Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott D. Bloom

Foreign ladies and gentlemen my name is David Thoreau and I had the privilege of being the president of the independent Institute I’m delighted to welcome you to our program this evening as many of you may know the independent Institute holds programs like this debates lectures and other presentations which

We call the independent policy forum and tonight we’re greatly pleased to welcome two distinct scientists Dr Willie soon and Dr Elliot Bloom who will be speaking tonight on global warming fact or fiction and I want to especially thank Dr Terry and Mrs Carolyn Gannon for their wonderful assistance in making tonight

Possible so thank you very much those of you who are new to the independence suit you’ll also find information in your packet about us I also point out that in keeping with tonight’s topic we included five summaries of papers by Dr soon in your packet as well as a copy of the

Testimony by Dr John Christie who is from the University of Alabama and I’ll make a mention about that in a minute Dr Christie gave the testimony before the house committee on science space and Technology uh he’s a distinguished professor in his own right of atmospheric science and director of the Earth’s system science

Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville so I hope you’ll enjoy that and that material I think you’ll see be quite relevant to our discussion this evening independent Institute is a public policy Research Institute we have about 140 fellows we produce lots of books we also produce the

Independent review and there’s some sample copies out on The Book Table we were thrilled also to feature a book this evening called Hot Talk called science by one of our research fellows his name is Fred singer anyway the mission of independent is to build the advanced peaceful prosperous

And free societies grounded in a commitment to human worth and dignity and the results of that work does result in the books and Publications I mentioned as well as organizing uh various conference and media programs like tonight that we’re delighted to be hosting um the issue for tonight is one of great dispute

A lot of emotion a lot of contention um the uh major presentation this evening is going to be done by Dr Willie soon um I should mention that the issue of global warming sort of boils down to a number of questions is global warming real our man-made CO2 emissions a dangerous

Imminent and irreversible threat to life on Earth have such predictions been scientifically established um have the forecast from the many CO2 based climate models been right and if not why not what about solar influences on climate including on the clouds on the oceans on wind and what would massive carbon taxes

Or perhaps the green New Deal and other controls produce for the people of America and indeed the world especially the poor um Dr soon himself received his PhD with distinction and Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Southern California he’s been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory a senior scientist at

The George C Marshall Institute seizure visiting fellow with the state key laboratory of marine environmental science at Simon University and professor of University of Environmental Studies at the University of Putra in Malaysia he’s the author of a number of books as well as over 90 scientific papers he is

A recipient of the IEEE nuclear and plasma science Society award the Rockwell science Hunter Ward the Smithsonian institution award the courage and defense of science award and many others um the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson and William happer both with attachments to Princeton have both claimed Dr soon for his exceptional courageous and

Indeed path working work in and passion for science so it gives me great pleasure to welcome Dr Willie soon thank you all for coming tonight I hope everybody can hear me yes yes okay but it is the problem of the accent you just blame it on I’ll go

I tend to have this thickness Tennessee type of a language well I really thank you all you know it’s full house right I mean my typical size of audience is five so I really really humbly appreciate everybody for coming my job is rather easy tonight because I

Want to talk about this gas this satanic gas people call it you know CO2 carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide according to the wisdom of what you call the United Nations uh intergovernmental panel on climate change reports that says that if you were to keep putting this carbon

Dioxide into the atmosphere the go the globe is going to warm the sea is going to rise the polar bear is going to say stop drinking Coca-Cola and say goodbye and many many other problems by the way your kids will get ADHD all kinds of problems there’ll be more marijuana and

All that stuff you know so on and so forth I’m here trying to tell you that this CO2 is not that powerful in that sense the only thing it does in the system is actually make the planet Greener so I apologize if this really bothers anyone

And I also wanted to say that you know in the in the spirit of science I will at least try to tell you that if there’s anything that I say offend anybody I humbly apologize first because I tend to have the tendency to be a bit more hyper excited

But my passion is very sincere it’s all about science all the way down it’s all about science nothing else because if I were to be wrong and say anything that’s not truthful you just hang me right here right no problem let’s just talk about it if there’s anything that we disagree

Let’s talk about it and most important of all if anything that is not clear at all y’all can look for independent Institute Terry Gagnon my good friend in fact I also want to acknowledge my three Irish colleagues from Ireland these are the most excellent scientists I ever had the privilege to work with

And uh we’re gonna have a team to try to discuss what this CO2 claimed by all this world expert that it turns out to be not so the most important lessons about science is clear right I mean I have a quote here by Professor Richard Feynman he’s among the finest physicists America ever

Seen and it’s really to try to get to the essence that science is not about consensus have you all heard about that consensus business 97 I mean the kind of stuff they’re pulling is very very bad actually all these 97 99 consensus it mean nothing it’s all about actually

Asking a simple question like do you do you think that climate will change of course I’m one of those 97 percent it’s a pure nonsense it’s nothing about science science is about what are the facts what are the evidence and so on and so forth there is a very famous

Statement by Professor Albert Einstein I hope we all heard about him right to say that when he published his stuff on general relativity there’s this 100 Berlin Academy mission who wrote a report against Einstein relativity and the guy with the wisdom by the name of Einstein say why would you even need a

Hundred if I would be wrong one would suffice right in my humble opinion after starting this topic for close to 30 years now that really this code is very meaningful there’s never been something about the scientific field that you really try very very hard to make sure that you all don’t get sway

Away by people like myself that deniers and so on and so forth that you know you make sure that you don’t hear us so I thank independent Institute for providing this forum I hope I don’t embarrass any one of you they really try very hard and then every

Time that you say though you wanna oh I want to ask a question no no no no no question you just believe us every time you say can we have a little debate I don’t understand your facts can you explain to me they just say no no no oh God say so

So we go to this next one is another one one of the world expert is the EPA active Freedom responsibility openness of government Etc let me ask you what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2 I don’t have that calculation for you

Sir maybe uh you could tell us what your personal uh gifts is on what percentage of the CO2 I I don’t make those guesses sir you’re the head of the EPA you don’t know you’ve based you have all of these laws baseball oh you’re going to get

Your staffer to tell you now but you’re the head of the EPA and you did not know what the what percentage and now you are basing policies that impact dramatically on the American people and you didn’t even know the bait what the content of CO2 in the atmosphere was which is the

Justification for the very policies you’re talking about no that’s well thank you if you’re asking me how much CO2 is is in the atmosphere not a percentage but how much we have just reached levels of 400 pots per million that was very clear what I was asking

And I was very clear you didn’t know let me ask you if uh CO2 from what I have understand English enough it’s to make a point these folks want to regulate they don’t want to even study science right it’s so hard I mean sorry you know I wish I can be a

Jellyfish someday well we have a problem in the west right it’s been known that the there’s all this while ranging forest fire is damaging our homes and so on and so forth right whatever the reason is apparently the professor Jim Hansen from NASA Goddard Institute for space study

By the way you all know who he is right he’s the father of global warming he’s the man who testified in the senate in 1988 making a clear statement that he’s 99 sure that he has already seen the global warming effect by the carbon dioxide okay this is telling you the

Level of stuff is doing he’s presenting this talk to show that the the forest fire numbers burn in the areas has been increasing okay and he showed data from 1960 to about 2017 or so and this is based on the talk with children okay student at the Symposium in Taiwan

And I have to say that you know that seems very convincing isn’t it if you are a big Authority coming from America former you know NASA director but I think the God is angry right here right you know something is burning but the problem is he’s pulling such a

Childish uh sort of thing he put actually a link to the data set where he got it from but he forgot that the whole data says it’s available from 1926 or so why would he do such a thing you know he basically do you all understand right he was

Showing you only the little part but he forgot to show you from 1926 to 1960. isn’t that childish are we are we serious about science and these are called scientists right and I’m not supposed to tell people about this I don’t even know why he bothered to do

This actually so Professor Henson hello what but what happened when you do bad signs this is part of the stuff that I have passion about you know when you mess around with signs you mess around with me right what happened well you got you got a lot

I don’t care how many of what he wins it doesn’t matter okay it is that kind of problem the reverse incentive signs you’re not only not doing science you have to do something anti-size to get in the world right so these people are to me they’re just burning everything away you know it’s

Dangerous dangerous don’t do that man because life is much more beautiful than that one should not do that this is just a sneak preview on my own study with my friend from University of Mexico by the name of Victor Velasco we’ve been looking into the forest fire statistics

This is simply just to show you that the Wildfire statistics from about 1930s or so uh until now and then we make a forward forecast we analyze the data it turns out that the data has very strong what you call every 10-year kind of cycle yes also

Every four years kind of cycle and then we train the the computer using some of this algorithm called artificial intelligence intelligence to actually make some forecasts just simply to show that you can do some of this exercise and I don’t mean that I already know everything but this is just an example

Of what science is all about and then we know that it’s summer now so I I I’m obligated to show this chart from Professor John Christie or University of Alabama Huntsville is to show you all this record daily hottest temperature in United States United States has a very good temperature

Record so we can go back about from 1895 until now you can see it’s been changing up and down but then what we have now is just what it is that’s all it is right it has nothing to do with this because they tend to use

That oh every time there’s a heat wave it has to be global warming right the next one I’m going to show you is that the cool the core wave when you have excessive snow this shall be done by the former science advisor to President Obama by the name of John Holden

Uh that’s what he said he says that with global warming we’re going to have more Core Extreme please make sure you understand that facts but I’d like to remind who John holdren is right John holdren is one of those in my opinion has been very much an activist

From day one of course that’s the only reason why he got selected but he’s by President Obama and then he’s the kind of type to say that you have too much energy it’s kind of bad for people right because we’ll be like giving little kids a machine gun now

So it is known and this is even cited in scientific literature because he’s a very well-known character right he’s a science advisor to the president so in scientific paper people even cite him that saying that with global warming we’re going to have extreme cold wave okay

But it is known look at what the title say right of this scientific paper let’s say that we actually will have a lot less Core Extreme isn’t it that kind of makes sense right but every time there’s a core wave during the winter they send out guys like John holdren coming to

Defend this uh status quo of their their facts another paper by more distinguished scientists tapio Schneider is among the best climate dynamices from Caltech clearly also say that global warming will lead to less frequent coal outbreaks in northern hemisphere winter that’s basically what science say he

Probably didn’t want to call out to find out the answer right and worse yet it is well known that ipcc themselves is actually saying that they have long predicted that when you have global warming you ought to at least have less snow storm isn’t it so if you don’t

Believe me this is what ipcc say milder winter temperature will decrease heavy snowstorm so this is the type of political game and so-called experts are selling to the rest of the world and of course this joke is basically yes you know it’s going to cover up the dead bird

The next statistics I’m going to show you is about hurricane TC is tropical Cyclone the activity is going from about 1970 to now the reason why you started in 1970 here is because this is the satellite era where we have satellite to look at all the statistics so it’s

Rather more accurate but the point is where is the killer Trend you look at anything you want right tropical Cyclone or extreme hurricane they’re going up and down up and down up and down right where is the carbon dioxide alcohol and then if you look at the more relevant impact type the tropical

Cyclone that actually land on the you know come to the land and sort of cause damages category one two three and four these are three and four and five are of course bad because the wind speed is high probably a lot more rain as well

It’s pretty much up and now up and down really this is the stuff that they actually will create all kinds of so-called papers scientific papers to try to make claims that all CO2 can actually not change the statistics but may make the hurricane stronger and more energetics and things like that

But unfortunately it’s not so true picking it up here in Wilmington North Carolina right at the intra Coastal and we’re in one of these bands this is about as nasty as it’s been we had some bands like this last night and then the eye wall this morning we were not on TV

It was the dark and raucous night at the hotel at this wind because the other day we have this tropical side storm Berry just moving so you can see the statistics for yourself if you look at all the land falling hurricane in Louisiana for example the statistics go rather far back right 1851

Until July 13th of 2019. I don’t think you can claim anything out of this sort of thing nature is what it is actually as far as concerned we cannot find any carbon dioxide fingerprint and all this all these statistics so one of the things that we want to

Learn is always like that you really every time you hear a word no wonder they say for example some people worry why am i showing so many child because you know why words are very bad because they are able to deceive you you have to learn them every time they say this and

That you ask them where is the data I want to see the data my good friend from Ireland say where’s the data right let’s look at the data the First Data I want to look at is tornado for example this is among the three strongest the one

That is tornado that is up to 140 miles an hour kind of win up to 200 miles an hour kind of win F3 to F5 and showing you the statistics from 54 to now I don’t know I mean maybe they like to say global warming causing the trend to

Go down oh no it’s not possible it’s not possible joking aside you have to study this issue carefully and then my good friend the meteorologist Jehovah study who say that you know especially this 2019 we have a lot of tornado in the Midwest but the blame on on global warming is

Completely baloney right because this may was very cold by the way so to form tornado you need very sharp gradient and a very warm in a tropics and a very cold on the land here then you possibly can have that because just a year ago the May was very warm here’s

The slide that you should see right on your left is the one that lasts you when you are very warm on the land you got no tornado activity at all in the may but this year kind of very cold in the midwest you tend to have a lot more tornado formation

It’s just the opposite of what they say by the way now I want to talk about because by the way this carbon dioxide changing any of the weather and climate statistics they just couldn’t find too many of this around by the way to be honest with you

If I can find one I will show you tonight I couldn’t find one that’s my thing you can ask all my friends here they’re all scientists we’re practicing science day in day out we’re looking for these things now I’m going to talk about a new scare it’s called osteoporosis of the sea okay

This is actually a code the osteoporosis of the Sea by the way language manipulation is one of those I actually told algo you are the manipulator of the English language then you see things like that they say they create this thing to create a mental picture they want to make sure

You understand you know that when you don’t have carbon dioxide global warming when the carbon dioxide in the inertia tends to go down into the ocean it’s going to make the ocean more acidic ooh scary right so one of these uh so-called marine biologists who is also Obama

Obama appointee under Secretary of Noah Dr Jane lupchenko who is actually now Oregon or Oregon State saying that you know any plans any any things that have a shell if you have more of this stuff like oyster and crap they will be actually melting away because it’s more

Acidified scary so you know what it’s very simple you just do an experiment the first thing we do is that we’re going to study this lobster under the condition of 400 parts per million carbon dioxide by the way that’s 0.04 right you breathe out it’s almost four percent

So let’s ask ourselves if we run the experiment seven times more which is about 2 800 parts per million what happened to the Lobster it grew bigger oh what’s wrong with that the second one we can test is crap because they mentioned Lobster and crabs I’ll show you that seventh time it’s

Also grow bigger you know I must be pulling a stun remember what I just tell you this is an experiment actual experiment being conducted in science experiment means what you you any one of us you want to do we just go do it just be careful with your experimental procedure okay

And the the the problem is there are a lot of these kind of scary things around that you probably have seen I will show you one you know dissolving cell picture you probably have seen those now God has used those obviously lukchenko has used this the NOAA secretary show picture

Like this from day 0 day 16 to day 45 the shell was very nice and shiny and then it’s kind of eroded away really soon is lying to you we all go home refund boy pay money back unfortunately this is another one of those magic tricks they did not conduct the experiment that

You have carbon dioxide and then they bubble through the system and then cause the change in the carbonate by carbonate cycle so don’t study chemistry tonight but something like that you have to study this properly instead what they do is that as I put the code here

I I better not miss talking about it these are all experts studying all this topic let’s guess what they do instead of letting the CO2 bubble through the system they put weak Hydrochloric to speed up the process because they don’t even want to wait for the equilibration

With the system those experiments that I show you takes about two three months to work properly okay and they do that you don’t want another one this someone was famous because in the in the newspaper she quoted that she’s a Obama supporter things like that supposed to gain more

Credibility right I don’t care just be honest in science you never ever tell lies okay and then yes this is just one more extra code just to make sure that you understand because these people have been running expert Japanese too Japanese probably not influenced by U.S politics right they also show that they

Have run those experiments by by just adding weak hydrochloric acid instead of running the carbon dioxide to show the effects so every time when I see this I remind myself on this so going on this road so let’s be careful there’s always sharks around so let’s get back to global warming

Right this is the typical graph they show from about 1880 to now let’s say right you measure that all the globe is warming if you show the relationship with carbon dioxide oh my god did you see it it’s almost a perfect correlation if you plot the carbon dioxide on the horizontal axis

The global temperature on this is perfect correlation guys we all know another important lesson in science right correlation doesn’t mean causation right if you really believe that this is to be true a closed door I’ll go home now really seriously because you know why I told Terry that I

Want to get a lot of chocolate I throw it to all of you guys because according to some statistical study that the more chocolate you consume the more chances of you winning Nobel prizes guys yeah anyway prices are the most deceptive business about science actually well let’s study this carbon dioxide

Right let’s study that within the context of energy flow within the climate system the first reminder I want to remind everybody is that it turns out that this climate is among the most misunderstood subject because Elgar the average of these students thinks that he understands climate my

God it’s as sure as gravity you always say that you guys are just denial right but to understand climate you need to study what astronomy solar physics geology geography geochemistry sedimentology tectonic paleontology paleo ecology glossology climatology mythology oceanography ecology archeology history and that’s not even complete

And these guys say that if we just change the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere that we’re going to control the whole system it’s a bit ridiculous actually right and then when those people say that what’s the difference between weather and climate right they always say oh uh climate is something like

Because according to World Meteorological organization is 30-year average of the weather that may be very nice to teach a student it’s true you need to give them pedagogical expert which means long-term averages but who says 30 years he could easily be 50 years could be easily be

100 years right this is all the kind of stuff that is you know not quite the truth it’s only half truth right do we just really want to learn half Truth All My Life how true plus half truth you know it really doesn’t add to a truth right it’s

Actually a pure lie you cannot send a man to the to the moon like that okay it’s a joke actually be serious science is very serious so greenhouse effect well I’m not going to explain it because my friend gonna kick me because we study this issue very carefully but the idea

Is that you you added more carbon dioxide molecules is in it’s interact with the energy flow in the climate system and you tend to you if you have more carbon dioxide you will tend to warm the climate Okay so let’s study this carbon dioxide if who thinks that the most important

Greenhouse gas in the climate is carbon dioxide oh very smart audience it’s actually it’s X yeah it’s actually H2O really it’s water vapor right in all forms in the vapors snow and ice and liquid form right that’s in fact half of the job if we want to study climate change and all

That you really need to study hydrology okay and just to give you an example example don’t mind the complexity all the arrows is meant to tell you that you know please don’t get confused but then is to try to show you the climax is really complex okay and I’m going to

Show you if I click all the individual components and compare the row of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the climate system let’s say who is in charge right so first thing we go is we keep clicking all the blue one turns out to be controlled by water vapor there’s no

Area Ice Area surface vapor pressure relative humidity soil moisture evaporation everything is blue and then they say that if you just change the carbon dioxide that you’re going to get that you’re going to control the climate system that’s basically what it is and then when you come down to water

Vapor they occasionally like to put a picture like this the one from power plant right by the way please understand you cannot see CO2 okay some some kids from Sweden the lady named Greta tumbug say that as you can see carbon dioxide actually this is how

Bad it is right instead of going to school to learn that carbon dioxide is in infrared you cannot see this thing okay and she said that she can see CO2 so it’s just a bit of a choke I just wanted to point out that the role of CO2

Water vapor is very important in the climate system so I’m showing you two graph okay top and bottom the top graph is actually temperature the bottom is water vapor okay and I’m showing you the distribution from South Pole to the North Pole and then in the vertical coordinates it’s actually going from

Zero to about 20 kilometers right what I’m showing you is that temperature and water vapor at one instant of time okay it shows you that as you have more water vapor the area tends to be warmer as you have less water vapor it tends to be cooler okay let’s show you how close

A relationship of temperature and and what A vapor is in a climate system and then in terms of time at least we have two Satellite measurements the blue curve is actually showing you the temperature measurement and then the red curve is actually showing you the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere detected

By the satellite radiometer okay they’re pretty close relationship then I’m going to show you this because the ultimate things about science is about tests right you have a hypothesis carbon dioxide increase what does it do increase the greenhouse effect yes so a paper that published uh two years

Or three years ago indeed trying to quantify this issue and it tends to find that the last few years you tend to have this so-called flattening of the greenhouse effect which I Will Show You by this graph from 1980 to 1991 or so there appears to be some kind of

Increase of the Greenhouse Effect and then by by the time you reach about 92 93 if you keep plotting the greenhouse effect it seems to be flat going up and down so what this is telling you is that if you study the energy flow in the climate system

That the last few decades has been flattening there’s just even though the carbon dioxide is rising it’s true that one is still true by the way but the greenhouse effect has been flat so what does it tell you it tells you that carbon dioxide is already playing a

Minor role in the total greenhouse effect in the climate system really because this effect of flattening is caused by two things the cancellation between the water vapor and the cloud effects okay but not controlled by carbon dioxide at all this is actual measurements if you don’t like this look at the result from

From Antarctica and Arctic they measure something called the outgoing long wave radiation satellite could do those things it’s showing you something like this so I I think in terms of testing the empirical effects of what’s carbon dioxide due to the system is fairly convincing that no such thing exists

And then when you come down to global warming just remember too every time they say that if I warm the have more carbon dioxide I’m going to warm the climate by a few degree let’s say but the field degree in the context of city like a Boston I’m basically showing you

The daily temperature in Boston from January to December okay and then they say the global warming going to change by two or three or four or five degrees Fahrenheit let’s say on this skill we go from anything from 10 degree Fahrenheit to 80 degree Fahrenheit and we’re talking about this tiny thing

That’s very hard to detect even if you allow their their theoretical speculation to be true so in that I’ll just conclude that I’m going to protest I’m going to save the Earth I’m going to start continental drift anyway it’s joking aside the future of the of this plate tectonics is also

Studied attempted I don’t think we should believe in this 250 million years in the future but you know they will be United again I guess in 250 million years from now so is it true that most of these taxpayer funded scientists are just honest and wanted to provide neutral and

Reliable data sets that’s really a serious question to ask and then just want to remind ourselves in 1907 in publication of the American mythological Society people talk about this already that we should be honored we should not be messing around with data and so on and so forth

So I want to show you this case that is very very outrageous what I’m plotting here is three curve two curve is basically the blue and the red curve they are what you call the satellite temperature temperature measurement of the global temperature from about 1990 something to about let’s say

Present time it’s going up and now but it’s flat right this is what the famous thing called the global warming Hiatus is not warming up well the carbon dioxide is still rising and then another data set that show is rising is produced by NASA Goda Institute for space study

The the two Satellite data is measuring something from a layer about a few kilometers up from the atmosphere what is measured by NASA gas Goda Institute forces they study the green curve is from the surface thermometer data we don’t believe that data is true of course by the way so we’re working on

Those class a problem but here I want to refer to a case by the group called RSS they are from Santa Rosa somewhere here they are actually showing that curve in 2016. and then I want to remind because every time that in science is like if you can do as many independent

Measurements that you can that is becoming more interesting I just want to remind you on the middle panel the RSS and the unit uh you’ll see a Alabama Huntsville data agree with each other there’s a flat Trend but there’s actually a third data set that is measured by another technique

Okay from a Taiwanese group they’re actually using some very special technique of looking through the atmosphere and do that sort of thing radio or quotation for people who wants to know it actually show satellite flat fat Trend by the way so what do we do we

Have three data sets four or five data sets three of them kind of show flat here right because they’re measuring the atmosphere and this guy from the surface showing the the warming so is it really true that these Hiatus these so-called Hiatus you you understand this right if the temperature

Is not always coming it’s rising do you actually consider this a disaster for them instead of saying that hey maybe we are wrong carbon dioxide is not important no no no no no no they will shake all their Foundation they don’t like it okay so they started to say that

These are fantasy created by people like myself okay so they have BBC say what happened what happened we need to study this and then you even have sorry for the quote but anyway uh there are folks in scientific Community talking among themselves saying that we’re in trouble

Now because we cannot explain what this why the temperature is not warming up so it shows you that they are worried internally and even worse a very famous Professor by the name of Professor Phil Jones from UK was actually writing to his colleague from the UK meteorological Met Office because they were making

Forecasts they even forecast that the the temperature will keep flat for about 2020. remember this okay I’ll make the point later because even forecast is showing that it’s going to show flat because you know they want to show that they can predict this oh we understood this thing

But it will warm again you just wait you just wait it’s gonna warm again and look what happened three years later RNs temperature now agree with the Goddard Institute for space study so if the data don’t fit your theory what do you do you change the data guys be smart why not

That’s okay so they were talking things like that they’re beginning to talk among themselves that maybe you know satellite data by the way is measuring something in the troubles here like few kilometers up the air it’s actually a good measurement because they’re measuring something from the vibration of this

Oxygen molecule that is very uniform okay because it’s very same amount of constant 21 everywhere carbon dioxide there will be a lot in this room few thousand parts per million outside is 400 things like that it’s very good and then now they say the surface the moment the data that has all

Kinds of problem is okay so this is the summary when the data don’t fit you just change the data okay so I’ll just provoke this I’m going to send this Ransom note right give us the dollar or you will Fry Guys you’ll get all kinds of problems please pay here with ipcc

Then I’m gonna get into another case that is very serious this is very serious the man on the right or left is Michael Mann and then the other one is the famous uh Bill Nye the Science Guy celebrity but anyway this is concerning a very serious problem my command is

Well known and associated with a phenomenon called hockey stick temperature history this is actually a paper that’s been produced showing that the temperature could not change Mass from 1080 to 1980 very flat and then it warm up from 1900 to now Zoom it up never mind the Hiatus of course

And then most people are starting this flat part okay actually I produce a paper myself in fact my paper was the first one ever produced in 2003 now I want to focus in on the blade problem okay let me show you I wrote a scientific paper just to make a point to

Say that we study this issue carefully and then I want to tell you that Michael Mann was very worried about this how he put out in the block saying that oh there’s this so-called attack paper in science when somebody criticize your work you’ll be very very happy with an

Honors scientist because according to Michael Connolly my good friend saying that we learn more than right instead of saying oh this guy is attacking me he’s from denial club and so on and so forth so he actually claimed blame that you know I was trying to attack ipcc no

Michael man I was attacking your work not ipcc really he was so proud he was so proud that he tried to stop my paper from publishing he was influencing this American geophysical Union that published that journal geophysical research letter where I printed in 2004 calling them that I have violated

Copyright in my paper therefore the people shall not be published let me show you the problem you can look here it’s a bit hard for me okay left okay from left to right you have three data sets my command 2002 Michael man at all 2003 and man Michael Mann and June 2003 and

Then the the one to your right is my results I try to emulate whether you can get this temperature change this is actually the temperature change for the last 150 years or so right you notice that in two less than one and a half years 2002 to about 2003

You notice that the end curve the red curve is what I want you to focus on it keeps changing you keep going higher do you understand what it means it’s impossible under any data any condition the data could not change by one year especially this one is four year filter

You smooth it out so you don’t want to study the year to year changes so you study the long-term changes do you understand this is this is the part where nobody discusses actually a published a paper on this to point out that I consider this case is a

Scientific fraud in my humble opinion okay he came back and and talked nonsense again it’s very sad how many years already 2004 okay you think about it and he was very proud there’s actually a proof that he actually talked among himself that he was so proud really soon gonna have this

Paper coming out but I was so powerful and my command I’m able to stop him okay because he was colluding with a American geophysical Union geophysical research letter folks about able to stop me from painting unfortunately I was rather smart by that time actually I’ve gotten all the permission to redraw the figures

And you show it the way I show it okay there’s nothing wrong with actually taking aside oh another very simple point about science you all believe right if you have a data that makes something and then you’ve already published your paper do you think that

We can should ask them to get the data so we can check the data do we agree raise your hand yeah and do you know what is the typical answer right no no no the dog ate my homework no you cannot have it if I give

It to you you just want to destroy my idea that kind of work okay I’m not joking this is how serious science is and these are always the outside that doing that if they ask ourselves Michael Connelly and Ronan Connolly that they want our data please have the data in

Fact every time we publish we make sure the data is already out there right you don’t do things like that and then he become actually delusional he think that he’s a holocaust Survivor he claiming that we’re doing things like this let me ask our director for a second if he can

Go on a wide shot and I don’t know if you can get everybody on all at once but I wonder in the midst of your lecturing to your students whether any of you and I’m sorry I don’t want to get too touchy feely here but I mean this is what our

Subject is about tonight anybody started to cry or broken down or just had an emotional moment where you were overcome anybody Michael I see you nodding yep what happened yep what happened um sometimes I’ll be talking uh about uh not just the science but the the denial

The not denial industry and the things that also fuel interest did to lead us astray that are so like what the tobacco industry did decades ago to lead us astray on the health impacts of tobacco and and I’ll tear up especially when I’m talking to an audience of of young

People because you know what a terrible Injustice we’ve done them or we’ve allowed others to do them by misleading them on what is arguably the greatest challenge we face as a civilization um sometimes I tear up just describing that talking about that well one of the ironies of this program is I can’t

Recall a time I laughed as much as I did love as much as it did yeah this is what people that do things like this and kind of very strange too emotional isn’t it you may call me emotional but really I sleep very well so you want to hear more authoritative

Statements from global warming now let’s start with ipcc US EPA or Global change research right ipcc is very fond of putting out this curve they say that on your left you have a lot of this orange line and the red curve they are all model calculation and then the black curve is

Actually observation they can explain everything okay if they include the carbon dioxide and then on the left this blue one include only the yeah on the right yes that you include only the volcano and the solar oh it won’t do anything because it deviate and I have to tell you if anybody have

Any understanding of Statistics this is actually an abuse of statistics and also statistics I’m not interested I’m interested in physics you notice that you need the deployed they always plot this thing called the temperature anomalies this is which is a very strange word there’s actually a temperature deviation from some averages

Okay but if you plot in the actual temperature unit temperature the ice freezes at zero degree isn’t it the highest get boy 100 degrees if you plot in a natural unit look the dotted 9 now is actually the observation and then the data the model calculation is all over the place

But when you do a temperature normally you actually squeeze them together you hide it so your data look very impressive I think rule number one in science that you don’t oversell your results so in fact they should have showed this plot but they never ever show this plot it

Took them a long time until 2012 the first plot like such kind appear it has to be done by amateur scientists okay to make those kind of plot and of course myself but I don’t need to publish paper like that so U.S Global change research it’s actually a well-known one because

They are now making a fuss out of this report right being something important and again president Trump’s own and so forth but among the stuff that they show is that they take all those results from ipcc and they show you that look instead of temperature anomaly they can plot the

Temperature unit in absolute unit Fahrenheit actually somebody they’re really crazy that they convert the unit of an anomaly a change to actual unit that’s how bad it is EPA is doing the same thing that is wrong actually by the way so I asked the question where is the peer

Review if by the way this is a phenomenal very serious it’s going to kill sign in my humble opinion because it’s not about peer review anymore it’s all power review system and it’s very very urgent and very very dangerous if you care about science you really need to speak out

So it’s really true it’s from the basically anomaly instead of showing all those ranges there’s somebody foolish think that you can convert this in the absolute unit but these things are not representing that at all okay I hope you understand that and this is just another

Example to remind you the model is all over the place they have too much eyes two little eyes and all that kind of stuff even when they have too much eyes Okay I’m going to melt some of the water and throw into the ocean it’s showing you that the

Climate modeling is in a very big trouble state then that was long ago maybe about 10 years ago but now I want to show you even more recent example this is a very prestigious lecture in JPL and Cal Attack One common is a very good fluid damage system from from Caltech that

This guy was giving a talk and he was talking about carbon dioxide and temperature change for 800 000 years from Antarctica but the problem is the ice core data is showing you the temperature anomaly the difference do you understand it’s showing you the difference between certain mean period

So if the change is the change of the temperature but some this this scientists so-called scientists in 2017 was converting 0 to 32 degree Fahrenheit I hope you get it please it’s just very simple kind of goofy it’s like I’m not I don’t want to laugh at him but it tells

You that this is how delusional the whole field is this is supposed to be an expert talking to public audience because they want to make sure that you’re more familiar you can feel the temperature right you know this but nonsense again so this is the kind of important public

Policy question right if it’s so important why they keep pulling out all this done graphical kind of stuff remember I tell you I don’t believe in this persuasion business you know science is all about evidence evidence evidence and data so the question is can the climate model simulate if you think

Climate model is important because that’s what they use for policy right for next hundred years they say now it doesn’t matter you don’t even need to validate the model actually they say all I can is that if I increase carbon dioxide it’s going to run for the next

100 years okay but let me do another test can we simulate something simple called as seasonal cycle in the climate temperature data so I’ll show you that if you plot the information of the seasonal cycle of the temperature Northern Hemisphere temperature from about 50 years for 50 years you plot

Something on the vertical axis called the amplitude you know how large the season number is and then the phase the timing of the peak whether this you know summer warming and winter cooling sort of thing when it comes you see that the data the climate the climate model data

Is all over the place so let’s see if they can hit the jackpot where is the observation right so the observation is right here oh they miss it by a lot it’s Bullseye man I’m gonna throw my thing I want to throw my daughter no he’s somebody right

So season is very serious come on listen what I just told you yeah the climate model cannot produce a seasonal cycle and they tell you they know something about the climate system isn’t it okay then another serious scare that they always do is that they say oh the last

150 000 years ago there’s a period called the immune warm period because remember now we are living in a period called interglacial called the Holocene and then 20 000 years ago we live in an ice age right when the ice is about two miles thick in Boston and New York and

Reach as far south as Delaware has a lot of ice so the big swing the climate system going up and now but every time they talk about season every time they talk about other other warm period they use the immune the 150 000 years ago 115

000 years ago but I want to remind you that it’s completely different immune from now because now you have this solid curve our seasonal amplitude Changed by only 90 watt per meter square but Eman was the orbit was less circular so it’s more eccentric so therefore the seasonal

Cycle is changed by 230 Watts so every time they talk about even e-man being equivalent like because they say even all the Greenland I should smell but there’s a very different condition from now it doesn’t mean that the green eye actually would melt again of course

And then I want to do another test about climate model because according to them that if one model is wrong that’s okay you know why because we’re taking a very a lot of averages right this is actually a code that is slightly embarrassing I don’t wish they’re embarrassing him but but he

Actually say it is by a professor of chemistry from Rice University of course a Nobel Prize that he say you know the Sovereign conclusion about future warming using climate model are based on these elaborate models right it’s usually no it’s usually wise to suspicious to be suspicious or computer

Model you have complex situation but we’re not talking about one scientist model it’s a number a program gives similar results with that let me challenge the professor Co that I ask you to look if I have all this bunch of Passenger Jets do you want to know what the average

Passenger jet is and if I show you would you go on it right so it’s mean that if you average all the result that is wrong it doesn’t mean that you’re going to get it right right you’re going to get it more wrong I don’t know what it is here’s what the

Average passenger jet look like right so I don’t think we want to take the Jet right I hope we can send or go on that one so it’s a very simple proposition if you really think that you can solve the problem like that you give me a faster computer right

But I want to point out that there are many foliage just two examples to show you the problem of current day today 2019. what kind of problem we have in climate model here’s one example the first example is to ask the question how well can the GCM which is the global

Circulation model which is a global climate model right how well can this simulate Cloud structure on your right is observation on your left is a GCM right the computer model it really don’t agree too well isn’t it right you cannot simulate the cloud you’re going from 90 South South Pole to North

Pole you go vertical high right from surface to basically high up in Stratosphere or troposphere right it’s very bad and then you ask a simple thing how about sea surface temperature more or less similar if you compare this is actually a calculation and then you compare with the difference with the observation you

Can see that large part of the Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean are cool by relative to actual observation for 5 degrees Celsius that’s quite large by the way so for climate model I have very simple proposition that most of the time they got the right result for the wrong reason

And then people like to say he go you go effect the well known giggle effect is garbage in garbage out for me that’s not a problem this is garbage oh I just ignore it right it’s garbage in gospel out is the problem I’m very funny at the end now so be

Please be patient the thing I want to show now is basically about uh Sun Sun climate connection which is my area of study the picture is just to give you the essence that the sun is powering all the energetic in the system the typical story how ipcc would say sun

Is not important is to show you graph like this they use a concept called radiative forcing according to them carbon dioxide give you 1.82 watt per meter Square over the last 260 years and then the sun give you only 0.04 watt per meter Square game’s over right really they win

I claim him because if this is true if this is how the climate function is to look at the product you know the change in the system all the time and not even think about season this is why they avoid season okay and that’s the reason the same information you can plot it

Like this because the client the sun is indeed the big giant gorilla in the climate system this is actually a very nice uh picture of the Sun in x-ray taken by my some colleagues from my workplace in x-ray so to finish off I want to show you

Another way those that came and saw me last night at the library in a church in Woodside California that I show a way to study a sun climate connection which is to say that because the thermometer data is very confused if you take the urban

Data and you don’t know what it means so you take some rural station so you study that to see whether there’s any implication of the sun effect that I think I showed that there is some effect and we’ll publish paper on that this is another way to look at it so my proposal

For tonight is to say that if you want to study the sun effects on this climate system you better don’t go and study the temperature during the night isn’t it am I right so you studied during the daytime maximum that’s basically the question I think I should skip a lot of this

Slide but I want to show you a bottom line it’s not a good idea at all to study the the the the the the Sun the temperature during the night for the sun effect because at the night you tend to form this thing that there’s a core

Stuff near the surface and the warm stuff so you have what you call a boundary layer so the atmosphere and the surface are not so connected because the monitor is sitting on the surface during daytime it’s a lot more easier to study this right because it’s more connected

To the surface okay so it’s really an amazing Simplicity it’s just something in the hunch that I say you study the sun effect during daytime maximum daily temperature it’s actually not so cloudy guess what happened you might be able to see something like this the blue curve is the temperature maximum the late

Daily temperature maximum from the United States versus the solar iridience the red curve if you don’t believe that you also can see that in Canada if you don’t believe that you can see roughly of that picture in Mexico okay and then finally because the metric that I measure is called a solar

Iridience is actually giving you information about the sun’s incoming radiation more or less near the surface more or less near the atmosphere at the top there’s a basic problem that we have a problem because this is the hardest science problem for climatology which is to understand Cloud what does it do what

Does it does it change more because in Cloud there’s so many type you know that sort of thing so do we have evidence to see that the effect of the Sun at this upper atmosphere reach all the way to the surface that is extremely hard to find

The data it turns out that I was able to find one set of data okay that shows that that the radiation does reach the surface if I plot some of the temperature data with the grounds solar radiation it shows some kind of correlation similar picture that you

Call from this period you warm 19 30s 40 you cool in the 70s you warm up again okay so my takeaway message tonight is this there are simply no experimental data to support the view that the Earth is changing in a very strange way or dangerous Way by carbon dioxide by the

Sun by whoever you know and then one thing that we are sure carbon dioxide is just a big player in the climate system so the idea that you can have this carbon dioxide knob that turning up and now is Just an Illusion right because they imagine that this is a climate knob

That you just adjust the thermometer up and down I would say x right basically not true and I don’t know how many of you know about this case or you are interested the U.S EPA apparently have to rule that the carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and we have this conservative Justice

That pass away justice career during 2007 actually April 7 the decision was rich in in the U.S or Supreme Court that rules that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and therefore U.S EPA must regulate they have no other options this is a very sad decision that I think we

Should try to fight but according to Justice Scalia if you think that everything Airborne from frisbee to Fat children qualify as air pollutant right if you if your CO2 is a pollutant then even Frisbee and affection should be qualified as abolition so therefore this is the statute that defy common sense so

A bit of update is actually same a little just give a talk somewhere in Claremont colleges a few years ago that simply say that really carbon dioxide is never ever a pollutant this is very strange there is one to they want to change the reality by using this human

Law not the physical law CO2 could never ever be an air pollutant this is really a messy business by the way this is telling you something is very stranger and then my third point is that the sun is in my humble opinion is primary driver of climate change and one should

Study as much as possible again I do not make the claim that we have found the evidence I’m merely showing you that there’s a lot of interesting hint I want to study and understand the exact way in which to have the Sun affect the Earth system including sea level change all this

Other stuff and then you have to remember climate model that famous thing that tools they actually come into I say is so misleading it’s really not like knife at all where you can use to chop you can do so many things including clean people you can do so many things

This climate model is almost useless in my humble opinion it’s supposed to be some kind of a pedagogical tool some tool to learn you know but it’s not for forecasting at all it’s simply not ready right because they cannot represent a lot of these physics and chemistry and

All this problem that’s what the problem with climate model it can never be used for Public Policy no matter how many people say but no matter what the Supreme Court is saying this is my last slide my last site is to quote a good friend of mine by the name of Professor Richard

Lindson retired already from MIT because he’s a bit fed up he need a rest he really said that this problem is rather serious really he said when the historian what what historian would definitely wonder about in the future century is How Deeply flaw logic obscure by shrewd and Atlantic

Propaganda actually enable a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone except lucky few like us right in the world that carbon dioxide from Human industry was a dangerous Planet destroying toxin you will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world that carbon

Dioxide CO2 the life of plants was considered a time to be a deadly poison okay I finished thank you [Applause] thank you doctor soon we’re quite pleased to have Dr Bloom um who has kindly agreed to comment he is professor emeritus at The kavling Institute for particle astrophysics and

Cosmology at the Stanford lunar linear accelerator laboratory at Stanford University he’s a fellow of the American physical Society he was a member of this of the slack that’s the linear laboratory team with Jerome Friedman Henry Kendall and Richard Taylor who received the Nobel Prize in physics

He received his PhD in physics from the California Institute of Technology he’s the author of numerous scientific papers and the recipient of the senior scientist award from the Alexander Von humble Foundation that’s good [Applause] well good evening everyone And uh I think I I appreciate gravy Dr Sims discussion and mine will be more boring so I was trained as a particle physicist uh in particle research for about 25 I did particle research for about 25 years I led a number of projects and built a few large experiments during this phase

Of micro research and I published extensively in the field particle physics is a laboratory science that is experiments can be repeated in a controlled Way by more than one group to check results in different Laboratories research is open with free exchange of ideas and results particle theory is held to high

Standards of falsifiability except for string theory which has essentially nothing to predict about current and past laboratory-based experiments since particle physics discoveries usually have no direct impact on society or our economy for many years and a recent exemption actually was the world wide web that was invented by

Particle physicists at CERN in Geneva Switzerland and it was brought to slack by a physicist in my group by the name of Paul Koontz and slack he made slack the first website in the United States uh National politics has a small footprint on our work

And the U.S budget is about 1 billion a year for the doe and NSF so we are we are left to do our work I was a member of the team as David mentioned that discovered quarks as the basic constituents of proton and neutron this was accomplished using high energy

Electron scattering experiments on protons and neutrons had slack from 1967 to about 1972. it took about 20 years for the three senior leaders of our team Friedman Kendall and Taylor they win the Nobel Prize in 1990 for the great for this great advance in fundamental physics

Much work was done all over the world to verify the Quark Paradigm before the prize was given many experiments and verified theoretical predictions have proven quarks to be one of the fundamental building blocks a matter in about 1990 I changed my field of research to particle astrophysics and astrophysics

I was active in astrophysics for 25 years and helped build two satellite-based telescopes and x-ray telescope and a Camry telescope and made many observations and published extensively in the field astronomy astrophysics has a minimal impact again on society and our economy in the short term however this field of

Study has more impact politically than particle physics due to the much larger budget of NASA as compared to the U.S particle physics budget about a factor of 10. and much of this money goes to private companies to support the NASA mission of space exploration and science so again

Even with his larger 10 billion 15 billion number uh National politics have a relatively minor impact on our scientific work there are no alarmists and deniers about theories in astronomy and astrophysics the closest Theory comes to predicting the end of humanity possibly in the near future is a direct asteroid hit which implies

The need to get early warning using astronomical instruments nobody disagrees with this precaution and the cost for due diligence is not large astrophysics is an observational science one can rarely repeat laboratory-based experiments to check on astrophysical observation of the Stars galaxies our galaxy galaxy clusters Cosmic microwave background Etc

Considerable input from physics like cat classical physics quantum mechanics general relativity that is verified in laboratory experiments and astronomical observations and expected to hold true throughout the universe is very important in this field it’s used extensively astrophysics is an observational science astrophysics is an observational science that deals with complex non-linear

Phenomena like the origin and evolution of the Universe research is open with free exchange of ideas and results in many cases observational data is open to the public you can go to the web and download this data yourself and you can get help from NASA to analyze the data

And you can publish it if you get the peer review and uh people you know outside those that actually build the instruments and take the observations directly uh do this work many similar objects to study how in astronomers and astronomers and asked physics search for patterns so

There’s thousands of objects and you can look for statistical similarities and such this has a similarity to Botany except botany involves direct accessible exp specimens some success with theory for example General to the description of the universe Stellar modeling and other examples but theory is usually incorporates a lot of phenomenology and

Frequently needs serious corrections as more observations are made it is hard to make predictions that can accommodate new data even though this phenomenology can be based on observations of many different examples of a class of objects for example Stars black holes active Galactic nuclei Etc goodness astrophysical theories are difficult to falsify

Frequently when new measurements contradict Theory modifications to the theory are made to incorporate the new data without changing the basic paradigm an example of this is the Big Bang cosmology which in its original form did not incorporate dark matter or dark energy until after they were well established via independent astrophysical industry

Astronomical observations even though it is difficult to apply falsification criteria to astronomical theories progress is made through open and vigorous discussion and cross fertilization of different theories based on existing observational data and predictions for future observations in my view this type of openness is a prerequisite for keeping a scientific

Discipline from going off the rails all right after I retired from Stanford in 2016 I started to study natural and anthropogenic climate change I have read listened I’ve learned a lot I’m like a graduate student again in a certain way but I am not an expert near the level of doctor soon

I am not published nor done original research in this field climatology is an observational science we have one Earth and one climate climate is a hopelessly complex non-linear Theory as such the earth’s climate is chaotic on all time scales from short-term weather to long-term climate there is no natural way to

Separate weather from climate at some well-determined time scale the non-linear nature of the problem implies that predicting the future only weakly depends on what has been observed in the past the only way to potentially predict the future with current technology is via computer simulations of what will happen

Based on fitting past Earth climate using classical physics and quantum mechanical inputs for example putting in the greenhouse effect of CO2 and then letting time move to the Future in the simulation considerable input from physics again is necessary classical physics quantum mechanics which has been separately verified many there are many climate historical

Artifact artifacts to study well he’s talked about a number of them high scores historic temperature readings Etc a large number none of this history necessarily applies to the future but it is most useful to testing models that hope to predict the future reproducibility of historical data has been an issue with frequent upgrading

Changing of historic data sets depending on the bias of the investigator producing the new and better data set unfortunately frequently climate data is not open will he spoke to these issues gechi it’s only sketchy success with Theory which incorporates phenomenology and gross approximation and frequently needs serious corrections as more

Observations are made and new climate physics is learned it has proven almost impossible to make predictions that can successfully accommodate new data given present technology does reference Al Gore and I’ll give you another example below research is contentious with too much proprietary delay of ideas and results scientists are labeled as alarmists and

Deniers and particularly deniers are attacked in the mainstream media and by many politicians no matter what the credentials of the researcher it is difficult to falsify climate change predictions which is made much more difficult by the highly politically charged culture of the field politicians are clearly heavily in this mix

In my view this lack of civil exchange and openness and research is sending climate change science of the Rails so climatology in particular the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change has a major impact on our society and our economy in the short and longer term getting the science right is thus

Important for obvious societal reasons politics should be kept at arm’s length to allow the scientists to openly and dispassionately do their work foreign like to talk a little bit about the ipcc reports of pending Doom uh the worst case IPC C models predict runaway eating of the earth over the

Next 50 plus years due to anthropogenic driven climate change greenhouse gases and and other effects the ipcc recommendations mirrored by mainstream media and by many politicians the man very expensive and disruptive action starting now to limit the emission of greenhouse gases to avoid catastrophe many experimental results do not support

This urgency of action they indicate that we likely have more time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and this is a good thing a good book that gives a more moderate and in my view realistic View is beyond smoke and mirrors by Professor Burton Richter winner of the Nobel Prize

In physics in 1976 recently deceased and he was a colleague of mine who I knew well it’s an education an education educational book for the interested Layman one of my favorite papers is by John R Cristiano it’s called examination of space-based bulk atmosphere temperatures used in climate Reserve research I found this to

Be an outstanding and very careful paper very difficult to go through it has a tremendous number of details the paper shows how difficult and complicated it is to measure the Earth’s temperature some of my colleagues had slack oh which is just average all these temperature you know measurements it’s trivial

Actually said it’s trivial not trivial uh systematic errors are a major issue in this paper the authors state that models are overpredicting temperature increase in the tropical Zone that’s plus or minus 20 degrees latitude and they measure the profile as you go off the Earth up and they show how the climate models

Have a very difficult time reproducing that and they say we would hypothesize that a misrepresentation in the models of the basic model physics of the tropical hydrologic cycle that is water vapor precipitation physics and Cloud feedbacks are likely candidates for this agreement so uh here is a

A graph which was presented by John Christie had his testimony to Congress in February 2016. you have a copy of his testimony in the materials that were given to you it really is a great thing to read it’s it’s easy to read actually and compares the model to data

And you see the the data is the dots and squares and they go over a time period for satellite data in 1979 to 2015 and balloon temperature data 1975 79 to 2005. and then some average of all the ipcc models are given uh as a red curve and

You see that they are dramatically over predicting today uh the measurement of the balloon and the satellites and this is quite a large Factor interestingly enough there’s this Russian model I indicated which does pretty well so there’s a lot of freedom it has to do with the sensitivity to the forcing from

Carbon dioxide and if you make that forcing not so much you can get better agreement with the data Now here’s an example unfortunate example of climate change science off the rails and John Christie believes his office lore at the University of Alabama in Huntsville was targeted by gunshots over the net over the national March for science weekend in April 2017. when some people connect cannot argue

Facts they resort to violence to get their way it doesn’t matter that we don’t deny global warming the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy that’s a quote from Dr Rory Spencer

Uh commenting to the Press about this this incident thank you for your attention I would like you to present the best argument uh that you found most persuasive to support the dangerous entrepromorphic anthropogenic global warming and also one argument the best one against it that you find the most persuasive one

Four one against and also I’d like to ask you what is the in you know with the in the science scientific community what percentage of scientists truly are scared and they believe that we are destroying the planet because of the CO2 emissions first in terms of their most convincing argument

Is a hard task but I think the best one is probably the one I showed the correlation of a temperature with the carbon dioxide but unfortunately I already know the problem there is the carbon dioxide measurement is okay is the global temperature measurement that is completely controlled by mostly the

Urban heat island effect for example so it’s not a valid data in that sense the heat island effect is yes the effect of urban areas on the temperature measurement yeah it goes up that’s why if you use the let’s say satellite data you know that it’s not going to show the

Effect so sorry I give them the best case I can and then the most convincing case uh I guess for that this non-alum is basically that you just look up the planet Earth it’s com it’s actually over the last we have data for maybe almost 20 30 years now

That if you measure the leaf index the greenness of the planet you can do that kind of measurement reasonably well you know errors and a lot of stuff but we know we can monitor the planet does get greener so that’s essentially telling you that carbon dioxide effect you cannot find it

In terms of temperature weather a polar bear whatever you want right pizza number of Pizza being eaten by algo but it’s basically that it’s a very benign guest it’s a beneficial gas for the human so that’s about all I can say right oh yeah anything well to me yeah false viability is very

Important in testing theories and as I mentioned it’s difficult to do in climate change but I’m used to that because astrophysics has similar issue and I um but I was very impressed by this uh John Christian Al paper and to me that shows that the temperature isn’t Rising very much as

Compared to what 97 of the scientists say is happening and I having carefully gone offers paper I agree that his results are probably correct um with respect to dangers I think that Berg Richter’s book is a good resource there uh what he talks about is the growth rate of fossil fuel use A modest amount and how would what goes for the next 50 60 80 years and what we would be facing uh there’s uh you know urban legend about uh New York City in about 1915 and it was all this horse manure in the streets oh yeah they’re removing two and a half

Tons of horse manure a day and then people started projecting well they if I’m going like this we’re going to be up to our eyeballs and Horsemen or every day yep and something came along good a new technology called the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels and

That really solved the problem for a long time so that’s to me the issue yeah or the wheel oil right imagine killing all the whales we come from a fully renewable 100 renewable you know a few hundred years back we go now and then come along we found fossil fuel we

Use it and then now they want us to go back it makes sense actually yeah how about the lady right here okay Dr soon I I don’t think I caught what your intention was on one day to uh pair set you presented namely on temperature and water or water vapor concentrations

And I forgive me I think I must have misunderstood you appeared to be saying that temperature was a function of water vapor isn’t it the other way around the higher the temperature the higher the dew point well you could be right on that point too but it depends on what

Causes the each of the variable first so example again that’s exactly a very good question right for example I would say that for example one of my hypotheses that’s the way that the sun will hit the climate system is actually causing the water vapor to evaporate and then therefore couple with the temperature

Feel right something to that extent that needs to be studied carefully but just to say that to dismiss it out of hand is always a very bad idea in that sense that’s about all I say actually thank you I think the scariest thing for me in this is that this isn’t the first

Time I’ve seen science co-opted by politics I was a scientist when the AIDS theory was politicized as a scientist currently what do you think we can do to change this to get people back to science-based testing based laboratory-based work I it really does scare me because I the last good

Pro big project was the Manhattan Project in my opinion wow let me useless well a lot of this has to do with the scientists themselves and you know the training at least that I had as a scientist was these ideas of openness and sharing data Etc that I

Talked about and to me that is a essential to making progress now it there are models that one could have like the Manhattan Project doesn’t have to be like the Manhattan but not be that big but one could think about having National Laboratory where you had a mixture of people and

A very strong director who kept the Beast and hurted the cats and which had resources in Computing and other resources travel money Etc and it would be a team effort a large team effort one thing that strikes me about the efforts in climate change is that they tend to be more individual

Investigator driven and this is a very big problem for that in seems to me a more organized way of doing it which is let’s say bills on History what would be useful my very brief reply is to talk about these issues and please tell more people for example get more books from

Independent Institute and talk to all of us spread the news about this question if they say that Global is true awesome how do you know that have you look at the temperature record so do you find that the scientists that are siding with global warming are actually true climate scientists

Well I haven’t had a lot of experience with scientists uh of that type but I have had experience who were climatologists but I’ve had experience with colleagues who for example wouldn’t allow me to invite a skeptic scientist to talk at a colloquium yep and uh I do have friends

Who won’t come to talks like this because they say a denier is talking okay so um this is I think it and if you look at the media you have to believe that there’s just a tremendous amount of pressure in One Direction my short answer is that there are some

Really good climate scientists still around and believe in this ipcc global warming paradigm but I would say majority of them are not real scientists in my humble opinion because you know why they don’t share data they don’t want to discuss they don’t debate they don’t they don’t do everything that

Scientists is supposed to do and that is a problem and I don’t understand that actually I like them to talk to I mean things like that it’s terrible um so is there anybody doing anything to help the children because I know with my kids growing up I mean their math

Equations now are done with equations that are presuming that climate uh science that the the false science is true so my kid I mean they’re getting brainwashed they’re doing these carbon dioxide equations and how much can you do and how much you know what are your parents doing wrong

That’s their math what are they doing wrong how are they harming the planet with the assumption that all of this global warming is absolutely true and the books are getting written that way is there anything are there any scientists out there that are changing that wave because these kids

Coming forward are just brainwashed they they want to cry you know with what they think is going on I’ll say something it it is indeed very alarming that you have uh really this this process has begun I would say already decades ago the trainers love this but then it’s really never too late

Just to realize that these people who want to insist that this Paradigm of global warming climate change is disastrous is going to kill the planet and so on so forth and then teach them in school and then teach only a very one-sided Direction the only thing I’m against is that one-sidedness

Yes remember that right I don’t say that I’m right but I’m saying you have to provide a lot more balance to that and not only that without that perspective these kids are not able of any critical thinking I have to say your own sister is doing some of that I

Myself is going to a camp Constitution next week right we’re trying our best some kids come when to come good it’s a small camp but you can tell more people that you should set up more camp like that to teach kids in the summer I don’t

Mind coming I mean I don’t mind doing that talking to kids but truly it’s very very important they already many steps ahead some of my colleagues from Ireland realize that they have started this thing called Green school project all from the United Nations and the Greenpeace type of uh of our staff

Already way back in 1997 U.S lucky that we only started 2009 for example this green school thing and if you look at the syllable it’s really scary these kids are all beginning to talk about you know no point of doing this we’re gonna go protest every Friday and and this is

Actually crazy and yeah by the way I have checked this issue for example the most famous in this movement is Greta tumbug and there is a link back to algor’s uh group if you want to know more please ask me I done a lot of research on this topic but

Let’s not get into that now and then David might say there’s too controversial Dr soon a great talk uh Dr blue mentioned some Russian work uh I don’t know if you’re familiar with the paper by Dimitri crop in November of 2009 in which he uh proposed some pretty logical reasons why

CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature variation not a leading indicator and what he says is that as the planet warms up due to the increased Sun activity the oceans absorb less carbon dioxide you get more CO2 during the next cooling cycle which is going to occur uh when

We’ll be much more dangerous to the planet than as a lagging indicator the CO2 will drop are you familiar with that paper and do you agree the climate claim that they have known all of that I’m a bit skeptical but but it’s it’s in general the question is

Basically what is control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere clearly that the ocean has something to do with it right it’s a bit like your Coca-Cola no it’s hot Coca-Cola they’re all normal gas I mean and then all the CO2 go into the air and that effect is

Real unfortunately the the change in science is all about number not enough but but there is a portion of it it’s the commander also changes is caused by changes of the warming of the ocean for example right but in on a very long orbital time scale let’s say every

Hundred thousand years the I score data show convincingly that every time it is the carbon temperature that is changing first and then the carbon dioxide in the system in the biosphere in the ocean in the land surfaces respond to it up and down consistently for the last 800 000

Years unfortunately elgar’s uh TV producer Laurie David published a student books a children book for age I don’t know five to Fifteen that try to put the graph label the graph in the opposite way saying that is the carbon dioxide going first and then temperature response again ask me I have graphed the

Show I can give a thousand more talks anyway good enough thank you thanks again for your talk uh I was wondering we don’t hear anything about the CFCs anymore and uh I was wondering what an entire industry was changed I mean all refrigerants and safe ways and Albertsons and our air conditioners have

Been changed because of what they told us about CFCs in the early 90s uh how come we don’t hear anything more about that when they’re continuing to vent CFCs R12 R22 in other places besides the United States I do have an answer for that uh let me take my best understanding

This CFC the problem is actually the Bandit is to basically say it destroy the ozone in the stratosphere right right very simple answer ozone you have 90 in Australia 10 in the troposphere okay and uh all I and they’ve been always focusing that is because of CFC there’s

A details about attaching the ice particle and break the chlorines and then chlorines reactive and break the ozone in the stratosphere I just say forget about all of that let’s do a thought experiment Einstein says experiment take all the carbon uh Co O3 the ozone out and ask yourself if the

Ozone will come back at all even if we have some CFC in the atmosphere how long you guys it takes that you’re gonna come back how long wanna guess you’re too too quick it’s actually very short it’s not 10 000 years not ten thousand it’s not one thousand years not

100 it’s not ten it’s about 150 days the time concern is very fast what they block your mind is that’s why I tell you that that protocol that that policy was not necessary if you study history it was because Dupont was running out of the pattern for this control of CFC so

They have to come up with hfc and all this other alternative it’s terrible manipulation and so every time when they say that CFC is a mantra protocol 1987 it’s the best example of how Humanity or Kumbaya come together and solve the rest of the whole problem there’s ever been a

Problem in a real sense I am very sad to say that because I don’t understand what the fuss is all about it’s really dangerous actually money yeah you know what you know why you can get this back right because they tell you as long as you cannot turn off the Sun

The process of making ozone is very efficient and very effective no matter I’ll go cry and whatever you want to do Michael may I want to cry you cannot do anything the the ozone will come back very fast 150 days that’s all it is do you have a question okay actually a

Follow-up on your ocean question um and the ocean warming issues we hear about that a lot as a cause and you haven’t really addressed that except in the last Point perhaps a following indicator do you have any further uh reactions to those that claim that the ocean and the dying Coral in the

Seas is evidence of fast climate change I hope you you understand what I just did in the experiment though stuff on ocean acidification yeah I mean that’s essentially trying to address that aspect of the problem okay that uh in fact okay I have a very cute one this is correct by the way

Everything I say is more or less correct it’s basically said that for that problem for that class of problem I want to say do you want to Outlaw the rain from falling down into the ocean you want to know why right because the acidity of the rain water is if you

Measure acidity is on a pH scale of zeros to seven to fourteen zero to seven is acidic seven to fourteen is basic the rainwater pH is and is on a log scale logarithms right every unit is a factor of 10. so rain water is 5.5 we’re very acidic the average ocean is

About very more basic 8.3 8.5 roughly and then deep in the also do you want to Outlaw the what you call the the Water Deep Water is actually very extra they’re up welding exactly and they are very acidic you got to stop that from doing that because you mix it up you’re

Going to acidify isn’t it it’s actually very crazy proposition I actually I study into the history of this thing I’ll tell you more about it if you want to know it started with the oil company and start I blah blah blah because you know all kinds of issues we all have

Studied that question of course what percentage of the land-based temperature monitoring sites are properly cited so that they’re not influenced by abnormal heat sources that’s your question yes it is a very good question we are doing some of the work right now and I think better that

We repair a report back some other time uh in unfortunately I think a lot of the station that is actually in big city is probably not as useful anymore in some sense and so you try to look for places where you actually can you think that probably will have some meaning because

Remember when you are measuring that you’re not measuring climate isn’t it you’re not measuring anything quite good temperature changes you are measuring something related to concrete all kinds of a building related to the shades represented to all these other stuff that actually had nothing to do with the natural system and something well

Depends on how you Define natural system human are the most natural thing you can find right we are nature actually you know I don’t know much about carbon dioxide or what it’s doing but I do know that there’s a lot of concern about the water level going up with the sea

Melting the North Pole sir what’s your take on that is this I need to find out I should sell my beach house foreign we talked a bit about that yesterday I don’t want to squeeze that into this top oils you’ll go crazy right we’ve got so

Many topics and they will kick me out anyway uh we have a video and I probably you asked Harry ganyan I think we have information on sea level and all these things that we are studying but the most important thing to remember that they make the claim by the way there’s a lot

Of claim out there a lot of disclaim by quote-unquote peer review paper by all these famous scientists and so on and so forth that says that the sea level have accelerated the change the sea level rise but I I beg to differ you really need to look at the data and how they

Acquire the data so on and so forth there’s just simply know such evidence exists for to say that sea level is accelerating and there’s a lot of confusion in this issue and uh one of the hardest part for scientists to do is to understand how does the ice sheets

And Glacier play a role in the in in the sea level changes okay but I just give you an idea the Earth system this is stuff that you really need to know geology you need to do all this other work okay I just give you a simple

Idea that a lot of the time they think that it requires that you have a lot of ice sheets big ice sheets to provide the Melt water I found out that if you wanted and then I want to ask another question how much can the sea level changes all

By itself without let’s say ice sheets from water source you can you can raise the sea level by thermal expansion effect meaning when it’s hotter it expand a little bit isn’t it or you can change the volume of your Ocean or you can actually melt ice that

Is locked in the land or someplace and drop this water go in but I want to understand the most basic question how much can a sea level change without a Night sheet without a water source it’s called a eustatic sea level it turns out that the down down the

Coastal region and all the all this underneath ocean weather especially a coastal slope is quite porous and so you pick a place let’s say in some long geological time a few hundred million years ago for example where there’s no ice sheets in the pole north and south

And then you try to determine ask the question how much sea level change then it actually changed by as large as 60 meter that’s a lot okay that just tell you that you don’t even require the Melt water to account for some of these numbers because we know that Ice Age

Last glacial maximum to now is about 120 meter so however it could be even explained by something else which means the Earth system is too complex really okay so but sea level change long story short well actually first thing I talk a bit about sea level

Change in this book I think my question is simple what can we do change to affect the change like in California here it’s you have a a congress that’s like not representative of the people I mean people want one thing they do something they do their own thing how can we affect change

I don’t mind saying something sir I think you have a lot of power in you if I can do this you can do this take a few of the slides that you’re comfortable with talk to your kids go to a supermarket everything just talk and

Tell them Debbie is one of the best my good friend Debbie the sister is here just talk to everybody about this issue they keep talking about global warming you understand have you seen the data do you know that thermometer data is some of them is not so good

Well that’s the problem they use word they use the emotion they use all this other stuff we have to overcome that I mean especially School teachers who are supposed to be more responsible George right I I just think that you have to say something instead of just sit around and

Not say anything and understand this problem say something yeah related question how many trillions of hours of brain power have been wasted on this and what would be better places to spend this human creativity and brain power wow foreign won’t go away obviously yeah and uh

It’d be nice if it was addressed in a more rational perspective that’s my position you’ve both made the point that the Dynamics of water vapor in the atmosphere is more important than CO2 and it actually dominates or should dominate in the models so you would expect that the scientists worldwide

Would be focusing their efforts on improving the modeling of water vapor in these in these models is that happening are we getting an international concentration on this problem or or what okay please I answered this yes in in simple word No in fact if you ask

Me today this part of the reason I continue to be activated on this issue the state of the science today is very embarrassing we are not really forward at all we’re walking backwards like doing a moon dance I’ll give you an example in 2000 year

2000 I was already just a postdoc and I went to this International Conference doing an invited talk and I was outlining all the fundamental problem on climate modeling like not having the hydrogen hydrology right by showing you that even for the cloud cover when they quote unquote they tried to represent

Cloud cover is an equation that is change tune some of the numbers they want to use okay like showing that the ocean things is just crazy it’s just you know the circulation is supposed to go this way they go backward all this sort of thing right

And that’s two thousand I have a list of let’s say 14 problem you asked me today how many of those Pro for team problem uh improve or study carefully I would say none it’s going backward I remember that conference very well because you know why the person at that conference meeting

That was very angry at me was ipcc chairman Sir John Hooten he say how dare you criticize ibcc and all that stuff I say why not sir I say the reason and they say oh we know about all this problem I say oh thank you very much you know about the problem

Because some of the problem does go back a long way even 60s for example they don’t have enough wave heating so that the the stratosphere is always too cool too cool so when you compare your observation it’s completely off they say it doesn’t matter I’m just going to tune

It and change and study the perturbation a change of it so therefore I don’t need to know what the true state of the thing that’s the way they behave they are against it and I answer John who then I say unfortunately sir all this problem will remain unresolved for a very long

Time if I don’t talk about this thing and you can imagine is is it about science I was just supposed dog I’m not threatening I’m just saying what I understand and I publish the people on that too of course with Professor curio conradia which is a rectal or Saint peterberg Saint

Petersburg University a good Russian scientist um I want to thank our speakers for tonight and if you join me please also visit our website at independent.org and we hope that you’ll join with us in the future thank you very much [Applause] foreign

Video Tags: Climate skeptic,Climate realist,Global Warming,Science,Junk Science,IPCC,United Nations,Climate Alarmism,hurricanes,Extreme weather,Climate Hysteria,Fake Science,Climate Science,Hurricane Florence,Hurricane Sandy,Environment,Energy,Renewable Energy,Fossil Fuel,Carbon Dioxide,CO2,Little Ice Age,Hockey Stick,Sea Level,Arctic Ice,Medieval Warm Period,Ice Age,Global Cooling,Greenhouse Gas,Alarmism,Willie Soon,Elliott Bloom,Tornadoes,Al Gore

Video Duration: 01:48:17