View Article

view the latest news articles
John O'Sullivan: Joseph E. Postma Debunks Skeptical Science Greenhouse Gas Defense
Tuesday, June 19th 2012, 4:14 PM EDT
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
article image
Image via Wikimedia

After the Skeptical Science blog publishes it's critique of the recent paper by scientist Joseph E. Postma debunking the so-called greenhouse gas effect, Postma posts another telling rebuttal provided below.

By Joseph E. Postma (Astrophysicist)

I have been asked to write a brief overview on the errors and misconceptions as presented on the so-called “Skeptical Science” blog. I’d first like to point out that the term “skeptical science” is an oxymoron and so it immediately calls into question what kind of person might use such a term.

It's attempted debunk of my paper states: “Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results.”

In fact, what I showed is that the model cannot even be called “simple” because it doesn’t even represent anything that can be equated with reality. The Earth isn’t flat and the Sun isn’t cold, for goodness’ sake, yet this is what the model pretends. In and of itself and for many other reasons, which were specified in the paper, it is clear that the “simple” model doesn’t actually produce any useful results at all because all it is, is fiction.

Skeptical Science: “The claims are of course extraordinary, along the lines of Gerlich and Tseuchner’s alleged falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As is often the case with these types of “skeptics,” the more extravagant the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue; in this case the host is Principia Scientific International, which according to the website “…was conceived after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’” Most rational people would stop here…”

It is not rational at all for science to not be open to skepticism, so it makes little sense that they’re making a statement here implying that rational people operate via ignorance as a matter of policy. It’s a contradiction in terms. You also see a bullying tactic being employed here via an implied ad-hominem, attempting to corner you into a state of ignorance as to what is actually written in the paper, such as to keep the unwary from informing themselves of the truth by reading the paper. They’re trying to imply that you’d be irrational to read something, which would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous. So, we’re already becoming quite familiar with what kind of people we’re dealing with here, and you can be assured that they have nothing to do with rational climate science.

Skeptical Science: “…but this is the Americanized age where we need to glorify everyone’s opinion and must provide rebuttals for everything, so here it goes”

This is some sort of a slight against the nation of America, and you can read in to it whatever motives might drive such a statement as you wish; but it is pretty obviously biased in some fundamental aspects, to say the least.

Skeptical Science:

“Most of Postma’s first 6 pages are actually correct. He describes the greenhouse effect through the so-called layer model, which is a simple way to break up the planet into a “surface” and an “atmosphere,” with outer space overlying the top layer. This model is described in many climate books such as Dennis Hartmann’s Global Physical Climatology, David Archer’s Understanding the Forecast, Marshall and Plumb’s Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics, and radiation books like Grant Petty’s First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. I will say that I do not particularly like this model as a suitable introduction to the greenhouse effect. It is useful in many regards, but it fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect on account of making a good algebra lesson, and opens itself up to criticism on a number of grounds; that said, if you are going to criticize it, you need to do it right, but also be able to distinguish the difference between understood physics and simple educational tools.”

In the statement above, we witness equivocation over whether the model is physically relevant or isn’t. Skeptical Science can’t seem to make up it’s mind. In “The Model Atmosphere” paper, we had a reference link listing over 60 references to the standard greenhouse model as what was subsequently developed and presented to the reader. What is certain is that this model IS presented as the mechanism of the greenhouse effect in numerous textbooks, weblinks via NASA and other climate institutions, and is presented in undergraduate physics classes as a real phenomenon in physical principle.

So, is it the real greenhouse effect model, or isn’t it? Nowhere else in physics education do we use a “toy-tool model” to teach as physics reality something which only a fictional “toy” model is capable of demonstrating. When we learn physics in university we learn physics that is actually real and we do not need to equivocate over whether the physics we are learning is fictional-toy-model or real world. It is ALL real world.

Imagine that in every physics classroom in the world, the professor had to inform the students whether they were going to be learning real physics today, or physics which isn’t actually demonstrably real physics and only a toy. It never happens. But apparently, it is happening in climate science with the greenhouse effect, as admitted in the text above. So there is only one question which remains: if this model isn’t the real greenhouse effect, then please present us with the real greenhouse effect, the mathematics which describes it, the graphical model which represents it, and the software code you use to model it.

This has actually been the greatest “strength” of the greenhouse effect, in that they do not actually have a concretely defined version of it. If you criticize one aspect or version of it, then they just change the way the physics works and the language used to describe it, as a ploy to slip out of the argument. We witness this time and time again.

Skeptical Science: “The atmosphere in Postma’s paper is just a single slab, so he has two layers (atmosphere+surface), but in general you can have many atmospheric layers. He goes on to solve for the energy balance of each layer (see equations 11-14). RealClimate derived the same result in less than a page here.”

To be clear, this is not “my” model; it is the standard model alarmist climate science uses and is found in almost all of their writing on the subject.

Skeptical Science: “Postma actually doesn’t get the atmospheric radiative flux right. The emission is not σTa4, it is fσTa4, where f is the atmospheric emissivity/absorptivity (following his notation) and Tais the atmospheric temperature. … Both right hand sides of equations 11 and 12 are thus wrong, but it turns out that those errors cancel each other out and he gets equation 14 right.”

This was a minor typo in the equation and as they pointed out, it didn’t matter. I didn’t notice it because the term cancels out in the final equation, so it’s quite inconsequential if you understand what’s happening, which they do not.

Skeptical Science: “The factor of 2 in Equation 12 comes about because the atmosphere emits both up and down, although Postma clearly doesn't know how to derive this result formally, based on later statements he makes about this.”

This is amusing because the factor of two isn’t “formally derived” anywhere, in any of the models presented to us by GHE advocates. This is exactly what I pointed out in my “later statements” so, they’ve simply copied my criticism of their model and tried to blame me for it. The irony here is priceless!

Skeptical Science: “Postma then goes on to describe fictitious “boundary conditions.” In particular, he seems to have serious objections to the averaging of the solar radiative flux over the Earth. In essence, he would prefer we had one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight, etc. instead of the simple model where we average 1370/4=342.5 W/m2 over the planet (so that the whole Earth is receiving the appropriate "average" solar radiation).”

So here they are objecting to the reality I presented that there is “one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight”. Why would they object to something like that? They literally admit to prefer to think of the Earth as flat and without night and day such that they’re criticizing my position that the Earth is round and the Sun is hot. An amazing further irony.

Skeptical Science: “The factor of 4 is the ratio of the surface area to the cross section of the planet, and is the shadow cast by a spherical Earth. It is therefore a geometrical re-distribution factor; it remains “4” if all the starlight is distributed evenly over the sphere; it is “2” if the light is uniformly distributed over the starlit hemisphere alone; with no re-distribution, the denominator would be 1/cosine (zenith angle) for the local solar flux.”

Here they are seen to be repeating exactly what was described about how the mathematics works out from my previous paper, which was linked in this paper and which they obviously must have read.

Skeptical Science: “In simple textbook models, we like to prefer explanations that get a point across, and then build in complexity from there (see Smith 2008 for descriptions on a rotating Earth).”

What is presented in the Smith reference has no similarity or likeness whatsoever to the standard greenhouse model, so this statement is completely out of bounds. Newtonian physics, for example, actually does an excellent job at describing gravity, even though the general theory of relativity has subsumed it. But the general theory of relativity reduces to Newtonian physics automatically, while the work of Smith (2008) has no relation to the flat-Earth greenhouse model at all, as can be seen in his equation (2).

And so in fact, there is no valid “complexity-building” going on here at all when going from the fictional flat-Earth model to a reality-based model. My current work in bringing reality into climate science and the greenhouse effect is actually highly correlated with the Smith (2008) paper. However, we will be improving upon Smith’s simplistic treatment, and our preliminary results utilizing real-world data indicate something very different from the assumptions that went into the way Smith chose to present the formulation - and, of course, there is no greenhouse effect.

Skeptical Science: “Postma is simply tackling a non-issue, just as how people criticize the term “greenhouse effect” for not working like a glass greenhouse. Postma objects to teaching this simple model because it is not real.”

People are very correct in their criticism of the “glass greenhouse model”. A real physical glass greenhouse operates NOTHING like what is claimed of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and therefore it is wrong and even fraudulent for the alarmists to continually analogize the two. This is an example of how the greenhouse effect has multiple definitions, and apparently, the alarmists quite like this feature and call it a “non-issue!” Apparently it is a “non-issue” to teach as reality a model which is admitted to be not based in reality, as they’ve now admitted, and which has multiple definitions and multiple mechanisms of operation, each one being more prevalent when another is shown to be flawed.

Skeptical Science: “All that is done, however, is to use a brilliant and sophisticated technique, taught only to the geniuses among us, called averaging! And of course, simple models are used in any is how we learn.”

But they just admitted that it is not just a simple model, but that it is in fact a model which isn’t real at all. The comment about averaging is quite funny, because I spent a great deal of time describing how averaging needs to be physically interpreted if you want it to correspond with reality.

Skeptical Science: “But, in actuality, the globally averaged solar re-distribution approximation is not bad when we use it to describe the temperature for planets like Earth or Venus. These planets have an atmosphere or ocean that transport heat effectively, especially Venus with virtually no day-to-night or pole-to-equator temperature gradient. The atmosphere and/or ocean help smooth the diurnal temperature difference very well. Therefore, when coming up with a temperature estimate, it is a great first approximation.”

Here, they don’t actually seem to be aware of what the only thing the solar insolation distributed average is good for, which is calculating the expected planetary blackbody temperature, and it works not just for Earth or Venus, but for all other planets as well whether an atmosphere is present or not.

For Earth, the blackbody temperature works out to 255K (-18C), and in fact, this is exactly what the temperature of the planet Earth is! The temperature of the Earth is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. But what the alarmists do is mix up two different physical metrics and phenomena: they compare the blackbody temperature of the Earth to its surface temperature, when these are completely different phenomena.

We already know why the surface temperature of the Earth should be warmer than the blackbody temperature and that it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect in the various manifestations they try to present it, as I laid out in my papers. Of course this is beside the point because we already know that the agenda-makers will do whatever they can to try to make a problem out of a completely natural and beneficial gas that all animals exhale and which the biosphere requires more of, not less.

Skeptical Science: “On Venus, the variability is even less, and most of the planet is at around 735K.”

This is a very good demonstration on their part of not distinguishing what physical metrics they’re actually talking about: “planet” can have many different connotations. The “planet” Venus actually has a temperature of 184K, not 735K! It is the surface temperature of Venus that is 735K, and such a temperature is expected to be so independent of any greenhouse effect. It is likely that they are either unaware or they are complicit in this type of obfuscation. They can get away with it because most of their supporters appear immune to science education. Thankfully, the rest of the population hasn’t been so intellectually impeded.

Skeptical Science: “To summarize so far, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earth’s radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption. Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology.”

Of course they are ignoring the fact that the flat earth model does indeed establish the paradigm for climatology and the greenhouse effect.

Skeptical Science: “Nonetheless, the 0-D energy balance model is a useful approximation on Earth when coming up with an average emission temperature (~255 K), since air circulations and oceans tend to even out the diurnal temperature gradient on Earth, in addition to the thermal inertia provided by the system.”

Pointedly, air circulation and oceans and thermal inertia all have exactly nothing to do with the blackbody emission temperature of 255K, so this statement by Skeptical Science is nonsensical.

Skeptical Science: “In essence, Postma stretches a simplified model to areas that it was never designed to go to, and then declares that its failure to work means the whole paradigm of the greenhouse effect is wrong. The incompetence is overwhelming.”

This statement is risable nonsense. Physics works universally. Skeptical Science presents the admitted fictional model greenhouse as if it is a logical principle borne out of physics, and as soon as it breaks down, they say that the same physics and the same idea isn’t supposed to be used anymore. This is the multiple personality disorder of greenhouse effect alarmism. The paradigm is wrong because it isn’t scientific in the first place, and we have their admission that the models used to teach the paradigm are based on fiction. What more do we need to discredit their junk science? I think the incompetence, or should we call it the obfuscation level here, has been clearly demonstrated.

Skeptical Science: “He claims that observations of the atmospheric lapse rate (the rate at which temperature declines with height) disallow the greenhouse effect. His reasoning is that the atmosphere is at a fixed height. When greenhouse gases warm the surface, and cool the upper atmosphere, that height still remains fixed, but obviously the temperature difference between the bottom and top of the atmosphere must increase. Postma then claims that this necessarily implies that the lapse rate must have a greater slope than the theoretical value that he derived of about -10 K per kilometer (which is about right for a dry air parcel ascending). That is, if the atmospheric height remains fixed, and the temperature difference between bottom and top is increased, then the rate at which air cools with height must increase. Since this is not observed, then we have a problem, right? In actuality, the atmospheric height is a distraction. The adiabatic lapse rate does not extend beyond the point where convection breaks down, which is the tropopause. The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases does increase the “average” height at which emission to space takes place (and the tropopause increases in height too), so one IS allowed to extrapolate further down the adiabat to reach a higher surface temperature. On Venus, the optical thickness forces the tropopause to some 60 km altitude.”

The point, which they curiously missed, is that we should occasionally be able to see lapse rates larger in magnitude than that set by thermodynamics alone because the action of the greenhouse effect - that is supposedly continually acting everywhere - would have exactly this effect. The climate and weather systems are never (never have and never will be) in equilibrium and so we should be able to see natural perturbations above the adiabatic rate due to the action of the greenhouse effect as the system tries to return to an equilibrium state after some natural short-term fluctuation. But in fact, the fastest observed rate is the 10K/km that is seen for dry air, as expected. The average observed lower rate of 6.5K/km is due to the typical presence of water vapour which returns latent heat to the air column via condensation and it rises and cools, thus slowing the rate of temperature decrease as compared to an absence of water vapour.

This is well known and can probably be modelled to first order relatively easily. The thick atmosphere on Venus doesn’t mean there’s more ambiguously-defined greenhouse effect, it simply means that there’s more atmosphere and more atmospheric pressure at the surface, and therefore from thermodynamic physics alone, such as the adiabatic lapse rate, we expect much higher temperatures.

Skeptical Science: “Perhaps just as crucial to all of this, Postma cannot get around the surface energy budget fallacy, which says that increased CO2 causes surface warming by just increasing the downward infrared flux to the surface. This problem is described in standard treatments of the greenhouse effect, which he does not seem to know exist, such as in Ray Pierrehumbert’s recent textbook. The primacy of the top of the atmosphere budget, rather than the surface energy budget, has been known at least since the work of Manabe in the 1960s (see also Miller, 2011 submitted)”

Well first of all, linking to “RealClimate” (energy-budget-fallacy link) is hardly doing the Skeptical Science author a favour. Of course, we already identified what type of non-science we are dealing with here, and so we shouldn’t be surprised to find links to blogs or websites run by what many of us regard as pseudo science peddlers. Moreover, we again witness an equivocation as to what the real greenhouse effect actually is and how it actually works. The fact is that it "works" in whatever way they want it to depending on how the criticism is exposing the flaws, which of course means their arguments are veritable sophistry.

Skeptical Science: “Postma runs into this mistake again when he claims that the low water vapor in hot deserts is a problem for greenhouse theory, but this is largely due to the lack of evaporation cooling, which is just one component of the surface energy budget, and nearly absent in a desert. This is one scenario where a detailed consideration of the surface budget is critical, as well as in other weakly coupled regimes.”

But it couldn’t be clearer: In the desert there is very little water vapour, and water vapour is the strongest heat-amplifying so-called greenhouse gas, especially considering it’s overwhelming radiative properties as compared to CO2. Yet in the desert, much higher temperatures are reached than are achieved at similar latitudes in areas where there is an abundance of water vapour. If the greenhouse effect was really in operation, regions with more water vapour in the air should get much hotter than regions without, yet the reverse is seen to be the case. It doesn’t get any simpler and clear cut than this: where there should be a stronger greenhouse effect, the opposite is what is actually found.

In fact, recent scientific findings by independent researcher Carl Brehmer has shown that water vapour, the strongest "greenhouse gas" according to climate theory, actually behaves as an ANTI-greenhouse gas because of its strong negative-feedback effects upon temperature increases. This is therefore a double-whammy to alarmist climate irrationality, because in addition to requiring water vapour to act like a heat-amplifying greenhouse gas, it also requires water vapour to act as a positive feedback factor! The data clearly shows that water and water vapour is a strong negative feedback factor in the climate, and that its presence reduces temperature, not increases it.

Skeptical Science: “The way CO2-induced warming really works in a well mixed atmosphere is by reducing the rate of infrared radiation loss to space.”

This is nonsense. The rate of infrared radiation loss to space is exactly the rate it should be, at about 240 W/m^2. There is no reduction in the rate of energy loss to space due to CO2.

Skeptical Science: “The back-radiation will indeed increase in part because of more CO2 and water vapor, but also simply because the atmosphere is now at a higher temperature. But if the lower atmosphere was already filled with water vapor or clouds to the point where it emitted like a blackbody (at its temperature), increasing CO2 would not directly increase downward emission before temperature adjustment, but would nonetheless warm the planet by throwing the TOA energy budget out of whack.”

The TOA blackbody energy budget results in the same value independent of anything which happens with a planet’s atmosphere; for the Earth, it is always 240 W/m^2, and this is true if it has an atmosphere or not. Unfortunately, this simple fact escapes the hyperreality of climatism.

Skeptical Science: “…nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.”

What has been clearly demonstrated is that the so-called “educational tools” are admitted “toys” which have no basis in reality. It can’t be more evident that these “educational tools” are therefore tricks, pure sophistry designed to obfuscate reality and support a pre-arranged political agenda, as was demonstrated by the intimations of the author.

Skeptical Science: “Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.”

But the Earth HAS “collapsed” into a frozen ice-ball several times in its history! What warms it back up is the hot Sun, but government-funded climate science is incapable of understanding this and must therefore attribute this warming to the greenhouse effect, because they treat the Sun as if it is cold and as if it has little effect on warming the planet. The paradigmatic irrationality and incompetence is just amazing.

Skeptical Science: “This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed.”

This is disengenous and weak as an argument. Climategate emails proved that alarmists conspired to ensure that skeptical research did not appear in the climate science journals. What climate scientists should be ashamed of is supporting policy-driven science for it’s own benefit. We are left with the perception that alarmist bloggers like Skeptical Science are probably paid by individuals in the government who have previously determined a policy initiative that they wanted supported by some science. The result of that is billions of dollars worth of sophistry and obfuscation, as witnessed daily but what comes from alarmist-policy agenda setters. Take my field of astrophysics for example: what we produce has no consequence to public policy or political excuses for austerity whatsoever - we can do whatever research we please and we won’t lose funding for it. But the alarmist climate community feels compelled to produce alarming results to back political policy to ensure their future funding and job security.

All in all, skeptics are fairly concerned that there is a fundamental conflict of interest that such "science" could never be trusted. It's like giving the power to create money to the counterfeiters. It is also most telling that the only scientists who are the most alarmist appear to be those who benefit most from the political policy funded it. Yet, typically any other scientist from any other field becomes “a skeptic” when they take the time to review the actual data for themselves.

Nothing could be more clear: a scientifically literate person who doesn’t know any of the details of climate facts might support the alarmist cause, but once a scientifically literate person informs themselves of the actual science, they invariably become more skeptical. The only scientifically literate enclave still supporting alarmist climate science is the one paid to do so.

These links are suggested for further reading:

Understanding the Atmosphere Effect (PDF)

The Model Atmosphere (PDF)

Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect (PDF)

The Three Hyper-real Paradoxes of Global Warming’s Climatism

The first two are long papers although they make for very good reading, while the latter two links are brief summary articles. The last link is particularly interesting for the philosopher of science and reason, and gives a good overview on the abuse of philosophy being engaged by climate alarmism.

Like my colleagues at Principia Scientific International I suggest there needs to be wider realisation that science has been hijacked by policy and that this policy is not in the public interest. Life adapts to the natural rhythms of planetary climate change and humanity’s real science improves its teleological evolutionary function in the biosphere and noosphere. Let's be clear: we’re going to have more climate change in the future, and we’re going to utilize it, and we will create more of it when and where it serves the teleology. It is the definition of ludicrous insanity to be afraid of climate change, and to think that political and monetarist austerity will somehow negate that fear.
Source Link:

Show #11-20

Solar Cycle 25 Feed
  • » Feed Error
Arctic Snap Feed
  • » Feed Error
Current Poll
» How much "Man Made" CO2 Is In The Earth's Atmosphere?
  • I think ALL of the CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere is from man.
    graph bar 0 1%
  • I'm not sure how much "Man Made" CO2 is in the Earth's Atmosphere.
    graph bar 1 13%
  • There is .04% CO2 in the Earth's Atmosphere and of that "Man" has added an extra 4% (1 part in 62,500)
    graph bar 2 86%

you have already voted

Articles by Climate Realists and Topics

» Recently used highlighted

10:10 No Pressure
2010 Forecast
2011 Forecast
2012 Forecast
2012 USA Election
2013 Forecast
24 Hours of Reality
A Chart to Debunk AGW
A Graph to Debunk AGW
A Moment Of Clarity
Acidic Oceans
Adam Yoshida
Adrian MacNair
Adrian Sach (Donation)
African Drought
Ahmed Boucenna
Al Ritter
Alan Broone
Alan Carlin
Alan Caruba
Alan Cochrane
Alan Jones
Alan Moran
Alan Nicholl
Alan Siddons
Alan Smith (Donation)
Alan Tenczar (Donation)
Alan Tichmarsh
Alberta Election 2012
Alberto Miatello
Alec Evans (Donation)
Alec Pearson (Donation)
Alex Epstein
Alex Jones
Alex Newman
Allan Macrae
Allen Quist
Alok Mukherjee
Amanda Baillieu
Amazon Rain Forests
American Meteorological Society
Amy Ridenour
An Inconvenient Truth
Andre Bijkerk
Andrew Bevan (Donation)
Andrew Bolt
Andrew Duncan (Donation)
Andrew J. Hoffman
Andrew Kenny
Andrew McKillop
Andrew Montford
Andrew Neil
Andrew Orlowski
Ann McElhinney
Ann Widdecombe
Anna Sanclement
Anthony Bright-Paul
Anthony Cox
Anthony G. Martin
Anthony J. Sadar
Anthony Watts
Anton Evseyev
Anton Yevseev
Antonio Mario Lorusso (Donation)
Arcady Tishkov
Arno Arrak
Art Horn
Arthur Rorsch
Arthur Wiegenfeld
Arvid Pasto
Astrophysics v Meteorology
Aubrey Vaughan
Augusto Mangini
Barrington Davey (Donation)
Barry Brill
Barry Cooper
Barry Napier
Barry Schwartz
Barry Woods
Barun S. Mitra
BBC Review
Ben Fordham
Ben Pile
Benny Peiser
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project
Berthold Klein
Beverly K. Eakman
Bill Board
Bill DiPuccio
Bill Frezza
Bill McKibben
Bill Stratton
Bjarne Andresen
Bjorn Lomborg
Blast From the Past
Bo Christiansen
Bob Ashworth
Bob Berman
Bob Carter
Bob Ellis
Bob Godfrey
Bob Lutz
Bob Tisdale
Bob Webster
Boris Johnson
Brendan O'Neill
Brent Bozell
Bret Stephens
Brian McNair
Brian Sussman
Brice Bosnich
Bring It On
Bruce Thompson
Bryan Fischer
Bryan Leyland
Burger King Sign
Buzz Aldrin
By Jove I Think They've Nearly Got It
C. R. de Freitas
Calem Smith
Cameron English
Campaign Against Climate Change
Carbon Trading
Carey Roberts
Carl Brehmer
Carrington 2012
Cathy Taibbi
Catlin Arctic Survey
Cause & Effect
Charles Anderson
Charles Booker (Donation)
Charles Memminger
Charles O'Connor (Donation)
Chip Knappenberger
Chris de Freitas
Chris Smith
Chriss W. Street
Christian Gerondeau
Christmas Donation
Christopher Booker
Christopher C. Horner
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Essex
Christopher Jones (Donation)
Christopher Pearson
Chuck Rogér
Claes Johnson
Claude Allègre
Claude Sandroff
Climate Cognitive Dissonance
Climate Fools Day
Climate of Doubt
Climate Protest
Climate Reality Project
Climatic Research Unit
Clive James
CO2 Experiment
CO2 Is Green
CO2 Level
CO2 Propaganda
Coldest Journey On Earth
Comet C/2013 A1
Comment On Article
Conrad Black
Copenhagen Conference
Countryside Party
Craig Idso
Craig Rucker
Crop Yield
Daily Quake
Dan Miller
Dan Pangburn
Daniel Compton
Daniel Croak (Donation)
Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Hannan
Daniel Henninger
Daniel M. Sweger
Danielle Smith
Daren Jonescu
Darren Pope
Darren Samuelsohn
Dave Clewlow (Donation)
Dave Dahl
Dave Epstein
Dave Hatter
David Appell
David Archibald
David Becker (Donation)
David Bellamy
David Bennett (Donation)
David Bredenkamp
David Brockless (Donation)
David Brook (Donation)
David Child
David Deming
David Dick
David E. Sumner
David Evans
David Garner (Donation)
David H. Douglass
David Hanna (Donation)
David Hathaway
David Henderson
David Howse (Donation)
David Icke
David Ivory
David Klenk (Donation)
David Lappi
David Legates
David Lungren
David R. Legates
David Rose
David Schnare
David Smith (Donation)
David Spady
David Spiegelhalter
David Whitehouse
Dean Grubbs
Death Threats
Debra J. Saunders
Denis Ables
Denis Rancourt
Dennis Ambler
Dennis Boothby
Dennis Byrne
Dennis T. Avery
Derek Alker
Deroy Murdock
Des Moore
Dexter Wright
Diana Allan (Donation)
Dick Warburton
Dominic Lawson
Dominik Jung
Don Blankenship
Don Easterbrook
Don Parkes
Don Petersen
Don Pierce (Donation)
Don Surber
Donald Trump
Donald Williams (Donation)
Donna Laframboise
Doreen Alli Linder
Doug L. Hoffman
Doug Wyatt
Douglas Cohen
Douglas Cotton
Douglas J. Keenan
Duggan Flanakin
Duncan Davidson
E. Calvin Beisner
Earthquake Research
Earthquakes (>=7.5) 2012
Earthquakes (>=7.5) 2013
Earthquakes (>=7) 2012
Earthquakes (>=7) 2013
Ed Berry
Ed Caryl
Ed Hiserodt
Ed Hoskins
Ed West
Edward Barnes
Edward F Blick
Edward Lane
Edward Moran
Edward R. Long
Edward Wimberley
Edwin X Berry
Elisa Pardo
Elizabeth Auld (Donation)
Emily Oster
Energy & Fuel
Erik Kempers (Donation)
Erik Wemple
Erl Happ
Ernst Georg Beck
F. Swemson
Falling Birds
Fan Page
Ferenc Miskolczi
Film & TV
Finis Gillespie (Donation)
Fire James Hansen
Floor Anthoni
Forrest Mims III
Fortunato F Condo (Donation)
Frank Davis
Frank J. Tamel
Frank J. Tipler
Frank Lansner
Frank Sherosky
Fraser Nelson
Fred Dardick
Fred Singer
Frederick Forsyth
Freeman Dyson
Fritz Vahrenholt
Front Page News
Frozen Al Gore
Gai Lehn (Donation)
Garrett Bastardi
Garth Paltridge
Gary DeBois (Donation)
Gary Novak
Gary Sutton
Gary Thompson
Gary Williams (Donation)
Gavin Cooke
Gayam Walter (Donation)
Geert Groot Koerkamp
Geoff Sharp
Geoffrey Lean
Geoffrey Lehmann
Geoffrey Temple (Donation)
Geological Society of America (GSA)
George Carlin
George Christensen
George Gardner (Donation)
George Giles
George Jonas
George Kukla
George Pell
George Will
Gerald T. Westbrook
Gerald Traufetter
Gerald Warner
Geraldo Luis Lino
Gerhard Kramm
Gerhard Loebert
Gerrit van der Lingen
Giora Shaviv
Girma Orssengo
Glenn Beck
Glenn Czulada (Donation)
Glenn Schleed
Global Warming Meltdown
Global Warming or Global Governance?
Global Weirding
Godfrey Bloom
Gone Fishing
Gordon J. Fulks
Graham Stringer
Grant R. Jeffrey
Green Bonds
Green Cars
Green Ideology
Green Religion
Green Tax
Green Tories
Greg Sullivan (Donation)
Gregg Thompson
Gregory Fegel
Gregory Young
Guillermo Gonzalez
GV Chilingar
Habibullo Abdussamatov
Haiti Earthquake
Hank Campbell
Hans H.J. Labohm
Hans Jelbring
Hans Kelp (Donation)
Hans Schreuder
Hans von Storch
Harold Ambler
Harold W. Lewis
Harrison Schmitt
Harry Binswanger
Harry Eagar
Harry Jackson
Harvey M. Sheldon
Headline Story
Heather Brown (Donation)
Heinz Lycklama
Henri Suyderhoud (Donation)
Henrik Svensmark
Henry Lamb
Henry Payne
Hide The Decline Video
Himalayan Glacier Data
Holly Martin (Donation)
Horst Borchert
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
How About That!
How to Comment
Howard Bigham (Donation)
Howard Hayden
Howard Nemerov
Hurricane News
I Can Change Your Mind About Climate
Iain Murray
Ian Clark
Ian Drever (Donation)
Ian McEwan
Ian Plimer
Ian Ridpath (Donation)
Ian Wishart
Ice Chart
Ileana Johnson Paugh
Important Announcement
Important Notice
Indur M. Goklany
International Climate Science Coalition
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report
IPCC Review
iPhone App
Irina Shlionskaya
Ivan Kenneally
Ivar Giaever
Ivo Vegter
J. D. Longstreet
J. Winston Porter
J.R. Dunn
Jack Dini
Jack Kelly
Jack Van Wingerden
James A. Marusek
James Delingpole
James E Steelman (Donation)
James Hawes (Donation)
James Heiser
James Inhofe
James Lewis
James Lovelock
James M. Taylor
James Macdonald
James Maropoulakis Denney
James R. Barrante
James Randi
James Rust
James Stewart (Donation)
James Tully (Donation)
Jan Janssen
Jan Suhr (Donation)
Jan-Erik Solheim
Janet Albrechtsen
Janet Daley
Janice Meyer (Donation)
Japan Earthquake
Jarl R. Ahlbeck
Jasper Kirkby
Jay Ambrose
Jay Lehr
Jay Richards
Jean Michel (Donation)
Jean-Michel Bélouve
Jeb Bush
Jeff Jacoby
Jeff Kuhn
Jeff Mirus
Jeff Poor
Jeffrey Bossert Clark
Jeffrey Folks
Jeffrey Glassman
Jeffrey Jagmin (Donation)
Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Jennifer Marohasy
Jeremy Clarkson
Jeremy Ross
Jerome Bastien
Jerome J. Schmitt
Jerry Taylor
Jet Stream Shift
Jill Farrell
Jim Berkland
Jim Chiodo
Jim Crawford
Jim Elsner
Jim Guirard
Jim Hollingsworth
Jim Lacey
Jim Luse
Jim Macdonald
Jim McConalogue
Jim O'Neill
Jim Peden
Jim Salinger
Joanne Nova
Joe Bastardi
Joe Daleo
Joe Fone
Joel Gehrke
Johannes Schreuder (Donation)
John A. Shanahan
John Abbot
John Barnhart
John Brandt
John Brignell
John Burtis
John Christy
John Coleman
John Daly
John Droz, Jr
John Dunn
John Griffing
John H. Sununu
John Hinderaker
John Humphrys
John K. Swayze
John L. Casey
John Leonard
John Lott
John Lucas (Donation)
John Mackey
John Mangun
John McLaughlin
John McLean
John Nicol
John O'Sullivan
John P. Costella
John Rabb (Donation)
John Ransom
John Redwood
John Reid
John Robson
John Rosenthal
John Spooner
John Stossel
John Sutherland
John Vennari
John Ziraldo
John Zyrkowski
Johnny Ball
Jon E McCloskey (Donation)
Jon Ferry
Jonathan A. Lesser
Jonathan Drake
Jonathan Drake (Donation)
Jonathan DuHamel
Jonathan Powell
Jonathon Moseley
Joseph A Olson
Joseph Bast
Joseph Bencini (Donation)
Joseph E. Postma
Joseph Farah
Josh Fulton
Judith Curry
Julia Reid (UKIP Member)
Julian Kenny
Jürgen Krönig
Jurriaan Maessen
Jyrki Kauppisen
Karin McQuillan
Karl Bohnak
Kelly O'Connell
Kelvin Kemm
Ken Cuccinelli
Ken Green
Ken Ring
Ken Stewart
Ken Ward Jr.
Kenneth Haapala
Kenneth P. Green
Kesten C. Green
Kevin Baldeosingh
Kevin Klees
Kevin Libin
Kevin Mooney
Kevin VS Marshall (Donation)
Kevin Watts (Donation)
Kingsley Guy
Kirk Melhuish
Kirk Myers
Kirtland Griffin
Kjell Stordahl
Klaus L.E. Kaiser
Klaus-Eckart Puls
Lance Endersbee
Larrey Anderson
Larry Bell
Larry Cosgrove
Laura Hills (Donation)
Laurence I. Gould
Lawrence Solomon
Lee C. Gerhard
Leighton Steward
Len Srigley (Donation)
Leo Hickman
Leon Ashby
Leon Clifford
Leonard Weinstein
Let It Be
Lewis Page
LF Khilyuk
Little Ice Age - BIG Chill
Lona Landowski (Donation)
Lord Beaverbrook
Lord Lawson
Lord Monckton
Lord Turnbull
Lorne Gunter
Lorrie Goldstein
Louis Woodhill
Lubos Motl
Lucka Kajfež Bogataj
Luke Barnard
Lyn Jenkins
M. Paul Lloyd
Mac Johnson
Madhav L Khandekar
Magnetic Polar Shift
Malcolm Colless
Malcolm Roberts
Mann Made Climate Change
Marc Morano
Marc Sheppard
Marcel Meyer (Donation)
Marcus Brooks
Marie Luise Dött
Marita Noon
Mark Howarth
Mark Landsbaum
Mark Lawson
Mark Paquette
Mark Phillips (Donation)
Mark Piney (Donation)
Mark R. Warner
Mark Schumacher
Mark Shea
Mark Vogan
Mark W. Hendrickson
Martha Montelongo
Martin Cohen
Martin Durkin
Martin Hertzberg
Martin Hodgkins (Donation)
Martin Hurd (Donation)
Martyn Brown
Matt and Janet Thompson
Matt Dempsey
Matt Gurney
Matt Philbin
Matt Ridley
Matthew Cawood
Matthew Penn
Matthew Proctor (Donation)
Matthew Sinclair
Matti Vooro
Maurice Newman
Maurizio Morabito
Maxwell T. Boykoff
Meet The Sceptics
Melanie Phillips
Merv Bendle
Met Office
Met Office BBQ Summer
Met Office Climate Scam
Met Office Decadal Forecast
Met Office Long Range Forecasts
Mexico 2010 Cop16
Michael Andrews
Michael Asher
Michael Asten
Michael Atkinson (Donation)
Michael Babbitt (Donation)
Michael Barone
Michael Beenstock
Michael Boyles (Donation)
Michael Buerk
Michael Cejnar (Donation)
Michael Coren
Michael Crichton
Michael F. Haverluck
Michael Hammer
Michael J. Economides
Michael Lind
Michael Miller (Donation)
Michael O'Leary
Michael Oberndorf
Michael R. Fox
Michael Shellenberger
Michael Shermer
Mike Foreman (Donation)
Mike Lockwood
Mike Norton-Griffiths
Mike Sneddon (Donation)
Million Kid March
Miranda Devine
Mobile Site
Mohib Ebrahim
Mojib Latif
Monthly Eclipse
Mr. FOIA (hero of Climategate email's)
Murdo MacDonald (Donation)
Muriel Newman
Murry Salby
Mytheos Holt
Name Calling
Nancy Greene-Raine
Nancy J. Thorner
Nancy Neale
Nasif S. Nahle
Neal Bennet (Donation)
Neil Collins
Neil Henderson
Neil Mahony (Donation)
Neil McKnight (Donation)
Neil Reynolds
Neil Snyder
Neville Nicholls
New Site
Newspaper Article
Newt Gingrich
Nicholas Drapela
Nicholas Ricketts (Donation)
Nick Minchin
Nigel Calder
Nigel Farage
Nigel Sitwell (Donation)
Niger Innis
Nikolai Dobretsov
Nils-Axel Mörner
Nir Shaviv
Noel Matthews
Noel Sheppard
Noor van Andel
Norm Kalmanovitch
Norman Alexander (Donation)
Norman Page
Norman Rogers
North Sea Storm Surge
Not Evil Just Wrong
Occupy Wall Street Protest
OG Sorokhtin
Ole Humlum
Oliver K. Manuel
Open Letter/Fax
Opposing Views
Orrin G. Hatch
P Gosselin
Pachauri Conflict of Interest
Pal Brekke
Papers Challenging AGW
Pat Michaels
Patrick Henningsen
Patrick McMahon
Patrick Moore
Patrick Q Collins (Donation)
Patrik Jonsson
Paul Biggs
Paul C. Knappenberger
Paul Chesser
Paul Crovo
Paul Driessen
Paul H. Jossey
Paul Hamaker
Paul Homewood
Paul Hudson
Paul M. Murray
Paul Macrae
Paul Mulshine
Paul Murdock
Paul Oakley
Paul Roderick Gregory
Paul Shlichta
Paul Vreymans
Paul Wornham
Penn & Teller
Penny Rodriguez
Peter A. Ziegler
Peter Ainsley (Donation)
Peter Buxton (Donation)
Peter C Glover
Peter Farrell
Peter Ferrara
Peter Ferro (Donation)
Peter Foster
Peter Foukal
Peter Gill
Peter Heck
Peter Hitchens
Peter J. Havanac
Peter LaChance
Peter Landesman
Peter Lilley
Peter Ravenscroft
Peter Schwerdtfeger
Peter Sissons
Peter Spencer
Peter Taylor
Peter Wilson
Petr Chylek
Petter Tuvnes (Donation)
Phelim McAleer
Phil Bottomley (UKIP Supporter)
Phil Brennan
Phil Green
Phil Valentine
Philip Foster
Philip J. Klotzbach
Philip Sherwell
Philip Stott
Phillip A W Bratby
Phillip Leavitt (Donation)
Pierre Latour
Pierre R. Latour
Piers Akerman
Piers Corbyn
Please Donate
Press Release
Prop 23
Public Poll (Climate Realists)
Public Polls
Public Warning
Q & A
QR Code
Queensland Flood
Rael Jean Isaac
Ralph Hostetter
Ralph Percy
Ralph Selman (Donation)
Randall Hoven
Randy Fardal
Raven Clabough
Ray Bates
Raymond Richman
Rebecca Terrell
Repeal The Act
Reply To Article
Reply To Letter
Reply To Media
Reply To Video
Rex Burr (Donation)
Rex Murphy
Reynold Stone (Donation)
Rhodes Fairbridge
Rich Apuzzo
Rich Lowry
Rich Trzupek
Richard Baehr
Richard Bruce (Donation)
Richard Cohen
Richard Courtney
Richard F. Yanda
Richard Haddad
Richard Holle
Richard J. Grant
Richard James
Richard Lamb (Donation)
Richard Lindzen
Richard Littlejohn
Richard Mackey
Richard North
Richard Pollock
Richard Treadgold
Richard Wellings
Rick Moran
Rick Perry
Rick Santorum
Rik Myslewski
Ritesh Arya
Rob Lyons
Rob Smith
Robert Bryce
Robert Coombes (Donation)
Robert D. Brinsmead
Robert Donnelly (Donation)
Robert Ellison
Robert Ferebauer (Donation)
Robert Ferguson
Robert H. Austin
Robert Hodges
Robert Laughlin
Robert M Wagner
Robert Matthews
Robert Rohlfing
Robert Sprinkel
Robert Tracinski
Robert W. Endlich
Robert W. Felix
Robert W. Wood
Robert Wood (Donation)
Robin Horbury
Robyn Wolfe (Donation)
Rod Liddle
Roger Andrews
Roger Aronoff
Roger F. Gay
Roger L. Simon
Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger Pielke Sr.
Roger Tallbloke
Roger W. Cohen
Ron House
Ron Johnson
Ron Nurwisah
Ronald D. Voisin
Ronald Pate (Donation)
Ronald R. Cooke
Ross Clark
Ross Kaminsky
Ross McKitrick
Rosslyn Smith
Roy Clark
Roy Eappen (Donation)
Roy Spencer
Royal Society Review
Rupert Darwall
Rupert Wyndham
Russell Cook
Russian Temperature Data
Ruth Dudley Edwards
Ruth Lea
Ruth Rodger (Donation)
Ryan Maue
Salvatore Del Prete
Sammy Benoit
Sammy Wilson
Samuel Rodriquez
Sarah Palin
Science Under Attack
Scott Armstrong
Scott Denning
Sea Chart
Sea Level Gate
Sebastian Lüning
Selvaraj Kandasamy
Selwyn Duke
Shannon Goessling
Sherman Griffith (Donation)
Shunichi Akasofu
Simon Heffer
Simon Turnill
Site Announcements
Skeptic's Guide
Social Networking
Solar Climate Change
Solar Cycle 24
Solar Cycle 25
Solar Flare & Earthquake 2013
Solar News
Sponsorship Donation
Sponsorship Donation InfoComm Engineering
Spot The Deliberate Mistake
Spot The Difference
Stanislav Mishin
Stanley J. Penkala
Stefan Gorzula
Stephen Ashworth
Stephen Doughty
Stephen Glover
Stephen Murgatroyd
Stephen Wilde
Sterling Burnett
Steve Bettison
Steve Dickman (Donation)
Steve Fielding
Steve Goreham
Steve Hansen
Steve Jobs
Steve LaNore
Steve McIntyre
Steve Running
Steve Watson
Steven F. Hayward
Steven Goddard
Steven H. Yaskell
Steven Milloy
Stewart Franks
Stewart Meagher
Stuart Blackman
Stuart Clark
Svend Hendriksen
Swine Flu
Syun Akasofu
Tait Trussell
Ted Nordhaus
Teena Clipston
Terence Corcoran
Terence P. Jeffrey
Terrence Aym
Terri Jackson
Terry Crowley
Terry Hurlbut
Terry McCrann
The Branch Carbonian
The Emperor's New Clothes
The Geological Society
The Great Global Warming Swindle
The Green Swindle
The Greenhouse Conspiracy
The Marshall Institute
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Rules Of The Game
Thomas Costello
Thomas E. Brewton
Thomas Fuller
Thomas Gillan (Donation)
Thomas Lifson
Thomas Richard
Tim Ball
Tim Blair
Tim Channon
Tim Coleman
Tim Cullen
Tim Schowalter
Tim Stanley
Tim Worstall
Timothy Birdnow
Timothy Casey
Timothy Crome (Donation)
Todd Kuipers (Donation)
Tom Bethell
Tom Chivers
Tom Harris
Tom Nelson
Tom Quirk
Tom Russell
Tom V. Segalstad
Tony Abbott
Tony Elliott
Tony Hake
Tony Newbery
Tony Pann
Tony Phillips
Tony Rose
Torben Sørensen (Donation)
Transit of Venus
Tree Ring Data
Trevor Kavanagh
Tropical Storm "Power Up" 2013
Trudy Schuett
True or False?
True Stetson
Truth Squad
Try this at home
Tyler Watts

Click to get your own widget

The Unstoppable
Solar Cycles

  • » News articles may contain quotes, these are copyright to the respective publication which will be stated, along with a link to the source article where available.
  • » If you feel your copyright has been violated please contact us and the article will be removed or amended at your request.
Articles Recently Viewed


  • » Please support the site by making a donation. No matter how big or small, your contribution helps to support the cause.
Recent Most Read

Show #11-20

See Stephen Wilde's Latest Article

Show articles by Stephen Wilde

All Time Most Read

Show #11-20

Climate Depot Feed
  • » Feed Error