Letters to the Editor

Great green leap backwards

quill pen

The Green Virus is on a rising curve in the Anglo-Sphere.

Boris, Biden, Kerry, Trudeau, Arden and Australia’s Morrison are all competing to be the first to destroy all industries reliant on coal, cattle, petrol and diesel. Hydrogen, solar, wind, pumped hydro, bio-fuels, carbon cemeteries and batteries are hyped everywhere, especially in academia, Hollywood, most media and the bureaucracies. Big business is widely supportive – they see big profits in supplying metals for this Green Revolution and mining more coal to power Carbon Capture plants.

The forlorn hope is that if we spend enough money on green indulgence payments it will end floods, fires, droughts, cyclones and “super-storms”.

These green shackles will certainly cool the economy, but we should hope they do not cool the climate. When natural cyclic cooling sends Arctic ice sheets marching south again and Chicago, Moscow, Berlin and London are threatened, people living near a nuclear power station or an operating coal mine will be the lucky ones. And no one will waste food crops to produce bio-diesel.

Look at Earth in the last Ice Age, 20,000 years ago

From: The Inconvenient Skeptic, by John Kehr, 2011.
Check this image here:

We cannot afford to fight the Covid Virus and the Green Virus at the same time.

Without more reliable energy like nuclear power or massive hydro-electric schemes, this Green War on hydro-carbons must bring shortages and rationing. Still nights followed by windless cloudy days will see whole cities or states blacked out, electric vehicles stranded, old people shivering and panic buying in super-markets.

The 2016 Paris Climate Agreement was history’s longest suicide note.

Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld, Australia.

Related Reading:
It is not just the Anglo-sphere – Germany too is headed for third world status:

Geo-engineers inch closer to Sun-dimming balloon test:

Exposing the Electric Vehicle fantasy and its real cost:

Low wind and loss of one generator at Liddell Power station, threatens blackouts:

US Navy looking for Bio-fuels:

Royal Airforce to run on Bio-fuels:

Next Little Ice age has begun:


Views: 124

67 Thoughts on “Letters to the Editor

  1. Peter on 25/12/2020 at 5:44 pm said:

    Changes in climate we see over many years, that is those beyond variation, follow forcings and feedbacks.

    Example: carbon dioxide and water vapour, insolation (eg closer to Sun) and CO2 + …

    Only increases in CO2 level (+ CH4) due to human activity explains changes we see now.

    • Richard Treadgold on 25/12/2020 at 7:21 pm said:

      That’s just the IPCC myth, no science behind it at all. Do you really believe that just because they can’t think of anything else, human activity is the only possible explanation? Of course it isn’t.

  2. Peter on 25/12/2020 at 9:19 pm said:

    human activity is the only possible explanation? Of course it isn’t.

    Explain the warming then.

    • Rick on 26/12/2020 at 1:22 pm said:

      Peter challenges us to “Explain the warming then.”.

      It is a trick, of course. He is indulging in the same kind of unscientific irrationality that medieval witch-finders indulged in when they were accusing innocent people of all manner of crimes before the courts of the time:

      “OK, then. If it wasn’t this woman’s witchcraft that caused the farmers’ crops to fail, you explain what caused it.”

      It was a false argument then and it is just as false today. There is no onus on us to explain any global warming at all. Peter is making the claim that man-made CO2 and CH4 are responsible for causing all of the global warming that is alleged (but unproven) to have occurred since the pre-industrial period. Therefore the onus is entirely upon him to prove his claim.

      He has no logical right to demand that anyone else makes an alternative claim. If he did have one, it would reduce the practice of science to an intellectual form of trial-by-combat – which, as we know from history, was also popular in the pre-scientific medieval period.

  3. Peter on 27/12/2020 at 6:48 pm said:


    If you cannot understand plain English, let me rephrase it.

    Explain the recent increase in global mean temperature of >1K, as measure by thermometers.

    • Richard Treadgold on 27/12/2020 at 10:45 pm said:

      Don’t be rude; Of course he can understand plain English. If you’re concerned about any recent increase in GMST, whenever that might have been, explain it your damned self. You’re rude, yet you still demand help to understand the weather! Go play somewhere else.

    • Brian Wilson on 31/12/2020 at 2:01 pm said:

      Hi Peter,
      In answer to your question. The UNIPCC model used to prove man made climate change is simple and pretty obvious really. Natural variation in total solar irradiance (TSI) + man’s activities = climate change. TSI is the energy input to the system and is 1,361 watts per sq metre, give or take. It varies by around 0.1%, which in reality, is next to nothing. This, in effect, makes the variation in TSI zero, so the only part of the equation left is “man’s activities”. That, as they say, is a no brainer. QED, settled science. Except that over the last 10 years there’s been more than 700 scientific papers, more than 1 a week, that show this approach is incomplete and misleading. It fails to take in to account effects from particle forcing, global electrical circuits and significant changes to the Earth’s magnetic field, amongst other influences. The changes in the magnetic field are probably most interesting. It is not only the poles that are on the move, but also the significant drop in overall field strength. In addition, there is the growth and change in the South Atlantic magnetic anomaly that now appears to have grown towards South Africa and split in to 2. It is well known that there is a significant increase in solar and cosmic particles entering the Earth’s climate system in these areas. In fact, the increase in high energy particles is causing more and more problems with satellites that orbit over these anomalies. Some have to be shut down to avoid damage to their systems, so great is the increase in high energy particles. Overall the changes to the field strength allow more of these high energy particles to enter the climate system and cause warming. Even the IPCC are now prepared to concede that particle forcing does indeed affect the climate. It is far more complex than the simple IPCC model. As our scientific understanding improves, it is unearthing more and more evidence as to why the IPCC model is simply wrong.

    • Richard Treadgold on 05/01/2021 at 10:26 am said:

      Thanks, that’s very interesting, Brian. How do you see the increase in “effects from particle forcing, global electrical circuits and significant changes to the Earth’s magnetic field, amongst other influences,” causing warming?

  4. Mary Mac on 06/01/2021 at 5:54 pm said:

    Brian Wilson

    Gosh – the silly scientists who write the IPCC reports just don’t read these reports!

    Maybe this is the year they’ll find the truth as you have, Brian. Well done!

    Can you link to say the best 10 papers of the 700 you refer to? Thanks.

  5. Ross on 07/01/2021 at 4:26 am said:

    Hi Mary, whats your science background

  6. The climate caper is politics. To keep banging on about the science is to play along with the diversionary tactic of it. However, each to their own pastime. Meanwhile, Catherine Austin Fitts had a video put on the net titled Planet Lockdown. It is not only plausible an explanation for the political games being played, but could equally well be part of it, in that it gets people who haven’t been engaged in the political play will now join. Democracy is down and being counted out. New world order blogsites are mooting a society holding together by contracts, or a new version of the dictatorship for the proletariat, a version of QE on steroids and free money for all, etc. Methinks, the majority of political operatives, which, of course, includes most Lefties, most academics and economists, almost all pseudo-scientists parading as scientists, thinktankers, etc…, and many more. John le Carré, recently deceased, had some pertinent things to say about geopolitics in relation to international high finance and how it affects our politics, economies and all. Then there was Rustum Roy. His videos are still on YouTube. He has some very pointed observations about modern science in the context of modern, allopathic, medicine. Everything is politics. Science, now become a religion, pseudo science, is corrupted beyond measure.

    • Mack on 07/01/2021 at 1:10 pm said:

      Your last sentence, a little ass about face…

      “Science, now become a religion, psuedoscience, is corrupted beyond measure”

      Should read…

      AGW pseudoscience, now become a religion, science, is corrupted beyond measure.

    • Rick on 09/01/2021 at 2:09 am said:

      Jacob says:

      “The climate caper is politics. To keep banging on about the science is to play along with the diversionary tactic of it.”

      I agree that the ‘climate caper’ is politics. But I think it is also science – or rather, pseudoscience, to be more precise – because the climate caperers are claiming implicitly that their fraudulent ‘climate science’ has given their misguided cult a divine right to rule over the whole planet. To my mind, that self-assumed divine right must be openly discredited if it is not to be cemented into law by default and enforced upon everyone in the manner of a totalitarian police state.

      In order to discredit it, I think it is unavoidably necessary to discredit the phony ‘science’ on which their claim to that bogus divine right to lord it over everyone is based. And in order to do that, I don’t think we have any other choice but to discuss the science, which means that it can be directly relevant to the politics and not necessarily diversionary at all.

  7. Richard Treadgold on 09/01/2021 at 8:47 am said:

    Jacob, you say,

    that self-assumed divine right

    I regret having to tell you this, but it’s the other way around. You suggest they found the climate awry and as knowledge of the problem evolved they realised that to control the weather they first needed to control everything. This is wrong. Insiders are saying openly that the problem is not the climate, the problem is human society. Hence:

    UN assessment report author, Ottmar Edenhofer, admitted in a speech it was not about climate but “about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.” U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres said that the true aim of the recent Paris climate conference was “to change [destroy] the economic development model [capitalism].”

    I disagree, because ‘they’ are megalomaniacs, so naturally they want to control us.

    The problem is that the megalomaniacs are finally in charge everywhere.

    Ready for a fight? Megalomaniacs have recruited useful idiots on the left for their evil work. Only conservatives can begin this fight. We all need to step up.

    • Rick on 09/01/2021 at 2:49 pm said:

      Hi Richard,

      I fear that I may have confused you a little with my previous comment responding to Jacob (and if I’ve managed to confuse you I’m wondering how many other people I may have confused with it too).

      It was not Jacob but I who spoke of “that self-assumed divine right”.

      I did not mean to suggest that the megalomaniacs had assumed that right in response to their discovering that the climate was awry and I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I did. In fact, from my reading of the historical development of the climate scam, I gather that your view (that the founders and leaders of the cult assumed that right first and that they invented the climate crisis afterwards as a false pretext for their claim to that false right to world supremacy) is perfectly correct.

      You ask: “Ready for a fight?”

      I think I am ready for the eternal intellectual fight of truth against lies and falsehoods, certainly. But in regard to the political fight to overcome the dark totalitarian forces which are currently engaged in overthrowing the old world order and trying to install a tyrannical world government in its place, I think it may already be too late for us to do anything about that. Of course, if I see an opportunity to strike a significant blow for the cause of counteracting the dark forces, I shall take it. But this is not a situation where any of us can make any such opportunities by our own efforts because they have already got the world in a stranglehold. These are dangerous times and I think we need to be cautious about picking fights, even though we may be sure of having the truth on our side.

    • Richard Treadgold on 13/01/2021 at 10:43 am said:

      Hi Rick,

      I fear that I may have confused you …

      That’s all right, I knew you were quoting Jacob.

      Each of us can fight in ways that best suit us. So writing letters to a political party that’s against our climate policy is highly valuable. You can imagine other contributions that would be more useful than sheltering at home. Also, if the rest of the world has gone to hell in a hand basket, we just focus on our own country and raise it back to a level where it’s useful for others.


    • Hi Richard, and Rick. There are various ways in which a sentence can be read, evidently. I accept that fact, and that others give their own interpretation. Each to their own, as I wrote. This site has enough interesting comments for me to come back to from time to time. However interesting the exercise, which must be worthwhile to pursue, and follow at times, I maintain that modern science has gone off the rails. It’s not only the AGW scam that is a religion, of sorts. Science has bifurcated into science proper and pseudoscience, as a major division. To fight pseudoscience is an interesting pastime, but it does not tackle the essentials of the predicament the West is in. Ok, there is obligation to be political. It’s a free world. I was just saying, in a way, to be distracted by distractions has its charm, but under the circumstances, looking forward backwards, in future hindsight, many people will, imo, find they have been fooled. However, that is my personal opinion. Every single person has their own path in life.

      We’ve had the GFC in 2007-2008, which looks to have been engineered by design or deliberate default, as I noted at the time. It resulted in a huge transfer of financial and other assets from nation-state stakeholders to international corporate legal persons. Next came the AGW scam, set to transfer huge amounts of money from nation-states’ stakeholders and tax/ratepayers to international corporate legal persons. Now we have a virus which is like a cold, but more serious in that it kills people who before Covid-19 would die of the Flu, pneumonia and such like. Again, the transfer of huge amounts of financial assets from nation-states’ stakeholders and tax/ratepayers to globalist corporate entities is happening. This is evidence, imo, of an earlier transfer of political power from nation-states’ citizenry in the West, mostly ( because in the rest of the world there was not much political power to transfer from citizens in the first place), to transnational corporate legal persons. Is this significant? Not for some, very much so for others. Many true scientists, real economists, scholars and a smattering of academics true to their trade are commenting upon said (and possibly sad) events. I’m only saying. If people wish to ignore some trends of moment and while away their time discussing others, that must be their path, or on the other hand, again, that must be what they have to do. It will all fall into place after the chaos, or perhaps not. Maybe there will be no chaos, only such perceived by some, and not by others. Does it matter?
      Young people in the West are unusually sanguine about political developments. They are exercised by climate change, not the natural environment. They are exercised by career opportunities, or lack of, not the financial machinations by means of which the nation-states are used as security and vehicles to create money from nothing to sluice into the accounts of international high finance/transnational corporations. There must be a moral in it somewhere, or perhaps not. We could make up the moral as we go along, each of us. Nietzsche is supposed to have remarked that insanity is a collective phenomenon, madness could be a personal thing. World wars one and two were orchestrated madness.
      The current global insanity has something of a spiritual existential crisis about it, for the West at least. It’s certainly a collective thing. The good life and the welfare state in the West has allowed its lucky passengers on the gravy train to lose sight of what’s going on in the rest of the world. Now the rest of the world is walking in on the West while we are engaged in trivial pursuits. But then, who am I to judge.
      Jesus said, apparently, “ Judge not, that ye be not judged”. Well, I guess I have been judged by some, who will be judged in turn.

    • Nota Bene: There is no obligation to be political.

  8. Brian Wilson on 09/01/2021 at 2:08 pm said:

    Hi Richard,

    Very quick reply as I am currently up to my neck in work – ah, the joys of being a self-employed scientist.

    First of all, the drop in the Earth’s magnetic field strength seems to be accelerating. As with most of these things, estimates vary. The worst case scenario is a 20% drop since 1800 (10% from 1800 to 2000 and a further 10% from 2000 to 2020) although the SWARM data makes it a 9% total loss since 1800 even though the satellites were not around until 2013. However, this does seem to be at odds with the figures agreed by the French, Japanese and the UK who did seem to be in agreement closer to 20%.

    The fall in overall field strength allows more high energy solar particles and cosmic rays into the atmosphere. In the case of cosmic rays, the high energy particles cascade into muons, neutrons, positrons, gamma rays and electrons. These high energy collisions and particle disintegrations all release energy. Hence, warming. Increase in solar wind has a similar effect. When I get a chance will try and dig out a recent paper on how these high-energy particles interact with various layers of the atmosphere and lead to warming.

    However, this seems to be in direct conflict with Svensmark who seems to think that this increase in particles will lead to increased cloud cover and consequently increased albedo, therefore cooling. we shall no doubt see in the fullness of time. Whichever way, indications are that over the past 20 years or so we have had an increase of around 3.6 watts per sq metre in shortwave radiation entering the climate system due to changes in cloud cover. This is 9 times greater than the increase attributed to CO2 over the same time period.

    Cosmic ray count is measured by such establishments as the Oulu neutron counter and this was close to a record high in 2020. It is still in the high range. There is an awful lot more to this, particularly the interactions with the Sun’s magnetic field, but there definitely seems to be a shift in the total energy balance. The high-energy electrons from the cosmic rays and solar wind may add to the heating effect in the global electric circuit and I think you just have to look at the lightning in the USA last year to see the shift in this overall energy balance. Instead of the bolts from the sky to the Earth, it went upwards from the earth to the sky. Very interesting.

  9. Ian Cooper on 12/01/2021 at 12:40 pm said:

    Brian Wilson, in the last line of your recent post you say, “Instead of the bolts from the sky to the Earth, it went upwards from the earth to the sky. Very interesting.” Are you talking about bolts from the physical earth, or phenomena like ‘Sprites’ that come off the top of thunderstorms. Both are subliminal to the unaided eye, although I did witness a Sprite over Tauranga as seen from the Manawatu several years ago.

    As for lightening from the ground up, this had been established in the 20th century thanks to slow motion cameras. Has there been a quantified increase in the number of those events?

    Another earth-sky electrical connection occurs during geomagnetic storms. I was lucky enough to witness and record during the “Great Auroral Storm” of March 31st, 2001, a curtain of auroral rays start to form from the top & bottom at the same time over the period of a few minutes during the first ‘break-up’ period of the storm when everything went from quiescent to ballistic in 5 minutes!

    We know so little about the electrical world that we live in. To ignore that world is to blind yourself in one eye!

  10. Mary Mac on 12/01/2021 at 10:34 pm said:

    It’s a puzzle.

    The correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperatures over millions and millions of years.

    • Rick on 13/01/2021 at 6:13 am said:

      Hi Mary,

      If it really exists, this correlation can be explained as an effect of Henry’s law, which orthodox physical chemistry has known about for approximately 200 years now.

      Henry’s law deems that when the oceans warm up they will release CO2 into the atmosphere and when they cool down they will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Hence the perceived correlation.

      Puzzle solved?

    • Brian Wilson on 13/01/2021 at 8:00 pm said:

      Hi Mary Mac,

      Have a look at

      This is just one site that shows this same graph. No real correlation here. Besides, correlation does not prove causation. There is a strong correlation between ice cream consumption and shark attacks in California. Is it the shark attacks that cause more ice cream consumption or the other way round? There is a strong correlation between the release of Nicholas Cage films in the USA and a spike in young men drowning in their own backyard pools. Now I know some Nicholas Cage films are pretty bad, but its a big leap to blame these on a spike in drownings. Is it a rise in carbon dioxide driving temperature or a rise in temperature driving carbon dioxide?

    • Richard Treadgold on 16/01/2021 at 9:56 am said:

      There’s no correlation.

  11. Mary Mac on 13/01/2021 at 8:22 am said:

    Rick, thanks.

    So the oceans are warming then.


    • Mack on 13/01/2021 at 11:43 am said:

      Hi Mary Mac,

      Let me try and explain Rick’s position if I may.

      “So the oceans are warming then”

      No, science fiction and certainly science fiction if you think the oceans are expanding causing “sea-level rise”.
      The oceans comprise of over 70% of the surface of this planet. The billions of tons of the trace heavy gas, CO2, both natural and what humans emit, mostly waft about in the air above the ocean waves. Newer satellites have revealed that there are vast transient blooms of phytoplankton throughout the oceans which photosynthesise the CO2 dissolving at the surface. The blooms quickly die off taking the CO2 to the bottom of the oceans as carbonate sediment. That’s where most most of the CO2 goes…ocean sediment. There is also more being taken up by plant growth….after all, who’s measuring the rate of plant growth.. and also there’s planet greening.
      Some other CO2 manages, by uprising convection, to be carried up into the thermosphere, occupying the vast area of space surrounding the Earth and it along with nitric oxides (oxidised N2 atmosphere) help shield the planet from the constant blazing of 1360 watts/sq.m. radiation from the Sun. at the space-atmosphere interface. More CO2 up there equalling a more cooling effect.

      All this is contrary to what the gorilla hugging Malthusian, Sir David Attenborough, will tell you… that the Amazon rain-forests are “the lungs of the planet”. Sorry to have to tell you, but planting of trees is a waste of time and energy in the scheme of things.

      Another thing too, is that science has been subtly bastidised by the lefty control freaks (Bill Connolly) and the rest of the AGW indoctrinated clowns who run Wikipedia. He who controls knowledge and the narrative, controls people and the agenda.
      When I was at school we were taught that during the day, plants absorb CO2 and sunlight and by means of photosynthesis convert these into plant sugars and carbohydrates. …but during the night plants “rested” and respired by transpiration. Animals breathe…plants transpire. There was a little transpiration
      occurring during the day but most of the transpiration occurred during the night with the release of CO2 from the stomata on the underside of the leaf.
      Now, if you look up Wikipedia for the definition of transpiration, you will be hard pressed to find that transpiration is “breathing” in plants. They have buried this emission of CO2 ,with transpiration only to do with water and heat transfer in the plant.
      You can still find the truth in little obscure places,, say here..
      They and NASA, don’t want you to know that the satellites show huge amounts of that evil CO2 being released at night from the Amazon rain-forests.
      Hope that helps.

  12. Mary Mac on 13/01/2021 at 1:47 pm said:

    So how do thousands of Argo floats show the oceans are warming if they are not?

    Assuming they are warming, which they appear to be, why are they warming?

    • Brian Wilson on 13/01/2021 at 8:42 pm said:

      Hi Mary Mac,

      All plants additionally produce methane. It is a by product of synthesis of the amino acid methionine. NASA struggled to figure out why their satellites were showing huge methane clouds over the Amazon and it turns out that it was a combination of this metabolic by product and the fact that some trees use their roots to collect methane from the anaerobic layer in the soil and transport it out to atmosphere. There are some species of tree where you can drive a hollow metal tube in to the trunk and set fire to the methane that comes off. Turns out it isn’t cows that are the enemy, it’s plants.
      Also turns out that there was pressure sensor problem with many of the Argo floats and data from over 50% cannot be accurately corrected. Sounds like the NASA IceSat that incorrectly but consistently measured the Arctic ice sheet as being half a metre thinner than it actually is. In August 1988 the Sydney Morning Herald published a story from “leading scientists” that, due to climate change, the Maldives would be completely underwater by August 2018. I would like to know how they have just completed a new underwater airport. Since 2005, out of the 186 islands in the Maldives group, 59% have grown in size and 38% have not changed at all. Just before the Pacific Leaders forum in 2019, the University of Auckland published a research paper that showed most of the pacific islands were not in danger from sea level rise. Many were growing in size due to standard tidal deposition mechanisms and tectonic plate movement but this would not suit the narrative (and funding) so it was ignored.

  13. Mack on 13/01/2021 at 5:41 pm said:

    Mary Mac,
    Quite easy, it’s called human induced ocean warming. Get some buoys where there’s far to much room for error in the data…….collect the data then correct and adjust it to make sure the oceans warm.

  14. Mary Mac on 14/01/2021 at 1:43 am said:

    Brian Wilson,

    So what has changed in the Amazon and plants to cause the rise in methane now?

    Prior to Argo floats, ocean temperatures were measured using buckets or boiler room intakes. Do you think such methods would show the oceans are not warming now?

    Do you believe certain islands “growing” proves the sea level is not rising — as shown by satellite measurements?

    Finally, what is the “Arctic ice sheet”?

    • Brian Wilson on 15/01/2021 at 8:47 pm said:

      Hi Mary Mac,

      The point is really that the whole system is way more complex than “It’s carbon dioxide wot dunnit g’vner.” Plants would like CO2 to be around 1000 ppm for optimum growth, but certainly the rise in atmospheric CO2 has invigorated plant growth. Over the last 400,000 years complex life forms on Earth have come close to extinction on 4 separate occasions due to CO2. Plants starve when CO2 drops to 150 ppm and the planet has been as low as 175 – 180 ppm on these 4 occasions. Far too close for comfort really.
      Also the University of Michigan has shown that current climate models run way too hot. If you apply these models to the early Eocene, then temperatures in the tropics would have been over 55 degrees celsius exceeding the limit for photosynthesis. This would have meant an extinction of life in the tropics, rather than the flourishing rain forests that fossil records indicate.
      The carbon dioxide only bias is also shown to be incorrect by the fact that during the last few years a strong El Niño, a positive PDO and a positive AMO, have all occurred at the same time. These natural phenomena have raised global temperatures, all of which is blamed on carbon dioxide. However, with the upcoming switch to La Niña conditions and the imminent return of the PDO and AMO into their negative phases, we expect a significant temperature drop for the coming years: Frank Stefani Dresden-Rossendorf Institute of Fluid Dynamics(2021). In all these cases, changes in the aa-index (geomagnetic index) have a far bigger impact than carbon dioxide.
      The TSI, whilst considered in the standard models to be stable, appears to have risen significantly since the last ice age: Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Scafetta and Willson, (2014); Egorova et al., (2018); Connolly et al., (2021). The UV component, ignored by the IPCC, has a known influence on the ozone layer and the resulting stratospheric-tropospheric coupling: Labitzke and van Loon, (1988); Haigh,(1994); Soon, Posmentier and Baliunas, (2000); Georgieva et al.,(2012); Silverman et al., (2018); Veretenenko and Ogurtsov,(2020).
      The effects of solar magnetic field modulated cosmic rays on aerosols and clouds: Svensmark and Friis-Christensen,(1997); Soon et al., (2000); Shaviv and Veizer, (2003); Svensmark et al., (2017). Effects of solar magnetic field variation and climate: Cliver, Boriakoff and Feynman (you don’t get a much more prestigious name in modern physics) (1998) and Mufti and Shah (2011).



      A list of 140 papers from 2020 showing no warming. In particular https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ns_2020031013452917.pdf Kramm et al 2020 that shows no warming since the late 19th century.

      Keep your wooly hat and coat handy, because if the Beaufort Gyre lets go (this is not if, but when) then we are looking at a significant cooling and western Europe will be plunged in to an ice age. Think “The day after tomorrow”, but over a slightly longer time frame.

      For the end of 2020 and beginning of 2021:
      Skiing in the streets of Madrid – record cold in Spain.
      French Riviera 6 to 7 degrees below average
      Record snow storms in Japan
      Beijing coldest temperatures since 1966
      Parts of Canada record lowest ever temperatures.
      Record snowfall cuts off Kashmir from the rest of India
      20 plus weather stations record lowest ever December temperatures in China.
      Record cold Russian Arctic coast
      Snow in the Sahara desert

    • Brian Wilson on 15/01/2021 at 8:58 pm said:

      Hi Mary Mac,
      On the 17th March 1959, the USS Skate becomes the first submarine to surface through the ice at the north pole. This is interesting because March is the start of spring in the Arctic and it is usually when the ice is at its thickest and at its maximum extent. But the fact that a submarine, not designed to be an ice breaker and only under its own buoyancy, was able to surface through the thickest ice tells us a great deal about historical ice thickness in 1959 and especially in view of more recent events.

      In 2017, Norwegian scientists released a young female arctic fox in the north of Norway. They had fitted her with a tracker. In March 2018, she set off and completed a 4,800 km journey ending up in Canada by July that year. We don’t know how she managed this with no ice. Perhaps she hitched a ride on a passing polar bear. Oh, wait, she couldn’t. They are extinct!!!!

      In June 2019, the Russian ice breaker, 50 Years of Victory, was heading to the North Pole with a group of scientists to study climate change. This is a nuclear powered ship and is equipped with sonic disruptors to help break up thick ice. It did get to the North Pole, but was about 36 hours behind schedule due to thicker than expected pack ice.

      In July 2019, in the middle of the summer ice melt, the ice breaker Crown Prince Haakon was on a mission to the North Pole for The Institute of Marine Research. It was forced to turn around and go home just north of Svalbard in Norway.

      “Thick one-year ice combined with large batches of multi-year ice joined together into powerful helmets and several of these are impenetrable to us”, said Captain Johnny Peder Hansen. The ice is up to three meters (almost 10 feet) thick in the middle of July and not even the researchers’ long special-purpose chainsaws were able to penetrate the ice.”

      “In the middle of July we see few signs of thawing and that spring has come. We had expected more melting and that the ice was more disintegrating,” says Captain Hansen, who for several decades has worked on various vessels in the Arctic.

      “Polar bears were seen on Bjørnøya this past winter in the middle of the Barents Sea, which shows that the ice edge was very far south” , writes Klassekampen.

      These guys should have spoken to the crew of the Polarstern who, in 2019, complained that they could not find enough sea ice to achieve their goal of deliberately stranding themselves in drifting Arctic ice for a year to study climate change. Funny, they must have been in a different Arctic Ocean to the other guys. How ironic then when the resupply ship had major problems reaching them in February last year.

      “High fuel consumption had become an issue earlier this year when the Russian icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn travelled in to the pack ice to resupply and exchange crew. Due to severe storms and numerous detours to get around impassable ice the vessel ran low on fuel when it finally reached the Polarstern on February 28. A third ship had to be dispatched to refuel the Kapitan Dranitsyn.”

      All very interesting for an Arctic Ocean that, according to Al Gore, was going to be ice free in summer by 2014.

  15. Rick on 14/01/2021 at 11:39 am said:


    Re. your reply to me of January 13, 2021 at 8:22 am,

    You say: “So the oceans are warming then.”

    I don’t know. We cannot simply extrapolate from a hypothetical correlation that might apply on timescales of “millions and millions of years” to the present and apply it on timescales of years, decades or even centuries.

    Re. your question to me of January 13, 2021 at 1:47 pm:

    “Assuming they are warming, which they appear to be, why are they warming?”

    There are many possible reasons. However, to the best of my knowledge, none have been proven to be the predominant cause as yet.

    But I think it is also worth considering here that the world ocean heat content has still not been measured empirically but has only been calculated (as ever) on the basis of questionable assumptions. In fact, the more I have looked into ‘the science’ of global warming the more strongly I have got the impression that it is all just questionable assumptions built upon more questionable assumptions, all the way down.

    • Mary Mac on 14/01/2021 at 3:53 pm said:


      So you do not believe the data from the Argo floats. Fair enough.

      You say there are many possible reasons the oceans could be warming. Please list three, and if possible, link to references.

      Most helpful, thanks.

    • Rick on 15/01/2021 at 4:28 am said:


      You wrote:

      “So you do not believe the data from the Argo floats.”

      I never mentioned the Argo floats. Are you wanting to put words into my mouth, Mary?

      If you want to know, my position on the Argo buoys is that I can neither believe nor disbelieve the data from them, because I have no possible way of checking their accuracy and validity independently for myself.

      Have you checked them? If so, how did you do it? I’d love to know.

      “You say there are many possible reasons the oceans could be warming. Please list three, and if possible, link to references.”

      Other commenters here have already given you more than three and I don’t see what purpose would be served by my adding three more to the list that you’ve already got, so I’ll pass on this one if you don’t mind.

  16. Richard Treadgold on 14/01/2021 at 4:29 pm said:

    Mary Mac claims “the Argo floats show the oceans are warming”. Bear in mind the <4000 Argo floats give patchy coverage to an enormous ocean. The floats, which began being deployed in 2000, are separated on average by about 300 kilometers and take readings about once every 10 days from a depth of about 2,000 metres to the surface. They report warming at different depths of only 0.02 °C to 0.1 °C over about 15 to 20 years.

    Seems trivial enough and hedged with enormous error margins to me, but what do people think?

  17. Mary Mac on 15/01/2021 at 10:18 am said:


    If you insist on verifying all scientific knowledge for yourself it’s no wonder you know so little.

    Argo floats show the oceans warming. Several different groups have analysed the data.

    You haven’t. So? You haven’t demonstrated the Higg’s boson either. Have you shown light is a wave and not a wave? You merely beat around the bush with pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo and gobbledegook. All hat and no cattle.

    • Richard Treadgold on 15/01/2021 at 2:02 pm said:


      I’ve posted the Argo figures separately, away from “Letters”, so please take the conversation there. I’d recommend you examine the graph from climate4you (already posted just above, you must have missed it). See Argo floats improve temperature readings.

    • Rick on 16/01/2021 at 4:29 am said:


      “If you insist on verifying all scientific knowledge for yourself it’s no wonder you know so little.”

      Ah, I wondered when the derision would start. Didn’t take long, did it?

      Where did I say that I insist on verifying all scientific knowledge for myself? I don’t do that, nor did I say that I do. Nor could I do it even if I wanted to, because it would take longer than my lifetime to do it anyway.

      But the fact remains that if you haven’t verified something yourself before you believe it, then you don’t really know it, do you? And what you have acquired then is not knowledge of the truth but a blind belief about the truth, which may be completely wrong for all you know.

      You are at perfect liberty to clutter your mind with blind, unchecked and untested beliefs if you want to, of course, and you can even kid yourself that they are ‘scientific knowledge’ too, but you are the one being fooled and you will have only yourself to blame when your blind beliefs blindly collide with reality and give you the shock and pain of disillusionment and the life-upset that inevitably accompanies it. And in the meanwhile you will remain as ignorant of the truth as you were before you chose to blindly believe whatever you did about it, of course.

      So, it’s your choice, but why put yourself on a hiding to nothing like that? Surely, it would be in your own best interests to test, check and verify everything before you consent to believe it and thereby save yourself and all others who may be depending on you from all the unnecessary trouble and suffering that would otherwise be incurred by believing things blindly.

      “Argo floats show the oceans warming.”

      How can you know that? At most the Argo floats can only show the local temperatures at the points in space and time where they happen to be located. The task of integrating their data-output into a coherent and comprehensive picture of the world ocean’s thermal behaviour which can then be published on the ’net for willing dupes like you to accept without question is carried out by teams of technicians working in offices that are far removed from the Argo floats themselves. Unless you happen to be one of those technicians, you may never get to see what the Argo floats are really showing and may only ever see what those backroom boys and girls choose to show you on your computer screen, which may be quite different to what the Argo floats are really showing for all you can tell.

      “Several different groups have analysed the data.”

      Bully for them. How is that relevant?

      “You haven’t.”

      True. That is because I have no interest in analysing data which I know from the outset cannot be verified.

      “So? You haven’t demonstrated the Higg’s boson either.”

      It’s funny you should mention that. Last I heard, scientists at CERN have been unable to replicate the original ‘demonstration’ themselves, which is casting serious doubt on its validity. Replicability is a critical test of validity in real science. You won’t find much of it, if any at all, going on in ‘climate science’ though.

      “You merely beat around the bush with pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo and gobbledegook. All hat and no cattle.”

      I’m sorry you think so. But anyway, if that is what you believe then I see I would be wasting my time trying to converse any further with someone who is as intractable as you are.

    • Richard Treadgold on 16/01/2021 at 10:04 am said:


      All hat and no cattle.

      Haha. I like it.

    • Rick on 16/01/2021 at 11:07 am said:

      Is there any chance of my being let in on the joke, Richard?

      What does “All hat and no cattle” mean? I’ve never heard that one before.

      No, neither had I. It refers to the cowboy or farmer who’s all decked out with the cool gear, perhaps a horse, but has no stock. The dilettante, the charlatan. — RT

    • Rick on 16/01/2021 at 12:19 pm said:

      I see. Thanks Richard, I get it now.

      When Mary applied that metaphor to me you said that you liked it. Should I take it that that is how you see me too – as a dilettante and a charlatan? If so, why do you?

      Oh, heavens, no! Don’t take it like that. You’re neither. But the metaphor is humorous, wherever you stand on the topic. Just as you asked your question of me with complete neutrality, so I judged the insult without reference to the rightfulness of the argument.

      Cheers. — RT

  18. Ross on 16/01/2021 at 9:56 am said:

    the derision started on Jan 6th with “silly scientists “(sarc) you can always pick them with the early posts .

  19. Brian Wilson on 16/01/2021 at 8:46 pm said:

    Hi Mary Mac,

    Now for satellite sea level rise. This is not as simple as a satellite flying around and measuring sea levels. Satellite altimetry is complex and prone to errors. The altimetry data can be affected by many factors in the atmosphere. One factor that has a particularly large affect is electrical interference. Think loss of the earth’s magnetic field and the huge increase in charged particles in the upper atmosphere. This definitely screws with altimetry. Raw data from the Topex/Poseidon, Envisat and Jason satellites show no sea level rise at all prior to 2004. Indeed, Envisat appeared to show a sea level fall in 2002 to 2004. Something happened to the sea level data from satellites around 2004-2005 it seems, because in 2005 Morner points out that the satellite data had been changed significantly. The trends don’t look like they did before 2004.
    One excuse trotted out was a 10% upward alteration as a “correction” for rising land (globally). If we just look at Topex/Poseidon –
    Satellite altitude – 1,335 kms
    Frequency Ku band radar – 13.65 GHz (2.3 cm wavelength)
    Ionospheric delay Ku band – 0.1 metre
    Frequency C band radar – 5.6 GHz (5.6 cm wavelength)
    Single pulse resolution – +/- 1.2 metres
    1000 pulse resolution – +/- 4.7 cms

    As you can see, the actual resolution of the instrument is not capable of measuring sea level rise of 3 mm per year. We see a bias of 99.6 mm +/- 1.3 mm between Topex/Poseidon and Jason 1. If we look at Jason 1 and Jason 2 there is a bias of 75.3 mm +/- 0.6 mm despite that fact that the Jason 2 altimeter is an exact copy of the Jason 1 instrument. Jason 1 and Jason 2 were designed to measure their altitude to the sea surface to within a few centimetres. So how can these satellites tell us sea level rise in mere millimetres. The unadjusted data from Envisat appears to indicate a sea level rise of 3 cm per century – 0.3 mm per year.

    • Asking generally, of the scientific minds here, as well as Brian, when does technical data become scientific data, and what significance should be attached to it and why? Knowing ocean temperatures where until recently, even in technical terms, nothing was known about ocean temperatures, is not scientific imo. Even if certain, knowing that temperatures of anything go up or down does not constitute scientific knowledge. Modern science is only just starting to learn about correlation between certain aspects related to weather. Other than technical data, climate scientists, an oxymoron if ever there was, have nothing to go on. Oh, their computer modelling. HDi-TDo: Hypothetical Data in-Technical Data out.

  20. Mary Mac on 17/01/2021 at 11:53 am said:

    Rick, on January 16, 2021 at 4:29 am said: @Mary

    (Mary) “If you insist on verifying all scientific knowledge for yourself it’s no wonder you know so little.”

    (Rick) Where did I say that I insist on verifying all scientific knowledge for myself? I don’t do that, nor did I say that I do. Nor could I do it even if I wanted to, because it would take longer than my lifetime to do it anyway.

    @Rick, today, 17/01/21. So what does this mean? (From comment copied below.)
    ” I can neither believe nor disbelieve the data from them, because I have no possible way of checking their accuracy and validity independently for myself.”

    Are you trying to tell me you are referring only to Argo floats, other science endorsed by the global community of scientists – say in standard textbooks – that you can’t verify you accept?

    Of course the Argo floats show warming. Several groups agree. There is an IPCC report out this year. Ocean warming will be in it. The IPCC is the world authority. Your personal incredulity is not a problem for science.

    on January 15, 2021 at 4:28 am said:
    Mary, You wrote:
    (Mary) “So you do not believe the data from the Argo floats.”

    I never mentioned the Argo floats. Are you wanting to put words into my mouth, Mary?

    If you want to know, my position on the Argo buoys is that I can neither believe nor disbelieve the data from them, because I have no possible way of checking their accuracy and validity independently for myself.
    If you want to know, my position on the Argo buoys is that I can neither believe nor disbelieve the data from them, because I have no possible way of checking their accuracy and validity independently for myself.

    • Rick on 18/01/2021 at 8:49 am said:


      “@Rick, today, 17/01/21. So what does this mean? (From comment copied below.)

      ‘I can neither believe nor disbelieve the data from them, because I have no possible way of checking their accuracy and validity independently for myself.’ ”

      In simple terms, it means that I don’t know what the Argo floats are really saying because I am not able to check it out for myself. That’s straightforward, isn’t it?

      “Are you trying to tell me you are referring only to Argo floats, other science endorsed by the global community of scientists – say in standard textbooks – that you can’t verify you accept?”

      Sorry, but I can’t make sense of that ungrammatical sentence. What exactly are you asking me?

      “Of course the Argo floats show warming.”

      I haven’t suggested that they don’t. But how do you know that they do?

      “Several groups agree.”

      They could be mistaken, or lying. How do you know that they’re not?

      “There is an IPCC report out this year. Ocean warming will be in it.”

      What, another one? Groan! When are they going to actually settle the global warming ‘science’ that was all supposed to have been settled decades ago?

      “The IPCC is the world authority.”

      In your world, perhaps, but not in mine. And it is only “the world authority” in your world because you choose to appoint it as such and to make it so – in your mind.

      The IPCC is a derivative entity which derives whatever authority it may possess from the consent of sovereign individuals like you to regard it as an authority which has the right and power to dictate your beliefs about reality to you. That is how you form an authoritarian mind-control cult, not a science.

      “Your personal incredulity is not a problem for science.”

      Of course it isn’t! Personal incredulity is the very life-blood of science – real science, that is. Without it there could have been no Galileo, no Newton, no Darwin, no Einstein or any of the countless other individual scientists who have had the courage to doubt the orthodox beliefs and dogmas of their day and explore alternative possibilities which led to the scientific breakthroughs that have driven the progress of humanity’s scientific knowledge forward – until, that is, the authoritarian cult of post-normal IPCC ‘climate science’ came along with its antiscientific regime of group-think, intolerance of dissent and slavish conformity to the nebulous dogma of a manufactured ‘consensus’ of elite ‘climate scientists’ who are not really scientists at all, whereupon humanity’s intellectual regression has set in. That antiscientific regime is supported and empowered by the personal credulity of credulous people like you and therefore it is your personal credulity, not my personal incredulity, that is a major problem for science.

  21. Brian Wilson on 17/01/2021 at 12:27 pm said:

    Hi Mary Mac,

    No, this years IPCC report will not be definitive and the IPCC have proven, beyond all doubt, that the are a political organization and not science based. Having previously refused to take in to account the climate effects of such aspects as magnetic field variation, particle forcing, the global electrical circuit and UV forcing (for references see my previous post), they have been working on an outdated model designed not to find the full truth, but to prove a point. However, finally the IPCC have conceded that particle forcing is part of the bigger picture and will include it in all future climate assessment science starting in 2022. This is, effectively, an admission that they have not had the full picture and all previous climate assessments, including the up coming 2021 edition, are incomplete and out dated. The upper layers of Saturn’s atmosphere are twice as warm as they would be if it were just down to total solar irradiance. Analysis of the data from the Cassini probe has shown that this doubling is due to particle forcing and atmospheric electrical circuits. Whilst these are no where near the same intensity here on Earth, ignoring them leaves us with the incomplete picture that the IPCC provides. How quickly we forget climategate, “hide the decline”, wipe out the medieval warm period and the Roman warm period, because they are inconvenient, and the input of Dr. Fraudpants himself.

  22. Brett Keane on 21/01/2021 at 8:09 pm said:

    Mary Mac eh?
    They just keep trotting their spavinned nags out, do they not. I would have loved to see them try it on Maxwell The Scottish sharpness and humour would have left a smell of smouldering ears. With a few suitable aphorisms from Rabbie Burns as well.
    And she/it uses Mac. Shame on you, putative grandchild….. Brett Keane

  23. Mary Mac on 21/01/2021 at 10:53 pm said:


    “Are you trying to tell me you are referring only to Argo floats, other science endorsed by the global community of scientists – say in standard textbooks – that you can’t verify you accept?”

    (Rick) Sorry, but I can’t make sense of that ungrammatical sentence. What exactly are you asking me?

    Nothing wrong with the grammar or the question. As I thought, you are intellectually handicapped. Or maybe it’s just another question that traps you in your own delusions.

    Sorry about the rest – stopped reading at that point.

    • Rick on 22/01/2021 at 2:34 am said:


      “Nothing wrong with the grammar or the question. As I thought, you are intellectually handicapped.”

      You may be right. But your telling me that doesn’t help me to understand your question.

      “Or maybe it’s just another question that traps you in your own delusions.”

      Maybe. But how does such idle speculation about my mental condition improve it, or yours, or anyone else’s? Isn’t it just a waste of everyone’s time?

      “Sorry about the rest – stopped reading at that point.”

      No need to apologise. The loss is entirely yours.

  24. Brian Wilson on 24/01/2021 at 7:55 pm said:

    To Richard Treadgold

    Hi Richard. Have a look at
    This is a paper looking at the particle affects on ozone and the consequent UV climate forcing.

    This is a discussion on the solar influence on climate outside the narrow TSI only models.
    Also have a look at https://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/IswaSystemWebApp/
    If you go to Magnetosphere and then to SWMF2011+RCM Equatorial cut. If you then go to the dates and times. Input 2021-01-22 and then go to 100 frames before date and time. Set the time to 14.00 Run it at 3 frames per second and press apply. The animation shows solar wind interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field. Whilst the sun facing field mostly deflects the solar wind, you can see that the arrows often change direction once the solar particles have passed Earth. The arrows turn round and then come back towards the Earth where the magnetic field is at its weakest. These high energy particles and plasma then interact with the outer layers of the atmosphere affecting climate, but also destroying ozone, which leads to further warming. This extra energy input into the climate system has been completely ignored up to now.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2021 at 11:55 am said:

      Hi Brian,

      Tardy reply, but I’m trying to catch up. Thanks for these references and helpful instructions. I’ll check them out very soon.

  25. Brian Wilson on 30/01/2021 at 5:50 pm said:

    When I went to university it was in the very early days of “global warming” as it was back then. There was no such thing as a climate scientists and in our discussions on the topic we concluded that a person would need to be an expert in such disciplines as meteorology, oceanography, atmospheric physics, atmospheric chemistry, solar physics, astrophysics, statistics and control systems and feedback mechanisms, amongst other areas. Each of these fields takes a considerable amount of study, which essentially means that a so called climate scientist would need at least a couple of life times to be a true expert. Our conclusion was that any credible climate science would need a large, multidisciplinary team approach. Then, much to my amazement, we saw the emergence of the “climate scientist”. It was reasonably obvious that there would be real problems with the depth and breadth of knowledge required for this discipline, but the media and politicians started to place great faith in these new witch doctors and soothsayers. There is no better illustration of the problems caused than by the Mann, Bradley and Hughes hockey stick graph. Incredibly, Mann and his co – authors did not work with a statistician and none of the authors have qualifications in statistics. There have been numerous credible critiques of Mann’s methodology. For instance, the Wegman report to the house of representatives in the US stated that the criticisms of Mann’s hockey stick graph were “valid and compelling.” Dr. Richard Muller wrote in the MIT Technology Review and concluded that Mann’s hockey stick was merely “an artifact of poor mathematics.” These reports are just a couple of examples of a huge number of peer reviewed science critiques that clearly show the Mann hockey stick graph to be nothing more than noise as a result of incorrectly applied statistics. The only people that still refer to the Mann hockey stick are the useful idiots. There is so much more to say about Dr Mann, but that can wait for another day. Recently an international group of experts in feedback mechanisms and control theory looked at how climate scientists had borrowed this discipline and then incorrectly applied it due to a lack of expertise. The analysis showed that so called climate scientists over estimated non-condensing greenhouse gas feed back by 3200%. This is the massive carbon dioxide bias that has lead to the absolutely insane over estimation of its warming effect. We also have the example of particle forcing. Climate scientists have always insisted that the only energy input from the sun is total solar irradiance. Again, these climate scientists are not solar physicists, but their hubris shows no bounds. Solar physicists are looking at particle forcing, magnetic field interactions and the global electrical circuit. These all affect the Earth’s climate, but are totally over looked. At least the UNIPCC have finally acknowledged that particle forcing does play a part and it will be included in future climate assessments. But even then, we will still be stuck with incomplete models, incorrect forecasts and politicians hell bent on destroying our modern way of life based on the climate science equivalent of the Piltdown Man. Unfortunately, the most quoted global warming alarmists can best be described as “climate sciolists” ( a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed). We should possibly update our list of mythical creatures, Bigfoot, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, Unicorns and real climate scientists.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2021 at 1:40 pm said:

      I came to this late, Brian, but very interesting, thank you. Especially because anyone dipping his toes into the climate waters quickly finds (or loses) himself in a miasma of various highly complex topics (you left out maths, but it’s scarcely needed—I mean it need not be added, as it’s a prerequisite—amongst those topics) and forever after reluctant to accept anyone at his word that he’s a ‘climate scientist’.

  26. Andrew on 31/01/2021 at 3:15 pm said:

    Some very salient comments Brian, however it appears that the NZ Herald “science reporter” (now that’s a joke!!) hasn’t received the memo nor has the Government,the Climate minister or the climate commission! seems they are going full steam ahead with some crazy ideas that will do nothing other than cost us millions of $’s in unnecessary expenditure!


    i wonder how the govt plans on reducing the 95% water vapour (predominant greenhouse gas) from our atmosphere given the recommendation is to reduce “All greenhouses by 36%” & why by 36%, why not by 50% (or preferably leave it alone!)

    • Brian Wilson on 31/01/2021 at 5:12 pm said:

      Hi Andrew,

      Not to mention over 400 peer reviewed papers in 2020 that clearly show carbon dioxide is not a significant climate driver.

    • Brian Wilson on 01/02/2021 at 10:58 am said:

      Hi Andrew,

      Thanks for the comments. As for water vapour, there is the predominant overview that it condenses and falls as rain, snow or hail and is therefore short lived in its effects. This is why Boris Johnson in the UK is pushing to remove all gas fired central heating boilers and replace them with a hydrogen system. This kind of undercuts the current warming model – a very small rise in temperature due to carbon dioxide causes slightly increased water evaporation. This leads to a greater overall temperature rise due to the feedback caused by the increase in water vapour. One paper estimated that a rise of 1 degree c caused by carbon dioxide would lead to a further 3 degrees c rise due to the consequent increase in water vapour. Seems they can have it both ways. But, hey, we have already established that so called climate scientists know nothing about feedback. We have also firmly established that climate change has nothing to do with science and is purely political. I was just looking through some of the references to last years slew of papers that show carbon dioxide is not the villain of the piece. The papers point to:

      Significant increases in shortwave radiation
      Changes in the Sun/Earth magnetic field interactions
      That total solar irradiance is not as stable as originally thought and accounts for an increase of 0.5 degrees c from 1950 to 2016
      Variations in solar forcing that are actually 10 times higher than the IPCC estimate. But because their climate models rule out significant changes in solar forcing, this increase is all wrongly put down to carbon dioxide.

