Tag Archives: science

Climate Change: Evisceration the Fourth

My first three posts on global warming, er, climate change, um, I mean climate disruption… oh, what’s the term for it this week, dammit?

Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . .

Revisiting “Climate Change”

Climate Change: Evisceration the Third



Did you hear the one about Leonardo DiCaprio’s eyebrows (link in original):

Together with a fellow actor, DiCaprio flew a makeup artist 15,000 miles round-trip across the Pacific Ocean to tidy up their eyebrows for the 2017 Oscars, according to the Independent (UK). Dicaprio and fellow actor Tobey Maguire insisted on seeing brow artist Sharon-Lee Hamilton, despite the fact that she lives in Sydney, Australia — 7,500 miles from Los Angeles.

This stuff writes itself, folks.  And let us consider the alarmism of “hottest year on record”; here’s a foreword by Paul Dreissen to Overheated claims on global temperature records (bolding added):

Over and over, we are confronted with claims that last month or last year was “the warmest on record.” Each claim is accompanied by dire warnings that the alleged new records portend “unprecedented” chaos for wildlife, humans and planet.Virtually never do these scary press releases mention that the supposed change is mere hundredths of a degree higher than previous measurements. Never do they admit that the margin of error in these measurements is far greater than the supposed increase. Never do they suggest that a little more warmth would be infinitely better than a colder world, with less arable land and shorter growing seasons. And most certainly, never do they admit to the massive deficiencies in the system that supposedly tracks Earth’s temperature … and always blames any increases on humans and fossil fuels.This article by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris points out all these highly relevant but often (deliberately) ignored realities.

Said article needs to be read in full.



climate - changing sign

They’ve started to hedge their bets in case their alarmist predictions don’t match the calmer reality, Cloudy Outlook for Climate Models:

You will see the abstract is very careful at the end to say that they aren’t saying that projections are large warming aren’t necessarily wrong, just merely that the uncertainty may be even larger than we thought.

They predicted the “end of snow” – how’s that working so far?


They make predictions about dire consequences aplenty, are shown to be wrong, but the Faith never changes.

Though there are predictions that do get fulfilled, My Climate Forecast From Three Years Ago:

During March of 2015, I predicted that Carl Mears at RSS, under extreme pressure from the climate mafia, would alter his satellite data to match the fraudulent NASA surface temperature data sets.

Here’s one of the graphs, but go read the whole thing.  Notice how the curves are lowered on the left and raised on the right to rotate the trend and amplify it?

And while this article, Things Your Professor Didn’t Tell You About Climate Change, has multiple excellent points repeating things I’ll say here as well as have said in prior pieces, this is a new argument (bolding added):

If you look at climate change predictions, almost all of them are bad. Critics refer to these views collectively as climate alarmism. Alarmists believe the Earth’s climate is warming because greenhouse gases are being added to the atmosphere through human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. They claim unless the buildup of greenhouse gases is stopped, global temperatures will begin to rise exponentially, which will have terrible consequences, such as major flora and fauna extinctions, coastal inundation caused by melting ice caps, heatwaves, drought, famine, economic collapse, war, and the potential for human extinction.

That’s actually pretty astute. While it may very well be that there are more bad effects than good, the Warmists never seem to mention anything on the upside to a warmer planet. Somehow, to me, that doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does the punishment – outright punishment – for questioning the Holy Writ, e.g., Australian professor punished for challenging orthodoxy that global warming is destroying the Great Barrier Reef (bolding added) :

But if the science is so solid, why not take on critics directly? The approach of silencing dissent tells you all you need to know about their real confidence in their scare-mongering.

The “science is settled” so shut up.



As I’ve said both above and in previous essays, one of my bigger issues with the whole thing is the fact that no matter what new data come out, the conclusion never waivers. Take this article, Climate: Cancel the Boiling Oceans:

The abstract of the study itself calls this sudden warming “enigmatic.” Yet somehow we are told today that our observations of ocean temperature and other environmental change must be attributable to human activity.

Not only is this not understood, the temperature change seen in the last 50 years is within the margin of error. And consider this news which is dire; the headlines are alarming… from the early 1900s when CO2 emissions were still virtually nil. For example, glaciers are melting:

All of this heat and melting ice wrecked the global warming scam and billions of dollars in funding, so NOAA and NASA simply erased it.

Greenland’s ice is apparently melting… because of volcanism beneath it, Earth’s hot core, not global warming, responsible for Greenland’s melting ice sheet:

Its record levels of melting are expected to contribute to sea level rises and could potentially change patterns in ocean circulation in the future. Global warming alarmists have long pointed to this melting as being caused by human activity, but this study shows quite clearly that nature itself is responsible for the melting ice sheets in Greenland.

Yet despite this news about a new-found non-climate-related melting, the ice is actually increasing, arctic ice and Greenland ice packs are not vanishing (images respectively):


Texas, as just one example of pre-CO2 aberrant weather saw record-high temperatures on Feb 1, 1911. Is this one data point? Sure. But it’s a record excursion that, as the author points out, were it to happen today would be pointed to as proof. But this was before the rise in CO2, so what caused it? The same for other pre-CO2 rise record temperature excursions the site’s author has highlighted. Those who claim the “science is settled” and everything is known to within a gnat’s ass can’t also say “I dunno” when confronted with anomalies like this.

In carbon-transport news, apparently when dead, squid sink; likely other animals too. That’s a carbon transport mechanism previously unknown. But shut up. There’s this little gem, from Worst-case global warming scenarios not credible: study:

But uncertainty about how hot things will get also stems from the inability of scientists to nail down a very simple question: By how much will Earth’s average surface temperature go up if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is doubled?

So things are not known to within a gnat’s posterior? Again, you wouldn’t guess that from the dead-cinch certainty with which these people speak. Apparently the rise in sea levels has taken a hit, The fantasy of accelerating sea level rise just got hosed:

Using these modelled estimates, the globe should now be seeing a rapid acceleration in sea level rise. Yet no evidence of this can be found so far. In fact the real measured data show the opposite is happening: a deceleration in sea level rise is taking place.

Prediction made. Fine, that’s what theories are supposed to do. But when the data show – not just no statistically-significant increase – but an actual decrease, the Faith never waivers. For example, for years herpetologists have been screaming “climate change” over declining frog populations. Oopsie, perhaps not – it certainly appears that one of the prime causes is a fungus spread by the herpetologists themselves; Warmists foiled again: Answer to what’s causing frog populations to decline is just plain embarrassing.

Lastly, it’s facepalm time on the hubris of geoengineering and wanting to use aerosols or other techniques to reduce sunlight hitting the earth.

I see things like the above, the fanaticism, the willingness to block sunlight from the earth with all the risks that entails, and cry out like Oliver Cromwell:

I beseech you… think it possible you may be mistaken!

It’s a religion, not a science. In a science, people change their mind… it’s when it’s a faith that people believe they’ve been converted (bolding added):

The New York Times spoke to several people from different industries who all associated their conversion to climate activism as at a type of religious epiphany.

Not convinced.  Not had their mind changed.  A religious conversion.



It’s easy when you make up data, 2017 : Fakest Year On Record At NOAA:

Again, I reprise Stalinist Russia: The future is always known; it’s the past that keeps changing. Speaking of changing the past, check this post out (bolding added)

Over and over again, we find that the temperature records from decades ago have been changed, with no explanation and no transparency. We have documented this fact around the world, and always the “adjustments” are in the same direction–temperatures from decades ago are lowered, and recent temperatures are raised.

No explanation?  No transparency?  No verification, no audits, no replication?  To adapt the new Washington Post motto, Science dies in darkness.  And the above article quotes another article (bolding added) :

Under the new nClimDiv system, introduced in 2014, NOAA’s methodology is extremely opaque. They don’t, to the best of my knowledge, publish the data and adjustments used.In essence, we are asked to accept NOAA’s version without being able to check or verify it.Whatever the reason for the adjustments, the climate record for New York State has been changed out of all recognition, and bears no resemblance to the actual official data.

So we have the gatekeepers of the data adjusting the data by amounts even larger than the margin of error, not being accountable for those changes, and simultaneously screaming for more and more and more money to solve the problem their adjusted data now shows. In any other situation this would result in jail time. And adjustments don’t happen to just US data:

And from the same article, artic melting fears… from 1923:

In other words, you are paid to research “climate change” – and if the data do not show “climate change” as your political masters desire, you change the data to give them what they want. This results in more funding and continued employment. Oh, and have I mentioned that the lecture circuit can be very lucrative on a personal level?



While researching for this essay I came across this video. You’ve probably seen it, but if you have not, it’s not for the squeamish. So, regardless of if you have or have not seen it before, watch it again.

OK? Now… THINK about the message here. It’s plain, it’s stark: If you don’t get with the climate change program, you should be killed. Understand, someone conceived this idea, someone paid for it, and people put it out there. There is even a play now entitled Kill Climate Deniers. Remember, there are Warmists openly saying that this will end all life on earth, so hearken back to my second essay on the topic, and this quote (bolding, italics, and links in the original):

if you truly believed that humanity is the defining threat to the biosphere, what wouldn’t you do to stop it, what actions couldn’t you rationalize? Don’t forget that it was American Progressives who were behind the Eugenics movement that forcibly sterilized undesirables to “improve humanity” – so surely saving all life on earth is orders of magnitude importanter. Marxism of various forms murdered over 100 million civilians in the 20th century in a True Believer pursuit of the “Great Utopia”; one trembles thinking what would they do with absolute power to save the biosphere itself. Suddenly, merely being jailed for being a Denier might not be so bad given the historical precedents…

And following up from the idea just above is The climate Gulag archipelago:

The point here is to illustrate the totalitarian mindset of these people. They can’t let reality speak for itself; they have to silence those who point out that they have been wrong on many occasions. Like Herod imprisoning and then murdering John the Baptist, these people will do anything to shut the mouths of those trying to stop their dreams – dreams that, experience suggests, will become nightmares to the majority if enacted.These people do not belong anywhere near the mechanisms of power.

And there’s a lot of money at stake (link in the original):

With trillions of dollars in research money, power, prestige, renewable energy subsidies, wealth redistribution schemes, and dreams of international governance on the line, the $1.5-trillion-per-year Climate Industrial Complex is not taking the situation lightly. Climate fear-mongering is in full swing.

Addendum: Al Gore’s business model

And it’s not just universities, professors, and green organizations that have reaped financial benefits from the climate panic. Former vice president Al Gore has done quite well for himself, too. As Bloomberg News reported, “In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million.”

Gore was essentially either a founder, a member, or a partner in a whole wide range of groups that were profiting or poised to profit from a green energy stimulus and federally mandated carbon trading schemes if they became law. Gore would have personally benefited if the carbon cap-and-trade bill he supported had become law. The media never treated his Congressional testimony in support of the climate bills for what it actually was—a former vice president supporting legislation that would make him richer. These reports prompted one sarcastic skeptic to suggest, “Maybe Al Gore Should Be the Subject of a RICO Investigation.”

An inconvenient truth, indeed.  But it IS a great – albeit unethical – business model.  Create a panic over doom-and-gloom, market “the solution”, and invest in taxpayer-funded projects that make megamillions for you and your cronies.



There is no question that the environment is important.  There is no question that pollution – actual pollution – remains a serious issue.  There’s no question that “green energy” should have a seat at the energy table.  Whether on a global scale, or local, we should all do better to conserve the resources of this planet, and not soil our own nest.

But a “science” built on provable fraud, where normal standards of evidence, replication, and outside / independent verification are shunned – and that shunning of normal procedure is accepted while it would be rejected in any other discipline – is not a science.  A “science” where, despite massive numbers of unexplained counter-examples are shown, but the belief never waivers, is not a science.  (I’ve debated enough Creationists to recognize the ossified mentality of the Warmists.)

Science depends on accepting skeptical viewpoints, independent review of data, data collection methods, replication of results, and free exchange of ideas and competing views.  If “Eureka – I have found it!” is the most wonderful phrase in research, perhaps the second one should be “Wow, I never thought of that – thank you!”

Absent these, it is not a science.

And one last thing.  Throughout my four essays, I have attempted to be logical, and build a case presenting why I changed my mind and now hold to that changed stance.  I was open-minded enough to make observations, investigate, and based on that new information, change my mind… because unless you also understand the “other side” one cannot be informed:

The liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill once explained that, “The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own.” Mill held that unless we carefully study the views of those with whom we disagree, we will never really know what they’re right or wrong about. “He who knows only his own side of the case,” Mill wrote in his 1859 book On Liberty, “knows little of that.” Our opponents could be right for all we know or care, because they may know a fact or offer an argument we’ve never thought to consider. And even if they aren’t right, Mill points out that specks of truth may exist among their falsehoods which can guide our minds in new directions.

I’m a Type I, as defined here, Two Kinds of People in the World

The first kind of person, when presented with such information, attempts to vet it by studying both (or more) sides of the issue and, if finding out the information is true (within human limits of discovering “Truth”), adjusts their CT accordingly to assimilate the new information. This can result in old information being supplanted, and very often in a belief being changed. The typical reaction of such people, when first presented with new information like this, is to the effect of “Wow, I’d never heard that – thank you for telling me. I need to investigate…”

The second kind of person, when similarly presented with information that doesn’t match the CT, not only reject the new information a priori, they deny it, seeking out only like-minded people and information sets which already conform to their CT to reinforce that CT lest their framework – and belief system – need to be altered. Their typical reaction is to get enormously defensive, and even go on the attack ad hominem, questioning character, motives, ridiculing and denigrating the other’s viewpoint, etc.

If you are of the CO2 Alarmist side of the debate, I don’t expect that I’ve convinced you to switch.  And that’s fine.  As my late father once told me, “A man convinced against his will is a man unconvinced still.”  There’s truth in that.

But by the same token, if you can read Parts I – IV and not have even a scintilla of doubt enter your mind about the CO2 alarmism… then I would say “Go back and read them again.”  And open your mind.  Because it was the opening of my mind to new information – not agreeing with it at first, but being determined to dig and examine multiple perspectives before settling on what I believed – that started this journey for me.


© 2018, David Hunt PE



Climate Change: Evisceration the Third




As I observed in both of my prior essays, Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . . and Revisiting “Climate Change”, no matter what information comes to light that threatens key assumptions, the conclusion that CO2 is the prime driver of everything being seen – whether hotter, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, or calmer – never wavers from its North Star. For example, things are often – even if only implicitly – presented as though, prior to industrialization, nothing ever changed. Yet the Anasazi were driven out of their homes by a 75-year drought. Absent rising CO2 levels, what caused that? After all, it’s not like there’s been any fluctuations in global temperature before industrialization, or even mankind’s emergence onto the planet (oh, wait…):
Let’s not forget that the below has happened without any industrialization and its CO2 emissions (bolding added):

There is general agreement that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age. Temperature proxies may be hard to defend for portraying past temperatures, but there is secondary evidence. The Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago, was probably warmer than now, contrary to Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick graph. They were growing non-hybridized wine grapes in northern England at that time. And the Vikings had three thriving settlements on the southwest coast of Greenland with perhaps three thousand inhabitants as detailed in Icelandic history. They had grazing animals and grew cool-weather crops. That is not possible today. The last Vikings were gone from Greenland by about 1300 A.D. because of the sudden onset of the Little Ice Age. There are clearly natural climate changes that still have not been fully elucidated. The science is not settled.

And what to make of this news about the Antarctic ice and vulcanism (not CO2)? Oops, NASA Finds Mantle Plume Melting Antarctica From Below, not ‘global warming’:

Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

Or this prediction of New York City underwater:

NASA’s top climate expert, James Hansen, predicted that by 2018 the Arctic would be ice-free, and Lower Manhattan would be underwater. Democrats call him a “climate prophet.”

Not to mention an ice-free arctic (same article as link, just above):




Why, it’s so ice-free Russia is building three nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear paths through the northern sea ice that doesn’t exist. Like I said, if it’s warmer, it’s climate change. If it’s colder, or there’s more snow in Alaska, it’s climate change. Remember, warming planets also cause record cold:

These experts just make things up as they go. Did any of them predict this? I don’t believe so, therefore they just change their predictions. The computer models haven’t predicted any climate or weather events with accuracy, so they just adjust the data.

The record cold is caused by global warming in the same way that droughts are caused by too much rain and the record snow in Erie, Pennsylvania is caused by warm weather. The ten-year gap between major storms and the almost twenty-year pause in warming are irrelevant, because the agenda must go on.

Speaking of contradictory predictions, planet earth is facing, simultaneously, desertification as well as floods. How’s this work again?

And a new peer-reviewed paper shows that cosmic rays, as modulated by solar activity, could have far larger effects than first thought. Yet despite this news the Holy Writ never varies, despite news like this:

Speaking to Daily Star Online, climate and weather experts predict one cold spell a week until the end of winter in the UK, warning “you have been cool and it will get colder”.

In the coming years, David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, believes winters will only become “more intense” in the UK due to a combination of “dangerous” climate factors.

His research shows that by 2019, Earth will enter a natural 120-year cooling cycle that happens roughly every 230 years, bucking the warming trend.

Predictions of low solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 are also predicted to send thermometers plummeting, according to his research.

Interestingly, there are Warmists criticizing this study with their own references. Which is the way it should be. Yet when skeptics do the same to Warmists, the response is the same: SHUT UP. It’s free speech and back-and-forth discussions for me, not for thee. Here’s a person trying to get funding to create a film and – in their own words – “think critically and independently” about climate change:

We applied to more than 45 film festivals worldwide and planned our release in Berlin in February 2017. The people who saw the film during rough viewings were enthusiastic and full of expectations on the impact the film would have on viewers. We sent out over hundreds of press releases, towards the bigger media channels and waited. However, it remained silent, very silent.

After calling journalists for reviews they simply refused. The story – according to them – was too confusing to the public during a time when ‘climate change was under pressure’ and populism was on the rise. They called it their ‘journalistic responsibility’ not to give it any positive attention (?!) Not only the journalists but almost all the bigger film festivals rejected the film as well for the same reason.



We are constantly assured that the “science is settled”; we are lectured that those studying climate have PhDs and thus – apparently – have risen above the earthly corruption of mere mortals and thus, as “scientists”, we are to back off and just trust them. Until we learn about fraud like the Great Glitter Scare (link in original):

Nature has just reported that the two Swedish scientists whose publication has been the basis of the microplastics scare have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science, which has since been retracted.

Note the part about how the data on the laptop was not backed up due to a “technical glitch” (uh huh) and then the laptop was stolen so the original data couldn’t be examined. How… convenient. So when it’s glitter, the – shall we agree suspicious? – lack of data for result reproduction causes the paper to be retracted.  Meanwhile, back on the climate ranch, they’re continually tweaking the data with no consequence (bolding added):

In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered with to try to eradicate the Pause. Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.

What is interesting is that the airbrushing – i.e., the alteration of data ex post facto to suit the Party Line – has continued. The dataset as it stood a few months back swept away the embarrassing zero trend over the 18 years 9 months of the Pause and replaced it with a trend equivalent to 0.77 C°/century.

Every revision to the data seems to amplify the warming trend: If The Data Doesn’t Match The Theory – Change The Data:




The 1999 NASA US temperature graph showed the US cooling since the 1930’s, but by 2015, the 1930-1998 cooling was turned into warming.





And if you can’t convince the proles with altered data, just make sh*t up (bolding added):

If station data is missing in a particular month, NOAA fabricates data for that month. In 1960, about 10% of the data was fabricated, but now about 42% of the data is fabricated.




When people make up 42% of the data, they can get any shaped curve they want. This sort of fraud appears shocking, but is standard operating procedure for government climate scientists.

Understand that even as the IPCC is claiming 95% certainly in their climate change claims:

The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise.

The actual data differ:




An excellent point from NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update (bolding added):

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those “observations” were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.

And while digging for a particular piece of information about the 97% consensus that I remembered reading recently, I found this article with this great graph:




But more importantly, this quote (bolding added):

The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt (sic) or another, a fraud is being committed – either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

Remember what I said in my first article on this subject? That the lack of ability to reproduce so much of the Warmist stuff, let alone the cloak-and-dagger concealment of data and methods, was the defining factor in my changing positions? Think about it: both the University of Chicago study and the work by John Cook in Australia claiming the “97% consensus” number cannot be replicated, but this research debunking it can.  Doesn’t that tell you something about what’s reliable vs. what’s not?



Refer back to just above: “Given that trillions of dollars are at stake…” Of course climate researchers want more money and junket trips, e.g., Clean Energy Researchers Recommend More Research Money (bolding added):

The science is settled. If we want to save the world from climate change, we need to give clean energy researchers lots of money and not press too hard for results or ask too many questions about how they intend to spend it – especially the international collaboration component of their proposal, which I suspect will require regular expenses paid mass attendance by researchers at important scientific conferences around the world in places like Paris, Rio, Bonn and Cancun.

Aside: I remember a flier for an injection molding conference when I worked for a plastic molding facility… in the Grand Cayman Islands. In February. Can we spell J-U-N-K-E-T? Plant management said “Nobody’s going”. But that was private industry money; here, it’s just the taxpayers who pay for this. </sarcasm>

And another it’s-about-the-money article (bolding added):

The only thing that can stop it is forking over an ever-increasing sum of your hard-earned dollars to a big inefficient institution like the government. They’ll oversee the ongoing redistribution of US wealth to whomever the UN says deserve it, and provide taxpayer-backed “loans” to connected green-energy corporatists. 

And so the circle is complete. Researchers’ results justify massive taxes and fees and payouts for “green energy” and more research, which then get recycled to campaign coffers (let alone private pockets) to re-elect politicians who continue the advocacy for more taxes and regulations further research, which then justify more green energy subsidies… because we’re talking trillions of dollars… that’s an awfully big carrot for fraud (bolding added):

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be “a $10 trillion dollar market.” It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six “greenhouse” gases.



Don’t forget this circle is also used to justify the centralization of power by tyrant-wanna-be Socialists – The Never Ending Climate Hustle (bolding added):

As long as leading, celebrated climatistas talk about it as a reason to smash capitalism without any rebuke from the media, from Democratic politicians, or the climate science community, there is every reason for conservatives to reject the whole racket as a hustle for political power.

They openly admit their desire for utopia-on-Earth (bolding added, link in the original):

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

“So here’s the big question,” says Klein. “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

Of course, to do that people must be perfected.  And additionally, to save the planet, the economic pie must shrink:

[I]n order to reach the 10% reduction in emissions output, we have to plunge our economies into a recession 10 times worse than any we’ve ever experienced before. We hope Bows-Larkin doesn’t expect developed nations to eagerly support this idea.

No wonder I see articles praising micro-apartments and micro-houses. We’re being propagandized to accept less. And in general, understand the nature of these people and their Frankfurt School progenitors:



Pay particular attention to the quote at 11:23:

So just so we know what kind of people we’re dealing with here. Here are people who are fleeing [Nazi Germany] for their lives with their entire families. They come into a country that gives them asylum, puts no restriction on their political activity, doesn’t say a word about what they can say or not say, and the first thing they do when they get here is look around and say “How can we destroy this? How can we bring this down?”

Fans of this philosophy, the one that has killed over 100 million people in the 20th century (not soldiers – civilians), are prime drivers of the climate change agenda. Just don’t think that Socialism has ever resulted in anything other than:


socialism 4 panel


You really think they are going to sacrifice for the planet? That’s your job, rubes. Because they don’t really believe it: Obamas Planning To Buy Martha’s Vineyard Home: Report.


mencken urge to rule



Do you seriously believe people are going to give up massive research budgets, lavish trips, and the lucrative lecture circuit plus fawning adoration by the media… let alone the carbon offset business profits? Do you really think that politicians and ideologues screaming for more governmental authority and implementation of Socialism are likely to relinquish power voluntarily? So do an Einsteinian thought experiment:

Assume, for a moment, that my skepticism is correct. Assume that CO2 is not a significant factor in the earth’s climate, and that any variations in the earth’s climate are due to natural – i.e., outside humanity’s control – causes. What happens when this becomes widely known?

  • Topical research grants go away, laying waste to entire academic fiefdoms across the world
  • The lucrative lecture circuit dries up
  • The researchers get sued until their noses bleed, as do Al Gore and others, for fraud – and risk imprisonment to boot
  • “Green energy” business subsidies likely disappear
  • The research-green business-campaign coffer-feathered nest taxpayer milking machine gets shut down
  • The media, which has hyped this endlessly, also loses their coin-of-the-realm: their credibility
  • The oh-so-sophisticated people who virtue signaled about their greenness have ostrich-caliber egg on their faces
  • Politicians hopes for more power get dashed
  • Socialist hopes for their utopia-on-earth are likewise dashed

Like the Wizard of Oz, they can never permit people to look behind the curtain.  Instead, the agitprop will get dialed to 11.  And then 12.  And then ever-higher.

But, given the above, shouldn’t thinking people adjust their faith in the Holy Writ of CO2 accordingly?


© 2018, David Hunt PE

Revisiting “Climate Change”

I wrote in Climate Change: Why I no longer believe… that I had investigated and changed my mind on CO2 being a global crisis.  Let me repeat that – I started out believing it was a crisis, dug into the background and details, read materials unapproved of by those “in charge”, and changed my mind.  Part of that change included reading materials disapproved-of by many in my social circles.  (Aside: back in my college years people – including me – were proud to declare I read banned books!  Today, many of those same people now want to ban books – and websites and magazines.)  To any who would immediately dismiss me, I would counter with a simple question: When presented with broader, more in-depth evidence that – over time – paints a picture contradicting what you “know” is true, what do you do?  Which type of person are you?

human caused gw

Human Caused Global Warming

Let me be clear and repeat: There is no question that the climate does change.  That’s very readable from both within humanity’s recorded history, as well as across geologic time (but if it has changed in the past independent of mankind – and it has, and markedly – how can anyone be so cocksure about it being manmade now?).  Speaking of humanity’s history, the Warmists are crowing “SEE!  SEE!” about the current hurricane season.  Certainly, between Harvey, Irma, Jose, and now Maria… and who knows how many more… it’s bad.  But to imply that there have never been catastrophic storms before?  In reply, try this article: Was The Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 Caused By Climate Change?  There have been catastrophic storms throughout not just modern history, but within all recorded history; further, archaeology into ancient times and even before mankind show massive storms occurred as well.  If it is mankind’s CO2 emissions that are the cause of Harvey, Irma, etc., what explains those others that came before we started industrializing – or even existed as the dominant species?

Now before I really dig in, I want you to look at the temperature data recording sites from the year 1900 shown graphically in this article.  Here’s one:



Notice something?  There are almost none.  And this doesn’t even mention the fact that, in 1900 there were few official records kept.  For example, Africa, 11.7 million square miles, had about 20 temperature stations in 1900.  That’s about 600,000 square miles per temperature station; in comparison the contiguous United States is 3.1 million square miles.  If America had that same density of temperature stations, it would mean a grand total of… five.  Do you think the “average temperature” of the lower 48 could be accurately captured by five stations?  And not only are there literally millions of square miles of just land without such stations for most of human history, there is the entirety of the oceans, where temperatures (and other data) went unrecorded because there were no stations or instruments recording them.  Any proxy data, like tree ring data or ice cores or anything else are just that: proxies with significant error bars dwarfing the signal being sought.  As an added wrinkle, think about the temperatures of the atmospheric columns above the surface… and the fact there is no historical data there, either.

So if you then look me in the eye and, with a straight face mind you, tell me that with these gaping holes in the historical records an annual signal of .03 C or so can be pulled from the data when – on a daily basis there are temperature shifts that can be 1000 times the signal – then IMHO, speaking as an engineer with two Masters degrees and a graduate certificate in Six Sigma, you cannot remain credible in my eyes.





I was searching for a very specific article on heat losses radiated back to space which, from memory, showed that the models assumed that as the earth heated up temperature losses to space would go down – something contrary to standard radiation heat transfer – but that actual measurements showed what would be expected by theory: heat radiation to space went up as temperatures went up.  I didn’t find it, but I did come across this post, Remote Sensing Systems apparently slips in a ‘stealth’ adjustment to warm global temperature data, from 2016.  What’s fascinating is the animated chart, which I’ve pulled:




Now, stare at it.  What’s happening?  On the left, the data don’t change upward (if anything they go down a tad) while on the right, they do.  So several observations to peg out the BS meter:

  1. If there were systematic adjustments because of a discovered bias in the data, those adjustments would likely be uniform across the X-axis.  They’re not, clearly not.
  2. Remember the signal being discussed: 3 C in a century, means .03 C per year.  Things don’t need much “adjustment” to create that (whether intentional or not).
  3. Where is the accounting for how the adjustment was made, and why it was necessary?  If you are an honest researcher, interested in truth, you can explain it – and to a level of detail where someone else is able to replicate it.

And more broadly, two excellent observations from Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud? (bolding added):

So the Earth’s temperature “record” has been subjected to endless adjustments and alleged corrections by the very people who are trying to use that record to justify billions of dollars in payments to themselves. In any other context I know of, this is considered corrupt and perhaps felonious.

Observation trumps theory. What is extraordinary about our current situation is that the people who created the self-interested and politically-motivated models also control the temperature record, and they have been changing it to make their models, and their entitlement to billions in government grants, look better.
This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.

Another adjustment here – hiding the 1940’s temperature spike: WMO : 1940 Warmth “Extraordinary” – Post 1940 Cooling “Real”.  And read the imaged letter, discussing reducing temperatures to conceal actual, real rises in temperature during that time.  This cannot be considered, by anyone with a scintilla of integrity, to be anything other than conspiracy to commit fraud.

Today’s temperature data may even be mismeasured due to new equipment and thus cannot be directly correlated to prior historical data; data may even be “adjusted” before they get to the official records:

Supposedly the Unadjusted data are ‘as measured’ values, but the NOAA-NCEI advises on its GHNC web page “…it is entirely possible that the source of these data (generally National Meteorological Services) may have made adjustments to these data prior to their inclusion within the GHCNM.”

If the data are even reported that is:

On average, 43% of the 1218 USHCN stations report no monthly temperatures, and are marked with an “E”. i.e. their data is missing. This is up from less than 11% in 1991.

Let’s not forget data that are outright fabricated; take a look at this animated graph, alternating between one image showing “record temperatures” in Africa, yet the other shows that there are vast swaths of land with no temperature recording facilities whatsoever.



And a follow-up image from the same article, with satellite data showing normal temperatures in the very areas where “record temperatures” are being claimed.


In other words, there are no land-based temperature data, the satellite data show normal temperatures, so to create an impression of a crisis they make sh*t up.  Even when they have data, “cherry picking” happens; example:




Sorry.  If you have data, you do not get to ignore it; if you have a broader scope of time scale, you do not get to cherry-pick the window you want when otherwise it would negate your claim; the data should lead to your conclusion, not the other way around.  All that acreage burned before the levels of eeeevil CO2 started rising, yet you claim CO2 is responsible for acres burned?  That is data a person with even a scintilla of integrity cannot ignore.  The person who drew this chart has an agenda, and truth is not on the list.  Another article about fires pre-CO2 rise. 

Hammering this home:

You have people feeding off of vast sums of money on the basis of what their models prognosticate; these same people control both the data sets used to validate the models as well as the measurement systems gathering said data, and on top of this restrict access to those models’ innards and that those data sets by others not “of the body”.

In any other field this would be prima facie evidence of a titanic conflict of interest and a strong inference of outright fraud (let alone the actual evidence thereof).  Yet the True Believers yawn.  Their priesthood is beyond reproach.

And while unrelated to climate, here’s an article, UN Body Edited Inconvenient Data Out Of Its Landmark Pesticide Study, about changing data to meet the desired conclusion, not the other way around (bolding added):

IARC scientists removed “multiple scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals,” Reuters reported of the changes, noting that animal testing was largely how IARC justified its conclusion.

“In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one,” Reuters reported of the 10 major changes made to IARC’s draft document.

This happens so often there’s even a website – and probably more than one – devoted to exposing when papers get retracted.  So don’t you dare tell me that research is inviolate and incorruptible.  Don’t you dare tell me that people with PhDs are universally-angelic personalities unsullied by monetary or agenda-driven interests, or that governmental bureaucrats are titans of virtue seeking only the best public good.  And this applies to every subject and line of inquiry. 




cp2 ppm tattoo

(Image: Person who got the atmospheric CO2 level of their birth year tattooed on their arm.)

Speaking of True Believers in the new environmental paganism, consider this article, UN Admits It Can’t Link Global Warming To The Spike In World Hunger, Then Does It Anyway.  All bad things come from man’s emissions of CO2, even if it can’t be proven.  Believe absent proof: the very definition of a faith.  They’re now claiming that the Mexico earthquake is caused by climate change.  Seriously.

The Holy Writ is, essentially, that CO2 emissions will be a catastrophe, and nothing changes that final conclusion.  For example, consider the news that the models are over-predicting the warming; e.g., Climate change models may not have been accurate after all as study finds most widely overestimated global warming:

A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at  117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming.

Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth’s temperature rose.

The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.

But wait, there’s more (bolding added):

‘This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,’ Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. ‘The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,’ she says.

Two observations:

  1. I thought everything was known to within the proverbial gnat’s ass; this indicates it’s not.  Hubris, because there’s no indication anyone will step back and question the fundamentals.
  2. The bolded part, especially, translates to every response from Creationists when I’ve debated them: “We’re clearly not interpreting the Scriptures correctly.”  The idea that the fundamental assumption, the Holy Writ of CO2, could itself be wrong is never considered.

Another article showing something completely new and unanticipated, but again – the Holy Writ never wavers.  And remember how I said in my first article that it doesn’t matter if it’s warmer, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, or calmer… it’s all considered proof?  Here’s a perfect example: Global Warming Could Be Causing Extreme Cold Snaps Or Something.  Again, if a theory cannot be falsified, it’s not a theory – at least not a scientific one.  Here are more “we’re doomed” predictions; a $1 bet that when these don’t come to pass, the Holy Writ will not waver or be questioned… because it’s a faith, not a science:

In Science, if you make a hypothesis, and it turns out wrong, you must match the conclusion to the data. In “climate science”, if the conclusion is wrong, change the data to match the hypothesis.


science vs faith 

Speaking of falsification: The Problem With Climate Change Fanaticism In Two Headlines.  Essentially, climate change was causing the unstoppable bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef.  Right up to the moment when it was discovered the reef seemed to be starting to recover even as CO2 levels continued to rise.  Why, one might almost be tempted to think that there are natural cycles to the thing.  But that would violate the Holy Writ… something will be found to explain it away and CO2 will remain the villain.  Yet another example where there is no wavering of the conclusion when the actual data contradict the prediction: Lake Superior Drying Up Due to Climate Change! No, Wait…   And witness Kermit-the-frog arm waving that the sea levels are rising!  Oh, wait… Oops! Sea Levels Dropping Everywhere, According to NASA.  Now, is this just a couple of short-time-duration data points?  Yes.  But it certainly should force thinking people into reconsidering the meme of inexorable sea level rises.  And one other thing:

According to Robert Felix at Ice Age Now, the water is actually “being locked up on land as snow and ice.” You don’t say? In fact, Greenland just recorded its largest accumulation of snow and ice ever, surpassing even last year’s growth.

So here is ice and snow both piling up but also melting at a frantic rate.  This rises to Orwellian-levels of doublethink.  Remember, what we’re seeing here is supposed to be utterly unprecedented.  Oh, wait:


last of last glacial

Here’s an article about icebergs melting and other radical changes seen in the arctic.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

This alarmism is from – drum roll please – 1922.  But… but… but how can this be, since this happened before CO2 really started rising?  Unless, of course, there are non-mankind-related factors.  And another indicator of how earth’s temperature might have external influences, totally ignored of course, because to admit these would mean that the Holy Writ is wrong; Leftist Global Warming Mythology (bolding added):.

The left also ignores explanations for any global warming that do not involve human activity.  Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research in Denmark, proposes a new theory for possible global warming and a new discipline, cosmoclimatology.  Svensmark shows how cosmic rays have affected the climate on Earth over thousands of years.  Perhaps even more persuasive, Svensmark notes that the climate changes of Mars track very closely the climate changes on Earth and that these changes fit closely into his theory that climate change is caused by cosmic rays and other forces of nature operating outside Earth.  This does not preclude global warming; rather, it finds that natural forces, cosmic forces, in this case, account for global warming and not human activity.

There is evidence the earth’s temperature changes are not affected to any serious degree by mankind, as outlined in this journal article (bolding added):

[T]the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.

None of these things – none! – affect the predetermined conclusion that it is mankind’s CO2 emissions that are the driver.  As I said, I’ve debated enough Creationists to know the mentality.  It brings to mind a great quote by Frantz Fanon:

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”



climate inquisition


Here’s a very interesting article pointing to over 60 scientists who have put their name to a letter: 60 scientists call for EPA endangerment finding to be reversed.  What’s fascinating is that, apparently, there are more scientists who – upon hearing of this – want to get their names added to the signatory list.  Go read it.

Don’t forget the over-30,00 scientists who have already placed themselves on the doubting side.  That 97% consensus is looking a little shaky since people are looking more closely, just as I did.



In an unrelated scientific field, scientists “still don’t know how a gyroscope stays pointed in a fixed direction”.  A simple system of a solid body spinning, and “science” doesn’t understand it in toto.  But, yup, they’ve got the earth-universe energy dynamic, a system with cycles within cycles within cycles, feedback loops within feedback loops within feedback loops, locked up and determinate to within a fraction of a degree.  Uh huh.  Right.  Meanwhile, I have some prime self-irrigated land in Louisiana I want to sell you.

Every field of human inquiry is ripe for new evidence.  For example, human origins – once believed to be in Africa per The Consensus – has a datapoint against that now.  Is this conclusive disproof?  No.  But it does present the idea that nothing is known and proven for certain.  People with humility grasp this.  Another example: trans-fats – margarines, shortening, etc. – used to be viewed as the healthy alternative to natural animal fats like butter; no longer: Health Canada trans fat ban takes effect next year.  I remember my parents switching from butter to margarine because it was “healthier”.  Wait, that means altering conclusions once new evidence comes to light.  How unlike “climate science”.

And on a lighter note – climate change toothpaste.  Seriously.  If that doesn’t make you facepalm, I don’t know what will.







It’s about money, as I said in my first essay.  An embedded quote from India: Third World Needs Green Freebies to Survive (bolding added):

Addressing the UN General Assembly (UNGA), Swaraj said that it was not just mere coincidence that the world has witnessed hurricanes, earthquakes, rains that inundate storms which terrify.

“Nature sent its warning to the world even before the world’s leadership gathered in New York at the United Nations through Harvey,” she said, adding that once the gathering of world leaders at the UNGA began, an earthquake struck Mexico and a hurricane landed in Dominica.

“We must understand, this requires more serious action than talk. The developed world must listen more carefully than others, because it has more capacities than others.

“It must help the less fortunate through technology transfer and Green Climate Financing – that is the only way to save future generations,” Swaraj said.

Two things jump out.

First, the absurdity that “nature” is sending a warning to the world.  Nature just is.  This person is pulling a lesson from natural events that just happened to match her authoritarian ideology.  And second, oh-how-conveniently, the way to remedy this is to take from richer nations and give to poorer ones.  Which, translated into German and then back, comes out as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

Say, what else did I say it was about?  Oh, yeah, Socialism.  That credo under whose aegis over 100 million people were murdered, and which is working so well in Venezuela that engineers, teachers, and even doctors are turning tricks to survive, and food is so scarce people padlock their fridges… in a country sitting on natural resources aplenty, a great climate for agriculture, and a prime attractions for what could be a thriving tourism industry.



Perhaps no movie scene better captures the desire for power than this one from Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith.  One of the things those in power do is make criminals out of those who would oppose them; absent lightning bolts from fingers, Warmists desire legal lightening, to wit and reprising my prior tocsin about desires to file criminal charges against those who deny the faith, Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes. (bolding added):

Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”

Climate skeptics have taken note of the alarming trend. “Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming-hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006,” said Ms. Curry.

Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That blog, listed some of the threats to criminalize skeptics under the headline, “Hate on Display — climate activists go bonkers over #Irma and nonexistent climate connection.”

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano said the heightened vitriol aimed at those who dispute the link between climate change and extreme weather events is a sign that the global warming narrative is losing steam with the public and policymakers.

Another example: The Global Warming Thought Police Want Skeptics In ‘Jail (bolding added):

Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals.

“Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s executive director of something called Climate Hawks Vote tweeted last month.

Remember, these people view themselves as Philosopher-Kings, the uber-elite intellectuals whose superior knowledge entitles them to be in charge.  The freedom to debate and disagree, let alone that whole messy rule of The People as enshrined in the Constitution, is so inconvenient.  One quote, embedded in the linked article, says it all about the authoritarian lust the Warmists have (bolding added):

A year ago a senior fellow emeritus at Britain’s Policy Studies Institute, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, told a reporter, “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This [rationing] has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.” (Hillman openly advocates resource rationing.)

A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun.

Think I’m exaggerating about the alarmism?  Here (bolding added):

The IMF chief’s comments come after research last month suggested there is a 1-in-20 chance that climate change will wipe out humanity by 2100.

US researchers said we’ll likely be wiped out in the next 100 years as a result of ‘low-probability high-impact’ events.

Experts from the University of California said an increase greater than 3°C could lead to ‘catastrophic’ effects, while an increase of more than 5°C will have ‘unknown’ consequences which could lead to the end of life as we know it. 

So, never letting a crisis go to waste, they push for dictatorial power; as David Horowitz’s frontpagemag.com header states, “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”.  Another lusting-for-tyranny quote, embedded from different source in this article confirms this (added emphasis preserved):

At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]

With them ruling and subsequently deciding who can live, and breed, and die, of course, after the hoi polloi put their unquestioning faith in the Superior Intellect.  Remember, these advocates really do consider themselves, per Krauthammer’s Law, to be “better people”.  They want to rule because it is their Divine Right as enlightened beings, and consider it their moral duty to “nudge” the hoi polloi because they really do believe themselves to be better, more intelligent, more noble, more moral, with good intentions  this brings to mind the famous C.S. Lewis quote:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Since, in their minds, they are these superior beings… if you will, ubermenschen… then it’s not such a large step to move from “nudging” those who won’t do what’s good for them to “herding” and on to “culling”.  Harken back to that quote from above – “… the end of life [on earth]”.  If you truly believed this, if you truly believed that humanity is the defining threat to the biosphere, what wouldn’t you do to stop it, what actions couldn’t you rationalize?  Don’t forget that it was American Progressives who were behind the Eugenics movement that forcibly sterilized undesirables to “improve humanity” – so surely saving all life on earth is orders of magnitude importanter.  Marxism of various forms murdered over 100 million civilians in the 20th century in a True Believer pursuit of the “Great Utopia”; one trembles thinking what would they do with absolute power to save the biosphere itself.  Suddenly, merely being jailed for being a Denier might not be so bad given the historical precedents…



Simply because I am a CO2 skeptic does not mean I am in favor of belching smokestacks, dumping chemicals in rivers and lakes, and so on.  It breaks my heart to see trash alongside the road, or at the shore.  I am teaching my children to be sure to throw everything in the trash, not down on the ground.  I like blue skies, not the polluted miasma that I’ve seen in pictures of, say, China, so I am in favor of scrubbing technologies and other air-cleaning methods.

I am also in favor of green energy systems as appropriate.  Local solar power panels have their uses.  I once saw a house with a small windmill – good for them.  And some years ago I went to a presentation on methane-using fuel cells, and a case study example was a beer brewery that used their own waste stream to produce the methane that then was processed by fuel cells to produce 100% of the power for their facility… FAN-TAS-TIC!  I’m all for energy efficiency.  And so on. 

I want to preserve this beautiful planet for my children, and theirs, and theirs, to the tenth generation and beyond.  We can, and must, do better.  But I also understand that there are no perfect solutions, only intelligent choices that are required to continue to live in a technology-based society, and that we must have the freedom to debate those choices openly in the marketplace of ideas and do so based on facts and testable hypotheses, not hyperbole and alarmism.  To tell someone to SHUT UP! bespeaks a dearth of intellectual capacity to formulate and support a rational argument, let alone an authoritarian discoloration of your soul.

Given the issues with the Holy Writ of CO2 as mentioned above, which build on and amplify those put forth in my first essay, I am deeply skeptical of the dangers of CO2, but am highly concerned about the mindless zealotry of the new environmental paganism, and what their apocalyptic terror of plant food might turn into should they gain the unlimited power they openly seek.



© 2017, David Hunt PE


Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . .

I used to be a Warmist, strongly believing that CO2 emissions were a dire threat to the biosphere on earth from a runaway greenhouse effect.

No longer. 

Like this young woman, I examined things with an increasingly-skeptical eye and, again like her, found myself questioning and then changing positions – as thinking people are wont to do.

Let me be precise.  Am I denying that the climate has changed, and will change in the future?  No.  Am I denying the possibility that mankind is affecting the climate?  No.  But I have concluded, based on the multiple items outlined in the essay below, that the alarmism is vastly over-hyped, and the scientific case unproven.  And I will opine that in a cycles-within-cycles-within-cycles planet of ours, the idea that one factor – CO– is the single overwhelming control knob is simplistic to the point of absurdity.

Now, I predict that most Creationists, er, I mean Warmists will stop reading here.  I’ve violated the Holy Writ, thus there’s no point for them to read further.  For those who have more than three brain cells capable of firing at once however, i.e., people who are open-minded, please read on.  (I use Creationists as my foil because I’ve debated enough of them to recognize the mentality: a reversion to some form of the statement “Well, we’re simply not interpreting the Scriptures correctly” when confronted by evidence that contradicts their beliefs – the same for Warmists and their Scripture that man’s COemissions are the controlling factor.)

One last thing: let’s not conflate pollution, like particulates and NOx, plus solids and liquids that are discharged, with a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas without which life on earth would not exist.  So don’t even think of bringing up that strawman.



I am an engineer, with a Masters in Engineering plus a Six Sigma graduate certificate (and an MBA too).  I am driven by data, by logic, and make a good-faith effort to work from facts to come to a conclusion – not jump to a conclusion and then collect facts to justify that conclusion.  While I have enough education and experience to be able to have flashes of insight based on scant facts – with an occasionally-annoying-to-others propensity to be right most of the time – I wait until the facts are in, or at least in strong preponderance, before recommending a course of action.  And on occasion I have found that my pet theory on something was, in fact, wrong as shown by the evidence.  

Regarding “climate change”: as I started to pay attention, drawn to the topic by multiple factors, I found my bullsh*t meter pegging out so hard the needle got bent.  So I changed my mind, and became a skeptic.


bs meter


This, of course, begs the question WHY did I change my mind?



Back in the late 1990s there was a study by economist John Lott on the effects of concealed carry and what happens when states pass Shall Issue laws.  The effect he found was stark and clear: concealed carry reduces crime.  (See his follow-on book More Guns, Less Crime.)  Naturally this was a political hot potato; he was viciously attacked by claims his research was flawed, biased, etc.  So – and I hold this to be the very zenith of openness – he offered his data set, copies of his notes in developing his analytical technique, and copies of the analysis model itself to anyone who asked, including his critics.

And that’s the critical point.  He shared his data, even with critics, because he was interested in the truth.  Consider another example: the German scientist who researched NASA’s data and found systematic adjustments of the data to create warming trends artificially.  Relevant to this section is this quote from the article (I’ll refer back to his analysis later):

All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: ewert.fk (at) t-online.de.

Compare and contrast the openness, above, to this instance of concealment of data, one of many I’ve read over the years where Warmists actively fought sharing their data and methods with people who aren’t dedicated to The Cause (a term actually used in the infamous Climategate emails).  Don’t forget Phil Jones preferring to delete data files rather than let climate change skeptics see them.  And recently Michael Mann, of the infamous “Hockey Stick Graph” fame, refused to provide his data in a trial to bolster his own case in suing someone who he claimed had defamed him (bolding added):

[Mann] has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors (and Joe Public) access to his disputed data in this protracted legal battle that has already eaten up six years and millions in legal fees.

Michael Mann’s “work” is the subject of the great book, A Disgrace to the Profession, by Mark Steyn; Dr. Ball, the target of the lawsuit, has his own book out, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.


Note that the lower of the two graphs reflects the accepted temperature record before the machinations of “adjustments” and “hide the decline / blip” made the scene.  The bottom graph is also consistent with what we know about the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.  In Mann’s chart the massive heat wave in the 1940s, which Warmists nicknamed “The Blip”, is also not present.


So pause and think.  This guy – whose work is foundational to virtually the entire Warmist argument – claims Dr. Ball is defaming him by saying his research is a fraud… but he refuses to release for outside examination the data and analytical techniques being criticized, preferring to risk losing the lawsuit rather than reveal to the world evidence that could vindicate his claim of defamation.

For me, this is the fundamental issue driving my changed view; the other ones I present are merely gravy:

Any researcher who refuses to have their results questioned, their data and data collection methods reviewed, and their analytical models examined for robustness and trialed for replication is de facto a fraud and their results cannot be trusted.  Nor can any work that relies on their work.

I know, I know… “But these people have PhDs!!”  After all, it’s not like papers get pulled, let alone PhDs get revoked ,for data fraud.  Oh, wait…  (For a broader look at fraud in science in general, try this book: The Great Betrayal: Fraud in Science.)

As an analogy: You go to the doctor and he tells you you have “Warming Disease”, a condition on which he’s built his entire career and reputation.  Not only will the treatment require a drastic lifestyle change for you and everyone around you, but will require ongoing expensive treatments.  But when you ask for him to send your records to another doctor to get a second opinion, not only does he refuse, he says that doctors that might be skeptical of “Warming Disease” are not trustworthy – but since he has a MD and has made this his the lynchpin of his career, you just need to trust him.  Would you believe such a doctor?



Were scientists jpg

(Image used with permission.)

When skeptics are put under house arrest to avoid them raising uncomfortable questions, it’s not a science.  And when people scream that “deniers” need to be arrested and tried, even executed, it’s not a science.  Consider these multiple links within this quote):

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called for punishing and imprisoning dissenters. Bill Nye endorsed such a call just last week. And while it’s easy to dismiss Kennedy and Nye as famous crackpots, Attorney General Loretta Lynch admitted that there had been discussions about prosecuting climate dissenters. And that materials had been passed along to the FBI.

So much for scientific inquiry and an openness to debate – something that, back in the stone age, I learned was a fundamental aspect of the Scientific Process (unlike, say, trying to keep skeptical papers out of peer-reviewed journals by lobbying the editors, lest The Narrative be challenged).  For example:

For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting  that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

Meanwhile, many notable scientists in the field have changed their minds away from the alarmism:

[T]here are many outstanding scientists who have bothered to actually examine this issue, and have come to the obvious conclusion that there is much less to the story of gloom and doom than is popularly asserted. Many started as supporters of alarm but came to change their minds.

In my life I’ve debated many topics; on some, I’ve changed my mind (there’s the apocryphal quote “When facts change, I change my mind; what do you do, sir?”).  On others, I’ve held my ground. Again, debating a Warmist is like debating a Creationist – no matter how much evidence is put before them, they revert to the Holy Writ.  I’ve literally had people turn away from me to end the discussion rather than admit I might have a point on one or another aspect, especially when it’s clear that I know more about the subject than they do.  Thoughtful people, when confronted by someone who knows more, at least listen.  It’s the zealot that flees lest information that shakes their faith penetrate their consciousness.


correct a fool


Even the term “denier” is an emotionally-loaded term intended to “other” the skeptics.  Very few skeptics deny that the climate changes; very few skeptics think that people have zero effect on the climate.  We simply believe that the alarmism is overhyped and the case is far, far, far from proven.

There’s a great quotation that I found which applies perfectly, by Frantz Fanon:

“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”

I discussed this concept in an earlier essay, Two Kinds of People in the World.  Now understand something: I did not start out as a skeptic, bitterly-clinging to my belief.  I started out on the side of the Warmists; I changed my belief after examination.

Very related to this is a quip about Stalin’s USSR:

The future is known; it’s the past that’s always changing.

In “Climate Science” the conclusion – that man’s COemissions are a dire threat to the planet – is known; the underlying facts keep changing, but the conclusion is immutable.  Do plants absorb more COthus resulting in a negative feedback – something not realized in the models, or the fact that new oceanic currents are discovered, or temperature recording sensors are poorly-sited or uncalibrated , or the discovery that cosmic rays create clouds and are affected by the sun’s activity, or almost 300 peer-reviewed skeptical papers in 2017 alone, alone ever cause the conclusion to deviate?  Findings of key climate change studies & statistics being wrong?


The Holy Writ is set.  Facts don’t matter; the faith is unshakeable.  And a faith it is: people are getting tattooed with the PPM of the year of their birth.  People are talking about genetic engineering to make humans smaller.



Back in high school Physics I first became familiar with the quip “First draw your curve, then plot your reading.”  With high school and even college science classes being, essentially, deterministic and the foundational implanting of basics, we pretty much knew what to expect.  Thus, a little fudging-in of errors, and Voila! we had our lab report with a cursory actual set of experiments.  But we were amateurs.  For masters of that technique, we need to look at NASA and NOAA among others.  In Global Warming Hoax: German Scientist Finds Evidence That NASA Manipulated Climate Data (which I referenced above), we see one of the huge problems here (bolding added):

When the publicly available data that was archived in 2010 is compared with the data supplied by NASA in 2012, there is a clear difference between the two. The GISS has been retroactively changing past data to make it appear that the planet is warming, especially after the year 1950. In reality, the original data shows that the planet has actually been getting colder throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Overall, 10 different statistical methods have been used to change the climate’s trajectory from cooling to warming.

It’s easy to find a trend when you torture the data to put one in.  Quoting the source paper this article is based upon (bolding added):

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever  – despite current claims of record setting warming.

Real Climate Science has an ongoing series of posts showing dramatic instances where temperature records are being altered, with 100% of the alterations amplifying – or outright fabricating from whole cloth– warming trends.  Here’s a specific article from that site, and more on altered data.  NOAA has also been caught outright tweaking data.  And they’re not even hiding it.  (And now we’re starting to learn that older data isn’t trustworthy.)

Now let me be calm; data sometimes does need to be “cleaned up”.  In the course of my own career I’ve needed to do that on occasion – sometimes data does need adjustment.  But in this case, I find three things being outright suspicious:

  1. That, according to my recollection of reading articles about these adjustments, the original data sets are being over-written in some cases. This is a fundamental no-no.  That it is done once could be accidental; that it is, apparently, being done multiple times has to be intentional.
  2. All of the adjustments go only one way. That defies even a basic knowledge of how things work on a statistical level – by pure randomness, some adjustments should go the other way.
  3. To my knowledge there has been no rigorous, let alone replicated, accounting for how the data was adjusted and why it was necessary to do so.

I do know this: If I had ever overwritten the original data, or had adjustments or clean-ups I could not explain to people wanting to confirm my results based on my notes, or tried to use data that was questionable in accuracy, my work would have immediately been deemed worthless by my colleagues.  However, what would be unacceptable anywhere else seems to be standard practice here. 

BS meter pegs out.



A theory needs to be testable, and failing the test, is falsified.  One of the most famous examples of this was Einstein’s General Relativity which predicts that a gravity field can bend light.  Known as gravitational lensing, the theory was tested in a famous experiment.  Had the test failed, General Relativity would have had to – at best – undergo significant revision… if not been outright proven wrong.  In other words, a theory must say “If this theory is true, these predictions must be testable” – whether true or false.  So consider a prediction by one of the leaders of the Warmist movement, Dr. James Hansen:

Since then we’ve had a continued expansion of fossil fuel use, as in his most alarmist scenario. Given that amount of CO2 emissions, his prediction was that by now, temperatures would have gone up by five degrees Fahrenheit, or about 3°C.

Obviously, nothing like that has happened. Despite the fact that millions of folks believed his prediction in 1988 and continue to listen to him today, the UAH MSU satellite data says that since 1988 it’s warmed by … well … about a third of a degree. Not three degrees. A third of a degree. He was wrong by an order of magnitude. So obviously, he desperately needs an excuse for this colossal failure.

When you’re off by a factor of ten it’s time for a person interested in the truth to step back and say “You know, maybe I’m wrong.”

Predictions are for worse hurricanes.  Wrong (Harvey and Irma are bad, definitely, but… we’ve had 11 years without a major hurricane making landfall; the lull had to end sometime – and it’s not like large hurricanes have ever hit the US, causing great destruction, before industrialization started in the 1940’s… oh, wait….).  Worse tornadoes.  Wrong.  The Arizona and California droughts that are the “new normal”?  Wrong and wrong.  Melting ice caps?  Wrong.  Polar bears going extinct?  Wrong.  Hot spot in the upper atmosphere (a critical element central to all models)?  Wrong.  Glaciers retreating everywhere?  Wrong.  Four times as many extreme weather events?  Wrong.  Energy balances of heat lost to space from radiation?  Wrong:

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Incidentally, Hurricane Irma formed on cooler-than-expected for the storm strength waters.  Not warmer!

The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic – 26.5C — the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane (and that threshold has been inching higher in recent years). 

So, basically, “climate change” predicts that it will be – simultaneously – warmer, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, and calmer.  How can it be falsified?




And speaking of falsification, take a look at this graph:


models and 95


The models, considered the unquestionable Holy Writ, differ from actual temperatures by a confidence interval of more than 95%, which is a standard scientific term for “We’re pretty sure they’re different”.  This brings to mind a quote by Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winning physicist:

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

The theory (models) do not agree with the experiments (real-world measurements).  They’re wrong.  Now, of course, comes the shift to say that falsifiability – a fundamental requirement of the scientific method – doesn’t need to be applied here.  WHAM!  BS meter pegs out again.

And one more thing about falsifiability is the name changing.  It was “global warming”, but then it became “climate change” when it became clear there was a years-long hiatus in warming.  Now it’s shifting to “climate instability” or “climate extremes”.  If you need to keep changing the name of what you’re screaming about, well… that’s marketing, not science.



Just look at this ice core data showing temperatures were warmer than today:


So it was warmer during the Roman period; was it the SUVs “Roman” around the world?  Before that, during the Minoan civilization, it was warmer still – it must have been the Atlantean coal plants.  Just visually, the changes claimed as “alarming” match, or are exceeded by, natural variations in the past in both range and rate; thus, any changes being seen now cannot be differentiated from nature.  Here’s another chart.  Look at it.  Now tell me with a straight face that any variation we’re seeing today is unprecedented or can, in any way, be differentiated from natural variation.


CO2 levels in earth’s past were far, far higher than they are now – like above 3,000 PPM! – and life thrived.  Greenhouse operators pump CO2 into greenhouses to make plants grow better.


(IGlobal Greening jpg

(Image used with permission.)


Two videos, one by Greenpeace’s founder Patrick Moore and one by Bill Whittle, bring up difficult questions that Warmists simply cannot answer without pretzel logic (though they try).  And here’s a BBC video, The Great Global Warming Swindle.  From that video, pay particular attention to the Danish examination of temperatures vs. sunspots (discussion starting at 30:39; amazing graph at 33:37); Professor Ian Clark, Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottowa, said – upon seeing this correlation between cosmic rays hitting the earth and temperature records:

“I’ve never seen such vastly different records coming together to show, really, what was happening over that long period of time”.

For me it’s stark: two completely disparate data sets matching up so well, over 500 million years… not a coincidence.

Incidentally, it was the Warmists’ outright dismissal that variations in the sun’s output could affect climate that first set off my That’s weird… response and attention-paying to the topic.  Given that the radiative conduction of heat is a function of temperature to the fourth power – i.e., T4, I could not believe the glib dismissal, or assurances of “that’s been taken into account”.  (For example, the sun’s surface temperature is roughly 5500 Kelvin.  A hike of just 50 degrees C could result in a 3.7% increase in temperature transfer to the earth.  A 100 degree change in the sun’s temperature… and remember, the sun is a seething, dynamic tempest… could lead to a potential 7.5% change in radiation heat transfer.)



The original “97% of climate scientists agree… blah blah blah” sound bite was, boiled down, based on 77 of 79 papers deemed worthy by the author of the paper making the claim:

In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

A later paper by John Cook down in Australia revealed other flaws in this statistic (bolding added):

In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!

Additionally, several scientists whose work Cook cited stated that their results had been misrepresented:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Cook’s paper was accused of being fraudulent… and he took no action to counter that accusation (bolding added, link in original):

Jose Duarte, expert in Social Psychology, Scientific Validity, and Research Methods, has actually called the Cook paper “multiply fraudulent”, and, as far as I know, Cook has taken no action to challenge the claim. This, as much as anything else, shows just what a con trick the whole business was. How many scientists, after all, would accept being called fraudulent without taking action?

Like the Michael Mann case, above… someone calls you a fraud, and you don’t do everything to counter that attack on your integrity?  BS meter peg-out.  Another great takedown of Cook’s paper is here: The 97% Cook Consensus – when will Environ Res Letters retract it?.

There is no such thing as consensus in science.  Nor is there absolute certainty.  Things get overturned all the time, for example the consensus on salt and fat in our diets; in the latter case, the push to demonize fat was bought and paid for.  (And if we can’t understand the human body, we definitely can’t understand the entire planet.)  Remember continental drift, and how the originator of that was derided:

“Utter, damned rot!” said the president of the prestigious American Philosophical Society.

“If we are to believe [this] hypothesis, we must forget everything we have learned in the last 70 years and start all over again,” said another American scientist.

Anyone who “valued his reputation for scientific sanity” would never dare support such a theory, said a British geologist.



It is the pride, the hubris that things are known to within a gnat’s ass without a scintilla of doubt or wondering “Have I missed something?” that… WHAM! pegged out my BS meter again.  Because even plate tectonics can have new information.  I know that in my own career, even when convinced I’m right, I have enough humility to listen to others and am always, always, always wondering “Is this it?  What am I missing?”

IMHO, after “Eureka!  I have found it!” the most important phrase in science is “Wow, thank you – I never thought of that!”  At least, important to people interested in the truth.  It is a phrase utterly missing in what passes for “Climate Science”.

And the idea that today’s climate is “just perfect” is another example of hubris when, across time, whether geologic in scale or even within mankind’s tenure on Earth, it’s changed – and changed a lot.

And one last bit of hubris.  Remember, the signal being discussed – the rise in temperatures – is minute: fractions of a degree per decade.  The temperature record on earth, today, has ground-sensor gaps across vast swaths, millions of square miles, of the planet’s surface.  Temperatures can vary, daily, in some places by 100 times the signal being claimed.  Past 100 or so years ago, we’re using proxies for the temperature data with huge error bars.  The idea that such a small signal can be reliably and accurately be teased out of such data is… well, hubris once more.  At least, it is to people who understand data analysis and the science/art of detecting trends… remember, I’m an engineer.  I’ve done statistical analyses.



Consider the comedy of shoreline-resort-developing, yacht-renting Warmist Leonardo DiCaprio flying commercial (likely because he couldn’t find a private jet as they’d already been booked).  Look at Warmists selecting luxurious locations for conferences, with people flying in on private jets – lots of private jets.  Now, of course, we find out that Al Gore, who can be accused of fabricating the crisis for personal profit, has a home that uses electricity by the metric f*ckton.  They even admit their hypocrisy.

I’ll quote (from memory) the Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds:

“I’ll believe it’s a crisis when those who claim it’s a crisis act like it’s a crisis.”

It’s about virtue signaling for peer-group applause, nothing more.  Well, that and a good excuse for a tax-payer funded junket.



A recent paper points to temperature being a function of atmospheric temperature and solar irradiance; it’s got a surprisingly strong R^2.  Another paper suggests changes and shifts in earth’s orbit affect the climate, as does cosmic radiation as modulated by the sun’s activity as noted above.  And there are surely other things I’ve missed.  More than that, however – there are surely things scientists have missed.

With all these peer-reviewed papers highlighting other potential factors to why earth’s climate shifts, the obsession with man-produced CO2 to the exclusion of everything else on this cycles-within-cycles-within-cycles planet and solar system is very suspicious.  Why?  The above are independent of humanity, leading to…



So what’s it really about?  What are most things about on this scale?  Money:

Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.

Entire academic departments, whole think tanks and research organizations, not to mention “carbon sequestration/offset” industries have been formed based on this.  That’s a lot of lobbying pull to continue the flow of money – and all gone if CO2 is not the controlling knob. 




There’s an axiom in research:

Results of research will be biased towards those that continue the flow of grant money.

After all, how does marketing for any product or service work?  Create a demand, very often through the creation of a perceived crisis, and then fill that artificial need.  What you think was really behind Al Gore’s book and movie… we’re talking multi-millions in Gore’s pocket from the fear he, himself, created.  James Hansen, one of the leaders of the Warmists, pulls in millions.  The lecture circuit can be very lucrative.

That university skeptic I mentioned early on also noticed it (thems that gots da gold makes da rules):

I’ve stopped being shocked by the way my professors obediently tow the party line—as I learned a few years ago that at least here, federal funding is dependent on a certain amount of global warming acceptance.

It’s also about ideology and power: Socialism.  To save the planet we’ll need to give up private property.  We’ll need to redistribute wealth.  It would require a categorical reduction in human civilization and lifestyle.  And they openly state they want to leverage the crisis to shift to Marxism:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

There’s a reason today’s environmentalist whackos are nicknamed “watermelons” – green outside, red inside.  H.L. Mencken said it very well:

The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.

And they do intend to rule; and while we eke out a living on sustainable algae cakes, they will sup on dainties and live in luxury.  All to save the planet from the crisis they fabricated.


1 1 1ninetymilesojure1rzull5o1_1280



A great article is Dear Global Warming Denier, another is Why I’m a Global Warming Skeptic.  A fantastic series of articles here, The Greatest Scientific Fraud of All Time.  And Climate Depot, WattsUpWithThat, and Real Climate Science are all daily must-reads.  Got any others?  Leave them in the comments.



(c) 2017, David Hunt, PE

Admiration: Winston Churchill on alien life

I’d long admired him – his vision, his courage, his rock-steady strength in the face of the Nazi war machine… and I’ve got several of his books on  my to-read shelf (in my copious free time!).  And then this: An essay on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life.

Winston Churchill’s essay on alien life found

Wow.  What a keen, wide-ranging, and inquiring mind.

Kinda fun… and an observation on science in general


This is a good application of Occam’s Razor: When confronted with multiple, competing explanations the simplest one is most likely the true one.

In parallel… when your scientific theory has to go through multiple contortions to be held to, including accusing heretics, er, skeptics and wanting them arrested, tried, even executed – maybe the theory is wrong.