Following from my last post on the purpose of climate alarm, a commentator added this extremely important summary of the history and mechanics of the alarmist campaign:
A POLITICAL PYRAMID MARKETING CAMPAIGN
The global “climate change” pyramid marketing campaign is a political scheme devised by Maurice Strong, a Canadian millionaire with (self-admitted) communist ambitions for world government. Strong used his position with the UN Environment Program (UNEP) to set up the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) to promote his advocacy, recognising that there was a majority of potential supplicant nations in the UN who would favour receiving multi-billion dollar funding from the smaller number of “rich” nations. He also recognised that those affluent nations would prefer to avoid alienating the potential beneficiary nations. The UN FCCC formalised Strong’s campaign as international obligations with the “precautionary principle” deliberately excluding the possibility of beneficial impacts.
HOW IT ALL BEGAN
Strong integrated the “greenhouse gas warming” theory proposed in 1896 by Swedish chemist Arrhenius into the UN Climate Change Convention wording as if it was a proven scientific climate-relevant fact. While many years and millions of dollars have been spent attempting to verify the UN FCCC “greenhouse gas warming” assumption, it has never been proven as scientifically credible despite confident assertions by vested interest “consensus” academics and lobby groups. Advocacy groups have invented alternative ploys and semantics to progress their marketing, such as “climate disruption,” “sea level rise,” “ocean acidification,” “clean energy,” “dirty fossil fuels,” and “carbon pollution,” none of which are true. Unprofessional advocacy by publicly funded institutions is a significant issue needing debate and exposure.
FOLLOW THE MONEY – WHO MIGHT BENEFIT?
Many politicians, academics and individuals perceiving personal and career advantages have become activists for the “Save the Planet” marketing campaign. Government-funded departments, agencies and institutions (such as universities and the education industry among others) also felt obliged to join the campaign in order to maintain their perceived credibility, influence and funding. Media interests joined to expand their influence and profits. Businesses were obliged to conform or face activist “social licence” vilification. The outcome has been a pyramid marketing campaign headed by the UN and our Governments. The whole campaign has assumed the status of a religion, based on belief rather than informed understanding of the actual scientific evidence or lack thereof with “infidel” non-believers vilified as deviant “deniers.”
WHAT EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING?
The UN’s computer-based climate models have failed to predict the unchanged global average climate over the past 18 years. While many excuses have been advanced for this failure, they merely confirm the inadequacy of the modelling assumptions based on current scientific knowledge for predicting future climate. The reason why the models all failed is because they are based on the alarmist re-interpretation of the greenhouse effect found in an actual greenhouse into their simulacral “radiative greenhouse effect” which does not exist and which real greenhouses empirically refute.
HAS IT ALL BEEN WORTHWHILE?
Well over a trillion dollars have been wasted on research and projects associated with the “global warming/climate change” political campaign initiated by Maurice Strong. The “climate change” campaign is perceived as the greatest fraud in human history. This money has almost exclusively been of benefit only to leftist academia and leftist political parties, hence the sole reason for their continued support; even within academic science, support for the climate alarm/climate change campaign is entirely due to the perceived status it brings them and the “income” it has brought to universities…it has nothing to do with actually being scientifically informed.
Some advice from Prof Arrhenius over 100 years ago… He suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
Those were Arrhenius’ true thoughts…because return to an ice age is the true change in climate which is 1) possible and 2) extremely detrimental to life and human life in particular. But the climate alarm campaign will never tell you those true thoughts of Prof Arrhenius. And in any case, the warming predicted in the models based on the alarmist version of the greenhouse effect has not manifested, because that simulacral greenhouse effect does not exist, and we remain in danger of a new ice-age imminently coming in due to the recent changes in the Sun of a new period of magnetic quiescence which historically are indications of decades to centuries worth of global cooling.
Climate of Sophistry 
For the ‘Precautionary Principle’ argument to be valid, there has to be a valid threat.
Carbon pollution? CNO are atomic numbers 6, 7, and 8, hence C is not pollution but a natural family member in the sky. From day one clean green CO2 has been framed as a dragon in the sky threatening some vague global Armageddon so that the rich nations will eagerly pay trillions in baksheesh to slay the imaginary beast. What a con when no actual results need to be proved after they Hoover the world’s wealth from those who earned it and make it go poof in a mass redistribution to those who didn’t, then even attempt to claim success if the promised ice age arrives and we all freeze and starve. What an opportunity for global Marxists dreaming of the final demise of capitalism and its replacement with an impossible Marxist utopia where the evil racist homophobic Islamophobic Caucasian race of Europe and America is kaput along with their 2K-year-old civilization that they hate so much, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Right now their momentum is building and it’s up to a brave few to resist the er, tide.
To fight them you can go into battle well-armed, or naked and defenseless. If you prefer the former, take time to study my devastating essay that destroys the CO2 greenhouse warming theory forever with the iron laws of thermodynamics, which will still be reigning supreme a thousand years from now after the hoaxers are er, history.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatetlw.html
If you’re really serious and want to wake people up, you need to study science and history, the former because the hoaxers love to shut up truth tellers and snow you with Byzantine mathematical science fiction they are confident you can’t grok, the latter because they love to censor real history and substitute their lying revisionism. I can’t help with the former, but I have built up the most detailed and extensive historyscope of the climate issue ever seen, giving space to all sides despite the desire of the hoaxers to censor, ridicule, and defame their truth-telling opponents. Grow your mind to giant dimensions with my all-encompassing smorgasbord of hyperlinked history facts and never be satisfied with selected history tidbits again. This time they won’t get away with suppressing and rewriting history.
http://www.historyscoper.com/climatescope.html
No, I’m not financially backed by anybody, I’m just an independent thinker passionate about finding the truth and teaching others what I found. Not that I wouldn’t take a million or three as a love offering from Big Oil so I could afford to live in a paradise like Hawaii 🙂 But they could never own me, only the truth guides me, sorry.
Oh, did I mention my cool blog that links to all important posts on the subject on all sides from all the blogs, newsletters, and online newspapers free and is the best way to keep up with the daily action? Subscribe to the free daily email summary and never fall behind.
https://antarcticvolcanoesproject.blogspot.com/
P.S. If any of you experts spot anything I missed, my email address is included in the essay.
Joe,
Do you have the original source for that Arrhenius quote? — the actual paper or book that Arrhenius wrote? I think that it is important to be able to cite this exactly, and I want to use the quote, but I would like to have a link to an exact Arrhenius publication.
Thanks.
Phil Clark wrote that as a comment on the previous post…I’ve replied to him there asking for a source.
Reblogged this on Roald J. Larsen.
That’s the thing about Arrhenius and I’m not sure the exact answer. However you can’t find his work anywhere except his museum (If I understand right) and the only online sources are photocopies (presumably from journals). I actually read one where the author posted “Yes Arrhenius never mentions the greenhouse effect but he laid the ground work for it”. Yeah sure he did.
Reblogged this on budbromley.
Joe, …
I found the source:
Svante Arrhenius, 1908, Das Werden der Welten (Worlds in the making; the evolution of the universe), Academic Publishing House, Leipzig, 208 pages.
https://archive.org/details/worldsinmakingev00arrhrich/page/62
So, the devotees of Arrhenius seem to have been leaving out a few details, eh?
This is epic.
Great find, and exactly.
And I can’t recall where hits happened any longer…but at one point the Arrhenius thing had come up and some alarmist was trying to quote him as supporting the greenhouse effect; I had access to the entire quote in question and it turned out they were selectively quoting only a sub-portion of a sentence from a paragarph from him where it was made totally clear that he never thought or stated and in fact refuted that heat could flow from cold to hot, etc.
Ah no, sorry, I was mixing up with Clausius:
“What further regards heat radiation as happening in the usual manner, it is known that not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well, however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange is, as can be viewed as evidence based on experience, that THE COLD BODY ALWAYS EXPERIENCES AN INCREASE IN HEAT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE WARMER ONE. ”
Here’s another Clausius quote on the 2nd law :
“Heat can never pass from a colder to a warmer body without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time.” – i.e some other change such as work as obviously required in the refrigeration cycle !
And another :
“No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. ”
But, they just love that first quote from Clausius, as if it support sufficient evidence and reference for them that heat flows both ways! Clausius’ wording was wrong. Energy flows both ways, but heat is only the net difference; heat is NOT flowing both ways. But, there you see the origin of their idiotic argument about heat flowing both ways. God I really hate these lying people…I really, really hate them.
Anyway, yes, nice to see the complete quote from Arrhenius too.
Climate alarmists are the best cherry pickers.
Don’t get me wrong, I like cherries. In fact, I make an awesome cherry pie. On my next attempt at one, I will try to bake it with ice cubes. I’ll let you know how that turns out.
Regarding the Clausius quote above by Joe…
[“..not only the warm body radiates heat to the cold one but that the cold body radiates to the warm one as well…”]
Note he doesn’t actually say the cold body radiates HEAT to the warm body, just that it radiates – which is true. The Alarmists always confuse radiation with heat. It’s in their DNA (or pay checks)…
Robert,
Mad props for finding that, I’m speechless. The left has tried to obfuscate his journals for years. Not only did you find that but you boast of making a stellar Cherry pie (with vanilla ice cream would be perfect.)
arfur,
Unfortunately, lateter on is Clausius’ statement, he writes, “… however the total result of this simultaneous double heat exchange …”
So, it appears that Clausius WAS referring to heat. He either confused the two concepts, or, in those days, the distinction between the concepts had not been realized or clarified sufficiently.
“lateter” = “later”
Later, tater.
I wanted to paste this somewhere, before I erased it:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/12/discovering-maurice-strong/
[Maurice] “Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.”
As if!
So, if one makes one’s fortune from fossil fuel and from fossil-fuel-enabled operations, then this person is a good source of funding and a good example of a do-as-I-do champion?
If fossil fuel and fossil-fuel-enabled operations enable a level of comfort that enables one to complain about fossil fuels, then this person is not a hypocrite?
… just wondering, of all the foundations contributing to Green Peace, for example, I wonder how many of those are fossil-fuel virgins.
I’m amazed at how blind alarmists are to the fact that the very thing that they wish to do away with is the very thing that makes them who they are, … the very thing that makes them able to be free to function as they do.
CM,
Vanilla ice cream would cause my warm cherry pie to be … “warmer than it would otherwise be.” Consequently, since it would … “cool more slowly”, you would have to wait longer to savor its awesomeness.
On a more sobering note, in addition to missing the slight detail of Svante Arrhenius’ positive outlook on burning coal, climate alarmists who hail Joseph Fourier seem to overlook the fact that he attributed Earth’s surface warmth to the collective heat of all the stars in the universe, if I understand his words correctly.
We are supposed to overlook this slight misconception, while accepting his musing on how solid Earth’s atmosphere would have to be to do what a glass enclosure would do … as his explicit statement of factual belief.
They’re all such God damned liars and frauds and parasites and at this point I hope they one day pay for it with their lives.
Remember (or not) when I said something about the CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuels was not adding up. Well I did the math. So please correct or point out anything I got wrong or a better way of presenting it. Or all of the above. If I did this as an equation what would it look like. IF anyone has time I’d really appreciate. Once you guys “peer review” lol and it’s right (if) you are more than welcome to use it. Again thank you and my 5 cats thank you. Meow.
“CO2 from fossil fuels (C12&C13) has a half life of only 4 years unlike the much longer 14.4 years of C14 that fossil fuels are NOT responsible for. Methane also has a half life of 4 years and gets broken down in the atmosphere by the (OH) Hodroxyl Radical that recycles itself and remains a stable constant in the atmosphere.
This is the process by which all of the carbon 14 on the Earth is produced and it is naturally created in the atmosphere: (this formula/equation I’m not 100% sure about) C14Co2= 147N + 10n → 146C + 11p C14CO2 has a much longer 28.8 year life span than C12 and C13 in the atmosphere. If all man made fossil fuel CO2 was stopped right now it would only reduce the CO2 by 20-40 ppm (after it broke down naturally after about 8 years)
30-40 gt of CO2 a year is produced in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. 1ppm= 2.13 gt so that is a rough estimate of 15-30 ppm a year. This CO2 (C12&C13) has a full life of 8 years before it’s broken down in the Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore we can only calculate fossil fuel CO2 contributions from an 8 year period. That is a total of between 120 ppm-160 ppm. We know that between 20-80% of CO2 is naturally scrubbed per year which would result in 24 ppm -128 ppm or 48-256 gt a year. “
I haven’t looked into such calculations myself…so cannot immediately comment. Maybe someone else can. Otherwise remind me again later…busy weekend.
No rush take all the time you guys want.
Joseph I discovered this while looking through IPCC emails I thought you all would find this interesting and perhaps disturbing. So in conclusion they are all ware of Joseph’s proof the ghg doesn’t exist. Now you know why they are fighting you so hard. That all know it’s a darn lie and have been covering it up. This point has never been brought up in any IPCC report or “peer review”.
“When there is peer reviewed work from 1909 by R.W. Wood a professor of physics and optics at John Hopkins University and the work in 1958 and many others that have examined the physics of the Concept of “greenhouse gas effect” that show that it does not exist it violates the second law of thermodynamics and the work of Niels Bohr then it is obvious that we need an experiment and data that either proves that the greenhouse gas effect exists or that the concept can not be demonstrated thus ghg effect is a hoax. When everything that the AGW group produces as evidence is really only “circumstantial evidence” that can have two or three other causes like the earths crust is heating from the inside or more or less solar activity, or the earths orbit has shifted just a little all are natural.”
CM,
I just read a comment somewhere (I lost where) talking about C12, C13, and C14. I cannot relate this yet to your wish for a math treatment, but I wanted to note it here, before I forgot the gist of it:
Apparently C12 is the fossil-fuel-signature C in fossil-fuel CO2, and … turns out that plants “prefer” this over the heavier C13-CO2 mostly in the air from “natural” sources. C14, of course, is radioactive and exists in extremely small quantities.
I’m wanting to explore one of the latest tactics to discredit CO2 — the one that says higher CO2 reduces nutritional quality of our plant foods, even though it increases plant yield. Towards that end, I found this article interesting:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tpj.14166
I think I remember more precisely now that fossil fuel is mostly C12 (over 90%?) with some C13.
LOL See that’s where I’m getting a little agitated. Ever source has a different explanation. Like I read at one place that C12 is fossil fuels but sometimes it’s a hybrid of C12 and C13. 13C apparently is nigh none existent like 1.1% of all carbon. Mostly all C14 released form the Earth is no longer radioactive it lost that a long time ago. So if my understanding is right it’s still C14 just not radioactive. However C14 is created in the atmosphere and does that mean that all of that is radioactive? These are some of the sites I saved (sometimes I think I did and I didn’t and I can never find them gain.) I’m going to be reading it all again.
.
https://socratic.org/questions/how-is-carbon-14-is-produced-in-the-upper-atmosphere
https://socratic.org/questions/575ba1d711ef6b2e88798346
https://www.shiftfrequency.com/man-made-co2-3-of-3-of-0-1/
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/climate-change-emperors-have-no-clothes/
Ha I just found myself on the internet from a decade ago. Who knew it would still be up? Over 200k viewers and I haven’t been on that site in 10 years. What a weird world.
A minor correction regarding the reference in Robert’s 11:13 post, Maurice Strong headed Ontario Hydro for a time, and we’re still paying for that. I don’t think there’s such a thing as Hydro Canada.
RK
This might be too primitive (or wrong) for what you’re looking for on CO2 but I’ll let you decide. I had another one where they tested in different CO2 concentrations in an actual greenhouse but I can’t find it.
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
David W,
Your correction is noted. I was quoting the source at the link I provided, and so if they got it wrong, then I got it wrong. On a brief search for “Hydro Canada”, I could not find such a listing, and so you appear to be correct, and my reference was wrong.
CM,
I think that I came upon the link to CO2 supplementation for plants that you provided, a few months back. I used it somewhere in a discussion to show that real-world food growers do (and have been doing) what alarmists say will decrease nutritional quality.
One quote from the website confirms the gist of what I have been getting from more sophisticated articles on the subject, namely:
“Cultural Practices to Improve Productivity
Depending on the crop, the increased growth rate related to CO2 application may require the nutrient solution to be applied at a higher electrical conductivity (EC). As well, the increased CO2 levels can result in partial closure of the stomata reducing transpiration and increasing leaf conductance in some crops. This decrease in transpiration reduces calcium (Ca) and boron (B) uptake, which may affect tomato fruit quality. Increased applications of these nutrients, within reason, will adequately compensate the decreased uptake.”
So, my take on this and other articles that intimate the same thing is that adequate enrichment of the growing medium insures that plants can maximize nutrient density with increased CO2 levels. Where human food production is concerned, I would think that this would be a matter of farming-practice development. For forests and other landscapes, I would think that this would be a matter of land-management development.
Also, there is the issue of genetic engineering that could improve the selection of plant varieties that better responded to increased levels of CO2 with equal or better nutrient density.
Frankly, I am not convinced that researchers have adequately controlled for all the growth factors that relate to this, and I am not convinced that they really CAN know what the response of plants will be in open systems like forests, grasslands, and other more wild landscapes. I get the feeling that lots more research in this area needs to be done.
You know I was around in the 80’s and California had an extreme drought and high heat. So much so that plants began growing long thought extinct. My lesson from that is that the Earth has plans for climate change. Therefore it has to have one for higher CO2 levels. Mother Earth has had billions of years to learn adaptability. Food may grow we thought long since extinct. In the Roman era they had a plant that was a natural birth control that grew in a particular region. Naturally the Romans used it to extinction.
They may be testing the wrong types of food in CO2 to get a reasonable analysis for the increase.
Maurice Strong ended up in China wanted for Fraud.
Strong’s fate was such poetic justice, considering that climate alarmism amounts to fraud, since many of the intelligent people pushing the narrative know, or SHOULD know (as reasonably intelligent people), that their claims about CO2 are unreal.
RK
I found an interesting side note on a paper I’m reading about CO2 sink. Interesting point that may or may not help.
“It should be noted that some of the most productive modern ecosystems have evolved at a time when the CO2 concentration was much higher than 560ppm. For example, Amazon rain forest has evolved in Eocene ([Morley, 2000], [Eocene, Wikipedia, 2015], [Eocene, Wikipedia, 2015]).”
Yes, CM, interesting, as I was thinking about just this thing yesterday.
Did Earth’s ancient vegetation exist in a state of nutritional deficiency? — I think not.
I’m wondering whether our civilized aesthetics has more to do with this, meaning perfect looking, perfect tasting fruits and vegetables that we cultivate over the years to be perfect looking and perfect tasting might be those that do not respond as well to CO2 increases in terms of nutrient density. Maybe the particular varieties that we cultivate are not the strongest, in this respect.
I just think that this might be another instance of mistaken correlation=causation, when something deeper could be the cause, IF this really is an issue, which I am NOT convinced that research has definitively established IS a cause.
Grapes were said to be huge in the ancient times and grew in Rome (some historically accounts said grape vines had to be carried by two people). It would stand to reason that food adapts to climate and as you said we have created food specifically for this climate. It would therefore stand to reason that different food would have to be cultivated in a different climate.Maybe figs will make a comeback or plums (not really a fan of either.)
Maybe fruit grows better in higher CO2 over certain vegetables? A truly fascinating concept. Maybe write a study?
Better hurry up I hear Cortex brains is wanting to ban cows and air travel. What’s next? Free thinking?
I found a comment from an IPCC scientists about Maurice Strong via hacked emails.
“Any observant person can see that our warm peaks have been becoming less warm each time since the Holocene Optimum and the conclusion would be that we are drifting slowly towards the next ice age. Understanding that is much more important than trying to cripple the world’s economies with a carbon cap and trade and creating a one-world, socialist government because Maurice Strong a a small group want it. The IPCC should not be a political tool and if it is, it should be disbanded entirely and finally as a bad idea, if politics cannot be kept out of it.” -IPCC scientist.
Hah wow.
FROM:
Click to access Holocene,Historicandrecentglobaltemperatures.pdf
“This does not suggest a warming effect from CO2 in the atmosphere.”
ha-ha
It DOES however suggest that people convinced of a warming effect from CO2 in the atmosphere have a pathological craving for looming doom.
Almost all well-known so-called skeptics, including Singer, Spencer, Linden, Happer, Curry, Evans to name just a few, accept without criticism that CO2 is a “warming gas”. The academic sophistry is total and corruption prevents any change in this situation. https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/01/10/how-long-is-twilight/ and http://ilovemycarbondioxide.com/archives/Greenhouse_Effect_Poppycock.pdf give some insight into the smoke and mirrors used by the illuminati to hoodwink politicians who are all too keen to “stop climate change” (they’re so ignorant that they leave the “man-made” portion off).
Just read an intercept I found fits perfectly to Climate Sophistry. I do wish I knew what the condition was called:
“We trust in assumptions about the way the world operates that seem so obviously true that we fail to test them. In other words, what counts as common knowledge is a mix of things that are true and other things that are false, all of which are believed because they’re widely held, frequently repeated, and routinely recalled. It’s this fluency-as-a-surrogate-for-truth shortcut that makes innovation tricky: We trust in assumptions about the way the world operates that seem so obviously true that we fail to test them. And in failing to check these basic assumptions, we slam the door shut on finding new and better ways to do things.”
Anyone want to take a crack at this? Another “genius” I’m talking to. He thought he was going to trick me or something I’m not really sure.
Trapping/delaying heat is kinda a play on words. Co2 absorbs & emits infrared radiation(IR) that would normally escape back into space changing the global net radiative balance. Warming the part of the atmosphere is resides in which is the troposphere.
Water vapor also absorbs IR. But it also reflects ultraviolet radiation(UV). Causing a cooling affect. Ozone absorbs UV. However, Ozone resides in the stratosphere. Above the troposphere and it’s concentration increases with height. Which causing warming to increase with height too! Which is contradictory to the theory that temperature decreases with height due to decrease in pressure!
Also, the Arctic has some of the strongest surface warming on the planet, but a largely decreasing sea level pressure trend. As seen in published literature on this subject: “Consistency of simulated and observed regional changes in temperature, sea level pressure and precipitation” “Detection of external influence on sea level pressure with a multi-model ensemble” “Attribution of anthropogenic influence on seasonal sea level pressure” “Attribution of observed sea level pressure trends to greenhouse gas, aerosol, and ozone changes” “All gas in the atmosphere can warm up.” Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon, which makes up 99.96% of our atmosphere, do not absorb UV or IR.
Never mind I covered it. He was trying to prove atmospheric pressure doesn’t cause warming and make the adiabatic lapse rate sound outdated and the “new and improved” greenhouse effect make far more sense in explaining temperate climate.These people are so tiresome.
He may as well have been giving directions for baking a cake, since my reading of his words left me with the impression of a lot of irrelevant or disconnected verbiage that failed to make any point whatsoever.
QUESTION: Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?
ANSWER: Many people believe in only soft training techniques to shape their animals into socially acceptable companions. About 90% of dogs are quite responsive to soft-correction methods. There are, however, about 10% that do not respond to only the soft techniques, and the usual course of action is to adopt some form of hard correction. This is not done with anger, cruelty, or overriding pain, but with great care, sensitivity, intelligence, and with a background of strong trust already developed between the trainer and the dog. These techniques, of course, do not apply to pink, winged unicorns, whose reflexes and aerodynamic abilities far exceed those of any Earthly dog. Pink, winged unicorns require special magical skills enabling their handlers to restrain the wings in a humane fashion, while engaging the attention of these magnificent beasts. All said and done, the pink, winged unicorn makes every bit as good or better pet than any well trained dog.
That’s sort of the impression it made on me.
LOL Yeah I think he was hoping it was a “gotcha” moment…it was not. What is this obsession the alarmists have with the Voltskeg ice core? Could someone explain that to me. They act like it’s the Rosetta Stone of global warming. I’m assuming like everything else it has been tampered with in some way?
Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.