James Delingpole Climate Views on The Virgin Podcast

Richard Branson and Al Gore

Richard Branson and Al Gore

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Billionaire Entrepreneur Richard Branson, head of the Virgin Group, who sometimes features on WUWT for his strong pro climate advocacy views, has upset fellow travellers by allowing airtime for prominent British climate skeptic James Delingpole.

According to the Virgin website;

“In everything I write, I try to be as honest as I can and cleave to the truth as much as possible.” This week we welcome journalist, author broadcaster James Delingpole to the show. James is an extremely provocative man, and he believes that fears over climate change are unfounded.

I should stress that James’ views are in direct contradiction to the Virgin house view, and I think it is to Virgin’s great credit that they are prepared to hear and give airtime to the other side of such a divisive argument.

Where James and Virgin do agree, however, is on the issue of the legalization of drugs, and this is where our conversation takes us next. “Politicians are not addressing drugs laws,” says James, “for fear of headlines in the Daily Mail.” What a sad state of affairs.

Read more: https://www.virgin.com/entrepreneur/virgin-podcast-james-delingpole

Listen to the Podcast here

The greens have responded strongly to yet another incursion of unsanctioned climate views into mainstream media;

Aside from the facial hair and the petrol-guzzling international airline, one thing Virgin founder Sir Richard Branson is known for is his passion for fighting climate change.

“We need every person on Earth to acknowledge that climate change is real, and encourage each other and our leaders to address the challenge,” wrote billionaire Branson last year.

So with this in mind, some listeners might find it odd to hear on the latest official Virgin podcast that human-caused climate change is not a fact agreed upon by every credible science academy on the planet, but is instead “essentially a bankrupt theory.”

These were the words of James Delingpole, the British polemicist, climate science denialist and guest of Dominic Frisby, the writer, comedian and Virgin podcast host.

In a knockabout 20-minute segment full of laughs and japes, Virgin podcast listeners can hear how volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans, that global warming stopped 18 years ago and how wind turbines are “bat chomping eco-crucifixes” (Frisby especially liked that one).

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/12/why-is-climate-champion-richard-branson-allowing-deniers-on-a-virgin-podcast

I doubt this podcast represents a significant shift in Richard Branson and Virgin’s position on climate change. However it is not the first time Richard Branson has been criticised by greens, though usually criticism is for the apparent contradiction between Branson’s public views, and his carbon intensive business activities and lifestyle.

Advertisements

168 thoughts on “James Delingpole Climate Views on The Virgin Podcast

  1. “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans.” Come on guys, this BS was bolloxed how long ago?

      • If memory serves, some bloke came up with per annum rates which he contrasted, and got it published in a peer-reviewed article with headline-worthy press release content. No recollection of contrast of thousands of millions of years of activity on the one hand vs. a few decades of activity on the other or of measures of gases other than carbon dioxide.

      • I thought Pilmer came up with this volcanic emissions ‘fact’, but as pointed out by Ferdinand down thread the average annual emission rates are on a far smaller scale than average annual human co2 emissions. Of course some years have greater volcanic activity than others, but I doubt it is ever as great as humans.

        Cumulatively, over the centuries, volcanic activity has been significant if the co2 molecules do stay in the atmosphere for as long as is claimed, but in the great overall scheme of things they are of less significance than that from other sources, including man

        tonyb

      • The molecules go into limestone to make an excellent concrete ingredient and something lovely to use in its own right, especially after metamorphism, don’t they?

      • Mark,
        Logic ( a very big word ) If you weighed all animals,fish, insects, on the planet, it is possible that 2/3 of that weight would be ants !!! And we are the problem ??
        Lets suppose 500 trillion billion ants emit gas 1 time a day, anybody go a computer model on that ???

      • How does the subsea volcanoes which produce an estimated 75% of the annual output of magma. Presumably 75% of the CO2 as well. I have seen estimates of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers (for the Pacific), this equates to over a million globally. Any figure is no more than a guess though.

        This CO2 will take some time to be out-gassed from the oceans

      • Mark:
        No.

        Some characters have jotted rough calculation down and extrapolated from that.

        All of the CO2 seeps, vents and eruptions are not known. Nor are their number estimated then explicitly verified.
        No one has actually measured the volume of CO2 emission from a volcano. Meaning, estimates are pulled out of dark spaces.

        Such estimates are not for planning!

        Then we are back to the CO2 satellite, which has trouble identifying man’s emissions, but sure highlights plant and ocean emissions.
        Which is why NOAA still uses their CO2 ‘model’, because the satellite doesn’t support the CAGW message.

      • jamesbbkk,

        Even if it is 5% of all volcanoes, they have monitored the most active first and that shows how little they emit compared to humans. If you look at the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, a VEI index 6 emission of debris and gases (that is larger than the sum of all other eruptions of the past century), that caused a drop in the CO2 increase in the following years: the effect of cooling and increased photosynthesis (due to scattered sunlight) was larger than of the extra CO2 emitted by the eruption…

      • Sandy In Limousin,

        Most of the emissions from the undersea volcanoes remain in the deep oceans, as the hydrological pressure is enormous. Only if the top of the volcano is near the surface, any escape of gases will be noticed. The CO2/bi/carbonate levels in the deep oceans are enormous. To change that, one need millions of years from deep magma volcanoes, as subduction volcanoes simply recycle carbonate sediments from the oceans. Even so, new carbonate layers are continuously formed which in the past few million years more or less compensated for the extra CO2 from the volcanoes.

      • Ferdinand Engelbeen
        May 13, 2016 at 8:31 am

        jamesbbkk,

        Even if it is 5% of all volcanoes, they have monitored the most active first and that shows how little they emit compared to humans. If you look at the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, a VEI index 6 emission of debris and gases (that is larger than the sum of all other eruptions of the past century), that caused a drop in the CO2 increase in the following years: the effect of cooling and increased photosynthesis (due to scattered sunlight) was larger than of the extra CO2 emitted by the eruption…
        ==========

        Sorry Ferdinand, probably I am not understanding your point made in your comment as per above…..but I have still to ask:

        Are you trying to say and argue that the Pinatubo eruption of the 1991 somehow undermined and blocked the anthropogenic effect of the human CO2 emissions in the increase of the CO2 at that time for the following years…does not that simply mean that the real factor of CO2 increment is not actually anthropogenic and the main “Lion share” is not with the anthropogenic emission! (AS IT SEEMS CLEARLY TO BE SHOWN AT LEAST FOR THAT TIME)

        Remember that the only impact the Pinatubo eruption could have had is significant only to emissions not the sinks. While it could considered that the yearly emissions were suppressed, the forcing towards the increase of sinks will be impossible to contemplate, really……….no matter what innuendos tried…
        The sinks are very little effected……… so effecting the overall emission for a few years to a point that there is no increase of CO2, it means that most of the yearly emissions quantity that causes the increment of CO2. (quantity of the emissions CO2 unbalance) is not anthropogenic…..at least up to the point that someone like you can show that that eruption actually greatly effected the human emissions at that time too.

        cheers

      • Whiten.

        The Pinatubo eruption had a huge effect on photosynthesis during the first years after the eruption. That mechanism is quite simple: the clear/white aerosols formed from water condenstation on SO2/SO3 molecules scattered direct sunlight in all directions (partly back to space too), which made that leaves which were normally part of the day in the shadow of other leaves had extra light to sink extra CO2. Besides the effect of the extra uptake by lower ocean temperatures, that did give about 1.5-2 GtC extra CO2 uptake over the two years following the eruption.

        I had a reference to an article where they had measured the extra photosynthesis (by satellite?) but as many interesting items on the net it is gone…

    • Simon,

      The following words should settle your quandary.

      Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

      Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

      PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

      Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

      I know…. it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs ….. well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

      The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes, FOUR DAYS – by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.

      I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

      Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it!!!!

      Of course, I shouldn’t spoil this ‘touchy-feely tree-hugging’ moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

      And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

      Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus ‘human-caused’ climate-change scenario.

      Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention ‘Global Warming’ anymore, but just ‘Climate Change’ – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

      And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

      But, hey, relax……give the world a hug and have a nice day!!

      Regards,
      WL

      • Humans emit around 37 billions tonnes of CO2 a year. I am not in anyway in position to contest Plimer expertise, but its numbers puzzle me.

      • I am skeptical of Plimer’s arguments.

        If volcanoes were the dominant factor in CO2 increases, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be jagged, with spikes following recent volcanic eruptions. But it is not, it is an almost linear increase, modulated with small annual fluctuations. Volcanoes are highly unlikely to give that signature.

        For Plimer to be correct, you would have to assume an almost instantaneous absorption of volcanic CO2 into the oceans, so the eruption-blip does not appear in the CO2 record. And then assume that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are governed by slowly rising sea temperatures and outgassing.

        The second option is unlikely in the extreme, so Plimmer has to be wrong. What, exactly, are his estimates of CO2 output from these eruptions? They would have to be huge, to be more than all human output. Has he added a couple of decimal places?

        Ralph

      • Warren, you do not close the quotation. I presume Plimer only said the first paragraph, ending with “FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.”

        It might appear that your words were being attributed to Plimer

      • Warren,

        What Ian Plimer says is simply impossible. The Pinatubo eruption shows the lowest increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in decades, because of the effect of more photosynthesis (due to scattered sunlight by the stratospheric aerosols) and cooler temperatures nullified the extra CO2 emissions from the eruption:

        The Pinatubo was VEI 6, that is 10 times stronger (in debris, height, gases) than VEI 5 of which there were a few last century and thus larger than the sum of all other volcanic eruptions of the 20th century together…

        Further, volcanic ash has nothing to do with CO2. That are solid aerosols which drop out of the stratosphere within days to months and what forms as liquid aerosols from SO2 gas drops out within a few years…

        Bush fires only recycle CO2 which was taken out of the atmosphere during their growth in the previous years to decades. That doesn’t add to CO2 levels averaged over a few years. Only with extremely large fires there may be a temporarely increase, but in general the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2, the earth is greening…

      • I think everyone could be mis-interpreting Ian Plimer’s statement. He says “ The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.“. I read that as comparing the Iceland volcano with global CO2-reducing efforts, not with total man-made CO2 emissions. IOW, Ian Plimer did not say, in that statement, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than man’s activities do.
        [I understand that Ian Plimer has made the other claim at other times, and I also understand that the evidence that man-made CO2 emissions easily outweigh global volcanoes’ CO2 emissions is pretty solid, even if all possible unknown undersea volcanoes are estimated in. But this particular Ian Plimer statement was it seems saying something else.]

      • Warren Latham
        Plimer said that years ago. It was laughable then and it is even more so now.That is straight out of skeptic misinformation 101. It did the rounds 10 years ago until people realised they were making fools of themselves quoting it. Seriously folks, why do you allow this stuff to get printed?. Some of the concepts/arguments skeptics come up with have value and at times cast some doubt in ares of the science, but these silly utterly wrong facts undo the good work in my opinion. They just make you an easy target.

      • PLIMER: “Okay, here’s the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.”

        Plimer is comparing the action everyone has done to reduce CO2 emissions – temperature set back, LED lighting, electric cars, etc. to the CO2 emitted in Iceland. He’s not comparing that against the total CO2 humans are responsible for emitting. That is a huge, huge, difference. Heck, for a while the new power plants in China greatly outstripped the CO2 savings made in the USA over the same time period.

    • A lot of volcanos are undersea, some folks think most are but they haven’t been mapped with what anyone would think of as high resolution and I don’t believe there’s been any attempt to figure out how many are active. It’s sort of expensive.

      So the contribution of vulcanism to any speculation on sources of carbon dioxide can’t really be know it seems. CO2 released on the seafloor would likely be absorbed, perhaps later released as cold deep water rose to the warmer surface. I expect it would be very difficult to measure its contribution.

    • In addition the Fe fertilization of the oceans has an even greater impact on CO2 levels in the Atmosphere than such emissions.
      More moving parts in this than one thinks.

    • davidgraham08 – what you say is true, but I don’t think that that is what Ian Plimer was saying. See the word “negate” in the quoted statement.

  2. The year without a summer was looked at on here. Two years before it was another really cold year, possibly colder.

    Seemed to be a cold spell and nothing to do with the eruption, or the eruption temporarily made it a bit colder

  3. Is it just me or is Al Gore puffing up quite a bit. A few to many 1st class flights, 6 star hotel conferences and gala dinners me thinks

    • There is a natural upper limit to His Hugeness’ cyclical girth excursions. As you can see in the photograph, he is again approaching the point where his eyelids refuse to open. At this juncture, “negative feedback” kicks in and the man begins to shrink, even though a consensus of 97% predict he will expand to the approximate size of the universe.

  4. If you are discussing climate change and volcanos, I think it is important to point out that the SO2 and particulate matter emitted are such powerful short term (5 years) coolants to our atmosphere that the warming effects from the same eruptions CO2 emissions are much less… even over a hundred year span. Someone could write a paper on this.

  5. Well of course the warmists are alarmed that a dissenting view made it into the media. The alarmist position is totally demolished by facts and logic. They can’t handle an honest debate and they know it.

    If a warmist “scientists” could do an honest debate looking at all aspects of the climate controversy, they would welcome the “fringe views” and have a gay old time “putting these crazies in their place” — but that never happens. Why? Because it is main-stream climatology that is crazy.

    The only thing the alarmists have is lies. Lies of omission and lies of commission. Cooling the past and warming the present would be unnecessary if they were correct now would it not?

    • markstoval wrote: “If a warmist “scientists” could do an honest debate looking at all aspects of the climate controversy, they would welcome the “fringe views” and have a gay old time “putting these crazies in their place” — but that never happens. Why? Because it is main-stream climatology that is crazy.”

      Right on the money! It couldn’t have been stated better.

  6. Burton, Michael R., Georgina M. Sawyer, and Domenico Granieri 2013. Deep carbon emissions from volcanoes
    540 Mt CO2 per anum
    This is a lot more than Gerlach’s 79 Mt/a
    … and is typical of the accuracy of “Climate Change” science … which struggles with a factor of two (in this case, four) … while the accuracy required is 0.1% to 1.0%

    • “and is typical of the accuracy of”
      Shaky accuracy there. Burton et al give 540 Mt CO2/yr, or 147 Gt C/yr. Gerlach gives 150 to 260 Mt CO2/yr.

      Burton et al say in their intro:
      “Notwithstanding the uncertainties in our understanding of CO2 degassing from Earth, it is clear that these natural emissions were recently dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions, which have rapidly increased since industrialization began on a large scale in the 18th century, leading to a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. “

      • Timothy Case is a good forensic chemist and of course Stokes the programmer/statistician can’t analyze his way out of a Green House Gas soaked paper bag. He thought there was a Green House Gas Effect or claims he did.

        You know you’re dealing with frauds when you tell some fake to his face the mathematics for solving temperature using standard compression mechanics solves the temperature of earth, kilns, motors, brakes, furnaces, refrigeration cycles – perfectly,
        and they tell you,

        they think mathematics is wrong, and there is a Green House Gas Effect, anyway.

        Emissivity and Absorption are quantities set independently of species by species knowledge of components of the emitting, and absorbing entity. In other words, when you do the mathematics for emissivity, – or, you do the calculation for absorption – this doesn’t involve a stepped list of intrinsic components and their nature, you simply have to know how much energy – vs how much mass.

        Case describes how the calculation for temperature of – well, everything – in radiation mechanics, simply doesn’t sample what the distribution of fractional components is.

        The very finest destructions of the Green House Gas scam involve your making the proponent that there is one – some ”GHG Effect” – show everyone he can even calculate the temperatures of gases. Because there is a factor in gas temperature – which assigns every single gas in any atmospheric mix, the same heat value as far as how much MASS there is
        holding how much ENERGY.

        All the gases, are given ONE value, you see. And this is INSTANT nullification of there being atmospheric GHG ”Effect” or the law of thermodynamics,
        written for solving temperature of gases and atmospheres,

        couldn’t calculate the temperature of air.

        What was the thing Hansen spent a whole career, LYING to the EDUCATIONAL field about? ”There is something wrong with the temperatures on Venus that isn’t accounted by in our mathematics.”

        That’s simply a professional fraud, spreading fraud, to the point the actual truth became so radioactive that the entire educational field for pre college and even some college level education organizations teach it’s true.

        That the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas can’t solve the temperature of Venus without there being an error.

        Steve Goddard proved that wrong in his threads here at W.U.W.T. when he himself, decided to simply check the claim by James Hansen and pretty much everyone on down, that standard mathematics – when calculating the temperature of Venus, the green house gas atmosphere of Venus would show far higher than standard math shows.

        Goddard’s two posts are named Hyperventilating on Venus and Venus Envy.

        Note in Goddard’s posts, he goes through his usual, terse but dead-on analysis to find out what real working scientists from such fields as the air conditioning and heating fields told the world for years: there’s not only no runaway green house effect on Venus
        there’s
        none
        at all,
        and the mathematics of solving for temperature of Venus’ atmosphere,

        NAIL it RIGHT on the money.

        Note down in the comments when the current working Harvard Physics Professor named Lubos Motl, (MoTL) comes in,

        TROLLS GODDARD with the words,(slightly paraphrased) ”I’m going to go over your work on my own blog [the reference frame] and I’m going to debunk you. :)”

        Then go over to Lubos Motl’s blog the reference frame where he does just that and concludes that – Goddard is right. And where he not only discovers the laws of mathematics for landing space craft and aircraft are still in fine, working order, as well as the laws of air conditioners, furnaces, ovens, and whatnot but he asks and remarks the SAME rhetorical questions as Goddard himself: WHY hasn’t anyone simply CHECKED these peoples’ CLAIM?

        Nick Stokes is a sophist. He can’t calculate the temperature of air, but he struts around speaking down into a commenter group as if he represents some authority.

        He represents the authority of an intellect that believed the composition of a gas bath, affects it’s temperature in the range of temperatures between planet earth,
        and planet Venus, at 800F or 4hundred-something degrees C.

        That’s the authority to speak down to me people like Nick have. The prodigious scamming being done by the AGW through the fake GHGE scam are revealed daily as the old lying criminals,
        are replaced by new-to-lying people around them. Documents get spread out that simply can’t all be vanished.

        KooKViLLiaN claims by loons who can’t calculate temperature and tell you what all the factors in the equation mean, are spit into the face of mankind by profiteers from fraud.

        Everyone’s opinions are worthless until they join the professionals in the fraud through some fake crucible of ”having your work published in peer review.”

        Peer review is professional boards we all saw being scrubbed by the profiteers in AGW scamming Mike Mann, James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, and legion hangers-on.

        They TALKED about AT LENGTH simply SCRUBBING the PEER REVIEW PROCESS of MEN and WOMEN who WOULDN’T PASS FAKED, JUNK SCIENCE.

        This is a tremendous scam. The man who owns an AIRLINE finally got down and did or rather had someone SHOW him, some of US in HERE,

        SHOWING people the laws of thermodynamics, WORK just FINE.

        And he realized how short a time it is before his OWN intellectual legacy TANKS.

        That’s how they ALL act once they see what is going on for themselves, they LOOK for a WAY to REJOIN

        the UN-SCAMMED
        GREATER human RACE they SPIT on for DECADES.

        Age makes them realize that soon the waters of truth are going to close over their heads in a long dirt nap and their names ARE going to be had for civilization to do with,
        what civilization will and when actual truth orientated humans,

        see the tremendious temperature inversion scam for what it is, and how thoroughly it is scam, from the f.i.r.s.t. word to the l.a.s.t,

        – those people like Branson realize they are the fools of the first HALF of the century.

        Everyone should read Mr Casey’s explanation of why GHG scamming is fake math.

        They should also read Steve Goddard’s as well as Lubos Motl’s, and another man who preceeded both of them is Harry Huffman who published that this scam is a lie along with a lot of other online physics bloggers when the Climategate scam broke.

        There are still a few obscure blogs out there where people were explaining that the entirety of the GHGE scam is falsehood and I have on this computer one link. On other computers I own I have a couple more but they mostly don’t get detected by Google any more due to the huge numbers of websites, and the obscurity of various high school physics and jr college professors’ personal interest blogs.

        http://qs.mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmospheric_Analysis.html

        The above analysis was done by some guy years ago, and I stumbled across his site looking for things related to atmospheric chemistry which is the direct end of any GHGE scammer’s bullsh**ting. There’s simply no place to go the instant they start debating that the GHGs actually change the temperature of a volume of air, when proper compression mathematics are included.

        James Hansen’s scam was in actual fact to simply omit the compression of the atmosphere for his models, and fill in that thirty degrees’ difference with fake physics he could run on a computer and no one be the wiser when he started lying and bloviating about his incredibly, incredibly important, ‘ ‘ research.’ ‘

        Michael Mann got caught with his claims of there being ”new climate math” which made the temperature of the earth appear in a hockey stick conformation.

        He told congress he couldn’t give them his special climate math program because the world might not end like his program said, and he would need some money so he could sell his program that said the world was going to end. But that everybody should go ahead and institute Democratic Party environmental regulations anyway since the world really was, going to end.
        Later he left that fake scam computer program online and a guy downloaded it and ran it – to find out – awwWW it makes hundreds of hockey sticks as fast as you can feed it the
        calibration data.

        Then there’s Phil Jones’ meltdown and confession after being seen saying he knew the world hadn’t warmed since 1998 to scientist John Christy in Climategate, in his now legendary Feb 2010 BBC don’t go to jail interview: that he knew the world hadn’t warmed a WHIT since not ’98 but ’95.

        Which brings to mind the next famous Phil Jones debacle, the utter ruination of the entire global temperature database. In the HarryReadMe.txt file a mathematician learning to computer model climate was writing in the area of the program named ”ReadMe.txt”. This information is spread between the lines of a computer program but because it is designated with certain language syntax the computer program doesn’t really acknowledge it’s there as it churns through it’s work. These are troubleshooting areas typically as well as historical markup of the program’s progress. In HarryReadMe.txt the mathematician remarked with bewilderment at the entire trashing of the world’s global databases to BEYOND REPAIR as people simply MANUFACTURED WARMING that DIDN’T EXIST in WEATHER STATIONS that DON’T EXIST
        over,
        and over, and over.

        This brings us back around full swing to why we are even all at this particular website. Crappy data being peddled as real. Anthony Watts’ website was actually derived from his realizing how bad the data was, that the weather services were collecting on the ground, from sensing station, to sensing station.

        The GHGE scam is long and prosperious to the chemistry fakes and legendary statistical frauds and pseudo-mathematics frauds which populate it’s profitable shores.

        When men can’t find any legacy elsewhere they join the AGW belief scam and a whole new set of doors open up for them to blog, and give talks, and do whatever it takes for their otherwise non descript lives to take on some apparent meaning.

        They’re all scammers. If they tell you they think the precise composition of a body of atmospheric air can affect the temperature of it they are in Bigfoot country on the spot.

        Not maybe, not sorta, that’s how it is, and you can tell if someone’s a pseudo-science thermo-billy if they will confess to you they think the fractional makeup of air affects it’s temperature, with a single,
        sole, exception: water vapor.

        And wouldn’t you know it – the quantity of scam in the GHGE story simply never even relents, it’s everywhere – water vapor is the gas responsible for the evaporation cooling of not just the planetary surface but the rest of the nitrogen/oxygen bath as well.

        When water evaporates cooling the planet’s surface it rises to eventually lose sufficient energy it condenses into ice particles and falls. As it falls is picks up heat from the air around it, causing it to evaporate again to rise and emit, over and over.

        You often see this when large rainclouds are obviously having liquid water fall out below them, but the water is also, obviously – not making it to the ground.

        This is water, refrigerating the atmosphere at large: changing phase to rise and emit repeatedly before finally the associated air is cool enough that the condensed ice makes it to the ground again.

        Regarding Volcanism the undersea volcanoes of the world are dissolving carbon holding strata and spewing it into the oceans continually. The high alkalinity of simple tap – is evidence that water is c.o.n.t.i.n.u.a.l.l.y. liberating tremendous amounts of carbon into the current biosphere.

        When all that rain and snow wash down into aquifers they become charged with carbonates and bicarbonates. When all that rain and snow wash into global, oceanic basins, they bring tremendious amounts of liberated carbonates and bicarbonates,

        and the ocean floors’ numerous vents and volcanic fields are undoubtedly liberating enormous quantities of carbonates and bicarbonates.

        The claim that mankind’s puny manufacture of CO2 in the face of such prodigious numbers is itself, ridiculous. The amount of slop in yearly oceanic uptake and release of CO2 – the amount we don’t even know if it’s really happening – we’re just out of our measuring capabilities by at LEAST that much – swallow mankind’s yearly CO2 production.

        The claim there is even a chance that mankind is affecting the world’s CO2 is shown swiftly to be beyond sanity considering you’re discussing chart analysis – and the world’s glaciation periods show us clearly where we are – right at the back of one of the famous warm periods, where the CO2 in the air gets ABOUT this HIGH – and then the temperature drops off precipitously (no pun intended LoL) into the

        glaciation period

        we are * * *no doubt in line to enter.* * * Not IN a couple hundred years. We’re late a few hundred years. Go look at the glacation charts of the world, and look at how the CO2 levels go up, up, up – as temperatures go up, up, up- till we get – right about where we are now – and how – high CO2 and all,
        temperatures precipitously fall back into a global glaciation.

        Everywhere you look in the GHGE lah-lah-lah-I-commit-chemistry-fraud pantheon of lies, and their liars,

        you find obviously fatal flaw, after obvious fatal flaw. Branson realizes this now and he's desperate for his reputation. That's what his deal is, he actually

        had Delingpole, refer him to here, – literally here, WUWT – and places around the web where men simply won't lie, when it's easier to just tell the truth, and politics can suck the ass of the historians.

        Google managers met with White House personnel IN the White House over a hundred times in this president's administration. You need to go back through a lot of pages of returns, to sort out various scientific blogs where the GHGE's lunacy is explored in various peoples' terms.

        The scam is complete scam from front to back. Not one person who tells you he believes in one (a GHGE) will be found by you processing proper thermodynamics.

        He/she/they will err again and again blithely claiming no one on earth is smart enough to debunk their ignorance. The political arrogance of having a past Vice President of the United States try to charge as CRIMINALS using STATE ATTORNEY GENERALS

        anyone who ARGUES with his FRAUD

        is a GOOD EXAMPLE of what kind of government formed chemistry scam you are dealing with.

        View ''Pot is like Heroin'' as the trial balloon for this chemistry scam where in order to be properly ashamed for using fire, YOU pay AL GORE and HIS FRIENDS MONEY.

        On a chemistry scam SO shallow that the SOLE way to even propagate it is REMOVE all scientists from not just peer review but even trying to PUT them in JAIL for ARGUING with the

        FAILED
        candidate for president of the United States.

  7. See, they’ve got us at it again…discussing CO2 like it was an actual player in this game.
    350ppm or 400ppm? It simply doesn’t matter, the exchange of heat in the atmosphere which is conducted through ‘radiation’ is fractional…nay negligible, compared to the exchange of heat which is carried out by Water Vapour Convection. Check out satellite imagery of cyclonic activity over equatorial oceans…check out the temperatures at the top of those clouds…then tell me you’re worried about CO2!

    • Yes Charles, we do live on a water planet and water rules with its three forms and latent heat properties. Oh, and we can’t forget gravity which fuels the convection process.

  8. What caught my eyes was this section:
    “James’ views are in direct contradiction to the Virgin house view…”
    Virgin house views? The doctrine of the Big Brother? How big of them…

  9. Of course, Branson’s Virgin Galactic spacecraft are built by Burt Rutan, who is a very active climate sceptic. I wonder how much those two have discussed climate change?
    Chris

    • One thing about Richard Branson, he puts Richard Branson’s interests first. Once CACC becomes seriously in doubt and it suits his purposes he’ll be amongst the first to jump ship.

  10. Dear Eric,

    Re: “carbon intensive business activities”.

    There is no such thing.

    Regards,
    WL

  11. Well, at least Branson allowed the view from the other side to air. You have to give him credit for that.

    • He deserves no credit. His company burns fossil fuels to make money . If he were truly worried by CO2 he would get out of the fossil fuel burning business, end of story.

      • “But if I don’t do it, someone else will… and at least I lie awake at night worrying about it.”

      • He uses amazing technology to convert trapped energy into useful work, with support from others including the amazingly competent non-state-owned oil companies, without knowingly deploying slaves or captive four-legged creatures in the process.

  12. Delingpole needs to rename the turbines “bird-slicing, bat-exploding eco-crucifixes. It’s more accurate and sounds even more dramatic. One should strive to present an accurate picture of these monstrosities.

    • Cue comment that birds and bats are also killed or injured in large numbers by other means, to somehow assert that such deaths and injuries from these industrial windmills in the wilderness don’t matter – though the assertion would likely be unstated.

      • I will suggest (again) that someone should arrive at a calculation of the efficiency of wind turbines in converting birds and bats into kilowatt-hours. Just as Tesla automobiles are coal-burners, it would be a general embarrassment for the greens to be supporting bird-burners.

      • Yet assertions that wind power is “free” are hotly made even in the face of this considerable cost. Another industry would have the plaintiffs’ bar and SEC and “consumer protection” outfits shaking its members down for stuff like this.

  13. ““We need every person on Earth to acknowledge that climate change is real, and encourage each other and our leaders to address the challenge,” wrote billionaire Branson last year.”

    Good luck with that. Everyone knows the climate has always changed except for you dolts on your side, who expect and demand that the weather and climate to be static, forever.

    The real challenge here Richard Branson, is getting you morons to understand that climate change is Earth’s natural response to changing solar activity, something we can’t ever change.

    I encourage everyone on Earth to appeal to ‘our leaders’ to drop this charade right now.

    The only thing that’s going to change from all Branson & Gore’s activity is people will be disempowered under their “leadership”, and the price of coal mines will drop to pennies on a dollar, making them sweet plums for the ultra-rich investor class bozos to swoop in and take ownership of our energy mainstay for all time, whereafter they will make everyone jump through hoops to stay warm or cool or travel, forevermore.

    • And after all this carnage, we’ll find that individual investors are completely blocked from buying these discounted assets since they will be sold in bankruptcy courts, not on the open market. If you want buy Peabody’s assets, you’ll need to wait until it’s been bought by Obama’s friends for nothing, then sold back to the public at a tidy instant profit.

      If there was another case of gross malfeasance by a member of the US executive, it would have to be Bush’s bank bailout in 2007. Nothing changes.

  14. There’s no money or influence in being climate-sane. All the money and connections are on the other side. Branson instinctively knows this. I don’t think he’s very bright but has great money-making instincts. Plus he wants to pay penance to the climate cult to protect his fossil fueled business.

    • craig,

      From your link:

      the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere

      Neither has human-emitted CO2.

  15. This comment is tossed towards Ferdinand Engelbeen, who I find one of the more thoughtful commentators here. As I understand your view, CO2 from volcanoes is not greater than human-derived sources based on emission studies of land-based volcanoes (presumably citing the works of Garlach).
    In reply, commentators ask about underwater volcanoes. I take it we can agree that the majority of volcanoes are submarine, and presumably their emissions must have a contribution. To which you say: the pressure at depths keeps the CO2 in solution and in any event marine carbonate precipitation removes this CO2 before it enters the atmosphere.
    OK. What is your opinion on the suggestion by Maya Tolstoy (DOI: 10.1002/2014GL063015) that ice-age caused sea level changes affect volcanic eruption rates and act as a climate valve? Presumably this suggests submarine eruption rates (and therefore CO2 emission rates) vary significantly especially when sea levels are lower. Sea level drop also can allow a quick release of slowly-accumulated dissolved CO2 (like popping a champagne-cork). So while you imply anthropogenic CO2 is greater over the past 40 years, at what time scale do you think volcanic-derived carbon is greater? Do you acknowledge that the uncertainty over volcanic-CO2 emission rates over time is significant? Do you accept that measuring land-based CO2 emissions from volcanoes today might say very little about submarine eruption rates 10,000 years ago? And if those volcanic-emission rates in the past have approached the current human-sourced CO2 rates then doesn’t that imply there is nothing exceptional about our present perturbations of the carbon cycle?

    • Man’s emissions of CO2 are about double that required to raise the level in the atmosphere from 280 to 400ppm; 40%.

      This is true regardless of what volcanoes are doing, on land or under water.

      • Can i suggest [trimmed]?

        It would certainly increase the IQ of this discussion.

        [Yes, judicious pruning will increase the quality of this discussion. .mod]

      • Man’s emissions of CO2 are about double that required to raise the level in the atmosphere from 280 to 400ppm…

        Strawman again. No one is disputing that human emissions have raised CO2 levels.

        More CO2 is completely harmless, and extremely beneficial to the biosphere. More is better; the planet is measurably greening as a direct result of the rise in CO2.

        The alarmist crowd bought into the “carbon” scare before they had enough information. If they were honest they would admit that they were wrong about CO2.

        That’ll be the day…

    • Did you know that skatole, the horrible smell of human poo, is used in perfumes for the smell of jasmine and orange blossom, and to flavour ice-cream? That’s chemistry for you…

      Man’s emissions have changed the chemistry of the atmosphere. More CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy: higher temperatures, loss of ice.

      • More CO2 causes Earth to retain more energy: higher temperatures, loss of ice.

        Since global warming paused for many years, while CO2 continued to rise, that belief is falsified.

        And global ice is about the same as always; another belief falsified.

        Now run along and sniff your skatole.

  16. simon,

    Al Gore is smiling here because so many knuckleheads believe his trash talk about climate change and rising sea levels. He is smiling because he gets rich by telling climate lies that those knuckleheads and gullible dunces then promote as “fact” and deliver him the $$. People: You are the problem. The gullible enviros deserve the fate they imagine.

    • D. Horne,

      You wouldn’t understand real science if someone sat you down and explained it to you.

      All you do is assert your stupid ‘appeals to corrupted authorities’ BS.

      I post verifiable links to empirical data and observations.

      No contest. You lose.

      • Who better to explain science: The scientific community or some wit who can’t grasp the simple fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas and GHGs causes Earth to retain more energy, keeping us from freezing.

      • Measurements, please…

        …oh, sorry, you don’t have any, so you lose. All you have is your incessant ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ logical fallacy. If you had facts and evidence, you would post them.

        That means AGW is just too minuscule to measure. Therefore, it is a non-problem. That’s why global warming stopped for almost 20 years. Or should I say, “paused”?

        But who am I kidding? Horne can’t even understand that simple logic. It’s like trying to teach a dog trigonometry.

  17. The only good thing about giving nutters like Delingpole a platform is that they usually make fools of themselves exceedingly quickly.

  18. In science, what is important is the balance of informed opinion. Eventually, if there is enough evidence and agreement, a consensus develops. Like. The Earth is round and goes around the Sun. Plants and animals alive today evolved from earlier species. When you believe the global scientific community is involved in a conspiracy, your views can safely be ignored by any rational person…

    • Much of what you described occurred before the States took over scientific endeavor and put scientists on their payrolls, with conditions. States don’t relentlessly conspire to increase their power and control over us? When did that happen?

      • You’re right James, it’s all a grand conspiracy and every country and every major scientific organization is in on it. Like the faking of the moon landing, vaccines and statins.

      • A Nobel Prize awaits the first scientist to show the IPCC wrong.

        Instead, we are asked to believe a conspiracy stupefying the global science community, in order to destroy America.

        P.S. There is a world outside America. You know, Europe, where science started. And continues…

      • Hi Mike
        I’ve seen this a lot.
        “it’s all a grand conspiracy and every country and every major scientific organization is in on it.”
        If you replace “conspiracy” with “gravy train” or “band wagon” or “trough” it all becomes clear.

      • Horne says:

        … we are asked to believe a conspiracy stupefying the global science community

        Horne is self-admiddetly stupefied.

    • Horne, do you have anything else in your arsenal besides ad hominem, strawman, and Appeals to Consensus arguments?

      Thought not.

      • When people agree something is true, that is a consensus. When scientists agree the science is clear and incontrovertible, that is reality.

        The appeal to authority fallacy is what lawyers do. Find some ‘expert’ prepared to say what they want, even when it’s nonsense and contrary to the balance of informed opinion.

        Earth is warming and ice is melting; the climate changing. Due to CO2. As predicted many many years ago.

      • Bruce Cobb,

        Horne actually believes ‘consensus’ arguments are appropriate in science discussions. How much more clueless could he be?

        Horne says:

        When people agree something is true, that is a consensus.

        And when people agree on something that isn’t true, like CO2=cAGW, that’s also a consensus.

        Horne’s problem is two-fold: the scientific consensus is not on his side, and CO2=cAGW is bunkum.

      • D. Horne says:

        When people agree something is true, that is a consensus. When scientists agree the science is clear and incontrovertible, that is reality.

        That is one of the biggest logic FAILS in this thread.

        The scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the Solar System. That didn’t make it reality.

        Next, ‘Mike’ posted a video with only some 400 views. Here’s a video with hundreds of thousands of views: climate scientists laughing at global warming hysteria:

  19. Dr. Strangelove May 14, 2016 at 5:52 am
    “The long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC

    So. You read that as meaning the IPCC is saying it doesn’t know what it’s doing? Not a warning that Earth is retaining more energy and the climate system is unstable, and may be disrupted to our detriment?

    Have another coconut.

    • Horne,

      Have some more Kool Aid.

      The IPCC knows what it’s doing: emitting scary propaganda. It works on the clueless, like Dennis Horne. He actually believes the climate is “unstable” and may be “disrupted”.

      ‘Maroon’ doesn’t begin to describe people like Horne. The IPCC has their invisible ring in his nose, and they’re leading him in the frightened direction they want him to go. Yes, they know exactly what they’re doing.

      • If you say so stealey.
        Then of course you win the Nobel.
        Err, nope.
        That ain’t te way the world workss.
        Either in actuality of via common sense.

        Hand-waving and insult doesn’t .

        Even though not directed at me, that needs pointing out.
        A disreputable individual QED.

    • Dennis Horne
      May 14, 2016 at 8:21 am

      So. You read that as meaning the IPCC is saying it doesn’t know what it’s doing? Not a warning that Earth is retaining more energy and the climate system is unstable, and may be disrupted to our detriment?

      Have another coconut.

      Why don’t you go ahead and tell us all the name of the law of thermodynamics for calculating temperature in gas chemistry? I say you don’t know what you’re talking about. What does that law’s equation stand for? In other words what are the factors in the equation representative of? Which of these factors represent the GHGE?

      Show me you would know if someone was properly calculating the temperature of air by simply telling me what the law of thermodynamics,
      for calculating gas temperature,

      is named.

      Tell me what it’s equation is and what those factors mean in it; which of them is the GHGE.

      I’ll wait.

  20. R Hargrove May 14, 2016 at 9:21 am
    Show me you would know if someone was properly calculating the temperature of air

    Red herring. The temperatures are measured.

    The temperatures are rising: the oceans, the surface – noticeable especially in the Arctic: hundreds of GT/y of ice is being lost from the Greenland ice sheet.

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, R Hargrove. Learn some climate science.

    • The temperatures are rising: the oceans, the surface – noticeable especially in the Arctic: hundreds of GT/y of ice is being lost from the Greenland ice sheet.

      I have seen the future… noooo the present and it is horrible!! Over the last 150 years of the 5 billions of our planet the temperatures have been rising… it is really horrible! believe me! And the Greenland, why this stupid name, is also melting, well at least I believe, nooo I am sure… but don’t mention Antarctica!!

    • Confession you’re too stupid to tell if someone’s even using the right mathematics to solve for temperature isn’t enough to get you off the ”one of the stupidest clowns in the room” hook.

      The simple minded low i.q. response you attempted is identical to all the others who preceded you

      in having their fake religion busted open in front of them for the REAL goods roll down your face like so much rotten egg.

      red her·ring
      noun
      noun: red herring; plural noun: red herrings

      1. a dried smoked herring, which is turned red by the smoke.

      2. something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.

      Dennis Horne
      May 14, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      R Hargrove May 14, 2016 at 9:21 am

      Red herring. The temperatures are measured.

      The temperatures are rising: the oceans, the surface – noticeable especially in the Arctic: hundreds of GT/y of ice is being lost from the Greenland ice sheet.

      A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, R Hargrove. Learn some climate science.

    • D. Horne says:

      ” Learn some climate science.”

      What an insufferable clown. Most readers here are scientific skeptics. But as I’ve constantly pointed out: if you are a climate alarmist, you are NOT a skeptic.

      Climate alarmism and scientific skepticism are mutually exclusive.

  21. We should be very pleased we happen to live in a period of warming . If humans make some fraction of 1% difference then great . You have to tip your hat at the scary global warming hustlers for trying to tell us the equivalent that vegetables are bad for us . Climate changes whether we are here or not and anyone who thinks humans are going to set the earth’s thermostat is a full fledged idiot .
    No scientific organizations have made the case that global cooling is better for plants ,animals ,forests and humans than warming . History proves it . 100% the current exit from an ice age is better than a cooling
    cycle . Why do so many of the scary global warming promoters live in California ? If they were truly concerned why do none live in Antarctica ?

    Scary global warming is this societies version of witch burners .

  22. “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, R Hargrove. Learn some climate science.”

    Yes.
    It’s actually called Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
    He/they don’t want to.
    It will destroy their world-view.
    Which is why they inhabit WUWT
    And do not use Google scholar.

    • You’ve been chased off like a chihuahua running from a broom with the challenge that YOU’RE too stupid to know how to calculate the temperature of air, TOO.

      You’re a fake. A posing, name calling nobody, who can’t name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas.

      It’s intellectual ‘leadership’ who have been busted over, and over, committing fraud. The people who sent YOU – YOUR leadership have been busted claiming the laws of chemistry can’t solve the temperature of air and atmospheric mixes. Not mine.

      Name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of gas, show us what the equation looks like, and explain it’s factors.

      YOU ANSWERED WRONG when you TRIED several WEEKS ago so

      TRY AGAIN and this time don’t project your own psychological disorder, -which no doubt led you to affix yourself to the scam – on me. I already showed everyone in here just how little reality based thinking goes on in your thermodynamically befuddled head.

      ONE question.

      And you’re revealed a complete, utterly incompetent, BUFFOON.

      I AM NOT HERE straight from BUSTED, ADMITTED, CHEMISTRY SCAMMER COUNTRY.

      YOU are.

      Toneb
      May 14, 2016 at 3:03 pm

      “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, R Hargrove. Learn some climate science.”

      Yes.
      It’s actually called Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
      He/they don’t want to.
      It will destroy their world-view.
      Which is why they inhabit WUWT
      And do not use Google scholar.

    • Toneb is another anti-skeptic. Once skeptics start asking questions about the “dangerous man-made global warming” nonsense, that conjecture collapses.

      Climate alarmists ignore questions. They refuse to answer skeptics’ questions. If they started trying to answer, the resulting cognitive dissonance would make their heads explode.

      So they just make baseless assertions, erect strawman arguments, cherrypick factoids, and constantly use the ‘appeal to corrupted authorities’ logical fallacy.

      Alarmists lost the science debate long ago, as CO2 continued to rise but global temperatures failed to follow. That falsified their belief system. So now they do pretend science, arguing politics and pretending it’s science. It isn’t. It’s politics and/or their eco-religion.

      And the hole they’re digging gets deeper every day.

  23. [Comment deleted. Stop with the incessant name-calling of anyone you disagree with. Post facts, or post elsewhere. -mod]

    • Name the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of atmospheric air and gas or you’re a sh** talking, pose: a cheerleading, know-nothing fraud.

      Mike
      May 14, 2016 at 3:43 pm

      “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which relatively unskilled persons suffer illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than it really is.”

      Absolutely nailed it.

      The abject stupidity on here is absolutely breath-taking. I wonder how delusional these folk are in their every day lives.

      You’re in here WHINING.

      WHINING that the people who busted your scientific leadership in FRAUDULENT physics, (the law of physics for calculating temperature has a Green House Gas Effect)

      FRAUDULENT statistics, (Michael Mann’s legendarily fraudulent Hockey Stick as well as ALL the dendro statistical work of your fraud daddies)

      FRAUDULENT WARMING they simply MANUFACTURED and ADMITTED they manufactured (Phil Jones’ Feb 2010 BBC interview).

      YOU’RE the one who is here representing BUSTED fraud.

      YOU’RE the one who can’t even describe how to calculate the temperature of air.

      You can’t even show up to name call without having your smug face slapped with the perfect example to everyone just how dumb you really are.

      If you weren’t, you’d be able to explain how to properly calculate the temperature of a volume of gas, or atmospheric air. Then we could be sure that – like us – you could spot FAKE physics and FAKE temperature generation if you saw it.

      Again, thermo-billy: YOU’RE the ONE whose LEADERSHIP GOT CAUGHT and ADMITTED FAKING FRAUDULENT WARMING for a DOZEN YEARS.

      YOU’RE the ONE whose LEADERSHIP got caught TELLING the world a HOCKEY STICK generator is real math.

      YOU’RE the ONE whose LEADERSHIP got caught using CLIMATE MODELS that had the ATMOSPHERIC COMPRESSION REMOVED, and the subsequent 30 DEGREE DIFFERENCE simply PASTED in with FRAUDULENT ”Green House Gas Effect Warming.”

      YOU’RE the ONE whose leadership SUED a man for telling the world he is a liar, LYING in the filing he won a Nobel Prize he never won so the man was calling a Nobel winner a liar.

      I’m the one who’s here to let everyone know just how simple minded and scientifically illiterate you are.

      And you’re going to do nothing but name call, and ooze around, a BUSTED FAKE, in a discussion about not the most complicated phase of matter but the SIMPLEST.

      Gas thermodynamics are the SIMPLEST phase of matter and energy.

      Now you either tell us all what the law for solving temperature is or you’re nothing but another gloating political cheerleader who can’t properly analyze a thermometer given the right answers ahead of time.

      • Actually, R Hargrove nailed it. He described the mind-set of the climate alarmist crowd: they’re crybabies. They lost the scientific argument, so now they whine and complain about everything.

      • Well certainly no psychopathology there.

        PS. “know nothing fraud ” is spelled this way, as opposed to “no-nothing fraud”. But I’m sure you’re a world expert in thermodynamics- even if you spell like a third grader.

    • Mike says:

      “know nothing fraud ” is spelled this way, as opposed to “no-nothing fraud”.

      He spelled it correctly. So why did you spell it “no nothing”?

  24. “polemicist” I guess I’ll have to look that one up but it sounds vaguely threatening in a Harry Potter sort of way. If it means something not-so-good then it is to be taken as a compliment considering the source.

  25. [snip – multiple policy violations. name calling, fake email address, fake name, fake ip address. Permanently assign to troll bin -mod]

  26. “We need every person on Earth to acknowledge that climate change is real, and encourage each other and our leaders to address the challenge,” wrote billionaire Branson.

    Well done Mr. Branson. Of course climate change is real! DUH!! That’s like saying “We need every person on Earth to acknowledge that the phases of the Moon are real, and encourage each other and our leaders to address the challenge.” ‘Fighting’ climate change is a fool’s errand. You might as well ‘fight’ the phases of the Moon for all the good it would do. Twerp.

    • Indeed. The climate has always changed. The sea level has always changed. But right now the planet is warming rapidly and ice is being lost year on year – changes driven by our CO2 emissions.

      It’s very complex and a bit frightening. Difficult to understand and accept. Clever informed scientists shouldn’t blame you…

      • LOL!! A brilliant riposte replete with baseless (although politically correct) assertions . . . except of course your first two sentences: “The climate has always changed. The sea level has always changed”. Well done you! So far so good.

        But then it all goes downhill: “The planet is warming rapidly” . . . except that it hasn’t for the past 20 years. “It’s very complex and a bit frightening” . . . it’s actually very simple: it’s called “Nature”, as in ‘Nature doing its thing’. And the only thing “frightening” about it is the irrational, ignorant hysteria from so many bleating “yes” men demanding action to fight something that’s been happening for the past five billion years. Good luck with that!

      • Horne says:

        It’s very complex and a bit frightening.

        As Lord Monckton says, the thumb-suckers are frightened of natural variability.

        And Horne says that natural variability is…

        Difficult to understand and accept.

        Only by the eco-religious contingent.

  27. dbstealey May 14, 2016 at 5:11 pm
    … the climate alarmist … lost the scientific argument …

    Name three papers in high-impact journals that show or even suggest the IPCC’s public stance or review of the literature is wrong.

    Thanks.

  28. KiwiHeretic May 15, 2016 at 12:07 am. The so-called “hiatus” never was statistically significant.

    The mean global temperature is 1C higher than at the Industrial Revolution and most warming has occurred in the past 50 years.

    You could start by trying to understand the difference between temperature and heat. Earth never stopped retaining more heat (energy) year on year.

    And for goodness sake, stop reading these “nonsense” sites. Ignorance and incredulity won’t save you.

    • Funny how twenty years without any global warming to speak of is “statistically insignificant” when every two-week heatwave or blizzard, every week-long bush fire and every two-week flood or drought is hugely significant in the annals of global warming alarmism. Every so-called “extreme weather” event that lasts less than a month, and scares the sh.t out of every washed-up celebrity looking for a cause, is somehow significant while twenty years of no warming isn’t. How does that work?

      And who knows whether the so-called “hiatus” is in fact a “hiatus”? Perhaps it’s here to stay? Who knows? Oh, right, I forgot. The much-vaunted models say its just a “pause” because these infallible follies project (forecast) that the ‘catastrophic’ warming that began at the end of the last Little Ice Age and reached a blistering 0.7oC over an entire century (WOW!! Hot!), will continue unabated until the planet resembles Venus.

      So when will the ahhhm, the “Tipping Point” occur to bring this CO2-driven cauldron about? What will the atmospheric CO2 concentration be that triggers the ahhhmmm “Tipping Point”? It’s currently at 400ppm.

      Pick a number. You might as well. What have you got to lose? “The atmospheric CO2 level that will trigger Prince Charles’ and Al Gore’s ahhmmm “Tipping Point” will be …ppm.

      Fill in the blank. Use any computer model you like. You may also consult any alarmist scientist you like, including Prince Charles and Al Gore. Wait on… they’re not scientists, sorry, so you can forget them.

      • And who knows whether the so-called “hiatus” is in fact a “hiatus”?

        Doesn’t matter. Irrelevant. Earth has retained more energy. Year on year. Regardless of any measurements made during a putative “hiatus”. Temperatures are up, month on month. Ice is being lost – hundreds of Gigatonne per year.

        And who are you? I mean, what’s your opinion compared with that of the global scientific community of informed scientists?
        https://theconversation.com/consensus-confirmed-over-90-of-climate-scientists-believe-were-causing-global-warming-57654
        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

        Buddy, you are a dinosaur.

      • KiwiHeretic,

        Horne is clueless.

        Global warming stopped for close to twenty years. Scientists on all sides of the debate were trying to figure out why. They called it a “pause” and a “hiatus”. There was no question that global warming had stopped.

        But then the talking point changed, and eco-lemmings like Horne immediately jumped on that bandwagon. He adopted the fake new narrative, pretending that global warming never stopped, even though the real world made the “pause” clear.

        This has happened before. beginning in the 1940’s there was a long “hiatus”, when global temperatures declined.

        That long term decline happened at the same time that CO2 began to ramp up.

        The alarmist crowd can’t come up with any suppporting evidence for their belief. All they have are baseless assertions, and logical fallacies.

        No wonder they lost the science debate.

  29. dbstealey May 15, 2016 at 8:05 am
    Global warming stopped for close to twenty years.

    No, it did not. It was nothing more than the difficulty of measurement, not surprising giving the complexity.
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

    Every part of the Earth’s climate system has continued warming since 1998, with 2015 shattering temperature records. All datasets show it (including the satellite) … but you know that already!

    This recent graph shows no slow down, it’s a myth. But you know that too…
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus

    If it takes more courage evidence to admit you’re wrong, look at this:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Tell me, why do you persist in believing the myth? Oh, I think I answered that already!

  30. Another of Horne’s baseless assertions: “No, it did not. “

    The facts prove that it did:

    Next, measuring temperature is not “complex”. Science is simply parroting the new Narrative: “global warming never stopped”. That is contradicted by many years of agreement that global temperatures were in a “hiatus”; AKA: the “pause”.

    Next:

    Every part of the Earth’s climate system has continued warming since 1998…

    That is pure bunkum.

    Next, NOAA has been caught repeatedly fabricating the temperature record:

    There are more examples of NOAA shenanigans. Just ask, and I’ll post them.

    GISS is even more dishonest, if that’s possible:

    Tell me, why do you persist in believing fabricated temperatures? Oh, right: you’re a True Believer, so any factoid that feeds yoyr confirmation bias is accepted uncritically, while actual temperatures are rejected.

    Aren’t eco-loons amusing? They’ll believe anything government bureaucrats tell them.

    • dbstealey. The best you can do is steal fake graphs? Goodness.

      Next, measuring temperature is not “complex”.
      Oh, you’re so funny. Or are you serious?

      Sometimes it hard to tell whether you’re a wit or perhaps don’t quite make a full wit!

      You’re a lot of fun, dbstealey. Thank you!

    • As usual, Horne has noting but his baseless opinion, and as usual he refuses to answer questions:

      why do you persist in believing fabricated temperatures?

      I post verifiable facts, empirical evidence, and data-based measurements. But all Horne does is post his anti-science opinions.

      Horne has no credible science, only his constant logical fallacies. That’s why he lost the debate.

  31. A visitor might leave this site thinking Americans are a waste of space. I have to keep reminding myself America is full of wonderful people. Ordinary wonderful people, like Lonnie Thompson:

    [Snip. You can post a video titled “Denial” elsewhere. Not here. -mod]

    You’d have to have a really warped mind the believe here is anything but a humble and honourable American telling it as it is.

      • Horne, who elected you to pass judgement? You’re just being a whiny juvenile loser again, with nothing worthwhile to add to the conversation.

        I’ve pointed out for years that no climate alarmist can be a scientific skeptic. If they were, they couldn’t be a climate alarmist. There are far too many contradictions falsifying the ‘carbon’ scare.

        Alarmists just don’t understand what Planet Earth is saying — and she sure isn’t agreeing with people like Horne.

      • “Steal”? And “fake” graphics? Horne, you are truly a Dunning-Kreuger nutcase. Re-posting a chart is hardly “stealing”, and you have produced no evidence whatever to show anything I’ve posted is “fake”. But I suppose that’s the best argument you’ve got. That’s why your arguments always fail.

        And you say:

        … you’re a wit

        And you’re a halfwitl…

        Skeptics enjoy posting facts, evidence, and measurements — and pointing out when a know-nothing like Horne has nothin’.

        And to repeat: there are no scientific skeptics in the climate alarmist crowd. Not a single one. Skeptics are all in the skeptics crowd. Right here. But you’re no skeptic. You’re only a True Believer.

        Occasionally a clueless nincompoop posts here, but it’s without facts, or evidence, or measurements. Those folks are never scientific skeptics. They’re simply True Believers; eco-religionists, who don’t understand skepticism, the Null Hypothesis, or even basic science.

        That’s why they can never win a science-based argument.

      • Agreed. But I notice Horne, like all loyal climateers, avoids answering the question about the so-called “tipping point”. Funny how, despite the billions spent on playing with supercomputers and climate models, no one can give even a rough estimate on what atmospheric CO2 level in ppm will trigger it. Why is that I wonder? Answer: they know it’s a load of bollocks. Yet it’s a simple question. They bleat about CO2 levels increasing from a vanishingly small 0.0385% to a vanishingly small 0.04% and claim how significant that is and how close we are to “the point of no return”, yet they refuse to specify when and what that point will be.

        So Mr. Horne: The ‘Tipping Point’ (ie., the “point of no return” for planet earth’s climate system) => CO2 at …ppm.

        Please fill in the blank. Al Gore might know. Or Prince Charles. Or maybe even Leonardo deCaprio. They must know because they’re always bleating about it.

  32. Earth is retaining more energy due to more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that is, man’s emission of CO2 (and methane). That means warming and loss of ice. It was predicted and it is happening.

    Man-made climate change is a simple fact, that no internationally-recognised scientific institution or society rejects. No government rejects it. No informed scientist refutes it. Nobody thinking rationally spurns it. Because a strong consensus is our best view of reality. Always was … always will be.

    Just how bad the changes will be is not known. Depends on how well we control what we can and adapt to what we can’t.

    The science is settled and the nay-sayers are barking at the moon. Woof-woof…

    • Horne is still spouting his logical fallacy. He can’t learn.

      And dogboi, the planet has hardly warmed at all for the past twenty years. That debunks your belief system. Everyone here sees it but you.

    • And still Horne refuses to answer the question.

      Why?

      Because he has no answer.

      But he’s VERY good at repeating a mantra like a robot, a loyal “yes!” man, tapping his finger at the chapter and verse from holy writ… “But it says here in the sacred texts of the IPCC . . . !”, he says again. But no one is listening to his religious hype except other obedient and loyal believers. Tap, tap tap, goes his finger on the page of the sacred text of the Received Wisdom. . . “It’s all in here!” he says.

      So then, answer the question: The ‘Tipping Point’ (ie., the “point of no return” for planet earth’s climate system) => CO2 at …ppm.

      Fill in the blank Mr. Horne. You should be able to locate it in the Received Wisdom, the book of holy writ.

  33. dbstealey May 15, 2016 at 7:44 pm
    Dogboi, the planet has hardly warmied at all for the past twenty years. That debunks your belief system. Everyone sees it but you.

    Not the Royal Society, US National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society, or any other scientific society or institution on the planet.

    Never mind. Science advances one funeral at a time (Planck). Still time for you yet…

    • Horne, you’re slipping. You left out lots of other professional organizations that were bought and paid for, to buy into the “man-made global warming” scare:

      The Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences, the Palestine Academy, the Sudan Academy of Sciences, the Ecological Society, the Natural Environment Research Council, the Nigerian Academy, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Society of Zoologists, the Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada, the American Anthropological Association, the Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, the American Fisheries Society, the Romanian Academy, the Royal Irish Academy, the Society of American Foresters, the The Wildlife Society (international), the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, the National Association of State Foresters, the Islamic World Academy of Sciences, the Crop Science Society of America, the Australian Medical Association… and dozens more.

      That’s your stupid logical fallacy. Those organizations can be bought, cheap. But what does a Pediatric Association or a Vetrinary Association know about climate science? Answer: Not as much as the average reader here.

      But I understand that’s about the only argument you have, so you run with it. But it’s still a logical fallacy, and you still lose the science debate.

      • Still can’t see the difference between an appeal to an authority or one expert person and accepting a strong scientific consensus — the whole basis of our reality? (Unless you have a religious vision?)

        Why would anyone think a group of self-styled experts with nary a published paper between them were more expert and likely to be right than the global community of informed scientists — with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers?

        Better Plead The Third on that one!
        https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/496:_Secretary:_Part_3

      • Karl, get a clue. Your “97%” nonsense has been so thoroughly debunked that rational folks laugh at people who try to use it as an argument. Do a search for ‘97%’ here, and get educated.

        Horne’s “experts” are bought and paid for shills, as the Climategate emails proved. And they’re heavily outnumbered by honest scientists.

        [Note: ‘Karl’ is an impostor. His comments have been deleted. -mod]

  34. OK I listened to the podcast. I can understand why the Guardian reader types are angry.
    The interview was a bit soft as if the interviewer was James’s friend, yet that is the type of interview we get for alarmists all the time.
    The volcano point was not critical to the discussion, he was just pointing out that they do produce a lot of varying CO2, so you can’t just ignore them.
    The main thing was that climate was 25% of the interview
    Other areas were about the PM and smoking dope, and and his love of fox hunting.
    – There is a direct mp3 download of the podcast without using iTunes On the Podbean page

  35. dbstealey May 16, 2016 at 3:21 am
    Horne’s “experts” are boght and paid for shills …

    How much do you suppose it would cost to buy the US Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society … ?

    And who is paying them? Must be the same lot that blew up the WTC and faked the moon landing.

    And why? Must be about control. Like trying to stop gun massacres in the US. That sort of thing. Stopping Americans burning nearly all their fair share of the world’s supply of oil … Or something.

    • Horne asks:

      How much do you suppose it would cost to buy the US Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society, American Meteorological Society … ?

      Not very much. In many cases they do it free, out of Leftist ideology. Lindzen explains how it works, and he names names. I’d post the link, but your mind is closed so tight you wouldn’t read it.

      And:

      Must be the same lot that blew up the WTC and faked the moon landing.

      It’s your side that believes the moon landings were faked. But what does the WTC have to do with all those professional orgs issuing ‘authoratative’ statements about global warming? You know — groups like the Association of Pediatrics, Veterinarians, etc. Only a fool would believe there’s only selfless altruism behind their actions.

      It’s about control and payola, it’s not about science. And I am happily burning my share of fossil fuels — and your share, too. You are a hypocrite to complain about it, because you use fossil fuels just like anyone else.

      • dbstealey: “your side”
        You should have stuck with playing cowboys and Indians. Or are you in your second childhood?

        “it’s not about science”
        Who would take your word against that of the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Society for the Advancement of Science?

        Only a wee daftie. (You’ve got quite a following here!)

  36. “Your side” is the climate alarmist side. Planet Earth disagrees with you. Therefore, rational folks reject your beliefs.

    And of course, you’re fixated on your logical fallacy. It’s clear that you cannot help yourself. That logical fallacy is your psychological fixation. It controls you.

    And:

    You’ve got quite a following here!

    You don’t.

    So now let’s hear your ‘consensus’ argument.

  37. It is evident that the rats are fleeing their sinking ship now that they have been found out.
    Pass me the shotgun.

    PS: nice one DBS !

    Regards,
    WL

Comments are closed.