Many related links are on my Linktree here.
I have an MS degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
I was involved in tech and software for many years. In 2005, as an avid bird-watcher, I became heavily involved in debunking a high-profile, but bogus “Ivory-billed Woodpecker” rediscovery that opened my eyes to the problems with blindly trusting “peer-reviewed science”.
Then a meteorologist pointed out lots of parallels between that woodpecker debate and the climate change debate, and I have been debunking climate change/energy claims almost daily since then. First on Blogspot, then on Twitter, then on tens of podcasts on YouTube here (and on many other platforms).
My podcast guests have included Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, Marc Morano, Judith Curry, Carl-Otto Weiss, Valentina Zharkova, Christopher Essex, Henrik Svensmark, Patrick Moore, Ross McKitrick, Willie Soon, Susan Crockford, Peter Ridd, and Christopher Monckton
My podcast is "Tom Nelson" on Spotify, Anchor, Apple, Google Podcasts, YouTube, Rumble, Odysee, Bitchute, Pocket Casts, Podvine, Overcast, Stitcher, Amazon Music podcasts, Audible podcasts, Castbox, RadioPublic, etc.
Podcast appearance (1hr 4 min): Sept 2022, "Tom Nelson joins COJAC".
Podcast appearance (1 hr 49 min): July 2022 "Out of the Blank #1155" on YouTube, Apple, Spotify, etc.
Podcast appearance (1 hr 22 min): July 2022 "Coffee and a Mike" on Spotify, Pocket Casts, Apple Podcasts, etc
Podcast appearance (1 hr 10 min), "#324: There is no climate emergency with Tom Nelson", April 2022: "TFTC with Marty Bent" on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, Google, etc.
Episode title: "CO2 is NOT the climate control knob".
Podcast appearance (1hr 49 min) "109. Is CO2 the Climate Control Knob? w/ Tom Nelson": Mar 2022 "The Bitcoin Standard Podcast" on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, Google, etc.
Climate Skeptic Twitter Space archive here. Started June 2022, 1+ hours each, free-flowing climate skeptic discussions.
"Why you should be a climate skeptic"; my 18 min video
"A few climate skeptic thoughts"; 1.5-min video
Twitter live 1 (29 min); Twitter live 2 (29 min)
Some background: Jack Hitt of the New York Times wrote about my ivory-billed woodpecker work in his book “A Bunch of Amateurs” (see excerpt here):
Key sentences from Hitt: “When you watch a real amateur assault on an academic and government fortress, it’s not hard to understand the pleasure..Amateurs are more likely to see what is actually there because there’s no money, no power, no prestige (at least not immediately) attached to seeing anything else. Amateurs mainly just want to know.”
Fact 1: Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GreenHouse Gases and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At our distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory says.
RGHE theory “288 K w – 255 K w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth” 255 K assumes w/o keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
Int’l Space Station HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
Fact 2: The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a black body.
According to the K-T atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396/333/63 W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a black body. These graphics contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors. See https://youtu.be/0Jijw7-YG-U
Fact 3: Because of the significant non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a black body.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
I am currently having my mind blown by these presentations that you are putting together. However, (following #35 - Lennert den Boer: “It's The Sun, Not Us”) I take umbrage at Den Boer Cold-War-throwback, sketchy notions about what he calls 'Socialism' (leaving 'Communism' aside for a moment). There is no consensual definition of Socialism but at its base it contains the idea that government and policy should be exercised for the whole community and that they should prioritise helping the poor, the weak, the disabled, the disadvantaged, etc. to lead a decent life at the expense of the lucky and the rich's desire to accumulate resources according to their whims and desires (which are acquisitive by nature – due to certain aspects of human nature, mechanisms of completion, etc.). Of course, sometimes competition of a selfish nature can have some beneficial outcomes (think of how much we enjoy sports competition) and should in such cases be encouraged by policy.
The point is that Den Boer’s reading of the IPCC, Greenpeace, the Greens, etc. is wrong. It is not that Global Warming policy is a Trojan horse for ‘Socialism’, as Den Boer fears (although this may be the case for a few individuals who are not thinking things through or are kidding themselves); rather that they are co-opting Socialism to their cause because Left-Wing activist muscle is useful to them (a lot of Socialists are disillusioned by the dominance of Neo-liberalism, the decline of Unions, etc. since the 80s). But investors and, thus financial Capitalism and its activists, are getting in on the act.
The point is that if you are right about global warming being a kind of public security scare (one can think of recent reactions to certain viruses that have practically zero impact on the healthy and below 70s and even the alarmism about the millennial bug – remember that?) then you are right –period. Caricatures about a sinister invasion-of-the-body-snatchers plot by devious (partly imaginary) political opponents are not helpful. This is about having an incorrupt public discussion about science that should welcome those of all political persuasions.
Thanks for what you do, learning a ton
Post a Comment