Paul is tenacious where he could be resigned to this madness. The time he puts in, trying to wake people to this unbelievable madness and financial suicide is so undervalued by those in power. It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled.
Today, I was in Newton Stewart (Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland), I passed a shop window displaying a model of proposed windfarm developments for the area. The proposal is for more than 900! turbines in the surrounding hills. This area, is so pristine and undeveloped, that it has been declared a 'dark sky' area. They are going to destroy an area of considerable beauty, and probably make a very significant increase to the 16M trees, that the Scottish government has already permitted to be cut down for other farms.
Just getting the opportunity to take on the alarmists is incredibly difficult. I've never seen a debate with an alarmist who actually can debate the science supporting their side.
I found this channel through Paul, im honestly surprised he doesn't get more exposure for his work but with big tech censorship and his truth going against the narrative they dont want him getting any bigger it seems. His channel should be experiencing good organic growth because his work is fantastic.
Keep at it Paul, repetition of the message works, they know it and they are afraid. See: "Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers" - Jiang, et al, 2024
I think most people who take an interest in this subject will have noticed that those who argue on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change always attack the person on the other side and only make grand statements with no evidence, this is called bullying and we all know bullies are thick as two short planks and no ware near as useful, if you have no ability to prove your point try to destroy the other person. Great round up with what Paul has been doing and personally been putting up with, I have no doubt Paul will be proven right, but the IOM will still go ahead with their plan much to its citizens regret.
So glad to see Paul on your podcast, I’ve followed his work for a while now. A true Climate Realist. One question I have is :- If the Isle of Man were to achieve “Net Zero”. What effect would this have on reducing Global Average Temperature?
@@ClimateRealism That is my point A totally futile exercise it’s a scam. Thanks for all your great work Paul. You are a beacon of hope amongst all the Net Zero madness
Really lovely to hear the story of Isle of man. Was the presentation in front of the people videoed? would love to see it. Additionally the C-Rate for discharged that 1Mwh battery can't even be discharged in 2 minutes safely ?
freedom of speech in USA depends very much on what you want to talk about or who (which group) you want to expose or question, even if they are wrong, for simply distributing leaflets in sealed bags and weighted down so as not to create garbage, still people are locked up for 30 days or more, and doxed... Don't forget the laws in 18 Countries UK included which make it an offence of I think 5 years to question/discuss/research certain ww2 events.
it is an international corporate agenda (net zero etc) so no company would touch those or any useful advertisements :) No in uk you probably can't even speak/protest/banner either ?
Jolly Herritic did a podcast yesterday touching on the effects of vviminism and nepotism on society, basically the bias of non offense combined with incompetence results in the problems we see today 🤔
Very interesting discussion, one thing I have noticed about a lot of environmentalists " or people who claim there environmentalists" is that they only seem 2 support measures that will negatively impact people. A number of so called self proclaimed environmentalists I have spoken to don't like or always have an excuse for Y we don't produce fuel from sewage or/& agricultural waist, transport international freight via hybrid sail cargo ships, that could reduce the cost to consumers . I think that there may b an ulterior motive behind this whole environmental thing. Sorry i probably shouldn't have said that.
On the first of the CO2 clips, Paul Bugess asserts that the CO2 molecule send half of the radiated heat back to Earth - but they do not. As the atmosphere heats as a result of reradiated solar radiation, it also expands and rises, this forms a current of upward moving heated gases, the rising gases are replaces by cooler gases from above, and we then have what is known as a convection current, heat does not scatter downwards as far as the surface of the Earth (or the ocean) and reheat it, that is impossible. The heated molecules do indeed scatter heat in all directions as they rise towards the top of the atmosphere, but they are still very quickly carried aloft, taking the scattered heat with them. The downward moving cooler molecules cool the atmosphere at the lower levels. Heat can only travel from a warm body into a cool body (Second Law of Thermodynamics) and there is therefore no possibility of a cooled atmosphered reheating or increasing the temperature of a hotter sun warmed surface. The Earth is not like a greenhouse - an enclosed space in which most of the heat is trapped while it is conducted through glass - it is an open system that allows heat to escape into space. Explaining to people that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and - as if they were young children - that the atmosphere of the Earth acts like the air in a greenhouse, is daft, because it is untrue and prevents them acquiring a proper understanding of what is happening. The convection currents that occur in a greenhouse and those that occur in the Earth's atmosphere are vastly different. There is much talk of heat radiation and reradiation and even some of the conduction of heat between molecules, but the principle mover of heat in gas, the convection current, seldom gets a mention.
Wherever you have wind and government solar, you have high power bills because you can’t shut off the base load power. You are paying for more generation equipment.
The effective temperature of Earth is 255 Kelvin that is derived as a mean temperature of Earth without an atmosphere with an atmosphere the Earth's mean temperature is 288 Kelvin 33° difference that difference is generated from work caused by the compression of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with it's composition
The content is good but we need a slick presenter because that what the other side have. Its easy to make a scientist seem like a crank to the uninformed public if you are an adept interviewer.
Your guest Paul Burgess seems to indicate that he believes that the retardation of the loss of heat would cause an increase in temperature if that is what he believes he is grossly incorrect.
"seems to indicate that he believes". "seems" means give the impression. "indicate" means to be a sign of. "believe" means to accept that something is true, especially without proof. It also means to hold an opinion. Therefore can you please be more precise about the assertion you are making? e.g. provide a quote from Paul that supports what it seems (to you) that he indicates what you say he believes.
I thought I made it clear that it is the reduction in infra red heating leaving the planet. Just explaining Happer’s work in the simplest manner possible. Simplified yes
@@ClimateRealism A reduction of the loss of infrared radiation from the planet will not cause an increase in the mean atmospheric temperature, as that concept would violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics. The question that needs you and others to focus upon is "Where does the 33° come from?" I'm talking about the effective mean temperature of 255 Kelvin and the mean surface temperature of 288 Kelvin that 33°. Happer's work nullifies CO2 as a cause it does not provide an answer to the question. Richard S. Lindzen askes for proof of positive feedbacks and is found wanting. It's time for reality to manifest. I have a suggestion PV=nRT.
@@robbomax1143 Paul Burgess, quote: "I thought I made it clear that it is the reduction in infra red heating leaving the planet." That concept would violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics. Is that precise enough for you?
The problem with these few warriors for truth is that they are too old and frail. Their voices are weak and halting. They lack the charisma that is natural to the more youthful. In a debate, quick wit and charm are more valuable than data and logic. Even with a quick-witted charmer, these formal debates are poor formats for explanation and discovering truth. I would rather see four formidable champions, two to a side, seated around a coffee table, in comfy chairs with drinks, discussing the issue for two to three hours. No stage, no podiums, no bright lights, no time limits, no opening remarks, and absolutely no moderator. Too often in these debates the sides spend the entire debate talking past each other. I don't care if they spend all three hours determining basic premises. If necessary, they can continue the conversation in a second, third, or fourth episode. I would hope for a Socratic type of dialogue. What if the debate organizers can't scare up a decent team of climate catastrophists to debate? It would still be useful to have the conversation even if the organizers had to form a red team to steelman the catastrophists' arguments. One other thing I've noticed about these debates, it always seems that one or more of the participants is doing the debate as part of a publicity tour for his newly published climate book. As much as there is a climate catastrophe publishing industry, there is also a climate catastrophe denier publishing industry.
The problem with that view is that nobody would watch such a programme. In real life you have to deal with reality. Not pie in the sky wishful thinking.
@@ClimateRealism Facts not in evidence. Some similar podcasts do quite well. How many people watch ClimateRealism? Why don't more people watch? Even if only a relatively few people watch, the few that do will likely be policy wonk podcasters who will excerpt bits and pieces to highlight on their own shows. If the personalities involved are big enough the mainstream media will feel pressured to cover at least some of the content themselves. Then we get Elon Musk and President Trump to mention the program on an X tweet.
@@glennmitchell9107 Sorry that is simply not realistic. Over time I have managed to lever the message onto a national news programme. The message itself is not of interest to most of the population. I find your stance very theoretical and unrealistic., nobody is stopping some young folks doing as you say - I wish they would but otherwise you are simply not being realistic. I cannot make myself younger but `i can promise you that I am a lot sharper than you give me credit for.😀
@@ClimateRealism Would any of these elder statesmen of climate catastrophe denialism be willing to cowrite some of their books or studies with a younger more charismatic colleague? On the book tour/interview circuit, the elder could provide his gravitas and the younger could provide his energy.
Every time I see Paul in a debate on GB news I wish that Tom was there instead! I once saw Paul turn up with paper printouts that he waved at the TV camera. The interviewer asked why he hadn't thought to send this to them digitally in advance so that the TV audience could actually see it 🤪 I do think that his heart & intentions are in the right place, but he gets obviously angry with people he is debating with & therefore quickly loses the argument.
Paul is tenacious where he could be resigned to this madness. The time he puts in, trying to wake people to this unbelievable madness and financial suicide is so undervalued by those in power.
It's easier to fool people than convince them they've been fooled.
Please never give up Paul, More than ever the UK and the IoM need you
Paul is a great warrior for truth.
Today, I was in Newton Stewart (Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland), I passed a shop window displaying a model of proposed windfarm developments for the area. The proposal is for more than 900! turbines in the surrounding hills.
This area, is so pristine and undeveloped, that it has been declared a 'dark sky' area.
They are going to destroy an area of considerable beauty, and probably make a very significant increase to the 16M trees, that the Scottish government has already permitted to be cut down for other farms.
Paul has an important voice because of his industrial, admistrative and academic exæerirnce. Great guest!
Thanks Paul for your brilliant and reasoned presentation. Thanks Tom for allowing the truth to get out. Cheers to you both.
Thank you!
Fearless truth. Defends itself
It takes courage to speak the truth.
Just getting the opportunity to take on the alarmists is incredibly difficult.
I've never seen a debate with an alarmist who actually can debate the science supporting their side.
@@grahammerritt1329 same for me.
That woman goes off the rails at around 27:30, talking political nonsense that has nothing to do with wind turbines.
I found this channel through Paul, im honestly surprised he doesn't get more exposure for his work but with big tech censorship and his truth going against the narrative they dont want him getting any bigger it seems. His channel should be experiencing good organic growth because his work is fantastic.
Keep at it Paul, repetition of the message works, they know it and they are afraid.
See: "Repetition increases belief in climate-skeptical claims, even for climate science endorsers" - Jiang, et al, 2024
Paul Burgess - respect!
Have another try with your spelling.
@@freeforester1717
Corrected 😂
I think most people who take an interest in this subject will have noticed that those who argue on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change always attack the person on the other side and only make grand statements with no evidence, this is called bullying and we all know bullies are thick as two short planks and no ware near as useful, if you have no ability to prove your point try to destroy the other person. Great round up with what Paul has been doing and personally been putting up with, I have no doubt Paul will be proven right, but the IOM will still go ahead with their plan much to its citizens regret.
Thanks Tom and Paul!
Nice job Paul. Turns out, simple math is not so simple - for some people.
Paul is fabulous. A great presentation. Thank you.
Just a comment to boost the YT algorithm of relevance.
So glad to see Paul on your podcast, I’ve followed his work for a while now. A true Climate Realist. One question I have is :- If the Isle of Man were to achieve “Net Zero”. What effect would this have on reducing Global Average Temperature?
one 40th million of one degree
@@ClimateRealism That is my point A totally futile exercise it’s a scam. Thanks for all your great work Paul. You are a beacon of hope amongst all the Net Zero madness
47:19 47:21
@@aliendroneservices6621 What are you trying to say ?
@@ClimateRealism Providing relevant timestamps.
Keep up the good work
This was by far your best podcast so far :)
Paul is fighting the good fight and it is interesting to see the tactics his opposition is trying to use.
Paul is awesome. I watch him all the time. I think I found his videos by watching you.
Really lovely to hear the story of Isle of man. Was the presentation in front of the people videoed? would love to see it.
Additionally the C-Rate for discharged that 1Mwh battery can't even be discharged in 2 minutes safely ?
My two favorite climate hoax fighters in one video! Love it!
That gutless wonder from the manx radio interview after the presentation my God 😡
That interview by the child near the end was difficult to listen to.
She went out of her way to discredit him and use any wild claim and key words to cause alarm and try to discredit. Truly shocking.
Tom, have you considered interviewing Chris DeArmitt on the miths about plastic pollution and toxicity? That would be a good one!
the level of argument of that lovely lady is really strange.
she seems so incredibly indoctrinated.
poor person.
She's got skin in the game.
People tend to get upset when their greedy scam is threatened.
freedom of speech in USA depends very much on what you want to talk about or who (which group) you want to expose or question, even if they are wrong, for simply distributing leaflets in sealed bags and weighted down so as not to create garbage, still people are locked up for 30 days or more, and doxed... Don't forget the laws in 18 Countries UK included which make it an offence of I think 5 years to question/discuss/research certain ww2 events.
it is an international corporate agenda (net zero etc) so no company would touch those or any useful advertisements :) No in uk you probably can't even speak/protest/banner either ?
The "emergency" can't be declared over, then the funding would stop.
Paul 🤩👍🏻
As long as the discussion involves money, especially taxpayer money, the discussion will be political.
1:09:43 Surely you mean 97%...
Pretty soon sharing your video will get you a prison sentence in the UK.
The totalitarians hope for this.
My comment was immediately deleted
Jolly Herritic did a podcast yesterday touching on the effects of vviminism and nepotism on society, basically the bias of non offense combined with incompetence results in the problems we see today 🤔
What is *_"the bias of non offense"?_* Google says it doesn't exist.
@@aliendroneservices6621 a society that holds feelings above facts
Very interesting discussion, one thing I have noticed about a lot of environmentalists " or people who claim there environmentalists" is that they only seem 2 support measures that will negatively impact people.
A number of so called self proclaimed environmentalists I have spoken to don't like or always have an excuse for Y we don't
produce fuel from sewage or/& agricultural waist, transport international freight via hybrid sail cargo ships, that could reduce the cost to consumers .
I think that there may b an ulterior motive behind this whole environmental thing. Sorry i probably shouldn't have said that.
On the first of the CO2 clips, Paul Bugess asserts that the CO2 molecule send half of the radiated heat back to Earth - but they do not.
As the atmosphere heats as a result of reradiated solar radiation, it also expands and rises, this forms a current of upward moving heated gases, the rising gases are replaces by cooler gases from above, and we then have what is known as a convection current, heat does not scatter downwards as far as the surface of the Earth (or the ocean) and reheat it, that is impossible. The heated molecules do indeed scatter heat in all directions as they rise towards the top of the atmosphere, but they are still very quickly carried aloft, taking the scattered heat with them. The downward moving cooler molecules cool the atmosphere at the lower levels.
Heat can only travel from a warm body into a cool body (Second Law of Thermodynamics) and there is therefore no possibility of a cooled atmosphered reheating or increasing the temperature of a hotter sun warmed surface. The Earth is not like a greenhouse - an enclosed space in which most of the heat is trapped while it is conducted through glass - it is an open system that allows heat to escape into space. Explaining to people that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and - as if they were young children - that the atmosphere of the Earth acts like the air in a greenhouse, is daft, because it is untrue and prevents them acquiring a proper understanding of what is happening. The convection currents that occur in a greenhouse and those that occur in the Earth's atmosphere are vastly different. There is much talk of heat radiation and reradiation and even some of the conduction of heat between molecules, but the principle mover of heat in gas, the convection current, seldom gets a mention.
Wherever you have wind and government solar, you have high power bills because you can’t shut off the base load power. You are paying for more generation equipment.
49:07 49:08 *_"Tristan Strange,_* 40, a community organiser from Swindon"
As it comes to anyone else’s notice that these alarmist are only just out of puberty 😂
Historical times
Historical figures standing up to be counted
#MHLivingHistoryLeapyear2024
The effective temperature of Earth is 255 Kelvin that is derived as a mean temperature of Earth without an atmosphere with an atmosphere the Earth's mean temperature is 288 Kelvin 33° difference that difference is generated from work caused by the compression of the atmosphere and has nothing whatsoever to do with it's composition
42:58 Quantum physics...the dreams stuff is made of...😝
2:23 "science consensus"...is an oxymoron on the level of jumbo shrimp and military intelligence!
Has Paul discovered Potholer54 on RUclips?
Yes of course.
The content is good but we need a slick presenter because that what the other side have. Its easy to make a scientist seem like a crank to the uninformed public if you are an adept interviewer.
Your guest Paul Burgess seems to indicate that he believes that the retardation of the loss of heat would cause an increase in temperature if that is what he believes he is grossly incorrect.
"seems to indicate that he believes".
"seems" means give the impression.
"indicate" means to be a sign of.
"believe" means to accept that something is true, especially without proof. It also means to hold an opinion.
Therefore can you please be more precise about the assertion you are making? e.g. provide a quote from Paul that supports what it seems (to you) that he indicates what you say he believes.
I thought I made it clear that it is the reduction in infra red heating leaving the planet. Just explaining Happer’s work in the simplest manner possible. Simplified yes
@@ClimateRealism A reduction of the loss of infrared radiation from the planet will not cause an increase in the mean atmospheric temperature, as that concept would violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics. The question that needs you and others to focus upon is "Where does the 33° come from?" I'm talking about the effective mean temperature of 255 Kelvin and the mean surface temperature of 288 Kelvin that 33°. Happer's work nullifies CO2 as a cause it does not provide an answer to the question. Richard S. Lindzen askes for proof of positive feedbacks and is found wanting. It's time for reality to manifest. I have a suggestion PV=nRT.
@@robbomax1143 Paul Burgess, quote: "I thought I made it clear that it is the reduction in infra red heating leaving the planet." That concept would violate the Laws Of Thermodynamics. Is that precise enough for you?
The problem with these few warriors for truth is that they are too old and frail. Their voices are weak and halting. They lack the charisma that is natural to the more youthful.
In a debate, quick wit and charm are more valuable than data and logic. Even with a quick-witted charmer, these formal debates are poor formats for explanation and discovering truth. I would rather see four formidable champions, two to a side, seated around a coffee table, in comfy chairs with drinks, discussing the issue for two to three hours. No stage, no podiums, no bright lights, no time limits, no opening remarks, and absolutely no moderator.
Too often in these debates the sides spend the entire debate talking past each other. I don't care if they spend all three hours determining basic premises. If necessary, they can continue the conversation in a second, third, or fourth episode.
I would hope for a Socratic type of dialogue. What if the debate organizers can't scare up a decent team of climate catastrophists to debate? It would still be useful to have the conversation even if the organizers had to form a red team to steelman the catastrophists' arguments.
One other thing I've noticed about these debates, it always seems that one or more of the participants is doing the debate as part of a publicity tour for his newly published climate book. As much as there is a climate catastrophe publishing industry, there is also a climate catastrophe denier publishing industry.
The problem with that view is that nobody would watch such a programme.
In real life you have to deal with reality.
The problem with that view is that nobody would watch such a programme.
In real life you have to deal with reality. Not pie in the sky wishful thinking.
@@ClimateRealism Facts not in evidence. Some similar podcasts do quite well. How many people watch ClimateRealism? Why don't more people watch?
Even if only a relatively few people watch, the few that do will likely be policy wonk podcasters who will excerpt bits and pieces to highlight on their own shows. If the personalities involved are big enough the mainstream media will feel pressured to cover at least some of the content themselves. Then we get Elon Musk and President Trump to mention the program on an X tweet.
@@glennmitchell9107 Sorry that is simply not realistic.
Over time I have managed to lever the message onto a national news programme. The message itself is not of interest to most of the population.
I find your stance very theoretical and unrealistic., nobody is stopping some young folks doing as you say - I wish they would but otherwise you are simply not being realistic. I cannot make myself younger but `i can promise you that I am a lot sharper than you give me credit for.😀
@@ClimateRealism Would any of these elder statesmen of climate catastrophe denialism be willing to cowrite some of their books or studies with a younger more charismatic colleague? On the book tour/interview circuit, the elder could provide his gravitas and the younger could provide his energy.
Every time I see Paul in a debate on GB news I wish that Tom was there instead!
I once saw Paul turn up with paper printouts that he waved at the TV camera. The interviewer asked why he hadn't thought to send this to them digitally in advance so that the TV audience could actually see it 🤪
I do think that his heart & intentions are in the right place, but he gets obviously angry with people he is debating with & therefore quickly loses the argument.
I was banned from handing in the papers before hand leaving me now choice.
They had forgotten they had asked me to stop doing it.
Also after every show the comments give me 99% support