TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @JunkScience

JunkScience
Posted - October 1, 2025 at 1:28 AM
Saved - October 1, 2025 at 12:24 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

18 years ago: At his Nobel Peace Prize speech in December 2007, Al Gore warns the Arctic could be ice free as soon as 2014. Reality: The Arctic ice cap had 500,000 square kilometers of ice more in September 2025 than when Al Gore made this call in 2007. https://t.co/xB6dYBsjN5

Video Transcript AI Summary
Last September 21, the northern hemisphere tilted away from the sun, and scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is, in their words, falling off a cliff. In their findings, one study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than twenty two years. A second, separate study to be presented by US Navy researchers later this week warns it could happen in as little as seven years, Seven years from now. The dual projections emphasize the urgency of the projections about Arctic ice futures and outline two distinct timelines for potential disappearance.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last September 21, as the northern hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is, in their words, falling off a cliff. One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than twenty two years. Another new study to be presented by US Navy researchers later this week warns it could happen in as little as seven years, Seven years from now.
JunkScience
Posted - September 11, 2025 at 2:50 PM
Saved - September 11, 2025 at 3:13 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Outrageous: NYTimes slams the late Charlie Kirk for not believing in the climate hoax. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/11/us/charlie-kirk-views-guns-gender-climate.html https://t.co/qyRqfMxV8p

JunkScience
Posted - October 10, 2024 at 12:55 PM
Saved - October 11, 2024 at 2:20 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Communist China kicks back $50,000 to Harris-Biden campaign after receiving a $395,000 grant from EPA for electric school buses. Nothing to see here... https://freebeacon.com/elections/kamala-harriss-electric-school-bus-program-granted-395k-to-a-chinese-manufacturer-then-its-top-executive-sent-biden-harris-scores-of-campaign-cash/

Kamala Harris's Electric School Bus Program Granted $395k to a Chinese Manufacturer. Then Its Top Executive Sent Biden-Harris Scores of Campaign Cash. Vice President Kamala Harris's billion-dollar Clean School Bus program provided funding to Chinese EV manufacturer BYD Company's subsidiary in the United States, according to federal filings reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Months later, the subsidiary's top executive, a Chinese national, wired $50,000 in support of what is now Harris's presidential campaign. freebeacon.com
JunkScience
Posted - September 3, 2024 at 3:07 AM
Saved - September 5, 2024 at 3:50 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Climate hoax drowning: New study says sea surface temperature (SST) drives atmospheric CO2 levels not emissions. Emissions are 'irrelevant.' Study: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Ato-Multivariate-Analysis-Vol.4.2.pdf Discussion: https://notrickszone.com/2024/09/02/new-study-human-emissions-irrelevant-in-determining-changes-in-atmospheric-co2-since-1959/

Page not found - Science of climate change scienceofclimatechange.org
New Study: Human Emissions ‘Irrelevant’ In Determining Changes In Atmospheric CO2 Since 1959 notrickszone.com
JunkScience
Posted - July 29, 2024 at 1:19 PM
Saved - July 29, 2024 at 2:08 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe the Associated Press inaccurately attributes ocean warming around the Galapagos to emissions. In reality, the Sun primarily warms the oceans, with geothermal activity potentially playing a role. Clean air allows more solar radiation to reach the surface, contributing to ocean warming. Additionally, the AP has received significant funding from left-wing foundations to promote climate narratives, which raises concerns about their reporting on this issue.

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

AP falsely blames emissions for warming seas around the Galapagos. 🙄 Reality: 1. It is mostly the Sun that warms the oceans, followed possibly by geothermal warming from underwater volcanic activity. The atmosphere doesn't warm the oceans to any measurable extent. So emissions are irrelevant. https://junkscience.com/2024/07/1-minute-junking-emissions-warm-the-oceans/ 2. Ocean warming is attributable to cleaner air allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface. https://junkscience.com/2024/05/exposed-green-policies-and-cleaner-air-caused-the-hottest-year-ever/ 3. The AP is paid millions of dollars by left-wing foundations to promote the climate hoax. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/996617/explosion-of-ap-climate-change-stories-following-8-million-environmental-grant/ https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-galapagos-islands-biodiversity-7ec63dffe3fa54927df8cefc7c87e792 @alie_skow

Explosion of AP climate change stories following $8 million environmental grant - Washington Examiner In the year following a grant of more than $8 million to the Associated Press from key climate change advocates, the news service has poured out at least 64 stories warning of environmental calamity, according to a new media study.Media Research Center Business charted the stories and language used following the multimillion-dollar grant and found washingtonexaminer.com
The Galapagos Islands and many of their unique creatures are at risk from warming waters The wondrous Galapagos Islands and its many creatures have always been sensitive to changes in ocean temperatures. apnews.com
JunkScience
Posted - July 17, 2024 at 2:24 AM
Saved - July 18, 2024 at 11:09 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Climate hoax has reality exactly backwards, concludes new study: Temperature increases CO2, not vice-versa. Study: https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10.3934/mbe.2024287 Discussion: https://notrickszone.com/2024/07/15/causality-analysis-finds-temperature-changes-have-determined-co2-changes-since-the-phanerozoic/

Stochastic assessment of temperature–CO2 causal relationship in climate from the Phanerozoic through modern times

As a result of recent research, a new stochastic methodology of assessing causality was developed. Its application to instrumental measurements of temperature (T) and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) over the last seven decades provided evidence for a unidirectional, potentially causal link between T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. Here, I refine and extend this methodology and apply it to both paleoclimatic proxy data and instrumental data of T and [CO2]. Several proxy series, extending over the Phanerozoic or parts of it, gradually improving in accuracy and temporal resolution up to the modern period of accurate records, are compiled, paired, and analyzed. The extensive analyses made converge to the single inference that change in temperature leads, and that in carbon dioxide concentration lags. This conclusion is valid for both proxy and instrumental data in all time scales and time spans. The time scales examined begin from annual and decadal for the modern period (instrumental data) and the last two millennia (proxy data), and reach one million years for the most sparse time series for the Phanerozoic. The type of causality appears to be unidirectional, T→[CO2], as in earlier studies. The time lags found depend on the time span and time scale and are of the same order of magnitude as the latter. These results contradict the conventional wisdom, according to which the temperature rise is caused by [CO2] increase.

 aimspress.com
Causality Analysis Finds Temperature Changes Have Determined CO2 Changes Since The Phanerozoic notrickszone.com
JunkScience
Posted - May 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM
Saved - May 13, 2024 at 4:23 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Dear Al Gore @algore: Why has there been no springtime warming in Tennessee in 129 years? Is your home state the land that CO2 ironically forgot? https://t.co/eFbMFZqzL6

JunkScience
Posted - February 17, 2024 at 5:01 PM
Saved - February 21, 2024 at 8:48 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

.@elonmusk is a great guy but his recent pro-carbon tax video is full of misinformation. Here are my comments spliced into Elon's video. https://t.co/V51LneJ4V8

Video Transcript AI Summary
Elon Musk released an 8-minute video calling for a carbon tax, but Steve Malloy from publishedjunkscience.com disagrees. Malloy criticizes Musk's claims about the climate crisis, carbon dioxide levels, and temperature changes. He argues that there is no scientific evidence linking man-made emissions to temperature changes. Malloy also dismisses the idea of a carbon tax, calling it pointless and regressive. He believes that fossil fuels are essential and that the transition to sustainable energy should not be rushed. Malloy suggests that the focus should be on removing subsidies and incentivizing industries to reduce carbon emissions. He challenges Musk to a debate on the topic.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everyone. I'm Steve Malloy at publishedjunkscience.com. You can get me on x@junkscience. Look. We all appreciate Elon Musk for buying Twitter and saving free speech, but no one is perfect. Elon just put out an 8 minute video, calling for a carbon tax. There are a lot of problems with it. Whoever wrote that script for Elon really let him down. So we're gonna watch the video together, and I'm gonna make comments. Let's go. Speaker 1: What I'm gonna talk about today is what is needed to address the climate crisis. Speaker 0: Hold on there, Elon. Here's Jon Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in physics on the alleged climate crisis. Speaker 1: Regarding climate change, I believe that the climate change is not a crisis. Speaker 0: So there's no climate crisis. And if we're just choosing between his assertion and yours, well, I'm gonna have to go with his. Speaker 1: What actions can we take that that will accelerate the transition out of the fossil fuel era? So there's a certain amount of carbon that is circulating through the environment. So it's going into the air, getting absorbed by plants and animals, and then going back into the air. And this carbon is just circulating on the surface. And this is fine, and it's been doing that for 1000000, 100 of 1000000 of years. The thing that's changed is that we've added something to the mix. So this is what I would call the sort of the turd in the punch bowl. Speaker 0: Elon, did you just call carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the quote turd in the punch bowl end quote? Elon, c 02 is essential for life on Earth. More carbon dioxide actually means more plant and animal life on Earth. We Speaker 1: added all this extra carbon to the carbon cycle and the net result is that the carbon in the ocean's atmosphere is growing over time. It's much more than can be absorbed by the ecosystem. It's really quite simple. We're taking billions of tons of carbon that's been buried for 100 of 1000000 of years and is not part of the carbon cycle, taking it from deep underground and adding it to the carbon cycle. The result is that a steady increase in the the carbon in the atmosphere and in the ocean, which doesn't look like much if you look at it on this chart. But when looked at in the context of of history, it actually looks like this. So the carbon +1000000 has really been bouncing around the 300 level for around 10,000,000 years. And then in the last few 100 years, it went into a vertical climb. Speaker 0: So, Elon, what is that bizarre moving line on the graph? It's not labeled and doesn't seem to have any meaning at all. Speaker 1: This is the essence of the problem. This is very unusual and a very extreme threat as you can see from this rate of growth. Then this is accompanied by a temperature increase as one would expect. Then this temperature increase you know, people talk about 2 degrees or or 3 degrees. Speaker 0: Elon, this graph is totally fake. It's entirely fraudulent. First, there is no such thing or place with average global temperature. That is not a physical concept. No temperature anomaly on this graph has actually been measured. At best, these are modeled guesstimates. This is not a record of anything since guesstimates are not records. And everything about temperature anomalies is guesswork in the first place, including the arbitrary baseline. Now since the temperatures are guesstimates, where are the error bars? Why aren't those shown? Error bars aren't shown because 96% of US surface temperature stations, for example, are not accurate to within 1 degree centigrade. Bubble stations are likely much worse. Yet, this graph reports accuracy to within 1 hundredth of a degree Celsius. It's just fraud. Speaker 1: So we want to appreciate just how sensitive the the climate actually is to to temperature. And it's if we want to look at it in terms of absolute temperature, not in degrees Celsius relative to 0. We need to say, what is the temperature change relative to absolute 0? Speaker 0: Elon, you've just blown the entire climate con. You can see quite clearly from this graph that the last 4 interglacial periods have been warmer than today even though carbon dioxide was at pre industrial levels. Moreover, the graph shows that in the present era, atmosphere and carbon dioxide has increased dramatically while temperature has not. Al Gore made the same embarrassing mistake in his ridiculous movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Speaker 1: That's how the universe thinks about temperature. It's how physics thinks about temperature. It's relative to absolute 0. For small changes result in huge effects. So New York City under ice would be minus 5 degrees. New York City underwater would be plus 5 degrees. But looked at in a as a percentage relative to absolute 0, it's only a plus minus 2% change. So the sensitivity of climate is extremely high. Speaker 0: This is probably the place to point out that the climate hoax emperor has no clothes. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that man made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused any change in temperature at any time anywhere on Earth. To claim otherwise is just making stuff up. Speaker 1: We've amplified the sensitivity by building our cities right on the coastline. And most people live very close to the ocean and some countries, of course, they're very low lying and would be completely underwater in a climate crisis. Speaker 0: Elon, sea level rise has been constant since the mid 19th century. It may be relatively greater in some coastal areas due to natural subsidence, groundwater withdrawal, and land use, but no part of sea level rise has anything to do with emissions. A recent study reported that whatever ice loss Greenland has experienced over the past 40 years has not affected sea level at all. We have even just recently learned about how the government uses satellites to lie about sea level rise. Speaker 1: We we've essentially designed civilization to be super sensitive. The important thing to to appreciate is that we are going to exit the fossil fuels era. So it is inevitable that we will exit the fossil fuels era because at a certain point, we'll simply run out of carbon to mine and burn. Speaker 0: So we will run out of carbon to mine and burn? Elon, did you miss the failure of the peak oil hypothesis and scare? We have plenty of coal, oil, and gas to burn. Really an unlimited amount for the foreseeable future. Speaker 1: The question is really, when do we exit the era? Not yet. The goal is to exit the era as quickly as possible. That means we need to move from the old goal with the pre industrial goal, which was to move from chopping down forests and killing lots of whales. The the old goal was to move from chopping wood and killing whales. Speaker 0: Elon, have you missed all the dead whales washing up on the East Coast beaches since the Biden administration permitted offshore wind? Green groups have gone from save the whales to kill the whales. Speaker 1: Killing whales to fossil fuels, which is actually, in that context, was a good thing. But the new goal is to move to a sustainable energy future. And we want to use things like hydro, solar, wind, geothermal. Nuclear is also a good option in places like France, which don't subject to natural disasters. And we wanna use energy sources that will be good for a 1000000000 years. Speaker 0: What? We wanna use energy sources that will be good for a 1000000000 years? You know, human history only goes back 5000 years. Right? Going forward, we'll be lucky if Joe Biden doesn't get us in a nuclear war before November. A 1000000000 years? Why not a gazillion years or a bazillion years? Speaker 1: So how do we accelerate this transition away from fossil fuels to sustainable era? And what happens if we don't? If we wait and if we delay the change, the the the best case is simply delaying that inevitable transition to sustainable energy. So this is the best case if we don't take action now. At the risk of being repetitive, there's gonna be no choice in the long term to move to sustainable energy. It's tautological. We have to sustainable energy or else we don't have the other one. Speaker 0: We have plenty of fossil fuels for the foreseeable future. Emissions are not changing the climate. The flip side of delaying a transition is rushing it. And there is no point in rushing any transition because of the climate hoax. Speaker 1: So the only thing we gain by slowing down the transition is just slowing it down. It doesn't make it not occur. It just slows it down. The worst case, however, is more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined. K? This is these are the best worst case scenarios. So then, we have about 3% of scientists that believe in the best case, about 90% that believe in the worst case. Speaker 0: So here we have the 97% consensus myth. There is no such consensus, and science is not conducted by consensus anyway. The 97% consensus myth has been debunked many times. While we're at it, please remember that no so called climate scientist has ever correctly predicted anything. None. Not one. I don't even really consider these people as scientists just like I don't consider organ grinder monkeys to be musicians. Speaker 1: This is why I call it the dumbest experiment in history ever. Speaker 0: So Elon calls fossil fuels the dumbest experiment in history. Fossil fuels have taken humanity from less than a 1000000000 people in the pre industrial era to a growing population of over 8,000,000,000 leading longer, healthier, wealthier, and freer lives than ever before. The earth is greener than ever before, carrying more life than ever before. What's dumb is the junk science fueled suicidal disaster that we call the climate hoax. Speaker 1: But why would you do this if the transition is delayed? Or or or is happening slowly is because there is a hidden subsidy on all carbon producing activity. In a healthy market, if you have, say, €10 of benefit €4 of quantum society, the profit would be €6. This sort of, you know, makes obvious sense. This is where the incentives are aligned with a good future. This is not the case today. But if you have the incentives aligned, then the forcing function towards a good future towards a sustainable energy future will be powerful. In an unhealthy market, you have your 10 years benefit, give you 4 years, but the 4 years isn't isn't taxed. So you have an untaxed negative externality. Speaker 0: Elon's so called negative externality, which is generally referred to as the social cost of carbon, is another bogus idea. Nothing in our world happens without fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, 1,000,000,000 would die very soon. Fossil fuels are all benefit with no negative externality. Speaker 1: It's basically economics 101. So you have basically unreasonable profit and a forcing function to do carbon emitting activity because this cost to society is not being paid. The net result is 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere. So this is analogous to not paying for garbage collection. And it's it's not as though we should say, in the case of garbage, have a garbage free society. It's very difficult to have a garbage free society, but it's just important that people pay for garbage collection. Speaker 0: Emissions of greenhouse gases are invisible and odorless. They are a very small part of the atmosphere, 0.04% in the case of carbon dioxide. Moreover, carbon dioxide is vital plant food. What's garbage is likening emissions to garbage. Speaker 1: So we need to go from having untaxed negative externality, which is effectively subsidy of enormous size, $5,300,000,000,000 a year according to the IMF, every year. We need to move away from this and have a carbon tax. This is being fought quite hard by the the carbon producers. Speaker 0: A carbon tax is a pointless tax on energy. It will make energy pointlessly more expensive while not accomplishing anything for the environment. It is a regressive tax, meaning that it would hit poor people the most. Finally, big oil companies like ExxonMobil, for example, and to its everlasting infamy, supports the carbon tax. ExxonMobil knows that fossil fuels are essential, and it doesn't care if consumers are forced to pay higher prices for them. Speaker 1: And they're using tactics that are very similar to what the cigarette industry or the tobacco industry used for many years. They would they would take the approach of even though the overwhelming scientific consensus was that swerving cigarettes was bad for you, they would find a few scientists that would disagree. And then they would say, look, scientists disagree. That's essentially how they would try to trick the public into thinking that smoking is not that bad. Speaker 0: The tobacco industry analogy is just straight up mindless BS demonization. There was and is as much, if not more lying by anti tobacco activists and the government than the tobacco industry. I don't know any climate realist that lies, but I know virtually every climate hoaxer does. Or if they're not lying, they're just really stupid. So you can take your pick with that. Speaker 1: The solution, obviously, is to remove the subsidy. So that means we we need to have a carbon tax. And to make it something which is neither a left nor a right issue, we should make it probably a revenue neutral carbon tax. So this would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon, then reducing taxes in in other places. So maybe there would be a reduction in sales tax or VAT and an increase in carbon tax so that only those using high levels of carbon would pay an increased tax. In in order to give industry time to react, this could be a phased in approach that maybe it takes 5 years before the carbon taxes are very high. So that means that only companies that don't take action today will suffer in 5 years. But there needs to be a clear message from government in this regard. Speaker 0: So we burn fossil fuels because they are a fantastic energy source and there is no cost effective substitute. I'm somewhat surprised that in 2024, Elon Musk of all people still believes that government knows what it's doing and can manage a national or global economy to a good end. Speaker 1: Because the fundamental problem is the rules today incent people to create carbon, And this is madness. And whatever you incent will happen. That that's why we're we're seeing very little effect thus far. And depending on what action we take, we'll we'll drive the the carbon number to either extreme or or moderate levels. I think it's pretty much a given that the 2 degree c increase will occur. The question is whether it's gonna be much more than that, not not if there will be a 2 degree increase. Speaker 0: So if Elon Musk had read the climate gate emails, he would know that the 2 degrees Celsius temperature target was, quote, plucked out of thin air, end quote, and is in no way scientific or meaningful. Our guesstimates of average global temperature are entirely bogus and without meaning. Average global temperature is a concept invented for the climate hoax. And temperature targets like 1.5 degrees Celsius and 2 degrees Celsius are just an arbitrary means of causing the public anxiety about something imaginary. Speaker 1: So the then the question is, so what can you do? I would say whenever you have the opportunity, talk to the politicians, ask them to enact a carbon tax. We have to fix the unpriced externality. I'll talk to your friends about it and fight the propaganda from the carbon industry. So that's the basic message I have. Speaker 0: So, Elon, if you wanna debate me about any of this, bring it. I was the first one to ask Al Gore to debate when he was doing his slideshow with An Inconvenient Truth in 2,006. He couldn't run away fast enough. Of course, you're much smarter than Al Gore. You're much braver. So let's do it. Let's get Joe Rogan to moderate or Tucker Carlson. It would be great spectacle, a great discussion. Let's do it.
JunkScience
Posted - October 20, 2023 at 1:09 AM
Saved - October 20, 2023 at 2:28 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Portuguese scientists calculate the climate hoax: CO2 at most responsible for 0.015°C of surface warming. Not even measurable. Commentary: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370156771_Editorial_Comment_On_Earth_System_Dynamics%27_Greenhouse_Effect_Editorial Discussion: https://notrickszone.com/2023/10/19/physicists-co2-only-affects-10-of-ir-in-3-of-the-troposphere/

ResearchGate - Temporarily Unavailable researchgate.net
Physicists: CO2 Only Affects 10% Of IR In 3% Of The Troposphere notrickszone.com
JunkScience
Posted - October 4, 2023 at 2:27 PM
Saved - October 4, 2023 at 8:55 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
The Red Pope's claims on climate change lack scientific basis. The warming trend began after the Little Ice Age, not due to emissions. Recent warming is linked to El Ninos, not human activity. The notion of the fastest temperature rise in 2000 years is unfounded. Ocean acidification is a myth, and there's no evidence of harm to the oceans. The Pope ignores factors like the ENSO cycle and solar irradiance. Capitalism and emissions have led to human progress. The Red Pope's views on irreversible climate change and collectivism are flawed. His attack on US emissions is unjustified.

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope swings and misses at the origin of warming and emissions: 1. The current warming trend began at the bottom of the Little Ice Age in the late 1600s. 2. Recent warming began with the series of El Ninos that began in 1980. 3. We are in an El Nino year now. 4. As to emissions, warming precedes emissions. It gooses the natural carbon cycle. See Vostok ice cores and this - https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1704675876359606462 5. Only 12% or so of atmospheric CO2 is manmade. https://twitter.com/JunkScience/status/1656473882071556101 8/

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Houston, climate idiocy has a problem: Warming has preceded the increase in atmospheric CO2 for the past 60 years, reports new study. So the climate hoax has the relationship between warming and CO2 exactly backwards. Study: https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/5/3/35

On Hens, Eggs, Temperatures and CO2: Causal Links in Earth’s Atmosphere The scientific and wider interest in the relationship between atmospheric temperature (T) and concentration of carbon dioxide ([CO2]) has been enormous. According to the commonly assumed causality link, increased [CO2] causes a rise in T. However, recent developments cast doubts on this assumption by showing that this relationship is of the hen-or-egg type, or even unidirectional but opposite in direction to the commonly assumed one. These developments include an advanced theoretical framework for testing causality based on the stochastic evaluation of a potentially causal link between two processes via the notion of the impulse response function. Using, on the one hand, this framework and further expanding it and, on the other hand, the longest available modern time series of globally averaged T and [CO2], we shed light on the potential causality between these two processes. All evidence resulting from the analyses suggests a unidirectional, potentially causal link with T as the cause and [CO2] as the effect. That link is not represented in climate models, whose outputs are also examined using the same framework, resulting in a link opposite the one found when the real measurements are used. mdpi.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Devastating for the climate narrative: Carbon-14 dating shows only 12% of atmospheric CO2 added since 1750 is manmade. 'Much too low to be the cause of global warming.' https://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2022/02000/World_Atmospheric_CO2,_Its_14C_Specific_Activity,.2.aspx

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity,... : Health Physics After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the no journals.lww.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope just makes it up: 1. There is no way to say that the temperature rise since the 1970s is the fastest in 2,000 years. 2. There was little if any urban heat island effect 2,000 years ago and no satellites. 3. Then there's this: "Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid N. Hemisphere temp jumps of up to 15°C in Greenland that repeatedly occurred w/i a few decades during the last ice age." 4. Climategate revealed that temperature targets like 1.5°C are just 'plucked out of thin air' and are not science. 5. No one knows what the global temperature in 1850 was. 6. 'Ocean acidification' is a myth. The oceans may have become slightly less basic, but that is not more acidic. Two is not more negative than three.' 7. There is no evidence of any effects from any ocean pH change. https://junkscience.com/2015/12/exclusive-ocean-acidification-not-a-current-problem-top-noaa-scientist-insists-in-foia-ed-e-mails/ 8. Norther Hemisphere snow cover is trending up. 9/

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

We've really been lied to about emissions - climate is naturally wacky and abruptly so: "Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid N. Hemisphere temp jumps of up to 15°C in Greenland that repeatedly occurred w/i a few decades during the last ice age." https://phys.org/news/2023-08-abrupt-north-atlantic-overturning-impacted.html

Past abrupt changes in North Atlantic Overturning have impacted the climate system across the globe, study shows The Dansgaard-Oeschger events are rapid Northern-Hemisphere temperature jumps of up to 15°C in Greenland that repeatedly occurred within a few decades during the last ice age. phys.org

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

NOAA says June the hottest ever on record. AP hack @borenbears says "NOAA is the gold standard for record-keeping with data going back 174 years to 1850." https://apnews.com/article/heat-record-temperature-climate-change-el-nino-cb53a97161b0725ef94cae9b53bf1f81 Below is the sparse global temp station coverage as of 1885. NOAA is the gold standard of hoax.

Meteorologists say Earth sizzled to a global heat record in June and July has been getting hotter The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says an already warming Earth steamed to its hottest June on record, smashing the old global mark by nearly a quarter of a degree, with global oceans setting temperature records for the third straight month. apnews.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Northern Hemisphere snow cover at highest extent in 56 years. https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/snow-extent-northern-hemisphere-highest-56-years-winter-cold-rrc/ h/t @TonyClimate Climate idiocy circa 2000: "Children just won't know what snow is [by 2020]." Climate is a hoax.

Snow Extent in the Northern Hemisphere now Among the Highest in 56 years Increases the Likelihood of Cold Early Winter Forecast both in North America and Europe Snow extent in the Northern Hemisphere is much higher than average according to global estimates, and now among the highest ever observed severe-weather.eu

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope imagines the fake 97% 'climate consensus' is science and attacks capitalism. 1. Recent warming correlates with El Ninos, not emissions. https://junkscience.com/2023/01/milloy-climate-tweet-sets-twitter-abuzz-even-musk-admits-he-is-no-believer/ 2. Consensus is not science. And the 97% consensus is bogus. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/08/30/97-consensus-what-consensus/ 3. Capitalism and emissions have taken humanity from less than 1 billion to over 8 billion people. You'd think the Pope would be praising both. 10/

“97% Consensus” — What Consensus? • Watts Up With That? It appears that Cook and his co-authors manipulated the data to present an altogether untrue narrative of overwhelming support for catastrophic human-caused warming. wattsupwiththat.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope has apparently never heard of: 1. The ENSO cycle; 2. Geothermal heating; or 3. Changes solar irradiance caused by clouds. There are lots of factors that affect surface temperatures. 11/

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope is really poorly informed: 1. 'Climate change' has never been reversible. The climate is a nonlinear, chaotic system. 2. Ocean acidification is hoax, as discussed earlier. 3. Except during peak algal blooms, there is no oxygen depletion occurring. 4. There is no evidence that changes in the ocean have harmed anything. We have been lied to for decades about coral, for example. 12/

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Such BS. 1. Oceans have plenty of oxygen. 2. If oceans have less oxygen, it's b/c they carry more life, especially phytoplankton. 3. The only seriously oxygen-depleted waters are so-called 'dead zones' from run-off. The rest is propaganda.

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

'Great Barrier Reef has most coral in decades.' So 'climate scientists' have been lying to us for decades about the GBR dying. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/08/04/great-barrier-reef-coral-recovery-climate-change/?tid=ss_tw

Great Barrier Reef has most coral in decades. Global warming could reverse it. Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have recorded their highest levels of coral cover since the 1980s, but scientists say climate change could undo the recovery. washingtonpost.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

The Red Pope wants a new ice age? 1. He seems to have forgotten that scientists feared a new ice age in the 1970s. 2. Polar ice has been reduced since its recent peak in the late 1970s. But that process probably began at the end of the Little Ice Age. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/27/science/arctic-ocean-atlantification.html?smid=tw-share 13/

This Ocean Invaded Its Neighbor Earlier Than Anyone Thought (Published 2021) The saltier Atlantic broke through layers of ice and freshwater, contributing to the Arctic’s warming. nytimes.com

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Doomer Red Pope: Ignore the doomers. "There is no turning back" That's right. We're all on an irreversible journey called life. 14/ https://t.co/MaM4bOcV51

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Red Pope advances collectivism: 1. Never waste a crisis. 2. Individualism is bad. 15/ https://t.co/hbQNU0XDGR

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Red Pope closes his climate letter with an attack on 'irresponsible' US emissions. 🙄 Excuse us for our standard of living. 16/ https://t.co/vdZgAsQqjV

JunkScience
Posted - September 29, 2023 at 3:21 AM
Saved - September 30, 2023 at 3:19 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Clouds are crucial to climate, but climate models overlook them, a major scientific flaw. CO2, often demonized, is actually a beneficial gas with minimal impact on climate control. Urgent call to halt emission reduction efforts. Nobel-winning physicist debunks climate change narrative.

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

You don't need to be a climate scientist. The 2022 Nobel physics prize winner has all you need to know to debunk climate idiocy: 1. Clouds are key to climate but climate models ignore them... 'simply bad science.' 2. CO2 is a 'beneficial gas... not at all significant in controlling climate.' 3. Efforts to cut emissions 'should be stopped immediately.' https://theepochtimes.com/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267

JunkScience
Posted - September 17, 2023 at 1:50 AM
Saved - September 17, 2023 at 3:17 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
IMF disinvites Nobel laureate Clauser from climate presentation. Criticism of IPCC not tolerated. Staffer fired for inviting Clauser. Paper on extreme events withdrawn at request of journalist. Climate idiocy blamed for killing science. Shocking revelations on climate debate.

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Shocking climate email: International Monetary Fund staffer explains why 2022 Nobel physics prize winner John Clauser was disinvited from making a climate presentation to the IMF. - @IPCC_CH will not tolerate debate - Not allowed to criticize the IPCC - Staffer who invited Clauser was fired - Paper showing no upward trend in extreme events withdrawn at request of @guardian journalist. Science is dead. Climate idiocy killed it.

JunkScience
Posted - September 10, 2023 at 1:38 PM
Saved - September 10, 2023 at 2:13 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

2022 Nobel physics prize winner trashes climate narrative again: 1. Models ignore clouds... 'simply bad science.' 2. CO2 a 'beneficial gas... not at all significant in controlling climate.' 3. Efforts to cut emissions 'should be stopped immediately.'

Nobel Winner Refutes Climate Change Narrative, Points Out Ignored Factor Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has challenged prevailing climate models, which he says have ignored a key variable. theepochtimes.com
JunkScience
Posted - July 13, 2023 at 4:53 PM
Saved - July 16, 2023 at 2:21 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Breaking: @RepScottPerry crushes @johnkerry on climate at today's House hearing: - 'You want to spend $1.6 quadrillion on a problem that doesn't exist.' - Climate scientists 'are grifting like you are.'

Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 asks Secretary 1 if they support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030. Secretary 1 confirms their support. Speaker 0 then brings up a past resolution in 1997 where the US shouldn't cut emissions until other countries like China, India, and Mexico do the same. Secretary 1 acknowledges this and states that emissions have increased in those countries as well as globally. Speaker 0 questions if Secretary 1 has abandoned their position, to which Secretary 1 explains that the world has changed since then. Speaker 0 then asks about Secretary 1's previous statements on global emissions and the correct amount of CO2. Secretary 1 explains the need to reduce emissions and control current levels. Speaker 0 presses for a specific amount, but Secretary 1 says it changes daily. The conversation continues with Speaker 0 challenging Secretary 1's views on climate change and the cost of addressing it. Secretary 1 defends their position and mentions the consensus among scientists.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thank you, chairman. Thank you, secretary. In an attempt to get to net 0 by 2050, do you support the administration's goal of cutting US emissions in half by 2030? Speaker 1: Yes. I do. Speaker 0: Secretary, in 1997, the senate Voted 95 to 0, including you and then senator Biden in favor of the Byrd Hagel resolution, which resolved that the US shouldn't cut emissions until China, Co India, Brazil, South Korea, and other developed so called developing nations cut emissions as well. Do you remember that? Speaker 1: I do very, very well because I was managing Speaker 0: it on Speaker 1: the floor this time. Speaker 0: Since 97, have emissions from China, India, and Mexico all increased? Speaker 1: Yes. As they have from the United States. Speaker 0: And global emissions have continued to increase as well. Right? Yes. Have any of those countries submitted a credible plan to get to net zero emissions by 2050? Speaker 1: Which countries? Speaker 0: Let's just go with China, India, or Mexico. No. It seems that have you abandoned your position that those other nations would cut emissions before Americans would have to make choices between the groceries on their table and paying for for these policies? Speaker 1: I think the reality is that the world changed in that period of time. Let me let me Okay. Speaker 0: So so you voted that way but But Speaker 1: let me explain to you the vote because I did manage this on the floor. And I know exactly what happened because I'm the one who said to our colleagues, I think everybody ought to vote for this. And the reason was that it fundamentally had the message that it's not fair. The one we were talking about earlier with the Germans. It's not fair for us to be reducing, and China, which was producing 3 times more emissions than us, And then producing goods that come into our country from that dirty power, and we have a problem. So we wanted to address that, But we knew not every aspect of that piece of legislation is what you you all call we all call a message. It it was a message vote, and the vote was clear. We wanted other people to join us in the effort to reduce emissions. Okay. Fair enough. That hasn't happened sufficiently. Speaker 0: It hasn't happened sufficiency sufficiently. Now secretary, in 2015, at the Paris Climate Conference, you said that if all into industrial nations go to 0 emissions, It wouldn't be enough. And then at the White House's climate day in January of 21, you said almost 90% of the planet's emissions come from outside the US. We could go to 0 tomorrow, and the problem isn't isn't solved. And in April 21, you told the Washington Post that even The US and China going to 0 emissions tomorrow won't solve the climate's problem. Then in April 21, you said that global net zero is not enough and that c o two must be removed from the atmosphere. How much is the correct amount of c o two? Speaker 1: Let me explain to you if I can so you understand exactly what I said. That's close but it's not quite exactly what I was saying. What I was saying let let me tell you what it says. I'm gonna tell you what the Here's how how it works. Because we have put I'd forget the exact number of tons, millions of tons of c o two and other greenhouse gases are now in the atmosphere? They're there. And every day, we're adding more. And so every day, the heat is going up and we have to figure out how we're gonna, you know, tame the monster here. The only way to do that is to reduce emissions on an ongoing basis to get control on the current level of emissions that we have created? But what is then but what actually sucks Speaker 0: Sir, with all due respect, you've been through this before. What is the correct amount? I don't wanna Spend a bunch of time about a history lesson about things they'll people don't care about. Speaker 1: What changes every day? I don't I can't tell you exactly what the amount changes Speaker 0: in there. Speaker 1: Yes. It does. Speaker 0: So, secretary, you probably know that for approximately 200,000,000 years, what's what's the parts per million now? About four hundred. Right? Can we agree with that? Speaker 1: 400. Alright. Speaker 0: It's about 200,000,000 years. 2000 parts per million. Did mother nature get it wrong for 200,000,000 years? Here's the difference, congressman. Speaker 1: The difference is yes. There were math there were periods which all scientists, all the scientists who deal with climate acknowledge That there have been moments on the planet which is 1,000,000,000 of years old in which there were greater heat and There was greater Tell Speaker 0: me the difference quickly. I've got a little Speaker 1: The difference is human beings are creating So That's the difference. Speaker 0: Though human beings are We are Speaker 1: creating it. Speaker 0: A 100000 years old, but But during these periods of time where it was 2,000 parts per million, life existed. As a matter of fact, Speaker 1: we were in one of the lowest Oh, it's not human beings walking around. We're in one Speaker 0: of the lowest periods of carbon in the atmosphere in not only recorded history, in the history of Life existing on the planet. In December of 2022, you told the Washington Post we need to remove 1.6 trillion tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via direct air capture? The cost for that is about $1,000 per ton or 1.6 Quadrillion dollars. Now I said you said you didn't know, but since 2015, since the last El Nino, about 500,000,000,000 tons have been Have been admitted into the atmosphere. During that same period of time, 2015, if you look at the temperature graph, this is from NOAA. The temperature has gone down. Show the next slide. This is from NASA satellite data. Temperature has gone down. You wanna have the have the American taxpayers, my constituents that are having a hard time, afford their groceries, pay for a car, Buy a new home, spend 1.6 quadrillion dollars to fix a problem that, a, doesn't exist. And as a matter of fact, You might be exacerbating because it's unknown. It is unknown at this time the low level that of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that might actually destroy life? Because plant life all depends. As you know, secretary, plant life all depends on c o two. And when we kill it, Then we're done too. I yield the balance. Speaker 1: Congressman, let me just say that, I don't agree with what you're saying out there for A number of reasons. I don't have time to go into all of them now, but I'll just tell you point blank that the difference between the periods you're looking at in terms of heat, etcetera, and Human human input is night and day, number 1. Number 2, why do you think a 195 countries in the world, They're prime ministers. They're presidents. Speaker 0: Because they're grifting like you are, sir. Speaker 1: This that's a pretty shocking statement That you believe that all the scientists in the world are great producers, honestly. Speaker 0: Not all scientists agree with you, mister Sacks. Speaker 1: 98% of all the scientists in the world Speaker 0: Science isn't about agreement? It's not about consensus. You know that. Speaker 1: We are now recognizes.
JunkScience
Posted - June 18, 2023 at 1:23 AM
Saved - June 18, 2023 at 2:58 PM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Just in from NOAA: America not warming since June 2005 despite a 42% increase in industrial era atmospheric CO2. If every emission warms, where's the warming? https://ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/12/5 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/12/5

National Temperature Index | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) Several different methodologies to estimate the temperature history of the contiguous United States, including NCEI's current operational version. Users can graph, compare and save the output from these different methods. ncei.noaa.gov
JunkScience
Posted - June 14, 2023 at 2:20 AM
Saved - June 15, 2023 at 3:35 AM

@JunkScience - Steve Milloy

Not the narrative: The surface of the Greenland ice sheet has gained almost 600 billion tons of new snow since September 1, 2022. The gain has been above the 1981-2010 average during five of the last seven years. https://realclimatescience.com/2023/06/600-billion-tons-of-new-snow/ https://realclimatescience.com/2023/06/600-billion-tons-of-new-snow/

600 Billion Tons Of New Snow | Real Climate Science realclimatescience.com
View Full Interactive Feed