.
Jim Steele
The video explores how digital media fact-checkers and a few scientists like Michael Mann have been engaging in attempts to suppress alternative scientific climate explanations using methods that suppress scientific debate
A transcript is available at:
https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2021/12/digital-book-burning-and-degradation-of.html
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
This cancel culture is politics, not science.
Climate skepticism is politics, not science…
Climate alarmism is politics, not science…
Perhaps if you followed links to data, read and understood what you were reading, you would have the knowledge to understand your remark is without foundation, mate
Griff, stop using fossil fuels every single day! Look at how your life would change without them, the plastics, the heat, the electricity, the cars. OH WAIT! I forgot, you are getting the climate doom word out so the normal rules do not apply to you. HYPOCRITE
“Climate skepticism is politics, not science…”
Skepticism is the very basis of all science. Without questioning the current ideology no experiments would be done, no new discoveries would occur.
Climate scepticism doesn’t build windfarms, solar panel sites or ban petrol and diesel cars, fracking, mining for coking coal and gas boilers.
Climate alarmism does all these things.
As usual, you show not to know how science works.
The problem is, the world is full with people like you, thats why science lost it’s way.
The same people who declare that’s it’s only democracy when they win, also declare that it’s only science when they agree with it.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts—Richard Feynman
The Feynman quotes that sprang to my mind on reading griff’s post were
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.”
and
“I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers which cannot be questioned.”
““Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.””
I like that one.
Obviously, to me, the function of skeptisism in science is to enhance faith in a given hypothesis. Otherswise there would be no point at all in conducting science.
I have a hypothesis; Many with faith in the scientific method imagine that it’s not faith, for no reason other than they have been propagandized into believing a truly silly idea; Science (in the modern sense of the word) was initiated and developed by Christian intellectuals, and the practice continued to be pretty much dominated by the same right on into recent times (about two thirds of Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, were awarded to scientists who self-identified as Christian, for instance), despite Christians having an inherent lack of any need for evidence for what they believe.
~ In much the same way and for the same basic reason as recent college students have been propagandized into in accepting Critical Race Theory ideology.
That reason being, to divide and conquer Western Civilization.
NB : I cannot speak for “many”, only for myself.
Personally I have “faith” — the label that comes closest to my “religious beliefs” is probably “agnostic” — in the scientific method (TSM), but to me the most striking difference is in how different groups of people treat “heretics” and (especially) “apostates”.
Another (relatively ?) famous Feynman quote about what constitutes TSM is :
NB : While you may consider that “a truly silly idea”, I consider it closer to “being [expletive deleted] obvious”.
Case 1 : Barry Marshall “heretically” suggests that stomach ulcers might be caused by bacteria.
Initial “expert” reaction : Don’t be silly, “everyone knows” they are caused by stress, and that bacteria “cannot possibly” survive at stomach acid pH levels …
Experimental results : Ingesting H. pylori “causes” an ulcer, taking antibiotics “cures” it.
Reaction of scientists : Barry Marshall is awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine.
Case 2 : An adherent of a “fundamentalist / extremist” religion (/ sect) leaves it.
Reaction : The apostate is beheaded (or killed in some other way).
I also have a “hypothesis” : It is morally superior to believe in the “truly silly idea” of TSM than it is to be on the side of people who (genuinely, FFS !) believe that the “correct” response to others whose opinions differ from theirs is to kill them (either literally or metaphorically).
“NB : While you may consider that “a truly silly idea”, I consider it closer to “being [expletive deleted] obvious”.
Why though? Say why, please, I can’t read your mind.
Consider please; A major theme throughout the entire Christian Book is that all humans are fallible. No exceptions.
Hence, it makes perfect sense to me that Science would be brought into the world by Christians. Christians NEED evidence before we can believe ANYTHING humans claim/think is true (if we are being good Christians). I don’t give a crap if ten million scientists claim something, I want to see the evidence. And even if I am impressed by the evidence, I don’t consider that dispositive, because I am fallible.
Most people I see comment around here are lightweights to me, when it comes to skepticism, frankly.
You attempted to explain why you think TSM is “a truly silly idea”, but I am unable to comprehend how anyone could reach that conclusion.
I fear we are “talking past each other”.
This, however, is pure hubris.
Ever heard of the word “nemesis” before ? …
“I fear we are “talking past each other”.”
Me too, that’s why I asked you to say why you “consider it closer to “being [expletive deleted] obvious”.
“This, however, is pure hubris.”
How could you know that? It’s just what seems true to me, I meant nothing self congratulatory by it. I half expect to be mocked for being so skeptical, and generally refrain from speaking of it, therefore. When I don’t accept this or that “scientific consensus” on faith, I am often told I’m ignorant, and need to “learn some science”, as though the word ‘science’ meant a long list of absolute truths. ‘Scientism’, as it’s sometimes referred to.
And I did not specifically ask you WHY you believed that TSM is “a silly idea” because that would be on the same level as “Yes, but WHY is your favourite ice-cream flavour [ insert your favourite ice-cream flavour here ] ?!?”.
The whole point of TSM is to dis-prove “conjectures” (/ hypothesis / theories) by the use of counter-examples, as well as “extrapolation to absurd consequences” of other peoples ideas.
People will “believe” the weirdest things. Not all of them are as “obvious” as being members of The Flat-Earth Society or a proud Young-Earth Creationist.
If you know (almost ?) any of the 8 billion people on planet Earth for long enough, you will eventually hear something that makes you go “Woah ! How the hell can someone so otherwise ‘normal’ believe that ?!?” … internally at least.
Asking “Why ?” about people’s internal belief systems, or their deepest “visceral” convictions, is a futile exercise.
– – – – –
You decided, based on a few words written by people you have never met in person and debated with face-to-face for (at least) a few days, that they can all be classified as “lightweight” intellectuals … when compared to your good self.
I call that “hubris”, and at least implicitly “self congratulatory”.
I could (always !) be wrong, but that is my “belief” (/ interpretation / conclusion) … based on 11 words you wrote at a moment of indeterminate personal stress …
– – – – –
There is a difference between “a noble ideal” (e.g. the Bible) and “the authorities” (e.g. the Catholic Church).
Just ask (the ghost of) Galileo.
I never said I thought TSM is silly (and I most certainly don’t think it is). Perhaps if you reread my comment from which you drew that false conclusion, you could determine what I did say I see as silly.
That aside, it is a total mystery to me why you would think that I am somehow doing something wrong for having an opinion as to the relative level of skepticism with which I tend to approach science related ideas/theories. Who died and made you God? ; )
I now think you’re a very irrational and judgmental person. (Though, as I said, I realize I am fallible, so who knows?)
The “comment” in question was :
“I have a hypothesis; Many with faith in the scientific method imagine that it’s not faith, for no reason other than they have been propagandized into believing a truly silly idea; …”
Please “show your working”, in a similar way to an “English comprehension” exercise, on how :
1) The “silly idea” in question is not TSM, and
2) What you think the “silly idea” you had in mind actually was.
(Thanks for asking something, you give me hope again : )
What you quoted is just an introduction to the silly idea I am hypothesizing has been inculcated into a great many people. The silly idea is what follows that.
“Science (in the modern sense of the word) was initiated and developed by Christian intellectuals, and the practice continued to be pretty much dominated by the same right on into recent times (about two thirds of Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, were awarded to scientists who self-identified as Christian, for instance), despite Christians having an inherent lack of any need for evidence for what they believe.”
One would think that people concerned with evidence/data would recognize that one “worldview” in particular has been essentially “proven” to be compatible with scientific type reasoning. There is no close second . .
And therefore, if having ‘faith’ is central to that worldview, it makes sense to me to be at least skeptical of any claims that having ‘faith’ means believing things without evidence, within that worldview.
PS ~ You have (slightly) strengthened my faith in the hypothesis I presented in my original comment.
The “drama queen” like attitude about what happened to a single human being named Galileo, matches the “drama queen” like attitude I see displayed by those who have been propagandized through CRT. In the sense that various historic “details” seem to have been raised to such an extraordinary level of importance in the minds of those afflicted, that they operate as proverbial trees through which the forest simply cannot be seen.
An “occultism” style form of thinking seems to be triggered (so to speak ; ) wherein a vaguely imagined paradisical/utopian once potential reality has been shattered/stolen away, through the commission of what I will call ‘Super Sins”. Which render any who fail to be eternally grieving the ruination of the paradise (which would otherwise be being experienced by the “victims” of this Sinful theft, right now!) . . worthy of righteous indignation and scorn.
