Jan. 12, 2024 - The Truth Central - Dr. Jerome Corsi
01:20:13
Exploring Climate Lies with Dr. Willie Soon
Dr. Willie Soon, renowned geoscientist. astrophysicist and honoree of the “Courage in Defense of Science Award" at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in 2014. breaks down, examines and exposes several lies coming from Climate Change Alarmists within and outside of the IPCC and other groups tied to the green agenda with Dr. Jerome Corsi on today's The Truth CentralJoin Dr. Jerome Corsi on Substack: https://jeromecorsiphd.substack.com/Visit The Truth Central website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comOUT NOW: Dr. Corsi's new book: The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism and Anarchy.Pick up your copy today on Amazon: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-truth-about-neo-marxism-cultural-maoism-and-anarchy-exposing-woke-insanity-in-the-age-of-disinformation/Get your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on Twitter: @corsijerome1Our link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVital https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/ Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.php The MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/ Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi, and we have a very special interview today with Dr. Will Soon.
Will, how are you?
Welcome.
Thank you, Dr. Corsi.
Will and I have known each other for quite a long while, it turns out.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsey and we have a very special interview today with Dr. Will Soon.
Will, how are you?
Welcome.
Oh, thank you, Dr. Corsey.
Will and I have known each other for quite a long while, it turns out.
Will has got a very distinguished academic background.
In 1991 he was at the University of Southern California, the aerospace engineering.
He was with distinction.
He got his PhD dissertation on a very sophisticated physics topic, which is non-equilibrium kinetics in high temperature gases.
That's a very, very advanced topic.
He's had a lot of experience as a visiting fellow and a visiting professor.
He was an astronomer at Mount Wilson Observatory from 1992 to 2009.
He was an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Services Division of the Harvard
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics from 1997 to 2022. And so Dr. Sun combines, and by the way,
his current website is CeresScience.com. CeresScience.com.
Yeah.
And Ceres, of course, was a Greek god, and it's a very, very distinguished sight that he has a team, including Dr. Roland Connolly and Dr. Michael Connolly.
And I follow Ceres' science frequently.
And we're going to cover today climate science, the nonsense, really, of the global warming Phenomenon.
And Dr. Sun and I have known each other.
You remember I was at a seminar going back to 2005 when we first encountered each other, right Dr. Sun?
Yes, yes, it was.
Well, you had a deep impression on me about your breadth of knowledge and unusual subject that people usually don't like to ask the question, like the origin of petroleum oil and so on and so forth.
That caught my attention.
Who's this guy?
Well, with a political science degree, talking about advanced topics that involve chemistry and physics.
You're the prodigy, of course.
You go to Harvard when you're young.
I also finished my high school in nine months rather than four years, so things like that.
We all done unusual things.
Well, they let you do it.
My mother wouldn't let me do it.
She said... I know, yeah.
My dad says, save money, time to do it, fast!
Nine months, I've done it, all done.
Well, this is going to be a great presentation, and we're going to get right into it.
Dr. Sun has got a slideshow, and Chris is producing the show, as he always does.
So, Chris, if you could please go to the first slide.
Which is the challenges of the detection and attribution of global warming.
This is from the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, which is ceres-science.com.
And this is a very important topic because, see, the global warming theory is predicated on the idea that you have carbon dioxide emitted by burning hydrocarbon
fuels. So all the global warming was supposed to have dated and the earth's temperature
increasing uniquely since the dawn of the industrial revolution. That's Michael Mann's hockey stick
where the temperature of the earth is normal, whatever that means, and then suddenly with the
industrial revolution, its temperature shoots up because of hydro because of
carbon dioxide.
Now Chris, put back that slide for a minute that you just showed.
So we're going to start here with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the IPCC.
Will's going to explain this, but this is the group that has formalized the pseudoscience of global warming and climate change.
And what Will is going to present today, which is a methodological argument, It's extremely important because he's raising the question.
Chris, go back again to the previous slide.
Let me get Dr. Sun the ability to go through the slide.
So, go to the previous one.
Yes.
Dr. Sun, why don't you begin there and then we'll follow you along.
I'll ask some questions as we go along, but take it over and go ahead and explain this.
Okay, yeah.
First, I want to, well, we want to discuss the question of global warming, right?
It's still a scientific question, obviously.
The weather rising carbon dioxide will cause global warming.
And then from scientific perspective, really, it's all about data, isn't it?
It's not about your theory.
It's not about how beautiful you are, how smart you are, how not smart you are, so on and so forth.
It's about evidence.
But today, my approach is slightly different.
People may be irritated why I talk so much about UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, because that's the main organization that is promoting this paradigm, this narrative.
that CO2 causes global warming.
So I want to do it in a very different way because I'm not interested in preaching to the choir.
I'm interested in telling the truth and nothing but the whole truth.
So this approach is called steelmanning rather than strawmanning, right?
So I'm trying to tell you now IPCC is such an organization started in 1988 by World Meteorological Organization, WMO, and the UN Environment Program.
And they have published six assessments so far, right?
From 1990 until the last one was 2021.
They are already beginning to talk about the seventh assessment coming, so be on the lookout.
But the most iconic statement from such an effort Clearly it's not a scientific institution.
I'll explain their founding charter later.
They really want to achieve this statement, they observe global warming since 1950 is mostly human caused and also unprecedented.
So I want to sort of go through their argument and then In the process, of course, provide the alternative and how deep I have engaged in this study to try to show out alternative evidence and alternative interpretation and show you how weak, in essence, the whole what you call argument and evidence and conclusion by IPCC is, okay?
So, in a sense, it's all hot air, nothing but, you know, that's why I say, I mean, CO2 ain't gonna cause no global warming.
Well, this is what they do.
The first part is language, right?
So detection.
First, it's about evidence, right?
So you collect thermometer data and they call it, they have detected global warming.
So these are the kind of graph they show.
It's actually thermometer station data collected all over the world.
And they also perhaps here, maybe here, I think they add in a bit of the ocean sea surface temperature.
So from 1850 to present, right?
It looks very impressive from four different groups showing that they all agree and look like there are some kind of warming, right, since about 1950s.
And it's kind of rapid, like a hockey stick at the end.
So this is what they mean by global warming.
This is so-called detection path.
And the first point I want to move to, I want to explain to you, yes, go to the next slide, that's okay.
The first thing I want to show you is that, well, whatever IPCC do, Our group, myself, Dr. Ronan Connolly and Dr. Michael Connolly at series-science.com were able to replicate.
Science is the most important thing is that you have to be able to sort of what you call repeat what they have done.
So we were able to show this graph.
And I will explain to you very quickly, you will find out what is the secret to get this graph to look the same like them.
First of all, we cover only Northern Hemisphere because there's simply no data in the Southern Hemisphere.
So IPCC is what you call boasting, showing off.
It's nonsense, actually, because there's no data.
So how are you going to call it global in essence?
But the first secret ingredient here is that to produce the same graph like IPCC, our graph is actually the black curve, okay?
The rest of the orange curve is all their data set.
In fact, we put more than what IPCC published, about six, seven groups in there, right?
So clearly that our black curve is exactly the same like them.
In fact, we fully replicated them, but it's only over Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Thermometer that we are confident of.
We will show you, of course, indeed, the most important essence that you will get out of this is that This data graph doesn't tell you anything that had anything to do with carbon dioxide.
It is the rural station only data sets that were of some meaning for interpretation.
So that's the problem with the detection part of IPCC.
So move next.
Next is about attribution.
Let me comment right here for a second, because you're making a very important point.
That what you're challenging here, Dr. Soon, is that all what the IPCC is saying is that global warming since the 1950s, industrial era, is an unprecedented increase in temperature.
And that's a data-based conclusion.
If the data doesn't support that conclusion, or if the data is manipulated to support that conclusion, then the conclusion is not valid.
That's essentially what you're saying.
Is that correct?
Yes, yes.
Indeed, I was telling you that their thermometer record that they included urban station are showing you urban heat island effect.
They have nothing to do with climate change, really.
Okay, so let's put this screen right here, full screen, Chris.
Yes, the next one is their approach, right?
They have detection, and then they try to attribute what is the causes that is explaining that temperature curve.
For now, let's follow their argument, use their temperature curve.
And here, I summarize for you that You know, consistently in three of these assessments, AR4, which means the fourth assessment produced in 2007, all the way to the AR6, which is the most recent one, 2021.
What they always show you is this, is the black temperature curve, that is observed temperature curve that includes rural and urban stations.
And it's warming up and then they try to show you that for the lab panels on the graph, it's actually showing that if you include factors, natural factors, natural variability, which will have nothing to do with man, sun and volcano, right?
And you will see that the curve will not be fitted by these two factors.
And then the final point is that if they add in the human carbon dioxide emission, Then they will fit it well.
And this is what they mean by it's mostly human cost.
Because if this graph were to be correct, if what they do is nothing wrong, then Indeed, they are correct to make this statement.
It's mostly human cost.
But you know that, first of all, the temperature doesn't mean anything.
It's wrong.
And then we will show you next, of course, my main work is on the solar factor.
So I explain to you.
So this is how they explain to you, right?
The left curve, the blue one, is natural factor.
It doesn't fit.
If we add in the CO2, it fits.
Well, you know, I would give them a big clap of hands, one round of applause.
That's such an impressive result.
By the way, these are called numerology in statistic sense.
It's crazy stuff.
I mean, this is what big adults, not adult in the UN IPCC school, Proclaiming such a nonsense in that sense.
It's a bit embarrassing for any true scientist, by the way.
So let's move on.
Can I ask a question?
Let me make sure we get this correct.
You say hindcast.
Explain hindcast.
Oh, yeah.
Sorry.
Yes.
The word hindcast is the opposite of forecasting, which means that you have the current observation So you're trying to explain what happened to the past which is the data that we have right from 1900 to 2023 or something.
So they are actually using computer model put in basically the anthropogenic factors and the natural factors put into the computer models and then trying to compare what the output is and here they are trying to explain that the hindcast using natural factor which means the sun and the volcano doesn't fit the observed temperature curve.
Remember I keep telling you that the observed temperature curve we disagree so the detection part is flaw and I next of course throughout this talk I will show you the attribution part is also flaw in that sense okay so this is basically their conclusion right So they're making the data fit with the story they want to tell, is what it comes down to.
That's right, in a sense, in a sense.
And I can, we will illustrate to you, but because there's no point to keep saying that the air conditioning is not valid, you can't explain why and how.
So that's what I've been doing over 30 years, by the way, it's not simple to do this.
It takes us a long time to be sure that how we show the temperature curve is wrong.
That's the first step.
And I published that only September of 2023, last year.
After 20, 30 years of working on this topic.
Because they've been hiding data here and there.
So we finally have to clean up all the mess.
In the sense that we are the people who really clean up the mess that these people created for science.
By the way, my sole interest is not politics.
My sole politics is always about science, okay?
That's why it takes me so long.
To be careful about this.
So next slide, please.
Now I just want to explain what IPCC is about.
I just give one example because this is the example that directly related to my work, which is Connolly et al highlighted there, 2019.
It is our first paper from series-science.com, where we study the snow cover changes over the Northern Hemisphere observed from what you call satellite observation.
And I want to show you that here's how IPCC deals with scientific studies that don't agree with their narrative.
Okay, so what they do here?
They actually cited my paper.
In fact, I am kind of surprised, but I'm glad that they did that, right?
Which gave me an opportunity to speak about this topic.
So this is basically what IPCs say.
Snow cover, you know, over Northern Hemisphere has been decreasing.
In fact, especially in spring, they say with high confidence.
Here, they're trying to imply that, oh, the globe has warmed, so Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover has decreased.
Clearly, that is something agree with the narrative of global warming, isn't it?
But I want to tell you that they really misrepresented our paper.
So they select our paper, they make it look like we are also part of their agreement.
It's completely not true.
And now, go to the next slide, I'll explain.
Once you see the data, you will understand.
Okay, this is the paper that we produced, published in 2019, with a bunch of co-authors.
You know, my good friend from Argentina and Mexico was also in this problem.
So what did we find?
We actually find that the IPCC's climate model performance that was produced in the fifth assessment, which is 2013, are very bad.
We actually show that the models got all the snow cover trend, they observed wrong for all four seasons, and notice they emphasize only spring?
Okay.
And this is how what you call selective citation.
And in fact, these things you won't even pass the master.
You know, you will get rejected your PhD thesis if you produce such a product.
Okay.
And unfortunately, these people are all politicians or big adults, you know, trying to Pull certain agenda that is very, very incorrect.
And again, my point of view is only from science sake.
These people, I don't really get too involved in any policy making.
I really want to know what the science is.
So move next with the data we actually show.
Next slide.
Okay, this slide takes a few minutes to explain.
The first thing is that the observation is shown from winter, spring, summer and fall at the top panel, yes?
It shows you that there are time of increasing snow cover, time of decreasing snow cover, on and off, right?
But I also show at the bottom panel what the actual climate model has shown.
They show consistently everything must be decreasing.
Okay.
And notice IPCC want to focus on the spring season.
They say that the climate model You know, produce decreasing stuff, and then, oh, there is a decreasing trend in spring.
That's very impressive.
But IPCC forget to tell people about science, what science is all about.
Science is about numbers.
Quantitative.
In fact, you can look at the number, it's completely not correct even.
Think, pick the summer one is the best, because it shows like slow tendency, but look at the change, it's so small.
The observed changes is so big.
This observed changes in summer doesn't mean that you already proved that carbon dioxide is causing this to change.
It's completely wrong!
Because you know why?
Another factor of science is that you demand internal cell consistency.
So look at fall and winter now.
What do you see?
You see that the snow cover is increasing.
So by just using the CO2, you clearly know that this is the wrong path to go.
So IPCC is merely promoting and cherry picking, actually.
They are not steel mining, they're straw mining.
They're doing cherry picking, selectively focus everybody's mind and using words.
In fact, they never put this plot up there for people to see.
That's the point.
And our published papers show this plot here, this graph.
And then they are trying to say that people don't read our paper.
They use rephrasing that it looks like Connolly at all, which, you know, we soon agree with them.
It's completely not true.
That's not what our papers say.
So I this is I hope it proves to you beyond doubt.
By the way, there are many examples.
I have only time to talk about this one example because they also cited our work.
And this is how IPCC approach is.
So next slide, please.
Let me first go back to that one for just one second.
Chris, what's clear here from the data you're presenting, which is the real data, that it would be common sense in winter it gets colder, there's more ice and snow, and it starts in fall and then it continues through winter, and of course in spring and summer when it's warmer, And so your data is showing the effect of the four seasons, how the Earth's orbit is at an angle to our orbit around the Sun and therefore we have seasons.
And their model, climate model, blends out all of that.
So they're manipulating the data in a climate model to eliminate what really goes on.
And so you're shown how they've selectively picked data to put into their climate model.
They're not reporting observed data, they're reporting climate model data,
which is set to produce the result they want to produce.
Yes, and then remember one more thing, one more thing that is rather dark here
in terms of IPCC and bunch of this, what you call IPCC narrative scientists.
They actually use the climate model to project forward at 100 years to 50 years.
That's basically what the policies is all about.
And it's all, you can see already, it doesn't prove the high caste is all wrong.
So why would you use that for forecasting the future and base your policy on this totally flawed model?
This is why the next slide is very illuminating, please.
It's a quote.
It's a quote from Professor John Clauser.
The problem with IPCC is that this guy is actually a 2022 Nobel Prize laureate in physics.
So he has certain credibility.
At least he understands science.
You cannot accuse a Nobel Prize in physics for not understanding science.
So, Clauser is actually a very straight-spoken guy.
I like him very much.
He's a very nice guy.
He said IPCC is one of the worst sources of dangerous misinformation.
It's not me saying it, but I don't disagree.
I would say that Dr. Corsi also would not Oh, this is entirely correct.
I think it's very profound to have somebody that is not only doing science, but willing to tell the problem in science itself, because this is actually anti-science.
IPCC equated to, you know, not science, but anti-science.
They are basically a very bad organization in that sense.
So next, please.
Let's keep going.
Dr. Soon, what's so important here is that you're focused on the real data, as much real data as you can get.
Oh yes, oh yes.
And so therefore you're not starting with a predetermined conclusion and making the data fit your conclusion.
Oh yeah, I'm never interested in any, either way, if CO2 is important, sun is important, it's also not important to me.
It's what the truth is.
What the truth is.
Yes, and it turns out, it just turns out, that after 30 some years of research, that I could not find any conclusion that will sort of challenge that the Sun is the major, major player.
I'll show the result towards the end of this talk, of course.
But let's build the argument.
Let's continue, let's continue.
Remember, it's too easy to just say they are bad, they are bad, but explain why they are bad.
This is how doubly important for the audience of your show to understand this.
So let me summarize.
IPCC approach versus science approach.
I wouldn't say it's my approach, but science, okay?
I'm sorry that I'm not Fauci, but this is science approach.
Their main goal is to help international negotiations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
What is science's goal?
To improve scientific understanding of climate change.
Their goal is to help United Nations Environmental Programme with their goals.
And then ours is to help scientific community investigating the fascinating and challenging topic of climate change.
Climate is very complex.
You cannot just consider CO2 as one variable.
There are just tons and tons and tons of variables that you need to consider.
You know, geology, paleoclimatology, oceanography, atmospherics, physics, you know, what have you, you know, botany, you know, everything.
And then, IPCC approach require uniform scientific consensus on all issues, otherwise it might create climate action hesitancy.
For us, science, it requires open-minded scientific inquiry based on data.
Or else we'll succumb to confirmation bias in our work.
In fact, confirmation bias is a very bad word in science, okay?
If you are anywhere, have any inclination or interest in science, you know that this is the wrong thing to do.
Then, finally, for any scientific disagreement, you know, what IPC would say, they ignore it, they downplay or dismiss it as already resolved.
This is how they approach in all their paper.
They publish very thick 2,000 pages report, hoping that nobody will read, but they're, of course, they're in a bit of a trouble because people like us read all of them.
We just read them and it's just simply not true representation.
For example, citing my work and saying all these things, it's just completely nonsense, childish actually.
As if that I'm already dead, you know, I'll be around to kind of tell the truth here.
right here right so anyway for us if scientific disagreement you will be very happy you acknowledge you investigated at least rather than just dismiss it right okay i hope that is clear enough because it's so important for me to emphasize that science must ultimately prevail a lot of this childish little move by abcc i'm sorry it doesn't pass the master smell really bad that's all i can say next please So, now let me get into the beef.
What's wrong with the thermometer data?
It's actually this effect, this phenomenon known as Urban Heat Island Effect.
You know, here's a satellite.
On the left is a heat map of Washington DC in August, summer, right?
And then on the right is a satellite image.
You can see the morphology.
Near places, the river and the green vegetation, they're all blue on a heat map.
Near places where there's a lot of concrete and all the buildings, you see they're all oranges and red.
Okay, this is a very clear phenomenon.
You can go to any big city.
D.C.
is one of the prime examples because that's where all the politicians are making deals for us, right?
Anyway, urban climate change.
It's a very well-known phenomenon since the 1800s, by the way.
The first person by his name, Luke Howard, he's from London.
He noticed, actually, the inner city, inner part of London was so much hotter when you go a little bit outskirt.
He already know the difference.
So, he already sort of talked about this phenomenon in 1820 or so.
And then, clearly, cities are also getting bigger, so urban heat islands are also getting stronger, right?
But remember, urban areas only cover 3% to 4% on normal and 2% of the planet, but because that's where humans stay, Most of the weather stations early on, especially the long one, 75% of them are in the urbanized area.
This is the problem.
And then, of course, since 2011, this is all just statistics that we live mostly in urban areas.
So most of the urban people actually experience local climate change that is called urban warming.
They have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
This is part of the confusion.
And I hope you stay tuned to hear when we remove the urban data, what does the temperature look like?
I want to point out too that, you know, people get the impression that the earth is overpopulated because we live in urban areas predominantly.
So you say, you know, and When you really travel around the world and you take a look at airplanes, you're flying over a lot of empty land.
Yes.
I mean, even, you know, even places like Italy, which have been occupied, you know, for centuries, there's a lot of Italy that's rural.
Now you go to Rome and you think it's all crowded or you go to You know, Hong Kong, or you go to New York, or you go to any major, London, Tokyo, and you've got densely populated areas, but first of all, they're a small percentage of the land area and a large percentage of the people, and the concrete and all the metal and the steel absorbs more heat.
And also you change the pavement, you know, basically the soil and the connection, you know, with water, you know, impervious surfaces, things like that.
That's why you get a lot of flooding or something like that, because you don't flush your water out fast enough.
This has nothing to do, this is all urbanization problem, planning, you know, that kind of stuff, management.
Going back a long time, I mean, people would, You don't know to get out of New York and go to the Catskills because it was going to be cooler.
Why?
Because there's mountains, there's trees, it's not densely populated.
You've got a natural working of the environment to distribute the heat, whereas in cities you're concentrating the heat.
Oh yeah.
So therefore it's not representative, but yet most of your temperature measuring stations, 75% of them are in urban areas, so they're oversampling the hottest places, namely the cities.
That's the point, isn't it?
Yes, and that's what I say, 75% of all the weather stations are kind of urbanized in that sense, right?
Okay, continue.
Let's go next.
Here now we show about contiguous USA, so excluding Alaska, sorry Alaska, right?
48 states, look at this.
The left, you show what you call the 20% most urbanized station.
By the way, this sort of thing uses population density data plus the night light to focus, right?
20% most urban station.
It has a very strong warming trend, about 1.1 degrees per century.
Sorry, you multiply by 1.8, right?
So you get that in Fahrenheit.
And then for 20% most rural station, guess what?
It's only 0.6.
That's 80%, 1.8 times less.
That's already telling you that when IPCC is starting this, once they include urban station, all games are off.
I mean, they are not starting climate change, okay?
I mean, I have to focus on US to show you that for this, because by the way, US is indeed The most dense station that we have in the world.
So we have the best quality control results.
So this one is kind of very nice to be able to demonstrate this thing so easily.
And you wonder why they never talk about this.
That's another very curious thing, but it's all politics, by the way, hint hint.
Next, please.
I think I want to move on.
Just one second on that.
Go back just one second, Chris.
Global warming is really based on an urbanization phenomenon.
There's a bias in this IPCC data.
Now this is a very important point, because methodologically, if there's a bias in your data, then the conclusions are inherently suspect, because you can't use biased data to come to a legitimate conclusion.
And that's the point here, is that they're not talking about global warming Because we're using hydrocarbon fuels emitting carbon dioxide, they're talking about the fact that urban areas are inherently warmer because of the absorption of the sun's irradiance that is retained in urban areas is different than the irradiance that is absorbed in rural areas, which should be obvious to anyone who has spent a summer in a city like Washington, D.C.
or in the outskirts of Maryland or the surrounding areas which are more rural.
Yes.
But the methodology here that Dr. Soon has done is to deconstruct, this is what takes 30 years, is deconstruct the false manipulation of data the IPC is doing to come to political conclusions.
That's the point we're making and it's a very very important point.
Right.
Next please.
I'm sorry that I do get a bit technical but I do want you to benefit from science actually.
Well, I'm glad you're getting technical.
I'm sorry.
Yeah, because we really work hard on this.
Like this paper, this published in 2022.
It's not possible if not for Professor Dr. Peter O'Neill from UCD, University College Dublin.
The reason why is that he was very curious.
He was very curious about how this world thermometer data, which is collected by NOAA, right?
Our US NOAA, National Oceanic Atmospherics and whatever administration, right?
They collected this data set called Global Historical Climatic Network.
It's coming from all over the world.
They come into NOAA and then they filter it.
They apply this thing called homogenization adjustment.
And I want to show you this paper.
I'm extremely proud.
But if it doesn't take 20 years to write these things, I wouldn't be showing you this.
And the problem is that I want to illustrate to you that In this paper, we basically blow the thermometer data quality and the adjustment scheme, the computer algorithm that introduced by the NOAA to the actual data sets is ruining everything, which means they really create a lot of problems for themselves.
And notice that we have a lot of co-authors.
These are the, God bless all these co-authors from the European Meteorological Agency.
Most of them are willing to work with us.
Okay, to try to produce this result.
So let me summarize the result next.
Here, I want to point out the homogenization problem, which is the computer homogenization, what you call adjustment scheme that was applied by NOAA.
So next please.
Here's Here's a summary, right, of the paper.
There are only two main results.
The first thing is that we're able to get very, very important 800, what you call, weather station record, which means what you call the metadata, the history, which means, you know, what happened in 1922?
Did we adjust the station and thermometer record?
You know, we need that kind of information.
In fact, NOAA is recommending not to look at this data set.
Which is a really strange and anti-science movement because they say the computer can know how to adjust this without looking at actual data.
This is really a violation of science in the biggest possible sense that unfortunately not too many people want to talk about nor willing to show you.
So I force your audience to look at this so that you really benefit from this.
So 800 stations of this.
We have what you call the history station record, right?
And if we apply that, compared to the actual NOAA computer adjustment, we found that only less than 20% of those adjustments by the computer model agree with the actual documented change in weather station record.
You don't know how significant this is.
This is very significant.
It tells you that 80% of those actual records that they give you is actually googly dook.
It's just computer product.
Can I make a comment on that first?
Yes, yes, please, because I think you should add in the context.
And then there's another problem, by the way, I don't want to mention that, but this is another computer problem on the left, is that Every time data come in.
So NOAA collected this data.
Every time they come in, they run this computer program.
So Monday it come in, they run this.
Tuesday they come in, they run another round.
Do you know?
I want to show you that only 17% of these data sets are consistent, which means Monday and Tuesday are the same.
Do you understand?
Yes.
Because we have about 2,000 versions of these changes data every day, because my friend Peter O'Neill collected this data.
He was only interested in two or three stations in Ireland, by the way.
So he ended up collecting all of this.
We not only have the NOAA, the GHCN record, we actually have the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Study one.
Okay.
That tells you that we have so much more work to do.
Okay.
We haven't had time even to analyze, but the first one is to focus on European because we were able to get the station history.
Do you understand Dr. Cozy?
Oh, I got it.
I mean, this is very good because this is the way that you tell them that your thermometer data is not trustworthy.
Okay.
See, there's two problems here.
Number one, first problem is when they're taking in the data at NOAA, they're adjusting it every day according to their computer model, their algorithm.
And these adjustments are not consistent day to day.
So the data is, the internal variation in the data is a result, an artifact of the adjustment algorithm through which it runs.
And then secondly, because it's a computer model that it's put into, the computer model homogenizes the data.
In other words, it makes the data comport to what the model would predict.
The model, and what Dr. Sun is saying, is when you look at the backward projections
of how this model applies, it doesn't agree with the actual data that was created.
because the homogenization produces different results.
So what the IPCC data on temperature adjustments over time throughout Europe are based on is a result of a computer model, but not the result of the actual data.
And that's, I mean, that's so fundamentally an error, methodological error, that if you did this at graduate school, and the graduate school were legitimate, they would throw you out.
By the way, these are all the checkings, and notice we produced it in 22.
These are checkings that should have been done in 1980s.
They should have done that 40 years ago.
I mean, I'm sorry that I've been working on so many other things.
I mean, this is the one that is really the right moment, the right kind of people, the right kind of stuff to happen so we can produce these very, very beautiful results in that sense.
But it's kind of bad for science because people don't realize how big of a problem this is.
So next, please, let's move on because there are many more I want to cover.
So now I want to introduce you to the concept.
of taking only the rural station rural again using satellite and population density you know combine both data sets to make sure it's truly rural and things like that in arctic region actually some of the places look like it's rural it's not really rural either okay so there are a lot of caviar and details but that's basically what we did we proposed why not look at this And by the way, we are only confident, and you notice that when we produce this, we still don't have the full story about Europe, which we are going to work with those folks to try to work on this thing.
So we only have US, Arctic, and Ireland, and China.
But remember, people say, oh, this rural, not enough.
Of course, these are only 10% to 15% of all the records.
That's true, because 75% are all urban area.
But, from these four different places, it covers 90% of all the available rural stations.
Still, we think that it's very representative of the Northern Hemisphere record, okay?
So, next, let's show the graph.
What does the rural station look like?
So, repeat again.
Top panel is the urban plus rural, okay?
The bottom panel is the one that's rural only.
So, I hope You will see the difference.
First of all, we smooth the annual data out, so we make it a long-term smooth, so you can see the long-term trend, because here we want to study the long-term changes, right?
And the most important thing is that you can see, first of all, the character of the changes are very different in rural stations.
Rural stations show cooling, warming, cooling, warming.
And then the other one, you can see it's almost strict warming for the urban and rural stations.
And quantitatively, you can see it's already Really huge.
It's almost like 25 to 40 percent, you know, of the urban warming over Northern Hemisphere record.
And we will explain to you now why that when you're trying to interpret this curve, you can reach a completely different conclusion.
Depends on which curve you're using, whether urban or rural, which obviously I would not use actually.
But I want to keep it open-minded because IPCC have used it.
We let the option be there.
And then, but I really will focus on only the rural station in my humble point of view.
And I really don't agree with IPCC, obviously.
But then you got to give them the benefit of the doubt.
I mean, science is always that kind of open-ended kind of thing.
But I want to show you now, assure you now, How valid or not valid the rural station is?
This is an open book, by the way.
Let's study them.
So next, I want to show you there are other ways in which you can try to get information.
First of all, the top one is about weather stations.
That's what we produce, okay?
But indeed, it is the most direct.
It has a fixed location.
It's one of the longest ones that we can have.
The next one you want is actually sea surface temperature or the marine air temperature.
Those records are available.
They are limited.
And again, Please don't be showing off like IPCC.
Keep saying they can produce global.
It's just no data from Southern Hemisphere, okay?
So let's focus on Northern Hemisphere for now.
And then you have also indirect measurements of temperature.
Those are called paleoclimate proxy, paleotemperature proxy.
It can get from tree ring width or even isotopic content of the tree rings, lake sediment, ocean sediment, so on and so forth, right?
Or corals and things like that.
So those are all indirect estimates.
So you can get it from there too.
And then there's also another important one is actually glacier, okay?
Glacier length and all that, the melting glacier length that you can document.
The Swiss and all those guys are very good at documenting those.
So, And then you have satellite error from starting in 1950s using weather balloon or satellite, right?
That document, but they are shorter data, okay?
A lot of this can go longer.
So now let's compare our rural station versus some of this, what you call, other indicator of temperature change.
Next graph, please.
So, the top leftmost is the rural only, the same graph, showing you, you know, cooling, warming, cooling, warming, the multi-decadal changes.
The bottom one from that curve is actually the three-ring proxy, okay?
It shows some similarity, and the weather balloon is very short.
Yes, it's warm recently, but then we don't have past data.
Ocean heat content, same story, but sea surface temperature, that's the one that actually convinced me the data is not too bad, the one that we produce on rural land-only stations.
It shows some of that.
Maybe the ending of that is exaggerated because we really also have calibration problems.
A lot of these are details.
But overall picture, Glacial Length is another one that is very well documented over Northern Hemisphere.
It shows you these changes has the multi-decadal character like the Rural Station is saying.
and then precipitation sort of don't follow any specific rule because hydrology is a very much more complex thing and then plus that it functions on much smaller spatial scale by the way hydrology function on meter scale here we are trying to talk about kilometers you know hundreds of kilometers right averages of long term so so i would say that overall Our rural station is representative of what you call overall climate change or temperature change, okay?
That can be subjected to proper attribution.
Now we explain the attribution part, of course.
Let's go next.
Can I make a comment here?
Go back, Chris, if you would, please, the previous slide.
The point here is that When you get real data, and Dr. Sun is emphasizing getting real, unmanipulated data to the extent that it's not easy to do.
It's taken 20-30 years.
You see variations between sometimes cooling, sometimes warming.
It is not what the IPCC is saying, a consistently unprecedented warming And straight line warming, yeah.
Exactly.
Straight line warming, and then steep line warming, like the hockey stick.
You know, the hockey stick has a blade, the handle of the hockey stick is all smooth, and the blade shoots up.
Well, that's the way ICC would like you to see the temperature data of the globe being.
But when all this difficulty that Dr. Soonen and his colleagues have gone through to get real data and to sort it out, especially this rural data, makes it clear that the phenomenon is a
The heating phenomenon from the city in the islands would produce heat.
And when you look at the real effect of the earth, sometimes it's warmer, sometimes it's cooler.
And these periods vary.
But it is not a straight line warming since the industrial era.
That's why it's so important to get unmanipulated data.
Right, right.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, next please.
Now let's move on to how to explain all this, right?
Again, IPCC approach is called attribution, and they call it hindcasting, that is true, but they describe all the factors or drivers of climate change in terms of what you call radiative forcing, trying to put them all on apple and apple basis.
By the way, it's still incorrect, okay?
I don't agree with IPCC, so it's in... but let's try to summarize an argument like this, right?
It's in watt per meter And then for hindcasting, for the natural factors, they only consider two factors, solar and volcanic.
And I explained the tragic of even volcano, because there's no two volcanoes are alike.
But when you frame it in this radiative forcing perspective, you forget about volcano being a volcano.
It has different amount of output.
Its gaseous output, its water vapor output is completely different.
But IPCC, Lump them all together.
That's why I say even the field of volcanology are being hurt by this anti-science approach of IPCC.
Unfortunately, I rarely see any volcanologists speak out on this.
I felt bad for them, sorry.
For me as a solar physicist, I will say that what they do for the solar one is completely wrong, okay?
But now let's consider the human driver.
How many do they consider?
been counting 11 smoking guns that's basically what they call so they will they will go into all the nanny detail contrails this and that all the insignificant factors okay notice that the co2 one is the largest one that's true right that one is clearly true and then they have aerosols on that side and then when they combine all the 11 and then they form the graph on the bottom right So it looks like this.
So now let's compare with the natural factors, the volcano and the solar part that IPCC is considering.
Here, this is the volcano on the left, solar on the right.
This is what IPCC recommended and tell you, and this is what they put into their climate model.
No wonder they cannot see any solar effect, right?
Because it's impossible!
So IPCC is actually correct.
So their solar forcing, look at how small it is.
Later we'll compare with the anthropogenic part.
The volcano is also pretty much a joke, because I told you that I'm sorry that I'm not going to defend volcanology.
I'm not a volcanologist, but I really like, don't like what they did.
So now let's compare volcano, solar and anthropogenic, which is CO2 mainly, right?
And methane, so on and so forth.
But it looks so big from this perspective, by the way.
So this is called steelmanning.
Remember, guys, it's about steelmanning.
We don't want to just hit and run.
We want to explain what they did.
And I can tell you, if IPCC is in any way close to being even half-truth or correct on this, then you know what?
Again, we have round of applause.
They win.
This is bogus!
I'm sorry, I have to use the word, strong word.
This is wrong!
You, I don't know, if we can go back even three slide back, you compare solar forcing with, with contrail, even go back, just to compare for people's satisfaction.
Look at that, all the irrelevant factors they put in, that's basically all the, there are about three or four of those factors if you can read the thing.
That's what they say solar is doing.
That's a complete manipulation of science in that sense.
So, let's go to the trip further up, yeah.
Now I want to explain the solar part, okay?
One biggest reminder, this is the benefit of actually thinking hard about this subject for a long time, is how you frame the issue.
IPCC is so clever.
Notice when they do this, they actually tell you that the Earth system has no season.
Finish!
They're basically saying it's the constant light bulb, okay, the sun.
But we know in the true total quantification, science is about numbers, right?
The total power generated by the sun is 4 times 10 to the 26 watts.
The Earth has only 2 billion times weaker, 2 times 10 to the 17.
Actually, even that number is not correct because the true power from the Earth itself, let's go back, sorry, I need to stick to that particular graph.
It's only, it's actually 10,000 times smaller, 2 to the power 13.
By the way, those are all measured and estimated.
These are basically radioactive decay heating.
That number is 2 times 10 to the 13.
What is the 10 to the 17 come from?
It's actually converted energy from the sun.
That's it!
All the energy is powered by the sun.
Or else the ocean wouldn't move, the wind wouldn't blow.
There's no cloud, no nothing.
There's no green, there's no trees, no nothing.
No life!
This is what so important and they just think that they can subtract this season out and then try to make the sun have no power.
I mean, it's very childish.
I really couldn't understand it from day one when I was asked to think about this subject.
You know, as a postdoc fellow, I was just puzzled by why would IPCC do such a thing?
But anyway, let's move on.
So, my question now is that could they have underestimated the role of the Sun?
Notice that I didn't say could they have underestimated or overestimated.
It's not possible to overestimate, okay?
They already make it zero, so you cannot overestimate.
So, it's underestimated, okay?
Next, please.
Now, I want to show you the punchline.
I can talk long on this, by the way.
So, I just want to summarize in this.
So in last year, October of 2023, we published another important paper, okay, in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, that we summarized that we can find 27 different estimates of the Sun output, which is the Sun factor, basically the light output, okay?
And look at that, it's all over the place.
But you guys want to know, please focus on the highlight.
What did IPCC recommend?
It's only one.
They basically say that all these other factors is irrelevant.
This is what you call IPCC is really, really violating science.
They are not.
I mean, scientific community is in rigorous debate on how this sun radiative output change.
And they tell you to look at only one.
Actually, they just tell you to blindfold yourself and walk across the cliff, okay?
That's how bad they are.
And then, indeed, they insist on certain policy changes, right?
We're not... I'm not interested in policy.
I just tell you that by looking at IPCC, I would not follow anything they say because it's ridiculous.
What they're doing here is very bad.
Right?
Cherry-picking to the worst kind of possible form, in the sense of to elevate to a level of bullying, in my view, because it's just simply bullying, asking people not to read all of this.
In fact, they tell people not to read our paper, too.
That's another thing.
So, but I'm not concerned about that.
Next, please, I want to finish the talk, so then we can move on.
So, this is the September 2023 paper that we published.
This is the one that get them very angry, and because we have... Click the next one, please.
Click.
Just... We need to click so that we can show that... Yeah.
So we have 37 co-authors from 18 countries and in this huge quasi-review paper with original contributions, we have 188 references recited.
And then let's move on next to the final result summary.
So, the top panel is basically what IPCC is telling you.
The red curve is the temperature curve that they use, which is urban and rural, and then their solar estimate, which is the solar, the one that they recommend, that one.
And then the bottom one is basically our alternative.
The rural only, which is a red curve at the bottom, and then the solar estimate, one of them that we use.
There are about three or four of them fit this thing, fit the bottom curve.
Okay?
Because we summarize in another paper to explain all of that.
So, I will leave you to your own conclusion about who are the people who are interested in science and the truth.
Okay?
I will not make much more judgment, but I want to come to my summary slide, please.
Next.
Yeah, you can stare at that.
In fact, the slide should be available for whoever wants to look at it, right?
Anyway, the conclusion for me is very simple.
By the way, IPCC in the 6th assessment 2021, they actually also, quote-unquote, I would say, made a small mistake because they must insist.
You see, they use words, they use a lot of this thing, they have to cover up a lot of tracks.
They actually say that the urban biases is very small.
They can quantify to be less than 10%.
We show that it's 40% at least.
So I'm sorry, IPCC is wrong on that one.
And then they also insist that the best solar activities, the best solar estimate to use is only one, but we found 27.
So on the solar estimate, this is the one that actually I've been dedicated my whole life to studying, the sun, basically.
And I can assure you that they're wrong.
They're nowhere even, not even wrong, I would say, in Wolfgang Pauli's term, in the genius from Switzerland, you know, on quantum mechanics.
But anyway, finally, I want to say that when we consider non-urbanized temperature data, We can explain most of the warming.
Maybe we go back before we have this little pledge.
I don't want to do that but I need to do this because I really are self-funded and things like that.
So really that I would say that we are not ready to make strong conclusions either way but but I would say that I'm in favor of so far as I'm concerned it's mostly natural that we observe so far.
So finally just a plug.
The plug is that the work is indeed at series-sign.com.
So come and help us if you can.
But again, you know, it's a very hard work.
We no longer get any fundings and things like that.
But let me finish two more very important slides.
Actually, I'm a scientist anyway.
I think Dr. Korsi would like these facts that we don't talk about next.
I want to tell you that this is a very surprising thing.
So first of all, Estimating the global, what you call, man factors, which is from fossil fuel and land use, it's been a, what you call, an art rather than the science.
In 2020 and 2021, they actually corrected the amount of land use changes.
So, actually, the curve changes.
I think no one knows that the best global estimate of CO2 emission has been flat for one decade.
Do you notice that the end there is actually not rising at all?
There's no slope there.
And then let's move on to an even more surprising one because US contribute about 25% of the world global CO2 emission.
Click the next one.
Do you know that for the last, well since 2005 or so, so 18 years or so, we've been decreasing by about 18%.
And you guys know what the puzzle is, right?
You can ask the question.
We have been decreasing by 80%.
So what does that do to the climate, the temperature change in the US, for example?
Never mind the globe.
I don't care about the globe, first of all.
What does that do?
Actually, I would say nothing.
This is part of the puzzle, right?
Here's another problem in terms of the quantification of the emission part, where they only talk about the man, they don't talk about the ocean, don't talk about the vegetation, don't talk about the soil decay, blah blah blah.
It's all anti-science and voodoo science, actually not real science.
So this is why it's surprising.
Next, I just finished the graph.
To show you that, look, white carbon dioxide is still coming up.
And each of the individual names there, Rio, Berlin to Dubai, it's all a court meeting, the conference or party meeting by the United Nations, as you can imagine.
Every time they go to the conferences, the CO2 continues to keep going up.
And actually, I leave it open-ended for anybody to try to understand that it is a puzzle that for the last 10 years, if the global CO2 emission, the main part of it, has been decreasing, why is the CO2 atmospheric concentration still coming up?
That probably would tell you that maybe there are some part of it is natural emission.
This is the part that they would, there's no, this is logic by the way.
I, I think I would just stop right there and then maybe again, sorry, Dr. Koh See that I do have to talk about all this sort of thing in details because I wanted the best medicine for ignorant is to actually to learn more and then you are equipped, you feel more comfortable when you speak.
You know, you don't have to argue from, you see the secret that I learned a long time ago, force the audience to look at the graph.
And then, let them study at leisure.
Please, no rush.
Please, download.
I'm not hiding, like I'm not showing you the graph later.
No, no.
Use all the graphs you want.
Because it's very accurate results.
I collect all of this.
I want people to use it.
No need credit.
It's all sources are there.
Study this.
Because they use words, you see.
Oh, it's alarming.
It's unprecedented.
This and that.
But it's all words.
It's not data.
Science never functioned like this.
This is kind of, I noticed long ago, it's the word tricks.
They use a lot of words.
And especially headline.
You know, headline is the most misleading thing in a lot of this reporting.
They are always tricking people.
That you thought, oh, maybe it's alarming.
Oh, Antarctic is melt.
It's as if the Antarctic never melt before.
It's melt and it grow again.
What are you talking about?
Greenland is always melting and growing.
All these are natural processes.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no way.
In fact, I challenged the Nobel Prize in Physics, Steve Chu, which is also our Secretary of Energy from Stanford.
Laser confinement, he got a Nobel Prize for that.
I say, you're such an expert.
He was the one that proposed that rising cameras will melt Greenland ice sheets.
Oh, that gave me a big headache.
I asked Professor Xu, can you please explain to me, how do you do it with a CO2 laser?
Can you try to tell me how you melt this thing?
He had no answer.
He said, yeah, it's all this IPCC.
I don't know.
Sometimes it's just the world is a bit mad.
I think the audience have heard enough, but at least I have my, thank you for allowing me to rant a little bit.
Thank you.
Well, I'm glad we got the whole presentation in.
Now I want to go back on some central points.
So people, please, please do.
First of all, your major, Focus, which is entirely appropriate, is that the sun is the most important factor in Earth's light and heat.
Which should be obvious, the fact that when the sun is not in the sky, we call it night and it's dark.
Okay, so let's start there.
When it's day, the sun's in the sky, it's hot, and there's light.
Okay, now what you've shown is that the power of the Sun is enormous compared to all these other factors.
No comparison.
Without the Sun, there would be no life on Earth, which should be apparent to people.
I mean, this is not a hard concept.
Sun heats Earth, is what it comes down to.
Now you've also shown there's variability in the sun.
And the sun is sometimes burning hotter and sometimes it's burning cooler.
And so the legitimate temperature graphs show periods where the Earth temperatures are cooler and where they're warmer and they're cooler and they're warmer.
So therefore these are largely attributable to variations in sun activity.
That's the major factor where the UN It's humorous in a sense.
I'm sorry that I keep laughing, but I'm very deadly serious.
one after.
Make it small and then they take that one.
Just that one.
They don't take all the others that are there.
It's humorous in the sense, I'm sorry that I keep laughing,
but I'm very deadly serious.
These people are really, really very strange.
I mean, it's like childish, you know, like high and sick.
The point is that scientific community is publishing.
There are all these things we have to consider, all of them, rather than doing it.
And plus that they are the ones that say that they are the clearing house on all this knowledge and all this data sets and this and that.
They didn't even do anything!
It's that kind of Orwellian double-speak.
You know what I mean?
They really twist the language like hell, man.
It's just... We're in absolute hell if you listen to that much.
It's crazy.
The argument is fundamentally not a scientific argument.
It's an ideological argument.
And it has a bias against capitalism.
They don't want us to use hydrocarbon fuels.
They're trying to demonize hydrocarbon fuels.
They want to depopulate.
And they bend the data to get these results.
When you look at the actual data and you say, how does this place really work?
There is not a hockey stick.
Geologic time goes back 4.6 billion years, and you've got a lot of things that have happened to the Earth.
80% there was no life on the Earth.
It was too molten, too formative.
All life is in the last 20%.
We've had five mass extinctions before human beings were here.
We've had continents drift apart.
We've had volcanoes that have been massive, a thousand years of volcanic activity.
We've had asteroids that hit the Yucatan, for instance, 65 million years ago.
Tsunamis all the way up to what is today North Dakota.
It is a cataclysmic place.
It's not just a normal, everything is copacetic.
It's never changed.
It's a very changing system.
Then secondly, what you pointed out at the end, The fact is that, you know, carbon dioxide emissions from hydrocarbon fuels have actually decreased.
Okay.
And there's a number of reasons for that.
But what you pointed out is that the earth, the mathematics of how the earth operates in terms of climate are not linear.
In other words, just because you add more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, you emit more, doesn't mean there's going to be more carbon dioxide remaining in the atmosphere.
Because there's other dynamic changes.
Yeah, for example, CO2 and sun, you cannot compare because CO2 is the whole driver.
That's why the excuse is that they do a perturbation.
They subtract and make the sun look small.
Yes, the sun changes.
By the way, the irradiance output in the last 150 years is less than 1%.
It's small.
But small from a perspective of a giant is everything.
Small, large from tiny little ants actually means nothing.
I mean, this is the kind of framing that they were able to trick people into believing.
Carbon dioxide is 0.04% of all the atmosphere.
It's a minor molecule in the atmosphere.
Whereas the sun is the dominant factor in our heat and light.
So even a small change in the sun's output of energy, its irradiance, is going to make a massive change on Earth.
Compared to a massive change in carbon dioxide, which will have a minimum impact on Earth.
Because it is not even the major greenhouse gas.
Water vapor is 70% of all greenhouse gases.
Yes, true.
The effect of clouds.
The effect of how much water is in the atmosphere.
The occurrence in the ocean.
All these things are extremely complex.
And when the math is non-linear, and again, it's hard for people to understand it, it's like a set of differential equations which are hard to solve, because the variables don't always act the same way.
You know, the variables may one time produce a result, and then the numbers change and the variables produce, the measurements of the variables change, it's a different altogether result.
because of the interaction of the variables and how they interact in a complex dynamic system.
That's what makes the mathematics of this so difficult and not fully predictable,
because we don't know that, you know, God does not need equations to run weather and we have to use
mathematics and so therefore we've got irrational numbers which have an infinite number of decimals
following and there you'll never get that's infinite so therefore all of our mathematical
models are inherently biased to begin with because very small differences in measurement
produce dramatic differences in output.
Lorenz proved that with his models, and so there's a fundamental flaw in our ability as human beings to develop mathematical climate models that are going to be correct.
Now, when you additionally add the bias, which Dr. Soon has brilliantly demonstrated, taken three decades, this is why I follow his work so closely, because it's meticulous, and it's mathematically and methodologically correct.
Now, Dr. Sun, I think this climate hoax could only occur because we are not teaching the population math or science.
And this is a language game.
Yes.
The manipulation of language.
And because the people are not trained to really go in like you have and say, now wait a minute, What are the biases in the data that the IPCC are using?
And you've noticed, you've identified a major bias, which is that they are over-sampling the urban areas, which are inherently hotter.
And therefore, it is not representative of global temperature.
When you ask what global temperature is, it's even a hard concept to come to.
Because the Northern Hemisphere is different than the Southern Hemisphere.
Right.
And, you know, there may be a regional temperature, there may be a temperature for New York City that's different from the temperature in the Catskills, which is very different from the temperature in the Bahamas, which is very different than the temperature in Buenos Aires.
And there's factors that are there because the nature of the Earth in each of these places is fundamentally different.
So, you're dealing with a very, very complex model, and to reduce everything to one variable, the carbon dioxide is the cause of everything, is laughable.
And yet people are becoming convinced of this.
And so, with your work, the reason I wanted to highlight your work on this, and give you the time to really present it, is that people need to understand this is one of the greatest hoaxes in human history.
Yes, yes, of course.
perpetrated by the United Nations and the IPCC, and it is based on data manipulation
that is determined by the ideological result they wanna come to,
rather than the legitimate science which will let the data prove what the data proves,
let the conclusions fall where they may.
Is that an accurate summary?
Yes, yes, of course.
Again, I'm a person of science, and I really, really am not totally ignorant
about this human and societal and the political nature of things.
But then it's becoming a very, very ugly thing that they insisted that a white paint like this is black.
You don't agree with this?
They either hang you or burn you in a pile of fire, right?
I mean, these are basically what they're doing to some of us, actually.
I'm not saying... No one can bully me, put it this way.
They can try, but good luck.
Because I'm going to keep doing science.
I love science.
I really am a man of science.
I really do the best I can.
I do not want to exaggerate.
And here, you can say that even though I look a bit excited when I talk, I'm as calm as I can be because science is about Following the evidence, flip every rocks, every argument, check carefully, and it's that whole package.
Like I say, emphasize, has to have internal inconsistency.
And heck, if IPCC is correct, you know what?
I would have supported their conclusion.
It's not a problem for me.
I am really that neutral.
I mean, don't, I'm not making this up.
I just cannot accept any of what they say.
Remember, we're only talking about temperature.
You remember all these other things that is basically tailored to get everybody to subsume to them, which is to talk about extreme weather, all these dangerous things, sea level rise and all that.
You can ask me, because I have checked the work.
I have done it.
I have published some work.
All of that claim.
Polar Bear.
I published two papers on Polar Bear.
You know, understanding deeply on the issue.
And I came to the conclusion it's all nothing.
Basically nonsense.
Another nonsense.
And for me, the achievement is that once I understand, once I think I have something to contribute, so I write a paper to explain.
Even polar bear, I was explaining.
Because I was looking at the sea ice around Western Huston Bay, which is the main population that's the southernmost.
Basically there's one more, Southern Huston Bay, population of polar bear.
You look at the behavior of the polar bear, the ecology, and you know, things like that, to study all the factors.
You know, what food diet they do, because the main claim is that, oh, they have to eat the sails, so on and so forth, right?
And then, I ultimately found the best hypothesis for polar bear.
The polar bear biologists get angry with me, because I say the ultimate enemies of polar bear is actually ice.
Because once ice is there, the glass glacial maximum, think about it, they need refugia to survive.
Because there's no food, the whole ecological system doesn't function.
From zooplankton, phytoplankton, all the way up to the fish, to the larger ones, to the seal.
It's not going to work when it's cold.
I mean, they hate that so much, but I make that kind of statement, they're kind of angry.
Well, okay.
But show me how wrong I am.
I didn't say anything is wrong.
The truth is, all life on Earth does better in an interglacial warming period than it does during an ice age, and that a warming period we should enjoy rather than being afraid of Ice is the enemy, man, dude.
Yeah, we do not want to live in conditions where there's an ice age.
It's very, very difficult.
Yes.
And the other point is that when the IPCC comes to this false science, let's look at their policy recommendations.
They want people to quit using hydrocarbon fuels.
Well, that's the engine of modern industrial states.
Yeah, 80 to 85% of all the world, you know, World's energy, 80-85% is still today, after all these decades of climate change nonsense, we're still using 80-85% hydrocarbon fuels.
Secondly, they don't want us to use nitrogen fertilizers.
Then they don't want us to have cows because cows fart methane.
And then they want us to eat bugs.
And then they want us to not have cars, 15-minute cities where you're going to be turned off electronically.
Nothing will work for you electronically if you get out of your boundary.
So all these are Anti-human.
In fact, we exhale carbon dioxide, so they say we are our own enemy.
Human beings are the blight on the earth, and so therefore they call this age the anthropogenic, which means human beings are going to destroy ourselves because we exhale carbon dioxide.
Now, this is an anti-human argument.
As far as the Earth is concerned, after five extinctions, we're just the latest creatures walking around on the surface.
And the Earth is not adjusting its temperature or its weather in order to make us happy.
The Earth doesn't care.
The Earth has weather because of the Sun.
And because of the nature that we have in atmosphere, which is another unique aspect of this planet, we have atmosphere.
And so therefore the atmospheric pressures, the oceans, all the complex factors, clouds, are designed to take the heat which hits at the equator and to distribute that heat to the upper atmosphere and to the poles.
Because the Earth's Weather, and climate is just patterns of weather, including extreme weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, are part of the Earth's temperature regulation mechanism, which is called weather.
And that's why we have weather.
So, you know, if we didn't have weather, the Earth would burn up at the equator and everything else would be very cold, including the upper atmosphere.
Yeah, exactly.
So, you know, this is, again, The political conclusions that the IPCC wants us to come to are depopulation conclusions.
They want fewer people.
They want control.
They do not want freedom.
They want to monitor everything we do, what we eat.
how we live, have us live in smaller units, not own homes, not have farms.
I mean, these are such dystopian conclusions, all deriving from false science.
Then that's why Dr.
Soon's work is so important.
Yeah, that's why the basis is really, really evil and dark.
It's totally dark.
I mean, as far as I can see, I mean, I kind of don't pay attention, but then you have to because they ultimately come to your house, come to your children.
You know, we have to stand up, especially in America.
I mean, I am an immigrant, naturalized citizen.
I mean, I love America to death in that sense.
I mean, we have no, there's no other places where you can actually voice your view and talk.
I would probably be shot already, by the way, if I were to be in many other places.
Because they won't let me speak!
I mean, it's not only about feeding your family, it's about them trying to censor you, control you.
They won't let you tell the truth.
Even you research this thing as carefully as you can, and then you don't really want to fight them.
I only want to tell the truth.
And the truth cannot be out there.
I mean, this one is also in the sense that I really thank you for giving me a little forum, because you know what?
Actually, I haven't done too many points.
You were the first two.
That's it.
Maybe one... There's one more already because... Mainly because I think I appear on Tucker Carlson, right?
That whole thing, everybody start asking me to talk.
Okay, I'm happy to talk.
But the point is that you guys should talk too.
Take the slide.
By the way, right?
Show them the slide.
Give them access to the slide and then let them study it.
There are more and more and more of those.
I mean, there are long talk... But I try to not talk too long.
30 minutes is always a good one.
Too long, it's like people want to go to sleep.
But...
It's something that we all need to help each other and speak out, especially protecting our kids, our grandkids.
I mean, these are the future.
I mean, they are now indoctrinating everybody like nobody's business.
I mean, it's terrible.
I mean, it's so dangerous, you know, to teach them all the wrong stuff.
I mean, not even science, you know what I mean?
It's just...
I am very concerned about that.
This is why I have to continue to keep talking and keep trying my best to stick to the principle and tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no matter how inconvenient it is.
But actually there are stuff that we as a human, we are the guardian of the planet.
We are, in some sense, because our human mind is actually quite high in the hierarchy of things, that we clearly can make things better instead of making things worse, right?
I mean, but then people don't understand.
When you are starving, you couldn't care about your environment.
That principle about being richer will mean a better environment, people don't understand.
People, it's the poor, it's the poverty that is causing a lot of this sort of people going towards the wrong thing, you know, not able to care for anything, right?
I mean, think about the mining process for the cobalt, for all this copper and all this other stuff for the electrical, EV kind of stuff, right?
Electrical vehicle.
I mean, it's not human.
It's just really bad.
And these people sit in an air-conditioned room dictating us.
You know, their feelings, their philosophical viewpoint, right?
And they are the ones who proclaim.
Yeah, yeah, indeed, they don't like too many humans, obviously.
Proclaim, you know, that actually they kind of care for the children, they want to do this, do that.
It's just so...
So nauseous.
I really cannot stand this sort of thing.
The reason that we're censored so badly is because they know they're lying and they can't debate.
They can't prove they're right.
They get exposed for their lying and falsehood and they can't tolerate that.
And the way to judge this is when you look at the outcomes of what they want us to do, how they want us to live, these globalists, on this climate nonsense, is dystopian.
They want to have a small group of self-appointed elite Who are the oligarchs.
So John Kerry can fly around and is probably right.
He say he's very important.
He say the reason why he fly because he's very important.
Your time is well.
Well, no, no.
You are just a human being.
You're just a children of God.
I'm sorry.
You're no bigger than any one of us.
Yeah.
Who made John Kerry, you know, all so self-important?
Yes.
Who made Klaus Schwab so self-important?
Right.
You know, these people want to dictate to everybody what we're going to do.
Don't forget Al Gore.
Al Gore is my favorite.
The list goes on.
And the point is that if they had legitimate science, they would allow debate, they wouldn't censor, and if they had legitimate science, we'd pay attention.
But when the science is ideologically determined, and the Results in how the methodology is done to come to a predetermined conclusion.
And that conclusion is to stop using hydrocarbon fuels, which is the engine that has permitted us in a glacial warming period to have 8 billion people on the planet.
And we could have more if we did this intelligently and we were aiming at growth.
We were realizing that we're not going to run out of hydrocarbon fuels.
We were being fed the truth about climate science and energy science.
Instead, we're being fed a lot of lies and not permitted to say otherwise.
And Dr. Soon, I applaud you.
We're going to conclude this.
Chris, would you show the last slide of Dr. Soon's organization, the Ceres Science?
If you could show the last slide for a minute.
I'm going to encourage people to go to Dr. Soon's site, which is Ceres, C-E-R-E-S-science.com.
And you can contribute, you can donate, everything is self-funded.
Dr. Soon has had a, here we are, this is the saris-science.com and you can go, they're all self-funded.
Funded and so therefore in that last slide you can see go to the website and and contribute and contribute generously even ten dollars will make a difference as numbers and we need to keep this work going because Dr. Soon is one of the legitimate climate scientists and his work is extremely important and Dr. Soon I want to thank you From the bottom of my heart for coming on and explaining this as brilliantly as you did.
And we are going to post this widely on social media and have people take a look at it.
Thank you, Dr. Cosey and Chris.
Thank you so much for your important work as well.
Okay, so we're going to end this.
I always end, in the end, God always wins.
God's going to win here, too.
And the false science is going to go away.
This is going to be considered one of the darkest periods of human history, where a small, I think almost satanic, group of people tried to have the rest of us walk into slavery.
And it's based on language, perversion, and lies.
We will end this, and I encourage people, in terms of a biblical perspective, 2 Chronicles 7, 14, we need to ask God's forgiveness for having taken God out of our schools and our lives, killing babies.
We have no right to kill God's children or to steal God's children for pedophilia.
We need to preserve life in this world and cherish life.
In the end, God always wins.
We will have a judgment of God for this dark period.
But I believe we'll get through it, and it'll be scientists like Dr. Soon that help us get there.
This is Dr. Jerome Corsi, this is The Truth Central, this is one of many podcasts we're going to be doing to add a dimension to our shows, and we'll be posting this on both Twitter under at CorsiJerome1 on my Substack as DromeCorsiPhD.substack.com.
And I'm going to ask Dr. Soon if he can stay with us for a bit.
We'd like to record one more shorter segment with him that we'll post for subscribers only.
