I decided to write a new book, short and simple and to the point.
You’re going to learn about the greatest fraud which has ever, and which could ever, occur in science. The audacity of the fraud is matched only by its simplicity. The amazing thing is that anyone, down to Kindergarten children, can see the fraud and appreciate it as a fraud, while almost no scientist, particularly physicists at universities, cannot and refuse to. Strange!
This book will give you all of the information that you need to debunk what is now the single greatest political and scientific fraud in history. It doesn’t matter what else the other side tries to plead, it doesn’t matter what “data” they emotionally believe themselves to be referring to – absolutely nothing that they say about their ploy will be taken seriously any longer. This book debunks their narrative at step one, and everything else they say afterwards is junk pseudoscience.
Note to the reader: Please help in getting this information out there by sharing this book as far and wide as you can. No doubt the censors are working overtime to try to prevent the public from becoming aware of just how much they’ve been lied to and have had their trust taken advantage of. Please share in any way that you can, and ask your friends and colleagues to help share it to. You can all be a part of the most important scientific and political correction, and possibly revolution, in all of history, by sharing this book and the truths you learn within it. Thank you!
Climate of Sophistry 
It’s censors not sensors.
Any non-kindle, non-amazon format? (Sorry am old school and like to avoid the tax-avoiding monopoly Amazon)
No sorry. It’s just the easiest way to publish. They do have paperback though if you don’t want the device.
I very, very quickly skimmed the book, taking note of these things on which we differ:
FROM: Joseph E. Postma M.Sc. astrophysics . The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History. Kindle Edition.
The answer is that existence is made of mathematics, that energy, which is the basis of existence, is existent-mathematics.
… existence must ultimately itself be of a conceptual, and that is to say of a mental or being-of-mind, nature.
This is why it can only be detected by reason, by the rational mind, and not directly by the senses.
Here was my own grappling with such questions, back in the day of my obsessing on them:
http://www.oocities.org/eldonrek/omicrondiary.html
I suppose you might say that I consider reason itself as a form of the physical senses, and that I must endorse a sense of the physical before I can feel grounded in a rational sense. (^_^)
—“The answer is that existence is made of mathematics, that energy, which is the basis of existence, is existent-mathematics.”—
Correct attempt, but fragile language.
“Existence consists of hierarchies of asymmetries of energy organized by immutable constant relations that can be described by mathematics, because mathematics is the language of immutable constant relations.”
Excellent 🙂
“Existence consists of hierarchies of asymmetries of energy organized by immutable constant relations that can be described by mathematics, because mathematics is the language of immutable constant relations.”
Energy, though, in my thinking, is a dynamic, a movement, an interaction that requires a concept of “thing” or “substance” that can be physically grasped, even if that substance or thing is beyond the scale of human grasping it physically.
There must be a sense of something connected to the physically graspable, in order for the human plane of being to make sense. We are beings of the senses, and we cannot dismiss the senses with language that obscures or confuses them.
Organization cannot happen without “stuff” to organize. Relations cannot exist, without “things” that can stand in relations with one another. The symbols of mathematics surely stand in relations with one another, but the symbols themselves and their relations, in my view, cannot be the existence. The existence is even deeper down, ALWAYS out of human sensory grasp, and mathematics is as close as we can get.
Mathematics itself is a form of sensing.
(^__^) … but sensing within reason, logical consistency, and original rules of its conception
A great video to help further expose the fraud:
So when these guys use this radiative forcing like so waht are they saying and what is actually happening?
“The shift in insolation stops because it is part of a change in orbit that obviously doesn’t go on for ever. So when the forcing stops, positive feedback eventually dies down, until the Earth reaches its new equilibrium temperature.
Similarly, the forcing we are currently encountering is due to radiative forcing from increasing concentration of CO2. Temperatures will therefore continue climbing higher as long as we are still increasing that concentration.
Once we stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the forcing will stop. But feedbacks will continue, adding further warming until the Earth reaches equilibrium temperature.”
False because the models ran hot…debunked.
“Forcing” can be an obscure concept, and it is this obscurity that makes it an easy word to toss around in a seemingly intelligent fashion.
Forcing is how much rise in temperature results from a change in a certain variable, such as orbital shift, or CO2 concentration, or cloud cover, cloud dynamics, etc.
The fact is that the error in uncertainty about cloud forcing is propagated to such an extent in climate models that the projected temperatures have no physical meaning. Merely confidently, and matter-of-factly stating that “the forcing we are currently encountering is due to radiative forcing from increasing concentrations of CO2” is verbal posturing that has zero real support.
And, of course, the blatant reality, as JP points out, is that climate models run hot. If they don’t work as forecasting tools, then why are they being invoked as forecasting tools? ANSWER: Because the people invoking them are political leaders who don’t know jack squat about what the models actually are or how physically, practically meaningless the models are for directing real-world planning.
RK
Hilarious math video. You cant divide 0 by 0 and get 0, The teacher should be fired !!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule
🙂 🙂 🙂
Joe, great to see this published. Cross-posted here: https://principia-scientific.org/the-laymans-guide-to-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-in-history/
Cheers John, thanks!
Pierre D B,
Yes, the short film on alternative math is one of my favorites. For those who have not looked at it, take a look — it’s not a serious flick or a documentary flick — it’s a spoof that I think that you will find most entertaining. It’s not long. Very well done, in my opinion.
And its outlook definitely applies to climate … “science”, or the way science is done in that domain.
ANOTHER discussion with climate salesperson on PH site. Yes they keep the conversation going which is why I keep responding. I have issues with allowing idiots to have the last word. I always tried to be first in everything in school. Not becasue I wanted to brag about it but to shut the other kids up who always did.
I said,
I agree but sometimes the confusion is done on purpose, or perhaps not corrected for so long no one caught the mistake. When someone claims heat is trapping in the atmosphere what does a normal person think? Oh no CO2 is preventing heat from escaping. We are all going to die!
That’s not the case at all. However nobody is really straining to make that assertion clear are they? Almost as if they want people to panic.
>Is anyone clarifying that a photon may be emitted back at the surface as a 0.1% chance? No.
>Is anyone clarifying that 15 microns is low level light comparable to 255 Kelvin and once absorbs radiates in all directions at even lower frequencies? No.
