Wood Romances

Another common contradiction I see among contrarian influencers is that observational data are manipulated to fit a global warming agenda that comes solely from fudged climate models that simultaneously predict far too much warming than observational data. Let's write this as two statements that make the contradiction even more obvious, where:      A = Model Predictions      B = Observational Data      C = Climate Scam Agenda  The contradiction can be stated in at least two ways. In the simpler statement, A = B and A ≠ B: Observational data are manipulated to agree with model predictions. Models are fudged to predict far more warming than is warranted from observational data.  The logic can sometime be stated in a way that is slightly more complex. Here's another wording of the same contradiction. In this case A = C and B = C (so A = B) and A ≠ B: Model predictions are fudged and observations are fabricated to agree with...

How Increasing CO2 Affects Radiative Forcings and GMST If you pay enough attention to contrarian climate influencers, you may begin to notice how frequently they flat out contradict themselves . I think they hope that as long as they are careful to word contradictory claims in sufficiently different ways without saying both within the same minute or so, you won't notice. So I thought it might helpful to expose some of these contradictory claims. I'll start with my personal favorite: CO2 concentrations are both low/starved and high/saturated. This contradiction appears to be particularly common among those who speak for the CO2 Coalition , like William Happer, John Shewchuk and Gregory Wrightstone. You can find these influencers and propagandists saying both of the following: CO2 concentrations are so how that the planet is starved of CO2. We're in a "CO2 famine." CO2 concentrations are so high that its effect is "saturated" in the atmosphere. These are c...