Tag Archives: Inconvenient Truth

We are Now Tipping into a “Landsheidt Minimum” Mini Iceage. Earth Climate Predictions Using NASA Solar Sunspot Tracking, and Works by the late Theodor Landsheidt, and the Late Carl Smith with Geoff Sharp Contributions


We are quickly entering a period of deadly cold on Planet Earth.  NASA’s own Sunspot Tracking page makes specific note of the similarity between today’s declining Sunspot activity and a similar event the lasted from the year 1645 to the year 1715 called the “Maunder Minimum”.  This period in history is known for cold weather that made growing food difficult or impossible in Europe and North America. Disease and Famine and resulting Wars racked the planet.  Theodor Landscheidt was first to correlate these times with Solar Sunspot activity and El Nino/La Nina events to accurately predict temperatures in the Northern Half of the Earth.  Carl Smith and Geoff Sharp found the influence of the large planets Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus on the Sun.  The gravity of these huge planets tug on the sun, influencing the Sunspot cycles. Together, Landscheidt, and Smith, and Sharp, predict we are entering into a mini ice age similar to the Maunder Minimum, that could last 30 years or more.

Evidence for this cooling has been provided by Calibrated Satellite temperature measurements of the entire Earth, something that NASA’s thermometers on the surface cannot do.  These satellite temperature measurements show a slight cooling that began in 2003, not the warming that NASA/NOAA claims from surface thermometers they adjust to make warming appear.  If the Landscheidt predictions are correct, we are tipping into a period of deadly cooling, not uncomfortable warming as predicted by the IPCC International Panel on Climate Change at the United Nations.  They are not scientists.  They are Politicians who pay scientists.  They are getting what they pay for.  They are getting more predictions of Global Warming.

As the real trend of cooling continues, we will need all the energy sources we can find to compensate, including renewables and non-renewables. Politics and science have teamed up in the past to predict future cold and warm periods. They have always been wrong because the scientific mechanism was not fully understood.  This includes the current “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” predictions.  Look back at them and see how many of their predictions have come true.  NONE of them have come true.  Decide then for yourself who to believe.

Now we finally have a scientific explanation for these warm and cool periods, and it does not seem to follow the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Instead, CO2 follows the temperature changes with a delay of hundreds of years.  Today’s Global Warming theory has them backwards. Al Gore conveniently shifted the long term graphs to make it look the other way.  Check it.  The only time in recent history when warming followed CO2 was a coincidence from 1974 to 2003.  That was very convenient for Al Gore, a politician, not a scientist.  Before that (1950s and 1960s), and after that (2004 to now), temperatures went down while CO2 went up. NASA/NOAA Thermometer Records are wrong from 2003 to now, they are too hot.   NASA/NOAA adjusted their measured temperatures upward, showing a warming trend, by adjusting their own raw surface measurements that are very close to Satellite temperature measurements.  Why do they make these adjustments when their own raw data is confirmed by the satellites?  Ask them. NASA/NOAA also went back in time to adjust the past Thermometer records to make the past cooler than today.  Therefore, they continue to make claims of “The Hottest Year” each year.  There are other posts here on this site from other sources that clearly show this is true, including a simple presentation to Vladimir Putin from his scientists in 2004 making it very clear.  It also makes it very clear that the cost of trying to change the weather is infinite if you choose CO2 as the control knob.  It does not work.

Here is a link to that presentation:  http://iccfglobal.org/ppt/Illarionov-013004.html.ppt

The sunspots are directly correlated with temperature cycles on the Earth.  NASA themselves observed that this is true in the quote below.  The mechanism is not that the sun gets brighter or dimmer, but instead, the active sun blocks cosmic rays that make clouds.


The sun is in a declining cycle of activity right now, predicted by Landscheidt, Smith, and Sharp.  This means Cosmic rays are free to increase cloud cover on the Earth.  To see how all of this works, see another post on this site at:


We are being prepared for the opposite temperature trend than is truly happening for political and financial gain.  We will know for sure in the next few years, but the signs are already here.  Polar Ice caps are back to normal and growing.  Greenland is not melting. The Northwest Passage is closed.  Record Cold weather events are at least as frequent than Record Warm weather events.

NASA wrote: “Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.”

Here is a link to that NASA page:


NASA has since become attached to the Political Bandwagon of Global Warming supposedly caused by CO2, caused by Humans.  The science for this could not be more incorrect.  NASA abandoned their statement above, their understanding of the relationship between the sun’s activity and Earthly temperatures because they did not understand how it works.  They observed that the sun’s brightness only varies slightly, perhaps 3%.  Because of the attraction towards blaming Humans for “Climate Change”, they abandoned the clear relationship between sunspots and Earth’s Temperature.  Instead, they attached themselves to the unproven theory that CO2 causes temperature changes, and they have tried to explain how the tiny amount of CO2 contributed by humans (.03% of the CO2 in the atmosphere) can make the tiny amount of CO2 itself (3% of the atmosphere) change the weather.  It sounds very unlikely, doesn’t it? It is clearly a political position, not a scientific one.  What more likely explanation could there be for the Earth’s temperature cycles?  We must go back to NASA’s own statement above on the direct correlation between the Sunspot count and periods of deep cold or warmth on Earth.

A Meteorologist named Theodor Landscheidt (Died 2004) predicted today’s decline in Solar Activity back in 1989, and successfully predicted the weather trends that have accompanied it.  His forecast is for a period of decades where Earth’s weather will be similar to what was seen in the “Maunder Minimum”.  It is becoming more common to refer to today’s low Solar Activity period as the “Landscheidt Minimum”.  Per Landscheidt, we are already tipping into a dramatic cooling period that will deepen rapidly.

Here is a link to a page with Theodor Landsheidt’s papers.  Note he successfully predicted recent El Nino and La Nina events.


Here is a link to a page by Geoff Sharp on the late Carl Smith’s research on the effects of the Planets tugging on the Sun. Carl’s observations, going back 6,000 years describe the empirical connection between the orbiting movement of the Planets and the Solar Activity as measured by Sunspots.

Building on Theodor Landsheidt’s work, Carl has demonstrated even greater accuracy than Landsheidt how the Sun’s activity may be explained and predicted.

Geoff Sharp has contributed, standing on the strong shoulders of Landsheidt and Smith to refine and demonstrate further the direct empirical relationship between planetary movement and the Sun’s activity, and the Earth’s climate.


What does this mean regarding the Earth’s weather in the future?  If Theodor and Carl were right about the pattern of Solar activity we can expect in the near future, then Landscheidt’s prediction of a mini ice age in the first half of the 21st century will come true.  There will be predictable effects on the Earth’s weather, including El Nino and La Nina ocean events and Global temperatures.  We can expect dangerous, even deadly cooling in the next fifteen years with deeper cold and longer winters.  The end will depend upon how fast the Sun recovers from the influences of the larger planets.

Here is a link to a blog with discussions on this subject, giving credit to Theodor Landsheidt for his accurate predictions in the past.



How in the Universe do you connect Weather to Human Caused CO2? Here is How Earth Atmosphere Works, Including Ice Ages

Written by Paul Litely at Paullitely.com

How in the universe do we connect weather or climate event to Human Caused CO2? Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has been increasing for the last 7,000 years, while the Earth’s Average Temperature has been Decreasing for the last 3,000 years, according to Ice Cores.


Humans contribute less than 10% of the recent 10% rise in CO2. CO2 is only 1% of the Greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere. Water Vapor is 97% of the greenhouse gas in Earth’s Atmosphere and makes Clouds, rain, and snow with no help from CO2. Vast amounts of heat is absorbed and released as water evaporates and condenses and freezes. This is called “Changing Phases”. It is still H2O as liquid water, a gas, or a solid.

CO2 does not change phases to solid or liquid at Earthly Temperatures and Pressures. CO2 cannot store an release such vast amounts of heat energy. It therefore cannot dominate as a greenhouse gas. Global Warming Models so not attempt to model Water as liquid or ice because it is too complicated, and they admit it.  It is also too powerful.  So, lets just look at water as a vapor, a greenhouse gas like CO2, and compare the two.

  • Note the area on the graph below labeled “Infrared” this is the Sun’s. radiation that HEATS surfaces that don’t reflect it. Note that CO2 is only connected to a narrow part of the Infrared (heating) spectrum, while Water Vapor connects across most of it.  The red part of the graph is the bandwidth of the Sun’s Solar Irradiance (Brightness).  The blue part of the graph is the bandwidth of stored invisible heat radiation upward from the Earth’s surface that originally came from day sunshine. The grey parts of the graph are where the various greenhouse gasses absorb and re-radiate energy.  Note the “Hole” in the Water Vapor Grey area just under the Blue.  This is the only big part of stored surface heat that is NOT absorbed by water vapor or consumed by evaporation of water to make water vapor. Note that CO2 does nothing to stop that blue heat energy that escapes upward from the Surface of the Earth except for the right 1/4 of that blue peak. This clearly shows that ONLY water vapor is an important greenhouse gas. CO2 is just a tiny one-hump player. This should be enough proof, but there is much much more.

RadiationTransmittedByTheAtmosphere The huge bulk of infrared radiation (Wavelength 0.7 and greater is absorbed and precipitated by Water Vapor

CO2 is such a weak Greenhouse gas that it is insignificant regardless of the amount of Solar Radiation spectrum it interacts with. Water Vapor rules on its own as a greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is vastly more important for another reason.  Water Vapor changes state to water or ice, and back from water or ice, with huge Quantum (instant) heat absorption and release. Water vapor condenses into water when it saturates the air at a given temperature. On the other hand, CO2 precipitates directly to a solid, or sublimates directly to a gas, without passing through a liquid state, and does this at MINUS 109 degrees Farenheit under normal atmospheric temperature and pressure ranges. CO2 NEVER changes state near the Earth’s surface because the Earth’s surface or atmosphere Never gets down to Minus 109 Degrees. CO2 cannot move heat energy in the most important way possible.

Water Vapor at lower altitude temperature and pressure changes state into liquid water = clouds. Clouds are a very high efficiency reflector for Solar infrared (Heating) radiant energy, shading water and land with 90% efficiency. However clouds do let non-heating ultraviolet radiation through, giving you a sunburn on a Cloudy day. Water vapor rises because it is lighter than air. When it rises up into the cold upper air, water vapor condenses into clouds, rain, and snow. When this happens, Clouds radiate huge amounts of heat into space from the condensation of water vapor to water, rain, and ice. Global Surface Temperatures decline with increased Cloudiness because of reflecting shade and the transport of heat by evaporation from the surface to form clouds that radiate heat energy into space.

This plot and graph of observed temperatures vs cloudy days around the world clearly shows that more clouds are associated with colder temperatures.


Here is the recent relationship between Cloud Cover (Green) and Earth’s Surface Temperature (Blue).  It makes sense, doesn’t it? More clouds = cooling. We have all felt the effects.

HadCRUT3 and TropicalCloudCoverISCCP

Huge amounts of Solar radiant energy are needed every day to keep this negative feedback from going to cold. Compare the graph of recent Global Cloudiness below with the next graph of recent Global Temperature. Flip it over, and see if it fits the temperature graph better than the graph of CO2. There is No contest as the CO2 line does not follow measured temperatures. Meanwhile, temperatures clearly move directly opposite the cloudiness.


Does the Graph of Cloud Cover explain Global Temperature better than CO2?

AllCompared GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958 AndCO2

Global Temperatures move opposite to Global Cloud Cover.  Clouds are condensation from Water Vapor.  Clouds release heat into space when they form. Water vapor gets this heat by evaporation, cooling the Earth’s surface. Clouds are 90% efficient at reflecting the sun’s heating radiation into space. CO2 is an orphan. CO2 has no significant role.   Water Vapor is not controlled by CO2.  Global Water Vapor has stayed almost constant recently,  except it has declined at higher altitudes.  (See Top line in the graph below) Higher altitudes are where CO2 Global Warming theory said Water Vapor would increase to do more Greenhouse warming because heat from CO2 put it there.  That is the most basic Global Warming assumption.  It is clearly not happening. Neither is the predicted warming.

NOAA ESRL AtmospericSpecificHumidity GlobalMonthlyTempSince1948 With37monthRunningAverage

It is apparent that the increased Cloud Cover does not dent the amount of Water Vapor in the atmosphere at lower altitudes (Bottom two lines).  This makes sense, because the air has to be saturated with 100% humidity for clouds to form. The excess falls out as rain or snow. Humidity cannot get higher than 100%. Any added moisture in the air just drops out as clouds, rain, or snow. Clouds occur almost exclusively at lower altitudes, when the air cools and cannot hold any more water vapor.  The excess becomes clouds and rain and ice. In the chart above, the amount of water vapor at lower altitudes (bottom two lines) is almost constant, increasing slowly.  The Greenhouse effect of Water Vapor is therefore fairly constant now, on average. The only variable here is the amount of water vapor rising, making clouds, and falling down.

Global Surface temperatures are controlled by the extent of Cloud Cover, since the Sun’s “Irradiance” is very constant, and only varies by less than 1/4%.  Clouds form when the sun heats the Earth’s surfaces, including oceans, and the water vapor generated rises to cooler altitudes to make clouds. When Cloud Cover is widespread, the Sun’s Energy is reflected back into space with up to 90% efficiency.  When Cloud Cover is sparce, the land and seas can absorb the Sun’s Energy and the Earth warms.  Clouds act as “Venetian Blinds” to block or allow the Sun’s Energy through to heat the land and seas.  Here is a graph showing that relationship between Solar Energy being sent back into space (Red Line) and the Earth’s Global Temperature (Blue Line). They are opposites.  It seems the prime driver of Global Temperatures is clearly Cloud Cover.

NOAA CPC EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly and HadCRUT3 since1979 With37monthRunningAverage reflected radiation matches lower temps

When Cloudiness increases, Earth’s temperature decreases. When cloudiness decreases, Earth’s temperature increases. They move oppositely.

There is now strong evidence that the Sun controls Cloud Cover indirectly by controlling the amount of Cosmic Rays that reach the Earth to make clouds.


Here is a graph of that very striking inverse (opposite) relationship of Solar Activity as measured by sunspots (Blue), and historic cosmic rays. (Red).


It has been shown experimentally in Cloud Chambers, that high energy protons and neutrons that ARE Cosmic Rays, will make cloud formation easier.   The term for this is Nucleation. Periods of high sunspot. Activity make strong solar winds and magnetic fields that blow away Cosmic rays headed for Earth. So, It appears that the Sunspot cycles contribute strongly to the Earth’s global temperature cycles by this indirect method. More sunspots, less Cosmic Rays and less clouds to block the Sun from warming the Earth’s surfaces.  Less Sunspots, and more Cosmic Rays get through to make clouds form easier, making shade and reflecting the Sun’s energy back into space, cooling the Earth’s surfaces.  So THAT is how the Sun indirectly, but strongly, controls the Earth’s Global Temperature, not by changing the strength of sunlight. The Global warming models have NO accounting for this indirect control of clouds by the Sun, but simply say the intensity of sunshine (irradiance) is almost constant.

Here is how the sun’s control of clouds works according to one of the discoverers, Professor Henrik Svensmark.


There is other strong evidence that the Sun’s Activity, as evidenced by Sunspots, controls the Earth’s Global Temperature.  During two periods in the last 400 years the sun’s activity went down for several 11-year cycles in a row, resulting in periods of deadly cold for the Earth and Humans.  The “Maunder Minimum” lasted for about 60 years with almost no sunspots, a time known as the “Little Ice Age”. Another dip in the Sun’s activity occurred about 200 years ago, known as the “Dalton Minimum”.  Although not as long or deep, it, too resulted in thousands of people dying of freezing cold or starvation from not being able to grow crops because of very long winters.  One year of low solar activity had no summer at all.  American Indians recall a year of snow on the ground in Florida.

It works in reverse, too. In recent times, we have had high numbers of Sunspots, and that has resulted in the “Modern Maximum”, where winters are reasonably short and summers long enough to grow food, with some uncomfortably warm periods in the 1890’s and 1930’s, much warmer than today. Note: The hot 1930’s are being denied and covered up by official record keepers (see my blog with detailed graphs). Worldwide Temperature records have been manipulated to lower the temperatures shown in the first half of the 1900s and to raise the temperatures shown since then up to today to make recent times to appear warmer. See detailed graphs in the Paullitely.com Blog entry beginning with HadCRUT.

Here below is a graph of the Solar Activity sunspot cycles going back 400 years. See the notations for the deadly little ice ages and the recent Modern Maximum warm period where we have thrived.

Sunspot_Numbers_History 1600 to 2000

Although we do not have sunspot records back that far, it is important to see that ice cores show the Earth’s surface temperatures were much much warmer than today for years about 1100 to 1300 AD. This was the time of enlightenment and Renaissance, when food was plenty and cold weather did not kill in Europe. see chart below. Of course, humans did not contribute much CO2 back then, so human made CO2 could not have caused it.


See the colored chart below of recent Sunspot measurements. The Last two Sunspot cycles through today are numbered #23 and #24. They have peaks that are lower than the peak before by 30% each time.  The current Sunspot peak #24 is delayed, and has a “Double Hump”.  This same formation happened at the beginning of the long cold Maunder Minimum with almost no sunspots that lasted for 60 years of very cold temperatures on Earth.  There is a strong possibility we are headed there again right now, to a new mini-iceage, as predicted in 1989 by Theodor Landscheidt. If so, we are not looking at a “Globalwarming” future, but instead, an extended “Globalcooling” period that will be deadly, as it was each of the last times the sun got stuck at low sunspot activity.

Look closely at at this graph of the declining Sunspot cycles we are in. This pattern was seen going into the Maunder Minimum, and the next major peak took 60 years to appear, and we froze. We don’t know that will happen, but it is likely the next peak could be lower than this one we are in – Cycle 24.


We are now at the right hand edge of the roller coaster ride, headed for the bottom again.  We don’t know if there is a Cycle #25 hump coming, or how big it may be.  What we do know is that these low solar activity cycles come around about every 200 years as the Sun’s magnetic poles get “Stuck” in neutral or lock on to each other when trying to switch places.  This is happening now, right on time, according to Theodor Landscheidt, and the Sun has not finished flipping poles as of 2016.  In 5 years, it could get stuck trying to flip. It surely looks to many, many of us like deadly cold weather is ahead for some time, as in the past mini ice ages.  Evidence of Global Cooling is all around us.

Before you dismiss the following facts, read the other posts on this site regarding how ALL claims of Global Warming are based on Temperature Records that have been changed to MAKE warming while the raw measurements show cooling. Polar ice is nearly back to normal in 2016. Antarctic ice is the highest in 35 years. Greenland did not seen a summer in 2015 and has added ice over 85% of its surface. Sidney Australia had its first snow since 1835 in this year, 2015.

The last few years have brought more and more polar ice, Colder and longer Winters, and Record low temperatures, even in the Summer. The Modern Little Ice Age may last for 20 years or it may go on for 60 years as it did in the 1600’s. Each new Solar Cycle from high to low takes 11 years from the last one.  We will see continued cooling at least that long from now.  The cold caused by lower and lower peaks at Sunspot Cycle #23 and #24 are still unfolding. it can take 11 years for the Earth to change temperature direction and follow the sun This current period of low Solar Activity is called the Landscheidt Grand Minimum, for Theodor Landscheidt, who predicted it back in 1989.  He accurately predicted global weather from the Sun’s declining activity and ocean currents. Here is an article on that by Landscheidt himself:


The long ice ages can also be explained. What is worrying some scientists, and me, is what if the amount of Cosmic Rays heading for Earth increase so they are very very intense – too much for the Sun to block? The Sun’s solar winds and magnetic fields can only divert just so much of the incoming cosmic rays. Very intense cosmic ray exposure may overcome the Sun’s protection completely. It appears that this is what happens to make the deep 100,000 Year ice ages that have occurred on Earth.  Here is a graph of the history going back 420,000 Years.  Note the long deep ice ages, and the short warm peaks. We are right now just a speck on the right side of the red box on a warm peak now, ready to fall back down into a deep ice age, as before.


Here is a magnification of that red box, showing that we are at the end of it. Temperatures have been declining for the last 3000 years. If we fall off that cliff, the little ice ages we are discussing here will be insignificant. Sheer survival of species, including humans, will be at great risk. The cost of simply keeping warm and finding/making food will be staggering, and societies will be shredded. The 125,000 year Mayan Calendar has just reset.

GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC

An explanation for the great ice ages seems to be as follows, based on astronomy observations. The solar system “Bobs” up and down through the plane of our Galaxy, the “Milky Way”.  Right now, we are in the plane of the disc. Because we cannot see very far through the thick middle layer, we are protected from most of the Cosmic rays coming from the other stars in the Milky Way and the supermassive black hole at its center.  Our exposure is blocked by nearby stars and gas clouds. This protection only lasts for about 13,000 years, Then the Solar System moves out to clear space where cosmic rays from most of the Milky Way Galaxy and beyond can reach us unobstructed.

We seem to be moving out of safety and into the dense stream of cosmic rays that are so strong that our Sun cannot block them. As that happens, the Earth will rapidly cloud over and cool, making the next Ice Age.  Ice Ages last about 100,000 years.  This effect compounds the Sun’s current inactivity.  The little ice age we may be entering may just tip over right into the next grand ice age for 100,000 years. As a result,  we may see a very, very rapid descent into dense cloud cover and even more intense, deadly cold.  The Landsheidt Minimum little ice age we are in now will most likely reach the coldest by 2025, and it could stay there for decades as it did in the Maunder Minimum. OR, the sun may come unstuck from it’s state of no magnetic poles and help us warm up first. Either way, we are already on the way down the roller coaster ramp for a period of significant cooling.

There is a delay of the effect of the sun’s cycles and the Earth’s cooling of approximately one solar cycle.  Heating took time. Cooling takes time.  Two lower and lower solar cycles have just occurred.  We have not seen the full effects of the past two lower solar cycles. We will not see the full effects for another 11 to 20 years.  Even a strong recovery of the Sun, after it finishes flipping North and South magnetic poles, may shield us for a while longer, but it seems it will eventually be overpowered by intense cosmic rays.

Here is an artists representation of the “Bobbing” of the Earth and Solar System through the plane of the Milky Way.  It takes approximately 25,000 years to pass through the central disk of the Milky Way, then about 100,000 years to return.  The 25,000 years corresponds to the length of the Mayan Calendar, that coincidentally just ended, along with the current warm period on Earth.  During that passage, the Disk of the Milky Way itself shields us from the most intense cosmic rays, and the Sun can deflect them when the Sun is Active with Sunspots. During the next approximate 100,000 years, the solar system is outside the central disk of the Milky Way, and is exposed to intense Cosmic Rays from the Ultra-Massive Black Hole at the center of the Milky Way, as well as the entire plane of other active radiant objects. During this time, the Sun is not powerful enough to deflect this intense bombardment of Earth, and Earth clouds over into a Major Ice Age until the Solar System returns to the protection of the central Disk of the Milky Way.

There is a video on YouTube that goes with this image. It is accompanied by dire warnings of the social consequences, and correlations with the Mayan Calendar.

Tipping  into the next Major Ice Age will not be abrupt because it takes thousands of years.  However, tipping into the Landscheidt Mini Ice Age, as we are today, will be very abrupt if the Maunder Minimum is being repeated as Landscheidt, and Carl Smith and Geoff Sharp predicted.  The Maunder Minimum descended in a matter of a few decades with a pattern of declining Sunspot activity that is being ecoed today.

It is deadly cold we should be preparing for, not a future of Global Warming and uncomfortable warmth. The evidence will be mounting undeniably in the next few years.  The “Maunder Minimum” from 1645 to 1715 was accompanied by wars, starvation, plagues and persecution by extremists who believed our God had been offended, so he made it deadly cold.  European Rivers froze over annually, including the Thames in England.  Snow stuck to the ground for most of the year.  The sun was obscured by clouds for long periods.  It is known as “The Dark Ages” because it was dark.   We may be WISHING FOR WARMING as happened in the years 1100 to 1300, whose benefit was the ability to grow food further towards the Earth’s Poles. The Earth was as much as two degrees  warmer than now.  There were Vineyards in England. The street signs remain today celebrating them.  Food was abundant, and disease was less prevalent.  Wars were infrequent.  Live was easier.  It is known as the “Medieval Warm Period”, and “The Age of Enlightenment”.  Warmth is good.  Cold is deadly.

In the meantime, the Atmosphere is getting richer in CO2, and that is plant food. Canadians direct the exhaust from their propane heaters into their greenhouses to increase the CO2 and double plant growth during their short Summers.  Ironically, today’s rising CO2 levels have increased forest growth on Earth. More CO2 can make it easier to grow food during the upcoming deadly cold with very short summers.  CO2 is not a poison, or we would not put it into our soft drinks and carbonated water and greenhouses.

Official Global Warming model temperatures closely follow the amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. It is a straight line for most of the last 1500 years.  How does it line up with Earths actual temperatures over the last 1500 years?

Click to enlarge the graph. Blue Is the IPCC model that uses CO2 to graph temperature changes.. Red are actual temperature changes from ice core sample measurements and recent Satellite measurements.  The Models have ironed out natural temperature changes in favor of showing a nearly straight history with a recent upturn.  Why? What do you believe?

Featured Image -- 663

High levels of CO2 have to be very high to be dangerous to humans. Submarines and the International. Space station keep CO2 levels as high as 4,000 parts par million, or 10 times our 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 today. Our breath can be 10 times higher, at 40,000 ppm when we exhale. CO2 is not the Devil. It is a green plant’s best friend along with water and sunlight.

The grand experiment of looking for proof of Global Warming predictions in nature has failed so miserably that the promoters of the story have to alter raw historic records and MAKE warming to keep fundraising and salaries and grants totaling about $1Billion per day worldwide. Aside from encouraging solar and wind power at great expense with government subsidies, We get NOTHING for it. We get inconveniences and more expensive basics.. Food, energy, and shelter, so the poorest suffer the most. Promoters of Global Warming theory refuse to continue to refer to their position as what it is: CO2 Globalwarming. That is their basic claim. They have abandoned it because it is not happening except by their adjustments to raw temperature data. Supporters of the Global Warming models (NOAA, USHCN) have even adjusted historic published temperature data down in the past and up in recent times to track with the increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

NOAA USHCN Adjustments Versus Atmospheric CO2

Soon, we will have to Avoid using the term ClimateChange, because we now need that term for the inescapable little ice age we have entered. We really could use some Globalwarming after all, but I would not not count on it, from what I can see.

Environmentalism is a wonderful thing, and I am an avid environmentalist.  That is why I have studied this Global Warming subject for six years.   Wasteful fundraising to make or stop the weather is not a good thing.  It is literally impossible for humans to change the weather, but $1billion per day pays those who say they can. Imagine what we could do to make life better for our fellow humans, animals, plants and our lovely planet with that money.  Instead, it is being wasted where it makes no positive difference.  Watch for the next United Nations IPCC fundraiser and their outrageous forecasts that have not come true. There has been no global warming for 18 years, and we did not stop it. It just did not happen as they predicted. Instead of excuses, we need a revised model, or what are they being paid for? We should at least be using some of that money to prepare for what is really coming… deadly cold. The survival of millions of people will depend upon it. Reality is pressing ahead.


Portrait of Vladimir Putin

Portrait of Vladimir Putin

A significant hurdle confronting negotiators trying to develop a strong climate agreement in Paris in December comes from Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has said “there is no global warming, that this is a fraud to restrain the industrial development of several countries including Russia,” as described by Stanislav Belkovsky, a Russian political analyst.

Russia’s pledged carbon dioxide reductions ahead of the Paris talks reflect Putin’s skepticism. They actually amount to an increase in emissions. Russia has said its emissions will be “70 to 75 percent” of 1990 levels by 2030 – which amounts to an increase in emissions from 2012 levels since Russian emissions are currently far below the levels produced in the Soviet era.

Putin’s skepticism dates from the early 2000s, when, according to Andrey Illarionov, Putin’s senior economic advisor at the time, his staff “did very, very extensive work trying to understand all sides of the climate debate. We found that, while climate change does exist, it is cyclical, and the anthropogenic role is very limited. It became clear that the climate is a complicated system and that, so far, the evidence presented for the need to ‘fight’ global warming was rather unfounded.”

 H. Sterling Burnett

In 2004, for the Kyoto Convention, Putin saw this Powerpoint Presentation by Russian Scientists and Economists about CO2 Global Warming. See all the Charts and Graphs Presented Then and see if You Agree With Him Today.

In the Beginning, was the seminal meeting in Kyoto to pressure the industrialized nations of the world to do something about Human Caused Global Warming due to burning fossil fuels, as theorized by the IPCC.  The theory had not yet been proven by the test of time, but had been politicized by Al Gore’s Book and Film “Inconvenient Truth”  The resultant social and political environment urged industrialized nations to take dramatic action because, IF the IPCC was right, immediate action was required to prevent a climate apocalypse, or it would be impossible to stop later.

But what did non-politicized scientists and economists see when examining the facts?  Be sure to see ALL of the charts and graphs in this Russian presentation and then make up your own mind as if you were Putin:


Note: This online links to the Powerpoint presentation have been blocked off and on as of August 1, 2016.  If it doesn’t work, try again later. I was able to find the title page of the presentation, shown here. The presentation is so clear and definite showing that Humans cannot change the weather using CO2, and that the social and economic damages from trying to do the impossible are, of course, extreme without end.Kyoto Protocol and Russia Illarionov-013004html

Here is a link to the Guardian Article of May 19, 2004 with a summary. Below the link is the text of the article it links to:


“Leading Russian scientists told President Vladimir Putin yesterday that the Kyoto emissions treaty discriminates against Russia, would damage its economy and would not significantly reduce global warming, increasing the chance that the Kremlin will refuse to ratify the agreement.

Experts from the Russian Academy of Sciences submitted a report to the Kremlin containing their long-awaited assessment of the scientific virtues of the pact for Russia. The document, according to the Interfax news agency, said: “Its effectiveness in reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in line with the framework convention on the climate change is low.”

The scientists added that global warming was occurring, but that to conclude that “the warming is occurring exclusively due to anthropogenic pollutants, namely, manmade emissions” was questionable.

They said the total benefit to Russia would be a small drop in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air over the next 10 years, but the total cost of the pact’s emission-reduction measures would be “tens of trillions of dollars over a hundred years”.

The report said: “If Russia ratifies the Kyoto protocol, it would have to either reduce its economic growth or buy additional quotas on greenhouse emissions.” The scientists added that Russia’s extreme climate was not taken into account by the protocol.

The report, signed by a fierce Kyoto critic, Yuri Israel, will give Mr Putin the scientific justification he needs to kill off the treaty.

To come into effect, the 1997 protocol must be ratified by at least 55 countries which accounted for 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. After the US and other key states rejected the pact, Russia’s ratification became key for it to come into effect.

Mr Putin has procrastinated over the decision for months, saying he will not sign anything while it remains against Russia’s national interests, yet apparently holding out for last minute concessions from the EU.

His key adviser, Andrei Illarionov, has repeatedly panned the treaty, saying it would amount to an “economic Auschwitz” for growth in Russia, where the Kremlin has ambitiously pledged to double GDP in 10 years.

On Friday, a Russia-EU summit in Moscow will see increased pressure for Russia to sign. Yet Mr Putin is thought to be torn between rejecting the treaty, which could ease Moscow’s frayed relations with Washington and remove perceived constraints on economic growth, and ratifying it, which would improve its standing with the EU, its new, expanding neighbour.

The US is responsible for 24% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, while Russia accounts for 17.4%. Moscow in any case faces a daunting task in meeting treaty requirements, given its legacy of polluting Soviet industries.

The EU, Japan and the rest of the developed world adopted the agreement more than three years ago.”

Annual “COP” fundraisers have put political and social pressure on world governments to continue with these agreements.  These United Nations fundraisers and their extortion funds THEM, and also gets commitments for internal spending that keeps lots of Scientists and Politicians employed.  “Green Energy” projects are subsidized regardless of economic damage to the economy of nations and the consequential higher cost of living for those least able to afford it as their energy bills leap up.  All of this is allowed to continue, as long as nobody challenges the basic assumption that humans and CO2 control the Earth’s Climate despite ample extensive evidence that it does not.

Putin and RUSSIA have been laughing at us since then. So has CHINA and INDIA, because they all saw the same information from their own Scientists and Economists. However,  Political, Social, and Economic extortion by the United Nations IPCC and the United States anti Fossil Fuel movement, has kept them in line… but not for long… as the real climate will “Trump” “Politicized Science”.  Of course, nobody will pay for these transgressions, and that is why they can do it.

We in the United States, and in Russia, and China and India and Europe, and in Australia, did not do independent analysis of the core theory of Human Caused CO2 Global Warming Climate Change… or did we?  The Emperor will soon be exposed as having no clothes, but surely he will not be embarassed.  Instead, he will claim, as usual, that “He knows better than we do what is good for us” despite the damage done.  Who is “He”? look to the United Nations, who created the IPCC, and conspired with the Politicized Scientists they employed, to grab centralized political, social, and economic power worldwide.  There is a touch of evil there. Beware, they will not give up their agenda.




UK HadCRUT, US NASA GISS, US NCDC, AustraliaMet ALL Altered Their Official Temperature Data Records to Make Warming – See Graphs of the changes Here

UK HadCRUT, US NASA GISS, US NCDC, AustraliaMet ALL Altered Their Temperature Data Records to Make Warming – See Graphs Here

Written by Paul Litely at Paullitely.com

These tweets link to a site that clearly shows with
how temperature records were and are manipulated all over the world. The early half of the 1900’s were made to look colder while the last half of the 1900’s are made to look warmer, right into the 2000’s. Peaks of warming in the past were clipped off. Troughs of cooling were also clipped off, all to create a warming trend, to suppress the effects of ocean El Ninos and La Mina’s, and to enable new “Record” High temperatures today. So now we can see how claims are made today that new record warm temperatures are happening…. when they are not. We can also see how the long straight handle of the “Hockeystick” IPCC graphs are made from past S curves. Their models cannot even predict the PAST. Who can you trust if they change the actual Raw measurements in an obvious slant to match their story?
Click on the links below to see how nearly all “Authorities” on temperature records have tilted or clipped their records to make warming that does not exist. Their patterns are obviously self-serving.

One justification given for making “Homogenizing” adjustments is because some thermometers used started out in open areas, but paving and buildings were added nearby. They call this the “heat island” effect, because replacing soil and greenery with Manmade structures adds heat. However, this would only justify LOWERING recent measurements to compensate. What we observe is lowering earlier measurements and raising recent measurements. That is opposite of the “Heat Island”effect, so is plainly arbitrary change to support their Global Warming agenda. Notably, there has been such scrutiny of recent measurements that this “Fudging” no longer can be done.

For current articles with more proof of misrepresentations of the raw measurements, go to my Twitter @paullitely to see more. A common technique today is to omit measurements of temperature and Ice and sea level, etc for the most recent years after 2012. Recent years trends have shown dramatic cooling Temperatures, and return of arctic ice to even above average. Severe warm weather weather event tornados and hurricanes have become much less common. This does not support the Global Warming agenda, so recent measurements are being delayed publication as long as possible.

Twitter @paullitely: < US NCDC May2008-Sep2014 temperature records altered showing more #CO2 #globalwarming #climatechange
GRAPH OF CHANGES MADE http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif

Twitter @paullitely: http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3+4%20MaturityDiagramSince20080225.gif EastAnglia HadCRUT FEB2008-AUG2014 #temperaturedata record altered showing more #CO2 #globalwarming #climatechange

Twitter @paullitely: http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif NASA GoddardInSpaceStudies May2008-Sep2014 alters temperature record showing more #CO2 #globalwarming #climatechange

Twitter @paullitely: http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISS%20ChangeVersion3minus2.gif NASA GoddardInstituteSpaceStudies Nov2011 altered temperature record showing more #CO2 #globalwarming #climatechange

NASA GISS ARTICLE: http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/

Twitter @paullitely: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NCDC%20ChangeVersion2-3Diagram201104-201105.gif US NCDC April 2011 altered temperature records showing more #CO2 #globalwarming #climatechange

Twitter @paullitely: #Australia “Scientists” Caught Red-Handed making up #CO2 #globalwarming trends http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/19/australian-meteorologists-caught-fudging-numbers

Twitter @paullitely: #Australia again way out front -now- on #deadly #globalcooling Don’t trust Bureau of Meteorology, says Abbott govt http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/dont-trust-bureau-of-meteorology-says-abbotts-business-advisor-54948

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giever who endorsed Obama now Says President is ‘Ridiculous’ and ‘DeadWrong’ on Global Warming

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘Global warming is a non-problem’

‘I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong.’

‘Global warming really has become a new religion.’

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November…I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position.’

‘We have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming.’
By: Marc Morano – Climate Depot July 6, 2015
Climate Depot Exclusive

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, declared his dissent on man-made global warming claims at a Nobel forum on July 1, 2015.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Dr. Giaever announced during his speech titled “Global Warming Revisited.”

Image result for ivar giaever

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, received the 1973 physics Nobel for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever delivered his remarks at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, which drew 65 recipients of the prize. Giaever is also featured in the new documentary “Climate Hustle”, set for release in Fall 2015.

Giaever was one of President Obama’s key scientific supporters in 2008 when he joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. Giaever signed his name to the letter which read in part: “The country urgently needs a visionary leader…We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But seven years after signing the letter, Giaever now mocks President Obama for warning that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change”. Giaever called it a “ridiculous statement.”

“That is what he said. That is a ridiculous statement,” Giaever explained.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said. (Watch Giaever’s full 30-minute July 1 speech here.)

“How can he say that? I think Obama is a clever person, but he gets bad advice. Global warming is all wet,” he added.

“Obama said last year that 2014 is hottest year ever. But it’s not true. It’s not the hottest,” Giaever noted. [Note: Other scientists have reversed themselves on climate change. See:

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

The Nobel physicist questioned the basis for rising carbon dioxide fears.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever explained.
Global Warming ‘a new religion’

Giaever said his climate research was eye opening. “I was horrified by what I found” after researching the issue in 2012, he noted.

“Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Concern Over ‘Successful’ UN Climate Treaty

“I am worried very much about the [UN] conference in Paris in November. I really worry about that. Because the [2009 UN] conference was in Copenhagen and that almost became a disaster but nothing got decided. But now I think that the people who are alarmist are in a very strong position,” Giaever said.

“The facts are that in the last 100 years we have measured the temperatures it has gone up .8 degrees and everything in the world has gotten better. So how can they say it’s going to get worse when we have the evidence? We live longer, better health, and better everything. But if it goes up another .8 degrees we are going to die I guess,” he noted.

“I would say that the global warming is basically a non-problem. Just leave it alone and it will take care of itself. It is almost very hard for me to understand why almost every government in Europe — except for Polish government — is worried about global warming. It must be politics.”

“So far we have left the world in better shape than when we arrived, and this will continue with one exception — we have to stop wasting huge, I mean huge amounts of money on global warming. We have to do that or that may take us backwards. People think that is sustainable but it is not sustainable.

On Global Temperatures & CO2

Giaever noted that global temperatures have halted for the past 18 plus years. [Editor’s Note: Climate Depot is honored that Giaever used an exclusive Climate Depot graph showing the RSS satellite data of an 18 year plus standstill in temperatures at 8:48 min. into video.]

The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)

Giaever accused NASA and federal scientists of “fiddling” with temperatures.

“They can fiddle with the data. That is what NASA does.”

“You cannot believe the people — the alarmists — who say CO2 is a terrible thing. Its not true, its absolutely not true,” Giaever continued while showing a slide asking: ‘Do you believe CO2 is a major climate gas?’

“I think the temperature has been amazingly stable. What is the optimum temperature of the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle. No one has told me what the optimal temperature of the earth should be,” he said.

“How can you possibly measure the average temperature for the whole earth and come up with a fraction of a degree. I think the average temperature of earth is equal to the emperor’s new clothes. How can you think it can measure this to a fraction of a degree? It’s ridiculous,” he added.

Silencing Debate

Giaever accused Nature Magazine of “wanting to cash in on the [climate] fad.”

“My friends said I should not make fun of Nature because then they won’t publish my papers,” he explained.

“No one mentions how important CO2 is for plant growth. It’s a wonderful thing. Plants are really starving. They don’t talk about how good it is for agriculture that CO2 is increasing,” he added.

Extreme Weather claims

“The other thing that amazes me is that when you talk about climate change it is always going to be the worst. It’s got to be better someplace for heaven’s sake. It can’t always be to the worse,” he said.

“Then comes the clincher. If climate change does not scare people we can scare people talking about the extreme weather,” Giaever said.

“For the last hundred years, the ocean has risen 20 cm — but for the previous hundred years the ocean also has risen 20 cm and for the last 300 years, the ocean has also risen 20 cm per 100 years. So there is no unusual rise in sea level. And to be sure you understand that I will repeat it. There is no unusual rise in sea level,” Giaever said.

“If anything we have entered period of low hurricanes. These are the facts,” he continued.

“You don’t’ have to even be a scientist to look at these figures and you understand what it says,” he added.

“Same thing is for tornadoes. We are in a low period on in U.S.” (See:

Extreme weather failing to follow ‘global warming’ predictions: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Droughts, Floods, Wildfires, all see no trend or declining trends


Media Hype

“What people say is not true. I spoke to a journalist with [German newspaper Die Welt yesterday…and I asked how many articles he published that says global warming is a good thing. He said I probably don’t publish them at all. Its always a negative. Always,” Giever said.

Energy Poverty

“They say refugees are trying to cross the Mediterranean. These people are not fleeing global warming, they are fleeing poverty,” he noted.

“If you want to help Africa, help them out of poverty, do not try to build solar cells and windmills,” he added.

“Are you wasting money on solar cells and windmills rather than helping people? These people have been misled. It costs money in the end to that. Windmills cost money.”

“Cheap energy is what made us so rich and now suddenly people don’t want it anymore.”

“People say oil companies are the big bad people. I don’t understand why they are worse than the windmill companies. General Electric makes windmills. They don’t tell you that they are not economical because they make money on it. But nobody protests GE, but they protest Exxon who makes oil,” he noted.


Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group’s promotion of man-made global warming fears.

In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: ‘Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen…Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science’

Other prominent scientists are speaking up skeptically about man-made global warming claims. See:

Prominent Scientist Dissents: Renowned glaciologist declares global warming is ‘going to be a big plus’ – Fears ‘Frightening’ Cooling – Warns scientists are ‘prostituting their science’

Giaever has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics. (Watch news coverage here.)

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as ‘simply incorrect’ on global warming: ‘We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated’

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot’s more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can’t be discussed — just like religion…there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

Related Links:

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming

– Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: ‘The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.’

Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’

2012: Nobel Prize Winning Physicist Ivar Giaever: ‘Is climate change pseudoscience?…the answer is: absolutely’ — Derides global warming as a ‘religion’

– ‘He derided the Nobel committees for awarding Al Gore and R.K. Pachauri a peace prize, and called agreement with the evidence of climate change a ‘religion’… the measurement of the global average temperature rise of 0.8 degrees over 150 years remarkably unlikely to be accurate, because of the difficulties with precision for such measurements—and small enough not to matter in any case: “What does it mean that the temperature has gone up 0.8 degrees? Probably nothing.”

When Science IS Fiction: Nobel Physics laureate Ivar Giaever has called global warming (aka. climate change) a ‘new religion’

-When scientists emulate spiritual prophets, they overstep all ethical bounds. In doing so, they forfeit our confidence’

American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change: No Longer ‘Incontrovertible,’ But Still Unacceptable

Skeptic win… American Physical Society removes ‘incontrovertible’ from climate change position

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

– Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report

Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares

Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore

Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’

‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’

German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’

UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’

Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

View Article here:

Nothing can Compete with Water, Working with the Sun to Control the Earth’s Temperature

by Paullitely

The truth is that the normal water cycle moves more heat around exponentially than ANY greenhouse gas. Water evaporating at the surface absorbs vast amount of Solar energy. Water condensing into clouds at altitude releases vast amounts of that stored energy and radiates it into space. Cloud tops also reflect 90% of solar infrared heating radiation back into space. 97% of Greenhouse Gas is water vapor itself. CO2 is at most .03% of the atmosphere, and 3% of greenhouse gasses. NOTHING can compete with water, working with the Sun, to govern the Earth’s temperature. The Sun is the only major source of heat. Clouds are the only major heat re-Radiator. Man cannot possibly control the Sun Or Clouds, so Man cannot Control the Weather. ManMade CO2 Globalwarming is a theory that has been disproven clearly as Forecasted Warming has failed over the last 18 years. No amount of excuses will explain it, only changing the theory can explain it. So where are the new formulas and computer models? Show me and I May agree. See considerthisinfo.com for the full picture.

Featured Image -- 621

NOAA Releases New Pause-Buster Global Surface Temperature Data and Immediately Claims Record-High Temps for May 2015 – What a Surprise!

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

NOAA recently published their State of the Climate Report for May 2015. Under the heading of Global Summary Information, they note:

Note: With this report and data release, the National Centers for Environmental Information is transitioning to improved versions of its global land (GHCN-M version 3.3.0) and ocean (ERSST version 4.0.0) datasets. Please note that anomalies and ranks reflect the historical record according to these updated versions. Historical months and years may differ from what was reported in previous reports. For more, please visit the associated FAQ and supplemental information.

But of course we know the adjustments that led to the new NOAA ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data (the biggest changes to the NOAA data took place in the ocean portion) are not supported during the global warming slowdown period by the night marine air temperature dataset (HadNMAT2 from the UKMO) that…

View original post 488 more words

But The Ice Is Getting Thicker, Mr Shukman!

It is very revealing they the amount of time over freezing 0 degrees Centigrade is declining. It is also colder than average. So how does the ice melt under those conditions?


By Paul Homewood



As part of their propaganda drive for Paris, the BBC’s “Science” Editor has taken a fossil fuel powered trip to the Arctic, to call in on a fossil fuel powered Norwegian scientific expedition, which is measuring and monitoring Arctic ice.

The expedition ship has been escorted into the ice pack by an icebreaker, the KV Svalbard, which will no doubt help to break up the ice a little bit more!

Shukman reports:

Changes in the Arctic Ocean are so profound that the region is entering what amounts to “a new era”, according to Norwegian scientists.

A switch from a permanent cover of thick ice to a new state where thinner ice vanishes in the summer will have far-reaching implications, they say.

The Norwegian Polar Institute has been mounting an expedition to the Arctic Ocean during the year’s coldest months.

Scientists have to brave extreme temperatures…

View original post 377 more words

Verifiable Details: “Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying ‘Master Algorithm’ To Whitewash Temperature History” – from Notrickzone.com and by Mike Brakey

Bombshell: Comprehensive Analysis Reveals NOAA Wrongfully Applying “Master Algorithm” To Whitewash Temperature History

A bit on the long side, but stunning to say the least. Energy physicist Mike Brakey tells us why he is not surprised the NOAA might be investigated by Congress. (Sticky post). 

The “Trick” to Controlling the Climate Agenda
By Mike Brakey

Brakey_1Last April, in a short, narrated YouTube series titled, Black Swan Climate Theory [1] (BSCT) irrefutable evidence was presented that sometime between 2011 and 2015 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had on two occasions rewritten its own version of Maine’s statewide climate history. The gist of my findings was that I believe I caught NOAA purposefully using computer code (algorithms [2]) to lower historic temperatures to promote present day temperatures as the warmest on record. The image above is from the new YouTube series posted after NOAA’s acknowledgement that they had indeed made improvements to Maine’s climate history.

On May 6, 2015, NOAA confirmed in writing that the 151°F of Fudging—the Massive Rewrite of Maine Climate History, [3 ] reported in Black Swan Climate Theory [4] (BSCT) study was no accident. NOAA states the changes were intentional and were justified! NOAA’s written statement included these words [5]:

…improvements in the dataset, and brings our value much more in line with what was observed at the time. The new method used stations in neighboring Canada to inform estimates for data-sparse areas within Maine (a great improvement).”

Brakey_2NOAA’s statement about the need to recently introduce colder Canadian data into Maine’s past climate history was highly fishy, to say the least. I decided to rework the research parameters to eliminate possible Canadian temperature infusion and confusion. Rather than compare my archived data for Lewiston/Auburn, Maine (Zone 19) to NOAA’s “statewide” [6] data for 32 Zones as I did in BSCT, I limited my analysis to NOAA’s southern interior data (CD 2) [7]. Since Lewiston/Auburn is centered in NOAA’s Maine southern interior climate region (see blue region of state chart), the two sets of numbers should essentially be identical. However, as I theorize, my findings again suggest NOAA is using a computer algorithm to inflate heating degree-days with all the raw climate data processed by an average of more than 10 percent.

This new approach is documented on our new narrated PowerPoint series, Black Swan Climate Theory II [8] (BSCTII). It will be posted on YouTube by early June 2015. Here are some of the highlights of our findings.

Incredible discrepancy

There remained an incredible discrepancy of Heating Degree Days (HDD) between the two southern interior Maine data sets.


The green-shaded area of the above chart to the right represents NOAA’s HDD values for the southern interior region of Maine, which I downloaded in May 2015. The black bars represent the raw HDD data that I gathered for Lewiston/Auburn over the last 10 years. I observed negligible difference between NOAA’s data for southern interior Maine and for the entire state of Maine. The annual average HDD’s for 1895 to 2014 were:

* 7,565 based on the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn;
* 8,276 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the entire state of Maine; and
* 8,381 based on NOAA’s 2015 data for the southern interior region of Maine (105 HDD colder than statewide! See NOAA table below).


Flawed NOAA algorithms

I expected the HDD’s for the state’s entire 32 zones to be greater than for Lewiston/Auburn’s Zone 19 because the statewide NOAA data includes the vast colder regions in the northern part of the state. However, NOAA’s published 2015 data indicates the southern interior region of Maine runs 0.288°F colder on average over the last 119 years! This points out another of many flaws in the NOAA data when an agency begins relying on computer algorithms over basic clean data from Mother Nature.

As I lay out my case in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA adjusted the data for all of Maine and for the southern interior region using the same algorithm shown in the first chart. NOAA’s HDD adjustments were kept small in the most recent decade then grew substantially in earlier decades of the 19th and 20th centuries.


The chart above is drawn from BSCTII, Part 3 of 6, YouTube presentation [9]. In the presentation, step-by-step, I compared the raw data for Lewiston/Auburn to NOAA’s data for the state of Maine. I was able to discern the two algorithms that I believe NOAA implemented in 2011 and in 2014. Mother Nature’s data is the solid black line in the chart. Deviations from Mother Nature is shown as the blue line (percentage adjustment detected in 2013 archived data); the red line shows the percentage adjustment made in 2014 (detected in 2015). The green line is the master algorithm, the net effect of the two adjustments (blue and red lines).

I speculate that NOAA intended to quietly rewrite climate history over two programming runs (2011 and 2014). Each would lower historical temperatures a total of approximately 130°F.

I speculate that computer programming errors were discovered internally by NOAA after the 2011 algorithm was launched. NOAA decreased the 1913 HDD by 10% as opposed to increasing it by that amount. NOAA made 1913 one of the hottest years in Maine’s history. They eventually corrected that error and others with their 2014 algorithm run. I was not the first to catch this major faux pas.

Joseph D’Aleo, did a paper in 2014, involving Farmington, Maine data in southern interior Zone 13. The title of his effort was “Data Set Changes Makes It Hard to Tell Real Story” [10]. He complained of a 5°F swing in 1913 for NOAA’s southern interior data. In my April study, I had detected a 4°F swing for 1913 based on statewide archived NOAA data.

Maine’s history made a total of 254°F cooler

The 2011 algorithm lowered Maine “statewide” temperatures around 103°F. The Phase II algorithm run in 2014 corrected the 1913 error and lowered overall temperatures an additional 151°F. I contend that the master algorithm is now fully operational and maintains that Maine’s statewide climate history is over 254°F lower than the original documented records between 1895 and 2014!

As detailed in BSCTII, I contend that NOAA has attempted to maintain a number of the climate “inflection points” for authenticity while minimizing or completely eliminating all but one cooling period between 1895 and 2014. Drawn from BSCTII, Part 5 of 6, YouTube presentation [11] the following chart shows originally three Black Swan events [12] found with the Lewiston-Auburn data (the black line) provided by Mother Nature.


Three have been reduced to a single Black Swan event on the NOAA data (the green line) from 2014 for the southern interior region of Maine. Based on this and many other revelations found in BSCTII, I concluded that NOAA’s explanation of the inclusion of Canadian data was not only fishy—it proved to be a red herring [13].

“NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data”

Based on these findings, my ongoing working theory is that NOAA continues to manipulate historic climate data through single master computer algorithm. The master algorithm array serves as the “trick” to hide present and future Black Swan [14] regional cooling events in Maine. I have also found that identical tweaks were being made with the other individual states and United State as a whole. It is being done by consistently lowering historical temperatures on all processed climate data controlled by NOAA as will be illustrated below with archived data from 2013.


Algorithm applied nationwide…2014 a fabricated record

The graphs above illustrate how I contend NOAA applied a master algorithm “trick” not only to Maine, but to the United States as a whole. The green graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2013 for Maine and the U.S. The blue graphs show NOAA’s HDD published in 2015 for the same two locations. As you can see, the HDD have been inflated in both cases by the same percentages. In 2014, it appears NOAA had completed cooling both Maine and U.S. climate history by increasing HDD over 5%. This permitted NOAA to lower historical temperatures in excess of 10% between 1895 and 2014. Now NOAA and government agencies could announce to the world that 2014 was one of the warmest years in U.S. (revised) history.

Ohio adjusted as well

Another example includes NOAA’s data associated with Ohio. The green graph below shows NOAA’s data for Ohio prior to its 2014 adjustment (but after the 2011 adjustment).


The blue shows the data after that adjustment. This second adjustment reduced Ohio’s historical temperatures by 83.8°F. You can see that it is the same pattern of adjustment as in Maine and the United States as a whole. I wonder if they needed Canadian meter stations here also!

NOAA’s data associated with Tennessee increased 18,802 HDD between 2013 and 2014. This reduced Tennessee’s historical temperature record an additional 51.5°F.

What is NOAA’s rational for the major correction here? The pattern is the same.
Based on my research to date, I have concluded that:

Whosoever holds the algorithm for interpreting and documenting past climate history possess the power to shape a nation’s perception of present climate and the funding solutions. Are we experiencing global warming or global cooling? It depends on whose historical climate data we are examining!

NOAA admitted to rewriting temperature

I want to emphasize again that NOAA admitted to massive rewrites of Maine “statewide” history on May 6, 2015. NOAA indicated all these changes to include Canadian stations were necessary to make sure the data truly reflected Maine history over the last 120 years.

How do they explain similar adjustments to Maine’s southern interior region, Tennessee, Ohio and the United States as a whole?

Every U.S. state for which I kept archived NOAA data had been corrupted in an identical manner. At this point in time, my theory that NOAA is rewriting U.S. climate history with a computer algorithm appears to still be valid.


I contend that the NOAA computer program essentially uses a very simple algorithm array, that automatically takes each historical year of local data and “shapes it” to fit into an overall mosaic NOAA wants to project to the scientific community and the general public.


The table below lists “Year”, “NOAA Master Algorithm Adjustment”, and the “Anti-Master Algorithm”.


The Anti-Master algorithm is nothing more than the reciprocal of NOAA’s algorithm.

This entire affair seems reminiscent of the early 1990s. The following chart below shows the multiple warming and cooling (Black Swan) periods over the last 1,100 years.


In 1990, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the graph seen in Chart 1. It showed that the Middle Ages were warmer than today, in what was called the “Medieval Warming Period”. Then, around the 14th century, society begins its descent into a series of “Black Swan” cooling climate events. We plunged into the “Little Ice Age” period from which we gradually emerged in the early 1700s. There were at least five major Black Swan events over this time period.

In the late 1990s Michael Mann published Chart 2 which redefined climate history and eliminated numerous Black Swan events. A Congressional investigation uncovered numerous errors in Mann’s chart and the IPCC dropped it from the Summary of Policymakers for its 2007 report. Unfortunately, the false hockey stick is still cited by advocates of the “science-is settled” position [15]. This includes powerful members of NOAA and the current U.S. administration.

Are we now remaking American climate history to adhere to Mann’s disappearing hockey stick? I have theorized that NOAA has possibly attempted a similar approach for inconvenient climate history in Maine and across the United States.

The following chart shows the result of applying NOAA’s algorithm to the Lewiston-Auburn, Maine data (the black line). The result is NOAA’s green line.


In the transformation you eliminate two of the three Black Swans. This chart thereafter falls in line with Michael Mann’s chart from the late 1990’s that cited only one Black Swan event in the last hundred years.

My theory is that, if you begin with NOAA’s “adjusted” data and apply the anti-algorithm, you return the “processed data” back to how Mother Nature provided us the information in the first place.

USA likely in a state of cooling since 1990s

As a last example, on the chart below, we will take NOAA’s “processed” data for the United States climate history and apply the “anti-algorithm array” (see table above).


The application of the anti-algorithm would indicate the United States, as a whole, might have been in a state of regional cooling since the late 1990s, as is presently true of Maine when you use Mother Nature’s original data.

“…certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers”

If my theory is proven correct, it would mean certain individuals in NOAA have being hoisting a fraud on taxpayers of the U.S. and around the world. It has added up to trillions of dollars over the decade. [16]

As noted in BSCT and BSCTII, I play a short video clip of Doctor Feynman explaining how theories are generated and how they should be tested repeatedly.


We expect no less here. I welcome a thorough examination of my algorithm theory.

In Black Swan Climate Theory II we explain, in depth, why, in my opinion, I believe this is not an accident. I have concluded American basic climate data has been hijacked and corrupted within NOAA through the use of a simple master computer algorithm that I have repeated here.

Brakey_14Profound implications

Based on the evidence from Maine, Ohio, Tennessee and consolidated U.S. climate data presented in the BSCT series; and should my theory be validated, the implications are profound. It would indicate we presently live in a nation where an agency of the Federal government has taken it upon themselves to rewrite the history of climate for the fifty different individual states of the Union.

If my theory proves correct, billions of dollars of climate data has been corrupted within a formerly great organization. Worse, decisions worth trillions of dollars are being made presently on fraudulent climate data. As well-intended as I believe most NOAA associates are, I implore NOAA to please make available the plain, unexciting, unfiltered temperature data provided by Mother Nature.

Throw the environmental activists [17] out! The litmus test for me is when NOAA’s climate data agrees with both satellite data and local archived data.


[1] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, 1st series of five (5) short YouTube videos on NOAA climate adjustments https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[2] A computer program can be viewed as an elaborate algorithm. In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm usually means a small procedure that solves a recurrent problem. I contend NOAA has been attempting to correct a climate aberration that Mother Nature has repeatedly thrown at the organization since 1998. These inconvenient aberrations are pockets of regional cooling in Maine, across the United States and likely around the world between 1998 and 2010!

[3] 151 Degrees of Fudging, May 2, 2015, Mike Brakey, Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/02/151-degrees-of-fudging-energy-physicist-unveils-noaas-massive-rewrite-of-maine-climate-history/#sthash.9QtBzze0.SF5o7vzD.dpbs

[4] Black Swan Climate Theory, April, 2015, Mike Brakey, series of five (5) short YouTube videos on recently discovered NOAA climate adjustments that rewrote Maine climate history – https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[5] NOAA E-Mail Confirms Large Scale Rewrite of U.S. Temperature Data, May 6, 2015, Mr. Derek Arndt, NOAA, Link: http://notrickszone.com/2015/05/07/noaa-e-mail-confirms-large-scale-rewrite-of-u-s-temperature-data-in-2014-improvements-in-the-dataset/#sthash.T6Bpcr1O.4fwNcmBn.dpbs

[6] NOAA classifies Maine heating degree days under four divisions. They are Statewide CD 1 North CD 2 South Interior, and CD 3 Coastal.

[7] Unlike “statewide” and “CD 1 North” this region, “CD 2 South Interior” should have no reason to be subject to Canadian temperature contamination.

[8] Black Swan Climate Theory II, Michael Brakey, June, 2015. The six part PowerPoint YouTube series is also found at the following link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59. The presentation takes you step-by-step through how it appears that leadership in NOAA unashamedly created a new master algorithm that was applied to the Maine data to rewrite climate history.

[9] See link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn3QUEE3HYo&index=8&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59

[10] https://redneckusa.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/data-set-changes-makes-it-hard-to-tell-real-story.pdf

[11] See Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go1zpvUzmRk&list=PLDXMwo2SyaRse3GWujVHJGTLl9nvGAD59&index=10

[12] A Black Swan event is a significant cooling period of more than ten years.

[13] red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion.

[14] or theory of black swan events is a metaphor that describes an event that comes as a surprise, has a major effect, and is often inappropriately rationalized after the fact with the benefit of hindsight.

[15] The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon, 2008, Richard Vigilante Books, Chapter 2, The Case of the Disappearing Hockey Stick. pp. 9-21.

[16] The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria, Larry Bell, Forbes, August, 2011; See link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

[17] Robber Barons disparaging term dating back to the 12th century which refers to: 1. Unscrupulous feudal lords who amassed personal fortunes by using illegal and immoral business practices. 2. In social criticism and economic literature, became a derogatory term applied to some wealthy and powerful 19th-century American businessmen. Does it now apply to the leaders of the environmental movement?

– See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/01/bombshell-comprehensive-analysis-reveals-noaa-wrongfully-applying-master-algorithm-to-whitewash-temperature-history/#sthash.SDLGM9LB.cj6bSx0i.dpuf