The Climate Dossier
Logo


The climate dossier (Anthropogenic Global Warming).
The things they forgot to tell you in class

No, we do not have a political agenda. We are a non-profit science organization!

This research gets funding from nobody!

Page last changed: 11 november 2016

Here are some provocative pieces of information (truths) about the global warming subject:

Science:


- The carbon dioxide in history has always lagged behind temperature; CO
2 has no impact on the climate while the climate does have impact on CO2.Greenhouse gases
Or directly read our peer-reviewed paper here: ISRN 2014 (2014), Article ID 161530. Cause and effect CO2 and Temperature

- 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 'proxies'.
Greenhouse gases

- 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 environment.


- Plants are suffocating because of lack of CO
2. 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 CO
2 in the atmosphere. It has been much warmer with less CO2 in the atmosphere. Greenhouse Gases

- It has been much warmer in recent history (ca. 1500).


- There has been more CO
2 in the atmosphere in very recent history (just before the cut-off of data presented to you, ca. 1940). Greenhouse
              Gases

- 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.
Greenhouse Gases

- A temperature increase stronger at the poles compared to the equator would reduce the frequency and intensity of weather catastrophes.


- 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.
IPCC climate models
              failure

- 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. Weather vs. Climate
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 -- past observations.

- 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 brainwashed.
Weather
              vs. Climate

- 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 sells.


- 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" [1]. In other words, we have a need to explain everything as 'caused by humans'. Applied to climate changes: "It
must be human-caused". Weather
              vs. Climate

- 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:
Weather vs.
                Climate
Or read our peer-reviewd paper here: Consensus in science, MCMA 21 (2015). Consensus in science

Philosophy:

- 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.
Weather
                  vs. Climate
Or directly read our peer-review paper:
Energy & Environ. 25, 137 (2014). The Scientific Method in climate research or conference paper: Eur. Sci. J. 4, 385-390 (2013). State of science in 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 Petition. Climate Petition consensus against AGW

- 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 believing.

believe not believe probability
AGW true
+10
-1000 50%
AGW false
-1
+10
50%
reward:
+4.5 -495
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:
Eur. Sci. J. 12, 427 (2016) Psychology of Global Warming Climate Change

Industry:


- The carbon dioxide trade, renewable energies etc. are big business.
The 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 AGW. ERT AGW

- 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 over-exploitation).


- 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 CO
2 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 [2]



Politics:


- 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 below.
Top down political structure of the IPCC

- 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 IPCC
              climate models failure, 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 
Climate Statement
Read here our statement on the COP21 climate summit in Paris (2015). COP21 statement

- 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)
IPCC climate models failure. 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.

- CO
2 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)
Climate Virtual vs. Real
of Prof Khmelinskii http://clima-virtual-vs-real.blogspot.pt/



[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.172
[2] 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 Algarve,

Prof. Peter Stallinga
http://www.stallinga.org