Wednesday 30 December 2009


In response to the hippies over at the NSIDC I announce the formation of the Non-National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NNSIDC).

The operational mission of the NNSIDC is to claim the Polar Opposite of whatever the NSIDC is claiming.

We kick off with NSIDC's Alarmist December 7th 2009 report concerning arctic sea ice conditions in November 2009. As chairman and sole member of the NNSIDC, I have rewriten the NSIDC report almost word for word, but removing all the fear to create a less biased report.

December 7th 2009

In November, the average rate of Arctic sea ice growth defied manmade global warming fears by growing rapidly faster than normal, threatening the all too real possibility of an ice age. Possibly by May.

However, at the end of the month, some regions, in particular the Barents Sea and Hudson was about this time that ClimateGate happened! Have you seen the emails? Whistleblown from warmist computers! Can you believe it? The science is all based on a lie!

Anyway back to the arctic ice situation.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2009 was 10.26 million square kilometers (3.96 million square miles). This was 420,000 square kilometers (160,000 square miles) above November 2006. In general, the ice edge is now largely beyond its average location. So much for global warming.

Conditions in context

By November, much of the Arctic is in complete or near complete darkness. Air temperatures fall dramatically and sea ice grows rapidly. This is worryingly similar to what happens at the onset of an ice age. During November 2009, extent grew at an average 82,000 square kilometers per day (32,000 square miles per day). The rate of increase in sea ice extent has accelerated at an alarming pace! If this keeps up for another year the whole world will be covered in ice.

November 2009 compared to past years

In November 2009 emails and data were whistleblown to produce ClimateGate. Past years did not see this happen.

ice growth: a tale of two regions

Both Hudson Bay and the Barents Sea have experienced a freeze-up this fall. However, the rate of sea ice growth in the two regions probably resulted from different processes, highlighting the complex interactions between the sea ice, atmosphere and ocean. In the Barents Sea, the rate of ice growth was affected by winds that pushed the ice northwards into the very cold central Arctic, while temperatures contributed to the rate of ice growth in Hudson Bay.

The Barents Sea is the deepest of the Arctic coastal seas. It is open on its southern and northern boundaries, allowing winds and currents to move sea ice in and out of the region. In November, southerly winds built up between an area of high pressure over Siberia and low pressure in the northern Atlantic Ocean, in accordance with Buys Ballot's Law. The winds transported air and water from the south, and pushed the ice edge out of the Barents Sea.

Related post
Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

Tuesday 29 December 2009

Double Whammy

500 doctoral scientists skeptical of Darwin

Growing list of signatories challenges claims about support for theory
according to a new analysis of peer-reviewed literature by the Hudson Institute.

500 scientists refute global warming dangers

Centuries of human history say warm periods are good for people
first published by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory"

"This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850"

Monday 28 December 2009

Did The Genesis Flood cause the Ice Age?

The End of the Interglacial. Inappropriately dressed sinners, probably realclimate readers, try to enter the Ark but it's too late. They should have paid more attention to and

As always, please note I never totally commit myself to any specific scientific research in case it turns out wrong. I only reference it to sow doubt about manmade global warming and co2. If it does turn out to be wrong then I expect to be able to move onto the next argument with an untarnished reputation. Thanks.

The Genesis Flood caused the Ice Age

Note the presence of graphs and the References section complete with scientific papers. Figure 7.1 even uses my favored method of depicting the flow of time with an arrow along the x-axis. It's all very convincing. An extract:

"Evidence is also found in northern Europe, northwest Asia, many of the large mountain ranges of Eurasia, and high mountainous areas of the Southern Hemisphere and tropics. But the truth is, scientists still do not know the cause of the Ice Age as succinctly stated by David Alt[1]: “Although theories abound, no one really knows what causes ice ages.” Uniformitarianism has not been able to explain the Ice Age, or events related to the Ice Age. Ice sheets are not developing and melting today so we have no way to actually observe how they developed in the past."

Very interesting, just what I wanted to hear. If we can't explain the ice ages then how can we know co2 causes warming?

Their conclusion is both obvious and powerful:

"In summary, the Flood and its aftershocks provide the volcanic dust and gases that bring the summer cooling indispensable for the Ice Age. Water from the “fountains of the great deep” and mixing during the Flood provides a warm ocean. In the mid and high latitudes the warm ocean would cause copious evaporation and produce massive amounts of snow. The two ingredients required for an Ice Age, cool temperatures and tons of snow, were dramatically fulfilled immediately after the Genesis flood. This unique climate would persist for hundreds of years after the Flood as the intensity of the two mechanisms slowly decreased."

This is the kind of science that should be published in climate journals, discussed openly and frequently at scientific meetings, etc. It should also be taught in schools as children are by far the most innocent and impartial judges of good science. It goes without saying that this science should be mentioned in the IPCC reports too.

But you won't find any of this in the biased IPCC reports or in scientific journals becauce The Team have made sure that any views that dissent from Al Gore's do not get published. Please go and read the article in detail, it looks like the Bible explains climate better than the IPCC. Al Gore thought he was literally God, but now the shoe is on the other foot. The sad state of science today is that journal editors that even dare to publish the scientific evidence that the Geneis Flood caused the Ice Age, let alone that the Genesis Flood was caused by God, would be thrown into a prison by UN thugs. Shouldn't science be fair to all opinions? Shouldn't it be possible to get any idea published without some subjective view of what is "correct" and "incorrect"?

See the following video for more definitive proof that the science is a sham! The science starts at 3:20

One of the most notorious acts of the 20th century has been to redefine peer review to exclude all manners of Good Science, from Bibical Sciences just because a bunch of atheists have a problem with God, all the way to Medicinal methods such a homeopathy just because they are not condoned by Big Pharmaceutical interests. The recent whistleblown ClimateGate emails have exposed this fraud by revealing scientists red handed in the act of redefining peer review:

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Thus all of the "science" done over the 20th century is now in doubt until blog scientists are given all the data to audit and confirm it. I only hope the Theory Of Flight survives auditing so that airplanes the world over can continue fertilizing the atmosphere with necessary levels of Life. Levels of life are currently at a dangerously low 380ppm. Hopefully this information will make it into the next NIPCC report or Professor Monkton will have a word to say about it.

Sunday 27 December 2009

Al Gore

I was thinking. If Al Gore is so concerned about manmade global warming, shouldn't he have lost some weight by now from all the stress?

So it turns out that Al Gore being fat is a strong argument against manmade global warming. An argument which to my mind the IPCC hasn't even bothered to address.

The mainstream media won't even talk about Al Gore's weight. I guess the powers that be deem it an inconvenient truth. I have to rely on blogs for all my news these days.

Did you know 877 new snowfall records set or tied in the USA in the last week?

I read that on the internet. November was also quite cold.

Saturday 26 December 2009

ClimateGate and Post Enlightenment

If you for one second doubted that ClimateGate has thrown into doubt all of 19th and 20th century "science" then read the following article from the world renowned Discovery Institute.

Climategate Recalls Attacks on Darwin Doubters

The Discovery Institute is renowned in the field of Biology just as the Heartland Institute is renowned in the field of Climate.

The Heartland Institute has a warm and touching Christmas message on the new Climate Science subdiscipline of Taxation:

2010 will be the first year of post-"enlightenment" thinking. So-called "scientists" and "experts" in their screwly little "peer review journals" are now a quaint curiousity of the past. Sure they will continue functioning in their own irrelevant way, but they no longer hold the type of "knowledge" politicians or ordinary people care to use to any practical end. Knowledge is finally now in the eye of the beholder, it is utterly down to our vision - how we percieve it. As the Discovery Institute puts it in their catchline, we will "Make a Positive Vision of the Future Practical".

I know Christmas is a time of year where it is especially easy to lapse into bad habits, but please remember to regularly synchronize your thoughts with Think-Tanks in the relevant domain. Your blog scientists will keep you up-to-date with this information.

Saturday 19 December 2009

Polls Have Been Done

Not only is Copenhagen a busted flush, we now have Top Players on the job finding new evidence against the sham of manmade global warming.

GorseFox has conducted a poll

"I conducted an ... poll among work colleagues, among neighbours, among Councillors, and among people attending a Christmas party... Whilst all acknowledged that the earth may be warming, I did not find a single person who believed the CO2 causality. Of these people a very high proportion were successful doctors, solicitors, consultants, and scientists."

In a moment of Christmas party intoxication these professionals have voiced their true opinions. This is obviously a death blow for climate "science". When Solicitors don't believe a scientific theory you know it's days are numbered.

We still have work to do though when people "acknowledge that the earth may be warming". This shouldn't be, they should be skeptical of everything.

On the subject of the truth-serum alcohol, could the Heartland Institute not put on a Climate Science Beer Festival and invite the whole Manmade Global Warming Team? (only 10 scientists wrote the IPCC report, the rest were just watching). Get them drunk and the beans will be spilled.

Sunday 13 December 2009

Cap Carbon - A Smoking Nail Gun

The image below is, in my opinion, one of the most disquieting images ever presented at Denial Depot.

In my last post I observed the fraudulent state of climate "science" computer code. As part of the continuing exercise to discredit scientists I have also been flicking through Station Temperature records looking for anything suspicious.

Suspicious things that prove fraud include:
  • Warming trends
  • Adjusted data
  • Data that can be described as adjusted (aka "processed", "manipulated", "plotted", etc)
  • References to peer-reviewed "science"

What I discovered took my breath away. It turns out that scientists have become so politically indoctrinated that they are leaving traces of their agenda in their work. The following is an actual station temperature record taken from the NASA GISS site. Check the name of the station:

This suggests that Scientists have been fabricating station names all along. This pratice has only been exposed because, perhaps in a lapse of concentration, a scientist wrote their political objective to "Cap Carbon" on the graph instead fabricating a realistic station name. Then again I prefer to imagine the person who did this was a whistleblower. A whistleblower who became fed up with the fake science of manmade global warming and decided to expose the whole charade. Perhaps Keith Briffa again?
We must now doubt all temperature station names until we can be sure the locations actually exist. Why hasn't the IPCC checked this? So it seems NoHopeInHellHagen has to be called off again. Manmade global warming is based on nothing more than a lie.
The Side Bar: A quick lesson on Plotting Data
The side bar is a feature I use to teach my readers the "dos" and "donts" of science. The previous sidebar covered the team "science" practice of lazily using so-called "exponentials" rather than writing numbers out in their true virgin form.
In this sidebar I want to look at plotting data - what is plotting data and what does it mean for science?
Plotting data is a form of data adjustment and is therefore inherently wrong according to the "keep it pure, keep it raw" data doctrine of Blog Science. Data should always be presented in it's true tabular form, not "adjusted" into an arbitary graphical format simply for viewing pleasure. It's scientifically improper and even slightly amoral to sit there watching images of data.
The IPCC of course have no moral or scientific qualms and so rely heavily on graphs to "prove" global warming. If the public just saw the numbers in a table they wouldn't notice any manmade warming at all, just a load of natural numbers. The alarmist IPCC cannot stand this fact and so they adjust temperature data into graphical format. With a line here and a line there the IPCC know that data can be made to say anything using graphs. Garbage In Garbage Out.

Sunday 6 December 2009


I have uncovered breathtaking fraud! Not merely a smoking gun more like a smoking ICBM!

Before revealing this I need to point out that in a previous post I may have implied that NASA had faked the recent CRU email leak. While I don't believe in correcting posts (blog scientists should never modify recorded data), I would like to point out that NASA didn't fake the CRU email leak afterall. That's right, NASA merely tricked me into accusing them of an elaborate hoax. Just as they once tricked me into accusing them of faking the moon landing.

Well it wasn't just emails that were leaked - computer code was leaked too and I have uncovered fraud!

First some background. In the 1980s everything was going swimmingly for the so-called "scientists". They had their fine ivory rooms in their collosal ivory towers, they had their grant money delivered in huge money buckets and access to all the finest fancy restaurants in Hollywood. But then they made a fatal mistake. Probably sometime between the Olivetti and the Amiga one of them thought "hmm all this calculating by hand is rather tiresome...lets trying programming it into a computer instead."

And so fate viciously unfolded. By merely typing a single line of computer code and pressing enter they instantly and unwittingly handed me the keys to the kingdom. Immediately they provided me the expertize to understand and assess all of climate science armed only with my deep knowledge of Visual Basic 5.0 which I gleaned from a two year stint with a temping agency.
Realizing their mistake the so-called "scientists" clamoured over desks and drawers to shut down links with the outside world. All the source code was placed deep inside the CRU computer (sort of looks like the last scene in raiders of the lost arc) where they thought noone would think of looking. And they were right...until now.

NASA blame a hacker. I find it more convenient to believe a whistleblower did it. I think it was Al Gore. But anyway the important fact is the code is free! To non-programmers it is just cryptic symbols. But to my trained programming eyes all the symbols align into dazzling shapes and images. It all fell together. I couldn't believe it. All this time I had trusted these scientists on this very important issue! Honestly I had. Remember? But now that trust was broken. I had to report my discovery to the public as a matter of urgently. And so here I am.

So what did I find? You won't be disapointed, this is so clearly fraud, the case is rock solid. Write to your representatives immediately. Here is the proof I found, a comment which read:

; fudge factor

You see fortunately they put comments into the code in case at a later date they forgot they were committing fraud.

That proves it! It's fraud!

What are the implications of this? Well we can no longer be sure that co2 as a molecule even exists. Manmade global warming is proven to be a complete farce simply invented as an excuse for taxes. NoHopeInHellHagen will have to be cancelled and taxation will have to be wiped out completely. This will require a complete shake up of the financial system. Governments will crumble, there will probably be wars. Maybe we will have to live on the moon afterall. I did warn them of this!

This also casts severe doubt on knowledge in general. Are we really here? Are we just brains in jars?

Wednesday 25 November 2009

Parodying a Warmist Blog

I consider parody to be somewhat pathetic, a pointless puerile exercise only undertaken by pathetic, pointless people. Well I did think that until the awe inspiring Heartland Institute told me to believe otherwise.

A turn of events has unfolded. A Master of Puns, a punisher if you will, has descended upon the warmist blogs and unleashed cleverly named parodies to ridicule them. is the main parody, it is very witty and very subtle indeed, but believe me it is a parody. No really, it is. is parodied by and by Just who is the genius who came up with these clever slights on names? Coursewatch. Genious. I bet they are mad to have their names mispronounced like that. And the blog content is so vivid and lifelike too!

I wonder where they got the idea of using parody as a means of ridiculing blogs? I only wish I had thought of it first.

I am late to the party, but it's not too late to join in. So in honor of desoggybog, extrasillysecrets and coursewatch, I made a parody blog of the same caliber. What I basically did was think long and hard about my target warmist blog, long and hard about the flaws in their arguments and long and hard about a load of names I would call them. There is a fine line between critique through imitation and just sounding plain pathetic. Fortunately desmoggybog avoids the line altogether and I believe my effort ReallySillyStupidClimate does too.

Sunday 22 November 2009

NASA Fakes Email Leak

A rocket launches from NASA CRU's GISTEMP headquarters. Can it really be right for such launches be to made in such close proximity to important climate data?

Over the weekend NASA's University of East Anglia has alleged hackers have "stolen and released" a bunch of scientist's emails. 

However what makes me deeply suspicious is the complete lack of correspondence with Al Gore in these released emails. Where are all the emails showing Al Gore's involvement? Even more bizarrely there is no plotting and planning on how to raise taxes. I don't see any mention of the socialist new world order that these scientists are trying to bring about. Not once do they talk about how to best achieve wealth redistribution or world government.

So I have to conclude this this email release is a big con. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate leak to make these scientists look better and to try and silence skeptics who question their motives. If we are to believe the emails, the scientists don't actually think their work is in error! But we know they must realize it's all a big con, so how can these emails possibly be true?

I was expecting something like this:

From: "Michael Mann"
To: "James Hansen"
CC: "Al Gore", &WorldGovernmentDistributionList
Subject: A good idea!
Date: Mon, 21 October 2008 09:15:31

Hail Comrade,

October temperature release draws near. How about you just reuse the Sept 2008 temperatures? I figure that way it will make it the warmest October on record!

Al says this will be an excellent move for his stock portfolio.

btw I don't know what to do with all that grant money coming through my door, it is starting to fill up my front hall. I bought 5 more Ferrari's and a yacht, but it isn't reducing it much.

In Stalin,


That is the kind of thing I was expecting to find. Blog science and the Heartland Institute have provided plenty of discussion to lead me to believe the above kind of emails should exist.

But all I could find was some BS email in which they talked about OctoberGate as if it was just some error in russian data. They even had the tenacity to add in a note that skeptics wouldn't believe it was just an error. A likely story! It's clear to me that the emails are fake.

-hattip to Baron von Monckhofen who in the previous post's comments suggested what the emails could have contained

Sunday 15 November 2009

450 Peer-Reviewed Papers To Support Your Arguments Against So-Called "science"

Some books. Yes I know they are not the peer-reviewed papers in question, but if other blogs got away with a photo of a few folders I think I can get away with a photo of a few books. At least my image is public domain.

Someone has made another skeptic list! A list of papers that make various arguments against manmade global warming. The list of papers supporting skepticism of so-called "science" is so long that I can't even post it here. I have to use an Internet Linked URL instead:

Bear in mind these 450 papers are the tip of a growing iceberg that refuses to melt, so in a way this is yet more evidence of cooling. The 450 only includes a small sample of total papers supporting skepticism because we know there are at least 30,000 scientists skeptical of manmade global warming on the Oregon Petition and I find it hard to believe they haven't all published at least one paper each. The list also doesn't include peer reviewed blog posts or peer reviewed blog comments.

Usually peer review is a sign of "team science". We spit on "peer review", it's not perfect so it doesn't meet our high standards of absolute proof. But in this case peer review is a sign that these papers carry authority because the peers are skeptics. Some of them have even been published in the high impact journal Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dream of being published in.

How to read scientific papers

The benefit of the list is that you don't have to read them, you can just copy paste the entire list all over the internet. But if you do want to read some of the papers on the list you should take the following advice to make sure you don't do it wrong.

Never read papers in context of other papers. This is the mistake warmists make. Global warming skeptics know that reading papers is not an exercise in understanding the state of the science, but an exercise of finding spanners to throw in the wheels of manmade global warming. Find some nice arguments to bash warmists with but for heavens sake don't analyze the arguments in context of other papers.

Why you say? Well if you try to compile and understanding of how nature works from the 450 list you will only get confused. For example some of the arguments include:

  • Global temperature has risen naturally
  • Global temperature hasn't risen
  • Global temperature doesn't exist
  • The greenhouse effect is saturated
  • The greenhouse effect doesn't exist

They are all good arguments to support our skepticism if taken individually, but not if you think about them all at once. Try to divide the arguments into separate compartments in your head so they won't merge into one another in a baffling contradiction. You can still throw all of the above arguments at warmists, it's bound to confuse them. Make sure you assert the papers have "shown" or "proven" the argument is true. There are also some great political speeches in some of the papers and one uses an introduction quote by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

Update: In error I had written "Energy and Environment, the journal that climate "scientists" can only dread of being published in". I have now corrected "dread", to "dream". This was an unfortunate typo. If you have blog expert reviewer status please take the updated version before you review, thanks.

Sunday 8 November 2009

Correcting GISTEMP

GISTEMP is the NASA GISS global temperature surface record and it belongs to James Hansen.

People sometimes ask why climate skeptics criticize GISTEMP so much? Well it started off as a hunch, we felt that if our arch nemesis James Hansen was running it, it must be wrong. If this was merely politics that would be all we needed to believe it was wrong. But this is science and science demands evidence, so dutifully we sought out evidence to back our conclusion.

Here I bring together all the lines of evidence we have manufactured and furthermore I show how GISTEMP would look after corrections.

GISTEMP disagrees with the satellite record

The first piece of evidence is a simple observation. Since 1979 satellites have been measuring the temperature of the lower atmosphere. GISTEMP is trying to measure the temperature of the surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are not exactly the same thing, but you'd expect the temperature trend in both to be somewhat similar.

But look at how GISTEMP shows far more warming than the UAH satellite record. The disagreement is astronomical. This is what Blog Science has been banging on about for years!

Urban Heat Island Effect

Warmists will tell you there is no such thing as the urban heat island effect, but that's a complete strawman because their very own studies say there is an urban heat island effect. In fact they even try to correct for it in GISTEMP!

As Blog Scientists we must assume they don't correct for UHI enough. Blog Science knows that GISTEMP is contaminated by UHI bias. In the following graph I correct GISTEMP for UHI by 0.01C/decade.

If this was the full magnitude of UHI contamination that Blog Science was suggesting we would be just making a big deal about nothing! Don't worry we aren't. So obviously we must be talking about a far bigger correction being needed. Lets try correcting GISTEMP by 0.05C/decade for UHI bias.

That's more like it. We can now see that the allegations against GISTEMP not correcting for UHI make a big difference!

Micro-site Biases

The surface record relies on sensors. Sensors are uncannily aware of the tidiness of their surroundings. They are very partial on having nice tidy surroundings and being checked on by men in smart lab coats. If these conditions are not met they refuse to measure temperature properly and just spin around, warmer and warmer, out of control.

It has been proven by Blog Science that James Hansen hasn't personally kept all the sensor locations tidy. In fact noone seems to have bothered and tourists have left rubbish like barrels and boats lying around, items known to cause warming trends. Even worse some people have installed AC units near sensors. Blog Science knows that by installing an AC unit or a boat next to a sensor, that sensor will read ever higher temperatures each year until eventually the sensor will melt.

Warmists claim that the GISTEMP algorithm statistically detects and removes such significant biases from the record. But as Blog Scientists we assume otherwise.  We also demand to know why science isn't performed like in the movies? Why aren't there teams of good looking men and woman scientists in shiny suits going around in futuristic metallic science vans tidying up the sensors? Blog Science can only conclude that microsite biases are not properly accounted for in GISTEMP and that these biases cause GISTEMP to be too warm.

Like with UHI bias the microsite bias must be somewhat large or else we would just be making a big deal about nothing! So I propose another correction of 0.05C, this time for microsite bias. The following graph shows the total correction (0.1C/decade) for UHI bias and microsite bias.

We see that correcting for UHI and microsite bias has reduced the warming a lot! So much for the IPCC's predictions of children melting within 20 years.

Now lets compare the corrected GISTEMP to UAH satellite record again. The following graph shows that the previous disagreement between GISTEMP and the satellite record has disappeared thanks to our Blog Science efforts. It has been replaced with a new disagreement though.

Now the satellites show too much warming. The conclusion is obvious. It is time for Blog Science to attack the reliability of the satellite records.

Tuesday 3 November 2009

Met Office Hadley Admits Surface Record Is "Incorrect"

From the horses mouth itself:

A substantial proportion of the September CLIMAT monthly land station summary report data that was sent over the GTS (Global Telecommunication System) was obviously incorrect. For the past few weeks we have been liaising with the sources to gain a version that was correct. As this issue affects a substantial portion of the globe we are not in a position to release a 'global' estimate. Nor will we do so until we are satisfied that an adequate amount of verified data is present.

Just as I expected they are too busy "validating" the data to bother releasing it. Why not release it and let Blog Scientists search for errors? We can publish our results in the Telegraph and in an article on the Register, both Journals with a history of fair-handed reporting on the subject.

I can only guess what "liaising with the sources" means. Sounds a lot like a metaphor for "team science"

Can the IPCC finally be disbanded now?

Monday 2 November 2009

HadCrut3 - Where the **** is my data?!

Where is the September temperature update?! It's now November.

This is intolerable having to wait over two months for data. Where is it? You can tell I am angry! I need this data immediately for Blog Science Auditing.

I hope they aren't wasting time validating the data before they release it. I just need the data, if there's any errors in it I am sure it can be corrected shortly after release without fuss.

As this is a top science blog, why not post me your own suggestions of what the Hadley Climate Center could be doing? Remember now is the season to tie every paranoid thought to  Copenhagen somehow.

I'll kick you off: Are they too busy installing their fake tree rings in Siberian forests?

Update: Another blog is also concerned

Friday 30 October 2009


Global warming - Solved.

I recently discovered a book which finally puts manmade global warming to bed in a coffin and then nails the lid firmly shut. It's called SuperFreakonomics and it's written by Top Men who are bravely attempting to solve the world's problems through the medium of selling books. My worldview was immediately challenged by the image of an exploding apple on the cover. Most people would never expect an apple to actually explode like that. In many ways this book has all the qualities of Blog Science. It's almost like a blog written on paper with comments disabled.

The most important problem they solve is how to stick it to warmists. The solution they provide is to point out that even if co2 was a problem, we can solve that problem without raising taxes. All it would take is a smoke machine attached to a funnel. All the smoke would then be funneled up into the sky where it would block sunlight and offset any global warming. Oh and just to stick it to the warmists more, it turns out the best place in the world to put such a smoke machine is on top of scenically mined Alberta oil sands - so those will definitely need to be mined ASAP.

Any guess as to why the IPCC reports don't have a chapter on smoking the warming out of the atmosphere? Is it because smoke pipes, even long ones, cannot be taxed?

How did these SuperFreakonomics geniuses come up with such an off-the-wall solution to mythical global warming? I suspect they did so by ignoring the peer reviewed literature on the matter. This would enable them to successfully open their minds to wild possibilities and conclusions unconstrained by so-called "experts".

So congratulation to the Super Freakonomics guys, but they shouldn't get too cocky! Given my importance in the area of Blog Science I am very suprised they didn't contact me before publication. It's hard to imagine they haven't heard of this blog so what were they thinking? I wonder if they were inspired by my idea of using catapults to throw co2 into the stratosphere where it would become mixed with the ether of space?

Public service announcement: The liberals will want you to put your clocks back an hour this week. Please delay doing so as long as possible, we need to save as much daylight as possible this Hale winter.

Thursday 29 October 2009

Scientists admit the Sun is the only factor in climate - no need to raise taxes afterall!

A lone bird worries about the coming maunder minimum.

Breaking news from last year just in. Russian Scientists, known to be one of most credible types of scientist, have discovered that the Sun dominates the climate and published the following PDF to the Blog Review Process. As is typical with the Blog Review Process, it gets flagged through as a superb piece of science.

I was stunned and amazed to hear this news. To think we are privileged to live in 2009 AD, the most important year so far in climate science - the year in which a Russian scientist finally proved we don't need more taxes.

This is not merely a relatively unknown scientist publishing a PDF full of rehashed ideas. No this is a groundbreaking moment. Galileo and Einstein have finally been superseded. 

When I saw Figure 6 I literally spat coffee all over the keyboard I was so impressed. Lines all draw in parallel fashion with timelines and numbers. Very impressive. Concerns the amount of ice I believe. Ice has gone up since 2007 and the Sun has gone down. Cannot be a coincidence. Just cannot!

Not only does he put a final nail in the coffin of Alarmism, but he also sounds the alarm that we are descending into a catastrophic cold period.

Thursday 1 October 2009

The Yamal Fraud - I Have Found It

One of the most disquieting images ever presented at Denial Depot. If you are afraid of harrowing diagrams look away now.

I thought I better do a post about Yamel before the bandwagon skips town, so here it is.

What are the technical details of the Yamel issue? Simply put it doesn't matter, the devils in the details and he'll just utterly baffle us given half the chance. What's important is that Yamal is yet another nail in the coffin of AGW that can be cast into the faces of the believers.

Summary of Yamal

Team Science tried to "reconstruct" the past 1000 years of temperature by producing what is known as the Spaghetti graph, so named because it depends entirely on using fossilized Siberian spaghetti plants as a proxy for temperature. First of all temperature has been a well known unit of measurement in science for decades now, so I have no idea why Team Science thought they could even get away with re-constructing it from scratch. But anyway, it didn't take long for Blog Science to uncover the spaghetti graph to be a lie. Pasta and it's derivatives are not good proxies for temperature after all, as any good Blog Scientist could have told so-called "scientists" in the first place - Detailed Experiments have been done.


Yes this incident created a fantastic opening to allege Fraud.

But as far as I know I am the only Blog Scientist to have actually located and put a date to this fraud. I produced the opening diagram above by taking the fraudulent "Spaghetti graph" and overlaying a Good Reconstruction free of fraud over the top. Logically then the fraud must lie in the difference and I have circled that difference. It turns out the fraud is located in a small area just before 1000AD, about when the Vikings invaded Communist Greenland. This is possibly the earliest documented evidence of AGW fraud and I found it first.


The difference between fraud and no fraud turns out to be about 0.4 degrees C ('C' means Cold, sometimes spoken in latin, 'Celcius'). No wonder Team Science wanted to utterly and completely annihilate this 0.4 degrees C. That 0.4C is the make or break of man-made global warming. Think about it, if temperature was 0.4C warmer than thought 1000 years ago, then how could the 3C alleged warming from man-made global warming over the next 100 years have any effect whatsoever?

Thursday 24 September 2009

Mis-Communicating The Science - How can we do it better?

We all know so-called "science" coming from political organizations like NASA is a pack of lies. So to help the public we need to mis-communicate such "science". Ie tough to be kind.

Yet the issues involved in science mis-communication are complex and often seem intractable. We've seen many different approaches, but guessing which will work (State Of Fear, The Great Global Warming Swindle) and which won't ( is a tricky call.

I spend many a night thinking how better to mis-communicate the science. It is a big problem that can't simply be solved by throwing another Heartland Institute Climate Conference as much as we all love them.

No we almost need to rethink our strategy and given Blog Science's track record of daring the impossible and generally winning that dare, I guess we are the ones to do it.

The Problem

The problem is that the liberal public have an ill-founded regard for socio-organizations like NASA and the NOAA. We have the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine but surprisingly few people have heard of it.

To mis-communicate the science better we need to dilute these organizations. So far we've relied on deriding their people while promoting ours, a strategy that if in geometric form would surely look like a Wedge.

Thinking Inside the Box

If you take "thinking outside the box" to it's logical conclusion you realize all the best ideas must be inside the box where no-one expects. And why do people assume everyday thinking is constrained by a box anyway? Why not a sphere or a pyramid or even a 4 corner simultaneous 4-day time cube? These are some of the questions we dare to ask.

Suggestions For Remedying the problem

Here are some suggestions I have been sent for how we can better mis-communicate the science. I appeal to everyone to come up with more suggestions and add them in the comments. 

The first suggestion I received was from a warmist going by the name of "tim". The actual suggestion was over a paragraph long and so I have had to remove quite a few words to conserve space while maintaining the meaning:

"One method would involve you guys actually publishing arguments to something you might have heard of called "Peer Review" rather than blogs ... I ... am ... [a] liars [(sic)]"

Well first "tim", thanks for your suggestion but may I suggest that you first read up on what peer review actually is before criticizing Blog Science? In fact don't bother, reading up is always a waste of time when I can tell you. "peer review" (it's lower case not capitalized) means your work is paraded up and down in front of a panel of UN appointed bureaucrats who won't even look at it if it doesn't suggest higher taxes and an end to the US economy. Also "tim", as a warmist you didn't provide your full name and home address in accordance with my Blog Respect Policy. You've overstepped the mark and so I am giving you a 2 week ban from this Blog. I hope you will spend the time wisely reconsidering your worldview, although I expect you will squander it.

Remember that unlike warmist sites such as "realclimate" and "rabbet run" I never ban people except when I do. Therefore manmade global warming must be a myth.

Anyway with that administration work out of the way lets move on to a far better suggestion  from young 33 year old Sarah from Alaska (no not that Sarah, wrong age and besides that Sarah would never use such a crude word as "erect"):

"Why not erect mock organizations shadowing the ones environmentalists depend on? I propose they be named identically but for a preceding 'non' to signify our disgust at their views. For example we would set up the NNSIDC, the 'Non-National Snow and Ice Data Center' and NNOAA, the 'Non-National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'"

That's a great suggestion Sarah! You have thought it all through really hard and deserve a pat on the head. 

Several of my male readers however will probably pick up on a few problems with this suggestion. I am afraid that simply putting the word "non" in front of the names of organizations couldn't possibly convince anyone. It's certainly not the kind of behavior skeptics could be seen engaging in. For one thing who would fund such a campaign? Certainly not Big Oil who have reputations to uphold.

The next thoughtful suggestion comes from Terrance Jones who scrapes together a "living" in the UK, a vassal of Socialist Europe:

"Can we not get some young conservative blokes to infiltrate academia, work their way to the top and finally take it down from the inside?"

This is certainty a good idea but I am afraid the attrition rate may be too high. If those professors are good at one thing (they aren't) it's indoctrinating youth and educating them stupid.

Do you have any suggestions on how we can better miscommunicate the science? What do you think? Send me your wild thoughts in the comments below.

Monday 21 September 2009

Climate Modeling. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Pacman or GISS Model E? There is an analogy in there somewhere. Perhaps the ghosts are auditors and Pacman is a so-called "scientist" chasing and feeding off government funding grants. The big dots are IPCC award dinners.

As a Blogger I am uniquely placed to independently audit the role and application of computers in climate science. My expertize goes further though. I put together my home computer network with very little help from so-called IT "professionals" . I am fluent in the HTML programming language and have used the Ebay auctioning World Wide Web Internet Site on a number of occasions. I have also personally defeated the Chessmaster 3000. So I am a self-taught computer expert, sure, but enough of my CV, what about the wisdom I can offer you the reader?

A Brief Introduction to Fundamentals of the Computer (AKA Computer Science)

What is a computer? A computer is a tool. I am a lot like a computer; I can read fonts, perform arithmetic, etc. But computers don't understand politics or emotions. They can't understand when they are being misused by the UN to raise taxes for example. At least not yet, my knowledge of computers and futurology leads me to believe that by 2020 most computers will simply refuse to process false data.

So what does GIGO mean? It means "Garbage in Garbage out". To summarize a very complex and advanced concept, GIGO means if you feed bad numbers into the computer you will get bad numbers coming out. You can only get good output out if you put good input in. And if you put fiddled numbers into a computer what do you get out? Temperature records and so-called "climate models". Warmists rely on this quirk of computers to fabricate their false results.

For this reason computers should be used sparingly in science. By science I am of course referring to Real Science, not the modern "mainstream" corrupt version. Real science is universally recognized to involve real world experiments which anyone can understand. The kind that involve big instruments with straight forward names that do straight forward things. For example a thermometer, a telescope, a drill, an axe. From Newton to Galileo to Ernst Beck, real scientific progress has been made by scientists without resorting to computers to do their thinking for them. The use of computers in science is only justified in a few select cases:

  • To control scientific instruments (eg control a big telescope, display the output of a thermometer, activate an axe)

  • Drawing graphs of raw data (eg Excel, but this program can also be misused to "adjust" data)

  • Blogging (eg Blogspot, Wordpress)

Warmists however will tell you that computers can be used to prove things, that computers have mind of their own and "think" up new ideas and analyze existing ones. This is a strawman and completely wrong. Here are some things computers should not be used for:

  • Adjusting data.

  • Performing arithmetic. This is just lazy and introduces the possibility of something in computer science called User Error. The correct method is to write all your working out on paper, or if you must - use a calculator. This also helps with auditing.

  • Modeling. Computers cannot analyze ideas, it is folly to think the human mind is less capable than a machine in this regard.

Three Reasons Why Climate Cannot be Modeled

  1. Chaos Theory. Chaos Theory says the climate cannot be modeled unless the behavior of butterflies is taken into account (or anything of a similar size). As climate models cannot even take the behavior of entire countries into account, the whole concept of climate modelling is falsified by Chaos Theory. 

  2. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. If we cannot even be certain where one particle is, how can we be certain of the position of clouds?

  3. Another reason that climate cannot be modeled is that the climate is just too complex for man to even comprehend, although admittedly I have come very close on a number of occasions.
The History of Climate Models

The early 1980s
In the early 1980s, cutting edge research on computer programming languages such as COBOL and FORTRAIN convinced researchers that virtual worlds could be simulated in computer code. "Computer modeling", as it later became known, would become the basis of a thriving video game industry providing entertainment (I use that word loosely) for kids. Some of the children weaned on video games would inevitably grow up to become the next generation of socialists and so it was only a matter of time until the technology was against us to raise taxes and damage the economy of the free world. The chosen method of the time was to use environmental issues as a proxy for the Soviet agenda [1]

The late 1980s
First to the plate was a little known environmental activist named James Hansen. A NASA employee at the time, Hansen wrote a video simulation of climate to claim an ice age was imminent. This claim subsequently melted as the real world confounded such simplistic notions by embarking on a natural warming cycle caused entirely by the Sun (not co2). In an effort to cover this up, environmentalists turned instead to apocalyptic claims that the warming was not natural and would wipe out life on Earth. The IPCC was born.

The early 1990s
The early 1990s saw a new computer operating system known as Linux emerge in the Soviet Union. It's goal was nothing short of establishing communism as the basis of software engineering by insisting that software should be free. Linux was launched in early 1991 to socialist acclaim, but thanks to the collapse of the Soviet Union and to a counter-attack by Microsoft's launch of Windows 3.1 in 1992, Linux never became a popular operating system. Once again the communist ideology was shown to fail in a Free Market system.

Linux still exists to this day, largely under the socialist inspired codename "Red hat". This operating system is used primarily today as a software piracy platform used by hackers drawn by it's promise of free source codes and lack of digital rights management. But it's secondary role is as a necessary prop for climate modeling.

It is perhaps possible that Climate Models using a certified Microsoft Windows Vista operating system would be largely immune to the figure-fiddling, number-fudging, adjustment-making of so-called "scientists". I don't know the intricacies of particular operating systems and their digital rights management support, but I do know that in the early 1990s a new wave of socialist "scientist" was fashioned in the dying embers of the Soviet Union. The dawn of the so-called "climate modeler". Working under the glare of socialist environmental organizations and with abundant funding from the British Government [1] these "climate modelers" would claim that computers proved warming was caused by man and more taxes were needed to stop it. Meanwhile the globe was warming. Slight warming since the 70s was being caused entirely by SOI and ENSO (not co2).

The early 2000s
Even though Hansen's earlier 1988 prediction was of global cooling, he nevertheless put in a contingency plan - a Y2K bug which would go off in the year 2000 and result in 1998 to be the warmest year in history. Despite this attempt the ruse was spotted by Blog Scientists and a forced correction was made so that the actual warmest year on record is now 1934. Meanwhile the modest warming since the 70s caused entirely by GCR induced cloud changes (not co2) suddenly ended. Around the same time the politician "Al" "Gore" flew onto the scene in his jumbo jet with his "documentary", An Inconvenient "Truth".

The Sorry State Of Climate Modeling Today

Climate modeling today is in flux. The IPCC climate model has been falsified dozens of times. Let me unleash some words: Water, air, earth, wind, clouds, waves, ice, tides, sand, snow, grass, north, south, east, west, biological reproduction, earthquakes. It is not clear which, if any of these words are included in the so-called "climate models" and yet all of them are part of our Earth and therefore part of our climate. If I don't know what models contain how can we trust them to correctly predict future climate?

My Demands

  1. I hereby demand the IPCC rewrite it's climate model in a modern programming language such as Visual Basic or Java Script for auditing purposes.

  2. I hereby demand all data files held on IPCC computers are released immediately to wordpress and blogspot so they can be directly accessed by Blog Scientists.

If my demands are not met I may be forced to obtain this data through Freedom of Information requests and YouTube Takedowns.


Tuesday 15 September 2009


This is the first entry of a glossary I will be compiling in response to the so-called "RealClimate" "Comprehensive climate glossary"

RealClimate is an alarmist website headed by an interesting picture of a giant orange sun warming the Earth. But look closely and you will see giant chimneys the size of small planets looming over the Earth's atmosphere. No such planet sized chimneys actually exist as far as we know (NASA confirms this), so such an image paints a false reality

I advise anyone with a nervous disposition to avoid reading the RealClimate "climate glossary". I myself have a stout heart but nevertheless I almost choked on my breakfast when I read the first entry on Aerosols and stumbled across the alarming word "anthropogenic" which had been recklessly placed in the midst of an otherwise harmless sentence. To think that children might innocently stumble across such material.

Realclimate describe an Aerosol as "A collection of airborne solid or liquid particles, with a typical size between 0.01 and 10 ┬Ám and residing in the atmosphere for at least several hours. Aerosols may be of either natural or anthropogenic origin."

But just how do they know these airborne solids stay in the atmosphere for "at least several hours"? If you spray a can of deodorant in a fair sized locker room and come back just 30 minutes later the smell will have gone. This is a real world experiment and one which I have performed.

With such flaws in mind I decided to write a corrected climate glossary with up to date Blog Science definitions. The first entry is..


sometimes referred to as Natural Cycles

A Cycle is a kind of quasi-mystical non-explanation for climate events unfolding around us which we can invoke to explain away any climate change as natural. 

If glaciers are melting, sea ice is declining, temperature is going up and sea level is increasing, well that's just part of a Natural Cycle out of the last ice age and of course we expected that to happen. If the opposite happens and it starts getting colder, glaciers and sea ice start growing, sea ice starts increasing and sea level is dropping, well that's also expected because a Natural Cycle moves in mysterious ways.

Cycles can also be used to predict the future. If the climate is warming it's almost certainly going to cool soon and if it's cooling there is almost certainly going to be a devastating ice age down the line and we should prepare for it by reducing taxes. 

Cycles keep us on our toes and put a few dozen nails in the coffin of manmade global warming at the same time. Some cycles have names, for example PDO, AMO, the unstoppable 1500-year cycle [1] (which recently stopped), the carbon cycle, the accelerating Heartland Climate Conference cycle, and so on. Other cycles remain unknown. It's these invisible unknown cycles that we can blame for climate change when all else fails.

I remember when we marveled at our ignorance of nature and didn't pretend to try to understand it all. Those were the good old days when men would respect Cycles in nature. So-called "scientists" in their lavish towering laboratories made of fine ivory could learn a thing or two about climate from fishermen and farmers who live by Natural Cycles. These are Real People living in the Real World with Real Jobs and Real Concerns about taxes.

Anyway I am rambling now. So concludes the glossary entry for cycles.


Saturday 12 September 2009

Respect Policy

My last paper recieved a few comments, one querying the Respect Policy of this blog:

"I assume that Inferno's policy is similar to that of Professor Watts..

Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles and no name get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion. "

Well I am not familar with this Professor Watts and in fact my respect policy is even stronger than the above. This goes for warmists only, skeptics already have by respect.

It's important to remember that in Blog Science your name is as important, if not more important, than your arguments. If there's a problem with your identity there's automatically going to be a way for me to dismiss your argument.

Problems with your identity might include:
  1. Working for or being in someway associated with "acedemia" in which case you are just trying to defend your funding stream.
  2. Having a so-called "degree" (same as above)
  3. Having a name that sound a bit liberal (French names, etc), ie you are hoping for a return to communism.
This is why I need to know your identity in order to be sure you aren't hiding any such skeletons. Additionally use of "cryptic handles" may imply association with the Climatati or other such nefarious underground organizations.

So I demand warmists not only use their full and real name on this blog if they want respect, but also that they provide the full names of their immediate family. Don't worry I won't use this information for anything other than digging up dirt on them and their families in order to discredit their arguments.

As a plus side by using your real full name your posts will become permanently recorded into the google search engine, meaning past, present and future aquaintances will all be able to google your name and see everything you do online in your free time without you knowing. Who on earth could have a problem with that?

Skeptics are handled a little differently. You don't need to use your real name, but if you do and have any associations with acedemia this increases your respect.

Friday 11 September 2009

Arctic Sea Ice: Staggering Growth

August 2009 Arctic Sea Ice data is just in and it's another nail in the coffin of AGW. Ice is just refusing to melt and continues the pattern of severe growth of recent years. Are we headed into another Ice Age?

Please send this to your senators and congressmen so they will have true information to base decisions on. Perhaps just as they are about to pass some Death Taxes they will see this graph and realize "hang on a second! we're being lied to!"


In the comments section someone asks "I'm not a scientist. could you explain why the chart is tilted at an angle? Also, does the blue line show that median(?) ice extent has declined by 2 million sq km since 1978?"

I have just done what the alarmists do and defined a base-line (the grey horizontal line). Alarmists always choose flat base-lines, but they never reference a paper from a statistics journal to justify this choice ("climate science" is sloppy like this).

I decided to use a sloped base-line instead, in which case the graph must be tilted at an angle to align it correctly. The blue line is heading upwards relative to the baseline so this data cannot possibly be interpretted as a "decline" in sea ice.

Remember to apply your blog science skills and question everything. Question, for example, the conventional "wisdom" that says y-axes must go vertically and x-axes horizonally.Why should time go horizontally and extent go vertically? Remember that actual ice extent is a measure of the horizontal spread of sea ice, so in many respects by making the Y-axis more horizontal I have displayed the data in a more correct manner than so-called "phd scientists" do.

Thursday 10 September 2009

Where's the warming?

Where is the warming? I have truth aligned the above graph in complex ways that you might not understand.

Let me explain

The warmists use something called an "anomaly" on the Y-axis, an arbitary choice, but one which I decided to follow. However the alarmists only plot a Y-axis range of about 2 degrees C wheras I plotted the full 20 degrees of temperature range on the Y-axis. This is more typical of the daily temperature cycle and so more realistic.

I used the hadcrut surface record rather than rely on one of the suspiciously "adjusted" and biased satellite records. I also avoided drawing the plot in red as that assigns unnecessary weight and significance to it.

Looks very flat doesn't it? Where's the warming. Is there any? I can't tell. We might never know. Doubt.

How Alarmists Fake Graphs

So how do alarmists exaggerate upward trends at the end of graphs? Well they scale down the Y-axis to a ridiculous level. Let me show you the same trick they apply elsewhere. Below I have plotted global population as an alarmist might plot it:

Notice the apparent hockey-stick shape? The alarming upward curve at the end? This is the population "explosion" graph that alarmists go on and on about.

But here is the same data which I have truthed aligned using blog science principles:

Where's the alarming population rise now?

Remember that lower population is far worse than higher population. Higher population has always been associated with prosperity whereas lower population is associated with black plague and maunder minimums and the Thames freezing over.

Relevant Links:

Image 9:

Sunday 30 August 2009

Recent Climate History

Figure 1: What Really Happened. Note the Roman Warm Period and Age Of The Dinosaur are not shown, neither is the great Submarine Warming Period and the recent 21st Century Ice Age.


The alarmists are always banging on about risks to the climate. But they never risk their own identities, prefering instead to hide behind a cowardly system of net-anonymity. I use my actual name in everything I do online, I even publish how much I can bench press (300lb). I have hunted game in real life. I could if I had the chance kill a polar bear with a good rifle or my hands if it came down to it.

And that's an important qualification in climate science. Any climate scientist who hasn't shot their own Polar Bear quite frankly doesn't understand the first thing about the out-the-lab realities of nature. Because I do understand the realities of nature it means I can avoid pointless labish "analysis". I can just cut to the chase by focusing on obvious real world self-truths passed down through time honored rumor fueled speculation.

In what follows I will explain how recent global climate history drives nails into the coffin of manmade global warming at every turn. But first lets get one thing straight, I don't "do" dates when talking about history. For one thing the calendar is uncertain with missing days here and missing days there and competing theories (gregorian, julian etc) and so it would be biased to pick any one. Dates are unnecessary anyway it turns out. I can instead to reference history by temperature periods. So when I say "Medieval Warm Period" or "Little Ice Age" these define themselves and it's logically absurd to ask me to nail them down to a specific period of dates or to demand history to be chronologically consistant.

The Roman Warm Period

Britain is too cold today for an army to invade it wearing skirts. But the Romans did exactly that. Furthermore the Romans could only invade places that could produce wine. Therefore it must have been a lot warmer globally in Roman Times. QE2.

Medieval Warm Period

If it was warm in Roman times it was about to get a lot warmer. Without any help from man the Earth warmed up of it's own accord thereby disproving manmade global warming before Al Gore was even born.

It was a very pleasant time for everyone on the planet. The weather was great and el vino did flow. People enjoyed a level of prosperity not seen again until co2 emissions were invented. It was so warm that the Northwest Passage opened, which allowed the Chinese to sail right into Europe [1]. After a series of fierce, but pleasant, battles between the Vikings and Chinese in the warm oceans, the Vikings were victorious and claimed a newly thawed island as their own. The Vikings named this new island "Greenland" after the luciously co2-fed tropical forests that covered it.

Meanwhile in England beautiful hippos were swimming up and down the Thames and people were dancing and singing through vast vineyards covering the country. A large volume of wine was produced by England in this time causing a few arguments with France, although thanks to the warmth both countries often overlooked their differences. It was in fact so warm in England that the attire of strong hetrosexual men (such as myself) was completely different [2]

Little Ice Age

After years of prosperity caused by a very warm world, the climate decided to disprove manmade global warming again by cooling down on it's own. The world became grim and frostbitten.

The temperatures in fact dropped down so far that it was even colder than the cold year of 2008 [3]. Yes I know that is hard to believe, but all that global warming you were shovelling out your driveway last year was still not as cold as the Little Ice Age (but we are getting worryingly close and noone is doing anything about it).

When the ice hit, it hit hard. European culture, which had thrived in the warmth of the Medieveal Warm Period has never truely recovered. Noone ever used castles again. The Hippo population in London was eradicated and people had to resort to selling meagre goods on the frozen Thames. Millions died in such frost fairs. The cold brought plague, famine and war. Napolean attempted to invade europe and Hitler was born at some point. It got so bad that in one year there was literally no summer as the sheer cold caused Earth to swoop through quarter of it's orbit in a single night.

As for the Vikings, well they had thrived on Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period, but now it became cooler and mountains of ice started advancing into their towns and cities. The Vikings hastily renamed Greenland to Iceland and abandoned it as a lost cause.

Lessons Of History

Someone once said something about remember the past or you will repeat it, I forget who but the point stands. What can we learn about the global climate history I have presented?

Well to state the obvious first, history proves manmade global warming is a fraud. Man has never affected the climate in the short period of history I covered and therefore logically never could.

We also know that temperature has changed dramatically in the past due to completely natural reasons. Couple this with the fact that the climate is a self-regulating machine that resists man's attempts to change it and we see that manmade global warming is disproven.

As for risk what about the possibility that without the checks and balances of human "pollution" the dinosaurs might return? Have the alarmists even given that a moment of thought. We don't know how the dinosaurs died out and this opens up the possibility that it was due to a reduction in co2. Back in dinosaur times the Earth had much more co2. Plants were absolutely massive, carrots the size of small automobiles. Could the Waxman-Marxley bill cause a reduction of co2 that would produce carnivorous lizard-beasts the size of houses? As far as I know no so-called "scientist" has ever asked this question let alone answered it.

References ( you don't have to bother with these, you should take my word for it. I have been peer reviewed remember)


Monday 17 August 2009

Someone I know: Tennis Racket Engineer, Genius, Active Climate Skeptic

Let me share with you an experience I had over the weekend at a local bar. It was getting late by the time I finally managed to turn the conversation towards blog science and the fraud of global warming. Most evenings the few remaining drinkers will just sit there in silence as I discuss climate science at length, no doubt admiring my knowledge and importance. But this week was different, a life-educated looking man suddenly interupted me with extraordinary insightfulness.

"Listen", he told me, "I am not a climatologist but I have approched this from a different angle"

Facinated I reached for my scotch.

"I am an engineer. Tennis rackets are my trade. I design, test and certify tennis rackets"

Finishing off my glass I gestured that he may continue.

"I might know nothing about climate but I can analyze data and come to conclusions about climate anyway. I am an expert at how people miss-use graphs. Let me show you."

He reached for his IPhone before continuing. "The following is not a 'climatologists' study; more from the view of a tennis racket engineer who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation"

Here is the graph he showed me:

Image 1a, The graph I was shown in the bar which compares Hydrocarbon use, solar activity and temperature compared. "Hydrocarbon Use" being a technical term for prosperity.

Notice how temperature moves up and then down and up again while solar activity goes up and then down and up again. Ie the same thing. In engineering this is called correlation (pronounced cor-rel-ation). Technically speaking the above graph proves global warming is caused by the sun and NOT by co2.

I inquired where he had located such a powerful graph.

"Found it on the internet", he replied.

Well what this demonstrates is that you don't need to be a climatologist or know anything about climate to be an expert on climate. Why is it that so many engineers are skeptical of global warming? Well take tennis racket engineering, if you were to engineer a tennis racket incorrectly someone might recieve a bad wrist strain. On the otherhand if you peddle together a climate model incorrectly there are no bad side effects, but you will have dozens of grants falling through your letter box. Therefore obviously manmade global warming must be a myth.

Update: I received a snarky comment (deleted), probably from a warmist, complaining that the graph shows arctic and not global temperature. Yes yes I am aware of this. No it wasn't a mistake, notice I never actually said the graph showed "global temperature" so I haven't made a mistake. Remember I have been given peer reviewed status by Prof. Malvolio who is an expert in metaphysics so I am hardly likely to make such mistakes.

As for the claim that if global temperature is graphed instead of arctic temperature it no longer correlates with solar activity, remember the engineer explained it wasn't "a climatologist's study", he doesn't know anything about climate, he doesn't need to. What he did was look at graphs he found on the internet and come to conclusions on climate nontheless. He is an expert at data analysis and how graphs can be miss-used. Learn to read.

Saturday 8 August 2009

It Could Happen: A Warning To Warmists

Picture this if you can. It's Friday afternoon at the IPCC climate lab. Dozens of government funded climate scientists are hunched around a big computer frantically feeding in dodgy punch cards. They've had it easy the rest of the year, not even wearing their lab coats most of the time, but this week is different. The IPCC report is due out on Monday and they must get those warming projections as high as possible before release.

They haven't been outside for months and by order of the administrator no windows are allowed so that noone can see outside. Some of them have left their sports cars in the open because their models said it would never snow again. It's snowing outside.

Suddenly the phone goes. One of supervisors picks up the phone. There is a muffled voice of urgency at the other end. "Auditors?!" the supervisor exclaims in alarm, "From the Internet?", "Here? ... Now?!". For a few seconds everyone in the room freezes. Then as quick as silence fell they begin scrambling around the room binning this and shredding that.

A Warmists Worse Nightmare

Warmists of course think the above turn of events will never happen. They know the labs are defended by government red tape. Internet auditors like me would never be allowed to analyze one of these labs or look at the code.

However now we are using the red tape against them. Through clever use of Freedom of Information requests and YouTube takedowns we are slowing them down. If a file is moved, did they tell us? Did they have authorization to move it? How was it moved? Who moved it? When was it moved? Why did they move it? Are the timestamps for the move accurate? Was the move logged? Who audited the logs? Who authorized the audits of the logs? Are the log authorizations audited? Just who is paying for all of this??

If we just hack away with these questions hopefully they will become so busy meeting our demands that they will miss the deadline for the next IPCC report. What we are looking for is strange file movements and procedures not met. This is what blog science is all about and we are doing it today.

Further Supplimentary Demands

For Warmists I have 4 straight forward demands you must make for transparency and QA standards. If you do not comply I will report on your non-compliance and will also consider suing the IPCC.

  1. I hearby demand the IPCC rewrite it's climate model in a modern programming language such as Visual Basic or Java Script for auditing purposes. FORTRAIN is outdated and inadequate.
  2. I hearby demand windows are installed in all exterior walls of IPCC computer labs to ensure climate scientists can properly observe the cold global temperatures and failing crops everyone else is seeing.
  3. I hearby demand all data files held on IPCC computers are released immediately to wordpress and blogspot.
  4. I hearby demand temperature records are unadjusted immediately.
  5. Please satisify all further demands posted by readers in the comments.
Remember if you don't meet these demands I may very well sue the IPCC.

Wednesday 13 May 2009

Our Dying Sun

Our Sun is in it's death throes. We are right now on the brink of disaster.

Is that news to you? If you only get your science from the mainstream media and "science" institutes then I bet it is news to you. The alarmist media of course completely ignores real science favoring the lie and alarmism of manmade global warming. For everyone who has been getting their science from the blogosphere the dying sun is not news at all. Blog scientists throughout the internet have been informing people for years about the imminent solar collapse.

Here's a recap summary: Solar output has been slowly winding down for the last few years. Everyone thought it would start winding up again in 2007 (except blog scientists who called it correctly), but it defied so-called "expert" predictions and continued ever downwards. The current situation is that the Sun's output is still falling dramatically. We face the worrying prospect that this decline will not stop and perhaps might speed up. The signs are indeed growing more clear that we have already entered a long and terrifyingly deep maunder-like minimum. The last time that happened we had an actual ice age. The only question now is how low can solar output go and how many millions might die.

Tens of millions? In fact if cooling does continue we might very well see a massive shortfall in food supplies and hundreds of millions could die. Plague and disease would once again spread through populations with cold-weakened immune systems. Many species could be wiped out entirely.

Even the media are waking up to the facts:

What is the IPCC and Al Gore doing about the risk of imminent catastrophic cooling?

Nothing. That's right, the political body charged with monitoring the climate (however corrupt) and Al Gore are doing absolutely nothing about the worrying solar signs we are seeing. Obviously Al Gore will do just fine in an ice age as he hypocritically owns a fleet of large jets and cargo planes which he can use to fly safely above any ice age zone. In fact he doesn't even need to do that if reports about his house are true - a mansion so big and pumped with so much coal based electricity (hypocrite!) that it will be warm even in an ice age. During the ice age he will surely sit in there comfortably as orphans starve outside through ice frosted windows.

Indeed because they know they are immune from the effects of an ice age, the IPCC and Al Gore continue to push the fraud that life-giving co2 is heating the Earth up catastrophically. Even though the Earth has been cooling since 1979*. Warmists continue to pump alarmism through the mainstream media and make ridiculously over exagerated statements about the future of the climate to scare the public. They exagerate stories of future temperature changes of a few tenths of a degree (not even real degrees) into some kind of massive death furnace.

Remember - if it's fearmongering it ain't science. True scientists remain level headed in the face of experimental data and facts. They don't get all emotional and start crying about the end of the world. Alarmists - those who exagerate and fabricate terrifying scenarios - do so for one reason: to sell you a "solution" to the "problem", the solution being something that profits them. You often have to wade through all their alarmist diatribe to discover their ulterior motive which they let slip at the end when they try and sell you their pet "solution".

But this is all beside the point - what can we do about the upcoming solar collapse? Obviously we can't prevent it. No the first step to dealing with cooling is obviously to stop any tax increases. Any increases in tax at this point will make it almost impossible to actually survive the impending ice age. So lobby your representatives now to prevent any tax increases and to lower existing rates. That is if you care about your children's future. Do you?

Note: Due to the nature of the threat I felt obliged to 'rush to print' this dire warning about taxation. The planned post based on my upcoming paper 'A Brief History Of Climate Modelling' will follow shortly. As a teaser here is a useful schematic I stumbled across on google images. it documents a long history of green subterfuge and conspiracy. My research has found this document to be largely accurate and to the point.

*As determined by a complex comparison of sea ice extent in January 1979 and January 2009. see for scientific proof

Saturday 9 May 2009

The Gaping Hole in Greenhouse Theory

I have a study in progress concerning the so-called "Greenhouse Effect" and another concerning the use of so-called "Computer Models", but as neither are yet complete this is a post filler.

Recently published Blog Science on the subject of Greenhouse Effect includes the following work by Erl Happ and his groundbreaking discovery of a 'Gaping Hole' in Greenhouse Theory

In his own words:
"How is it that we have been sucked into this vortex of misinformation by so called ‘experts’. We are assured that there is a scientific consensus on this matter. If this is indeed the case, the reputation of science must suffer. To label a person as an ‘expert’ will invite derision. The notion that we should trust in the opinion of ’scientists’ will be taken as a joke."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Update: Erl Happ responds to my comment on his blog, confirming what I suspected:

Hi Inferno,Thanks for the commendation.

The proponents of greenhouse theory can not point to evidence that the temperature of the atmosphere has increased in the way that they suggest it should. End of the day, evidence is not important to them. No amount of good science will move them. No alternative explanation is of interest. We are looking at a crusade driven by a feeling of malaise and disconnection and a longing for the life of a primitive, in close communion with nature. If they have their way, that is the way we are headed. These guys are wreckers. They are vandals.

So next time someone asks you for evidence that warmists are 'longing for the life of a primitive', just point out that not one so-called 'leading scientist' even bothered to address Erl Happ's blog post. I can only guess that James Hansen, his deputy Al Gore and all their IPCC minions have gone to ground after reading it. I bet it won't even be mentioned in the next IPCC report.

No amount of good science will move them. Good science is another term for Blog Science.