Intersectional Climate Scientist Goes on Rant Against ‘White Men’

H/T Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York

Joshua Q. Nelson  reports that an “intersectional climate scientist” compared pollution to the “fart of a dog” when explaining her approach to thinking about climate change. 

A TikToker named Dr. Chandler Puritty who claims to be an “intersectional climate scientist” used a metaphor from the book “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” which includes a three-headed dog guarding a trap door.

I am a climate scientist, and I’m here to explain to you why we are definitely going to get this thing under control and why a lot of the narratives that we see predominantly from white men and professionals are so doom and gloom,” the TikToker said.

She proceeded to state that the three-headed dog Fluffy from the Harry Potter series represents capitalism, colonialism and White supremacy – all three of which she argued are barriers to solving the climate change issue. 

“OK, so you have this three-legged dog. The three-head dog. Now the heart of this dog is CO2. OK. Carbon dioxide. White scientists are telling us that the reason that every time we send someone in to get the Sorcerer’s Stone, the cure to climate change, from under the trapdoor is to make the room smell less like farts instead of to get rid of the dog entirely,” Puritty said. “Take it as you will.”

The video on Puritty’s TikTok account has over 180,000 views, which have also been shared on Libs of TikTok.

The Puritty previously made another video claiming that science was subjective.

“I would often be called out for my takeaways and my ideas saying that I am being subjective. When in reality the fact is we are all being subjective. But White men get to ignore the fact that they are being subjective because they are normal, the baseline – because their subjectivity is normalized,” she said.

Read more here.

4 17 votes
Article Rating
183 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ed Zuiderwijk
January 28, 2023 2:16 am

I am the emperor of China and I am here to explain to you why you are going to lose your head …

Bryan A
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 28, 2023 8:11 am

“Read more here”…
Why in the Sam Hill would I want to do that?
Constantly perusing the ravings of lunatics might cause some of their views to rub off

Last edited 1 month ago by Bryan A
nilocmal69
January 28, 2023 2:17 am

Daft cow. Not least because it’s Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER’S Stone. Can’t even get that right. Imbecile.

Editor
Reply to  nilocmal69
January 28, 2023 6:24 am

Sorry, nilocmal69! She may be imbecilic, but not for the title of that movie.

There were multiple titles for that movie that depended on the country. In the States and some other countries, the title was Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0241527/

Regards,
Bob

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 28, 2023 7:04 am

Same for the book as released in the US.
(I think it was the publishers that wanted to rename it because alchemy’s Philosopher’s Stone wasn’t that familiar to US readers.)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 28, 2023 6:14 pm

The Philosopher’s Stone is firmly embedded in the history of science and chemistry. I’ve never heard of a “Sorcerer’s Stone” outside of the Potter movie. Despite an English name, I’m very much an American.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 29, 2023 5:40 am

They invented it for book release in the US and other countries.
And it must be remembered it was marketed at first primarily to elementary school kids.

Tony_G
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 29, 2023 11:38 am

but not for the title of that movie.

The US book release had the same title (Sorceror’s Stone) but you’re probably right about her getting it from the movie. It would require reading otherwise.

HotScot
January 28, 2023 2:26 am

I wasn’t aware there is a Climate Science qualification.

Leo Smith
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2023 2:44 am

Sure there is. You need a Liberal Arts degree. And never to have passed an examination in mathematics or logic.

Bryan A
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 8:33 am

It’s all OK. New Grad Titles like New Math and all. Funny though, for a “Climate Scientist” she easily confuses GHGs. Exhalation is CO2 (44,000ppm) Farts are more CH4. I guess, intersectionally speaking, she’s talking out her A$$

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Bryan A
January 28, 2023 12:29 pm

The way she writes would suggest a very short intersection between her brain and her ass.

stevekj
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 10:14 am

Or physics, apparently…

Joao Martins
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2023 5:22 am

Neither I was aware that there is a “Intersectional” (whatever that may be) qualification of any scientific specialty…

Last edited 1 month ago by Joao Martins
Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joao Martins
January 28, 2023 8:04 am

I think she missed that intersection :<)

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Joe Crawford
January 28, 2023 2:31 pm

Intersectionality is all the rage on college campuses. It’s the crux (or horcrux) of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion mandates. In the academic world, you can’t even get a job any more without pledging fealty to that concept.

The result is, of course, conclusions that math and science are somehow racist and that 2 + 2 does, indeed, equal 5 if someone with the correct identity says it does.

Climate “science” has become the natural magnet for intersectionality because, as we know, in order to become a climate scientist, all you need to do is say that the world is coming to an end because of CO2. There is no other standard. So we get “scientists” like this one who feel quite comfortable taking advantage of the situation. She will undoubtedly be giving the graduation speech at Harvard a few years from now.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joao Martins
January 28, 2023 8:19 am

Sure there is a climate scientist qualification:
You have to demonize CO2. get hysterical about climate change, look very worried, wave your arms, and never laugh at any CO2 BS that follows the words “Scientist say”.

Paul Hurley
Reply to  HotScot
January 28, 2023 6:18 am

If you read enough children’s books, you can call yourself a Climate Scientist.

rah
January 28, 2023 2:43 am

Well, if five black police officers beating a black perp to death is a sign of “white supremacy”, certainly climate can be caused by the all powerful evil white male.

MSNBC Guest: Police Culture ‘Is Rooted in White Supremacy’ (breitbart.com)

White men are obviously the source of all the worlds problems. Real and imagined.

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
Rich Davis
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 3:20 am

The only hope for a white guy is to be a flamboyant sexual deviant. But even then, you better stay loudly to the left of Lenin on every subject to be tolerated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 3:45 am

“White men are obviously the source of all the worlds problems. Real and imagined.”

They are for Dr. Chandler Puritty it appears.

She is another victim of the racist propaganda being put out by the radical Left.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2023 4:25 am

When the teachers etc in the UK go on strike – as they have recently – I view it as a day in which the kids won’t be guilted and frightened, and generally indoctrinated

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 28, 2023 6:15 pm

Yeah, her rant takes down astrophysicists, which I presume must be the height of white supremacy in her mind. All that Imperial Wizardry mathematics and physics mumbo jumbo clearly is triggering!

What are these lefty devils doing to our children.

strativarius
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 4:22 am

Apparently, [in this case] the colour of the thugs in uniform isn’t important. Van Jones (is that a real name?) wants to move on when the perpetrators are not white

“It’s time to move to a more nuanced discussion of the way police violence endangers Black lives.”
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/27/opinions/tyre-nichols-memphis-police-department-jones

A narrative adjustment will have to be made.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
rah
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 11:01 am

Yep, it’s still “White Lash” even though it was black on black.

observa
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 4:25 am

Ah but these six black officers identified as white male police officers according to the bearded white male guru wot knows all about it objectively-comment image

Ipso facto that’s why the police should only consist of intersectional climate science grads that pull white males and their identifiers out of ICE cars and trucks and lecture them to death. It’s the only way to get rid of their normalised subjectivity objectively.

Scissor
Reply to  observa
January 28, 2023 9:21 am

I ask, is Karl Marx, displaying the sign of the Master of the Second Veil or did he just need to scratch a bosum itch?

Dena
Reply to  Scissor
January 28, 2023 10:08 am

Either doing an imitation of Napoleon or more likely because he didn’t bathe and had a serious skin condition, he was probably scratching what itched the most.

son of mulder
Reply to  observa
January 28, 2023 1:44 pm

Ah, Karl Marx, just another white man ideologically responsible for the deaths of millions of white people and Chinese and Cambodians….or was he just a political philosopher who wasn’t a Marxist? Maybe we should blame freedom of speech.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 9:15 am

You got that wrong. Those officers are self-identifying as white supremacists. That both explains and excuses it.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 1:51 pm

I hate to go off topic, but maybe those were white officers 00 all Trump supporters, in blackface, or so MSDNC will claim. ha ha

But seriously, the odds of being killed when resisting arrest are twice as high for White suspects than for Black suspects who resist arrest. Police officers are reluctant to shoot a Black suspect resisting e arrest even if the shooting is justified — policemen fear losing their job, or eve going to prison. (likilled while resisting arrest data from the Washington Post.)

I’m sure glad there are cameras. Those policemen look like they were recruited from a drug gang.

The sad fact is Black males commit a huge amount of violence and break a lot of laws, so often get stopped by the police for that reason, and too often they resist arrest.

Most victims of Black male committed homicides are other Balck men.

With interracial crimes, such as assaults, armed robberies and rapes, it is rare for a White criminal to choose a Black victim, but common for a Black criminal to choose a White victim.

It is not the fault of White people when Black people choose to be criminals.

These are facts supported by data,

Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 3:50 am

“and too often they resist arrest.”

I think that is the main problem.

I don’t know if Tyre Nichols initially resisted arrest. It was hard to tell from the video. I couldn’t tell if Tyre started it or the police started it.

Tyre did fight back and he did run away, but If I were being attacked by a group of people like that I would be doing the same thing Tyre was doing and try to get away.

But, in general, most of these incidents are caused by people who resist arrest.

Here’s the bottom line: If you resist arrest, no matter what color you are, you are putting yourself in a position to be seriously hurt or killed.

Don’t resist the police. Get a lawyer to do it for you. Nowadays, you don’t have to have any money to get a civil rights lawyer, they will volunteer to take your case.

Resisting the police can get you killed. And if you do resist arrest and get yourself killed, you have only yourself to blame.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 30, 2023 9:35 am

But lawyers are not available in your car, they take hours and lots of cash to appear at all! Too LATE.

The Real Engineer
Reply to  rah
January 30, 2023 9:30 am

I notice something important and scientific. I am a caucasion man. Strangely my skin is not “white”, it is pinkish, and after being in the sun it is somewhat brown, but miles from black. I object to being labelled as “white”, because I and every other Englishman of many generations is not either. Some are quite a range of colours, what is this white business anyway?

Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 2:43 am

That the three-headed dog Fluffy from the Harry Potter series represents capitalism, colonialism and White supremacy

Yo jest jealous, honey, because those three things built the world you live in.
Why make all the fuss? It was simply European’s time. Years ago the Middle Easterners ruled the roost. Then before that it was Africans. Who invented fire? Slavery? Or killing people with stones? Or even bows and arrows. Those goddam Black African colonialists who took over the whole world…before getting paler due to lack of sun…

Really Marxism is a pretty weird religion that doesn’t fit the facts in the real world at all.

Last edited 1 month ago by Leo Smith
Gunga Din
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 7:07 am

“Sometimes a three-headed dog is just a three-headed dog.”

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 28, 2023 7:42 am

Or, sometimes a three-legged dog is a three-head dog.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 9:17 am

Despite the fact that she works very hard at her blog, she’s not filthy rich.
That proves that capitalism doesn’t work, and it’s the fault of white men and colonialism.

Paul Hurley
Reply to  Leo Smith
January 28, 2023 4:09 pm

Wasn’t the author of the successful Harry Potter series of books declared persona non grata by the supreme leftist intelligentsia, her name and writings never to be spoken by true believers?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Paul Hurley
January 29, 2023 5:41 am

Yes, she spoke out against all the transgender stuff.

son of mulder
January 28, 2023 2:49 am

Scientists address scientific discovery and politicians address societal issues.

strativarius
Reply to  son of mulder
January 28, 2023 4:43 am

Post-modern…

Scientists endorse a narrative and politicians fund any science that underpins that narrative.

Doug Huffman
January 28, 2023 2:55 am

ChatGPT and DALL-EE mashup.

Tony_G
Reply to  Doug Huffman
January 29, 2023 12:52 pm

I don’t know DALL-EE, but ChatGPT would be MUCH more coherent.

strativarius
January 28, 2023 3:28 am

Another total lunatic

If that’s a climate scientist much is explained

Tom Abbott
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 3:48 am

Good point. 🙂

leefor
January 28, 2023 3:30 am

“A TikToker named Dr. Chandler Puritty who claims to be an “intersectional climate scientist”” At the intersection of biology and feelings.

Gunga Din
Reply to  leefor
January 28, 2023 7:15 am

Dispatcher:
“All units respond to a major accident at the intersection of Reality and Fantasy. Coroner is on route.”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  leefor
January 28, 2023 2:02 pm

Any time the word “intersectional” is used, the word “scientist” shouldn’t be, and means nothing when it is.

ozspeaksup
January 28, 2023 3:49 am

couldnt bring myself to waste bytes watching some idiots rant
the only intersection Id want that one at, is a crossroads like when they buried supposed witches at

Alexy Scherbakoff
January 28, 2023 3:53 am

climedown
January 28, 2023 4:00 am

What do you need to do to obtain a PhD nowadays? Had I continued further than my BSc and stuck my finger out of the window to see which way the wind was blowing, I wonder whether I would have gained my doctorate?

Martin Brumby
Reply to  climedown
January 28, 2023 4:16 am

Maybe it is just all PureTitty?

Leo Smith
Reply to  climedown
January 28, 2023 5:39 am

They wanted me to stay on and Do Research, but I wanted to get back to the RealWorld™

Graemethecat
January 28, 2023 4:05 am

The demented drivel coming out of Universities nowadays….

strativarius
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 28, 2023 6:24 am

I think they should go with a Spike Milligan* inspired position. Tenured Professor of Q at the BBC

*Thee influence for the Pythons.

Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:10 am

We conservative Climate Realists have our share of science deniers, and I’ve decided to challenge them this year. That will make me plenty of enemies, and down votes of my comments. I don’t care. Because we are losing this climate propaganda battle, even though we all seem to believe CAGW is an always wrong prediction — aka baloney.

Even though we seem to agree about CAGW, and have agreed on that in all the 25 years I’ve followed climate science, some climate realists hurt our cause by claiming:

There is no greenhouse effect

CO2 is not part of the greenhouse effect

CO2 does nothing

Climate change is 100% natural

Temperature changes leads manmade CO2 emissions changes, so CO2 can not be a cause of any global warming

Manmade CO2 emissions contributed only 3% of all the current 420ppm CO2

Water vapor is the major climate change variable, not a feedback to other climate change variables

Water vapor is 95% of the total greenhouse effect (definitely wrong if you include the greenhouse effect of clouds) so all other variables don’t matter

The sun (whose TOA solar energy output has barely changed in 50 years) is responsible for all the climate change in our lifetime

I probably missed some — basically all claim AGW is fake or negligible.

I believe the correct answer is AGW is harmless, but we do not have the ability to determine the exact causes of climate change — there are too many variables. There is strong evidence that manmade CO2 is one of many climate change variables, but it is obviously not the climate control knob.

I consider all these anti-AGW beliefs to be disinformation.
I’m sure many people here will disagree, and that is a problem.

The Climate Howlers, who control the climate change narrative, would also say all the anti-AGW claims are false.

But AGW is not a problem, whether you believe in it, or not.
.
The false prediction of CAGW (aka “climate change”) is the problem.

If we Climate Realists could all focus on refuting CAGW, and stop claiming AGW does not exist, we would have a consistent message.

We can refute CAGW without ever mentioning AGW.

In fact, opposing AGW makes our ability to refute CAGW fall apart to leftist act checking.

After 25 years of following this subject, I believe we Climate Realists should aim at the right target, CAGW, and stop shooting ourselves in the foot by denying AGW.

The Climate Howlers sound like trained parrots of climate scaremongering.
If we Climate Realists are more consistent in opposing CAGW, that doesn’t make us into trained parrots too — it makes us sound like we know what we are talking about. Maybe a little like parrots armed with facts data and logic?

Which brings me to this article.
Our climate change “enemy” is delusional leftists who spout nonsense and make always wrong climate predictions. We ought to be able to outsmart them. whether they are intersectional scientists who specialize in dog farts or not. I know what an intersection is. What intersectional means I have no idea. It probably means dumb.

Daily list of the best articles I’ve read on climate science and energy — 24 articles listed today. I couldn’t include this one only because it’s about a stupid leftist:
Honest Climate Science and Energy

The article mentioned:
Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York – Balancing the risks and benefits of environmental initiatives

Where Roger Caiazza is a great writer.

End of ranting and raving for today.

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:38 am

Richard

“science deniers”

“There is no”

“I believe”

Did you get ChatGPT to write that? If so, in whose style?

I totally agree the so-called climate crisis is entirely bogus, but ranting and raving is usually 99% a hallmark of far-left madness….

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 6:17 am

“ranting and raving” is a self-deprecating joke after a long comment — I’m sorry that you have no sense of humor

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 7:07 am

Oh I have a sense of humour (Milliganesque, it’s true) but that wasn’t funny.

My reply was, however.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:51 am

It’s been a mild winter so far in Wokeachusetts and I see nobody complaining- other than skiers.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
January 28, 2023 6:23 am

Why would anyone who lives in a relatively cold climate, such as in MA, my home state of Michigan and the UK, ever complain or worry about global warming, assuming they even noticed the warming from 1975 to 2015.?

The ski bums have their artificial snow. I grew up in a small NY town that had a ski resort. Thy stayed in business by making their own snow. We could hear their huge diesel fueled snow making systems in town on a quiet night, a few miles away.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 8:56 am

The climate alarmists are rabid here in Wokeacuhsetts.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:56 am

Believe me there is a big difference between man made “snow” and the natural powder that is Gods gift to skiers.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:14 am

There’s no evidence AGW *does* exist, Richard. And “greenhouse” effect is an incorrect analogy for what CO₂ is purported to do.

No knowledgeable skeptic denies the radiation physics of CO₂.

Claiming AGW because CO₂ radiation physics is like claiming unicorns because horses.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 28, 2023 8:25 am

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas was determined in a laboratory in the late 1800s. So adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere – – up +50% for CO2 since 1850 — should have some effect impeding Earth’s ability to cool itself. If you claim a +50% CO2 increase has no effect on the climate, then you arer a science denier. You can not help us refute the CAGW scaremongering with that belief.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 8:38 am

Nope, all that has ever been shown is that CO2 (and a few other gases) absorb/emit IR. The greenhouse effect comes from ignoring boundary layer processes. The surface temperature is independent of CO2 concentration.

Let me add that this is fairly complex until you put all the separate pieces together. Then you realize it is truly a brilliant design. Ever wonder why there’s an atmospheric window? It’s part of the design and needed to keep the atmospheric optical characteristics constant.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard M
Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 10:47 am

Radiation physics is not a theory of climate Richard G.

No one knows how the climate responds to the bit of kinetic energy CO2 injects into the atmosphere. Very small changes in cloud fraction or convection (e.g.) could render the impact on sensible heat negligible.

DonM
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 11:31 am

measurable effect?
significant effect?

I have yet to see anyone say NO effect. You are the only one (but in a bad way, not like Tigger).

Richard Greene
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2023 1:59 pm

There are too many AGW deniers who claim CO2 has no effect, or CO2 has no effect above 350ppm, or CO2 is not a climate change variable, or there is no greenhouse effect, etc. Basically implying 100% of the climate science consensus is wrong.

I’ve decided to comment on these false claims in 2023 because we are seriously losing the climate change propaganda battle. The AGW deniers hurt our ability to refute CAGW scaremongering.

Joe Gordon
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 2:49 pm

We’re losing the debate because no one ever wins a debate by saying the planet doesn’t need saving.

Twenty years ago, you likely couldn’t get elected to Congress without pledging some sort of deity belief. Today, it’s belief in AGW.

A “denier”, in the eyes of the media and the schoolteachers and our elected representatives, is someone who denies that the planet needs saving. No degree of nuance is possible with that crowd.

In order to win this debate, we need fair arbitration over the debate. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Children are indoctrinated. The only thing that could possibly change this is if people finally realize that this has been going on for decades now, and the planet is still intact. So far, that hasn’t even begun to happen.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Joe Gordon
January 28, 2023 10:57 pm

But we live with climate change every year of our lives. It hurts no one and I find it to be beneficial here in Michigan. We have reality — they have predictions.

sherro01
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:07 pm

Richard,
Please explain this graph or many others like it.
Imagine that it was the ONLY global measurement available, then create a policy response as if you were a government minister.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/uahjan2023.jpg

Richard Greene
Reply to  sherro01
January 28, 2023 11:14 pm

Imagine that I was a government minister = that’s a huge insult. I’m anti-government and against anything official !

The UAH chart of the global average for the past 8+ years is better.

Highest Rate of Manmade CO2 Emissions Ever, Yet There Was No Global Warming in the Past 8 Years (UAH data) (honestclimatescience.blogspot.com)

The explanation for a (temporary, I believe) flat average temperature trend is simple:

Climate change is the net result of many climate change variables. The trend does not depend on any one climate control knob.

Also, a trend under 30 years is data mining weather, not a climate change trend. And I know you know that.

There have been many temporary flat average temperature trends, and even a35-year global cooling trend, DURING the global warming trend since the cold 1690s.

Not one of those contrary trends — even the 35- year global cooling period from 1940 to 1975, had any ability to forecast the future climate.

Global warming resumed. And that’s a good thing, in my opinion. Because the alternative of global cooling is bad news. Many temporary flat average temperature trends are common but none have lasted very long.

The flat temperature trend for the past 8+ years (UAH) is more proof that CO2 is not the climate control knob. It could be an important new trend or it could be a nothingburger.

With my views on climate change CAGW (it is leftist nonsense) and my libertarian view on government (less government is best) I could not get elected as a dog catcher, much less a government minister.

Richard Greene
Reply to  sherro01
January 28, 2023 11:31 pm

Could you be retired professor Geoff Sherrington who wrote this great article on Australian climate?

A Truth the Climateers Simply Won’t Tolerate – CO2 Coalition

I consider you an expert on Australian climate and recommended that article on my blog.

I don’t care if you give me a hard time here. I was trying to steer the comments away from that intersectional pretend to be Ph.D. dingbat Chandler Puritty.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:26 pm

I look forward to your published essays.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 28, 2023 11:19 pm

Thanks. I don’t rant and rave in the style of Floyd R, Turbo much on my blog. Maybe once a week at most. I prefer to promote other authors. They work for free and should get more attention.

The only advantage I have is when I was a child, my parents taught me to never believe predictions because they are so often wrong.

What is CAGW? It’s nothing more than an always wrong prediction of climate doom — wrong since 1979 Charney Report.

sherro01
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:01 pm

Richard,
After Arrhenius passed IR through his optical cell and measured heat because of CO2, what happened when he stopped the IR coming in? My guess is that it all cooled again to the conditions prevailing before he started.
You are seeming to believe that the excess heat persisted, so that a billion people doing the same experiment could warm the earth. Not in my book. A part of the experiment is missing, as in what happened afterwards.
Have people been reading too many comics and books that rely on a surprise, but fictional, ending and are not popular without it? Geoff S

Richard Greene
Reply to  sherro01
January 28, 2023 11:23 pm

More greenhouse gases impede Earth’s ability to cool itself. It was discovered in the late 1800s that CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Therefore, adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere — up +50% since 1850, should impede Earth’s ability to cool itself by some amount, that has obviously been small and harmless, even if the ECS can not be calculated.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:25 pm

If a butterfly flaps its wings, it has an effect. At issue, is the effect non-negligible?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 6:18 am

No, you’re losing the script. The “lab determination” does nothing more than tell you the effect of CO2 IN ISOLATION.

To the extent the “greenhouse effect” is valid (not going to argue about that), it is based on the TOTAL of ALL “greenhouse gases,” NOT on the one(s) the Eco-Nazis fetishize because the alleged need to “control” the “emissions” of them provides their excuse to dictate every aspect of human existence.

Since the vast majority of the hypothetical “greenhouse effect” is caused by WATER VAPOR, and more than 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by oceans of water, the notion that humanity can control said “greenhouse effect” IN TOTALITY by reducing its already tiny contribution to minor constituent parts of it is ludicrous.

The fact remains, there is NO empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels do ANYTHING to the Earth’s temperature. To the contrary, there IS a good deal of evidence that atmospheric CO2 levels do nothing to the Earth’s temperature. Plenty of examples or REVERSE CORRELATION exist in the ice core reconstructions AND during the modern instrument record (the “Global COOLING” scare of the ’70s). More in the paleoclimate record.

The AGW/CAGW crowd’s argument is a house of cards. Every building block of it is WEAK and lacks a solid basis in evidence. A hint: “hypothetical” effects and “models” are *not* “evidence.” If anyone does damage to those speaking out against the “climate change” nonsense, it is those that want to ignore all the gaping holes in their supposed “science” and agree with them but argue that “it won’t be so bad.”

The Null Hypothesis IS that “climate change” is driven by natural forces has not been countered BY EVIDENCE despite all the “greenhouse gas” blather. The Earth has been much warmer than today, has been much colder than today, and has changed faster than today, long before there were any humans to blame it on. Until they can explain how the supposed “climate driving power” of CO2 at roughly TEN TIMES today’s concentration COULD NOT PREVENT A GLACIATION that lasted MILLIONS of years, there is NO REASON to concede that any part of today’s temperature change has a damn thing to do with the piddling 400ish ppm CO2 concentration of today.

SCIENCE is based on EVIDENCE.

sherro01
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 28, 2023 3:53 pm

Nice analogy, Pat. Geoff S.

Pat Frank
Reply to  sherro01
January 29, 2023 1:57 pm

Thanks,Geoff. 🙂 Good to see you here.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:28 am

Richard,
I probably agree with all of your facts, and I wholeheartedly embrace your call for climate realists to focus on the C, not the A of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming). But where we part company is on your use of the term enemy.

The people who believe this rot are overwhelmingly sincere, well-intentioned, ordinary folk, who have been misinformed. Some of them are my loved ones. Our goal, if it is to be worthy, is to persuade the misinformed of the truth, not to defeat them as vanquished enemies.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2023 8:44 am

Yes, most Climate Howlers are just useful idiots for the “cause”.
They have been brainwashed.

But the climate change cause is being used by the leaders to promote far more government power and far less personal freedom.
This a war for personal freedom. The climate change leaders need the useful idiots to support the cause, even if the leaders really don’t believe the climate scaremongering they promote. But they do believe in a lot more political power, the rule by leftist “experts”, and a new economic system that starts with fascism, and ends with Marxism.

Government promoted censorship by private companies is fascism

Persecution and prosecution of Trump supporters is fascism and Marxism

Critical racist Theory is Marxism

Promoting non-Christian sexuality in schools is Marxisms (started in 1919 in Russia)

Covid lockdowns of private business was fasciam

Mandatory unsafe and ineffective Covid vaccine is fascim.

