This film exposes the climate alarm as an invented scare without any basis in science. It shows that mainstream studies and official data do not support the claim that we are witnessing an increase in extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires and all the rest. It emphatically counters the claim that current temperatures and levels of atmospheric CO2 are unusually and worryingly high. On the contrary, it is very clearly the case, as can be seen in all mainstream studies, that, compared to the last half billion years of earth’s history, both current temperatures and CO2 levels are extremely and unusually low. We are currently in an ice age. It also shows that there is no evidence that changing levels of CO2 (it has changed many times) has ever ‘driven’ climate change in the past.
Why then, are we told, again and again, that ‘catastrophic man-made climate-change’ is an irrefutable fact? Why are we told that there is no evidence that contradicts it? Why are we told that anyone who questions ‘climate chaos’ is a ‘flat-earther’ and a ‘science-denier’?
The film explores the nature of the consensus behind climate change. It describes the origins of the climate funding bandwagon, and the rise of the trillion-dollar climate industry. It describes the hundreds of thousands of jobs that depend on the climate crisis. It explains the enormous pressure on scientists and others not to question the climate alarm: the withdrawal of funds, rejection by science journals, social ostracism.
But the climate alarm is much more than a funding and jobs bandwagon. The film explores the politics of climate. From the beginning, the climate scare was political. The culprit was free-market industrial capitalism. The solution was higher taxes and more regulation. From the start, the climate alarm appealed to, and has been adopted and promoted by, those groups who favour bigger government.
This is the unspoken political divide behind the climate alarm. The climate scare appeals especially to all those in the sprawling publicly-funded establishment. This includes the largely publicly-funded Western intelligentsia, for whom climate has become a moral cause. In these circles, to criticise or question the climate alarm has become a breach of social etiquette.
The film was shot on location in the U.S., Israel, Kenya and UK.
The film includes interviews with a number of very prominent scientists, including Professor Steven Koonin (author of ‘Unsettled’, a former provost and vice-president of Caltech), Professor Dick Lindzen (formerly professor of meteorology at Harvard and MIT), Professor Will Happer (professor of physics at Princeton), Dr John Clauser (winner of the Nobel prize in Physics in 2022), Professor Nir Shaviv (Racah Institute of Physics) and others.
MARTIN DURKIN
Martin Durkin has produced, directed and executive produced hundreds of hours of documentaries and TV for broadcasters around the world, including Discovery, National Geographic and many others. The company he founded and ran was, for a while, the single biggest producer of shows for the Science Channel and Discovery Networks International. His various documentaries have won many awards and he has served on the steering committee of the World Congress of Science Producers, the Edinburgh Television Festival, and as a judge for the Bafta and Royal Television Society awards.
TOM NELSON
Tom Nelson is a podcaster who has been deeply examining climate debate issues for the better part of two decades. On the Tom Nelson Podcast in the fall of 2022, Martin expressed a desire to remake 2007’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and that kicked off a successful effort to do just that. Many of the scientists interviewed in Climate: The Movie have done lengthy interviews for the Tom Nelson Podcast.
I’m so glad this has become quickly and easily available to the general public. Looking forward to watching it. Already downloaded it to watch on the big screen.
Thanks to all involved!
SORRY
This video does not exist
That didn’t take long.
Still available on youtube:
I just got to the movie on Vimeo.
Climate The Movie on Vimeo
Click on the Vimeo icon at the right end of the play bar takes you to the Vimeo page.
Vimeo download button available on Vimeo page, on right below the movie
Works for me anyway.
How does one download it? I have never found a way of downloading youtube videos.
Thank you very much.
see my comment just above.
I am only half way through, but it looks like the usual suspects doing the same old stories.
Truth telling is a crime? Seems so.
It is absolutely a crime! You need to check with your local gov’t authorities to see if you should surrender yourself, or just turn over all of your assets.
It is a bit like a defense lawyer in his final plea, throwing anything at the case that comes to his mind. And this might make sense, if they did not forget about the exonerating DNA test. This turns the whole defense dull.
To outline the main points:
In science you do not falsify a theory by throwing stuff at it. You falsify it by… falsifying it, period. Everytime you fail while trying, you actually add to the standing of said theory.
‘In science you do not falsify a theory by throwing stuff at it.’
Respectfully disagree. Climate alarmists have a very simple theory that ‘CO2 is the climate control knob’, for which they are obliged to provide compelling evidence. What you refer to as ‘throwing stuff at it’ is the basic work of science to examine the evidence and to discard that which is not compelling.
While it would be great to counter the alarmist’s theory with a complete theory of climate, said theory has not been promulgated and may not even be feasible given the nonlinear dynamics of the so-called climate system.
Well, that is the difference you are not aware of. I am falsifying “climate science”. This documentary, and the people appearing there, are just “throwing stuff at it”.
‘I am falsifying “climate science”.’
How so, exactly?
You look here..
https://greenhousedefect.com/
I glanced at the link and the first thing I saw as
“A Falsification – The incredibly stupid case of water vapor feedback”
The water vapor positive feedback estimates range from zero to about 6x amplification of the warming effects of CO2 alone
Climate Realists tend to be in the zero to 2x range
The right answer is unknown. Because we do not have an accurate annual average global water vapor percentage for several decades, to know just how well water vapor correlates with the annual average global troposphere temperature.
Remember that when asked about atmospheric water vapor, scientists claim it averages 2% to 3%. They do not say the annual average global water vapor percentage in 2023 was 2.4%, up 0.1% from 2022, BECAUSE no such data exist
That’s why the amount of a water vapor positive feedback is debated and can not be determined. It’s safe to say that feedback has a limit or we would not be here today after runaway global warming.
The claim the water vapor positive feedback (WVPF) is zero, as at the link you provided, or the claim it is very strong, are both extreme views not supported by data.
We do not know the correct answer.
I do know that a strong WVPF is required to convert harmless AGW into CAGW, and that makes me very suspicious of claims the WVPF is strong
You can falsify something that hardly exists. The goal should be to develop a real climate science but the subject is so complex with so many variables, it may never be possible- other than some statistical hypothesis.
It does show that the whole of climate alarmism is built of a huge crock of fantasy, lies and BS.
May as well try to falsify the existence of the Big Bad Wolf, or the Three Little Pigs….
That’s what a movie showing so many people will do- just look at their work- their books and publications. Not all of that can be put in a 80 minute movie. It’s not meant to be a definitive falsification of a hugely complex science.
Exactly. This showcases a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, a retired professor from MIT, a couple of presidential science advisors, one of them serving bloody Barack Hussein Obama. And I don’t mean to slight anyone not mentioned. How could any person with even a shred of intellectual honesty fail to reach the conclusion that The Science ™ is not settled?
Erich,
Falsification of a hypothesis is exactly “throwing stuff at it”. Evidence contradicting the predictions of the hypothesis is what constitutes falsification. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “proving” an alternative hypothesis.
In a murder case, if I show that the accused was in another city thousands of miles from the scene of the crime, with multiple eyewitnesses from the day before until the day after the murder, I have falsified the hypothesis that the accused committed the crime. The fact that I may have no idea who committed the murder does not detract one scintilla from the reality that I have falsified the prosecution’s hypothesis.
Since you agree that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY, you are an ally, like it or not.
As someone who acknowledges the hypothetical warming of increased CO2, even though I explicitly state that such warming as we have seen is observably beneficial, and that other emergent phenomena may totally counteract the hypothetical enhanced greenhouse effect, you and several others (hiya bnice!) persist in tagging me and other likeminded climate realists as ridiculous lukewarmists. It’s an unfortunate and counterproductive behavior. But I overlook it.
I know what a falsification is, because I do it, and “throwing stuff at something” it is not. And although I have to repeat myself, let me demonstrate it with the case of water vapor feedback (WVF).
WVF is derived in the literature from the dOLR/dTs relation. How much does outgoing longwave radiation change relative to changes in surface temperature. If the term dOLR/dTs should be smaller than “Planck Feedback” of some 3.6W/m2 (with clear skies), that would indicate a positive WVF. Typically it would be in the 2-2.3W/m2 range, so there you have it, the evidence for a strong, positive wvf.
Such analysis come typically in 3 different flavors, seasonal, interannual or geographic variations in Ts. They all come to similar results, and those results are confirmed by models. So it all looks like solid science and certainly is one of the most important foundations for the “global warming”narrative.
The problem is, all this is based on the assumption Ta (tropospheric temperature) would behave pro-cyclical. If the Ts warms, Ta should warm even more, because of lapse rate changes due to the abundance of WV and “latent heat”. Ironically no one ever checked if Ta actually behaves like assumed.
Well, at least Dessler 2008 did, but only in the context of geograpical variation of Ts. He concludes:
I did it also also for seasonal and interannual variation of Ts, and it is the same problem. Ta does not behave pro-, but counter- cyclical. Variations of Ts are mainly just a thing of the surface, not so much of Ta.
This is the interpretation of “climate science”..
And this is reality..
That is a definite falsification, given we have according data on Ta. And it could have been done decades ago, if anyone on the “critical side” had a sharp enough mind.
Hmmm. So every bit of scientific research conducted over the last 50 years contradicts your post. Why should I believe you?
CO2 os a pygmy
Water vapor is the 800-lb gorilla
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
EXCERPT
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f; h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength; c = 3 x 10^8 meter, the speed of light in a vacuum.
Infrared photons have low energies, because of low frequency and long wavelengths.
If y = 15 micrometers, E = 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule; 1/y = wavenumber.
Photons near the surface are about 3.51 x 10^21/m^3 of dry air
Molecules near the surface are about 2.69 x 10^25/ m^3 of dry air, or 10,000 more numerous than photons; mean free path 64 – 68 nanometer. Even though their average speed, near the surface, is about 470 m/s, they travel very short distances before colliding with other molecules.
The warming of the TS is by: 1) heat transfer (collision, convection), 19%; 2) latent heat (evaporation/condensing), 61%; and 3) IR radiation from the surface, 20%.
.
Near the surface, with the sun shining on land and water, dew and fog become WV, which is rising and forming clouds. As the surface temperature increases, IR radiation photons increase, and because of the 1 to 10,000 ratio, each 100 photons is surrounded by 1 million molecules, of which 17722 are WV, and 423 are CO2.
The higher 17722 ppm value is used, because almost all IR photon absorption occurs in the first 200 meter from the surface. See vertical profile image
22 photons escape to space through the atmospheric window (no collision, no absorption),
5.5 photons (7% of 100 – 22), with 15 micrometer wavelength, either thermalize by collision with all other molecules, or are absorbed by WV and CO2 molecules.
72.5 photons thermalize by collision with all other molecules
.
Near the surface, WV absorbs 17722/(17722 + 423) = 98% of the 15 micrometer photons, and CO2 2%
If CO2 were 846 ppm, WV would absorb 17722/(17722 + 846) = 95%, and CO2 5%. See image and URLs
About 3% of WV in the atmosphere participates in the retention of IR radiation energy
Full absorption of available photons, including 15 micrometer photons, takes place in about 150 m
About 0.12% of CO2 in the atmosphere participates in retention of IR radiation energy.
Full absorption of mostly 15 micrometer photons takes place in about 10 m
Those percentages fully absorb the earth’s BB radiation, at their specific absorption wavelengths, at 300 K. See Image 11A and URL
The rest of the WV molecules first gained their energy by evaporation, then by collisions.
The rest of the CO2 molecules, and almost all other atmosphere molecules gained their energy by collisions.
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
.
It is dishonest to claim, WV does 39 to 62% of the energy retention/greenhouse effect, based on laboratory experiments and subjective models
Near the surface, WV absorbing IR photons totally swamps whatever CO2 does.
See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A
Impressive, every single word of what you just said is wrong.
Yours is a common mistake. EV is the strongest ghg, but it doesn’t increase, but rather condenses out. CO2 does not condense out, and has increased 50% since 1750, and is therefore the most important ghg in terms of causing global temperatures to increase.
CO2 is the climate control knob ’theory is an exaggeration but that false claim does not mean CO2 is not the major cause of global warming since 1975. Or at least one of the major causes of the warming. Definitely not CO2 did nothing.
The evidence of a stronger greenhouse effect is stronger than the evidence of natural causes of warming sinve 1975.
The stronger greenhouse effect can be from more CO2, more water vapor and more night clouds.
There is more CO2.
Water vapor is a dependent variable that does not DIRECTLY increase the greenhouse effect. Accurate statistics of the global average water vapor percentage by year do not exist.
More night clouds would increase the greenhouse effect but the percentage of cloudiness has been decreasing in past decades. Those data do not directly measure heat blocked by night clouds. but suggest clouds did not cause the increasing greenhouse effect. That leaves CO2
The evidence that CO2 was a cause of warming after 1975 is strong enough so that the CO2 Does Nothing Claim of this movie is just as stupid as the CO2 Does Everything claim by the leftists
The conjecture, unsupported by any data, which is “AGW” or “climate change,” does not even rise to the level of a falsifiable hypothesis.
Moreover, as Frank points out: THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION AND PROOF IS ON THE HUMAN CO2 SPECULATORS*.
*Yes. BOTH senses of that word were intended.
If the burden was on the other side, then this side had nothing to do, I guess..?!
Except keep drawing attention to the fact that it is all a load of hogwash !
Which is what this movie does.
With government around the world swallowing the climate change B.S. it is why climate realists has to fight back to slow down the damage they produce.
It seems that YOU are a defender of pseudoscience.
The truth is the Warming is 100% Natural side has little evidence.
Do not let yourself be lured by climate propagandists into tilting at their strawmen. The debate is not over whether “manmade climate change” or “AGW” is real.
Of course it is. The effects of GHG emissions are modest and benign, but they are not zero.
If you’re lured into debating the wrong topic, you lose. The debate is not about whether anthropogenic climate change is real, the debate is about whether anthropogenic climate change is harmful (or even a “crisis” or “emergency”).
One of the climate industry’s favorite tricks is pretending that the debate is about a strawman: whether or not AGW is real. They publish papers claiming a “97% scientific consensus,” but they don’t want you to notice that the “consensus” is not about anything that matters.
The only relevant fact for which there’s something like a consensus is the fact that additional CO2 (and other GHGs) have a warming effect. But so what? Scientists and historians call the warmest climate periods “climate optimums” — including times much warmer than now, like the Eemian Climate Optimum.
The climate alarmists are not wrong about the fact that GHG emissions have a warming effect (though the IPCC’s “homeopathic climatology” is crackpottery). Where they go off the rails is with their unsupportable contention that it is harmful. THAT is the error you should call them out on.
There’s no consensus for THAT, and when climate activists pretend that a consensus that “climate change is real” means “climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” they are being extremely disingenuous.
The evidence is compelling that AGW is modest and benign, anthropogenic CO2 emissions are beneficial, and the “social cost of carbon” is negative. THAT is why the “climate crisis” narrative is false, and THAT is what makes the parasitic climate industry so destructive. Do not let yourself be lured into an argument over whether AGW is “real.”
Excellent
The graph, created in a laboratory, exaggerates the role of CO2 and minimizes the role of water vapor.
What ppm was used for water vapor?
Near the surface, where almost all absorption takes place, WV is about 20000 ppm, 47 times more abundant than CO2, plus water vapor also absorbs 15 micrometer photons
See my other comments in this string
That is “absorption”….. not warming.
Absorption of outgoing radiation is HOW so-called GHGs cause warming. The notches in Earth’s outgoing radiation spectrum represent energy that was NOT lost as radiation to outer space.
If you reduce energy losses, radiating bodies become warmer than they otherwise would have been.
You have to know what happens AFTER that initial absorption takes place
AND YOU DON’T !!
In fact, recent measurements show that the slight increase in CO2 absorption is more than compensated by an increase in the atmospheric window.
No outgoing radiation is “blocked” by your lukewarmer nonsense... just translated to different frequencies.,
bnice2000 wrote, “idiotic ‘blanket’ analogy… totally anti-science gibberish… you really are on an intravenous drip of AGW klimate kool-aides aren’t you”
“bnice,” you’re not being very nice.
bnice2000 wrote, “the slight increase in CO2 absorption is more than compensated by an increase in the atmospheric window... just translated to different frequencies.”
The “more than” part is wrong, but the rest of that statement is right.
However, what you don’t realize is that that means that the CO2 absorption causes warming. The intensity of outgoing radiation in the atmospheric window is determined by surface temperatures (or cloud top temperatures, in cloudy conditions). The only way that the intensity of that radiation can increase is if those temperatures (at least on average) increase.
Also.. OLR continues to climb, in line with atmospheric temperature dure to more absorbed incoming solar energy.
Again.. it is noted you totally FAILED to produce any empirical evidence of warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2
Is that because .. there basically ISN’T ANY !!
And seriously .. going with the idiotic “blanket” analogy.
This is totally anti-science gibberish.
What blanket cools the Earth when the Earth gets warmer…
WOW !!… you really are on an intravenous drip of AGW klimate kool-aides aren’t you !!
Anti-science gibberish? Any blanket is cooler on its outside surface than on its inside surface if the outside air is colder than the inside. Blankets don’t prevent cooling, they only reduce cooling.
The blanket analogy would be better if humans were cold-blooded. A blanket actually raises a person’s skin temperature but that is because the body’s core is the heat source.
With the earth, the sun heats the surface during the day and it cools all night (ignoring possible temperature inversion). So the analogy between the blanket and the greenhouse effect is that heat flow to space is reduced, allowing the surface to remain warmer by the time the sun starts warming it again in the morning.
And ok, the blanket, like a physical greenhouse blocks convection more than radiation. The earth cools by convection and radiation but it’s the radiation that gets delayed by the poorly named GHE. The analogy is to the resistance to heat flow albeit by very different physical mechanisms.
The only quibble I would offer to your excellent comment is to change the last sentence to:
If you reduce energy losses, radiating bodies
becomeremain warmer than they otherwise would have been.Global warming is actually global reduced-cooling
No. If heat is being generated faster than it is being removed, then the body becomes warmer. That is why one sometimes throws the covers off at night. They have become uncomfortably warm because they have too many blankets on for the outside temperature. Conversely, sometimes one doesn’t have enough blankets, and gets up looking for another blanket to throw over the other blankets.
Thanks Dave. That is a concise statement of a rational sceptic’s position.
Mods: Dave’s comment deserves to be a head post!
Daves’ post belongs in a circular file. There is strong evidence to support the theory that CO2 causes some amount of global warming. Only stupid people completely ignore that evidence and then claim the warming must be 100% natural.
DAVE BURTON! BRAVISIMO!
No. The only relevant fact is that any ”warming from anthropogenic co2” cannot be measured (early on, even the IPCC admitted as much) because it cannot be separated from natural variation. Ergo It is irrelevant. That is all that should be conceded. Any more just gives the other side reason to keep looking and pretend that they have found the signal by making up shit. They have not and they will not find it. Tell them that.
In fact, your argument is either unproven or trivially true. Thus, your ‘advice’ is not quite apposite. Laying hold of Happer’s graph is great, but don’t make it your only shield of faith.
If this is merely trivially true that this is quite right (and it is), then the argument is over the degree of triviality. What does it mean? It means a hypothesis that is ‘true’ but ‘irrelevant’ — which is equivalent to it being a meaningless concession. And this brings us back to the point — don’t surrender the point that the warming in temperature trend is owning to CO2.
Besides, what is this ‘global temperature’ that has been rising?
Excellent comment
The movie supports the CO2 Does Nothing hoax between 22 minutes and 30 minutes when I stopped watching.
To be more aggressive:
The current climate is the best climate in 5000 years for humans, animals and plants. In the old days such a climate was called an optimum because it was good news, not a climate emergency.
It took 325 years of global warming to get here.
We should be celebrating the fact that we live in a warming trend during an interglacial. If our plants could talk, they’d be praising more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Using 40 years of CAGW propaganda to convert good climate news into a climate emergency, is the biggest scientific hoax in history.
Dave Burton,
II agree with your take 100%. We have to focus on disputing the catastrophic climate change narrative. Water dominates the greenhouse effect in the lower troposphere along with it being the “refrigerant” fluid in the great heat engine that is our atmosphere. But at the tropospause, water molecules are much lower in concentration allowing CO2 to significantly radiate to space without the photons immediately colliding with water molecules as occurs in the lower troposphere. But there is no evidence of feedback magnifying this effect. Even a doubling of CO2 would yield a theoretical but minuscule global temperature increase. The effect of more CO2 appears as a minor elevation of the characteristic emissions layer. The upshot is that the lapse rate operates over a slightly extended height with a resultant theoretical warming at the earth’s surface. This warming as you say is benign but I would extend the claim to beneficial.
Water vapor is indeed the dominate greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and is responsible for the majority of the temperature elevation of the earth vs what the temperature of the earth would be were it to have no atmosphere.
However, the concentration of WV is limited by the ability of air to hold moisture (eg, its saturation level) at any given temperature. Any excess WV condenses out. But CO2 does not condense out. So CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which started to rampup at the beginning of the industrial era, have accumulated in the atmosphere, and account for the 50% increase in atm ppm to the 420+ ppm we see today. I.e., the rise in global temperatures since 1900 has been driven by CO2, not WV, as well as by CH4, N2O and fluorocarbons. However, WV indeed acts as an amplifier of the global temp rise, because as the atmosphere warms, its ability to hold WV also increases, further increasing the greenhouse effect.
Data from satellites, weather balloons, and ground measurements confirm the amount of atmospheric water vapor is increasing as the climate warms. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report states total atmospheric water vapor is increasing 1 to 2% per decade.) For every degree Celsius that Earth’s atmospheric temperature rises, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can increase by about 7%, according to the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship.
Warren,
“WV indeed acts as an amplifier of the global temp rise, because as the atmosphere warms, its ability to hold WV also increases, further increasing the greenhouse effect.”
The lack of the tropical “hot spot” as displayed by the models but not in real life tells us that there is no amplification as you have claimed. The greenhouse effect is saturated in the lower troposphere so an increase in humidity has little effect. One must look to the tropopause and lower stratosphere for the climatic effects of increasing CO2 concentration in an environment where H2O does not dominate. On a side note, scientists should be eagerly studying the effects of the 2022 eruption of Hunga-Tonga where vast amounts of H2O, HCl and SO2 where injected into the stratosphere.
Your exhibiting A great deal of confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere; that comes from your mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes. It does not.
And you offered no valid physics explanation for your mistaken claim that water vapor doesn’t amplify the warming due to rising co2. And it’s not a surprise, since no climate scientists buys your confused argument either.
and the greenhouse effect does not saturate (if it did, the Venusian atmosphere wouldn’t have reached 95% CO2 and caused surface temperatures hot enough to melt lead.
and your Tonga point is a red herring — it has no bearing on the well established cause of global warming— rising atmospheric CO2 , the effect of which is amplified by water vapor.
The evidence manmade CO2 emissions were the cause of the +50% increase of atmospheric CO2 after 1850 is VERY strong.
The evidence that more CO2 can cause some amount of global warming has been strong since 1896 and has withstood 127 years for scientists to refute the claim. They failed..
Nutters who deny the evidence, like you, do not get taken seriously because you do not offer an alterative explanation of how all, or nearly all, the global warming after 1975 had natural causes.
Without an alternate theory, the CO2 Does Nothing Nutters act like children by claiming
You can’t prove it
Yoi can’t prove it
YOU CAN’T PROVE IT
Nyah, nyah , nyah
The you can’t prove it” approach has no possibility of changing minds. It is also a stupid approach because science does not prove anything or disprove anything.
Science provides theories supported by evidence.
To refute the CO2 causes warming theory, you either have to refute the evidence of that theory, or offer an alternative strong theory backed by evidence.
To refute the evidence about the CO2 causes warming theory, you have to study the evidence behind the theory … bNasty2000 and other CO2 Does Nothing Nutters.
Ignoring the evidence and shouting You Can’t Prove It
just does not work to change minds
Nor does shouting You Can’t Prove It change the findings of science. The conclusions of scientific research are the result of the accumulation of evidence, as you say, and the inability to find contradictory evidence.
‘Proofs’ are for Math, not Science.
Since the climate emergency theory is hardly a real theory- having not been proven or even demonstrated- it doesn’t need to be falsified as you would with a genuine workable theory- so you can throw the book at it- since that’s all it is- a messy collection of concepts.
How then do we deal wth someone like Mark Carney?
Sorry, I am not into nihilism
said “theory” is basically little more than a failed conjecture…
… a fairy tale, a fantasy.
Explain how you falsify a fairy tale ??
I believe, ES, that you are way downstream in the argument — but the science was done (or, in the case of AGW, not done) way upstream. Somehow, you believe that AGW is the null hypothesis; in fact, it is the alternate hypothesis. Frank is being quite kind to you in this regard.
There is no valid ‘control knob’ argument to be made; it cannot be made. But even back behind the hypothesis creation, there needs to be a problem statement. In this case, there isn’t one.
So, please feel free to pull your canoe out, portage back upstream, and start anew.
I am, and always was, way more upstream than you can imagine.
Oh, good! That is a relief, because what you wrote above conveyed a very sophomoric grasp of the scientific process. I’m glad to know you are familiar.
Of course, this assertion, when taken (as I am wont to do) at face value, moves my curiosity to a new point: why do you say things that are so clearly at odds with the same?
Data free predictions of CAGW, wrong since 1979, are NOT science.
“Climate change” is data free predictions of CAGW
Actual global warming since 1975 has been pleasant and beneficial to plants and most people. Unless they do not like armer winters.
Those are the primary arguments to refute CAGW scaremongering missed in the first 30 minutes of the movie … a movie that denies manmade CO2 is a greenhouse gas that impedes Earth’s ability to cool itself. That’s basic climate science denied by this science fiction movie.
Temperature records from surface stations ARE biased, and also lacking in scope both temporal and coverage. Showing that data from areas that have no actual basis in reality is not “throwing stuff at it”, it shows that support for the theory is fabricated.
Revealing that ice core data shows warming leading CO2 increase demonstrates that the theory is based on a false assumption (that CO2 increase precedes warming).
Demonstrating that proponents of a theory have endeavored to quash competing theories and contradictory evidence shows that the proponents have no confidence in the robustness of the theory.
IAC, it’s not a matter of disproving a theory, it’s a matter of pointing out that the emperor is naked so that others can stop being afraid to admit it.
Well, that’s certainly a good point about theories in science.
And if this problem was about theories in science, this would be a point relevant to it as well.
To take one more little step from science, by now there might well be “papers” about hamster-kin and tulpas published in “scientific” journals. But asking to falsify any subset of them would not do anything about tumblr nonsense spilling into TV and then the streets. Actually doing this (if that’s even possible) would not remove the tumblr nonsense in general even from “scientific” journals.
Must be hard to watch if you are one of those alarmists
“I am only half way through, but it looks like the usual suspects doing the same old stories.”
**************
You are an example of why the theory of CO2-induced CAGW is referred to as a cult and a religion. All who dare to dissent here and in the movie, in your mind as it appears, are heretics and thought-criminals. In a cult, that is what happens to anyone who dares to dissent from the theology or doctrine of the cult. I am not Catholic. I seem to recall however that members of the Catholic faith are not allowed to question the church’s doctrine.
If I understand the way scientific discourse is supposed to work, you E. Schaffer are the one on whom the burden of proof lies when discussing CAGW (or any other theory for that matter). You have not disconfirmed anything that was said or presented in the movie that would support the CAGW theory. I have followed this blog for many years now, and the trolls who come here regularly trying to prop up the CAGW theory have never succeeded in doing so.
If I were a scientist, I would challenge you to do so now.
BTW, kudos to everyone who played a role in the making of this movie. Very well done.
Dude, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I just handily falsified water vapor feedback..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-incredibly-stupid-case-of-water-vapor-feedback
I can do this, but I am also aware, the “critical community” here and elsewhere is so clueless about the science, that they can not even tell the difference between nonsense and significant findings. I hear you, it is “too scientific”, not enough activism..
Here is another wonderful example where I trash some NASA research and Kiehl, Trenberth on the way..
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-anatomy-of-a-climate-science-disaster
and confront G. Schmidt with it..
https://twitter.com/erich_schaffer/status/1643697001064718342
I don’t think I am too soft or too apologetic on “climate science”, rather it is the opposite. But I do that based on science, not based on nonsense.
And you still don’t get it?
Again, it is lame on the science part. If these people were doing the science properly, they could have falsified “climate science” many times over already.
They have..
Hadn’t you realised it is now a battle of destroying lies and propaganda.
That is what this movie tries to do.
It is not about “the science” any more… it is about politics and money.
Doing real science, based on objective measurements and tests, instead of faux science, based on subjective fiction.
.
El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
EXCERPT
.
Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat
https://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html
Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f; h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck’s constant.
c/f = y, is wavelength, and c = 3 x 10^8 meter, the speed of light in a vacuum.
Infrared photons have low energies, because of low frequency and long wavelengths.
If y = 15 micrometers, E = 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule. 1/y = wavenumber.
Photons near the earth surface are about 3.51 x 10^21/m^3 of dry air
Molecules near the earth surface are about 2.69 x 10^25/ m^3 of dry air, or 10,000 more numerous than photons; mean free path 64 – 68 nanometer, i.e., even though their average speed, near the surface, is about 470 m/s, they travel very short distances before colliding with other molecules.
The warming of the TS is by: 1) heat transfer (collision, convection), 19%, 2) latent heat transfer (evaporation/condensing), 61%, and 3) IR radiation from the Earth’s surface, 20%.
.
At the surface, because of the 1 to 10,000 ratio, we can assume each 100 photons is surrounded by 1 million molecules, of which 20,000 are WV, and 423 are CO2; 22 photons escape to space through the atmospheric window (no collision, no absorption), 72.5 photons thermalize by collision with all other molecules, and 5.5 photons (7% of 100 – 22), with 15 micrometer wavelength) either thermalize by collision with all other molecules, or are absorbed by WV and CO2 molecules.
About 3% of WV in the atmosphere participates in the retention of energy, and full absorption of available 15 micrometer photons takes place in about 150 m
About 0.12% of CO2 in the atmosphere participates in retention of energy, and full absorption of available 15 micrometer photons takes place in about 10 m
Those percentages are all that is required to fully absorb the earth’s BB radiation, at their specific absorption wavelengths, at 300 K. See Image 11A and URL
The rest of the WV molecules first gained their energy by evaporation, then by collisions.
The rest of the CO2 molecules, and almost all other atmosphere molecules gained their energy by collisions.
Detailed calculations are shown in this article.
.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-greenhouse-model-and-co2-contribution
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
What?!?!
Get a degree in Modern Physics and study the URLs.
If more students did that, as in China, Russia, India, etc., the USA coup d’Etat “leaders” would not be where they are, borders would be closed, and wind and solar would be thrown out as unworkable, and more nuclear plants would be built.
I’d like to ask you how this movie compares to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth? You know the one with the Hockey Stick graph.
It compares well, except for media coverage. Not much science, lots of activism..
Except Gore’s movie was a load of arrant BS…
Sorry scientific facts are so difficult for you.
Al Gore used ice core data to prove CO2 causes temperature changes and this movie used ice core data to prove temperature changes cause CO2 changes.
I wasted my money to see Al Gore’s propaganda as did a lot of people He presented the ice core data at a 45 degree angle so it looked like temperature changes and CO2 changes were simultaneous. When temperature canges causes CO2 changes as a feedback
Ice core proxies do not include manmade CO2 emissions so they provide no evidence of the climate effect of manmade CO2 emissions. Both films got that wrong.
Well, in Al Gore’s case older people ought to ask whether it’s a memoir about his old censorship campaign, as the name suggests (search “Dee Snider” & “Tipper Gore” for some lulz). :]
As a serious answer, it works differently in different genres.
Propaganda made by the ruling theocracy, as usual, is bait for opportunistic rodents first, and then gets involuntarily spread to the people by various “community organizers”.
“Underground” stuff on a hot subject always has interested viewers, and the attraction only increases after it’s purged once or twice.
A question on the observable matters would be: whether it will be demonized or suppressed. Demonization happens either to something impossible-to-ignore, or scarecrows that are understood to be harmless. Examples: The Orange Man was impossible to ignore, thus #OrangeManBad hysteria. Useless opposition like MRA, NRA, Tories/GOP/etc is promoted this way, exactly because it’s harmless; it works much the same way as with fake opposition (such as Quillette) and obvious provocateurs (such as Kluk Kluk Klawn, various nazi LARPers, Anglin & his stormclowns): there are always naturally occurring fools, but the demand greatly exceeds the supply.
Suppression/unpersoning (unless the opposition is genuinely obscure) is a sign of being seen as an actual threat. Examples: 8chan (between Gamergate and being captured) was mentioned only as a nest of badwrongpr0n; People’s Cube is a «malware-spreading site that shall remain nameless [yet we are still harping about it]», they are still stupid enough to bandwagon on the generic American conservatard “causes” (those are always weak and stupid, see above), but they have teeth.
I get the feeling that Gaia her ownself could tell you in person that climate change wasn’t a thing and you’d say, “Naah.”
It would be wonderful if AGW were real because it would mean we might skip or at least moderate the next glacial outbreak, due any time now, geologically speaking.
There is a video out there by Patrick Brown on the “social feedback loops” in “climate science”. Basically he says you will get any nonsense published, as long as it supports the narrative. If you contradict the narrative, you won’t get published. The quality of the science? Largely irrelevant! We knew that anyhow..
We could probably all agree, that it should be about the quality of science only and nothing else. What I have to point out, and what you guys don’t like, is that we have exactly the same problem on the “critical side”. There too, it is all about the message, not about the science.
Ironically, doing science properly would get us out of the mess and reveal the nonsense “climate science” is. But no one wants to do that (except for myself). And I guess I know why that is, apart from simple incompetence. Deep inside you guys actually believe “the science” was right, like most people, and taking it on seriously, would be a losing game. You are scared of that.
I never had this problem, because I was not partisan in the first place. I only thought “climate science” might be a great target for some forensic analysis, and I was right. I knew about a couple of mistakes and thought there might be more. I did not expect to find it was basically all wrong, but that is what happened.
And then I thought this might be of interest to the “critical community”, but there it seems I was wrong. You just want to stick to your “social feedback loops”..
There is nothing wrong with the usual suspects but their reputation may be hurt by being associated with the conservative junk science in this film.
After 22 minutes this science movie became a science fiction movie (a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter movie.).
I felt sorry for Roy Spencer who does not believe CO2 Does Nothing, but being in the movie suggests he approves the message. I stopped watching after 30 minutes because there was too much science denying already
I also wish Patrick Moore would stop making the false statement that all life would end if atmospheric CO2 was below 150 ppm. C3 plants do not thrive at 151 ppm CO2 and die at 149 ppm CO2. Their growth is stunted as CO2 levels decline. At 150 ppm CO2 they were under 10% of normal biomass in one scientific study I read. Probably worthless for food.
But C4 plants, which include corn, sugarcane and many grasses, will survive at 10 ppm CO2. C4 plants account for at least 20% of our planet’s vegetation, so there would be life below 150 ppm CO2. Everyone would die is a hyperbolic exaggeration.
I’m jealous of E. Schaffer getting 90 downvotes for his comment. I don’t vote on comments, but he did post a generic criticism of the movie with no specific reasons explaining why. I provided reasons the movie was awful. And typed them in the BOLD font, hoping to get some extra downvotes for that too.
I guess made it pretty clear over the course of multiple posts what my objections are. And that is not restricted to this one documentary, but applies to the behaviour of the “critical side” as a whole. It is throwing around poor arguments, when excellent evidence is readily available.
Your 90 downvote comment was generic criticism with no details. I read the other comments later.
CAGW is a data free prediction of doom
There are no CAGW data
CAGW is an imaginary climate
Science requires data
CAGW has no data
The CAGW predictions have been wrong for the past 44 years
CAGW is leftist propaganda not climate science.
1:30 of arm waving?
/stokes
The trend of tropical central pacific (area for ENSO 3.4) sea surface temperature has been unchanged since before 1981.
TIP TIP
Space weather dot com reports something unusual in the Arctic stratosphere. The polar vortex was spinning backward.
“The vortex changed direction around March 4th,” reports Dr. Amy Butler, author of NOAA’s Polar Vortex Blog.
yeah but its NOT unusual its happened before, was going to send in in as a tip as well waiting for the lunatics on X to start up that we dunnit;-))
Thanks for that link.
This is an engaging movie.
Most of those interviewed no longer rely on government funding for income. So they can afford to be honest. Those who have placed morals above income have not fared well.
The developed world has the accumulated wealth to indulge such unscientific nonsense but the wealth is being eroded rapidly and vast resources wasted.
In time, humans will realise how puny they are against the energy exchanges that shape Earth’s climate. Those who think a tiny addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is responsible for Earth’s average surface temperature warming up a degree or so cannot contemplate what is yet to come.
Nice comment, Rick. Let us hope that future generations will have survived the onslaught of climate alarmism enabled collectivism to the extent that they may highly regard the sacrifices born by today’s skeptics.
There is no climate emergency, it is an absurd notion.
Climate: The Movie raises many great points that have been discussed here over the years however the argument about temperature leading atmospheric CO2 during glaciation periods is irrelevant to the greater or lesser effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels over the past century.
It merely confuses a general audience and hands ammunition to the ‘science deniers’ name-callers.
I hope you saw this paper….
The Conclusion Humans Drive Atmospheric CO2 Increases Is Undermined By Carbon Isotope Data (notrickszone.com)
It’s another paper from Koutsoyiannis. I didn’t read this one, but I read his previous one, Koutsoyiannis et al 2023, and it’s wrong.
Based on the title of the article about this one, it is wrong, too.
We have the data which prove beyond dispute that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic. Nature is removing CO2 from the air, not adding it.
Mankind adds CO2 to the air, and “Nature” (i.e., the net sum of all natural fluxes, positive & negative) removes CO2. The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing solely because mankind is adding CO2 faster than nature is removing it.
STUFF WHICH “CO2 SKEPTICS” LIKE KOUTSOYIANNIS GET WRONG:
Currently (averaged over 2012-2022), the atmospheric CO2 level is rising at a rate of about 2.45 ppmv/year (= 19.1 Gt of CO2/year = 5.22 PgC/year).
Our fossil CO2 emissions are about 4.8 ppmv/year (= 37.5 Gt of CO2/year = 10.22 PgC/year).
(For simplicity, let’s ignore “land use emissions” which add an amount very roughly estimated at 0.5 ppmv/year.)
The difference between those our emission rate and the rate of rise is the rate at which Nature is removing CO2 from the air: (4.8-2.45)=2.35 ppmv/year + (whatever you think “land use emissions” are).
STUFF MANY CLIMATE ALARMISTS GET WRONG ABOUT CO2:
Contrary to the “Net Zero” propaganda, when mankind’s CO2 emission rate no longer exceeds nature’s removal rate, the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cease rising. If our fossil carbon emissions were to decrease by more than 2.45 ppmv/year (51%), the atmospheric CO2 level would be declining, rather than rising, even as we continued to add fossil carbon to the atmosphere per year.
Contrary to the IPCC’s “homeopathic climatology” (TCRE/RCB), when CO2 levels consequently decline, even as anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue at a rate less than nature’s removal rate, the “radiative imbalance” will soon reverse, and — all else being equal — the Earth will cool.
Believe it or not, the IPCC says just the opposite: that as long as human CO2 emissions continue, the “Remaining Carbon Budget” is being depleted, and the Earth will continue to warm. That’s completely unscientific crackpottery.
Measured data is wrong?
Maybe that’s why you never present any that is relevant..
Where is your isotopic analysis to counter this paper ???
Hand-flapping doesn’t do much !!
But is a strong lukewarmer trait.
What you have listed above and compared is the net difference of all sources and sinks, and the gross anthropogenic sources, as shown in Fig. 2 here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
The sinks can’t tell anthropogenic CO2 from natural CO2.
Your “it’s wrong” criticism of Koutsoyiannis et al 2023 is a strawman argument. It is based on seasonal changes, but the Koutsoyiannis paper is based on annual data.
It’s just arithmetic:
1 ppmv CO2 = 7.8024 Gt CO2 = 2.12940 PgC.
Currently (averaged over 2012-2022), the atmospheric CO2 level is rising at a rate of about 2.45 ppmv/year (= 19.1 Gt of CO2/year = 5.22 PgC/year).
Our fossil CO2 emissions are about 4.8 ppmv/year (= 37.5 Gt of CO2/year = 10.22 PgC/year).
(For simplicity, let’s ignore “land use emissions” which add an amount very roughly estimated at 0.5 ppmv/year.)
The difference between our CO2 emission rate and the rate of rise of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is the rate at which Nature is removing CO2 from the air: (4.8-2.45)=2.35 ppmv/year + (whatever you think “land use emissions” are).
That is a positive number, so
👉 Nature is removing CO2 from the air, not adding it.
I shouldn’t have to explain that removing CO2 from the air cannot increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Removing CO2 from the air lowers the CO2 level. So Nature cannot take credit for the (beneficial!) rise in atmospheric CO2 level.
Mankind adds CO2 to the air, and “Nature” (i.e., the net sum of all natural fluxes, positive & negative) removes CO2.
The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing solely because mankind is adding CO2 faster than nature is removing it.
About this fast adding… How much CO₂ was produced by Mt.Etna the last time it deigned to belch?..
It seems there were some effects on weather, but did not result in a rain of penguins or something equally dire. And even then, there’s no good reason to assume most of what little anomaly can be blamed on it was caused specifically by CO₂ (considering eruptions produce lots of sulphur gases).
Uneducated ramblings.
“is irrelevant to the greater or lesser effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere through the combustion of fossil fuels over the past century.”
Which apart from enhancing plant growth… hasn’t done anything measurable to anything..
It is a powerful fact when combined with the fact that natural sources and sinks of CO2 are two orders of magnitude, i.e., roughly 150 gtons versus about 6 gtons, GREATER THAN HUMAN CO2. Even a small imbalance (with sink > source) completely overwhelms human CO2. Moreover, the quantity of natural CO2 is so large that the infinitesimal potential effect (per Happer, ~ .04 C) of additional human CO2 is not meaningful/negligible. THIS has never been argued away by the AGWists.
Their “ammunition” is easily seen to be only blanks — a lot of noise which only fools people who want to be fooled.
(Note: I am not “yelling” above, just wanted to promote education by using emphases.)
Janice
It is the big-government command, control leftist vs all others..
They use climate hoax as just another tool
The Obama cabal hiding behind Biden is using open borders as another tool
They terrify judges, etc., to commit lawfare to destroy any opposition
They use massive deficit spending to finance their evil doing programs
That’s incorrect. What matters is not the size of the individual natural fluxes, it’s their sum.
We have the data which prove beyond dispute that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is anthropogenic. Nature is removing CO2 from the air, not adding it.
Mankind adds CO2 to the air, and “Nature” (i.e., the net sum of all natural fluxes, positive & negative) removes CO2.
The amount of CO2 in the air is increasing solely because mankind is adding CO2 faster than nature is removing it.
Currently (averaged over 2012-2022), the atmospheric CO2 level is rising at a rate of about 2.45 ppmv/year (= 19.1 Gt of CO2/year = 5.22 PgC/year).
Our fossil CO2 emissions are about 4.8 ppmv/year (= 37.5 Gt of CO2/year = 10.22 PgC/year).
(For simplicity, let’s ignore “land use emissions” which add an amount very roughly estimated at 0.5 ppmv/year.)
The difference between those our emission rate and the rate of rise is the rate at which Nature is removing CO2 from the air: (4.8-2.45)=2.35 ppmv/year + (whatever you think “land use emissions” are).
Again.. the isotopic analysis… direct from data… says NO.
Our fossil fuel input is a tiny amount compared to natural fluxes and gets basically consumed by nature.
Natural fluxes don’t have to increase much to totally over-ride our small but highly beneficial contributions. (are you stupid enough to deny they haven’t?)
Isotopic data shows there is very little fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere.
You just have to admit that your understand in incorrect.
Not so. As the Earth warms, plants and photosynthetic plankton proliferate, and bacterial decomposition of seasonal detritus increases. Respiration from the roots of dormant trees, particularly boreal trees, increases as well during the warming Winters. Because the Arctic is warming more rapidly than the world as a whole, the organic material sequestered in the tundra is providing that sequestered carbon for bacteria and fungi to create carbon dioxide and methane, which is oxidized to carbon dioxide in about a decade.
Clyde, we have the data which prove beyond dispute that “Nature” (i.e., the net sum of all natural sources and sinks, including those you mention) is REMOVING CO2 from the air, not adding it.
Removing CO2 from the air does not increase the amount of CO2 in the air. How is that not obvious?
It is obvious from the graphs that I have provided in my several articles that the seasonal CO2 ramp-up phase is longer than the draw-down phase, leading to a net annual gain in CO2. Thus, Nature is not a net sink. As I pointed out above, Nature can’t tell the difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions or existing stocks. The idea of anthro’ CO2 existing separately alongside natural CO2 is a convenient fiction that is unphysical. What is removed is in direct proportion to the percentage of the source. That is, an approximately fixed amount of CO2 is removed annually by the various sinks. However, anthro’ sources are only about 3% of the annual fluxes. My working model explains why the reduction in anthro’ CO2 during the COVID shutdown is not measurable or distinguishable from 2019 or 2021, and why CO2 ramp-up increases in El Nino years, but Earth doesn’t stay warmer after the increase in CO2.
Nature has been absorbing CO2, intermittently, for 4.5 billion years … and now you want us to believe the last 50% rise of CO2 was natural … and completely ignore the manmade CO2 emissions that added about 2x the CO2 needed to increase atmospheric CO2 by +140 ppm?
You are promoting junk science, not educating anyone. Shame on you.
Most climate models are wrong, there may be good empirical evidence for thinking the warming effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels is trivial compared to other factors but the fact that CO2 follows temperature in the ice core record is often mistakenly used as evidence that CO2 has no effect whatever when two entirely different processes are at work in two different circumstances.
I doubt for instance that William Happer Richard Lindzen or Steven Koonin would agree that ‘there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate change’ and it is all ‘crap’.
It’s unfortunate that the movie leaves general audiences with a confusing message that is bound to be used to dismiss the entire effort as ‘science denying’.
There is no scientific evidence that human fossil fuel CO2 causes warming.
How is that a confusing message ??
You sound like dickie-boy grasping at consensus. and what you think “authority” might say.
Happer has actually said it has basically no effect.
Clauser says straight out that there is no link between CO2 and climate.
No confusion.
The only confusion happens when you start “believing” the CO2 warming myths of the AGW scam.
Professor Happer with Professor Lindzen have prepared a paper for popular consumption where they state in II M: ‘from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little impact on global warming … a 100% increase [in CO2 atmospheric concentration] would cause tiny changes of the heat radiation to space, and therefore tiny changes of Earth’s surface temperature, on the order of 1° C’.
Little impact is not no impact, 1° C per doubling of CO2 is not 0° C per doubling.
Refusing to accept non-controversial atmospheric physics invites derision.
Using radiation only calculations, with works like “could”, “tiny”…
Being unable to back something with measured evidence… invites derision.
The efforts of Professors Happer and Lindzen to better inform the general public deserve derision?
Will Happer calls the whole AGW thing a HOAX or a SCAM.
You have again failed to produce any evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
Dr. Happer, in the movie, said he preferred to call CAGW a scam instead of a hoax.
President Trump calls it the “Green New Scam”.
Texas took about $6 billion away from the Blackrock pile, because of the ESG hoax
Tom, CAGW is not AGW. The “C” stands for “catastrophic.” That most certainly is a scam.
But AGW simply means that anthropogenic GHG emissions cause warming. That’s true: they do.
It’s modest and benign, but it isn’t zero.
Here are some resources for learning about it, including a physics colloquium by Prof. Happer:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=physics#brief
At the 440 ppm level it is very very small Dave.
Chris, that’s my only quarrel with the movie: there were 3 or 4 sentences (the first one somewhere around the 28 minute mark) which suggested that there exists some doubt about whether or not CO2 and other GHGs have any warming effect at all. Actually, there is no doubt about that, in the scientific community. The warming effect of adding CO2 and other GHGs to the air is modest and benign, but it isn’t zero.
Here’s a visual representation, showing the calculated radiative forcing from a hypothetical doubling of CO2 concentration. The graph is from van Wijingaarden & Happer (but I added the blinking ovals):
277 – 274 = 3.0 W/m² (not much, but not zero!)
‘277 – 274 = 3.0 W/m² (not much, but not zero!)’
Correct, and that’s for ‘clear sky’ conditions, meaning the global effect is less. Then there are feedbacks, which I believe have to be net negative, otherwise we would not be around to debate the issue.
Positive feedback does not imply “runaway” warming. (It’s a common misconception.) You can learn about it here:
https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
Negative feedback mechanisms attenuate perturbations, and stabilize systems. Positive feedback mechanisms amplify perturbations, and if very large they may destabilize systems.
Many natural systems have numerous feedback mechanisms, but, in general, most feedbacks in most systems tend to be negative/attenuating/stabilizing rather than positive/amplifying/destabilizing.
A common misconception is that positive feedbacks necessarily “run away,” and make a system unstable. That is incorrect. Positive feedbacks of less than +100% don’t make a system unstable. (Explosions happen when positive feedbacks are >100%!)
In electrical engineering, many quantities are “AC” (oscillating), and there are specialized analysis techniques, like Bode plots, for those situations. But for systems involving “DC” (non-oscillating) quantities, or in which oscillations have periods much longer than the response times of the the system, the analysis is more straightforward and intuitive.
Many of those systems can be approximated as linear over the ranges of interest of the involved quantities. That makes the analysis dead simple, if the feedbacks can be accurately quantified:
In general, in a linear “DC” system, a feedback ƒ causes a “compounded” net amplification (or attenuation, if ƒ is negative) which multiplies the original effect by 1/(1-ƒ).
For example, if ƒ =+20% then net amplification = 1/(1-ƒ) = 1/(1-0.2) = 1.25×.
(Caveats: In practice, delays in the feedback path may mean that the full amplification effect of a positive feedback isn’t immediately seen. Also, these calculations assume linearity, but most systems are not perfectly linear, though many are approximately linear over ranges of interest.)
The CO2 absorption at 400 ppm is shown too large
Water vapor also absorbs at 15 micrometer, plus water vapor molecules, at the surface, are 20000/423 = 47 times more numerous than CO2 molecules..
That abundance has been overlooked by many scientists.
Really puzzles me when they say “clear sky” and apparently think that means no water vapour.
I did not say clear sky.
Clear sky means no clouds
Water vapor is invisible
The green trace at the top of the CO2 notch shows what the emission spectrum would look like with all of the water vapor but none of the CO2 (which obviously couldn’t happen).
It might seem surprising that so much water vapor has such a modest warming effect. That’s because, unlike CO2, water vapor is not evenly distributed. At cold temperatures the water vapor condenses out, so at chilly high altitudes there’s little water vapor.
Now think about what that means in terms of the “warming effect.” There’s so much CO2 in the air that you can’t “see though” the atmosphere at all, either up or down, in CO2’s absorption band. Yet additional CO2 nevertheless has a modest warming effect, because it raises the average “emission height” at the wavelengths where it absorbs and emits, and for some of those wavelengths raising the emission height means emissions come from colder air, which reduces their intensity. That reduction in emissions to outer space means more energy is retained, which raises the temperature of the atmosphere.
(However, at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs and emits most strongly, raising the emission height has no warming effect, because the emission height is already so far up that it’s in or near the tropopause, where temperatures don’t decrease with increasing altitude.)
But water vapor is different. The vast majority of it is down low, where the air is fairly warm. So the emission height for radiation from water vapor is still down in the fairly warm part of the troposphere, and the emissions are still fairly strong, even though there’s a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2.
The graph is mislabeled
1) The 15 micrometer absorption spectra of CO2 and water vapor overlap by about 50%.
2) Water vapor molecules at the surface are 47 times more numerous than CO2
Those two conditions enable water vapor to absorb much more 15 micrometer photons
The 22% of photons escaping to space likely has few 15 micrometer photons left.
Abundant WV molecules near the surface absorb 20000/(20000 + 423) = 98%, CO2 absorbs 2%.
The two spectra overlapping 50% wipes out the 15 micrometer photons. Almost none are left over after about 10 meter
CO2 has almost no heat retention effect (greenhouse effect), and 2x a small number is still a small number, as Dr. Happer proved
WV has a 33 C heat retention effect.
Without WV, the earth would be an ice ball at -18 C
Your statements are not based on physics.
N2O is shown, as if it is important, but water vapor is not shown, plus I doubt they took into account water vapor at the surface, which is about 20000 ppm.
They may have used another value for water vapor ppm to create the graph
Almost all absorption of 15 micrometer photons by water vapor and CO2 takes place near the surface.
see my earlier comment
The graph was created in a laboratory test
Much depends on the water vapor ppm near the surface
They should have used 20000 ppm in their laboratory test
The experiment should have included only WV and CO2 to minimize confusion/distraction
absorption is NOT equal to warming. !
Absorption of outgoing radiation is HOW so-called GHGs cause warming. The notches in Earth’s outgoing radiation spectrum represent energy that was NOT lost as radiation to outer space.
If you reduce energy losses, radiating bodies become warmer than they otherwise would have been.
About 61% of energy retention is due to collisions, 20% due to absorption, 19% due to phase changes, evaporation/condensation.
LOL… the absolutely FAKE AGW “blanket” analogy again.
That is really funny that you still believe that nonsense.
Have you been talking with John Kerry .. or is it Al Gore.
—
The “trapped” energy AGW meme is a total furphy… why repeat it unless you are a rabid AGW-cultist ??
The TINY extra absorption in the CO2 band is translated to the atmospheric window…
…. as shown by actual measurements.
Too bad that graph is not legible.
It is legible … right click & open in new tab, expand to full screen.
It was ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ by Martin Durkin back in 2007 that first alerted me to the climate change scam. It was shown in the UK by Channel 4, which has since never allowed any dissent from climate change alarmism. I soon found Watts Up With That (and then other sites) to keep me in touch with climate realism.
Likewise. At the time I thought the whole thing had been part of a plan in order to mitigate peak oil. Don’t tell the proles the oil’s running out, tell them they’re saving the planet. Of course, the oil’s still here, the planet’s still here, it’s just the doomsday cult that has grown bigger and more ridiculous.
FYI, the monster complaint filed to the UK’s Ofcom broadcast communications regulator in 2007 about “The Great Global Warming Swindle” by a guy named Dave Rado may actually have been a effort done instead by the combo of Wikipropaganda’s William Connolley and U.S. people, possibly by Greenpeace USA’s Kert Davies and his pals. I covered that problem in my 7-part 2016 GelbspanFiles series, the links to each of my posts are in my “Summary for Policymakers: The Connolley Problem.” In my Part 3 post, for example, I don’t see how ‘private citizen Rado’ could have possibly bashed out his 176 page Ofcom complaint in the span of time he had to do so. From day 1 to day 95, with 66,000+ words in between – to use a fun movie line – “not enough runway.”
Thanks to all who made, produced and starred in this production of truth.
Enjoyed the film during breakfast here in UK on an early spring day.
The adults in the world understand exactly what is going on. The scientists all understand what is going on. The question we all have to answer is, how do we stop this bandwagon of state sponsored nonsense and the control system they have manufactured?
Here in the UK, the people the state employs to officially take our tax money off us the HMRC, are in place to fund up the government policies. They achieved a new low in contempt for the people just this week. They decided, the people they were taking money off, i.e. the tax payers, were so trivial so unimportant, the HMRC phone lines would close completely during the summer months!
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs office decided, they would cut off all phone communication so the staff could have a three day working week during the summer, (how lovely for them) and the tax payers’ wanting to talk to them could literally go hang!
The Chancellor had to act and instructed them to cancel that initiative. It was due to come into force on April 8th. Not even one month’s notice was given by HMRC for their no phone in summer policy?
That is the level of assumed power the Public Sector state funded employees now think they have and are entitled to.
NB This is the first positive thing the Chancellor has done that the general public are grateful for.
Let’s hope it is a corner that this government has turned, there are many many more corners left to take.
Gee, it was a spring day in Vermont at 10 F, and up to 20” of snow is forecast for this
weekend, starting tonight with 6” and all day tomorrow 14”” more. That is on top of the 4” we got a week ago.
May be there is global warming after all.
So far we have 10 inches in Woodstock, VT, and still coming down like gangbusters
I will have to use my snowblower two times to clear my 150 ft driveway.
Global warming feels great, 20 F outside
I used my snowblower twice
First time was slow to get through a foot
Second time faster to get through 6 inches, but it is still snowing like before, no let up.
Tomorrow is another day
I just love global warming.
I lived in Woodstock in 1966 and 1967 while in the Army and stationed at the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover. In 1966, it didn’t snow until Xmas Eve, and we got 18″ overnight. In 1967, it snowed a few inches in October during deer hunting season. It is difficult to know what to expect in Vermont. We didn’t have snow blowers in those days and just drove on the packed snow with carbide-studded tires.
The facts are laid bare and you ignore what the film’s underlying message for you at your peril.
Its bottom line is that life will be so much less hassle for you if you just repeat the CAGW lies and receive easy money for having done so.
You know who the bad guys are already so do the right thing. This film rubs that message home.
What bothers me, is the grip, governments, academia and media have on the narrative. The suppression of any form of dissent/alternative view or scientific evidence. Regardless, of the increase in public concern, they will plough on regardless. The narrative has an agenda, to dominate the masses, widen the gap between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’.
On the 1st of April, Scotland will enforce the ‘Hate Crime and Public Order Act’, which will end the concept of free speech. With such a dictatorial attitude, how long before they include ‘climate change scepticism’ as an extension? And how much longer before the UK, and other countries follow their lead?
I’ve got my name down for the book burning event 😉
I’ll bring the matches 🔥
One of the sobering lessons for me during Covid was how tyranny can take hold. Here in Melbourne, Australia, we had police injuring people for protesting lock-downs and other abuses of human rights. The vast majority of people accepted the abuse of others as a good lesson for those not obeying the abuses.
The Climate Emergency™ is slower and more corrosive. When you see the number of people attending the annual COP gabfest, you realise how deeply rooted the Climate Emergency™ has become in the fabric of so many lives. So many people now get an income from sustaining the unscientific tripe.
Both examples demonstrate how tyrants like Hitler have gained so much power through history. We have now institutionalised tyranny with UN wanting ti control ever more of our lives. All in the name of saving the planet.
In Australia, we have government sanctioned theft from electricity consumers required to hand over money to inefficient generating companies so they are viable against efficient power generation.
“We are currently in an ice age.” I would not have said that if I were trying to convince anybody to listen to me – even if it is [relatively] true.
Not relatively true- we’re in an inter glacial during a multi million year long ice age.
I loved this movie!
A copy of this movie should be sent to every politician in the Western world.
I’ve sent it to hundreds of people here in Wokeachusetts.
How do you download this movie to your hard drive ?
Ahh…. just realised you can download if you are at the Vimeo page.
Right. There’s a download button on that page.
I’ve been having a hard time getting the Vimeo download links to work, but I have a copy of the 1080p version on my website, here:
https://sealevel.info/Climate_The_Movie/
No problem here…
I just clicked the download and it downloaded in rapid time.
Willie Soon gets the solar forcing of the AMO backwards. The AMO is colder when the solar wind is stronger, and warmer when the solar wind is weaker.
Every other warm AMO phase is during a centennial solar minimum, which is why its long term average frequency is 55 years. The last two AMO cycles of 60 years and then 70 years are because the late 1800’s centennial solar minimum began 130 years before the current centennial minimum.
Favouritism has trumped physics here, -10 oh dear!
If you’re a cosmologist and propose a theory that removes the need for dark matter and dark energy you will be argued with and disagreed with and other cosmologists will explain what they think is wrong with your theory. But if you are a climate scientist and you disagree with the consensus you get banned from publishing your research funding taken away and lose your job. WHY?
“WHY?”
Money, power, prestige, omerta.
You forgot: stupidity and immorality.
Because there is less power and money in cosmology right now? Also, Dark Matter™ is not attached to anyone’s political formula (AFAIK), so the whole thing can run just as well either way, this would only be a squabble between two factions for “we are so smart” points and thus status.
Unless this theory happens to infringe on something that even tangentially is a part of holy canon (like laurels of St.Einstein, for one). Then the moment one journalist hears about this… knives out, no quarter.
Good movie – I watched it all the way through this morning. Many good points from those being interviewed. They are highly credentialed and capable. I hope it helps counter the “climate emergency” nonsense.
That said, there is a strong argument from our modern observing platforms (GOES, CERES) and our best understanding of atmospheric dynamics (e.g. as in the ERA5 reanalysis) that seems missing from the movie:
The static radiative effect of incremental CO2 in our highly mobile atmosphere is not capable of forcing heat energy to accumulate down here on land and in the oceans, certainly not to harmful extent.
More here.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCI8vhRIT-3uaLhuaIZq2FuQ
There’s nothing on your youtube channel which supports that contention. In fact, there’s nothing at all on your youtube channel, except three very short, wordless animation videos, each less than one minute in length.
There is no legitimate dispute about the fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has a warming effect. It is modest and benign, but it is not zero. Here are some resources for learning about it, including a physics colloquium by Prof. Happer:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=physics#brief
There is no empirical evidence that it does.
Everything, even from Happer is theoretically based and does not consider all the energy transfer actions in the atmosphere.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. Please consider reading the entire description text at each of the videos. The static “warming” effect of incremental CO2 is not in dispute, but it does not determine the dynamic result. Folks seem to have a hard time seeing that these are separate considerations.
Once again the solution is Trump 2024. Our country is being taken over by tyrants who want to transform our beautiful free country into an authoritarian government where people have no rights. Actually I think they have already done it. Trump may be our last chance to get the land of the free back again.
Dream on! Trump talked a good game, but when the wind blew the other way, Trump folded like a cheap suit.
For instance, 3-1/2 years into the Trump Administration, Trump finally got around to appointing eminent conservative climatologists David Legates and Ryan Maue to the White House OSTP, to depoliticize climate science. Better late than never, right?
Wrong. A few months later, after getting pushback from the climate industry, Trump’s OSTP Director, Kelvin Droegemeier, yanked the rug from under Legates & Maue, buried their excellent reports, and smeared their good names.
Trump stabs skeptics of climate alarmism in the back just like he stabs pro-lifers in the back.
What do you expect this “solution” to actually achieve?
Trump’s greatest achievement was to make his enemies loudly admit that POTUS has no real power, and repeatedly demonstrate that the cute cardboard image of USA has nothing to do with observable reality. President is little more than a figurehead, Executive branch is dead, Administrative branch raised in its place is a form of cancer, the unofficially official press while formally not a part of government could as well be, voters’ opinion matters only as long as they opine exactly what they are told, the whole “separation of powers” thing was fragile and is subsumed by the oligarchy long ago. And, yes, no matter how spooky said press paints the Outer Party, the tame opposition has no teeth, claws or brains. Hence millions of Trump cheerleaders, yet little to no useful cadres to put anywhere, even if he could give them more than fancy chairs in decorative containment offices.
All of which, of course, is why he simply could not do anything more. Provocative tweeting was almost all he could really do. So, even if the next time somehow the election will smell roses, rather than “102% of Americans unanimously voted exactly what The Press predicted”, what exactly do you expect as the next step?
Excellent puce of work summarising all that is wrong.
If alarmists don’t question the science after watching this, then THEY are the problem and the root cause of the man made crisis.
Easter egg prices are higher this year as climate change hits cacao crops. Popular brands like Maltesers, Lindt and Ferrero Rocher have jumped upwards of 50 per cent in price compared to last year, British consumer champion Which? found.
Thank you Charles for posting this excellent movie ” CLIMATE: THE MOVIE (THE COLD TRUTH)”.
I also posted it earlier today.
Here is my Introduction – the “not-so-nice” Canadian.
JUSTICE!
WE NEED NUREMBERG 2.0 – WE NEED IT NOW
Nuremberg 1.0 put an end to the atrocities of World War 2, and Nuremberg 2.0 will put an end to the atrocities of what may be termed “World War 3”.
ALLAN MACRAE MAR 21, 2024
https://allanmacrae.substack.com/p/we-need-nuremberg-20-we-need-it-now
WE NEED NUREMBERG 2.0 – WE NEED IT NOW
Whether they realize it or not, every politician, scientist and media who collaborated in the Climate and Covid frauds is an archcriminal, guilty of the most egregious Crimes Against Humanity. Some of the culprits will claim ignorance, that they “did not know”, they “thought they were doing the right thing”. That excuse did not work at the end of World War 2, when Nazi collaborators were executed in their multitudes, and it won’t work now.
Nuremberg 1.0 put an end to the atrocities of World War 2, and Nuremberg 2.0 will put an end to the atrocities of what may be termed World War 3, a conspiracy of global elites to impoverish and subjugate humankind through fraud and mass murder.
The death toll from three years of the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines” now totals about 20 million in the Western world, possibly twice that globally, and continues to grow. Billions more are vax-injured, some very seriously, and will never live normal lives – they suffer chronic illness and their lives will be shortened by decades.
This was not an accident, an error. The elites were warned at the outset of Covid-19 that they were on a dangerous path, and yet they proceeded. They knew! That is the definition of murder.
The human toll from decades of the Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) fraud numbers in the hundreds of millions, lives in the developing world that have been squandered by denying them access to cheap, abundant, reliable fossil fuel energy.
Some say these criminals should be executed. At a minimum, they should be imprisoned for life, and all their assets and pensions confiscated. They have killed many millions, and harmed the lives of billions. We need to return to Rule of Law.
We need Nuremberg 2.0 and we need it now.
Regards, Allan MacRae, Calgary
https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/climate-emergency-declarations-cover-15-million-citizens/
How many universities in Canada signed this declaration?
https://uwaterloo.ca/climate-emergency-declaration/
Nice to hear from you Sommer. 🙂
Almost every university in Canada supported the Climate Scam AND the Covid-19 Scam, and forced their students to take the toxic Covid-19 “vaccines”.
The schools get a lot of research money to promote the Climate scam – and NO money if they tell the truth. The Climate Fraud has become an Official Religion in our North American universities – intelligent people are looking for other alternatives where their kids won’t be lied to and woke-programmed…. ,,,and vax-poisoned.
I wrote to both my schools (Queens, Kingston and U of Alberta) in 2021 and warned their senior officials that the vaxes would harm and kill our kids. They did not listen.
As I recall, an older estimate (by Denis Rancourt) of the death toll from the toxic Covid-19 shots is 1 in ~700 injections, which is one in 350 assuming everyone had 2 shots.
U of Alberta has ~60,000 students and staff. 60,000/350 ~= 170 deaths at U of A caused by the vax mandates. I estimate that almost every C-19 vaxed person has some degree of vax-injury.
I started warning people about the Covid-19 scam on 21Mar2020 (here on wattsup) but almost nobody listened. To end 2023, total deaths in the Western world caused by the Covid-19 injections total ~17 million (Rancourt) to 19 million (me) and that may double when the total world population is included.
{Insert strong expletive here!}
Best Allan
“I estimate that almost every C-19 vaxed person has some degree of vax-injury.”
And that is supposed to mean something? Surely you can’t be so uninformed that you haven’t noticed that the vaccinations have proved to be incredibly safe? Note to Allan. People are not dropping dead in the street.
“I started warning people about the Covid-19 scam on 21Mar2020 (here on wattsup) but almost nobody listened. “
And good job they didn’t because the vaccinations saved millions of lives.
You keep popping those vaccines into your arm…
Enjoy !!..
At least it can’t cause you any more mental damage.
You are soooo wrong:
1000 peer reviewed articles on “Vaccine” injuries
Here is an organized library of more than one thousand peer reviewed articles which show that Covid-19 “vaccines” are harmful.
What a joke. Have you read your referenced papers? I recommend you read what you post before doing so….
This statement which I copied and pasted from your list says it all….. Thank you.
“In the COVID-19 pandemic era, anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is considered to be the most efficient way to overtake the COVID-19 scourge. Like all medicines, vaccines are not devoid of risks and can in rare cases cause some various side effects.”
Now I would be very interested to see if you could find a reference in any one of these papers that says “not having the vaccine is safer than having it, for a normal healthy human being” because that is the bottom line. It’s a simple concept…. during the pandemic, if you wanted your best chance at staying healthy and or living, have the shot…….
The 1,000 papers show nevertheless, the vaxx is harmfull, that was the question, you said the conrast:
…that you haven’t noticed that the vaccinations have proved to be incredibly safe?
It isn’t, period.
The quantity of side effects is so much higher than all accumulated side effects of all vaccinations before.
They are safe. Everything has some risk, but the chance of any serious issues is tiny. But I’m happy to concede there is some risk if you acknowledge having them increases your chance of a healthy life. Deal?
No deal at all, as I was aware in advance having read a lot of scientific p.r. papers about the risk and what risk may be possible, I decided not to get the jab, my chance of a healthy life was never in question despite the fact to have had COV-19 for 3 days, with minor fever (38°C), the first day a gridlocked nose, the second day with a marathon running nose, the third day nothing more than declining fever to zero, free nose, a light dry cough.
I used other protocols to protect me, taking them some days in advance as I knew I will get it, from my vacced wife, hidden much harder than I was. So, my question, what the vaccination was good for ?
Pharma industries caisse, not more.
Now that’s your turn.
There are no peer rev papers that say what you say. It’s mindless twaddle.
What peer reviewed paper do you miss ?
#DiedSuddenly has entered the chat
Liar.
Keep telling yourself this, perhaps you’ll continue to be a Trve Believer.
Hey I see the silly Biden investigation that has to date come up with absolutely nothing, just produced a witness that says the Russians had a big hand in peddling misinformation about him, which some dishonest republicans gleefully ran with. What joy to watch. Popcorn time….
Slimon doubles-down on his lies.
And now MTG wants to oust the speaker. What a complete clown show the GOP has become. An embarrassment on the world stage.
The good news though is Biden gets the money to secure the border.
Saved or created.
And good job they didn’t because the vaccinations saved millions of lives.
Often told, never proven.
You are absolutely right, Simon. The data show conclusively that Covid-19 vaccination saved millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of Americans, and also prevented many serious illnesses. The vaccines would have saved many more lives, but for the fact that many people declined vaccination, because they believed anti-vax lies.
Refusing vaccination was a potentially deadly mistake. I personally know a lady who’s now a widow, raising a her son alone, because of that mistake. She & her husband were unvaccinated. Anti-vax lies killed her husband. (Do you know why Scripture lumps liars and murderers together? [Jn 8:44])
In this study, age-adjusted all-cause mortality risk for an unvaccinated person was a whopping 3.2× all-cause mortality risk for someone (like me) vaccinated with Moderna:
Study:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm
Table 3:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7043e2.htm#T3_down
https://www.google.com/search?q=1+%2F+0.31+%3D
Caveat: That study was done before we had good therapeutics. Paxlovid was approved five months after the end of the study period. The availability of an effective therapeutic does not obviate the need for vaccination, but it presumably reduces the disparity in all-cause mortality rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Even so, Paxlovid is tougher to take than any of the Covid-19 vaccines. So it’s foolish to decline Covid-19 vaccination.
Unfortunately the vaccinations became a political issue for many, which was surprising given Trumps support for them initially. They did not want to be told what they should take, which is fine, but when those same people peddled in misinformation, which was believed by many to the detriment of their health, it became a moral issue.
I had to spend an hour convincing my elderly mother that the person at her church who had told her the vaccines would put her life at risk, was wrong. It was information overload for her but thankfully in the end she trusted me. There are many stories like that out there.
Another idiot takes the stage.
That’s it, the data show nothing, mostdeath because auf wrong ventilation and wrong drugs, self protecting no names of the drugs and enterprises
If the mRNA injections are so great, why isn’t everyone who had the courage to say no dead?
The idiots are those who believe any wack job anti vaxxer that appears on YouTube.
Simon and Dave Burton tells us how great the mRNA vaccines are at saving lives. Others say that there were too many adverse events including deaths from the vaccines. So I will go with my personal experience in my little world. In my circle of friends and acquaintances I do not know anybody who died from Covid. On the other hand I know of quite a few people that died mysteriously shortly after vaccination and even more who had adverse reactions to the vaccines including myself and my wife.
The vaccines used the risky and experimental technique of causing the bodies own cells to produce massive quantities of the deleterious part of the Covid virus, namely the spike protein. The spike protein production we were told was localized to the injection site but turned out to be spread throughout the body with concentrations in organs and sites with high concentrations of ACE2 receptors. We were all guinea pigs in an experiment with dubious and unproven technology.
Tell me Allan how did your projected millions dying from the covid vaccines go?
Ahh,look! Simple’s mommy had the internet turned back on so it can spew more lies. Bless its widdle heart!
Are you the dim-witted tool that alarmists gleefully manipulate to mock and discredit skeptics?
“Are you the dim-witted tool that alarmists gleefully manipulate to mock and discredit skeptics?”
That’s not fair….He’s one of many.
Poor simpleton… no introspection at all
… and absolutely zero idea of science of any sort.
The very epitome of a moronic dim-wit !!
And your phrog phrend is a great bro’ for you. The perfect match.
Yes, simpleminded, you are one of many lie spewing liars spewing lies.
Speaking of lying…..Hows that Ford Lightning going that you got the special ride in before it was released?
Standard Ford F-series ICE are outselling the lightning by 16:1 !
That is NOT any sort of transition to EVs.
Would be interesting to see who is buying the SMALL number of Lightnings.
Almost certainly NOT the workers that actually need/use big utes.
Almost certainly inner-city *ankers trying to virtue-seek.
Ahhhh,look! The lying liar lying yet again. You are the one who claimed to have a electric Ford truck 6 months before they were for sale, sweety. Why did you never show us those pictures you said you had, sweety?
“You are the one who claimed to have a electric Ford truck 6 months before they were for sale, sweety. “
I can see now why you are fixated with people lying. Seems to be an affliction for you. Now if you can post my post where I said I owned a Ford Lightning I will apologise. In the mean time shall I post the one where you said you had been in one(before they were released)? Balls in your court Mr Honesty…….
Where are all the pictures you said you were going to post here? Been most of 2 years all you do is post lies. Prove you had a Ford Lightning 6 months before they went into production, sweety. That is what you claimed, now prove it.
I… have a Tesla…. Never been in a Ford Lightning never claimed to have. You are the silly lying old fool who said he had been in a Ford Lighting. It wouldn’t be so bad if you didn’t bang on about people lying all the time.
And yet you are the one who claimed to have a Ford Lightning before they were ever built, sweety. You screeched you would post pictures on WUWT to prove me a liar. Where are your pictures, from 2 years ago? Why do you do nothing other than spew lies, sweety?
What a sad silly man you are.
No, sweety, you are still a liar. Tell some more lies, lie spewing liar. I command you to.
No…. Allan has 3 magnitudes intelligence than most climate alarmists.
Only thing Simon the simpleton mocks with his comments… is himself.
Can you show me evidence for 20 million deaths from covid-19 vaccines?
Nope…. he can’t but evidence is not needed in the world he lives in.
Can you show me evidence for 20 million deaths from covid-19 vaccines?
FACTS:
Denis Rancourt’s team calculated 13 million Covid-19 vax-caused deaths worldwide to end 2022, Rancourt er al updated that death toll to 17 million to end 2023.
2023-02-09: D.G. Rancourt, M. Baudin, J. Hickey & J. Mercier, “Age-stratified COVID-19 vaccine-dose fatality rate for Israel and Australia”, Correlation Brief Report
https://correlation-canada.org/research/
https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/NCI-Dr.DenisRancourt-June28-2023.pdf
https://denisrancourt.ca/page.php?id=1&name=home
https://substack.com/profile/118089907-denis-rancourt
https://denisrancourt.substack.com/p/there-was-no-pandemic
__________
Allan MacRae 100% independently calculated the same 13 million Covid-19 vax-caused death to end 2022 and extrapolated to 19 million deaths by end 2023. I independently came to the same conclusions as Rancourt et al.
MURDER OF MULTITUDES
Covid & Climate Chronicles – The Big Cull
Book 1 of the “Cull Trilogy”.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CHR2Z38J
But Allan… thee are opinion pieces guessing at deaths. They are not peer reviewed. They are worse than worthless. Try again……
Albert Einsteins first paper wasn’t “peer reviewed” yet it took the world by storm because it was validated in just a few years.
Do know how FEW research papers are published but used in daily applications it was rarely reviewed before 1938 yet many are still valid today.
By the way you didn’t look at the links anyway thus you are as usual LYING.
“Albert Einsteins first paper wasn’t “peer reviewed” yet it took the world by storm because it was validated in just a few years.”
And your point is what? That non peer reviewed papers occasionally turn up good stuff? Well who would have thought? But and it is a big but….. there is also without doubt a far greater degree of garbage printed in non peer reviewed papers and with no vetting required why wouldn’t there be.
Your ignorance is entertaining since you show how little you know about the process.
For decades “peer review” was spotty and unimportant it was published in various places some of the time it was added by someone who was running the observatory or other offices that just post papers to allow the field of science decide on it.
There are many science discoveries that are revealed in symposiums, e-mails, and more that doesn’t use Peer review at all.
You are one ignorant bore!
“There are many science discoveries that are revealed in symposiums, e-mails, and more that doesn’t use Peer review at all.”
Let’s translate that into English:
“I love to pick and choose scientific articles that are produced by any nutter or janitor out there, which gives me the ability to decide what to believe or not, without experts getting in my way. Why I even take my kids to barbers for surgery, and to auto-mechanics for physical checkups. They know so much more than medical doctors and surgeons!!”
Why do you try hard to show how shallow and stupid you are since I have personally been in some symposiums have read about other researchers efforts to build a science based paper in part based on what was discussed in them.
How do you think the field of Glaciation discoveries got started, did they sit around a fire place singing Kumbaya or did they attend a talk that blew open a new field of Glaciation made by Louis Agassiz who was into fish fossils at the time,
======================
The vacation of 1836 was spent by Agassiz and his wife in the little village of Bex, where he met Jean de Charpentier and Ignaz Venetz. Their recently announced glacial theories had startled the scientific world, and Agassiz returned to Neuchâtel as an enthusiastic convert.[10] In 1837, Agassiz proposed that the Earth had been subjected to a past ice age.[11] He presented the theory to the Helvetic Society that ancient glaciers flowed outward from the Alps, and even larger glaciers had covered the plains and mountains of Europe, Asia, and North America and smothered the entire Northern Hemisphere in a prolonged ice age. In the same year, he was elected a foreign member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Before that proposal, Goethe, de Saussure, Ignaz Venetz, Jean de Charpentier, Karl Friedrich Schimper, and others had studied the glaciers of the Alps, and Goethe,[12] Charpentier, and Schimper[11] had even concluded that the erratic blocks of alpine rocks scattered over the slopes and summits of the Jura Mountains had been moved there by glaciers. Those ideas attracted the attention of Agassiz, and he discussed them with Charpentier and Schimper, whom he accompanied on successive trips to the Alps. Agassiz even had a hut constructed upon one of the Aar Glaciers and for a time made it his home to investigate the structure and movements of the ice.[4]
LINK
You are abjectly ignorant and stupid.
Louis Agassiz? You just made my point. Thank you!
“In boyhood he attended the gymnasium in Bienne and later the academy at Lausanne. He entered the universities of Zürich, Heidelberg, and Munich and took at Erlangen the degree of doctor of philosophy and at Munich that of doctor of medicine.”
Oh my you completely missed the point which was that Agassiz was into fish fossil research big time with numerous publications about Fish fossils as a ZOOLOGIST when he got onto a different field of research altogether as because it was mind blowing.
He didn’t have a degree in Geology and had a degree in Medicine.
You need to buy glasses.
Professor Of Zoology AND GEOLOGY at Harvard. Sorry, old boy. You lose.
Simon – you act like a paid shill for Big Pharma, spouting the usual lies.
The conclusions by Rancourt and me are peer-reviewed,
If you had any skills you could verify them yourself.
I don’t dialogue with fools so this is not the start of a conversation.
YOU are peer reviewed? Are you also Galileo in disguise?
“Simon – you act like a paid shill for Big Pharma, spouting the usual lies.”
But in reality I am just an every day Joe who detests misinformation.
Do you have a link to your peer reviewed paper?
What you really meant is that you can’t address the published report as being false because you are lazy little child to address it yourself or have someone who can address it, but you are stuck on the stupid peer review paradigm that has been wrong many times in the past.
Retraction Watch is a blog showing many papers that went through Peer Review only to be exposed as garbage later so much for your stupid dependence on that gatekeeping stupidity.
LINK
On 21Mar2020 I published that the Covid-19 lockdowns were NOT justified.
Six months later world experts published their essentially-identical Great Barrington Declaration.
On 8Jan2021 I advised the Alberta government to NOT deploy the Covid-19 “vaccines”. The risk/reward equation was all wrong – all risk, no reward..
Both statements were correct.
I just learned this tidbit yesterday. We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles.
From: “ALLAN MACRAE”
To: “premier” <premier@gov.ab.ca>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024
Subject: MEDICAL MURDER – ALBERTA ADDED COVID-19 SHOTS TO THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULE!
Copies to Premier Danielle Smith, Alberta MLA’s, Canadian politicians and mostly-bought media.
INSANELY DANGEROUS: Toxic Covid-19 shots for babies ALBERTA ADDED COVID-19 SHOTS TO THE CHILDHOOD VACCINE SCHEDULEWAS THE COVID-19 VAX-MURDER OF 15,000 ALBERTANS IN 2021 TO 2023 NOT ENOUGH?WAS THE COVID-19 VAX-MURDER OF 150,000 CANADIANS IN 2021 TO 2023 NOT ENOUGH?
DIDN’T THEY KILL ENOUGH KIDS?
APPARENTLY NOT – THE VAX- KILLING CONTINUES.
AT LEAST, THIS IS “CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING DEATH”.
MORE ACCURATELY, IT IS PREMEDITATED MEDICAL MURDER.
ALBERTA APPROVED: Toxic Covid-19 shots for babies
Proof: https://www.alberta.ca/immunization-routine-schedule#jumplinks-1
Toxic Covid-19 shots for babies – this is insanely dangerous.
High risk and No reward:
– Covid-19 “vaccines” are proved toxic and ineffective;
– Infants are generally immune to Covid-19.
MY NOTE TO PARENTS, BASED ON 4 YEARS OF RESEARCH:
WHEN YOU INJECT YOUR CHILDEN WITH THE TOXIC COVID-19 “VACCINES” YOU CONDEMN THEM TO SERIOUS ILLNESSES RANGING FROM SUDDEN DEATH TO CHRONIC ILLNESS, GREATLY REDUCED IMMUNITY, TURBO-CANCERS, AND A SHORTENED LIFE.
IT DOESN’T SEEM TO MATTER WHO WE ELECT – THEY ALL TALK TOUGH AND SOUND GREAT, YET SOON AFTER THEY’RE ELECTED THEY MUTATE INTO JUSTIN PEDEAU AND ALL HIS PEDEAUX FRIENDS.
ARE THEY ALL CORRUPT TO THE CORE? ALL BOUGHT TO SELL US OUT?
ACCORDING TO THEIR ACTIONS ON COVID AND CLIMATE, YES!
– ALLAN MACRAE, CALGARY
PEDEAU NATION – THIS EXPLAINS A LOT
The mainstream media has carefully overlooked this blatant child abuse, and we should ask why?
Are they bought, or are they also knowingly complicit?
Justin Pedeau’s half-brother Kyle Kemper says he is being blackmailed. About what?
You won’t find this story in the mainstream media, especially when a woke leftist is involved:
PEDOGATE: JUSTIN TRUDEAU’S FRIEND JAILED FOR CHILD-PORN CHARGES
BY STILLNESS IN THE STORM, August 8th, 2018
https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2018/08/pedogate-justin-trudeaus-friend-jailed-for-child-porn-charges/
[excerpt]
Christopher Charles Ingvaldson, 42, a long-term close friend of Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, has been found guilty of child pornography charges after being caught directing an international pedophile ring.
Ingvaldson entered guilty pleas in B.C. Provincial Court in Vancouver to accessing child pornography and possession of child porn. He was also initially charged with two counts of importing or distributing child pornography.
At the time he was charged, Royal Canadian Mounted Police said that 11 members of the pedophile ring in three countries – Canada, Australia and the U.K. – had also been arrested in their respective countries.
Justin Trudeau and Ingvaldson have been closely linked since their days as room-mates at college, and after completing their teaching degrees they were both accepted to teach at West Point Grey Academy, an elite Vancouver private boarding school.
Both Ingvaldson and Trudeau were asked to leave West Point Grey Academy partway through their first teaching year.
REPORT SAYS STUDENT OF TRUDEAU SIGNED $2 MILLION NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
https://capforcanada.com/report-says-student-of-trudeau-signed-2-million-non-disclosure-agreement/
[excerpt]
According to InfoWars, a student at West Point Grey Academy in Vancouver B.C. signed a $2.25 million dollar non-disclosure agreement to cover up a scandal involving current PM Justin Trudeau. As reported in January 2022, the intent was to bury details of a relationship Mr. Trudeau had with a student while employed as a teacher at the academy in 1999-2000.
Imagine if a Conservative had this kind of record – It would be broadcast in neon lights. The left covers up for Justin Pedeau and his Pedeaux friends.
Imagine if a Conservative had this kind of record
They do and worse….
Info Wars, too.
Let’s see: Dunning-Kruger syndrome, Galileo complex, climate denier, anti vaxxer, COVID denier. Lot going on with you.
Yet you never try to counter anything because you can’t which is why you just sit and belittle others.
You are batting zero.
I think you need a psychiatrist. Now.
I thought it was a good film until the appearance of Claire Fox. This lady first came to my attention when standing for election to the European Parliament in my constituency she was a supporter if the IRA and not at all apologetic for their murder of little children with nail bombs in the UK.
So far as I can see she has no scientific qualification and will jump from one cause to another faster than the drop of a hat she has been both a communist and a libertarian at different times. I give no credence to anything she says her presence makes me question the validity of the whole film.
She isn’t making any comments about climate… she is making a very valid social comment.
Can you argue against anything she said ?
I’m unfamiliar with Claire Fox. What she said in the movie was sensible. Of course, that doesn’t mean everything she says is sensible. But after seeing her in the movie I followed @Fox_Claire on Twitter/𝕏.
So WUWT don’t like my criticism of the film ok quid pro quo I’m deleting the site from my reading list. I’ll never be on here again.
Oh No !! 😉 😉
I take it that means you can’t argue against anything she said.
Bubye!
He lied about leaving, what a surprise.
LOL, yet you were never censored the entire time, no one here gets free of down marks, but some get a bucket load of it because in the view of many here you failed to make your case.
Take two:
Is the AMO warmer during centennial solar minima?
Of course!
Why?
Because of an increase in negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions.
Does that mean a warmer Arctic too?
Of course, indirectly from the warmer AMO, and directly from negative NAO episodes driving warm humidity events and cyclones into the Arctic.
Would Youtube ban this video? Youtube is trying to ban me.
Good documentary. It delves into the fact that Climate alarmism is a means to a sinister (my word) goal. We should be even more concerned about the goal of the climate scam, and other less intrusive scams toward the same goal, which appears to be communism; and rather quickly dispatching 3 billion to 4 billion people. Who better to accomplish that than commies.
Climate alarmism is based on the acceptance of authority as evidence.
Climate realism is based on the idea of taking only data as evidence.
This movie emphasises the latter. Let’s hope it catches on.
Excellent story…good facts…good graphics…honorable, brave actual scientists.
Difficult to watch at Political and Africa sections…
For general audience..best ethical, moral, story is last……Perhaps expand the opening with photos, interviews, show the suffering, destitute African even in West.
… poor 2+ Billion in need of fossil fuel/infrastructure/manufacturing/food/healthcare/jobs world.
We should all be funding, telling the story.
I’ve always thought that the alarmist argument fails because of their continuous reliance on nasty ad hominem attacks. (See the Mann Steyn trial et very much al) and the hundreds of failed scare stories at every global latitude from polar bears to the Great Barrier Reef. Why all that if it’s true?
A plug for the movie was given on the “Markley, Van Camp and Robbins” radio show yesterday afternoon. Word gets around.
Shouldn’t your handle be “M1ANM”?
Nope, shot an M14NM for the USMC in competitions.
Excellent job. Superb presentation and editing.
Especially the choice of narrator. I don’t know his name but recognise the voice.
Boy, is he in trouble now.
Watched this last night. I found it to be very well done, the part about government controlling
every tiny bit of your life due to “climate change” is very apparent at this time. This
needs to be a featured subject for our school kids and then be studied in detail. But
I don’t see that happening except for kids home/private schooled. I see it’s on Utube
which kinda surprised me. The single largest impact of “climate change” in this
country is how it’s turned our government into a corporate/fascist entity in my view.
Has this video been taken down or is my ISP (BT) blocking it? I am seeing a black box with “Sorry this video does not exist” here as well as Notalotofpeopleknowthat and climatethemovie.net. Tried Opera & Firefox with the same result.
It worked yesterday.
Ps: still available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmfRG8-RHEI
Shows the same black box with “Sorry this video does not exist” at Roger Tallbloke’s post about the movie.
switched to Rumble version.
switched to Rumble version.
And so, it’s gone: ‘This video does not exist’. But they can’t erase the truth. Glad I down-loaded it. Would be interesting to know who ordered its disappearance….
Spoke too soon. The download was just the link – and it’s gone. Somebody was worried. Perhaps it was getting close to the truth.
switched to Rumble version.
Martians?
An excellent movie that rings all the right bells! I would like to download it in case it disappears, how does one do that?
Ta
John
Vimeo has a download link.
Also, I have it in two resolutions on my website, here:
https://sealevel.info/Climate_The_Movie/
The film is awful
The junk science starts at about 22 minutes in. I had to stop watching the jink science at 30 minutes
There is no Greenhouse Effect Nutters here, and There is No AGW Nutters here, will be thrilled by the junk science in this film. You know who you are — the armchair junk scientists, quick with the insults when presented with real science.
At 22 minutes in the film starts claiming manmade CO2 emissions do nothing. I stopped listening at 30 minutes, wondering if the film would hit the Junk Science Trifecta:
No Greenhouse Effect
No AGW
CO2 is 97% Natural
As I have posted here before, the CO2 does nothing myth means 100,000 scientific studies recognizing AGW are all wrong, downwelling longwave back radiation measurements are all hoaxes, and nearly 100% of scientists since 1896 are all wrong
… and that includes almost all “skeptic” scientists such as Richard Lindzen, William Happer, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Judith Curry — all science Ph.D.’s who risked their reputations to be Climate Realists ON OUR SIDE. They do not deny AGW and the Greenhouse effect. Because they are smart and this film is dumb.
The film falls into the old trap of describing CO2 as a feedback to changes in ocean temperatures, in 100,000 year cycles related to planetary geometry, as proof that manmade CO2 emissions can not cause global warming.
This is junk science too
Manmade CO2 emissions were negligible before the 1960’s and are not included in ice core reconstructions. You can not prove anything about manmade CO2 emissions with historical climate data that do not include manmade CO2 emissions.!
If this CO2 Does Nothing junk science film is the best that Climate Realists can do, then there is no hope of ever refuting leftist predictions of CAGW doom
You can’t refute CAGW by denying AGW
I rewatched the 8-minute period you cited. They correctly state that it’s only one part of the climate system, and they cite rural composite data from Soon & the Connolly brothers’ rural composite. Your claim about CO2 emissions being negligible before the 1960s is incorrect because they cited data that showed sharply increasing emissions following WW2.
1940 to 1975
CO2 emissions up 7%
1975 to 2023
CO2 emissions up +27%
Pre-1960 CO2 was negligible.
317 ppm in 1960
Up from 280 ppm in 1850,
a +13% increase in 110 years
or a +0.1 ppm increase per year
The film implies that manmade CO2 emissions do nothing and that is proven by the fact that CO2 peaks followed temperature peaks, acting as a feedback, during the ice core ers. The film is denying CO2 as a forcing which is junk climate science
As I said, you can’t see any signal of CO2 forcing in the rural composite; most of the warming happened prior to WW2. Some argue that the molecule does not have radiative properties at all. I haven’t looked deeply into that perspective, so I’m not going to criticize it.
“most of the warming happened prior to WW2.”
Two thirds of the alleged warming of +1.5 degrees C. after 1850, was after 1975.
But global average temperature statistics before UAH in 1979 have questionable accuracy.
Richard, the only mistake I noticed in the film was the suggestion, which I first heard mentioned at about the 28 minute mark, and then again later 2 or 3 more times, that there exists some doubt about whether or not CO2 and other GHGs have any warming effect at all. That’s obviously wrong, and there is no doubt about it, among scientists. The warming effect of adding CO2 and other GHGs to the air is modest and benign, but it isn’t zero.
I did not hear anyone in the film describe the modern CO2 level rise as being a consequence of changes in ocean temperatures. That would, indeed, be an egregious error. Did I overlook it?
(Something like that might have been said in the context of a discussion of glaciation cycles, but in that context it is correct, or at least mostly correct.)
A script and a transcript (auto-generated captions) are here:
https://sealevel.info/Climate_The_Movie/
Well, Richard, you prompted me to go back and listen to the first 30 minutes again, very carefully, and take notes.
Richard wrote, “At 22 minutes in the film starts claiming manmade CO2 emissions do nothing.”
It didn’t ever quite say that, but it came close enough to justify complaint.
At 22:16 the narrator says, “But of the mild warming that has taken place in the past 3-400 years, can any of it be attributed human emissions of CO2?”
At 25:56 the narrator says it again: “But has the small recent increase in CO2 affected the temperature?”
That’s not a serious question: of course CO2 has contributed something to the warming over the last 300-400 years. Asking the question is not the same as answering it wrongly, but I agree with you that movie should not have suggested that it is a real question.
At 28:01 the narrator effectively makes the same mistake a third time: “Nor is it clear in recent times that CO2 is having any effect on temperature.”
That’s wrong. It is clear – not from temperature measurements, but from spectroscopy, and from line-by-line spectral calculations.
The fact that CO2 affects temperature is not reasonably disputable, and it is not where climate alarmists go off the rails. Mankind IS raising the CO2 level, and that DOES have a modest warming effect. There’s no serious question about those facts, so the movie is wrong to suggest that there’s a serious question about whether raising the CO2 level has “any effect” on temperature.
As the movie correctly notes elsewhere, mankind is a tropical species, and warming is generally good for us. The climate alarmists’ big error is in their unsupportable contention that it is, instead, harmful.
At 26:21 the narrator says, “So what evidence is there that this trace gas is having any noticeable impact on the climate?”
The word “noticeable” makes the question somewhat reasonable. The warming is minuscule compared to natural diurnal and seasonal temperature changes, and compared to temperature differences associated with small changes in elevation (1°C per 500 feet) or latitude (1°C per roughly 60 miles).
Still, I’d say that asking the question is misleading, because many viewers will not notice the “noticeable” caveat.
At 26:28 the narrator says, “If it were true that higher levels of CO2 caused higher temperatures, we should be able to see it in Earth’s climate history.”
That’s really not true. It would only be correct if CO2 were “the control knob” for temperatures. If CO2 is just one of many things which influence temperatures, then it’s not reasonable to expect that we should necessarily be able to isolate its effect in Earth’s climate history.
Richard wrote, “I stopped listening at 30 minutes, wondering if the film would hit the Junk Science Trifecta… CO2 is 97% Natural”
You needn’t have wondered about that, because by then the movie had already acknowledged “modern industry’s contribution to CO2 levels.”
23:32 Narrator: “So when we look back in time, what do we find? Over almost all of the last 500 million years, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has been far, far higher than it is now. Even with modern industry’s contribution to CO2 levels, by geological standards, the level of atmospheric CO2 today is close to being as low as it has ever been.”
The global warming effect in SE Michigan is EXTREMELY easy to notice. With only 10 minutes snow shoveling the entire winter and very little snow. The next door neighbor paid hundreds of dollars fpr a snow plowing service — their truck showed up once the whole winter.
If you correctly believe that manmade CO2 contributed to that warming, then the effect of manmade CO2 was noticeable.
The movie used the CO2 as a feedback process — temperature changes (of the oceans, although the oceans were not specified) to prove temperature changes cause CO2 changes.
That CO2 feedback process was implied to mean manmade CO2 emissions do not cause global warming.
I am positive the film intended to give the impression that CO2 emissions are not a climate forcing.
That’s why I stopped watching at about 30 minutes. I do not care for science fiction. Nor do I care whether the rest if the film was accurate.
When I read or hear BS, I move on to the next article or video.
Really? CO2 levels haven’t been this high in several million years.
The current CO2 level is in the bottom 5% of Earth’s known historical CO2 range and is LOW relative to the 800 to 1200 ppm range that C3 plants prefer.
840 ppm CO2 would take 168 years at +2.5 ppm a year and I wish I could be there in 168 years to appreciate the milder winters and greener Earth
Warren Beefton is a know nothing leftist climate scaremonger, probably scared of his shadow and most likely thinks masks prevent Covid infections.
You’re so full of utter nonsense, all contradicted by science, that you’re an ignorant waste of time. I leave you to your conspiracy theories and wack job nutter associates.
You didn’t factually prove him wrong on this one.
Better to make your case instead than to behave like a raging leftist screamer.
What Richard wrote is generally accepted in science circles:
and,
The planet is very happy to get the additional CO2 inflow as life wants it and more.
Humans evolved in Eastern Africa where it was normally very warm to hot year round a fact you didn’t consider.
From NASA: “Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in human history. In fact, the last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher.”
Earth’s climate was warmer in at least two long periods from 5000 to 9000 years ago, called the Holocene Climate Optimum.
Optimum means a good news climate
And the CO2 level averaged about 280 ppm in that period.
The increase of atmospheric CO2 is, by far, the best thing humans have ever done to improve the ecology. More CO2 supports more life on our planet. but only when added by burning hydrocarbon fuels with modern pollution controls
(1) More CO2 is good news
(2) More warming is good news
(3) Your posts are bad news
Those are three facts.
You’re wrong. Current gobs. Av*temperatures are the highest ever witnessed by Homo sapiens. Your numbers are for regional temperatures only.
Ice core era atmospheric CO2 level changes were the result of ocean temperature changes. That CO2 feedback process was used to “inform” the listeners that manmade CO2 emissions could not be a climate forcing.
You almost made the case, until you attempted to justify ‘CAGW.’ But no such term is ever used in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Furthermore, there is no claim that the warming is ‘benign’ in the literature — unless you think the atmospheric accumulation of CO2 a nd a CS of 3C is ‘benign’.
CAGW is a common term for dangerous rapid global warming. The CAGW dreamers look for +3 to +5 degrees warming per CO2 x 2. That would most likely mean much more warming in the Northern half of the N.H. if an increasing greenhouse effect is the cause of all the warming.
I do think +3 degrees C. would be harmless at worst, and more likely beneficial.
Because the warming since 1975 was mainly in the colder nations of the N.H,, mainly in the six coldest months of the year, and manly at night. That has been good news warming. More would be further good news. In addition, Antarctica has not been getting warmer.
There is no evidence from the past 48 years of global warming that another 48 years of global warming would be bad news. Or even another 96 years of global warming.
You say “The CAGW dreamers look for +3 to +5 degrees warming per CO2 x 2”.
Do you consider all peer reviewed research , which estimates CS in that range, to be authored by ‘CAGW Dreamers’ (your term)?
You might be unaware of this: you are attempting to debate with a guy who’s on your side of the issue. He claimed Willie Soon is paid by Exxon, quoting something directly from Greenpeace. He’s one of you guys. Or else one of his split personalities is, but then again, the enviro-left welcomes 2-spirit people.
No. Richard is wrong when he dismisses CS of ‘3C to 5C. In fact, that is the range assessed by all scientific research. That’s not ‘modest and benign’
The three Central England weather stations are up about +3 degrees C. since the cold 1690s and central England is still far from warm
The +3 to +5 degree global warming per CO2 doubling (could take 168 years) is not my claim. It is the climate scaremongers claim
I think is it is data free BS
A more reasonable claim is +1 to +1.5 degrees C. warming in 168 years.
Considering the seasonal pattern, time of day pattern and latitude pattern of global warming since 1975: Future warming will LEAST affect the summer daya in the tropics and greenhouse warming will not affect Antartica at all.
There is no evidence more global warming will hurt anyone. But +5 degrees could affect infrastructure built on permafrost.
(1) Global cooling could be h dangerous
(2) Global warming is beneficial
(2) Beefton is a trained parrot of climate scaremongering
Those are three facts
A mean cs of 3C is assessed by all scientific research. What’s your source for 1.5C?
1.5 is the effect of CO2 alone per lab spectroscopy x 2 for estimated amplification by a water vapor positive feedback (WVPF) … which skeptic Ph.D. scientists generally believe is from zero to 2x. I use their top of the range 2x to be conservative.
The Climate Howlers (Global Whiners like you) claim a WVPF in the 3x to 6x range with zero evidence such a strong feedback exists
You’re so clueless you don’t even know what the peer review science concludes. Which is a mean value of CS of 3C, including feedbacks, not the much higher values you imply.
You are a liar and a nitwit
One does not have to 100% agree with every conservative scientist to refute CAGW, which I have been trying to do for 26 years. Soon presents baloney by cherry picking poor proxies. His organization did receive energy company money and provided the CO2 Does Nothing claim those donors like to hear.
I am more sophisticated than you “It’s Us or Them” simpletons.
Conservatives are not 100% right
Leftists are not 100% wrong
So far, you do not dispute that you featured a quote verbatim from Greenpeace that Willie Soon – not his organization – “Willie Soon has received direct funding for his research of $1.033 million from Big Coal and Big Oil interests…” Everybody sees what you did in your comment above with the switcheroo to “his organization.” That accusation is demonstratively false. Smithsonian said in 2015 they’d look into whether his funding declarations were improper. As I’ve pointed out here at WUWT back in 2015, that accusation sources from one Greenpeacer, Kert Davies. It is demonstratively false and as I’ve detailed at my GelbspanFiles blog, Davies is a massively suspect enviro-leftist with an agenda to smear skeptic scientists across the board using worthless ‘leaked industry memos.’ As Dr Soon succinctly details, at the end of Smithsonian’s 5-year ‘investigation,’ the results were that he’d done nothing wrong. If he had, Smithsonian would have reported it, and Kert Davies would have trumpeted that result from the highest mountaintops, he has that kind of worldwide public arena already. Do you have evidence to dispute any of that?
The only people who hurl the ‘Exxon bribed Dr Soon’ accusation are enviro-leftists. The only people who call a range of skeptic scientists ‘science fiction’ are leftists. The only people offering up intellectually dishonest talking points about EV sales and other such promotional tripe about them are leftists. The only people who consistently offer up quantitative ‘up-votes’ for themselves are leftists with lousy self esteems who need such things to justify their own self worth.
And speaking of that, by my rough guess of your ever-ballooning claims about the visitor count at your so-called ‘blog,’ you must be approaching 1 million visitors by now. Unless I missed it in my one visit there (where all I saw was what looked potentially like an endless conveyor belt of article links which a computer program might be able to generate daily via automatic searches for key words), I did not see any visitor counter. What evidence do you have to show there are any visitors there at all? Plus, you claim to be a “blog editor.” Of what? Marc Morano is a blog editor, who features links and routinely offers his own commentary. Anthony Watts is arguably a blog editor. I’m a blog editor. What are you? A guy with zero public presence of any description, who apparently showed up out-of-the-blue around a year ago posting an inordinate amount of daily comments essentially espousing the enviro-left side of the climate issue that only invites blowback from AGW skeptics, while claiming to be a conservative the whole time and steering people to a conveyor belt site of links that otherwise has no visual appeal.
If I was an enviro-leftist with very bad intentions, I’d create a fake account commenter bot of a person claiming to be a conservative which gleans keyword conservative talking points off the internet while offering mildly soft pro-enviro angles of the climate issue along with occasional trashings of skeptic climate scientists in order to inject doubt into the minds of conservatives, and then I would create a website for the bot to steer conservatives into which, contains virus/malware-laden article links / bimbo photos / music videos.
How do you explain your way out of having that exact appearance?
“How do you explain your way out of having that exact appearance?”
You are a conspiracy theory Nutter and junkyard dog character attack artist. That’s the explanation
If you read a sentence in my comments concerning science or energy and disagree, have the courtesy to repeat that sentence an explain why it is wrong. I assume you have the intelligence to do that, which is being kind, but you were so angry you forgot to refute anything I wrote in your latest nastygram comment.
The pageview counters can be seen on computers but are only when viewing the web view format on phones. The domain is free and I can’t change that. I also have no control over the page view count. I make sure my own computer does not create a page view when I log in each morning.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
My prior climate and energy blog has had over 580,000 page views. On January 25, 2023, I started a new blog that combined three previous blogs on three different subjects. My new blog has had over 158,000 page views since 1/25/2023.
I present links to the best articles I can find on climate, energy and other subjects by conservative authors I can find after at least four hours of reading each morning.
I write a short essay almost once a week
My blog is my public service for fellow conservatives — I get no money, there are no ads, I make no requests for donations and get no fame. I sometimes get insults from losers like you.
Just what are YOU doing to fight the leftist CAGW scaremongering and Nut Zero, that are pushing our nation into climate/energy fascism?
I did read a sentence in your comments concerning science or energy and disagreed – the one you made back on January 11, 2024 accusing Willie Soon of being directly paid “$1.033 million from Big Coal and Big Oil interests.” It was false, and it was a verbatim quote straight from Greenpeace, and as I showed in my links above, I refuted that collective accusation in huge detail. You’ve sidestepped it once again, you dug a hole for yourself by hurling that accusation at Dr Soon, an accusation that only leftist enviro-activists hurl. It casts doubt on your claims of being a CAGW skeptic when combined with your dual personality appearance of being allegedly ‘conservative’ while you do what enviro-activists do, routinely trash prominent skeptics and act as an apologist for EV sales slides.
Meanwhile, if you had actual pageview counters evidence to show, you would have created a screencapture link and/or guided this entire WUWT reading audience straight to them. Instead, we are to take your word for it. You say your prior climate and energy blog — singular — had over a half million views while not even providing a name for it for WUWT readers here … and then you say you combined 3 blogs – on different subjects – into one, your current one. Which is, again, nothing more than a continuous conveyor belt of article links which arguably requires no actual blog editor effort at all to compile when that sort of thing might be automatically generated by a computer program.
I made an archive link of one of your current ‘blog’ January post piles, so that folks won’t have the risk going there directly if your links are potentially virus-infected – you claim you write a short essay almost once a week? On what? All I saw in that pile were article links and highly suspect bimbo photos to click on, which I did not click on. That’s exactly the type of thing that’s infected with virus / malware. The one other bit there was links to your prior blogs, one of which claims (your typos there, not mine): “The new blog got over 10,000 page views in the first month, which is good considering that only one perso knew the URK on day one, January 25, 2023 … me!” Right. By simply mentioning your new link in a random assortment of online comment sections, some guy who has no public ‘name brand’ recognition manages to wrangle in 10k viewers to a conveyor belt line of article links having headlines such as “Over 2,600 Terror Attacks in Judea, Samaria (aka West Bank) Recorded Since Oct. 7.”
None of this passes the smell test, friend. You make giant claims about yourself, but you can’t back them up, and others here in the WUWT comments section are concerned about your dual personality problem, wondering if you are a real conservative, or are some kind of purposely disruptive – and potentially harmful – troll account.
What do I do “to fight the leftist CAGW scaremongering“? That should have been abundantly obvious when you clicked on my 2015 WUWT guest post link on where the Greenpeace-source smear of Dr Soon originates. WUWT reproduced that out of my GelbspanFiles blog. I detail exactly where the smear of skeptic scientists implodes; scroll down my home page, and on the right side is my own daily visitor / total hits counter, for the entire public to readily see. My Articles archive link in the top menu bar takes people back to my earliest online articles at AmericanThinker in 2009, along with many others. The guys over at Climate Litigation Watch mention my work.
I back up what I say. You? Not so much.
Excellent work!
To satisfy my own curiosity of whether the “Richard Greene” account was purely a johnny-come-lately troll here at WUWT, I did a site-specific search of the name in particular time spans. Turns out it first started showing up in 2016, with just a handful of comments each year until lately. It didn’t stand out any more than countless others because its comments were consistently against the IPCC/Al Gore AGW position. Its comment text format was occasionally inconsistent – standard length sentence lines vs 3- or 4-word lines. Sometimes those included a link to the person’s “elonionbloggle” blog, which I have no memory of ever clicking on. Last night, I used the link over at Internet Archive versions to avoid any possible virus/malware possibilities, and what I saw there was pages filled with visually unattractive strings of strangely yellow-highlighted, blue/black/red-color, 3- or 4-word line, boldface text material that was either always underlined or italicized. It all looked like poorly done non-rhyming free verse poetry. From 2016 to 2018, the bragging point at the top was “15,000 page views.” No change in that number for 2 years. Having that annoying of a visual appearance, I could imagine the blog might attract some initial viewers to see what it was, never to return again.
In one of the Internet Archive-gleaned “elonionbloggle” versions, there’s mention of 3 other blogs authored by “Richard Greene”, a.k.a. “the Cliff Claven of Finance”: an economics blog titled “EL2017″,” a politics blog titled “ElectionCircus,” and — quoting the blogger directly — “my Climate Centerfolds blog: no nudity, but not for office viewing” [ OnionBloggle2012 ]. That apparently explains the odd “elonion” blog name, “el” combined with “onion.” What is in that last one? Internet Archive link here, to be on the safer side. It is clearly nothing but borderline soft porn. That’s the kind of site that generates worldwide page views, not unreadable weirdly colored quasi-haiku blather.
Who can guess what the current “Richard Greene” commenter account is? Originally a real person having a consistent view on the AGW issue who dropped dead and the account is now operated by enviro-hackers for nefarious purposes? Or a person who … shall we politely say … has ‘issues’?
To borrow the slogan from Fox News, “We report, you decide.”
AGW is not a ‘position’. It’s the universal conclusion of all scientific research and every scientific institution in the world.
AGW is the position held by the IPCC / Al Gore side of the issue, and it is disputed by PhD-level climatologists / atmospheric physicists / experts in statistical temperature data gathering / analysis to so extensive of a depth that it would give anyone migraine headaches from trying to absorb it all, including the utterly anti-science notion that a “show of hands,” a.k.a. consensus opinion validates science conclusions. As Lord Monckton succinctly pointed out here aw WUWT one time, ‘science consensus’ is a logical fallacy. The general public does not to know about the collective skeptic side because the egregiously biased MSM does not tell the public about them — I’ve quantified that concerning the PBS NewsHour with my ongoing count of the ratio of IPCC- / NASA- / NOAA-associated scientists vs skeptic scientists of similar expertise. You’re told such skeptics are paid industry money to fabricate disinformation, but when pressed to the wall to provide the proof to back that up, neither you nor the enviro leaders you trust could deliver on that if your and their reputations depended on it, because the whole accusation in based on two sets of literally worthless documents and a demonstratively false accusation against Dr Willie Soon …. the one the “Richard Greene” account regurgitated. The only folks who put any credence in that accusation are enviro-activists, as I told you before.
Embark on your own critical thinking journey; see if you can do what enviro-leaders cannot do, namely cough up actual physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints — material which could stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between those skeptics and industry executives, in other words. Got ahead and ask the Smithsonian Institute to provide you with the results of their 5-year investigation of Dr Soon’s funding disclosures controversy. The deeper you go into that exploration, they more you’ll find how it implodes around a core clique of enviros dating back to the late 1990s. Dare to challenge enviro-leaders to provide you with that killer evidence, and soon they will be calling you a climate denier, rather than stand and deliver on such a simple due diligence request.
You’ll thank me later for sending you onto that eye-opening journey.
You’re flat out wrong.
AGW is the conclusion of every science academy in the world, 99% of all peer reviewed scientific research, and scientists publishing in peer reviewed journaIs.
NO CLIMATOLOGISTS WRITING IN PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS DISPUTE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE THE CAUSE OF THE FASTEST RATE OF GLOBAL WARMING IN MILLENNIA.
I challenge you to cite even one National Science Academy, peer reviewed scientific paper, or active peer reviewed climatologist that disputes that universal conclusion of scientific research.
I’ll repeat, since it sailed right over your head: “consensus” — a.k.a argumentum ad populum — “is rightly regarded as unacceptable because the consensus view – and whatever ‘science’ the consensus opinion is founded upon – may or may not be correct, and the mere fact that there is a consensus tells us nothing about the correctness of the consensus opinion or of the rationale behind that opinion. … science is not done by consensus.”
Consider how the ‘consensus science’ about the continents, dating from the beginning of when cartographers first began mapping the world’s coastlines, was that the continents were immovable. Fixed in place. But when the discovery was made via deep dive subs to the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and it was proven that the two sides were spreading apart, all those centuries of ‘consensus’ about non-moving continents was out the window.
Does the anti-science “headcount fallacy” really need to be explained to you more than once?
Sorry, but you just don’t get it. As a scientific hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) is repeatedly confirmed by evidence found in independent scientific research, the hypothesis (or hypotheses) becomes an accepted scientific theory. Which has been the state of the basic elements of climate science, Relativity, and earths orbiting the sun for some time. If your absurd notion were to be true, then science could never discern any properties or objective truths about the physical world.
Mr. Greene attached is a specific heat table from a thermodynamics book covering some atmospheric gases. In the section for air there is only one column for the energy required to raise the temperature 1 K at various temperatures. You agree that the interaction of infrared with CO2 causes a temperature rise of some amount. Why are there not two columns shown? One for energy with IR and a column for energy with no IR. And per what has been said in articles here there should be a 3-8 degree difference which is CO2 part of the 33 K GHE.
You should read comic books that you understand
mkelly wrote: “Why are there not two columns shown? One for energy with IR and a column for energy with no IR.“
That’s gibberish. It sounds like you don’t understand that IR radiation is a form of energy.
Absorbing IR (or any other form of energy) makes a thing warmer than it otherwise would have been. Emitting/losing IR (or any other form of energy) makes a thing cooler than it otherwise would have been.
CO2 and other so-called GHGs are colorants. They tint the atmosphere, though in the far infrared, rather than visible part of the spectrum. CO2 in the air absorbs IR radiation at wavelengths near the peak of the Planck curve for typical surface temperatures, which otherwise would’ve escaped to space. Thus CO2 in the
It doesn’t take much colorant to have a substantial effect on absorption of radiation. Learn more here:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=physics#brief
If you’ve ever walked barefoot on a hot summer day, and stepped from light-colored concrete onto black asphalt, you surely know that the “color” (absorption spectrum) of a thing can affect its temperature.
The temperature difference is because dark-colored asphalt absorbs a higher percentage of incoming radiation than light-colored concrete does.
It would be easy for a viewer to walk away from seeing this film believing manmade CO2 is not a climate forcing, because in the ice cores temperature changes led atmospheric CO2 changes.
The claim that manmade CO2 is not a climate forcing is false. Making such a claim would cause a conservative to appear to be stupid — a leftist fact checker’s dream. That’s why this film is awful
Better yet, “Why are we told the temperature at ground level means anything at all?”
Thanks to all concerned in the production. It’s another strong summarization of the scam from the experts. I hope the producers are planning a follow-up. The public will need reminders and more convincing.
Perhaps a contingent of younger sceptics who are not beholden to the establishment – and bold enough to speak out against its anti-freedom mandates. Alex Epstein. Bjorn Lomborg.
Epstein and Lomberg have no education in Science, or Economics. They’re both frauds.
Coming from a leftist useful idiot who observed the beneficial global warming for the past 48 years and then in a delusion claims that global warming is very harmful. You’re no Einstein, Beefton.
Wrong twice (and again(). I’m a Conservative. and thank God I’m not that fraud Epstein.
Now you are simply LYING since I have never met a conservation that post like you did here and this after 35 years and in over 25 forums and blogs.
Your observations, or lack thereof, aren’t worth much to me
I’m a conservative, actually a libertarian
We do not have to agree with every conservative scientist and every conservative writer, to be Climate Realists.
Much of climate science is questions that need answers.
You deluded leftists think you have all the answers, and demand that everyone does as you say, without question, even if you leftists are wrong (aka the devious leftist precautionary principle, a favorite of dictators).
Conservatives all believe climate scaremongering is not based on science. It is conjecture — data free speculation with a political goal.
No conservative thinks global warming is very harmful. Therefore you can not be a conservative. I believe you are lying about being a conservative. And you are definitely no Einstein too.
Have a Nice Day
youre wrong about me, and wrong about the science. I work with many political conservatives who accept the findings of science. I also have met some like you that invent their own ‘science’. I prefer the real thing.
Wild guess always wrong predictions of global warming doom since 1979 are NOT science, even if every Ph.D. climate scientist in the world makes the same prediction
You are just too dumb to distinguish between real science based on evidence and data free predictions of climate doom.
Please tell me what science I have allegedly invented.
Conservatives who believe a climate crisis is ahead are as rare as a Beefton writing an intelligent comment.
There are Republicans who buy into the leftist coming climate change crisis fantasy, but they are not conservatives.
Republicans have some losers, like Mitt Romney, who vote more like Democrats than Republicans.
There are no predictions of doom by climate scientists, in spite of your inventing such predictions.
Point out one thing he’s said that is wrong- and what is fraudulent about what he’s said?
Yawn, blanket unsupported statements is the hallmark of the lazy ass you are one of them?
No surprise that you’re unaware. You dont read science, or perhaps little else.
Are you still hear, Beeton?
Your posts have no Cohesion
Sentences with no Reason
Suffering from brain Depletion?
Just random piles of Excretion
Should be Retraction
Better yet, Deletion
Your poetry is better than your scientific reasoning, Greene.
Exactly what scientific reasoning do you object to?
That I do not accept wild guess wrong since 1979 predictions of global warming doom as real science?
Is that what you object to?
LOL, you have no idea who I am and that you belittled some people who had the GALL to post their research and defend themselves over their work where is your published research or did the family favorite dog poop all over its Warren?
Your education fallacy is old and worn out and stupid as you don’t know of many people who greatly advanced science outside their education field.
I am currently enjoying reading the Book Solving the Climate Puzzle by Javier Vinos.
‘Who you are’: A Science Denier
‘Post’ their research’. In a peer reviewed reputable scientific journal?
‘Many people who have advanced science outside their education field’ You mean people with Dunning Kruger syndrome who imagine they’re Galileo!
List your education and training and jobs here as long as you’re going to rant. If you don’t, you’re a coward blow hard.
So you cant cite any false predictions by climate scientists, nor any evidence that contradicts the body of scientific research on the climate. Seems like you are indeed blowing smoke.
LOL, you are being a pompous fool here.
You have yet to understand what many here have commented about the movie which I didn’t watch because I don’t need to as I have been on this since the 1970’s when it was then the Global Cooling craze…….
I can’t figure out how to put it delicately, but education in “Science” itself is quite likely to be a fraud. And education in Economics certainly is.
of course! The best strategy is to stay uneducated so one can pontificate from a position of ignorance and stupidity. Is that what you’ve done?
Michael Shellenberger, Naomi Seibt. Jordan Peterson might, to some effect, address climate neurotics. Epstein could, in his own words, simply help them to think more clearly.
Michael, Naomi and Jordan are themselves neurotics- They get their pants in a twist when hearing about the peer reviewed science. It grates on their prejudices.
Another empty drivel it seems this all you have left now why don’t to go back to your wife and your favorite dog?
What is YOUR malfunction Warren you offer so little here which is why you are increasingly being belittled more and more as the bullshit warmist/alarmists which to behave similar has been spreading for many years have been all exposed as promoting misleading, disinformation and obvious lies it is why many here dislike then so much.
How many peer reviewed papers have you authored? Did you explain why all the PhD Climate scientists are wrong and you are right?
Here’s this informed layperson’s perspective — and I did work in Science and Space policy in DC, so I know how the sausage is made for publicly funded science and have worked with hardcore old fashioned Manhattan Project and Apollo project scientists who were contemptuous of eco-apocalypse science. Rather than spar on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, let me cut to the chase and say that Climate Science as used for political aims is now akin to Lysenkoism. Why? Because it’s being used wholly for political aims and is just the latest campaign in a 50+ war on Western society.
When I was in elementary school in the 1970s it started with Over Population that was gonna kill us all – our future held nothing but famine and death, and even mass cannibalism. Well, turns out that wasn’t true, that even as Erlich wrote his book the pace of global population growth was already declining in a trend that continues to this day.
Then it was the Silent Spring, the use of DDT as a pesticide and to kill Malaria-carrying mosquitos would kill all the birds by thinning their eggshells and killing chicks in the nest, thus global ecosystem collapse and famine and death. Except not all birds, as it turns out, primarily raptors. And not all species — but DDT was banned and tens of millions died of preventable diseases in developing countries.
Then it was man made Global Cooling because of pollution that was gonna kill us all with a new Ice Age. I listened to “Hoot hoot, don’t pollute” and became a Ranger Rick Kid. I picked up trash, I recycled bottles, I tested water in local ponds and streams, urged my parents to dig up our grass lawn and replace it with local water efficient plants to save on water, I saved grey water, I did projects on the environment. We didn’t freeze.
Then it was Acid Rain’s gonna kill all the trees and then we won’t have enough oxygen and bad stuff and we’ll all die. Well, that didn’t happen because, once again, we didn’t fully understand the acidification of the lakes and streams of concern, or how sulphureous coal pollutants worked in the “wild” so to speak. Turns out the “Acid Lakes!” was actually a natural result of *Reforestation*! Yes, many lakes turned more acidic when pines reforested, resulting in natural acidification which caused fish kills of non-native populations.
I could mention the KILLER BEES! fear, but that was pretty short lived and did give us a funny John Belushi SNL skit…but it was another Eco-fear scream from the media and politicians.
Then it was the Ozone Hole is gonna kill us all, increased solar radiation will give everyone skin cancer and make sheep and bees go blind. Well, that didn’t happen because it turns out we didn’t understand that Ozone is being naturally created and destroyed on a global basis and “thin” spots occur seasonally in many places before healing. But Dupont chemical which owns key patents for CFC replacements certainly made billions of $$, and HFCs are also persistent pollutants in a way CFCs are not. Billions spent on a non-problem that also killed tens of thousands in developing countries from lack of refrigeration for critical medicines during the CFC to HFC swap out.
Then Global Warming, we’re all gonna bake to death on a desert planet caused by mankind’s evil ways while at the same time the oceans will rise and give’s Noah’s Flood a run for its money. The End of Snow!! Well, all the IPCC predictions fell flat, and that didn’t happen.
Then it became Climate Change where anything and everything that happens is humankind’s fault – freeze, bake, boil, flood, feast, famine, everything will and can happen and we’re all gonna die!
So….almost my whole life I’ve had (more or less) the same scientists and the same special interest groups tell me that I’m gonna die, the whole world’s gonna die, if we don’t do as they say.
So after some 50 years of listening to the cries of pending apocalypse I am deeply skeptical of the apocalyptic claims being made about AGW (aka Climate Change now, eh?), critical of the way the science is being conducted, and critical of the overt politicization of the science, and critical of the massive money and power grabs being justified by AGW.
AGW clearly fails the Feynman Test *as science* because at no point has the core premise of AGW been re-examined as the doom and gloom deadlines have come and gone without apocalypse (e.g., remember the “End of Snow” headline screams??), and even the lower end of IPCC predictions have not been met. It’s operating as a tautology — the assumption is that mankind is causing harm to the planet and we see this because of AGW-Climate Change, so we investigate AGW-Climate Change to prove the assumption that mankind is harming the planet.
You should distinguish between harmless AGW which is real and CAGW which is a fantasy climate.
You can refute CAGW without refuting AGW, as a few people here are not smart enough to realize.
I think your comment was otherwise excellent, and adds up to one conclusion: It’s time for a new scary boogeyman, Climate change is getting stale
I propose an invasion of aliens from the planet Uranus. That would be an exciting new boogeyman. The leftists will offer their usual strategy to prevent the invasion: A lot more government spending and fascism.
Your post is one long junk science conspiracy blog.
Acid rain was indeed man caused and not natural. It was caused by SOx and NOx emissions, mostly from coal fired power plants, and has been greatly reduced by environmental regulations in the 1990 Clean Air Act.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion was also man caused and not natural. It was caused by CFC emissions, mostly from air conditioning and refrigeration equipment , and with the 1986 phaseout out of CFC production, CFC presence in the atmosphere began to decrease and the ozone hole is beginning to heal.
And contrary to your post, the fact that earth is warming, human activities are the cause, and the net effects are strongly harmful, are the universal finding of 50 years of scientific research into climate phenomena.
Your post is long on conspiracies and short on facts. Perhaps that makes for fun reading on WUWT, but it doesn’t belong anywhere where science is discussed.
All rain is acidic because of CO2 in the atmosphere which is mainly natural
The ozone hole is a region of exceptionally depleted ozone in the stratosphere over the Antarctic. It has no effect on skin cancer rates in other continents. So it is irrelevant.
YOU WROTE:
“the fact that earth is warming, human activities are the cause, and the net effects are strongly harmful, are the universal finding of 50 years of scientific research into climate phenomena.”
The earth is warming
Human activities are ONE cause
But the net effects have been beneficial
You wrote
“strongly harmful”, which is a leftist fantasy not reflected in data for the past 48 year of global warming.
If global warming was harmful, we would certainly have noticed such harm after 48 years of global warming.
In fact, the warming has been very pleasant and more CO2 is greening our planet
The only conclusion possible from comparing climate reality with your claim of “strongly harmful” warming is that you are deluded, and unaware of reality. Or perhaps you are just a leftist useful idiot: A trained parrot of climate scaremongering
Stratospheric ozone is my field, and you don’t know what you’re talking about. Regarding climate change, I have all the peer reviewed scientific research on my side, whereas you have nothing. I’m not impressed with your uninformed junk science.
Your only field
is left field
44 years of scientists predicting CAGW and the actual climate has improved in the past 48 year.
No harm.
No disaster.
And your Appeal to Authority does not work when the authorities have been wrong for 44 years in a row about CAGW.
You remain a clueless leftist useful idiot who thinks any scientific study that you approve of is The Gospel, and has to be correct … while contrary opinions are 100% wrong because they oppose your precious “CAGW consensus”
Your CAGW consensus is data free predictions, not reality. There are no CAGW data since CAGW has never existed.
Science requires data
Therefore, predictions of CAGW are climate astrology, and also wrong for the past 44 years too
Data free predictions of CAGW, wrong for 44 years in a row, are the true JUNK SCIENCE, and you are the Fred Sanford climate science junkman.
So it’s you vs the thousands of PhD scientists specializing in the field. I’m always impressed when a lone amateur claims he’s found fundamental errors in130 years of scientific research. Why you’re Galileo himself!
Have you ever heard of Alfred Wegener or Albert Einstein? They were amateurs finding errors in 130 years of scientific research.
off topic. Not climate science.
LOL, it is YOU who is being silly with your useless fallacies while the reality is people like Cunningham is the one who is being honest as he cogently pointed out the endless overblown scares that dries up when a new scam comes along.
Dr. Ehrlich was laughably wrong in his stupid predictions which is probably why you love his baloney……..
Neither Dr Erlich or you are climate scientists, so neither of your opinions have any validity wrt the Science of Climate Change
Wild guess, data free wrong since 1979, predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming, are NOT science.
Your problem Beefton, among many others, is you can not differentiate between real climate science and junk science.
Hint:
Everything a scientist predicts is not science.
Data free predictions are not science
Wrong predictions are not science
Any claim that global warming is dangerous MUST be accompanies by evidence of the harm caused by the first 48 years of global waring, since 1975. No such evidence exists.
Predictions of future harm from global warming MUST come from people with a strong long term track record for long term climate predictions. No such people exist
Papers that predict the future climate are not science, they are climate astrology.
Incorrect. It has been demonstrated many times that people of any background can do seminal contributions to science.
James Croll, the author of the first orbital hypothesis of glaciations was a janitor without studies. He was given a honorary title and corresponded with Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.
You are just projecting your own limitations to others.
Do you take your children to a medical doctor? Or to the local barber instead? Do you advise your kids not to bother with university r high school because education doesn’t matter?
LOLOLOLOLOL, your stupidity is in the stratosphere as Doctors and Barbers were trained to do a specific JOB hardly anyone will dispute it besides they have to have a state license to have a business anyway.
Javiers point was that there have been people who didn’t have the education still could make meaningful contributions to science such as James Coll who was the forerunner to Milutin Milankovitch.
What about Clyde Tombaugh, Alfred Wegener, Milton Humason Henrietta Leavitt and many more.
It is clear you are a small minded person who is suffering from the education fallacy bromide.
Education is very important, and a very important part of it is independent thought. It seems you skipped that part.
I’m sure you are independent. But your climate science blogs are contradicted by the body of peer reviewed science. No one , except other Deniers, believes the nonsense published by the CO2 Coalition.
Your moving goal post desperation gambit makes clear you are pathetically dishonest person who stated this:
Are you 12 years old?
I am so honored to be in the presence of an amateur who has overturned 130 years of climate research. Isaac Asimov must have met you
Warren Beefton not only heard of Einstein, his mother often compares him with Einstein: “Warren, you’re no Einstein”.
HAW HAW HAW then you shouldn’t object to the OREGON PETITION PROJECT which has a lot of PHD signatories in it, 9029 of them.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You need to go home Warren your contradictions and empty drivel is catching up with you.
LOL! The Oregon Petition? You mean the one signed by the Spice Girls and Charles Darwin? That was signed mostly by politicians and petroleum engineers? Is that the level of your ‘science’?
It was not signed by the Spice Girls or Charles Darwin, that is a regurgitated unsupportable talking point by enviros who never checked the veracity of the claim but simply trust it because it sounds like it might be true. It’s appropriate that you bring this up here, however, because that same baseless accusation was seen in the gigantic 2007 complaint to the UK broadcast regulator concerning Martin Durkin’s first film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” When I saw that accusation in the complaint, I knew it stemmed from the plant of a solitary “Spice Girl” name in the Petition back in the late 1990s by an operative in the old forgotten Ozone Action group. But that prompted me to wonder if any of the other name accusations had any merit. It took a while to research it, but the conclusion was that the balance of the accusations about the other names was provably false. See my “Lahsen’s Spice Girls.”
Again – one day you’ll thank me for the advice of doing your own fact-based explorations on whether the talking points of AGW enviros have merit or not.
Yes, those signatures were on the Petition as originally submitted. Furthermore, the exercise is so flawed that it’s hard to know what demands criticism the most. First, the whole exercise was pushed by Arthur B. Robinson, the survivalist, Darwin skeptic and proprietor of something called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. The “scientific” article on which the petition rests is authored by Robinson, his son Noah, and the American Petroleum Industry-funded Willie Soon, none of whom could ever hope to get their climate work published in a peer-reviewed science journal.
Signatures … plural. Prove it. Ya didn’t read a word of my “Lahsen’s Spice Girls,” did ya?
Prove it.
Would you like anyone in this WUWT reading audience to count out the number of times Dr Soon has had papers published in peer-reviewed science journals?
.
“Would you like anyone in this WUWT reading audience to count out the number of times Dr Soon has had papers published in peer-reviewed science journals?”
According to Google Scholar, Willie Soon has published some articles on the connection between solar activity and climate change.
Many of these articles were not published in peer-reviewed journals, but were rather published by organizations skeptical of climate change such as the Fraser Institute, The George C. Marshall Institute, and in the skeptical science journal Energy & Environment
And re the Oregon Petition:
The 30,000 scientists and science graduates listed on the OISM petition represent a tiny fraction (0.3%) of all science graduates. More importantly, the OISM list only contains 39 scientists who specialise in climate science.
And I note that you do work for that bastion of scientific integrity, the Heartland Institute. How many peer reviewed papers have you written? Or how many has anyone written at the Heartland Institute? Remember, predatory pay to publish journals don;t count
First, which in this list of Dr Soon’s papers are not peer-reviewed science journals?
Next, you are literally unable to prove more than one Spice Girl name appeared in the Oregon Petition Project, yes? So – you’re all show and no go as to proof that the Petition is riddled with fake names, correct? Don’t feel bad about that particular failure, it’s quite common among those who hurl that accusation without knowing a thing of what is actually behind it. Again, did you not read in my “Lahsen’s Spice Girls” how that fake single name plant was caught and erased, along with who planted it, and who attempted to claim members of the M*A*S*H* TV series were in the petition, which was outright disinformation on the part of that accuser?
Uh – yeah – many petition signers are not outright experts in climate science. And Al Gore is? Greta Thunberg is? Leo DiCaprio? Naomi Oreskes? The entire top end of Greenpeace and Desmogblog? Kalee Kreider, former Greenpeace worker / Al Gore spokesperson, who’s listed among authors, contributors, and expert reviewers in one of IPCC’s reports? That particular woman has no more than a Bachelor of Arts, History degree, while the signers of the Petition Project have degrees in science-based fields of study where arguably a minimum of knowledge of how the Scientific Method works is part of their disciplines.
You didn’t think your counterargument against the Oregon Petition all the way through, did you?
Finally, step to the back of the line of folks accusing me of working for the Heartland Institute, including the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Elliot Negin, who could not prove I work for Heartland in any capacity if their reputations depended on it. You aren’t the first to plow into that knee-jerk accusation wipeout, placing all your faith in the Desmogblog smear site, and you won’t be the last. I do not work for Heartland, and never have. As is clearly stated in the nice bio page they made for me (they do that for who knows how many other valuable contributors of info) I am an unpaid advisor on how the accusation about industry-paid skeptic scientists implodes around the core clique of enviros who’ve promulgated it since the late 1990s. They mention my work from time to time when accusations are hurled which I’m familiar with, that’s pretty much it.
You’re very confused. You first agree that most of the petitions signers are not climate scientists, but then you imply that’s ok, by listing non climate scientists who support AGW science, when in reality that’s utterly irrelevant! Instead you should cite peer reviewed climate scientists who dispute AGW. Good luck, because they donot exist. In other words, no climate scientists publishing in p r journals dispute AGW. And don’t try that phony Soon. He has no serious publications in any legit peer reviewed journals that relate to AGW.
Aim the confusion and lack of critical thinking accusations at the person in your mirror, friend. Most of the people in the IPCC reports are not climate scientists. Meanwhile, consider this: Imagine if a climate scientist on your side pens a paper so devastating that it proves CAGW beyond any shadow of a doubt …. but due to a variety of clumsy actions on his part and others, the paper never gets published anywhere. By your own reasoning about the requirement that all such papers get published – one heckuva narrow goalpost to kick that football through – that scientist’s work is out the window. Poof. Not killer evidence at all, according to you. Or if he does succeed in getting it published anywhere – at WUWT or at science journals you deem ‘not legit’ which just happen to permit papers which dispute the skeptic side – by your own reasoning, it’s still out the window. Poof. Inadmissible as evidence that CAGW is indisputable.
You’ll thank me one day for living rent-free in your mind on such conundrums: your base your beliefs on emotional rationale rather than objective thinking. Comprehend how it skews all your viewpoints, cast that aside, and question all you know about the issue, its claims about settled science, its unsupportable hypocrisy, and its baseless accusations about industry-paid corruption, and where the big and quite possible corrupting money is actually in the issue. When you see how the issue implodes around these faults, you’ll switch sides and become an ardent critic of all the propaganda out there.
Your post is absurd and incoherent, and full of straw man arguments.
1) You keep claiming I follow non scientists . I do not. I follow the peer reviewed published science. Period.
2) you keep using the word ‘proof’. But proofs are for math, whereas evidence is required for a scientific hypothesis to become accepted scientific theory. Because of overwhelming confirming evidence (and a lack of any contradictory evidence), AGW is as well established and accepted as a theory as evolution, smoking causes cancer, or the earth orbits the sun.
Is this you?
https://www.desmog.com/russell-cook/
That is the Desmogblog site’s version of me. Notice, right off the bat, how they now disinform the public on what their original name was. As more enviros began hurling the accusation that skeptic blogs were not good sources of solid science info – the WUWT blog, Roger Pielke’s blog, etc, it became more and more obvious that the “blog” bit at the end of Desmogblog was becoming an albatross around their neck. But it is a blog co-founded by James Hoggan with the intent of impugning the integrity of skeptic climate scientists, he said so directly. Not via science, he admitted to having no such expertise, but via attacks on their ‘corrupt funding.’ Who was the other co-founder? Ross Gelbspan. Gelbspan said so just 8 seconds into this old audio interview. The man who could not prove skeptic climate scientists worked for the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation if his reputation depended on it – as I thoroughly detail at my GelbspanFiles blog – and who could not prove we won a Pulitzer if a gun was held to his head.
Desmogblog was created under entirely disingenuous circumstances. You did not know that, did you?
Regarding their profile of me, notice how they cannot bring themselves to directly link straight to my GelbspanFiles blog. They don’t want people like you to see how devastating my material is on taking apart what people like you hold dear to their hearts. Read my point-by-point beatdown of that pathetic hit job against me here — you’ll see what they cannot tell you themselves.
The reality of the situation is elemental: enviro-leftists project what they do as accusations of what the skeptic side does. All of the disinformation in this issue comes from the side you place all of your emotion-driven faith in. One day, you will thank me for opening your eyes to all of this, which you have firmly shut against right now.
My criticism of you is that you deny the universal findings of scientific research. You defend junk science, but have no training or education in science whatsoever, and so you have no basis for supporting junk science. IOW, you perpetrate a fraud on the public.
Look in the mirror red turnip..
You obviously have zero training in anything but gullibility to leftist propaganda.
Scientific research ? You haven’t a clue what that is.
You are a monumental fraud,
Bet you cannot produce one piece of actual scientific evidence support the CO2 warming fallacy.
Notice how this “Warren Beeton” commenter literally did not dispute a single thing I said in my responses to him concerning his accusation against me nor any of the indisputable facts I brought up about Desmogblog or the fact that his own topmost beloved leaders have no training or education in climate science. He could not name any actual fraud I perpetuate on the public if his reputation depended on it, but I caught him in the exact act of falsely accusing me of working at a place I’ve never worked at, and I pointed out the exact resumé fraud one of his beloved non-climate ‘expert’ leaders perpetuated on the public.
The irony here about these types’ psychological project is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
I stand by my reporting of your background,eg: 1. Associate’s Degree in Graphic Arts, Al Collins School of Graphic Design.
2 Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration, University of New Mexico.
(ie, zero scientific education
3 contributing editor for The Heartland Institute‘s Environment & Climate News.
4 “neither a scientist nor a trained journalist,” (your own words)
Also you fraudulently claim I have ‘beloved leaders’. I do not. I simply accept, understand, and support peer reviewed science(not the junk that you’re paid to spew, yet can’t understand)
“story tip” sort of
Under the USCRN chart on the home page it says:
“The US Climate Reference Network record from 2005 shows no obvious warming during this period.”
This is total BS
USCRN has a +0.34 degrees C. per decade warming rate since 2005
By comparison, the UAH global average temperature had a warming rate of +0.14 degrees C. per decade since 1979
US average warming in USCRN (and ClimDiv since 2005 too) is much faster than the satellite measured global warming.
The claim of no obvious US trend is a HUGE lie and conservative myth. Please fix it.
Just watched this on Youtube (I know, a miracle!)….excellent film. One way to help keep this in the public eye is to “subscribe” and “like” the film on YouTube. Despite the obvious Orwellian mantra of YouTube in general, you can find great content like this…but we need to support it.
I find I don’t get quite as pessimistic about this latest “fad”…ie Climate Alarmism…..in general, this kind of nonsense comes and goes….the “communist scare” and all its ugliness came and went. This kind of crap is just one of prices we pay to live in a real democratic society. I would be far more worried if I never saw anything about the movie at all…but the bottom line, is that at any given time, people want to follow the latest fad..be it hair style, or the “climate emergency”….I have little doubt that AI will evolve into the next fad emergency…..as long as people are reasonably well fed and their lights are on….that’s when the rubber hits the road…
Ethan Brand
‘Earth is warming faster than anytime in millennia, human activities are the cause, and the net effects are strongly negative’ is the conclusion of all scientific research conducted over the last 50 years, by scientists working in every country of the world. The YouTube video is nonsense, and unsupported anywhere in the body of scientific research.
We don’t need conclusions. We need evidence.
The conclusions of research always require evidence. And the evidence is overwhelming. It can be found in the peer reviewed research papers, or in summaries, such as the IPCC 6th Assessment. Also, evidence to the contrary has never been found.
There is no evidence that says most of the warming is due to the increase in CO2. If you think there is, show me the specific paper that presents it and I will tell you specifically why it doesn’t prove it.
I can tell you the evidence that proves general relativity is correct. During an eclipse we can see the position of stars near the Sun’s border changing due to the space curvature by the Sun’s gravitational field.
You cannot do that for the hypothesis that climate change is due to our emissions, because the evidence doesn’t exist.
have You even looked? Eg, in the reports of the NAS? The Royal Society? The IPCC? It’s all there.
They only offer unproven theories.
‘Proofs’ are for math. Evidence is for Science. And the evidence in the sources i cited is unanimous and overwhelming. Can you cite any contradictory evidence in the body of scientific research?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
It is clear you don’t WHO Javier Vinos is who has posted several articles here and at Currys blog has authored a book with many dozens of published science papers referred in it which I am reading,
Solving the Climate Puzzle
===
Meanwhile Mr. Vinos gave YOU a challenge which you ignored,
Coward!
It is clear you can’t rise up to it to show everyone here that you can make a decent argument.
I wonder if you are a teenager who pretends to have a big science job but writes like a ignorant child.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of peer reviewed scientific papers to be found, and summarized in the IPCC 6th Assessment, the NAS, Royal Society, and NASA. He hasn’t tried to find any.
By the way, if he were a competent scientist, he would gave published a peer reviewed paper with his critique. Articles or blogs are a cop out.
Here what I have found about Vinos: “Javier Vinos is a member of the fossil fuel propaganda group CO2 Coalition. His field was neurobiology & cancer, not climate science.”
The sources you mentioned deliberately ignore or minimize natural causes of climate change. That is just as biased as sources / people who minimize manmade causes of climate change.
In my opinion the evidence of natural versus manmade climate change since 1975 is about 1/3 natural and 2/3 manmade.
A lot of data are not available for a better guess.
We need the global annual average of the exact amount of solar energy blocked by daytime clouds, not just a percentage of cloudiness, or just a rough estimate of how much sunlight clouds block.
And we’d need to know the exact global annual average water vapor percentage. Not just a rough estimate of 2% to 3%.
The natural / manmade ratio could easily reverse with more data.
Not being a climate scientists on a government payroll is a big advantage for getting an unbiased opinion, I believe.
The opinions can still be wrong but they are not biased by a paycheck.
Your opinion is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence and data. And the evidence shows that all the warming since 1970 is man caused,
“There is no evidence that says most of the warming is due to the increase in CO2.”
Whoever said this is a fool who should never be taken seriously on the subject of climate science.
There is more evidence of post-1975 warming caused by a change in the greenhouse effect than there is for natural causes.
The claim that most of the warming was manmade can not be dismissed by a lack of evidence.
Anyone who dismisses the majority of evidence is a biased fool.
There is no evidence rising CO2 will cause rapid warming or could be dangerous. There is much evidence that rising CO2 and global warming are both good news
Anyone claiming CO2 does little or nothing is a Nutter who thinks almost 100% of climate scientists since 1896 are wrong and he, or she, is right.
Massive ego for those Nutters
But low intelligence
Of course I’ve looked. I am a climate scientist with two books published on the subject.
It is clear you don’t know the evidence you claim it exists and are just parroting memes.
Anyone can write books offering up their own version of reality. The relevant question is have you published climate related scientific papers in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
published climate related scientific papers in a peer reviewed scientific journal have been consistently making WRONG predictions of climate doom since the early 1970s
Not one wrong climate prediction can be found in the peer reviewed literature. Simply does not exist.
Here’s Hansen et al (1988), one of the most influential climate scare papers ever published, predicting 0.5°C of warming per decade:
Source:
https://www.sealevel.info/hansen1988.pdf#page=17
I think that qualifies as a failed prediction, don’t you?
Thirty years ago, James Hansen testified to Congress about the dangers of human-caused climate change. In his testimony, Hansen showed the results of his 1988 study using a climate model to project future global warming under three possible scenarios, ranging from ‘business as usual’ heavy pollution in his Scenario A to ‘draconian emissions cuts’ in Scenario C, with a moderate Scenario B in between.
Changes in the human effects that influence Earth’s global energy imbalance (a.k.a. ‘anthropogenic radiative forcings’) have in reality been closest to Hansen’s Scenario B, but about 20–30% weaker thanks to the success of the Montreal Protocol in phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Hansen’s climate model projected that under Scenario B, global surface air temperatures would warm about 0.84°C between 1988 and 2017. But with a global energy imbalance 20–30% lower, it would have predicted a global surface warming closer to 0.6–0.7°C by this year.
The actual 1988–2017 temperature increase was about 0.6°C. Hansen’s 1988 global climate model was almost spot-on.
You’re an idiot.
Can you cite any scientific sources that contradict the body of scientific literature on the climate?
We can cite 48 years of beneficial global warming since 1975 versus 48 years of 100% wrong predictions of CAGW
We have the data
You have the claptrap
Beneficial? Those in the path of increasing wildfires and storm disasters might disagree with you. (And you can’t cite one failed prediction in the peer reviewed literature. Doesn’t exist.)
Increasing wildfires? Not in US.
From the USDA website:
“Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted “, and
”Wildfires have been growing in size, duration, and destructivity”, and
your chart does not appear.
Richard, will you please drop me an email?
https://sealevel.info/contact.html
Personally- my opinion is that there is some climate change- and that it’s benign. My state government (Wokeachusetts) keeps screaming that there is a climate emergency. If they only said “there is some modest climate change”- I wouldn’t mind- but when they scream “emergency” I know they’re nuts. I worked as a field forester for 50 years. I recall many subzero (F) days and very heavy snow. The last few years we didn’t get that nasty weather. So, the climate- or at least weather has improved.
It’s not a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of scientific research, facts and evidence. The rate of warming is the fastest in millennia, and on net, strongly harmful to humans and other species.
No it isn’t strongly harmful to humans and other species. Nonsense. You have no idea. Please tell us your profession and education, for starters, showing you have at least somewhat functioning testicles. Most people are don’t hesitate to discuss their qualifications. And, are you related to my state’s past head of the Energy and Environment agency? Probably not. He didn’t know anything either.
Your ‘opinion’ doesn’t count for anything. The facts and evidence, as summarized in the IPCC Assessments, say otherwise.
From Encyclopedia Brittanica:”There is evidence that this warming was quite rapid; Greenland ice-core samples suggest that local temperatures increased by up to 10 °C (18 °F) in just a few decades.”
This is about the Younger Dryas. This happened a a far higher rate than now and it was not “strongly harmful”.
From your citation:
”Greenland ice-core sample suggest that local temperatures increased……”
LOCAL TEMPERATURES. Not global.
I’m not sure Beefton is qualified
Maybe assistant village idiot with good prospects for a promotion.
Several years ago- here in my state of Wokeachusetts, the top person in the state’s Energy and Environment agency was a guy named Beeton. I was not impressed with him either- classic political appointment. Maybe they share a genetic defect. 🙂
Learn Mandarin.
Tom Nelson has the director of “Climate- The Movie”, Martin Durkin, on his latest podcast for a discussion of the movie.
Warren Beeton,
Why won’t you cite any paper of your choice that supports your claim that current warming is mainly caused by manmade emissions and allow Dr. Vinos to scrutinize it, as sunsettommy asked? So far, your arguments mainly consist of ad hominems and aren’t impressing anybody.
ive already referenced the IPCC Assessments, the NAS, and the Royal Society reports. I’ll now add this explainer, which references the scientific sources:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans/
Most likely, Beeton is a brainwashed high school kid- probably fed the climate catastrophe BS while still in a baby carriage.
Did you read the link I posted in reply to Ducky2?
What a disgrace – it’s already been removed from YouTube.
It’s still there- just watched a 2nd time.
Love this movie. Great job. Only a couple of nits. First, they could have done a better job citing the data charts they use to boost the credibility of the film. And I wish they had a segment on the failed predictions of the alarmists. But overall terrific.
They probably didn’t include failed predictions because they couldn’t find any made by climate scientists — ie, there are none
https://extinctionclock.org/
I looked over your list. There are no failed predictions made by climate scientists on the list.
James Hansen’s predictions all came true?
James Hansen never made any failed predictions, or for that matter, any predictions
Didn’t he say the Westsde Highway in NYC would be underwater? Does that not count as a prediction or failed?
No. Hansen was asked by a reporter to speculate on what might happen to the view from his office window if atm CO2 doubled. Hansen’s answer was a conditional answer , ie IF atm CO2 were doubled as suggested, then the West Side Highway might be under water in 40 years.
We’re obviously not even close to a doubling of CO2 since that time.
Uh, “ice free arctic”?
Actually searching this (at least in DDG), gives the first hit of National Snow and Ice Data Center site… with a clumsy attempt to move the goalposts.
It turns out this “ice free Arctic” meant “reduction of concentration by 15% [presumably, at any moment vs. some unspecified measure]”. Just like marking the food “fat free” means that fat concentration (not the total content in the entire product) is reduced by 15% (from… some unidentified benchmark).That’s leaving aside the meaning of “ice concentration” — rather than, for example, extent. Which is ridiculous in itself. Let us assume that somehow 15% less of covered surface is actual solid ice (if that’s what “ice concentration” is… but should this happen, whoever wrote this nonsense would surely wriggle out by claiming to have meant something else again) because the same ice is spread wider, thus now covers a greater area: this would satisfy the condition for “ice free Arctic”?Such retroactive “here’s what we have EKSHUALLY meant!” evasions after the nonsense was exposed is work on the level of Explanatory Universe junkyard of Disney Soy Wars (which managed to sink an unsinkable franchise to the point there were jokes like «I actually watched “Solo”… solo») — and it’s written about science on the official site of some “National … Data Center”.
is this the “failed prediction” you’re referring to?
“But according to a new study by UCLA climate scientists, human-caused climate change is on track to make the Arctic Ocean functionally ice-free for part of each year starting sometime between 2044 and 2067”.
Since 2044 is still 20 years away (and presumably you don’t have a Time Machine to check out the ice in 2044), how is this a ‘failed prediction?’
“They did not fail if they were edited later”? Because those are moved goalposts again. It used to be “ice-free arctic by 2023!!1”. And before that, 2008. With weasel words, of course.
That’s obviously not a failed prediction, but rather part of the normal improvements in scientific understanding as a result of ongoing research
Possibly the opposite. There are clearly 2 different problems:
science of the subject;corruption of science — on the subject and overall.Those are very different problems. Muddling them together occasionally is inevitable, but this leaves more places for the corruption to hide from floodlights.
For example, Climategate: history’s message by Moldbug does not wrestle with the theories of the subject at all (however entertaining the Spawn of Yamal problem might be), merely lists them. In fact, Moldbug points out that much the same could be done with an entirely correct theory, and that’s but another danger. The underlying problem is not in the specific theories at all, it’s that due to the observed relationship of science and power (i.e. corruption), the result on the policy side is necessarily either absent or… well, insane and evil.
Without corruption, bogus theories would have trouble doing harm. More so because on their own they are very unlikely to spread as wide, or live as long as even “N-rays” did. Science in itself is, indeed, self-correcting. Yes, the N-rays affair also was a mild (and sad) case of corruption, but on mere “feelz good” level, and as such easily fixed. What makes the bogus theories grow larger and go on longer than this is corruption ranging from industrial-level (like the cholesterol hysteria and lots of other quasi-medical campaigns) to being turned into a political formula and adopted by the current hegemon (like warm-mongering, various racebaiting, “gnedder studies”, and so on).
A climate movie? How about a drama version to add to this great documentary? If I was extremely wealthy I’d pay for it. I’d get some top movie actors. You may think most support the climate BS- probably true, but for enough money, I’m sure many would be happy to be in a “climate skeptical” movie. The film would have one scene showing the Climategate event- with those clowns firing off emails to each other. One scene could show the misery of the Little Ice Age and how a slight warming since then is an improvement for all of us. Another could show wind and solar industries thrilling to the billions in profits- the way lefty films show ff industry folks as evil. Gotta find a rather ugly actor to play Mickey Mann.