I found this interesting, as it introduces human perspective into climate change. I only suggest that you watch between the preset at 25:43 (not my choice but the one given to me by YouTube) to 28:00 or so, and take note of the following:
- Christopher Essex is a Professor of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. Googling him, I found on the front page only two sources on him, the Desmog Blog, which is used to defame and discredit any who are skeptical of climate change, and SourceWatch, a little more honest in its treatment.
- The graph he points to is one that uses what he calls “spaghetti” to chart the various climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and two solid lines lower down that track actual temperatures. Public policy these days is based on models, and not reality.
- The “15 degree trick” he refers to is merely a standard used by scientists who work in fields like this, that if they are measuring deviations from a norm, they need a norm, and so have arbitrarily decided on 15 degrees Celsius as that standard. Why he refers to it as a “trick” I do not know.
- 40 degrees Celsius is 104 degrees Fahrenheit, and -25 Celsius is -13 degrees Fahrenheit.
- The video is from 2017 and was done in England, as I understand.
The whole lecture is about 38 minutes, if anyone is interested. I like his speaking style and argumentation tactic of placing the whole of climate change in a “human scale”, which demonstrates graphically that in reality, nothing is going on.
Piece of Mindful 
Thanks for sharing that video. My favourite part is slightly after 28m, around 28:50, where he points out that real-life greenhouses (i.e. the structures in which plants are grown) do not operate on the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’.
I had never thought of it like that but of course it is true: greenhouses remain warm by by way of physical walls and a roof, which let in sunlight but trap warm air inside, whereas the earth supposedly is heating by way of… increased CO2 and CH4 in the ‘atmosphere’?
It makes for a useful mental image, a clever way to inculcate imaginative children into the religious dogma of Warmism, by associating the claims of ‘climate change’ with greenhouses. Get the kids to view the earth as a giant greenhouse. Too easy.
I recall visiting a zoo as part of a school excursion and spending time in a large greenhouse-like area which was meant for plants and butterflies. How easy it was for the experts to convince me that the earth was slowly becoming the same way due to… fossil fuels.
As far as I am concerned, climate change is a hoax. Period. End of story. Show me a single coastal town anywhere in the US or UK which is even partly submerged, I mean even by millimetres, compared to 100 years ago, as a result of ‘climate change’. I do not believe such places exist.
I’m currently in Asia and several cities appear to be struggling with the perils of ‘sinking’. Apparently too much water is being bored out of the ground below and the city above is slowly but surely sinking below sea level. Indonesia is apparently considering relocating their capital from Jakarta to the island of Borneo, while Saigon is said to be sinking, too. How true are these claims? I do not know.
However, at least the basic ideas underpinning ‘sinking’ theory make intuitive sense. Remove too much water from below, and the land above might begin to fall as a result.
This malarkey about ‘humans produce Co2 and CH4 and this causes the planet to warm’? No, makes no sense to me — especially because it is referred to as a ‘greenhouse effect’, which is patently absurd.
Sometimes the truth (or LIE) is there in plain sight, after all.
Perhaps, just as was the case with the lunar lander made of aluminium foil, sticky tape, curtain rods and cardboard, the myth of the greenhouse effect is part of one big joke — and only those who fail to see it, fail to laugh.
Come on Greta, lighten up a bit, everything is going to be okay 🙂
How Dare You
LikeLike
The problem of your comments going to moderation was supposed to have been fixed. It is not. WordPress can’t figure it out either.
LikeLike
JLB, you act like their metaphor makes no sense at all. But the basic comparison is there- light enters the atmosphere, but heat cannot escape as easily, due to the “walls” of CO2… Or something like that. Not saying it’s correct, just saying it’s not a non sequitur.
LikeLike
Any discussion of the greenhouse effect without mentioning the wavelengths of incoming and outgoing radiation is meaningless http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
LikeLike