Alright, yesterday I made the point that our antagonists, such as Watts and Monckton, get irate and nasty at us in personal correspondence. Monckton kindly showed up here and made a fool of himself proving the point.
Well, after Monckton’s disgusting behaviour here yesterday, and Carl’s post last night with my comments on it realizing that we face a real enemy who lies and infiltrates, this morning I lost my mind on Roy Spencer.
I’ll post the email transcript:
JO: “Come on then Roy, Spend just another 3 minutes of your precious time to educate this ‘hired shill’ into some examples of industrial uses of CO2 to delay cooling. <crickets>”
JP: “Go ahead Roy and write an article with examples from industry where CO2 is used to amplify heat.
Interesting that when the CO2 snow sublimates back into a gas, it doesn’t start suddenly heating the thing it was previously cooling…”
Roy Spencer: “I wouldn’t expect there to be any industrial applications…why use something so inefficient and impractical when there are much better and cheaper options available? CO2 absorption/emission effects on broadband IR are weak, and are only realized over great path lengths of air over which there exists a temperature gradient. I don’t know of any industrial need for such an effect that has such a mechanism of action.
This has been explained so many times over the years that you are either (1) being deliberately deceptive, or (2) are unable to grasp the concept. ”
And I lost it:
“You are an amazing sophist, liar, and fraud.
“CO2 absorption/emission effects on broadband IR are weak”
Have you ever seen a spectrum of terrestrial emissions? It has a GIANT notch in it where CO2 is absorbing LWIR. It’s GIANT. You sophist lying son of a bitch.
“are only realized over great path lengths of air over which there exists a temperature gradient”
In the Earth’s atmosphere it takes a long path length because the concentration is low! You lying sophist son of a bitch. If the concentration is high, such as inside an enclosure where CO2 ice is sublimating, or in any engineered system, the giant notch of absorption can occur within inches. There’s video’s on youtube showing this.
Absorption by CO2 has NOTHING to do with a requirement of the existence of a temperature gradient! Absorption is only realized where there is a temperature gradient!? You lying piece of shit.
“I don’t know of any industrial need for such an effect that has such a mechanism of action.”
You don’t know of an industrial need for amplifying heat. You don’t. You don’t see how that would be an industrial need…
With your buddy Monckton’s self-demolition on my blog yesterday, and this, you guys have totally exposed what you are.
You come on here accusing us of what you did. Well right back at you you lying, sophist, son of a bitch.
Go fuck yourself Roy, you god-damned sophist piece of shit. You people’s days of defending the fraud of climate alarm are soon coming to an end. You deserve no quarter and no respect in this matter any longer.
You fucking asshole.”
He accuses us of being deliberately deceptive, or stupid. And then he goes on to say that CO2 absorption of LWIR only occurs where there is a temperature gradient?! And that CO2 absorption of LWIR is weak?! And that there would be no industrial need for amplifying heat?
That is all quite stupid and incredibly deceptive…of HIM!
Look, we Slayers didn’t come into these people being mean-spirited or unkind or anything. We came in thinking that we would meet like-minded skeptics who had a desire for reason, logic, debunking bad science, and ending the fraud pseudoscience of climate alarm. We thought it would be a great time! We thought we would make lots of friends, because we were doing the same thing that they were (now we know: pretending) doing.
Instead we found that the biggest names in skepticism out there – Nova, Monckton, Watts, Spencer, Curry, etc – all started calling us names, questioning our motives and our intelligence, campaigning together to ruin our reputation, and using their media-presence to silence us. And it still continues. Look at Monckton’s melt-down yesterday, and look at Spencer’s outright fraudulent sophistry above.
My comments at the end of Carl’s article yesterday have been sitting heavy on me over night and this morning. In fact I was awake for all but 4 hours last night with it all on my mind.
We face an enemy that lies, infiltrates, pretends the opposite of what they are, and are truly evil and vile. Just look at what Monckton exposed of himself yesterday!
These people are not accidentally making an honest mistake of missing the point of what it makes sense to criticize in climate alarmism. They are quite purposefully not allowing the basis of climate alarm to be questioned. They are quite purposefully protecting climate alarm from true fundamental criticism. They have outright demonstrated publicly now that they are shills.
We came into this politely at the beginning, wanting to talk with like-minded skeptics. And this is how these people treated us. I am sick of being nice to them any longer.
They want to fight, call names, and belittle us? Alright, you want to fight that way? Then this is where it goes.
But look at how sneaky these people are. Look how they so expertly turn it around:
Spencer: “Instantaneous doubling of atmospheric CO2, even according to the IPCC, would reduce the rate or IR cooling at the top-of-atmosphere by only 1-2%.
At face value, that does not sound to me like it is “amazingly powerful”, a strawman you continually try to erect in front of us lukewarmers.
But, while it is not “amazingly powerful”, it is non-zero.
And, Joe, maybe the above factoid will clarify why I said the *broadband IR* CO2 effect is weak. Repeatedly calling me a “lying bastard” in your follow-up email makes me wonder what your motivations are in this debate.
But, keep it coming, folks…this could be great material for a blog post on the tactics, beliefs, and behaviors of the sky dragon slayers.”
You see how he so sophistically pretends that what he says now justifies what he said before? What you said before is still all bullshit and what you’re trying to say now is also bullshit.
And then when you stoop to their level, to their level of getting nasty, they are sch experts at now playing the victim. It is so disgusting.
As Lionel Griffith would have said, there is no debate to be had with these people. Although they pretend, they don’t actually wish for truth or reason or skepticism or finding better answers, etc. That’s not their purpose or goal. I had said long ago to the Slayers that it was and is a mistake to try to talk with these people, these “gatekeepers”, because for one it only makes them think that they’re important, and for two, it is quite pointless as their motives have become quite clear as to what role they’re actually playing. They’re quite clearly not who they pretend to be.
As from my comment at the end of Carl’s post…there is no debate to be had between these two forces. One seeks life and merit, the other seeks death and destruction. There’s no common ground. There is no valid compromise. The enemy will pretend to be what they are not until the last…they will keep up appearances as long as they can. What you have to do is to outflank the enemy.
JP: “Oh Roy stop with your pretenses. We all see what you are now. Do you not think that we see exactly what you’re doing?
You’re so pathetic to try and accuse us of “tactics and behaviours”, when it is your lot defending the basis of climate alarm while pretending to be skeptics, and having spent years trying to silence us and discredit us with nasty tactics.”
Anyway, you want to make a blog post about it Roy? Here it is.
Climate of Sophistry 
I wonder, Joe, will you allow me to post here now?
Depends if you say something that pisses me off.
Whatever you want to post, make sure it’s rational.
Well, given your propensity to find EVERYTHING I say irrational, it doesn’t sound too promising. You sure did get notice with your attacks on Monckton and Spencer. Not sure they are helpful to your cause, however.
One thing we can agree on, though: the assault on the poorest of the world by the false pursuit of CO2 limitation is vile and deadly.
I’m really not expecting nor care for help with my “cause”. It’s not coming from those shills in the first place, nor those who follow them without having the independence of thought to consider whether cold can heat hot.
I don’t care if it makes a difference. They (as shills) don’t want to actually debate or learn anything or be logical, so whatever is discussed with them is not the goal. Engaging with them serves another purpose entirely, and the stakes are not at all about whether they will allow what they’re hiding to be exposed. We know what they’re hiding and why they’re hiding it, and that they won’t stop.
Jo, you will not help your cause unless you explain your thoughts and feelings more clearly. I tried reading your article but it so much lacked logical progress and clarity I could not understand any of the points you were trying to make. You obviously feel very strongly but itmay have been best to wait for your anger and frustration to subside in order to explain yourself more clearly. You have the passion and Spencer et al have superior communication skills. You need to get your acts together.
John this has gone well past being civil with these shills. What they’re doing is not civil at the outset.
Just look at what Spencer said, and if you don’t have the science training to see why it is so sophistical and obfuscatory, then read through my comments past what you don’t like to see why it is.
This has been going on for years, and what Spencer et al say to defend the greenhouse effect has been debunked many, many times. Their strategy is to simply continue their sophistic shilling while demanding us to be polite to them while they ridicule and sideline us.
Read this article if you would line a new one:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/08/11/how-a-magnifying-glass-debunked-climate-alarm/
Joe, we all know what the motivation of the alarmists is. What do you think is the the motivation of lukewarmers Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer, and many others? It seems clear to me that they are not lying, and believe what they say. I think your science is almost certainly correct, and theirs isn’t. However for lukewarmers to offend alarmists is clearly a very bad career-move, so why would they do it willingly, unless they believed their science?
I strongly suspect the slayers would have far more influence than they (we) have because of the grossly intemperate remarks and ad-hominems you and others frequently make.
For goodness sake, stop the name-calling. If you want to violently disagree with someone, pick on the alarmists, but be professional!
And please give us your opinion of why lukewarmers would tell lies. I am baffled why you think that.
I have an engineering degree (granted when engineering was taught properly) and 50 years of experience, so my opinion has a good deal of practical science behind it. Most engineers I know (those who do not rely on government contracts) are sceptics or slayers, if they read anything beyond the mainstream media.
John I’ll reply here and at your other comment the same thing:
I can only conclude that they’re shills. From the Monckton post in the comments you will see that he himself did work researching the greenhouse effect and found that it couldn’t be detected. That was in 2007 and was one of the reasons way back then that I became interested in the foundation of climate alarm, which is its conception of a radiative greenhouse effect. His work leads exactly to doing this. What has changed the direction of his research since then and why can he not admit the possibility of what his own work shows? If a cause is supposed to have an effect and the effect which should be measurable can not be measured, then there’s something wrong with the idea of the cause. This could not be simpler and more proper and logical and honest.
Then in the recent Watts post you will see how Watts himself and a friend of his did some experimentation which quite directly proved the position of the Slayers, but they just pretended it didn’t by doing the “convenient” thing of not actually quantifying their results and thus concluding what they simply desired to instead.
So what are we dealing with? Yes this has been a question of mine for years. Stupidity, or shilling? Stupidity, or gatekeeping? Stupidity, or playing for the other side?
At some point it simply becomes both and at further points the righteous thing to do IS to attack. They’ve shown that they’re duplicitous, that they’re dishonest, that they won’t have a debate about it, that they won’t consider it, and that they will ignore and hide their own work about it.
We’re not dealing with honorable people who deserve to be spoken to respectfully. These are not respectful people. These are not respectable people. They’re not doing scientifically or socially respectable things.
These are very bad people, whether they are stupid or they are shills. What they’re doing is quite dishonorable and they’re doing it right out in the wide open, and it has been documented, and it has been publicized, and we’ve continually been asked to be nice to them about it while they keep on doing it, as if we are the ones who are supposed to maintain some form of decorum when they are shitting all over what this process is actually supposed to be.
It’s not the alarmists who are the problem anymore. It is the (shill?) gatekeepers who won’t allow the precise fundamental type of criticism to occur which would destroy the fraud pseudoscience of alarmism at its very base. As long as the alarmist conception of the GHE exists they (alarmists) have a leg to stand on, and all the debates about sensitivity and all the other minutia only drags on and achieves nothing and worst of all gives legitimacy to the pseudoscience by treating it as if it is science. You destroy the base, their greenhouse effect, and you destroy the entire thing…and it can be destroyed because it is wrong. And Watts and Monckton have both helped show experimentally that it is wrong. So who’s paying them or what is motivating them to stop it all from getting out? Is it as simple as that they would both no longer have a following, or possibly even work, if climate alarm was finally shut down for good? They get quite a bit of attention as long as the debate continues. They get on TV, on radio, they get paid for it various ways, etc etc. Is it that? It can’t be answered but it certainly can be concluded that they’re not helping, and in fact, that they are hindering actual rationalism and scientific analysis from occurring.
So yes, I’m righteously indignant about it. When you realize what you’re actually facing, and what will never happen, then there comes a time when the only action is “force” (i.e. getting angry as I did about it), because you know that the “enemy” is merely seeking to destroy you and will never actually engage you on it rationally – and they have certainly spent a lot of time trying to silence and destroy us, and that was their response immediately at the beginning of this.
But in any case, these people being what they are and what their education level actually is…the only matter is that they have a following. It was a mistake to ever engage with them and once we realized that long ago we should have committed to not engaging them anymore at all. They’re not referees of or for science or remotely capable of that, and hardly anyone is. Why talk to these nobodies about it? Only because it seemed like it would be fun making friends who had a following who were doing the same research getting to the same final conclusions. Their motives were not in that ball park and perhaps they were worried of losing their following, or *whatever*.
Spencer et al will not be able to give industrial examples of ‘heat amplification’, or any other naturally occurring ‘over-unity’ energy transfers. That’s why nobody goes to the bother of putting CO2 in double glazing cavities.
I have no strong feelings about any of these guys despite their attacking me some years ago. I prefer to just keep challenging them until they can provide some explanation of the “greenhouse effect” which does not RELY TOTALLY on the transfer of heat from cold to hot – something proven totally false centuries ago and never disproved !
Back in the time when the “Steel Greenhouse” discussion was on WUWT Roy Spencer sent me an email with an Excel Spreadsheet containing a set of 4 equations which produced a graph that over time showed how the “Steel Greenhouse” effect actually doubled the output from the “shielded” sphere thus increasing the temperature – thus proving the “steel greenhouse effect”.
These equations were cited as being derived from meteorology and used daily.
Just 2 problems with these so called “proofs” of the beloved “greenhouse effect”.
Firstly, the 2 equations presented that showed how the temperature of the sphere and the shell increased over time are dimensionally inconsistent – HENCE NOT AN EQUATION AT ALL !
Secondly, the equation that allegedly shows how the back radiation from the shell is raising the temperature of the sphere is clearly advocating the transfer of heat from cold to hot ! This is indisputable – the equation adds the “heat” from the colder object.
I believe these are simply nothing more than a construction to show a desired result and thus perhaps Joe’s use of the word “sophist” is truly justified.
“It seems clear to me that they are not lying, and believe what they say.”
John, I think that the explanation of the Steel Greenhouse forwarded to me was a deliberate attempt at deceit – nothing else explains such a constructed justification.
Do they really believe a block of minus 18 C material in deep space will heat up to over 30 degrees C simply because some one fits a radiation shield ? I hope not.
Tom-
“Heat loss through windows can be reduced using double glazing. The gap between the two panes of glass is filled with air. Heat loss through conduction is reduced, as air is a poor conductor of heat”
Could it be that If you filled the cavity with co2 you might actually get more heat loss? Would like to see that experiment tried out.
I wonder if this clown (Roy Spencer) is aware that CO2 is one of the world’s most widely used industrial COOLANT! … http://www.carnotrefrigeration.com/en/refrigeration/co2-cooling-system
Richard:
I am virtually certain you would. Just do a little research on the use of CO2 as a coolant and you will understand why. Most double glazed windows are injected not with air, but with argon. Again, do a little research and you will understand why argon is used.
Within the last few weeks, Dr. Spencer has “lost it”. I have been following his blog for years, but have never seen him act so irrationally. He has posted a series of articles filled with inaccuracies. He is rabidly deleting skeptic comments and banning commenters. Maybe something is happening in his life.
Joseph, maybe it would be good just to do a post on each one, of his most recent ramblings, that claims to “prove” the GHE. Let us have a chance to shoot holes through his sophistry.
For example, Dr. Spencer wrote: “Now, the downwelling IR flux (the dashed line in Fig. 2, above) is what a few of our friends claim does not exist. They claim that there is no “greenhouse effect”, and that the sky (which is almost always colder than the surface) cannot emit IR in the direction of the surface because that would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
There are several “inaccuracies” in the above quote. First, I know of NO skeptic that claims downwelling IR (DWIR) does not exist. Of course DWIR exists! But, the existence of DWIR does NOT prove the GHE! Several different commenters, several different times, have explained this to Dr. Spencer, yet he continues to wrap himself in such sophistry.
Yes Geran for sure, will be writing an article debunking those two articles of Roy’s.
A typical example of Spencer’s pseudoscience: “The fact that you can see the direct effects of the atmospheric greenhouse effect with even a $50 handheld IR thermometer provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect exists.”
People have explained to him how a handheld IR thermometer works, yet he continues to “believe” that the device “proves” the GHE.
He “can’t”, or “won’t”, understand the actual science. I’m increasingly beginning to understand it is “won’t”.
Yep well it is as you say: they invent a false position which we do not take, and they have a standard for detection which is not at all sufficient.
it was one of the Pri Sci I guys who caught Spencer – A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE: OPENLY PUBLISHING that
G A R B A G E
refuted by the MANUFACTURER of the INSTRUMENT he CLAIMED to be DOING it WITH
in an official release they posted up at their site detailing how – the very frequencies Spencer claimed to be measuring – ARE INTENTIONALLY NOTCHED OUT OF THE INSTRUMENT.
He’s still over there with it up as though it’s not formally forbidden by law to publish FRAUDULENT SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS. He should be – he IS guilty of – FELONY CONSPIRACY to SPEND FUNDS
PUBLISHING FRAUD.
It’s like POST CIVIL WAR ERA LAWS in the USA, when the graft was just incredible. Lawyers hammered that stuff into some of the most exacting law on the PLANET. It was used to convict SO many PEOPLE.
And he’s got it up there AS DOES GAVIN SCHMIDT have up all that FRAUD, about adding refractory media to a f***g cold light blocking bath, making more light, come out as less light gets in.
People resent being told it’s fraud that plain and simple. It’s the claim, that adding refractory media to a cold, compressed fluid bath, such that less light reaches it – will make more light come out of it.
This is fraud so in your face that until you see us in here viciously ripping one of the scamming government employees apart and cursing their very f*****g names, for being simply and purely frauds: it’s F.R.A.U.D. to CLAIM it’s POSSIBLE to MAKE MORE LIGHT COME OUT OF AN OBJECT by placing REFRACTORY MATERIAL between the SOURCE and object ILLUMINATED.
There is NO such THING as an OBJECT which REFRACTS yet RAISES SURFACE ENERGY DENSITY BEHIND that. THIS is PATENTLY and OBVIOUSLY PURE IMPOSSIBILITY.
The VERY CLAIM: that they REPRESENT an EVER THICKENING BLANKET as MORE are PUT into the AIR is the VERY ATTEMPT at REFUTATION of the ANCIENT SAFETY NOTION of FIRE BLANKETS between PERSONS and PROPERTY and OPEN FLAME FACES.
FIRE BLANKETS.
As you add MORE INSULATING REFRACTORY BLANKET
less LIGHT gets to your barbecue becoming-avoidance enhanced, @*$.
IT is the CLAIM
it is POSSIBLE
to put INSULATION
between a FIRE and object behind that insulation
and make MORE LIGHT COME OUT
than when MORE LIGHT was GOING IN.
YeS
it
IS.
YeS
it
IS.
And – guess how many degrees of this here magic heeturfyin thay GOT, down to thuh GUBMUNT signts playse? 33 degrees, and GUESS WHAT? That’s the IDENTICAL 33 DEGREES WARMING
YOU GET WHEN YOU DO THE MATH RIGHT for COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS
and DO ALL the MATHEMATICS for SOLVING TEMPERATURE of a GAS.
WHAT a COINCIDENCE, HuH?
Many years ago James Hansen was looking for some way to get grants and he needed a contrarian position so he started applying for grants using government computers that were around, – HE’S ON VIDEO EXPLAINING IT H.I.M.S.E.L.F. somewhere – and he said his logic is that since they were sitting there they might as well be counting something even if his work was bogus, they might ‘discover’ something that way – and he OMITS THE HYDROSTATIC or COMPRESSION CALCULATION from SOLVING ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE.
WHEN you DO STANDARD GAS EQUATIONS giving the world what’s known as the ‘Standard Atmosphere’ – THE TEMPERATURE COMES OUT RIGHT ON the NOSE.
GUESS WHAT? iN THE CASE of the VENUSIAN ATMOSPHERE CLAIMED to have a ‘RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT’ ?
wHEN you DO the MATH RIGHT, the TEMPERATURE COMES RIGHT ON THE MONEY and when you
CHECK THESE GHG CLAIMANTS’ MATHEMATICS, WHAT do you ALWAYS FIND THEM TO HAVE DONE?
CLAIM to have SOLVED TEMPERATURE of COMPRESSIBLE FLUIDS by REFUSING to DO the COMPRESSION EQUATION : NO COMPRESSION – no DENSITY (density ‘s set by several things, gravity and the quantity of gas in suspension mainly, it doesn’t get much simpler than how many you vaporize into an atmosphere to self-stack, as per classical mechanics, in however much gravity)
-no density – and you’re not doing the right mathematics for the phase of matter that has it’s own law of thermodynamics. Not maybe. Not sometimes. That’s how it is; and whenever someone takes them apart, they always say they DON’T FIND the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS for SOLVING ATMOSPHERIC EQUATIONS; and it’s off to ”WELL WE HAVE ANOTHER WAY.”
No, they don’t. It’s a SCAM formulated early on, primarily, by James Hansen. Hansen was a scammer from WAY BACK: and was DESPISED at N.A.S.A. for being NOTHING MORE and NOTHING LESS than a SCAMMER: a COMPUTER SCAMMER.
Go look it up: 33 degrees of compression warming when you do the proper mathematics to solve for the atmospheric equations that give the world, the REGULATORY ‘STANDARD ATMOSPHERE’ that governs every single thing in this global economy from rocket engines and their equipment to your wood stove. They’re GOVERNED by those EQUATIONS.
Scammers claim they don’t have to do those equations and can solve for the temperature of the atmosphere using only the radiant equations of a NON VARIABLE DENSITY PHASE of MATTER.
THIS
is
PATENTLY and OBVIOUSLY on first LOOK: I.M.P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E.
I heard about it the first time, when I heard Hansen’s boss on a telephone interview recorded by N.P.R. (National Public Radio) when Hansen was appointed head of G.I.S.S. When N.P.R. sent people to G.I.S.S. to ask about Hansen they all said he was a scammer and no one would be recorded talking about him because they said he was evil, and that he was a fraud and a liar.
Then another reporter came on and explained he was talking to Hansen’s old supervisor who repeatedly outright said Hansen was committing computer programming fraud by claiming to be calculating the temperature of the planet but not using the law of thermodynamics for doing so, but rather, leaving out the compression part of the equations. And he said that ANYONE TAKING APART HANSENS’ and his ”COMPUTER PROGRAMMER FRIENDS’ work would see they SOLVED for TEMPERATURE LEAVING OUT the COMPRESSION MATHEMATICS and that it would be FOUND OUT
that the COMPRESSION WARMING of the ATMOSPHERE
MATCHES HANSEN’S (et al) CLAIM of there being something called a ”GREEN HOUSE EFFECT.”
He also said that the FORMULA for the REAL LAW is PV = nRT and that the R meant a specific energy assigned EVERY SINGLE GAS in ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE CALCULATIONS and that they are all identical: Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Methane, CO2: and he FURTHER said that even if a person did insist on doing the calculation for global temperature WRONG and going ahead and using the individual gases’ specific energies, it would be seen quickly that the energy in CO2 is LOWER than in standard atmospheric air mix overall, and that CO2 LOWERS the temperature of a volume of atmospheric air.
The reporter in the N.P.R. interview said he was a journalism major and had minimum college chemistry and that it didn’t sound like anything real to him: that the fraction of CO2 doesn’t change the temperature of the mix? He said it didn’t sound right to him. With that Nina Totenberg wound up the show.
I heard this on N.P.R. when I was in school to be a radiation communications electronic engineer and was going to be applying to NASA over at Houston and thought at the time I heard it, that Hansen worked at some office in Houston; I was about 25. I found that whole thing very curious and considering I was looking at graduating and VERY likely going to Houston or Florida to work for NASA before it was over, I was keen to remember what the guy had said.
He had a big booming voice and the entire interview was on a telephone. The journalist seemed to take a lot of glee in criticizing the ex-Supervisor at NASA and openly scoffed, saying that ”Hansen said the guy was developing dementia” and that ”maybe that was true.”
Oh – anyway Hansen was about to testify before the Senate or whomever and he told NPR that ”he couldn’t take time off from his research to talk to NPR because it was too urgent, and he had to present a report to Congress (about six months or whatever up the road when he testified)
so Nina Totenberg said ‘So we looked around for whatever footage we have about Dr Hansen and his ‘critical’ work, and here’s what we came up with: we’ll let you, the listeners, form your own opinion.”
And with that, the show opened with Nina Totenberg saying hello to the young lady, who was 25 years old herself, and she said she was a science major at some local college, and had been asked by NPR to go over and talk to Dr Hansen’s associates, since he was about to be promoted to be head, of G.I.S.S. which is a HUGE organization. And that was when SHE said that everyone, was very polite to her, and they all had on white shirts and crew cuts and glasses and ties, and they all rushed, (she laughed repeatedly about this) to open doors, offer her coffee, whatever she wanted, talk about their work – but when it came to James Hansen, she said they ”ALL CLAMMED UP and STOPPED TALKING and wouldn’t tell me anything except that he was – a fraud.”
Not a faker,
Not an embellesher,
she said
they all said
James Hansen was a FRAUD; that his WORK was FRAUDULENT and that he punched fake numbers into computers about the climate and that was all they would say.
Someone
Somewhere
HAS A COPY of THOSE TWO INTERVIEWS on THAT show on N.P.R. sometime before James Hansen and Mann lied to congress.
There is other footage on video of that SAME MAN taking Hansen to task in front of a chalk board about his fraudulent research grant scam, with the green house effect being fabricated by not doing the compression mathematics of solving atmospheric temperature.
Peace on you real scientists. Every single lying scamming fraud who says they think that tripe could even be real, should be scorned to shame like people who bellied up to the bar and pulled that ”pot is like heroin CHEMISTRY SCAM the DEMOCRATS FOISTED on the WORLD.
*Oh – and the guy who had been Hansen’s boss also included the standard, well known caveat regarding all the gases having identical energy in solving atmospheric temperature – that there’s one exception to that and it’s water; due not to any light handling but it’s energy handling capability due to the hydrogen atoms involved. I was reading through, and see the hung grammar and all, but I thought I should include that part. The guy mentioned it, I just didn’t type it when I wrote the post -sorry
Haha! You’re actually quite tame Jo. You should watch the Howard Stern movie. There is a wonderful bit in the supposedly autobiographical story where he’s in trouble for being controversial on the radio and losing them advertising. When told he needs to tone himself down, he has a revelation. No he says, “I need to be more! Much more!” He goes back in with a porn star, locks the door so no one can get in and does a show about her deep throating giant objects with swear words every second sentence. At first advertisers are jamming the phones pulling their ads, but then they are replaced with new ones, MORE of them!
It was the same thing with Trump. People care much less about civility than they care about truth. Don’t back down. Go even harder! Be MORE abusive, not less. Some people DESERVE abuse. How else will justice be served? When you back up verbal personal attacks with facts and evidence of why they deserve to receive it, it’s not an adhomenim attack, it’s an evidence based attack on their character and competence.
Personally, I do it all the time to Greenhouse Effect con artists. They get respect from me until they start lying and deceiving. Then they get called out with a litany of abuse and ridicule. It’s really the only way to deal with them.
Yes good point! Let’s just trash these idiots relentlessly.