the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

97%…87%…57%…27%….. aw who knows.

Posted by Jeff Id on March 29, 2015

Richard Tol has a very nice summary of the 97% consensus f@#$ published by Cook.  It is worth your time.

Summary is here.

11 Responses to “97%…87%…57%…27%….. aw who knows.”

  1. omanuel said

    [snip — no more nuclear energy stuff plz]

    • omanuel said

      Thank you, Jeff, for your courage in disclosing Climategate emails in 2009.

      I believe that was the nose of the camel of lock-step consensus models that destroyed western science after 1945.

      Regardless who is right, this is not my battle. It is not your battle. This is humanity’s battle against those who took totalitarian control of the world and used science as a tool of propaganda, as George Orwell warned would happen in the book he started writing in 1946, “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

  2. hunter said


  3. Alan McIntire said

    “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”
    Quoted in Arago, Eulogy of Galileo (1874)

    “… genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops.”
    -Albert Einstein

  4. Attentioin silent readers said




    International Journal of Modern Physics B (Impact Factor: 0.46). 01/2012; 23(22). DOI: 10.1142/S0217979209052893
    ABSTRACT Thermodynamic deduction and experimental results both demonstrate that gravitation causes temperature gradient in an adiabatic system, i.e., gravithermal effect: The higher altitude the lower temperature.


    The implications for climate science are that it is not radiation from CO2 and water vapor that is raising the surface temperature, but gravity. The AGW fraud is debunked.

    • Jeff Id said

      I have no idea why this has any implications whatsoever for climate science. The dry adiabatic lapse rate leads to the same thermal gradient (exact same equation and already in every climate model). Until one of the people promoting this as a cure-all for AGW who claim that somehow overturns basic (very basic) radiative physics (which it does not), I’m going to be snipping this junk because it makes people dumber.

      I’m rather pissed off that I ask simple questions about this and the promoters of the AGW conclusions cannot even bother to answer. Eat some vegetables, cut the drugs, and stop being close minded.

      And NO … Doug Cotton this is not an invitation for you to opine on anything here.

      • M Simon said

        And think about those falling atoms. They are interchanging energy with the cooler atoms as they fall. The effect is going to be small in the real world.

    • Alan McIntire said

      I originaly thought that also, but this article made me correct my thinking.

      • Jeff Id said

        It is a good paper to promote in the face of the nonsensical thermal gradient vs AGW that we hear. it IS really stupid. The paper still doesn’t address some of the microphysics but it does comply with the laws of thermo. You know, I have received dozens of emails from different people claiming to have discovered AGW to be impossible. All of it has been written by unqualified people with keyboards who are convinced that they are personally smarter than the rest of us. I find the gravity gradient interesting in that I cannot figure out how the reduced linear vertical velocity component that must exist in a thermal gradient is compensated. It seems quite possible that the spin and other modes of thermal kinetic energy transfer (that gravity has zero effect on) could carry lossless energy upward in a gravitational field with the effective combination of all modes equaling a net slower thermal conductivity, but a zero gradient.

    • M Simon said

      To get that differential from gravity you have to suppress convection. That suppression was a very important part of the experiments I’m aware of. And of course radiation will tend to even things out eventually.

      • Jeff Id said

        The argument which I have yet to hear made is why the gravitational gradient has any affect whatsoever on AGW. It doesn’t make sense to me since the same gradient arises in a gas by convection.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: