THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 1 – Climate of Freedom Series

This is the first video for my new Climate of Freedom Series. Climate science explained in a concise and interesting manner!

TWITTER: @SeibtNaomi

INSTAGRAM: naomiseibt2000

TELEGRAM: https://t.me/naomiseibt

Go directly to Youtube page for donation information

142 thoughts on “THE CONSENSUS FRAUD part 1 – Climate of Freedom Series

    • One-off contribution via paypal, no problem.
      I tried using the Utube link but could find no mention of how to donate, and don’t want to do a monthly thing at this time.

    • It’s up to you to construct arguments that are convincing, not only to Naomi but to others as well. You’re off to a good start but I’d encourage you to not let “geothermal denial” cast you as a one schtick pony.

      • Thank you, Scissor.

        I see the greenhouse effect as a phony one-schtick pony that breads climate stupidity.

        I don’t see many calling out this one schtick with a better scientific schtick.

        Even Fourier admitted that no amount of layers of glass raised the surface temperature. Yet people believe in magical greenhouse gases that do exactly that: raise the surface temperature.

        Lukewarmers merely argue about how much. What kind of a strategy is that? They already bought into a false premise.

        • Zoe

          Warmists and lukewarmers both believe in the magical powers of ghgs. They just disagree on how magical.

          I’d love to see their mathematical workings on how the cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of the warmer oceans with its heat capacity 1000 times that of the atmosphere.

          It would be most entertaining during lockdown.

          • +1

            I imagine they could do some “math”. It works something like this:

            Whatever geothermal does … GHGs did it.

            How much heat is in the oceans? GHGs did it.

            It doesn’t matter that GHGs can’t do it, they will claim “accumulation” did it. They will forget that the ocean is hotter, emitting more radiation to CO2, and therefore there can’t be any accumulation.

            They will just omit ocean emission from the equation, and only focus on ocean absorption from CO2.

          • Come up with some science that says otherwise.
            If the air becomes warmer, the rate at which the suns energy can leave the oceans slow.
            As a result, the oceans warm.

          • Mark,
            Conservatiom of energy flow is not a thing. It’s a rhetorical device used by science scammers.

            Obstructing motion doesn’t cause more motion, genius.

            Blankets are great greenhouse solids. Their absorptivity/emissivity is 0.85, which is higher than that claimed for CO2 (0.79). Blankets don’t raise your temperature. Why would CO2?

            There is no conservation of energy flow from you to the blanket and blanket to outside, causing you to heat up.

            The blanket warms up to your temperature and that’s it.

            As for the oceans, they have ~273K delivered to them by geothermal.

            https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/assets/9781315371436/graphics/fig3_3.jpg

            https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/geothermal-gradient.jpg

            Better science is available, but ideologues refuse to learn.

          • “Blankets don’t raise your temperature. Why would CO2?”
            It doesn’t. No one says it does *raise* the temperaqure. It prevents the surface from cooling as much as it would otherwise have – just like putting on a blanket.

            “The blanket warms up to your temperature and that’s it.”
            Yeah, thats what CO2 does, its pretty staright forward.

          • “Loydo May 24, 2020 at 10:01 pm

            Yeah, thats what CO2 does, its pretty staright forward.”

            It does nothing of the sort and hence why you will never understand physics.

          • I thought I was just paraphrasing MarkW. How would you describe it? Don’t tell me you’re in the geothermal camp.

          • “Loydo May 25, 2020 at 12:42 am”

            You could address your posts if you are targeting a particular comment. I suggest you go lookup “fizzicks” and IR spectroscopy.

          • MarkW

            “If the air becomes warmer, the rate at which the suns energy can leave the oceans slow.
            As a result, the oceans warm.”

            Stop with the mantra. Where is your evidence that this is remotely true. The oceans don’t become warmer because the air gets warmer. It’s the other way round. Learn some basic physics.

          • Once again, Zoe demonstrates that she actually thinks that blankets and CO2 work the same way. No matter how many times she is corrected, she keeps returning to that same basic error.

          • leitif, what mantra? I’m just repeating basic physics. Heat flow is based on temperature difference. When the cold end warms, the rate of heat flow drops. Since the rate of heat coming from the sun is constant, then the oceans have to warm in order to restore the balance.

          • As I’ve explained to you at least a dozen times, the sun’s short wave radiation heats the oceans. You and your fellow sky dragons are the only people who have ever made the claim that long wave radiation directly heats the oceans.

            BTW, if warm air is incapable of warming anything as you frequently claim, then how do ovens work?

      • The Zoe troll’s actual game is to pretend to take a cartoonish non-scientific view that she (we’ll adopt its preferred pronouns) wants the reader to imagine is a typical climate realist’s view and then jumps on any other topic involving scientific theory in any way and pretends to espouse the most absurd possible alternative theory.

        The only explanation I can think of for why someone would behave that way is that they think it’s ironic/satirical. I hope she gets bored of the game soon.

          • Zoe’s delusional BS was given a very thorough discussion months ago here on WUWT.

            Conservation of energy flow is a consequence of the conservation of energy: one of the fundamental AXIOMS of physics. If she thinks that is wrong she needs to rewrite all of physics. Good luck with that.

            Her naive mistakes were pointed out by several people here who do understand basic physics and she has no counter argument and just repeats her ignorant mistaken idea.

            She displays all the traits of flat-earth mentality and is equally impermeable to logical discussion, so don’t waste your time.

            It is quite possible that she is a global warmist attempting a satirical spoof of climate skepticism and trying to derail discussions on this site.

            If not see is just an internet nutter like a certain Mr. Cotton who spams any site where they can hope to spread they spurious personal cult beliefs.

            Either way the best thing to do is just ignore her entirely: don’t feed the troll !

            Once again there has been a diversion from the climate relevent discussion here, not only because of Zoe but because of those who should know better playing along.

