Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)

May 9, 2018

Ever been told that the Science Is Settled with Global Warming? Well read this and decide for yourself!

Considering that many governments and agencies such as the United Nations endorse the global warming theory and the mass of foundations springing up everywhere collecting money for “further research” and so on, I understand how many people must be concerned with the perceived danger of Global Warming.

I have to tell you some truths and facts about what you are being told. At this stage I will leave it with the reader to contemplate why such powerful agencies and wealthy
powerful people should take such interest in such a controversial “science”.

      1. Please bear mind, that in order to reduce the temperature of the world by limiting or abolishing the production of CO2, is a horrendously
        expensive task world wide.
      1. This attempt in itself, regardless of what the climate is doing, can only lead to disastrous rises in the cost of energy which in turn will lead
        to economic collapse of world economies along with of course disastrous effects
        on the world populace
        (AKA starvation). (Yup I majored in economics – class of 1981 – and for me this is easy to see).
      1. You see, our economies are based on fossil energy, Coal, Gas and Oil etc and unless equally or less expensive substitutes are found,
        without these things, most of us will starve and/or freeze to death.
      1. But perhaps, as you are no doubt postulating in your mind, should we actually need to save the planet, maybe the above cost will be
      1. So be sure, no matter what your beliefs are, be assured that, at the very least, trying to cool the planet is a very serious thing to
        attempt. Therefore we should not go down this road unless we have absolute proof that humans are warming
        the planet and that the predictions we are hearing from some sources are
        scientifically confirmed
          1. Fortunately, there is a scientific method which allows us to decide whether the above is true or not. If you read Karl Popper and if you wish to take it even further, William of Ockham, you can find the basis of the scientific disproof of a hypothesis. This quick video will help. Richard Feynman on Hypothesis or Law

    Click here to open Richard Feynman on Hypothesis or Law in new tab

      1. Next: Please study Dr Roy Spencer’s Graph showing Computer Models as well as empirical measurements.
        found on Dr Spencer’s website archive Blogs June 2013) 
      1. Apply Richard Feynman’s method to the data on Dr Spencers graph as follows  a) Note that the “73 CLIMATE MODELS” on Dr Spencer’s graph results are all separate hypothesis’. A computer model for climate is simply a series of assumptions about the climate, carbon dioxide and solar energy etc. (The climate and the atmosphere are far too large, complicated and random to enable any but a few basic facts to be included).
        There are many of these models created by a number of institutions. The computer uses these to predict global temperatures for the future. These are the “guesses”, that Richard Feynman mentions
        b) The “OBSERVATIONS” on Dr Spencer’s graph are the facts – Nature,Experiment or observation – described by Richard Feynman. These are observed
        or empirical facts which may or may not support the hypothesis’
      1. This is a good example of Popper’s disproval of a hypothesis. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, When one compares the result with a) Nature, b)
        Experiment or c) Observation and the result does not agree, “Its wrong – IN THAT SIMPLE STATEMENT IS THE KEY TO SCIENCE”


      1. Therefore once you compare the results of the computer models with the observations on Dr Spencer’s graph, it
        is very obvious that the models fall under Feynman’s rejection.
        (Considering what I describe above at 8 a) this is hardly surprising).


      1. There is therefore no scientific evidence that the earth is warming, (or cooling), other than what has already been observed throughout
      1. Unfortunately, governments like excuses to issue new laws. As most governments nowadays, (including that of New Zealand), are sliding
        steadily to the left, this unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, gives many governments around the world an excuse to issue more
        laws and regulations based on these unreliable computer models – each of which we must obey at the cost of trading a little of our freedom and democracy.


      1. It is easily understood how difficult it is to give up beliefs that one has accumulated, but one must remain logical and scientific in these things.
      1. However -Make no mistake, What I have described here is REAL SCIENCE.  If you cannot get a similar explanation from some other site or some sort of rally or from someone is calling you a “denier” and tries to shut you down – they are the denier(s)! – DENIER(S) of SCIENCE.



  1. While reading an article on what the New York Times leaves out I found a link to your important discussion. You speak of the “limiting or abolishing the production of CO2 (as being) a horrendously expensive task.” I would ask if the reduction/abolition of CO2 were achievable would it have any significant reduction of the world average temperature? If we cannot fully understand and are incapable of controlling even one of the systems involved with producing the various climates we find in our world are we not utterly foolish in thinking we can succeed at climate engineering?

    I posted this:
    Many speak of Climate as if it were a single thing that one can by turning some kind of knob move up or down. This is totally misleading. There are various climates in different parts of the world that have been called climate zones – a simplification. It would be great if we could raise the temperatures in some of the coldest areas while lowering them in the hottest. It would be great if we could increase rainfall in some areas and reduce storms in other areas. However, what happens in one area impacts the adjacent one and further afield.

