Hear the 3-sided Climate Debate w/Gregory Wrightstone on Sky Dragon Slaying
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist, Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition and defender of the greenhouse gas theory. As a bestselling author (Inconvenient Facts), and Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR6), Gregory debates live on air with us as to whether carbon dioxide is our climate’s control knob.
Listen in on this two-hour episode of TNT Radio’s Sky Dragon Slaying where ‘deniers‘ of the greenhouse gas theory (PSI’s Joe Postma, Joe Olson and John O’Sullivan) discuss with ‘lukewarmer’ Gregory Wrighstone not just areas of the science that they agree on, but more revealingly, where there is a crucial point of disagreement.
Computer model Fantasy versus cold, hard Reality
For over 30 years, alarmists and lukewarmers alike have agreed on a supposed ‘heat trapping’ and delayed cooling mechanism assigned to carbon dioxide in climate computer models. But the ‘deniers’ (at Principia Scientific) argue it is physically impossible for this trace gas, comprising 0.04 percent of the atmosphere to measurably drive any alleged radiative greenhouse gas warming effect, as taught and promoted in academia.
But since 2010 the groundbreaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory‘ has become a benchmark setting out the empirical evidence of how carbon dioxide really performs in the world of applied science and engineering.
In reality, global temperatures have been flatlining this century, despite inexorably rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If the greenhouse gas theory was correct global temperatures should have risen alongside the rise in CO2. They haven’t.
Not just, for example, in air conditioning units built in factories, but also outdoors in nature it is proven CO2 COOLS our atmosphere in four different ways. See here.
As ‘Slayers’ of this computer generated faux reality hear us provide Gregory with a wealth of empirical proofs demonstrating that for over one hundred years – in the world of industry and applied science – CO2 has had great commercial success when used for COOLING!
It was disappointing when Gregory’s repeated response to our evidence was to say he was not an expert but has the most reliable experts to back him (appeal to authority – isn’t that the alarmists’ creed?). He cited Professor Will Happer and Roy Spencer among others.
We advised Gregory that our fellow ‘Slayer’ Professor Claes Johnson had been in email correspondence with Happer for over a year (see here), but Happer had not successfully addressed the points raised.
Today, CO2’s most common applications are in cold storage, supermarket refrigeration systems, and industrial, commercial, and domestic heat pumps.
Eckhard Groll, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue says:
“Carbon dioxide is promising for systems that must be small and light-weight, such as automotive or portable air conditioners. Various factors, including the high operating pressure required for carbon-dioxide systems, enable the refrigerant to flow through small-diameter tubing, which allows engineers to design more compact air conditioners.”
By what mechanism can a benign trace atmospheric gas like carbon dioxide – used so successfully worldwide for over a century in industry as a COOLANT – become a HEATING force in university computer climate models for the past 30 years?
By explaining his own position as a respected and prominent lukewarmer, Gregory Wrightstone typifies the thought processes of those who honestly – but mistakenly – trust junk computer modeling rather than the inescapable real world, direct evidence set out by the ‘Slayers.’
Only in debunked academic computer models does this benign trace atmospheric gas trap heat or delay cooling.
We are most grateful to Gregory for providing a forthright respectful discussion about how the Big Lie has taken hold of the minds of the vast majority of non-scientists duped by the UN’s doomsaying propaganda.
Admitting he has never studied thermodynamics and therefore defers to the opinion of his chosen experts, Gregory Wrightstone is among many well-meaning, but unqualified advocates. He earned a bachelor’s degree from Waynesburg University and a master’s from West Virginia University, both in the field of geology. Gregory has presented the results of his research around the world, including India, Ireland and China.
Source: TNT Radio
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Barry
| #
Thanks for a great interview. What I found most interesting is your guest like most warmers go to great length to explain the mech. But as soon as questioned on it they immediately want to shut down the conversation with I’m not an expert but the experts say this is what happens. If I were to take on any roll in such a position I would like to believe that I would actually understand the mech. Of which I preach before defending it. I think once again the problem is no one at this level actually want to question the so called experts they just want to rub shoulders with their gods.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
You concluded “I think once again the problem is no one at this level actually want to question the so called experts they just want to rub shoulders with their gods.”
This I must admit I do not understand what you mean “at this level.” And I question: Why didn’t you write mechanisms for other readers who might not be a familiar with the word ‘mechanism’ in a scientific context. For such possible readers I list several words and their Webster definitions which I believe apply to topics scientific.
Mechanical: 5.Explaining phenomena in terms of mechanic
Mechanism: 2b. The doctrine that natural processes mechanically determined determined and capable of explanation by laws of physics and chemistry.
Laws of physics and chemistry: 8. A statement of an order or relation of phenomena which’s far as known, is invariable under the given conditions.
Phenomena—plural of phenomenon: 2a. In scientific usage, any fact or event of scientific interest susceptible of scientific description and explanation.
Scientific 1. Knowledge obtained by study and practice.
Hence, I conclude that any discussion must based upon observed scientific laws.
Have a good day
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Barry. Glad you enjoyed it. We were very appreciative that Gregory Wrightstone consented to be interviewed live on radio with us. He set a good example for other defenders of the greenhouse gas theory to follow. Open and honest civil debate is how we help resolve these scientific misunderstandings.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Here is the correct answer to the grand “why” question that Gregory couldn’t answer: Darwin killed God. Al Gore resurrected God as the environment.
Religious instincts are innate and subconscious.
Conservatives don’t believe in global warming because, having maintained traditional religious beliefs, they are spiritually fulfilled.
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
I believe that the argument is not about global warming but the cause of global warming.
AGW is bogus, and a fraudulent claim. IMO
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Allan,
Can you explain the cause of something that is NOT? When a river is dammed the natural environment is changed. When a tree is cut down the natural environment is changed. When a wild animal is killed for food the natural environment is changed. The temperature of a natural day at any one location can naturally change significantly from one day to the next, from one week to the next, from one season to the next.
And we see observed evidence that sheets of ice once covered large northern portions of the Northern Hemisphere’s continents. So, there is no debate that there has been NATURAL WARMING in the past. And whether we can explain how that happened does not matter; IT HAPPENED.
Have a good day-
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Obviously, Allan, you didn’t listen to the whole podcast. I am referring to the around 50 minute Mark where Postma refers to the hostility and deliberate open lying from AGW alarmists and asks why.
As was discussed in the podcast, I was referring to the open dishonesty of the AGW agenda. The implication was that they (believers in AGW hysteria) are lying, they know they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying. And despite all of that they keep lying.
The only thing that mimics this kind of deliberate, open lying amongst humans and human institutions is religion. My point is that religion is innate and deeply subconscious. People who maintain atheism still have innate religious instincts. Global warming fulfills these instincts.
The reason they (AGW alarmist) are hostile is the same you would be hostile if somebody told you Jesus was the devil.
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
OK Got it.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“The only thing that mimics this kind of deliberate, open lying amongst humans and human institutions is religion.”
You obviously know nothing about religion then. These people believe it just as much as you believe you are a genius.
“the same you would be hostile if somebody told you Jesus was the devil.”
Obviously not, because people know the difference.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I write to inform you about a geology book you might (should) read. Beginning with its cover’s photo. For it has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words.
You are a genius because you take the time to listen to at least 50+ minutes of a two hour video. The author of this book studied, for forty years as a field geologist, the land of the state of North Dakota. Which in the center of the North American continent.
The title of John P. Bluemle’s book is North Dakota’s Geological Legacy with the subtitle: OUR LAND AND HOW IT FORMED. But I consider the subtile could be THE EARTH AND HOW IT WAS FORMED.
If one reads the Forward, Preface, Introduction, and the book’s 375 pages you will find a modest man, who is no genius, as he gives credit to the many others who helped him in his studies and in the writing of his book.
Have a good day
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Bluemel sounds like the typical group-think moron that has nothing original to say. I guess it just goes to show that not everybody has my kind of ability to cut through the crap to get to the actual truth.
He earned his humility.
Here’s a question for you, Jerry. Can you pop a bubble?
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com/landing
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
I Googled the title of Bluemle’s book and find you can view the cover of the book for free and then you can go, if you like what you see, you can go to Abe’s Books and get a used copy for about half price.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
James, I judge the ‘intelligence’ of people by the ‘achievements’ that he/she has, without question, done. Thus, I judge the Wright Bros were quite intelligent. Because Madame Marie Curie isolated an unknown element from pitch-blende, I judge she was quite intelligent. What have you done that qualifies you are a genius?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: What have you done that qualifies you are a genius?
James McGinn:
You can start here, Jerry
http://www.solvingtornadoes.com
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
James, I have never claimed to be a genius. As a scientist I was a very careful technician weights and forces to a few millionths of a gram. And in an original diffusion experiment proposed by my major professor I analyzed my data involving the action of two ions upon each other in single crystals of NaCl (common salt) and also in single crystals of KCL. Which mathematical computation had and been done before according to my literature search.
The data I measured was used in 4 scientific articles. But, at the time I could not appreciate the practical aspects of my work. So, I termed down the offer of another post-doc to begin teaching physical sciences and 7th and 8th grade mathematics in a small public school district. Which didn’t last more than a year because I failed the daughter of a school board member every marking period in 7th grade mathematics. At which point I was 31 years of age. The difference experiences I have had in the next half-century are too numerous to mention.
But, clearly I am no genius.
Have a good day
Reply