      The list goes on and on. Then we see the obscene spectacle of young people, having been totally brainwashed by politicians, the media and the education system, demanding climate action. Whilst small groups and, indeed, some nations, have been subject to falling for a false narrative over the course of history, I think that this is probably the first time an entire generation has actually been willing to sacrifice their freedom, their future and their sovereignty, both personally and nationally, to a lie. I think we will find the man made climate change alarmists will be ramping up the scare tactics to try and get their way over the next couple of years and will become more and more desperate to get their message across. Not because of the climate crisis, but because the wheels are starting to fall off the climate change band wagon and they do not have much time left before it all goes belly up.

  27. Ross on 01/02/2021 at 9:58 am said:

    Hi to Brian, John and other commenters on this site. Your fact based comments and insight are much appreciated. I dont have a science background ( 54% school cert ) But really enjoy reading and learning from this site.

  28. Ross on 01/02/2021 at 10:15 am said:

    Thanks particularly to Richard for providing such a platform for discussion

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2021 at 1:46 pm said:

      Yeah, thanks, Ross. This platform seems as essential as breathing.

  29. Ross on 01/02/2021 at 10:32 am said:

    Hi Richard, did one of Dr Rod Carrs letters to you state that he would consider Peer reviewed research that shows carbon dioxide is not a significant climate driver. If so he has some catching up to do re the 400 papers released in 2020. Just curious to know are there peer reviewed papers showing carbon dioxide is a significant climate driver.

    • Brian Wilson on 01/02/2021 at 1:17 pm said:

      Hi Ross,

      Thank you for the comments. Not to steal Richards thunder, but there are plenty of peer reviewed papers showing carbon dioxide is a significant climate driver. The problem is, if you don’t mention peer review, then the science deniers immediately jump on it and tell you that the paper isn’t peer reviewed and is therefore not legitimate. But, as we have seen in my previous post, there are plenty of so called climate scientists prepared to replicate and support serious scientific errors based on the collective lack of understanding. Expose one and you expose them all and serious funding is at stake here. Whilst climate alarmists will point to big oil spending on climate change denial (last figure I saw was an estimated $32 million a year), even during the Trump administration, the US alone was spending an estimated $17 billion a year on man made climate change. Sadly, the peer review process in under attack. A couple of years ago, a paper was submitted to a prestigious science journal by Connolly and Connolly. The content of the paper was about research that supported Einstein’s 1919 paper on greenhouse gases. Essentially Einstein stated that if a photon of infrared energy bounced upwards from the Earth’s surface and made contact with a greenhouse gas molecule, whether it was carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, water vapour, nitrous oxide etc, there would be warming. But only if that gas was not an ideal gas and not in thermodynamic equilibrium. The paper showed quite clearly that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, under normal atmospheric temperature and pressure, is an ideal gas and is in thermodynamic equilibrium and therefore, according to Einstein, cannot be a greenhouse gas. Just as aside, a separate paper supported this showing that, experimentally, carbon dioxide holds on to any extra energy for less the 1/1000th of a second. Anyhow, the journal originally rejected the paper based on some grammatical errors and semantics. The authors corrected the problems and re-submitted the paper. Again, it was rejected for a couple of reasons, none of them to do with the research or the conclusions, but to do with nit picking about the way it was presented. After making the final submission, the journal got back to the authors and stated that the paper could not be peer reviewed as there was no one sufficiently qualified to do this. In the intervening months, the journal had published numerous “peer reviewed” research papers in support of man made climate change. The last I heard, this may have been referred to the UK serious fraud office. My point is that the average border collie could submit a paper supporting man made global warming, get it peer reviewed and published. Peer review for this type of paper is more about the brothel endorsing the prostitutes.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/03/2021 at 11:34 am said:

      Hi Ross,

      Sorry I missed this earlier. No, I don’t believe Carr said that to me.

      There are many papers saying CO2 is a significant player in atmospheric radiation, but none of them demonstrate it. The ones I’ve read simply repeat the IPCC narrative, largely treating the air as dry, ignoring H2O as a short-lived “feedback” and treating CH4, N2O, O3 and even those trivial refrigeration and drycleaning gases and liquids as important to the climate, which the physicists tell us plainly they are not.

      Naturally, the IPCC apologists avoid quantifying the radiative and absorptive effects of any of the gases for fear of giving away the true player, water, which, magically, also provides tremendous cooling, even managing to release the extracted latent heat of evaporation high in the atmosphere, far above the high-density jumble of gases (think top of the troposphere – by about 12,000 metres the number of collisions is just 25% of those at ground level) and thus the radiated energy is more likely to reach space. Totally brilliant!

      The tropopause marks the end of water’s reign as radiative champion, as it has largely condensed to liquid or ice and fallen back down but then CH4 gets broken down into CO2 and H2O (the gases best at radiative energy transfer) that mop up whatever “surplus” energy remains.

  30. Ross on 01/02/2021 at 3:23 pm said:

    Thanks Brian,
    the peer review thing , particularly with climate related science is a deliberate political road block deliberately aimed at raising doubt among the general public. I am a bit of an Ed Berry fan re his preprint 3 and I know he has similar sentiments regarding peer reviews.

  31. Tricky Dicky on 02/04/2021 at 11:15 am said:

    For those interested, head over to https://notrickszone.com

    Seim and Olsen (2020) University of Oslo. Experimentally increasing CO2 from 0.04% to 100% leads to no observable warming. This follows the work of Wagoner et al (2010) “There is also no temperature difference detected when comparing CO2’s “heating” capacity to that of a non-greenhouse gas like Argon, as the temperature rose by approximately the same amount and at the same rate as for CO2 when 100% Argon was used.”

    Now, way back in my one remaining memory cell, I seem to remember the original UNIPCC mandate. Margaret Thatcher had set up the Hadley climate centre in an attempt to close down the UK coal mining industry. This was for no other reason than the miner’s unions had way too much power in the UK when it came to electricity generation – King Coal. By going on strike at the worst times, the middle of winter, they had almost brought the country to it’s knees and were seen as responsible for bringing down 2 different governments. So Maggie decided that they had to be closed down. When she set up the Hadley climate centre, it was based on the premise that CO2 warming was well proven by Tyndall, Arrhenius and Callendar, so that part needed no further investigation. It’s sole mandate was to find any and all “evidence” of CO2’s effect on climate. That was how she planned to close down coal mining and move all UK electricity generation to nuclear. That’s when the IPCC got involved with the Hadley centre and provided their original mandate that all member countries had to sign up to. “All climate change is man made. Any natural change is merely variation.” Those 2 simple sentences set man made climate change in stone and was the basis for all further IPCC investigations and, consequently, all organizations and countries that were signed up to the UN. That is why you can’t get any evidence for CO2 warming. It doesn’t need any further investigation because the IPCC has mandated it. What more evidence do you need. Can you imagine the fall out for all the world’s leading politicians, climate scientists, all the invisible bureaucrats and hidden puppet masters, social manipulators such as Bill Gates and Barack Obama. The machine that backs and funds these climate terrorists (the catch cry of terrorists world wide – do as we say or you will die) has grown almost to the point where it is unstoppable. Some research is now pointing to global cooling and we can already see the man made climate change machine gearing up to blame CO2 for that in the event it happens. After all, the IPCC mandate says “climate change” so they covered all bases with one catch all phrase.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation