From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Weather Blog
Roy Spencer
DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.
From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.
I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.
Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:
- I believe the climate system has warmed
- I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.
From the information provided by Google about my violations, in terms of the number of ads served, by far the most frequented web pages here at drroyspencer.com with “unreliable and harmful claims” are our (UAH) monthly global temperature update pages. This is obviously because some activists employed by Google (who are probably weren’t even born when John Christy and I received both NASA and American Meteorological Society awards for our work) don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite dataset gives. Nevermind that our dataset remains one of the central global temperature datasets used by mainstream climate researchers in their work.
For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.
Happy that the cancellation affect will be minimal.
But must beg to differ that most of whatever warming has occurred since the PDO shift of 1977 is due to human activity.
That is a possibility, which would be apparent from a careful reading of my post.
Set up a donation page.
1. Mail address, my bank provides instruction to all epayees how to set up direct xfer from them vs a check.
2. PayPal until they cancel you as they did to flccc.
3. Currently donate to this website via PayPal. They should switch to mail.
Regards
Yes I agree. The big problem with this climate change stuff is the rush to infer causation from rough correlation and the dubious idea that “we can’t think of anything else that is causing it”
If it turns out that carbon is not the problem then you couldn’t dream up a worse policy response than zero-carbon if you thought about it with both hands for a fortnight
The notion that because ‘they couldn’t think of any other cause of warming other than CO2 then it must be CO2’ is the root error of climate science.
Both hands for a fortnight? A Doroyhy L Sayers fan?
JF
Maybe the Googlers are afraid that you might be right, and don’t want it to spread around.
This stupidity can’t be tolerated. We should all take personal action against Google by refusing to use or support their products or their advertisers. You can’t fix stupid,but you can try to punish the evils they do.
Use the Brave web browser and duckduckgo search engine.
I use many ad blockers, specifically have everything from Google turned off. My personal web experience is very different than masses.
Now Roy it’s your own fault really, because you show it how it is, reality.
To get back in Google,s good books, get Michael Mann around, he will bring the aprons and he will show you how to bake success.
Your just looking at the numbers all wrong. Treat it like the stock market, keep it rising right up through the tropopause and into the stratosphere right out to the foreversphere, until you have sold your own stocks and then bring in that nasty cooling period. You just got to let them know when it’s coming. Become an insider, you will meet a lot of new friends. The sort you can’t rely on.
Integrity Roy, it’s getting in the way again.
My best regards for 2022.
And thus a new category of “deplorables” has been created –
GOOGLE DENIERS.
I’ve hit Google where it hurts, in the revenues, by switching to the Brave browser and using StartPage.com as my search engine.
I get the same results as a Google search without Google tracking and selling my information
They don’t care about your personal switch….they do care if your website tells your hundreds of followers their level of incompetence….
I don’t like how Google filters and prioritizes search results.
If you’re curious, read about the filter bubble https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-privacy/new-duckduckgo-study-highlights-the-problem-of-the-google-filter-bubble/
DuckDuckGo, IMO, gives even better results, especially if you’re searching on a controversial subject.
Hi Roy,
I too was cancelled, in 2019. Wear it as a badge of honor – I found it quite liberating.
I resigned as a Professional Engineer and since then felt free to express my opinions much more forcefully than before.The Professional Engineering Association disgraced itself, and I walked away from them – just another woke, leftist-dominated institution. Story below.
Best regards, Allan.
HYPOTHESIS: RADICAL GREENS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng. April 14, 2019
1. Introduction
On December 6, 2018 I was informed in a letter from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) that I was “the 2019 Summit Award recipient of the Centennial Leadership Award. This is APEGA’s most prestigious award and is given to members of APEGA in recognition of continued leadership in the profession and in the community, attaining the highest distinction relating to engineering or geoscience.” That award has now been withdrawn by the Executive and the unanimous vote of APEGA Council, because of posts I wrote on wattsupwiththat.com
Two of my several accomplishments that resulted in the Centennial Award were:
· Innovations, by myself or with colleagues, which created 500,000 jobs, caused $250 billion in capital investment in Alberta and made Canada the fifth-largest oil producer in the world;
· Taking decisive actions that incurred significant personal risks when staff at the Mazeppa sour gas project were afraid to act, which may have saved up to 300,000 lives in Calgary.
For brevity, I have not included in this treatise all the details and references that support my statements. For the record, I have two engineering degrees related to the earth sciences, have worked on six continents, and have diligently studied the subject fields since 1985. In the late 1960s I was a member of an environmental group at Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, which predated Greenpeace. We focused on real air, water and soil pollution, which was largely cleaned up by the 1980’s and 1990’s.
APEGA objected to my following posts, which were written as my personal opinions:
“In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more.
Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!”
– February 1, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/31/elizabeth-warren-uses-coldest-polar-vortex-in-decades-to-call-for-green-new-deal-to-fight-global-warming/#comment-2612046
“…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…” – March 10, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/09/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to-poor-farmers-despite-environmentalist-opposition/#comment-2651782
“The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists – and they are the great killers of our age.” – March 11, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/10/benny-peiser-energy-revolts-the-crisis-of-europes-green-energy-agenda/#comment-2652044
APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground.
You are right, and congratulations on your contributions and integrity.
Leftists have four core competencies:
Feel free to add to this depressing list.
Leftists have caused enormous harm to humanity and the environment and they are just getting started.
If anyone is interested, THE MAZEPPA SOUR GAS STORY is described here.
Yes, let’s start our graph from where it’s really cold so we can see the horror! In the meantime, earth has been hotter and life thrived. Pay no attention to that Carbon Cycle thingy or Thermodynamic Equilibrium or the gas laws.
CliSciFi can’t have factual data harming its narrative. Begone, Heretic!
Nothing new under the Sun. Look up Gleichschaltung. Why are Germans always 90 years ahead of us? (2021 = 1931 + 90)
Its not that they’re ahead of us, its just history repeating itself over and over.
This time we’re just more aware for many reasons.
They knew then what we know now, but they were forced to take a knee, and skeptics were cancelled.
Alexa, tell Sundar Pichai to stick his tongue in a light socket.
Alexa is Amazon. ‘Hey Google’ is Google. Siri is Apple.
Advice: don’t use any of them more than minimally necessary because they track you, period, even when ‘off’.
Have a google smart display for my son posting granddaughter pics (he worked briefly at google). We regularly confuse it by asking to play Charlie Daniels ‘Devil went down to Georgia’ and then some classical opera overture, then ‘Hey Google, turn off’, which it pretends to but doesn’t because randomly asks something when we did not say the magic words.
That’s sufficient.
It’s not even about tracking. They are pretending to be ‘search engines’. Unlike actual search engines where you get multiple results and you are able to use your own judgement as to which are valid, they all give you one result.
One result. No judgement required, merely whoever pays most to get the first slot, or whoever ‘toes the line’. Utter propaganda, paid or idealistic. Anyone using these is their own worst enemy.
I know someone who pays $50,000 per month to Amazon to be the top slot when anyone searches for his product. He sells enough to make it worth his while.
I haven’t used Da Goog in 15 or 20 years…
See my comment above, Rud
Brave + StartPage
Yes, or Firefox and Duckduckgo.
I briefly had Siri on my phone. My sister “donated” the phone to me because I was still on my old flip phone, which was sufficient for my needs. I couldn’t shut that beeyatch off to save my soul, so I had to go to the phone store for help. I did use some very foul language any time Siri raised her hideous squawk, and am convinced that Siri is the mother of the HAL-3000 computer in “2001: A Space Odyssey”.
Some things should not be allowed and those tracking logarithms like Siri are only one of those things.
Alexa, Google, Siri.
You can tell them to turn off but they are still listening.
Otherwise, how could they turn back on when call their name?
Who knows what they do with what they hear when they’re “off”?
I miss the good old days when I had the entire, actual program I bought on my PC that didn’t depend on access to the internet to run.
No wireless. If I was concerned about what I was doing on my PC going out to everyone, I just unplugged the modem with no loss of functionality.
Sorry to hear that. I have long considered the UAH dataset the gold standard in global temperature data and read your monthly reports assiduously. Being cancelled by Google puts you in the good company of a lot of other fearless scientists and truth tellers. Wear it like a badge of honor. When the radical left notices and cancels you, you’re doing something right. The censors at Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and their ilk are radical leftists; completely out of touch with the views of mainstream Americans, no matter how much they pretend otherwise.
“The censors at Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and their ilk are radical leftists; completely out of touch with the views of mainstream Americans, no matter how much they pretend otherwise.”
Never mind mainstream Americans. The Google censors’ views are completely out of touch with reality. That is what matters.
They must suppress your work, they hate truth.
There should be a internet badge of honour that Dr. Roy, and other sites like his, can feature prominently on their site. “Banned by Google – for telling it like it is”
Hear! Hear!
I wouldn’t be to worried, as I see plenty of AGW post on Facebook here in Oz. Posts such as Green Peace, Climate Council looking for donations. From the comments I see, these posts get blasted out of the water, by FB users at the rate of 70% negative and 30% positive. The 30% is usually made up of the younger groups, art students, teachers etc. The AGW religion is in the minority.
I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon in the comments on YouTube More and more people are waking up and denouncing the AGW bullsh1t.
Negative comments on EVs are even higher, probably 90%. So the climate deathcult of zero worship is going to force 90% of the population to buy something they don’t want or go without a vehicle altogether. Something tells me the political whiplash of the cult’s actions is going to be severe.
At the last federal election, here in Oz, MSM polls showed that the opposition were in front by 5%. It was to be “the unlosable election”. The story was that the opposition leaders wife had the windows measured up in the prime ministers lodged, with her plan to change the curtains. The opposition had a “zero emission policy” with no costing. People voted with their feet, putting the current government back in with a healthy majority. The result got up the nose of MSM, here in Oz.
re: “Being cancelled by Google puts you in the good company”
I’m thinking, there needs to be a badge for that …
Something along the lines of, a Google-like symbol (can’t violate trademarks obviously) with an angled ‘slash’ or line through it.
You can use their trademark for satire, under fair use law.
Perhaps Poodle, in their colours, just not the same, letter for letter.
And the slash!
Auto
When you realize that they don’t care about mainstream Americans of today but are limiting/twisting/slanting the information available today in order mold what they want mainstream Americans to believe tomorrow, it all makes sense.
People make decisions based on the information that they know.
They are out to control the information available.
Google is joining the Democratic Party in going Lysenko on Covid and climate. Disagreeing with the Alphabet People is also nye kulturni to our political overlords.
Democrat party. As others have said (and I’m by no means original on this) “There is nothing ‘democratic’ about them.”
Sorry to hear you’ve become their latest victim. It would be interesting to know just what in the graphs they find so offensive and incorrect.
I love the graphs and use them a lot in my PowerPoint presentations, always giving credit to your work. However, one thing that I (and my audience) find distracting is the arrow on the right with “December 2021 +0.21C” on it. I feel the graph should be able to speak for itself as it tells an interesting and important story. Any chance you might be able to produce a version without the arrow in the future? The graph looks much more official and authorative without it I feel…but maybe that’s just me!
Keep up the good work for us all.
That’s an interesting concern.. I will think about it.
Yes, to me that arrow and text make it look a bit amateurish…which it is clearly not. Most graphs in scientific papers don’t have arrows but might have a box with a legend if necessary. Maybe even the red “running 13 month…” text could be in a little legend box on the bottom right so removing the need for the red arrow too. Just would make it look a bit more standard and official (I feel) and that’s just what we need to try and convince others that these graphs are actual science…not something drawn up by a media person or whatever for a dumb audience to understand. I think most of us at WUWT and at your website understand and can handle real science graphs! Anyway, just a thought…
I think it helps us non-sciency types to see exactly what is the discussion point, especially since the graph isn’t especially big?
Look HERE!!!!
😀
The graphs have been for public consumption, not publication in scientific journals. So, i use anything that conveys clarity and enhances understanding.
Absolutely fair enough…I totally understand your intention. However one other thing I notice that can tend to confuse some segments of the public a bit is the “December 2021 +0.21C” text. I often get people commenting that: “Gosh it’s gone by .21C in only a month!”
Obviously most WUWT readers and those following the debate understand that it’s just 0.21C above the average or mean, but at first glance to many it looks like there’s been a large jump up last month which is the reverse of what you’re trying to convey.
Mr. Layman here.
It took a few years following WUWT to get a grasp on “anomalies” and that an “average” temperature wasn’t an average of all recorded values.
It might be nice to also present an additional graph for the public that was just straight-up temperatures instead of just anomalies?
Tell him to download the data (which you give a link to on every monthly post) and let him plot it himself. I understand that you can do it in Excel (although I’ve never tried it myself, but I’ve looked at other peoples’ graphs produced in Excel and they look quite professional).
If he has any kind of graphics software, he should be able to remove the arrow with that.
I personally think the arrow is handy and I hope you keep it.
And welcome to the world of the cancelled! Or soon to be cancelled, when Google rules the world.
Hi Roy, Happy New Year to you and John Christy.
I have always used your UAH data in my work – it is the gold standard – the most credible and reliable of the global temperature databases.
Analysis of climate is difficult enough, and near-impossible when using some of the other climate databases, which have undergone suspicious changes that show a warming bias and are certainly not credible.
Repeating, UAH is the gold standard, and many of us are grateful to you and John for your good work.
Best regards, Allan MacRae in Calgary
For me, that arrow is OK. It shows where we are today.
The worst thing is… this doesn’t surprise me.
But there are still many, many real scientists who support you, Dr Spencer.
As said before concerning Steve Malloy, this is part of the reason (Facebook and Twitter being the others) that TMTG was valued at $4.3 billion BEFORE yesterday’s 20% jump from $50 to $60 on the Apple App Store news that Truth Social app will go live on President’s day.
Dr. Spencer will be welcome there.
Big Tech thought they could censure truth. What they have done is shoot themselves in both feet via creating strong viable competitors that will let truth flow freely. TMTG already has new equity commitments of $1 billion in addition to the $280 million from the SPAC. Trump will make more from TMTG in two years than he has from a long life in real estate.
As long as Apple and Google put their app in the app stores.
Nope. Apps are convenient, but not necessary. There is no WUWT app.
That Apple already listed the TMTG app is a very good sign.
How long does it take to remove the app again?
I trust Apple even less than Amazon.
Apps are convenient, but not necessary.
That depends entirely on whether the creator has chosen to support web-based use. Plus, a VERY large portion of people, I would venture a majority, only use apps for such things anymore.
Have never used an app to find something specific on my computer, and never will. Apps are for people who are too mentally lazy to type in the object of their search. The phones we depend on now are simply accessing the WiFi signal and if someone really wants to snoop on your telecommunications, they’re going to do that anyway. If you weren’t around in the 1970s when wiretaps were “a thing” for spying on people, there isn’t a whole lot of difference between that and tracking your WiFi stuff, other than it’s your provider doing the tracking instead of the government.
History keeps repeating itself. Wiretapping in the 1970s and Siri, et al., spying on you. You have to wonder if any of those clowns will ever grow up.
TMTG – “Trump Media & Technology Group”
(Had to look it up … and bravo to the alternatives.)
That makes it a risky investment.
The alternative is even riskier 🙁
True Roy. What is a scientist without belief? Just another saddo doubting Thomas. Sighhhhh.
Oh dear, the lukewarmists are out in force today. See if you can get me up to -50 guys. That would be -49 minus Willis.
Roy Spencer is the guy who said “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/
Right now I am sat on an insulated chair in my Speedos in January in Scotland with the heating off in front of a cubic metre of ice at -20C and y’know, I think I am definitely getting warmer. Could be hyperthermia, though.
Reality really bothers you, doesn’t it.
Mark, cooler objects cannot make warmer objects warmer still.
The theory is the the cooler object retards the cooling of the warmer object. Big difference. Whether this is what happens on Earth……
If the cooler object covers up an even cooler object, then the cooler object will cause a warmer object to warm.
The atmosphere is cooler than the surface, however since the atmosphere covers up much cooler space, the surface ends up being warmer than the surface would be absent an atmosphere.
There are some that like to claim that it is impossible for the atmosphere to cause surface to be warmer.
”The atmosphere is cooler than the surface, however since the atmosphere covers up much cooler space, the surface ends up being warmer than the surface would be absent an atmosphere.”
But it does not mean the atmosphere warms the surface in any way other than slow the cooling. The heat comes from the sun and the sun only. Only the sun ”warms” the surface. A blanket does not warm you. Activity in your cells does.
Strictly speaking, no. The warmer object will only “warm” if its being supplied more energy than its losing and putting it near a cooler object doesn’t achieve that.
If you have a pot of soup on the stove and you turn off the stove then you might put the lid on the pot to “keep it warm” not to warm it up.
In the case of the atmosphere, the extra energy comes from the sun warming the surface.
Its a relatively subtle distinction but an important one because your statement breaks the laws of thermodynamics which is what a lot of people complain about.
Yes, it doen’t WARM the warmer object. It slows the warmer object’s loss of heat.
Where are your data, MarkW?
Without data all you have is a hypothesis.
Your words “absent an atmosphere”. No clouds, no ice, no vegetation, etc., no absorption, no reflection of suns rays except for wherever the surface dirt does. So how much of the 1360 w/m2 will arrive at surface? My bet it is far more than arrives with an atmosphere and the surface will be at a higher temperature than with an atmosphere.
A bit like the moon.
“The theory is the .. cooler object retards the cooling of the warmer object.”
Of course, that’s why I put some clothes on today, even though I know the clothes will actually be cooler than me. They make the object (me) which is warm, warmer still . .
(And I suggest leitmotif put some on, before he freezes to death ; )
”They make the object (me) which is warm, warmer still . ”
No they don’t. They could only ”make” you warmer if they electrified.
I have no idea how you could believe such a silly thing. Obviously people are warm things without clothes, and obviously they put on clothes to be warmer still . .
(Are you a recent college graduate by any chance? ; )
”I have no idea how you could believe such a silly thing. Obviously people are warm things without clothes, and obviously they put on clothes to be warmer still . .”
A slight misunderstanding. (probably my fault)
Some people still seem to believe the atmosphere warms the surface directly through the downward flow of heat it contains.
It’s a fine point but ”cooler object warms hotter object” could be (and is) understood as that.
College? I’ve never been near one. I wanted to get a motorbike and be a rockstar after high school. 🙂
Yes but the clothes per se do not make you warmer. Your skin surface and the clothes are both at the ambient heat of the room, say 20°C. Your internal body heat is 37°C. The clothes delay the transfer of this body heat to the outside world so that the temperature of your skin surface reaches a more acceptable (to you) level.
You select the clothes which will have the required effect given the ambient temperature but their rôle in this business is purely passive.
They retard your loss of heat, and that heat is produced by your metabolism.
I think I will just let Mike below show everyone what a gullible fool you are, MarkW
You still have extreme difficulty in understanding the difference between radiation and net radiation. Everything in the universe radiates. All the time.
“You still have extreme difficulty in understanding the difference between radiation and net radiation. “
Because there is no such thing.
While you Zig Zag have extreme difficulty, like most WUWT posters, understanding the difference between radiation and heat.
Go look it up.
OK. So what is thermal radiation then? It’s the release of photons (radiation) from an object where the photons have a frequency corresponding to the object’s molecular vibrational modes. In other words, the object lost vibrational energy (heat) in the form of photons. Those radiated photons may then be absorbed into the vibrational modes of a neighboring object which will correspondingly gain thermal energy (heat). For example, this is why frost tends not to form where a lawn’s surface is under a tree’s canopy but does form on immediately adjacent surfaces – the exchange of thermal radiation between the tree’s canopy and the lawn underneath it keeps that portion of the lawn’s temperature higher.
So you agree with Spencer than cooler objects can make warmer objects even warmer still?
Indeed, all neighboring objects are exchanging thermal radiation, always. Like gravity it’s one of those physical phenomena that’s not, or shouldn’t be, controversial.
So you should have no trouble finding evidence, data etc to support your belief?
Let me know when you do.
Here you go: https://www.eng.auburn.edu/~dmckwski/mech7210/radexchange.pdf
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
That’s not evidence and data. That’s a text book.
The reason I asked you for evidence and data is because there is none.
The only real attempt is Feldman et al (2015) and that paper could not separate anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere from natural CO2.
I thought we were discussing radiative coupling and your apparent conjecture that a colder object could not provide heat via thermal radiation to a warmer object – radiative energy transfer is so non-controversial that it is the subject of a routine mechanical engineering lecture. Seems like a bait-and-switch on your part with the CO2 remark there: there is no way to know the origin of any given CO2 molecule in the atmosphere and I would never argue that there was. What is your point or do you have one?
“Everything in the universe radiates.” Only in classical physics. In quantum physics, not everything is a black body.
Subsitutute the cubic meter of ice with outerspace at -270 Deg C. So…which way are you warmer? Snuggled up to outer space at -270? Or snuggled up to the ice at -20? Obviously you are warmer next to the block of ice.
Straw man.
What about it makes it a straw man? Yelling insults does nothing for your argument.
Pretend we do not have an atmosphere at all. Earth’s surface would be snuggled up to outer space at -270 Deg C. Cover it instead with a layer of ice at -20 Deg C. Which surface would be warmer? Change the ice to an atmosphere at -20 Deg C. Which is warmer?
If you cannot see the logic of this, you are being willfully blind. Absent a cold atmosphere, earth’s surface would be colder still.
“If you cannot see the logic of this, you are being willfully blind. “
Or you could be talking through your hat.
I’m not sure because I don’t know what you are talking about.
Anyone?
Answer the question. Is the surface of the earth warmer when wrapped with a blanket of outer space at -270 or by a blanket of atmosphere at -20?
Ever slept in an igloo or a quinzee? Both made of snow colder than me. Yet I survived multiple nights at -40. If I hadn’t had the cold snow of the igloo between me and the outside, I would have absolutely frozen to death. Or are you arguing that without the cold snow of the igloo I would have been warm enough to survive -40?
Ever measure the temperature of your clothes? Are they as warm as you are in a cool room? Question – if you take your clothes off which are cooler than you are, in a cool room, do you get warmer? Or cooler?
Answer the questions.
Insulation and insolation. Lots of people get them mixed up.
Sell your igloo and get a condo.
David, David, David ……
I was describing a situation where I was the hottest thing in the room (it’s never happened to me before. :)).
The block of ice would slowly melt, I would die of hyperthermia. The block of ice would not sustain me.
You are describing something totally different. Get your head out of your ar$e.
You’ve carefully refused to answer my questions because doing so would prove you are wrong. Your angry suggestion above pretty much proves to the casual observer that you do not have a cogent argument to make.
Ok David I’ve not slept in an igloo or a quinzee (whatever that is).
What else?
Something about the planet at -270 K surrounded by ice at -20C replaced by an atmosphere at -20C.
Naw, can’t help you there pal. Have you tried pilates? I believe it frees the mind.
Remember David, Don’t Look Up!
The insulation in my attic is colder than the ceiling beneath it. Should I get rid of it? We got down to about – 23 F this morning. Ceiling insulation cooled to the temperature of a MN winter when placed on my ceiling, will keep my house warmer. There always is a source of heat in my house unless the furnace dies. Same with the Earth. This is an endless conversation. Why are we having it? Why are you bringing this up? You might as well bring up the magical unicorns. Did we consider those? What about them?
Straw man.
LOL. Confronted with factual arguments all you can do is yell “straw man”. Willfully blind.
Ragnaar’s post was meaningless as was yours.
What do want me to do? Get into a pointless argument?
The only person hurling pointless arguments is you.
Where’s your data for the GHE and the ECS, David.
Take your time; you’ll need it.
What has the data got to do with the point you were responding too? Either the poster has a valid argument or they don’t. Trying to change the subject just shows that you don’t have one.
So no data for the GHE or the ECS, David?
Notice how hard I am to deflect, David.
I notice whenever I ask for data for the GHE or the ECS I never get an answer. I just get a question.
I get that on warmist websites too.
Isn’t that funny?
Isn’t it funny that both warmists and skeptics don’t think you know what you are talking about? That should give you pause but I predict that it won’t, and that you won’t answer the question either.
I’m moving on so you’ll get no more replies from me, but I will leave you with this. For over a century engineers have used the precise principles various people have tried to explain to you in this thread to design everything from steam locomotives to nuclear power plants to blast furnaces to easy bake ovens and many other things. These things work as designed because the physics works precisely as has been explained to you.
None are so blind as those who will not see. ~ Johnny Dark
“Isn’t it funny that both warmists and skeptics don’t think you know what you are talking about? “
No I don’t because they are the same climate change uninformed obsessed people.
What do you expect a pig to do but grunt?
As I said to Gordon Dressler (I thought he was Andrew Dessler, silly me – both warmists anyway) I accept your defeat.
You give me a quote as a parting shot. Gordon gave me a website for children’s science education. He beat you, David.
Continue to believe in unicorns and back radiation.
I’ll just continue to look at the data.
Here’s an experiment anyone can do. Get a radiant heater attachment for a standard 20 pound propane cylinder. Get a Type-K thermocouple meter and probe and attach the probe to the face of the heater grill. Start the heater (outdoors on a calm day or in a well ventilated enclosed area and monitor the temperature until it stabilizes. Now place a sheet of non-combustible material (fiber cement board or a sheet of steel for example) 2 feet in front of the heater and monitor the temperature. You can also attach a second temperature sensor the the face of your blocking sheet of material. You will see that the heater face temperature increases when the blocking board it put in place. If you wait long enough the blocking board will heat up substantially while the heater face temperature also continues to increase. Eventually an equilibrium will be established. At that point the heater face temperature will be significantly hotter than its initial temperature and will also be hotter than the surface of the blocking board. If you remove the blocking board (careful it may be hot) the heater face will return to its original stable temperature.
This experiment is essentially the same as a common fire testing apparatus know as a “radiant panel tester” that is used to measure the response of materials to exposure to radiant heating in a fire. This apparatus has very specific design and calibration procedures to assure repeatable and reproducible results. The temperature increase of the radiant panel when a test specimen is moved into the exposure position is readily observed in every test. It is a simple example of the effect of blocking radiant heat transmission and creating back radiation. It is a clear demonstration of a cooler object causing a increase in the temperature of a hotter object by reduction in the rate of cooling of the hotter object.
“It is a clear demonstration of a cooler object causing a increase in the temperature of a hotter object by reduction in the rate of cooling of the hotter object.”
A reduction in cooling does not make a hot object hotter.
A reduction in ageing does not make someone younger.
An irreversible process cannot be slightly reversed.
re: “A reduction in cooling does not make a hot object hotter.”
Yes it does.
Only if the object is being heated at the same time.
re: “Only if the object is being heated at the same time.”
Are we going to piss around with semantics on this all day? Do _you_ WANT to piss around this subject all day on semantics? Do we have to go ALL the way back to defining what the meaning of “is” is? (Reference there on the last is to a deposition of then Pres. Clinton on the Paula Jones lawsuit I think it was.)
On my planet an increase in temperature is, by definition, hotter. A reduction in aging won’t make someone younger, but it will make them younger than they would otherwise be.
“ A reduction in aging won’t make someone younger, but it will make them younger than they would otherwise be.”
Straw man. My statement is correct.
Once again, backed into a corner by facts, here comes the “straw man” statement.
Your statement is wrong. A reduction in aging would leave someone younger than they otherwise would have been and a reduction in cooling leaves an object warmer than it otherwise would have been.
“Your statement is wrong. A reduction in aging would leave someone younger than they otherwise would have been “
But I didn’t say that, David, I said:
“A reduction in ageing does not make someone younger.”
hence the straw man.
Do you have comprehension problems David?
Btw, I don’t get backed into a corner by facts, I accept facts. Nobody has, of yet, offered me any facts just hypotheses about what back radiation does.
Not once in this thread have you accepted a fact. You’ve tried to change the subject every time, and/or shouted insults.
Give me a fact then.
Spell it out with evidence and data.
Don’t give me a hypothesis.
You’re the one who brought up the aging analogy. I just corrected your logic error.
You corrected nothing. See my reply to davidmhoffer. It applies to you too.
…and more refusal to accept facts, and more insults.
Are you saying David that I don’t accept facts and more insults?
Why would I not accept facts and why would I accept more insults?
Have you been talking to Willis?
leitmotif – You are obviously lacking in technical education. I suggest you go to college or take courses on line in physics, chemistry, advanced ,mathematics and engineering. Once you obtain an engineering degree you can try and pass the examinations and obtain a professional engineering license. Once you complete this process maybe we can talk again. I find it tiresome to argue with someone who is so ignorant of basic science.
Done it all. Been there. Yawn. Anything else?
No kidding, today it was so cold my car wouldn’t start, but it’s winter.
re: “Roy Spencer is the guy who said “Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still””
Mirror.
TO THE DOWNVOTER – explain refractory bricks then …
That is, explain why refractory bricks are used in say, a kiln.
In large part, you do not understand ‘blackbody’ EM (Electro-Magnetic) radiation of LW (long wave i.e. thermal) IR (infrared) radiative energy.
Your reliance is therefore (would seem to be) on some heretofore un-named ‘magic’ property you fail to, and cannot reasonably explain or detail the ‘operation’ thereof.
Is it the mythical ‘ether-like’ fluid or gas you folks claim is the unseen property that makes radiative transfer of energy possible? Please explain.
Dr. Spencer is absolutely correct in this context.
Any radiation absorbed by an object (said object being at any arbitrary temperature) will increase the energy content of that object, and measuring temperature is one means of establishing the energy content of an object. Therefore, absorbed energy = increase in temperature = making any object warmer than it would be otherwise.
Where many people go off the rails in understanding this simple concept is in thinking that a warmer object is necessarily radiating more energy than a cooler object by dint of the Stefan-Boltzman law of thermal radiation where radiation energy scales as T^4 (E/t = e *A* σ*T^4).
While this is a correct equation, it says nothing at all about the exchange of energy between a cooler object and a warmer object. Fundamentally, there is no physical law that says a warm object with, say, an EM radiation peak in the visible range of light cannot absorb lower frequency radiation, say, in the LWIR range.
As a matter of fact, if we use the S-B law in a limit case consideration of only two objects exchanging energy over a given time period of 1 (t=1), with the warmer object at 3 K and the cooler object at 2 K, we can see mathematically that if the product of emissivity times area (e*A) of the cooler object is greater than (3^4/2^4) = 5.06 times the e*A of the warmer object, more energy (E) will flow from the cooler object to the warmer object than will flow from the warmer object to the cooler object.
Again, the S-B law does not establish any pre-conditions or limitations as to where an object’s radiation is going or to what temperature it is radiating to.
With more energy flow from cooler object to warmer object, it is absolutely correct to say that the cooler object is making the warmer object even warmer. Of course, in this limit case thought experiment, the 1 K temperature difference between the two objects would not be maintained unless the mass*Cp of each object was infinite . . . so, in reality the temperatures of both objects would change over time to satisfy the equilibrium condition of power radiated by cooler object = power radiated by warmer object.
“With more energy flow from cooler object to warmer object, it is absolutely correct to say that the cooler object is making the warmer object even warmer. “
Could you supply me the data for your experiment then?
Do you not understand my use of the term “thought experiment” in the last paragraph of my previous post, let alone the utility of using such together with a mathematical proof of my statement that you quoted?
If not, I cannot help you.
So no evidence then?
You can use the S-B equation to do whatever you want if you don’t have to provide any evidence for it.
Qnet is the energy transferred every second from a warmer object to a cooler object and it is different for every second and stops when equilibrium is reached.
You use (Thot^4-Tcold^4) to mean both objects are transferring energy to each other. You’ve assumed this with no evidence to back it up.
Or it could mean that Qnet is the amount of energy transferred from warm to cool, determined by the temperature difference, because the cool object is not “interested” in energy levels it already possesses.
We wont know because there is no evidence but I’ll go with the original Clausius statement,
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.”
Thought experiment? You think too much, Gordon.
a) Mathematical equations, such as the Stefan-Boltzman equation are used frequently, including in peer-reviewed scientific papers, without the author(s) having to “provide evidence for it” (your words). And, no, the scientific method does not permit the use of the S-B equation “to do whatever you want” (again, your words).
b) Contrary to your assertion, I never used a formulation involving the term (Thot^4-Tcold^4). Check it out.
c) Your quote about the Clausius statement is insightful: it specifically uses the term “heat”. Therefore, I do believe that you are mistaking the physical meaning of “heat” with that of thermal “radiation” . . . the two are not equivalent, as is clearly revealed by just a look at the physical units used to express each term numerically (i.e., joules vs joules/sec/m^2/T^4, respectively).
d) Thought experiment? . . . Yeah, following proudly in the footsteps of thinkers like Schroedinger and his boxed cat, and Einstein and his spaceships, one with intersecting light beams and another carrying a clock at velocity a large fraction of light speed while a second initially-synchronized clock remains on Earth. These things never lead to anything useful, right?
Finally, following your words, I could give a snarky reply along the lines of “You think too little, leitmotif” but I won’t go there.
a) “ And, no, the scientific method does not permit the use of the S-B equation “to do whatever you want” “
Yes it does. Where have you been Andrew? It’s used constantly in arguments for back radiation as “proof” of a 2-way heat flow.
b) Noted.
c) ” I do believe that you are mistaking the physical meaning of “heat” with that of thermal “radiation”
Do you really?
Heat is the transfer of internal energy from a warmer object to a cooler object. Energy is measured in joules; heat is not measured in joules.
The S-B equation shows P=the net radiated power (heat) is measured in watts/m^2 or joules/sec/m^2. There is no /K^4 as the K^4 in the T^4 bit in the S-B equation is cancelled out by the /K^4 in Stefan’s constant.
I thought you were supposed to be a professional in this business, Andrew???
d) The GHE is a thought experiment. How’s that working out? Maybe we should ask Schrödinger ‘s cat? You got an extra ‘e’ in that too.
There is no /K^4 as the K^4 in the T^4 bit in the S-B equation is cancelled out by the /K^4 in Stefan’s constant.
Oh my. That’s not right. That’s not even wrong.
“Oh my. That’s not right. That’s not even wrong.”
But you forgot to tell me why, David.
joules/sec/m^2
On you go.
As it now stands, I only need point out the most serious of your misunderstandings of the physics of thermodynamics, your comment:
“Heat is the transfer of internal energy from a warmer object to a cooler object. Energy is measured in joules; heat is not measured in joules.”
Both sentences are incorrect at the most fundamental level of learning about thermodynamics.
Hence, future discourse between us would be pointless. However, to send you along with a parting gift, try consulting this link as a start: https://byjus.com/physics/unit-of-heat/
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
You really are a poor excuse for a scientist, Andrew.
I destroyed your arguments and so you refer me to a children’s website to show me where I should start from.
Admit it. You are just a poor excuse for a scientist.
“Both sentences are incorrect at the most fundamental level of learning about thermodynamics.”
Just like davidmhoffer you don’t say why I am wrong because I am not wrong. I am perfectly correct.
Heat is not a state, it is a process. It moves energy at a rate per area.
joules/sec/m^2
“Hence, future discourse between us would be pointless.”
I will miss the many laughs you have given me, Andrew, but hey why be vindictive. I accept your defeat.
TIP: Don’t assume posters with pseudonyms are not qualified in STEM subjects. In many cases we also have years of experience in excess of career physicists.
Apologies Gordon I got you mixed up with that other warmist Andrew Dessler.
Easy mistake to make.
Good dodge. How about telling him what is wrong, along with your proof?
I haven’t got 50 downvotes yet but I’ve already got 39 downvotes between my post above and the one below it which I count as the same post.
My whole point is that I have asked for evidence and data that supports the claims of the GHE and the ECS and have received none.
When are the lukewarmist posters on WUWT going to wake up and stop pandering to CAGW alarmists.
The CAGW alarmists argue that unicorns are destroying trees in the forests.
The lukewarmists argue that only some damage is caused by unicorns but most of it is by natural causes.
There are no f***ing unicorns.
Oh, do get a brain! What is belief without science – if not a religion.
Lesson: don’t respond to comments that are missing quotes.
Start again Harry. 🙂
Faith (a logical domain). Religion is a behavioral protocol: morality in a universal frame, ethics its relativistic sibling, and law its politically congruent cousin.
Harry, I was quoting Roy Spencer from this article. He’s a believer. (French shrug)
Leitmotif. Stop digging your hole. “Belief” isn’t the prerogative of religion. If I say “I believe Dr Spencer’s graph is correct”, does that make me a religious zealot? Of course not, it means I have weighed up the evidence for yes or no, to the best if my ability and come down on the yes side. I can equally well just “believe” in the accuracy of the graph because I respect Dr Spencer’s integrity and accept it at face value.
I think you are digging the hole, David.
“What is belief without science – if not a religion.”
Belief. And with science? Belief.
It just means one thinks something is true.
What do you call it when you think something is true?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
— Richard Feynman, noted philosopher, physicist, teacher, and Nobel Prize winner (in that order, as I believe he would want)
Feynman would disown you. Gordon.
I personally prefer my scientists with some experiment behind them.
Like, in my Penn State Grad Student days:
Theory: That co-ed wants to go home with me tonight…
after experiment: previous theory found invalid. Changing theory to fit evidence.
Story is cute. Was she? or were they? assuming you tried replicating the experiment several times before finding it invalid. Richard Feynman reportedly found decent success rate…
Why the 3 down votes? I don’t get it. ”The climate system has warmed” is a meaningless statement. (you can believe it if you want but that doesn’t give it any more meaning)
Where is the proof that the ”warming” (which is subjective) was caused by burning FFs? How do you dismiss all the other warm periods which were absolutely not caused by FFs?
Exactly Mike. The scientific null hypothesis controls reality, however much stupid f-kin humans think they control the scientific null hypothesis.
3 down votes! If only. 🙂
I now have -16 and -10.
Let’s face it, WUWT is a warmist website. It just hasn’t come out of the closet yet.
On warmist websites I ask for evidence of the GHE and get no evidence but plenty of abuse.
I ask the same question on WUWT and get the same reply.
Where’s the difference?
I’ve read all your comments which have generated logical, factual and easily understood answers. Your only come back is the “straw man” accusation, so who, exactly, is hurling abuse?
That the GHE exists is obvious to anyone who spends any time understanding it instead of screaming “straw man” when someone explains it. The difference between this site and “warmist” sites is understanding the magnitude of the man made portion of the GHE (small) and the magnitude of the ill effects (smaller still and possibly cancelled entirely by good effects).
I’ve posted over 30 comments on this thread. How many are about “straw man”?
Answer: 2 and 2 to defend the use of the straw man.
Some abuse, eh? I’m a real powder keg, eh?
“That the GHE exists is obvious to anyone who spends any time understanding it”
So show me the evidence. Show me the data. Take your time. Put it in your will, make it probate, so that others may continue your search.
People like you give credibility to CAGW alarmists because you are not that far away from them.
Mike
the climate system has warmed over the last 150 years, however its cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years. not sure if either mean anything.
If the real world observations don’t suit the narrative then the observations must be censored.
He who controls the past, controls the present and future.
NOAA (and NASA) are controlling the past, but not enough are speaking out … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs-K_tadveI
In “1984” they controlled all three by controlling the present.
Sound familiar?
Yes, but couldn’t recall it accurately so made up my own version.
Ok. This seems to be a as good a place as any to l link this video. It concerns ”mass formation” (the collective – group think) I consider it essential viewing for all those trying to understand the current drive of the ”elite” who are hypnotized into believing they can and should save the world by whatever means necessary. In this case to censor any dissenting opinion or even free thought which is outside the ”sacred circle”
The dialogue is mainly based around the pandemic but it is equally pertinent to the climate change, cancel culture etc., all of which are no doubt related and promoted by the same group of people. They also talk about the importance of continuing to speak out and show why sites such as WUWT are so vitally important.
We seem to be entering a potentially very dangerous situation and I IMPLORE everyone reading this to take the time and not only look at it but spread it far and wide.
Obviously, the usual suspects like griff and Loydo won’t understand as they are way to imbedded in the collective. It seems it’s the ”fence sitters” who ultimately hold the key to whether the narrative becomes all encompassing or fades away.
I know many people that have changed to alternative search engines including myself, perhaps if this trend continues Google will be irrelevant soon.
I use Brave browser and DuckDuckGo.
About once every three months I go to Google for a better search.
I watch YouTube all the time using Brave and never see an advert, except where it is embedded by the creator.
Isn’t YouTube also Google-owned? I use DDG and avoid Google products whenever possible. Used to own their stock. Sold FB, too.
Brave + StartPage
(sorry for repeating but relevant each time)
Look, the gulag glass is through,
Panicked narrative is turning blue.
Who is to be master?
Better not to ask her.
But you knew that, didn’t you?
==============
“I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since…”
Since, you are actually a climate scientist?
Being a climate scientist doesn’t matter, unless you are a skeptic then it is everything.
But if you are a believer, your article on extreme warming written from your experience as a sociologist is 100% valid and correct
That reminds me the stories “The Circle” and “Every” by Dave Eggers.
Big Brother’s thought-police strike again.
The “Pre-Thought Thought-Crimes” division ….
Boycott Google, its easy. Just stop googling and using Youtube. There are alternatives.
And then let their advertisers know you will not be doing business with them anymore either. Its easy to find out who they are, start with the top 10 and send them emails.
duckduckgo
Isn’t Youtube owned by Google?
Yes. That’s why Doonman said not to use it.
I remember when Google bought you tube. My (then) teenage son asked me why they’d do that. I replied: “advertising.”
I remember when you tube didn’t have ads, but then again, I remember when Michael Jackson was black.
Rumble for video
Dr Spencer is quite clear about what he believes.
Science is what one knows and can demonstrate.
Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as analog for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut MMU w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
According to the K-T atmospheric power flux balance and numerous clones the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396/333/63 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U
Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
EVIDENCE:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
C’mon Nick, you know the sun cannot melt ice and form clouds. Only ghgs can do that with their 33K of magic elixir. I don’t know why it is but I just know it is.
Just ask Trenberth.
It really is sad that the only way you can make yourself feel relevant is by lying about what others believe.
You are such a numpty, MarkW.
Go and comment at the Guardian. It will suit you down to the ground.
Trouble is…if twits like Nick and Leitmotif are censored by a moderator, them WUWT is no better than Gargle’s defunding Dr. Roy….
You mean realists like Nick and Leitmotif.
Get a life, you numpty.
“Science is what one knows and can demonstrate.”
No it’s not, it’s a practice, not a long list of things someone knows or can demonstrate.
“NOUN
I tire of pretend scientific thinkers, pretending they are infallible knowers of absolute truth. (And that includes the “climate crisis” gang.)
Haha! Another numpty.
To all:
Earth w/o atmos/GHGs/albedo becomes much like the Moon. Correct or incorrect?
K-T diagrams and the clones are trash. Correct or incorrect?
GHGs need “extra” energy upwelling from a BB surface. Not possible per experiment. Correct or incorrect?
Correct means no RGHE.
Incorrect needs evidence.
So, bring it!
Kinda quiet.
Is silence concession?
If they dispute the accuracy of the temperature updates, I suppose that means they think they have a more accurate source. I wonder what it is.
I wonder how far out they think these updates are? I wonder what errors in methodology they think are being made. If they think there are some, perhaps they’d be better off to specify them and have an adult conversation about them and argue their case, rather than throw their weight about.
These ‘misinformation’ claims imply deliberate deception on the part of these scientists, don’t they? They also suggest that I’m too stupid to make my own determination about how much weight to give to the words I read, and I therefore need Google’s help (whether I want it or not).
