Saturday, July 22, 2017

How Warming Mongers Rig Their Climate Models

Graham H. Seibert writes:
The integrity of the process depends on the integrity of the adjustments. This article argues that the adjustment process has been tinkered with over time in such a fashion that it exaggerates the historical global warming shown by the models.

It is as if a doctor used a handful of thermometers, none of them absolutely accurate, to measure the progress of a child with a fever. Depending on the order in which he used the thermometers, he could judge that the child was getting sicker or more healthy. There is a strong vested interest in the earth getting sicker. The charge here is that the doctors were playing games with the thermometers.  Why would they do that?

Climate change is at least a $1 trillion industry. Elon Musk, Al Gore and the solar panel industry have all gotten rich off of the global warming scare. If global warming is not real, a lot of experts around the world would be out of work. The people who report on global warming are not unbiased altruists.
Read his full essay here.


  1. i see you guys are still in the bullshit and hoodwink business. Go get a science degree you fool.

    1. A careful reading of the essay and brief author bio would reveal a number of things. The author has formal training in statistics, pursuing a PhD in the field. So the author should be versed in general testing methodology and associated criticisms. The essay is analagous to Hazlitt's "The Failure of the New Economics", where Keynes's "General Theory..." is torn asunder by an individual not formally trained in economics. Does Seibert delve into the ultimate depths of climate science? No. Does he raise criticisms in testing methodology, which may be sufficient to call into question popular conclusions? Yes. A climate change "scientist", with their tweaked data and modeling, is no more a hard scientist than the econometrician... with their bogus models being used to centrally plan activities that they cannot possibly have full knowledge of.

    2. I should get into this "business" too if I already possess the requisite skepticism of the mainstream. Perhaps my fellow skeptics can share their rags to riches stories to inspire me to open my doors for business.

  2. For the longest time as I followed the climate craziness I kept looking for reference to such obvious influencers as methane, volcanic activity and solar cycles dynamics. No one talked about those in the mainstream.

    They still dont and its the obvious omission that condemns them.

  3. Methane (a powerful green house gas) is very well covered in the climate change research scenario as is volcanic activity (responsible for periods of cooling), and solar cycles (small effect). someone needs to pay closer attention to the research.

  4. Let's not forget about 1,000,000+ underwater volcanoes. They affect ocean's temperature as well. Most climate discussions completely ignore this powerful force.

  5. To pick just one of the ridiculous "counter-arguments" here: what is the historical change in the number or effect of underwater volcanoes?

    Oh, there hasn't been any change in these. So how do they change the climate?

    It's amusing to see the adherents of a soft science with limited to non-existent predictive powers flopping around attempting to argue against the predictions of models based on physics, perhaps the single-most successful branch of science in terms of predictive power.

    Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - this has been known for hundreds of years. Human activity has substantially (2x in the past 100 years) increased the concentration of this gas in the atmosphere.

    I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time bringing up basic facts to people who are clearly not arguing based on facts but on pre-existing political leanings but, in case there is that rare economist interested in the actual facts, here are some: .