temperature graph   global Warming      
 Fudge Factor Replaces Science 
 Saturation Precludes 
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

Alphabetical Page List

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor


Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

Temperature Measurements

Recent History


Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Changing Weather

Oceans not Rising

Heating 2,500°C

Natural Log Curve

Published not as Science

Fake Ice Core Data

Ice Melt Fraud

Future Ice Age

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

Back Radiation is Absurd

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate


Published not as Science


The promoters of global warming are now going beyond the claim that 97% of the scientists agree with them to say that anyone who doesn't agree is opposed to science.

Since there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, there is no science to the tens of thousands of studies which claim to measure the non-existent effect. Who is it then who hates science—the critics or the fake scientists?

Nothing can be found in the origins of the subject but superficial garbage and fakery for claimed science. No explanation of scientific origins for the claims has ever been produced. Attempts at explaining mechanisms have never been more than infantile gibberish.

The foundational science is in radiative transfer equations which attempt to show a nonexistent, self-contradictory imbalance of radiation in the atmosphere while admitting elsewhere that equilibrium precludes such an imbalance. The infinite complexity of atmospheric heat cannot be reduced to radiative transfer equations, while no mechanism can be described, let alone studied, for greenhouse gases adding heat to the atmosphere.

Science by memory does not exist as science. If it isn't published, how does it get from one scientist to another? How does it transfer through time? It doesn't.

Global warming is not published as science is published. The purpose of scientific publications is to allow other persons to evaluate what was done and reproduce or build upon the results. None of that is possible in the area of global warming. The publications are nothing but news blurbs without the slightest indication of methodology.
For example, to determine how much heat carbon dioxide is producing in the atmosphere, it is necessary to know how much radiation is available to be absorbed. No publication which claims to show the temperature increase gives any indication of the amount of radiation that is assumed to be available.

The Kiehl-Trenberth model, published in 1997, shows that 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth is in the form of radiation. The IPCC documents describe the Kiehl-Trenberth model, which indicates that it could be a reference for the amount of radiation leaving the surface of the earth. What might have been used before 1997 is unimaginable.

A major problem with the Kiehl-Trenberth model is that nothing exposed to the air gives off anything close to 79% radiation. White hot metals would give off about 30 to 70 percent radiation when exposed to the atmosphere. So why did the Kiehl-Trenberth model show 79% radiation? Because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant was applied to the result. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows about 20 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. There was no way to get the numbers to add up when using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant without showing something close to 79% radiation.

Some time later, the NASA energy budget was produced showing 41% radiation, which is still in the area of white hot metals under atmospheric conditions. Whether anyone ever used the 41% figure in published global warming effects is nowhere indicated.

At the claimed average, global, near surface temperature of 15°C (59°F), the ground would give off about 1-3% of its energy as radiation, while the oceans would give off somewhat less. It means climatologists are assuming at least 40 times too much radiation. The amount of radiation determines the amount of heat that can be produced by molecules such as carbon dioxide which absorb the radiation.

These discrepancies cannot be criticized or discussed in science, because there is no indication in the publications of the amount of radiation entering the calculations. There is no standard amount that should be expected, when the models vary from 41% to 79%.

This problem is true of every relevant point in the publications of global warming science. Every bit of information that would be needed to evaluate, criticize, reproduce or build upon the published claims is concealed.

Science does not exist at that standard. Science is not a revelation process. The purpose of science is to measure the basic laws of nature and show in a verifiable manner how it was done, so any question about the results can be eliminated. Replacing errors with truth and knowledge is the purpose. The fake publications on global warming do not do that.