It seems to me a lot like the propaganda triggered sense of righteous indignation in Germany . . once upon a time.
My word!! You do say some stupid things, Griff, but this is gold standard nonsense.
By your reckoning the Aussie scientists who were sceptical about stomach ulcers were really playing politics. Makes me wonder how they discovered the helicobacter bug. In your world they would have been cancelled. You are a first rate idiot.
All of science is subject to skepticism. It would not exist without it. Nothing is chiseled in stone.
Even the very fabric of our existence (time and space) can be challenged (quantum loop gravity).
“Climate skepticism is politics, not science…”
ALL skepticism is science, not just climate science. If you don’t realise this then you obviously don’t understand anything about science whatsoever..
This is interesting Griff: Economic Cost of Climate Change
In every instance but one, warmer is better, yet alarmist so-called scientists claim the opposite
Care to comment?
Your data disagrees with the models, therefore your data is anti-science.
waiting for Griff to respond
He/She/It almost never responds.
They
You are obviously NOT a scientist…guess that should have been obvious a long time ago
Precious few climate scientists are scientists.
It is interesting how physicist Happer is claimed not to be a climate scientist, while Mickey Mann, who has a PhD in geophysics is considered by the MSM as a paragon of climate science.
Griff, you had better define what you mean by “climate skepticism”. I doubt anyone here is skeptical this plant has a climate system. As a buzz phrase it has no clean meaning or value other than to discredit the speak.
Drive-by-commenting requires verbal precision, or wit, or both.
Cancel culture is obviously political because it seeks to eliminate voices, not information per se. Skepticism is an information vaccine. People who are double-jabbed are difficult to infect with foolish speculation.
Funny how the side that actually believes models are proof declares that they are the only ones who do science.
Claiming that any kind of skepticism is politics is religion.
“Climate skepticism is politics, not science…”
Skeptics say alarmists have no evidence to back up their claims of a CO2 crisis. What’s political about that? It’s just a statement of fact.
Climate change skepticism is the heart of science. Science does not proclaim truths, it shows why shoddy hypotheses are not correct.
Climate change that is caused by humans producing CO2 is, right now in the crosshairs of many scientists who have shown it is either way overblown or simply false.
Suck on that.
Looney tunes started again!
Even those of us who don’t accept the Gospel According to Mann need to be sceptical of some of the claims not just coming from the True Believers but also emanating from our fellow heretics.
We are. See below for a good example.
We aren’t. See below for a good example.
“…. attempts to suppress alternative scientific climate explanations using methods that suppress scientific debate”
You mean like how lukewarmists on WUWT shout down anyone who has the temerity to deny the existence of the GHE?
No. There’s no cancel culture here. But we wholeheartedly reserve the right to ridicule those who are obviously deranged, or possibly trying to false flag our scepticism of the CAGW stupidity.
The very fact that your comment is allowed gives lie to your accusation.
So Willis doesn’t delete comments that question the existence of back radiation?
Hmmmm. Where have you been, Zig Zag? Out Zig Zagging?
Occasionally removing off-topic comments is totally unrelated to censoring. I remember well that you have been repeatedly invited to write your own essay outlaying your argument that there is no back radiation, instead of sabotaging and derailing threads about other subjects (not exactly the best way of being taken seriously in any context – even the wisest comment will appear to be mindless blather when droppoed out-of-the-blue into a thread with a different subject!). Willis, Anthony and we all are still waiting for your article.
No, they are not off topic. They are criticisms of claims made in Willis’s articles for which Willis refuses to provide evidence. I have the right to question them.
Obviously you would like to cancel me.
Was it the invitation to participate that gave him away, leftmotrice?
Willis will occasionally delete off-topic posts that are too egregious.
Your desire to spam your nonsense everywhere, is not Willis’s problem.
Oh my little stalker is back.
Same to you as to AlexBerlin.
But I remember, you did provide evidence of the surface warming effects of back radiation.
You said that it was true because CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Silly me.
Btw, Willis also deleted several posts from other posters. rickwill and eben come to mind.
Let’s cancel them too, eh?
Disagreeing with inane comments makes me a stalker?
I guess when one has as little connection with reality as you display, I can see how disagreement becomes stalking.
No. Not providing evidence while constantly attacking me makes you a stalker.
Let’s face it MarkW you don’t know much.
What does the W stand for? Oh, forget it I think I know.
griff and complices like Simon etc may write their moronic stuff as often as they want without being canceled.
shouting down isn’t comparble to being locked out of YouTube, twitter, Facebook, etc.
shout back!
Beyond that, shouting down is when members of the audience make noise so that nobody can hear the speaker.
Responding to a post does not cover up or make it impossible to read the original post.
The fact that Leitmotif has to compare numerous responses to “shouting down”, just shows how weak his original argument was.
You’ve just made my point, MarkW.
Thank you.
I’m surprised you didn’t criticize me for stalking Joseph.
When someone is wrong, I point it out.
As to how you whine and cry whenever someone points out your errors, that’s your problem.
So you admit you are stalking Joseph?
Still waiting for your evidence on the surface warming effects of the GHE.
Yawn.
Tick tock.
Amazing how the sky dragons are so like the climate scientists, they both get their panties in a wad when the science goes against them and they both demand that those who disagree with them be shut down.
If you’re seeing sky dragons, MarkW, I’d stay of the crème de menthe if I were you.
Watch out for those ghgs!
And liberals are fleeing from that title as well.
“You mean like how lukewarmists on WUWT shout down anyone who has the temerity to deny the existence of the GHE?”
What exactly does this mean?
You are not denying that CO2 is absorbing and emitting radiation are you?
If it’s not that, then maybe you are saying there is no discernable effect on Earth’s weather from CO2 absorbing and emitting? I would agree with that.
I suspect it’s not that simple though. Would love an explanation.
“You are not denying that CO2 is absorbing and emitting radiation are you?”
I have never claimed that.
“there is no discernable effect on Earth’s weather from CO2 absorbing and emitting”
I’ve never claimed that either but I agree with it.
I have claimed that there is no evidence that back radiation from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes surface warming.
Posters on here ask warmists for evidence for CAGW but they become reticent when they themselves are asked for evidence that greenhouse gases cause any surface warming from back radiation.
To me that is hypocrisy.
The evidence has been presented. Like the warmistas you claim to oppose, you reject any evidence that doesn’t support what you want to believe.
“The evidence has been presented. “
You are such a clutz, MarkW.
Humour me.
Put your evidence out here now. I challenge you.
Where is your evidence?
The only claimed paper is Feldman et al (2015) which did nothing of the sort.
Where is your evidence?
Stop embarrassing yourself.
He’s right though, no back radiation. Conjectured, never observed experimentally.
I hope you are not seriously suggesting we cant measure infrared light and discriminate wavelength. That would be total nuts!
Straw man, Jim. It’s about observed effects not whether things radiate.
You’re not paying attention
We “shout down” anyone who makes claims contrary to observation. Alarmist, luke-warmist, or denier – you all get the same treatment.
The cancer of leftist ideology kills everything it takes root in, just that simple. History of the last 200 years clearly teaches this, that is why they are so desperate to suppress real education and silence all dissent. All these “fact checkers” are being forced to admit they are simply giving opinions, not facts and damned well NOT science.
Unfortunately, it’s easier to convince people that they are entitled to free stuff, then it is to convince them to work hard and improve their own lot.
Mann is a [high] priest.
He is no scientist
No. Mann is an island entire of itself.
“[Pacific] islands ‘growing not shrinking’ due to climate change” – DT
He always gets a favourable platform in the religious media.
Well Donne!
But he’s certainly not the ‘Isle of Right’! (Apologies to my UK friends)
He must be a son of Cowes….
“Cowes is a fantastic holiday town located on the very northern tip of the Isle of Wight, perfect for couples and group holidays, along the towns pedestrianised High Street you will find a wealth of specialty shops, art galleries, and boutiques. The seafront is never more than a moment away, and a short walk will take you to the Esplanade and along to the famous Royal Yacht Squadron, where you can look out to see and appreciate what makes the town such a popular sailing destination for sailors and enthusiasts from around the world.”
https://www.isleofwight.com/listing/cowes-isle-of-wight/
A haven for your average multi-millionaire elitist. And it’s pedestrianised, too.
No, he’s The Isle of What’s Left.
He doesn’t even have a ticket to Ride.
From a psychological standpoint, the very behavior of the Climate Liars betrays them. Case in point: Michael Mann, whose lying reached pathological levels long ago.
Mann isn’t by himself. There are too many liars of his caliber in alarmist climate science. Phil Jones comes readily to mind, the chief bastardizer of the instrument-era temperature record. In cahoots with Mann and all the other Climategate Charlatans.
This small group of climate change liars has caused great damage to Society, mentally and monetarily, with no end in sight, because their lies are still believed by our gullible, scientifically-unqualified leadership.
Trillions of dollars wasted on this climate change hoax, and millions of people suffering mental health problems worrying themselves to death over an imaginary danger.
It’s criminal.
Good article that highlights the lack of the ‘true methodology of science’ regarding the climate change issue, and the extraordinary bias in the media when reporting on the issue.
When I first read just recently of the confirmed 38C temperature record at the Siberian town of Verkhoyansk, which occurred 18 months ago, I did a Google search for the historical temperature records at this location.
I couldn’t find any consistent records. Almost every link was about the 2020 summer record of 38 degrees C. After scrolling through many pages of Google links, I came across a bit of information that put some perspective to the record 38 C. The region of Verkhoyansk has a history of extreme swings of maximum and minimum temperatures from summer to winter, and the previous hottest summer day was 37.3 C in 1988.
However, I couldn’t find any continuous temperature record of maximum and minimum temperatures since records began, in the town of Verkhoyansk. The town also has a mining industry and has been developing during the past few decades with additional roads and buildings, so it’s possible that the increase of 0.7 degrees above the previous record was due to the Urban Heat Island effect, but I can’t find any site which addresses this point regarding the Verkhoyansk heat wave.
The KNMI “Climate Explorer” website is usually a good starting point for this sort of data, but you do need to watch out for alternative (English / Latin alphabet) spellings of place-names.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcntmax.cgi?WMO=RSM00024266
https://climexp.knmi.nl/gdcntmin.cgi?WMO=RSM00024266
Censorship is ugly and it hurts when it becomes personal. Here’s the short list of webpages that have banned my comments:
EOS.org Science News by AGU
Astronomy Picture of the day
Skeptical Science
Tamino’s Open Mind
Politics.ie
That’s very sad. What on earth did you do to offend APOD?
Several years ago they put up a post and brought up the subject of Climate Change. The response from folks like me was huge. I was rather vocal, no bad 4 letter words but very accusatory of the people defending the topic. So they banned me. It would take me a long time to find that series of posts. A short search says I will probably never find the post in their StarshipAsterisk* forum.
Sorry to hear that…banning is such a pathetic response from them.
It took a few minutes to find:
by owlice » Sun Aug 04, 2013 2:46 am
StACase has been banned; any additional posts by this user
(under whatever name) will be removed.
AGU is such a disappointment.
What! You haven’t been banned by The Conversation yet? You aren’t trying hard enough.
I guess I’m nowhere near as offensive as you, I’ve only been banned by the CBC. But that is a pretty low bar to cross as anything more than sycophantic groveling is punishable
“…I’m nowhere near as offensive as you…”
_______________________________
If the Climate Change monster is ever to be slain, it won’t be won by the defense.
Funny how “The Science” of “Climate Change” is in fact the exact opposite of science.
“…a few political activists like Michael Mann…”.
Fixed.
Thanks for the link to the transcript, good insurance against You Boob Tube censorship. Plus I can read a transcript much faster than a speaker can say it – less overhead.
Me, too, thanks for the transcript.
You can’t un-brainwash people
Yes you can. Which reminds me of the joke:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
Only one, but…the lightbulb must want to change.
Jim Steele knocks it out of the park, again.
The activists are an aggressive minority who suppress the majority.
Jordan Peterson has a video, Why I Love Great Britain. It’s about him getting dis-invited from a fellowship at Cambridge. Then he was re-invited after a faculty vote.
Cambridge is governed differently than North American universities. It hasn’t been taken over by ‘administration’. The faculty had a vote and by a 90% majority they made it impossible to dis-invite someone ever again.
Before the vote could be taken, a certain number of signatures were required. That was difficult because people were afraid of being cancelled if they signed.
If you needed an example of why the secret ballot is important, that would be it.
Defund the North American universities.
If you vote by mail, your vote really isn’t secret. At least not in Milwaukee County. Mail in voting requires all of your personal information on the outside of the envelope, and there isn’t an inside envelope for your ballot. That means whoever opens your vote can see how you voted or maybe the clerk can just note who the vote is from and chuck it in the burn bag. Here’s what it looks like:
https://postlmg.cc/2qxvKNJx
There’s all kinds of ways to code the mail-in vote so that it’s validity can be ascertained without revealing the identity of the voter. But Democrats don’t want that.
Colorado uses an outer and inner envelope. I suppose the cheaters then could then just throw away the inner envelopes and replace them. The switch to wide-spread mail in voting coincidentally correlated with the switch of Colorado from red to blue. Of course, the influx of Californians contributed.
The whole purpose of mail in ballots has always been to make cheating easier.
People should cast their votes in person, at the voting booth, if at all possible, and avoid mail-in ballots.
Voting should be one of the most important things we do in a representative democracy. Surely a little extra effort is warranted!
“Defund the North American universities.”
There you go! Good suggestion.
We need to scrap the old socialist education system, asap. It’s one of the things causing us our biggest problems. Seriously misinformed college graduates do not help the situation.
Bingo, commie
Here in canada various jurisdictions have eliminated the secret ballot for Union accreditation votes, the only possible reason for which is to allow union goons to bust knees and threaten those who don’t vote “correctly”.
Good on Jason Kenny for reversing that policy put in place by NDP Notley.
So, ya wanna discuss this like adults or just bury it at the bottom of the thread?
The albedo/atmosphere make the Earth cooler not warmer.
Yes or no? If no pls ‘splain.
The GHGs must absorb “extra” energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. (TFK_bams09.pdf (ucar.edu)) The kinetic energy heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules make BB impossible as also demonstrated by experiment.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Agree or disagree? If disagree pls ‘splain.
If both or either of these points is correct the greenhouse effect is not.
No greenhouse effect, no GHG warming, no man/CO2 driven global warming or climate change.
Version 1.0 121821
Now that’s paranoia. Responses are posted chronologically and you accuse the site of burying your nonsense.
BTW, I’m guessing that you are one of those guys who thinks repetition is equivalent to proof.
I had to delete Nick’s posts from my Youtube’s after repeatedly asking him to stop injecting off topic comments. Many of us skeptics have repeatedly shown Nick why there is a greenhouse effect despite believing that the greenhouse effect does not have a significant impact on today’s varying climate and weather. But no matter the science, no matter the topic at hand, Nick is obsessed with inserting his claim that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect. When he tries to hijack a thread with off topic rants trying to divert people’s attention to his rabbit hole, then deleting further comments is wise. If the topic is “what is a greenhouse effect” then his comments are appropriate.
“ Many of us skeptics have repeatedly shown Nick why there is a greenhouse effect”
I must have missed that – every time it was repeated too
You have evidence that the GHE is a real forcing and you have data showing how much warming it causes at the earth’s surface? Or even lab experiments would be a start.
“despite believing that the greenhouse effect does not have a significant impact on today’s varying climate and weather.”
So you have all the data for these impacts too?
Or is it all just …. well, you know … hypothesis?
Dang! you’ve missed a lot. Shows how blinding blinkers can be. Here is an experiment by Roy Spencer showing that it is “not a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for a cooler object emitting infrared radiation to keep a warm object warmer that it would otherwise be if the cooler object was not present.” His post also has links to other demonstrations showing infrared emissions from a cold sky, much like a boatload of measurements by other scientists
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/experiment-results-show-a-cool-object-can-make-a-warm-object-warmer-still/
I suggest that you and Nick start your own website, so you dont have to inject your persistent errant whining about “there is no greenhouse effect” into every other topic and discussion
Roy Spencer is like you Jim; he believes in the Tooth Fairy. I’ve read that rubbish from Roy Spencer many times. I’m surprised anyone is still taken in by it.
Roy believes in the 4 weak suns hypothesis of insolation based on shockingly bad calculation that only half the planet receives insolation at any one time and that the hemisphere receiving insolation has a projection of π r² to insolation rather than the 2π r² of its curved surface. Hence insolation is reduced to 1/4 of what it actually is.
This is bullstuff.
Roast a pig on a rotating spit at the X degrees and it will cook. Replace the heating element with 4 elements each 1/4 of the power of the original heating element.
You won’t be eating roast pork any time soon.
leit you are truly a troll
You ask for an experiment and Roy provided it. So you pivot to personal attacks. You clearly are not worth of responding to ever again
Roy provided nothing, Jim.
Riding around in his car pointing his pyrgeometer at the sky is no proof whatsoever.
Call me a troll if you want but you have to show people like me that back radiation from ghgs in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the planet surface.
Unless you do that you will have failed to convince warmists that they are right. Which makes you, not a troll, but at worse a fake scientist.
It’s up to you.
Jim, have you tried listening to Joseph Postma over at Climate of Sophistry?
He will put you right and make you feel a fool at the same time.
But it won’t be intentional.
Tell me what you think the CO2 molecule does at the quantum level when it absorbs a photon and how does that comply with the work carried out by Hoyt Hottel.
Do you actually teach this cr@p to your students?
Hang your head in shame.
The good Dr Spencer is flat wrong about “net” radiation, but it matters not since it applies to the 396/333/63 energy loop that does not exist.
“back” radiation – the concept that a cool system radiating cooler energy towards a hotter system radiating warmer energy somehow go “boink” in between producing a “net” energy somewhere between the two or “cools” the warmer system.
In my experiment I measured the power into a 125 W heating element of a measured surface area, m^2 to produce W/m^2 and a predicted BB temperature of about 820 F.
By LoT 1 what enters is all what must leave.
But it didn’t.
The measured 670 F energy leaving the surface of the heater was less than the 820 F energy predicted for a black body.
An early commentor asked if I considered that this cooling was “back” radiation from the surroundings.
So, what happened to the difference? Was this apparent cooling evidence of the notorious “back” radiation?
No, it was surface cooling caused by the non-radiative processes, the surface interaction of the kinetic energy of the contiguous molecular stuff.
But radiation is supposedly a function of temperature only and does not participate with these other kinetic energy processes.
What’s temperature?
The kinetic energy of stuff.
Radiation from a surface does not function separately from the kinetic energy processes and cannot be black body. “Back” radiation does not exist in a vacuum as I demonstrated.
Re: K-T diagram:
160 = 17 sensible kinetic + 80 latent kinetic + 63 LWIR temp/kinetic is real
396 “extra” = 333 “back” + the second 63 is not.
That you missed it is quite obvious. I have no doubt that you will manage to miss it the next 20 times it is presented as well.
The 1st and 2nd laws DO NOT MATTER!!!
The GHE numbers simply DO NOT ADD UP!!!
160 at surface = 17 + 80 + 63 leaving surface and the balance is complete. Anything else must be “extra.”
Speaking of “extra” 396 up = 333 magical GHG loop + A SECOND HELPING of 63.
396 is the theoretical “What if?” calculation for any surface at 16 C that goes in the denominator of the emissivity ratio, i.e. 63/396.
IT IS NOT REAL & DOES NOT EXIST!!
Erase the 396/333/63 GHG loop from the graphic and the balance is unaffected.
GOT THAT??!!
All the rest is moot.
Haha, MarkW. I think I will just ignore you now. You are such a drama queen.
Thanks for the entertainment in the past. You are up there with griff.
So, got nothin’ scientific then?
Ok, ok, the usual general rebuttal is – change the subject to some esoteric unrelated topic, appeal to authority and rag on me for making skeptics look bad.
.
AND TOTALLY AVOID MY TWO POINTS!!!!!
What happens to a naked, no atmos/no GHG Earth? Colder or hotter? It gets hotter!!!!! Says the MOON!!! That is NOT the ice ball of the GHE! ANSWER THAT!!!!!
According to the K-T diagram and numerous clones the GHGs get their “extra” upwelling energy from a BB Earth.
I have pointed out the arithmetic and thermodynamic errors and demonstrated by experiment why upwelling BB is not possible.
And the great defense of these garbage heat balances presented here – CHIRPING CRICKETS!!!!!!!!!!!!
WRONG AGAIN NICK
Clearly the moon’s night time temperature would not be so cold if there was an atmosphere with a greenhouse effect. Antarctica’s coldest is around -89.6°C the moon radiates away twice as much heat despite warming to such high daytime temperatures.
“The average temperature on the Moon (at the equator and mid latitudes) varies from -298 degrees Fahrenheit (-183 degrees Celsius), at night, to 224 degrees Fahrenheit (106 degrees Celsius) during the day. Because the Moon has no significant atmosphere to block some of the Sun’s rays or to help trap heat at night”
You are so completely wrong all the time I’m starting to think of you as just another stupid troll like Griff, desperately trying to , as you claim you do, “making skeptics look bad”
“Clearly the moon’s night time temperature would not be so cold if there was an atmosphere with a greenhouse effect.”
“Clearly the moon’s night time temperature would not be so cold if there was an atmosphere.”
I see what you did there Jim so I fixed it for you.
And don’t call people trolls just because they have bested you.
When you come up with some data to provide evidence for the GHE then you may have some cause to think of yourself as superior.
UCLA Diviner mission: Diviner (ucla.edu)
“The Lunar Thermal Enviroment
With the exception of Mercury, the Moon has the most extreme surface thermal environment of any planetary body in the solar system. At the lunar equator, mean surface temperatures reach almost 400K (260.6 ºF) at noon and then drop to below 100K (-279.4 ºF) during the night. For comparison, the mean surface temperature on Earth is a temperate 295K (71.6 ºF). (NOT? 288??)
The Earth and Moon each receive the same flux of solar radiation; the important difference is that the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere to insulate its surface. In addition to this the lunar day/night cycle lasts ~1 month (compared to 24 hours on Earth). Both of these factors are key in producing the extreme range of temperatures experienced on the Moon.”
Well, if the Moon is the way it is because it does not have the Earth’s atmosphere then the obvious flip side is that w/o that atmos the Earth would become much like the Moon.
And that totally rips the greenhouse effect that says the Earth becomes an ice ball.
BTW 288 K – 255 K = 33 C cooler is 100% garbage!
Remove the atmos/GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the moon.
That is NOT what the GHE says.
Can you dispute that?
And, no, the 396 W/m^2 upwelling is not measured.
IR instruments measure comparative/relative/reference temperatures ASSUMING a BB target and not power flux. Power flux is inferred ASSUMING an emissivity.
And if the other surface temperatures say 16 C the IR sensors are “tweaked within 0.3 C.
Says who? Says the USCRN manual monitoring handbook.
By “tweaking” emissivity I can display a power flux that suits my purpose. Upon seeing 16 C enter 1.0 and get 396. Enter 0.16 and get 63.
And btw, here’s an experiment that demonstrates the effects of such “tweaking.”
There is a lot of proof of normal weather and a lot written about it. A little proof please if there is disaster level climate change other than the construction of wind and solar solutions that blot the landscapes.
This is post-modern science.
This method was very successful in climate.
Now they apply it to vaccination.
They augment it with anti-terror machinery.
It’s funny. A very large portion of scientific research is wrong. Except climate science. Isn’t that odd?
Digital book burning is not unlike a researcher who is cited, and doesn’t agree with the article in which he/she/it is cited, and demands to have the reference to their work deleted. Science would be in a real pickle if everyone had the option of deleting, post publication, any reference to their work that they felt was not used ‘appropriately.’
Jim Steele – I really want to watch your videos but I can’t, because I can’t hear them. Is there anything you can do to boost the audio? Thanks.
TPG,
I am checking into that complaint. You are not the first to mention it. I can hear them clearly myself when I play them back. I use an external microphone to enhance sound and I also use it during ZOOm interviews without a problem being mentioned. So I’m at a loss right now, but do want to find a remedy. Hopefully the transcripts help
Thank you! I tried posting this under the written transcript, but couldn’t figure out how to post the comment.
You’re not missing anything. You’re not receiving misinformation either. Win – win.
“Stop embarrassing yourself.”
Please don’t ever use such a horrifying title picture as this again, I beg you. It made me physically ill when I first saw it, and left me with nightmares for several nights. I’m not kidding, I am a frequent reader and commenter on this blog, and a regular donor. But this kind of picture makes me reluctant to even open it, for fear of what I might see.