A Short History of U.S. Special Forces


The Green Beret’s

The following short history is mostly paraphrased from information in the book written by Shelby Stanton the “Green Berets at War” especially from the foreword to the book that was written by George C. Morton a retired U.S. Army Colonel. Colonel Morton was also the first commander of the U.S. Army Special Forces Vietnam (Provisional). His forward is by no means a complete history of Special Forces but it does give a very good overview of beginning of this elite unit.

The story starts at the end of World War II when General William J. “Wild Bill” Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was demobilized by Harry S. Truman with Executive Order on Sept. 20, 1945 (mainly the result of J Edgar Hoover’s dislike of Donovan’s unconventional methods) and the Office of Strategic Services was no more. The following picture is of Donovan’s review of OSS troopers prior to deployment.

“We were not afraid to make mistakes because we were not afraid to try things that had not been tried before.” “You can’t succeed without taking chances.”

– Maj. Gen. William J. Donovan, OSS founder

Sf-Donovan

When the OSS was disbanded the United States lost its capability to conduct unconventional warfare and the vast experiences gained by the American personnel involved with the World War II resistance movements worldwide was irretrievably lost. Unfortunately for America, this occurred at the same time that communist expansionism was being manifested throughout the newly emerging and Third World countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East in support of so-called national wars of liberation. Without a capability to support resistance movements in those affected countries and regions, opposition eventually withered and those nations fell under the firm grip of either the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China. The resultant was that most of Eastern European as well as most of mainland Asia, fell under communist control by the late 40’s.

Note: This was the period when the “Domino Theory” was developed. This theory basically stated that countries would fall to communist expansion one after the other (geographically) much as domino’s fall after the first one is pushed down. Under this scenario the Communists would use the boarders of adjacent countries to infiltrate into their neighbors spreading unrest. This theory also assumed that there was a “monolithic” communism. Many years later it would be seen that both these assumptions were false and that there were other factors that were in play. In my opinion it was the significant wealth difference of the have countries verses the have not countries. This combined with the illusion of sometime for nothing promised by the Communists gave those in third world counties something to get peoples hopes up over. In actuality Karl Marx stated that industrial nations would be the first to fall to communism not the backward countries that did. In any case, the traditional Communist system collapsed in the early 1990 and no longer presents much of a challenge to other economic systems.

Two years later with the passage of the National Security Act in 1947 the Truman administration corrected the problem created when the OSS was disbanded with the creation of a new clandestine agency to replace the defunct Office of Strategic Services, the Central Intelligence Agency, using a plan created by Donovan. Most of its early members of the CIA were OSS alumni. This act also set the stage for the creation of the US Special Forces a few years later but we lost two critical years in the fight against the Communists.

The American strategy developed in the 1950’s and 1960’s to block further communist expansion relied on containment backed up by the three strategic nuclear deterrents (One, Air Force B-52’s; Two, the strategic land based missiles (ICBM’s) and Three, the navy’s; nuclear ballistic submarines and aircraft carriers.) These elements were called “The Triad”. This policy resulted in a proliferation of collective or bilateral defense treaty organizations, which all involved large numbers of U.S. and allied conventional units supported by an arsenal of nuclear weapons. Although formidable these forces were totally unsuitable for the grassroots wars of liberation, which cropped up throughout the third world during this period.

The Greek Civil War and the Hukbalahap Guerrilla War in the Philippines shortly after the end of World War II both further highlighted the necessity for a national defense policy aimed at countering communist expansionism using an alternative to massive conventional intervention or atomic annihilation. Such a requirement also received impetus during the Korean War, when bands of South Korean irregulars were formed behind the lines in North Korea and conducted successful sabotage, ambush and intelligence collection operations, as well as establishing escape and evasion nets for the rescue of downed American pilots in the famous MIG Alley.

