Richard T. Fowler

Offering Christian and Christ-centered commentary about climate- and energy-related issues.

The Definitive Data On The Global Warming/Climate Change Scam

Steven, thanks in no small part to your tireless efforts, I think we are finally starting to detect an ever-so-slight change in the direction of the Titanic.

Is it enough, and is it soon enough?? We’ll stay tuned.

Real Science

Bookmark this.

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 –  the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

ScreenHunter_3233 Oct. 01 22.59

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2.  The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

ScreenHunter_3341 Oct. 05 06.14

Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3337 Oct. 05 05.58

US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3332 Oct. 05 05.19

US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

ScreenHunter_3328 Oct. 05 04.41

US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3315 Oct. 04 14.20

East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

ScreenHunter_3311 Oct. 04 11.20

View original post

Advertisements

29 responses to “The Definitive Data On The Global Warming/Climate Change Scam

  1. omanuel 2014/10/05 07:48 at 07:48

    I admire Tony Heller aka Steven Goddard for his analytical ability to see and his courage to point out that “The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.”

    Unfortunately, so is a large part of post-modern science.

    • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/15 20:31 at 20:31

      Hello, Oliver! Thanks for your comment. I’m sorry for failing to notice it, but I thought I could see new comments from my comment screen, and it appears that is not the case.

      I asked you a question a couple weeks ago over at RS; perhaps you missed it. It was about a scientist who had disappeared after publishing some results back in about 1976. I think I asked you if there was some documentation you could cite regarding this, or if there was any indication of what happened to him. Anything you can share would be most welcome. Thanks again.

      Richard

      • omanuel 2014/10/15 22:53 at 22:53

        Richard,

        The Hungarian astronomer, Peter Toth, reported the Sun’s regular pulse in Nature in 1977 – just like a pulsar.

        That same year Science reported our debate with University of Chicago scientists over a false claim superheavy element fission made “strange xenon” that we reported to be from local element synthesis in 1975, after first reporting the “strange xenon” as supernova debris in Nature in 1972.

        The USSR controlled Hungary in 1977. I was unable to contact Peter Toth after his 1977 paper was published in Nature.

        I do not know if foul play was involved, but it seemed strange to me that a major discovery preceded his disappearance.

        These are only small parts of the sixty-four year history of government deceit before Climategate emails finally revealed purposeful fraud in Nov 2009.

        Here’s more of the story:

        http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

        • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/16 09:52 at 09:52

          Thanks; can you explain in simple layman’s terms how it affects the fields of chemical engineering and/or nuclear power reactors if the Sun is a pulsar? In other words, what specifically would be the motive for silencing an astronomer who wanted the world to know that the Sun is a pulsar? Thank you.

          RTF

  2. geran 2014/10/11 20:03 at 20:03

    First time to comment here. Saw your comments at Goddard’s site.

    Looks like you are still in “start-up” mode here, since 2011?

    15-20 posts in 2-3 years?

    Cool…???

    • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/15 20:20 at 20:20

      I just saw your comment just now. I thought I could see them from the comment screen, but apparently not. I’m not actively writing posts, partly because I did a bunch of it for a time, and got almost no response. My interests apparently are pretty rare. So, for now I have focused my efforts on Tony’s site, figuring that’s the smartest use of my time.

      Thanks for your thoughts. I am sure I will enter another phase of activity. However, I am still recovering from a period of family tragedy that caused me to be offline for more than 12 months.

      And I do not have sufficient time to post with the kind of vigor that I would like to, at present. I don’t think of myself as being in startup mode, but there were some very important ideas that I covered early on, regarding Claes Johnson’s work, Special Relativity, classical vs. quantum mechanics and the concept of photons, and “conservation of energy”, which I feel are absolutely essential to people understanding AGW, and I wanted people to understand how fundamental these issues are for our lives.

      I have to find a good theme that will let me categorize these things at the top of the screen, because I don’t believe I can with the present theme. So that’s on my list of things to do. I got off to a fairly good start, I thought, but when a family member became very ill about two years ago, it really cut back on the amount of time I could spend. I’d rather do little, than put out a lot and have it be of very poor quality.

      Thanks again, and feel free to subscribe so that you will know when I start posting again.

      RTF

      • geran 2014/10/20 16:37 at 16:37

        Thanks for responding.

        Sorry to hear about your family issues. (I know well about those type of things.)

        When you get time, your theme should be to challenge IPCC science, not Claes’ work. Just my humble opinion.

        • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/20 16:54 at 16:54

          Actually, I’ve mostly supported his work, when I’ve said anything about it. I continue to believe that the key to a better understanding of atmospheric physics, including the true role of CO2, lies primarily in the direction he has laid out. My conversation with the provocateur “Mike”, who at one point was relentlessly going after both Claes and myself (though he calmed down somewhat after he came over to my blog) hopefully will show that.

          Appreciate your thoughts! Thank you.

          RTF

          • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/20 17:03 at 17:03

            P.s. I’m not going to ignore the IPCC’s and associated frauds, however I may occasionally return to the topics of relativity, classical mechanics, cosmology, climate thermodynamics, finite precision computation, and Planck’s statistics of quanta versus a model that has a physical explanation. Without these things people are doomed to keep wandering in the wilderness of confusion when trying to understand what CO2 is doing and what it is not doing.

            RTF

  3. omanuel 2014/10/20 14:56 at 14:56

    The source of energy that causes heavy atoms to fission – NEUTRON REPULSION – is the same source of energy that causes the cores of stars to emit neutrons. . . .

    that spontaneously decay to hydrogen atoms in 15 minutes.

    All stars generate hydrogen this way and discard it to interstellar space in the solar wind.

    • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/20 15:57 at 15:57

      And this means what, exactly??

      That nuclear fuel lasts longer before needing replacement? That it never needs replacement? That usable nuclear fuel is more plentiful in Earth’s crust than we are told? That the existing fuel formulations get hotter than we’ve been told they do? What does it mean, Oliver??

      For crying out loud, I’ve been trying to get you to answer this question for a long time now, and you keep sidestepping it. What exactly is the engineering secret that Toth might have been ‘disappeared’ in order to keep hidden? Because I can assure you that whatever you think your readers understand about it, almost none of them do! (Most likely, the only ones who do are those who already knew it before they read your work.)

      Many of your readers can sense that you may have something important in your mind, but a lot of good it’s going to do anyone if it just stays there! Please answer the question, or else we’re all just wasting our time writing to you. Thank you very much.

      Richard

      • omanuel 2014/10/20 16:38 at 16:38

        The “secret” was revealed in

        1. The last paragraph of Aston’s 12 Dec 1922 Nobel Lecture on a great promise and a very grave warning for mankind.

        2. Paul Kazuo Kuroda’s story of F. W. Aston’s lecture at the Imperial University of Tokyo on 13 June 1936, . . .

        and the nuclear physicist who could not understand Aston’s “nuclear packing fraction”

        3. On pages 153-154 of the autobiography of the astronomer, astrophysicist and cosmologist – Sir Fred Hoyle – telling how the internal composition of the Sun and other ordinary stars was arbitrarily changed without discussion or debate from

        _ a.) Iron (Fe) in 1945 to

        _ b.) Hydrogen (H) in 1946

        These papers are cited in the following paper:

  4. omanuel 2014/10/20 16:07 at 16:07

    64. Oliver K. Manuel, “Solar energy,” Advances in Astronomy (submitted 1 Sept 2014) https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/20 17:42 at 17:42

      Doctor Manuel,

      The Aston paragraph you mention is the following. (Not sure what the problem was with quoting it here, but I’ll do it.) This was uttered on 12 December, 1922.

      ““Should the research worker of the future discover some means of releasing this energy in a form which could be employed, the human race will have at its command powers beyond the dreams of scientific fiction; but the remote possibility must always be considered that the energy once liberated will be completely uncontrollable and by its intense violence detonate all neighbouring substances. In this event the whole of the hydrogen on the earth might be transformed at once and the success of the experiment published at large to the universe as a new star.”

      Kuroda’s impression of this, which he apparently arrived at in 1936, was:

      “Obviously, he was anticipating the potential use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, but he was also fearful of its use as a nuclear weapon which might lead to the destruction of the world.”

      As can readily be seen from the above, neither Aston nor Kuroda, in any way, shape or form, explains therein the “secret” that you claim they understood. There are hints of a different physics at work than what is publicly admitted today. But no detail.

      Please describe the secret if you can, because I really don’t have the time to re-do all the work that you have already done. If there is no engineering secret, then your entire theory of Stalin taking over all of science in order to keep the secret a secret, kind of falls apart. So this is not a minor issue. This is the reason why almost no one wants to listen to you. If you know the secret, or know more about it than you have yet revealed, then you need to come out with it, and I assure you that if you do so here, it will get a fair hearing from me.

      I’ve been reading your words for 4 1/2 years, and I’d very much like to see something that I can understand. Are there conspiracies in physics? Yes! I’ve written some about them. But your theory is hard to follow, because so far you have not actually explained it in detail in a way that the public can follow. You very frequently will cite other people’s works which you state or suggest contain the secret of what exact technology is being hidden from the public. But when I click through to them, they invariably do not explain what you suggested they would.

      Sincerely,
      Richard T. Fowler

      • omanuel 2014/10/20 18:47 at 18:47

        This “secret” is recorded in rest mass data of the 3,000 different types of atoms and in Aston’s concept of “nuclear packing fraction”:

        Repulsion between neutrons is a obviously a powerful short-range nuclear force.

        Carl von Weizsacker’s flawed concept of “nuclear binding energy” obscures this by making neutron-rich nuclei appear more stable and proton-rich nuclei appear less stable than they are.

        • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/20 18:59 at 18:59

          Well, thank you! I think that is a good starting point for me. Have to run now, but will read more later with you hint in mind.

          RTF

        • omanuel 2014/10/20 19:05 at 19:05

          We published this “secret” in several papers in 2001 and several times more in later publications.

          Thus, the “secret” is no secret to those willing to

          1. Plot the atomic rest mass data themselves or

          2. Study the plot of rest mass data that is in the “Cradle of the Nuclides” or in several figures of papers published in 2001-2014.

        • omanuel 2014/10/20 19:12 at 19:12

          Here is an early plot of rest mass data for all atoms known in 2000:

          http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htm

          • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/21 02:54 at 02:54

            So, please correct me if I am mistaken. Are you saying that there are two kinds of artificial nuclear fission …

            – One type which makes use of a false theory of “nuclear binding energy”, and actually produces fission by neutron repulsion, but not with maximized efficiency; and

            – Another type which makes explicit use of the more valid theory of neutron repulsion, and thereby produces more energy per kg of fuel than the first approach?

            RTF

  5. omanuel 2014/10/21 23:28 at 23:28

    No, the problem is not two different types of fission.

    The problem today, as it was on 13 June 1936, is that many nuclear physicists do not understand Aston’s concept of “nuclear packing fraction.”

    They incorrectly believe Carl von Weizsacker “nuclear binding energy” indicates nuclear stability.

    • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/22 07:20 at 07:20

      Now you sound like you are arguing against the use of nuclear reactors.

      • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/22 08:17 at 08:17

        .
        Which wouldn’t make sense either, because that would imply that you believe Stalin took over science in order to prevent people from knowing how dangerous nuclear reactors are, so they would use them despite the fact that the suppressed research ‘indicates’ that it is not safe to do so.

        That ‘theory’ might be marginally plausible, if in fact Stalin had not supported the use of nuclear reactors within his own country. Unfortunately for your ‘theory’, he did.

        RTF

        • Richard T. Fowler 2014/10/23 07:10 at 07:10

          I must say, I don’t understand your lack of reply. For years you’ve been advocating nuclear power and saying that the conspiracy was to prevent people from knowing how useful nuclear power is, so they would oppose it. You also repeated this theme when I called you up last year. If in fact I’m still misunderstanding you, I’d think you’d want to clear up the confusion.

          Are you for or against the current generation of fission reactors, and why?

          RTF

  6. omanuel 2014/10/23 07:25 at 07:25

    “I must say, I don’t understand your lack of reply. For years you’ve been advocating nuclear power . . . “

    You are right. I advocate the use of nuclear energy as our primary source of energy. Nothing personal, but I am regretfully, unable to communicate my conclusions to you.

    The fault is mine.

Post a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: