2/ Creating this type of control data (SWE) must be prevented at all cost in future. There must be one and only one autocratic response. Masking 2 year olds for example. The WHO (a group many autocratic countries) shall rule democratic countries like Sweden and the Netherlands.
3/ What @MarionKoopmans probably means is, that everyone should be like Germany now and not the other way around.
So the WHO (an organisation outside of law with total immunity) needs worldwide total powers to enforce and overrule those freedom seeking democratic nations.
<sarcasm> the green list are true science following countries while Scandinavia is a culture of radical anti-science autocracies. We must stop Scandinavian freedom nationalism in the name of true worldwide democracy (UNO-WHO).
</sarcasm>
5/ We must all follow the legally immune UN (who is outside law) without exceptions.
The scandal list is endless. They have god status powers which cannot be challenged under terrestrial courts. Surprised that it's misused?
6/ Who will rule us? WHO Director Tedros happens to be a member of the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) founded as a communist revolutionary party who came to power 1991 in Ethiopia.
Sound attractive? Better than SWE and NL democracy/law?
Read about Tedros...
7/ Handing over powers to diplomatic super national organisations is a bad idea.
Without legal prosecution possibilities, the corruption is temptation is built in and happens. It's the nature of humans. That's why we have law and constitutions.
8/ In the new world of pandemics (WHO and Gates words), law, nations and constitutions just disturb.
So let's abolish it and give powers to a legally immune supernational institute who reliably delivers scandals after scandals?
What could possibly go wrong...?
9/ Is it an exception? No.
Here is another one which is more and more enjoying their legal immunity options. Skandal after scandal.
If bending / breaking law is legal, why not use it to make more and more money? And for personal gain.
UAH is a model inference, not a measurement. It can’t be tested, yet many treat it like real raw. Calling that a ‘measurement’ is wrong. Neither Lindzen nor us take it seriously. It starts in a cold period, with no long-term data — adjusted, multi mission stitched SW composite.🚮
UAH is not measurement — it’s model-driven inference. Satellites detect radiance, not temperature. The ‘trend’ is built through weighting functions, drift corrections, and stitched instruments. It’s untestable, synthetic, and not suitable for long-term climate baselines.
It’s astonishing how confidently some treat satellite-based inferences as god in heaven like truth. These are SW model outputs, not reliable measurements. Treating them as accurate fact is scientifically indefensible. If you do so, expect your credibility to be challenged.
London is glowing today. Wide urban heat plume. Not “climate change.” Just real estate and concrete. The effect is visible. Quantifiable. Known. This should be a good study day to quantify UHI in more detail once the IR satellite pictures come in.
2/ We start low tech. Actually nothing more is needed. There is over 6°C urban heat. It's embarrassing to pretend today's 33°C are comparable to 100 years ago. Subtract 6–8°C for UHI and you get... 25–27°C. Welcome back to reality.
3/ Nighttime, Tmin. Watch how they flatten the colors. You’re not supposed to notice the 7°C UHI. We unflatten the colors. Look again: you see it now?
We can also do from SE raw. And we can also show how rural stations look. Frederik does like them. Climate agenda is measured in downtowns of the capitals?
Not sure if it’s normal that amateurs now have to lecture academics…?
The downtown station logs hourly=no need for even Ekholm, no need for re-sampling. Does Frederik even know what we mean? Nothing is adjusted. Also PHA leaves it as is as it only detects breakpoints (not UHI).
Yes. Hausfather & Berkeley Earth are pushing it.
But it’s not a measurement. Not one station shows that.
It’s what you get when you aggregate rot over time.
On the left: 8 pristine USCRN sites. Same y-scale.
Now look what they did.👇
2/ Was wir hier sehen: Die Datenreihe ist ein Komposit (sehr beliebt, wenig seroes, in der Klima-„Wissenschaft“).
Die Messmethode (und mehr) hat sich verändert – von analogen zu digitalen Sensoren. Die Entropie der Nachkommastellen zeigt das – deutlich.
1/ The result is simply wrong.
There are 2 stations there — we can compare.
🟥Red: Carlwood
🟩Green: Gatewick
We clearly see the overshoot.
Moreover: They’re using subhourly spikes (error) from a single, low-inertia sensor.
Total incompetence.
2/ Using TMAX from a low-quality single urban sensor is already peak incompetence.
But they go further — they take the spikes.
Even top-tier stations like USCRN show 2–3°C error at peak forcing.
USCRN uses triple sensors — worst spikes get voted out.
3/ The UK has nothing like the USCRN triple-sensor setup.
So when two nearby stations disagree, the right move is simple:
Discard the implausible one — in this case, Charlwood.
What does the agenda-captured @metoffice do?
They run with the error.
They hoax the public.
ISO9001🤡