As a result, on June 20, 1952, the first contingent of volunteers assembled on Smoke Bomb Hill at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to be organized into the 10th Special Forces Group under the auspices of the Army Chief of Psychological Warfare. The formation of this first SF unit was the direct result of the efforts of Colonel Aaron Bank an OSS veteran who is now considered to be the father of Special Forces. I meet him in 1994 at the Cleveland SF convention and again at the fiftieth anniversary of the formation of Special Forces at Ft. Bragg in 2002. The following picture of him that I took with Roy Benavidez a Vietnam era SF Metal of Honor recipient on June 24, 1994.

SF Col A Bank

These volunteers were trained for infiltration deep into enemy territory by land, sea or air to conduct unconventional warfare: guerrilla warfare, sabotage, and escape and evasion. Although this original contingent included a smattering of former OSS men and individuals who had served with other guerrilla and resistance groups in World War II, the majority had no previous unconventional warfare experience. They were, however, outstanding paratrooper (airborne) qualified officers and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who were dedicated and highly motivated individuals.

These professionals brought with them their skills in operations, intelligence, demolitions, communications, light and heavy weapons, and medicine. They were capable of operating independently as small teams for extended periods in hostile territory with minimal support. They were taught to organize, train, and equip guerrilla forces; conduct sabotage operations, support resistance movements and to evade, and if necessary, escape from enemy forces. These elite troopers adopted the insignia of the Trojan Horse as their symbol, and De Oppresso Liber (To Liberate from Oppression) as their motto. The Green Beret was originally designated in 1953 by Special Forces Major Herbert Brucker, a veteran of the OSS. Later that year, 1st Lt. Roger Pezelle adopted it as the unofficial head-gear for his A-team, Operational Detachment FA-32. They wore it whenever they went to the field for prolonged exercises. Soon it spread throughout all of Special Forces, although the Army refused to authorize its official use.

sf-crest and beret

In November of 1953, the 10th Special Forces Group, which had completed over a year of training at Fort Bragg, deployed to Bad Tolz in Germany. There the group prepared to support resistance movements and organize guerrilla forces in the Soviet-dominated Eastern European satellite countries and, if indicated, throughout Africa and the Middle East. On the departure of the 10th SFG for Germany, the 77th Special Forces Group was activated at Fort Bragg with some members of the deploying 10th SFG and new troopers mostly acquired from the 82nd airborne also stationed at Ft Bragg. In 1957 the 1st Special Forces Group was activated on Okinawa to support unconventional warfare missions in the Far East. By 1961, Special Forces teams from both the 77th and the 1st SFG’s were operational in Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and other nations, primarily as mobile training teams for their indigenous counterparts.

By the time John F. Kennedy became President of the United States on January 20, 1961, the communist supported national wars of liberation conducted along the periphery of the Soviet Union and Red China, as well as in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia had assumed major proportions. President Kennedy embarrassed by the abortive Bay of Pigs operation in Cuba (which was an unsuccessful attempt at preventing the establishment of a communist regime in the Western hemisphere) and confronted by imminent communist insurgency in Laos and South Vietnam sought an alternative to committing regular U.S. forces in these areas. Later that year, October 12, 1961 during a visit to the U.S. Army Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, President Kennedy found his answer.

While there Kennedy met and had discussions with Brigadier General William P. Yarborough (the Commander of the Special Warfare Center). General Yarborough was young and dynamic and, more importantly, a highly articulate advocate of unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency operations. While there Kennedy observed the capabilities of the Special Forces troops and knew this was what he was looking for. One of my friends, Ernie Tasseff, in the Cleveland Chapter of the Special Forces Association was a member of that team; he was the 2nd SF trooper from the left on the ground in the picture below and I understood him to be in the first 50 Special Forces troopers pictured. President Kennedy (first on left bottom of picture) thought that he could expand these forces and then commit them to fight communist inspired insurgencies anywhere in the world.

Sf-demo

Upon his return to Washington, President Kennedy instructed the Secretary of Defense to improve America’s paramilitary and unconventional warfare capabilities. Kennedy also advised him that the United States needed a greater ability to combat communist guerrilla forces, insurgency, and subversion. Kennedy then authorized the Green Beret as the official headgear for Special Forces, describing it as a symbol of excellence, a mark of distinction, and a badge of courage (prior to this the U.S. Army did not condone it’s use). Counterinsurgency became a buzzword in Washington, and the Army Special Forces became predestined to fight in a protracted war in Vietnam that no one in Washington could foresee at the time. In an April 11, 1962, White House memorandum for the United States Army, President Kennedy showed his continued support for the Special Forces, calling the Green Beret… “a symbol of excellence, a badge of courage, a mark of distinction in the fight for freedom.”

Sf-jfk

The Army Special Forces lost its champion and foremost advocate of counterinsurgency and unconventional warfare on November 22, 1963, when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. However, by this time, many of his directions had already been implemented. In addition to the 10th SFG in Germany, the 1st SFG in Okinawa, and the 77th (later designated the 7th) SFG at Fort Bragg, the 8th SFG had been activated in Panama, the 5th SFG was already sending personnel to Vietnam, and the 3d and the 6th SFGs were activated at Fort Bragg with African and Middle Eastern areas of assignment. The United States had finally regained its capacity to conduct unconventional warfare and counterinsurgency operations.

Next is the structure for an A team as it existed in the 60s. The current structure of Special Forces is totally different from that period, as is its mission. The core mission, at least prior to the Vietnam conflict, was to have a unit with the capability to infiltrate behind enemy lines, recruit local people, train them into a fighting guerrilla force, and then to conduct military operations as required. To accomplish this require men skilled in the arts or war as well as teaching and training. Since they were to operate behind enemy lines they also needed to be independent thinkers, resourceful and self-motivated. This combination of skills was not required in any other unit in the military then or now and that is what made “Green Berets” unique.

Sf-org

Shortly after Kennedy’s assassination the Special Warfare Center was renamed the John F. Kennedy Center for Special Warfare (in his honor) and all Special Forces troopers feel a special relationship to the young dynamic President who saw the worth of their elite unit. Six years after President Kennedy was assassinated I was a young lieutenant at Ft Brag in the 7th Special Forces group undergoing culture and language training prior to deployment to Vietnam. The Vietnam buildup was in full force and when that happens promotions come quicker than they should and I felt bad that I didn’t have the military experiences that many of the others had. But I did bring other factors to the game as I was very good at improvising and I was skilled in almost all of the trades. The only reason I bring this up is that I had a very unique opportunity to meet one the biggest supporters of the military and Special Forces, John Wayne.

During the summer of 1967 the movie the Green Beret staring John Wayne was being filmed and the 7th Special Forces group (Abn) was tasked with providing the support for the movie. Several of my friends ended up in the support detail with me and I took a team to Pensacola Florida to do a night insertion combat air jump for the movie. We were to jump from a C-47 (DC-3) but since it was a night jump we were to wear strobe lights (I know it makes no sense) during the mission planning briefing John Wayne had a picture taken with my team which I missed.

Sf-wayne

There is one other entertainer that deserves special mention and that is of Martha Raye or as she was known to the guys in Special Forces Colonel Maggie, who was also a trained RN before going into the entertainment field. “Maggie” was known to be in places with the troops that even the brass would not go without protection. She is one of the very few who got down in the trenches with the troops and she had a special liking for those that wore the Green Beret.

Sf  - Maggie

During 1967 she was in Vietnam on tour and she went to a small Special Forces camp with a clarinet player, but while they were there the NVA attacked the camp. Mortar rounds and small arms fire were incoming and it appeared that there was a full-scale assault on the base camp Early in the firefight the camp medic was hit, and so with her being a nurse, she took over and began to assist with the treatment of the wounded who were coming into the aid station.

The camp was in great danger for several hours of being overrun and the military was trying to dispatch helicopters to the camp, but a combination of very bad weather and heavy fighting made that task a very dangerous mission for any crews that would be coming in to get the wounded, or to pull her out to a safer place. All this time, she was subjecting herself to the dangers of flying shrapnel and incoming automatic rifle rounds. She tended to the task that she was trained for – treating the wounded. She was said to have remained calm and fully active in doing her work – even with all the action taking place just outside the aid station. She kept focused on treating the wounded and did not seek shelter or safety for herself. She spent hours putting her skills as a nurse, to use treating patients and even assisting with surgery. She was in the operating room for 13 hours; she then went through the aid station talking with the wounded and making sure that they were okay. It was said that she worked without sleep or rest, until all the wounded were either treated, or evacuated out on a Dustoff. She did not leave that camp until she was satisfied that all wounded were taken care of.

On a more personal note I was wounded at Special Forces CIDG camp Bu Dop (A-341) in earlt December 1967 along with two other SF troopers and MEDEVACed out of country first to Japan and then Ft Sam in Texas where I was for four months getting put back together. While I was there Colonel Maggie heard I was there and called me to wish me a speedy recovery. The other two SF troopers had already died or I’m sure she would have talked to them as well.

For these and other services “Colonel Maggie,” Martha Raye, was an a very special honorary member of the Special Forces. She had received her prized Green Beret and the title of Lieutenant Colonel from President Lyndon B. Johnson, himself. Known as “Colonel Maggie of the Boondocks” by her many military friends, Martha Raye (born Margaret Teresa Yvonne Reed on August 27, 1916) died October 19, 1994. Raye is buried in the military cemetery at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

SF MAGGIE Funeral

 

What Started Us Down the Path of Destruction to Our Constitution?


I am in the final stages of publishing a book exposing the false claims that mankind is destroying the planet by the use of fossil fuels i.e. coal, oil and natural gas. The lies that have been told on this subject put the lies of Hitler and Goebbels into the league of rank amateurs. But like those two infamous Politicians those Politicians today that practice those same arts of lies and deceit have the same motives in mind; absolute power over the people.

When I became a Green Beret one of the things I was taught as an officer, besides the arts of war, was how to bring down a government for that was our original mission.  So today when I see what is being done in America I see that there are those that are doing what I was taught to do. The only way to counter that is with the truth and that is the purpose of this blog as I stated in my About section.

The wedge that those that desire “power” are using against us is “CLIMATE CHANGE” that we are told is caused by too many people and using too much energy therefore we are not sustainable. The truth is that the climate has always changed and that there isn’t enough carbon based fuels on the planet to do what they claim will happen. The original projections of doom and gloom have continued to be pushed into the future as we reach points in time where the disasters were to happen and they were not there. The latest IPCC assessment AR5 does this again. So what follows is a section from the introduction of the book I am written to destroy this travesty against our way of life.

The belief that CO2 is causing climate change on the planet by raising the planet’s temperature came primarily from the late 1960’s. The belief was that the increased temperatures, from CO2, would then change the world’s climate patterns which would then result in the melting of the world’s glaciers, increased storms and probably loss of valuable crop lands by rising sea levels. The implied result on the world’s civilizations will be catastrophic and therefore there will be a significant loss of life from both the climate change and the probable wars that will be fought over dwindling resources.

To prevent this from happening the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, having met at Stockholm from 5 to 16 June 1972, made a statement part of which is, “… having considered the need for a common outlook and for common principles to inspire and guide the peoples of the world in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment …” and then they established a set of principles and an international forum, the first of which was held in Rio de Janiero in June 1992 and then later Kyoto in 1997 where goals for a reduction in the CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels primarily from petroleum, coal and natural gas were agreed to by the parties. Efforts to date have been totally unsuccessful and the CO2 levels have now reached 400 ppm and the rate of growth is increasing at an accelerating rate that is currently above ~2 ppm per year.

The first major program to began the task of changing how the entire world would adapt to the “required” reductions in Carbon Dioxide was made public at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth-Summit), held in Rio-de-Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program called UN Agenda 21. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections that was published in book form the following year:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and industry, and workers; and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.

Section IV: Means of Implementation: implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.

The goal of UN Agenda 21 is to create a world economic system that equalizes world incomes and standards of living and at the same time reduces Carbon Dioxide levels back to the levels that existed prior to the industrial age of ~300 ppm. We are now at 400 ppm and growing at a geometrically increasing rate now a bit over 2 ppm per year and at that rate we will reach 500 ppm in 2050 at which point the UN Climate models and there spokespersons Al Gore and James Hansen say we will have an ecological and economic disaster that is irreversible.

There are only two ways to achieve this reduction back to their ideal ~300 ppm and they are not mutual exclusive. One is to reduce the world’s population and the other is to either reduce energy consumption or make a switch to non carbon burning fuels such as solar PV or wind turbines. Agenda 21 is the driver for all the sustainability programs that are being implemented at this time in the United States and the European Union; which mean that if the belief that Carbon Dioxide is the ultimate reason for changes in global climate is not true, that untold trillions of dollars and massive economic restructuring would be unwarranted.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) we are using about 500 Quad of energy world wide right now of which maybe 15% is classed as sustainable, and there are estimated to be 7.0 billion people on the planet. That means that 425 Quad of energy usage is not sustainable and the world’s population could reach 9.0 billion by 2050. By then we would be using 900 Quad of energy at current growth trends of which probably 650 Quad will not be sustainable if nothing major changes. The goal of Agenda 21 is therefore to find ways to reduce the number of people or significantly reduce how much energy they use. Carbon taxes and the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries are the means to achieve this but there are no engineers on the planet that would say it would be possible to produce 650 Quad of sustainable generating capacity in 35 years (335% more than now), especially since no real effort has yet been made. And some of the “sustainable” categories are mutually exclusive e.g. growing plants for ethanol verses food.

To put this in perspective if we could make 250 Quad of reliable sustainable generating capacity annually that would mean that we could not have more than 1 billion people (actually the goal seems to be about half of that) on the planet and even those would not be able to live as well as we in the US do now. Prior to the 2008 financial collapse the US used about 100 Quad and had 300 million people. If the goal is 250 quad and 1 billion people that would mean a 25% reduction in the standard of living for all the advanced socialites. Since this is what is “required” to achieve the stated goals of preventing 500 ppm from happening it’s very obvious that there is a major problem brewing.

How did all this negativism about our future come about? Well actually it started in 1798 when Thomas Robert Malthus (b-1766 to d-1834) who was a cleric in the Church of England and a famous Classical English economist published his An Essay on the Principle of Population. This work and understanding it is critical to understanding our current situation. From Wikipedia we have the following. Malthus argued in his Essay (1798) that population growth generally expanded in times and in regions of plenty until the size of the population relative to the primary resources caused distress:

“Yet in all societies, even those that are most vicious, the tendency to a virtuous attachment is so strong that there is a constant effort towards an increase of population. This constant effort as constantly tends to subject the lower classes of the society to distress and to prevent any great permanent amelioration of their condition”.

—Malthus T.R. 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter II, p 18 in Oxford World’s Classics reprint.

Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, “preventive checks” to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability. Malthus also argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit and that would also prevent this from happening.

Of the relationship between population and economics, Malthus wrote that when the population of laborers grows faster than the production of food, real wages fall because the growing population causes the cost of living (i.e., the cost of food) to go up. Difficulties of raising a family eventually reduce the rate of population growth, until the falling population again leads to higher real wages. In the second and subsequent editions Malthus put more emphasis on moral restraint as the best means of easing the poverty of the lower classes.

Despite facts to the contrary as science found ways to provide more food from less land, the limitation of the world’s population has been the goal of many thinkers ever since. Today that view started by Malthus is promoted by the Club of Rome which was founded in 1968 about the same time as all the other like organizations started. From this group and others like it a one world government has been promoted which would be run by the world’s intellectual elites and they would limit growth and population to achieve a level that they believe is sustainable.

There are many scientists in the world that do not agree with the conclusions of the IPCC, not necessarily from bad science but from a lack of sufficient knowledge of all the relevant variables and the lack of computers of a sufficient capability to properly process the number of equations that would be required. Many of these scientists also believe that the world’s temperature is primarily controlled by other factors than CO2. The problem has been showing a provable theory based on science and physics on how this might occur and how could this alternative explanation be used to predict future global temperatures.

In this book we will show that properly constructed mathematical modeling can be used to predict world temperature with significantly greater accuracy than the IPCC computer models. The reason that the model proposed here is more accurate is that it is based on past changes in temperatures that have been observed and have documented patterns and those patterns have a reoccurring cycle. When those patterns are broken down into their simplest from and then properly modeled and plotted into the future it is found that the resultant model’s predictions match very closely with the observed world temperatures as published monthly by NASA.

 

Problems with the NASA Temperature Data


Homogenized Anomalies

NASA makes an attempt at determining the World’s temperature each month and publishes the result around the middle of each month in various reports one of which is called the Land Ocean Temperature Index, or LOTI. This table of values is published back to January 1880 and the lasted version includes temperatures though April 2014, or 1,600 values. However, rather than publish an actual temperature they first establish a base of 14.0 degrees Celsius and then using a complex algorithm determine a value higher or lower than the 14.0 degrees Celsius base in hundredths of a degree which they call an anomaly, i.e. 13.5 degrees Celsius would be -50 and 14.5 would be +50. Each month when the new table is created using this process called “homogenization” NASA recalculates all the temperatures all the way back to January 1880.

After several years of studying the published values, sometime in early 2013 as I remember it, a major change was noticed in the 2012 published values from those in earlier periods. Previous to this minor changes of a few hundredths of a degree were commonly observed in the LOTI data but they just appeared to be random or rounding changes, which would be normal in a process like NASA uses, so they were ignored. The reason is that a few pluses and a few minuses would mostly cancel out and could be ignored as having no real affect. What was observed was something much different and so an in depth analysis was made of the entire set of 13 available tables and then by entering all the data for 8 of them plus 5 new ones into a spreadsheet which created a table with now over 22,000 values, which could be reviewed.

To simplify the analysis the data for the 13 reports was looked at in ten year blocks e.g. January 1880 to December 1889 which would be 120 values and an average determined; this would eliminate any random or rounding changes. This was done for the period January 1880 through December 2009 creating a Table of 169 values which were placed into an Excel Chart. What should have been observed would be a more or less horizontal line across the Chart for each time block for the average value of the NASA anomaly for that period. Instead what was observed were major shifts mostly down meaning colder in a large number of the ten year time blocks all occurring during 2012; meaning that a programming change must have been made that shifted around entire blocks of temperature anomalies. This has to be intentional and not random.

Rather than show all 13 plots four new ones were created to show where the major change was and they are plotted here as 1900 to 1919, 1920 to 1939, 1940 to 1959 and 1960 to 1979 each plot containing 240 values for each of the 13 NASA LOTI reports. Virtually all the 13 original time blocks showed this kind of shift, some up and some down in values, but since many overlapped it was hard to track the individual plots and this simplified version shows the core of what was done with the temperatures without the distraction of too many plots.

NASA PROBLEMS

It’s obvious that there has been a major shift in the values shown in NASA table LOTI during these four 20 year periods totaling 80 years; shown in the area contained in the blue oval with the question mark. What appears to have been done is to make the 1900 to 1919 period .15 degrees colder; make the 1920 to 1939 period .1 degree colder; make the 1940 to 1959 period about .05 degrees colder and them make the 1960 to 1979 period about .025 degrees warmer. While doing this they made the 1960 to 1979 period warmer than the earlier 1940 to 1959 period such that the look of the data fit the narrative of the alarmist message being promoted by Hansen and Gore of dangerous anthropogenic global warming which was the original message being promoted at the time. The data after the 2012 change shows a very clear ~.35 degree progressive warming, red arrow, from 1900 to 1979 compared to less than ~.2 degrees prior to 2012, black arrow, and it also gets rid of the 1940 to 1959 warm period which doesn’t match the overall message being promoted.

It’s hard to image how this change could come about without conscious effort being applied to make this the end result; it’s just too convenient to be by chance.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected

Analysis of Global Temperature Trends, April 2014


What really going on with the Climate?

The analysis and plots shown here are based on the following: first NASA-GISS temperature anomalies (converted to degrees Celsius) as shown in their table LOTI, second James Hansen’s Scenario B data, which is the very core of the IPCC Global Climate models which was based on a CO2 sensitivity value of 3.0 degrees Celsius, lastly, a plot based on an alternative climate model designated the ‘PCM’ climate model based on a sensitively value of .65 degrees Celsius. To smooth out large monthly variations a 12 month running average is used in all the plots. This information will be shown in four tables and updated each month as the new data comes in.

2014-April

The first plot, UL is a plot of the NASA temperature anomaly converted to degrees Celsius shown in red with a black trend line added. There has been a very clear reversal in the upward movement of global temperatures since about 2001 and neither the UN IPCC nor anyone else has an explanation for this. Since CO2 has continued to increase at what could be argued an increasing rate this raises serious doubts about the logic programmed into all the IPCC global climate models.

The next plot UR, also in red, shows the IPCC estimates of what the Global temperature should be, based on Hansen’s Scenario B, with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. Therefore this plot represents a deviation from what the Climate “believers” think the temperature should be; with a positive value indicating the IPCC values are higher than actual and a negative value indicating the IPCC values are lower than actual. A black trend line is added and we can clearly see that the deviation from expected is increasing at an increasing rate. This makes sense since the IPCC models project increased temperatures based primarily on the increasing level of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Unfortunately, for them, the actual temperatures from NASA are trending down since other factors are in play, therefore each year the gap between them widens. Since we have 12 years of observations’ showing this pattern it becomes hard to justify a continuing belief in the IPCC climate models, there is obviously something very wrong.

The next plot LL shown in blue is based on the equations in the PCM climate model described in previous papers and posts here and since it is generated by “equations” a trend line is not needed. As can be seen the PCM, LL, and the NASA, UL, trend plots are very similar the reason being that in the PCM model there is a 68.2 year cycle that moves the trend line up and then down a total of .30 degrees Celsius (.0044 degrees Celsius per year); and we are now in the downward portion of that trend which will continue until around 2035. This short cycle is clearly observed in the raw NASA data in the LOTI table going back to 1880. Because there is also a long trend, 1052.6 years with an up and down of 1.36 degrees Celsius (.0013 degrees Celsius per year) also observed in the NASA data; there is a net cooling of .0031 degrees Celsius per year going up right now. After about 2035 it will reverse and be a net increase of .0057 degrees Celsius. These are all round numbers as both curves are sine curves.

The last plot LR in blue uses the same logic as used in the UR plot, here we use the PCM estimates of what the Global temperature should be with the NASA actual temperatures’ subtracted from them. A positive value indicates the PCM values are higher than actual and a negative value indicates the PCM values are lower than expected. A black trend line was added and it clearly shows that the PCM model is tracking the NASA actual values very closely. In, fact since 1970 the PCM model has rarely been off by more than +/- .1 degrees Celsius and has an average trend of almost zero error, while the IPCC models are erratic and are now approaching an error rate of +.5 degrees above expected.

The IPCC models were designed before a true picture of the world’s climate was understood. During the 1980’s and 1990’s CO2 levels were going up and the world temperature was also going up so there appeared to be correlation and causation. The mistake that was made was looking at only a 20 year period when the real variations in climate move in much longer cycles. Those other cycles can be observed in the NASA data but they were ignored for some reason. By ignoring those trends and focusing only on CO2 the models will be unable to correctly plot global temperatures until they are fixed.

The purpose of this post is to make people aware of the errors inherent in the IPCC models so that they can be corrected.

Sir Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) was an Austrian and British philosopher and a professor at the London School of Economics. He is considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century, and he also wrote extensively on social and political philosophy. The following quotes of his apply to this subject.

If we are uncritical we shall always find what we want: we shall look for, and find, confirmations, and we shall look away from, and not see, whatever might be dangerous to our pet theories.

Whenever a theory appears to you as the only possible one, take this as a sign that you have neither understood the theory nor the problem which it was intended to solve.

… (S)cience is one of the very few human activities — perhaps the only one — in which errors are systematically criticized and fairly often, in time, corrected