To the Climate Fascists, anything less than the most extreme (that is to say, the one that shows the most warming) “data set” is, by their meaningless definition, “misinformation.”
Opinion, valid content, and even direct quote censorship are so pernicious and blatant these days I can’t see why people don’t rise up and call it out to the point of removing the abusers from their information sources.
The entire climate change narrative is built on a lie — that CO2 bad. Any hint otherwise is a violation. Obama’s EPA made that very clear — …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYhfrgRAbH4
When you consider that nearly 40% of the data used by NOAA, NASA and Hadcrut is estimated and that the adjustments used to generate the data cannot be replicated and no adjustments are made for UHI; UAH looks pretty good. UAH is also the only data source replicated by the radiosondes. Google is a big problem. I hope the next congress can get Google, Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok and others in line with true science.
Google better censor the weather balloons, too, since they present the same data UAH presents.
Google = Eco-Nazis. George Orwell’s Big Brother and Ministry of Truth all rolled up into one steaming pile of manure.
I did. I got António Guterres.
Google, You Tube, Facebook, Twitter. All vile, toweringly arrogant and oh-so ripe for taking down a peg or three.
I did. I got John Kerry aka Lurch.
Horseface:)
“Why the incredibly long face?” “John Kerry is my father – and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is my mother.”
“and oh-so ripe for taking down a peg or three.”
Oh, yes.
There are two ways to deal with this dishonest censorship; 1) Stop using the GooFace Twits and Yahoos. It’s easy, switch to DuckDuckGo, delete your accounts on Facebook and Twitter, and get your news elsewhere. I did, and I didn’t miss much of anything. In fact, quitting big tech was probably a good thing. 2) Write the companies that sponsor the GooFace Twits and Yahoos letting them know that you won’t be buying their products until they stop sponsoring Big Tech because Big Tech inappropriately censors content.
I de-Boogled several years ago due to Boogle’s radical leftist practices. Given it’s massive size, Boogle is difficult to avoid when using technology, especially the Internet. Given how radical other tech companies have become, why bother to avoid Boogle. Makes me feel better.
Free speech is important in society and science. In this age of Intellectoidism, one must defend free speech, free thought, and freedom to inquire.
“Intelectoidism” is an interesting way to put it, but it seems a bit vague to me. I see it as imagination worship.
Getting someone to imagine something, for instance a very unpleasant future sans “confronting climate change”, is pretty easy, and I can certainly imagine that. But I don’t accept/treat such imaginings as if I was looking into some sort of infallible magic crystal ball, it’s just my imagination doing its thing, to me.
Getting people to accept/treat such imaginings in a worshipful way, as though an all-knowing God were imaging such things, rather than a mere fallible human being, is what I believe is the intent of the censoring in question. Which requires alternative images to be treated as “misinformation” at best, and as dangerous lies if at all possible.
Hence, the notion that our imaginations can be dreadfully misleading “crystal balls”, is the real target, I think. Because if that is not understood by most people, then the rest is fairly easy for any unscrupulous would-be “ruling elites” to pull off, given how easy it is to get people to imagine things. The key is to get people to “trust” their own imaginations.
Fact is the alarmists are throwing everything they can at the non-alarmists and are not winning with the ‘independents.’ I think we have momentum…
Perhaps Google staff can tell us exactly what percentage of the current 418ppm of CO2, is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. I did not see any dip in the curve whilst the biggest polluter shut down for a month.
It will manifest itself in about 500 years time.
Trust me, I’m a climate scientist.
(retire to the sofa holding head in vice-like grip)
Mr Leifmotif…..
“Trust me I’m. Climate scientist”.
That’s just the problem of course.
‘Many’ denizens don’t trust any type of science/scientist.
Because they disagree with what they discover.
Even doctors.
Because else?
You tell me … it’s you that are down the rabbit-hole.
And some random blog full of like-minds gives voice to your ‘beliefs’ and magnifies it’s power and ‘correctness’.
We live in a post common-sense world and this is one of it’s chief temples.
Close behind the anti-vaxxers and the QAnoners.
Oh, and Trump ‘won’. …. Of course he did – it’s obvious!
No evidence – just because he says so and signalled it beforehand so that (god forbid) he excuses himself from being a looser.
And (apparently) ~ 70% of Trump voters believe him.
Result – a real threat to your Republic down the line.
Because belief doesn’t need any sort of common-sense.
The mythical “colder doesn’t warm” bollocks you still espouse puts you firmly in the camp.
If you looked into it you would find that outer space is at 3K and the top of the atmosphere upwards of 200k.
Still don’t get it I suppose?
“We live in a post common-sense world and this is one of it’s chief temples.”
Someone is disconnected from reality, but I don’t think it is who you think it is.
QED:
The majority of experts in ANYTHING are by virtue of common-sense more likely to be correct than a random Blog full of echo-chamber cognitive dissonance motivated “belief”.
Hence the myths that never die like the 2 LoT violation.
That you think the tiny minority are correct is the QED.
A self-fulfilling prophecy for this place.
Ok, Anthony here is a graph by experts showing that CO2 has almost no emissivity. The experiments were done by different people in different decades with almost the exact same results.
Since, you should accept this as true as they are experts, please explain how CO2 could cause warming.
The mythical “colder doesn’t warm”
That is a straw person. And your alarmist camp engage in no less denial than any other side. You deny chaotic-nonlinear dynamics, you deny the principle of least action. You deny the existence of the ocean. In fact you deny all of science and all scientists who have ever lived, outside of a tiny hymn book of politically approved carbon-revisionist “science”.
“That is a straw person. ”
Err … it’s a direct response to Mr Leitmotif’s comment above.
But that’s OK, I expect that sort of goal-post shifting here.
Do you support his view BTW?
If not how’s about try shooting down some of you own worst enemies.
It’s laughable that can be uttered by anyone with common-sense.
Like 150 odd years of scientific enquiry hadn’t twigged.
MarkW did but where did it get him?
The abuse usually reserved for the likes of me.
Pathetic.
And the rest is just the usual complete down-the-rabbit-hole bollocks from here.
Again as expected.
Fact checking is supposed to be opinions checked against data.
Nothing wrong with that.
But what we’re seeing in Roy Spencer’s case is the exact opposite:
Data checked against opinions.
The part of Roy’s site flagged as “problematic” is the data itself!
And we know from Facebook’s own court submission that “fact-checking” is really “protected opinion”.
So this is not rhetoric: it literally is data judged by (protected) opinion.
How did it come to this – in the land of the free??
Leitmotif’s comment was a sarcastic one, pointing to the practice of shielding alarmist claims from (Popperian) falsifiability.
You need more experience in interpreting blog comments.
Hint – you need to read them twice and count to ten before replying (I still need practice with this).
The bit about “head in vice-like grip” went over my head though…
It was a parody on climate scientists who had to lie for survival. It was because I was lying and lying was getting me down and was making me more desperate.
Can’t be easy for these guys.
re: “Trust me, I’m a climate scientist.”
Which is what – one or two orders separated, de-coupled from physics?
Steeped more so in ‘stats’, and data presentation (and manipulation of same) and not so much what DRIVES those stats (atmospheric physics and physics generally); just trying to zero in on what being a “climate scientist” actually means here …
We badly need a national policy on the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. deciding on what is acceptable and not acceptable .. really, says who?
I typed in the GWPF and any number of combinations of the name of that august body of scientists and policy specialists and Google’s first hits are always that bastion of truth Wikipedia and hatchet jobs by Desmogblog and Netzerowatch.
Google does not even lower itself to give you a link to the GWPF, est ist verboten.
Es ist, even.
Your anomalies are too small, below noise level on an unadjusted basis. That said, appeasement only delays cancellation.
“Your anomalies are too small”
That’s an unkind thing to say to a man 🙂
I’ll have you know that nobody has ever complained about the size of my anomalies!
Google is leading us into a new Dark Age.
Dr Spencer, I believe what you are guilty of is heresy – that is, being a believer, and questioning the orthodox dogma. The aware person, must keep in mind the difference between a belief system, and the power/political system that develops along side of it. It is the reason why separation of church and State is so fundamental to an enlightened society, and why the current State adoption and support of only one side of the Climate debate is so harmful to both the efficacy and reputation of Science
Maybe Griff can give the insider climate police and orthodoxy explanation since he was giving clues on this for some time now. We need to see that rap sheet Griff.
“I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since…”
When are you professionals going to realize there is no middle ground with these people? We are in a life and death struggle and right now the Fabian Socialists (i.e., communists) are winning. It’s time to really choose sides and act accordingly. Or you’ll get no choice.
“When are you professionals going to realize there is no middle ground with these people?”
Good point. Fairness is out the window.
…and a new “Fairness Doctrine” would close the window.
Like that professor at Evergreen State in Olympia WA who thought, bless him, that he could reason with the woke mob. Watched a documentary about that whole fiasco and the clueless looks on the faces of the mostly white, older faculty as they were held hostage by the mob that they themselves had invited to descend upon them was humorous…sort of…
We can all fight back. Use DDG, turn off location services and Siri, Alexa, etc. and anonymize your browsing. Don’t share contacts with any app. Don’t allow cookies. Eventually a large enough demographic will be outside of the Big Tech world, or so pixilated that it cannot be monetized,that the monopoly will be broken. The trend is there: check out DuckDuckGo.com/traffic We are winning, that is why they use these methods.
DDG have their own anonymous browser now. It will also block all Android apps from tracking you too. Very good stuff.
”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?
”I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning” – Why?
Roy hasn’t heard that it’s the dark rooves and the climate changers are only worried about 1.5C-
Millions of Western Sydney homes uninhabitable within 15 yearsThe NSW government on Wednesday announced plans to ban dark roofs in a bid to promote energy efficiency.
Planning Minister Rob Stokes referenced UNSW research finding that Sydney’s ambient temperature could be reduced by up to 2.4C by ending dark roofing.
And during a heatwave, lighter-coloured roofs also have the ability to cut temperatures by up to 10C.
Millions of Sydney homes uninhabitable within 15 years (yahoo.com)
Somehow I don’t think pulling all the subsidies for wind solar and batteries and sticking it into white roof painting would go down well with the green blob.
“”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?”
Good question.
The last 10,000 years?
It’s been cooling for 10000 years
It’s been warming slightly for ~200 years
I refuse to panic, exactly the same as Roy
re: “”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?”
Take it back to oh, say, the Wisconsin Glacier.
Facts are bad. Truth is good. Truth is flexible and relative. I’ll take pity on you. That’s sarcasm.
Hey Google, fact check this:
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, came our current warm period. You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.
”You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years stay on schedule.”
It’s beyond curious that any scientist entertains this idea until you understand the mechanism of belief as outlined in the video I linked above. Curry and Spencer both seem to be taken in a tad.
Is it now just not enough to say we don’t yet understand what caused the great ”warming”, and any speculation about it remains just that?
And then they came for. ……….
Dr Dr. Spenser,
The battle for truth, You are one of my hero’s.
Historical data from receding Glaciers you highlighted. In “Paleoclimate of the Last 10,000 Years, Glacier Bay Annual report 2010 is also very hard to access. I have it on my disc in a PDF form. It showes that it has been warmer than now 7 times in the last 10,000 years. Some of the uncovered, logs from the ice, were 400 years when they were killed by advancing glaciers. This fact alone means to me that nothing happening today is outside of the normal with regards to the last 10,000 years. Those wanting a copy of the Pdf just asked for it at Roy4Maria@gmail.com
It is indeed hard to find. If you google it, it doesn’t show. But it was available through metager and is here:
https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/nature/upload/Lawson_etal_2010_AnnualPaleoclimateReport.pdf
Interesting that the first few results are the same from google and from metager with the only difference that the Glacier Bay paper is missing from google, whereas with metager its the first listing.
That link didn’t work for me.
This may be the full cite:
Lawson, D.E., Wiles, G. and Wiesenberg, N., 2010. Paleoclimate of the Last 10,000 Years, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Progress Understanding Climate Change in Southeast Alaska. 2010 Annual Report, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, AK
Cannot find it. Very “odd” because many other Glacier Bay reports by that author show up in searches.
I agree. Even the wonderful Sci-Hub site can’t find it for me!
Link does not work for me.
Try another paper:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/historicglacieractivityinglacierbay.htm
The original paper has mysteriously disappeared from the nps website.
Don’tbe evil.It is very easy to find alternatives to google and all its span … I did it a couple of years ago .. google Facebook twat and the like are all in the past for me
Per my Grandma (God rest her soul), if you don’t stand for something, you go for anything.
We approach the singularity …—…
Surely there are still politicians in the US who will champion free speech?
There are a lot of US politicians championing free speech, but there are also many who want to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s an ongoing battle.
“There are a lot of US politicians championing free speech, but there are also many who want to censor anyone who disagrees with them.”
I agree with that. Let’s not forget it was Trump who popularised the phrase “fake news” in an attempt to silence the press that was critical of him.
Except that much of it really is fake
And is still fake today
Like calling that Colorado grass fire climate change.
Fake as a $3 bill
There is fake news everywhere. But when a leader starts to censure his critics, there is a larger problem.
Calling something fake isn’t censorship. You shouldn’t confuse the two.
A White House ‘encouraging’ media like Google, Twitter and Facebook to remove “misleading information” is censorship. Calling something fake is merely the expression of an opinion.
>I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.<
Do you realy think they are educated? I think they come from high scool.
re: “Do you realy think they are educated?”
Well, how would you classify the “Pat” Rachel Maddows of the ‘whirled’?
You clearly don’t listen to her. You don’t have to agree with everything she says, but there is no doubt she is educated.
When will the lukewarmers understand, if you give the left an inch they will take everything.
Lukewarmer = A particular opinion.
After feedbacks, CO2 may cause net cooling rather than net warming, and noone knows which way it works, including Lukewarmers.
Roy seems to think we are warming because of man made CO2. Oh and so does Anthony Watts. I think it is testimony to his tolerance that he allows those who deny this to comment here.
Roy, like Judith Curry, states his belief but then freely admits he may be wrong
Because none of this is proven.
He and she exhibit the fundamental requirement of science which is “knowing what you don’t know”.
Do you think mike Mann has any clue as to what he doesn’t really know compared to what is merely belief?
“Do you think mike Mann has any clue as to what he doesn’t really know compared to what is merely belief?”
The only work of Mann’s I really know much about is his early stuff often referred to as the hockey stick.” Given it is now very old and been verify numerous times, and pretty much accepted by mainstream science, I don’t really have much to say about him.
”The only work of Mann’s I really know much about is his early stuff often referred to as the hockey stick.””
I feel ill.