BBC ‘Scientists’ and the Greenhouse Gas Climate Fraud

Written by John O'Sullivan

The BBC is Britain’s tax-payer-funded propaganda machine and unrelenting in promoting junk climate science. BBC employees know their pension fund is mandated to be kept in “environmentally responsible” investments.

No wonder they keep getting caught out lying about global warming.

Today (March 22, 2018) Paul Homewood reports on how BBC weatherman, Chris Fawkes was caught out lying about hurricane intensity. The fake news BBC have been forced into an official retraction (again!). But we know their science presenters will ‘stay on message’ while traveling on the greenhouse gas gravy train.

One of their more shameful escapades is a much-trumpeted video of a lab experiment claimed to empirically validate their belief that carbon dioxide (CO2) ‘must cause some warming’ of our planet’s atmosphere.

Sadly, the true believers are in a bit of pickle. Global temperatures have stubbornly remained flat this century, despite levels of atmospheric CO2 still rising markedly. Their lab ‘experiment’ is all the faithful have left to cling to now – below we expose why it is fraudulent.

While the original ‘Slayers’ (2010) of the discredited radiative greenhouse gas effect (GHE) revel in nature’s obvious refusal to comply with the junk science theory, the true believers that CO2 is our climate’s control knob are being forced back on relying on a dodgy lab experiment-  still performed worldwide in thousands of schools and colleges.

In Britain, the BBC’s Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock (pictured above) from EADS Astrium visited the Royal Institution’s new Young Scientist Centre to carry out a simple experiment that shows how CO2 ‘traps heat.’

Yes. Maggie actually wants to brainwash viewers (and our children) into believing CO2 ‘TRAPS’ heat (watch video).

As author of this article, I’m also a schoolteacher and have covered science lessons in high schools in England and Wales. Too often I have been compelled to show such garbage to classes full of impressionable young minds.  If I dared to express dissent I would risk dismissal. I’m sure so many fellow teachers, lecturers and scientists feel the same bind.

Given the chance to speak freely I explain that while CO2 certainly does heat faster than air – critically – it COOLS faster than air. All that Aderin-Pocock proves is what any chemistry specialist knows: CO2 is super efficient at transporting heat energy (both warming and COOLING). The BBC giving only half the story is pure deceit.

For over a century, CO2 has outperformed other gases to remain as a prime refrigeration (COOLANT) gas in industry. Even Mercedes use CO2 as a refrigerant gas to air condition their cars. Why do that if CO2 simply ‘traps’ heat?

In Maggie’s video two sealed bottles are used. She explains one bottle contains ‘ordinary air’ the other is pure CO2. Both bottles are sealed, both are subjected to a heat source and temperature readings taking after a short time. Dr Aderin-Pocock then announces that result. The sealed CO2 bottle ends up with a higher temperature, thus ‘proving’ to the gullible that CO2 must be a ‘heat trapping’ gas in our open atmosphere.

It isn’t just Maggie. They are all at it. BBC’s science golden boy, Professor Brian Cox is just as guilty. So much so, Astrophysicist, Piers Corbyn (brother of UK Labour Party Leader, Jeremy Corbyn) has called Cox out on his shenanigans with ‘Brian Cox We Challenge You on Climate Change.’ See video of Corbyn below:

This nonsense is exposed, not just by our 1,000+ scientists at Principia Scientific International, but in the peer-reviewed literature by other independent experts (see here). [1]

In 2009 scientists at Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts found:

“Our results demonstrate that the temperature rise observed in a popular classroom demonstration1 arises not from the radiative greenhouse effect responsible for global warming but primarily from the suppression of convective heat transport between CO2 and air due to the density difference between the two.” [1]

Claiming that a greenhouse gas effect in the open atmosphere is ‘real,’ as proven by reliance on such a sham sealed bottle lab experiment, is a disgrace to the scientific method.

But in the world of climate groupthink such inconvenient facts are readily discarded.

Global warming alarmists (plus all those misguided lukewarmers) are equally guilty of doublespeak about CO2. None of these people can point to an open-air experiment to back their claims. It is the junk science equivalent of the pea under the shell game or the three-card trick con artists use on street corners.

 

 

As Craig Brougher reminds us (see: Carbon Dioxide Doesn’t Cause Global Warming):

“[For greenhouse gas theory believers] that means, CO2 cannot both warm and insulate at the same time. Nor are there any insulative effects anyway, even if the atmosphere were 100% CO2. Remember, “physical laws come first.” But to make it more hilarious yet is the fact that LWR heat, or conductive waste heat back from earth to the CO2 does not “resonate” CO2. Only the energy from active radiant sources like the sun’s IR can do it (Double Woops)!  That means CO2 would have zero insulative properties, of and by itself! Sorry, that’s just another inviolable law of nature.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer_coefficient

While veteran PSI researcher and professional engineer, Joseph A Olson notes that Argon gas is sometimes used in the ‘test’ instead of ordinary air. Olson tells us:

“Never will you see anyone who relies on this ‘test’ admit that heat transfer is function of ∆T.  You won’t be told that Mass and Specific Heat for CO2 = 0.80, while for Argon it = 1.67. This means CO2 heats/cools faster than air, Argon two times slower than CO2.”

What is Really Causing the Rise in Atmosphere CO2 Levels?

PSI contributor, Robert Beatty BE FausIMM(CP), like other PSI researchers, is dismayed at how GHE believers are so averse (or ignorant) to fail to see how other scientific laws far better explain climate and CO2 than the greenhouse gas illusion.

Beatty writes:

“Noteworthy is the universal lack of reference to Henry’s Gas Law (HL). Unless we start with a discussion of how the concentration of CO2 is controlled in the atmosphere, we will miss this critical input. The science fact I that the atmospheric level of CO2 is always in balance with the sea temperature as postulated by William Henry two centuries ago. It does not matter how much CO2  is pumped into the air, it will always find an equilibrium concentration such as 386ppm, but always dependent on the sea temperature (see: http://bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf ). It is my considerable concern that basic science like HL does not get much more (or any) coverage in our tutoring institutions – especially considering that this law of science has such topical application.”

While fellow PSI climate researcher, Carl Brehmer adds:

“Just for clarification.  It can be argued that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels seen over the past ~150 years has been caused by the rise in ocean water temperature over that period and not the other way around.  Conversely, we can say that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are not causing the temperature of the oceans to increase.  Stated another way, if the current global political establishment wishes to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide levels then they would have to devise a way of cooling down the 1,386,000,000 cubic kilometers ocean water.”

Another Principia Scientific International contributor is Dr Darko Butina, a respected expert in the chemistry of carbon dioxide. He weighs in adding:

“Let me give you some basic facts about air temperatures, ocean temperatures, CO2concentration in the air and CO2 concentrations in the oceans to clarify the recent emails comments.

  1. We do not know (until very recently) anything about air temperatures at ground level since nobody has published any detailed analysis of daily data, except for my publications in in last 5 years
  2. Any averaging of thermometer-based data gives a meaningless number which has no physical meaning and therefore can’t be called temperature
  3. We don’t know temperatures of oceans since it is impossible to have fixed-to-the-bottom thermometers recording daily temperatures of the surface
  4. We don’t know anything about CO2 concentration around the globe since the major source of instrument-based measurements of CO2 comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory which is 3400 m above the sea levels next to the still alive Vulcanic top. Those concentrations have nothing in common with CO2 concentrations in the middle of the fields surrounded by vegetation or above the surface of the oceans
  5. Please note, that every single instrument used in experimental sciences detects ONLY the molecules that are in physical contact with that instrument!!! So, every reading by an instrument tells only the ‘local’ concentration
  6. The issue of determining the exact concentration of CO2 above the oceans is almost impossible to measure since you can’t fix the CO2 meter at the specific coordinates due to the ocean’s currents and depth
  7. The mechanism of solubility of CO2 in the water is also almost impossible to work out exactly due to very complex mechanisms:
    1. When CO2 dissolves in the top, say 2 meters, of water, the solubility will depend on the temperature of that surface layer – different oceans different surface temperatures
    2. Then you have the temperature gradient which brings the temperature at the bottom close to 0C which hugely increases solubility of CO2
    3. Then you have issue of basicity of the sea water which takes CO2 concentration out of equilibrium state due to transforming H2CO3 to its salt, NaHCO3 and Na2CO3

Some years ago, I sent an inquiry to the UK Met Office and asked why is it that the CO2-meter is not part of every local weather station so the one can simply plot temperature vs CO2 at different location and confirm what we already know that it is impossible for any gas molecule to control temperature. The reply was that they only monitor concentrations of pollutants, the list of which exclude CO2 since officially it is NOT pollutant! So, the internationally agreed list of pollutants excludes CO2, while the global warming ‘scientists’ put CO2 as number one pollutant and ignores anything else.”

Club of Rome Made CO2 the ‘Bad Guy’

What was the root of such anti-CO2 (read: anti-industrial) dystopia? Canadian climate researcher, Norm Kalmanovich, points out that the whole issue of CO2 emissions causing warming has been made up in service of the Club of Rome.

Kalmanovich tells us:

“This was subsequently added to the UNEP’s ideological agenda against industrial expansion using perfectly valid General Circulation Models (GCM) which are incapable of attributing any effect from increased CO2 to global temperature to predict an impossible level of global warming through the use of a fabricated CO2 forcing parameter RF = 5.35ln(C/Co).”

Kalmanovich explains:

“What is being done here is the use of “prescribed CO2” which is the forcing produced by this fabricated forcing parameter converted to temperature increase through a “climate sensitivity factor 0.75°C/W/m2 input into the model as a temperature increase for the assumed increase in CO2 concentration for a particular year, with the model using this temperature value as an initial condition which is modified slightly by the GCM and output as a temperature value that is similar to but not exactly the same as the input temperature value.”

The obvious problem with this made up forcing parameter is that it will always produce a temperature increase with increasing CO2

As the above graph shows, the world cooled from 1958 to 1975 as CO2 increased and more related to current climate the reversal from warming to slight cooling in 2002 took place with CO2 increasing at the same rate when the Earth warmed as well as when it cooled.

This is why the models show warming after 2002 when the data shows cooling!

Kalmanovitch expresses a criticism felt by many:

“The whole thing has been made up in service of an ideological agenda against the use of fossil fuels and as is the case with things that are made up (fiction) the laws of physics do not apply.

This is why Superman can not only fly without anything providing trust  but change direction in mid air without any change in thrust direction in complete violation of Newton’s basic laws of motion. We accept this because superman is a fictional character but with ‘climate change nonsense’ destroying ‘real world’ western economies we should not accept its fictional basis.

If you go through the literature when the issue officially started with the 1979 First World Climate Conference the term “greenhouse gases” (GHG) had not been coined. Hansen et al 1981 only speaks of CO2 with no mention of any GHG.”

The abstract for Hansen et al 1988  only uses the term “trace gases” with no mention of the term GHG, but in the body of the text  (page 9358) switches from “trace gases” to “greenhouse gases” without ever first defining this newly made up term!

Hansen et al 1988 was Received January 25, 1988 but had to be revised and resubmitted which was done on May 6, 1988 and with it being accepted on the same day, the final peer review for its publication was obviously an act of collusion more than a peer review.

With the paper accepted but not yet published Hansen was free to testify on June 23, 1988 without fear of anyone contradicting him because the testimony was based on an accepted but not yet published paper which wasn’t published in the Journal of Geophysical Research until August 20, 1988

In both his oral and written testimony Hansen makes no mention anywhere of the term “greenhouse gases” and only uses the term “trace gases”. [2]

What Academics call the ‘greenhouse effect’

When testimony is given to non scientists the wording of the testimony is not as important as the way the wording is interpreted and the report on Hansen’s testimony in the NY Times demonstrates that the press completely ‘bought into’ Hansen’s perversion of the greenhouse effect  and his use of the term “trace gases” being perceived with Hansen’s  intended meaning of CO2 emissions. [3]

Most importantly on June 24, 1988 the term “greenhouse gas” was not yet in use.

As part of their plan to monopolize all scientific information conveyed to the public the UNEP and WMO created the IPCC on December 6, 1988 through UN Resolution 43/53 under which the UNEP directors were given (gave themselves) complete editorial (censorship) control over everything that the 2500 scientists associated with this newly formed IPCC produced.

The December 6, 1988 UN Resolution 43/53 stated:

Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of “greenhouse” gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels.

That quote is the first time the term “greenhouse gases” was ever published in a legal document, but did so without ever defining what the term meant.

This is very important because the entire issue of “climate change” rests on the single statement in the Policymakers Summary for the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report which used the term “greenhouse gases” before the term was ever officially defined!

The term “greenhouse effect“ is something of a misnomer in this context. It is used as an analogy to the trapping of heat by the glass panes of a greenhouse, which let sunlight in. In the atmosphere, however, heat is trapped radiatively, while in an actual greenhouse, heat is mechanically prevented from escaping (via convection) by the glass enclosure.

In 1970 this was the only definition of the greenhouse effect and in 1980 this was still the case, but a year later Hansen published Hansen et al 1981 (‘Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’). Here  Hansen stated:

The excess, Ts – Teis the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds, made up a “greenhouse mechanism

This Hansen claimed due to a warming from CO2 which the models portrayed as being:

a mean warming of 2° to 3.5°C for doubling of the CO2 concentration from 300 to 600 ppm

Kalmanovitch continues:

“Please note that Hansen’s model #4 produced 2.78°C from a doubling of CO2 and it just so happens that 5.35ln(2) = 3.71W/m2 and 3.71W/m2x 0.75°C/W/m2 = 2.78°C!

This means that the CO2 forcing parameter driving the models to predict warming as the Earth cools was ‘invented’ by Hansen back in 1981!”

Another climate researcher at PSI is Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE who takes issue with the official literature used by academics when explaining the greenhouse gas effect:

“The iconic K-T energy budget (promoted by NASA) and assorted clone diagrams of atmospheric power flux balances include a GHG energy loop of about 330 W/m^2 violates three basic laws of thermodynamics:

1) energy out of thin air,

2) energy moving from cold to hot without added work, and

3) 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping. “

Schroeder notes that a frequent defense of this critique is that USCRN and SURFRAD data actually measure and thereby prove the existence of this radiative energy. Although in many instances the net 333 W/m^ of upwelling LWIR exceeds by over twice the downwelling solar radiation, a rather obvious violation of conservation of energy.

“And just why is that?,” asks Schroeder adding:

“Per Apogee SI-100 series radiometer Owner’s Manual page 15. “Although the ε of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”

Emissivity, ε, is the ratio of the actual radiation from a surface and the maximum S-B BB radiation. An example from the K-T diagram: 63 W/m^2 / 396 W/m^2 = 0.16 = ε. In fact, 63 W/m^2 & 289 K & 0.16 together work just fine in the GB version of the S-B equation. The 330 W/m^2 GHG loop vanishes back into the mathematical thin air from whence it came.

Their staff is too long. They are digging in the wrong place. There is no spoon. The Co2-driven, radiative greenhouse gas effect simply:  Does…Not…Exist. “

The list of highly-credentialed independent scientists joining in PSI’s refutation of the greenhouse gas theory includes radiation experts such as Karl L. Erdman Ph.D. Professor Emeritus UBC (see: The Heating And Cooling Of The Atmosphere Of The Earth )

There are literally over 1,000 such scientists and related experts within PSI, some of whom openly declare their support in PSI’s list of select members. In addition, last year saw no fewer than 17 new scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals denounces the ‘greenhouse effect’ as the primary explanation for climate change.

The Journal of Earth Science & Climate Change typifies how the paradigm shift in peer-reviewed journals towards ‘slaying’ the greenhouse gas theory is taking hold. Author of one of the new papers is Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics).

Dr. Allmendinger’s paper found that the empiric basis for the greenhouse thesis is:

” …poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative …analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.”


[1] Wagoner, Liu, Tobina, Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6791/4038ffb297240a45600fcf9c75fd3c64f603.pdf

[2] https://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html

Comments (18)

  • Avatar

    CanSpeccy

    |

    Long-term climate change may or may not be predictable, but the possibility of predicting climate change and impacts of human activity seems a reasonable thing to research. What is to be deplored about the public discussion of climate science is the way in which it has politicized the science, with scientists suing one another for libel, scientists driven from the field because of its “craziness,” and political no-nothings such as Al Gore telling people what to believe about the science.

    An unfortunate consequence of the politicization of climate science is that other consequences of raising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are essentially ignored, although there is no doubt whatever that rising carbon dioxide concentration is having large and already measured effects on the biosphere, which may be quite detrimental in their long-term consequences. There is even evidence of substantial effects of rather small increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (such as occur indoors) on human cognitive capacity.

  • Avatar

    Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

    |

    CanSpeccy,
    “…there is no doubt whatever that rising carbon dioxide concentration is having large and already measured effects on the biosphere,…”

    Atmospheric CO2 is about 1.5% of the entire carbon cycle. This entire paper is about how doubtful it is that CO2 could effect much of anything.

    Perhaps you should back your statement up with real data.

    We doubters have.

    • Avatar

      CanSpeccy

      |

      “Perhaps you should back your statement up with real data”

      I made a comment, I didn’t offer to write a review article. If you are too ignorant to use google scholar or some other tool to review the relevant literature that’s not something I am going to worry about.

      If “doubters,” as such as yourself, had any relevant knowledge whereof you spoke, you would perhaps be a bit more open minded as to what it is you doubt. To anyone who understands the interrelations among photosynthesis, plant water use, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the impact of a 50% increase (so far) in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on global primary production would be obvious. And from that flow obvious consequences for world population increase. Africa doubled in population in the last 30 years and with another 30 years of good, carbon dioxide fertilized harvests will likely double their population again in the next 30 years. May be you should put your doubting hat on and think about that for a bit.

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Why doesn’t someone do a heat transfer experiment with 100% CO2 in the space between the panes of an all weather window?
    After all, the Alarmists tell us that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat to warm the earth.
    Therefore, 100% CO2 in our windows should cut down our heating bill to almost nothing.
    Maybe take out all our fiber-glass insulation, in our houses and replace it with bags of 100% CO2.

    • Avatar

      Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

      |

      A double pane window full of CO2 will double the thermal resistance, halve the conductivity, of a double pane full of air because CO2 has about half the thermal conductivity as air.

      Per Q = U A dT as U goes down and dT stays constant, say 65 F inside and 35 F outside, Q decreases – as does your heating bill.

      The atmosphere cools (NOT warms) the earth by reflecting away 30% of the irradiation no different from that shiny panel behind a car’s windshield.

      The thermal conductivity of the atmosphere increases dT, surface – ToA, for the given Q, 240 W/m^2 – ON AVERAGE. As my SURFRAD power points show that’s long way from reality.

  • Avatar

    CanSpeccy

    |

    Al,
    There’s no need to rebut alarmist bunk with skeptic bunk.

    Carbon dioxide absorbs heat, not much, but enough to take account of in attempting to model the climate. What difference it makes in climate models is open to debate, but let’s not fall into the trap of talking the kind of nonsense that the politicization of climate science encourages.

    • Avatar

      Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

      |

      “Carbon dioxide absorbs heat, not much, but enough to take account of in attempting to model the climate.”

      No, it does not.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Al, That experiment was performed in 1989 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
    https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6sn232sk
    PSI addressed it two years go in ‘Industry Experts: CO2 Worse Than Useless In Trapping Heat/Delaying Cooling’ What was PROVEN was that under stringent lab conditions is that regular air delays/traps heat BETTER than greenhouse gases such as CO2. Further busting the junk GHE experiment relied on by true believers:
    https://principia-scientific.org/industry-experts-co2-worse-useless-trapping-heatdelaying-cooling-2/

  • Avatar

    Damian

    |

    “There’s no need to rebut alarmist bunk with skeptic bunk.
    Carbon dioxide absorbs heat…”

    Co2 is a absorbs and emits IR radiation more efficiently than “non Greenhouse gasses” which will speed up the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere. It will not “trap heat”.
    There is no evidence that the increase in atmospheric Co2 is anthropogenic – this is purely anecdotal.
    The changes in atmospheric Co2 can not be compared to increases indoors. we exhale 40,000 ppm Co2 and a considerable amount of water vapour.
    If you are camping and you blow up an air filled mattress using your breath, it is colder than if you were lying on the ground. Greenhouse gasses do not insulate. ( I realise this is also anecdotal )

    Cheers

  • Avatar

    CanSpeccy

    |

    “There is no evidence that the increase in atmospheric Co2 is anthropogenic – this is purely anecdotal.”

    Wow. Is that a fact?

    This site must attract all the loonies who don’t get a hearing over at WattsUpWithThat.

    • Avatar

      Damian

      |

      “Wow. Is that a fact?”
      I’m not trying to call you out, you don’t need to take it personally.
      Can anybody say what percentage of the increase in atmospheric Co2 is anthropogenic?
      Nobody can, therefore it is guesswork. Data is all that matters.
      The only remaining “evidence” for AGW is that current temperatures are warming faster than has been seen in the historical record, this is nonsense. It involve comparing to radically different datasets and assigning the same confidence to each of them.

      Cheers

      • Avatar

        Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE

        |

        “Can anybody say what percentage of the increase in atmospheric Co2 is anthropogenic?”

        IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 and table 6.1 try.

        Fossil fuel and cement contributions between 1750 & 2011 might have rearranged about 0.34% of the carbon balance.

        Uncertainty for all those carbon balance numbers is on the order of +/- 3.0%

      • Avatar

        Bob Webster

        |

        Anthropogenic CO2 accumulation since the 19th century is on the order of 3-4 ppm of the ~100 ppm CO2 growth (about 3%). We know that because annual emissions of anthropogenic CO2 cannot survive beyond 5-6 years without being reabsorbed.

  • Avatar

    Derek Colman

    |

    I don’t have a science degree, just a couple of O levels, but I was furious about that Dr. Aderin-Pocock experiment when I saw it. I was furious because I knew that she was fully aware that it was fake, but she presented the bare faced lie without blinking an eyelid. There was also another BBC documentary where the scientist presenter demonstrated the supposed heat absorbing ability of CO2 by filling a tube with CO2 and pouring on to a candle flame, which went out. Of course it went out, because the CO2 surrounding the flame deprived it of oxygen. It’s when scientists lie like that, you know they have a political agenda in which real science plays no part.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Ross, yup – you got us there – who’d a thunk it that warm air (or CO2) rises! Thanks for the expert science lesson.

  • Avatar

    CanSpeccy

    |

    One thing’s for sure, this site could use better comment software. As it is, the conversation, crazy seems impossible to follow, and that’s not just because most of the remarks seem flat out barmy.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    CanSpeccy, your point about the site’s commenting format is noted. Will look into it. Thanks,

Comments are closed