Blundering British Met Office Now Forecasts Nation’s ‘Coldest Thaw’

January 2013 has so far proved how incompetent the UK’s £240 million a year government weather forecasting service is when compared to one man: Piers Corbyn of But there is now another winter sting in the tail set to come.

BBC Weatherman Peter Gibbs

Earlier this week large parts of England and Wales remained battered and bruised from Arctic blasts, travel chaos and knee-deep snowfalls. Then in recent days the Met Office boldly declared, “There are signs that the cold air over Britain will finally be replaced by milder air from the Atlantic as we go through the weekend.” They soon backed that up by  proclaiming, “Freezing weather gradually eases in the UK.”  (23rd January).

But a day later the BBC were spinning a different Met Office tune after a sudden U-turn and an “Amber Warning for snow.” The Daily Express was quick to pinpoint the latest and dramatic MO prediction: “An intense deluge tomorrow will dump up to six inches in parts as temperatures plunge below -20C (-4F) in exposed regions.” Talk about capitulation!

Poor BBC television Weatherman, Peter Gibbs looked baffled and bemused Thursday as he broadcast to the nation rather sheepishly “…plenty more snow still to come…” Gibbs conceded the Arctic conditions were “…not going to give up without a fight.” Nonetheless, Gibbs was still obstinately clinging to the Met Office’s forlorn hope that “…it will turn a lot milder over the weekend.” Fingers and legs being crossed backstage.

But will it? Not according to Corbyn who is once again demonstrating just how big the gap is between the incompetent Met Office (still relying on discredited greenhouse gas climate models) and Weatheraction, who say all talk of weather influenced by humans and carbon dioxide is utter junk science.

Sudden Solar Storm is the Late Game Changer

But time and again, because the Met Office refuses to factor in changes in solar forcing and variances in the moon, their forecasts are embarrassingly shown to be wrong even a mere day or two ahead. Unlike the Met Office Corbyn factors in such space weather and has a peer-reviewed accuracy of 85 percent up to 45 days ahead. “Of course standard meteorology has no comprehension of what we are talking about and as long as it remains wedded to the delusional nonsense of CO2 warmism and ‘weather drives weather’ tenets of computer forecasting they will never learn.”

Instead, Corbyn points the rest of us in the right direction “A look at confirms the very low levels of activity we predicted for now from over 5 weeks ahead.” Corbyn is adamant the Met Office (MO) and the BBC must admit that solar activity is the decisive driver of weather – especially extreme events and of climate change. Failure to concede this increasingly obvious fact – as demonstrated by Weatheraction’s alternate and superior service – suggests taxpayers are condemned to carry on throwing that £240 million into the trash can each year.

Dismissing the superfast new computer system used by the MO Corbyn laments,” they will never improve but only get wrong answers quicker and mislead the public more often.” Many will recall that only last April the MO was forecasting 2012 to be an especially dry year. But what we saw, instead, was “Britain’s wettest drought.”

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson has conspicuously gone on record several times to admit Corbyn is uncannily good. But WeatherAction is insistent there ought to be many more voices of influence in the corridors of power speaking out on this peculiar science travesty. “Politicians must now get to grips with reality, cast aside the CO2 warmist sect of BBC-MO and the so called ‘Climate-Science’ empire in academia and instead support accountable evidence-based science and policies”

So who is right on this issue? Just contrast and compare the weather forecasts and track for yourselves the winners and losers in this perpetual battle against the elements.


Filed under Uncategorized

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 6

This article summarizes the brilliant essay of Marjorie Mazel Hecht that offers one of the most compelling insights into the back-story of how a clique of U.S. academics sold a Malthusian population control scare story.* Their aim: to use man-made global warming as the front to introduce drastic worldwide population control.

Margaret Mead

Hecht’s piece, “1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” identifies that the key conspirators of the climate hoax came together to formulate their ideas at a 1975 conference in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

Influential anthropologist Margaret Mead organized the event. [1] Mead was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1974 but had a shadowy past. Her 1928 book on the sex life of South Pacific Islanders was later found to be a fraud. Thus Mead was “well qualified” to form a new school of anti-population charlatans under her tenacious and bullying tutelage. Among her team was climate con artist Stephen Schneider, biologist George Woodwell, and President Barack Obama’s science adviser, John HoldrenAll were “students” of Malthusian mad man Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.[2] 

In a 1974 Science magazine editorial Mead successfully forged a narrative that her Population Conference had settled the issue that population growth was very bad for the environment. From Hecht’s well-crafted article we learn that the U.S. National Institutes of Health: the John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences were all in with Mead from the start. With a growing team Mead had the beating heart of a new “science” (climatology) to back up the scares. The goal was simple: policy-makers would be presented with such compelling “evidence” that they had to act, and fast, on man-made global warming.

