The Most Essential Command: The Betrayal of Science

Comments (5)

• 

  Jerry Krause

  January 29, 2021 at 4:37 pm | #

  Hi PSI Readers,

  I address you instead of Tony because I suspect he does not come to PSI to read any comments. Even though I dislike video’s because I can read much faster than Tony talked, I listened to Tony and he did give us many good pictures and figures to illustrate that we know the weather is quite variable from one year to the next at the same time we can see that there are cyclic trends.

  Tony began with the quote: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears, it was their final, most essential command.” (George Orwell)

  Tony’s and most other meteorologists and climatologists do not reject the evidence of their eyes and ears, they do not even see it so there is nothing to hear in Tony’s video. Tony refers to this thing we term SCIENCE which is not even a thousand years old. He and many current SCIENTISTS seem to have forgotten the history of what Galileo did (illustrated what a SCIENTIST could and should do. And I can see no PARTY involved in this happening. Just lazy SCIENTISTS who believe that their reasoning (computers) are better than the simple observation of undebatable facts. For nearly two thousand years the intellectual community accepted bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fact, the Earth stands still, matter is endlessly divisible. And for more than a century many meteorologists, climatologists, atmospheric scientists and much of the scientific community have accepted Svante Arrhenius’s idea known as the Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (GHE).

  Many of these scientists are aware that Galileo absolutely refuted the idea that ‘bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast by dropping bodies more greatly different in weights at the same time from some height place and observing that they both reached the ground at almost the same time. Yes, this took some effort on Galileo’s part. Then he constructed (more effort and understanding) a telescope with which he observed the phases of Venus and Mars which were the same as the phases of the Moon which did orbit the Earth and further observed the satellites of Jupiter which orbited that planet.

  Now any SCIENTIST who does actually read Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 article can easy ‘see’ (read) that in his radiation balance calculation he reduced the incident solar radiation upon the earth surface by the earth’s average albedo which had been measured by observation at that time. Which obviously included the observed influence of cloud upon the incoming solar radiation while he did not consider any influence of the same clouds upon the outgoing infrared (IR) emissions of the Earth’s surfaces because of their temperatures. So, it is clear that because he knew of the absorptive properties of carbon dioxide molecules, he imagined that this carbon dioxide could be used to balance his radiation balance calculation.

  I consider it is very important to start at the beginning and I believe I have done this. So I simply point out that I have stated several here at PSI that in SCIENCE that a scientific idea (hypothesis, theory) requires that there be some testable prediction of something which has not yet been observed. And I have stated that this predication of the GHE is that the measured atmospheric temperature would be about 33C (58F) less (lower) if not for the carbon dioxide (and other atmospheric greenhouse molecules) in the atmosphere.

  Since we cannot remove these molecules from the atmosphere to observe what the measured atmospheric temperature might be; it seems apparent that the GHE does not qualify as being a scientific idea. However, I have stated here at PSI that there are another common measurement of the atmosphere beside its temperature. Which is the measurement of the atmosphere’s dew point temperature; which we know is related to the condensation of atmospheric water molecules to liquid water. And there are volumes and volumes of these two atmospheric measurements (data) and the atmospheric temperature has never been measured to be less (lower) than the atmospheric dew point temperature when both are measured at the same place and time. So it is impossible for the measured atmospheric temperature to be 33C (58F) lower than measured.

  But as yet I have not yet read a PSI comment: Eureka!! There is no GHE!!

  Hence, there can be no GLOBAL WARMING nor CLIMATE CHANGE due to ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE!!

  Have a good day, Jerry

  Reply

• 

  Photios

  January 29, 2021 at 6:11 pm | #

  What is the forcing caused by the first person singular?
  Is it positive? Ir is it negative?
  Perhaps you should take account of this in your writings…

  Reply

  • 

    Jerry Krause

    January 29, 2021 at 6:40 pm | #

    Hi Photios,

    When I write I sometimes assume that I am writing to the person who is reading my writing. For my purpose was, and is, to share factual information that some people seem to be not aware.

    Is this information positive? Or is it negative? Only the reader can answer these questions.

    I ask: What was the purpose of your comment?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

  • 

    Jerry Krause

    January 29, 2021 at 6:40 pm | #

    Hi Photios,

    When I write I sometimes assume that I am writing to the person who is reading my writing. For my purpose was, and is, to share factual information that some people seem to be not aware.

    Is this information positive? Or is it negative? Only the reader can answer these questions.

    I ask: What was the purpose of your comment?

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

• 

  Ken Warren

  February 15, 2021 at 7:13 pm | #

  I’m a big fan of Tony Heller but he over-simplifies sea level. Watch this short video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4&feature=emb_logo

  Reply