Top Carbon Scientist Busts Average Global Temperature Meme

Award-winning scientist, who has spent the last three years devoted to studying real temperature readings globally, finds that government climate researchers created a fake metric that “has no physical meaning.” 

Dr Darko Butina won Britain’s prestigious Queen’s Award for science during a successful career with Glaxo Research. He writes:

“This report is designed to encourage readers to look for temperature patterns on our planet in the datasets that are based on calibrated thermometers and not theoretical models that have nothing to do with reality. It also sets the scene for two new papers of mine that will  have summaries for the general public once published.”

Dr Butina’s pain-staking work shows government researchers misrepresent the real measurements from thermometers stationed around the world which have enormously varied ranges. They are shown to have tortured and mangled this broad data to refine it into a synthetic, truly unphysical metric. They call this an average of  global temperatures which is a concocted 1.2 degrees rise over the last century.

But as Dr Butina shows in his graphs below, actual thermometer readings have a range of measured temperatures varying by a whopping 118 degrees between highs and lows. When we put the real readings alongside the synthetic ‘man-made’ variant we see exposed the misleading ‘average’ that governments rely on. He argues that with the real temperature range being well over 100 degrees, to try to claim a 1.2 degrees rise as ‘dangerous’ is an abuse of logic and scientific reasoning.

Below he presents a simplified overview for readers:

The Model:

Fig 1.
NOAA model of surface global temperatures 1880-2013. Each datapoint represents annual global temperature which is calculated from thousands of weather stations across the globe. The Global Temperature is a number that cannot be measured and has no physical meaning. However, a temperature recorded by a calibrated thermometer has physical meaning – it reflects a kinetic energy of the air molecules which are in contact with a thermometer.
The real Temperatures used to build The Model:
Fig 2.

Highest daily temperatures observed during daytime, Tmax, recorded at Willow City (ND, USA) between 1892 and 2016, consisting of 43,765 datapoints and ranging between -35C and 45C with total range of 80C. The mean for all the data is 10C (red line) and clearly shows total absence of any correlation between time (day of the year when Tmax was recorded) and the temperature, Tmax. If one uses the mean, 10C, to predict a future Tmax, the error could be as high as 35C above the mean or as high as 45C below the mean.

Fig 3.
Total ranges of daily temperatures (in C) observed at 35 weather stations across the Northern Hemisphere with over 2 million observations in total. Source of data is KNMI Climate Explorer ( which searches NOAA database. The little blob at the bottom left corner represents total range of annual global temperatures in The Model (Fig 1) that was built from the weather stations to the right of it plus thousands more across the globe. The largest total range of temperatures is observed at Hatanga (Russ) in Arctic Circle at 100C, while the lowest one was observed at Mokpo (Korea) at 43C.

Fig 4.
Maximum Tmax (red) observed at each of the 35 weather stations across the Northern Hemisphere which range between 53C in Death Valley (USA) and the minimum Tmax (blue) -65C at the Arctic. The little blob on far right represents the maximum and minimum annual global temperature in ‘The Model’.
The Model vs Real Temperatures:

Fig 5.
Original global temperature graph in Fig 1, displayed at the temperature ranges of the observations, Fig 4, i.e. the real world that ‘the model’ is supposed to represent.

Fig 6.
Building a model of instrumental data is a two-way process – model is built based on the data, but the original data should be recoverable from the model as a way of verifying the model and establishing its accuracy and predictive power.

The following are the facts:
⦁ The whole concept of Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming, CAGW, is based on a theoretical number called ‘Annual Global Temperature’ that has no physical meaning and cannot be measured;
⦁ The range of calculated annual temperatures for years between 1880 and 2013 vary between 13.5C and 14.7C, total range of 1.2C;
⦁ The actual measured (real) temperatures vary between -65C and 53C in the Northern Hemisphere, as represented by 35 weather stations, with total range of 118C;
⦁ Fig 2 (Willow City graph) is a typical graph for weather stations across the globe which the reader can independently validate by downloading tmax and/or tmin data via KNMI Climate Explorer for any weather station of choice. The KNMI software allows searching by either name, interactive map or longitude/latitude coordinates;
⦁ The concept that our planet can reach thermal equilibrium, i.e. the existence of global temperature, is a total scientific nonsense which only exists in so called climate sciences and totally alien term in physical sciences;
⦁ Finally, and most importantly, since the hockey stick graph could not be found in the real temperatures, why do we need to look for the causes of this catastrophic global warming which does not exist in the first place?
Please note, that the weather stations data in Fig 3 and 4 are extracted from my two new papers that should be published in next 2-3 months, and only then I will be able to make more details known to general public.

The findings of those two papers are that the Northern Hemisphere was dominated by the unusually cold temperatures since late 1700s, which is contrary to the theory of global warming.


The above paper shows that the hockey stick graph does not exists in the thermometer based daily tmax/tmin observations. The paper is using one of the oldest and best described/validated dataset that is freely available from the Armagh Observatory (UK) website.


Climate Scientist Sounds Alarm Over FALSE Data, Look What’s Happening To Him Now


When it was reported last week that officials at NOAA had been caught tinkering with their climate data to make it look as if the planet was warming much faster than anticipated, it sent shockwaves through the scientific community.

The explosive claim is from whistleblower Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina. He said that NOAA’s 2015 student was “meant to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy.”

John J Bates PhD

Dr. John Bates

In the blog Climate Etc., Bates wrote a specific and carefully sourced 4,100-word exposé that accuses Tom Karl, his ex-colleague at NOAA, of influencing the results and release of a crucial paper that purports to refute the pause in global warming.

Karl’s study was published in Science in June 2015, just a few months before world leaders would meet in Paris to agree on a costly climate change pact; the international media and climate activists cheered Karl’s report as the final word disproving the global-warming pause, The National Review reports.

Rush Holt, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, insists that the dispute is merely an “internal dispute between two factions.” But since then, Bates has been subject to a smear campaign that is unheard of in the scientific community.

Holt told a House committee that all Bates was doing was “calling out a former colleague for not following agency standards,” which simply isn’t true.

And since then, the science media has gone into overdrive trying to twist Bates’ words and destroy his reputation. From The National Review:

Science ran its own article on February 8, with the headline “How a culture clash at NOAA led to a flap over a high-profile warming pause study.” The magazine suggests that Bates’s actions are due to a personal grudge. In a post on his website RealClimate, climatologist Gavin Schmidt downplayed the scandal as a “NOAA-thing burger” and accused Bates of adding “obviously wrong claims to his litany” and of “let[ting] his imagination run beyond what he could actually show.” And in a completely misleading article, a climate blogger for The Guardian claimed that Bates feared that climate “deniers” would misuse his information (although Bates did not say that). The Guardian blogger also lamented that “consumers of biased right-wing news outlets that employ faux science journalists were grossly misinformed by alternative facts and fake news.”





.. as if CO² just don’t work anymore, how annoying!

Featured image: 

Flashback 1974: CIA Warned GLOBAL COOLING Would Cause Terrorism (not secure link)


Thank you for your continued support!

All support is appreciated!


President Trump Won!!

“Liberals” – Why are you so fucking stupid??


Your ad here?