Author: Norman Rogers | Published: American Thinker | Date: 12 July 2022
Climate science was an obscure and unimportant corner of academia until the professors lucked out with global warming. The global warming idea apparently struck a spark with the government and media establishments and caught fire. Money and influence flooded from Washington to academia.
In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the scientific-technological elite being dependent upon government grants. Eisenhower feared that the elite would use their influence and expertise to warp public policy for their own benefit. That is exactly what is happening. Global warming is only one of many current scientific frauds that enhance the welfare of the scientists and bureaucrats promoting the frauds.
Since World War II, the increasing flow of big money from Washington has contributed to a gradual change in the character of research universities. Money became more important than science. Administrators who were focused on money and power grew in number and became dominant. This change in character was documented in an important essay by the MIT scientist Richard Lindzen.
Global warming provided the professors and academic administrators with a junk science golden goose. They were determined to stop anyone from killing the goose.
A narrative was developed to crush “deniers” who dared to question the global warming narrative. The deniers were depicted as agents of the international oil companies. This is somewhat comical since the oil companies were constantly searching for someone to accept their surrender. The oil companies not only had no chance of winning a propaganda war with academia and the media, they didn’t want to try. They were ready to swear allegiance to the global warming narrative. They knew perfectly well that global warming nonsense was no threat to their business. But the mob needs a villain so they weren’t allowed to surrender.
Many fighters against global warming fraud dislike the label “denier.” They consider it an attempt by the global warming crowd to lump their opponents in with Holocaust deniers. My feeling is that we might as well wear the label proudly and thus destroy its effectiveness.
We deniers come from a small contingent of people with argumentative personalities, scientific background, and a job or income that gives some immunity to retaliation. Deniers are adult versions of the child who said that the emperor has no clothes.
It’s easy for the establishment to depict deniers as crackpots. Who are they to challenge the scientific consensus? That a few deniers actually are crackpots doesn’t help. But there are far more crackpots promoting phony climate scares, many of them in the most privileged ranks of human society.
Climate science groups have been spending billions of dollars developing computer models of the Earth’s atmosphere in an attempt to support the global warming narrative. The computer models are obedient to their authors. The scientists can manipulate the models to show whatever result that supports the desired conclusion — global warming or global cooling. Kevin Trenberth, no denier and one time head of modeling at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), may have clarified the situation when he said: “None of the models… correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.”
The beauty of a black box computer program with hundreds of thousands of lines of code is that it is difficult to know if it is an amazing work or a futile exercise. Academic scientists dare not criticize anything that brings money into their organization. When they do, they quickly learn that tenure is a joke compared to the importance of the money flow from Washington.
The average scientist promoting global warming really believes in global warming. It’s easy to believe in doctrines that bring in money. Academics outside of climate science who could challenge the global warming fraud prefer to keep quiet. Criticizing someone else’s junk science is dangerous for those who live in glass houses.
Professional climate scientists who are openly critical of the global warming narrative are either retired or so scientifically distinguished as to be impossible to fire. To my knowledge there is no such thing as a critical early career climate scientist. Such an aspiring scientist would not last long.
There are organizations fighting against the global warming fraud, but they don’t have the advantage of billions of government dollars to spread their message. They are always under attack by those supported in grand style by big government science. The Heartland Institute and the CO2 Coalition are two of many denier organizations.
There are numerous websites run by deniers or denier groups. One of the best, realclimatescience.com, is run by the electrical engineer Tony Heller. He hilariously exposes the lies of the global warming crowd as well as the sensationalism of the media. His specialty is exposing the tampering with climate data to make it agree with global warming theory. If a theory fails to agree with real world data, tampering with the data is one method of promoting the fraud.
People are fooled by prophets or gurus who pretend to have understanding beyond that of ordinary people. Such people may be called witch doctors by anthropologists studying African tribes. One has to ask who are the witch doctors fooling the anthropologists? The American Anthropological Association released a statement on climate change giving all-out support to the global warming fraud.
I don’t see an end to junk science because there’s too much money in it and the credible institutions that could puncture it lack objectivity and expertise. The ideological bias of the mainstream media attracts them to any crackpot theory that calls for more government money and power mobilized to solve the “problem.” For them the global warming narrative is wonderful because it provides an excuse for the government to regulate nearly everything.
A possible reform is sending the money and control of scientific research to the states. That at least would provide fifty different approaches, even if some may turn out to be disasters. It would also promote competition and diversity of opinion. The top Washington bureaucrats could be offered early retirements. The younger bureaucrats could look for jobs with the states.
Norman Rogers is a long-time denier. He is the author of Dumb Energy, a book critical of wind and solar. He is a member of the board of the CO2 Coalition. He has a master’s degree in physics. He was the co-founder of the company Rabbit Semiconductor. He has websites here and here.
Global warming is just the current issue for the amorphous green movement. From Rachael Carson and pesticides to global cooling, it has been doom right soon now, just trust me. And give me a grant.
Excellent piece— concise and spot-on.
The only thing left out was that most of ‘us’ deniers simply deny that Co2 is the control knob of climate. Climate is always changing. The ONE thing I deny is that climate is stable and DOESN’T change. I also deny that Co2 is an agent of climate change.
Stop using the greentards’ language, makes you sound foolish.
Totally Agree. The perpetrators of this scandal wish to feather their own nests by spreading lies and misinformation aimed at frightening us into believing we are changing the planet, which is impossible, when all is done for their own gain while needlessly impoverishing ourselves. It is a marxist policy for world order called communitarianism.
We are changing the planet, for the better:
Greening the planet from more CO2
Warmer winter nights in Siberia
Offset by air pollution from burning fossil
fuels without modern pollution controls — the resulting
air pollution offsets the benefits of more CO2.
Nut zero is also changing the planet for the worse.
Spending a huge amount of money to make electric
grids less reliable — who does that?
“The ONE thing I deny is that climate is stable and DOESN’T change.”
Weather changes. Global climate is quite stable.
We are in an ice house global climate.
It has been getting cooler.
But over say 100 years, it’s fairly stable.
But the Sahara desert did become a desert in the last 5000 years, or Earth surface
has cooling over the last 5000 years. Or our ocean average temperature has been cooling
over last 5000 years.
Our Ice Age or ice house global climate is caused by a cold ocean- which about
3.5 C. And our ocean average temperature does not change much in such short time period as 100 years, and therefore our ice house global climate has not change much in short period. But ocean circulation has variations and you have weather changing.
But we been in an ice house global climate for 33.9 million year.
Or we live in a cold world, and “always been” cold, and we continue to be cold.
In last 2 million years it’s gotten cooler. And it might get even colder or it might get
warmer, but it requires thousands of years. It’s academic question, not issue in terms of
less than many centuries.
“cooling over the last 5000 years”
That’s biased data mining.
Warming in the past 20,000 years
Warming in the past 325 years.
Warming in the past 47 years.
Why do you ignore all three trends?
Biased?
Dude, we are in a period of time that is known as an interglacial which occurs during an ICE AGE. Interglacial periods do come to an end. When that happens, glaciers will again cover a substantial portion of the land masses on earth.
Interglacial periods start with warming and end with cooling. If you think the variable warming we have seen will prevent this, you are mistaken. Cooling will occur again. Climate scientists would be better off trying to predict when the current warm period will end and why, rather than trying to predict warming until the globe is uninhabitable. Just look at the “hockey stick” predictions. When will climate science say we can not predict when the warming will end because we really don’t know what is going on?
The interglacial could end next week or in 1000+ years/
No one knows.
So why be concerned about it?
“So why be concerned about it?”
Because it threatens the survival of humanity.
Ot would be caused by changes in planetary geometry. How would humans change that?
Because, it flummoxes the CAGW adherents. If the hockey sticks they rely on is correct, there won’t be an end to this interglacial. If you push them on it, some will even DENY that a new glaciation will occur due to CAGW.
Actually based on previous interglacials it could end in 1000 or 16000 years.
Though as the trend is toward increased cooling since the Holocene peak it is more likely sooner than later.
One thing is certain human Co2 emissions are NOT going to cause dangerous global warming.
Why are YOU ignoring ALL the COOLING during that period ?, hmmmm.
The warm peaks are getting SHORTER and COOLER and have been since the peak Holocene warming about 8000 years ago.
The bias is YOURS !
Nothing that has been happening with temperature over the last 300 years is in ANY WAY unusual.
The long slow cooling trend over the last 8000 years is STILL continuing, our current warming is still cooler than the Holocene, Minoan, Roman and probably the Medieval.
Let me know if it warms MORE than 8000 years ago, you will be probably waiting for the next interglacial, or perhaps longer, as the last TWO interglacials were WARMER than ours has ever been.
The strategic outlook appears to be one of INCREASED COOLING over subsequent glacials.
I keep pleading that we should not use the word climate as if it were some amorphous thing.
According to the Köppen–Geiger climate classification system there are thirty climate zones and sub-zones. I do not see any discussion and comparison of change in each of these. Perhaps the changes vary considerably between these? Perhaps this kind of information would show that many of the claims are nonsense?
Where is the least change and where the most? Even speaking this way conceals the fact that an increase of say 5C in one climate zone would be very welcome while in another it would put on a lot more pressure to adapt. Do we even know how say a 5C increase in one zone would impact on the neighboring zones? I do not think so.
This all adds to the climate complexities in our world. The astonishing complexity and our inability to properly grasp and hold all the aspects together is the very last thing alarmists want to admit. This would destroy their simplistic narrrative.
“I keep pleading that we should not use the word climate as if it were some amorphous thing.”
I concur, but personally feel that an even more tactically poor move was to get “triggered” by the alarmist’s introduction of labels like “climate change denier”. Should never have even mentioned the vague “holocaust denier” bait, I feel, and instead responded with something like;
This shows how dishonest these propagandists are, no one is denying climates change, that’s absurd.
Make them “spell out” what they are so alarmed about, I suggest, so you don’t have to explain it for them over and over again. The shorthand stuff makes it sound like “the science” is something simple and obvious, and that any “climate change” is inherently destructive by default, and life on Earth is ever so fragile and has never dealt with anything but warm sunshine and gentle rains ; )
Then you are a denier.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Adding more greenhouse gases to the troposphere
should inhibit Earth’s ability to cool itself by some
unknown amount, that so far appears to be small and harmless.
Virtually every “skeptic” scientist believes CO2 is part of the greenhouse effect. If you disagree, then you are a science denier, unlikely to be correct.
CO2 is one of many variables affecting the climate — there are too many variables to know what each one does.
Those skeptics who deny the greenhouse effect, or that CO2 is part of it,
become worthless in the battle to refute climate alarmism. Leftists may
be fond of climate junk science, but they have some real science too.
They are not 100% wrong about everything they say.
We climate realists must discriminate between real science (AGW)
and the always wrong wild guesses of a coming climate crisis (CAGW).
Agreed. Happer & Wiljoen paper suggests doubling CO2 from 400 to 800ppm will result in 3 W/m^2, or about 0.85 degC under clear sky no feedback conditions. Real science, benign. Rest is largely unknown physics, probably not significant feedbacks.
So how did the warming in the Rome period 2000 years ago happen and how did the MWP happen? Who or what created the CO2? Solve these puzzles then you will know where warming and cooling comes from.
And all the other warming and coolings since the start of the Holocene. Why is this the cooler than the Eemian
Is there a greenhouse effect? Sure! What is the PREDOMINATE GHG? Water vapor. CO2 is a bit player that has a small amount to play in transferring daytime warming further into the nighttime.
A warmer troposphere also holds more water vapor.
That is a fact.
The amount is an estimate and there have been limits in the past — definitely no runaway warming with CO2 levels up to
10x higher than today.
.
The claim of a large water vapor positive feedback converts AGW into CAGW by allegedly multiplying the small harmless warming effect of more CO2 by 2x to 4x.
Actually Co2’s ability to warm is well established, it produces its GREATEST warming
effect at TWENTY PPM, thats 20 ppm, with every doubling of atmospheric Co2
the amount of additional warming produced DECREASES LOGARITHMICALLY.
This is why Co2 cannot produce dangerous global warming and NEVER has in the
past, we have had MASSIVE ice ages with 4000 ppm + atmospheric Co2.
I note YOU claim (just like warming catastrophists) the straw man argument that there are some who claim Co2 IS NOT a greenhouse gas, i have yet to hear that opinion from anyone.
However there has NEVER been a peer reviewed published scientific paper which has demonstrated Co2’s ability to warm the atmosphere experimentally, the only known paper to try that experiment was published in 2020, they did observe the predicated ability of Co2 to absorb long wave IR radiation, and its re radiation in all directions,
but try as they might they were unable to measure ANY atmospheric warming at all !
It seems the eco-loons are the deniers, as they deny the climate was always stable and didn’t change.
“I also deny that Co2 is an agent of climate change.”
So do I since I’m not afraid like Richard Greene is to see CO2 results from climate change.
Really? Weber is still clinging to his laughably ludicrous pseudo-scientific nonsense?
How many times must it be pointed out to him that the oceans (and nature in general) are currently a net absorber of CO2 OUT of the air? How many times? Yet he still persists in his tragically incorrect gibberish, falsely pretending that the CO2 increase in the air is from the oceans.
And “skeptics” like Weber still wonder why no rational person takes them seriously.
Unbelievable.
MGC, you nor anyone else has refuted the SST-CO2 relationships I present.
I lost track of the number of times people like you here have misrepresented the meaning of CO2 solubility and how it applies to ML CO2..
It doesn’t mean all the ML CO2 is from outgassing, it means outgassing and sinking has changed over time and has controlled the amount of all CO2 including from MME. When this happens I accuse the person of gaslighting me because you/they did not address what I actually said.
Why don’t you explain why the r value of my SST-CO2 image above is 28 times higher than that of the annual change in ML CO2 vs MME, where r=.03?
Richard Greene – what man-made cause of climate change? The r-values I presented here indicate very little to nothing here to ignore in the first place.
The both of you are in the ‘science is settled’ camp if you can’t fathom this.
Weber says:
“When this happens I accuse the person of gaslighting me”
The only one gaslighting here is you, Herr Weber. You’re trying to falsely pretend that the current CO2 increase in the air is “not” because of human emissions. But it is proven fact that nature and the oceans are currently net absorbers of CO2 out of the air. None of your irrelevant pseudo-scientific handwaving changes these facts.
Neither nature nor the oceans can possibly be causing the current CO2 increase. Pretending otherwise is the very height of juvenile self deception; it’s exactly like claiming that taking more money out of your bank account than you put into it somehow makes the account balance “increase”. It’s laughably ridiculous.
Rubbish again !.
The oceans are responsible for MOST of the Co2 increase.
YOU seem to have the effect BACKWARDS, it has WARMED and so the oceans OUTGAS Co2, this is the ONGOING cause of rising Co2 levels, human Co2 emissions are only around 3.75 % of annual Co2 emissions into the atmosphere annually.
Reabsorption of Co2 is dependant on a wide range of factors,
however USAF air sampling missions in the 1960’s show Co2 has a maximum reabsorption time of LESS than ten years.
Human emissions of Co2 are adding a small amount of Co2 to the atmospheric level, however warming oceans are responsible for MOST of the increase.
re: “warming oceans are responsible for MOST of the CO2 increase.”
Yet another tired old, long proven false talking point that routinely bounces around the “skeptical” echo chamber of pseudo-scientific nonsense.
CO2 going into or out of the oceans depends upon more than just ocean temperatures. But your “skeptical” sources of “information” never bothered to tell you about anything other than temperature influence, did they peter jones? No, of course they didn’t.
Here’s reality: despite the oceans getting warmer (which, other things being equal, would indeed indicate ocean CO2 outgassing) direct measurement data demonstrates that the oceans are currently absorbing CO2 out of the air. See attached.
Your “information” sources have deceived you. And probably intentionally so.
Claiming that the oceans are making CO2 in the air increase, when direct measurements demonstrate that the oceans are actually absorbing CO2 out of the air, is every bit as ridiculous as claiming that taking money out of your bank account somehow makes the account balance “increase”.
The CO2 increase in the air is not only entirely due to human emissions (see Tans 2009), but is occurring at a rate over 100 times faster than any naturally occurring change in tens of millions of years (Zeebe, et al Nature Geoscience 2016)
Tans Oceanography 2009
An Accounting of the Observed Increase in Oceanic and Atmospheric CO2
“the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is 100% due to human activities, and is dominated by fossil fuel burning”
Zeebe, et al Nature Geoscience 2016
Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years
“Carbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ∼10 Pg C yr−1 in 2014. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years. We calculate … the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C/yr-1. The present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years.”
You do realize that the area of water on the globe is very, very large. What is happening in one location may be the exact opposite in another location. Think about upwelling cold water warming.
Its so comical to once again see the ridiculously flimsy ankle biting “objections” that folks like Gorman try to raise.
CO2 concentrations in the ocean increasing in almost perfect lock step with CO2 concentrations in the air for several decades is so obviously not just some local oddity. Not to mention that, yes, there are of course measurements at other locations that show the exact same trend.
Yet another Gormanian example demonstrating why the worldwide scientific community cannot take these so-called “skeptics” seriously. Their “arguments” are a total joke.
Warmer oceans outgas Co2 into the atmosphere, THEY CANNOT HOLD IT,
so HOW can warmer ocean upper levels absorb and HOLD MORE Co2 than
they did when they were COOLER ?
I remind you that atmospheric Co2 levels are driven up by WARMING with a lag of around 800-1000 years, that Co2 has NOT been coming from human activities in the past, indeed Co2 levels continue to rise for some time AFTER
atmospheric temperatures have COOLED.
Higher Co2 levels NEVER prevent subsequent cooling.
WHERE has the additional Co2 come from in the Co2 peaks ?, THE OCEAN UPPER LEVELS.
Thermal inertia in the ocean upper levels is responsible for the lag.
We have a continual series of conservative estimated average atmospheric Co2 levels from the ice core studies, and while they DO NOT tell us what the maximum level of atmospheric Co2 was at any one time they DO show a series of substantial rises and eventual falls in atmospheric Co2 lagging AFTER the warming.
Natural causes of climate change mentioned in your comment are unrelated to manmade causes of climate change, that you ignore.
Really how ABOUT you DEMONSTRATE where CLIMATE IS OUTSIDE NORMAL VARIABILITY EH ?
I have never found anywhere that is the case.
The issue IS NOT and NEVER WAS climate, the issue is and always was TEMPERATURE.
The reason why the USA is playing thermonuclear Russian roulette with their proxy war in Ukraine, is that their Talebanic climate extremism means that they’re cool with billions of people dying. Good times 😁
Disagree almost completely. Putin invaded Ukraine trying to ‘reclaim’ it. Unless that is stopped there now, NATO nations like the Baltics will be next and that would be VERY not good, despite how hollow Putin’s armed forces are bing revealed to be.
And Putin will not use nucs. He knows that if he does, there is no Putin and no Russia left. MAD doctrine did not go away when the Cold War did.
It couldn’t happen to nicer people
https://youtu.be/2rHqT-Bsmkg
Being skeptical of the climate change campaign makes for strange bedfellows. I don’t believe that we are in a global warming crisis and now I find myself allied with people who believe we are ruled by extraterrestrial lizards and people who believe the littlest liar V. Putin, whose propaganda says that Ukraine was/is a Nazi stronghold. One doesn’t like to dissuade allies but maybe all the people who support Putin and believe in alien lizards and homeopathy and other nutball “theories” could just go play with themselves in their own sandbox. Their support really hurts the cause. Or maybe two can play this game. I support Biden in his war on the lizard people. Go Brandon.
Invading the Ukraine is not like invading a NATO member and Putin knows that.
When a lunatic is running wild and killing people it is not advisable to wait for your turn and hope for a different outcome.
Maybe Putin is using your logic considering the actions of the USA over recent decades.
How do you know?
Oh, nonsense. All Russia wants is a warm water port in Crimea & a land bridge to get goods there. If Ukraine wasn’t so incompetent & corrupt they would have negotiated that 20 years ago.
And as for NATO, it is long past time Europe provided its own defense. Russia has a smaller GDP than Italy so why can’t Europe come up with the funds for its own defense?
The only reason for NATO is so the US taxpayers can keep shoveling cash into the pockets of defense contractors. And dumping old armaments into Ukraine so we can buy more is the only reason we are in this unnecessary war at all.
So you think the last 20 years of warnings that there would be serious consequences if NATO tried to admit Ukraine were empty posturing and have nothing to do with current events?
The question to ask yourself is: Where does Putin stop?
“Unnecessary war”? Putin/Russia has directly injured 10,000 civilians, and half were killed. What a stupid comment about this situation.
Like Sevastopol, which they occupied in 2014.
Rud, what would US do if Russia were to , say, meddle in Cuban affairs and start shipping offensive weapons there? Well we have an answer in history, don’t we. Actually there are dozens of other examples where “area of interest” was the only excuse needed for US to take action.
I excuse commenters here whose knowledge of Ukraine is only a few months old and whose sources are government and MSM. There is info out there but, like for the Climate, it is in a sea of BS. Here is a source you might trust and which might start you off on research that will reveal the much more complicated reality of the geopolitics.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
I worked in Ukraine in 2005 as a consultant to a German investor, traveling the length and breadth of the country for which I studied the history, geology, geography, politics …
Did you know that Crimea was taken from the Ottoman Empire by Catherine the Great in the 1780s and was the home of the Russian and later the USSR fleet. Did you know that Kruschev, born on the border with Ukraine, gave Crimea as a gift to Ukraine (hey, it was all USSR anyway wasn’t it). Ukraine joined the Soviet Union in 1922 so had no connection to Crimea and the population was mainly ethnic Russians with lesser Tatars.
Here is a mind blowing statistic that causes concern to Europe and the US. The distance between Chicago an Moscow is the same as the distance between Moscow and Vladivostok in the far east!
US placed nuclear missiles in Turkey, aimed at the USSR,
long before the USSR placed missiles in Cuba aimed at the US. The missiles in Cuba were removed in trade for the US missiles in Turkey being removed.
Gary
Your analogy with Russia and Cuba is correct. Or similarly, imagine if Mexico cosied up to China so that Mexico was full of Chinese military advisors and military personnel. Then extend that thought up to Texas.
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/causes-and-consequences-ukraine-crisis-203182
‘MAD doctrine did not go away when the Cold War did.’
No it didn’t. But NATO should have gone away when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.
Frank
As this costly war grinds on and more and more lives are sacrificed for the sake of nothing but American empire braggadocio (its not Russia but America who are the imperialists here) more and more people will see it the same way. Meanwhile “NATO” will continue to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian (American military are already “helping” Ukraine to catch army deserters and send them to their deaths at the Donbass front) until the west’s public get tired of being sacrificed for America’s Russophobic jihad and end the war in a similar way to how the Vietnam war was ended.
“NATO nations like the Baltics will be next”
meaningless wild guess speculation
Through history the country most frequently invaded by Russia has been Poland.
Along the lines of “The war was between France and Germany and so was fought in Belgium”
Being as I am in one of those Baltic states you jabber on about, I can assure you Putin is not so stupid as to want to put his tanks made up of chocolate up against the technical superiority of Nato and maybe a few lockheed martin warthog on loan.
Reducing the vast Iraqui tank army to a pile of scrap metal in a matter of days or weeks was trivial stuff.
Putin is a crap strategist.
He, blinded by his own lunatic brand of Holy Russia is almost as fanatical as the green loons forcing all and sundry to adopt their crazy ways.
Putin is a cult figure. They always think reality is on their side, but a day of reckoning is coming.
He already lost in Ukraine.
Zelenski didn’t run away, the UKR army with the help of mere 15yr old kids,drones, and electric bikes stood up, instead of Russki expecting flowers and hald the conscripts not even knowing where the border was and what side of it they were on….froze with shit out of date rations, and having their doors blown off by a couple of blokes on a hillside with simple devices even made in UKR.
Having had decades of experience of the bully on the other side of the border, small wonder all the east Europeans are sending as much help as they can to give Putin’s army a bloody nose!
In 1968 who marched into Prague??
Sure as anything if the Czechs had had drones and NLAWs then Dupcek would not have been kicked out.
Russia went back to being a Stasi style state, well that sure ain’t gonna happen again out here any time soon….
….and if we had our way, Kaliningrad would be given back to Germany, Finland would get back Karelia and Siberia would be overrun by the Chinese….
Oh wait that’s exactly what is happening in Putin’s back water.
WIthin a decade Siberia will have been entirely overrun by the Chinese while Putin was shitting himself about useless and bankrupt states in an area of Ukraine which was never Russia, both started-invested and built by a Welshman from Merthyr Tydful….
Putin should get a Darwin award for the most suicidal idea since Stalin started the Holodomor in the 1930s.
He actually managed to get Finland and Sweden to join Nato and make the Ukrainians hate the Russians so much it will take 100yrs to get over.
Maybe the climate catastrophists weren’t lying.
Just bullshitting.
Norman Rogers writes good articles at AmericanThinker, but on this one, I will have to strongly disagree on the idea that “we might as well wear the [denier] label proudly and thus destroy its effectiveness.” No, it would be far more effective to crush that label for being what it is, a superficial, false premise one designed entirely to portray us all as sub-intelligent. For those who haven’t seen it from the 2014 Heartland climate conference, Lord Monckton showed to very comical effect just how ludicrous the “denier” label is. I have that cued up in this Youtube video starting at the 13:29 point.
Thanks for the video. Like other “deniers”, he does have a good sense of humor!
I agree that we do have to push back against propaganda the Warmunists use. When discussing
it with the average person, regardless of their position, I’ll discuss Climategate which exposes The
Team™ as a bunch of lying politicians, not scientists, whose goal is to win at any cost. I’ll then
discuss both the benefits of CO2 & warming & ask them if anyone who promotes GW has ever told
them these facts since BOTH sides agree upon them & why they failed to do so? Is it because you
may not believe the lies they’re telling you? Anything you know cold, like the missing heat in the
tropopause, lack of correlation between CO2 & T, etc., is an added plus. Be prepared to counter the
propaganda they’ve been fed with counter facts which will, at minimum, create doubt, as they
usually do. Over time, you’ll get better at it.
If I know they’re fairly green, I may open with the fact I think bad drinking water is obviously a real
problem that hurts a lot of people to let them know I’m not totally anti-green/heartless, especially if
the facts support what is being promoted (fact- 2/3 of the world’s people have parasites, mostly from
bad drinking water).
I’ve watched a bit of video where climategate was presented as evidence of manipulation. The overwhelming response by the majority was that climategate was totally innocent personal conversation that is evidence of absolutely nothing.
You can’t overcome real denial with evidence or reason.
That may be the case but I’d at least tell them where to find them as most
people have never even heard of it. It would be a case of “you read, you
decide”. You can only do so much.
In reviewing what I said, I was mostly aiming at using the least
controversial areas where both sides agree. Also, no one ever wants
to be taken for a fool. Trust is everything & any shadow of a doubt
is better than nothing.
Where can we find all the Climategate E-Mails without needing the secret password?
The “climate howlers” are the science deniers.
Always wrong wild guesses of a coming climate crisis
are NOT science. They are climate astrology.
A realist is not a denier. Period !
The federal climate funding will only start to dry up after two preconditions are met:
We are close to the inflection point on climate nonsense.
Republican Senate not dominated by RINOs, Republican House dominated by conservatives, Republican conservative President.
Reconciliation bill which uses elimination of ALL “renewable”, EV, ethanol, subsidies and all federal expenditures for any and all race and diversity training for all contractors to the federal government and all programs employing majority liberal staff of any purpose.
Eliminate as many positions in the federal government that has anything to do with liberal ideas, and therefore put all those Democrat donors in unemployment lines, which will have a vast effect on the current money disparity between Democrat MORE and Republican LESS campaign cash.
Add a tax on ALL trusts, business, unions and foundations that are involved in political causes, 100% for every dollar spent to influence voters.
A 50% of wealth tax on all university endowments to make up for any expenditure of the federal government for the student loan fiasco, and remove the student loan program from federal control, doable because the Democrats under Obama and Reid put it under federal control under reconciliation by claiming it would SAVE money.
Finally, a law that only one who can vote in the election can give to a candidate, i.e. if you don’t live in Georgia and are NOT a felon and are a US citizen, you can’t donate to Warnock, for example. All donations to be verified by the campaign and candidate, and any money accepted and used by that campaign shall constitute a felony punishable by a minimum sentence of the length of the office sought, and being forever banned from federal office or federal employment of any kind.
And on I dream.
A lovely dream it is too.
Totally agree. The first pillar to fall will be net zero. And the whole edifice will go shortly later.
I doubt it, this was never about scientific studies, science is just being used to justify the imposition of predetermined economic and geopolitical policy’s that date back to the late 1960’s, because science and scientist’s have credibility with the general public and allow politicians to justify the inexcusable in the name of the public good.
Things have currently come off the rails because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent energy shortage.
I believe the plan was meant to reach this stage in the future AFTER fossil fuels had gone (on a temporary basis) and the vast economic damage of borrowing to supply the subsidies had collapsed the economies of the western world.
This has given the people a taste of what their politicians have planned for them in the future and there will be a backlash, but i think the ship of state will just plow on continuing the same policys, because the international bankers have the politicians who are in control in their pocket.
I have seen a copy of the marketing plan the U.K government commissioned from a PR company years ago to SELL global warming to their population, point 2 clearly lays out the strategy, IGNORE ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THE POLICY !
Thats why no scientific studies which produce results that demonstrate problems with the propaganda are taken seriously by government.
dreamer
I agree. Sadly, regarding Point 1, as I live in the UK.
A couple of years ago I suggested that we DENIERS wear yellow armbands with the letter D in a parody of the gruesome German rules forcing Jews to self identify by wearing yellow armbands with the star of David. This would throw back in the faces of the ghastly AGW shower the monstrousness of their attempts to hobble the forces of reason. My idea did not then gain traction but I think it resonates with Norman Parker
No, they would just say “Good! At least they are admitting their lies”
When critics call skeptics “deniers” they are saying we are denying the reality of human-caused climate change, and are equating our “denial” with those who denied the Holocaust (the murder of over six million Jews in World War II) happened.
The truth is CAGW skeptics are the ones who see reality clearly. It’s the alarmists who are living in a false reality. Alarmists claim they have evidence that humans are causing changes in the Earth’s weather right now. What could be more of a denial of reality than that? They have no evidence, yet they say they do. Delusional.
Biden says that we should keep alive the truth and honor of the Holocaust.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Mkq_SJgyIoo
He immediately corrected himself. It’s hard to imagine a mind so muddled that would make this gaffe.
The hypocrisy of the left is without limit, imagine the headlines if Trump had made even a teenth of the gaffes this senile old duffer has made.
It’s shameful.
Global warming scare is intentional. Technocratic elite has tried to find a way to push their agenda since 1930s, especially pushing it harder since 1970s. Jimmy Carter was the first president that was educated by technocrats. Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzenzinski through Trilateral Commission were educators. Rockefeller Family has financed this from the start, for example through UN. George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton were/are members of the committee, so it does not care if you are a republican or democrat. Technocrats pushed and helped to develop UN programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and Smart Grid. Gro Brundland was especially important player because she started to initiate these environmental programs in UN early 1980s. Now she is a member of The Elders that push “global village” agenda. Lots more to learn if you are interested. Environmental programs are meant to push technocratic agenda where energy is the currency for the society, not money. WEF is the one to push with Smart Grid. Patrick M. Wood has interesting books about Trilateral Commission and Technocrats if interested. People should be more aware of this and make it public and open.
Also, good documentary to watch is Monopoly – Who Owns the World. Worth every minute of your life.
https://rumble.com/vn7lf5-monopoly-who-owns-the-world-must-see.html
I post this wherever I can: Global Warming/Climate Change is the greatest scientific and economic fraud in history. It has siphoned literally trillions of dollars from the world’s economies for a gigantic hoax.
Lysenkoism killed far more people.
Well collectivisation and Russification certainly killed millions. Lysenko was an a**h*le, no doubt, but the idea that environmental conditions can alter the somatic expression in offspring (Lysenkoism) is now widely accepted under the rubric of epigenetics, widespread junk science notwithstanding. Stalin killed millions, Lysenkoism, not so much.
The climate changes, constantly. Humans are not causing it to change and humans cannot STOP it from changing.
Baloney
Humans can and do affect the climate.
Horseshit. Climate changes, always has and always will, humans are not causing it to change and cannot stop it from changing. Can humans screw up environment on a local scale? Yes, and we have. Guess what? We can also clean up our messes as America has proven.
Greenhouse gas emissions reduce Earth’s ability to cool itself
Air pollution blocks sunlight.
Learn some climate science.
So you are claiming humans have caused climate change for millions and millions of years. Sure, buddy, you keep pushing that fantasy.
Greenhouse gas emissions do NOT affect earth’s ability to cool, the gases absorb and reradiate long wave IR in ALL directions.
They have NO effect on negative forcing’s.
Air pollution does not appear to have had any effect on global temperatures !
Regional effects yes but global NO.
So far temperatures are TOTALLY within normal variability.
Learn some climate science.
DO THEY ?
How about YOU tell me WHERE climate is operating outside normal long term variability !
We do NOT appear to be effecting the weather anywhere.
We MAY be adding a little to temperature but that is NOT climate.
I would say that we are all doing the good work of fertilizing the air (for all the world equally) to make the plants grow and feed the world.
“In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the scientific-technological elite being dependent upon government grants. Eisenhower feared that the elite would use their influence and expertise to warp public policy for their own benefit. That is exactly what is happening. Global warming is only one of many current scientific frauds that enhance the welfare of the scientists and bureaucrats promoting the frauds.”
I believe I recall Russel Brand saying this:
“The problem with following the science is that the science follows the money.” This explains why challenging the climate alarmist narrative is now akin to religious heresy.
You are right Eisenhower did read part of that speech one of his staffers wrote for him, HOWEVER when he was president he did NOTHING about it.
In fact he squashed the 1953 House Unamerican Activities Committee investigation into
the activities of the tax free foundations once it presented an initial report.
That investigation uncovered much of the coordinated suborning of university’s and sciences
as a means of changing U.S culture in a direction most beneficial to the geopolitical agenda of the owners of the foundations.
I recommend an old u tube interview with the chief investigator Norman Dodd its quite an eye opener.
I also recommend a book on the report written by the investigations lawyer …Foundations Their Power and influence by Renee Wormser published 1958 and still available.
Global warming is a pretty sharp scam, because it can’t be falsified. We just have to wait about thirty years to see if it is real, but we do have to pay now to avoid the predicted calamities.
In thirty years, Greta Thunberg is going to be 48. Maybe Sweden will be broiled like a reindeer stake by then but, even if it is, Greta’s principal source of personal unhappiness will be the usual train of unfortunate events and disappointments that happen to pretty much everybody by the time they are well into middle age.
We need a decade or two of cooling to break this CO2-caused climate change spell.
The Earth has currently cooled about 0.6C from the 2016 highpoint.
Btw, Roy Spencer has a great comparison of the Hubble telescope and the new Webb telescope on his homepage. It’s pretty striking:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/
“The Earth has currently cooled about 0.6C from the 2016 highpoint.”
Meaningless data mining
Hardly meaningless it demonstrates COOLING though Co2 levels are RISING.
The trends are the thing and for most of the last 25 years cooling has equalled warming.
Tom, we already have two decades of 0.05C/dec miniscule warming since the 1998 El Nino peak. During this period CO2 rose strongly by about 40ppm to 420ppm, therefore AGW is already falsified. Which is why the IPCC and BoM alarmists just keep talking about their fabulous climate models that show the warming they want to see, instead of climate oscillation reality. The current cooling during continued La Nina’s may extend for a third year but beyond that nobody knows the trend, but given the solar minimum over the next decade, it is likely we will experience more cooling. So really, the AGW story is over, the alarmists haven’t realized it yet!
“we already have two decades of 0.05C/dec miniscule warming since the 1998 El Nino peak.”
More meaningless data mining.
Wrong again !, this is NOT meaningless, AGW theory supports continual warming with rising Co2 THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED and THAT IS important.
The trends dont support AGW theory so far either.
And accordingly the time line for completion of UN objectives (political based on the climate hoax) was Agenda 21 (2021) later amended to Agenda 30 (2030).
Paris Agreement timing for emissions reduction 2030, etc.
Sadly, the entire establishment is completely committed to the climate change narrative. So much so, they’re willing to make totally ridiculous decisions on our behalf to save us from the projected calamity. For example, their determination to replace our highly reliable energy infrastructure with an unreliable one.
I noted a television advertisement in Australia recently, an energy supply company offering rooftop solar with battery storage designed to meet individual consumer’s household or business needs.
Payment of accounts monthly instead of the usual quarterly basis, it sounded like a hire purchase scheme.
Another indicator that our world’s longest interconnected electricity grid is quickly becoming more unreliable and electricity price increasing with no plan to replace baseload generator power stations as most are reaching the end of their operating life plan.
How to ruin a perfectly good electricity supply that offered low prices attractive to businesses and domestic consumers, and to try and avoid the apparently unforeseen consequences a hire purchase scheme to try and pacify the people.
Destroying the availability of cheap and abundant energy IS the entire purpose of those policys.
The Club of Rome laid that out clearly in its 1972 Limits to Growth, all the global warming policy’s have come from there, as i remember the quote “Giving humanity access to cheap and abundant energy is like giving an idiot child a machine gun”
This is the future they have planned for us, and they are succeeding.
Adverts on TV all the time now about how you can get solar panels “free” / at no cost to yourself with current generous federal government subsidies.
Who said that any university course that ended with the word “studies” wasn’t really a discipline? Seems to me that might apply to any course that ends with the word “science”. I recall that there used to be a discipline called climatology. What happened to it?
“Denier” suggests recalictrance when the only recalcitrance is the stubborn refusal to ditch the scientific method for The Science consensus.
During the past week the Prime Minister of Australia attended a forum of Pacific nations where they all agreed that there is a climate emergency.
Apparently the best way to stop it is economic vandalism and lots of gifted monies to Pacific nations to enable them to deal with the emergency.
No mention of China’s emissions that every year increase by the total emissions from Australia that are less than two per cent of global emissions. China’s emissions must be too far away from the emergency zone.
On top of the money to research’s problem, there is the desire of all politicians to save us from something and their media supporters who feel the need to support their guy by convincing the public that they need saving.
You seem to be a bit quiet on the severe heat affecting Western Europe? The UK government ( Conservative) have declared a Red emergency and are holding emergency planning meetings this weekend. The two critical days are Monday and Tuesday . It is forecast that we may well exceed the temperature record in the UK on Monday with a temperature of 40c.
Some nations may call us a bunch of wimps due to having such temperature on a regular basis. But our housing stock and society is based on keeping heat in, not out.
It could be a difficult few days.
Get a grip, don’t let yourself become another useful idiot.
British houses since the industrial revolution weren’t built to keep heat in, nor cold out for that matter. Much of the UK’s housing stock is still that cheaply constructed homes for workers in factories. Even though we no longer have the factories we still build to the same poor standards.
The greatest improvement that could be made on existing homes would be the fitting of external shutters. But because UK windows, with very few exceptions, open outwards that would also mean it becoming too expensive. Having lived in France and copied what the locals did in heatwaves one can be survived more comfortably by judicious closing and opening of shutters and windows. Something most expat Brits didn’t do.
A usefull gadget:
2 summer days, a catastrophe, a crisis !!!
😀
Such heat waves are NOT uncommon n the U.K , as to the ACTUAL temperature officially broadcast i would be VERY careful of unchecked official pronouncements.
I know of a Professor at a large mid-west university who had meager funding for years for research into Prairie Chickens, of all things. That was until they attended a seminar on how to collect major research funding by connecting the work to “climate change”. WA-LA! The $$$$ now come pouring in. Yes. It is that simple.
Another tired old parroting of the tragically ridiculous climate change “fraud” claims.
The real “fraud” occurring is from so-called “skeptics” who distort, misrepresent, and flat out deny valid, well verified scientific information that’s been accepted for decades in every major developed nation on earth.
Like what, for example?
Thought not.
re: “Like what, for example?”
Like practically all of climate science.
Like CO2 being a known greenhouse warming agent.
Like the amount of warming that occurs because of CO2 increase being known to within a reasonably fair degree of uncertainty.
Like the known fact that human emissions are increasing the level of this known warming agent over 100 times faster than any naturally occurring change in over 60 million years.
Like the amount of warming due to CO2 emissions that has been observed thus far matching projections made decades ago.
Really !, well WHAT IS THE WARMING THAT Co2 CAN PRODUCE ! ?
How about YOU tell me.
Human emissions of Co2 have NOT increased the rate of warming AT ALL !, the data is VERY clear.
In fact the amount of warming IS FAR BELOW the median of the numerous model projections made decades ago.
The modellers are now admittng their models are WRONG and DO NOT represent observed realty !
If human emissions of Co2 WERE having a significant effect the rate of warming would have been GREATER when Co2 levels were 100 ppm LOWER !.
That’s right !, the MORE Co2 in the atmosphere the more the additional warming created DECREASES LOGARITHMICALLY.
Co2 produces its greatest warming effect at 20 ppm !, the more Co2 the LESS warming produced.
Based on the ice core data its WARMING that drives up atmospheric levels of Co2 with a lag of around 800 years NOT the other way around, higher levels of Co2 NEVER prevent subsequent cooling, in fact Co2 levels continue to rise for some AFTER temperatures have cooled.
Its clear you have not even the most basic understanding of the science that swirls around this issue.
Everything you posted is pure propaganda supplied by the media.
It is so terribly sad to see that yet another person has been duped by the distortions and misrepresentations he’s been spoon fed by so-called “skeptical” sources of “information”.
Practically everything peter jones has claimed here has long been known to be either totally false or wildly misleading. A few examples:
1- “the amount of warming IS FAR BELOW the median of the numerous model projections made decades ago”
Ridiculously false. peter jones no doubt believes this falsehood because of disingenuously cherry picked misrepresentations, of just certain tiny non-representative portions of the atmosphere, that have been published numerous times by “skeptical” sources in an apparent attempt to intentionally mislead.
Here’s reality:
Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model ProjectionsGeophysical Research Letters Oct 2019
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
2- “Based on the ice core data its WARMING that drives up atmospheric levels of Co2 with a lag of around 800 years NOT the other way around”
This tired old long refuted “skeptical” objection is based on the false premise that cause and effect between temperature and CO2 must be a one way only street. It is not. Temperature increases can cause CO2 increases. CO2 increases can also themselves cause further temperature increases.
More CO2 in the air being a cause of temperature increase has been known scientific fact since the late 19th century. Every bit as much a scientific fact as the fact that oxygen supports combustion. Pretending otherwise is nothing but willful self deception.
The PETM episode of 66 million years ago is a textbook example. During the PETM, geological processes released large amounts of CO2 into the air. Large and rapid temperature increases resulted.
The main difference between the PETM and today is that human emissions are increasing the CO2 level ten times faster.
re: “Everything you posted is pure propaganda supplied by the media”
Another utterly ludicrous falsehood. Everything posted is backed by decades of research evidence, from scientists all over the globe, published in the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.
“It is clear that you sir have not even the most basic understanding of the genuine science that swirls around this issue.”
I would like to say you have no idea what you are talking about.
The accurate data is the accurate data and the accurate data is FIRMLY on the sceptics side and ALWAYS has been.
you’re living in a delusional dreamworld, pal.
If we are climate deniers, then they are climate liars. Fair is fair.
Unfortunately, the claim that “they are climate liars” is itself a lie. Most everything that climate science had projected decades or even a century ago has been observed and is continuing to be correct.
What is it that climate science projected ?
Why don’t YOU tell me.
I bet you will not get a single thing correct.
Use of the term “denier” has develioped based on self designated “concensus” with the intent to stress “concensus” is right and correct and absolute fact and everyone that doesn’t buy in and tout the tout is a wrong headed, idiot. Straight out of Nazi Germany and Orwell’s 1984. Just ask Greta.
ha ha
I’ll bet nobody noticed but I said that not very long ago in the thread about the AGs from various states in the EPA court case.
I suggested they do their own version of a Brexit
The State has gotten tooooo large, too cumbersome and too many people who will never ‘get along’ with too many other people.
Crowding them all together under one umbrella is not working anymore.
Break it up, then each faction can find somewhere to their liking and, with luck, Peace May Break out
To all intents, California is already waaaaaay out there already
edit to oops, I forgot the quote….
Quote:”A possible reform is sending the money and control of scientific research to the states. That at least would provide fifty different approaches, even if some may turn out to be disasters.
They “state ” climate change is a done deal , so why is it still being funded ? , the funding needs to be spent on mitigation of the problems that t hey have ” prooved ”
Never happen of course !
IMHO, the best way of debunking the global-warming hoax is to show data comparing actual temperature change since 1980 or so to what was predicted by the models, and arguing that if a model couldn’t predict the past, how can it predict the future?
The Biden policy of restricting oil drilling in the USA, then begging for oil from the Middle East is not only suicidal from a national security perspective, it also INCREASES CO2 emissions, and also increases emissions of real pollutants.
Burning a fuel in the USA will always generate CO2, regardless of whether the fuel was extracted in Saudi Arabia or West Texas.
But I have never seen a sail on an oil tanker (neither has anyone else), so that some fuel must be burned to push the sea-water displaced by the oil tanker out of the way. It takes much more fuel to ship a tanker full of crude oil through the Suez Canal, through the Mediterranean, and all the way across the Atlantic Ocean than to ship the same amount of oil by rail, pipeline, or truck from West Texas to refineries along the Texas and Louisiana coasts. The fuel burned to ship the crude oil across the Atlantic adds to the total CO2 emissions from burning the fuel itself.
There is another reason to prefer using American crude over MIddle Eastern crude, which the Biden administration ignores completely. Middle Eastern crude contains about 3% sulfur by weight, and is much denser than West Texas crude, which contains only about 0.5% sulfur by weight. In the refining process, sulfur is removed by reacting the fuel with hydrogen, which converts sulfur to hydrogen sulfide, which is then converted to elemental (solid) sulfur via the Claus process.
Hydrogen is usually produced in a refinery using steam-methane reforming, which produces 4 molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of CO2 per molecule methane used. West Texas crude requires less hydrogen to remove the sulfur, and so generates less CO2 emissions from the steam-methane reforming than Middle East crude.
If the USA needs fossil fuels to run their cars and trucks, they can REDUCE total CO2 emissions by drilling and refining American crude oil instead of importing Middle Eastern crude oil.
I dislike the false label “denier” because:
Hillary and other despicable politicians tried their darnedest to maliciously label voters who disagree with them as “deplorables”.
We are deplorables!
A deplorable is what Hillary and Bill used to be, ordinary people.
Hillary was thinking that she’d use a term roughly equivalent to ‘trailer trash’. An opprobrium viewed by many of all races as hurtfully bigoted.
Back in 1967, my first task out of graduate school was to design a radiation experiment containing 54 SS test specimens. The experiment was part of an alloy development project that was looking at the effect of neutron irradiation on SS. The test capsule was 24 inches long and contained two different temperatures. The specimens in the lower and upper regions were to be maintained at 750 F and the central region was designed to keep those specimens at 1000 F. I did the thermal design using my trusty slide rule, reviewed the results with my supervisor, and had the parts fabricated.
The next step was to prepare the safety analysis for the experiment. This was required by the INEL reactor before irradiation began. INEL required that a thermal analysis be performed using a specific computer code. I built the computer code model and ran the code. It did not calculate the desired result, so I was told to manipulate the boundry conditions until the computer calculated my design answers. When it did the computer printout was attached to the safety analysis report, which was accepted by the INEL reactor safety committee.
I thus forced the computer to calculate my slide rule answers. That experience gives me little trust in computer calculated results even today.
Computer programmers have little or even no knowldge of the physical world and how math rules physical phenomena. Variance in physical things is unknown to them. How many programmers truly understand the integral math used and how to properly implement it in code?