How Effective is the “Reposition Global Warming as Theory” Leaked Memos Line? Let me show the ways …

The “reposition global warming” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day, up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply. The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they feel the person has committed a crime, or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed. –Russel Cook.

Reposted from The

As I detailed before in my various blog posts, the supposedly leaked “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memo strategy is worthless-as-evidence to prove Big Oil & Coal executives colluded with skeptic climate scientists to deceive the public about the certainty of man-caused global warming, quite simply because it was an unsolicited proposal to a tiny and very short-lived public relations campaign, and nothing in that proposal was ever implemented within that PR campaign. Or outside of it, for that matter; I have it directly from one of the administrators in that campaign that their copy of the proposal was literally thrown away. Yet somebody else in the circle of people in that campaign thought their own personal copy of the rejected proposal with its awkwardly worded strategy goal attributed to the never-used name proposed to the campaign and its basically illogical audience targeting goals was not only worth saving, but also worth leaking to enviro-activists in 1991, namely the Sierra Club (which otherwise never breathed a word of it to anyone), and to Senator Al Gore.

Meanwhile, I’ve seen individuals (described elsewhere less politely) unquestioningly repeat the “reposition global warming” accusation in religious devotional blog posts and vegetarian blog posts, or as a core part of PhD dissertations; and I’ve seen it casually slipped it into ‘the shipping news,’ and prominently featured on the U.S. Senate floor. The latest regurgitation of it popped up just a couple of weeks ago, in this woeful meme illustration, top right panel:

The artist, who otherwise specializes in “books and cartoons that connect people with the natural world” first offered an apologetic explanation before Tweeting the above meme illustration on December 2nd. While it may be hard to quantify how many people view blog posts or Senate speeches, Twitter shows viewers how big the reaction is to an account holder’s Tweets. In this case right at the time of publication, the artist has experienced over 4,600 shares of it on Twitter, and 10,500+ people indicated their “Like” of it.

And 175 people so far have retweeted it with some kind of commentary attached. There are the predictable ones about evil industry / comparisons to Big Tobacco, along with sadness, glowing praise, links to other pieces enslaved to the same “reposition global warming” line (the fatal faults of which I detailed here), foreign language translation for teaching to students (an action beset with pitfalls when that’s done without question), and so far, at least one veiled threat of violence against the evil-doers behind ‘climate change disinformation.’ One other reply went further, advocating the guillotine for corporate criminals, along with somebody else agreeing with that suggestion, but they aren’t there anymore because they violated Twitter’s policy against advocating of violence or harm to other people.

Regarding the artist’s supposedly damaging quotes intended to evoke sorrow and anger at an industry bent on destroying the planet, they start to quickly fall apart under objective examination. The bottom-most panel quoting a pair of sequential Tweets from Shell Oil simply illustrates the sheer pointless folly of oil companies of trying to appease enviro-activists when no amount of appeasement will ever satisfy them. Put the absolutely identical wording in a tweet from Greenpeace and the meme artist here and all her friends would be surprised if Greenpeace hasn’t already said it, no different than the way the other supposedly devastating “victory will be achieved” memo phrase* associated with her #3 API panel ends up looking like little more than a truism when mirror-flipped for Greenpeace’s own usage*(hold that thought about the Greenpeace-sourced scan page for API memo, it’ll come up again below)

Regarding her fourth panel 2012 quote from then-Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson when he spoke at a 2012 Council on Foreign Relations meeting, same basic problem, compounded by her quote of Tillerson lacking full context. He was fully in favor of mitigating man-caused global warming, which bothered skeptics of the issue when President Trump appointed him five years later as Secretary of State. Enviro-activists should have applauded his obvious lean toward their viewpoint, but instead they missed a golden opportunity to use him as a tool to flip President Trump the way GOP presidential candidate John McCain was flipped to being a global warming believer.

The artist’s top left panel, on the 1977 James Black Report to Exxon concerns a dubious set of claims seen in the majority of current global warming lawsuits which I detailed at some length here, while noting in that post how the Black Report’s predictions were further taken apart here. Exxon knew the polar regions were going to heat up 43 years in the future several degrees hotter than they literally are right now in 2020? Apparently not.

Then there’s her two remaining panels, the one on the 1998 API memo (notice how she chose to not include the words “‘climate change’ becomes a non-issue, meaning that” from the memo – quite a difference from her more sinister-sounding version “Unless the Kyoto proposal is defeated”), which was a memo set otherwise unsolicited and never implemented, in addition to myriad other problems, which ultimately render it worthless as evidence proving oil/coal industry disinformation campaigns exist. And finally, there’s her panel featuring the “reposition global warming” strategy phrase, which is equally worthless as evidence proving any corporate disinformation ever existed anywhere involving collusion between industry execs and skeptic climate scientists to deceive the public.

I could simply leave this situation right there, since this exercise shows once again how the true believers of global warming only offer two sets of very dubious ‘leaked industry memos’ supporting their notions about industry-led disinformation campaigns, and how oblivious that side is to the sheer worthlessness of these memo sets. In this case, I could make an educated guess on where the meme artist sourced her information on those old leaked memos, but that’s all I’d have to offer. To drive home the point on how these memos are themselves part of an ongoing disinformation campaign by a core clique of enviro-activists who apparently swim in dark money, it would be nice to prove it. Unlike some of those instances I mentioned further above of individuals unquestioningly promoting the “reposition global warming” memos, the artist included her direct email address among the publicly seen tweet replies, and it’s on public view at one of her bio pages. So, here’s the inquiry I emailed, verbatim:


I just now spotted your Twitter meme via one of the multitude of retweets of it. Quite impressive how your message is shared!

I know of the 2012 quote from Tillerson at a Council on Foreign Relations interview that the guy at the Wall Street Journal moderated. But I’m wondering which specific source or sources you used for the quotes in your 3 other panels. They are common quotes, I ask because some people say they are from some particular website, unaware that the site is more like a third-hand repeater from the original source. It’s sorta like a genealogy exercise.

She responded in within minutes:

My educated guess turned out to be exactly what I expected. Meanwhile, her opening line exemplifies what’s fatally wrong with the entire ‘crooked climate skeptics’ accusation:

People love to repeat things without investigating the source, and there can be a game of broken telephone that amplifies bad facts!

Which is absolutely, precisely, exactly the blunder she committed when she created her meme illustration.

I, on the other hand, investigated the source of the “reposition global warming” memo set when I re-read it in 2009 at a hobby forum page, before I ever repeated it. Inside of the first day of trying to find the memo set in its full context, I found irreconcilable differences on who was credited with first revealing it to the public, and as I mention in my October 22, 2015 blog post, it took me seven solid months just to find the scans containing that set buried in Greenpeace archive scans which Greenpeace itself never publicized. In subsequent years, got it confirmed in direct conversations with the president and top administrator of that old “Information Council for the Environment” (ICE) PR campaign that they never operated under the “reposition global warming” / “older, less-educated males” / “younger, lower-income women” strategy / targeting memo phrases, and I got it further directly confirmed from the head of the ad agency and its publicist and the three scientists providing their science expertise to the campaign that not a single one of them had ever heard of the ‘strategy / targeting’ guidelines they were supposedly working under. All have expressed surprise to see just how much air time is given to a set of memos that basically nobody saw. On top of that, I got all of that and more independently corroborated by article writer / researcher  Ron Arnold, who directly interviewed more participants of that ICE campaign than I had access to, in his examination of the ‘Naomi Oreskes connection’ to the memo set.

How will the meme artist here, who I’ve labeled without her name as a matter of courtesy, react to all of this, along with the people tweeting glowing support of her work? Consider that she has apparently already deleted replies from critics, and as noted previously, others suggest outright execution for people whose family and friends would dearly miss them after they were killed for association with ‘leaked memo sets’ having zero real world significance, other than as weapons used against them under irrefutably false pretenses.

Would they all realize, and feel deep remorse, about being participants in a real-world variant of the “Ox-Bow Incident”?

Think about it as it applies to the overarching problem Al Gore faced when he first ventured the idea of catastrophic man-caused global warming back in the late 1980s. The late IPCC climate scientist Dr Stephen Schneider identified the problem early on: if the public perceived there was only an unresolved argument between two sides of the science debate, they’d tell Gore and the scientists to go away and report back when they actually resolved it. How do you circumvent debate that undercuts your agenda? Label your opponents as corrupt monsters who need to be killed.

The “reposition global warming” memo phrase is just that effective of a debate killer to this very day, up until the point where a majority of people start examining it deeply. The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they feel the person has committed a crime, or because they could actually prove that any sort of crime was ever committed.

This entry was posted in accusation repetition and tagged Kert Davies by Russell Cook. Bookmark the permalink.

4.9 11 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 19, 2020 6:08 pm

As ever, I can’t thank both Charles the moderator and Anthony Watts enough for their support of my (for lack of a better description) “citizen journalism.” Don’t hold your breath on the mainstream media ever telling the public about all the fatal faults with Al Gore’s / Naomi Oreskes’ / Ross Gelbspan’s ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation.

Reply to  Russell Cook
December 19, 2020 9:16 pm

Thank YOU for your efforts in the work you post here and elsewhere.

I remember your postings at my old climate forum, some of it still visible in the wayback machine.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 20, 2020 10:22 am

Speaking of your old archive links, I specifically used one of those toward the end of my Dec 5 blog post about the PBS ‘Publicity Editor.’

December 19, 2020 6:45 pm

So people don’t like evil greedy corporations. How about evil greedy individuals. Al Gore became rich by promoting low CO2 footprint companies. <a href=””>link</a> It’s like yelling ‘fire’ and selling fire extinguishers to the idiots who believe there must be a fire somewhere. It’s akin to <a href=””>short and distort</a> and pump-and-dump. It’s illegal.

Reply to  commieBob
December 19, 2020 6:50 pm


So people don’t like evil greedy corporations. How about evil greedy individuals. Al Gore became rich by promoting low CO2 footprint companies. It’s like yelling ‘fire’ and selling fire extinguishers to the idiots who believe there must be a fire somewhere. It’s akin to short-and-distort and pump-and-dump. It’s illegal.


December 19, 2020 6:48 pm

One day, if they concentrate really hard at data manipulation and fabrication,

…. they MAY be able to present “Anthropogenic Global Warming” as a theory…..

…. rather than as a baseless, non-science, fantasy conjecture.

David Kamakaris
December 19, 2020 6:54 pm

Global warming is not and never has been a theory. It is and always has been a hypothesis totally incapable of withstanding honest scientific scrutiny. Thus, as per the Scientific Method, that hypothesis needs to either be revised or totally discarded. I recommend the latter.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 19, 2020 9:36 pm

Basically the null hypothesis is still standing strong. Nearly all of the warming occurring in the 20th Century was before 1940 when CO2 wasn’t a consideration. The warming from the Little Ice Age to 1940 was therefore nearly all a product of natural variation.

World population in 1900 was 1.7B, a 5th of todays pop and industrial activity was l
a few percent of today’s in the world. In 1940, pop was ~2.26 B, <30% of today's and industrial production was stil largely concentrated in the West. IPCC itself reported that CO2 wasn't a factor in warming until after 1950. Indeed concern by the scientific community in the late 40s to late 70s was the deep cooling "Ice Age Cometh" reported in Newsweek in 1975 and newspapers around the world and Nimoy's scary documentary

When the very strong El Nino in 1998 failed to set a new global record, that's when the Climate Wroughters went into drastic action. They systematically pushed the 30s-40s temperatures down 0.5C. This also caused the steep cooling to be adjusted out of existence -they couldn't have 35yrs of cooling while CO2 was galloping upwards! And Nature always contrary, then hit with an 18yr warming hiatus. Projected warming with 95% confidence turned out to be 300% too warm compared to observations! The Climate Wroughters, the real "man-made global warming team" changed the game wholesale by moving the goalposts from a 1950 datum to 1850(!) to incorporate to claim the 0.6C warming that had occurred coming out of the LIA and adding on another 0.9C for 1950-2100 to give us the threshold 1.5C that we mustn't exceed. In other words warming on the same recovery track of the warming of of the LIA. The 3C° massive over estimate we were promised by 2020 was shifted to 2100.

Don't expect the Wroughters to adjust the hypothesis. Data adjusting has served well.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
December 20, 2020 6:37 am

In further support of the Null theory is the fact that even with all the warming of the last 150 years, the planet still hasn’t reached the temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period, which was cooler than the Roman Warm Period, which was cooler than the Minoan Warm Period, which was cooler than the Egyptian Warm Period and all of which were cooler than the bulk of the last 10,000 years.

Until they explain why the average temperature for the Holocene Optimum was 3 to 5C warmer than it is today, while CO2 levels were lower, they can’t claim that the current warming MUST be caused by CO2.

Reply to  MarkW
December 31, 2020 3:50 am

One doesn’t even have to go back that far. Between 1940 and 1980 there was a clear Global cooling signal, at a time of rapidly increasing CO2. The big panic of the 1970’s was actually about an impending Ice Age. I remember it very clearly, yet the Warmunists have done their best to persuade us that this never happened.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
December 19, 2020 9:50 pm

The proposition is that without greenhouse gases, something like Earth at 1 AU from our
Sun would have average temperature of about -18 C.
What would something like Earth at 1 AU from our Sun with average temperature of -18 C
look like?
If something like Earth had an ocean like Earth, it would have water vapor.
Mars has global average of 210 ppm of water vapor and lacks an ocean like earth’s ocean.
And Mars is quite dry.
So, something like Earth but drier than Mars, and had average temperature of -18 C, what would look like.
It would have cold nights and much colder regions outside of the tropics- if put CO2 in atmosphere, it should freeze out at poles. What happen if put frozen water ice at the poles, they would evaporate, unless poles are kept below -150 C. And in the winter the poles could colder than -150 C- but not in summer.
Say polar region averages around -100 C. Gets colder than -150 C in winter and maybe air warms to -20 C during summer.
Our polar regions don’t get much sunlight {and if cloudy even less}. Same amount daylight on average but sun is stays closer to horizon and sunlight is weaker because sunlight at low angle passes thru more atmosphere, plus sunlight spreads over more surface area due to low angle of Sun. And our tropics has a sun that spend more time closer to zenith.
Or as commonly said, the tropics {40% of entire surface} gets more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching Earth.
So polar average could be -100 C and tropics might average around 10 C but such dry planet would have extreme variations in temperature and extreme weather.
Nearer the tropics one could have hotter days then we have had {due to changing weather}, and it could get quite cold in some regions at some time in the tropics {due to changing weather}.
Anyhow it {the water less world} could be around -18 C, but it’s about like trying to predict the global average wind speed. And that could average around 18 mph in such an unlikely world as a world without water.

What determines global average surface air temperature is the ocean.
The ocean surface covers 70% of the planet and it averages about 17 C and the 30% which is land, averages about 10 C.
And entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
Or as they say, about 90% of our ocean is 3 C or colder- and this cold ocean means we are in an Ice Age.
If the ocean was instead, 3 C, we would have left the Holocene interglacial period.
If it was 4 C we would living in a warmer time period of interglacial period

Reply to  gbaikie
December 20, 2020 8:11 am

It’s not just GHG’s but more importantly, clouds. Both capture surface energy and re-radiate it back the surface in order to offset more surface emissions than could be emitted otherwise. In addition, in order to get the warming, you can’t avoid the cooling caused by the reflection by clouds and to a lesser extent surface ice and snow. The liquid and solid water in clouds accounts for more energy radiated back to the surface than all GHG’s combined, including water vapor.

If the Earth had no atmosphere or water, its albedo would be .1, like the Moon, and the corresponding average temperature would be about -1.5C and not -18C. You can’t have the warming by GHG’s and clouds without the corresponding cooling from reflection.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 20, 2020 9:45 am

“If the Earth had no atmosphere or water, its albedo would be .1, like the Moon, and the corresponding average temperature would be about -1.5C and not -18C. “

If the earth had no atmosphere, when the sun was near zenith the ground surface would be about 120 C, and before the sun set, the ground would cool down quite a bit. With Moon with slow rotation, the ground around 0 C.
What might interesting is if Earth had ocean but none of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon gases.
The ocean surface when sun zenith would not any near 120 C and it would have atmosphere of water vapor.

It seems that it would absorb more energy than Earth does.
It seems the -18 C number is based upon how energy the planet absorbs and thereby emits. This is dumb, and it not applied to any other planet.
I would bet no one knows how much sunlight the Moon absorbs.
{answer very little}
Everyone knows Venus absorbs very little sunlight {and emits far less than Earth}. And idiots think it’s because of CO2.
Some are saying Venus acid clouds are greenhouse gas.
And most assume Earth clouds are greenhouse gases.
Neither are gases.

Reply to  gbaikie
December 20, 2020 10:03 am

Venus at Earth distance, I would guess would have lower average than Mars. Earth at Venus distance, would be warmer. Earth would not be in an Ice Age, but it would not be like Venus, despite having twice the sunlight. And Earth could be Mercury distance and still not have it’s ocean boiling.

Reply to  gbaikie
December 20, 2020 12:08 pm

Even more interesting would be to note how the AVERAGE temperature calculated from the AVERAGE emissions at TOA based on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law would change (or not) between an Earth with no atmosphere or water and an Earth with no GHG’s or water and a 1 ATM atmosphere (or 100 ATM for that matter) of N2, O2 and Ar.

Hint: N2, O2 and Ar are nearly completely transparent to both the incoming solar energy and the LWIR emitted by the surface independent of the atmospheric pressure.