All the bright and hopeful “Atoms for Peace” ideas of Franklin Roosevelt and of Dwight Eisenhower for a universal program of cheap, clean nuclear power to raise the living standards of all peoples was swept away. Suddenly “nuclear” became a dirty word. In its place Mead’s 1975 climate conference set a new agenda: world nations were to bow down to a new “Law of the Atmosphere” intended to stunt human scientific advance and industrial wealth creation for the masses.

Mead’s conference spin was that unless all citizens bowed down to these new environmental laws then “the whole planet may become endangered.” Mead proclaimed “I have asked a group of atmospheric specialists to meet here to consider how the very real threats to humankind and life on this planet can be stated with credibility and persuasiveness before the present society of nations begins to enact laws of the air, or plan for ‘international environmental impact statements.’ “

Working closely with her co-organizer William W. Kellogg (a climate scientist from RAND and later NCAR, the National Center for Atmospheric Research), Mead declared they had won over a consensus of scientists. Then a year later Kellogg and Mead published a book selling the idea that each nation ”should control carbon dioxide emissions.” [3]

Climate scientist Stephen Schneider typified this new generation of activist “scientists” when he brazenly told Discover magazine in 1989: “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”

Schneider was a close friend of The Population Bomb‘s Paul Ehrlich and held a prominent role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). John Holdren, now Obama’s science guru, co-authored several articles and books with Ehrlich. Holdren’s stated goal was reduce the population of the United States from its current 302 million down to only 150 million people.

On Mead’s team was also prominent environmentalist, Dr. James Lovelock, best known as the creator of the Gaia thesis, which views the Earth as a whole as a living biological being. But Lovelock famously jumped ship in an interview with MSNBC in which he admitted he and his colleagues had been “alarmist.”

Kellogg’ and the others ramped up the sense of urgency and pending catastrophe: “To ignore the possibility of such changes is, in effect, a decision not to act. Then Woodwell’s presentation, “The Impact of Environmental Change on Human Ecology,” sounded the Chicken Little cry, “The fact that the toxic effects of human activities are spreading worldwide and reducing the structure of the biota is an indication that human activities at present exceed the capacity of the biosphere for repairing itself.”

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part OnePart TwoPart ThreePart FourPart FivePart 6


[1] Margaret Mead, “World Population: World Responsibility,” Science,Sept. 27, 1974 (editorial), Vol. 185, No. 4157.

[2] The Population Bomb, published in 1968 repeated the discredited argument of the British East India Company’s Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) that population increases geometrically while food supply increases only arithmetically. Malthus was proved wrong by the development of fertilizers and scientific farming, industrialization, advances in biochemistry.

[3]The Atmosphere: Endangered and Endangering, Margaret Mead, Ph.D. and William W. Kellogg, Ph.D., eds. Fogarty International Center Proceedings No. 39, 1976 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, DHEW Publication No. [NIH] 77-1065).


Filed under Uncategorized

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 5

This article contrasts and compares two of the most important peer-reviewed climate studies of their day – one generation apart – to expose bogus greenhouse gas claims. We see how short the time frame was when consensus science switched from declaring the greenhouse gas effect as junk to claiming it as a trigger for an impending climate apocalypse.


We compare Ramanathan and Coakley’s 1978 study,’ Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models’ (hereinafter ‘Ramanathan’) with Kiehl and Trenberth’s 1997 ‘Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget’ (KT97). [1,2] Each paper has been regarded as a fundamental benchmark mirroring the best consensus science of their day.

According to Google Scholar ‘Ramanathan’ is cited by no less than 164 other climate papers. But just as crucial is that it is relied upon by Kiehl and Trenberth, the authors of our second paper. Today KT97 is as central to alarmist greenhouse gas physics claims as Michael Mann’s ‘hockey’ stick graph is to the historic global warming temperature record.

The most striking obvious feature of ‘Ramanathan’ is that it omits any mention of any carbon dioxide-driven greenhouse gas effect. Yet 20 years on KT97 makes the effect center stage in climate science attribution. This spectacular switch in emphasis begs the question: what great new discoveries caused this paradigm shift in climatology?

First, let’s summarize the key features of ‘Ramanathan.’ This is a gargantuan document (24,165 words) and explains in detail the best understanding of mainstream climate models of the time. But this weighty tome makes just three passing references to CO2. This trace gas is mentioned as being a “coolant” in the atmosphere whereas Manabe (1967) could provide only “approximate” numbers for its effect. Ramanathan make no connection whatsoever between CO2 and the long-discredited GHE. In fact, ‘Ramanathan’ suggests that if any gas drove the supposed greenhouse gas heating effect (GHE) it would be ozone (O3) as per this quote:

In the troposphere, H2O contributes the most to long-wave cooling and solar heating, while in the stratosphere, CO2 contributes the most to long-wave cooling, and O3 contributes the most to solar heating. “ (Page 476)

While the second paragraph of ‘Section E Models for the Earth’s Climate,’ ‘Ramanathan’ states:

The atmospheric distribution of H2O [water], clouds, and the surface ice and snow cover (which determines in part the reflectivity of the surface) are strongly coupled to the surface and atmospheric temperatures.”

‘Ramanathan’ also notes that the modelers (crassly) assume a fixed relative rate of humidity with no justification. So the hydrological cycle is made king and CO2 cools. Frankly, there is nothing on offer from ‘Ramanathan’ for the alarmists who want to cut human emissions of carbon dioxide. You may think that the great switch in thinking that followed ‘Ramanathan’ must have been triggered by an important and subsequent scientific discovery or two. But you’d be wrong. There have been none in regards to either the GHE or how CO2 works in the atmosphere. The only obvious change has been in the complexity of the computer models used and the assumptions fed into them.

But KT97, for all its guesses and fudges over the numbers is still cited by no less than 707 climate science authorities plus the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But there is nothing in ‘Ramanathan’ to prompt the authors of KT97 to abandon the accepted and long-held position that there is no CO2-driven ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE).

The literature is quite explicit on the issue. Before 1951 it was widely understood that the GHE hypothesis had been refuted. This is spelled out in no uncertain terms in an important publication by the American Meteorological Society.[3] While, in 1978, Ramanathan’s study, ’Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models’ gives no hint that modern day researchers should be looking at a CO2-driven greenhouse effect as a better explanation of our climate system.

As the title of the 1978 study suggests, convection was a known key climate driver and along with the water cycle it is mentioned repeatedly throughout. But what is never mentioned repeatedly is any GHE or the supposed warming properties of CO2. Indeed, the term ‘greenhouse gas effect’ gets only one passing reference and is associated ozone (O3), not carbon dioxide.

Somehow, somewhere, between 1978 and 1997, when KT97 was first published, the GHE was resuscitated. CO2 suddenly became a key player in the system while it’s role was switched from being a cooling gas to a dangerously warming one!

But there is no citation in KT97 to explain how and when these reversals from ‘Ramanathan’ were made. As such it is hard to fathom why KT97 would incorporate ‘Ramanathan’ with it now being rendered a contradictory (and presumably debunked) reference.

So, with no explanation in KT97 it appears that the long- refuted GHE arbitrarily and capriciously became re-instated while the known cooling characteristics of carbon dioxide were (without explanation) reverse so that it was installed as the presumed cause of heating with a climate-forcing factor of 32 W m-2. Absent any scientific explanation for the switch, the reason must be unscientific, perhaps political.

Isaac Asimov Spills the Greenhouse Beans

KT97 thus rescued the greenhouse gas theory from the trashcan of science where it been cast out many decades earlier as affirmed by the American Meteorological Society (AMS), The AMS affirm that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [that would be] absorbed by CO2 is [already] absorbed by water vapor.”

So what fundamentally changed? Despite today having 200+ scientists and climate researchers at it’s disposal Principia Scientific International (PSI) has studied this closely and found no reason whatsoever offered by government climatologists for this inexplicable rebirth of the already discarded ‘theory’-  let alone a compelling one.

Eminent Swedish mathematician, Professor Claes Johnson thinks he has a clue. It could reside in a confession by popular science writer, Isaac Asimov, as revealed by this quote from Asimov:

the most interesting scientific event in 1988 was that everyone started to speak about the “greenhouse effect” just because it was a hot summer, when I had been speaking about it for 20 years.”

Skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball is more specific about the “everyone” Asimov was referring to. The ‘hot summer’ reference indicates the finger should point to none other than NASA’s James Hansen who gave his alarmist GHE testimony in front of a sweltering U.S. congressional hearing (Hansen’s cronies had switched off the air conditioning the night before). [4]

Hansen’s theatrics followed the keynote speech about the GHE given to the Royal Academy by British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher weeks earlier. [5] None of these facts seems to have roused the slightest interest in the mainstream media, which swallowed whole the man-made global warming myth from the start.

New Climate, New Terms, Fresh Spin

Indeed, Asimov’s boast did mark a real watershed in the way the science was being manipulated. Manipulation is not too strong a word because events surrounding Hansen’s congressional testimony were carefully staged managed to dupe the politicians and the public.

Within ten years of Hansen’s showpiece performance the publication of KT97 marked the final abandonment of all reference to ‘convection’ as a key climate driver. Hereon in radiation, the GHE and human emissions of the CO2 ‘devil’ would be the only focus. KT97 also gives us a new term: the ‘blanket effect’ – a new analogy to help sell the new ‘science.’ The term supposedly describes how radiation is trapped within the atmosphere by the power of the ‘magic gas’ CO2 to cause additional surface heating. But nowhere in ‘Ramanathan’ was the ‘blanket effect’ term used. And why would it? Pre-1980’s science understood that the only ‘blanket’ helping to retain energy in our atmosphere was the vacuum of space – nature’s perfect insulator. But even today climate scientists ‘forget’ this well-established fact and refer instead to the ‘cold’ of space, which any self-respecting space scientist would scoff at.

Also, scientists knew full well that only latent heat (H2O) traps energy. While carbon dioxide -a gas that emits energy as fast as it absorbs it – was quite correctly considered in ‘Ramanathan’ to be a coolant.

This awful mess in climatology is well summed up by astrophysicist Joe Postma:

The greenhouse effect is a manufactured fraud. It has no consistent description, it has no mathematical physics which actually describes it, it violates other well-established laws of physics, it doesn’t have a rational basis, and its supporters have proven themselves time and time again to be un-amenable to reason or criticism, and to not have an open mind or scientific and skeptical spirit in its regard; it is defended rather than criticized, reinvented rather than abandoned. It doesn’t follow the basic rules of science, just like climate alarm.”

Earlier we asked what great new discovery caused this dramatic switch back to the greenhouse gas effect, of which mainstream science had already dismissed before the middle of the 20th century. Frankly, we know of no such discovery to warrant the rescued a hypothesis that was tossed into the science trashcan by Professor R.W. Woods in 1909.

Moreover, the only conspicuous fact we have learned from the ‘laboratory’ of earth’s atmosphere since 1997 is that despite a rise of 38 percent atmospheric CO2 concentrations global temperatures have shown no intention of rising. In the interim between ‘Ramanathan’ and KT97 we have seen how badly KT97 got it wrong. In that 20-year period science clearly went awry. So much so, with around $100 billion spent on climate research in that time it is only fair to conclude we have lived through a wasted era.

So what actually motivated an entire field of science to perform such a U-turn? Perhaps the answer lies in the power of computer modeling and the political paymasters who commissioned those models. Moreover, since AGW promoters claim the science is settled and the consensus is overwhelming, why do they persist in securing more research money, in the order of $2 to 10 billion/year? That money buys a collection of secret government models programmed to factor in an unsubstantiated greenhouse effect that has never been shown to modify the temperature profile of the Earth’s atmosphere by one iota.


*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as followsPart OnePart TwoPart Three, Part Four

Part FivePart 6


[1] Ramanathan V. & Coakley Jr. J. A.,’Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models,’ Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics,. Vol. 16, No. 4 (November 1978), accessed online: December 29, 2012.

[2] Kiehl. J. T. & Trenberth K.T., ‘Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget,’ (1997), National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado

[3] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.

[4] Hansen, J. E., ‘The Greenhouse Effect: Impacts on Current Global Temperature and Regional Heat Wave,’ (June 23, 1988), Statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources.

[5] Thatcher, M., Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988), Public Statement, Speech ArchiveMargaret Thatcher Foundation (accessed online: December 3, 2012)


Filed under Uncategorized

RIP Aaron Swartz Hero of Internet Open Access who “Committed Suicide”

On the morning of January 11, 2013, Aaron Swartz the young genius who gave the Internet the RSS feed system and opposed controversial Internet copyright reform was found dead in his Crown Heights, Brooklyn apartment by his girlfriend.

Aaron Swartz

The NY Medical Examiner concluded this was another sad suicide. At the time of his death, Reddit co-founder Swartz was defending against 13 felony charges, $1 million in fines and more than 35 years in prison. Swartz, a leading campaigner for the open Internet access movement was a growing threat to the Establishment’s grip on mass media. At just 14, this child prodigy co-authored RSS, a family of web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works—such as blog entries, news headlines, audio, and video—in a standardized format. RSS helped instantly make the world wide web a far more dynamic experience. Later Swartz started Reddit, the massively popular bulletin board system. But he first fell foul of the authorities when, as a promoter of Open Access,  he fought SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). This was a U.S. bill intended to protect copyrighted intellectual property but was also seen by critics as a Trojan horse to shut down websites not approved by the Establishment.

Federal prosecutors charged Swartz for alleged crimes relating to downloading around four million academic journal articles from JSTOR (short for Journal Storage) a digital library founded in 1995. Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Heymann claimed Swartz intended to make the papers freely available on P2P file-sharing sites. Kelly Caine, a professor at Clemson University who studies people’s attitudes toward technology and privacy said Swartz “was doing this not to hurt anybody, not for personal gain, but because he believed that information should be free and open, and he felt it would help a lot of people.”

In a moving statement the Swartz family commented that Aaron’s “commitment to social justice was profound, and defined his life.” In his short life he  “was instrumental to the defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open, and accountable political system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the scope and accessibility of human knowledge. He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place. His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts across generations and continents. He earned the friendship of thousands and the respect and support of millions more.”

Chris Soghoian, a technologist and policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union, said: “Existing laws don’t recognise the distinction between two types of computer crimes: malicious crimes committed for profit, such as the large-scale theft of bank data or corporate secrets; and cases where hackers break into systems to prove their skilfulness or spread information that they think should be available to the public. The government used the same laws intended to go after digital bank robbers to go after this 26-year-old genius.”

A White House petition has been launched to remove Assistant Prosecutor Heymann for “overzealous prosecution of an allegedly minor and non-violent electronic crime.”  According to the Boston Herald (January 15, 2013) the petition has now achieved more than the 25,000 signatories threshold needed to generate an official response from the White House under the Obama administration’s stated terms.


Filed under Uncategorized

2012: Another Increase in Media Boredom with Global Warming

Latest research shows that news coverage of the global warming scare  fell again in 2012. Despite all the hype over ‘Superstorm Sandy’ the year 2012 continued the trend of falling mainstream news and public interest about climate. But while most news outlets cut back on global warming stories the core promoters of the man-made warming cult  are unmoved in their coverage.


The latest numbers come from the media database maintained by the nonprofit journalism site The Daily Climate as reported by Climate Central blog. They prove that the New York Times led the way in 2012 posting the most stories on this non issue. The inescapable truth is that public interest in global warming has long fallen off a cliff. In no small part because, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)  global temperatures have flatlined since 1997.  Nonetheless, the NYT still registered the biggest increase in climate coverage among the five largest U.S. daily papers, according to media data trackers from the University of Colorado.

According to The Daily Climate a total of 7,194 reporters and commentators filed 18,546 stories, compared to  7,166 reporters who filed 18,995 stories in 2011. Climate Central says, “The numbers remain far from 2009’s peak, when roughly 11,000 reporters and commentators published 32,400 items on climate change, based on the news site’s archive.”

Meanwhile in Britain UK television viewers were treated to a gloomy New Year prediction from media alarmists-in-chief, the BBC.   The BBC’s Roger Harrabin announced the nation’s first “climate disaster” story of the year  delivered by the discredited Met Office. Hopefully, they will have better luck than their last pitiful prediction. The gaffe-prone Met Office issued a long range forecast  in a  press release  last March warning that 2012 was going to bring a “very serious summer drought.”  In the same article they boasted they had “world-leading weather forecasting expertise.” But right on cue the clouds opened up and the weather played it’s usual trick with a slew of deluges to prove just how incompetent the Met Office really is.  Today the record books shows 2012 was the second wettest in Britain for 100 years. No wonder these clowns are the butt of so many jokes.

So this week, in the wake of all that prolonged rain, out come the nation’s weather bunglers  once again this time saying 2012’s rain was predicted by global warming models and more is on the way! Oh boy, nothing changes. Harrabin and the Met Office have a track record of being economical with the truth. Perhaps the root of the problem could be their choice of  Robert Napier as boss. This is the same Robert Napier who is Chairman of the Carbon Disclosure Project – as hard core green as it gets.

With both the Met Office and the BBC unashamedly with their grubby fingers in the climate change money pie it’s no wonder viewers have switched off.  As the latest media data proves, more savvy media outlets are reacting accordingly and dumping climate alarmism.  But no prizes for predicting that the Met Office, the BBC and the New York Times will go on spewing the same old nonsense regardless – especially as the UN’s  Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is set to publish a major new report  later this year.


Filed under Uncategorized

Enforcers of Greenhouse Gas Faith versus the Seekers of Truth

Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer is at it again. He has stood up for his religious belief in the greenhouse gas theory in yet another article  dodging the growing mountain of evidence disproving it. In  Roy’s new post, “Misunderstood Basic Concepts and the Greenhouse Effect”  we again see a high priest of the cult defending the creed that insists that radiation always transfers thermal energy. Taking him to task is agnostic, Douglas Cotton in his “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” [1]

Greenhouse Gas Church

Spencer believes radiation is  climate’s almighty king. Cotton says it isn’t and counters by insisting ‘back radiation’ has never been shown to add more heat movement from a cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of our planet. Indeed, ‘back radiation heating’ was a non-science term invented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees Dr. Judith Curry.  But Spencer is holding true to his beliefs while Cotton and his 200+ colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) choose the facts.

Critic Cotton declares Roy wrong and berates  his crass assumption that all radiation transfer must add heat. Cotton and his colleagues also dismiss  Spencer’s unproven assumptions that radiation is the key to transport energy throughout earth’s gaseous, wet atmosphere (those damned heretics claim it’s convection and conduction). Cotton blasphemes by pointing to empirical evidence that proves that gravity, not radiation, “creates a thermal gradient which determines planetary surface temperatures. In comments added to Spencer’s blog Cotton says that unlike in greenhouse ‘heaven’  our worldly facts show that any radiation imbalance “is the result of natural climate cycles, not the cause.“

But this sullies Spencer’s Scriptures  – not to be confused with Lindzen’s liturgy. (For those who don’t know, Roy says the greenhouse effect works from the ground up, while Dick disagrees and says the opposite!).  It’s like Catholics debating Jews, or Shia versus Sunni. How many angels can really dance on the head of that greenhouse gas pin? Spencer repeats the same tired old mantra, “the full depth of the atmosphere would achieve the same temperature as the surface through thermal conduction.” To which Cotton is most dismissive pointing to the evidence of 800 real-world experiments. Bishop Roy has no experiments to back his claims. His Holiness still claims that hand-held infrared meters (IRT’s) can measure his GHE. He does so even after an email exchange with a noted expert in thermodynamics proved him wrong.

But Roy not only dismisses the ‘evil’ of such facts he doesn’t appear to heed the message from one of the world’s leading manufacturers of these devices. Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from so-called greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor. Perhaps Roy should have a word with Mikron.

What we have from Dr Spencer is a lot of sanctimony in devotion to his GHE religion. His is the creed of no equations, no experiments, or observations.  Indeed, trying to get sight of any of those IPCC greenhouse gas models is proving as fruitless as trying to locate the Ark of the Covenant – or as mysterious as the true goings on at the Freemasons Grand Lodge. As Lionell Griffith observes, the Greenhouse Effect is all a matter of faith for climate ‘scientists.’

Griffith observes:

“If that were not so, the so called Greenhouse Effect would have been unambiguously defined long ago in such a way it could be tested. Then, it actually would have been tested rather than just being simulated. This has NOT been done and the so called effect has morphed from ambiguity to ambiguity countless times from the get go. It continues to morph in exact parallel to the belief in spirits, gods, goblins, devils, and the like has morphed and for the same purpose. Its purpose is to stop thought, investigation, questions, and the requirement for objective evidence and actual demonstration. Their whim is to rule simply because it is THEIR whim. Everything else is simply a fog intended to hide what they are really after – likely even from themselves.

What to do about it? At the very least, don’t get entrapped in their tangled web of words. Their words are without referents in reality. They connect only to a foggy undefined constantly morphing set of intentions within what passes for their minds. Simply continue with the effort of discovering the truth, offering a demonstration of it being the truth, and making things that work because you have discovered and know the truth. THIS is the only thing that has ever worked.

Trying to convince them of the rightness of your path by open and honest debate is a hopeless effort. They are not interested in rightness. They are only interested in their whim and your sacrificed to that whim. Your being engaged in that debate is part of that sacrifice.”

[1] Cotton, D., ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,’ (March, 2012), (accessed online: January 2, 2013)


Filed under Uncategorized

National Academies and the (non) Greenhouse Gas Effect: Part 4

The first three parts of this series* showed the academic fraud that for 33 years promoted the greenhouse gas effect. The articles caused outrage among believers in the cult as evidenced by the comments section of my blog. But with some of the cultists having come out to openly debate we can better gauge the intellectual bankruptcy of their arguments.

Carbon Dioxide Not the Devil He Claims

Carbon Dioxide Not the Devil He Claims

Not only are there so many assumptions made about what is the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) but what strikes me most about these discussions is how believers in the ‘theory’  avoid addressing why, if this is all ‘settled science,’ there is no standard definition. Moreover, the closer we look at it the less it is clear just how this ‘theory’ even operates. Pointedly, despite around $100 billion spent on climate research, this cornerstone of the man-made global warming science hasn’t even been validated by any objective test in earth’s atmosphere.

What has triggered the furor is my analysis of the seminal 13,000-word report from 1979 by the National Academy of Sciences. The study is often referred to as the Charney Report and was commissioned by the U.S. Government to supposedly explain how carbon dioxide (CO2) will impact future climate. From our modern perspective – 33 years on – it seems incredible that such an in-depth report should fail to mention the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). This is especially incongruous being that climatologists will glibly tell you the theory has unimpeachable provenance stretching back 150 years to the formative era of radiative physics and Arrhenius and Tyndall.

But it isn’t just the absence of any mention of the GHE that is odd. There is also the  failure to identify the mechanism by which CO2 is supposed to generate additional warming at the earth’s surface. Today, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  claims ‘back radiation’ heating as the mechanism by which CO2  adds additional heat to our planet. But that term, just like the GHE,  is absent from the Charney Report. Thus an objective reading of the report adds, not diminishes, my skepticism especially knowing that the ‘best evidence’ for the phenomenon is nothing more than a ‘toy’ model generated by a NASA computer, as adeptly shown by Professor Claes Johnson. Likewise, none of the GHE chicanery is getting past astrophysicist, Joseph E Postma who provides his own assessment on Postma observes:

“The one thing which has become very clear, is that the GHE doesn’t actually have a consistent explanation or description.  We have seen it as the backradiation ‘active heating’ mechanism, where radiation from a cold source adds serially with the radiation from the Sun in order to amplify the temperature generation; we have seen it as the “delayed cooling” mechanism, where GHE advocates wish to be in compliance with the Laws of Thermodynamics, and so backradiation does not cause “active heating”, but merely serves to reduce the rate at which energy is lost, particularly during the nighttime.  In my last paper, we proved that neither of these things actually occur because, by definition, these things should be quantifiable and observable in their effect on the temperature, and they were not.”

What the NAS report did stress was that uncertainties abounded wherever the scientists looked. The authors admitted they lacked sufficient real world data and so had to rely on guesstimates from computer models. From such speculation emerged the view that  an otherwise benign trace gas (CO2) may warm the climate. But the  caveat in ‘Charney’ was that CO2 might actually cause cooling, something the IPCC and GHE advocates would rather you didn’t know.

Aficionados mostly from were having none of it. My blog filled with irate accusatory comments from them. In response I pointed out that nowhere in this major report were the best brains in the business able to put a name to what they described. If it was the greenhouse gas theory then surely an in-depth 13,000-word report on atmospheric carbon dioxide would at least make some passing reference to it. Secondly, and perhaps more damaging to the credibility of the ‘theory’  is that the NAS overlooked to mention ‘back radiation’ heating as the mechanism that could trigger the heat adding phenomenon, either. But upon further investigation we may have found out why it was no oversight. The concept of  ‘back radiation’ heating seems to have been invented years later, according to Dr. Judith Curry, in the reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is this dubious concept that the ‘Slayers’ have insisted falls foul of the laws the thermodynamics.  Dismissing ‘back radiation’ heating in no uncertain terms is popular skeptic climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball who noted,

“… [radiation] merely resonating in place does not imply reflecting energy back at the source….it is so difficult to argue with the absurd Alice looking glass science.” While Georgia Tech. climatologist,  Dr. Judith Curry conceded, ““Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies. Lets lose the back radiation terminology, we all agree on that.”

Thus my thesis is a simple one:  when the best brains from thirty years ago commissioned to explain what CO2 does in the climate overlook to identify the  GHE or it’s mechanism, ‘back radiation heating,’ then there is something seriously awry with the provenance of this ‘settled science.’

What further stokes my cynicism is how much uncertainty the Charney Report expressed about how our climate actually works. It seems utterly plausible to infer that uncertainty about the GHE is the reason why the panel of scientists that included James Hansen and Richard Lindzen omitted to include it.  Even now when you learn that Hansen’s version of the GHE is very different to Lindzen’s then you can understand the reticence of us cynics.

You don’t have to be a scientist to feel uneasy when these ‘experts’ can’t even agree on the name!  Depending on which afficianado you talk to,  some will tell you the name ‘greenhouse effect’ is  misleading because ‘no one means the atmosphere acts just like a greenhouse.’ But, yes, many of the top authorities do. There are no less than  53 bogus authority statements online declaring that Earth’s atmosphere DOES act ‘like a greenhouse.’ You might imagine a similarly hostile religious debate between Shia and Sunni Muslims,  or Protestants and Catholics. But instead of fighting over interpretations of a biblical script these cultists argue over the computer models.

The ‘blasphemy’ in my series of articles was daring to prove that their ‘settled science’ emperor has no clothes. Only yesterday (December 27, 2012) James Hansen sent a protest letter to the editor published in the Wall Street Journal. A skeptical article the previous week by Matt Ridley in WSJ (December 19) titled “Cooling Down the Fears of Climate Change” upset him. Hansen called it “another misleading attempt to present a distorted view of the consensus that exists among the vast majority of the community of science experts”. He countered with his own speculations for GHE ‘back radiation’ warming (with a 68% probability). Hansen claims “this agrees with IPCC estimates.”

However, 33 years ago when contributing to the NAS report Hansen, Lindzen and others did not attribute any warming, as per IPCC ‘science’ to such ‘back radiation’ heating. But worse yet, if you examine how back then Hansen, Lindzen and others describe the mechanism for this ‘theory’ you can understand why there is so much confusion.

From all this ‘confusion’ it is no wonder why any thinking scientist could believe that any gas could ‘store’  energy even though the absorption/emission cycle of carbon dioxide is one billionth of a second – less than the blink of an eye. At Principia Scientific International (PSI) hundreds of experts are aghast that such a small bit of radiation briefly bouncing around the atmosphere before it escapes to outer space should be accorded anything other than a very negligible impact within the overall system.

For PSI researchers  the real emphasis should be on the very powerful energy storage potential of water and the relentless dynamo of the hydrological cycle. Speak to anyone who glibly spouts to you that the greenhouse gas effect is real and the chances are they have no clue that there is no less than 130 years’ worth of solar energy stored in latent heat in the liquid of our oceans. They are likely also oblivious to the fact there is around 7 days’ worth of solar energy stored in water vapor latent heat of our atmosphere.

We have seen in this series of articles that the science academies and their well-funded researchers are at odds with independent scientists (i.e. those not on the global warming gravy train). Here are just a few comments from top scientists weary of this whole scam. Tens of thousands share their sentiments. All too often GHE believers have wrongly assumed that the properties of latent heat and other elements of the Ideal Gas laws are the GHE. They then casually toss in the bogus belief that ‘colder makes warm even warmer.’ To fudge that they then seek to add any and all admitted uncertainties and claim them as also part of the ‘signal’ for the GHE. This is in large part how they concoct the illusion of the ‘settled science’ they often refer to. GHE advocates just don’t want to let go of this unscientific and illogical conflation.

As Professor Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan says, CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other – every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so.”

*This article is one of a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part OnePart TwoPart Three, Part FourPart FivePart 6


Filed under Uncategorized