climate correlations

for all pseudo­scien­tists.

The UN/IPCC's order of the day is that manmade (an­thro­po­genic) CO2 releases to the atmos­phere are out of control and have to be stopped imme­di­ately in order to save the planet, unless we live in places like China, India, Africa, etc, where in­creased man­made CO2 releases appar­ently have no neg­a­tive effects.
The above says it all, really, but let us not disap­point the most eager climate alarmists by poin­ting out how totally point­less and stupid the many climate con­sen­suses and solu­tions they are poin­ting to are, just yet.

It is all so clear to the pseudo­scien­tists' poli­tical masters and their busi­ness part­ners, that if they can make every­one within reach buy (or at least accept) their excel­lent logic and not stirr up things and cons­tantly try to ridi­cule and des­troy the multi­tude of imper­fect com­pu­ter models their perfect plans appear to be based on, the future would be so bright … for the few survivors.

Pity the pseudo­scien­tists who have had to formu­late new climate pre­dic­tions every time the old ones failed, even those care­fully crafted to cover all even­tu­al­ities. Especially irri­ta­ting now that poli­ti­cians and busi­ness people have decided that… “the SCIENCE is SETTLED” … and all that1.
Sys­tem­a­tised mind-control and scare-tac­tics with no base in the reality they claim to know so much about, and no-one behind the claims willing to accept dis­cus­sions related to any of it. Getting suspi­cious now?

It is indeed getting harder and harder with time to get even the very latest and most care­fully crafted com­pu­ter models to line up with any­thing in the real world2. Earth-climate is simply too complex to fit the chosen model­ling tech­niques, and also seemingly refuse to play along with the UN/​IPCC pseudo­science and many, often con­tra­dic­tory, poli­tical agendas.
Rewri­ting climate history also only get them so far, and then only on paper since the real climate doesn't bother to correct for either group's intentions and/​or fantasies no matter how much effort they put into formu­la­tion of slick lies and down­play­ing of the missing data and many “calcu­la­tion errors”.

Maybe we non-pseudo­scien­tists should lend the UN/​IPCC a helping hand, and cook up some implau­sibly simple climate corre­lations entirely for free. Let us see now…

climate correlation

Graph text/info:
• Global sea level rise started around 1860, well before fossil carbon emmisions became significant.
• Steep increase in CO2 emmisions 1950 - 1980 is associated with very little sea rise.

As the begin­ning of the latest some­what steep rise of CO2 level corre­sponds closely with the birth of this author, that I am guilty of causing that rise is as good and fanta-logi­cal an ex­pla­na­tion as any, with the latest trends of pseudo­science.

That this author then also must have been holding back and reduced the global sea level rise my entire life, is of course just as fanta-logical.
Conse­quently: this author is the master of nature, if only in his own fanta­sies.

The above shows how easy corre­la­tions to back up ones claims – what­ever they are – can be made up, if one doesn't give a damn about sequences and details contained in those data that is, and also choose to ignore that nearly all that matters to get a com­plete picture of reality is left out.
Good thing I did not write this article for climatards to read, as I doubt they under­stand much that doesn't fit their mental and compu­ter­i­sed models.

What the graphs above do indicate quite clearly, is that there is no meaning­ful corre­lation between sea level rise and global CO2 level rise in that time­frame.

correlate this

You immediately caught that basic corre­la­tion fallacy below, I guess. However, if I had added some smoke and mirrors, and comments about CO2, and re-named the nonsense: “settled climate corre­la­tion”, I bet the most devoted clima­tards would have swal­lowed it hook, line and sinker.

Graph info:
One can find a corrolation between the age of Miss America from year 1999 and several years upwards, and the number of murders by steam, hot vapors and hot objects in same timeframe.
Perfect for wannabee pseudoscientists with too much time on their hands, but not much else. Typical logical fallacy.

Not unlike how some may be expected to fall into the trap if I modified the figure to the right of here a little. I chose not to in case a climatard passed by and didn't quite get the figure above. Must not make it too hard for them.
It is a fact that very few people check the quality of the data they are presen­ted with, only who is presen­ting it. So, if someone is enough of an autho­rity and/or cele­brity in the recei­vers' eyes, he/​she can get away with any­thing – including murder – based on totally worth­less data.

Pseudoscience promoters may have it anyway they want for all I care, as with their superior insight and infal­lible know­ledge they most likely will end up kil­ling them­selves and their own lackeys in order to make either one of their many versions of indis­put­able truth win the majority of minds by brute force.

I am quite content with how the universe works its magic all over our Earth, with mostly natural and (from a human per­spec­tive) uncon­trol­lable climate changes, spiced with a pretty limited factor of inter­fe­rence created by man­kind.
Eliminate the alarmism and related “green” mad­ness, and its all good7.

nature is in charge

So let us give the climate alarmists what they want: an actual corre­lation of CO2 vs. tem­pera­ture in a geo­log­ical per­spec­tive…
Sorry alarmists, but you can not “adjust” or remove data from the past just because they do not suit you or some master plan. You are here now because of much higher CO2 levels in the past, and you will continue to be here because the CO2 level luckily hasn't gone too low to sustain life, yet. Now, correlate that with your severly limited computer models.

I am never quite sure if the right reac­tion to climate alarmists' many claims and attempts to throw non-con­for­mant people off with their “flat earth” jokes, is to laugh, get mad, or just get sad. Thus, I rarely ever bother getting either, and rather (literally) write it all off as just another set of clima­tard-stupi­dity and forget about it.
How­ever else can any sensible and thinking indi­vid­ual6 react to all that non­sen­sical stuff that is being uttered and sput­tered by seem­ingly some­what intel­li­gent people?

it is the mark of an educated mind
to be able to entertain a thought 
without accepting it 
— Aristotle

I do hope more of the climate-worried people come to their senses, before they become more or less ignorant parti­ci­pants in one of the eradi­ca­tion squads that aim to remove what little order we have on Earth, and kill off humanity in order to “save the planet” for the few4.
There has been enough of that kind of people already in our recent history, and we do not need more Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Stalin, or Pol Pot wanna­bees, or minions to same, on the global scene than we already have … regardless of “good intentions” and all that.

oh so boring

Yes, I admit to being more than a little bit bored while writing this some­what climate related article. Not sure if it is the subject – boring enough in itself, or the social dis­tan­cing we observe at present – corona virus and all that, that has such an effect on me. Maybe a bit of both.

That boredom is a great driving force for creative minds, is old know­ledge that most seem to either not have learned, have for­got­ten about, or are afraid of. A pity that parti­cular force isn't uti­li­sed more in our world of con­stant enter­tain­ment and unre­lent­ing demands for instant grati­fi­cation.

Whatever, I'm feeling OK now, despite not being sure how that corre­lates to what I have written. Time to stop pun­ish­ing the key­board though, for now.

sincerely  georg; sign

Hageland 12.apr.2020
last rev: 16.apr.2020

www.gunlaug.comadvice upgradeadvice upgrade navigation