Climate Hustle 2 Premieres this Evening at 8 p.m.

September 24th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Guest post by Paul Driessen

Weekly, daily, even hourly, we are told that global temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, and hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods and droughts are all getting more frequent, intense and destructive because of climate change. Not just climate change, of course, but manmade climate change, due to humanity’s use of fossil fuels — which provide 80% of all the energy that powers America and the world.

The claims assume Earth’s climate and weather were unchanged and unchanging until recent decades. That presumption is belied of course by multiple glacial and interglacial periods; the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods; the Little Ice Age; the Dust Bowl, Anasazi and Mayan droughts; the Galveston, Texas hurricane of 1900 and Great Labor Day Hurricane of 1935; the 1925 Tri-State Tornado; and countless other climate eras and extreme weather events throughout history.

But all would be vastly better, we are further misinformed, if the world simply stopped using those fuels, and switched to “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” wind, solar, biofuel and battery technologies.

Climate alarm messages are conveyed repeatedly in classrooms, newspapers, television and radio news programs, social media, movies and other media — while contrarian voices and evidence are routinely and vigorously suppressed by an increasingly powerful Big Tech, political and academic Cancel Culture.

These messages, and green energy agendas justified by them, are likely to gain far more influence under a Harris-Biden Administration, especially one pushed further and further to the left by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her vocal, often violent “progressive” allies.

In 2016, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) released its documentary film Climate Hustle. The factual, often hilarious movie featured scientists, weather forecasters and other experts who challenged claims that our cars, factories and farms are causing catastrophic climate. It was featured in 400 U.S. movie theaters, where it made a persuasive case that the climate apocalypse is “an overheated environmental con job.”

Now, this Thursday, September 24, CFACT is releasing Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy. The worldwide streaming event will go live at 8:00 pm local time, in every time zone on Earth, wherever you live.

You can get your tickets here to watch the online world premiere — with unlimited replay viewing through September 27, in case you miss the opening.

For those who missed it or want a refresher, CFACT is also offering a re-broadcast of Climate Hustle 1 for instant viewing. You can get combined tickets for both events here.

Climate Hustle 2 is masterfully hosted and narrated by Hollywood’s Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules in the television movie. Like CH1, it features a superb lineup of experts [ including me – Roy] who challenge claims of “climate tipping points” and “extreme weather cataclysms.” Equally important, they also expose, debunk and demolish the tricks, lies and hidden agendas of global warming and green energy campaigners.

CH2 exposes the campaigners’ and politicians’ real agendas. Not surprisingly, as Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs demonstrate in their Planet of the Humans documentary, those real agendas are money, power, ideology and control. Especially, control over our energy, economy, industries, living standards and personal choices. The campaigners and politicians also have little regard for the ecological, health and human rights consequences that inevitably accompany the ever-widening adoption of wind, solar, biofuel and battery technologies.

Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy hits hard. As CFACT says, “Lies will be smashed. Names will be named. Hypocrites unmasked. Grifters defrocked. Would-be tyrants brought low.”

Accompanying Sorbo is CFACT’s and Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, who hosted Climate Hustle 1. The journal Nature Communications has called Morano the world’s most effective climate communicator. He is also the person climate alarmists most want blacklisted and banned from public discourse.

Meteorologist and WattsUpWithThat.com host Anthony Watts says CH2 highlights numerous instances of “hypocrisy, financial corruption, media bias, classroom indoctrination, political correctness and other troubling matters surrounding the global warming issue.” It offers a true perspective of just how hard the media and climate alarmists are pushing an agenda, and how equally hard climate skeptics are pushing back.” Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth presents rhetoric, doom and misinformation. But “if you want a practical and sensible view of what is really happening with climate, watch Climate Hustle 2.”

The Wall Street Journal cites scientist Roger Pielke, Jr., who points out that hurricanes hitting the U.S. have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1900. The Journal also notes that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has said “it is premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.” And let’s not forget the record twelve-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall in the United States. (Was that due to more atmospheric carbon dioxide?)

As to tornadoes, a Washington Post article clearly shows that many more violent F4 and F5 tornadoes hit the United States between 1950 and 1985, than during the next 35 years, 1986-2020. Even more amazing, in 2018, for the first year in recorded history, not one violent tornado struck the U.S.

Canada’s Friends of Science says, once you see Climate Hustle 2, “you can’t unsee the damage the climate monarchy is doing to every aspect of scientific inquiry, to freedom and to democratic society.”

CFACT president Craig Rucker says “Politicians have abandoned any semblance of scientific reality and are instead regurgitating talking points from radical pressure groups to a media that has little interest in vetting their credibility.” In fact, the Cancel Culture is actively suppressing any climate skeptic views.

Twitter actively banned Climate Hustle 2 and froze CFACT’s Twitter account. On appeal the account was unfrozen, but the ban adversely affected thousands of CFACT Twitter followers.

Amazon Prime Video has removed Climate Hustle 1 from its website. CFACT tried to appeal, but Amazon didn’t respond. You can watch the trailer, but the actual film is now “unavailable in your area.” Amazon only lets people buy new DVDs through the film’s producer, CDR Communications ($19.95) — while also processing fulfillment for third party vendors who sell used DVDs (for over $45).

Wikipedia claims Climate Hustle is “a 2016 film rejecting the existence and cause of climate change, narrated by climate change denialist Marc Morano… and funded by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market pressure group funded by the fossil fuel lobby.” (CFACT has received no fossil fuel money for over a decade, and got only small amounts before that.)

Newspapers, TV and radio news programs, social media sites, schools and other arenas should present all the news and foster open discussion and debate. But many refuse to do so. Instead, they function as thought police, actively and constantly finding and suppressing what you can see, read, hear and say, because it goes against their narratives and the agendas they support.

Climate and energy are high on that list. That makes Climate Hustle 1 and 2 especially important this year — and makes it essential that every concerned voter and energy user watch and promote this film.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.


395 Responses to “Climate Hustle 2 Premieres this Evening at 8 p.m.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. studentb says:

    Check out his background:
    Driessen is 72 years old. He received his BA in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University. Lawrence University is a private liberal arts college and conservatory of music in Appleton, Wisconsin.

    Driessen is senior policy adviser at a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian think tank focused on environmental issues that has received funding from fossil fuel interests such as ExxonMobil and Chevron. Driessen says he doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming. “Every measure of actual evidence contradicts alarmist claims and computer model predictions. No matter how fast or sophisticated those models are, feeding them false or unproven assumptions about CO2 and manipulated or ‘homogenized’ temperature data still yields garbage output, scenarios and predictions.”

    No refereed publications on anything I could find.

    Yeah. He sounds like an unbiased expert.
    Give me a break!

    • Roy Spencer says:

      You presumably prefer the unbiased experts like Bill McKibben, Al Gore, Van Jones, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Greta Thunberg, and the like? There are no unbiased experts that I know of, on either side.

      • bdgwx says:

        I don’t consider any of those people experts. And when Mr. Driessen starts out echoing the same tiresome strawman that scientists don’t think Earth’s climate ever changed until recent decades I’m convinced that he isn’t either. In fact, that argument is so astonishingly ridiculous that I’m just trying to come to grasp with the fact that it got posted at all here.

      • RW says:

        But how many ‘experts’ are there really?

      • studentb says:

        see my comment on Bill McKibbin down below

      • Luis Chirinos says:

        Roy,
        what is your opinion of Ray Pierrehumbert’s work? I’ve been hearing his name a lot recently. Thanks

    • WizGeek says:

      @StudentB: Paul Driessen is an author with two degrees: His first degree is in Earth sciences called geology and field ecology from, yes, Lawrence University, and his second degree is a JD from Denver College of Law. Notwithstanding your ad hominem attack’s omission of “geology” from his degree earnings, there are two glaring oversights in your insinuation: What was LU’s geology and field ecology curriculum “back in day,” and what additional expertise and experience has Mr. Driessen gained over the past 25 years?

      You see, B, authors do research, research leads to insight, and from insight is drawn wisdom. Rather than attack the person–which certain ideological factions are wont to do–what, pray tell, have you to say regarding his policy and scientific presentations? Please stick to his areas of expertise which, taken from his web site, are:

      “During a 25-year career that included staff tenures with the United States Senate, Department of the Interior and an energy trade association, he has spoken and written frequently on energy and environmental policy, global climate change, corporate social responsibility and other topics. He’s also written articles and professional papers on marine life associated with oil platforms off the coasts of California and Louisiana – and produced a video documentary on the subject.”

      What are your credentials that entitle you to judge Mr. Driessen’s expertise and veracity?

      • studentb says:

        I have three degrees from a large university.
        I worked for a government agency for many years.
        I have published a number of scientific papers in my time.
        I am an author of many articles (including this one).
        I have even produced and posted a video (on Facebook).
        I am regarded as somewhat of an expert by many (mainly my family).

        I believe I now have the credentials to take up brain surgery.

        • Swenson says:

          studentb,

          Yes, but why should anybody believe you? Any fool can get a paper published, and many do. And many published papers are so awful, they have to be retracted.

          Degrees from a large university are awarded to people of varying intelligence. Fifty percent will be below the class average, or dumber than the fifty percent above average. Where do you stand?

          Richard Feynman characterised science as belief in the ignorance of experts. Do you disagree?

          I make up my own mind, based on my subjective assessments of many things. The things you present are unconvincing, to say the least.

          • studentb says:

            Geez you are dumb! Try looking up the meaning of the word IRONY.

          • Swenson says:

            Shock! Horror!

            Do you mean to say you were lying? Who would have guessed? A lying, sarcastic, alarmist?

            Oh, I see, you were trying to be humorous by saying the opposite of what you really meant. Indicating how clever you could be. Like calling falling temperatures heating, or saying that Michael Mann is a Nobel Prize winner!

            Too clever by half?

          • studentb says:

            Doubling down on stupidity !
            Most of what I said is true. Maybe you could get somebody to explain to you what is going on.

          • Swenson says:

            studentb,

            Ah! Going all cryptic now, are you?

            You admit to lying, but only a bit, so it doesnt really count! What is going on is easy to see – you are a dimwitted troll. How are you doing, finding a testable GHE hypothesis?

            Oh I see, you cant, so you just have to pretend that acknowledging thing like the scientific method is beneath a creature of your magnificent omniscience. Or maybe you are just a donkey, braying loudly, hoping to create a diversion. Good luck with that!

          • studentb says:

            Don’t you just hate it when everybody else understands the joke but you don’t.

          • bill hunter says:

            Thats correct science would not advance unless there was a belief still alive in the ignorance of experts. Without it we would be a species of sycophants.

          • bill hunter says:

            one needs to accept that gases radiate energy. put your hand near fire. even the sun is a radiating ball of gas.

            i am honored by Svante considering me as a reference.

        • gallopingcamel says:

          @studentb,
          You are just another “Useful Idiot”.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      student…”Check out his background:
      Driessen is 72 years old. He received his BA in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University”.

      Typical alarmist response, an ad hom attack aimed at the messenger rather than a critique of the message.

      • blaz says:

        He did mention that he couldn’t find a single article that Driessen has published and peer reviewed on the subject of Climate. This is a fair point. Selling books or speaking about your beliefs has little to do with science. You publish your data and allow others to check it for flaws or discrepancies.

        • bill hunter says:

          that appears true for all theories of climate change. theories are proposed and outlined then handed over to multiple modeling teams to see if they can figure out the quantification. Problem is there are too many natural events out there that we poorly understand (Dr. Akasofu and others)but no model has been embraced for correctly quantifying the greenhouse effect. we continue to ignore observations and simply believe the observations to be wrong rather than some kind of weird averaging of many models. One doesn’t need a scientist to tell us the science isn’t settled on this. Its a no brainer that its not.

    • bill hunter says:

      Perhaps then you will believe this expert. . . .at least on the science issues rather than the political issue of whether the risks described rises to the level of huge amounts of funding into his efforts.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fkCo_trbT8

      I counted about 15 different statements on uncertainty.

      In our world people have a lot more to worry about beyond vague and uncertain descriptions of risk.

      Here the shoe is on the other foot. With one of the top mathematicians in climate prediction telling clearly ”the science is not settled” to the no doubt chagrin of political mouthpieces and their brainless sycophants.

      The actual fact that is clear is over the past 100 years civilization has greatly improved and its due in large part to the use of fossil fuels. Further it appears the benefits of global warming has opened up the cold wilderness to more human use while not closing down population growth in the in warm areas of the earth. Overall humanity is prospering in the face of a claimed risk that keeps suggesting humanity isn’t prospering in the face of huge amounts of data saying otherwise.

      The end of the interview pretty much boils down to an appeal for additional research dollars to eliminate uncertainty to determine the likelihood of risk. Kind of like a lawyer telling you have a case or not. The people in the world still looking for something to eat probably aren’t impressed for good reason. But they do have a lot of lawyers telling them they have a case and that a lawsuit is there best recourse instead of using fossil fuels to boost their economic situation. Its rather ironic that that message is often being delivered by a movie star cruising around in a 453 foot fossil fuel powered luxury yacht that burns as much fuel as an entire fleet of 747’s on a gallon per mile basis.

      Are we really serious here?

      • Svante says:

        Are we really clever here?
        Messing around with global climate, good luck.

        • bill hunter says:

          I have no idea what you are talking about Svante.

          • Svante says:

            Earth’s radiation balance,
            the part radiated by GHGs,
            which depends on temperature,
            which depends on altitude,
            which depends on concentration,
            which we are increasing.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            Are you sure GHG radiate energy?

          • Svante says:

            Not even bill hunter questions that.

          • Nabil Swedan says:

            I question that, because greenhouse gases are not a sperate entity in the atmosphere. They and atmospheric air are one gas mixture based experiments basic laws of gases.

          • Svante says:

            Here’s a spectrum for you:
            https://tinyurl.com/y5rv4cqv

          • ClintR says:

            Svante, what is confusing you is that CO2, and other radiative gases, only emit energy they absorb. So they are not supplying any new energy.

          • Nate says:

            Cintr,

            Without insulation, my house would be much colder in the winter….

            But the atoms in my insulation ALSO only emit energy they abs*rb, and ALSO are not supplying any new energy.

            Why do you guys keep posting the this idiotic strawman over and over and over ad-nauseam?

          • ClintR says:

            Wall insulation inhibits conduction and convection, Nate. Atmospheric CO2 is a lot more complicated than that.

            So you’re using an “idiotic straw man over and over ad nauseam”.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:

            Svante, what is confusing [ClintR] is that CO2, and other radiative gases, only emit energy they absorb. So they are not supplying any new energy.

            That’s a very good question ClintR, I’m glad you asked!

            The key is that GHGs emit the same in all directions.
            This example illustrates the principle with three layers.
            The first layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2, and gets 320 W/m^2 back from the sky. 160 W/m^2 escapes to space:

            N Dwn In Up
            2 160 320 160 TOA
            1 320 640 320
            0 000 480 480 Surface

          • ClintR says:

            Yes silly Svante, if anyone ever asks me why you’re an idiot, it’s nice to have examples like this one.

            Thanks!

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Without insulation, my house would be much colder in the winter.

            But the atoms in my insulation ALSO only emit energy they abs*rb, and ALSO are not supplying any new energy.

            Why do you guys keep posting the this idiotic strawman over and over and over ad-nauseam?
            ===========================

            Nate, you are parroting the grade-school inculcation program for CO2 peddled by many. Even E.Swanson called that its inappropriate to compare the greenhouse effect to home insulation. You may have learned that in grade school but its now time to grow up.

          • Nate says:

            There is a temperature gradient from the heated Earth’s surface thru the atmosphere to cold of space. There is heat flow from the Earths surface through the atmosphrre to space.

            Like it or not folks, that means the atmosphere is acting as an insulator between the Earth’s surface and space.

            It insulates by hindering the transfer of heat by convection, conduction, and radiation.

            You guys whining that is not a fiberglass batt, so its not an insulator is simply ludicrous.

          • Nate says:

            Whether you guys call it an insulator or not makes no difference since it is performing the same function.

            As such, it is not a heat source, yet it keeps the Earth surface warmer than it would otherwise be.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate just goes blah blah blah and produces not one shred of evidence to support his case.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:

            Yes silly Svante, if anyone ever asks me why you’re an idiot, it’s nice to have examples like this one.

            Dear ClintR, perhaps I should have explained better.

            Layer 0 has 160 W/m^2 fixed input plus 320 back radiation.
            Layer 1 gets 480 from layer 0 plus 160 from layer 2.
            Layer 2 gets 320 from layer 1, and sends 160 to space.

            |—+—–+—–+—–+———|
            | N | Dwn | In | Up | |
            |—+—–+—–+—–+———|
            | 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA |
            | 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | |
            | 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface |
            |—+—–+—–+—–+———|

            All layers are in equilibrium, input equals output.
            Without 2+3, layer 0 would send 160 W/m^2 directly to space.
            That corresponds to a much lower temperature than that which emits 480 W/m^2.

          • ClintR says:

            Nate shows his confusion: “[the atmosphere] insulates by hindering the transfer of heat by convection, conduction, and radiation.”

            Nate continues here: “Whether you guys call it an insulator or not makes no difference since it is performing the same function.”

            Nate doesn’t understand atmospheric physics. He believes the atmosphere is a simple “blanket”. He’s ignorant and he can’t learn.

            That’s why he’s an idiot.

          • ClintR says:

            Silly snowflake Svante “explains better” how 160 W/m^2 turns into 480 and 640 W/m^2!

            What a clueless idiot!

          • Nate says:

            “Nate doesn’t understand atmospheric physics. He believes the atmosphere is a simple ‘blanket'”

            Nope, never said the atmosphere was a ‘blanket’.

            “Nate produces not one shred of evidence to support his case.”

            I explained precisely how the atmosphere is acting as an insulator.

            That you guys have no idea what an insulator is, and does, is your ignorance, and not a rebuttal.

            Par for the course.

          • Nate says:

            For the perpetually uninformed, FYI:

            “Thermal insulation is the reduction of heat transfer (i.e., the transfer of thermal energy between objects of differing temperature) between objects in thermal contact or in range of radiative influence. ”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

          • Nate says:

            And more:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-layer_insulation

            An insulator that only impedes radiation, Hmmm.

          • ClintR says:

            From idiot Nate’s own source: “Trapping air is also the principle in all highly insulating clothing materials such as wool, down feathers and fleece.”

            Nate believes the atmosphere is just a simple blanket. He can’t understand atmospheric physics, and can’t learn.

            He’s an idiot.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            There is a temperature gradient from the heated Earth’s surface thru the atmosphere to cold of space. There is heat flow from the Earths surface through the atmosphrre to space.

            Like it or not folks, that means the atmosphere is acting as an insulator between the Earth’s surface and space.

            It insulates by hindering the transfer of heat by convection, conduction, and radiation.

            You guys whining that is not a fiberglass batt, so its not an insulator is simply ludicrous.
            ====================================
            Nate I have acknowledged that the atmosphere acts similar to a solid plate of glass that restricts convection and radiation.

            However, additional layers of radiation as in the so-called grade-school model being described here by Svante (guess he never went to high school) do not provide additional layers of convection restriction.

            Further since the engineering calculations of multiple panes of glass that restrict both convection and radiation in window technology can be done completely ignoring the blockage of radiation.

            Thus the model you provided me in a link above requires a convective adjustment that near as I can tell from what engineering experience I have doesn’t exist.

            Yet I have never seen any science that establishes what that convective adjustment should be. I am trying to dive down into the details but details seem quite scanty.

            What appears to be the case is they just assigned the job of estimating the convective adjustment to a modeling exercise to calculate it backwards to what is needed to create the temperature of the surface of the earth as opposed to actually establishing it as a scientific fact.

            So if correct on that the models are the science experiment to establish the convective adjustment.

            If correct on that assumption there is far more uncertainty about the greenhouse effects ability to warm the planet than a big portion of the science community has been willing to admit to.

            Seems all the major skeptics are right about the certainty of science on this issue.

          • Svante says:

            bill, you misunderstand, I’m not explaining the whole complexity of the atmosphere, only this:

            ClintR says:

            CO2, and other radiative gases, only emit energy they absorb. So they are not supplying any new energy.

            I illustrated how that simple statement leads to a greenhouse effect. Can you understand that?

            |——————————-|
            | N | Dwn | In_ | Up_ | Comment |
            |——————————-|
            | 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA |
            | 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | Mid |
            | 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface |
            |——————————-|

          • ClintR says:

            Silly Svante, in your belief system, EVERYTHING leads to the greenhouse effect! Just like EVERYTHING is rotating on its axis.

