In its latest entry on “health repercussions for Canadians of a changing climate” in the Globe and Mail newspaper, Karen McColl raises the alarm bells on “substantial increases in occurrences of extremely hot seasons” in Canada. Apparently, “Clean Air Partnership [CAP], a non-profit that addresses climate-change issues, says maximum temperatures in Toronto are expected to rise 7 C over the next 30 to 40 years.” That is a remarkable claim. A predicted 7 degrees Celsius increase in maximum temperatures over a 30-year period in Toronto equates to a rate of 23.3 degrees Celsius per century. To say that is insanely large would be an understatement.

So how does the historical trend in maximum temperatures for Toronto compare with this hysterical claim? The results are not promising for the Globe and Mail. Using the benchmark Environment Canada Adjusted and Homogenized Canadian Climate Data (AHCCD) database, the mean of daily maximum temperatures during the summer months in Toronto has not increased one bit since 1920. In other words, over the past century, the mean maximum summertime temperatures in Toronto exhibit absolutely no trend. None whatsoever.

Attempts to get critical information from agents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) meet with little success. Why? They claim immediate response to their work is mandatory for planetary survival and time is running out.

Here is what Slater reported on March 30 2014.

In a new U.N. report released on Monday morning (Japan time) scientists come to a stark conclusion: Unless the world changes course immediately and dramatically, the fundamental systems that support human civilization are at risk.

If true, surely the world has the right to know every bit of information used for this conclusion, but that hasn’t happened. There’s a contradiction between orchestrated publicity raising the threat, but silence, obfuscation, and outright denial regarding questions about important data, process, and methodology. Suspicions are driven by natural curiosity and desire for complete openness in science, but also by their behavior to date.

What have they got to hide? A great deal, as the leaked Climate Research Unit (CRU) emails attest. CRU countered challenges to their views by setting up the PR web site RealClimate and controlling information such as William Connolley’s editing of Wikipedia entries. Publicly they played the victim card claiming they were ordinary scientists trying to do their work but overwhelmed, possibly deliberately, by Freedom of Information requests. The requests occurred because they refused to provide answers and information. A siege mentality was apparent from the start.

The public, after decades of global warming advocacy, now called “climate change”, has begun to conclude that claims of a massive warming trend were dubious and that real climate change is the natural response of the planet to forces well beyond any impact of the human race.

The fact is that the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for some 17 years based on lower rates of solar radiation as the Sun undergoes one of its natural cycles, a reduction in the number of sunspots or magnetic storms on its surface.

The May 5th edition of the National Review devotes its cover story to “The Case Against Michael Mann: The Hockey Stick and Free Speech” by Charles C.W. Cooke because the creator of the “hockey stick” graph purporting a massive warming is suing the magazine, commentator Mark Steyn, along with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg. In his suit, filed in the D.C. Superior Court, Mann asserts that “in making the defamatory statement” they acted intentionally, maliciously, willfully, and with the intent to injure Dr. Mann, or to benefit (National Review) and Steyn.”

Mann is asserting a “narrow form of libel that American law prohibits” said Cooke. “As a seminal Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, outlined in 1964, using the law of libel, to drag journalists into court for expressing their sincere views on matters of major public importance is entirely inconsistent with our ‘national commitment to principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open.’”

Mann’s feelings are hurt and he believes that any criticism of the questionable science he applied to the creation of his now-famous global warming graph is libel. I believe the court will conclude that using the charge of libel to silence his critics is wrong. That’s what makes the case important, in particular for a basic principle of science, and in general for the public understanding that global warming and/or climate change depends on vigorous debate.

The Connolly Scientific Research Group is a family-run independent entity based in Ireland and has provided fascinating new research and analysis on the global warming controversy.  Principia Scientific International has corresponded with Dr. Ronan Connolly, an award-winning scientist, and believe the group provides valuable new analysis in the climate debate. 

Carbon dioxide allowed in drugs for humans is 130 times higher than the current atmospheric content of carbon dioxide gas. So what gives? The normal CO2 levels in blood is in the range of 30 – 40mm of Hg. High or low levels of carbon dioxide leads to hypercapnia or hypocapnia respectively. This article gives you information on this subject.

CO2 is the chemical formula of carbon dioxide, one of the gaseous variants of the element Carbon, which is also present in our body and is an essential constituent. Though it is more synonymous with the harmful Greenhouse gases which are responsible for the Ozone depletion, it is very much an important constituent of our body. If the normal CO2 levels in blood drops, we may suffer from cerebral vasoconstriction plus many other issues.

The permissible levels of CO2 in blood is only 5{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} in case of drugs. The basic reason behind raising the normal CO2 levels in body is because of the function of carbon dioxide. It helps balance the oxygen levels in certain medical conditions like apnea. It also acts as a stimulant for more oxygen intake. Apnea or sleep apnea is a disorder in which the oxygen levels decrease in the body. We will now see the symptoms and repercussions of varying normal carbon dioxide levels in blood in the following paragraphs.

High carbon dioxide levels in blood is usually noticed in smokers as they inhale carbon monoxide which again is very harmful. Readings of increased levels of CO2 in blood is anything above 45 mm of Hg and this condition of the body is called hypercapnia.

It’s funny that those who stress the scientific credentials of the anthropogenic global warming theory (AGWT) use very unscientific and indeed political ways and means to silence all contradictory — or even skeptical — views about it.

For example, AGWT activists, scientists and even some MPs have written to the BBC begging it not to give “airtime” to AGWT skeptics or critics. This is a kind of (non)scientific version of the British Leftists’ “no platform” policy; which is similarly used to silence literally all the people who dare to have nonconformist views about various and many political subjects.

Indeed individuals in America have even argued that AGWT skeptics should be prosecuted or criminalized — quite literally!

Will there now be a Gulag built for those who dare to question the complete and total truth of the AGWT? Are all AGW skeptics, by definition, “flat-earthers”, “knuckle-draggers” or the paid agents of Big Business?

So it’s clear that these AGW totalitarians don’t want to give any “oxygen of publicity” — to use Margaret Thatcher’s phrase about terrorists – to skeptics or critics. Yet we’re not talking about terrorists here! We’re talking, in many cases, about scientists and those who simply question many — or simply some — aspects of what is supposed to be a scientific theory. Aren’t questioning and criticism part of the very essence of science? And doesn’t all this AGW evangelism show that the theory may in fact be more political than scientific after all?

The Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC) delivered a letter to the White House this morning for President Obama, in which it warned of the dangers expected from the ongoing climate change to decades of record cold weather.

This predicted historic event is caused by a rare, yet repeating 206-year cycle of the Sun which the SSRC calls a “solar hibernation.” During these hibernations, the Sun dramatically reduces the energy by which it keeps the Earth warm.  In past occurrences of these solar hibernations, the Earth was struck by two of the worst cold climate periods ever recorded, each of which witnessed global crop devastation, civil and political strife, and warfare. One historian classified the last hibernation from 1793 to 1830, as the world’s “last great subsistence crisis.” That period was also called the Dalton Minimum, because of the scientist who kept track of temperatures then and the reduced energy output of the Sun as measured by a low number of sunspots during that period. The previous hibernation from 1615 to 1745 was called the Maunder Minimum and was far worse than the last hibernation both in terms of the depth, and extent of the cold epoch but also in the global crop devastation. Russian scientists are saying we are heading into another Maunder class solar hibernation starting this year.

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists – for several decades a warmist – has defected to the climate sceptic camp.

Lennart Bengtsson – a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

For most of his career, he has been a prominent member of the warmist establishment, subscribing to all its articles of faith – up to and including the belief that Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick was a scientifically plausible assessment of the relationship between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature.

But this week, he signalled his move to the enemy camp by agreeing to join the advisory council of Britain’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the think tank created by the arch-sceptical former Chancellor Lord Lawson.

Though Bengtsson is trying to play down the significance of his shift – “I have always been a sceptic and I think that is what most scientists really are” he recently told Germany’s Spiegel Online, denying that he had ever been an “alarmist” – his move to the GWPF is a calculated snub to the climate alarmist establishment.

For those who still have a difficult time with why the basis of the climate science version of the greenhouse effect, which creates political alarmism, is a fraud, THIS IS WHY!! (and yes that is me yelling!):

Are they really that stupid to not understand it?  That is exactly what their model is pretending to do:

Final fed climate report will present dire picture … The Obama administration is more certain than ever that global warming is changing Americans’ daily lives and will worsen – conclusions that scientists will detail in a massive federal report to be released Tuesday. – AP

Dominant Social Theme: Times are grim and getting hotter.

Free-Market Analysis: The US government is reportedly about to release the grimmest study yet of climate change/gobal warming. Of course, these studies are not the same as “evidence.” They are a compilation of data and opinion.

The same sort of approach is used to create the famously controversial UN IPCC climate reports. Yet it is very difficult to prove climate changes except in hindsight – and probably over centuries. Current efforts at ascertaining climate change study decades, and do so using questionable analysis.

Nonetheless, reports continue to be issued by the UN and Western governments – especially the US – that continually emphasize the disasters that global warming is creating.

Roy Spencer’s post on “Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water” is all about defending the basis of alarm.  Every single one of his points is in defence of the basis of alarm, and it might have been copied directly from an alarmist source such as Gavin Schmidt or Michael Mann.

 Let’s go through his sophistry:

1. THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…[].

Roy, a colder source of heat does not heat up a warmer source of heat.  And the surface atmosphere stays warm overnight because of its large thermal mass and that of the ground.  It is basic physics…things do not cool down instantaneously.  And it is a simple calculation to perform. Empirical data demonstrates that the radiation from the colder atmosphere does not warm up the warmer surface, and the reason it is this way is because of the laws of thermodynamics – cold does not heat up hot.  An IR thermometer operates on the principles of a differential – if the target is cooler then the voltage differential on the thermopile is negative and the response curve is calibrated to report a corresponding temperature.  Cold does not heat up hot.  It doesn’t matter if you blog about it – cold doesn’t flow heat to hot.

2. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT VIOLATES THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The second law can be stated in several ways, but one way is that the net flow of energy must be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is not violated by the greenhouse effect. The apparent violation of the 2nd Law seems to be traced to the fact that all bodies emit IR radiation…including cooler bodies toward warmer bodies. But the NET flow of thermal radiation is still from the warmer body to the cooler body. Even if you don’t believe there is 2-way flow, and only 1-way flow…the rate of flow depends upon the temperature of both bodies, and changing the cooler body’s temperature will change the cooling rate (and thus the temperature) of the warmer body. So, yes, a cooler body can make a warm body even warmer still…as evidenced by putting your clothes on.

This is classic sophistry.  A “two-way flow” of energy results in a one-way flow of heat only, with heat flowing only one way, from hot to cold.  The cold does not heat up the hot while the hot is heating up the cold.  It is only heat flow from hot to cold, with the balance of the energy flow, the differential between the hot and cold temperatures, determining the intensity or rate of heat flow, which determines how quickly the cold object changes temperature.  When the cooler object warms up, this does not require the warmer object to warm up also.  The cool and warm object come to equilibrium and energy then flows through the cold object to its other extremities.  Putting your clothes on traps air between the skin and clothes, and this air then gets heated up by your skin, which then makes youfeel warmer.  The clothes are not responsible for creating heat, or adding heat energy or temperature to you.  Your oven doesn’t get hotter because the turkey gets cooked.

Climate Sensitivity (CS) is a phrase bandied about by advocates of climate alarm as if our planet is a delicate eco-system worryingly sensitive to human impact. We are told earth not only needs protecting but that CS can be measured accurately using a scientific formula. But below we show why this is yet another Big Green lie.

Belief in a supposed ‘greenhouse gas effect’ (GHE) and that carbon dioxide emissions alter climate is critical to those who wish you to believe the notion of Climate Sensitivity (CS). Climate ‘scientists’ tell us their numbers are real and measurable in Nature and that there exists a carbon dioxide/temperature logarithmic relationship (CO2/Temp log). We are then glibly told that “for each doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere our planet’s temperature will increase by [you fill the blank] degrees.”

So, you would think such a ‘formula’ had been derived in a laboratory, with simulated conditions to that of the atmosphere, because such an experiment would be impossible to perform in the real atmosphere.

But here is the first problem for GHE believers. Our atmosphere is an open system and every laboratory a closed system, so how can any such CS formula devised in a lab have any validity? Well, it can’t. It’s that simple.

At Principia Scientific International (PSI) we asked two well-known experts in climate studies, Joseph E Postma, an astrophysicist and Dr Tim Ball, climatologist, to explain in more depth.

Dr. Ball:

“The concept of climate sensitivity was first derived, as with so much done on climate, to overcome a perception problem not a scientific one. Who did the actual calculations of climate sensitivity is not documented to my knowledge. The earliest paper I have is the 1984 paper by James Hansen and Takahashi referenced in this paper (see link):

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf

Here is the most common explanation on it:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

Some of the answers to questions of origin are found in web pages designed to promote the man-made global warming narrative or to obfuscate problems. Here is RealClimate’s efforts that give away much information.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/01/on-sensitivity-part-i/

Click on “perennial topic” in the first paragraph to get an idea of their and IPCC thinking. Here is an article trying to justify why it is problematic:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5850/629.abstract

Here is RealClimate’s view of this paper:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/the-certainty-of-uncertainty/

The need for climate sensitivity began back in the early days of attacks on cattle as the source of methane causing warming. It was triggered by animal rights people and promoted by a campaign and book, ‘Beyond Beef,’ by Jeremy Rifkin, a long time provocateur and promoter of misinformation. 

Whenever you hear cosmologists talk of a black hole they never tell you what type of black hole they allege in what type of big bang universe they allege. It is always reported something like this: there is a black hole here or there and the Universe is expanding. More often than not the black hole is mentioned without any reference to a big bang expanding universe, which is simply assumed as a canvas onto which their black holes are painted. The vagueness of all this is amplified when you learn that there are actually four alleged types of black hole universes and that there are three alleged types of big bang universes.

What are the alleged types of black hole universes you ask? Let’s list them.

(1) Non-rotating, charge neutral

(2) Non-rotating and charged

(3) Rotating, charge neutral

(4) Rotating and charged.

What are the alleged types of big bang universes you ask? They depend on the type of constant spacetime curvature they have, usually denoted by the letter k; the k-curvature. Let’s list them too.

(1) Spatially infinite (k = -1, negatively curved spacetime)

(2) Spatially infinite (k = 0, flat spacetime)

(3) Spatially finite (k = 1, positively curved spacetime).

Each type of black hole universe is no less a universe than each type of big bang universe because each and every black hole alleged is a solution to a completely different set of Einstein’s gravitational field equations. As such black hole universes and big bang universes are all independent of one another. To see why this is so we need only examine the generic defining characteristics of black hole universes and big bang universes and then compare them to one another.

All alleged black hole universes:

(1) Are spatially infinite

(2) Are eternal

(3) Contain only one mass

(4) Are not expanding

(5) And are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

All alleged big bang universes:

(1) Are either spatially finite (k = 1) or spatially infinite (k = 0 and k = -1)

(2) Are of finite age (~13.8 billion years)

(3) Contain radiation and many masses

(4) Are expanding

(5) And are not asymptotically anything.

Note also that none of the alleged black hole universes possesses any big bang k-curvature.

It is immediately apparent that none of the foregoing defining characteristics of black hole universes are compatible with those of the big bang universes. Consequently black holes and big bangs are mutually exclusive. Nonetheless cosmologists thoughtlessly blend them to obtain billions upon billions of black holes in some unspecified big bang universe that is of finite age.

That a black hole universe is a universe is clear from the fact that it is either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. There is no bound on asymptotic, for otherwise it would not be asymptotic, and so there is no bound on the extent of the spacetime of any black hole. Thus the black hole universe is spatially infinite. Let’s consider just two alleged black holes. Each black hole disturbs the asymptotic character of the spacetime of the other black hole by its presence, no matter how far away they might be supposed from one another, and thereby violates this defining feature of a black hole. Moreover, all alleged black holes are said to have an infinite spacetime curvature at their so-called ‘singularity’. Consequently each of the two black holes under consideration encounters an infinite spacetime curvature at the singularity of the other, and that is a far cry from being asymptotically anything. It’s clear that a black hole universe can’t coexist with any other black hole universe or even with a duplicate of itself. Nor can it exist inside some big bang universe. Similarly no big bang universe can coexist with any black hole universe, with any other big bang universe, or with itself. Now consider the 2.5 million black holes that NASA scientists [1] have allegedly found with their WISE survey! Each of these alleged black holes encounters 2, 499, 999 ‘infinite’ curvatures around it, and that’s a long way from being asymptotically anything. What about the cosmologists’ claim that ‘almost’ every galaxy harbours a supermassive black hole at its centre? How many galaxies are there?

Now try placing any of the black hole universes, which are all eternal, inside any of the big bang universes, all of which are allegedly ~13.8 billion years old. They don’t fit! What about sticking in any of the black hole universes, all of which are spatially infinite, inside the spatially finite type of big bang universe? They don’t fit either. You can try fitting any of the other defining properties of black hole universes with the defining properties of the big bang universes. You will find that none of them fit, as the comparative list above succinctly reveals.

Every black hole is, on the one hand, alleged to have an escape velocity and this escape velocity is greater than or equal to the speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by the letter c. For instance,

            “black hole A region of spacetime from which the escape velocity exceeds the velocity of light.” [2]

            “According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus, if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. So one has a set of events, a region of space-time from which it is not possible to escape to reach a distant observer. Its boundary is called the event horizon. It coincides with the paths of the light rays that just fail to escape from the black hole.” [3]

The escape velocity of a body is the velocity that another body must initially have in order to escape from the gravitational interaction force produced by them upon one another. A rocket, for instance, must attain the escape velocity of Earth to escape from Earth. Note that escape velocity does not imply that things can’t leave, only that things can’t escape unless propelled at or greater than the escape velocity. If you throw a ball into the air, did it leave the surface of the Earth? Certainly! Did it escape from the Earth? No; it falls back to ground. 

Now, on the other hand, it is also claimed that nothing can even leave the event horizon of a black hole, let alone escape. Things can only go into a black hole but nothing can even leave or emerge, not even light. This property is often referred to by cosmologists as a ‘one-way membrane’ at the event horizon.

            “I had already discussed with Roger Penrose the idea of defining a black hole as a set of events from which it is not possible to escape to a large distance. It means that the boundary of the black hole, the event horizon, is formed by rays of light that just fail to get away from the black hole. Instead, they stay forever hovering on the edge of the black hole.”  [4]

Thus, Hawking [4] tells us that nothing can even leave the event horizon, because even light hovers at the event horizon, “forever”.

Professor Bland-Hawthorn [5] of the University of Sydney alleges a particularly curious escape velocity.

            “A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it’s something which is so massive that light can’t even escape. … some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. … so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes.” [5]

Light travels at the speed of light, and according to Bland-Hawthorn the escape speed is the speed of light, from which he concludes that light can’t escape. Well, if the escape speed is the speed of light and light travels at the speed of light, then light not only leaves, it also certainly escapes.

Since all black holes are alleged to have an escape velocity and since nothing can even leave black holes, the cosmologists thoughtlessly claim that their black holes have and do no have an escape velocity simultaneously; which is quite impossible.

The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is claimed by cosmologists to be the afterglow of some big bang, the type of which they never say. Various atmospheric balloons and rockets, and several satellites, have allegedly measured the temperature of this afterglow, the so-called mean temperature of the Universe or the monopole signal, and tiny variations therein called anisotropies. Yet the monopole signal has never been detected outside the influence of Earth. The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was only orbiting Earth at an altitude of about 950 km. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Planck spacecraft were located at the Second Lagrange point, L2, which is some 1.5 million km from Earth, on Earth’s far side from the Sun. 

COBE carried two instruments: (a) the Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS), and (2) the Differential Microwave Radiometers (DMR). FIRAS allegedly measured the monopole signal of the CMB and DMR the so-called anisotropies in the CMB. WMAP was a differential instrument and so was incapable of detecting a monopole signal – it could only address anisotropies. The Planck spacecraft carried two instruments: (1) the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI), and (2) the High Frequency Instrument (HFI). Also aboard Planck were two 4 Kelvin blackbody loads for the LFI to compare to. Although the Planck LFI was able to make both absolute and differential measurements, the Planck team has never reported detection of a monopole signal at L2. Thus, no monopole signal has ever been found beyond the influence of Earth.

Did any of these instruments actually detect microwaves from the Cosmos? If you put a glass of water in a microwave oven and turn it on, does the water reflect or absorb the microwaves? A microwave oven emits microwaves – that’s why it’s called a microwave oven. The water placed inside it gets hot, and if left there long enough, vaporises. The same happens to a block of ice. Submariners also know that water absorbs microwaves. Radio communications by microwaves can’t be used for submarines when under water because the oceans and seas completely absorb them rapidly over a very short distance. Now it is well known from experiments that anything that absorbs also emits in the same frequencies, and so that which absorbs microwaves also emits microwaves. Thus water also emits microwaves in all its phases (solid, liquid, gas). About 70{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the surface of the Earth is covered by water, and there is water in the atmosphere. The atmosphere scatters radiation and microwaves are radiation. COBE-FIRAS carried a radiation shield, but this shield could not block microwaves from Earth because it was not designed for microwaves. All detections of the monopole signal have been from water on Earth, not from the Cosmos. All the alleged anisotropies are nothing but data-processing artefacts due to attempts to remove the microwave radiation from the foreground of the Milky Way, present in the microwave images. The alleged anisotropies are some 1 million times weaker than the monopole signal and some 1000 times weaker than the microwave noise due to the Milky Way. It is simply impossible for the spacecraft detectors to recover such a weak signal from such a strong enveloping noise level, even on the assumption that the anisotropies are present. However, they are not there, since there is no CMB. The so-called CMB does not come from the Cosmos [6, 7, 8].

There are a great many additional demonstrations that black holes, big bangs, and the Cosmic Microwave Background are figments of irrational imagination [9, 10, 11, 12, 13] but I will not detail them here. I was invited to present a talk about these and related matters at the Electric Universe conference held in Albuquerque, USA, in March 2014. My presentation, of which this article has been an overview, was recorded and is now freely accessible online:

Crothers, S. J., ‘The Parallax Effect on Short Hair’,

{youtube}nXF098w48fo{/youtube}

REFERENCES

[1] NASA WISE, www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise201220829.html

[2] Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, Matzner, R. A., Ed., CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, LA, 2001. http://www.deu.edu.tr/userweb/emre.timur/dosyalar/Dictionary\{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20of\{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Geophysics,\{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Astrophysics\{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20and\{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}20Astronomy.pdf

[3] Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, 2002.

[4] Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly Hills, CA, 2002.

[5] Bland-Hawthorn, J., ABC News, station ABC1, Australia, 24 Sept 2013.

[6] Robitaille P.-M., WMAP: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.1, pp. 3-18, 2007, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

[7] Robitaille P.-M., COBE: A Radiological Analysis, Progress in Physics, v.4, pp. 17-42, 2009, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-01.PDF

[8] Robitaille P.-M., The Planck Satellite LFI and the Microwave Background: Importance of the 4K Reference Targets,  Progress in Physics, v.3, pp. 11-18, 2010, http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-02.PDF

[9] Crothers, S. J., Flaws in Black Hole Theory and General Relativity, for the Proceedings of the XXIX^th International Workshop on High Energy Physics, Protvino, Russia, 26-28 June 2013, http://viXra.org/abs/1308.0073

[10] Crothers, S. J., Black Hole and Big Bang:  A Simplified Refutation, http://viXra.org/abs/1306.0024

[11] Crothers, S. J., On The ‘Stupid’ Paper by Fromholz, Poisson and Will, http://viXra.org/abs/1310.0202

[12] Robitaille, P.-M., On the validity of Kirchhoff’s Law, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw

[13] Robitaille, P.-M., The Cosmic Microwave Background, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8ijbu3bSqI

On April 25, 2014 prominent skeptic climate scientist, Dr Roy Spencer published his defense of the so-called greenhouse gas effect (GHE) titled, ‘Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water.’ It came in the form of a 10-point veiled attack against the organization that represents critics of such junk climate science. Below we publish Dr Pierre Latour’s rebuttal to Spencer’s arguments.

Not referring to Principia Scientific International (PSI) by name Roy asserted we had been the cause of  “the proliferation of bad arguments” the he found “almost dizzying.” Roy then set out his “Top 10 list” of key points raised by PSI that he then attempts to attack. But Roy omits posting a detailed version of the ‘theory’ he defends so we may critique it. This is a crucial issue, as readers need bear in mind there are over 63 competing official versions of the GHE. Indeed there are ‘Almost as Many Greenhouse Gas Theories as Clueless Climate Scientists.’ So much for “settled science.”

In rebuttal to Roy’s Top Ten PSI’s Chairman, Dr Pierre Latour replies below in a thorough point-by-point fashion. These very same points were posted by Pierre on Roy’s blog more than two days ago without reply. Will Roy now run shy of open debate?