Welcome to Oomeen's website
Overview
I have developed this website principally to explain to laypersons how the belief system ‘Climate Change’ has evolved, the science underlying it and the implications for societies embracing its doctrine. I have used my scientific training and wide experience in mathematical modelling to develop the various pages of this website which are all personal interpretations. I have no association with any institution or commercial operation and my efforts are entirely self-funded.
The ‘What is Climate Change?’ page
explains further what is meant by ' Climate Change'. Essentially the belief system (and its dogma) is built around the United Nations definition of Climate Change. The UN calls it "a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere”. Obsessing on the UN definition consigns Natural Climate Variability, the process that had been influencing climate for over 500 million years, to a minor role.
This implications of this definition are axiomatically incorporated into Climate Change models. These models are constructed on the assumption of the truth of the assertion ‘Anthropogenic emissions cause Global Warming and Climate Change and unless we stop burning fossil fuels the Earth will be plunged into Climate Armageddon’.
'The Anointed' : this web-site refers to those believing in Climate Change dogma as ‘The Climate Change Anointed’.
This is a reference to Thomas Sowell’s 1995 book “The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”.
The Anointed’ are a characterised, by Sowell, as group of intellectual and political elites who believe in their moral and intellectual superiority over the general population. Many policies championed by these elites fail because they are based on a flawed, utopian vision of how things should be rather than empirical evidence and practical consequences of how things are in the real world.
The philosophical approach to climate modelling demonstrates this latter point.
Recent statements by António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations are typical of the Anointed: ‘Earth is becoming hotter and more dangerous for everyone, everywhere, billions of people are facing an extreme heat epidemic - wilting under increasingly deadly heatwaves, with temperatures topping 50 degrees Celsius around the world - halfway to boiling.’
He (Guterres) consistently and urgently calls for a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels, describing the continued reliance on them as "moral and economic madness". His position, particularly in 2024 and 2025, emphasizes that fossil fuels are the primary driver of the climate crisis, leading to "climate chaos".
The Science
Political statements about the science underlying the so-called ‘Climate Crisis’ range from President Trump’s contention In a speech to the UN General Assembly (Sept 2025) referring to Climate Change as "the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world" to President Obama’s 2016 tweet “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that Climate Change is real, man-made and dangerous”.
Neither of these Presidents have any scientific training and their statements are purely political statements. Neither ‘con job’ nor ‘consensus’ has any meaning in a proper scientific debate.
Although ‘The Anointed’ are outraged at Trump’s statement they will often quote Obama’s statement as though it is true and that 'the science is settled'. It is not.
To be clear the ‘consensus’ Obama referred to was based on several deeply flawed surveys. As in so many utterances concerned with Climate Change, the surveys were predicated on the truth of the self-fulfilling asssertion 'Anthropogenic emissions casue Climate Change'.
But even a real, verifed ‘consensus’, if it actually existed, would not guarantee correctness. The apposite parallel with the Catholic Church’s 16th century consensus on an earlier anthropocentric theory that the sun goes round the Earth is a stark warning about assuming 'consenus' means 'true'.
What is the ‘true science’?
Many chemists and physicists have an appreciation of the quantum process by which a suitable wavelength photon is absorbed by a Greenhouse gas molecule thereby generating its vibrational rotational spectrum. In my experience, very few of those fully understand this quantum process - I know I struggled with it for years and, to this day, cannot generate, unaided, the mathematics describing it.
Most other scientists just go along with the idea of Greenhouse gases absorbing infrared heat but haven’t a clue as to exactly how the mechanism works.
Laypersons and non-scientists struggle to even appreccciate it as it happens in the quantum world which is alien to all human real-life experience.
‘The Greenhouse Effect’ page
of this website give my summary on how the Greenhouse Effect operates.
I have made it as accessible as I can for laypersons so hopefully it meets the acid test of 'if you can't explain it to an intelligent 11-year old child then you don't understand it yourself'.
There is no contention within the scientific community as to this quantum vibrational rotational absorption effect is real.
What is contentious, however, is the quantification of the contribution increased levels of Greenhouse Gases (particularly carbon dioxide) have on the total Greenhouse effect.
That the Greenhouse effect is real is also not in contention.
The total effect can be estimated from observations (and theoretical calculations) and is generally considered as keeping the Earth 33⁰C to 34⁰C warmer than it would be with no atmosphere.
The contributions of different gasses to this total cannot be observed directly so the climate scientists must fall back onto modelling these contributions.
It is here that contention creeps in relating to the use of the scientific method.
As an aside, it is worth mentioning that there is little contention in the scientific community that the Earth is experiencing a 'Modern Warm Period' - particularly the period following the Little Ice Age and the 1976-1999 and post 2016 periods.
The contention is only in the cause: Is it natural variation or due to Anthropogenic causes.
I believe that it is predominantly due to natural climate variability factors but augmented by the clear dominance of humans over the Earth's surface.
The fact that of total mammal biomass, humans and our domestic animals comprise 96% is indicative.
Also the dominance in the use of the Earth's surface where almost all suitable land is used for agriculture and human settlements (particulary cities) are warmer than surrounding coutryside must be a factor.
I find, however, that the contribution to warming experienced during the Modern Warm Period from burning fossil fuels is less than 0.1⁰C
‘The Cardinal Model’ page
explains my approach to the problem of determining the contribution to the total Greenhouse effect by increased levels of Greeenhouse gasses.
This approach would find favour by Karl Popper (20th century philosopher of science) as it follows the scientificc method.
The Cardinal Model estimates that ‘doubling’ carbon dioxide (sometime by the late 2050s, at the current rate) would lead to a less than 0.1⁰C contribution to warming.
The ’ CO2 is not the villain it is asserted to be’ page
explains more fully how and why I believe carbon dioxide plays such a minor part in Global Warming.
Anointed modellers break Karl Poper’s scientific-method rule. They start out by asserting the very thing they wish to prove is true and then proceed to 'prove' it.
This is a general characteristic of Sowell’s Anointed "because they are based on a flawed, utopian vision of how things should be rather than empirical evidence and practical consequences of how things are in the real world".
Anointed models estimate ‘doubling’ of carbon dioxide will lead to between 2.5⁰C and 4.0⁰C warming.
Which is 'pseudo-science'?
The Anointed refer to my calculations and all of those carried out by ‘Climate Deniers’ as pseudo-science.
This ironically unfair as it is the Anointed modellers who deviate from the true scientific method.
Books by Oomeen Basing published at the end of December 2025
Available on Amazon in paperback and for the Kindle. Links below.
Anthropogenic emissions contribute so little to Global Warming that we need not fear imminent climate breakdown. In reality we should bask in the delights of the modern warm period and the benefits of increased carbon dioxide. Climate will continue to change, as it always has, through Natural Climate Variability.
These climate changes will be boosted by the impact of humans on the environment – particularly on biodiversity.
The ruling elite must end their climate-ineffectual and pointless obsession with ceasing fossil fuel use and concentrate on counteracting locally perceived changes to climate.
The negative impact of the dominance of human society on the environment is best countered by mitigating strategies and not through blindly following the blinkered ‘we know best’ moral-high-ground. obsessive arrogance of the Anointed. _