            Putting your beliefs above reality makes you an idiot.

            160 W/m^2 can NOT result in 480 or 640 W/m^2, you idiot.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante if you understood what I just wrote you wouldn’t have to ask that question. What part of it did you find confusing?

          • Svante says:

            bill, so many things pop into your head at once.
            You will stay confused if you don’t resolve one thing at a time.
            Please focus and tell me if you see the greenhouse mechanism *in that table*.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            bill, so many things pop into your head at once.
            You will stay confused if you dont resolve one thing at a time.
            Please focus and tell me if you see the greenhouse mechanism *in that table*.

            ==========================================

            Svante, Nate and myself talked about that back on the August UAH temperature thread extensively.

            Nate referred to that as the ”grade-school” version of the greenhouse effect. A cartoon depiction that doesn’t huge amounts of convective negative feedback.

            The negative feedback from convection is an area hotly avoided by warmist scientists because its hard to explain then that any significant amount of heat actually gets back to the surface and instead it is simply assumed it must.

            Each of those layers where you are doing mathematics to create a forcing on the surface is offset by convection physically moving the layer up.

            We can’t even calculate accurately how much radiation goes through the atmospheric window as no controlled study has ever been done on it.

            RW Woods did a study and while the documentation of his experiment is lacking he stated less than one degree was noted via blocking IR by window glass which is less transparent than CO2 to IR.

            And that’s just one moment in one location on the entire planet where such an experiment was conducted.

            Your diagram is somewhat similar to the diagram of window technology of multi-pane windows blocking both IR and convection, repeatedly in each layer.

            Except your cartoon leaves out the convective effects of no0t having more than one convectively blocked layer. So your model might work in outerspace with no gas medium between the panes of glass it doesn’t work that way in an atmosphere.

            Nate called the model you are offering as the cartoon ”grade-school” edition. When I said was the only quantified edition I have ever seen. Nate called me uneducated and that I was looking at the ”grade-school” edition and was completely misinformed.

            You might want to consider that you are also the goat in this public education scam.

          • Nate says:

            work that way in an atmosphere.

            “Nate called the model you are offering as the cartoon ‘grade-school’ edition. When I said was the only quantified.

            Yes you mispresent the discussion. It started with you claiming models ignore convection. I simply pointed out that the real models do not. Then you insisted they do, and i pointed out that the model you referred to was the simplified one shown to students. It is not the full theory, as svante points out.

          • Nate says:

            clearly Bill, convection plays a role in the lower troposphere in transferring 100 w/m2 from the surface. But above the clouds, less and less so, and radiation takes over.

            If radiation is reduced in upper troposphere, just like adding more layers to multi layer insulation does, then the temperature of lower layers rises. Just as it does when I add an extra inch of foil coated insulation to my attic.

          • Nate says:

            “highly insulating clothing materials such as wool, down feathers and fleece.

            Nate believes the atmosphere is just a simple blanket.”

            And Clint twists and lies about what people say to create men of straw and wool.

            I never said the atm works just like a simple blanket, nor clothing.

            This dishonesty is what got him banned twice before.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Bill said: ”Nate called the model you are offering as the cartoon grade-school edition. When I said was the only quantified.”

            Yes you mispresent the discussion.
            =====================================

            I didn’t misrepresent anything Nate. You are just chock full of BS 24/7.

            You said (full paragraph quote!!)

            ”No Bill.

            That is at best the grade-school cartoon version of the GHE, not the real theory.”

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2020-0-43-deg-c/#comment-525478

            Svante is quantifying the grade-school model ignoring that convection does not allow the quantification he is laying out as fact.
            Svante’s statement:”Dear ClintR, perhaps I should have explained better.

            Layer 0 has 160 W/m^2 fixed input plus 320 back radiation.
            Layer 1 gets 480 from layer 0 plus 160 from layer 2.
            Layer 2 gets 320 from layer 1, and sends 160 to space.”

            We may know a few things but we don’t know that. We know what the approximate radiation is from the surface perhaps with 10% and we know what the radiation from the TOA is within perhaps a couple of percent.

            If the grade school model was even remotely correct one could fill a cylinder full of CO2 to a density sufficient to create more than one layer of absorp-tion as light passes through the gas and create a greenhouse effect. It hasn’t been done. If you could do that you could create a greenhouse effect in your livingroom.

            Yet this ridiculous model which you say if for inculcating the kiddies into the Green Party even has the adults thinking it works.

            Most of which goes on in between is rough interpolation especially the estimated imbalance. Has to be just read Trenberth’s budget and note the range of uncertainties he is dealing with.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            clearly Bill, convection plays a role in the lower troposphere in transferring 100 w/m2 from the surface. But above the clouds, less and less so, and radiation takes over.

            ================================

            More sewage spewing from you Nate. Convection of heat through the atmosphere is estimated by Trenberth to be ~2.5 to 4 times that of radiation absorbed by something in the atmosphere.

            As molecules get thinner at TOA both convection and radiation get less. If there were no movement of molecules through the atmosphere as in your favorite example of solid insulation human emissions wouldn’t be up in the atmosphere. . . .they would fall to ground like a blanket. So if you want to claim that radiation takes over in the upper atmosphere you need to provide some evidence of that fact.

            I don’t know if Svante is figuring out how he has been had, but you sure aren’t.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            If radiation is reduced in upper troposphere, just like adding more layers to multi layer insulation does, then the temperature of lower layers rises. Just as it does when I add an extra inch of foil coated insulation to my attic.
            ===================================

            You just called out Clint for ”Nate believes the atmosphere is just a simple blanket.”

            then you turn right around and say the above and equate it to a blanket. Do you always double speak like that? Claim,deny,claim,deny,claim,deny,claim,deny?

          • ClintR says:

            Nate, if you want to now accept that the atmosphere does not perform as a blanket, then that’s good. It may be an indicator that you can learn.

            Also, don’t make false statements about people. It just indicates how desperate you are. I am not dishonest, and I have not been banned.

          • Svante says:

            bill, again, I was not giving you a climate model.
            I illustrated a very basic principle which you and ClintR can not understand. I’m sorry it made you so confused.

            Will it help you if I tell you that it doesn’t matter how you get the heat from surface to the TOA. Radiation, conduction, convection, latent heat, have your pick.
            What matters is the temperature at TOA.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger) , you have been banned at least three times.

          • ClintR says:

            No seedy Svante, you did NOT illustrate “a very basic principle”. You illustrated your ignorance of physics.

            160 W/m^2 can NOT magically turn into 480/640 W/m^2.

            And, you cannot show where I was ever banned.

            You have your false beliefs, and you reject reality.

            That makes you an idiot.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            bill, again, I was not giving you a climate model.
            I illustrated a very basic principle which you and ClintR can not understand. Im sorry it made you so confused.
            Bill it help you if I tell you that it doesnt matter how you get the heat from surface to the TOA. Radiation, conduction, convection, latent heat, have your pick.
            What matters is the temperature at TOA.
            ========================================

            I am not the one who is confused Svante. The principle you are illustrating is the principle by which a blanket works and by which multi-paned windows operate. Then you guys concede that the blanket/window model isn’t appropriate. Why do you concede that? I suspect Svante you probably don’t know. Yet the whole lot of you are too physics dumb to realize what you are talking about.

            The answer is: If that model worked in a gas one could simply and easily prove it in a lab in the same way that insulating windows are tested for their energy efficiency.

            There it is right there. Proof of the falsehood of the model. It doesn’t work! Accept that and Richard Feynman would be proud of you that you learned the most important principle of science.

          • Svante says:

            bill hunter says:

            “you guys concede that the blanket/window model isn’t appropriate.”
            It’s not exact.

            “If that model worked in a gas one could simply and easily prove it in a lab”.
            John Tyndall did that in the 1860’s. His work still stands.

            The next step is to calculate radiation paths in all directions until absorption repeatedly and for all frequencies individually, including how radiation is converted to thermal energy in other molecules, and back again to thermal, and again to radiation, or not.
            The battle proved MODTRAN program does that.
            It is still not a climate model, just a radiation calculator.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante, either provide a reference to an experiment that establishes the reality of insulation value arising out of your example model in a gas or concede you don’t know if there is or not.

          • ClintR says:

            See how seedy you are Svante.

            You can’t even hold to your own words.

            You can’t show us how 160 W/m^2 can magically turn into 480/640 W/m^2.

            You’re such an idiot. Allow me to correct that–“seedy idiot”.

            Much better.

          • Svante says:

            You two are funny, the numbers are random of course.

            They just show how you get a greenhouse effect from simple absorption and emission of the *same* amount.

            Note:
            1) The surface layer has a fixed input of 160 W/m^2.
            2) Temperatures are stable because each layer has the same input and output.
            3) There is a 160 W/m^2 heat flow up through each layer.
            4) bill, this is just showing the principle.
            5) bill, the numbers are random.
            6) bill, the atmospheric window is not included.
            7) bill, this is not a climate model.

            | N | Dwn | In | Up | Note |
            |——————————-|
            | 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA |
            | 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | Mid |
            | 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface |

          • ClintR says:

            Silly Svante believes if he keeps spewing such nonsense maybe it will come true.

            He doesn’t understand that 160 W/m^2 does NOT magically turn into 480/640 W/m^2.

          • Svante says:

            ClintR says:

            radiative gases, only emit energy they absorb

            That’s all you need, as the table shows.

            No energy created, heat moves from hot to cold, equal input and output everywhere. Quite easy to understand.

            | N | Dwn | In | Up | Note
            | 2 | 160 | 320 | 160 | TOA
            | 1 | 320 | 640 | 320 | Mid
            | 0 | 000 | 480 | 480 | Surface input 160 W/m^2

    • Paolo Pagliaro says:

      Are you an expert?
      Did he say he was an expert?

      Who are the supporters of AGW? Honest and penniless people?
      Come on.

  2. bobdroege says:

    He lost me right of the bat with this

    “Weekly, daily, even hourly, we are told that global temperatures are rising, ice caps are melting, and hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods and droughts are all getting more frequent, intense and destructive because of climate change.”

    I have issue with the frequency statement, and tornadoes, but the rest is pretty good.

    Though some believe the whole US forest burned down in the first half of the 20 century.

    Libertarianism had lost its sparkle for me a long time ago.

    • Roy Spencer says:

      “…we are told that…” does not imply support or non-support of those issues… so, you would have to read further to be “lost” by that sentence.

      • Martin23233 says:

        Often times when one is ‘lost’ they don’t even know they are lost… they fail to ask critical questions and accept real data points that can help them from being ‘lost’….as for those that really are ‘lost’ and know it,they are the ones that often do ask the critical questions and do weigh data points….and come around to a better understanding…maybe not fully swayed but maybe more aware and no longer ‘lost’.
        Best advice I can offer to those that get ‘lost’ … don’t give up…the climate will be here tomorrow and you’ll have one more set of data points that will help out…. and once you do get ‘lost’ and claim you are ‘lost’ be of good cheer and mindset and figure out just where you first felt you were ‘lost’….if it was at the point where one would question the credentials or standing of another w/o first knowing the data and life’s work that earned them such credentials…. then it becomes clear why one gets ‘lost’.

      • bobdroege says:

        I know a Gish gallop when I see one.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          bobd…”I know a Gish gallop when I see one”.

          “The Gish Gallop is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal …”

          Apparently you don’t know one when you see it. Martin made some excellent points.

  3. Entropic man says:

    A magnificent example of preaching to a choir.

    The climate change deniers here will soak up every word.

    Everyone else will be tempted to go through this with a red pencil underlining all the mistakes, selective quotations, insults and other rhetorical or propaganda tricks.

    If I had to describe this article In two words they would be Gish Gallop.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…”The climate change deniers here will soak up every word”.

      No climate change deniers here. In all my years posting on Roy’s site I have never heard anyone deny climate change. What some of us deny is that climates are not changing due to an atmospheric gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.

      Besides, the term climate change is yet another climate hustle. When the alarmists could not prove anthropogenic gases are warming the atmosphere, they introduced the obfuscation of ‘climate change’. It suggests there is only one climate on the planet and that it is changing catastrophically.

    • Paolo Pagliaro says:

      You should already be used to propaganda.

      Btw, how is going that flooding of NYC expected for 2004?
      And the “irreversible conditions” by 2012?
      And polar bears extinction?

      But of course, now there’s forest auto-combustion in September (but only inside the eastern US borders).

      Oh my, I thought that science theories stands or falls on the results of their predictions. It seems strangely like Communism, which fails every time but it’s never “real Communism”.

  4. bdgwx says:

    Paul Driessen said: The claims assume Earth’s climate and weather were unchanged and unchanging until recent decades.

    Seriously?

  5. Nate says:

    The media, shockingly, are not always scientifically accurate.

    OTOH, one should not assume since there is some hype, that all of it is wrong and alarmism.

    Things are changing that are not just abstract.

    Artic Sea Ice IS RECEDING.

    Sea level rise IS ACCELERATING.

    West Coast fires ARE GETTING WORSE. This year broke records for acres burned that were just broken a couple of years ago.

    In large part because the drought indices for the Western US ARE GETTING WORSE.

    https://tinyurl.com/y6mmto6r

    This type of propaganda video is fighting a losing battle against facts on the ground.

    • Ken says:

      Yeah, arctic ice is receding.

      Has it ever receded as far as in recent observations? If the Medieval warm period was warmer than now then ice must have receded further than now too. Too bad there are not reliable records.

      I haven’t found any evidence of sea level rise accelerating. The stations that have been around for a hundred years and are on tectonically stable ground are showing sea level is rising 1.7/1.8 mm per year since the gauges were installed.

      The only people claiming its otherwise are fans of satellite data that shows sea level rising on the order of 3 mm per year.

      The difference between the two sets of sea level data is the subject of much controversy. I don’t know why because the tide gauges look pretty solid as a source of data; it seems obvious there is a problem with satellite measurements of sea level.

      West coast fires are not getting worse. In Canada, fires are actually unusually quiet this year. Why are US fires worse than Canada this year? The word ‘Antifa’ roams across my mind.

      Further, US fire data goes back to about 1900 and that data shows much larger burn areas, particularly during the 1930’s.

      I don’t know where you are getting your facts. Are there two sets of data out there?

      • Fred M. Cain says:

        Ken,

        It sounds to me like the wildfires in the West really are worse this year than I’ve ever seen them. But, like I asked in another comment nearby, HOW, pray tell, does “climate change” start forest fires?

        I think you can make a case that climate change may be producing longer, hotter summers and a longer fire season. I can accept that (although I don’t know if that’s really true. Does anybody know for sure?).

        But a warmer planet doesn’t abandon a campfire in the woods. Climate change can not cause a utility company to fail to maintain their power lines, etc.

        You know, I got kicked off a blog known as “Wildfire Today” because I asked these kinds of questions. I didn’t realize that “Wildfire Today” was a left-leaning, climate change alarmist group.

        The frightening thing about the left is that they will not tolerate any kind of dissent that’s contrary to their narrative.

        I’ve found that out for sure !

        Regards,
        Fred M. Cain

    • Ossqss says:

      Sea Ice starting points are kinda important.

      https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Arctic-sea-ice-extent-1900-2017.png

      Not gonna bother with SLR rabit holes cause NYC sinking and Miami is a land filled swamp with ground water being pumped out from under it etc.

      Now on that fire item, 90+% of those are man made (many arson like the recent examples), leaving alone decades of poor land management on the West coast creating the tinderbox the enviro’s asked for.

      C’est la vie

    • Norman says:

      Nate

      You are correct on the current drought. At this time they are calling it a megadrought. However can you attribute this to the small increase in global temperature?

      There were other megadroughts in the Western USA. Rather than blanket call it “Climate Change” caused by global warming it would be far better to really try to find the cause of the megadrought. If you have a cause you are better equipped to accurately determine if current global warming is the actual cause.

      It also looks like for fifty years the Western USA was the wettest in a long term history. I am thinking the cause might be shifting ocean currents. These might take hundreds of years to change.

      https://www.geekwire.com/2020/climate-experts-say-past-19-years-qualify-megadrought-western-u-s/

      Ocean current changes could also cause the receding Arctic Sea Ice. If a warm ocean current shifted and moves warmer water into the Arctic Sea it could melt more ice than previous years. This would be seen in winter months when there is no sun and the ice is expanding. It seems to stall in the Barents Sea where in earlier years this would be much greater ice extent. The other areas look normal compared to the average.

      There are many things not understood well in Climate Science. Attributing it to a single cause with no mechanisms to explain how the cause is responsible may need to have some caution thrown in. I view these films like pouring a little water on the subject to cool it off a little from time to time.

      • Nate says:

        SLR reputable publications showvthat it is
        accelrating, see White et al

        Tide gauges agree.

        “Now on that fire item, 90+% of those are man made (many arson like the recent examples), leaving alone decades of poor land management on the West coast creating the tinderbox the enviros asked for.”

        And? Data?

        Past fires were not also started by humans? The SIZE and growth speed of fires is what has changed.

        A big red herring.

      • Nate says:

        Norman, the westwrn dryness is consistent with the additional warming of 2-3 F that is occuring on most NH land.

        Other weather changes could be contributing. Change in weather patterns is expected with AGW.

        Consistent, I believe with climate models.

        The smoke crossed the whole US. I dontvrecall that ever happening.

        This is a ‘fact on the ground’ that everyone can observe.

    • Stephen Richards says:

      according to NOAA data you are wrong on all counts.

      Sea level is rising but not accelerating

      Arctic ice is receding but not to the levels of the past or even the early 20th century

      West Coast fires in terms of acres burned are not getting any worse
      than in the past in spite of worse forest and grassland mmanagement

      • Nate says:

        Nope they do not say any such things, you are confused.

        No evidence, no credit

      • Nate says:

        We were talking about west coast fires, not “US wildfires”.

        Nice try.

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        Stephen Richards says:
        September 25, 2020 at 11:59 AM

        “Sea level is rising but not accelerating”
        __________________________________________

        TOPEX/ Poseidon , Jason -1, Jason -2 and Jason -3 missions show, gobal mean sea level is rising AND accelerating.

        • Nate says:

          Just like Flat Earthers say: All pictures of the spherical Earth are fake…because the Earth is not a sphere.

        • bill hunter says:

          The correct answer is sea level rise through the holocene has slowed down by still shows shorter term acceleration and deceleration. Same deal for the glaciers.

          • Nate says:

            “The correct answer is sea level rise through the holocene has slowed down by still shows shorter term acceleration and deceleration. Same deal for the glaciers.”

            And? the SLR coming out of a glacial period is very high, but not relevant to what we are talking about in the last 2 millenia.

            SL has been remarkably stable since the Roman period, and over the last century or so, SLR has accelerated significantly.

          • bill hunter says:

            Thats my point we don’t know much and proxies going back even a few hundred years are extremely unreliable.

          • Svante says:

            Yeah, everything we know is wrong.

          • Nate says:

            “Thats my point we don’t know much”

            Its like that weird brain condition where short term memory gets misplaced into long term memory, and a person gets Deja Vu.

            In this case, the condition misplaces ‘what Bill doesn’t know’ into the ‘what Science doesnt know’ category.

            There seems to be no effective treatment.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            bill hunter says:
            September 27, 2020 at 3:03 PM

            …sea level rise through the holocene has slowed down..
            ___________
            Yes. Even nearly stopped since about 5000 years.
            And the last 100 Years its accelerating again, due to Global Warming.Thats the point.

          • bill hunter says:

            Yes but you are assuming a linear rise and fall for the last 5000 years. One would presume that sealevel accelerates and decelerates on a short term basis e.g. the Roman Optimum, middle ages cool period, the MWP, and the current modern maximum. Should be no surprises about the current sea level acceleration.

          • bill hunter says:

            It is an indisputable fact that during the LIA glaciers were expanding. Thats a process of taking sea water and depositing it on land. Obviously that would cause sea levels to go down. Now glaciers are shrinking surprise surprise sea level is going up.

            No doubt this process has repeated itself throughout history and there is lots of evidence that since the holocene maximum ice has fluctuated.

          • Nate says:

            “One would presume…”

            Never a good idea for you Bill.

            Because you are never quantitative.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            “One would presume…”

            Never a good idea for you Bill.

            Because you are never quantitative.
            ======================================

            OK I will put that down as Nate’s law. When temperatures fluctuate sea level rise doesn’t accelerate and decelerate with the change in temperature because sea level is driven by a linear trend in temperature and not temperature.

            Hmmmmmm is that being a denier?

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            bill hunter says:
            September 29, 2020 at 9:51 AM

            Now glaciers are shrinking surprise surprise sea level is going up.
            ______________________

            Who is surprised about Sealevelrise due to Global Warming?
            Thats inevitable, expected and predicted long before.
            Also nobody will be surprised, when it goes on for a very long time.

          • bill hunter says:

            Fritz Kraut says:

            Also nobody will be surprised, when it goes on for a very long time.
            ================================

            It has gone on now for 15,000 years Fritz. No surprise about that.

          • Nate says:

            “When temperatures fluctuate sea level rise doesnt accelerate and decelerate with the change in temperature because sea level is driven by a linear trend in temperature and not temperature.”

            Twisting my words again?? Where did I say that Bill?

            Quote me directly, and tell me what you disagree with.

          • Nate says:

            Reconstructions of Sea Level over last 2 millenia, such as

            https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/108/27/11017/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

            utterly disagree with Bill’s narrative that the rise in the last century is all due to recovery from the LIA.

            Oh well.

            Bill, got a more agreeable source?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Twisting my words again?? Where did I say that Bill?

            Quote me directly, and tell me what you disagree with.

            ===============================
            I am not twisting your words. I said sea level would tend to follow temperature change and decelerated or decreased going into the LIA and began increasing after the LIA again.

            You replied that SLR changed 15000 years ago and hasn’t changed since.

            Yet this finding:

            https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

            says otherwise.

            Then all I need to do is copy the methods and exrapolations popular with warmists and run that .05 percent decadal increase in solar irradiance back to the LIA and I come up with 5 watts in 300 years back to the 1690’s. Then I take feedbacks and multiply by 3 and I have 3C change in temperatures since the LIA.

            Now I know it probably hasn’t been 3C change since the LIA but I can then say that the additional 1C will be found going forward as the ocean adjusts.

            And of course I need to explain the late 18th and early 19th century flat period and I will note that was an effect of increasing glacial and sea ice extent during that period because of lingering cold temperature of the LIA that reversed their effects in 1850 as ice began a slow retreat. then the warming build up began to be seen in an accelerated manner after being suppressed for 150 years by increasing albedo. How about a theory with an actual history!!!!

            and it can also be mapped to your sea level history.

          • Nate says:

            “You replied that SLR changed 15000 years ago and hasnt changed since.”

            Show me the quote, lying troll.

          • Nate says:

            And your cite has nothing to do with the discussion. You’re off the reservation…

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate said: ”And? the SLR coming out of a glacial period is very high, but not relevant to what we are talking about in the last 2 millenia.”

            That quote right there says what caused the SLR, which is undoubtedly more solar radiation, (even if its the Milankovitch theory). How can that not be relevant in view of the findings I linked to?

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            bill hunter says:
            September 30, 2020 at 1:49 PM

            ….

            “You replied that SLR changed 15000 years ago and hasn’t changed since.

            Yet this finding:

            https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html

            says otherwise.”
            ____________________________________

            What does it say about sealevelrise the last 15 000 years?
            I cant find there anything about this subject.
            Please cite it or repeat in your own words whatever you think to understand.

          • bill hunter says:

            Fritz, hopefully you don’t need to be educated that additional energy from any source is going to cause SLR to rise. If not then you need to explain exactly what your confusion is about, then only can I rationally address your question.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            bill hunter says:
            October 3, 2020 at 2:31 PM

            Fritz, hopefully you dont need to be educated …
            _____________________________________________

            Please just answer my simple question. Again: “What did Nasa say about sealevelrise the last 15 000 years? As I said before, I cant find anything about this subject in your link.
            Please just quote the correponding Nasa-statement.

            As far as I know, postgacial sealevelrise was nearly finished 5000-6000 yeas ago. And since about 100 years its accelerating again and very fast.
            Would make me very wonder, if Nasa would say something else.
            May I hope for an answer witout any insults? We are here not in the american election campaign.

    • gallopingcamel says:

      “Nate” said:

      “West Coast fires ARE GETTING WORSE. This year broke records for acres burned that were just broken a couple of years ago.”

      US wildfires consumed 1.6 million acres in 1983 and twenty five years later the destruction had increased to 20 million acres.

      Some say this dramatic increase was caused by “Climate Change” induced by rising CO2 concentrations. Over that time period the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from 343 ppm to 411 ppm (+20%).

      That hypothesis falls apart when you learn that the peak year for wildfires was 1932 when 53 million acres were destroyed when [CO2] was 308 ppm, only 10% greater than the “Pre-Industrial” level of 280 ppm.

      • Norman says:

        gallopingcamel

        From what I have been reading on the topic, the large areas burned in the 1930’s were grassland fires and not forests so much. As populations grew on the grasslands less fires were burning as people mowed grass reducing considerably the available fuel.

        https://tinyurl.com/h93hd55

        • bill hunter says:

          There is no question the fires in the west are related to a cessation of forest brush abatement and controlled burns primarily to protect the value of the timber for sustainable harvest.

          In the last 40 years and especially in the last 20 forest management has been abated in favor of forest preservation.

          And the record damages likewise is mostly due to non-farm home development in these natural forests. Which has been accelerating now for at least 50 years. A lot of that has gone hand in hand with the leisure class holing up in forest abodes and vacation homes and demanding the forest be left alone. You make your own bed and have to sleep in it. Obviously it’s somebody else’s fault though.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      nate…”Things are changing that are not just abstract.

      Artic Sea Ice IS RECEDING.

      Sea level rise IS ACCELERATING.

      West Coast fires ARE GETTING WORSE”

      ***

      Arctic ice is receding during one month of the Arctic summer. The rest of the year it is back to normal, 10 feet thick in the Arctic Ocean. Little or no solar input most of the year = very, very cold. Brrrrrr!!!!

      Sea levels are rising in millimetres and have been doing so for millenia. They likely receded during the Little Ice Age and are now rising as we re-warm.

      No proof that West Coast fires are getting worse. Only alarmist idiots are trying to relate them to global warming. How does a global temperature rise of 1C over more than a century make forest fires worse?

      • Nate says:

        False. Every month has shown significant reductions in area AND volume.

        Cmon guys…quit with the BS

        • spike55 says:

          Current Arctic sea ice extent is FAR higher than for most of the last 10,000 years

          1979, the favourite starting point of the propagandist, was than extreme event, up there with the LIA.

          Arctic is greening, to great benefit to wildlife

          Not only is the land surface GREENING, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene)

          The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

          https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreatswhale-food-returns/1401824

          The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

          https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

          Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !
          https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

          Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber for lamps and for whale bone.

        • Nate says:

          So the ‘hockey stick’ should not be believed because it is just a reconstruction of the past from proxy data and scant observations?

          But Arctic sea ice from reconsruction of the past from proxy data or anecdotal observations should be believed?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate I am not so sure its a case the hockey stick should be ”disbelieved” or arctic reconstructions.

            Belief has nothing to do with science. Belief or disbelief we resort to when we don’t know and the correct answer is uncertain.

            Uncertainty in a free world equals no government actions with perhaps the exception of providing research funding to reduce the level of uncertainty.

            However, in a socialist world it inevitably means truth is whatever the government says it is.

            You can call it anything you want. A dictatorship of the majority over the minority. The dictatorship of a committee or certain class/occupation over the masses. A dictator/king/emperor over the masses. Those are all socialist type orders and each has examples of that control, though some are not recognized as a socialist order.

            In a free nation though none of those types of dictatorships exist over the individual. Instead each individual is entitled to due process and equal treatment under the rule of law.

          • Nate says:

            “However, in a socialist world it inevitably means truth is whatever the government says it is.”

            Historically it has not been the form of government that is the issue.

            It is whether a free press, free and fair elections, and an apolitical justice systems are enabled and facilitated, or not.

            All three are under threat in the US right now.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Historically it has not been the form of government that is the issue.

            It is whether a free press, free and fair elections, and an apolitical justice systems are enabled and facilitated, or not.

            All three are under threat in the US right now.

            ==============================

            You haven’t studied history if you think socialism is anything but a system that suppresses the press, usually violently, and has sufficient power to control elections that thus does.

            Certainly it is true the politically correct movement that gets all sorts of people fired for even murmuring anything contrary to the socialists. Do you think its going to change if they get in power?

          • Nate says:

            “You havent studied history if you think socialism is anything but a system that suppresses the press, usually violently”

            Oh puleeez, you are confusing socialism with soviet style communism.

            Are the socialist Scandinavian countries supressing the press, the vote?

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            You havent studied history if you think socialism is anything but a system that suppresses the press, usually violently

            Oh puleeez, you are confusing socialism with soviet style communism.

            Are the socialist Scandinavian countries supressing the press, the vote?
            ==============================

            Yo socialist da da lies to you a lot Nate. The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. In fact Sweden is rated more Capitalistic than the United States.

          • Nate says:

            If Sweden is not socialist, ok, whatever you say.

            But they have socialized health care and child care etc.

            In this regard, the US is far less socialist then Sweden.

            And the proposals of Biden led Dem party are far less socialist then Sweden.

            So you labeling what Biden wants to do as socialist makes little sense.

            Except as hyperbole.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            September 30, 2020 at 2:53 PM
            If Sweden is not socialist, ok, whatever you say.

            But they have socialized health care and child care etc.

            In this regard, the US is far less socialist then Sweden.

            And the proposals of Biden led Dem party are far less socialist then Sweden.

            So you labeling what Biden wants to do as socialist makes little sense.

            Except as hyperbole.
            ==============================

            Wrong again. You must get all your information from the press Nate.

            For example Trump lowered corporate taxes to about the same level as swedish corporate taxes. Now jobs can grow rather than shrink.

            On the healthcare issue I think its more about if people want higher personal taxes at all levels of society or if they want free healthcare. European nations have had socialized healthcare systems since the 19th century, including Nazi Germany.

            They are used to it, its government owned and virtually always was and they didn’t build a giant economy around it. My thoughts are if the voters want it they should phase it in slowly over a couple of genrations or more so as to not be so disruptive. But know people tend to be impatient.

            And keep in mind mandated high health care related taxes on the healthy youth is a major impediment in one accomplishing ambitious goals for themselves.

            Plus if one could have kept the plan he likes and the doctor he liked then there would have been a lot less resistance among the currently insured to go along with the healthy youth who wants to take advantage of that. Of course nobody really cares about what anybody else might want unless its the same thing they want.

            But bottom line be rather assured that Biden doesn’t want what Sweden has.

          • Nate says:

            Bill,

            Trumpiters try to use ‘socialism’ as a pejorative term, mis-applying it, and not actually understanding what it means.

            You are using the logical fallacy of ‘guilt by association’ or ‘hasty generalization’.

            You guys seem to think ‘authoritarianism’ must be a part of ‘socialism’.

            That is wrong.

            “When millennials think of socialism today, they think of Canada and many European countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and Finland, countries that, in addition to virtually every other developed country on the planet, have guaranteed social programs like single-payer healthcare, free college-tuition, paid maternity leave, guaranteed paid vacation, less income inequality and overall better qualities of life.”

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            Trumpiters try to use socialism as a pejorative term, mis-applying it, and not actually understanding what it means.

            You are using the logical fallacy of guilt by association or hasty generalization.

            You guys seem to think authoritarianism must be a part of socialism.

            That is wrong.
            ===========================

            To the guy trying to get ahead in this world socialism is a major impediment in all its forms.

            So for those people very clearly socialism is perjorative and its 100% authoritarian, every bit and piece of it.

            That is because to those people personal choices and freedoms have been co-opted. You can already see the dynamic at work with people losing their jobs for exercising free speech by what essentially isn’t any dictate of a dictator or a committee. You see it as the States and Federal government depending upon which administration is in place begins to invent all sorts of terrors and lies in order to further deprive people of their rights, there personal independence, and power to decide the objectives of their life.

            So Nate there is zero guilt by association going on here at all.
            Not even a tiny bit. Its 100% guilt period.

            If fact its the socialists themselves calling out the differences in socialism. And to anybody who doesn’t agree that just makes them a right winger, a national socialist, or a fascist, or even a Nazi. Do you hear Joe Biden calling out his communist supporters like Trump did? No Biden says its an ”idea’ its not people.

            Calling out capitalists and freedom lovers as Nazis, White Supremists, Toxic White males, and Fascists is simply a lie probably at least 99% of the time.

            Back in 2016 some left wing groups actually tried to bribe some alt-right groups to show up in Washington. They baited them and even gave money to one leader to try to get his group to rally. They wanted these people there as an example and a target for their hatred. Turned out about 10 guys showed up.

            People are hard pressed to find a true Nazi because they are like chameleons currently in the overall socialist movement. Nazi’s, Neo-Nazis are all socialists. The have always been so and will always be so. The German nation is the first democrat socialist nation on earth starting back in the 19th century. The Nazis expanded the system to include everything and anything the Nazis saw as important to a healthy and strong socialist nation. If you wanted a say you had to be a member of the party in absolute power.

            To become socialist all we have to do is give the government more power. Reinterpret the Constitution will be done by the party in absolute power. If protections of the people are so strong against changing the Constitution (requires 3/4’s of the States to ratify) then heck just reinterpret it.

            When you look a little deeper into the issue does it really difference if your your choices and freedoms are co-opted by a single dictator, a committee, or a mob?

            Nope the question of who deprives you of your freedoms and choices is strictly the subject of an argument between socialists that gets decided later.

            So what is authoritarian? Can’t you figure that out?

          • Nate says:

            “So for those people very clearly socialism is perjorative and its 100% authoritarian, every bit and piece of it.”

            Oh?

            Well you clearly dont feel the need to agree with yourself on this issue.

            You said ” The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. In fact Sweden is rated more Capitalistic than the United States.”

            But as I noted, the majority of people in the US who want socialism want exactly the form of socialism that is found in those countries.

            “they think of Canada and many European countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and Finland, countries that, in addition to virtually every other developed country on the planet, have guaranteed social programs like single-payer healthcare, free college-tuition, paid maternity leave, guaranteed paid vacation, less income inequality and overall better qualities of life.”

            Are any of these countries authoritarian? Do they suppress the press, suppress the vote, have highly polticized justice systems, have govt-supported millitias using violence as a political tool?

            No of course not. Thats not what socialist policies mean. If you think so, you are more of an idiot then I thought.

            So your view of what socialism is, is an extremist outlier view.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:
            October 1, 2020 at 5:16 PM
            So for those people very clearly socialism is perjorative and its 100% authoritarian, every bit and piece of it.

            Oh?

            Well you clearly dont feel the need to agree with yourself on this issue.

            You said The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. In fact Sweden is rated more Capitalistic than the United States.

            But as I noted, the majority of people in the US who want socialism want exactly the form of socialism that is found in those countries.

            they think of Canada and many European countries like Switzerland, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway and Finland, countries that, in addition to virtually every other developed country on the planet, have guaranteed social programs like single-payer healthcare, free college-tuition, paid maternity leave, guaranteed paid vacation, less income inequality and overall better qualities of life.

            Are any of these countries authoritarian? Do they suppress the press, suppress the vote, have highly polticized justice systems, have govt-supported millitias using violence as a political tool?

            No of course not. Thats not what socialist policies mean. If you think so, you are more of an idiot then I thought.

            So your view of what socialism is, is an extremist outlier view.

            ============================================

            You are just an ignorant boob Nate who can’t see anything of this issue beyond the tip of your own nose.

            No I am not personally concerned about socialized medicine. I am nearing my 8th decade and already on socialized medical care.

            I would be concerned if they started taking out the kind of taxes from my income that they do in Sweden. Its bad enough having to have to continue to pay for my social security and medicare after earning it simply because I have to continue working.

            But thats pretty business as usual for folks being treated as a number in a socialized system.

            I am just for people being able to determine their own lives good bad or indifferent. Not everybody is happy with cradle to grave maternal oversight.

          • Nate says:

            Yep Bill, you are being willfully ignorant.
            Show me authoritarianism in any of these Western European countries with socialist policies.

            You cant. So just stop doubling down on this stupidity of equating socialism with authoritarism.

            “would be concerned if they started taking out the kind of taxes from my income that they do in Sweden.”

            Well is Sweden socialist or not? Decide.

        • Nate says:

          “1979, the favourite starting point of the propagandist, was than extreme event, up there with the LIA.”

          No, it is the decade when complete coverage of the arctic from satellites began.

          Prior to that, guesswork about many parts of the arctic.

          • bill hunter says:

            True!

            But to facilitate more power the word ”unprecedented” only refers to a time period of about 40 years starting only about 130 years after the end of the LIA when it is well known that the planet requires at least 1500 years to reach equilibrium after a perturbation unless it say starts another LIA about 200 to 1000 years after the end of the last one.

            In the case of the LIA where the bottom was reached around 1700 as a result of about 500 years of 3 major minimums spaced about 200 years apart. With the LIA recovering being stunted at least in part by a continued increase in albedo arising out of continued advance of glaciers until about 1850.

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg/330px-Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg.png

            Now we are seeing a diminishment in albedo. Will that end anytime soon? Who knows. If it takes as long as the cooling perhaps we have another 300 years of natural warming in store. Or if we look at the ice core record it appears that warming occurs abruptly and cooling relatively more slowly.

            https://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/fig-1-inverted.png

            I have a hard time tying that pattern to orbital variation which would seem to perhaps look more like a typical sine wave. But what do I know? Perhaps, Nate, you can explain.

          • Nate says:

            “when it is well known that the planet requires at least 1500 years to reach equilibrium after a perturbation”

            Where do you get this idea?

            Volcanic activity requires less than a decade to recover from.

            The 1790s were a minima of temperature in Europe, apparently due to the Maunder minima and perhaps also volcanoes. But recovery from that was quick, and a long stable period ensued (except brief volcanic spikes). Then a rapid rise in 20th century.

            You can see that in the Central England temperature record.

            https://tinyurl.com/y5zrydyo

          • Nate says:

            Correction: 1690s were the minima/

          • Nate says:

            ‘I have a hard time tying that pattern to orbital variation’

            There are multiple cycles in the orbital variation.

            You can clearly see in the record that CO2 rise persisted long after the initial warming, and the theory says that this facilitated the warming and its persistence.

            This confirms that CO2 added to the atmosphere persists for a millenia or so.

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            There are multiple cycles in the orbital variation.

            You can clearly see in the record that CO2 rise persisted long after the initial warming, and the theory says that this facilitated the warming and its persistence.

            This confirms that CO2 added to the atmosphere persists for a millenia or so.

            =========================

            So it is in your opinion simply by chance every interglacial had combinations of cycles that favored warming? I realize your party has a ring in your nose but man do they ever jerk you around!

          • Nate says:

            Not sure what you are asking.

            The cycles produced warming and melting when NH, where most land is, received more sunlight.

          • Nate says:

            And its amazing you want to politicize ice ages..

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            And its amazing you want to politicize ice ages..
            ————————-

            Nate at the command of his socialist daddy immediately starts calling ‘facts’ laid out in ice core studies critical to the idea that CO2 has always been scarce in the current ice age, that warming and cooling patterns consistently show a favoritism to rapid warming versus rapid cooling as political facts. Geez Nate are you really a robot?

            ROTFLMAO!

          • Nate says:

            “Nate at the command of his socialist daddy immediately starts calling facts laid out in ice core studies critical to the idea that CO2 has always been scarce in the current ice age, that warming and cooling patterns consistently show a favoritism to rapid warming versus rapid cooling as political facts. ”

            Bill, this bears little resemblance to anything I’ve said.

            You are starting to look like a full-time troll.

            As such, you don’t need to make any sense, nor debate honestly. Just annoy.

            We’re onto you, so go troll elsewhere.

          • bill hunter says:

            You just don’t like your face shoved into the same sources from which you derive your own facts. You would like to pretend anything you don’t ascribe to isn’t demonstrated in those same sources.

            If anybody has to grow up its you. I give equal opportunity to science and recognize that information always tells more than one story.

      • Fritz Kraut says:

        Gordon Robertson says:
        “Arctic ice is receding during one month of the Arctic summer. The rest of the year it is back to normal,…”
        _________________________________

        No, its never back to normal. Also the yearly mean is receding: 4.4%/decade.
        The yearly minimum in september even 10%/decade.

        Both for the period from 1979 to 2019.

      • bill hunter says:

        No doubt that climate change over the past 15,000 years has dwarfed any current change we have seen in the industrial record.

        One can probably categorize climate alarm as akin to a baby viewing his/her first spider.

        I once had a major alpha male dog who always went into a panic over any bug bigger than a dime.

        People? They have been through it all.

        • Nate says:

          Yeah, except last time with no cities or agriculture, just hunter gatherer tribes.

          • bill hunter says:

            yep they were at a huge disadvantage as you noted.

          • Fritz Kraut says:

            bill hunter says:
            September 28, 2020 at 9:38 PM

            yep they were at a huge disadvantage as you noted.
            ___________________________________________

            Thats not what Nate noted.

            Beeing hunter and gatherer, living just in tents, was no disadvantage when they had to migrate. On the contrary.

            (Sorry, direct reply to bill hunters post was not possible)

          • Nate says:

            Bill’s gish gallops arent sufficient, he has to add his ideas to other peoples posts…

          • bill hunter says:

            You guys, Nate and Fritz, are freaking hilarious.

            Fritz is worried about moving his couch and refrigerator and Nate is calling facts a Gish Gallop without a shred of an argument to back it up.

            LMAO!!!

          • Nate says:

            “LMAO!!!”

            Bill’s constantly laughing his ass off at inappropriate times.

            They have treatment for that at the funny farm. Off you go.

          • bill hunter says:

            More examples of Nate Gish Galloping around the topic.

    • Fred M. Cain says:

      Are West Coast Fires GETTING WORSE? I wish someone, hopefully Professor Spencer – anyone – could explain to me how “Climate Change” can start a fire.

      What if we could have 1895’s West Coast Climate back again? Were there no hot, windy days in the summer of 1895? If we had 1895’s climate and weather would there be no fire if someone through a cigarette butt out their car window or if someone abandoned a campfire?

      Come on! CLIMATE CHANGE DOES NOT START FIRES! If you can prove to me that “climate change” might predispose us to a longer, dryer summer, I could accept that. But climate change and global warming doesn’t create the necessary ignitions.

      There has to be a more, complete explanation.

      Regards,
      Fred M. Cain

      • Nate says:

        Fred,

        ‘If you can prove to me that ‘climate change’ might predispose us to a longer, dryer summer, I could accept that. But climate change and global warming doesnt create the necessary ignitions.’

        Good, that is a start. That creates drier more combustable fuel.

        If you’ve ever been camping and had slightly moist wood and kindling, starting the campfire can be difficult.

        Fires start every year. But under these warmer, drier conditions, they are more likely get out of control and get very large.

        • bill hunter says:

          Climate periods of dryer and warmer are something that has occurred in the past. the main difference today is the number of fires started. Natural fires are started by lightning strikes. Rain often accompanies lightning.

          The big difference has been the rise of the arsonist. Especially in 2020 we are seeing a big increase in arson. And arsonists love to do their nasty work in the sort of wind conditions most conducive to big devastating fires. Lightning hasn’t been on the increase, especially in those warm dry conditions.

          So increase in arsonists explains the number of fires.

          The devastation of each fire is mostly attributable to envirnomentalism that has precluded fire planners from creating fire breaks and fire roads so crews can get in and contain the fires.

          Without fire roads you have crews hiking in. Without fire breaks fewer places exist where fire fighters can make a stand. Many of these fires are being fought almost exclusively by aircraft. But aircraft don’t put fires out, they simply slow the fires. At some point you need to get men in with shovels, pulaskis, and mcCleods and extinguish the fire or pray for better weather conditions.

          • Fred M. Cain says:

            Bill & Nate,

            One thing I’m curious about, do we have good data that PROVES that the West is getting both warmer and dryer? I found what I believe is some interesting data.

            I found annual precipitation totals for Tucson, Arizona going back to 1894. I tried to do ten-year rolling averages for Tucson. There was a ten year period following the new millennium that was very dry indeed. It was dry enough to make people think that Arizona is getting dryer. However there was a similar ten year span in the 1940s that was just as dry. Back around 1900 there was a decade that was much dryer yet!

            So, I was unable to find any real trend that Tucson is getting dryer and Tucson is a good representation for much of Arizona and the inter-mountain West although not necessarily for California.

            But here’s the thing: I look at temps and found that Tucson had warmed about 4F on average since 1894.

            But, how much of that warming came from a warming planet and how much came from the local, heat island effects of urbanization? That is a question that virtually no one is asking or even looking at!

            Surely the Los Angeles basin, the Sacramento area and other California cities have similar heat islands.

            So, it might be getting warmer but is it getting dryer as well? I am not convinced that it is at least not in the long term.

            Here is where I got my rainfall and temperature data from:

            https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?az8815

            Other Western cities are available on that website as well. We could also take a look at L.A. and Sacramento.

            Regards,
            Fred M. Cain

          • Svante says:

            Relative humidity goes down with higher temperature, even if the precipitation is the same.

            There’s always been arsonists, especially in neolithic times, why improve their conditions?

          • bill hunter says:

            Fred M. Cain says:

            I my opinion Fred warm and dry has little to do with it. I have lived in fire areas all my life going on 8 decades.

            Long extended drought doesn’t add to the fire danger because of a lack of growth of the underbrush. We have had recently a few very wet winters generally not seen for decades. Reminds me of the 1950’s and the massive fires we had then. The west tends to have very dry summers as unlike the east we don’t get a tropical flow being on the downside of the Coriolis ocean and wind circulation.

            So generally speaking hotter and dryer is a fire suppressant because its also a growth suppressant causing fires to space out more in time. But the fact is the west if not hotter was dryer for about 3-4 decades than it has been in the most recent decade.

            For example, California just broke its long standing drought just 2 or 3 years ago. And the fire thing came right along with it.

  6. Ian says:

    Bill McKibbin?
    Given that:
    he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences;
    he has won the Gandhi Peace Prize as well as honorary degrees from 19 colleges and universities;
    he was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, sometimes called the alternative Nobel, in the Swedish Parliament;
    he was named on the inaugural list of the worlds 100 most important global thinkers;
    is the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College;
    he graduated from Harvard University;
    he has written 17 books.
    etc.
    etc.

    Well, yes, I do prefer to listen to somebody like Bill who has legitimate claims to having something useful to say on the subject.

    • Norman says:

      Ian

      I am not as convinced as you seem to be that Bill McKibben is a reliable source of information on Climate Science.

      I looked him up;
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_McKibben

      It looks like his talent is in journalism and writing. He is probably very skilled in communicating ideas to the general public. That would not translate to making him a expert on climate science.

      • spike55 says:

        ” He is probably very skilled in communicating ideas to the general public.”

        No, he always comes across as a ranting wacko !

    • Swenson says:

      Ian,

      Useful in what way? To promote Bill McKibben?

      • studentb says:

        Geez, you don’t even understand the word “useful”.
        Do you know what a dictionary is?

        • Swenson says:

          studentb,

          How are those mind reading classes going? I would ask for a refund if I were you – you havent the faintest idea of my understanding of the word *useful*, have you?

          You do not even appear to reach the standard of *useful idiot* for alarmists. Who would take notice of your silliness? Nobody important, thats for sure!

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Ian…”Bill McKibbin?”

      When McKibbin was informed in Michael Moore’s movie that the biofuel industry was burning trees for fuel, he hemmed and hawed so hard he nearly fell over. McKibbin is just another phoney alarmist.

    • bill hunter says:

      Ian says:
      Well, yes, I do prefer to listen to somebody like Bill who has legitimate claims to having something useful to say on the subject.
      =========================

      Thats probably a pretty good strategy when you are too stupid and/or too uneducated or experience to figure it out for yourself.

  7. gbaikie says:

    Wiki:
    “The film’s basis is in a rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change and the impact of human activities on it.”

    What is “overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change”

    Global surface air temperature is risen by about 1 C since the end of the Little Ice Age.
    Increasing CO2 cause some amount of global warming and any increase in global air average temperature will cause increase in global water vapor which will further increase global air temperature.

    Did I miss anything?
    What else? There is overwhelming scientific consensus that global air temperature in past few thousands has risen and fallen over the centuries.
    That last interglacial period was warmer then current global temperature and sea levels were significantly higher.
    We been in Ice Age for more million years and last few hundred thousands years, has been the coolest in millions of years.
    Modern human and polar bear evolved into their current form within this Ice Age and both have gone thru glaciation and interglaciation in the past. Or humans and polar bears have lived in warmer times and much colder times.
    Our global climate is called icehouse, icebox global climate and such climates have polar ice caps and a cold ocean and distant past global climates have had no ice caps and much warmer ocean.
    And modern humans would gone thru “alarming periods” of fast sea level rise. And in last 100 years our sea level has risen about 7″- which insignificant compared such “alarming periods” of fast sea levels rises.
    There is no consensus how much the rising CO2 level will prolong the time will return to glaciation period- but seem agreement it will push it into the more distant future.
    Probably missing stuff. But it’s almost constant that “overwhelming scientific consensus” is usually, as in historically, wrong. More so, as compared when there isn’t “overwhelming scientific consensus”.
    But broadly don’t have particular problem with the “overwhelming scientific consensus” as mentioned above.
    CO2 probably causes some increase in global temperature- but how much is not agreed upon. And it seems there has warming since Little Ice Age and seems more or less to a uniform rise over last 100 years that air temperature as been measured.
    It seems to me during Little Ice Age, sea levels lowered, since that time have risen.
    Also it seems there is “overwhelming scientific consensus” that this warming has helpful in terms increase crop yields and generally been a good thing. That made significant progress in reducing pollution. And life better now, then 100 year ago- with a lowering global poverty and some that might associated warming global temperatures. Though certainly related to technologies which emit CO2.
    But world not going end in 10 or 20, or 30 years. Rather seems everyone going to better in 10, 20, or 30 years.
    Also another “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that no climate models can predict the future.
    And all of them are projections which inherently have bias- they projection of assumptions if happen to true, that could to validation such assumptions. And so far, none have been close.

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    Thanks for promoting Climate Hustle 2.

    Everyone here needs to cough up the $14.99 to be an early viewer of this movie. Y’all (like me) know that you will be able to see this movie for nothing in a month or two. Resist the temptation and chip in at least $15 to support a worthy cause.

    • studentb says:

      “Climate Hustle 2 is masterfully hosted and narrated by Hollywoods Kevin Sorbo, who played Hercules in the television movie.”

      My god! That must be one of the greatest recommendations for watching a serious documentary I have ever encountered!

      • studentb says:

        I am now motivated to produce my own home video/movie about climate science.

        Narrated by Jack McGuire (the well-liked green grocer from the local shopping strip)
        Starring:
        – Jerry Parsons (my esteemed college lecturer on sciency things)
        – Myself (of course) I will perform a series of protest songs about the fossil fuel industry and their evil ways.
        – Mamie McPherson (my glamorous ex) who may agree to perform a few dance routines.
        – Councillor Henry Dagwood (he is up for re-election next month)
        – Fisherman Danny Black (an expert on sea level rise).
        – Dr Grieves (who will discuss the psychological problems shared by denialists)
        – The man over the road who has a rain gauge.
        – The lady down the street who can forecast the weather according to her aches and pains.

        Max Bialystock – producer
        Leo Bloom – accountant.

        A guaranteed block-buster! Send your donations in early so we can start straight away.

      • spike55 says:

        Poor studentz.

        How is your crush on Greta working out for you ?

    • Entropic man says:

      Where did all the Exxon funding go?

      • Ken says:

        Where did all Exxon the funding go?

        I don’t know, but at BP the funding is gone to turning a profitable oil mining company into a less than profitable ‘green’ energy company. Profitable only until the subsidies dry up.

    • Nate says:

      GC, I thought you were all about the science.

      But you seem perfectly at ease with promoting propaganda.

  9. Ecclesiastes says:

    Why is studentb allowed to post on this website with outrageous and personal attacks?

    Ok, my turn.

    Many moons ago when I was in junior high we were taught the scientific method: to form a hypothesis and look for ways to challenge and disprove it. If we could not disprove it then we might have a sensible theory. It seems this generation of scientists ask the question, form the hypothesis and looks for ways to prove it.

    Sadly, climate change and Covid science has become political and has an agenda, data observed has been manipulated to conform to that agenda. Are students today being mislead by their teachers and professors? Perhaps, students are taught What to Think instead of How to Think. Are we now reaping what has been sown?

    How did hurricanes and weather events become political? Given the chance some would make a cheese burger political. Oh, wait they have, cattle emit green house gases! Like bovines have been doing for millennia.

    It is disappointing that the Scientific Method like History is being rewritten. Baa, like sheep we must not challenge their orthodoxy.

    Ah:( Vanity of vanities! All things are vanity!…

    The WSJ has an interesting opinion piece that might be worth reading, The Ideological Corruption of Science. See: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ideological-corruption-of-science-11594572501?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

    • Nate says:

      “Many moons ago when I was in junior high we were taught the scientific method: to form a hypothesis and look for ways to challenge and disprove it. If we could not disprove it then we might have a sensible theory. It seems this generation of scientists ask the question, form the hypothesis and looks for ways to prove it.”

      I work in sciences, and I can verify that the scientific method is still alive and well.

      The difference is that now anybody and everybody feels like they can comment on it, whether they are expert or not. And everything, even medicine, drugs, wearing a mask, etc becomes politicized.

      Even establshed science, whether the Earth is flat gets questioned.

      Anti vaxxer Jennny McCarthy was asked whether she was educated in medicine.

      Her answer: ‘I have a PhD in Google’

      • Ecclesiastes says:

        “The difference is that now anybody and everybody feels like they can comment on it, whether they are expert or not”.

        Sounds like fascism?

        Ah, Vanity of vanities! All things are vanity…

      • Nate says:

        ‘Facism’ ??

        Non sequitur.

        • Ecclesiastes says:

          3rd try…

          Of course, for those in the bubble…or should I say for those who cannot see the forest for the trees…

          Vanity of vanities, All things are vanity….that is, it is all is pointless.

        • Nate says:

          E, Unclear what in my post you are attempting to refute?

          FYI, heres a relevant book.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_Expertise

          “These are dangerous times. Never have so many people had access to so much knowledge, and yet been so resistant to learning anything.”

           Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise”

          “Nichols condemns what he describes as the many forces trying to undermine the authority of experts in the United States. He blames trends in higher education (such as focus on self-esteem and tolerance of narcissism leading to grade inflation and over-confidence in one’s own abilities), the Internet, and the explosion of media options for the anti-expertise and anti-intellectual sentiment which he sees as being on the rise.”

          • Ecclesiastes says:

            N. since we are on a first letter basis, thank you for your courteous reply. I will check it out. Please read the WSJ link I posted above.

            Should only an elite class be allowed to chime in on the debate? Or do scientists take the position that there is no debate? And if there is no longer a debate is that really science? Even a consensus can be and should be challenged. Think of the cause of peptic ulcers in the 1980’s and the rage of eugenics in the 1930’s. The consensus of these sciences seemed absolute, but were ultimately challenged.

            Shouldn’t we allow anyone who wants, add to the discussion that may adversely affect their lives? If not, how do we expect them to buy into actions we are suggesting or are we just going to demand and bully them into submission?

            We all must break out of our bubble, back away from the trees and take in all we can to advance our knowledge in all things, not just science.

            But what do I know? I am just a person with gray hair like Bill Nye who has a master’s degree in…sciENCE! 🙂

            As for wearing a mask … when I see a lone person in a Prius driving in Ann Arbor wearing a mask is that person being pious or political? Just a thought…

          • bill hunter says:

            Nate says:

            These are dangerous times. Never have so many people had access to so much knowledge, and yet been so resistant to learning anything.

             Tom Nichols, The Death of Expertise

            Nichols condemns what he describes as the many forces trying to undermine the authority of experts in the United States. He blames trends in higher education (such as focus on self-esteem and tolerance of narcissism leading to grade inflation and over-confidence in ones own abilities), the Internet, and the explosion of media options for the anti-expertise and anti-intellectual sentiment which he sees as being on the rise.

            ===================================================

            Hmmmm, had to go to the Constitution on that one Nate. For some reason I couldn’t find a clause in there granting authority to officially ordained experts.

            Where does this come from? Some kind of manifesto from a group whose objective is to control the world?

            In this nation anyhow, experts have no authority. They have been wisely requested to inform or argue with other experts over what to inform. But the request to inform does not grant even a smidgen of authority.

            Obviously a lot of people would like to be ”in charge” and to that end will tout the ability of certain experts while smearing others with the same level of expertise, and often greater evidence of more expertise. That seems to be the soup du jour with current politics.

            Its doubtful mankind has evolved much since the beginnings of recorded history perhaps in the last 2 or 3 thousand years. So we should continue to expect that ordained expertise will continue to be regularly overturned by the advancement of science as it has continuously been done throughout the history of science.

            What that calls for is clear observable and factual evidence of harm arising out of whatever any group of experts ascribe to before believing them too much. Today’s experts will be tomorrow’s flat earthers as sure as shootin. And I have little doubt that fact was well considered by the founders of this nation when they wrote the Constitution and didn’t provide a smidgen of authority to experts. Not even a trace or an iota of a trace of authority.

            Instead of authority experts may through licensing and contractual obligations assume a responsibility for the ‘right’ to dispense expert advice under the ‘color of expertise’ to the clients that specifically make contracts with them.

            But beyond that you can probably bet that freely dispensed expert advice should probably be viewed as (and actually you shouldn’t really need an expert to tell you this) about the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner salesman offering to vacuum your carpet for free. You should have enough brains to realize that cleaning your carpet isn’t his real objective.

    • gbaikie says:

      So, wiki:
      “The greenhouse effect is the process by which radiation from a planet’s atmosphere warms the planet’s surface to a temperature above what it would be without this atmosphere”
      Well that’s is wrong.
      A greenhouse effect is the effect of planet having atmosphere- and in regards to Earth, also having the ocean.
      What keeps it warm at Earth surface is the kinetic energy of the gases, not radiant energy from the gases. Or the dominate factors are convectional and evaporative heat transfer at the surface of Earth

      “Radiatively active gases (i.e., greenhouse gases) in a planet’s atmosphere radiate energy in all directions. Part of this radiation is directed towards the surface, warming it”
      “Greenhouse gases” would radiate in all directions. Correct.
      And most of such radiate energy goes “sideways” rather up or down- just like of most area of Earth surface is not at the poles- or they go in random and spherical directions. Of course same applies to random direction of the kinetic molecules with the average velocity of a bullet, but if surface is heated the kinetic energy direction will “become” more upward directed though won’t have vacuum in the 14.7 psi air pressure and is also have “directed” downward movement of air molecules- or like all types convection in a gravity field, and is seen to get more violent and noticeable with looking at boiling pot of water.
      One say the air molecule don’t go as far as radiant energy due to density of surface air, the individual molecules don’t go say 1 mm within a second whereas radiant energy may go meters in second. But kinetic energy of the zillions collision does move and in turn can air masses to move, and molecules within the mass move with the air masses. And with surface, air mass will be directed, up and the down to replace that mass which went up.
      Or you use double pane windows to prevent convectional heat loss- they would be nothing to prevent radiant heat loss. When insulating house you not interested in trying to prevent radiant heat loss, it convectional heat loss {conductive heat loss in some respects}- building thick rock walls- that is about prevent conductive heat loss- and having a thermal mass or heat sink {“heat or cold storage”}.

      “The planet Venus experienced runaway greenhouse effect, resulting in an atmosphere which is 96% carbon dioxide, with surface atmospheric pressure roughly the same as found 900 m (3,000 ft) underwater on Earth.”
      That is imagination with no facts to support it- as there is no evidence Venus was ever cooler at any time in the past. Or planet are “born” as molten rocks- planet defined by differential rock:
      wiki:
      “In planetary science, planetary differentiation is the process of separating out different constituents of a planetary body as a consequence of their physical or chemical behavior, where the body develops into compositionally distinct layers; the denser materials of a planet sink to the center, while less dense materials rise to the surface, generally in a magma ocean.”
      Last time I checked, Venus is considered a planet.

      How many things must be disproven before we can call it a cargo cult?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ecclesiastes…”Why is studentb allowed to post on this website with outrageous and personal attacks? ”

      We need the comedy relief.

      With regard to covid, there are parallels to the climate hustles to which Roy has written so well. We might call it the covid hustle because the science behind it is dreadful.

      I just learned that some morons have changed the definition of a virus, away from the scientific method to, you guessed it, a theory based on agreement. Not only that, they have changed the definition of isolation, as applied to a virus, from something that should be separated from its cell culture and seen, to something scientists can argue about without ever having seen a virus.

      The genome claimed for the covid virus has been created on a computer model using unknown strands of RNA that scientists AGREE MUST BE from a virus. They argued about what genetic material did and did not belong to the measles virus for 50 years. Today, they get on a computer, look up what RNA strands have been found then piece them together into a genome. When they reach gaps in the genome, and there are many, they simply fill them in as NOAA does with surface station data.

      The original definition of a virus required that cellular material thought to have a virus be isolated, purified, and SEEN with an electron microscope (scientific method). When Luc Montagnier tried that with HIV, he could not SEE a virus on the EM, so he fell back on retroviral theory wherein an enzyme, reverse transcriptase, SHOULD give evidence of ‘retro’virus. Why could it not be seen, does it have some kind of cloaking technology?

      That was an extension of a theory formulated in the 1950s, that infected material that could kill healthy cells in a test tube MUST BE a virus. No proof, it MUST BE. Then everyone began agreeing, and now a virus is claimed to be isolated, even though no one has ever seen it on an EM.

      Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist, has recently (2016) convinced a German Supreme court that there is no scientific evidence to support a measles virus. Furthermore, he convinced another court that no scientific evidence exists to support HIV or its theories. Now, Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, claims HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.

      Another scientist, Andrew Kaufman, has recently demonstrated that pictures of the covid virus are actually pictures of exosomes, natural products created by cells when people are infected, under stress, afraid, etc. It appears the tests used for covid are actually testing for a very natural product of human cells.

      I am afraid the scientific method has been chucked out the door and has been replaced by ego and arrogance.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Stefan Lanka is a total fraud and phony and you think he is legit?

        He is so dishonest he will never pay out the money he offered in the measles affair. Why make a bet if you don’t ever intend to pay? That is a very phony proposition.

        Your heroes of frauds and phonies who really do not understand the topics. I have given you enormous amounts of information clearly exposing these frauds but it just goes over your head. You do not understand why they are so wrong and misleading.

        On Stefan Lanka. He should either pay me his offer or just go away and quit peddling his outright lies! I really dislike that person and he is very harmful if he gets people to listen to his BS!

        With measles, he claims NO EVIDENCE to support measles. Well measles was infecting millions in the US each year, killing hundreds and hospitalizing thousands. A vaccine was developed using a weakened strain the the harmful form and given to the Public. The disease was almost eradicated except in a few pockets where people did not vaccinate their children because of evil people like Lanka

        For the jerk Lanka. If he does not want to pay his offer than he has to explain HOW the vaccine, based upon weakened strain of what he does not believe exists, is able to prevent the disease.

        You make heroes of some really evil and wicked dishonest people. Maybe you should try some different heroes. Some that believe in honesty and truth maybe.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Stefan Lanka is a total fraud and phony and you think he is legit?

          He is so dishonest he will never pay out the money he offered in the measles affair. Why make a bet if you dont ever intend to pay? That is a very phony proposition”.

          The German Supreme Court court accepted his argument that no proof exists to prove the measles virus exists. Do you think Supreme Courts, German or otherwise, would accept the testimony of a fraud and a phony? They decided in his favour and ordered the plaintiff to pat costs.

          Lanka introduced evidence from an independent lab that all known viruses which have been claimed to kill healthy cells have not been subjected to a control test. In other words, the presumption that viruses kill healthy cells in a lab test tube has never been tested to see if the cells would have died anyway due to conditions in the lab.

          It is known that healthy cells are not affected by the so-called viruses so they are pre-starved of nutrients to make them more amenable to accepting the virus. They are also treated with bacteria to ensure no bacterial infection develops.

          Lanka commissioned an independent lab to do a control test by treating healthy cells as they would be treated in a viral test. The healthy cells all died without an infection agent being introduced.

          This is major. It means those testing for covid need to run similar negative controls to ensure the cells are not dying naturally due to lab treatment.

          Why should Lanka pay out money to an idiot who presented papers alleging to be proof of the measles virus but could not explain them? The lower court failed to allow the papers as evidence, pretty well taking the word of a crank and his star witness who later admitted he had lied.

          BTW…this will please you. Lanka also testified in a German court on behalf of a physician charged with spreading HIV. Lanka convinced the court that insufficient evidence exists to prove HIV exists.

          In German, there are specific rules related to science in a court. Over here there are no such rules and a bombastic, egotistical judge can simply offer his uneducated opinion.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            I do not agree that German Supreme Court has the expertise in virology to access the validity of his claims. I do not know the reason they ruled as they did.

            It does not change the fact Lanka is a foolish evil man who endangers life and health. Your fondness to him is not rational. He is a very bad person.

            Here are facts. Understand why this jerk liar is evil.

            https://tinyurl.com/y58a22lp

            From source: “In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.”

            After vaccines
            From millions to a few hundred

            https://tinyurl.com/y39perlm

            Lanka should pay me his offer. I would like to go before the German Supreme Court with my case.

            Here is the case. If measles virus does not exist, why does a vaccine using a such an alleged non-existent virus in weakened form eliminate the disease. if evil Lanka cannot offer a reason for why the vaccine works then he pays me the money. I will win if my case is heard.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        Saying a generic term like Andrew Kaufman is a scientist does not have much meaning. He is a psychiatrist. He has no expertise in Electron Micrographs or how to properly interpret the data.

        A better skeptic of Covid virus images would be someone that actually works in the field and has valid reason to believe the what is seen is not a virus but an exosome.

        You grant too much authority to one not even remotely related to the field of his own expertise. I wonder how Andrew Kaufman would feel if a electronics tech would tell him his ideas on a psychiatric point were false and wrong and that the electronic tech knew more about this topic than him. I really do not understand your thought process on picking who is and expert in a field and then glorifying them as they are the Masters of the subject. A psychiatrist is more capable of judging images of electron micrographs than one who is actually trained and experienced with the use of such instruments?

        I think you should reconsider how you choose experts.

    • Svante says:

      Ecclesiastes says:

      The WSJ has an interesting opinion piece that might be worth reading, The Ideological Corruption of Science.

      Interestingly, this professor of theoretical physics has just written a book about climate change.
      https://tinyurl.com/yxs5mua9

      Here he is discussing Greta Thunberg. I can’t say I agree:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unhm_tvY8hQ

  10. Shaun says:

    Surely all people interested in scientific debate should applaud this film being made. A debate where the contrary arguments are censored stops being an active and healthy debate.

    This subject is very emotive but surely we should all try to allow the science to do the talking and not the activists, grifters, politicians and media.

    This subject has become pitiful media clickbait with the most sensational headlines used to prop up failing media outlets.

    • Nate says:

      What censoring?

      Even though it is propaganda and contains lots of deception and misleading information, the film is freely available.

      You believe it, not because it is factual, but because it confirms your beliefs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        nate…”What censoring? ”

        Don’t be obtuse, Nate. Michael Moore’s video of the same ilk has been banned by youtube. Dr. Stefan Lanka, a skeptic of the viral theory, especially retroviruses, has been banned by Google. I have to use Dogpile to get references to his science.

        There is currently blatant censorship of science throughout the world. A Bulgarian pathologist has complained that the World Health Organization is putting pressure on governments to report deaths as covid-related without performing an autopsy to ascertain the real cause of death.

        https://off-guardian.org/2020/07/02/no-one-has-died-from-the-coronavirus-president-of-the-bulgarian-pathology-association/

      • Nate says:

        Norman,

        “The controversial film Planet of the Humans, produced by Michael Moore, was taken down from YouTube on Monday because of a copyright infringement claim. ”

        As usual, almost nothing that Gordon posts turns out to be accurate.

      • Nate says:

        One of the jobs of peer review in science has been to filter out work that doesnt meet the ordinary standards of science, ie the crackpot work.

        That’s not censorship, and it is a good thing.

    • bdgwx says:

      Shaun said: A debate where the contrary arguments are censored stops being an active and healthy debate.

      I know of no other current scientific discipline or topic in which contrarian viewpoints are more freely available, well funded, and well advertised. I believe the opposite of censorship is occurring. As compared to other scientific disciplines and topics climate change is overweight on contrarianism. There has been an awful lot of resources wasted on contrarian research that still, to this day, has not produced a model of the climate that is even on par with the skill in explain and predicting climate change as the consensus model; not even remotely close. Most of these contrarian models are so bad, in fact, that they can’t even get the direction of the temperature change correct for even small time windows. And yet we still allocate resources like mad to promote them.

      • ClintR says:

        bdgwx, the censorship occurs when “contrarian” concepts are presented. For example, remember what happened when you were presented with some examples of reality?

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        What scientific discipline are you talking about? Climate is the average of weather. No science looking at an average. No theory, no hypotheses.

        Rapidly becoming the preserve of activists, journalists and conspiracy theorists!

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bdg…”I know of no other current scientific discipline or topic in which contrarian viewpoints are more freely available, well funded, and well advertised”.

        Surely you jest. Have you not gone through the emails in the Climategate email scandal? In the emails, top IPCC review authors are seen threatening to block papers from skeptics to IPCC reviews. Michael Mann was found to be running around like an idiot trying to interfere with peer review.

        The only way skeptics can offer views in climate science is through independent journals. Even Richard Lindzen had to complain to a climate journal author that his papers were being delayed. The author admitted the delay was due to his skeptical views.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      shaun…”Surely all people interested in scientific debate should applaud this film being made”.

      I applaud the courage of these people, as I do with Roy and John Christy of UAH, for standing up in the face of extreme adversity and calling a spade a spade. I applaud the University of Alabama, Huntsville, for allowing Roy and John to express their views. Many climate scientists have been fired from their jobs for being honest and skeptical.

      Recently, Dr. Andrew Kaufman was fired from his job for questioning covid theory. Andrew refuses to wear a mask based on his love of democracy. Without these people we’d be running around accepting goofball theories from the politically-correct of science who think it’s kosher to ruin people’s careers for being skeptical.

  11. Steve Case says:

    they also expose, debunk and demolish the tricks, lies and hidden agendas of global warming and green energy campaigners.

    I hope it covers the methane Global Warming Potential bullshit.

  12. ren says:

    Great snowstorm in Switzerland and Austria.
    The Nino 1.2 index begins to decline again.

  13. Mark Wapples says:

    Lsrge parts of the US are experiencing droughts because of the increased use of water to irrigate non native crops.

    Prime example is the almond plantations in California.

    • ClintR says:

      In reference to California, you need to research the water diverted from farming for smelt.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      mark…”Lsrge parts of the US are experiencing droughts because of the increased use of water to irrigate non native crops”.

      For a state with drought problems they sure have an inordinate number of swimming pools, water slides, and car washes in California.

    • Nate says:

      I dont believe diverted irrigation water would have been used to water the forrest.

      This is irrelevant to the forrest fires in California.

  14. Norman says:

    Nate

    I do not think an increase in temperature would be responsible for the dryness in the Western USA. Something is preventing the rain from falling. When I look at the long history of droughts they seem sporadic and move around. Before a conclusion can be made that Global Warming causes Western droughts there must be a mechanism involved. A few years ago they were claiming the bad Texas drought was Climate Change. Then a couple years later no more drought.

    I suggest you watch the animation of droughts in US over the last 100 years and you may not be so certain that Global Warming is the cause.

    https://tinyurl.com/y5qhg3u7

  15. Ecclesiastes says:

    Of course, for those inside the bubble..

  16. Ecclesiastes says:

    Of course, for those in the bubble…

  17. gallopingcamel says:

    Given that I don’t have much time for blogging anymore it is excellent blogs like this that get my attention. Even so I might go weeks without looking in here so I tend to notice little changes.

    The quality of the trolls seems to have improved since Da**d Ap**ll was replaced by “studentb”. Then it occurred to me that “studentb” might be a pseudonym for a banished troll like “D**g C****n”.

    Am I onto something here or is “studentb” really a newbie?

  18. Galaxie500 says:

    The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change – Gilbert PLASS – 1956

    !956 Gordon. You are perpetuating another myth that the term is new.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      galaxie…”You are perpetuating another myth that the term is new”.

      I have no problem with the phrase climate change in a scientific context. What I am referring to is the perversion of the term by eco-weenies who ran out of arguments under the term ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’ (CAGW). Their version of climate change is full of nonsense like the notion that Arctic ice is melting, whereas the truth is that it is melting during the Arctic summer, which is natural.

      In other words, the term climate change has been turned into a religious, politically-correct mantra that is aimed at scaring people rather than educating them with real science.

      • Norman says:

        Gordon Robertson

        For a self-professed genius, I am wondering why you do not understand what is meant by “Arctic ice is melting”. It is a term based up previous years. Currently the extent of sea ice is reduced in the summer melt season and it does not refreeze to the same extent in the winter.

        https://preview.tinyurl.com/5587hk

        The long term average has the Summer Melt extent at over 6 million square kilometers of ice remaining at the greatest melt. Now it is under 4 million.

        This is real data. The Arctic Sea ice extent is reduced in the summer which leads to the potential to add more energy to the Earth system. Ice is highly reflective of solar energy (albedo between 0.5 and 0.7). In the summer the sun is up 24 hours so if there is less ice the solar input will be absorbed by the open sea and add energy. The reason I state potential is because thick clouds could form and do the same function of sea ice. I am not certain of what will take place in that region during the summer but if the clouds do form and act as reflectors, than I do know energy will be added to the Earth’s overall system warming it up.

        • ClintR says:

          Norman, people have been predicting the end of Arctic sea ice for years. Waddams, as recently as 2014, predicted “ice free” by 2020!

          You won’t see an ice free Arctic in your lifetime. That’s some reality for you.

          Sorry, I don’t mean to take away your baseless fears. Anxities can make up for not having a life.

          (Do you have your face mask on?)

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”Currently the extent of sea ice is reduced in the summer melt season and it does not refreeze to the same extent in the winter”.

          How does anyone calculate the true sea ice extent? They can observe it with satellites but they cannot calculate it. Most of the ESTIMATIONS are done with models.

          In a typical Arctic Ocean winter, there are ten feet of ice covering the ocean from the Canadian north shore to the North Pole. That ice is constantly in motion and huge chinks of ice produce pressure ridges when they collide that are up to 40 feet high. That’s a lot of ice mass not calculable by satellites.

          Also, there are two main circulations in the Arctic Ocean, the Beaufort Gyre and the transpolar drift. The latter is constantly dumping ice into the North Atlantic at variable rates. Who is up there measuring all this activity?

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            They are not calculating sea ice mass, they are calculating the extent. The mass would not alter the area of reflected sunlight in summer months. The extent would. Only the surface of the ice is acting as a reflector. If the ice is a few inches thick or several feet it would not alter its surface reflectivity.

            Anyway you ask how they calculate sea ice extent. They use microwaves. They use these because they go through clouds and water and ice have different microwave signatures that can be distinguished. It is actually based upon measured information.

            https://tinyurl.com/varlhjh

          • ClintR says:

            Norman, since you’re now attempting to be an expert on Arctic sea ice, having failed at physics and pine trees, perhaps you could tell us what the Arctic sea ice extent is supposed to be.

            You don’t want to fail again, unless you’re seeking to be an expert on failures.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          norman…”For a self-professed genius…”

          You forgot to add that I am extremely handsome.

  19. Gordon Robertson says:

    This is not just about climate science, it’s a movement right across the board. The Club of Rome, a group of elitists have declared that democracy is not adequate for the kinds of changes we need in the world to help it survive. What we have is technocrats who believe that science is a vehicle to world order…their kind of world order.

    Worth watching. An expert, Patrick Wood, who has been studying the history of Technocracy is interviewed by Spiro Skouros. It’s pretty scary when you get details on this crowd who have been involved in the past in California. almost forcing women to be sterilized.

    This is about science, the abuse of it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdsL57SUZo

  20. ren says:

    In three days, the stratospheric intrusion will cause a sharp drop in temperature in the Midwest. I warn farmers and breeders.
    https://images.tinypic.pl/i/01014/h4ums0v70rot.png

  21. Wayne says:

    To the alarmists on here, I have no problem with the following statements:

    1. The planet is warming.
    2. CO2 is likely contributing to this warming.
    3. It is unwise for we humans to alter the balance of natural systems, especially when those systems uhave evolved to foster life.
    4. We should limit and even reduce our C02 emissions until we better understand the impact that we’re having.

    There is your argument, solid, convincing, and unassailable.

    What I despise are your lies and attempts at manipulation. Consider, as one small example, this document from 1922: https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Screen-Shot-2017-03-15-at-5.55.11-AM-down.gif

    Yes, I know, it’s from Tony Heller’s website. It doesn’t change the authenticity of the document.

    Doesn’t this sort of thing give you at least some pause as you bleat out your apocalyptic predictions and make your unsubstantiated claims linking specific events to climate change? Aren’t you at least a little embarrassed by your failed predictions that the arctic ice would be gone by now, the Maldives and New York under water, the polar bears all dead?

    Don’t you bother to check charts like this before making your wild claims about forest fires: https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/figure16-1.jpg

    You would do us all a huge favor if you returned to the solid scientific ground of what is known and provable, while disavowing everything else.

    Wayne

    • ClintR says:

      Wayne, #1 is true. Earth is in a warming trend. It will be followed by a cooling trend.

      #2, #3, and #4 are not based on science, only beliefs.

    • Nabil Swedan says:

      Wayne,
      Point 4. I think that you meant should not.
      Point 2. CO2 is an inert and dead matter, it cannot change climates. Variation in the size of living matter has changed past and present climate.

      • Wayne says:

        ClintR/Nabil:

        Point 3 is pure common sense. Altering the balance of any natural system unless you know the precise implications is risky.

        Points 2 & 4 are the layperson’s (like me) response to the insanely divisive debate about the role of C02. Half of you say it dramatically impacts temperature, half of you say it doesn’t. Until you science guys resolve this issue once and for all, the common-sense reaction is to slow down emissions pending a resolution.

        But I think you are both missing the central point here. I’m saying that alarmists have no real basis to go beyond an argument like the one I’ve made. Every other claim, especially re: cause and effect of specific events, or apocalyptic forecasts that never come true, is hyperbole and only serves to weaken their credibility.

        Wayne

        • ClintR says:

          Wayne says: “Point 3 is pure common sense.”

          Well now you have added a qualifier: “Altering the balance of any natural system unless you know the precise implications is risky.”

          Without that qualifier, you would rule out dam construction, cutting down trees to build homes, and even breathing. Also, “evolution” is a belief system. It is not science. The correct scientific response to “How did we get here”, is “We don’t know”.

          Wayne says: “Points 2 & 4 are the layperson’s (like me) response to the insanely divisive debate about the role of C02. Half of you say it dramatically impacts temperature, half of you say it doesn’t. Until you science guys resolve this issue once and for all, the common-sense reaction is to slow down emissions pending a resolution.”

          Wayne, you mentioned “common sense”. Common sense is the layperson’s best weapon to fight nonsense. If someone claims to be a “scientist”, but misleads you, your common sense should tell you not to listen to him. They have been lying to us, for years. The correct common-sense reaction is to do nothing, except fight the nonsense.

          It would take years for a layperson to acquire an understanding of the actual science, but you don’t need years to understand the basics. Dr. Spencer’s blog is just one of several forums where you can learn the basics, and also see examples of “them” perverting reality. Being informed, asking relevant questions, and thinking rationally are the burdens of being a free “layperson”.

          • Wayne says:

            Clint,

            Well, sticking with the theme of common sense, I was thinking more that you shouldn’t dump a chemical into a healthy water system without knowing its effect, not questioning whether we should breathe. Spewing too much of anything into our atmosphere falls into the same category.

            As for Drs Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, and Curry, I place a great deal of faith in them because they have always struck me as very professional, balanced scientists. And I object to anyone attempting to dismiss them as so-called deniers or shills.

            Likewise, I doubt very much that all of the scientists on the alarmists’ side are idiots and liars. Arrogance cuts both ways and leads to ignorance in either case.

            Wayne

          • ClintR says:

            Wayne, be careful about such statements: “Spewing too much of anything into our atmosphere falls into the same category.” Alarmists will key on that in reference to CO2. CO2 is necessary to the planet. It is NOT a “toxic gas”. Studies have indicated that the best CO2 level is 500-600 ppm. We should probably try to get CO2 that high.

            And you’re correct that not all scientists are idiots or liars. The problems seem to be with those that have an agenda. Both funding and politics come into the picture. See the Climategate emails, for example.

            As you get more and more into this, using your common sense, you will be disappointed to learn that many government agencies are corrupt. EPA and NASA come to mind.

          • Svante says:

            ..., CDC, FBI, DOD, FDA, NSF, NOOA, FTC, FEMA, NRC, NPS, DEA, NTS, the Fed, Homeland Security, ... All controlled by the Illuminati of course.

    • bill hunter says:

      Wayne says:
      September 26, 2020 at 4:03 PM
      To the alarmists on here, I have no problem with the following statements:

      1. The planet is warming.
      2. CO2 is likely contributing to this warming.
      3. It is unwise for we humans to alter the balance of natural systems, especially when those systems uhave evolved to foster life.
      4. We should limit and even reduce our C02 emissions until we better understand the impact that were having.

      ==================================
      1. is a no brainer.
      2. is likely true but we don’t know how much its contributing.
      3. and 4. Are amateurish.

      Fact is every action including prohibition of actions have huge consequences. It is only wise to restrict the emissions of CO2 to the extent we know the impacts of that restriction.

      There is no question that fossil fuels have contributed a great deal to our quality of life. Its extended lifetimes and enabled many millions to prosper.

      You may be one of those who already has prospered. Or you could be one who has been inculcated to believe that because of fossil fuels you have not prospered.

      Today we have a guy traveling in a yacht that burns more fuel per mile than an entire fleet of 747’s saying the worlds poor are being harmed by fossil fuels. Is the guy an idiot? Most likely he got lucky to get that rich and it had little to do with braincells.

      It may indeed be unwise to continue to increase CO2 emissions. Seems at the moment increases aren’t occurring but could occur in the future. However, we haven’t yet made a decent case as to whether more CO2 is good or bad.

      And we sure haven’t begun to scratch the surface of what environmental organizations are already doing in 3rd world countries to put a damper on the use of fossil fuels, much less if we do it to the entire world.

      Its unwise to do anything until you consider everything it will impact.

      • Wayne says:

        Bill,

        I never said that I’m against the use of fossil fuels. I happen to share your view that they have played a major role in improving the quality of life around the globe.

        As I’ve made clear many times before, even in the post to which you’re responding, I’m no alarmist. I don’t believe the vast majority of their claims, and I certainly don’t agree with their tactics.

        But I also don’t agree with intellectual dishonesty on either side of the debate. Imagine for a moment that you are looking down at a pristine ocean, and suddenly you see noticeable pockets of plastic and other manmade refuse begin to form.

        You don’t have to know everything about the effects of those changes, both positive and negative, to be concerned about the impact that we’re having. The fact that we’re altering that natural system in a significant manner is reason enough to be cautious about it.

        Does that mean I think we should run out, eliminate all our fossil fuel use, and make energy prices so expensive that people can’t afford to heat their homes? Nope.

        Does it mean that I think CO2 is a pollutant like the stuff we’re dumping into our oceans? Nope. I think that, so far, it’s probably helped the earth green and increased crop yields.

        But I think we should be pressing hard to reduce emissions through improved energy efficiency, and to eliminate stupid excesses like flaring. I’m also a strong advocate of the use of solar power panels on buildings as a means of reducing the demands placed on our energy grids, though I’m not a fan of solar and wind as major components of power grids themselves.

        Those are acts of caution.

        Wayne

        • bill hunter says:

          i agree i also think life on this planet does better with a bit more co2. Further essentially the only uninhabitable places on the planet are pretty much just in the cold areas. A few degrees if thats in the cards does not sound like the end of the world.

          But its pretty apparent that co2 isn’t the main driver of the GHE. as outlined by Dr Akasofu, natural change could explain everything . . . .and even everything is only about a degree and half. Nothing to get alarmed about.

          Its very clear to me that it hasn’t risen to a level where its appropriate for government to start pushing people around. Its just going to divide people more and thus the greens are using the classic marketing style of blaming the people they push around as the dividers. They are acting like religious bigots because it sure isn’t science.

    • gbaikie says:

      –Wayne says:
      September 26, 2020 at 4:03 PM
      To the alarmists on here, I have no problem with the following statements:

      1. The planet is warming.
      2. CO2 is likely contributing to this warming.
      3. It is unwise for we humans to alter the balance of natural systems, especially when those systems uhave evolved to foster life.
      4. We should limit and even reduce our C02 emissions until we better understand the impact that we’re having.–

      1 Earth is warming from a period called the Little Ice Age which said to ended around 1850. Which around the period of time where global glacial advanced, stops, and glacial retreat started.
      And the Little Ice Age started at some point, which isn’t as much agreement but no one thinks it started much before 1300 AD Or it warmer before 1300 AD. And go back +5000 years ago, even warmer for period thousands of years {but some dips and peaks in the period, but on average for thousands of year, warmer.
      And I am referring to period called the Holocene Optimum
      Wiki, Holocene climatic optimum:
      “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period.”
      None of names mean it was terribly or dreadfully hot, rather consider time the begin flourishing civilizations and one them was in India. India currently has average temperature of about 24 C, and thousands years it could slightly warmer than it is now.

      Never heard anyone say, the problem with India is it has a high average temperature. Oh too bad India has such a high average temperature- there can no hope of any progress in India because of it’s average temperature which is more 12 C warmer then US average temperature. Or 15 C warmer the Europe. Or not says Europe has some great advantage because it has a lower average temperature.
      Though one saying because Canada’s average temperature is – 4 C that Canada is doomed as it’s cold, and rarely does it rave reviews due to an advantage of coldness.

      In terms, Earth which has been around quite a long time, currently within last million has been the coldest Earth’s ever been. Or we are living right now, in an Ice Age. Yes, it’s between even colder period called glacial period. But are but we are “briefly” between {inter} glacial periods. And our ocean remains quite cold from such colder periods] Our ocean average temperature is 3.5, it gets as cold below 2 C and as warm as 5 C {and 5 C is still a cold ocean- it’s near temperature of your refrigerator}.
      Ice Age or also called icebox periods are cold oceans and polar ice caps- and can check both the boxes needed the definition. In comparison Earth’s had Greenhouse global climates- much warmer ocean and no ice caps.
      Earth’s “natural” temperature is much higher. But Earth’s natural temperature only within an Ice Age- is a cold that no one would want to live in- and including every animal and plant on the planet. And Earth is going return to a glacial period, so continue enjoying the “warmth” {if 15 C can said to be warm} while you can.

      • Wayne says:

        Gbaikie,

        Not sure what inspired you to make those points. I’m well aware of earth’s temperature history and the strong correlation between warmth and prosperity.

        Having grown up in a place that was routinely -35 celsius (in Canada), and having moved 10 years ago to a place that is routinely +35 (not too far from India), I’d say that I’ve already voted on that issue with my feet.

        But too much of anything can be harmful. If you don’t believe me, read some newspaper archives of the 1930s in the U.S., where people sometimes died by the hundreds in heat waves.

        Now, do I think that we’re currently cooking the planet to that degree? No, I do not. Even if we look at the past 170 years, there is plenty of anectdotal evidence that climate is cyclical on a multidecadal scale, let alone the larger cycles to which you refer. Personally, I think we’re due for 30-40 years of cooling now, whatever its specific cause.

        But I also think that there are some scientists on the other side of this debate who are every bit as qualified and sincere as my favorites (Spencer, Christy, Curry, and Linzen), and that we would be arrogant fools to completely dismiss their concerns just because they appear to be on the same team as some idiots (Mann, Hansen, Schmidt, the MSM, and pretty much every politician).

        Wayne

        • gbaikie says:

          Wayne:
          “There were 25,260 excess winter deaths across all ages in Great Britain last year”
          And fact checking this Claim
          “30,000 British pensioners freeze to death each year.”
          https://fullfact.org/online/Excess-winter-deaths-UK/
          So did not freeze to death but did die related to colder conditions, and older people who were low income {UK has “problems” with old poor people, just as have problem with their state health care system- their politicans are constantly talking about it {and not doing anything about it]. So maybe UK one of worse, but globally colder conditions in winter [or seasonally cold periods in Tropics- no real seasons of winter or summer in tropics} do cause or play role in a lot yearly deaths.
          I wouldn’t be surprised hundreds dying related heat in 1930’s was actually an “under count” as you know there was the “Great Depression” during this time and the Dust Bowl in 1930s.
          And I imagine a lot deaths from just inhaling dust.

          “Personally, I think were due for 30-40 years of cooling now, whatever its specific cause.”
          Possibly but maybe something more like 30 year Pause.

  22. studentb says:

    Re CH2,
    Having no interest at all in watching it, I have monitored the feedback to its showing. On its own facebook page they show a photo of the reaction in Australia, described by somebody as:
    “In what appears to be an elderly housing complex in Sydney, Australia, two of the eight people at the table have their eyes glued to the screen. ”
    If you get to look at the “Australian reaction” photo I think you will agree that description is not quite right. Rather, it looks suspiciously like a group of homeless men have been enticed off the streets with the lure of a free meal and coffee to watch a computer screen at the end of the table. Talk about boredom! LOL!

  23. studentb says:

    CH2:
    Kevin “Hercules” Sorbo states that the ice caps are doing great, the polar bears are doing fine. LOL

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stupidb…”Kevin Hercules Sorbo states that the ice caps are doing great, the polar bears are doing fine”.

      Prove they are not. There are no ice caps in the Arctic as many ignorant alarmists seem to think. With regard to Antarctica, polar expert, Duncan Wingham, who supports the anthropogenic theory, claimed it is too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt. It’s also too cold most of the year in the Arctic for anything to melt.

      Alarmists don’t get it that the polar region temperatures are governed by little or no solar input most of the year. You could double or triple CO2 and it wouldn’t even make a scratch in the -50C temperatures typical in those regions much of the year. That’s if CO2 had more than a marginal difference in temperatures, typically about 4/100ths C per 1C warming elsewhere.

  24. studentb says:

    CH2:
    Apparently they recycled the same experts from CH1 since their ranks are thinning, not growing. Including (according to Ben Jervey):
    Dr. Judith Curry, who left academia in 2017 to focus fully on her private business, which she has admitted does receive funding from the fossil fuel industry.

    Patrick Moore, who describes himself as a founder of Greenpeace, a claim that the organization itself denies.

    Dr. Ivar Giaever, a physicist with no academic climate credentials who resigned from the American Physical Society when he disagreed with their stance on global warming as occurring and incontrovertible.

    Dr. Tim Ball, a retired Canadian professor and former member of President Trump’s transition team, who also claims falsely to be Canada’s first climatology PhD. Ball was recently found guilty of libel by a Canadian Court of Appeals over false statements in a 9-year-old attack against prominent Canadian climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver.

    Alex Epstein who has turned a Bachelors of Arts in Philosophy into a successful career promoting the moral case for fossil fuels and has proudly disclosed his fossil fuel industry funding.

    Mark Steyn, a blogger who takes pride in having no scientific expertise.

    Honestly, you start to feel sorry for anybody who is conned by this rubbish.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      stupid…”Ball was recently found guilty of libel by a Canadian Court of Appeals over false statements in a 9-year-old attack against prominent Canadian climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver”.

      You forgot to mention that in the first trial, the case was dismissed. Here in Canada, these appeal courts at the provincial level often get overruled by the federal Supreme Court. It’s a matter of whether Ball wants to appeal this to the Supreme Court.

      I think Ball has a good argument. Weaver is a climate modeler and as such is not presenting science based on the scientific method. Modelers have perverted climate science by introducing unproved claims in model programs that cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method.

      You also forgot to reveal that Michael Mann sued Ball and lost.

      What difference does it make if Judith Curry is funded by the oil industry? We don’t live in Stalinist Russia and the inference that scientists like Judith are corrupted by oil money is one of the most stupid arguments by an alarmist.

      Your entire post is ad homs related to character assassination. That’s why I call you stupid, you don’t have the intelligence to see through this or to present an adequate scientific argument.

      Back in the 1980s, James Hansen was using his public funding to preach politically about anthropogenic warming. Al Gore was sponsoring him by finding more money for him from public sources. The only scientist opposing Hansen was climate scientists Patrick Michaels and it was expensive trying to keep up with Hansen, who had no right to be using his platform at NASA GISS to preach climate alarm.

      When Western Fuels offered to bankroll Michaels he accepted. And why not? If you think it’s OK for alarmists like Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann to use public funding to spread climate alarm, and you don’t think it’s OK for oil companies to fund skeptics, then you are a hypocrite.

      Michaels has integrity, a quality that is scarce with climate alarmists. He would never do science purely for the benefit of benefactors in the oil sector.

      • studentb says:

        I rest my case.

      • bdgwx says:

        GR said: You also forgot to reveal that Michael Mann sued Ball and lost.

        Mann’s cases had 3 defendants. Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Tim Ball, and an unnamed party.

        FCPP settled with Mann and issued an apology to him.

        Tim Ball petitioned the court for a dismissal. The court in his favor. The court’s ruling was NOT in regards to the merits of the case though. It was related to the Ball’s health, his reputation (or lack therefore actually), and the length of time the case had been open.

        The case against the unnamed party is active.

        BTW…John O’Sullivan is mixed up in the case as well. He is the owner/operator of the Principia Scientific International blog. Mr. O’Sullivan misrepresented himself as an official party to the case. He also has…umm…an extremely shady and offensive history of behavior. Refer to the affidavits of case VLC-S-S-111913 for more information. I’m not comfortable posting it here due to the content involved.

        Paul Driessen is a supporter of John O’Sullivan and a member of PSI.

        • ClintR says:

          bdgwx, it’s one thing for you to try to pervert reality, while remaining anonymous. But, it’s even sleazier to slander people, while remaining anonymous.

        • bdgwx says:

          I’m not sure who or how you think I have slandered.

          First…You can read FCPP’s court authorized apology dated June 7, 2019. You can read court decision dated August 22, 2019 for dismissal on grounds of Ball’s health and excess delays but not on the merits of the case. This matter relates to VLC-S-S-111913. You can also read the precedent set in the court decision dated February 13, 2018 in which the judge said of Ball, “Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views” and “In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.” This matter relates to VLC-S-S-110682. As you can see Mann probably wouldn’t have received a favored judgement against Ball like he did against FCPP because Ball is not deemed as having sufficient reputation and credibility to be held responsible for his slanderous remarks.

          Second…Paul Driessen is included in PSI’s selected member list. https://principia-scientific.com/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/

          Third…It is my considered opinion that behaviors exhibited by John O’Sullivan and which are documented in affidavits #1 and #2 on April 17, 2012 and May 18, 2012 respectively in case VLC-S-S-111913 are extremely shady and offensive. That’s fine if you and Paul Driessen want to support Mr. O’Sullivan. I certainly am not. And I should note the obvious here…being offended by someone else’s behavior is not slander.

          • ClintR says:

            Okay anonymous bdgwx, I guess you are not deemed as having sufficient reputation and credibility to be held responsible for your sleazy remarks.

      • bdgwx says:

        GR said: Michaels has integrity

        Michaels was a member of TASCC and ESEF who’s role was to downplay or even outright reject the science linking smoking with negative health effects. These groups successfully delayed regulation and misled the public leading to more lasting health consequences, more health expenditures, and more deaths than would have otherwise occurred. I’ll let you be the judge on how much culpability he deserves for that. But I will say that if he represents your bar for integrity then you’ve set that bar very low. And considering that he already has a history of “doing science” (erroneously at that) purely for the benefit of other commercial benefactors I don’t think its a stretch to consider he would do the same for the oil sector. https://tinyurl.com/y4e9fkhp

        • ClintR says:

          bdgwx, your knowledge of history is in the toilet, along with your knowledge of science.

          In the 1950s, smoking was the norm. You could smoke on airplanes. Almost every restaurant had ashtrays on the tables. Many medical doctors smoked. Einstein smoked. Smoking was sexy and sophisticated. Hardly anyone thought it was unhealthy. Had you been in the 1950s, and opposed tobacco, you would have been a “contrarian”.

          But now, in your false religion, you believe contrarians are “evil”.

      • Nate says:

        Gordon complains about character assination then immediately starts doing his favorite thing: character assassination.

        Hes quite a mensch!

  25. ClintR says:

    studentb will have several sleepless nights over “CH2”.

    Probably one of the reasons it was produced….

  26. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…”Saying a generic term like Andrew Kaufman is a scientist does not have much meaning. He is a psychiatrist. He has no expertise in Electron Micrographs or how to properly interpret the data”.

    Norman, you have an incredibly cynical nature. Have you tried reading the guy at all, he describes his background in detail? Unlike a degree in psychology, a psychiatrist needs to have a medical degree first. Kaufman is trained as a physician and he has served in that capacity both as an intern and a doctor. He has done surgery.

    He has a B.Sc. from MIT in microbiology. He fully understands viruses and the related RNA/DNA. He is an innovator and he does exhaustive research in these areas. Most physicians are satisfied to believe what they are told.

    This guy loves democracy and decries the intrusions into our lives presented by this covid curse. He refuses to wear a mask because he thinks it depersonalizes people and creates fear in the minds of small children.

    More importantly, as a psychiatrist he has insight into human behavior and he can understand the bs perpetuated by the current mob of medical types and their motivations. He has pointed out, based on his experience as a student, that medical student are encouraged to memorize established theory and not rock the boat by questioning. He has also pointed out that medical students graduate with enormous debt loads and are afraid to rock the boat lest they lose their jobs and cannot repay the debt.

    I think you need to open your mind. Kaufman is not arrogant like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, two of your favourites. He is a decent person looking for answers and he is finding them.

    • Norman says:

      Gordon Robertson

      YOU: “Kaufman is not arrogant like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, two of your favourites.”

      Where do you get the idea that these two are my favorites? When have I ever used them as source material? I think they are skewed by a desire to be popular or famous (the same as with your favorite Andrew Kaufman who opposes the established science to gain some fame).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-_30HA7rec

      I looked up the required courses for a biology degree at MIT

      He is a biology Major from MIT.

      https://biology.mit.edu/undergraduate/major-minor-requirements/

      https://biology.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/degree_chart_course_7.pdf

      I do not see anything that makes him an expert on electron micrographs or how to interpret the data produced. I think he is way over-stretching his field of expertise, basically calling the people that work in that field as incompetent that they do not know what they are seeing and mistaking Covid virus for something else.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Norman…how about the following courses covered:

        Organic Chemistry
        Thermodynamics and Kinetics
        Thermodynamics of Biomolecular Systems
        Fundamentals of Experimental Molecular Biology
        Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory
        Genetics
        General Biochemistry
        Introduction to Biological Chemistry
        Cell Biology

        An EM would be covered in cell biology at least. Also, in the Applied Molecular Biology Laboratory course.

        I’ll tell you one thing, Kaufman can explain cell biology and the relationship of DNA to RNA really well.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ps. there is also a microbiology elective. It seems they allow you to specialize, even at an undergrad level. Mind you, we had similar options in engineering. First year was general engineering where we all had to follow a general curriculum with the exception of two elective.

          One of the electives was English but since I had already taken first year English at night school I was allowed to take geology and psychology as an elective. I really wanted to take a music elective but when I showed up in my red engineering jacket to apply, the professor, who was quite effeminate, told me “definitely not”.

          I should have appealed. In second year we went into our chosen kind of engineering.

          It might interest you to know that MIT offers free open course ware (OCW). You could do a course or two in biology. I am thinking about it.

          • theRealPlastic says:

            Gordon,
            what benefit is it to you to lie? Except to feel big on the Internet, sitting up all hours of the night chugging Vitamin C and thinking you are winning a war? Not!

            You never attended UBC engineering school. You don’t actually do anything except rant on the Internet. Life has passed you by.

            And engineering (lol) would not afford you the credentials you claim in virology and other medical sciences.

            So why do you try to make everything worse for everybody else just trying to stay alive sustainably.

            You ARE nonsensical.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Again, I do not see how that would make him an expert on electron microscope images. I fail to see how cell biology gives him enough authority on electron microscope operation to tell experts in the field that do it as a job, that they don’t know what they are looking at.

  27. ren says:

    A large increase in geomagnetic activity in the coming days (predicted strong geomagnetic storm) will accelerate La Nina’s development.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202009.gif

  28. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    “No climate change deniers here. In all my years posting on Roys site I have never heard anyone deny climate change. What some of us deny is that climates are not changing due to an atmospheric gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. ”

    If you agree that the climate is changing, but deny that it is due to increasing CO2, what is your alternative hypothesis?

    On what evidence do your base your conclusion?

    Please be specific. “Natural variation” is too vague.

    • ClintR says:

      EM, why would you rule out the scientific reason for climate change?

      “Natural variation” may be too vague for you, but it is what’s happening. Many different phenomena affect our planet. It’s a chaotic system responding different to different perturbations. The Laws of Thermodynamics bring things back into range.

      • Entropic man says:

        I can’t discuss radiative physics here, the site settings won’t let me.

        I find that increased CO2 is the hypothesis which best explains the observed warming.

        The natural alternatives are much smaller in their effects and when you put them together the net effect is slight cooling, not the 1.2C warming observed since 1880.

        • ClintR says:

          The trick to discussing radiative physics here is to not use the word “absorxyion”. (“xy” being of course “pt”). Something like “absorp.tion” will work.

          CO2 does not explain the recent warming at all. That’s just cherry-picking. The CO2 nonsense doesn’t fit in with the cooling trend around 1970, for example.

          • ClintR says:

            Well that was certainly gunched! Let’s try again:

            The trick to discussing radiative physics here is to not use the word “absorxyion”. (“xy” being of course “pt”). Something like “absorp.tion” will work.

            CO2 does not explain the recent warming at all. That’s just cherry-picking. The CO2 nonsense doesn’t fit in with the cooling trend around 1970, for example.

        • Swenson says:

          Entropic,

          Thermometers showing an increase in temperature are generally reacting to an increase in heat. CO2 has no heat producing abilities amongst its properties. Energy production, in all its forms, does, however.

          As to the effect of CO2 on weather, nobody can say with certainty. And climate is the average of weather.

          Why would you associate CO2 with either temperature or weather? Or do you just accept assertions from alarmists on the basis that you assume that they must be smarter than you?

          The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states, so even the IPCC accepts that the relationship between CO2 and weather is unknown. Why do you doubt the IPCC conclusion? It appears sound to me.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            swenson…”The IPCC states that it is not possible to predict future climate states, so even the IPCC accepts that the relationship between CO2 and weather is unknown”.

            That did not stop the IPCC from using unvalidated climate models to predict different ‘scenarios’. The models are unvalidated largely because they cannot be proved using the scientific method and they have programmed into them a fudged warming factor for CO2 and a positive feedback that cannot exist without an amplifier. Without the CO2 fudge factor and the positive feedback they would be ‘projecting’ nothing catastrophic.

            They got away with the use of ‘prediction’ till expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, pointed out that unvalidated models cannot predict. So the IPCC changed ‘predict’ to ‘project’.

    • bill hunter says:

      Entropic man says:

      If you agree that the climate is changing, but deny that it is due to increasing CO2, what is your alternative hypothesis?

      On what evidence do your base your conclusion?

      Please be specific. Natural variation is too vague.

      ====================================

      Science isn’t some authoritative opinion of science. I discussed the authority of scientists elsewhere in the comments to this post by Roy.

      Science arrives by a process of replicable science. Producing greenhouse effects etc.

      Some allowance is allowed for consistent ability to predict different greenhouse scenarios (generations in the vernacular of at least some model based science) at least partially satisfying the replication requirement.

      Until then you can the opinion of scientists, popes, common men and everybody else whom in a free nation are entitled to believe what they want and not be discriminated against in their beliefs.

      So its not even a contest that anybody need engage in. If you don’t know you should be able to just say so and continue to live in accordance with what you believe in.

      But because so many know the science is not there yet (words in fact of the grandfather of global warming a highly respected scientist and a torch carried by many highly respected scientists to this day) there is no obligation on anybody’s part to believe in an alternative belief. You can be agnostic about it and still have a right to be free.

      • Entropic man says:

        The problem is that politicians need a scientific basis to make policy.

        Whatever the cause, the sea level is rising by 4mm/year and much faster along the US East coast. Temperatures are up 1.2 C in 130 years and climate zones are shifting.

        They need to know if this will continue and how far.

        How high will the new sea defences around New York need to be?

        Would it be better to defend Norfolk naval base or move it?

        Should they change California’s building code to limit house building in fire-prone forests?

        Personal beliefs are your business, but we need to make policy. To make projections you need a working hypothesis, and you don’t have one.

        • Swenson says:

          Entropic,

          No problem. Since when have politicians needed a scientific basis for any policy? Politicians are winners of popularity contests. Next thing youll be claiming politicians need to to listen to economists!

          Your questions can be answered by ringing a fortune teller, or reading Tarot cards,

        • Nate says:

          ” Since when have politicians needed a scientific basis for any policy?”

          I know, who needs the National Academy of Sciences, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Centers for Disease Control, Defense Research, Energy Information Agency, etc??

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            From peer-reviewed paper –

            * The three journals with the highest number of retractions in this study were Science, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature.*

            Should politicians form policy on the basis of NSF *science* before or after the science is found to be so inadequate it has to be retracted?

            I wont bother with the rest. Your silliness is just too bizarre for words!

  29. Claiming a 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes hitting the US is a slight exaggeration. The “major hurricane drought” consisted of the hurricane seasons of 2006 through 2016.

  30. Svante says:

    ..., CDC, FBI, DOD, FDA, NSF, NOOA, FTC, FEMA, NRC, NPS, DEA, NTS, the Fed, Homeland Security, ... All controlled by the Illuminati of course.

    • Swenson says:

      Svante,

      Have you lost it completely? Whats with the alphabet soup? Who are the Illuminati? Friends of yours?

    • bill hunter says:

      I think when you grow up and gain some experience you will find that these agencies are made up of a lot of common people.

      Like the common people, a lot will be extremely dedicated to the truth, some will be sowing seeds of dissent, others will be deliberately trying to bring the system down, a good number will be brown nosing sycophants hoping to get a free rung up on the ladder.

      How it plays out for the agency as a whole or any particular division of it depends a lot upon the quality of management both in their management skills and their motivations because in the end they are just like common people too.

      • Svante says:

        You say DOD, NSF, FEMA, NOOA, FEMA and NASA are just promoting themselves in their climate change assessments.

        That’s a wacky idea.

        • Swenson says:

          Svante,

          He didnt say that did he? You are just making stuff up again.

          The NSF denied that melting sea ice did not raise sea levels for several years. Denied that Archimedes Principle applied outside Greece, it seems.

          Incompetence or alarmist delusion, would you say? Intentional fraud, corrupting science, perhaps?

          Want to claim the other organisations are completely free of people who are incompetent, stupid, delusional, corrupt, self-seeking, or clinically insane?

          • Galaxie500 says:

            Mike do you have a reference that can back up that statement?

            he NSF denied that melting sea ice did not raise sea levels for several years. Denied that Archimedes Principle applied outside Greece, it seems.

          • Swenson says:

            G,

            You are confused, deluded, or both. I am not Mike or any other figment of your imagination, and yes, of course,

          • ClintR says:

            The NSF has a history of wasting money and supporting nonsense. Senator Proxmire once gave the agency the “Golden Fleece” award for “granting $84,000 to a social science project investigating why people fall in love”.

            The NSF annual budget is over $8 billion! To clean up science, start by defunding NSF.

          • Nate says:

            “The NSF annual budget is over $8 billion!”

            We could get four B2 bombers instead!

            Oh wait, we dont need B2 bombers..

          • Swenson says:

            Nate,

            Why did politicians authorise B2 bombers, then? Because scientists wanted them? Dont be stupid. Politics is politics.

        • bill hunter says:

          i am not going to repeat myself Svante. Simply go back and reread what I actually said. Then draw your own conclusions and don’t try to project them as my conclusions.

          • Svante says:

            bill,
            You said they are promoting falsehoods because of their own self interest.

            I’d say that would be counterproductive.

            The current administration would reward anyone that says global warming is a chinese hoax.

          • ClintR says:

            Silly snowflake Svante, you have no understanding of bureaucracies, or why they go bad.

            And since you have proven yourself to be an idiot, and unable to learn, there is no way to teach you anything..

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            You said they are promoting falsehoods because of their own self interest.

            Id say that would be counterproductive.

            The current administration would reward anyone that says global warming is a chinese hoax.
            ===============================

            Do you expect it to be different if a different party is in control?

          • Svante says:

            Well, I think the best strategy is to speak the truth.
            It would help if the administration was not anti-science.
            For example on covid-19 and global warming.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Well, I think the best strategy is to speak the truth.
            It would help if the administration was not anti-science.
            For example on covid-19 and global warming.
            ============================

            Anti-science? They debated last night and Biden claimed the hurricanes, tornadoes, and fires were unprecendented due to anthropogenic global warming when science says there has been no increase. Thats anti-science.

            What did Trump say last night that was anti-science?

          • Nate says:

            “What did Trump say last night that was anti-science?”

            OMG, his entire presidency has been anti scince. Where have you been?

            In the debate he simply declared made up things as facts. He repeated conspiracyvtheories.

            He made fun of bidens masks, with Karma kicking in soon after.

  31. ren says:

    If in November, in line with forecasts, the Nino 3.4 index drops to -1.5 degrees C, the global temperature will drop significantly.

  32. ren says:

    SOI is stably positive and the Nino 4 index is falling.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png

  33. Gordon Robertson says:

    entropic…”If you agree that the climate is changing, but deny that it is due to increasing CO2, what is your alternative hypothesis?

    On what evidence do your base your conclusion?”

    Recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/

    The author claimed in another article that the IPCC erred by ignoring re-warming from the LIA. They acknowledged the LIA in the 1990 review then seemed to forget about it. The LIA and the Medieval Warm Period were obliterated in the hockey stick which became the poster child of the IPCC. Then it was demolished by McIntyre and McKitrick, supported largely by the National Academy of Science and statistics expert Wegmann.

    After that, the IPCC disowned the Mann hockey stick, altering it so much with error bars that it became known as the spaghetti graph. However, in the spaghetti graph they had fully re-instituted the LIA and the MWP.

    • Galaxie500 says:

      I don’t wan to piss on your chips there Gordon but the paper was published in 2010 and on that link the trend line seems to be following the IPCC projection not the MDO. But correct me if I am wrong.

      • Svante says:

        Yes, the graph has a downswing 2010 to 2030.
        In reality UAH went up by 0.2 C 2010-2020.

        • bill hunter says:

          PDO has strongly favored its warm phase since the late 1970’s. And nobody knows how to predict when it might go into an extended cold phase.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          svante…”Yes, the graph has a downswing 2010 to 2030.
          In reality UAH went up by 0.2 C 2010-2020″.

          The range from 2010 – 2030 was guestimated from previous swings.

          UAH went up because we had a major El Nino mid-range, in 2016.

          • bill hunter says:

            Gordon you have to allow for Svante’s special needs. He only absorbs small snippets of a graph at a time. He didn’t notice that the observation window in the graph shows a great deal of deviation off the underlying patterns. So he actually mistaken believes the wiggly line going off as a prediction is a precise prediction.

            He has been told many times that ocean oscillations are a real phenomena but that we have little information about their causes or durations. So it is remarkable the current oscillation has run for about 72 years when the previous observed one went for about 66 years. However, for at least 10 years I have known of an astrometeorologist that claims the planetary cycle of interest is around 72 years. So while all the short term conclusion makers, and I guess Svante is one of them have been claiming the oscillation would change after 66 years and like I said for 10 years somebody who is mathematically matching to planet movements says this is the year of cooling to start. We will have to see if he is right. He also predicted a major La Nina for 2021. This was long before solar experts put out a prediction for the beginning of the solar cycle.

          • Svante says:

            Well its 2020 and were at +1.2 C.
            Your trendline says +0.6 C.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            Well its 2020 and were at +1.2 C.
            Your trendline says +0.6 C.

            ———————————

            More correctly the unidentified sources of warming that includes CO2 is .6c.

          • Svante says:

            They are identified in the paper discussed here:
            https://tinyurl.com/y2xtsvtz

          • Swenson says:

            S,

            Those bumblers admit they cant even get the models to agree with the past. You are obviously exceptionally gullible.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            They are identified in the paper discussed here:
            ====================================

            Vague pronoun reference Svante!

          • Svante says:

            bill, your “unidentified sources” are identified in the reference.
            Interestingly, the AMO is not a free agent.

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:
            bill, your unidentified sources are identified in the reference.
            Interestingly, the AMO is not a free agent.

            =====================================
            The AMO is a climate alarmist strawman.

            It is the PDO that correlates to temperature changes not the AMO. But the AMO is picked on because it can be.

          • Svante says:

            Pacific variability is quantified in ch. 5.
            https://tinyurl.com/y966hgzx

            Plenty of references there for you.

          • bill hunter says:

            do i actually have to read it Svante? I am in agreement that the PDO isn’t caused by changes in temperature of the ocean surface but it is instead a change in the location of cold and hot pools of water that changes their orientation to prevailing weather tracks. since precipitation in the western states is radically affected by the decadal climate conditions of this switch in pools. . . .it follow that it could also have an oscillation effect on world climate.

            does the article even recognize the precipitation issue with the PDO?

  34. ren says:

    In the tropopause at high latitudes, water vapor competes with stratospheric ozone. As the amount of water vapor decreases in high latitudes during La Nina, dry air with ozone will more often reach the south (northern hemisphere in winter).

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…any evidence that such conditions might cause the Sun to appear to be hotter as detected by human skin?

      Seems to me the Sun ‘feels’ hotter these days. That’s subjective but it seems it’s solar energy in the UV region that affects the skin. That part of the spectrum also affects ozone.

      • ren says:

        Fewer solar flares means less UV and less ozone in the mesosphere and stratosphere. Ozone absorbs UV. When there is less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV reaches the surface.

        • mark wapples says:

          Simple observation over the summer on the heat from the Sun feeling hotter in the UK.

          There was a lot less high level contrails in the sky.

          I also observed the opposite effect the nights felt cooler quicker once the sun went down.

          Also on a clear night the stars seemed brighter than usual.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          ren…”When there is less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV reaches the surface”.

          Sounds good, thanks ren.

      • ren says:

        The Mg II data are derived from GOME (1995-2011), SCIAMACHY (2002-2012), GOME-2A (2007-present), and GOME-2B (2012-present). All three data sets as well as the Bremen Mg II composite data are available (see links below). In late years the GOME solar irradiance has degraded to about 20% of its value near 280 nm in 1995, so that the GOME data have become noisier.
        The emission core of the Mg II doublet (280 nm) exhibits the largest natural solar irradiance variability above 240 nm. It is frequently used as a proxy for spectral solar irradiance variability from the UV to EUV associated with the 11-yr solar cycle (22-yr magnetic cycle) and solar rotation (27d).
        https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
        UV light wavelengths shorter than 240 nm will create ozone via photolysis of the oxygen molecule.

  35. Gordon Robertson says:

    norman…” I fail to see how cell biology gives him enough authority on electron microscope operation to tell experts in the field that do it as a job, that they dont know what they are looking at”.

    1)I could build an electron microscope never mind operate one. Not rocket science. The trick is preparing the ultra-thin slice (about 100 nanometers) to be viewed. What is seen does not require that much expertise, however, it is dead-easy to fool the public by issuing EM micrographs claimed to be HIV or covid.

    When the SARS virus was allegedly isolated and identified, with the corona, the paper was rejected at the peer review stage. Even they recognized the obvious, the imagery showed normal cell particles, not a virus. When an electron beam in an EM bombards a thin-slice sample, it destroys it eventually. The corona image could very likely be due to the interaction of the electron electromagnetic field and the sample.

    2)Luc Montagnier, who discovered HIV, claimed he tried to isolate HIV and view it with an EM but could see no virus. Lanka, who has a Ph.D and the experience with viewing viruses claims most EM micrographs of viruses are nothing more than cellular debris from dead cells and tissue.

    You have to understand that the definition of a virus has been changed to allow for the fact that these viruses cannot be seen with an EM. Since the 1950’s, the definition for a virus was changed to a consensus opinion. It was deemed enough to claim isolation of a virus if infected material BELIEVED to contain a virus was mixed with healthy cells and the cells died.

    Lanka has proved the cells would have died anyway, with or without an infectious material. The cells are pre-starved of their nutrients and antibiotics are added to prevent a bacterial infection. That’s how he won his case in front of the German High Court by convincing the judges that insufficient scientific evidence existed to prove the measles virus existed or had been isolated. Also, that no control tests have ever been used with a virus claim to rule out that the cells would have died anyway.

    It is simply wrong, scientifically, to infer a virus exists based on cells in a test tube dying. It’s even more wrong to claim you have the genome of a virus when all you have are strands of RNA that are part of the human genome. Any idiot with a computer model can create an artificial genome but as Lanka has claimed, there are many pieces missing in the artificial genomes and the researchers simply guess at them.

    Here’s a good one. In a French TV interview (translated) Montagnier claimed the covid genome seems to have an HIV sequence in it. He hinted that the covid genome has been artificially created. Kaufman corroborated that by digging up a translation from the Chinese researchers who claimed to have isolated covid.

    The Wuhan researchers claimed to:

    1)collect lung fluid
    2)found and separated genetic material from the sample
    3)sequenced the genetic material
    4)developed a PCR detection

    No mention of separating the virus using the traditional method where it is viewed with an EM. Kaufman asks, “what about purifying the virus and where did the genetic material come from”?

    From that perspective, the definition of ‘isolated’ has been changed for viruses like HIV and covid. Isolation as it is normally intended for a virus is to ‘separate’ the virus from infected material then view it on an electron microscope. That cannot be done with HIV or covid so they have resorted to ‘inferring’ a virus based on the effect the imaginary virus has on cells in a test tube.

    That’s how HIV was ‘discovered???’ and Montagnier freely admits it. The current test for covid based on the PCR method was developed for HIV because no one could find the virus using an EM. Montagnier also freely admits that.

    So, tell me this Norman, how does a test work that converts RNA, believed to be from a virus, to DNA, then amplifies the DNA using the PCR method for DNA amplification? Mullis, who invented PCR, was adamant that no virus could be amplified using PCR that could not be isolated in an unamplified amount.

    How the heck do you know which RNA to convert and amplify if you have not isolated the virus and seen it with an EM?

    Mullis was fully conversant with viral technology, he was a front-line researcher who dealt in state-of-the-art technology.

    • Norman says:

      Gorodn Robertson

      The problem here is that I have already spent my time pointing out the many flaws in all your phony points. It is not like any are new and you have not repeated them many times. I have gone through each of them. It does not matter what evidence I provide for you. You ignore it and keep peddling your false information from dishonest contrarians.

      You are stuck in Contrarian Universe and will not budge. Evidence means nothing. You are also a fraud as you pretend I have not answered your points at depth more than once.

      I think it is time for me to quit responding to your false and misleading posts on viruses. It is obvious you care nothing about evidence and will mindlessly and with zero thought repeat the points you have obtained from contrarian lies.

      • ClintR says:

        Norman, maybe Gordon is not impressed with your opinions, since you have no technical background. He has explained things to you that you are clearly incapable of understanding. You seem to believe that since you know how to type, then you know everything. Your history does not support such a conclusion….

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          clint…”Norman, maybe Gordon is not impressed with your opinions, since you have no technical background”.

          No maybe’s there, Clint. ☺ ☺ ☺

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        norman…”The problem here is that I have already spent my time pointing out the many flaws in all your phony points”.

        You mean like the point I made that Luc Montagnier, who is credited with discovering HIV, now thinks HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system?

        Or, how about the point made by Peter Duesberg way back when HIV was first announced to be the cause of AIDS? At the time, all of the AIDS cases in the US involved male homosexuals and Duesberg dared to point out the obvious, that no known virus can infect only men. Based on such skeptical and truthful observations, he had his career ruined.

        Of course, you approve of such Neanderthal practices where butt-kissers to a paradigm can ruin the career of a very good scientist for telling the truth.

        Montagnier has corroborated Duesberg’s point. When asked how to deal with AIDS he suggested people stop the high risk behavior leading to AIDS and take antioxidants. Montagnier has corroborated Duesberg’s point.

        • Norman says:

          Gordon Robertson

          Since you persist in lying I am compelled to point out these false points you make.

          I watched the video and posted the words Montagnier used. You are making claims he never said. Basically twisting the truth to fit your contrarian agenda.

          http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/07/observed-decrease-in-u-s-child-mortality-during-the-covid-19-lockdown-of-2020/#comment-507583

          I have posted many factual things about Duesberg already. He is an awful person you admire. His evil ideas were responsible for the deaths of many people in Africa because some leader chose to believe his false narrative.

          Same with some parents who start believing the vile lies of Lanka, now their children are getting measles because the parents do not vaccinate for this disease. (which was killing hundreds of people every year before the vaccine was implemented).

          Your “very good scientists” ARE NOT scientists at all anymore! They may have been at one time and use their credentials to spread contrarian lies, but scientists seek the truth and follow the evidence, they also use logic and rational thought process.

          Your heroes are corrupt and wicked people that are causing intentional harm. I do not know why you think they are good people.

          • theRealPlastic says:

            Gordon roots for underdogs and losers like himself. The lower and slimier, the better.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”I watched the video and posted the words Montagnier used”.

            You are a sick person, Norman. It’s one thing to accuse me of lying but when you accuse Montagnier of lying you have lost touch with reality.

            As far as Duesberg is concerned, this guy was the youngest scientist of his time inducted into the National Academy of Science for isolating the first cancer gene. The man is an expert with retroviruses like HIV. He was also voted California Scientist of the Year.

            Lanka convinced a German high court, using scientific evidence, that no scientific evidence exists to support the theory that a measles virus exists. This guy is very intelligent and is also an expert on viruses. He debated Duesberg, who claimed there is proof that HIV exists whereas Lanka has provided ample proof that it is a non-existent hoax.

            With regard to your paranoid delusions that Duesberg has harmed people in Africa with his views on HIV, it is not him but the World Health Organization who are the culprits. Like the UN, the WHO should be abandoned for seriously misleading people. The IPCC is a deliberate creation of the UN aimed at perverting science to meet the needs of an ulterior motive. They regard climate hoaxes as a vehicle to international taxation.

            People allegedly dying of AIDS in Africa are suffering from wasting syndrome, a contagion for which the cause has been known for decades long before the WHO cynically and cruelly rebranded it as AIDS, caused by the sexual transmission of a harmless virus. Wasting syndrome is known to be caused by malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections, like malaria.

            Montagnier, in the video, emphasized clean drinking water for Africans. Are you some kind of a demented idiot for closing your mind to what he actually said? It’s people like you who are harming Africans by backing the use of toxic antiviral drugs to treat malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections.

          • Norman says:

            Gordon Robertson

            Before you get phony righteous on me, look at the link I directed you to! I did not call Montagnier a liar, I said you twisted what he said. He never said what you attribute him to saying so you are the dishonest one here and I pointed it out.

            Lie if you must but you keep lying after you are exposed to have done it. Since you did not click on the link I will bring the post back for you.

            From old POST: “Thank you for posting the video. I do not agree with your conclusion that “Somewhere around 18 minutes he admits that if you have a healthy immune system, HIV wont harm you.”

            The Interviewer: “If you have a good immune system then your body can naturally get rid of HIV”

            Montagnier: “Yes””

        • therealPlastic says:

          Um, Motagnier is basically senile and pedaling homeopathy in China now.
          Duesberg is a fraud.

          And just a friendly reminder that you are not an engineer and never attended UBC or any other university. Right?

  36. Entropic man says:

    Gordon Robertson

    Some light reading to bring you up to date.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7345211/

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      entropic…

      From your link…”Various laboratory tests can identify the genetic material of SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 in specimens, or specific anti-viral antibodies in blood/serum”.

      Absolute bs. How can they identify the genetic material when they cannot isolate the virus? They would not have to use the RNA-PCR method if they had the virus, they could just identify the virus directly.

      Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist has revealed the scam. Researchers are using partial genetic sequences stored in a model to generate complete genomes. They can’t generate a complete genome so they fill it in with garbage. Montagnier discovered that the alleged covid genome has an HIV genetic sequence in it.

      Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method for DNA amplification, was adamant that PCR could not be used to detect a virus that could not be identified in an unamplified specimen. He claimed the amplified version will show no more virus than the unamplified version.

      The RNA-PCR method (viral loading) was developed for HIV research because they could not see the virus with an electron microscope. Montagnier, who discovered HIV, admitted he had to infer the virus because he could not see it on an electron microscope. What he saw was a hodge podge of viral particles from which he inferred that HIV MUST BE 1 in 1000 of the unidentified mass.

      That begs the question, if HIV was so hard to find that it had to be inferred, how the heck could it cause so much damage to the immune system? Fast forward 35 years and Montagnier admitted it can’t, the immune system has to be compromised first.

      So, now they are using the same debunked tests to test for covid. Guess what? After 40 years they still have no vaccine for HIV based on that sci-fi genetic ID system. In 40 years, they will still be finding justification to rip off our democratic rights based on the same flawed science.

      The clowns writing this paper are not aware of the scientific fact and they are continuing a sci-fi paradigm, much like climate scientists continue to claim unvalidated models as scientific fact.

      Think about it. Where do they get the genetic sequences they talk about? They don’t have a whole virus with which to compare them so the genome is based on consensus.

      Voodoo science.

      • MikeR says:

        Latest Covid score : Science 2, Trump Family 0 .

        More to come..

      • Nate says:

        Cmon, Covid is no big deal. Nothing to fear. Just make sure you are Pres and can get all the latest/best treatments.

        Also make sure not to use any of the President’s own recommended treatments, like internal bleach, hydroxychloroquin, my pillow, or untested vaxes.

  37. Nabil Swedan says:

    Hollywood is not the platform to settle the climate science. Both sides have used Hollywood to further only agendas. They are scientificaly bankrupt in substance.

  38. studentb says:

    Anybody here seen CH2?
    I want to know how Hercules performed.

  39. ren says:

    “A see-saw pattern in the jet stream featuring a northward bulge in the West and a southward plunge in the central and eastern U.S. will bring a tale of two seasons across the country this week. As November-like air chills portions of the Midwest and Northeast, hot and dry weather will make it feel more like summer in the West.”

  40. ren says:

    Cold jetstream reaches the Gulf of Mexico causing severe thunderstorms in Louisiana. The front will move to Alabama.

  41. [email protected] Katastrophe Kooks says:

    All they need is two more of these movies, and I’ve got the perfect pitch-slogan for it:

    Climate Hustle 4
    CH4 – It’s A Global Warming Gas!

    LOL

  42. Eben says:

    There are a lot of people who go by the same name – “Global Warming” – must be a big family

    https://youtu.be/NLP6y1xIiOU

  43. ren says:

    While the Alps often see snow as soon as September, the amount over the weekend was “pretty exceptional – in the village they’re saying it’s the most since 1974,” Frasson-Botton said.
    https://www.thelocal.fr/20200928/thousands-of-trapped-sheep-rescued-after-shock-french-alps-snowstorm

  44. Svante says:

    Well it’s 2020 and we’re at +1.2 C.
    Your trendline says +0.6 C.

    • Swenson says:

      S,

      Forecast where Im headed tomorrow is +39 C. You must be somewhere else. Its 2020 here as well, I believe.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        swenson…”Forecast where Im headed tomorrow is +39 C. You must be somewhere else. Its 2020 here as well, I believe”.

        I’ll steer clear of that place.

        In his naivete, Svante is still quoting from the horribly fudged NOAA surface record. He doesn’t appear to know the difference between a trend and an averaged global temperature which has no meaning.

        • Swenson says:

          Gordon,

          Would this be the same NOAA that claims –

          *Ocean currents are driven by wind, water density differences, and tides*? NOAA then go on –

          *Surface wind-driven currents generate upwelling currents in conjunction with landforms, creating deepwater currents.*

          About as true as the NSF claiming that melting sea ice raised sea levels! Donkeys claiming to be thoroughbred racehorses!

  45. Fred M. Cain says:

    Svante says:

    October 1, 2020 at 7:21 AM

    “Relative humidity goes down with higher temperature, even if the precipitation is the same.

    There’s always been arsonists, especially in neolithic times, why improve their conditions?”

    Concerning the devastating forest fires in the West, politicians and media pundits alike are pointing their fingers directly at “climate change”. Unfortunately, what’s getting lost here is that climate change is very likely something that NO ONE can do anything about. Almost like “An act of God”.

    It has been reported in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere, as many of you are well aware, that if America were to completely abandon greenhouse gases, much of the developing part of the world would not.

    And that’s not all. If the true cause of global warming really is anthropogenic, then surely greenhouse gas emissions are only one piece of the puzzle. I tried to point out the issue of heat islands created by urbanization. Massive heat islands in Arizona and California are probably also resulting in some warming in the highlands. That in turn means that snow packs melt earlier.

    A nice cure for heat islands would be to plant lots of trees and grass in urban areas to help offset the effects of asphalt and roofs. But to do that you would need to find lots of water. Where will that come from?

    The third piece of the puzzle is massive world-wide deforestation – especially in the low latitudes. How would you address that?

    To be fair here, I have to admit that I’m not a scientist. But I am trying to keep my eyes open and am seeing things that anybody ought to be able to.

    Regards,
    Fred M. Cain

    • Svante says:

      All countries have agreed to keep global warming below 2 C.
      That includes the developing world and deforestation.

      The best heat island cure would be reflective or white materials.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
      “The [UHI] effect has been estimated at 0.006 C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002 C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.”

      • Fred M. Cain says:

        Svante,

        Oh, yeah, right! I am going to let someone else on our group respond to this – if they dare, that is.

        Regards,
        Fred M. Cain

        • Svante says:

          Yes Fred, there are many people here that are more knowledgeable than me. I’m more alarmist than any of them. This is where we stand on a few selected issues, as far a I know (corrections are welcome):

          – A: The GHE exists.
          – B: Agrees with 2LOT.
          – C: Global warming is real.
          – D: Man made.
          – E: Caused by GHGs.
          – F: Mainly CO2.
          – G: Emitted by us.
          – H: Causes sea level rise.
          – I: Melts ice sheets and glaciers.
          – J: Unprecedented since the dawn of civilization.
          – K: Risky or bad.
          – L: Should be stopped.
          – Y: Einstein’s theory is OK so far.
          – Z: The moon rotates.

          – Capital letter: Agreeing to a large extent.
          – Small letter: Has substantial objections.
          – ?: Unknown (by me or he/she).

          – ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Midas
          – ABCDEFGHI???YZ: Tim Folkerts, PhD.
          – ABCDEFGHI???YZ: bobdroege
          – ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: Bindidon
          – ABCDEFGHI?KLYZ: barry
          – ABCDEFGHIJK?YZ: Ball4
          – ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: MikeR, PhD.
          – ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Nate
          – ABCDEFGHIJKLYZ: Svante
          – ABCDEFGHIjklYZ: Norman
          – ABCDEfGHI???YZ: Dan Pangburn
          – ABCdefG??jkl??: Kristian
          – ABcdefghijklYZ: Eben
          – abcdefghijkl?z: ClintR/JDHuffman/g*e*r*a*n/geran (anger).
          – abcdefghijkl?z: Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team/Halp-less/…
          – abcdefghijkl?z: Swenson/Amazed/Mike Flynn
          – abcdefghijkl?z: bill hunter
          – abcdefghijklyz: Gbaikie
          – abcdefghijklyz: Gordon Robertson

          • Swenson says:

            S,

            Have you lost it completely? More incomprehensible rubbish. Maybe you should spend more time learning physics (and English).

          • bill hunter says:

            boy you need a lot of corrections on mine. A C D(inpart) E(GHG part of cause of ghe) (G yes we emit CO2) H I K Y Z

            And since I don’t know what 2LOT is I don’t know if its B or b.

            Its quite amazing as much as I have posted here you have absorbed none of it. Can you read? Or do you just subscribe to a talking points list from some CAWG blog?

          • Svante says:

            bill, “in part” means you have substantial objections, doesn’t it?

            So you agree that a) the surface would be around 255 K without the GHE. The GHE does not violate b) the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LOT – cold can not heat hot)?

            You agree to a large extent (no substantial objections) that:
            c) Global warming is real, d) man made, e) caused by GHGs, f) mainly CO2, g) which was emitted by us.

            You agree to large extent (no substantial objections) that global warming:
            h) causes sea level rise, i) melts ice sheets and glaciers, k) is risky or bad.
            y) Einstein’s theory is OK so far.

            z) You disagree with Gordon/ClintR/DREMT on the moon rotation?

            A?CDEfGHIjKlYZ

          • bill hunter says:

            Svante says:

            bill, in part means you have substantial objections, doesnt it?
            ===============================
            No it doesn’t mean that. What are you trying to do write the same question 4 times worded differently?

            D: man made. E: Caused by GHGs.
            F: Mainly CO2.
            G: Emitted by us.

            ”So you agree that a) the surface would be around 255 K without the GHE.” – No I didn’t see that question. It would be 278.5K to correspond to the 341w/m2 from the sun unless you could figure out how to hang clouds in the sky without putting water vapor in the atmosphere.

            ”The GHE does not violate b) the 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LOT cold can not heat hot)?” I can absolutely assure you our climate is not violating the 2LOT.

            ”You agree to a large extent (no substantial objections) that:
            c) Global warming is real -” Yes its warming. No question.

            ”d) man made,”definitely a significant portion of warming is manmade. I have no particular idea how much though.

            ”e) caused by GHGs,” I have said many times that GHG are an absolute necessity for warming the surface.

            ” f) mainly CO2,” No its may not be mainly CO2 I didn’t have that on my correction list.

            ” g) which was emitted by us.” A substantial amount was emitted by us. We could effectively be accounting for almost all of it if actual degassing by a warming ocean is delayed significantly. (e.g. our emissions could be filling an imbalance by being directly emitted into the air instead of waiting on chemical processes in the ocean. If it were cooling instead of warming though the increase might be substantially different though even that probably as some kind of delayed uptake model. So yes some of the CO2 was emitted by us. How much? I haven’t seen a broad study on the topic of natural ocean outgassing. So I don’t know.

            ”You agree to large extent (no substantial objections) that global warming: h) causes sea level rise,” I have been arguing that point that the oceans are still rising from the Holocene optimum. It takes a long time to melt ice sheets. 100’s of thousands of years.

            ”i) melts ice sheets and glaciers,” Obviously!

            ” k) is risky or bad.” Life is risky Svante. Yes everything in life has risk around it. I am not much of a risk taker. For example I am not about to go jump out of a perfectly performing airplane.

            ”y) Einsteins theory is OK so far.” Not sure what you mean by OK so far. But Einstein’s theory was a brilliant example of visionary intelligence.

            ”z) You disagree with Gordon/ClintR/DREMT on the moon rotation?”

            The moon does not coincidentally rotate in time with the period of its orbit. Thats my take on what DREMT believes. You will have to ask the other people because I don’t know.

            As I said that makes me a

            ABCDEfGHIjKlYZ

          • gbaikie says:

            abcdefghijklyz: Gbaikie

            A: The GHE exists.
            Yes. But Greenhouse effect theory is crap- it’s cargo cult of stupid.
            B: Agrees with 2LOT.
            It seems you think Greenhouse effect is somehow described by
            the greenhouse effect theory. Greenhouse effect theory which claims
            33 K of warming is caused mostly water vapor and CO2 {and other greenhouse gases] doesn’t agree with 2LOT. And no one actually believes that greenhouse gases cause all warming.
            C: Global warming is real.
            We had about 1 C of increased global air temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age.
            There no evidence today’s average global temperature is remarkable.
            And everyone agrees we living in an Ice Age {a time of lower global average air temperature}. And if limit the time we been in this million year Ice Age, there has much warmer times within the Ice Age.
            D: Man made.
            Large portion of forests fires are man made, and Urban Heat island effect is solely man made. I suggest we man make some ocean settlements. And could in future {distant- + 100 years} have 1/2 of people living on the oceans {where is safer, cheaper, and more enjoyable- if you enjoy “living on a safe beach”- obvious some would like to live elsewhere, but currently it’s fairly popular or preferred place to live.

            E: Caused by GHGs.
            F: Mainly CO2.
            Nope.

          • gbaikie says:

            “unless you could figure out how to hang clouds in the sky without putting water vapor in the atmosphere.”

            We could have the Venus clouds:
            ” Venusian clouds are thick and are composed mainly (7596%) of sulfuric acid droplets.”

            But such cloud do involve water vapor and H20. Or 96% concentration
            has a lot less H20 than compared to 75% sulfuric acid droplets.

            This solar system has a lot water in it, and dry cold Mars has 210 ppm of H20 in atmosphere and clouds with H2O and ice caps of H20 and frozen lakes of H20. Our moon probably tens of billions of tones of H20 at the surface and a lot more than than inside it {though it be might as dry the Earth’s mantle which apparently is very dry}.

            So no matter how cold Earth could be imagined, the solar system will give it water and it have water vapor in the atmosphere.

          • bill hunter says:

            Yes gbaikie. I was merely suggesting how absurd it sounds estimating the greenhouse effect using cloud albedo to reduce the blackbody temperature 255k from the 278.5k it would be without clouds (using Trenberth mathematics anyhow on surface albedo).

            And thats not to mention that equilibrium temperature of an object with albedo is the same as a blackbody. That’s according to Stefan Boltzmann equations.

            So the 255k is some kind of weird imaginative number of the greenhouse effect on the surface. Must be important to some of their other math. But I have never seen an explanation for it.

            My best guess for it is they don’t want to acknowledge any negative feedback and want the max sensitivity number possible.

          • gbaikie says:

            “So the 255k is some kind of weird imaginative number of the greenhouse effect on the surface. Must be important to some of their other math. But I have never seen an explanation for it.”

            Yes, an ideal thermally conductive blackbody in vacuum that emits 239.7 watts and has uniform temperature of 255 K {-18 C}

            Earth roughly absorbs and emits on average 240 watts per square.

            “My best guess for it is they dont want to acknowledge any negative feedback and want the max sensitivity number possible.”

            My best guess is drug use.

        • gbaikie says:

          –Concerning the devastating forest fires in the West, politicians and media pundits alike are pointing their fingers directly at “climate change”. Unfortunately, what’s getting lost here is that climate change is very likely something that NO ONE can do anything about. Almost like “An act of God”.–

          The devastating forest fires have nothing to do CO2 emission by humans being. Conditions get dry in the summer- even temperate rainforest {Ie Vancouver island where rains “all the time”]. Or tropical rainforest or sand desert may have not have fires.

          But devastating forest fire can be forest fires near human settlements, big fire, and fires then burn for weeks or months.
          You can not prevent all forest fires from ever occurring. But you manage a forest or other places one can get fires. And Would say as many have said, the these devastating forest fires are from lack management {and stupid laws}. So proper forest management would limit the amount fires near human settlements, and able eliminate big fires and fires burn weeks.
          Or these forest fire burning for month is just from poor governmental forest fire prevention.
          A solution could related to NOT having government involved such important task which they proven they can’t do.

          –I tried to point out the issue of heat islands created by urbanization. Massive heat islands in Arizona and California are probably also resulting in some warming in the highlands. That in turn means that snow packs melt earlier.–
          We not in drought and snow packs are not low- as said, it’s summer, and we have badly managed public lands.

          -The third piece of the puzzle is massive world-wide deforestation – especially in the low latitudes. How would you address that?-

          I am sure that this is problem. But could be related to it in some regions of world is, govt subsidy of “biofuel” use.
          For some reason burning wood is considered good “green solution” and should be counted as added CO2 to global CO2 levels. It is just, really stupid.

      • Swenson says:

        S,

        You continue your alarmist nonsense.

        All countries have not agreed to anything about *global warming*. Your second sentence is incomprehensible. Urban heat islands are an observation. Why would they need a *cure*? Do you want to go back to the Stone Age?

        You are not only a donkey, but an idiotic donkey at that!

        • Svante says:

          Thank you for your comments Swenson.

          Here’s what all countries agreed to:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

          Urban heat islands are a health hazard during heat waves.

          I want progress.

          • Swenson says:

            S,

            You are welcome. Only a donkey would provide a reference which contradicts him. You obviously need to learn English comprehension. Either that, or you are about to attempt playing games and redefining words.

            Urban heat islands are a health benefit during a killing cold snap, wouldnt you agree?

            Maybe you could put the matter to a vote? A donkey vote sounds appropriate, if you are seeking the approbation of all the other donkeys.

  46. Gordon Robertson says:

    bill hunter…”And since I dont know what 2LOT is I dont know if its B or b”.

    2LoT = second law of thermodynamics.

    The author of the 2nd law, Rudolf Clausius, stated it as follows: Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a hotter body. The alarmists here cannot live with the definition of Clausius and find different thought experiments for allowing heat to flow cold to hot, by its own means. That’s equivalent to water running uphill by its own means, or a boulder raising itself onto a cliff, by its own means.

    Worst of all, they mistake electromagnetic energy for heat. One of them, Ball4, does not think heat exists. He thinks heat is simply a definition of energy transfer. I have asked him repeatedly which energy is being transferred, if not heat? Therefore, according to Ball4, heat is a definition for the transfer of heat.

    The rest think EM can be transferred both ways between bodies of different temperatures. They talk of a net energy transfer of heat and if it is positive, then it’s OK for heat to be transferred, by its own means, from cold to hot.

Leave a Reply