Monthly Archives: June 2010

Hidden X-Factor Fakery Within the Greenhouse Gas Theory


NASA added the ‘x-factor’ into their man-made global warming equations and wrongly doubled the greenhouse gas effect. It’s due to vectors, says new research. 


Independent analysts who recently examined NASA’s Earth’s energy budget numbers have found climatologists working for the U.S. space agency have not been applying the mathematical rules applicable to vectors in their greenhouse gas equations, at least since 1997.


The monumentally embarrassing oversight multiplied the heating properties of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) by an extra factor of two: the so-called hidden ‘x-factor.’ Whether the error was intentional or accidental may never be proved. One NASA climate expert quit  over the global warming controversy.


New Angle on the Climate Controversy


Recently I reported how retired scientist, Alan Siddons uncovered the hidden error from an admission made by NASA’s Gavin Schmidt on his ‘Real Climate’ website in my article, ‘NASA Charged in New Climate Data Fakery: Greenhouse Gas Data Bogus.’

Further research since then has identified that climate scientists failed to apply rules governing calculations about forces in motion i.e. vectors. Climate analyst, Siddons discovered that Schmidt inadvertently revealed that he and his small yet elite clique of climate colleagues were wrongly double counting the warming effect of CO2.


Is Vector Calculus so Vexatious?


Vector calculus (or vector analysis) is the branch of mathematics that deals with natural forces acting in three dimensions and, for climate science, should describe the movement of gases from one point to another.
Untrained in higher mathematics, climatologists had done this by way of multiplying by a factor of two the warming impact of carbon dioxide because they claim it radiates energy in Earth’s atmosphere twice by way of an ‘up and down’ effect termed ‘back radiation.’ This ‘up and down’ factor was then added into the overall Earth energy budget. Thereby all climate scientists, taking the equation on trust, wrongly concluded that human emissions of carbon dioxide were far more significant to climate change than they are.

Siddons had already exposed what appears another sinister secret of NASA. Thanks to more smart detective work by Siddons we see the omission to apply the laws on vectoring.

In this instance, what vector calculus requires is that any three-dimensional forces that run parallel but in opposition (i.e. the ‘up and down’ effect of back radiation), must be equated to zero because they cancel each other out. Thus when correctly rated to zero greenhouse gases add no value to Earth’s energy budget.


‘Poor Mathematical Skills’ says British Climategate Inquiry


Mathematical incompetence within climate science was declared a contributory factor by an official investigation into the Climategate scandal. The Oxburgh Inquiry found proof of numerous such statistical errors but stopped short of accusing climate scientists of intentional fraud.


Oxburgh noted, “We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”


Bring in Qualified Mathematics Experts, says Inquiry


The report recommended that researchers should consult with qualified mathematicians so that monumental blunders like these may be averted in future. Taxpayers worldwide may therefore have wasted more than $50 billion in ill-conceived projects to limit human greenhouse gas emissions.


For further insight into how off beam climate scientists were, independent climate analyst Gary Novak, a long-time climate researcher with a science masters degree, explains in his study Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect:’


"Approximately one sixth of re-radiated energy would go into outer space, one sixth toward the surface of the earth and two thirds into the surrounding atmosphere. The logic is that there are six equal sides involved, not that there are three areas to emit into. Then the atmosphere absorbs half of the radiation going toward the earth reducing it to one twelfth.

Not surprisingly, waves of international climate experts are turning their backs on the
discredited greenhouse theory. So, as Novak shows, even if the ‘up and down’ back radiation effect were plausible under vector rules, NASA should never have doubled the numbers but divided them by twelve.




Novak, G., ‘Back Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect,’ (accessed online June 9, 2010).


Siddons, A., Hertzberg Ph.D, M., & Schreuder, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?’(May 2010).


‘Report of the International Panel set up by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the Climatic Research Unit,’ Oxburgh et al. (April 12, 2010), University of East Anglia, UK.

Thieme. H., ‘On the Phenomenon of Atmospheric Backradiation,’ (accessed online June 9, 2010).







Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

NASA Gagging Policy: Climate Scientist Resigns over Controversy

In a bad week for NASA, evidence shows the beleaguered space agency gagged its climate scientists. But the policy is starting to back fire as ex-employee speaks out.

Confirmation of the gagging policy comes from ex-NASA high-flier, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, who upset his former employers with the 2007 publication of his paper, ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres,’ in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service.

Miskolczi claims his illustriously funded government employers tried to silence him to preserve public credibility in its policy on global warming. The noble doctor refused to be gagged and out of scientific principle chose to quit and speak out.

The root of the problem was in the ex-NASA man’s debunk of the greenhouse gas (GHG) theory. Dr. Miskolczi claims he “proves that the classic solution [greenhouse gas theory] significantly overestimates the sensitivity of greenhouse forcing.”

But No NASA Gag on Warming Advocates

Now contrast and compare to what ‘New Scientist’  reported in 2006 when pro-green doomsayer, James Hansen was chastised by his employer for daring to suggest any such gag was in force. Hansen has been a prominent and public climate doomsayer ever since.

Back then Dean Acosta, deputy assistant administrator for public affairs at NASA, denied that there was any effort to silence Hansen. “That’s not the way we operate here at NASA,” Acosta said. “We promote openness and we speak with the facts.”

Pointedly, unlike Miskolczi, Hansen didn’t resign from his well-paid post. Yet, unlike Miskolczi, his petulant outburst garnered much pro-green media interest.

Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Bogus’

Now free from the shackles of NASA censorship, Dr. Miskolczi is finally coming to the fore as a serious critic of the theory behind man-made global warming. He is gaining note for proving that the Earth has an in-built ‘safety mechanism’ that prevents runaway global warming from greenhouse gases.

The top Hungarian physicist, in fact, identified that the greenhouse effect upon which the whole man-made global warming theory is based, is probably bogus. The highly principled researcher discovered that the sum of all radiation absorbed in the atmosphere is equal to the total internal kinetic energy of the atmosphere. That in turn then is equal to the total gravitational potential energy.

In other words, the planet is most capable at keeping itself in a heat energy balance and is not vulnerable to so-called runaway warming. Thus, there is no ‘tipping point’ to fear from any atmospheric increase of a trace gas such as carbon dioxide.

Support for Climate Skeptic

The disgruntled former NASA man’s views are much in tune with world-renowned Swedish climate professor, Hans Jelbring. It seems other scientists are becoming more open in their agreement with such findings.

More recently, science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists  have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas theory as a plausible explanation of the mechanism of Earth’s climate.

This is not what NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) want the public to hear as President Obama’s Democrat administration struggles to force through swinging cap and trade taxes in the backdrop of an already over-stretched U.S. economy.

NASA’s Dr. Curry: NASA Numbers “drastic oversimplification”

Indeed, so persuasive is Dr. Miskolczi among his scientific peers that no advocate of the GHG theory (that relies on the Stefan-Boltzmann “black body” numbers) has yet been able to refute him. As I recently reported, NASA is now in a considerable quandary over what exactly is the correct equation for Earth’s energy budget with their education department currently printing high-school textbooks disagreeing with the orthodox theory.

As explained to me lately in e-mail correspondence by NASA’s Dr. Judith Curry: “Everybody would agree that the simple black body planetary energy balance model is a drastic oversimplification, it is used only for illustrative purposes.”

So I asked Dr. Curry if NASA had a better set of equations than the crude Stefan-Boltzmann “black body” numbers: no answer.

Indeed, Stefan-Boltzmann who devised the “blackbody” equation never intended their numbers to be applied to a three-dimensional rotating planet. So why NASA’s reluctance to accept a more sophisticated and accurate new climate equation-or, at least use the tried and tested numbers that safely got Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon?

New Revelations Encourage Scientists to Speak Out

Signing up to join Dr. Miskolczi in the skeptic attack on the debunked greenhouse theory are dozens of eminent international scientists in tandem with a startling new research paper that proved NASA Apollo Moon mission scientists, forty years ago, had a better set of climate equations than the “black body” numbers that NASA’s own Dr. Curry says are,” only for illustrative purposes. Why doesn’t NASA now come clean about this?

Concern about the science behind the man-made global warming theory grew after the November 2009 Climategate. The official British Oxburgh Inquiry into alleged ‘cherry-picking’ of climate data confirmed scientists acted with subjective advocacy and being over-zealous ‘poor statisticians.’

NASA to stall and Help Climate Bill in 2010?

U.S. Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, who unveiled their climate bill earlier this month, will be sweating that NASA keeps this under wraps as they seek to force through their controversial climate bill passed before the break for Independence Day on July 4.

So if NASA truly has no gagging policy over the climate controversy then perhaps it should come clean and make a statement on these latest developments and remove all doubt?


Jelbring, H.R. (2002), ‘The “Greenhouse Effect” as a Function of Atmospheric Mass,’ published in 2003.

Miskolczi, F.M. (2007) ‘Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres,’ Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service; Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized