Image description

     home     news      about jgf     driver training     media     articles     forum     shop     testimonials    alumni                                                                        contact

We refuse to be blamed, castigated, inconvenienced, and more importantly,

 taxed as a result of the natural cycles of our planetary climate.

So, Messrs Cameron and Osborne, along with all your ecomentalist cronies, to borrow a phrase from our fine Irish friends, "up your hole with a big jam roll".

Man Made Climate Change Is Bollocks

Image description

Save The V8

Greenhouse Theory and ‘Climate Change'


Climate Change, the 21st century bogeyman. Scare the children and raise the taxes, what a wonderful phenomenon for politicians to use as justification for their interference in our lives.

Allegedly, sophisticated ‘computer models’ are used to provide projections as to how anthropogenic greenhouse gasses (CO2 in particular) contribute to Global Warming , sorry, Climate Change by their part, the so called positive forcing, in a positive feedback loop which will reach a ‘tipping point’ whereafter we will see a runaway greenhouse effect.

                                                                                                                                                       A graphic displaying cooling of the lower troposphere


One slight fly in the ointment is that the observed data does not support the projected figures, particularly in respect of lower tropospheric temperatures which according to greenhouse theory should amplify the surface temperature increases, but actually insignificantly fell in the data published by NASA and others for some parts of the atmosphere. [1]


How could this be?” cry the worshippers at the altar of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC). How could our sacred Greenhouse Theory not be correct? Typically they blamed the data rather than the theory. Well, step forward Míklos Zágoni and Ferenc Miskolczi, Hungarian atmospheric physicists and environmental researchers. Miskolczi is the man who noted the missing factor in the 85 year old theory. This made the calculations assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere (false). When he modified the equation to include the effects of the boundary conditions the predicted numbers fitted the observed data.

The bad news for MMCC disciples such as the IPCC and western governments is that this introduces us to the negative feedback control which balances the positive forcing of greenhouse gasses. So we now have an equation which works in terms of energy balance unlike the traditional workings.

Unfortunately the runaway, uncontrollable global temperature increase predictions which allow the saviour of modern society, Al Gore, to flog us all carbon offsetting don’t appear if we use the new, improved (ie accurate) models. So what is the answer to our little conundrum?

Simple, Big Al has a word with his pals at NASA and they refuse to publish. Seriously.

If you want publishing, don’t be daft enough to write a paper contradicting the MMCC deity, not when there’s $5Bn research cash at stake! Fortunately Miskolczi managed to get his work published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in Hungary. [2]

The modified theory also works for observed climate data for the Martian atmosphere.

Miskolczi has subsequently resigned from his collaborations with NASA citing their refusal to publish his work.

Steven Schwartz has published research which supports Miskolczi’s conclusions and explains why current climate model predictions always overestimate temperature increases. [3]                                




[1]   Roy Spencer reports on UAH release v 6.0 Cooling trend since 1998 

[2]   The saturated greenhouse effecy theory of Ferenc Miskolczi (PDF) 

[3]   Heat capacity, time constant and sensitivity of Earth's climate system. Stephen E Schwartz (PDF)  


Image description

Consensus? You’re Having A Laugh!

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and western governments are forever telling that there is “a consensus amongst scientists” and that “the science is settled”, in favour of their opinion of course

This stance is utter, unadulterated bullshit designed to stifle the debate which would inevitably demonstrate the flaws, and indeed, the dishonesty in their arguments.

Bad science?…yes…Political spin?…yes…Downright lies?…yes…Consensus?…not a chance sunshine.

These are a few of the prominent scientists in the field who disagree with the hysterical, hyperbolic nonsense distributed by the majority of western governments and their political appointees in the quango otherwise known as the IPCC. I shan’t discuss the Manhattan Declaration since a significant number of the signatories are economists rather than climate scientists.

Dr Chris Landsea - Lead Author on Atlantic hurricanes for IPCC AR4 -resigns from IPCC [1] for announcing conclusions contradictory to the data, saying “ I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth‘s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4

Dr Richard Lindzen - Professor of Meteorology at MIT and IPCC Lead Author resigns saying “ My colleague and I repeatedly found ourselves at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of our speciality.” His position with regard to the IPCC can be summed up with this quote: “ Picking holes in the IPCC is crucial. The notion that if you’re ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don’t have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it’s like quackery in medicine - if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that’s stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with the jelly beans?”

Dr Paul Reiter - Professor of Entomology, Pasteur Institute resigns from IPCC [2] and only managed to have his name removed from the list of contributors after “strong insistence”. He has said “ Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries For Policymakers (SPMs) which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored” 

Dr Roger Pielke - formerly Prof of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University and Senior Research Scientist at Co-operative Institute for Research in Environmemtal Sciences (CIRES) -reisgns from IPCC [3] He says of the IPCC in an article in his Climate science blog [4] -“ There are errors, or at best selective information, in their findings. I am summarising four on this weblog” and summed up with “ These four examples illustrate the apparent selection of papers and data to promote a particular conclusion on climate change. The science community, and even more importantly, the policy community is ill-served by such cherry picking”

Dr Roger Daley - Principal constructor of the Canadian numerical weather forecasting system, and man acknowledged as foremost expert on computer modelling of weather reigns from IPCC [5] He was cynical about the many world governments who make a big show of reducing greenhouse emissions while, for economic reasons, they had no intention of ever doing so. He was also critical of the huge number of pseudo-scientists who suddenly became ‘experts’ on global warming after the release of the IPCC report. He also said, in his very well-educated opinion as the scientist who created global atmospheric modelling: “Our systems cannot predict weather much beyond four days, so attempting to predict global changes 100 years from now seems questionable at best”

Dr Vincent Gray - PhD Physical Chemisrty, Cambridge - Long standing expert reviewer for IPCC slams IPCC [6] stating bluntly “Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be it’s abolition.” he concluded; “The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the ‘predictions’ emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any ‘global warming’ for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phoney. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.” His feelings were succinctly summed up in a television interview when he said “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense. All the science of the IPCC is unsound”

Dr John Christy - Prof. of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama - IPCC Author rebutts IPCC 'consesnsus' [7] saying “I’ve often heard it said that there’s a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply think that is not true”. He also offers an interesting perspective on why scientists are reluctant to speak out (apart from risk to research funding) saying “The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the ‘informational cascade’) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the ‘ones who know’ (from the Latin sciere, to know) you dare not be thought of as ’one who does not know’; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as ’one who knows’.

Ferenc Miskolczi - atmospheric physicist at NASA Langley Research Centre for 30 years resigns from NASA [8] stating “unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results”

Dr Lubus Motl -theoretical physicist, Asst Prof at Harvard University and credited with significant contribution to string theory -  in his blog saying “These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations“ and “If they find an error in the summary, they won‘t fix it,” Motl said. “Instead, they will ‘adjust‘ the technical report so that it looks consistent”

These are just a few of the more prominent scientists who do not buy into the whole IPCC driven ‘scientific consensus’ codswallop


In 2015 an incomplete list was compiled of peer-reviewed papers published in that year which did not agree with 'the consensus'. It lists 250 papers. [9]

What the politicians don’t seem to grasp (or choose to ride roughshod over) as they chant their ‘consensus’ mantra, presumably on the principle that if you repeat a lie often enough then people will believe it, is that if consensus is king in science then nobody these days would have heard of Darwin, Gallileo, Copernicus or Einstein.



[1]  Chris Landsea leaves the IPCC 

[2]  Paul Reiter leaves IPCC 

[3]  Roger Pielke leaves IPCC 

[4]  Roger  Pielke accuses the IPCC of cherry-picking

[5]  Roger Daley leaves IPCC 

[6]  Vincent Gray slams IPCC 

[7]  John Christy rebutts IPCC 'consensus 

[8]  Ferenc Miskolczi resigns from NASA

[9]  More evidence against 'consensus' 

To further debunk the claim of consensus...

             Comments from people who contributed to the IPCC process.

Dr Robert Balling: "The IPCC notes that "No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.

Dr John Christy: "Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do not agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicized with each succeeding report."

Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth."

Dr Richard Courtney: "The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong."

Dr Judith Curry: "I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."

Dr Robert Davis: "Global temperatures have not been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would. Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."

Dr Willem de Lange: "In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I didn't. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."

Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

Dr John Everett: "It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change. I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is not a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."

Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."

Dr Lee Gerhard: "I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s. I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false."

Dr Indur Goklany: "Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk."

Dr Vincent Gray: "The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies."

Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."

Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful."

Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."

Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."

Dr Georg Kaser: "This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."

Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."

Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."

Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."

Dr Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."

Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."

Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."

Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."

Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."

Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a 'consensus of thousands of scientists' are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."

Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales, have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."

Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."

Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."

Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."

Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."

Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."

Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites -- probably because the data show a slight cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction of the calculations from climate models?"

Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."

Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."

Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."

Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."

Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."

Dr Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed."

                                                                                                                                                  List compiled by Mr GrimNasty of Pistonheads Forum

When Black Is White.



2015 was the hottest year ever on record...except it wasn't.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NASA have been banging on constantly that “2014 was the hottest year on record”, then “2015 was the hottest year on record”, and now “2016 looks like being the hottest year on record”.


There is a slight flaw in their arguments. The data collected by their own satellites shows a downward trend in lower atmospheric temperatures. Using their own data, 1997 recorded the highest average temperatures, not 2014 or 2015. [1]


How could this happen I hear you ask?


Well, the ground temperature data is corrupted, that's how.


Firstly, there has been a reduction in the number of recording stations worldwide. This had led to a proportionate increase in stations located in urban areas where a degree of heat pollution raises recorded temperatures.


Secondly, where there are no recording stations, the powers that be take it upon themselves to fill in the gaps with numbers they make up, sorry, extrapolated from data from adjacent stations.


Except they didn't...


As Paul Homewood explains [2] using Paraguayan numbers as an example, they extrapolated from data which came from three Paraguayan stations, but not before they had 'adjusted' the figures. Adjusted them so much that the cooling trend in the raw data became a warming trend!


This was not an 'accident' or a typo, All three stations' data sets received the same treatment.


Prof Friedrich Ewert discovered that NASAs Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) had, at some time between 2010 and 2012 taken it upon themselves to alter historical temperature records from as far back as 1881. [3]

The effect of these alterations was to smooth out the natural, cyclical rising and falling of global mean average temperatures and by lowering the older averages, give the appearance of a constant warming trend.


This is deliberate misrepresentation of the data.


To cap it all, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency, led a study that indicated that there was no global warming pause, contradicting previous evidence that suggested a global warming hiatus. The Study was lead by NOAA head, Thomas Karl and used temperature records from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (well they used the data and made some “adjustments” which made their case work).

In July, the US House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), asked NOAA for both data and internal communications related to the study. Despite the fact that Rep. Smith request was legitimate based on his congressional oversight responsibilities, the federal government’s chief climate research agency refused to give the house committee the detailed information they want citing the need for confidentiality to “promote frank discourse”. [4]


But not with the House Committee obviously...


So not only are the NOAA manipulating the data to suit their agenda, they are refusing to let anyone see the raw data to prevent us seeing just how much they have corrupted it.


Of course our climate-scare friends have previous for this. When ClimateGate busted Prof Phil Jones and his cronies, he refused FOIA requests for their raw data (unless you happened to agree with him, as related by Steven Mosher) [5] Well I'm sure all secondary school students will recall the exhortation 'we need to see your workings'. For some reason our 'climate scientists' seem to feel they should be exempt.


Whatever happened to taking measurements and then coming up with a theory to explain them? Altering those measurement so that they (nearly, or not even nearly) match your computer-modelled predictions seems a long, long way from scientific method to me.





[1] Hottest year on record. 

[2] They fiddled the figures! 

[3] Fiddling with historical datasets

[4] NOAA defy congress. 

[5] You can't see my data because you'll point out my mistakes.