And, Yet, There Is No Supporting Evidence Any Of This Actually Occurred



The above links are from HuffPo’s “Green” page. 

As most of us would know, Steve Goddard has done an excellent job of documenting the fraud with the numbers of the temperature records.  For those unfamiliar, just click on the link and scroll down and read.  It’s that simple.  That’s Steve’s shtick, and I’m happy to leave it to him.  I have, btw, spot checked his sources and numbers and he’s spot on.

This year, it seems the lunatics are bound and determined to have a record hot year, again. 

Most readers would know I don’t dwell on the temp record that much.  It’s mostly because even if the lunatics were honestly reporting the numbers, I don’t believe they would hold any meaning, anyway.  It’s like trying to average chairs and tables.  It’s a useless and meaningless number.  And, to me, this is funny.  It’s funny because the lunatics themselves admit the same thing when they tell us the hot went to the deep ocean to hide.  When they make such a claim, what they’re telling you is to avoid putting any meaning into a global temperature average because the hot moved from the surface to somewhere else, rendering the global temperature average meaningless. 

Of course, now that NASA and NOAA have gone into complete fraud mode, they’re now going to tell us the global temperature now does hold meaning. 

But, what I do here, in regard to the climate, is to look for some actual, quantifiable, significance to the claims of global warming/climate change/thermogeddon ….. whateve ….

In spite of all the dire proclamations, scares, and prognostications, there is none.  Let me repeat this unequivocally.  There is no evidence any of this imaginary warming has done anything. 

I can’t possibly post all of the links to the posts I’ve done which demonstrate this.  But, readers are invited to use the “search” feature of this blog.  In the upper right corner there’s a “search” text box. 


One can search for hurricanes, floods, snow, ice, sea level, fires, polar bears, droughts, crops/food production …. and just about any bit of idiocy the lunatics claimed climate change was changing, and you’ll find it hasn’t. 

If the world is warming because of CO2, there’s absolutely no evidence there are any negative effects from it. 

Personally, I don’t believe the world is warming.  And, I think before CO2 could be pertinent to our energy balance, it would have to be more than tenfold the amount today. 

Look, global crop production is up.  Hurricanes are down.  Strong tornadoes are down.  There is no evidence of increasing SLR .  None.  Global ice extent hasn’t changed in a decade, and Northern Hemisphere snow extent hasn’t changed in over 30 years.  The Polar Bear population is thriving.  Wild fires are not increasing, and neither are floods nor droughts according to the sparse global data we have.  For the national data of the US and Canada, wild fires are generally decreasing and in the US droughts are decreasing. 

There’s simply nothing there except self-loathing, worry, and totalitarian socialism. 

One would think the laws of math would kick in and the lunatics would find something, just by random chance, in which they could point to as being correlated to their imaginary increase the earth’s temperature.  But, there’s nothing there.  There’s nothing anywhere!  It’s all vacant sophistry! 

Getting back to HuffPo, NASA, and NOAA, and their hottest ever months …… I don’t believe it is unreasonable to expect the continuous months of “hottest ever” to manifest in some manner or another.  If we’re to take this seriously, then this is like a cause with no effect.  But, heck, forget the record months.  If we’re to listen to the nutters, then, we’re told nearly every year after 1997 was hotter than all the other previous years.  That’s 16, going on 17 years of the hottest period in the history of the modern world!  But, for all of that, we can find no manifestation of it?

Oh sure, with some statistical acrobatics and gymnastics one can find an alarming trend about something meaningless, but, only with such acrobatics and contorting gymnastics.  But, there’s nothing real being manifested.  What a horrid waste of time, energy, money, and brainpower.  And, yet, we cannot stop, until they stop. 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to And, Yet, There Is No Supporting Evidence Any Of This Actually Occurred

  1. Me says:

    Always the hottest eveaaa, the then something a warming hiatus mentioned here! 😆

  2. omanuel says:

    Being behind the Iron Curtain in 1980 in Moscow gave insight into the UN’s Agenda 21 and the transformation of western government science into pure propaganda after WWII:

    Government science became propaganda after Stalin emerged victorious from a black-out of CHAOS and FEAR in Aug-Sept 1945 [1] to form the United Nations in Oct 1945 and expand totalitarian control of science and society from the USSR to the rest of the globe.

    Eliminating national governments and forbidding public knowledge of nuclear energy and the irrational FEAR that gripped world leaders were surprisingly successful.

    These scientific discoveries were scandalized, blocked or discredited as science returned to the Dark Ages:

    1. Carl von Weizsacker’s deceptive concept of nuclear binding energy replaced Aston’s valid concept of nuclear packing fraction to prevent access to reliable nuclear energy by
    _ a.) Hilter during WWII and
    _ b.) Allied scientists after WWII

    2. Kuroda’s 1956 discovery of natural nuclear reactors on Earth

    3. Our 1972 discovery that meteorites formed from poorly mixed supernova debris

    4. Peter Toth’s 1977 discovery the Sun pulses like a pulsar

    5. Our 1983 discovery of information astronomers knew in 1945 – but hid from the public in 1946 – iron (Fe) is the most abundant element inside the Sun

    6. Fleischmann-Pons’ 1989 discovery of cold fusion

    7. Marvin Hernndon’s 1992 discovery of natural nuclear reactors in cores of giant planets like Jupiter.

    8. The Galileo mission’s 1995 finding excess Xe-136 in Jupiter’s atmosphere from rapid neutron capture

    9. Our 2001 discovery of neutron repulsion as a major source of stellar energy

    10. Fischbach and Jenkin’s 2006 discovery that rates of radioactive decay depend on distance from the Sun:

    However, Stalin’s force of darkness cannot hide the energy that powers the cosmos, the Sun, sustains our lives, and totally controls Earth’s ever changing climate, because precise experimental data [2] show that the Sun’s pulsar core:

    _ a.) Made our elements;
    _ b.)
    Birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago;
    _ c.) Sustained life’s origin and evolution on Earth after 3.5 Ga ago; and [2]
    _ d.) Thus supplied the force that holds each atom together to create the illusion of stable matter [3].

    Galen Winsor independently exposed exaggerated fears of nuclear radiation generated by governments after WWII [4].

    As Max Planck noted in 1944 (before Stalin gained control): “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together …

    “We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” [3].

    These words by Max Planck illustrate how science, religion and spirituality operated before 1945 as separate paths to the basic truths that underlie all constitutional governments and respect for the basic right of humans to self-governance.

    Restoration of Max Planck’s respect for religions, science and spirituality is the key to restoration of sanity in today’s troubled society.


    1. Aston’s WARNING (12 Dec 1922); CHAOS and FEAR (Aug 1945)

    2. “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)

    3. Max Planck, “The Essence of Matter,” from a speech Dr. Planck gave in Florence, Italy in 1944, entitled “Das Wesen der Materie” (The
    Essence/Nature/Character of Matter) Quelle: Archiv zur Geschichte der
    Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797:

    4. Galen Winsor, “The Nuclear Scare Scam”:

  3. Anything is possible says:

    All their “hottest months ever” are based on this :

    Note the vast swathes of grey, where they have no data.

  4. Anything is possible says:

    …….Which then somehow gets infilled when they include the oceans :

    • DirkH says:

      Well, AP, Seth Borenstein.
      I tried to find statistics for AP’s declining revenue but I was not successful; all I can say is it’s shrinking (wikipedia admits it).

  5. Hello, Suyts. You wrote, “There’s simply nothing there except self-loathing, worry, and totalitarian socialism.”

    Here is the subliminal string I think is being played in leftists’ minds with all this. (I’m not kidding about this.)

    1) The premise behind “global weirding” or “global change” is that CO2 causes the Missing Heat to move around in a chaotic, unpredictable fashion, wreaking havoc wherever it goes, and often going back into hiding for periods of time.

    2) Since conservatives are “responsible” for the increase in CO2 concentration, they are the ones in a sense “causing” all the traumatic “extreme” weather that strikes from time to time.

    3) If they could somehow, in some way, be forced to junk their SUVs and pickups, and switch to a nice Volt or, preferably, a Smart car or Leaf … eat only organic food, lots of salad and a lot less protein … stop doing all the activities that are their peculiar domain, and which cause unnecessary and offensive CO2 emissions … and stop demanding top-notch health-care for themselves and their children … then the unprecedented trauma caused by the roving Missing Heat would begin to diminish.

    In other words, while there is a certain disjointed “logic” to their beliefs about what goes on with “missing heat”, there is also a very strong religious undertone and the suggestion that political disunity or refusal of the right to embrace the left’s religious and cultural preferences is the ultimate cause of meteorological catastrophes. Besides those who are openly pagan, we have folks like Cook and Hayhoe and a lot of “mainline” preachers going out there and claiming Heavenly authority for what they’re prescribing, seemingly ignorant of the strong pagan flavor of it all. (Perhaps not so ignorant after all, but that’s the impression they’re giving.)


    • suyts says:

      Richard, thanks for the comment. Sorry about the wait in moderation.
      Yes, much of what you’re saying is true. It goes to the “self-loathing”. For some reason, the lunatics feel guilty about all of the wonderful things modernization has brought us. They also know nearly all of it came from free enterprise. And, this is what they want to end.

      As to Cook and Heyhoe, I can’t know their heart. But, their willingness to deceive people, (both Cook and Heyhoe have intentionally done so) causes me to wonder about their other claims, seemingly unrelated to the climate debate.

      You’re approved for commenting now, so you don’t have to wait in moderation.

  6. Dave N says:

    Sadly, it rings of “witch hunts” in the old days. Before, if someone’s cow died, they could point at their free-thinking neighbour’s wife and scream “that witch did it!!”.

    Now, when something bad happens that’s actually normal (e.g. a hurricane, a heatwave, a flood, etc), the finger is pointed at fossil fuel consuming humans.

    What is truly sad is that alarmists haven’t yet recognised that their behaviour is entirely the same.

  7. omanuel says:

    As noted above, there is evidence that unreported events abruptly changed the course of world history but were hidden from the public by a news blackout on AUG-SEPT 1945:

    1. Japan built an atomic bomb
    2. Stalin captured that facility and
    3. Held Americans captive before

    Forming the UN on 24 OCT 1945 to take totalitarian control of the world.

    These unpleasant facts may explain the demise of national governments and government-sponsored science after 1945.

    – Oliver

    • omanuel says:

      My research mentor, the late Paul Kazuo Kuroda, used only the title of his 1982 book to hint at the error:

      THE ORIGIN OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS and the OKLO PHENOMENON [1] was his way to tell the public that element synthesis in stars is powered by the same source of energy that powers atomic bombs and nuclear reactors.

      Neutron repulsion was discovered and reported in the open literature nineteen years, later in 2001.

      Marvin Herndon, Kuroda’s academic grandson, reported in 1992 that this same source of energy is in Jupiter’s core.

      1. P. K. Kuroda, The Origin of the Chemical Elements and the Oklo
      (Springer Publishing, 165 pages, Dec 1982)

      • Oliver,

        If it’s all right with you (and with you, James), I have a question for you. As you know, we have been discussing these issues you have raised in very general terms at my blog the last few days.

        As part of this conversation, I asked you:

        So, please correct me if I am mistaken. Are you saying that there are two kinds of artificial nuclear fission …

        – One type which makes use of a false theory of “nuclear binding energy”, and actually produces fission by neutron repulsion, but not with maximized efficiency; and

        – Another type which makes explicit use of the more valid theory of neutron repulsion, and thereby produces more energy per kg of fuel than the first approach?

        And you have expressed to me that “the problem is not two different types of fission” in response to my question whether you are suggesting that there are two kinds of artificial fission.

        I wonder if perhaps you have misunderstood my question. My specific question (and this is the reason I included the word “artificial”) was whether there is another method of producing fission within an artificial reactor, which is not known to mainstream physicists.

        I phrased my question this way because as I’m sure you know, there is a plurality of known and widely publicized methods of creating fission in a reactor, but of course in each case the fission that results is fundamentally the same, i.e. it releases energy in the same way, whatever that way may actually be. (Whether it be the way they describe, or the way you describe which includes neutron repulsion and a weaker nuclear binding force.)

        So if one is not overly concerned about clarity, one could simultaneously maintain that there is both one and a plurality of types of fission, depending on what one means by a “type” of fission.

        If by “type of fission” one means what the particles are doing and why, then one could say that there is only one type of fission. But if by “type of fission” one means the specific technology or method that is used to achieve fission, then there is more than one type that is widely known to exist. Hence, for clarity, I included the word “artificial” in my question.

        Your response that “the problem is not two different types of fission” seems to have assumed the other meaning of “kind” which I was not trying to suggest.

        To be clearer, I was trying to ask if the problem is that there is another method by which fission could be achieved that is more effective than the prevailing method, and which is not generally known to physicists today.

        The reason I bring this up again is because I see in your recent comments on the present page your statement that von Weizsacker’s “deceptive concept of nuclear binding energy” was propagated for the purpose of preventing “access to reliable nuclear energy by [. . .] Allied scientists after WWII”.

        This statement by you is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement that “the problem is not two different types of fission”, if in fact you use the same sense of “type of fission” that I was trying to convey with my use of the word “artificial”. The only way your two statements are mutually consistent is if you took the wrong meaning from my reference to “two kinds of artificial fission”.

        So in conclusion, it seems that when you write above that the Sun’s pulsar core “supplied the force that holds each atom together to create the illusion of stable matter” (my emphasis), you are trying to suggest that an illusion of stable matter was propagated by Stalin’s physicists in order to mislead other physicists into thinking that fission is much harder to achieve than it really is. This then unequivocally implies that there is another, relatively hidden method for achieving fission that is much less difficult than the one being generally used today. (I.e. if atomic nuclei are less stable than is generally believed, then fission is necessarily achieved with much less effort than is generally believed.)

        This is precisely what I was asking if you were saying, and you denied it at my blog, but you have almost simultaneously, clearly stated it here, while saying at my blog that you were unable to communicate your conclusions to me. So I can only conclude that you must have misconstrued what I was asking you.


        • suyts says:

          Richard, thanks for asking, but, it isn’t necessary. You are, as well as anyone else, invited to ask questions, towards me, or anyone else commenting here, or to no one in particular.

          There has been only very rare occasions in which I felt it necessary to either intercede or quash a particular comment, commentator, or thread. I simply don’t have the hubris to demand of people to discuss only the things I wish to discuss.

          BTW, Richard, you do know your gravitar doesn’t link to your blog, right?


        • Yeah, I just figured that out yesterday. I think I took it off at some point, and then forgot. Thanks. RTF

  8. omanuel says:

    @Richard T. Fowler

    All your questions will be answered if you study the nine pages of precise experimental data in this manuscript and read the text:

    “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014)

    • Oliver,

      I’m pretty sure I did already, but I’ll do it again if it will make you happy. Meanwhile, you could help your effort quite a lot if you would just give a straight “yes” or “no” (or “I’m not sure”, or “it depends”, but a straight, plain answer) to the questions I’ve asked. You are really not helping anyone by telling people to just go back and read again what they’ve already read. The reason I asked questions was because I didn’t find the answer in what I read.

      Thank you.

      – Richard

      • All right, I’ve just read your 19-page paper again. As expected, there is not one word in it that is responsive to the questions I’ve recently asked you. Not one jot or tittle.

        So apparently I was not actually an idiot for asking those questions.

        I think you may possibly be on to something with some of your findings. However, until you learn how to properly communicate them to the public, it is unlikely they will be widely understood within your lifetime.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s