Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?! Twenty climate scientists, including Top UN scientist, call for RICO investigation of climate skeptics in letter to Obama


By: - Climate DepotSeptember 17, 2015 1:36 PM with 436 comments

Top UN scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them.

One of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro after trips there in 2010 and 2011. See: Rutger’s Prof. Alan Robock drools over Castro and his VIP treatment in 2010 trip to Cuba robock@envsci.rutgers.edu – Robock’s enchanted meeting with Castro: I stayed at ‘nicest hotel…I went in a black Mercedes…I went to private meeting with Fidel & his family…we had photo taken together’

2011 Trip.

Prof. Robock & Fidel Castro in 2010

[Note: This call for treating skeptics as racketeers comes the same week that the New York Times promoted equating climate skeptics to Hitler. See: ‘The Next Genocide’- NYT OpEd: Climate ‘deniers’ present ‘intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s’

Update: World court should rule on climate science to quash skeptics, says Law Prof. Philippe Sands ]

Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Climate skeptics heading to jail?

Letter reproduced in full:

Letter to President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren

September 1, 2015

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,

As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient. The risks posed by climate change, including increasing extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and increasing ocean acidity – and potential strategies for addressing them – are detailed in the Third National Climate Assessment (2014), Climate Change Impacts in the United States. The stability of the Earth’s climate over the past ten thousand years contributed to the growth of agriculture and therefore, a thriving human civilization. We are now at high risk of seriously destabilizing the Earth’s climate and irreparably harming people around the world, especially the world’s poorest people.

We appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress. One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry. A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Sincerely,

Jagadish Shukla, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Maibach, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Dirmeyer, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Barry Klinger, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Paul Schopf, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

David Straus, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Edward Sarachik, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Michael Wallace, University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Alan Robock, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ

Eugenia Kalnay, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

William Lau, University of Maryland, College Park, MD

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO

T.N. Krishnamurti, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Vasu Misra, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL

Ben Kirtman, University of Miami, Miami, FL

Robert Dickinson, University of Texas, Austin, TX

Michela Biasutti, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Mark Cane, Columbia University, New York, NY

Lisa Goddard, Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY

Alan Betts, Atmospheric Research, Pittsford, VT

#

End letter

#

Related Links:

UN IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth’s History Of Making Bold Claims Which Contradict Science

World court should rule on climate science to quash skeptics, says Law Prof. Philippe Sands – Laments scientifically-settled questions such as whether climate change is even happening are still being challenged by “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”, he said.

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr reacts: ‘Int’l Court of Justice should rule on climate science to quash sceptics, prepare for trials says Prof. Philippe Sands’ 

Pielke Jr.: ‘WTF: Need to outlaw unwelcome scientific views of “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential persons”‘ 

Pielke Jr: ‘This week began with a NYT op-ed comparing climate skeptics to Hitler. It ends with multiple calls for skeptics to be jailed. Lost the plot?’ 

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics – RICO was a law designed to take down organized crime syndicates, but scientists now want it to be used against scientists, activists and organizations that voice their disagreement with the so-called “consensus” on global warming.

Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl: RICO: IPCC and comrades may be prosecuted for racketeering – Naomi Oreskes claims ‘only prove that she is a dishonest and hateful Marxist shrew who just doesn’t want to look at any of these problems impartially.’ – ‘Climate alarmism is clearly the greatest racket in the world as of 2015.’

Global warming promoters: Use RICO on critics – ‘Letter to Obama suggests possible jail for opponents of climate agenda’

Skeptical Scientist: ‘Failed Climate Scientists Call For RICO Investigation To Stop Criticisms, And Non-Scientist Claims Scientists Will Cause Next Genocide’ – Dr. William Briggs: ‘These promulgators of a failed science want to sic the full force and might of United States Government on persons like yours truly and the companies or organizations that might fund me. (None do, unfortunately.)’ 

Scientists ask Obama for RICO investigation to end climate debate – According to journalist Marc Morano, “one of the scientists who signed the letter was Alan Robock of Rutgers University. Robock has expressed very positive views of Cuba’s Fidel Castro.” Morano also writes that “top U.N. scientist Dr. Kevin Trenberth and the 19 other scientists have become so tired of debating global warming that they are now apparently seeking to jail those who disagree with them.” The letter comes at a time when the global warming pause hit a new record length of 18 years 8 months. 

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on RICO! RICO and signing the death warrant for climate science – Curry: ‘My first reaction was that this was some kind of joke, or that some of these individuals didn’t know what they were signing.’ Curry schools signers of letter: First, you have been duped by the Merchants of Doubt book/movie. Third, the source of funding is not the only bias in research, and the greatest bias does not necessarily come from industry funding.

Democrat Sen. Whitehouse: Use RICO Laws to Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics – Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI): ‘In 2006, Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decided that the tobacco companies’ fraudulent campaign amounted to a racketeering enterprise…The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.’


  • Todd Nelson

    I would love for the entire “climate change” matter to be investigated by an independent counsel. Of course, it means that Trentberth, Whitehouse, Crugman, et al get investigated as well. They need to be prosecuted for the fraud they have foisted on the world, costing the US taxpayers over $22 Billion last year alone. They also need to be prosecuted and sued for 1st amendment violations. Just in case they hadn’t noticed, this is America where we have to put up with their fraud, but they have to listen to us as well. Only in places like communist Cuba, communist China, North Korea, and Iran can citizens be punished and executed for having a different position on a subject than the one espoused by the government and elites. Maybe all the signers of the letter to Obama should pay a visit to North Korea and demand they start killing those who don’t believe in “climate change”. I’d love to see that.

    • Ulysses Noman

      And Mann, and Hanson. and East Anglia. All corrupt, all suppressing countervailing data, cherry-picking their key and highly limited data, ALL fudging their damned models in an interative process that uses only the extreme outlier results. NONE of their predictions are bearing out. Their models don’t work when real and broad data is input. They have the microphones, that’s ALL. And for an ignorant populace it is almost enough.

      • CB

        “And Mann, and Hanson. and East Anglia. All corrupt”

        …and Fourier, and Foote, and Tyndall, and Arrhenius… all part of a massive, corrupt conspiracy that’s spanned over a century.

        Is that actually the claim you’re making?

        “Overlooked by modern researchers is the work of Eunice Foote, who, three years prior to the start of Tyndall’s laboratory research, conducted similar experiments on absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases, such as CO₂ and water vapor. The presentation of her report at a major scientific convention in 1856 was accompanied by speculation that even modest increases in the concentration of CO₂ could result in significant atmospheric warming.”

        http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2011/70092sorenson/ndx_sorenson.pdf

        • DavidAppell

          Come one, CB, you know Newton was in on this too. And Einstein? Had to be.

          • CB

            “you know Newton was in on this too. And Einstein? Had to be.”

            These are the hallmarks of people who are not interested in the truth.

            …which I would suspect makes Mr. Morano’s job much easier.

            When the target audience doesn’t actually care what’s true, lying must be a snap!

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • jmac

            It’s an amazing conspiracy theory, but if you take it seriously it’s an extraordinary charge. For one thing, if it’s true that the world’s scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same scientific institutions and practices undergird what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt enough to perpetrate a massive global scam in exchange for research money, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they’ve generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything! :)

            It’s never been about the science. Exxon’s own research shows they knew about man made climate change from burning of fossil fuels, over 4 decades ago.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a credible scientific study that would disprove man made climate change, only to arrive at the same conclusion that man made climate change is real.

            The deniers with their little seeds of doubt about the science are just trying to mislead the public about the soundness of the science, something that both Exxon and Koch bros know is sound.

            These deniers are simply immoral shyts that think it is ok to sell a product that can cause harm to everybody and their grandchildren for years to come.

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      The entire “climate change” matter has been investigated by literally thousands of independent minds over the years – if you want to get up to speed you can start here
      “Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming”
      http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

      It’s Morano’s operation that needs a some independent counsel investigation action – would love to find out about the skeletons in CD’s closet.

      • Todd Nelson

        You are using the political term “consensus” instead of the scientific term “proven” because there is no proof of the theory of “climate change”, AKA manmade global warming, AKA climate disruption, AKA AGW. And then you use a government source for reference. This government source pays people to say there IS manmade global warming, and cuts off funding for those who say there isn’t. Just remember, at one time in this country there was a consensus that slavery was a good thing. It took a war of secession to prove it wasn’t. According to the vast majority of astrophysicists, it is mother nature who will be waging the war against your consensus very soon.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Todd, “Proven” does not exist in Earth sciences! Get a clue.
          It’s about learning as much about systems as possible
          and making intelligent decisions based on ALL the available information.

          You folks are all about out shouting the scientists so their lessons doesn’t get through – Hell bring up the slavery and secession proves that you don’t even know what the issue is about.

          Uploaded on Jan 2, 2012

          Stephen Henry Schneider (February 11, 1945 — July 19, 2010) was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, a Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow in the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment. Schneider served as a consultant to federal agencies and White House staff in the Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

        • StillWatching2

          Wait – that acronym AGW – are you talking about Al Gore’s Wealth, or something else..?

  • jeaniebgd

    “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” ~Adolph Hitler

    The climate warmists/alarmists are sticking to their story despite over 1,500 errors in the IPCC 2014 climate assessment report. Despite the NOAA and NASA caught “adjusting” their records to mirror the bogus, fraudulent 2014 IPCC report. Obama’s National Climate Assessment report regurgitated the IPCC report’s faulty data as well, verbatim.

    The AP reported in yesterday’s paper (9-16-15) that the Arctic sea cap is melting….when in fact, satellite pictures show it’s increased 60%, and has increased 29% in the Antarctic. The Arctic and Antarctic sea ice is expanding, not decreasing. And hundreds of climate scientists say the earth is cooling, not warming.

    Why the charade, and lies? Follow the money, the lust for power, and the greed. If the climate change phony baloney story can move the US Congress to pass carbon tax legislation, a lot of people will have a perpetual steady flow of revenue via the Carbon Tax Pie. The UN, the World Bank, and the owners & players in the Carbon Exchange Boards.

    • ooddballz

      Gonna steal this, if I may?

    • John Adams1

      All this is is Eco-Socialist sir another way of big taxes to grow government..

      • Breaking News Job Online $97/h

        Digital Google Career Make $97 Just In One Hour……….Afterg an average of 19952 Dollars monthly,I’m finally getting 97 Dollars an hour,just working 4-5 hours daily online.….. Weekly paycheck… Bonus opportunities…Payscale of $6k to $9k /a month… Just few hours of your free time, any kind of computer, elementary understanding of web and stable connection is what is required…….HERE I STARTED…look over here
        —kt.
        ================= www.Jobs367.com ☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣☣

      • DavidAppell

        It’s about noncarbon energy sources — that’s all. You will still plug your toaster into the same outlet.

        • John Adams1

          Yeah that must be it…

          • DavidAppell

            It might even be free:

            “Fixing Climate Change May Add No Costs, Report Says,”
            Justin Gillis, New York Times, Sept 16 2014.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/science/earth/fixing-climate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html

          • John Adams1

            Oh well if the Pravda says so it must be true

          • DavidAppell

            The article merely using information from a report from panel of experts, the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate.

            What in the report’s analysis do you disagree with?

          • John Adams1

            Seeing as Climate Change is fake…everything

          • DavidAppell

            Fake? A worldwide conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists all over the world?

            Do you realize how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

          • John Adams1

            There isn’t tens of thousands of scientists sir, NOAA and NASA were caught several times trying to fudge the data, the science is never settle because science never is. And many of those scientists got caught creating fake data so GOVERNMENT GRANTS… Don’t troll on conservative websites where that actual use their heads rather than feelings and liberal talking points.

          • DavidAppell

            Actually it’s probably more like hundreds of thousands of scientists.

            Neither NOAA or NASA every “fudged” data. In fact, their results agree with at least 2 other research groups, one of them founded by the Koch brothers.

          • John Adams1

            Uh huh just like your buddy ex nazi soros signs your checks…

          • DavidAppell

            Is that the only cockamie excuse you can come up with — I’m being paid by someone to write here? Kooky.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            aka J. Adams, the real challenge here is to try and figure out if you actually believe the stupidity you spew – or if you’re just another one of the politicos who don’t give a dang for anyone or anything but your own short term “interests” – Care to offer some clues as to which it is?
            As for those tens of thousand of scientists, from throughout the world and spanning many generations – HERE GET AN EDUCATION:
            ———————————————————————————–
            Here are gathered in chronological sequence the most important events in the history of climate change science.
            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
            _________________________________________________________
            The Discovery of Global Warming February 2015
            A hypertext history of how scientists came to (partly) understand what people are doing to cause climate change.

            This Website created by Spencer Weart supplements his much shorter book, which tells the history of climate change research as a single story. On this Website you will find a more complete history in dozens of essays on separate topics, occasionally updated.

            If you want basic facts about climate change, or detailed current technical information, you might do better using the links page. But if you want to use history to really understand it all…

            https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          • John Adams1

            Let me get right on that reading left leaning non facts because you feel climate change is real. in the 70s they said we would be in a ice age and a world war, in 1989 they said by the year 2000 global warming would make the ocean level go up and wipe whole nations off of the map, in 1990 they said we have 5-10 years to save the rain forests, in 1999 they said all the Himaylayan Glaciers would all be gone in 10 years,in 2000 they said that snow will be the thing of the past,in 2007 the said the hurricanes will be the thing of the past, in 2008 Gore and the “hundreds and thousands scientists” said the arctic would be ice free by 2013,than in 2012 they said global warming would cause more hurricanes and than by 2014 they said the science has been settled. Dude keep making more fake accounts to agree with yourself but the facts have been settled

          • DavidAppell

            No, they weren’t warning of an ice age in the ’70s, except for a TV show and a magazine article:

            “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008.
            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

          • DavidAppell

            In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases — President Johnson received a report in 1965 — and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:

            http://www.davidappell.com/EarlyClimateScience.html

          • John Adams1

            1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

            2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

            3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

            4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

            5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

            6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

            7. Sea level will probably continue to rise, naturally and slowly. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

            8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

            9. No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.

            10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw

          • DavidAppell

            Dishonest and plagarism, from this article, which you did not attribute:

            https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace

          • DavidAppell

            All of these claims are wrong. But I’m not wasting time on your “Gish gallop,” especially not when they aren’t your words or your ideas or your understanding.

            Plagarist.

          • John Adams1

            Who said these comments were mine? Did i try to publish these comments? I am posted true statements against a paid troll

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t cite your source — you cut and pasted it all and gave the impression it was yours. That’s plagarism.

          • DavidAppell

            Is that all you can come up with, “paid troll?” Lame.

            Some of us simply care about the truth. Being a conservative, I realize you find that hard to believe.

          • John Adams1

            Who said these comments were mine? Did i try to publish these comments? I am posted true statements against a paid troll

          • DavidAppell

            For example, Re: #2: “The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.”

            Wrong all around. The Earth is warming 30 times faster than when it left the last ice age. That’s very quick — 0.15 to 0.2 C/decade.

            And, yes, it’s warming lately, as surface warming shows, and sea surface temperatures show, and especially the ocean shows, which absorbs over 90% of the trapped heat.

            I’d give links and graphs for all these, but you never cite any sources yourself, so I won’t waste my time.

          • John Adams1

            Yet the temp hasn’t gone up for 18 and a half years

          • DavidAppell
          • nickrin

            Yes, it has, it’s known as the global warming pause and it is a subject of heated debate.

          • DavidAppell

            No, it isn’t. See the Karl et al paper in Science, this summer 2015:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8e69f09c16fd746d7eb645aaec39324b236e730ea247d1302bb40be65a997998.jpg

          • DavidAppell

            For example, Re: #2: “The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.”

            Wrong all around. The Earth is warming 30 times faster than when it left the last ice age. That’s very quick — 0.15 to 0.2 C/decade.

            And, yes, it’s warming lately, as surface warming shows, and sea surface temperatures show, and especially the ocean shows, which absorbs over 90% of the trapped heat.

            I’d give links and graphs for all these, but you never cite any sources yourself, so I won’t waste my time.

          • DavidAppell

            “…in 1989 they said by the year 2000 global warming would make the ocean level go up and wipe whole nations off of the map.”

            They? They who?

          • John Adams1

            These were all proclamations made by your “scientists” over the years. Just like the same 4 alt username you create do agree and upvote EVERY comment you’ve made so far

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t “have” scientists — I follow the science. And your didn’t cite any scientists for any of your claims.

            Because one scientist once speculated on something does not make it agreed upon science.

          • DavidAppell

            And I only have one user name. I wouldn’t waste time on you with 4 user names, let alone liking comments 4 times.

            But it’s good you noticed the good comments get upvotes. Yours, hardly any.

          • DavidAppell

            They said this, they said that… who said all these things that you’re not providing proof of?

          • DavidAppell

            “…in 2008 Gore and the “hundreds and thousands scientists” said the arctic would be ice free by 2013″

            That’s a lie. Here’s what Al Gore really said:

            “Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”

          • John Adams1

            he Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.http://www.co2science.org//articles/V13/N47/C2.php

          • DavidAppell

            Prove polar bear numbers are up.

          • DavidAppell

            Prove polar bear numbers are up.

          • DavidAppell

            Explain a half century of declining Arctic ice.

          • DavidAppell

            Explain a half century of declining Arctic ice.

          • DavidAppell

            “…they said global warming would cause more hurricanes…”

          • John Adams1

            Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

          • DavidAppell

            More plagarism.

            Prove global warming is natural.

          • DavidAppell

            More plagarism.

            Prove global warming is natural.

          • John Adams1

            Building a strawman prove it isn’t without citing government studies that have left leaning agenda’s and again posting a link or comment is not plagiarism

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t prove global warming was natural.

            Let’s see your proof.

          • DavidAppell
          • John Adams1

            David Siegel is the source of said statements. I’m not a journalist dude pasting true statements is not plagarism… But yet your a paid troll on conservative website passing your socialistic talking points using government studies from scientists that pass fake as fact so they can get more government money…

          • DavidAppell

            Not citing your source, and giving every indication the words are yours, is the exat definition of plagarism.

            You’re guilty.

          • John Adams1

            Again dude I’m not a journalist, you’re guilty of being a paid socialist troll and a retard

          • DavidAppell

            You don’t need to be a journalist to be guilty of plagarism. You just need to have respect for other people’s work.

            You’re guilty.

          • John Adams1

            Liberals don’t have a grasp on reality.

            You’re guilty

          • DavidAppell

            Unhinged comments like this show you don’t have a real argument, and have been reduced to ridiculous stereotyping.

            I consider the point won. Time to move on.

          • John Adams1

            Deranged comments from a paid liberal troll that states unfactual left leaning government paid statistics while building strawmen never denying accusations. Dude you won in your own mind there was never a competition. Rather than badger somebody to “win” an argument just agree to disagree or does your company frown down at that kind of thing?

          • DavidAppell

            Your comments are getting ever more ludicrous.

            I don’t see much reason to keep paying attention to you. Can you convince me of one?

          • DavidAppell

            Another:

          • John Adams1

            Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Creative reading and ignoring large swaths of available information leaves you mighty ill informed. Besides you misrepresent the report! It says:

            “It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are model-estimated changes with considerable uncertainty (e.g., aerosol effects).”

            Besides why do ignore what that report was about? It is not about “storms, droughts, flood, cold or heat waves” ! ! ! It is specifically about Atlantic Hurricanes and Tropical Cyclone Activity?

            Besides it’s a hideously awkward and ultra-conservative piece of writing. Like the authors were scared to death to write anything straight-forward and instead made it as convoluted and wordy and cautious as possible. Perfect for cherry picking and misrepresentation.

          • John Adams1

            You’re a paid troll

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Quick response. And typically inhuman, perhaps I should say inhumane.

            Don’t like what I’m saying, paint a mask on me and pretend I’m your enemy and call me stupid names – but you know that’s phony and

            Why doesn’t anyone on your side have the slightest interest in questioning yourselves, testing yourselves, subjecting yourself to the actual information at hand and finding out if you can learn and get a better understanding of what’s happening with our climate system. Here’s a nice easy read that lays out some of the basics you really do need to grasp before you can be more that a fool for your political cause.

            “How Global Warming Made Hurricane Sandy Worse”
            11/1/12
            http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190

            ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            Oh and though you’ll believe whatever you want to believe, anyone that knows anything about me knows I’m no paid troll – or paid any other thing. Except for hard working handyman who’s good enough to not worry about advertising, because people know me, trust me because by golly I’m a Stand Up Guy.

            And I get the feeling so is Mr. Appell, (although that dude is a real scientist – not a silly old carpenter-jack of all trades trying to share information) He has shared many worthy learning opportunities worth reading and learning from. Unfortunately, just like the mules around here one can lead them to water, but if they don’t want to drink they won’t and that’s that.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            PS. “ClimateAudit. . .“Citizenschallenge” has no CV”
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/citizenschallenge-hasno-cv.html

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            We are talking about real physics in action.
            That report is around 5,000 words that covers a spectrum of information and links to many studies, it can’t be understood in cartoon form, you’ve got to spend time learning about all it’s complexity and the basic undeniable physics in action – before you know what you’re talking about.
            All you’re doing is repeat empty right-wing echo-chamber talking points.

            Can you explain any of it, can you defend your position in a friendly rational manner?

          • DavidAppell

            “All you’re doing is repeat empty right-wing echo-chamber talking points.”

            Yes, he is. And you’re right: it takes time and study to understand the science and get it right.

          • DavidAppell

            Great timeline. Thanks for posting it.

          • StillWatching2

            Seeing as how they accept money to come to these conclusions you may call them “professionals” but I think “scientists” is stretching it…

          • DavidAppell

            Where is your proof that all these scientists are fraudulent? YOu don’t have the slightest iota of any….

          • Dano2

            Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:

            o Thousands of scientists;

            o across a century and a half;

            o in a wide range of specialties;

            o in dozens of countries;

            o on six continents;

            o speaking scores of languages;

            o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

            o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

            Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?

            Best,

            D

          • John Adams1

            Sounds like you and David Appell are the same person, So who is paying you to spread misinformation? Media Matters? One of Soros brood groups? Seeing as there hasn’t been any rise in temperatures in 18 and a half years and several watchdog groups caught NOAA and NASA fudging and trying to change the data several times. Sir the science is NEVER “settled” that’s why it’s called SCIENCE. You and your pathetic liberal drivel and strawman bullcrap speak volumes of you sir. Next time don’t make a second username to agree with yourself…

          • DavidAppell

            Perhaps your opinion is for sale; mine is not. And no, we’re not the same person.

            You’re wrong about the 18 years claim:

          • DavidAppell

            NASA used Newtonian physics to get to the moon & back.

            Do you think they considered Newtonian physics “settled?”

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            You just don’t get it do you? The Earth’s surface temperature accounts for about 10% of our global heat and moisture distribution engine’s total heat content. A slight and temporary slowing of surface temperatures means absolutely nothing fool!
            GHGs continue insulating our planet and our climate-engine continues warming 24/7/365 – What your big mistake is that you think if human’s can’t be absolutely positively 100% sure of every single detail – you have some right to ignore everything that is thoroughly understood. Most dishonest.

            You also forget that science is a learning process, not a political process!

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Oh and no I am not David A. Please allow me to introduce myself
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2014/02/climateaudit-citizenschallenge-cv.html

          • Dano2

            Don’t have a sads that I pointed out the comedy in your assertion. Turn that frown upside down!

            Best,

            D

    • Gus

      “>>> “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” ~Adolph Hitler <<<"

      Er… it was not how Hitler said it and he was not the first to do so. The prize in this case goes to William James (1842-1910), an American philosopher and psychologist. Here is what he wrote:

      "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it."

      Hitler made a comment on the Big Lie in Mein Kampf while accusing Jews and Marxists of lying about Ludendorff's responsibility for Germany's defeat in WWI, and Goebbels used it in reference to the English leadership.

      • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

        Do you think these clowns running this blog care one wit about details or accuracy?

        • Robert

          Note also “lie”. With no evidence of such.

    • East Clintwood

      Personally prefer, “throw enough shit at a wall and some will stick”.

    • CB

      “The AP reported in yesterday’s paper (9-16-15) that the Arctic sea cap is melting….when in fact, satellite pictures show it’s increased 60%, and has increased 29% in the Antarctic.”

      Really!?

      The people who run the satellites say you’re incorrect.

      …so where are you getting your information, Jeanie?

      Is it from people like Marc Morano who are well-known for being paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product?

      “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 134 billion metric tons of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 287 billion metric tons per year.”

      climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice

      • DavidAppell

        Someone thinks the Arctic ice cap has increased 60%?

        They sure don’t know the data….

    • jmac

      Consider what the Limbaugh/Morano conspiracy crowd is saying about climate: not only that the world’s scientists and scientific institutions are systematically wrong, but that they are purposefully perpetrating a deception. Virtually all the world’s governments, scientific academies, and media are either in on it or duped by it. The only ones who have pierced the veil and seen the truth are American movement conservatives, the ones who found death panels in the healthcare bill.

      It’s a species of theater, repeated so often people have become inured, but if you take it seriously it’s an extraordinary charge. For one thing, if it’s true that the world’s scientists are capable of deception and collusion on this scale, a lot more than climate change is in doubt. These same scientific institutions and practices undergird what we know about health and disease, species and ecosystems, energy and biochemistry. If they are corrupt enough to perpetrate a massive global scam in exchange for research money, we have to consider whether any of the knowledge they’ve generated is trustworthy. We could be operating our medical facilities, economies, and technologies on faulty theories. We might not know anything!

  • ScienceABC123

    Typical progressives/leftists, when their position can’t withstand debate they demand that everyone either accept their position or be jailed.

  • Askwatch

    These academics pushing prosecution of dissent are the same who will cling to tenure to protect their academic freedom.

  • Sam Pyeatte

    I hope these deranged far-left nuts like Whitehouse keep pushing this approach. It demonstrates that they are desperate beyond belief since they cannot prove or show untainted evidence supporting AGW. Message to AGW fanatics: Bring it on!

  • caradoc

    The entire left is running full tilt toward fascism. This is how it happened almost 100 years ago, and this is how it will happen here soon. A political ideology that can admit no wrong, Psuedo-scientific justifications for what had prior been considered monstrous acts, dehumanizing political opponents. Now they just need the heavy crisis to scare people into granting vastly more power to the governments. They are making one up with AGW, but given that they hold the levers of power their utter incompetence will guarantee a real one (Economic crash, over-immigration, nuclear Iran, pick one) will occur. And of course, it will be blamed on their opponents and/or their not having enough power.

  • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

    There is no question in my mind , since adding an appreciation of the necessary connection of gravity and temperature to my understanding of spectral effects , that the entire “greenhouse gas” explanation of the 3% difference between the gray body temperature in our orbit and our surface temperature simply cannot compute .

    They have to be pressed to the wall to show that they can even quantitatively explain our temperature within 1% , which they cannot do , or have RICO called on them .
    http://cosy.com/y15/CarbonPollutionTombstone.jpg

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      How did Lake Nyos suddenly kill 1,700 people?
      by Susan L. Nasr
      http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/lake-nyos.htm

      • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

        Huh ?
        How is that any more relevant that that thousands have died crushed by carbon in coal mine disasters ?

        This appears to me to be an example of willful stupidity .

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Not any nuttier than that poster up there no one is complaining about,
          just trying to get you to think a little.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Have YOU ever watched any of the Heartland presentations ? With anything close to an open analytical mind ?

            The evidence against the catastrophic CO2 AGW claim is overwhelming on both the empirical and theoretical level .

            And the integrity and even courage of the speakers is an all too rare pleasure to be part of .

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Actually thanks to the wonder of YouTube I have – so there.
            Your point was what?

            Hey Bob, are you up for putting some substance behind your one liners??

            I challenge you to pick any one Heartland talk – pick the one you are most impressed with.

            Allow me to do a thoughtful critique and I will happily listen to your rebuttal to my critique. Let me see if I’ve finally found a climate science sceptic who has the intellectual integrity to actually engage in a serious debate. But, of course, this debate would be in writing, but so much the better for the documentation.

            Let’s see if you can find someone who’s analytically demonstration that fears of CAGW are overblown and survive closer inspection by a rational multi-directional skeptic – that would be me ;- ) .

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Mine . See http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html .
            It really requires at least a strong highschool math background , and preferably 2nd year calculus thru the Divergence Theorem .

            More recently I’ve come to understand that the force which quantitatively explains the difference between a planet’s Top of Atmosphere and surface temperatures is gravity . There is NO quantitative theory for the putative “greenhouse gas” theory because there cannot be one . The theory is wrong on the most basic classical physics . See NPR Censors Sciencehttp://cosy.com/Science/NPR_Censors_Science.html ,

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Accepted, I’ll be back.
            I’m curious can you refer me to any published papers where you’ve described and explained your assertions to an audience of actual experts?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Please invite anybody you feel competent , ie , physicists who present actual , computable equations NOT just the endless typical untestable word salad , to review my work .

            My priorities are to get my 4th.CoSy , http://www.cosy.com/CoSy/ , debugged and documented for distribution and presentation at the Silicon Valley Forth Day at Stanford in November .

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            No I’m not going to debate the math with you, I at least recognize my limitations. But I do recognize that you barely understand your topic, sure you know a computer language, but you need to understand the science to be able to properly use any tool. You’ve admitted to some serious omissions, you appeal for help from experts, yet you feel justified scoffing at hundreds of thousands of hours of study and learning and understanding that has grown around this issue.

            You want me to think you are smarter than all that and that if other scientists don’t get it or ignore you, they must all be dishonest or something ugly like that. It’s bizarre and way self-indulgent and it ignored the first rule for real scientists: BE SKEPTICAL OF YOUR OWN IDEAS AND NOTIONS.

            PS. I did comment on your Heartland Institute talk at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2u4zxfwks
            and at http://cosy.com/Science/HeartlandBasicBasics.html
            where David Appell (who does have a good understanding of the physics and math) did an excellent job of exposing your flaws and omissions, too bad you decided to cut him off. Also in a serious constructive discussion you shouldn’t throw so many hissy fits simply because you don’t like what he said.

            That behavior also informed me as to how seriously I should take your words.

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong’s “science” fails 6th-grade math, because he can’t even write down equations whose units balance.

            I’ve looked at Armstrong’s so-called “science” is more detail than anyone on the planet. It is wrong, atroctious, and laughable. I say that having a PhD in theoretical physics.

            Armstrong spoke at the 2014 Heartland Institute conference. A link to his PowerPoint slide for his presentation is given on this page:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

            Download it so you can follow along here.

            As I said, Armstrong’s science is comical.

            First of all, his notation, taken from some obscure programming language he learned during the early parts of the Cold War, is ridiculous. Simple algebraic relations show the physics easily. I’m sure 0% of the Heartland audience — not the brightest bulbs to begin with — were able to follow his talk.

            Armstrong uses a billiard ball model for a planet that is in no way realistic. All his talk about gray balls and blue balls and the like means nothing — real planets have atmospheres. His ideas don’t even get past the first week of Climate Science 101.

            Armstrong makes the most elementary of errors. In his Heartland talk, he confuses emissivity for emissions, and absorptivity for absorption.

            Thus his application of Kirchoff’s Law (page 23 of his PowerPoint file) is simply whacked, where he attempts to use Kirchoff’s Law and equates aborption to emission, which isn’t at all what Kirchoff’s Law says.

            Worse (but not surprisingly), his equations don’t even make sense — their units don’t balance.

            Look at his PPT file, page 23. The units for his “Absorptivity” and “Emissivity” (both misnamed) don’t even have the same units.

            His absorptivity has units of a spectrum-squared.

            His emissivity has units of a spectrum times a temperature.

            Thus his “A%E” is not unitless, as he needs for his equation on the bottom of page 23.

            This is junk science.

            Armstrong is a Climate Clown. He is WAY out of his league. His science is utter nonsense. Naturally, Armstrong thinks he is completely right and the rest of the World is completely wrong.

            Sadly, that is the nature of the world we now live in.

            David

          • DavidAppell

            What are the units of your “A”?

            What are the units or your “B”?

            How can temperature and spectrums have the same units??

            “…experiment and equations trump all humans”

            What experiment shows planets are monochromatic balls?

            Here is some detail on Armstrong’s error on units:

            His presentation is at:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

            On the 22nd page, his variable “A” has units of a spectrum-squared, or (W/m2)^2.

            His “E” has (obviously) units of a spectrum*temperature, or (W/m2)*Kelvin.

            Thus, Armstrong thinks Watts per square-meter is equal to Kelvin!

            Then, two lines lower, he misapplies Kirchoff’s law and gets a huge mess.

            Armstrong knows enough science to recognize his units don’t match. But he won’t admit it because he thinks he is a genius who has discovered something a century of scientists got wrong.

            Why is it that the people who know the least invariably think they know more than anyone, that they are right and the world is wrong???

            Bob Armstrong’s own physics is terrible. I’ve looked at his “work” probably more than anyone on the planet — certainly more than the attendees of the Heartland Conference where he spoke, where his glaring errors didn’t raise a peep.

            I’ve found major errors in his work — of geometry, of radiative physics, of basic algebra — but he refuses to even consider them, let alone defend them. In some of his equations the units don’t even balance, which is the requirement they instill you on day 1 of science class.

            He is in no way qualified to judge anyone’s science.

            The worst is that Armstrong won’t even fight for his ideas. I’ve found major errors in his work — of geometry, of radiative physics, of basic algebra — but he refuses to even consider them, let alone defend them.

            What is the word for a someone who will no longer defend his claims? He thinks ignoring criticism will somehow bring his ideas around to being true. He’s very, very mistaken in that.

            Yet he repeats the same old, disproven platitudes here. What can you conclude about someone like that?

            Here’s how bad Bob Armstrong’s quantitative skills are:

            He thinks that if Jupiter was in Earth’s orbit, it would receive the exact same amount of sunlight – NOT that its much bigger size means it would receive more sunlight.

            That’s because Armstrong thinks the solid angle subtended by an object doesn’t depend on its size.

            That’s the calculation that appears in his Heartland Institute presentation, available as a PowerPoint file here:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

            Try to ignore his primitive and obsolete mathematical notation. Armstrong thinks his equations are better off in a 50+ year old programming language almost no one has ever heard of, than in the simple algebraic notation everyone on the planet learned in 7th grade.

            In other words, Armstrong isn’t interested in clarity — he’s trying to bamboozle his audience. (You can be sure absolutely no one in the Heartland audience could follow his presentation.)

            On page 23 of this file you’ll notice that his equations don’t balance – his variables A and E obviously have different units, so the equation on the bottom of the page is nonsense. (He also misunderstands, and misapplies, Kirchoff’s Law.)

            On page 14, titled “Orbital Geometry,” Armstrong shows he doesn’t understand the simple concept of a solid angle.

            In the second paragraph he writes, incorrectly, “In the case of the earth, almost all the energy is coming from the bit of the celestial sphere covered by the disk of the sun.”

            Obviously not — the sun is effectively a point source at the distance of the earth. The energy received by the earth is coming from the AREA OF THE EARTH EXPOSED TO THE SUN.

            That is, the energy received by the earth is dependent on the area of the DISK the earth presents toward the sun.

            That area is pi*R^2, where R is the earth’s radius.

            This is trivially obvious. If Jupiter were in Earth’s orbit, the energy it receives would depend likewise on Jupiter’s radius.

            Yet Armstrong thinks Earth and Jupiter would receive the same energy from the Sun.

            Mind you, NOT just the same energy per unit area — the same absolute amount of solar energy.

            Now, the solid angle subtended by the earth is

            solid_angle = pi*R^2/4*pi*D^2 = (R/2D)^2

            where D is the distance of the earth from the sun.

            Plugging in values, we find, at the earth’s aphelion distance of 152,098,232 km

            solid_angle(ap) = 4.39e-10

            Notice what Armstrong thinks: that this solid angle is (middle of the page) 5.234958e-6.

            He’s too high by a factor of about 10,000!!

            Why? BECAUSE HE USES THE RADIUS OF THE SUN in the solid angle calculation, NOT THE EARTH!!!

            Try it. Substitute the radius of the Sun into the equation (R/2D)^2. You’ll get exactly his value.

            Ridiculous, obviously.

            Flat out wrong, clearly.

            A basic boneheaded mistake. But Armstrong is too proud to admit it, because he needs to believe he knows more than every scientist on the planet.

            And this is a man who tries to brag about his “quantitative science.” Sad.

            10-11-15

            Bob Armstrong is a climate clown, the kind that is now found everywhere on the Internet.

            I’ve looked at Armstrong’s so-called “science” is more detail than anyone on the planet. It is wrong, atroctious, and laughable. I say that having a PhD in theoretical physics.

            Armstrong spoke at the 2014 Heartland Institute conference. A link to his PowerPoint slide for his presentation is given on this page:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

            Download it so you can follow along here.

            As I said, Armstrong’s science is comical.

            First of all, his notation, taken from some obscure programming language he learned during the early parts of the Cold War, is ridiculous. Simple algebraic relations show the physics easily. I’m sure 0% of the Heartland audience — not the brightest bulbs to begin with — were able to follow his talk.

            Armstrong uses a billiard ball model for a planet that is in no way realistic. All his talk about gray balls and blue balls and the like means nothing — real planets have atmospheres. His ideas don’t even get past the first week of Climate Science 101.

            Armstrong makes the most elementary of errors. In his Heartland talk, he confuses emissivity for emissions, and absorptivity for absorption.

            Thus his application of Kirchoff’s Law (page 23 of his PowerPoint file) is simply whacked, where he attempts to use Kirchoff’s Law and equates aborption to emission, which isn’t at all what Kirchoff’s Law says.

            Worse (but not surprisingly), his equations don’t even make sense — their units don’t balance.

            Look at his PPT file, page 23. The units for his “Absorptivity” and “Emissivity” (both misnamed) don’t even have the same units.

            His absorptivity has units of a spectrum-squared.

            His emissivity has units of a spectrum times a temperature.

            Thus his “A%E” is not unitless, as he needs for his equation on the bottom of page 23.

            This is junk science.

            Armstrong is a Climate Clown. He is WAY out of his league. His science is utter nonsense. Naturally, Armstrong thinks he is completely right and the rest of the World is completely wrong.

            Sadly, that is the nature of the world we now live in.

            David

          • greenthinker2012

            Agreed his so-called science is atrocious.
            But I think that to many people it looks “sciencey” enough to be convincing.
            His incomprehensible mish-mash of “sciencey-looking” units and concepts has the extra bonus that it is impossible to follow along logically and that many people would presume the fault was their’s for not being smart enough to understand.
            This means most people won’t question his results for fear of looking foolish.

          • DavidAppell

            I completely agree, greenthinker. I spent a lot of time deciphering Armstrong’s nonsense, because I’m that kind of weirdo, which for some reason he wrong in a programming language from the early 1960s, when ordinary algebra would have sufficed just fine.

            I think he wanted to look smart. Instead, he just looks irrelevant.

          • Ike Bottema

            … or for the fact that it jives with their belief system….

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Well actually today we have all sorts so Republican/libertarian type going around yodeling that CO2 is wonderful and can do no harm – well too much CO2 is deadly – get it.
          And too little in our atmosphere and our planet get’s cold and too much in our atmosphere and our planet get’s hot. Hot is not good for a number of geophysical reasons you choose to remain ignorant of.

          Hell, you don’t even appreciate how much we depend on the weather patterns society has evolved within.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Sorry , you seem to be rather ignorant of the orders of magnitude of quantitative facts .

            Furthermore , as will become undeniably clear in a very short time , the notion that CO2 has much of any effect on our surface temperature will be thoroughly falsified on its essential classical physics .
            Hint : It’s gravity not spectrum which causes the surface to be warmer than the Top of our Atmosphere .

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong is a climate clown, the kind that is now found everywhere on the Internet.

            I’ve looked at Armstrong’s so-called “science” is more detail than anyone on the planet. It is wrong, atroctious, and laughable. I say that having a PhD in theoretical physics.

            Armstrong spoke at the 2014 Heartland Institute conference. A link to his PowerPoint slide for his presentation is given on this page:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

            Download it so you can follow along here.

            As I said, Armstrong’s science is comical.

            First of all, his notation, taken from some obscure programming language he learned during the early parts of the Cold War, is ridiculous. Simple algebraic relations show the physics easily. I’m sure 0% of the Heartland audience — not the brightest bulbs to begin with — were able to follow his talk.

            Armstrong uses a billiard ball model for a planet that is in no way realistic. All his talk about gray balls and blue balls and the like means nothing — real planets have atmospheres. His ideas don’t even get past the first week of Climate Science 101.

            Armstrong makes the most elementary of errors. In his Heartland talk, he confuses emissivity for emissions, and absorptivity for absorption.

            Thus his application of Kirchoff’s Law (page 23 of his PowerPoint file) is simply whacked, where he attempts to use Kirchoff’s Law and equates aborption to emission, which isn’t at all what Kirchoff’s Law says.

            Worse (but not surprisingly), his equations don’t even make sense — their units don’t balance.

            Look at his PPT file, page 23. The units for his “Absorptivity” and “Emissivity” (both misnamed) don’t even have the same units.

            His absorptivity has units of a spectrum-squared.

            His emissivity has units of a spectrum times a temperature.

            Thus his “A%E” is not unitless, as he needs for his equation on the bottom of page 23.

            This is junk science.

            Armstrong is a Climate Clown. He is WAY out of his league. His science is utter nonsense. Naturally, Armstrong thinks he is completely right and the rest of the World is completely wrong.

            Sadly, that is the nature of the world we now live in.

            David

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      Hey Bob, have you ever applied a serious dose of self-skepticism –
      You know that thing that every serious scientist must learn or fail at their craft.

      If Carbon Pollution is an oxymoron – why can too high a CO2 concentration in the air kill you? In other words your big brag is bull poopie.
      http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf

      https://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19960605.html

      • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

        Do you realize how foolish you citing such reference sound to astronauts like Walt Cunningham and Harrison Schmitt who know exactly what the safe levels of CO2 are for space capsules , but are disgusted by this stupid fraud ?

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Bob, In other words you fully appreciate what a crock of horse poop it is posting something as stupid as “Carbon Pollution, the ultimate oxymoron. Willful stupidity. Criminal malfeasance.”
          Too much of a good thing turns into pollution, too much more turns it into a toxin. That holds as true for CO2 as it does for anything else!

          So why do you print garbage like that?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I see now you are a willful useful idiot , tool of the state , incapable of individual rational analysis .

            I am sorry , carbon based creature , I have wasted as much time as I have on yet another acolyte of the cult of the State .

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Turn me into a convenient cartoon straw man to plug into your fantasy.
            Don’t that sort of thinking make you feel superior as hell.

            It has been interesting bud.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            You needed no help .

          • DavidAppell

            Armstrong makes the most elementary of errors. In his Heartland talk, he confuses emissivity for emissions, and absorptivity for absorption.

            Thus his application of Kirchoff’s Law (page 23 of his PowerPoint file) is simply whacked, where he attempts to use Kirchoff’s Law and equates aborption to emission, which isn’t at all what Kirchoff’s Law says.

            Worse (but not surprisingly), his equations don’t even make sense — their units don’t balance.

            Look at his PPT file, page 23. The units for his “Absorptivity” and “Emissivity” (both misnamed) don’t even have the same units.

            His absorptivity has units of a spectrum-squared.

            His emissivity has units of a spectrum times a temperature.

            Thus his “A%E” is not unitless, as he needs for his equation on the bottom of page 23.

            This is junk science.

            Armstrong is a Climate Clown. He is WAY out of his league. His science is utter nonsense. Naturally, Armstrong thinks he is completely right and the rest of the World is completely wrong.

            Sadly, that is the nature of the world we now live in.

            David

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            David , for all your noise and quibbles , you have yet to give us your computations for simply calculating the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball .

            Whatever your problems with comprehending the freely downloadable array programming language I use , I present real , experimentally testable values which match in particular the endlessly parroted 255K value for a body with a 0.7 albedo wrt the solar spectrum and 1.0 in the IR .

            Show us yours , or anyone truly interested in understanding this bit of physics must conclude you are FoS .

          • DavidAppell

            Notice that Armstrong, instead of addressing the specific scientific criticisms of his work, tries to deflect attention by name calling.

            This has been the case all along.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Equations talk ; What you do walks .

          • DavidAppell

            And your equations are laughably wrong.

            When are you going to address the criticisms?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Your Equation is overdue .

            F

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t have to provide my own science to show that your science is wrong.

            Either address the criticisms — which you clearly can’t — or expect to get shellacked every time you try to post your crappy science somewhere.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            YES YOU DO !

          • DavidAppell

            No, I don’t. Your science is wrong — badly wrong — and your results are nonsense.

            Until you address your errors — which you won’t even discuss — your science continues to be nonsense.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            But my answers , as anybody can check , are NOT wrong .

          • DavidAppell

            Your SCIENCE is wrong. Clearly. Hence your numbers are nonsense, whether by coincidence they are similar, which knowing you is more likely some further computation errors and biases.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            How come my computations match your 255K number on your special case ? Show us your equations which match on that special case but differ from mine elsewhere .

          • DavidAppell

            Your numbers cannot be right, because your mathematics is wrong.

            Here is a specific problem you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            What “answers” are you even talking about?

            All you have done is compute the same “surface temperature” for Mercury, Earth and Mars that were long ago calculated by S(1-albedo)/4=sigma*T^4 — a temperature called the “brightness temperature).

          • DavidAppell

            Except for Venus you got the brightness temperature wrong — it is 184 K, not the 320 K you gave (PPT pg 17). Oops.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            You really have a PhD under George Sterman Stony Brook ?

          • DavidAppell

            Why are you going to address the very specific criticisms (errors) in your work?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            When You give us Your equation so we have something calculable to discuss .

            Let me point people to my comment at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425303/obamas-disastrous-clean-power-plan#comment-2307678769 for links to what really , ie : quantitatively , explains planetary surface temperature .

          • DavidAppell

            Again afraid to discuss the flagrant math errors in your calculation — which mean your numbers can’t possibly be right.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Again , my functions create easily testable values which match the universally agreed values for a gray ball and the ( 0.7 solar ; 1.0 IR ) ae case which produces the incessantly parroted 255K value . You claim my functions diverge from reality elsewhere . But you have yet to
            SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS .

            Until you do , you show yourself to be the toothless fraud you and your fellow anti-science cultist are .

          • DavidAppell

            Again, here is just one of many specific problems in your “science” you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            So you dispute the 278.6K for a gray ball and 255k for a ( 0.7 solar ; 1.0 IR ) ball in our orbit . So you disagree with the most fundamental computation constantly cited by the “climate science” community . Yet you are incapable of presenting any alternative computation .

            What a troll !

          • DavidAppell

            I am still waiting for you to correct a fundamental error in “science,” that you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year, because it ruins your whole presentation:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

            via

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            Wow are you uninformed.

            S(1-albedo)/4=sigma*T^4 => T= 255 K.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I would think you were determinedly ignorant except your convince me that you truly are that limited . No way in hell you have a PhD in any field of physics .

          • DavidAppell

            Try not to be jealous of people with higher degrees than you — it makes you look petty.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            It makes Sterman and Stony Brook look like the easiest or most corrupt physics department ever .

          • DavidAppell

            Your obsession with my degree, and your rude comments about my advisor, are thuggish.

            If you wanted a doctorate, you should have put in the time and energy to get one.

            When are you going to address your math errors?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Only because I find you so unbelievably incompetent .

            What was the subject of your dissertation ? Is it openly available online ?

          • DavidAppell

            Yet again, you’re completely avoiding the specific problems in your “science” that you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

            via

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I hope Marc is monitoring this . It is a good demonstration that you fraudsters will slither in any manner possible about quibbles and irrelevancies but totally fail to
            SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS !

            What hell do mine matter if they are wrong ?

            Show us the correct equations to calculate the temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball . Else , Shut up about your “science” being settled .

            I think you are a total fraud . Please Mann me so we can move on to discovery .
            What was the subject of your dissertation ? Is it openly available online ?

          • DavidAppell
          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Who the F cares if they are wrong ?
            SHOW US YOUR CORRECT EQUATIONS !

            If you are not the lying fraud I conclude you are .

            What was the subject of your dissertation ? Is it openly available online ?

          • DavidAppell

            Still awaiting explanation of one of many specific problems in your “science” you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

            via

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            T = [S(1-albedo)/4*sigma]^(1/4) =255 K

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            That is so F’n retarded I don’t believe you have even an undergraduate degree in any STEM subject .

            You are a liar and a fraud .

          • DavidAppell

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt

            via

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • Robert

            From your NR comment:
            “So press the eKoCrapitalist cabal to the wall ”

            Odd that you couldn’t point to a single online source or provide a textbook title and page to support your pov and math.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            The math is totally undergraduate tho expressed in a freely downloadable modern array programming language . The physics is absolutely classical too . And I do provide links both to my own work and to Watts Up With That , and to the quantitative analysis of the effect of gravity — and its history — at , eg , http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=1976+US+Standard+Atmosphere .

            Robert , I would ask whether you have sufficient education to understand undergraduate math and even minimal physics because everything I present is easily understandable and testable by anybody with an engineering or physics BA or BS . If you don’t , but have any friends who do , or know any with more advanced degrees , ask them for their review of what I present . I am willing to work with anyone who truly wants to understand the physics of planetary temperature , translating the algorithms to more mass market languages or devising experimental tests .

            The telling point is that both I and HockeySchtick give exact experimentally testable and observable EQUATIONS . The AlGoreWarming fraudsters have gotten away for decades now providing NO quantitative and therefore falsifiable computations .

            This qualitative word-wavingr nonscience must be squeezed by precisely testable quantitative physics til it pops and the pus runs .

          • DavidAppell

            Your math is very obviously wrong. On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            How many times have you now repeated this long ago asked and answered drivel ? Has it reached 100 ?

            My EQUATIONS produce testable values which match those you accept for the only specific cases you able to at least copy and paste .

            My expressions calculate the a and e for arbitrary spectra which are the parameters in your scalar expression .

            The fact remains for all to see , despite your quibbles about my verbiage , I provide testable quantitative computations while you continue to fail to SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS .

          • DavidAppell

            Your numbers are made up — junk, because your math is junk.

            Are you ever going to address this major error? On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            >> SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS

            T = [S(1-albedo)/4*sigma]^(1/4) = 255 K for Earth.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            My guess is that you never graduated college or you have a degree in “liberal arts” which is the same thing in this discussion .

            My equations show how to calculate albedo for arbitrary spectra .

            I think you have demonstrated your intransigent ignorance to everybody so this is the end of this thread . Continue talking to yourself if you want .

          • DavidAppell

            You can’t calculate albedo, except for completely unrealistic models of a planet like a colored croquet ball, except by more of your junk math.

            When are you going to address your junk math? On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            “My equations show how to calculate albedo for arbitrary spectra .”

            Your equation divide two numbers with different units — numbers which should not have units in the first place — and gets a unitless number.

            How does that work exactly?

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, you divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            But the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units.

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • Ike Bottema

            Has any of Mr Armstrong’s “experimentally testable and observable EQUATIONS” been peer reviewed?

          • DavidAppell

            No, of course not. He will never submit his work anywhere, because he knows it’d be rejected for the notation alone, before they even got to the physics.

            I’m probably the only person in the world who has deciphered Armstrong’s presentation enough to even comment on it.

          • DavidAppell

            Your equations fail the test of predictabilty.

            In particular, your hypothesis completely fails to account for the outgoing radiation spectrum as measured at the top of the planets, including Earth:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f93c940e9f2343330b3d1ba5d95d008fdb475fcdbd7983c5d764d9b0e70f3e0f.gif

          • DavidAppell

            And here for Venus and Mars, too. Your claims do not predict or explain these observations.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/babd1ec5fd45d2262c2f91e2ed4f0c5d609a544afb5339a21bebc0f978e77784.jpg

          • DavidAppell

            Your physics is very wrong too. Most glaring is your misunderstanding of Kirchoff’s law ofradiation. Absorptivity and emissivity are dimensionless numbers, but yours (pg 23 of your PPT slides) are not.

            In fact, your aborptivity and emissivity have units, and not even the same ones! They are nonsensical quantities you made up in order to “derive” any answers you wish.

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            “I am willing to work with anyone who truly wants to understand the physics of planetary temperature , translating the algorithms to more mass market languages or devising experimental tests.”

            Clearly not, since you refuse to answer the most basic questions about your math.

          • DavidAppell

            “The math is totally undergraduate tho expressed in a freely downloadable modern array programming language .”

            Not exactly. APL was developed in the 1960s — Armstrong is showing his age…. He used it to obscure his presentation and “science” and ensure that not a single person in the audience would be able to follow him.

            Any normal person would have just written the equations in ordinary algebra. (But then the errors are blatantly noticeable.)

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            The fraudulent PhD awakes to say something else .

            Anybody suffering thru this click http://Kx.com for the language I used . Decide for yourself if it is modern enough .

            Any normal person would have just written the equations in ordinary algebra. (But then the errors are blatantly noticeable.)

            Then , SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS !

          • DavidAppell

            Your notation is from another galaxy, chosen to confuse your audience so they’d be unable to follow along and ask questions about your blatant errors.

            Normal people use algebra for simple physics.

          • DavidAppell

            “Then , SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS !”

            Do you have memory problems?

            T = [S(1-albedo)/4*sigma]^(1/4) = 255 K for Earth.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I said previously : “My equations show how to calculate albedo for arbitrary spectra .”

            Show us your equations to do that .

            The various flavors of APL remain the most advanced programming languages for the expression of complex , eg : applied math , algorithms . That’s why I learned it ; that’s why their market tends to be at the center of the financial world , eg : http://Kx.com . I would recommend the recent Google Tech Talk by my friend Morten Kromberg on Dyalog APL

            , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlM9BXfu7UY , for a good presentation of the global market leading traditional APL .

            I will be giving a talk at Stanford next month on the work this nonscience is diverting me from .

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t calculate albedo! You assumed it, by assuming that blue light was reflected.

            That’s not completely true. The albedo of the open ocean is approximately 0.06, but it does vary.

            https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

          • DavidAppell

            I don’t care what APL is used for — its use to write perfectly ordinary algebraic equations is stupid and distracting, and no one in the audience followed any of it enough to even notice your junky math. I suspect that was the purpose.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            It is because I live my life in environments where such computations , and for that matter mapping those computations over a sphere are at my fingertips that I finally went ahead and started implementing the most essential and non-optional relationships required to quantitatively “model” planetary temperature in terms of the spectrum it receives from the sun .

            I would be sorry that you lack the ability to even understand the motivation of the classical approach of physics to exactly , quantitatively express the computations for simple situations like a croquet ball under a sunlamp before tackling more complex problems —
            But , you are a fraud
            ( someone commented , all of you are liars . Not true : many of you really are that ignorant and depend totally on “the establishment’s mentality” to do your thinking . )
            claiming a PhD in physics which there is no way in hell you display either the knowledge of , or aptitude for . You should be proud of your dissertation , if you are not a fraud . We might chat about it . One of my most crucial first uses of APL , around 1979 depended upon being able to write a definitional Fourier transform in one line . So , Lay some quantum physics on us . What’s the topic of your dissertation ?

          • DavidAppell

            Except your calculation is all wrong. Didn’t even one person at the Heartland Conference ask why you absorbivity and emissivity had units??

            That right there shows no one was paying attention. Because you choose to obscure everything by writing in a ridiculous programming language that was totally unnecessary.

            Where you trying to impress people?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            You repeatedly say things that are explicitly contradicted earlier in the thread itself .

            You are a very evil person .

          • DavidAppell

            You sound like a juvenile, not a 70 year old man.

            Your brightness temperatures are wrong. Didn’t anyone at the Heartland Conference notice THAT, either?

          • DavidAppell

            You really need treatment for your doctorate jealousy. Did you maybe start a program but dropped out because it was too much for you?

          • DavidAppell

            “required to quantitatively “model” planetary temperature in terms of the spectrum it receives from the sun”

            You got that woefully wrong. Your math is laughfully wrong — math you won’t even address, because even you know how wrong it is. On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, you divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            Whatever numbers you get are obviously wrong, because your math is obviously wrong.

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            “…quantitatively express the computations for simple situations like a croquet ball under a sunlamp before tackling more complex problems”

            Why didn’t you assume planets to be a bowling ball? Maybe you can discuss bowling balls at the next Heartland Conference.

            But first you’ll need to fix your bad math, which gave wrong results (pg 17 of the PPT) — the wrong brightness temperatures for Mercury, Venus and Earth, especially the last two. Venus is off by over 70%.

            Maybe you should have assumed bowling balls after all.

          • DavidAppell

            Your albedo calculation isn’t even correct, because only part of incoming sunlight is reflected by the ocean. You completely ignored the part reflected by clouds and the atmosphere (77 W/m2 on average) and that absorbed by the atmosphere (66 W/m2).

            http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

            Ocean water has an albedo of about 0.06. But the Earth does not.

            Just more of your junky physics and junky mathematics, which no one at the Heartland conference noticed because (1) they are deniers, and (2) your notation was so stupid and inappropriate no one followed it at all.

          • DavidAppell

            Your use of APL notation was extremely inappropriate, and seemingly intended to hide and obscure your junky physics.

          • Robert

            Let us know when you get published somewhere besides a comment thread!

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Sorry to hear you are incapable of following undergraduate STEM material yourself or having any more quantitatively educated friends who could explain it to you and perhaps implement the relationships so you could gain a better understanding of them yourselves .

          • DavidAppell

            It’s notation from an obscure 1960s programming language that never caught on, but which you learned, what, 50 years ago?

            I’m quite sure not a single person in the Heartland audience followed your slides. Or cared one way or the other.

          • Robert

            Thank you for showing us you can’t hold a cicil conversation. Insulting efforts don’t provide proof.

            No publication, no evidence.

            “The CRAAP Test* is a useful guide to evaluating resources. CRAAP is an acronym for the general categories of criteria that can be used to evaluate information you find. Use the CRAAP Test to decide if information is appropriate for your research! ”
            Currency
            Relevance
            Authority
            Accuracy
            Purpose
            https://www.gettysburg.edu/library/research/tips/webeval/index.dot

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            But then there is having the quantitative ability and education to think thru and understand things yourself — which trumps any “social” source of knowledge .

            I never imagined the extent to which such a large portion of the population really are “herd” animals — well described as sheeple who will subjugate their own rationality to known D science students like Al Gore and reject the mountains of empirical evidence that nothing unusual is happening , and will not even try to understand the classical quantitative physics — whose truth eventually trumps all social influences .

            This global statist absurdity against the molecule which is the equal partner with H2O in forming the backbone of carbon based life is nearing its death throes because it is empirically and theoretically false .

            And all the King’s horse and all the King’s men can’t save it .

          • DavidAppell

            Why aren’t you addressing the scientific question of why your emissivity has units?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I did , long long ago .
            But SO WHAT . You’ve got a quibble with my verbiage . But my equations produce REAL EXPERIMENTALLY TESTABLE NUMBERS anyone sufficiently interested can replicate .

            You have yet to SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS for calculating the equilibrium temperature for arbitrary source and object spectra .

          • DavidAppell

            What’s the link to your earlier answer?

            Pretend someond in the Heartland audience asked, during your talk: “Why does your emissivity have units? Emissivity is by definition a dimensionless number.”

            You response would have been what?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            You can go search for it . It’s way back . I agreed I had stated something poorly . I might even have changed a word or two on my archived slide .

            So F’n what ! I provide replicable , testable computations . You have yet to SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS .

          • DavidAppell

            “I agreed I had stated something poorly .”

            Stated what poorly?

            Did you explain why your emissivity has units, when emissivity is defined as a dimensionless quantity?

          • DavidAppell

            “You have yet to SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS for calculating the equilibrium temperature for arbitrary source and object spectra .”

            Show us yours. You use a Planck spectra, which is for a blackbody, but you assume your beach ball is NOT a blackbody, because you assume blue light is reflected off it. But that’s not a blackbody — a blackbody, by definition, absorbs all radiation incident on it.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Why do you need any equations from me or anybody else to show us what should be a standard undergraduate problem in radiative heat transfer ?

            Why can’t you show us the standard computation for the equilibrium temperature implied by our actual measured Top of Atmosphere absorptivity=emissivity ( coefficient — do you accept that word ) spectrum rather than the crude step function with produces the 255K value ?

          • DavidAppell

            “Why do you need any equations from me or anybody else to show us what should be a standard undergraduate problem in radiative heat transfer ?”

            Calculating the emissions from a nonblackbody is anything but undergraduate.

            But you falsely assumed your baseball is a blackbody, when it is clearly not.

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong wrote:
            “But then there is having the quantitative ability and education to think thru and understand things yourself”

            Then explain your understanding that gave units to emissivity, a variable that is by definition unitless.

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong wrote:
            “…and will no even try to understand the classical quantitative physics…”

            I have been trying to understand your claims for over a year now — like why your emissivity has units — but you are unwilling to address even a single question. So you don’t get to preach to anyone about an “ability to think.”

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Robert asked a good question : why I can’t just reference a textbook for the computation of the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated uniformly colored ball for arbitrary source spectra .

            You claim to have taught undergraduate physics , http://davidappell.com/resume.html . Regardless of whatever I’ve presented , surely you can SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS for such a basic undergraduate level exercise .

          • DavidAppell

            Again, why does your emissivity have units, when emissivity is by definition a unitless number?

            Why won’t you answer a simple question about your work?

          • DavidAppell

            “…for the computation of the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated uniformly colored ball for arbitrary source spectra.”

            If the billiard ball is colored, because it reflects that color, it isn’t a blackbody. (So the entire foundation of your computation is invalid.) Hence you can’t use the Planck function or Stefan-Boltzmann law. Therefore, the calculation would depend on the details of the material the billiard ball is made of.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            It’s comments like this which , if you really have a PhD from Stony Brook , reflect very poorly on their department .

            It also says you have no idea how to go about computing the equilibrium temperature of an arbitrarily colored ball illuminated by an arbitrary spectrum . You literally have no idea how to calculate the temperature of a croquet ball under a sun lamp .

            Perhaps some old time experiments are called for .

            And yet , you say , “the science is settled” and those who dispute it should face RICO . Beware the ricochet .

          • DavidAppell

            Everyone knows how to calculate with the emissions spectrum of a blackbody.

            Unfortunately for you, your volleyball isn’t a blackbody, because it reflects some wavelengths. So your use of the Planck function is inappropriate (junk physics).

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            “… volleyball [croquet] isn’t a blackbody”
            Exactly ! So SHOW US YOUR EQUATIONS for a colored ball .

            I show you mine which depend on the ratios of the dot products of the object ae coefficient spectrum with the source and an internal Planck thermal spectrum . That ratio gives you the effective “albedo” in the primitive parroted equation you keep repeating as if it answers the general question .

          • DavidAppell

            “I show you mine which depend on the ratios of the dot products of the object ae coefficient spectrum with the source and an internal Planck thermal spectrum .”

            You’re still missing the point — you’ve assumed your bowling ball isn’t a blackbody, so you can’t use the Planck spectrum for its emissions.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            My god are you dense .

            Both incoming and outgoing radiation are assumed to “go thru” the same ae coefficient filter . For convenience in those calculations the Sun’s spectrum is assumed to be Planck . As is the planet’s thermal spectrum which is then put thru the same filter . Those are the dot products the ratio of which determines the equilibrium energy flow compared to a gray , flat spectrum , ball .

            I show in one slide that that is exactly the computation which produces the 255K value when applied to a step spectrum averaging 0.7 over the solar spectrum and 1.0 in the IR .

            Furthermore , note here I refer to the absorption=emission spectrum as being a dimensionless coefficient . So put your show stopping quibble that somewhere you perceived me as assigning it a dimension to bed and move on .

            But you won’t .

          • DavidAppell

            My God are you dense. A blackbody does not emit just “some” wavelengths, blue or whatever. It emits across the spectrum.

            There is no justification for assuming a Planck spectrum for the radiation from your model ocean. None.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            At this point my only question is are you Evil or are you just possessed by Evil with some portion still seeing the virtue in understanding reality as deeply and accurately as one can .

            And I cannot imagine how you can afford all this time without being paid for it . Surely the cult is paying you for you indefatigable obfuscation .

          • DavidAppell

            Again you sound like a juvenile boy, not a grown man.

            Why are you unwilling to answer ANY questions about your presentation? Why do you think you are above questioning?

          • DavidAppell

            Accusing others of being “evil” just for asking questions about your claims is a strong sign you are not willing to participate in the scientific discussion.

            I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing in any symposium, talk or colloquium I’ve ever attended.

          • DavidAppell

            “Furthermore , note here I refer to the absorption=emission spectrum as being a dimensionless coefficient .”

            Wrong. On pg 23 you calculate absorbtivity and emissivity as “dot products” (actually it’s just simple numerical integration).

            Yet A and E have different units. Why? How?

            And then how does A/E become suddenly dimensionless?

            PPT slides:

            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            “note here I refer to the absorption=emission spectrum as being a dimensionless coefficient ”

            Spectrum’s aren’t “dimensionless.” It depends on exactly what you’re referring to, but usually they have units of energy per unit time per unit area per unit solid angle

          • DavidAppell

            Armstrong knows his math is junky…. He will never dare to submit this turkey anywhere.

          • Robert

            And yet, the only places we read it are comment threads and your powerpoint.

            Why isn’t your work in textbòks? Used in a journal paper? Why no co-authors?

            “… everything I present is easily understandable and testable…”

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed

          • Robert

            That needs to be repeated early and often!

          • jmac

            Working on it. :)

          • jmac

            wattsupwiththat = lol. Why didn’t you use a comic book as a source?

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            You have to be a desperate troll to try to dis WUWT — or never actually have browsed . The obvious intelligence , academic pedigree , and integrity of the posters and commenters on WUWT makes a comment like yours a reflection on your own incompetence and dishonesty .

          • DavidAppell

            At least you’re able to occasionally demonstrate a sense of humor!

          • jmac

            Even Exxon knew about man made Climate Change decades ago, then just like big tobacco did, in order to prolong their profits started spending money to finance the blogs, opinion pieces, political campaigns, and think tanks to promote anti-science and cause doubt in folks minds and delay action.

            http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed

            The guy you use as one of your sources, Anthony Watts, is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. In fact, that’s the very same Heartland Institute that the Tobacco companies used to cast doubt on the science so they could prolong their profits and kill people with their cancer causing tobacco.

            http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Bull ! Anthony has his own company growing out of his expertise including designing and building the first video weather display boards for The Weather Channel .

            The Heartland’s total budget is minuscule by watermelon standards anyway . They hope for around 7 million a year for all their activities of which crushing this AlGoreWarming damaging delusion is just one .

            All you cultists have is ad hominems — and even those are false .

          • DavidAppell

            Watts couldn’t even make it through college. And it shows.

          • jmac

            uh huh, your boy watts is in bed with the worst of them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

            Even more on your boy wats.

            The “BEST” (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) study, under lead scientist (and former skeptic) Richard Muller, was sponsored by institutions that had previously supported the denial of the standard interpretation of the climate data. But when the BEST results came out, they confirmed the previous results that the Earth is warming.

            Watts had initially declared (about BEST) that “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.” But when the results came out he changed his position and his site published numerous attacks against Muller and the BEST study. http://planetsave.com/2011/10/22/best-study-climate-science-skeptic-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-whats-new/

            Still More;
            The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link…between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health.” The Heartland Institutes opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments. https://marketingheart.wordpress.com/2012/02/18/be-careful-what-you-believe-leak-exposes-australian-climate-sceptic-secret-payments-discovered/

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            DeSmogBlog !

          • jmac

            It’s never been about the science, even Exxon knew that. How can anybody be so stupid to think that if Exxon et. al. could not overturn the science with some credible alternative that they can with some right wing pseudo science from a right wing blog?

            If you have some credible study that will disprove man made climate science, you would have no problem getting funding from Exxon et. al. to complete the study and publish it in credible journals. That research would be worth billions maybe even trillions to the fossil fuel boys.

            Hell, even the Koch bros tried funding a legit science study to overturn the science – and failed – only to prove that the science was right all along.

            How can you not know that? Or are you just an immoral little shyt too, that doesn’t give a hoot about others?

          • Robert

            And there are assorted (usually emeritus ) science deniers who should be willing to put their editorial /letters to the editor/ newspaper interview/ blog pronouncements into a paper for publication. After all, some have spent a day or so studying the subject…..

            “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

          • jmac

            Incredible!

          • DavidAppell

            Emissivity is, by definition, dimensionless. Yet your emissivity (PPT pg 23) has units of a spectrum*temperature.

            Why does your emissivity have units?

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            Emissivity is, by definition, dimensionless. Yet your emissivity (PPT pg 23) has units of a spectrum*temperature.

            Why does your emissivity have units?

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            “Odd that you couldn’t point to a single online source or provide a textbook title and page >

            Actually , that’s a very good question . I don’t know of any other source for the computation of radiant heat transfer for arbitrary source and object spectra . If you can find any please let us know . There must be some even as old as a century . Calculating the equilibrium temperature of a radiantly heated colored ball is so basic it may be hiding in a homework problem in some standard text .

            But I also defy you to find any quantitative explication of the physics of the purported “greenhouse effect” . Had I been able to find any other than the most amateurish non-quantitative or superficial drivel I never would have expended the time I have to understand this trillion dollar issue .

            HockeySchtick does have a number of classic references on the effect of gravity at , eg : http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-greenhouse-equation-predicts.html . And the gravitational effect is really the overwhelming effect which leaves little variance for spectrum to explain .

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong wrote:
            “But I also defy you to find any quantitative explication of the physics of the purported “greenhouse effect” .”

            “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
            http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            So you are saying it’s not really “settled science” that it is a spectral effect of CO2 after all ?

          • DavidAppell

            “So you are saying it’s not really “settled science” that it is a spectral effect of CO2 after all?”

            Of course CO2 absorbs as a function of frequency. Did you read the Manabe and Wetherald paper??

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            I don’t have time . I only have a month left til presenting my 4th.CoSy in Palo Alto( http://cosy.com/CoSy/ ) . That’s my predominate interest .

            From the title I assume it says that water vapor dominates the variation in CO2’s spectral saturation .

          • DavidAppell

            “I don’t have time .”

            Yes, you’re so busy you’ve only responded to about 200 comments from several people here in the last 3 days.

            Go ahead, keep your head in the sand. Last thing you’d want to do is read any actual science.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            That’s one reason I don’t have time . I’ve wasted it on showing trolls like you to be the empty hats you are .

          • DavidAppell

            Still you refuse to answer a simple question: why does your emissivity have units?

            You KNOW emissivity is dimensionless, and you KNOW yours has units, yet you’re too proud to admit you made a mistake.

          • DavidAppell

            “From the title I assume it says that water vapor dominates the variation in CO2’s spectral saturation .”

            Wrong. But don’t worry, you’d never understand the paper anyway. If nothing else you’d be confused by their using the correct units for absorbivity and emissivity (=none).

          • Robert
          • DavidAppell

            Here is a specific problem you refuse to address, and have refused for over a year:

            On page 23 of your PowerPoint slides of your Heartland Institute talk, your divide A by E and get a unitless number.

            How did that happen, when the definitions of A and E given above on that page clearly show they do not have the same units?

            PPT slides:
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/wp-content/uploads/Powerpoints/ICCC9/RobertArmstrong-Panel18.ppt
            via
            http://climateconferences.heartland.org/robert-armstrong-iccc9-panel-18/

          • DavidAppell

            And the “equation” is already out there: S(1-alpha)/4 = sigma*T^4 gives T=255 K. As I keep pointing out, and which you can’t understand, it is the simpliest of all possible models that in no way gives a realistic model of a planet. It gives a very basic STARTING POINT for a model of a planet.

            And it doesn’t mean Venus has a nuclear furnace.

          • http://CoSy.com/ Bob Armstrong

            Give us the computation for arbitrary source and object spectra which I present . That’s the level we’re starting from . Give us your equations for the temperature of a billiard ball under a sun lamp .

          • Dano2

            Here’s a video that lays out his errors, with that equation: https://youtu.be/jCF4vOgQyDE

            Best,

            D

          • DavidAppell

            In particular, Armstrong needs to address:

            1) his misapplication of Kirchoff’s Law of radiation
            2) the obvious calculation mistakes that result in quantities with dissimilar units somehow having a unitless ratio.

            Armstrong has been avoiding these simple questions for over a year now.

          • DavidAppell

            Bob Armstrong wrote:
            “…which match in particular the endlessly parroted 255K value for a body with a 0.7 albedo wrt the solar spectrum and 1.0 in the IR .”

            The albedo is 0.3, not 0.7.

            You also misunderstand this baby tiny toy model — which is the Day 1 lecture in Climate Science 101. Day 2 moves on to more realistic models (and so on). …

            You misunderstand because the calculation that gives 255 K assumes *nothing* about the solar spectrum — it simply has 1365 W/m2 incident on a BILLIARD BALL with albedo 0.3. It doesn’t divide it into short-wave and long-wave components. It doesn’t assume an atmosphere. In short, it doesn’t assume a real planet. It’s a M-O-D-E-L.

            Now, back to your scientific mistakes….

          • DavidAppell

            The funniest thing about the 255 K calculation is that IF the Earth’s surface was actually at an average of 255 K, it’s albedo wouldn’t be 0.3!

            (It’d be a lot higher because there’d be much more ice.)

            So again you see that the tiny baby toy model you and other deniers are obsessed with is a M-O-D-E-L. Models aren’t reality…. The point of making a model is to learn how to make a *better* model.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Walt Cunningham entrepreneur, venture capitalist

          Harrison Schmitt geologist, extreme right-wing politician

          Why should I care what Schmitt or Cunningham says when they obviously ignore tons of climate science? Who cares if they were astronauts? What do they actually know about the topic? From doing some googling seems like nothing besides some politically worded op-eds and letter writing – nothing of substance about actual climate science.

          For those who want to learn more about this sad chapter:

          http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/02/08/moon-walker-climate-change-denier/#.VhldfelyHww
          http://www.desmogblog.com/walter-cunningham

          “On the intellectually empty, politically motivated attacks on NASA climate scientists by former astronauts”
          Posted on April 13, 2012 by Rick Piltz
          http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2012/04/13/on-the-intellectually-empty-politically-motivated-attacks-on-nasa-climate-scientists-by-former-astronauts/

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          It’s exactly their sort of creative misrepresentations, omission and hyperbolic hate-mongering language that should be unacceptable in a rational society. But, then we’ve moved well beyond rational society these days haven’t we, it’s all about faith and the biggest, toughest most ruthless egos getting their way. We’re back to paranoid tribalism, US vs THEM… and that megalomaniacal faith of having dialed-in the God of Time and Creation and that everyone else on the planet is to be considered an enemy and their knowledge is to be ignored. So tragic, so hopeless, such a waste of what should have been really good decades.

          But for folks like the host of this blog, it’s nothing but a big funny game to win and never ever consider the consequence of what he is doing.

      • Robert

        Doesn’t it seem a bit off that the only source he can post is to a poster?

        How would that look in a paper or even a magazine article?

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Who’s the he and what’s the posts your talking about?

          • Robert

            He is Bob armstrong. His poster is in the coment above. https://disqus.com/home/discussion/climatedepot/twenty_climate_scientists_including_top_un_scientist_call_for_rico_investigation_of_climate_skeptics/#comment-2259378509

            I just noticed it was a month ago, or I would have written more detail.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Thanks for the clarification.

          • Robert

            Wonder when bob will publish… / s

          • DavidAppell

            I wonder too. He’s apparently sitting on the biggest scientific discovery of the last 100 years, one that will rock with world with its consequences. Why no effort to publish it for the world to see??

          • Robert

            Maybe he could ask Ivar Giaever or some other (usually emeritus ) science deniers to co-author and put their editorial /letters to the editor/ newspaper interview/ blog pronouncements into a paper for publication. After all, some have spent a day or so studying the subject…..

            “I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don’t think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so – half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I’m going to try to explain to you why that was the case.”
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

            Thank you taking the time to post well reasoned arguments, even though the dross often put out there hardly needs that depth of countering.

          • DavidAppell

            Good idea. Or at least Bob Armstrong should send his paper, when published, to Ivar Giaever, who can use his position to highlight it to the entire world. Armstrong will be instantly famous, will be asked to speak around the world at the highest levels, and would win a Nobel Prize in physics too. (And just think of the groupies.)

            When you think of it, Armstrong is being selfish by refusing to publish his discovery in a journal, because it will change everything in the energy field. (Maybe now would be a good time for him to invest in some coal and oil futures.)

        • DavidAppell

          And worse, a poster from a Heartland Institude conference, whose scientific standards are as low as they get as long as you tell them what they want to hear.

  • agwscam

    The criminals who signed this letter belong in prison themselves.

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      Why because they are sick of being lied about, by thugs like you folks?

      We The People have a right to learn about what the scientists have learned about our Earth’s global heat and distribution engine without malicious lies and slander out screaming the important information they have to share!!!

      • agwscam

        They are lying pieces of unethical human trash…just like you.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Why your need to hate people you don’t even know?
          It’s like you think anyone who ain’t exactly like you is “unethical human trash” yet you are the one supporting lies and refusing to examine any evidence that doesn’t conform to your personal dogma.

      • Donutwarrior

        Apparently you don’t understand the scientific method. Debate and discussion are part of it. Not jail and lawsuits. I guess you don’t believe in the first amendment either….

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          When one side maliciously misrepresents what the other side says and the evidence they present and then refuses to listen to any corrections that the other side offers – that is not a scientific debate ! – nor is it a constructive debate – it’s political counter-productive theater – and it’s about time We The People start fighting back against that type of “debate” that’s only focused on confusing the issue and demonizing serious professionals ! (and making people stupid)

          Considering Malicious Falsehoods vs Right to Learn
          http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/04/14consider-maliciouslies-ccsteeledebate.html

          PS http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/maliciously

          • Kill_n_Grill

            You mean when they fudge the data and conspire to silence those who disagree?

  • Betawelder

    They should understand that we still have the Right to keep and bear Arms. If they start arresting people because they disagree they will be putting themselves at risk. The people who support throwing people in jail because of a different belief should give careful and serious consideration to their proposed action.

    • terry1956

      Well before we use that 5th box of liberty we need o make more productive use of the first 3 and we totally ignore the 4th sadly called jury nullification but a Mr. Parsons a delegate to the state of MASS. convention to ratify the US Constitution and later the chief justice of the MASS. supreme court said we did not need any bill of rights because if the federal government passed tyrannical acts the juries in the states would just refuse to convict.
      juryduty.org
      jurybox.org
      flexyourrights.com

  • cristo52

    How about at RICO investigation of the White House Political Cartel run by Valeria Jarrett.

  • Will Haas

    But the reality is that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase of CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of heat trapping, so called, greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. So too on Earth. There is no radiant greenhouse effect. The surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be because gravity limits cooling by convection. The convective greenhouse effect accounts for all the observed 33 degrees of warmth. There in no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. It is all a matter of science. Science is not something that can be legislated. People should not be jailed because they believe in scientific truth. We have to evolve from the medieval mentality. Freedom of speech should extend to the discussion of science. Just because an individual disagrees with us does not mean that person is a which and should be burned at the stake. Maybe the President should endure a RICO investigation because his ACA broke so many of his promises.

    • Jack M. Starr

      An honest RICO investigation could expose the Left en masse as a living breathing RICO violation — so such an invetigation won’t occur.

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      Sorry in your mind I’m sure you believe yourself – but you are deluded and will remain so as long as you believe you can get reliable information from a politically motivated echo-chamber. Science is about talking in and digesting all the available information. You could learn a lot from these resources: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ~ http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.VgNzLulyHww ~ https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

      • Will Haas

        I have been to those sources many times. I personally think that it is terrible how Man is burning up our very finite supply of fossil fuels just as quickly as possible and I would like to add AGW as an additional reason but the AGW conjecture is just too flawed to support. It is based on very incomplete science. For example, to make the effect of CO2 seem significant, they have added the idea that H2O provides positive feedbacks to changes in CO2 so as to amplify CO2’s climate effect. But they totally neglect that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface which is mostly H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. When one includes all what happens, the feedbacks from H2O must be negative which mitigates any effect that other greenhouse gases might have on climate. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here.

        The AGW conjecture completely ignores heat transport by convection yet convection dominates over radiation in the troposphere. It is the convective greenhouse effect that dominates in the troposphere of the Earth and every planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. It is not a delusion. It is scientific fact. If CO2 had the insulation properties that the AGW conjecture proports then I would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an noticeable increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. One should be able to calculate the climate sensitivity of CO2 from how changes in CO2 affect the natural lapse rate in the troposphere. Based on observations over the past 30 years, the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero and hence CO2 has no effect on climate. There are no applications where CO2 is used as an insulator.

        In part to provide evidence that AGW is real the IPCC sponsored development of a plethora of climate models. The large number of models is evidence that a lot of guess work has been involved. The models predicted a wide range of values for today’s global temperature. The models have one thing in common. They have all been wrong. They have all predicted global warming that has not happened. So if they are evidence of anything it is that the AGW conjecture must be flawed. But the IPCC is ignoring their own results The IPCC is suppose to be scientific in nature but they are really just a political unit and they ignore the real science.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          What you say about the lapse rate is misleading – for those that want to learn more: http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm ~ http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/greenhouse_gases.html ~ https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/the-lapse-rate/ ~ http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0603.pdf
          ~~~ bitching about models is also phony because our understanding on greenhouse gas impact are not dependent of global circulation models, though they are invaluable tools for better understanding the dynamic involved. It happens to be complex system expecting 100 accuracy before you accept the basic lesson learned is bs

          And it’s exactly that sort of dishonest presentation of the science that dang well deserves some long overdue push-back!

          • Will Haas

            The articles that you link to all ignore the fact that the convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C warmer that the Earth’s surface is because it has an atmosphere. The AGW conjecture claims that the radiant greenhouse effect accounts for 33 degrees C and if that were so the surface of the Earth would be 33 degrees C warmer than it already is. One of the articles does include a derivation of the lapse rate showing that it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.

            The plethora of IPCC models have been notoriously wrong. They have predicted that the late 20th century warming cycle would continue unabated and even accelerate but that has not happened. They have predicted warming that has not happened.

            Any dishonesty in presentation is the ignoring of the many flaws in the AGW conjecture. In the IPCC’s first report they presented a wide range of possible values for the climate sensitivity of CO2. More than two decades later they present the exact same wide range of possible values indicating that they have learned noting over all that that time. But they do not write that they have not learned anything. They blatantly ignore the fact that because CO2 concentration does not effect the lapse rate that the climate sensitivity of CO2 might really be 0.0. So it is the IPCC that is making a blatant dishonest presentation of the science.

          • DavidAppell

            “The articles that you link to all ignore the fact that the convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C warmer that the Earth’s surface is because it has an atmosphere.”

            I’ve just been pointing out to you that there is no evidence for this claim, and there is a great deal of evidence disproving it (easily).

            What does it take with people like you???

          • Will Haas

            The articles no not mention the convective greenhouse effect at all.

          • DavidAppell

            !!! It’s a “radiative convective model.” Disproving your claim that models don’t take convection into account.

            The greenhouse effect isn’t caused by convection, it’s caused by greenhouse gases (which is why they’re called “greenhouse gases.”)

          • Will Haas

            A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of so called heat trapping greenhouses gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. The gas that is most responsible for heat distribution in a real greenhouse is N2 which is not even a greenhouse gas. A greenhouse gas is defined as gas that has LWIR absorption bands. It has nothing to do with a real greenhouse. Because a greenhouse is kept warm by an effect that limits cooling by convective it is more appropriate to employ the term to signify a phenomenon that limits cooling by convection. So it is more appropriate to refer to the reduction in convective cooling that keeps the surface of the Earth warmer than it would otherwise be as the greenhouse effect then it would the postulated radaitive effect that does not even occur in a real greenhouse.

          • DavidAppell

            Everyone knows the climate greenhouse effect is not an actual duplication of how a real greenhouse actually works — it’s an imperfect analogy.

            Everyone knows this. So what?

          • Will Haas

            Both a real greenhouse and the Earth as a greenhouse operate on the basis of a convective greenhouse effect and not the conjectured radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture. Everyone should know that.

          • DavidAppell

            You have yet to present the slightest iota of evidence for a convective greenhouse effect.

            I, however, have present several lines of evidence that show the data don’t support it.

          • DavidAppell

            “Everyone should know that.”

            What a shame we’re not all as genius as you, and can’t conjure solutions out of thin air while completely ignoring observations.

          • DavidAppell

            “One of the articles does include a derivation of the lapse rate showing that it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases.”

            Which article?

          • Will Haas

            Didn’t you read them your self? If you did then you would know.

          • DavidAppell

            Which article? I’d like to read it. Please give me a citation.

          • Will Haas

            You will have to find it yourself. You are the one who brought up those articles.

          • DavidAppell

            I didn’t think you had any articles supporting your claims. And I was right.

          • Will Haas

            I do not supply links. Most of what I have presented is not original with me and you can find it on the Internet yourself.

          • DavidAppell

            “I do not supply links.”

            Then your claims are worthless.

            “Most of what I have presented is not original with me and you can find it on the Internet yourself.”

            You seem to think that spouting out the top of your head is science. It isn’t. Science means providing evidence for your claims. You supply no evidence whatsoever.

            Let’s see some links.

          • DavidAppell

            In what journals can I read your published papers. You seem to think there greenhouse gases don’t absorb heat, a finding that would rock the entire scientific establishment, and disprove all kinds of well-accepted physics. You’d easily win a Nobel Prize.

            Just don’t have the time to submit a paper, a paper that might save the world 10s of trillions of dollars?

          • DavidAppell

            “More than two decades later they present the exact same wide range of possible values indicating that they have learned noting over all that that time.”

            Wrong. It shows the first estimates were pretty good, and including more details doesn’t change the story much at all.

          • Will Haas

            No, only a single value can be correct and they guestimated a wide range of values. More than two decades of work has not allowed them to refine their wide range one iota.

          • DavidAppell

            Go ahead and read the model descrition I gave you, with its plethora of equations, and tell me again about “guestimated.”

            All models since have found the same range for climate sensitivity, within uncertainties. (Yes, all scientific calculations have uncertainties. And models are limited by computer processing speed.) That shows climate sensitivity doesn’t depend much on incorporating more and more science into a model — it’s mostly a simple function of greenhouse gas emissions.

          • Will Haas

            It will take me a while to get through the material you linked to. Complexity of a model is one thing and it would be understandable if everyone believed in that one model but there are a plethora of models. Only one of the plethora of models can possible be right so what must differentiate the models is a matter of guess work to cover up uncertainty. Only one value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 can be correct so all the other values and all the other models that generated those values must be wrong, only which one is the correct one. If they knew that then they would have already eliminated the wrong ones. Since they do not know which one is right it may be the case that not just most but all of them might be wrong. In particular, since they have all failed to predict today’s global temperatures and have predicted global warming that has not occurred, a good conclusion is that the models are all wrong.

            Since a change in CO2 does not cause a change in the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere its climate change sensitivity must equal zero. That is a conclusion the IPCC does not want to accept for fear of losing their funding.

          • DavidAppell

            “It will take me a while to get through the material you linked to. ”

            It’s two days since your reply — enough time to read the model description.

            So?

          • Will Haas

            I have other things of much higher priority going on in my life.

          • DavidAppell

            Sure, sure. If true, you’re sitting on the greatest scientific discovery of the last 150 years.

            And, what, you’re too busy walking your dog to write up a paper and inform the world?

          • DavidAppell

            “Only one value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 can be correct so all the other values….”

            False. Climate sensitivity depends on initial conditions, and models do not operate from the same initial conditions.

            For example, the climate sensitivity for a second doubling of CO2 is not equal to that of the first doubling.

          • Will Haas

            So you are telling me that the climate sensitivity of CO2 varies along with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Exactly how does it vary? At .04%, what is the value of the climate sensitivity of CO2?

          • DavidAppell

            Exactly — the climate sensitivity of CO2 varies with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Why wouldn’t it?

            See, for example:
            http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2015/does-climate-sensitivity-change-with-time/

          • DavidAppell

            “Since a change in CO2 does not cause a change in the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere its climate change sensitivity must equal zero.”

            False. CO2 absorbs IR, and sends some of it back downward. By conservation of energy, that increases temperatures.

          • Will Haas

            A cooler object cannot increase the temperature of a warmer object according to the laws of thermodynamics.

          • DavidAppell

            WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            That’s the utterly dumb and misinformed myth of the climate denial movement. And it’s completely wrong — they, like you, fail to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

          • DavidAppell

            “The AGW conjecture claims that the radiant greenhouse effect accounts for 33 degrees C and if that were so the surface of the Earth would be 33 degrees C warmer than it already is.”

            Utterly wrong. About as wrong as one can get. That’s the number compared to a planet without an atmosphere but with an albedo.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Will Hass, are you really up for this game? If so – can you please explain precisely what you mean by “convective greenhouse effect” – I ask you not because I’m confused what CGE is, but rather I want to find out if you actually know what that means, so that we can establish a level playing field.

            Also I notice you didn’t offer any links to anything that hints of “scientific inquiry” – do you have any links to support your claims and notions? Please share. I look forward to a productive dialogue.

            cheers, cc

          • Will Haas

            I am not playing games. I will explain it but not very precisely. I am not the one who came up with these ideas. For a more precise explanation you can look it up on the Internet yourself.

            A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the radiant heat trapping effect of greenhouse gases. The LWIR absorption properties on greenhouse gases has nothing to do with how real greenhouses stay warm. Real greenhouses stay warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. So as far as a real greenhouse is concerned, the greenhouse effect is a convective greenhouse effect rather than a radiative greenhouse effect.

            In describing the radiative greenhouse effect, I often see the explanation that the greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation and then re radiate the energy out in all directions. If they re radiate the energy out in all directions then the greenhouse gases themselves do not trap any heat. In fact, if that is the way it really happens, then the greenhouse gasses are not even IR absorbers but IR diffuse reflectors but we know that such is not really true either. In the real world the energy is thermalized and therefore available to be shared via contact with other molecules by a heat transfer method called conduction. The conducted heat is then moved much further away by convection. In the lower troposphere, we are talking on the order of a billion molecule interactions between the time an IR photon is absorbed and would be readmitted if there were no interactions. In the troposphere heat transfer by conduction and convection dominate over heat transfer by absorption band IR radiation. Greenhouse gases cannot increase the temperature of the Earth’s surface because of the Earth’s surface’s LWIR radiation without violating the second law of thermodynamics…At best they can only act as an insulator, showing down the rate of cooling.

            The Earth too has a convective greenhouse effect in the troposphere where gravity limits cooling by convection. This effect is exemplified by the natural lapse rate in the troposphere which is computed as a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect, as derived from first principals, accounts for all 33 degrees C that the Earth’s surface is warmer because of its atmosphere. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect.

            The convective greenhouse effect does not disprove the idea that greenhouse gases, because of their LWIR absorption bands, have at least some measureable effect on climate but it mitigates effects predicted by the AGW conjecture which tends to ignore convection and conduction altogether. CO2 is not this magical gas that controls climate and all other molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere are not thermally inert and bow down to the rule of CO2.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Will, I was surprised at your lengthy response, thank you. I am happy to use it as a learning opportunity for interested onlookers, that’s why I’ve spent most of today working on it.

            As it is, my response has too many words and links for posting over here, so I have posted it over at my http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.

            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/debating-climatedepot-fan.html

            Climate Depot – ‘Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent?!’ 9/17/15

            I reproduced your entire comment – I did not deleted any words, only added breaks to make room for my commentary including links to authoritative sources for some solid background information.

            I invite you to respond and would even offer you a guest blog post, if you kept it civil and rational and understood that I was going to dissect it in a follow up post.
            _____________________________________________

            Monday Oct. 19, 2015 – 5:07 p.m. Will H. says:
            I am not playing games. I will explain it but not very precisely. …

            I was surprised to receive Will’s lively response. Though he didn’t share any links to sources he’d learned from, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and point out his deep misunderstanding and his various attempts at deception. …

            …and so on and so forth.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Will, I was surprised at your lengthy response, thank you. I am happy to use it as a learning opportunity for interested onlookers, that’s why I’ve spent most of today working on it.

            As it is, my response has too many words and links for posting over here, so I’ll post it over at my whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com.
            “Debating a ClimateDepot fan about greenhouse physics”
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/debating-climatedepot-fan.html

            I reproduced your entire comment – I did not deleted any words, only added breaks to make room for my commentary including links to authoritative sources for some solid background information.
            _____________________________________________
            Climate Depot – “Debate no more! Jailed for scientific dissent”
            Monday Oct. 19, 2015 – 5:07 p.m. Will H. says:
            “I am not playing games. I will explain it but not very precisely. …”

            I was surprised to receive Will’s lively response. Though he didn’t share any links to sources he’d learned from, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and point out his deep misunderstanding and his various attempts at deception. …

            …and so on and so forth.

          • Will Haas

            I have no idea as to how I can respond at your political site. Right up front you state, “Will, I don’t get your point.” That really sums up your entire response. I cannot help that. The problem must be with you. You do not understand what I have been presenting but you are trying to twist it in terms of the AGW religion so as to make political points on your very political site.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Will, for starters it would be good if you didn’t use fragments to misrepresent what I wrote. Or perhaps I should write: Why am I not surprised you would pull such a decoy?

            Allow me to explain, you were going on about: “… greenhouse gases has nothing to do with how real greenhouses stay warm. …” My response read:
            __________________
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/debating-climatedepot-fan.html

            CC wrote: Will, I don’t get your point. Of course, everyone knows that when talking about “global greenhouse effect” we are using a figure of speech, such as “Black Hole” or “Big Bang” – they are catchy and they stick but everyone knows they are labels. We all understand that Earth’s global “greenhouse” is very different from a gardener’s greenhouse. What’s the point in bringing it up?

            Incidentally, here’s some information on that:

            “The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

            ________________________________________________________

            Will, as for not knowing how to respond – there’s a comments section right below the article. Responding is as easy as filling in the text box. If you wanted to do a more extensive rebuttal I’ve assured you I’d even be willing to offer you your own civil ‘guest blog post’ and promise not to alter it, though I will be following up with my own review in a subsequent post.

          • Will Haas

            I quoted a complete sentence of yours right up front: “Will, I don’t get your point.” It indicates that I should try to be more remedial in dealing with you.

            Those ancient scientists that developed the foundation for the AGW conjecture once believed that a real greenhouse worked by the glass blocking the passage of IR radiation from flowing out of the greenhouse. Experiments were performed in the early 20th century, showing that the IR blocking theory was not correct, but the terminology stuck. I explained to you that the greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm is not a radiant greenhouse effect but rather a convective greenhouse effect which limits cooling by convection.

            One measure of the insulating characteristics of the Earth’s atmosphere is the natural lapse rate which is computed as a function of the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the pressure gradient, These calculations have been confirmed by measurements. It is this insulating characteristic of the atmosphere that keeps the surface on average 33 degrees C warmer then it would be without an atmosphere. This insulating characteristic is provided for by the mass of the atmosphere and force of gravity. It is the force of gravity that limits cooling by convection. So just as with a real greenhouse the Earth is kept warm by a convective greenhouse effect which limits cooling by convection. Instead of glass, the containment mechanism is gravity. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect and in particular the 33 degrees C that the AGW conjecture calculates.

            If additional CO2 actually increased the insulating characteristics of the atmosphere then from measurements of the change in insulating characteristic vs changes in CO2 should allow one to compute the climate sensitivity of CO2. After more than 20 years of effort the IPCC has been unable to to make measurements to compute the climate sensitivity of CO2. Their last report contains the exact same wide range of guesses as their first report. So in more than two decades they have learned nothing to enable to narrow down their guesses one iota.

            That uncovers a major flaw in the AGW conjecture. What the AGW conjecture describes is not how the Earth’s climate system works.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            Oh, and Will I’d like to correct something else. “Right up front” I stated:

            “CC responds: Will, I agree with you. There is a plethora of valuable information out there for those who want to learn about our planet and how society is impacting our Earth’s eco-systems and its climate engine. I myself have been learning about it since pre-internet days, ever since my long ago high school science classes in the early 1970s.

            As for people “who came up with these ideas” – keep in mind who they really are. You know the very curious, smart, focused students who after years of dedicated study, evolved into skeptical professional full-time scientists, who have been investigating and learning about our climate for generations with the goal of understanding its workings better.
            It really is that simple. Here, let one explain it.

            Richard Alley – what drives scientists?

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            OK Will, there is something else, now that I’ve had time to thing about it. You call my site political – (full disclosure I am mirroring this dialogue over there.)

            Since I’m the kind of person who’s always questioning myself, I once again reviewed my blogspot article “Debating a ClimateDepot fan about greenhouse physics” trying to see it from your perspective.

            But, still what I see is me explaining my position best I could followed by referring to one authoritative study after another. My focus is constantly on better understanding what’s really happening upon our fantastic Earth and continually learning more about her. … and on sharing that information – yet you yell that I’m political and that AGW is a religion.

            I mean that’s hysteria talking there – just like that Lord of the Flies land I mentioned at another comment recently.

            I mean for real, think about what you are doing !

            Why you gotta think I’m some flaming enemy? – Dude, if we found ourselves on a job-site working together, just a couple people with a job to do – bet we’d get along just fine and get the job done, shake hands and go home feeling good about the day. (That is, if you, like me, possess a sense of integrity and pride in workmanship and a job well done. As a Navajo friend used to say: “I’ll put my pride into that job.”)

            I’m not an idiot and I’m not your enemy, you simply choose to hate me out of your own insecurity and fears.”

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            fyi – “Part 2 – Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics”
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/10/pt2debating-climatedepot-fan.html

            Like I said before I welcome your comments over there. It’s the dialogue I’m pursuing.

          • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

            hello Will, though I should give you an fyi. I’ve finally posted one of those two comments I was holding in moderation. Hope to get to the next one shortly, but got a heavy work load this week.
            Part 3 – Debating ClimateDepot fan re greenhouse physics
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/11/pt3-debating-climatedepot-fan.html
            Part 4 – Debating ClimateDepot fan re GHG physics and models
            http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/11/pt4-debating-climatedepot-fan.html

        • DavidAppell

          Will Haas wrote:
          “The AGW conjecture completely ignores heat transport by convection….”

          False. Very false. Climate models have included convection since their earliest days:

          “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity,” Syukuro Manabe and Richard T. Wetherald, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, v24 n3 (May 1967) pp 241-259.
          http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

          • Will Haas

            The convective greenhouse effect on Earth accounts for all 33 degrees C warmer that the surface of the Earth is because of its atmosphere. There is no room left for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The convective greenhouse effect has been observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres. It is derived from first principals and has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The convective greenhouse effect is completely ignored by the AGW conjecture.

          • DavidAppell

            “The convective greenhouse effect is completely ignored by the AGW conjecture.”

            You haven’t read the founding papers, have you?

            “Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with Convective Adjustment,” Manabe and Stricker (1964)
            http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6401.pdf

          • Will Haas

            I read the paper and it does not seem to contradict anything that I have said. The paper seems to be most concerned about stratospheric O3.

          • DavidAppell

            Did you read in the paper how Manabe is handling convection?

          • DavidAppell

            Did you look at this paper at their thorough handling of convection?

            MPI-Report No. 349 – E. Roeckner, G. Bäuml, L. Bonaventura, R. Brokopf, M. Esch, M. Giorgetta, S. Hagemann, I. Kirchner, L. Kornblueh, E. Manzini, A. Rhodin, U. Schlese, U. Schulzweida, A. Tompkins (2003): The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM 5. PART I: Model description.

            http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_349.pdf

          • DavidAppell

            “The convective greenhouse effect on Earth accounts for all 33 degrees C warmer that the surface of the Earth is because of its atmosphere.”

            Let’s see you prove that.

          • Will Haas

            The convective greenhouse effect is derived from first principals but I did not create it and I do not provide links. You will have to find it on the Internet yourself.

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t prove it, and you didn’t cite proof. Because you can’t — the idea is wrong.

          • Will Haas

            There is no real poof in climate science. There are too many variables and one cannot conduct definitive experiments.

          • DavidAppell

            Are you saying lab experiments can’t be done that prove CO2 absorbs infrared radiation? And that objects like the Earth emit radiation?

            Here’s a recent experiment:

            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

            Press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
            http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

          • Will Haas

            I did not say that. You cannot run climate experiments. You cannot run an experiment that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere affects climate. For example, the Berkeley Lab experiment detected that CO2 absorbs LWIR CO2 absorption band radiation in the atmosphere but that experiment does not really show that CO2 actually has any effect on climate.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, that experiment does show CO2 has a real effect on climate — by increasing the energy into the system, implying warming. And warming at the rate we’re seeing.

          • Will Haas

            No, it does not show anything about the climate system.

          • DavidAppell

            Why doesn’t it show anything about the climate system?

          • DavidAppell

            If you think gravity/pressure is causing the greenhouse effect, you will also have to explain why the surface of the Earth radiates an average of 386 W/m2, but only 237 W/m2 escapes through the top of the atmosphere.

            Where is the missing 148 W/m2?

            On Venus, it’s much worse: 16,500 W/m2 is missing!

          • Will Haas

            The primary heat transport in the tropospheres of both planets is by conduction and convection and not LWIR absorption band radiation.

          • DavidAppell

            “Primary?” We’re not talking about primary heat conduction and convection, we’re talking about the effects of greenhouse gases and their interaction with LWIR.

          • Will Haas

            But when one reads about the radiant greenhouse effect it is as if LWIR absorption band radiation transport were the primary means of heat energy transport through the troposphere which it is not. Articles describing the radiant greenhouse effect say that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then re radiates it out in all directions both up and down. Well, up and down is not all directions and most of the re radiated energy gets either lost to space or re radiated by other greenhouse gas molecules. But in the lower troposphere, between the time a CO2 molecule would absorb an IR photon and the time it would re radiate out that same IR photon of energy that molecule would encounter neighboring molecules on the order of a billion times sharing heat energy with each interaction. IR absorption and radiation are such a small part of what goes on it seems to be almost insignificant. A large percentage of the heat energy that enters the atmosphere from the surface enters and is conducted by means of conduction, convection, and phase change phenomena and not all LWIR radiation as the AGW conjecture would have one believe.

          • DavidAppell

            “But when one reads about the radiant greenhouse effect it is as if LWIR absorption band radiation transport were the primary means of heat energy transport through the troposphere which it is not.”

            False. You’re another one who doesn’t understand the science, and then blames the science for your misunderstanding.

          • Will Haas

            No, true.

          • DavidAppell

            Token replies are meaningless. Explain yourself or drop out of the discussion.

          • DavidAppell

            “Articles describing the radiant greenhouse effect say that CO2 absorbs IR radiation and then re radiates it out in all directions both up and down. Well, up and down is not all directions….”

            Again you misunderstand the science. The GHG radiation is isotropic, because the GHG molecules in the atmosphere have random orientations.

          • Will Haas

            You agree then that the radiation is in all directions and not just up and down.

          • DavidAppell

            I said, the re-radiation is isotropic.

          • DavidAppell

            “But in the lower troposphere, between the time a CO2 molecule would absorb an IR photon and the time it would re radiate out that same IR photon of energy that molecule would encounter neighboring molecules on the order of a billion times sharing heat energy with each interaction.”

            Again, wrong. You still have molecules in an excited state. That energy has to go somewhere, and it goes into IR emissions.

          • Will Haas

            No, if the energy is actually absorbed it will show up as sensible heat which gets transmitted by conduction and convection. Heat energy transfer by conduction and convection dominates over LWIR radiation in the troposphere.

          • DavidAppell

            And that sensible heat warms the air. Then via both convection and conduction it warms the air near the surface, and surface land and surface sea water.

          • DavidAppell

            “Heat energy transfer by conduction and convection dominates over LWIR radiation in the troposphere.”

            That’s not what the science says:

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4e0079304a9ac69f22a458b49f2018eb5c5e3b9752f24ab5952d3c39dcb16670.png

          • DavidAppell

            “A large percentage of the heat energy that enters the atmosphere from the surface enters and is conducted by means of conduction, convection, and phase change phenomena….”

            Yes, climate scientists know this very well. But these fluxes stay constant on average, while GHG-emitted IR keeps adding energy to the sytem.

          • Will Haas

            Greenhouse gases both absorb and emit IR radiation. They also receive and transmit heat energy through conduction and convection just like other gases in the atmosphere. It is the non greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat then the greenhouse gases because the non greenhouse gases are such poor LWIR radiators to space.

          • DavidAppell

            How exactly does a nongreenhouse gas trap heat?

          • DavidAppell

            “The convective greenhouse effect on Earth accounts for all 33 degrees C warmer that the surface of the Earth is because of its atmosphere.”

            Then, let’s see you explain the outgoing IR spectrum of the Earth, which has huge energy gouges in it where the greenhouse gases have absorbed:

          • Will Haas

            It does not matter. If an increase in greenhouse gases caused warming then they would do so by increasing the insulation effects of the atmosphere. If that were actually the case then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a noticeable increase in the lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. The fundamental insulating characteristics of the atmosphere have not changed.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course it matters! You gravity/pressure idea cannot begin to explain these observed data. Greenhouse theory explains it completely.

          • Will Haas

            But the convective greenhouse effect accounts for all 33 degrees C. and there is no room for an additional 33 degrees C caused by a radiant greenhouse effect.

          • DavidAppell

            Do you think that spouting the same unproven, illogical claims over and over again makes them true?

            Or is that all you got?

          • DavidAppell

            “The fundamental insulating characteristics of the atmosphere have not changed.”

            Yes, it has — less radiation is escaping to space at the GHG absorption wavelengths:

            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

          • Will Haas

            If greenhouse gases were causing the atmosphere to be more insulating then we should be observing an increase in the lapse rate, but that has not been happening.

          • DavidAppell

            Why?

            That’s not how greenhouse gases work. They raise the IR emitting layer upward, and the lapse rate curve moves to the right.

            See Figure 16 in this famous 1967 paper by Manabe & Wetherald:

            http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm6701.pdf

          • Will Haas

            What you are showing does not mean that greenhouse gas LWIR absorption has anay effect on climate.

          • DavidAppell

            Where do you think the energy that didn’t escape out the top of the atmopshere goes?

    • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

      you write: “Freedom of speech should extend to the discussion of science. Just because an individual disagrees with us does not mean that person is a which and should be burned at the stake.” – But Freedom of Speech does not give you the right to lie about people’s work and insist that your demonstrably fiction version is fact !

      • Donutwarrior

        Lie, now that is funny. Not one of you true believers is ever honest. You are all lying shills. Fiction is AGW. The data and modeling are false. Its obvious if you look in at this in even the most cursory way that AGW is a myth. NASA fakes data and you tell us we could learn from it. I did learn from it, that people like you will say anything to get your twisted falsehoods presented as facts. You are too stupid to have rational arguments. You are exactly what we are complaining about here, a religious zealot who will say anything to serve his masters.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          PS for a peek at the other side:

          Richard Alley – what drives scientists?

          Richard Alley – 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2

          • Donutwarrior

            Einstein was right, Newton’s theory was incomplete, and needed additional work. So those pesky “deniers” were right. Its interesting he brought that up, since Newton’s theories exactly match my issues with AGW. Newton’s theory became the consensus view because of decades and centuries of accurate predictions. It was only when they could not reconcile the orbit of Mercury (among other things) that it was clear that something else was at play. Consensus=centuries of accurate results. The scientists of the day didn’t “adjust” the observations of Mercury’s position to conform with “consensus”. Which is how the last 20 years of pause became ever increasing temperatures. Lying is never part of science that I conduct. I don’t fake my data to get the results my clients demand, even though I do consulting. The adjustments done on the temperature record are clear evidence of fraud. There is simply too much money at stake to overturn the phony consensus for lots of interested parties. The idea that only “big tobacco”, or “big oil” fakes data and lies is reassuring to people like you who only seem to be able to point fingers elsewhere. Science isn’t about consensus, its about constantly questioning and analyzing data, deciding whether your conceptual model was right, or needs work. AGW proponents don’t seem to agree, so they are not doing science, they are dogmatic believers in a faith based religion. I pass.

      • Will Haas

        I am not lying about people’s work. The AGW conjecture is flawed. It ignore’s what really happens in the climate system. It ignore’s convection and how H2O, the primary greenhouse gas must behave. It pretends that there is evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 affects climate but that is not true. In the past if any greenhouse gas contributed to warming then by far the largest contribution must have been contributed by H2O but that is totally ignored.

        • DavidAppell

          Again, climate models include convection. In fact, Manabe called his models “radiative-convective models.”

        • DavidAppell

          Of course, Manabe’s models (which did include convective readjustment) were relatively simple compared to today’s. Here’s a decription of a modern model — it discusses it treatment of convection in several chapters.

          MPI-Report No. 349 – E. Roeckner, G. Bäuml, L. Bonaventura, R. Brokopf, M. Esch, M. Giorgetta, S. Hagemann, I. Kirchner, L. Kornblueh, E. Manzini, A. Rhodin, U. Schlese, U. Schulzweida, A. Tompkins (2003): The atmospheric general circulation model ECHAM 5. PART I: Model description.

          http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/publikationen/Reports/max_scirep_349.pdf

      • terry1956

        a person has a right to lie including about another person’s work unless they have criminal intent to slander, commit fraud etc, those crimes are crimes within a state not federal crimes and since ” international law” is not binding in the US it is not a global matter either.
        The Burden of Proof to a unanimous jury of 12 local citizens is on the accuser.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          Seems to me scientist’s have a right to present important public information unhindered by a bunch of malicious vandals who’s only intension is to muddle and confuse critically information that the public has a right and need to learn about – it is criminal in every sense of the word – and it’s about time we are having this public dialogue. And it about time serious folks are finally standing up to unprincipled thugs such as Morano and klan.

          • Ronscott

            Actually, the only thing that is criminal here is the jack booted thugs ,that are the climatology industry, trying to force others to accept all their flawed science. They think if you don’t agree with their science then you are dangerous and need to be jailed. Fascist much!

      • Ronscott

        That is exactly what they do. And the so-called evidence they have is based on computer models that they made with data they choose to input. Just because we question their methods, and believe they skewer the data to support their pre-drawn conclusions, doesn’t make us criminals or stupid. It just means we are not willing to follow people who have their own agenda being propelled by tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. And by the way, “We the people” are interested in freedom not being told what we can say or believe. Looks like it is the “climate change” people who are more like Hitler.

      • Ronscott

        First of all, YES IT DOES! You don’t get to pick and choose speech that you don’t like. Second of all, it isn’t a lie just because you don’t agree with it.

        • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

          You just don’t get it. Reality isn’t up to your desires – but then folks who’ve convinced themselves they understand God’s Will probably won’t get it.
          Still, understanding how our climate system operates IS NOT a democratic process !!! Natural facts are natural facts, no matter how much your ego and desires force you to hate and reject what those facts happen to be!

          • Ronscott

            I don’t get it? Apparently realty is whatever these climatologists dictate, based on whatever data they choose to use or ignore. And what the hell does any of this have to do with anyone’s understanding of God’s will. As far as the natural facts are concerned, it is they that are trying to change natural facts. Next thing you know, one of you boneheads will be trying to convince us that dinosaur farts caused the great “Ice Age”.

      • Ronscott

        This is the biggest difference between the right and the left. The right doesn’t like what you say, we tell you we think your deluded and dangerous. The left doesn’t like what you say, they want to put you in jail or sue because your dissenting opinion must be silenced. Who is really a fascist?

    • DavidAppell

      Will Haas wrote:
      “There is no radiant greenhouse effect. The surface of the Earth is on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be because gravity limits cooling by convection.”

      This explanation doesn’t work. Gravity on Venus is a little lower than on Earth, but its surface temperature is much higher.

      • Will Haas

        But the surface pressure on Venus is more than 90 times what is on Earth. The temperature at one bar in the atmosphere can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun. Despite having an atmosphere that is 90 times more massive then the Earth’s and a CO2 content of more than 96%, Venus does not have an observable radiant greenhouse effect.

        • DavidAppell

          Now you’re talking about pressure. Before you were talking about gravity.

          “The temperature at one bar in the atmosphere can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun.”

          No, it can’t. And you won’t be able to prove that.

          • Will Haas

            It is gravity and the mass of the atmosphere that creates pressure. Without gravity there is no pressure in the Earth’s atmosphere.

            I did not do the work. If you start with the average temperature at the Earth’s surface which is at a pressure of 1 bar and then adjust it for if the Earth were as close to the sun as Venus then you come up with the temperature that has been observed in the atmosphere of Venus at a pressure of one bar. From there to the surface of Venus it is a matter of the lapse rate and the altitude. The temperature profile in the atmosphere of Venus has nothing to do with CO2 being a so called greenhouse gas.

          • DavidAppell

            “If you start with the average temperature at the Earth’s surface which is at a pressure of 1 bar and then adjust it for if the Earth were as close to the sun as Venus then you come up with the temperature that has been observed in the atmosphere of Venus at a pressure of one bar.”

            No, you don’t. I’ve seen (and done) that calculation — it’s only true if you ignore planetary albedoes, which cannot be justified.

          • DavidAppell

            “It is gravity and the mass of the atmosphere that creates pressure.”

            You didn’t prove this, or even cite a proof. Lead skeptic Roy Spencer explains here why pressure cannot account for surface temperatures:

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/12/why-atmospheric-pressure-cannot-explain-the-elevated-surface-temperature-of-the-earth

        • DavidAppell

          “Venus does not have an observable radiant greenhouse effect.”

          Measuring its outgoing infrared radiation spectrum shows it has a massive greenhouse effect:

          https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/venus-rte-solution-outgoing-radiation-bullock-2001.png

        • DavidAppell

          Oops, grabbed the wrong file. Here is the observed outgoing spectrum of Venus:

  • WT

    The American public should be outraged.
    If there was ever an invitation for Trump, this is it.

  • teamfrazzled

    I prefer these leftist scam participants demanding totalitarian science be jailed.

  • Michael Harris

    If you lock up people who don’t agree with you… then you will have to go to war with countries that don’t. This is serious stuff. Some people will eventually belief that to save the planet we have to kill people, it’s insanity, it should stop.

  • Ulysses Noman

    The Irony. It’s perverse. These people are engaged in a coordinated fraud and THEY call for a RICO investigation??

  • THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084

    NY Slimes (satire)

    When Death Camps Are Necessary

    Published: December 29, 2012

    Despite a society’s best intentions sometimes it is necessary for it to do what is considered taboo. After considerable efforts have been made to reason with those who strive to undermine Progress, after immeasurable efforts are made to properly educate seditious dissenters, after exhaustive effort has been made to silence, marginalize and finally punish – the Ultimate Solution is Occam’s Razor.

    The Death Penalty is nearing extinction in Progressive, Civilized Society for crimes against persons and property – rightly so. However, in the case of Sedition and Agitation against Progressing Society it may be the only remedy once all other forms of remediation are exhausted.

    Certain groups have proven impossible to mollify through less extreme measures. Even under prescribed psychotropic pharmaceuticals, incarceration and repeated attempts at re-education and punishment, they continue to spread un-healthy ideas like Cancer to healthy individuals.

    Modern Medicine has long recognized the need to excise diseased tissue from healthy tissue despite the disfigurement and pain associated with the operation in order to preserve Life. The argument must be made that sedition is Cancer to the Society which it metastases to and must therefore be excised with as much rigor as a malignancy with a surgical scalpel.

    Death Camps must only be used in the most extreme necessity, however like radiation and chemotherapy to a skilled Oncologist, they can be used quite effectively to preserve the Life of the Progressive Body.

    In this Transitional Period in US History, we as a Progressive Society are much like the first creatures arising from the primordial seas onto the land. Extreme elements within our society would prefer to pull All of Us back in to the water only to drown, just as we set upon our first steps to soaring amongst the stars. As a People, the majority of us have now twice demonstrated that we wish to arise from our primordial past, to new Transformative Heights. Yet, there is a destructive minority that seeks only to lure us all to watery deaths singing a Siren’s songs of false histories and ideas.

    When a serpent cannot be dealt with by reason, isolation or punishment; when it continues to endanger all of us, we are left with no option other than to slay it.

    A version of this editorial appeared in print on December 30, 2012, on page SR14 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Obama should be our Caesar

    • THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084

      The Greatness of Dictators Published: December 29, 2012

      The latest debacle in Washington over the Fiscal Cliff and Gun Control illustrate perfectly why it is now imperative to begin consolidating the powers of the three branches of government into the Executive Office of the President. Congress simply cannot be entrusted with the finances or landmark actions of a Superpower.

      Beholden to far too many interests contrary to the good of the nation as a whole, Congress must transfer its powers to the Chief Executive. We are at a rare cross roads where we are poised for a new era, or condemned to continued inaction.

      Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini and the Beloved Chairman Mao Tse-tung would have been hamstringed had they been constrained by a separation of powers and an inept Congress. In order to do great things, a great man must have no constraints shackling him.

      We are blessed with a Great leader in Barrack Obama, and if unleashed from the shackles constraining him by an uncooperative Legislative Branch, we as a nation are poised for a most wondrous time. In reassessing the traditional structure of US Government we should not stop just with the cumbersome separation of powers.

      The US Constitution is a stodgy document, written over two centuries ago when the speediest form of communication took place on horseback and from within sailing ships cargo holds. It is time to reevaluate the document in its entirety. For one, allowing untold millions of firearms in the hands of untrained and unregulated civilians has lead to terrible consequences. By freeing the Chief Executive, this would be dealt with immediately as opposed to the painfully slow piecemeal legislative process we have currently.

      The shear amount of waste in having such a redundant form of government and the ridiculous amount of time and wasted resources in having regular elections that force great men to grovel for votes can be better utilized. For instance, had the 2012 election not taken place, a wise Chief Executive would have been able to solve Global Warming or dedicated his intellectual resources toward producing World Peace.

      Great men like Josef Stalin accomplished National Transformation by being allowed to fully seize the reins of power. It is time to allow a great man to do the same in the United States today. We must force Congress to set aside its selfish desires to control the true course of history and place in the capable hands of Our Twice Elected President the powers necessary for Transformation..

      A version of this editorial appeared in print on December 30, 2012, on page SR14 of the New York edition with the headline: Why Obama should be our Caesar

      • chessarmy

        Would love to have you write for my website, http://www.wethevigilant.com

        Contact me at wethevigilant@gmail.com and let’s talk.

      • terry1956

        LOL, check out chapter 10 in FA Hayek’s book ” The Road To Serfdom”.
        Chapter 10″Why the Worst Get On Top”.

  • andersm0

    For as much as the intent behind the prosecution of dissent is a vile premise, perhaps a court of law would be the ideal place to allow the honest presentation of data.

    I just read about how the Third Reich prosecuted dissent. Climate science is heading down the same road. Believe us and toe the line…or else.

  • binky1657

    I wonder how many of those “scientists” are conservatives?

    • Ronscott

      None!

  • Feet2Fire

    Thought the “global warming” nonsense was “settled science”? /sarcasm

    (How about an investigation into governmental weather manipulation, which is more believable than the global warming hype…)

    More timely and of more interest to most Americans: How about an investigation into the election debates, and investigate/reveal who is setting the rules and making it generally difficult if not impossible for the voting public to actually watch/listen/size up the various candidates, without a bunch of manipulation and theatrics? No single network should have “proprietary interest/ownership” of the debate; these debates should be made available on as many public forums as possible, instead of forcing people to watch ONE network or log on to some lame “streaming” technology in hopes of hearing what’s going on. And the moderators should be unbiased individuals not political hacks and lamestream media figures trying to boost their own ratings. Off topic, yes, but more vital to our real interests than this faux science about so-called “climate change.”

  • http://www.southernwolf.net/ Southern Wolf

    I have an unproven hypothesis too and if you don’t believe it I’ll jail you. Uh huh.

    • terry1956

      Or at least if they think they can prove it and it is a crime such as common law trespass then prove it to a fully informed jury of 12 local citizens in the states, after of course convicting a grand jury in the state to indict.

  • WalterHorsting

    Orwellian: you will be re-educated

  • duck

    Jagadish
    Shukla

    Phone number

    301-770-2130

    11125 Snowshoe Ln Rockville, MD
    20852-3244

    Paul
    A Dirmeyer

    Phone number

    301-854-3246

    13639 Highland Rd Clarksville, MD
    21029-1424

    Barry
    A Klinger

    Phone number

    301-315-2434

    12035 Devilwood Dr Rockville, MD
    20854-3416

    David
    Straus

    Phone number

    301-770-3410

    11710 Old Georgetown Rd Apt 1217 Rockville,
    MD 20852-8600

  • far2right

    Climate Depot should start a Climate Jihadi watch page.

    Someone needs to continuously monitor these Climate Mullahs.

    Put cameras in their classroom mosques.

    • Robert Wagner

      “Climate Mullahs”
      Great description.

  • Mcsandberg

    Thus the global warming hoax officially comes to an end. When you must use force against your opponents, it means that you have completely lost the debate.

  • mef

    Any “scientist” that feels compelled to jail opposition, clearly identifies themselves as charlatans, frauds, and criminals. A true scientist would welcome criticism and debate. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am stunned that today, in the 21st century, we still have large groups of people who believe that the tactics of the NAZIs and Soviets are moral or that it is even contemplated. If this doesn’t open the eyes of most people as to what this is all about, nothing will. And yet, the global warming crowd has the nerve to call us NAZIs and deniers. How evil can you get.

  • Gus

    This Goebbelsian attack on the freedom of speech and the freedom of scientific inquiry is a desperate admission on the side of these lowlifes that they are losing the scientific argument and confidence of the population.

  • barbiegirl, ny

    Do easily-led morons ever wonder why these lying snake oil salesmen demand we all believe the same thing, and utterly refuse any debate? It would pique my interest, but then, I do have a brain stem, and take no one’s word for anything. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH, and I don’t mean to go to sites that are nitwit-friendly.

    • mef

      nullius in verba

  • mef

    “We are fast
    approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government
    is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by
    permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the
    stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

  • Nick Tredennick

    I wonder if the signing “scientists” see the irony in pleading for an end to scientific disagreement.

  • Michael Canoy

    And this is a pretty big lie.

  • Margaret Manzi

    For years, sailors wanted that Northwest passage, and now they have it. So why complain?

    • Gus

      The Northwest passage is not traversable. There’s too much ice there and getting more.

  • Robert Wagner

    I can’t believe a real “scientist” can sign something like this and keep their jobs at a center of higher learning. These people are trying to throw civilization back to the dark ages. Congress should revoke any research funding and support for such schools. We embrace a concept of separation of church and state and the state should not be funding the cult of climate change.

  • Ramon 51

    Shades of Lysenko!

    • Gus

      Shades? It’s full glare!

  • ralph1001

    Maybe these 20 “scientists” should study what the RICO law actually is.

    RICO law refers to the prosecution and defense
    of individuals who engage in organized crime. In 1970, Congress passed
    the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act in an effort to combat Mafia groups.

  • Norma Kelly

    <– my dads buddy just got a nice six-month old Mercedes E-Class E63 AMG from only workin part time online… find more information It’s been six months since i started this and i made so far total of 37,000 dollars. Basicly i profit about 80 dollars every hour and work for 3 to 4 hours a day–>,…,

    Open This Link…..,.,,.….,

    ➤➤➤➤ http//questerifo0utputfacebookPr0ject0ffer..,,,,…. ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

  • Robert Wagner

    Almost are all East Coast Ultra-Liberal, only one University was from the “fly-over” America, and I’m not sure University of Colorado and the largely tax-payer funded NATIONAL Center for Atmospheric Research count. The Neighbor School Colorado University is the home of Ward Churchill.
    http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6124

  • Eli Rabett

    Of course the letter calls for prosecution not of individuals but organization such as Exxon who spent huge amounts of money supporting denial, just like the tobacco companies denied that smoking causes disease.

    • Flying Fox

      See the attached compilation at WUWT, courtesy of Jimbo.
      Then take a lithium and go to bed.
      ****************************************************************

      Jimbo
      September 20, 2015 at 3:34 am

      RICO! BIG OIL! Funding! LOL LOL LOL
      ROFLMAO!

      Climate Research Unit (CRU)

      History

      …From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice
      concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working
      closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed
      sea-ice atlases,…

      This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

      …British Petroleum…Greenpeace International…Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates…Sultanate of Oman…Shell……

      —–

      Sierra Club

      TIME
      – 2 February 2012

      Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry
      TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey
      McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…..

      —–

      Delhi Sustainable Development Summit

      [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC
      until Feb. 2015] 2011: Star Partner – Rockefeller Foundation
      2007: Partners – BP
      2006: Co-Associates – NTPC [coal
      and gas power generation] | Function Hosts – BP
      2005: Associate – Oil and Natural
      Gas Corporation Limited, India | Co-Associate Shell

      —–

      Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
      Berkeley Earth team members include: Richard Muller, Founder and Scientific Director……Steven Mosher, Scientist…
      Financial Support First Phase (2010)
      …Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000) The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…

      Second Phase (2011)
      …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…

      Third Phase (2012)
      …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($50,000)…Anonymous Foundation
      ($250,000)…

      Fourth Phase (2013)
      …The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation ($100,000)…
      —–

      350.org
      350.org caught up in fossil fuel ‘divestment’ hypocrisy
      [Rockefellers Brothers Fund] RBF has given 350.org $800,000 in recent
      years and almost $2 million to the 1Sky Education Fund, now part of 350.org, according to foundation records.

      —–

      Union of Concerned Scientists
      The 2013 Annual Report PDF
      UCS thanks the following companies that matched members’ gifts at a level of$1,000 or more….Chevron Corporation…..

      Annual Report 2002 PDF
      The Union of Concerned Scientists gratefully acknowledges the following
      individuals and foundations for their generous contributions of at least $500
      during our fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001–September 30, 2002)….
      Friends of UCS The Friends of UCS provide substantial support for the ongoing work of the
      organization…Larry Rockefeller…Matching Gift Companies…BP Amoco MatchingGift Program…Philip Morris Companies, Inc….

      —–

      University of California,
      Berkeley

      CalCAP

      Cal Climate Action Partnership

      What is CalCAP?

      The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty,
      administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
      emissions at UC Berkeley.

      University of California,
      Berkeley

      UC
      Berkeley News – 1 February 2007

      BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium
      with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois

      —–

      Climate Institute

      About Us

      The Climate Institute has been in a unique position to inform key
      decision-makers, heighten international awareness of climate change, and
      identify practical ways of achieving significant emissions reductions…

      Donors

      American Gas Foundation…BP…NASA….PG&E Corporation [natural
      gas & electricity]…Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Shell
      Foundation…The Rockefeller Foundation…UNDP, UNEP…

      —–

      EcoLiving

      About

      …EcoLiving provides events and hands-on workshops to teach Albertans about ways
      to reduce our collective ecological footprint, create more sustainable and
      energy efficient buildings, and share information about local environmental
      initiatives and services….

      Sponsors

      2008 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips…Shell 2009 Sponsors: …ConocoPhillips Canada…2013
      Sponsors:…Shell FuellingChange…

      —–

      Nature Conservancy

      Climate
      Change Threats and Impacts

      Climate change is already beginning to transform life on Earth. Around
      the globe, seasons are shifting, temperatures are climbing and sea levels
      are rising…… If we don’t act now, climate change will rapidly alter the
      lands and waters we all depend upon for survival, leaving our children and
      grandchildren with a very different world….

      Washington
      Post – 24 May 2010

      …What De Leon didn’t know was that the Nature Conservancy lists BP as one of
      its business partners. The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its
      International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash
      and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years….The
      Conservancy, already scrambling to shield oyster beds from the spill, now faces
      a different problem: a potential backlash….

      —–

      America’s WETLAND Foundation

      Restore-Adapt-Mitigate: Responding To Climate Change Through Coastal Habitat
      Restoration

      PDF

      Coastal habitats are being subjected to a range of stresses from climate change;
      many of these stresses are predicted to increase over the next century The most
      significant effects are likely to be from sea-level rise, increased storm
      and wave intensity, temperature increases, carbon dioxide concentration
      increases, and changes in precipitation that will alter freshwater delivery…..

      Sponsors

      World Sponsor: Shell

      Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil

      National Sponsors: British Petroleum

      —–

      Green Energy Futures

      About Us

      Green Energy Futures is a multi-media storytelling project that is documenting
      the clean energy revolution that’s already underway. It tells the stories of
      green energy pioneers who are moving forward in their homes, businesses and
      communities.

      Gold Sponsor: Shell

      —–

      World Resources Institute

      Climate

      WRI engages businesses, policymakers, and civil society at the local, national,
      and international levels to advance transformative solutions that mitigate
      climate change and help communities adapt to its impacts.

      ACKNOWLEDGING OUR DONORS (January 1, 2011
      – August 1, 2012 PDF
      5MB

      …Shell and Shell Foundation…ConocoPhillips
      Company…

      —–

      Purdue Solar

      Navitas
      Takes 1st at SEMA 2013

      Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery
      Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run
      reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of
      approximate 2,630MPGe)….

      —–

      AGU Fall Meeting

      9-13 December 2013

      Thank
      You to Our Sponsors

      The AGU would like to take the time to thank all of our generous sponsors
      who support the

      2013 Fall Meeting and the events at the meeting.

      ExxonMobil…….BP, Chevron…..Mineralogical Society of America…

      —–

      Science Museum – Atmosphere

      About
      our funders

      …exploring climate science gallery and the three-year Climate
      Changing… programme. Through these ground-breaking projects we invite all
      our visitors to deepen their understanding of the science behind our changing
      climate.

      We believe that working together with
      such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do
      in our climate-changing world….

      Principal Sponsors: Shell…Siemens…

      —–

      Dr. Michael Mann

      WUWT
      – October 15, 2013

      …it is enlightening to learn that his
      current employer, Penn State, gets funds from Koch, and so does where
      Dr. Mann did his thesis from, the University
      of Virginia. Those darn
      facts, they are stubborn things. See the list that follows….

      [Comments]

      Jimbo
      October 16, 2013 at 11:49 am

      Why stop at Koch funding?

      Exxon Mobil Corporation

      2012 Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments

      …..Pennsylvania State University
      [$] 258,230…..

      —–

      Stanford University

      New
      York Times – 21 November 2002

      By ANDREW C. REVKIN

      Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford

      Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said
      yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10
      years for research on ways to meet growing energy needs without worsening
      global warming….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20
      million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research
      program….

      —–

      National Science Teachers Association – Jun 11, 2012

      by
      Wendi Liles

      You are invited this summer to the 4th Annual CSI: Climate Status
      Investigations free climate change educator professional development in Wilmington, DE….
      You will also get to participate in a climate change lesson with the staff from
      Delaware Nature Society to investigate the effect of climate change on their
      urban watershed…..a few fun giveaways thanks to our sponsors-DuPont,
      Agilent Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Chevron, Delaware Nature
      Society….

      —–

      Duke University

      ConocoPhillips
      Pledges $1 Million to Climate Change Policy Partnership at Duke 2007

      ConocoPhillips, the third-largest integrated energy company in the
      United States, has pledged $1 million to support an industry-university
      collaboration working to develop policies that address global climate change,
      Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead announced Wednesday.

      —–

      Alberta Water Council PDF

      Growing demands from an increasing population, economic development, and
      climate change are the realities impacting our water allocation system.

      …Breakfast Sponsor: ConocoPhillips Canada…River
      Level Sponsors….ConocoPhillips Canada

      —–

      University of California, Davis

      Institute of Transportation Studies PDF

      10th Biennial Conference on Transportation and Energy Policy

      Toward a Policy Agenda For Climate Change

      Asilomar Transport & Energy Conferences

      VIII. Managing Transitions in the Transport Sector: How Fast and How Far?

      September 11-14, 2001. Sponsored by US DOE,
      US EPA, Natural Resources Canada, ExxonMobil,
      and Chevron (Chair: D. Sperling)…

      —–

      Washington
      Free Beacon – 27 January 2015

      Foreign Firm Funding U.S. Green Groups Tied to State-Owned Russian Oil
      Company

      Executives at a Bermudan firm funneling money to U.S. environmentalists run
      investment funds with Russian tycoons

      A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to
      anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives
      with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering
      schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle……The Sierra
      Club, the Natural Resource Defense Council, Food and Water Watch, the
      League of Conservation Voters, and the Center for American Progress were among
      the recipients of Sea Change’s $100 million in grants in 2010 and
      2011….“None of this foreign corporation’s funding is disclosed in any way,” the
      Senate Environment and Public Works Committee wrote of the company in a report
      last year…..

      • terry1956

        Lot of data to look into.
        So the Koch’s and some big oil firms gave money to those hollering for a one world goverence.
        Well just like Warren Buffet’s dad the Koch’s dad were Patriotic American conservatives who if still alive would take the boys to the wood shed.
        Those dads( Mr.Buffet and Mr.Koch) were against the UN, mass top/ down central planning and foreign entanglements. as well as against the federal individual income tax.
        The first UN NGO top level advisor was the International Chamber Commerce and the second a large International Union according to the UN website.

    • terry1956

      Being that the World Court has no authority within the US at all then it can only make noise.
      Wither one agrees with Exxon and the Tobacco companies the federal government has no authority to prosecute them on any issue the US Constitution has not granted for the federal government’s limited authority.
      Federal prosecution of the firms for speech would not only violate the first amendment but also the ninth.
      Knowly making false statements to commit fraud, as in just about every crime within the states would be a state attorney and or a local DA matter not federal.

  • AskingQuestions

    The kind of RICO investigation proposed by the scientists mentioned in this letter would be much more narrowly focused, would not be an attack on people’s free speech rights which are and should be protected by the Constitution, and would only go anywhere if there was good evidence that businesses such as oil companies were knowingly lying about the harm that their product causes (like what happened with cigarettes). Anyone not selling a product which is not a risk to causing global warming, or anyone who can not be shown to be knowingly making false statements about climate science, would not be a target of any RICO punishment. http://mason.gmu.edu/~bklinger/rico.html

  • reagangs

    The last time I noticed, Freedom of Speech was still allowed in most of the Free World. If you can’t handle good, honest debate, then you have a problem, because the issue isn’t going away. The US and most of the Free World have their Constitutions that guarantee Free expressions with out restraints. But the Sal Alinskites out there are relentless in their exercise of their Rules for Radicals. Where are Carlos Hathcock and/or Chris Kyle when we need them.

  • Isandhlwana79

    The AGW kooks are getting desperate. Meanwhile the climate is not behaving as their models claimed it would 20 years ago. No great calamities occurring. Nor will they. Drill, baby, drill !!

  • AskingQuestions
  • terry1956

    Like the vast majority of Congressional Acts and federal regulations I doubt RICO is Constitutional.
    So far I have not studied enough on the Climate Change debate to know enough which side is right except to say the tendency of to many on both sides to go about it as a policy issue without serious regard for US Sovereignty, proper Constitutional Federalism and proper Anglo/American long standing legal culture and due process.

  • Nikola Milovic

    Why make the resistance of those in power, and on the basis of false information, they want to scare the people and science, and to impose its “scientific” attitude that needs to understand the causes of climate change and global warming. Those who use politics, power and the various methods of spreading fear, punishment and ignoring the truth, we know who they are.

    It is a new scientific religion, or religions one kind of doctrine with which the masses indoktrinišu, to accept the opinion of those who have a goal that through science and religion itself provide new sources to boost “tycoon scientific ideas” from which will benefit all those who will accept this new scientific religion.

    Leave them for about another 30 to 40 years and they will bring the knowledge of natural law rights that govern the universe, and not in their “modeling approach brains”

    Climate change is a consequence of mutual relations planets and the sun, but science is not interested because (with the exception of those whose consciousness is directed toward the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU) for which they are blind ones who think that human factors “tailors” of all events in the solar system and continue .

    There’s time, God was not in a hurry, and they will come to order knowledge true cause of the phenomena around us and in us.

  • Bruce Peters

    Quite the misleading headline. This isn’t a push for jailing scientists who disagree with the global warming crowd. It’s a push to try to go after the oil, gas and coal companies and energy companies who have been burning fossil fuels and “misleading the public” (in their words).

  • http://www.indianhillsinntaosplaza.com/ jfslenes

    * Been sharing these thoughts since about 2008…they are still spot on!

    * Government Schools, from K thru Ph.D.., have been & are the problem!

    * They will be a WORSE Problem going forward (W/O massive change)!

    * Think about it. Government schools are taught by generally liberal biased union teachers!

    * Using books filled with leftist rewritten history (and W/O facts).

    * Managed by too many levels of bureaucrats & federal regulations.

    * Sued too frequently by ACLU for religious and other issues!

    * Have politically refused and intentionally failed to teach true, honest facts.

    * Failed to teach the basic essentials of American History & economics 101!

    * All that accompanied by the destruction of the family (a leftist goal).

    * Brought to us by progressive leftist liberals (democrats & RINOs).

    * They are anti American & decimating our society across a broad spectrum!

    * The progressives have undermined us for 100+ years!

    * Educationally, economically, culturally, socially, societally.

    * Without a foundation understanding of America’s founding principles, we are sunk!

    * Are you committed & working to improve your local school board?

    * Will you vote NO on all educational bond issues?

    * Will you support killing government school unions?

    * Only YOU can LIKE & SHARE this post! That’s how Facebook works best!!!

    *** LIKEs & SHAREs for our small indi hotel biz page too! http://facebook.com/IndianHillsInnTaosPlaza

  • greenthinker2012

    If anybody is part of corrupt organisation that causes harm to the citizens of the USA, and they are breaking the RICO laws, and this can be proven, then I have no problem with them being jailed.
    Many people on this comment thread have obviously not read or understood the RICO statutes. They just make up whatever crazy fear based interpretation suits their view of the world.

  • http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/ citizenschallengeAE

    I’m about done here, but would like to point out that all this really does come down to something simple: You believe lying about serious science and what scientists are reporting is some kind of “free speech right” – when in fact it is an act of malicious fraud against the people.

    The Conversation | Lawrence Torcello | March 13, 2014
    Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?
    https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

  • Miagogo

    Can we look into the “scientists” and the organizations who use money, governments, propaganda, manipulate data to say the “science is settled” and then demand they get more money from our labor for their own personal gain? *crickets*