California history professor wants to bar climate skeptics from internet

My annual birthday-month fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now on-going. Not only do your donations help pay my bills, they give me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.


Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Fascist: Joseph A. Palermo, a history professor from California, wants to bar Presidient-elect Trump and all climate skeptics from using the internet or any technology. As he wrote,

“Through his public statements and personnel choices Trump has made it clear that he rejects the science of climate change. I’ve always believed that people who dismiss science in one area shouldn’t be able to benefit from science in others. If Trump and his cohort believe the science of global warming is bogus then they shouldn’t be allowed to use the science of the Internet for their Twitter accounts, the science of global positioning for their drones, or the science of nuclear power for their weaponry.”

First, I don’t notice any evidence of Palermo abandoning the use of fossil fuels in order to prevent the certain destruction of humanity and the Earth because of his religious belief in global warming.

Second, notice how his first instinct, like the good liberal that he is, is call for the use of force to restrict, bar, condemn, and oppress his opponents. He doesn’t wish to debate them, he wishes to grind his boot into their face for all time for daring to challenge his beliefs.

By the way, I am not debating the issue of global warming, I am noting the fascist outlook of the modern left and of the global warming activist community.



  • Ron

    The professor seems like a mental pigmy

  • LocalFluff

    The science of the climate is that CO2 concentration indeed is increasing and that it, in and of itself, should increase the general temperature. But the climate is dependent on so many factors that overshadow this single one, that no increase in temperature has been recorded. The climate panic is not about more science than that. It is a nonscientific political and economic decision what we should do about this potential, but not real, issue. Maybe we should adapt to changes rather than trying to manipulate the climate? That is a value judgement for each individual to make up her mind about. Climate science has nothing at all to contribute to the politics and economics of climate changes. Science just claims that temperature should increase when CO2 increases. But it doesn’t, so that’s a problem for them.

  • David M. Cook

    Why are you still reading the Huffington Post? Or the New York Times? Or the Washington Post? These folks are wrong, ignorant and abusive. Don’t forget, the geniuses at the New York Times said rockets don’t work in outer space, and it took them over 40 years to figure out the truth. ’nuff said!

  • Edward

    I also notice that he is so worried that the arguments of AGW advocates are so weak that they cannot stand up to scrutiny. This is evidenced by the decrease in the number of people who still believe that AGW is real. The truth has set them free.

    From the essay: “Climate change is real.

    Even the so-called climate deniers will tell you this. Everyone acknowledges that climates change and have changed throughout the history of the planet. What is disputed is the anthropogenic nature of the change. So far, no one has presented any actual evidence that humans have an effect. It is only an assumption.

  • Max

    I intended to comment on the article but after reading it… It is obvious that he excels in word smithing to incite a response from his audience. He doesn’t care about the truth, only that he feeds those with the common belief that he thinks is correct with no evidence other than the religious mantra others embellish for the cause. He bullies his opponents with tactics he claims only the other side uses, he brow beat anyone who disagrees. He sets up strawman that he can knock down with one blow to claim victory over his opponent that doesn’t exist. In other words, he is the perfect staff writer for the Huffington Post.

    If I had to respond to the scientific question of global warming, it would look something like this…

    Not a scientist in the world would say our climate is static or that it has never changed. The reasons for this change can be a slow process, or a sudden change like a meteor impact. What Then drives and controls our climate? Is it the sun? Or is there another force involved? Science is a process of experimentation and results. Once the conclusions are verified by independent testers, The information is labeled a fact subject to future knowledge and experimentation. (This is why science can never be settled.) We don’t know, what we don’t know.
    The sun is the source of all light, without photosynthesis, life on this planet dies. Is the sun the source of all heat? Let’s apply Scientific principles and math to what we know and you determine for yourself the results.

    Engineers are taught that all heat is friction. Therefore to find a source of heat, we must find the objects in motion that is colliding with other objects that produce this heat…
    The sun produces energy in the form of radiation. Light we can see, and heat that we can feel. when the sun goes down, the radiation stops. Heat stops. With math we can determine the amount of heat we receive from the sun by subtracting the low temperature of the night from the high temperature of the day. This will give us how much heating we receive from the sun on a daily basis. Depending on your location on earth this can be anywhere from 10 to 40°, approximately 20% of the heat as compared to the control group. That’s right, the sun roughly gives us only 20% of our heating. Where does the other 80% come from? Let’s get out our thermometer, do the science.
    #1:The laws of thermodynamics state that the closer you come to a hot object, the warmer you become. Why is it when you climb a mountain or go up in a plane closer to the sun that it gets colder? Why is the top of Mount Everest not the hottest place on earth? The exact opposite is true. Death Valley, below sea level.
    #2: if we stop the world from turning and allow the sun to shine down on one spot for a week, would it become hotter? How about for a month? Will the other side of the planet freeze? The answer should not surprise you because it occurs every year. The north pole experiences more than three months of continuous sunlight! Time for critical thought. If the sun is the source of all heat, why is the north pole not the hottest place on earth in the summer? It barely gets warm enough to melt the ice that grows as thick as 3 to 9 feet during the wintertime over the Arctic Ocean.
    why is the south pole so different in temperature from the north? The South pole, which is closer to the sun with an average height of 10,000 feet, is much colder than the north.
    It has more than three months of continuous sunlight with summertime average of 40° below zero! It gets 70° below zero in the winter without no sun at all! Is 30° the maximum the “average” temperature can fall? Is the thermometer lying? Perhaps there is something else going on here. Have you figured it out?
    #3: let’s give you more evidence, THE MOON. I call it my control group because it is the same distance from the sun, in the same green zone/earth orbit. We receive the same amount of energy.
    The moons sun side temperature is 250°, the earth is usually under 100° illustrating that 150° of heat never reaches the ground. The atmosphere blanket insulates us. (and yet the higher up we go in our atmosphere, radiation increases but thermal radiation goes down as the temperature gets colder)
    The shadow side of the moon is 300° below zero. Math time. The mean / average temperature is -50° below zero! Earth’s average temperature, which is carefully monitored for global warming, is about 51°… Yes, the earth average temperature is 100° warmer than the moon! How is this possible? This information is not supported by the climate model/religion.

    All heat is friction.

    Cause and effect, follow the science.
    #4: The best evidence, and my most favorite, is the proof of other models occurring just like the earths. Luckily we have eight other planets to examine. How hot are they and why? If the sun is the source of all heat, then the closer to the sun you are, the hotter your planet. Would you choose mercury as the hottest?
    Here is a list of the planets placed in order of their surface or internal heat.
    Jupiter: has an estimated transition zone temperature of 17,500° (nearly twice as hot as the sun surface). It radiates more energy than it receives from the sun. (important note, the surface of the sun, photosphere, has a temperature of 9,500°. Jupiter’s Core temperature is 64,000°, 6 times hotter than the surface of the sun)
    Saturn: estimated at 21,000°F, is twice as hot as the Sun’s photosphere. It radiates 2 1/2 times more energy than it receives from the sun.
    Neptune: The furthest planet from the sun. 9,300°F, about the same temperature as the photosphere.
    Uranus: 8,540°F, the coldest of the gas giants.
    Venus: 860°F average. (Old craters were the atmosphere is deeper, the temperature is hotter) A Venus day is longer than a Venus year, but the temperature is the same on both sides of the planet because sunlight never reaches the surface. 90 earth atmospheres puts Venus in perpetual darkness as well as perpetual heat. The pressure on the surface is close to the same pressure as being a half a mile under the ocean on earth.
    Mercury: 800° on the Sunnyside, -300° below zero on the dark. With no atmosphere, mercury is 60° cooler than Venus and experiences 1100° in temperature variation. Average temperature is less than 250° (Wikipedia says 152°F average)
    Earth: average temp 51°
    Mars: average temp -82° below zero. (The Mars rover says it’s much colder with daily temperature readings)

    At this point it should be obvious what is causing the friction/Heat. The atmosphere thickness in combination with the gravity produces the heat source of friction which is the primary source of heat for this world.
    The Chinook winds is the best detailer of the effect in which I’m describing.
    “as the air mass passes over a mountain, it loses moisture as the temperatures fall. The dry cold air rushes down the other side, the air compresses and heats up 5.5° for every thousand feet it descends.”

    Although the effect is well understood, it is not a factor in the global warming model even though the heating effect occurs whether it’s day or night with no Solar connection. If something real is occurring that doesn’t fit their model, they will ignore it and pretend it doesn’t exist. Expose this and you will change what people think of global warming and the course of intelligent debate for the world.

    I have no skill in writing, so feel free to dissect and re-organize and republish any of this free information so as to get the the word out to make people think and not to except what is spoonfed them from the those who would endeavor to take away our freedom.

    It occurs to me to explain my 20% estimation of heat from the sun. The baseline from the Darkside of the moon is 300° below zero. If it wasn’t for our atmosphere generating the heat, not creating a mythical greenhouse to hold in the heat, we would fall to that temperature every night. I took the maximum temperature that it’s not unusual of 100° for a Theoretical 400° temperature change.(150° less than the moon)
    I took the unusual temperature variation from day to night of 40° divide that into 400 for a 10% solar heating. And then I doubled it. The number Just seamed too low. Totally unscientific, but I’m no scientist. Someone who does the actual measurements can take the heat for an unusually low solar influence.

  • wayne

    you have lot in play.
    I’ll just hit some high points briefly.

    #1– review the laws of thermodynamics

    #2 The atmosphere has a huge ability to hold & transport heat energy (water vapor). Same for the Ocean’s. There is heat generated at our core, and that is responsible for plate tectonics, earthquakes, and volcanoes.
    All the energy Earth receives from the Sun is eventually degraded into heat energy and radiated away into space, it arrives in certain wavelengths, performs “work,” and then is degraded into heat in the process.
    As for how many watts of energy we receive on the surface, I believe it’s on the order of a (low) “few hundred watts/square meter.” (Solar panels are limited by whatever that ideal amount of energy/square meter is coming in, and the panels efficiency, which is around 30%.)
    “Temperature,” is an average measure of the amount of heat within a system.

    #3) The Moon has no atmosphere and no weather. (as we commonly use the term)

    Don’t have time to address your other points.
    It is highly interesting & I’m glad you at least think about this stuff!

    take care,

  • Edward

    You wrote: “We don’t know, what we don’t know.

    Although true, it may be too encompassing, for this argument. We do know some things that we don’t know, and those are the things that we research. Sometimes we stumble upon things that we didn’t know that we didn’t know, and that is how we discover that they need to be researched, too.

    We do know that we don’t know how much contribution to global warming that humans cause. We assume that it is some, but that is an assumption.

    We know that other factors influence climate, because the so-called “pause” in warming should not happen according to AGW hypotheses (and Al Gore), but we know that we do not know what the other factors are. Here are some guesses:

    I think that a better estimate for how much heat energy comes from the sun would be comparing the temperatures of the sunny side of the moon with the dark side. I think that you will find that the energy from the sun is responsible for much more than 20% of the temperature.

    The dark side has had three hundred-ish more hours to cool by radiating heat into space. Also, the atmospheres of Venus and Earth tend to distribute heat, although Earth’s atmosphere does not get much time to move heat from the sunny side to the dark side, Venus’ does.

    Cloud cover not only reflects energy from the sun, but it can also keep heat from radiating away at night. Clear nights tend to get cooler, relative to daytime temperatures, than cloudy nights. Thus, cloud cover has an effect on local and global temperatures.

    I once read a hypothesis that global warming was partly caused by increased forests, because trees tend to give off water vapor, which increases heat retention. It is an interesting thought. Ironically, deserts tend to be warmer than forests, but the difference in climates tends to be due to rainfall and water vapor distribution due to convection.

    The reason that the science is not settled is not so much that science is never settled but that we do not yet understand the complexities that drive climate and global temperatures.

    In fact, we just plain old don’t know what we don’t know about global warming (which is what the professor means when he writes “climate change”).

    A little more than 1,350 watts per square meter reach the top of the atmosphere, and about 70% reaches the ground. On a sunny day, expect that you get a little less than 1,000 watts per square meter on your housetop solar panels (if you have any), which are more likely to be 15% efficient. 25% efficiency is rather expensive, and the theoretical maximum for solar cells is around 36% — the physics works out that way, but we may, some day, invent something more efficient.

  • wayne

    Thanks for the factoid on watts-per-square meter at the surface. (I thought it was in the 500+/- range or so.)
    My neighbor has one of those personal weather-stations, and he can track the amount of “available solar-radiation” at his location.
    (do not have panels myself & never intend to buy any, even when they become mandatory.)

  • Knoll

    Great comments above. Seems like there are lots of pigmies ( pl?) Out there. A scarey amount

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *