Why Climate Models are Unscientific Fabrications

Written by Anonymous Geophysicist

Last week Principia Scientific International (PSI) published devastating new evidence proving that government climate models were rigged to only show that carbon dioxide causes warming. Since then, independent scientists have been scrutinizing the shocking analysis published by Derek Alker. One geophysicist, who wishes to remain anonymous submits his own analysis confirming the validity of Alker’s revelations.

By kind permission of the author Principia Scientific International publishes his reaction below:

I have always taken a very different approach to most in my professional career as an exploration geophysicist in that I focussed on the objective and ignored conventional procedure. 

The first step in solving a problem is to define the problem in an as exact way as possible and in basic physical terms. This is where explicit definitions and physical properties are critical because if there is any misrepresentation of these the problem will not be properly addressed. 

With a problem stripped down to its bare essentials it is generally a simple matter to solve the problem by identifying where and which of these bare essentials are creating the problem. 

After looking at basics for over 40 years I have developed a rather comprehensive knowledge of physical processes and the physics that control them. In my professional career this has led to major discoveries that had been previously missed because of conventional thinking.

When you put climate change in this context the problem distills down to nothing more than a claim based on computer model projections so the obvious solution to the problem is to show why the computer model projections are wrong. This is why from day one I have targeted the forcing parameter of the computer models which is a pure fabrication created to project catastrophic warming from CO2 when none is physically even possible.

To attack the CO2 forcing parameter it is critical to determine the claimed basis for the forcing parameter which requires a lot of digging and going back through references, and in the process of doing this one is exposed to a wide variety of information that is not normally considered. Through this digging although the explicit basis for the genesis of the forcing parameter is never stated in general terms it is based on a 100ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 to 380ppmv and an accompanying 0.6°C increase in global temperature. Other information gleaned is that the forcing parameter is of the form 5.35ln(C/Co) and this is converted to temperature with a climate sensitivity factor of 0.75°C/W/m2.

 Given this it is a simple matter to test the viability of the forcing parameter to see if it gives results consistent with the global temperature record. Derek Alker’s fresh analysis concurs with my own, as set out below.

My last year in University was 1970 so I was well aware of the global cooling scare which we had actually studied in theoretical geophysics in my last year. With global cooling taking place as CO2 is increasing any parameter in the form of  5.35ln(C/Co)  will produce a positive increase when the real world data shows cooling proving the forcing parameter to be wrong. In searching for documentation on the global cooling scare I came across the Denis Dutton Newsweek article (1975) that showed that a great number of climate scientists then were worried by global cooling, not warming.

If science was driving this issue the 33 years of cooling with a fourfold increase in global CO2 emissions from 1942 to 1975 would be all that is needed to debunk the computer model projections but as this is not an issue of science but one of belief simply stating facts is of little value in exposing the fraud.

What is of value is going back to statements made in the past in support of this idiocy and either contradicting these statements with data or as is the case today contradicting the claims with contrary claims made by the same people. This is where the definitions come into play with the definition of “climate change” itself being the most important.    

Climate Change although never actually defined to any scientific or legal standard is generally accepted to mean global warming caused by increased CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Last year the Hadley Centre under scrutiny resulting from “climategate” had the unfortunate circumstance of the HadCRUT3 dataset showing more global cooling since 2002 than any of the other datasets and especially the UAH and RSS MSU satellite based datasets. 

This meant a decade of cooling with increasing CO2 and a death blow exposing the climate change fraud. Hadley revised the dataset to HadCRUT4 which although it did not eliminate the decade long global cooling it reduced the cooling to near zero. (http://www.climate4you.com/ )

HadCRUT temperature anomaly

Without realizing it the Hadley Centre had produced a temperature graph with a linear best fit to 1997 showing zero global warming and sent this data to the IPCC where it was incorporated into this graph from the unauthorized release of IPCC 5AR by Alec Rawls (see below).

 This graph shows that global warming had already ended by December 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was initiated to stop global warming! This makes every claim in support of the Kyoto Accord completely fraudulent as well as making all claims in IPCC 2001 AR3 and IPCC 2007 AR4 completely false as well. This is where the head of the UN can be taken to task for reprehensibly blaming Typhoon Haiyan on climate change when climate change means global warming and global warming officially ended 16 years ago!

IPCC warming projections
This is the form of attack that needs to be made demanding that the wording used be defined in true terms by any making these claims. 

There is no science involved just fraud so silly arguments about scientific misconceptions. What needs to be exposed is the fraud and this is perfectly laid out for us in the PBS interview of Timothy Wirth which Tim Ball has often pointed out.

Wirth served under President Clinton in the State Department. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation and he organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming.

In the interview Wirth admits to compromising the air conditioning before the crucial US Congressional hearing of 1988 when NASA’s Dr James Hansen gave, what many analysts believe, was the crucial testimony that swayed policymakers into believing global warming was a serious problem.

 Asked whether he had cynically altered the temperature in the hearing room that day Timothy Wirth replied:

“… What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot. …”

“So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony.”

Wirth went on to lead the U.S. negotiating team at the Kyoto Summit. In the 1975 Newsweek article about our cooling world the term used was the grammatically correct “climatic change”

With only 13 years separating the end of a 33 year period of global cooling from Hansen’s 1988 presentation he was not going to use the term global warming and with zero actual physical evidence for his fabricated computer model projections Hansen resorted to what is called “consensus science” and simply claimed 99% certainty!  

The one thing that Hansen didn’t do that day in front of your committee is use the term “global warming.” He said, “Gentlemen, I’m 99 percent sure that human beings are contributing to climate change,” but he didn’t quite have the nerve, because he was outside scientific consensus at the time.

Oh, Hansen went a long way. This was a very, very brave statement. He was on the edge of the science and almost 20 years younger than he is today, so he’s relatively new in the field. He’s working for the federal government, and certainly this was not cleared far up the line, what he had to say. So the summary of what Jim Hansen had to say that year, plus the fact that it had gotten so much attention from the press — it was on every channel, Hansen was widely reported. He went as far as anybody could possibly have expected him to go, I think. Again, it was a very brave thing for him to do.

But the whole thing is a fabrication and my approach is, and always has been, to refute this fraudulent conjecture with hard physical evidence. 

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Norm Kalmanovitch

    |

    The reason that I requested anonymity was that by not declaring myself as the author of this the usual tactic of ad hominem attack was avoided because if there is no name given there is no name calling and no defamation through association possible.
    Science should be strictly about empirical data with it being irrelevant who presents this data.
    To those who commented that to be credible I must identify myself I say to them use data and not names to make your case, but if you can’t then go ahead and name me as the Authyor

    [quote name=”Robert Estlinbaum”]ANON GEOPHYSICIST? how can I propose this as credible to other mankind-as-the-cause when the Author won’t take credit? I get burnt every time I show this to others who think we are the root-cause. Please, someone do something to put a name to the article/science. It’s not fair.[/quote]

  • Avatar

    Robert Estlinbaum

    |

    Mankind adapts and survives, the extinction end synopsis you propose is a lame emotive. The problem is I’m of the inclination that climate change is solar system wide, not just a local epiphenomenon on Earth, but obviously on other planets too. Open yourself up to the possibility that the data is wide-ranging and the consequences yet to be fathomed. If you are honest and looking, you’ll read and see just how amazing and dynamic it all is, and not hunker down to be myopic on this mote in the sea of space. Update your curiosity.

  • Avatar

    Liza

    |

    Yes, Robert. Real scientists normally use their own names and credentials. Is it dangerous to put one’s name on the line to champion a theory that most of mankind would very much like to be proved?

    None of us wants to be approaching extinction so what’s the problem here? Open yourself up and your scientific data to full scrutiny.

  • Avatar

    Robert Estlinbaum

    |

    Seriously, no reply?

  • Avatar

    Robert Estlinbaum

    |

    ANON GEOPHYSICIST? how can I propose this as credible to other mankind-as-the-cause when the Author won’t take credit? I get burnt every time I show this to others who think we are the root-cause. Please, someone do something to put a name to the article/science. It’s not fair.

Comments are closed