth the best arguments are circular, that way there are no loose ends.

Evidence

The Oxford Dictionary proclaims evidence to be "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"

I have made the font of that quote quite small because I don't want to honor such arrogance with any sort of presence. Who writes the dictionaries? Officials from Oxford who proclaim their book-bound definitions of words are true by consensus. Dictionaries, like libraries are synonymous with "education", the concept that truth can be learned rather than imagined.

Evidence is really defined as anything they don't want us to know. Examples of evidence include:

• Bits of old email
• Birth certificates
• Anything released by FOIA 
• Original photos of the moon found on some obscure NASA sub domain which they have probably accidentally released
• Anything that was on a government website one day but has suddenly "disappeared" the next, especially if it involves sea ice

In other words the more difficult data is to obtain or obscure the source, the greater the weight of evidence it provides for alternative theories.

Alternative Theories

Perhaps global temperature changes are caused by steam pipes, or undersea volcanoes, could cloud experiments at CERN have opened up a black hole from all that science stuff they keep doing with colanders? It makes sense that a black hole would absorb more sunlight. Could that explain the minuscule amount of warming of which there is no evidence for? What if there never was a global temperature because you can't average temperature over a globe? What if the concept of averaging is number fraud? What if there can't be a global temperature because the world isn't a globe? That might explain why scientists are so keen on us accepting the world is round, because their climate models are programmed that way and they are too lazy to correct them. Sometimes there is a second shooter, and sometimes it is just a ploy to take away our guns.

4. The oceans are already absorbing almost all the moisture they can

Here's why it's possible that all the ice in the world melting won't make much difference.

The water that’s already in the oceans absorbs most of the moisture it can. H2O only “soaks up” its favorite molecules of water, and it’s close to saturation point. It manages to grab a bit more water from molecules that are close to its favorite bands, but it can’t do much more, because there are not many left-over atoms at the right moisture. In other words the effectiveness of water as a liquid becomes ever more marginal with greater concentration

The natural increase in sea level is real, but it’s already reached its peak performance.

This graph shows the additional warming effect of each extra bucket of healthy H2O, a life giving liquid not a pollutant.

When someone pointed out this basic chemistry to me, it resonated, and again I marvelled that something so basic had been carefully not mentioned in this debate. I realize log curves are not something you want to reach out to the public with in detail, but I felt everyone who has done chemistry at university would grasp this point quickly. It explains the paradox: It’s true that water has some sea level raising effect, but it’s also true that extra water doesn’t have the same effect. When alarmists point out that the natural melting of ice sheets causes “X meters of sea level rise,” they usually fail to mention that the first 100 buckets of water does almost all of this, and no extra 100 bucket addition will ever do as much. It’s a lie by omission.

ICE AGE CONFIRMED

STAGGERING GROWTH IN ARCTIC ICE. COLD WEATHER LEADS TO WINTER ARCTIC ICE GROWTH. TRAJECTORY DEFIES CLIMATE MODELS THAT PREDICT LESS ICE OVER TIME NOT MORE.

ICE AGE BY SEPTEMBER? MEDIA BLACKOUT

From the I-Told-You-So files* comes this important piece of news. Thanks to Steven Goddard for the heads up.

Something tells me we won't be hearing about this in the media or in any of Obama's speeches.

Another thing I noticed:

This appears very much to be a menu button. Let me explain to you how these work. A menu button is a piece of technology designed to always display a menu when they are clicked on. But if you click on the University of Illinois menu button in the above image no menu appears. Go on, try moving your mouse over it and clicking, it does nothing except making the image larger.

Software engineers are not like climate scientists, they have to make sure the computer programs they write work all the time, every time, and so they learn to never make mistakes. So I have to assume that someone at the University of Illinois has deliberately sabotaged the menu button. I wonder why.

What could be on the hidden menu?

Perhaps the menu contains links to scientist's emails which They don't want made public. Perhaps there is an option to display the real undoctored sea ice data that are being hidden from us. Or perhaps the button is just another one of Lewandowsky's little traps to try and falsely paint us as conspiracy theorists. Yes I can well imagine Stephan Lewandowsky meeting with suited UN figures at the Paris COP21 in a closed meeting room, discussing a demented form of button over taxpayer funded mugs of hot coffee. A button that can be deployed onto websites that will capture not only the imagination of climate skeptics, but also their IP addresses which are subsequently loaded into a database named agenda21.

Someone more proficient at being unethical than me should probably try to hack that button and find out what is behind it.

If not I sense an FOIA request in the making.

*These are actual files I keep in my house, in a large binder.

Update: A commenter, now banned, has kindly pointed out that a button in a copied image from a website isn't necessarily going to work when copied onto a blog. While this may potentially explain why the menu button doesn't work, I stand by my comments and the general thrust of my argument remains. I would think the University of Illinois should really put a disclaimer on their website pointing out that buttons will not work when an image is taken. This kind of lack of attention to detail is becoming a hallmark of climate science.

Top 10 Tricks to Find That Temperature Trend You Always Dreamed Of

1) What is a trend?

A trend is a line you can cross through a graph to make the science go away. You can use a nice thick pen or an electronic paint brush to do this. Trend lines have been a key resource in the battle against data.

Cross out that data and it no longer counts

2) I saw a graph I don't like. Can I cross it out?

Yes, but you have to be careful. You can't just put any old line through it. It has to be a very specific and carefully chosen line. If you draw a trend line through data incorrectly you might inadvertently make the data appear alarming. Most trends in data these days are alarming, so if you don't know what you are doing you seriously risk making the data look worse. Trend divination is a skilled art. You need to be adequately trained in the ways of blog science and scientific obstructionism before you can begin crossing out graphs at will. When in doubt defer to the professionals, some of us are paid to do this kind of thing afterall.

3) How many possible trend lines are there?

A lot. Of different lengths and gradients through different types of data. Far too many in my opinion, reflecting the ridiculous size of the federal government.

4) Okay, so how do I carefully choose a trend line?

You need to be well aware of what makes a good trend and what makes a bad trend. Bearing this in mind the choice can nevertheless be quite fiddly at times; imagine if you will picking a small fruit off a tree. You don't want to pick any old fruit, you want to pick the best one you can.

5)  What makes a good trend line?

Long flat trends are good. Steep trends are always bad. If in doubt, remember the rythme: Long and low, taxes no. Steep and high, freedom bye. Imagine a trend line being a bit like a low bridge spanning an alarming ravine, which will in effect make it less alarming. You want to find the longest flattest line you can.

6) So I have my trend, what do I do now?

If you find a good trend you need to parade it before to your local media, while reciting its properties over and over. How long is it? I have a big one, mine is 18 years and 11 months long. This proves nothing has happened for almost 19 years.

7) What happens if your trend goes short

Even the best trend will on occasion suddenly go short. This seems to happen roughly every 5 years or so, meaning there is absolutely no trend in the breaking of trends. If you are inexperienced you might panic and question the validity of your method when you wake up to find your treasured 19 year trend fallen. But once you get good at this you will be able to simply advance the beginning of the trend forwards a few years and trawl the news for excuses. El Nino, communists, Obama. All these things are valid reasons to cite.

8) What if I can't find a trend that works?

Sometimes try as you might you just can't find a sufficiently long flat trend to make a scientific record go away. This is a sure sign that particular scientific record must be fraudulent, even if you swore by it before. True data will always conform with political reality. Perhaps it is time to check scientists emails and investigate their NetFlix accounts to see what movies they've been watching.

9) Where can I find good trends?

These days I find I am only satisfied with a good lower troposphere satellite trend. That said there are some fantastic up and coming trends on other planets where we have little to no data.

10) What does it mean for a trend line to be "not significantly different from zero"?

Statistical significance is a concept invented by statisticians in order to prove nothing alarming can ever happen. If a trend is not statistically significant from zero it means the trend is 100% confirmed to be exactly zero and therefore our taxes, if there must be taxes, would be better spent elsewhere.

As an example imagine Bob sets out from home one morning to go to work. He travels either East or West. Because we don't know in which direction he has gone, or how far he travelled, this proves he hasn't left the house.

The Vineyards of Vostok

Photo of an Antarctic Vineyard, reconstructed from a French Vineyard proxy

Vikings fighting on the Antarctic Peninsula. Note the lack of sea ice.

Long ago the world was a much warmer place; The oceans boiled at the equator and griffin were seen flying as far North as Lancaster. Less well known are the Vikings, a fierce people from Northern Europe who travelled the world in ridiculously long boats, performing various acts that would ultimately derail the globull warming gravy train, including:

1. Putting the word Green in Greenland to prove it had no ice whatsoever back then
2. Setting up vineyards all over the Earth to demonstrate how warm it was everywhere
3. Plundering the abbeys of the global warming high priests
4. Sodding off back to Denmark when it got cold, therefore proving how hot it must have been in the first place

Reconstructing the past

The Vikings also left us a variety charts and temperature records from that era. Below is a copy of a Viking temperature record spanning approximately 1000 years. To my mind this is the kind of graph I want to believe in. I have no idea the methodology by which the Vikings recorded temperature, nor do I really care. Lets not ruin a good chart by asking questions.

Viking temperature graph

Fun fact: We wouldn't even know about this graph if They hadn't published it in the original IPCC report by mistake. The graph was pulled from subsequent IPCC reports by order of Al Gore himself, proving how sneaky and meticulous They are at controlling what They release.

So what's the problem?

There isn't one, I don't see one. The climate always changes, that's what it does. Up, down, left, right, in, out, etc. If the world was now as warm as NASA claim the Vikings would have already returned by now. As it stands the silence of the Vikings speaks volumes.

IF there is one thing history teaches us it is that warmer periods are better for mankind than colder periods. The warmth of the so-called Dark Ages saw humanity thrive, for example, unlike the much colder and unfavorable later period known as the Enlightenment that saw nothing but stagnation.

There has been an Awakening

Mauna Loa, a desolate and windswept volcanic island located deep within the Pacific ocean. This is the mountain stronghold housing the last remnants of the climate science cabal. Beneath it's smoking slopes exists a vast labyrinth of laboratories, housing monolithic computers upon which an army of climate scientists endlessly toil, committing various arcane and blasphemous adjustments to raw data in a desperate bid to topple the global economy.

For over a decade the island has been relatively quiet, smoking ever so slightly. This era of peace was known as the Pause. But now rumor grows of a shadow in the Pacific. I fear a great El Nino may have stirred the island a little too much and woken up those who dwell within, driving them to fiddle data as never before.

Evidence, if you need it

I came to this realization last Thursday around lunchtime, as I was checking over some dusty old excel spreadsheets. I was horrified to find various climate records had turned alarming.

The above chart purports to show the annual increase of CO2 as measured at Mauna Loa itself. Whether carbon dioxide even exists at all is of course debatable, atoms being nothing more than a theory, but for the data to display 2015 as having the largest annual CO2 increase on record is unacceptably alarmist.

Above: Records of sea level and ocean heat also show recent highs. An observer untrained in the ways of blog science might even make the mistake of thinking the pause never happened.

A possible solution to the madness

I have theorized that if we could somehow bring the 1988 testimony of James Hansen to the volcanic peak of Mauna Loa and drop it into the fiery bowels of the infernal mountain itself, we would finally end the reign of Al Gore for good. It would be an arduous and perilous quest for some brave blog scientists, for Mauna Loa is said to be circled by predator drones controlled by the all seeing eye of Obama. Even more dangerous however is the corrupting nature of logic and facts. The person we send would have to carefully chosen, someone who possesses an inate immunity to reason. I would volunteer to do this myself, but I have been drinking a lot of wine lately and plan to drink quite a bit more.