Category Archives: IPCC

IPCC Admits Its Past Reports Were Junk

It appears us deniers or skeptics were right. People like the Goracle, Pachauri, Hansen and others of the warmer persuasion have been passing off BS as scientific fact. It appears the gullible, all over the globe have been falling for it, too! We won’t hold our breath waiting for anyone to snap back into reality. We’re sure the BS will continue and the idiots at the EPA will continue to use Global Warming as a tool to get their way, regardless if it’s based upon reality or not. California, no doubt will continue to implement the AB32 law that creates a carbon trading fiasco. After all, it’s really about the money, not pollution. Read all the sordid details at the source below.

Source: American Thinker

1 Comment

Filed under AB32 California, Al Gore, Antarctica, California Air Resources Board, Cap & Trade, CARB, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, NASA, Politics, Weather

More Flaws with IPCC 2007 Climate Report AR4

IPCC method

It looks like more of those chickens are coming hope to root upon the roost of the United Nations building. Written by real scientists? Real climate experts? Ummm….OK, if you say so. But read this first.

A scathing new expose on the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change — which sets the world’s agenda when it comes to the current state of the climate — claims that its reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. “We’ve been told for the past two decades that ‘the Climate Bible’ was written by the world’s foremost experts,” Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise told “But the fact is, you are just not qualified without a doctorate. In academia you aren’t even on the radar at that point.”

Amazing isn’t it? Not only is it amazing that the report appears to be even worse than initially thought, it’s even more amazing that the whole planet is supposed to change our evil CO2 ways because of this report, claimed as written by experts.  So who were some of these so-called “experts?”

  •  One lead author of the 2001 edition was a trainee at the Munich Reinsurance Company in 2000 and lacked a master’s degree while  on the panel. He did not earn a Ph.D. until ten years later.
  • Another lead author in 1994 earned his master’s only two years earlier and had his first academic paper published in 1995.
  • An Australian academic was an assistant author in 2001 and a lead author in 2007 — despite not earning her Ph.D. until 2009.
  • Dutch geography professor Richard Klein has been a lead author for six IPCC reports and in 1997 became a coordinating lead   author. He was promoted to the panel’s most senior role while he was 28 years old — six years prior to completing his PhD.

You can judge for yourself whether the world should spend billions upon billions over this report or if it should be tossed into the trashcan. The book is available at Amazon for less than $5 bucks if you want to read it. Source: Fox News

1 Comment

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, United Nations

Why Computer Models are Crap

Next time you read an article about global warming that states the computer models predicted something remember this article, which offers proof positive that the computer models used by so-called scientists to predicts unprecedented global warming are crap.

From Scientific American we get this:

When it comes to assigning blame for the current economic doldrums, the quants who build the complicated mathematic financial risk models, and the traders who rely on them, deserve their share of the blame. [See“A Formula For Economic Calamity” in the November 2011 issue]. But what if there were a way to come up with simpler models that perfectly reflected reality? And what if we had perfect financial data to plug into them?

Incredibly, even under those utterly unrealizable conditions, we’d still get bad predictions from models.

That’s right, even a computer model that is “perfect” isn’t worth the electricity used to run it. The problem is calibration. In a nutshell, take a “perfect” model and tweak it any and it is no longer going to predict anything correctly.

The problem, of course, is that while these different versions of the model might all match the historical data, they would in general generate different predictions going forward–and sure enough, his calibrated model produced terrible predictions compared to the “reality” originally generated by the perfect model. Calibration–a standard procedure used by all modelers in all fields, including finance–had rendered a perfect model seriously flawed. Though taken aback, he continued his study, and found that having even tiny flaws in the model or the historical data made the situation far worse. “As far as I can tell, you’d have exactly the same situation with any model that has to be calibrated,” says Carter.

Calibration, tweaking, adjusting, cheating, lying, stealing, or whatever you want to call it, produces crap. Crap financial models or crap climate models, it’s all the same crap.

Note, to reiterate. it doesn’t matter if it agreed with past data, a process called hindcasting, which is a big line you hear from climate modelers, it still comes up with crap predictions! Getting one to agree with the weather in 1900 means nothing according to this article.

The next time you read some horrific article about how global warming is going to make the sea-level rise, cause droughts, floods, and just about anything else you can name including 3-eyed cows and cooties, remember that the climate model used to predict it is crap. Perhaps it was even tweaked to arrive at a preconceived conclusion.

Proof? The computer models used to predict tomorrow’s weather aren’t even right all the time.  So, how can they predict what’s going to happen 20-30-100 years in the future?

Read more details about this at Scientific American.


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, Climategate, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, NASA, NOAA

Skeptic Economist in Critical Assessment of Climate Consensus

John O’Sullivan has an article about Professor Ross McKitrick’s latest paper at Suite 101. He describes Professor McKitrick as:
A prominent economist opposed to global warming doomsaying publishes a rebuke to climate consensus, comparing scientific and economic consensus.
Below are some excerpts from Mr. O’Sullivan’s article:

The Canadian professor holds strong views on this topic, having written frequent op-eds, a book, journal articles and think-tank reports. He concludes, “The public has acquired a dim view of the credibility of climate science, and based on what I have seen, the public is right.” 

The latest paper asks the reader to imagine that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had created an economics version of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). McKitrick sets up the scenario that economists, like climate scientists might proceed to issue an Assessment Report and Summary for Policymakers every five years. Thus economists, like climate scientists, would seek to claim a consensus view of what “every mainstream economist believes.”

The point is, it doesn’t matter what you are talking about, consensus is not always a good thing. It is being misused with climate science and can be misused in other areas to usurp control for nefarious purposes.

You can read it all at the source below:

Source: Suite 101

Comments Off on Skeptic Economist in Critical Assessment of Climate Consensus

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Science, United Nations

Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming

By: John O’Sullivan

One of the least challenged claims of global warming science is that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a “well-mixed gas.” A new scientific analysis not only debunks this assertion but also shows that standard climatology calculations, applicable only to temperature changes of the minor gas, carbon dioxide were fraudulently applied to the entire atmosphere to inflate alleged global temperature rises.

Acceptance of the “well-mixed gas” concept is a key requirement for those who choose to believe in the so-called greenhouse gas effect. A rising group of skeptic scientists have put the “well-mixed gas” hypothesis under the microscope and shown it contradicts not only satellite data by also measurements obtained in standard laboratory experiments.

Canadian climate scientist, Dr Tim Ball is a veteran critic of the “junk science” of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and no stranger to controversy.

Ball is prominent among the “Slayers” group of skeptics and has been forthright in denouncing the IPCC claims; “I think a major false assumption is that CO2 is evenly distributed regardless of its function.“

School Children Prove Carbon Dioxide is Heavier than Air

Dr. Ball and his colleagues appear to be winning converts with their hard-nosed re-examination of the standard myths of climate science and this latest issue is probably one of the easiest for non-scientists to comprehend.

Indeed, even high school children are taught the basic fact that gravity causes objects heavier than air to fall to the ground. And that is precisely what CO2 is – this miniscule trace gas (just a very tiny 0.04% of atmosphere) is heavy and is soon down and out as shown by a simple school lab experiment.

Or, we can look at it another way to make these technical Physics relationships easy. This is because scientists refer to ratios based on common standards.  Rather than refer to unit volumes and masses, scientists use the concept of Specific Gravity (SG).  Giving standard air a value of 1.0 then the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier).  [1.]

CO2: The Heavy Gas that Heats then Cools Faster!

The same principle is applied to heat transfer, the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls.

This ‘thermal’ mixing is aided by wind flow patterns, but the ratios of gases in the atmosphere are never static or uniform anywhere on Earth.  Without these properties CO2 would fill every low area to dangerously high levels.  Not ‘high’ in a toxic sense, only that CO2 would displace enough Oxygen that you could not have proper respiration.  Nitrogen is 78% of the atmosphere and totally non-toxic, but if you continue to increase Nitrogen and reduce Oxygen the mixture becomes ‘unbreathable.’

It is only if we buy into the IPCC’s “well mixed gas” fallacy that climate extremists can then proceed to dupe us further with their next claim; that this so-called “well mixed” CO2 then acts as a “blanket” to “trap” the heat our planet receives from the sun.

The cornerstone of the IPCC claims since 1988 is that “trapped” CO2 adds heat because it is a direct consequence of another dubious and unscientific mechanism they call “back radiation.” In no law of science will you have read of the term “back radiation.” It is a speculative and unphysical concept and is the biggest lie woven into the falsity of what is widely known as the greenhouse gas effect.

Professor Nasif Nahle, a recent addition to the Slayers team, has proven that application of standard gas equations reveal that, if it were real, any “trapping” effect of the IPCC’s “back radiation” could last not a moment longer than a miniscule five milliseconds – that’s quicker than the blink of an eye to all you non-scientists. [2.]

Doomsaying Climatologist Abandons ‘Back Radiation’ Meme

Only recently did Professor Claes Johnson persuade long-time greenhouse gas effect believer Dr. Judith Curry to abandon this unscientific term. Curry now admits:

“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.”

IPCC doomsayers claim it is under this “blanket” of CO2 (and other so-called greenhouse gases) that the energy absorbed by Earth’s surface from incoming sunlight gets trapped.

But one other important fact often glossed over is that CO2 comprises a tiny 0.4% of all the gases above our heads. Nasif Nahle reminds us that this is a crucial point when considering the claims of the “grandfather” of the greenhouse gas hypothesis (GHE), Svente Arrhenius.

Change in CO2 Temperature Is NOT Change in Atmospheric Temp

When applying the GHE formula devised by Arrhenius, IPCC scientists appear to have forgotten that we must consider the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the proportion of the whole mixture of gases.

Even if Arrhenius was right about the GHE any change of temperature obtained from his formula is exclusively a change of temperature of the mass of carbon dioxide, not of the atmosphere.

The trick of climate doomsayers is that they draw their conclusions obtained from the Arrhenius formula for CO2 (only 0.04% of atmosphere), then apply that change of temperature to the WHOLE Earth; this is bad science, or possibly fraud.

Nahle poses this question for GHE believers:

“Is the atmosphere composed only of carbon dioxide? Why calculate the change of temperature of a mass of carbon dioxide and then after say it is the change of temperature of this trace gas that now becomes the temperature of the whole Earth?”

Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Joe Postma similarly comments:

“No one seems to have realized that any purported increase in temperature of CO2 due to CO2 absorption is APPLIED TO CO2, not the whole danged atmosphere! Again, just a slight tweak in comprehending the reality makes a whole paradigm of difference.”

NASA Data Confirms CO2 Not a Well Mixed Gas

Professor Nahle and his colleagues insist that in addition to the above facts the proven varying density of atmospheric CO2 also needs to be taken into account to show how IPCC scientists are guilty of the greatest scientific swindle ever perpetrated.

From the NASA graph below (verify with link here) we can discern distinct and measurable regional variations in CO2 ppmv. So even NASA data itself further puts paid to the bizarre notion that this benign trace gas is “well-mixed” around the globe.

NASA’s diagram thus not only proves CO2 isn’t a well mixed gas but also demonstrates that there is no link between regions of highest CO2 concentration and areas of highest human industrial emissions.

Groundbreaking Science Trumps IPCC Junk Claims

Both Postma and Nahle have recently published groundbreaking papers discrediting the GHE. Professor Nahle analyzed the thermal properties of carbon dioxide, exclusively, and found that 0.3 °C would be the change of temperature of CO2, also exclusively, not of the whole atmosphere. Nasif pointedly observes:

“Such change of temperature would not affect in absolute the whole mixture of gas because of the thermal diffusivity of carbon dioxide.”

Additionally, Nahle and his Slaying the Sky Dragon compadres demonstrate that carbon dioxide loses the energy it absorbs almost instantaneously, so there is no place for any kind of storage of thermal energy by carbon dioxide. To the more technically minded what Nahle and his colleagues say is that the release of a quantum/wave, at a different wavelength and frequency, lasts the time an excited electron takes to get back to its base state.

Thus the IPCC’s CO2 “sky blanket” is shot full of holes as rational folk are increasingly abandoning the unphysical nonsense that carbon dioxide “traps” heat and raises global temperatures. Policymakers may be the last to wise up but they, too, must nonetheless consign the man-made global warming sham to the trash can marked “junk science.”


[1.] In our “current environment,” atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen vastly outweigh CO2. Nitrogen: 3,888,899 Gigatons; Oxygen: 1,191,608 Gigatons; Carbon Dioxide: 3,051 Gigatons. On a weight basis the specific heat of nitrogen and oxygen together is approximately 1 per kilogram, whereas CO2’s is about 0.844. Thus it’s clear that everyday air has a better ability to hold onto heat.

[2.] Professor Nahle, N., ‘Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section’ (2011), Biology Cabinet, (Peer Reviewed by the Faculty of Physics of the University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico).


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, IPCC, John O'Sullivan, Lord Monckton, NASA, Science, Slaying the Sky Dragon

Even Rick Perry gets the climate change fraud

Yes, even Rick Perry gets the climate change fraud. From the Dallas Morning News…….

He offered a deeply skeptical view of the need to change energy policy to address climate change, asserting that “there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they would have dollars rolling in to their projects. We’re seeing it almost weekly or almost daily, scientists who are coming forward and questioning the original idea that manmade global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
“The cost to the country and to the world of implementing these anti-carbon programs is in the billions if not in the trillions of dollars,” he said, and he would refuse based on questionable research.

I’d say stick with trillions because that’s what the UN, via the IPCC,  is trying to screw the globe out of.  So, if you don’t want another greentard in the White House Governor Perry might be a viable candidate for your vote as he’s one candidate without CO2 Insanity.

Source: Dallas Morning News




Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations

Australian Carbon Tax

The above video is from Koozzoo News and rips apart the Australian carbon tax being pushed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard and global warming in general.

1 Comment

Filed under Cap & Trade, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, IPCC, Politics, United Nations