Prominent global warming blog, skepticalscience.com is in crisis due to internal dispute over the “long settled science” of man-made global warming. Writer goes “off message” to discredit website’s own alarmist claims after prompted by new articles exposing greenhouse gas lies.*
Aussie doomsayer, Glenn Tamblyn is a regular author on the popular alarmist blog alongside frontman John Cook. But Tamblyn has now exposed the lie that the greenhouse gas theory has the finest pedigree, thus discrediting such bold statements as this on their website:
But yesterday (December 23, 2012) under the weight of evidence from this series of new articles, Tamblyn has performed an astonishing U-turn causing huge embarrassment to Cook. The once avid cult member submitted a comment to my blog owning up to the truth that the greenhouse gas theory is less than 30 years old – only figuring on the mainstream science radar within the last generation. These capitulations by hardcore greens may be getting contagious. Readers may recall the esteemed James Lovelock, a fellow climate cult writer, also jumping the sinking ship back in May.
Lovelock appeared on MSNBC to admit he, too, has overstated the science. Lovelock told viewers, “…we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books…mine included…because it looked clear cut…but it hasn’t happened.”
Likewise, Tamblyn has long been invested in the scam. At last, he now accepts that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) correctly represented the mainstream position for the first half of the 20th Century when it showed that the scientific consensus did not believe that the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) and carbon dioxide (CO2) drove climate.
The widespread delusion among the ranks of the true GHE believer is finally cracking. We see it as it truly is – not a mass conspiracy, just the product of creeping scientism. This is where post-normal cherry-picking can infect believers’ minds with confirmation bias and misinformation wrought by noble cause corruption. But back in 1951 the AMS conspicuously held a non-political stance on all matters climate. While in the modern era, with so much money sloshing about for scientists to ‘prove’ a link between humans and climate, it’s little wonder that otherwise honorable folk succumbed to the bait.
A more honest AMS from 50 years ago openly admitted there have always been huge natural swings in levels of atmospheric carbon stating, “The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action.” [1]
Geologists had long known volcanoes pump out far more CO2 than humans. The AMS admission about volcanoes is very welcome vindication for leading Aussie geologist, Professor Ian Plimer, long pilloried by the alarmist UK Guardian and elsewhere for honestly pointing to a wealth of such confirmatory science down the ages.
Likewise, Tamblyn is learning NASA’s James ‘dusty’ Hansen had for years attributed the GHE to dust particles, not CO2. Hansen’s big flip-flop into blaming CO2 for the GHE occurred in the 1980’s, not before. Other contemporaries of Hansen merely played ‘follow my (funding) leader.’
Tamblyn has signaled a breakthrough in his own understanding (albeit grudgingly) by admitting the evidence the AMS presented was true yet represented “an outdated position based on science that was just about to be overturned.”
As such the shamefaced eco-warrior affirmed what many GHE skeptics at Principia Scientific International (PSI) had shown by reference to the older and more established science literature. They found mainstream belief in the GHE switched on fast 30 years ago as per the signal sent out by British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher in her key GHE Speech to the Royal Society (27 September 1988). Even rank alarmists like DeSmoglblog admit Thatcher bought into the GHE to smash the striking coal mining unions and to boost UK nuclear investment. Until then the ‘theory’ had long been consigned to the trash can of science after Professor R.W. Woods’ experiment debunked it in 1909 (re-affirmed by Prof. Nasif Nahle in 2011). [2]
As shown in a series of new articles, the trick of post 1980’s climate science was to re-write the science history so that it became accepted that the natural moderating effects on temperatures actually due to the latent heat properties of water became obfuscated into the nomenclature as a ‘greenhouse gas.’ PSI’s peer-reviewed publications are pioneering this march back to traditional science. Tamblyn has simply been exposed to the simple truth that latent heat, the actual moderator of our atmosphere’s temperatures, stops Earth getting too hot or too cold. Just contrast and compare earth’s temperatures with those of our water-less moon which has a daytime surface high of 130 degrees C (266 degrees F) and night time low of minus 110 degrees C (-166F). But as we so often, the alarmists (and even so-called ‘skeptics’) will try to dupe us into accepting that earth’s “mild” climate is due to the mythical GHE while ignoring the critical role played by latent heat. Such is the GHE fraud repeated across many websites, not just Tamblyn’s,
Embarrasingly, Tamblyn’s welcome confession contradicts what his own website, skepticalscience.com states on this back story myth. So far John Cook, site owner has made no public comment on Tamblyn’s admission. But expect many more alarmists to follow suit. Already hardcore German environmentalist and socialist, Fritz Vaherenholt, has fessed up in his new book, “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen.” He lays the blame for modern junk climate science squarely at the door of the UN.
Spotting untold errors in reports by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the principled eco-champion charged them with gross incompetence and dishonesty for fear-mongering exaggeration about human CO2 emissions. When reporting the scientific errors to IPCC officials Vaherenholt was shocked that his complaints were simply brushed aside. Stunned by the dishonesty he asked himself: “Is this the way they approached climate assessment reports?” He came to wonder: “…if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.”
Well, folks PSI’s 200 science researchers proves they were.
————————
*This article accompanies a series on this subject. The full set are found as follows: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four
[1] Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.
[2] Nahle, N.,’Repeatability of Professor Robert W. Wood’s 1909 Experiment on the Theory of the Greenhouse,’ (2011), principia-scientific.org
johnosullivan 
Pingback: Another Alarmist Author Admits Spreading Greenhouse Gas Bunkum « Skeptics Chillin'
‘Geologists had long known volcanoes pump out far more CO2 than humans’ – Moerner and Etiope (2002) have established that this just isn’t true! Himans emit in the region of 100 times as much Co2 as volcanoes. Just making a open statement like-‘geologists have known…’ just isn’t science.
John, read the article more carefully. I quoted from the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who based their statement on a consensus view of the best geological science available. You cite one paper. Are you saying the AMS are liars?
Why not quote a more reliable source on Geological information.The AMS after all deals with Meterology.
Maybe a source like the US Geological Survey that put Human emissions at around 130 time that of all volcanoes.
And even a little bit of common sense. CO2 levels over the last 800,000 years haven’t varied outside the rough range of 200 to 300 ppm. Now, within a matter of decades, they have climbed to nearly 400 ppm. And are still rising each year. Where are all these volcanoes that had lain dormant for nearly a million years that have all started erupting now, even though we can’t see them.
And if it were volcanoes causing it, where has all our CO2 gone?
Hi John
Merry Xmas and all that.
Before I move on to other matters, just a small comment on your oh-so-funny cartoon.
You have just totally redefined tacky, sleazy, tawdry and just plain tasteless and monstrously insensitive.
Does someone want the bar lowered even further?
“Who ya gonna call?” – John O’Sullivan,the Sleaze-Meister!
Why don’t you send this off to all the families of the victims at Newtown John? Maybe the families of those dead Firemen?
Thanks for this contribution to the Xmas Spirit. I not your post was dated Dec 24th – Xmas Eve.
Whats Xmas without some (only joking of course) images of blood spalttered something or other.
Thanks for this insight into your view of life John. Into your soul.
Glenn, I live in Norfolk, England. No public gun ownership here, or such gun crime. Sadly, shooting atrocities seemingly occur globally almost daily but go unreported in the western MSM as most are in the oppressed Third World. In effect, the MSM regards Third World lives as “cheaper”. So I don’t give a fig about your fake moral indignation. Because it appears by your logic (a) only U.S. mass killings require special moral abhorrence or (b) all cartoons, films, video games, etc. depicting such imagery must be banned. I guess as you’re a Big Green free speech fascist you’d mostly prefer (b).
Next tiny, tiny point John, Just for clarification.
I don’t run a Solar Energy business! I haven’t the foggiest idea where you got that notion from. Probably more of the great research skill of Principia Scientific on display here.
For your information, my day-job is working for an IT company that deals with Software Design Methodologies. When I go back to work on Jan 2nd, my focus will be how the Object Management Group’s Reusable Asset Specification (RAS) can best be incorporated into my employer’s product.
No Solar Energy business there John. Where did you get that notion from? Maybe you need to check your sources as teensie weensie bit more carefuly John.
A couple of questions John.
Have you sent an Email to Syukuro Manabe, asking his opinion of of what his past papers – 1965, 1967, 1975 (Gee, they are all much more than 30 years ago) actually is. Does his interpretation of his research agree wth yours John? Sure it’s Xmas. He may not reply right away. But get it out there, put up a post showing what questions you asked then we can all wait for the reply.
Next, when wil you be presenting an analysis of the Fig’s 5, 6 & 7 from Conrath et al 1970? The earliest graphs that show just how much CO2 changes the Earth’s outgoing Long-wave Spectrum.
Surely with the likes of Joe Postma, Claes Johnson, Doug Cotton, surely between them they could do an analysis of that spectrum and what its says about the altitude at which emission occurs. It really is an altimeter on a graph isn’t it Jonh?
I presume that Principia Scientific actually has an opinion and an analysis of the primary observational evidence for the GH Effect.
Don’t ya just love Satellite observations John – they cut through so much mere speculation and sophistry; who cares what you mathturbation shows – what do the Sat’s see?
I don’t need to email anyone to accurately quote what they said. But if you could have found ANYTHING I’d wrongly quoted I’m sure you’d have told us all by now.
FYI among PSI’s 200+ members, 38 have PhD’s and as a team we’ve performed our own experiments to try to locate the GHE. We haven’t found it. Indeed, correct me if I’m wrong but despite $80 billion spent on climate research not one peer-reviewed paper has ever published verifiable empirical evidence establishing the existence of the GHE either. But if you know of any such paper then you should tell not only me but the IPCC as well because they’ve never cited any.
As for the satellite record it affirms that surface temps have flattened off and begun cooling this century despite levels of atmospheric CO2 rising 38 percent in recent decades.
What we may infer from this empirical evidence is that a rise in CO2 does not cause a rise in temperatures. That’s a more scientific and reasoned interpretation rather than relying on junk climate models, don’t you think?
John
You need to Email him to confirm whether you UNDERSTAND what he wrote.Which you just plain, flat out do not!
As for the Satellite Record John,It isn’t the temperature monitoring that you need to look at.
It is the observations of the Earth’s Outgoing Long-Wave (InfraRed) Radiation spectrum. Direct observational evidenceof the GH Effect in action. Direct observational evidence of the role of CO2 in the GH Effect.
It is your assertion that the GH Effect doesn’t exist. And that CO2 plays no role even if it did. It is my assertion that Conrath et al 1970 contains direct observationalevidenceforthem.
So if you are so certain you are right, put Fig’s 5,6 & 7 from Conrath up on post and explain the contents of those figures.
I will do the same.
You (and your readership, lets not forget them) can find Conrath et al here: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700022421_1970022421.pdf – The figures are near the end of the paper.
Whereas if you don’t do that, then you are admitting that your views are contradicted by these observations and you can’t admit that fact and instead need to start ducking and weaving.
Your call John. Others will form their own opinions of you and your views based on what you do.
ps
You have 38 PhD’s.Wow! And the number of PhD’s who are members of the American Geophysical Union only numbers in the 10’s of 1000’s. You’ve really got them out-gunned haven’t you?
John
Did you have problems with Math at school? Mathematically challenged perhaps?
“…that the greenhouse gas theory is less than 30 years old – only figuring on the mainstream science radar within the last generation….”
Which makes it something after 1982!
Where as all my comments related to the 50’s& 60’s
Manabe & Wetherald 1967.
Conrath et al 1970
Plass, 1956.
The President’s Scientific Advisory Committee 1965.
Sorry John but 2012 – 1956 doesn’t come out as 30 on my calculator. More like 56 years. Nothing to do with the 1980’s at all John. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Glenn,
Reading and comprehension are evidently not your strengths. I specifically addressed when and which national science academies first put the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ on the map. At least up till 1979 NAS didn’t mention it at all in their reports on atmospheric CO2. But, again, if you can cite ANY national science academy (not one off papers) making assertions about the acceptance of a greenhouse gas ‘theory’ pre-1979 I genuinely would like to know.
Many thanks.
Glenn,
As to your bogus consensus appeal regarding the thousands of members at the AGU. I guess you haven’t heard that the AGU, just like the other main science bodies never even consulted their members as to their views on the science. Just look at those prominent scientists speaking out and denouncing the politicization of those bodies by leaders who signed up to the bogus global warming alarm. Whistleblowers are coming out to denounce the practice all the time:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=10659
As you can see from the above link, PSI is lucky to have recruited two senior members of the Energy Committee of Britain’s prestigious Institute of Physics (IOP). Peter Gill and Terri Jackson, who have blown the whistle on how well-funded green activists took over the IOP top spots and removed the rights of grassroots members to even debate the issue of global warming.
Take your head out of the sand and understand that disaffected scientists have lost trust on these institutions and that’s why PSI is finding it increasingly easy to recruit such high caliber people.
Glenn,
I thought you’d learned by now from the evidence I presented that I have been referring to mainstream science as per what is presented by national science bodies. FYI it was not until 1988 that the prestigious Royal Academy reacted to the keynote speech of Prime Minister Thatcher on this. Until that time the greenhouse gas theory just wasn’t on their radar because it had been refuted prior to 1951 ( as per affirmation I showed by the AMS).
Glenn,
I’ve now examined the graphs you cited (Fig’s 5,6 & 7) from the Conrath paper. They simply identify a radiation spectrum pattern. Nowhere do the authors claim it proves there is a greenhouse gas effect. Not only that, nowhere do I see any mention ANYWHERE in this paper about the so-called ‘greenhouse gas theory.’ Again I see lots of talk in it of ‘water vapor’,’humidity’,’H2O,’ etc. What’s your point? All you’ve done is given me another body of evidence showing scientists never even had the GHE on their radar. As such all I see are more straws being clutched. Please try harder, Glenn.
…“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have varied greatly during geological time, being depleted by the formation of limestones (carbonates) and coal measures, and replenished by volcanic action….” Like I said, true but limited in the understanding since it is so long ago. Because there has been several generations of research since then. Like Carbonate Weathering, The Standard Solar Model.
Think about it John. In the years before you were born, scientists had a certain. limited understanding – OK
But then in the years since, over your ENTIRE LIFETIME John. From the day you were born. In fact from some years BEFORE you were born. Science has learn’t NOTHING, discovered NOTHING, understood NOTHING.
The old guys from before you were born understood stuff clearly. Then – shazam – the next 3-4 generations of scientists were all just brain dead; knew nothing, understood nothing, learn’t nothing. Maybe it was the DDT in the water?
How did we ever put a Man on the Moon? During exactly the same era?
Unless, of course, those old opinions were derived from a time of more limited knowledge and understanding, quickly replaced by a better understanding, derived from more detailed evidence.
Glenn,
You ask the question: how did we put a man on the moon? Simple, we used PSI scientists such as Dr. Pierre Latour and Dr. Oliver Manual who both distinguished themselves for their work on the Apollo program. Then and now both held true to the traditional scientific method. Sadly, climate science prefers junk computer models over actual applied science and empiricism.
Glenn is this the crystal ball you CAGW believers use to predict the modeling based temperature increase in the distant future?
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1954-post-12171.html#pid12171
John
A simple observation and question:
If your views about the GH Effect, Global Warming etc,have some substance, why do you have to go back to a time before you were born to rustle-up some supporting evidence for your views. Can’t you present contemporary evidence?
I see that Glenn Tamblyn has not read the Scientific Method where a hypothesis have to be testable and verifiable before it can advance to a theory status.But there is money and fame to earn and will do anything the easy way which is to convince as many gullible ignorant people as possible to their delusional scam.
Since long range temperature models are NOT testable therefore not verifiable they become nothing more than baseless guesses.Since the IPCC in their last two reports run their temperature models to year 2100 it is clear they are trying to fool people into thinking they can exhibit sterling forecast skills via a secret crystal ball.
My my,they can even go to year 3000 now!
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-34.html
But…..,
I am jealous that you CAGW believers know to the last decimal the temperature of the world in year 2100.Oh please tell us which crystal Ball did you guys use to make these bold predictions? I have not found where the IPCC got theirs but maybe you Glenn knows or maybe it was John Cook?
http://www.google.com/#q=crystal+ball&hl=en&tbo=u&source=univ&tbm=shop&sa=X&ei=SQfbUMP1AYa6iwKq6oCACQ&ved=0CE4Qsxg&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=abffa5f23ec997be&bpcl=40096503&biw=1600&bih=691
I want to try your proven method in long range forcasting by sending me your secret method that does not require actual verification since it is unecessary as most people are into astrology these days as made clear with the Mayan awsome forecast that convinced millions around the world.
Since you have always ignored me I decided to start mocking you to make fun of your stupid infatuation of a trace gas that has a very minor IR absorption range and is utterly dominated by Water Vapor in the TROPICS.
Cheers.
Pingback: ” CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or the other” … | pindanpost