Patrick Courrielche sent us this message:
Hello. Red Pilled America rebroadcast its Climategate story featuring Watts Up With That. It’s been remastered and new music has been added. It turned out well! Share if you can. RedPilledAmerica.com.
Moved outside the paywall for the Climategate anniversary.
From the Red Pilled America podcast
Why do so many think global warming is a hoax?
Why do so many believe global warming is a hoax? To find the answer, we tell the story of the biggest science heist in history.
I believed to a moral certainty global warming was bogus when the IPCC bought into Michael Mann’s fantasy paper in 2000.
For me, it was the switch from global cooling to global warming. Without going into details, global cooling and global warming were running in the so-called mainstream media at the same time i.e., the early ’80s
It’s now global heating!!!
The oceans are on fire !! Heating of biblical proportions.
I hate boiled fish.
Baked, fried, or grilled? That’s just fine, but boiled? No way.
Smoked Haddock, boiled in milk + water. Try it.
@John K. S.:
I tried it and it smelt so awful, I cod hardly stand it. It left me feeling a bit eel. Salmon else might like it, though. 😜
You poor sole.
I prefer cod, but will accept haddock if no cod or halibut available.
Except lutefisk. And I like boiled shrimp and lobster. Mussels,no.
Mussels, like clams make for good soup bases.
Steamed rock cod with soy sauce and green onions. 😮
It’s poached, not boiled.
Fish proteins twist very tightly at temperatures over 185°F.
Turning tender flaky fish into something akin to chewing on cotton sheets.
Using wine reduces the temperature at simmer significantly.
I love a good clam chowder, also canned (preserved) tuna, canned sardines, smoked herring, poached salmon, poached cod, etc. etc.
Dogs and cats, living together!
Run for your lives! We’re doomed…DOOMED!!!!
In my case I had been a member of the Royal Meteorological Society since 1968 and had observed the climate shift from cooling to warming in the 1970s and the various climate phenomena associated with it such as more zonal jet stream tracks, the mid latitude high pressure cells moving poleward and a tendency for El Ninos to dominate over La Ninas.
At that point I tended to accept that mankind’s emissions might be the cause.
However, around 2000 I saw all those phenomena go into reverse and the pause began so doubts arose and the hype became so shrill by 2007 that I entered the field of climate blogging and began to participate here and elsewhere.
The only thing that keeps the hoax on track is the total ignoring of reality by the climate establishment and the gullibility ( or cynical opportunism) of the political elite.
We are now so far down the rabbit hole that immense damage is inevitable.
The additional harm to the environment and humanity from flawed decision making will haunt the world for decades to come.
‘ … around 2000 I saw all those phenomena go into reverse …’
The PDO slipped into its negative phase for a decade, creating a hiatus in world temperature. At this point in time the PDO is heading into negative again, so we should see a rerun of the early 21st century weather and climate.
La Nina like conditions should prevail, with El Nino noticeably absent.
One of our coolest summers in SE Australia, last time (2020-21). I wonder what 2021-22 will bring.
Cool and wet again today on the Mid Coast of New South Wales
We still have our heater on in Canberra Australia despite the hot air emanating from Parliament House.
cool yes wet NO western vic is missing out on all the decent rains so far;-(
Not to mention the damage to the reputation of science.
Long over due that the high priests are shown to be the charlatans they really are. ClimateGate was the end of the naive image most people had that scientists are respectable Edwardian gentlemen objectively studying science for the good of mankind.
The biggest shock to me was the silence of other scientists, until I realised that the reason for this silence was the fear that the same scrutiny should be applied to their own field of study.
“the naive image most people had that scientists are respectable Edwardian gentlemen objectively studying science for the good of mankind”
I believe Charles Darwin got the idea of evolution but waited about 30 years before publishing the idea to build a case for that theory. But despite that- he was reviled and still is in some circles for some of the best science ever. Now you can publish a hockey stick and be worshiped as a genius with little evidence other than a fantasy that trees are thermometers.
Speaking of trees as thermometers, I was looking at a graph by Stephen McIntyre of Keith Briffa’s treering data.
This was the treering data that Michael Mann truncated because some of the data did not fit his “hotter and hotter” narrative, and so he loped off the non-confirming data and then used this partial data to build his Hockey Stick chart.
Stephen McIntyre’s graph of this data includes the data that was removed in the making of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart, and if you look at *all* this data, it looks to me like it tracks the U.S. regional surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999.
Briffa’s treerings show a low temperature point around the beginning of the 20th century, then it shows a sharp temperature rise from there up to about the 1930’s, then it shows a temperature decline down through the 1970’s, with temperatures reaching the same cool level as the Early Twentieth Century, and then the temperatures climb from there to the end of the data with the ending highpoint not being as warm as the 1930’s.
I think this is why Mann cut some of the data off because although it did show warming, it didn’t show enough warming to surpass the 1930’s and show unprecedented warming, so Mann loped off this offending data and substituted the bastardized instrument-era temperature record on to the end of it.
The original Briffa treering data looks like a confirmation of the Hansen 1999 temperature profile. Which would also confirm all the other regional temperature charts around the world, since they all look, more or less, like the profile of the Hansen 1999 chart, with it being just as warm in the past as it is today. All of them show no unprecedented warming today.
Does anyone have a link to this Briffa graph by Stephen McIntyre?
The graph is shown in the book, “Climategate, The CRUtape letters, on page 160.
“Briffa’s treerings show a low temperature point around the beginning of the 20th century, then it shows a sharp temperature rise from there up to about the 1930’s, then it shows a temperature decline down through the 1970’s, with temperatures reaching the same cool level as the Early Twentieth Century, and then the temperatures climb from there to the end of the data with the ending highpoint not being as warm as the 1930’s.”
Tom, what’s really funny is that, like the various PAGES 2K and other recons, none of the individual proxies, not a single one that I’ve seen, track temperature in any way. NONE.
So how do you average all those non-temperature-tracking proxies into something that tracks temp so well?? It really is astonishing.
I’m as skeptical as you are about using treerings. I was just noting that it looked like Briffa’s treering data looked very similar to the unmodified, U.S. surface temperature chart. Maybe that’s why Mann didn’t want to use all of it.
And don’t forget the case of Alfred Wegener!
Here’s the real way that trees are thermometers and dendroclimateeers don’t want to talk about this aspect.
This sizable rooted tree is 5000 yrs old and is near the Arctic coast of NW Canada at Tuktuyaktuk. It is 100km north of the treeline and you have to go several 100kms further south to find white spruce (the same species!) of this size. This means it was 3-4°C warmer 5000 years ago. How’s that for “precedented?
The climatistas will probably say it’s fake- put their by Trump supporting climate deniers. :-}
Yes, medical science is in the same state. Corrupted and ran for profit.
Yes, I heard a medical expert this morning describing the situation with medical science and it sounds just like climate science with Gatekeepers tampering with the science for reasons having nothing to do with science.
All our science institutions need reform. They are heading down the wrong path.
“Gatekeepers.” Well said. Follow the money.
My personal experience with medical science is that if keeps trying to treat the symptoms instead of finding out what is causing the symptoms and doing something about the cause.
Yeah, I went to the optometrist in my 40s and got diagnosed with presbyopia. Instead waiting for a cure to become available, he prescribed me reading glasses.!
Elvis Presleyopia is so common, I once had an optometrist tell me that she could guess someone’s age to within 2 years just by how advanced the condition was.
I think I saw an article the other day that talked about a new medicine that worked on that problem. The claim was that the medicine (eye drops I believe) would eliminate the need for reading glasses.
Mark Steyn’s book “A disgrace to the profession” is missing the point. The disgrace isn’t Michael Mann as it is that he isn’t considered a disgrace by every other climate scientist
Can’t do better than the words of Dr. Richard Lindzen:
“What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.”—source: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1386476
Then there is the Dutch Tulip Mania of the 17th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
Sadly, it will likely take a catastrophic grid collapse where the blame can only be placed where it belongs – on over-reliance on unreliables. The collapse will need to affect 10’s of millions with thousands of deaths to get people’s attention. There will still be the Greta’s of the world who will claim that if only we had more wind/solar, the catastrophe could have been avoided. It is beyond sickening what is happening in supposedly free western countries. Putin and Xi are ROFL at the stupidity of western “leaders”.
Hopefully, a pronounced cooling trend, starting this month, would Pause the momentum of the alarmist bandwagon. And continued cooling would stop it.
PS: I’m hoping but not hopeful.
Turning points in long term cycles will tend to do that to observers who are focused in separate but related partial indicators.
Political elites will most probably choose your alternative between brackets – cynical opportunism, Gullible people will not agree with my opinion that admitting a mistake is to that person’s credit…
Please read these books, the two best debunking climate change crap.
The moral case for fossil fuels
http://library.lol/main/95AC3FC1E1D3768A2FF58A9556284B4E
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
http://library.lol/main/62F19352A7FD8FA7830C90D187094289
And Prof. Stephen Schneider rode both of those hobby horses.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both. (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, October 1989.)
“…reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change…”
The implication with that is that the climate has always been wonderful when in fact it’s always been terrible for most people with endless floods, droughts, hurricanes, fires, etc. resulting in shortages of food, disease and social turmoil. I believe it’s been shown that it’s due to bad weather that some tribes moved into Europe, pushing the German tribes into the Roman Empire contributing the collapse of that empire. I conclude that the climate has always been disastrous- and that’s normal. I think it can only get better! This delusion is just another example of how we once had a golden age but it was lost due to bad people and we must regain it. Truly a naive story.
The intersection of the Goebbels effect (If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it) and the Internet has been enough to cause a reality distortion which may take a generation to to overcome, if we’re lucky.
Prof. Stephen Schneider also said the warming from 1910 to 1940, and from 1980 to the present was of the same magnitude.
Hmmm . . I thought that was Phil Jones?
I recall he was pressed in an interview.
Schneider also did plenty of TV stuff too, so I could be mistaken.
You are correct, it was Phil Jones who said there was no statistical difference between the warming that occurred during the periods from 1860 to 1880, and from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998.
The first two periods had little influence from CO2, yet the warming was of the same magnitude as the warming today, so something other than CO2 is responsible for most of the warming in the two earlier periods. Why wouldn’t that also be the case today? Answer: It very well could be.
Keep in mind that 1998 was just as warm as 2016, so the magnitude of the latest warming is the same whether the end date is 1998, or 2016.
NASA also has a chart they show where the warmth of the 1880’s is on the same level as the warmth of the 1930’s.
Hansen said that the 1930’s were the hottest decade and 1934 was the hottest year, and 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998 (and 2016), so a chart that represented reality would show 1880, 1930, and 1998/2016 on the same horizontal line on the chart.
In other words: There is no unprecedented warming today. CO2 is not the Bad Actor it is made out to be.
And then Mann and the other Data Manipulators piped up and said Jones’ statements were distorted, and generally heaped scorn on the idea that the magnitude of the warming today was equal to warming in the past.
Of course, the Data Maniplators have an interest in promoting the idea that humans are living in the “hottest year evah!” today because their whole climate change scam depends on that being perceived to be the case.
And of course,we can’t depend on any numbers these Charlatans give us, so their arguments are just a bunch of hot air meant to distract the gullible.
Found that interview.
I’m a little surprised it hasn’t been memory holed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm#
This is the best resume of Climategate I’ve seen/heard. A nice, clear and accurate chronology of events and explanation of “hide the decline” which is often inaccurately explained even by those critical of it.
I’ll definitely bookmark this for reference.
How true! Global cooling was the meme-du-jour from the early 1970’s through the early ’80s.
For a real laugh, the “climate change” craziness at that time even went so far as to produce the alarmist video “in Search of the Coming Ice Age” (1978), featuring Leonard Nimoy, the actor then well-known for having played the role of Mr. Spock in the original TV series Star Trek.
For real hoot, you can revisit that 22 minute-long video at this link:
The Climatistas are doing their level best to shove this video into the memory hole.
Interesting that in that presentation at least, there was no reference to humans causing the cooling.
My recollection is that it was argued by some at the time that aerosols from fossil fuel burning were a cause of cooling. The only cryptic reference to that, if it was a reference at all, was a brief mention of volcanic activity at the start of a glaciation.
Frankly, that video has a great deal more credibility than anything seen in the past three decades of global warming propaganda. The real concern that we should be preparing to address is in fact severe cooling and the resulting famine and loss of habitable land. Ironically if CO2 emissions are warming the climate, that eventually must be understood as our best hope for mitigation of cooling. One which I fear will not be sufficient and perhaps non-existent.
“My recollection is that it was argued by some at the time that aerosols from fossil fuel burning were a cause of cooling.”
Oh, yes. There were a lot of such claims in the 1970’s. None of them ever presented any evidence to back up the claims. It was just like today with CO2: Lots of claims, but never any definitive evidence.
And it’s always the fault of humans, they think. Cold or hot, it’s the fault of humans.
When the first Human-caused Global Cooling claims came out, I had no reason to doubt the scientists putting this out, and I assumed that shortly they would provide their evidence and show just how all this works.
Well, I was sadly disappointed as the claims kept coming, year after year, but no evidence was ever presented. Just like today with CO2.
So when the meme switched from Human-caused Global Cooling to Human-caused Global Warming, I was a confirmed skeptic by then. I cancelled my subscriptions to Scientific American and Science News and National Geographic specifically because they continuously put forth claims and assertions as if they were established fact. Like they do now, with Human-caused Global Warming.
Decades of claims for both cold and hot, and not one shred of evidence to back up the claims. It’s hard to believe how far mere assertions can go sometimes.
I guess when the Left controls the Media, as it does today, all sorts of insanity can be sold to people.
Right, I remember this, I was living in Alaska at the time and worried about the coming of the new ice age the alarmist were predicting. Its cold enough there already so a new ice age didnt sound too good. I have always wondered what prompted the sudden change from global cooling to global warming.Anyway, I’ve wised up toe the scam as I see its more of the same BS of crying wolf too many times.
Me too.
One of my hobbies is history. Mann’s fraudulent hockey stick is obviously so because it contradicts recorded history.
If ‘they’ have to resort to fraud to prove their case, ‘their’ credibility is shot.
The thing I most enjoy pointing out is that Mann has admitted that he does belong in state pen rather than Penn state. How so?
Mann sued Ball but never presented himself in court where he could be cross examined. In other words, he avoided presenting evidence over which he had control. The doctrine of adverse inference means we can draw a reasonable inference from that.
There were farms in southern Greenland. Either the Scandinavians knew of seeds that sprouted in frozen ground, or it was a lot warmer there in the 900s.(the land there today is permanent frozen.
They didn’t call it Greenland to be pointlessly ironic. (Hipsters hadn’t been invented yet.)
For me I had spent the previous few years fighting the Ozone Hole scam and seen the lies the left was willing to go through in order to get their policies pushed through.
It seemed like it was only days after the Ozone Hole scam was put to rest, that the same people were out there pushing Global Warming.
Then when I saw that they were erasing both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age from history, I knew that another, even bigger scam had been launched.
i know that when I have a winning argument I ALWAYS enlist a 16 year old almost autistic kid to sell it.
I’m sure our friends on the left would put up links that actually work.
You are probably looking in the wrong place. I have just listened to the “podcast” of the talk.
Go to the banner “Red Pilled America” just under the painting of Stephen McIntyre and click on the white arrow in the blue circle.
The talk lasts an hour – or at least it feels like it does, but is it quite interesting.
Note: Trump was correct in getting out of the Paris Agreement. and from Flop 26, it is certain that one Joe Biden has made another big mistake in getting back in. At least Congress is most unlikely to ratify anything agreed at Flop 26.
You appear to misunderstand what is happening. Obama started the maneuver of signing an “agreement” that would amount to a treaty without submitting is to the Senate. When TRUMP! went to withdraw he followed the agreement’s mechanism for withdrawal which took several years. Big mistake. He should have submitted it to the Senate and been done with it, but I think he knew there were enough bought off Rep. senators to pass it.
So any agreements made by this administration will not be treaties or submitted to the Senate. Hopefully the next president will summarily terminate any and all international agreement by this regime by executive order on day one, terminating the employment of any associated federal employees and ending any payments to any NGO at the same time.
When the hand picked liberal judges attempt to stop the actions, the House MUST IMPEACH THEM for exceeding their authority.
When you look at what was agreed at FLOP26, nobody should have any worries (Except the Green Blob).
The Party’s Over – Climate Scepticism (cliscep.com)
“He should have submitted it to the Senate and been done with it, but I think he knew there were enough bought off Rep. senators to pass it.”
That would have been an exercise in futility because the next administration could sign on to a slightly different version and the failure of the Senate to consent to the original would have no effect on the new agreement and so on and so forth.
I agree with you completely except for this: “I think he knew there were enough bought off Rep. senators to pass it.”
There clearly were not enough votes in the Senate to approve the Paris Climate Treaty with the required 2/3 majority. Not even close. That’s why Obama did not submit it to the Senate.
These Presidential “executive agreements” standing in for treaties are Constitutionally illegitimate. Trump should have either submitted it to the Senate (where it would have gone down in flames), or simply declared it void on the day he took office.
i couldn’t make it past the advertisements.
Simply skip forward in the presentation; no ads!
Try again, it is really worth the inconvenience. IMHO
For the period of time it was up, it was an invaluable tool in refuting the claim that fossil fuel companies were/are behind the financing of climate skepticism.
The podcast tells the story about the early days of WUWT and how Anthony Watts went from believing in global warming to questioning the science.
Furthermore, the whole story is quite suspenseful as it tells the story of the CRU East Anglia “Climate Gate“ email leaks, with Anthony and the rest of the WUWT crew worried they were being set up by the EU and other government agencies for being in possession of stolen property. It goes through how WUWT vetted the authenticity of the emails and ends with Anthony writing the first “Climate Gate” blog post from an airport waiting room.
Overall, it is a heroic story of private individuals doing their own investigative journalism for a cause they believed in. After listening to the podcast, it was only then that I realized Anthony Watts (et al.) was in the same category of journalists as Glen Greenwald and others.
An epic and invaluable podcast for those interested in understanding the history and origins of the climate skeptic movement. IMHO.
”Why do so many think global warming is a hoax?”
Because it is. Because they continue to point at the weather for their evidence.
The ‘climate’ change’ canard* rests on the foundation that longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) is the culprit of the increased heating, because carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor are robust absorbers of LWIR. This is true, but what we’re not told is that this LWIR is ONLY released by the surface at nighttime, not daytime! When we look at illustrations of Earth’s Energy Budget…
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows
…left out of the diagrams are the times of the day the two energy types are released, and for good reason. The two energy types are (1) LWIR that comes in at 358.2 Wm2 (watts per meter squared); and (2) thermals that come in at 18.4 Wm2. The former, we’re told, heats the night, while the miniscule amount of 18.4 Wms is what heats the daytime hours.
Wasn’t that easy? Fraud not only made easy, but so easy even an elementary school student will be shocked at the deception, where nighttime hours are warmer than daytime hours! The energy types are, of course, reversed, where daytime energy levels constitute 358.2 Wm2, while nighttime energy levels constitute 18.4 Wms. And during the day only shortwave infrared radiation (SWIF), that isn’t absorbed by ‘greenhouse gasses’, is being emitted by the surface, the surface too warm during the day to be emitting anemic LWIR.
———————
* Not to be confused for ‘climate alteration’ that’s taking place thanks to man heating the atmosphere. The difference being that the “change” in climate change can be reversed by lowering carbon dioxide, though there is no reason to do so due to carbon dioxide’s benefits, and the fact that carbon dioxide is a robust COOLANT in Earth’s atmosphere; heating is occurring due to increased man-made heat sinks on the surface (cities, roads, automobiles’ metals, etc.), and when these heat sinks are manufactured, carbon dioxide is the industrial by-product.
Left Out of IPCC Models: Atmospheric Thermodynamics AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the atmosphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby immediately cooling the area of dislocation. As warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules rise, they in turn push downwards cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules, further cooling the atmosphere.
Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation.
Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
Right. Greenhouse gasses just delay/ impede the flow of LWIR. It affects the low temps.
Once you demonstrate an inability to understand even the most basic of science, there is no point reading on.
LWIR is only emitted at night? If you paid for your education, you need to get your money back Everything that is above absolute zero in temperature emits LWIR, and it does it all the time.
Mark here is a link to the spectral lines emitted by nitrogen or almost 80% of the atmosphere. Gases do emit but are not necessarily black body emitters.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/11304375@N07/2843673431
mkelly
Those appear to be the spectral lines of ionized nitrogen….N2 in the atmosphere is NOT ionized and emits completely SFA at Earthly infrared temperatures. Nicely transparent to IR emitted by solid or watery surfaces though…might apply in an aurora borealis situation where solar particles have sufficient energy to ionize the N2….amount of heating to the atmosphere as a result of aurora borealis….again SFA….
SFA is a TLA for “Seriously Feeble Amount”….
Oh! Oh, yes. Yes, of course.
How does this chart address the utterly ridiculous claim that LWIR is only emitted at night?
The warmer anything is, e.g. rocks, concrete, flowers, the more IR those things radiate, night or day. AGW may be made up but basic physics is not.
All bodies above zero Kelvin emit radiation. Day or not, the Earth always radiates based upon its surface temperatures.
Much new CO2 that enters the atmosphere is already hot, like that coming out of chimneys at power plants and cement plants and auto exhausts. Is it thought in greenhouse theory that this CO2 can get hotter still by absorption of radiation? Geoff S
Those have my thoughts since forever.
BUT BUT BUT, we still see graphs of Absorption vs Wavelength – esp that CO2 plugs a hole at circa 15microns
OK, yes the CO2 does absorb at that wavelegth but it cannot retain or trap that energy – as you say, that ‘energy level’ is already occupied.
What the CO2 is doing what a phosphor does, classically as seen inside your original & genuine fluorescent tubes
It absorbs at that wavelength but re-emits at another wavelength.
But the 2nd Law says that the new wavelength MUST be longer (cooler) than the incoming energy. The actual power level can be the same, just the wavelength has been shifted
In fluorescent tubes, UV from mercury vapour is ‘downshifted’ into the visible spectrum.
Or exactly what is happening with ‘pristine’ new office copier paper, new white T-shirts esp and in all variation of Hi-Viz or Dag-Glo workwear
All those things are loaded with a phosphor that downshifts UV
It Does Not Mean that they are ‘trapping heat’ even though they are absorbing energy (Ultraviolet) that has a truly epic heating potential (as per the Carnot Heat Engine)
Back to the absorption graphs…
If CO2 does what’s claimed inside the GHGE, those graphs would never show more that 50% absorption..
Consider the ‘source‘ in your experiment, the ‘target’ (the CO2) and your’ detector’ – to any approximation will be in a straight line
So when the CO2 absorbs and them re-emits, as claimed, the CO2 must be sending 50% of the energy back to the source and only allowing 50% to go on the meet the detector.
Yet the graphs always show 100% absorption.
Becauswe, as I said, the CO2 is smashing up the incoming ‘photons’ and immediatly re-radiating them all over the place at wavelegths that the exeprimenter is not looking at – but always colder than 15microns or minus 79 Celsius
How do you get that across – the science is settled, the ears are closed and the eyes are open wide shut. The Rot has been allowed to go on for far too long.
It has become a self sustaining monster
Mr. Sherrington: The CO2 is already hot??!! The man-made part??!!! We’re certainly doomed.
We obviously need to stop exhaling!
Any gas entering the atmosphere will either gain or lose energy until it matches the temperature of the surrounding gasses.
Likewise, the energy gained by a CO2 molecule when it absorbs a photon is also quickly transferred to the rest of the atmosphere.
MarkW is correct.
Also, to associate temperature (i.e., “already hot”) with a given molecule, one has to consider the partition of energy among that molecule’s various allowable vibrational and translational modes (or “degrees of freedom”).
For a CO2 molecule, the absorption of a LWIR photon does immediately greatly increase that molecule’s “effective temperature”, but within tens to hundreds of picoseconds that energy is distributed to (aka “thermalized”) to predominately less-energetic N2 and O2 molecules via collisions, at least within the lower 10 km of Earth’s atmosphere.
This process explains how N2 and O2 molecules in the atmosphere are able to maintain their temperature-vs-altitude gradients despite their constant thermal radiation directly to deep space.
My enlightenment happened when I saw the picture of the retreating glacier with 3 foot diameter tree stumps in its’ wake.
I hereby charge you with the heinous crime of apostrophe abuse
How’s o?
O’s very well, thanks!
I believe that’s a 15 yard penalty, and loss of down.
Oh, no! The dreaded possessive-plural-contraction dust up.
Rules is rules!
Or perhaps Rule’s rule rules rules?
Yes, tree stumps found underneath glaciers are solid evidence that the temperatures were warmer when those trees were growing than they are now.
There is no unprecedented warming.
It was warmer in the recent past than it is today. Tree stumps tell us the truth about the Earth’s recent climate.
The E-Mails proved there was a collusion of “scientists” practicing what I can only call Fraud…
And yet it seems to have made no difference to the majority of True Believers. This can only be explained as “Faith”, which is why I believe AGW is a religion, not a branch of scientific inquiry.
First they claim that the e-mails must be ignored because they were stolen, then when that doesn’t work, they claim that the e-mails don’t matter because they were made up.
“The E-Mails proved there was a collusion of “scientists” practicing what I can only call Fraud…
And yet it seems to have made no difference to the majority of True Believers.”
Apparently, it has made no difference to our Science Institutions, since not only do they not codemn this climate science fraud, they actually promote it.
And it’s not like they don’t know it’s fraud. You don’t even have to be a scientist to understand what has happened. It’s all been shown publicly, yet the Science Institutions do not question this fraudulent behavior. A huge scandal in itself.
To continue to give the IPCC any credibility whatsoever demonstrates the fundamental corruption in modern society. Integrity is dead. Pragmatism and saving face are now paramount – or getting elected.
I was thinking about saving face a few days ago. I believe it underpins the rapid spread of Covid. Could you imagine an underling facing Xi Jinping and mentioning that a lab in Wuhan had released a manipulated virus.
The Climate Change religion has won strong support with people who will never change their religion. They are committed till death.
Yes, Ric, but still I believe that only a couple of senior activist scientists need to break ranks to take down the flimsy edifice. Where are they? When will they go public? An honourable future awaits them, rather than a loss of face. Geoff S
Geoff Sherrington,
You say, “I believe that only a couple of senior activist scientists need to break ranks to take down the flimsy edifice. Where are they? When will they go public?”
There have been several, most recently Steven Koonin.
Richard
You can be an activist or a scientist, but not both.
As one questioning global warming since 1992 and being there as Climategate broke late in 2009, can I add my endorsement that overall this podcast tells it correctly.
Steve McIntyre in particular has earned a place in the story of the Internet, for showing the new-found power of a blog to change the course of history. His work was groundbreaking, has withstood challenge and has benefited many others, it is as important as that. Geoff S
“Steve McIntyre in particular has earned a place in the story of the Internet”
Definitely. And Anthony Watts, too.
Steve McIntyre has dissected the Hockey Stick which features as the frontispiece of the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s AR6 BUT DOES NOT feature in the report. See his climateaudit.org. Revealed as a gross fraud
The National Academy of Sciences confirmed McIntyre’s debunking of Mann’s Hockey Stick chart.
Yet we are still having to deal with Hockey Stick charts.
Thanks Charles, the broadcast from Red Pilled America was excellent. It gives a great timeline and detail of what became and remains climate-gate.
Importantly it records the voices and opinions of the people involved in making it public.
It would have been even better as a video. Few people today want just sound.
Why do so many people think global warming is a hoax? Because of commercial after commercial, after commercial. I turned it off in the middle of the third one.
For next time you might want to consider opening it as a podcast and using the “skip ahead”-button, so that you only listen to the content instead of only to 2.5 commercials.
As someone who followed it all back then, I can recommend the podcast. It gave a good summary.
Because:
1) We lived through the global cooling scare of the 70s
2) As hard as I try, I cant find any damn climate crisis where I live.
First, the only consensus between the climate gate scientists was securing their gravy train.
They couldn’t square the theory with the observations.
They destroyed data.
They invented data.
They were OK with altering data to support the theory.
They hoped and prayed for a strong El Niño to bolster the theory.
They were actively undermining other scientists.
They put the call out to delete all emails to avoid freedom of info requests.
They are a rogue cabal.
I don’t think hoax is a strong enough word but I can’t think of a better word, perhaps swindle or scam.
Try “crime”
For me it was 2001, when after the 1999 el nino global temps dropped a degree in a year.
‘Hello!’ I thought, ‘wasnt CO2 supposed to have been responsible for that recent increase in temps, and cause the biggest, most rapid change?’
By the time WUWT was up, the Hockey Stick exposed, I was already deep into the sceptic world, looking at all kinds of data and science.
The Global Cooling claims were what turned me into a climate change skeptic.
At first, I was accepting of some of the arguments being made and was looking forward to seeing evidence confirming these claims, but year after year after year, there was never any evidence of human-caused global cooling presented.
And then in the 1980’s the temperatures started warming up and the Global Cooling claims faded to the background, and the human-derived CO2 warming claims started coming around, but by that time I was so skeptical of all these climate change claims that I was not going to accept them right off the bat, I was going to require evidence, and after more decades of claims, there is still no evidence of Human-caused Global Warming or Global Cooling.
It’s ridiculous.
The promoters of Human-caused Climate Change are reduced to using fraudlent, “unprecedented-warming” temperature charts, and seeing CO2 in every thunderstorm as their evidence of the existence of Human-caused Climate Change.
None of that is evidence.
Let’s see why people have identified it as a scam. Name changes every time real data contradicts the theory. Any actual data is tortured with “adjustments” until it says there is a warming trend. Critics are branded as “deniers,” banned from professional publications, and harassed in various other ways (Mann frivolous lawsuits)—all political responses—instead of being challenged with actual science. Climategate—essentially a plot to concoct ways to avoid giving up the scam. The Warm-mongers attempt to elevate computer models to the status of facts. Focus on “average” temperature, that no human has lived in during the entire existence of mankind. All “solutions” include more government looting (of taxpayers) and less liberty for the people—consistent with every other leftist “solution.” There’s more but you get the picture.
A reason for doubt about climate science is that, unlike actual science, it cannot self-correct.
Almost all climate science departments exist because of the AGW scare. The resources put into climate change research is several orders of magnitude greater than that available to climate research. And not just in money but also in terms of the number of people willing to invest their career in it.
If any climate change researcher comes to the conclusion that it’s not that much of a problem they automatically come to the conclusion that most of their peers (and even themselves) need to find another job. It is institutionally incapable of coming to any other idea. It has to conclude that AGW is the end of the world.
Any institution that is dedicated to preaching thee Apocalypse and cannot admit doubt is not a scientific organisation.
Never mind all the statistics and so forth. The biggest element in the hoax is to relegate Water to merely a POSITIVE feedback to the Greenhouse Effect. In fact water halts the GHE when the atmosphere becomes saturated with it. Currently this is around 4.2% absolute humidity.
The dearth of information on the behaviour and influence of Water in the climate supports this view and is indeed politically sinister.
The science tells us that the maximum temperature that can be reached due to solar radiation in the presence of copious amounts of water is around 32degC. This is why the oceans never get much above this figure in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation.
‘Big Brother’ just does not want the peoples to know this; as it destroys the CAGW MESSAGE. Hence the dearth.
Incidentally the oceans cover about 72%of the Earth’s surface so has a very major effect on global temperature. Add to that the water/atmosphere interface area in plant foliage and the influence is paramount.
There have been so many evasions from The Team that the obvious question; what have you got to hide, becomes impossible to ignore.
They were caught red-handed and only vested-interests from media and politicians enabled an undeserved escape from global opprobrium.
For me it was the 100 percent wrong predictions. We don’t understand gravity, but we can predict its effects very accurately.(even on another planet).
Global warming will remain the greatest science hoax and policy misadventure in human history until such time as a large, international science and mathematics team reviews the Mann data, model, and modeling methods in a completely open audit process demanded by groups of governments and the UN. I trust that will never happen in what has become a deeply entrenched religion at this point.
I trust that the Mann model and modeling manipulation log have been safely destroyed alongside the elusive Simpson murderer, the Wuhan virus, and the Lois Lerner hard drive at the IRS. There will be no Sherlock Holmes or Perry Mason to the rescue on these.
One of the issues, the main issue perhaps to me is that of renewable energy.
It became obvious to me that renewable energy just could not replace coal and gas to maintain a reliable working power supply. I argued the point with ‘climate’ friends for years to no avail.
I reasoned that if they could not understand a simple issue such as continuous, cheap energy from fossil fuels verses unreliable wind and solar, then how could they possibly hope to understand the complexities of man made co2 warming.
I remember in like 2002 just imagining myself way up above the clouds looking down at all the little powerplant chimneys and I just thought bull spit. It didn’t take much research to realize water vapor and other celestial and terrestrial all events were at play , far beyond carbon dioxide.
Please read these books, the two best books debunking climate change crap. Click the links to download a free copy. Please share with your family and friends.
The moral case for fossil fuels
http://library.lol/main/95AC3FC1E1D3768A2FF58A9556284B4E
Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
http://library.lol/main/62F19352A7FD8FA7830C90D187094289