I’m going to be making changes in the next weeks as I rearrange web sites. That may mean this blog starts appearing under a new URL.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Waiting for the end of the climate scam

There is no doubt that the climate scam and the cult that pushes it, will come to an end, at least the scam will come to an end as the evidence shows there is no “climate crisis”, however the cult may not so much end, as just morph into somethings else like a Mushroom worshiping cult.

However, climate does what the climate wants, and the soonest we expect to see any significant cooling is approx five years. And, even if the actual climate cools, the adherents of the cult, who think a perfectly normal and very ordinary climate is a “crisis”, still won’t believe it. Mere evidence won’t change their beliefs.

Because the simple fact is that there is not the slightest connection between the “climate crisis” and reality. The “Crisis” is a purely human created myth which neither was created by fact nor can be destroyed by the mere facts. And let’s be frank, the real climate, and real climate trends are about as boring as … I’d say “paint drying”, but as least with paint drying there is a change, whereas our real climate has spent 20 years going sod all.

Indeed, perhaps the reason this mad cult was able to grow up, was because there was so little newsworthy interest in the real climate, that people jumped on the fake climate to create news.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Climategate in retrospective

10 years ago on the 17th November 2009, some 3,000 e-mails, software files, and other documents from the University of East Anglia Research Unit were covertly released by someone** onto the Internet.

Not long after I created the petition asking for an investigation into the University of East Anglia. Looking back, those ten years, I now realise how gullible I was. I really did believe that when the evidence of academics deluding themselves by fabricating the data on climate was known to the press & politicians, that inevitably the renewable energy scam would blow out.

10 years later, the fact is that the press had not the slightest interest in the truth. Instead, over the years I have watched in horror as they encouraged the truth to be deliberately hidden. The original “crime” of Climategate was some inept academics deluding themselves by changing the data. But Climategate became one of the most blatant cases of official corruption deliberately hiding the truth from press and public. That was done by creating three under-lapping inquiries designed to give the appearance of a “thorough” investigations but intended to allow the main accusations and allegations to slip through the gaping hole that had been deliberately left in the middle.

As for those like the the Biased Corp, a decade ago I thought they were mistakenly on the wrong side. Today, I know they were deliberately on the wrong side. For over those 10 years I have seen them using the propaganda techniques straight out of Goebbels propaganda manual of the big lie. They lie and lie and lie and lie again without any ethical standards and without care at all for science. They have absolutely no credibility on climate and as time progressed, I learnt they had no credibility on a host of other subjects as well.

On the other hand … whilst the academics involved in climate AS A GROUP behaved dishonestly and fraudulently, at least some academics (namely Phil Jones) did seem to learn the lessons of being caught out and did for a while amend their ways and begin looking scientific. So, guilty yes, but guilty of being inept and deluded. And thus, if it hadn’t been for the establishment corruption, the lies from the press and if that recognition of problems had been shared across all of academia, I really do think the scam would have disappeared into history and be largely forgotten by now.

The problem with Climategate, was that the worst culprits were not in the UK where the rumpus was, but in the US. So whilst the UK saw an improvement in standards, that did not last long nor have any profound effect, because their US colleagues, unaffected by Climategate and wholly unrepentant, quickly dragged those in the UK back into the mire.

The result is that the subject of climate has literally been going backwards for the last decade. Because instead of making progress in understanding the climate, the data has been tampered with more and more to fit a non-science theory of catastrophic warming and it is very arguable we know less about how the climate works today than we did a decade ago.

The Climate Cult

However, for all the angst about Climategate, it is largely academic now. For whilst ten years ago, the science did matter, today, it doesn’t matter one iota what the science says. The Climate Cult is now a fully fledged religions with its own 16 year old prophets of doom and martyrs. The cult is no longer based on any science, and so, to be honest, it wouldn’t matter if every climate academic in the world confessed on camera that they had been altering the data and that the sceptics were right, the Climate cult would just claim they were being manipulated by “Big Oil” and return to their crusade with even more fervour.

The irony, is that we sceptics and the academics are now very much in the same boat as the academics are about as impotent and unimportant as we sceptics were 10 years ago. It’s no longer about science, no one listens to the vast majority of academics. They can only watch as they see their subject being dragged into a medieval quagmire the Climate Cult’s religious nuttery.

Historical Viewpoint

Climategate may now be largely irrelevant, but from a historical view, when people in the future look back at the scam, and knowing it was clearly a scam, Climategate is going to be critical. Because without it, people could claim “no one knew”, but with Climategate no one can claim that the sceptics did not make the world aware of what was going on so proving governments have the evidence which should have compelled them to start investigating the corruption properly. Instead, Climategate will show a conspiracy by the British Establishment to prevent the evidence being heard, both by public and politicians. That is not something that is going to be easily swept under the carpet, because it will be one of the key events recorded in all its gory detail that every historian will recognise. It should have prevented the scam going further. It will not be easy to explain how the evidence showing climate alarm was based on delusion was ignored, without facing the fact that there was a criminal conspiracy by members of the establishment.

The original “crime” could be passed of as over-enthusiastic, inept and deluded academics. But the establishment cover up was a deliberate, premeditated conspiracy to deceive public and politicians.

**A few years after the event, on the 1st April as I recall, I stated that I had been involved. Strangely no one believed me 🙂

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Academic Ape and Political Aggression


Anyone who has been following British politics, cannot but be bemused, by the recent happenings in the UK Parliament. There we have a group of MPs, who having numerous times said they would respect the referendum vote of the UK populace (which was to leave the EU) have voted against every deal* and none, refused to sack the PM or back him, and have vehemently refused to present themselves for scrutiny before the electorate at a General Election. Then, despite having a perfectly good procedure to block any action of the PM (through a no confidence motion) when the PM tried to start a new session of Parliament, which the opposition had long demanded and which was an entirely normal practice, the MPs who had refused to stop the PM themselves, went to the Supreme court who then invented new law to bring back Parliament, where MPs sat around with nothing much to do. Clearly, even the MPs who took the PM to court, had not expected to win the supreme court case, as they had absolutely no plans what to do when they came back!

Against most expectations, Boris Johnson, one of the finest political speakers I have witnessed as PM, managed to secure a new deal from the EU, which appeared to meet the concerns previously expressed by Parliament. But, instead of accepting the deal, the biased speaker of Parliament, who should be an “impartial referee” worked against one side and with a foreign power (the EU) to block the expressed will of the British public to leave the EU.

As a result of their lies about respecting the referendum result and their various shenanigans, the main opposition party’s electoral support has plummeted, and it is now obvious their only chance of any substantial presence in the next Parliament is to allow the UK to exit the EU and desperately hope the electorate forgives them in the two years before the next scheduled election.

Instead, politicians in the UK Parliament, now appear to be much like a wild animal trapped in its lair. Refusing to come out and meet the challenge of a General Election, unable to move from their position, but viciously attacking the public if we dare to express our anger at their behaviour.

Bizarrely, this does appear to have a connection to climate. In this article, I will attempt to explain this. The quite irrational behaviour by our British politicians seems to have parallels in the area of climate and thus climate may explain the current crazy situation of UK politics. And having seen the behaviour of US politicians, this rise of irrational political behaviour does not appear to be unique to the UK. Indeed, given the police brutality now being seen in France, Spain and other places across Europe, it may represent a general and growing hostility between politicians and the public. And, I do put it that way. Politicians versus the people. Although having campaigned in climate, I was used to insults, I was surprised by the vitriolic language used by politicians. We public were called racists, Nazis, xenophobes and bigots, simply for wanting our own Parliament to be in control of our own country.

The Academic Ape

The key to understanding this appalling behaviour by politicians, lies I think, in understanding the similarly appalling behaviour we have seen by academics against climate sceptics. None of us here have to be reminded of the language used. Nor do we have to be reminded of the unwarranted lies such as our “massive fossil fuel funding” (which is particularly galling for those like me who chose to give up paid work to campaign on this important issue). Nor will we forget the vile behaviour such as Lewandowsky who made up accusations that sceptics were “moon landing conspiracists” or Michael Mann who appear to spend all their time in hate filled lawfare attacks on sceptics. But worst of all, I thought, was the appalling behaviour I saw given to several academics. As I was a first hand observer of the vitriol against Prof Salby I can relate these. His “crimes” were 1) to be a professor (which seemed to trigger a particular vicious response) and 2) that he said that at least some of the change in CO2 was natural. An undeniable statement given that the evidence clearly pointed to that, and that even some of those attacking him admitted that CO2 levels changed with the ENSO cycle. The attack was all the more galling, because for this “crime” of telling the undeniable truth, Prof Salby lost his job.

Again, we have a situation where a group in society (academics) appeared to be acting irrationally and were engaged in vicious name calling and totally unwarranted attacks on others.

However, what I found peculiar about the Salby attack, was that although I have written over 1000 articles on my own blog, some which were far more contentious than the write up of Prof Salby’s speech, the only one that had ever drawn such vicious attacks, was the one where I chose to write up the presentation by Prof Salby in a very “academic” manner. (my normal being more light hearted) Why was this? And why was it that some sceptic blogs like my own, had very few attacks, but others like WUWT were constantly under attack?

In particular, why when academics attacked sceptics for just having “blogs”, were they then viciously attacked when they presented work to a journal and finally managed to jump all the endless hurdles to get it published? After looking at the range of blogs & sceptic publications and the behaviour they attracted from academics, whilst academics criticised sceptics for not presenting their work in an “academic fashion”, I had to conclude, that: the more academic the work, the more careful and considered the article, the more the work should have been accepted, the higher the shrill, the more vicious the language, the more sustained the attack on our work by academics.

Instinctive aggression

My conclusion, was that the behaviour we sceptics were being subjected to, was not a rational attack based on the credibility of our work, but something more primitive and instinctual.

I had seen very much the same behaviour before in the field of archaeology. As a non-academic I was part of an online forum consisting predominantly of academics. It became clear that there was particular hostility between “archaeologists” and “metal detectorists”. As I was in neither camp, I could see that neither side was a paradigm of virtue. Many metal detectors have been used to rob historic sites. But, for example archaeologists had previously stripped bare the Stone Henge monument so that if anyone went back today using more modern methods the site is practically destroyed in terms of evidence.

So, it very much surprised me when, as a neutral observer, I spoke up to say that “metal detectorists” were being unfairly attacked, that I then found myself under a vicious attack by young archaeologists. They took extreme dislike that I had “sided” with “the other side (although I had tried to be neutral). And, like the Salby affair, they would not stop attacking, but instead tracked me down to another website and a group carried on the wholly unwarranted attack there (at Christmas). Clearly and quite unintentionally I had “trodden on someone’s toes”. I was getting attacked, not for backing one group, but for being impartial and not joining the attack on the metal detector users.

This bizarre pattern of irrational aggression by academics both in archaeology and climate, appeared to be related. There were many similar features:

  • It was one group against another
  • The stimulus for attack seemed to be work & activity that encroached into “the domain” or perceived “territory” of the other.
  • The attacks were often carried out by groups of younger males (this was a notable feature of the metal detector wars, where older academics & females seemed to egg on the younger males but otherwise took no part in the attacks)
  • It seemed to involve “ritualistic” behaviour. Where one group would form a pack (in climate there were websites where alarmists would gather) and they would hurl ad hominem attacks at the other side. These appeared to have very little relevance to the article or work at contest and were totally out of all proportion to any issues. A lot of noise, a lot of commotion … it reminded me of the behaviour of chimpanzees rushing around and hurling sticks at another troop.
  • Another feature, was that individuals or very small groups would leave the general group holding one “territory”, and then intentionally make a “running attack” on the other and then return to great praise. Again typical of ape attacks where groups stand off against each other and then individuals or small groups rush across to attack the other and then return.
  • Very often the attacking group would spend a lot of time locating the “prized work” of members of the other group, and then set about attempting to destroy it. In this context the way that alarmists spend inordinate amounts of time trying to discredit the academic qualifications of sceptics was bizarre. Also if someone had put a lot of work into a website – even on an unrelated theme – I have seen these being attacked. The more it was “their baby”, to put in the terms of ape behaviour, the more viciously it was attacked. Again very characteristic of apes.
  • The most vicious attacks were directed against those who had or appeared to have changed membership. This was not something I’d read about ape behaviour, but I had seen this “primitive” aggression against “blacklegs” when I was working in a very unionised company.

From the characteristic of the behaviour I had seen in both archaeology and climate and perhaps a few other areas where I have dabbled, I realised that the vicious attacks on sceptics by academics, appeared to be very closely related to those of apes like Chimpanzees and their behaviour in territorial disputes. So the appalling behaviour of by those like Lewandowsky who have no expertise in climate, but joined in vicious group attacks, may have nothing at all to do with what we were saying, instead we were being attacked for “invading” the “territory” of academia.

It seems that Lewandowsky, and so many other academics, with absolutely no idea about atmospheric physics, joined in the attacks on sceptics simply because they perceived sceptics as being “outsiders” invading the “academic territory”. Of course, academics have no right whatsoever to call climate “their territory”, nor do they have any right to keep out non-academics from journals (which should be solely on merit) but they clearly perceive this as their domain. Like any trade union, academia as a group aggressively attacks those who dare to encroach on “their turf”. And the attacks are most vehement against those who “desert” one side, or in trade union terms “the blackleg”.

Political Aggression

Fortunately, in the long run science is settled by the evidence. Thus for all the silliness, despite academics grouping together to “circle the wagons” against reality, the evidence will eventually force them to admit there is no such thing as a “climate emergency”. Moreover, with most of the public sceptical, the costs rising so practical political support disappearing, in practical terms the behaviour of academics in the area of climate is … “academic”. For me, climate is an irritation, indeed a very expensive irritation, but eventually it will sort itself out as academia will be forced to accept the science.

However, if I am right, that the climate wars largely result from the increasing availability of data, knowledge and discussion through the internet, allowing those with an interest in academia to start becoming “internet experts”, then not only does this explain the appalling behaviour we saw in the area of climate, but it may also explain other apparently irrational changes we have seen lately.

Where else do we find a group of people who have hitherto dominated a sphere of activity which was formerly difficult or impossible for the public to gain entry into, but which are increasingly finding themselves exposed to the public?

In politics.

One hundred years ago, politics was an activity that almost exclusively involved two groups: politicians and the press. The politicians claimed what in the UK was called “Parliamentary supremacy”, but is better called “politician supremacy” meaning they were “in charge”. The press likewise claimed their domain: that they were the voice of “public opinion” and as such should be the ones to scrutinise politicians.

Today it is an absurd notion that journalists, who had no idea what most people thought, were somehow the voice of the public, but that is how the press portrayed themselves. Likewise it is an absurd idea that politicians are the “masters” of the public and not our servants. But that is how politicians viewed their roles.

There was a cosy relationship between the two. Political scrutiny was the press’ self-proclaimed “territory”, and through this role journalists as a group became the public arbiter of politics, deciding what the public should and shouldn’t hear and thus the lies that should and shouldn’t be called out. As a result journalists who came from a relative narrow social group, dictated as a group who got into power and as a group politicians came to reflect the politics of journalists.

Likewise the politicians had their domain: running the country was their job. They were “supreme” as the public were almost entirely excluding and even ignored. So, for example, in the UK, whilst the public were always against joining the EU superstate, the politicians thought that as they ran things, they could ignore the public view and turn our democracy over to the unelected Eurocrats.

Until the rise of the internet, the press and politicians kept this cosy relationship where the politicians chosen by the voice of “public opinion” (in the press) ran the country. Politicians tended to reflect the culture and views of journalists and, any politician who went against the view of the journalistic “troop” and raised an issue like leaving the EU, controlling immigration or building a wall, was ruthlessly attacked. With no means to put their own side except through the press, any politician subject to such a group attack by the media would have their views and motives totally twisted in the media to an extent that they were doomed to political oblivion and with them the causes they pursued.

Then came the internet.

The internet provided three things. Firstly it enabled ordinary people to access information such as climate data or the day’s proceedings in Parliament. Secondly it enabled ordinary people to publish information on sites like blogs, so that it became incredibly easy to bypass the press. And thirdly it enabled people from extremely different places to find each other and discuss subjects that had never interested, or had been repressed, by the press. Because the internet gave the public much more freedom to discuss the issues that concerned it, rather than the press as before, this I think is why soon after the internet, we saw a rise in issues that had been hitherto repressed by the media like control over immigration.

This has created a revolution, not just in areas like climate where it enabled the sceptic movement, but also in politics where it would have been impossible for Trump and Brexit to have happened without the internet.

However, just as we have started to see some bizarre irrational behaviour from academia in the area of climate, it is now clear, that we are seeing equally bizarre and irrational behaviour in the area of politics. In both the US and UK, where once, the public (or press) would very quickly accept the result of any vote, we have started to see he anti-democratic behaviour of rejecting the democratic vote. In the US, this became the “Not my president” movement. In the UK it is the “remainers”, who became “remoaners” and are now sometimes called “remainiacs” for their refusal to accept the democratic decision.

Likewise we are seeing politicians in our Parliament, behaving as I said at the start: like wild animals trapped in their lair. I am truly amazed by some of the delusional behaviour I have seen recently, I watched the proceedings in Parliament about a week ago, when Boris Johnson returned with jet lag from the US to face Parliament. After three hours of continuous aggressive and repetitive questioning, an MP, entirely without foundation, inferred he was somehow condoning the death of an MP who was murdered during the brexit campaign by a mentally ill person who happened to support brexit. Boris replied “Humbug” (a type of sweet). It was so innocuous I hardly noticed at the time.

But apparently this “language” (Humbug) so incensed the MPs that they went on the offensive in the press about it. Their total, and apparently unrecognised, hypocrisy attacking Boris for saying “Humbug”, when some of these very MPs had called brexiteers like Boris “Nazis” and “Racists”, was bizarre. It was irrational behaviour, behaviour not dissimilar to academics in climate and other topics when their “area” was “invaded” by “outsiders”.

Can we explain this rise in irrational behaviour by the political elites seen in both the US, UK and probably worldwide?

If we go back, formerly the press saw their role as being the people who should not only scrutinise Parliament, but they also told us what issues to consider and decided which issues the public should not. Likewise, except for the press, with whom the politicians had a very cosy relationship, the MPs were above effective criticism from the public as the public could only effectively critique them through the press who for obvious reasons favoured opinions similar to their own.

Today however, politicians are under huge pressure through social media. Today the press no longer can prevent discussion on topics like immigration control. The politicians & parties who came to power in the age of press dominance are now struggling to cope with the realities of a public who are now far more able to get directly involved in politics through social media.

And, I think it is this mounting pressure, which is resulting in some bizarre behaviour as seen recently in the UK Parliament, and has been going on for some time in the US press and political life with the endless vicious and dishonest attacks on Trump. It can be explained as politicians & the press, having “their” territory “invaded” by the public, who, like the climate academics, are responding in an instinctive territorial way like all apes with insults and attacks ON THE PUBLIC by the politicians.

I will repeat: the politicians are now ATTACKING those who vote for them for invading what politicians see as “their territory”.

In the UK this is causing extreme anger. People have even talked about the army forcing a general election. The politicians look to us like despots clinging to power. It is becoming possible that the overwhelming majority of politicians currently in power will be kicked out in the UK and a party that never existed last year (Brexit party) could be running the country in a few years.

There is now a political crisis in the UK and it is not brexit. Politicians are blaming it on brexit and they think it is something temporary, but I think not. Like climate academics, we are are now seeing a political elite from politicians to judges, who are no longer acting rationally. Likewise there appears to be much the same thing occurring in the US. Likewise throughout Europe, in France we have the ongoing yellow vest protests, in Catalonia the separatists, and in many places extreme concern about immigration. The political class is losing the support of the public and the public are literally beginning to riot. If it escalates much more, it will turn into literal violent revolution.

I don’t claim to have a solution.

All I can say, is that the first stage in tackling the bizarre behaviour of some politicians must be to understand the problem. From my research it does seem that changes created by the internet together with very primitive territorial behaviour are combing to create a very real problem: a growing political crisis in many places of the world marked by irrational political behaviour by politicians attacking their own electorates. We need a solution fast.

*Whilst Boris won one of the latest votes in Parliament, it was then prevented from proceeding.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Political pass the parcel bomb

I’m coming to realise that politics is a game where people try to pretend that they are doing what the electorate want (who do not all want the same thing) usually whilst trying to push through an entirely separate and selfish agenda.

So, for example, the whole of the last three years has been one long facade of politicians pretending they intend to deliver brexit whilst having no intention of doing so, but also trying to pin the blame for us not getting brexit on the opposition.

So, no one actually wants to be in government, because whoever is in government will get the blame for not delivering brexit. But nor do they not want to be in government, because not being in government means they can’t push through their undisclosed private agenda.

This explains some of the bizarre behaviour we’re seeing. Boris, doesn’t want to be able to govern, because if he could govern, then he would be responsible for not getting brexit. But, nor do opposition parties want to be in government. But they want to blame Boris for the mess, hence the chicken supreme move …. get the court of remainer wantabe politicians to say that Boris was acting unlawfully to try and suggest he’s “anti-democratic”. This however, has played into Boris’ hands, because now parliament has been recalled and he can legitimately say he has no control over parliamentary business and therefore the ones blocking brexit are the opposition MPs. So, the opposition MPs who have seized power, now desperately want Boris to get the “veneer” of power back so that they can blame him for not getting brexit -whilst quietly stabbing him and brexit in the back.

This is quite bizarre. The more remainers grab control of parliament, the less they can blame Boris for us not leaving, so the more they take the blame for their backstabbing of the EU exit. So, the less room they have to back-stab brexit. The more power they have, the more powerless they are to stop brexit without incurring the wrath of the people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MPs: be careful what you demand – because you’ve now got it – but for what?

Today a group of people who in a democracy have one vote like the rest of us, a vote denied us by the treacherous MPs in parliament, decided that they wanted an early say on Boris Johnson’s premiership, whilst the rest of us are denied one. Of course, the judges are complete arseholes if they think it’s not obvious what they did was entirely political. Obviously these mini-dictators have to be put in their place, but that can wait.

Because what on earth are all these MPs going to do to justify this urgent recall to parliament that they could not have done during the last three years when they have sat on the benches with their thumbs up their arses intentionally blocking brexit by voting down every deal, no deal and even two elections?

The simple thing is that they’ve already dismissed every conceivable action … so all that is left is nothing. These morons have all but destroyed the credibility of parliament for what? To sit again on the same benches with their thumbs up their arses blocking any way forward.

All they have done is given Boris a massive boost. Indeed Labour and Illib Anti-dems have not so much lost 30 points at the poll as thrown them away.

The only strategy left for Labour and the illibs is to hang on desperately, refusing an election and refusing a no-confidence vote in the utterly insane belief that the public will begin to support them. In the utterly insane belief that having delayed and delayed Brexit and so put the UK parliament into stagnation so that nothing else much can be done, that somehow the public will thank them when these scumbags eventually allow us to vote on their behaviour.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Greta – the last desperation of the alarmists

For those of us who are sick to death with a mentally disabled girl with no knowledge of climate science being paraded on the TV like a puppet, what we need to remember, is that the only reason they have a child, is that children can lie with impunity whilst an academic could not. And it’s because only someone who is totally ignorant could claim there is any issue with the climate that they need someone totally ignorant to front the scam.

Put an actual scientist on the TV, and ask them about severe weather, and all they could do is umm and err because they know there are no trends to support the scam. Put an actual scientist, and they know the surface data temperature is not credible and the satellites show next to no warming.

That is why they need this ignorant brainwashed kid. Plausible deniability: no one expects her to know what she is talking about, so she can & does say total rubbish that no one else can get away with.

However, the very fact they are now resorting to such extreme measures is an indication of their desperation. The scam is falling apart, it is hanging by its fingertips. We are now in a La Nina period where we expect a return to cooler temps and so for at least the next five years the threat of (non fiddled) rising temperature has disappeared.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Natural Variation

Natural Variation

Of all the many issues that confuse climate researchers, natural variation, or as they in error call it “error” is one of the most important. Indeed, the very name “error” from “to err” etymologically related to “erracy” or heresy, shows that they have a black and white view where there is (believed) “truth” and “error” which is quite unscientific.


To explain the problem with the concept of “truth” and “error”, it is best to start by using a simple analogy: When is heat not heat?

Most of us understand the concept of heat as the random movement of atoms or molecules. So, when is this random movement not heat? Let us suppose that we take a single atom at the energy equivalent of 1K (or a suitably low temperature) and we arrange for it to impact into a hot gas (1000K?) such that it hits one atom and loses all momentum and therefore has no energy and an equivalent temperature of 0K. What is also clear is that if this is “heat” then a colder body at 1K has warmed a hotter body of 1000K.

The atom at 1k was moving in a way that was indistinguishable by observation from that of a gas at 1K and this cooler “body” warmed a hotter body in contravention of the laws of thermodynamics. How?

The reason was that although the atom was indistinguishable by observation from an atom in an ensemble at 1k, it was distinguishable by definition. Because we had defined the system in a way that was not an ensemble of random atoms. Heat is not a physical property of a system, instead it is property determined by the system definition – and that definition must define the system in such a way that we do not know the individual energies (or at least apply our work to the whole ensemble). For “work” and “heat” are not different forms of energy. Instead “work” is energy which can be quantified completely, whereas “heat” is energy which is randomised in a way that its specific physical form or distribution is unknown (or treated as unknown).

To use another example. IR energy is often referred to as “heat”. This is because we often experience the “heat” of the sun via IR. So, in layman’s terms “heat” can refer to IR, but from a point of view of physics, IR is not heat any more than kinetic energy is heat (the energy of moving atoms is kinetic) . Yes, in a hot gas, heat is present as both kinetic and IR energy which is moving both within the gas and back and forth to any container. So, the IR within the gas is “heat”, but, if we expose the gas to a non-randomised energy source from outside in the form of IR, then whilst the layman might call this “heat”, and whilst it may be indistinguishable from internal IR, the applied energy isn’t heat but in thermodynamics terms it is “work”. Likewise, if we create a window from the ensemble to the outside, whilst the energy comes from heat, in thermodynamic terms it is work being done by the heat on the environment.

Natural Variation

Natural Variation and heat are similar concepts, in that they do not exist as a physical entity, but exist by virtue of the definition we apply. To see what this means, let us take a simple system whereby we measure the height of the sea.

Let us suppose that the height we measure at a point in time is 3m (above a convenient datum). Now let us suppose we take another measurement 1hour later and the height is 3.5m. If we use a simple model of our system which says that sea level is constant, then the “natural variation” is 0.5m. In other words there exist variation that has perturbed the system which is not accounted for by a model by 0.5m. This is NOT an error. We can reasonably say that any error in measurement is much smaller than this. Instead, this is a discrepancy between our model of the system and the system which includes variations that are naturally present but not present in our model.

However, if we used a more complex model, which include tides, then let us assume the tidal model suggested that 1hour later the tide should be 4m. Now, with a reading of 3.5m, the natural variation is not 0.5m but -0.5m. To say “natural variation” is what we don’t know or even worse “an error”, is patently false, because anyone who has ever seen the sea has a fairly good idea what is likely to make the sea precisely one hour after the first reading slightly different from our tidal model. The answer is waves. We know they exist, but unlike the regular rise and fall in tides, the exact height of the sea surface 1hour ahead would be almost impossible to know (unless we were considering something like a tsunami and even then not exact).

However, if instead of 1hour, we chose a timescale of 1-10sec. Then given the pseudo regular behaviour of  waves, we would have a fairly good chance of a reasonable model of the height of the sea surface at a particular location. As such waves exist in an in-between world whereby in some circumstances (short periods) they can be modelled in a fairly precise deterministic way. But as the time increases, the ability to predict the precise height of the water disappears, whereas we still know the amplitude of variation.

And by analogy, there are many other forms of variation from the atmospheric swell that occurs when low pressure causes sea to rise, land uplift or sinking, to instrumentation noise, which can all be modelled to a greater or lesser extent, such that depending how complex our model for the system becomes, the “natural variation” can be reduced till it is almost negligible.

So, natural variation certainly is not noise, and it certainly cannot be “averaged out”. For part of the natural variation in sea level height is the long-term change in sea level due to the rebound from the last ice-age.And over longer periods we might also include tectonic plate movement etc.

Natural variation is not an entity, it is not an error, it is instead the expected variation that occurs because our model for the system will not perfectly match nature.

Climatic Natural Variation

Like sea level, temperature changes for a host of different reasons, some easy to model, some impossible to model and some that can be modelled over limited periods.

The obvious changes which are relatively easy to model are the change from day to night and from summer to winter. These follow relatively predictable behaviour. The changes that are difficult to model are those over very extensive time periods such that the arrangement of continents have changed the behaviour of the climate in a way that cannot be understood or tested (we only have one earth) or indeed solar changes (due again to lack of understanding about long-term behaviour). In between are various pseudo modellable behaviours from that of weather fronts which can be modelled over a period of days or even weeks to oceanic cycles like El Nino, which have known effects, but cannot be predicted with any certainty even within a single cycle.

But again, what is considered “natural variation” depends on our model. We may, for example, talk in terms of effect on geology of the “natural variation” in temperature. In this context, it does not matter whether the variation is day to night or summer to winter, or frosty day to cloudy. The rock does not care what causes the temperature change, only that there is change. But when predicting weather for the next day, now we model the behaviour of time of day, time of year and the effect of fronts and air movements. Now “natural variation” are the parts of the climate that our weather models cannot or do not include. In part these are complexities that escalate like the butterfly effect. In part they are instrumentation error or variation that exists due to the discrete nature of the weather stations such that they cannot measure the exact position of fronts etc.

But, like waves on the sea, these weather fronts can be modelled over relatively short periods, but over longer periods all we know is that they perturb the temperature from an average, but on any day a long time ahead, we couldn’t hope to predict whether there will or will not be a particular high or low area at any particular place. Thus whether these weather systems are considered “natural variation” or not, is highly dependent on the time frame. It’s the same physics, the same physical process, but depending on what we’re trying to model they may or may not be “natural variation”.

Likewise, El Nino. Again, depending on the time-scale, whilst we know the scale of the effect, we may or may not be able to model even the sign of the effect on temperature at any specific time in the future. However, El Nino is just one of many many, dare I say, an infinite number of such “cycles” in the climate. Cycles that could over some periods be predicted, but over long periods can not. Thus even, if we were to exactly model El Nino, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and ALL the major ocean perturbations, there will still exist natural variation consisting of those minor perturbations which we have not been able to model. Likewise, the effect of solar, the effect of clouds, the effects of meteors, of animals and humans affecting the climate though changes to vegetation. Geology in changing sea levels, in changing the height of mountains, of volcanoes, etc. etc.

Natural Variation is not noise that can be cancelled

Natural variation is not a “noise” that can be cancelled out by a long series of measurements. The “noise” of slowly hydrogen slowly leaking from our atmosphere does not “average out” by taking more and more measurements, because the “noise” is a trend. Likewise, the effect of the changes that occur due to the ice-age cycle cannot be “averaged out” by a lot of readings …. at least within one human life time. Instead it would require millions of years of data. Likewise the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation takes around lifetime, but there may be much longer cycles still to be discovered that even if we average for a whole life-time only appear within that lifetime as a trend.

Instead, natural variation is what we have not (yet?) included in our models. Some of that may be known variation, which is predictable in amplitude and the exact change but has not been included. Some may be variation whose scale is known, but not its exact amplitude at any time (some distance into the future). And other is variation which neither the scale nor amplitude is known, but instead we can see its affect as a variation that cannot be otherwise explained.

Truth and Error

Often when climate academics talk about the failure of their models to match the physical world, they use the term “error” to account for the failure. This concept is taken without consideration from that of laboratory science. In laboratory science the intention is to create a controlled experiment where the behaviour can be controlled so that it very closely matches theory. As such the concept is that the experiment should behave according to theory except that there is always instrumentation “error”which causes the exact readings to vary from theory. As such the “error” is in the readings and not the theory. In addition, it is usually assumed that instrumentation error can be averaged out (even though long term drift is always present). As such the “error” is a mistake of what is being measured, which tends to zero with more measurements. It is not a mistake in the model.

In contrast, the climate is not a system that can be modelled with any hope of accuracy. As such the variation between the model and the real world is not due to a failure of instrumentation (even if part is), instead it is due to natural variation: the discrepancy between the real world and the model. That is the model of the climate misses out many key factors that prevent it modelling the earth’s climate and as such if the concept of “error” is relevant is is that the error is in the model and not the measurement. As such, what climate academics refer to as “error” includes many things that could be modelled like cycles (El nino), trends (like the 1970s desertification of the Sahara) & one off events (volcano) which in theory could be modelled (historically) but not in the future. But there are many smaller perturbations that whilst smaller in scale are present in such numbers to cause significant change which through their shear number could not ever be totally modelled. As such, even if the known variations were included there would always exist an “error” in the model.

As important, many of these variations are trends (or at least appear trends over a human life-time). As such the concept of “averaging out” to remove them does not work. As such the climate models will always be in error both due to cycles and trends. However, also the instrumentation readings will also have “error”. What then is the “truth”?

“Errors” of global temperature

Behind the idea of “global warming” is the concept that there is a “global temperature”. There are serious questions about whether there is any meaning to this this term, but as this subject has been widely discussed, I will not cover them again. Instead I will just take that there is a “global temperature”. This might be supposed to be the “truth”, but how does this “truth” match to physical measurements? In order to do this, a model has to be constructed of how station temperatures respond to this “global temperature”.

But now there is also natural variation present between this “model” and the theoretical construct of a “global temperature”. Again, the concept of an instrument “error” is often used to refer to the believed difference, which presupposes the idea that like instrumentation noise, the “error” in estimating global temperature can be “averaged out”. However, there are huge systematic changes in temperature, such as urbanisation which cannot be averaged out. And there is introduced trends inserted into the model such as “time of day” changes which account for almost all the perceived warming.

And here is where the terminology of “error” is particularly confusing. Is the warming trend added onto the global temperature due to believed changes in “time of day” of measurements an error, or is the error in the original data? In the US this change accounts for all the warming since about 1940. Does this mean the original data is “in error” or is the modelled global temperature with this added trend “in error”?

The problem is that “error” implies that there is a truth and this does not work in this situation. To illustrate the problem, what is the “truth” if we look at the probability distribution of radio-active decay? If the average is 14 counts, is a count of 10 “in error”? Is it an error to only get 1 count? It may be highly improbable, but it will happen, and when it does it is not an “error”, but instead part of the natural variation.

The problem with “error” is that it the inference is that one thing is in error from another which is “true”. In contrast “natural variation” is a concept that only says there is a difference.

This makes it easier to talk about variations. If our model is that all stations respond equally to global temperature, then “natural variation” is a term for instrumentation error (+ errors in this model). If however, our model is that all stations respond to global temperature, urban heating and time of day changes, then “natural variation” is a term for the variation of calculated reading from a theoretical concept of “global temperature” which includes instrumentation error, errors in assessing “adjustments” and error in the model. We don’t need to know whether the model or the readings are “in error”, because natural variation exists whether the readings or theoretical model are correct

Predictive, measurement models and “truth”.

In the climate, we have models, which for simplicity we will use on with only variable (e.g. global temperature). But a predicted model is not the only model.We also have a second model which is how global temperature is constructed from instrumental data. These would correspond to an laboratory experiment on radiation that for example radiation drops as the square of the distance (predictive model) and that radiation can be measured by the average (measurement model).

However, there is also a third conceptual model. This conceptual model is of the “true” global temperature. This is why the measurement model can be said to be in “error” with what is believed to be the “true” value of global temperature – even when this “true” value cannot be obtained. In addition, the predictive model is also in “error” with this “true” global temperature.

However, what is this “true” global temperature. The actual global temperature is actually several thousand degrees because the bulk of the earth below the crust is very hot. Even if we take the “true” global temperature to be that at the surface, does this mean the air just above the ocean or the ocean itself? Because as anyone who knows about wet & dry bulb readings will know, the temperature of a moist body is not the same as the surrounding air. Even if we take the reading at 10m above the surface level, does this mean 10m above the tree canopy? Even if we define it to be the ground, does it mean with or without radiant effect of the sun? And even then, does it include of include the heat from human activity? And even if we pin down the definition, how do we cope with the numerous places where there are no readings?

This is why trying to define a “true” global temperature and then defining anything that fails to represent this “true” reading is not a helpful approach. It implies that there are “errors” from the “true” value, which by its nature cannot ever be measured and so cannot ever be proven.

Instead, we can model something that we call “global temperature”. And we can use this “global temperature” as something that we attempt to predict its behaviour. It isn’t the actual “true” global temperature, but we can at least assess the “natural variation” that exists between predicted and measurement models. This is something that can be assessed, it can be measured, and so unlike “error” it is something that is scientifically testable.

Posted in Advanced Greenhouse Theory, Energy, science | Leave a comment

Review of Dissenter

Dissenter is a variant form of web-browser that gives the ability to add comments to any website and so, make comments on twitter, wikipedia and I presume facebook.

The idea, is that when you go to a website, the browser displays the page, but it also provide an additional comment section for those with the dissenter browser. And this cn only be seen by those with the dissenter browser. So, unless you install and use the dissenter browser, you have asbolutely no idea what people are saying about a web page.

In practice, whilst I started by commenting on a few web pages which are notoriously dishonest, by far the most pages that people comment about are news sites like the Biased Corp (which long ago blocked any real discussion).


I think you may need to register through gab to be able to use dissenter. More of a problem is that all the big commercial browser are actively trying to block free speech so there are for example problems getting dissenter on a smart phone.

But, it is remarkably easy to use. In practice most comments that appear are about the latest news stories – predominantly in the US, but a substantial minority from the UK and a spattering of foreign languar from Sweden, Denmark and Germany.

For the first few days I did come across the odd racist or anti-semitic comment. But in these days of not only blatant but extremely manipulative censorship, seeing raw opinions free from the hand of censorship was a delight, although I quickly blocked them.

The result has been great. I’ve had one long conversation about the origin of fire (whether it was a drill or striking stones together). And several other quite esoteric discussions. It really does remind me of an old English pub where there would be a lot of men sitting down in a smoke filled haze talking about every subject under the sun without the slightest worry that the place will suddenly be raided by the Femi-stazis.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

End of Marie Claire (A woman’s Magazine)

According to the fossil-fuel funded loss making Guardian:

Marie Claire is just the latest titan of women’s media to fall, following Lucky, More!, The Pool and Lenny Letter.

It goes on to say:

 we are mourning the UK print edition of Marie Claire, which at 31 has had its life cut short by the prolific killer, “social media”. Its other victims include Lucky, More!, Look and InStyle UK

It is an epidemic. Cosmopolitan saw its print circulation drop by a third in the last half of 2018; weeklies Woman and Woman’s Own were down 20% and 19% respectively. Now magazine dropped 43%.

What is perhaps most interesting here, given I’ve oft cited the decline of the press due to social media and the resultant move to extremism and fake news reporting of the remaining runts, is that Marie Claire started 31 years ago. This echoes the wholesale change that occurred at that time at the media was automated. This led to the notorious episode in 1986 when Rupert Murdoch took on the print unions and moved his entire British print works to Wapping in London’s Docklands, computerising the production process. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Enerconics: supply and demand

Following on from the last article: Energy price: the effect on the ratio of tangible/intangible I was chatting to my daughter, and she brought up the issue of supply and demand.

The short of it is that in a totally efficient and free market, that goods should be traded at a price which only reflects the tangible value of the goods. That is to say, that people would have all the information they need to ignore brands and buy the best product at the best price, and producers would be able to supply the best product at the lowest price possible so that consumers would not pay above the tangible value.

This therefore suggests that the reason that prices fluctuate above the “energy” or “tangible” value in a market is due to intangible added value. Or to put that in a slightly different way, a fully efficient & free market will reduce the cost of products so that it reflects only the tangible value – or least energy cost. Thus it follows that a fully efficient & free market intrinsically reduces the energy usage (for creating goods) to a minimum.


The original aim of my theory of “enerconics” was to devise a method of measuring value in an economy which did not involve money, because money has many problems not least of which is inflation,but also many societies in the past did not use money. My innovation was to measure value in terms of energy. This seemed, and I think still is, a good idea, because it would allow very different economies such as those with and without money to be compared. Indeed, it could even allow a natural eco-system to be compared with a human economy.

It also gave an avenue in, to understand how massive changes to energy costs would affect the economy. The problem with traditional economics is that “money” has no intrinsic value, except for what it can buy. So, it doesn’t represent value itself. This means very different amount of money can have the same “value” after a period of inflation. And because raising energy prices will lead to massive inflation, the traditional way of looking at the effect of changing energy costs created a confusing and difficult to interpret model. However, energy does have an intrinsic value, and because much of the economy requires energy to be produced, energy is a fairly universal necessity and therefore potential measure of value in an economy and because the need for energy is fixed over long periods, it is free from the effects of inflation. (the energy used to climb a hill remains constant because it is determined by physics and so, unlike money, energy value doesn’t suffer from arbitrary inflation)

However, I ran into several problems.

  1. What it meant to have different types of energy having different “costs” for the same energy content?
  2. If the entire value of an economy could be expressed in terms of energy, how can the total GDP in an economy be much greater than the total monetary value of energy (+food) being consumed?
  3. How can supply and demand could change the apparent “value” of goods when the energy value was not changing?

It now appears that by adapting my idea that everything has an energy value, to one where everything “tangible” has an energy value, but that there also exists “intangible” non-energy related value in an economy, I’m now able to begin explaining all the points above.

In a free efficient market, the value of each energy source will reflect the actual value of that energy source to the user. The difference in value is because some require added energy to be input by the user to make them useful. As an extreme example, coal is free in the ground, because anyone could just pick it up. The reason coal costs is because there is energy consumed in mining and distributing it.

Total GDP is much greater than the total energy use, because of the enerconic multiplier … that is that energy value is reused withint an economy.

Now I can also explain that prices can be greater than the tangible value of goods, because there is intangible (non-energy related) value in addition to tangible value (energy costs in production).

And finally the meaning of a “energy price increase” is that it changes the ratio of value between intangibles (like the man-hours) and tangibles (energy-related costs).


I have now taken the idea of energy as being a way to measure value in an economy and found a potential way to explain the key issues that I had found. However, the theory is now more complex.

Posted in Enerconics | Leave a comment