Watch “Curt Doolittle & John Mark FULL INTERVIEW – Avoiding a New Dark Age & Creating a New Renaissance” on YouTube

Please everybody watch this:

Propertarianism has a brilliant solution for fixing academia and stopping what has happened with climate alarmism from ever occurring again…and so much more.

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

79 Responses to Watch “Curt Doolittle & John Mark FULL INTERVIEW – Avoiding a New Dark Age & Creating a New Renaissance” on YouTube

  1. MP says:

    Not a smart build up of.the story. Why wait 2 hours before making the key points…

    Some ideas make sense, others not so much.

    I like the Idea of schools who take the loans, and get repayed by the students. That will boost the quality of education, and the matching of what is actually needed in a society

    More power to the states, and create more competition between states also sounds good

    Making it possible to sue schools and other institutions when not telling the truth is tricky, because who decides what is the truth. A ministry of truth nowadays would make any institution who question that co2 is the climate controller suable.

    Anyhow. Not a single plan will be implemented before we take back control of the power structures, designed by the English crown. ….is the story of Mr. Gould legit? …The alleged new Postmaster general of the USA/world

  2. CD Marshall says:

    Schools need to be turned back to the states. If I even mention Common Core to any of my teacher associates they glare at me. They all hate common core and I do mean HATE it.

  3. An almost three-hour video scares me. I do better with short bursts over longer periods of time.
    Thirty minutes, at most, seems more like a reasonable time investment per one video, and if the main points can be made in a shorter presentation, then so much the better.

  4. tom0mason says:

    @MP 2019/09/14 at 4:14 PM,
    I too am confused about what they were saying about the educational ‘truth’ issue.
    The place where they really get into the educational ‘truth’ issue is at about 2hrs14minutes, where the conversion runs something like —

    Mark : “Right now our academies are teaching young people pseudo-science — lies, and they’re not being punished for it. Well, under Curt’s system they can be sued, they can be made liable for speaking falsehoods — and we’re not talking about some person with all power sitting somewhere arbitrarily deciding what’s true …”
    Curt loudly interrupting : “No, it’s just you, you just go there and sue them (laughing…)”
    Mark : “There’s falsehood test. What the person says has to pass certain empirical tests. You go line by line — and these falsehood tests are very hard to argue with …”
    Curt (cutting in) : “It is, it is a checklist, it’s a checklist that works in court, it’s hard for you to believe but the courts do this all the time. This is just a better checklist for the truthful speech, it doesn’t say it’s true, you can still be wrong, right, but it says, (you have the …, you have), you can warranty you are not speaking falsehoods. Right”

    To me it sounds like there is more to this issue that may have either been discussed by them prior to the video, or it’s on different video(s), or Curt has written it elsewhere.
    A checklist for interpreting if someone willfully proclaimed falsehoods in teaching does sound so much like having an authority for truth and how that truth can be taught.

    Most of the rest of the video sounds reasonable-ish — it would have been better if more figures were shown.

  5. Curt waffles a lot. John is more succinct. I watched for about 40 minutes. Interesting. Lots of historical information, but Curt isn’t at his best in this format.

    The bottom line is twofold: devolution of power so the individual has access to those with power once more in areas that directly affect the individual’s life; consequences for liars and parasites through reform of the court system.

  6. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t have the attention span for that long of a video. That’s why I’m not a scientist well one of many many reasons.

    …Oh look a butterfly!

  7. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Geez those Connellis are having me work double overtime. I had to go back to the original paper to get the data needed to sort this out…
    First they calculate the change in potential energy (∆PE) associated with a change in the water levels in the cylinders (∆h) using ∆PE = mg∆h and come up with 0.87×10^-3 J of energy being transmitted from the left cylinder to the right. Could this have occurred via conduction, convection or radiation ? They have a connecting tube 102.295 m long and 4mm ID.

    Radiation ?. There is no reason why a lost thermal energy would preferentially be absorbed by the air in the right cylinder. So that’s out !

    Conduction ? There must be a temperature difference between the two cylinders. ∆T. They go on calculating ∆T = 0.5K, temperature gradient along the tube 102.929 m long, energy transferred Q and time it would take. Time is 5,4 days. Too long. Needs to be 17.29 s max. That’s out !

