Japanese Scientist Exposes Four Huge Climate Science Foul Ups

Written by John O’Sullivan

Japanese scientist and modeling expert Kyoji Kimoto identifies the four key errors (“fudge factors”) made by influential government climate scientists that led the world to believe humans could dangerously alter climate.

Identifying the scientists responsible, Kimoto found that each relied on fakery to separately manufacture and then promote the scientific building blocks needed to construct the man-made global warming monster.

Kimoto praises U.S. President Donald Trump for being right about the “hoax” and for his international leadership in exposing the scam. The Japanese researcher insists America’s controversial president deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. Kyoji Kimoto, respected internationally for his climate science analysis, is adamant that:

“The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on fake science developed by the four key scientists, as shown below. These men betrayed the scientific method for fame and funding, causing huge economic losses to the world.”

The Japanese expert says the architects for creating and promoting the climate scam, are as follows:

Dr. Syukuro Manabe (Born in 1931, Princeton Univ.), pioneer of the AGW theory;

Dr. Robert Cess (Born in 1932, Stony Brook Univ.), a mechanics researcher;

Dr. James Hansen (Born in 1941, NASA &Columbia Univ.), NASA physicist;

Dr. Michel Schlesinger (Born in 1943, Univ. of Illinois), rocket engineer.

Explaining his reasons for pinpointing these four, Kimoto offers readers the following insights:

In his farewell lecture of October 26, 2001, in Tokyo, Dr. Manabe admitted scientific truth was the casualty as billions of research dollars were diverted into alarmist climate science. Manabe confesses:

“Research funds have been $3 million per year and $120 million for the past 40 years. It is not clever to pursue the scientific truth. A better way is choosing the relevant topics to society for the funds covering the staff and computer cost of the project.”

Source: Dr. Syukuro Manabe’s Farewell Lecture and Interview held on October 26, 2001. Resume of “Climate Research: Breaking through difficulties” (in Japanese)

In line with hundreds of other skeptic scientists at Principia Scientific International, Kimoto points out that AGW theory is based on a crude one-dimensional radiative-convective model (RCM). The UN’s ‘flat earth’ model gives the uniform global warming effect of 1.2-1.3C (Celsius) throughout the troposphere and at the earth’s surface where the so-called “greenhouse effect” (GHE) is said to increase with a CO2 increase from 300ppm (1xCO2) to 600ppm (2xCO2). This cornerstone of the scam became woven into consensus science thanks to the highly promoted papers by Manabe (1967) and Hansen (1981) (see Case B in Fig.1).

The uniform warming is said to come from Manabe’s (careless) idea on the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 (double the level of carbon dioxide) to concoct the fixed lapse rate (temperature decrease with height) of 6.5C/km for 1xCO2 and 2xCO2 from his aforementioned 1967 paper, as follows:

“The observed tropospheric lapse rate of temperature is approximately 6.5C/km. The explanation for this fact is rather complicated. It is essentially the result of a balance between (a) the stabilizing effect of upward heat transport in moist and dry convection on both small and large scales and (b), the destabilizing effect of the radiative transfer. Instead of exploring the problem of the tropospheric lapse rate in detail, we here accept this as an observed fact and regard it as a critical lapse rate for convection.”

The lapse rate of 6.5C/km is defined for 1xCO2 in the U.S. Standard Atmosphere (1962). But Manabe’s projections were always speculative, if not downright fanciful. There is no theoretical guarantee that the same lapse rate will be maintained in the perturbed atmosphere with 2xCO2 because it depends on radiation, convection, large scale dynamics, and moisture etc. Therefore, the lapse rate for 2xCO2 (LR) is a parameter for which sensitivity analysis is needed, as shown above.

In Fig.1, the surface GHE warming varies as much as 100% with an LR variation in only 6%, while the lapse rate generally varies from 4C/km to 10C/km in the atmosphere. Therefore, the supposed surface GHE warming of 1.2-1.3 C is theoretically meaningless though it is utilized in all general circulation models (GCMs) of the IPCC.

Above and beyond Manabe’s speculations, we see another ‘theoretical’ basis of the AGW theory with what many scientists recognize are the back of the envelope calculations made separately in the papers by Cess (1976) & Schlesinger (1986), giving the surface GHE warming of 1.2C. But these calculations, however, also have grave mathematical errors, as pointed out by Kimoto (2015). This shows that Schlesinger (1986) committed a fraud to disguise Cess’s errors.

In 2016, looking to resolve these ‘errors’, Kimoto entered into email correspondence with Cess who finally admitted his mathematical errors to Kimoto on August 23, 2016. This was matter was addressed by Kimoto in his subsequent publication, ‘Leading Climate Sensitivity Scientist “Admits Mathematical Errors in The AGW Theory’ which first appeared online at:


Thereafter, Cess publicly came clean to admit his mathematical errors were woven into accepted man-made climate theory at:


But the grave damage to climate research had persisted for the last 30 years and government scientists had relied on the Cess numbers to falsely determined humans were dangerously altering our planet’s climate. The error had led the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) to (mistakenly) claim the surface warming for 2xCO2 (climate sensitivity) is 3C and this was fed as GIGO (‘garbage in, garbage out’) into the 14 key government computer models as follows:

Climate sensitivity was (wrongly) determined to be 3C= Surface GHE warming 1.2C x Amplification factor 2.5

But now that the highly-influential Cess has fessed up about his errors all such claims for warming as per the ‘greenhouse gas effect’ have no reliable theoretical basis, as Kimoto has illustrated above. Actually, no less than 102 GCMs studies showed much larger troposphere temperature increase than were proven to physically exist from actual observations obtained from weather balloons and satellites; thus, further discrediting the model comparison projections (CMIP-5) for the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (2013), shown below.

Source: U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology, 2 Feb 2016
Testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville

From all the measurements of physical reality, any supposed GHE warming can only be negligibly small at earth’s surface (see Case A in Fig.1). The uncertainty that exists is due to the masking effect of water vapor with the mixing ratio of around 0.4% on the “greenhouse effect” increase when COis doubled. And no one claims taxing water vapor emissions is a sane policy consideration. Kimoto finds that any possible warming from the alleged “greenhouse effect” may be around 1C at the upper troposphere above 5km, where there is very scarce water vapor anyway.

Kimoto’s application of the data shows any such actual climate sensitivity would at best be around 0.15C at the surface because the amplification factor is said to be 1.0 in this case. In fact, Kimoto (2015) obtained a surface climate sensitivity of 0.14-0.17C which was coincident with the observed climate sensitivity of 0.11-0.24C in five papers.

Hansen (1984) claimed that three-dimensional climate models utilized the surface GHE warming of 1.2 to 1.3C from the radiative-convective model (RCM) studies by Manabe (1967) and Hansen (1981).

But Hansen later made the extraordinary admission that his own highly-influential radiative-convective model was fudged because its results strongly depended on the lapse rate. He made his confession in an interview with Spencer Weart on October 23, 2000, at NASA. An excerpt from the interview reads as follows:

Weart: This was a radiative convective model, so where’s the convective part come in. Again, are you using somebody else’s…

Hansen: That’s trivial.  You just put in…

Weart: … a lapse rate…

Hansen: Yes. So it’s a fudge. That’s why you have a 3D model to do it properly. In the 1D model, it’s just a fudge, and you can choose different lapse rates and you get somewhat different answers. So you try to pick something that has some physical justification. But the best justification is probably trying to put in the fundamental equations into a 3D model.

[Source: Interview with James Hansen by Spencer Weart on 2000 October 23, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD USA]

As Kimoto points out, we can look back to June 11, 1986, when James Hansen made the following famous, but an erroneous prediction, based on his botched NASA computer model:

“By the 2020s, according to NASA’s calculations, the average annual temperature across much of the United States will have risen by 9 degrees Fahrenheit or more.”

[Source: 1986 – The Year When Climate Fraud Reached A Tipping Point]

In 2016 at the UN Paris Climate Conference (COP21) Hansen persisted with his personal quest to manipulate science for his own political goals. At that time he repeated his fudged numbers to scare policymakers and wider society with yet more far-fetched predictions of superstorms and rapid sea level rises. But now NASA admits sea levels are falling! [Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ ]

Other reliable empirical evidence also doesn’t support the absurd hard sell of climate horror. From the U.S. National Hurricane Center readers can check for themselves the decline in hurricane landfall in the U.S. as follows:

Labor Day (1935, 892 hPa), Camille (1969, 909 hPa), Katrina (2005, 920 hPa), Andrew (1992, 922 hPa), Indianola(1886, 925 hPa), Florida Keys (1919, 927 hPa)                     

For instance, the strongest hurricane on any Labor Day was in 1935 when the U.S. annual heat wave index stands out in the EPA graph for 1895-2015 as shown by the following article. [Source: One of The Most Fraudulent NOAA/EPA Graphs]

Thus, any objective scientist would conclude that CO2 increase has had no relationship to the hurricane strength or is a meaningful force in temperature change. Climate change is better explained by examining temperature relationship to increasing solar activity. Further, the article in the link below shows a sea level rise of 2-3 mm/year at Boston and Florida. In it the graph shows no acceleration, contradicting the incessant claims made by doomsaying scientists.

[Source: Extreme Climate Fraud, And The Stakes For America]

As the objective evidence shows, President Trump made the scientifically correct decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement.

Kimoto concludes:

“In my view, and that of my science colleagues, Trump will go down in history as a great president for having the insight and courage to trigger the widespread political abandonment of the man-made global warming scam. President Trump’s moral and intellectual defense of science liberates us all and for that, he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.”

Ref.: http://principia-scientific.org/japanese-scientist-exposes-four-huge-climate-science-foul-ups/


Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: cherrymtimbol@newscats.org or timbolcherrymay@gmail.com
Support Cherry May directly at: https://www.patreon.com/cherrymtimbol


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!