Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Chuck Hortler on DARPA Bat Virus Proposal From 2018
- GreyGeek on Pfizer In Full Control Of The Australian Government
- Janet Marshall on Pfizer In Full Control Of The Australian Government
- Vegieman on Three More Footballers With Heart Problems
- Anon on Three More Footballers With Heart Problems
Archives
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Can’t wait! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaYVo89mmY
Dilbert is going to smash Leonardo.
Tony, this is quite a compliment to gain this recognition! Good job and keep up the good fight against the scammers.
One heckuva recognition! What Scott Adams is doing here is committing absolute heresy against the current lamestream media, while embodying the core tenet that once used to be the central part of old-school reporting: assembling the complete facts to present to an audience so that they can make an informed decision about a topic. In his 1989 book, the late Stephen Schneider exposed the situation that would kill the AGW issue: “If only the irreconcilable debates of implacable expert enemies are reported, the typical public reaction (and probably those of politicians as well) will be, ‘Well, if the experts don’t know what’s going on, how can I decide?’ The next reaction would probably be, ‘You folks go back and study some more, and when you have more certainty come and tell us so we can decide how to act.’”
As I’ve documented, the PBS NewsHour has never once featured a skeptic climate scientist on its program to rebut IPCC reports, compared to 65 instances ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1886 ) where IPCC/NASA/NOAA scientists were given free rein to spout pro-AGW viewpoints. If the NewsHour was to honestly present the opposing side now, it would undermine 20+ years of their prior reporting.
It has passed the time to take away their public funding. Swim or sink PBS, and NPR, PRI, et al.
Who authorized Scott Adams to do this? He’s not a scientist! Somebody call the police!
Speaking of BS that needs challenged. This load of dung was featured on my news feed this morning.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/american-cities-that-will-soon-be-under-water/ss-AAyRWxS?ocid=spartanntp
He’s right. If you just read through the links Scott provided on twitter, some of the arguments from the Climate Industry are persuasive, especially if you haven’t studied the subject like most of us have. The problem is, almost every claim made is a strawman or is easily shot down with the most rudimentary counter argument. (Sea level claims are the classic… Your SUV is drowning New Orleans! (uh, no… It was a REALLY bad idea to build anything there due to subsidence))
If I ever found myself in this debate publicly, I would use the saying “did you see what just happened there?” Then explain the claim made, the logical fallacy used, and the truth. Once you have to say “did you see what just happened there?” 20 times in a session, you will have an entire audience composed almost exclusively of skeptics.
Congratulations for the recognition Tony, keep showing the shoddy “science” for what it is. You’re the best there is at it.
I think it is straight forward intentional deception and not “shoddy science”. It is really criminal IMO. And yes I fully agree! Tony is the very best at doing exactly what Scott Adams describes him doing with their own records to clearly and unequivocally demonstrate their malfeasance.
Group think can be extremely powerful and should not be discounted as a factor. Particularly in science, there are numerous examples of cult like belief that is eventually overturned, or is being overturned, like appears to be happening in this case.
Because this is based on what NASA and NOAA have said, and done, I expect for them to resurrect the lame TOBs Apologetics again.
My take away after reading/watching the four links provided in the challenge was that the pro-Climate Change side’s presentations are much, much more persuasive that the lukewarmer/skeptic side’s material (and I am a lukewarmer). The Bloomberg graphical presentation (though I question the accuracy of the data presented) was much more persuasive and easier to digest than a 50+ minute YouTube presentation (no offense meant). The CAGW camp, even with its history of scandals and manipulated data, is unfortunately winning the publicity & persuasion war IMO…
The reason the warming advocates are “winning” is because the MSM will not allow skeptics to present an argument.
Witness newspapers which will not print skeptical articles or letters and NBC’s Chuck Todd stating that he would not allow skeptical opinion on his program.
Most working people with family do not have time to research many subjects and rely on MSM sources for information.
If it were not for sites such as this, I would likely be on the dark side.
Re Bloomberg…
They start with an erroneous temperature series (GISS)
Where is the 1940s peak that used to exist ?
What they show is NOT the “observed”, but the AGW twisted propaganda version, designed to match their fairy-tale.. It is a LIE
Show ignorance of the solar effects.
Anyone that thinks TSI is the only solar effect is IGNORANT or LYING.
Do not show anything about cloud effects.
IGNORANCE, or deliberate DECEIT?
Its a good piece of propaganda for those without the knowledge to see through the LIES. !
TSI is just ONE variable in the sun’s effect on the earth, it also includes earth’s tilt, elliptical orbit, deflection cloud producing cosmic rays etc.
Our weather has too many variables to state that just one factor (CO2) is responsible for the slight increase in earths temperature (if there is one) the chaos theory.
It is interesting to note that the UN’s founding charter for the IPCC has been scrubbed from their website, which mandated that the IPCC can only find that mankind is responsible for global warming.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Some of us have saved it for just such a case.
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of HUMAN-INDUCED climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”
Yeah, I used the original IPCC charter, on many occasions, to show that their “assessment” was and is nothing more than a kangaroo court. Now I can prove that they are liars, and that they are indeed trying to hide their true agenda.
That is what they SAY role of the IPCC is. It is actually a propaganda arm of a political machine. Every single syllable of their report summaries is parsed and edited to suit political editors before they are released. One should always remember the first priority of any modern government is to expand it’s power and revenue. And the first priority of the bureaucracy of any department within that government is to expand it’s influence and budget. Bottom line is that the IPCC is at it’s core a political body and not a scientific one.
By charter/law the IPCC can only find a man made cause for climate change.
“If your job depends on finding cow patties and determine their effect on a pasture, you will find them, even if its full of sheep.”
This line was stolen/paraphrased from a lecture by my criminal law professor 40 years ago on “malicious prosecution”.
For a minute I thought you were talking about the Special Council!
Exactly. The ‘I’ in IPCC is intergovernmental. It is a big part of the New World Order and the Agenda goals set to bring it about.
Also variation of UV frequency content..
VERY important for transferring energy to the oceans.
As you say, the IPCC is not searching for the truth, they are searching for/fabricating only HUMAN influence while deliberately downplaying any NATURAL influences.
Two simple questions..
1. Is there any empirical scientific evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming..
After 30+ years, the answer is still… NO !
2. Apart from a fraction of a degree of atmospheric warming due to El Nino and AMO effects, in what way has the GLOBAL climate changed in the last 40 years (of reliable measurements) that can be scientifically put down to human influence.?
This all part of the UN’s insidious “Agenda 21” plan for total globalization.
The question is if humans could ever produce the amount of CO2 where it becomes ‘dangerous’.
When we exhale it’s about 40,000 ppm. Is that dangerous?
Yes, if one breaths into a plastic bag tightly fastened around the neck for 5 minutes or so. Most people will rip it off instinctively.
A fine example of a closed system, or a greenhouse.
No fair: after a number of breaths, the CO2 level in the bag will be much higher.
Actually, this site
https://principia-scientific.org/at-what-concentration-does-co2-becomes-toxic-to-humans/
calculates that the limit is only 60,000ppm, but this number depends on the level of physical exertion, so results will vary. Anyway, that’s 150x the currently scary 400ppm level, so I wouldn’t worry too much right now.
Fun fact: you might also have used up the O2 in the bag by then, too, but you couldn’t tell: our bodies only warn us when bloodstream CO2 levels are too HIGH. People have died, peacefully falling asleep, in rooms where O2 has been accidentally driven out by N2 gas from storage tanks.
The US Navy tries to keep the CO2 level in it’s subs at 8,000 ppm or lower but studies done have shown that sometimes levels reach in excess of 13,000 ppm with no ill effect for the crew.
Bingo!
Not as tightly closed environment as a submarine, and not 24 hrs/day,,but greenhouse workers spend ~ 8 hours/day breathing high concentrations of it with no deleterious effect.
Of course in a sub were talking mostly younger men and I guess on some now days, women, with a good state of health.
Yet if someone is having an asthma attack, breathing into a brown paper back can actually ease their attack.
That is because CO2 is a natural bronchial dilator, so partially increasing the concentration opens up the airways (obviously only applies if the asthma attack is the type that causes airway constriction)
CO2 Concentrations and Effects
150 ppm – the minimum concentration below which many plants may face problems to run photosynthesis and stop growing
180 ppm – the concentration during ice ages
280 ppm – the concentration during interglacials, i.e. also the pre-industrial concentration around 1750
391 ppm – the concentration today
500 ppm – the concentration around 2060-2070 (unlikely that before 2050 as they claim)
560 ppm – the concentration around 2080-2110 (the “doubled CO2” relatively to the pre-industrial values) relevant for the calculations of climate sensitivity); a concentration routinely found outdoors today
700 ppm – the concentration in an average living room
900 ppm – concentration in an average kitchen
1,270 ppm – the concentration used to double the growth of Cowpea in a famous video
1,700 ppm – the average concentration in the Cretaceous 145-65 million years ago (early mammals came, plus figs, magnolias, birds, modern sharks)
4,500 ppm – the concentration 444-416 million years ago (the Silurian dominated by corals and mosses); see other values in geological epochs
10,000 ppm – sensitive people start to feel weaker
40,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in the air we breath out
50,000 ppm – toxic levels at which the animals like us get weaker in hours; the value is 5 percent of the volume
180,000 ppm – the concentration of CO2 in exhausts of a healthy motor; that’s 18 percent
1,000,000 ppm – pure CO2, just to make you sure know what the units are
And from the planetary perspective, we know this:
Venus – atmosphere more than 95% CO2. Blazing hot
Mars – atmosphere more than 95% CO2. Frigid cold
So which one represents the tipping point/runaway feedback case under the bogus hypothesis that CO2 is the Giant Control Knob of Atmospheric Temperature?
Scott Adams is a very clever guy, but I cringed at his statement that “Those who claim any amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is all good ARE JUST WRONG”. Really, Scott? Based on what observation?
Great recognition, Tony. Gettin’ ready to make some popcorn!
I think that is a great point.
Furthermore, on earth it has been warmer with more CO2 and it has been cooler with more CO2. It’s also been warmer and cooler with less CO2. It simply is not possible to definitively say what the climate will do with certainty.
A nice blurb on pressure and temperature.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/31/giving-credit-to-willis-eschenbach-for-setting-the-nikolov-zeller-silliness-straight/
Rah, while I cannot comment on the finale answers to the atmospheric density question, the proof offered dies not, to my thinking, make sense.
In two equal chambers of a gas reading disparate T on separate readings, each molecule/atom can have exactly the same amount of energy, yet the denser same gas will read a higher T against a thermometer or against your skin as the denser molecules collide more frequently.
Think residence time of energy input into a system. The residence time of the system determines how much energy the tank can hold. If you increase the density of the atmosphere you increase the storages capacity of the atmosphere. ( more molecules to vibrate per sq meter even if they are vibrating at the same rate.)
Think of this law, ” There are only two things that can change the energy content of a ‘ system’ in a
radiative equilibrium; a change of input, or change of residence time of energy in the system.”
Call it David’s Law. (-;
Think about why the thermometer T can go up even though the molecules are vibrating at the exact same rate. The thermometer is its own defined system. Like any system, the steady state T depends on input and output reaching equilibrium. Thus the thermometer is also losing energy during input that affects the mercury, while gaining energy from surrounding molecular impacts. ( Its T depends on the residence time of energy in the mercury)
In the atmosphere with denser gas molecules the denser molecules of equal vibrational energy thus cause the thermometer to register a higher T. (Not stronger energy punches against the glass, but MORE energy punches over a given area, in this case the glass volume surrounding the mercury)
So while I do not know who is correct, I do not think the Willis post is an effective disprove of the N-Z theory.
Gator,
As measured at Mauna Loa, the current concentration is about 408 ppm. As the new year ages, that will increase to about 413.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
My advice is to update your “today” number about every 3 or 4 months, and say whether it is the daily amount or the number on the yearly trend line.
Duly noted. But not many of us live on top of Mauna Loa, enjoying this well mixed gas. ;-)
I think I can make a simple but substantially accurate argument why air CO2 should be lower. Assuming full CO2 exchange between blood and air in the lung, our blood CO2 is in equilibrium with gas CO2 when the latter is at 40000 ppm, because that’s what we breath out when there’s practically 0 CO2 in the incoming air.
If there were 10000 ppm in the incoming air, the blood could only release 30000 ppm worth of CO2 into our lungs, since blood/lung equilibrium would still be at 40000.
So if you breathed in air with 40000 ppm CO2, it would already be in equilibrium with the blood, and the blood would keep the CO2 that it has. With further metabolic activity, CO2 level would rise significantly. Exactly at what CO2 blood level problems would occur is a fine point, but you’d expect them to kick in around or a little above this level.
I think we can find a happy and fruitful middle ground between 400 ppm and 10,000 ppm, if we work hard and find a way to produce massive amounts of plant food inexpensively. Going to require major investments.
The answer is that there is not so much co2 in all of earth fossil fuels to raise the co2 ratio in our atmosphere to 10% when co2 becomes toxic
for us.
And if we would raise the co2 that much climate would change,not because of co2 but because the density of our atmosphere would be about 10% higher .
The so-called “Radiative Greenhouse Effect” (the very foundation of AGW) is not possible in this universe. Case closed.
+100 !!!
There is NO MECHANISM in real science, whereby enhanced atmospheric CO2 can cause atmospheric warming , or ocean warming or ANY warming
Congratulations Tony, this is 100% pure genius. This is by far the best way to get people involved and interested. Once again, congratulations.
I sent him the link to this website about a week ago, and I must say I’m very pleased with the way both of you are handling it. It’s been so difficult to find anyone on the other side who will address or discuss the evidence you raise here Tony. Scott is such an influencer, this may constitute a kind of turning point for the climate debate.
I sent Scott a link to your website a week ago, and that’s why this has happened. I’m delighted to see it. Tony, I’ve been waiting and looking a long time to find anyone who can respond to the substance of your numerous posts on the subject of climate change, and now maybe we’ll see a real debate. It could be a turning point of sorts, since Scott is such an influencer.
Thanks James
Here is wishing the coming Year is the best you all have ever had. And that goes double for you Tony.
Show a video of dead polar bears floating in the Arctic and say it’s due to high CO2, next to Tony’s plot showing a near-linear correlation between temperature “adjustment” values and CO2 content. Then ask, which is more persuasive. Hands down for me, it’s the latter, but I doubt that most of the people seeing Tony’s graph would even be able to understand its significance. Visual “arguments” are much more easily accepted than verbal or mathematical. Fraudsters recognize this, so we’re now living in an idiocracy.
P.S. The adjustment graph is at the 24:40 mark of Tony’s 2016 video, Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records.
To vent my disgust, I’m taking the time to go through fallacies in the Bloomberg presentation Scott Adams showed (bloom.bg/2hxsT7D ):
1. Temperature: It’s been corrupted by “adjustments”.
2. Earth’s Orbit: Milankovitch cycles have been correlated with glacial ages. These may be thousands of years long, but warming and cooling “slides” occur in between. While Earth’s orbital conditions mightn’t change too much over 100 years, the actual warming or cooling would still be measurable over these scales.
2b/3a. They forgot to plot the orbits of the major planets, whose tidal forces correlate with, and perhaps modulate, solar activity, climate, and seismic earth activity, over the 180 year Charvatova-Landscheit cycles.
3. The Sun: They misleadingly suggest that solar temperature alone is all we need to know about the Sun. But magnetic solar activity, as indicated by sunspots, runs on 11 year cycles and is NOT shown. These famously correlate with climate changes over the last 2 thousand years, notably the Maunder minimum. Svensmark has proposed a mechanism whereby the Sun’s magnetism blocks or passes cosmic rays, which in turn affect cloud nucleation.
4. Volcanoes: Get back to me after you fix the 1.2 C drop in global temperature caused by the ash from Krakatoa in 1883.
5. GIGO.
This magic show isn’t nearly as exciting (alarming?) once you see how the tricks are done.
Behind it all, there still remains the idiocy of willingly forking over trillions of dollars expecting carbon taxes to magically affect CO2, or in an even longer shot, that any such change will do diddly to temperature.
There; I feel much better. Thanks.
Well done :-)
You deserve a beer.. (or other beverage of your choice) :-)