Would You Like Random News & Brief Commentary?

For the small number of people following this blog, would you like it if I posted random news stuff I come across (not necessarily or generally related to climate alarm stuff) that irks or interests me so, and that I would give a brief comment?

Advertisements
Gallery | This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Would You Like Random News & Brief Commentary?

  1. johnosullivan says:

    Probably a smart way forward, Joe. As they say: “publish or die!”

  2. Augie Pitrolo says:

    Great idea.

  3. Tom (Not Tom of Oregon) says:

    I’d support that Joe. I still think you need to be on Twitter, debunking preening fake scientists. I had a day long ding-dong with Prof Mike Merrifield (Univ of Nottingham). He pulled the old “explain why Venus is so hot if there’s no atmospheric radiative GHE”. I did. He blocked me.

  4. Lol. Nice. Those poor idiots.

  5. arfurbryant says:

    Go for it, Joe, but please don’t stop posting on the cage scam…

    Arfur Bryant

  6. Thomas S. Drolet (Tom) says:

    Yes, great idea re auto update and comments. I give presentations as a truth seeker on AGW/CC or whatever moniker the Elites and IPCC wish to call it tomorrow. Tom Drolet

  7. mez123uk says:

    These are interesting times, comment away

  8. David Graham Wood says:

    Good idea.
    I can’t get over how many supposedly smart people, even those with a scientific background, continue to believe in the model with a flat earth, cold sun, non rotating earth, no difference between day and night , no seasons and a uniform temperature across the whole planet, and accept that heat can flow from a cold body to a nearby hot body.
    Eventually sense will prevail, probably when it becomes obvious that the earth is cooling and that the 20th century warm period was simply the latest in a descending series of highs starting thousands of years ago and including the Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods.
    David Wood

  9. Truth…but such actual geologic knowledge isn’t actually taught anymore. If anything climate science should be working on the ice age question and why this warm period interglacial has lasted so long. That would be useful science. Instead they are chasing this fraud. It’s almost like someone doesn’t want us to know what is most important right now about our current climate.

  10. russ410 says:

    I’d be very interested in receiving “random news stuff” from you. Thanks for offering, Joe.
    Russ

  11. John Turner says:

    It is important to continue to develop the reputation of this blog as one that uses quality physics to counter the pseudoscience of AGW/CC alarmism. Topics for future articles could include (1) an expose of the errors in the physics used by the alarmists to predict the supposed temperature change from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The aim being to highlight the absurdity of the Paris agreement to limit global temps to under 1.8 deg. (2) an analysis of the data used by Arrhenius to calculate how different concentrations of CO2 would affect global temps (3) the latest data findings from satellites monitoring the Sun; discovery of sound waves in the Sun and how solar seismology is used to determine the rotation rates of the Sun’s internal zones, the implication for changes in the solar magnetic fields and the connection to cosmic rays, cloud formation and a true explanation of climate change. Keep up the good work Joe.

  12. I would prefer you to start a separate blog for that, or simply a Facebook account that I could like and share posts I agreed with. I would happily subscribe to another blog of yours.
    I would like more regular debunkings of the Luke warmers and more posts on the physics, even if you repeat yourself a lot. At the moment I’m looking at Monkton showing an electrical circuit that he claims increases current “in the same way back radiation increases temperature”. It’s another sophists trick, but as I’m not well versed on electrical circuitry, I could use a post from you to take it apart and increase my understanding.

  13. Ray says:

    Yes Joe that would be brilliant! Keep up the great work bw Ray

  14. markstoval says:

    I think that is a great idea. The more posts the better — as the comments sometimes are very enlightening and you never know where the thread might go. I may have learned more thermodynamics at this blog (and in comments) than at university.

    By the way, we may be small in number but we are fun!

  15. “Monkton showing an electrical circuit that he claims increases current “in the same way back radiation increases temperature””

    What is it with these idiots that are forced to resort to “argument by analogy”. Don’t they realize that since they cannot make a direct argument using the definitions of heat, energy, and temperature, and are always instead making arguments by analogy, that they expose themselves for shills and sophists? Good lord these people. Is electrical current the same thing as heat!? Idiots!

    If you try to force these people to use the definition of heat itself, they run from it like the wind. You will never, ever, witness one of these frauds using the actual definition of heat to explain backradiation heating. (You will see them try to redefine heat, though!)

    -Heat is that form of energy which passes from hot to cold, causing the colder thing to increase in temperature-

    That’s the definition of heat, now use it to explain how the cold atmosphere sends heat to and increases the temperature of the warmer surface. Answer: It's impossible to use that definition to support backradiation heating. Therefore their strategy is to argue by analogy, and to try to redefine heat. God these people are sick.

    You don't need to be versed in electrical circuitry. You can't win their arguments on the terms that they create, since they purposefully create sophistical terms and are certainly NOT interested in being educated as to why their stupid analogies are wrong. These are vile, sick people, who lie as a matter of breathing.

  16. The logical fallacy of false analogy.

  17. Thomas S. Drolet (Tom) says:

    Yes please Joe. Follow your material faithfully. Need all the detail available to turn this “Ship of the Earth” around to some science for a change. Tom Drolet

  18. geran says:

    Go for it Joseph!

    The more readers, the more folks will be exposed to little known facts like “cold cannot warm hot”!

  19. squid2112 says:

    Yes Indeed! … that would be marvelous!

    – Squid

  20. Mark says:

    Hi Joe. I think that is a great idea. The climate alarm scenario is irrevocably linked to a bigger picture, so a discussion of the bigger picture would be appropriate, Thanks

  21. ricksanchez769 says:

    I would read !

  22. Bostjan says:

    Ok with me, go for it!

  23. ed riffle says:

    Yes please comment. There are very few reasoned comments on this subject. Thsnks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s