End of Global Warming Debate
By the most qualified real
It really is as easy as 1-2-3.
1. It is fundamentally mathematically impossible for
climate models to predict climate.
Chaos Theory's Butterfly Effect is usually described as the
flapping of a butterfly's wings in Japan resulting in a
hurricane in the Atlantic. This is not artistic hyperbole, this
is mathematical reality.
Climate is a quintessential example of this
Unless climate models do the absolutely impossible and account
for even a butterfly's wings flapping, particularly when they
are initialized, and then calculate with infinite precision,
they can not predict climate.
Climate models are just more complex/chaotic weather models,
which have a theoretical maximum predictive ability of just 10
days into the future. Predicting climate decades or even just
years into the future is a lie, albeit a useful one for
publication and funding.
Qualified climate modelers know all this but almost all won't
publically admit it out of fear for their careers.
2. Climate proxies are far too inaccurate, unreliable,
and sparse to prove anything about past global climate, e.g.
that it was colder.
Climate proxies are things like tree rings and ice cores. Given
old methods and instruments, even historical climate
measurements have to be considered climate proxies.
They are called climate "proxies" because they are substitutes
for real climate measurements. Obviously, there are no
instruments in these climate proxies so how is it done? The
climate measurements have to be inferred from loosely-related
characteristics of the proxy, e.g. temperature from tree ring
widths. This usually involves primitive modeling or misuse of
statistics. It is thus inaccurate and unreliable well beyond
what is required for the conclusions drawn.
Climate proxies are very sparse. A single measurement often has
to represent thousands of square miles or more, particularly in
remote ocean regions, and is usually not representative of that
area (e.g. sampled trees are not chosen randomly) or doesn't
even have a knowable bias. A single temperature for the Earth
averaged from these measurements is meaningless and
The reason for using climate proxies is that there is nothing
else, which is not a good reason ... unless you have to get
published or funded.
3. Scientific consensus is not proof of global
warming, just publication and funding bias.
Scientific consensus = all published research shows global
Climate model/proxy research that does not show global warming
will not get published or funded because of:
- Non-publication of negative results (no global warming found)
- Fearful self-censorship
- Conflict of interest (a need to get results, regardless of
validity, that further careers)
- Corrupt fanatical unqualified "working" scientists
- Censorship by established scientists in a
fundamentally-flawed peer review process (peers are
- Corruption of climate science overall
Dr. Duane Thresher
Postdoc, tree ring climate proxy modeling, University of Alaska (ARSC and SNRAS).
Postdoc, ocean climate proxy modeling, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
PhD, Earth & Environmental Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Columbia University and NASA GISS
(working for Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt).
MS, Atmospheric Science (climate modeling/tree rings/chaos), University of Arizona and NCAR.
BS, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, MIT and NASA.
Thresher, D., 2010: "Report: International Winter School on Wood
Anatomy of Tree Rings 2010", Dendrochronologia, 28, 259–260.
Thresher, D., 2007c: "Improving Alkenone Temperature
Paleoclimate Reconstruction, with Example from the Last Glacial
Maximum Tropics", Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. Questions
the validity of the established method for sea surface
temperature reconstruction. Rejected after standard sloppy peer
review: I requested three specific less-biased reviewers, got
three very-biased reviewers instead (careers dependent on
established method), only two responded, one against, one
neutral, and the editor cast the deciding vote against, not even
being qualified to review the paper.
Note below: Hansen is Dr. James Hansen, the former head of NASA
GISS and the father of global warming. Schmidt is Dr. Gavin
Schmidt, the current head of NASA GISS anointed by
Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2007b: "Climate simulations
for 1880–2003 with GISS modelE", Climate Dynamics, 29, 661–696.
Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2007a: "Dangerous human-made
interference with climate: a GISS modelE study", Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics, 7, 2287–2312.
Schmidt, G. A., ..., J. E. Hansen, ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2006:
"Present-Day Atmospheric Simulations Using GISS ModelE:
Comparison to In Situ, Satellite, and Reanalysis Data", Journal
of Climate, 19, 153–192.
Hansen, J., ..., D. Thresher, ..., 2005: "Efficacy of climate
forcings", Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, 1–45.
Thresher, D. E., 2004: "Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and
Present Day Climate Using an Accelerated Coupled GCM Carrying
Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons to Ocean Sediment/Ice
Cores and Observations", PhD thesis, Columbia University.
Thresher, D., G. Schmidt, D. Rind, and G. Hoffmann, 2004:
"Multi-Century Simulations of LGM and Present Day Climate Using
a Coupled GCM Carrying Water Isotope Tracers, With Comparisons
to Ocean Sediment/Ice Cores and Observations", EOS,
TRANSACTIONS, AGU, 85(17), Joint Assembly Supplement, Abstract
A52B–05 (American Geophysical Union, May, Montreal).
NRC, 2002: "Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises"
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Participant in National
Research Council’s Abrupt Climate Change Workshop, October 2000,
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY, which
contributed to this book.
and search for "Thresher".
Thresher, D. and NCAR, 1997: shr_orb_decl and shr_orb_params,
GCM source code (Fortran 90) subroutines for calculation of
earth’s era-appropriate orbital parameters (i.e., Milankovitch
parameterization). Part of the National Center for Atmospheric
Research’s GCMs from CCM3 to the current CCSM. This code was
added by Thresher after he found a related major bug in CCM2,
which called into question the many scientific results from
using CCM2 but was never widely publicized.
and search for "Thresher".
Dr. Claudia Kubatzki
Certificate, pollen climate proxy analysis, Georg August University Goettingen, Germany.
Scientist, climate modeling/proxies, Alfred Wegener Institute, Germany.
Scientist, climate modeling/proxies, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Germany.
PhD, Natural Sciences (climate modeling/proxies), Free University of Berlin and PIK, Germany.
MS, Meteorology (climate modeling/proxies), University of Hamburg and Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany.
Herzschuh, U., H. Birks, L. Xingqi, C. Kubatzki, G. Lohmann,
2010: "Retraction: What caused the mid-Holocene forest decline
on the eastern Tibet-Qinghai Plateau?", Global Ecology and
Biogeography, 20(2), 366. After at least 4 rejections and
deciding the paper had no scientific value worth publishing, and
quitting working for Gerrit Lohmann due to his abusive behavior,
I was horrified to discover 3 years after I quit climate science
that the paper had been published with my name on it. As
determined by the publisher lawyer, during a standard sloppy
peer review Lohmann fabricated my required submission signature,
as well as my responses to the peer reviewers. After harassment
by Lohmann, aided by the journal, of me, my husband, my current
and former bosses, and my husband's current boss, I was finally
able to get the paper retracted. Fraudulently, Lohmann and
Birks continued to list this paper in their publications without
the required "Retraction" in the title. See
For the full story see Corrupt German Climate Science
Braun, H., ..., S. Rahmstorf, ..., C. Kubatzki, ..., 2005:
"Possible solar origin of the 1,470-year glacial climate cycle
demonstrated in a coupled model", Nature, 438, 208-211. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/abs/nature04121.html
Ganopolski, A., C. Kubatzki, M. Claussen, ..., 1998: "The
influence of vegetation-atmosphere-ocean interaction on climate
during the mid-Holocene", Science, 280, 1916-1919. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/280/5371/1916