            That is what she feeds from and any why she is here,
            witness her last comment:

            “Keep attacking me. Don’t ever go away.”

            Scissor and others , please take note.

          • “Conservation of energy flow is a consequence of the conservation of energy”

            No it isn’t. The two theories yield completely different results. One is right, and yours is wrong.

            If you can’t discern them, you should stop lecturing others.

          • Greg,

            “Her naive mistakes were pointed out by several people here who do understand basic physics and she has no counter argument and just repeats her ignorant mistaken idea.”

            All those people lecturing me did not have a single empirical proof. They just engaged in ideological mathematics.

            When I offered empirical proof, no one fixed their mistakes.

            You can’t compare a geothermal heat flux with a radiative flux because they’re not in the same plane.

            Unfortunately all those people were wrong.

            My best arguments were noy refuted, but ignored.

            I completely understand your “basic physics”, it just doesn’t happen to explain reality. It’s ideological trash.

          • Zoe

            The people attacking you are the sort that believe you can heat a bowl of water with a hair dryer.

          • leitmotif, lying about what other people have said and believe is just further proof that even you know you can’t defend the nonsense you’ve been preaching.

    • Geothermal is irrelevant, Zoe. Three orders of magnitude smaller than sunshine, even one order of magnitude smaller than “consensus” CO2 forcing.
      Naomi will read and understand. You refuse to.

      • D,
        You refuse to learn what geothermal heat flux really is.

        http://phzoe.com/2020/04/29/the-irrelevance-of-geothermal-heat-flux/

        http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/

        Your brain sees W/m^2, and it stops thinking further.

        I have two videos showing conductive heat flux going to zero and yet the emerging radiation is not zero (as your ideology would claim):

        http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

      • Zoe Phin,
        I have previously showed you that your calculation of geothermal ‘cold side radiation’ (CSR) is based on your misinterpretation of the ‘radiation loss’ term in the Fourier heat equation:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/30/model-madness-parallels-between-failed-climate-models-and-failed-coronavirus-models/#comment-2982198

        Yet you still claim ‘proof’ of your calculations in your 2nd link above from NCEP Reanalysis2 data using this formula, which you imply came from NCEP ‘language’ (but you clearly made this up yourself):

        In the language of NCEP Reanalysis, the formula is:

        geo = ulwrf – (dswrf – uswrf) + lhtfl + shtfl

        https://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/

        Clearly, because the NCEP docs make no mention of geothermal heat. (Because it is neglible). The five terms (ulwrf – (dswrf – uswrf) + lhtfl + shtfl), and other terms that you ignored, are all well defined using reanalysis of surface and upper air temperatures, pressures and winds to compute (“forecast in hindsight”) historical atmospheric energetics, based entirely on solar insolation as the only energy source.
        A. Marques, et al., “Global atmospheric energetics from NCEP–Reanalysis 2 and ECMWF–ERA40 Reanalysis”,
        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.1704 [2009]

        Nevertheless, using your misinterpreted formula, you compute geothermal flux values ‘radiating’ from the surface with values ranging from 100 to 400 W/m². And then claim, ridiculously, that it does not have to agree with the measured actual mean geothermal flux (~91 mW/m²) because you have decided that there are two kinds of conductive heat fluxes, depending on the perpendicularity of the terms in the Fourier law equation

        I wrote a whole article explaining the difference between two types of fluxes. Read it again.

        You do understand that just because both fluxes have m^2 does’t mean they measure the same thing.

        Look at where the m^2 comes in the conduction formula. It comes from k and L. L is orthogonal to the area of emergent flux. The DEPTH has nothing to do with the surface area of the emergent flux.

        You have written nothing that intelligibly proves your point: that the greenhouse effect is due mostly to geothermal heat.

        And the arrogant and rude tone of your posts (suggesting people are mentally ill if they do not agree with you) suggests that you are some kind of troll, who probably should be given a warning to tone down the nonsensical and nasty rhetoric, or be banned.

        • Johanus,
          We’ll let other people decide on your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. OK?

          “which you imply came from NCEP ‘language’ (but you clearly made this up yourself)”

          The variables came from NCEP. Of course I made up the formula – that’s why it’s called a Revolutionary Hypothesis. I reaffirm my hypothesis with a simple model:

          http://phzoe.com/2020/02/25/deducing-geothermal/

          “based entirely on solar insolation as the only energy source.”

          Haha, don’t forget their downwelling IR source from GHGs.

          They just flipped geothermal upside down.

          Their missing source is GHGs, mine is geothermal – the correct answer.

          “you have decided that there are two kinds of conductive heat fluxes.”

          You can’t even repeat what I’ve said. There are not two different conductive heat fluxes. There is the conductive heat flux and the emergent radiative flux.

          I offer two videos that show CHF approaching ZERO, and CSR obviously getting higher.

          I show geotherm diagrams from geophysicists which show geothermal delivering ~273K.

          What do you offer? Baseless accusations of my incompetence.

          Do you offer any empirical evidence that CSR = CHF? No!!! But somehow your lack of proof only makes you more certain.

        • Johanus,
          Simple questions.

          The temperature of both your ears are generally the same. Agree?

          What is the conductive heat flux through your head (ear to ear)?

          What is the emergent radiative flux potential out of any one of your ears?

          Now imagine Davies and Davies measured the conductive heat flux through 40,000 heads, and found an assymetric (for some reason) conductive heat flux of 0.001 W/m^2 from ear to ear.

          What is the emergent radiative flux potential out of the colder ear?

          Don’t bother commenting if you won’t answer these questions.

          • Zoe Phin May 24, 2020 at 10:44 pm

            The temperature of both your ears are generally the same. Agree?
            Wrong Think about it.
            Lets see if you can figure it out

            Hint why we get ear infections, ear aches and frost bite on one ear but may not get it with both.

            michael

          • First of all, your method of determining the “heat flow between the ears” is laughable.

            Your claim that heat flow through the head can be estimated with milliwatt precision from ear temperature alone clearly shows your ignorance of physics (and science in general).

            Measuring ear temperatures will have little or no correlation to the heat flowing in my head. The human brain radiates about 20 watts of power, mostly radiated as thermal heat in the medium long wave spectrum (similar to Earth) There are numerous heat flows in my brain, i.e. some locations are warmer than others, so heat flows everywhere in the direction of the negative gradients, even if the ears have the same temperature.
            http://thermopedia.com/content/587/ [Human body heat transfer]

            Secondly, although you insist that ’emergent radiative flux’ (aka “surface flux”) is not ‘conductive’ you have not explained how it somehow emerges as ‘geothermal’ energy. Are you claiming that Earth and Water (and Flesh) are transparent to long wave IR?

            If so then you really do believe that the ‘hot’ ear somehow radiates all of its ‘surface flux’ to the ‘cold’ ear and is responsible for warming it up by ’emergent radiation’ through the brain?

            I do not want to put words into your mouth (like you do do to others). But that is what it sounds like to me.
            :-]

        • I think it’s dangerous for the health of any forum, especially one pretending to be open-minded and skeptical, to exclude posters because their statements annoy others. I’m imagine that Galileo was also accused of arrogance, perhaps even of rudeness. We’re not engaged in mortal combat here. If you can’t tolerate a bit of “rudeness” or “arrogance”, maybe YOU should find a more compatible forum to post in.

      • “indigestive”, “couldn’t givafig roll”, ” kit-krap”, “nut crackers”.
        [- that’s enough “kook eh” puns]

  1. Thank you for posting this here at WUWT, Charles. And thank you, Naomi and Christopher, for preparing it.

    Stay safe and healthy, all.
    Bob

  2. This 97%-Cook article was quoted very often and it is true, that Legates et al. hold a peer reviewed article pointing out mathematical errors in that particular work.
    However, more important my my opinion is not a discussion of how many scientists support a particular statement, but what is the statement and how stable it is.

    In my words, I hope I get it right:
    – Cook et al. was counting how many of the articles mentioning AGW, saw AGW as the main contribution
    – Legates et al. counted how many of the total articles supported that fact.
    One was counting with a strong pre-selection bias, the other unselective, leaving both answers lacking.

    I also believe that it is possible to create alarming sounding statements most scientists would support in an eyeblink, something like
    – did we measure a warming of this planet over the last 150years and is it possible that anthropogenic CO2 contributed to that warming

    whereas
    – is it proven that the global warming of this planet over the last 150 years is caused dominantely by anthropogenic CO2
    should raise far less enthusiasm (I am for one am not aware of such a proof)

    J. Curry wrote and article in (2012)
    https://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/
    where she discusses many aspects of the broader IPCC consensus approach:
    “…The consensus approach being used by the IPCC has failed to produce a thorough portrayal of the complexities of the problem and the associated uncertainties in our understanding, in favor of spuriously constructed expert opinion…”

    LoN

    • Laws, if you are not a scientist, read the hundred scientists letter against Einstein and his reply for a succinct understanding about the worthlessness of consensus. In other words, litigating the degree of consensus measured is totally a pointless endeavor. Whether Cook demonstrated 97 % consensus or only 51% consensus is completely immaterial to the science.

      https://capacityofliberty.blogspot.com/2011/01/100-authors-against-einstein-scientific.html?m=1

      • I have always disliked the term “Consensus” in this debate as it is incorrect to use it. What you have is 2 opposing views where the points that are agreed upon do not sway one party to agree with the other party regardless if it is 51% to 49% or 97% to 3%.
        Remember, the root of “consensus” is “consent”. This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions.

        • Isn’t the derivation from “Con” & “Census”, meaning some sort of confidence trick about the collation of statistical records or numbers? That’s how it always seemed to me anyway. It’s like when the news commentator or pundit say things such … ” in the final analysis” … How do we know that will actually be the real “final analysis” when there is unknown future yet to come?

          The trickery of wordishness. I don’t want to be bungled in.

        • The root of consensus is not consent. Consensus is a Latin word meaning agreement. It can be described as having an understanding (sensus) together (con).

          The root consentire means to agree, where sentire is to think, that is to have a way of thinking in common.

      • Gary,
        actually, your beef is not with me, but with the makers of that video!
        I think we agree that this kind of consensus is quite meaningless, but I would like to point out, that Moncktown and his co-authors simply replace one consensus with another.. I always thought that whole paper was just a satire showing exactly your point in a funny way.. but sometimes I get the alarming feeling that Moncktown might have tried to be serious with it!?

    • “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” – Harlan Ellison

      • That CO2 is capable of warming the atmosphere has never been questioned.
        With zero feedbacks, the atmosphere would increase in temperature by about 1.5C for every doubling of CO2.
        By itself, a increase of 1.5C wouldn’t even get us back to the temperatures of medieval warm period, much less the Roman or Minoan warm periods, and would get us no where close to the average of the Holocene warm period.

        To get the scary numbers, the models assume that RH stays constant. This is an assumption. There is no science to back up such an assumption. The science that has been done shows that H2O is not a positive feedback, and is in fact a negative feedback.

        Other than claiming that 150 years ago CO2 and temperatures were both lower than today, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

        • Not disagreeing with your conclusions, but in the interest of accuracy, I think that the CO2 alone is said to be 1C per doubling, not 1.5C, Mark. The IPCC claimed that positive feedbacks of increased water vapor would add at minimum 0.5C and up to 3.5C, thus the 1.5-4.5 range. IIRC, latest studies by Curry et al. showed 1.34C, which would still be a minor positive feedback for water vapor. But that’s a net effect of multiple mechanisms. The emergent effects of tropical thunderstorms are certainly negative, and some clouds are negative feedback in daytime, positive at night, etc.

      • And yet it has never been measured.

        Make up a fake mechanism, then fake the data via models.

        NOT SCIENCE.

          • leitmotif
            I’ve always maintained that it’s irrelevant. If lukewarmists are correct, or if you are correct, the policy implications are identical. The policy implications are the only thing that really matters.

            It’s far more important to establish that there is no impending climate catastrophe that requires dismantling modern society, than to be certain about the exact effects of atmospheric CO2.

            From a practical or tactical point of view, you don’t defend more ground than necessary to win the battle. Conceding GHG theory and proving that there is no cause for alarm is all that is necessary, while proving that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas is a much harder approach. (Especially if there is a minor greenhouse effect, which there is).

      • “Proof is for mathematics and booze.”

        So you admit you go on baseless “belief”

        OK we knew that.

  3. I guess an anti-Greta narrative is useful, but I personally find this kind of stuff irritating and unhelpful. Using one unqualified person to counter another, simply seems to me to diminish the entire debate.

    • Who exactly is qualified? Who decides who is qualified? You?

      All she is asking you to do is think, not panic, while she offers facts. What is the problem with that?

      Too many experts too many models, too much opinion, not enough facts. That’s what I see in most aspects of public debate today.

    • In a democracy, you need to appeal to voters, not just experts.

      Greta appeals to lefty kids, and Naomi appeals to smart kids.

    • Bernie1815,
      Me too. The WUWT neighbouring essay on drill core from E Pacific deeps has some co-authors barely out of school. Blinding, revolutionary insights from the young can happen but they are rare. Some of the early music composers were astounding, true child prodigies. My preference is for authors with experience and hopefully some derived wisdom. This is not meant in any way as an insult to Greta, Naomi, the young authors mentioned or youth in general. But, just as your body has to age before you can drive an auto with legs long enough, so the average brain needs some time to be fully capable. I am from a family where we skipped grades in early schooling, went to classes for the gifted, were in the top 10 of thousands in public exams, tested in the 140+ IQ range, etc. But we have had no more than ordinary impact on societal improvement and tend not to talk about these family traits. None of us knew anything about music composition, overall this trait meant we had more fun cruising through University years (except me, hopeless in exam settings).
      There is a particular skill that is useful. It is the ability to distinguish between good intellectual work and poor. Art, music, photography, science, philosophy – all have good and bad. It is not a matter of private taste, it is a matter of skill. How many modern music composers and painters come within a bull’s roar of matching what the classicists did? Where has modern genius gone, especially with the computer replacing the abacus and slide rule? How do we end up with policies, said to be from good science, when 50 years of money flow cannot even buy an estimate of foundational climate sensitivity? Where has the skill gone? Will the dumb ones please shut up and let a clearer signal emerge from the deafening intellectual noise?
      Geoff S

      • Geoff:
        I agree. I greatly admire the gifted amateurs, e.g., Steve McIntyre, who have surfaced to confront the climate orthodoxy with detailed substantive and persistent arguments – though I have even greater admiration for Judy Curry who paid the price for confronting it from within. Greta and Naomi may both turn out to be savants – but I have seen little evidence of it from either to this point. What I have seen is a degree of manipulation of their public personas by adults.
        One final point about the use of the young. We recently had a local initiative to ban one time plastic bags. A well meaning young man (and his mother) made the argument and his efforts were met with a peculiar lack of questioning by the adults in the room. I pointed out that there was detailed research to indicate that the alternatives to one time plastic bags were more problematic for the environment than the demonized plastic bag, when the latter are disposed of properly. I felt I had to be far less direct when addressing the young man than I would have been if he had been an adult. IMO, those positioning Greta and likely Naomi are using this reluctance to blunt criticisms of the arguments.

        • I don’t think it’s fair to say that Naomi’s public persona is manipulated by adults. Which adults specifically? (by the way, she herself is an adult at age 19). She is only associated with the Heartland Institute because of her prior fame on Youtube, which was entirely her own doing.

        • bernie1815,
          You should not class Steve McIntyre as a gifted amateur. He is a senior, experienced scientist with a track record of excellence, a beautiful writer of technical material and a nice guy, perhaps gifted but not an amateur.

          In future decades when people write historical papers about some effects of the Internet on the conduct of science, chapter on blogs, he should be there as a prime example of how to improve bad science. Geoff S

          • Geoff: I agree. I certainly meant no disrespect. His analytic skills are superb. Perhaps “outsider” would be a better term. I have followed Steve’s Climate Audit since 2007. It has been a long battle for transparency and statistical competence. In years to come, people will hopefully recognize the critical importance of getting researchers to post their data and their code. No more analytic black boxes or “trust me, I am a scientist and I don’t have to share my data or work”. IMO, Steve played a key role in that critical revolution.

  4. I was disappointed in this video. There was nothing in the explanations from Monckton that Naomi couldn’t have explained herself. Having Naomi dissect the 97% consensus makes her look like she is dependent upon Monckton, and has no knowledge of her own. Or worse, that she’s pretty and just bait to get you to wind up listening to Monckton.

    I have mountains of respect for Christopher Monckton, but if Naomi is going to be the “anti-Greta” she needs to explain the junk science herself. Well my 2 cents anyway. Monckton interviewing her and asking her questions would work much better I think.

    • ,i>Having Naomi dissect the 97% consensus

      I meant having MONCKTON dissect the 97% consensus…

      I have GOT to get better meds, these ones confabulate my brain.

    • To, it’s freaking cold here in Queensland, even in the tropics. Down to 13C max, 7C min the other day.

      What’s hilarious is the BOM data still shows avg min as the same as the long term avg for my town, and the max only slightly below. I guess it makes a change from BOM data ALWAYS showing higher than long term avg.

      • Cold? That’ll slow down the Crocs at least, anyway. So fire up the Barbie then!

        Has there been any sign of Japanese Jellyfish this Winter, along the Sunshine Coast?

        I noticed the WUWT ENSO meter had dropped into negative mode at time of writing, and wonder how that’s affecting the usual “incoming” attacking the budgie smuggler brigade on the beaches?

      • PS: Since Loydo has declared that any mis spellings are proof of being an amateur, she has given us permission to ridicule every experimental spellings from her in the future.

  5. Advice: When you produce education videos like there, pay attention to the lighting. One site has too much light reflection, and the other they have the camera pointed into the sunlight. The more professional the video, the more likely it will be used to educate.

    Naomi, you are fantastic, keep it up! Using some graphics in the background might help to make your points.

    Lord Monckton, you are great as usual.

  6. Watch this before the “fact checkers” get it banned.

    Critique for Lord Monckton. More Naomi, less Christopher. Not just because she is FAR easier on the eyes (sorry) – but is FAR easier on the ears. I’m afraid that you speak as you write – which is all very well and good when done within the walls of Westminster – but not the best strategy for an exposition that you want to go “viral.”

    • It’s not ideal “within the walls of Westminster” either. Believe me! It’s usually known as “bloviation” and is a known disease — from which I tend to suffer as well! — which demands a very strict discipline on the part of the sufferer because otherwise the audience thinks you’re an idiot or a tedious bore or has fallen asleep half-an-hour ago!

      I have never yet faulted the content of any of Christopher’s stuff but most of it would gain immensely by being about half the length.

  7. Who has authority to discuss climate change, and who doesn’t? I have no knowledge whatsoever about climatology, and certainly no social status worth mentioning, but I still feel confident of my capacity to argue my positions, based on common sense. I just kind of skim over the technical articles here on WUWT to get a quick overview of the science, but I don’t really need all that heavy thinking to come to the conclusion that climate change alarmism is bunk.

    So many climate alarmist talking points are flat-out silly. Like, sea level is rising. Sure, but at the rate of an eighth of an inch a year. If my height were declining at the rate of an eight of an inch a year, I wouldn’t be worried about eventually becoming a dwarf. Or, hot weather will make the world uninhabitable? Why then don’t all the rich people in Texas and Arizona move to Vermont? Stuff like that.

    I have never, not even once, been speaking to anyone who spontaneously, without prompting, claimed to be worried about climate change. I don’t think anyone really is, including Greta Thunberg. She might have been really upset about it when she was too young to understand that adults lie a lot, but by now she will have noticed that they do. In fact, much of her anger has been prompted by the commonly-observed phenomenon of adults claiming to be concerned about climate change but not modifying their life styles to mitigate it. She’s figured out that everybody’s faking. Pretty soon she’ll figure out that she’s been had.

    • Ian,
      ‘common sense’ is easily fooled when it comes to science. None of modern science from Relativity to
      Quantum Mechanics and evolution agrees with common sense but requires ‘heavy thinking’ before people can understand and apply it. Why should climate science be different?

      • It seems that every climate prediction to date has been wrong unlike those other fields you mention.
        When people are perpetrating obvious fraud, like hockey sticks, and there is no penalties or negative career impacts, it clear that we are dealing with BS

          • What Gore (not a climate scientist)really said:4

            “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

            https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/26118-al-gore-nobel-lecture-2007/

          • “every climate prediction to date has been wrong”

            Such as?

            That’s a very difficult task. Why don’t we make it much, much easier?

            Name one single CAGW prediction that has turned out to be correct. That will take up infinitely less space…

          • Here are 17 actual predictions from Global Climate Models all of which have proven correct.

            – That the Earth would warm, and about how fast, and about how much
            (Arrhenius 1896, Callendar 1938, Plass 1956, Sawyer 1972, Broecker 1975; validated by Crowley 2000, Philipona et al 2004, Evans and Puckrin 2006, Lean and Rind 2008, Mann et al. 2008, etc)
            – That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures
            (Arrhenius 1896; validated by Dai et al. 1999, Sherwood et al. 2005, etc)
            – That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures
            (Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980, Rind et al 1989; validated by Balling et al 1999, Volodin and Galin 1999, Crozier 2003, etc)
            – Polar amplification (that temperatures increase more as you move toward the poles)
            (Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Polyakov et al 2001, Holland and Bitz 2003, etc)
            – That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic
            (Arrhenius 1896, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Doran et al 2002, Comiso 2003, Turner et al 2007, etc)
            – That the Earth’s troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool
            (Manabe and Wetherald 1967, Manabe and Stouffer 1980; validated by Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006, De F. Forster et al 1999, Langematz et al 2003, Vinnikov and Grody 2003, Fu et al 2004, Thompson and Solomon 2005, etc)
            – The near constancy of relative humidity on global average
            (Manabe and Wetherall 1967; validated by Minschwaner and Dessler 2004, Soden et al 2005, Gettelman and Fu 2008, etc)
            – Scientists made a retrodiction (a model prediction based on established physics) for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence for those times; better paleo evidence showed the models were right
            (Rind and Peteet 1985; validated by Farreral et al 1999, Melanda et al 2005, etc)
            – The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics
            (Vonder Haar 1986; validated by Lubin 1994, etc)
            – That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase
            (Bakun 1990; validated by Goes et al 2005, McGregor et al 2007, etc)
            – The magnitude (0.3 C) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption
            (Hansen et al 1992; validated by Hansen et al 1996, Soden et al 2002, etc)
            – The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO
            (Lau et al 1996; validated by Soden 2000, Dessler and Wong 2009, etc)
            – The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude
            (Thuburn and Craig 1997, Kushner et al 2001; validated by Santer et al 2003, Seidel and Randel 2006, etc)
            – The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole
            (Fyfe et al 1999, Kushner et al 2001, Sexton 2001; validated by Thompson and Solomon 2002, etc)
            – The expansion of the Hadley cells
            (Quan et al 2002; validated by Fu et al 2006, Hu and Fu 2007, etc)
            – They predicted a trend significantly different in amount and different in nature from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data which showed that surface temperatures were more accurate and reliable than UAH temperature data.
            (Christy et al 2003; validated by Santer et al 2003, Mears and Wentz 2005, Santer et al 2005, Sherwood et al 2005, etc)
            – The poleward movement of storm tracks
            (Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003; validated by Yin 2005, etc)

          • UAH V6 does not measure surface temperature, why did you say it did?UAH did not have a bug it had not allowed for orbital decay after allowance it showed a 0.07 per decade increase in temperature this was taken into account in 1998, are you saying the previous temperature readings when allowing for orbital decay are false? Are you saying the previous 22years of temperature readings are false?

          • You did not answer 90% of the questions I put to you ,your using the v6 as a excuse ,you have misrepresented UAH ,you compaired earth surface temps ,with a lower troposphere satalite data and said UAH was wrong. You deliberately misrepresented UAH and you dont have the decency to acknowledge and correct.

            That’s exactly what the warmests do misrepresent data, you had your chance instead you go defensive and by doing so perpetuate a lie.

          • ” Christy et al 2003; validated by Santer et al 2003, Mears and Wentz ”

            Your words the critical word “validated” to any layman reading your original statement UAH has been discredited from various sources, you also never said christ et al 2003 was wrong you allowed what seemed to be a validated report ride to the discredit of UAH.

          • I agree that wording was a bit vague.

            Spencer and Christy eventually admitted the mistake. The correction appeared in version 5.2.

          • Jack:

            Here are 17 actual predictions from Global Climate Models all of which have proven correct.

            The scientific consensus at the IPCC is that predicting future climate states isn’t possible:

            “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

            Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774

            How do you explain the contradiction between your assertion and the expert consensus at the IPCC?

          • Nice contextomy.

            Unlike you I have read the the rest of the chapter. And I understand the difference between “prediction” and “projection”

          • Nice contextomy.

            Nice ad hominosophistry 🙂

            So you would argue that “projection” means something different than “prediction.” How does that answer my objection?

          • Thanks. You’ve confirmed there’s a difference in meaning between “projection” and “prediction.”

            “When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.”

            So since “projections” come before “predictions,” which most likely “projection” has become a “prediction” that isn’t possible?

            When you’ve run through all the possible red herrings you can muster, maybe you could get to how any of this answers my objection?

          • Jack we’ve been through this already. I can’t have taken either meaning out of context, and even if I’d thought to, you’ve done a wonderful job providing definitions for the two to show how I didn’t.

            So are you going to persist with refusing to answer the objection?

          • That was made by Wadhams.
            Not by the IPCC.
            Personal opinion isn’t science, though I know some here think otherwise.

          • Yeah, there’s the confusion, if you mistake half-arsed guesses by random individuals as “Climate Science” then I’d agree; plenty off half-arsed guesses miss the mark. But thats not what climate science is, two different things. When I asked “such as?” I was referring to the actual published science, which like all fields of modern science has made some quite successful predictions such as those that this study highlights: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

            …but also some specific, incorrect predictions that could cited as support. So any specific examples?

            Whenever your read twaddle like this: “every climate prediction to date has been wrong”, you know its been written by a barracker not an objective observer.

          • “Anthony Banton May 25, 2020 at 12:23 am

            That was made by Wadhams.”

            It was Al Gore.

          • Schmidt, models and projections? How’s the pandemic lockdown going based on models? Well, it’s put a million of Aussies out of work for no greater benefit. Not saved too many lives tho. I suspect when the numbers are crunched after this farce we will see more people died from suicide.

          • But thats not what climate science is, two different things.

            What’s “climate science” and who defines it?

          • If you dismiss every climate scientist who has made a bad prediction, would there be any climate scientists left?

            We predicted it would warm and it did.
            However the trace of the actual warming has no relationship with the trace of CO2 over the last 200 years. With the exception of the recent El Nino, there has been no warming for over 20 years.

  8. Isn’t the eventual Battle of the Naomi’s going to be delightful? I predict that one will become derisive, dismissive and vulgar, while the other will continue to relentlessly present facts.

    • And which is which will be in the eye of the beholder. After all, we can’t have consensus.

  9. Well no, Izaak, I don’t deny the importance of critical expertise, but you don’t need that much of it to understand that climate alarmism is based on lots of whimsy. The thing that initially tipped me to the (probable) falsity of climate alarmism was the extreme hostility to reasonable doubts of it. When people punish you for doubting something they can’t prove, it’s because they’re defending dogma.

    I am a vigorous doubter of the Theory of Evolution, and my doubts are founded in the common sensical observation that life is just too complex to have arisen by chance. Somebody had to design hummingbirds. They didn’t just gradually develop while all their ancestors perished. That couldn’t have happened. It is also just common sense that nobody can know if evolution has happened because there is no way to prove that it can by experimentation. God Made It is actually more plausible than, it just kind of happened all by itself.

    I accept Special and General Relativity, because they are mathematically derived. Mathematics is the only science in which I have had extensive university training, and I trust it implicitly.

    • Ian,
      Relativity is not mathematically derived. It is based on assumptions about the physical world such
      as “the speed of light is the same for all observers”. You can’t derive a physical theory from axioms of mathematics. All you can do is work out the consequences.

      As for trusting mathematics implicitly do you accept the “axiom of choice’? What about the continuum hypothesis? Which of the sets of axioms for set theory do you accept and why? Once you start looking at the very foundations of mathematics they appear quite arbitrary and different sets of axioms lead to disagreements over whether or not different theorems are true. The Banach–Tarski paradox is one such theorem that several schools of mathematics disagree over.

      Many people would disagree with your assertion that life is too complex to arise by chance. Does that mean that their ‘common sense’ is wrong or that yours is or just that ‘common sense’ is not a good guide to judge the truth of a scientific theory?

    • If someone designed my species they f*cked up. They designed my gonads to run at a lower temperature than the rest of me. So to get around that stupid design they dangle the things between my legs right where they can be easily kicked or kneed, which induces horrific pain, another lousy design flaw. My spine appears to have been borrowed and slightly modified from the spine of animals that run on four legs which is why so many people have back problems as they age. You’d think an important thing like that the designer would start from scratch. Then there’s the appendix which the designers apparently built for some purpose, then decided they didn’t need it after all but left it in anyway just so it could get infected and kill the host when it bursts. Idiots. No one with the ability to actually design anything as complex as us would have made such huge and obvious mistakes.

      • My spine appears to have been borrowed and slightly modified from the spine of animals that run on four legs which is why so many people have back problems as they age.

        Probably the easiest to follow indicator of evolution.

        Next time I bite my tongue while sneezing, and also put my back out for days, I’m gonna have words with that Designer, I tell you!

  10. Too much Monckton, not enough Naomi. Let her speak for herself. She doesn’t need coaching. She has a message and it’s not parsing pseudo-science.

    Naomi’s message, so well expressed in her prior videos, is that the climate alarmists are scaring young people by spreading doom, gloom, and hopelessness and freakish command-and-control punishments for just being alive.

    Stick to that message. It resonates. Monckton does not resonate. His message is affected obscurant perfluffery.

    Remember this: the medium is the message. The style is the message. The emotion is the message. Be yourself, Naomi. You rock.

    • Monckton should have been wearing a fedora and a cravat and should have been sipping an expensive red.

    • Mike, another take on the video, is as I see it and more importantly how a young audience will see it,
      Naomi will be seen in this case as a informed reporter asking questions to a well known climate skeptic,
      But maybe not that well known to a young audience, which is the point,giving a younger audience the chance to see the older generation do not agree with the current forced climate science nonsense can only be a good thing.

      I’m hoping she sticks to this type of interview with other skeptics, hopefully some of the 97% that have been misrepresented, some links to videos from the likes of John Casey, he has away of explaining the lies of climate science that is easy to follow and very daming across the whole spectrum.

      Naomi is educated and has a good grasp of the science ,and understands the climate lie. But she is not a climate scientist, which leaves her open to belittlement ,and leftist ridicule, she needs others with credibility to pack a punch to this series’s, and as she rightly says make people question and think.

    • This video is what is called an ‘Etikettenschwindel’ in German, ‘fraudulent labelling’. It has Naomi’s picture on the front, but inside there is c. 1:30 of her compared with c. 6:10 of Monckton.

      The usual Moncktonian bluster and inflated language is there, but instead of his beloved Mr Toad tweeds he dresses oddly – is he attempting to get down with the kids for his new 19-year-old Fräulein?

      Fortunately, we don’t see much of his new look since he is hunched in darkness over the camera. Amateurish. The effect is creepy, reminsicent of someone reporting from behind enemy lines.

      Putting this video together with his WUWT post about Naomi on 19 May 2020 we have to conclude that the Scotch Svengali has her in his power.

      She needs to free herself immediately before her reputation is shredded by this shameless and shifty self-promoter.

      • Well said FoS. Exactly how I felt. Monckton is creepy. He is not going to be seen by young audiences as a credible skeptic hero but as a dirty old man.

        Poor Greta the Imbecile is being USED by her father and the Alarmist shills. Now it appears Monkton wishes to USE Naomi in the same way. It’s perverse and offensive. Leave the children alone, Lord Aqualung.

        And who is Sew Crates? Is he a pal of Aristo Feigns and Epic Titties? If you’re going to cite the guy, at least pronounce his name correctly.

        If Lord Lockdown wants to fund Naomi, that’s fine. But don’t try to draft in her wake, shining his own tarnished star. Back to the Shadows, Monkton, where you belong.

  11. Hi Naomi,

    As to your concluding statement, we may, after all, be heading towards and apocalypse… just not due to climate warming ….

  12. We don’t know that we are “not heading for an apocalypse”.

    We do know however that it is probably not an apocalypse brought about by climate warming.
    g

    • I liked this video. Dialog to get points across.

      Now, if you could just make the case that videos like this could be really annoying to any true alarmist believer who sees them! *That* would be a plus maybe — especially if the content could actually be thought provoking to those who might be starting out as ‘less than committed’ believers?

      In the video, pointing out that the 97 percent thing is a fraud is a good idea — but for this to really help much, maybe the target audience has to be willing to put in a bit of critical thinking? For instance, if we could get people to just ask how did some ‘bean counter’, i.e., ‘journal paper counter’ decide what papers were endorsing anything like climate alarm?

      The danger of overestimating those we might like to ‘school’ the most is always present, it seems! The believers practically all defer to some authority, and are effectively too lazy to think for themselves.

  13. Physicist Dr Gordon J Fulks stated the following in an article titled Physicist’s View of “the Precautionary Principle” (20 April 2012):

    “In all of these arguments of a political nature, what is overwhelmingly lost is the real science and hence the real truth as best we know it. Science has NOTHING to do with how many supporters you can count amongst those you deem worthy in the scientific profession.

    In 1905 Albert Einstein stood against the entire classical physics world with his new ideas on relativity. A few years later, a high school biology teacher from Seattle (Harlen Bretz) stood against the entire geological profession with his explanations of Pacific Northwest geology. And just a few years ago, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical profession to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers.

    It is as Galileo said many centuries ago: ‘The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.’

    Hence the fundamental issue for me is the survival of science as an objective profession. Continuous spin from highly political non-scientists does not help. And complicity among many scientists who want the government grants to continue is very destructive.”

    Dr Fulks couldn’t have said it any better.

  14. Tell you the truth, Izaak, you are the first human being I have ever run into who thinks that mathematical axioms aren’t self evidently true. You know: axiomatic. Math works. Mathematical problems can be solved to produce right answers. We used to argue in school whether Calculus was invented or discovered. My faith (that might be the word) in Math is so great that I believe (that would be the word) that it would exist even in the absence of people to know it.

    Whaddaya mean, the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant to all observers? I thought that was observed and replicable fact.

    And davidmhoffer, I ain’t saying the world is well-designed. I am saying that it has been designed. Gonads are not a subject I always feel comfortable discussing. And especially not here. And why should God have started from scratch and got it right the first time? You seem to think He’s a little more Godlike that He really is. Cut Him some slack. (Incidentally, He looks just like Willie Nelson, only taller, and everybody likes Willie Nelson, so I guess I’ve made my point here.)

    If I can just get back to my original point, the greenhouse gas-global warming theory is not so complex that you need years of study to understand it. In fact its essential simplicity enhances its appeal. Greta can understand it and accept it, and Naomi can understand it and reject it. It’s not as if either girl is being especially stupid or smart.

    • Ian,
      People use to think that the axioms of Euclidan geometry were self-evident until people discovered
      non-euclidan geometry. Now they realise you can chose what axioms you like and still get a perfectly
      valid geometry. Similarly after the discovery of paradox’s like Russell’s set paradox people realised that
      the axioms of set theory are not obvious and again there are any number of equally valid choices that
      lead to different versions of set theory. Godel’s incompleteness theorem also shows that no matter what
      set of axioms you choose there will be true statements that you can’t prove — something which surely defies common sense.

      Also while the constancy of the speed of light has been tested it is still a hypothesis even if it is a very
      well tested one. But there is nothing to say that the next set of measurements won’t find that it is wrong.

      Global warming is complicated. Understanding it requires understanding the basics of quantum mechanics so that you know which molecules absorb and re-radiate. You need to understand thermodynamics so that you know how temperature results in a velocity distribution of molecules in
      the atmosphere. You need to know about fluid dynamics so you can understand convection in the atmosphere etc. If it was simple everybody would agree about it.

      • Global warming is simple. It is political, no science needed. The sooner sceptics realize this the sooner we all get somewhere.

        • You’re a few memes behind there John, Global Warming > Climate Change > Climate Emergency, but yes it is political, and it is hard if not impossible to fight politics with actual science.

  15. I would say from reading your responses, Izaak, that you possess a breadth and sophistication of knowledge that is much beyond mine. I mean, you really have me outclassed here.

    That’s okay. Some people are smarter than me. It’s kind of rude, but you can’t really help it. I’m still pretty good at drinking whisky, and I’m content with that.

    Non Euclidian geometry? What was wrong with Euclidian geometry? Somebody was thinking too much.

    What I suspect is that the mechanics of climate are so complicated that no one can make reliable predictions about climate. I should emphasize that all my doubts about climate change are intuitive. One of my reasons for doubting climate change theory is that I consider it highly unlikely that some solons somewhere can write computer algorithms that can predict the climate of the future, as if there is a real, living function whose dominant variable is the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. At a certain point in climate theory you run into chaotic effects. It’s like Economics. There are just too many variables, and we don’t know what they are, or how they operate. But, as I say, that view is purely intuitive. Like, a guess.

    • Ian:

      What I suspect is that the mechanics of climate are so complicated that no one can make reliable predictions about climate.

      You don’t have to suspect, you can know. The consensus opinion at the IPCC confirms your suspicion as justified, true belief:

      “In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-14.pdf

      Section 14.2.2.2, p. 774

  16. In terms of what Zoe is saying. I spent a lot of time caving in WVA. Caves are cool in the summer and warm in the winter. 55 degrees year around in most caves I ventured into. I have often wondered why all of the energy balance models claim geothermal energy has almost no role in surface temps. It makes no sense to me. How does one justify a view that geothermal plays no role when 100 feet down in a cave it’s 55. Can anyone say with certainty what proportion of ocean heat content comes from geothermal.

    • Thank you, Nelson.

      In their minds, geothermal stops just below the surface (or ocean bottom), and then greenhouse gases take over. The GHGs miraculously deliver exactly as much as geothermal would if it wasn’t stopped.

      They might even say it’s the GHGs that supports what geothermal delivers. If it wasn’t for the GHGs, geothermal would not be that hot. Cold is king and decides to not let hot warm it, and Cold can tell Hot to warm itself up some more. Cold is amazing! Hot just follows along. Hot can’t lead. That’s their thermodynamics.

      Don’t try cooking with these people. They think the top of the pan stays at room temperature, while the bottom increases in temperature beyond what the stove provides … you know to maintain a “steady-state”: stove -> pan, pan -> room. Those -> arrows must equal!

      Sorry for ranting, but these people are so lacking in common sense.

    • “There are a number of ways to attack this poor reasoning, but I’ll try to go with the ones I think are most convincing.

      This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this – and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.
      The author claims “that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas.” Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously – why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million ‘volcanoes’ he cites from a 2007 study, how many were considered active?
      Finally, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.”

      The rest is here:

      http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/deep-sea-volcanoes-and-ocean-warming-reprint

  17. Lord Monckton. You are a classics scholar. Perhaps you should explain the difference between scio and credo.
    As for consensus here are a couple of examples that proved to be wrong.
    1) The neutrino is a massless particle that travels at the speed of light. (Actually, travels at the speed of light implies massless).
    2) Gamma ray bursts were so powerful that they had to come from inside the Milky Way.
    As for peer review look up
    Jan Henrik Schon,

  18. Hello sycomputing and thanks for your reply. A” coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system,” eh? Sounds like a lot of marriages I know.

    I actually have read that IPCC passage on the daunting complexity of climate science, and I was probably unconsciously plagiarizing it when I explained my own doubts about climate theory.

Comments are closed.