Dave Middleton’s Debunk House
Note: Over the past few years, I have been publishing most of my climate change and energy articles directly to Watts Up With That?
My name is Dave Middleton. I have been a geoscientist in the evil oil industry since 1981. I have a BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) from Southern Connecticut State University and I minored in Mathematics.
This Blog is dedicated to my favorite hobby…Debunking the junk science of radical environmentalists…Particularly the junk science of anthropogenic global warming.
I use the phrase “junk science” quite often. To me junk science is what happens when scientists become so focused on the results that they are trying to obtain, or in reinforcing the current paradigm, that they discard inconvenient data and exaggerate the value of supporting data. Science often becomes a process of reinforcing the current paradigm, or “ruling theory.” Eventually enough inconvenient data and/or flaws in the ruling theory accumulate and force a “paradigm shift.” The classic example of this occurred 500 to 600 years ago when the Ptolemaic (geocentric) Solar System was supplanted by the Copernican (heliocentric) Solar System (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn).
Geologists are very familiar with this problem. Our science is very much affected by the Principle of Non-uniqueness. For every given set of observations, there are always “multiple working hypotheses.” We use Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses – Several working hypotheses are formulated to explain a set of observations and we endeavor to treat all of the working hypotheses equally as long as they work. Eventually some hypotheses will fail to explain the data and observations; the failed hypotheses are discarded. The field of climate science has been dominated by one ruling theory over the last 20 years or so – The Enhanced Greenhouse Theory. The IPCC, Hadley Centre, East Anglia CRU, NASA-GISS, NOAA and many other organizations involved in climate science and policy have tunnel-visioned in on the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (primarily carbon dioxide) have driven climate change over the last 200 years. They have clung to this ruling theory despite the fact that the data and observations are increasingly un-supportive of that theory.
I also frequently use the word “Enviromarxism” or “Enviromarxist.” Enviromarxists are those politicians and scientists who are threatening to take away our freedom and prosperity in order to protect the environment of the Earth from the ravages of capitalism. I believe that the root of Enviromarxism is school of thought known as Steady State Economics (AKA sustainable development). Al Gore is the poster child of Enviromarxism. The major flaws of Enviromarxism are: 1) Poor nations are far worse polluters than wealthy nations; and 2) Virtually all of the science that is used to support the Enviromarxist agenda is junk science. I started this blog as a place where I could “publish” my own scientific refutation of Enviromarxist junk science.
While I detest the junk science of Enviromarxism, I actually love the environment. My wife and I spend as much time as we can in it.
Elizabeth & Dave in Grand Tetons NP
Elizabeth & Dave on the road to Zion NP.
Debunk House 
December 2, 2009 at 03:36 |
I’m discovering your website today. I wish I had done so much before.
Thanks for your well documented re-information work.
Vincent, from France
January 27, 2010 at 00:40 |
Give em hell, Dave…
Onward through the fog!
March 9, 2010 at 11:50 |
isnt that a Trex bone in ur hand u crazy sumbitch! volunteers of america indeed:)
March 29, 2010 at 05:56 |
I am studying Earth Science, I approach it with an open mind on climate change because I really want to understand what is going on. Already I have observed instances of what I have to say fall into your description of ‘junk science’. One common approach involves kicking off hundreds of computer modelling exercises calling the pooled results evidence and and deriving wild conclusions from it, even in the ‘peer reviewed’ major journals it is likely that the logic of explaining ‘evidence’ starts with ‘Because of anthropogenic climate change….’. I have noticed that anyone suggesting any alternative explanation or argument with it soon becomes a ‘climate change denier’. Looking round the internet I find hysteria on all sides of the dabate.
I see common sense and a healthy questioning approach in much of what you write. Keep up the good work, I look forward to returning to this site often.
March 29, 2010 at 22:09 |
Sue,
Those of us in the Earth Science community have a great deal of respect for the principle of non-uniqueness. Models are great tools… But their value is almost entirely heuristic… They have very little predictive value.
If the mainstream climate science community were dominated by Earth Scientists, rather than computer modelers, the science would be approached using Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses, rather than a Ruling Theory or paradigm.
December 26, 2010 at 12:49 |
I think you are (tragically) wrong David. The “science” is not dominated, as you say, by ideologues who are trying to eliminate capitalism. Science is science. If the facts lead to the conclusion that we are creating a dangerous environment as a result of our behaviour (burning fossil fuel, for example), then common sense dictates that we alter and /or mediate the impacts of this behaviour. This is not complicated; we do this kind of thing in our day-to-day lives all the time thereby, ensuring our survival.
We can create communities which will be prosperous and enriching for ALL participants, only if we quickly realize that the path we are now on, is NOT working. We must decide to create communities which are less reliant on fossil fuels, more committed to egalitarian values and practices, and much more respectful of the principle that all our actions have a measurable cost and impact.
December 26, 2010 at 23:43 |
Hugh,
I’m reasonably certain that your statement here, reflects the unsubstantiated, junk-science, totalitarian approach to science that Dave is discussing in this blog. (50-50 chance that it’s a spot-on parody of the loony left)
It’s my first visit and I just moved the link close to the top of my “favorites” list.
December 29, 2010 at 23:58 |
response to Dan C:
On the contrary DanC, my views are consistent with the preponderance of positions taken by scientists from all over the world, the onesw who actually do research, who study climate, oceans, glaciers, and biodiversity. You can discover this truth for yourself with a lot of focussed reading. Go directly to the work of the scientists who are actually doing research;monitor Realscience.ORG, and the large number of websites which feature independent commentary. I know this is a challenging task, but it is vital if you are going to find the truth regarding climate change and associated issues. (It would be wise to avoid the writings of PR types, economists, astro physicists and the assortment of other commentators who claim to have expertise on this subject, but WHO DO NO RESEARCH)Good luck!
December 30, 2010 at 06:49 |
Hugh,
Have you ever studied logic?
Your comments are textbook examples of a logical fallacy known as an “Appeal to Authority Argument.”
December 30, 2010 at 06:50 |
Hugh,
NASA’s top climate scientists have no background in any of the sciences related to climatology. NASA GISS Director James Hansen is an astrophysicist. NASA GISS’ most famous climate modeler, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathematician. Schmidt is one of the founders of the Real Climate blog. Here’s a really funny exchange he had on his blog with Roy Spencer, a real climate scientist…
Schmidt clearly doesn’t have a clue as to how the atmosphere works. He simply builds computer models that yield the desired results. Models are great tools. If well constrained, they can even be good predictive tools. But climate models are universally poorly constrained. As such they are good heuristic (learning) tools; but very poor predictive tools.
Twenty-five years ago, climatology was an arcane branch of physical geography and paleoclimatology was the realm of sedimentary and Quaternary geology. Climatology and paleclimatology are multidisciplinary fields involving physical geography, meteorology, geology, geophysics, geochemistry, biogeochemistry, botany and other disciplines.
As far as the so-called consensus, in 2008 a survey supposedly found that ~97% of the climate scientists surveyed were on board with AGW and the IPCC. The survey asked up to nine questions, with two questions being in every survey…
1. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The answer to question #1 is “yes” and the second question is idiotically worded. Over what period of time? What constitutes significant? The Earth’s average surface temperature has warmed by about 1°C since 1600. Up to 0.2°C of that warming could be the result of the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800’s. If you assume that all of the CO2 rise is anthropogenic, is 0.2°C significant relative to our ability to estimate an average surface temperature? Land use change (a human activity) could certainly “a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.” Urban Heat Island (UHI) could also be “a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.” The answer to question #2 is a coin toss.
Doran et al. claim that the poll revealed that ~80% of Earth Scientists agreed that “that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming.” But that’s not what they asked. They asked if “a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”
The poll was only of academic and gov’t scientists… “Only those invited could participate.” The AGI’s Directory of Geoscience Departments only lists gov’t agencies and academic institutions. Earth scientists with real jobs were not surveyed. The sample of self-described climate scientists consisted of 79 individuals.
70% of those surveyed did not respond.
More than 1/3 of the meteorologists and 1/2 of the economic geologists who replied answered “no” to question #2. Meteorologists understand the physics of the atmosphere better than any other scientific discipline. Most economic geologists are sedimentary geologists. Sedimentary geology is a combination of palegeography and paleoclimatology. Sequence stratigraphy, a vital tool in oil and gas exploration, is paleoclimatology.
The AGI is an umbrella organization that includes the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and the Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and about 40 other geoscience societies. I’m a member of both the AAPG and SEG. I didn’t get polled. And neither did about 110,000 other Earth Scientists who belong to AGI societies.
Doran sent “invited” 10,200 academic Earth Scientists to participate.
Only about 3,000 replied to the survey.
On top of all that… The poll did not ask anything about anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions being a significant cause of climate change.
December 30, 2010 at 09:18 |
I think the quest to understand what is happening in the world I share with over six billion other humans, uncountable other creatures and life forms, requires MUCH more than logic to understand and know. Empirical science provides the best information in this regard. Commentary which is not informed by up-to-date research-based information, is misinformed, and misleading, even if it is logically expressed. Science is not a debating process!
December 30, 2010 at 10:08 |
Hugh,
AGW is not based on empirical science. It is physically impossible to perform an empirical experiment on the climate.
Do you not comprehend the scientific meaning of the word “empirical?”
December 30, 2010 at 12:04 |
If climate science is not empirical, someone forgot to inform the glaciers which are noticeably vanishing, or the forests in my backyard which are being devastated by Pine beetles and Spruce Bud worms, or the muskegs to the north of my location which are melting, or the Great Lakes which are not freezing in the winter and which are losing water to evaporation at unprecedented rates.
Scientists are alarmed, leading the Academies of Science around the world and many,many others to become advocates for change. Sophisticated forecasting is now possible with reasonable accuracy. Will the Greenland glacier melt in 100 years or 50 years is debatable, but the fact that it is vanishing is not controversial anymore. Glaciers around the world are melting, including all the glaciers in my own backyard, the remnants of some I can actually see as I write this note. Average temperatures around the world are measurably warmer, leading to the melting conditions causing glaciers and muskegs to disintegrate, and to drying conditions everywhere in the middle parts of continents.
It is not logic which leads me to these conclusions; it is simple observation.
By the way, James Hansen is acknowledged by most as one of the world’s leading Earth Scientists. His body of work speaks for itself.
December 30, 2010 at 12:23 |
Hugh,
I did not say that climate science was not empirical. I said that AGW (anthropogenic global warming caused by an enhanced greenhouse effect) was not based on empirical science.
An empirical experiment is a controlled experiment… In order to run a controlled experiment you have to have a “control sample” with which to compare an “experimental sample.” There is no way to run a controlled experiment on the climate. Model simulations are not empirical experiments.
The observation of climate change tells us nothing about the causes of climate change. There is nothing anomalous about the climate changes over the last century relative to the overall scope of climate change throughout the Holocene. There is no empirical evidence that changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ever driven climate change at any time over the last ~540-million years.
The Little Ice Age was the coldest part of the Holocene, thus far. During the Little Ice Age, glaciers advanced farther than than they had since the Younger Dryas. The glaciers of Glacier National Park reached their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age – Those glaciers are not the remnants of the last Pleistocene glaciation. They formed after the Holocene Climatic Optimum. Most glaciers have generally been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age (mid-1800’s).
December 30, 2010 at 12:29 |
James Hansen is not an Earth Scientist… He’s an astronomer/astrophysicist.
BA Physics & Math
MS Astronomy
PhD Astrophysics
He also expresses an obvious contempt for the scientific method on his GISS bio page…
“The hardest part is trying to influence the nature of the measurements obtained, so that the key information can be obtained.”
— James Hansen
December 30, 2010 at 15:14 |
It seems there are many folks trying to demonize James Hansen….
[…]
If you want to start your own James Hansen fan blog… Please do so. But don’t clutter up my blog with Hansen fan-boy graffitti.
December 30, 2010 at 15:25 |
Dr. James Hansen is the Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is right up there with Al Gore, Michael Mann and the Climategate CRU on the list of people helping the UN to swindle the United States and other western democracies out of trillions of dollars through his promotion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.
Hansen kind of got the ball rolling in 1988 with his publication of a climate model that predicted dire global warming over the next 20 years if mankind did not stop burning fossil fuels… Hansen et al. 1988.
Hansen constructed three scenarios… “Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.”
From Appendix B, pg. 9361 of Hansen’s 1998 paper…
If I take the average annual increment from 1958-1981 and increase it by 1.5% per year until 2008, I get 385.35 ppmv. The Mauna Loa Observatory’s value for 2008 is 385.57 ppmv.
When I constructed CO2 curves using Hansen’s scenario assumptions and I compare his scenarios to the actual CO2 data recorded since 1988, I get an almost exact match to Scenario “A”…
1988 Hansen Model CO2 vs. Mauna Loa Observatory
Here is a copy of Hansen’s 1988 model with the actual satellite derived temperature (UAH Lower Troposphere) data from Dec. 1979 to November 2009 overlaid…
1988 Hansen Model vs. 2009 UAH Lower Troposphere (13-month mvg. avg.)
Hansen’s scenarios “A” and “B” predicted a temperature anomaly about 1.0°C by 2009. Scenario “C” predicted an anomaly of about 0.7°C by 2009. Since Hansen’s publication, atmospheric CO2 levels have tracked Scenario “A” and CH4 levels have tracked Scenario “C”. Even though CH4 is a more potent greenhouse gas, it accounts for only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse effect:
CO2 is the “Big Kahuna”. Even if CH4 has 20X the greenhouse effect of CO2. 1800 ppb is 0.46% of 390 ppm…20 X 0.46% = 9.2%. At most, CH4 accounts for only about 10% of the greenhouse effect of CO2 in Earth’s current atmosphere.
So, according to Hansen’s 1988 predictions, the global temperature anomaly should be about 90% of the way from Scenario “C” to Scenario “A”… ~0.97°C. In reality, the global temperature anomaly is about half of what Hansen predicted for a similar rise in greenhouse gases.
The actual warming has been slightly less than Hansen’s Scenario C…
“In scenario C the CO2 growth is the same as scenarios A and B through 1985; between 1985 and 2000 the annual increment is fixed at 1.5 ppmv/yr; after 2000, CO2 ceases to increase, its abundance remaining fixed at 368 ppmv.”
In most branches of science, when experimental results falsify the original hypothesis, scientists discard or modify the original hypothesis. In Hansen’s case, he just pitches the story with zealotry rarely seen outside of lunatic asylums…
December 31, 2010 at 02:19 |
I get it now Dave. Stick to your orthodoxy or stay out. You can demonize Dr Hansen, one of the most acknowledged leaders in the field of climate science, and apparently feel quite comfortable censoring any factual counter information.Great!
December 31, 2010 at 07:17 |
Hugh,
First off, this particular page is not a discussion of James Hansen. This page is the introduction of my blog. Your previous comment was nothing but graffiti. Even if this thread was a discussion of Hansen, your comment had nothing to do with his actual work in the area of climate science.
This is my blog. I post things that interest me. I post my own original research. If you want to and are capable of intelligently discussing the subject matter of specific posts, please feel free to post relevant comments in the appropriate threads.
This blog is not an open forum for the discussion of whatever interests the reader.
Your comment is the first comment I have edited.
The only post on this blog regarding Hansen is this one…
January 20, 2011 at 17:39 |
[…] David Middleton–Debunk House […]
March 7, 2011 at 11:03 |
Hello,
I am glad to see another rational climate blog existing on the net.
Wish you well.
He he,I see that Hugh is not putting up with your counterpoints well.
September 29, 2011 at 17:15 |
Dave,
Thanks for your continuing debunking of trash science — I find many of the posts quite interesting, thorough, and well thought out.
One of the most basic problems I see in much of the crap science is the lack of rigor in examining and producing error estimates of the data sets.
I noted in your discussion of ocean acidification details about the problems with pH measurements of seawater. Have you ever discussed the problems here with the existing measurements of air temperatures, the instrumentation employed in the past and present and the general issue of limits of observability versus the supposed anomalies reported ? I would love to see such a discussion. [did not find anything w/search]
Best and thanks again !
January 1, 2012 at 08:30 |
Hi Dave, I am a high school chemistry teacher. Next week, I have to talk to my students about the ozone layer and CFC’s. I am a reader of climatedepot.com and saw the post on Cold Arctic winters becoming colder, resulting in large ozone hole. That led me to your blog. Do you have any good articles I can show my students, that explain why humans using freon are not destroying the ozone layer? If so, please email me links at:aweeks2@wi.rr.com
March 10, 2012 at 08:06 |
[…] BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) a geoscientist in the oil industry blogger with https://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/about/ very low down but writes articles for other blogs. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the […]
June 12, 2012 at 06:09 |
He Dave, I like your write up.
Don’t know if you remember me from scsc.
I was thinking about Eddy H. and decided to look you up.
Hope all is well.
June 13, 2012 at 14:41 |
Hey Mike!
Sure I remember you and the old Neff Hall / Keg House days!
July 22, 2012 at 06:44 |
Let’s see…
The “normal” summer melt season albedo minimum at 2000-2500 m is in the range of 0.77-0.82. The “bottom of the chart” is 0.72. The albedo of fresh snow is in the range of 0.80-0.90, ocean ice 0.50-0.70, desert sand 0.40, bare soil around 0.17 and pure black carbon soot around 0.04.
Presumably the current 2000-2500 m albedo isn’t very far below 0.72 and it’s close to the annual nadir… And “normal” is based on 12 years of data. I gonna go out on a limb and say that unless Mr. McKibben or Dr. Box can tell me what the 2000-2500 m albedo was in the years (AD) 1127, 1143 and 1939, during the vast majority of the Holocene or the Sangamonian, my response is, “Very interesting. Now, move along, there’s nothing more to see here’
July 22, 2012 at 06:47 |
Let’s see…
The “normal” summer melt season albedo minimum at 2000-2500 m is in the range of 0.77-0.82. The “bottom of the chart” is 0.72. The albedo of fresh snow is in the range of 0.80-0.90, ocean ice 0.50-0.70, desert sand 0.40, bare soil around 0.17 and pure black carbon soot around 0.04.
Presumably the current 2000-2500 m albedo isn’t very far below 0.72 and it’s close to the annual nadir… And “normal” is based on 12 years of data. I gonna go out on a limb and say that unless Mr. McKibben or Dr. Box can tell me what the 2000-2500 m albedo was in the years (AD) 1127, 1143 and 1939, during the vast majority of the Holocene or the Sangamonian, my response is, “Very interesting. Now, move along, there’s nothing more to see here’
July 22, 2012 at 18:30 |
@Steve Mosher,
While I do agree that the summer albedo drop is probably a function of summer melting, it’s still only about 12 years of data with one anomalous summer in that 12-yr time series. The GRACE measurements upon which the accelerating ice loss claims are based are heavily dependent on the GIA. While not as large as Antarctica (where the GIA’s margin of error is nearly as large as the asserted ice loss), GIA variations can result in totally different ice loss values… And the GRACE time series isn’t any longer than the MODIS time series.
Wu et al., 2010 determined that the GIA commonly assumed for Greenland was way too high and that the 2002-2008 ice loss rate was 104 Gt/yr rather than the oft cited 230 Gt/yr. Even at 230 Gt/yr, it would take 1,000 years for Greenland to lose 5% of its ice mass.
Riva et al., 2007 concluded that the ice mass-loss rate in Antarctica from 2002-2007 could have been anywhere from zero-point-zero Gt/yr up to 120 Gt/yr. Dr. Riva recently co-authored a paper in GRL (Thomas et al., 2011) which concluded that GPS observations suggest “that modeled or empirical GIA uplift signals are often over-estimated” and that “the spatial pattern of secular ice mass change derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) data and GIA models may be unreliable, and that several recent secular Antarctic ice mass loss estimates are systematically biased, mainly too high.”
So… We have barely a decade’s worth of data and no idea if the modern melt rates and albedo changes are anomalous relative to the early 20th century Arctic warming, Medieval Warm Period or any of the other millennial-scale Holocene warming periods.
October 7, 2012 at 19:12 |
Mr. Middleton,
You published a graph on 26 Feb 2010 comparing Esper, Moberg, Alley and Mann concerning the Mideveal Warm Period. I would like to use the graph with attribution to whoever created it. Did you create it and if you did, can you show me where the data came from? It’s a fantastic graph but I have to confirm where the data came from and I can’t find the sources independently after lengthy attempts.
This is a link to the original article. The graph is the last one at the bottom.
Thanks very much for your time and indulgence.
v/r
Jerry Johnston
October 11, 2012 at 09:50 |
Sorry for the delay in my reply.
Please feel free to use it. You can attribute it “Debunkhouse” and link back to my post.
The data came from NOAA’s paleoclimatology library.
Esper: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/esper2002_nhem_temp.txt
Moberg:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html
Mann & Jones:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2003b/mann2003b.html
Alley:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Mann’s 2008 reconcstruction actually did a fair job resolving the Medieval Warm Period. However, it was still misleading due to “Mike’s Nature Trick”:
October 11, 2012 at 15:53 |
Mr. Middleton,
Thanks very much for your time and attention.
June 11, 2013 at 09:43 |
Mr. Middleton,
Off topic but I was on Anthony Watts site and read a little about your background
I work in the oil business and have always believed fracking to be safe. No company I have ever worked for has ever contaminated a water table. There is a paper out that says six percent of the wells in PA have surface casing that leaks I find this unlikely.
The paper is http://www.scribd.com/doc/112348175/Gas-Well-Leaks Have you heard of it?
Thanks!
October 21, 2014 at 10:08 |
Dear Dave,
I guess that somebody who works on the oil industry can give the interpretation that you want in order to justify the burning of fossil fuels. True or not, what is true is that we do not live better with more carbon dioxide on the atmosphere. Pollution does not help you to breath. It is also true that there are a lot of alternative technologies already invented. We do not need to burn fossil fuels, but because there is a lot of money and comfort involved these new technologies are not useful for them. I do not know you but I prefer to breath clean air and I do not think that to cut the uncontrolled emissions will be disadvantageous for the beings that live in this planet. It would be j”advantageous” for those that have an economical interest and don’t give a dawn. OA is chemistry, the consequences are still unknown, what is true is that in less that 10 years the concentration of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere has increased, it is not 380 ppm anymore, it is around 400ppm. And this happens in microseconds of geological time, thousand of years at the same concentration and in such a short period of time it changes. The scientific community is just trying to answer that question, which will be the repercussions of such rapid changes? will organism be able to adapt? Some species will, some will not, it is a complex proplem with a lot of factors involved. I do not know why AlGore does it, if it just propaganda but I don’t care at all, I do not know and I do not care, I am a scientist working with OA and I never listen to any of his talks. So please, do not put the politicians and scientists in the same bag, because most of the time we do not have anything to do with each other. Unfortunately, we have different interests.
March 23, 2015 at 00:10 |
Am I tripping, or did Coralline profess to be a chemical scientist while simultaneously declaring carbon dioxide to be a pollutant? Carbon dioxide is odorless, colorless, and non-toxic. It is present in all human tissues. It is the very source of all food on the planet. You call yourself a scientist, Coralline? Sorry, but not by a long shot.
April 16, 2015 at 12:47 |
Dave, While I haven’t had time to read through your site, it has become my new “go to” reference source. I’ve just had fun poking holes in AGWers posts regarding a WIRED article “Global Warming Is Already Clobbering the Amazon.”
Your posts are a gold mine (no geological pun intended, unless it’s funny). Thank you for taking the time to do them.
July 11, 2016 at 05:38 |
Hi Dave
I have no training in the sciences or engineering but as an English teacher (now retired) my primary aim was to teach my pupils to think deeply and reason carefully. I know how language works and am easily able to show many leaps in logic and contradictions in the writings of experts in all subjects.
A news report of a billion dollar solar thermal power project in South Africa caught my attention. I grew up in this poor, sparsely populated, semi-desert area. Using simple Arithmetic I can tell you that the 200 000 homes spread over this area simply cannot afford the cost of this solar project even if it were to stay within budget and provide a continuous supply – both which are highly unlikely.
Given your post on SolarReserve’s Tonopah project I hope that you will add this to your list of companies that need to be exposed for helping to enrich a handful of politicians and businessmen while placing an even greater burden on the shoulders of the poor.
http://www.fin24.com/Companies/Industrial/solar-power-keeps-lights-on-in-sa-ceo-20160707
Kind regards
Michael
October 21, 2016 at 20:47 |
I just read your post over at WUWT on sea level and storm surges. I wanted to comment there on the quality of the relevant info you provided. But, the site has me under such extreme moderation my comment would not show up for years!
Anyway, GREAT job!
March 5, 2020 at 23:32 |
Great post. Enjoyed the read. – Medco.io
September 22, 2020 at 21:22 |
Hi David, want to share this post with you on the Anthropocene
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/22/things-eco-nuts-worry-about/
September 23, 2020 at 15:39 |
Good stuff! I love ridiculing the Anthropocene.
October 11, 2020 at 20:35 |
Thank you for that excellent historical take on polar bears at the wuwt site. This is the first time that I have seen the historical argument used effectively. Thank you.
Want to share my similar analysis for your comments if you have the time. The essence of my argument is that sea ice dynamics cannot be related to AGW and therefore whether sea ice dynamics are hurting polar bears is not an AGW issue.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/29/bear-hunting/
October 28, 2020 at 20:46 |
Exxon knew
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/09/21/computer-geek-invents-climate-model-in-1981-and-exposes-evil-exxon/