Page last changed: 11 november 2016
The climate dossier (Anthropogenic
The things they
forgot to tell you in class
we do not have a political agenda. We are a
non-profit science organization!
This research gets funding from nobody!
Here are some provocative pieces of information
(truths) about the global warming subject:
- The carbon dioxide in history has always lagged behind
temperature; CO2 has no impact on the climate while
the climate does have impact on CO2.
Or directly read our peer-reviewed paper here: ISRN
2014 (2014), Article ID 161530.
- A continuous gradual warming of the planet has started long
before the industrial revolution. No 'accelerated' warming is
taking place at this moment. The hockey-stick figure (of
constant temperature for 1000 years and sudden sharp increase
at the end of 20th century) has been proven to be a fraud, a
construction of a temperature series based on carefully chosen
- The (alleged) disappearance of ice cannot be explained by a
mere increase of temperature. If
the planet warms up 1 degree, the ice-line shifts some
50-100 km to the poles. Not more. In our finite element research, we
actually found that disappearing of ice makes the planet cool
down, making the ice reappear.
- A warming of the planet is good for humanity; 9 degrees
warmer would be ideal. During the tiny increase in the last
century, population has doubled and life expectancy
substantially improved. An average temperature of 24 degrees
is ideal for humans. Anything hotter or colder makes people
ill. It is now about 15 degrees on average. A human-hostile
- Plants are suffocating because of lack of CO2. The initial
25% CO2 in the atmosphere has been removed (dropped
to about 0.04%). (The temperature remained the same). CO2
is good for nature; it works like a fertilizer. The planet has
become much greener since the increase of CO2 in the
atmosphere. Agricultural yield increases.
- It has been much colder with much more CO2 in the
atmosphere. It has been much warmer with less CO2
in the atmosphere.
- It has been much warmer in recent history (ca. 1500).
- There has been more CO2 in the atmosphere in very recent
history (just before the cut-off of data presented to you, ca.
- It is scientifically not possible to explain (model)
significant increases of temperature by the so-called
greenhouse effect. For that a (high gain) positive-feedback
(runaway) scenario would be needed that is scientifically not
sound. (For instance, nature does not runaway by temperature
excursions every year in winter-summer). A hypothesis,
moreover, that is rejected by measurements.
- A temperature increase stronger at the poles compared to the
equator would reduce the frequency and intensity of weather
- Climate models in history have always been of the Bayesian
type; adjusting the models to retroactively 'predict' existing
data and failing to predict future data. Climate models have
thus been cyclic, following the weather (the tendency at short
term), predicting a further cooling after cooling spells and
warming up after warming spells.
- All IPCC climate models have failed so far.
- There do not exist climate 'models' as such. What exists are
climate calculations. These are
done on supercomputers in the same method of trial-and-error
used for calculating and predicting the weather. This method
resulted -- after some tens of thousands of iterative cycles
-- in a fair weather prediction for some days. Using the same
technique, it would thus take tens of thousands of cycles
(thousands of centuries) to come up with reasonable climate
predictions. So far, we have done about 0.3 century of
calculations and still have a long way to go.
The 'error bars' shown in IPCC reports are not error bars (as
in "with 95% probability the temperature will remain between
these two limits"), but statistical spread of letting their
simulations run hundreds of times with a spread of parameters
that is still consistent with -- that can still simulate --
- The atmosphere is one of the most complex systems known to
man. The current knowledge is by far not sufficient to make
reliable predictions. People who predict the climate on basis
of the sparse information available, should go and predict the
infinitely simpler system of the stock market instead.
- The sun is the biggest climate-determining factor. Carbon
dioxide has little impact on the climate.
- No weather event can be used to prove climate changes. If
you see any such event being reported in the news where a link
to the climate is suggested, beware, you are being
- Predicting the end of the world has always been popular.
That is well explained by Dawkins' Meme: An idea in society
can survive and propagate because the host (the society) is
receptive to it. Global Warming is not the first and will not
be the last catastrophic model, even if all of the previous
models have proven to be wrong. Remember: Y2K (a.k.a.
