Spectacular Fraud From The Lancet Commission

ScreenHunter_9765 Jun. 25 12.58ScreenHunter_9764 Jun. 25 12.57


This is a blatant falsehood. So far this century, atmospheric temperatures are declining.

ScreenHunter_9766 Jun. 25 13.01

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

Even fraudulent GISS data is nowhere near the Lancet claims.

ScreenHunter_9768 Jun. 25 13.17

Perhaps they were ignoring the actual data, and basing their claims on models? The models are hopelessly broken, and don’t put temperatures anywhere near 4C even if they were correct.

ScreenHunter_9670 Jun. 23 08.29

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

The only possible conclusion from this study is that the authors are intentionally misrepresenting the facts, and the peer-review process is hopelessly corrupt.

Earlier this week their editor admitted that half of scientific research is fraudulent

ScreenHunter_9770 Jun. 25 14.16

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.

Shocking Report from Medical Insiders | New Eastern Outlook

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Spectacular Fraud From The Lancet Commission

  1. cfgj says:

    How come there’s no pause in the warming of the seas (ARGO)? Mean sea level rise is also continuing without any hiatus. Clearly the planet is still warming up!

    • Climate models forecast troposphere warming, which isn’t happening.

      • cfgj says:

        What do the models by skeptics forecast?

        • shazaam says:

          Skeptics are aware of the limitations of computer-generated fantasy climate models and thus consider them to be mere toys, and nothing to take seriously.

          When the models can accurately predict even a month or 2 into the future, they may be worth a look. As it stands now, the current “permanent drought” in Texas is the perfect monument to the reliability of the computer-generated fantasy climate models of today.

          Models that fail to predict a month shouldn’t be trusted to predict a decade (or a century) into the future.

          As I see it, the best result to come from all the massive failures of government science is that the people are learning just how trustworthy governments and government funded science really are. There is always a silver lining and the well-earned loss of trust in government is going to be a game changer in the future.

        • Bill Gray forecast the hiatus twenty years ago

        • shazaam says:

          As a continuation of my “trust in government” theme, this is just hilarious: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/25/the-white-house-wants-your-doctor-to-teach-you-about-global-warming/

          Obama (aka The-Laughingstock-in-Chief) realizes his words are falling on deaf ears. Given the truth-to-falsehood ration of his words, this should not be a surprise to him. So, he’s trying to enlist the help of a profession that is still (perhaps unwisely) trusted by the people.

          I would predict that the result of this “presidential” (aka Boneheaded) initiative will be to reduce the people’s trust in the medical profession.

          A healthy dose of skepticism by the people will be a great thing for the medical profession going forward. The current “Magic-Bullet-Pill-for-Everything” system is flawed and needs a healthy dose of skepticism. /soapbox

        • gator69 says:

          Do I then get medical advice from my mechanic, or my plumber?

        • shazaam says:

          Do I then get medical advice from my mechanic, or my plumber?

          If you chose to do so, I have no complaints, nor would I discourage you.

          However, since Obamacare made it legal for drug companies to offer kickbacks to doctors for prescribing their wares, I personally, will question whether I really “need” the medication being prescribed.

          Truth is a casualty when financial interests intrude. Climate “science”, medicine, etc.

          Your Mileage May Vary.

        • gator69 says:

          I kicked my last doctor to the curb when I had to solve my own sleep issues, all he wanted to do was prescribe meds. It turned out I had a vitamin D deficiency. I did all my own research and solved it on my own. This was about ten years ago, before the medical profession caught on wholesale to vitamin D.

          My nearest neighbor was diagnosed with high cholesterol, and placed on a statin drug, instead of a diet. As a result he ended up with severe neuropathy and is no longer able to move his arms, has difficulty speaking, and may need a ventilator soon.

          Before my father passed away, he was on so many meds that he rattled. I convinced my mother to take him to the VA hospital and get a comprehensive review of his meds. The VA doctor immediately cut his meds in half, as some were redundant, and others simply cancelled each other out.

          I would rather see a veterinarian than most doctors these days.

