Sudden cooling in 1990's discovered!

Dear readers, today I will publish a graph which is probably the most important graph ever published here.
Consider the typical temperature anomaly graph that the warmist establishment publishes, like this one from NASA.

As you can see, we have an apparent strong warming in the 1990s. Was that because Earth was actually getting warmer during the 1990s?

No, maybe not at all. Now consider the following graph by fearless hockey stick slayer McKitrick, which shows that in the 1990s two things happended.

First, the number of weather stations was dramatically reduced (diamond line). Most of the disappeared stations were in the former Soviet Union, China, Africa and South America. Second, the measured average global temperature went up by 2.5 degrees Celsius (red bars). Note that the measured average temperature in the graph is the unweighted average value of all the weather stations: no “gridding” or other artificial means for manipulating and massageing the data have been used. It’s just the weather station data as they are.

Nobody in his right mind can believe that it actually got 2.5 degrees warmer in one year. Hence, the 2.5 degree must be an artefact of the dramatic and mysterious disappearance of all these thousands of weather stations. Of course, that artefact will inflate the global average temperature, and as we can see in the topmost graph, the global average temperature increased during the 1990’s. It appears that the reduction of the number of stations has not been corrected for. This is quite typical. The warmists from NASA, CRU etc are all too happy to apply a lot of phony corrections upwards, but when it comes to downwards corrections they are not so keen. It is a monumental scandal of enormous proportions that this most needed correction has not been done.
That is until now. Yours truly has recalculated the global temperatures with a correction for the artificial 2.5 degree increase in 1990. The new and true global temperature graph looks as follows.

As you can see, it actually got a lot colder during the 1990s. It suddenly got more than 2 degrees colder. And you know what is really funny? Nobody seems to have noticed. The alarmists have been telling us all these scare stories about how bad everything is going to get if the temperature changes more than two degrees. The whole human race would go extinct, and so on. (Have they never heard about evolution?) Oh dear oh dear! But when it happens in reality, the change is so small that it is not even noticeable. And why should it be? There can be several degrees difference from day to day, and nobody cares. I usually wear the same coat (made of the finest mole-skin) the year around, whether it is warm or cold. Only by employing sophisticated but sound data processing techniques did I manage to discover this sudden cooling. So this definitely proves that (1) there is no warming, but on the contrary a cooling, and (2) climate change on the several-degrees-scale is completely harmless. It is of course no concidence that NASA and CRU conveniently "forgot" to do the correction that I did, and is no wonder that Michael Mann needed a trick to hide the decline. If it came out that the climate is cooling but yet no harm is done, it would be a two-pronged nail in the coffin of the antropogenic global warming scam. Well, now it has come out! Time to retire Pachauri, Hansen and Gore I say!

Exitus acta probat.

In which religions scientists must believe

His Great Lordship, the indomitable Lord Mockton has weighed in on the proper relation between science and religion.
This is his powerful conclusion:

Why did so few true scientists speak out against the eugenic slaughter perpetrated by Hitler, or the famines caused by the Lysenko nonsense, or the millions of deaths from AIDS and malaria and yellow fever that could so easily have been prevented, but were not? And why do so few true scientists today have the courage to stand up and be counted against the cruel absurdity that is “global warming” theory, a theory that is now killing millions in the Third World because, while we can afford to pay $2 rather $1 for a burger, they are below the breadline already and simply cannot afford the doubling of food prices which, according to the World Bank, has resulted directly from the belief that “global warming” is a “global crisis” – a belief gladly fostered not only by the State but also by academe, by the media, and by the commercial world, for all imagine that they can profit greatly by it at our expense.

These dreadful and continuing episodes of careless, callous mass slaughter of innocent people by the governing class have one factor glaringly in common: they occurred because scientists lacked the moral fiber to stand out publicly and persistently against the bastardization of natural philosophy itself. They did not thunder: they cowered. Too many are cowering now, when they should be courageous enough, and true enough to their disciplines, to speak, speak out, and speak on until the truth is heard.

And why? Why this widespread, serial cowardice on the part of the scientific community? Yes, that community is now heavily, indeed almost exclusively, dependent upon the taxpayer for its funding. Science is a monopsony, with the State more or less the only paying customer. Yes, that community may legitimately say that most of its members do not specialize in the increasingly narrow fields in which the scientific debate about “global warming” is taking place. Yet there is another and more terrible reason why our scientists have so often and so catastrophically let down the millions whose deaths their cringing passivity has allowed.

Precisely because the worst sort of scientists are prone to say, intolerantly, that religion is not a legitimate pastime for any scientist, many scientists have come to the view that they no longer need to adhere to any moral precept at all. Morality, they say, is the province of religion and not of science. We, they say, can do what we like as long as we can get away with it, and there is no such distinction any more as true or false, right or wrong, just or unjust.

Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

That is right: evil in the world exists because too many scientists are Godless and spineless atheists. They hate God, and as humans are created to His image, they also hate humans. But if you hate God, then He will be wrathful and he will mess up your experiments, like in Quantum Physics. And the Lord Monckton has the answer: only those who believe in a religion may practice science, so they will have the moral compass (as given by God) to do good and avoid doing evil.
But what religions would be acceptable? Here I say that we need consider each religion carefully. Not just any religion will do. As a renowned expert both in science and in religion, I have separated the wheat from the chaff:

Christianity – obviously, as this is the outstanding religion when it comes to morality. And to science – just look at how many great scientists were Christians: Galileo, Newton, etc etc.

Judaism – well, Einstein was a Jew, and I’m not prejudiced. So Judaism is also acceptable.

Catholicism – no, the papists persecuted both Galileo and the Lord Monckton. They also invented the Inquisition.

Orthodox Church – no, orthodoxy is the opposite of scepticism. And they are heretically wrong about the Filioque.

Islam – no, a religion of oppression and terrorism. Need I mention Usama bin Laden? Need I mention Barack Obama? Need I mention Obama bin Laden?

Hinduism - no, they believe in a lot of weird gods. They believe in holy cows. And need I mention Pachauri?

Buddhism – no, they don’t believe in reality, so how can they then do science?

Atheism aka Humanism– no! This is also a religion, because to not believe in God is also a religious position. But the absence of a punishing but loving God makes it utterly amoral.

Liberalism – no! The Godless religion of Liberalism (aka Communism aka Fascism) is just like Atheism. Actually, they are the same thing. Thus spoke Ann Coulter!

Environmentalism – no! This is a religion of Gaia worship that believes that mosquitoes are more valuable than humans. No other religion has caused more deaths in the history of mankind.

Anthropogenic Global Warming – no! This is also a religion, and their god is CO2. They believe that CO2 has supernatural powers which allow it to control the climate, and that they must appease the wrath of the CO2 god by living in discomfort and misery. Also see Environmentalism.

Witchcraft aka Wiccaism - no! Ritually practiced at the NASA compound, according to information from credible sources. A religion of evil, mocking God!

Pastafaranism aka Flying Spaghetti Monsterism - no, this is not even a real religion. It is just a mock religion invented by atheists in order to make fun of respectable religions (i e Christianity). Pathetic! Has many supporters in academia, but do not let that fool you! They will not fool me again, that's for sure!

So in summary, to be a practicing scientist, you should prove that you either are a Christian (obviously) or a Jew (I'm not prejudiced).

Standford study: CO2 emissions are not a problem

A new study from Standford university has proven that CO2 emissions are not a problem. I quote:

Davis and Caldeira, with colleague Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, calculated the amount of carbon dioxide expected to be released from […] energy infrastructure worldwide, and then used a global climate model to project its effect on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.
“The problem of climate change has tremendous inertia,” says Davis. “Some of this inertia relates to the natural carbon cycle, but there is also inertia in the manmade infrastructure that emits CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
After compiling data on lifetimes and emissions rates for the full range of fossil-fuel burning devices worldwide, the researchers found that that between the years 2010 to 2060 the total projected emissions would amount to about 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. To gauge the impact, they turned to the climate model. The researchers found that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would stabilize at less than 430 parts per million (ppm) and the increase of global mean temperatures since preindustrial time would be less than 1.3°C (2.3°F).
“The answer surprised us,” says Davis. “Going into this study, we thought that […] sources of CO2 emissions would be enough to push us beyond 450 ppm and 2°C warming.” In light of common benchmarks of 450 ppm and 2°C, these results indicate that the devices whose emissions will cause the worst impacts [do not exist].

It seems that the scientists are finally making climate models that have some resemblance to reality. For us climate realists, it hardly comes like a surpise that nothing we do can have any effect on the climate. Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming aka Climate Change aka Climate Disruption!

Non semper erit aestas.

The vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton continues

We have written before about the vicious ad hominem campaign against Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, curer of HIV, MS and the common cold, victor of the Falklands War and vanquisher of Al Gore. Now it apaprently time for another ad hominem attack, this time pertaining to a testimony Lord Monckton made in the American Congress, invited as an expert witness (and who could be more qualified?) by the pro-science and pro-Jesus Republican party. A number of alleged "climate scientsts" have written a 48-page letter to the US Congress, claiming they wanted to point out mistakes made by Lord Monckton. But their letter is full of ad hominems and expletives such as “very misleading", "profoundly wrong", "simply false", "chemical nonsense", and "cannot be supported by climate physics". It is blatantly clear that they cannot beat Lord Monckton on the science, so they instead attempt a loathsome smearing attack against His Lordly Highness.
But the Lord Monckton responds that he already has addressed all the points of the attempted rebuttal in a letter to the US Congress, and adds graciously about his detractors:

“One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.”

This incident, this battle in the Climate Wars ending in yet another decisive victory for us Climate Realists, is evidence that the alarmists are getting increasingly more desperate. If Monckton really was wrong about so many things, why the need for a rebuttal? Any mistakes by Lord Monckton would anyhow easily been spotted by members of the US Congress, by experts like John Carter and his fellow Texans. Indeed, this nasty ad hominem attack proves that Lord Monckton has struck a nerve. The eco-fascists know that their house of cards is falling apart.
It is also clear that the people behind this ad hominem attacks are rabid activists, and do not deserve to be called scientists. They do not possess the scientific objectivity that made Lord Monckton the number one choice for testifying in Congress. Instead, they want to stifle the scientific debate, and prevent other independent voices from being heard. They want to influence the political process, uninvited, and that is somehting an objective scientist never should do. These should be sufficient reasons for the US Congress to throw their ridiculous rant directly into the waste bin.
And Lord Monckton has, according to my excellent judgement, very good chances to win if he sues the people behind this disgraceful defamation attempt.

Guest Post by Rush Limbaugh: The Universe of Lies Versus the Universe of Reality

Nobody else alive today possesses the Solomonic wisdom of Rush Limbaugh, the Greatest Radio Talk Show Host Ever. We should always listen when Rush Limbaugh speaks. It is pure gold coming out of his mouth. I honestly wish I could be such a great orator as Rush Limbaugh! And one day I may become that, if I work really hard.
At the same time, the one thing we should never forget is Climategate. We must never ever never ever never ever forget Climategate. Never ever. And we must never ever never ever never ever let anybody else forget either. We must always talk and discuss and analyse and speak the truth about Climategate. Therefore I am very proud to offer this guest post by Rush Limbaugh, which I borrowed from one of his talks from November last year. (I borrowed the picture from there as well. Thanks, Rush!)

---

ClimateGate Hoax: The Universe of Lies Versus the Universe of Reality

We're going to talk about Copenhagen. We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, and that's where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes ever overlap. A great illustration is what's happening here with what is now incontrovertibly known as a hoax. We know that the lead place, this Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University -- which is the number one advisor and communicator with the IPCC, which is the UN's climate-control crowd.

We know that data was made up to advance the notion that man is causing the climate to warm. We know that data was purposely left out that hides the fact that the earth is cooling. Even on this bunch's website, they cannot hide the fact that temperatures have not increased the last ten years, and they've had to come up with some of the most irrational, illogical explanations for it. "Well, it's the ocean currents out there. It could be El Nino or La Nina. A lot of stuff is going on," but they specifically ignore anything related to the sun! And without the sun, there's nothing. How you can ignore the sun in the whole concept of warming is idiocy. But the point is this: We have now the facts. I don't care how it happened, whistle-blower or a hacker.

[...]

You know, folks, the two universes here -- The Universe of Lies, The Universe of Reality -- they don't overlap anymore. And this is even bigger than global warming, which was my point yesterday. It's about everything that the left is involved in. What this fraud, what the uncovering of this hoax exposes, is the corruption that exists between government and academia and science and the media. Science has been corrupted. We know the media has been corrupted for a long time. Academia has been corrupted. None of what they do is real. It's all lies! It is all oriented toward a political outcome. It's bigger than global warming. And of course science has been corrupted here. Science is being used for political purposes.

It always has been, but this is a new low -- or a new high, depending on your perspective. But what they have done here is now make it reasonable to doubt everything some scientist says who gets government money from somewhere. And if you know what's good for you, if you know that they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. Their ideas are so hideous, are so insidious, so anti-free market, that they have to dress their ideas up in a phony cloak of compassion: Saving the planet, saving the polar bears, saving the water, saving the earth, saving whatever it is. "Saving the poor," while they destroy the poor. It just infuriating. So we have now the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live. The Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and The Four Corners of Deceit: Government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That's how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

---

Ubi maior, minor cessat.

The alarmists are desperate!

The NOAA launches yet another vicious ad hominem attack in their August report about global temperatures. In a transparent attempt to frighten and intimidate, they publish maps and graphs with a lot of red in them, like this one:

And this one:

And they write alarmist tripe like:

•For January–August 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C (58.5°F) tied with 1998 as the warmest January–August period on record. This value is 0.67°C (1.21°F) above the 20th century average.

The warmists must really be getting desperate. Their cheating and manipulations were laid bare by the Climategate scandal, and their watermelon (green on the outside, red on the inside) scam is falling apart faster than a house of cards in a snowstorm. They publish rubbish like this only to divert the attention from "Mike's trick to hide the decline in global temperatures" and from Andrew Montford's recently published and devastating investigation into the Climategate inquiries. That the grant-grabbing people at NOAA resort to such desperate measures and ad hominem attacks is evidence that we climate realists are winning the hearts and minds of people all over the world.

Vincit omnia veritas.

The many-coloured flag of beliefs

On her new blog (welcome!) the warmist, lukewarmer, skeptic, confusionist, notorious denier and anti-labelist Professor Judith Curry has come up with a system of describing ones belief in a certain proposition using the Italian flag.

The flag has three colours and each colour has a specific meaning. Green means Evidence for, red means Evidence against and the white in the middle means Uncertainty unknowns. Now one can describe ones belief in a certain proposition by assigning percentages to each colour. For instance, to the litmus test statement "Al Gore is fat" I give 90% green, 5% white and 5% red (as a hypothetical example).
Unfortunately, the system proposed by Curry is both imprecise and confusing. Therefore I would like to propose a better system, based on the combined flags of Belgium, Italy, France, Ireland and Argentina:



With this new flag we can enrichen Prof Curry's epistemic system with more categories of beliefs, such as the following (all inspired by things Prof Curry have written or said):

• Black: Evidence for
• Dark blue: Evidence against
• Green: Uncertainty unknowns
• White: It is a summary, a sort of review. I don’t bring my personal opinions into this.
• Yellow: This question has not been adequately evaluated.
• Orange: Girma, you raise important points.
• Red: This is a postnormal, tribalistic environment.
• Light blue: The signal is often hidden by the noise.

So now all we have to do when we are discussing a subject is to display a flag with the widths of the stripes in proportion to how much belief we assign to each possibility. That should make everything much clearer!

De gustibus et coloribus non est disputandum.

Guest Post by Ryanair's O'Leary: I believe it's all a load of bullshit

Today, I can a offer a post (copied from an article in the Independent) by another famous guest blogger: Michael O'Leary who is CEO if Ryanair, the highly successful European lowbudget airline. As CEO of an airline, O'Leary has to be an expert in weather and climate. He cannot afford to make any mistakes. Imagine that he sent his aircrafts into a thunderstorm and they crashed and all passengers died. That would have devastating consequences: the share prices of Ryanair would plummet on the stock market. So this is a man whom we surely can trust when it comes to the climate.

---

I believe it's all a load of bullshit
Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial.
Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit. But it's amazing the way the whole f***ing eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'.
Well, hang on, we've had an ice age. We've also had a couple of very hot spells during the Middle Ages, so nobody can deny climate change. But there's absolutely no link between man-made carbon, which contributes less than 2pc of total carbon emissions [and climate change].
Scientists argue there is global warming because they wouldn't get half of the funding they get now if it turns out to be completely bogus.
The scientific community has nearly always been wrong in history anyway. In the Middle Ages, they were going to excommunicate Galileo because the entire scientific community said the Earth was flat... I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the f***ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the f***ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horseshit.
The IPCC is a load of utter tosh

---

Licet volare si in tergo aquilae volat.

Guest post by John Carter: The Warmers are back

Today, I'm very proud to have a guest post by American congressman John Carter, a Republican from Texas. Well, strictly speaking it is not a guest post because I didn't really invite John to write this, I simply copied it from his web site, but I'm still very proud to have pasted his text here. And although I do not personally know John, it feels like I have known him all my life!

---

The Warmers are back.

