If You Like Your Weather - You Can Keep It




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


Politicians earn their living by finding a “cause” to save the world.  It is not necessary they solve it, which would ironically remove their raison-d’être, but only that they plausibly rant against it.    Right now, democrat scare tactics generate 22 Billion dollars a year for politicians to play with as for example


1.      in research grants to "friends" for consulting reports that die in overflowing government file cabinets, or

2.      one BILLION dollars for supercomputer time attempting to build a climate model that would demonstrate RAPID CLIMATE SHIFTS that FAILED at NCAR,

3.      for "green" energy companies (500 million for Solyndra who destroyed all finished inventory to prevent an audit and 50+ others and all run by former democrat campaign donors and all went bankrupt), or

4.      billions in cap and trade corporate blackmail (Al Gore personally made +$100 million), or

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


And all of this money goes down the government rat hole all without actually moving one molecule of CO2 anywhere.


The Peace, not science, Prize was given to Al Gore for the “politics of peace” for making a propaganda movie that lied about the data and the science (and had to be mostly retracted in Great Britain and elsewhere) [1].   So to clothe fraud in the mantle of science, United Nations IPCC politicians, the vast majority who have no science background whatever, are repeatedly honored in newspaper print as “hundreds of Nobel Prize winners” decrying “global warming.”  The lies of UN bureaucrats falsely claiming to be Nobel Prize winning climate scientists became so pervasive the Nobel Committee publically warned the UN IPCC to cease and desist [2].  


In contradiction, the goal of science is to understand the physical world in useful ways.  And tens of thousands of real scientists have publically come forward to try and stop the political corruption [3].  DO YOU THINK WE NEED MORE SCIENCE EDUCATION?




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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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




Recently several scientists at NOAA affiliated with NASA decided to trade their reputations for increased grants by FALSELY promoting climate alarmism.  The facts are that the original “unadjusted” temperature average for the US was as follows [4]:


Also, one graph supporting the above finding has somehow managed to escape recent manipulation by alarmists as follows (still the current record and so far because it is relatively an obscure reference, it remains “unadjusted”) [5]




And in fact the number of extreme heat wave events has been steadily DECLINING in spite of rising CO2 levels [6].  This demonstrates unequivocally that excess CO2 has about as much effect as lighting a cigarette outside with a match.   Think we need massive new taxes to fund a police state vigilance to prevent “climate criminals” from smoking outdoors?



And indeed, the unadjusted surface record for the US has shown a slight decline for the last 15-20 years as shown below [7].



Lacking any scientific foundation for the democrat tax fraud, the last recourse of the liars is to shut down dissent with “doctored” climate records “adjusted” to maintain both the hysteria and funding as follows [6]:






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



But this recent natural warming in recent centuries (well before any possible human influence) was not scary enough so they resorted to the LIE of the hockey stick as follows [8].



Unfortunately for the alarmists, this was so discredited that the UN IPCC since 2007 has dropped all mention of this fiasco [5a].   This is the famous “hockey stick” used to promote fear and funding and all based on the crudest of lies.   The raw “tree ring” temperature calculations from the alarmists are not only notoriously unreliable but showed global temperatures dramatically DECREASING FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS.  So the last 60 years of tree ring data was eliminated from the earlier 1000 years of tree ring.   You can’t make this stuff up in the TREE RING CIRCUS.


This graph was published without peer review because it was scientifically and mathematically unsupportable and would not otherwise have been considered acceptable [5b].  This was the issue of the famous “climate-gate” memos to “HIDE THE DECLINE” which hid the original data in favor of a contrived and dramatic rise.  Lying with statistics and then refusing “Freedom of Information” requests for original data for DECADES and finally “accidently erasing it”…




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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


  1. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
  2. http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830
  3. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/04/02/bending-the-hockey-stick/
  4. Von Storch, H., et al., 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science, 306, 679-682.
  5. [http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257697
  6. http://www.john-daly.com/
  7. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759
  8. J. T. Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, J. J. Ephraums, Eds., "Climate Change; The IPCC Scientific Assessment". 1990. Cambridge University Press, p.202
  9. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
  10. http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html
  11. http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/guest_commentary/the_us_and_the_un.htm
  12. http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/glotax/carbon/ct3_98.htm
  13. Greenhouse Warming: Fact, Hypothesis, or Myth? by Douglas V. Hoyt, March 24, 2001.


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





Ice core drilling in Greenland as well as the Antarctic give historical temperatures that are extremely well correlated indicating the reconstructions are representative of global temperature averages [9].   The results are as follows:





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




For the entirety of the 21st century, the world has been experiencing a slight global cooling despite rising CO2 levels.   Global warming whackos have become, not apologetic for their failing models and the wasting of tens of billions of tax money, but rather have become even more strident in trying to buttress their cathedral of lies.


As the age of sailing ships has given way to steam engines, ships routinely take in seawater to cool the machinery.  The engine temperatures are in part monitored by thermometers on intake and outtake ports.  These arrangements are highly non-standard and haphazardly recorded in different ships’ logs.   But invariably the resulting water temperatures are found to be systematically higher than all other measurements.


So the global warming whackos have taken satellite and ocean buoy data and conflated these with a selected subset of the temperatures of ship engine cooling water weighted JUST SUFFICIENTLY to claim that their WHACKO predictions of global temperatures which were previously seen to be wrong are now correct.  And this FRAUD has been published in the following article [10].


And guess what?  Immediately after this new DISCOVERY, the AAAS who publishes the magazine “Science” starts aggressive fund raising so they can do “good work” somewhere, but which does not involve moving one molecule of CO2 anywhere.   God help us.




For the last several decades we have an ARGO system actually measuring ocean temperatures showing no rise at all [11].



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


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

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








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

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


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

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

5.      [5a] http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/

[5b] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

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

7.      http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

8.      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

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


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

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