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.


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...

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.


Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?
Read more...

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.
Read more...

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".
Read more...

Atmospheric CO2 distribution

On the above world map we see the average level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere over five weeks in 2014. Credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech.
Read more...

A simple CO2 model

In this video Professor of Astronomy Michael Merrifield (University of Nottingham) presents a simple model of the CO2 greenhouse effect.

He leaves out clouds, albedo effect, ocean interaction, sun cycles and a lot of other factors that affect the climate and discusses only the CO2 radiation in the atmosphere.

His main argument is that when the CO2-concentration rises, the atmosphere will start emitting from a higher layer. The temperature at that emitting layer has to be -18 °C. So, if the -18 °C temperature layer is higher up in the atmosphere and as the temperature rises 6.5 °C for each kilometer we go down from that layer, the surface temperature will go up.
Read more...