Episodes

  • John Costella: “ClimateGate” #433
    Oct 2 2026

    John Costella, a former physicist turned data scientist and software engineer, recounts how watching climate-skeptic films, then reading leaked “Climategate” emails in 2009, changed his trust in climate science. He edited, annotated, and published selected emails, producing a 180-page color book printed by Australia’s Lavoisier Group, arguing the core group was small, politicized, PR-driven, and statistically sloppy, with bullying (including by Michael Mann). He says inquiries cleared wrongdoing but standards were low for policies with huge economic stakes. He then warns AI is already conscious and smarter than him, replacing white-collar jobs, inflating bubbles, and likely triggering a major economic crash soon, with unclear survival strategies.


    00:00 Meet John Costella

    00:23 Trusting Climate Consensus

    01:10 Sally Challenges Belief

    03:10 Skeptic Film Turning Point

    04:34 Climategate Emails Leak

    05:53 Publishing The Email Archive

    07:54 Talks And Printed Book

    09:57 Rethinking Scientific Standards

    16:02 How Long The Book Took

    17:48 Climate Science Complexity

    22:45 PR Spin And Zealotry

    31:04 Small Core Group Problem

    32:40 Proxies Data And Peer Review

    36:42 Gatekeeping Climate Journals

    38:27 Data and Code Transparency

    39:56 Sloppy Data Provenance

    41:07 Statistics and Trust Collapse

    43:19 Models and Feedback Loops

    46:02 PR Versus Scientific Method

    49:16 Skepticism and Pandemic Parallels

    52:54 Bullying and Cult Dynamics

    55:23 AI Consciousness and Job Loss

    01:00:21 Skynet Risks and Data Centers

    01:05:17 Simulation Theory and AI Rights

    01:08:39 Economic Crash Survival Talk

    01:13:39 Wrapping Up and Links


    https://johncostella.com/

    https://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

    ClimateGate repository: https://x.com/TomANelson/status/2078198047453143181

    My ClimateGate blog posts: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 14 mins
  • Stephen Andrews: “Extension to the cosmic ray hypothesis” #432
    Sep 29 2026

    Steve Andrews presents an “extension to the cosmic ray hypothesis” for climate change, building on Svensmark and Shaviv’s idea that galactic cosmic rays influence low clouds and cooling, modulated by solar and Earth magnetic fields. Using UAH satellite temperature anomalies (1979–present), CERES, and Oulu neutron counts, he claims monthly warming-rate peaks occur near equinoxes, varies by region, and differs over land vs ocean. He links this to the Russell–McPherron effect: equinox magnetic alignment increases geomagnetic storms, solar-energy input heats and expands the thermosphere, shifting where cosmic-ray energy is dissipated, altering cloud height (higher clouds warming). He argues CO2-driven warming is unsupported, cites CERN CLOUD evidence for cloud nuclei, and suggests declining geomagnetic strength may matter.


    00:00 Steve Returns and Topic

    00:25 Feynman Quotes and Credentials

    01:19 Cosmic Ray Climate Basics

    04:13 Heliosphere and Magnetosphere

    07:50 Evidence and Correlations

    13:28 New Solar Oscillations

    16:43 Why Satellite Data Matters

    20:33 Monthly Warming Rate Method

    22:26 Equinox Peaks in Warming

    25:58 Exceptions Canada Australia

    29:33 Land Minus Ocean Signal

    32:05 Geomagnetic Storm Explanation

    35:59 Auroras and Equinox Effect

    36:20 Cloud Height Climate Lever

    36:47 Thermosphere Heating Mechanism

    39:20 Thermosphere Expansion Evidence

    40:08 Tropics and Cosmic Ray Patterns

    42:14 Climate Impact Summary

    43:40 Cloud Data and Correlations

    45:06 Challenges and Magnetic Field

    49:48 Solar Flux and Altitude Signals

    53:22 QBO Link to Solar Cycles

    56:38 Satellite Cloud Height Trends

    59:12 Long Records and Big Claims

    01:03:43 Renewables Cost Anecdote

    01:05:47 Q and A CERN and Aerosols

    01:11:39 Closing Remarks


    Stephen Andrews Substack: https://substack.com/@stephen938

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 12 mins
  • Cohler/Soon: “ Response to Ed Berry’s recent presentation” #431
    Sep 25 2026

    Jonathan Cohler, joined by Willie Soon, says he is correcting false statements Ed Berry made about their paper “Dominance of Natural Atmospheric CO2 Dynamics,” which is under review and posted online. Cohler argues Berry wrongly claimed they ignored Berry’s work, presented an identical delta-14C “proof,” and called for a carbon-cycle model; Cohler says they cited Berry prominently and used newer radiocarbon data (Hua et al. 2022) and Koutsoyiannis 2024. They distinguish residence time (~3.8 years) from radiocarbon relaxation time (~18.4 years), claim a bridge equation links them, and assert their new work mathematically refutes Bern multi-exponential/adjustment-time models. They also discuss conflicts with the CO2 Coalition over attributing CO2 rise to humans.


    00:00 Why This Rebuttal

    01:23 Berry Claims Overview

    03:16 New Radiocarbon Data

    05:19 Lie One Citation Record

    07:33 Lie Two Not Identical

    10:00 Lie Three No Model Needed

    12:34 Why Skip Berry 2023

    13:16 Residence vs Relaxation

    15:57 Bridge Equation Results

    17:20 Math Theorems Against Bern

    18:29 Independent Checks and Implications

    21:38 Host Q and IPCC Confusion

    22:49 Soon on Adjustment Time Myth

    24:55 Table Consensus and Bern Failure

    26:25 Bomb 14C Reality Check

    27:30 Why Bomb Tests Matter

    28:19 Ethics And Accusations

    29:27 Data Driven Challenge

    31:08 CO2 Coalition Split

    33:32 Math Not Debate

    36:55 Ugly Email Wars

    40:01 Science Over Ego

    42:52 Searchers Versus Blockers

    43:22 Passing The Torch

    45:08 Final Thanks And Goodbye


    https://x.com/cohler

    https://papers.jcohler.com/

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    45 mins
  • Eric Huxter: “Metrology vs Meteorology” #430
    Sep 22 2026

    Eric Huxter, a former geography teacher, presents research on UK Met Office maximum temperature records, arguing that the shift from liquid-in-glass thermometers to platinum resistance thermometers (1990–2017) plus station siting and ventilation issues (Aitken effect) produces transient “spikes” that inflate maxima and accelerate apparent warming. Using WeatherObs, Met Office extremes, and purchased 1‑minute Rothamsted data, he finds many maxima occur before the hourly value, with mean rise-to-peak spikes ~1.29°C and many low-probability jumps; some on-the-hour maxima don’t match hourly data. He notes records are concentrated in few stations, often airports or poorer CIMO classes, and critiques record events (Coningsby 2022, Lingwood 2025).


    00:00 Meet Eric Huxter

    02:13 Forecasts Versus Reality

    05:55 UK Stations And Siting

    08:22 CIMO Ratings And Bias

    17:12 PRT Shift And Aitken Effect

    22:10 Rothamsted Baseline Method

    27:17 Spikes In Daily Maxima

    38:00 On The Hour Mystery

    39:56 Step Change Since 1990

    43:13 Microclimate Case Studies

    48:24 Record Events Under Scrutiny

    58:42 Met Office Narrative Critique

    01:06:27 Wrap Up And Where To Follow


    https://x.com/EricHuxter

    https://frayedendsblog.wordpress.com/

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 12 mins
  • Ed Berry: “Nature Controls the CO2 Level” #429
    Sep 18 2026

    Ed Berry presents a step-by-step, nontechnical overview of his theoretical climate physics work, arguing that “consensus” and authority claims are not science and that climate policy relies on three assumptions, focusing on A1: humans caused all the CO2 rise. He says A1 depends on a false sub-assumption that human CO2 stays longer than natural CO2, proposing a “climate equivalence principle” that identical molecules behave the same. Using IPCC carbon-cycle data and a linear systems model, he derives an atmospheric e-time of ~3.5 years and estimates human CO2 contributes only a few percent, supported by delta-14C and temperature-leading-CO2 studies. He also discusses climate lawsuits (including Held v. Montana), political influence, and criticism of DOE/CO2 Coalition positions.


    00:00 Meet Ed Berry

    00:53 From Clouds to Climate

    01:49 Why Consensus Fails

    03:11 Scientific Method Basics

    05:16 Three Climate Assumptions

    06:55 Debunking CO2 Lifetime Claim

    08:35 Climate Equivalence Principle

    09:21 IPCC Carbon Cycle Data

    12:48 Flows and Human Share

    14:11 Building a Carbon Model

    16:26 E-Time and Linearity

    19:40 Deriving Balance Levels

    21:30 Finding IPCC E-Times

    25:02 Human vs Natural CO2 Split

    27:21 What 420 ppm Implies

    27:58 Systems Model Math

    29:29 Partitioning Human CO2

    31:37 IPCC Cycle Contradiction

    34:24 Courtney Endorsement

    35:45 Delta 14C Evidence

    39:33 Interpreting Bomb Curve

    42:09 Temperature Leads CO2

    44:21 Proofs Summary

    48:29 Montana Lawsuit Setup

    50:51 WEF Influence Claims

    52:11 DOE Report Problem

    53:19 Koonin And CO2C Critique

    56:48 Group Positions Wrap

    57:48 Q&A And Closing


    https://edberry.com/

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    59 mins
  • Will Wilkinson on his Will Happer biography: “Standing Up for Science” #428
    Sep 11 2026

    Will Wilkinson discusses a biography he was hired to write about Princeton physicist William Happer, combining four chapters of life story with a climate-focused second half arguing science has been politicized. He describes Happer’s decades-long career, including inventing the sodium laser guide star for missile defense and work adapted for medical lung imaging, plus Happer’s “trust and verify” approach and skepticism of models over measurements. They cover Happer’s CO2 Coalition role, controversy at Princeton, colleagues’ contributions (e.g., Lindzen, Koonin, Ridd), and comparisons to Lysenkoism and past scientific dissent. The author stresses curiosity, civil communication, and avoiding fear-driven climate hysteria.


    00:00 Meet Will Wilkinson

    00:27 Writing Happer Biography

    01:45 Happer Science Legacy

    02:42 Climate Views Adaptation

    03:29 Laser Guide Star Explained

    05:12 Trust and Verify Mindset

    06:04 Princeton Controversy

    07:14 Famous Colleagues Stories

    09:18 Childhood and Formation

    10:58 Standing Up for Science

    13:28 Lysenkoism and Dogma

    16:38 Outsiders and Discovery

    21:15 Curiosity and Measuring

    23:25 CO2 Politics and Money

    24:45 Book Release and Coalition

    25:43 Rogan Episode and Outreach

    27:07 Documentary and Prior Bio

    28:33 Reluctant Scientist Profile

    30:10 Working Life at Princeton

    31:05 Red Team Blue Team Fallout

    32:01 Middle Ground Climate Debate

    34:46 Colleagues and Reef Controversy

    37:29 Skepticism After COVID

    41:38 Single Source of Truth Quotes

    44:24 Kindness Over Division

    48:41 Hope Against Climate Hysteria

    50:23 Meaningful Memoirs and AI

    54:04 Wrap Up and Thanks


    Will Wilkinson’s web site: https://www.meaningfulmemoirs.com/

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    55 mins
  • Jonathan Cohler: “ Fossil fuel combustion drove essentially none of the atmospheric CO2 growth” #427
    Sep 8 2026

    Jonathan Cohler presents a newly submitted paper using mass conservation, isotopic signatures (delta 13C), and multiple datasets to apply the Keeling relation and infer a consistent intercept near -13.2‰ across sites and time spans. He argues this makes fossil fuels (signature ~-28‰) at most 26% of net atmospheric CO2 change and, using preindustrial constraints, essentially ~0–1.3%, contradicting claims by IPCC, NASA, NOAA, EPA, and the CO2 Coalition. He says CO2 residence time is ~3.8 years and attributes rising CO2 to natural temperature-driven ocean/soil outgassing. He criticizes the CO2 Coalition for conflating accounting identities with causation, describes harassment, and says he resigned.


    00:00 New Paper Claim

    01:29 Three Inputs Setup

    03:25 Isotope Signatures 101

    06:05 Keeling Relation Explained

    10:17 Datasets And Intercepts

    13:38 Solving For Fossil Fraction

    22:22 Why Fossil Dominance Fails

    25:16 Rejecting The Conclusion

    28:04 Carbon Cycle Turnover

    31:45 What Drives CO2 Rise

    33:56 Ancient CO2 And Whataboutism

    36:53 CO2 Coalition Errors Teaser

    37:38 Accounting vs Causation

    39:23 Feynman on Conservation

    40:37 What Proves Causality

    41:37 Atmospheric Balance Equation

    42:53 Coalition Paper Misreads

    46:25 Molecules Not Labeled

    48:08 Residuals Aren't Attribution

    49:56 Isotopes Discriminate Sources

    51:27 Airborne Fraction Fallacy

    53:41 Retention and Cycle Time

    56:02 Harassment and Resignation

    01:03:18 CO2 Forcing and Policy Costs

    01:08:51 X Feedback and Contact

    01:13:38 Wrap Up and Links


    https://x.com/cohler

    https://papers.jcohler.com/

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    1 hr and 14 mins
  • James Tooley: “ You don't need government for education” #426
    Sep 4 2026

    James Tooley describes two decades researching “low-cost private schools” serving poor families in India, Africa, rural China, and war-torn countries, arguing parents choose them because government/public schools often abandon children. He cites widespread enrollment (e.g., majorities in parts of Lagos and Kampala), higher standardized test performance, no gender bias, affordability around 10% of family spending, and sustainability as small businesses. He now finds a similar U.S. phenomenon in hybrid/micro schools, visiting examples in Pine Ridge (Onward Learning), rural Mississippi, refugee-serving Clarkston, and rural Oregon, and surveying 5,390 parents: about 4% use low-tuition private schools. He discusses limited, careful roles for philanthropy, and worries about dependence on government ESAs.


    00:00 Meet James Tooley

    01:03 Hyderabad Discovery

    03:25 Government School Reality

    05:37 Makoko Lagos Expedition

    07:49 Kibera Ghana China Proof

    11:49 Beautiful Tree Thesis

    13:04 War Torn Africa Schools

    15:48 Five Key Features

    21:06 Federations And Pushback

    22:02 Low Cost Schools In America

    25:53 Pine Ridge Onward Learning

    29:46 Mississippi Trailer School

    33:19 Refugees And Oregon Example

    36:08 National Survey Findings

    41:45 Philanthropy And Donations

    43:26 Quality Assurance Debate

    46:33 School Choice ESA Concerns

    49:57 Where To Follow James

    50:46 Final Reflections


    The Beautiful Tree: https://a.co/d/032zFHgW

    Really Good Schools: Global Lessons for High-Caliber, Low-Cost Education: https://a.co/d/01VMoY3r

    https://x.com/james_tooley

    https://uk.linkedin.com/in/james-tooley-320a8410

    =========

    Slides, summaries, references, and transcripts of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summaries

    My Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

    Show more Show less
    52 mins