Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!



10/29/2019 12:36 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

The article is quite neutral. It's based on widely-accepted ice-core datasets and it draws some completely obvious conclusion from observing the data.

Then the wild ride began.

After a couple of seconds, the first comment came in:

Jim Bowers Total crap. At over 400 ppm we are headed to a world of no ice and Florida underwater.

During the 62 comments that followed I gathered the following qualifications: "crap", "layman", "dense", "denier", "delusional", "stupid", "bullshit", "ignorant", "liar", some of them described the article, but most of them were used to describe me as an author.

Furthermore, I registered one ad hominem attack against Patrick Moore in an attempt to discredit this website. Patrick Moore is cited in a different article on the site and his remarks there have nothing to do with the "Four Interglacials" article.

But worst of all, at a certain moment in the discussion, two of my posts disappeared. I don't know who censored it, Facebook or the group administrator, but I suppose it was the latter. Luckily I made a screenshot before the posts were removed.

Their state of mind is worse than I thought. I suffered insults, intimidations, and even censorship just because I posted some facts.

Update October 30, 17:17

Now they kicked me from the group! I was really well-behaved as you can see in the conversations below. I never insulted anyone despite being insulted myself all along the way. These people are clearly allergic to other opinions. They want to protect their state of collective fear. Having a collective enemy comforts them. Extreme group-think, like a religious sect or cult.
I can't imagine a climate realist FB group kicking an alarmist.

An extract of the "Blanket conversation" with Jim Bowes where he really mixes up warming and cooling.

Jim Bowes: "When you put a blanket on it makes you warmer"

Tom: "No. When I put a blanket on, it prevents me from getting colder"

Jim Bowes: "You must have a crappy blanket. Go survey people on the street and ask them if a blanket makes them warmer"

Tom: "The warmth is coming from my own body, so I'm warming myself. Or do you have a magical blanket that generates heat? Where does that energy come from?"

In a later conversation:

Tom: "If you wrap a metal bar with a blanket, will it melt? If you wrap a paper with a blanket, will it burn?"

Jim Bowes: "The metal bar isn't generating heat. If you put a metal bar into a microwave oven and insulate it with a blanket it will melt"

Tom: "So, is it the blanket or the external source that's heating the metal bar?"

Tom: "As in our analogy: Is it the sun or the CO2 that's heating the ocean?"

Jim Bowes: "External source - but it's the blanket that keeps the heat from escaping".

So, first Jim affirms that a blanket will make you warmer, but later he says it's an external source that warms the object and that the blanket just keeps the heat from escaping.
And that's exactly what I told him in the first part of the conversation "When I put a blanket on, it prevents me from getting colder."

Then, another part of our conversation, about the heating of the oceans:

Tom: "And how much do you think CO2 heats the ocean?"

Jim Bowes: "This much - see how much out of equilibrium the ocean are since we started jacking up CO2"


He refused to give me the source of that graph, but the increase of energy of 35 x 1022 Joule from 1980 until 2020 is clearly visible.

I presented him a calculation, assuming 2 W/m2 of additional forcing by the enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect. Even if there were no energy loss, it would take 150 years to accumulate that amount of energy.

Jim simply disappeared from the conversation. Later, in another thread, he came back.

Tom: "even if your blanket hypothesis were true, it would take 150 years for the oceans to absorb that amount of energy."

Jim Bowes: "Far more heat coming in than 2 W/m2"

Tom: "We are talking about the supposed CO2 warming only".


This graph comes from NOAA depicting the supposed greenhouse effect according to the alarmists. Clearly visible is the CO2 forcing between 1 and 2 W/m2. Most of that forcing is the natural forcing that was already present in the atmosphere before mankind started emitting CO2, so I'm even quite generous assuming 2 W/m2 of additional forcing. According to Jim Bowes "Far more heat coming in than 2 W/m2".

Jim Bowes: "I'm blocking you because you are a disgusting liar for oil cash"


The screenshots of the whole discussion:
















This is where all a sudden my two posts disappeared. After censoring my posts, the conversation went on like this.




Edit October 30, 21:51 - I decided to share the article you're reading right now for their group. There, discussion went on like this:








Jim Bowers never came back to that thread. Then, I decided to share my article CO2 Band-Saturation Explained with the group. There, Jim Bowers re-joined the discussion. When he realized he was losing the argument he blocked me.

Please read on, this is the part where Jim Bowers drops the towel.






A couple of hours later I was kicked from the group.


Tom van Leeuwen, October 29, 2019.
About consensus, "97%", and settled science
Democracy? Make your choice!
 

Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.

Thanks!

The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.
Read more...

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.
Read more...

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.
Read more...

Dutch Warming

In the Netherlands, the day-to-day whether depends heavily on the direction the wind is coming from. Being a small country, the wind direction is quite homogeneous for the whole country, specially on higher altitudes where the bulk of heat convection is taking place.

Due to its geographical position, midway between the icy-cold Arctic to the north, the dry and hot Sahara to the south, the Eurasian land-mass to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the west, every wind direction comes with unique weather characteristics.

North - cold,
East - dry,
South - warm,
West - wet whether.
Read more...

Satellite temperature observations

This month of January 2023, the average satellite temperature published, by Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer (University Alabama Huntsfield) had a negative deviation, compared with the average monthly measures between 1991 and 2000.

Of course, this value does not mean much, it's definition is full of arbitrary begin and endpoints, but anyway it doesn't sound like a lot of warming has taken place over the past 30 years, and even less "catastrophic warming" we're reading about in the Mainstream Media, newspapers and TV stations.
Read more...

CO2 saturation

This graph is all you need to understand that CO2 is not the Earth's Climate Control Knob.

On the horizontal axis, we see the Infra-red (IR) spectrum wavelengths, that is like "IR colors" were this kind of radiation visible to the human eye.
The vertical axis shows to energy flux, that is the energy emitted by the Earth, as seen from outer space.

The graph itself shows how the Earth's atmosphere filters the IR radiation emitted by the Earth's surface and the role of the various greenhouse gases in that filtering process. The green line is the filter of the Earth's atmosphere without any greenhouse gases.
Read more...

Video - Who are the real climate deniers?

The climate has shown many fluctuations during the Holocene. The difference between the highest and lowest average temperature of the past 10 thousand years is about 3 °C.

Climate alarmists, led by the IPCC, are trying to deny this, and understandably so. This variation means that without human influence there was climate change as well.

This undermines their hypotheses and often their jobs depend on it.

Climate change seen from a historical perspective.
Read more...

Satellite Earth temperature February 2022

The satellite temperature departure measurement for February 2022 is exactly 0° C.

This means that Earth temperature during February 2022 was exactly the same as the average from 1991 to 2020.

Satellites are the best way to have insight into the short-term temperature variations. They measure the whole surface, independent of weather station distribution, Heat Islands, measurement failures, surface condition (land or water).

There is a step-wise increase in temperature, triggered by two very strong El Niño events (1998 and 2016.) The energy that welled up from the deep oceans established a new level in these two ocasions, where the warming paused. This is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with CO2, or human activity.

Where is the Climate Emergency? It just does not exist.

Wake up and spread this information to your government!

Tom van Leeuwen, March 1st, 2022.