Millennium Bug), ozone, acid rain, Armageddon, H1N1, etc. Fear
- The AGW models are a result of the human psyche, what the
evolutionary psychiatrist J. Anderson Thomson describes as "We
have a great deal of difficulty seeing anything other than
human causation" . In other words, we have a need to
explain everything as 'caused by humans'. Applied to climate
changes: "It must be
- Concerning the apparent consensus of AGW: 'Consensus' is not
the same as 'scientific proof'. (Ex.: Most people belief in a
supernatural force, yet there is no proof for such a being).
'Consensus' applies to the field of politics and is a word
adequate for politicians, not for scientists. It shows where
the AGW problem is rooted, namely in the realm of politics.
Read here how a consensus is created:
Or read our peer-reviewd paper here: Consensus
in science, MCMA 21 (2015).
- Doing science by adjusting the models every time new data
comes in, as done by the IPCC, is not science. Read here more
about what is science and what is not.
Or directly read our peer-review paper: Energy
& Environ. 25, 137 (2014).
or conference paper: Eur.
Sci. J. 4, 385-390 (2013).
- While there
is an alleged consensus in literature for the ideas, there is
a consensus among scientists against the global warming ideas:
See the Climate
- People believe in the Global Warming scenario for the same
reason French mathematician and philosopher Blaise Pascal
believed in God. In what is now called 'Pascal's Wager' he
stated, "I have nothing to lose by believing in God if He does
not exist, whereas I have everything to lose if I don't
believe in Him and He does exist". The same applies to the
climate. If a person believes in it and it turns out to be
false, then there is not much harm done, whereas not believing
in it while it turns out to be true is a fierce sin. This can
be summarized in the decision table below that is filled out
for an ignoramus (somebody that does not have any knowledge on
the subject and thus estimates it to be 50% likely true). It
is clear that an ignoramus has to 'bet' on AGW to be true, the
expectation value for the reward is much higher then when not
The reward becomes
even more pronounced if the person becomes 'active'. That is,
trying to convince others of their religious beliefs. We have
summarized this psychology of Global Warming in a
peer-reviewed scientific paper that can be found here:
Sci. J. 12, 427 (2016)
- The carbon dioxide trade, renewable energies etc. are big
CO2 Cap 'n Trade market stands at some 2 trillion dollars.
- The Global Warming threat is lucrative for everybody
adhering to this belief. Including industry, politicians and
'scientists'. Financially, as well as in terms of prestige and
power. Non-believers are marginalized in society. The green energies
industry is estimated at 1.4 trillion euros. The biggest
companies are actually the biggest promoters of the Global
Warming ideas. Take for instance a look at the pages of ERT
(European Round Table of Industrialists, 50 biggest companies
of Europe) here: ERT
- Most renewable energies (except water dams) cost more energy
than they deliver. They destroy the planet.
- The transition to 'clean' energy sources is what will save
the world economy (not what will save the planet from
- No renewable-energies companies have ever survived without
governmental subsidies. That is because energy is the
bottleneck in our society and renewable energies are
energetically not profitable (except dams). Windmills do not
have to be energetically profitable to be financially
lucrative. Subsidies have created what is called a
green-energy mafia, alluding to the organization specialized
in earning money without giving anything in return.
- Cultivating bio-fuels on a large scale has made food prices
rise dramatically and this causes social unrest in many parts
of the world. Panem et
circenses. (Give the people food and games and they
will be quiet). The cultivating of bio-fuel plants is even
causing a slow genocide which is a too high price to pay for
addressing the nightmares of the privileged few.
- Planting trees does not compensate for carbon emissions. By
the increased CO2 in the atmosphere causing an
accelerated plant growth, nature will do that itself without
the need for human intervention. Planting trees is just
(lucrative) business, nothing more.
- A conventional lightbulb has 100% efficiency. 5% light, 95%
heat. In most countries in indoor situations, where light is
needed normally also heat is needed. Other electrical sources
of light are bad for the environment, but good for industry.
- Before the lobby of new light sources, the old lightbulb had
been attributed a 1500 hours lifetime in analytical reports.
Nowadays that has been reduced to 750. The reasons for
changing this official number are obvious.
- New technologies have never decreased energy consumption. To
the contrary, they have always increased the hunger for
energy. Low-energy consuming LEDs will turn every city into a
form of Las Vegas. Mentally prepare yourself.
- These (energy and climate) 'population' problems of our
society do not have a technological solution. I highly
recommend reading the classical paper of Garrett Hardin, "The
Tragedy of the Commons" from 1968 
- The IPCC is a
political body and not a scientific body. They start with
the conclusions (a political agenda) and hire the scientists
to give foundation for the political actions. See image
- The IPCC is a political body with a mission to find proof of
climate changes. As such, this body has nothing to do with
science, since their approach goes directly against the
Scientific Method that states that the research has to be
aimed at exactly the opposite, namely to disproof models.
Read more here , about the official
report of one of the official IPCC reviewers (Igor
Khmelinskii), where he exposes IPCC members as fraudsters.
Read here our statement on Barroso's climate statement
Read here our statement on the COP21 climate summit in Paris
- The apparent consensus among (climate) 'scientists' about
AGW is the result of political interference in science, i.e.,
selectively approving and financing the work of Alarmists. You
get what you paid for.
- A warming of the planet is a non-issue for the 90% (poor)
people of the world. It is a problem of the haves and not of
the have-nots. The haves cannot demand from the have-nots to
become have-even-less in order to save the havings of the
haves. People, generally speaking, are not concerned about
losing things they do not have.
- Science involves questioning existing models (being a
Skeptic) and creative thinking. Politics involves eliminating
intellectual diversity. (Definitions).
- All predictions of the models of the political bodies such
as the IPCC so far have failed (see Bayesian science above)
. This puts them at
par with other end-of-the-world prophets like Nostradamus.
- The information of the scarcity of fossil fuels comes from a
political body (OPEC) representing the economical bodies that
benefit from the alleged scarcity of these same fossil fuels.
The last 50 years, they have been claiming deposits exist for
30 years. Everybody in the world ignores this curious truth.
- The 'hidden agenda' of most countries for reducing oil
consumption and investing in renewable energies is not saving
the planet, but instead is reducing (political) dependence on
other countries. Little do they know that renewable energies,
in fact, unfortunately increase this dependence. (In spite of
-- or actually because of -- heavy investing in renewable
energies, petrol prices have soared in the last decade).
- Saving the planet from the Malthusian catastrophe does not
come from the cosmetic measures of marginally reducing the
energy consumed per capita, but from limiting the amount of
people having access to energy. Hence, all political attempts
of 'saving the planet' are done by the few rich to prevent the
many poor from developing. This is called hypocrisy.
Environmentalists should reduce their personal energy
consumption by at least 99% before they can have a right to
tell others what to do. With the remaining 1% they will not be
able to promote their ideas. Ergo, logically, real concerned
environmentalist ideas should not have any chance of survival
in society. Ergo, the environmentalists that do exist are not really concerned about our
planet, or do not understand the problem they talk about;
their existence is inconsistent with their own ideas.
tax on cars by how much they could pollute per km is unfounded, since
there is already a direct tax on actually-produced CO2
itself; 1 liter of petrol always
is converted into 2.360 kg of CO2, independent of
the size or efficiency of the engine! Moreover, looking at the
tables of this tax, it is clear that poor people (smaller
cars) are relatively taxed more than rich people (expensive
cars). This regressive taxing is unprecedented.
- Data manipulation and science-steering has been taking place
by politicians in an attempt to unite people for 'the good
cause', i.e., they are self-acclaimed heroes (known
objectively as 'dictators').
Other interesting climate blogs:
Climate Audit of Steve McIntyre
Watts Up With That
of Anthony Watts
(worlds most visited climate blog)
Virtual vs. Real of Prof Khmelinskii
 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.172
 Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science vol.
162, p.1243-1248 (1968).
Page last changed: 10 December 2015
A copy of the climate seminar can be found here.
For more information, contact me at The University of The
Prof. Peter Stallinga