Herald disbelieve unbelievers

A brain-dead editorial, a fresh view of CO2, an amazing letter, the kitten and the blue whale.

An editorial in Tuesday’s Herald ($) begins:

Amazing that he somehow knows what is discussed not only in “most households” but in “other social gatherings,” though it sounds to me like projection. The editorial goes on to conflate our discoloured sky, the scale of the bush fire outbreaks and the heat at the Melbourne cricket as reasons we ought not doubt we’re causing dangerous warming. It says we not only saw but felt the heat of the bush fires in New Zealand (which, 1200 km away, pushes the barrow a mite far). Preposterously, it ends: “The sun was so sizzling it became a wonder anything combustible was not catching fire.” But maybe Auntie Herald was trying to crack a funny.

Not one of those effects of hot weather has been caused or exacerbated by our emissions, as honest scientists will tell you, but the Herald exhorts us to “reduce our carbon emissions” in harmony with Australia and concludes by suggesting:

Maybe voters in both countries [NZ and Oz] have seen enough evidence now to demand action.

The leader writer clearly swallows the propaganda that this (and any) heat wave is no longer weather but is necessarily caused by our puny emissions of carbon dioxide—a trace gas, measured in parts per million and grown now to a full 0.00041 of the dry atmosphere (AMAZEBALLS!), but perfectly impotent to cause a heat wave that is entirely natural. The temperature trend this century has been almost flat, but since we’re in the middle of a giant El Nino, you might say that, eyeballing the graph, a slight 20-year rise of maybe 0.3 °C contributed to the heat, but who would detect it in these scorching fires?

The Herald writer has been completely deceived by the most brass-necked global indoctrination of the last thirty years. Still, it’s easily rectified: Google climate conversation group to get a new perspective.

Victims of climate propaganda believe all recent floods, hurricanes, bush fires and other extreme weather are caused by the increase in CO2, so how much extra CO2 is there? Turns out to be a mere 1.7 parts per million (9 trillion kg) per year. That annual increase is the equivalent of a gnat’s breath of CO2 in a colossal atmosphere (5 quintillion kg) A MILLION TIMES HEAVIER.

You’ll never convince me that a mere puff of gas will much heat that huge mass, even with the help of water vapour.

This belief in the power of CO2 functions reflexively, even though evidence has never been presented by anyone anywhere to show that carbon dioxide causes significant warming. Hear that, Shayne Currie? No EVIDENCE EXISTS.

Most scientists agree with this, but you can disagree. If you do, ask the IPCC Secretariat 1 for yourself and let us know what they tell you.

The letter I sent

I had to make some response to the Herald’s sad failure to understand the public’s plight, and to explain that they disbelieve the orthodox climate narrative because of the shoddy state of the evidence for it. I should also point out that ignoring their honest questions is guaranteed to betray growing trust and fuel disbelief, and our public climate academics have been ignoring our questions for years. You have to force them into court to get any response from them.

Sirs,

Today you editorialise: “Maybe voters in both countries [NZ and Oz] have seen enough evidence now to demand action.

This is the root of the climate problem, the nexus where propaganda encounters credibility. The failure to enlist credibility triggers perplexed studies of the mental state of “climate deniers” and passionate essays exhorting science journalists to explain climate science.

But the problem isn’t seeing enough evidence, it’s seeing no evidence. This is obvious. Evidence is the only persuasive inducement to believe, above money, promises or threats. The simple fact is that if we see evidence, we believe.

This is the reason the public are unconvinced. It’s not denial, it’s the lack of evidence connecting our CO2 emissions with dangerous warming.

If there really is no evidence, it means your earnest plea to people to change the weather has no foundation and there’s no climate emergency—not even if James Renwick himself declares one.

But I could be wrong, so tell us the evidence. HINT: if there was any, we would know it now by heart.

Cheers,
Richard Treadgold

I’m not sure I can make the situation any clearer than that, yet the Herald spurned the invitation to publish these comments. We know now they’re on the side of propaganda, distortion and panic so we must move on without them.

The Kitten and the Blue Whale

I wanted to put CO2 and the atmosphere into perspective so I devised an illustration of their relative sizes. A kitten about twelve days old weighs about 170 grams. Let that represent carbon dioxide.

What’s a million times heavier than our kitten? It weighs 170,000 kg, or 170 tonnes, which is the heaviest Blue Whale ever weighed, about 33 metres long.

Our thought experiment is this: is it likely that a very hot young kitten might substantially warm a quite cold Blue Whale?

Well, obviously not. It’s equally unlikely that all the carbon dioxide in the world might substantially warm the rather tepid Blue Whale of an atmosphere.

So there’s your answer to the unlikely climate narrative of the IPCC, to silence your agonised musings on the confusing snippets you’ve heard about dangerous human warming of the climate: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE (there may be a trivial human warming, but it hasn’t been proved). There’s more chance of a Blue Whale falling suddenly on every parliament on earth.

You may reassure your anxious children.

The IPCC speculate that a quantum of carbon dioxide newly released from some steel mill, cement kiln, dairy herd or rascally boy racer in his muscle car would cause some warming to the atmosphere, allowing it to take up more water vapour, which would cause even more warming (they call this amplification), EXCEPT THAT the act of evaporating the water immediately extracts from its immediate environment a huge amount of energy, called the heat of vaporisation, thus immediately cancelling the puny pulse of warming from our carbon dioxide. Did I mention the cancellation of the original warming occurs at the same time as the evaporation and straight away?

If you don’t believe this, ask a physicist, such as, for example, James Renwick. But it’s something the IPCC scientists have never mentioned, even as they describe the so-called amplification in the AR5 on pages 666/667. So James might not tell you this. Maybe they’re not proper scientists so they don’t know this (though I find it hard to believe they don’t know it).

Anyway, I’m always glad to help your grey matter stay vibrant and curious. Keep up the good work.

 


  1. ipcc-sec@wmo.int

19
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
8 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
MackBrett KeaneGrahamSimonNick Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Mack
Guest
Mack

That was quite an interesting analogy between the cat and the blue whale, RT
Another analogy, that also gives perspective, is a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle. If the whole jigsaw is made up representing the atmosphere, then less than 1/2 of a single piece is the percentage amount of atmospheric CO2. Put your finger on 1/2 of one piece and warm it up as hard as you can….as if that ever even happens !
No effect on the temperature of the rest of the jigsaw.
These people are living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Andy
Guest
Andy

Gosh it must be fun in the Renwick household talking about “what’s happening to the climate” at every opportunity.

Graham
Guest
Graham

Most families will have the following priorities:
an income
roof over one’s head
food on the table
bills paid.
Which is why the climate change lobby is having such a hard sell.

Peter Fraser
Guest
Peter Fraser

The media are reporting the current Oz bushfires and our recent day with a discoloured sky as unprecedented. I well remember seeing in the sky the effects of Oz Bushfires back in the sixties while at school in New Plymouth. A history of Oz bushfires and their extent is given here: http://www.bushfireeducation.vic.edu.au/verve/_resources/Bushfires_in_our_History.pdf Over four million hectares in 1939. What may have been unusual this time was the early onset of the fires caused by prolonged drought conditions.

Graham
Guest
Graham

I too remember growing up in New Plymouth seeing the smoke in the 60s from Australian bush fires. Main stream media seem to think this is all new.Its not, we have been here before.

Peter Fraser
Guest
Peter Fraser

Oops that should have been ……Over four million hectares in 1951/ 52…….

Nick
Guest
Nick

Never mind my grey matter, it’s my hair I’m worried about!

Yes, water vapour is a plentiful powerful greenhouse gas and causing warming.

Here are two questions:

1. The energy radiated from Earth to space leaves Earth where?

2. What is the composition of the atmosphere there?

Keep your answers succinct and to the point please.

Mack
Guest
Mack

! ) The energy radiated from Earth to space leaves Earth.?…..where?
Answer
Everywhere in the atmosphere… right from the get go, at the very surface of Earth…there being no difference in the “space” between molecules in the atmosphere and “space”, as in outer space. Thus the atmosphere DISPERSES energy away from Earth’s surface as in a COOLING effect.
2 ) What is the composition of the atmosphere there?
Answer
Not quite understanding that…. whereabouts is “there”? In any case, the composition of the atmosphere is irrelevant, because ALL molecules of the atmosphere just DISSIPATE heat.

Simon
Guest
Simon

Back to Square One. Once again, you revert back to completely denying the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Richard Treadgold: ” … evaporating the water immediately extracts from its immediate environment a huge amount of energy, called the heat of vaporisation, thus immediately cancelling the puny pulse of warming from our carbon dioxide.”

Greenhouse Effect for Dummies: Where does the energy for Earth’s warming come from?

(Still waiting for an answer to my question above that shows some understanding of atmospheric physics.)

Mack
Guest
Mack

If you’re replying to me,Simon….yes I do deny the “greenhouse effect” but certainly not the carbon cycle. What’s the difference between gravity and phlogiston… one exists, the other doesn’t.

Mack
Guest
Mack

Some reading for you.

https://jennifermarohasy.com/author/nasif-s-nahle/
(read chronologically)

Simon
Guest
Simon

No, it was directed at Richard. The argument that there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere to affect the climate is just plain dumb. The atmosphere is so large that we are talking Teratonnes of CO2. Where does all the world’s biomass come from? The CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have suggested in the past that Richard should resit School Cert in Science. I stand corrected, the stuff he doesn’t understand is now in the Year 6 syllabus (Standard 4 in Richard’s day).
Sometimes I think that children should be allowed to vote, they have a better understanding of how the world works than many adults.

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Mack, the figures tell the truth – Mainstream Media has been bought and sold by the marxists’ financiers, and converts out of Tertiary ‘Education’ are its purveyors.
So, the real people desert those lying organs and the billionaires subsidise them all where they do not own them.
The collapse they seek is quite likely, but not their intended end result. Which they will not survive. Nor may most of us, that is our problem…… Brett Keane

Mack
Guest
Mack

Brett, nil desperandum, I’m perhaps more optimistic. Gradually society will see through the AGW hoax…so no problem. It’s thanks to people like RT here, who keep chipping away with this valuable site….time will sort it all out… take care and best wishes. Mack

Brett Keane
Guest
Brett Keane

Mack:
From Roy Spencer this day:
“The rate of deep-ocean heat storage since 1990 (see Fig. 3, below) represents only 1 part in 330 of global energy flows in and out of the climate system, and no one knows whether there exists a natural energy balance to that level of accuracy. The IPCC simply *assumes* it exists, and then concludes long-term warming must be due to increasing CO2. ”
All the claims of trolldom are predicated on the above type of purely imaginary IPCC beliefs. Like the legendary thousands of climate scientists who are claimed to agree with the above techniques. Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass, nothing changes in the world of the bought and sold. Phlogiston, as you say. Brett, via WUWT

Post Navigation