Breitbart: June 23 is the 30th anniversary of the great global warming scare.
The scare began in Washington, DC, on this day in 1988 when testimony by a then little-known scientist called James Hansen before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources caught headlines across the world.
Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, declared that the four hottest years ever recorded had all been in the 1980s, rising to a peak in 1987, and that 1988 would be hotter still – “the warmest year on record.”
This triggered the first of many thousands of headlines over three decades warning that “man-made global warming” – “climate change” as it later became known – was the most urgent crisis of the age.
But – like the scare itself – the claims were dishonest, hysterical, misleading, unscientific, needlessly alarmist, and cynically stage-managed.
As Christopher Booker describes in his The Real Global Warming Disaster, Hansen’s dramatic testimony delighted the two US Senators most involved in promoting the global warming scare – Al Gore and the Senate Committee’s chairman Tim Wirth.
Right from the start, as Booker describes, it was a carefully stage-managed scam:
The most important word. is SCAM, or it could be SCUM.
The word that comes to my mind is extortion.
Just knew Manbearpig was in on it from the beginning.
BASTARDS! We need public executions. They can swing with the illegal immigrant scammers!
Think of all the billions of dollars in “green” regulations that now extort us — from light bulbs to metropolitan policies that have snarled our traffic with bike lanes.
Dan Ashley here. PhD statistics, PhD Business.
I am not a climate, environment, geology, weather, or physics expert. However, I am an expert on statistics. So, I recognize bad statistical analysis when I see it. There are quite a few problems with the use of statistics within the global warming debate. The use of Gaussian statistics is the first error. In his first movie Gore used a linear regression of CO2 and temperature. If he had done the same regression using the number of zoos in the world, or the worldwide use of atomic energy, or sunspots, he would have the same result. A linear regression by itself proves nothing.
The theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been proven correct in a small greenhouse only. As a matter of fact, plants like higher CO2 and it is frequently pumped into greenhouses because of that. There has never been a definitive experiment regarding CO2, at or near the concentrations in our atmosphere. This theory actually has much less statistical support than the conspiracy theories regarding JFK’s assassination.
Gaussian statistics REQUIRE the events being published to be both independent and random. The temperatures experienced in one part of the world are dependent on temperatures in other locales. The readings are not independent. A better statistical method would be Mandlebroten (fractal). Mandlebroten statistics are not merely “fat tailed” statistics.
A more problematic issue with the data is that it has been adjusted. Data adjustments are frequently needed –for example, if a measuring device fails. However 100% of the data adjustments used are in favor of proving global warming. 100%. Not 100% minus one adjustment. Not nearly 100%. 100% –that is ALL– of the adjustments were in one direction only. Any student that put data like that in a PHD dissertation would never receive a doctoral degree.
One study published showed parts of the Earth where warming was occuring faster than other parts of the globe. The study claimed to be of data solely from satellites. The study identified several areas (Gambia for one) which have greater warming than other areas. Unfortunately, in three of those areas there have been no climate satellite observations for years.

The statements that claim “less arctic ice in recorded history” are equally spurious. We started gathering data on that in 1957 with the first satellite fly overs. On this issue “recorded history” is a very short time period.
Some geologist friends told me that a significant amount of Earth’s heat comes from the hot Earth’s core. They further stated that they do not know what percentage of heat that is. They do know it is probably over 20% and probably less than 70%. Whereas either of those extremes seems unlikely to me, remember that I am not a geologist.
As to rising oceans, that should be measured accurately. Measuring it with a stick stuck in the sand is inappropriate. Geologists tell me that the land is shifting and moving. Measuring it against the gravitational center of the Earth is the only accurate way. However, we do not know how to do that. As a matter of fact, we don’t know precisely where the gravitational center of the Earth is. (Any physicists around that want to explain the two body and the three body problem as it relates to the Earth, Moon, and Sun, please do so.
So, according to climate scientists the world is warming up. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. However, they have been unable to support their thesis via the use of statistics.
I personally see no reason to disassemble the world’s economic systems over an unproven, and somewhat implausible theory.
It is a scientifically proven fact that 82.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
For about 8 years, I consumed every conceivable bit of information on this topic. I went thru every tidbit about climategate, Anthony Watt’s surfacestations papers, analysis of how the collection of stations were culled to lower altitude, every single document and argument by just about everybody. And out of all that, I would like to share with you… this:
https://youtu.be/Vx-t9k7epIk