Post by Bob LathamPost by Jim LesurfSo when you've have the courage to read that book and show you can
uderstand it, I will look in detail at more of the twaddle you
reference to see if any have even a grain of reliability in them,
or are simply misunderstood and misrepresented by you.
So I take it that the following people are all wrong because they've
not read your Bible...
SIGH! So here we go again, a day after a number of these 'deities' have
been debunked, you pray to them again, so I will simply debunk them yet
again ...
A man apparently so ignorant about Climate Science that he had actually
to ask for help even to deny it!
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/emails-reveal-trump-official-consulted-climate-change-deniers-n1017526
"June 14, 2019, 1:03 PM UTC
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON — A Trump administration national security official has
sought help from advisers to a think tank that disavows climate change
to challenge widely accepted scientific findings on global warming,
according to his emails.
The request from William Happer, a member of the National Security
Council, is included in emails from 2018 and 2019 that were obtained by
the Environmental Defense Fund under the federal Freedom of Information
Act and provided to The Associated Press. That request was made this
past March to policy advisers with the Heartland Institute, one of the
most vocal challengers of mainstream scientific findings that emissions
from burning coal, oil and gas are damaging the Earth's atmosphere.
In a March 3 email exchange Happer and Heartland adviser Hal Doiron
discuss Happer's scientific arguments in a paper attempting to knock
down climate change as well as ideas to make the work "more useful to a
wider readership." Happer writes he had already discussed the work with
another Heartland adviser, Thomas Wysmuller."
For those who don't know and/or have deliberately 'forgotten' in the
manner so beloved by denialists, the Heartland Institute is a right-wing
American stinktank famed for scientific denialism, even including
smoking denialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
"The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian
501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy think tank known for denying the
scientific consensus on climate change and the negative health impacts
of smoking.[2]"
Wikipedia describes Happer's genuine and worthy contributions to
science, particularly in the field of adaptive optics used in
telescopes, but then describes his denialism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
"Climate change position
Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change,
stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past
two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a
greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably been
due to natural causes."[17] Michael Oppenheimer, co-founder of the
Climate Action Network, said that Happer’s claims are "simply not true"
and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert opinion
points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global
temperatures.[18] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point
rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[19] A petition that he coauthored
to change the official position of the American Physical Society to a
version that raised doubts about global warming was overwhelmingly
rejected by the APS Council.[20][verification needed] [...]"
Again a successful physicist who has even won the Nobel Prize for his
contributions to Quantum Theory, but appears to know SFA about Climate
Science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser
"Climate change denial
In May 2023, Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition, a climate
change denial organization.[11] Later that year, Clauser called himself
a "climate denier" and claimed "there is no climate crisis".[12] Clauser
has never published a peer-reviewed article on the climate, and his
views on climate change have been described as "pseudoscience".[12] His
belief that cloud cover has more of an impact on Earth's temperature
than carbon dioxide emissions is contradicted by the overwhelming
scientific consensus on climate change.[12][13][14] Observational
evidence shows the overall current cloud feedback amplifies global
warming and does not have a cooling effect.[15]"
Professor Richard Lindzen has been debunked here multiple times before,
for example see the extract below for a convenient list of his climate
mistakes [JJ Caps]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
"Climate sensitivity
Lindzen hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris. A sea
surface temperature increase in the tropics would result in reduced
cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's
atmosphere.[9] Additionally, rising temperatures would cause more
extensive drying due to increased areas of atmospheric subsidence. This
hypothesis suggests a negative feedback which would counter the effects
of CO
2 warming by lowering the climate sensitivity. SATELLITE DATA FROM CERES
HAS LED RESEARCHERS INVESTIGATING LINDZEN'S THEORY TO CONCLUDE THAT THE
IRIS EFFECT WOULD INSTEAD WARM THE ATMOSPHERE.[46][47] Lindzen disputed
this, claiming that the negative feedback from high-level clouds was
still larger than the weak positive feedback estimated by Lin et al.[48]
Lindzen has expressed his concern over the validity of computer models
used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that predicted
warming may be overestimated because of their handling of the climate
system's water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a
major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur
with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and all
existing computer models assume positive feedback — that is, that as the
climate warms, the amount of water vapour held in the atmosphere will
increase, leading to further warming. By contrast, Lindzen believes that
temperature increases will actually cause more extensive drying due to
increased areas of atmospheric subsidence as a result of the Iris
effect, nullifying future warming.[3] This claim was criticized by
climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of
the effects of the Iris effect and CITES EMPIRICAL CASES WHERE LARGE AND
RELATIVELY RAPID CHANGES IN THE CLIMATE SUCH AS EL NIÑO EVENTS, THE
ULTRA PLINIAN ERUPTION OF MOUNT PINATUBO IN 1991, AND RECENT TRENDS IN
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND WATER VAPOR LEVELS TO SHOW THAT, AS PREDICTED IN
THE GENERALLY-ACCEPTED VIEW, WATER VAPOR INCREASES AS THE TEMPERATURE
INCREASES, AND DECREASES AS TEMPERATURES DECREASE.[49]
Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are
inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of
clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50]
Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than
pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6
°C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC
(2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling
of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of
the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51]
These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52]
and LINDZEN ACCEPTED THAT HIS PAPER INCLUDED "SOME STUPID MISTAKES".
When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that
"The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of
grotesque." LINDZEN AND CHOI REVISED THEIR PAPER AND SUBMITTED IT TO
PNAS.[53] THE FOUR REVIEWERS OF THE PAPER, TWO OF WHOM HAD BEEN SELECTED
BY LINDZEN, STRONGLY CRITICIZED THE PAPER AND PNAS REJECTED IT FOR
PUBLICATION.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little
known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] ANDREW
DESSLER PUBLISHED A PAPER WHICH FOUND ERRORS IN LINDZEN AND CHOI 2011,
AND CONCLUDED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS IT HAD PRESENTED "ARE NOT IN
FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH MAINSTREAM CLIMATE MODELS, NOR DO THEY
PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT CLOUDS ARE CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE. SUGGESTIONS
THAT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS TO MAINSTREAM CLIMATE SCIENCE ARE REQUIRED
ARE THEREFORE NOT SUPPORTED."[56]"
See also the section on Roy Spencer below.
Not really a denialist, her position is much more nuanced than that; in
particular, she accepts that humans are changing the climate, but
ascribes a greater weight to natural variability than most other scientists:
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/12/scicheck-meme-makes-misleading-comparison-to-cast-doubt-on-climate-change/
An astrophysicist, by claim at least, and not a climate scientist, yet
has accepted paid work to deny climate change:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry
"Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost
entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from
companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade,
newly released documents show.
Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the
Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m
from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute
(API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the
documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings
show."
A theoretical physicist not a climate scientist, and moreover has links
with the fossil fuel industry, having worked for BP as their chief
scientist. Interestingly a search specifically for scientific papers by
him turned up nothing and Wikipedia has very little to say about any
theoretical physics he may actually have done, instead describing his
denialism. Here's what others have to say about his denialist book
"Unsettled":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin
"2021 book Unsettled
In 2021, Koonin published the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells
Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.[24] Critics accused him of
cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of
climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[25]
In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that
Koonin "falsely suggest[s] that we don't understand the risks well
enough to take action":
The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the
likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing
stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was
wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or
become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of
climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and
1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than
anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest
science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing
greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of
dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing
vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences)."
[
24 link is to:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-book-manages-to-get-climate-science-badly-wrong/
In the original article, this same critic goes on ...
"Koonin’s intervention into the debate about what to do about
climate risks seems to be designed to subvert this progress in all
respects by making distracting, irrelevant, misguided, misleading and
unqualified statements about supposed uncertainties that he thinks
scientists have buried under the rug. Here, I consider a few early
statements in his own words. They are taken verbatim from his
introductory pages so he must want the reader to see them as relevant
take-home findings from the entire book. They are evaluated briefly in
their proper context [...]"
... and then goes on to pull a number of these early claims to pieces.
]
Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical
review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of
an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s
to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying
politicians – making them easier to attack."[26]
A geologist, not a climate scientist, who has left his academic position
- let's here use a technique often used by denialists themselves: "I
wonder, did he jump, as he claims, or was he pushed for making public
statements beyond his area of expertise for which he could not provide
provenance?" - and appears cynically to be using climate and woke
denialism to propel himself to popularity in right-wing media.
https://www.mediamatters.org/climate-deniers/spreading-climate-misinformation-fast-becoming-shortcut-popularity-across-right
"Wielicki has been caught numerous times spreading falsehoods about
climate-related data or documents to support his climate denial
narrative. An excellent round-up of some of his worst offenses has been
compiled by a climate scientist on Twitter [image from shitter in the
original]:
But it doesn’t matter that Wielicki is being debunked; it doesn’t matter
that he is dead wrong when he says there is no consensus on global
warming; and it doesn’t matter that he admitted that he doesn’t even
work in climate science. Notably, Wielicki and his conservative media
allies coupled this climate denial with complaints railing against DEI
and the supposed scourge of too much wokeness on college campuses, a
grievance narrative that right-wing circles have been fearmongering
about for years.
Climate change is now a part of the right-wing media’s endless culture
wars — witness the rise of conspiracy theories related to the Great
Reset, or the fact that a sizable amount of climate denial is now being
spread from more generalized right-wing media personalities rather than
more traditional fossil fuel industry-connected figures.
It likely helps that Wielicki describes himself as an “Earth science
prof” in his Twitter bio, which might give him more credibility to
people who might think that climate science falls under that purview,
even as he apparently can’t tell the difference between climate and weather.
No matter your credentials, if you complain loudly enough about climate
change and DEI, it seems that you’re bound to get noticed by right-wing
media — and Wielicki’s rapid rise is a perfect example."
https://skepticalscience.com/Dessler-2011-Debunks-Roy-Spencer-And-Richard-Lindzen.html
"Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
Posted on 6 September 2011 by Rob Painting, dana1981
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, has
released a scientific paper (Dessler 2011) that looks at the claims made
by two of a small group of "skeptic" climate scientists who regular SkS
readers will be familiar with: Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Both
were co-authors on peer-reviewed papers released this year (Spencer &
Braswell [2011] & Lindzen & Choi [2011]) which, once again, sought to
overturn the orthodox view of climate. Dessler (2011) finds that the
conclusions of these two papers are unsupported by observational data."
https://skepticalscience.com/from-email-bag-ziskin-shaviv.html
"Although the paper concludes that the largest contribution to the 20th
century warming comes from anthropogenic sources, it argues that the
total solar contribution is larger than values that are usually found in
most of the climate literature. The emailer pointed out that paper has a
small number of citations [Google Scholar says 21] and is not cited in
the IPCC reports, and the emailer wondered if the Skeptical Science team
knew of any scientific errors in the paper. This led the Skeptical
Science team to obtain the paper and examine it. and this blog post is
the result. (Spoiler alert: yes, we think the paper has problems.)"
The subsequent analysis is too long to quote here, but is available at
the above link.
https://www.desmog.com/henrik-svensmark/
Several of his claims debunked on this page, here's just one as an example:
"September 2013
Svensmark published a paper in 2013 with preliminary evidence suggesting
that cosmic rays could seed cloud formation, which if true, would
indicate that they can influence global temperatures. In an interview
with Environmental Research Web, Svensmark claimed that cosmic rays
could “play a major role in the warming.” However, because solar
activity has been flat and even slightly declining over the past 60
years, if cosmic rays had an influence on global temperatures, it would
be a slight cooling influence over that timeframe."
Also ...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media
"The film's main contention is that the current increase in global
temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in
the activity of the sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the
Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent
temperature variations on Earth are in "strikingly good agreement" with
the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the
journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the "agreement" was the result of
"incorrect handling of the physical data". The real data for recent
years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has
declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed,
Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to
produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of
mistakes - in this case in their arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of
demonstrating that the sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a
remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the sun and
global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global
warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been
using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A
paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows
that, when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous
paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen's co-author, Henrik Svensmark,
declared there was a correlation - not with total cloud cover but with
"low cloud cover". This, too, turned out to be incorrect. Then, last
year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show cosmic rays could
form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying the paper was a
press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper,
claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the
result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa has shown on www.realclimate.org, five
missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the
press release. "We've often criticised press releases that we felt gave
misleading impressions of the underlying work," Schmidt says, "but this
example is by far the most blatant extrapolation beyond reasonableness
that we have seen.""
LOL! An economist, not a climate scientist, and author of one of the
most farcically bungled denialist 'papers' ever:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/06/21/three-new-papers-on-interpreting-temperature-trends/#comment-211553
"steven mosher | June 22, 2012 at 2:32 am |
Well, I have a question for Ross.
I downloaded his data. In his data package he has a spreadsheet named
MMJGR07.csv.
This contains his input data of things like population, GDP etc.
In line 195 he has the following data
Latitude = -42.5
Longitude = -7.5
Population in 1979 =56.242
Population in 1989 = 57.358
Population in 1999 = 59.11
Land = 240940
In his code he performs the following calculation
SURFACE PROCESSES: % growth population, income, GDP & Coal use
// land is in sq km, pop is in millions; scale popden to persons/km2
// gdp is in trillions; gdpden is in $millions/km2
generate p79 = 1000000*pop79/land
generate p99 = 1000000*pop99/land
So, at latitude -42,5, Longitude -7.5 he has a 1979 population
of 56 million people and 240940 sq km
and a population density in the middle of the ocean that is higher than
50% of the places on land. Weird.
robin | June 22, 2012 at 2:49 am |
A guess that is supposed to be Latitude = 42.5, Spain — although it
shows zero coal use, which would be wrong according to this:
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=es&product=coal&graph=consumption
steven mosher | June 22, 2012 at 3:10 am |
No, I think he as made a mistake. I’ve written him to ask
Its even more clear when you look at his population data for
the united states
Lets take Chicago area
Line 425 of his spread sheet
42.5 -87.5 225.06 246.82 272.88 9573110
What he is doing is the following. he is taking the TOTAL US
population
for 1979 ( 225 Million) and he is UNIFORMALY spreading those people
across the entire country so that every 5 degree lat lon for
the us has the SAME population density.
EVEN Alaska line 407
62.5 -147.5 225.06 246.82 272.88
Wow.
robin | June 22, 2012 at 3:30 am |
Oh gosh, I think that explains line 190. It is in the middle of
the pacific, but has a land area of 549190 – which is exactly the land
area of France. Ok, then if you look closely at that spot in the
pacific, it is actually French Polynesia. Yikes.
Steven Mosher | June 22, 2012 at 3:47 am |
Yup !.. what a bone headed mistake. Now get this. he has used
that data since 2007 and nobody caught it."
Post by Bob LathamSteve Goddard
Tony Heller
LOL! Just how many times has it been explained to you that these are
the SAME person, which he himself eventually admitted! Here again is
the debunking of the most important and far reaching of his many, many lies:
It is important to get to the bottom of where the original so-called
climate 'data-fixing' claim was first made, because if that first
version of it is false, so are all the others based upon it. 'Steve
Goddard' aka Tony Heller, HelluvaLiar for short, was the person who
created the fraudulent claim that NASA had 'fixed' climate change data:
h t t p s : / / a r c h i v e . p h / 2 o o B C
This can be shown tolerably convincingly by taking one of his images
from the page, and seeing how many others link to it, so here's the most
important one (yes, the length of the URL is ridiculous, but that's
Google for you):
https://lens.google.com/search?ep=gisbubu&hl=en-GB&re=df&p=AbrfA8pcTC8aRdSOIHR-f66IZ2nyHduVXoq9idGzG4RPZtlQkgnqEVDZfvyKmG3f-Vi9P4G4I_7e8SGX6Zj6LWzpOIdk8duqh6rJiKTwbq-DnqtXHCpcDRy2lJ0WIDrCgshGlK3L2IoJ6mhfaRr-soc63tYNtw9fo8R1derQQktTR7DHymG6yNOjmpQuUGqOiUwUb2oBmSIFw_n0wg%3D%3D#lns=W251bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsIkVrY0tKRFEyTTJWa05qQmhMVGd5T0RNdE5HTTNaQzFoTkRVd0xUTXlNelExWTJVeU5HUm1OeElmT0Y5SFpsWkhWakJFYmpCamIwUk1aa3hPVEZCZlpWQkxkUzFLV1VkQ2F3PT0iLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsbnVsbCxudWxsLG51bGwsWyI3ZWUxNGFkOC05MmVjLTQ3ODItYmZkZi1lODVkZDQzYTM3MWYiXV0=
Unfortunately Google have removed the facility to count the hits, but
there used to be well over 300 pages containing the very self-same
image, and most of them were denialist echo chambers!
So, given this is the earliest known version of this seminal fraud, and
everyone else appeared to be linking to it, let's analyse these claims.
Typically for such an unprofessional source, HelluvaLiar's original
piece was undated, but it is entirely reasonable to suppose that its
first publication immediately predated the first reply to it, which was
dated 30/07/2012, so a German Professor's recycling of it as a so-called
"shocking new global warming data fraud" in 2015 gives you some idea of
how these fraudulent denialist claims get endlessly recycled. In this
article, HelluvaLiar sets the pattern for all such future claims:
- Falsifies data, as demonstrated below;
- Cherry picks data to show stations with most noticeable changes;
- Doesn't include NASA's explanation of either ...
- The particular changes for that station,
- The general changes of which they are a part,
... giving readers no understanding of why such changes were needed.
So let's take a look at his most important claim in detail. He shows a
number of time-changing animated graphs which are claimed to show
radical differences between GISSTemp's data for 1999 and 2012. Perhaps
hoping unwisely that no-one will bother to follow them up because of the
404 in the first, he gives links to the data used ...
v2: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
... but, although this does give a '404 Not Found' because GISSTemp
rejigged their site, Wayback Machine had archived the original, so it
can still be retrieved ...
https://archive.ph/28UBt
... which is a shortcut for ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20010507091402/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/FigD.txt
... while for ...
v3: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.txt
... the link to the original at NASA still works.
It is a trivial matter to replace multiple spaces by tabs, and then
copy'n'paste their overlapping ranges of data into a spreadsheet, and
draw the resulting two graphs on top of one another. These are the
results, as you can see, the screengrab in the final link looks
*NOTHING* like HelluvaLiar's last animated graph at the bottom of the
fraudulent article which was linked to by hundreds of denialist echo
chambers, on the contrary, the two data series are so similar that
effectively the overlaying of the second makes the first barely visible
at all:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Stephen_Goddard_Claim_v2.txt
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Stephen_Goddard_Claim_v3.txt
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Stephen_Goddard_Claim.ods
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Stephen_Goddard_Claim.png
So that means, entirely as expected given who made it, that the original
claim was fraudulent, and that all the others based upon it are too.
In fact, I've never seen a piece of HelluvaLiar 'work' - post, tweet,
video, etc - that wasn't easily shown to be at very best highly
misleading but far more usually at worst actually intentionally
fraudulent. The following threads all contain debunkings of HelluvaLiar:
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/ScPFYenfcfE/m/wwReKG8mAwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.d-i-y/c/zgNoiu0bWWM/m/Jlx1ulaVCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.d-i-y/c/zgNoiu0bWWM/m/CKgt-AnxCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/XEfGFFPTt4I/m/KVitocXLBwAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/9owfqWEBcjQ/m/NfnmW9MrCQAJ
https://groups.google.com/g/uk.tech.digital-tv/c/Nr6m1GJGJD0/m/ac7XgBtuCAAJ
An electrical engineer, not a climate scientist, and besides being a
climate denialist, he is also a 2020 US Presidential Election denialist,
and a covid denialist. He was the producer of the fraudulent "Climate,
The Movie" debunked yesterday.
Post by Bob LathamPatrick Moore
Post by Jim LesurfI've come across another video not Tony this time but the former
green peace man Patrick Moore and it's a new video to me.
To remind again this is NOT the late British astronomer, but a founder
of Greenpeace Canada.
Post by Jim LesurfThis video just gives you COMMON SENSE in a calm manner and is very
enjoyable to watch even though the sound once again takes a turn for
the worse some way in.
I'm not sure of everything he says particularly about Thorium but
I've not done enough research to be able to comment on that but it
doesn't quite match the understanding I thought I had.
X B B N c A v C s U
Spells out the alternatives.
No, it's just more right-wing FUD and paranoia ...
01:48 "Save Canada! Quit Paris!"
Typical right-wing unscientific emotional crap.
"No-one's going to invest in this country's energy or mining with the
legislation that has been passed!"
I wonder what makes him think they will invest in it without that
legislation? Donald Trump spent his early years in office childishly
and gleefully undoing as much as he could of Barack Obama's legislation,
Loading Image...
... from ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining_in_the_United_States
03:00 "Steven Harper signed an agreement to phase out fossil-fuels by
the end of the 20thC"
ERROR: Of course he means the 21stC.
03:30 "There's never been a more stupid phrase invented than
'Fighting Climate Change'; it's like your saying that you're fighting
the history of the earth or something."
NON-SEQUITUR: The history of the earth was not caused by humans,
current climate change is.
04:12 "Well of course we have to be very concerned about Climate
Change and Global Warming in Canada, seeing as though we are coldest
country of all 198 countries in the world!"
FACTUAL ERROR: If you count Antarctica, that's obviously colder than
Canada, but even if you don't, at least two independent factual websites
say Russia is colder than Canada, despite what he goes on to try to
claim.
Post by Bob Latham04:56 "Are they worried about Climate Change in India?"
https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/policies/v.php?id=28137
Post by Bob Latham"Are they worried about Climate Change in Brazil?"
Certainly they were ...
https://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/imprensa/_arquivos/96_11122008040728.pdf
Post by Bob Latham... and although they seem to be backsliding under the present
government, they still have policies in place ...
http://blogs.worldbank.org/latinamerica/no-mystery-what-brazil-doing-address-climate-change
Post by Bob Latham"Are they worried about Climate Change in Nigeria? ..."
http://climatechange.gov.ng/climate-knowledge/official-publications/policies/
Post by Bob Latham"... Like on the equator where it's hot. No!"
FALSE: As shown above.
05:35 The graph shown has no temperature scale, but more to the point
is reproduced from Patrick Moore's own report for Frontier Centre for
Public Policy (FCPP), a conservative think-tank based in Canada.
The thrust of the report is based on the totally bonkers idea that the
overall trend in CO2 has been falling over geological timescales of 100s
of millions of years, and if it continues down the trend-line shown on
it, then the level of CO2 will reach such critically low-levels that
plant life could not survive, and mass extinction of life will follow.
Therefore, surprise, surprise, humans are doing a good thing by putting
more CO2 into the atmosphere! There are *SO MANY* flaws in this idiocy
that one scarcely knows where to start debunking it, but here are a few
thoughts.
First, There's no provenance given for the graph at all, no data
sources, or similar, and one reviewer, linked below, thinks it's just
lifted from some denialist website and had the trend line added to it by
hand, and I agree he's probably right, because, just as there's no
provenance given for the CO2 and temperature data, there's none for the
trend-line either, apparently it's not based on any mathematical
assessment of trend.
Second, that trend-line takes no account of any actual physical
processes within the earth or upon its surface, and thus is not based on
anything real, anything remotely rational and planetarily scientific. In
fact, he seems ignorant of the most basic geology, such as the carbon
cycle, that is taught at first (usually) or second year undergraduate
level at any university, and which may even be taught at Geology A-level
standard, but never having taken the latter, I don't know.
Third, there's a question of timescales - before we worry about
possible, but vanishingly unlikely, life extinction in millions of
years, we need to worry about much more possible human extinction in
hundreds or thousands of years if we go on pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere!
Etc, etc.
https://josephmichaelshea.wordpress.com/2019/08/30/review-positive-impacts-of-human-co2-by-p-moore/
Post by Bob LathamGiven the totally unscientific and irrational start above, not to
mention its bizare weirdness, there didn't seem much point in
continuing any further with the video.
Andrew Montford
An accountant and 'science' publisher, not a climate scientist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion
"The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science is
a book written by Andrew Montford and published by Stacey International
in 2010, which promotes climate change denial.[1][2]
Montford, an accountant and science publisher who publishes a blog
called 'Bishop Hill',[3][4] writes about the "hockey stick graph" of
global temperatures for the last 1000 years. The book has been
criticized for its inaccuracies."
Again posting a name that has been debunked here within the last 24
Post by Bob LathamRecently I've pointed out the work of Ned Nikolov who is very
confident that recent climate change is caused by changes in
Cloud-Albedo.
[snip link to faked graph]
ALREADY DEBUNKED AND PROVEN DENIALIST REFERENCED YET AGAIN:
https://www.desmogblog.com/ned-nikolov
"February 2017
Nikolov and Zeller publish a paper in a new “open access” journal called
“Environment Pollution and Climate Change” launched by an Indian
publisher which subsequently faced multiple charges of deception from
the Federal Trade Commission relating to the company's claims of peer
review and marketing practices. The journal was at the time edited by an
advisor to the Heartland Institute, Dr Arthur Viterito.
The paper - The Refutation of the Climate Greenhouse Theory and a
Proposal for a Hopeful Alternative - suggested the well-established
theory of greenhouse warming was fatally flawed. Professor Steve
Sherwood, the director of the Climate Change Research Center at the
University of New South Wales in Australia, reviewed the paper and told
DeSmog:
“The paper is laughable. It is so riddled with unsupported,
fantastic and … or … unintelligible claims, arranged in a disorderly
fashion and sprinkled liberally with innuendo.”
Referring to the journal and several papers it had published, Professor
Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University and a vocal
opponent of climate science denial, told DeSmog: “This isn’t science.
It’s politically motivated denialist garbage.”
He added: “Such sham journals make a mockery of the scientific process
and must be exposed for what they are. Associating in any way with this
pseudo-journal would endanger one’s scientific reputation. Keep your
distance from this toxic mess.”"
Or perhaps another, not even their wives agree with them:
https://eu.coloradoan.com/story/opinion/2017/08/15/letter-story-subjects-climate-claims-dont-hold-water/565495001/
"According to Zeller, both their wives “think they’re crazy.”"
All these people are wrong not because they haven't read the book being
suggested to you, but because their various and diverse
pseudo-scientific claims are disproven by reality, the reality of the
known facts about climate change. Hell, sometimes they have even been
contradicted by other denialists!
Perhaps they should read the book too, to help them understand where
they are going wrong, certainly you should, because at the moment it's
clear that you haven't a clue about climate change and are simply
charging around in full panic like a blind bull in a china-shop.
Post by Bob LathamAnd the IPCC would not be flipping (multiply by -1) the CERES cloud
data in order to show no correlation between temperature and sunshine.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for this claim? Until you produce it, we'll
just assume it's you lying again.
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
