- In his famous essay, Science as
Falsification (), Popper wrote
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly
every theory — if we look for confirmations." What
climate Alarmists are doing is looking for proof of their ideas
everywhere. We are daily bombarded by cherry-picked news items that seem to confirm the
theory of AGW. Yet, as Popper said, a theory that
explains everything explains nothing (Corbett
Report about climate science: ).
Science is about
where theories are wrong and not where they are correct.
- For a theory to remain standing and (for the moment)
considered correct, it has to be subjected to falsification.
A theory must be testable and have a possibility to refute
it. the IPCC, every time contradicting information comes
in, changes its model in a Bayesian way. Thereby making
their procedure non-scientific.
- For a theory to be the correct one, alternative
explanations have to have been rejected by
falsification. In the case of the correlation between [CO2]
and T, there are two hypotheses:
in the atmosphere works as a greenhouse gas. If [CO2]
increases, the planet heats up, if [CO2]
decreases, the planet cools down.
2) Henry's Law: Oceans can
trap gases. If the oceans heat up, the ability is reduced
will be liberated into the atmosphere.
In a recent paper, we have once again demonstrated that Henry's
Law perfectly explains historical data (those of Al
Gore's movie) J.
Data Analysis and Information Processing 6, 30-45 (2018)
, as well as contemporary data
- Positive feedback 'runaway' scenario of melting
white ice turning into black seawater and thus absorbing more
sunlight and thus heating up more would predict an
irreversible melting of polar ice, as for instance predicted
by Al Gore (2009: "North Pole ice may be gone in 5 to 7 years"
In reality, ice can regrow 60% in one year (). A reason might be the
negative feedback of ice that works as a blanket. (When
the planet warms up, ice melts and warm water is exposed to
the universe, allowing for rapid cooling). Moreover, water
very efficiently reflects light at low grazing angles of
incidence (as at the poles). When this is taken into account,
ice that disappears will grow back, as is observed. Read our
peer-reviewed paper here: Atmospheric
and Climate Sciences 7, 76 (2017)
- 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 'proxies'.
- 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.
Ice on Antarctica does not disappear because of melting.
It is 24/365 below zero celcius there. Ice slides off
the land by glaciers that are broken up by ocean
- 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
If the open-loop gain of CO2 in the atmosphere is A
= 50 mK for 280 ppm, adding (positive) feedback β of the
output (temperature) to the input ([CO2]), the
overall climate sensitivity of CO2 will be
The climate modellers
had to explain the observed data (warming) only with CO2
and this determined their value of β. It has no physical
justification. With positive feedback, the climate system also
becomes unstable and that is why you hear a lot about "point
of no return" and so on. Yet, the climate is rather stable.
Every day and every year the temperature makes huge swings
from which it does recover. That shows the real feedback
is negative, which makes the overall climate sensitivity
A / (1+Aβ)
smaller than 50 mK for doubling of [CO2]
in the atmosphere.
- A temperature increase stronger at the poles
compared to the equator reduces 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.
- 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 --
past observations. That is as if I am going to calculate on
what day my wife will deliver her baby and I say "25 August,
give or take 2 days", . . . while in reality she is not even
- 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
- 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 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" . 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 by our peer review
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 Petition.
- 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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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'). The graph below shows the
correction factor to the data, as a function of the need of
the correction factor to the data. A.k.a., 'fudge factor'.
- Special propaganda
agencies are called in to help change peoples behavior. For example (Ereaut and
This is called 'indoctrination'
in political jargon. We know it from the Nazi German
Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda (RMVP)
and from the Soviet's Department for Agitation and Propaganda
(отдел агитации и пропаганды, otdel agitatsii i propagandy).
In 2018, the plan of having a global government is well on its
way, as EU president van Rompuy said:
(from "Revolutie door schuld: De radicale geschiedenis van
de eenwording der aarde" of Rein de Vries)
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).
In case you want to fund
this research, please consider depositing cryptocurrency in my Ethereum or
information, contact me at The University of The Algarve:
Prof. Peter Stallinga