By P Gosselin
Germans Prof. Dr. Klaus-Dieter Döhler, a natural scientist and environmentalist, and Josef Kowatsch, a nature conservationist, have published an essay at EIKE alleging “scientific corruption and waste of taxes” Germany in the corrupt business model that is “climate science.”
Reality is not cooperating with the models. (Source).
What follows is a shortened summary of their essay:
The business model “global warming” is mainly corrupt and is run by paid scientists and organizations and is headed by a super rich group of billionaires. Their aim is not to protect the climate, but to generate funds for themselves and their dubious machinations.
Their goal is to introduce a CO2-emission tax, like the sin-emission model in the Middle Ages, in which all the states, the politicians and corrupt scientific institutions make money. Their approach is fear and panic mongering by claiming that the end of the world is coming and that it is due to man burning fossil fuel.
This business model also involves the media who employ trained fear reporters who are referred to as “experts”. Their mission is to work for the profitable business model of global warming and climate death. They are experts of fear-mongering and the propagation of the CO2-climate lie.
These alarmists are rewarded for their fear exaggerations and brazen lies – designed by advertising strategists at PIK Potsdam – with goodwill, continued employment and career advancement. Normal taxpayers pay for everything out of a bad conscience and with the belief it will prevent the alleged climatic world end.
The poor of the world will get nothing of it, however, because the money flows exclusively into the pockets of the followers of this modern indulgence trade. Really respectable experts are marginalized and disparaged, as for example the Nobel prize winner Professor Clauser (here). These distinguished experts never get mentioned at all in the German media.
It is time to finally put an end to this hoax, especially in Germany. We need an uprising of the decent against this fraudulent business model of alleged climate rescue. Nature conservation and environmental protection must finally be put back at the center of political action.
Believing that CO2 drives temperature is like believing that the steam coming off your coffee is making your coffee hotter.
Believing CO2 is anything but good for life and natural earth systems, is heresy
co2 alone cannot cause global warming. In a dry atmosphere most of the infrared photons from the surface escape to outer space leading to cooling according to Stefan Boltzmann. In a dry atmosphere the day/night global swing would be from freezing to hot every 24hrs. This does not happen because of the moderating effect of water vapour; but of itself CO2 cannot cause global warming.
I have no issue with the assertion that radiating surfaces need to be hotter to get back to an equilibrium if the effective top of the atmosphere has changed to be colder, but figuring out what it warms to by calculating how much more it’s heated by back radiation is how a snake-oil salesman would do it.
The Church of Man-Caused Catastrophic Climate Change’s Inquisition silences heretics.
Climate’s slowly changing cycles can be interrupted by asteroids, volcanos, earthquakes, tidal waves, CMEs, nearby novae, and unknown unknowns.
CO2 ain’t on the list. Mankind’s contribution to greenhouse effect with CO2 is at the level of noise.
I don’t use the word “hoax”. I prefer to use the word “scam”.
Yes, a hoax is more of a whimsical practical joke. The Piltdown man hoax was meant to cause embarrassment, not profit. Same goes for crop circles, big foot, the loch ness monster etc. A scam on the other hand is a tool used by thieves, Bernie Madoff ran a scam. Scams are no laughing matter.
The world eagerly awaits one of the rational believers in science to replicate for us a decent-sized crop circle.
No, really, this is of vital importance for our understanding of the mechanisms of the universe; something really, really odd happens, and the only explanation we ever find is either nonsense about aliens, or some really weird freaks pretending they did it, but no, we can’t show you how, and if we try, we destroy the crop.
Life is a bit more interesting than the respectable people expertatiously opinionating would have you know…
Sometime ago I learned that @@ means rolling one’s eyes.
I assume you know precisely how crop circles are made, and one of these days, you’ll show us all, just you wait…
Go to the internet, there are plenty of videos of people replicating them.
Not a few done by patrons of the ‘Barge Inn’, by Woodborough, Wiltshire.
Auto
There is a very good interview with the people that made them with nothing more hi-tech than a plank of wood attached to a length of rope over their shoulders. Sorru cilo, this has been debunked for some years now.
For the first time ever, I am going to throw a blanket statement at an entire subthread, and tell every respondent: “Gads! I cannot believe so many people so obtuse on this site at once.”
There is one single caveat: Crop circle WITHOUT KILLING THE CROP. Get that, you obtuse bunch of “..uh there’s a very good interview with sticks and ropes, duh…”
Now, go regroup in your momma’s basement, do some research beyond the first two pages on BolschGooggles, and come back with adult answers.
Jeez!
Why don’t you eat your spinach and get back on topic?
I’m assuming this is a joke post, but on the off chance it isn’t, the two guys who invented crop circles made a documentary video where they showed exactly how they make them. The next morning, all the crop circle experts came around to examine it, and they pointed out various details that proved it was real. Then the guys showed them the video of them making the circle and the experts dismissed it and said that the fact that they could make one with all the correct details didn’t prove anything.
Kind of reminds me of some other field.
No. As recently as 2014 a competition was held, and the winner was chosen by aesthetics, not one single person has ever made a crop circle of any size without killing the crop. Without killing the crop.
I cannot believe this is not common knowledge for people who air opinions on the subject, I mean, jeez, who do I believe, some joker on the Net, or Dr, Prof. Rupert Sheldrake, arguably the greatest natural philosopher of the last fifty years?
See? Appeal to authority. Only mine actually has…
You, go read the comment right above to Richy Rage.
Crop circles have been replicated.
You are about 20 years out of date, try a better off topic baloney to bore us with.
More than 97% of big foot researchers agree that the sasquatch causes big foot sightings.
Damn that 97% – 97% of climate alarmists are woke lefty empty shells, 97% of human prosperity and health was driven by fossil fuels, 97% of politicians are in it for themselves
In my world, 97% of people with common sense and education howl at the hysterical climate alarmists
97% is approximately the exaggeration level in most MSM weather-cum-climate articles.
D Mac,
It’s actually exactly a science-y 97.0348%.
To 6sf.
Auto
E-wise, my friend, sit down, I think we need to talk about that other three percent…
I agree, it is a scam, like pyramid selling and yeti tours
What’s wrong with yeti tours?
Yetis have the right see the world, same as everyone else.
And a yeti’s money is not abominable.
The whole thing’s just a snowman job.
I am encouraged by criticism of the ‘consensus’, I also hope and trust that such criticism will be echoed by others until it is heard and believed by the majority. It won’t happen overnight but it surely must happen?
Ha! For years before 2009, statisticians such as Steve Mcintyre speculated about the methods used by the ‘Team’ to ‘prove’ AGW.
Then – Climategate! And the news was shocking beyond any imagination. Refusal to produce source! Suppression of counter evidence! Conspiracy! ‘Hide the Decline’. At last – the stables were about to be cleaned. What could stand in its way?
Answer: The powerful, who closed ranks and pretended to give those Bad Boys a slap on the bum. ‘OOO naughty naughty boys!’
Backed by lachrymose accounts of the suffering of poor Prof Phil Jones in the Guardian, the crooks got away with it. Their position is today more secure than ever, for their masters are now learning how to install Iron Curtains throughout the West to prevent any dissonance – vaccines, Ukraine, Trump, Peterson. Canada right now is slipping into the gloom of deadly night. Soon it will be our turn.
Maybe; but I’ve been thinking that for about 40 years, and now I’m dubious if it will happen in my lifetime – or before the damage becomes irreversible.
Science was not built on consensus (opinion), that’s for the politicians
Very good, although I prefer “propagandists” or “paid shills” to “reporters” (since they aren’t reporters).
“paid shills” is political rant language. You give away your own bais by using that kind of term. If you have a rational, fact based point to make , chose neutral language to describe it .
BINGO The old lawyer adage about facts laws and pounding the table applies here. It’s way too easy to use pejoratives when you should do the hard work of framing the argument in the King’s English.
What argument can you frame against someone who believes in unicorns, and thinks his social status or educational accomplishments cause his arguments to carry more weight than someone of “lesser stock”?
…and you can shove your genocidal little freak of a king, and your shill is hanging out.
They are shills and I am definitely conscious of that
And most of them are paid to do their shilling.
While that is clearly true, the really frightening thing is that they actually do believe the theology they parrot so profitably.
The people in question are not reporters or journalists. They don’t gather important facts of public concern and then communicate them to the public, which is what reporters and journalists do. Instead, they attempt to advance a predetermined narrative through propagandistic techniques such as leaving out important related facts, warping coverage to mislead the reader, selective overall coverage, or even outright lies, among other things. That makes them propagandists and shills. That is an indisputable fact and not a “rant.”
Like climate scientists who quote each others’ papers which, in turn, have been “peer reviewed” by each other. The science is settled and now it’s the job of the journalists and bureaucrats to spread the word and condemn/silence/fire/cancel the heretics.
publicists
Accurate language is nuetral. According the OED, Cambridge, and Mirriam-Webster they completely fit the definition of shill; it is an objective term being used correctly, not a subjective one. Some people make think that there is an implication that the shill is completely aware of all aspects of the fraud being perpetrated and that some reporters may be excused because they are just ignorant, but that is not part of the definition in any of those sources.
Paid shills seems like a perfectly rational, fact based description of someone seeking to push an agenda in exchange for money, and not seeking to describe facts to expose the truth, like a reporter. You give away your bias by objecting to what is so obviously true. So if you have a rational, fact based point to make, please make it.
How much did he get by giving away his “bais?” Actually, his descriptions of what these clowns are is spot on and actually gives them more credit than they’re due. They certainly aren’t “reporters.”
I myself prefer “fv(#!ng idjits”, but in polite conversation I make do with “Climastrologists and their idjit disciples who don’t understand how the seasons happen”.
No, seriously, I have never, ever found a climastroligist flunky who could demonstrate the basics of seasonal changes on earth, not one! Go try, ask one! It’s funny. Not.
“Paid shills” is a tautology. Shills are inherently paid – it’s what makes them shills. If you don’t like it, you could cal them “rent seeker”, which is pretty much the same thing. Personally, I use the word “scammers”.
Or pimps
An insult to pimps!
Yeah, as disgusting as they are, at least pimps are providing a service their clients want to pay for.
I’m not sure I agree, there are plenty of dupes who parrot deceptions and lies who aren’t even paid but have been indoctrinated into thinking those deceptions/lies are true.
IIRC someone here on WUWT denoted the difference:
Knaves: they know what they say is wrong but continue for various reasons (fame, profit, tenure, votes, etc).
Dupes – those who truly believe (what the knaves tell them) because they don’t know anything else. This where the censoring, gaslighting and deplatforming by the MSM and academia comes in . No contrary info or dissent is allowed.
That’s a good way to put it.
They can do it for free to help the scammer, the key part of being a shill is providing false information in the guise of nuetral party to further a scam or swindle.
Good investigative journalism ended when the Left wing arts grads fresh out of indoctrination, started writing science related articles – they just regurgitate the blobs narrative, chapter & verse
Hoax?
More like a convergence of interests.
-Academia needs a reason for it to be funded now the Cold War no longer drives governments to fear falling behind.
-Charities need a reason for donators to feel that the suffering of the third world is their fault, now that much of the third world has developed post-colonialism.
-Journalists need stories that are personal to their customer (the news recipients) and so want a way to make every disaster into a bigger theme that can affect YOU, now that the the media is so diverse and funding so competitive.
-Politicians want an excuse for anything that goes wrong, as always.
-Businesses just want consistent governance and will live with whatever they get.
No hoax could last this long. But the chances of any academic department saying that they are not important or any enviromental journalist saying that they are just a subset of science journalists…
No conspiracy required. Just a convergence of interests.
A manufactured convergence developed through the networked narrative of political, financial, ideological, cultural, academic, educational and media elites. The evident objective is the extension of global government and a planned society/economy. Dissident heretics, irrespective of the quality of their research work and findings, are silenced, fired, and cancelled.
It appears to me that in the original German article the term Abzocke is used, which might be better translated as racket or ripoff.
Generally agree, but disagree with “no hoax could last that long”. Some hoaxes already have lasted much longer. Hoaxes can become religions that last for millennia. Hoaxes sponsored by governments become part of official narrative forbidden to question as long as a regime is in power, but may also become myths long after these regimes seize to exist. Some hoaxes have happened in our lifetime, but we are keeping silence.
That image is called “Christy-6.jpeg” it is a shame they do not give the real source of that document and what it shows and it’s origin.
The image caption ( in german ) which was cropped off here says the green line is “satellite observations” while the legend marks it “reanalysis”. I would like to print this and show it around but I’m not going to do that unless I know what the data source is. Whose “reanalysis”. Why not the data?
This is exactly the BS we are always criticising here on WUWT.
Green line is not UAH, that is for sure.
Here is the same chart with UAH added in roughly the right place (done from scaling images, not from data)
Climategrog and bnice2000 are correct, this would be a great graph if it was kept up to 2023 and had a proper source legend for actual readings. But usually the available one is only to 2015 and greenmunists just counter with “so you’re hiding the recent temp increases”.
OK, Here is the same chart with UAH Tropic TLT added on graphically, up to date. (2023 using year-to-date anomaly)
(I tried to line up the trend lines at 1979, after adjusting both axes to close as I could get by eye to match John’s chart)
That’s nice but UAH or Christie or Spencer should update it for their speaking engagements, then we steal it to show classrooms full of malleable minds…
It tells you on the heading it’s for Tropical 300-200hPa. The old “tropical hotspot” argument.
Tropical Hotspot? Hahahaha – you are very funny Bellman, you do make me laugh uproariously occasionally!
Post any air temperature graph and the trendologists start crawling out of the woodwork.
It’s Christie’s graph. I’m just pointing out what it claims to show.
But you have no idea what it is actually showing, have you.
Your continued pretence of any basic comprehension of what is actually being shown,.. is quite “cute” for a 10 year old. !
Do you mean the tropical hot-spot that doesn’t actually exist ?
More nonsense from trendologists
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/02/climate-model-failure/
Hey Bellboy, where did you comment on that thread?
That would be where the nonsense started.
Hey Pee Wee, the trendologists are you lot.
Another face plant.
And yet the only people making claims about trends are those saying the UAH trend is significantly different than the model trend.
Shame you weren’t around to explain how much uncertainty there was in that UAH trend.
Poor bellboy, It is the models that have MASSIVE uncertainty, not UAH.
Oh dear, now karlo will have to call you a UAH groupie.
Oh dear, Poor bellboy, we will now have to call you a climate clown. !
It seems to be a rehash of John Christy’s chart from this site.
It’s not global (it’s tropical only) and it is not surface, or even lower troposphere data (it’s mid-troposphere). Oh, and the data stop in 2019.
The IPCC reports focus on the CMIP surface data models, in which observations are all well within the multi-model range. The longer these CMIP sets run the more closely they align with observations.
Here, for instance, is the latest (up to July 2023) CMIP3 multi-model mean compared to GISS (3-month running centred average, based on 1991-2020 anomaly base). CMIP3 dates from 2006 with its ‘forecast’ period starting in 2000. A very close match indeed.
The surface data matches for the hot models because they are poorly placed. You know that but that doesn’t stop from believing in the Tooth Fairy.
LOL.. there’s that idiotic pretence that you can take a model mean of this load of garbage…
And match it to urban/airport surface temperatures
Which scenario is your idiotic anti-science mean from ?
Bingo! Averaging cures any ailment.
Oh dear, someone didn’t want to see all the model garbage that was being averaged.
So sad
So anti-science.
After 30 years they still haven’t narrowed it down to a much smaller range which indicate that their modeling constructs haven’t improved.
Where’s the panic? I don’t see it.
Why can’t I edit comments any more ? “You are posting too quickly ,slow down”. LOL ,then it’s too late to edit !
happening to a lot of us… a new “feature” of WordPress 😉
The site has been acting up since last weekend. First it was the non-disappearing cookie dialog…..
They’ve done a recent software update based on climate computer modelling protocols and logic
I got hit by the permanent cookie notification, now this. Software updates are an absolute pain sometimes!
Source of the graph is Christy / Clintel
This morning BBC Radio 4 (aka Woke Radio) featured an interview with none other than John Kerry.
I’ve never heard such gratuitous fawning in all my life [on this occasion, – by James Naughtie]. Every word taken as the absolute gospel truth.
#defundBBC
Reverence is due to the pontiff!
Thousands are defunding it each week, hence why the Govt now make pensioners pay the tax they had for free
It will fold soon
One lives in hope
Lurch is an idiot, much like his pal Algore.
The Real Greenhouse Effect in 10 easy steps.
1. What if gravity caused a pressure gradient in the troposphere?
It does.
2. What if that pressure gradient was a near-linear density gradient?
It is.
3. What if adiabatic convection maintained an air molecule’s energy in a tropospheric column?
It does.
4. What if 2&3 together caused a temperature gradient in the troposphere?
It does.
5. Where would the average of that temperature gradient occur?
At the centre of mass of an average tropospheric column.
6. What altitude is the centre of mass and what is its temperature?
At about 5km and 255K.
7. What is the resultant tropospheric gradient temperature at 0 altitude?
288K at contact with the surface.
8. What if there is an exchange of energy with the surface?
There is. At equilibrium of the entrained energy, the net exchange is zero.
9. What mode of energy transfer achieves that net zero?
Conduction and radiation at zero altitude.
10. What if sunshine is added?
At equilibrium of through-going energy, the sunshine replaces the loss to space from the atmosphere (average ~ 255K) and from the surface (288K) via the atmospheric window in the greenhouse gases.
YES.. !
2… What if that pressure gradient was a near-linear density gradient?
3… What if adiabatic convection maintained an air molecule’s energy in a tropospheric column
As you say, both are true…
Analysis of balloon data proves categorically that the molecular energy gradient in the atmosphere is linear (R² = 0.999x, from balloon data) and thus, controlled by the gas laws.
https://youtu.be/XfRBr7PEawY?t=1441
You mean that same sunshine that affects Neptunes climate?!
So you are at about grade 2 on your journey through elementary school and higher on your way to understanding planetary temperatures that even Carl Sagan did not get right….
I sort-of see what you are hoping to do, but there are steps in your list that appear unneeded and actually obscure your point, for example step 3 can’t be correct because the internal energy of a parcel changes during convection (i.e. energy is not maintained as work is required to expand against presssure.) and I don’t follow the thinking in steps 6-7 at all. How can steps 8-9 occur before step 10?
What if…heat exchange occurred only at the surface, there were no condensable or IR active gasses, and through convection the atmosphere were to be thoroughly mixed locally by mechanical work? Well, we’d have a dry adiabatic lapse rate throughout at roughly
. This represents the influence of work alone in determining temperature in the atmosphere.
The actual lapse rate is roughly
and the difference indicates that there are sources and sinks of heat in the atmosphere. (Oh we could get into a discussion of what lateral advection and mixing might do, but let’s not.)
What this shows is that neither adiabatic processes alone (work) nor non-adiabatic processes (heat transfer) alone are able to produce the observed local temperature distribution. The two largest non-adiabatic processes are latent heat exchange and absorption of IR radiation from the ground surface by IR gasses (CO2 and H2O) with subsequent re-radiation or energy transfer through collisions. The radiative processes can exchange almost directly from the ground surface straight out to space within transparent “windows”. Where I live a clear sky is often 25% or more transparent — we get cold quickly after sundown. In fact, we often feel cold instantly if a cloud obscures the sun. People see too much significance in this mythical layer at 255K.
People often think the gas laws (or ideal gas law or even the real gas law) form a useful explanation all by themselves. They don’t. Atmospheric temperature distribution is all under the control of the first law of thermodynamics
as mechanical engineers write it or 
as everyone else appears to do.
The rising parcel if air is adiabatic. The kinetic energy of molecules is conserved.
The rising parcel of air is expanding as it travels through a decreasing pressure/density gradient.
And it’s doing work against its environment so it is cooling off at the expense of molecular KE or in other words internal energy.
I refer you to this previous answer to your post in 2021
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/06/the-cooling-side-of-greenhouse-gases/#comment-3241802
Naaaahhhh: We have a Cause & Effect Error here
The Rich & Elite are not creating this thing. As in the “There’s one born every minute” they are (merely) cashing in on a collective insanity/madness/fashion/trend
Just as they’d do on any fad, whether it’s high-heeled sneakers, organic green garlic- flavoured olive oil, air fryers, fashionable foods/drinks (esp coloured blue), Goji berries, Avocados, Tesla cars, ‘must have’ homeware etc etc
By time you’re headed into your 5th or 6th decade of life, you’ll have seen dozens of them
Here’s a one for us all (disable any adblocker else it won’t work)
https://www.starsinsider.com/lifestyle/434645/surprising-character-traits-that-indicate-a-high-iq
(Interesting huh, recognise yourself in any of that?, Or, do you recognise anyone else – maybe it explains ‘a few things’)
What is happening with climate science is really and actually a huuuuuge outbreak of Dunning Kruger Effect (DKE)
i.e. Incompetent people overestimating their own abilities
As is The Modern Way, money makes money so the smart people and ‘elites’ who made and then saved their money can now cash in
Notice the difference there: Very very few Governments on this planet ever ‘save money’ in any sort of savings account – they all live hand-to-mouth, day-to-day.
Spending every penny of income and often before that income has even come in – running up epic deficits – while DKE tells them they can solve that little problem ‘tomorrow’
By that very definition/feature, Governments are never composed of ‘Smart People’
Thus they are the perfect sorts of people to suffer DKE
And that is climate science – a massive overestimations of:
IOW: Global warming/changing/boiling is a fashion fad amongst vast numbers of really thick people who imagine that Money will solve all their problems.
If that don’t describe Boris Johnson, what does.
And why Boris like that: He was/is an alcoholic diabetic – as most White Westerners now are
And Governments tell them to be like that: They say that we need to eat sugar/carbs ‘for energy’ and also that there is some ‘safe limit’ for alcohol.
There is No Safe Limit for either of those things
Even worse: They say that the very food we’re supposed to eat (saturated fat) is bad
“Eat fat = Get thin” And smart.
Smart people are never obese and have all the money. Look around, how true is that.
Now look at Antonio (global boiling) Guterres
So the smart people, the rich and elite, move in to take candy off a baby
(How many of these ‘rich elites’ are obviously obese, or noted for ‘drunken antics’?)
Elites getting rich is an effect – they are not the cause
It could be DKE but I suspect it’s intentional destruction of the West as I have a hard time believing that people could be so stupid.
A couple of examples. What used to be called bums were provided food and shelter options and now free needles and “safe spaces” to do drugs. And people are surprised that homelessness and drug abuse increases?
Shoplifting was decriminalized and people are surprised that stores are now losing more money to shoplifting?
It’s high time those scientists with honesty and integrity spoke out about the climate alarmist deceit
Some have sold their souls for grants and research funding and allowed themselves to become politically compromised, hence, no better than the heretics of old
But, we all know, there are ones that stick to their science principles and refuse to be cowed or capitulate to get that lump of Govt money and there are many more who hide their support for climate realism for fear of the far left extremist blobs retribution
I truly have empathy for the latter, they have families, homes, dreams and aspirations and all that can be removed in an instant by demonic activists and their cohorts of useful idiots
History is full of brave souls who stood their ground against dystopian, authoritarian tyranny and the politicisation of science and they won eventually
The globalist elites, including most WEF signed up Politicians, are the worst crop of humans in recent times, certainly since the end of World War 2 – they are greedy, self serving, hubris filled money & power grabbers, hypocritical to the max and honourable to the min
I eagerly await the Great Resist
More and more people are speaking out against the human-caused climate change scam. That’s a good thing.
Vivek Ramaswamy called it a hoax last night during the presidential debate.
That’s good. This will cause a certain amount of discussion on the subject.
But I think Vivek’s foreign policy positions are going to sink his presidential ambitions, so his discussions on climate change will be limited in time. He was the only one onstage who favored cutting money to Ukraine. Not a popular position among most Republicans, with the exception of Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham and their ostrich followers. So Vivek obviously doesn’t see the Big Picture, and should not be put in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
But, for a short time, Vivek can make a case against killing the oil and gas industry over a fake CO2 crisis.
Tom,
While true, his little declaration last night was booed by the crowd. That may not be good for his presidential campaign. He should’ve have just says ‘yes’ because urbanization is human caused climate change and it does account for at least 40% of the warming seen in the surface temp record. He should have only declared his skepticism against CO2 once he won.
I think the boos were for his slandering his fellow debaters.
These series in the graph are not on the same baseline… I don’t know who thought the right thing to do was to have them “intersect at zero in 1979” but that is not the right way to normalize them. I’m also certain that comparing radiosonde data to modeled surface temperature trends is an apples to oranges comparison, but I guess starting small is wisest.
Ask yourself this question — Who made the graph?
Another commenter said the graph was prepared by John Christy, who has a rather sordid history of doing these misleading comparison graphs, but who made the graph is rather less important than whether they did it right.
What, exactly, is this sordid history you speak of? And if the person who made the graph is not important, then why mention it at all?
I was asked about it, that’s the sole reason it was brought up. I’d much rather talk about the issues with the visualization itself.
In other words, once your illogical personal attack argument is exposed, you stop talking about it.
“the visualization itself.”
Then you need to get your eyes/brain fixed first,
Get rid of the AGW tunnel vision and face REALITY.
Sordid?! The whole global warming, climate change, climate weirding, global boiling, hide the decline, failed predictions, lies, ad-hominems (which you obvious know about) hypocritical rent seeking, etc., etc., is sordid. And your comment is sordid!
If put on the same baseline they’d be so far apart, vertically, that trying to compare the trends would be nigh impossible. All they have done is place the two together at an arbitrary spot, start of satellite data, which they indicated, and let the trends speak for themselves. The absolute values of temperature are not important.
The modeled data for a sort of control chart and the radiosonde data are observations. Anyone familiar with process control would recognize the indication of failing control (i.e. modeling) in this instance and would have a pretty good idea where to look for the explanation (i.e. assignable cause). See this and please do not reply with criticism about the data stopping at some certain point — such misses the point.
“modeled data form a sort of control chart” Geez I hate the demise of editing capability …
What they’ve done is to visually make any trend differences seem as large as possible. They’ve picked a year that is cold in the satellite data relative to the models, so they’re offset on the y-axis, and they’ve used a single year to align the base periods of the smoothed series, creating a kind of V-shaped effect. It’s not wrong to do it that way? But it’s very odd, and makes the trend differences look much larger visually than they actually are. You’d usually pick a base period of one to several decades for that reason (I think for a series as short as the radiosonde record you’d better use a shower baseline, otherwise you’d have the opposite problem of obscuring the trend differences).
And, again, of course, they’re comparing modeled surface trends with radiosonde trends of the upper troposphere – completely different things. It’s an apples to oranges comparison.
You sure use the word “They” instead of “Us” a lot. I don’t recall personalities being a tenet of the scientific method which prefers obsevational data instead of guessing games.
A-J exposes himself as yet another run-of-the-mill trendologist.
So now you have to explain how CO2 causes the troposphere to warm slower than the surface, without any change to the adiabatic lapse rate.
You will undoubtedly FAIL UTTERLY at that, too.
“ they’re comparing modeled surface trends”
WRONG !!!! as always.
The are comparing the junk spat out by the models for a particular atmospheric pressure range that is compatible with sondes, reanalysis and UAH TLT.
Why do you insist on displaying your misunderstanding and lack of comprehension..
People are getting tired of always having to correct your ignorance.
It took them long enough to figure it out. I’m sure the imminent collapse of German industry due to energy starvation had something to do with it. How they got it published is probably another story.
There’s a history of Germans being lead astray leading to destruction on a massive scale.
I figure that a “Windfall Profits Tax” ought to put this trend out of its misery.
Photosynthesis: Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 helps plants resist drought/damage/disease, extends growing seasons, lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes, shrinks deserts & reduces the spread of fire, plants using & retaining H2O more efficiently. As CO2 rises, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies survive, increase net rainfall & save lives. We are in the short period (glacial interstitial) between long Ice Ages, the norm (where I sit) being a half mile of ice. Warm is good, cold is bad.
This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 200 years ago. Because adding food to the base of the food-chain supports all of Nature.
Well hit me with a wet fish. Who’d a thunk it?
I have seen the graph at the head of this article before but it is still hilarious. I have no knowlege of how the models work, but some things are obvious from the output. About the only thing that they have in common with reality is the sign of the trend, otherwise it appears to be an average of random curves with the same overall trend. Otherwise there is no aggreement at all with reality or even each other, except a dip in the curve around 1992-93 that didn’t actually happen, this also seems to be the starting point of the major divergence. Add to this the fact that they don’t get the heat distribution right either, despite this I have heard it said that the models are ‘pretty good’!
But back to the subject of the article, I just saw on Youtube that Jordan Petrson has been censured by his professional body, apparently for critisising Justin Trudeau and also appearing on Joe Rogan and criticising the ‘climate apocalyptic fearmongering’ of the elites. He has been ordered to enter a re-education program or risk losing his licence to practice as a clinical psychologist. Scary stuff.
Great. How?
Can anyone tell me the current average (over a year) the energy provided to the UK by wind. Does this take into account production of turbines and cobalt battery storage.
Many thanks in advance.
Astonishing!!! Who could have thought such a thing? How do you do it Holmes?
Here’s a story from February 2022:
Climate grant illustrates growth in philanthropy-funded news
NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press said Tuesday that it is assigning more than two dozen journalists across the world to cover climate issues, in the news organization’s largest single expansion paid for through philanthropic grants.
LINK