If You Like Your Weather - You Can Keep It




Promises, promises.  We get so tired of politicians lying to us.  And it’s even worse when so called experts corrupt the scientific process with political spin.  Unfortunately the nearly unlimited amount of “free” government money (many tens of billions of dollars annually) often proves irresistible and trumps ethical considerations.


Politicians earn their living by finding a “cause” to save the world.  It isn’t necessary they solve it, which would ironically remove their raison-d’être, but only that they can plausibly rant against it.  Today in the US, scare tactics generate 22 Billion dollars a year for politicians to spread around.  Some examples include


1.      Tens of billions in research grants to "friends" for consulting whose reports languish in obscure government file cabinets

2.      One BILLION dollars for climate modeling on a supercomputer (at NCAR) which failed to produce a single “rapid climate tipping point”

3.      Billions for 50+ "green" energy companies ($500 million alone for Solyndra which on bankruptcy destroyed all finished inventory to prevent an audit) all started by democrat campaign donors and all of whom went bankrupt

4.      Billions in “cap and trade” corporate blackmail to prevent activist boycotts (Al Gore personally made +$100 million)

5.      Trillions in reparations from US taxpayers demanded by third world UN bureaucrats (so they can buy more palaces and AK-47s).


And all this money was spent without actually moving one molecule of CO2 anywhere.




The Nobel Peace Prize was given to Al Gore not for science but for the “politics of peace”.  Basically Al made a propaganda movie that lied about the science and the data.  This was the legal finding by British courts which required a retraction [1].   Our enterprising ex-Vice President then made the rounds of corporate board rooms threatening to unleash hoards of climate protesters in product boycotts unless they bought his services.   This netted him more than $100 million in fees.


And to clothe fraud in the mantle of science, United Nations IPCC politicians, the vast majority who have no science background whatever, are repeatedly honored in newspaper print as “hundreds of Nobel Prize winners” decrying “global warming.”  The lies became so strident that the Nobel Committee publically warned the UN IPCC to cease and desist [2].  


On the other side, tens of thousands of real scientists oppose climate alarmism and have tried to stop the political corruption [3].


1.      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

2.      http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/9000-nobel-pretenders


3.      http://www.petitionproject.org/




Since its inception, the United Nations and its entrenched bureaucracy has made numerous attempts to invent “great causes” in order to increase their prestige and especially their revenue.  Most nations of the world envy the wealth of the U.S. and Europe and value the U.N. as source of financial assistance.  Although seldom successful, a few of their more notable attempts at wealth transfer include:


a)      In the early 1960’s, UN Secretary General U Thant  proposed a flat "global tax to be collected by the U.N. from citizens of the United States and other industrial countries to be redistributed to less industrial countries of the world.”


b)      In 1972, the next Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, sponsored a tax on industrialized countries for using up all the world’s resources under the aegis of the U.N. Conference on the Human Environment and the Club of Rome which famously claimed that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993.


c)      In 1992, Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, advocated the UN be authorized to collect “a tax on arms sales and international travel… directly from foundations, businesses and individuals.”


d)      The next Secretary General, Kofi Annan, waxed even more eloquent writing that the U.N. should tax the Internet which “at one cent on every 1,000 kilobytes of data would generate $70 billion dollars” from the U.S. every year."


e)      Kofi also argued for an international air transport tax since "experts recognize air transport of passengers and cargo as a key source of environmental pollution due to emissions and noise."


f)       Another Kofi proposal called for a tax to be collected by the UN on the exchange of one nations’ currency for another which would be "collected (by the U.N.) at the point of payment or settlement in the banking systems."


g)      Other Kofi proposals included a fee to be collected by the UN for the use of mobile phones, a tax on the profits of transnational corporations, a tax on international advertising, and a "parking fee" for earth-orbiting satellites."


h)      Unfortunately, none of these great revenue-enhancing ideas gained any traction with the global community despite best efforts to stir up the usual list of “true believers.”  FINALLY, Kofi finally stumbled on the idea of a GLOBAL WARMING TAX which succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.  The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (formerly coordinated the Marshall Plan) suggests that a worldwide tax on 5.2 billion tons of global carbon emissions in 2020 could yield the U.N. about 1.3 percent of the gross product of the entire world every year. The United States share would amount to about $150 Billion in new taxes annually.


Finally, the UN got lucky and started to gain traction promoting the Global Warming Fraud.  In order to inspire the faithful in support of a new crusade, the U.N. organized the following:


a)      On 9 May 1992, the UN adopted the “Framework Convention on Climate Change” with a charter to address the problem of “greenhouse gases” holding their first convention in Rio de Janeiro. The “Rio Convention” conditioned cooperation by developing countries in reducing atmospheric emissions on new financial support from the rich countries.


b)      This process culminated five years later, on 11 December 1997, with the landmark Kyoto Protocol.




Recently several scientists at NOAA affiliated with NASA decided to trade their reputations for increased grants corrupting the raw data base to promote climate alarmism.  The facts are that the original “unadjusted” temperature average for the US was as follows [1]:


Also, one graph supporting the above finding has somehow managed to escape recent manipulation by alarmists as follows (still the current record and so far because it is relatively an obscure reference, it remains “unadjusted”)




And in fact the number of extreme heat wave events has been steadily DECLINING in spite of rising CO2 levels.  This demonstrates unequivocally that excess CO2 has about as much effect as lighting a cigarette outside with a match.   Think we need massive new taxes to fund a police state vigilance to prevent “climate criminals” from smoking outdoors?



And indeed, the unadjusted surface record for the US has shown a slight decline for the last 15-20 years as shown below [2].



Lacking any scientific foundation for the democrat tax fraud, the last recourse of the liars is to shut down dissent with “doctored” climate records “adjusted” to maintain both the hysteria and funding as follows [3]:




1.      https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/

2.      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/almost-all-us-temperature-data-used-in-global-warming-models-is-estimated-or-altered.php

3.      http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/




The United Nations IPCC originally published the following temperature reconstruction for the world in 1990-1995.



But this recent natural warming in recent centuries (well before any possible human influence) was not scary enough so they resorted to the LIE of the hockey stick as follows [1]



Unfortunately for the alarmists, this was so discredited that the UN IPCC since 2007 has dropped all mention of this fiasco.   This is the famous “hockey stick” used to promote fear and funding and all based on the crudest of lies.   The raw “tree ring” temperature calculations from the alarmists are not only notoriously unreliable but showed global temperatures dramatically DECREASING FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS.  So the last 60 years of tree ring data was eliminated from the earlier 1000 years of tree ring.   You can’t make this stuff up in the “tree ring circus” [2].


This graph was published without peer review because it was scientifically and mathematically unsupportable and would not otherwise have been considered acceptable.  This was the issue of the famous “climate-gate” memos to “HIDE THE DECLINE” which hid the original data in favor of a contrived and dramatic rise [3].  The final insult was refusing “Freedom of Information” requests for original data for decades and finally “accidently erasing it”…


  1. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
  2. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830

3.      The “Hide the Decline” satire



4.      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

  1. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/02/bending-the-hockey-stick/
  2. Von Storch, H., et al., 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science, 306, 679-682.
  3. [http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
  4. http://www.john-daly.com/
  5. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
  6. J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Eds., "Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990. Cambridge University Press, p.202
  7. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
  8. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
  9. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/guest_commentary/the_us_and_the_un.htm
  10. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/glotax/carbon/ct3_98.htm
  11. Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? by Douglas V. Hoyt, March 24, 2001.


1.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc






In short, the U.N. “discovered” that the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age that they published as accepted science up to the year 2000 never happened!  Apparently we all failed to notice that the average global temperature has been happily declining without interruption [noise doesn’t count] for the last 1000 years until the 20th century when something STRANGE happened.


The IPCC, based on the work of graduate student Stephen Mann, then claimed that global temperatures lurched into a “wild and crazy” increase that will probably kill us all in our beds unless something is done, and quickly.  Even though we don’t have any meaningful calculations or consistent computer models, and most historical records indicate otherwise, perhaps the man-made increase in CO2 which occurred about the same time is to blame?  And maybe we really do need a global warming “carbon tax” paid directly to the U.N. by individual U.S. taxpayers?


The problem with this new paradigm of course, is that the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age events are so firmly ensconced in the collective cultural memory of Europe, and the rest of the world, as to make the this new “discovery” subject to wide spread ridicule unless carefully managed.


The apparent left-wing whacko solution is to claim that BOTH the 1990 and 1995 graphs are “kind-of” correct in that

a)      the original 1990 graph with its “big warming -> big cooling -> recent small warming” periods applies only to far western Europe

b)      while the NEW and IMPROVED 1995 “hockey-stick” applies to the rest of the world.


While a nice thought, this leap of imagination is flatly contradicted by real science, as a FEW [1] of many studies indicate:


a)      In the Bermuda Triangle, a radiocarbon study of sea bed cores indicates that sea surface temperatures (SST) were 4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today in the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 500 B.C.  The SSTs were 2 degrees warmer than today in the Medieval Warm period and 2 degrees colder in the Little Ice Age.  Not only does this demonstrate that these climatic episodes were global in nature rather than being limited to Europe, but also that today’s global climate is mild by comparison.  See Keigwin L.D., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea", Science, v.274 pp.1504-1508, 1996.


b)      Further south in Puerto Rico, a study of coral isotopes ratios demonstrates that during the Little Ice Age, the SSTs in the Caribbean were 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit colder than today strongly indicating a global, rather than regional effect.  See Winter et al. "Caribbean Sea Surface Temperatures: Two-to-Three Degrees Cooler than Present during the Little Ice Age", Geophysical Research Letters, v.27, 20, p.3365, Oct 15 2000.


c)      In Kenya, a study of lake bed sediments concluded "Our data indicate that, over the past millennium, equatorial east Africa has alternated between contrasting climate conditions, with significantly drier climate than today during the `Medieval Warm Period' and a relatively wet climate during the `Little Ice."   Again the evidence is for a global rather than local effect.  See Verschuren D., "Rainfall and Drought in Equatorial East Africa during the past 1,100 Years", Nature v. 403(6768) pp. 410-414, 27 Jan 2000.


d)      In Taiwan and mainland China, lake sediment studies similar to those in Kenya, again revealed the imprint of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.   See Kuo-Yen Wei et al, "Documenting Past Environmental Changes in Taiwan and Adjacent Areas", Department of Geology, National Taiwan University, 1996.


e)      In South Africa, a study of oxygen 18 isotopes, carbon 14 isotopes, and color density data from a cave stalagmite, led the authors to conclude the Medieval Warm Period (pre-1000 to 1300 AD) had mean temperatures 6 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today and the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1800) had mean temperatures up to 2 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than today.   See Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa". South African Journal of Science, v96. p.121-126, 2000.


f)       In Antarctica, the Vostok ice cores do NOT support the hockey stick model.  See “Vostok ice core: a continuous isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years)”, Jouzel, J. et al., Nature 329:403-8, 1987; “Extending the Vostok ice-core record of palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period” by Jouzel, J. et al, Nature 364:407-12, 1993; Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records, by Jouzel, J., Climate Dynamics 12:513-521, 1996; and “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core” by Petit, J.R. et al., Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436, 1999.   And especially http://members.firststep.net/donald/globalhockeystick.html.


g)      And MANY more from all over the world showing a pronounced and consistent record of the “missing” Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as being world wide phenomena.  See also http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html.


In 2006 [5], both the National Academy of Sciences and an independent researcher further refuted the foundation of the “hockey stick”  by reaffirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850 as being obviously GLOBAL phenomena.  Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV and long before human industrial activity could possibly have impacted the Earth’s climate.


The overwhelming scientific evidence accumulated over the last several centuries of serious scholarship posits instead the following NORMAL CLIMATE CYCLES each lasting many hundreds of years [1].







Ice core drilling in Greenland as well as the Antarctic give historical temperatures that are extremely well correlated indicating the reconstructions are representative of global temperature averages [1-2].   The results are as follows:





As must be obvious, global temperature swings over the last millennia are entirely uncorrelated to CO2 concentrations.  That is to say, the world has mostly been much warmer than now (uncorrelated to CO2) and normal variations (again uncorrelated to CO2) are so large as to swamp recent warming trend which is best explained by chaotic behavior again unrelated to CO2.   Please note there is no mathematical correlation between temperature and CO2 as we would expect if there were any casual relation.


1.      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

2.      http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/




For the entirety of the 21st century, the world has been experiencing a slight global cooling trend despite rising CO2 levels.   Global warming alarmists have become, not apologetic for their failing models, but rather have become even more strident in denying the satellite and weather balloon data that consistently demonstrate this cooling.


To accomplish this, they found it expedient to look at historical data from the last several centuries.  As the age of sailing ships has given way to steam engines, ships routinely take in seawater to cool the machinery.  The engine temperatures are usually monitored by thermometers on both intake and outtake ports.  These plumbing designs are highly non-standard and haphazardly recorded in ships’ logs.   But invariably the resulting water temperatures are higher than all other measurements of ocean temperature.


So well funded alarmists have taken accurate and comprehensive satellite and ocean buoy data and conflated these with a selected subset of ship engine cooling water temperatures weighted JUST SUFFICIENTLY to match their previously incorrect predictions of increasing global temperatures.  By any standard this can only be described as outright fraud.  And to compound the outrage, this nonsense has been published in the following article in Science Magazine [1].


And guess what?  Immediately after this new “discovery” the AAAS, who publishes “Science”, started an aggressive fund raising drive to combat catastrophic human-caused warming.  The proceeds are to be spent on lobbying Congress for more funding for global warming alarmism (to include funds for the AAAS) rather than moving one molecule of CO2 anywhere.   God help us.


1.      http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469




For the last several decades we have an ARGO system actually measuring ocean temperatures showing no rise at all [1].



Interestingly, the ocean supports massive internal waves between waters of different temperature and salinity.  Also there are massive rivers of warm and cold water at all depths constantly churning and creating “conveyer belts” of heat transport.   But with the Argo system of ocean buoys, we have the first continuous global measurements of ocean temperature and at all depths.


Because the underwater currents vary, some alarmists falsely claim that they see excess heat being absorbed instead of the simpler explanation that warm and cold currents meander around all the time.  Of course, the alarmist arithmetic doesn’t add up, but then what would you expect from politically inspired demagoguery.


[Please note the above graph covers not just surface but significant ocean depths for the first time.]




In 1624 a physician in Brussels, Jean-Baptise van Helmont, tried to discover where plants got the raw material to grow [1].  He planted a willow tree in a precisely measured amount of soil.  After five years the tree had grown from a seedling to 170 pounds but only two ounces of soil had been used.  More than half the bulk weight came from the tiny trace amounts of CO2 in the air and from rainwater.


Today we know that an acre of corn that yields perhaps 100 bushels requires 20,000 pounds of C02 to create all the roots, stems, leaves and food kernels [2, 3].   This role of CO2 as the primary source of all plant life on earth has been well verified since in literally thousands of studies [4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. 


In closed greenhouses, CO2 is gradually exhausted as plants grow.  Below about 200 ppm plants stop growing and below 120 ppm they all die.  On the other hand, significantly higher yields of plant growth are achieved at three times the current concentrations of CO2 or from 1000 to 1200 ppm which are the levels used in all commercial greenhouses.  And higher CO2 concentrations cause plants to produce more protein and carbohydrates (i.e. food) and to use water more efficiently [10].  This suggests that plants evolved with CO2 levels above 1000 ppm and are today starved for CO2 which is the primary limit on growth [11, 12, 13, 14].




So imagine the surprise when Global Warming Alarmists got funding for a long term study of C3 and C4 types of grasses in Minnesota and discovered that conventional wisdom was wrong.  Over the last 20 years they supplied extra CO2 and famously published that while C3 type grass growth might be slightly enhanced, the growth of C4 type grasses was hurt by extra CO2.  This was widely quoted in the Alarmist press.  But surprise, surprise.   Now after 20 years of this alarmism, they now claim they had it all wrong.  The current Alarmist claim is that C4 grass nearly doubles its growth and it is the C3 types that are hurt by extra CO2.   And this switcheroo is actually published in Science Magazine.   And the conclusion is that long term Alarmist studies like this need to be funded for another 20 years so they can see if it switches again somehow [15].


Of course in real science and not in corrupt political Alarmism, growth conditions are controlled and are repeatable year after year across tens of thousands of studies [11].  And in all cases, extra CO2 results in more growth, more food carbohydrates, and uses less water. 


1.      Van Helmont, J. B. 1648. Ortus Medicinae. pp. 108-109. Amsterdam, Holland.


2.      Norman, A. G. 1962. The uniqueness of plants. Amer. Sci.50: 436–449.

3.      Plass, G. N. 1959. Carbon dioxide and climate. Scientific American201: 41–45.

4.      Briejer, C. J. 1959. Een verlaten goudmijn: Koolzuurbemesting. Meded. Dir. Tuinb.22: 670–674.

5.      Carr, D. J. 1961. Chemical influences of the environment. In: Encyclopedia of Plant Physiol. XVI, pp. 737–794. W. Ruhland, ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

6.      Loomis, W. E. 1960. Historical introduction. In: Encyclopedia of Plant Physiol. V: 85–114. W. Ruhland (ed.). Springer- Verlag, Berlin.

7.      Miller, E. C. 1938. Plant Physiology, pp. 585–587. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N.Y.

8.      Rabinowitch, E. I. 1951. Photosynthesis and Related Processes. Vol. II. Part 1. pp. 886–963. Interscience Publ., Inc., N.Y.

9.      Stålfelt, M. G. 1960. Das Kohlendioxyd. In: Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, Vol. V, Part 2. The Assimilation of Carbon Dioxide, pp. 81–98. H. Ruhland (ed.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

10.  http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2_enrichment.php

11.  [http://www.co2science.org/subject/b/summaries/bioproductivity.php

12.  Kilbinger, A. 1953. Untersuchungen über Bodenburtige Kohlensäure mit dem “Mikrogas” analyangerät Wösthoff. Schriftenreihe der Kohlenstoffbiologischen Forschungs-station E.V. Essen-Bredeney. pp. 40 and 1955 in Kohlensäure-ein Lebensstoff. Landbau-Verlag, München. 52 pp.

13.  Lundegardh, H. 1924. Der Kreislauf der Kohlensäure in der Natur. G. Fischer- Verlag, Jena. 308 pp.

14.  Reinau, E. 1927. Praktische Kohlensäuredüngung in Gärtnerei und Landwirtschaft. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 203 pp.

15.  Science News, April 28, 2018, page 6.




The Alarmist, John Cook, founded the Alarmist web site “Skeptical Science” but before that published a paper claiming that 97% of all scientists believed in catastrophic human-caused global warming.  Basically Cook conducted a web search for “global warming” over a ten year period and found roughly 120,000 entries.  He then personally selected some 10,000 papers as being important.  After some analysis he filtered these down to 77 that he especially liked.  Of this reduced sample, he personally determined, over the subsequently published objections of some of these authors, that 75 agreed with his hypothesis that catastrophic global warming is caused by human emissions of CO2.   And so the fraction of 77/79 is used to claim 97% agreement of the more than 30,000 authors from the original sample.



When this fraud was unequivocally demonstrated by hacking into Cook’s research files at the University of Queensland in Australia, John launched a virulent lawsuit demanding his notes be kept secret and especially criminal penalties for the whistleblowers.  And alarmists now demand an end to scientific debate and the embarrassment of confusing the public with scientific facts.   On the other side of the argument, tens of thousands of real scientists publically refute the nonsense of global warming [1].


1.  http://www.petitionproject.org/