All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 26, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
55:43
Dr. Valentina Zharkova & Tom Tamarkin on Sky Dragon Slaying - 25 February 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From beach towels to tea towels and from mugs to water bottles, the TNT shop has it all.
Browse our shop now at tntradio.live.
Using science to debunk myths.
From the pandemic to climate fraud.
Thanks for listening to Sky Dragon Slang on TNT Radio.
Hi, welcome back to Sky Dragon Slang.
I'm John O'Sullivan, CEO of Principia Scientific International.
Still with me is Joe Postma, astrophysicist from Canada.
You know, we're really going to do a lovely one hour show here with two big hitters talking about climate change.
And, you know, I'm very, very honored to have with us on the show.
One of the big hits is on solar science.
None other than Dr. Valentina Zarkova.
She's dubbed You know, the woman who could count net zero, Professor Valentina, she's working at Northumberland University, England.
She's here to explain the modern grand solar minimum.
It's apparently going to last from 2020 to 2053.
It's meant to reduce global temperatures to such an extent that Earth will enter another little ice age.
We've also got with us Tom Tamarkin.
Tom is a friend of mine.
I've known Tom for five or six years now.
He's helped me, co-authored the book Sky Dragon Slayer's Victory Lap, and it's going to be a pleasure to have him as well.
We've all had a good go at this subject, man-made global warming.
Full of false premises about the role of the sun.
And when she came into the debate, Professor Zarkova raised a really big issue that nobody's really thought about.
And it's just assumed that the sun played no role.
It was just a constant, very little variation.
But no, apparently the sun can vary.
Dr. Zarkova, thank you for joining us.
It's a pleasure to have you on the show.
Thank you very much for inviting me.
Yeah, when you came on the climate science debate scene a few years ago, I think from memory, I think it's three, four, five years.
It was nearly nine years ago.
Nine years ago, yeah, yeah.
In 2015, we published the first paper in Nature, Scientific Reports, and it was a press release in Royal Astronomical Society, when they were predicted the modern ground solar minimum and said, "All right, this ground solar minimum when they were predicted the modern ground solar minimum and said, "All right, this ground
And look at this mountain, the minimum, world minimum, world minimum, Homeric minimum in the Roman Empire, all of them get together.
This is when the first time actually linked solar physics to the climate.
And the first time I discovered that actually people who do climate not very happy that we link solar activity to the climate because we said if it was a ground solar minimum on the minimum, the temperature drop.
So during this ground solar minimum, which we have, which is will be Twice shorter on the three solar cycles, but still temperature will drop as expected, as shown for the previous ground solar minimum.
And here they started saying, no, no, no, it will not be ground solar minimum.
There is no sign.
There is nothing.
But as we now know, then I said at that time I was very diplomatic.
I said, well, we need to wait just eight years and then we'll see who is right.
And the more we progress, the more It's becoming truth that I was right.
So, and we're now in the maximum solar activity, but we still have, you know, snow in the Northern America.
I've seen the pictures.
And the snows in Russia and huge frosts and so on.
So definitely we are heading towards ground solar minimum.
And the cycle 25, as they said, it will be very, very active, which is now at the maximum solar activity.
This is the warmest we can get.
You know, it started declining.
It will be declining the next probably four or five years.
And then when it starts declining, we will get real feel when the Decrease of solar radiation will affect the temperature on the earth and whatever they say.
At the moment, we are the maximum of solar warming, global warming.
They said it is produced by humans.
I say it is produced by sun, but we are in the middle.
It is really hot.
It was hot last summer.
But if the temperature will start now decreasing during the next 5-10 years, it shows that it doesn't matter how warm it was, when the sun stops firing active regions, flares, and particles and radiation towards the Earth, everything will be cooling down.
And this is what we were getting to.
This will be independent proof That only sun is the main source.
There's no other sources.
You can put as much CO2 during the next 10 years, but I doubt that the temperature will be increasing.
Hello?
Yeah, we still there we just got a little bit on the system.
I just want to give some context here the idea that the UN United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change that their initial premises, is that the sun is a constant it doesn't vary.
And the only variable in the equation is human emissions of carbon dioxide.
Again, it's putting the cart before the horse, as we all know.
Anybody who steps outside on a sunny day and the cloud comes in front of the sun, immediately gets cooler.
And vice versa.
If you go out on a cloudy day, the sun comes out, you immediately feel the warmth.
This kind of defies the notion of greenhouse gas warming in the atmosphere, doesn't it?
I mean, it's not rocket science.
And what you're bringing to the equation is something very simple.
It's the solar.
It's the sun.
Stupid, isn't it?
It's that simple.
It's the sun that does everything.
Yes, exactly.
When I looked at the Graphs showing the solar radiation.
They put average radiation per year onto the graph and completely ignore change of radiation of the sun during the orbit.
So we know that we have more heating in the summer.
We have less heating in the winter because the sun is gone and they just ignore this.
They reckon that when you add together, the average will be the one which they measure.
And this is the problem.
This is what, when I published my next Nature paper, which 2019, we've shown that actually the Sun is not producing constant radiation.
And each millennium, two millenniums, the Sun moves either closer to the orbit of the Earth and other planets during the spring equinox for the Northern Hemisphere in March, and then staying close in March, April, May, June, July, and then obviously being away much further during the other month, in the winter month.
And this definitely changes the radiation.
And this, it was a heretic statement.
The AGW people retracted our paper on the 1st of March, 2020.
And then sitting on lockdown.
I downloaded distances between sun and earth because the reason for attraction they said that the distance between sun and earth doesn't change.
And this is arrow in my paper, so I downloaded this distances from NASA website.
And from Paris Médone Observatory and shown the distances changes exactly as I anticipated in the paper then published the chapter, plotting these graphs of ephemeris between Sun and Earth distance and proving that the opponents who were
Crucifying me on the website for six months, saying that I am uneducated, I'm unprofessional, I'm stupid, I'm dumb blonde.
So I showed them, yes, I may be dumb blonde, but look at that.
What if everybody says, who is now dumb?
You're not blonde, but definitely dumb.
So this is what happened.
The Earth's orbit is elliptical, so of course it changes.
Look, it's been calculated for decades.
They just needed to go on the website and download it before crucifying someone.
Professor Ken Rice from Edinburgh University was the protagonist of this campaign against me.
After I published it, I sent to his vice-chancellor a letter with evidence that said, excuse me, I think your professor in celestial mechanics doesn't know this celestial mechanics, and this he produces their own result, or he knows them, but he deliberately mislead the public.
And she said, Oh, he has the right to make mistakes.
He has right to have an opinion.
- I'm Bob- - Valentina.
- Yeah, that makes sense.
- I just, yeah, yeah. - In the last hour that these people are doing it on purpose, right?
They're doing it on purpose, right?
That makes the point.
- Yeah, this is, I have opinion.
- Yeah, Valentina, I submitted my own paper to the bulletin of the American Meteorological Society just pointing out that, you know, the sun creates the climate, that we should have a better view of the sun creating the climate rather than the green aspect creating the climate.
They rejected the paper.
They specifically said you have no evidence that the sun creates the climate.
Because, you know, they do this averaging thing, right?
They not only average the Sun over the whole year, they average the Sun over the whole planet.
When you do that, you get this input of minus 18 degrees Celsius, that the Sun only puts in 240 watts per meter squared.
Well, that's only minus 18 degrees Celsius via the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
If you use a spherical Earth and use the real Sun, You know, the actual input of the Sun is around 1,370 watts per meter squared.
That is 121 degrees Celsius via the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
That is a great deal of heating.
That's enough heat to create the climate.
That creates the Hadley cell around the equator, which then pushes heat towards the poles.
I said, that's a better way to draw a model.
Use a sphere and show this.
And they said, no, you have no evidence that that's true.
You have no evidence that the Sun heats the Earth or creates a climate.
It was the most bizarre statement I've ever encountered in my scientific career.
And like you said, you've encountered the same thing too.
I agree with you.
And in my chapter, the last picture, figure 14, I show that how I calculate solar irradiance in the millennium from 600 to 1600 and then from 1600 to 2600, in which we are now.
They calculated the radiation average per month.
So you have 30 days.
They add together, put average, and they consider.
But when you look at the curve in my chapter, you will see that the curve is not actually normally distributed.
You're aware that average is introduced for data with normal distribution.
So you have to have a bump for data.
These data are like straight line or slightly, you know, Quadratic, but none.
So they cannot apply average to this.
But if you use average, the difference between solar radiation in the last millennium and this millennium was only about one or two watt per square meter, which this what the IPCC people put and say, no, no difference in the millennium.
But when I added the whole radiation the whole month, I didn't do any averaging.
I just added everything for whole year.
And compare year by year, I discovered the next law standing to it, without averaging, shows that radiation in this millennium is increased by 20 to 25 watt per square meter.
And this is why we have this heating.
And this is why they're hiding behind these mathematical mistakes by applying averaging to the curl, which doesn't have normal distribution.
I rest my case.
Very good point.
On that point, let me just bring in Tom to mark in.
Tom, are you there?
I certainly am.
Tom, great to have you on the show.
Yeah, I can hear you.
Tom, your background is, you're an entrepreneur, you're a businessman, you're a physicist as well.
You've done hard science over the years.
You've not been in academia as such.
What is your perception of the scientific fraud that you've seen in academia?
The scientific law in academia related to climate change?
Yeah, yeah.
Fundamentally, it is suggested almost by innuendo that increases in carbon dioxide directly increase the temperature.
But the fact of the matter is, according to Henry's Law, The amount of carbon dioxide actually increases as a function of previous heating of the oceans, which tend to sequest the carbon dioxide.
So that's the first problem.
The second problem is the radiative transfer of heat from carbon dioxide is just that.
It's radiating what energy is received from the sun, but it can't radiate any more energy than has been received from the sun.
That would be a fundamental violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy.
So for those two points, we have to get back really to what Dr. Zarkova says.
Which is, what is the energy source, the major energy source, other than volcanoes, supplying heat to the Earth?
And that is the sun.
So any changes in temperature over extended periods of time must relate to increases or decreases in the amount of solar irradiance or the energy received from the sun.
Yeah, good point.
I think we need to just take a short break and we'll pick this up in a short while.
This is TNT Radio.
Keeping the commitment 24-7.
I come to you for facts.
I really appreciate what you and your teams do.
Today's News Talk Radio, TNT.
TNT's Misty Winston.
The Australian Parliament recently, I think it was yesterday, passed a motion 86 to 42.
It was put by independent MP Andrew Wilkie, who is a long-time very vocal supporter of Julian Assange.
And this was said that the incarceration for extradition of Julian Assange has gone on for too long.
The UK and USA should bring the matter to a close so that Mr. Assange can return home to his family.
And Wilkie tweeted out, I successfully moved a motion to recognize the importance of bringing Julian Assange's extradition to an end.
The government voted for it in an unprecedented show of political support for Julian.
The U.S. must heed these calls and drop the extradition.
And that is unbelievable, kind of.
Misty Winston on today's News Talk TNT.
TNT is an independent global news talk station that does what others only say they do.
TNT is a live radio and TV broadcaster that simply tells the truth, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
No one in the world does what we do, crisscrossing the globe, providing credible news and opinion All day and all night.
In two and a half years, TNT has become a credible and exciting platform with brilliant hosts and staff.
It's a critical time and we must continue to call out the misinformation and propaganda from mainstream media and their powerful sponsors.
We're now appealing to our many friends and supporters around the world to go to tntradio.live and make a small donation to TNT while we seek the right investors to continue our important mission.
Internet Internet stream online TNT radio dot live today's news talk radio TNT.
During the break, I wanted to make the point that Joe Postma, you as an astrophysicist, professional astrophysicist, you you had a lot of pushback.
You lost your career because you dared to suggest that the Earth operated as a sphere, not a flat Earth.
And this ties in very well with the calculations provided by Valentina Zarkova.
Do you want to just chip in and make a point about that, please?
Yeah, well, the point is about this averaging, whether all quantities make sense to average in physics and science.
So temperature is actually one of those quantities which actually you should not average.
Temperature is called an intensive value.
It's an in situ value.
It only has sense of where you measure it, right?
Now, this is kind of like an analogy is averaging.
I don't mean to be lewd or anything, but it's a great example.
Well, sorry.
Actually, here's a great example.
Averaging the average number in the phone book.
So what's the average number of the phone book, right?
Is that a meaningful average?
Is that meaningful?
Right?
It's not really meaningful.
Here's a good one.
Take the average number of testes and ovaries per person in a student or in a classroom of 50% women and 50% girls.
Or 50% women, 50% boys.
Right?
What's the average number of testes and ovaries?
Well, one per person.
One teste per person, one ovary per person.
But does that average make sense?
It doesn't make sense.
It has no meaning, does it?
It's not a valid average.
Because it matters in situ.
It matters where you measure it, right?
So that's what's happening with this average.
So you take the solar input and if you average it over the entire surface of the Earth, that gets you one value and that value is the output of the Earth.
It's the output energy.
It's called the effective radiative temperature of the Earth.
That's minus 18 degrees Celsius.
It's 240 watts per meter squared.
That's fine.
But what they do in their pedagogical model where they teach the green aspect, this is basic pedagogy for teaching how the climate works.
They use that value that average solar input over the entire surface, which is actually the Earth's output.
But they use that then as the input and say, this is the input.
This is the average solar input.
It's minus 18 degrees Celsius.
It's 240 watts per meter squared.
Well, then you're left thinking, wow, if solar input is only minus 18 degrees Celsius, because that's the average, well, where does the climate come from?
How can the sun create the climate?
And so that's why they invented greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is then invented to say the climate comes from the greenhouse effect, from the atmosphere itself, recycling heat, because the sun can't create the climate.
And so, on the other hand, I pointed out, well, wait a minute.
Instead of using average sun, use real-time sun on the sphere, right?
Use the real-time in-situ sun, where it actually falls as it actually falls.
And in that case, when you do that, you find that the sun, wow, the sun is what you feel outside when you go walk outside.
You feel it's so hot.
It's at the equator.
It's creating the Hadley cell, which is the main climate feature of our whole climate, which drives then heat towards the poles, right?
That's a big feature of the climate to understand and the sun creates it.
And you can only understand that if you do not use averaging.
If you use averaging, you get to the result that the sun doesn't create the climate.
Now, this is a pretty important, this is a mutually exclusive difference, right?
That's a mutually exclusive difference, dichotomy in how to understand the climate.
Does the sun create it?
Does the sun not create it?
Right?
So I wrote this paper, just like Valentina's reporting her result, and they said, no, you have no evidence to say that the sun creates the climate.
So very strange things.
Yeah.
So that goes back to Valentina's criticism about their averaging.
And Valentina's report from the scientist who said that the distance between the sun and the earth doesn't change.
And this was written, claimed by an astronomer?
That's shocking!
That is just the most shocking statement.
The distance between the Sun and the Earth does change throughout the year because the Earth's orbit is elliptical.
But that just makes the point that these people are lying.
Everyone that's listening needs to understand these people are bald-faced Liars, and they're in positions, having PhDs and tenure in universities, teaching our children, and they are outright, damned well, bald-faced liars.
Aren't they, Valentina?
Yeah, I want to add, we just published a couple of months ago a paper which Got Tom very happy and excited when we show on how our dear Dr. Mann obtained this hockey stick temperature.
We put the dependence of the temperature depend on the solar radiation put to the by the solar inertial motion in the years like last 300 years.
So we we put calculation where the sun was in the position from ephemeris.
And then we put this solar irradiance, and it turns out that because suns come closer and closer in the last 50 years, the radiation is increased very nicely to the top.
And you can find this paper on my website, solargsm.com.
It's published in Natural Sciences.
Chinese journal, but this is a very decent journal with the review and everything because I couldn't publish in Nature as soon as I do that.
They know they done mistake.
And I went to Nature editor said.
So send me an apology for retraction and say, oh, no, you publish another papers and we will not send apologies, everything.
So, but they still do not accept the paper.
So I published that and you can see that basically what I suspect, they're using only temperature during the spring and summer and ignoring the temperature, which comes in the autumn and winter, because when you add this temperature, Did the average temperature on Earth become more or less stable, like in the plots shown in Arm Observatory or RealNOR from outside?
So basically, what I now suspect, they deliberately extract the data from the winter and autumn and just add the summer, which they see a clear increase.
So you can look at the paper, it is the last plot in that paper, which says We investigate this link of the temperature with ocean temperature, with the Arctic ice, and some other things.
So, and the level of sea.
And we showed everything is affected by sun and solar magnetic field.
We provided the evidence and now we are working to provide the evidence.
Next paper is in making the ENSO and warming of the ocean.
It actually comes again from the sun.
And this solar inertial motion which caused by the gravitation of large planets, so we cannot avoid, we live in the other planets environment.
And despite Kepler, put very nicely Kepler laws, and this is why this IGW people say, oh Zharkova doesn't know celestial mechanics, she doesn't know Kepler laws.
I specifically put in my chapter calculation of average distances using Kepler laws.
Pure mathematical, just for their knowledge that I know very well what it is, and I will show it that these variations do not cause this temperature but the variations which caused by the gravitation of large planets, and I remind them the gravitation.
So Kepler had no idea about gravitation, he couldn't include it into gravitation, apart from this central motion of motion around the central stuff.
And only in 1965, the first Indian astronomer who put the role of the gravitation of planet back on the sun, and role of solar inertial motion at 65, and only in 2000.
2010, they started investigating Karvatova, Palush from Czech Republic, they investigated, but they just put them, they investigated solar activity, not linking it to the, any solar irradiance coming towards us.
The only reason we linked with the radiation, because when we discovered that the sun moves, within this sphere about four solar radius or two solar diameter.
When you calculate this distance, you know, solar diameter, if you take two solar diameters, if Sun moves at this distance, the radiation, if it is moves closer, it's much higher, 3.5% higher than it moves further down on this four.
So you cannot hide it.
It came up simple arithmetic.
And at that time when we published paper, I didn't have yet the ephemeris because I didn't realize it is so important.
What we found that zero line of magnetic field oscillate, we measure magnetic field of the sun from our planet, so we see the sun with our instruments.
And if the zero line oscillate, it indicates us that the source, we are moving either closer to the Sun with the North Pole or further from the Sun and showing to the Sun the Southern Pole.
This is how we discovered it.
I didn't know it happened.
It is shown from the calculation.
It was heresy.
This is for six months.
They ate me alive on this website.
What I heard.
You can rediscuss the website.
Dedicated to discussion of this paper.
Recently, Tom has shown me that they created this on the web press, World Press as well, where I put my comment, dismounting theirs.
But nonetheless, whatever they put, they can put a lot of anger, but they cannot deny, because ephemeris calculated by NASA and by the Paris Meton Observatory, and they're the same ephemeris.
to seven digits after coma.
So we can't deny it does exist.
Yeah, your paper, it's the title of your paper, Terrestrial Temperature, Sea Levels and Ice Area Links with Solar Activity and Solar Orbital Motion.
Yeah, we want to promote that because, again, as you say, you're being attacked by straw man arguments.
In effect, you're being accused.
Again, it's the kind of diatribe that Joe Persimuth had himself where people are, I believe, and I'm sure we tend to agree here, these people knowingly are attacking you with straw man arguments, refusing or declining to point out that you did cover these aspects. refusing or declining to point out that you did cover They refer to the very centric motion of the sun and planets.
Everything's interrelated.
As Joe says, you know, this is beyond belief that a senior professor would come out and say that there's no change, there's no variation.
It's astonishing that we have that level of idiocy and bald-faced lying.
I've got to bring Tom back in.
Tom, are you still there?
Yes, I am.
What can you comment to that?
It's difficult for me to believe that people in academia can be bald-faced liars.
That is entirely contrary to my background and to the background of my family.
My father was a Ph.D.
physicist and taught at the university level.
I have other scientists in the family.
And integrity and truthfulness is the hallmark of our profession.
So it's just absolutely astonishing.
I simply do not know what to make of it.
I'm bewildered.
Yeah, one of the things I point, so let me just jump in.
I want to make a point as CEO of Principia Scientific International because again I literally work with thousands of scientists from applied science and I've done this for 15 years and I can say for a fact that the the mindset of applied scientists, engineers, who work day-to-day, hands-on, you know, using a scientific method, if they failed with their science people die.
Literally bridge designers, aircraft designers, car designers, If they are not literally, you know, if the math isn't rigorous, people die.
Yet in academia, there's no proof, there's no empirical validation.
And Valentina, I'm sure you would agree that when they can hide behind their honours, their prestige, and never be tested in the real world, this is the dilemma here, isn't it?
The fact that they can hide behind each other's power review system, if you like.
The power review system protects them from But from being exposed?
Yes, Feynman, famous physicist, said peer review system kills the science because people keep promoting the research of their tribe and demoting other or stealing from other tribe the results.
I would tell you, just not outside sort of activity, I had a group from the UK, I wouldn't tell the University.
This group put some paper, was published in Solar Physics, saying that the cosine pitch angle, cosine of pitch angle between magnetic field and radiation, and this cosine, in this paper, we know cosine changes from minus one to one.
In this paper from Red Brick University, they were saying it's changing from Minus 10 to 14!
After that, I wrote on my website that this guy invented specific cosine related to this university, because if they look at the book... So the solar physics needed to withdraw this paper, make them redo it and republish it again, because this is how Peer review, whoever reviewed them from their tribe, they just ignored basic mathematical error.
And the same happening in solar activity.
But what I'm saying, yes, it is really difficult to predict how the temperature varies.
This is what they're playing at, that we can't say that the temperature doesn't vary with everything.
Why did they become alarmed with the first paper and ground solar minimum?
Because it will prove, it doesn't matter that we're now in the heating stage and everything is heat.
If we come to the Little Ice Age, in 5-10 years, and it started snowing in May and June in the Northern Hemisphere, they cannot deny that it is not the sun which is running our way.
have the great supporter and great evidence for observation and it is our sun only with the sun we can prove otherwise we wouldn't be able to prove they would crucify it is like my theory is that every ground solar minimum they have kind of witch hunt
In Mount the Minimum, it was Spanish Inquisition, and they, you know, burned Giordano Bruno, made Galileo to give up his views, and just to say, we came to the modern Grand Solo Minimum and look what is happening!
Spanish Inquisition in different ways.
Uneducated scientist who wants to be famous.
I understand this motive.
I understand this absolutely sentiment.
But they have no enough...
It's really like the statement, yeah, nothing ever changes.
So they're the new, you know, clergy.
They're the new priest class who are now accusing people of heresy.
It's really completely repeating exactly what happened with the Spanish Inquisition and the witch hunts.
It's repeating perfectly, but now the class is a scientific class.
Dismount everyone who's against them.
They put them out of their jobs.
They put all this hearings.
I can't tell you how many disciplinary hearings I had, even last one.
How could I dare to publish the paper which become withdrawn?
I said, if you're so great specialist to this guy who is, I don't know which is specialist.
Next time I write paper on solar physics, I give you for your comments if you're great specialist.
He doesn't know solar physics.
You had disciplinary meetings at your university for publishing papers.
Yes, yes.
I've been crucified.
It lasted for a few months.
I needed to get on my feet.
For saying that the sun affects the climate.
That's what happens, people.
I hope our listeners, I hope everyone is listening.
That's what's happening in academia.
For saying that the sun creates a climate, you get a disciplinary heating.
I lost my job for saying the same.
I lost my job for saying that.
In Australia, Peter Briggs, he lost his job at the university because he was saying The climate change is natural.
And Salvi, Professor Salvi, he lost his job in America, and he died, unfortunately, but his idea is absolutely correct.
I'm using them.
We will be doing next paper on CO2 and I'm really interested to see this.
His talk was amazing, 2016, it was my discovery when I heard this, I suddenly started understanding what is happening with the climate change and everything.
So yeah, this is what, it is a witch hunt, and I'm not telling this ironically, I'm telling you with the seriousness.
The only thing, they cannot burn us on the fire, but literally, Throwing us from the university, it is dangerous because you have to have access and I have to say thank you to my vice-chancellor and head of HR.
They didn't allow this guy to crucify me so they allow me to live in Peace and respectfully, I'm an emeritus professor.
So others are not so lucky.
But these are the guys who are thinking at least something properly.
But again, I was lucky that someone offered me funding to do the research.
So I'm doing research now without teaching, which is great.
So no one disrupts me.
We do research.
We do all these collaborations and papers.
And this is the best time I got.
So I thought, oh gosh, why didn't I retire earlier?
It is much easier.
I got rid of stress.
At last, I'm now working and they can't get me because I run my own website.
I pay for maintenance.
As soon as I published the paper, you know what the university did?
Immediately put down on my website and all my papers so I couldn't access and couldn't show anyone or put my opinion that my paper is retracted in vain.
So literally, Sitting on lockdown I bought this website on the internet, paid everything and requested the person from America.
I got downloaded my website in the file and put to her and she was very like good in that.
She put it live and we got the papers again available.
But university on the first day retracted on the fifth my website went down so I needed to get off the university Completely.
So this is what would be done.
Thank you.
It's definitely mass censorship and I just want to say that my good friend and colleague, now deceased, Dr Tim Ball, again did experience the exact same thing.
He was sued by Professor Michael Mann, as you pointed out Michael Mann is a climate criminal.
Tim Ball exposed the fact that Mann removed the medieval warm period from his data and again, as you said, he unethically He used the temperature record, the actual thermometer record, to graph that onto his proxy data to hide the decline, if you like.
And again, these are criminals.
We don't pull our punches here.
We're calling it as it is.
And I've been trying to get Michael Mann to sue me for libel, but for some reason he won't sue me.
I wish he would.
But we're going to take a short break now.
This is TNT Radio.
With his expert analysis and opinion, this is TNT Radio's Timothy Shea.
Americans this week celebrated President's Day.
Or did we?
The answer, of course, is that we did not.
We celebrated George Washington's birthday.
And possibly, if you want to include Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president, whose birthday, February 12th, was given up for Martin Luther King Day back in the 1980s.
But we definitely did not celebrate Millard Fillmore and James Buchanan.
Didn't celebrate Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton.
And we most definitely did not celebrate Barack Obama and Stumblebum Joe.
Why does this matter?
Am I just being picky and pedantic?
No, it matters because words matter.
George Orwell wrote, "The slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.
Put more colorfully, blurry words carry deplorable thinking the way that mosquitoes carry malaria." You should always question the dominant narrative, whether it's that standard time going into daylight savings time is an artifact from our agrarian past, when in actuality farmers argued against it when the progressives put it in 110 years ago.
That the Republican Party and the Democrat Party flipped after the 1960s, when that's demonstrably false.
And even that red is the Republican color and blue is the Democrat color, when again, the opposite is true.
In fact, the opposite is always true.
What the dominant narrative seems to be.
So question the words or else you've lost the argument before it's even begun.
From MaggieInstitute.com, this is Timothy Shea for today's news talk, TNT.
Hi, I'm Susan Lucci.
I never thought about heart disease until I had my own heart event.
At first, like so many other women out there, I ignored my symptoms.
A slight pressure on my chest, shortness of breath.
I thought, I don't have time to be sick.
I had a 90% blockage in my main artery and a 75% blockage in the adjacent artery.
I received two stents in my arteries.
Stents developed through research funded by the American Heart Association.
Those stents saved my life.
I'm so grateful to the American Heart Association.
Their research helped save my life.
I can enjoy life with my children, my grandchildren, and my friends.
Please, listen to your heart.
The only reason I'm here today is because I did.
Learn more about the American Heart Association's life-saving work at helpheart.org.
Using science to debunk myths.
From the pandemic to climate fraud.
Thanks for listening to Sky Dragon Slang on TNT Radio.
Hi, welcome back.
We're very fortunate to have with us a world leading solar scientist, Professor Valentina Zarkova, predicting a coming ice age, and also on the panel we've got with us Tom Tamarkin.
Tom Tamarkin runs the climatesite.com.
Not really had a lot from you, Tom, yet.
We want to get you in and talk about the Pinatubo study.
You've got a Pinatubo study to talk about.
Well, yes, we have a website, which is pentatubestudy.com.
And we took advantage of the pandemic and the decrease in the amount of energy use as a function of commercial enterprises and institutions shutting down for that year.
And again, what we basically showed was that the increase or decrease of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was clearly related to fundamental law of physics called Henry's Law.
And we explain Henry's Law in a website which we created, which is henryslaw.org.
And according to Henry's Law, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decreases as The temperature of the largest amount of surface areas of the oceans decrease.
And that is totally contrary to this concept that the global warmers present, suggesting that carbon dioxide creates warming.
It's the exact opposite.
Yeah, we found ourselves over the years confirming what you're saying to us.
Yeah, just give us a flavour also of your climatesite.com website, because when I first came across your work, you were setting that up and you put a lot of content on that.
It's very, very informative, not just about climate, but also about nuclear power as well.
That's another one of your main interests, isn't it?
Well, we have another website, which is relates to fusion as opposed to fission, suggesting that the problems related to fission can ultimately be solved if we can control nuclear fusion.
That's something that today we simply have not been able to do for a variety of scientific and technical issues, issues, but I'm very confident that over the course of the next couple of hundred years, we will be able to master and relatively inexpensively control nuclear fusion.
But that's a separate website, which is called FusionForFreedom.com.
In the meantime, we have nuclear power via fission available today.
And frankly, we need to use it to the greatest extent possible.
But, again, fossil fuels and the related carbon dioxide from fossil fuels do not in any way contribute to, quote, global warming, unquote.
We've got to get over that myth.
And I'm still absolutely bewildered that the academic community is reportedly, is apparently either totally incompetent, which I don't believe, or lying.
Which is difficult to believe.
I'm just totally bewildered.
Well, Tom, I write about that in my book.
Getting back to your comment about the early work in Climapsite, Dr. Zarkova mentioned the work of Murray Salby.
We had many contacts with Murray Salby over several years prior to his death, and both of his major papers are on our Climapsite website.
I have to speak very, very highly of Dr. Salbi.
I just wanted to add in your comment about how bewildering it is to find the academics apparently coordinated in this slide.
Like you said, it's not believable that they're incompetent, because they are competent.
They know a lot about math and physics.
It's hard to believe that they're lying, but that's the only possibility.
So I wrote about this in my book, Planet Wars, because that's what I've been researching too for 15 years.
One thing that struck me, and John, you know about this, is the question, are these people incompetent or are they malicious?
And that was always the question, like, are they that incompetent or are they maliciously lying?
And it comes down to that they are maliciously lying.
They've been bought out.
Have they been financially bought out?
They've been bought out.
Yeah, it's their it's their careers.
It's the funding, you know, you get a lot of funding and, and people say, Oh, well, that funding is for research.
Yeah, it also pays for trips that paid, you know, you get a lot of side benefits from funding for research, you know, it does sort of make a difference to your bottom line.
So yeah, it is that.
But we seem to be, I've characterized it as some sort of a parasitical infection.
If you just want to characterize it that way.
Another way to describe it would be some sort of mass psychological phenomenon.
There seems to be some sort of mass psychological phenomenon affecting the minds of these people.
Because like Valentina said, how is it possible?
You know, in my case, I'm having them say to me that I have no evidence that the sun heats the earth and I shouldn't work in science anymore for saying that.
Valentina finding people, you know, astrophysicists, astronomers saying that the distance between the sun and the earth doesn't change.
These are impossible things.
These are impossible.
So we are facing some mass psychological phenomenon that specifically seems to be infecting the academic class in our universities.
And it's really severely affecting them, making them say and think completely irrational, unbelievable things that are strictly unbelievable for them to be saying.
I don't know if it's a parasitical infection.
What's happening to science education at grade school and high school level?
Yes.
Yeah, I back you up on that.
As a former high school teacher for 20 years, I can tell you there's a dumbing down.
There's an indoctrination, as you say.
It's a cult.
I taught the greenhouse gas theory 20 years ago.
I got to the point when I decided that I was teaching a lie.
It was false.
I did my own research because, again, when you're working on the front line, if you like, in education, you just do as you're told and you believe there's higher levels of academia.
There's like a strata.
And those at the top, as you say, the Edinburgh professor you referred to earlier, we think that's the pinnacle of academic excellence and we defer to them.
But really, we've been completely misled from the top down, aren't we?
Do we not teach the eccentric orbits of the planets in grade school science, fourth grade, fifth grade science?
When I was growing up, we certainly do that.
We certainly taught that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's glossed over now.
It's all about your feelings.
It's more subjective.
It's talking about the dangers to the environment.
It's always very local.
We're moving away from the hard science.
We're talking about soft sciences now, how you feel, the psychological impacts of so-called environmental pressures, if you like.
Anything to do with hard science is too hard.
STEM is becoming a threatened science, if you like.
STEM, academia is under threat, isn't it?
True academia.
We're being totally dumbed down, totally dumbed down into hysteria, into a constant, like science is being used to generate hysteria now.
Everything is a hysterical, emotionally hysterical fear.
Now, that's the only thing that, uh, yeah.
When you're teaching, they demand you to reduce the math for the student.
And I was teaching math calculus.
I said, how could I reduce the math?
They need to know the calculus to solve.
I give example from life, this showing how calculus allows to catch the crime, stealing something and so on, but they need to learn it.
They need to have this ground math to understand the rest of it.
Otherwise, they don't know what to do.
So you cannot reduce.
And this is the main problem.
And to add to what Tom said, I have to say there's a recent paper called Stoyanis et al.
The authors from Greece, they did very rigorous mathematical analysis correlation between temperature and CO2 abundances, and they shown undoubtedly that CO2 abundances are delayed by one and one and a half years, and their consequences of the temperature changes, and not the reason.
Because the reason cannot start after the consequence achieved.
So this is paper with the mathematical proof that the temperature variations are the first, and then CO2 are the second.
And they proved it mathematically with full Verification and proving the theorems.
So I trust these guys.
If anyone interested, I can send the paper.
I downloaded it and give you a link to it.
Yeah, we found on Principia Scientific over the years, we've had many scientists who crunched the numbers and they say that by and large, there is something like an 800 year time lag between a rise in temperature and a rise in CO2 and famously Al Gore with these mockumentary and inconvenient truths, he switched it around.
He actually switched the numbers very cleverly and very deceitfully.
He made it appear as if CO2 rose before temperature, when in fact anybody who studies paleoclimate will tell you that it's the other way around.
- I'm stupid, I didn't understand this. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
They think they can get away with it 'cause not many people have the time or the wherewithal, the intellectual rigor to go and pick it apart.
Plus their friends will back them up.
They won't allow you to have a platform to challenge them.
Again, because these are the figures, the faces trotted out to the media who will represent the narrative, the Michael Manns of this world, who will get the headline news.
Anybody like yourself, Dr Zarkova, you will not get primetime TV to talk about an impending ice age, even though we need to know that.
We need to know that the real threat to our society is not global warming, but the rise in more snow, rising snow levels.
Exactly.
And we're not prepared for it, are we?
Not at all.
Well, from 2015 to 2018, I had mainstream TV.
I spoke on Sky News, I spoke on BBC.
Until these guys, I don't remember what happened in 2018, the Paris Agreement or something, they probably bought Google.
And now they start, they made this Google search.
To downgrade all my interviews down.
Previously, you type Mini ICH and all my interviews, my name and everything is there.
Now you need to dig page one or two to find it.
So obviously, these guys using the huge amount of money they have, billionaires, because these billionaires invested into the electric vehicles, into the net zero, whatever, windmills and all the other rubbish which is not windmills and all the other rubbish which is not working, and they want to get their profits.
This is what happened.
Einstein, do you know what he said?
He said, "When the science will develop, rich people will buy the media and we will never know the truth." And this is the words of Albert Einstein in the 40s.
So this is where we reach now.
So we need to separate rich people from media.
Otherwise, we will be getting As I said, the only thing which is good now that the sun doesn't matter what they say.
The sun will reduce its own activity and the snow will start falling and then they will be crying.
No, no, this is because we reduce CO2, the snow starts falling, believe me.
But this is coming because of the reduction of solar activity and ground solar minimum.
Yeah, see this is so important because we need the kind of cross disciplinary approaches solar science, scientists like yourself.
Again, backing up what geologists paleo climatologist and geologists have been saying for years and the Pleistocene period for example was it an era of incredible warmth but very low levels of CO2.
In fact, Northern Greenland was 19 degrees Celsius, warmer than today, with very low levels of CO2.
Then when the narrative, when the hypothesis is exploded and proven to be fake, they don't drop it, do they? - No.
And actually what I shown in that book chapter, the temperature will be increasing, After this ground solar minimum, the sun will return to normal activity, and the temperatures start increasing until 2600.
So we will not be alive, but we leave our legacy to the next generation, and they will see the temperature will increase by about three, three and a half degrees from now.
So, this will bring us to the same level of temperature they had in Scotland at the beginning of Anna Domini, when they grew up, Romans grew up.
Grapes in Scotland and they had open Roman baths because the sun was so hot they could do the Roman baths in Scotland.
So every 2000-2300 years we have this strong increase and then decrease because of the solar inertial motion.
It's called Halsted cycles.
Professor Sarkova, I hate to cut you off but we've come right to the end of the show.
Tom Tamarkin, pleasure to have you both on Talking Climate Change.
We wish you the best for the future and thank you for joining us on Sky Dragon Slaying.
This is TNT Radio.
▲
Export Selection