The Ministry of Climate Truth



The Christian God is said to know your every thought, word and deed (Matthew 5:21-37). In the new religion of climate change and Gaia worship, every word is identified by ‘intelligent’ computers, assessed for theological compliance, compiled into bite-sized ‘fact checks’ – and sold to interested government and private parties. In this new world, the high priests of science have spoken, the matter is settled, and cancelling is frankly too good for heretics.

Since 2019, a U.K. company called Logically (founded by Lyric Jain in 2017, when he was just 21) has raised about £30 million to track what it calls “information threats” across 120 million domains and over 40 major social media platforms. Both climate and medical discourse is targeted using, it is said, artificial intelligence. A recent report was published suggesting that climate change ‘misinformation’ had been impacted by COVID-19 related ‘conspiracies’. Major company clients are said to be Facebook, TikTok and Instagram.

Bespoke packages are available for governments and private companies who fear their ‘brand’ may be under threat – and a recent Big Brother Watch report revealed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) entered into two contracts with the company worth £1,264,392 to monitor “disinformation” in 2021 and 2022. Big Brother Watch found that Logically “strayed significantly from [its] ‘disinformation’ remit to monitor and delegitimise domestic political dissent in [its]

Fake news is said by Logically to have plagued governments all over the world for the last five years, “undermining the democratic process and fuelling populist political movements”. The company says that governments “are recognising an urgent need to tackle harmful and misleading online content”. As the catastrophic implications of Net Zero become generally apparent, it might be noted that political elites may well need all the help they can get in neutralising growing popular opposition.

In March 2021, Logically launched its ‘flagship’ threat intelligence platform “offering both analytical capabilities and countermeasure deployment to tackle mis- and disinformation”. The company says its mission is to protect democratic debate by providing access to “trustworthy information”.

On the climate front, misinformation is defined as “communication that contradicts or distorts the scientific evidence and expert consensus that the planet is warming as a result of human activity, and that this will lead to significant instability and damage to the environment”. The notions contained in this definition are of course anti-science – it is hard to find words that differ so much from the traditional Popperian view that all science should be testable and able to be proved false. If a conclusion cannot be proved wrong – as with climate models attributing single weather events to long-term climate change – it is simply an opinion, not a scientific hypothesis. Contradicting – or rather critically appraising – what is considered scientific evidence is what scientists do as they seek to discover the truth. Expert consensus is of course a purely political term. Perish the thought that the expert consensus should ever be contradicted. Like the Pope in Rome, the pronouncements of ‘experts’ when it comes to climate change are deemed infallible.

‘Fact-checking’ is much in vogue these days. There is obviously money to be made since the major social media platforms have partnerships with a variety of suppliers including mainstream media operations. Last year the Daily Sceptic was hit with what appeared to be a short but concerted campaign of climate fact checks from companies such as Climate FeedbackUSA Today,  Agence France-Presse and Reuters. These followed hot on the heels of fact checks of our lockdown and vaccine coverage by companies like Logically. Interested readers can look in the Daily Sceptic’s archive and note we replied to each attack, pointing out that no identifiable published facts had been proved to be untrue. (See Will Jones’s reply to a Logically fact check here.) Needless to say, the stories attracted various labels such as incorrect, false or misleading. After two particularly inept tries by Reuters, a polite note was sent to the company along the lines of “this nuisance must now cease”. It appears to have stopped, for the moment, but the damage has been done.

In spite of our stout rebuttals, legitimate, fact-based stories in the Daily Sceptic – and other inquiring publications – are plastered with warnings or worse, downplayed and cancelled in the online public spaces.

To give just one example, NewsGuard, a company that gives news publishing sites a score out of 100 according to how safe they are to advertise on, has given the Daily Sceptic 37.5 points because, in the words of one of its executives:

NewsGuard determined that based on the site having repeatedly published significantly false claims in articles and headlines and presenting other sources’ provably false claims as factual, the site fails our criteria for ‘does not repeatedly publish false content’ and ‘avoids deceptive headlines’, in addition to failing the criterion of ‘gathering and presenting information responsibly’. 

In other words, we’ve been judged untrustworthy because of the fact checks carried out by Logically and others. That’s why we struggle to get a decent quantity of advertising (Google Ads has blocked us).

Logically appears to have been very busy of late building up a large portfolio of fact-check work. The methods used appear to revolve around extensive computer trawls picking up pre-programmed phrases disputing the ‘settled’ nostrums of climate science. For instance, natural causes play a part in the climate changing, and global temperatures have risen little in the last two decades. The company then tries to refute the story with other material picked up on the web.

Climate change and medical science seem to be big growth areas for Logically, but there are some odd selections in the examples of ‘disinformation’ the company offers in its marketing material. For instance: “Satellites don’t exist and the Earth is flat”, “Buzz Aldrin admitted that the moon landing didn’t happen”, and “World Economic Forum promotes paedophilia and claims paedophiles will save the world”. It is possible that there are one or two people who need clarification on these matters, but a more cynical explanation is that a few nutjobs are inserted to cast doubt on anyone who dissents from climate dogma, including those making factually robust claims.

For instance, the claim that climate change is not responsible for the 2022 Pakistan floods. This particular fact check by Logically doesn’t get off to the best start since it repeats the falsehood that one third of the country was submerged on August 31st. Any topographical map shows that this could not be true. According to satellite photographs and easily obtainable UN relief agency data, the figure was 8%. Climate change ‘deniers’ are said to have created a ‘false narrative’ about the floods in Pakistan, claiming that climate change is not the prime cause. The unhinged view of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is quoted, claiming the country is going through a “monsoon on steroids”.

The problem with attributing single event weather catastrophes to long-term changes in the climate caused by humans is that there is no proof. In fact, observations show that such events in Pakistan were frequent in the past.

The above graph, published recently by the World Bank, shows that rainfall has been stable in Pakistan for over a century. Last year’s floods were a tragedy with about 1,000 lives lost. But in the recent past – 1950, 1992, 1993 and 2010 – more lives were lost in floods. Flooding in Pakistan is not helped by recent massive deforestation.

A different tack is taken when examining claims that global warming ran out of steam over two decades ago. Climate sceptics are said to allege that there has been no warming recently, “even claiming that global temperature has decreased”. As regular readers of the Daily Sceptic will know, we state that rises in global temperatures have slowed considerably since the turn of the century, and we quote accurate satellite data. The latest UAH dataset up to January this year shows the current pause extending to eight years and five months.

Surface datasets have been retrospectively adjusted upwards and show a higher warming trend. They are also subject to considerable urban heat corruptions. Logically says it is a misrepresentation to quote from such a short period. Misrepresentation, even, to refer to the first great pause of the 21st century that lasted from around 2000 to 2012.

Of course, climate trends become established over lengthy periods. However, at a time when humans populations are being freaked out by politicians and green activists quoting imaginary climate model projections of up to 5°C warming by 2100, it is relevant to note that warming in the first 22 years of the century is barely more than 0.1°C.

The logic behind Logically’s intelligence, artificial or otherwise, is that quoting years of data to show the global temperature is stable after a short warming period is wrong, but attributing a single weather event in Pakistan to unproven long-term human-caused changes in the climate is somehow good science.

What price misinformation?

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

5 46 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 4, 2023 6:17 am

Hopefully, people will realize they are being oppressed while still having power to do something about it.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 6:55 am

The ‘easy’ step would be to eradicate any public funding of these entities. However, the real difficulty is that every aspect of Western life is becoming political, hence most of the ‘fact checkers’ funding probably comes from politically powerful NGOs.

David Pentland
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 7:01 am

People will only realise this when the real life costs vs the hypothetical benefits of “decarbonization” become un”deniable”.

How much damage must be done to reach that point is the question.

Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 8:28 am

The UK Parliament is always prepared to deploy considerable violence

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Scissor
February 4, 2023 8:29 am

Sadly, there are people who enjoy the status of being ‘oppressed’ for the attention they can squeeze out of that perceived victimhood. Sometimes the disease brings so much attention and sympathy that they refuse the cure. I call that ‘democratitude.’

Reply to  Scissor
February 5, 2023 12:06 pm

“The masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed. Indeed, so long as they are not permitted to have standards of comparison, they never even become aware that they are oppressed.” ~ George Orwell 1984

Bob Weber
February 4, 2023 6:38 am

Excellent analysis. You know a science theory is phony when it needs professional bullies.

Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2023 7:18 am

In my non scientific argot, the strength of your “argument: should be enough for thinking people to gauge its worth – but then again “thinking people” might just be the Bigger Issue….?

Reply to  186no
February 4, 2023 7:57 am

Only if you can distinguish the truth from the falsehoods and the assumptions from fact.

Allan MacRae
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2023 12:52 pm

I presented on 26Jan2023 to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) “Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee”.
[excerpt re the Climate scam]

The Covid-19 hype was identical to the Climate (CAGW) scam.
The CAGW scam was proved false in 1990, 2008 & 2013 – CO2 changes lag temperature changes. The future cannot cause the past.
The same “usual suspects“ promoted both the Climate and Covid scams and linked them.

To understand the science that disproves the cargo-cult CAGW hypothesis, read this:
Here is the Global Warming Alarmists’ dirty little secret, that they’ve been trying to hide for 33 years

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Bob Weber
February 4, 2023 5:16 pm

Actually, they could easily dispense with all this monitoring if they simply prepared a rigorous presentation of their hypothesis for debate, replication of experimental findings, and successful forcasts. That seems reasonable.

It doesnot add up
February 4, 2023 6:43 am

Logically the response is to set up a counter evaluation company that evaluates the propagation of propaganda. Just be careful not to steal their intellectual property, such as it is.

At the very least we now need search engines that are not selective propaganda machines. It’s been disappointing to see Duckduckgo disappear down that rabbit hole.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 4, 2023 7:01 am

How is Dogpile ? OK or not ?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 4, 2023 4:38 pm

Anyone know ? Serious question .

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
February 4, 2023 10:38 pm

Dunno Dogpile, but I use Mojeek when DDG goes all Google on me. In actual fact, most every “independent” search engine out there, is just a little app that searches Google for you, then presents the exact Google results in their own website colours.
The other day I spent two hours trying to get a simple list of countries. Eventually found a long, convoluted document about reparations laws from which I could write down the list, as the site was built with no filters. Which search engine? None! Found it on my hard drive, saved the page about two years ago.
The state of censorship is astounding, but I bet most nobody notices, because of all the cute, expert, fun results filling our screens.
I’m told the Chinese recently disrupted searches for some serious social issue, by redirecting everyone to porn sites. DARPA (who actually owns the ‘Net?) is giving us news blurbs and advice columns written by teenagers, possibly the only literature more brain-rotting than porn. Even China has more respect for their citizens than the collective “West”?

February 4, 2023 6:47 am

“…to protect democratic debate by…”

Killing it

February 4, 2023 6:47 am

Good job!

Tom Halla
February 4, 2023 6:58 am

They are an example of Noble Cause Corruption. Their Noble Cause justifies whatever they do, so calling them on such trivia as facts and logic will have no effect.

Reply to  Tom Halla
February 4, 2023 7:21 am

As Robin Aitken described The BBC, they are “Noble Liars” ( in that they believe their cause is noble and only they can decide what is “noble”). Fraudsters, and with all the moral rectitude of the Inquisition…..have to hope lightning strikes twice.

Reply to  186no
February 4, 2023 1:03 pm

The Left has always believed that the ends justify the means.

Steve Case
February 4, 2023 7:09 am

Surface datasets have been retrospectively adjusted upwards and show a higher warming trend.

Lots of changes made by NASA’s GISTEMP this past year:

GISTEMP LOTI Jan2022 vs Jan2023 .jpg
February 4, 2023 7:14 am

… it is relevant to note that warming in the first 22 years of the century is barely more than 0.1°C.

How has this been calculated, I wonder? Even in the relatively cool-running UAH satellite data set the warming rate since 2000 is +0.15C per decade, which equates to +0.34C of warming.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 7:20 am

All the other data sets, RSS (satellite), HadCRUT5, NOAA and GISS (all surface) show around +0.5C of warming since January 2000.

Surely an article complaining about information supression isn’t spreading misinformation?

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 8:06 am

I would concern myself with the relative credibility of those collecting, tabulating, and publishing the data.

Reply to  rckkrgrd
February 4, 2023 9:53 am

In addition, nature itself commonly varies by up to a degree or more annually.

A half degree change from one year to the next is hardly significant. A half degree over 20 years is nothing.

Reply to  rckkrgrd
February 4, 2023 6:32 pm

You’re saying you don’t trust Roy Spencer at UAH? Fair enough; lot’s of folks here seem to disagree with you.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 11:00 pm

All trust has been lost. All. Has anyone even proven, real-time, with actual physical measurements, that satellite temperature measurements are correct? Just f’rexample. There are too many parameters for which we have to trust and believe, and too many instances of proven fraud around those parameters,their values, limits and even their very existence.
I would not be surprised to learn there is a squad of men in expensive sunglasses driving around in black SUVs breaking kneecaps and explaining to errant individuals the detrimental effects their counterrevolutionary rhetoric may have on the health and well-being of their family. The lies are becoming so blatant now, only violence can still maintain the delusion.
But there are those who call climastrology a cult, a religion. I dare you to this: Tell me who their god is… Now THAT would give us something to talk about, eh what?
P.S. That’s a serious question, vague cynicisms add nothing to the understanding. What is this god’s name?
P.P.S. Has anyone noticed how a certain, well-known diety is being given a name change? Tertragrammoton to Pentagrammoton. There is a deeper thing going on. Are there no senior Secret Handshakers lurking around here? Spill the beans, or lose your last claim to humanity…

Rich Davis
Reply to  cilo
February 5, 2023 6:26 am

Climastrology is a pseudoreligion, for the essential reason that it lacks a deity. It does not lack for dogmas or rituals though.

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 5, 2023 9:30 pm

You’re taking the easy way out, denying their god. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, it ain’t no pseudoduck. It is like the Nordics calling Christianity or Islam pseudoreligions while they are being genocided for not believing Right.
Remember, the existence or not of Satan has no bearing on the perversions satanists are willing to perpetrate in its name.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 8:58 am

Surely an article complaining about information supression isn’t spreading misinformation?

Complaining of [information] suppression and – lets be honest here – censorship is… complaining about censorship. 

Misinformation – things TheFinalNail doesn’t agree with.

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Reply to  strativarius
February 4, 2023 6:33 pm

Simply pointing out the fact that what the article claims is flat out wrong.

Steve Case
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 9:51 am

What is known is that the official keepers of the historical global temperature data change that historical data on a regular basis. The changes are in small fractions of a degree, but over time they add up:

GISTEMP CHANGES 1997-2018.jpg
Reply to  Steve Case
February 4, 2023 6:35 pm

UAH also shows warming far in excess of 0.1C since 2000. Is Roy Spencer one of your ‘gatekeepers’?

Steve Case
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 7:55 pm

You’ve missed the point. Does Roy Spencer go back to the beginning of UAH and rewrite the data to show more warming?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Steve Case
February 5, 2023 6:31 am

Missed the point? Hardly! TFN always knows which truth he’s obscuring and which dogma of Climastrology he’s attempting to advance. Missing the point implies that he’s attempting to understand anything you’re saying. But TFN is a propagandist, more of a monologue producer than a dialogue participant.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 11:29 am


Measure URBAN and AIRPORT temperatures, heavily adjusted.

(RSS is “adjusted using climate models (lol))

Surely your comment should be listed as spreading misinformation.

UAH shows clearly that the warming is only at major El Nino events and therefore has zero forcing from human released CO2.. Ie its totally natural.

Reply to  bnice2000
February 4, 2023 6:37 pm

UAH is a lower troposphere measurement, as is RSS.

Both show warming far in excess of 0.1C since 2000.

The article is making a false claim and the great ‘skepitics’ here suck it up.

It shouldn’t be this easy guys.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 9:04 pm

As stated above “+0.34C of warming” And where do people vacation? Where the temperature is higher than +0.34C of warming. So what is the big deal? Prefer warmer than colder as do plants

Last edited 1 month ago by Colin
Reply to  TheFinalNail
February 4, 2023 9:03 pm

“+0.34C of warming” And where do people vacation? Where the temperature is higher than +0.34C of warming

February 4, 2023 7:15 am

And what about this then?
WEF 2023: Neurotechnology. Ready for Brain Transparency.

Neil Lock
February 4, 2023 7:24 am

The article doesn’t seem to link directly to the Big Brother Watch report. But it’s here: I’ve been looking out for responses and “rebuttals,” but haven’t seen any yet. Not even from any of the politicians (David Davis MP among them) who are named in the text as having been victims of surveillance. Suggesting that this report is true in most, if not all, particulars.

February 4, 2023 7:54 am

Fake news is anything that government or complicit corporations do not wish the public to know or think. Disagreement is not allowed on any subject affecting votes or profit.
Some platforms such as Facebook will counter with fake news of their own. They are constantly telling me that I have less understanding of the climate in my area than they have. An area I have lived in for 80 years.

Reply to  rckkrgrd
February 4, 2023 8:33 am

Whilst they can’t stop people knowing things, they can coerce them into not thinking about them

If anyone was a prophet, it’s George Orwell

Doublethink – The ability to have two completely contradictory beliefs in one’s mind and believe both of them to be true

CD in Wisconsin
February 4, 2023 8:13 am

“Since 2019, a U.K. company called Logically (founded by Lyric Jain in 2017, when he was just 21) has raised about £30 million to track what it calls “information threats” across 120 million domains and over 40 major social media platforms.”


Yet another example of confusing religion and politics on one hand with science on the other. Trying to protect a science-based belief system from being challenged with a company like Logically is not how science is supposed to work if I understand scientific discourse correctly.

When scientists who question climate alarmism become religious heretics and Orwellian thought criminals, something has gone seriously wrong in the scientific community. It is likely that money and power politics are at the foundations of what has gone wrong. It is tragic that so many people today (including those at Logically) do not understand that.

Joseph Zorzin
February 4, 2023 8:16 am

Fact- it floods in flood plains- if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be a flood plain. If millions of people live in that flood plain and deforestation is common- don’t blame the flood along with the damage and injuries- on people driving cars and cooking their meals over a gas stove.

Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 8:25 am

Ministry of Truth. 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

Logically cannot prevail in the end. The past 40 years of ‘climate science’ has simply gotten too much wrong for too long. Efforts to further move the goalposts are now obvious to anyone bothering to pay attention. And the ‘mitigation solutions’ don’t work at scale, which they are now reaching.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 8:47 am

“Logically cannot prevail in the end.”

Indeed. But the question is how long, how many wasted generations, will it take?

Last edited 1 month ago by strativarius
Reply to  strativarius
February 4, 2023 9:13 am

Logic did not keep 6 million European Jews alive, and Germans were once thought to be logical people. Never forget that.

Beginning in 1994 and lasting only 100 days, the Rwandan Genocide is one of the most notorious modern genocides. During this 100 day period between April and July 1994, nearly one million ethnic Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed as the international community and UN peacekeepers stood by. never forget that

Rud Istvan
Reply to  strativarius
February 4, 2023 9:49 am

Just my opinion, but within a decade.The thing won’t fully die academically; too many vested interests. But it will practically and politically. I have several reasons:

  1. Public pain levels now strongly increasing. Lost industrial jobs (UK), high electric bills (EU, CA), pain at the pump.
  2. Grid is destabilized. Killing EU winter blackout all but inevitable soonish.
  3. On a more regional level (New England nat gas, CA all ev) proposed solutions simply not workable.
  4. As penetration grows, the insurmountable problems with renewables are ever more exposed.
  5. All the bad stuff 1-3 are supposed to prevent simply isn’t happening.

As Abe Lincoln said, “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time. But you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 12:37 pm

The problem is that they are now able to fool most of the people most of the time. Hopefully the sane will prevail.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 11:17 pm

Rud, remember that Tabletop 201 thing? People became obsessed with it when people pointed out it seems to predict the Covidiot $camdemic? Actually, people obsessed about the contents of the first and last parts of one quarter of a four-scenario abstraction. I wish to point you to that document (precise names escape me now) and pay attention to one of two not-so-well-hyped points, relevant to your comment:
Once the pandemic is over, the people will become dissatisfied with the corruption and ineptitude of our governments, we will break out in a bout of “…spontaneous violence against the government…
Every point you use to show your argument, is unfortunately on the list of “coincidences that will lead to spontaneous violence against our useless leaders”.
The second little thing often missed is this: There are four scenarios in that 201-thingey, and they are all being ‘tested’ simultaneously in different locations of the globe. See Australia covidiocy versus, say, Austria’s.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 9:10 am

Climate science is not that bad
The climate predictions are very bad, and wrong predictions are not science
CAGW is wrong predicions
Much of modern pretend climate science is just wrong predictions

AGW is based on real science, even if we can’t specify exactly how much climate change is from AGW, but we do know whatever it is has been harmless.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 4, 2023 10:43 am

AGW is purely hypothetical. ESG is fiction because its foundational assumption, “all other things held equal” is a circumstance that has never occurred, is not occurring, and will never occur. The climate feedbacks are negative, and any supposed “effect” from changes to CO2 in reality, as opposed to hypothetically, cannot be differentiated from zero.

AGW is fit for hypothetical academic discussion, not as a basis for policy.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 4, 2023 11:55 am

AGW is proven to exist with lab spectroscopy, downwelling infrared energy measurements and the pattern and timing of actual warming since 1975, such as no warming of Antarctica and less warming of the humid tropics.

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 5, 2023 10:52 am

What downwelling infrared energy measurements?

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 4, 2023 11:27 pm

Mr. Greene, I accept your argument, but as far as I can see, there is only one, and one only common factor between perceived climate change and human activity: Real Estate developers.
The developers expand the city outwards, ever outwards, paving over open earth where the water was supposed to seep in and keep the continent alive.
Consider how many politicians start out in the zoning department, or some influence on same. For economic and social theories around the weather to make sense, somebody has to take the first step, and admit the culpability of greedy developers with political clout. But is the parking space worth the weather? I can see why nobody wants to talk about over-development…

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 4, 2023 3:03 pm

I’m sure it isn’t universal but my experience is that few people are bothering to “pay attention”. Even people with some scientific background education tend to uncritically accept whatecer the press and the party tell them. It is obvious to the larger portion, with no scientific background at all, that Big Oil is very busy spreading its lies. Other than that, they “don’t believe in conspiracy theories.”

February 4, 2023 8:30 am

Need to send them all to the weather observatory at the top of Mt. Washington right now today. Winds gusting up to 135 mph windchill tonight will be -100 to -110.

It will probably not be much better on the slope of Wildcat Mountain facing Mt. Washington. There is a burble from the summit of Mt. Washington that often brings the cold air to that slope.

Been there and done that. We were going to be extracted by STABO under a Huey and they couldn’t even get close to us due to the wind.

February 4, 2023 9:02 am

Great choice of articles here by Charles Rotter, as usual. I read and added this article to my recommended reading list this morning. Feel free to use my list as a guilde to good articles you might want to post here — at least 12 of them will be listed on my blog by 8am in the morning Monday through Friday, and by 10am on s weekends:
Honest Climate Science and Energy

You’ve got me beat with better pictures added to the articles — this one was scary

Daily Sceptic is a UK website I visit every day, usually for Covid vaccine articles, but also for some climate articles. Recommended even if they can’t spell skeptic. UK and Germany are the Nut Zero canaries in the coalmine: Websites in other nations tend to be more honest and accurate on US news than most US websites are, and that’s sad (that generalization does not apply to this website).
The Daily Sceptic

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Greene
Doug S
February 4, 2023 9:12 am

I find everything you say preposterous Chris Morrison. Here in California we have the smartest people living and working to make a better planet. We voted to build a high speed train that will be up and running passengers in 10 more years time between Bakersfield and Modesto. We vote democrat because we care. We embrace the Wuhan flu shot and can’t wait for the 7th booster to become available. We do what we do to save the world, shame on you for your heresy and disobedience to mother earth – and the whales. /s

Reply to  Doug S
February 4, 2023 11:57 am

I proposed returning CA to Mexico and demanding back our $15 million plus interest. If the leftists in my family all moved out, it must be pretty bad.

Reply to  Doug S
February 4, 2023 3:07 pm

I know you have a lot of loving company

Dave Andrews
February 4, 2023 9:22 am

According to this paper between 1947 – 2011 there were 37 major floods in Pakistan, 29 between 1947 – 1998 and 8 between 2001 – 2011.

‘Historical Analysis of Flood Information and Impacts Assessment and Associated Response in Pakistan’ Misbat Masoor et al, 2013


February 4, 2023 9:39 am

I’ve yet to find a “fact checker” that wasn’t a disinformation site. They all take issues and comments out of context and then debunk the straw man lie they just made up.

Exposing the straw man deflections and omissions of relevant facts to the brainwashed might have a chance of opening their eyes to the fact that they are being lied to.

A 3rd world war is happening now as psychological warfare. Identifying false narratives and calling them out in public forums and interpersonal relationships is our only hope of preventing the authoritarians from destroying liberty.

Reply to  gyan1
February 4, 2023 10:25 am

I’ve always considered the Cold War to have been the 3rd world war. The CAGW movement is, in my opinion, a continuation of that war being conducted, for the most part, by the same groups.

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2023 12:32 pm

The swindlers who run this planet have been trying to institute global governance at least since the League of Nations.

Reply to  gyan1
February 4, 2023 12:00 pm

Fact Checker = Fact Choker

February 4, 2023 10:06 am

Isn’t there grounds for a libel lawsuit, when someone tries to harm your company by falsely claiming that you are publishing falsehoods?

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2023 10:46 am

The problem with that is you have to show intent to win.

Reply to  MarkW
February 4, 2023 1:47 pm

Not sure about showing “intent to win” (rah) is necessary. Doing it, mounting any kind of defence, and failing to apologise when challenged, would surely demonstrate intent. In my jurisdiction, proof of actual damage is a requirement, assuming it is not actionable ‘per se’ as in being accused of a serious crime. My response to people who suggest that I take legal action, is that there is only evidence of benefit. People ask for my help because I am attacked. Others say they would always read what I said because it had a “fact check” appended to it. Law of unintended consequences.

Reply to  martinc19
February 4, 2023 5:24 pm

Proof of damage is a requirement for any civil suit.

Intentional Torts and Personal Injury Liability | Justia

Ben Vorlich
February 4, 2023 10:07 am

Can we think of new skeptical phrases to cause the company and its software a headache?
Like international calefaction, hyperborean alleviation, ambiance conversion.
Might as well keep them busy, and make them feel important.

February 4, 2023 10:13 am

I wonder what WUWT’s score is by NewsGuard?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Yooper
February 5, 2023 7:04 am

I tried to find that answer but they don’t seem to make it available for free.

A possible hint is on a different site that supposedly uses newsguard ratings as an input.

Based on this, we can infer that that Newsguard’s rating for WUWT is at most 59/100.

Richard M
February 4, 2023 10:45 am

They only get away with this because skeptics continue to accept many false scientific claims. One of them is related to the greenhouse effect itself. The claim has 4 basic premises.

  1. Solar energy passes through to the surface. Mostly true.
  2. The surface warms and reradiates LW energy back up through the atmosphere. True.
  3. GHGs absorb that energy and then reradiate it randomly with 50% going down. While this statement is generally false, it is irrelevant. CO2 passes the energy on to other molecules in the atmosphere However, these same molecules can also pass energy to a CO2 molecule for spontaneous emission and 50% goes downward.
  4. The downward directed energy warms the surface. False.

I realize most skeptics accept 4. without question. Read on.

Number 4. can be shown to be false with a little work. The primary reason this energy doesn’t warm the surface is, for the vast majority of the atmosphere, it never gets there. This energy has a high probability of being reabsorbed before reaching the surface due to increasing density as it travels towards the surface. Not only that, but the reabsorptions going downward happen after a shorter distance than upward ones, again due to the ever changing density..

Once reabsorbed the next IR emission from that CO2 molecule is again random. Because of the disparity in the distance traveled upward vs. downward, the energy generally moves in an upward direction.

It is estimated that over 99% of the energy reaching the surface comes from a 1 km thick layer of the atmosphere immediately above the surface. This is called the boundary layer and it is different than the rest of the atmosphere.

The boundary layer exists in thermal equilibrium with the surface. That means energy passed back and forth between the two sides cannot warm the other side. Hence over 99% of the downwelling energy reaching the surface cannot warm the surface and claim number 4. is therefore false.

Keep in mind the greenhouse effect does lead to warming of the atmosphere up until saturation occurs. Saturation in this case means all the surface LWIR that CO2 can absorb is absorbed within the boundary layer. This occurs right around 100 ppm.

There are a couple of caveats that cancel out. The above logic disproves greenhouse warming as the cause of any of the recent warming. Skeptics need to start attacking the science.

Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2023 12:06 pm

# 3 is true, not false

#4 is a strawman argument — the claim is that greenhouse gases impede cooling, which is not the same as warming the surface.

CO2 absorption saturation never occurs — that is what a logarithmic effect of CO2 means. Of course CO2 is already a weak greenhouse gas over 400ppm, so more CO2 won’t have much of a greenhouse effect

You might want to get your climate science act together first.

Richard M
Reply to  Richard Greene
February 4, 2023 2:30 pm

# 3 is true, not false

According to all accounts I have read a CO2 molecule is a million time more likely to transfer energy via a collision than reradiate the absorbed energy. Since you provided no reference I can only assume you didn’t know this.

What I’ve read stated the time for reemission is around 10-20 milliseconds vs. 10 nanoseconds for a collision at sea level.

#4 is a strawman argument

Go look at almost any description of the GHE. You will see your claimed strawman in black and white.

However, “the claim is that greenhouse gases impede cooling” is only true up to the saturation point. The cooling rate of well mixed GHGs is constant after that point.

The reason it is a constant is because atmospheric radiation occurs in a gravitational field. Most folks don’t understand how this influences the process. The main effect is to make the distance between reemission and reabsorption longer for upward directed photons than downward directed photons. The net result is a slow down in the movement of any unit of energy but increase the total amount of energy. They cancel out.

You might want to get your climate science act together first.

That’s actually what I did. Your turn.

Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2023 3:48 pm

The greenhouse effect is caused by molecules whose internal bonds absorb and emit certain relevant frequencies. Other atmospheric molecules do not produce the greenhouse effect because they can’t absorb or emit those frequencies. Energy these other molecules obtain is mainly expressed as kinetic movement which can be measured as temperature.

Greenhouse molecules can also have kinetic energy measurable as temperature. Is the absorption of greenhouse frequencies in their molecular bonds measurable as temperature increase or does their kinetic energy have to come from a different source/interaction?

Kinetic interchanges between molecules exchange energy but can they created a difference, or a larger difference, in the ‘temperature’ of the individual molecules? Doesn’t it at least tend towards equilibrium?

Does the greenhouse molecule need to have energy in its bonds, the form of energy necessary for it to absorb and emit at greenhouse frequencies, or can its kinetic energy produce that emission?

If the greenhouse emission of, say CO2, depends upon the energy being in the same form as necessary for its absorption, is it a know fact that kinetic energy can be converted to that form within the molecule?

It is said that greenhouse molecules cool the atmosphere by radiating certain frequencies into space. That might suggest that they do convert kinetic energy into a form that can be emitted but is this just a hypothesis or a well understood fact? Is it possible that the mechanism is rather different than envisioned by current radiation physics (or is the understanding of current radiation physics much more complex than any inkling I have of it)?

Reply to  Richard Greene
February 5, 2023 1:20 am

#3: Please show me in 3 dimensions how a volumetric radiator transmits 50% energy in any one direction.
Or is electromagnetic radiation in the infrared band subject to gravity in the manner of a flying brick?
Or is there some Great Diode in the sky?
Or do we live on Flat Earth?
Secretariat training is enough to debunk CAGW sciencery.

Last edited 1 month ago by cilo
Rich Davis
Reply to  cilo
February 5, 2023 4:25 am

Every photon heads off on some vector with components in the x-, y-, and z-directions. All of them that have a non-zero z-direction component are either going up or down. If they are random, half of the z-component vectors will be positive magnitude (up) and half negative (down).

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 5, 2023 9:24 pm

All of them that have a non-zero z-direction component are either going up or down.

Sorry, dude, that’s as much bull as you could possibly fit into one sentence. Consider a radiator 1000m above the surface. Choose a photon leaving at 3 degrees from the horisontal. Demonstrate how and where it will impact the surface.
Now add all the ones radiated at or near zero degrees. Now add every possible collision and absorption available.
I admit to possibly not “getting it”, but it seems to me the same kind of logic that Black Matter disciples use when they talk about their isotropic universe, carefully avoiding the necessary precondition that we sit at the exact centre of their big bang thingey.
Isotropic universe, up/down-radiating air masses, Hillary won etc…

Rich Davis
Reply to  cilo
February 6, 2023 1:28 am

Near the bottom of the atmosphere photons emitted in any direction including straight up are likely to be reabsorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor or a less important greenhouse gas like CO2. Eventually they either go up to space or down to the surface.

Even if you think it’s not a 50-50 split for some reason, you must recognize that some fraction end up going back to the surface. So what is your point?

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 6, 2023 12:31 pm

The point being this: There is no 50/50 split, a proper representation of radiative effects in/on the atmosphere should not and cannot be approached so simplistically as to not even bother thinking in more than two dimensions. This seems to me a common problem in many fields today, my least favourite being the Dark Mutterers with their Dark energies. The frame of reference rests upon the modellers’ exhalted opinion of their own importance in the greater scheme of things, forgetting they are but observers, and not even very sophisticated/accurate ones at that.
There are many fundamental problems in climastrology, and false generalisations that lead to up/down radiation models is one of the stupidest. There are worse ones, and they add to the list regularly. Real issues, such as ground water levels and solar activity and planetary perturbations escape them alltogether, while they count photons and cow burps.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2023 1:49 pm

Richard M,
I believe that you’re sincere, so I hate to constantly argue with you, no personal animus on my part. Since I credit you with being intelligent, it seems worthwhile to try to convince you of your error.

We should in any case find common ground in the key point that there is no climate emergency.

Nevertheless I have to disagree with you because when one skeptic presents a wrong case, it discredits us all.

If you recognize that some of the long wave radiation is intercepted by CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere, rather than escaping straight out to space, then you should also understand that it means that some heat has been retained in the atmosphere/surface system. (Some cooling has been delayed).

The effect of cooling, let’s say 0.1 degree/hr slower, is for the temperature of the surface to end up 1.2 degree warmer than it otherwise would have been after 12 hrs of cooling overnight.

The “back radiation” doesn’t warm the surface—doesn’t raise its temperature. It slows the rate of cooling. A while after sunrise, the period where warming from the sun exceeds cooling by radiation to space begins again, and the warming of the surface resumes, starting off at a higher temperature than it would have been at if nothing had impeded cooling.

The sun is the heat source that warms the surface. Approaching sunset, cooling exceeds warming from insolation again. The surface begins to cool again, but the cooling period starts off at a warmer starting point.

Whether the surface and boundary layer are in equilibrium is not a relevant point even though the claim is wrong. (Clearly temperature inversions are common at night).

The surface generally warms during the day and cools during the night. If the cooling process is impeded, then the average temperature at the surface and in the adjacent air will be higher. This is not because back radiation warmed the surface at night but because the sun warmed the already warmer (less-cooled) surface during the day.

It would reach a new steady state with a higher average temperature if all else is equal. Of course it never reaches a true steady state since it is never true that all else is equal. Each day of the year has a different duration from the seasons as well as different weather/cloud cover, etc.

Contrary to what you say, attacking this science is not helpful toward winning any argument with alarmists. It is discrediting the climate realist position. I hope that you will think about this and stop discrediting our climate realist position.

Richard M
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 4, 2023 2:55 pm

you should also understand that it means that some heat has been retained in the atmosphere/surface system.

Yes, CO2 does retain heat right up to the saturation point. That’s what I stated in my second to the last paragraph.

The “back radiation” doesn’t warm the surface—doesn’t raise its temperature. It slows the rate of cooling.

Keep in mind there’s no more energy to impede coming up from the surface after saturation. Nothing more to impede. Now, the claim is that more CO2 causes the same amount of energy to be impeded even more because the absorptivity of the atmosphere has increased. That is, more CO2 molecules get in the way. However, this ignores the fact that emissivity must also increase. That is, there’s more CO2 to emit photons. This causes a larger volume of energy to be radiated within the atmosphere. More energy going a little slower.

Both of these effects are log effects. They cancel each other out. After saturation the flow of energy is a constant. Hence, you avoid the situation where it is warmer when the sun sets. Essentially, nothing changes from an energy flow perspective.

This is why Miskolczi got the results he documented in his 2010 paper. Nothing changed across 60+ years of NOAA radiosonde measurements while CO2 levels jumped.

Contrary to what you say, attacking this science is not helpful toward winning any argument with alarmists. It is discrediting the climate realist position. I hope that you will think about this and stop discrediting our climate realist position.

If you actually tried to understand what I wrote and pointed out a mistake I would be thankful. However, you made no effort to understand my point. I have no problem going into more detail. You still haven’t spent the time to reach that aha moment.

Reply to  Richard M
February 4, 2023 4:23 pm

Keep in mind there’s no more energy to impede coming up from the surface after saturation

What does this mean? Saturation in this context generally means that the greenhouse gas, as in CO2, has absorbed as much of the surface radiation as it can. Additional IR radiation from the surface cannot be absorbed. This in no way says that the surface cannot radiation more, possibly a great deal more. IR than necessary for the CO2 to reach its absorption limit (IR into CO2 equals IR out of CO2 and no more incoming IR can be accepted; it must therefore just flow on by).

Whether saturation is a real thing or not I cannot judge. It does seem to me that no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, adding more CO2 means that more IR can be absorbed because absorbers are then there for it. Possibly it seems this way to me because my concept of the action is so wrong as to be irrelevant. Perhaps someone can provide a more correct explanation.

Richard M
Reply to  AndyHce
February 4, 2023 6:13 pm

Saturation in this context generally means that the greenhouse gas, as in CO2, has absorbed as much of the surface radiation as it can.

Yes, that is my point. Nearly all of the near 15 mm radiation has been absorbed.

 This in no way says that the surface cannot radiation more, possibly a great deal more.

Yes, if the surface warmed from some effect. it could radiate more 15 mm energy and CO2 could absorb that energy. However, the sun’s energy is pretty steady and the oceans are more cyclic in their release of energy. Less ice at the poles would work too. None of these look like they are imminent problems.

It does seem to me that no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, adding more CO2 means that more IR can be absorbed because absorbers are then there for it.

Nope, doesn’t work that way. You need those specific frequencies radiated from the surface or CO2 will just ignore it. And, CO2 already absorbs nearly all the available energy and there’s nothing likely to increase that energy.

Reply to  Richard M
February 5, 2023 12:35 pm

Yes, that is my point. Nearly all of the near 15 mm radiation has been absorbed.

However, a major part of the narrative is that, in spite of the fact that the (variable) period between absorption and emission is at most a few milliseconds, emitted photons are then re-absorbed, then re-emitted, again and again as they work their way through the atmosphere. Thus their tarrying in the general vicinity makes them greatly increase the heat energy content of the atmosphere.

If there is any truth to that, since energy keeps coming into the atmosphere from the sun constantly, more absorbers being present has to mean there will be more of these “used” photons being recycled again and again.

I am not claiming I know the truth but the “saturation” group seems to simply ignore major parts of the greenhouse hypothesis that don’t fit their desired picture.

Richard M
Reply to  AndyHce
February 6, 2023 5:37 am

a major part of the narrative is that, in spite of the fact that the (variable) period between absorption and emission is at most a few milliseconds, emitted photons are then re-absorbed, then re-emitted, again and again as they work their way through the atmosphere.

This is exactly what I addressed above. Since saturation means we’ve maxed out on absorption of surface energy, the claim is it takes longer for the energy to work its way to space.

And yes, it is true. More CO2 will lead to more of these reemission-reabsorption events. This is referred to in physics as an increase in absorptivity. It causes any unit of energy to take longer to make it to space.

Kirchhoff’s Law tells us that this change also means emissivity must increase in the same manner. Hence, more CO2 molecules will be emitting energy at any given time. This increases the total energy radiating up through the atmosphere.

More energy moving slower. These effects cancel out and the same amount of energy makes it to space as before the CO2 increased.

Reply to  AndyHce
February 6, 2023 12:43 pm

I think they are trying to tell us that all the energy in question originates from the sun, and though the solar radiation to earth varies greatly in absolute terms, it stays in a very narrow band, delivering a fairly constant amount of energy to earth, which, after stripping the high energy photons (UV and so on for photosynthesis etc) the low-energy photons left over, remain at fairly constant levels, levels below the quantity that CAN be absorbed by CO2 etc, but adding CO2 will do nothing, as all the loose photons have already been “eaten up” by existing CO2, actually leaving many of the poor things hungry, not enough solar radiation leftovers to feed them
Ergo, more CO2 will just hang around, taking no part in the greenhouse party.
At least, that’s what I understand…climastrology dogma says the sun plays very little part in this calamity.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard M
February 5, 2023 5:43 am

Emissivity is not a measure of energy per volume as you imply. It is a dimensionless number, a ratio between the radiation emitted by a real (gray) body and the radiation that would be emitted by a theoretical ideal black body at the same temperature.

It is a physical property, and like other physical properties, it may vary with temperature and pressure. Merely going from 0.02% to 0.04% CO2 concentration at a fixed temperature and pressure is certainly not going to change the emissivity of air or of the CO2 molecules in a significant way. So I do not follow your argument about emissivity playing some role.

Happer and Wijngarden’s use of the word “saturated” is a metaphor, not a definition of a physical process. The idea is to convey the fact that additional CO2 won’t have a significant effect on temperature. The fact that the amount of LWIR absorbed follows a logarithmic function as CO2 concentration increases shows that it will never stop absorbing a little bit more as CO2 concentration rises (up to 100% CO2 of course). Taking it literally has you believing that in some sense that which is insignificant is actually impossible.

My concern about your approach is that when the truth is diluted with error, those who wish to deny the truth have an easy out to refute the errors and imply that they have also refuted the true part. You overstate the case and that undermines the case for climate realism.

Richard M
Reply to  Rich Davis
February 5, 2023 9:16 am

Emissivity is not a measure of energy per volume as you imply.

That was not my intent. Keep in mind my logic is comparing similar temperature/pressure/etc. with the only difference being CO2 content.

Merely going from 0.02% to 0.04% CO2 concentration at a fixed temperature and pressure is certainly not going to change the emissivity of air

If what you stated were true it would mean the absorptivity would also be unchanged (good old Kirchhoff’s Law) and that means no change in the ability to impede energy flow and no possible warming.

So I do not follow your argument about emissivity playing some role.

To get warming you need a slow down in the upward energy flux to space which means you need to have additional CO2 molecules absorb more photons. This only happens if absorptivity is increased. That also means that emissivity increases.

An increase in emissivity means more photons are emitted in any given volume of air. It is the volume of the energy as emitted photons I was talking about. Not the overall energy of the atmosphere.

Got it?

Happer and Wijngarden’s use of the word “saturated” is a metaphor

I don’t care about their use of the word. I’m using it to mean all the surface radiation in the frequency bands for CO2 is already being absorbed very low in the atmosphere.

I’m showing you the claimed log function of CO2 is incorrect. It stops when saturation occurs. The additional log increase is all due to the increase in absorption and appears to ignore the required increase in emissivity. Otherwise, it violates Kirchhoff’s Law.

My concern about your approach is that when the truth is diluted with error,

Then point out the error. So far you’ve not understood what I’m saying.

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 4, 2023 4:21 pm

Most discussions don’t address this but I have seen some considerations of how long any given greenhouse frequency photon (is there really such a thing as a photon?) will be retarded between surface and outer space through absorption and re-emission by greenhouse molecules. These suggest probably less than a second. However, if the absorbed photon is converted to kinetic energy in other atmospheric molecules in a much shorter interval, the picture surely changes. In this case greenhouse frequencies mainly just increase kinetic energy of the bulk atmosphere.

In that is so, the question is: what proportion of atmospheric kinetic energy comes through the kinetic interaction of greenhouse molecules with other atmospheric molecules? Is it a very large proportion? Would there really be much less kinetic energy in the molecules of the atmosphere if there were no greenhouse gases? Is this really the main action of the greenhouse effect?

Richard M
Reply to  AndyHce
February 4, 2023 6:19 pm

I doubt the one second claim. How would you measure that? You might get an estimate with a general approach.

Compute the total amount of energy in the atmosphere. Divide that by the energy coming up from the surface in a specific time period. Multiply the result by the length of the time period. That should come close to how long that energy takes to make its way through the atmosphere.

Right-Handed Shark
February 4, 2023 3:57 pm

There are some in the UK media that are willing to put their heads above the parapet, Neil Oliver for one. This from earlier today: (from 9:20-20:25)

February 4, 2023 11:46 pm

It’s telling that the Newsguard UK media report lists only right-wing media as untrustworthy and only left-wing misleadia as trustworthy

Says it all

February 4, 2023 11:52 pm

Logically is clearly yet another extreme left-wing “fact-checker”

You only have to read the opening of the second paragraph of their supposed fact-check of Tony Heller’s tweet to realise just how left-wing they are:

Climate change deniers voice their skepticism when parts of the world received heavy snow, while scientists attributed it to global warming and the shrinking Arctic ice. 

Rod Evans
February 5, 2023 12:56 am

During this current century of Climate Alarmism, which is a a pan Western government backed mindset, being driven into our children by state educationalists. The Alarmists, advanced the false hypothesis that CO2 released by man made energy systems, would increase the lower atmospheric temperature (i.e. <3000m) by 5 deg. C this century. The apocryphal projection was used to insist changes in human energy activities must be made. The abandonment of reliable least cost readily available energy options must be stopped including energy options that do not generate any CO2 at the point of energy production such as nuclear and hydro electricity.
Her we are, almost a quarter of the 21st century of climate anxiety has passed, how are we doing?
We have very reliable and accepted scientific data from NASA satellites showing the increase in lower atmosphere temp is just 0.1 deg. C this century.
The very modest increase may or may not be entirely due to human activities, no one knows. Either way, human induced or natural variation, it is clear there is no catastrophic acceleration in global warming. There is a very small increase in actual temp, for those living in cold lands that may be a very welcome event.
For those of us in Central England, we would like to see it naturally increase by a bit more please……

Andy Pattullo
February 5, 2023 10:22 am

There is indeed an epidemic of mis or disinformation. But it is powerful governments and wealthy elites who are the source, not the average citizen just exercising their constitutional right to free expression. We have learned to expect propaganda and disinformation from centrally planned, undemocratic, dictatorial governments. We are slow to wake up to the fact our own western governments are well on the way down the same path.

February 5, 2023 12:01 pm

The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it – George Orwell 1984

February 5, 2023 1:47 pm

£30 million can buy an awful lot of “facts”, a really big boatload of “facts”.

Who said God is always on the side with the most lawyers?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights