MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data”…”No Scientific Value”!

Share this...

In a newly released Kindle book that is set to peeve established climate science, an MIT doctorate climate researcher blasts alarmist claims of a warming planet and illustrates how temperature data are untrustworthy and far too scant to draw sound conclusions.

By Kirye
and Pierre Gosselin

Dr. Kiminori Itoh just brought to our attention a recently released Kindle version Japanese climate skeptical book with the title: kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu, authored by Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. a scientist who received doctorate from MIT.

The book’s title translated in English: “A climate scientist’s profession – Global warming theory is unproven, only a hypothesis“.

Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy”, “falsified”.  Image:

In his book, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on.

“Not backed by demonstrable data”

He writes that although many people, including a lot of climate researchers, believe it is a confirmed fact that global surface mean temperatures have been rising since Industrial Revolution, it is however “not backed by demonstrable data”. He points out:

Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data. Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

Prestigious career

Dr. Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

Failed climate models

Nakamura’s book demolishes “the lie of critical global warming due to increasing carbon dioxide”, exposes the great uncertainty of “global warming in the past 100 years” and points out the glaring failure of climate models.

Only 5% of Earth’s surface adequately measured over past 100 yrs

According to Dr. Nakamura, the temperature data are woefully lacking and do
not allow in any way the drawing of any useful conclusions.

Presently the book is available in Japanese only. What follows are translated/paraphrased excerpts.

For example, Dr. Nakamura illustrates how scant the global temperature data really are, and writes that over the last 100 years “only 5 percent of the Earth’s area is able show the mean surface temperature with any certain degree of confidence.”

Ocean data extremely scant…

Then there’s the desolate amount of data from the massive oceans. Later Dr. Nakamura describes how the precision of the observed mean temperature from the ocean surface, which accounts for roughly 75% of the Earth’s surface, are questionable to an extreme.

He writes, “The pre-1980 temperature data from the sea and water are very scant” and that the methodology used for recording them totally lacks adequacy.

To top it off: “The climate datasets used for the sea surface water temperature data have added various adjustments to the raw data.”

1 station per 10,000 sq km almost meaningless

Dr. Nakamura also describes how the number of surface stations used globally cannot provide any real accurate temperature picture. He writes: “Experts cannot just decide that 10,000 sq km per station is representative of temperature.”

Later he explains: “If you accept the Earth surface mean temperature’s warming since the Industrial Revolution as the truth, it means you agree with the idea that the Earth surface mean temperature rise can be determined by a biased tiny region on the globe. It is nonsense. Looking at the regions with long term temperature data, you can see that some regions warmed, and some other regions cooled.

Nakamura’s harsh judgement: “No scientific value”

Finally, Nakamura blasts the ongoing data adjustments: “Furthermore, more recently, experts have added new adjustments which have the helpful effect of making the Earth seem to continue warming”. The talented Japanese scientist deems this “data falsification”.

He concludes:

Therefore, the global surface mean temperature change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

Share this...

57 responses to “MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data”…”No Scientific Value”!”

  1. Yonason

    Only 80 pages?

    That’s not what I got from this…

    ”On page 206/1559…”

    And yes, I think it would be very helpful if they came out with an English edition.

  2. mwhite

    But most people will see this kind off thing

    1. Xenomoly

      Most people have no idea what’s going on in the world and don’t pay attention. This stuff from the BBC gets shared an activist circles but the majority of people never see this nonsense. The BBC readership and the readership of just about every “woke” media is dwindling across-the-board.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    The Climate Cult has moved beyond data, so this book will have very little impact. There is no data needed to predict Rapture, link .

    In 2050 or before, this sort of statement may be looked on as a missed opportunity for world leaders to have backed away from the global warming via CO2 scam. They could, instead, be working on real issues.

    Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book is a good reference to keep on hand.
    Thanks much.

  4. Phil Salmon

    Bless you Dr Nakamura!

  5. lemiere jacques

    well..what is terrible here is ..nothing new…

  6. 4TimesAYear

    People who do their research and rely on common sense reached this conclusion a long time ago. Not to discount his research and findings, though – it verifies what we have been saying. It vindicates us. Thank you Dr. Mototaka Nakamura

  7. Edward Caryl

    A brave man! I nominate him for a Nobel.

  8. Sam Pyeatte

    When is the English translation going to come out?

  9. I_am_not_a_robot

    ‘The talented Japanese scientist deems this “data falsification”’.
    The surface record has been incrementally ‘adjusted’ over the years to fit a predetermined narrative as indicated by an email between Tom Wigley and Phil Jones:
    “…If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip …” etc.
    The email reads like a customer asking his tailor to let out a pair of pants and comparing HADCRUT 3 to HADCRUT 4 they are still at it.
    The whole sorry story was exhaustively described here in Nov 2017:
    As Josh’s brilliant cartoon put it: “Welcome to the Adjustocene”.

  10. DonG

    It seems to me that the skeptical climate scientists are mostly coming from East Asia. I am thankful that they have not been corrupted the Euro/American group think.

    1. yarpos

      Maybe its that IQ thing that cannot be discussed?

      1. Yonason

        Virtually all true believers in warmism are socialists, or some variant thereof. Most skeptics are not. That strongly implies that the problem isn’t one of IQ, but one of integrity.

        The following provide strong support for that hypothesis.

  11. Don from OZ

    Verification of my thoughts too!
    Not only that, but there is one measurement/10,000 AND the measurements are concentrated in populated areas.
    How many measurements are taken over the Poles compared with equatorial regions and everywhere in between.

  12. Tim Gorman

    Someone with impeccable credits finally telling the truth about the climate data. None of the data sets allow calculating the margin of error for the calculated mean so there is no way to tell if a trend in the mean is inside our outside the margin of error. It makes the mean useless for anything!

    Not only that but a “global mean” is useless. It doesn’t allow determining if the maximum temperatures are going up, down, or sideways. It doesn’t allow determining if the minimum temperatures are going up, down or sideways. How do you draw *any* conclusions if you can’t tell what is actually happening?

    As someone else pointed out, some regions of the globe are cooling and some are warming. Trying to develop a long term strategy where you apply a one-size-fits-all solutions to all regions of the globe is not only idiotic, it is *dangerous*!

    Long term strategies must be developed on a regional basis and must be founded on empirical data specific to the region. It is beyond senseless to think that a strategy developed for central Africa would also apply in the central CONUS! Trying to apply empirical measurements from central CONUS to central Africa simply is a total waste of time!

  13. Wiliam Haas

    AGW has always been a conjecture. At first the AGW conjecture seems to be quite plausible but upon closer inspection I find that he AGW conjecture is full of holes and cannot be defended.

  14. Scott McNab

    Sad thing is that what he says is quite obvious, with land temps and the ocean measurement which has improved in recent decades is still 1 thermometer for a space larger than California.
    Nice that he speaks up, every real scientist should be…

  15. Roland Salomonsson

    Have anybody asked – what is it Russian climate-scientists know that NOT the rest av the worlds climate-scientists know of? Especially those IPCC-supporting alleged scientist?

    There are about 70 so called climate-models making prognoses that are NOT close to the “truth” after some years. But ONE model is sticking out – the Russian model. The prognose from THAT model is nearly following the measured data on Earth.

  16. Roland Salomonsson

    Another scam/fraud!
    How come alleged scientists claim CO2 is a greenhousegas? Anybody calling themself scientist should know CO2 is NOT filtering ALL the frequencies the sun sends towards the Earth. In fact, if I remember right, CO2 only filters the lowest resp highest parts of the incoming frequencies. Most energy flows in between those parts. Then, there is so low level of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are only about ONE molecule of CO2 on higher altitude per cubic meter atmosphere – and that molecule is supposed to reflect incoming and outgoing frequencies. BULLSHIT!

    But there is ONE gas that´s filters those frequencies where most of the solar energy beam, and that´s WATER/WATERVAPOUR. Just go out and feel what happens when a cloud moves in front of the sun! Where CO2 has one molecule per cubic meter, H2= has hundreds – THINK!

    Is CO2 attacked just because, if humans really make the CO2 get a lower level in atmosphere, then there will be a real live FAMINE on the Earth. Something the globalists may use to take power. Agenda 2030!

    Somebody made calculations – IF CO2-level is

    0,01% or lower coalbased live on Earth would be extinct. Earth like Mars!
    0,02% higer life is going extinct, for ex humanity
    0,0286% as about year 1900 the extinction process is ongoing, for ex desserts, tundras increasing, woods decreasing etc. Of 2,5 bilion humans about half of them lives near starvation.
    0,0416% as today, life is coming back, desserts, tundras decrease, steppes get afforestated and of about 8 bilion humans there are no starvations other depending om wars. Earth even has a food-overbalance today. Note the poor half of the farmers on Earth can NOT afford modern machines, fertilizers etc, so this is ONLY due of increasing CO2. Greenhouse cultivators have done that trick for years – having 1-2% CO2 inside their Greenhouses.
    0,08% or MORE, would make it possible to support 80 bilions of humans with food, AND at same time let nature have back half of nowerdays used lands. This also would make desserts, tundras minimized – may be to nothing.

    Conclution? What are humanity waiting for? Start increasin the CO2-level on Earth most as possible. For humanitys best. Natures best! Moreover, the big danger is still next glacial period, which is closing in.

    1. F. Ketterer

      Your (mis-)conception of science is reflected by this sentence:
      “Anybody calling themself scientist should know CO2 is NOT filtering ALL the frequencies the sun sends towards the Earth.”
      This is trivia: In case CO2 would would filter out all, you would not be able to see soemthing that is commonly called sunrise (sunset).

      Next one”: “there are only about ONE molecule of CO2 on higher altitude per cubic meter atmosphere” This is so ridicoulous that I do not discuss this until you come back with the written Avogadro constaant without using power of 10s.

  17. sasquatch

    How dare a scientist from MIT question the AGW theory.
    Off with his head. NOW!

    When you finally see how climate change nutjobs go to the limit to protest something, you don’t have to look too far.

    Darwin Award for David Buckel. You can’t fix stupid.

    Just take a look around you, it is easy to see the climate is not changing catastrophically, no matter what the maha reishas say.

    Sweden has recorded weather data since 1756.

    historical meteorology of Sweden

    Stockholm Air Temp Data

    260 years of Swedish meteorological records have to be important data.

  18. Yoda

    How come nobody disputes the Paris Agreement’s Declaration of
    “1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial level” which is nonsense because it is nonsense because nobody knows what it is.

  19. tom0maason

    Thank-you Kirye for highlighting Dr. Mototaka Nakamura work and his book. An English translation would be a great boon to help counter the never ending nonsense that western MSM continually puts out. Currently they (the MSM) are fighting hard with memes to get people to associate poor weather events as climate effects. Climate worrying is all about politics, power, and money, so very little about true science.

  20. tom0mason

    Other works from Dr. Mototaka Nakamura are listed here —

  21. Brian James

    Absolutely! Jun 22, 2019 Volcano, Weather Records, PUNCH, Cold Disk | S0 News

    Daily Sun, Earth and Science News

  22. R. Pitner just your average white Earthling

    Well duh I couldn’t agree more coming out now is a little too late with such huge amounts of tax payer money funnelled to private special interest groups that by the way made all “the proceeds” claiming their undying loyalty towards reversing the so called effects of global warming is long gone and spent on well we can only guess. I like to refer it as “The Multi Billion Profit
    based on a Scare Tactic” that was made on scientific research already long ago concluded as a natural process oops our bad for falling for it. So let’s move it forward folks learn to live with our evolving enviroment called planet Earth and quit trying to profitise on a concrete fact that our days are numbered no matter where we are in the evolutionary chain.
    -Rachel Pitner

  23. nemo

    Mototaka is from caltech, not MIT… also surface temp has nothing to do with global warming. Learn science theb disprove those who study it, dont just just think common sense trumps all rational thinking. common sense is not what made the computer lmao

    1. tom0mason

      Mototaka is from caltech, not MIT… ???

      The picture used here is the same as at

      Where they say —

      International Pacific Research Center

      Mototaka Nakamura
      Visiting Associate Researcher
      (FRCGC Research Scientist)
      [Past Staff]

      International Pacific Research Center
      School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology
      University of Hawaii
      Honolulu, Hawaii 96822


      1995 – Sc.D. (Meteorology), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
      Research Interests
      Climate dynamics

      Selected Publications

      Also …

      Mototaka Nakamura joined the IPRC this fall as a visiting associate researcher from Frontier Research Center for Global Change.

      He worked for a Japanese company before going to North Carolina State University to get his bachelor’s degree in 1989 in meteorology with a minor in oceanography. He spent the next years at MIT working on his doctoral degree and on “whatever interested me.”

      After completing his Ph.D. in 1994, Nakamura spent another year at MIT, joined the Georgia Institute of Technology for a year, worked at Goddard Space Flight, returned to MIT, and then joined the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for three years, where he examined the role of eddies (waves) in the large-scale circulation and material mixing and transport in the atmosphere and oceans.

  24. MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims – Truth is difficult but essential…

    […] No Tricks Zone – MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, F… […]

  25. MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams Global Warming Claims - FeuTex - #ForAuthors

    […] No Tricks Zone – MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsi… […]

  26. Ed

    When will people realise that any CO2 reduction policy should also be seen in a longer-term context:
    • The modern short pulse of beneficial Global warming stopped 20 years ago and recent global temperatures are now stable or declining.
    • According to reliable Ice Core records the last millennium 1000 – 2000 AD was the coldest of our current Holocene interglacial and the world had already been cooling quite rapidly for 3000 years, in fact since ~1000 BC.
    • At 11,000 years old, our Holocene interglacial, responsible for all man-kind’s advances, from living in caves to microprocessors, is coming its end.
    • The weather gets worse in colder times.
    • The world will very soon, (on a geological time scale), revert to a true glaciation, again resulting in mile high ice sheets over New York.

    The prospect of even moving in a cooling direction is something to be truly scared about, both for the biosphere and for man-kind.

    Spending any effort, let alone GDP scale costs, trying to stop the UK’s 1% of something that has not been happening for 3 millennia seems truly stupid.

  27. richard

    “Experts cannot just decide that 10,000 sq km per station is representative of temperature.”

    “Figure 1 shows sensors at three different heights record the temperatures in one of Pico Technology’s storerooms. The sensor readings differ by at least 1°C so clearly, no matter how accurate the individual sensors, we will never be able to measure room temperature to 1°C accuracy”

    hmmm…. Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass temps are estimated.


    “Because the data with respect to in-situ surface
    air temperature across Africa is sparse, a oneyear regional assessment for Africa could not
    be based on any of the three standard global
    surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4. Instead, the
    combination of the Global Historical Climatology
    Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring
    System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System
    Research Laboratory was used to estimate
    surface air temperature patterns”

    1. Petit_Barde

      So, bogus models run on fake data generated by “research labs” models … this is even worse than GIGO.

      What a joke this Monty Pythonian climate clownery is …

      But that’s not the end of this pseudo-science travesty. The media are not left out as far as stupidity and dishonesty are concerned :

    2. fleppy

      Not only that, but you can not predict a temperature outcome to the tenth of a degree if you are only measuring (over the long term) to a single degree. In addition, you simply can not collect data from thermal measurement tools that are not calibrated to the same degree (not to mention tenth of a degree.) No respectable science experiment would measure temperature using random thermometers pulled from a drawer every other day.
      It’s all ludicrous.

  28. Rudolf Huber

    Now a Climate Scientist, a doctorate from one of the most prestigious East Coast establishments confirming what has been clear to all those using common sense for a long time. Let me spruce this up with another example. There is a turret clock on the Tour d’Horloge at the corner of the Conciergerie in Paris which Parisians claim has not stopped once for 800 years. How would we know if it stopped once, twice, 1000 times? We know that much that we get from history is unreliable as much has been embellished or corrected. Same for temperature data. Temperature is like the clock – its measurements are fleeting. At one time its here – then it’s gone. You can only trust – or not trust. Considering how much money is in Climate Change I prefer to know. And knowledge spreads from proof – not from trusting someone’s word. Wrecking the world economy on the basis of so little is a crime to humanity.

    1. tom0mason

      “Considering how much money is in Climate Change I prefer to know. And knowledge spreads from proof – not from trusting someone’s word. Wrecking the world economy on the basis of so little is a crime to humanity.”

      Well said, I just wish more scientists would want for such proofs and transparency.

  29. dennisambler

    This whole temperature thing is a minefield. There really is no meaningful absolute surface air temperature.

    GISS explanation on absolute is here, written originally by James Hansen and now under Gavin’s name:

    What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
    A. In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F (13.3 -14.4C) and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

    Gavin explains…

    “In 1997, the NOAA state of the climate summary stated that the global average temperature was 62.45ºF (16.92ºC). The page now has a caveat added about the issue of the baseline, but a casual comparison to the statement in 2016 stating that the record-breaking year had a mean temperature of 58.69ºF (14.83ºC) could be mightily confusing.” Indeed…

    “In reality, 2016 was warmer than 1997 by about 0.5ºC!”

    He explains re-analyses:
    “For those of you unfamiliar with these projects, “reanalyses” are effectively the weather forecasts you would have got over the years if we had modern computers and models available. Weather forecasts (the “analyses”) have got much better over the years because computers are faster and models are more skillful. But if you want to track the real changes in weather, you don’t want to have to worry about the models changing.

    So reanalyses were designed to get around that by redoing all the forecasts over again.”

    Gavin gives a link to a 1999 paper by Phil Jones:

    Jones says:

    “We present global fields of surface temperature change over the two 20-year periods of greatest warming this century, 1925-1944 and 1978-1997. Over these periods, global temperatures rose by 0.37 and 0.32C, respectively.”

    He is saying that the greatest increase in the 20th century was 1925-44, before the large increase in CO2 emissions from the war and afterwards. CO2 rose by 5.4ppm during that period, 1.8%. In the 34 years from 1944 to 1978, temperatures were static, for a rise in CO2 of 25.7 ppm.

    Phil Jones again: “although rarely used, the most widely quoted value for the global average for the 1961–1990 period is 14.0 C (or 57.2 F)

    The concept of “1.5 degrees to disaster”, with only 0.5 deg C to go, is absolutely farcical. There is no such precision and they simply lie about certainty and uncertainty. The message is the thing, the facts, not so much.

    Interesting observations and discussion here:

    Bob Tisdale at WUWT:

    “There is about a 0.8 deg C (about 1.4 deg F) span in the estimates of absolute global mean surface temperatures, with the warmer estimate coming from the more recent estimate based on a more up-to-date global surface temperature databases. In other words, the BEST (Berkeley Earth) estimate seems more likely than the outdated GISS and NCDC values.

    There is a much larger span in the climate model simulations of absolute global surface temperatures, averaging about 3.15 deg C (about 5.7 deg F) from 1880 to 2013. To put that into perspective, starting in the 1990s, politicians have been suggesting we limit the warming of global surface temperatures to 2.0 deg C (3.6 deg F).

  30. Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was

    […] a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend, Little wonder Japanese climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura recently characterized NASA’s global warming data as “untrustworthy” and […]

  31. Klimawissen­schaftler am MIT: „AGW-Behaup­tungen fußen auf nicht vertrauens­würdigen, gefälschten Daten … haben keinerlei wissenschaft­lichen Wert!“ – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
  32. Klimawissen­schaftler am MIT: „AGW-Behaup­tungen fußen auf nicht vertrauens­würdigen, gefälschten Daten … haben keinerlei wissenschaft­lichen Wert!“ - Leserbriefe
  33. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #363 | Watts Up With That?
  34. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #363 - Sciencetells
  35. Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was – Newscats Hasslefree Allsort

    […] a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend, Little wonder Japanese climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura recently characterized expert’s global warming data as “untrustworthy” and […]

  36. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #363 – All My Daily News
  37. Weekly Abstract of Local weather and Vitality # 363 – Next Gadget

    […] MIT Doctorate Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data&#8221… […]

  38. Adjusted “Unadjusted” Data: NASA Uses The “Magic Wand Of Fudging”, Produces Warming Where There Never Was ⋆ CASF

    […] a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend, Little wonder Japanese climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamurarecently characterized expert’s global warming data as “untrustworthy” and […]

  39. Adjustierte „unad­justierte“ Daten: NASA nutzt den „Zauberstab“ des Frisierens und erzeugt Erwär­mung dort, wo es nie eine gab – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie

    […] einen robusten Erwärmungstrend verwandelt. Kein Wunder, dass der japanische Klimawissenschaftler Dr. Mototaka Nakamura [auf Deutsch beim EIKE hier] jüngst die globale Erwärmung zeigenden Daten der Experten als […]

  40. Adjustierte „unad­justierte“ Daten: NASA nutzt den „Zauberstab“ des Frisierens und erzeugt Erwär­mung dort, wo es nie eine gab - Leserbriefe

    […] einen robusten Erwärmungstrend verwandelt. Kein Wunder, dass der japanische Klimawissenschaftler Dr. Mototaka Nakamura [auf Deutsch beim EIKE hier] jüngst die globale Erwärmung zeigenden Daten der Experten als […]

  41. Jim Ring

    IPCC Third Assessment Report
    Chapter 14
    Last paragraph:

    “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. 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.”

    This information was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the press and public.

    If the climate is indeed a coupled non-linear chaotic system (who can doubt the IPCC) then there is no rational or scientific basis to make a definitive statement about a future state of the climate.

    At this point the coupled non-linear chaotic nature of the climate makes scientific observations academically interesting but individually they have no relevance in predicting the future state of the climate. The climate is a system which means the relationships among these observations are what is important not the observations themselves.

    All the public discourse regarding the future state of the climate has been based on the false premise that the current climate models are predicting the future state of the climate when in fact the models are merely projecting these states.

    Predictions are the purview of science. Model projections can only agree with predictions when the models duplicate the real world which the IPCC says is impossible to do.

    To base public policy on an unknowable state of a system defies common sense. However, too much money and political power is at stake for the Central Planners to do otherwise.

    I would argue that the Climate Model True Believers are the ones taking an unscientific approach to the subject.

  42. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – July 8th 2019 | PA Pundits - International

    […] Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data” […]

  43. Energy And Environmental Newsletter – July 8th 2019 - Zax News

    […] Climate Scientist Slams GW Claims: Based On “Untrustworthy, Falsified Data” […]

  44. Dr Tim Ball _ Historical Climatologist

    Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist
    Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    Book “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy