Oooo, now I've been banned by Mike Yeadon, 2nd smartest guy, Excess deaths AU as well as the Baileys.

They don't like it when you point out massive holes in their reasoning.

I hope it’s just embarrassment and not something more sinister.

In the comments on Mike’s latest substack he claims that the greenhouse effect of the Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t exist at all. He says the greenhouse effect only occurs in ‘closed’ systems, like greenhouses, not in ‘open’ ones. If this were true the sun’s heat would just radiate back to space and it would be a freezing -18 degrees C on Earth, as it is on the moon. The greenhouse concept is as established as the Earth being a globe.

Some commentators also claimed that data on global warming was compounded by urbanisation around stations. There are thousands of stations in many different places and countries and some have had to be moved because of city encroachment. This got some people’s knickers in twist. I pointed out that in any case the oceans account for 90% of global warming; and they’re showing significant warming. The oceans do not suffer from urbanisation.

The tired old trope of co2 following warming came up as well. When the orbit of the Earth caused big changes in temperature between ice ages and interglacial periods, co2 was released from the ocean into the atmosphere were it caused yet more warming. Co2 sometimes following warming in the ice core record doesn’t change the fact that co2 itself causes warming which has been directly measured.

Mike also claimed that there was no climate change, or at at least not an emergency. I think that people in Pakistan and Asia may disagree. In 2022 flooding in Pakistan displaced 33 million people and 1300 died after a heatwave reaching 51 degrees (123 degrees Fahrenheit). The most prolonged heatwave in human history occurred in China in 2023 seriously affecting 950 million people and drying up the Yangtze River, important for the economy of the whole world.

Why would oil barons, such as Rockefeller, go to the trouble of faking climate change which would mean people avoided their products? Aren't they more likely to make us think that real climate change is faked so that we continue to buy their products?

And I’ve just been blocked by 2nd Smartest Guy for pointing out his illiteracy over climate ‘alarmism’.

For a little recap re the Kiwi Drs Bailey. They banned me for saying that their comments on animal agriculture were disingenuous. (They’ve fallen for the ruse that the elites are forcing us to eat bugs and to take away our chickens; thus increasing demand.)

Firstly, the Baileys claimed that enough suitable land to feed 8 billion people with as much meat and dairy as they want via the bodies of free range animals was available without the need for deforestation. This is not true, the Amazon is being actively deforested for cattle ranching as we speak. Though it may appear that there’s plenty of land if you steal enough of it from First Nation people and call it ‘New Zealand’.

Secondly, they chirped that it doesn’t matter that producing calories from animals requires more energy input than producing calories direct from the soil because ‘energy can neither be created nor destroyed’! Even if one doesn’t accept climate change; energy is extracted at considerable cost to communities and to the environment. It would be like saying the burning oil fields of Kuwait are not a problem as, whatever its effects in the short-term, ultimately, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

Is the conversation on how health freedom may have been systematically fed information directly from industry via groups who say that ‘doubt is our product’ now over? Will supporters of fossil fuel and animal ag (the biggest user of agrochemicals and pharma products) be able to return to their echo chambers and clap like seals over the constant repetition of the absurd or disingenuous statements that they so want to hear? It seems so.

Do we say farewell to scientific debate; mainstream and alternative?

🐒