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?

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

38 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.

  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

  24. Allen Eltor says:

    The claim back radiation represents slowed loss is real, it’s the energy in the boiling water of a pot. That still doesn’t make the boiling water, make the pan hotter. The pan would be hotter without the water.

    The problem with the claim green house gases can warm the earth comes from the claim their presence can do anything but cool it since they stop sunlight from arriving that otherwise would, and then they conductively scrub off what arrives.

    When you have a resister and you’re passing a watt of energy through it, and it’s temperature is say, 50F – the only reason it’s 50F and not 26F is because of the energy around it – in other words radiation slows radiation escaping whatever it’s hitting.

    But the atmosphere is a bath of cold fluids,

    into which a suspension of refractive insulation has taken place.

    When insulation appears between a rock and fire, and less light reaches the rock,

    more light can’t then leave.

    When less light reaches the rock, less light must leave that rock.

    That’s the same thing as going out in your yard, and finding a rock laying in the yard.

    Same sun, same fuckin’ rock, no fuckin’ analogy. If you suspend insulation that refracts firelight -sunlight – away from that rock so the firelight never hits it, that’s cooling.

    The Green House Gases are the SOLE FAMILY of GASES which even make lists of SUNLIGHT to SURFACE REDUCING entities.

    In other words when you go look at ANY chart of sunlight top-of-atmosphere vs sea level,

    There’s ONE CLASS of GASES responsible, for creating any significant losses due to light simply never arriving, because the gases acted as – well, a shading, insulating blanket around the earth.

    Just like a fireman’s heavy refractive or refractory canvas coat. The insulating blanket is there between the fire and the sensor on the guy’s shirt, to make the temperature lower, behind the insulation.

    When you admit it’s even possible for the atmosphere to warm the earth any, you’ve committed unforgivable thermodynamical error and y.o.u. will not E.V.E.R. recover.

    Even the premise that ANY of the atmosphere warms the earth ANY is FALSEHOOD.


    ROCK in vacuum
    FIRE in vacuum – that’s one mode energy into the rock, one mode out. Radiant.

    When you add the Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere they’re both thermally conductive and actually they both refract away some sunlight. Particularly oxygen creates our well known blue-sky daylight conditions scattering of light from the sun such that – part never arrives.

    That alone is cooling. There’s no such thing as scattering light to the rock so less gets there, and more coming out. If less arrives then by definition less leaves.

    Not maybe
    Not Thursday,
    Not when the Chairman jiggles the Yuan so he can pick up that sexy property by the harbor the Capitalists are falling all over themselves about,
    Not Ever.

    The cold turbulent bath of compressible fluids then has refractive green house gases added –

    such that 1% sunlight to surface is reduced – this is 1% reduction in temperature off the top. Regardless of the conduction removal and subsequent parallel radiation to space with the surface

    then when there are enough green house gases such that 5% sunlight is refracted to space – this is additional 4% (for total 5%) removal of energy arriving at the surface. Surface energy density reduction.

    Surface energy density reduction of 5% is a 5% temperature reduction off the top.

    By 10%
    then 15%,
    and now the 20% sunlight not reaching the planet due to green house gases today,

    comprise a total 20% surface energy density reduction, and that’s all there’s ever going to be to it.

    20% less light reaching a firelight warmed rock,
    is a MINIMUM 20% reduction of the temperature of the rock,

    and suspension of sufficient green house gases in the overall bath to refract away 21% sunlight,

    is further REDUCTION of LIGHT reaching the LIGHT WARMED ROCK.

    Anybody who says otherwise is automatically done: it’s violation of thermodynamic law to claim insulation making less light reach a rock, causes more to leave.

    Anybody claiming otherwise needs to see me directly I will be found and able to respond I am sure. If not I can send an 11 year old to beat that therm-0-billy hick’s ass down without a problem.

    This is not complicated, it’s a temperature inversion scam.

    A cold bath can not create warming of a rock that would be in vacuum if not for the bath.

    Suspension of ever more refractive insulating media in the bath
    such that less and less light reaches the
    light warmed rock,
    can not make more and more light leave it.

  25. Allen Eltor says:

    LoL I just threw that in there because every time I think or see climate I go into that same speech sorry guys.
    Joe you should do what you can to create a larger readership for yourself, pretty much however you can do it.
    Basically you’re forced to either just pick stuff at random or do hit pieces on various hacks and hicks related to climate if you use climate.
    You should definitely enlarge your audience Joe.

    One thing my mother could do was draw and convince a crowd Joe, and due to being dragged around by the hand by her, I learned a little bit about drawing one myself; and you can’t draw a crowd, tailoring yourself to the .5% of adult males who are interested in radiation mechanics.

    We all want to be a big news prophet with the real, deep seated truths, but that shit that happened to Mahatmas Ghandi and the Jesus Christ cat alleged to have gotten whacked by the Jews for smart assing them- it’s dangerous shit. BUT: no big message ever gets out if all you talk to are the people who can hang with you.
    It’s like a guy who designs some kind of far out fishing lure, based on pheromones, and vibration, and all kinds of lifelight shit –
    but he’s gotta make a living so a thousand times a day, he has to shut up about that and just get a guy and his two kids, a cup of worms.

    And right now the iron’s kinda hot, because Trump got elected here, so people are gonna be able to make their speeches and get listened to for a few years, but – hey we already had our fuckin’ shot, younger people, who don’t know any of our fugglin names, are gonna win this war.

    All we did was stand on the outskirts of town and throw rocks and fire a few shots at a HUGE army of frauds such as Anthony Watts, with his 25 years of TV media experience, squealing it was true like a true, fraud barking professional.

    Joanne Nova: barking the fraud’s REAL YaW, it’s REAL! We got the bullshit to PROVE it’s real!

    Professional journalists vs professional anyone else: the journalists win and in this case,

    they were barking the fraud’s real!

    Your time to expand the assurances in everyone’s mind that the fraud is just that is open for awhile, but as you’ve seen, nobody cares what astrophysicists and electronic engineers talk about because whether it’s true is BESIDE the POINT: IF A KID CAN’T HUMILIATE his TEACHER WITH IT


    you’ll have gotten somewhere.

    the WAR has been WON and the FRAUDS WON it.

  26. Claudius Denk says:

    If you point an IR detector at a cloud it indicates an IR signature. We know this has nothing to do with CO2. It has to do with H2O. Specifically, it is attributable to the fact that H2O has a large heat capacity. But what does that mean? Or, why is that the case? If you look you will find that it has been attributed to being one of H2O’s numerous anomalies. But that is not an explanation. That is to label it and dismiss it. There is a genuine mystery here. You could spend all your time trying to convince people that it isn’t CO2. Or you could spend your time trying to figure out and explain why it is H2O. I suppose it depends on whether you wish to spend your time and effort being an anti-propagandist or an investigative scientist. It is your choice.

  27. Tom (Not Tom in Oregon) says:

    In what units does your IR detector return a reading? How does your IR detector know the emissivity of what it thinks it’s pointing at?

    Do you get the relationship between T and emissivity? Not hostile, just asking. Thanks for discussing.

  28. Tom (Not Tom in Oregon) says:

    Hey Joe,

    Any idea why all my comments end up in moderation? Could you untick me, or whatever, under any email addresses I might have used (without listing them, obv). Ta.

  29. This last one didn’t. If you used a new handle or email then it would go into moderation first. But this one didn’t so should be fine now.

  30. Claudius Denk says:

    Do you get the relationship between T and emissivity?

    Off the top of my head, no. And I don’t feel I need to know either. Moreover, if I did feel I needed to know it I would do a few Google searches and then I would know.

    We know that H2O has an enormous capacity to absorb heat. We know that as it evaporates and rises in the atmosphere it releases this heat gradually, as is evident when we point IR detectors at clouds, resulting in the moderate temperatures we have here on our planet. We know that this huge heat capacity is unique to H2O. Yet one cannot do a few Google searches and arrive at an understanding of how or why H2O has a huge heat capacity. Such is the case with many of H2O’s anomalies. We know they are there. We can measure them. Yet nobody can explain the underlying how or why.

  31. Tom (Not Tom in Oregon) says:

    @Claudius Denk “Off the top of my head, no. And I don’t feel I need to know either”.


    If CO2, or any other radiative “GHG” is added to air, does the emissivity of that air:

    a. Stay the same.
    b. Increase.
    c. Decrease.

  32. Tom (Not Tom in Oregon) says:

    Joe – I’m in moderation again …

  33. Not sure why it’s off and on. I’ll look at it next time I can login via PC browser.

  34. Claudius Denk says:

    Have you any thoughts on the subject I brought up?

  35. @Tom – stop putting “Oregon” in your nickname.

  36. I have read the explanations about H2O’s heat capacity and latent heat phases etc. Just don’t recall the details, or where I read it. Something to do with the tri-molecular bonds and the electron cloud around them…not that that explains anything right here.

  37. Claudius Denk says:

    Since it, H2O, is a subject that is relevant to heat flow in the atmosphere and since it is a subject that you don’t have a comprehensive understanding then maybe this would be an interesting subject to discuss as opposed to CO2 which seems to be well understood to not have much relevance to heat flow in the atmosphere. Also, consider that if conventional theory was so off-base about CO2 that maybe this indicates more fundamental confusion with H2O. IOW, maybe they screwed that up too. And, if so, maybe there is something to be discovered. You say, “I don’t recall the details or where I read it.” If it was well understood and well documented it wouldn’t matter since there would be many websites that would reflect that well understood and well documented understanding. Maybe the fact that such information is not readily available indicates that there is a discovery waiting to be made.

  38. I’ve made the mistake of not ticking the “send me notifications” button after making a comment, and as I’ve been ploughing through dozens of posts on here for the last few weeks, I don’t know which post I linked Monkton’s latest “proof” on.
    It is however central to his claim of quantifying the smaller “feedback mechanism” that he has supplied some intricate mathematics on and “unequivocally proving” that increases in CO2 must be much smaller than the Alarmists models (which use the same formulas).
    On one of your posts you provided the equivalent terms for energy transfer from mechanical, electrical and thermal physics. The electrical diagram from Monkton attached a wire looping back to the beginning of the cucuit with a resistor I believe, but it was a very basic diagram.
    He’s going around everywhere at the moment bragging about his “amazing discovery” and trying to get his paper peer reviewed and published in a major mathematics journal, so if you come across it, I still think it would be worth giving it some quick and brutal direct attention.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s