The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Challenge to Climate Science

Añadido: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Okay, the emperor has no clothes. You know the story. Swindlers convince an entire kingdom to applaud robes that don't exist until one child blurts out the obvious truth. But our situation is darker because in ours, the swindlers have captured the schools. For decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, has paraded various metrics before the world has settled silence.

[00:00:30]But all of them are physical fiction.

[00:00:32]They aren't real or in Yiddish they're bupcis, which ironically is a real world word for nothing.

[00:00:40]But many of us in this room have been disputing interpretations while accepting these lies. Is 1.1° dangerous?

[00:00:48]Is the energy imbalance large enough to justify net zero? These questions concede that the quantities are real, but they aren't. They literally have no connection to reality. My talk today is based upon four papers. First, my 2025 peer-reviewed paper on global temperature. Second, on our 2026 peer-reviewed paper on Argo based ocean heat content, OC with co-authors David Legates, Ken Green, Ole Humlham, Franklin Sunn, and Willie Soon. Third, our 2026 paper with co-author Willie Sunoon on CO2 dynamics currently under review. And fourth, a hot offthe pressrint introducing and proving my new physical tether theorem. I want to acknowledge my co-authors and in particular my mentor and dear friend Willie Soon who many of you know whose decades of courageous work made much of this possible. And I want to honor the truly seinal contributions of Christopher Essex whose work laid the foundation for all my papers here as well as Dimitris Koyanis whose isotopic analysis and reservoir reservoir routing papers are truly new foundations of climate science. For 38 years, the IPCC has paraded a framework that appears real, draped in equations, satellite data, supercomputer models, academy awards, and even Nobel prizes. But it's a snake eating its own tail. Each of the five lies appears to validate the next, but the circle is actually empty. Global mean surface temperature, GMST. It's the number that has risen 1.1 degrees since 1850. And the number whose further rise to 1.5 or two degrees is catastrophic.

[00:02:36]But GMST was proven meaningless in a 2007 paper by Essex Mckitrich and Andresen unrefuted in 19 years of peer-reviewed literature. Last week, I released a strict mathematical formalism of classical science itself, which in one fell swoop proves mathematically and more broadly that GMST does not exist.

[00:02:57]It cannot exist. It's completely fictitious.

[00:03:01]A little history first. The International Organization for Standardization, which defines complex te technical standards across every field of science and engineering, was tasked in 2002 with defining global temperature. But they never did. Now ISO has defined everything from the size of a sheet of paper to how to brew a cup of tea. But they failed to define global temp temperature of any kind. The omission was not an accident. It was the recognition that no valid definition can exist. This is where the circle of five lies begins. ISO guide 84 guidelines for addressing climate change in standards.

[00:03:44]44 terms and not one of them is global temperature or global average temperature whose variants appear frequently in the guide but they're defined nowhere. Just to be sure, by the way, I asked AI Claude to read the whole guide. Answer: There is no definition.

[00:04:04]Okay. In 2007, as I mentioned, Essex, Mkhitrich, and Andresen, they went further.

[00:04:10]They proved there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the earth in the context of the issue of global warming unquote unrefuted for 19 years. Why? Temperature is an intensive property. It belongs only to a system in equilibrium. You cannot average separate systems like spots on the earth with 120° C temperature differences or 800x density and 4x heat capacity difference as there is for example between seawater and air with all difference to John Clauser. Unlike quantum mechanics there is no thermodynamics at a distance.

[00:04:48]Averaging across such systems is totally meaningless. It would be like averaging all the phone numbers in Washington DC and hoping you get President Trump's direct line. It's not an approximation.

[00:05:01]It's a category error. The result has no meaning.

[00:05:05]My new physical tether theorem proves mathematically that GMST as used by the IPCC, NASA, and others is physically meaningless. To be sure, I asked all four leading AI systems two questions about it. What does this paper prove?

[00:05:22]What does this mean for mankind?

[00:05:25]The unanimous conclusion, GMST is physically meaningless and the policy edifice built on it has no scientific basis.

[00:05:36]The emperor has no clothes and even his his own court's AI systems see it.

[00:05:41]Here's some of the details of those conversations I won't bore you with, but if you want them, catch up with me later. So now on to CMIP, the climate models.

[00:05:52]My 2025 paper notes that every CMIP model is tuned to reproduce meaningless GMST.

[00:06:01]These are coupled global circulation CMIP models and they're tuned, calibrated, and validated against historical GMST trends. They include hundreds of adjustable tuning parameters and operate under unsolved Navier Stokes equations. Those parameters are adjusted until the models reproduce the trajectory of meaningless GMST.

[00:06:26]They call that validation and use those models to drive trillions, even hundreds of trillions in global energy policy. If you look out to 2050, all the outputs from CMIP models are therefore equally meaningless. All variables, not just temperature.

[00:06:47]Okay. The burn impulse response function IRF models govern IPCC estimates of how long CO2 will stay in the atmosphere.

[00:06:56]The three burn versions are AR2, AR3, and four with an absurd 15% permanent fraction. AR5 and six with a ridiculous 22% permanent fraction. These oops these ARF IRFs are simplified multi-exponential models fit not to any measurements but to the output of more complex models. So they're not normal models. They are models of models or models of model ensembles, each of which was tuned to, wait for it, you guessed it, physically meaningless GMST.

[00:07:35]Using these IPCC guarantees us CO2 will persist for hundreds, thousands, and even tens of thousands of years. But look at the dark blue, green, and orange curves there. These burn curves don't even match each other. Not even close.

[00:07:53]If the burn models were represented of reality, then successive refinements would produce convergence, not chaos.

[00:08:00]More damning still, the scientists who created the burn models warned us, quote, "The coefficients and time scales should not be interpreted literally as distinct physical processes or time scales." So, what did the IPC do? IPCC do exactly the opposite. AR5 box 6.1 even claimed to use data from Juice at all 2013 a paper that has no data.

[00:08:28]Juice ran three complex models for about a hundred years and a handful handful of much simpler models out to a thousand years. None of these models has ever been validated or even shown to be remotely realistic over multi multi-entury time scales. Yet, the IPCC declared with high confidence that 15 to 40% of all the CO2 we emit between now and 2100 will remain in the atmosphere longer than a thousand years. Okay. Now, my personal favorite from the circle of five lies, ocean heat content or OC.

[00:09:02]The official Argo map looks impressive, but it's cropped to hide the poles and it doesn't differentiate deep or upper floats. Here's the real picture from Noah showing every float that surfaced in the 12 days prior to March 25 a couple weeks ago. Look at the poles.

[00:09:18]Virtually nothing beyond 60°.

[00:09:23]And the entire deep Argo fleet has 230 floats deployed to sample temperatures in the half of the ocean volume where literally half of its thermal energy resides below 2,000 meters. Here's how each of the 4200 non-de floats work.

[00:09:40]They descend to 1,000 meters. They drift for 9 days doing nothing. Drop to 2,000 meters, ascend slowly to the surface over 6 to 10 hours collecting about a thousand temperature measurements. Spend about 15 minutes at the surface to get a GPS time and location fix. And then transmit the measurements to a satellite. Rinse and repeat for a few years until the battery dies. Now to be fair, that's all VAT valid data gathering, but that's also where reality ends. First, there is no subsurf surface positioning. Every measurement from the ascent is assigned to the one surface GPS time and location fix. Second, 12,000 profiles per month are extrapolated onto 45,000 grid grid cells using correlation scales up to 2800 kilometers.

[00:10:30]Every single gritted value is calculated, not measured. And extrapolation does not increase information content. It it decreases it.

[00:10:41]Third, the same invalid process constructs a reference climatology over an arbitrary 15-year baseline, adding another layer of invalid averaging. Then the anomalies are computed. This is what we like to call the ghost minus ghost trick.

[00:10:58]Fourth, a discrete sum over these calculated values, not an integral, multiplied by incorrectly assumed constant density and heat capacity.

[00:11:08]Fifth, EI is then declared to be 7 plus or minus.2 watts per square meter despite 60% of the ocean being totally unsampled and a true uncertainty easily exceeding plus or minus one watt per square meter. The actual result EI is no different from zero as measured by the IPCC.

[00:11:29]Even without the thermodynamic nullification, the following uncertainties annihilate annihilate any claimed OC signal. Mezoscale variability is the biggest. Then you have deep ocean ignorance, sea level closure, the Oilerian Lrangeian framework bias, I love that one, arbitrary baseline bias, and two other smaller ones. Compounded at 95% confidence, the total easily exceeds plus orus one watt per meter squared, the claimed signal of 7 is smaller than the noise.

[00:12:02]So now a little historical digression.

[00:12:05]When Argo was designed in 1998, its objectives were ocean observation and weather forecasting with no mention of global OC or EI. That idea was added a decade later during climate gate when Kevin Trenbirth emailed hockey stick Michael Man and his entire climate science hockey team saying, quote, "We can't account for the lack of warming, and it's a it's a travesty that we can't. The series data shows there should be even more warming, but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

[00:12:40]From that moment, Argo was repurposed into a global energy accounting tool, and the NASA series satellite measurements were forced to match it.

[00:12:50]Our OC paper published one month ago, is ironically in total agreement with Trent's 2009 assessment. So, we were very excited to see his nearly immediate response to our paper a few days ago.

[00:13:04]He says, "It's absolute nonsense. I don't want to waste my time on it."

[00:13:08]Clearly, we're over the target. Okay, back to Earth's energy imbalance. So, here's what the IPCC did at AR6. The numbers in PNS show their 90% confidence ranges. Using what NASA series has called a one-time global adjustment, they fudged their numbers to match the Argo derived OC estimate. Look, incoming solar is 340, but the range given is 340 to 341.

[00:13:37]Reflected solar is 100 while the range is 97 to 100. H an outgoing long wave is 239 with the range 237 to 242. So the forced result is 340 - 100us 239 = 1.

[00:13:58]Wait a minute. But if you actually use the real numbers, you get something very different.

[00:14:06]Um, EI could actually be anything from -2 to + 7. And that's definitely not one. All right. And remember, NASA series is a direct measurement while OC is an invalid calculation. So in true Orwellian fashion, they're constraining the real measurements with an unreal calculation. So on the right here, you see the unadjusted NASA series satellite measurements. That's 4.3 plus orus 8 at 95% confidence. That can't resolve the EEI signal. Period. On the left you have argodore derived OC claims 7 plus or minus.2 but actual uncertainties are easily plus or minus one or more. The one-time global adjustment forces series to match argo. The resulting agreement is then cited as independent confirmation.

[00:14:58]That's circular reasoning not validation.

[00:15:03]Now let's close the loop with CO2.

[00:15:06]In every paleo record, Antarctic ice cores, Greenland, the entire 500 millionyear phenorizoic record, temperature changes precede CO2 changes always without exception. Even El Nino warming precedes CO2 spikes by 6 months.

[00:15:21]And we know the physics. Warmer water outgasses more CO2. IPCC's assumption that CO2 causes temperature increases, on the other hand, has never been observed in any paleo record on any time scale. Now, here's one of the most pivotal findings of modern climate science. Listen closely because this one is going to be on the test. Here's what's called a keeling plot of four stations spanning 40 plus years by Koanis 2024.

[00:15:51]The legend shows the y intercept for each station, which is the net isotopic signature of what was added to the atmosphere over the 40 plus years. It averages -3.2 parts per thousand or per mill. And nobody has ever before applied this standard hydraology analysis to climate science until Kayanis did.

[00:16:12]Critically, this -3.2 intercept hasn't budged while CO2 emissions tripled.

[00:16:20]Using proxy data, Kianis also extended it back 500 years to the little ice age and the 13.2 doesn't change. Why does this matter? Fossil fuels have a net signature of -28 per mill. If human emissions were adding to the atmosphere, as the IPCC assumes, the input signature would have to be noticeably declining from -3.2 toward -28. But it hasn't budged for 500 years.

[00:16:50]Natural CO2 fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are 20 times that of human emissions, by the way. And the man-made isotopic signal is totally undetectable.

[00:16:59]Therefore, the rising CO2 in the atmosphere is, listen closely now, not from human emissions. Period. The input signature does, however, match temperature-driven ocean and soil outgassing. This is direct and total falsification of the IPCC's assumption that man-made CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere.

[00:17:22]This table extends Tom Seagull's compilation of 25 studies spanning decades, all showing short CO2 residence times of 5 to 10 years and all ignored by the IPCC. Every paper claiming 1,000 plus year adjustment times traces back to one 1987 carbon model paper. That entire lineage rests on that one IRF model which we demolished in our CO2 paper. By contrast, all the modern four-year papers and even the older 5 to 15year studies arrive at essentially the same answer using completely different methods. That's the hallmark of real scientific validity. Long adjustment times have never been supported by any empirical science. Back to our CO2 residence slide for a moment. The light blue curve is Kuianis' refined reservoir routing model fitted directly to raw Mount Aaloa and Barrow Alaska data with 99.7% explained variance and e-folding time of four years. Nuclear weapons testing between 1955 and 63 injected radioactive carbon 14 into the atmosphere, creating the ideal natural experiment. The purple curve is the single exponential perfect fit to the raw bomb raw bomb carbon 14 data. The decay from 65 follows a pure single exponential with e- folding time of 17.2 years.

[00:18:52]Now look at the burn curves. They're not even close. By year 2020, the red line, the actual bomb carbon 14 is around 3 or 4% of its 1965 peak, where AR34 and AR56 burn models predict 55 and 42, respectively. That's not just slightly wrong. It's categorically, visually, mathematically at odds with reality.

[00:19:14]Total falsification.

[00:19:17]Now, let's circle back on the truth about the circle of five. Number one, GMST is physically meaningless. Two, CM CMIP models are tuned to GMST, inheriting total invalidity. Three, OC is calculated through the same invalid temperature averaging process as GMST and also dominated by extrapolation. EI uncertainty number four is an order of magnitude larger than IPCC claims and relies on circular OC adjustment.

[00:19:47]purported EI is then used as quote proof of human CO2 forcing. Five rising CO2 is erroneously attributed to humans and claimed to drive GMST. Closing the circle, the burn models falsified by bomb carbon 14 data and contradicted by isotopic evidence are used to assert long-term CO2 persistence.

[00:20:10]The IPCC calls all of this multiple lines of evidence. Math reminds us that 5 * 0 equals 0. And this table catalogs the damage. Every single IPC climate metric, GMST, OC, EI, ECS, TCR, TCRE, the carbon budgets, and 10 others are physically meaningless. No exceptions period. Not because the measurements are imprecise, but because the calculation methodologies themselves destroy any connection to physical reality through circular reasoning, invalid temperature averaging, or the falsified burn model.

[00:20:51]Column 3 lays out the specific failures for each four shows how deeply AR6 depends on them. These aren't independent metrics. They're the same zeros repackaged over and over again.

[00:21:04]So, it's a house of cards. the IPCC House of Cards. We've just removed the foundation and everything collapses.

[00:21:13]The Swindlers were patient. They took over the schools. They controlled the journals. They built an empire that lasted 38 years. But they made one mistake.

[00:21:23]They built it on a foundation checkable by anyone with a firstear thermo textbook. Math requires no authority, no consensus, and no grant money. only the humility and courage to follow where the equations lead. Too many of us have been arguing if the emperor's robes are right for the weather, but the emperor has no clothes. He never did. And it's time for all of us to say so. Thank you.