    Convection ? If so, 5.0 cm3 (10 / 2) of air was physically transported directly from the left cylinder over the course of the 17.29 s. They calculate the volume speed leaving the left cylinder, the linear velocity and the time it would take for going along the 102.925 cm long tube. 74 minutes. Too long. Needs to be 17.29 s max. That’s out !

    What’s left ? Pervection.

    Left cylinder. Pressure at start, 98969 Pa.
    Max pressure after start 99136 Pa, Drifts to 99051 (98969+99136) / 2 = 99052

    Right cylinder. Pressure at start, 98969 Pa. Drifts to 99028 Pa.

    At equilibrium, left is at 99051 Pa, right is at 99028 Pa and the columns of water are not at same height. Right is higher.

    From the graph, if it was only pressure release it would be simple exponential decay. It’s not !

    What do you know !??!?!?

    Any thoughts anyone ? Joe ?

  8. CD Marshall says:

    Good grief. Conduction, convection, advection. pervection and radiation is there anything else out there?

    What is pervection?

  9. MP says:

    Pervection is a new term. It is long distance and super fast pressure redistribution in a system that has a thermodynamic equilibrium. Since pressure is normally affected by energy input it is an effective energy transportation through the system.

  10. MP says:

    The magic of pervection is that it can skip several in between atmospheric layers that are not affected by the pressure transportation. It seems that somekinda vacuum conditions in between 2 not connected layers create the pervection.

    …That are my 2 cents of understanding.

  11. “Pervection” … conduction at a distance? (^_^) … or something at a distance.

    We should add one more term, CDM — perversion … this is the magic of spreading the power of the sun over the Earth at once, in places it doesn’t even shine — illumination at a distance, so to speak.

    Very cutting edge.

  12. MP says:

    Right RK lol.

    With the difference that millions of balloons that went up actually suggest a magic pervection concept in a vertical atmosphere column. What disproves a co2 global warming concept.

    The magic perversion sunshine in the night is never measured.

  13. CD Marshall says:

    Another article in my ongoing pursuit of cosmic rays and how I don’t understand them yet…

  14. CD Marshall says:

    In my endless pursuit to understand cosmic rays a little more…

  15. CD Marshall says:

    Sorry weird things are happening again. The first time I tried commenting nothing happened and then I left, returned, commented again and nothing happened, I left, returned and now both of my comments showed up.

  16. CD Marshall says:

    I received the paper about “nights warming faster than days”. I’ll be reading it but I need a better eye than I to interpret it, I find it odd in the cursory readings that it seems to not be based on real time observation but the climate clowns favorite word in all walks of life: Averages.

    It is assuming CO2 is the cause w/o considering humidity. I don’t see an acknowledgment of desert nights warming faster than days which would suggest a force rather than water vapor. The whole piece sounds like speculative fiction and apparently not based on real time observation but models. Seriously, these climate guys don’t even know how to appreciate a decent model, they should read more Sports Illustrated.

  17. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    I’m kind of busy at Potholer now

  18. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    And John O’Sullivan has been smeared. He might want a say

  19. CD Marshall says:

    Where at Potholer ?

  20. MP says:

    Here is he Connolly et Al 2014 paper about pervection

  21. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Thx. I have it. That is the paper I got my data from to understand their theory about pervection..

  22. Zoe Phin says:

    I found a very interesting diagram:

  23. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    I’ve been studying the Connolly’s papers and there is something I just can’t wrap my head around. I understand kinetic energy being converted to potential energy when a pack of air rises in the atmosphere and vice-versa. I understand gaining and losing energy via radiation. No problem. What I cant wrap my head around is mechanical energy in the atmosphere. Why would some part of the atmosphere need energy by mechanic transfer. What is it ?

  24. Joseph E Postma says:

    It acts a little bit like a liquid?

  25. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Skrew ME !!! I was so caught up in those papers that I forgot to look it up ./In physical sciences, mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. It is the energy associated with the motion and position of an object. / If I get that right, if a pack of air higher up in the atmosphere is too cold for it’s altitude then kinetic energy can be transfered to it by way of mechanical transfer called pervection. If it’s too hot then reverse that mechanical trick. Since it’s potential energy can’t be changed fast because position can’t be changed fast, kinetic energy is transfered that way. Did I get the interpretation right ? If so, is it done by some sound wave ? It’s the only way I can understand it.

  26. Zoe Phin says:

    Pierre, et al,
    You might enjoy this video.
    I’m not saying it’s correct or incorrect, just food for thought. The channel has many interesting videos.
    [JP: Those guys are absolute quacks.]

  27. CD Marshall says:

    Potholer and his clan are a bunch of self righteous nut jobs claiming ALL past history of warming and CO2 levels are not true. Do you believe the arrogance of these people? If Mann is found to be a fraud it will not deter them one bit from this insane religion.

  28. Joseph E Postma says:

    You are not in a discussion. We are in a war.

  29. CD Marshall says:

    We don’t have the proper weapons yet to fight back. We need reinforcements. I did hear that NOAA just claimed from their new state of the art stations that there has been no warming in the US since 2015. The problem is I’m not finding it on NOAA only on other sites.

  30. Zoe Phin says:

    What specifically do you find quacky, if you don’t mind saying.

  31. Everything. They’re sophists. They pretend to say things without saying anything understandable at all.

  32. CD Marshall says:

    I just watched the video they claim gravity doesn’t dictate temperature ( they are basically saying the ideal gas law is false.) Where as a gas under pressure has been proven to work with temperature even I know that and I’m an idiot.

    They are claiming temperature is determined by proximity to the heat source and gravity has nothing to do with it… I admit I’m surprised they didn’t throw global warming in there somewhere.

  33. Zoe Phin says:

    If the sun is ~15,000,000 degrees at the core, and ~6000 at the surface, doesn’t this violate conservation of energy? Doesn’t every steady state conduction violate conservation of energy?

    In != Out at any point in the gradient.

    If there is no violate of conservation law, then earth can emit less than it receives from sun and geothermal, no?

    [JP edit: No, Zoe. That is not how it works at all.]

  34. MP says:

    Part of the war is the hole in the ozon layer scam. Many alarmist keep defending it. Here are 2 interesting graphs.

    – Amazing recovery this year, while CFC parts per billion hasn’t gone down much
    – The hole is a season thingy, most months in the year there is no hole.

    So …no CFC correlation, and no causation.

  35. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Off subject. When dealing with alarmist trolls they inevitably eventually turn on the character assasination faucet. I’ve had to deal with that the other day. I remember reading on PSI J O’Sulliven telling his story about having defended himself against a false accusation and that the paparazis made him a lawyer out of it. Can’t find his explanation on PSI.
    Can anyone help ? I hate being taken short.

  36. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    So what about the Ozone holes over the poles? They’re supposed to be there ! Consider what happens to sunlight as it goes through the atmosphere in the earth’s higher latitudes.

  37. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / [JP: Those guys are absolute quacks.] /

    Just posted on his site the Connolly’s D vs P paper proving he is a quack.

  38. CD Marshall says:

    This video was made 2 years ago to debunk those debunking climate models which is absurd in its own right seeing how blatantly obvious the climate models have failed. He is another PhD…they come out of political climate science like cockroaches.


    The Sophistry Circus goes round and round…

    This is the reply I recieved from Potholer’s crew after showing over a dozen peer reviewed papers (the thing they throw at us all the time) proving the MWP was warmer regionally and global.

    “It’s all in the timing:
    “Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales.”

  39. CD Marshall says:

    I have another question:
    So according to this: “The thermal conductivity of carbon dioxide is about half that of air, 0.0146 W/m-K as opposed to 0.0240 W/m-K so it takes twice the ΔT/m to move the same kJ from surface to ToA.”

    Isn’t this saying it takes twice as long to move the same temperature? Or is it saying it takes twice the energy to maintain the same temperature in moving it.

    Or am I all together not interpreting it correctly?

  40. Joseph E Postma says:

    Just that if the heat transport were only conductive, it takes twice the temperature differential to transfer the same total energy per unit time.

    Of course heat transfer in a gas is not only conductive…convection would be much more important etc.

  41. CD Marshall says:

    You comments on Potholer were removed. Did you do that?

  42. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you JP get some rest. We need our prize fighter in top shape.

  43. CD Marshall says:

    Potholer’s new video Joseph you should take notes you could really learn a lot from this guy! LOL.

    Honestly he sounds no different than a PhD of climate clowns. I’m giving this becasue I love reading your comments on him.


  44. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / You comments on Potholer were removed. Did you do that? /
    NO ! Going to check

  45. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    Has not been removed. Just way down the list. I posted too early. Going to try to repost. Check the fireworks

  46. Pablo says:


    From a comment on the Connolly’s “pervection”….

    “Molecules in the atmosphere are free to move in any direction after each collision. In your experiment, however, you restrict the direction with your connecting tube. Hence you do not emulate the reality of what happens in the atmosphere.
    The transfer of kinetic energy by molecular collision already has a name – it is conduction in a solid or often called diffusion in a gas. The term “convection” technically embraces diffusion and advection. If there is already a state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a planet’s troposphere then there is a temperature gradient induced by gravity, just as there is a density gradient. The resulting pressure gradient is just a corollary, because gravity acts on mass, not pressure.

    Now, it requires a new source of energy disrupting the thermodynamic equilibrium before there can be any noticeable advection. Basically advection is the same as diffusion, but just accelerated to a level where net molecular movement can be detected. That net movement will be in all accessible directions away from the new source of energy that is disrupting the thermodynamic state. There are still plenty of molecules moving in all directions, but there is a net movement away from the source because the source provides addition kinetic energy that tends to drive the “cooler” molecules away.

    Overall, the process is governed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that thermodynamic equilibrium will evolve with a state of maximum attainable entropy. In a gravitational field this means there will be no unbalanced energy potentials, and so the mean sum of kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy will be homogeneous.
    Note that when new energy is absorbed in a planet’s upper troposphere (such as at dawn on Venus) then it disrupts thermodynamic equilibrium and so there will be some downward heat transfer up the temperature gradient, that is from cooler to warmer regions”

    However, your whole concept of “pervection” is not some other new process, and the measurements you make (wherein the tube restricts the direction of motion) are fictitious in terms of what happens in a planet’s troposphere. In any event, diffusion and advection in particular is quite a fast enough process to bring the troposphere back into line with the expected thermal gradient (at thermodynamic equilibrium) which, as you know, is reduced in magnitude by radiating gases which, by intermolecular radiation, have a temperature levelling effect working against the gravitationally induced gradient.”

  47. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    Did you see how fast comments come to drown my comments ? If they finally respond to my comments they are going to use character assasination tactics for sure. That’s why I want the John O’Sullivan article where he defends himself and explain the situation. I want it as a reference to shut them up. Can anyone find it ? don’t know if it was drowned in an article about Dr Ball and HS Mann.

  48. MP says:

    NBC asks for climate confessions. They are getting trolled hard lol

  49. Pierre D. Bernier says:


    Let’s be clear… It’s not MY experiment. It’s the Connolly’s (no offence). They don’t say that all you talk about is not true. Sure there is conduction, convection and advection in the atmosphere. The key word here is closed system. They made a closed system experiment. They found that in that closed system experiment that the energy transfer by conduction or convection is too slow to justify the time taken to reach equilibrium. THEY propose pervection as an additional mechanism of energy transfer, in the atmossphere, not a replacement. Frankly, if it works in a Newton cradle, I find it hard to dismiss in the atmosphere. I’ll let others fight it. I’m only a poor chemist.

  50. DangerMouse says:

    I notice on a recent thread someone commenting on how heat is transferred – they noted radiation, conduction and convection (advection is of the same form – see below).

    At a slightly more fundamental level there are four ways energy can be transferred between bodies. Radiation, vibration (conductive), translation (convective/advective) and spin (axial rotation). Any free atom or molecule (e.g. in a gas) can spin, and can therefore absorb energy by increasing spin, or lose energy by decreasing spin. Where does spin come into heat transfer? If at all . . .

  51. Pablo says:

    Found this….

    Cold does not equal cold for physicists. This is because in physics, there is a different temperature associated with each type of motion that a particle can have. How fast molecules move through space determines the translational temperature, which comes closest to our everyday notion of temperature. However, there is also a temperature for the internal vibrations of a molecule, as well as for the rotational motion around their own axes. Similar to a stationary car with its engine running, the internal rotation (the engine, in this case) does not translate into motion before the clutch is released. In the case of molecules, the many microscopic collisions between the particles which constitute gases, fluids, and solids couple the various forms of motion with each other.

    The different temperatures thus approach each other over time. Physicists then say that a thermal equilibrium has been established. However, how fast this equilibrium is reached depends on the collision rate, as well as on any external influences working against this equilibration. For example, the infrared radiation emanating from the contraction of an interstellar gas cloud can cause the rotation of molecules to quicken, even without changing the speed at which the molecules are travelling. These kinds of processes take a very long time in the emptiness of space, as there are very few collisions there.

    In photosynthesis, plants use the chlorophyll in their leaves to collect sunlight, whose energy is ultimately used to form sugars and other molecules. It is not yet entirely clear how the energy required for this is quantum mechanically transferred within the chlorophyll molecules. To understand this, the researchers must once again very accurately control and measure the quantum states and the rotation of the molecules involved. The findings thus obtained could serve as the basis for imitating or optimising the photosynthesis at some time in the future in order to supply us with energy.


  52. DangerMouse that’s all about what is called “degrees of freedom” and indeed it has a big effect on temperature etc.

  53. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    My concern about the Connelly’s papers is not so much about pervection as to the other stuff they discovered. I don’t have the knowledge nor the expertise to validate or not their pervection theory. What I am really interested in is their discovery of the density of the atmosphere versus pressure. They found a linear correllation which makes it of the form D = a*P + b. So, D/P = a +b/P. This means that D/P is not a constant as has been mentioned somewhere else. D/P is dependent on pressure. Furthermore, the steep dip in the slope of D vs P at the tropophere limit is indicative of a definite molecular structure change. Since you find only N2 and O2 there, the polymer theory makes sense and since N2 and O2 are symetrical and not IR active, now they become asymetrical and IR active. This gives us another mechanism by which Earth can lose energy to space since it cannot by conduction, mass loss or simple N2, O2 IR (negligeble) radiation. As to these 2 last points I find their papers of great interest.

  54. Pablo says:

    Can an atmosphere cool by non radiative means to space?
    As there is no definite boundary between our atmosphere and space, surely nitrogen alone could cool by a slowing of its average translational energy by the pull of Earth’s gravity?
    That is to say in an atmosphere of pure nitrogen could there still be a thermal gradient formed in addition to that created from pressure/density where gravitational pull of molecules both warms the near surface air very slightly and cools the outer limits of the atmosphere but in a much slower fashion than from radiation.

  55. CD Marshall says:

    I have to ask if we had no “greenhouse gases” aside from water vapor in our atmosphere would the temperature gradient be the same? What would it be like in theory?

  56. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / Can an atmosphere cool by non radiative means to space? /
    What comes in must go out for thermal equilibrium. Since the earth takes in 1368 / 2 every day, then the same has to go out every day (on average). The only way for Earth to lose energy, atmosphere included, is to lose it to space. Space is essentially empty so Earth can’t lose energy through conduction. You can’t lose energy by conduction with nothing. Heck, even pervection can’t do it. If it exists, it’s a form of fast track conduction. The earth could lose energy by atmospheric mass loss but we would soon run out of atmosphere. What’s left but radiation ? Even the last N2 molecule way up there has got to lose something to space. Otherwise, the earth would, at some point, be heated from the atmosphere inward. I see no other way out.

  57. Pablo says:


    Thanks for the reply.
    i guess what I am proposing, assuming a geothermal insulation slab from below, is that a thermal equilibrium within a non-radiative atmosphere could easily be achieved by a compensatory increase in radiative cooling from the surface directly to space,.

  58. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / would the temperature gradient be the same? /
    From R. I. Holmes formula. T = PM/dR where T=temperature, P=pressure, M=molar mass, d=density and R=gas constant(8.3145). Holmes calculated doubling of CO2 from the current level of 0.04% would raise tempetature from 288.14 to 288.25 K. Not much of a difference. Since g stays the same, I’d bet face I win, tail you lose, lapse rate will be the same.

  59. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    / a compensatory increase in radiative cooling from the surface directly to space,. /
    I can see that ! After all, CO2 does not catch and keep IR. It re-radiates it. Water the same. So, from down here directly to space is good.

  60. Pierre D. Bernier says:

    This might fit well here…

  61. Pablo says:

    Hang on Pierre…
    uncontrolled demand = increased prices = unbalanced pressure

  62. CD Marshall says:

    I’m been perusing this site and you have a lot covered on here. You could do a series of books just on this site content alone.

  63. CD Marshall says:

    Someone wan to explain what radiative forcing is compared to just normal radiation emitting to space.

    This is the Wiki explanation:
    “In climate science, radiative forcing or climate forcing is defined as the difference of insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space. Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause in units of watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface.”

    That makes no sense. That’s just the normal blackbody radiation emissions to space…right? What are they trying to obfuscate with this?

    Isn’t this just the Conservation of energy from the Sun?

  64. Because they have to confuse and obfuscate everything. Just like the phrase “greenhouse effect”. This is a scam based on sophistry. Hence my site title. It is SOPHISTRY. All of it.


    Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
    A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
    The methods of teaching, doctrines, or practices of the Greek sophists.

  65. CD Marshall says:

    This is a bit from PotHoler’s site:
    The relationship between global temperature and energy balance is governed by the Stefan Boltzmann equation, where the radiation of a body is proportional to the temperature of the body to the power of four. For more on how ingoing and outgoing radiation affects temperature,, see this paper:

    “Earth’s energy imbalance and its implications” – Hansen et al., published by GISS and Columbia University Earth Institute 2011. I cannot vouch for this as a peer-reviewed paper, but it is published by two reputable scientific institutes, and is therefore an educational rather than a research tool.

  66. Hansen is one of their chief frauds.

  67. Their imbalance BS BS BS is all based on their fake GHE. It’s all fake.

  68. CD Marshall says:

    I would love for someone to go over the Hansen et al and show all the things he was wrong about. Has someone done that with a proper scientific background?

  69. Zoe Phin says:

    The Connellys also show that there is several gas laws (PV^x=nRT, where x is 1, 1.2, 1.4. The common ideal gas law only works at the surface. I think N&Z even explictly stated this. Therefore pressure doesn’t raise temperature beyond provided temperature. But we already know that from Joule’s 2nd law.

    There is no D or P without T.
    How much gas is there to compress on a 3°K planet? I believe it’s none.

  70. MP says:

    50 year history of failed eco apocalyptic predictions. Hansen has a quite big share in it, on multiple sub fields.

  71. CD Marshall says:

    Another paper claiming it has proven global warming…

  72. CD Marshall says:

    “Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2”

    From the a fore mentioned paper’s abstract. Thoughts? Prayers? Mathematical calculations? Favorite toppings on a pizza? Discuss please.

  73. Pablo says:

    Don’t forget, they say that without water vapour and a little help from CO2 etc. the surface temperature would average -18ºC.

  74. CD Marshall says:

    I don’t even know what they are talking about? I’m not even sure these guys understand what they write. I think it’s a contest to write garbage and see if it will still be published.

  75. Zoe Phin says:

    “Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2”
    What I like to say is: giant post-hoc fallacy.
    Radiation is already EM force. Radiative forcing is reduntant.
    “radiative forcing” doesn’t exist in physics, only in “climate science “physics”.
    Also, outgoing longwave radiation has been increasing for decades, which contradicts co2-warming mechanism hypothesis.

  76. DangerMouse says:

    Thoughts on the solubility issue?

    As the temperature of the oceans increases, more H2O and CO2 is released into the atmosphere, since solubility decreases as temperature increases. If the GHE were real, and any rise in temperature of the oceans led to more “greenhouse gases” being released, why would this not lead to run-away warming (and vice versa, a decrease in temperature should lead to run-away cooling)?

    Do AGW promoters have an argument to explain why this doesn’t happen?

  77. CD Marshall says:

    DangerMouse Some may have more but a few have said something to this effect to me: “Yes but nature had away of balancing this in equilibrium, but by us adding more CO2 to the atmosphere it disrupts this balance and creates the danger of a looping effect.” Or some such nonsense.

  78. CD Marshall says:

    Thank you. Don’t they also try and use the increased OLR as proof of the ghe? They claim the Sun has reduced solar input so the OLR should be reduced as well. They are Uroboros, devouring their own logic from both ends.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s