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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The H2O greenhouse effect

The IPCC's CO2 hypothesis, with which Western governments try to incite their citizens to group-think, panic and unnecessary measures and taxes, rests in large part on the belief that there is a positive feedback effect between the greenhouse effects of CO2 and water vapor (H2O). A small increase in temperature, caused by the increase in CO2 concentration, would lead to an increase in water vapor concentration and thus increase the H2O greenhouse effect.

This is a misconception. First, positive feedback effects are extremely rare in nature. Furthermore, there is no sensible word to say about the effect that an increase in the H2O greenhouse effect has on the temperature.

Below are three reasons why it is impossible to model this effect.

Rob Jetten, Minister of Climate and Energy

Rob Jetten is the new, brand new Minister of Climate and Energy in the Dutch cabinet Rutte IV.

This is a new ministry, but unfortunately it is characterized by the same ideas as in previous cabinets. The idea that humans, by burning fossil fuels, are responsible for the recent warming of the Earth.


This article is partly based on the thorough research done by Freek van Leeuwen on the scientists Valentina Zharkova and Willie Soon and their work on sunspots.

As we have seen in recent weeks, new research indicates that there is no increased CO2 emissions. global warming, and that only 12% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to human action.

Good news, then, but then the question arises where the heating comes from, which many people feel and which can also be seen in the monthly charts of the satellite measurements.