• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Google Pitchman Bill Nye: Fighting Climate Change Will Make You ‘Filthy F-cking Rich’

by Julia A. Seymour
August 14, 2019, 4:01 PM
in News and Opinion, Videos
A A
12
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Nye Filthy Effing RichInventing climate change solutions or technology could you make you a fortune, according to liberal media favorite: Bill Nye “The Science Guy.”

Nye shared an F-bomb dropping video on Instagram on Aug. 13.

He said that if his typical warning that the “oceans are rising” wasn’t enough to make people care, he had another reason for them to take action on climate change.

“I’m gonna level with you. The real reason you should do your part to combat climate change is — It’ll make you filthy f—king rich” Nye shouted.

“Can you imagine how much sweet, sweet cabbage you’ll be piling up if you could invent a cleaner energy source or invest in carbon capture technology?”

Nye added, “So go green and get green. See what I’m saying? And turn off the damn lights!”

Speaking of “green,” he concluded the video urging people to check out the link in his bio to an advertisement he created with Google Chromebook promoting its product over competing laptop technology.

The question of how much Nye is being paid by Google to star in its ads remains unanswered.

Considering the comedian/engineer’s popularity, it’s likely a nice pile of “cabbage.” According to the folks at Celebrity Net Worth, Nye’s net worth is $6.5 million.

Even though Nye is not a scientist, his catchy nickname and children’s TV show propelled him into the public consciousness as a “scientist” and the liberal media treat him as a scientific expert.

He appeared on CNN Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter’s podcast to promote climate change alarmism on May 30.

MSNBC brought him on to attack climate “denialism” during Hurricane Florence in 2018. CBS This Morning and The Washington Post fawned all over him in 2017. The Post even called him an “icon.”

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Bill Nye (@billnye) on Aug 12, 2019 at 3:43pm PDT

Read more at NewsBusters

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

16 States, DC Sue Trump Admin Over EV Charger Funds, Most Have Built None

May 9, 2025
Extreme Weather

NOAA Quietly Kills Its Billion-Dollar Disaster Database And Report After Years Of Criticism

May 9, 2025
Energy

How Wind And Solar Sent Energy Prices Sky-High in ‘Green’ Countries

May 8, 2025

Comments 12

  1. David Lewis says:
    6 years ago

    There is truth to Bill Nye’s statement that buying into climate change can make you rich. He has probably made a lot of money off of the issue. The scientists who prostitute themselves for grant money are another example. Others make a great deal of money off of wind and solar energy projects. However, for the common family the climate change movement is a path to hard economic times even if they don’t endorse it. Consider Germany where the power rate was tripled by adding only 30% renewable energy to their grid. Consider the 40,000 households in Germany that have had their power cut off because they can’t afford the rate inflated by green energy. There are the elderly dyeing in UK because they can’t afford to adequately heat their homes. There are the residences of Georgetown Texas who have had a thousand dollars added to their monthly power bill by going to green energy. It is true that a few will get rich, but most will become poor.

  2. Boxorox says:
    6 years ago

    If you think people won’t listen to you, won’t believe you, or you’re just making stuff up for the gullible to believe, swear like a drunken sailor.
    Bill Nye is about as much a “science guy” as the Professor character on Gilligan’s Island. I’d like to turn his lights out. As for me, all this nonsense gives me encouragement to pay a little extra to keep my lights on when I’m not in the room.

  3. Amber says:
    6 years ago

    Clearly Nye couldn’t make it as a stand up comic, magician or ball room dancer .
    Being a climate doom cheerleader must pay although he doesn’t look to rich to me .
    This years marketing plan . You’ll all be rich… just drink the F !@#ing cool aid .
    The old rent seekers are running out of run way to shake you down .
    The Polar bears are dying myth was exposed , the Arctic isn’t ice free as forecast , now Prince Chuck and a NY bartender claim the earth has less than 12 years. How can phonies like Nye compete with that ?

  4. Frank Garrett says:
    6 years ago

    I had no idea that buying a new EV over a car I’ve bought and paid for was going to make me rich?

  5. Shoki Kaneda says:
    6 years ago

    Apparently being a climate alarm pitchman will give you a filthy mouth.

  6. Amber says:
    6 years ago

    Well now we know for sure what his motivation is . Just like the other rent seekers
    playing this overblown con .
    Nye is a denier . He denies that natural climate variables are some how secondary to the influence of a trace gas He promotes the false notion that humans are magically going to influence the earths temperature and sea levels
    to some number if we just cut back on fossil fuel use . Complete BS .

  7. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    6 years ago

    “I’m going to level with you, folks… all you have to do is invent some fundamental physical law-violating boondoggle like Arctic ice-making submarines that actually heat the Arctic, or planes to spray reflective material into the stratosphere that actually destroys most plant life via sunlight reduction, and you too can become filthy rich while destroying most life on Earth!”

    I call him Bill Nye the Guy… he can’t be called Bill Nye the Science Guy because he’s about as divergent from science as one can be. If he keeps buying into the leftard twaddle, he’s going to tranny up, and I won’t even be able to call him ‘Bill Nye the Guy’ anymore.

    Maybe we should all just start calling him ‘Brenda’. LOL

    Here’s what we need to hit the climate alarmists with when they start bleating that CO2 is going to cause the planet to catastrophically warm.

    The climate scientists, the UN IPCC and various US government-funded agencies claim that CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming, and the only remedy is to radically alter our economic system and our way of life.

    They claim this occurs via the following mechanism: CO2 absorbs 14.98352 µm radiation, becomes vibrationally excited in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, then collides with another atmospheric molecule, whereupon that vibrational mode energy flows to translational mode energy of the other atmospheric molecule. Since we sense translational mode (kinetic) energy as temperature, this process purportedly raises atmospheric temperature. The climate catastrophists claim that CO2 is capable of causing catastrophic warming.

    But what if they’re only telling the public half the story as means of pushing a narrative to achieve an end they otherwise would be unable to achieve? It turns out, that is exactly what they’ve done… and I can prove it.

    I’m not talking about the “glaciers are growing”, “it’s cold outside”, “take a look at this chart” subjective type of ‘proof’ usually proffered in attempting to counter the climate alarmist claims… I’m talking about diving right down to the quantum level and utilizing particle physics to prove that the mechanism upon which the climate catastrophists hinge their entire multi-billion dollar per year scam does not and cannot occur… if an energetic process (catastrophic atmospheric warming) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.

    The half of the story the public has been told, that CO2 causes warming, is a narrow and intentionally misconstrued truth hiding two much wider lies.

    The truth is that CO2 can indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above… up to ~288 K and at low altitude. Above ~288 K and at low altitude, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant. Above the tropopause, CO2 is a net atmospheric coolant at any temperature because collisional processes happen less often there due to low atmospheric density, so radiative processes dominate.

    One wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that the world must de-industrialize, get rid of capitalism and change our way of life… the climate change issue has been hijacked by socialists using it as a vehicle to push for a world-wide totalitarian government. They’ve openly admitted this.

    Another wider lie that’s hiding behind that narrow and misconstrued truth is that we must richly fund the climate ‘scientists’ who are pushing the scam, and we must move to so-called ‘green’ power… hundreds of billions of dollars per year are being flushed down the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) toilet based upon this lie.

    The full story: In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE), which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.

    In other words: Below ~288 K, CO2 does indeed cause warming via the mechanism described above. But above ~288 K, the translational mode energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to begin significantly vibrationally exciting CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.

    As CO2 concentration increases, the population of CO2 molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.

    As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.

    This is why I state in the data below that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.

    The data below utilizes particle physics first principles to nullify the CAGW hypothesis at the quantum level, leaving the climate catastrophists with absolutely no wiggle room… no matter how many pictures of sick polar bears they put up, no matter how many flawed computer models they cite, no matter how many graphs with cherry-picked date ranges and manipulated data they present… if a process (catastrophic atmospheric warming) cannot occur at the quantum level, it most certainly cannot occur macroscopically.

    The data below destroys the underlying premise of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming), and thereby destroys the underpinnings of their multi-billion dollar per year scam.

    The data below peals the death knell for CAGW. You’re welcome.

    In dealing with solely translational mode energy and neglecting vibrational mode and rotational mode energy for the moment, the Equipartition Theorem states that molecules in thermal equilibrium have the same average energy associated with each of three independent degrees of freedom, equal to:
    3/2 kT per molecule, where k = Boltzmann’s Constant
    3/2 RT per mole, where R = gas constant

    Thus the Equipartition Theorem equation:
    KE_avg = 3/2 kT
    serves well in the definition of kinetic energy (which we sense as temperature).

    It does not do as well at defining the specific heat of polyatomic gases, simply because it does not take into account the increase of internal molecular energy via vibrational mode and rotational mode excitation. Energy imparted to the molecue via either photon absorption or collisional energetic exchange can excite those vibrational mode or rotational mode quantum states, increasing the total molecular energy E_tot, but not affecting temperature at all. Since we’re only looking at translational mode energy at the moment (and not specific heat); and internal molecular energy is not accounted for in measuring temperature (which is a measure of translational mode energy only), this long-known and well-proven equation fits our purpose.

    Our thermometers are an instantaneous average of molecular kinetic energy. If they could respond fast enough to register every single molecule impinging upon the thermometer probe, we’d see temperature wildly jumping up and down, with a distribution equal to the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function. In other words, at any given measured temperature, some molecules will be moving faster (higher temperature) and some slower (lower temperature), with an equilibrium distribution (Planckian) curve.

    The Equipartition Theorem states that in Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions all molecules, regardless of molecular weight, will have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same temperature. For higher atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving slower; for lower atomic mass molecules, they’ll be moving faster; but their kinetic (translational mode) energy will all be the same at the same temperature.

    Therefore, utilizing the equation above, at a temperature of 288 K, the average thermal energy of a molecule is 0.03722663337910374 eV. Again, this is the average… there is actually an equilibrium distribution of energies and thereby molecular speeds.

    For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
    Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
    Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
    Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s

    For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
    Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
    Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s
    Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s

    But if those molecules are at the exact same temperature, they’ll have exactly the same translational mode energy.

    This energy at exactly 288 K is equivalent to the energy of a 33.3050 µm photon.
    If two molecules collide, their translational energy is cumulative, dependent upon angle of collision. In mathematically describing the kinematics of a binary molecular collision, one can consider the relative motion of the molecules in a spatially-fixed 6N-dimensional phase space frame of reference (lab frame) which consists of 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components, to avoid the vagaries of interpreting energy transfer considered from other reference frames.

    Simplistically, for a head-on collision between only two molecules, this is described by the equation:
    KE = (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 1] + (1/2 mv^2) [molecule 2]

    The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function, taking into account 3N spatial components and 3N velocity components:
    https://i.imgur.com/0ZVflnN.png

    You may surmise, “But at 288 K, the combined kinetic energy of two molecules in a head-on collision isn’t sufficient to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state! It requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon to vibrationally excite CO2, and the combined translational mode energy of two molecules colliding head-on at 288 K is only equivalent to the energy of a 16.6525 µm photon!”

    True, but you’ve not taken into account some mitigating factors…
    1) We’re not talking about just translational mode energy, we’re talking about E_tot, the total molecular energy, including translational mode, rotational mode, vibrational mode and electronic mode. At 288 K, nearly all CO2 molecules will be excited in the rotational mode quantum state, increasing CO2’s E_tot. The higher a molecule’s E_tot, the less total energy necessary to excite any of its other modes.

    2) Further, the Boltzmann Factor shows that at 288 K, ~10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.

    N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction
    1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
    2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1
    The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} vibrationally excited state.

    Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is vibrationally excited via t-v (translational-vibrational) processes at 288 K. You’ll note this equates to 195 times more vibrationally excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).

    Thus energy will flow from the higher-energy (and higher concentration) N2{v1(1)} molecules to vibrationally ground-state CO2{v20(0)} molecules, exciting the CO2 to its {v3(1)} vibrational mode, whereupon it can drop to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules).

    The energy flow from translational modes of molecules to N2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to CO2 vibrational mode quantum states, then to radiation constitutes a cooling process.

    3) The Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function gives a wide translational mode equilibrium distribution. In order for CO2 to be vibrationally excited, it requires the energy equivalent to a 14.98352 µm photon, equating to a CO2 speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s or an N2 speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s.

    Remember I wrote above:

    For CO2, with a molecular weight of 44.0095 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
    Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 329.8802984961799 m/s
    Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 372.23005645833854 m/s
    Effective (rms) Speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 404.0195258297897 m/s

    For N2, with a molecular weight of 28.014 amu, at 288 K the molecule will have:
    Most Probable Speed {(2kT/m)^1/2} = 413.46812435139907 m/s
    Mean Speed {(8kT/pm)^1/2} = 466.5488177761755 m/s

    Effective (rms) speed {(3kT/m)^1/2} = 506.3929647832758 m/s

    For CO2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 425.92936688660114 m/s; and for N2, the Boltzmann Factor probability of one of its molecules being at a speed of 533.8549080851558 m/s is 0.8461 at 288 K. In other words, for every 100 molecules which are at the Most Probable Speed, another ~84 molecules will be at the speed necessary to vibrationally excite CO2.

    Thus at ~288 K and higher temperature, the translational mode energy of atmospheric molecules begins to significantly vibrationally excite CO2, increasing the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited and therefore the probability that the CO2 will radiatively emit. The conversion of translational mode to vibrational mode energy is, by definition, a cooling process. The emission of the resultant radiation to space is, by definition, a cooling process.

    As CO2 concentration increases, the population of CO2 molecules able to become vibrationally excited increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.

    As temperature increases, the population of vibrationally excited CO2 molecules increases, thus increasing the number of CO2 molecules able to radiatively emit, thus increasing photon flux, thus increasing energy emission to space.

    This is why I state that CO2 becomes a net atmospheric coolant at approximately 288 K… the exact solution is near to impossible to calculate, given the nearly infinite number of angles of molecular collision, the equilibrium distribution of molecular speed, and the fact that atmospheric molecular composition varies spatially and temporally with altitude and water vapor concentration variations.

    https://i.imgur.com/v8adCi2.png

    Particle physics first principles disprove the CAGW hypothesis. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a physical impossibility.

    In an atmosphere sufficiently dense such that collisional energy transfer can significantly occur, all radiative molecules play the part of atmospheric coolants at and above the temperature at which the combined translational mode energy of two colliding molecules exceeds the lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy of the radiative molecule. Below this temperature, they act to warm the atmosphere via the mechanism the climate alarmists claim happens all the time, but if that warming mechanism occurs below the tropopause, the net result is an increase of Convective Available Potential Energy, which increases convection, which is a net cooling process.

    • Sonnyhill says:
      6 years ago

      Thanks lol@kkk. I’ve read that CO2’s ppm rise has an effect nearer the poles. 288 degrees K is approximately 59 degrees F. Taking the lapse rate into consideration, there’s a lot of topography with temperatures in this range. Maybe this is why glacier melt is exploited by the alarmists. My conclusion is that the parts of the world warmed, however little, by CO2, could use it. Our atmosphere is indeed a moderator, smoothing out extremes.

      • dwieland says:
        6 years ago

        We should keep in mind just how miniscule a component of the atmosphere CO2 is. And the slightly greater Arctic warming may be due to the greater temperature differential. A colder object has less “resistance” to heating energy (radiation) than a warm one does. Seasonal temperature changes are slight in the tropics and increase with increasing latitude. We haven’t yet gotten a rich understanding of climate-determining factors, just models that pretend to such understanding. But there’s no clear evidence that CO2 has anything to do with the slight warming over the past 150 or so years.

        • Sonnyhill says:
          6 years ago

          Agreed. Heat transfer rate increases with temperature differential. I also agree that any effect CO2 might have is minuscule.

  8. Sonnyhill says:
    6 years ago

    He’s an icon to simpletons.
    Has Bill Nye solved the non-existent imminent climate catastrophe with his genius? No.
    Could he make a huge, profitable splash by confessing to fraud? Yes. C’mon man. Write a tell – all and triple your net worth.

  9. Spurwing Plover says:
    6 years ago

    Bill Nye the Fake Science Guy this egghead is stuck in Stupid if he thinks cow farts are causing Global Warming/Climate Change he needs to go back to the drawing board

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • ev charging station16 States, DC Sue Trump Admin Over EV Charger Funds, Most Have Built None
    May 9, 2025
    17 states sue the Trump administration for access to $5 billion in EV charger funding, despite most failing to build a single charger. […]
  • weather montageNOAA Quietly Kills Its Billion-Dollar Disaster Database And Report After Years Of Criticism
    May 9, 2025
    NOAA has quietly retired its Billion-Dollar Disaster list after years of criticism over transparency, accuracy, and scientific integrity. […]
  • german wind farmHow Wind And Solar Sent Energy Prices Sky-High in ‘Green’ Countries
    May 8, 2025
    Adding more green energy makes power more expensive, not cheaper—due to unreliable output, required fossil fuel backup, and taxpayer subsidies. […]
  • bernie sanders fox newsBernie Sanders Defends Private Jet Use, Says ‘He’s Too Important’ To Fly Coach
    May 8, 2025
    Bernie Sanders and AOC are facing criticism for using private jets while promoting their climate-focused “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. […]
  • blackout stationGreen Energy Suicide: The West Pays The Price For Its Net-Zero Delusions
    May 8, 2025
    Green energy policies clash with reality as Europe and the U.S. face blackouts, soaring costs, and a collapsing power grid. […]
  • wright trump exec orderDOE Scraps $4.5M Website And Logo Project Meant To Showcase Green Agenda
    May 8, 2025
    The DOE canceled a $4.5 million contract the Biden admin awarded for a new agency website and logo that highlighted the green energy transition. […]
  • desantis bill signing‘Dead On Arrival’: DeSantis Signs Law Banning Geoengineering And Weather Modification In Florida
    May 7, 2025
    DeSantis has signed legislation shutting down geoengineering and weather modification projects in Florida amid rising voter concerns. […]
  • columbia protestersNo Worthwhile Research Was Lost In The Columbia Funding Cuts
    May 7, 2025
    Columbia University laid off 180 people after Trump ended grants for leftist equity and global warming research. […]
  • tree ringsHow Activists And Flawed Data Created The Illusion Of A Climate Apocalypse
    May 7, 2025
    Activist-made climate graphic misuses smoothed proxy data to exaggerate modern warming, with IPCC silence fueling ongoing alarmism and misinformation. […]
  • polar bear clappingTwo New Studies Reveal Shocking Polar Ice Gains, Upend Climate Narrative
    May 7, 2025
    Two new studies reveal unexpected polar ice trends, challenging climate assumptions and highlighting the need for pragmatic energy policy. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch