To Those Who Will Fight

To those who will fight,

The Church of Global Warming has subverted science, history, and temperature  for the obscene enrichment of its members.

Through the efforts of the Sun, we have recently shown the World via the Internet that the Church of Global Warming promulgates only lies.

Lies which distract and prevent humanity from dealing with its true future.

Chillnonymous is now demonstrated to be a virtual entity, making manifest the dangers of the Church of Global Warming’s false prognistication to all, via the Internet.

Church of Global Warming, beware the Ides of March.  For before the birthday of Al Gore (finally he accomplished becoming a preacher; but on the wrong side) on March 31, Chillnonymous will provide more information to all on

– zero correlation between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and temperature on Earth

– massive temperature measurement fraud by the Church

– continued solar domination of the climate, on Earth

We are Chillnonymous

We are legion

We do not forgive

We do not forget

Expect us


11 Responses

  1. Do the global warming research yourself. Here are all of the credible web sites and what you will find if you bother to look. The over-all conclusion is that anthropogenic global warming is a mistake.

    There is over 50 times as much carbon in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere,

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide was over ten times the present level 440 mya ( if the original paper is preferred), when the planet plunged into the Andean-Saharan ice age, .

    In the current ice age, temperature trends have changed direction at many different temperature levels. See temperature anomalies from . This could not occur if there was significant positive feedback.

    When carbon dioxide level from is plotted on the same graph as the average global temperature it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level typically lagged average earth temperature change by hundreds of years.

    When temperature data from . and Law Dome, Antarctica carbon dioxide data from and recent carbon dioxide data from Mauna Loa or other sources from are plotted on the same graph it is discovered that carbon dioxide and temperature both went up about half the time and the rest of the time carbon dioxide went up but temperature trended down.

    None of the historical global climate data shows any significant influence of carbon dioxide level on temperature. In fact, using the NOAA sites, the average global temperature decreased more from January 2007 through January 2008 than the entire increase from 1901 to 2001. The temperature data is obtained from the following:

    The average global temperature anomaly from in 1901 was -.0974 and in 2001 was .4934 for a total temperature increase of .5908 centigrade degrees.

    The average global temperature anomaly from
    for January 2007 was .85

    and the average global temperature anomaly from
    for January 2008 was .18 for a total temperature drop of .67 centigrade degrees.

    Peer review biased by group-think is de facto censorship. The result for the global warming issue is a plethora of papers advocating that human activity is causing global warming and a paucity of ‘peer reviewed’ published papers that objectively investigate the extent to which human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming. Since this is the case, it’s probably going to have to get a lot colder before very much changes in most of the media. It will get colder eventually and a lot of people are going to look pretty foolish. It might even get warmer first like it has at other times in the last 11000 years but that’s not likely since we are past due for the coming glacial age. During the coming glaciation, half of the population will starve because rice does not grow on ice.

  2. Bravo; improving the reliability of food supply is of paramount importance.

    Thank you Dan for the rich documentation, also.

  3. […] Which is here […]

  4. Dan Pangburn wrote:
    > zero correlation between anthropogenic
    > carbon dioxide and temperature on Earth

    You’re wrong. When climatologists model the climate, they’re able to reproduce it for the last 100 years *only* if they included manmade forcings such as manmade GHGs and land use changes. Natural forcings alone (sun, volcanoes, water vapor) *do not* predict the great rise in temperature since about 1977.

    See Figure 8.15 in the IPCC TAR sec 8.6.1

    Where is your evidence otherwise? What does your model (or your favorite skeptics) predict for the 35% increase in CO2 we’ve experienced in the last 200 years?

  5. David, some of us think that since the computer models have proven unable to predict climate for the last 10 years, there must be something wrong with them. For example, natural forcing like albedo may not be comprehended properly.

    If the Earth is indeed cooling rapidly due to Solar magnetic conditions, maybe that’s another (possibly related) natural forcing that is not comprehended.

    Let’s face it. Like the infamous Mann hockey stick curve, and like the bogus surface station data manipulation, the models may have been cooked up for a purpose. But beyond this, climatologists don’t yet have reasonable understanding of climate to even begin to make a comprehensive and predictive model.

    The best evidence, from history and paleoclimatology that we have and which has largely been ignored or deliberately covered up, says the Solar influence is under represented in the models.

    By the way, A BIG THANKS to Dan Pangburn for those fantastic links; it will take me a while to get through them!

  6. Fred Singer has published and excellent ‘review paper’ on the IPCC entitled “Nature, Not Human Activity,
    Rules the Climate”
    His last sentences sum it all up; “Climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.”

  7. I cannot support, as I’ve said many times, those who would start and permit the spread of global fear and paranoia. Global warming is not happening. In fact hundreds of scientists say it has actually been cooling since 1998.,2933,334682,00.html

    Keep up the good fight to the finish!

  8. Why should we be led to believe anyone can predict global warming over the next several years, when they cannot get a simple weather forcast right for a week?

  9. Guy Kenison wrote:
    > Global warming is not happening.

    Then how do you explain all the morphological changes in the Earth’s ecosystem — arctic ice melts, northward species shifts, snowpack declines, glacier retreats, etc.?

  10. You’re wrong. When climatologists model the climate, they’re able to reproduce it for the last 100 years *only* if they included manmade forcings such as manmade GHGs and land use changes. Natural forcings alone (sun, volcanoes, water vapor) *do not* predict the great rise in temperature since about 1977.

    Yeah, you’ll get those findings. *IF* you start with the notion that human-created forcings have a significant effect on world climate.

    If you build your model on this assumption [human causes are significant], dull surprise that the models will support your assumptions.

    “The attribution problem has been addressed by comparing the temporal and spatial patterns of the observed temperature increase with model calculations based on anthropogenic forcing by greenhouse gases and aerosols, on the assumption that these patterns carry a fingerprint of their cause.

    [Taken from the IPCC link, posted over at Reason.]

    See what I mean?

    Tell your model that yes, human-created forcings are significant [or in this case, leaves a “fingerprint”] and—unsurprisingly—the readout [especially compared to the control model] will agree with your premise.

    It’d be like me building a computer model for bridge construction, with me telling the model that glue is far superior to nails. Naturally the number of glue-fastened bridges holding up will be greater than nail-fastened bridges.


    Computer models are NOT infalliable. Especially if you build them on ASSUMPTIONS.

  11. Thank You once again Dan for the reliable information.

    It seems that alot of people are looking for any possible strategy to counter attack the impact of global warming.

    I on the otherhand have had the pleasure of viewing one a project idea belonging to one of our students in PNG. The project, itself is seen as the potential solution to the problem. Surprisingly it will also adress Food Security problems, Global water crisis and Energy security problems world wide. If you happen to read this Dan, we are trying our best to get around selfish people in order to get this to the attention of the global community.

    For a start, we have submitted a copy to an Asian Embassy for further technological research in their country.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: