Meteorologist Tim Kelley: ‘Consensus’ has little place in science


Meteorologist Tim Kelley of WLNE TV in Providence, Rhode Island, analyzes Sandy and global warming. Kelley’s bio available here.

Tim Kelly: Here is a note I sent to many who asked me about climate change and Sandy.

Since my 1974 6th grade science class with Mr.Melnick at Wixon Middle School in Dennis Massachusetts, I have studied weather, climate and climate change.

I am fascinated by the Geology and Climate of Cape Cod and New England.

The name of my public speaking presentation is ‘Why Cape Cod has the most interesting weather on Earth”.

It’s an obsession for me.

It was a great honor when I was invited to the White House by Al Gore in 1997.

I listened from the front row as he stated his case on Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Ever since that time, not a day goes by without me contemplating his warnings.

After years of exhaustive analysis on the subject, there is only one conclusion.

The alarm and fear of anthropogenic global warming is a major distraction and a waste of resources that could otherwise go to helping humanity.

We should be adapting to climate change, not trying to change climate.

Sandy is not an unprecedented storm. The 1938 hurricane was worse, and was followed by major hurricanes in 1944 & 1954. Three major hurricanes in 16 years.

We are fortunate to have gone nearly 60 years without a comparable storm here in the northeast.

History is full of stories of storms much worse than Sandy.

1898, 1888, 1831 , 1821 , 1717 , 1635

Thomas Jefferson (yes, that Thomas Jefferson) was also concerned about climate change

In fact, climate change may reduce intensity of tropical cyclones

“The impact of climate change is seen in slightly decreased intensities in landfalling cyclones”

A glance at the history of Global Temperature reveals that for most of the planet’s existence the temperature has been much warmer than today. Using the logic of natural variations, we should enter a much warmer phase, humans or no humans.

Our atmosphere is composed of many compounds, among them 390 parts per million of CO2, a tiny fraction of our atmosphere.

Of that tiny fraction, an even smaller amount may be attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

Study after study shows that our planet thrives in times of more CO2, it is vital to life on earth. If anything we should hope for more CO2.

Heat on Earth comes from our Sun, and is stored in our oceans.

Small fluctuations in solar and oceanic cycles dwarf any impact on climate when compared to influence of anthropogenic CO2.

“Increasing evidence from around the world shows that the main driver of terrestrial climate is the Sun. It is responsible for climate variability that ranges from millennial, centennial, multi-decadal, and seasonal timescales.”

From a scientific perspective, it’s almost unfathomable that we have been duped into believing the scare generated by Climate Change Alarmists.

There is no consensus regarding this issue.

In fact that word, ‘consensus’ has little place in science.

We look at data.

The data shows no correlation at all between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change.

Here is a list of 30,000 or so scientists that agree with my position.

Most Sincerely,

Tim Kelley

Scituate MA

B.S. Meteorology, Lyndon State College 1987

Life time student of Atmospheric Science

Rio+20 will Discuss Planetary Boundaries to Humanity


The globalist Rio+20 conference is just around the corner, and the topics to be discussed during such meeting will be of out most importance to all of us, not because its attendees wish to really solve issues that threaten humanity as a whole, but because the sponsors of the movement are planning to bring about world tyranny through environmental policy; much like the Nazis did even before Hitler rose to power. That is not to say that the world is not under the threat of environmental problems, but none of those problems will be talked about and solved in Rio de Janeiro next week.

The Rio+20 is the back to origins episode in a series of meetings organized by the United Nations and the corporations that support it (Shell, Coca Cola, Nestle, BASF, among others). As we have reported over and over, neither the corporations nor the UN have the best interests of humanity in mind. In fact, the greatest problems humans face today, included the environmental catastrophes stem from corporate greed and government inability to curb their appetite for natural resources and human depopulation policies.

In all previous occasions, the political meetings held as action fora to implement policies in favor of the environment have been rocked by scandal, fraud and last minute back room deals, which were uncovered and exposed to the public. That is why the fraudulent pseudoscience behind anthropogenic global warming failed, and its sponsors had to change their speech to ‘climate change’. But that fraud was also exposed as a recycled idea of the 70s and 80s, when Maurice Strong and other globalist servants warned about ‘global cooling’.

Later came the scandal known as ‘climategate’. Tons of e-mails and documents from the University of East Anglia were made public and with it scientists, researchers and journalists who were skeptic about the ‘climate change’ fraud stopped the globalist neofeudalists in their tracks. The ‘climategate’ scandal put an end to the theft that would have meant a generalized carbon emission scheme, which failed to be the next cash cow for globalists like Al Gore who were heavily invested in the commerce of carbon credits.

The ‘climategate’ e-mails revealed how a group of so-called scientists carried out data manipulation, colluded, suppressed evidence that debunked the anthropogenic warming theory and sought to clamp down of any sign of dissent by anyone in the scientific community. The sentiment that dissent had to be oppressed later translated into other scholars voicing their intention to crush climate skeptics who did not follow the fairytale known as man-made global warming. An investigation carried out by the University of East Anglia, the origin of the fraud, concluded that there had been no collusion, suppression of evidence or intention to attack dissenters.

In the last two meetings sponsored by the UN, the public learned more about the lies and disinformation the controllers used to achieve their goals of keeping most of humanity underdeveloped. The ‘danish text’ was uncovered and with it more details of how the UN wanted to chain down nation-states by mandating perpetual membership in its carbon emissions reduction and deindustrialization initiatives that would drive the world to a post-industrial era dominated by worldwide poverty in the name of saving the planet. This document would also hand more power to the corporate controlled rich nations.

As if the discovery of the ‘danish text’ wasn’t bad enough, the public later discovered the scandal surrounding one of the leaders of the ‘climate change’ doomsday scenario movement. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, one of the godfathers of the globalist environmental agenda, was denounced for supporting an alarmist, unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. Although Pachauri later retracted his strong support for the report, he thought it was a good idea to hire the man behind the IPCC report who had written about the false Himalayan glacier melting.

Despite all their failures to lure the populations into believing that a micro managed global system under the power of the UN and its sponsors is the solution to all problems, the globalists are back at it again. The Rio+20 meeting will serve to discuss a new caveat in their efforts to curve development for all the people of the world who have not enjoyed it. The new talking point coming right out of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity is the imposition of Safety Limits on Human Activity for the sake of reducing the impact that such activity causes on planet Earth. That all sounds fine and dandy on paper, but what is not fine at all is what it all means: an anti-human agenda.

Let’s see what two of the most revealing sections of the UN document say about humanity and their activities. Section 11 states that there are too many people in the world living at too high a material standard. That is in itself a lie, because most people in the world belong to the middle and lower classes. But the document offers two options to deal with the so-called exploding population. First, its says that most human beings should live as “peasants”, which would set the planet’s population to about 5 to 7 billion people. Second, it says that should the planet continue to enjoy the high standards of development, “a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.” This is the same kind of speech often proposed by UN supporters like Ted Turner and Bill Gates, who through their tax exempted foundations carry out United Nations depopulation programs in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Section 12 touches the core of a very delicate issue for millions of people: Religion. The document condemns Christianity and says that the “western worldview” denies the sacred attributes of nature which became firmly established with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions. The UN supports a view that says that humans should be seen as part of a different type of community which includes plants and animals. In other words, the UN wants human life to have the sam value as animals and plants. Under this premise, saving a human life, for example, is not more important than saving a tree or a bird. This policy also pursues an initiative born in the UN that intends to equal humans to plants and animals so that people’s inherent right to life, given to them by their creator becomes obsolete.

A recent article published on Scientific American magazine reports about a study that began in 2009 which sought to analyze the concept of planetary boundaries. That is the creation of limits to human activity for the sake of ‘saving the planet’. The need for such limits, proponents say, stems from the threat posed to humans by CO2 emissions, rising sea levels, human induced climatic changes and so on. All of these supposed threats have been widely debunked by skeptic scientists, but the imposition of such limits are deeply rooted in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity itself, therefore limiting development continues to be a center piece in the fight the UN leads against humanity. The study does not look at real environmental problems such as Chemtrails, Genetically Modified Organisms, the threat of Nuclear Power (Fukushima), War, Pesticide use and many other real problems.

Regarding the realistic nature of the imposition of planetary boundaries, the Breakthrough Institute evaluated the study and the idea of creating limits to what humans can do and the impact that such planetary boundaries would have on civilization. The conclusion is that such planetary boundaries are not a feasible solution to take on any kind of environmental problem. “The planetary boundaries framework is not a useful guide for policy or environmental management in any concrete sense, as it does not capture the challenges involved in most of the environmental problems it lists,” said geographer Linus Blomqvist. In fact, the Breakthrough Institute calls the imposition of planetary boundaries a deceptive way to deal with global environmental challenges. Read the analysis of the study on the Institute’s website.

According to Blomqvist, neither the establishment of planetary boundaries as proposed in the study, nor the transgression of those limits would have a significant impact on planetary survival. But Blomqvist warned about what humans must do in order to guarantee their existence in a sustainable planet. “The real limitations for sustainability are rather our ability to grow enough food, maintain a healthy climate and so on,” Blomqvist said. That is exactly what the policies in the works by the UN want to avoid. Under the auspices of the UN and its limits on human activity, more land would be left untouched for the animals and plants to enjoy and less land would be used for the sustainable production of food.

Despite the unreal nature that planetary boundaries presents and how it doesn’t address the real environmental problems posed above, the official establishment of such limits will be discussed during the United Nations Rio+20 Summit. Unofficially, many countries have already given the UN control over large areas of their territorial lands and waters by naming such areas National Parks, Biodiversity Areas or Protected Areas. Many of the most valuable resources humanity has are now under the control of the UN, which slowly and seamlessly tries to tighten the grip of control over those resources.

Grad Students Wrote IPCC Climate Reports

The New American
November 8, 2011

With public acceptance of the theory of manmade global warming steadily waning, a new book that exposes the shoddy “science” peddled by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is offering further proof that there is little reason to give credence to the “doomsday” threats issued by globalists and environmental extremists.

The IPCC has been troubled by a series of scandals in recent years, several of which center directly on its chairman — Rajendra Pachauri — who received (on behalf of the IPCC) the Nobel Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007. In the aftermath of the “Climategate” revelations, which raised fundamental questions about the “scientific” character of the entire theory of manmade global warming, a series of less memorable, but still highly significant, scandals erupted under Pachauri’s leadership at the IPCC.

A debacle that was quickly named “Glaciergate” involved one of the more bizarre examples of the IPCC allegedly playing “fast and loose” with the facts. As reported for The New American in January 2010, “Glaciergate” involved claims in the supposedly-definitive scientific assessment of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC regarding the Himalayan glaciers that were not substantiated by science. Pachauri ultimately had to concede that the claim the glaciers would simply melt away by 2035 was “a regrettable error” and that “the whole paragraph, I mean the entire section is wrong.”

Now a new book by Donna Laframboise — The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert  — offers a systematic survey of such “regrettable errors” that seem to be standard operating procedure at the IPCC. Among the more regrettable patterns of behavior at the IPCC uncovered by Laframboise is the use of graduate students to write climate reports. As Perry Chiaramonte noted in an article (“U.N. Hires Grad Students to Author Key Climate Report”) for, Laframboise’s book “claims that its [IPCC’s] reports have often been written by graduate students with little or no experience in their field of study and whose efforts normally might be barely enough to satisfy grad school requirements. Grad students often co-author scientific papers to help with the laborious task of writing. Such papers are rarely the cornerstone for trillions of dollars worth of government climate funding, however — nor do they win Nobel Peace prizes.”

Read Full Article…

Another Climategate? This time from BEST

BEST study confirms global temperature standstill, but the organization’s head climatologist, Professor Richard Muller, says measurements for the last decade were not included in the study’s results.

by Dr. David Whitehouse
The Observatory
November 1, 2011

Contrary to claims being made by the leader of the Best global temperature initiative their data confirms, and places on a firmer statistical basis, the global temperature standstill of the past ten years as seen by other groups.

Many people have now had some time to read the papers issued in preprint form from the Best project. My strong impression is that they are mostly poorly written, badly argued and at this stage unfit for submission to a major journal. Whilst I have made some comments about Best’s PR and data release strategy, I want to now look at some aspects of the data.

When asked by the BBC’s Today programme Professor Richard Muller, leader of the initiative, said that the global temperature standstill of the past decade was not present in their data.

“In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of it having slowed down. Now the evidence which shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data then the other groups have shown that when it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”

My first though would be that it would be remarkable if it was. The global temperature standstill of the past decade is obvious in HadCrut3 data which is a combination of land and sea surface data. Best is only land data from nearly 40,000 weather stations. Professor Muller says they “really get a good coverage of the globe.” The land is expected to have a fast response to the warming of the lower atmosphere caused by greenhouse gas forcing, unlike the oceans with their high thermal capacity and their decadal timescales for heating and cooling, though not forgetting the ENSO and la Nina.

Fig 1 shows the past ten years plotted from the monthly data from Best’s archives. Click on the image to enlarge.


It is a statistically perfect straight line of zero gradient. Indeed, most of the largest variations in it can be attributed to ENSO and la Nina effects. It is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement. Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly?

(Incidently you could extend the graph back a few years before 2001 and it doesn’t make much difference because the ‘super el nino’ of 1998 and the two subsequent cooler years of 1999 and 2000 do not show up as dramatically in the Best land data as they do in HadCrut3. I would also point out that there is now an abundance of peer-reviewed literature that deals with the question of the lack of temperature increase in the past decade, so our graph’s starting point and duration is justifiable. Arguments that the time period we chose was cherry-picked to show a flat line, and that slightly longer periods would not, are incorrect. There are, of course, still those who distort the argument by saying that ten years is too short for climatic conclusions, as if ten years of data is meaningless. Also Professor Muller was asked a specific question about the last ten years, and our graph is a response to his specific answer.)

Indeed Best seems to have worked hard to obscure the past decade. They present data covering more almost 200 years is presented with a short x-axis and a stretched y-axis to accentuate the increase. The data is then smoothed using a ten year average which is ideally suited to removing the past five years of the past decade and mix the earlier standstill years with years when there was an increase. This is an ideal formula for suppressing the past decade’s data.

When examined more objectively Best data confirms the global temperature standstill of the past decade. That the standstill should be present in land only data is remarkable. There have been standstills in land temperature before, but the significance of the past decade is that it is in the era of mankind’s postulated influence on climate through greenhouse gas forcing. Predictions made many times in the past few years suggest that warming should be the strongest and fastest in the land data.

Only a few years ago many scientists and commentators would not acknowledge the global temperature standstill of the past decade. Now that it has become unarguable there has emerged more explanations for it than can possibly be the case.

To explain the combined sea-land temperature hiatus some have suggested that the oceans are sucking up the heat, as professor Muller outlines in his radio interview. This explanation is strained in my view if the land temperature stays constant. Could we really have the very special situation whereby the oceans sequester just enough heat at just the right time to keep the land temperature flat? Aerosols, postulated by some to be coming from China, don’t provide an explanation for the land temperature hiatus either. In fact, the constant land temperature puts a strain on all of the explanations offered for why the land-sea combination hasn’t warmed in the past decade or so.

We make a big deal of the temperature going up. In my view we should make a bigger scientific deal about temperature flatlining for a decade or more in the face of rising CO2 levels. If further scrutiny of the Best dataset confirms this finding we will have new questions about the nature and balance of oceanic and land warming.

The fact that Best confirms the global temperature hiatus and shows that it is apparent in land only data is significant, and in my view its major scientific finding, so far. It is puzzling that they missed it.

Gross Errors In The IPCC Report On Global Tropical Cyclone Activity

by William M. Gray
October 31, 2011

“Intense TC activity has increased since about 1970.”  (NOT TRUE)

…“Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a significant upward trend since the mid-1970s, with greater storm intensity. Such trends are strongly correlated with tropical SST.”  (NOT TRUE)

“These relationships have been reinforced by findings of a large increase in numbers and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 globally since 1970  (NOT TRUE)

…. The largest increase was in the North Pacific, Indian and southwest Pacific Oceans.”  (NOT TRUE)

The Four IPCC reports have emboldened our politicians to come forth with the following erroneous statements –
Al Gore states in his book and movie – An Inconvenient Truth – “major storms (hurricanes) spinning in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent.”  (NOT TRUE)

In November 2008 President-Elect Barack Obama said, “storms (i.e. hurricanes) are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season.”


The US government has expended billions of dollars in recent years to promote the questionable idea that human-induced increases in atmospheric CO2 will cause dangerous changes to the global climate system. Massive government and media campaigns have been launched to promote the dangers of CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and related influences such as the anticipated increases in global tropical cyclone (TC) frequency and intensity as well as other severe weather events. Pro-AGW advocates have pushed to have this warming gospel accepted across the world and taught to our children in their regular school programs. AGW advocates want to worry the public as much as possible in order to be better able to increase their influence and funding support.
There has yet to be an open and honest scientific debate on the future consequences of CO2 increases and of the potential social and negative economic consequences of efforts to slow down CO2 increases. A number of pro-AGW advocates have expended considerable efforts in recent years to develop theories and in arranging TC data in order to show that global TCs are increasing in frequency and intensity in response to rising CO2 levels. Global warming advocates have had a strong desire to find and to exploit increases in TC activity as further evidence of the human-induced warming scenarios.

The IPCC hierarchy had its mind made up years ago that they would make every attempt possible to link rising levels of CO2 with increases in global hurricane intensity and frequency. They knew that if such an association could be established in the public’s mind that this could be used to help scare and induce the public (and Congress) into funding the political, economic, and environmental agendas of a large number of special interest groups. Input from skeptics or any hypothesis or data that did not link rises in CO2 to increases in TC activity was to be avoided, suppressed, or rejected. The IPCC deliberately ignored the most experienced and knowledgeable TC experts in order to preserve their desired goal of propagandizing the public to believe that rising CO2 levels were creating a growing hurricane threat. Most of the IPCC statements on TCs, as will be shown, are not supported by observations.

After the very severe US hurricane landfalling seasons of 2004 and 2005, the public was more open and vulnerable to such arguments of CO2 induced increases in hurricane activity. A group of papers were rapidly published to exploit and to justify this assumption so that the authors might be able to jump onto the warming bandwagon and increase their potential for more federal grant support, publicity, and other envisioned gains.

These papers strived to arrange their observations and physical explanations in ways to show or imply a direct association between increasing levels of TC activity with increasing sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and rising levels of CO2. The majority of these authors who rapidly published papers between 2005-2008 had little background experience in TC research or forecasting, or in TC climatology. Nearly all of these papers were biased in the direction of implying more TC activity with rising levels of SST. Most of these papers should not have been able to get through the peer-review process. The journal editors of these papers appear to have sent them for review to known like-minded AGW sympathizers. Many of our country’s most experienced TC researchers and forecasters appear to have been left out of this review process.

Following these two disastrous US landfalling hurricane years of 2004-2005, the mainstream media (without a background knowledge of TCs and preconditioned to accept the AGW arguments) generally accepted the reality of these paper’s faulty results. This created a near panic among coastal residents over the implied coming increase of hurricane destruction that these papers indicated was on the way. Disaster stories made good press and fit in very well with the government and environmentalists’ AGW scenarios. The media, in general, chose not to discuss the views of established TC researchers and forecasters from the National Hurricane Center and many of my experienced TC colleagues who did not subscribe to such disaster scenarios.

I have been closely following the AGW debate for the last 25 years. It has been politically dominated from the start. All four IPCC reports have been slanted to support the AGW hypothesis. There has been much valuable data and analysis contained in these four reports that have been issued, but the report’s summaries have always been biased toward the organizers desired goal of saying to government policy makers that CO2 was causing increases in both global temperature, TC activity, severe weather events, etc.

I believe that rising levels of CO2 will manifest itself through a small enhancement of the global hydrologic cycle (by a few percent) but that we will see very little increase of global temperature when CO2 amounts double towards the end of the 21st century. The General Circulation Models (GCMs) on which predictions of 2-5oC (4-9oF) global warming for a doubling of CO2 are based have basic flaws and they should not be accepted. The four IPCC reports which have been issued over the last 16 years have done much harm in needlessly alarming the world over the dangers of rising levels of CO2 that are not realistic. The IPCC process has made it impossible to separate the overwhelming political nature of this effort from the desired unbiased scientific analysis.

This paper documents many of the false statements on tropical cyclones which were contained in the IPCC-AR4 and gives scientific arguments why rising levels of CO2 should have little or no significant influence on TC activity and only marginally so on global warming.


This section briefly discusses:
a. Last 20-year downward trend in global TC activity.
b. CO2’s extremely small relative energy influence.
c. Lack of SST vs. TC activity correlation.
d. Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC) influence on Atlantic SST variations.


Although global surface temperatures appear to have increased during the 20th century by about 0.65°C or 1°F, there is no reliable data to indicate that increases in TC frequency or intensity changes occurred in any of the globe’s TC basins. Global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE)1 shows significant year-to-year and decadal variability over the past 40 years (when global TC data is deemed reasonably reliable) but no period-long increasing trend. In fact, global TC activity has shown (red line) a distinct decrease over the last 20 years when CO2 amounts were increasing (Figure 2.1). Similarly, Klotzbach (2006) found no significant change in global TC activity during the period from 1986-2005 when tropical SSTs and CO2 amounts were rising (Figure 2.2). See section 13 for more discussion.


The energy change that will be brought about by rising levels of CO2 have been and will be for many decades far too small to cause a detectable influence on TCs. Figure 2.3 shows a vertical cross-section of the annual energy budget for the tropics (30oN-30oS; 0-360o). Note how large the surface, troposphere, and top of the atmosphere energy flux components are in comparison with the reduced infrared (IR) flux to space of 3.7 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2 that is expected to occur by the end of the 21st century. We are now about one-third of the way (~ 1.4 Wm-2) to a doubling of CO2 from the background state of the mid-19th century. Any potential CO2 influence on TCs will be too miniscule to be isolated, and we do not know if once an influence is ever able to be detected whether it will have a positive or a negative effect on TC intensity and/or frequency.


These two parameters are only slightly related in all global TC basins besides the Atlantic (Figure 2.4). Long-period SST increases should not be expected to bring about significant global lapse-rate buoyancy increases or enhanced deep cumulonimbus (Cb) convection. If global surface temperature and surface moisture changes on a climate time scale do occur, so too will upper-level temperature and moisture conditions change in a way so as to maintain global rainfall and energy budgets near their long-period average. With global warming or cooling of but a degree or so it is to be expected that average global lapse-rates and TC activity will not appreciably change.

Read Full Report…

Related Links:









Partner Links