The Great Global Warming Swindle and Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth

This article was published in Korean on the Epoch Times Korea, May 6, 2024

Seok Soon Park, Ph.D. Former President of Korea National Institute of Environmental Research, Professor of Environmental Science & Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul Korea

On March 8, 2007, the British TV Channel 4 aired a documentary titled “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” This film was the complete opposite of the fourth report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released in February of the same year. It also directly challenged the documentary film “An Inconvenient Truth” by the 45th Vice President of the United States, Al Gore, released in 2006. At that time, fear of man made global warming was sweeping across the world due to the IPCC report and Al Gore’s film.

Under these circumstances, British brave director Martin Durkin produced and aired a documentary on TV denying man made global warming, based on interviews with world-class scientists and the Earth’s climate history. This film featured compelling interviews with several prominent scientists, including Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT in US. Even now, 17 years later, director Durkin’s outstanding screenplay and interviews with scientists are enough to argue that “global warming is a large-scale fraud.”

On the other hand, big lies were hidden in the IPCC’s fourth report and Al Gore’s film. Notable examples include the ‘Himalayan glacier gate’ and the ‘Antarctic Vostok Ice Core fraud.’ However, these lies passed scrutiny by the Nobel Peace Prize committee, and Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in October 2007. The Nobel Committee stated that their awarding was for their efforts in raising awareness of the seriousness of global warming and urging action to address the issue. Furthermore, the Committee linked their efforts to maintaining world peace, stating that “excessive competition for the Earth’s resources leads to global warming and, as a result, increases the risk of violent conflicts and wars.“

The ‘Himalayan Glacier Gate,’ which came to light after the award, is a lie that the huge Himalayan ice cap will melt by 2035. Taking advantage of this lie, Rajendra Pachauri, then chairman of the IPCC, received research funds of 2.5 million and 310,000 pounds from the European Union and the Carnegie Foundation, respectively, to his Indian research institute TERI(The Energy and Resource Institute). The justification was that the melting of all Himalayan glaciers would cause serious problems in drinking water supply for nearly 2 billion Asians. However, sceptics continued to raise suspicions, and in 2010, the IPCC admitted that it was a lie. The IPCC’s excuse was that the number of years 2350 described in a Russian paper was written as 2035 in typos. Misleading the world into climate panic and receiving large amounts of research funds due to the number typo is the absurdity level of the UN IPCC report.

Al Gore’s Vostok Ice Core fraud is even more ludicrous. In his film, Al Gore showed data from ice core in the Vostok station of Antarctica, as if CO2 had raised the Earth’s temperature, proclaiming, “The increasing CO2 will turn the Earth into a furnace in the future.” However, this was a blatant lie. It had already been proved by the peer reviewed papers in 1999 and 2003 published in the famous ‘Science’ journal, that the Earth’s temperature rose first, followed by a subsequent increase in CO2 levels several hundred years later. These papers also explain the reason with the perfect scientific theories. He reversed the cause and the result to deceive the world. Furthermore, during the Eemian interglacial period 120,000 years ago, the CO2 concentration did not reach 300ppm which is much lower than today, but the temperature was 8 degree Celsius higher than today. This is solid proof that CO2 doesn’t drive the Earth temperature increase. Yet, Al Gore ignored this solid proof to deceive the world.

Martin’s 2007 film was sufficient to expose to the world the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize, given without scientific validation, was nothing more than a shabby and shameful emblem. Not only that, but the film also wielded another remarkable power. A London truck driver who watched the film filed a lawsuit against the British government for attempting to screen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools, arguing that “the decision to show a politically one-sided film in schools is wrong.” He didn’t want his two children, who were attending school, to be exposed to “An Inconvenient Truth.“

The London High Court, which took charge of the ruling, examined the scientific truths behind Al Gore’s claims in “An Inconvenient Truth.” Ironically, the court released its judgment outlining nine scientific errors on October 10, one day before the announcement of Nobel Peace Prize. These errors included assertions made by Al Gore himself in the film, such as predictions of a 6-meter sea level rise and the submergence of Pacific atolls in near future due to global warming. The court pointed out that the film was produced in the context of “alarmism and exaggeration,” and that science had been manipulated for political advocacy purposes by politicians and publicity experts. In particular, some of the nine errors were deemed closer to falsehoods than exaggerations. While allowing the use of “An Inconvenient Truth” as a teaching resource in schools, the court also emphasized the importance of presenting opposing viewpoints to prevent one-sided arguments. The government received an order from the court to send 77-page guidelines for correction containing these contents to all schools.

In March of this year, after 17 years, Director Durkin released “Climate the Movie: the Cold Truth”, the Sequel to the 2007 “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Collaborating with American producer Tom Nelson, they crafted a more meticulous and solid script using scientific data released since then. It features interviews with world-renowned scientists such as the 2022 Nobel Prize laureate in physics Dr. John Clauser, along with William Harper, Steve Koonin, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, and others. The film has been uploaded on YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, and Bitchute, with subtitles in 29 languages, including Korean and Japanese, so that people around the world can watch it.

The film begins by explaining scientific facts such as the Earth’s climate history, the role of carbon dioxide, the true causes of climate change such as sun and cloud, and the trends in extreme weather events. In the latter part, it exposes the deceitful agreements, the climate bandwagon, and hidden politics behind the emergence of the ‘climate crisis’ narrative. It highlights how individuals’ freedoms and impoverished nations are severely affected. The film concludes in the final remark by stating, “There is a suspicion, or perhaps realisation, that climate change is an invented scare, driven by self-interest and snobbery, cynically promoted by a parasitic, publicly-funded establishment, hungry for ever more money and power. An assault on the freedom and prosperity of the rest of us.”

The film also reveals the basic truth that the climate scam was initiated by the environmental movement that regarded the free-market economy and industrial capitalism, which have brought prosperity to humanity, as it’s sworn enemy. The climate alarmists have been pouring increasingly apocalyptic narratives over the past 30 years, claiming that the catastrophes are imminent. However, none of the catastrophes has occurred, and casualties from climate disasters have rapidly decreased. They put people around the world under mass hypnosis called the ‘climate crisis’ with blatant lies. There is a Korean proverb that says, “Even the hard bank of a large reservoir can be easily collapsed by a small ant hole, if there is a flaw inside.“ The tremendous impact of this film, now accessible to audiences worldwide, is eagerly anticipated.

※Professor Seok Soon Park translated the subtitles of “Climate the Movie: The Cold Truth” into Korean. He currently serves as the South Korean ambassador for the World Climate Declaration by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (www.clintel.org) and a member of the CO2 Coalition (www.co2coalition.org). In 2021, he translated “Inconvenient Facts” by Gregory Wrightstone and “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom” by Patrick Moore into Korean. In 2023, he co-authored “Climate Apocalypse: the Greatest Scam in Human History,“ with British non-fiction writer David Craig, and wrote “[Fact Check] The Climate Crisis Myths” in Korean. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. in Environmental Science from Rutgers University (New Brunswick, New Jersey USA) in 1983 and 1985, after his B.S. from Seoul National University (Seoul, Korea) in 1980.

5 29 votes
Article Rating
108 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 10, 2024 2:42 am

A London truck driver who watched the film filed a lawsuit against the British government for attempting to screen Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” in schools, arguing that “the decision to show a politically one-sided film in schools is wrong.” He didn’t want his two children, who were attending school, to be exposed to “An Inconvenient Truth.“

_________________________________________________________________

I’m guessing this bloke was a bit more than just a truck driver (-: Anyway I didn’t know that part of the history of the UK lawsuit against Al Gore’s film.

And it’s a pretty good guess that our wonderful media will shortly begin publishing dirt on Dr. Seok Soon Park.

bobpjones
Reply to  Steve Case
May 10, 2024 2:59 am

And I wouldn’t be surprised, if the schools showing Al Gore’s lie, don’t give an alternative viewpoint.

Reply to  bobpjones
May 10, 2024 3:37 am

“schools… give an alternative viewpoint”
Won’t happen bobpjones, the dogma is officially entrenched in the curriculum.
Check out the comments on this:

Screenshot_20240510-063418_YouTube
observa
May 10, 2024 2:49 am

We’re not your lab rats and we’ll see about your fancy heat pumps and ‘heat networks’ –
Ministers halts plan to create ‘hydrogen town’ after safety protests (msn.com)

Reply to  observa
May 10, 2024 7:21 am

I still maintain heat pumps could solve global warming. Just run them until it cools off outside.

Ed Zuiderwijk
May 10, 2024 3:04 am

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al and the IPCC for:

‘their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change’.

This is important in two respects. It is more specific than just ‘global warming’. And, because mankind has barely any effect on climate it is greater knowledge about … nothing.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 10, 2024 3:10 am

It is a “Peace” prize….. like Yasser Arafat and O-bummer got. 😉

A totally meaningless counter-peace of used toilet paper, in other words.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 4:30 am

Giving Yasser Arafat a peace prize shows how crazy these people are.

Here is the citation on O’bummer’s peace prize award:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize

“The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to United States President Barack Obama (b. 1961) for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”.[1] The Norwegian Nobel Committee announced the award on October 9, 2009, citing Obama’s promotion of nuclear nonproliferation[2] and a “new climate” in international relations fostered by Obama, especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.[3][4]”

end excerpt

Obama’s efforts on behalf of the Mad Mullahs of Iran gave these madmen a path to a nuclear weapon, so was just the opposite of “nonproliferation and is not the way to reach out to the Muslim world, most of whom fear the Mad Mullahs of Iran.

Obama’s stupid, crazy successor, Joe Biden has practically guaranteed that the Mad Mullahs of Iran will acquire nuclear weapons. Mission Accomplished, Barack!

Obama wanted to make fundamental changes in the world, and he did. Unfortunately, those changes are detrimental to humanity.

Obama should have been given the “War prize” not the “Peace prize., because his actions assist and embolden the Very Bad People in this World, in this case, the fanatic Islamic terrorists.

And note this Nobel Peace Prize was given to Obama just nine months after he became president. It was a political statement, not an award for any specific thing.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2024 7:41 am

EXACTLY!

Coming up next: Joe Biden to be awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for his accomplishments of “being Joe Biden”.

bobpjones
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 8:34 am

Actually, it could be for falling off his bike. He didn’t have a bell on his handlebar.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 9:48 am

Correction: of “remembering he is Joe Biden.”

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2024 8:21 am

A lot of Nobel Peace Prizes awarded for the Middle East. When was the last time we had peace in the Middle East?

Temporarily, during the first Trump Administration. He should have been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for the Abraham Accords, BTW. That was an historical achievement.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 10, 2024 6:52 pm

Yeah, and Trump wiped out the Islamic Terror Army in a matter of weeks.

You know, the Islamic Terror Army that was rampaging all over the Middle East, killing and displacing millions of people, while Obama and Biden sat by and watched it all happen. A lot of those displaced persons are living in Europe now. Thanks Barack and Joe.

Trump came into office and made short work of the Islamic Terror Army. Trump had the same military as Obama and Biden had, but the difference is Trump was willing to use it to stop the Bad Guys, whereas Obama and Biden were not. I’m not sure Obama and Biden can tell the Bad Guys from the Good Guys. They always seem to side with the Bad Guys for some reason.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 11, 2024 8:58 am

Trump and Obama had different ideas of who the “bad guys” were.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2024 10:49 am

Obama was at war with Afghanistan every day of his eight years.

U.S. military forces have been at war for all eight years of Obama’s tenure, the first two-term president with that distinction. He launched airstrikes or military raids in at least seven countries: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. But compare with A. Hitler, he was a man of peace.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 11, 2024 7:35 am

And, if course, today we all can see just how effective Obama’s “war with Afghanistan” was.

ROTFL.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 11, 2024 8:56 am

The non-proliferation movement going back to the beginning of the movement, was always about disarming the US and the west.

Obama was nominated for the Peace Prize before he even took office. Prior to taking office he had no record of doing anything and certainly had no record of international activity.

Obama was given the prize for beating Bush, who was always hated by the international socialists.

bobpjones
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
May 10, 2024 8:32 am

Aye, and they award the Peace Prize to Obama, who turned out to be the worst warmonger the US had.

May 10, 2024 3:07 am

Please check the words
 Furthermore, during the Eemian interglacial period 120,000 years ago, the CO2 concentration did not reach 300ppm which is much lower than today, but the temperature was 8 degree Celsius higher than today.”
It seems to me extrange (see Vinos (2024) p. 252 Figure 56 based on Jouzel et (2007) Science 317, Vinos 2023 Climate of the past)

Emian_TT_CO2
Reply to  Jose Carlos Gonzalez_Hidalgo
May 10, 2024 4:44 am

I had a very similar reaction on reading that.

“… CO2 concentration did not reach 300ppm …”, yes.

“… temperature was 8 degree Celsius higher than today …”, definitely not (from the ice-core data, at least).

Note that I, like many people apparently, use the “polar amplification” rule of thumb to approximate proxy temperatures from ice-core measurements (dD ratios) for the last 800,000 years or so as :
“GMST ~= Antarctic temperatures / 2”

That has global mean surface temperatures in the Eemian peaking around 2 to 2.5°C warmer than “now” (either 1950 or 1980 for the ice-cores ?), not 4°C (= 8°C / 2).

EPICA-Vostok_Eemian-to-Holocene_1
May 10, 2024 3:07 am

Great to see this great piece of work translated and disseminated in other languages. 🙂

WELL DONE , sir !!

MrGrimNasty
May 10, 2024 3:14 am

Yes, the High Court pointed out that political indoctrination was unlawful under the education act.

One can only gaze on in disbelief as to what has happened in education since the Gore film decision.

May 10, 2024 3:21 am

Actually, the IPCC AR4 report did get one thing wrong – so far anyway.

It states:

For the next two decades, a warming of about +0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios.

In fact, warming from 2007 up to now has proceeded at a rate of +0.3°C per decade across all global temperature data sets, including UAH satellite data.

There’s just about enough time for warming to slow down before the two decade period expires; so they might still turn out to be right.

strativarius
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 10, 2024 4:03 am

There’s just about enough time

On a decadal basis. No less.

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 10, 2024 9:49 am

Yes, I’ve questioned this too.

I maintain that warming from 2017 has actually been 0.34678 C to be precise, which truncated to the imprecision of just one decimal place would make it 0.4C.

Not 0.2 or 0.3 C, but 0.4 C

How hard is it for us all to just follow the science, people??

Reply to  Mr.
May 10, 2024 11:15 am

While it is irrelevant for either temperature or climate, that five decimal place figure rounded to one decimal place is 0.3, not 0.4.

Reply to  AndyHce
May 10, 2024 12:45 pm

You are obviously right but you are also right when you say it is irrelevant.

No part of the world has a mean temperature over a decade that is meaningful to ±0.1°C.
For a start, day and night have completely different energy transfer patterns and days and nights vary through the year meaning you are measuring different things over each 24htr period as the Earth obits the Sun..
n-10 does not give the precision required give a meaningful decadal temperature.

And then there’s land use change over a decade.
And then there’s geographical averaging, as well.
And then there’s confounding changes in humidity…

Mr.
Reply to  AndyHce
May 10, 2024 12:48 pm

See that’s what I’m talking about!

These deliberate miscalculations will make all the difference between our world becoming inhabitable.
Or not being habitable.

Reply to  Mr.
May 10, 2024 1:00 pm

I maintain that warming from 2017 has actually been 0.34678 C to be precise…

Oh. What’s this got to do with warming since 2007?

Mr.
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 10, 2024 2:57 pm

You didn’t use enough decimal places to make the anomaly trend look “sciency”.

4 decimal places is barely adequate, 6 is about right, 1 is totally unconvincing as “sciency”.

Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 3:30 am

Climate the Awful Movie as described by the conservative king of sunspot junk science is an example of conservative science denying.

Somehow conservatives think their junk science will refute the much more popular leftists junk science

Leftist junk science is CAGW predictions

Conservative junk science is claiming ot implying AGW does not exists. And CO2 emissions as a climate forcing is a myth. The conclusions abiut manmade CO2 emissions are usually made with historical wild guessed climates THAT DO NOT INCLUDE ANY MANMADE CO2 emissions.

“Martin Durkin produced and aired a documentary on TV denying man made global warming”

Durkin is a gift to leftist climate alarmists

People who deny all manmade causes of climate change are science deniers. They are conservatives who shoot themselves in th foot to entertain leftists, and get ridiculed for good reasons if they ever communicate with leftists,

Not only do the There Is No AGW Nutters contradict almost 100% of climate scientists since 1896, but that nearly 100% includes at least 95% of the skeptic scientists ON OUR SIDE. Such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, both quoted in a movie where the main message contradicts their science

Soo is a junk science king because he has spent pmany ecades using cherry picked incomoetent sunspot data to reach a false conclusion. It has been known sice the late 19700s that sunspot counts are an incompetent proxy for top of the atmosphere TSO yet Soon clings to his sunspot counts like a childd clings to a security blanket

Combine Climate the Awful Movie with Soon’s pontifications and you get this false message:

AGW does not exists
The sun is the climate control knob
That’s why this movie and Soon should be ignore

The sad state of affarirs in climate scoence is that people who agree that AGW exists can’t say it has been harmless

They are p[[psed y people who can not bear to admit that AGW exists.

This is like a debate between Dumb and DMBER

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:00 am

And you are several steps below any of the real scientist you rant at…

You are a scientific NON-ENTITY.

That is why YOU and your juvenile non-science comments should be ignored.

Do you have any real evidence for CO2 warming?

Both Happer and Lindzen have said that if there is any warming from CO2, (based on radiative calculations only), it is trivial and unmeasurable.

Do you have any measurement to show otherwise?

You are, BY FAR, the dumbest… and the most in denial of actual science.

A leftist, open-closet AGW lukewarmer apostle. !

It is noted that you have not produce one bit of actual science to counter anything shown in this solid, factual movie.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 4:19 am

“Both Happer and Lindzen have said that if there is any warming from CO2, (based on radiative calculations only), it is trivial and unmeasurable”

You arer lying
Working together, they estimated warming of +1 degree C. with CO2 x 2

Working alone, Happer has estimated +1 degree C. warming, but the latest estimate I read was +0.7 degrees C., which appears to inclue no water vapor positive feedback.

Lindzen and Happer publish papers estimating AGW from CO2. They never claim AGW does not exist. That would be you, talking to yourself.

Coming from the Quadruple Climate Nutter, bNasty, I would be very concerned if you ever agreed with any real climate science in my comments.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 8:01 am

“Lindzen and Happer publish papers estimating AGW from CO2.”

Those very same papers state that global warming from adding CO2 to the atmosphere has essentially asymptotically saturated at about 340 ppm (i.e., the effect on global atmospheric warming from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration above about 340 ppm is essentially insignificant). We are currently at about 420 ppm global atmospheric concentration CO2.

Like many things in nature that follow decreasing exponential trends, one has to consider the exact range of CO2 concentration/ECS that is being discussing. You haven’t done so.

Richard Greene
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 8:27 am

CO2 “has essentially asymptotically saturated at about 340 ppm (i.e., the effect on global atmospheric warming from increased atmospheric CO2 concentration above about 340 ppm is essentially insignificant).

That is total BS
Lindzen and Happer never say that.

If they believed CO2 had saturated above 340ppm, then why would they bother writing so many papers estimating the effect of CO2 doubling from the current 420 ppm

The CO2 is saturated myth is a little more sophisticated than the usual conservative climate myths. I could not find a good article to refute it, so I wrote my own. After 43 years of writing financial and economics articles, I had been retired from such writing for the past four years.

CO2 is not close to being saturated and will never be saturated

The Greenhouse Effect: The CO2 is Saturated Myth

CO2 Does Nothing Nutters claim almost 100% of climate scientists are wrong about the greenhouse effect and the fact that more CO2 adds to it. A person with some intelligence would see this as an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: tThe Greenhouse Effect: The CO2 is Saturated Myth

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 1:03 pm

Let’s see.. three actual real scientists doing real science…

… vs a scientific non-entity… who’s only “science” is the science of bluster.

3 Physicists Use Experimental Evidence To Show CO2’s Capacity To Absorb Radiation Has Saturated (notrickszone.com)

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 11, 2024 8:03 am

“That is total BS

Lindzen and Happer never say that.”

Well in refuting that statement there is this:
“F. Atmospheric CO2 is Now “Heavily Saturated”, Which in Physics Means Even Doubling CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect’
“This means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little impact on global warming. There is no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like, with little warming effect.
“Doubling CO2 concentrations, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, a 100% increase, 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 (about 2° F) of surface warming for every doubling of CO2 concentrations.
“Saturation also explains why temperatures were not catastrophically high over the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 levels were 10-20 times higher than they are today, shown in the chart above.
“Further, saturation also provides another reason why reducing the use of fossil fuels to ‘net zero’ by 2050 would have a trivial impact on climate, also contradicting the theory it is urgently necessary to eliminate fossil fuel CO2 to avoid catastrophic global warming.”
— W. Happer and R, Lindzen, Comments and Declarations on the
Department of Transportation National Performance Management Measures Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 87 Fed. Reg. 42401 (July 15, 2022)
[download available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FHWA-2021-0004-39826/attachment_1.pdf

The above publication by Happer and Lindzen makes specific reference to the attached graph when discussing CO2 “saturation” in Earth’s atmosphere.

Of course, you are quite free to continue to ignore such science-based arguments that intrude on your confirmation bias.

Happer_and_Lindzen_CO2_Sat
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 12:48 pm

Estimating, using radiative processes only, using the erroneous conjecture of CO2 warming.

And then you quote a value that over the time period is both trivial and immeasurable, because it is less than normal climate variability. Very funny !!

Is that all you have ??

Still waiting for your measurements… and waiting…. and waiting.

There is very little “real” science in your comments… mostly just bluster.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 5:11 am

You are a scientific NON-ENTITY …

You are, BY FAR, the dumbest …

“Richard Greene” is a semi-anonymous poster on WUWT (and elsewhere, e.g. Climate Change Dispatch) who has the unfortunate tendencies of :

1) only providing references / links / data after multiple requests (if at all), and

2) often limiting themselves exclusively to the “Name Calling and/or Abuse” level of Paul Graham’s debate pyramid (copy attached below)

which massively undermines any valid points he may make from time to time.

.
.
.

So is “bnice2000”.

That is why YOU and your juvenile non-science comments should be ignored …

It is noted that you have not produce[d] one bit of actual science …

Paul-Graham_Debate-Pyramid
Richard Greene
Reply to  Mark BLR
May 10, 2024 8:33 am

You might note that BeNasty and some others reflexively respond to my posts with insults and then they get insulted in return.

When I criticize an article, I explain why the author is wrong.

Others believe stand alone insults are all that they need to post

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 9:27 am

If you would stop shouting and demeaning the scientists and their research so much you would get a better reception and discussion, but you show a tendency to be unapproachable because you start by saying it is bad very loudly in bolded sentences without making a cogent argument others can follow with sources when needed.

Your reputation is bad Richard……..

Richard Greene
Reply to  Sunsettommy
May 10, 2024 10:55 am

I always wanted a bad reputation

Joan Jett – Bad Reputation (youtube.com)

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 2:07 pm

Rational people usually improve because they heed others who are trying to be helpful you on the other hand you seem to resist wanting to be helped.

Too bad.

MarkW
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 11, 2024 9:05 am

In other words, you post here just to make yourself feel good about yourself. It’s all an ego thing. Perhaps if you had a friend, you wouldn’t be so desperate to build up your ego.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 12, 2024 8:16 am

“When I criticize an article, I explain why the author is wrong.”

Hah!

“Conservative junk science is claiming ot implying AGW does not exists. And CO2 emissions as a climate forcing is a myth. The conclusions abiut manmade CO2 emissions are usually made with historical wild guessed climates THAT DO NOT INCLUDE ANY MANMADE CO2 emissions.
“. . . Not only do the There Is No AGW Nutters contradict almost 100% of climate scientists since 1896, but that nearly 100% includes at least 95% of the skeptic scientists ON OUR SIDE. Such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, both quoted in a movie where the main message contradicts their science
“. . . Soo {Willie Soon – TYS} is a junk science king because he has spent pmany ecades using cherry picked incomoetent sunspot data to reach a false conclusion.”
—as posted by you (with original misspellings) on WUWT May 10, 2024 3:30 am, without any “explanations” of why the cited authors are “wrong”.

“That is total BS
Lindzen and Happer never say that.
“. . . CO2 is not close to being saturated and will never be saturated.”
—as posted by you on WUWT May 10, 2024 8:27 am, in total ignorance of their article freely available at https://downloads.regulations.gov/FHWA-2021-0004-39826/attachment_1.pdf

Methinks the evidence stands against you.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 10:04 am

Here you go again…! For goodness sake grow up and restrict yourself to points of substance.

And get them right, what you say about Happer and Lindzen is just your own invention.

All you are producing is contemptuous dismissal of anything you say.

Reply to  michel
May 10, 2024 12:50 pm

You are talking to RG , I assume.

Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 12:30 pm

I’d like to thank Mr.Greene for commenting at length, it makes reading the comments so much faster as there are huge comments I can just skip right over without missing anything.

Reply to  Nansar07
May 12, 2024 8:51 am

. . . except for the fact that it needlessly uses up Internet bandwidth.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:01 am

Answer me a simple question.

Apart from a slight and very beneficial natural warming since the coldest period in 10,000 years.

How has the global climate changed. ?

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
May 10, 2024 4:29 am

As the climate improved from more CO2 and warming since the cool late 1600s, the climate alarmists got hysterical and made it impossible to enjoy the best climate in at least 5000 years. The warming was natural from the 1690s to about 1975, and then manmade CO2 emissions made the warming faster, but still beneficial.

Unfortunately, the warming since 1975 is being abused by leftists to implement a transition to leftist fascism, forcing completely unnecessary Nut Zero on us.

We can’t stop Nut Zero by claiming AGW does not exist.

Nut Zero is not justified by AGW

Nut Zero is justified by CAGW

CAGW does not exist.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 12:51 pm

So, apart from slight natural warming… absolutely no statement of how the climate has changed..

OK !

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 12, 2024 9:05 am

“. . . the climate alarmists got hysterical and made it impossible to enjoy the best climate in at least 5000 years.”

I am unclear on how, exactly, they did that. I have greatly enjoyed Earth’s climate over the last 70 or so years of my life. I also understand that my ancestors, dating back at least 400 years, also enjoyed Earth’s benign climate over that timespan. None of my friends and associates have ever complained of not enjoying Earth’s climate.

Are you having nightmares, or just difficulty distinguishing imagination from reality?

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:06 am

conservative science denying.

We’re in good fooling today…

Richard Greene
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:08 am

Sorry, my computer crashed before I was done editing the prior comment

The sad state of affairs in climate science is that people who agree that AGW exists can’t say AGW has been harmless

They are opposed by people who can not bear to admit that AGW exists.

Modern climate science is often like a debate is between Dumb and Dumber.

In the movie John Clauser said

“Yes I can assert that there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and Climate Change.”

Clauser is obviously a moron on the subject of climate science, and his quote a huge gift for leftists.

Skeptical Science publishes a list if 25 myths in the movie, While I do not agree with about half of the claimed myths, that means the other half make sense. This movie was too easy to fact check.

Climate – the Movie: a hot mess of (c)old myths! (skepticalscience.com)

Climate alarmists HAVE BEEN MAKING WRONG PREDICTIONS ABOUT THE FUTURE CLIMATE SINCE THE 1970s.

The 100% wrong CAGW climate predictions are easy to refute and laugh at in a movie. No need for There Is No AGW science denying in a movie.

strativarius
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:44 am

Sorry, my computer crashed”

I can’t say I’m surprised.

bobpjones
Reply to  strativarius
May 10, 2024 8:38 am

It probably thought, “I’m not posting that heap of 💩” and died out of shame. 😀

observa
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 5:16 am

…and with your proxies showing historically warming precedes CO2 rise by some centuries how do you get your cart before the horse so conveniently now? Geology had given us the null hypothesis that the climate is always changing and you lot came up with a new kid on the block theory warming is now down to CO2 all kicked off with a phoney hockey stick graph. That’s the really big picture if you weather worriers can get off your touchphones and enjoy the interglacial.

Richard Greene
Reply to  observa
May 10, 2024 8:42 am

The proxies do not include the climate forcing effect of manmade CO2 emissions

CO2 can be a feedback, a forcing and part of the seasonal carbon cycle flows during a year

These are three separate processes involving CO2 that happen at the same time.

Conservatives often seem transfixed by CO2 as a feedback of changes in ocean temperature.

Sometimes they only look at the CO2 emissions half of the seasonal carbon cycle while completely ignoring the other CO2 absorption half.

The carbon cycle data mining reminds me of El Nino Nutters like BeNasty, who look at the El Ninos and completely ignore La Ninas.

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 11, 2024 8:29 am

“The proxies do not include the climate forcing effect of manmade CO2 emissions”

I find it absolutely amazing that nature is able to distinguish “manmade CO2” from “naturally occurring CO2” and thereby knows to how to respond to the differences in forcings from these two separate sources.

/sarc off

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 11:48 am

Richard Greene:

In spite of your belief, it can be PROVEN that CO2 does not cause any global warming:

See: “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”

https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.21.3.0884

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 4:43 am

“Such as Richard Lindzen and William Happer, both quoted in a movie where the main message contradicts their science”

Dr. Happer said CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) is a hoax. I know you agree with that, as do I.

I particularly like the “Rural Temperature Record” as presented in “Climate the Movie”. It showed that there is no unprecedented warming today as measured by rural weather stations, unaffected by UHI effects.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2024 5:11 am

I particularly like the “Rural Temperature Record” as presented in “Climate the Movie”. It showed that there is no unprecedented warming today as measured by rural weather stations, unaffected by UHI effects.

The only problem is it’s not true.

NOAA’s ‘pristine’ USCRN data, which is featured on the side panel of this site, is warming at a faster rate than the adjusted ClimDiv data over their joint period of measurement (from Jan 2005, USCRN shows +1.32F warming per decade versus +1.09F in ClimDiv).

This is easy to check at source, so we don’t have to get all our information from crank movies.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 10, 2024 8:11 am

“NOAA’s ‘pristine’ USCRN data . . .”

Hah!

Here is what NOAA itself admits regarding USCRN temperature measurement data under “IMPORTANT NOTES”:
(ref: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/monthly01/readme.txt ):

“I. On 2013-01-07 at 1500 UTC, USCRN began reporting corrected surface temperature measurements for some stations. These changes impact previous users of the data because the corrected values differ from uncorrected values. To distinguish between uncorrected (raw) and corrected surface temperature measurements, a surface temperature type field was added to the monthly product. The possible values of the this field are “R” to denote raw surface temperature measurements, “C” to denote corrected surface temperature measurements, and “U” for unknown/missing.” 
(my bold emphasis added)

Overall, there is no such thing as “pristine’ USCRN data.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 9:49 am

It is even worse than you think. The anomalies for CRN stations are created from data from stations “nearby” as the CRN data doesn’t start until 2005 or so. There is no 30-year window to use in creating anomalies for individual CRN stations. I have not found any CRN station where the raw data shows a statistically significant positive temperature trend. I have only checked about 1/3 of the stations, so there could be some.

Reply to  Nelson
May 10, 2024 12:56 pm

The anomalies for CRN stations are created from data from stations “nearby” as the CRN data doesn’t start until 2005 or so. 

USCRN comes from sites adjudged to be unaffected by contaminants such as UHI.

ClimDiv data come from a mix of sites, including those known to be affected by things like UHI. Adjustments are made to the raw data to account for this.

Here’s the thing: the unadjusted data are warming faster than the adjusted data. This suggest that, if anything, the adjustments are slowing the warming trend in ClimDiv.

Well, well.

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 12:50 pm

Overall, there is no such thing as “pristine’ USCRN data.

Anthony Watts take note, because this site flogs USCRN as the best US temperature data set. See the side-bar.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 11, 2024 8:32 am

Hmmmm . . . you cannot see a difference between “pristine” and having the “best US temperature data”?

Why am I not surprised.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
May 10, 2024 8:58 am

The movie implies, especially in the first 30 minutes, that CO2 is not a climate forcing. Lindzen and Happer never say that but including their unrelated quotes in the movie implies they agree with the main message,

The all rural allegedly perfectly sited USCRN weather station trend since 2005 is +0.34 degrees C. warming per decade.

+0.34 degrees C. per decade is slightly faster than the average prediction of CAGW by the IPCC, of about +0.3 degrees C. per decade.

USCRN is contrary data refuting the claim that there is no rural warming.

Either USCRN is wrong, or almost 300 million Americans have been living with CAGW since 2005, and did not notice.

Based only on the winter warming in Michigan, I can’t refute the USCRN numbers

For over 26 years I have been saying I love global warming and object to wild guess, always wrong predictions of CAGW

If US warming since 2005 qualified as CAGW, then I love CAGW too. The only real catastrophe would be global cooling.

bobpjones
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 6:06 am

This is like a debate between Dumb and DMBER”

And that is why your side, is afraid to debate, blocks any scientific material, that challenges your/their orthodoxy. Has total control over the peer review process, threatens the livelihood of respectable scientists with defunding, loss of position etc. The ones who are in denial are those who insist CAGW is real and a present danger.

And despite all the claims and scaremongering, never ever provide one shred of evidence. They are the DUMBER, especially if you think, we’ll ever believe you.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bobpjones
May 10, 2024 9:17 am

Dumb is predictions of CAGW
Dumber is claims AGW is a hoax

If AGW is a hoax
then

(1) CO2 does nothing

(2) SO2 does nothing

(3) UHI does not change

(4) Albedo does not change from land use changes

(5) GAT statistics are not biased and adjustments / infilling o not exaggerate warming, or even create warming out of thin air

All five are part of AGW

There may be more

Solar farms change albedo

Windmills absorb wind energy and change the weather for people and other windmills located downwind

Wind turbines could steal as much as 38% of the power off turbines downwind and even from ones 50 kilometers away « JoNova (joannenova.com.au)

bobpjones
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 9:39 am

Perhaps one day, you’ll learn just how big this earth is. All my life, I’ve seen what the destruction of storms etc. have done to mankind’s attempts to combat the elements.

And we’ve always been told about the ‘power of mother nature’ and how futile our attempts are to thwart her.

Yet all of a sudden, we are the powerful God almighty, who is drastically altering the earth’s climate.

Get real son!

Richard Greene
Reply to  bobpjones
May 10, 2024 11:05 am

I am too old to be a son

The transition to global fascism is the worst event in my lifetime. It is being justified to save the planet, which does not need saving,

We need to shoot down the 44 years of wrong CAGW predictions

We can not do that by declaring AGW is a hoax. Or there is no greenhouse effect. Or CO2 is 97% natural. All of those myths are counterproductive.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 2:59 pm

“I am too old to be a son”

Richard, You make yet another stupid statement !!
You are & always will be, the son of your parents.

resiurkigam
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 6:49 am

The movie was great. Resources allocated towards discovering natural climate change have been shoved to the wayside in favor of anthropogenic, and look how that’s turned out for the field: it’s one of the worst fields of science now. The literature I’ve read from the mainstream perspective felt like a significant waste of my time. It’s no surprise that naive people like you steadfastly support its conclusions.

Richard Greene
Reply to  resiurkigam
May 10, 2024 9:25 am

Almost 100% of climate scientists since 1896 support AGW

About 59% support CAGW predictions based on a 2022 survey. I am not part of the 59% and have never been since the first day I started reading about climate science in 1997.

On that day, I made my first and only climate prediction: “The climate will get warmer unless it gets colder”

In 1997 I dismissed 100 year climate predictions as nonsense and thought people could not take them seriously. But they did.

In 2007 I wrote a climate article for my newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC, after I realized the scary climate predictions were being taken seriously.

Richard Greene
Reply to  resiurkigam
May 10, 2024 11:07 am

You must enjoy science fiction

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 8:28 am

A simple question:

How much of the current climate is attributable to human causes? Is it 50%? 90%, less than 10%? How much is natural? Or is it 100% due to human causes?

To rephrase, what would the climate be without the influence of human civilization? If you want, use 1900 as a reference. If human population and emissions were unchanged since 1900, what would the climate be? Use any year as a reference, that was just an example.

Mr.
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 10, 2024 9:57 am

Good question, but which climates are we talking about?

(There are hundreds if not thousands of the buggers all around the world)

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 10, 2024 10:28 am

Its probably not possible to say on the evidence currently available, and it is certainly the main question.

The evidence does seem to support Richard Greene: there is probably some warming due to human emissions of CO2, but it is not alarming.

And it certainly doesn’t justify the current wind and solar mania, which will neither deliver usable electricity nor reduce emissions.

Richard Greene
Reply to  michel
May 10, 2024 11:23 am

“The evidence does seem to support Richard Greene: there is probably some warming due to human emissions of CO2, but it is not alarming”

Not alarming is too weak

Warming is great news
More CO2 is great news
800 ppm CO2 should be a goal,
not a boogeyman

A planet with so many people who believe CO2 is a pollutant is an anti-science planet.



Reply to  michel
May 10, 2024 12:56 pm

but it is not alarming.

Trivial and immeasurable.

Richard Greene
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 10, 2024 11:16 am

How much of the current climate is attributable to human causes?

No one knows
But there is more evidence of manmade warming, mainly because so few people are looking for evidence of natural waring

Since 1975, about 2.3 of the climate records have been TMIN and 1/3 have been TMAX

Manmade greenhouse warming is most likely to affect TMIN and solar warmin is most likely toi affect TMAX

Therefore, my wild guess is
2/3 manmade
1/3 natural

Any other wild guess is just as useful, or useless, except 100% natural or 100% manmade. Both require ignoring too much data.

Maybe the best anser is “Who cares?”
Enjoy the warmer climate and hope it does not get colder.

resiurkigam
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 1:34 pm

because so few people are looking for evidence of natural waring

So, why bash people for speculating that nature is the overwhelming cause of modern warming?

Reply to  resiurkigam
May 11, 2024 1:11 am

Because they claim certainty for what are no more than speculations. And if they go over to claiming certainty for the speculation that nature is not only the overwhelming cause, but the only cause, of modern warming, they are being totally unscientific. Its most implausible that there is no effect at all from CO2 rises.

I don’t find RG’s argument from Tmax and Tmin convincing. Its more speculation. The fact is we do not know He does at least identify it as speculation.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  michel
May 11, 2024 8:01 am

“I don’t find RG’s argument from Tmax and Tmin convincing. Its more speculation. The fact is we do not know He does at least identify it as speculation.”

No? – well you should do:

The meteorological reasoning is simple…. 
At night (especially in winter) in the right conditions, a surface/boundary lyr inversion forms and as such there is very limited depth of atmosphere that contains the extra heat retained by CO2 molecules to affect (~ 100’s feet often).

During daytime, especially away from the winter months, then convection/mixing will increase the mixing lyr to 1000’s of feet.
Hence lifting/mixing surface heat very much more thoroughly.

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/asl.810

“Abstract
We investigate the time trends in the maximum and minimum temperatures in the United States from 1895 to 2017 using techniques that allow for fractional integration in the detrended series. In doing so we get more accurate estimates of the trends than those obtained using standard methods that impose either stationarity I(0) or non-stationarity I(1). Our results reveal evidence of significant positive trends in both maximum and minimum temperatures, while the difference between them show a significant negative trend as a consequence of the higher increase in the minimum temperatures. Evidence of stationary long memory behavior is also found in the three series examined.”

comment image

Note: top 2 graphs have different vertical axis scales

Reply to  Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 7:18 pm

How much of the current climate is attributable to human causes?

No one knows”

That’s the bottom line.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 11, 2024 7:16 am

More Soylent Green:

Your question cannot be answered. Climate is controlled by the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, primarily from volcanic eruptions.

If they start increasing significantly, we have a LIA.

If their incidence decreases significantly, we have the MWP

Currently, we are headed toward the MWP

May 10, 2024 3:49 am

Just one word I saw somewhere sums it up quite nicely:

CO2MMUNISM

Richard Greene
Reply to  Eric Vieira
May 10, 2024 4:34 am

The college students seem to prefer communism but the leftist leaders prefer fascism

With fascism the leftist leaders tell the privately owned companies what to do, and when there is a problem, they can blame greedy capitalists

With communism, the leaders own the companies, so can never blame greedy capitalists for failures.

strativarius
May 10, 2024 4:00 am

The court pointed out…

That was then and now it’s a very different story. The judiciary has fallen into line…

“A judge who let Extinction Rebellion eco warriors walk free from court reportedly told them: “You have to succeed.”

according to notes taken by an academic in court, District Judge David Noble publicly thanked them for their “courage” and “integrity”.
The notes quote him as saying: “When I started, I was fully expecting to see the usual crowd of anarchists and communists.
have to say I have been totally overwhelmed by all the defendants. It is such a pleasure to deal with people so different from those I deal with in my regular life.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-praises-extinction-rebellion-activists-21458539

You can’t make it up.

Scissor
Reply to  strativarius
May 10, 2024 5:09 am

It seems that Greta and her antifa “young people” pals like those with XR have decided to side with the terrorist rapists on the Palestine/Israel conflict. This next year should be interesting.

strativarius
Reply to  Scissor
May 10, 2024 6:31 am

Post climate protest

or. they go to whatever protest is current

Reply to  Scissor
May 10, 2024 8:15 am

This image says all that you need to know re: Greta (taken for the right-hand sidebar)

663b5e9bdc6198-34920057
Mr.
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 9:59 am

Was that pic taken when the kid next to her cut the cheese?

Richard Greene
Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 11:25 am

20 YARD PENATY FOR POSTNG THAT GRETA PICTURE

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 10, 2024 1:02 pm

Grown men, terrified of a child. Lol!

MarkW
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 11, 2024 9:13 am

Disrespect is proof of fear?
Have you always been so bad at human interactions?

Reply to  ToldYouSo
May 11, 2024 9:11 am

My understanding is that she holds an international trademark on the sneer.

Reply to  Scissor
May 10, 2024 8:33 am

It would be fun to have Greta and her fellow travelers live in Gaza or the West Bank for 5 years or so. Not as celebrities, but living the same life as the typical Palestinian female.

Reply to  strativarius
May 10, 2024 8:31 am

Different courts will look at the same case and come to different conclusions.

Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 10, 2024 8:33 am

It would be fun to have Greta and her fellow travelers live in Gaza or the West Bank for 5 years or so. Not as celebrities, but living the same life as the typical Palestinian female.

MarkW
Reply to  More Soylent Green!
May 11, 2024 9:15 am

I would love to see all of the people who support Hamas be required to live under Hamas for even a year.

Ireneusz
May 10, 2024 5:12 am

Why Russians won’t believe in global warming. Will Americans feel the effects of La Niña in the winter?

comment image
comment image

May 10, 2024 8:30 am

I found the movie here: https://climatethemovie.net/

Apologies if this has already been posted. I haven’t had time to review all the comments.

Richard Greene
May 10, 2024 10:43 am

Proof the Catastrophic Global Warming (CAGW) is not even a problem, besides being a wrong prediction since 1979:

The IPCC says CAGW, based on climate confuser games, will average +0.3 degrees C. warming per decade.

The UAH global average temperature satellite record reflects +0.15 degrees C. warming per decade since 1979, half the warming rate predicted since 1979.

The best US weather station network, USCRN, with all rural, properly sited locations, not affected by economic growth, reflects +0.34 degrees C. warming per decade since 2005, when it began operation.

That means the US has been having CAGW since 2005 and no one even noticed. 19 years of a climate catastrophe that harmed no one. How is that a climate catastrophe? It’s not.

Coeur de Lion
May 11, 2024 1:32 am

WRT the global warming question, I worry and worry again about the Keeling Curve. When one looks at the magnified last four years which encapsulate the COVID deindustrialisation one notices the idiosyncratic sawtooth caused by northern hemisphere vegetation which remains the same with a dead straight alignment of the peaks and troughs over the years. Why is this not remarked? The corollary is that human CO2 has no effect. Disprove me, go on.

Reply to  Coeur de Lion
May 12, 2024 12:40 pm

Coeur de Lion:

Earlier in this thread, I proved your corollary

Verified by MonsterInsights