I've been watching this video (https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8). As I already knew the theory about the behavior of CO2, I was a little surprised and had doubts about the high-altitude cooling part that will cause low-altitude heating. I would like to know your opinion about the content of the video.
Karl Popper advocated that true science requires stating the means by which one's hypothesis can be falsified. Seemingly impossible for virtually all climate "science", I believe I've found it. The 13-minute video at this link https://rumble.com/vdqaax-one-hundred-years-of-climate...-change.html is based on official, verifiable government temperature and precipitation records across a 100 year span. Perhaps I'm wrong but doesn't this falsify the "theory" of human-caused global warming?
Good work. I found the NASA data on Atmospheric absorption which had been hidden by some greenie since 1992. It clinches the case that CO2 Absorption has done all it can at present levels, So more CO2 can not affect global warming. It shows total absorption in the 14-16 micron range, which is the only wavelengths that CO2 can absorb. Hidden as 2 appendices, un cataloged, to an unrelated and uninteresting paper--(NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, 1992. )
This destroys ALL the models, papers, etc that have lead to the horrendous foolishness of the war on carbon.
This thought is expanded in a little booklet I published "Carbon Dioxide - Not Guilty" available on amazon at 99c. Full disclosure, I get 6 cents royalty. Or it is free as a pdf if you email me at bobhisey@comcast.net. It is in the public domain.
A telling arguement is that the Greens have not behaved scientifically.
They assume that if some co2 absorbs some IR, more will always absorb more. However, thay have never written a scientific paper to prove this hypothesis.
The world is acting on an unproven hypothesis.
As Goebbels said-Never tell a small lie.
As a scientist, I am professionally skeptical. But when Dr. Mann refused to show the data behind his hockey stick, I went to full fledged suspiscious.
But the NASA data drives a stake in the heart of the AGW theory.
Thank you, Tom, for all your work. Your videos alone are a gold-mine for sceptics/realists such as myself. Here in the UK the level of climate-hysteria in the mainstream media, especially the BBC, is beyond belief. The frustration of it all is that it doesn't matter how much evidence against is produced, because the driver is political and always has been, it is ignored.
Gives me hope when I read your words, Tom. Often seems like the entire world has lost all perspective on most topics, which are now generally approached in a feverish, hysterical zealot fashion. A cool voice of reason and clear-headed observation is such a cherishable tonic against the noise of it all. A million thankyous from me.
Some related content is here:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Atan123%20sabine&src=typed_query&f=live
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Atan123%20skdh&src=typed_query&f=live
Damn!!1. Treasure trove of resources! Thanks for putting it all together
Hello
I've been watching this video (https://youtu.be/oqu5DjzOBF8). As I already knew the theory about the behavior of CO2, I was a little surprised and had doubts about the high-altitude cooling part that will cause low-altitude heating. I would like to know your opinion about the content of the video.
Thank you
Tom,
Karl Popper advocated that true science requires stating the means by which one's hypothesis can be falsified. Seemingly impossible for virtually all climate "science", I believe I've found it. The 13-minute video at this link https://rumble.com/vdqaax-one-hundred-years-of-climate...-change.html is based on official, verifiable government temperature and precipitation records across a 100 year span. Perhaps I'm wrong but doesn't this falsify the "theory" of human-caused global warming?
climaterealist@co2questions.com
Hi
Also said by Lord Bacon in the 15th century. First hypothesize, then verify.
Thanks for the painstaking work that went into this post, Tom. Climate and scholarship are a great marriage.
Tom -- really liked Climate The Movie.
Put out a post about it: https://timellison.substack.com/p/climate-the-movie
Wish you had a short section about the Milankovitch Cycles (Time Keeper of the Ice Ages -- see:
https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/hays76sci_268464.pdf
and
https://timellison.substack.com/p/hoisting-mr-gore-on-his-own-petard
Your link to the Crichton speech is broken:
Here is a still active link to three of his speeches on the topic which may suit as a substitute:
https://quixoteslaststand.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/crichton_3.pdf
Hi
Good work. I found the NASA data on Atmospheric absorption which had been hidden by some greenie since 1992. It clinches the case that CO2 Absorption has done all it can at present levels, So more CO2 can not affect global warming. It shows total absorption in the 14-16 micron range, which is the only wavelengths that CO2 can absorb. Hidden as 2 appendices, un cataloged, to an unrelated and uninteresting paper--(NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, 1992. )
This destroys ALL the models, papers, etc that have lead to the horrendous foolishness of the war on carbon.
This thought is expanded in a little booklet I published "Carbon Dioxide - Not Guilty" available on amazon at 99c. Full disclosure, I get 6 cents royalty. Or it is free as a pdf if you email me at bobhisey@comcast.net. It is in the public domain.
A telling arguement is that the Greens have not behaved scientifically.
They assume that if some co2 absorbs some IR, more will always absorb more. However, thay have never written a scientific paper to prove this hypothesis.
The world is acting on an unproven hypothesis.
As Goebbels said-Never tell a small lie.
As a scientist, I am professionally skeptical. But when Dr. Mann refused to show the data behind his hockey stick, I went to full fledged suspiscious.
But the NASA data drives a stake in the heart of the AGW theory.
Thank you, Tom, for all your work. Your videos alone are a gold-mine for sceptics/realists such as myself. Here in the UK the level of climate-hysteria in the mainstream media, especially the BBC, is beyond belief. The frustration of it all is that it doesn't matter how much evidence against is produced, because the driver is political and always has been, it is ignored.
Gives me hope when I read your words, Tom. Often seems like the entire world has lost all perspective on most topics, which are now generally approached in a feverish, hysterical zealot fashion. A cool voice of reason and clear-headed observation is such a cherishable tonic against the noise of it all. A million thankyous from me.
Thanks!