EPA CAFE requirements to force electric auto manufacturing is fascism

Nut Zero is fascism aimed at the electric utilities and other industries

We are living in a Marxist revolutio,. so even the useful idiots are our enemies, assuming we want less government and more personal freedom.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, some say. In my book, people who do nothing are never good people.

I know the bible says: “Love Your Enemies – Matthew 5:44‘ … but I have always been an atheist, and do not follow the bible. Loving your enemies is the best way to lose the climate propaganda battle, IMHO

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 10:04 am

Sigh

Treating potentially persuadable people, even family members, as enemies is a sure way to be defeated. You don’t need to be a Christian to love your family or your countrymen for that matter. I’m not calling for you to love your enemies, but rather to recognize that they are not (all) actual enemies.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2023 2:20 pm

I did not say to accuse leftists of being enemies, or to treat them bad. But they are enemies in the climate propaganda battle. They are often enemies of all Trump supporters and all Covid unvaxxed people too. At one point in 2021, a survey showed many Democrats would have Covid unvaxxed people isolated in detention camps!

When people are political enemies, you don’t have to discuss politics, or politically charged subjects like climate change, with them.

That does not mean you sit quietly when they demonize CO2, Trump supporters, the unvaxxed, etc. They are political enemies against personal freedom and pro-censorship or our conservative views.

If you don’t keep that in mind, and you always stay polite when they pontificate, to avoid making waves when they start denigrating CO2, or Trump. or the unvaxxed, then you are a coward.

I refuse to be a coward. If a leftist spouts nonsense at me, I will respond in a way to refute their claim in simple but polite language (much more plote than I am here with strangers).

There are a few leftist former friends we have not seen in years. One couple won’t see us anymore because we are unvaxxed! Another couple has serious Trump Derangement Syndrome. The woman made a bizarre false claim about Trump before the 2020 election — claiming Trump had raped a 13 year old girl.
I responded by saying we both voted for Trump in 2020. We never saw that couple again. The good news is we spend more time with nice conservative friends now.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:49 am

Instead of rants try doing some reading. I’d suggest Miskolczi 2010 as it gets to the heart of the reality you deny. Once you understand the basics, try reading

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Note_on_Miskolczi_theory_25-05-2010.pdf

It takes Miskolczi’s work even deeper down the rabbit hole. The bottom line:

• The heat transfer from surface to atmosphere is only by convection, not by radiation.
• We do not need to know the composition of the atmosphere.
• We do not need to subdivide atmosphere into troposphere and stratosphere
• We do not need to differentiate between low and high latitudes; the theory holds everywhere.
We do not need to differ between low & high clouds, only their total albedo effect matters.
• The surface temperature TS is only coupled by SU=σTS4 =1.5 F0 to the net SW absorption F0.
• There is no “greenhouse gas”, no “forcing”, no “feedback”, no “climate sensitivity”.
• The cloudy sky moves to that equilibrium effective optical density whereby the net absorbed solar heat can be reradiated out into space with the minimum greenhouse effect, minimum surface temperature or maximum entropy production.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 8:55 am

I’ve doe a lot of reading. I can tell the difference between valid climate science, bizarre theories and junk science. You can’t.
You are into alt-science, rejecting 100% of consensus climate science, even when the consensus includes skeptical climate scientists who try to refute CAGW. Pleae join the Climate Howlers, because you are hurting the effort to refute CAGW , whic we are losing.

If you are claiming, • There is no “greenhouse gas”, no “forcing”, no “feedback”, no “climate sensitivity”., then it is you versus virtually every climate scientist in the world, including almost every skeptic scientist, from Richard Lindzen to William Happer. Good luck with that.

The claims at the link you provided are claptrap.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:23 am

If you were honest you would simply have stated you didn’t have ability to understand it and your entire opinion is nothing but an appeal to authority. And, since you’ve spent so much time denigrating people with open minds, you will resist any knowledge that refutes your previous position. Tough to take back all the name calling you continue to spew.

Yes, even most skeptics don’t understand the complex nature of our atmosphere and persist in their acceptance of the non-existent greenhouse effect.

The claims you call “claptrap” happen to agree with decades of NOAA radiosonde data. Climate science simply calls that coincidence. Nope, it’s a complex interplay of multiple physical systems which negates any potential warming from IR active gases, stabilizes the lapse rate, keeps CO2 levels and precipitation complementary, etc.

Enjoy your science denial.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 10:18 am

Richard M,
The problem that I perceive is that we must succeed in persuading a majority that there is no climate emergency. It is not that we need to fully comprehend the complexity of climate.

You set the bar far too high by trying to convince the general public indirectly that there is no climate emergency by convincing them that there is no greenhouse effect. Quite apart from the fact that I think your theory is probably wrong, the main thing is that your strategy is not EFFECTIVE. Even if you were correct, you depend on people dismissing the “experts” based on evidence that they can’t understand.

Convincing people that there is no climate emergency can be achieved by presenting empirical evidence without the necessity of fully understanding why the data is as it is.

Once you convince them that we don’t need a neolithic economy to combat Climate Change ™ then by all means bore us all to tears with the details.

Richard M
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2023 10:47 am

I used to think the same thing. However, I don’t see anything that is going to convince the public there is not a problem other than prolonged cooling. There was some movement towards skepticism driven by the previous pause. That faded away when temperature rose.

My goal is not to convince the public. My goal is to help skeptics understand the entire edifice used by climate science is incorrect. It’s driven by a lack of understanding of energy flows. Unfortunately, most skeptics now accept the false climate science edifice. The edifice itself leads to alarmism.

Look, I also accepted the incorrect energy flows for years. I ignored Miskolczi 2010 when Spencer said it was wrong. I never really looked into it. Now, I can see the reasons why Miskolczi is correct.

Once people understand the correct energy flows and the reasons behind them, they are much more confident in their views. They know precisely why climate science gets it wrong. All doubt evaporates.

As Richard Greene correctly pointed out, there are numerous skeptic claims out there that can’t move the discussion forward. He’s just not aware he holds one of those erroneous views.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 2:34 pm

“Look, I also accepted the incorrect energy flows for years. I ignored Miskolczi 2010 when Spencer said it was wrong.”

I have been reading Roy Soencer’s website for many years, and admire his volunteer work, with John Christy, to compile the UAH global average temperature statistics.

I even admire his apparently censorship free moderating for comments on the articles. That is the ultimate free speech, even if not pretty.

So if Spencer says Miskolczi is wrong, and I trust Spencer, then I believe it is very likely that Miskolczi is wrong. No greenhouse effect, he claims? That’s baloney. Why should I read further?

for..two regions (or bodies) A and B, the rate of flow of radiation emitted by A and absorbed by B is equal to the rate of flow the other way, regardless of other forms of (energy) transport that may be occurring.”

If this statement was true, then IR radiative transfers cannot change the temperature of anything, and Earth’s natural greenhouse effect cannot exist. Yet, elsewhere he implies that the greenhouse effect IS important to temperature by claiming that the greenhouse effect stays constant with time. The reader is left confused.”
Roy Spencer, Ph.D. climate scientist
(the real deal)

SOURCE OF QUOTE
Comments on Miskolczi’s (2010) Controversial Greenhouse Theory « Roy Spencer, PhD (drroyspencer.com)

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 3:06 pm

I fell for the same claims from Roy. I now know that was a mistake. What you are seeing is essentially a communications problem. What Miskolczi is pointing out is that the opacity of the atmosphere is a constant independent of man made GHG concentrations. If you wanted to call opacity a greenhouse effect he’d probably just shrug. His point is, whatever you call the effect, it is independent of well mixed GHG concentrations.

Don’t get bogged down in the terminology. First of all, what Roy quoted was a definition. Beyond this, Miskolczi also described how it relates to the atmosphere. Just quoting the definition is meaningless. This shows the depth of analysis from Roy. He completely missed the boat on this one.

I also respect everything Dr. Spencer has done. This just shows he’s not perfect. The paper is very complex and takes a lot of effort. I don’t think he put in the requisite effort. Neither did I back then.

I provided you more detail previously. I tried to put forth a simpler view as to why radiation models provide a wrong view.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/01/25/antarctica-putting-brakes-on-global-sea-level-rise-and-world-climate-news-makes-debut/#comment-3671859

No one is denying that IR energy radiates through the atmosphere and out to space. However, it is how the energy flows that is important. What Miskolczi found is that the OVERALL energy flow is basically constant for varying concentrations of well mixed GHGs.

The reason radiation models see radiative forcing (the greenhouse effect) is they miss many of the non-radiative processes. These processes would change the model results but are not part of these models.

Whether you choose to understand a different view of the physics involved, a more complete view, is your choice. However, just ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 11:44 pm

“What Miskolczi found is that the OVERALL energy flow is basically constant for varying concentrations of well mixed GHGs.”

That is baloney.
The energy flow incoming from the sun and outgoing through Earth trying to cool itself is not constant. If it was constant, the global average temperature would never change. But, in fact, the average temperature is ALWAYS changing, So there is no thermodynamic equilibrium.

People who cannot explain their views in simple language are using the age-old technique: “Baffle them with BS.” Sorry to hear you fell for it. And I continue to trust, and admire, Roy Spencer, for his voluntary contribution on the UAH statistic.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 2:22 pm

Greenhouse effect denial marks a scientist as a fool. Like wearing a T-shirt that says: “I’m stupid”.
Why should I continue reading?

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 3:07 pm

What makes a person a fool is claiming they understand something without even reading a word.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard M
January 28, 2023 11:49 pm

You provided an eight bullet point summary of
Miskolczi. I assumed you provided an accurate summary

Your summary included this statement:

“There is no “greenhouse gas”, no “forcing”, no “feedback”, no “climate sensitivity”.

From that statement alone, I conclude that Miskolczi is a science fraud. And I believe, based on 25 years of climate science reading, that almost every climate scientist in the world would agree with me.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 8:07 am

You provided an eight bullet point summary of

Miskolczi. 

I provided a link to a complimentary article that referenced Miskolczi’s work with mathematical support. I quoted from that reference. You obviously made no attempt to understand any of it.

From that statement alone, I conclude that Miskolczi is a science fraud.

Of course, you would have concluded Einstein was a “science fraud” when those 100 German scientists disagreed with him. Your views are nothing but appeals to authority. You are no different than the run of the mill alarmist.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 9:28 am

My comment to Rich Davis got me thinking of a better way this could be stated. It’s not that  “greenhouse gas”, “forcing”, “feedback”, and “climate sensitivity” don’t exist. They do exist within the boundary layer. What that means is the same processes that maintain thermal equilibrium with the surface essentially counter these effects. They are the negative feedback.

This eliminates these effects as far as the greater atmosphere is concerned. A lot of confusion can exist when people look only at words and refuse to understand the contextual meaning. As far as the overall atmosphere and climate are concerned, none of those factors come into play. That’s the message you are missing by looking only at a few words.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 3:16 pm

Richard G you oversimplify in a similar way to how Richard M is doing. Saying that heat transfer from the surface is ONLY from convection is obviously wrong, I agree. But the degree to which the delay of cooling due to GHGs actually affects the climate after all other dynamic effects are taken into account is an open question.

It is possible that negative feedbacks completely counteract the GHE.

It is likely in my opinion that climate sensitivity is not a constant, either spatially or temporally. It is probably different in different regions and over time, depending on many other factors that vary independently over time. It may well vary from a significant negative value to a significant positive value.

Just looking at how temperature has changed over the past 80 years or so, the evidence seems to indicate that rising CO2 has some warming effect which can be countered completely by other factors for significant periods of time. That seems to be obvious if during the current period of the highest emissions in all of human history, we are seeing no increase in temperature for seven years.

I refuse to condemn as irrational and unserious those who doubt the significance of the radiative properties of CO2. I just think that they are probably wrong and certainly ineffective in influencing the political argument on the question of whether there is a climate emergency.

We don’t need to ask so much as to ask those we wish to persuade that they accept that the vast percentage of “experts” are completely wrong. Maybe they are, probably they are not. Most experts do not even hold the view that we face a catastrophe.

All we really need to get people to accept is that so far the changes, if at all caused by CO2, have been mild and the enhanced greenhouse effect theory, if it is even correct, dictates that future emissions have an ever-decreasing effect.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 28, 2023 11:56 pm

That was a brilliant and very reasonable comment Rich Davis!

But are you trying to break up an internet fight like a diplomat? Is that legal? Are you running for political office? … I was trying to distract comments away from the intersectional dingbat featured in the article. I hate for dngbats to get so much attention.

I can only add that many climate science questions do not have answers yet. But too many people think they have “the answer,” when that is very unlikely to be true.

Richard M
Reply to  Rich Davis
January 29, 2023 8:47 am

Saying that heat transfer from the surface is ONLY from convection is obviously wrong

Is it? I take it you haven’t read Miskolczi’s work either. The historic NOAA data supports the concept of radiation exchange equilibrium. If all layers of the atmosphere exchange equal amounts of energy with all other layers, then no “heat” is being moved between them. That’s what the data supports.

Keep in mind this is an equilibrium situation. As soon as convection moves energy around then the equilibrium is broken and energy/heat will be moved. It is moved around in an attempt to regain equilibrium.

I think part of the problem is the separation of the surface skin from the boundary layer by climate science. They are a single thermodynamic entity due to the thermal equilibrium that exists. If you look at them as a single entity then the statement makes more sense.

It is likely in my opinion that climate sensitivity is not a constant

Climate sensitivity of well mixed GHGs is a constant. It is zero. When GHGs are increased they increase at all levels of the atmosphere proportionally to the density changes. This maintains radiation exchange equilibrium with a few caveats that balance out.

The reason all the so-called experts are wrong is because they have accepted the separation of the boundary layer from the surface skin is reasonable. All of the radiative forcing computations are simply changes in the energy flows within this single entity. Those flows are irrelevant to the overall climate as long as thermal equilibrium persists.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:53 am

100% of consensus climate science

Strange wording. Where did it come from? What does it mean?

Richard Greene
Reply to  John Hultquist
January 28, 2023 2:38 pm

Consensus climate science is 59% of all climate scientists who believe in CAGW and almost 100%os all climate scientists who believe in AGW. I only know of two AGW deniers in 25 years of reading about climate science, so the percentage must round to 100%.

That’s where the 100% comes from.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 4:34 pm

Consensus climate scientists have not been trained to evaluate the reliability of their own models and data. That’s my direct experience after dozens of adversarial encounters.

That group includes Roy Spencer, who made a complete mess of his attempt to critique “Propagation …” He admitted to knowing nothing of error propagation, nevertheless made an attempt at it, and got it worse than wrong.

That’s your “consensus,” Richard G. Agreement among the incompetent.

AndyHce
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 28, 2023 10:04 pm

Ask the question
How could anyone who has lived in California very long accept the current claims of the recent rains being due to some newly emerging conditions without wondering about the politicians and activists making those claims?

Yet that appears to be the case, as though they have been completely unaware of what goes on around them all the time. Even if they don’t know much history those ‘climate change’ claims ought to raise serious questions because they are so inconsistent with year to year reality, but it seems as though most people have empty heads just waiting to be filled with the daily propaganda.

Under these conditions, how can any rational argument penetrate, let alone one that requires them to accept some novel idea?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 29, 2023 12:17 am

Error propagation is not relevant for CAGW. It is only relevant for where there are data. CAGW is a data-free prediction. There are no CAGW data. CAGW has never happened. Therefore, error propagation is irrelevant. So far the CAGW prediction is a 100% error !

Concerning climate computer games, which is what I have called climate models since 1997:

Computer games are programmed to scare people and generally support the 1979 Charney Report ECS wild guess range. Only the Russian INM model seems to ignore that goal It overestimates the global warming trend by the least amount and is now no longer in the IPCC wild guess for ECS range of +2.5 to +4.0 degrees C. That INM model ought to get 99% of the attention, IMHO, rather than 1%. Accurate predictions are not a goal of the climate computer games.

That is also demonstrated by the fact the that the average model has not become more accurate / more reasonable in the past 40 years. That’s why CMIP6 predictions are likely to be less accurate than CMIP5 predictions, and CMIP7 predictions are likely to be less accurate than CMIP6 predictions.

My most important point is that no climate models exist. Complete, detailed knowledge of EVERY climate change variable would have to exist to create a real climate change model. Such knowledge does not exist.

In fact, even if that detailed knowledge did exist, there is no logical reason to assume the future climate could be predicted.

Predicting the future climate could be no more likely than predicting whether or not it will snow on the day, one year from today, in Paris, France. Such a prediction would just be a guess.

Daily list of the best climate science and energy articles I’ve read every morning:

Honest Climate Science and Energy

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 2:01 pm

Error propagation is not relevant for CAGW.”

Error propagation is relevant to climate model air temperature projections.

Climate model air temperature projections are relevant to AGW.

Hence … 🙂

Simple logic, Richard G.

Hivemind
Reply to  John Hultquist
January 28, 2023 7:06 pm

Consensus and science are an oxymoron. They can’t go together in the same sentence.

AndyHce
Reply to  Hivemind
January 28, 2023 10:05 pm

But is that what most people learned in their school yard cliques?

Richard Greene
Reply to  Hivemind
January 29, 2023 12:26 am

Not true
A science consensus can be true or false.
They tend to be false. Advances in science historically are from refuting the current consensus by a brilliant scientist, or by a small team of scientists. The consensus tends to be wrong, from slightly wrong, to completely wrong. But sometimes is right.

Unfortunately, CAGW seems to be a 59% consensus, based on a poll given by libertarians last year. In the leftist nonsense polls, the CAGW consensus is falsely claimed to be 97%. There is actually a 99% (my estimate) AGW (harmless warming) consensus, and a 59% CAGW (harmful warming) consensus … which is 59 percentage points too high.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:49 am

The sun is a driver and the oceans and larger bodies of water are the great modulators. IMO the warming of the oceans has resulted primarily from increased volcanic activity. The most elevated SSTs seem to most often appear along the ring of fire or in currents which carry warmer waters from tropical areas known to have geothermal activity.

How can increased CO2 drive the increase in SSTs and atmospheric water vapor without the tropospheric hot spots over the tropics? Which warms water faster? flame and heat from below or radiation from above? Radiation and insolation that is in fact modulated by the very clouds you refer to.

Why is the warming at the poles only manifesting during the winter months and not during the summer months? The answer is water vapor, not CO2.

The whole “green house” effect is a misnomer. Increased CO2 is not acting as a blanket, or a reflective pane of glass. If those were accurate analogies then the earth would be a hot house and would have been a much hotter place in past times when CO2 concentrations were up to 14X higher than they are now. But it is not and has not been. In part because it is a well known fact that the effect of increased CO2 dissipates as its concentration in the atmosphere gets higher.

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 28, 2023 2:50 pm

Baloney alert
TOA solar energy has barely changed in the satellite age — past 50 years. There is no sunspot count — average temperature correlation since the trough of the Maunder Minimum period in the 1690s. So claims of the sun driving climate CHANGE can not be suported by data,

“IMO the warming of the oceans has resulted primarily from increased volcanic activity.”
SPECILATION UNSI UPPORTED BY DATA
There are no long term or short term data for underseas volcano heat releases. All volcanoes in total are believed to be a minor source of climate change — mainly temporary changes.

In 2021, that number was 80 eruptions (on 75 volcanoes), with 33 new eruptions, 29 eruptions ending. Looking at 2020, it was 72 (on 67 volcanoes), 27 new, 25 ending. You begin to get the idea. The number is remarkably steady when you look over the past 20 years.

The Global Volcanism Program does not see any evidence that volcanic activity is actually increasing. Data about eruptions has been compiled by the Smithsonian since 1968 in order to provide context for global volcanism.

Scientists believe that 80 percent of the volcanic eruptions on Earth take place in the ocean. Most of these volcanoes are thousands of feet deep, and difficult to find.

The Ring of Fire is a string of volcanoes and sites of seismic activity, or earthquakes, around the edges of the Pacific Ocean. Roughly 90% of all earthquakes occur along the Ring of Fire, and the ring is dotted with 75% of all active volcanoes on Earth.

It would seem counterintuitive for a visible volcanoes to have a flat trend when underseas volcanoes were increasing. And then there is the small amount of heat from underseas volcanoes compared with the huge ocean.

Although the temperature of water immediately adjacent to the submarine lava reaches 88 degrees C (190 degrees F), it degrades quickly to 27 degrees C (81 degrees F), only slightly above the ambient ocean temperature, within a few inches of the contact. This is not to say that the water isn’t hot.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:02 pm

“IMO the warming of the oceans has resulted primarily from increased volcanic activity.”
SPECILATION UNSI UPPORTED BY DATA
There are no long term or short term data for underseas volcano heat releases. All volcanoes in total are believed to be a minor source of climate change — mainly temporary changes.
In 2021, that number was 80 eruptions (on 75 volcanoes), with 33 new eruptions, 29 eruptions ending. Looking at 2020, it was 72 (on 67 volcanoes), 27 new, 25 ending. You begin to get the idea. The number is remarkably steady when you look over the past 20 years.’

And so we have you posting more speculation to try and counter my own. The fact is that there is not adequate study and they simply don’t know because of lack of data. What data they have is about as reliable as their polar bear counts.

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 29, 2023 12:29 am

If there are no supporting data, then your belief that
“IMO the warming of the oceans has resulted primarily from increased volcanic activity.” is just meaningless data-free speculation.

I mentioned there is no evidence of visible volcanoes increasing. That doesn’t prove anything, but that’s all we know.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 9:54 pm

“We know virtually nothing about submarine volcanoes and eruption processes in the ocean, despite more than 75 percent of the Earth’s volcanoes being on the seafloor,” lead author Rebecca Carey, a volcanologist at the University of Tasmania in Australia

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 29, 2023 12:35 am

If we know virtually nothing about underseas volcanoes, then no conclusion is possible. I recall that weatherman Joe Bastardi speculates about underseas volcanoes too. Data free speculation.

However, there is an important physics question about whether underseas volcanoes produce enough heat to affect ocean surface temperature, And whether such ocean surface temperature changes, if they existed, were large enough to be measured.

I’m happy with “we don’t know that” answers to climate science questions, when “we don’t know that” is the correct answer.

rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 4:08 am

Would that be the same physics that was used to predict the formation of permanent hot spots over the tropics?
Would that be the same physics that was used to predict more severe weather, such as tornadoes and hurricanes?
Would that be the same physics that was used to predict that SLR would be much higher than it is now due to warming in the Arctic and the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet?
Would that be the same physics used to claim that earthquakes are somehow connected to the warming of the atmosphere?
Would that be the same physics used to predict that the earth’s atmosphere could become like that of Venus if human emissions were not stopped due to runaway feedback?
Would that be the same physics that was used to claim that the use of natural gas stoves is a significant danger to human health?
Would that be the same physics that was used for the EPA to declare CO2 a pollutant?
Would that be the same physics that ignores other physics that show that the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere declines as its concentration increases?
Etc, etc, etc…………

We know that volcanic activity on the surface can effect weather and even climate on a global scale. And yet your saying that the math does not indicate that the vast majority of volcanoes in the oceans have virtually no effect on anything other than in a very localized area.

Not buying it! We know less about our deep oceans than we do about the surface of the moon. They discovered the vents during the life time of my children.

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 10:10 pm

Peter Clack
@PeterDClack
·
8h

Only one other time in 600 million years has atmospheric CO2 & global temperatures been as low as today. That was the early Permian & it led to the greatest extinction event in world history. This study alone shows how crooked & fake the UN globalists climate fear campaign is.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnlrXEJaMAI_Rtg?format=jpg&name=large

Richard Greene
Reply to  rah
January 29, 2023 12:38 am

The standard climate lie is that the average temperature was perfect on June 6, 185, at 3:06pm, and any change from that estimated number, whether up or down, is a climate emergency. And never mind that people in 1850 would have preferred a warmer climate.

sherro01
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 3:52 pm

Richard,
As a hard scientist, I accept that radiative physics can show that a part of the atmosphere can be warmed by greenhouse gases. But this process is seldom followed through, further.
In my world of physics, if an object is made hot, it will commonly start to cool again, until it reaches a stable temperature in “equilibrium” with the surroundings. In one view, the surroundings are cold space near zero Kelvin, so there is capacity for the object to cool.
What is missing to date is a detailed, measured mechanism that causes GHG-heated gas to revert to a temperature higher than existed before GHG. Why can it not simply cool to the long term ambient average?
If I heat our kitchen oven above ambient, then turn it off, it goes back to ambient every time. Why is a conceptual parcel of GHG treated differently?
Have you ever read of an explanation? Try more classic heat flow equations in your analysis. Geoff S

Pat Frank
Reply to  sherro01
January 28, 2023 5:54 pm

Geoff — there seems to be a misapprehension of the effect of CO₂ radiation physics.

The general view is that CO₂ absorbs surface-emitted 15 μ radiation (it does), then re-radiates it upward and downward, the emitted radiation is then re-absorbed and again re-radiated, etc. many times until finally it all escapes to space.

This view is not correct. In the troposphere, collisional decay is orders of magnitude faster than radiative decay. The absorbed 15 μ radiation is not re-emitted. It is offloaded through collisions and converted into kinetic energy of oxygen and nitrogen molecules.

The radiant energy is thermalized into kinetic energy and collisionally randomized throughout the atmosphere. A random distribution of kinetic energy is identical to a Gaussian distribution of heat energy — the black body.

In other words the 15 μ radiation is converted into heat energy and becomes part of the black body radiation field of the terrestrial atmosphere.

The energy from radiatively excited CO₂ then re-radiates out into space as fully randomized black body radiation.

For CO₂, the ratio of (radiative lifetime)/(collisional lifetime) = 3.4×10⁻⁵ at 220 K and 1 atm pressure. That means the radiative decay rate = the collisional decay rate at about 10⁻⁵ atmospheres. That’s the pressure at about 150 km (90 mi), which is where collisional decay and radiative decay become about equal.

Above that height radiative decay of CO₂ dominates collisional decay, and vibrationally excited CO₂ decays by radiating off into space.

The radiant brightness of Earth as viewed from space remains constant. All that happens as CO₂ increases is that the radiant surface of the terrestrial black body moves outward a few meters, so that the black body radiation density remains constant.

Constancy reigns at the top of the atmosphere because energy in always equals energy out.

With increased CO₂, energy out necessarily includes less 15 μ radiation because that radiation band is more heavily absorbed (note the inverted CO₂ absorption band). However, in compensation, energy out must include more black body radiation. As energy out is a constant, more black body radiation requires that the radiation surface of Earth has to expand outward in order to radiate energy away at the necessary energy in = energy out rate.

Given ceteris paribus, the outward expansion of the black body radiation field combined with the lapse rate would require an increase in air temperature at the surface (global warming).

That’s where convection, hydrology, and cloud cover come in. Ceteris paribus — governing all of climate alarm — is a false premise. Earth climate is not a constancy. No one knows how clouds, hydrology, or convection respond to a bit more tropospheric K.E. There is no valid predictive physical theory of climate.

Up to this point, nothing with the climate is outside of known natural variation. So far as can be told, the increased tropospheric CO₂ derived from our emissions has had no observable effect on the climate. Indistinguishable from zero.

And yet, frenzy prevails.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 29, 2023 12:46 am

Greenhouse gases impede earth’s ability to cool itself with upwelling infrared radiation intended to reach the infinite heat sink of space.

You are living in climate science la la land.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 6:39 am

Wrong.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 30, 2023 5:38 am

No, you are. Climate Science La La Land is the only Earth where “all other things” are “held equal” so that a CO2 effect on the Earth’s temperature can be invoked to frighten the unwashed masses.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 30, 2023 5:45 am

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.0386a77dea093449149974f7364a0304?rik=KFjwrz3Bkk35nw&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

About 450 mya it was much colder than today. For millions of years. With atmospheric CO2 at about ten times what we have today. Explain, given the supposedly massive “impediment” to the Earth’s ability to cool itself presented by all that CO2.

Last edited 1 month ago by AGW is Not Science
Richard Greene
Reply to  sherro01
January 29, 2023 12:44 am

“If I heat our kitchen oven above ambient, then turn it off, it goes back to ambient every time.” 

The kitchen gets warmer when the oven is on unless there is a very effective heat vent and the temperature outdoors pulled into the home is a comfortable temperature. What does an oven have to do with earth cooling itself?

As the oven cools off, the kitchen gets warmer.

And what is a hard scientist. and is that better than a soft scientist?
I have to know.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 29, 2023 2:03 pm

Hard scientists do hard science.

Compare Ms. Dr. Puritty.

strativarius
January 28, 2023 4:16 am

Sorry to disappoint you all, but she isn’t a climate scientist at all.

“…a candidate for the Ph.D. in biology with a concentration in plant community ecology”

https://grad.ucsd.edu/diversity/programs/bouchet/bouchet-scholars-profiles/2019-bouchet-scholars/chandler-e-puritty.html

Aha, so plant association analysis etc has morphed into woke [anti-]racism

“The first year of graduate school is the leakiest part of the pipeline, and so most students of color, not because they aren’t capable or not interested . . . choose to not continue,” Puritty explained.

Puritty said that this ‘awoke a fire in her belly’ and she became passionate about figuring out why she felt more stressed and less confident in predominantly white spaces, at a historically Black institution.”

https://thesunflower.com/55057/lifestyle/arts-culture/dr-chandler-puritty-discusses-diversity-and-inclusion-in-science/

Now that really oozes plant community ecology.

Rich Davis
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 6:38 am

To be a Climastrologist is no different from any other religion, Strat, you just gotta believe. So of course Puritty is a Climastrology Scientist. (Although more accurately to be referred to as a theologian).

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 6:43 am

“Sorry to disappoint you all, but she isn’t a climate scientist at all.”

That may not be true. These days it seems a “climate scientist” includes any scientist whose work concerns CO2, or some wild guess prediction of climate doom.

There are over 3,000 scientific studies of plant growth and CO2 levels. usually about C3 photosynthesis plants and CO2 levels up to 2x ambient levels, or up to the 600ppm to 800ppm range. I used to read one of study every month for almost 25 years, which is about 300 studies. I usually say 200 studies because I never counted them.

I stopped reading them near the end of last year because they so consistently concluded that CO2 benefitted C3 plants, and slightly benefitted some C4 plants too. They are also tedious reading.

I read the studies because I’m a big fan of CO2. The scientists who do these studies might not call themselves “climate scientists” — but their work on CO2 enrichment and plants is closely related to one cause of climate change: Manmade CO2.

So it does not seem to be inaccurate to call a candidate for a Ph.D. in biology with a concentration in plant community ecology” a climate scientist, if they ever do CO2 – plant studies. However, with this person in the article, it might be exaggerating to call her a “scientist”, rather than a dingbat.

Due Diligence: I’m guessing what “plant community ecology” means.

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 7:09 am

Then, my cat is a climate scientist – she always checks with her nose before going through the catflap.

Richard Greene
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 8:57 am

Apply for a science grant for your cat.
Say bad things about CO2
My cat stays inside and sleeps close to a heat vent in the winter. Seems to sleep 16 hours a day. He does in the house wind sprints for 5 to 10 minutes every day, pretty good for 9 years old.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
rah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 10:02 am

Uh, Anthony Watts dog, Kenji, is or was at least, a dues paying member in good standing of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Kenji sniffs out stupid claims by the Union of Concerned Scientists | Watts Up With That?

If you read this Anthony. Is Kenji still among the living?

Last edited 1 month ago by rah
Dave Andrews
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 9:58 am

Cats definitely are climate scientists. As you say check with the nose and then go and sleep for a few hours above the water tank in the airing cupboard.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
rah
Reply to  Dave Andrews
January 28, 2023 10:28 am

My cat and dog are both climate scientists, The cat is an inside cat and likes it that way. The dog looks out the door and decides if it is a day to do her business outside or the try and go in the house.

We have to go outside with her if she is going to do her business outside. Otherwise, she’ll just stand there under the awning and wait a couple minutes and then bark as if she has done her business and wants back in.

QODTMWTD
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 7:21 am

She felt more stressed because she’s a racist.

strativarius
Reply to  QODTMWTD
January 28, 2023 8:21 am

Precisely.

MarkW
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 9:27 am

If just being around people who aren’t black is enough to make you uncomfortable, that indicates a mental problem on your part. It says nothing about the people around you.

Elliot W
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 1:56 pm

She thinks that people of color have difficulty in the higher levels of science? So, people of Asian descent then aren’t included as POC, in her narrow little head. Hasn’t she noticed that Asian-descent people do well at universities in STEM in spite of discrimination against their ancestors? Funny how far hard work without whining will get a person. She should try it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  strativarius
January 28, 2023 6:34 pm

A card-carrying Vegan.

guidvce4
January 28, 2023 5:15 am

I’m totally amazed at the level of nuttiness that is going around these days with a “PH.D” tagged behind their names. No doubt this one is going to find itself employment in soaking more grant money with a concentration on whatever it can grift from the appropriate sources for such nonsense. Taxpayer money, don’t cha know? She’ll be just fine, eventually.

strativarius
Reply to  guidvce4
January 28, 2023 5:55 am

Puritty
Has
Decided

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Richard Greene
Reply to  guidvce4
January 28, 2023 6:46 am

Does anyone know of a link to a Project Veritas stye video expose of what is actually is taught in a college classroom (or even high school) these days?

Those of us old timers who got their last college degree in 1977 would have no idea. I suspect a hidden video would shock me.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 7:27 am

If you watched the video in the head post, then you already know.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 28, 2023 9:05 am

If that is supposed to be a video, it does nothing when I click on it.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:40 pm

1977? That was 1971 for me, after two years in the army and working full-time 5 years to put myself through the last two years of my undergraduate degree.

DonM
Reply to  guidvce4
January 28, 2023 11:40 am

This nit is one of the many that is demanding that Joe cancel her debt.

Bruce Cobb
January 28, 2023 5:37 am

The Sorting Hat put her in the House of Wokeist Alarmist Communist Morons.

Pat Frank
January 28, 2023 6:02 am

One is left with only a supposition that Dr. Puritty’s doctorate is earned. The evidence is scanty.

People of her ilk — social constructivists — invariably fail to realize that if everything is subjective, then so is their view. They never apply their own logic to their own views.

If everything is subjective, Ms. Dr. Puritty, then so is your intersectionality,.

All your cause for racial opprobrium and sexual victimology is nothing more than a meaningless social construct — a personal gas emission by your lights.

Your complaint is left in shambles by your very own rantism.

The training of modern climatologists, already impoverished, has evidently reached a new nadir; a diagnosis not-subjective.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 29, 2023 6:45 am

I was puzzled by Ms. Dr. Puritty’s reference to “white spaces in traditionally black colleges,” until I realized she meant science departments.

QODTMWTD
January 28, 2023 7:15 am

That’s the most retarded analogy I’ve ever heard.

fah
January 28, 2023 7:25 am

I looked up “intersectionality” and found a number of papers written by Kimeberle Crenshaw. As I understand it, the concept seeks to find as many victim classes to which an individual belongs that can contribute to being the cause of that individual’s lack of performance on some metric of success or well being, and then conclude that that set of things is “the” cause. As I thought about it, it seemed a natural fit for the notion that CO2 is the sole cause of any harmful thing that happens with the earth’s climate. The current use of “intersectionality” does not include in the “intersection” any other attributes that can contribute to the lack of performance, such as cultural background, personal behavioral attributes, family structures, geographic factors, things such as ethnic or national origins, all of which can also contribute as causal factors affecting performance. It seems to me intersectionality is rather myopic in the same way that climatology is currently, focusing on a single cause for all bad effects. Cause and effect is a tricky thing in complicated situations and it is very easy as Feynman said to fool yourself.

DonM
Reply to  fah
January 28, 2023 11:42 am

As a white male, I am willing to take full responsibility for the fat/ugly part of her intersectionality.

Where do I send my reparations?

Richard Greene
Reply to  DonM
January 28, 2023 2:57 pm

As a White male I am proud of how much other White males have contributed to the health and prosperity of people on our planet,
I also do not judge people by their skin color. In my 69 years, I have never answered any question asking about my race. Either I leave it blank or write “Human”

DonM
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 30, 2023 12:03 pm

You are either:

a) fibbing
b) haven’t purchased a gun in the last 20 years
or
c) lied on your background check application and are subject to Federal prosecution.

Richard Greene
Reply to  fah
January 28, 2023 2:53 pm

Do you know where I could buy a gibberish decoder ring for that definition of intersectionality? My Jumpin’ Joe Biden gibberish decoder ring is not working — it claims the language must be from another planet — Uranus

fah
Reply to  Richard Greene
January 28, 2023 6:03 pm

I honestly had no clue what it was intended to mean, but after a couple of google scholar searches, it turns out Kimberle Crenshaw is credited with coining the term and defining the concept in a body of work beginning around 1989. Google scholar “Kimeberle Crenshaw intesectionality” and a number of papers will come up. The notion appears to boil down to what I said above, but you can judge for yourself. It is either woefully myopic or deliberately and purposefully intent on generating blame directed solely at class and demographic distinctions, for which the purpose seems to be justifying demanding solutions that punish innocent members of those demographics and classes while not proposing methods for which underperforming groups can adapt and overcome by their own actions.

Randle Dewees
January 28, 2023 7:32 am

A waste of talent. A legit PhD program in Biology may not be the hardest thing to do but it isn’t a push over, so she has some intelligence and staying power. After a bit of actual (but probably useless) research in SoCal chaparrals, she is off to academia hell.

John Hultquist
Reply to  Randle Dewees
January 28, 2023 5:55 pm

Chaparrals have a propensity to catch fire and burn hot.
I just ran my model on the ENIAC and it spit out to expect
Southern California fires to begin in mid-June and run
through October.
I am expecting my Ph.D. in biology from UC San Diego,
Saturday, June 17, 2023. I’ll need some financial help and
protection from the intersectionality crowd.

Redge
January 28, 2023 7:54 am

From her LI profile:

I just graduated with my PhD in Biological Sciences from UC San Diego. I studied how climate change induced drought influences the interactions of native and invasive plant species in Southern California. I am now interested in intersectional environmentalism, de-colonial science and education, and teach Global Climate Change Biology. I created and teach courses around Blackness and STEM, Environment and Identity, Environmental Justice, and science communication. I also do readings as an energy mystic through tarot cards and am an artist. I believe in science and magic.

Good grief

n.n
January 28, 2023 8:45 am

Diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), perhaps rabid a la Maoism, Marxism, and other class-disordered religions.

Chad Jessup
January 28, 2023 9:07 am

This about Dr. Puritty: “SAN DIEGO (TND) — A former PhD student at the University of California, San Diego who later obtained a teaching job at the university went viral on social media after a video in which she claimed to give all her students “A’s” in an effort to “decolonize” her classroom surfaced.”

Also, ““I also don’t give homework – surprise, surprise,” Dr. Chandler Puritty said in the viral video, which she posted in May 2022.

MarkW
January 28, 2023 9:14 am

Science is subjective?
Does that mean that if really, really, really, don’t want the rock to fall when you let go of it, it won’t?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
January 28, 2023 6:44 pm

No, you also have to really, really, really believe that it won’t fall.

Hivemind
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 28, 2023 7:17 pm

You also have to believe that, when it did fall, it was the fault of rich white guys that should have believed as well, but didn’t support you (which just shows how racist they are).

TEWS_Pilot
January 28, 2023 9:26 am

Climate Realists will LOVE this WHINE from the Greenies about getting stabbed in the back by the DEMOCRATS in Louisiana.

I am on an email list sent out by “DeSmog Blog,” a corrupt “Climate Change” septic tank founded by an embezzler and run by a PR firm in Canada….yeah, real solid source of “Climate Science” information, but it is one of the PRIMARY “go to” sources the Leftists use to spew their GlowBULL Warming alarmism and to smear Climate Realists and attack the traditional energy sources. Brendan DeMelle is the Executive Director who sends out these emails. This latest one is a pure gold SCHADENFREUDE.

comment image 

Subject: Fossil Fuel Donation Drama in Louisiana..

Message From the Editor

Fossil fuel money in politics is nothing new — but recent revelations about its influence on a political race in Louisiana has the state Democratic Party in a state of crisis. After endorsing climate candidate Davante Lewis for the state’s utility regulatory commission, the Louisiana Democratic Party accepted at least $90,000 from gas utilities and executives, and then spent thousands to support Lewis’s pro-industry challenger, who ultimately lost. 

The Party leadership, with its own ties to oil and gas, is accused of “funneling” those utility donations to Lewis’s opponent, and is facing pressure to resign over the mayhem, which some members say has eroded trust in the party.

Investigative journalist Sara Sneath, who will be regularly reporting for DeSmog from the Gulf Coast, dug into the campaign finance reports and has the full story here.

Have a story tip or feedback? Get in touch: editor@desmog.com. Want to know what our UK team is up to? Sign up for our UK newsletter.

Thanks,
Brendan DeMelle
Executive Director

Last edited 1 month ago by TEWS_Pilot
TEWS_Pilot
January 28, 2023 9:35 am

These societal “intersections” are becoming more and more dangerous with the possibility of encountering freaks like these ever increasing. Time for more behavioral traffic controls or even better, disallow them from passing through the intersection altogether to prevent them from polluting civil society.

slowroll
January 28, 2023 10:14 am

She sounds like Klammy Harris with that word salad, and just as coherent.

Richard Greene
Reply to  slowroll
January 28, 2023 2:59 pm

That’s a PhD word salad.
Harris word salads sound like she just smoked a joint

pflashgordon
January 28, 2023 10:54 am

UC San Diego said as recently as late November 2022 that Chandler Puritty was a PhD candidate in Biology, with heavy emphasis on DIE and her blackness. So first, how does being a biologist qualify one to self-describe as a “climate scientist,” and where is the proof that she ever achieved her doctorate? She is also described as a former instructor at UC San Diego. This suggests that she may be unemployed (not employable?) and trying to pay the bills as a TikTok “influencer.”

With these attitudes and background, she may find herself living in her parents’ basement, if they’ll even have her.

rwisrael
January 28, 2023 11:18 am

“Intersectional climate scientist”? Is that some one who stands at a crossroad and takes the temperature? She is at great risk of being run over by a distracted driver.

JimmyV1965
January 28, 2023 12:35 pm

Are we sure she is a climate scientist? Is there even a climate science professional designation? I thought everyone in the field is a physicist or some other designation.

She looks like she’s 12 and her ideas sound like something a junior high student would say in her affinity group meeting.

old cocky
January 28, 2023 1:01 pm

Are you sure she isn’t another Titania McGrath?

JBP
January 28, 2023 1:04 pm

There are important things to notice. Pay attention. Look behind the scenes.

Editor
January 28, 2023 1:47 pm

Capitalism, colonialism and White supremacy? She got that very wrong. The left head (from the perspective of someone facing the three-headed dog) represents government planning; it decides where the dog goes and what it does. The middle head represents green ideology (it is common for a three-headed dog to remain stationary for days lost in glorious visions and imaginations), and the right head was the sceptic; it evaluated the efforts of the left and middle heads. It was common to see three-headed dogs with the right head missing, as the other two heads often banded together to bite it off when it criticised them too much. Because of this, three-headed dogs rarely lived to a great age.
(Adapted from Runespoor)

Loren Wilson
January 28, 2023 2:51 pm

If it is science, then it doesn’t matter who you are.

rah
January 28, 2023 11:32 pm

In the end, I believe the CAGW scam will fail. It will fail because a growing number of even the most ignorant and disengaged, and those that live in totally in the here and now, are realizing that the measures supposedly being taken to reduce the output of CO2 are far more damaging to their own standard of living and financial prospects and that of their offspring than any climate or weather event has been.

Roger Collier
January 29, 2023 1:16 am

And for the adults here, is Fluffy a descendant of Cerberus?

bnice2000
January 29, 2023 1:36 am

A complete and utter nutter !!

As are most self-titled “climate scientists”

voza0db
January 29, 2023 4:01 am

So 3 degenerate fat uman animals are complaining about GAS EMISSIONS! Funny indeed…

Tony_G
January 29, 2023 11:39 am

OK, so you have this three-legged dog…

Utterly incoherent.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights