Someone asked me on Twitter today “who are you to debate climate scientists.”
Well, who are priests and clergy to debate Darwinism? Should we prevent debate that does not suit us?
Here’s a widely held view: Climate Change Denial Should Be a Crime
In 1663, leading scientists all thought the sun revolved around the earth. The Catholic Church Convicted Galileo of Heresy for disputing the claim.
Supposedly, we are brighter today.
But why do we have scientists faking data and suppressing data that does not meet the cause?
Climategate
The Climate Scandal of the Decade involves fundamentally flawed methods and data manipulation to produce a “hockey stick” rise in temperatures.
When the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?
What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?
Forgive me for asking, but What the Hell Is NASA Hiding?
If you click on that link it will display “Access Denied”
The article has been suppressed since 2010.
Blocked Article
Thanks to the WayBack Machine, we have recovered the article.
Here is a working link: What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?
Here is a partial transcript starting with the opening paragraph, with all pertinent views from both sides captured fully. Emphasis is mine.
The Sun is the primary forcing of the Earth’s climate system. … In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details). [Mish Comment: Unfortunately we can’t.]
Thus, changing Earth’s exposure forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation towards the sun indicate that our world should just be beginning to enter a new period of cooling – perhaps the next ice age.
Human Impact
The text does discuss humans.
After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on a local and global level.
I can accept that. I can also accept that temperatures are rising, while disputing the amount for many reasons.
NASA Conclusion
Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.
Left Unsaid
Any data that does not agree with climate foregone conclusions, will be wiped away. I just offered strong evidence.
What else has NASA suppressed?
Why do we need to suppress well-written articles when many scientists have doubts?
Precession
Humans
Humans breathe oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
Perhaps we have a solution that no one will endorse.
At the very minimum, why aren’t any of the global warming advocates promoting distribution of free birth control pills?
Earth’s Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected
Scientific American reports the Earth’s Magnetic Field Flip Could Happen Sooner Than Expected.
Changes measured by the Swarm satellite show that our magnetic field is weakening 10 times faster than originally predicted, especially over the Western Hemisphere
Scientists do not know why. What else don’t they know? What do they think they know, that’s false?
Background Radiation – Cloud Mystery – Cosmic Rays
The Cloud Mystery is a documentary that explores the published theory by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark on how galactic cosmic rays, the earth’s position in the Milky Way, and solar activity affect cloud cover, and how this influences the earth’s climate.
Svensmark believes the earth’s position in the milky way as it moves in and out of various spiral arms affects the amount of radiation hitting the earth and affecting long temperature cycles.
Fossil evidence suggest his theory is reasonable, if not entirely correct. Perhaps Svensmark is the modern day Galileo.
The video is long. But please play it!
“You must take the Milky Way Into account if you want to take past variations of the climate into account. The whole solar system rotates around the Milky Way once every 250 million years. That’s one galactic year”.
Those clips start at about the 30 minute mark or so.
The video is quite fascinating. I suggest you play it all.
Hardly anyone will. Most prefer to believe Al Gore’s lies.
Inconvenient Truth – Al Gore Lies
On October 12, 2007, ABC news commented on An Inconvenient Verdict for Al Gore.
One day before Friday’s announcement that he was a co-winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore’s global warming film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” while “broadly accurate,” contained nine significant errors.
High Court Judge Michael Burton said that the film is “substantially founded upon scientific research and fact” but that the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration.”
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.
Gore said the probability was 75%, a figure he claims was from other scientists.
Onward, Climate Soldiers
Please consider ‘Onward, Climate Soldiers’
Former politician and current entrepreneur Al Gore has been preparing an army of devotees to fight for the atmosphere. This air force has been trained in multi-day indoctrination sessions via slick PowerPoint slides that have become part and parcel of the former vice president’s tactic. Such training, under the flag of the Climate Reality Project, has reportedly produced more than 15,000 Climate Reality leaders worldwide. The Climate Reality website urges participants to: “Fight like your world depends on it.” The political world of command and control certainly does.
Prophets of doom use the power of the purse to pursue penitent proselytes to produce profits from PowerPoints. OK, the alliteration may be a bit much, but the catastrophe promoters certainly reap fortune from misfortune. The misfortune includes skewed science.
Everyone seems to be cashing in on the doomsday predictions, from private companies (consulting and technology firms) and academic institutions (university research and education) to governments with their expanding power and workforces.
The big losers are, as usual, the ones stuck paying the bill — the middle-class taxpayers and the world’s poor. Science also ends up losing thanks to a system of penalties and rewards favoring the crisis-mongers.
Yet, onward, climate soldiers, marching as to war, with the power and purse of politics going on before.
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).
Complex Systems
Reducing extremely complex systems that evolve over hundreds of millions of years to a single component, CO2, measured over hundreds or even thousands of years, is logically absurd.
I am willing to concede – and always have – that man is responsible for a percentage of global warming. I do not know what that percentage is, but it is clear that it has been exaggerated and that contrary evidence has been suppressed.
True Believers
The true believers think we can take “all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system“, reduce them to man-made CO2 and ignore the sun, ignore random fluctuations, ignore Precession, ignore the earth’s position in the Milky Way, ignore background radiation, ignore sunspot cycles, and ignore any other scientific data that does not fit their model.
Of course, that means …
Mish is a Climate Denier Criminal
Who am I? Who is Galileo, and How Dare NASA Scientists Write That!
Despite the lies, the data manipulations, the article suppression, and Lord only knows what we don’t see but should, anyone who does not accept obvious bullshit that the earth will end in 12 years (or whenever) is a criminal climate denier.
Who am I? Scientifically Nobody
I may be nobody, but scientist Henrik Svensmark is somebody, and he makes sense to me. Fossil evidence supports his theory.
Sunspot cycle theories also make sense to me.
On the other side we have the blatant lies of Al Gore, coverups and lies by hockey stick proponents, data manipulations, and evidence suppression by NASA and elsewhere.
The fact that we have all these lies, coverups, data revisions, and even theory revisions is damning evidence that something is seriously wrong with the simple man-made CO2 global warming thesis presented.
To top it off, we have totally absurd hype by AOC who warns us the World Will End in 12 Years if we do not address climate change.
People are willing to embrace such total and complete nonsense while ignoring genuine debate from reputable scientists who by the way do not manipulate data to their benefit.
Misinterpreted
No doubt I will be branded as a denier. Curiously, I am not.
- I accept that temperatures measurements have been rising.
- I agree with the climatologists that in isolation, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.
- I am all in favor of reducing pollution.
- China is a basket case. China is literally poisoning its population right now.
Regarding point number one, many temperature measurements are distorted beyond belief. Gauges are in places like airports and cities surrounded by asphalt and accompanied with increasing airline exhaust and traffic.
Watts Up With That has an entire series on absurdly placed temperature gauges. That link is to rebuttal number 30!
Regarding point number two, I seriously question what percentage of the temperature increase is man-made as opposed to long-term cycles, solar activity, Milky Way Radiation, random fluctuations, or something we just do not understand.
Why Should I Give a Damn?
I care about pollution. It affects me here and now. Those with kids can also relate.
But global warming?
This question will shock some, but quite frankly: Why should I, or anyone else give a damn about global warming, even if one believes the absurd hype?
The Yellow Vest Movement in France has as its heart, that very question. French president Emmanuel Macron raised gasoline taxes to save the world.
In the face of massive protests, now going on 14 weeks Macron rescinded the gas taxes.
Fake Sense of Urgency
The world will not end in 12 years or even 200 years. But, no one would be concerned about problems 200 years from now, would they?
Thus, the false prophets must create a fake sense of urgency today.
They did. And they succeeded.
Thus we see AOC’s Stunningly Absurd “New Green Deal”: Far More Ridiculous Than Expected.
Amusingly, the World needs $90 Trillion infrastructure overhaul to avoid climate disaster, according to the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which is co-chaired by prominent climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern.
Regardless of what you believe, the notion that the government would do something sensible about this problem or any problem is ludicrous in and of itself.
Governments don’t solve problems, they create waste.
Yet, we are told the world will end in 12 years if we do not act today.
Florida Question of the Day
To those living in Florida, if you believe the claims, why are you still there?
Seriously, get the hell out because the entire state will soon be underwater.
Time’s a wastin! Pack up the babies and grab the old ladies, cause everyone goes. Evacuate now!
Global Warming Religion
Global warming is a religion. Anyone who doesn’t believe is branded as a heretic.
It’s religiously sexy and very easy to promote end of the world doomsday scenarios, until people are told their taxes need to quadruple.
The alternative, “There is no story here because the world won’t end tomorrow” is not easy to promote. The media has no interest.
Similarly, the media does not want to hear or repeat anything by scientists like Henrik Svensmark.
Doom sells.
Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give a Damn
In France, people decided, and rightfully so, they were a bit more concerned about living today than supporting the religious belief that the world will end in 12 years if we don’t raise taxes today.
Looking back, the earth was here 4.5 billion years ago. It has survived countless warming and cooling cycles. I am confident it will survive another set of cycles.
Finally, I am tired of the ridiculous hype, fake sense of urgency, and absurd fearmongering.
Taking all of the above points into consideration, please ponder this entirely logical position: Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn, and I wouldn’t even if I believed your preposterous lies.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
Fertility rates are falling pretty much everywhere. They are already at below replacement rates everywhere outside of Africa. This will take time to work through to the overall population, but it will happen if nothing changes.
Don’t get why all countries just toe NASA’s line on this?
These physicists cant explain basic things about earth and want us to pay them Charlatans
Each and every one of these Dumbo physicists must have dozed off in chemistry/ metallurgy class in high school
They say earth has magnetosphere coz of Solid iron core and currents in molten iron-rich mantle..
Iron and other metals lose their magnetism above 1500K…
Go fetch!
You may want to read this before commenting on how iron becomes nonmagnetic when molten.
You clearly did not read and you behave like a zombie/troller. The data that should support your kind of global warming is not there and never existed. It was fabricated. And when people are asking for hard evidence the “scientists” then they can’t present any. Its pseudoscience at best. Truth will reveal itself
And the Moon landing was fabricated. I had a person coming over to confirm this, but his ship fell off the Earth which we all know is flat. Oops, got to go. My daughter, who got pregnant by using a public toilet, is in labor.
I’m not a confirmer or denier of climate change but I know the world has 3.2B more people than when I was born 45 years ago. This seems unsustainable imo as it’s up around 80% in 45 years. We are on a hockey stick alright but it’s one of more people and consumption leading to more plundering of natural resources. When we look back on the late 1900s to now in about 50 years we may come to realize that we were looking af the wrong thing.
The best way to control the population is to educate and empower women to make their own reproductive decisions. People who know climate science tend to know this as well, so they don’t favour free birth control pills as a crude, off-target copout solution.
I started to doubt this article when I saw it never slowed down to talk about even the potential danger of ecological collapse causing food prices to soar, droughts, storms, and famines. These dangers are real even in the best case scenario, so it has nothing to do with alarmism.
As for human CO2 emissions–they’re small. Most of a human’s CO2 footprint comes from our energy use, electricity, fuel burned for heating and transport, growing and distributing food. Exhalation is practically nothing in comparison. Even to eat chicken instead of beef would have a bigger impact than a dozen vegans holding their breath, let alone staying home instead of flying through the stratosphere on vacation.
“Not that I’m super knowledgeable about this topic, but I follow Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers), who’s been saying these things for some time now.”
Silvermit please send this to him – Thanks
Mish you’re absolutely right about this. Global warming is a tool used by the global elite to divide and distract while they continue to loot and consolidate power. The mindless idiots that believe this crap are willing to eliminate any and all liberties to “save the earth”.
This is the most dangerous religion to ever come down the pike. Like many religions it has as its foundation a hatred for humans and what humans do. If you thought Bolshevism was murderous (and it was) the global warming fanatics will justify the murder of millions to save the earth. All the while the parasites at the top will live like kings. Which was their plan along.
Which leads me to say; don’t ever allow the “state” to take your guns. That is the only thing that stands between citizens and slavery and death. Yes that may sound a bit apocalyptic. I wish I was wrong, but I don’t think I am.
If this is true, why are the loudest climate change deniers using it to divide and distract while they continue to loot and consolidate power? While they’re claiming it’s all conspiracy, they’re stripping the planet of resources, exploiting workers, cutting taxes for the wealthy, and making themselves absurdly rich. And it’s happening even more on the right than on the left, which tends to favour higher taxes and more social spending as well as environmentalism. I just don’t see where you can get the idea that green factions are more dangerous to the social order than fossil-fueled ones.
Not that I’m super knowledgeable about this topic, but I follow Ben Davidson (Suspicious0bservers), who’s been saying these things for some time now. He’s currently in Albequerque for the Observing the Frontier 2019 with some amazing –credible– people who are trying very hard to get people to hear this. You probably already know about him, Mish, but for those who don’t, Davidson has a youtube channel that is free to the public, in which he posts daily solar-geo, info, weather, ad up to date scientific papers. IF you can get a moment, give him a listen.
I’ve heard the phrase something like “when a man is told that his livelihood is damaging the world, he’s going to squirm to justify his livelihood.” Which is probably true. What no one ever seems to effectively counter with is “When your livelihood depends on finding problems, you’re going to find them.” We see this all the time with regulators finding problems when inspecting small businesses, or threatening to condemn houses over minor issues, etc.
Even if atmospheric CO2 is a problem, we already have a very effective solution to capture and sequester it, just grow a bunch of trees. When the trees mature, just bury ’em. Continue for 1000 years. Come back and “harvest” them for new fuel. If that’s not concentrated enough, grow a bunch of plankton or some other single celled animals. Pump the slurry down old mineshafts and oil wells. Wait 1000 years and pump it back out again.
Planting trees isn’t cheap, and deforestation is increasing as CO2 levels rise. We’d have to stop cutting down forests before planting trees could even resemble a solution, and we’d find it less expensive to reduce emissions than to plant and maintain as many forests as we’d need. This plan might be possible if industrial civilization collapsed, but then who would organize it?
Deforestation mostly comes from too many people building firewood and since population increases by huge amounts more wood is burned.
Best tools against deforestation are taking small fireplaces where there is some wind protection and where heat is concentrated better to cook the food with less wood and donating them to developing countries.
Even better is giving solar powered stoves.
Also big part of why Amazon rainforest is being destroyed is increased soy farming since the demand is so great.
Actually one save-the-world type told me how proud she was that she had stopped eating meat to save the world and was eating a lot of soy instead.
When I told her she is multiplying problems it did not go over well because to her saving the planet is a good feeling to wrap herself in.
Do not eat soy, eat American raised meat or European raised meat to save the rainforests.
Rainforests and soy:
The Amazon rainforest is cut down to raise beef cattle, too–I’ve been hearing about that re: McDonalds for decades. A lot of soy is grown in the United States, too, and with the trade war it’s not getting exported to China anymore, so there’s plenty of soy to eat right here from North America, no rainforests required. Palm oil is a more obvious product to avoid, since palm trees are not economical to grow, only to cut down.
The reason why switching to soy is a good idea is because it uses less energy. Meat, especially beef, requires a lot of plants to be grown for the animals to eat. There’s a lot of wastage along the way, since animals produce heat while living and growing.
Beef cattle are especially bad since their digestion is inefficient, they have to eat more plants and worst of all, from a climate perspective, they produce a lot of methane along the way. So they waste land and solar energy, and then at the end of it all the food isn’t even as healthy to eat. Switching to soy doesn’t multiply problems, it cuts them down in wide swathes. Even switching to other meat instead of beef makes a big difference. Omnivorous animals use less land and produce less methane.
I don’t think firewood is the main reason for deforestation. For most of history, firewood was the only source of heat, and yet most deforestation was from industrial charcoal production to make metals, not from wood for heating. In the modern day, we live in industrial societies, and use natural gas and electricity for most heating, so even more wood is used for industrial purposes.
Also, heating is mainly important in northern climates… and in the desert! North America has by far the most wood consumption per capita, around fifteen times higher than in Central Asia, even though they do mainly use it for heat, there. It may help to provide better technology to developing nations, but developed nations consume much more than developing ones.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116306050 Here’s a helpful article. I’m looking at Fig. 29 right now, which lays out what I was thinking about with a great deal more detail.
Soy only looks like a culprit for deforestation because there’s greater demand for food all around. Shifting to soy and away from beef would allow more food to be grown on less land, but first the demand for meat has to fall.
Here’s an article I found that helps go into more detail about the causes of deforestation, and how wood is being used. Fig. 29 is the one that has my attention right now.
Soy looks like a culprit for deforestation because the demand for food is growing all around, and people would rather have food than trees, understandably. But, growing soy allows more food to be grown in less space than raising cattle, or any animals. The demand for meat, especially beef, needs to drop to preserve the environment in which other foods can be obtained.
CLIMATE DATA FAKED
by John Bates (leading climate scientist)
In the following sections, I provide the details of how Mr. Karl failed to disclose critical information to NOAA, Science Magazine, and Chairman Smith regarding the datasets used in K15. I have extensive documentation that provides independent verification of the story below. I also provide my suggestions for how we might keep such a flagrant manipulation of scientific integrity guidelines and scientific publication standards from happening in the future. Finally, I provide some links to examples of what well documented CDRs look like that readers might contrast and compare with what Mr. Karl has provided.
And here are a couple of additional outstanding exposes on this massive fraud:
There is NO consensus!
And – the data has been faked because the climate has NOT warmed in two decades:
Sensationalism alert: Undermining science is easy, just focus on a singular controversy or one set of corruptions. The environment doesn’t revolve solely around C02 nor is its condition completely limited to changes in global temperatures.
It is irresponsible to debate one isolated incident of corruption when there is a greater issue at stake… the one that politicians have been ignoring for more than100 years. Besides unsustainable population growth the poisoning of the environment has been proceeding unabated since man burned the first coal ore.
Let’s take a look at the big picture, where species extinction, particulate plastic are just the latest ecological disasters for which man is undeniably responsible. They go along side lead poisoning, mercury levels in the sea, acid raid and nuclear waste or strontium 90 contamination. None will destroy the world on their own, it is the culmination of neglect that is finally taking its toll.
People should stop focusing on excuses and isolated controversies like sensationalist whores and attempt a broader mind.
Totally agree – the ongoing degradation of our environment is beyond criminal. Too many people conflate the CO2/”global warming” argument with “being concerned about the environment”. CO2 is not a serious “pollutant”, and in fact is critical to our survival on this planet. On the other hand, other “emissions” such SO2 are true “pollutants” which are destroying our lakes, rivers and oceans – acid rain (sulfuric acid) – along with the many other pollutants you mention, along with unsustainable population growth, or just plain “growth for growth’s sake”. The potential harm accruing from the “warmists” agenda is that, while the hysteria over “carbon” and “warming” has lined their pockets, the result of their lobbying has been the redirection of essential political and financial capital away from real, observable and actionable pollution and environmental destruction, especially our oceans. Even the public debate about “the environment” now swirls around CO2 pretty much to the exclusion of everything else. Self-described “green” cities like the City of Victoria in BC, Canada, still dump raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca while the City Council recommends a class-action lawsuit against the oil and gas industry for causing “extreme weather events”. Sad. Consequently, the great groupthink of “CO2-induced global warming” is not just a harmless fad which will eventually pass; arguably, it is actually doing serious long term harm to our environment!
95% of plastic in worlds oceans comes for 10 rivers in China, India and Africa.
Saying that CO2 levels soaring to levels not seen since the time of the dinosaurs isn’t a problem is just apologetics to screen for continued growth in fossil fuel consumption. CO2 still has to be considered, and there’s no danger of us not having enough of it.
It’s simplistic to try to solve the problem by focusing on carbon alone, but theoretically CO2 alone could boil the oceans away through the greenhouse effect. It won’t–we can’t cause THAT much damage just by burning oil, there’s not enough of it–but a few degrees of warming is serious, due to the tipping points in our glacier regions that can cause runaway warming as ice releases methane and ocean currents break down from dropping salinity. It’s not greed that’s motivating this fear, it’s real danger. It can be overblown in some cases, but there’s plenty more cases where the truth is being suppressed for short-term profits.
Acid rain is less of a problem now than it used to be. Acidification of the oceans, though–due to CO2 absorption!–is worse than ever. Combined with the temperature rise, it’s causing coral bleaching. That’s damaging our ocean ecology more than all the raw sewage in the world.
Please, as per my original request, explain how minus 50C CO2 can “warm” plus 17C earth. There are so many “issues” around the discussion that it quickly devolves into a “Gish Gallop”. Let’s start with the most basic premise of “global warming” – that very cold CO2 is warming up a much warmer “earth” – and see if it can stand the test of scientific proof.
I can answer that with a question… How can a 25 C blanket warm a 37 C human? By keeping the heat in. (That’s the answer for both.)
It doesn’t matter how cold the CO2 is, it’s not like it stops having its optical properties if it gets too cold. Sure, if it was so cold it became dry ice it’d fall from the sky, but that’s not going to happen on Earth. It traps heat the same way glass does, that’s why it’s called ‘the greenhouse effect’.
Hi Navian…just a couple of points:
(i) The analogy of the blanket and the human body is totally specious. The human body is its own heat source. In contrast, the earth, unlike the human body, is not its own heat source – it receives its heat energy from the sun. Try putting a blanket on a mannequin and see how much it heats up, since there is no internally generated heat to “keep in”. This would be a very simple experiment that you could do at home. If wrapping a passive, heat-absorbing dummy in a blanket will not make it warmer, how the devil would wrapping the passive heat-absorbing earth in a blanket make it warmer???
(ii) What do “optical” properties have to do with heat flux?
(iii) Glass is a physical barrier and prevents the transfer of heat via convection – in a true “greenhouse”, it is the physical barrier that prevents/slows the transfer of heat to the atmosphere. In contrast, CO2 is a gas. Actually, it is a gas with high emissivity – low “reflectance”, the opposite of a mirror. No “insulating” effect here; and even if there were “insulating” properties to CO2, it would cool the earth, not warm it. Have you noticed how the earth gets cooler when a clear, sunny day turns cloudy as water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas, fills the atmosphere. Or have you read about how much cooler the earth gets when it is “blanketed” by the gases and ash emitted into the atmosphere during a volcanic eruption?
In any case, my original “objection” was to the “backradiation theory” of the greenhouse effect – the net transfer of “heat” energy from CO2 in the atmosphere back to the earth – not the “blanket effect” which I thought had been pretty thoroughly discredited.
The source of the heat is irrelevant. Whether the heat comes from a nuclear reactor in the sun or nuclear reactor on the Earth, it’s the same heat, which is conducted, convected, and radiated the same way.
The only thing that makes a blanket or a snow cave that provides insulation different is that those are mostly opaque, and reflect or absorb more radiated heat than transparent atmosphere does.
Try putting a mannequin in direct sunlight under a sheet of cellophane. Even if you do this in midwinter, and the cellophane is cold to the touch, it will still trap the sun’s heat and warm the mannequin. (Maybe that’s the ‘blocking convection’ you were referring to, but the angle and frequency radiation hits it at also matters, and differently than it does for atmosphere.)
Optical properties have to do with one of the three ways heat is transferred: Radiation. Transparent materials allow heat to pass through without heating them. Depending on the optical properties of the material, it will be transparent or opaque to different wavelengths of light. The sun emits mainly visible light.
If a material is transparent to visible light, but opaque to infrared, the visible light will pass through it, be absorbed by opaque materials, be re-radiated as IR light, and bounce off the material and be absorbed again–over and over! This is a key principle.
“If a material is transparent to visible light, but opaque to infrared, the visible light will pass through it, be absorbed by opaque materials, be re-radiated as IR light, and bounce off the material and be absorbed again–over and over! ” That is true, at least for certain solid materials as regards the “bouncing”, which leads to two questions:
(i) Can you point me to any science that demonstrates CO2 is “selectively opaque” to the various frequencies in the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation?
(ii) Even if such proof exists, of which I am unaware, does it make any difference? CO2 is a gas, not a solid like your cellophane example – a “solid” which minimizes cooling via constraining convection. As such, CO2 offers no physical barrier to heat transfer, leaving us with “radiation” as the mechanism of heat transfer; and CO2, with high emissivity, is a very effective emitter of thermal energy. The “greenhouse effect” argument then becomes:
. radiation from the sun hits the earth, warming it
. long wave infrared energy emanates from a “warm” earth, arguably “warming up” very cold CO2 in the atmosphere, which remains 67C colder +/- than the earth
. the CO2 “radiates” its infrared “energy” in all directions, including back towards the earth. The more CO2, the more infrared energy being radiated back to earth. No problem to this point.
. the “backradiation” theory maintains that this radiation from the CO2 in the atmosphere to the earth then heats up the earth.
It is the last step that is problematic. The earth is always “radiating” energy as well, of course. All objects are. The laws of thermodynamics state that heat flux, or a net transfer of heat energy, can only occur spontaneously (i.e. without external “work”) from a warmer substance to a cooler one – from a zone of greater thermal energy to one of lesser energy. Never in the other direction. Since the CO2 in the atmosphere, and it doesn’t matter how much of it there is, is colder than the earth, it is impossible for a NET transfer of heat to occur from the CO2 to the earth, unless one discards the laws of thermodynamics and common sense. In other words, it is impossible for cold CO2 to warm up a warmer earth. Isn’t it really just as simple as that?
Ice cannot boil water.
Either radiative heat transfer, like conductive heat transfer, obeys the laws of thermodynamics or it does not.
On a final note, something to think about: if your re-radiating and absorbing example continued in an endless loop, with a net transfer of heat, from cold to hot (some call it “radiative forcing”) each time, your cellophane wrapped dummy would ultimately self-combust. And that will not happen. Energy cannot be spontaneously created by cellophane. The physical barrier of the cellophane will slow the cooling, by limiting convection; but it will not heat your dummy to ever higher temperatures.
On a final, final note, the same laws apply to the shorter wave, visible light spectrum – light can only make brighter something that is emitting less light. You can prove that to yourself with a flashlight and a couple of mirrors – reflecting a light back onto itself will not make the light brighter.
‘The strongest absorption bands
of CO2
are those at 15μm and 4.3μm, followed by weaker bands around 10μm. The
CO2
15μm band occurs close to the peak of
the blackbody function at temperatures
representative of the Earth’s atmosphere
and surface. It also happens to occur where
water vapour absorption is weaker and thus
it plays a key role in infrared radiative transfer in Earth’s atmosphere. ‘
Methane has a stronger effect by mass, though there’s less of it(thankfully for our lungs and noses). Water vapor is responsible for much of the greenhouse effect, but since the amount of water vapor the atmosphere will contain strongly depends on the global temperature, it’s the other gasses which determine the overall greenhouse effect.
It’s not convection that’s relevant here, it’s radiation. Obviously, convection doesn’t transfer heat from the sun to Earth or from the Earth into the vacuum of outer space, radiation does. And greenhouse gasses interfere with the latter more than the former, that’s why they heat the planet.
Remember that the CO2 in the atmosphere is still ‘hot’ cosmically speaking. Convert all your Celcius numbers to Kelvins and that’ll stand out clearly. So a mere -50 degrees Celcius isn’t going to cool us down through convection, it’s still a warm blanket of air,
relatively speaking. It’s not transferring heat to the Earth, but it’s preventing it from being transferred to outer space, which is effectively less than 10 Kelvins. -50 C is 223 K, over 100 degrees warmer (and yes, those are the same size as degrees C). Toasty.
The loop isn’t endless because not all of the outgoing heat is trapped. The hotter it gets inside, the more outgoing heat there is, so a new (warmer) equilibrium is reached when the greenhouse effect is increased. It only runs away on us if the increasing temperature increases the greenhouse effect even faster.
This happened on Venus; it got so hot that more greenhouse gasses were created from the boiling oceans and baking soil. That’s why it’s hotter than Mercury. (Note that on Venus, the cloud tops now have an Earthlike temperature and pressure. Doesn’t make it a nice place to live, though.)
We talk about doing this on Mars, too. Mars has a lot of CO2 and methane trapped in its ice caps, melting them could help warm it up. It’s bad for this to happen on Earth, though! At least Earth doesn’t have frozen CO2 in its ice caps.
OK, this gets us somewhere: “It’s not transferring heat to the Earth, but it’s preventing it from being transferred to outer space, which is effectively less than 10 Kelvins.” So, the “backradiation theory” is bogus, which is my bone of contention, since that has been what most of the “warmists” hang their hat on. On the other hand, “preventing the transfer of heat” is intuitively appealing.
Can you explain “how” CO2 gas prevents the radiation of infrared energy from earth from escaping into the atmosphere, and thereby causes the earth to be warmer than it otherwise would be?
I understand “absorptive bands” and all that. Sort of. But I don’t understand how they change the temperature of the heat source (ultimately the sun, but in this case, we are just dealing with the infrared radiation from the earth for simplistic purposes – although leaving the sun out of the discussion gets back to the selectively opague discussion – the sun “passes through”, but infrared does not – argument, does it not?)
Surely, it would not be a difficult experiment to show how a body is itself made hotter by placing it in a CO2 encapsulated space. (Here’s one: put a thermometer in the middle of a vacuum bottle, receiving constant radiation from an external energy source, and take the temperature. Then, fill the bottle with regular air and take the temperature. Then, fill the bottle with CO2, at concentrations multiple times higher than the .0004 of the atmosphere and take the temperature, to see if there is a difference, with all other variables, such as energy sources, ambient temperature, etc. held constant.) Unless it is not possible to demonstrate, because it is not possible, in science. I have not seen a successful experiment in this regard, although I have seen the opposite; and yet, this would seem to be the most obvious place to start if one were being “scientific” about it.
Focusing on only one factor isn’t going to get us anywhere… ‘The back radiation theory’ isn’t a thing, any real model is going to be very complex and multifaceted. Back radiation occurs because the atmosphere absorbs the radiation emitted by the Earth. It’s not speculative, it’s basic; you can literally feel it (not from CO2 levels exactly, but certainly from water vapor) with your own skin.
The atmosphere absorbs more of what the Earth emits when there’s more greenhouse gasses. This isn’t necessarily linear, as the article says CO2 patches a very important ‘hole’ in the absorption spectrum of water vapor, so it has a disproportionate effect considering the relatively narrow bands of its own absorption spectrum.
I don’t know why the temperature of the sun matters in a thermodynamic sense, here. The precise temperature is important in absolute terms, because its black body radiation is in the visible band, though that’ll be true for any star around which life as we know it can thrive, so that’s a given. In absolute terms, it doesn’t matter; the greenhouse effect works the same on a 500 kelvin planet as it does on a 180 kelvin planet. (Going much beyond those numbers for terrestrial worlds, their atmosphere’s likely to be frozen on or blown away, so that’s most of the relevant range.)
Visible light, which is emitted from the sun’s surface because it’s as hot as a light bulb filament, passes through the atmosphere easily and is absorbed by the ground, or better yet, plants. That’s why we evolved to use visible light to see by, and why plants (and by extension, almost all life on earth) use visible light as a source of energy. There’s so much of it that it’s just plain easy to use. (It’s also not ionizing radiation, like UV is, so it’s less dangerous.) Plants use (green) chlorophyll because there’s too much green light, they deflect some of it to reduce their need for evaporative cooling. That’s part of why plants in colder and wetter areas tend to be deeper green; they can afford it.
So, getting back to the point, after the light comes in and heats the Earth, it gets emitted by everything on Earth… mainly in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs. This means heat absorbed by Earth can’t get back into space as easily as it arrives, instead of just bouncing back light a ping pong ball it’s… more like a ping pong ball that gets caught in the net and blows up. It goes in all directions, and the energy takes longer to leave.
You know that cloud cover keeps us warm at night, I’m sure. High levels of CO2 make it easier to stay warm at night, even when the sky is clear. While looking down at Earth from space in the visible spectrum you’ll be able to see plenty of reflected sunlight on the day side, but when viewing infrared light instead, you’ll be able to see energy being emitted in every direction, day and night. Mostly from warmer areas, less from the polar regions.
Because greenhouse gasses work like a ‘blanket’, global warming affects the polar regions relatively rapidly, heating them almost twice as fast as the tropics, where the greater heat can escape more directly.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make with the experiment. We’ve been testing the physical properties of common components of the atmosphere like CO2 for centuries. If you go on and throw that all out for some reason, then maybe you can talk to someone about designing an experiment with vacuum tubes and controls to learn it all over again in a roundabout way just to discover what you could have reconfirmed by shooting a bunch of lasers of different wavelengths through CO2 (inside, rather than through a container) and recording the results with an infrared camera.
It’s not going to produce anything novel. This science is so old, the idea CO2 would cause global warming was first hypothesized in 1896. There’s no dispute. If deniers need some bogus steampunk song and dance to accept known science, I just… I’m too tired for that, existentially speaking.
Still, you haven’t referenced any scientific experiments proving your backradiation or “blanket” hypotheses, which should be easy to demonstrate in a lab, if they had any legitimacy. I agree, there is no debate whatsoever about the “physical properties of common components of the atmosphere like CO2 for centuries”, although I did ask you for evidence that CO2 is “selectively opaque” as you suggest, since that is a “property” of which I am unaware.
The debate is “how” those “properties” of CO2 can heat up the earth.
You did acknowledge that “It’s not transferring heat to the Earth,” which is the “backradiation theory” in a nutshell. Rather, you seem to be arguing that CO2 is slowing the rate of cooling through the “blanket effect”, whatever that is (unproven scientifically, as noted in a previous post; in fact, at least one individual has disproved it in an experiment, but the level of sophistication was not beyond challenge, so I have not referenced it). However, “slowing the rate of cooling” is NOT the same as saying “it warms up the earth”. If you are arguing that an object with a constant energy level, which “cools more slowly” under a “blanket”, ends up being warmer, then please explain. For example, if you wrap a light bulb in a blanket, it will “cool more slowly”, for a time, until equilibrium is established; but do you believe the light bulb will actually get hotter? “Can” it get hotter? Wrap the bulb in tinfoil (low emmissivity), or 10 feet of down-filled blankets (high emissivity) – it doesn’t matter, they are both very good “blankets”. Will/can the light bulb get hotter? (Remember the laws of thermodynamics before responding)
As for clouds at night, what about clouds in the day? Presumably, clouds, like CO2, are a 24hr. phenomenon in the sky. Since the only source of energy to the earth is from the sun, and not all energy received from the sun is radiated back into the atmosphere, then any “cloud effect” must be a net reduction in energy reaching the earth from the sun, must it not?
A few years ago, Charles Anderson PhD, a materials physicist, calculated that the cooling effect of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases were 100 times greater than the heating effect.
Now, I have no idea if the number is 100 times, two times, or 1.02 times; but it makes complete intuitive sense that anything that “blankets”, or restricts, the transfer of energy to and from the earth must have a cooling effect: there is more energy flowing from the sun to the earth than from earth to space; hence there is more energy to be “blocked” coming in that going out. That is, unless CO2, water vapour and other “greenhouse gases” are “selectively opaque”, which you suggested in an earlier post. Even “if” that were a property, we are left with the question as to how a “reduced rate of cooling” ends up making the energy source hotter.
The big problem with any discussion about “global warming” and its causes is that it has become “religion”. Those of us who, from a scientific viewpoint, question the theory are labelled “deniers”. That’s right up there with “heretics”, like Galileo. Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, maintains that no amount of facts or logical argument will change anyone’s mind on a subject that has an emotional element. Nowhere is that sad truth more evident than with the “global warming” debate.
You say “there is no dispute”; and yet you have not pointed me to any scientific proof that even the theory of the greenhouse effect is valid, never mind the sound evidence of climatologists who hotly debate the observational data and its interpretation (recall “Climategate”, a.k.a. “data cooking”). There is a reason that the religion called “global warming” got re-labeled to “climate change” – who can argue with “changing climates”?
For me, as someone seriously concerned about the environment, I think the re-direction of money, political capital and public attention away from observable and actionable environmental issues and into a money-making (for the proponents) religion of dubious merit is a travesty.
Great article, as always. Just one question re: “I agree with the climatologists that in isolation, an increase in CO2 will lead to an increase in temperature.” – Why? How the devil can CO2 at minus 50C in the troposphere “heat up” – i.e. create a “heat flux”, or net transfer of heat energy to – an earth with an average temperature of plus 17C. Can ice boil water? Did I miss something in my thermodynamics classes, or is the whole “backradation theory” of the “greenhouse effect” bogus? One of the biggest groupthink hoaxes on record. Can anyone point to a legitimate lab experiment that demonstrates, unquestionably, that a cold substance can cause a warmer one to get warmer? Because I sure haven’t seen one.
Are you that dumb?
Insults or name calling are poor substitutes for rational, legitimate arguments and are usually used to compensate for defective or vacuous thinking. Proof, please – how “cold” CO2 can heat a “warm” earth and still be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, or common sense.
Idiocy is, of course, quite prevalent on the internet, but this article succeeds in being quite a bit above the normal level of online idiocy.
A quick question for you folks who dispute the reality of human caused global warming, okay?
Could you please disprove the simple and basic physics behind the absorption and re-radiation of long-wave radiated energy by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that absorption and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while also measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades?
Climate contrarians would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me on that one — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries. They also discount the easily correlated temperature measurements by multiple independent international sources, such as NOAA, NASA, the UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more. Some contrarians even go as far as to imply that all of those scientists’ work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud — a charge that is not only ludicrous on its face, but also more than a little insulting. And silly.
Folks, anthropogenically exacerbated climate change is a problem — a real, quantifiable, demonstrable, and most importantly solvable problem. We’re smart Americans. We’re inventive. We’re innovative. We can fix it. And we can create good, American jobs doing so.
We can fix it, that is, as long as we understand, carefully examine, and vet the data-driven science, and don’t confuse it with politics. Science is science — it’s neither left nor right, neither conservative nor liberal. How we respond to the reality of global warming and its concomitant climate change … well … that’s policy, not science — and as such it’s well within the arguable political arena. So let’s argue about that, shall we?
I agree scientific method should be used to determine the truth. My problem is this; the folks who demand we believe the science supporting “global warming” are the same ones who ridicule in the harshest terms anyone who criticizes the government’s 911 conspiracy theory. A theory that states that 3 skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprint at free fall speed in one day because of furniture fires. This theory is of course complete nonsense. Therefore those preaching “global warming” have no credibility. As the saying goes; “consider the source”. And the source here is full of crap.
The reason this is important, more important than the chicken little’s we are doomed because of ‘global warming” is because if 911 was a false flag operation then our country is being run by traitors. Resolving this problem is the highest priority for our country, not some lunacy about “global warming”.
The “data driven” science can NOT be vetted or replicated since the “raw” temperature data has been “lost” or more accurately destroyed by the millionaire scientists getting millions in grants to study “global warming” later re-branded as “climate change” when temperatures in the satellite measurements started going down in 1999 and the “scientists” wanted to forget all about that as well create a new explanation in their theory how warming was NOT detected in many measuring stations on earth so they had to invent new version of their THEORY how some places would be getting cooler and some warmer (which is weather) while still claiming that “Climate change” was happening.
IF there was grants by the tens of millions studying the “cheesiness level of the moon” by ignorant politicians and media saying how moon is getting cheesier in thousands of news articles and loads of 20-30 year old women to whom moon getting cheesier is the biggest threat in the world and scientists studying moon’s cheesiness level are heroes in their eyes and those scientists could pick whom they wanted out of those women to be their girlfriend/wife there would be many scientists taking those grants, being called heroes and getting a hot and sexy girlfriend/wife while studying moon’s cheesiness level. Once the scientist took that route his whole career, wealth and personal life would be tied to people continuing to believe that moon is getting cheesier.
If everyone agrees that radiation affects climate and Van allen belts/Magnetopshere determines radiation levels reaching earth
then consider this:
Why does earth have a magnetosphere?
Each and every one of these Dumbo physicists must have dozed off in chemistry/ metallurgy class in high school
They say earth has magnetosphere coz of Solid iron core and currents in molten iron-rich mantle..
Iron and other metals lose their magnetism above 1500K…
Go fetch!
These physicists cant explain basic things about earth and want us to pay them Charlatans
Why? Well, it isn’t about money.
It’s about control.
Yup. The true source of “global warming” is the eugenics movement. Today instead of saving mankind from the defective germ-plasm that causes feeble-mindedness, it is now everyone’s duty to save the planet from “the painfully apparent negative effects of carbon emissions and the growing human population.” Today instead of asking what traits they bring to the gene-pool, our first graders are taught that everyone is going to die because there are too many people using too much stuff.
And it isn’t just an alternative religion for people with so much money they can’t think straight. It is also an alternative science for mentally retarded billionaires.
But the troubling thing isn’t where it comes from but where it is going.
For the record… our planet is not over-populated. You could fit every man, woman and child alive inside the state of Texas… with enough space left over to give them each a one bedroom apartment. Nor is there going to be a shortage of food if the population gets any bigger. In the US alone, nearly 40% of the food that is produced will be thrown away without ever even being partially eaten. If there ever is a shortage of any critical resources, rest assured, human ingenuity will come to the rescue. It always does, provided there are enough people left to think about it.
Also contrary to what you may have been told, overpopulation does not cause extinction. Extinction is cause by rapidly decreasing population and today human fertility rates are dropping more drastically than anyone can fully explain.
if it isn’t obvious, the real reason they want to eliminate 90% of the human population is simple. Maintaining a global system of true slave labor would be impossible with a population of seven billion. Two class oligarchies have happened many times in history and they have always been overthrown when the population become too plentiful, discontent and rebellious to control. The fact that global warming, if it did exist as such, would be a global problem and thus one which lends itself to a global governing body to regulate carbon emissions,l oil exploration and human consumption makes it that much more valuable to their One World Government agenda.
They support genetic manipulation so that they can start inbreeding again. This time without the nasty side effects. No need for Harry’s great grandchildren to marry commoners, just keep everything in the family.
As for food production, better to control us by keeping prices high. All those CIA led color revolutions began when the price of grains skyrocketed. No one really knows why the prices went up, except for it was all around the same time as QE began and maybe investors wanted to make sure they got paid first…
That sounds about right. QE is just a scheme for the central banks to print massive amounts of money to prop up the markets, inflate the biggest bubble in history, and pump liquidity into an unsustainable monetary system… while also making sure the money goes directly into their own pockets. I read somewhere that the most basic definition of inflation isn’t rising prices as much as excess currency. They sometimes refer to QE as helicopter money but that helicopter only drops money over Wall Street.
anyway the basic formula is… if you control the currency of a nation, you can control the legislature. If you control the oil, you can control the commerce. And if you control the food, you can control the people. This is especially true if you can genetically engineer the food to alter people’s moods and fertility rates. It’s not coincidental that in addition to being founding members of the Federal Reserve, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds own Monsanto/ .
BTW, those GMO’s are straight toxic and not by accident.
it pains me to say this because although I am resigned to sometimes coming across like a paranoid conspiracy theory nutcase, I still don’t want to sound like a damn dirty hippie… but the fact is, we would all live much longer and healthier lives if only we all just ate the rich. Sadly there will probably never be labels on our food that read, “This Product Contains GMO’s,” or “Now With 100% Real Baby Billionaire Meat,” but I still try to make sure I’m not eating food that was manufactured by genocidal maniacs.
Once we see the whole thing as a profit driven money making exercise, it all makes sense and we can regard it with the contempt it deserves.
I recognized greenhouse as science fiction in 1972 when I read Carl Sagan, a product of truncated education. Heat radiates from the surface of Earth. Greenhouse is near your ankles not above your head. Greenhouse violates sovereignity.
Interesting 3 things.
People believe in science when they want to. I’ve yet to find someone who agrees with the all of the following 3 things, all of which have strong scientific consensus.
Items 1 and 2 seem to have an extremely strong negative correlation, if you believe #1 then you dispute #2, and vice versa.
I’m with you on all three. And so are most of the people I know.
I’m a liberal and a firm science believer whose buddy worked for Monsanto for years… I agree with all three of those factual claims. However I often buy organic and/or locally sourced food because it tends to taste better, simply because smaller producers tend to care more about taste than big producers, who care about shelf life, transport, etc. Small breweries are an easy to understand example of this.
Top-down Federal political responses like the GND won’t work to address climate concerns for the simple reason that the US is only 5% of the world’s population, and uses “only” 25% of the worlds resources. Changing consumption patterns for that small a segment of humanity is ultimately meaningless as a mechanism to address a global issue.
Reducing energy consumption by our military by ending occupations world-wide is likely a more expedient approach to reducing consumption. But you don’t hear the politicians talking about that approach, do you?
Mish you obviously have a far better understanding of the science than people in multiple fields, who, for over a century have built an understanding of climate that is accepted around the World, internally consistent at its core, and matches the physical evidence.
Man are these people going to be upset when a Finance blogger shows them the error of their ways.
I wonder if there is a climate scientist who will explain to you in simple terms why all your theories of markets are completely wrong because you didn’t take into account inflation.
I did agree with that part.
Near spot on. The earth is very slowly warming and it’s most likely due to rising CO2 levels. So far, we’ve warmed about 1C in aggregate. More towards the poles and less towards the equator. Also, if not for rising CO2 levels, there’s a good chance we would be in the early stages of an ice age. So without humans, the earth may be 2C or so colder than it is now.
People I know who understand the science agree that the earth is warming but don’t expect a catastrophe. I agree with that.
“The earth is very slowly warming and it’s most likely due to rising CO2 levels.”
how can you be surer that it is co2 and not something else ?
Milankovitch cycles hypotheses sound good to me.
Mayor Garcetti chooses ideology over common sense, abandoning refurbishment of
3 natural gas power plants.
“The mayor’s decision marks an abrupt change of course for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, where top staffers have argued in recent months that the gas plants are critical to keeping the lights on in the city.”
Garcetti doesn’t care about the gas plants being critical to keeping the lights on in L.A., during times when renewable energy won’t be able to provide sufficient power.
Virtue signaling is more important.
Not global warming but the resilience of the electricity supply should be of most concern. Everything depends on it, including the supply of water, fuel and food. And we are sure to get another Carrington event.
A couple of people found links to the article. I clipped a much better image and put in the link. Thankls
“According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation towards the sun indicate that our world should just be beginning to enter a new period of cooling – perhaps the next ice age.”
In fact Martin Armstrong has been speaking on this for a long time (exactly opposite of what the climate change guys talk about-increase in temperature). Links below…
and
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-new-mini-ice-age-coming-rapidly/ (Nov 2016)
Realist might believe that since Armstrong has done time he will not having worthwhile to say. But he was at the other end of the spectrum of climate change when everyone was talking of global warming for quite some time and is now proving to be correct too.
I am dead against any hype machine, including the one on climate change that Al Gore seems to have invented out of thin air when he had nothing better to do really. More so when it does not allow any differing opinion.
Wanna know how to see the “global warming” scam? How it is not for saving the world, not to help save people, not for saving the polar bear and is all about massively growing government power?
The most far left wing rich/celebrity/politician supporters of “global warming” continue to buy uber-expensive beach front property. Beach front property, all around world, continues to rise in price. If they believed their own hype, beach front property should be worthless and they wouldn’t go anywhere near it.
The most far left wing rich/celebrity/politician supporters of “global warming” are the most radical anti-nuclear power nuts you can find. Think about it, a power source that is capable of providing the power needs to an entire country without adding one “green house” gas or emission. If “global warming” was that real and that imminent, they would be screaming to close down every fossil fuel power generation station (to include natural gas) and replace it with nuclear power.
When “scientists” or government bureaucrats find flaws in their data or models suggesting that their global warming doom predictions are not true or greatly exaggerated – they are sad or angry about it. Or even try to hide the new data. Any normal person, when told they were basically were about to die in a melting earth in the very near future, would be jumping for joy on finding this new data. They would partying on their new lease on life singing “We are saved from destruction!”
Just like Ancel Keys and saturated fat being the supposed cause of heart disease, you’ve got a group of people who cannot admit even being partially wrong. And the fat in diet not being bad is finally getting traction over the past few years, but look how many decades it was preached as gospel under cherry picked data. And we are fatter and unhealthier because of it. A tragedy.
I would hope with the internet and wisom of crowds and so much data being out there that climate change at least becomes more a reasonable topic of discussion over the next decade vs. fearmongering.
Lack of fat in your diet causes hunger, see ‘rabbit starvation’. Lack of fat while growing up causes developmental issues.
Excellent analogy, Corto. To take the Keys comment to, perhaps, an extreme, it’s entirely possible that Keys is responsible for more death and misery than Hitler and Stalin, together, ever imagined.
Mish, you may not be a climate scientist, but former senior NASA climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer is and says it simply: climate scientists “have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low”.
Flog on, Mish. It’s an incredible time, analogous to the Catholic church’s conviction of Galileo for the heresy of supporting Copernican theory that the earth circles the sun, but don’t expect them to relent. It took 392 years for the church to formally admit Galileo was right. Global warming is their new religion; facts don’t matter.
“..hold those who do the denying accountable”
“..British High Court judge ruled that Gore’s global warming film, “An Inconvenient Truth,”
That’s The West in a nutshell, anno now. “We”, which always and everywhere is shorthand for nothing but a rabble army of of utterly worthless, despicable beyond all and any belief, trash; useless for anything at all beyond literal firewood, are running around “holding” and “ruling.” And “deeming.” And “finding.” And absolutely anything else, aside from actually producing. And contributing. Anything of any value whatsoever.
I think so many people are upset with so many different things they’d go along with nutcase bug eyed AOC just for spite despite the lunacy of it all.
“Science is belief in the ignorance of experts.”
-Richard Feynman
Science is not consensus. What do these climate “experts” have to hide?
And progressivism is blind faith in ignorant “experts.”
Maybe NASA has joined the Flat Earthers and is withholding images of a round world? Alleged “climate (pseudo)scientists” are about as credible. And that last tweet? Obviously stupid enough to have swallowed the propaganda that throwing ALL of our money at the climate religion to make AlGore’s billionaire cronies even richer will make a bit of difference in a sun-driven global climate.
The world will end in 12 years because AOC and her cohorts want to be sitting on top of the mountain with all the gold and billions of dollars at their disposal to do whatever they want to with. Wouldn’t be any fun to spend 50 years convincing everyone and then end up with most riches the world has ever seen when you’re almost dead. The fact that we’re are even debating this tells me how stupid a lot of people really are. Come right out and say to the general population we’re all dead in 12 years hoping most of us believe it? What will happen to those of us that know better? Prison? Re education camps?
Here we may have a dumber post than the one where you told us Hillary Clinton had a degenerative brain disease. We can cut you some slack for the endless false recession calls- that’s tricky and it’s not real science. But this is real science. What’s next, anti-vaccine posts?
Well done and well said Mish.
“The World is Going to End!” is the classic prophesy of nut cases and con-men. Too many people seem unable to recognize that now. The only thing that worries me is nuclear bomb proliferation.