Here’s an email thread I had with colleagues that presents some good reading and video links, which I thought I should share with readers. The email thread starts with someone sending me this interview video:
That was an excellent interview, thanks for the link. A much-younger Pat Michaels is featured in this BBC Channel 4 documentary from 1990 called “The Greenhouse Conspiracy”:
That documentary is still as relevant as ever and some of the points Pat makes in it are the same as in that recent interview.
Are you aware of Tony Heller? He is an accomplished physicist who has worked at various agencies including climate research agencies in the past. Here are a few recent excellent videos of his which are particularly important going over data tampering of the temperature record in order to create a fake correlation between rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels:
Going back to Pat Michaels, it is important to note his references to parameterization. That this how the greenhouse effect (GHE) is coded and inserted into models. And we note that the models which have this GHE parameterization all run hot compared to recorded data. You can imagine the reason for this: there is no GHE that should be parameterized into the models in the first place, and thus the models run hot. We (the group I work with on this) were at one point in contact with a Russian climate modeller who said that their model does not have the so-called greenhouse effect, to quote “because it is not a mechanism.” The Russian models match observation!
Here is probably my most well-written article on the current state of things:
which is in the wake of my paper stating that the Sun heats the Earth being rejected by the AMS because it is their position that the Sun *does not* heat the Earth in order to protect the fake “greenhouse effect” from being exposed and debunked as literal flat Earth pseudoscience (video embedded):
Please everyone spend the time on the provided links. Please also forward this email to colleagues. I think that most scientists are simply unaware of what the actual rational skeptical positions are, and what *documented* fraud is openly occurring in this political field of climate science. Just look at the fraud I myself deftly exposed occurring at the peer-review level at the AMS!
The supposed climatological greenhouse effect is an ad-hoc mathematical addition to flat Earth theory in order to make flat Earth theory more reasonably approximate measured temperatures. It is the ad-hoc development of flat Earth theory into physics! Whereas, of course one can arrive at measured temperatures directly by using a spherical Earth (with no “greenhouse effect”), and in fact in this case the atmosphere/climate becomes a massive cooling system and heat sink rather than an additional heat source generating twice the energy than what the Sun provides.
This is from Jeff Bezos’ Twitter recently:
“Today, I’m thrilled to announce I am launching the Bezos Earth Fund.
Climate change is the biggest threat to our planet. I want to work alongside others both to amplify known ways and to explore new ways of fighting the devastating impact of climate change on this planet we all share. This global initiative will fund scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world. We can save Earth. It’s going to take collective action from big companies, small companies, nation states, global organizations, and individuals.
I’m committing $10 billion to start and will begin issuing grants this summer. Earth is the one thing we all have in common — let’s protect it, together.
With $10 billion dollars to influence scientists, political activists, NGO’s, global corporations, and nation states…how is this not something to be a little paranoid about as some sort of insane global plot or conspiracy to dominate world opinion and economies when there is in fact zero threat of “climate change” and the very term itself of “climate change” doesn’t even have any rational meaning other than as an emotional trigger? Do you wonder if the massive scale of such funding could influence scientists to reject papers which say that the Sun heats the Earth so that they can protect their funding which is predicated upon the political climate change flat Earth theory of the Sun not heating the Earth? I do. Scientists are just people. They, We, are not exclusively more moral or intelligent or trustworthy or ethical than any other random person. The Sun heats the Earth doesn’t it? So why would a scientist say that it doesn’t? There are lots of non-scientific reasons why.