Thursday’s Batchelor podcast

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


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

Below the fold is Thursday’s Batchelor podcast. This time the focus was mostly on science, including a discussion of the data tampering of climate data that I think is going on in NOAA and NASA.



  • Steve

    Great appearance as usual. I am glad you mentioned that “Planet 9” if it exists at all should really be called Planet 10.

    And it is also good that you got in a segment of the data fraud at NASA and NOAA. To me that news is on a par with the revelations at the IRS.

    Both should have been major headlines of corruption in institutions that are supposed to be above politics and ideology. The fact that we can not now trust federal agencies at this broad of a level should be a watershed moment for our society.

    The fact that it is not, and that no one is going to jail from either scandal tells you volumes of where we are today.

    That the mainstream media treated both as minor stories is either a cause or a symptom of what ails us. I’m not sure which is worse…

  • Willi Kusche

    Great! Another 20 minute segment! Is this going to be SOP in the future?

  • Richard


    Which critics of AGW do you think have the strongest arguments. I’m arguing with people on the net and am interested in which critics you think are bulletproof.

  • To name a few, in no particular order:

    Steven Goddard:
    Anthony Watts:
    Roy Spencer (who is an actual climate scientist):
    Global Warming Policy Foundation:
    Judith Curry (another climate scientist):

    That’s a good start. Note that Judith Curry is actually not hostile to the theory of human-caused global warming. She however is a good scientist, and recognizes the very vast uncertainties. She has discovered in recent years that just admitting the existence of these uncertainties can be dangerous for your career, which is why she has become much more sympathetic to the skeptical position.

  • Steve

    That’s a great list, I especially like Anthony Watts site WattsUpWithThat. Very good articles and a very active comment section (sometimes I learn more there than the article above them…. LOL)

    I would also add Dr Richard Lindzen Climate Scientist from MIT. Very well-respected and was one of the first to speak out about so-called human caused climate change.

    He does not have his own website, but a quick google will turn up plenty of his articles or quotes.

    Here’s one in the ClimateDepot site:

    And a quote:

    “Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?” Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, told Climate Depot shortly after the announcements.
    “All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity,” Lindzen continued.
    “But, given the ‘pause.’ we know that natural internal variability has to be of the same order as any other process,” Lindzen wrote.
    Lindzen has previously mocked ‘warmest’ or ‘hottest’ year proclamations.
    “When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period,” Lindzen said in November 2015.

  • Edward

    Another critic to consider is Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. He looks at it from the viewpoint of a policy maker.

    “To the continuing embarrassment of the profiteers of doom, the least-squares linear-regression trends on Dr Roy Spencer’s UAH satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 18 years 6 months, despite a continuing (and gently accelerating) increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration”

    “The West is purposelessly destroying its industries, its workers’ jobs, its prosperity, its countryside, and above all its scientific credibility, by continuing to allow an unholy mesalliance of politicians, profiteers, academics, environmental extremists, journalists and hard-left activists to proclaim, in defiance of the data now plainly shown for all to see for the first time, that the real rate of global warming is ‘worse than we thought’. It isn’t.”

Leave a Reply

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