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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.