Climate Data Challenge

Please see updated and expanded research on this page

Recently, I was contacted by someone who was wanting to respond to a communication with "Friends of the Earth". FOE are one of many groups "pushing the boat out" with the idea that the main problem for the environment is CO2. They want everyone the lower their "carbon footprint" – or some version of this. Of course, the picture is far, far more complicated. I challenge ALL environmentalists and climatologists of all types and disciplines – in fact anyone to review and explain the data below. If they still think CO2 is the only or most serious problem for us, then I am sorry, I cannot understand why.

Dear ____,
Thank you for your response and the information and links you have sent regarding Climate Change. I have some information to present which needs proper, thorough and detailed study before an appropriate response can be given. However, let us first establish a distinction: the difference between climate change and environmental destruction. The media and a pervasive assumption, as well significant promotion of inadequate studies based on false or incomplete data , have served to blur the boundaries between these two issues. One thing that probably the majority of people likely agree on is that human activity is damaging the environment due to polluting processes of various kinds. This problem is, of course, wide-ranging from the output of manufacturing processes to oestrogen’s in the water supply from pharmaceuticals etc.
People often loftily quote the extremely limited and loaded report presented by the IPCC as if it proves climate change is the result of CO2 "increases". They almost never quote scientists who refused to participate in this report once they realised its conclusions were not taking into account all the data (see video "The Great Global Warming Swindle"). Most of the environmental organisations  have therefore quickly climbed aboard the "Carbon Footprint" bandwagon without properly examining the considerable, reliable and wide-ranging data (some of which is referenced below) which essentially proves that CO2 plays only a minor role – perhaps almost an irrelevant one. Sadly, as many NGO’s and GO’s have deeply invested in the badly flawed CO2 issue with fancy websites to help you "reduce your carbon footprint", or offer loan schemes to businesses for "carbon reduction" and there has been the creation of buzz phrases like "carbon natural" etc. All of these overlook the fact that we are carbon-based life forms and CO2 is very much a normal part of biological processes.
Unfortunately, all of these organisations seem to be adopting an irresponsible attitude in not reviewing new an independent data, such as this report, about illegal aerosol spraying which is of far greater concern than a minor change in CO2 levels (CO2 is around 0.03 percent of the atmosphere):
Responses and issues raised by this report can be studied further here:
Please pay special attention to the introduction and section 6. So, we can see, once this data is studied and a person makes their own repeated observations, the primary CO2 climate change model is false and incomplete and should be "jettisoned" as quickly as possible. Of course, clinging to what lofty reports conclude, based on a pre-determined agenda, and not using one’s own intelligence to review data independently allows one to follow the "global agenda" which is to control people’s movements or actions by saying "you aren’t allowed to pollute in this way". This is very likely what the "Carbon Footprint" and "Carbon Tax" scams have as their ultimate goal.
There is also the basic question of "what is going on in the solar system?". I have compiled a selection of facts into a YouTube video here:
There is more data for review below. So, what are you going to believe? The conclusions of some faceless body, with a pre-determined agenda, or the basic data which you can review with your own common sense and intelligence. I made my own decision some time ago and it becomes rather wearing when organisations ignore data in such a cavalier manner (as can be seen from the WWF’s response linked on the page above and simply quote a "party line" – probably because they have now have a vested interest in the "party line" being true, when other data shows this is otherwise.
There is other data (some linked below) which climate scientists refuse to consider, which complicates the overall picture enough, that all concerned parties should immediately and vigorously review the flawed conclusions about CO2-based climate change. Some scientists have already done this, as they are extremely concerned about the weakness of conclusions policies are now based on.
I therefore urge you, personally, to review this data and then get your colleagues to review it – ultimately to the point where policies of organisations such as FOE are based on a more complete set of data – not on what someone else tells them to think.
Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Johnson
22 Mear Drive
DE72 3QW

Changes in the Solar System


(More on other Earth factors below)






(Spin time has changed – original new scientist article doesn’t seem to be available)





I think this could have something to do with the physics which could explain the following facts:

Olympus Mons, 27km high volcano on Mars – latitude 19 deg
Solar Maximum – most sunspots occur at latitudes of 19.5 degrees
Red Spot on Jupiter 19.5 degrees.
Big Island of Hawaii – latitude 19 degrees
Dark spot on Neptune – latitude 19 degrees
Alpha & Beta Regio – Venusian volcanoes – latitude? You guessed it! 19.5 degrees.
Strongest El Nino currents occur on latitude – 19 degrees. 

Also, I think the density of the Local Interstellar Medium could be changing (but this is Scientific Heresy, of course…) 


Local Interstellar Medium

Research on the properties of the Local Interstellar medium have been carried out in scattered periods beginning in 1978. The NASA Space Physics Division has shown a persistent pernicious bias against work on the effects of the neutral gas in the LISM in the United States, from the time of the formation of the Division. The dominant role of neutral hydrogen in the formation of the termination shock in the collision of the solar wind with the LISM has only recently been recognized by the particles and fields research community, which has been supported primarily by the Space Science Division. The most important contributions to research in this program are papers (48), which presents a calibration independent method of determining absolute LISM density, and (89), which presents the first evidence for a large increase in the LISM neutral atomic hydrogen density from Voyager measurements of the 50 AU region, suggesting the approach to the termination shock (89). See 19, 20, 21, 48, 64, 82, 89.

Weather Modification:… 

Satellite image data regarding the use of HAARP and GWEN whether modification… 

More satellite anomalies which suggest manipulation


Site presentation is very basic, but there’s lots of interesting stuff here – an interesting audio archive too.

Free Energy and 9/11 (Dr Judy Wood)

You want a solution to the energy crisis? Well, looks like someone has it – and they used it on 9/11 to destroy the WTC complex. Same rule applies as above: review the data yourself – don’t believe what someone tells you to think.

Related articles...

Comments are closed.