The Greens are losing the international climate fight

Obama is gone. The “green queen” Angela Merkel is struggling over coal. Britain is brexiting the green EU. Japan is silent, while China and India burn coal like crazy. Russia never did care. And so it goes.

All in all the international climate alarm movement looks to be somewhere between stalling and collapsing. There is still a lot of political noise but the big guns are mostly silent as 2017 draws to a close.

What is really important is that most of this big ticket movement away from alarmism is coming directly from the voters. America, Britain and Germany have all swung away from the left. Only France is still going green, where they appear increasingly isolated.

Mind you there is still alarmist action in the smaller countries like Canada, and the evergreen EU is trying to act, but it is slow going at best. Conversely, smaller countries like Poland are pushing hard for sanity. There is definitely no present consensus favoring climate alarmism among the nations of the world.

As a result the UN’s campaign to take vast sums away from the developed world, in the name of climate control, looks to be heading straight for a wall. So is the very idea of climate control via world domination.

Some of all this must be the Trump effect, but it is also people waking up to the reality of green pain with no gain. This is certainly true in Britain and Germany where energy costs have exploded. France’s heavy use of nuclear power has delayed these unwanted green policy shocks somewhat, but now they are going after cars, which means directly hitting voters.

It is important not to be misled by the political noise of far away promises, like phasing out coal or internal combustion cars by 2040. There are still a lot of green voters so they will always get distant political promises, but maybe little else. Distant promises are not action.

Of course there is still a lot to be done to rein in destructive climate alarmism. But the point is that right now that alarmism has very little steam on the international stage. Now is the time to take positive steps toward sane energy policies. Some countries are already doing this, especially America and the UK, but it is just a small start at this point.

Ending absurd subsidies for renewable energy is very important. So is deregulation, plus abandoning incredibly expensive nutty green causes like decarbonization. The big green hole we now need to climb out of is pretty deep, so we must start climbing seriously.

We also need to return climate science to rationality. This means funding real science, not computer driven scares. Climate change is a natural process that we do not understand and cannot control. So the grand challenge is to finally figure out how it works, not to fabricate coming catastrophes, which is all that a lot of today’s research amounts to.

Let’s get to work while the tide of rationality is with us.


About the Author: David Wojick, Ph.D.

David Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis.

  • pkwz

    Knocking out the green subsidies will kill the climate change scam. The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made. Reality is setting in and people and governments are finding out that renewable energy sources can’t deliver and that the only thing they deliver are soaring electricity prices and unreliable power. The green grids are killing economies and people.

    Face it, the entire global warming movement was just an invention of affluent first world dummies who didn’t have anything constructive to do with their wealth and time. It’s just like eating disorders in the west. You don’t find anorexic teenage girls in Bangladesh.

    It’s just question of time when the ridiculous windmills and solar farms end up in the junkyard.

    • Frederick Colbourne

      “The ONLY reason why this idiotic movement got going in the first place was because there was money to be made.”

      I almost said “bang on” but I think maybe the movement would have started anyway even without the money. But without the money it would have soon fizzled out.

      • David Wojick

        Not sure that I agree. The environmental movement has been growing ever more powerful since the 1960s (when I started tracking it). The primary goal is power, not money. Scares are the primary tactic because scares create political power.

        But as the power grew so did the corruption, with huge payoffs now being promised. Many countries and industries are now lined up to make huge amounts of money, but that is a relatively recent development..

        • pkwz

          The environmental movement has been around for decades, but without money it had no power. Money and power are synonymous in this case. Money buys politicians which in turn results in dumb legislation. Or in the terms of the shake down racket also known as the U.N., they extract wealth and power by just existing. The U.S.A. should also just stop funding the UN. That would do wonders for the world.

          • David Wojick

            Every movement needs money but that does not make money the goal of the movement. I myself have a fundraiser:

            In the climate case we do have industry activists whose goal is money making for their companies, especially the renewables industry.

            • pkwz

              Money or power, which came first? It’s a chicken and egg kind of question. Who cares…

              I can guarantee you that when the money (i.e., government subsides) runs out, the AGW movement will die. In fact, the environmental movement is bought and paid for by government funds, either directly or indirectly.

              ALL of these “first world problem” movements are phony and superfluous. They are no different than the “let them eat cake” days of the past.

              • David Wojick

                I think you may be underestimating just how dangerous the Greens really are. This is a movement on the scale of Communism last century. It is true that the alarmist scientists get billions from the US and other governments, but the activists not so much. The leading groups like Sierra Club, EDF, NRDC, WWF, etc., get relatively little federal funding.

                A lot of people believe this green stuff. For example, EDF routinely calls up 500,000 personal emails backing the latest EPA proposed nonsense regulation. Our fight for freedom is really real.

                • pkwz

                  I think you’re underestimating the power of the people which lies clearly on the other side of the environmentalist movement nut jobs. These are the folks that elected Trump, a victory against overwhelming odds which included the MSM, Hollywood, DNC, and every single left wing organization (and the RNC establishment).

                  The power of the “Greens” compared to the gun owning population of this country is insignificant. So if the greens want to start a war I think they should think twice.

                  Just because conservatives make little noise and never resort to extortion tactics (or act like little babies and commit acts of eco-terrorism), doesn’t mean that they are weak.

                • The Federal government is spending $50 billion per year on grants that support “anthrogenic (man-caused) global warming.” It they have been at this level for the 29 years of this fraud they have spent $1.45 trillion on it, ruined science education and publishing that can be estimated to about ten times the grant figure damage.

            • TreeParty

              Wait: David Wojick of Heartland Institute?!?! The Heartland Institute that is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry?!?! Where the “science director” is a convicted felon was sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA, even while he claims that the EPA is “fraudulent”?
              Oh, well I guess we have PLENTY of reason to accept YOUR version of climate science…/sarc.

              • David Wojick

                Hi Tree. I see you have been shopping at the Ad Hominems R us store. I am not “of Heartland” but I greatly admire them an collaborate from time to time. They did publish this blog article of mine awhile back:

                • Immortal600

                  Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.

                  • TreeParty

                    The “two lurking trolls” you mentioned are actually conversant with climate science while you, clearly, are not.
                    jmac: 18,856 comments, 43,636 upvotes.
                    robert: 24.433 comments, 46,477 upvotes.

                    Immortal600: 2369 comments, 1552 upvotes.
                    Apropos of nothing. Just sayin’…
                    Immortal600 – A troll accusing actual responsible citizens of being trolls – major fail!

                    • Immortal600

                      Using votes to prove a point? Shallow. You are a troll. Nothing more needs to be said. You know nothing about climate dynamics and neither do they

                    • TreeParty

                      Says the troll.

                    • pkwz

                      anyone who spends that much time in meaningless message forums is the epitome of a troll. Guess what, nothing said on forums is worth anything. This is not the real world.

                    • TreeParty

                      Says the troll.

                    • AndRebecca

                      Why do you shill for the power mongers and dictators at the U.N.? Scared to get a real job?

                    • TreeParty

                      I shill for no one. I work in the public transport sector, helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution.
                      You have a cartoonish sensibility: “power mongers and dictators” at the U.N.?!?! Really? So you are really just a cartoon figure. POW!!

                    • AndRebecca

                      Oh, you don’t believe power mongers and dictators run the U.N., that’s rich. Talk about being out of the loop. Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.

                    • Immortal600

                      Tree Party is an eco-kook.

                    • TreeParty

                      That’s OK; that is the kind of content-free, personal attack we expect from trolls..

                    • Immortal600

                      Go away creep

                    • TreeParty

                      You understand that this is a public forum where people come to discuss issues of interest to us, do you not? You understand that I am reading many of the comments here, do you not? If you are too chicken to engage me directly, that is YOUR problem. Actually, I am engaged in discussing the facts of, and evidence for, anthropogenic global warming, while you appear to be here ONLY to make personal attacks on those who disagree with your false beliefs.
                      “Lurker buddies” = classic projection..

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t care to debate you. Don’t you get that? You are the one coming here to attack, yet you are too self-absorbed to see that. Attacking Heartland and Dr. Wojick makes YOU the troll here. This site is for the non believers of AGW. “Deniers” your ilk calls us. You aren’t here to debate. You are here to denigrate and THAT makes YOU the TROLL here. Capische?

                    • TreeParty

                      I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked! I get it, alright. You want the comfort of your little echo chamber where facts don’t intrude and everyone can have their conscience soothed about trashing the planet.
                      I AM here to debate, to present facts and try to expose the fallacies being promulgated by the likes of “CFACT” and the Heartland Institute.
                      I use “deniers” like “your ilk” uses “alarmists”. I could say “people who don’t believe in AGW”, but “deniers” is more economical and conveys the same meaning. So get over it, like I got over being derided as “alarmist”. YES, I AM sounding the alarm, that NEEDS to be sounded. I think of it as a public service, like education..
                      You misspelled capisce….
                      PS. The CFACT Board of Advisors reads like a Who’s Who of global warming deniers, (especially that insufferable buffoon Fake-Lord Monckton). Just thought you’d want to know in case you want to go get some actual climate science somewhere else, you know, for balance….

                    • Immortal600

                      “I should imagine that you don’t care to debate me; you would get smoked!”


                      I guess you are a legend in your own mind too?

                    • TreeParty

                      Of course your imagined “power mongers and dictators” have nothing to do with AGW. Almost every nation around the globe is concerned about AGW and signed on to the Paris Accords in an attempt to get a grip on this increasingly serious global problem. Flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon is certain to heat the planet; that is what every scientific association around the planet understands.
                      I’m trying to understand where you are coming from, but I don’t speak gibberish:
                      “they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists”.
                      What does that even mean? Can you cite any evidence for your confused and confusing claim?

                    • AndRebecca

                      Oh, when I get on the U.N. website, I don’t read what is there, I’m reading something else, hmm? Climate Alarmism is about the transfer of money from one group of people to another. No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet. And teaching the school children about Gaia is beyond ridiculous. And you still can’t figure out cars and trucks are putting out less carbon today than a few years ago. I could really insult you here. “What does that even mean?” What a conundrum! It takes a brain to figure out you’re being had, and you don’t have one. But, I’ll try again anyway…you said you work in the public transport sector helping to reduce auto exhaust pollution and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced! You are making no sense what so ever.

                    • TreeParty

                      This paragraph is almost unintelligible, and the parts that are intelligible are wrong. “No one is concerned about China or India polluting the planet” is a patently and ridiculously false statement.
                      “…and I said you are unable to see that pollution is actually being reduced.” Actually, no you DID NOT say that. I read back over your comments and I do not find that statement anywhere.
                      You DID say, “Speaking about auto pollution, they’ve been getting it under control for years now but with no effect according to you climate alarmists – and you supposedly work in the business.”
                      Perhaps I should explain to you why these two things are not the same, starting with your unreferenced pronoun that obscures your meaning: who is “they”, that have been “getting it under control”? How is “getting it under control” synonymous with “pollution is actually being reduced”? So NO, you did not say what you claim you said. Moreover, your claim is false. In the U.S, according to the EPA: “In terms of the overall trend, from 1990 to 2015, total transportation emissions increased due, in large part, to increased demand for travel.”
                      I am unable to see that (CO2) pollution is actually being reduced because it isn’t being reduced! There are encouraging trends here and there, but your optimistic euphemisms are mere fantasy. CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to skyrocket. Try dealing with facts and logic, will ya?!

                    • AndRebecca

                      My paragraph is almost unintelligible? I wrote it in simple language just for you and you still don’t get it. I think it’s because English is not your first language. What else could it possibly be? I appreciate the English lesson though, silly as it is. Pollution in America is being reduced and has been over the years. Especially auto pollution. Why you don’t know this is beyond me. Photos of the air in California, even with the fires, show less smog than years ago.

                    • Immortal600

                      He is full of himself.

                    • AndRebecca

                      He sure is. Have you noticed how low I.Q. people think they are smarter than everyone else?

                    • Immortal600

                      A common trait among the AGW crowd.

                    • Immortal600

                      That’s right, troll. buzz off

                    • TreeParty

                      You cartoon figures seem to be confused about what constitutes “trolling”. Here is the first half of my original comment to David Wojick:
                      “The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
                      The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
                      Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.”
                      That is NOT trolling; that is reasoned, fact-based refutation of the denier’s premise(s).
                      Now, by contrast, here is immortal’s first comment in response to me:
                      “Tree Party and the two lurking trolls that upvoted him are of the mindset you warn about. They are clueless when it comes to climate dynamics.”
                      Now THAT is trolling. (Defined as making a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.)
                      Consider yourself corrected, and try to do better in the future.
                      And by the way, Wojick’s claim that the climate movement is stalling or collapsing is like Trump’s claim that his inaugural crowd was the biggest ever, bigger even than Obama’s: demonstrably false! We’ve got photos!
                      P.S. Wojick is LOSING THE ARGUMENT about AGW, and he WANTS YOUR MONEY to spread around his propaganda. Go for it, suckers!

                    • Immortal600

                      You dummy. I didn’t respond to YOU in the first place. Why? Simply because I knew it would be a waste of time. You AGW believers are losing the debate and it scares you eco-freaks to no end.

                    • AndRebecca

                      Trolls r us…you guys…major fail!!!

                  • cshorey

                    David is known to associate with Heartland which no longer discloses its funders after it became clear they had serious conflicts of interest. The insurance industry abandoned them for their climate science denial. They bank on real science, not the joke sources you brought. Sorry you confuse information on the real world as “trolling”.

                • TreeParty

                  But wait: isn’t this you, photo and all, in Heartland’s lineup of “Who We Are”?!

                  and here, featured with CV and links to recent publications?!

                  So you claim that you are not “of Heartland”, but they apparently beg to differ. Whom to believe; hmmm…
                  The Ad Hominem aspect of my comments is extremely well-founded as regards the cynically venal Heartland Institute, given their claim that you are “one of them”. But the REAL issue is with the demonstrably false claims you make such as:
                  “..“climate literacy” is code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change.”
                  1) The planet is warming, rapidly. The evidence is too compelling for even a fossil fuel industry shill to deny.
                  2) The vast and overwhelming consensus among people conversant with climate science is that it is human activity that is causing the warming. Absent the massive emissions of GHG’s by humans, the planet would likely be cooling.
                  3) The effects of the observable planetary warming are certain to be damaging on balance. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of ecology will recognize that the rapid change of planetary temperature and ocean pH will disrupt ecosystems that humans depend on .
                  So the belief that humans are “causing dangerous climate change” is not a “false belief” as you claim. It is a real and present danger that virtually ALL scientific organizations worldwide are working to address.
                  There will be a special place in hell reserved for people who knew better, but used their intellectual gifts to enrich themselves to the detriment of their posterity.

                  • David Wojick

                    Tree: Heartland lists a hundred or more informal advisers, of which I am proud to be one, and we do correspond. Like I said, I did a blog article awhile back. If that is what you mean by “Wojick of Heartland” then fine. My point is simply that I neither work for nor speak for Heartland, although I would be proud to do both. Perhaps you are gripped by the green fear of Heartland.

                    As for your three claims, they are alarmist propaganda personified. Re #1 the earth is simply not warming rapidly and what little warming there is seems to be natural. We have satellite measurements going back almost 40 years and they show just a small amount of warming, which is almost entirely due to a few strong El Nino’s. So there is little if any GHG warming. In particular there is no overall warming 1978 to 1997, when the scare really got going.

                    You are probably looking at the surface temperature computer model outputs, which are as bad as the climate computer model outputs, if not worse. You might look at my article here:, which Heartland happily lists.

                    Given that there is no rapid warming, your other two points are simply wrong. But re #2 the fact that a lot of people (like you) believe that there is dangerous rapid warming, when there is in fact none, simply shows that the alarmist propaganda has been effective and that is the real problem. The global warming scare is based on widespread false beliefs.

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Wojick, my hat is off to you for being a gentleman with that dude. I don’t believe he deserves kindness because it is people like him that would wreck our great economy with their loony tune ideas.

                    • TreeParty

                      So much wrong here I don’t know where to start…
                      Your claim that “there is no overall warming from 1978 to 1997”, that “.. the satellites show no such warming in the atmosphere over this period” is demonstrably wrong:
                      Why do you make that false claim when it can so easily be shown to be false?! What the actual satellite measurements show is a 1 deg. C per century rise in “global temperature” over that two decade period. Are you lying, or just misinformed?
                      But that was twenty years ago. Let’s see what “the satellites show” for the last 40 years:
                      This ~0.7 deg. C increase in 40 years is in agreement with ground-based temperature measurements, and is startlingly rapid in geological terms.
                      All of your hand-waving about the unreliability of the temperature measurement methodology ignores one important point: HOWEVER you measure the temperature, if it just keeps going up year after year for decades, you are out of the noise and into the signal! Even the El Ninos are getting hotter..
                      There are multiple converging lines of evidence for anthropogenic global warming. As an epistemology guy, that should catch your attention. Besides the obvious temperature record, there is the observable fact of melting ice around the globe. Arctic sea ice extent is crashing. Glacier National Park is almost out of glaciers. Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice mass precipitously.
                      All that melting ice is going into the oceans which, predictably, are rising, both because of the melt water, and because of the rising temperature of the oceans. No serious person doubts that sea level is rising globally; do I need to show you the data, or can you do that for yourself?
                      Growing seasons are measurably lengthening due to shorter winters. Floral and faunal migrations, uphill and poleward, are evident in an attempt to escape the growing heat.
                      In short, all of the phenomena that global warming would predict are apparent. And we know why, because we can measure it: the injection of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by human activity. CO2 is a GREENHOUSE GAS; and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up by over 45% in the last century, to a level that has never occurred in human history. That’s what flaring hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon will do.
                      These are all simply facts, not “false beliefs”. Thankfully, people who actually study climate know that it is YOU that is peddling false beliefs and sowing doubt in the face of a growing global threat.
                      Remember, David: multiple converging lines of evidence.

                    • David Wojick

                      There are two problems with you WFT graphs, Tree. First, they only show the lower troposphere, not the entire atmosphere, for which a lot of that early warming disappears. Second, the data is from RSS, which uses a climate model to “adjust” its estimates. Let’s see these two graphs using UAH data and the whole atmosphere.

                      But your 40 year graph does in fact show that most of the warming occurs in a single jump caused by the giant El Nino in the middle. So there is relatively little GHG warming, if any.

                      As for the rest, we know that some places have warmed and others cooled. Other than the satellite data we do not know what has happened globally. There are no converging lines of evidence, whatever that metaphor might mean. In fact there is no evidence of significant GHG warming.

                    • TreeParty

                      Here’s the 20 year graph from UAH:
                      Here’s the 40 year graph from UAH:
                      Pretty much the same data…
                      Here’s the land/ocean record for 40 years:
                      You are losing the argument, David, because you are denying the OBVIOUS FACTS of the physical world. Apparently you did not read the link on the converging lines of evidence. I would be highly interested to know if you also disbelieve evolution, for which there are also multiple converging lines of evidence. Agreed that it is off topic, but I always look at the belief in evolution as a sort of litmus test of scientific credibility.
                      Every credible temperature record showing rapid warming; melting ice; rising sea level; shorter winters; floral and faunal migrations; more global heat records by far than global cold records; but “no converging lines of evidence of significant GHG warming??!! That’s just crazy talk…

                    • David Wojick

                      Global temperature data analysis made simple.

                      Here it is in simple steps. Start with this graph of UAH global temperatures for the lower atmosphere (even though the whole atmosphere would be better):


                      1. Note the red line, which shows the running average. Clearly this is an oscillator. We know that linear trend lines for selected periods of oscillators are highly sensitive to the start and end points, hence most are inaccurate. The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations. The rest are more or less wrong depending on where they start and end. They can be very wrong.

                      2. Note the giant El Nino in the middle. Prior to that there is very little warming. In fact the El Nino looks like it interrupts a downward oscillation. If we go from the beginning to the last parallel upward oscillation in 1994 there is just about no warming at all.

                      3. After the giant El Nino and its attendant La Nina there is also very little warming, until the next big El Nino hits at the end. What happens after this last El Nino is anyone’s guess at this point.

                      4. However, the second flat period is significantly warmer than the first, by about 0.25 degrees.

                      5. Conclusion: There is some warming, but it is small and due to the giant El. Nino. In particular there is no evidence of significant greenhouse warming in the entire record.

                    • TreeParty

                      Good, David: I am gratified to see 1) the explicit admission that there HAS been global warming over the period of the satellite record and 2) the tacit admission that the satellite temperature record as compiled by the UAH is “legitimate”. These admissions are strongly at odds with the impression created by most of your prior statements about the issue of global warming.
                      But let’s drill down into your specious “analysis “ of global temperature data…
                      1) The “red line” (running, centered 13-month average) is clearly NOT an oscillation. But in respect of the fact that it does fluctuate, let’s use your own criterion here to plot the linear trend (“The best trend lines are those that start and end at similar places in different oscillations.”) From the inflection point at the top of the first cycle, around 1980, to the top of the last cycle, around 2016, the delta T is OVER 0.5 deg. C. (Connecting the points at the bottoms of the succeeding negative excursions yields an even greater delta.) So in fact, the measured global warming over the ~38 years is 0.5 deg C, NOT the 0.25 degrees that you claim.
                      2) El Nino’s do not cause global warming, and so the significant warming measured in the last 38 years is NOT “due to the giant El Nino”. In fact, that claim is self-contradictory: to the extent that El Nino is an “oscillation”, and oscillations do not show linear trends, the El Nino CANNOT cause the global warming.
                      3) 0.5 degrees C can be thought of as a “small” rise in temperature; but, as always in the real world, the rate of change is profoundly pertinent. 0.5 degrees warming in 38 years is a rate of change that is very rapid in geological terms; beyond “significant”, all the way to, yes, alarming. Any fourth grader can see that the trend in the temperature record you have presented is perceptibly positive, significantly so in fact. The trend, so obvious to even a fourth grader, IS the greenhouse warming that you claim is absent. It is not the linear trend that is explained by the ninos and ninas; it is the variation around the trend that is explained by them. Just ask 97 out of 100 climate scientists!

                      In short, your “analysis” is specious, misleading, and downright wrong in places. And you aspire to “educate” our children about the true nature of climate science?! Dunning Kruger much?

                    • David Wojick

                      You obviously decline to see what I have pointed out, so we are at an end. I have stated my case and presented my evidence, which I think is quite clear. The only warming in the entire 40 year record is coincident with 2 big El Ninos. It is painfully simple. They are none so blind as them what refuses to see.

                    • TreeParty

                      Say, is that a beam in your eye?
                      “The Greens are losing the international climate fight”.. – Another false premise.
                      “Bottom Line
                      U.S. public concern about global warming has ebbed and flowed over the past decade and a half but has generally been on an upswing since hitting a recent low point in 2011. Concern has increased each of the past two years, coinciding with an improved economy and back-to-back unseasonably warm winters.
                      Whatever the reason, the percentage of Americans worrying a great deal about global warming is at a record high, as is Americans’ belief that its effects have already begun and that human activity is the major cause. Still, less than half worry greatly about global warming or believe it poses a serious threat to their lives.”
                      Thanks for the debate.

          • J T

            We should throw them the hell out of here, untwist the gun barrel in front of their building, and turn it into NRA Headquarters.

        • TreeParty

          The primary goal is not power, or money; it is survival. Humans are changing the planet VERY RAPIDLY in ways that can be dangerous to ecosystems and to human civilization itself.
          The environmental movement got going in earnest after Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which chronicled the damage being done to the environment by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, chiefly DDT. We almost lost bald eagles to DDT; but now that it has been banned, bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and brown pelicans are back, baby. That is a good thing. If you regard Rachel Carson as a power-hungry authoritarian figure, you are laughably wrong.
          Then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire…That was NOT a good thing.
          The Montreal Protocol is another example of a societal response to a very real and present danger that science warned us about. Your right to pollute the atmosphere with chlorofluorocarbons must take a back seat to the rights of all of the ecosphere not to get fried by ultraviolet radiation. This is a fine example of mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. The goal of this exercise of (environmental) “power” of international sanctions is not to subjugate people; it is to protect them from “the tragedy of the commons” that would ruin their lives.
          So the “scares” that you deride are actually the warnings that scientific research NEEDS to contribute to the public discourse on the environmental effects of our economy. Environmentalism is your friend, even if you are not astute enough to realize it; or unless you are a venal sociopath like our current POTUS who doesn’t give a fig about anyone else, including posterity.

          “In the climate case we do have industry activists whose goal is money making for their companies, especially the renewables industry.”
          If you think that the fossil fuel industry is not spending BIG BUCKS to sow doubt about AGW, then you are not as smart as I was giving you credit for…

    • cshorey

      And educating people will help kill the climate denial delusion.

    • DavidAppell

      Then let’s also require fossil fuel users to pay the costs of their pollution — damage to health and to the environment — instead of socializing it to the public and the government.

      Costs about $200 B/yr.


  • cshorey

    Some background to give this context: 1824 Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.

    1859 Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases could bring climate change.

    1896 Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

    1930s A global warming trend since the late nineteenth century is reported. Milankovitch proposes orbital changes as the cause of ice ages.

    1938 Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is under way, reviving interest in the question.

    1945 The U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding climate change.

    1956 Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere. Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

    1957 Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans is not readily absorbed by the oceans.

    1958 Telescope studies show a greenhouse effect raises the temperature of the atmosphere of Venus far above the boiling point of water.

    1960 Keeling accurately measures CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise. The level is 315 ppm. The mean global temperature (a five-year average) is 13.9°C.

    1963 Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in the CO2 level.

    1965 At a Boulder, Colo., meeting on the causes of climate change, Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of the climate system and the possiblity of sudden shifts.

    1966 Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts, suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.

    1967 The International Global Atmospheric Research Program is established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction, but climate research is included.

    1968 Studies suggest a possiblity of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would raise sea levels catastrophically.

    1969 Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks. The Nimbus 3 satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.

    1971 An SMIC conference of leading scientists reports a danger of rapid and serious global climate change caused by humans, and calls for an organized research effort.

    1972 Ice cores and other evidence shows big climate shifts in the past between relatively stable modes in the space of a thousand years or so.

    1974 Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate; cooling from aerosols is suspected to be as likely as warming; journalists talk of a new ice age.

    1975 Manabe and his collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models that show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2.

    1976 Studies find that CFCs (1975) and methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, which emphasizes the role of feedbacks.

    1977 Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming as the biggest climate risk in the next century.

    1979 A U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring about global warming of 1.5°C – 4.5°C. (*This represents the scientific consensus on the issue ever since; without the fossil fuel industry’s PR pushback, this would have been the point where it was clear humans had to stop burning fossil fuels or accept severe climate disruption).

    1981 Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, a finding that raises confidence in models showing future greenhouse warming.

    1982 Greenland ice cores reveal dramatic temperature oscillations in the space of a century in the distant past. Stong global warming since mid-1970s is reported; 1981 was the warmest year on record.

    1985 Ramanathan and his collaborators announce that global warming may come twice as fast as expected, from a rise of methane and other trace greenhouse gases.

    1988 Ice-core and biology studies confirm that living ecosystems make climate feedback by way of methane, which could accelerate global warming. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is established.

    1989 Fossil-fuel and other U.S. industries form the Global Climate Coalition to tell politicians and the public that climate science is too uncertain to justify action. (*Exxon internal documents later show Exxon knew that global warming projections were good science in 1978)

    1990 The first IPCC report says the world has been warming and future warming seems likely.

    1991 Mt. Pinatubo erupts; climate scientists predict a cooling pattern, which will validate (*by 1995) computer models of aerosol effects (*and of the water vapor feedback effect). Studies from 55 million years ago show a possiblity that the eruption of methane from the seabed could intensify enormous self-sustained warming.

    1992 The study of ancient climates reveals climate sensitivity in the same range as that predicted independently by computer models.

    1993 Greenland ice cores suggest that great climate changes (at least on a regional scale) can occur in the space of a single decade.

    1995 The second IPCC report detects a ‘signature’ of human-caused greenhouse-effect warming; it declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century. Reports of the breakup of Antarctic ice shelves and other signs of actual current warming in polar regions begin to affect public opinion.

    1998 A “Super El Niño” causes weather disasters and the warmest year on record (approximately matched by 2005 and 2007). Borehole data confirm an extraordinary warming trend. Qualms about arbitrariness in computer models diminish as teams model ice-age climate and dispense with special adjustments to reproduce current climate.

    2000 The Global Climate Coalition dissolves as many corporations grapple with the threat of warming, but the oil lobby convinces the U.S. administration to deny a problem exists.

    2001 Debate effectively ends among all but a few scientists. Warming is observed in ocean basins; the match with computer models gives a clear signature of greenhouse-effect warming.

    2003 Numerous observations raise concern that collapse of ice sheets (in West Antarctica and Greenland) can raise sea levels faster than most had believed. A deadly summer heat wave in Europe accelerates the divergence between European and U.S. public opinion.

    2007 The level of CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 392 ppm. The mean global temperature a five-year average) is 14.5°C, the warmest in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

    2015 and 2016 are the warmest years on record. Atmospheric CO2 is now 410 ppm.

    • pkwz

      Yeah, right. EVEN if any of that cut and paste job is correct (which it isn’t), it is impossible to generate enough electricity using wind and solar. In fact, all you end up with is creating more pollution and impoverishing the already impoverished third world. It would be far cheaper and simple to just deal with whatever happens in the future in terms of the climate. Probably the climate will change, just like it always has (like when humans didn’t exist yet).

      • cshorey

        You are truly unable to have an adult conversation. Once again, pkwz proves a CFACT lackey unable to bring a single fact to the table. Do enlighten us what was incorrect in my post instead of just claiming it. I don’t just take the claim of people who have proven themselves incompetent.

        • pkwz

          prove that 2015 and 2016 were the warmest years “on record”. What were the average temperatures 1,000,000 years ago? What does the “average” temperature even mean? I’m a professional statistician. Your statistics are just nonsense.

          • cshorey

            When I ask you to show something is not factual, stating you doubt the last bullet point is not cutting it. I already told you I don’t respect your knowledge on this enough to just say “pkwz doubts something, OH NO!”. To answer you’re question 1: GISTEMP, GlobalTemp, HadCRUT4, and JMA data, provided by NASA, NOAA, Met office, and JMA, respectively. Answer 2, I have to look that up, but it would be based on paleoclimate archives and their proxies that cover that time period. Average temperature is a geostatistical average of temperatures at the surface. How is that hard to comprehend?

            • pkwz

              “Paleoclimate archives” and “geostatistical average temperatures”–oh, that’s right, you mean the Nimbus MMTS thermometer network data from 1,000,000 B.C.

              That’s where the missing raw data for the “hockey stick” are stored, right? You must be joking, Shirley. All of the AGW historical warming “data” is just a bunch of guesses based on a bunch of models and doctored data.

              Quick, what was the high temperature in London on 1045? Or Los Angeles in 834? How hard is this question to comprehend. Why don’t you just give up because you’ve lost. The USA won’t be giving a dime to the Paris Scam Deal so your tent has been folded up and handed to you.

              • cshorey

                If one wants to argue paleoclimate archives and proxies, one should probably know at least one. You couldn’t name a single one? Really? You need to try to use actual examples and real data to make these arguments. You really do hit me as hopeless.

              • cshorey

                And look at you ignore the original point you made, that I addressed, to just run off to the next thing you think you just dismiss without proof. I’m thinking you not only lack knowledge, but basic intelligence. You ask for climate data then give as a test the high temperature in London in 1045? Do you even get the difference between weather and climate?

                • pkwz

                  So you don’t know what the temperature was in London on ANY day hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yet you know with extreme accuracy what the AVERAGE temperatures were in the past.

                  Okay. That’s like not knowing how long the Emperor of China’s beard was because nobody was allowed to look at him. But you know his beard’s length because you have the record of 100,000,000 Chinese peasants and their guesses of the Emperor’s beard length. After all, this estimate is very good since it is based on an n of 100,000,000.

                  Yeah right. You AGW cultists have models that are invalid and, thus, are garbage. Which is why you have to fudge your data.

                  • cshorey

                    So you really can’t address the response given, just repeat garbage with no actual backing. pkwz, hard for me to consider less of you, but you’re so good at sucking.

                  • Immortal600

                    Don’t bother with cshorey, he’s a fraud without a clue. Look at his responses to me. He’s a blowhard who doesn’t understand thermodynamics. He shows that in his posts!

                    • cshorey

                      Don’t listen to immortal, he thought he was schooling me on thermodynamics but showed no knowledge of absorption and emissivity, and he confuses the second law of thermodynamics with the first. He only referenced blog sites for his pathetic attempts at rebuttal. Immortal is a perfect example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

                    • Immortal600

                      You really are a fraud. You are confusing the first and second laws YOURSELF!!

                      Te first law states that: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed


                      Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from
                      a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to
                      accomplish this flow.

                      (show us Paleo-clown where work is being done for the cooler CO2 molecule to further warm a warmer surface. This ought to be interesting)


                      About Dunning-Krueger? It seems that blowhards like you use that to project onto others. Do you need me to define ‘projection’ for you? Given that you haven’t a clue about thermodynamics, I might have to.

                      Go away already, you’ve been EXPOSED.

                    • cshorey

                      And this is a great post of yours is Great proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about. The second law of thermodynamics says the energy moves from a more useful to a less useful form, or to say it another way, the randomness of the system increases with heat exchanges. When thermal IR are is absorbed by CO2, it will either be released in a random direction, in other words some will be redirected back towards the ground, and some of that energy will also be translated to motion of the molecules, and an increase in the average kinetic energy of molecules in a body is called its temperature. I thought you were really trying to talk about the first law of thermodynamics that you cannot create heat, but for your argument neither makes any sense. In your World, a colder blanket will never retain the heat of your warmer body, yet it happens. Go try figuring that one out now. You are not qualified to call anyone a fraud. Find any actually peer reviewed science yet to refute anything I originally posted?

                    • Immortal600

                      You simply just don’t understand what was written. The second law states what I quoted from the source I provided. I didn’t make it up as you just did with this nonsense,

                      “The second law of thermodynamics says the energy moves from a more
                      useful to a less useful form, or to say it another way, the randomness
                      of the system increases with heat exchanges.”

                      That is garbage. Show me where someone said EXACTLY that. Lord Kelvin, Clausius?

                      What you are doing is trying a mealy-mouth way of explaining how energy can violate what I have clearly stated. It (heat) CANNOT go from cold to hot. It is no more simpler than that. YOU can’t explain how it does even with all your hand waving, your blanket statement not withstanding. Your lack of logic shows right there!

                      “In your World, a colder blanket will never retain the heat of your warmer body, yet it happens.”

                      Heat travels in ONE direction, hot to cold. It is that simple. It doesn’t go hot to cold back making the hotter thing even warmer. Why can’t you grasp that? It is the 2nd law in a nut shell. Therefore that blanket isn’t making you any warmer. It is retaining what heat is generated by the source.That is a piss poor example of logic. You people are using that kind of analogy all the time. It doesn’t hold water.

                    • cshorey

                      So you can’t explain how a colder blanket could ever retain your heat? Not surprised with the fact you rely on a single source for your definition of the laws of thermodynamics. Please go to physics forum and tell them that the second law does not indicate that transfers of energy go from a more useful to a less useful state, or that the order involved in the change increases. Enjoy getting laughed at. I suggest you try looking at more than one source for your thermodynamics if you’re getting so confused with such a basic definition. I remember yesterday when you were done with me. Funny that. I’ll try to lead you by the hand. A blanket absorbs the heat until it is in equilibrium with your body, and then the two raise temperature in concert as the blanket redirects some of your heat trying to go from your warmer body to the colder room. Now prove the surface of the Earth and its atmosphere can’t do the same. Perhaps you’ll learn some real physics. Here is another for you, how does your car interior with the windows rolled up get hotter inside than outside with the wonky way you think physics works?

                    • Immortal600

                      You are so full of it. There is no use interacting with a blowhard like you who doesn’t even understand the thermodynamics definitions given you.

                    • cshorey

                      Let the record show, you could never bring peer reviewed science to bear on the problem.

                    • Immortal600

                      Peer review? here you go:


                      It hasn’t been rebutted despite what you AGW kooks say. YOU sure as hell can’t because you don’t have a clue when it comes to thermodynamics. Take your blankey and go cry somewhere else

                    • cshorey

                      Hey, way to bring ONE fucking piece of peer reviewed science to the table dipshit. Don’t keep up on the followup do you. Just stop when you get confirmation of your stupid ideas. Meanwhile science advances.

                    • Immortal600

                      Asswipe, you asked for peer review. You got it. It isn’t the only peer reviewed paper out there that challenges AGW dogma.

                    • cshorey

                      Hey dick for brains, you still haven’t explained how your car gets warm or a blanket keeps you warm. Your peer reviewed articles has been rebutted. You lose in every way.

                    • Immortal600

                      I explained it, you didn’t understand it. Your simpleton analogies don’t explain how you can’t grasp the second law of thermodynamics. You want to make up quotes. Your a real riot, shorey. Your dumb as a rock, boy.

                    • Immortal600

                      “Your peer reviewed articles has been rebutted.”

                      NOT BY YOU. you don’t even comprehend the math involved. Stick to Paleo proxies. They’re more your speed. LMAO at the simpleton.

                    • cshorey

                      Ha! This is great. You think a rebuttal needs to be by a particular person to count!!!

                    • Immortal600

                      Given that you don’t understand thermodynamics, yes, you need to rebut it. But we both know you can’t.

                    • cshorey

                      Thanks for letting us know you don’t know how science proceeds. Two blog sites and a rebutted article against all the peer reviewed history I originally posted. I posted that to see if any of you could add any real science perspective to it. You surely can’t. Have you figured out blankets and cars yet? Have you figured out Hans Suess’s work? Of course you haven’t. You haven’t shown a shred of climate science knowledge yet. Have you asked your physicist friends if its wrong to say the second law of thermo says energy will go from a more useful to a less useful form, or that the order decreases? Did you get them looking at you like you’re mentally deficient? I’ve been looking at you that way for days. None of your attempted insults come close to touching me. You are too far down the ladder for your shots to reach.

                    • Immortal600

                      Then what are you doing responding to me? I know you haven’t a clue but that doesn’t bother me. I am just laughing at you. Anyone reading these comments can tell you are out to lunch starting with your very first post as if that proved anything but that you are a true believer. Your thought process is so shallow you think your blanket analogy means something. I haven’t bother to show you exactly why it is wrong because you just wouldn’t understand it. Your constant attempts at explaining the second law of thermodynamics as ” says energy will go from a more useful to a less useful form, or that the order decreases?’ is laughable. That doesn’t show how a CO2 molecule cooler than the surface can warm the surface further.

                      Go learn some thermodynamics before you come back.

                    • cshorey

                      So you can’t figure out a car or blanket? Too bad, so sad. Haven’t asked any physicists about the second law yet? Brace yourself to be corrected. I know one of us has tutored physics at the college level. May I ask how many credits in college physics you have or will that be too embarrassing for you? What grade did you get in boundary layer mechanics? What grade did you get in thermodynamics that you feel in a position to judge anyone else? Did you get a college degree?

                    • Immortal600

                      None of your questions can hide the fact that you know nothing about thermodynamics and whoever you tutored should get their money back. Go troll somewhere else.

                    • cshorey

                      No cars, no blankies. No seeing how these relate to your precious blog post. I tell you exactly why you’re thermodynamics is limited at best, and all you can say back is “no I’m not, you are”. Some content would help you not look so trollish yourself.

                    • Immortal600

                      I have provided you with definitions with links substantiating. You have provided a made up quote with no documentation. Case closed.

                    • cshorey

                      Source: All About Science.
                      Second Law of Thermodynamics – Increased Entropy
                      The Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the Law of Increased Entropy. While quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. How so? Usable energy is inevitably used for productivity, growth and repair. In the process, usable energy is converted into unusable energy. Thus, usable energy is irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.

                      “Entropy” is defined as a measure of unusable energy within a closed or isolated system (the universe for example). As usable energy decreases and unusable energy increases, “entropy” increases. Entropy is also a gauge of randomness or chaos within a closed system. As usable energy is irretrievably lost, disorganization, randomness and chaos increase.
                      I figured you probably don’t have any physicist friends to ask. So I brought one to you to tell you to go back to school and stop pretending you know something.

                    • Immortal600

                      Smoke and mirrors. None of the stuff you just posted shows how a cooler CO2 molecule warms a warmer surface. You just don’t get it.

                    • Immortal600

                      Here is another “peer reviewed” paper:


                    • cshorey

                      And this isn’t to argue anything about climate science, but just to mess with your head:

                    • Immortal600

                      I wouldn’t bother with your BS links.

                    • cshorey

                      And you accused me of not reading your links. Ha! You are truly pathetic. Enjoy your echo chamber chump.

                    • Immortal600

                      Good, get the F out of here clown.

                • pkwz

                  Your premise is false: There is no such thing as AGW. So all of your “evidence” is just rhetoric.

                  It’s the same as asking, “So, Mr. Trump, when did you stop beating your wife?”

                  The “scientific community” that hoisted this fraud of “Man Made Global Warming” is a giant criminal enterprise.

                  I remember when the Ecology Movement started in the 1960s saying things like humanity would be doomed by 2000. Then there was the “oil crisis” which claimed that all of the world’s oil would be gone by 2000. Then there was the “population bomb” that would cause the world to starve to death by now. Then there was the coming ice age. And, of course, the USA was going to end humanity with its vast nuclear arsenal.

                  And now we have Global Warming/Climate Change.

                  Talk about a record that sucks….

                  • cshorey

                    You were alive in the 60’s?! I would have sworn you were a teenage boy with the nature of your comments. Your more advanced age may explain your incontinence problem. You’re spewing verbal diarrhea everywhere. Try using actual science to argue science, that means back up your diarrhea with more solid peer reviewed sources. Then you might MAGA (make arguments generally acceptable).

        • pkwz

          BTW, your side is losing this argument. Why do you even come here and post nonsense? Your side can’t even power a small portion of a sparsely populated country like Australia with your unreliable, expensive and inefficient windmills and solar panels. If green energy was so good, it wouldn’t need HUGE government subsidies.

          Get it?!

          • cshorey

            You must be speaking of the US Federal Govt level only. Don’t get too myopic. Are you saying climate science should get more money from industry? Sure that would be fine I suppose. As for your doubts on renewables, you really need to talk to some NREL people. You’re just not up to date.

        • pkwz

          You haven’t presented scientific “facts”–the entire AGW movement is not based on science. The proof is that the idiots promoting this propaganda proclaimed that the “Science is Settled!”

          That statement is the antithesis of science for science is never “settled”. It is also completely irrelevant that AGW is “proven” correct because 93% of scientists said so. 93% of what kinds of scientists? Sociologists, psychologists, ecologists. Just pure nonsense and this proves that the climate scam people don’t even understand anything about how science is done.

          For a well established and confirmed theory can be shot down as wrong with a single experiment! And if the new experiment is replicated and validated, that’s all that is needed to toss out the old “science” and replace it with the new theory.

          The science of AGW is hardly rigorous or even objective since the lunatic crowd of “scientists” has consistently blocked and censored opposing scientific results and experiments. There is NO objectivity or free flow of ideas when it comes to the Global Warming Scammers. They shut down the dissent and label them as “deniers”. And many in the AGW crowd would like nothing better than to permanently silence the opposition.

          So go ahead and spout your nonsense. You’re losing the war now for Trump is shutting off the tap. No extortion payments and no more tax incentives for failed technologies that do nothing except make life miserable for the poor while destroying our ability to compete in the world market.

          You can’t be reasoned with. Your idiotic talking points are old and irrelevant. MAGA!

        • Immortal600

          He brought as many “facts” as you did. Why complain?

    • David Wojick

      Actually cshorey, many of your many statements are erroneous, for the simple reason that they exhibit the fallacy of false confidence, which is the basis for climate alarmism.

      For example, you say that in 1896 Arrhenius publishes the first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2. He does no such thing. He merely calculates what the abstract forcing of CO2 might be. Forcing is not warming and humans are not involved.

      You then say that in the 1930s a global warming trend since the late nineteenth century is reported.

      False again, since “reported” implies reality. There was no way in the 1930s to know what the global temperature was. Even today the surface statistical models are completely unreliable, since they are based on a questionably adjusted convenience sample.

      Plus you conveniently fail to include that global cooling since the 1940s was then “reported” even though CO2 levels may well have continued to rise. There is a whole host of issues here that you simply skip over.

      I could go through your entire list of alarmist speculations claimed to be established facts, plus your artful omissions, but why bother? Your errors are manifold, glaring and common.

      Then too, your political claims are simply ridiculous. You clearly have no idea what the climate debate is actually about.

      • cshorey

        Hi David,
        Thanks for the first reasoned response on this thread. Thank you for giving the exact bullet points you are addressing. That being said, it seems you are asking each tree to be the forest, and find each fails in that, you reject each as a tree, and thus see no forest. When you say Arrhenius didn’t compute warming from human emissions, that is incorrect. He definitely did estimate human output but was off in some of his assumptions. He assumed the oceans would take up 5/6 of the human produced CO2 (why would he note that if he wasn’t calculating human effect?), which means it would take around 3000 years for CO2 to double. It is the Ravelle bullet point that shows us it is closer to 1/5, and so we will probably double in the next 50-100 years. Arrhenius also gave a definitive answer to if water can drive climate change, and showed it can’t with a 10 day residence time, but CO2 could drive a climate shift. So yes, Arrhenius calculated the amount of CO2 added by humans then calculated the amount of warming from a doubling of such introduced CO2 and got a climate sensitivity of around 5-6 deg C.
        You then say that it is false that a global warming trend was noted in the 1930’s. We have been able to give an average surface temperature of the planet for about 160 years, and since you need 17 years of record to see a climate signal, 1930’s is completely in range. If you claim that you can’t measure average surface temperature, you have to prove it against all the peer reviewed literature that says you can within error bars. All global average T reports have error bars, and beyond those we can see trends. There was definitely an upward trend from 1900 – 1930. It would be more useful for you to note that this was correlated strongly with solar output and the US dustbowl. Human interference didn’t really start pulling out of the natural background until the 1980’s.
        I am happy to mention the 1940’s – 70’s cooling, as it has been fully explained by aerosol pollution. I definitely truncated the list, but feel free to add in any of the other dropped stages of our knowledge.
        That is all you have managed so far, but I’d love to hear if you feel there are any other issues in the recorded history of climate science.

        • Immortal600

          So, you didn’t think my response to you was “reasoned”? Why? Did you even bother to look at the links?

          • cshorey

            You never addressed a single bullet point specifically, nor gave actual evidence to support your contentions. Blog sites are not peer reviewed science by any stretch of the imagination.

            • Immortal600

              That figures. You won’t look at any evidence that can challenge your beliefs. Got it. Yours is the excuse all you AGW believers use when you can’t refute contrary evidence to the AGW theory. If it is in a “blog” it is to be ignored. You have a closed mind and further dialogue is futile.

              • cshorey

                You’re being a jackass. I didn’t say I didn’t read them, I said I found them to be blog sites with no peer review. The first link was idiotic in thinking a human input being smaller than natural inputs would have no ability to increase absolute amounts 30%. Thats stupid. If 100 marbles go in and out of a bucket each day that has 1000 marbles in it, and then I start putting in 100 + 5 each day but still only remove 100, you will quickly increase the absolute amount in the bowl. The blogger isn’t qualified to discuss the topic, so thanks for sharing this piece of shit. Do you get why I don’t respect your arguments? Blog sites? Really that’s the best you can do. The second link is just as stupid. What does it say about the blogs audience (you) that J has to be explained as Joules, m as meters, etc. Do you think a real science paper would do that? The bloger’s model clearly states, “Now let us add a second black body surface spherical shell concentric with our first sphere having a radius RC and with vacuum between the inner sphere and the outer spherical shell. ” Why the fuck would you do that? The atmosphere is a greybody, not a blackbody by any stretch of the imagination. No wonder this guy’s model does not comport with reality. But thanks for the garbage, and now you know why I find you a bore.

                • Immortal600

                  Hey, I didn’t know if you read them. They were both from physicists with PHD’s, guys probably smarter than you. Your attempt to show Dr. Berry is wrong was a joke, right? He is an ATMOSPHERIC PHSYICIST. What are you?

                  The second guy was explaining things beyond your level of understanding, I suppose. YES, real science papers do explain terminology, your childish insults aside.

                  If you don’t have anything halfway intelligent to respond with, don’t bother.

                  One more thing, Dr. Berry’s paper is under peer review.

                  • cshorey

                    Correct, you did not know if I had read them, and assumed that I had not. You also seem to assume these people have more knowledge on climate science than I because their BS comports with your biases. Like I said, you cannot model the atmosphere as a blackbody. If it were you couldn’t read this.

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry has more knowledge about atmospheric physics than you do. Tell me, am I wrong? Your expertise is in Paleoclimatology. How much do you actually understand thermodynamics? I wonder. I will take Dr. Berry’s word over yours, a nobody, any day of the week. You have a great day.

                    • cshorey

                      The day is going great! I’m about to head to a talk on how satellite data helps us further understand the climate change we are currently going through. Now, why are you trying to make this a cockfight? Why don’t you address the atmosphere being modeled is a black body?

                    • Immortal600

                      The paper says that AGW advocates want to consider the atmosphere as a blackbody, Dr. Anderson says that is in error. The reason advocates do that is to mathematically show that the earth is absorbing more energy than it is. The issue of climate dynamics falls into the territory of thermodynamics. How much energy is the earth absorbing and how much of that translates into heat and higher temperatures. Paleo reconstructions don’t take any of that into account. AGW advocates claim that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then redirects it back to the earth making it warmer. That is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. A cooler CO2 molecule cannot transfer HEAT to a warmer surface. A textbook in thermodynamics says this:

                      “Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts:
                      temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with
                      thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each

                      That is where AGW advocates get it wrong. Higher energy does not necessarily mean higher temperatures. It comes down to where that heat energy is going and what it translates into. Dr. Anderson shows how the AGW folks get the math wrong. You want to castigate the man for spelling out what ‘j’ or ‘m’ means. Really?

                      If you think those guys are wrong why aren’t you going to THEIR websites and showing them their errors. As I have said, Dr. Berry’s paper on why humans are not responsible for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is undergoing peer review. Many people have tried to refute his model with no success. Why don’t you give it a try?

                    • cshorey

                      So when a molecule of CO2 absorbs thermal IR, what do you think happens after that? So a scattered photon in your and Dr. Berry’s world can only be scattered upward? Who is violating physics here? I looked into Dr. Berry more, and am not impressed. Why does a Cal Tech grad go to lower ranked graduate programs (Dartmouth and Reno were low ranking in the 60’s)? That indicates poor undergraduate work. I don’t see that he has any real background in atmospheric physics as you claim. Great one to hang your denial of actual peer reviewed science on. No one ever thought the atmosphere should be modeled as a blackbody. To repeat, that’s stupid.

                    • Immortal600

                      Your first statement shows that you haven’t a clue. I just told you it can’t warm the surface further. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is clear on that.

                      You have no clue about thermodynamics, so what do you do? Talk about where someone went to school. WEAK. Dr. Berry has probably forgotten more about atmospheric physics than you ever knew.

                      Dr. Berry’s model isn’t really addressing the thermodynamics issue, Dr. Anderson’s is. The fact that you reference Berry’s work shows you really didn’t bother to try and GRASP what he was stating. Nor did you bother with Dr. Anderson because you thought HE was treating the atmosphere as a blackbody. Your fellow zealots are doing that and YOU don’t even realize it.

                      You are a real lightweight when it comes to climate dynamics yet you think your study in Paleoclimatology makes you an expert. Nah! You’re just another blowhard fraud. We are done.

                    • cshorey

                      And you’re response shows you don’t understand absorption and emission and how they relate to thermodynamics. Glad we’re done, you brought zero peer reviewed science against over a century of peer reviewed science. Claim you know something about this all you want. I know you don’t. Thanks for the proof.

                  • Wrong or corrupt? Please with the “peer review” Most of Jim Hansen’s reviewers worked for him at GISS.

                    • Immortal600

                      Yeah, I know. THe AGW crowd insist on having “peer review”, when all it says is that the foxes have ok’d the raid on the hen house.

                • David Wojick

                  There is no reason to believe that natural sinks and sources constantly balance. Given that these are a myriad of independent oscillators it is statistically impossible for them to constantly balance. On the contrary we would expect to see continuous natural variability in natural CO2 concentrations.

                  • Immortal600

                    Dr. Wojick, are you aware of Dr. Berry’s model on CO2?

                    • David Wojick

                      Not as such. Can you give a pointer to it?

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry’s paper is under going peer review:


                    • cshorey

                      Let us know when it gets accepted, or when it gets rejected, dig into the reviewer responses to it. See if you can get them from your hero Dr. Berry.

                    • cshorey

                      It’s an unpublished blog site, with serious problems. No one models the atmosphere as a blackbody, ever.

                    • Immortal600

                      Dr. Berry says nothing about the atmosphere being a blackbody. You’d know that had you bothered to read his paper. But NO! Frauds like you are so full of it and you think you understand climate dynamics. a clue for you, you don’t.

                    • cshorey

                      Oh yeah, that was the other crap blog you cited. Hard to keep your garbage apart as it is all garbage. Let us know when Dr. Berry gets rejected though.

                    • Immortal600

                      When he isn’t what will your dumbass say?

                    • cshorey

                      I would say I was mistaken in that case, but I think we both know he’s going down.

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t know that, but you? You think you know it all and you really haven’t a clue.

                  • cshorey

                    Reason; the CO2 levels measured in ice cores, stomata density, and carbonate concretion delC13 all indicate that before the industrial revolution during human history the CO2 was very stable at 280ppmv. This happens due to the natural balance. We know it has to be balanced or we would see subsystems in wild opposing swings, but we don’t. It was stable at 280ppm.
                    Another reason; atmospheric delC13 is being diluted over the past century. We can measure this far back using tree rings. Previous to the industrial revolution, the delC13 acted in a balanced way so that decay in tree rings was predictably systematic.
                    So yes, there definitely is a reason to know that the natural sinks and sources have historically been balanced. We don’t see continuous natural variability, but we do see it shifting with past climate change. Seeing as I can’t find any validity in this post, I’m wondering if you had a source to back up what you just said. It made no sense from the science point of view.

                    • Sorry, but the natural balance has ranged fairly widely due to dry years with fires caused by lightening and volcanoes where we have had periods when thousands were erupting annually.

                    • cshorey

                      That’s not what the actual data from ice cores says. How do you reconcile that?

                    • Sorry, but see the Vostok Ice Core Studies graphs that cover 450,000 years and that is exactly what we see. Projections beyond that are based on plant fossils and what we know of the growing ranges of similar modern plants, but there are questions about their actual physiology and temperature tolerances.

                    • cshorey

                      I was wondering what time scale you were going to go for. So we’re now comparing variance of tens of thousands of years to that over centuries? Look, when Milankovitch first postulated orbital forcing, he thought obliquity would cause climate to shift pole to pole or poles to equator and back. But what the ice cores and other archives say is that the orbital forcing causes a global response. This is due to the ice in the north dominating the system, thus driving ocean temperatures, and positively feeding back through the dissolution of CO2. So, the CO2 shifts you are mentioning in the Vostok core are due to century scale adjustments of ocean temperatures. Now we are warming the oceans, as can be measured with the Argos floats. You still have not argued against a CO2 balance of human historical time scales until recently. The values were very constant around 280ppmv.

        • David Wojick

          To push your metaphor, if each argument is a tree then I am a forester. I have been assessing h stength of each tree for 25 years now and alarmism is built on bad wood.

          As for knowing the global average surface temperature i the 1930s, we do not even know it today. See my

          The surface temp statistical models were first developed in the 1980s by Jones and Wigley, but they are no good because all we have are convenience samples and statistical sampling theory is adamant that no inference can be drawn from such samples to the general population, which in this case is global temperature.

          As for Arrhenius, he assumed a build up of human emitted CO2 but that has not happened. The CO2 increase is not composed of our emitted molecules, although the alarmists like to talk like it is. Thanks to the enormous natural CO2 flux, which removes about 25% of the molecules each year, our emitted molecules are pretty much all gone in 5 years or so.

          This leaves the scientific question as to what role, if any, human emissions play in causing the increased CO2 concentration. That question is unanswered.

          Plus of course the question as to what difference, if any, the increase makes in global temperatures is completely open. It is the very point of the scientific debate.

          • J T

            What role do humans play in causing increased CO2 concentration? None, I think. Look to that yellow thing in the sky for answers, and hope that it remains relatively stable. Besides, a few large-sized volcanic burps put more material into the atmosphere than anything we could possibly be doing, no?

            • cshorey

              That was the Hans Suess bullet point above. Do you need me to explain his work to you?

              • J T

                Please, don’t.

                • cshorey

                  True, it would probably waste my time as you show signs of low intelligence in your inability to make a real argument of any kind. I don’t think you can understand Suess’s work.

                  • Immortal600

                    You don’t understand real arguments.

                  • J T

                    That’s DOCTOR Suess to you, and I hope the Crap-In-Your-Hat doesn’t Spill-Out -Your-Ass when the Door Splits Your As s on the way out. Yes…

          • cshorey

            To further the metaphor, someone put scientific spikes in your trees. Your logic saw is hitting them and kicking back to destroy your own arguments. I had to go read your other article denying that we can measure average global temperature and found no science there except your link to convenience sampling, but I couldn’t see that you showed that there is convenience sampling in climate science since we don’t just look at ground thermometers for that. There are the argos buoys showing ocean warming, there are our GRACE satellites that show shrinking ice mass, we have a steadily rising sea level, and all this is consistent with the actually measured warming atmosphere. If the statistics are so bad, then why did the BEST team, when saying the same thing you are that the data is not reliable, went and looked into the matter with Koch Bros money, and guess what they found . . . the same thing as all the other measures of global average temperature. Apparently smart people can do geostatistics and all come out with the same answer. That does speak to reliability. Now if the atmosphere were not warming, how would you explain rising sea levels with a measured increase in the rate of rise.
            Now back to Arrhenius, you are again not going forward in time to see Ravelle show ~90% of our CO2 staying in the atmosphere and not being absorbed by the oceans. And especially you are not considering the bullet point about Hans Suess. How would you explain delC13 levels in the interior of a tree being 2% higher than the outer rings? If you really understand his work, you would never say “This leaves the scientific question . . . That question is unanswered.” It was answered in the 1960’s.

            • David Wojick

              Shorey, your replies tend to be like shotgun blasts that do not respond to the point at issue. That the surface statistical estimates are based on a convenience or availability sample is obvious. Sampling theory is based on probability theory so having a random sample of the population is fundamental, and we have no such thing when it comes to the population of global temperatures.

              In a random sample most of the locations would be in the ocean and we have no fixed stations there at all, much less for the last 150 years. Combining various ship or buoy samples, from different places over time, some hundreds of miles apart, means you may just be seeing the differences in the places, not in time. On land almost all of the stations are clustered near urban areas in developed countries. Vast areas are completely unsampled. Then they use area averaging which gives different thermometers very different weights. It is all a mathematical joke.

              BEST is actually the worst for two reasons. First they combine a lot of short term records that the other groups rejected. Second they create an estimated global temperature field,, guessing a temperature for every point on earth, which means there is an infinite amount of guessing. Koch was robbed.

              • Thomas Paine

                Nice “moving goalpost” fallacy! I don’t reckon there will ever be enough data for someone who already believes he knows the answer. But that’s no problem. Go ahead and use your Denialist hatchet to chop up all the LST and SST data. You are still left to explain all the first freeze, last thaw data on lakes, rivers, and bays, shifting crop planting zones, shifting ecological zones, and mountains of other climatic data. But inasmuch as you seem to be a case study of Hofstadter’s Paranoid Style, just include Mother Nature as being in on the Warming “Hoax” as well, along with all those national governments, scientific societies, not to mention the Masons, the Trilateral Commission, and the rest.

                • Immortal600

                  Thomas Paine wrote “Common Sense”. What you just wrote made no sense.

              • cshorey

                Hi David,
                Sorry you felt that was a shotgun approach. I was trying to give you a bit bigger picture overview of all the proxy measures of increasing energy in the Earth’s exogenic system so you can see that increasing temperature of the atmosphere is consistent, and it would be hard for the atmosphere to cool in an opposite direction of all these other indicators. But since you don’t like direction, we’ll go to the heart of the matter. When average surface temperatures are reported they are handled as temperature anomalies from that position through time. Using anomalies instead of absolute temperature gets you away from all the problems you are raising. If what was being reported was absolute average surface temperature, then your argument would hold (but actually may not be right either – see Jones et. al. 1999 that used both absolute values and anomalies). Seeing as you are arguing against absolute apples when the evidence is anomaly orange, you have not proven anything to anyone with knowledge this fact. Are you not concerned that you have to point to a CFACT post you made as “proof” of anything in a peer-reviewed science milieu? You seem a decent enough scientist though you’ve clearly associated yourself with some suspect organizations (e.g. Heartland, CFACT, NRSP, Greening Earth Society) enough that your credibility in climate science can be called into immediate question, but you should be intelligent enough to get the anomaly issue. But with those associations, I feel you will probably dig in your heels. Let’s see.

                second citation for you:
                Abstract: “Making use of EOF analysis and statistical optimal averaging techniques, the problem of random sampling error in estimating the global average temperature by a network of surface stations has been investigated. The EOF representation makes it unnecessary to use simplified empirical models of the correlation structure of temperature anomalies. If an adjustable weight is assigned to each station according to the criterion of minimum mean-square error, a formula for this error can be derived that consists of a sum of contributions from successive EOF modes. The EOFs were calculated from both observed data and a noise-forced EBM for the problem of one-year and five-year averages. The mean square statistical sampling error depends on the spatial distribution of the stations, length of the averaging interval, and the choice of the weight for each station data stream. Examples used here include four symmetric configurations of 4 × 4, 6 × 4, 9 × 7, and 20 × 10 stations and the Angell-Korshover configuration. Comparisons with the 100-yr U.K. dataset show that correlations for the time series of the global temperature anomaly average between the full dataset and this study’s sparse configurations are rather high. For example, the 63-station Angell-Korshover network with uniform weighting explains 92.7% of the total variance, whereas the same network with optimal weighting can lead to 97.8% explained total variance of the U.K. dataset.”

                third citation:
                The point here is we don’t know the average body temperature of Immortal600, even if he is brain dead, but if his temperature goes up 1degF each day, he might want to get checked by a doctor. The anomaly is important even if you don’t know the absolute average.

                fourth citation: BEST study again, because even Muller who bought the Climategate absurdity couldn’t find a way to use your logic. Muller in testimony to Congress definitely said he found the same as everyone else, that the removal of bad stations reported by Anthony Watts’ site did not affect the anomaly trends, and more recently said what good climate scientists have known for the past few decades, you can’t explain the present climate (since the 1980’s) without taking greenhouse gas forcing into account.

                And then there are all the fingerprinting studies that let us know it is our greenhouse gasses causing the climate change. Future generations will see that the denial of this science by such bad faith arguments as yours caused more harm than good. You have time to rewrite your epitaph. The science in my original post has weathered every attempt to discredit it on this thread.

              • RealOldOne2

                And what makes the ‘convenience sample’ issue even worse is the Great Dying of Thermometers.

                Then it’s made even worse yet because the remaining thermometers are closer to the equator and at lower elevations:

                “BEST is actually the worst for two reasons.”
                This evaluation of the BEST data says it is flawed because its “scalpel and suture” technique cuts away the low frequency and analyzes the noise:

      • Svante Arrhenius published a follow-up book to the 1897 book in1899 correcting and denying everything he said about CO2 heating the atmosphere in the first book, but “warmers” never mention his corrections and denial of his initial hypotheses.

    • J T

      Bullsht. All your statements are based on faulty computer models and falsified data.

      • cshorey

        And you are now the fourth to reply to me with no peer reviewed data against my original list of peer reviewed work. Thanks for your opinion. Hey, when Guy Calendar made a model in 1938 indicating the Arctic would warm fastest, Antarctica would initially gain ice in its center, or that land would warm faster than over oceans, and all those things have been observed, I assume that is not what you meant by faulty computer models. Or when Smagorinsky and Manabe’s model predicted a warming Troposphere and cooling Stratosphere, and that has been observed, that can’t be what you meant either. What falsified data do you have proof of as well? I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.

        • J T

          Your kind is constantly caught lying about your results, it’s well-documented. That’s how you doomed yourselves and your whole fraudulent effort, and it happened before it could come to fruition. If you were right, you wouldn’t have to lie.
          When the publication One Hundred Scientific Authors Against Einstein came out, Einstein scoffed, and said “If they were right, they’d only need one!” The foolish “97%” figure you like to use is the same thing. More lies and bullsht from the Left.

          • cshorey

            Still no actual science to back up your crap. When Einstein came out with his theory he also said, “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation”. Now figure out how that applies to you today. You reject the science due to your political ideology. I know this because you sure don’t have any science. Thanks for confirming that every CFACT fan has no scientific teeth. I was hoping at least one of you could show me something worthwhile. Not a single one.

            • Immortal600

              Not a surprise given the fantasy land you live in. LMAO

              • cshorey

                Especially not Immortal600. That guys the worst so far. ROFLAYSA

                • Immortal600

                  Yeah, because I’m in your head and you can’t stand it, little wannabe.

            • J T

              I’ll stop you right there. Nothing but crap to back up your “science”. Nothing more need be said.

    • Could you give a reference to exactly what Fourier said with respect to the atmosphere ? So many of the 19th century refs cited by AlGoreWarmists are either superficial or misinterpretations . It is Fourier’s heat equation which is most fundamentally violated by the notion that spectral filters can “trap” heat in defiance of basic and common sense “law” that heat diffuses from hot to cold .

      There are two issues :

      – the radiative equilibrium of the lumped planet+atmosphere with the power spectrum of the Sun’s disk as source and the other 0.9999946 of our celestial sphere at near 0K as sink . The experimentally testable general computation is at . ( And this field is in desperate need to return to an experimentally demonstrated foundation . ) Changes in CO2 can change our lumped spectrum and thus our mean temperature , but given that CO2 is already high optically saturated in its absorptive bands even at these few molecules per 10k of air levels ( a photon in its bands is not likely to get even a couple of hundred meters at sea level without bumping into one ) , that effect , as we have observed is de minimis . In fact , our estimated radiative equilibrium appears to be well below the ~ 278.6 +- 2.3 from peri- to ap- helion of a gray , flat spectrum ball in our orbit — and for that matter below what the albedo of the surface itself would be .

      – The other issue is why the bottoms of atmospheres , whatever their composition or optical properties , are hotter than their tops . This is where the AGW GHG theory has never presented either quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration over , now , decades . It may be unique in the history of politic(ized) science in being a paradigm without analytical foundation .

      In another discussion , the thought experiment was proposed : What if the atmosphere were totally clear — across the spectrum ?

      My first thought — other than that is the sort of question which should required in any undergraduate program in “climate science” — is :

      Would the pressure_temperature “lapse rate” disappear ? That’s where the 33K is .

  • Immortal600
  • BernardP

    Canada… Eh? Yes, Canada has almost become a closed country in regards of climate change information. Mainstream run almost daily reports of impending catastrophe and warnings about need for action, duly copy-pasted from European think tanks. The federal government and provinces are implementing carbon taxes AND cap and trade. The few who dare question the orthodoxy are ridiculed and lumped with flat-earthers. Certain localities have inspectors looking into your garbage to check if you have not thrown away recyclable or compostable material.

    Canada is living in an Era of Green Inquisition.

    • Immortal600

      I feel for you guys up there.

      • John Galt

        Thank you….My 40+ years Engineering career in Energy was cut off at the knees in my most lucrative salary years thanks to misguided mayors, provincial and federal politicians………No income now to even consider alt-renewable options on the home front……so i took up high power rifle target shooting…aiming for long range sniper skills….helps me to get my stress level down!

        • DavidAppell

          Too bad you couldn’t learn as times changed. Typical engineer…

          • John Galt

            You are an ignorant coward….

          • John Galt

            Saw your comment about failing in your Engineering school….BIG CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER BUDDY!

            • DavidAppell

              Liar. I left engineering school because all my fellow students wanted to talk about was their future salary.

              That was not going to be me, ever.

              • If that was a reason to leave an engineering school then I am a banana!

                • RealOldOne2

                  But his being so influenced by what others say and think might explain why he is so gullible to swallow the false propaganda of the catastrophic AGW ‘consensus’ religion. It’s a shame he never learned critical thinking and how to think for himself.

                  • Immortal600

                    True! Appell is an idiot. He’s a gadfly who travels from blog to blog giving his inane input.

                • DavidAppell

                  Then you’re a banana. I was very happy with my decision and it worked out great for me.

              • jreb57

                Yeah David. They were going to have to pay off their big government loans. How did the price of a college education increase so much that the average joe can no longer afford one?

              • John Galt

                “ALL my fellow students!”… an example of a “sweeping generalization” a form of hyperbole raising suspicion of insincerity.

                One engineering colleague said he wanted a university degree in science but he would have to take biology and he was squeamish about cutting in to live frogs… his remaining option at that time was engineering.

                I simply wanted to get a respectable science degree that would lead to a career so i could pay off my vehicle and student loans and i loved math, physics, chemistry etc.

                It was typically those taking the arts degree that thought of us in engineering as too much focused on money and career and not higher ideaologies for more education…

            • DavidAppell

              You’re a liar. I left engineering school after one semester because all anyone wanted to talk about what salary, and because they fed us equations to plug numbers into without showing where they came from.

              I switched to physics and was much happier.

              Why do you find that threatening?

              • jreb57

                “they fed us equations to plug numbers into without showing where they came from.”
                You obviously went to a different engineering than I did. They do teach you math, but also chemistry and physics. Thermodynamics, for example. No one finds you threatening David. Just misinformed.

          • jreb57

            What would you know about it David? You couldn’t cut it as an engineer. Engineers must deal with reality.

      • DavidAppell

        It’s right that Canada is trying to control emissions — climate change will last for over 100,000 years, and what we do now matters a lot about the magnitude of that everlasting change.

        • Doubtful. The climate is always changing.

          • DavidAppell

            Why does the climate change?
            Why is it changing now?
            When did it last change this fast?

    • WhiteFalcon

      I sympathize with you. I read an article just today where the scientist said that the Greenies model gives far to much weight to the effects of CO2 and in fact, real temp has increased only some 1.5 degrees centigrade in the last twenty years whereas their model said that it would increase twice that much, and in the troposphere, there had been virtually no change. I expect Al Gore got sick about all this truth coming out/

      • cshorey

        The models said increase twice that with a doubling of CO2 once the system comes to equilibrium. None of that describes Canada. 1.5 is right in line with predictions for Canada though, so . . .

        • DavidAppell

          How much has Canada warmed already?

          I bet you can’t tell us…….

          • cshorey

            Which part of Canada? It’s kind of a big region you know. And you know that it is more practical to talk about local anomalies than the average of the atmosphere over a region. I may not know the average temperature of your whole body, but if you start getting a fever, I bet it could be detected. Again, look at the temperature anomalies and put aside the wildly difficult job of getting an average temperature over a whole region.
            But, that being said, we know the region is warming because part of Canada is in the Arctic Circle, which Guy Callendar predicted in the 1930’s would warm faster than anywhere else. And this has come to pass. This is why Canada is getting such permafrost loss in the north, and sea ice retreat from its shores. Go ask people who live up there and they can tell you all about it. Also interesting was the forrest study in Canada that, while measuring local warming, also noted that the forest was not taking up more carbon, but releasing more from its soil as the degrading bacteria ramped up with higher temperatures. It is a lame job to try to poke holes in known science from a limited perspective. It is better to let actual scientists do their science and report it to you. Please read ACTUAL SCIENTISTS as those who publish peer reviewed science in top science journals.

            • DavidAppell

              How about the average for Canada?

              I’m sure it’ computed monthly somewhere…..

              • cshorey

                So please be an independent thinker and look it up. Or admit you’re being a David Wojick pawn. Follow this: what is the average temperature of your body, your whole body, all the fingers and toes and hairs and all? I bet you can’t figure it out. Then how would you ever know if you were getting a fever? You measure local anomalies. I have already said clearly to David that he is right that we don’t even try to measure average temperatures, nearly impossible, but we can and do look at station anomalies and they are very telling about the increasing fever. David refuses to respond to this point, and keeps repeating the “you can’t measure the average temperature” infantile garbage. The adults have moved on.

                • DavidAppell

                  I never ever said you “can’t measure the average temperature.”

                  You have me confused for someone else.

                  PS: I’m surprised the Canadian national average isn’t easily found. It is for the US — NOAA publishes it every month, usually with a press release.

                  • cshorey

                    You’re the one so interested in average temperature, seems the onus is on you to go find it then.

            • “Peer review” is often in question as many of those journals are corrupt, charge for articles and allow employees of authors to be peers. Jim Hansen often had his people acting as his peers.

      • DavidAppell

        It’s “Celsius,” not “centigrade.” For Gods’ sakes.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Tell me what the difference is for Gods’ sake. The term “Celsius” didn’t start being used until thirty or so years ago. What to guess what it means? I’ll tell you since it is probably beyond your ability to research. Celsius means centigrade. DUH!! Now you go and do some deeeeep research and find out why it is called “centigrade.”

          • DavidAppell

            The difference is that “Celsius” has been the standard for a few decades now and “Centigrade” is used only by people who have not kept up with the science.

        • Both terms are used interchangeably.

          • DavidAppell

            No they aren’t. Please leave the 1980s.

            • Are you talking about IUPAC or professional chemists and chemical engineers or the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics? I know of what I speak. What are your credentials?

              • DavidAppell

                The SI unit of temperature is Kelvin. Also widely used is Celsius. I haven’t heard “Centigrade” since the 1980s.

      • DavidAppell

        Can you prove that Caldiera’s model is wrong?

        IT doesn’t look like it.

        Perhaps then you should remain silent about the science from those far more learned than you.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Can you prove that it is right?

          IT doesn’t look like it.

          Perhaps then you should remain silent about the science from those far more learned than you.

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t answer my question.

            Not a surprise.

      • That is 0.8 degrees Celsius or 1.44 Fahrenheit degrees.

        • WhiteFalcon

          Yes, and that is in the upper atmosphere, not the troposphere as I remember. At that rate, it will take it a while to melt off the polar ice caps.

          • No, that difference is what has been recorded in North America since 1880 to 2016 for the total average temperature increase as measured by surface stations. Nonetheless, you are right that the polar icecaps are in no danger of melting and it has been recently reported that some glaciers are growing again. Earth’s weather is a very complex system.

            • WhiteFalcon

              Then you are saying that the average increase temp is something like 1.5 degrees centigrade devided by some 135 years?

              • No, I am saying it is 0.8 Celsius or 1.44 Fahrenheit degrees over 136 years which is an amount that is difficult to measure even today for one year to the next. And, one of the moons of Jupiter that has an atmosphere correlates perfectly with that pattern. This tells us the sun is entirely responsible for the changes in our temperature. And, it is consistent with what I found in the atmospheric simulator I designed and produced for “CO2 Is Innocent” you can read and clip copy free at

                • WhiteFalcon

                  I never believed all that BS to begin with. I remember when i was a bit younger, in the 1970s, when they were telling us that we were on the verge of the next ice age, and we were working in 100+ degree heat.

              • Yes, it would be 1.5 degrees C divided by 136 years or 0.0110 degrees C, per year which is an amount we cannot measure reliably now! It is utterly insignificant and will soon turn the other way or more likely it has already.

    • Of all places, Canada could use some heat, but they will never get it from CO2 increase which actually cause the temperature to decline.

    • Ah, the joys of socialist despotism.

      Google “Two Minute Conservative” for more.

      • BernardP

        But, but, but… the socialist elites know what is good for the ignorant masses.

  • Marx

    The Green’s fleet is lost and they’re friends on the Endor moon will not survive.
    There is no escape my young apprentice.
    The Green Alliance will die

  • Roland Sauve

    We need to get rid of George Sorros and the Tide foundation and other major money supporters to stop the run away train before they break our countries, go green are major money makers for these consortium, so we need every one on board to make this happen

    • John Galt

      George is old and can’t live much longer but his protege could be the human stain in radical green…

  • kuhnkat

    Fund real science?? No, get the gubmint out of subsidizing, granting, or funding science. They will ALWAYS be biased and wasteful.

  • John Galt

    Canada’s energy regressive situation has been manufactured by outside influence NGOs including much indirect influence from several of George Soros’s Open Society foundations providing direction and funding thru Canadian environmental branches of US centered environmental agencies. Hiding in the green shadows is a very strong US protectionist agenda IMHO.

  • It is amazingly simple to show that the fundamental assumption of the “man-caused global warmers” is false: See “CO2 Is Innocent” at and clip-copy the six page paper, print it and have it authenticated by any Chemistry teacher or person that has had college level Chemistry to confirm the equations and stoichiometry are correct. Do the demo-experiment and you will see that increases of CO2 on the order feared by the alarmists have no effect and if we take the concentration up to 10,000 ppm the temperature falls as we are driving out water vapor per Le Chatelier’s Principle for gases, a concept removed from Chemistry and Physics textbooks in the 90’s. Why? Ask the publishers. This is the greatest science fraud since the alchemists were telling Medieval kings they could turn lead to gold with the yolk of the eggs of Griffins, a mythical bird not unlike the myth of “greenhouse gases.”

    • Immortal600

      I wonder why that clown, David Appell, who holds a PHD in Chemistry, can’t understand that. I think his PHD came from the back of a matchback.

      • Money! The Federal government has been giving over $50 billion annually in grants for projects that will promote this myth while rejecting anything that challenges it, like my short paper. Add that to the destructive regulations on fuels, cars, trucks, powerplants and we have created a $1 trillion disaster that will bring down the nation as we are competing with countries that know this is BS and are not hamstringing themselves. Yes, this is a real Communist plot executed by liberals like the Obama gang.

      • Appell is my house troll . He’ll probably come by over the weekend and post some brilliance like “if CO2 is essential for life why isn’t there life on Venus or Mars ? ”

        Actually I think his Pile is in physics from Stony Brook . But he can’t even understand the conversion from power ( E % t ) to energy density ( E % v ) thru division by a light.second .

        • This is BS. Mars has very little atmosphere about 1/100th of ours and 60% is CO2, O2 is a trace. Give me a break.

          • Yes , of course . Appell is a determined idiot .

            ( Mars is more like 90% CO2 , I’ve heard . )

            But you make me think you’ve never had any multidimensional math — which is essential for any modern science .

            & BTW : I think Beer’s Law is sufficient to conclude CO2 at these levels will have de minimis influence on our temperature .

            • Wrong on all scores and I will no longer argue with such a fake, phony jackass. Get lost.

              Adrian Vance

              • You don’t think Appell is a determined idiot ?

                • DavidAppell

                  Armstrong can’t handle being asked questions — it freaks him out every time.

                • DavidAppell

                  So I’m an “idiot,” but Armstrong still can’t show my claims are wrong or address my questions about asinine physics claims.

            • DavidAppell

              You’re wrong about Mars’ CO2 — which you’d know if you simply LOOKED IT UP.

              95.3% CO2:

            • DavidAppell

              Dummy: Beer’s Law only considers radiation from the surface, NOT the radiation from the atmosphere.

              Hence it is wrong when applied to planetary climate.

          • DavidAppell
        • DavidAppell

          “if CO2 is essential for life why isn’t there life on Venus or Mars ? ”

          I’m glad to see that you’re reading my comments…. even if you’re afraid to answer them.

      • DavidAppell

        You can’t even get your basic facts straight. (My PhD is in physics, not chemistry.)

        So much for your credibility….

        • Immortal600

          What difference does it make? You don’t know that as well.

          • DavidAppell

            The difference is that you were wrong on the facts.

            That speaks very poorly for your ability to understand and retain information.

            • Immortal600

              Really? Because I didn’t know your PHD was in Physics and not Chemistry. Your comment speaks very poorly for you making a cogent argument. But that is why you are here and not on Dr. Spencer’s blog. Tired of getting roasted, David?

              • He is not a Ph.D.

                • Immortal600

                  I wonder if he’ll answer your question.

              • DavidAppell

                You got a basic fact wrong. That tells me something.

                • Immortal600

                  What does it tell your little mind, David.

        • You claim a Ph.D? From what institution? What is the title of your thesis and the name of the library where it is filed? I doubt very much you will answer these questions as it is obvious to me you are not a Ph.D..

    • I come to this as an APL programmer for whom to understand something quantitative is to implement it and play in its parameter space . So I figured out and implemented the generalization to arbitrary spectra of the computation which produces the endlessly parroted 33K “GHG” warming from an extremely crudely calculated 255K “radiative balance” of the Earth .

      And I applied the computations to Venus . See .

      These distinctly undergraduate level computations show the quantitative absurdity — by an order of magnitude — that Venus’s extreme Bottom of Atmosphere temperature , equivalent to 25 times the energy density the Sun delivers to its orbit , can be explained by a spectral filtering , ie : GreenHouse Gas , phenomenon .

      Only since that Heartland talk , did it get thru to me that it is gravitational energy which balances the increase in thermal energy as one descends in the atmosphere ( and beyond ) and balances the equations . But this other macroscopic force is assiduously left out of the GHG paradigm — by both sides .

      Having been diverted into this debacle by its basic offence to even my Eisenhower administration grade school nerd sense of physics , I never have been stuck in the paradigm . I just wanted a computable understanding . And while no quantitative equation nor experimental demonstration of the AlGoreWarming GHG “hypothesis” has ever been presented in these now decades , the gravitational equations are rather straight forward and classic .

      See if interested in the problems of quantitatively modeling the planet at an APL level .

      • Sir: With all due respect: Your first sentence is utter gibberish and much of what you say in the remainder is in that class. Sorry, but I am not impressed.

        Adrian Vance

        • Sorry you can’t understand even my first sentence . Here’s slide to give you an idea of the impact of APL : .

          • Grandiose language of that kind and your imitation of it are always out-of-place. Iverson’s is gibberish too,

            • Yea , right . Check out Arthur Whitney’s , the direct influence on my
              4th.CoSy . If it’s gibberish , it’s awfully effective and profitable gibberish .

              Yes , the global statist demonization of the carbon half of the equation of life is the most damaging anti-science fraud ever , but it’s a quantitative physical issue in which the chemistry plays only a supporting role .

              But your denigration of mathematics is embarrassing .

              • I am hardly “denigrating mathematics.” What I am objecting to is your grandiose language to impress readers rather than deal with the issue. Some gibberish is profitable, but that does not justify it. Both my parents were college professors and I was routinely dragged to faculty functions where many people like you were trying to impress everyone with their grandiose language. Well, big whup! No impressed here.

                • Then let’s get down to actual quantitative experimentally testable computations of radiative equilibrium temperature for arbitrary spectra .

                  Do you agree or disagree with the computation presented at which is the basis of my analysis showing the quantitative absurdity that Venus’s bottom-of-atmosphere temperature can be explained by a spectral phenomenon ? I go thru it in my Heartland presentation linked at .

                  The computation is in a freely downloadable APL but is basically a ratio of dot products between object absorptivity=emissivity spectrum and source and sink power spectra so is definitely undergraduate level . I will help translate it to a more common language like Python but would prefer that discussion be moved to .

                  Without this computation it is impossible to say anything analytical about a planet’s temperature — particularly to the 4th decimal place accuracy these observed variations are about .

                  • Immortal600

                    Bob, both you and Adrian are very knowledgeable opponents of the farce known as AGW. I thank you both for your efforts to expose this fraud masquerading as real science. Again, Thank You!!

                    • Thanks . I don’t know what’s with Adrian calling Turing award winners words “gibberish” .

                  • I have never seen anyone so arrogantly full of himself generating gibberish to fool people into being impressed with him!

                    In the first case Earth is not a black body. It is a system that is very large and very variable in terms of surfaces and granularities of those surfaces as well as reflectivity and nature where 71% is covered by water that absorbs 100% of any IR, heat wave, energy it gets.

                    Your last paragraph documents that you are a bullshitter which you confess with “…4th decimal place accuracy…” nonsense. No sale Mr. Armstrong. You flunk.

                    • It’s clear why you are in chemistry , not physics . You assure yourself that you will never quantitatively understand planetary temperature .

                      You show no understanding of the classical quantitative analytical method .
                      A couple more slides :
                      First , the total variation is about 0.3% , 3th decimal place . “Hottest Year Ever” claims are on the order of the 4th .

                      Next , just some philosophy of science :

                    • Idiot: I have a minor in Physics, and was a Chem major. For an example of my expertise please go to and input my name to the search box and you will see over 400 titles of films, filmstrips, audio and computer programs that I produced for all the leading educational publishers for over 40 years. That listing does not include my work for ten national magazines, that I was on the masthead of two and have published science materials in the UK and was there made a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain. So stick it up your butt.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • You are striking me as being as much of a troll as Appell .

                      You insult one of the greatest men in the history of programming language who generalized the notation for matrix algebra and made it something you can “play” with on a computer . That alone makes you look like a determined idiot .

                      And every thing I have stated is computable in notations evolved from his ideas . You have presented nothing testable .

                      And then you spout a lot of crap that we’re supposed to be impressed with . Well , maybe I would be if you didn’t show yourself to be such an arrogant close minded jerk here .

                    • I object to anyone who uses grandiose language designed to impress people with how damn smart he is. It was the critical difference in my films, papers, articles, audio programs, 20 books and on-air or on-screen TV and that made me the leading, most successful and wealthy writer producer in the history of educational materials for SVE, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Universal International Films, Doubleday Films, ROA Films, Paramount TV and on through a list of other publishers including The Smithsonian.

                      The “Physics” you have displayed here is BS that is at best hypothetical. The relationship that controls the heating of an atmosphere is the Le Chatelier Principle for gases which has been removed from all Physics textbooks after 1988 as it puts the lie to the basic mechanism for heating our atmosphere. Per Le Chatelier adding CO2 reduces water vapor which molecule-for-molecule is seven times the absorber of IR energy from sunlight and where CO2 is 2.44 times as heavy as H2O the factor becomes 17 on a weight for weight analysis. It is a perfectly simple mechanism that can be explained very easily, but your sort perfers to make it a mystery as you think that makes you more important, but while it may it is at the expensive of principle and the people.

                    • And yours isn’t ?

                      I have said nothing that I don’t understand and can back up with computations . I’m sorry you don’t like my vocabulary . For my background , see .

                    • Your CV is consistent with your grandiose language to the point that it confirms intent to deceive in your CV, but you confess your ignorance leaving “curriculum” off “curriculum vitae”

                      “Mathematical Psychophysics?” What bullshit! That’s a degree” Northwestern has certainly gone down hill since my father got his masters there and I used to visit my friend and associate Dr. Jay Allen Hynek when I was in town doing business and attending marketing meetings at Britannica HQ in the Loop.

                      You also use typeface tricks to make it appear you “served as Chief of Staff to Martin Luther King!”

                      You are a total phony Bob Armstrong and just the kind of man I fought throughout my entire 40 years in educational publishing. Your sort nearly brought down the world economy with such as linear regression equations that are only right 60% of the time on real data and decline by a factor of 0.6 in every iteration using a previous product as a data point. This is the reason none of the climate models work and never will. There are limits to the validity of mathematics when used for prediction.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • Dr Hynek was my professor in the intro astronomy class I took at Northwestern . His presentation of the fundamental foundation of special relativity , the lack of independent measures of distance and time , only their ratio , remains the most lucid I have ever seen — including even Huseyin Yilmaz’s Introduction to the theory of relativity and the principles of modern physics which I finally recently read .

                      Frankly how you can read :
                      Customers of 1985 APL+PC.CoSy included :

                      Wyatt Tee Walker , founder of Freedom National Bank , served as
                      Chief of Staff to Martin Luther King and to Jessie Jackson.

                      and think that I am talking about myself rather Wyatt Walker is beyond me .

                      And I’ll agree : “Mathematical Psychophysics?” is kind of pretentious but I was in the psychophysics group in Northwestern’s psychology department and ended up spending all my time hanging with the math department and computer center .

                      Again , let’s get back to basics — which I express as : do you know how to calculate the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp ?
                      Hint : .

                    • Dr. Hynek, sought me out after he read my book, “UFO’s: The Eye and the Camera” when I was the West Coast Editor of Popular Photography which I developed in response to the fact the government’s NICAP organization was discounting all UFO sightings where what people saw differed in any way with what cameras photographed.

                      My hypothesis was that vision and photography were two different systems and I developed a “Two Channel Information Theory For the Analysis of Events Simultaneously Observed and Photographed” for which the Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain made me a “Fellow,” the only American so awarded.

                      It was clear to me Dr. Hynek was most interested in the multi-dimensional, time-travel origin hypotheses instead of inter-planetary sources given the distances involved, light speed limit, etc., but he would never come out and say it which irritated me a bit as he would allude to the concept every time we were about to say goodbye. It drove nuts as he would even do it on phone calls!

                      I never saw him present anything, but was on a TV show with him in Kansas City and he was an excellent presenter there. That was for the MUFON conference I think in 1974, or thereabouts.

                      Whether or not you used the old ad design trick of directing readers with bold face type intentionally or not, your CV is a textbook example of “directing attention” in advertising and editorial work. Given all your other BS, I think you did it intentionally as you are clearly a scoundrel.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • The only “highlighting” on Dr Walker’s reference is a link to his biography .

                      I think anyone still following us has plenty of data to decide which of us is off his meds .

                    • I agree and those who have suffered boorish bombastics that write such as you will know you are trying to impress your readers with how damn smart you are and your CV reeks of that kind of presentation with the mention of men of accomplishment, your highlights segments to let the quick scanning reader, as are most Personnel Directors into thinking you are accomplished when you are not.

                      You should know that in all likelihood the math you would use to estimate the temperature of a cue ball under a heat lamp is bound to be wrong as there are far more variables than your Calculous includes. If you want to see how good your mathematical models work read the history of Long Term Capital Management and recently that every one of the computer models predicting the horrors we would experience if we didn’t kill all the coal miners and oil drillers were wrong and each cost several million Dollars. I could write one that would work that well in a week and go to Ibetha for a year and when it failed just give the Federal officials a blank look and ramble some gibberish of the kind you purvey. I pity your wife as not only does she put up with you, but she knows.

                      Adrian Vance

                    • in all likelihood the math you would use to estimate the temperature of a cue ball under a heat lamp is bound to be wrong as there are far more variables than your Calculous includes.

                      An experiment would settle it — and clarify a great deal of the endlessly stagnate nonscience . That’s why I am ever promulgating a Ritchie Prize for best “YouTube” demo of this non-optional physics .

                    • I have been around for a long time, seen and done many experiments of that kind and none were ever close. It is not surprising all the computer program climate models were wrong and that they were sold, by jerks like you, only proves what I have long been saying.

                    • It appears we both have .

                      I present 1 equation , the straight forward generalization of the computation which produces the uselessly crude 255K meme .

                      You so far as I can tell presents nothing testable – just some notion that Le Chatelier’s principle explains everything .

                      But I don’t see anything computable and therefore nothing testable and therefore Zero chance of ever resolving anything .

                      If I’m wrong , please show us your testable quantitative equations .

                    • Go to Clip-copy print and read “CO2 Is Innocent” and you will have a paper that is designed to teach the subject and not prove how much smarter I am than the reader, which is your style to which I object. Your attitude is one that is all-too present in our classrooms and has probably destroyed science education as it has become fashionable thanks, in part, to people like the late Carl Sagan.

                      People like you are selling the idea that computer models and equations that claim to express more than three dimensions by changing an exponent, adding another equation to a long string of derivatives, etc. while disasters like Long Term Capital Management have shown it is all bullshit. Same story recently for NASA and NOAA. All of their computer simulations, dripping with derivatives, tensors, etc. but are nonsense and failed dismally.

                    • The article you cite seems to go all over the place and I see no testable proof of anything .

                      Beyond the orbital geometry , and Stefan-Boltzmann conversion back and forth between between power ( energy density and temperature ) I add one experimentally testable equation which accounts for the coupling between object spectrum and source and sink spectra .

                      And that is sufficient to prove QUANTITATIVELY the absurdity of Hansen’s — or anybody else’s — claim that Venus’s surface temperature , 2.25 times that of a gray ball in its orbit , 25 times the energy density the Sun supplies to its orbit , is due to some spectral phenomenon is quantitatively absurd .

                      Is that a “model” or just non-optional classical physics ?

                      Is that language too highfalutin for you ?

                      You seem to talk a lot the phase changes of H2O . That surely is a factor in Earth’s spectrum and sensible versus latent energy balance . But it is irrelevant in the case of Venus . So , did I miss some explanation you have relevant to Venus ? I’ll admit that I just quickly browsed the article , but I saw nothing computable or testable .

                      I agree with your assessment of all the model bullshit with Navier-Stokes computational clouds disconnected from the most essential non-optional classical physics .

                      The ability to express those computations in APL , or K is a very fundamental motivation in CoSy — which is distilled from those notations . Thus I can assert with confidence that I can map that single equation over any arbitrary spectral map of the planet and atmosphere ,

                      But but that’s pointless until the most basic quantitative “laws” are understood . And you reject even that single testable equation — first , echoing David Appell that “the Earth is not a colored ball” and then that even the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp is too complicated to compute .

                      Flash : engineers do such computations and far more complex ones all the time .

                      And LTCM showed nothing but that a bunch of too cocky Nobel economists applied their expected normals way outside their domain of expertise .

                      I’ve seen paradigms happily pumping out papers off in computational clouds content with never grounding them in the essential math .

                      ( Back in grad school in visual psychophysics they were talking about Fourier detectors in the brain ; I learned enough math , specifically the math of orthogonal decompositions like the Fourier and similarity classes of matrices , and used APL to analyse a classic experiment to show it was all meaningless bullshit . So I was kicked out w/o my PhD . )

                      It’s the total absence of a testable quantitative classical foundation in this uniquely retarded stagnate branch of applied physics that sucked me into this astoundingly mathematically amateurish debacle .

                      But you reject its quantitative understanding all together .

                    • Sir: You are a colossal example of what I have long feared would be the product of what I saw happening as the son of two college professors deep in academia after having come out of show-biz which we all thought was insane, but found an even greater reservoir of nuttiness behind ivy covered walls.

                      Your second and third paragraphs above are insane gibberish! You must be on meth-amphedymine or Heroine as you are too “antsy” to read a six page paper and keep the context. Your ravings have nothing to do with the issue and wobble all over Venus, dip into quantum mechanics, but not coherently; you are a mess!

                      The last half of my six page paper very carefully outlines the chemistry and physics of an atmosphere demonstrator where we increase CO2 quantitatively so that you can see that much of what is said about it is not true and then I explain the atmospheric physics of how it happens. It is perfectly done and has been lauded by Dr. James Rust Ph.D. Physics of Georgia Tech who has studied the atmosphere extensively.

                      I sincerely suggest that you seek medical-psychiatric treatment as you have a serious problem I would rather not deal with so I will end it here.

                      Sincerely, Adrian Vance

                    • A central reason I solved minimal paths around n-cubes , and in the process : simplices , back in 1979 was to demonstrate the what APL aided thought could accomplish . It’s always surprised me that people could look at my logo and “dis” me as you have done from the beginning of your rants .

                      I commented that your work may explain some details unique to Earth because it is in the narrow zone where water exists in all 3 phases . But , to me that’s detail . And says nothing about the basic temperature physics , and says nothing about the case of Venus — which if you cannot explain then you can explain nothing .

                      You have been a fountain of calumnies and close minded to even the simplest computations . It’s Monday . One last question and good bye :

                      How many dimensions is my cube logo ?

                    • You are a profoundly sick man. Seek help.

                    • DavidAppell

                      I’ve looked into Bob Armstrong’s “science” about a colored ball more closely than anyone else, I’m sure, on the planet, even deciphering his ancient and ridiculous method of writing equations and his horrible punctuation.

                      It is all junk – and this is very easy to see. Armstrong can’t even get the units right in his equations. He misunderstands and misapplies basic physical principles like Kirchoff’s Law, and he applies blackbody equations to objects that he defines as not being blackbodies.

                      As just one bizarre example, on page 23 of his PowerPoint slides for his Heartland Institute talk, he divides A by E and gets a unitless number.


                      Unfortunately, higher up on that page he defines A and E and clearly shows that they have different units.

                      And, no, his derived numbers aren’t right either, such as for albedos and outgoing longwave spectrums.

                      Armstrong is afraid to even try to address any of these problems, or answer a single question. Hasn’t in two years. That’s not how a scientist reacts.

                      His PPT slides:

                    • DavidAppell

                      “The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly,”
                      Ethan Siegel,, 3/15/17


                    • 9.8m/ss

                      Bookmarked, thanks.

                    • Immortal600

                      Just like a monkey picked the correct Super Bowl winner. BFD. No wonder you’ve taken up trolling here. You got destroyed by Dr. Berry and also over on Dr. Spencer’s blog. You are a clown. Where did you get that PHD, off the back of a matchbook?

                    • DavidAppell

                      You utterly failed to focus on the science here.

                      I suspect that’s what you usually do. Just another mouth with no science behind it.

                    • Immortal600

                      The science you supposedly have is a joke. You’ve been roasted many times on the topic. That is why you are here.

                    • DavidAppell

                      The science I’m presenting is that found by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, as assessed via IPCC reports.

                      I don’t believe for a nanosecond that you know 1% of what they do.

                    • RealOldOne2

                      “The science I’m presenting is that found by the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists, as assessed via IPCC reports.”
                      In other words, pseudoscience based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which project too much warming, , and which can’t project future global temperatures at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

                      Got it.

                    • Immortal600

                      You can’t think that quick. Dr. Berry has already shown you to be a fraud.

                    • DavidAppell

                      You’re a relativity denier TOO?

                      You really are a boob.

                    • 9.8m/ss

                      An image out of Arthur C. Clarke’s “A Meeting with Medusa” pops into my head. Two enormous gasbags drifting high in the Jovian atmosphere, squirting acid at each other.

    • 9.8m/ss

      Do-it-yourself “scientists” dissenting from the mainstream are almost always wrong. “CO2 Is Innocent” is spectacularly, hilariously wrong. Recommended for a laugh to anybody who passed his physical chemistry elective.

      • If that were true then why did Dr. James Rust of the Georgia Institute of Technology endorse it? And, why have none of the 2.325 physical scientists and engineers in the LinkedIn database, of which I am a credentialed member, object or point to a flaw?

        Please cite some error in the reactions in the piece or the stoichiometry? I again offer it freely to anyone wanting to clip-copy it at Title: “CO2 Is Innocent.” And I suggest you put up or apologize as Physical Chemistry has nothing to do with this. It is all very simple, basic Chemistry and Physics if you can include the Le Chatelier Principle as applied to gases.


    Lots of interesting comments on both sides of the argument. Scientific debate among learned people is essential to our understanding of the planet and it’s eccentricities. Unfortunately, politics and money never miss an opportunity to corrupt science and its participants. The politics of global warming cannot be denied, nor can the wealth redistributive “solutions” conjured up at climate change boondoggles. What sensible person could actually believe that sending billions of dollars to third world dictatorships will accomplish anything other than further enriching the thoroughly corrupt. If human caused CO2 will result in significant warming in the future, we better start preparing to exist on a warmer planet. We cannot and will not stop the climate from changing. Technology will eventually transition us away from fossil fuels, but there are still millions of people on this planet heating their huts with wood and animal dung. To think that billions of earth’s inhabitants living in sovereign nations under numerous forms of government are going to march lockstep in an effort to control the planet’s climate is as stupid as it sounds.

    • reagangs

      Mark Twain once mused something to the effect: Politics is the art of looking for problems, finding a multitude of them and applying the wrong remedy.

  • reagangs

    This is what I have been promoting for the last decade. Al Gore and his “magic” hockey stick graph made most of us laugh. Carbon credits are history. Maybe, after actual “green” energy cost can eventually match conventional energy sources, with out subsidies, then we can start being serious. Question: How much do the massive wind turbines cost to manufacture, transport, assemble, erect and maintain without subsidies ??? Answer: Tens of $millions, at least. The ROI would never be realized. Solar, the same. Thanks but I will drive my old 2007 gasoline guzzling clunker until the wheels fall of or it goes dead on the road. Then I plan on buying a max sized Ford or Chevy with a V8, then go on a vacation to the far North and NW USA. Regards, retired engineer and REAL scientist, astronomer and Patriotic American, Fort Worth, TX

    • pkwz

      But according to ALgore in 2006, we only had TEN YEARS to dramatically reduce green house gas emissions before the earth would pass the point of NO RETURN and we’d all be doomed!

      Okay, it’s now the end of 2017. I’ve been waiting for doomsday for a year. Just the like other predicted doomsdays, overpopulation, mass extinction, resource depletion, mass starvation and global cooling, it seems that ALGore’s prediction hasn’t happened.
      See this article for a more complete description:

  • pkwz

    Let’s face it, arguing with Global Warming crusaders about AGW is like arguing about how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin. Their basic premise doesn’t exist and any further discussion with them just produces plant food (i.e., CO2).

  • jameshrust

    Atlanta is on the verge of adopting Atlanta’s 100% Clean Energy Plan which is to have Atlanta government 100 % clean energy by 2025 and the entire city by 2035. Clean energy eliminates nuclear power and natural gas and will be probably only solar. This will cause higher property taxes and doubling home energy bills in a city that has third-world roads, rampant crime everywhere, and a school system that is K-prison. This is forced poverty by those in the renewable energy industrial complex who are led by the Sierra Club locally.

    • pkwz

      Great News! It’s great that Atlanta is going to be the guinea pig for this 100% Clean Energy madness. I can’t wait for the results. It’s like that Tesla battery down in Australia–can’t wait for it to “work”.

      The only way to prove the stupidity of “Clean Energy” is to let the dice roll and everyone can observe.

  • Biologyteacher100

    Science is not decided by voters. The climate evidence gets stronger year by year, with evidence from warming temperatures, ecological responses and scientific studies.

    • socalpa

      The climate evidence that the original alarmist claims of Risk from elevated CO2 was grossly exaggerated to false is what is getting stronger year by year.
      The polar icecaps show no impact to elevated CO2. in fact ,Antarctica 90% of global ice has been increasing in both sea ice extent ,and continental ice mass for decades ,reducing sea level rise .
      The Arctic decline in sea ice extent ended in 2005 ,and AMOC ocean phase found to be the primary driver of observed retreat 1980-2005 .not CO2 . The claims of an ice free Arctic summer by 2013/14/15/16/17 utterly refuted .Arctic projections call for increase next decade(s).
      Ecological responses ? Beneficial ,terrestrial and marine . Crop yields rising 1-3% per decade to recent records ,marine phytoplankton (base of the food chain) increasing in all ocean 50 -80 in situ observations .
      Just a few , links on polite request .

    • socalpa

      Science is not decided by consensus ,either . And science budgets are decided by voters .
      NPR reports a drastic decline in studies containing “Climate Change” .
      Need further evidence climate science driven by budgets ?
      I don’t .

  • Cappo33

    People are sick of the virtue signaling. They treat environmentalism as if it were a cult and shove it down your throat more than any other modern religion on earth.

  • 9.8m/ss

    Our great, great grandchildren will curse our names. Equilibrium response time is long.