In less than a month, some people will celebrate Lenin’s birthday, calling it Earth Day.
Continue reading Earth Day for the Rest of Us
Short recap for the FSM viewers and readers:
The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down. The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature. Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference ). The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature. (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.) The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths. I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions. After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand . The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around. Continue reading “Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)
Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. The petition has been signed by 300 hundreds scientists and qualified experts, and is still open for signing.
June 2, 2017 (four months from today) will be the 25 year anniversary of the Heidelberg Appeal. This historical document, signed by more than 4,000 distinguished scientists, including 70 Nobel Laureates, was released in the beginning of the infamous “Earth Summit” (Rio de Janeiro, 1992) to oppose environmental obscurantism, including climate alarmism. Among other things, the Heidelberg Appeal said:
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed …
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments of false and nonrelevant date.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry …
These wise words by the most distinguished scientists in the world Continue reading Heidelberg Appeal’s Anniversary – 4,000+ scientists, 70 Nobel Laureates
The National Association of Scholars has published my new article, Academia is in the New Dark Age.
It continues polemics, started by an earlier article Academia on the Verge of a New Dark Age.
And it cites articles, published by Naomi Oreskes in 1994-2001, that eviscerated “climate models”, their use by IPCC, and warned about the pressure put on the scientists to endorse those models – just before she yielded to that pressure herself.
Michael Mann et al. claimed they were not required to share code according to rules allegedly made by the National Science Foundation (NSF). These alleged rules seem unique. For example, Nature contributors expect scientists who publish in peer-reviewed journals to not only share their code, but to do it quickly:
“Authors and journals should share data and code quickly when questions arise.”
This makes sense. If the NSF issued a rule against mandatory code disclosure in time for Mann et al. to use it, it might have acted with the explicit purpose of protecting climate fraud.
Washington, DC is owned by the Democratic Party, regardless of who is the President and what party has majority in Congress. More than 90% of Washington population votes for Democrats. Despite votes leak to the libertarian candidate, the nation has elected Trump. In the same time, the ratio of Hillary to Trump voters in Washington, DC has been more than 16:1. If Trump wants to make a real change, he needs to move most government operations from DC to the United States, and to hire new people with technical and managerial experience in the business sector. National Scientific Foundation (NSF), National Academy of Science (NAS), and NASA are the first candidates for drastic change that come to mind. EPA should be abolished, and its few useful functions might be spread among other departments. Continue reading DCracy
On September 13, Dr. Roger Cohen, a theoretical physicist and industrial manager, passed away after a courageous battle against climate alarmism, complicated by a malignant brain tumor. He was one of the distinguished members of the American Physical Society, who brought attention to machinations of its political apparatchiks, and led APS to make a middle-of-the-road statement about the physics of the climate.
His persecutors will not avoid justice by hiding behind their media accessories desmogblog, exxonsecrets, ecowatch, and others.
Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus – an article by Richard Lindzen from 1992, still relevant today! Some quotes (emphasis is mine):
“By early 1989 the popular media were declaring that “all scientists” agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential. By the fall of 1989 some media were becoming aware that there was controversy. Cries followed from environmentalists that skeptics were receiving excessive exposure.“ – Same as today, except that the “skeptics” are called “deniers” now. Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (1992)
In preparation of its texts, IPCC utilizes General Circulation Models (GCMs), analyzed using computers. Such models, and the way in which IPCC utilizes them, exhibit — among others — the following errors.
There is no mathematical apparatus (i.e., proven theorems) behind these models and “ensembles”. This fact makes the whole modeling exercise useless. This fact also makes rigorous evaluation or criticism of these models very difficult or even impossible to do. The following notes apply to the GCM models (including their more complex variations, such as AOGCM). Continue reading Mathematical Errors in IPCC Climate Models
Charles David Keeling (1928-2005) became famous for setting up a worldwide network of CO2 measurement stations that demonstrated annual increases of CO2 in the air. The iconic Keeling curve, representing CO2 concentrations since 1958, is Exhibit One in every climate-related presentation and one of the very few accurate and reliable datasets in climatology. Ralph Keeling, his son, is continuing his work as CO2 Program Director in the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UCSD. Continue reading Keeling Was Defunded for Discovering Higher Primary Production
As US Senator and later a vice president, Al Gore successfully imposed climate alarmism on the scientific institutions and mostly suppressed dissent. But he had few failures, and only some of them became publicly known. This book chapter by Professor Fred Singer tells about one of them, when Al Gore targeted him personally. Excerpts from it follow. Links in the excerpts are mine. Continue reading Prof. Fred Singer on Suppression of Science by Al Gore
By that time, the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change already had many Al Gore minions. Nevertheless, it concluded that “the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.” Richard Lindzen was a member of the NAS panel and a Lead Author in WGI of IPCC for its Third Assessment Report (TAR). Following are excerpts from his commentary on the NAS report (WSJ, 2001).
Continue reading Lindzen, 2001: Scientists’ Report Doesn’t Support
Bill Gates embraced climate alarmism some time ago, and now makes its promotion his priority.
This is comparable with his confusion about malaria. The Gates Foundation is spending huge amounts of money, trying to eradicate malaria without using DDT. Apparently, Bill Gates believes that malaria-bearing mosquitoes became resistant to DDT and does not know that DDT was withdrawn from anti-malaria use by the World Health Organization after 1976, after it was banned in the US in 1972, in response to the environmental alarm. Continue reading To Bill Gates: Fighting Malaria without DDT is like believing Climatism without LSD
In 1970, Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-MD) and assorted radicals declared April 22 as Earth Day, apparently to celebrate the hundredth birthday of Vladimir Lenin – a bloodthirsty revolutionary, the founder of the Soviet Union, and a revered icon of the Left until 1992. It is long overdue to end this travesty and establish Earth Day on some other day, and in honor of somebody more deserving. Let us celebrate Earth Day on March 25, in honor of Norman Borlaug.
Continue reading Honor Norman Borlaug: Celebrate Earth Day on March 25
Statement to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University, made on February 25, 2009. Excerpts:
Sometimes the obsession for control of the climate got a bit out of hand, as in the Aztec state, where the local scientific/religious establishment of the year 1500 had long since announced that the debate was over and that at least 20,000 human sacrifices a year were needed to keep the sun moving, the rain falling, and to stop climate change.
Continue reading William Happer, 2009 Senate Statement
Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?
Richard Lindzen, Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Originally published on November 29, 2008; revised on September 21, 2012. In this article Richard Lindzen (a member of the National Academy of Sciences and seven other scientific societies and academies), lifts the veil on the internal workings of American scientific institutions to show their capture by climate alarmism prior to 2008, and he mentions some individual culprits by their names. Examples (emphasis and links are mine throughout the article):
Continue reading How “Climate Science” has Taken over the Science
Selected quotes from three House and Senate testimonies by Richard Lindzen in 1991 – 1997 Continue reading Richard Lindzen, Congress Testimonies, 1991-1997
Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.
“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”
Continue reading Richard Lindzen, 2010 House Testimony
From Testimony of Richard S. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on 2 May 2001
“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”
Continue reading Richard Lindzen on IPCC and climate dispute, 2001
The now infamous Naomi Oreskes eviscerated climate models in 1994. But she has not stopped then. In her 1998 paper Evaluation (Not Validation) of Quantitative Models, she disclosed a wider pattern of computer models being either misrepresented or deliberately produced to fit predetermined agendas. The paper was not focused on the climate change studies, but showed the fraud behind The Limits to Growth (1972) and political pressure on scientists from EPA. Continue reading How Enviros Corrupted Science (unexpected witness)
Update: our most powerful supercomputer, currently Titan Cray XK7, capable of 27 Petaflops, is also surrendered to run climate models now! Not surprising that we are trailing China (Tianhe-2). On the topic of the computing power: its increase cannot help climate models. Solutions for Navier–Stokes equations are unstable for all but very simple special cases.
Originally published on 10/21/2015: inspired by this press-release from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, boasting a new super-computer capable of 212 Teraflops, I’ve decided that a Teraflop is an excellent unit to measure the otherwise countless failures of the “climate scientists.” (1 Teraflop = 1 trillion flops.) Continue reading “Climate Science”, appropriately measured in Teraflops
Anthony Watts has presented his surface stations research on AGU meeting. Yes, good (“unperturbed”) surface stations show less “warming trend” than the official record.
In 1994, Naomi Oreskes authored an article in Science, correctly refuting climate models. Since then, the article has been cited by 2,443 papers – a huge number. Consider some excerpts: Continue reading Naomi Oreskes rejected climate models in 1994
Naomi Oreskes interviewed Prof. William Nierenberg in 2000. These are the words of Professor Nierenberg (from the interview transcript): Continue reading Interview with Prof. Nierenberg in 2000