Reply to  gbaikie
December 20, 2020 12:25 pm

Starting with an Earth with 100 ATM of transparent gases whose average temperature is the same as if there was no atmosphere at all, add a layer of clouds that completely envelopes the planet and are so dense that no sunlight reaches the surface, now what happens to the surface temperature whose only source of energy is radiation coming down from relatively cold clouds?

When the clouds, rather than the surface, are in direct equilibrium with the Sun, the surface temperature becomes a strict function of the cloud temperatures and the PVT profile of the compressed gas between the clouds and the surface. Now we have a Venus like planet without any CO2!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
December 20, 2020 7:08 pm

“…now what happens to the surface temperature whose only source of energy is radiation coming down from relatively cold clouds?”
At earth distance, without the clouds, hardly sunlight reaches the surface thru “transparent” 100 ATM atmosphere and with the clouds, close to none.
It similar to Venus at venus distance, but sunlight twice as intense and indirect and fairly bright sunlight reaches the surface when sun in somewhere close to zenith {say 45 degrees above horizon or higher].
Anyhow Earth distance with or without clouds {any kind of clouds} would be very cold and you would very dense atmosphere and would be cold like cold water is cold- 10 C water killing humans in less than hour cold. And anything air cooled is cooled a lot better than 1 atm cold air. Powerplant could cooled with air rather than using water.
Other than being cold it would good place for sky cities which could get more sunlight. And mountains should get significantly
more sunlight than bottom of dense “ocean” of cold air. And you would have a very uniform air temperature, unlike the 1 atm earth air. And if had ocean it could be frozen, but you have geothermal heat from more 75% of volcanic activity at ocean floor- so there would be some liquid ocean. Could vast caverns at ocean floor which may not the vast pressure that more than mile ice is supporting {like solid rock could}. Vast being a mile in diameter- frozen ice could not support something like hundred miles in span. Though possible the surface ice as acts pressure vessel- also.
100 atm is 1470 psi:
1000 psi at 30 F is 89.70 kg per cubic meter, so somewhere around 1/10th the density of water.
If remove ocean water and replace with this dense air, that would be interesting, but I think it would still quite cold, but have sunlight on the land continents. And land continent air would warm the ocean of air.
Or with Earth, our ocean warms the land continents. Particularly the tropical ocean warms the world- both atmospheically and for example tropical ocean heat flows to Europe {gulf stream}.
In tropics 80% area is ocean, in our 100 atm world if was more land area in tropical zone, say 40%, the world could be warmer.

Reply to  gbaikie
December 21, 2020 10:17 am

Oh, didn’t answer question, the radiating energy from clouds is not significant. But clouds evaporate and condense {constantly} and they evaporate in term net quality more or less. And matters what temperature they are heated to when they evaporate.
Obviously one can regard evaporation as “cooling process” it cools what it evaporated from. So with surface of water, it cools when evaporating but temperature surface determine how warn the gas created, is.
And it when condenses, it is the reverse and balances heat. So if cloud is cooling it condenses more, if heated evaporate more and clouds also has has melting and freezing.
So clouds are roughly temperature of air they are in, and sunlight they melt and evaporate {and H20 evaporates when frozen}.
Clouds on Earth don’t need sunlight to maintain a temperature- or keep the surface air from getting cold- they prevent higher elevation air from becoming colder- they have to freeze first before the lower surface air can freeze.
One think of clouds and means of transporting heat and transporting heat to colder regions is global warming- global warming is largely about warming polar regions. If you make Earth have a more uniform temperature is have made “global warming”.
A 100 Atm atmosphere doesn’t have “the problem” of uniform global temperature and how makes any clouds seems like detail one has to work out.
But if clouds sunlight can evaporate them, sunlight generating gas at higher elevation, and if just making gas at same temperature surrounding air temperature it will fall and higher air temperature at the surface. This also applies to land surface, if generating that surface is warmer air at higher elevation, when it falls it is warmer air at a lower elevation.
Or one can say one only some amount of air at higher elevation and gravity insures it stays that way.
Anyhow clouds are not surface that warms up much, due to reflective nature. But with Venus acid clouds are less reflective than water clouds, one has very intense sunlight, acid boils/evaporates at higher temperature, and 50 km up.
And if Venus was cooler, atmosphere would not be as high.
One a number of runaway effects. But the intense sunlight should not be ignored.

Reply to  gbaikie
January 1, 2021 9:44 am

“… the radiating energy from clouds is not significant.”

You’re kidding, right? At TOA the emissions above clouds are almost exclusively from the matter comprising those clouds while direct ratiation from the surface is significantly reduced, and in the case of Venus, to near zero. Relative to the surface, there’s no physics to override the isotropic thermal radiation by clouds.

BTW, the idea of runaway GHG is completely wrong since the feedback analysis supporting it was horribly misapplied to the Earth and by extension, to Venus as a self serving circular argument to support the incorrectly applied analysis.

Runaway GHG feedback sounds scary, right? This is the point with the goal of influencing those who are ignorant of science. Why is it that people incorrectly fear CO2 emissions while ignoring real risks with a finite probability of occurring, for example, super volcanoes and impact events?

Chris Hanley
December 19, 2020 7:15 pm

Regardless of whether the quotes are genuine or not, global warming due to human CO2 emissions was a theory back in 1991 and remains so: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950 …”(IPCC AR5 2014).
That is not a scientific axiom but a statement of likelihood; a fact is ‘a thing that is known or proved to be true’ (Oxford).
As for the imagery one could patiently point out to Rosemary that the an analysis of global data related to wildfire, published by the Royal Society (2016) found (inter alia):
# global area burned has seen an overall slight decline over past decades, despite some notable regional increases. Currently, around 4% of the global land surface is affected by vegetation fires each year.
# there is increasing evidence that there is less fire in the global landscape today than centuries ago.
# direct fatalities from fire and economic losses also show no clear trends over the past three decades.
(Doerr, Santín: Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world, 2016).
One could, but it would be a complete waste of time.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 19, 2020 8:08 pm

Actually it is at best an hypothesis trying relentlessly to get to that magic theory position.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 19, 2020 8:13 pm

[catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate cooling… warming… change is a scientific hypothesis, and a political, quasi-religious (“ethical”) axiom.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 19, 2020 8:59 pm

The so-called “Greenhouse Effect” is utter rubbish. It should have been condemned to the scrap heap of dumb ideas at least 3 decades ago. The fact that it survives is testament to the way politically sourced money has corrupted science; worse than anything the RC church could have dreamt up at the peak of its empire.

Earth’s sea surface temperature is controlled between two hard limits, both related to the formation of ice. They provide powerful control over the energy balance to maintain those temperatures. No tiny amount of CO2 is going to have any impact on the thermostat.

Reply to  RickWill
December 19, 2020 10:52 pm

It’s an observed effect in the lab. Despite our inability to measure its efficacy (e.g. vector, transport, activity) in the wild, it’s a plausible model that should have filled in the missing links.

Reply to  n.n
December 20, 2020 8:37 am

n.n please provide where I can find lab experiments that show this warming effect. Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment shows just the opposite.

Reply to  mkelly
December 20, 2020 11:23 am

It really is amazing how many time bad information gets repeated by those who refuse to examine closely anything they agree with.

It was not Anthony’s jar experiment. It was Bill Nye’s jar experiment. Anthony’s only involvement was to show that the experiment was so poorly designed that it was impossible for it to show anything.

Reply to  MarkW
December 20, 2020 4:28 pm

MarkW, Anthony replicated Bill Nye’s experiment and showed that Bill’s was bogus, but also got the opposite result. Anthony showed that adding CO2 did not cause warming.

You can call it Bill Nye’s if you wish but I will call it Anthony’s because it had a different result.

Reply to  RickWill
December 19, 2020 10:53 pm

well don’t rubbish the idea yet!
You NEED to understand this to put up an intelligent argument against doomsters….O2 and N2 are transparent to IR….so if there was only N2 and O2 in the atmosphere, if you took your laser sighted IR thermometer and pointed it at the night sky, it would read a crispy cold -270 C, the temperature of outer space. When you add a few molecules of radiative gas to the atmosphere, those molecules are the same temperature as the atmosphere around them, and your upward pointing IR thermometer is going to start showing you closer and closer to the temperature of “the sky” as you add more radiative gas molecules.

Of course $40 IR guns aren’t really accurate enough for this job, but are still thought provoking. The temperature of the sky goes into the Stephan Boltzmann equation and you find the temperature of the surface required to radiate the Sun’s daily heat back into outer space WILL stay warmer overnight due to the increased sky temperature that the surface “sees”.

At top of troposphere, only 12km up, water content of the N2/CO2 is only about 20 ppm while CO2 is 400 ppm, up from 280 ppm circa 1850. The current state of the CO2 content in the atmosphere is such that adding 100 ppm more CO2 to the existing 400 ppm should cause some temperature increase at the surface due to lapse rate from altitudes where CO2 and water content used to be the same, but since 1850 there is a little more CO2 heat absorption.

This is if you do line-by-line calcs with something like Hitran. But, each subsequent 100 ppm addition adds less temperature. Its really is, practically speaking, difficult for humanity to add enough CO2 to the atmosphere to get to say a 4C increase that is sometimes mentioned in the media. The reason is that 4C is 1.6% warmer on the absolute scale…Earth would radiate 6.4% more heat which is more than the additional CO2 can absorb and reradiate. It would take multiple times the current CO2 level. Have your friends play with the online version of Modtran for a while. They should come to the conclusion that global heating is exaggerated, but a little CO2 warming is likely.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
December 20, 2020 11:45 am

“When you add a few molecules of radiative gas to the atmosphere, those molecules are the same temperature as the atmosphere around them, and your upward pointing IR thermometer is going to start showing you closer and closer to the temperature of “the sky” as you add more radiative gas molecules.”

A few molecules dust will also glow in the sky, should we care if few molecule glow in the sky, we have a few brightly glowing molecule in our thermosphere, and does not seem to matter.
No one cares if there a few glowing molecules in a room, why does matter if it’s miles up.
Within our troposphere convectively heat transfers dominate and explains the troposphere, radiate process does not explain our troposphere.
Our troposphere is about more molecules than stars in the universe traveling velocity faster than a bullet within a gravity well. Or it’s kinetic energy that determines the temperature of gas. And if only had billions of molecule in a cubic meter, the gas doesn’t have temperature, or similar to space itself, which has no temperature- it’s not hot or cold. Or thermosphere is very hot in terms of the glowing billions molecules, but the air has no temperature- it {the thin air} does warm or cool anything.
And roughly 1/2 Earth atmospheric mass is within about 5 km up.
If one magically dial gravity up and down, the 1/2 mass goes higher and lower. And if heat 1/2 mass atmosphere, it goes up, and cool it, it goes down.

But the important thing, is we in an icehouse climate, also known as Ice Age.
And we cold because the entire ocean is cold.
And Earth has been in what called a greenhouse or hothouse global climate, and gets such a climate by having a warm ocean. Say 10 C or warmer, and currently we at about 3.5 C.
And energy of increasing ocean by 1 C, is same energy of molecule more amount stars in universe becoming 1000 K hotter, or equal to having 2000 times more air traveling as fast as our 1 atm of air does. Either way, the surface air would be very hot, but ocean with average temperature of 4.5 doesn’t make it hot, but it make the air much less cold in terms an average.
Or we in Ice Age, and have a lot cold air outside of the tropics.
Or Canada average surface air temperature is about – 3 C, a warmer ocean will increase Canada’s average air temperature because 4.5 C, is warmer than -3 C. And would do more warming in terms extreme cold temperatures in Canada which would otherwise occur with a colder ocean.
Anyhow, they say 90% of global warming warms the 3.5 C ocean, but they tend not say it would require centuries of “vast amounts of global warming”
to warm ocean to 4.5 C.
And during the millions of years of icehouse climate, it’s probably had ocean which was about 4.5 C, and during such times, Earth was more habitable.
Less frozen tundra and less deserts in general. Lot’s of a trees, more grassland, also current grasslands invaded by forests.
Or as they say, human evolved in Africa when grassland increased {and forests decreased}. Human evolved in an Ice Age, and in last 1/2 million years that Ice Age has become cooler- the ocean has become cooler.

December 19, 2020 7:33 pm

On the subject of sun climate interaction.

Please notice the ssn spike of almost 80 days after the jupiter/saturn/Sun alignment early in november. Ssn now back to zero

Just a heads up….

Reply to  Devils_Tower
December 20, 2020 6:39 am

The Jupiter/Saturn alignment is occurring right about now.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  MarkW
December 20, 2020 3:56 pm

No, that is the visual alignment of Saturn and Jupiter as seen from earth

Not alignment of them with sun

And I have idea if any of it changes the price of rice in China

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
December 22, 2020 3:50 am

Go out and have a look. They are near the western horizon just after sunset. That means they are very close to being in alignment with the Sun. (Earth is currently on the opposite side of the Sun to Jupiter and Saturn)

December 19, 2020 10:38 pm

Several comments herein have made the same correct point: CAGW is a hypothesis; and in reality it is a failed hypo, disproved many times.


Digging deeper, CAGW is not just a failed hypo, it is a fraud – a scary falsehood concocted by extremists to sell their Marxist agenda – wolves stampeding the sheep.

The CAGW hypo has always been false. By 2009 I wrote that there must be a covert agenda – no rational person could be this intractably stupid for this long. The warmists’ routine use of Lenin/Goebbels/Alinsky propaganda tactics was another clear giveaway.

Then along came the Covid-19 scare, and the full-Gulag lockdown for an alleged “pandemic” that wasn’t – Covid-19 is actually less dangerous to the general populace than many seasonal flu’s of recent decades, flu’s that nobody remembers – Covid-19 is only dangerous to the very elderly and infirm. The Covid-19 lockdown was another political fraud that did enormous harm to humanity and the economy.

Another giveaway was the chorus of prominent leftists bleating the same imbecilic message – linking the global warming scam with the Covid-19 lockdown fraud – saying “To solve Covid-19 we must solve climate change” and similar irrational drivel.

The final giveaway of the extremist agenda was their “Final Solution” to all these global false crises, the “Great Reset”. For those who had any doubts, the Great Reset is the overthrow of the capitalist economic system and its replacement by the Marxist command economy, the totalitarian Chinese Communist model, actually a few wealthy Princes at the top looking down on all the poor peasants.

Sky News exposes the “Great Reset” the latest wild scheme from the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Listen to assorted lunatic villains straight out of a James Bond film tell us how we have to abandon capitalism in favor of Marxism, the greatest political disaster of the 20th Century, where countries like Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China killed ~200 million of their own citizens “to maintain order and control the masses”. Neo-Marxists tell us “It will be different this time. No, it won’t!

Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, plays the part of “Doctor Evil”, straight out of Austin Powers, but Schwab sounds even more loony. Get the popcorn and enjoy the movie.

December 20, 2020 12:04 pm

Earth is under populated. Let’s not forget the Left wants there to be billions of less people on Earth. In comparison US is more under populated then some other nations- so guess where the racist lefties want remove humans?
They need global control to do this, and they are desperate to lower the population of humans on Earth {as they feel/emote their very existence depends upon China like population control- though it’s actual power over others which drives them, as they demonstrate all the time- such as closing restaurants and they go to restaurants].

Reply to  gbaikie
December 22, 2020 4:12 am

Hi gbaikie,

You are correct – ” the Left wants there to be billions of less people on Earth.”

While a gradual. humane reduction of global  population might be advisable over a long time, the way the left approach the question is destructive and cruel. By destroying functional energy systems, a core part of the left’s agenda, there is likely to be a series of disastrous events in which large numbers of innocent humans die horrific painful deaths. The left seem to not care about this probable holocaust – “their end always justifies their means”, or “to make and omelet you’ve got to break eggs”.

I suggest that the left “lead by example”. Let them “off themselves” in a series of large demonstration events, à la Jonestown. This act will not only satisfy the radical left’s primary objective – reducing Earth’s human population – but it will also improve the intellectual strength of the gene pool by eliminating the truly imbecilic.

The political left has always achieved (their version of) success by appealing to people of less-than-average intelligence and accomplishment. George Carlin explained humanity thus: “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

(sarc, maybe)

December 22, 2020 5:40 am

I wrote here:
By destroying functional energy systems, a core part of the left’s agenda, there is likely to be a series of disastrous events in which large numbers of innocent humans die horrific painful deaths. The left seem to not care about this probable holocaust – “their end always justifies their means”, or “to make an omelet you’ve got to break eggs”.

Let me explain my concern:

My co-authors and I published in 2002 the following now-verified facts:



I also published in 2002, one year before Theodor Landscheidt’s famous global cooling prediction:

I later suggested that this cooling should start about 2020, The end of very-weak Solar Cycle 24 and the strong cooling of the Equatorial Pacific SST’s suggest some global cooling is imminent. I’d rather be wrong about #3 – humanity suffers during cold periods.

Repeating, from my comment published circa 2013 and now extended to the USA, Canada, etc. IF we also sabotage our energy systems with intermittent green energy nonsense:
and formerly at

Here is my concern:

IF the Sun does indeed drive temperature, as I suspect, then successive governments in Britain and continental Europe have brewed the perfect storm.

They have crippled their energy systems with excessive reliance on ineffective grid-connected wind power schemes.

I suggest that global cooling probably WILL happen within the next decade or sooner, and Europe will get colder, possibly much colder.

I suggest that Winter deaths will increase in the Europe as cooling progresses.

I suggest that Excess Winter Mortality rates will provide an estimate of this unfolding tragedy.

As always in these matters, I hope to be wrong. These are not numbers, they are real people, who “loved and were loved”.

Best regards to all, Allan MacRae

December 19, 2020 11:11 pm

Great logical and methodical dissection of the meme, but for naught: you’re preaching to the choir and the dark side thinks it’s perfectly alright to lie – after all they think it’s perfectly alright to kill innocent babies in the womb if they’re inconvenient so what’s the big deal about a lie if it gets them what they want from the useful idiots. To tell you the truth it was a very good essay, I’m just melancholy – fearing for our world when we have the means to perfect it, make it a peaceful paradise – but the snakes are about, the fascists and the commmunists trying to stir up trouble, spreading their lies to the gullible saps who end up giving up their freedoms and the fruits of their hard work to people who don’t care a rat’s ass about them or the environment.

Climate believer
Reply to  PCman999
December 20, 2020 8:56 am

Great logical and methodical dissection of the meme, but for naught: you’re preaching to the choir and the dark side thinks it’s perfectly alright to lie.

I don’t think the Twitteratti are bothered about truth, it’s a very divisive platform.

December 20, 2020 12:23 am

The method I am employing is to break the ‘settled science’ propaganda, most specifically with political circles sold on the narrative and instigating costly policies based on a total lack of burden of proof. By this measure, I have been contacting UK Government Departments (including the Committee on Climate Change), and asked them to provide the scientific method or to provide the evidence for the closure problem in regard to models. You can see the ignorance of their replies in this video:

Whilst I have asked the same questions to the UN, IPCC, WEF and persons like Michael Mann, I am now conducting this one more time to the central office and all working groups of the IPCC, for more specific written response evidence, and as I know they cannot answer that which they do not have, this provides a tool demand that all policies being forced upon an ignorant public be ended immediately, and whereby the supposed evidence that was provided to me by the CCC be shown to be the utter nonsense it really is.

This method should then result in the beginnings of at least reclaiming the language from guff like ‘settled science’, and ‘consensus’ etc. and shine a new light to the wider public the extent of lies this ideology is responsible for.

December 20, 2020 1:11 am

Russell, how is your complaint to the BBC on this very topic going?

Reply to  Charlie
December 20, 2020 9:54 am

Glad you remembered and asked. Back in early October, BBC Complaints Team’s direct email to me from Lisa Pigott pointed to the lamest of retractions on their podcast website page regarding how the guest they interviewed blatantly misspoke. The ‘retraction’ was not exactly in plain sight for all to see, as I detailed here. I wrote back immediately to say that the elemental error in the program was the assertion that the “reposition global warming” leaked memo set was presented as if it was a guiding operative for disinformation campaigns, which I asserted it was absolutely not, and I suggested they could independently corroborate my claim via their own investigators. On November 24th, I got an automatic email from the BBC complaint office saying that they were unable to respond in a timely manner to my official case (CAS-6241179-K0Y8J5) due to their high workload of other cases, but were basically still working on it. Who knows if that is a good sign or not that I’ve pointed out how they are in an indefensible position if they themselves did the exact kind of investigation that I suggested.

Reply to  Russell Cook
December 22, 2020 7:27 am

Thank you, Russell. The BBC always try to wear down complainants. If the facts are on your side, in the end you will win a proper retraction.

Reply to  Charlie
December 22, 2020 9:06 am

And I thank you for your interest! Regarding the “proper retraction” you mention, I assert there are more than enough facts available to prove that the “reposition global warming” set of memos proposed to the Information Council for the Environment PR campaign were rejected (including the never-used “Informed Citizens for the Environment” name that the BBC mentions in its current lame ‘retraction’), and was never implement, but was instead maliciously flipped by individuals (who should have thrown away their memo set copies) to use as a weapon to discredit skeptic climate scientists. My complaint also asserts the same regarding the 1998 “victory will be achieved” memo set. If the BBC actually did offer a proper retraction to my official complaint, it would be to admit that the entire premise of that BBC Radio 4 Episode 6 podcast based on the claims made by ex-Greenpeacer Kert Davies about industry-orchestrated disinformation campaigns were unsupportable by the ‘evidence’ of those memos. That retraction/admission by a major news outlet would have huge ramifications here, since the majority of the “ExxonKnew”-style AGW lawsuits in the U.S. are enslaved to those same two sets of worthless memos, and it would potentially kill the legacy of what I term the Gore-Oreskes-Gelbspan-“Greenpeace USA née Ozone Action” legacy. I’m not holding my breath for a proper retraction from the BBC, more likely they will try to ignore me to death. If I don’t hear anything from them by the second week in January, I’ll send them a reminder on doing their own independent investigation to determine if what I say has no merit.

Peta of Newark
December 20, 2020 2:35 am

“” The question for the meme illustration artist here and for her friends is if they would execute somebody because they feel the person has committed a crime,””

Happens in real life ##
Happened to me about 8 weeks ago.

Me and my young autistic friend had been visiting a local, council run, children’s playground.
We we went most evenings, after her school when the weather was nice.

She didn’t go there to play, she went to socialise. To meet new people who didn’t take the piss out of her and *endlessly* repeat all the things that were ‘wrong’ with her.
As almost everyone in her existing circle did, especially the (haha) ‘adults’

(From now on, be a bit careful what you say about Greta. OK?)

She’d made lots of friends, mostly immigrants from Poland. It was *very* noticeable.
her and I chatted with them, petted their kids and dogs and it was lovely, friendly and happy.

On the day of her Grandfather’s funeral and the day after her 8th birthday we visited the park. Not many of heryoung friends were there so she ventured across to the skateboarding area where ther was a large-ish group of 15 & 16 yr old English kids.

I’d been chatting a fellow I knew (from the park) and suddenly noticed Sara was sitting alone on a low wall, looking a bit sad.
I went straight over. She insisted she was OK but as I got there, the gang of kids came over and surrounded us.
Then began a barrage of questions, pretty much same one repeated over and over by increasing angry young females. They confused and frightened Sara and from that, concluded that I was in the process of abducting her.
In fact they wanted to ‘Walk her home’

As soon as that became apparent it was obvious to me that *nothing* I said was going to help or defuse their anger so me and Sara walked hand-in-hand back to my car – about 75 yards away.
They followed and Sara repeatedly turned round to scream at them “Please Go Away”

We got into my car and after a struggle managed to get the doors locked as they surrounded it and stopped us leaving.
All the while (in my phone-camera video) they hammered and banged while one or more of the boys tried to break the glass on the passenger side where Sara was sitting.

At some point a guy on a push-bike looked in the passenger window to demand what *I* was doing. wasn’t it obvious?
Anyway, that abated the attack a little and I took the moment to drive away.
After a half mile I stopped outside a busy pizza take-away and called 999 on my phone.
Dead silence for over a minute.
Drove on a bit further and tried again.
Another minute silence
Went straight back to her parents, 20 mins drive with her sobbing & crying half way until she fell asleep
Recounting the tale over the next few days (in the Wetherspoon where I get my coffee fix), folks just looked at me like I was dumb. How could I *possibly* NOT know what an intimidating and frightening place that park/playground becomes when evening falls?

And that playground was/is less than 300 yards from a *very* large Police Station AND the headquarters of the Local Authority
Holy cow, what *are* they doing in there?

And *THAT* is part the reason why I will assert that, as a civilisation, we really are in some very deep shit right now.
Climate Change, Electric Cars, Kids with Asthma is a distraction, for themselves.
An attempt to show how much they ‘care’ and make out that they are ‘Really Important people doing Really Important Things’ while the place all around them turns into a real life Lord of the Flies

What’s Covid *actually* all about..
Who *are* The Deniers?

And what or who gave those kids the right to behave like that? What the hell are they going to become if/when they grow up?

## As I will often assert: “Show me pictures or it didn’t happen”
The (very shonky but you’ll get the idea) video I shot during the event is up on Dropbox, but I’ll save you. For now. Maybe.

Bruce Cobb
December 20, 2020 4:31 am

The Warmunists, aka the Climate Liars, are of course serial repositionists, and have had the MSM, and both GOs and NGOs as mouthpieces for their climate propaganda for decades. They laughably try to reposition themselves, part of the massive Climatist industry or the “Green Blob” as victims, in order to stir up anger and hatred towards those who dare to go against the green orthodoxy.

December 20, 2020 5:57 am

“Climate change” is EMOTIONAL PROPAGANDA, not science. Until we acknowledge this reality and fight back with the same, we lose. It’s okay to present the science, but the EMOTIONAL component is how you steal the players from the other team. I realize scientists hate this reality, but if you want to be heard, first you have to grab a person’s emotions, not the brain they may or may not be aware they have. People have lived on emotions for most of the history of humans. You will not win presenting science alone. It just won’t happen.

Reply to  Sheri
December 21, 2020 9:26 am

Technically, my guest piece here is on the way a person can target the emotional response of AGW true believers when it comes to their realization that it is THEY who don’t follow their own advice on gathering all the facts. And — true — AGWers fully believe they must win via pure emotion. I covered that revelation in a blog post that used a direct quote from an AGW ‘scientist’: People Respond to Emotions, They Don’t Respond to Facts.

December 20, 2020 6:25 am

Calling a theory, a theory.
How scandalous

Reply to  MarkW
December 20, 2020 10:06 am

Keep in mind, however, that the AGW promulgators claim it is far beyond theory and is now established fact, and accuse fossil fuel execs of colluding with “shill” skeptic climate scientists (who supposedly otherwise know it to be fact) to deceive the public into thinking it’s just a theory. Gore-Oreskes-Gelbspan have one — and only — one bit of truly viable ‘evidence’ for that accusation, and it’s that set of unsolicited / never implemented “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” memos. If that trio and others directly associated with them knew those memos were worthless but maliciously used them anyway for their accusation, they may have committed one of the biggest acts of libel/slander in history.

December 20, 2020 6:32 am

Another example of how groundless lies take on a life of their own.

One common factor between these two myths is that it is progressives that are spreading them.

George Daddis
December 20, 2020 6:54 am

Sadly, it is my opinion that today NARRATIVE trumps data.
We see this over and over in politics, race relations, and of course “Climate”.
“We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!”

Another Joe
December 20, 2020 8:52 pm

So in essence the oil industry is part of the fabrication, that a hypothesis with apparent major flaws was lifted to the status of a theory?

No wonder it gained that much traction, with potentially millions of dollars that have gone into the climate scam!

Tombstone Gabby
December 20, 2020 10:43 pm

Carbon Dioxide in 1977?

Excerpt from a book review, New York Times, 1976.

“The Genesis Strategy” (By Stephen Schneider)

By Deborah Shapley July 18, 1976


“There is little food stored to cushion the shock of the kinds of weather problems that so suddenly and unexpectedly damaged crops in 1972, 1974 and 1975, and there is growing evidence that such damaging weather may occur more frequently in the next decade than in the last one.

So writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy”. 

It is a matter, as Schneider explains, of statistics. The last 15,000 years have been unusually warm when compared to global temperatures for the last 150,000. The last 200 years have been unusually warm when compared to the last 1,000. But there is considerable evidence that this warm period is passing and that temperatures on the whole will get colder. For example, in the last 100 years mid‐latitude air temperatures peaked at an all‐time warm point in the 1940’s and‐have been cooling ever since.

Climatologists cannot predict what temperatures we will experience in 1984 (just as an insurance executive cannot predict when john doe will die). But they can predict what temperature averages and extremes to expect over the next 10, 20, or 30 years (just as the insurance executive can say how many American males will die between now and December). And they are predicting greater fluctuations, and a cooling trend for the northern hemisphere.”

End quote.

We’re talking 45 years ago, and there was a “consensus of the climatological community” – that the earth (OK, NH) is cooling.

John the Econ
December 22, 2020 5:28 pm

The irony of our age: Never before in the history of mankind has information been so easily accessible to people than it is today. And yet people have never been more lazy in being bothered to research anything before regurgitating garbage they see online as fact.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights