Archives‎ > ‎

500 Climate experts declare "no Climate emergency," from Peter Myers

(1) Resource Depletion and Free Trade(2) 500 Climate experts declare "no Climate emergency"(3) German environment co-founder slams Climate Hysteria(4) Models of the Climate are no better than 'Toys' - Mototaka Nakamura(5) Climate modeling must be based on proper physical foundations - Robitaille

 (1) Resource Depletion and Free Trade
- by Peter Myers, October 9, 2019The Globalists and the Green Left are trying to use Climate issues to panic us into submitting to a World Government.But Resource Depletion is the issue we should focus on. At current rates of usage, the world supply of coal will run out in a hundred years. Yet many consumer products made of steel, eg fridges and washing machines, last just a few years, after which they are thrown out. Computers and mobile phones are increasingly unfixable.Australia's manufacturing industry has been gutted as Free Trade was forced on us by Globalists. Yet we could be self-sufficient, and largely were so until recent decades.As a result of successive Current Account Deficits, our net Foreign Debt had reached A$1 trillion, some years ago.Suppose that we wanted to export less coal; would that be feasible?Exports of coal, iron ore, natural gas and uranium are the way we pay for our imports - specifically, of manufactured goods.We can't stop exporting those minerals, because otherwise we could not pay for those imports.The only way we could curtail exports of coal, would be by restoring manufacturing in this country, so that we no longer had to import so much.(2) 500 Climate experts declare "no Climate emergency" Climate Intelligence Group foundedGuest Blogger / 1 week ago September 28, 2019By Christopher Monckton of BrenchleyThe Global Climate Intelligence Group, whose objective is to put the science back into climate science, comprises scientists, professionals and researchers from many nations, has already attracted some 500 signatures for what began life scant weeks ago as the European Climate Declaration.The group, and the declaration, are the brainchild of Professor Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of Geophysics in the Delft University of Technology. Professor Berkhout is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Among the luminaries who have signed the declaration is Professor Václav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic, who is known to many of us as a formidable speaker at Heartland conferences and at meetings of the World Federation of Scientists (and, in Britain, at Brexit Party rallies, to the great delight of his audiences).Professor Richard Lindzen, the world’s foremost climate scientist, is also a signatory, and is the Group’s Ambassador to the United States of America.Professors Reynald du Berger, Jeffrey Foss, Ingemar Nordin, Alberto Prestinzini, Benoît Rittaud and Fritz Vahrenholt are the Ambassadors to Francophone Canada, Anglophone Canada, Sweden, Italy, France and Germany respectively. These are heavy-hitters.The declaration says –There is no climate emergencyA global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmingThe geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.Warming is far slower than predictedThe world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.Climate policy relies on inadequate modelsClimate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on EarthCO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.Global warming has not increased natural disastersThere is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realitiesThere is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.The text, together with the list of signatories, is at The signatories are prominent scientists from a wide range prominent group of scientists with an unprecedentedly wide range of disciplines, indispensable in addressing the climate question.If you agree with the declaration and would like to sign it, please write in the first instance to me, monckton [at], and enclose your resumé. I shall pass your name to the academic council, which will then contact you.Ideas for the Global Climate Intelligence Group’s future program of work include an online, open-access Journal of Corrections to publish learned papers, peer-reviewed by qualified members of the Group, that will put right the often erroneous and unsound science published in the pal-review journals of climate "science".Members of the Group are also considering hosting national and international scientific conferences, providing speakers and lecturers willing to balance the one-sided and militantly wrong pseudo-science that now holds sway, providing articles for those of the mainstream media who – unlike the unspeakable BBC – are willing to honor their obligation of giving both sides of every story, making documentaries (the first of which is already at the planning stage), and establishing a legal defense fund to assist those, such as Professor Peter Ridd of the Great Barrier Reef, who have been libeled, punished or dismissed for daring to do what scientists ought to do – to take no one’s word for it and to go on asking questions until the truth emerges.The idea of online universities on the model of the Open University and Liberty University is also being considered by some members of the Group, and the possibility of establishing an internet based home-schooling network for pupils aged 3 to 18 is also under consideration.All teachers, lecturers, professors and students in the new network of schools and universities will sign a binding contract with the holding corporation. That contract will govern their conduct, and will in particular forbid them, on pain of expulsion, to interfere in any way with freedom of academic inquiry, research, thought, speech or action.The Group will also establish friendly relations with other independent-minded entities worldwide that are dedicated to the advancement of true science free of totalitarian taint.Above all, as the declaration says, the Group will argue that "climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation."Let pure reason, not totalitarian prejudice, hold sway once more in the groves of academe, the corridors of power and the public square!(3) German environment co-founder slams Climate Hysteria Environmental Movement Co-Founder, Professor Calls FFF Movement Hysterical, Overhyped …Real Threat To EconomyBy P Gosselin on 8. October 2019Yesterday the online Hamburg Abendblatt published an interview with Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt on the recent climate demonstrations and alarmism. Vahrenholt calls the demonstrations and demands "over-the-top", and a real threat to the economy. He says the climate models are unreliable and predictions of great warming "absurd".Vehrenholt is one of founders of Germany’s modern environmental movement, the founder of the country’s largest renewable energy company, Innogy and a member of Germany’s SPD socialist parties. Lately the retired professor has become renegade among his peers by criticizing the "over-the-top climate debate" and warning against "hasty reforms".Atmosphere of fear and hysteriaVahrenholt tells the Abendblatt the climate debate has become hysterical and that in fact "we don’t have a climate emergency." He adds: "If Greta Thunberg’s demands are implemented, global prosperity and development will be massively endangered."Vahrenholt is one of the more prominent signatories of the letter to the UN: "There is no climate emergency."In the interview with the Abendblatt, Vahrenholt rejects Thunberg’s bleak world view, noting that human society has markedly improved on almost every front over the recent decades."The number of hungry people in the world has halved, life expectancy has doubled, and infant mortality has been reduced to tenths. These successes have been largely due to the supply of energy for electricity, heat, transport and nutrition," said Vahrenholt.When asked why so few German scientists (12) signed letter to the UN, Vahrenholt told the Abendblatt: "People no longer dare to express themselves differently."The German chemistry professor says spreading panic and fear is "irresponsible" and that we should: "Stop scaring the children – they are already getting delusions."Climate models still unreliableVahrenholt then tells the Abendblatt that "we have until the end of the century" to tackle greenhouse emissions – and not 12 years – and that the situation is nowhere near as serious as the alarmist voices claim it is. Moreover, Vahrenholt reminds that the models still – which serve as the basis for the panic – have a long way to go before being reliable: "Many climate models have been shown to show too much warming and cannot reproduce the fluctuations of the past because they know only one factor: CO2."Later in the interview he asks: "What are we to think of models that neither reproduce the Little Ice Age nor the Medieval Warm Period – when it was about as warm as it is today?" In other words: If they don’t even work for the past, then they are completely unreliable for the future.CO2 greens the planetVahrenholt reminds the Abendblatt that the added CO2 has in fact made the planet greener because of the boosted photosynthesis.Only small number of scientists say man is 100% responsibleWhen asked about the 97% consensus, Vahrenholt tells the Hamburg-based daily that very few scientists deny CO2 has a warming effect, but adds: "Only a small minority believe that climate change is 100 percent man-made, and the vast majority believe in several causes."Green movement a real economic threatVahrenholt agrees that we have to reduce emissions, "but not commit suicide."The retired German professor advises against a hasty shutdown of coal energy, and warns it would lead to far greater poverty, even in prosperous Germany: "If we get out of coal and the combustion engine by 2030, then what will become of this country?The retired professor also rejects the claims he turned his back on environmental protection, rather he has "stayed true to the cause".Schellnhuber’s 6°C warming a scandal, absurdNear the end of the interview, Vahrenholt tells the Abendblatt he thinks the globe will warm about 1.5° by 2100, i.e. the low end of the IPCC’s 1.5 – 4.5°C projected range. He characterizes Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber’s 6°C rise – and the applause it always gets – as a "scandal" and being "absurd". True Environmentalists: Fight Corporate Criminality, not Atmospheric Gases by Denis Rancourt / October 3rd, 2019Dear true environmentalists: I am with you.1Corporate pollution and releasing of toxic substances should be treated as a criminal act, with full power to seize assets for reparations, actual reparations, not just punitive fines.I would apply the same standard of prosecution to the "medical"/pharma2 and agri-food industries,3 also.However, the planet and biosphere are not at risk of imminent collapse, and certainly not from CO2.The "imminent collapse" fabrication serves powerful manipulators, and necessarily diverts us away from attaining actual democracy and fairness. In the words of Chomsky:4For example, suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effect has been way underestimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover—with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there just are no other alternatives around right now.Rather than accept fascism or totalitarianism, corporate and finance criminality can best be fought from a position of realistic perspective regarding the end of the world, sober analysis of means regarding leverage for change, and focused political targeting against corporate rule without accountability.History of imbedded doomsday narrativesAll societies are dominance hierarchies, and all large, human dominance hierarchies have hired high-priests that construct and maintain the State doomsday narrative. These high-priests constantly instruct us on required beliefs and behaviours that minimize the deleterious effects of the alleged impending catastrophe. The behavioural instructions fan everything from diet, to hygiene, to dress code, to physical activity, to work ethics, to attitudes and morals, to child rearing, to political positions, to deference to experts, and so on.It would be delusional to believe that this structural feature of society is any different than it ever was. In present Western society, the high-priests are the "scientists", which include the medical doctors and all the "experts".This does not mean that science itself is not a valid and rigorous method to test and eliminate hypotheses and theories. It only means that establishment scientists are hired high-priests, notwithstanding the rare exceptions that prove the rule. It also does not mean that scientists never tell the truth. It only means that establishment scientists never harm or rebel against the dominance hierarchy, except by accident or solely in appearance.These days, there is an industry of scientists that indulge in generating, testing and ameliorating ever more creative doomsday predictions, which are hoped to be of utility to the bosses. The said utility is often termed "societal relevance". As an eminent example, we have the theory of a "tipping point" towards irreversible total collapse of the ecosphere, often referred to as a "species mass extinction". The notion of a tipping point has also been advanced for planetary climate, wherein, in the absence of any non-human cause, one crosses into a global climate regime of constant extreme weather and flooded continents.Whereas past planetary transformations have been related to game-changers, such as the advent of photosynthesis, the calming of tectonic (volcanic) activity, and so forth, and whereas the known recurring climate catastrophe of ice ages is believed to be driven by variations in solar insolation, the new "tipping points" spontaneously occur from the gradual changes of increased modern human or industrial activity, including: habitat destruction, burning of fossil fuel, population growth, and dispersal of toxic substances.The new "tipping point" theory is not unlike the deluge of the Old Testament, which followed an accumulation of human depravity, except that no god is postulated, and building the Ark requires a centralized and globally restructured economy, handled by overarching elite private institutions, of course. War, disease, hunger … are all defeated under the same umbrella, death itself eventually.The accompanying calls from establishment icons are often shrill. In the words of Prince Charles, in 2009:5,6If we do nothing, the consequences for every person on this earth will be severe and unprecedented – with vast numbers of environmental refugees, social instability and decimated economies: far worse than anything which we are seeing today … We have 100 months left to act.While the leader of the most warring nation on earth, President Barack Obama, concluded in his 2015 State of the Union speech:7No challenge ?poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.The role of scientistsThe scientists follow and are often not more contained than Prince Charles or President Obama:Earth is rapidly approaching a tipping point. Human impacts are causing alarming levels of harm to our planet. As scientists who study the interaction of people with the rest of the biosphere using a wide range of approaches, we agree that the evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life support systems is overwhelming. We further agree that, based on the best scientific information available, human quality of life will suffer substantial degradation by the year 2050 if we continue on our current path. Science unequivocally demonstrates the human impacts of key concern: Climate disruption – more, faster climate change than since humans first became a species. …8We maintain that humanity’s grand challenge is solving the intertwined problems of human population growth and overconsumption, climate change, pollution, ecosystem destruction, disease spillovers, and extinction, in order to avoid environmental tipping points that would make human life more difficult and would irrevocably damage planetary life support systems.9But today, for the first time, humanity’s global civilization—the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded—is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as ‘an act of suicide on a grand scale’, facing what the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a ‘perfect storm’ of environmental problems. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; …10The loss of biodiversity is one of the most critical current environmental problems, threatening valuable ecosystem services and human wellbeing. A growing body of evidence indicates that current species extinction rates are higher than the pre-human background rate, with hundreds of anthropogenic vertebrate extinctions documented in prehistoric and historic times.11In fact, there is no science of a "tipping point" for earth biodiversity or for earth climate. No such testable theory has been elaborated. The entire notion of "tipping point" is hypothetical and tenuous. It is a product of bias to presume that a large and complex system (planet) would be susceptible to "tipping" rather than extraordinarily stable against internal superficial changes. A recent paper describes how one might begin to define concepts or measures that would allow even discussing the topic of "tipping point" intelligently, for realistic ecological systems.12Furthermore, even among scientists, still getting their bearings, there is persistent disagreement as to whether species extinction rates are higher in recent decades. A critical review concludes:13Net species gains or losses should be assessed with respect to common baselines or reference communities. Ultimately, we need a globally coordinated effort to monitor biodiversity so that we can estimate and attribute human impacts as causes of biodiversity change. A combination of technologies will be needed to produce regularly updated global datasets of local biodiversity change to guide future policy. At this time the conclusion that there is no net change in local species richness is not the consensus state of knowledge.Reality checkThere is a large structurally imbedded industry of doomsday narrative. In addition, individuals are reared in a dominance hierarchy and therefore constantly seek messaging about fitting in. The result is that we adopt the State religion. Even if the State is occupied by an exploitative elite, we continue to uphold and follow any State religion that has been sufficiently implanted.In this case, the State religion is that we are cared-for by mother earth but that our bad behaviour is poisoning mother earth and that we are therefore all at risk, unless we adopt the new stringent conditions that should be imposed globally. Non-believers should be rooted out and isolated. We should demand that all our peers and our representatives do what is proscribed by the State religion.Meanwhile corporate criminality, while dressed in the colours of the State religion, will continue at an accelerated rate, and our minds and bodies will continue to be occupied.3I say no. To escape this trap, we must realize that the planet is, well, a planet, with huge response capabilities; that the planet is far more resilient and robust than we imagine.Habitat destruction and industrial practices are grotesque, and these cause real and significant harm to human communities and ecosystems — more so even than actual wars in the present era … although not more so than so-called economic sanctions and exploitative nation financing. In contrast, "warming" itself cannot hurt the biosphere or humans, nor is the planet at risk of "collapse" from all the criminal practices. That is fabricated nonsense.Our joint efforts should be on justice, attaining actual democracy, the elimination of criminal behaviour, extortion and exploitation, enforcement of reparations, enforcement of corporate transparency and accountability…The problem is human behaviour against humans and nature, organized by an occupied dominance hierarchy, and the solutions are political; nothing to do with CO2, methane or anything else in the atmosphere. ...Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. He has published more than 100 articles in leading scientific journals, on physics and environmental science. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. Denis can be reached at Read other articles by Denis.This article was posted on Thursday, October 3rd, 2019 at 11:10am(4) Models of the Climate are no better than 'Toys' - Mototaka Nakamura PlanetA Climate Modeller Spills the Beans23rd September 2019 Comments (12)Tony ThomasThere’s a top-level oceanographer and meteorologist who is prepared to cry "Nonsense!"on the "global warming crisis" evident to climate modellers but not in the real world. He’s as well or better qualified than the modellers he criticises — the ones whose Year 2100 forebodings of 4degC warming have set the world to spending $US1.5 trillion a year to combat CO2 emissions.The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. In June he put out a small book in Japanese on "the sorry state of climate science". It’s titled Confessions of a climate scientist: the global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis, and he is very much qualified to take a stand. From 1990 to 2014 he worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Centre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology. He’s published about 20 climate papers on fluid dynamics.[i]Today’s vast panoply of "global warming science" is like an upside down pyramid built on the work of a few score of serious climate modellers. They claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recent global warming and project that warming forward. Every orthodox climate researcher takes such output from the modellers’ black boxes as a given.A fine example is from the Australian Academy of Science’s explanatory booklet of 2015. It claims, absurdly, that the models’ outputs are "compelling evidence" for human-caused warming.[ii] Specifically, it refers to model runs with and without human emissions and finds the "with" variety better matches the 150-year temperature record (which itself is a highly dubious construct). Thus satisfied, the Academy then propagates to the public and politicians the models’ forecasts for disastrous warming this century.Now for Dr Nakamura’s expert demolition of the modelling. There was no English edition of his book in June and only a few bits were translated and circulated. But Dr Nakamura last week offered via a free Kindle version his own version in English. It’s not a translation but a fresh essay leading back to his original conclusions.The temperature forecasting models trying to deal with the intractable complexities of the climate are no better than "toys" or "Mickey Mouse mockeries" of the real world, he says. This is not actually a radical idea. The IPCC in its third report (2001) conceded (emphasis added),In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. (Chapter 14, Section )]Somehow that official warning was deep-sixed by the alarmists. Now Nakamura has found it again, further accusing the orthodox scientists of "data falsification" by adjusting previous temperature data to increase apparent warming "The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public," he writes.The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he says. However, "the models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (worse in a sense that they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting." The reason:These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.I myself used to use climate simulation models for scientific studies, not for predictions, and learned about their problems and limitations in the process.Nakamura and colleagues even tried to patch up some of the models’ crudeness…so I know the workings of these models very well … For better or worse I have more or less lost interest in the climate science and am not thrilled to spend so much of my time and energy in this kind of writing beyond the point that satisfies my own sense of obligation to the US and Japanese taxpayers who financially supported my higher education and spontaneous and free research activity. So please expect this to be the only writing of this sort coming from me.I am confident that some honest and courageous, true climate scientists will continue to publicly point out the fraudulent claims made by the mainstream climate science community in English. I regret to say this but I am also confident that docile and/or incompetent Japanese climate researchers will remain silent until the ’mainstream climate science community’ changes its tone, if ever.He projects warming from CO2 doubling, "according to the true experts", to be only 0.5degC. He says he doesn’t dispute the possibility of either catastrophic warming or severe glaciation since the climate system’s myriad non-linear processes swamp "the toys" used for climate predictions. Climate forecasting is simply impossible, if only because future changes in solar energy output are unknowable. As to the impacts of human-caused CO2, they can’t be judged "with the knowledge and technology we currently possess."Other gross model simplifications include# Ignorance about large and small-scale ocean dynamics# A complete lack of meaningful representations of aerosol changes that generate clouds.# Lack of understanding of drivers of ice-albedo (reflectivity) feedbacks: "Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet."# Inability to deal with water vapor elements# Arbitrary "tunings" (fudges) of key parameters that are not understoodConcerning CO2 changes he says,I want to point out a simple fact that it is impossible to correctly predict even the sense or direction of a change of a system when the prediction tool lacks and/or grossly distorts important non-linear processes, feedbacks in particular, that are present in the actual system …… The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naïve climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. I understand geophysical fluid dynamics just a little, but enough to realize that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.Solar input, absurdly, is modelled as a "never changing quantity". He says, "It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square metre. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No."Good modelling of oceans is crucial, as the slow ocean currents are transporting vast amounts of heat around the globe, making the minor atmospheric heat storage changes almost irrelevant. For example, the Gulf Stream has kept western Eurasia warm for centuries. On time scales of more than a few years, it plays a far more important role on climate than atmospheric changes. "It is absolutely vital for any meaningful climate prediction to be made with a reasonably accurate representation of the state and actions of the oceans." In real oceans rather than modelled ones, just like in the atmosphere, the smaller-scale flows often tend to counteract the effects of the larger-scale flows. Nakamura spent hundreds of hours vainly trying to remedy the flaws he observed, concluding that the models "result in a grotesque distortion of the mixing and transport of momentum, heat and salt, thereby making the behaviour of the climate simulation models utterly unrealistic…"Proper ocean modelling would require a tenfold improvement in spatial resolution and a vast increase in computing power, probably requiring quantum computers. If or when quantum computers can reproduce the small-scale interactions, the researchers will remain out of their depth because of their traditional simplifying of conditions.Key model elements are replete with "tunings" i.e. fudges. Nakamura explains how that trick worksThe models are ‘tuned’ by tinkering around with values of various parameters until the best compromise is obtained. I used to do it myself. It is a necessary and unavoidable procedure and not a problem so long as the user is aware of its ramifications and is honest about it. But it is a serious and fatal flaw if it is used for climate forecasting/prediction purposes.One set of fudges involves clouds.Ad hoc representation of clouds may be the greatest source of uncertainty in climate prediction. A profound fact is that only a very small change, so small that it cannot be measured accurately…in the global cloud characteristics can completely offset the warming effect of the doubled atmospheric CO2.Two such characteristics are an increase in cloud area and a decrease in the average size of cloud particles.Accurate simulation of cloud is simply impossible in climate models since it requires calculations of processes at scales smaller than 1mm." Instead, the modellers put in their own cloud parameters. Anyone studying real cloud formation and then the treatment in climate models would be "flabbergasted by the perfunctory treatment of clouds in the models.Nakamura describes as "moronic" the claims that "tuned" ocean models are good enough for climate predictions. That’s because, in tuning some parameters, other aspects of the model have to become extremely distorted. He says a large part of the forecast global warming is attributed to water vapor changes, not CO2 changes. "But the fact is this: all climate simulation models perform poorly in reproducing the atmospheric water vapor and its radiative forcing observed in the current climate… They have only a few parameters that can be used to ‘tune’ the performance of the models and (are) utterly unrealistic." Positive water vapor feedbacks from CO2 increases are artificially enforced by the modelers. They neglect other reverse feedbacks in the real world, and hence they exaggerate forecast warming.The supposed measuring of global average temperatures from 1890 has been based on thermometer readouts barely covering 5 per cent of the globe until the satellite era began 40-50 years ago. "We do not know how global climate has changed in the past century, all we know is some limited regional climate changes, such as in Europe, North America and parts of Asia." This makes meaningless the Paris targets of 1.5degC or 2degC above pre-industrial levels.He is contemptuous of claims about models being "validated", saying the modellers are merely "trying to construct narratives that justify the use of these models for climate predictions." And he concludes,The take-home message is (that) all climate simulation models, even those with the best parametric representation scheme for convective motions and clouds, suffer from a very large degree of arbitrariness in the representation of processes that determine the atmospheric water vapor and cloud fields. Since the climate models are tuned arbitrarily …there is no reason to trust their predictions/forecasts.With values of parameters that are supposed to represent many complex processes being held constant, many nonlinear processes in the real climate system are absent or grossly distorted in the models. It is a delusion to believe that simulation models that lack important nonlinear processes in the real climate system can predict (even) the sense or direction of the climate change correctly. I was distracted from his message because the mix of Japanese and English scripts in the book kept crashing my Kindle software. Still, I persevered. I recommend you do too. There’s at least $US30 trillion ($US30,000, 000,000,000) hanging on this bunfight.[i] They include (to give you the flavor)# "Destabilisation of thermohaline circulation by atmospheric eddy transports"#"Effects of the ice-albedo [reflectivity] and runoff feedbacks on the thermohaline circulation"# "Diagnoses of an eddy-resolving Atlantic Ocean model simulation in the vicinity of the Gulf Stream"# "A simulation study of the 2003 heat wave in Europe"# "Impacts of SST [sea surface temperature] anomalies in the Agulhas Current System on the climate variations in the southern Africa and its vicinity." # "Greenland sea surface temperature changes and accompanying changes in the north hemispheric climate."[ii] "Climate models allow us to understand the causes of past climate changes, and to project climate change into the future. Together with physical principles and knowledge of past variations, models provide compelling evidence that recent changes are due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere … Using climate models, it is possible to separate the effects of the natural and human-induced influences on climate. Models can successfully reproduce the observed warming over the last 150 years when both natural and human influences are included, but not when natural influences act alone." A footnote directs to a study by 15 modellers cited in the 2015 IPCC report.(5) Climate modeling must be based on proper physical foundations - Pierre-Marie Robitaille

 Progress in Physics, Volume 2, April 2009LETTERS TO PROGRESS IN PHYSICSGlobal Warming and the Microwave BackgroundPierre-Marie RobitailleDept, of Radiology, The Ohio State University, 130 Means Hall, 1654 Upham Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USAE-mail:

 In the work, the importance of assigning the microwave background to the Earth is addressed while emphasizing the consequences for global climate change. Climate models can only produce meaningful forecasts when they consider the real magnitude of all radiative processes. The oceans and continents both contribute to terrestrial emissions. However, the extent of oceanic radiation, particularly in the microwave region, raises concerns. This is not only since the globe is covered with water, but because the oceans themselves are likely to be weaker emitters than currently believed. Should the microwave background truly be generated by the oceans of the Earth, our planet would be a much less efficient emitter of radiation in this region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Furthermore, the oceans would appear unable to increase their emissions in the microwave in response to temperature elevation, as predicted by Stefan’s law. The results are significant relative to the modeling of global warming.

 While controversy exits as to whether or not mankind has been an agent of global climate change, there is little dispute in the scientific community that the Earth is indeed warming [1-4]. Global warming may substantially alter the agricultural capacity and water cycles of our planet with dramatic human ramifications. With this in mind, if global warming is to be both understood and forecasted, climate modeling [5,6] must be based on proper physical foundations. Through this letter, I wish to highlight that the modeling of the Earth’s energy balance [5,6] requires re-evaluation first of Kirchhoff’s law of thermal emission [7-11] and its associated consequences for the application of Stefan’s law [12], and second of the assignment of the microwave background [13,14] to the oceans of the Earth [15,16].[...]== Note (Peter M.): Some peoople think that Political Correctness occurs only in the Social Sciences and in Environmentalism. Wrong! It occurs in the hard sciences too, eg Physics.Robitaille shows that Microwave Background Radiation, which is commonly thought to come from our galaxy (the Milky Way) and other galaxies, and to be a residue of the Big Bang, in fact originates from Earth's own oceans. Robitaille thus demolishes one of the main supports of the Big Bang theory.He is one of the most distinguished Dissident Scientists in the world. He maintains that the Sun is not a plasma (gas), but mainly Liquid Metallic Hydrogen. It is worth watching his videos.Here, he expounds on The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang! J. Crothers is an outstanding mathematician who works with Robitaille.Here, he refutes Einstein's Spacetime:Crothers, S.J., Does spacetime exist?, he refutes the claim of a Black Hole: Warps and the M87 ‘Black Hole’Published on May 7, 2019Written by Steve CrothersFollowing the highly-publicised announcement of an alleged image of a black hole in M87 by the Event Horizon Telescope Team (EHT), I despatched an email to professor Eduardo Ros, sometime of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy and the University of Valencia, copied to various astronomers and cosmologists, making a number of points as to why the EHT Team did not in fact image a black hole in M87. The points I made are summarised thus:(a) The finite mass of a black hole is concentrated in a ‘physical singularity’ where volume is zero, density is infinite, and gravity is infinite. But no finite mass has such properties;(b) The black hole event horizon is assigned two different escape speeds (v = 0 m/s and v = c = 300,000,000 m/s) and no capacity for an escape speed since nothing can allegedly even leave the ‘event horizon’. But nothing can have two different escape speeds and no capacity for an escape speed, simultaneously and at the same place. Furthermore, if the escape speed is the speed of light, and light travels at the speed of light, then light must in fact leave and escape;(c) The mathematical theory of black holes unwittingly moves a sphere initially centred at the origin of coordinates to some other place but leaves its centre behind, by which the two ‘singularities’ of the black hole are conjured, the centre of the moved sphere for the ‘event horizon’, and the centre left behind for the ‘physical’ singularity. The analytic equivalent of this violation of geometry is that the absolute value of a real number must take on negative values, which is also impossible;(d) Hawking’s black hole temperature is not intensive, in violation of the laws of thermodynamics, because by the latter temperature must always be intensive;(e) In view of the foregoing, the black hole does not exist.== Here, he refutes Hawking's theory of Black Holes :Black hole thermodynamics and the Zeroth Law [1,2].(a) black hole temperature: TH = hc3/16?2GkMThe LHS is intensive but the RHS is extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].(b) black hole entropy: S = ?kc3A/2hGThe LHS is extensive but the RHS is neither extensive nor extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].(c) Black holes do not exist [1-3].REFERENCES[1] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society (ABSTRACT), March, 2018,[2] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society (SLIDE PRESENTATION), March, 2018,[3] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302, Special Relativity: its Inconsistency with the Standard Wave Equation - Stephen J. CrothersOn the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of RelativityStephen J. CrothersAPR 12, 2017 Minkowski-Einstein Spacetime does not exist - Stephen J Crothers Spacetime: Insight from the Pythagorean TheoremAuthors: Stephen J Crothers== New Scientist published a letter from Astronomers & Astrophysicists rejecting the Big Bang Theory: Open Letter to the Scientific Community(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)== also see my webpage on Dissident Science:Dissident Science - no Big Bang, but an Eternal Universe