• Home
  • Current News
  • Man-Made Climate Change ‘not about science’ admits Naomi Klein

Man-Made Climate Change ‘not about science’ admits Naomi Klein

Written by PSI Staff

Papal Advisor Naomi Klein (pictured) admits in her much-publicized screed that ‘Global Warming’ is all about anti-capitalism – being nothing to do with science. naomi klein

Klein admits progressive policies on the environment are really about what Marx and Lenin said the communist revolution desired 100 years ago — the overthrow of capitalism. This is not about science, or health, at all. “Our economic model is at war with the Earth,” writes Klein. “We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.”

Could the message be any clearer? “This [man-made climate change] is not about science, or health, at all.

Please note that Klein uses the ambiguous term ”climate change” when she really means “man-made climate change”; it’s a classic case of misleading the public at large that any change in the climate is the fault of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

Here’s further insight into Naomi Klein’s world via Martin Hertzberg’s review of Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything. ” Dr Hertzberg, a respected scientist and author on climate change, writes:

It is tragic that what should have been a debate among objective scientists evaluating the data on weather and climate, has degenerated into a partisan political diatribe. Unfortunately, Klein’s most recent book only adds to the tragedy. In pursuit of her political agenda, facts are distorted and distinguished scientists are denigrated. Here are some examples.

Klein states: “Carbon Dioxide stays in the atmosphere one to two centuries with some of it remaining for a millennium or more”.

Some 50 published papers give at most 5 years for its lifetime in the atmosphere with the best estimate from C-14 decay observed after Russian above ground tests.

Klein states that the “Medieval Warm Period was thoroughly debunked long ago”.

Not true! Hundreds of studies have established the existence of the world wide Medieval Warm period with temperatures exceeding current ones at a time when human CO2 emission was nil. Her discussion of the weather effect of volcanic eruptions neglects to mention the real big ones: Tambora and Krakatoa.

Klein completely discounts the “climategate” scandal.

Not true! Climategate reveals a disgraceful lack of scientific integrity on the part of the climate change advocates. For all the relevant data go to my lecture at www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPTiTFMhZrg. For factual data rather than her fear mongering cherry picking, go to www.climate4you.com and see for yourself. There is nothing unusual happening with temperatures, ice area coverage, sea level rise, or snow cover: just the normal variability in weather related parameters.

To her credit, Klein actually listened to talks by skeptics at a Heartland Conference, but instead of trying to learn from the distinguished scientist’s presentations, she denigrates them.

Thus, for example, she refers to “the denial movement being littered with characters like the old time physicist… S. Fred Singer”.

Instead of noting his achievements as Deputy Secretary of the EPA, his establishment of the Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service and his work in Space Research and Atmospheric Physics and in designing the first Earth Observation Satellite for meteorological observations, she refers to him as a “character” and limits his work to “rocket technology for the U. S. military”.

As an aside, I first met Fred over 50 years ago and indeed he just celebrated his 90th birthday. He left Austria just ahead of the Nazi takeover and really resents being labelled as a “denier” as though he were a holocaust denier. I lost many relatives in the holocaust and also find that denier label to be particularly obnoxious. She also completely fails to mention the series of articles in the Nation by Alexander Cockburn that preceded her work. Cockburn completely discredited the fear-mongering hysteria of the global warmers.

The global warming/climate change theory postulates that human emission of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 and a concomitant increase in global temperatures and climate disruptions via the greenhouse effect.

Klein accepts that paradigm without question.

But if you read her book carefully you realize that she doesn’t really care much about its validity. To quote: “lowering emissions is just one example of how the climate emergency could – by virtue of its urgency and that the fact that it impacts virtually everyone on earth – breathe new life into a political goal… (such as) raising taxes on the rich, blocking harmful trade deals, to reinvesting in the public sphere….”

“Even more importantly, the climate moment offers an overarching narrative in which everything from the fight for good jobs to justice for immigrants, reparations for the injustice of slavery… all becomes a grand project of building a non-toxic shock-proof economy before it is too late”. So there it is: the science is not that important. What really matters is the social justice we can get from it.

She learned well from her “Shock Doctrine” book. Just as the world’s international bankers took advantage of the debt crises in smaller countries to dismantle their social justice and welfare economies, so does she propose to use the climate change “crisis” to achieve social justice. I agree with most of her social justice goals, but as a scientist, I cannot abide by getting there with a fear-mongering fraud.

So here are the simplest arguments to counter the climate change paradigm. Draconian measures to control CO2 emissions are based on three fictions:

First, that it is a “greenhouse gas”. Neither the EPA nor anyone else has ever provided a scientifically valid definition of such an entity. The atmosphere is not the confining top of a greenhouse, nor can it “retain heat”. Instead it cools the earth by natural convection and radiation to free space.

Secondly, at only 0.04 percent of gases in the atmosphere, CO2 is supposed to control the earth’s temperature and climate. That is an absurdity and there is not one iota of reliable evidence that it does.

Thirdly, the paradigm postulates that human emission determines atmospheric CO2. The data is overwhelming that natural sources and sinks such as ocean emission and absorption, photosynthesis, vegetative decay, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, carbonate rock weathering and many other processes overwhelm human emission. Human emissions are trivial in comparison and they dissolve rapidly into the cold oceans.

The “climate justice” movement, by conflating the justified desire to advance social justice with the phoney theory of man-made climate change, will only serve to discredit social justice as the truth about climate change finally emerges.

Extreme environmental solutions can have unintended consequence (blowback).

The work of Rachel Carson, Klein’s heroine, resulted in the world-wide ban on the use of DDT. The result was about 100,000 more annual fatalities of children in Africa as a result of malaria. That malaria epidemic subsided several years later as soon as DDT use was resumed.

Challenge yourself to realize what harmful unintended consequences would result from the measures to eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The reality is that such a measure will have no effect on weather or climate.

******

Dr Martin Hertzberg is a long time climate writer, a former U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford University and holder of a Fulbright Professorship. Hertzberg is an internationally recognized expert on combustion, flames, explosions, and fire research with over 100 publications in those areas.

Hertzberg established and supervised the explosion testing laboratory at the U. S. Bureau of Mines facility in Pittsburgh (now NIOSH). Test equipment developed in that laboratory has been widely replicated and incorporated into ASTM standards. Published test results from that laboratory are used for the hazard evaluation of industrial dusts and gases. While with the Federal Government Dr Hertzberg served as a consultant for several Government Agencies (MSHA, DOE, NAS) and professional groups (such as EPRI).

Trackback from your site.

Comments (30)

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    Skeptics won the AGW debate when global temperatures refused to follow increasing CO2.

    Research-gate concerns others disciplines in a more troubling sequel to Climategate:

    http://tiny.cc/999j2x

    Reply

  • Avatar

    bwebster

    |

    [quote name=”Greg House”]… the absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” is most easily demonstrable to any sane person just based on its description.

    …But we should be careful to not legitimize their unscientific crap. That’s why I disagree with references to geological “temperature record” and “global temperature” in general… Unless, of course, you make a …f disclaimer. … the physical absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” is easily comprehensible if put in simple terms, which is possible.[/quote]

    Points well made, points well taken. Appreciate your views.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      bwebster

      |

      Please ignore the stray “f” [b][i]…[u]f[/u] disclaimer, …[/i][/b] in prior comment.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Gail Combs

    |

    ‘Climate Change’ ™ has a new definition. This is the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change official definition:

    QUOTE
    “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
    UNQUOTE

    The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.

    So people have been thoroughly hoodwinked . Of course that’s the idea. They can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which people assume to apply to, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.

    Do you see now how the hoax is perpetrated through redefining common words?

    “Forcings” is another word that has been redefined.

    One dictionary says forcing means:
    QUOTE
    The capacity to do work or cause physical change; energy, strength, or active power: the force of an explosion.
    UNQUOTE
    Therefore the use of the word ‘Forcing’ would imply ‘energy transfer’

    Yet if you look at John Kehr’s analysis of Trainbreath’s cartoon (SEE: theinconvenientskeptic The earths energy balance simple overview)

    Kehr spots the big deception
    QUOTE
    …This is reasonably accurate, but it is also entirely misleading. The two large energy flows named Surface Radiation and Back Radiation are different from all the others. They are not measures of energy transfers, but of radiative flux (also called forcing). As I have described before, there is a difference between energy transfers and radiative flux. Two objects at the same temperature have zero net energy transfer and as a result, will not change temperature. As the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above have a small temperature difference (to be shown in a later article), there is little energy transfer between the two…
    UNQUOTE

    SO there is a perfectly acceptable term used by physicists for years and the ClimAstrologists replace it with the word Forcing so as to mislead.

    Here is a definition of ‘radiative flux’ from a University of Washington, lecture.
    QUOTE
    Radiation Flux and the ‘Inverse-square’ law

    Radiation flux is the amount of energy passing through an area perpendicular to the radiation beam per unit time.

    Flux, S, from a star drops off with increasing distance. In fact, it deceases with the square of the radial distance r, from the star as s is proportional to 1/r^2
    UNQUOTE

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”Gail Combs”]Yet if you look at John Kehr’s analysis of Trainbreath’s cartoon (SEE: theinconvenientskeptic The earths energy balance simple overview)

      Kehr spots the big deception
      QUOTE
      …This is reasonably accurate, but it is also entirely misleading.[/quote]

      You have to be stupid or blind or liar to call that thing accurate.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        elkcub

        |

        …This is reasonably accurate, but it is also entirely misleading.[/quote]

        You have to be stupid or blind or liar to call that thing accurate.[/quote]

        Gail called it “reasonably accurate,” meaning accurate enough for the purpose of misleading.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Gail Combs

    |

    About ‘Social Justice’
    I suggest reading “http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM”>DEMOCIDE: DEATH
    BY GOVERNMENT

    Kent Clizbe’s book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America

    A companion book Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Alexander Vassiliev, John Earl Haynes, Mr. Harvey Klehr.

    The question to be answered: Was Karl Marx actually an agent of the Rothschilds and the Aristocracy?

    The rise of the middle class challenged the power structure that had been in place for over a thousand years. Prior to Karl Marx and his writings you had 1776 – American Revolution, 1789 until 1799 – French Revolution, 1803 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars

    All of this was the third estate (peasants/bourgeoisie) shaking off the yoke of the Aristocracy and the clergy and putting a major scare into the elite. The Aristocracy, the banksters, and the clergy who lived off the labor of the serfs wanted serfdom reinstated.

    So was Karl Marx and his philosophy about helping the ‘down-trodden’ or was it really about re-enslaving the middle class that had escaped serfdom? My comment on the Karl Marx

    Westphalen (Sr.) was de facto “chief of staff” to Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick during the Seven Years’ War, (1756–63). His youngest son was transferred to Trier to met and befriend Heinrich Marx, the father of Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s grandmother’s first cousin married Nathan Rothschild, founder of the British branch of the Rothschild banking dynasty.

    “The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his ‘natural superiors,’ and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, callous ‘cash payment.’ It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

    The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.

    ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto

    Was ‘Socialism’ a new idea?

    No it goes all the way back to Sparta. Ancient Spartan Communism

    Reply

  • Avatar

    bwebster

    |

    Greg,

    I am 100% in agreement with your second paragraph.

    By “REAL science”, I meant exactly what you referred to in your second paragraph.

    Your point that the fraudsters have a host of fraudulent “experiments” in “support” of their theory and that is an obstacle to getting “true believers” (not the fraudsters, the dupes) to accept the value of contrary experiments (no matter how rigorous), and, of course, the fraudsters will always cook up several “reports” to take issue with any such rigorous experiment.

    While I readily acknowledge the notion of “global average temperature” is at best elusive, nevertheless, it is useful to fight fire with fire. That is, warmists use the term all the time. It is easily understood by those who accept the specious greenhouse warming theory. Nevertheless, geologists can give us a record (whose reliability diminishes with geologic age) that contradicts the specious greenhouse warming theory. There is also merit in using Al Gore’s favorite glacial record to (1) point out Gore’s dishonesty, and, (2) point out another serious problem with greenhouse warming theory.

    Your point that people with a sufficient science background can be appealed to with a much stronger, purely scientific, argument is spot on.

    But I was thinking in terms of an appeal to the many (far too many) whose eyes would glass over with the mention of “conservation of energy”.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      I agree that the term “conservation of energy” is not good when talking to a wider audience, especially the most important part of it which are in my humble opinion the press and the politicians. Normally I do not use that term, instead I speak of “energy production out of nothing” and variations of this expression when explaining the absurdity of the “greenhouse effect”. I guess you are not quite familiar with my previous comments. But the point remains, the absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” is most easily demonstrable to any sane person just based on its description.

      I also agree with you that it is possible to demonstrate the warmists hypocrisy referring to what they said at different times or some inconstancy within the climate (pseudo-) science. But we should be careful to not legitimize their unscientific crap. That’s why I disagree with references to geological “temperature record” and “global temperature” in general, because it is the unscientific crap in the first place to me. Unless, of course, you make a sort of disclaimer. But then, why refer to such things that people can not verify themselves? Instead, the physical absurdity of the “greenhouse effect” is easily comprehensible if put in simple terms, which is possible.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Douglas Zork

    |

    I appreciate PSI as probably the best repository of scientific articles on the mistake/hoax of man-made fossil-fuel burning, CO2-driven global warming, based on the demonstrably false model of a so-called “greenhouse gas effect”.

    But tendentious, ad hominem articles like this one don’t help to educate the misguided, they merely provide cheap thrills for those who are already convinced the AGW is a fraud designed to advance the cause of Global Governance. In case you hadn’t noticed, global governance under a corporatocracy is the long-declared goal of the Fabian Socialists and the International Banking capitalists—two sides of the same coin.

    Naomi Klein does no such thing as admit that “This is not about science, or health, at all”. The quoted phrase in this article is NOT in quotes in the source article: it is clearly presented as an editorial interpretation of the original article writer’s, not what Naomi Klein actually wrote.

    And Naomi Klein doesn’t admit, she ARGUES (based on a poor understanding of the science) that what she obviously believes is a real “global climate change existential crisis” is an opportunity to get rid of more nefarious forms of Capitalism (i.e. corporatocracy) and build a better world. We may disagree with her arguments, but please, don’t put words in her mouth!

    The editorial staff of PSI should hold yourselves to the same standards of basic journalistic integrity that you demand of our warmist, and luke-warmist, adversaries.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John Doran

      |

      Spot on, Douglas Zork, on all counts.
      The CAGW scam is a joint venture between the International financiers & the idiot Fabian Left.

      Those financiers founded & funded both Fascism & Communism, & caused both World Wars. the totalitarian abominations have ~ 100 million corpses at their door during the 20th century.

      The Fabian fools, wolves in sheeps’ clothing, dream of a centrally planned & controlled populace & economy, with themselves in control, of course.

      This article vastly understates the depopulation aspect of the brave new world planned by this dire Financier/Fabian collusion: the 1972 EPA ban on DDT after it was proven safe, caused ~50 million deaths, mostly of women & children in the 3rd world, through malaria.The Roe vs Wade decision to legalise abortion has cost ~50 million lives in the US since.

      A vast depopulation & a Totalitarian World Govt of the most vicious stamp is the financiers’ end goal.The Hunger Games is where they’re herding us.

      I recommend: http://www.c3headlines.com
      & click on “Quotes”
      & two books: “State of Fear”, by Michael Crichton for non-scientists wishing to learn the realities of the Global Warming/Climate Change hoax.
      & “Pawns in the Game” by William Guy Carr, an expose of the International Financiers.

      Best,
      JD.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    bwebster

    |

    “AT Impal”, where do you get YOUR climate science? From Naomi Klein’s friends?

    Ever notice on a nice sunny summer day that the surface temperature drops significantly when a large cloud wanders by overhead? CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t changed. What has changed is the only meaningful source of heat on Earth, radiation from the sun.

    Now, before anyone thinks to mention that solar radiation is till impacting the atmosphere above the cloud, that isn’t the point of this little example. The point is to illustrate that the only source of heat is from the sun.

    The atmosphere cannot change solar output.

    Atmospheric composition, global ocean currents, global atmospheric current, seasons, tectonic and volcanic geologic changes can influence climate variability, but the reality is:

    For a given fixed solar state, Earth’s climate is “stable” within a range of about 10 degrees C (the variance between coldest Ice Era conditions and Earth’s typical climate that humans have never experienced — no permanent ice at sea level, much warmer, characteristic of climate when dinosaur’s reigned supreme).

    This is the “observational record” embedded in our geologic record.

    So-called climate change due to a “greenhouse effect” is refuted in the geologic record, by experimentation, and by REAL science. It is a fraud.

    Thanks to Ms. Klein for making that clear.

    Those who succumb to the fear-mongering campaign of warmists are the “useful idiots” the Left can always count upon to not do their own thinking.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      [quote name=”bwebster”]So-called climate change due to a “greenhouse effect” is refuted in the geologic record, by experimentation, and by REAL science. It is a fraud.[/quote]

      “Greenhouse effect” can not be refuted by geologic record if by geologic record you mean “global temperatures” thousands and millions years ago. I can not understand, how people can believe such a nonsense. You can not talk about “REAL science” and refer to the “global temperature record” at the same time.

      Secondly, there is no need to refute the “greenhouse effect” experimentally, because on the theoretical level it violates conservation of energy. Note that the other side repeatedly presents some fake experiments to prove “greenhouse effect”, so we’d better refrain from references to experiments. The most easy way to argue is via violation of conservation of energy, this is what most people can understand.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    splainittome

    |

    Klein states that “Even more importantly, the climate mo[ve?]ment offers an overarching narrative in which… reparations for the injustice of slavery… becomes a grand project…”.

    Doesn’t the same logic apply, in that the Left should be sued for reparations over the occupation of Eastern Europe, and even their complicity in starting the Second World war?

    And if a retort is offered to the effect that “Well, the NAZIs started the war in Europe, so the Right should be sued”, it should only be necessary to remind that the “Z” in NAZI stands for “Socialist”.

    But then, let’s put some excitement into the effort. Why not have everybody sue everybody for reparations, if it is indeed a fact, that as John Donne said: “No man is an island, entire of itself”?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Judy Cross

    |

    Sometimes it is hard to know whether the shills for the Climate Scam are just dupes.
    Now I know that Klien knows she’s wrong, but chooses to push the fraud anyway. She probably subscribes to the Noble Lie theory of government.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Oliver K. Manuel

    |

    In 1946, George Orwell moved from London to the Scottish Isle of Jura to try to warn the public that a new tyrannical government was coming, “Nineteen Eighty-Four!”

    Orwell’s prediction was correct, but we remained mostly unaware of this until Climategate emails surfaced in late November 2009.

    Thanks to scientific (Climategate), economic and political scandals, Stalin’s 1945 plan to rule the world by deceit is now unraveling:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/STALIN'S_SCIENCE.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Pierre Latour

    |

    Marty, Excellent! Well written and well said. I agree with your science and politics.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Achuara

    |

    @AT Impal. CO2 does not “trap” heat (or energy) it merely absorbs a photon and then re-emits it (radiates energy) in a continuous process. Oxygen and nitrogen also absorb energy but they don’t radiate because they are two-molecule gases and GH gases have three or more molecules. But the warmth you feel in your skin in a hot day, in the shade, is the result of the contact of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.98% Argon, and other minor gases with your skin. The heat absorbed by O2 and N2 is transferred to your skin (and all other materials on Earth) by conduction, and then all those materials radiate the heat received back to the atmosphere, and the different densities and temperatures in the atmosphere will then cause convection. This is a chaotic process full of so many positive and negative feedbacks thus impossible to reproduce by climate models.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    AT Impal

    |

    If you get your climate science from a chemist that studies fire, you’re going to walk away misinformed.

    This is yet another in a long line of hit pieces designed to poison the well of actual climate science.

    Buy into the drivel above, kids. Don’t ever change.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Martin Hertzberg

      |

      [quote name=”AT Impal”]If you get your climate science from a chemist that studies fire, you’re going to walk away misinformed.

      This is yet another in a long line of hit pieces designed to poison the well of actual climate science.

      Buy into the drivel above, kids. Don’t ever change.[/quote].

      I graduated from the US Naval Postgradduate School in Meteorology, first in my class and was a research and forecasting meteorologist for the Navy. When, instead of citing the facts or data, an adversary resorts to ad hominom surs, I know I am winning the argument.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Greg House

        |

        Dear Martin,

        no, you do not know that. Ad hominem slurs in your direction do not prove you right. Both adversaries can be wrong. I am very much afraid that this is what has been going on in the AGW debate for many years.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    TL Winslow

    |

    If it weren’t so tragic it would be funny, but when they talk about CO2 being a “greenhouse gas”, they don’t get it that what makes a greenhouse work is not gas but GLASS, which traps the rising warm air until it backs down to the surface. CO2 in the atmosphere is intermixed with the N and O and doesn’t physically block convection, so it’s not a greenhouse GLASS and never will be 🙂

    Of course greenhouse operators inject CO2 into their greenhouses to help plants grow. So why do the leftist overlords want to stop this on a global basis? Because they want to stop the teeming billions from being fed? 🙂

    Reply

    • Avatar

      AT Impal

      |

      CO2 [b]is[/b] a greenhouse gas precisely because it traps heat.

      Like glass.

      It’s not all that complicated, TL.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Hans Schreuder

        |

        [quote name=”AT Impal”]CO2 [b]is[/b] a greenhouse gas precisely because it traps heat.

        Like glass.

        It’s not all that complicated, TL.[/quote]
        If one asserts that “greenhouse” gases work by trapping heat, then one is directly implying that the Earth radiates less energy than it gains — much like a thermos, which “bottles up” the heat it’s given. But that’s the very point, for satellites observe that the Earth radiates to space all the energy it gets from the sun. 235 W/m² or so continuously go in, 235 W/m² or so continuously go out. Obviously this is not how a thermos performs. This doesn’t bother “greenhouse” adherents, however. Although they acknowledge that an Earth with a greenhouse effect sheds the same amount of thermal energy as an Earth without one, they argue nevertheless that the Earth is trapping heat. The Greenhouse Effect is thus like the biblical Bush That Burns Yet Is Not Consumed. Sort of a miracle. If heat was to be “trapped”, how can it at the same time make its surroundings warmer? h/t to Alan Sidddons

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Greg House

          |

          Hans,

          do you believe in “earth’s effective radiating temperature -18°C” thing?

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Plchampness

        |

        CO2 is a greenhouse gas precisely because it dose trap heat!

        Like glass.

        It’s not all that complicated, TL.[/quote]

        All wrong. The evidence is here, right on our own website.
        http://principia-scientific.org/publications/Experiment_on_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf

        AT impal has either not read the paper or he/she does not understand it. Not that the paper is all that difficult to understand

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Alder

    |

    The result of Rachael Carson’s fantasy was the death of millions.
    The authors have seriously understated the harm by saying “100,000 more annual fatalities”.
    The harm caused by the collective of climate change alarmists of whom Naomi Klein is a member could be of the same order.

    Reply

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.