Category Item Subitem Description
Theory Falsification 17 a,b,c CS don’t understand the oceans and worse they thought they did
Theory Falsification 18 a,b,c,d CS attribute things wrongly meaning they really don’t know why anything is happening
Theory Falsification 19 20 year haitus means 2% chance GCMs correct
Theory Falsification 20 Real temperature today in spite of being high are way too low to meet the projections of the GCMs in the future
Theory Falsification 22 CO2 effect is missing which questions if it’s happening like they thought
Theory Falsification 23 unexplained climate over last 5,000 years makes it difficult to conclude what is causing what
Theory Falsification 26 CO2 generates heat. What happened to it? They don’t know.
Theory Falsification 32 A and B Humidity and Clouds are crucial to significant temperature change. They aren’t cooperating.
Theory Falsification 36 The computer models are mathematically ridiculous they cannot work
Theory Falsification 40 A, B, C They assume no Volcanic eruptions and static Sun and Oceans which we know are false
Theory Falsification 49 The models don’t work at all for precipitation
Consequence Wrong 1 Numerous species have been predicted to be heading to extinction when in fact there is no evidence of this or even contradictory data that the populations are growing in spite of or being enhanced by climate change. This includes Walruses, Polar Bears, Plankton and Coral.
Consequence Wrong 4 Arctic Sea Ice disappearing in 2000, 2007, 2013, 2017, ugg not sure
Consequence Wrong 5 Island Nations will sink: NOT
Consequence Wrong 7 Asthma will increase : NOT
Consequence Wrong 8 Higher temperatures kill more people : NOT
Consequence Wrong 9 Food production will drop : NOT
Consequence Wrong 10 Plant Productivity wont go up : NOT
Consequence Wrong 25 classic error of all predictions – ignore technology
Consequence Wrong 27 A Land locked glaciers will disappear – no skiing anymore : NOT
Consequence Wrong 31 50% of species will be extinct: NOT
Consequence Wrong 35 Natural disasters increasing in frequency: NOT
Consequence Wrong 38 Sea levels are not accelerating. Same as the last 200 years.
Consequence Wrong 45 Exponential assumptions in models always fail
Consequence Wrong 46 The middle East will not get to 170 degrees F
Consequence Wrong 47 Malaria and other tropical diseases will not kill more people
Inconvenient Truth 6 The land records must be being fudged. Everyone agrees but they keep quoting them
Inconvenient Truth 11 Climate Scientists police themselves – mainly to keep the orthodoxy
Inconvenient Truth 12 There is no climate conspiracy – except when there is one
Inconvenient Truth 13 There is very little that is actually proven
Inconvenient Truth 14 Hockey stick was falsified and isn’t close to being true
Inconvenient Truth 15 Past has been cooled without anyone mentioning it or proving it
Inconvenient Truth 16 Half the global warming they claim happened before CO2 was being emitted in quantity
Inconvenient Truth 21 Some global warming will have major positive Consequence they never admit
Inconvenient Truth 24 The computer models don’t model the past
Inconvenient Truth 27 B Sea levels are not accelerating
Inconvenient Truth 28 Antarctica gaining not losing ice
Inconvenient Truth 29 Transparency an issue. They don’t like to come clean
Inconvenient Truth 30 They create new math to hide problems in data
Inconvenient Truth 33 Natural Disasters in the past were far worse than anything we’ve seen in the last 50 years
Inconvenient Truth 34 Were really good at dealing with natural disasters and getting better incredibly fast
Inconvenient Truth 37 97% consensus is completely fabricated
Inconvenient Truth 39 Science is not based on consensus but on skepticism
Inconvenient Truth 41 They overplay what they know and underplay what they don’t
Inconvenient Truth 42 The haitus likely to continue 15 more years making it 30 to 35 years like before
Inconvenient Truth 43 The fact temperatures get hotter every year does not mean the theory is proved
Inconvenient Truth 44 They refuse to admit prior mistakes
Inconvenient Truth 48 2015 wasn’t the hottest year on record
Fail 49 The models don’t work at all for precipitation
Inconvenient Truth 50 The science is settled – NOT
Fail 50A GCMs did not imagine that the pause would happen or that all the energy would be stored in the ocean.
Fail 50B GCMs can’t explain how the energy got in the ocean or when it will come out or when it will stop going in
Inconvenient Truth 50C GCMs denied the existence of LIA / MWP but data now supports them
Fail 50D GCMs denied the existence of PDO/AMO as long term cycle. Don’t know what causes it or if it will stop or change in magnitude
Fail 50E GCMs denied that sea volcanoes had any effect on climate longer term. Now we discover there are 100s of times as many of them as thought and they may be the cause of the ice ages
Fail 50F GCMs were tuned with very wrong estimates of aerosol forcing

I categorize the articles and statements I’ve read in journals, reports from the IPCC, classes I’ve taken on Climate in the following categories:I have been tracking what the Climate Scientists have said.   Here is my running list of the issues I have with climate science.   I would like to mention I do believe CO2 causes some warming and I do believe that fossil fuels are dirty and kill people.  I would like to see us move from fossil fuels but not for reasons of concerns about climate disasters.

FAIL:  Statements  made by Climate Scientists that have proven false

Deception: Something Climate Scientists avoid mentioning or admitting is true

Theory Falsification:  If a fail rises to the level that it falsifies some aspect of Climate Science.

Consequences wrong: Trying to create fear by overstating the consequences of climate change were it to happen

Supportive:  Provides support something is going on or there is merit to Climate Science or legitimate worries

The following abbreviations are used:

CS: Climate Scientists or Climate Science

GCM: Global Circulation Models for Climate

TCS : Transient Climate Sensitivity (the temperature change in kelvin for a doubling of CO2)

ECS:  The equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

IPCC:  The UN Committee that is chartered to study climate change and produce actions to combat it


A more complete version of this document suitable for publication would need more precise references to original predictions and data and the studies which falsify them or document.  That is unfortunately not something I can do completely right now as I am busy with other things.   Nonetheless, I believe this list is accurate and would love it if someone believes I have something in error or something to buttress the point to let me know.  This is a working list and willing to add or delete items depending on the evidence.

Here is more detail:

1) Species Extinctions have been made regularly by environmentalists and they are frequently wrong in the extent they predict.  Recent studies have come out showing the flaws in estimating extinction.   The issues with climate based extinction unfortunately have proven to be among the most visible and worst predictions made.

1A) FAIL:  They predicted Plankton would die because of higher temperatures of the ocean and threaten our ecosystem: NOT

Recent study shows that Plankton are actually doing quite well with warmer waters and prospering in fact contrary to prediction.

1B) FAIL:  They predicted that Coral Reefs would die from increasing salinity of the ocean: NOT

Recent study shows that Coral Reefs initially show some damage from higher salinity and temperatures but within 6 months there is no difference in growth or health of Coral Reefs in higher salinity or higher temperatures than ones in lower levels.

1C) FAIL:  The Polar bears are not dying off.

This is related partly to another FAIL which is that the arctic sea ice is NOT disappearing or at least disappearing at anywhere near the rate they expected.  The major killer of polar bears is not lack of icebergs to fish from but man.  When hunting was restricted the population of polar bears surged 7-fold in the arctic.    They really don’t seem to be having a problem at all.

1D) FAIL:  The Walruses are not dying off.

Walrus populations are up 48% inspite of continuing assertions that decreasing polar ice MUST be hurting walruses.   Maybe there is a way to reconcile predictions of doom and population increases I don’t understand.  I think that like a lot of this “kind” of science the facts are not particularly relevant.   As you will discover as you read more and more of the points I make below the science behind all this is not what I think many “scientists” have called science in the past.

4) FAIL:  The Arctic Sea Ice was supposed to be gone in 2000, no 2007, no 2012, no 2017

Just a couple decades ago people predicted an ice free arctic passage.   Countries were seeking to gain mineral rights to the treasures under the arctic ice.     During the last 20 years sea ice in the arctic has rebounded.   There is no apparent “end” of sea ice in the arctic anytime soon.

In the 1990s Al Gore predicted based on the science the Arctic would be ice free in the summer by 2000.  In 2007  scientists predicted 2013.   In 2013 they predicted 2016 or 2017.   There is more Arctic sea ice now than 70 years ago.  The IPCC itself makes no specific prediction and estimates there will be arctic sea ice cover past 2100 albeit decreasing over time.

Scientists predicted that the arctic would be free of ice in the 1940s as well.   They were talking of amazing heat in the north arctic that was melting the glaciers and ships made passage through the arctic without ice during that time.


With our  “much improved”  “climate science” adjusted temperatures showing 0.8C warmer than 1940s when the dust bowls hit the western US the arctic HAS NOT become ice free like it did then.  Isn’t that strange?   Makes you wonder if our memories are correct.   Maybe somebody should look into removing all those stories of arctic passage and dust bowls because obviously they are wrong and need to be adjusted out too.

Over millions of years the arctic has been ice free many times.   Certainly during the Holocene optimum 5000 years ago it must have been free of ice.   How could the polar bears be here anyway?  In an ice free arctic they should have died off, right?

Having an ice free arctic again would make no difference as the floating ice would have no effect on sea levels as proven by Archimedes thousands of years ago.   It has always baffled me why people seem so concerned about Arctic sea ice.    I believe it is simply the idea of change that is frightening or maybe some people actually do think there is some benefit of sea ice that will go away.   To my knowledge other than the purported difficulties this might entail for some creatures there doesn’t seem to be any rational reason that this story ever makes the headlines.

Eventually if temperatures continue to rise the sea ice will probably melt.  The fail is that they have been predicting its demise decades ago and today it’s as big as it was 70 years ago.

5) FAIL and Deception:  The Maldives and Pacific ocean islands are in an inevitable process of being drowned under rising sea levels.  The people will be refugees and need to move.  NOT

About 75% of islands such as the Pacific Ocean islands have grown in land area over the last 30 years.   While sea levels may be rising apparently its not enough to overcome the natural growing that is occurring on many islands from accumulation of sand and lifting by other natural processes that never seem to be mentioned in those press articles predicting the demise of them.   (This point counts as 2 points because there is the element that no articles I have ever read mention the islands are growing.)

You may wonder how in the heck do scientists measure the sea level?  It is estimated to be rising by 2-3mm/year which is about 7″ in a century.   This is about what is estimated to be the sea level rise in the 1800s when there was no excess CO2 in the atmosphere.   The lack of acceleration in sea level rise is covered in other FAILs.

However, another even more perplexing thing is the lack of consistency between tidal guages and sea level as estimated from satellites.   You can imagine that measuring the rate of sea level rise in size of a pin head in a year is hard to detect from hundreds of miles above the ocean.  Some might say impossible but those crafty climate scientists think they have isolated that pins movement more accurately than tidal guages which have measured the level of the sea for centuries.  Casual observation of many tidal guages will show that over periods of 50 to 100 years there has been virtually no change in the sea level.  Other places show great sea level rise where we know we’ve been pulling lots of water and oil from the soil.  This process called subsidence is a substantial fraction of all sea level rise.

Another very interesting fact is that rising temperatures has increased rainfall apparently because a very noticeable 0.7mm / year increase in land level has resulted from resupply of acquifers.   This of course is an extremely positive thing since one of the most critical real problems that world has unlike the postulated future problem of global warming is the lack of potable water.  A benefit of global warming you may not have read about that might go away if we were to achieve the goal of stopping or lowering temperatures.

6) Deception:  The NOAA, NASA GISS and various other adjusted land records are diverging from satellite records and sea records.   Satellite data matches more accurately unadjusted land data.


Satellites, Unadjusted land records, Ocean Records, Perfect Stations, Radiosonodes:  +0.4C.

NASA Adjusted Land Records: GISS: +0.8C.


The “record temperatures” the press reports you may not realize are adjusted by a complex set of formulas.  However, it has been becoming clearer and clearer something is seriously wrong with the adjusted land record.   It differs from every other way of measuring temperature.   This has become so perplexing a committee has been created to examine the adjustments here.

Thermostat Problems

  1. Human errors transcribing, reading and generally handling manually
  2. Inconsistent reading times, people sick, vacations
  3. Different technologies differ in response to temperature
  4. Don’t know location or if it is has been moved
  5. Changing conditions around the thermostat, pavement, buildings, trees
  6. Shielding from sun and wind varies
  7. Mechanical failures
  8. Outages for inexplicable reasons
  9. Huge missing regions
  10. Too much sampling around cities
  11. No way to check results
  12. Micro-climates
  13. Tmin + Tmax average is not the same as Tavg over many samples
  14. Height above ground not consistent
  15. Time of day adjustments
  16. Instrument adjustments
  17. Geographical Averaging over large area adjustment
  18. Homogenization adjustments
  19. data quality adjustments


  1. 14 nearly identical units cross check each other for accuracy
  2. Full volume of atmosphere measured not micro-climate
  3. automated data retrievel
  4. Radiosonde (balloons) cross-check for accuracy
  5. Perfect 3K and perfect high temperature reference on satellite for calibration
  6. Clouds obscure reading at times
  7. Altitude changes of satellites has to be adjusted for
  8. Age of the temperature units causes fluctations
  9. time of day adjustment like land temperatures

There is no comparison.  Satellites are infinitely better.   Even more important, CO2 is in the bulk of the atmosphere.   This is where the radiation from the surface of the Earth emitted as IR hits the CO2 and heats the atmosphere.   The high atmosphere that is heated by convection delivers this heat back to the surface according to the theory.

To get even more specific the radiation absorbed by CO2 is selective.  It is the radiation at around 0C that is best absorbed by CO2.   As a result CO2 at the surface does not absorb much energy at all unless it is in a cold region.  Due to this the majority of heating we expect to see is high up in the atmosphere where temperatures are chillier.   This heat then has to make its way back to the surface of the earth to warm the planet.

One of the most perplexing phenomenon of this whole business has been from the beginning that we have not been able to record much heating in the upper atmosphere.  If no heat shows up there it is hard to understand how the heat from CO2 could possibly show up anywhere.  It would all escape into space as it has before.  One way the climate scientists could end the debate about the effect would be to show the upper atmosphere heating up significantly according to theory.  In fact they have NOT been able to do so which leads to lots of debate and confusion.   The satellites measure this upper atmosphere heat and lower atmosphere.   So far they have been unable to definitely show significant upper atmosphere heating and they show significantly less heating than adjusted land thermostats have shown for the lower atmosphere.  Again, the reason for this is unknown.  Bizarrely, unadjusted land thermostats show a remarkable correspondence to the satellite record of lower atmosphere temperatures.

The surface temperature can only be heated by CO2 if the heat exists in the main atmosphere being measured by satellites.  Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that if the heat on the surface is getting warmer on the surface faster than the higher atmosphere that the cause of this warming is CO2.   The fact the upper atmosphere shows no warming indicates more than anything else that any warmth whether fabricated or not on the surface by bogus adjustments cannot be caused by CO2 directly.

Because of this Item 6 is really a falsification of global warming models because the heat they purport with adjustments to claim cannot be because of CO2 by their own theory.

Because of the problems with thermostats it has generally been assumed that satellites would be the more accurate source of temperature.  However in the last 15 years scientists have used the land record more and more and ignored the satellite record.  Why?  There seems to be no obvious reason other than the satellites report half the temperature gain that the adjusted land records have been made to show.

Up until 15 years or so ago the satellites and land records didn’t vary much but since then the adjustments have been tampered and tampered with and this has resulted in what appears to be an ever growing temperature that is NOT shown by any other means.  It appears that either something is bizarrely wrong with every other way of measuring temperature or the land records are being manipulated purposely or subconsciously to produce ever higher temperatures.   When you hear that the temperatures have set record after record this is always adjusted land records.

The temperatures reported by NASA and other organizations in the climate business who use the adjusted records are rapidly and systematically diverging from Unadjusted land records, satellites and our ocean buoys as well as a study recently of thermostats that have a perfect record that is they have had no glitches or outages of any duration, no jumps or bizarre things happen to them that would require adjustment.

Here is the sea data from ARGO our automated buoy system:


This compares to model predictions:


Here are radiosonde (Balloon data)


Here is unadjusted land records:

unadjusted recent temps

It is up to you to make yout own decision.  However, the preponderence of the evidence is something is wrong with the adjustments.  My most convincing point is that the data if you remove adjustments looks like the satellite record.  I would not expect that.  It tells me that the adjustments are an artificial creation that can’t be correct.  The fact that the satellites (all 14 of them), the argo buoys, the balloons (radiosonde), unadjusted land records ALL say the temperature change is 0.4 and that 2015 was NOT the hottest year ever suggest that the adjustments are false.

See the chart here and be astounded.


This was produced by Professor Robert Brown of Duke University.   This shows that the process of adjustment has been modified 30 + times and that almost every single one of those has been to keep the reported temperature to match CO2 growth.   The chances of this seem remote.  Professor Brown of Duke calculated the probability of all the adjustments being so arranged is 1 in a billion.   This is proof that they are being fudged on purpose.

Inexplicably the climate community has disavowed the significance of the effect of increasing temperatures near growing cities and they have even claimed the opposite that the UHI is a negative effect that cities are essentially getting colder which seems inexplicable as well.   It is possible that overall cities do not represent much energy input to the climate but the fact is indisputable that thermostats near cities report dramatically warmer temperatures than just outside those cities.  Since most thermostats are placed near people there is a gross tendency for thermostats to report higher temperatures simply because of the expansion of cities and populations worldwide. Anthony Watts has published a peer reviewed paper in 2015 that shows a substantial amount of the excess warming from 1979-2015 is because of improper adjustment for UHI (Urban heat island.)  Anthony is not a climate scientist and if this study is correct it is evidence of the fact that the climate community has a bias, does not police itself.   If the climate community does not fix the problem with adjustments it is evidence of a conspiracy.

The climate community claims that 1.2C change has occurred since 1880.  However, they fail to mention:   0.4C of this temperature gain happened before CO2 began to rise (1945 see points below).   The other 0.8C, half of that appears to be “fabricated” by adjustments.   Of this remaining 0.4C that has happened it is estimated by many that only half of this is actually due to CO2(See AMO/PDO below).   This means that instead of 1.2C temperature change they claim, only 0.2C temperature change is because of man maybe.   Even this last 0.2C is unclear because of uncertainties uncovered over the last 10 years it is not clear anymore how clouds, the sun or the ocean are changing that could easily have caused this 0.2C.

7) Deception: Obama stated climate change will make his sons asthma worse

I won’t give this a fail since I don’t know of any credible scientist who could corroborate the presidents belief his sons asthma will suffer from global warming.   As far as I can find there is no basis to conclude pollen will be more prevalent or asthma will be worse.

8) FAIL: Climate scientists say more people will die with rising temperatures.

A Lancet report that analyzed factual data of over 74 million recorded deaths showed a 20 times greater chance of death in colder weather than warmer weather.   Another statistic has been well known for a long time.    Winter kills 15% more people than the summer.   It seems much more likely less people will die from warmer temperatures from all causes yet the IPCC predicts more deaths from warming than cooling  counter to well proven data.  Their predictions are unbelievable.   They do not consider all the causes of people dieing or living because statistics clearly show that more people will live if temperatures go up.  More people will die if temperatures stay the same or go down compared to going up.  This is the opposite of what the IPCC says.

9) Deception:  Climate Scientists say that food production will decline in 2080

I should give this a FAIL but technically it hasn’t happened.   The fact is with the exponentially growing technology at our disposal, increasing arable land, longer growing seasons and more Co2 food source it is patently unbelievable that food supply would decrease in 2080.  Food supply has been growing very fast for decades and it is very specious to predict something will change in that given the rate of change of wealth and technology.

In all of these analyses they ignore improving technology which has been a driving force in agricultural growth over the years.   They don’t consider substitution of crops and many other things people can and will do to improve food supply.  Today, rich countries spend less than 2% of their GDP on agriculture.    This is an area that is highly susceptible to a large number of factors that humans are good at manipulating.  In fact, when the predictions are made 90% of the variability in the predictions have nothing to do with climate change.   A small change in any other factor would overwhelm any possible impact of climate change no matter how deadly they try to paint it.

In this wikipedia article there is discussion of plant productivity decreases due to temperature increases.    It is not clear how the article considers the effect of CO2 on plant productivity nor if they have considered relocation of growing regions.   For instance, with the 3 degree rise they use in one chart they show a 40% decrease in plant productivity but vast areas of the world would be open to agriculture if temperatures rose that much.  The total arable surface area of the Earth would grow significantly yet they claim a drop of 40%.   They point to specific crops not considering apparently substitution of alternate crops, genetic engineering or other adaptations of crops to higher temperatures nor the effect of CO2.   The overall result is highly deceptive on what the end result of temperature change would have on food supply.   They have also not considered what the demand for food might be like in that period.   With growing food supply a fact for decades and stagnating population gains it is very likely there will be need for less food anyway by then.  So, if it turns out to be somehow harder to grow food it may be irrelevant.    The article mentions that the studies emphasize the high uncertainty of their predictions.  That would be an understatement.  The studies are completely unbelievable.

One stated reason for the decline is that farmers will not adjust to the changing habitats fast enough.  However, that is not a problem of global warming.   There will be more growing habitat arable land for food.  There will be longer growing seasons.  If this happens it is entirely a human error not a global warming problem.    They consistently make assumptions that are more policy errors and gross stupidity that are not reasonable.

10) Deception:  Climate scientists say that additional CO2 will not increase plant productivity very much.

It already has and studies in greenhouses show significantly growing benefit as CO2 rises to more than 1000ppm with no negatives.   Not every plant responds the same but there is already a noted increase in plant productivity from the additional CO2 we have put in the atmosphere.   NASA satellites have noted a 20% increase in carbon in plants over the last 35 years as measured by spectroscopic analysis.   By minimizing this significant effect they are trying to hide a benefit of CO2 they don’t want talked about or want to discredit as much as possible.

There are possible processes on land which could account for the missing CO2 (but it has not been possible to verify them). They include the stimulation of vegetative growth by increasing CO2 levels (the CO2 fertilization effect), the possible enhanced productivity of vegetation under warmer conditions, and the direct effect of fertilization from agricultural fertilizers and from nitrogenous releases into the atmosphere.” (FAR WGI, p.13, emphasis is mine).

It has not been possible to verify them?  It is already causing their models to miss the CO2 predictions.  They call it missing CO2.  How transparently biased could they be?  They believe bizarre unrpoven thingsa all the time but don’t believe plants absorb CO2.  They also ignore that plants that use CO2 will likely be used more or proliferate more further invalidating the science and their predictions for food supply.   Lastly they say that plants would grow more but they won’t have the other nutrients they need.   This is again a false assumption as they cannot state humans will not adjust and provide the nutrients or that plants won’t find the nutrition themselves.  Lastly, if there is a problem by 2080 we have genetic technology to adapt plants.

One thing that climate scientists don’t like to talk about is how close we are to starving plants to death.   It is believed that if CO2 falls much below 180ppm that plants will go starve and eventually almost all life on the earth would die.   CO2 is a critical resource for plants.  They literally extract the carbon from CO2 to construct themselves from and produce the O2 which we consume in exchange.   This is not “pollution” but the most important gas in the atmosphere for our existence and plants existence.

We have come dangerously close in the last 50 million years or so when CO2 has dropped below 180 to planetary extinction.   The planet itself is as cold as it has been in 500 million years.  Half the planet is covered in ice and uninhabitable for large parts of the year.   Yes, sea levels would go up if some of that ice or even a lot of it would melt but the fact is the Earth and every living thing on the Earth has existed and enjoyed higher temperatures and less ice and much healthier than the near starvation lifelessness we have endured during the colder less CO2 rich periods on earth.

Some creatures may perish if temperatures were to increases and ice melt, seas rise but this will take thousands of years.   Many many lifetimes for people to move, adjust, adapt.  It is not possible to say that in the end if that were to happen that it would represent a negative consequence to humans, plants, animals as they all existed in this environment and flourished.   In a sense the more dangerous environment is one with the CO2 at or near the absolute minimum for survival of plants and temperatures keeping half the surface of the Earth near lifeless and uninhabitable.

11) Deception: Climate Scientists say they “police” themselves through the peer review system and competition

Major scandals in climate science around the hockey stick, errors in temperature records, problems with adjustments and numerous other things have been uncovered by laymen not scientists.  The scientists say laymen are unqualified and should be “jailed” or are stupid, etc…  However, simple things like double counting the temperature of Russia from one month to another causing NASA to report the hottest year were uncovered by laymen not climate scientists.  NASA was forced to retract their claims more than once by discoveries of laymen not scientists.  Scientists are NOT policing themselves but seem to be trying to police the skeptics calling for RICO act prosecution and suing climate skeptics rather than leveraging any help they can get to understand their errors.

Journal articles always have the obligatory “I believe in global warming” preamble or clauses because if they don’t clearly state this the article will not be published.  Scandals have rocked the scientific journals showing that the majority of articles published have no peer review or extremely poor review done by the author themselves frequently.   This is not limited to climate science but the fact is the peer review system is clearly failing.   The shrillness of the attacks against those who speak with skepticism causes people to lose jobs, to be fired and to lose their careers.

12) Deception:  Climate scientists say their is no conspiracy among them and that thinking that is like believing the moon landings were a hoax.

The fact is they have already been proved to conspire.  The hockey stick failure and the climategate scandals prove that they have conspired and were only uncovered by “skeptics.”   Release of emails proved that they conspired to hide the loss and subsequent investigations were unabashedly misrepresented.

13) Deception: The effect of CO2 doubling by the physics is 0.6C but they tell us we will see 3.0C, 5 times that

The climate community constantly refers to the CO2 physical effect of capturing IR as proof they are scientific and anyone who denies this is stupid for arguing with them but they hide the fact that this effect produces only 1/5th of the effect they claim for CO2.  The other 4/5th is not proven physics or science but theories of feedbacks that amplify the CO2 effect.    They try constantly to imply that the whole science is “proven” when only a small part is proven and almost everything they have predicted is based on unproven theories.   Therefore it is impossible to say there is consensus because there is no “science” to have consensus about except a very small part.

14) Deception: The hockey stick was faked.  The MWP and LIA did happen.

It is well known the hockey stick used 18 times in the IPCC first report and on the front page was entirely fabricated and completely false.

There were 3 key aspects of the hockey stick deception.  1) Hide a decline in temperature that the tree rings showed for the last 50 years. This would discredit the tree rings as temperature proxy if allowed to be shown.  Mann replaced the last 50 years with thermometer data without mentioning this.  2) Use tree rings because this was the only data they could find that would make the Medieval warming period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear.   These variations in temperature in the past would confuse people.   3) Run a smoothing algorithm custom made for the job that would produce a hockey stick out of any data fed to it.

These 3 deceptions were admitted by the climate community.  The charts were removed from the original report and subsequent reports.   However, the community still insisted the MWP and LIA were regional until over the last 15 years dozens of studies have demonstrated a large number of regions were consistent with the MWP and LIA.   The IPCC reports have moved to  more and more ambiguity in the description of these events reducing their confidence for instance in whether current temperatures exceed MWP temperatures.

In my opinion this bites both ways.  If the periods were global then it calls into question how this could be since CO2 didn’t vary over this time period.   No explanation is known for this. If these phenomenon weren’t global then it portends an even more vexxing problem.  How could  a region diverge by degrees with another region of the earth for hundreds of years?   How would such a phenomenon happen?  Climate Scientists were more willing to believe this than simply believing the data.

Facts such as Vikings growing grapes in ice covered regions today clearly show there was considerably warmer temperatures just 1000 years ago.    We know the Vikings used the northwest passage implying ice free passage in the arctic, something we don’t have today even though they claim it is warmer now than in 1000AD.   Greenland glaciers are retreating and when they do they uncover more and more land that was clearly occupied by Vikings and plants 1000 years ago.  So, the idea temperatures were not warmer than today is unbelievable based on physical evidence that is difficult to refute.   Since accepting that temperatures were warmer then would imply that CO2 wasn’t needed for temperatures to go up it puts a big question mark on the current theory.   As a result most climate scientists believed that the MWP and LIA were regional although how regional temperatures like this could happen was left unexplained and seems more impossible.

Recent studies have shown that temperatures all over the globe as calculated from fossil records did follow the LIA and MWP.  Sometimes it was delayed or different for some time but overall the regions of the earth went through a warmer period and cooler period in sync with the MWP and LIA.   Therefore, something else can produce significant warming which is unknown.   Solar radiation from the sun according to climate science cannot produce enough heat or lack of heat to cause these changes.  Something is missing and they don’t like to talk about it.

The fact that the hockey stick is disproved should give a lot of people pause since fundamentally it says they cannot model temperatures over a few hundred years within several degrees of accuracy and that they are incomplete in their understanding of what can cause multi-decadal or even century level changes.

15) Deception: The past has been cooled by 0.5C to make climate change seem more.

It is surprising to most people and to me that apparently we measured temperatures in the past worldwide too hot.  Massive numbers of transcription errors, siting errors, reading errors, location problems, random problems and changes in technology with thermostats leads the scientists to the conclusion we measured the past too hotly.  As a result they “adjust” cool the past with a set of adjustments.  This is far easier to explain than warming the present since we use much better equipment today.  Nonetheless complicated adjustments are warming the present as well(SEE OTHER DECEPTION).   The combination of cooling the past and warming the present doubles the unadjusted temperature anomaly found in the raw data allowing climate scientists to claim much higher sensitivity to CO2 which their models require.   Unfortunately, whether true or not the process of adjusting the past has been done very surreptitiously.    This is very concerning because there are factual things that are hard to  explain.  The traversal of the arctic in the 40s by ships.  The dust bowl in the American west.   Record high temperatures that still stand in most places from that period.   I think anybody can accept there could have been errors made but it is hard to accept that these errors were systematic or were significantly different from what we measured.

16) Deception: Half of the temperature change happened before CO2 was produced in significant quantities.

Climate scientists try to use the warming in the early part of the 20th century as part of “mans effect.”    They don’t mention that very little CO2 was produced during this  time and yet they try to abscond with this 0.4C as part of “global warming.”

They also don’t mention that we were recovering from the little ice age which hit a low in the 1600’s partly because they claimed the LIA didn’t happen (globally).   Temperatures have been rising for hundreds of years as have sea levels which is not generally known.    They are trying to blame all the warming since the industrial revolution or the 1600’s or 1880 on CO2 when CO2 wasn’t being produced and when it seems likely a natural phenomenon was mostly causing a recovery in temperatures from whatever caused the LIA.

They claim temperatures have risen 1.2C since 1900.   Since 1945 when CO2 production tripled temperatures have risen 0.4C by the satellites (assuming the period from 1945-1979 was zero or negative).    They claim 0.8 since 1945 using adjusted land records and add the 0.4 prior to 1945 when CO2 production wasn’t significant as a bonus to get 1.2C when 2/3 of this gain is either questionable from adjustments or happened before CO2 was produced.

You can be sure if the temperatures prior to 1945 hadn’t gone up so conveniently they would be very clear about the delineation of pre-CO2 and post-CO2 periods.   However, given the convenience of the rapid rise in the early part of the century which has nothing or very little to do with CO2 they always like to include the whole century graphs hoping most people are not aware that the spike in temperatures in the early part had nothing to do with CO2.

Of course temperatures going up in the early part of the century so rapidly without CO2 being produced in quantity needs explaining as well.  So, including that without comment is better since it implies it is part of global warming and people don’t ask the difficult question why did the temperatures go up in the early part of the 20th century if not CO2?

The following 3 FAILs relate to a serious blow to climate science that hasn’t been recovered from.   The existence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) as a 60-70 year cycle shown to have affected temperatures for hundreds and likely thousands of years has resulted in numerous errors and failures of Climate Science that are not acknowledged publicly.  (In general they never admit these failures and deceptions and instead go forward as if they knew all along this was false.)   Never admit failure.  Never admit weakness.  That’s the sign of a good politician but not something we expect normally from scientists who usually love things which prove theories wrong.

17A) FAIL: PDO / AMO does not exist, Oceans are static

The climate computer models do not show a periodic wave of AMO/PDO as history has shown and climate scientists have denied their existence until recently.  The first mention of the phenomenon was in AR4 less than 10 years ago and in this report they deny PDO as influencing climate and give AMO a minor role.   That is a FAIL.

The Climate Science community and IPCC assumed against all common sense that the ocean did not have cycles.   They didn’t look to see if this was true.  They just assumed all kinds of false things about the ocean which is an egregious set of errors since the ocean is clearly an enormous potential source of heat or sink and we knew so little about.   This was one of the biggest problems I saw when I first looked at the science.   The ocean is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.  A 0.01C (imperceptible change)  in ocean temp could produce 10C change in atmosphere temps.   Yet we had ZERO knowledge of the ocean when they said this.   This seemed at a minimum to suggest that saying they had 95% certainty of anything was poppycock.

17B) FAIL:  PDO/AMO will decrease and stop

Once confronted with the fact that AMO/PDO cycles are real they have suggested or insisted PDO/AMO cycles will decrease and stop because the models don’t show them and CO2 will dominate natural variability.

For nearly 20 years there has been no temperature rise.  This is almost surely the result of PDO/AMO or some other natural variability they have not counted.  In either case the PDO/AMO has not gone away and El Ninos and La Ninas have not decreased or gone away.  This is eminently apparent this year as we have the largest El Nino since 1998.   It is quite obvious that they predict the end of PDO/AMO because they don’t have them in the models and they made predictions which didn’t include those effects.   If they have to include PDO/AMO the predictions change dramatically and even worse they don’t know how to include PDO/AMO because they don’t understand how they happen.

17C) FAIL:  PDO/AMO not modeled

Climate Scientists still don’t know what causes PDO/AMO cyclic behavior in the ocean and have been unable to model it in their computer models.   This led them to believe these things don’t exist, yet they do.   So, now they are scrambling to understand if these are caused by deep ocean currents, effects of the sun, effects from mantle heat release, biological sources or other.  Since they can’t model this phenomenon which has been able to erase 20 years of climate temperature rise in spite of putting 57% of the entire CO2 in mans history into the skies this puts their overall predictions in jeopardy.

The lack of understanding the PDO and related cyclic behaviors means that many statements they made about why things happened wrong.   In my opinion each of these wrong attributions is itself a FAIL.

18) Attribution wrong leads to wrong conclusions about the future as well

18A) Fail: The temperature rise between 1979-2000 was 100% caused by CO2

An important milestone for climate science was achieved in their eyes in 2005 or so when they were able to show that climate variability had been accounted for.   The 4th IPCC report declared that they were virtually certain that ALL the warmth since 1979 was the cause of CO2.  They believed they accounted for all the temperature variation in the past 100 years allowing them to claim the climate models were excellent and they knew why the temperature went up here or down there.   This led them to strong statements of certainty.  95% certain.

This has been disproved.   The discovery of PDO/AMO ocean El Nino / La Nina cycles means that some portion maybe 50%, maybe 75% of the warming between 1979-2000 was from something other than CO2.    The PDO/AMO discovery has upended entirely their modeling for all the century because now this new factor means that all the factors they were “sure” about they were not sure about.

18B) Fail: The temperature rise between 1915-1945 was caused mainly by solar radiation increase.

In the same way Climate Scientists felt they had proved that CO2 had caused the rise later in the century they were certain that a lot of the gain in the early part of the century was from Solar Radiation increases.   The models all fail at matching the period 1915-1945.  This period saw an increase in temperature at least as great as the temperature rise in the latter half of the century but even the climate scientists admit that CO2 couldn’t be the cause.  The rate of rise is at least 3 times greater than the rate for the same amount of CO2 increase during the latter part of the century.

Either CO2 has much more effect which caused the increase then or there are other reasons.  If the increase is more for the little CO2 extra then this would mean the higher CO2 would be even more which wouldn’t match data for latter half of the century.     If CO2 doesn’t then there must be other reasons that more solar because solar radiation varies a lot during the century it doesn’t correlate well with temperature.  They are left with saying it is natural variability which means their predictions can’t assume they’ve accounted for natural variability.

In fact, similar to the above PDO/AMO it is now clear that the rise in that time period was caused at least partly by ocean temperature cycle.   This means their attribution of the effect of solar radiation is TOO high.   By ascribing things to the wrong causes it puts their predictions for the future in question.

18C) Fail: The temperature drop between 1945-1975 was caused mainly caused by shielding of the sun because of particulates from pollution.

In the same way as Climate Scientists concluded the CO2 caused 100% of the rise in the later part of the century they were certain that pollution caused the drop between 1945-1975.  This is also not true as the PDO/AMO cycle apparently is a substantial amount of the drop.      This failure as the other failures indicate that the models are seriously incomplete and don’t model variability well which completely upends the argument for CO2 being the entire cause of warming in later period and therefore also means any predictions based on that are false.   We have seen that in fact the models missed the 2000-2015 temperature pause because of PDO/AMO is a direct result which means future predictions will suffer again from the same fate.

Recently an article also showed that aerosol forcings used in this time period to explain the drop are very wrong.  New estimates place aerosol forcing far less and maybe even zero which means they have no explanation for why temperatures fell during this 30 year period.  This means that not only do they ascribe the wrong thing to this period.  They got it totally wrong.

This is the minimum we can say:  Climate models wrongly attributed solar radiation forcings as well as ocean forcings and particulate albedo forcings as well as CO2 forcing.   The failure of these implies that the entire prediction regime is flawed and unable to be trusted.

18D) Deception:  The models can accurately predict the future because they predict the past so well.  NOT

We have now seen in the failures of the previous 3 points that the climate models did not accurately predict the reasons for the natural variability during those recent periods.  Therefore, the models cannot predict the future temperature accurately because they really do not have a solid idea of the natural variability.   They have not been able to model the AMO / PDO periods or causes.

They therefore cannot predict them in the future or model them so they make various claims which are unsupportable like:  The PDO will stop.  Their models never showed PDO/AMO so saying they will stop is a fancy way of saying they never existed.  They claim CO2 will overwhelm natural variability but it clearly didn’t in the last 20 years.

Temperatures have been rising since 1600s.   This is well accepted and even when they believed the LIA was not global they seem to accept that temperatures have been rising since the 1600s far before the industrial revolution.  It is therefore unknown if this warming stopped.   They claimed that solar forcing caused the decline of the LIA and increasing solar radiation up to 1950 or so caused the increase in temperatures.  The method of proving the end of the previous heating and now CO2 taking over in the last half of the 20th century is unclear.   We do not know if some of what caused the temperature rise of 1600-1950 went beyond 1950.  There is simply no scientific proof of the claim that whatever caused the warming from 1600 onward is not still with us causing some or all of the warming we see now.   This therefore introduces massive uncertainty because if some or most of the warming from 1975-1998 was caused by a combination of longer cycle and shorter cycle ocean phenomenon then we have no idea if temperatures will even go up by the end of the century.

The fact is that the temperature record we have is extremely spotty as well as the other data that would help explain the record.   Lacking this we are left with a lot of unknowns which we will simply have to wait until we have enough good data or figure out how to improve our knowledge of the past.   Saying we don’t know is not bad.   It is the essence of science to admit what is unknown and to relish that unknown as it means the science is ripe for new work and discoveries.

19) FAIL: Periods of 10 years with no warming are common and nothing to worry about.  Computer models have less than 2% chance of being right.

While the computer models may show a significant possibility of temperature haitus of 10 years a temperature haitus of 15 years is less than 5% probability.  20 years is less than 2% probability.   There is something wrong with the models.   RSS is now showing the haitus is 19 years and 3 months.  We have poured 57% or more of all the CO2 we ever poured into the atmosphere combined in the last 20 years and we’ve had the longest haitus in temperatures since 1945.  There is an infinitessimal less than 2 sigma chance of this happening by pure chance if the models are correct. Therefore the models have a 2% chance of being correct.  Clearly the models missing the AMO/PDO has turned into a massive failure after failure in attribution and have made the models less than 2% chance of being correct, yet they refuse to admit this failure.

20) FAIL:  Temperatures are 0.5C lower than what the models say they should be.  This is devastating.   We will NOT get 2C by 2100.  Therefore the consequences of AGW by their own admission is now net positive.

If 2014 was the hottest year it is still 0.5C lower than the Climate Scientists said it would be.   This is using the adjusted data records that are clearly being falsified.   This is incredibly significant.   If we had had the 0.5C rise over the last 20 years instead of complete stagnation the conversation today would be TOTALLY different.   Nobody would have questioned this theory or climate scientists if temperatures had actually climbed 0.5C.   The relentless march of temperatures by that much would have made  me a total believer in much of what they say is science.

If we had gotten the 0.5C they projected we would easily make it to 2C by 2100.  We would not be debating if the adjustments were off by this or that.    It would be easy to see by anyone that 2C could happen.   Further that 0.5C would be crucial to establishing the importance of CO2 and eliminate the PDO/AMO and other factors.

However, this shows the 0.5C they have missed by is incredibly significant because now it is virtually impossible to get to 1.5C let alone 2C.    In order to get to 2C by 2100 they need 8 consecutive decades with no pause of double the rate of the warming of the last 8 decades.   There is no scientific basis for this so it is not scientific to state that we will hit 2C, it is a religious belief of some Climate Scientists but it cannot be said to be a scientifically likely scenario.   As each year goes by without temperatures exploding the amount of heating needed in the remaining time climbs very fast.   I wonder if we go another 30 years will they be saying everything is proven and assume nobody will realize that to reach 2C they will need temperatures to climb 10 times the rate.

Another way to look at this is to see the graphs of the current temperatures vs model temperatures.   The graphs show that the current temperature is approaching the 2 sigma level boundary which is a 5% chance of occurrence.     This is not something they admit that essentially the 0.5C miss effectively disproves the major tenants of the theory to 95% certainty.

21) Deception:  Some global warming will result in positive consequences

All of the IPCC reports have concluded that 2C is the point at which their analysis (which we’ve seen is grossly fallacious) says the negatives outweigh the positives.   So, by missing 2C we will have positive consequences from global warming.  This is not widely understood.   People seem to believe that any warming is killing and hurting the world.   The IPCC does not say this.   Report after report in the press and from activists seems to indicate that the world is doomed.

During the holocene optimum 5,000 years ago it is generally accepted temperatures were warmer than today and this is the period that humans were able to form agricultural societies which allowed us to end hunting/gathering and become specialized.   This has led to civilization.

If every degree up from here is worse it contradicts what the holocene optimum showed us and even more unlikely it would suggest that we happen to be at the “ideal” temperature.  It is extremely improbable that todays temperature happens to be the optimal ideal temperature.   As temperatures have gone up things have generally gotten better, richer, healthier.  It is not really very likely that this trend happens to have hit the exact inflection point and things get worse as temperatures rise from here.


22) FAIL: The models predict the temperatures in higher portions of the atmosphere will rise faster than on the surface of the Earth.  They aren’t.

CO2 is able to absorb radiation at colder temperatures.  This is why the higher atmosphere warming is crucial to proving that CO2 is the cause of the warming.   Weather balloons, satellites nothing has been able to show warming in the middle of the atmosphere as required by global warming theory.   This puts into doubt the entire theory.    The theory also predicts that the highest atmosphere will show colder temperatures.   We are seeing that.  But bizarrely the middle of the atmosphere is not seeing what we expect and the lower atmosphere at the surface is warming the most which is not how global warming should work according to the science.

They have suggested wind could account for this but they have not provided an explanation for why winds have increased in the middle atmosphere.

Without the warming in the middle of the atmosphere it is hard to believe that the warming we are seeing has anything to do with CO2 since the warming of the surface has to be caused by warming from the middle layers of the atmosphere propagating down.   This is critical so you would think they would put more effort to show that this is indeed happening.

There are 2 manifestations of this problem.  One is the satellites measure heat throughout the atmosphere and show that the lowest part of the atmosphere isn’t warming as much as the surface.   Second, air balloons sent into the atmosphere regularly show the upper atmosphere and humidity matches satellites and is not warming as much nor humidifying as much as models suggest. It’s as if the heat from recent warming is coming from the surface or ocean NOT atmospheric CO2.

This conundrum of where the heat originates is kinda existential.  CO2 cannot be the cause of the heat if the atmosphere does not show it above the surface because there is virtually no CO2 at the surface, therefore this seems to prove that the current warming cannot be because of CO2.

The argument that the warming at the surface might be contaminated with urban heat islands would be a possible explanation because studies show that “virtuous thermostats” which don’t undergo model driven adjustments because they are “perfect citizen thermostats” placed in the highest quality locations show the same heating as the satellites which would mean the satellites and air balloons as well as ocean buoys are showing the true co2 impact on climate not the ground thermostats that are showing excess hear.

This is not the only possible explanation but it has the merit of being consistent.  Other possibility might be related to ocean release possibly related to cyclic behavior on a longer time scale.

23) Deception: The temperature was warmer in the recent past, 1000, 2000 years ago and the models don’t model that


The models do not show that temperatures in the past would be hotter or colder because CO2 hasn’t varied yet it has.   They have argued at times these temperature variations haven’t happened which is contrary to written accounts or known historical data.  For instance, 5000 years ago we know the middle east was quite a bit more hospitable to life when civilization emerged and agricultural societies first emerged.   We know from drawings that holding fairs on the Themes in the middle of winter on the ice, having barbecues and periods when Vikings grew wine grapes and made homes.   We also have records as glaciers have retreated that only a few thousand years ago they had retreated to these points and more because we find evidence of cities and plants that prove only recently these lands were more arable.   Yet they aren’t able to explain such apparently large deviations from what is supposed to be a hockey stick with natural variation minimal.

24) FAIL: The models don’t model the ice ages

The ups and downs of the ice ages occur before the onset of CO2 variation.  This is understood as CO2 varies mainly as a result of the changing solubility of it in the oceans waters.  Warmer water cannot hold as much CO2 so as it gets warmer it disgorges CO2 and vice versa.   Unfortunately the variation in temperature before the CO2 appears is large and the Sun by itself which is thought to cause this ice age variation is not sufficient according to our understanding today to explain 10% of the temperature variation.   Therefore it is imagined something is amplifying the initial effect.   CO2 is the main culprit but examination of the record does not show a correlation that is consistent.   The variations also don’t correspond exactly with the Earths orbit which is assumed to be the cause of solar variation.  About 3 million years ago the period of ice ages doubled to 100,000 years instead of 40,000 or so years.  It is thought that possibly the opening of the isthmus of panama linking the oceans around this time could be the cause but this is unknown how such a small geographic change could have a massive effect on the Earths climate.   If so, could other unknown geographic alterations be causing significant variations in climate.   Could cycles in the suns output or cosmic rays change from the solar systems orbit in the galaxy be the cause?  The point is that unknowns are large and potentially could cause or be part of the changes we see.  Could biological factors be significant, i.e. large blooms of some algae or even unknown asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions that coincide with orbit changes.  There are so many unknowns it is impossible to explain much of the variation in climate in the past but it is clear CO2 is not at all the only or primary reason for climate change.

25) Deception: Predictions in the face of exponential knowledge gain and technology gain is flawed.  It is impossible to account or know how technology will change our response or need to respond to anything negative making all predictions useless

Climate scientists downplay the significance of technology change.  The development of the CRISPR is typical in making mans ability to change the consequences.   Every previous prediction which assumes an exponential growth of something have always failed.   We find that technology frequently allows substitutes far faster than imagined and prevents the predicted disaster.  Today technology is exploding at an exponential rate.   It is completely unknown what we will be able to do at what cost in the next 50 years therefore any prediction of results is impossible to believe.   We know that the cost of Solar and other energy sources are changing while the cost of fossil fuels remains the same.   Eventually it is inevitable that it will be far cheaper to use alternate fuels yet their models assume man will be producing massively more energy with the exact same set of technologies 100 years from now.  Without exponential growth in CO2 and the assumed lack of change in technology we would not be looking at the same results.  Yet they do not factor in any improvements.

We also know that as technology changes the costs of mitigation get cheaper.  The world has gotten wealthier and wealthier resulting in massive descrease in numerous causes of death.  The combination means that it is almost always cheaper to fix something like this in the future when we have more technology, are wealthier and understand better than doing it today.   Solving a problem 50 years before we need to and before we have had a chance to explore more creative solutions means much higher cost and less desirous consequences.

26) FAIL: They said oceans could not absorb heat below 100 meters and most heat would heat the top layers of the ocean.   The last 20 years has shown this to be completely wrong

The models for the absorption of heat from CO2 assume that the ocean mainly heats at the top layer (100m or less) and that the lower ocean is unaffected or affected only over long times.   However, during the last 20 years of the haitus we have discovered that significant heat seems to have accumulated below 100m.

This is useful as it explains possibly where the heat from CO2 went.   Otherwise the lack of rising temperatures would be a direct refutation of global warming CO2 theory.  The heat has to go somewhere or it isn’t happening in the first place which would discredit the theory completely.   Therefore finding a place for the heat to go allows the theory to survive.

However, the real source of the heat below the 100m level is unknown.   It is unknown how heat could get there nor how the top ocean surface would get colder simultaneously.    Another possibility is that declining humidity or fewer clouds are letting more heat escape to space.   If the heat escapes the planet then this is a serious problem for global warming theory as it can’t come back to bite us as they keep saying.   In order for the models to have any chance of having success it is necessary for the heat from the last 20 years to have been stored someplace on the earth.  Finding a place like the ocean is crucial or they would have to admit that things are seriously awry.

If CO2 energy could do this then it could do this forever because the heat capacity of the ocean is 1000 times greater than the atmosphere there is essentially no limit to how much heat the ocean could uptake.  The atmosphere could absorb 1000 C of heat and displace it into the ocean with only a 1C change in ocean temperature.

There is no known period for the ocean to disgorge such heat.

It is clear they didn’t understand any of this or expect any of this because none of the computer models thought we would have such a slowdown in temperatures.  So, this was clearly unknown and a FAIL.  It is significant since this could go on forever and we also don’t know when it will stop or even if CO2 heat is the cause of the warming in the lower layer of the ocean.   The heat in the lower ocean could be a cyclic phenomenon in the ocean or caused by other things.

The PDO / AMO phenomenon raise and lower worldwide temperatures and require that heat come from somewhere or be absorbed somewhere to accomplish this.   Therefore, another simpler explanation of the warmer ocean below 100m is simply that it is the natural variation in that layer of the ocean during the negative phase of AMO/PDO.     We do not have enough ocean data to know if this is something which is special to this time or has occurred in the past with every cycle of PDO/AMO.

27A and B:  Glaciers and Sea Level have been erred and overestimated time and again

27A) FAIL: they said land locked glaciers would disappear

They predicted people would not be able to ski anymore.  They predicted that loss of glaciers would drastically change water flows and the survivability of some communities.   “Scientists” went to inland glaciers and measured water flow, movement of the glaciers and estimated 10 times more than the actual flow of ice than is happening.   What went wrong?  They simply only looked at the glaciers they saw moving and assumed they were all moving like that.  When satellites later reviewed all the glaciers they found that the ice flow was 1/10th the estimates of the scientists who were blinded by their zeal to find moving glaciers.

This points out the bias that all scientists can have but which this group has in spades and continues to have.   They look for all the signs of global warming and effects they can find.   They assume there are no countervailing effects and conclude the world is falling apart.   This is not the first time this has happened and it is evidence of extreme naivete and bias which they refuse to give up.   They constantly are seen to assume the worst, to not “think critically” about what they say or do.

To the extent we can determine these glacier losses are (at least 10 times) slower than they projected earlier.   As in previous projections of disaster it is unknown how technology might change the consequences of any eventual water problems.

27B Inconvenient Truth: Deception:  Sea Levels are not accelerating

The IPCC has been clear as well as some scientists but this remains one of the mythos used to drive scare stories that appears in articles constantly in spite of the raw facts that are indisputable.   The sea has been rising for centuries.  It continues to rise and from all we can tell this rise has been steady at between 1-3mm/year or about 7 inches per century.  As far as our best estimates this is what happened in the 19th century, what happened in the 20th century and seems to be roughly the rate we will see for the 21st century in spite of rising temperatures.

Because the data on all this is so new and preliminary we don’t know if these glaciers have been melting for centuries and if we were somehow able to lower the temperature back to 1900 temperatures the glaciers would stop melting but probably not as you can see seas have been rising since the end of the last ice age.

There is some temperature above which there will be melting, call it the critical temperature. At some point probably early in the rise at the end of the last ice age temperatures reached a point that glaciers and ice started to recede.   It is not known if we have been at the critical temperature or were at it in 1900 virtually anything is really changed by reverting to 1900 temperatures or even lower.   We may have to go down 2 or more degrees to get glaciers to stop melting.

We do know that if all the glaciers melt water levels will soar hundreds of feet but that this would take thousands of years.   Undoubtedly there would be loss of land to the sea but there would also be massive amounts of land opened up.  Fully half the earth is now covered in ice for most or all of the year.   This would take thousands of years and may be happening anyway or we will more likely slip into another ice age which will turn the entire earth practically into an ice ball again.   These are all interesting thoughts but are thousands of years from now and man will undoubtedly be far different and capable of many things we can not imagine today.

Many of the projections of the scare stories around glaciers and sea level refer to events that might happen in hundreds and thousands of years.  These are interesting but are not suitable for any action today as we have no idea if any of this might happen or not and how man could possibly react and if there is anything we can do about it or want to do about it.   If there is a need to evacuate some coastline 50 years is a huge amount of time.  Almost all buildings undergo extensive repair and replacement over 50 year time span let alone hundreds of years.  Once we understand the actual amount of sea rise we can plan for it and it will not be a problem.

In any case the amount of sea level rise is small and there is no evidence it is accelerating as has been said over and over.  All these scare stories are wrong so far.  Yet they continue to come out regularly.

Frequently the story goes along this line.   When CO2 levels were at 400 before the earth had sea levels 30 meters higher or 6 meters higher or …   The fact is that this is an interesting correlation but is meaningless.   There have been times when CO2 was at 1000 and sea levels were much lower.   It is also not clear what is the correct sea level for the earth or the correct amount of ice.   It seems as if people assume zero change is the best but unfortunately we don’t have zero change now and probably will never have that option.

This is one of those critical parameters that if the climate science community had been right about it may have made all of us reconsider.   If sea levels were accelerating noticeably, if temperatures really had climbed 0.5C more in the last 20 years as the computer models said we would have had to believe this theory in full or largely but these things HAVE NOT HAPPENED.  This means that the major evidence that in fact there is really something happening here to think about is missing.  The temperature rise is much slower than anticipated and the sea levels and ice melting is far less than they told us.   These failures should convince most people that this science is bogus or at least way overplayed.

There is a recent article (like there seems to be every year or so) to scare people about sea level acceleration.   The article purports to say that sea levels are rising faster than at any time in the last 28000 years.

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW.  With a couple years of recent data and the great uncertainty of past proxies it is impossible to say if any 2 year period in the past or 10 year period had sea level rise as fast or faster than the last couple.   We have had periods in the last 20 years where sea level FELL for a 5 year period.  Overall it is just not possible to make this claim credible.

It is very similar to the hockey stick deception.   By comparing data that has huge uncertainties and is a smoothed result that eliminates outlying years and periods it is not ethical to compare that to recent more accurate and not smoothed instantaneous data and say that it is hotter now or that sea levels are rising faster.   We cannot know that because the data in the past is too uncertain.

What we can say is that in any case the amount of sea level they claim which is about 3 times the rate we have had over the last 2 centuries is still too slow to warrant much worry.  If sea levels did continue to rise at this level for 100 years some buildings will have to be lifted and new walls built or older ones reinforced.   It is HARDLY the end of the world.

However, extrapolating linear or exponential trends for hundreds or thousands of years is exactly how all these predictions end up failing.  It is simply IMPOSSIBLE that these linear or exponential trends continue for long periods without something changing.  That is the nature of the world, of human beings.  Saying those things is simply playing to dummies.

28) FAIL: they said Antarctica were losing much more ice than they are and in some places gaining massive ice making Antarctica overall net increasing in ice volume

It is well documented now that Antarctica as a whole is not losing ice.  In fact total accumulation of ice in antarctica is reducing sea levels by as much as 1mm/year.   While it is thought that other flows overall result in a positive rise in sea level the uncertainty is still large about all ice loss and sea level changes making the constant projections of massive sea level rise complete speculation.

29) Deception:  Climate Scientists have had to be forced to release data and code for studies they do.   Time after time when pressed for data behind a study Climate Scientists use legal arguments to prevent disclosure and fight transparency.   They have used bad data management practices, losing critical data.

During the hockey stick period and for decades afterward climate science was conducted as if it was national secret.   Data behind many of the models, the data used in scientific studies was typically not allowed out.   Numerous reasons were given for this.   Sometimes it was said it was intellectual property, sometimes it was lost, sometimes it was somebody else’s data and couldn’t be released.  This has been typical for code for computer models, code for other analysis such that it made it hard or impossible to double check work done by climate scientists.   This effort to hide the data and methods is now much less however, in many cases when data was finally made available serious problems in the analysis or the data was found.   One glaring example was the fight over the tree ring data and the hockey stick.  When data was finally forced out it was apparent that a small selection of trees maybe as low as 12 were used in the analysis and that the result depended remarkably on one tree in particular that was a major influence.   The process of hiding data and methods is particularly troubling.

30) Deception: Climate scientists have invented new non-standard statistical methods to analyze data when the data doesn’t work for them.

From the beginning with the hockey stick we have seen time after time where scientific papers accepted by supposed peer review processes allows climate scientists to invent new statistical techniques and measures to circumvent what would appear to be disproof or lack of proof of things they have said.   Recently new techniques to analyze temperatures from the ocean have allowed them to suggest temperatures continue to climb and that there was no “pause.”   New statistical techniques they have invented for which there are no generally accepted understanding have allowed them to claim that satellites may be underestimating temperature under clouds which are refuted by standard statistics.   Over and over from estimating wind in the middle atmosphere to get around stagnating temperatures in the mid-atmosphere they have re-analysed data again and again that doesn’t conform to the computer models.

31) Deception: Every species they say will go extinct from 2 or more degrees higher temperature has lived through much higher temps and much lower temps and survived for millions of years

The polar bear has been around for 60 million years or at least 30 times longer than human beings.   It has existed during much warmer times and through catastrophic events of all types.  Similarly for coral and plankton and thousands of species they claim are threatened.

A land use model of extinction that guesses extinction rates based on decreasing land availability has been proven to be wildly wrong and the subject of intense debate.

While the argument is valid that there may be cases where some animals may not be able to adjust due to conflagration of factors it is also not clear that extinction will occur because of numerous factors that are still unknown.    However, it is clear that a 50% extinction rate is more likely to be pure hyperbole than fact.

32A) FAIL: Humidity is supposed to have jumped and caused 50% of all the temperature change but humidity hasn’t changed as predicted at all.

32B) FAIL: We have fewer clouds not more

A key component to Global warming is that rising temperatures in the middle atmosphere radiated back to the surface will cause more evaporation and higher humidity, more clouds and more heating multiplying the effect of CO2 by a factor of at least 2 or 3 or more.

  1. Temperatures in the middle atmosphere have not been shown to be going up as postulated
  2. We have seen a decrease in humidity or relative humidity in spite of rising temperatures suggesting a “counter” phenomenon not imagined.
  3. We have fewer clouds not more.   Fewer clouds and lower humidity allow more heat to escape the Earth and radiate into space.   The extra heat may have escaped rather than increased temperatures which means it is lost forever and can never increase temperatures.

33) Deception: Natural disasters have been much worse in the past

A lot of people (not just Climate Scientists) fail to appreciate how bad the weather of the past was.   It is strange to me that people seem to think that thinks were rather nice up until the last few decades.   This could not be more wrong.   A quick study of historic records will show enormous events of floods, droughts, tropical storms, earthquakes, famine, pandemics or other natural events.   In fact, these events would kill millions of people routinely that today see deaths 2 or 3 orders of magnitude less.

The alarmists refer to the cost of disasters going up which has been shown over and over to be related to the increasing value of land and structures not to the actual destruction or loss of life.  The increasing cost means that people will continue the amazing effect we’ve had in constraining the impact of natural events on humans property, lives and health in the last century.

34) Deception: We improved our death rate from natural disasters in the 20th century by 98% and may improve another 98% this century.   This doesn’t seem like the biggest problem to worry about.   Costs have risen not because of increasing frequency or severity but simply because of rising values of property.

Statistical analysis of deaths from natural disasters in the 20th century show a massive decline in death rates from the beginning of the century to the end.  Fully 98% reduction from the earliest to the latest decade.

We can expect further massive improvements as techniques from the first world become more and more common even in the third world.  In addition, continuing improvements in technology presage further gains.

NEW:   A study was just released that shows the death rate from natural disasters feel another 50% in the first 10 years of this century.   That means a 99% improvement from the beginning of the 20th century.


A lot of natural disasters are easily mitigatable with very limited technology.  For instance a heat wave in France that killed 15.000 people 3 years later when a worse heat wave hit killed only 10 people.   A little use of fans, a little advice to get out of the heat and the death rate was cut by 99.9%.   Evidence like this makes any prediction of future deaths, future problems look quite ridiculous.

35) Fail: Natural disasters are not increasing in frequency or death toll

Studies have shown that if anything there is a negative correlation between temperature and natural disasters.   If so, it would mean again that instead of more death from heat there would be less death.

36) Deception: the models are statistically impossible to believe. 

There are numerous aspects of the models that make them apriori impossible to believe.   There is a fact of life called error propagation which is the inevitable increase of error as you do calculations.  This is because uncertainty in the original estimate is amplified by combining it with other uncertain information.    Climate models are built on great quantities of information that is quite uncertain from which trillions of calculations are performed that basically reduce the result to meaningless.

There are multiple lines of evidence pointing to the fact the models are purely creations intended to model the authors beliefs rather than any physical phenomenon.

  1. The models have unphysical corrections to dampen them because otherwise they show impossible numerical results such as temperatures of -200C or +1000C etc…
  2. Evidence of this damping is known from the literature as well as clearly in the data as evidenced by studies.
  3. The models are reinitialized yearly with measured data meaning they never predict more than a year in advance for hindcasts
  4. Error estimates of the models would be essentially infinite by any reasonable measure in 50 years.  There is no possibility other than pure luck the models actually come up with a result that is anything like what actually happens.

37) Deception: They use blatantly false statistics about the “consensus” in global warming

The statistic of 97% believe in global warming is crap.

  1. What do these 97% believe?  It is not clear.
  2. Who are these 97%
  3. Is it 97% today.

One would expect the number to increase as the science gets better and better but nobody has been able to show any increase.  In fact, if anything there is far more doubt than when these numbers were first put out.

More important what they asked was simply does man have an effect on climate?  Which almost anyone scientist or not would agree.   If they had asked, “Will man create a 2C temperature change or greater which will result in catastrophic results” the number would have been much much lower.

Lastly and even more important, it turns out this 97% was of 88 scientists out of 5,000 who were polled.  The statistics for the remaining 4900 scientists was not disclosed and the 88 chosen were all climate scientists who have a tremendous interest in saying their science is legitimate.   In fact it would have been bizarre to get anything less than 97% as this would imply that climate scientists themselves doubted themselves.

38) Deception: Sea levels were going up a century ago and are not going up much faster than they were 


39) Deception: Climate Scientists have used the idea that science is based on consensus not on data.

Time and time again climate scientists are spending more time arguing against the people who question them not on the merits of the facts but on the mere point that they are qualified to question them or that they are not paid shills of the oil industry.

The fact is climate scientists and corporations which make money off climate science disaster scenarios are worth billions.   A large fraction of research grants are given to those who project negative effects and academics make hundreds of thousands a year or more.  Many people have become billionaires or made millions from pushing climate disaster scenarios.   Yet they claim it is the deniers who are well funded and have an axe to grind ignoring their own substantial axe.

40A) FAIL: They assumed the oceans were static, that volcanoes will end and that the suns variability is static

Climate Scientists made numerous errors about the ocean from the beginning.

  1. They assumed no longer term cyclic phenomenon
  2. They modeled the oceans as simple 2 layer models that suggested hear could not penetrate easily more than 100m of ocean.
  3. They assume that no heat from the mantle, volcanoes in the ocean, effects from interaction with the Sun or biological or chemical interactions could possibly effect climate in spite of the fact that 99.999% of all climate history is a complete mystery.

We had virtually zero information on the ocean and yet the ocean covers 70% of the surface of the earth and contains 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

As a result of these assumptions they entirely missed the AMO / PDO phenomenon which has turned out to be enormous.

They refuse to entertain the idea longer wave phenomenon may exist to explain 1000 year cycles observed.

They refuse to consider other phenomenon could be going on having impact which is clearly a huge unknown and uncertain.

Another massive error is that it was discovered that all the heat of the last 20 years that has not shown up in the atmosphere has shown up in the ocean from 300 to 3000 feet depth.   This may be coincidence as they have not explained how such heat could get to the lower depths and in fact have said this was impossible before on the time scales we are talking about.

It is clear they didn’t know this because they didn’t predict something like this would happen or even could happen.    They now are trying to say that this heat will escape and come back but they have no basis for that either.

We didn’t have any data on the oceans of any significance until we built the 3000 buoy ARGO system which has been in business for 15 years.   Prior to that we had no business saying any of the things they did say.   Even today with ARGO we are just beginning to get data and certainly can’t be sure why anything is happening or what will happen with the oceans.

40B) Deception: They assume the sun is static or with minor non-cyclic effect

In a similar way to the oceans we have about the same level of information on the sun.  As we know virtually all energy that comes to the earth comes from the sun so variations or periodic phenomenon would have an enormous effect.   This was discounted from the beginning and still is in spite of the obvious error of that.

40C) Deception:   Volcanoes are ignored in the models and the predictions of the IPCC

Since volcanoes happen at random times it is hard to predict them.   Yet they do happen all the time and frequently massive volcanoes.    It is known that volcanoes decrease temperatures substantially.   It is not known if volcanoes have a longer term effect or not on the overall temperature.

Not including at least an “average” assumption of volcanoes over the period being predicted means they are assuming volcanoes won’t decrease world temperature yet we know historically they have.   This represents a clear upward bias in predictions of temperature.


41) Deception: They underplay unknowns

In general from the beginning they have said there were unknowns but they concluded after analysis that the unknowns were minimal.  That is how they conclude they have 97% this or that.   The fact is they have nowhere near this level of certainty of anything.   There are major unknowns from biological to chemical interactions, effects of the sun, ocean and clouds that make our knowledge still virtually zero on the climate and what effects it.

42) Fail: The haitus will likely continue for another 10 or 15 years.

RSS has the temperature haitus at 19 years and 3 months.  It is likely this will continue for 15 more years.   The PDO/AMO cycle is 60-70 years and we are at most about 15 years into the down cycle.   The models do not show this but they don’t show the pause either.   So, it is clear they are disproven and the most clear data we have is the up and down cycle of PDO/AMO which has been in play for 200+ years.  We have no reason to believe as Climate Scientists have unjustifiably stated that the AMO/PDO is over prematurely.  There is zero evidence for this.

The existence of a large El Nino ENSO event this year is actually consistent with previous AMO/PDO cycles and could have been predicted years ago.  It does not represent as a single event proof of the end of the downward phase of the AMO.   It also should be noted that after an El Nino the subsequent year is almost 100% followed by a down year which cancels the previous years event.

43) Deception: The claim that temps are going up every decade is deceptive

The fact that this decade is warmer than last decade is irrelevant.   If temperatures were up 0.02C every decade then 1000 years would be required to get 2C.    The question is not if temperatures are going up but how much.     The actual rate of warming is 0.11C/decade according to their adjusted land records and less if you use RSS or UAH satellite data.

They claim 2C is the “problem point” so 200 years is a lot longer than they have indicated this problem will take and more important it is extremely unlikely such change would continue for 200 years without technology change or some other change that makes such a prediction or problem invalid.   So, saying that temperatures are warmer is not by itself worrisome.

44) Deception: They refuse to admit failure as any real  scientist would

45) Deception:   They make the most common error of all failed predictions assuming an exponential growing problem that never ends

The IPCC and the computer models assume generally  that CO2 will grow exponentially because the effect of each CO2 molecule competes with other CO2 molecules to capture heat it requires exponentially more and more CO2 to keep the temperatures climbing linearly.

We are using a vast amount of fossil fuel based Carbon at this time and continued exponential growth of such use is not sustainable.   There are not enough reserves under any model to get to much above 800 or 1000ppm.   Our society will face much greater consequences than a couple degrees warmer if we aren’t able to find an alternative energy source to fossil fuels.

The cost of fossil fuels are varying but generally their is some cost at which solar and other energy sources become more cost effective.   The technology change I refer to earlier is causing solar and other alternative energy technologies to come down in price every year.   It may take 10 years, 20 years or 40 years but at some point solar and other energy sources will be vastly cheaper than fossil fuels and there will be no sensible reason to use fossil fuels.   Therefore the exponential assumption in the models is unsustainable past 40 or 50 years.

This year 2015 we have seen a drop in CO2 output.   This points out the flaw of assuming exponential increases forever.   It is likely that CO2 will see a drop next year as well due to declining production in China.  This is simply one more problem layered on the other problems described above.  The assumptions the IPCC makes are unsupportable and the models are flawed in numerous ways that make any projections stupid.

They fail to point these facts out.

46: Deception:  The middle East will not get to 170 degrees F

A recent article projected that temperatures could get to 170 degrees in the middle east in the next 50 years.   As I have mentioned as fact accepted by all in the global warming community CO2 is the source of the heat.   CO2 is stimulated mostly by radiation nearer to 0 degrees C than 30 degrees C.   Therefore as expected and seen temperatures are rising more at the poles than in the tropics.   If temps rise a couple of degrees overall they may rise 5 C or more at the poles but the change at the equator and in regions that are hot would be much less, probably 1C.   Therefore, unless it hits 168 F today in the middle east it is not likely to get 170 anytime.  It is hard to say how people can publish such trash but there is no scientific basis for the statements made when predicting runaway temperatures.

47: Malaria and other tropical diseases will not kill more people


Malaria, Dengue Fever, West Nile and Lyme disease were called out recently in a Ben and Jerry paid advertisement in the NYT.   They also blamed Hurricane Sandy as part of global warming impact.   As I demonstrated in previous FAILed predictions Climate Science has been unable to prove any increased number or intensity of storms related to Global Warming.  It is patently ridiculous to blame Sandy on Global Warming.  Has it occured to Ben and Jerrys to look at all if storms like this happen before?  Guess what.  They did.  Lots.  Maybe not hitting NYC but someplace.  We did not live in a calm little world before CO2.

48:  Inconvenient Truth:  2015 wasn’t the hottest year on record

The NYtimes and every other outlet posted the story from Hansen and Mann that the temperature of 2015 was the hottest ever.   This is simply wrong.

  1. 1930s were hotter
  2. The MWP was warmer
  3. The Holocene optimum was warmer

First, there is NO BETTER evidence of the tampering of the climate record than this claim.  The 1930s in the US corresponded to a period of unprecedented heat.   The dust bowls of the 1930s have not been repeated in the southwest US.   The northwest passage has not opened up like in the 1930s and 40s and the number of high records set nor the severity of the heatwaves duration’s are nothing like the 1930s.   Heatwaves in the 30s specifically 1936 and 1938 in particular are noteworthy.   The duration of over 100 degree days in Wash DC hit 11.   The highest temp recorded in Wash DC of 116 was set and stands today as do many hottest records from the 30s and 40s.

If you look at unadjusted temp records of the US you will see that the 30s and 40s reached temps OVER the current period.  It is only after “adjustments” that the temp drops below current temps.

Is 2015 the hottest year in recent records?  NO.  Not even that is true.    The un-adjusted land records, the 14 satellite records, radiosonde records and the sea temperature records do NOT confirm this high temperature.  The satellites show 2015 as the 4th hottest of recent years as do these other sources.   Its simply not factually correct by any means that this is the hottest year on record unless you accept the adjusted land records of Hansen and Mann.

It seems clear that Hansen has manipulated the temperature record to an amazing extent. He has somehow managed to get adjustment algorithms into the GISS record which deflate the heat waves of the 30s and 40s down to a hardly noticeable level that makes one wonder how those dust bowls ever happened.  Simultaneously he has using the same adjustment process managed to process the temperature record to be +0.35C higher than the un-adjusted thermostats show for this year.    The fact is that the satellites do not show (as the NYT article to its credit points out) that the current year is the hottest year nor do the un-adjusted land records.

According to Hansen and Mann this was a precedent setting year and MUCH hotter than previous years.  Where is the evidence?  Where are the heat wave deaths like in 1998 when 15,000 Frenchmen died from heat exhaustion?  Where are the sustained 100+ temp records?  Where are the record setting temperatures?   As an example take a look at the NCDCs site for temperature records.  Looking at New Mexico in July 1936 there were 51 record high records set.   The temperatures in these records were from 102-110 degrees with 17 over 100 records set including  108 and 110.   If you look at July 2015 you can see for the same state that only 15 records were set and about 10 of them over 100 but none of those over 104. Take a look at 1937 in July in New Mexico.  50 high records set.  24 of them over 100 degrees and most of them higher than the temps of 2015.   This is just one month in one state but something fishy is going on.  Where are the records?   Where is the heat waves that you would expect?   This just confirms what the data says.   The 1930s and 40s were hotter than today.

Why are we fixating on the 30s vs today.   In the MWP during the period 950-1100AD the Vikings were occupying and growing food, harvesting wine grapes to make wine from on land that today is covered with permafrost!  We are told today is hotter than the MWP.  Really?  This is a conflation of data.   We are comparing data on a single year or decade today to historical records based on boreholes that show no detail or peak temperature history.  In essence the historical record for the MWP is a smoothed record which by definition removes outlying years.  It shows over several centuries warmer temperatures which allowed the permafrost to melt and for the Vikings to occupy and colonize Greenland.   What we have today is a short time period of a dozen or so years that look hotter than back then but if you smooth the temperature record over 50 or 100 years today doesn’t look so hot and the MWP probably exceeded today’s temperatures.  It is also interesting that CO2 was around 270 then, lower than the 1945 CO2 level.

Why fixate on the MWP.  There are several other times in the last 5,000 years where temps exceeded todays culminating in 5,000 years ago during a period called the Holocene optimum where temperatures were higher than the MWP and higher than today.  This is the age when man found it pleasant enough to give up nomadic hunting and gathering to begin agriculture.  In order to do that man needed consistent weather that could produce crops.    It was nice enough then for man to settle down.  It was a good time.  This year was good too.  It is hard to get worked up about temperatures which are hysterically referred to as “hot” when they are simply warmer than the last few decades by a small amount less than a degree.   It should be pointed out that CO2 levels then were also in the 270 range which is 40% less than today’s CO2 level and temperatures still exceeded todays for centuries.

49.   FAIL:  The models don’t work at all for precipitation

When I took my Climate Change class at Stanford the head of LLNL Climate modeling group told me and the class the models were not good at temperature but very bad at precipitation except in one area of the world and regarding almost all other measures they were not efficacious.

The article referenced in the title refers to a paper which states the same is true even now with CMIP5 models.   As the article says if the models aren’t good for hind-casting (fitted to the past), don’t work now.   How can we depend on them for the future?  You obviously can’t and anyone that would is simply using people’s ignorance not much better than a sheister or con man.

The models were fitted to reproduce the temperature record.   They have been carefully adjusted to generally follow the graph of the last century as modified with adjustments and so they fit a CO2 story that has high sensitivity.   They did not simultaneously fit them to reproduce rain or any other feature.  They are all over the board and generally predict less than we get.  Surprise surprise.  Frankly, anyone with half a brain knows that such trickery also means they aren’t able to do temperature accurately.  How could it possibly be they get all the things that affect temperature or are affected by temperature wrong but get the temperature right?

A recent study has shown what previous studies have shown.   The CMIP5 computer models (the latest and greatest)  are unable to model precipitation, humidity, winds, or any other measure of climate on a regional or global scale when doing hind-casts for any period in history.   The only thing they have any facility at is temperature which they have been carefully and expensively fitted to.

So what?  You say.  Well, it’s pretty obvious that if they cannot hind-cast any of the variables that go into the temperature how can they possibly hindcast temperature and even more unlikely how could they possibly be expected to be reliable predicting temperature let alone anything else?

This is not surprising.  As I’ve pointed out before the models simply are impossible.  They are not based on proven science.  The mathematics of the models are such that they have uncertainty greater than +-100C in 80 years.  They are damped with artificial and nonphysical mechanisms which have no real world similarity.  In short it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to predict.    They could with expensive effort be made to fit one or two variables for hind-casting but even then would have ZERO predictability by any reasonable logical basis.   Please can we stop with the models.  It’s ridiculous and ludicrous.  They can’t possibly mean anything.

Last year one of the most prominent climate modelers cut tail and ran.  He admitted the models have been disappointing.   See here.  That’s an understatement.

50: The science is settled – NOT

50A  They did not imagine that the pause would happen or that all the energy would be stored in the ocean.

This has been covered in previous FAILS.  No computer model predicted the pause.  The computer models had no place for the energy missing from all the CO2 to go during the pause and nobody expected it would show up in deeper ocean if that is where it went.   Given that this could happen again, that they don’t even know if this is what is happening or the heat in the ocean is from another cause there is essentially a huge black hole in understanding the ocean, the atmosphere, CO2 effects and energy flows between these all that is critical to predicting anything.

50B They can’t explain how the energy got in the ocean or when it will come out or when it will stop going in

Since they don’t know why the energy went in to the ocean and didn’t predict it, they also have no idea when it will stop, if it will stop, what will happen when it stops.  More important they don’t actually know if it is CO2 heat going into the ocean at depth.  This is an assumption.  This once again highlights the ridiculously low amount of actual knowledge in this field yet we are told it is settled.  What is settled?

In science every field operates on “theories.”  These theories are “proven” or “settled” to the extent they predict.  Thus even quantum mechanics every day is tested to see if it still “predicts x or y.”  We know quantum mechanics is wrong.  It could be hugely wrong or simply off by a little.  The process of science is to keep pushing the limits of what we don’t know.  We revel and look for the “differences” between prediction and reality.

Climate science operates on the OPPOSITE basis.  Climate science looks for affirmation.  They disregard failures of the science arguing that failure is just weather.  They keep saying they have overall fit but even that is terrible.  The problem with “affirmation” is that dozens of theories can be constructed that “fit” the data.   The purpose of science is to eliminate these theories by finding where they fail.   Climate science doesn’t operate this way.   They say it is settled, disregard failures and only write articles when they see anything that looks anything like what they said even if they attribute it to the wrong thing.

This is a great example.  The movement of heat from CO2 in the sky to deep under water is mysterious and unknown.  They simply ignore the fact that their models didn’t predict it and go on to describe how the energy is about right therefore it must be co2 energy.  They have no mechanism for explaining this but CS claims a victory even as it has actually disproved the entire theory and its main point, the fact it did not predict it because theories are all about prediction and making observations the fact they didn’t is proof it is a false theory.

Maybe some elements are still useful but it is not settled science.

50C They denied the existence of LIA / MWP but data now supports them

For more than a decade CS denied the LIA and MWP were global phenomenon.  The reason is that they claimed the only proximate thing that could affect climate on a multi-decadal level was CO2.  The hockey stick was thus a useful instrument because it demonstrated that when CO2 was constant as it has been for 2000 years up until the last century the temperature worldwide would be constant.  However, now study after study has come out showing these large variations in temperature which lasted hundreds of years were global.  Evidence of the LIA and MWP have been found worldwide.

So, this then shows something changes temperature significantly over large periods of time besides CO2.  However, they have no explanation for this.  Not only that but we happen to be coming out of the Little Ice Age which means for centuries the temperature has been going up.  It is not clear when this recovery from the LIA stopped or even if it has stopped since they have no cause for the LIA or MWP.  Some percentage of the rise over the last century could be related to whatever caused the recovery from the LIA or even the start of another warming period like the MWP.  Historically we now know the earth has gone through ups and down roughly on a cycle of about 1000 years.  The highest point reached about 5,000 years ago with the start of civilization and called the Holocene optimem.

The existence of the MWP and LIA as global phenomenon is a huge “unsettled” thing because we still don’t know entirely how such cyclic behavior could be happening without CO2 involved.  This isn’t settled and has impact on the current estimates of temperature now and in the future.

50D  They denied the existence of PDO/AMO as long term cycle.  Don’t know what causes it or if it will stop or change in magnitude

A similar problem to the LIA and MWP has happened with a shorter cycle called the AMO/PDO.  Again, this is discussed above in various FAILS but the existence of this was denied at first and now a huge problem because they have no explanation for it.  It affects temperatures by about 0.23C up and down or 0.46C every 60 years.  This has been noticed for at least 240 years.

Again, the existence of this conflicts with their predictions and attributions and proves the science is not settled and there is a massive problem with predicting things based on the models.  The aerosol point 50F below relates to this because of that “discovery” or “error” the PDO and AMO becomes even more important as it is the only explanation we have for the reason temperatures fell between 1945-1975 in spite of the fact we were pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at prodigious rates.

50E They denied that sea volcanoes had any effect on climate longer term.  Now we discover there are 100s of times as many of them as thought and they may be the cause of the ice ages

As I point out in several blogs the ICE age appeat to be a problem.  They occur at odd intervals not always corresponding exactly with changes in sun irradiance from the Earths orbit as assumed.  It has further been assumed that whatever precipitates the ice ages and recovery is magnified by a factor of 5 to 10 by feedbacks coming from CO2 that gets vented or absorbed by the oceans.   This “climate theory” is founded on this idea that large multiplier is needed to effect the large temperature changes.  However, we aren’t seeing large feedback.

So, a new discovery is that ocean fissures open and close with gravitational motion of the earth.  3 papaers recently came out which show that gravitational effects as well as moving of glaciers deforms the earth and cracks open undersea volcanoes that could explain such large temperature changes.   Therefore the historical connection between CO2 and ice ages can be seen to be less about CO2.  This undermines the science totally as this is the central basis for the theory.

50F They did not understand what Aerosols do yet depended on them to explain all the decrease in temperature from 1945-1975.  Now aerosols shown to have virtually no effect on temperature leaving their models looking ridiculously far off from the record

The most recent “unsettled” science in climate science is the discovery that the assumed values for aerosol forcing were far too large.   Without large negative forcing from aerosols there is no explanation for how 1945-1975 could have gone down in temperature given that we had been pouring huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere during this time.

This means the models without this component predict the past horribly wrong (called hindcasting) and the basis for the models being predictive is that they hindcast reasonably well.   They don’t.   They are wildly off the past temperatures.

Waiting to see:

51: productivity will drop because countries where temperatures are warmer are typically less productive

52: 50% extinction

53: Bleaching of corals will cause severe damage longer term

54: PDO/AMO will decrease / go away

55: We have exited the PDO cycle early and are now ready to head into a positive PDO cycle because of the latest El Nino evidence

First mammal goes extinct because of climate change





A new study shows climate skeptics have more knowledge on climate science than alarmists

Amplification of global warming by carbon-cycle feedback significantly less than thought, study suggests

Was there a �Little Ice Age� and a �Medieval Warm

Theory on the Pause – climate science has ‘exhausted adjustment rationales’

Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise

An inconvenient truth from medical research: cold is far worse than global warming at killing people

22 Very Inconvenient Climate Truths