They were thoroughly discredited just last year in the international "Climategate" scandal. The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their pals from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit in Great Britain were caught red-handed, through their own email communications, to have intentionally falsified the scientific data on which they claim that human activity is a leading cause of global warming. Further, they were found to have hidden their own research results that showed world temperature not rising, but actually falling over the past several years.

The truth they tried to conceal from the world is that global temperature fluctuations are a normal earth cycle. We may or may not even be in a warming cycle. Even if we are, scientific evidence does not conclude that activity by man plays any significant role.

The reason for the lies is because the goal of these people is not to protect the environment, it is to implement a socialistic one-world government that has dictatorial control over every human activity, led by tyrannical liberal elites.

Global warming is simply a chicken-little scheme to use mass media and government propaganda to convince the world that destruction of individual liberties and national sovereignty is necessary to save mankind, and that the unwashed masses would destroy themselves without the enlightened global dictatorship of these frauds.

We do face a global threat. But it is not global warming, it is global tyranny from this crowd of liars – the Warmers.

---

Wise words indeed! Carter really nails it when he describes how the warmers are making stuff up in order to fool the gullible masses. You can read the rest of the guest post here.

Scientia non habet inimicum nisi ignorantem.

The honest broker

The alleged climate change is a very controversial and politicized issue, in particular as it is being used as an excuse to overthrow our modern democratic society. The discussion between alarmists and realists has become polarized, with blogs such as ClimateProgress and RealClimate ramping up the hysteria to maximum levels and fomenting anger and hatred.

I’m saddened by this. This tribalism is really quite detrimental. As for myself, I am a sceptic now, but once I too was a believer in anthropogenic climate change. When I decided to learn more about the issue, I soon understood that I had been conned. The evidence was simply not there! However, I have always had an open mind and I have kept a civil tone, as any reader of my blog can testify. I wish everybody could be as open-minded and civil as me, so we could have a more fruitful discussion about this important issue. I consider myself to be positioned quite in the centre of opinions about climate change. Therefore, I have decided that I will be the honest broker, trying to bring both sides in the debate together on this blog in a constructive exchange of opinions and ideas.

In particular, I wish that both sides could admit that we really don’t know anything about how the climate works. Some people say that Earth is turning into a hothouse, and some people say that an ice age is imminent. How are we to know who is correct? I say that we should be humble when facing the mysterious and unknowable forces of nature. What nature does is much more important than our petty disagreements.

The alarmist side needs to admit that the Climategate scandal and all the other scandals revealed massive and systematic fraud and oppression in the climate science community. On the other hand, climate realists should also admit that not all climate scientists are unscrupulous con men, but that there are some that are basically honest but simply dare not speak out about their doubts out of fear of the IPCC inquisition and its merciless henchmen. Only by openly admitting our mistakes can we progress toward mutual trust and respect.

Often while sitting by the side of the beds of poor orphans with cancer, I have wept silent tears over the current state of strife, anger and distrust in the climate science community. Just remember CRU’s brutal treatment of Steve McIntyre’s data requests , or how Menne and accomplices shamelessly stole Anthony Watts’s meticulously collected weather station data. But I say: let’s forgive what happened in the past. That one of the two sides has predominantly been at fault is not so important – we must forgive about the past and focus on the future. Let’s give it all a fresh start. Let’s forget about the frauds and tricks of Jones and Mann and Hansen and Bolin and Revelle and Keeling and Arrhenius and Tyndall and Fourier, and start anew with a clean slate. Only that way can we truly begin to comprehend how the climate works and make a better future for the children of the world.

Reforming the IPCC: how to do it properly!

Dear readers,
Following the mercilessly critical report from IAC about the IPCC there have been plenty of discussions about what to do with the IPCC. It might be tempting to just disband the thoroughly discredited organization. However, I am an honest broker who only wants to mediate between the two sides in the climate controversy. I take no sides - I just want the objective truth. Fairness and balance are very important valued to me. After a careful and informed analysis of the situation, I have come to the conclusion that a thoroughly revised IPCC might be instrumental in finally putting the AGW scam to rest in a coffin full of nails. The IPCC could be turned into a powerful weapon against the eco-fascists. As they are inherently authority-believing, the eco-fascists might change their minds if the IPCC stated that there is no AGW problem (that is provided that their belief in authority is stronger than their hatred towards mankind). The following measures are intended to turn the IPCC and its future assessment reports into vehicles for Truth and Reason instead of vehicles for Eco-Fascist Fraud and Deception, as they have been so far.

1. No communists like Hansen and Mann should be allowed to participate. Only politically independent and objective people should be allowed. Thus, alls participants must have read and memorized “Atlas Shrugged”.
   


2. No people who receive grants for doing climate science should be allowed to participate. Such people will just make up scary things so they can get even more grants. Only economically independent people should be allowed.
   


3. Likewise, no people who publish climate science articles in peer-reviewed journals should be allowed. They just want to cite their own papers and those of their tribe.
   


4. No Chinese or Indians, who just want to weaken the competiveness of the West. Tricky bastards!


5. No previous IPCC participant can participate in the new IPCC (in particular not Pachauri)! . As everybody who has any experience with management knows, if you want to change an organization the first thing you must do is to get rid of all members/employees.
   


6. All previous IPCC participants must release all the email correspondence they have ever had. Releasing email correspondence is vital for the auditing of science and to guarantee repeatability and transparency.
   


7. All IPCC prisoners must be released and all weapons of mass destructions must be disarmed.
   


8. Any IPCC participant that claims that CO2 can affect the climate must, in order to be credible, abstain from travelling in airplanes and in cars, living indoors, eating warmed food and breathing.
   


9. No use of models. Good science is based on empirical observations, and not models. In particular, any “predictions” and “projections” about the future must be entirely based on observations, and not models. If Galileo and Newton and Maxwell and Einstein had bee diddling with models, science would never have progressed.
   


10. No use of temperature data. Temperature data, whether from thermometers on the ground or those mounted on satellites, are notoriously unreliable and affected by the urban heat island effect.
    


11. Likewise, sea level data, carbon dioxide data, precipitation data, arctic ice volume data and climate proxies must be avoided, as they are inherently unreliable and unscientific.
    


12. Climate data from other planets must be included, so we can compare the warming on Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Haley’s comet and the iron-core Sun. No theory that cannot explain all these warming incidents should be taken seriously.
    


13. Anecdotal evidence, such as medieval Chinese fleets navigating around the North Pole, should not be dismissed unless proven wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. To rely more on instruments than on human observers and chroniclers is elitistic and in its essence anti-human.
    


14. No references should be allowed to any shady grey literature, like WWF reports. Only shiningly white NGOs working for the benefit of mankind, like the Heartland Institute, should be referenced. White humans are more important than grey frogs!
    


15. No references should be allowed to journals like Nature and Science, which have been participating in the suppression of AGW-skeptical papers. Only truly openminded and unbiased journals like Energy & Environment should be referenced.
    


16. For each unbalanced alarmist reference, there must be at least one skeptical reference in order to assure fairness and balance.
    


17. Uncertainty should be specified according to the scale “Uncertain”, “Highly uncertain”, “Extremely uncertain” and “Completely wrong”.
    


18. The best science nowadays is done on blogs, were new ideas easily can be proposed and peer review is instant. Hence, the focus of the assessment reports should be moved from reviewing what is published in the ivory-tower journals to what is published on the blog science blogs. The blogs belonging to journals like Science and Nature do not count – they are just ivory tower blogs masquerading as blog science blogs.
    


19. The assessment reports should not exceed 20 pages, and all information should be presented as comic strips. In that way, even illiterate people with a limited attention span will be able to comprehend it. (Like Al Gore, he he!)
    


20. In order to ensure its independence, the IPCC should not receive any funding from governments. Instead, it has find its own financing, for instance by selling advertisements in the assessment reports. The taxpayer money that is saved can be used for more important things, like eradicating malaria and giving tax cuts for productive citizens.

You might ask yourself, dear reader, “Why did they not do like this from the beginning? These proposals are bloody brilliant!” There are many answers to this, but I believe that the most important ones are:

• IPCC was started by eco-fascists driven by a hatred for mankind.


• They did not involve anybody who really knew how to do things the right way, like me. After all, they were all ivory-tower academics with no experience from real life.


• They are not nearly as intelligent and well-informed as us sceptics.


• IPCC has been a gigantic and self-generating bureaucracy, and a gray-train for those incapable of sustaining themselves out in the real world.
  

But will the IPCC cabal not try to resist these very reasonable, objective and balanced changes? No, they are simply too stupid and gullible to understand what the consequences will be. They could get away with their IPCC idiocy the first time only because we thinking people didn’t take them seriously enough. After their reign of terror, we will not make that mistake again. This time we will be on top of things!

Alea iacta est!