View Article & Comments

What is so "way out there" about the idea that The Greenhouse effect is a fake theory??

I'm beginning to think that Will is right and WUWT Anthony Watts is a secret paid up warmonger/gatekeeper and refuses to even allow discussion on any Sky DRagon SLayers articles because he is trying to keep the realisation quiet that the greenhouse gas theory has no basis in science.

At least he now mentions my favourite climate blog! and doesn't just ignore it!

In 1913 a small group of robber baron bankers coerced the US government into granting a banking monopoly and granting them control of the money supply. With this power the robber barons set about co-opting the political system, creating a two-party puppet show and the dillusion of democracy. They set about monopolizing all news media, major corporations and higher [joke] education. This is explained in "Fractional Resereve Banking Begat Faux Reality".

These evil elites have studied the unwashed masses like we were lab rats, and treat all humanity accordingly. Humans like to see things as basic good-evil, or right-wrong, and are thus easily lulled when presented "two sides" of a debate. Unfortuantely, both sides in the Carbon Climate Forcing debate are contrived with Faux Science. The Warmists and the Luke Warmists have both been falsely taught the flawed Arrhenius atmospheric model. Both sides of this debate falsely demonize Carbon combustion and only disagree on the extent of damage. To a large part, both sides are government funded. A few non-governemnt funded individuals have set up a cottage industry as EXPERT LUKES. Both sides were very disappointed when properly trained experts in Thermodynamics and Radiation Theory applied REAL science to the GHE Voo Doo. This is a three-sided debate and TWO SIDES are wrong. Anthony has refused any discussion of his Luke Team errors. It is a sad irony that he can complain so loudly about the Hockey Stick Team....and fail to see the same closed minded behavior at WUWT.

We do have some occasional contributors who have way out theories or rant somewhat but doesn't every blog ?

The basic position of this site was set at the very beginning on the 'About' page and it is not at all way out or a rant whether transcendent or otherwise.

There are odd goings on at WUWT.

I've been following the AGW debate by fellow skeptics for several years. Anthony's analysts of the deplorable GHCN stations got me to WUWT.com, which led me to ClimateRealists.com (Climategate I). Since then, I start my daily searches on CR, then WUWT and finally Tom Nelson's blog. That gives me the UK, US and Australian views/happenings. I also occasional visit: Icecap.us, NoTrickZone.com and several others. My time at ClimateDepot has diminished significantly.

I can't speak for Anthomy, but I find CR nearly as informative as WUWT and I don't accept GHG theory either. You can accurately and completely determine the surface temperature of a planet by using the Ideal Gas Law (PV=nrT) knowing the solar input plus the depth, composition and surface pressure of the planet's atmosphere. As an AeroSpace engineer with 30 years in industrial instrumentation and process control, I know it is the SUN! GHG's affect the transmission rate of surface LWR to the upper atmosphere (where that energy is released into space) until an equilibrium is established. Slight changes in GHG concentrations will perturbe that equilibrium until a new transmission rate is established. A cold body can not warm a warmer body, any more than GHG's can back scatter LWR and make the surface warmer, they can only marginally change the transmission rate until a new equilibrium is established!

Clouds (water vapor: the dominant GHG) are a prime example. Low level clouds during the day will limit the high temperature by blocking the Sun's energy from reaching the ground. However, low level clouds during the night will hold heat closer to the ground by slowing the LWR transmission rate. Every adult who has spent any time outside knows this.

AGW is based on a false hypothesis and is primarily an environmental and social re-engineering dogma. Keep up your fight against it and don't let minor differences between skeptic positions get your knickers in a twist! As the Bard once said: Me thinks the lady doth protest too much, or something like that!

Bill

Bill,

I agree with all you say. The warmth at the surface is a matter of pressure plus solar input and not radiation.

GHGs speed up the energy flow rate by upward radiation and a faster water cycle exactly as much as they slow it down by re radiating some energy downward for a zero or near zero effect.

Unfortunately Willis Eschenbach at WUWT has been very rude about those who subscribe to the pressure aspect. He calls them 'pressureheads' and insults freely.

Oddly, Anthony seems to be supporting him. No twisted knickers here but lots over there. A pity.

Citizens,

I am very bemused by what is going on.

Willis Eschenbach (at WUWT mentioned by Stephen) was I always found superbly helpful in actual debates and production of graphs in the old Climate Sceptics e-network of years ago from whence all that we have before us, in the Sceptic/ Realist/ evidence-based science camp, more-or-less came. So What is Up? I don't know.

Billy, good to hear from someone who goes around lots of sites. I would say the good thing about Gabe and CR is that he/it does NOT IMPOSE any particular answer to the Whats and Whys of weather and climate change (in the observed not political sense) in the context of the observed failure of CO2 driven 'theory'.

There are a lot of people out there who have interesting and useful ideas and actual observations/information to contribute to debate - but will not do so (and are driven away) if the response is sniper fire which seems to be the case on WUWT lately.

On CR there is some sniper fire too because it is an open site and cannot be avoided but it is not orchestrated or encouraged.

We have got some really fantastic people on WeatherAction Comments sections at times with actual (extreme and other) events reports and informed comment. The feedback and comments on snow in Feb was superb. People come because they know that there useful things will be discussed and there will never be sniper fire - because I do not allow any. It is a fully monitored site and anything of good intent is welcome but there can be delays in postings of course which is not the case on CR. A lot of stuff on WeatherAction points to CR and vice versa.

A question for all these weather-science sites must be how big are we and can we grow? Let's face it we have to grow to defeat the warmist machine even with it's broken wheels.

The answer as far as I can see is there are about 5,000 sceptic-realists in the blog-o-sphere and the the number is static despite the huge growth in e-traffic worldwide. The limit I suspect is something to do with the 'vibe' of many sites and the mentality of some participants (who of course turn up as wreckers anyway).

Although in a video game a sniper might enhance their 'life' by killing a virtual person; in real life one's stature is advanced not one jot by the sort of stuff that passes as debate in the minds of some.

Cheers Piers

No Stephen, they don't. If the GHG's weren't in the atmosphere, with their attendant absorption spectrums, the LWR would have a shorter transit time. Because the GHG's absorb and then re-emit the LWR in all directions, the transit time is increased because the LWR re-emitted toward the Earth must eventually make its way back into space. GHG's are somewhat like a resistor or insulator, slowing (but not stopping) the flow of energy from high potential (surface of the Earth) to low potential (space).

You would be correct if the GHG's only re-emitted toward the low energy potential, but the don't

Bill

Bill, have you misread me or have I misread you ?

I say the net effect of GHGs is zero.

Do you say the net effect is zero, warming or cooling ?

Ha! This inability to take criticism is pathetic!

Anthony Watts has every right to distance himself from what he percieves to be crackpot theories that damage the case for denial of climate alarm. It's his website!

I am glad that you have the right to promote your theories on your own website no matter how insane they are; I'm at least equally glad that Anthony Watts is free to call you whatever he likes, on his own website. I wish you could grow up, and stop complaining of persecution when people criticise you and your ideas. That happens in science; we disagree with each other and sometimes not that politely; deal with it.

I really mean it, that I'm glad you can promote your theories; I don't like censorship. However I would advise anyone who wants to remain credible that they no longer want to associate with this contrarian have-a-go-hero website. It is no longer the useful source of information it used to be.

Furthermore, I have to contradict Stephen Wilde's description of the situation as 'occasional contributors who have way out theories'. Actually Stephen, you are a main contributor to the site, and your greenhouse gas nonsense is what we're talking about, so don't act so innocent. You know perfectly well that your pet theory that greenhouse warming can't work is the main thing currently dragging the site's reputation through the mud.

This feigning of ignorance over what could be so 'way out' is quite laughable, as is the attitude that there's some sort of conspiracy to denounce your genius.

Not content with saying that the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in particular is very small, (or even cancelled by plant transpiration), and not content with pointing out that besides this, the case for climate alarm relies on a lot more than greenhouse gas theory, this site goes a lot further still. Let us be quite clear that Stephen Wilde, John O'Sullivan etc. are saying no greenhouse effect can work at all, caused by any gas, on any planet.

We are not working, as someone said, 'towards the same goal'. (I think they were pleading that we should all get along agreeably, precisely as scientists need never do. Nobody here has the stomach for serious disagreement, it would seem.) We are denying some, but not all, of the same theories, with very different reasons, with goals that are not only different but conflicting, and in very different ways. Your way is to try winning the argument by overstatement, and to treat people asking difficult questions as if they were abusive trolls.

You are retarding the progress of all mankind. I want you to know.

Piers,

I'm not sure I've seen the sniper fire you refer to. Are you saying that people use the site to exchange observations, only to get attacked by a stranger with an axe to grind?

I've seen a lot of comments of varying degrees of rudeness, but not in response to people exchanging observations or anything useful like that. Maybe we've been reading different articles.

Given that Stephen Wilde is himself rude to people so easily, and when he is listed as a main contributor, I think it may be more than just visiting snipers that drive people away.

Surely the grilling of people over their theories isn't what you mean by sniper fire? I find the refusal to answer questions is the most unconstructive thing about the site, not the asking of the questions in the first place. You must be referring to something I haven't seen.

I see it this way. A site that used to be a varied source of lots of information, of a varying standard, which was usually useful, is being subverted to promote the personal theories of Stephen Wilde and John O'Sullivan, and this does not appear to be the site's stated purpose. While I wasn't looking, it became one or two people's soapbox, for a theory that really, really wouldn't get much readership otherwise. People find that disappointing, I can tell you.

If Stephen Wilde's notions about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and the ideal gas law are worth their salt, they shouldn't need the co-opting of the whole of ClimateRealists.com to promote them.

Hopefully we're at crossed purposes. I'm fairly sure of it. I don't think grilling somebody over their theories is quite what you mean.

Comment edited by Thomas Poole (Twitter) on Sunday April 08, 2012 at 7:29 PM EDT

Hi Thomas Poole

A "skeptical" site is by it's very nature just that, but to end up with "selective" skeptical views made to fit in with AGW (be it a watered down version) and reject views that say there is NO AGW is hardly what a "skeptical" site should be.

What Anthony should do is "come out" and say that he supports AGW and see where he goes with that, the "slayers" say there is no such thing and Anthony has an issue with that, and with no open debate.

It's ironic he stands for debate against those who support AGW and yet his "watered down version" is a two legged stool.

As you can see from the above classification at WUWT Anthony has resorted to insulting those who do not agree with his watered down view of AGW.

You got this wrong Thomas it's Anthony who has the inability to take criticism that is pathetic not this site, this site is a site for "Climate Realists", and long may it remain.

We all thought Anthony was a "Climate Realists" but it does not look that way now he has resorted to insult those who hold other "skeptical" views other then his.

Sadly Anthony seems no better then the rest of the AGW supporters, in respect of not wanting to debate openly with those who disagree with AGW.

Thomas if you wish to debate with Stephen Wilde or "the slayers" you can do so freely here!

Gabriel

My position is that there is a greenhouse effect but it is pressure driven(caused by gases as per the Ideal Gas Law) and not radiation driven.

In so far as GHGs have a thermal effect it is offset by other negative system responses.Those responses do cause a climate effect but it is trivial.

I don't recall much in the way of rudeness on my part.