Here is what is on Mann’s facebook:
Let’s just remind ourselves what we were told fourteen years ago by the likes of Mann:
20 March 2000: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past Continue reading
Here is what is on Mann’s facebook:
20 March 2000: Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past Continue reading
In a judgement that if it went for Mann would effectively repeal the anti-SLAPP law of Columbia, three women judges whose predecessors fought tooth and nail for the free speech to say they are equal to men are about to decide if there is a first amendment right to free speech in the District of Columbia. And sceptics are sceptical about whether we will win!
Free Republic sum it up well:
The judges were not that active in questioning Mann’s attorney, John B. Williams, but they made several very telling comments. When Williams claimed that eight separate investigations had exonerated Mann, one judge asked, “What if CEI sincerely believes that those investigations are flawed? They take them apart quite thoroughly in their reply brief.” Continue reading
Steyn is looking very confident in this latest interview apparently after this latest court appearance:
http://www.nasdaq.com/video/opinion-journal–is-questioning-climate-change-illegal–518533520
Alternative link: http://aol.it/1Cc4WYi
I managed to watch the court of Mann’s trial. I’m not sure even Mann’s own lawyer believed he could win let alone the judges.
Mann’s lawyer’s argument: “there might be some law somewhere that might support what I say and if I could show it to you I’m sure you might think about it”.
Against Mann – “if this went to court not a single newspaper in the land could comment on any matter of public interest without being liable to being sued.”
I was hoping this would go to trial. From what I saw, it would be a very brave judge near retirement who would let this one go to court.
See: http://aol.it/1Cc4WYi
Conclusion: Penn are global warming deniers! And the temperature of the earth is primarily a result of cooling through the adiabatic blanket together with a smaller component of direct cooling. The effect of IR interactive gases like H20 & CO2 is to change the ratio of these two.
After my last article: A scientist’s guide to greenhouse warming
I was reading a few articles:
When I finally came to this diagram on the Penn. After looking at it I decided to write down some thoughts as they occurred (so they haven’t been checked and may well be wrong).

Fig 1: Diagram shown on Penn state source
Over the years I have seen many people arguing about how the Greenhouse effect works and from these discussions it is clear that most people misunderstand it. That is not to say that adding a greenhouse gas like CO2 to a typical atmosphere like the earth’s should not cause warming. Instead, whilst this “greenhouse” warming is a nice & simple way to explain to an average person on street how increasing CO2 would cause warming it is not true any other sense than it is what tends to happen and is certainly not a “law” of nature.
Yes it works to indicate what is happening, unfortunately as soon as people start talking about the detailed mechanisms behind it or worse using it to predict behaviour, this simple explanation fails and cause a lot of senseless argument because it does not and cannot encompass the true complexity of the situation.
So, this guide is intended to go one step beyond the simple “man on the street” explanation.
It’s indicative that this “greenhouse gas theory” is not the best science when I have to start by saying that the mechanism by which greenhouse warm plants is not at all the same physical mechanism as we are discussing here. The reality is that whilst the sun both warms a greenhouse like the earth, the greenhouse works by physically restraining the gases so that the hot gases are kept within the confines of the greenhouse.
Typically websites will show diagrams like the one below labelling this mechanism as a “theory” as if it were based on some fundamental law of nature. So let’s just recap this “theory”.
Reading an article on WUWT, I wanted to work out how I originally came to accept global warming as true and see what I knew about those who believed fitted in with what Dr Ball was suggesting. It really boils down to this: “Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. ” … people just go along with the crowd unless or until something unusual happens to us, which then causes us to want to verify that the crowd is correct. And the more you are “part of the establishment”, the less you have reason to question “the establishment”. Continue reading
Wondering what to get your spouse for Xmas – here’s a serious suggestion.
One day many years ago I saw a cheap IR thermometer being sold at a shop and having used more expensive IR thermometers in industry, I couldn’t resist the temptation and I’m very glad I did.
But remarkably, whilst bought as a tool, even though it’s been around the house spotting heat leaks and investigating the climate (see below), by far it’s biggest use is in the kitchen (and let’s be honest, entertaining the children & pets).
Continue reading
Society often praises the volunteer who gives up their time to work on some “good cause”. And that is what sceptics did. We gave up time and money to work on a good cause, but with one very significant difference. Continue reading