        • Goddard says: ”So far this century, atmospheric temperatures are declining.”
          cfgj says: “… there’s no pause in the warming of the seas … Clearly the planet is still warming up!”
          Goddard says: “Climate models forecast troposphere warming, which isn’t happening.”
          cfgj says: “What do the models by skeptics forecast?”

          cfgj, you argue like a trained Marxist. The global warming theory you are defending stipulates that an increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 will heat up the troposphere. It is not happening as predicted, and it’s not happening as modeled.

          Nobody needs an alternative model to see that and say so. In real science nobody needs an alternative theory to point out such conflict of real world observations with the predicted results of a proposed theory. Only Marxists and other con men use this technique.

    • gator69 says:

      Exactly how much measured warming has been observed, and where?

      The Hadfield study compared the new ARGO robotic buoys to other ways of measuring ocean temperatures in a slice across the North Atlantic. The results are fairly devastating for claims that the oceans are heating by 0.005° C per year. Hadfield et al found that the Argo network made errors around 0.5° C, and up to 2° C in one area.

      • cfgj says:

        Check the sea-level ris from altimetry, bulging caused by El Ninos and other kinds of warming shows up very nicely.

        Oceans have been warming without any hiatus.

        • gator69 says:

          Quit dodging the question weasel.

          Exactly how much measured warming has been observed, and where?

          The Hadfield study compared the new ARGO robotic buoys to other ways of measuring ocean temperatures in a slice across the North Atlantic. The results are fairly devastating for claims that the oceans are heating by 0.005° C per year. Hadfield et al found that the Argo network made errors around 0.5° C, and up to 2° C in one area.

        • rah says:

          Gee, who would have thunk it! Atmospheric pressure and varying geological masses aren’t a major factor effecting local sea levels according the Cfgi! Like everything else apparently, it’s all about temperature.

        • Really?? Seems Argo Buoy data do NOT support Global Sea Level Rise..

          Where do you get this data?? … and WHY are you ignoring the Satellite Record proving the Haitus??.. demonstrating NO WARMING and failing all these predictions??

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Clearly the planet is still warming up!”

      Not clear at all. But even if the planet were still warming up, we can say that it is most likely NOT due to CO2 increasing. Why? Because the definitive marker for CO2 induced warming is a hot spot in the upper troposphere. No hot spot means that added CO2 is not causing warming.

      • “Because the definitive marker for CO2 induced warming is a hot spot in the upper troposphere. No hot spot means that added CO2 is not causing warming.”

        That is true according to the theory of atmospheric warming but the Marxist theory postulates the inevitable victory of the proletariat, peasants and progressive intelligentsia over bourgeois ruling classes.

        cfgj is historically correct. Your argument is dismissed.

        • Gail Combs says:

          “…the Marxist theory postulates the inevitable victory of the proletariat, peasants and progressive intelligentsia over bourgeois ruling classes.”
          You have the true Marxist Theory wrong.

          The theory postulates the inevitable victory of the Elite Aristocracy/Banksters over the bourgeois aka independent middle class (that’s us) using the intentionally misled and ignorant peasants and the parasites (progressive intelligentsia) thereby returning the earth to a totalitarian rule with two classes: the pampered Elite Aristocracy/ and the ignorant and superstitious serfs who serve them.

          cfgj exemplifies the typical nonthinking ignorant and superstitious serf.

          The major obstacle for the Aristocracy was conviencing the peasants they wanted to return to serfdom instead of becoming independent intelligent individuals aka the bourgeois. Marx came up with a method of convincing people to return to serfdom and the banksters have been implimenting the method ever since.

          If you can not OWN property your ARE PROPERTY. One of the major points of Marxism is repudiating the individual’s right to own property and their right to own the product of their labor. That is just another definition of a serf or slave. FREE men can own property. FREE men can own the fruits of their labor. If you can’t you are a serf or a slave.

          Welcome to Neofeudalism aka Socialism/Communism.

      • cfgj says:

        So based on a model CO2 should make this hotspot? Ok.

        • No, it’s based on the fact that, in the lower troposphere, H2O absorbs all the IR before CO2 gets a chance to do anything, and the only place where CO2 exists where the H2O is low enough that the CO2 can do anything, is the upper troposphere, which should warm if increasing CO2 causes any warming, and therefore create a “hot spot”. Yeah OK the poles too, but the south pole keeps on cooling and the north pole has reversed warming.

          You lose, loser. Burn some fossil fuels for me. Oh, you already do? How nice.

    • wizzum says:

      Isn’t the error factor of ARGO greater than the rise it is reporting?

      • wizzum says:

        Gator, I mustn’t have updated fast enough to see your comment.

        • gator69 says:

          Only climate scientists make a career out of error bars.

        • Ted says:

          Only climate scientists make a career out of IGNORING error bars.

          Fixed that for you, Gator.

        • gator69 says:

          Thanks for clarifying my statement.

        • David A says:

          Maybe Gator is correct, They look for a data base with large error bars. The data mine for error bars. They adjusted the argo floats using old ship bucket measurements. So, for them the larger the error bars the better. They simply often CHOOSE to not publish realistic error bars.

  2. They still use leeches – indeed the whole climate scam is based on that form of medicine.

  3. Ted says:

    Most estimates put the actual CO2 sensitivity at 1 degree per doubling. For 4 degrees, that brings us to about 4500 PPM. That level would severely reduce the human life span, IQ, general health, and probably fertility. It’s debatable whether people in such an atmosphere could even live long enough to reproduce. No one would care about, or even notice, that extra 4 degrees, since everyone would be stuck living in sealed bubbles.

    The higher sensitivity numbers are based entirely on hypothetical positive feedbacks. Aside from there being zero empirical evidence for such feedbacks, the very fact of our planet’s immense age makes the idea of unbounded positive feedbacks a mathematical farce. Moreover, these hypothesized feedbacks would not be directly caused by CO2, but by warming. The feedbacks wouldn’t care where that warming came from. As such, those feedbacks would necessarily be STRONGER in a lower CO2 atmosphere, because CO2 itself would have more room to add to the response.

    Ices cores are the best evidence we have for previous interglacial temperatures. They show a clear upper bound to any warming feedback loop, at about 2-3 degrees warmer than today. The burden is on those who claim that this time is different, to show us why it should be different.

    • oz4caster says:

      CO2 levels may have been around 4000 ppm back in the Carboniferous period when most of our coal was made. Plants loved it. CO2 is not harmful to humans at such low concentrations, as long as there is plenty of oxygen. For humans, the only health problem from CO2 is if it is at extremely high concentrations, as an asphyxiant that displaces oxygen.

      • Ted says:

        OSHA lists 5000 ppm as the safe limit for 8 hours at a time, for people who can go back to normal levels to work it out of their systems. Without a detoxification period, the exposure is mildly cumulative. If you’re stuck in it permanently, the acidosis builds up. Certainly, 4500 ppm is no immediate threat to human life. But it’s unlikely that the body could handle decades of uninterrupted exposure.

        That said, burning the entire known world reserves of fossil fuels wouldn’t get us to 4500 ppm. The huge amounts our atmosphere had millions of years ago are predominantly locked up in limestone, which doesn’t burn well. My point was only that 4 degrees of warming from CO2 was a completely absurd prediction.

    • Gail Combs says:

      The evidence is the earth is cooling not warming.
      65 million years of cooling

      The last five million years:

      So Dinosaurs Could Fly ! The actual paper HERE

      An observed fall in global annual mean atmospheric pressure since 1916.

      Atmospheric presure is a more of a major control factor in the earth’s climate than CO2.

    • I have a CO2 meter which I sometimes carry around for fun. CO2 levels are usually around 5000 ppm in the bagel cafe when it’s busy, from all the people breathing and from the yeast rising, and the bagel ovens and coffee bean roasters run on natural gas. People who work there every day look healthy as can be. Nobody has asthma or heart attacks.

      • rah says:

        On US subs during WW II, and everyone elses I imagine, it would be impossible to light a cigarette after the sub had been submerged for an hour or so. The time would vary of course depending on the number of people on board.

        A Gato and Balao class subs, were the prototypical type the US produced just before and during the war. The only major design difference between the two was the Baloa class had a pressure hull twice as thick as the Gato class. Each had a normal crew size of 81 to 85 could stay submerged for 48 hours and that was extend a few times in emergencies with the release of pure oxygen from cylinders and the use of CO2 absorbent.

        On modern subs with CO2 scrubbers and other environmental systems that driven by nuclear power allows the sub to stay down an almost indefinite period if the crew doesn’t need to eat, the CO2 level is kept at or below 8,000 ppm.

        • gator69 says:

          CO2 Concentrations and Effects

          150 ppm – the minimum concentration below which many plants may face problems to run photosynthesis and stop growing

          180 ppm – the concentration during ice ages

          280 ppm – the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750

          391 ppm – the concentration today

          500 ppm – the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)

          560 ppm – the concentration around 2080-2110 (the “doubled CO2” relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today

          700 ppm – the concentration in an average living room

          900 ppm – concentration in an average kitchen

          1,270 ppm – the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video

          1,700 ppm – the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)

          4,500 ppm – the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs

          10,000 ppm – sensitive people start to feel weaker

          40,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out

          50,000 ppm – toxic levels at which the animals like us get weaker in hours; the value is 5 percent of the volume

          180,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in exhausts of a healthy motor; that’s 18 percent

          1,000,000 ppm – pure CO2, just to make you sure what the units are

        • My CO2 meter has an alarm which is set at 10,000 ppm. In the winter I heat my cabin with propane and it only takes 5 minutes for the CO2 to get to 10,000. Crack a window and it goes down again, very fast actually. But at 10,000 I don’t notice anything.

          Moral of the story, if you heat a cabin with propane you need to crack a window open.

        • rah says:

          CO would get you long before CO2 in your cabin with propane heat. Blue flame good and efficient combustion. Yellow flame? Look out!

          Carbon Monoxide is absorbed by hemoglobin and that hemoglobin has an affinity for the absorption of CO that is about 230 X greater than O2. Thus only 100 ppm of CO can be toxic in the short term and in the longer term 50ppm can be debilitating and damaging.

          If you feel light headed and your skin appears to be flushing when it’s not hot then your getting too much CO most likely.

        • Gail Combs says:

          Gator, The minimum for C3 plants is actually ~200 ppm. I used to have a link to that paper but it has been ‘removed’ The 180 ppm is not based on experimental evidence but on the ‘adjusted’ Ice Core ‘evidence’

          All inconvient evidence showing that CO2 was a lot higher in the recent geologic past has been erased.

        • gator69 says:

          That may be correct Gail, I know for a fact that ice cores cannot be trusted. I use this info for illustrating elevated effects, and not for the bottom end. My only experiments with CO2 and plants dealt with elevated levels, and not starvation.

        • rah says:

          Gail, I guess your battening down the hatches? Looks like you might be in for some nasty weather. Eastern half of NC is right in the center of the forecast area for severe storms.

          Passed through here yesterday. Heaviest rain we’ve had so far this year though in my area no high winds, hail, or tornadoes. Our ground is now well saturated and I have a small, though already shrinking, pond in my front yard. Temperature dropped right down into the low 50s last night and we’re forecast to have a high of 64 deg. F. Steady 20 mph wind right now with wind speed forecast to peak at 13:00.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The original paper I found shows @ 200 pm CO2 trees starve: http://biblioteca.universia.net/ficha.do?id=912067

          The link is now dead.

          “…The CO2 concentration found in air bubble and in secondary air cavities of deep Vostok and Bryd cores range from 178 and 296 ppm…

          …According to Barnola et al (1987) the level of CO2 in the global atmosphere during many tens of thousands of years spanning 30,000 to110,000 BP were below 200ppm. If this were true then the growth of C3 plants should be limited at the global scale because their net Photosynthesis is depressed as CO2 concentration in air decreases to less than about 250ubar (less than about 250ppmv)(McKay et al 1991) This would lead to the extinction of C3 plant species . This has however not been recorded by paleobotanists (Manum 1991).” http://www.co2web.info/stoten92.pdf
          ‘…found in air bubble and in secondary air cavities….” This is the I gottcha. if the entire sample is crushed and the CO2 is extracted the values are much higheraccording to Dr. Jaworowski/

          “….The correlation between CO2 and leaf stomata from 1950 to 2000 was studied and the proxy is found to be very robust. Stomata data by Wagner, Aaby and Visscher prove conclusively that the ice core data is seriously in error. The ice core data can be corrected using J.J.Drake’s correlation, the profile does not change but the ppm values do
          stomata data:

          Click to access 12011.full.pdf

          In general the stomata research totally destroys the ice core data and thereby the entire IPCC assessment reports….”
          (Shamelessly stolen from Tim Clark)

          Jaworowski had similar arguments:

          Tomato Plant Culture: In the Field, Greenhouse, and Home Garden, Second Edition

          ….Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration aproaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion.

          …Slack (1986) states that ‘low atmospheric CO2 content in many greenhouses is indeed a major contributor to lower than expected yields, and the enriching with co2 to bring levels back to at least ambient will have a major effect on plant yields.”…

          Hydroponic Shop

          …Plants use all of the CO2 around their leaves within a few minutes leaving the air around them CO2 deficient, so air circulation is important. As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels of below 200 ppm will generally cease to grow or produce… http://www.thehydroponicsshop.com.au/article_info.php?articles_id=27

          We have trouble breathing at the top of Mount Everest even though the “concentration” of oxygen in parts per million is the same as at sea level. The total density of the air is much less so the actual amount of oxygen available per cubic meter is also much less. The same is true of carbon dioxide. Air density at 1000 meters altitude is about ninety percent of its sea level value, and crops grown at that altitude have access to ninety percent of the CO2 at sea level despite the fact that the “concentration” as usually given (ppm) is the same. Half of the land surface of the earth is above 840 meters above MSL, and the absolute concentration of CO2 there is correspondingly less. This can lead to confusion – or deception.

          That is a quick and dirty look at the highlites from my notes.

        • gator69 says:

          Hey Gail! Yes, there have been so many lies told about our “well mixed gas” that even the so called “experts” are highly confused. I would not expect to find the same ppm of CO2 on an Antarctic glacier as I would at sea level in the tropics. Then there is the ditinct possibility that atmospheric pressure has changed over time. And don’t get me started on ice “trapping” gases.

  4. Eric Simpson says:

    Closing in on 50 years of being wrong – Paul Ehrlich says again environmental collapse is coming: http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/closing-in-on-50-years-of-being-wrong.html

    • Eric Simpson says:

      Um, ok I accidentally put that vehicle in to this comment. Well, because I was thinking of putting it somewhere else. Whatever.

      • Actually, Eric, that vehicle is as good a metaphor for Paul Ehrlich as any I can imagine!

        – Fresh, shiny coat of garish paint to distract from the complete lack of substantive power.
        – Thinks he’s #1 even though he’s one of the smallest in the entire fleet.
        – Loudly proclaims multiple concepts that clash with each other on every level imaginable.
        – Still popular in certain circles, but his cause remains doomed by a continuing affinity for social Darwinism.

  5. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the
    scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue….”
    The Lancet
    The above quote from ‘The Lancet’,
    So I think you will find
    This is just another case
    Of the blind leading the blind!

  6. Well,

    The establishment “scientists” still believe in the adage of repeating a lie, louder and louder, and often enough, will make it true! – Gee. That did not work for me when I was growing up!

  7. Gail Combs says:

    rah says: “Gail, I guess your battening down the hatches? ….”

    Thanks for the warning.

    We still have not up graded from Wunderground. Wunderground ‘improved’ their website and now the warnings are in tiny print. Also the page now takes forever to load on my machine and sucks down all available memory/CPU so I no longer keep the page open. Unfortunately Hubby (with the new computer) also did not see the severe weather warning.

    I do know we had storm after storm go through last night. Kept waking me up.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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