>Is anyone clarifying that even if that light reached the surface it would not do one thing to warm the surface up more? No.
Instead they are teaching that CO2 drives climate. Now why is that?
Climate salesperson replied,
“Why that is? Because it does. We can go back to my analogy of the incandescent lightbulb, with the IR coating sending IR radiation back to the filament. That filament is a LOT hotter than this IR radiation, and yet that back radiation is making the filament even hotter. Hotter than just because of the electrons moving through that filament.”
Now I know the bulb has work being done to it you guys taught me that much which excludes it from an example of the atmosphere. However, I want the wording to be precise and I don’t have that part down. Any help? Thank you guys/gals so much really really really thank you for teaching me this stuff. I knew nothing about physics 10 months ago and now I realized neither does the majority of anyone else.
Chris,
Heat is energy FLOW and therefore impossible to trap. Trapping heat is like stopping the flow and therefore preventing heating. Trapping heat is an oxymoron, and those who think its possible are actually morons. You can’t convince a moron to be smart – by defi ition.
We can go back to my analogy of the incandescent lightbulb, with the IR coating sending IR radiation back to the filament. That filament is a LOT hotter than this IR radiation, and yet that back radiation is making the filament even hotter. Hotter than just because of the electrons moving through that filament.”
Honestly, CDM, that’s so wrong that I wouldn’t even waste my time.
… unless you just want to have fun, and say something like, “Then I suppose my standing inside an igloo near a burning candle makes the candle’s flame hotter.”
Just changing the set up of the wrongheaded thinking does not right the wrong head. Good Lord !
Zoe.
Heat flow excellent point which is why they always return to the “greenhouse gas” analogy.
Robert,
So how does it work? I like knowing these things and using them for references when appropriate.One thing I have learned is to never ever repeat their language, it is ALWAYS a word trap. I always return to my source words and quote that.
Añjali Mudr, Namaskaram!
Chris,
Tell ’em that 150 years ago Tyndall observed that you can heat CO2 with IR – and since then there has been no evidence that CO2 will heat anything beyond its source of radiation.
How happy would big oil be if CO2 enhanced input energy? They would love it! For all thermal energy can be converted to electricity. They would never dump such benefitial compound.
These climate retards want to convince us that there is a giant conspiracy by big oil to NOT make easy money.
These people are the dumbest on the planet. The dumbest.
This was my reply…
Marco van de Weert: Your reply supports my example that the majority fails to understand physics. Political science has saturated science to the point of ignorance. Which is why you think that validates your claim on greenhouse gases and you don’t even know why it doesn’t.
You can’t heat something above it’s source without work that is simple thermodynamics. Remove the work from that bulb and you have nothing, the atmosphere is not receiving work from the Sun the surface is. Energy from the Sun is being converted to thermal heat on the surface and that temperature can NOT increase over it’s source (the surface) in the atmosphere.
CO2 will NOT heat anything beyond its source of radiation=The surface, it really is that simple.
The Greenhouse Effect is a political defect in science. No +33 degrees is needed in the atmosphere to compensate what is already accounted for if the math was done correctly in the first place for the surface temperature.
(I am trying to lure them in with Joseph’s videos. I’ll probably just end with a link and move on. PH might do a video on yours, Joseph if I did, trying to debunk you like he did Tim ball.)
Do link! Like to see them try!
CDM,
How does what work? As I thought I understood it, it surely does not work the way the false analogy with a coated light bulb puts forth.
The key is in this part: That filament is a LOT hotter than this IR radiation, and yet that back radiation is making the filament even hotter.
If the filament is hotter than the IR radiation, then the filament already has the intensity of the IR energy in it, and so more of that same intensity of energy cannot increase the already-greater energy more. It’s like saying that if I shine a flashlight beam onto a second flashlight beam, then the second flashlight beam makes the first flashlight beam brighter (absurd — light energy does not work that way). Or if I use a mirror to reflect a blue wall onto itself, then the reflection of the blue wall makes the wall more blue.
That’s why I didn’t bother with his analogy it was a word trap, so I said, “Remove the work from that bulb and you have nothing,” meaning anything done with a bulb is obviously work and you have no argument with no work. I also added Zoe’s comment as a buffer, “CO2 will NOT heat anything beyond its source of radiation.”
Will he get it? Not at all but can he try and trap me with my words? Not at all. I grew up with a paranoid schizophrenic family member, word games are my specialty. Sometimes I like placing two peaces to a puzzle but not connecting them in the comment.
How many times when dealing with these clowns do you have to say, “that’s not what I said stop putting words in my mouth?”
That’s why the art is to feed less words in each reply like a loose give them just enough slack in the first reply and then yank it tight choking them with their own words by making your replies smaller bit by bit. They want to increase verbiage to confuse and confound, it is their art, mine is to counter that attempt with minimization.
Naturally not all of them are like that but the bulk must have attended the same online course.
Joseph which video would you like posted? I’ll send it directly to PH’s comment link. Anything else you want to add?
A Postma vs Pothorror (I mean “Potholer”)54 video would be great.
Joseph,
I will be polite about it. I want to invite him to look at the video and explain in your own words a brief hook.
How does he know that the coated bulb makes the filament hotter? There’s no thermometer there. He’s measuring it from the outside! So much for “trapping heat”. The contradiction will be lost on him.
Chris,
Ask him for the paper proving the lightbulb thing, and I will find the error.
Sorry guys I must know this something sticks in my head until I get it resolved. It cannot be any other way.
My math is still coming out sketchy on this. 240 W/m^2 is dividing by 4 not 2. So total surface average should be 480…
Total (after albedo is 960)
Outgoing is 960 W/m^2 (divided by 4) becasue it is global=240 W/m^2.
Incoming is 480 W/m^2 (divided by 2) because it is half=480 W/m^2.
So why am I seeing 240 W/m^2? The average surface is 15C from lapse rate/pressure?
Josephs model shows 49C calculation so is it reduced to 15 because of lapse rate/pressure?
So I did a quick average from 104 temps world wide and I got 18C so 15C sounds about right.
Meant:
Incoming is 960 W/m^2 (divided by 2) because it is half=480 W/m^2
So I think I got it (I must have brain damage) but where is the +30 coming from? The +49 is from a 2012 post. The new revised math is +30 but where is that coming from?
TOA is 1370
After albedo of 0.3, 1370 * 0.7 = 960
Because of spread on surface (cosine law) 960 / 2 = 480 effective incoming on hemisphere
Because outgoing is from the whole surface and not one hemisphere (2x), 480 / 2 = 240 outgoing,
OOOPPSSS
When output of 240 is used for input, SB Law says 255K or -18C
When rightly so 480 is used for input, SB Law says 303K or 30C
An absolute must view of Dr. Tim Ball
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE
CDM
.jpg)
About catch and release. In a spectrophotometer a certain amount of light is passed through the sample and the amount absorbed by the sample is measured by the detector. This requires that the detector is in line with the light source and sample. In a fluorimeter, the fluorescence of the sample is measured at 90 degrees to the incident light otherwise the detector will see light from the lamp which is not due to fluorescence of the actual sample.
You can see in the diagram that the fluorescence (in green) is in all directions and is the energy absorbed by the sample that is being released. If that energy was not released then spectrofluorimetry would not be possible and the sample would eventualy vaporise due to too much energy in the sample. How long does it take for the energy to be released ? Instantaneous ! It’s the same game in x-ray fluorescence and for CO2 in the infrared.
The Tim Ball video mentioned by Pierre DB deserves an embed in this thread, and so here it is:
For those who might not know, Michael Mann dragged out his lawsuit with Dr. Ball over that flippant comment he made for over eight years, and because of delay, the case was recently dismissed with prejudice. But, of course, Dr. Mann and his cult followers played this outcome down and dirty by saying that the reason the case was dismissed was because Dr. Ball had gotten too old and feeble to continue. Take a look at Mann’s Twitter comments about all this to see what a sleazebag he appears to be — I won’t tarnish the discussion here with a link, so you’ll have to dig up that dirt yourself.
I looked at a small amount of it…and indeed, he is a gigantic sleaze bag WAY more than I imagined.
Guys, check it out – I’m linked up on ClimateDepot!
We’re going to now see Spencer, Anthony, and Monckton have conniptions.
Congratulations, Joseph.
BTW,
I wanted to share a really fun anti-AGW video. This young man has a great channel. His first 12 videos “The falseness of liberals” is also really good.
https://youtu.be/CQ04h8udHso
Since 1988 I’ve seen not much from them but conniptions.
I don’t know if you have this off hand but what is the actual average over the equator in W/m^2, real average not division impaired by 4 average.
So in the average surface temperature even that is flawed, as Pierre indicated about Cosine, shouldn’t even the average be separated by location. The Equatorial average is way off from Arctic averages. That had me confused because even the divided by 2 for global average even though correct, it’s even worse than that. Climate is created by location and the 6 global cells. Average in climate is completely worthless.
The entire energy budget used in politics should be completely trashed as misleading. Even fixing the 2 divisor using it for climate is way off.
This version of the energy budget in my opinion should never have been used for climate. Just to show Conservation of Energy. To display climate you would need a completely different model.
I was still looking at this problem too small. I had to think bigger.
Joseph congrats a link?
Pierre D. Bernier
“Catch and Release” is nearly instantaneous? So it’s really just a router of IR?
So how does CO2 get warmed? Just by this process?
I thought I commented on this? weird. I came across a reply to a question about CO2. Joseph, what’s their grade?
Now some atmospheric physics:
1. Take a view from Space. Earth is in equilibrium (or at least very close). The same amount of energy coming in from the sun = energy going out. The black body temperature of the earth is 255K. The surface temperature 285K. Moreover, roughly 30% of the surface IR goes straight up and out and this swath is at the center of the 285K black body spectrum. How can this possibly work?
What happens is that the atmosphere gets colder as you go up to the boundary between the stratosphere and the troposphere. This boundary is roughly -55C or 218K. Part of this is due to convection in the lower atmosphere, but a significant reason for this drop is the absorption and emissions of IR by CO2 and H2O. The effective temperature of the CO2 emission into space is well below earth’s 255K black body temperature. End result: There is far less IR emissions into space in the CO2 spectrum than one would expect based on either earth’s surface temperature or black body temperature.
2. There will be a slight tilt towards lower frequencies as you go higher and get colder — but not much. The tilt is based on Wein’s law, which says the frequency of the median blackbody emission varies directly with temperature. Drop the temperature and you have a small increase in the lower frequency photons.
But the big drop comes from less emissions as you go up and get colder. This drops off with T^4. A rule of thumb is that in the temperature range we are dealing with a 1° drop in temperature results in a 1.2% to 1.8% drop in emissions.
3. There is a big transmission of energy to other gas molecules. Actually, only a very small number of CO2 molecules have the necessary energy to emit a photon. Mostly, they just bang around against other gas molecules and if they do capture a photon, that quickly turns into general kinetic energy and temperature rise in the surrounding gas.
[The surrounding gas acts as a big heat reservoir. It mediates and dampens the CO2 emissions]
But every once in a while, a CO2 molecule will get a hard knock, and before it gets knocked again, it fires off a photon cooling off itself and the surrounding gas.
You can work this out using P = e^(-E/kt) and E = c h/λ
Just for your information, the relaxation time for a CO2 molecule after absorbing a 15μm photon is 10μs. But the time between collisions at atmospheric pressure is 0.27 ns. Accordingly a CO2 molecule will get knocked on average 370,000 times before its mean emission time.
4. Clouds slow everything down (they also reflect a large amount of light back into space). If you have clouds, you have a lot of water vapor in the air. This decreases the mean free path for a photon considerably.
Moreover, the water drops are great at reflecting back IR in the bandwidth that normally escapes the earth unabsorbed. Ergo, you stay warmer at night with clouds.
In the desert their is very little water vapor above you. And there is no reflection of IR back from the clouds. CO2 covers a much smaller percentage of the IR spectrum than water. (let’s assume 15%). So you are looking up at a very cold sky. Microwave background ~3K. Let’s do a thermal radiative balance:
Assume desert temperature = 300 K
Assume CO2 radiates back to desert at 300K
Assume no H2O absorption. (this, of course, is not true. It is just that little water vapor means that the mean free path for photons that are absorbed by H20 is quite long.
Radiation from the surface to the the cup = σ 300K^4 * 1/2
Infrared radiation from CO2 back to cup = σ 300K^4 * 1/2 * .15
Radiation from CMB = σ 3k^4 * 1/2
T = (σ 300K^4 * 1/2 + σ 300K^4 * 1/2 * .15 + σ 3k^4 * 1/2)^1/4 / σ
T = 261 K … effective temperature water “sees”
yep, it will freeze.
5. Instead of rms, I’d get the mean free path for the size of the shell which would be 1 m/ln2 =1.44m
Given atm pressure is 100 kPa, g= 9.8 m/s and density is 1.2 kg/m^3, this is the equivalent of 8500 m (This sounds right since atm at the top of everest is 1/3 atm sealevel). That means it is 5905 mean free path lengths.
Radiation plays an insignificant part in heating the atmosphere – primarily because the absorption spectra are trivial.
There is only one wavelength bandwidth where CO2 absorbs any terrestrial radiation and it is the one to the right. The Earth’s surfaces are simply not hot enough to emit any significant radiation in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bandwidths.
This graph of transmission of radiation by 100% CO2 shows how insignificant it is :-
Again the Earth’s surfaces are simply not hot enough to emit any significant radiation in the 2.7 and 4.3 micron bandwidths.
The application of blackbody radiation derived mathematical laws to substances that do not emit blackbody radiation is absurd. All of the models derived from this simply cannot be correct.
This is something I wrote some years ago without really finishing it – it was based upon my other experiment https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dol1h351wggcwf/Steel%20Greenhouse%20Experiment.docx?dl=0
CDM
Right here at https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/25/how-to-debunk-climate-deniers-and-climate-alarmists/
Look for The Average Solar Radiation Flux on Earth For Dummies (Not you)
Whatever the season, an area from -23,5° to +23,5° E-W by -23,5° to +23,5° N-S, relative to the Sun’s zenith, F = 846,4 W/m^2 / 0,65419 = 1294 W/m^2.
Allowing for that very same albedo of 31%, 69% of that energy will reach the Earth, which gives us a heating potential of 893 W/m^2. The very same Stefan-Boltzman Law gives us a mean radiative temperature of 354 °K or 81 °C.
Rosco
BRILLIANT
Pierre,
I am a dummy. If I thought I were smart I’d be supporting global warming like all the other “smart” ones.
Thank you though I get it, just the global average is worthless. I just didn’t realize by how much. Regional averages would be far more comprehensive in computing variable climate, which after all is regional. Really no such thing as global climate or global average. I knew it was bunk I’m just now
appreciating the magnitude of this bunk.
Absolutely no climate scientist in their right mind could possibly,knowingly, intelligently think global would be a correct platform to understand climate considering all climate is regional. Even on the Moon temperatures are regional.
CDM
The very fact that you question shows you’re smart. The whole execise of figuring the divide by 2 was just to prove the clymists wrong in their divide by 4. It proved that the earth could be much warmer then their supposed -18C average. That’s all. Not to figure out the true value.
At the risk of seeming like an idiot, could you explain (for dummies) what I am looking at in those two graphs that you pictured above?
What are the graphs showing and why is what they are showing significant? What is the significance of the relationship between absorbance and transmittance that they show?
I think I get it, but, just in case, ……………
Thanks.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/09/23/the-laymans-guide-to-the-greatest-scientific-fraud-in-history/#comment-48594
… was directed at Rosco [I thought it, but didn’t type it].
Rosco,
I don’t think your argument is very useful … because CO2 does interfere with ~8% of IR. This might be small, but it’s enough for alarmists to make their [anti-scientific] case. Just sayin’.
They are trying to isolate the radiative component and then add it on as an extra effect, when it’s already included (subsumed) by that which caused the temperature in the first place.
CDM
I kept checking his text and he is so way off that I just gave up. I can’t keep up with his shit ! You just can’t go on refuting 22 wrong points when the whole thing is off. Just blow it all up in one swoop. So just answer this below. It should keep him busy for some time…
/ The black body temperature of the earth is 255K /
Wrong ! F = 1368 / 2 = 684 W/m2. The Sun shines on one hemisphere at a time. After albedo of 31%, 472 W/m2 for 302 °K or 29 °C.
/ but a significant reason for this drop is the absorption and emissions of IR by CO2 and H2O /
Wrong ! It’s adiabatic auto-compression !
When you use the right science you get the right results. From the Ideal Gas Law, PV = nRT you get T = PV/nR = PM/dR where T=temperature, P=pressure, M=molar mass, d=density and R=gas constant(8.3145).
From NASA itself, Venus near surface data, T=740…
P=9200, M=43.45, d=65, T=739.7 ~ 740. No runaway GHGE there. All explained.
From NASA itself, Earth near surface data, T=288…
P=101.3, M=28.97, d=1.225, T=288.1 ~ 288. No GHGE there. All explained.
There is not, never has, never will, anywhere, be any GHGE. NEVER EVER !!! Not even on planet Beta in solar system Zeta !!! NEVER EVER !!! It is not only the Ideal Gas Law, it is the Universal Gas Law !!! From Robert Ian Holmes
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dd17/e71f5e2c8ca3de2c4cc110ac49380b118612.pdf?_ga=2.202317654.619044460.1568144103-1210803403.1563538073
Heck. It even works for Antarctica, T=224…
P=68.13, M=28.97, d=1.06, T=223.9 ~ 224. No GHGE there either. All explained.…
Look at the work of M. A. Vukcevic, R. J. Salvador, Nicola Scafetta and especially Valentina Zharkova.
The Moon creates tides on Earth. Even the atmosphere looks like an egg permanently pointing at the Moon. In the same way the big planets, like Jupiter and Saturn, also create tides on the Sun’s surface…
Click to access prp-2-1-2014.pdf
It goes like this… The big planets influence the Sun’s activity. The Sun’s activity influence the Earth’s and other planets’ temperatures. The new temperatures influence the pressure and the density of the atmospheres. With the new pressure and density of the atmospheres we can calculate the new temperatures which should be the same as the observed temperatures. QED.
Jupiter and Saturn have a revolution period of 11,862242 and 29,457784 years around the Sun respectively. This gives them a sinodic period of 19,859312 years. For simplicity say 30 and 20 years. This means that Jupiter and Saturn are in conjunction every 20 years but at 3 different places on Jupiter’s orbit. Every 60 years (30 * 2) only will they be in conjunction in the same position. This 60 years period is called the Yoshimura period. This is why the Earth has had maximum temperatures around 1879, 1942 and 2002 and minimum temperatures around 1910 and 1972. Much better fit then that CO2 shit !
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
Great temperature to CO2 correlation by the way !
https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01901ead3a7a970b-pi
See the purple-ish arrow at the bottom right ? That’s your Global Warming Dwarf !
If you still think that CO2 is such a big problem then explain this to me … http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CO2-Arc.gif
Zoe,
I do not agree with your statement:
I don’t think your [Rosco’s] argument is very useful … because CO2 does interfere with ~8% of IR. This might be small, but it’s enough for alarmists to make their [anti-scientific] case. Just sayin’.
It’s NOT just a question of a small percentage allowing an overblown alarmist case, but rather a larger question of HOW the small percentage “interferes” or is even correctly described as “interfering” at all.
Your point of view here seems to allow alarmists to compare CO2 to vitamins or to poison, and it disallows a focus on the CONTEXT within which DIFFERENT substances obey DIFFERENT laws that are CONTEXT-dependent. A gram of CO2 is NOT a gram of vitamin C or a gram of arsenic.
The molecular or physics context of the substance must be fully examined to fully assess the impact of the smallness or largeness of the substance’s percentage.
The questions I like seeing answered relate to HOW exactly can this small amount of CO2 do what is claimed, within the context of physics and within the context of molecular science. What exactly does a molecule of CO2 have to do at the molecular/atomic level to heat up a mass of atmospheric gas far in excess of its small percentage of this atmospheric mass?
In other words, I am not convinced that a relationship of one molecule in 2500 other atmospheric molecules can operate within known laws of physics and molecular science to … “heat” the atmosphere.
Any alarmist who can clearly demonstrate this will get my attention.
The radiative math does not do this. The SB law does not do this.
Start with the CO2 molecule. Talk about its internal workings. Tell me exactly how it can influence 2400 other molecules surrounding it in such a way that those other 2400 are slaves to it.
CDM
If he did not have enough then here is my Connoly summary (a work in progress)…
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CO2 HYPOTHESIS?
The greenhouse effect theory claims that the various infrared-active gases dramatically alter the atmospheric temperature profile and makes it very complex. It predicts that infrared-active gases lead to complicated infrared cooling rates which should be different at each height (Figure 9).
https://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/11/summary-the-physics-of-the-earths-atmosphere-papers-1-3/
The Connelly’s D vs P fits (Figure 10) did not require any consideration of the concentration of carbon dioxide, ozone or any of the other infrared-active gases. This directly contradicts the greenhouse effect theory.
Furthermore, the CO2 hypothesis cannot explain the troposphere/tropopause phase change in molar density behaviour. Also, if the ozone in the tropopause heats up the atmosphere, how come it is more easily compressible (Figure 10) ?
All of this shows that the temperatures at each height are completely independent of the infrared-active gas concentrations, which directly contradicts the predictions of the greenhouse effect theory. So, if there is no greenhouse effect, this also disproves the man-made global warming theory.
Every one should have seen this graph somewhere if they have researched atmospheric radiation even a little – or something very similar to it:-
It is illuminating and deceptive. It is deceptive because it shows the curve for the solar radiation at the same scale as the IR emitted by Earth.
It is illuminating because it shows that water vapour is the predominant “greenhouse gas” – absorbing over a wide spectrum.
And CO2 absorbs IR emitted by Earth in only one band width which overlays a water vapour band – perhaps we should be panicking over water ? CO2 does have the potential to absorb more to the left of the ~15 micron centre but not much.
And if the science is so “settled” then how did they stuff this up ?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vxeoak18wtbyt86/co2_ir.bmp?dl=0
As you can see the theory about bandwidth excitation of the CO2 molecule predicts a powerful bandwidth stretch at 1537 per centimetre which experiment shows does not exist.
Don’t be fooled – the physical properties of heat transfer have been meticulously measured and include any radiative component despite being named thermal conduction. The new “settled” science is adding radiation to already measured properties as if it is something newly discovered by the IPCC hacks thus duplicating the existing methods of heat transfer in the atmosphere and this is false.
I think this person was just a victim of the academia educational system. To that it is just sad unless he gets employed in applied physics in the real world he’ll never see his mistakes.
Of course the 1537cm-1 predicted symetric strech does not exist. N=N, O=O are symetric molecules with no dipole moment change possible. Therefore no IR. CO2 is 0=C=O (linear). What does a symetric strech will do ? Nada ! No band !
Based on Rosco’s experiment with spotlights, I came up with a short simple description that anyone can copy and post on any site where they promote GHGE. That should cool them off. Rosco, hope you dont mind. If anyone can improve without making it too complex, be my guess. Remember, simplicity is best.
The Inconvenient Spotlight
A spotlight is made of a filament enclosed in a sealed vacuum globe, a back polished parabolic aluminium reflector and a front transparent glass lens. When the power is set on, the filament glows to about 3000K and emits light. We can see the light because it passes through the front lens. We can also feel some Infrared light passing through the lens because the temperature of the lens reaches about 200 C which is 473K. According to the Stefan-Botlzman law, 473K is the equivalent of emitting 2838 W/m2. This 2838 W/m2 is emitted externally and internally from the lens where it will be reflected by the back reflector. Now the lens receives both the filament energy and the internally reflected energy for a total of 5676 W/m2. If the Greenhouse Effect is true then according to the Stefan-Boltzman law this is equivalent to 562K or 289 C. Now, that lens has to emit more energy to cool off, 5676 W/m2 outward and inward which will also be reflected by the back reflector. So, now the lens receives 8514 W/m2 which is equivalent to 622K or 349 C. This continuous heating cycle must result in continuous increases in temperature causing increases in radiative emissions and it has no end. If the Greenhouse Effect is true then no spotlight should ever be operational. They will all blowup instantaneously. Since they do work then the Greenhouse Effect is not real.
For those who have not registered it yet, look closely at this graph again:
Look at the red curve and area, … and then look at the other curves and blue area.
The RED curve is labeled 5525 K, while the other curves are labeled 210 – 310 K. Yet, they are the same height and they extend along the same horizontal length, giving the visual impression that there is some sort of equality between them.
Look again: 5525 K has the same visual, graphic-design appearance as 210 – 310 K ! How untruthful is THAT ? Why has this been allowed to be a truthful depiction of the facts?
My question is: “If the top graph is so falsely visually distorted, then what are those other graphs below doing? — are THEY scaled truthfully? What SHOULD their true graphic-design, visual appearance be?”
I get downgoing solar radiation 70-75 % transmited but upgoing thermal radiation 15-30 % Doesn’t upgoing mean 100% outgoing ? If it’s outgoing, it’s outgoing ! no ? duhhhhh !
from http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gw-spectrum-123a.gif?resize=450%2C338
The guy practically admits that everything coming in goes out
https://i1.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/gw-spectrum-summary1.jpg?resize=768%2C466&ssl=1
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gw-spectrum-123a.gif?resize=450%2C338
I think I get what that graph is trying to say. You have the absorption spectrum of the different components of the Earth’s atmosphere. They sum them up in the one where they say / Total Absorption and Scattering / . Now this is absorption. Flip it upside-down, downside-up. You get emission. See the fit ? Where there was no absorption there is light and vise-versa. Then they fitted an arbitrary SB curve to the emission spectrums. From these SB curves we see that the Sun does not emit much beyond 3 microns. Earth does not emit much below that 3 microns. What is in blue is what Earth let’s go freely around 10 microns. Between 5-8 microns, water absorbs everything below the SB curve. Beyond 15 microns water and CO2 absorb everything below the SB curves. That is their message. Except that they use over saturated spectrums to show this. If the spectrums were real you would see a lot more and wider band of light emitted around 10 microns.
Furthermore, water absorbing at 7 microns can re-emit at 7 microns and 15 microns, but water absorbing at 15 microns cannot re-emit at the more energetic 7 microns. The same is true for CO2. It absorbs at 15 microns and re-emits at 15 microns or higher. So, saying that water and CO2 absorbing at 15 microns and re-emitting at 7 or 10 microns back to Earth is rubbish.
Rosco… Don’t know where you got those CO2 spectrums but can we see the same for water at unsaturated levels to see how insignificant the absorption is on both sides of the main absorption peaks ?
Got it…
So above 8 microns it’s only scattering, anywhere and everywhere. All lost.
Significant absorption starts at 5 and ends at 7.5 microns., We could even say 5.5 to 7. Not the same picture is it ? Much narower band !
Noticed how they faked you with the scatering above 16 microns ?
The whole blackbody assumption is wrong to begin with. The Sun-Earth system is nothing like a conductively heated cavity lined with black soot at thermal equilibrium radiating to the outside (the outside, which by the way is specifically not at thermal equilibrium with the cavity, by design).
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/115/41/10293/F1.medium.gif
See? Nothing like a cavity.
To salvage cavity radiation law, the emissivity coefficient increases with increasing height. Emissivity acts as a fudge factor.
Just because there exists a place between sun and earth that could be said to be in equilibrium, doesn’t mean that that place acts as a pivot point for temperature.
Alarmists pretend there is some magical pivot point, where if emission increases, surface temperature “must” rise to compensate. What rubbish.
Pierre DB,
What I am trying to emphasize, as Rosco has emphasized before, is that the visual representation of that graph is a lie. It is a complete misrepresentation of relative magnitudes of the intensities being described.
The vertical axis represents 5525 K as if it is the same as 210 K to 310 K. Look at that graph ! It’s absurd — a quantity of 18 times more K than another is scaled exactly the same as the quantity that is 18 times less K !
The horizontal axis is worse, as it equates THREE unequal scaling maneuvers.
Who created that horrible graph? Why has it been allowed? How are so many people so blind not to eventually pick up on this visual sophistry?
Here is Rosco’s graph showing a more proper scaling, both vertically and horizontally:
Note the tall green spike — THAT’s the sun. Look how flat those other curves are by comparison.
Next, consider those percentage figures in the fake graph, and ask yourselves, “Of what consequence is a percentage of the power of a flea fart to the percentage of the power of a hurricane?”
Nights warming faster than days,
I was given another paper. This shows their side in a better light. Now maybe you have enough info to digest it properly. As always thank you for your insights.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-03-nights-warmer-faster-days.html
Here is the actual paper:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688
It’s published in the Royal Meteorological Society, so it has to have been processed through rigorous peer review vetting…
LOL
RFLOL
ROFLOL
Cool things warm faster than already-warm things.
Place an ice cube on one side of a ten-foot-by-ten-foot room (room at 74 F ambient temperature), and place a lit candle across from the ice cube on the other side of the 74 F room.
Raise the temperature of the room by 3 F. The candle will not even get warmer, but the ice cube WILL. Is 74 + 3 = 77 F an alarming rate of temp increase? — NO, but it still causes the ice cube to warm faster than the candle that doesn’t warm at all.
So what if cooler places and cooler times are warming faster? Is this alarming? — in and of itself, NO — cool things warm faster than already-warm things.
A 13-year-old child is growing faster than a 5-year-old child. Is this unusual?… alarming? … indicative of catastrophic growth? — NO — 13-year-old children grow faster than 5-year-old children.
Roy Spencer writes [I’ll reveal where, if you must know]:
If the climate system sheds only a little extra energy with warming, it warms even more until radiative energy balance is restored. If it sheds a lot of energy, then very little warming is required to restore global energy balance. This is the climate sensitivity holy grail, and it will determine just how much warming results from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.
This seems presumptive of forgone conclusions to me. How would the climate hold back some of its warming in response to some energy gain, unless some mechanism for “trapping” energy were not assumed?
Comments?
All of their energy balance thoughts is based on the flat earth sunshine spread all over at once BS. It means nothing!
Conservation of energy I get now, thanks to Joseph. The thermodynamic equilibrium I’m not as grounded. IF this paper is right they are making the assumption it’s CO2 with no evidence, however,is this a process possible under thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere?
RK
Rosco,s gragh… I’m in complete agreement. It’s all fake. Was just explaining the fakeness plus they use ridiculously high concentrations of gases saturating the detectors..
So Joseph,
I have asked Andy P about 5 times now,
“Does incoming sunshine spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once? Yes or no.”
He refuses to answer me however he gives great gems like this:
“you can’t understand very simple ideas, why are you continuing with this?”
“repeating your confused misunderstanding demonstrates only your own incomprehension.”
“this is pointless: you will never understand.”
CDM
Dont bother. After having an argument with him I told him that he could not fool me. I was MSc in Chemistry. All of a sudden he said he was a Chemist also and started to ask me high level, questions in quantum mechanics. Questions only someone very familiar with the subjet could answer. Totaly unrelated to climate, He’s hopeless.
After my few last posts at potholer saying what I have to say that nobody can contradict, nobody engages me anymore.They must have had marching orders.,I guess that if they engage they are just giving me more air time. It’s boring 🙂
I’ve asked R. Holmes at 1000Frolly if he could do a video based on Rosco’s spotlight experiment. Don’t know if he’ll bite. Hope so.
Maybe Joe could do that spotlight experiment ?!?!? come on Joe ! You can do it !
He refuses to answer me however he gives great gems like this:
“you can’t understand very simple ideas, why are you continuing with this?”
“repeating your confused misunderstanding demonstrates only your own incomprehension.”
“this is pointless: you will never understand.”
He can’t understand very simple distortions of ideas — very simple errors in thinking — he continues in his robotic, monotonic refusal to scrutinize the basics.
He repeats his own confused misunderstanding, thus demonstrating his own incomprehension and unwillingness to learn.
What’s pointless is expecting him to answer a basic question about a basic idea, in a clear, straightforward manner.
He does the classic, predictable reversal of his own confusion onto you.
Show these guys an elegant, detailed explanation of something, and they will tell you that you don’t understand the basics, when it is THEY who don’t understand the basics. They don’t know what they are doing, as they do it. They don’t know what their math means, even as they do it.
They are cybernetic organisms, performing a programmed, repeating algorithm, over and over and over again, and they find every means possible to repeat it over and over and over again, because that’s just what they do — that’s ALL they do, and they WILL not stop until your idea is dead. [cue Terminator music].
“Does not compute. Does not compute.Does not compute.”
… just sharing this:
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/09/a-climate-modeller-spills-the-beans/
Compared to what we should know to build climate models, we don’t know jack squat.
That’s the impression I’ve been getting lately.
One thing with respect to which our jack-squat-knowledge might be lacking is electricity in Earth’s atmosphere. I came upon this paper, which I have not read yet (but will):
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0506077
I started looking in this direction, after reading an article about how spiders can transport themselves long distances by using such electricity in the atmosphere. If spiders can use this, then what else might be able to, where climate is concerned?
Why isn’t more research being done in this area? ANSWER: Climate-hysteria, research-funding mania.
“So Joseph,
I have asked Andy P about 5 times now,
“Does incoming sunshine spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once? Yes or no.”
He refuses to answer me however he gives great gems like this:
“you can’t understand very simple ideas, why are you continuing with this?”
“repeating your confused misunderstanding demonstrates only your own incomprehension.”
“this is pointless: you will never understand.””
They’re such sick lying bastards. That’s what the PhD in physics at my own university did to me too when I asked him. They seem to be coordinated in this effort…and they just cannot answer this basic question. I hate these people so much. Hate them.
Click to access CD&PW_reeves_denver.pdf
Replace global cooling to warming, change the dates and government names and it’s 2019.
Sir Joseph,
This was linked in one of your posts:
“Much of thermodynamics deals with three closely related concepts: temperature, energy, and heat. Much of students’ difficulty with thermodynamics comes from confusing these three concepts with each other.” -D. V. Schroeder, Thermal Physics, Addison Wesley Longman, 2000
Energy is energy. Heat is a form of energy that is never transferable. So I’m guessing my perception of temperature is not the real physics version so what is the definition of temperature in the realm of physics?
Come to think of it you should do a video on how sunlight works if you felt so inclined. I mean you could start out pointing out how the models are in error and then transition to how Sunlight really works. Could even do a series on it if you felt so inclined.
Actually just to mock climate science you should start it with your face in the Sun and explain how direct Sunlight can cause severe skin freezing. Have an ice cube next to your face and explain this is how climate science portrays the power of sunlight. Heck sell your own products: Freeze Block. “Don’t let the cold power of sunlight catch you off guard again. Block those freezing rays with Freeze Block!”
Sorry I’m in a facetious mood. Dealing with all these trolls has gotten me cynical.
This from a, “I’ve been studying climate change for 30 years.”
The arrogance of these people is only rivaled by their stupidity.
I said, “Heat is not transferable, not ever.”
Below was his reply, sound familiar, Joseph?
“You’ve jumped the intellectual shark, Collins. Our conversation is over – I’ll speak to others in this thread, but we are done. Go ahead and declare victory if that makes you feel better, but you are either not honest enough, or willing to learn about a subject you’re obviously very uneducated on, for us to bother attempting to converse further.”
Sorry to just catch up now CD.
“Heat is a form of energy that is never transferable.”
That should be stated as:
“Heat is a form of energy that is never REVERSIBLE/RECYCLABLE/etc.”
Yes, all they can do in the end is hide.
Heat cannot back-transfer, recycle, or reverse, etc. But they will never acknowledge that.
So to be clearer when CO2 absorbs thermal radiation it’s only retaining the internal energy and converting that to thermal energy or no? which in this contest is what I was referring to.
“Heat is defined as the form of energy that is transferred across a boundary by virtue of a temperature difference or temperature gradient. Implied in this definition is the very important fact that a body never contains heat, but that heat is identified as heat only as it crosses the boundary. Thus, heat is a transient phenomenon…”
I have read your ‘layman’s guide’ and I am seeking clarification on several items:
* What is meant by “recycling” energy? You say that AGW theorists claim that the climate creates itself by recycling heat. I’m not clear on what this would imply.
* A major crux of your argument seems to be that averaging out the energy sunshine that reaches earth across the entire surface area is invalid because the reality is that solar energy is not uniformly distributed across the earth’s surface. I can certainly understand that but I am unclear on how this affects climate models which I assume would calculate aggregate heat retained across the entire surface of of the earth and in its atmosphere. (By way of comparison, using your Firebird vs. Chevette analogy, it is clear to me that the Firebird may out perform the Chevette but the average speed and time are relevant for calculating the total distance traversed by the Chevette and Firebird, even if they traverse this distance using two entirely different time/speed pathways. Isn’t the aggregate climate somewhat analogous to the aggregated distance, thereby making the use of averages releavant? Or is there something about the transient way sunlight shines on and distributes its energy on the earth especially relevant, especially w/r to maximal and peak heating rates that makes use of average heating calculations invalid?)
I am a layman and am quite skeptical of AGW and I can easily see how the global finance oligarchy could stand to benefit from a cap and trade carbon credit trading scheme which would be implemented to to regulate and constrain hydrocarbon consumption. I can also see that big institutional money and propaganda push being are being rolled out to promote regulation of CO2 emissions. I do wish I understood the scientific models in enough detail to summarize the flawed assumption and explain how these bogus assumptions skew the projections.
PS: Are you familiar with Denis Rancourt? He comes from a vastly different political bent but has a similar outlook on AGW theory. I liked his discussion of the energy balance equations and about the difficulty in obtaining good empirical data for an “average” temperature. You can see his discussions here:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=denis+rancourt+climate+change&sp=mAEB
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/
Kind Regards,
BR
“* What is meant by “recycling” energy? You say that AGW theorists claim that the climate creates itself by recycling heat. I’m not clear on what this would imply.”
I mean recycling heat. It implies a violation of the laws of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, and it implies a perpetual motion mechanism of some form. Indeed, the basic greenhouse climate theory requires that the climate supply to itself twice the heat than the Sun provides.
“* A major crux of your argument seems to be that averaging out the energy sunshine that reaches earth across the entire surface area is invalid because the reality is that solar energy is not uniformly distributed across the earth’s surface. I can certainly understand that but I am unclear on how this affects climate models which I assume would calculate aggregate heat retained across the entire surface of of the earth and in its atmosphere.”
Not only is the solar energy not uniform, it also doesn’t spread across day & night at once. This is the basis of the climate greenhouse model, and hence, doesn’t correspond to reality since they’re not modelling reality in the first place. This is about the basis of the greenhouse climate theory.
“the average speed and time are relevant for calculating the total distance traversed by the Chevette and Firebird, even if they traverse this distance using two entirely different time/speed pathways. Isn’t the aggregate climate somewhat analogous to the aggregated distance, thereby making the use of averages releavant?”
It’s not the distance that matters, it is the performance. The actual performance of the Sun in real-time is such that it can heat & create the climate, whereas the performance they’ve depicted the Sun in their greenhouse climate theory makes it unable to heat and create the climate. That’s of course the crucial difference here.
Thanks for the link!
Thanks for answering my questions Joseph. I appreciate your clarifications. I expect your views will ultimately be vindicated, but not in the near future. Btw, I enjoyed your book. Now I’m going to have to read the book you published earlier.
Cheers BR! Yes do read the earlier book if your interest has been captured – you should enjoy it too then.
Zoe is where you live the warmest? If not put a thermometer on the roof top and wait till about 2 PM to get a good reading and then say hottest day ever.
Today I discovered that I live 104 km (as the bird flies) from the #1 most CO2-emitting power plant (coal, obviously) in the Western Hemisphere.
I also live 76km from the 2nd-most CO2 emitting power plant in the western hemisphere.
What an honor!
I think it was Robert who was pointing out how the solar spectrum and terrestrial spectrum were plotted to be the same scale, where of course the solar spectrum is many more times more intense than the terrestrial.
This is correct to question this, but let’s explain why they do that first.
They do that, of course, to simply imply that the respective spectra, *at the Earth*, have the same total energy. And so the two spectra are normalized to have the same area and hence can be plotted on the same scale.
However.
While the total solar energy absorbed is indeed equal to the total terrestrial energy emitted, do you know what is NOT equal about those equal total energies?
The number of photons.
The solar photons are higher frequency hence carry more energy per unit photon, while the terrestrial photons are lower frequency and hence carry less energy per unit photon.
If you work it out…I just did this in my head but maybe someone can check the work…there are 30 times the number of terrestrial photons as compared to solar photons, even though the total energy of the two spectra absorbed-emitted are equal.
Don’t you think that if there are 30 times the number of terrestrial photons leaving than solar photons absorbed, that it tells you that there is something extremely important about the difference between these photons, even if they have the same total energy?
An average solar photon contains the energy of 30 average terrestrial photons.
If scientists were scientists they would think about things like this.
They used to, and a difference like this is what lead to the old guys discovering the laws of thermodynamics.
Even more, 30 average terrestrial photons cannot do what 1 average solar photon can do, because frequency is important. A single average solar photon can carry heat, while 30 average terrestrial photons could carry none (wrt to the surface).
WTF happened to scientists? Robert, I appoint you our new Chief Scientist.
I stand on the shoulders of the giant, Rosco, for taking time to create that properly-scaled graph, which I use again in the following comparison, to highlight what JP just clarified:
Nothing solidifies a lie like an exaggerated graphic, and nothing reveals the truth of that lie like an honest graphic.
… normalized to have the same area and hence can be plotted on the same scale.
As I see it, that’s being way to understanding and polite. What I see is a scale that is deformed, squished up in places, … like having a yard stick where the first half of the stick represents one inch, and the second half of the stick represents thirty-five inches.
Yeah, good look getting a true picture of reality with that.
Tony Heller just put a bullseye on his back, he just discretely denounced the GHE in his last video. He flat out said temps have everything to do with the lapse rate and absolutely nothing at all with greenhouse gases. I have never heard him openly say that before. Still in proving you need at least 3 confirmations. So let’s see if he does it 2 more times or backtracks his comment.
Liked that video great stuff. Need him to see mine.
Tony Heller did a follow up video and confirmed his first statement (I thought it would be a retraction) and explained the adiabatic lapse rate a little more. I think this is a good chance to say hi.
Pingback: The Layman’s Guide to the Greatest Scientific Fraud in History | budbromley
Thanks for book and recommendation thereto. Duly purchased already, and in the queue for reading. Currently enjoying and thoroughtly entranced by Slaying theSky Dragon at the moment…
Virology is the greatest scientific fraud of all time. Climate Science is a close second.
Seems our world is built on lies. Lies for profit.
Joe , just to alert you that I’ve just put your U tube video up in a posting down under in NZ. …stand by for some more entertainment from “Rick”. we hope… 🙂
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2021/02/science-says-change-the-weather-and-break-the-countrys-heart/comment-page-1/#comment-1596412