Climate Skeptical Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT on Fox Business with ‘Varney & Company’ with Stuart Varney on March 6, 2015:
Selected highlights:
Lindzen on VP Joe Biden saying ‘Denying climate change is like denying gravity.’
Lindzen: ‘He’s absolutely right. Climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and on all time scales.
This is the problem. These guys think saying climate changes, saying it gets warmer or colder by a few tenths of a degree should be taken as evidence that the end of the world is coming. And it completely ignores the fact that until this hysteria, climate scientists used to refer to the warm periods in our history as optima.
Lindzen on CO2: ‘So here we are demonizing a chemical — a molecule essential to life – CO2– we are declaring doom based on things we used to like and somehow we are supposed to overturn our whole economy in order to deal with this purported disaster.’
Lindzen on EPA Chief: ‘Obviously I don’t think [the science] matters to [EPA Chief] McCarthy. She has a political aim. She has her marching orders and they are the orders regardless of what the underlying science is.’
Lindzen on what impact EPA regs will have on climate: ‘No matter what you believe about climate, none of them will have any impact on climate. They do make energy more expensive less available, less useful, they do hurt the poor, and they raise prices. It’s hard to see what the upside is excerpt for the people who get the subsidies. The whole thing is fairly absurd. There is so much money changing hands.’
Related Link:
MIT’s Dr. Lindzen in WSJ: ‘The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics’ – ‘Billions of dollars have been poured into studies supporting climate alarm…even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating’ – Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Members of Congress send inquisitorial letters to universities, energy companies, even think tanks.’ The climate has been changing since the Earth was formed. This normal course is now taken to be evidence of doom. ‘Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.’
403 Responses
The earth has entered a 200 year cooling cycle, sun cycle 25 new grand minimum…
Does the Earth know that?
berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf
Funny. For a scientist it seems the interview was on talking points and politics. Yup, the climate has always changed. For a variety of reasons. Now we are in a period (Do you realize we are approaching official status as the Anthropocene,?) where the emissions from our profligate fossil fuel burning are the main driver. It’s that CO2 Lindzen is trying to show as only one of its many aspects.
not supported by credible evidence, by IR data, but only by tendentious leftist pseudo- and doctored “data”.
Try IPCC AR5. Figure 5
Dated data (to 2000), based on computer models, and WRONG because NATURE has falsified its projections.
“Dated data (to 2000),”
2013
” based on computer models”
Observed data
,” and WRONG because NATURE has falsified its projections”
??? Mother Nature?
The IPCC is now a highly discredited gaggle of crooks with their own selfish agenda and only the ignorant brain dead use it as a source to validate their own ignorance and stupidity.
The main driver? We emit maybe 5% of the CO2 in the amosphere. Lesseee…..that’s 5% of 0.04% (CO2’s fractional component of the atmosphere), or 0.002% of atmospheric CO2.
Yeah, that’s a “main driver”, all right.
Snork!!!
p.s. who are these “officials” who name epochs, anyway? Why, they are “warmistas”! Whodathunkit??
IPCC AR 5 SPM Figure 5
You can bring what you consider an informed source, of course….
You don’t even understand what you’ve pointed us to. That 8-year-old graph doesn’t show human-emitted CO2 as aa “main driver”, just computer models projecting changes in global temps from the year 2000.
Those projections have of course been falsified by 18 + years of stasis, based on true global measurements via satellite.
Here’s a more recent graph comparing computer model predictions with results. It covers 49 models. NONE are remotely accurate.
The black line reflects satellite measurements.
The red lines show the 1990 high-low IPCC projections.
The green lines show the ” adjusted” DOWNWARD 2013 high-low IPCC projections.
Even the IPCC no longer stands behind the 2007 graph you posted!
http://testclimate.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/namemonckton11.png
Final comment: computer models are not experiments, nor are their results “data”. As you can see, they are all over the place; none confirms the others.
Yet warmistas rely on them as accurately reflecting nature. And, apparently and uncritically, so do you.
” You don’t even understand what you’ve pointed us to. That 8-year-old graph ”
Published in 2013….
And basically wrong from there on down……
Not models. From observed data . Current.
Btw 8 year would be close to AR4. there was a similar graph then.
Robert. I am a real environmental scientist with two advanced degrees and 99% of what people say about the climate is total pablum. The problem is we are letting politicians use money to control the conclusions before the science is performed. The results are predictable and nothing but typical human behaviour. No. global warming and/or climate change is not happening as advertised. Not even close. But as long as everybody speaks with one hive-mind against the “one true enemy” we will be assured of another kind of disaster.
“99% of what people say about the climate is total pablum.”
What “people”? Odd for a real scientist to be so vague…..
“before the science is performed.”
We have multiple threads going back to the mid19thC .
“not happening as advertised. Not even close.”
Again, a real scientist would have brought forward evidence. Actually, a middle school kid knows they need to support claims.
“hive-mind” Sciencey…..
ROBERT … Why is it that YOUR “real” scientists are performing now proven massive scientific fraud? I’ve yet to see a single example of fraud from the “denier” camp. The answer is quite simple. The warming nuts require fraud to make their case whereas the “deniers” (honest scientists) can prove their case with real data.
“..performing now proven massive scientific fraud”
I see four unsupported claims. Wonder why that’s the case…..
For starters check out Climategate where amongst other things the University of Pennsylvania and East Anglia University conspired to hide the Medieval Warm Period that destroyed their argument. Professor Richard Lintzen of MIT spent 20 years studying REAL ACTUAL temperatures around the world with balloons, not intentionally biased computer models. The REAL temperatures were totally the opposite of the computer models. For that MIT and your REAL scientists did everything possible to have Lintzen fired. Antarctic ice is at historically high records and the Arctic ice has increased by over 40% in two years which you can see for yourself on satellite pictures if you Google it. You of course put all your faith in Al Bore the environmental hypocrite who predicted that the ice caps would be totally gone two years ago. Your heroes also claim that 97% of scientists believe in AGW which is a proven lie.
You’ll find all the info you’ll need to prove you’re a false prophet on the following websites.
http://www.friendsofscience.org
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.junkscience.com
http://www.envirotruth.org
http://www.grist.org
http://www.globalwarming.org
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://www.realclimate.org
http://www.demanddebate.com
http://www.americansforprosperity.com
http://www.newscientist.com
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com
http://www.ilovecarbondioxide.com
http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://www.trendsresearch.com
http://www.CO2.com
http://www.scientistsfortruth.com
testclimate.wpengine.com
http://www.omniclimate.wordpress.com
http://www.climaterealists.com
http://www.climatechangefraud.com (has lots of links to related sites)
http://www.c3headlines.com
http://www.carbon-sense.com
http://www.climate-skeptic.com
http://www.worldclimatereport.com
http://www.noconsensus.org
http://www.nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com
http://www.iceagenow.com
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
http://www.weatheraction.com
http://www.convenientmyths.com
http://www.notrickszone.com
http://www.flixxy.com/the-future-of-energy-is-here.htm
http://www.petitionproject.org
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org
http://climatechangereconsidered.org/
http://www.joannenova’com.au
” Climategate where amongst other things the University of Pennsylvania and East Anglia University conspired to hide”
Cite the findings. Quote and link.
Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate
A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.
“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”
The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”
The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.
“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.
“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.
These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.
More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.
“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.
More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.
James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.
Cite the findings. Quote and link.
Official findings. Not an uncited 4 year old magazine.
“can see for yourself on satellite pictures if you Google it.”
Cite the actual research.
Hmmm, nine days, no response. Must have been too hard finding the information the blog claimed…..
“” Climategate where amongst other things the University of Pennsylvania and East Anglia University conspired to hide”
Cite the findings. Quote and link.
Sorry for any delay Robert. Unlike yourself I have a life outside of this message board. Google “Climategate”. You’ll find enough info to keep yourself busy for months.
Your claims. Says something when one makes the choice not to bring forward quotes and cites in support.
Dead wrong. They are all models. See those same models discussed in the article I just posted.
I repeat: models don’t generate real-world data; they are just outputs from computer programs.
Pretty sure you aren’t looking at what I cited. http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/reports-graphic/report-graphics/
You didn’t “cite” anything specific. What you’ve done here is send me to a bunch of graphs. Why don’t YOU pick out the one(s) germane) to your claims?
I’m not playing “battleships” with you, and I still don’t think you can explain anything about…anything.
Let’s start over:
Ipcc ar5 spm figure 5.
I left out spm. Mea culpa
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/watch_mit8217s_dr_richard_lindzen_on_fox_news_8216we_are_demonizing_a_chemical_8212_a_molecule_essen/#comment-1893999523
I am just waiting for Robert to call you all “racists”. You know it is coming.
The graph’s data ends in 2000, and the graph was first published in 2007. You will note that the models predicted warming that didn’t happen, and even has a slight rise in temperature if 2000-era CO2 concentrations remained level. The levels rose, but the temps did not.
BZZZZTTT!
IPCC AR 5 SPM Figure 5 ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/watch_mit8217s_dr_richard_lindzen_on_fox_news_8216we_are_demonizing_a_chemical_8212_a_molecule_essen/#comment-1893998229
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
So, try again.
You have given me nothing more than the Summary for Policymakers for the 2103 IPCC AR 5 report. It does not contain the graph in question.
A graph that stops with data at the year 2000 , first published in 2007, is STILL a graph that does not add data past the year 2000.
Further, the summary report you offer says this:
“Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic
eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}”
Yet since 2000 there’s been 14+ years of no warming, while the conc of CO2 has steadily risen.
NO AGW models predicted that. Not one. No model has been able to hindcast, either. They are thus useless.
The graph I offered shows the deviation from model projections from actual global temps.
The models, and theory they hoped to confirm, are thus falsified. Falsified by Nature itself.
Q Effin D.
” It does not contain the graph in question”
Figure SPM 05 (or SPM.5 ) in the IPCC AR5 SPM
(really, you have been whinging on for days now. Sorry if SPM 05 is so significantly different tha SPM Figure 5 that you couldn’t find it)
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=SPM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf )
Visual description: Several horizontal bars showing relative strengths of a wide range of drivers – Broken down by gas, source. Notice that big red one at the bottom. The one dated 2011. Which rather puts the lie to your “8 year oldgraph” claim.
IF one were to read the whole document, one would encounter SPM.5 first cited in section C Drivers of Climate Change page 12. The figure SPM.5 takes up ~30 – 50% of page 14 so your claims seem rather disingenuous (at best ).
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/SPM/FigSPM-05.jpg
Page 14. Takes up about 30+% of the page.
Note the big red horizontal bars, esp. the third from the bottom. The one dated 2011.
Notice how much further that bar extends right.. See anything above doing that?
Main driver, Anthropogenic CO2.
So, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING SUBSTANTIVE, POINT TO IT. IF ALL YOU HAVE IS SOME UNCITED GRAPHS, TRY HARDER.
” graph’s data ends in 2000″ “graph was first published in 2007”
Figure SPM 05 (or SPM.5 ) in the IPCC AR5 SPM
(really, you have been whinging on for days now. Sorry if SPM 05 is so significantly different tha SPM Figure 5 that you couldn’t find it)
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/index.php?t=Assessment%20Reports&r=AR5%20-%20WG1&f=SPM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf )
Visual description: Several horizontal bars showing relative strengths of a wide range of drivers – Broken down by gas, source. Notice that big red one at the bottom. The one dated 2011. Which rather puts the lie to your “8 year oldgraph” claim.
IF one were to read the whole document, one would encounter SPM.5 first cited in section C Drivers of Climate Change page 12. The figure SPM.5 takes up ~30 – 50% of page 14 so your claims seem rather disingenuous (at best ).
“It covers 49 models”
IPCC’s AR5 chapter Evaluation of Models cover far more.
And written by real scientists about real science..
So the only “real” scientists are the ones who promote CAGW? Tell us, Bob, how is the weather there on planet Delusion?
The IPCC report covers far more models. Evaluation of Models is signed by those who wrote it.
That is a whole chapter of discussion.
effinayright offered up a single graph of unknown provenance.
And, could you point to a science paper where the acronym “CAGW” is used?
Who, exactly ” promote CAGW?”
The IPCC does not consist of “real scientists” as you call them. You would call the the Catholics who burned those they considered heretics at the stake as real Christians.
I’m sure there are boards that you can take your religious argument to if you want to argue those inane issues.
But the fact of the matter is that the IPCC reports are written by practicing scientists. Who have demonstrated expertise in their specialized fields. Each chapter lists the authors. Easy enough to review their publications, their research history, their current and past positions.
Of course, if you are trying to conflate science with religion, you might be operating under some non-normal definition of scientist.
“That 8-year-old graph doesn’t show human-emitted CO2 as aa “main driver ”
Page 14 ( http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf )
Note that big red bar third from the bottom, The one dated 2011.
” based on true global measurements via satellite”
You forgot to insert , based on cherry picking the one source that agrees with my desired outcomes,
Sorry, you mean “the one and only source that is based on actual, consisten, global measurements”. If you have any identical sources, name them and show their results.
You won’t find any because ONLY satellites have measured the entire land mass, and only the Argo buoys that send ocean temp data to other satellites have offered data from all the oceans, in a consistent manner.
” If you have any identical sources,”
????? You’ve chosen the only database that fits to the desired outcome. The definition of cherry picking.
There is a reason why your argument isn’t holding up in the literature. Science doesn’t like cherry-picking.
There is a reason why your agrument isn’t holding up in the public commons. An argument based on innumeracy and rhetoric doesn’t bear up to the scrutiny.
You really can’t read. The only data that actually covers the entire earth systematically and w/o human “adjustment” comes from satellite and Argo buoy data. That’s not cherry picking.
“You really can’t read.”
All data is adjusted. Multitudinous reasons for that.
The sat data was found to be off decades ago due to drift. Do you think they went up in space and magically moved the sats. so their orbits were perfect? How do you ‘know’ that the data from them is accurate? By checking with other sources; by monitoring long term change. How many times do you think the adjustments have been adjusted?
Ten therms are made, All checked. One is consistently high by ..000x. In use, if it is critical, the data will get adjusted. Just like your oven might be ‘set’ to 357 so the recipe comes out right. You adjusted the data (the oven setting) to match reality (the cookies take 12 minutes.
There is a reason we have a variety of measuring devices and procedures. Each has strengths and weaknesses.
And a composite of all the data is more valid than picking the dataset that fits the meme.
” w/o human “adjustment” ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-1-2.html
3.4.1.2.1 Summary of satellite capabilities and challenges
“The main advantage of satellite measurements compared to radiosondes is the excellent coverage of the measurements, with complete global coverage every few days. However, like radiosondes, temporal continuity is a major challenge for climate assessment, as data from all the satellites in the series must be merged together. The merging procedure must accurately account for a number of error sources. The most important are: (1) offsets in calibration between satellites; (2) orbital decay and drift and associated long-term changes in the time of day that the measurements are made at a particular location, which combine with the diurnal cycle in atmospheric temperature to produce diurnal drifts in the estimated temperatures; (3) drifts in satellite calibration that are correlated with the temperature of the on-board calibration target. Since the calibration target temperatures vary with the satellite diurnal drift, the satellite calibration and diurnal drift corrections are intricately coupled together (Fu and Johanson 2005). Independent teams of investigators have used different methods to determine and correct for these ‘structural’ and other sources of error (Thorne et al., 2005b). Appendix 3.B.5.3 discusses adjustments to the data in more detail.”
“w/o human “adjustment” ”
Why do I get an impression that you are thinking someone looks at a computer and says ‘make it so’.
Who programs the computer? Who figures out what needs to be checked?
When some software guy gets together with a warmista to create a computer program, “make it so” is exactly what they do. They run the program, and if it doesn’t give them the result they want, they tweak it until it does.
Satellite data doesn’t involve computers seeking results; it’s actually the result of instruments measuring real-world data. That data is not manipulated.
Again: computer models are not experiments, and their results are not data. All the models have failed. Ergo: GIGO.
” it’s actually the result of instruments measuring real-world data.”
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
Long list of published science discussing how data is manipulated……
http://climate.nasa.gov/system/content_pages/main_images/1309_Temp_anomaly.jpg
I don’t know what you think you are “proving”. No one denies that on average temperatures have risen roughly 0.8 degrees C since 1880. The point is, neither the rate or the magnitude of the changes are anything outside of normal variation.
If you were to look for it you would find lots of info on past warming periods, when CO2 was less than it is today. Then the Little Ice Age that lasted some 400 years, from the 1300’s to 1850 or so. If CO2 controls temps, how can that be?
And, do you notice the dip and plateau in the 1940-1970period? CO2 concentrations went up during that period; if CO2 increases CAUSE warming, how can that be?
And I don’t suppose you would agree that it’s only been the last 30-40 years that we’ve had really global measurements. There was NO such coverage until satellites and radiosondes came into use. Before then, measurements were sporadic, and not made to any clear standards as to time of day, humidity, or accuracy of the measuring equipment.
Their is no drop in the 1970s
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
“Their” isn’t?
Snork! You can’t even read a graph, can you? Try squinting at the center of the graph, just below “Temperature”, and looking to the right. You see a drop, then a pause. Not until the early 1980’s do the temps GO BACK to where they were in the 1940’s.
Then look at the red line’s relentless rise. How could CO2 be the determining factor if temperatures remain essentially static while CO2 concentration rose from roughly 305 to 340 PPM?
(free clue: “hummina hummina hummina” is not a valid response)
You are pointing out a few years that are an outliar. We are talking about the long term trend. I thought u were talking about a real drop over a long period of time
The carbon dioxide greenhouse effect has been debunked.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf
http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/10/13/new-paper-on-the-radiative-greenhouse-effect/
That wud by like seeing the stock market go up over a week in 2009 and saying the economy was booming. First rule of statistics is beware of the outliers
OUTLIERS? It is YOU who pointed us to a micro-thin slice of the earth’s history and told us it represents something outside normal variation!!!
Snort!
Additionally, the dip/plateau in the last century , as well as the one that’s occurred during the last 18 years, FALSIFY the purported CO2/rising temperature claim.
Q EFFING D.
I showed all of the recorded temps
No, you didn’t. The first thermometers to keep records were constructed in Germany back in the early 1700’s. By the 1880’s there were hundreds (but only hundreds), almost all in the northern hemisphere. No one kept accurate records of temps over the oceans.
And there’s your problem: you make wild assertions about temperatures based on only a tiny slice of the Earth’s history, and only incompletely at that. You ignore the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warming periods, for example. You further ignore the Little Ice Age.
If you think you can attribute warming over the last 140 years entirely to humans, and think that the warming that’s occurred is due primarily to humans, you need to make the case.
You can’t.
We don’t know what percentage of the temperature increase is due to man. But we know co2 makes the warming worse. Shouldn’t we do anything we can to limit the change.
And I can’t help u understand the charts. You don’t understand that it’s a trend. You assume one hot period followed by a cold one means something.
The key is the trend
There is no greenhouse effect, therefore CO2 doesn’t make it “worse”:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf
http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/10/13/new-paper-on-the-radiative-greenhouse-effect/
Warming is good for the planet anyway, so is more CO2 anyway.
The key is in the failed models.
Lol ok
Your use of “worse” means you have simply assumed that the Earth’s temperature during the 20th Century was ideal, even though it increased overall. Why do you think so? Ample evidence exists that the Earth was warmer during the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warming periods. Where those periods less than ideal? Show your evidence.
Secondly, until you demonstrate that warming itself is harmful , you have no basis for arguing that humans should control or limit their CO2 output.
As for this trend you speak of: 150 years of very gradual warming after 350-odd years of a cooling period isn’t a “trend” anyone should worry about. It is YOU, with your fixation of very short time frames, who doesn’t understand the evidence. It is YOU who refuses to address the manifest lack of correlation between temperature and CO2 concentration.
Where is proof it was warmer in those older periods
All temps from earlier periods are based on ice samples from the poles that tell u the co2 levels and tell you the approx temp. All that evidence shows temps increasing. The numbers are not 100% accurate but an upward trend is statistically significant when using ice samples and actual measurements as validation
And for why warmer temps wud be bad.
Do you want to see the following cities destroyed
Nyc
No
Boston
Tampa
Newark
Miami
And that’s just the US
Do you not see how warming is harmful
Snort! The historical sea rise rate of 3 mm/years over the past several hundred years has not kept these cities from drowning, so why should another hundred years of the same thing destroy them?
3mm/year times 100 years = 300mm = about 14 inches, btw.
There is NO evidence that the current rate is increasing around the world. Some places see more rises, but often it’s because of land subsidence or the effects of plate tectonics, NOT a rise in sea level..
****************************************
Even warmistas pour cold water on theories of rapid sea level change:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/dr-james-hansens-recent-alarm-of-catastrophic-co2-driven-sea-level-rise-looks-to-just-be-spurious-correlation-in-his-own-mind/
“Additionally and inconveniently, this peer reviewed paper from the Journal of Coastal Research says: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”
The results are stunning for their contradiction of AGW theories which suggest global warming would accelerate sea level rise during the last century.”
>>>Money graf:
“Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records with results tabulated in Table 1 and shown in Figure 4. There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/y2.”
>>>>IOW zero acceleration…
The near balance of accelerations and decelerations is mirrored in worldwide gauge records as shown in Miller and Douglas (2006)”
*******************
Have you not heard how the Dutch hundreds of years ago created the dikes that reclaimed land from the Atlantic? Do you think 21st century humans won’t be able to do the same, if they need to?
And what about the other parts of the world where warming will be a net positive, such as Siberia and Canada, which would enjoy longer growing seasons?
Face it: you’re a bedwetter.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/SL.1900-2015.gif
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/WAntarcticaIceMass.gif
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/IceSheet/GreenlandIceMass.gif
Where do you think the ice water is going?????
And dikes only work for so long look at Katrina
Plus building dams around all major cities is more expensive then switching to clean energy
None of that info actually means anything. The plot a linear line to show the trend does not change.
A linear line by rule does not show trend changes
You just don’t get it, do you? The linear trend means nothing unusual is happening. Back when CO2 concentrations were 250 ppm, the trend was 3mm/yr. Now that CO2 concs are 400 ppm, the trend remains: 3mm/yr.
ERGO increasing CO2 is not “causing” the oceans to rise.
You’re a dull tool, man.
U can create a linear line for any trend
So are u claiming co2 does not trap heat?
I’m done with you. You don’t directly respond to anything I say, just shift to something else.
BTW: there’s about a hundred times more H2O, the MAJOR “greenhouse gas” in our atmosphere, than there is CO2. They both “trap heat”, and life could not survive if they did not.
Yea and if the earth gets hotter more water gets evaporated more green house effect and then eventually u can have a runaway greenhouse effect
There is no greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
There is no such thing at “trapping” heat. Heat can be transferred, and energy can be held as temperature in matter. But heat can’t be trapped in a way to lead to the source of heat becoming hotter still. Joseph Fourier, father of thermodynamics, demonstrated that, experimentally and mathematically.
There is no greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
its been confirmed greenhouse gases absorbed heat. Do I believe in science?
Do you believe in evolution
I avoid belief in anything. Evolution is supported by the evidence.
All things absorb heat, when they are cool and when there is a warmer source nearby that they can absorb heat from. See the paper for clarification:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Now that you mention it if those cities disappeared it would be a blessing to civilization and would produce a dramatic decrease in crime.
He whole us depends on them. Flyover states that just take wud b left
where r u from. If ur from America ur probably from a state that takes the money of coastal cities.
I’m Canadian where I can down any street in any city at 3 AM and not even think about being mugged.
I walk around nyc all the time at 3 and have never been mugged. Crime happens everywhere try to not generalize.
Funny you should ask. It’s been proven that the programming that produced the hockey stick will always produce a hockey stick no matter what you put into it. In other words those you support are the ones who program the computers and also say “make it so”.
” It’s been proven ” should be followed by something that shows what informed your thinking.
You’re lazy Robert. Simply Google it but here it is anyway from Ross McKitrick a fellow Canadian and math geek who wasn’t into AGW but was interested in the math of it and discovered Michael Mann’s (your hero) fraud.
A BRIEF RETROSPECTIVE ON THE HOCKEY STICK
* Ross McKitrick
Department of Economics University of Guelph May 23, 2014 *
For inclusion in the compendium volume Climate Change: The Facts 2014,
Institute for Policy Analysis, Australia. 1 THE CORE ISSUES The best place to
start when learning about the hockey stick is Andrew Montford’s superb book The
Hockey Stick Illusion (Montford 2010). Other essential sources are the original
Mann et al. papers (denoted MBH98 and MBH99), the M&M papers (McIntyre and
McKitrick 2003, 2005a—d), Steve McIntyre’s and my presentation to the National
Academy of Sciences Panel (McIntyre and McKitrick 2006), Steve’s Ohio State University
presentation, 1 a few survey papers and chapters of mine (McKitrick 2005,
2006), and Steve’s climateaudit.org posts over the past decade on proxy
quality, the Yamal substitution, the Briffa truncation, data secrecy, and some
other issues. It is sometimes said that we found Mann’s algorithm would always
produce a hockey stick, even from random numbers. That is not quite right: we
found that it could do so, given the right kind of random numbers
(autocorrelated, rather than independent). We also found that it mined for
hockey stick shapes and overstated their dominance in the underlying data
patterns, and that it understated the uncertainties of the resulting climate
reconstruction (or equivalently, exaggerated the significance). A very brief
summary of the problems of the hockey stick would go like this. Mann’s
algorithm, applied to a large proxy data set, extracted the shape associated
with one small and controversial subset of the tree rings records, namely the
bristlecone pine cores from high and arid mountains in the US Southwest. The
trees are extremely long-lived, but grow in highly contorted shapes as bark
dies back to a single twisted strip. The scientists who published the data
(Graybill and Idso 1993) had specifically warned that the ring widths should
not be used for temperature reconstruction, and in particular their 20th
century portion is unlike the climatic history of the region, and is probably
biased by other factors. Mann’s method exaggerated the significance of the
bristlecones so as to make their chronology out to be the dominant global
climatic pattern rather than a minor (and likely inaccurate) regional one; Mann
then understated the uncertainties of the final climate reconstruction, leading
to the claim that 1998 was the warmest year of the last millennium, a claim
that was not, in reality, supportable in the data. Furthermore, Mann put
obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and
replicate his methodologies, most of which were only resolved by the interventions
of US Congressional investigators and the editors of Nature magazine, both of
whom demanded full release of his data and methodologies some six years after
publication of his original Nature paper. 1 Online at
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2005/09/ohioshort.pdf. 2 Mann had
re-done his hockey stick graph at some point during its preparation with the
dubious bristlecone records excluded and saw that the result lost the hockey
stick shape altogether, collapsing into a heap of trendless noise. However he
never pointed this out to readers. He also stated that he had computed test
scores called statistics that he said (or implied) confirmed the statistical
significance of his results, yet when the scores were later revealed they
showed no such thing; and by then he had taken to denying he had even
calculated them. 2 OUR CRITIQUE OF THE METHOD There are two key parts to the
hockey stick-making machine. The first is the principal components (PC) step,
and the second is the least squares (LS) fitting step. The PC step takes large
numbers of temperature proxies and compiles them into a relatively small number
of composite series. The LS step then lines up the final segment of the
composites against an upward-sloping temperature graph and puts weight on them
in proportion to how well they correlate. If there are many composites and only
one has a hockey stick shape, the LS step will find it and put most of the
weight on it. If none of the composites has a hockey stick shape, then the LS
step will come up blank and the resulting graph will just look like noise.
Mann’s PC step was programmed incorrectly and created two weird effects in how
it handled data. First, if the underlying data set was mostly random noise, but
there was one hockey stick-shaped series in the group, the flawed PC step would
isolate it out, generate a hockey stick composite and call it the dominant
pattern, even if it was just a minor background fluctuation. Second, if the
underlying data consisted of a particular type of randomness called “red
noise”—basically randomness operating on a slow, cyclical scale—then the PC
step would rearrange the red noise into a hockey stick-shaped composite. Either
way, the resulting composites would have a hockey stick shape for the LS step
to glom onto and produce the famous final result. The use of red noise series
is necessary for testing the statistical robustness of the hockey stick method.
This is a procedure called Monte Carlo analysis. For one of our 2005 papers
(McIntyre and McKitrick 2005b) we generated thousands of series of trendless
autocorrelated random numbers and ran them through the PC and LS steps. This
generated thousands of results, each of which had an index of accuracy called
the “RE” score (for Reduction of Error). Likewise the actual proxy data had an
associated RE score. We set a benchmark based on the idea that, if the proxy
data were actually informative about the real world they had to yield a higher
RE score than most of the (uninformative) artificial data. Mann had done the same
thing, but had not taken into account the effect of the erroneous PC method.
The real proxy data didn’t turn out to be more informative than red noise, but
he set his benchmark too low, making his proxy results look statistically
significant when in reality they weren’t. There was a big red flag in his
calculations that should have tipped him off. Another model test is called the
score. It has the nice feature that you don’t need to do Monte Carlo
simulations, it has standard benchmark tables available in any statistics
textbooks (as MBH98 note on p. 786). While Mann reported the (favourable)
scores for the later portion of his graph (MBH98 p. 781-782; see his Figure 3),
he didn’t mention them for the early portion (pre-1750), where they were nearly
zero, indicating a lack of statistical significance. Instead he only reported
the RE score, which he thought indicated significance. He showed the reader the
RE test that he thought (incorrectly) was 3 favourable, yet he kept referring
to significance tests in the plural2 in support of his claims, so the reader
would naturally assume the unreported scores looked good too. They didn’t, but
he failed to report that in the article. And as we later showed, the and RE
scores were actually saying the same thing, namely that the hockey stick was
uninformative as an indicator of past temperatures. 3 STICKHANDLING In 2005,
following an article on the dispute in the Wall St Journal, Mann had been sent
a list of questions by the Energy and Commerce Committee of the US Congress,
one of which was whether he had computed the score. His answer was:3 My
colleagues and I did not rely on this statistic in our assessments of “skill”
(i.e., the reliability of a statistical model, based on the ability of a
statistical model to match data not used in constructing the model) because, in
our view, and in the view of other reputable scientists in the field, it is not
an adequate measure of “skill.” The statistic used by Mann et al. 1998, the
reduction of error, or “RE” statistic, is generally favored by scientists in
the field. The answer is classic misdirection. He was not asked, “Did you rely
on the score when assessing your results?” There was no need to ask that: if he
had relied on it he would never have claimed his results were significant! He
only claimed significance by ignoring it. The question specifically was whether
he computed . Tellingly, in his reply he changed the subject. But it hardly
matters. Either he did not compute it, in which case he was lying in the paper
by saying he had, or he did, in which case his failure to disclose it was
misleading to his readers. When we and Mann appeared before the National
Academy of Sciences panel in 2006 we presented this issue in detail. We showed
the panel that the Supplementary Information to MBH98 did not report the
verification scores , and we urged them to ask Mann whether he had computed
them. John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville put the question to
him. To our astonishment, Mann point-blank denied having done so, claiming it
would be “silly and incorrect reasoning.” 4 Mann then launched an extraordinary
tirade against , a well-understood statistic which is found in every statistics
textbook and is the workhorse of model testing. After the NAS panel hearings we
wrote a letter to the chair, Gerald North,5 expressing our frustration that
they allowed Mann to get away with this, but we were not successful in getting
them to follow up on the matter. 4 THE NAS REPORT 2 E.g.: “For comparison,
correlation (r) and squared-correlation ( ) statistics are also determined.”
(MBH98 p. 785.) 3 The text of the questions and answers were in our NAS brief,
see http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/NAS.M&M.pdf. 4 See detailed
notes of the hearing at http://climateaudit.org/2006/03/16/mann-at-the-nas-panel/.
5 Posted online at
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/nas-followup-mm.pdf. 4
More evidence that the Mann procedure exaggerated the statistical significance
of his results came in the NAS Panel Report itself (North et al. 2006). While
they lost the plot on the issue, they did at least look at the overall question
of how to assess a statistical climate reconstruction. They came up with the
most elliptical way possible to say that the Mann hockey stick was unreliable.
Here is what they said: Reconstructions that have poor validation statistics
(i.e., low CE) will have correspondingly wide uncertainty bounds, and so can be
seen to be unreliable in an objective way. Moreover, a CE statistic close to
zero or negative suggests that the reconstruction is no better than the mean,
and so its skill for time averages shorter than the validation period will be
low. Some recent results reported in Table 1S of Wahl and Ammann (in press)
indicate that their reconstruction, which uses the same procedure and full set
of proxies used by Mann et al. (1999), gives CE values ranging from 0.103 to
–0.215, depending on how far back in time the reconstruction is carried. (North
et al. 2006 p. 91). Sir Humphrey Appleby could not have phrased it better.
Unpeeling the obfuscations, here is what they said. · Reconstructions can be assessed
using a variety of tests, including RE, and the CE (Coefficient of Efficiency)
scores. · If
the CE score is near zero or negative your model is junk. · Wahl and Ammann include a
Table in which they use Mann’s data and code and compute the test scores that
he didn’t report. · The
CE scores range from near zero to negative, which tells us that Mann’s results
were junk. Another exercise in obfuscation concerned the reliance on
bristlecones. The NAS report said the following. Such trees [bristlecones] are
sensitive to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Graybill and Idso 1993),
possibly because of greater water-use efficiency (Knapp et al. 2001, Bunn et
al. 2003) or different carbon partitioning among tree parts (Tang et al. 1999).
…While ‘stripbark’ samples should be avoided for temperature reconstructions,
attention should also be paid to the confounding effects of anthropogenic
nitrogen deposition (Vitousek et al. 1997)…For periods prior to the 16th
century, the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular
principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the
Great Basin region in the western United States. Such issues of robustness need
to be taken into account in estimates of statistical uncertainties. North et
al. (2006) (p. 50, 107). Stripping away the bark, here is what this means: · Bristlecone records are
sensitive to a variety of environmental conditions other than temperature and
should be avoided for climate reconstructions. ·
Mann’s results strongly depend on the bristlecone records. · His results are therefore
not robust, an important point over and above the lack of statistical
significance. The NAS report (North et al. 2006) also made a few other points,
buried in elliptical prose or scattered around the report where the press would
be sure of never finding them (not that they looked). Putting them together,
they upheld all the claims in our submission. 5 ·
(p. 86—87) “McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) demonstrated that under some
conditions, the leading principal component can exhibit a spurious trendlike
appearance, which could then lead to a spurious trend in the proxy-based
reconstruction.” · (p.
106) “As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of
principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the
reconstructions.” The Report even included its own graphical replication of the
artificial hockey stick effect from feeding red noise into Mann’s algorithm (p.
87). · (p. 107) The usual RE
significance benchmark “is not appropriate.” ·
(p. 107) “Uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been
underestimated.” 5 THE CENSORED FOLDER Mann also published an online review
article in 2000 (Mann et al. 2000) that assured readers in categorical terms
that their results were “robust” to non-climatic bias in tree ring data6 and
even to the complete removal of tree rings from their data set, though they
illustrated that point only for the post-1760 interval. In the course of our
analysis, Steve found some directories at Mann’s FTP site (the “CENSORED”
directories), which, through detective work, were found to contain assessments
of the impact from dropping the bristlecones from the underlying data. In light
of the claim in Mann et al. (2000), this should not have made any difference,
but it did. In our NAS presentation we showed graphs of the data in Mann’s
“CENSORED” results, in which the hockey stick shape completely disappears. That
is, even applying Mann’s biased methods, after dropping the few bristlecone
pine series there is no remaining hockey stick shape. The claim in Mann et al.
(2000) about robustness to the exclusion of the tree ring data was obviously
misleading. In the letter from the Congressional Oversight committee to Mann he
was asked:7 7a. Did you run calculations without the bristlecone pine series
referenced in the article and, if so, what was the result? Mann’s answer was
lengthy, but included the following: For a complete scientific response, you
should consult the article my co-authors and I published back in 1999
addressing precisely these issues: Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S., and Hughes,
M.K.,…Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759-62 (1999). As my coauthors and I
explained in our 1999 article cited above, given the proxy data available at
that time, certain key tree-ring data (including the series mentioned above)
were essential, if the reconstructed temperature record during early 6 “We have
also verified that possible low-frequency bias due to non-climatic influences
on dendroclimatic (tree-ring) indicators is not problematic in our temperature
reconstructions.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_datarev.html; “MBH98
found through statistical proxy network sensitivity estimates that skillful NH
reconstructions were possible without using any dendroclimatic data…Whether we
use all data, exclude tree rings, or base a reconstruction only on tree rings,
has no significant effect on the form of the reconstruction for the period in question.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html 7 The question and answer
excerpt are in our NAS presentation (McIntyre and McKitrick 2006). 6 centuries
were to have any climatologic “skill” (that is, any validity or
meaningfulness). These conclusions were of course reached through analyses in
which these key datasets were excluded, and the results tested for statistical
validity. Our conclusions have been confirmed by Wahl and Ammann (see above).
Translation: … Yes. When we removed them the graph collapsed and the
statistical scores went to zero. Oh dear, didn’t we mention that? Anyway, to
avoid the problem, we kept them in. Mann’s claim that MBH99 addressed
“precisely these issues” was misleading. In that paper they did mention that
their top-weighted PC was “essential” (p. 760) but they didn’t report the
results of excluding the bristlecones. Instead they applied a “correction” that
they claimed (without proof) fixed the contamination pattern in the
bristlecones, even though it only applied to the 19th century portion. And
their 2000 paper claimed robustness both to contamination of bristlecones and
removal of tree ring data. Wahl and Ammann (2007) later offered the argument
that since the hockey stick fails all statistical tests without the bristlecones
they ought to be retained (the logic really was that bad). In our letter to
North we pointed out that we agreed with Wahl and Ammann (and Mann) that the
reconstruction without the bristlecones is no good. But, we added, Our
contention is that the reconstruction with bristlecones is also no good, as
evidenced by the failure of verification r 2 and CE statistics. 6 CONCLUSION
The story continued on from there and much more could be said. The intensity
with which so many people have followed the story, and its continuing relevance
via the ongoing Mann v. Steyn lawsuit (as well as others), indicate to me that
it is more than just an academic spat about proxy quality and scores. I suspect
that the whole episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a
rather defective aspect of early 21st century scientific culture. 7 REFERENCES
Graybill, D.A., and S.B. Idso. 1993. Detecting the aerial fertilization effect
of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in tree-ring chronologies. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles 7:81-95. Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., 1998. Global-Scale
Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature,
392, 779-787. Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K., 2004b. Corrigendum:
Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six
centuries, Nature 430, 105(2004). Mann, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K.,
Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences,
Uncertainties, and Limitations, Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759- 762,
1999. Mann, M.E., E. Gille, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes, J.T. Overpeck, F.T.
Keimig, and W. Gross. 2000. Global temperature patterns in past centuries: An
interactive presentation. Earth Interactions 4-4:1- 29. Retrieved from NOAA
website at http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei, which includes additional note
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_nodendro.html. McIntyre, S. and R.
McKitrick (2005a), The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere
Climate Index: Update and Implications, Energy and Environment, 16, 69-99. 7
McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, 2003. “Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998)
Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series” Energy and
Environment 14, 751-771. McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick (2005c), Reply to Comment
by Von Storch and Zorita, GRL, 32, L20713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023089. McIntyre,
S., and R. McKitrick (2005d), Reply to Comment by Huybers, GRL, 32, L20713,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023586. McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2005b. Hockey sticks,
principal components, and spurious significance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32,
L03710, doi:10.1029/2004GL021750. McKitrick, Ross R. (2005) What is the Hockey
Stick Debate About? Presentation to the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Study
Centre Meeting on “Managing Climate Change – Practicalities and Realities
in a post-Kyoto Future”, Parliament House, Canberra Australia, April 4,
2005. Online at http://www.rossmckitrick.com/paleoclimatehockey-stick.html.
McKitrick, Ross R. (2006) The Mann et al. Northern Hemisphere “Hockey Stick”
Climate Index: A Tale of Due Diligence in Michaels, Patrick, ed. Shattered
Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Rowman and Littlefield, 2006.
Montford, Andrew (2010) The Hockey Stick Illusion London: Stacey International.
North, G. et al. (National Research Council, NRC) (2006). Surface Temperature
Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. Washington: National Academies Press.
Wahl, Eugene and Caspar Ammann (2007) Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes
reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of
criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.
Climatic Change 85:33–69, DOI 10.1007/s10584- 006-9105-7
Or we can note that every science organization agrees w the hockey sticks…. as does every government….
Please list the “every science organization agrees with the hockey sticks”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Actual the hockey stick HS proven to be correct.
The hockey stick is produced by fraudulent computer modelling which is the greatest example of garbage in, garbage out. The modelling track record is at best laughable
No adjustments need to b made to show it. Temps incrwaee
Actually the hockey stick HS proven to be correct.
Actually the hockey stick has proven to be correct.
” “warmistas”! Whodathunkit??”
Conspiracy, much?
0.002% !!! Oh my God we’re all going to die next week!
You apparently haven’t a clue that water vapoer is the main greenhouse gas. CO2 is a fart in a windstorm
Cite some established science. Papers, synthesis. …
Here ya go sport.
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
Anything specific?
“C02 is a fart in a windstorm” … Scientific American
And we’re on the grade school playground. Without adult supervision. Thanks for showing us the science deniers’ best talking points!
Exactly
Robert – you just quietly substituted the term CO2 for the word emissions. John Q. Public doesn’t trust people who quietly substitute. And, the term anthropocene has been created by a society with an agenda to push. You use it as if it’s proof of something. It’s only proof that groups with $$$ to make will stop at nothing to wield their agenda.
Then perhaps you should have read the next sentence.
Our cars. Our power plants. CO2. Some other stuff. None beneficial.
JohnQPublic ( – the science deniers )knows what’s up. We are burning , profligatily, fossil fuels and those emissions are causing Anthropogenic Climate Change.
If you can bring forward evidence that there is some agenda beyond efforts to keep those effects at a minimum, bring them.
Otherwise, like many posters here- but a minority elsewhere in the world- what you are demonstrating is the unfortunate human frailty of falling for rhetoric.
I agree with you on the pollution aspect. Undoubtedly, we are polluting the daylights out of our planet. And jus as undoubtedly, the emissions of our cars, etc ARE, indeed, polluting (that is toxifying) our environment.
You mentioned CO2, and merely as an aside – those other emissions. The truth is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant, although the other emissions are. Unfortunately, you choose to focus on the only non-invasive molecule in the bunch as the key to correcting the pollution problem. If you would simply fight the good fight (reduce pollution) then you and I could agree.
“The truth is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant”
That would have been the place for a long list of sources that support your claim.
You do realize that that would be required for a middle school report, or a persuasive or opinion essay, right?
Robert, I see you’re quick at pulling those IPCC reports out as “scientific evidence”. You know the IPCC is a political (not scientific) organization, right? And, it’s an organization with a lot of $$$s to be lost when CC is exposed as a fraudulent scare tactic. That’s what you call a reference?
Now, I might agree that anthropogenic CO2 (as benign as it is) may well be the largest component of anthropogenic CC. Unfortunately, the magnitude of ACC is infinitesimally small in relation to the natural drivers of CC like solar activity, precessional wobble, PDO and AMO, terrestrial and undersea volcanism – among others.
Another poster here stated it quite well that reduction in anthropogenic CO2 amounts to a “fart in the wind” in comparison.
And, in case you haven’t noticed, this is an opinion blog – not a science blog. If you really insist on playing scientist – bring some DATA, not graphs and then we’ll subtract the UHI influences and we’ll add back in the temps that NOAA/NASA fudged out in the past, and then we can subtract the temps that the same people added in more recent years, and then we’ll have some DATA we can compare. Or, did you forget that your sources were caught red-handed on data tampering?
Real scientists throw away tampered data. Fake scientists use the hell out of it.
“when CC is exposed as a fraudulent scare tactic.”
And you can cite evidence pointing to that happening?
Hey Robert – nobody’s listening to you anymore.
Science? Gone missing
middle school playgound….. in evidence.
Speaking of evidence, was that your response to.
“”when CC is exposed as a fraudulent scare tactic.”
And you can cite evidence pointing to that happening?”
Yes we are.
” Or, did you forget that your sources were caught red-handed on data tampering?”
Source that informed your thinking?
“IPCC is a political (not scientific) organization”
I’d suggest a look at the author lists as well as those pages and pages of citations to the original research.
It is a synthesis paper. An analysis of the current research.
Your claims are rhetoric. If you had evidence, you could / would have brought it forward.
Robert loves the fake scientists because they support his delusions.
Here are some scientist’s opinions on the IPCC including statements from scientists who LEFT the IPCC because of the corruption in it that you put your trust in. You’ll have to forgive me for cut and pasting it. It’s 1:55 AM here in Gulf Shores Alabama and I’m a tad too tired to copy it word for word for you. I know that cut and pasting makes you break down and cry enormous crocodile tears.
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotAugust 21, 2013 9:34 PM
Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green Declares ‘A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism’ – September 30, 2009 – ‘We can expect climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority’ – Dr. Kenneth Green was a Working Group 1 expert reviewer for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001
‘The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart — Heads will roll!’ -South African UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander, April 12, 2009 – Professor Alexander, is Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.
“I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
“The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” – declared IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand in 2007. Gray was an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications. (LINK) & (LINK)
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
UN IPCC Lead Author Tom Tripp Dissents on man-made warming: ‘We’re not scientifically there yet’ – July 16, 2009
The UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s claim that the UN IPCC is “very open” also needs examining. The IPCC summary for policymakers is used to scare politicians and goad the public into action. The UN is all about politics.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared “it’s completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s alleged global warming “consensus,” according to a May 10, 2007 article. Sounds scientific, doesn’t it?
Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton who held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton, accused the UN of “censorship” on July 23, 2008. “Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes. Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship. As Wegman demonstrated, new circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other. Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion. ‘Peer review’ developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies. It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list,” Brignell wrote.
Research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) McLean’s research revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” McLean’s study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.” The analysis by McLean states: “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” Repeating: Only four UN scientists in the IPCC peer-review process explicitly endorsed the key chapter blaming mankind for warming the past 50 years, according to this recent analysis.
Here is a small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN IPCC’s “very open” process.
(Below are excerpts from various U.S. Senate reports which Climate Depot’s Morano authored during his years at the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.)
One former UN IPCC scientist bluntly told the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee how the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers “distorted” the scientists work. “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” explained South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
In an August 13, 2007 letter, UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist, lashed out at those who “seem to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) documents represents ‘scientific consensus.’” Khandekar continued: “Nothing could be further than the truth! As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed.” “Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change,” Khandekar concluded.
Paul Reiter, a malaria expert formerly of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, participated in a past UN IPCC process and now calls the concept of consensus on global warming a “sham.” Reiter, a professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris, had to threaten legal action to have his name removed from the IPCC. “That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said on March 5, 2007. “It’s not true,” he added.
Hurricane expert Christopher W. Landsea of NOAA’s National Hurricane Center, was both an author a reviewer for the IPCC’s 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, but resigned from the 4th Assessment Report after charging the UN with playing politics with Hurricane science. Landsea wrote a January 17, 2005 public letter detailing his experience with the UN: “I am withdrawing [from the UN] because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.” “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,” Landsea added.
In addition, a Greenpeace activist co-authored a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions.
The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers.
In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phrase or assertion.
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, slammed the IPCC Summary for Policymaker’s process on January 24, 2007.
McIntyre wrote: “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me.”
Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.”
Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher: “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact.”
I can hardly wait to read Robert’s lame excuses on these testimonials on his beloved God ordained IPCC.
ROBERT !!! WAKE UP!!! We’re anxiously awaiting your condemnation of the IPCC scientists statements above that the IPCC that you adore is a gaggle of thought control inquistors and witch burners.
C02 is a perfectly natural chemical compound also known as plant food and without which there would be absolutely no life on earth. That’s no one’s definition of a pollutant except for ignorant militant tree huggers. C02 has been 10 times greater and the planet loved it. I wonder where all those SUVs are on Mars that’s also simultaneously experiencing global warming. Must be from all those Martian farts.
I have a bit of a problem picturing the Supreme Court dressed as “ignorant militant tree huggers”.
As ever, you muddy the waters and betray your own ignorance. The Supreme Court didn’t hold (reach a legal conclusion) that CO2 *is* a pollutant. It held that the EPA, under the statute empowering it, had the statutory authority to control greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, under its “capacious” definition of pollutants.
IOW it was a case based on reading a statute to allow X, not a case defining anything as a pollutant.
You are an encyclopedia of ignorance!
If you were right, you’d have quoted and cited…..
You really are a fool. Here’s the case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
Here’s the pertinent part of the holding:
3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes “any air pollution agent … , includingany physical, chemical, … substance … emitted into … the ambient air … ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly “physical [and] chemical … substance[s].” Ibid. EPA’s reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a **command to refrain from** regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing.
Note, fool, that the EPA did not want to regulate CO2 emissions, since it believed the Clean Air Act did NOT give it the statutory authority to do so. The Court held that the controlling statutory language ALLOWED it to do so.
Here’s the wikipedia commentary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency
Jebus, you are one dull tool!
“one dull tool” “You really are a fool.
”
So, since you didn’t disprove my point, you decided to strengthen your case with witty repartee.
Thus satisfying two science denier techniques in one post! Congratulations!
And rather interestingly, your copy paste of the ruling is very nearly the same as used in WashingtonTimes. You should cite your actual source, not claim a primary cite based on a secondary source’s claim. Not only pretty unskeptical, but borderline intellectual dishonesty.
So, a threefer…….. Nope, a fourfer…. Congratulations!
I guess all those big words, those words spelling out that the Supremes never declared CO2 to be a pollutant, sailed right past you. Unfortunately for you, the rest of the world does not require a Remedial Reading course.
Yup, those ” ignorant militant tree huggers” on the Supreme Court sure handed the EPA a stunning……
defeat? no.
Agreement in the main? Yup.
Evolution, religion in the courts comes up occasionally also. But, pretty much settled.
Like the science.
You must really think that courts are gods when you now believe that proof of evolution and religion rests in their pointy heads.
Actually, no. The SC cases are about something else, right? Your attempt at false equivalency is noted, though.
Actually evolution miserably fails the scientific method but is accepted anyway because until another theory comes along the only alternative is a creator or creation. It’s another example of corruption in science. Like AGW discussion is not allowed and teachers are fired if they do so. I’m not saying evolution is or is not proven or true but in real science there is no validity to a consensus or closing the door to discussion on pain of demonization at a minimum. So Robert you’re one of the scientific witches that has declared that evolution, religion and we’re all going to die from plant food is settled and can not be discussed or off with to the stake.
Pull the other one.
Or support your claim.
“…evolution miserably fails the scientific method..”
It’s the beauty of a conspiracy. They can say whatever they want without having to back it up with silly things like “evidence” or “facts”.
Yet another yahoo who was farting around in the back of the classroom when science, scientific method, and how to support a claim were the topics .
Kind of amazing too, that some of the right wing religious nuts can’t even tell the difference between religion and science. I would have at least thought they knew what religion was. These family value voters are some messed up people.
Perhaps their definition of science came from adult Sunday school….
Make Merica great again, return us to the years before the Age of Enlightenment. /sarc
‘hmurca’ – gotta get the pronunciation right ( as opposed to correct) or you’ll be exposed as a liberal…..
lol! Do Hmurcins eat Kool Hwip?
Ah, an example of them putting trust in the science of food industrialization!
The right wingers have their idiotic Abrahamism and the left-wingers have their idiotic climate alarm religion. Both are as ridiculous as each other:
http://climateofsophistry.com/category/religion-of-climate-change/
#facepalm I’m taking it you can’t tell the difference either.
I write about the difference and the similarities. So yes. They’re both stupid religions, for stupid people.
#facepalm Science is about the farthest thing from religion.
Climate alarm is the religion.
And the metaparadigm of science when fully logically and philosophically analyzed is also a religion too:
http://www.amazon.com/Sciences-War-Reason-God-Book-ebook/dp/B015JLMWVY/
But aside from the problems of scientific materialism, by science’s own standards climate alarm is not even science.
#facepalm abject ignorance. Look up Age of Enlightenment for tips.
Yes the Age of Enlightenment saw a great reduction of the power of mythos religions, leading to the development of modern materialist empiricist science. You keep slapping yourself in the face over items of common knowledge.
Please familiarize yourself with the difference between rationalism and empiricism:
http://www.amazon.com/Sciences-War-Reason-God-Book-ebook/dp/B015JLMWVY/
#facepalm
Science’s War On Reason (The God Series Book 31) Kindle Edition
by Mike Hockney (Author)
5 out of 5 stars 3 customer reviews
See all formats and editions
Kindle
$4.99
People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. “Reason” is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who “reason” with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative “logic”, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly … with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes from thousands of years ago.
No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat.
A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists … it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientists.
Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of a reality predicated on zero and infinity, i.e. it’s an attack on mathematics, not religion.
Scientists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition.
No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.
There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and anti-intellectual basis).
Science wages war against “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation.
Scientists are people of the senses, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science.
Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads us: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such an absurd conclusion.
http://www.amazon.com/Sciences…
Should read all of these 3 authors:
http://www.amazon.com/Mike-Hockney/e/B004KHR7DC/ref=ntt_aut_sim_1_1
http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Faust/e/B004LXBBUA/ref=ntt_aut_sim_2_1
http://www.amazon.com/Adam-Weishaupt/e/B004LXB8GW/ref=ntt_aut_sim_2_1
This one too:
http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Army-Brother-Spartacus-ebook/dp/B01BA2OYWQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1454350735&sr=1-1
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f90e37500f99d0a4b7bd9d578d89e3ec95f6b24de982e9880b002a61b97dc500.jpg
This book shows that the online Illuminist community has enough talent and energy to form the vanguard of a genuine Citizen Army to carry forward the great cause of bringing about a Second and Final meritocratic Enlightenment, a true Age of Reason, based on the Principle of Sufficient Reason, expressed through ontological mathematics.
http://www.amazon.com/Sam-Harris-Delusion-God-Book-ebook/dp/B00R1Z3PIG/
“There are two kinds of intellectual: Philosophers and Sophists. The former seek the absolute truth while the latter seek the “practical” truth that brings them worldly prestige and success.
The Philosophers develop positions that rely on the highest intelligence and are as far removed as possible from the “common sense” of the mob. The common herd hold Philosophers in more or less complete contempt. The greatest Philosopher of all was Leibniz, a man unknown to the general public, and relatively obscure even within intellectual circles.
Sophists are those who are forever invoking common sense arguments, making direct appeals to the mob, producing arguments based on sensory “evidence” (which they regard as unarguable truth rather than highly arguable interpretation), and who rubbish all reference to an invisible noumenal world of things in themselves underlying the phenomenal world of appearances. Precisely for these reasons, the weak-minded are far more influenced by Sophists than Philosophers, to the severe detriment of the intellectual progress of humanity.
Philosophers have a position based on rationalism, idealism, metaphysics and mathematics, while Sophists hold a position reflecting empiricism, materialism, physics and science.
One of the most prominent Sophists in today’s world is Sam Harris, an American controversialist who supports scientism, atheism, and the claim that free will is illusory. All of his positions are closely connected, and the purpose of this book is to expose the fallacies that lie at the heart of the Sophists’ worldview, and Harris’s in particular.
Ultimately, the difference between Philosophy and Sophistry reduces to the difference between mathematics and science, and how each relates to ultimate reality.”
Do you have links to anything not self published…?
My usual scientific work can be found on NASA ADS.
The paper on the greenhouse effect simply needs to be read. The predicted effect either occurs or it doesn’t; Fourier already showed that it doesn’t. But I leave it for anyone to corroborate experimentally.
So no real proof or evidence.
Got it.
“…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”
C. Hitchens
Joseph Fourier provided the proof and evidence. Father of thermodynamics, Fourier. No need to be sensational about it – the effect is based merely on a metaphor, which doesn’t physically translate, and the effect was shown not to exist. The evidence and proof already exists with Fourier. Whether you find that sensational and extraordinary is entirely irrelevant.
And the paper that supports your assertions are….?
Check the references. From Fourier’s own writings on the subject, and his experimental results. It is directly discussed in the paper and the reference is directly given.
Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
You have, of course, some sources that support your thinking , right?
Yes, the source is Fourier’s publications on this, as cited in the paper. Fourier’s results.
So. Why didn’t you rebut the analysis at https://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
I did, in the comments, and then did again after a year or so (I think) of it sitting. But I think the comments are closed now so I haven’t been able to grace them with the recent paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Link? Which pseudonym?
Looks like they deleted all the comments which had been listed under the author’s proper name. In any case, not too relevant…they do things like that. The last paper finalizes the debunk of the radiative greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Do I get credit for offering you the opportunity to constantly repost the link to this bit of unpublished writing?
Helping refute the radiative greenhouse effect upon which climate alarm and climate science is based is a noteworthy contribution to rationalism:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Cheers
Or, everyone will see you have one solitary link to support a claim that there is no greenhouse effect….
A link to an unpublished paper that seems to have little in the way of accuracy.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=88&&a=509
Your reference to “skepticalscience” is not relevant to the recent paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503.
The SKS link is from something many years ago, whereas the paper is from last year and covers Fourier’s work; the SKS discussion isn’t about Fourier’s discovery that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
And in any case, everyone knows that “skepticalscience” is not a reliable source or witness to climate science and rationalism. They promote the alarmist side which therefore totally compromises their integrity.
Neither unpublished paper has been supported by any other research. You are making claims and basically just quoting yourself.
If you don’t like the reception at skeptical science, why not link to where your unpublished paper received a better reception?
Why not cite who has furthered your thinking? What paper has since used your unpublished paper to expand or add to your point?
Sorry, it is actually covering Fourier’s existing research, and my paper simply states what his results were. I quote Fourier extensively, and have no quotes of myself, actually.
Anyone can use my existing paper for further research. I invite them to. All this can take time, no worries. It’s all quite simple really in any case – simply look at Fourier’s results, and see that they demonstrate that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Anyone is welcome to corroborate Fourier’s results. The results aren’t mine, they’re Fourier’s:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Kind regards.
And so an unpublished ‘paper’ purports to claim that something was ‘wrong’ in a nearly 200 year old paper. Or it is right , but everyone misunderstood it…..
Something not seen by anyone…… contemporaries, nor nearly 200 years of it being cited.
And this is ‘proof’ there isn’t a Greenhouse Effect……
Fourier’s results were of course fine as they are simply an empirical measurement; some of his interpretation was incorrect, some of it correct. A metaphor was later developed based on Fourier’s writing. The metaphor does not translate to physical reality, and Fourier’s measurements demonstrate that the metaphor is wrong – that is, that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
It’s not that confusing, but I can imagine it is without reading the source material. It is all quite simple in the end, and science makes honest mistakes, as that is precisely how science functions.
Cheers.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/02_1.shtml
Yes, sites and references precisely like those ones are cited in the paper in the appendix, establishing that this is indeed what is believed to be the greenhouse effect. Thanks for those additional links!
Fourier’s results and his mathematics demonstrated that the effect does not actually exist:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Cheers.
Ah, we got it.
One person, in an unpublished paper, ‘proves’ on Internet comment threads there is no Greenhouse Efect.
And then offers no evidence how that hypothesis fits to the data…..
Fourier actually provided the empirical evidence, as can be read in the paper. He also provided the mathematics. Internet comments are of course after-the-fact.
Kind regards!
And then offers no evidence how that hypothesis fits to the data…..
The evidence is in the paper. Fourier’s evidence. And the basic mathematics and physics.
Cheers.
That would be Appendix D. The list of every university you claim teaches wrong physis.
“Yes, sites and references precisely like those ones are cited in the paper in the appendix, “
Not every university, but a large enough sample to establish that what is contained therein is indeed believed to constitute a radiative greenhouse effect. Science is predicated upon making mistakes, and then correcting them. This one, the greenhouse effect and climate alarm, will eventually be corrected.
Yup, your claim vrs every textbook, lecture, professor. Got it.
As you know, it is not my claim, but Joseph Fourier’s own results. Science exists because it corrects its mistakes. At least it is supposed to correct its mistakes. It’s not that difficult a concept.
Cheers!
It’s amazing you’ve found an error no one else has in nearly two hundred years!
And nobody has come forward in support.
Except a couple of internet commmentors…..
The mistake is not 200 years old; Fourier’s results are an empirical demonstration. The mistake occurred much more recently with the metaphorical analogy to Fourier’s work, which climate science and climate alarm has mistakenly predicated itself upon. Science will fix this mistake eventually.
Who?
“…much more recently with the metaphorical analogy to Fourier’s work..”
Seems rather you should be discussing that rather than what you are try to present through Fourier’s work.
Show us why you perceive the metaphor is wrongly applied in those textbooks
That is precisely discussed in the paper, and in this brief synopsis:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
Cheers
Facepalm…
Follow on 2:
I’m so sorry that this has been so difficult for you to understand the paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf), after repeated efforts of assistance.
In addition to the synopsis provided for you several times:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
I will offer one last helping hand of hope for you to understand these simple results and the process of science:
In science, we make a proposition for empirical measurement based on some theory in order to corroborate the theory, then perform the relevant measurement, and then compare the results of the measurement to the proposition from the theory to see if there is corroboration or not. If there is not, then the theory is falsified because the empirical results it proposes do not manifest. The theory is thus physically invalid.
Fourier and de Saussure built a greenhouse device which would in theory trap heat energy from EM radiation, and if there was a radiative greenhouse effect then the temperature measurement should have been at least 134 degrees Celsius and as high as 182 degrees Celsius. Without a radiative greenhouse effect, then their “heat trap” experiment would report 110 degrees Celsius.
The measurement reported 110 degrees Celsius, which therefore indicated that a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist. The climate science and climate alarm metaphor between a real physical greenhouse trapping air (preventing convection) and the postulate of a radiative greenhouse trapping EM heat is thus physically invalid. And anyone can re-perform the measurement for confirmation.
I just don’t know how to help you any longer if you don’t understand something as simple as A = A, A != B, etc. The number 110 is not equal to the number 134. The number 134 is what was required to corroborate the theory, and the number 110 is what was required to refute the theory. The number measured was 110. And so that works back on the logic: 110 is the number which would refute the theory, and it was the number measured, and therefore the theory was refuted.
That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex. I know it is easy to forget what we learn in elementary school if we don’t continue to use it. I just truly hope that you can find the help you need at some point in your life.
Kind regards, all the best, and I wish you well. There is nothing more I can do for you here, but at least the record has been left for others to read, most of whom I hope can follow this most basic example of the scientific method. Please do take care!
And off to Dunning–Kruger effect land….
Thanks for the demonstration!
“That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex.”
Again, how does your hypothesis show its truthyness in discussing the observations, or even the attribution statements in the IPCC reports? Or any paper discussing ghg? Or any temperature dataset?
Fourier’s empirical temperature measurements are in the paper. The observations are explained. The IPCC reports and most of climate science are based on a false premises of a radiative greenhouse effect, and so are false. The reasons for climate change are not relevant to the paper’s findings that the greenhouse effect does not exist; of course, the climate has always changed naturally for many reasons, but a greenhouse effect from CO2 will no longer be considered one of those reasons.
Here’s the takeaway:
“…most of climate science are based on a false premises of a radiative greenhouse effect, and so are false.”
‘published’? Well. Sorta…..
Follow on 4:
I’m so sorry that this has been so difficult for you to understand the paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf), after repeated efforts of assistance.
In addition to the synopsis provided for you several times:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
I will offer one last helping hand of hope for you to understand these simple results and the process of science:
In science, we make a proposition for empirical measurement based on some theory in order to corroborate the theory, then perform the relevant measurement, and then compare the results of the measurement to the proposition from the theory to see if there is corroboration or not. If there is not, then the theory is falsified because the empirical results it proposes do not manifest. The theory is thus physically invalid.
Fourier and de Saussure built a greenhouse device which would in theory trap heat energy from EM radiation, and if there was a radiative greenhouse effect then the temperature measurement should have been at least 134 degrees Celsius and as high as 182 degrees Celsius. Without a radiative greenhouse effect, then their “heat trap” experiment would report 110 degrees Celsius.
The measurement reported 110 degrees Celsius, which therefore indicated that a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist. The climate science and climate alarm metaphor between a real physical greenhouse trapping air (preventing convection) and the postulate of a radiative greenhouse trapping EM heat is thus physically invalid. And anyone can re-perform the measurement for confirmation.
I just don’t know how to help you any longer if you don’t understand something as simple as A = A, A != B, etc. The number 110 is not equal to the number 134. The number 134 is what was required to corroborate the theory, and the number 110 is what was required to refute the theory. The number measured was 110. And so that works back on the logic: 110 is the number which would refute the theory, and it was the number measured, and therefore the theory was refuted.
That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex. I know it is easy to forget what we learn in elementary school if we don’t continue to use it. I just truly hope that you can find the help you need at some point in your life.
Kind regards, all the best, and I wish you well. There is nothing more I can do for you here, but at least the record has been left for others to read, most of whom I hope can follow this most basic example of the scientific method. Please do take care!
Thanks!
And off we go into Dunning–Kruger effect land….
Thanks for the demonstration!
“That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex.”
I’m starting to think,based on the repetition and lack of capability to explain and the level of obfuscation , that the author may not be here.
Follow on 5:
I’m so sorry that this has been so difficult for you to understand the paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf), after repeated efforts of assistance.
In addition to the synopsis provided for you several times:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
I will offer one last helping hand of hope for you to understand these simple results and the process of science:
In science, we make a proposition for empirical measurement based on some theory in order to corroborate the theory, then perform the relevant measurement, and then compare the results of the measurement to the proposition from the theory to see if there is corroboration or not. If there is not, then the theory is falsified because the empirical results it proposes do not manifest. The theory is thus physically invalid.
Fourier and de Saussure built a greenhouse device which would in theory trap heat energy from EM radiation, and if there was a radiative greenhouse effect then the temperature measurement should have been at least 134 degrees Celsius and as high as 182 degrees Celsius. Without a radiative greenhouse effect, then their “heat trap” experiment would report 110 degrees Celsius.
The measurement reported 110 degrees Celsius, which therefore indicated that a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist. The climate science and climate alarm metaphor between a real physical greenhouse trapping air (preventing convection) and the postulate of a radiative greenhouse trapping EM heat is thus physically invalid. And anyone can re-perform the measurement for confirmation.
I just don’t know how to help you any longer if you don’t understand something as simple as A = A, A != B, etc. The number 110 is not equal to the number 134. The number 134 is what was required to corroborate the theory, and the number 110 is what was required to refute the theory. The number measured was 110. And so that works back on the logic: 110 is the number which would refute the theory, and it was the number measured, and therefore the theory was refuted.
That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex. I know it is easy to forget what we learn in elementary school if we don’t continue to use it. I just truly hope that you can find the help you need at some point in your life.
Kind regards, all the best, and I wish you well. There is nothing more I can do for you here, but at least the record has been left for others to read, most of whom I hope can follow this most basic example of the scientific method. Please do take care!
And off we go into Dunning–Kruger effect land….
Thanks for the demonstration!
“That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex.”
Here’s a guy you might want to discuss this with. He might be persuade blessed to co w rite your next ‘paper’.
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/telegraphuk/two_fifths_of_britons_unwilling_to_make_any_changes_to_tackle_global_warming/#comment-2491410663
Try here:
https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/NatureFourier.pdf
there is no greenhouse effect
Ah, so the brightness temperature of the Earth, as seen from space, being -18 C [240 Wm^-2] is correct then?
*Goes to check for glaciers outside window*
Um, no. That can be thoroughly discounted.
From the paper:
“The Modern, or “IPCC”, Greenhouse Effect ” page 8
Also, a citation for Hockney, Mike (2015-06-02). The War of the Ghosts and Machines (The God Series Book 28) (Kindle Locations 655-656). Hyperreality Books. Kindle Edition.
And six references….
Six things in support of your hypothesis that there is no Greenhouse Effect……..
Six things attempting to prove everyone in your Appendix D is wrong
It is only one thing really – Fourier’s empirical results, which anyone can reproduce. Citations in papers do not mean that they go directly to stating your own paper’s findings.
It only takes one thing to refute the greenhouse effect – in this case, Fourier’s empirical results.
THanks for the wordy salad!
Your citations/ Reference list are material you’ve directly used in the paper. Either by quote or summary. So, in a reasonable paper, one should see citations to material covering the range of findings, both what supports your hypothesis and to material that you’ve addressed perceived weaknesses in.
” Citations in papers do not mean that they go directly to stating your own paper’s findings.”
Yes, and the citations and references in the paper demonstrate Fourier’s discovery that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
Cheers.
Sorry if you are finding all this a little too wordy. I’ll try to simplify it more for you if necessary. For example, a summary of Fourier’s findings:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
Yet we see no discussion in your paper about why your hypothesis supports the observable changes in our climate.
That’s not a requirement of the findings of the paper. The paper simply demonstrates that there is no greenhouse effect, and that finding stands on its own. All of the consequences of that are a follow-on, and will be found subsequently.
You need to account for observations. Especially since your hypothesis is claiming everyone who writes about ghg and their observable effects are wrong. Simply put, to what do you ascribe what we can see since your hypothesis says it shouldn’t be happening.
“…simply demonstrates that there is no greenhouse effect, “
Fourier’s observations are accounted for. And they demonstrate that there is no greenhouse effect. That is a result that stands on its own, and discussing modern climate change does nothing for that result. Modern climate change is happening for the same reasons the climate has always changed. But again, the relevant point to start from in the re-assessment, is that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
Thanks for demonstrating an amazing attachment to unreality!
You seem to be the only person holding this view after 4 or 5 years after ‘publication’.
“Fourier’s observations are accounted for. And they demonstrate that there is no greenhouse effect. “
Follow on 3:
I’m so sorry that this has been so difficult for you to understand the paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf), after repeated efforts of assistance.
In addition to the synopsis provided for you several times:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
I will offer one last helping hand of hope for you to understand these simple results and the process of science:
In science, we make a proposition for empirical measurement based on some theory in order to corroborate the theory, then perform the relevant measurement, and then compare the results of the measurement to the proposition from the theory to see if there is corroboration or not. If there is not, then the theory is falsified because the empirical results it proposes do not manifest. The theory is thus physically invalid.
Fourier and de Saussure built a greenhouse device which would in theory trap heat energy from EM radiation, and if there was a radiative greenhouse effect then the temperature measurement should have been at least 134 degrees Celsius and as high as 182 degrees Celsius. Without a radiative greenhouse effect, then their “heat trap” experiment would report 110 degrees Celsius.
The measurement reported 110 degrees Celsius, which therefore indicated that a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist. The climate science and climate alarm metaphor between a real physical greenhouse trapping air (preventing convection) and the postulate of a radiative greenhouse trapping EM heat is thus physically invalid. And anyone can re-perform the measurement for confirmation.
I just don’t know how to help you any longer if you don’t understand something as simple as A = A, A != B, etc. The number 110 is not equal to the number 134. The number 134 is what was required to corroborate the theory, and the number 110 is what was required to refute the theory. The number measured was 110. And so that works back on the logic: 110 is the number which would refute the theory, and it was the number measured, and therefore the theory was refuted.
That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex. I know it is easy to forget what we learn in elementary school if we don’t continue to use it. I just truly hope that you can find the help you need at some point in your life.
Kind regards, all the best, and I wish you well. There is nothing more I can do for you here, but at least the record has been left for others to read, most of whom I hope can follow this most basic example of the scientific method. Please do take care!
This way to the station! As we venture out into Dunning–Kruger effect land….
“That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex.”
Were you also posting under a pseudonym ?
“author’s proper name. “
“Proper name” typically means the legal first and last name, as can be seen in the author of the paper which debunks the greenhouse effect and climate science:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Odd how there is not one mention of a Postma’s comments being deleted. Especially when they leave up the name and post the reason for deletions in others.
Nor do any supporters (or either suporter) mention it.
Nor do you post any further rebuttel or support anywhere…
I don’t know what happened to the comments. There were many, many comments, going back and forth. Maybe there is a second article. I’ve been trying to find them.
Anyway, the comments there aren’t all that relevant, and they are old. The recent discovery of Fourier’s work himself showing that there is no greenhouse effect is more important now:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Odd how almost any combination of search terms using your words leads to a four year old post at WUWT…..
That’s, not really, relevant to the paper, which is from last fall:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
C.V.?
Link?
“My usual scientific work can be found on NASA ADS.”
Yes, NASA ADS. You simply insert the author’s name into the search fields, and it will return references to their publications.
My c.v. isn’t online
So, not your writings..
And an inability to cite specific research, but quick to the ‘ look it up, I won’t cite what informs my thinking’ meme.
Thanks!
Yes, you asked for my published work and so I told you how to find it.
And you asked for a reference to what supports the conclusion of the paper, that there is no greenhouse effect, and I informed you that it is in the paper, the obvious place to look.
Cheers.
So, ” the author’s name”?
Author: Joseph Fourier, 1827; “MEMOIRE sur les temperatures du globe terrestre et des espaces planetaires”, an English translation of which can be found at: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html
and relevant excerpts of which can be read in the paper itself.
So Fourier’s work is your support for claiming Fourier’s work is wrong?
Where is your work?
Fourier’s work wasn’t wrong. It was misinterpreted. Fourier’s work is right and it shows that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
https://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
Yes, they deleted all of the responses in the comments, which is quite telling. In any case, the final results demonstrating the debunk of the greenhouse effect are here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Shouldn’t it be ‘my ‘ not “the”
“Yes, they deleted all of the responses…”
The relevant part being that they deleted the responses from the author (i.e. my comments).
Ahhh
“..author (i.e. my comments).”
I didn’t realize you were confused about that. I thought it was clear that when I posted the link to the paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503), you then asked me if I had any other publications, and I told you to search NASA ADS using the author name. I guess that wasn’t clear to you.
Just establishing that you are claiming to be the author.
While posting under a pseudonym.
Odd there is nothing in the comment thread about your being deleted…. while there is one from someone asking about some other name having been done so.
Well I hope you have now found satisfaction on this matter you were seemingly so concerned about. Cheers. You know, “Robert” may be a pseudonym for all anyone knows; I tend to look at the content, such as papers, reasoning, etc., rather than whether someone uses a “handle” for online commenting. You know…form vs. content and all that.
They must have not wanted to divulge that they simply deleted the comments. In any case, little things like that don’t bother me, it is the sort of stuff they get up to no doubt, and only shows weakness in their position.
No mention anywhere by anyone about your comments being deleted.
No discontinued subthread let dangling from supposedly scrubbing your supposed comments.
No references to any post supposedly made by you.
No comments from others quoting or referencing your supposed comments
No comment from anyone asking about their comment being deleted
“They must have not wanted to divulge that they simply deleted the comments. “
My mistake, it was this article where I commented:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html
Although, I had thought I commented on the other one too. This is all from years ago, so I didn’t recall exactly. Now it is all coming back. Thanks for the help!
And as I said, internet comments are a poor comparison to the final paper which covers Fourier’s own results on the non-existence of the greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Cheers!
“…then you are wasting everybody’s time, including yours, coming on here and posting nonsense.”Composer99 at 06:11 AM on 15 July, 2014
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105294
Yes, they had a very difficult time understanding the starting points of climate alarm – that of the concept of the radiative greenhouse effect, and how this concept originates. This is why I recommend simply going to the most up-to-date findings, and particularly that they’re based on Joseph Fourier’s results, Fourier being the father of modern thermodynamics.
Cheers!
And those are….?
“…simply going to the most up-to-date findings, and particularly that they’re based on Joseph Fourier’s results…”
The results are in the paper. In summary:
Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
So, why haven’t you written it up and sent it in to a reputable journal where the merits can be discussed amongst peers?
As opposed to making big claims on a denialist driven Internet comment thread.
It is published on ArXiv, which means it is free for all peers to review and discuss. One can simply read it and understand it for themselves, rather than requiring to be told it is OK to accept the findings by others.
So, other than some possible threads on P S of your original writing, and the discussion on S S, and this one, where is this body od discussion? Who has cited ? Who has furthered your hypothesis? Who has bothered to actually submit a rebuttal or comment?
“..free for all peers to review and discuss. “
As I said, the findings of the paper stand on their own, and any subsequent consequences will be follow on. Science will eventually correct the mistake but it is apparently taking time. The greenhouse effect has been refuted by Fourier himself.
Delusional.
“The greenhouse effect has been refuted by Fourier himself.”
I’m so sorry that this has been so difficult for you to understand the paper (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf), after repeated efforts of assistance.
In addition to the synopsis provided for you several times:
“Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect.”
I will offer one last helping hand of hope for you to understand these simple results and the process of science:
In science, we make a proposition for empirical measurement based on some theory in order to corroborate the theory, then perform the relevant measurement, and then compare the results of the measurement to the proposition from the theory to see if there is corroboration or not. If there is not, then the theory is falsified because the empirical results it proposes do not manifest. The theory is thus physically invalid.
Fourier and de Saussure built a greenhouse device which would in theory trap heat energy from EM radiation, and if there was a radiative greenhouse effect then the temperature measurement should have been at least 134 degrees Celsius and as high as 182 degrees Celsius. Without a radiative greenhouse effect, then their “heat trap” experiment would report 110 degrees Celsius.
The measurement reported 110 degrees Celsius, which therefore indicated that a radiative greenhouse effect does not exist. The climate science and climate alarm metaphor between a real physical greenhouse trapping air (preventing convection) and the postulate of a radiative greenhouse trapping EM heat is thus physically invalid. And anyone can re-perform the measurement for confirmation.
I just don’t know how to help you any longer if you don’t understand something as simple as A = A, A != B, etc. The number 110 is not equal to the number 134. The number 134 is what was required to corroborate the theory, and the number 110 is what was required to refute the theory. The number measured was 110. And so that works back on the logic: 110 is the number which would refute the theory, and it was the number measured, and therefore the theory was refuted.
That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex. I know it is easy to forget what we learn in elementary school if we don’t continue to use it. I just truly hope that you can find the help you need at some point in your life.
Kind regards, all the best, and I wish you well. There is nothing more I can do for you here, but at least the record has been left for others to read, most of whom I hope can follow this most basic example of the scientific method. Please do take care!
And off we go into Dunning–Kruger effect land….
Thanks for the demonstration!
“That is: there is no greenhouse effect.
I just feel so sorry for you if these concepts have escaped you or if the logic is too complex.”
“Yes, they deleted all of the responses…”
That’s convenient. …..
It is for them…that’s why they do things like that. Treacherous.
Maybe the way-back machine has a record.
And, tinfoil.. . .
No black helicopters, just a failed theory that can’t be faced:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
https://www.skepticalscience.com/postma-disproved-the-greenhouse-effect.htm
Yes that was a very early discussion. The final results were found when looking at Fourier’s own work on the matter of a radiative greenhouse effect, where he found that one did not exist:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Um, that makes no sense.
“Yes that was a very early discussion. “
In regards to my discussing the issue online. Several years ago, meaning “early”, for me. The most recent thing, from last year, is the discussion of Fourier’s results showing that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.
So which unpublished paper do you prefer?
This paper is the most recent, and ultimate:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
and of course Joseph Fourier’s own work on the matter is relevant too, which is why it is cited in the paper.
Yes. If you’re claiming a paper is wrong, you’d need to quote the author’s writing…
“…course Joseph Fourier’s own work on the matter is relevant too, which is why it is cited in the paper.”
The paper does cite Fourier’s writing, and has relevant excerpts directly copied into the text of the paper, for discussion therein.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Yup. That’s just what we both said.
Though now you are claiming to be the author.
Posting under a pseudonym. …
See the paper for a discussion of the science:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
One would think one would have had time to shop that bit around to the substantive , or even unsubstantive, journals….
ArXiv is a great way to host scientific papers:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
sophistryslayer doesn’t show up in ADS…
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
See the author.
So, you, are posting under a pseudonym and then claiming to be the author?
The paper is here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Website also here:
http://climateofsophistry.com/
So, you, are posting under a pseudonym and then claiming to be the author?
The paper has discussion of the relevant scientific and mathematical concerns:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
The author is listed. A nick-name is used for commenting here. See: the internet.
One piece of writing? Well, I guess one, and “usual” are synonyms in this case….
“My usual scientific work can be found on NASA ADS.”
Yes, my usual work in astrophysics; there should be a dozen or so references. Cheers.
More and more of their, at best, ‘argument’ seems able to fit here — patheos ( ● ) com/blogs/dispatches/2016/01/31/apparently-boys-with-long-hair-violate-rights-of-conservatives// —
Quite the example….. he’s D K level absolutely convinced he is right.
Despite absolutely no follow up papers, no published (beyond a couple of commentors on the Skeptical Science thread ) work in support. Actually, beyond the S S thread, pretty much ignored, so he’s taken this opportunity to repost and repost his claims…
He’s a nutter.
Examples?
” Like AGW discussion is not allowed …”
Examples?
“…and teachers are fired if they do so…. “
Lol ok proven that u don’t get science. Evolution is not a theory but a fact. M
Do u think people are putting fake bones in the ground lol.
Let me ask You something.
How old is the earth?
Please please please say 6000 years
You are truly a buffoon. I cited the actual source: The “copy paste” of the ruling came from the Cornell Law School’s site, which posted the ruling in its entirety.
Here’s the URL, again:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html
No one has changed a word of the holding. It appears your understand of law and how case law is reported is every bit as pitiful as your understanding of science.
We all note here that you NEVER actually explain any scientific position, you just point us to other sources, such as that IPCC graph, which has been completely falsified by time.
All models have failed, and models are all that the Warmistas have. Which is why they call the present flat-lining of temps a “pause”, or a “hiatus”, as if they “know” temps MUST resume.
After all, their models tell them so!
As for you: you’re as dumb as a fifty pound bag of Portland Cement.
And the section you posted came from WashingtonTimes.
But. A moot point. Your claim was about ‘”ignorant militant tree huggers”‘ being the only people who agree on CO2 being a pollutant.
Supreme Court sided with EPA. And CO2 emission is in their perview.
Your argument is like citing a single paper and attempting to claim it’ overturns AGW’
And that you had to use the cherrypicking from the WaTimes points that out. Just as the posters copy paste the bits from the abstract that are posted on the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blogs.
Estupido! Cretino!!! In the Mass. vs. EPA case, the court sided with the states that brought the case, and AGAINST the EPA. The states sought to force the EPA to treat CO2 as a pollutant, and the EPA balked.
Trying to get through to you is like that ancient Star Trek episode where Spock tries to mind-meld with a rock monster.
The agony! The pain! the sheer, utter futility!!!!
Baka!!! Arschloch!!!
As for the Mass. v. EPA decision, the Cornell Law School blog didn’t report, or amend, the decision, they copied it ver batim.
Keep up the good work effinayright. What amazing filthy morons who thrive on missing the point.
Thank you.
“Estupido! Cretino!!!
Keep building your case……
“Cornell Law School blog didn’t report, or amend, the decision, they copied it ver batim.”
And the sole para you copy pasted is the only para cited on WashingtonTimes. Which made it around a few blogs.. So, through Google, we have some insight as to what informs your thinking.
” EPA balked.”
So, with that interpretation, Those ‘”ignorant militant tree huggers” forced the EPA to recognize that CO2 is a pollutant.
Back to a ‘”ignorant militant tree huggers”‘ Supreme Court…… that recognized, as do the scientists who must also be ‘”ignorant militant tree huggers”‘, that CO2 is a pollutant.
The EPA is a highly politicized leftist organization of government bureaucrats, not scientists. Likewise the Supreme Court consists of politically appointed lawyers who also are not scientists. If they agreed that C02 is a pollutant, which they didn’t, then they could also agree that Oxygen is a pollutant because a friend on mine is blind because as a child she was left in an incubator with the Oxygen too high.
List the scientists who agree that C02 is a pollutant and use primary sources that you always insist upon. I’m not holding my breath
That CO2 is a pollutant was a legal finding supported by the Supreme Court. They, in turn were reading and listening to the arguments as presented in court. So, if you want that information: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
Of course you are asking for a much higher level of documentation than you can provide https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/watch_mit8217s_dr_richard_lindzen_on_fox_news_8216we_are_demonizing_a_chemical_8212_a_molecule_essen/#comment-1918459779
I remember that Star Trek episode. How appropriate.
“All models have failed”
Another virtually perfect example. No science, but a phrase found over and over on ‘anything but my tailpipe’ blogs.
” that IPCC graph, which has been completely falsified by time”
And that graph would be?
” dumb as a fifty pound bag of Portland Cement”
That so improves the quality of your argument.
“We all note here that you NEVER actually explain any scientific position, you just point us to other sources,”
Shoulders of giants.
The obvious escapes you. A quote of Einstein is more reliable than an opinion of someone on why they agree with Einstein.
Thanks for jumping onto a dead thread with a non-sequitur……
Thanks for showing how to move from a discussion point, through insulting and namecalling to personal attacks.
“Dumb, is a person cannot speak aloud.
A 50 pound bag? No; a bag of portland cement weighs 94 pounds (42.6 kilograms) in the US. and 87.5 pounds (39.7 kilograms) in Canada.
To say 50 pounds is a public display of ignorance or stupidity,,, or both.
When you choose to argue about the GW issue with Robert, you really should get your ducks liked up because you are outnumbered 1,000 to -1.
MY bag of Portland cement weighs fifty pounds. EFF YOU. You are as dumb as he is.
What did you do, ram 44 pounds of it up your nose or some other handy body orifice?
http://www.convertcenter.com/bag-portland-cement
Not to mention a fifty pound bag of dog shit.
We need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less. Plants are malnourished in the open atmosphere given to the fact that we increase CO2 in greenhouses to help them grow to their full natural ability, as they evolved with such higher levels of CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, and anyone who says it is is retarded.
A greenhouse is really not the exactly the same thing as planet Earth.
Plant did just fine when the atmospheric CO2 level was between 240ppm and 290ppm where it was for the past 800,000 years prior to the human Industrial Revolution.
In 1700 a squirrel could travel from the East Coast of the US and Canada to the West Coast and never touch the ground.
Couple of articles,
1491
Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/302445/
Or the book 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus.Charles C. Mann
Same author
1493:Uncovering the New World Columbus Created
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/books/review/1493-uncovering-the-new-world-columbus-created-by-charles-c-mann-book-review.html
Robert … You’re a phony and a hypocrite for cut and pasting while condemning me for cut and pasting.
Citation? gone missing… Your claim. Support it.
If someone expressed the opinion that 2+2= 4 you would say “Your claim, support it”.
You made a claim. With no supporting evidence.
Way too often the claims of science deniers need to be clarified to that point. Misquotes, quotes from blogs and citing orig sources, copy pastes that include misspellings, citing a blog that is citing a draft and claiming it was from the final report, cherrypicking, misinterpretation. So yeah, sometimes we need verification .
Was it a flying squirrel?
Was the squirrel a pilot in the air force?
No air forces in 1700….The squirrels then had wings.
Where ya been for the past year; in a looney bin?
You could be right. Maybe there are squirrels in the air force or at least some very powerful flying squirrels.
Seems science and the courts are “retarded”….
“CO2 is not a pollutant, and anyone who says it is is retarded.”
On this issue, yes indeed – rationally defective. But this paper can help them:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
CO2 is not a pollutant …
When humans burn fossil fuels it released sequestered CO2 and human activity is polluting the air we breath with ages old CO2 and overloading the atmosphere greenhouse gases with excess amounts of CO2.
The argument is CO2 a pollutant is just another straw man type of an argument put forth by the professional global warming deniers to disrupt conversations, debates on the important issue of global warming.
Playing, semantics with the word pollutant is irrelevant when discussing a dangerous atmospheric CO2 level of 400ppm and rising.
CO2 wasn’t dangerous when historically it has been 10 times higher so why are you so worried about it rising beyond 440 ppm now especially since while the CO2 is in fact presently rising which is quite predictable and to be expected, there has been no increase in warming for over 18 years. The connection has been flushed down the toilet where it belongs.
When it was at 420ppm runaway and irreversible global warming was in progress and that always ended in a mass extinction of life on Earth…. The most desirable atmospheric CO2 level is in the 270 to 275ppm range. With millions of humans burning fossil fuels or relying upon mining and burning coal for their electrical power, that is not possible
Good grief! Now you’re blaming global warming for the extinction of the dinosaurs. Who said 270 to 275 ppm is the most desirable range especially since the world thrived when it was10 times higher? Al Gore perhaps?
They might as well be all tree huggers or tree haters since they are all politically biased appointees, appointed by which ever political party was in power when they were individually appointed
Actually it’s quite easy.
Your quote “I pointed out at the top of the thread that the SC found the pollutant argument convincing. I’ve also pointed out the science is what drove that decision”. The supreme court are not scientists and would tend to believe any BS they don’t understand presented to them. It has now been proven that the “science” used is unbelievably and very obviously corrupt. It’s on a par with Hitler’s racial theories.
Source?
“…now been proven that the “science” used is unbelievably and very obviously corrupt.”
I have a friend who as a new born was put into an incubator where she was given too much oxygen which made her blind for the rest of her life. According to you oxygen is a pollutant.
Yup. As is water.
Instead of trying discredited denialist memes, perhaps go back to the science behind why the EPA ruled co2 as a pollutant.
“The Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth’s atmosphere should be considered a pollutant.
The EPA’s finding doesn’t say carbon dioxide, or CO2, is by itself a pollutant — it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants inhale. Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124001537515830975
“The truth is that CO2 is NOT a pollutant,”
Unfortunately for your rhetoric, the science shows it is the main driver of Anthropogenic Climate Change ( see Figure 5 IPCC AR5 SPM http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf).
Also note that the courts agree with the science.
So, do you have anything?
As everyone in the galaxy but yourself understands, courts are not scientists. It would make perfect sense to you to have the Supreme Court Justices appointed as judges to a who makes the best cookies contest. If C02 was the main driver of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and it isn’t. that does not make it a pollutant. Using your logic, clouds and snow are pollutants because they reflect the sun’s rays back into space.
I pointed out at the top of the thread that the SC found the pollutant argument convincing. I’ve also pointed out the science is what drove that decision.
Again, yet again. IPCC AR5 WG1 SPM figure 5
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
DUKE … “Undoubtedly, we are polluting the daylights out of our planet”. The capitalist countries have been cleaning up pollution for 30 years since we first became aware of the problem. The air, land and waterways have vastly improved except for in the non-capitalist countries like China.
Agree, Canadave. We definitely pollute less now than in the past. But we still pollute and there’s no denying that. Nothing wrong with trying to clean it up even more. What’s wrong is blaming poor little CO2 for the damage AND allowing the 2 issues to be (mis)used interchangeably.
If you want the agenda read the below and more specifically the quote IPPCC … NOte the quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer of the IPCC.
Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth
Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World
Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation
between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined
to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or
30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals
(would) be extinct.”
Climate-change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda. Consider the statements of
some environmentalist leaders. Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s chief climate-change official, said that her unelected bureaucrats are undertaking “probably the most difficult task” they have ever given themselves, “which is
to intentionally transform the (global) economic development model.” In 2010, German
economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change official Ottmar Edenhofer said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The article in which that interview appeared summarized Edenhofer’s views this way: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. … The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
The most disgusting aspect of the climate change debate is the statements by many that it’s settled science. There is nothing more anti-scientific than the idea that any science
is settled. Very often we find that the half-life of many scientific ideas is about 50 years. For academics to not criticize their colleagues and politicians for suggesting that scientific ideas are not subject to challenge is the height
of academic dishonesty.
Read more at
http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/settled-science-theres-nothing-more-anti-s
cientific/#tgAGEzdpwlWWltPK.99
Something kinda funny. Everytime someone cites Ottmar Edenhofer as some sort of ‘proof’ misspell his name.
And guess where you land if you search the misspelled name?
A classic case of confirmation bias. Even with Google showing you the correct spelling…….
Misspelling a name is a pretty pathetic defense. How about …
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives:“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
“Misspelling a name is a pretty pathetic defense.”
Not a “defense”: Showing that you are basically toeing the ‘anything but my tailpipe’ talking point line. When you copy paste a claim without doing due diligence, the more accurate term is intellectual laziness.
And copy pasting without due diligence is also being pretty unskeptical.
Staring down your pointy nose about cut and pasting, a time saver everyone in the world but you is aware of is a pathetic last resort of the ignorant.
I was pointing out that the copy paste is from secondary and terciary sources.
And not sourced.
Poor behavior to not verify possibly questionable sources.
Poor behavior to not acknowledge your sources.
Wow…. the same complete idiot brain response three times in a row. No science, only the pestmaker. Like a little mosquito sucking blood.
Thanks for the cogent response. In a microcosm, pretty much what we see from the science deniers.
Yes, you are.
Look at Robert in other forums. He is all about derail, derail, and more derail. If he cant refute, he becomes like a pest, and jabs a derailing post until you die. He will never go beyond the pest stage
If you were to Google ‘Ottmar Edenhoffer” you’ll find more links than you can shake a stick at spelling his name Ottmar Edenhoffer”. Personally I don’t care if someone spelled his name Ottttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttmar Edenhofffffffffffffffffffffffffffer.
Yeah, a sign of intellectual laziness…… Number isn’t the issue. Quality of resource is. You are copy pasting from resources that can’t be bothered to spellcheck. And you can’t be bothered to factcheck. Being ironically unskeptical, …….
Lintzen spent 20 plus years doing real live actual temperature readings around the world with weather balloons which proved that the laughable modelling is almost always wrong. The rare times when they were close to right were far less than the laws of probability would allow. You would probably argue that Columbus didn’t sail the ocean blue in 1492 but rather he only tried.
“20 plus years doing real live actual temperature readings ”
What exactly is that evidence of? And how does that relate to the topic?
“rather he only tried.” ?????????????
LIntzen took REAL temperatures which provided the evidence that the modelling you put your faith in produced temperatures that were total bull crap.
Cite?
Gone missing….
Well … if Lindzen believes CO2 is SO ESSENTIAL … how about us putting him in a room FULL of CO2 for an hour or so and see how well he does! #CryOfTheWallEyedLoon
Or nitrogen! It’s deadly too! We should remove THAT from Earth’s atmosphere too! Or a room filled with H2O! That’s the strongest greenhouse chemical (in vapor form) of all! It must be stopped!
…
How about this: run a sealed ecosystem with zero CO2… see how long things (like plants) live without it… Hint: not bloody long.
But think of the children! Why won’t anyone think of the children!
If you think CO2 is NOT essential, you need to ask what would happen if all of it disappeared from the atmosphere.
Free clue: all the plants would die. Then, all the animals would die.
Yes because I believe I read he said he wanted a 100% CO2 atmosphere.
Why do you alarmist types want to harm those who disagree with you?
There is enough science to show Lindzen is talking through his hat. Use it rather than wishing physical ills on someone. Let the science deniers use rhetoric.
CO2 = 0.004
0.04 percent is equal to 0.0004
✔✔✔get paid $71 /hour@aa21:
Going Here you
Can Find Out
►►► https://GreatJobsCareerSys.com/get12/position98…
Yes, Popular Guest!
Your prostitution is less offensive than the prostitution the author is engaging in…
http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano
0.04% of the atmosphere = 3 trillion metric tons of CO2. That seems like a lot to me. And it’s warming effect is amplified by water vapor, which increases the more CO2 is added.
How’s this for a conflict of interest: Exxon and Koch brothers fund CFACT, and CFACT funds climate depot.
Get your climate science from climate.NASA.gov not the fossil fuel industry.
Well said!
Agreed!
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
I don’t know what they’re teaching people in school these days but I’ve argued with people who do not believe plants eat CO2. What can you do?
Stupid anti-science, climate-denying plants!
I unfortunately had to experience a liberal academic scientist, PhD in astrophysics, tell me that plants get carbon from the soil, not from the atmosphere.
They do that’s why we need to protect the environment. We need the plants we have left to absorb as much co2 as possible
FAUX NEWZ!!!1!!1111!111!!!11!!1!!!
Sorry, just thought I’d get that out of the way.
LOL. I love when I see the idiots post that. That is their only defense cause they have nothing else. It is basically like calling someone a racist because you have lost the debate.
Confirmation of Gruber’s law,can rely on their stupidity.They really cling to it.I am stupid and proud of it.Priceless!
How about this as a defense? http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj?
Hey warmistas – when was the last time someone was right when they claimed the sky was falling? I know you don’t realize it but that’s what you’re asking americans to believe. We don’t buy it – move on to the next scare please.
Of course there is climate change. It’s called weather.
If I shared this article — as I should like to — my correspondents would think I had not read it: it’s full of kindergarten-level errors.
So … another article from Climate Depot &c. that it would be nice to share … if only the writer had bothered to read it — or, better yet, to have it properly proof-read — before hitting the ‘publish’ button.
ΠΞ
Well, perhaps your “correspondents” are more clever than you think.
Works above and below:
How to Evaluate Resources Gettysburg College
“The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research!
CRAAP Questions to consider
CurrencyWhen was the information published or last updated?
Have newer articles been published on your topic?
Are links or references to other sources up to date?
Is your topic in an area that changed rapidly, like technology or popular culture?
Examples:
Outdated Information:http://www.vegsource.com/harris/b_cancer.htm
Current Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Relevance Does the information answer your research question?
Does the information meet the stated requirements of the assignment?
Is the information too technical or too simplified for you to use?
Does the source add something new to your knowledge of the topic?
Examples:
Questionable Depth:
http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/popsci.html
http://www.timeforkids.com/
Authority What are the author’s credentials?
Is the author affiliated with an educational institution or prominent organization?
Can you find information about the author from reference sources or the Internet?
Do other books or authors cite the author?
Examples:
Example of why you should examine the URL and the sponsoring organization:
http://www.python.org/~guido/
Example of a more reputable website:
http://heinzhome.heinzctrinfo.net/index.html
Accuracy Are there statements you know to be false?
Are there errors in spelling, punctuation, or grammar?
Was the information reviewed by editors or subject experts before it was published?
What citations or references support the author’s claims?
What do other people have to say about the topic? Examples:
Example of why sources should be verified:
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/classical/cat/feline-nov2001.html
Purpose Is the author’s purpose to sell, persuade, entertain, or inform?
Is there an obvious bias or prejudice?
Are alternative points of view presented?
Does the author omit important facts or data that might disprove the claim?
Does the author use strong or emotional language?
Examples:
Examples of websites with possible bias:
http://www.zip4tweens.com/
http://www.beefnutrition.org/
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/ ”
http://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/
Dr. Lindzen gets a F on his test and has to write ,”I will study better” 200 times on the black board!
Let me guess – he needs to study the IPCC reports, right?
And write ” I will believe what Robert and MIT orders me to believe” 500 times.
MIT may want to take a closer look at the “scientist” they are employing and perhaps find one who is a little more up to date on you know, science. http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/03/06/denial-hire-richard-lindzen-cites-debunked-science-defend-willie-soon-wsj?
Climate change: why the Guardian is putting threat to Earth front and centre
“For the purposes of our coming coverage, we will assume that the scientific consensus about man-made climate change and its likely effects is overwhelming. We will leave the sceptics and deniers to waste their time challenging the science. The mainstream argument has moved on to the politics and economics.
The coming debate is about two things: what governments can do to attempt to regulate, or otherwise stave off, the now predictably terrifying consequences of global warming beyond 2C by the end of the century. And how we can prevent the states and corporations which own the planet’s remaining reserves of coal, gas and oil from ever being allowed to dig most of it up. We need to keep them in the ground.
There are three really simple numbers which explain this (and if you have even more appetite for the subject, read the excellent July 2012 Rolling Stone piece by the author and campaigner Bill McKibben, which – building on the work of the Carbon Tracker Initiative – first spelled them out).
2C: There is overwhelming agreement – from governments, corporations, NGOs, banks, scientists, you name it – that a rise in temperatures of more than 2C by the end of the century would lead to disastrous consequences for any kind of recognised global order.
565 gigatons: “Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by mid-century and still have some reasonable hope of staying below 2C,” is how McKibben crisply puts it. Few dispute that this idea of a global “carbon budget” is broadly right.
2,795 gigatons: This is the amount of carbon dioxide that if they were burned would be released from the proven reserves of fossil fuel – ie the fuel we are planning to extract and use.
You do not need much of a grasp of maths to work out the implications. There are trillions of dollars worth of fossil fuels currently underground which, for our safety, simply cannot be extracted and burned. All else is up for debate: that much is not.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/climate-change-guardian-threat-to-earth-alan-rusbridger (my bolding)
All that assumes that all that CO2 will cause an increase in temperature of 2 degrees C which so far is proving to be untrue. It also assumes that a 2 degree increase is harmful but never considers the benefits which actually out weigh the harm if any.
Evidence?
Gone missing…
“but never considers the benefits which actually out weigh the harm if any.”
LOLZ! The Swiss have just voted down — by a whopping 92% to 8% —a referendum to abolish their VAT tax and replace it with a carbon tax!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/09/green-fiasco-92-of-swiss-voters-reject-carbon-tax-in-referendum/
But! But! don’t they know there’s a 97% consensus that man-made climate change is real????
Snork!!!
Oh, CD is on full boogie tilt……. http://testclimate.wpengine.com/2015/03/10/the-marx-brothers-director-robby-kenner-of-merchants-of-doubt-is-little-brother-of-1960s-radical-leftist-martin-kenner/
So very true! The only problem is that MIT is a second-rate university that has done nothing to advance science.
They are just aiming at the Government schooled Sheeple’s they have produced!
CO2 makes up .036% of the atmosphere. Tiny, miniscule, practically unnoticeable. Got to be a Religion if you believe it makes the other 99.964% warmer.
Carbon and Life
It is hard to overstate the importance of carbon; its unique capacity for forming multiple bonds and chains at low energies makes life as we know it possible, and justifies an entire major branch of chemistry – organic chemistry – dedicated to its compounds. In fact, most of the compounds known to science are carbon compounds, often called organic compounds because it was in the context of biochemistry that they were first studied in depth.
What makes carbon so special is that every carbon atom is eager to bond with as many as four other atoms. This makes it possible for long chains and rings to be formed out of them, together with other atoms – almost always hydrogen, often oxygen, sometimes nitrogen, sulfur or halides. The study of these is the basis of organic chemistry; the compounds carbon forms with metals are generally considered inorganic. Chains and rings are fundamental to the way carbon-based life forms – that is, all known life-forms – build themselves.
Silicon is capable of forming the same sorts of bonds and structures, but opinion is divided on whether silicon-based life forms are a realistic prospect – in part because it needs higher energies to form them, and in part because whereas carbon dioxide (one of the main by-products of respiration, a process essential to all known life) is a gas and therefore easy to remove from the body, its counterpart silicon dioxide (silica) has an inconveniently high melting point, posing a serious waste disposal problem for any would-be silicon-based life form.
It’s just a simple fact that roughly ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. An example would be:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level. Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.”
Oh, but didn’t the other bradfregger tell you, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations are all receiving funding from Al Gore to lie. Only the scientists that receive funding Koch Brothers and fossil fuel industry think tanks are using objective science!
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations are not all receiving funding from Al Gore to lie.
The scientists that receive funding Koch Brothers and fossil fuel industry think tanks are not using objective science!
I’m well aware of that fact, I was just being sarcastic.
It would takes people with a real loose screws to believe all those scientists from all those legitimate scientific agencies are the liars and the AGW deniers that are all associated with Koch Brothers and fossil fuel funded right wing think tanks are the ones telling the truth.
There is absolutely no paper trail or motivation for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the 600 leading climate scientists to lie, but these morons act like Al Gore is so influential that he has paid of the 97% of scientists that the fossil fuel industry didn’t pay off.
On top of it they act like they are intellectuals for believing it. They think they are real educated people because they believe sources like Fox News or Breitbart.
Well said!
“It’s just a simple fact that roughly ninety-seven percent of climate
scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are
very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific
organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this
position.”
Based on what, other than somebody repeated it a bunch of times? No really, be specific. Find the source of this claim. When you do find it (there is one) a rudimentary understanding of scientific method should show you the multiple massive flaws with the methodology behind the claim.
Thanks for such an easy question.
All the “specifics” are neatly organized for you at this link.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
It’s a great spot to begin addressing your rudimentary understanding of climate change research.
“It’s just a simple fact that roughly ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position”. That claim was proven to be BS years ago but keeps getting repeated by ignorant twits like Obama and Justin Trudeau and scientists who are not climate experts such as the dumb ass David Suzuki. If my memory serves me well that so-called study of something close to 12,000 articles was re-examined by experts who concluded that only 46 came to that conclusion which is roughly 1/3 of 1 percent, a far cry from 97%.
Science works by science getting it wrong. There is no greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1510/1510.02503.pdf
http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/10/13/new-paper-on-the-radiative-greenhouse-effect/
Time for science to correct the mistake. That’s how science works. Unfortunately the politics and religion built up around this mistake will make it much more difficult for science to act like science on this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Yes, precisely. Climate alarm isn’t even wrong.
Hmmm, pretty sure your two sources don’t do much to effect the analysis in AR5 (or 1 or 2 or 3 or 4…) .
You do understand what a review of the literature is, right?
Demonstrating that the radiative greenhouse effect is based on false premises and doesn’t exist has just a little bit (a lot) of an effect on the entire field of climate (pseudo)science.
Nice claim. Or more accurately, unsupported assertion.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html
Actually, it is evidentiary, supported by Fourier heat flow mathematics and Joseph Fourier’s own experimental results. Cited.
Whether you find that extraordinary is irrelevant. It is simply Fourier’s results, and his mathematics, from 200 years ago.
Sciencey…
“That claim was proven to be BS years ago but keeps getting repeated by ignorant twits like Obama and Justin Trudeau and scientists who are not climate experts such as the dumb ass David Suzuki.”
For those who , rightfully, stopped reading …..
“The first clue is that it’s a U.N. org.”
In the thread:
“… the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. ”
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/watch_mit8217s_dr_richard_lindzen_on_fox_news_8216we_are_demonizing_a_chemical_8212_a_molecule_essen/#comment-2490351957
The derp, the derp……
Fourier and his friend de Saussure built a device to “trap heat” from light (electromagnetic) energy, and they found that the interior temperature of the device, where heat was supposed to be trapped, didn’t rise above the temperature of the heat source. Therefore, heat does not get trapped in such a way as to increase the temperature above that of the source, and therefore there is no radiative greenhouse effect:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.02503
Kind regards.
Lather, rinse, repeat..?