I comment on other people’s substacks: this has become something of an underground community wherein we talk to each other, and the people I talk to through these substacks are people who realize that something is seriously wrong with our world today, and that Covid-19 was a plandemic years in the making whose purpose was to help usher in a new, collectivist society called The Great Reset. Most of the people who subscribe to my substack agree with this take on the current state of affairs, and agree that medical science has been deeply corrupted in order for a virus that could’ve been handled easily and safely— had the right people been in power— to become instead an instrument of lockdowns and oppression.
In my comments on others’ substacks I’ve said things like, ‘CO2 catastrophic warming is 100% pseudoscience.’ I believe this: it really is junk science. But this is harsh and reflects my ‘pounding on the table mode’: of course many very smart scientists believe in this theory and these scientists aren’t ‘junk’ scientists. My stating it in this way is offensive; on the other hand, it’s analogous to the situation we find ourselves in with Covid and the Covid vaccines: many good, caring, smart physicians believe in something that’s completely false.
I daresay that many of the people who now understand the corruption of medical science that’s happened with regard to Covid-19 had, prior to Covid, an overall trust in medical science. But those of us who had done research into vaccines knew even before Covid that a lot of monkey business was happening in medical science in that many childhood vaccines are simply unnecessary, and we’ve gotten into a situation where we give far too many vaccines far too early to our children: a few of these children end up suffering terrible consequences from this. These consequences— like the consequences of the Covid vaccines— are being hidden from the public. Taken as a whole, the vaccine cure is worse than the diseases.
People like RFK, Jr., have known this about vaccines for years, and after Covid began, Kennedy wrote a seminal book on the corruption that led to the emergence of Covid: The Real Anthony Fauci. But RFK, Jr., still believes in climate catastrophe. So it’s people like RFK, Jr., who I consider my audience: good, decent, smart people who believe in a theory that’s completely wrong.
It’s important to see how this theory is wrong: the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming serves as the foundational justification for The Great Reset. But, nothing is happening due to CO2 that any of us needs to worry about. The entire paradigm is misguided: apparently self-consistent, but wrong. Atmospheric physics doesn’t even work the way alarmist scientists claim it does. So there are many parallels with Covid science: a paradigm that 97% of scientists believe is true is actually completely false. Only, the real evidence of the falsity of the Covid claims seems to be picking up and hard to avoid, whereas the hold of the paradigm of climate catastrophe has been going on for decades and is firmly established in many scientific circles. (For those who might not have seen this, I recommend Steve Kirsch’s recent compilation of comments from medical personnel on the Covid vaccines. Essential reading.)
For now, I want to circle back to Steve Koonin’s recent book, Unsettled, and explain one more finding in that book: that the record high temperatures in the US haven’t increased even though we’re told by authorities that they have. The importance of this finding is that we’ll see that scientists deliberately manipulated the data to scare us: it appears they knew what they were doing and didn’t care. Those who’ve been educated by the malfeasance in Covid science will recognize this pattern, and that’s why it’s important to bring it out now: this sort of stuff has been going on for a long time. Only now, more people are open to seeing it.
In chapter 5 of Koonin’s book he discusses ‘Hyping the Heat’ with regard to high temperatures in the US. What got Koonin started was this graph displayed in the US government’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report (CSSR):
So far, so good: scary hot temperatures seem to be happening more recently. However, in that same report, same chapter 6, we have these graphs:
In my figure 2 above, we see that the warmest temperatures in the US appear to have been around the 1930s and temperatures have been cooling since then. We also see that the coldest temperatures of the year have been warming. This warming of coldest temperatures could be attributed to the ‘heat island effect’: thermometers that in 1900 were near to cornfields might in later years be adjacent to airports and surrounded by concrete structures that retain heat longer than vegetated earth does, and so keep nighttime temperatures warmer. But in any case, my figures 1 and 2 seem to contradict each other.
To solve the mystery of why these figures were contradictory, Koonin looked to the sources for the data in figure 1 and he found this 2009 paper: Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S. by Meehl, et.al. In that paper (and in one other by Meehl) he learned that the method used to find record highs was that of ‘running records’: if a new high for any weather station was reported, on any day, that was higher than all previous records, then that was a new ‘record high.’ So a station might report numerous new record highs in a year, especially during the early years of reporting when there were relatively fewer records to beat, and those early records would fall within a roughly 1:1 ratio (number of record highs roughly equal to number of record lows.) But when using running records, the number of record highs or lows would naturally decline with time according to the function of the solid line in figure 3, below, if the records saw no increase or decrease with time:
For the US, what we see in the above figure is that the record warm days (red dots) have been generally decreasing over the years (from 1950, most of the red dots are below the curve) while the number of record cold days (blue dots) have been decreasing even more. Even though both record highs and record lows have been decreasing, record lows have been decreasing more than record highs (i.e., there are fewer record lows than in previous years compared to record highs, even though there are also fewer record highs): this is perfectly consistent with figure 2, above.
But look again at figure 1 and notice the caption: ‘Ratio of Daily Temperature Records.’ We just stated that in the above paragraph: ‘record lows have been decreasing more than record highs.’ This is a ratio. But it does not therefore mean than there have been more record highs in recent years, and figure 2 above tells us there have not been. What figure 1 is talking about is a ratio.
Figure 1 is technically true, then, but highly misleading. Was it deliberately misleading? Koonin looked at the peer review comments to the CSSR 2017 and he found that this discrepancy was indeed called out: it made no sense to say that record highs were increasing from earlier in the century because this is emphatically not what the data were telling us. Koonin furthermore found that the CSSR agreed to make most of the changes recommended by the review panel. However, this misleading graph was still published.
Koonin demonstrated that record highs aren’t increasing in the US even though we’re deliberately led to believe that they have been; figure 1 then become fodder for numerous publications that tout what an emergency we’re in, and we only have nine years left, etc., to halt this terrible acceleration in record highs. The scientists who published this bogus data must have known what they were doing and how it’d be received, but they did it anyhow. Why?
The answer is partly groupthink, partly strong-arming from people who insist that the catastrophic radiative paradigm must be true even if there are glitches, and who feel the need to scare (‘nudge’?) people into action. So the thinking is that so far as surface warming goes, it’s all about radiation, and everything else happening takes place within the context of that radiation, and they’ve got the (self-consistent) math to prove it, and the infrared absorption/emission spectrum of CO2 fits into that radiative paradigm very nicely. Therefore, catastrophe. But I’ll convince you in what follows that nothing is happening in the atmosphere from CO2 that we’re told is happening.
Physicists who’ve published research on a new atmospheric paradigm believe that this radiative paradigm is backwards, and that Occam’s razor tells us that the simplest and most elegant solution to the problem of how the surface is warmer than its theoretical radiating temperature is that it’s because of the gravitational acceleration of the mass of the atmosphere creating huge pressure at the surface, and radiative effects exist within that context.
This pressure, by itself, increases surface atmospheric temperature because it necessarily increases the kinetic energy of the gas molecules nearest the surface, and when we speak of the temperature of a gas, that’s what were talking about: molecules with more kinetic energy are hotter. Think about the Grand Canyon: why is the bottom of the Grand Canyon so much hotter than the rim, when cold air sinks? Because there’s more CO2 at the bottom of the canyon that back-radiates into the canyon walls? No, it’s because the temperature increases with pressure according to the lapse rate formulas and the gas laws, and air pressure increases exponentially the closer we get to the center of gravity.
A Chinook wind works the same way: as the drier air at the top of a mountain ridge descends, it warms up according to the lapse rate formula whose key term isn’t radiative content, but rather gravitational acceleration: the gas laws in action in the real world.
We’ll be talking about our lower atmosphere— the troposphere— and start getting into diagrams of pressure and temperature and talk about gravity. Eventually we’ll be looking a specific diagrams from specific weather balloons to prove that the predicted effects of CO2 are nowhere to be seen in the atmosphere: these effects exist only as ghosts in radiative calculations within a self-consistent paradigm that appears to have reality, but that, according to real-world data, has no reality at all. It only exists because people want to believe it exists. We’ll talk about how atmospheric pressure by itself can and does do the job that everyone supposes happens because of the radiative greenhouse effect.
It’s not about radiation. It’s about gravity, that mysterious and powerful force we swim in.
Yes, I have wondered about Robert Kennedy's continuing acceptance of AGW, given his inquiring mind and have concluded that it's a result of his fidelity to his left wing belief system for which AGW is akin to their bible. He continues to post articles on his website supporting these views, one of which this week shouted the alarm that 90% of all marine species' were facing extinction due to greenhouse gas emissions. Astonishingly, there are 61 comments to date, when CHD articles often only garner one or two and 99% are rather scathing about the article, to the extent that they have provoked RFK himself to defend his position, which I recommend viewing as a good example of what we're up against. Contrary to some of the commenters, I believe RFK is quite sincere in his belief, but sadly makes the common mistake of confusing pollution in all its forms with climate - pollution being most definitely man-made.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/marine-extinction-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cd/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=3df57295-760b-4041-a244-b155a3f30ac9