Bumper collection of "Climate Change" FAILS, all in one place.


Its all here: lies; fraud; censorship; bogus 
predictions; failed models & even doomsday cultism.


Index
1) Epic Failed Predictions going back over 50 years
2) Fraud and data fudging
3) Misleading "Greenhouse" model
4) Failed science &  models
5) Fundamental flaw in the premise


1.)  Failed Predictions going back over 50 years. 

Get a load of these...

1970: Ice age by 2000

1971: ‘New Ice Age Coming’

1972: New ice age by 2070
1974: ‘New Ice Age Coming Fast’
Source: The Guardian, January 29, 1974
1974: ‘Another Ice Age?’ 

Sources: Headline
NASA Data | Graph
1976: ‘The Cooling’



Associated Press, September 6, 1990
1978: ‘No End in Sight’ to 30-Year Cooling Trend

Source: New York Times, January 5, 1978
But according to NASA satellite data there is a slight warming trend since 1979.

Source: DrRoySpencer.com


Trailer for a global cooling feature presented by Leonard Nimoy (Spock)

Evidence of the robust cooling concensus has almost been scrubbed by google. here is some background:

1988: Washington DC days over 90F to from 35 to 85

But the number of hot days in the DC area peaked in 1911, and have been declining ever since.

Source: RealClimateScience.com


1988: Maldives completely under water in 30 years

1989: Rising seas to ‘obliterate’ nations by 2000

Source: Associated Press, June 30, 1989

1989: New York City’s West Side Highway underwater by 2019

1995 to Present: Climate Model Failure

Source: CEI.org

2000: ‘Children won’t know what snow is.’


Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000


2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020

Source: The Guardian, February 21, 2004

2008: We are toast! 
(Arctic will be ice-free by 2018)


2008: Al Gore warns of ice-free Arctic by 2013..
But… it’s still there.

Source: WattsUpWithThat.com, December 16, 2018


Germany’s Die Welt: “Ice-free By 2013"
In 2007, German online national daily Die Welt here warned that “a team of international climate scientists and researchers at NASA claimed the Arctic summer would be ice-free already in 2013.
According to Die Welt, NASA’s “climate expert” Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey made the claim at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Spiegel: sailboats in an open Arctic in 2008
While in Germany, onn June 27, 2008, Der Spiegel cited scientists when it reported outrageously that the Arctic was “melting at a brutal speed”.
The German flagship weekly also quoted researcher Olav Orheim of the Norwegian Research Council: “Already last October I was predicting that the Arctic could be ice-free this summer” and “In August or September we will be seeing people cruising in sailboats up there.”
Seth Borenstein: planet has passed “an ominous tipping point”
On December 12, 2007, the AP’s Seth Borenstein reported at National Geographic that scientists were saying that the planet had “passed an ominous tipping point.” and that the Arctic was “screaming” as if it were in its death throes.
NASA’s Jay Zwally: Nearly ice-free by end of summer 2012.
NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally was also cited by the National Geographic, which reported: “…after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: ‘At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions’.”
John Kerry: Ice-free in 2013, not 2050
On October 16, 2009, Senator John Kerry at the Huffington Post here called climate change a “national security threat” and wrote:
It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”

Al Gore warned in 2007, 2008 and 2009
At about the same time, climate crusader Al Gore also preached of an imminent Arctic sea ice doomsday. The New American here wrote:
In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Gore publicly and very hysterically warned that the North Pole would be ‘ice-free’ by around 2013 because of alleged ‘man-made global warming.’ Citing ‘climate’ experts, the government-funded BBC hyped the mass hysteria, running a now-embarrassing article under the headline: ‘Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’.’ Other establishment media outlets did the same"

2009: Prince Charles says only 8 years to save the planet

2009: UK prime minister stupidly says we had 50 days to ‘save the planet from catastrophe’

Source: The Independent: October 20, 2009
2009: Arctic ice-free by 2014

Source: USA Today, December 14, 2009

2013: Arctic ice-free by 2015


The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02550-9 (open access)
Gas hydrate dissociation off Svalbard induced by isostatic rebound rather than global warming
Abstract
Methane seepage from the upper continental slopes of Western Svalbard has previously been attributed to gas hydrate dissociation induced by anthropogenic warming of ambient bottom waters. Here we show that sediment cores drilled off Prins Karls Foreland contain freshwater from dissociating hydrates. However, our modeling indicates that the observed pore water freshening began around 8 ka BP when the rate of isostatic uplift outpaced eustatic seat level rise. The resultant local shallowing and lowering of hydrostatic pressure forced gas hydrate dissociation and dissolved chloride depletions consistent with our geochemical analysis. Hence, we propose that hydrate dissociation was triggered by postglacial isostatic rebound rather than anthropogenic warming. Furthermore, we show that methane fluxes from dissociating hydrates were considerably smaller than present methane seepage rates implying that gas hydrates were not a major source of methane to the oceans, but rather acted as a dynamic seal, regulating methane release from deep geological reservoirs.

2013: Navy throws its hat into the ring. Boldly predicts an Arctic that is ice-free by 2016

Source: The Guardian, December 9, 2013

2014: French FM somehow knew - Only 500 days before ‘climate chaos’

But…

Sources: Washington Examiner


HERE you will find a very funny comparison of alarmist media reports on scientific data relating to warming, represented as facts that are not as easy to disprove. The secret here here was to compare the claims against each other. I found they directly contradict each other and it follows logically (and hysterically) that such direct, intractable logical conflicts must render in each case at least one (possibly both) of the claims impossible.


Other tools you can use to empower yourself include using the the internet pages archive called the Way Back Machine at Archive.org to source older versions of current websites or media reports that have been insidiously altered or even scrubbed from the internet. I'm afraid its gotten to be as serious as it sounds.

It gets even worse I'm afraid. The same powerful special interests in partnership with the "Big Tech" Silicon Valley Oligarchy have even begun putting pressure on the archiving sites to remove historical content in an attempt to remove any evidence of such discourse having ever occurred. I have been commentating on this problem for long enough to have built-up quite an extensive archive myself of academic papers, media reports, press releases and scientific studies considered dangerous the the consensus narrative of the sanitised establishment looking to completely fabricate a version of history.

I will also post direct historical first hand accounts of weather, crop yields and other related topics going back as far as the middle ages.

I have also written about how the role of CO2 in the temperatures of Venus has been quite obviously deliberately misrepresented.

________________________________________. 

___________________________________________________________

                                     Part 2  

 2.) Fraud and data fudging  
This is a sample of a vast and sprawling fraud whose consequences raise it's profile to "Crime Against Humanity "

ABOVE: LOOK AT THE NONSENSE CLAIM THAT EVERYWHERE IS WARMING FASTER THAN EVERYWHERE ELSE
Hiding the Medieval warm period:

Wikipedia deletes descenting scientists:
This is sad! NOAA (NASA) has one upped their data fraud. https://earth.nullschool.net/…

Hiding 50 years of Australian hot days:







What are the leading excuses for data tampering? 


Mann. 

More examples of tampering with historical data:



MORE »
Posted by on
Index , ,

VAERS Update on adverse effects of the ¢0√¡d √a¢¢¡ne

 


Consider this a quick update on my more involved post after 2 of VAERS stats. Its concerning but necessary to bear in mind the estimation that only 6% of adverse reactions are actually reported.

In loosely related noteworthy news, a murder trial in India has been opened, involving Bill Gates
https://indianbarassociation.in/worlds-first-vaccine-murder-case-against-bill-gates-adar-poonawalla-filed-in-indias-high-court/

Thanks to Peter Stallinga of Stallinga.org

The same thing we saw in Europe happens in the United States. In Europe the EudraVigilance adverse-side-effects monitoring hinted at about 500 thousand vaccination deaths in Europe. (With 500 million inhabitants that is one in 1000 or 0.1% of the population). In the US, the VAERS reported 19249 official vaccination deaths. With 6% reporting this implies 320 thousand deaths. (On a population of 333 million this is again 0.1% of the population culled by the vaccine). 

People with corona tunnel-vision will not see these deaths as we know from psychology (see videos of Mattias Desmet). But | want to communicate to the others: 

- The sacrifice of how many innocent human lives do you think is acceptable in the combat of the virus? 1, 10, 100, 1000 ... ? 

- Do you see that these people are in all age cohorts? CoFlu19 kills people of 83 years age on average (compared to 83 years of other causes; ergo CoFlu19 does not take away much life), while the vaccine kills on average much younger people. Some in the prime of their lives. 

'T is a sad world. Exactly what Dostoevsky wrote. A great sadness on Earth. History repeating. The way it goes, in Europe, in twelve years, how many deaths by human hand will we have ... ? ss 

Posted by on
Index , ,

The PCR test results ARE meaningless. Here's why.



 The whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose

From Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter

Lockdowns and hygienic measures around the world are based on numbers of cases and mortality rates created by the so-called SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests used to identify “positive” patients, whereby “positive” is usually equated with “infected.”

But looking closely at the facts, the conclusion is that these PCR tests are meaningless as a diagnostic tool to determine an alleged infection by a supposedly new virus called SARS-CoV-2.

UNFOUNDED “TEST, TEST, TEST,…” MANTRA

At the media briefing on COVID-19 on March 16, 2020, the WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said:

We have a simple message for all countries: test, test, test.”

The message was spread through headlines around the world, for instance by Reuters and the BBC.

Still on the 3 of May, the moderator of the heute journal — one of the most important news magazines on German television— was passing the mantra of the corona dogma on to his audience with the admonishing words:

Test, test, test—that is the credo at the moment, and it is the only way to really understand how much the coronavirus is spreading.”

This indicates that the belief in the validity of the PCR tests is so strong that it equals a religion that tolerates virtually no contradiction.

But it is well known that religions are about faith and not about scientific facts. And as Walter Lippmann, the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner and perhaps the most influential journalist of the 20th century said: “Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.”

So to start, it is very remarkable that Kary Mullis himself, the inventor of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology, did not think alike. His invention got him the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1993.

Unfortunately, Mullis passed away last year at the age of 74, but there is no doubt that the biochemist regarded the PCR as inappropriate to detect a viral infection.

The reason is that the intended use of the PCR was, and still is, to apply it as a manufacturing technique, being able to replicate DNA sequences millions and billions of times, and not as a diagnostic tool to detect viruses.

How declaring virus pandemics based on PCR tests can end in disaster was described by Gina Kolata in her 2007 New York Times article Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.

LACK OF A VALID GOLD STANDARD

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that the PCR tests used to identify so-called COVID-19 patients presumably infected by what is called SARS-CoV-2 do not have a valid gold standard to compare them with.

This is a fundamental point. Tests need to be evaluated to determine their preciseness — strictly speaking their “sensitivity”[1] and “specificity” — by comparison with a “gold standard,” meaning the most accurate method available.

As an example, for a pregnancy test the gold standard would be the pregnancy itself. But as Australian infectious diseases specialist Sanjaya Senanayake, for example, stated in an ABC TV interview in an answer to the question “How accurate is the [COVID-19] testing?”:

If we had a new test for picking up [the bacterium] golden staph in blood, we’ve already got blood cultures, that’s our gold standard we’ve been using for decades, and we could match this new test against that. But for COVID-19 we don’t have a gold standard test.”

Jessica C. Watson from Bristol University confirms this. In her paper “Interpreting a COVID-19 test result”, published recently in The British Medical Journal, she writes that there is a “lack of such a clear-cut ‘gold-standard’ for COVID-19 testing.”

But instead of classifying the tests as unsuitable for SARS-CoV-2 detection and COVID-19 diagnosis, or instead of pointing out that only a virus, proven through isolation and purification, can be a solid gold standard, Watson claims in all seriousness that, “pragmatically” COVID-19 diagnosis itself, remarkably including PCR testing itself, “may be the best available ‘gold standard’.” But this is not scientifically sound.

Apart from the fact that it is downright absurd to take the PCR test itself as part of the gold standard to evaluate the PCR test, there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, as even people such as Thomas Löscher, former head of the Department of Infection and Tropical Medicine at the University of Munich and member of the Federal Association of German Internists, conceded to us[2].

And if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, COVID-19 diagnosis — contrary to Watson’s statement — cannot be suitable for serving as a valid gold standard.

In addition, “experts” such as Watson overlook the fact that only virus isolation, i.e. an unequivocal virus proof, can be the gold standard.

That is why I asked Watson how COVID-19 diagnosis “may be the best available gold standard,” if there are no distinctive specific symptoms for COVID-19, and also whether the virus itself, that is virus isolation, wouldn’t be the best available/possible gold standard. But she hasn’t answered these questions yet – despite multiple requests. And she has not yet responded to our rapid response post on her article in which we address exactly the same points, either, though she wrote us on June 2nd: “I will try to post a reply later this week when I have a chance.”

NO PROOF FOR THE RNA BEING OF VIRAL ORIGIN

Now the question is: What is required first for virus isolation/proof? We need to know where the RNA for which the PCR tests are calibrated comes from.

As textbooks (e.g., White/Fenner. Medical Virology, 1986, p. 9) as well as leading virus researchers such as Luc Montagnier or Dominic Dwyer state, particle purification — i.e. the separation of an object from everything else that is not that object, as for instance Nobel laureate Marie Curie purified 100 mg of radium chloride in 1898 by extracting it from tons of pitchblende — is an essential pre-requisite for proving the existence of a virus, and thus to prove that the RNA from the particle in question comes from a new virus.

The reason for this is that PCR is extremely sensitive, which means it can detect even the smallest pieces of DNA or RNA — but it cannot determine where these particles came from. That has to be determined beforehand.

And because the PCR tests are calibrated for gene sequences (in this case RNA sequences because SARS-CoV-2 is believed to be a RNA virus), we have to know that these gene snippets are part of the looked-for virus. And to know that, correct isolation and purification of the presumed virus has to be executed.

Hence, we have asked the science teams of the relevant papers which are referred to in the context of SARS-CoV-2 for proof whether the electron-microscopic shots depicted in their in vitro experiments show purified viruses.

But not a single team could answer that question with “yes” — and NB., nobody said purification was not a necessary step. We only got answers like “No, we did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification” (see below).

Study 1: Leo L. M. Poon; Malik Peiris. “Emergence of a novel human coronavirus threatening human health” Nature Medicine, March 2020
Replying Author: Malik Peiris
Date: May 12, 2020
Answer: “The image is the virus budding from an infected cell. It is not purified virus.”

Study 2: Myung-Guk Han et al. “Identification of Coronavirus Isolated from a Patient in Korea with COVID-19”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, February 2020
Replying Author: Myung-Guk Han
Date: May 6, 2020
Answer: “We could not estimate the degree of purification because we do not purify and concentrate the virus cultured in cells.”

Study 3: Wan Beom Park et al. “Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”, Journal of Korean Medical Science, February 24, 2020
Replying Author: Wan Beom Park
Date: March 19, 2020
Answer: “We did not obtain an electron micrograph showing the degree of purification.”

Study 4: Na Zhu et al., “A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China”, 2019, New England Journal of Medicine, February 20, 2020
Replying Author: Wenjie Tan
Date: March 18, 2020
Answer: “[We show] an image of sedimented virus particles, not purified ones.”

For more read the article here.


Or click HERE for the homepage of this site.


Posted by on
Index ,
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

Labels

Search This Blog

Your Feedback

Name

Email *

Message *