The Greenhouse Deception Explained
May 18, 2019
By Paul Homewood
A nice and concise video, well worth watching and circulating:
15 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
Caro on Met Office To Issue Sunny Day… MrGrimNasty on England Needs A National Strat… pom52 on England Needs A National Strat… Malcolm on England Needs A National Strat… HotScot on Met Office To Issue Sunny Day… universalaccessnz on New study reveals Antarctic ic… Phoenix44 on New study reveals Antarctic ic… johnthorogood on New study reveals Antarctic ic… Ben Vorlich on Met Office Announce Water Scar… HotScot on New study reveals Antarctic ic…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Typo: warching
Ta!!
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/05/18/the-greenhouse-deception-White man speak truth ugh.
Maybe this is a little off topic but …
Not only that but as Allan Savory explains in this video, livestock (grazing animals) can massively help turn marginal lands with encroaching desert into green pastures again. This renews the local carbon cycle, gives truly sustainable employment to the locals, and helps feed them with crops and meat.
With something this good no wonder the Greenies are against cattle herding and so often pro-vegetarianism.
We need more grazing animals on the land not fewer to keep the planet green.
Yes- but not goats! They are apparently the REASON for some of the deserts!
Oh yes, they do have a tendency to stripe bark off trees, take any shrub they fancy down to the ground and below — they’ll eat the darn roots if they can get to them.
So no goats then.
And keep a careful eye on sheep they can easily overgraze a spot — keep them moving along.
The term ‘science’ as used by cAGW advocates and feeble minded journalists is a term they fail to adequately understand. All to often their feeble minds think ‘science’ is all about absolute knowledge, absolute understanding, and absolute certainty. It is not.
Science is a method (it’s not a thing). In science observations are made and then by using our broader knowledge develop theories that attempt to explain these observations. These theories are just human interpretations of what may or (more probably) may not be reality. Many times in the history ‘science’ has taken the wrong turn only to have to correct itself years or (more often) decades later. And that is the strength of the scientific method — understanding that our knowledge is incomplete, the methods used are to some degree faulty, and the the results are often incomplete and flawed. But the scientific method continuously self monitors and rechecks itself. Observations and experiments are re-examined, methods re-assessed and validated, and new observations made so that ‘theories’ are modified (or discarded) to get closer to the truth. The real scientific method is continually trying to show that old theories are wrong or incomplete. The beauty of any truly worthy scientific knowledge is that it is demonstrable.
Also ask a good scientist what is known absolutely, and I doubt they could find one scientific item that can be utterly and completely explained.
In ‘climate science’ observations are made, and then based on the writings from more than a hundred years ago (before modern understandings about electromagnetic waves and how energy interacts with matter, see http://geologist-1011.net/net/greenhouse/ for more), many non-scientists fabricate fantastic ideas about how CO2 drives a global greenhouse of climate. From this basis ‘very sophisticated’ computer models have been made to attempt to explain some of the observations, and make climate scenario projections (aka predictions) about the future climate. Eventually the UN’s gets involved in the shape of the UN-IPCC with all their bureaucrats, bean-counters, and functionaries. Usually in some exotic country they’ll hold a conference of the ‘climate science’ consensus, and after much horse-trading in private conclave, will decree (with remarkable certainty) what is the current gospel for ‘climate science’ to the Main Stream Media (MSM), and all nations via their political representative attending the conference/conclave. In this way some of the observations are explained away by the CO2 supposition, supported by the ‘climate models’. However ‘CO2 Greenhouse gas theory’ as propagandized by the UN-IPCC is non-demonstrable in this planet’s atmosphere. And when confronted with observations that run counter to the CO2 supposition and that cannot be shoe horned into their model, the observations are either simply ignored or discredited by the ‘climate science’ consensus, the feeble minded journalist and the cAGW advocates. Thus with the able assistance of the MSM popular ‘climate science’ continually regresses, moving away from reality and towards more imagined catastrophes.
The bottom-line is that these UN-IPCC conferences always amount to statements about humans and the CO2 they generate as being catastrophically bad and must be restrained, and that the villains are Westernized nations must pay more CO2 taxation.
And then the machinery of MSM moves in with the feeble minded journalist misreporting and stirring-up needless alarm (see https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/05/17/guardian-hacks-told-to-use-scary-language/ for more on that).
Very well put.
Well said!
Whenever I hear people pushing the AGW meme saying, “The science….”, I know they do not understand ‘science’. As you say, (I paraphrase) it is not a ‘the’, it is a method. And if the method is followed it will be self-correcting. I just hope the correction comes sooner rather than later.
Thank-you Harry Passfield & Bertie, this rant came about because of the many, many arguments on blogs and with the family about what is ‘science’ and what it means.
People always want certainty but as Jacob Bronowski, in his masterwork ‘The Ascent of Man’ (a video I highly recommend to all Greenies and cAGW advocates) said …
tom0mason: That was a good reference.I wish the likes of Mann and Deben would accept that they are fallible. Having got the answer they think they have they should be doing everything in their power to falsify it – to test it.
If they do not do this, if they start to believe they are infallible, they will end up as the Nomenklatura who preferred dogma over science when Chernobyl blew up (as such, I urge everyone to watch the docudrama on Sky/NOW – which is only two episodes in – to watch this. It is truly incredible. I lived through it, safe in the UK, but a lot of people in Pripyat didn’t ).
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Climate alarmists do tend to be science deniers, it must be said. In Attenborough’s ‘Climate – Change the Facts’, one of the commentators talked about the ‘fact’ that when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, what we’re doing is increasing the ‘thickness of the insulating blanket’ around the planet!
CO2 may have increased the thickness of climate alarmists, but that’s all.
One of the heated issues underlying greenhouse theory is whether space is hot or cold.
It is neither.
By definition and application temperature is a relative measurement of the molecular kinetic energy in a substance, i.e. solid, liquid, gas. No molecules (vacuum), no temperature. No kinetic energy (absolute zero), no temperature. In the vacuum of space the terms temperature, hot, cold are meaningless, like dividing by zero, undefined.
However, any molecular substance capable of kinetic energy (ISS, space walker, satellite, moon, earth) placed in the energetic radiative pathway of the spherical expanding solar photonic gas at the earth’s average orbital distance will be heated per the S-B equation to an equilibrium temperature of: 1,368 W/m^2 = 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Like a blanket held up between a camper and campfire the atmosphere reduces the amount of solar energy heating the terrestrial system and cools the earth compared to no atmosphere.
This intuitively obvious and calculated scientific reality refutes the greenhouse theory that has the atmosphere warming the earth and no atmosphere producing a frozen ice ball at -430 F.
No greenhouse effect, no CO2 global warming, no man caused nor cured climate change.