Data surprises me more often than readers know. I’m a horrible skeptic about nearly all big claims. For instance, when I was told that Masks don’t work by some not-to-be-named doctor somewhere, I knew with certainty that they were wrong …. until I started finding papers. It seems literally impossible that they don’t work a little, but that is not what the data shows. When I first looked into vote fraud, I knew that it existed and was larger than people thought but my lord I did not expect 400,000 to nothing vote dumps. Someone would catch that shit!!! When I found out that sea level rise hadn’t changed AT ALL in 150 years, you really cannot imagine how shocked I was. There HAS to be something in sea level rise and yet, there is ZERO change. Now I’m thinking, there is always another.
It is also surprising how OTHERS don’t change their opinions when presented with facts. I actually do, I admit error and change my thinking. It’s like their eyes glaze over. I have shown two Michigan votes of about 200,000 to not much in ratio. Completely impossible and ridiculous!! I have the LAST 18 large votes in Pennsylvania IN A ROW!!! at 334,000 to nothing and I have Georgia 393,000 to nothing in Atlanta. The probability of these things happening when looked at individually is ZERO. Together, they are a much smaller ZERO. Those three events are not statistically possible without fraud, and those 50 electors flip the election. Then about a YEAR later, I find out that organizations were funding ballot production in those EXACT same states with VIDEO, CONFESSIONS, CELL TRACKING DATA…. and still you don’t hear me. well jeff you don’t really understand
I am not the problem here kids.
And that is the tip of the fraud. Any serous analyst can see in the data, that fraud is much bigger than even that. I’ve talked to many of them offline. People think …. if that were true, someone would catch it?!!!
Well someone did ….. and you didn’t pay attention. Stats, video, money and confessions with spatial and time correlation (how lucky is it to note the problems in the stats 1 year before the other evidence). Still you deny.
I can tell you that CO2 DOES absolutely, with zero doubt, cause warming of the atmosphere. How much? I don’t know but the best estimates I’ve seen are by Nic Lewis. I call them the best because they use observed data to calculate sensitivity to CO2, instead of hopped up models. You are looking at something like 1.6 degrees Celsius each time you double CO2. This is a very small amount and it doesn’t consider some of the unknown aspects of oceanic climate. From experience, Nic would have predicted huge warming if that is how his results came out. I would have been forced to change my mind – again, but that is not how it worked though.
Roy Spencer even references Nic’s work when discussing his own climate modeling. That is because the ‘field’, knows they got smoked by an outsider.
Dr Spencer keeps giving us satellite temperature data that isn’t warming as fast as ground data. It’s forcing him and John Christy to spend time analyzing urban heating effects on temperature measurements in the hopes of understanding why there is more warming from a ground thermometer than a satellite thermometer based on long-wave emissions directly from air.
This is a recent post by front line climate science trying to determine what is going on.
Below is satellite temperature data from the low atmosphere since 1979.
I’m going to tell you right now, that shit didn’t warm. You can say JEFF that came from -0.3 C to 0.2C, and I will simply giggle at you. It’s too small folks. The change is too small. Something is happening that was NOT predicted.
Now I’ve published with some great coauthors and one time it was referenced by the United Nations IPCC. The IPCC is headquartered in Geneva Switzerland- where I have never been invited. It’s time to give them the famous call … Geneva– we have a problem.
As a personal request, I would like to ask ALL of humanity to open their minds to data. Change your mind when presented with facts. Look closely at the information and don’t trust others to think for you. You need to do your own thinking.
The biggest failure of humanity is the failure to think for itself.
26 thoughts on “We Have a Problem”
Every honest study of masks in the past 50+ years (N95 masks) clearly shows that masks do not stop transmission of viral aerosols. They can’t do that because the germs are MUCH smaller than the “holes” in the masks. If you are claiming that masks prevent the spread of respiratory diseases, then you are completely wrong. You would be implying that the Covid pandemic could have been stopped in a few months if people had just worn masks. That is comical.
NOAA tide gauges clearly show rising relative sea level since the 1800s. Climate reconstructions show rising sea level for about 20,000 years. If you are claiming sea level is NOT rising, thn you are spouting nonsense.
Concerning election fraud in 2020.
While the mules, their vote harvesting and mysterious late arrivals of ballots (aka ballot dumps) are extremely suspicious, they are not election fraud.
Election fraud is when a ballot is not filled out by a legal registered resident of a state.
If the ballot was delivered by a mule, or arrived after midnight, that is NOT election fraud. The ballot will still get counted. Each individual ballot must be challenged to delete the vote. How and when it arrived does not change a single vote.
While I am 99.9% certain that the high level suspicious behavior WERE showing us election fraud in progress, the determination of actual fraud requires examination of ballots and envelopes that must be compared with accurate state registered voter lists … which do not appear to exist.
“they use observed data to calculate sensitivity to CO2, instead of hopped up models.”
There are no observations of exactly how much warming CO2 emissions have caused in the past. There are many causes of climate change. CO2 is just one of many.
The CO2 ECS is just a guess.
No one knows the exact effect of CO2.
ECS guesses are usually worst case guesses, by falsely assuming all global warming was caused by CO2, with no natural causes.
In addition the ECS takes 200 to 400 years, according to the IPCC. So it would take hundreds of years to even guess if the ECS was right
Even if the actual warming in 200 to 400 years matched an ECS estimate, no one would know what percentage of the global warming was actually caused by CO2.
The IPCC has another estimate called TCS.
When used with the more reasonable RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, it predicts the climate in 70 years, and reflects about half the warming of the ECS estimate (ECS is publicized with the unreasonable RCP 8.5 scenario.
TCS with RCP 4.5 predicts a warming rate similar to the 1975 to 2023 warming, which is just like saying “More of the same”.
Climate change in the past 150 years, however, could never be predicted correctly with a “more of the same prediction”. The past 3o to 50 years of climate change never accurately predicted the next 30 to 50 years of climate change.
But “More of the same” is exactly what the IPCC is predicting (TCS) for the next 70 years. A alight problem already is there was no global warming from 2015 to 2023 (UAH satellite data).
Bingham Farms, Michigan
Welcome to the Air Vent. Apparently you have read very little here.
masks don’t work.
Vote fraud is real
There has been no change in the rate of see sea — that’s hilarious level rise for ALL of recorded history.
and you need to read more carefully.
I am new here and I responded to what you wrote in THIS article:
“when I was told that Masks don’t work by some not-to-be-named doctor somewhere, I knew with certainty that they were wrong …”
I interpreted that as you saying a doctor who claimed masks don’t work was wrong.
“When I found out that sea level rise hadn’t changed AT ALL in 150 years, you really cannot imagine how shocked I was. There HAS to be something in sea level rise and yet, there is ZERO change.”
I interpreted that as you claiming sea level has not changed at all in 150 years because that is exactly what you wrote.
I read up to 48 short articles every morning. So when I read this article, I had a lot of experience with different authors. You might want to be more specific in your next article.
The rate of sea level rise did increase with the switch to satellite data. But satellites that drift up to 10 feet in orbit can not possibly measure a millimeter of absolute sea level rise, as the government bureaucrat scientists claim.
Bingham Farms, Michigan.
Here is the problem Richard.
“When I found out that sea level rise” — the “rise” word means dL/dt NOT dL — hope that makes sense.
There are a lot of math folks here because that’s what we kinda do. I would guess that 100% of the people/commenters here who claim to not know math would smoke 99% of humanity. My guess is that you also fall into that category.
Jeff Id Reply: Your whole point was to call Richard Greene a Dick.
You actually owe an apology sir. I usually reserve such scoldings for children, well done.
Jeff Id wrote:
“You actually owe an apology sir.”
I calls it like I sees it, and I’ve seen it for years from the character “Richard Greene”… he leaps to the defense of leftist woketard warmists, defends the mathematical fraudery committed by the warmists in their misuse of the S-B equation and the fundamental physical laws, denigrates bog-standard radiative theory and cavity theory and has done so for years. Watch him, he’ll attempt to steer your readership toward the warmist side, just as he did on CFACT.
Opinions are allowed here.
I’m almost guessing the above post was written for this guy !
“No amount of data will change your mind”
Matthew I mostly like you posts. Richard has turned up at the air vent and we should presume he is seeking the truth.
He has been open about what he believes to be true and open with his criticisms.
We should respect that and put forward our best arguements.
I don’t mind if anyone gives me a hard tie or even compares my family to farm animals. This is the conservative side of the internet — the last place for online free speech without censorship
I have been a libertarian since 1973.
I voted for Trump in 22020 — my first non-libertarian vote since 1972.. Biden was far left, a crook and not all there. A typical leftist, in other words.
I wrote a climate rap about why I hate leftists this morning (because truth is not a leftist value). That rap describes who I am.
Jeff, would you please delete my previous post, it is not appropriate. I am working on a much more informative reply.
BTW, you get points too as you were right and I like the blog better without the random noise generator.
What was shown in the documentary, 2,000 mules?
They only choose people who visited many drop boxes and also visited a particular location where they collected the ballots. The collection places were usually some sort of Democrat party office.
Some States like Georgia it is not legal to deposit ballots for people who are not immediate family members.
Importantly the ballots must have the signature of the registered voter connected to the ballot.
In the court proceeding regarding Kari Lake in Arizona she had affidavits from people who preformed signature verification that about 35% of ballots did not match that was listed in their records.
All states have a record of registered voters. But many (all the swing states) use a system “ERIC” to manage their records.
It has been shown that the records have far more registered voters than the number of actual people of voting age.
This gives the fraudulent ballot handlers scope to be able to pass computer audits.
Each ballot is matched with a name. This is not done by the mules but by the organisers via computer.
This is why you hear of people going to vote in person and being told they have all ready voted.
This is a large organised criminal activity. American are getting their elections stolen.
Jeff’s maths shows how the counting of the ballots by the machines is not real.
I agreed with some of your thoughts
The ERIC voter rolls are the root cause of the ballot harvesting. There are millions of names of people who have left the state where they used to vote, or they died. Ballots got mailed to addresses where no legal voter lived. Democrats found a way to “harvest” them. Maybe post office workers are involved too.
The counting of ballots by machines is very real.
The machines can be set for minimal signature matching analysis, so that anyone who spells the name right is good to go.
The 2000 Mules movie was worthless for changing anything. The mules are not prosecuted. An even if they were prosecuted, the ballots they delivered will still be counted. The late arriving ballots get counted too. Mule delivery does not cancel a single vote.
I am 99.9% certain the 2020 election was stolen for Jumpin’ Joe Bidet and 100% sure a 2022 victory from stolen from Kari Lake.
“The mules are not prosecuted.” Hahaha.
If you watch interviews made be the researchers who used the phone data to develop the huge data base of the mules and the ballot harvesting and delivery they were quite shocked by how the results panned out.
They took their findings to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. That was a long and convoluted story but basically the GBI stonewalled and took no action.
The phone ping technique used to discover the mules and who they are is the same as what the FBI use to find and arrest J sixes.
Censorship and a biased media play a big role.
I googled “2,000 mules” so I could get the spelling right of the woman’s name, I’m sure the man is Harris, but I gave up after five minutes. How could it not be in the first items.
I visit Air Vent because I want to understand how to use the maths. I said the tally results were not real.
I used those words because the mathematicians describe the tally results as “not organic”.
If I had used “not organic” I expect you would have laughed at me, but by saying ” not real” you understood and said I was wrong.
Ps2….If you ignore everything else, fine. But I would like your opinion of the mathematicians using the term “organic” to describe the findings of their mathematical analysis of voting tally results.
I avoid using terms that confuse most people, and try to use simple language, even with complicated subjects,
Two banned phrases for me are organic math and the null hypothesis. Both confuse lots of people including engineers and scientists.
Here’s my view:
The 2020 election results were organic just like a tall steaming pile of farm animal digestive waste products are organic. I am 99.9% sure there was a lot of election fraud — most likely enough illegal votes counted to prevent Trump from becoming president.
When there is unprecedented evidence of election fraud in a huge number of affidavits, that subject the witnesses to perjury charges, then the possibility that 2020 was a fair election was fair must be very low.
Nice post Jeff. It makes the world a painful place when the nominal consensus is idiotic.
Censorship and lack of debate enabled by biased media.
I used to vote “green” in the day, pre 1990. But after the collapse of the USSR the lost communist (here in Australia and Europe) moves into the environmental focused parties. You know the saying ….they became watermelons… green on the outside and red on the inside.
Haven’t voted green for 25 years.
Thus the global warming campaigns etc. but that didn’t work well. Now they just steal elections, that works apparently.
Nice post Jeff.
What is To Be Done? ( old Leninist staple)
“Censorship and lack of debate enabled by biased media”
If a person only watches “ABCNBCCBSNPRMSLSDCNN” et al, they will literally know EXACTLY what the democrat party wants them to know and nothing else.
Hi, Jeff. I follow you regularly and like your mathematical insights. May I respectfully suggest you expand your articles a little to give more clarity to the average reader, and perhaps have a little patience with those who have not been rigorously taught English Comprehension. Here, you could have spelled out that you now realise that the evidence shows that masks are useless, and said that while sea level has been rising for 150 years, the rate of rise is steady and has not accelerated in modern times.
I don’t even know the language of maths, but I once had a head for numbers. And I claim that my intuition on statistics is better than some scholars’ learning. I can see that you are competent with statistics, as are some wonderful contributors to the JoNova blog where I discovered The Air Vent.
You didn’t admit to your calculations the integrity of the primary data. It appears to me that “they” are fiddling the numbers, applying subjective “science”.
I have read that the BOM addressed visible problems with Australia’s records, mainly gaps and site moves, by “adjusting”, later “homogenising” the records. Three or four times now. The first time they published their new data a retired schoolteacher ran their numbers and showed them to be absurd. At a number of sites the minimum temp was higher than the maximum.
This told me that 1. The BOM was not competent to do that job, 2. They were trying to automate the job, and 3. They hadn’t even checked their work to discover the absurdity.
That job was quietly forgotten and they gave us a new one with a quaint acronym, declaring it to be world’s best practice. They have revised it a couple of times since.
Then thee is the sea level issue. In about 2005 I discovered NOAA’s tidesandcurrents website, with lots of interesting stuff. Including Sydney’s tide gauge record (NOAA Fort Denison) which showed a remarkably steady rise of 0.65 mm a year over about 120 years. So I took to citing that as proof that CAGW wasn’t happening. THen about 2010 they sstopped upddating their “front page” chart. Just terminaated it. I think the updated chart may have been still available, but that one stood at 2010 for years. I saw a couple of suspicious fiddles over the years, but they reverted to 2010. Eventually they filled it up to date a couple of years ago, with a new rate of rise at 0.75 mm/year.
It never ceases to amaze me as to how every “adjustment” is in favor of the Climate Change Mob.
Admiral Titley summed it up neatly when he said “every time they run the numbers they get a worse result.” Not noticing that this means that 1. Mostly they got it wrong, and 2. There’s a bias in their method.
Might be tending slightly of topic, but speaking of “data”:
Safe and effective???
I read that article yesterday.
Assuming the article got any attention of leftists (they would never read Zero Hedge), I imagined as I read it that Covid vaccines would be the first possibility that leftists would rule out as a cause.
My brother in law’s family had two men under age 50 suddenly die THIS YEAR from unknown before their death heart problems. One in very good physical condition while swimming in a pool with no lifeguard. Immediately their Covid vaccines were dismissed by fellow leftists in the family as a possible cause of death..
There are men whose first symptom of heart disease is death. That happened to a friend of mine a decade ago who was near age 60. He had no warning of heart disease. That used to be very rare — I researched it at the time. Not so rare anymore.
I have no idea as to if all of these “under 60 died suddenly” stories are all clot shot related, but unlike the medical fascists, I would like to know.