– Willie Soon & Eliot Bloom

A long, but complete, presentation on some of the scientific failures (or perhaps I’d say fraud was closer) in the Global Warming “Science”.

It is an 1 hour 48 minutes but that includes a lot of Q & A at the end. Dr. Willie Soon starts his talk at 4:50 and finishes at the 1 hour mark. Then Dr. Bloom comments until about 1 hour 20 when they go to Q&A / Discussion.

You will find ‘exerpts’ of this with just Willie Soon floating around on Youtube, but since you can move the slider yourself, I thought it better to post the whole thing and let folks choose for themselves where to edit.

Willie presents some very interesting graphs that add to the evidence that CO2 is a red herring. Bloom is a physicist and has a less “exciting” style. The first 5 minutes is mostly his bio, then he transitions to how asteroid impacts are a far more important threat and cheap to mitigate (detect). Then up to 1 hour 10 minutes is a general discussion of how Science ought to work, when he transitions to Climatology / Global Warming and the tech content shows up. So folks can just pick up the 1:10:– to 1:20:– if in a hurry. One interesting bit: At 1:18:– theirs a graph with the INM-CM4 Russian Model being correct. Now you know why the Russians are not impressed with Global Warming.

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to – Willie Soon & Eliot Bloom

  1. rhoda klapp says:

    The Russian model is best, but there’s one thing I’ve always wondered. Well, more than one. Why is the average of an ensemble of different models of any interest? Surely the average of many runs of one model would tell you more? And second, why do they not get rid of the non-performing models from the ensemble? If the Canadian model always runs hot, which it does, why not ditch it? Once it has departed from the observational record even if it comes back it’s clearly not correct to recover from a position of error. Error in can only lead to worse error.

    The only reason to leave it in must be to make the ensemble result look the way they want it. Crooks.

  2. H.R. says:

    @rhoda – If they ditched the models that run to errors, there wouldn’t be any models in the ensemble, eh?

  3. gallopingcamel says:

    All those models are based on the idea that there is a causal relationship between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average global temperature. What if there is no causal relationship? To test this hypothesis you don’t even have to postulate an equation relating the variables. Let’s examine the correlation going backwards with time:

    1998 to Present. No correlation.

    1850 to 1998. A correlation exists with a “Sensitivity Constant” of 3.0 +/- 1.5 degrees Centigrade per doubling of CO2. (see IPCC AR5, “Summary for Policy Makers”, section D.2.).
    This seems to be a fake correlation created by selecting the time interval.

    11,000 BP (Before Present) to 1850. No correlation. CO2 increases slowly while temperature varies wildly. Historical events such as the Minoan Warm Period, two Roman Warm Periods and the Medieval Warm Period cannot be explained in terms of CO2.

    850,000 BP top 11,000 BP. Strong correlation (R> +0.90). However temperature “Leads” by many hundreds of years proving that CO2 does not cause temperature change. Cause must precede effect.

Comments are closed.