    If we were able to “modify” the climate in one area do we have any idea what would happen in the neighboring areas let alone globally? We can certainly help reduce the urban heat effect in cities in summer but would this not contribute to increasing the cold in winter? However, would this lead to a significant change in the area around? Man has since the beginning of recorded history tried to play God – unsuccessfully. I do not think man is anywhere near achieving this with respect to something so complex as climate. Perhaps man needs to show some humility and stick to using his God given human ingenuity and ability to adapt?

    Comment by Michael in Dublin — September 21, 2019 @ 10:42 pm | Reply

    • Michael,

      Great to hear from you.
      In my opinion, playing with the earth’s climate by “scientists” who do not yet know enough about the world, its atmosphere and climate, would be the most horrendous thing I could imagine. I sincerely hope that no one ever has a try.

      Although I am from New Zealand, I follow Donald Trump very closely – partly because economics is my thing and I can see what Donald Trump Is doing. (He also studied Economics as well).
      Anyway I think Donald Trump is our savior in all this. Especially as I watch the so called “Democratic Party Presidential Debates” who are not only pushing the Global Warming line but the Communist line as well.
      One can only imagine what would have happened had Hilary Clinton been elected, one hates to speculate.
      Whether one likes Donald Trump or hates him, the thing is that, whatever happens in the US, western countries follow, especially my country and I hope Donald Trump manages to reach all his promises before he leaves office.
      Donald Trump basically repudiates Anthropogenic Global Warming, (as any sensible knowledgeable person would), but concentrates on a clean environment , water and real pollution, which no one can criticize.
      I think the horrendous upheaval from the Democratic Party is based on their former plans for the US, which included totalitarian rule, Communism, power for the so called “Elite” and global warming operations which will impoverish the normal people but ensure that the “Elite” come off very well.
      Therefore let us be aware that proper and good Democracy with minimum government, and power retained by the citizens is the best solution.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — September 22, 2019 @ 11:02 am | Reply

  2. Comparing climate cience to real science is like comparing Astrology to Astronomy.

    Comment by Craig Austin — July 22, 2019 @ 11:07 pm | Reply

  3. That graph that supposedly is from Dr Roy Spencer looks ridiculous. The temperature observations are shown as a straight line. Anyone knows that global temperatures go up and down every year, and definitely don’t follow a straight line.

    Comment by Johan Meijer — January 14, 2019 @ 8:50 pm | Reply

    • Johan, thanks for your comment.

      The observations that Dr Spencer uses are a conglomeration of millions of individual observations, It is common practice to “average” these into a form which enables the trend to be observed clearly. If you look up the statistical process of “regression” you will understand this process.


      Comment by rogerthesurf — January 29, 2019 @ 6:50 pm | Reply

  4. Even Karl Popper would agree with Feiynmann:
    This led Popper to conclude that what were regarded[by whom?] as the remarkable strengths of psychoanalytical theories were actually their weaknesses. Psychoanalytical theories were crafted in a way that made them able to refute any criticism and to give an explanation for every possible form of human behaviour. The nature of such theories made it impossible for any criticism or experiment—even in principle—to show them to be false.[13] When Popper later tackled the problem of demarcation in the philosophy of science, this conclusion led him to posit that the strength of a scientific theory lies in its both being susceptible to falsification, and not actually being falsified by criticism made of it. He considered that if a theory cannot, in principle, be falsified by criticism, it is not a scientific theory.[39]

    Comment by texasjimbrock — September 9, 2018 @ 4:33 am | Reply

  5. Feynman would have destroyed James Hansen’s testimony (before the US Congress in June 1985) before he finished his cup of coffee before breakfast. Unfortunately Feynman died of cancer in February 1985 and Hansen knew this. Therefore Feynman’s death gave Hansen the go ahead to start his scam.

    Comment by Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty) — June 23, 2018 @ 1:54 pm | Reply

    • I meant 1988.

      Comment by Alan Tomalty (@ATomalty) — June 23, 2018 @ 1:55 pm | Reply

    • ROTFLMAO! How ghoulish of Hansen—-just lurking in the shadows until Feynman keeled over—-only then could he begin his SCAM (which has been so successful that he has brought 99% of all climate scientists along with him into spreading it).

      What the hell is wrong with all you DENIERS? Do you not read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? Do you not understand that the ice in Antarctica is now melting at an accelerated rate? Do you not understand that extreme weather is occurring at an increased frequency all over the planet? Do you not understand that record high temperatures are occurring 5 times more often than record lows?

      Keep setting up your straw men and knocking them down—the TRUTH is that 30 years later Hansen has been shown to be pretty much on the money with his SCAM, and I will again ask what the hell is wrong with those of you who can’t see the handwriting on the wall.

      Comment by dumboldguy — June 24, 2018 @ 2:24 am | Reply

      • Do you not read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? That is your problem, FAKE NEWS! Antarctica has increased snowmass. So Fake news about melting. Extreme weather is per the IPCC “low confidence” and real graphs show declines in trends. FAKE NEWS! Record high temperatures? Actually no, If you look at the 1930s for the US you will see we still haven’t broken those records. Tony Heller debunks these claims very well. So you got served more FAKE NEWS!

        Comment by William Baikie — June 20, 2019 @ 11:56 am

      • Don’t know why this comment from late June took nearly three months to appear here (although like everything else smurfy does, this site is “a day late and a dollar short”). More ignorance and denial from a drooling lap dog. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz,,,,,,,,(boring!)

        Comment by dumboldguy — September 21, 2019 @ 1:16 am

      • Dumbbodguy

        I apologize for not approving your comment earlier. Actually I was going to trash it and the approval was a mistake.

        However, talking about this 97% consensus you mention. Well I advise you to do what I did and study the three papers that came to this “conclusion”
        I have them on archive now so I can only tell you what I remember.

        First of all, I recall that at least two of these papers had a question along the lines of “Do you believe the climate is warming” .
        Well most people including myself would honestly have to say “Yes”. The climate is warming and has been since about the 14th century.
        But of course this is not the question that matters, the real question being along the lines “Do you believe the climate is warming because of the human input of CO2” but as I recall this question was missing.
        I also remember that one of the above mentioned papers which had, as I recall, a reasonable list of Climate Scientists in his research, like maybe several 1000 or more, decided to only use 47 of these for his paper, which in most peoples mind was far less than a reasonable statistical scientific basis.

        So the 97% is BS. But don’t believe me, simply carry out a proper analysis yourself and see what you think. At least I have taken that trouble.



        Comment by rogerthesurf — September 22, 2019 @ 10:39 am

      • Reading propaganda, I mean hews papers and watching propaganda, sorry I mean watching TV news is not science. sounds like you are well versed in propaganda.

        Comment by Garland — June 30, 2019 @ 7:18 pm

      • Personally I wouldn’t call it a “Scam” and I don’t think others should either. Hansens “theory” is simply wrong. If you compare his original paper back in 1988 to actual observed temps you will see that reality is tracking at lower than his “Scenario C” drastic action scenario. Reality does nothing more than show the theories and “guesses” that underlie the mathematics of the climate models are wrong. Accepting that and developing better models is how science progresses. Screaming “Denier” and claiming reality has it wrong and the models are correct would have to be literal insanity.

        And most of us read or watch the news. We also read history books and look at old records. Those old records, tree rings, ice cores, etc tell us that absolutely nothing unusual is happening. The climate is changing, as it has since the planet formed. The planet is warming, just as it has after every cooling period. did you know that when the instrumental records started (circa 1850) it was the coldest the planet had been in over 8,000 years?

        Comment by JohnB — September 20, 2019 @ 12:55 pm

  6. Have you ever looked at the Hockey Stick? It only gets worse.
    Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick Rules out CO2 as Cause of Global Warming

    Comment by co2islife — June 23, 2018 @ 10:52 am | Reply

  7. Ah, yes—-use Spencer’s “Tropical Mid Troposphere 20N to 20S” observations—–can you say “cherrypicked data”, children?

    Take a look at this instead for a “global” view.

    Comment by dumboldguy — May 17, 2018 @ 2:17 am | Reply

    • Can you say “deflection” children? The point is to compare predictions with reality, something your graph doesn’t do. There is also the point that Spencer uses that region because in AGW theory the Tropical Troposphere should warm at more than 1.5 times the rate the surface does. It isn’t. Another count against the AGW theory.

      What do Feynman and Popper say you should do if your predictions do not match reality?

      Comment by John B — May 31, 2018 @ 11:30 am | Reply

  8. That graph does a wonderful job of summing up climate change reality. Interposed with Feynman’s quote, it should be all the argument necessary to discredit the whole snappy structure as a sham.

    Comment by Paul Stevens — May 13, 2018 @ 11:26 pm | Reply

  9. Roger, It is an interesting fact that Popper was a lecturer in Philosophy at the old college (of the then, I understand the U of NZ) in Canterbury from the late 1930s to the late 1940s (9-10 years). This was when he was writing on the Philosophy of Science. His history and the names of his friends in Science are a real eye-opener.
    A lot of youngsters in NZ are surprised about these associations. One of them is one of my sons who works in gas exploration and sales in Wellington, NZ.

    John from the other side of the Tasman.

    Comment by johnrmcd — May 11, 2018 @ 11:23 pm | Reply

    • Johnrmcd,

      Thanks for that information. I was not aware of that fact. I am certainly aware of the building named in his honor though.

      Incidentally, a professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations, has been given a contract to arrange research papers for the IPCC.
      So much for Karl Popper’s influence here 😦



      Comment by rogerthesurf — May 12, 2018 @ 11:04 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

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

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

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: