Climate Ideology

R.I.P. Climate Back Radiation

Posted on March 8, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Beware false and misleading Cartoons.

A brief recent video by Markus Ott explains why the notion of “back radiation” in Earth’s climate should be laid to rest. I provide a transcript text in italics with my bolds and key exhibits.

Ott/Shula: The second law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

This is the first of a short series of physics videos. This series is intended to be a follow up to Tom Shula’s presentation in which we can take more time to go into the fundamentals and derivations of our results. Since Tom and I are attacking the foundations of modern climate science, it makes sense to start with the thermodynamic aspects of the greenhouse effect.

In this video I will not talk about greenhouse gas molecules. I will look at the Green House Effect from the perspective of classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics describes matter as a continuum and does not care about the atomic or molecular structure of matter. The laws of thermodynamics have proven to be universally valid hypotheses, and theories that contradict the laws of thermodynamics have always proved to be wrong

In connection with the greenhouse effect, the second law of Thermodynamics is particularly interesting. There are various equivalent formulations for the the second law of thermodynamics which states that thermal energy cannot be completely converted into other forms of energy. Rudolf Clausius was the first to formulate the second law in the form that heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot bodies. Later in 1865 he developed on that basis the concept of entropy.

Those who believe in thermodynamics categorize this statement as an eternal truth and therefore find it very difficult to understand how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. How can the atmosphere which is mostly colder than the Earth’s surface heat the Surface by means of back radiation, and by as much as 33°C? Greenhouse effect believers like to refer to Carl Schwarzschild’s 1906 paper About the equilibrium of the solar atmosphere to answer this question.

In order to clarify this question of faith we will take a closer look at this much cited and probably rarely read article which was written in a German adequate to a highly educated man. I posted a manual translation of the text on my substack page. Without going into the details of his calculations we will look at how Schwarzschild comes to the conclusion that the sun’s atmosphere not only radiates outwards into space but that a significant proportion of radiation is also directed inwards towards the base of the sun’s atmosphere.

Such an inward or downward back radiation can also be measured at the bottom of the Earth’s atmosphere. This observation is taken as a reason to postulate a similar radiation equilibrium in the Earth’s atmosphere. The greenhouse effect is said to be the result of that back radiation.

The starting point for Schwarzschild’s article is the observation that the brightness of the visible solar disc is not evenly distributed. The brightness decreases towards the edge. The diagram shows the observed brightness distribution as a blue line. Schwarzschild compares two conceivable mechanisms of heat transport through the solar atmosphere in order to determine the cause of this brightness distribution. Heat transport through radiative transfer which requires a radiative equilibrium in the Solar atmosphere, and heat transport by convection with an adiabatic equilibrium in the Solar atmosphere.

He calculates how the brightness distribution on the solar disc should be for these two cases. Because his results for the radiative equilibrium Orange Line in the diagram matched the observed brightness distribution Blue Line better than his results for the adiabatic equilibrium Gray Line, he assumes that a radiative equilibrium prevails in the Solar atmosphere. We will disregard his description of the adiabatic equilibrium here, and restrict ourselves to his description of the radiative equilibrium.

Kirchhoff’s law of radiation plays a central role in Schwarzschild’s model. Kirchhoff’s law of radiation describes the relationship between absorption and emission of a real body in thermal equilibrium. It states that radiation absorption and emission correspond to each other for a given wavelength. A body that absorbs well also radiates well. This can be visualized as follows: We consider a body 2 that is located in a cavity of another body 1. Vacuum prevails in the intermediate space. If both bodies have the same temperature the radiant power absorbed by Body 2 must be the same as the radiant power emitted by it because otherwise the temperature of body 2 would change. This means that in thermal equilibrium Kirchhoff’s law of radiation represents a kind of radiation energy conservation law for body 2.

The layout of Schwarzschild’s radiative transfer model of the solar atmosphere is quite simple. An unknown heat source in the core of the Sun generates heat; a possible liquid outer core transports this heat by convection to the bottom of the solar atmosphere; the heat is then transported outwards into space solely by radiative transfer. He does not go any further into the properties of the sun’s core. He only assumes that the core heats the solar atmosphere evenly at its boundary surface. It is very important that this heating occurs so evenly that convection currents do not form in the Solar atmosphere.

In Schwarzschild’s model the solar atmosphere is assumed to have the following properties:

♦ the solar atmosphere is stably stratified without convection;
♦ temperature and density increase continuously from the top of the atmosphere to the ground
♦ the vertical profile of temperature is smaller than the adiabatic vertical profile;
♦ each layer of the sun’s atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation without loss;
♦ the energy flow which flows from an unknown source inside the Sun through the solar atmosphere into the outer space is in a steady state.

Since a downwelling radiation is also measurable on the ground of Earth’s atmosphere, modern climate science assumes that Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model is also applicable to our atmosphere. Now let’s take a look at the applicability of Schwarzschild’s model to the Earth’s atmosphere.

It is striking that Schwarzschild has practically constructed his model around Kirchhoff’s law of radiation. He has to make a number of not particularly plausible assumptions in order to create a local thermal equilibrium between the layers of his solar atmosphere. As mentioned before most of these assumptions serve to prevent convection in his model. This is critically important because as soon as convection comes into play, the condition of local thermal equilibrium is no longer fulfilled. The vertical convection currents and the associated turbulence destroy Schwarzschild’s homogeneous stratification of the atmosphere. Large local temperature jumps occur Kirchhoff’s law of radiation is therefore no longer applicable.

To summarize and formulate this somewhat more abstractly: In order to create the conditions for Pure radiation transport through the solar atmosphere Schwarzschild must construct an atmosphere with a very high degree of order. In liquid or gaseous systems even minor disturbances will cause such a state to change into a disordered convective State. Under convective conditions Kirchhoff’s law of radiation and thus the radiative transfer equation are not valid.

This transition to the convective state takes place with a large entropy gain. It is therefore spontaneous and irreversible. Accordingly, there should be no radiative transfer and no greenhouse effect in our troposphere since it is dominated by convection currents.

Look at a volume element under convective conditions such as those that prevail in our troposphere. The volume element absorbs radiation and converts the radiation energy into heat. Before it can convert the heat back into radiation it is caught by a convection current and lifted. This causes it to move into areas with lower ambient pressure. It expands and performs volume work in the process. It draws the energy for this volume work from its heat content and therefore cools down. The amount of heat that the volume element has converted into volume work can no longer be converted back into radiation. The conservation of radiation energy is therefore no longer given.

Kirchhoff’s law of radiation can no longer be applied to the volume element. The entropy of the volume element increases, the process is irreversible lifting and acceleration. Work performed by the volume element derives their energy from the heat content of the volume element and also contribute to the irreversibility of radiation absorption under convective conditions. Global circulations also affect these processes but that will be discussed in another video.

I would like to point out that radiation absorption and emission are irreversible processes. In themselves the reemission of radiation from an excited molecule occurs randomly in any direction. This means that the information about the direction of the previously absorbed radiation is lost during emission The emitted Photon transfers part of its momentum to the emitting molecule. Its energy and therefore also its frequency are therefore different from that of the previously absorbed Photon. Schwarzschild also excludes these effects through his choice of boundary conditions: steady state radiation flux and frequency independence of absorptivity and emission.

In one of my previous videos I made fun about the fact that the 33° greenhouse effect is calculated by assuming that the solar Radiance is homogeneously distributed over the Earth’s surface with 240 W per square meter. Now with a deeper understanding of Schwarzschild’s model we get an idea about the origin of this rather strange assumption. In his radiation transfer model the base of the solar atmosphere is heated internally and homogenously by the solar core. This homogeneous heating is very important since an inhomogeneous heating would cause convection which is incompatible with Kirchhoff’s law of radiation and would spoil his model. In a rather hapless attempt to apply Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model, the same is done to the externally and unevenly heated surface of the Earth.

To summarize briefly the irreversibility of radiation absorption in air under convective conditions makes back radiation and thus the greenhouse effect impossible. This statement seems to be in direct contradiction to the observation that a downwelling atmospheric radiation can be measured at the bottom of the Earth’s atmosphere. The diagram here shows the measured values from a measuring station near Munich. In the next video I will show that back radiation is not what most people think of it to be, and how it is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.

The most important takeaway from this video is that Kirchhoff’s law of radiation presents a kind of radiation energy conservation law, and that this radiation energy conservation is not given under convective conditions. As far as I know all radiation transfer models assume a universal validity of Kirchhoff’s law of radiation. The only exception is at very high altitudes where the air molecules only very rarely collide with each other. Since the results of the radiation transfer models are based on this false basic assumptions, they are wrong.

That is not to say that Carl Schwarzschild’s work is nonsense. His original idea is very applicable to transparent systems without convection; for example in the production of large telescope mirrors. The cooling behavior after the glass mass has solidified can be described very well using radiation transfer methods.

Footnote Regarding Observation of Downwelling IR near Earth Surface

Figure 1. This is a plot of the outgoing radiation spectrum from Earth. Within the normal IR thermometer and scanner range of 7.5 to 14 micrometers, only ozone (O3), which is mostly above cloud level absorbs and emits significant radiation. Within the 15 μm CO2 “divot” nearly all surface emissions are absorbed within 1.5 meters of the surface, at the edges of the divot, emissions are absorbed within 690 meters. There is very little absorption and emission by GHGs in the IR thermometer range in the troposphere, aka the atmospheric window.

From Andy May Beyond CO₂: Unraveling the Roles of Energy, Water Vapor, and Convection in Earth’s Atmosphere

Because the humid lower atmosphere is nearly opaque to most surface emitted radiation that is outside the atmospheric windows, surface emissions are absorbed by GHGs very close to the surface. According to Heinz Hug, at sea level, with a CO₂ concentration of 357 PPM and 2.6% water vapor, 99.94% of all surface radiation in the main CO₂ frequency band at about 15 μm is normally absorbed in the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere (Hug, 2012). Even at the edges of the deep CO₂ frequency band (see figure 1, as well as figures 4 & 5 here) where any increase in the CO₂ effect would be observed, 99.9% of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 690 meters (Hug, 2000).

Heinz Hug goes on to say that is why climate change caused by CO2 cannot be measured directly in the laboratory and can only be modeled. In our opinion, the effect of CO2 is so small it will likely never be measured. In a similar fashion, any “back radiation” that makes it to the surface, outside atmospheric windows, is from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere, the remaining emissions from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere are captured by other greenhouse gases, almost always water vapor molecules.

Surface emissions in the frequencies that cannot be absorbed or emitted by GHGs, those in the so-called “atmospheric windows” are not captured, these are the frequencies utilized by IR thermometers and scanners, typically 7.5 to 14 micrometers as shown in figure 1. Water vapor is often a very weak absorber and emitter in portions of these windows. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs and re-emits IR at two key frequencies: around 4.26 μm (microns) and 14.99 μm. The common vanadium oxide (VOx) based microbolometer long-wave infrared detectors cover wavelengths from 8-14 µm range. So, both CO2 absorption bands are outside the range of the common hand-held infrared thermometer/bolometer.

The radiation seen when IR thermometers and scanners are pointed at the sky is surface radiation scattered by atmospheric particles and clouds. The radiation seen by IR thermometers and scanners cannot be emitted by greenhouse gases or clouds because neither GHGs nor clouds emit in frequencies that can be detected by the devices. As noted in van Wijngaarden and Happer (2025) scattered longwave IR originates only in water droplets or ice or other particulates, there is negligible scattering of IR by molecules, especially in the atmospheric windows.

Background Paper with complete discussion

Missing Link in the GHE, Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas Shula – Markus Ott, USA – Germany
2024.

IR-Active Gases: H2O Potent, CO2 Feeble

Posted on March 4, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Demetris Koutsoyiannis published this paper in November 2024 Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation which enable determining the partial derivatives thereof with respect to the explanatory variables that represent the greenhouse gases. We validate these macroscopic relationships using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, commonly used in hydrology, and satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the relationships and their partial derivatives to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect.

The results show that the contribution of CO₂ is 4% – 5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87% – 95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO₂ concentration from 300 to 420 ppm. This effect is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating heat storage and albedo, as well as cooling the Earth’s surface through latent heat transfer, contributing 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research.

Robin Horsley draws the implications from this and other recent papers. Transcript in italics with my bolds and added images.

For decades, we’ve been told that human generated CO2 emissions are the single most dangerous threat to our planet. Politicians, celebrities, and the mainstream media have united to amplify this alarm, warning of an impending climate catastrophe unless we act now.

But what if the story’s wrong? What if the very foundation of the theory, the idea that CO2 is the principal driver of global warming, Is flawed? What if the science we’ve been told is settled is actually far from settled?

This week I’ve been digging into this very provocative question looking at an extremely interesting recent report on the subject. And what I found might make you rethink a lot of what you thought you knew about climate change.

What If Everything You Thought About CO2 Was Wrong

For years we’ve been fed a simple story: Humans burn fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide – CO2 – Into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm. The Greenhouse Effect as it’s known. The solution? Reduce CO2 to save the planet. But what if this narrative is overly simplistic or even fundamentally wrong?

At the recent international Clintel science conference in Prague leading climate experts gathered to scrutinise the dominant narratives around climate change. One of the most striking contributions came from Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a highly regarded climate scientist from the University of Athens. His research challenges the very core of our understanding of CO2’s role in the climate system. Professor Koutsoyiannis presented groundbreaking findings that question the long held belief that rising CO2 levels cause global temperatures to increase.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Instead, his research suggests it’s the other way around. Global temperature increases drive higher atmospheric CO2 levels. This isn’t an entirely new idea. For decades, scientists like Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace have pointed to evidence showing that historically rises in CO2 levels have followed, not preceeded, global temperature increases. Ice core data, spanning millions of years, apparently supports this claim.

If true, this challenges the foundation of the mainstream climate narrative.

Why would rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2

But why would rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2 levels? Professor Koutsoyiannis explains that when temperatures rise, the natural world responds. Plants and oceans release more CO2 than they otherwise would. Warmer temperatures lead to a thriving environment.

Now, I think this needs some explanation, because plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. Not release CO2, don’t they? Well, yes, plants sustain themselves and grow through the process of photosynthesis, which turns sunlight, water and CO2, which plants absorb, into glucose which enables plants to grow and which produces oxygen as a by-product which we and animals need to breathe.

Figure 22. Annual carbon balance in the Earth’s atmosphere, in Gt C/year, based on the IPCC estimates (Figure 5.12 of [30]). The balance of 5.1 Gt C/year is the annual accumulation of carbon (in the form of CO2) in the atmosphere (reproduced from [5].).

However Plants also release CO2 as part of a process known as cellular respiration during the day, and particularly at night, when due to a lack of sunlight, photosynthesis cannot occur. On balance photosynthesis typically outweighs respiration. So living plants typically absorb more CO2 than they release. But when that increasing number of plants die and decompose, micro-organisms break down the organic matter releasing retained CO2.

Oceans also release CO2 into the atmosphere when the water is warmer than the surrounding air. Warmer water holds less dissolved CO2. These natural processes account for the majority of CO2 emissions.
In fact, Koutsoyiannis argues that Nature contributes 96% of CO2 emissions leaving just 4% attributable to human activity.

Nature contributes 96% of CO2 emissions

Yes, burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. However, the professor’s research suggests that human contributions are a mere drop in the ocean compared to natural emissions. Crucially, his data shows that the dominant greenhouse gases aren’t CO2. But water vapour and clouds. CO2, it seems, plays a much smaller role than we’ve been led to believe.

Additionally, the study challenges the claim that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Instead, it finds that CO2 is rapidly cycled through the atmosphere oceans and land with an average cycle of just 4 years.

Figure 26: Contribution of (left) the three mechanisms responsible for the cooling of Earth’s surface and (right) the four mechanisms responsible for the warming of Earth’s atmosphere, based on the global energy balance by Trenberth et al. (2009). Koutsoyiannis (2024)

The paper also concludes based on the data gathered over the last hundred years, when the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from around 300 parts per million to just over 400 parts per million, that this increase has had no discernible effect on the greenhouse effect. It’s that small a factor.

If this research is accurate It doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. But it does suggest we need a better understanding of what drives it.

The professor asks a number of pertinent unanswered questions at the end of his paper. The earth is currently, when viewed over hundreds of millions of years, going through a relatively cool period. What caused the huge increases in earth’s temperature in the past? The professor asks.

It wasn’t industrialisation, was it? These are crucial questions especially as Governments implement sweeping policies in the name of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Policies that impact everything from energy prices to housing and transportation. Even the food that we eat.

The global cost of the Net Zero 2050 agenda is projected to be between $100 and $150 trillion dollars by 2050. Meanwhile, the world bank estimates that eradicating extreme poverty globally would cost just three to four trillion. Universal health care and education, defeating diseases such as malaria on a global basis would cost less.

What if we’re funding trillions into solving something that isn’t actually the main source of the problem? What if we should be spending more on other things that can limit global warming? What if we should instead be spending more money on mitigating the effects rather than trying to prevent it?

Shouldn’t we demand more scrutiny of the science driving these decisions? Could it be that the climate crisis narrative isn’t just about science but also about power, control and profit? Entire industries are heavily invested in the CO2 narrative. And millions of people, and much of the mainstream media are emotionally invested in the quest to reduce CO2 to save the planet.

But is that what we’re actually doing? Science thrives on debate and scrutiny. Science is never settled as such. It’s constantly evolving, particularly in complex areas such as global climate. Yet the CO2 science on which we’re proceeding is decades old, and many of the models on which it is based have failed to make accurate predictions.

Yet those who challenge the mainstream climate narrative are often dismissed as ‘deniers’ or attacked personally. But shouldn’t the truth welcome scrutiny? Shouldn’t we demand transparency and evidence that can stand up to rigorous examination?

This isn’t about denying climate change. It’s about questioning whether we’re focusing on the right solutions. As more scientists speak out, surely it’s time to demand open debate. And consider whether the trillions we’re spending on Net Zero might be better used elsewhere.

Now, I’m not a climate scientist. Perhaps this report is flawed. Perhaps it is complete nonsense even. But the professor who wrote it is not the only one who’s pointing out the first fundamental point that the mainstream narrative is fundamentally wrong, that by burning fossil fuels we’re producing CO2 that is warming the planet.

An increasing number of others are breaking ranks and saying exactly the same thing. That increasing CO2 is largely a consequence of increasing global temperatures not the cause. Yet we’re told that we’re facing a climate emergency. We must cast aside all caution. We must listen to Greta Thunberg, the climate change messiah.

To ask questions is heresy! Really? What do you think? Should we blindly follow the mainstream narrative, or should we dig deeper and ask tougher questions? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for watching.

Climate Scare Based on Lies

Posted on March 3, 2025 by Ron Clutz

link to video: Prof. William Happer – Climate Scare Is Based on Lies

Transcript in italics with my bolds and added images (HS is interviewer Hannes Sarv, WH is William Happer)

HS: If you read about climate in the newspapers or some talk about climate on television, it will be very, very far from the truth. We’re told that climate change is a direct consequence of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels. Year after year, you are seeing the dramatic reality of a boiling planet.

And for scientists, it is unequivocal. Humans are to blame, we’re led to believe the climate is boiling. And the accumulated amount is now trapping as much extra heat as would be released by 600,000 Hiroshima-class atomic bombs exploding. That’s what’s boiling the oceans. Which will have disastrous effects.

But is there really a scientific consensus on man-made climate change? Over a thousand scientists dispute the so-called climate crisis. Many of them are high-ranking experts in their fields. Among them, Dr. William Happer, a respected physicist with decades of groundbreaking research, an emeritus professor at Princeton University, and a leading expert in atomic and molecular physics. He has deep expertise in the greenhouse effect and the role of CO2 in climate change. Dr. Happer argues that the role of human activity and CO2 in global warming is based on flawed science and misinterpretations.

“You know, it’s dangerous to make policy on the basis of lies.”

In this interview, we’ll explore the evidence he believes has been overlooked and why it could transform our understanding of climate change.

HS: As we can see, Professor, you are still working daily in your university office. So what is it? Are you consulting younger colleagues or still involved in some research projects?

WH: Well, yes, I try to stay busy and I’m working now with a former student from Canada who’s a professor there now, William van Wijngaarden. And we’re working now on how water vapor and clouds affect the Earth’s climate, the radiation transfer details of those.

HS:So still very much involved in climate science.

WH: Well, you know, climate is very important. It’s always been important to humanity. It’s not going to change. I think it’s been having hard times the last 50 years because of this manic focus on demonization of greenhouse gases, which have some effect on climate but not very much.

HS: We’re going to absolutely get to that. But I wanted to start from actually, I was listening to one of your speeches and presentations you held back in 2023 at the Institute of Public Affairs. And what really I think resonated with me was that you started from the notion that freedom is important. And every generation has their own struggle for freedom and freedom is not free. So I actually wanted to start by asking you what is the state, the current state of freedom in your opinion in the world today?

WH: I think it’s really true that every generation has to struggle to maintain freedom, you know, because every generation has lots of people who don’t like freedom, you know. They would like to be little dictators, you know, and that’s always been true if you read history. And it’s not going to change.

And so I think it’s important that we educate our children to recognize that humans are imperfect and there will always be attempts to get dictatorial control over society. And, you know, our founding fathers in America represented recognize that. They just assumed that their fellow Americans would be not very perfect people, you know, with lots of flawed people, and they tried to design a system of government that would work even with flawed people. Some German philosopher put it right, you know, out of the crooked timber of mankind, no straight thing was ever made. So that’s the problem that we will always face.

HS: What about academic freedom in today’s world? I’m not only speaking about climate science, but in general.

WH: Well, you know, I think academia has always had a problem with groupthink, you know, because you’re typically all together in one small community, and your children and wives interact with each other. And so the temptations, the pressures to all think the same are very great. You know, if you don’t think the same, your kids suffer, your wife suffers, and that’s nothing new. It’s always been like that. You know, there’s a famous… American play, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? But it’s about this topic and it goes back many, many decades, you know, long before the current woke problems that we’re having in America.

HS: So as we all know currently, there is a new administration in the United States. So what will happen now? Will the situation, in your opinion, improve or is it just, you know, the challenges are going to remain?

WH: Well, you know, we’ve just elected a new president, and he’s very vigorous and has lots of ideas, and I think that’s a good thing. We’ll see how successful he is. But, you know, our society and our government is designed to be cumbersome and unwieldy. That’s to prevent crazy things from happening too quickly. And so the president will have to deal with that. And if the Americans support him, if the Congress supports him, he’ll be successful.

HS: Let’s move to climate science. Is there any honest discussion left? It has become so political, in my opinion, that it is really hard to have an open, a normal discussion about it.

WH: Well, I think if you go to a seminar, for example, at Princeton on climate, It’s often pretty good science. It’s not alarmist. But this is professors and students talking to each other. The further you get away from the actual research, the more alarmist and crazy it becomes.

So if you read about climate in the newspapers or listen to some talk about climate on television, it will be very, very far from the truth. And it won’t be the same thing that the professors at universities normally are talking about. But that said, you know, I think there’s been a lot of corruption because of all of the money available. You know, there are huge funds if you do research that supports the idea that there is a climate emergency which requires lots of government intervention. And if you don’t do that, you’re less likely to be funded, you know, you can’t pay your graduate students. So it’s a bad situation. It’s been very corrupting to this branch of science.

HS: Exactly how long has it been going on, this kind of situation?

WH: Well, I think it really got started in the early 90s. I was in Washington at the time as a government bureaucrat, and I could see it getting started. It was being pushed by Senator Al Gore and his allies. There were, at that time, still lots of honest scientists in academia who didn’t go along with all of the alarmism, but they’ve gradually died off and they’ve been replaced by younger people who’ve never known anything except, you know, pleasing your government sponsor with the politically correct research results that they expect.

HS: So basically they are not in a position, if they want to achieve anything in academia or make a career for themselves, they are kind of unable to stay honest even?

WH: They try to be honest, but it’s very difficult because you have to plan to educate your children. You have to maintain your family, and so that means you need money. And the only way to get money is to agree to this alarmist meme that has dominated climate scientists now for several decades.

HS: Of course it affects climate research. So what is the current state, let’s say, the current state of climate research? What’s the quality of it in your opinion?

WH: Well, I think many of the observational programs in climate science are very good. For example, satellite measurements of Earth’s properties, radiation, cloudiness, temperatures, and ground-based observations. They’re often very high-quality work, very useful, and we’re lucky to have them. There are good programs in both Europe and the United States and Japan, and China is becoming quite important nowadays, too.

I think where there’s still huge problems is in computer modeling. I don’t think most computer models mean anything. It’s a complete waste of money, but that’s what’s driving the public perception. So the public is unable to look at model results, which are not alarming at all. But instead what they see is graphic displays from computer computations which are not tied into observations. So I think the money that’s been spent on computers, and lots of it has been spent, has been mostly wasted.

HS: Let me just understand it correctly because I’ve come to understand that these computer models are something that our current debate or the climate alarm is all based on: That there’s going to be a warming of how many degrees and then the earth is going to be uninhabitable. And you’re saying that those models are not things that something like that should be based on.

WH: The Earth is always either warming or cooling. It’s a rare time when it’s got stable temperature. We’re in a warming phase now. But most of the warming is probably a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age when it was much, much colder all over the world. And it began to warm up in the early 1800s.

And it continued to warm, not very fast. No one knows how long this will last. If you look over the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last glacial period, there have been many warmings and coolings similar to the one that we’re in now.

And I think understanding that is quite important, but that understanding has been put back by many, many years because of the sort of crazed focus on greenhouse gases. It’s pretty clear that greenhouse gases don’t have very much to do with these warmings. Nobody was burning fossil fuels in the year 1200-1300 when the poor Greenlanders were frozen out.

They did some pretty good farming in the southern parts of Greenland in the year 1000, the year 1100. Before long, it became just too cold to continue to do that. The same thing happened in parts of my ancestral country of Scotland. You know, you used to be able to farm the uplands of Scotland, which you can’t farm now, it’s too cold. But they’re warming up at some point, maybe you can farm them again. So anyway, the climate is just famous for being unstable.

HS: Let’s talk about those greenhouse gases. Mainly climate change today in mainstream media or by those alarmist politicians, for example, is attributed to carbon dioxide. If someone has not looked into it, this gas might seem to have something even poisonous. What is carbon dioxide? Do we need it?

WH: Well, first of all, carbon dioxide is at the basis of life on Earth. We live because plants are able to chemically transform carbon dioxide and water into sugar. And a byproduct is the oxygen that we breathe. And so we should all be very grateful that we have carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You know, life would die without carbon dioxide. If you look over the history of… Life on Earth, carbon dioxide has never been very stable in the atmosphere. There have been times in the past when it’s been much, much higher than today. Life flourished with five times more carbon dioxide than we have today.

And there have been times when it’s been much lower, one-half, one-third, and those were actually quite unpleasant times for life. They were the depths of the last ice ages when carbon dioxide levels dropped to below 200 parts per million, quite low compared to today. We’re at around 400. So at the depth of the last ice age, it was about half what it is today. In some of the more verdant periods of geological history, it’s been four times, five times what it is today. So the climate is not terribly sensitive to carbon dioxide. It has some sensitivity to it.

More carbon dioxide will make it a little bit warmer. But carbon dioxide is heavily saturated, to use a technical term. You know, there’s so much in the atmosphere today that if you, for example, could double carbon dioxide, that’s 100% increase, you would only decrease the cooling radiation to space by 1%. So 100% change in carbon dioxide only makes a 1% change in flux. And that’s because of the saturation that I mentioned. And there’s not much you can debate about that. It’s very, very basic physics. It’s the same physics that produces the dark lines of the sun and the stars. So it’s quite well understood.

And so the question is, what temperature change will a 1% change of radiation to space cause? You know, that’s radiation flux, not temperature. And the answer is it will cause an even smaller percentage change of temperature. There’s really no threat from increasing carbon dioxide or any of the other more minor greenhouse gases like methane or nitrous oxide or artificial gases like anesthetic gases. It’s all a made-up scare story.

HS: Where did this scare story come from? Why this fixation on greenhouse gases? If you explain it this way, it seems a bit even absurd to be fixated on these gases all the time.

WH: Well, you know, I’m really good with instruments and differential equations, but I’m not so good at people’s motives. And so I don’t really understand myself exactly how this has happened. I think… There are various motives, some of them fundamentally good. For example, one of the motives has been it’s hard to keep people from fighting with each other, so if we could have a common enemy like a danger to the climate, we could all join forces and defeat climate change, and then we wouldn’t be killing each other off.

So there’s nothing wrong with a motive like that, except that you have to lie.
And so, you know, it’s dangerous to make policy on the basis of lies.

So I don’t know what drives it. It’s a perfect storm of different motives. Lust for power, good motives, lust for peace. All for that. Lust for money. But I’m much more comfortable talking about, as I say, the physics of greenhouse gases and the physics of climate than what drives people.

HS: Yeah, yeah. Well, you have said that this climate change or climate alarmism today is, what was it, you prefer scam, but you are willing to settle with a hoax, is it correct?

WH: Well, this is not too serious, but you know, when someone says hoax, I think of hoax as, to some extent, a practical joke. There’s a certain amount of humor in it. For example, the Piltdown Man was a famous hoax where some brilliant Englishman doctored up a I think it was a chimpanzee skull to make it look like a human skull. And this was not too serious, but lots of learned professors wrote papers about it, you know, and it was all nonsense. But this had no aim to make a lot of money, you know, or to gain power.

It was simply, you know, a great practical joke. That’s a hoax. A scam is different. A scam is where you are deceiving people to enrich yourself, to gain power, you know, and so I think that’s a better description of what’s happening with climate than a hoax. But it’s a small detail, I don’t mind calling it a hoax.

HS: Basically, Professor, there is a lot of money involved in climate change or climate alarmism. Would it be that money is driving this as well or what is your take on that?

Yes, those are trillions of dollars they are projecting.

WH: Well, I think it’s really true that the love of money has been the root of evil as long as humanity has existed. And here we’re talking about trillions of dollars. If you really went to net zero, the economic implications would just be enormous. People would have to lower their standard of living greatly. It would cause enormous damage to the environment. You cover the world with windmills and solar panels. So… And it’s driven by money. Lots of people are making lots of money. So it’s driven by money. It’s driven by power.

And then it’s driven by poor people who fundamentally believe, you know, and that they really have been misled into thinking that there is an emergency. And you have to be sympathetic to them, you know, who wouldn’t want to save the world if the world was in danger? It is not really in danger, but many people are convinced that it’s in danger. But, you know, there’s this old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we’re on the road to hell with net zero.

HS: Yes. Well, like you already mentioned, this crisis is often said to be linked with, for example, extreme weather events. But I don’t know, is it even clear today that we have more extreme weather events because of the warming that is happening? Or is it so?

WH: Well, if you look at the data, there’s not the slightest evidence that there’s more extreme weather today than there was 50 years ago. Even the IPCC, you know, the UN body does not claim that there is an increase in extreme weather. They say there’s really no hard evidence for that. And in fact, the evidence is that it’s about the same as the weather has always been. In my country, for example, the worst weather we had was back in the 1930s when we had the Dust Bowl and, you know… people migrating from Oklahoma to California, you know, it was a terrible time. We’ve not had anything like that since.

HS: Of course, always to talk about floods, always to talk about hurricanes. And as I understand as well, the IPCC is not actually in their scientific reports. They are not actually saying that there are more. But they are saying something, right? So the question here is, what do you think? You have probably looked into them a bit more than I am. So is it solid science what’s in there? Or is it also motivated the IPCC scientific reports, politically motivated, for example?

WH: You know, there’s this saying in the communications business, if it bleeds, it leads. So if you’ve got a newspaper or a television business, you have to look for disasters because that’s what people pay attention to. And so part of the problem has been the mass media, which has to have emergencies, has to have extreme events. And the fact is usually hidden that there’s nothing unusual about an event. They try to deceive you into thinking that this has never happened.

For example, just yesterday they had four or five inches of snow in Corpus Christi, Texas. That’s a lot of snow for Corpus Christi. But, you know, if you look at the records of Corpus Christi, it’s not unusual every 20, 30 years as it happens. It’s been happening for thousands of years. But most people, you know, they’re not even 20 or 30 years of age, and so they’ve never seen this before. So it seems like the world is changing rapidly in front of their eyes, but it’s not changing really at all.

HS: Yes, they can look at it on the television, then it must be true when they are saying that it’s because of climate change, right? So this is the thing. One particular graph that is always talked about when climate is the issue is the famous Michael Mann hockey stick.

The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.

WH: The graph is phony, and that’s been demonstrated by many, many people. It’s even different from the first IPCC graphs. It’s a graph of temperature versus time since about the year 2000. you know, about the year zero, you know, from the time of Christ to today. And what it shows is absolutely no change of temperature until the 20th century when it shoots up like the blade of a hockey stick. So that’s why it’s called the hockey stick curve. So the long, flat… Part of the hockey stick is the unchanging temperature. But that was not in the first IPCC report.

Climate reconstructions of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ 1000-1200 AD. Legend: MWP was warm (red), cold (blue), dry (yellow), wet

The first IPCC report showed that it was much warmer in Northern Europe and United States, North America, in the year 1000 than it is today. There really was a medieval warm period, which was what allowed the Norse to settle in Greenland. and have a century or two of successful agriculture there. It’s never gotten that warm again since. It may happen, but the hockey stick curve basically erased that, so it was… It’s like these Orwellian novels. 1984, there was this… They continued to rewrite history, you know, so what was history yesterday was not history today, you know. So it was rewriting the past. There clearly was a warm period.There is evidence from all around the globe that it was much warmer in the year 1000 than today. We still have not gotten as warm as it was then.

HS: Yes, yes, and the warm period, as I understand, was followed by the Little Ice Age. So 19th century, the warming that started then is actually, it started at the end of this Little Ice Age.

Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age, which was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years, that ended about 150 years ago.

WH: That’s right, that’s right. For example, that’s very clear if you come to Alaska, And look at the Alaska glaciers. In particular, there’s a famous glacier bay in Alaska which was filled with glaciers in the year 1790 when it was first mapped by the British captain Vancouver. the ice came right out to the Pacific.

And already by 1800, it had receded up into the bay. Some of it was melting by 1800. And by 1850, most of the ice was gone. I’m talking about the 1800s, not the 1900s, not the present time. So it’s pretty clear from Glacier Bay that the warming began around the year 1800. And it’s just been steadily warming since then.

HS: I have been shown another graph many times which shows a correlation between the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the temperature rise during the last, let’s say, 150-200 years. Yeah, it’s a correlation, of course, but is there any causation as well? Because you pointed it out as well that there is a warming effect. Carbon dioxide has a warming effect in the atmosphere, but it’s not leading as I understand.

WH: Yeah, that’s correct. You know, you can estimate past CO2 levels by looking at bubbles in ice cores from Antarctica or from Greenland. And you can also estimate past temperatures by looking at the ratios of oxygen isotopes in the ice and the other proxies. So there are these proxy estimates of past CO2 levels and past temperature.

And they are indeed tightly correlated. When their temperature is high, CO2 levels are high, and temperature is low, CO2 levels are low. But if you look at the time dependence, in every case, first the temperature changes and then the CO2 changes. Temperature goes up, a little bit later CO2 goes up.

Temperature goes down, a little bit later CO2 goes down. So they are indeed correlated, but the cause is not CO2, the cause is temperature. So something makes the temperature change and the CO2 is forced to follow. That’s easy to understand. It’s mostly due to CO2 dissolving in the ocean. The solubility of CO2 is very temperature dependent.

So if the world ocean’s cool, they suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if they warm, more CO2 can come back into the atmosphere. So there’s nothing surprising about that. The only surprise is nobody really knows why the temperature changes, but it’s certainly not CO2 causing it to change because the CO2 follows the change.

HS: It doesn’t precede it. Causes have to precede their effects. from the same 2023 presentation that I already mentioned, that I listened. And as a member of Jason in 1982, you were one of the authors of a scientific paper that aimed to measure the effects of CO2 to global warming. The first number you got was too small. Then you just arbitrarily increased it.

WH: You’re asking, the key question is how much warming would be caused if you double carbon dioxide. That’s sometimes called the climate sensitivity or the doubling sensitivity. And the first person to seriously try to calculate that theoretically was your neighbor across the Baltic, Svante Arrhenius. He was a Swede and a very good chemist, and he was interested in this problem. He was the first one to really work on it, and his first paper was written in 1896. So the first climate warming paper was 1896 by Arrhenius, and he estimated that doubling CO2 at that time would warm the earth by around six degrees.

It was a big number. He didn’t know very much, so it was not a bad number given what he knew at the time. As he learned more, he kept bringing that number down, so the last number he published was about four degrees, and it was still going down. So the number that we published was three degrees, this little Jason study. So it was only a little bit smaller than Arrhenius’ number. But that was because neither he nor we really knew enough about how the climate works to get a reliable answer.

And I think the only way to really get a reliable answer is from good observations over long periods of time. And we simply don’t have good enough empirical data right now to know what that is. But I’m pretty sure that doubling CO2 by itself is unlikely to cause warming of more than about one degree Celsius. You know, if you do the simplest calculation, you find that answer, it’s a bit less than one degree for doubling CO2.

And so three degrees, four degrees, the only way to get that is with enormous positive feedbacks. And so that’s what these computer models do that we’ve been talking about. They inject feedbacks in a very obscure way so you can’t figure out what they’ve done. But it’s a supercomputer, so how could it be wrong? It must be right, it’s a computer after all. But nevertheless, it’s giving these absurd positive feedbacks. And most feedbacks in nature are not positive, they’re negative.

There’s even a law called Le Chatelier’s Principle, which is that if you perturb some chemical system or physical system, it has feedbacks. And they try to reduce the perturbation. They don’t try to make it bigger. They try to make it smaller. So climate has turned that completely on its head. It says all feedbacks in climate are positive, and if it’s negative, forget about it. You won’t get your research grant renewed next year if you put that in your proposal. So it’s a mess, and it’s going to take a long time to clean this up.

Of course, if someone is not on the right side of this net zero debate, people are starting calling him names. He’s a climate denier or climate skeptic and so on. But those ad hominem arguments are what are used in the media to shut down the arguments of even scientists. One of them is that if you’re not a climate scientist, you’re not allowed to talk about climate. Well, of course, that’s nonsense. Climate is really all physics and chemistry. And so anyone with a good grounding in physics and chemistry can know as much about climate as a climate scientist.

In general, climate scientists are not well educated. When I look at American universities, maybe it’s better in Estonia, but you go to a class and your education consists on how do you organize a petition to your local legislator. So that’s your knowledge as a climate scientist. You don’t have to learn physics, you don’t have to learn chemistry, you don’t have to learn electromagnetics and radiation transfer. You have to learn how to work the political process. So it’s true that most physicists aren’t very good at that. You know, they’re quite good at physics, but they’re not very good at talking to the Congress or to the president.

HS: Yeah, yeah. So basically, climate science has become something more like a social science in that sense.

WH: Yeah, that’s right. It’s been very heavily politicized. There was something very similar to this in the Soviet Union in the field of biology. There was this Ukrainian agronomist, Lysenko, who… got the ear of the Communist Party and was supported for many decades with just crazy theories about biology, you know, you could grow peaches on the Arctic Circle if you just listen to him. All sorts of nutty things and that there was no such thing as genes, but he had a lot of political support and so he essentially destroyed biology for a generation in the Soviet Union. You know if you taught your class about genes, you know, Mendel’s wrinkled peas and smooth peas, you were lucky if you were only fired, you know, you could have been sent to a concentration camp and several people were condemned to death for teaching about genes. And so I think climate science is a lot more like Lysenkoism than it is normal science.

HS: Yes, well, yes, this is something that we should be able to learn from because this was the Stalin era, this was the craziest time period, absolutely. In Eastern Europe we also know a lot about that and it does seem to me as well that Löschenkism is something that is like gaslighting the public and ostracizing renowned scientists, for example, like yourself. This is something that has been done related to climate science. Or how do you feel that? Do you feel that you have been targeted by those activists, activist politicians or not?

WH: I don’t feel any pain. I don’t pay much attention to them because I have very little respect for them. The people that I respect, most of them agree with me. I’ve personally not suffered from it, perhaps just because I don’t pay attention to it. I’m older, I’m retired, so I’m not dependent on government grants. Younger people could not do this. So people in the middle of their career have a very serious problem because they’ll lose their research funding and they won’t be able to continue their career if they don’t sign up to the alarmist Dogma.

HS: And one of the things how they shut down criticism is simply by stating that 97% of climate scientists are saying that our climate change or global warming, it is anthropogenic and you cannot argue with 97%, can you? What do you think? Is science democracy?

WH: There are some small anthropogenic effects on climate. Any big city, for example, is quite a bit warmer than the countryside. If you go 30 kilometers outside of New York City, it’s cooler. Or any other big city. So those are called urban heat island effects. So it’s clearly caused by people.

But if you look at undisturbed areas far from urban centers, there the climate is doing what it has always done. It’s warmed, it’s cooled, it’s done that many, many times over history. And there’s not the slightest sign of anything different resulting from our generation burning fossil fuels.

My own guess is that fossil fuels may have caused about close to a degree, maybe three-quarters of a degree of warming, but that’s not very much. When I got up this morning, it was minus 10 Celsius. Here in my office, it’s quite a bit warmer. One degree, you can hardly feel it. My air conditioner doesn’t trip on and off at one degree, so it’s not a dangerous increase in temperature. Saving the planet from one and a half degree of warming is just crazy. Who cares about one and a half degree of warming? It won’t be that much anyway. But if it were, it wouldn’t matter.

HS: If the planet warms a bit, is it actually bad to us?

WH: No, of course it’s not bad. For example, I have a backyard garden, and I would welcome another week or two of frost-free growing season in the fall and in the spring. I could have a better garden, and that’s true over much of the world. And if you look at the warming, most of the warming is in high latitudes where it’s cold. It’s where you live in Estonia, where I live in New Jersey. It doesn’t warm in India. It doesn’t warm in the Congo or in the Amazon. Even, you know, the climate models don’t predict that. They predict the warming, when it comes, will be mostly at high latitudes near the poles. And that’s where actually the warming will be good, not bad.

HS: One more question about climate science. It is being told to us that there is a consensus on anthropogenic climate change. And my question actually here is that in science, can there be a consensus? What is a consensus in science even?

WH: Well, I think you know very well that science has nothing to do with consensus. Michael Crichton was very eloquent about this. And if you don’t know about his work, you should read it. But he says when someone uses the word consensus, they’re really talking about politics, not science.

Science is determined by how well your understanding agrees with observations. If you have a theory and it agrees with observations, then the theory is probably right. But it’s right not because everybody, all your friends agree with it, it’s because it agrees with observation. You make a prediction and you do an experiment to see whether the prediction is right. If the experiment confirms it, then the theory is probably okay. It’s not okay because everybody agrees with you that your theory is right. And so that’s what the climate scientists are trying to claim, that science is made by consensus. It’s not made by consensus. There really is a science that is independent of people. There is a reality that could care less what the consensus is. It’s just the way the world works. And that’s real science.

HS: What are your views on energy transition? Should we, you know, stop burning fossil fuels? And why, if so?

WH: Well, of course, we shouldn’t stop burning fossil fuels. We can’t stop, you know. It’s suicide. It’s economic suicide. And more than economic, it’s real suicide. People will die. You know, they tried something like that in Sri Lanka, you know, 15, 20 years ago when the extremist government came in and stopped the use of chemical fertilizer, you know, because it was unnatural. So everyone was supposed to go back to organic farming and the result was that, you know, the rice crop failed, the tea crop failed, you know, the price of food went up, people were starving in the streets. The same thing will happen if we go to net zero.

You can’t run the world without fossil fuels. We’re completely dependent on them, especially for agriculture, but transportation and many other things. There’s nothing bad about them. If you burn them in a responsible way, they cause no harm. They release beneficial carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide really benefits the world. It’s not a pollutant at all.

HS: There is the question of how much longer will fossil fuels last. There is a finite number and for years people have wondered when will they run out and what will we do when we run out of fossil fuels. And so that’s an interesting question that’s worth talking about.

WH: It’s not an immediate problem, but sooner or later it will be a problem. My own guess, we’re talking about a century or two, not decades. But I think our descendants will have to replace fossil fuels, and my guess is that they will make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels. No one has ever discovered a better fuel than a hydrocarbon, you know. We ourselves, you know, store energy as hydrocarbons. You know, the fat on our belly, you know, that’s a hydrocarbon. You know, so it’s really good, you know. So we can make hydrocarbons ourselves from limestone and water if you have enough energy.

There are ways to do that chemically. And so my guess is that in 200 years, that’s the way energy will be… handled. We’ll make it from inorganic carbon, limestone probably, and we’ll burn it the same way we do today. You know, we’ll make synthetic diesel, we’ll make synthetic gasoline, and continue to use internal combustion engines. No one’s invented a better engine than an internal combustion engine.

HS: But what about nuclear energy? What are your thoughts on that?

WH: Well, nuclear energy clearly works. It makes electricity, so you can’t run your automobile on nuclear energy unless you’re stupid enough to buy an electric car. So nuclear has had some of the same problems as fossil fuels. There are these ideological foes of nuclear energy And they have two main arguments. The first argument, and one that does worry me, is that it’s not that difficult to change a nuclear commercial enterprise into a weapon. And nuclear weapons really are very, very dangerous.

So that’s one of the oppositions. But the other is completely phony, is that we can’t handle the waste. That’s not a difficult problem, actually. It’s technically quite easy to handle the waste. For example, at a typical nuclear plant in the United States, there’s a dry cask storage yard, which is not as big as the parking lot. And it’s got a century worth of fuel. It’s perfectly safe. And you could leave it there for several centuries and nothing would happen to it. So there’s no need to process it. You can let it sit there and, you know, in a hundred years, maybe people will regard it as a useful mine for various materials. So nuclear is fine, and I think it will play an important role for a long time in human affairs.

You know, the big dream has always been fusion, nuclear fusion energy, where you combine deuterium and tritium, you know, and make power. That’s turned out to be much, much harder than we ever thought it would be. But my guess is it’s a problem that will eventually be solved.

Someone will have a really good new idea about how to do it. If we keep smart people working on it, someone will figure out how to do it. So I’m optimistic about the future for energy. I think humanity is going to do fine if they don’t self-destruct.

HS: Well, Professor, to kind of sum up, I would like to ask you about what is, in your opinion, what are the real problems? As I understand, and I tend to agree with you, climate change currently at least is not a real problem for humanity. But probably there are some. And what is your feeling? What are they?

Well, the problem has always been living together. How do you keep humanity from self-destructing? And that’s why I have some sympathy for the climate alarmists. They thought that having climate as a common enemy would be one way to prevent this. So you have to admit that that’s not such a bad motive.

I don’t think it’s true. I don’t think it will work. I think it’s worse than nothing. But I guess the question is how do we keep people in a civilized society indefinitely? And As I said, I’m a lot better with differential equations and instruments than I am with this sort of a question. But just speaking personally, I think everybody should have a feeling that they’re doing something significant with their lives. So I think anything we can do in society is to let young people feel like they’re significant and they’re doing something worthwhile and useful it would be good for the whole world.

It Must Be Climate Change

Posted on February 15, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Prager U video can be seen at this link: https://www.prageru.com/video/it-must-be-climate-change

Transcript is below in italics with my bolds and some added images.

Have you noticed that every extreme weather event is blamed on climate change formerly known as global warming?

Every. . . Single. . .One.

Can you think of an exception?

Too hot — climate change. Too cold – climate change.

Previously, cold spells were termed “Weather” in contrast to “Global Warming.” Now it’s all “Climate Change.”

Drought – climate change. Too much rainfall – climate change.

And there’s always a climate scientist at some university who’s willing to make a statement blaming the current catastrophe on our profligate use of fossil fuel.

Some years ago, on The Late Show with David Letterman, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow made the definitive statement on this issue. She said, “I think global warming probably means extreme weather events of all kinds.” Naturally, Dave agreed.

What’s behind all these confident assertions?

As a PhD in geochemistry, former member of the University of Alabama Department of Geological Sciences and someone who has written and lectured widely on the subject of climate and geology, I can tell you that it comes down to two things:

Obscure metrics and highly speculative models.

Mix these ingredients together and voila! You can get any result you want. The scarier, of course, the better. “Torrential rain” makes a much better headline than “heavy rain.”

To show you how this works, let’s look at a recent example.

Here’s the assertion: Climate change is making air turbulence more volatile and thus air travel more dangerous.

Scary, right? But is it true? No. Not if we look at the observable data; that is, hard data we can easily verify.

Here’s a chart of the number of turbulence-related accidents in the US from 1989 to 2018.

Despite the rise in annual US airline passengers from about 400 million in 1989 to nearly one billion by 2018, turbulence-related accidents have remained constant. If climate change were indeed making turbulence significantly worse, we would expect to see a corresponding increase in these accidents.

Yet, the data does not support this assertion. Instead, it suggests that the relationship between turbulence and climate change is either negligible or nonexistent.

In fact, the co-author of the original study cited in a BBC article admitted as much.

“When we add [data back to 2002] to the previous results, the statistical significance assigned to the…North Atlantic winter jet stream…disappears.”

This was conveniently left out of the BBC article.

This disconnect between obscure metrics and highly speculative models, and observable data is not limited to turbulence.

The broader climate crisis narrative is built on similar shaky foundations.

Let’s look at three more examples.

No Increase in Extreme Weather: The number of hydrological, meteorological, and climatological disasters has remained relatively flat since 2000. If climate change were causing more extreme weather events, we would expect to see a clear increase in these numbers. Instead, the data, again, reflects no such increase.

No Increase in Loss of Life: Deaths from meteorological, hydrological, and climatological disasters have not increased. This is a critical metric because it directly reflects the human impact of these events. Despite frequent claims that climate change is making weather more deadly, the data does not bear this out.

No Increase in Costs: Global weather losses as a percent of global GDP have not risen significantly. This is another crucial metric because it accounts for the economic impact of climate-related disasters. If climate change were truly making these events more severe, we would expect to see a rising trend in economic losses relative to global GDP.

We are left with this conclusion:

The reliance on obscure metrics and highly speculative models
to support the climate crisis narrative often serves
to cloud the truth rather than illuminate it.

By focusing on projections and models rather than observable data, environmental activists, climate scientists, attention-seeking politicians and click bait media make claims that are difficult to verify and easy to manipulate.

The fear that fuels the “climate crisis” is simply not justified by the data. That’s why — over and over again — end-of-the-world predictions don’t pan out.

This does not mean that we should ignore environmental issues. We live on the same planet. We all want clean air and water.

However, it does mean that we should approach claims of climate catastrophe with a healthy dose of skepticism and demand that assertions be backed up by observable, measurable data. Given that politicians and government agencies are spending tens of billions of our tax dollars every year to “save the planet” that would seem to be the least they could do: give us some hard facts, rather than unproven assertions.

And the hard facts are, turbulence-related accidents have not increased despite a massive rise in airline passengers. Extreme weather events, loss of life, and economic costs have not shown the dramatic increases that alarmists would have us believe.

By focusing on observable data we can have a more grounded, rational discussion about our environmental challenges and how best to address them.

That’s the way to practical, real-world solutions. The blame game — “it’s climate change” — gets us nowhere.

I’m Matthew Wielicki for Prager University.

No, Grist, MSN, et al: CO2 Is Not Making Oceans Boil

Posted on February 3, 2025 by Ron Clutz

The Climate Crisis media network is announcing a new claim that rising CO2 is causing recent ocean warming, proving it’s dangerous and must be curtailed. Examples in the last few days include these:

Finally, an answer to why Earth’s oceans have been on a record hot streak Grist

Ocean warming 4 times faster than in 1980s — and likely to accelerate in coming decades MSN

News spotlight: Fossil fuels behind extreme ocean temperatures, study says. Conservation International

Ocean temperature rise accelerating as greenhouse gas levels keep rising UK Natural History Museum

The surface of our oceans is now warming four times faster than it was in the late 1980s The Independent UK

Oceans Are Warming Four Times Faster as Earth Traps More Energy Bloomberg Law News

All this hype deriving from one study,
and ignoring the facts falsifying that narrative.

Fact: Historically, ocean natural oscillations drive observed global warming.

The long record of previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby. These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event. The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4. This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C. Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C. Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate. On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles.

Fact: Recent rise in SST was driven by ENSO and N. Atlantic Anomalies.

And now in 2024 we have seen an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping below its peak.

The chart below shows SST monthly anomalies as reported in HadSST4 starting in 2015 through December 2024. A global cooling pattern is seen clearly in the Tropics since its peak in 2016, joined by NH and SH cycling downward since 2016, followed by rising temperatures in 2023 and 2024.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

Note that in 2015-2016 the Tropics and SH peaked in between two summer NH spikes. That pattern repeated in 2019-2020 with a lesser Tropics peak and SH bump, but with higher NH spikes. By end of 2020, cooler SSTs in all regions took the Global anomaly well below the mean for this period. A small warming was driven by NH summer peaks in 2021-22, but offset by cooling in SH and the tropics, By January 2023 the global anomaly was again below the mean.

Now in 2023-24 came an event resembling 2015-16 with a Tropical spike and two NH spikes alongside, all higher than 2015-16. There was also a coinciding rise in SH, and the Global anomaly was pulled up to 1.1°C last year, ~0.3° higher than the 2015 peak. Then NH started down autumn 2023, followed by Tropics and SH descending 2024 to the present. After 10 months of cooling in SH and the Tropics, the Global anomaly came back down, led by NH cooling the last 4 months from its peak in August. It’s now about 0.1C higher than the average for this period. Note that the Tropical anomaly has cooled from 1.29C in 2024/01 to 0.66C as of 2024/12.

Fact: Empirical measurements show ocean warms the air, not the other way around.

One can read convoluted explanations about how rising CO2 in the atmosphere can cause land surface heating which is then transported over the ocean and causes higher SST. But the interface between ocean and air is well described and measured. Not surprisingly it is the warmer ocean water sending heat into the atmosphere, and not the other way around.

The graph displays measures of heat flux in the sub-tropics during a 21-day period in November. Shortwave solar energy shown above in green labeled radiative is stored in the upper 200 meters of the ocean. The upper panel shows the rise in SST (Sea Surface Temperature) due to net incoming energy. The yellow shows latent heat cooling the ocean, (lowering SST) and transferring heat upward, driving convection. [From An Investigation of Turbulent Heat Exchange in the Subtropics by James B. Edson]

As we see in the graphs ocean circulations change sea surface temperatures which then cause global land and sea temperatures to change. Thus, oceans make climate by making temperature changes.

Fact: On all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia, temperature changes first and CO2 changes follow.

Previously I have demonstrated that changes in atmospheric CO2 levels follow changes in Global Mean Temperatures (GMT) as shown by satellite measurements from University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). That background post is included in the posting referenced later below.

My curiosity was piqued by the remarkable GMT spike starting in January 2023 and rising to a peak in April 2024, and then declining afterward. I also became aware that UAH has recalibrated their dataset due to a satellite drift that can no longer be corrected. The values since 2020 have shifted slightly in version 6.1, as shown in my recent report Ocean Leads Cooling UAH December 2024.

I tested the premise that temperature changes are predictive of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The chart above shows the two monthly datasets: CO2 levels in blue reported at Mauna Loa, and Global temperature anomalies in purple reported by UAHv6.1, both through December 2024. Would such a sharp increase in temperature be reflected in rising CO2 levels, according to the successful mathematical forecasting model? Would CO2 levels decline as temperatures dropped following the peak?

The answer is yes: that temperature spike resulted
in a corresponding CO2 spike as expected.
And lower CO2 levels followed the temperature decline.

Above are UAH temperature anomalies compared to CO2 monthly changes year over year.

Changes in monthly CO2 synchronize with temperature fluctuations, which for UAH are anomalies now referenced to the 1991-2020 period. CO2 differentials are calculated for the present month by subtracting the value for the same month in the previous year (for example December 2024 minus December 2023). Temp anomalies are calculated by comparing the present month with the baseline month. Note the recent CO2 upward spike and drop following the temperature spike and drop.

Summary

Changes in CO2 follow changes in global temperatures on all time scales, from last month’s observations to ice core datasets spanning millennia. Since CO2 is the lagging variable, it cannot logically be the cause of temperature, the leading variable. It is folly to imagine that by reducing human emissions of CO2, we can change global temperatures, which are obviously driven by other factors.

12/2024 Update–As Temperature Changes, CO2 Follows

Koonin: Reckless Claim of Climate Emergency

Posted on January 17, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Transcript

Hubris is a Greek word that means dangerously overconfident. Based on my research, hubris fairly describes our current response to the issue of climate change.

Here’s what many people believe:

One: The planet is warming catastrophically because of certain human behaviors.
Two: Thanks to powerful computers we can project what the climate will be like
20, 40, or even 100 years from now.
Three: That if we eliminate just one behavior, the burning of fossil fuels,
we can prevent the climate from changing for as long we like.

Each of these presumptions—together, the basis of our hubris regarding the changing climate—is either untrue or so far off the mark as to be useless.

Yes, it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it. But beyond that, to paraphrase a line from the classic movie The Princess Bride, “I do not think ‘The Science’ says what you think it says.”

For example, government reports state clearly that heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900.

Hurricane activity is no different than it was a century ago.

Floods have not increased across the globe over more than seventy years.

Source: Voice of International Affairs

Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was 80 years ago.

Why aren’t these reassuring facts better known?

Because the public gets its climate information almost exclusively from the media.

And from a media perspective, fear sells.

“Things aren’t that bad” doesn’t sell.

Very few people, and that includes journalists who report on climate news, read the actual science. I have. And what the data—the hard science—from the US government and UN Climate reports say is that… “things aren’t that bad.”

Nor does the public understand the questionable basis of all catastrophic climate change projections: computer modeling.

Projecting future climate is excruciatingly difficult. Yes, there are human influences, but the climate is complex. Anyone who says that climate models are “just physics” either doesn’t understand them or is being deliberately misleading. I should know: I wrote one of the first textbooks on computer modeling.

While modelers base their assumptions upon both fundamental physical laws and observations of the climate, there is still considerable judgment involved. And since different modelers will make different assumptions, results vary widely among different models.

Let’s just take one simple, but significant assumption modelers must make: the impact of clouds on the climate.

Natural fluctuations in the height and coverage of clouds have at least as much of an impact on the flows of sunlight and heat as do human influences. But how can we possibly know global cloud coverage say 10, let alone 50 years from now? Obviously, we can’t. But to create a climate model, we have to make assumptions. That’s a pretty shaky foundation on which to transform the world’s economy.

By the way, creating more accurate models isn’t getting any easier. In fact, the more we learn about the climate system, the more we realize how complex it is.

Rather than admit this complexity, the media, the politicians, and a good portion of the climate science community attribute every terrible storm, every flood, every major fire to “climate change.” Yes, we’ve always had these weather events in the past, the narrative goes, but somehow “climate change” is making everything “worse.”

Even if that were true, isn’t the relevant question, how much worse? Not to mention that “worse” is not exactly a scientific term. And how would we make it better? For the alarmists, that’s easy: we get rid of fossil fuels.

Not only is this impractical—we get over 80% of the world’s energy from fossil fuels—it’s not scientifically possible. That’s because CO2 doesn’t disappear from the atmosphere in a few days like, say, smog. It hangs around for a really long time.

About 60 percent of any CO2 that we emit today will remain in the atmosphere 20 years from now, between 30 and 55 percent will still be there after a century, and between 15 and 30 percent will remain after one thousand years.

In other words, it takes centuries for the excess carbon dioxide to vanish from the atmosphere. So, any partial reductions in CO2 emissions would only slow the increase in human influences—not prevent it, let alone reverse it.

CO2 is not a knob that we can just turn down to fix everything. We don’t have that ability. To think that we do is… hubris.

Hubris leads to bad decisions. A little humility and
a little knowledge would lead to better ones.

I’m Steve Koonin, former Undersecretary for Science in the Obama Administration, and author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, for Prager University.

Addendum Fossil Fuels and Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) Climate Science

Professors Lindzen, Happer and Koonin CO2 Coalition Paper April 2024

I. THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHG EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”

A. CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth
B. More CO2, Including CO2 from Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food.
C. More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas.
D. Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death
E. Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels
F. “Net Zeroing” Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by Eliminating Nitrogen Fertilizer

II. THE IPCC IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND THUS ONLY ISSUES GOVERNMENT OPINIONS, NOT SCIENCE

III. SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS, CO2 AND OTHER GHGs WILL NOT CAUSE CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER

A. Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data
B. The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.
C. 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.
D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.
E. The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels, CO2 and Other GHGs is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid

Good Reasons to Distrust Climatists

Posted on January 14, 2025 by Ron Clutz

The most recent case of climatists’ bad behavior is the retraction of a peer-reviewed paper analyzing the properties of CO2 as an IR active gas, concluding that additional levels of atmospheric CO2 will have negligible effect on temperatures. From the Daily Sceptic:

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Below are some comments responding to a Quora question, text in italics with my bolds and added images:

What are some reasons why some people do not believe in climate change or global warming despite scientific evidence? Is there any additional information that could help us understand their perspective?

Answer from Mike Jonas, M.A. in Mathematics, Oxford University, UK,

Good scientists do not lie and cheat to protect their science, they are happy to discuss their evidence and their findings, and they always understand that everything needs to be replicable and verifiable.

When Climategate erupted on the scene, and the climate scientists behind the man-made global warming narrative were found to have lied and cheated, all honest scientists thought that would be the end of it. Instead, what happened was that those climate scientists closed ranks and carried on, supported by a massive amount of government (ie, the public’s) money. One of the first things they did was to deflect Climategate by saying the emails involved had been hacked so should be ignored, but some of the people involved confirmed that all of the emails really were genuine.

It has been about 15 years since Climategate, and study after study has shown virtually all of the components of the man-made global warming narrative to be incorrect, even that none of the computer models used by the IPCC are fit for purpose,

And yet they maintained their closed ranks,
and the government money kept pouring in.

Did you know that the IPCC does not do any research (please do check that, on their web page About – IPCC they state “The IPCC does not conduct its own research”). It is, as its name says, an inter-governmental organisation, and it is run by and for governments. They say lots of persuasive sciency things, but the simple fact is that they cherry-pick and corrupt the science to achieve their ends. Regrettably, almost all the scientific societies are on the gravy train too. This is part of what the highly respected physicist Professor Hal Lewis said in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (APS):

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge?
It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

If you want to find out more about this “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud”, the website Watts Up With That? is a good place to start (the fraudsters absolutely hate it), and it links to many other good websites. It has the full text of Hal Lewis’ resignation letter at:

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history

Answer from Susannah Moyer

It’s curious that climate science is the rare scientific field where dissenting scientists, those with contrarian views, are unwelcome and even ostracized.

There are some well known climate scientists that have doubts about the role of CO2 and man made global warming as it pertains to global temperature. They have raised the issue that computer generated prediction models have been inaccurate in predicting temperature patterns because the modeling requires assumptions that have not been shown to be accurate.

Here is a contrarian view from climate scientists who have published climate research results in Nature, which is no small feat:

McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

It is not a known fact by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years.

“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

Another questioner, Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Firstly, even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Another group questioning what some consider “settled science”:

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society (APS), from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue?

There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question
“cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

World Institutions Pushing Pseudoscience

Posted on January 11, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Since 1660, Nullius in verba was the Royal Society’s motto. “Don’t take anyone’s word for it.”

Yesterday’s post showed how American science societies have taken to parroting climatist suppositions rather than applying critical intelligence to claims of a “climate crisis.” That unquestioning attitude betrays the science method expressed in the Royal Society’s motto. Today presents Tilak Doshi describing how the same pattern appears in international institutions supposed to be objective reporters of natural conditions. His Daily Signal article is The Climate Agenda’s March Through the Institutions: Can It Be Stopped? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

A spate of stories in the media recently provides a remarkable illustration of how the globalist policy agenda of the climate-industrial complex has captured key international institutions and perverted their original organizational aims. From initially serving broad, laudable objectives for the welfare of their constituents, these institutions have been subverted over the years to serve the insistent pseudoscientific claims of climate alarmists.

The corruption of global institutions has, in turn, led to significant opposition that is becoming apparent. There is the prospect of an incoming Trump administration that is avowedly skeptical of the claims of an alleged climate crisis and is intent on exiting the U.N.’s Paris Agreement and its “net zero by 2050” policy target for a second time. This presents a welcome challenge to these corrupt institutions.

Will President Donald Trump and some of the populist parties in Europe
be capable of countering the entrenched globalist climate agenda?

The World Bank

On Oct. 17, Oxfam published a report that shockingly found that up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance—nearly 40% of all climate funds disbursed by the World Bank over the past seven years—is “unaccounted for between the time projects were approved and when they closed.” In other words, no one knows how the money was used. There is no paper trail revealing where the money went or what the accomplished results were.

Green cronyism, ranging from the Solyndra debacle—the waste of almost half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money on a failed solar farm project under President Barack Obama’s watch—to President Joe Biden’s duplicitously-named Inflation Reduction Act, which will unleash an estimated $1 trillion deluge of subsidies on favored “green” industries, is nothing new. But it is instructive to trace the World Bank’s decline from its honorable founding objectives to its current status as yet another institution advocating green causes.

Dr. Jim Yong Kim, reflecting the progressive virtues of Obama, who appointed him as president of the World Bank in 2012, imposed a ban on the financing of coal-fired power stations in 2013. This was followed by a ban on investments in all new upstream oil and gas resource development projects.

The distinguished economist Deepak Lal, a former research administrator of the World Bank, remarked that Kim incredulously “over-ruled the cost-benefit estimates of coal-based power over solar and wind-based power generation produced by his own economic staff, justifying this by reference to a wish to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.”

The World Bank’s objections to the use of fossil fuels despite their importance to economic growth and poverty alleviation—which constitute its foundational institutional objectives—can be traced to the intellectual evolution of its management under James Wolfensohn during his decade as president (1995-2005).

Wolfensohn traced the arc from the old regime to the new. The old was represented by the “Washington consensus” of free markets, liberal trading regimes, sound money, and entrepreneurship associated with the classical liberalism of Adam Smith.

The new intellectual environment of the World Bank’s management—personified by Joseph Stiglitz, chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000)—was defined by the theoretical failures of the free market, especially in accounting for the alleged negative climate impacts of fossil fuel use.

Stiglitz, a climate alarmist, wrote in a 2015 court brief for a failed climate lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of children against the U.S. federal government that “fossil fuel-based economies imposed ‘incalculable’ costs on society and shifting to clean energy will pay off.” [See Climatists Make Their Case by Omitting Facts]

Rupert Darwall, a former adviser to the United Kingdom’s chancellor of the exchequer and author of “Green Tyranny,” encapsulates the betrayal of the World Bank to its founding objectives as follows:

The World Bank’s mission has been subverted by green ideologues who assert that a low-carbon world benefits the world’s poor but fail to acknowledge that making energy much more costly increases poverty. The World Bank tags itself as ‘working for a world free of poverty’ … In making its choice between development and sustainability, the World Bank has decided it is going to try and ‘save the planet’ on the backs of the poor.

Yes, those are trillions of US$ they want to spend on an imaginary crisis.

By abdicating its founding principles for alleviating global poverty, the World Bank has taken a lead role among multilateral financial institutions in denying vast financial resources to poorer countries. It has hypocritically vetoed the right of developing countries to adopt the path of economic growth and environmental improvement that the now-rich countries had taken up successfully since the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago. The World Bank’s obsessive support for intermittent, low-yield renewable energy such as solar and wind power comes at the cost of its central charter to help the poor, an outcome that can only be described as egregiously unjust.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The U.N. IPCC issued a news release on Dec. 6 prior to the start of a “scoping” meeting in Kuala Lumpur of over 230 experts from 70 countries to draft outlines of working group contributions to the U.N. IPCC’s seventh Assessment Report (to be completed in 2029).

In the press release, the IPCC claimed that human combustion of fossil fuels “has resulted in more frequent and more intense extreme weather events that have caused increasingly dangerous impacts on nature and people in every region of the world.” This is contrary to the IPCC’s position hitherto, which is that almost all types of extreme weather events cannot be attributed with confidence to human activity.

The position of the IPCC regarding the lack of any link between climate change and extreme weather events is contrary to the almost daily headlines in the mainstream media attributing specific adverse weather events to “climate change.”

The work of eminent climate policy analysts Steve Koonin and Roger Pielke Jr. has done much to expose the pseudoscientific nature of what has been called “attribution studies.” These typically involve researchers who apply their climate models and historical observations to conclude that any particular weather event (say a hurricane or a drought) was made “more likely” or “more severe” by some magnitude in percentage units due to “human influence” (referring to the combustion of fossil fuels).

Based on the dubious claims of “attribution science,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a climate law last week that will require companies operating in New York state responsible for large amounts of planet-warming pollution to contribute to climate damage repair efforts. Under the new state law, companies responsible for the bulk of emissions from 2000 to 2018 will be on the hook for some $3 billion a year over the next 25 years.

Koonin cites the World Meteorological Organization that states that “any single event, such as tropical cyclone cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change, given the state of scientific understanding.” The IPCC’s “Special Report on Extreme Events” states that “Many weather and climate extremes are the result of natural climate variability … Even if there were no anthropogenic changes in climate, a wide variety of natural weather and climate extremes would still occur.”

Nonetheless, international organizations such as the World Bank and the IPCC have been increasingly politicized to serve climate hysteria. In this context, Chris Morrison of The Daily Sceptic finds that “[f]ears are growing that the IPCC could water down or even ditch its current finding that almost all types of extreme weather events have little or no sign of past human involvement, or any going forward to 2100.”

International Energy Agency

On Dec. 23, U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., ranking member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, released a report documenting how the International Energy Agency “has moved away from its energy security mission to become an “energy transition” cheerleader.”

The report finds that “French President [Emmanuel] Macron’s observation that IEA has become the ‘armed wing for implementing the Paris Agreement’ is regrettably true. With the many serious energy security challenges facing the world, however, IEA should not be a partisan cheerleader. What the world needs from IEA—and what it is not receiving now—is sober and unbiased analyses and projections that educate and inform policymakers and investors. IEA needs to remember why it was established and return to its energy security mission.”

The divergence of the IEA away from its original mission to advise policymakers in its member countries with sound analysis of trends in global energy supply and demand to becoming a “cheerleader” for radical net-zero emission policy targets has not gone unnoticed over recent years. I have written on the ideological approach adopted by the IEA in its advocacy for green causes here, here, and here.

When ideological advocacy becomes the measure of achievement for the IEA, the loss of credibility and soundness of its policy advice is only to be expected. The IEA’s messianic fervour for green technologies such as solar and wind power, “green” hydrogen, batteries, and electric vehicles prevents it from asking basic questions.

If it is true that drastically cutting back on fossil fuels is consistent with higher economic growth and increased productive employment, why does the IEA recommend policymakers force countries along “net-zero” pathways? Surely, if replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar energy and electric vehicles promotes growth and employment, then wouldn’t countries such as China and India naturally race toward this best of all possible worlds without expensive green subsidies and punitive anti-fossil fuel policies?

The Trumpian Revolution Looms

Nonprofit organizations reflect the needs of their funding members, and organizations such as the World Bank, IPCC, and IEA are no different. As their funding is primarily from the U.S. and the EU, it is not surprising that they manifest the “climate emergency” predilections of the Biden administration and the largely left-socialist West European governments that see climate change as an existential threat and a national security priority. In taking up the mantle of green advocacy on behalf of their paymasters, these organizations have lost all credibility as independent and objective advisors for their member countries.

The climate-industrial complex fears the prospect of the Trump administration’s pullout of the Paris Agreement for the second time. Politico, a reliable mouthpiece for the climate establishment, expressed these fears soon after Trump’s election victory: “The world is bracing for President-elect Donald Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement for the second time—only this time, he could move faster and with less restraint.” In Europe, the emergence of populist parties has been partly propelled by the widespread rejection by EU citizens of the onerous fiscal burdens imposed by green policies.

The seismic change in policy direction that a second term “drill, baby, drill” Trump administration promises for the global climate juggernaut—represented by the three leading international agencies covered here—can only be seen as hopeful as we look forward to positive developments in energy policy in 2025.

Sorting (Again) Climate and Weather Changes

Posted on January 6, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Brian C. Joondeph asks in his American Thinker Article When Did Changing Weather Become Climate Change? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

What’s the difference between weather and climate? Let’s ask the expert class, the governmental National Weather Service.

Weather is defined as the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, with respect to variables such as temperature, moisture, wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure.

Climate is defined as the expected frequency of specific states of the atmosphere, ocean, and land, including variables such as temperature, salinity, soil moisture, wind speed and direction, and current strength and direction. It encompasses the weather over different periods of time and also relates to mutual interactions between the components of the earth system (e.g., atmospheric composition, volcanic eruptions, changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun, and changes in the energy from the sun itself).

That’s a mouthful, a typical governmental explanation. Simply put, weather is short-term, meaning days or a few weeks, while climate is long-term, meaning years, centuries, or longer. [Comment: I prefer a baseball analogy: Weather is like the batter swinging in the box, and climate is the batting statistics, hits, walks, RBIs etc.]

It’s sunny and unseasonably warm where I am today, but a week ago, it was snowy and unseasonably cold. A climate warrior might label the former as global warming, the latter as global cooling, or the composite as climate change. A rational person would call it weather.

The United Nations (UN) defines climate change,

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

The first sentence is undeniably true. The Great Lakes were once covered by mile-thick ice sheets that disappeared when the glaciers retreated 10,000 years ago. This is not long ago, considering the Earth’s 4.5 billion-year age.

Somehow, the climate cooled and warmed long before any significant human activity existed. And how many additional times did this happen in the past 4.5 billion years?

But the UN believes humans are the “main driver of climate change” since the 1800s, not explaining how climate changed so drastically 10,000 years ago to melt a mile-thick ice sheet during a time of minuscule human activity.

The UN relies on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that reports in a scary fashion,

Many of the changes observed in the climate are unprecedented in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, and some of the changes already set in motion—such as continued sea level rise—are irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years.

Is today’s climate “unprecedented”? Do they know the temperatures hundreds of thousands of years ago? They should, as this data is readily available, published in the prestigious journal Science.

Researchers reconstructed global mean surface temperature using data assimilation, integrating geological data with climate model simulations. They discovered that “the Earth’s temperature has varied more dynamically than previously thought.”

PhanDA global mean surface temperature across the last 485 million years. The gray shading corresponds to different confidence levels, and the black line shows the average solution. The colored bands along the top reflect the climate state, with cooler colors indicating icehouse (coolhouse and coldhouse) climates, warmer colors indicating greenhouse (warmhouse and hothouse) climates, and the gray representing a transitional state. Source: Judd et al 2024

Today’s global temperature is low. It was last this cold 300 million years ago. According to the chart, Planet Earth has been cooling for the past 50 million years. Any man-made warming would be helpful now.

Scientists should know better, as should corporate media.
But obviously, they don’t.

I reference a few articles from this year in The Guardian, a two-hundred-year-old British newspaper considered a “newspaper of record in the UK” (along with the London Times), much like The New York Times in America. As a British newspaper, the Guardian has observed climate change firsthand, reporting on it cooling, then warming, then cooling again.

Another record is the recent (in geological terms) history of the Thames River. Between 1309 and 1814, it froze at least 23 times. There was a “frost fair” in 1608 when the river froze for over six weeks.

What caused this freeze? London’s activity in the 1600s was mainly overcrowding, disease, and crime, not air conditioners, internal combustion engines, and backyard grills.

More recently, the river froze over in 1963 and again partially in 2021. This seems to be normal cyclic climate change, far from the “man-made global warming” the UN and IPCC warn about.

The Guardian ran two stories this year without a bit of irony. In February of this year, their headline was “What will Spain look like when it runs out of water? Barcelona is giving us a glimpse.” In October, the new headline was “Spain floods: number killed passes 150 as scientists say climate change ‘most likely explanation’ – as it happened.”

From running out of water to flooding, all within a few months. It’s dry, then it’s wet. It’s cold, then it’s warm. And vice versa. It’s also normal. But The Guardian wants it both ways. It’s all climate change, in their view.

A month ago, the paper wrote, “Spain’s deadly floods and droughts are two faces of the climate crisis coin.” In other words, all forms of weather are climate change.

CNN wants it both ways, too. In December 2023, it ran a headline, “Winter is here, but it’s losing its cool.” One year later, without a bit of irony or introspection, it reversed itself with this headline, “It’s about to get dangerously cold, even for winter.”

Much like racism, when everything is considered racist, then nothing is. The same is true for climate change. Psychologists call this confirmation bias,

People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

It is also hubris to believe that we can predict, much less control, the climate. The IPCC readily admits, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore, the long-term prediction of future climate states is impossible.”

Yet Al Gore, Greta Thunberg, John Kerry, and other “climate experts” claim to know exactly how many years it will be until the Earth is uninhabitable.

Speaking of Al Gore, I recommend Joel Gilbert’s new film, “The Climate According to AI Al Gore,” where Joel interviews an AI Gore, debunking Gore’s conviction, expertise, and the entire climate emergency of the left.

To the fearmongering, climate-catastrophizing left, it’s all humans’ fault, and with ever-increasing command-and-control diktats, rules, regulations, and taxes, we can affect forces beyond our comprehension and control.

The climate is indeed changing—it always has and always will. Temperatures will likely rise from their current 500 million-year low regardless of what the so-called experts, activists, or any world government agencies say or do.

In their attempts to regulate and tinker with Mother Nature, they may inadvertently destroy everything they are attempting to save—unless that’s the plan.

Previous Post: Corrupting Climate and Weather

An article at The Spectator raises the question Do alarmists know the difference between weather and climate? The author Charles Moore may also be a man for all seasons like Sir Thomas More. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

A lot of clever people are putting the ‘green’ into ‘greenbacks’

Until recently, those expressing skepticism about climate change catastrophe have been hauled over the coals (or the renewables equivalent) for not understanding the difference between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’. The lack of global warming at the beginning of the 21st century was not to be taken, chided the warmists, as evidence that climate change was not happening. Weather was the passing phenomenon of each day: climate was the real, deep thing.

Now, however, the alarmists themselves have elided the two concepts, using the Australian bush fires as their cue. As Sir David Attenborough puts it: ‘The moment of crisis has come’. They could be right, of course, but how could they really know? In this sense, President Trump is surely justified in warning, at Davos, against the ‘Prophets of Doom’. Prophecy is a different skill from an exact understanding of the here and now.

Mr Trump might usefully have talked about the Profits of Doom too. If the movement can persuade western society that the climate emergency is upon us, there are enormous sums to be made by people who claim to be able to remedy it. Hence the patter now coming out of companies such as Blackrock, BP or Microsoft, fanned by Mammon’s public intellectuals, such as Mark Carney. A lot of clever people are putting the ‘green’ into ‘greenbacks’. A lot of less clever investors are going to get their fingers burnt.

Footnote: Case in Point: Green Fraudsters Plead Guilty

Jeff Carpoff, 49, of Martinez, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. His wife, Paulette Carpoff, 46, pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and money laundering. According to court documents, between 2011 and 2018, DC Solar manufactured mobile solar generator units (MSG), solar generators that were mounted on trailers that were promoted as able to provide emergency power to cellphone towers and lighting at sporting events. A significant incentive for investors were generous federal tax credits due to the solar nature of the MSGs.

The conspirators pulled off their scheme by selling solar generators that did not exist to investors, making it appear that solar generators existed in locations that they did not, creating false financial statements, and obtaining false lease contracts, among other efforts to conceal the fraud. In reality, at least half of the approximately 17,000 solar generators claimed to have been manufactured by DC Solar did not exist.

“By all outer appearances this was a legitimate and successful company,” said Kareem Carter, Special Agent in Charge IRS Criminal Investigation. “But in reality it was all just smoke and mirrors — a Ponzi scheme touting tax benefits to the tune of over $900 million. IRS CI is committed to investigating those who take advantage and impact the financial well-being of others for their own personal gain.”

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of Inspector General (FDIC-OIG) is pleased to join our law enforcement colleagues in announcing these guilty pleas,” stated Special Agent in Charge Wade Walters for the FDIC OIG San Francisco Regional Office. “The defendants conspired with others to create a fraudulent business venture that duped unsuspecting entities, including banks, to invest approximately $1 billion, which the two later used to support a lavish lifestyle.

Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/27/dc-solar-owners-plead-guilty-to-largest-ponzi-scheme-in-eastern-california-history/

Simpleton’s Guide to Climate Alarmist Protests

Posted on January 5, 2025 by Ron Clutz

Rex Murphy wrote a National Post article in 2023 The simpleton’s guide to climate alarmist protest. Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Glue yourself to a masterpiece or throw paint on a building.
If that doesn’t hold off climate Armageddon, what will?

The quality of truth in an existential cause may be measured by the quality of the intellects of its most committed followers. Allow me to illustrate.

Imagine the fumings of a climate alarmist. Here, a representation of what goes on in the alarmist mind.

The world is in deep imminent threat.

It may end.

Our beautiful, blue, penguin-marching-David Attenborough-marble may be no more.

All life will disappear. Farewell soy milk. Farewell shocking pink hair dye. Farewell all.

Climate activists in front of police officers during the Extinction Rebellion protest in London [Henry Nicholls/Reuters]

What can I do?

Why, I can call out from every hollow my comrade eco-warriors. Come in a black mask, or strip to your unsightly nudity when you get there, will be the summons.

And what is the plan that I and my fellow eco-doomsters have to avert planetary extinction?

We are, above all, strategists and tacticians. We know what earns quality
and never-challenged coverage on NPR and festivals of authentication from CBC.

Protesters march on Russell Street in Melbourne, Australia [Darrian Traynor/Getty Images]

That is why we organize the type of protests that we do. Direct actions and exhibitionist displays — stripping down at awards shows — that speak to the farmer, the logger, the fisherman, the movie star falling from favour, or the sad professor who does not have Jordan Peterson’s reach and fame.

Our protests are aimed at persuasion, credibility, their appeal to Steven Guilbeault. Before Steven became our environment minister, he once climbed atop then-premier Ralph Klein’s home in Calgary to “install” solar panels. Even though it terrified Klein’s wife, who thought it was a home invasion, it was a great moment in the history of climate protest and an example for us even today. Steven, you are a hero, and you looked so good in those orange overalls. Greenpeace forever!

So when we want to avert the gravest challenge humanity has ever had to face, that is why we select actions that will — in the words of a very great writer — “strike home to every bosom.”

Is there a Monet or a Goya or a Munch or a Botticelli or a van Gogh in your city’s art gallery? Well, off to the hardware store and the supermarket. There is glue to be bought and cans of tomato soup to drop into the backpack.

Glue yourselves to the painting or throw the tomato soup over it. Doesn’t matter which.

When the world, on TV and the internet, sees these brave assaults on western art at its highest, you know everyone, just everyone, will park their cars, turn off the heat, refuse to buy anything with a petroleum base and insist that all the heads of oil companies and plastic manufacturers be put on trial for genocide, and Hollywood liberals will forsake their mansions and move to caves.

One of our very keenest moves happened over the weekend in Ottawa. An eco-warrior threw a bucket of pink paint on the Prime Minister’s Office and padlocked herself to a rail after the ritual half-undressing. A whole bucket of pink paint — if that doesn’t hold off climate Armageddon, what will?

A climate activist from On2Ottawa threw a bucket of pink paint on the entrance to the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa before chaining herself topless to the office door on April 18, 2023. Photo by On2Ottawa / Twitter

All on camera. So bold.

She did not — it is most necessary to add — honk! End of musing.

California-funded eco-activists sprayed orange paint on Christmas trees in seven German cities in a protest against government inaction on climate change. (2023)

We should measure the value of high-order environmental activism — IPCC stuff, Davos effluvia, anything Al Gore or David Suzuki so stridently say — by the quality of the minds and actions of their most intense supporters.

Climate protesters block traffic on the FDR during the morning commute Oct. 25, 2021 (Credit: Extinction Rebellion NYC)

By which I mean the “gluers” on paintings, the neuron-challenged street-blockaders, simpletons who smear soup on masterpieces, and — a great example — the dimwit(s) who think throwing paint on the PM’s office amounts to a persuasive, consciousness-raising tactic.

Instead of what everyone else knows it to be: a display of desperate intellectual incapacity, delusionary arrogance, and the “Hey-I’m-saving-the-world-so-I-can-be-as-stupid-and-supremely-annoying-to-anyone-as-I-f—-ing-well-choose” attitude of such world saviours.

Climate change protesters block downtown D.C. streets in hours-long protest (2019)

That’s the level of non-thought that supports most energetically and egregiously the high priests and savants of the net-zero fantasy. Measured by the standard of its pathetic protests, environmental alarmism is the religion of children, a sandbox for narcissists — regardless of how old they are.

	SCOTUS to Hear Color… on SCOTUS to Hear Colorado Climat…
	Energy Realists Save… on Energy Realists Saved the US G…
	SCOTUS to Hear Color… on SCOTUS Must Stop Climate Extor…
	SCOTUS to Hear Color… on Climate Law 2021 Losing S…
	SCOTUS to Hear Color… on SCOTUS and Climate Free S…

Science Matters

Reading between the lines, and underneath the hype.