How an anti-intellectual misuse of language and logic sought to turn a perfectly natural process into a man-made catastrophe. Scientists claim to have identified three fatal physical paradoxes in man-made global warming theory.

Canadian astrophysicist and climate analyst, Joseph E. Postma precedes the publication of his new peer-reviewed study on “Climatism” (the doomsaying pseudo scientific man-made global warming cult), with an intriguing insight into three interesting paradoxes of the greenhouse gas theory of climate science:

Paradox One: Thousands of years of proxy data proving increases in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are proven to follow, not cause, all prior increases in global temperatures;  

Paradox Two: A colder atmosphere heated by a warmer surface has been turned full circle and modeled by climatologists as the causal agent such that cool air somehow can heat a warmer surface even more;  

Paradox Three: Solar heating that impacts half of the planet at any time is now modelled as an isotropic source with one-quarter of the intensity over the entire planet.

Neutral observers have been perplexed at the response of key figures in climate science skepticism since specialists from other scientific disciplines exposed flaws in the greenhouse gas ‘theory’, often referred to as the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE). 

A bizarre opprobrium has come from the denizens of anti-orthodox climate alarmism which is much at odds with the usual tenets of dispassionate scientific skepticism.

Once imperious figures such as Fred Singer,Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen (and now WUWT’s Anthony Watts) have been irate and less than dignified in their shaky defense of the greenhouse gas effect, the cornerstone of man-made global warming.

Following your excellent seminar at the University of Houston on February 6, 2012, I introduced myself, indicated Greenhouse Gas Theory (GHG) is a perpetual motion machine to drive  anthropogenic global warming (AGW) violating First & Second Laws of thermodynamics, and emailed you my proof at ‘No Virginia.’

I noticed your February 29, 2012 post ‘Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name’ included things you did not cover at the University of Houston:

“Now let me turn to the deniers. One of their favorite arguments is that the greenhouse effect does not exist at all because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics—i.e., one cannot transfer energy from a cold atmosphere to a warmer surface. It is surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of down welling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence.”

Astrophysicists will tell you that the vast emptiness of outer space has no temperature. Space is empty, thus it is temperature-less. But ask a climatologist and you’ll be told space is ‘cold.’ Such fallacy spawned the fatal error in the junk science known as ‘greenhouse gas theory,’ also called the ‘greenhouse effect’ (GHE).

Alberto Miatello has now published his own stunning debunk of Dr. Roy Spencer’s‘Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still’ (July 23, 2010) dissecting how the fallacy of ‘cold’ outer space allowed climatologists to believe Earths’ atmosphere acted like a ‘blanket’ to help keep our planet ‘warmer than it otherwise would be.’

Miatello’s paper adroitly affirms a prior compelling evisceration of Spencer’s errors by Dr. Pierre R. Latour in Latour’s masterful, ‘No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still.’

The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper showcases a worrying new study titled, “’Scientists falsify data to get research published and whistleblowers are bullied into keeping quiet,’ claim their own colleagues.”

The  national newspaper reports (January 12th 2012) that a newly published BMJ survey of almost 2,800 experts in Britain found six per cent of doctors and scientists knew of possible research misconduct at their own institution that has not been properly investigated.

In an editorial, Dr Richard Lehman from Oxford University and the journal’s clinical epidemiology editor Dr Elizabeth Loder called for an end to the ‘culture of haphazard publication and incomplete data disclosure’.

PSI spokesman, John O’Sullivan commented, “This survey starkly underlines what many principled scientists and researchers fear: a denigration of standards caused by relentless pressure to provide the ‘right’ answers to justify costly budgets. We are seeing that coercion from over eager corporations and government paymasters is invariably behind this.”

Read more here.

 

New fracas erupts in the ongoing scientific war of words between big hitters defending the discredited greenhouse gas theory of global warming and skeptics who say it is all junk science.

As a new chapter in this debate reopens on Curry’s popular blog, Climate Etc. below we summarize the latest blow by blow action.

In ‘Letter to the Dragon Slayers’ Professors Judith Curry and Grant Petty, defend the so-called ‘greenhouse gas effect’  (GHE) of global warming by clashing intellectual swords with the increasingly influentual ‘Slayers’ group of scientists. The Slayers claim there is no evidence at all for any man-made global warming because the GHE is shown to be bogus both by experiment and real world observation.

An independent climate science think tank produces evidence from a leading infrared thermometer manufacturer proving that climatologists were mistakenly taking incorrect readings of atmospheric temperatures. Latest findings are set to trigger a paradigm shift in climate science.

Researchers from Canada, USA, Mexico and Britain this week announce a startling discovery that destroys 20 years’ of thinking among government climatologists.

Climate scientists had  long believed infrared thermometers measured thermal radiation from the atmosphere  and assumed it was ‘proof’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE). Their assumption was that infrared thermometers (IRT’s) were measuring ‘back radiated’ heat from greenhouse gases (including water vapor and carbon dioxide). But damning new evidence proves IRT’s do no such thing.

Today the major censors of scientific work are governments, corporations and elite scientists. During the scientific revolution, the greatest threat to science came from the church, but those years are long past. Early science was also done mainly by amateurs, alone or in small groups using simple pieces of equipment, and this model of “little science” still prevailed until World War II. Since then, though, science has been “industrialised”: it is characteristically done by teams using expensive apparatus.

This requires substantial funding, which comes primarily from governments (including militaries) and large corporations. The groups with the greatest stake in this contemporary system are governments and corporations, naturally enough, plus elite scientists whose influence depends on satisfying their patrons, maintaining the flow of funds and protecting their reputations. Anyone who challenges these interest groups is a potential target for censorship or reprisal.

Mathematical Philosopher
Alfred KorzybskiIs there a better place to bloom prosperity in science, commerce, legislation, education, bureaucracy and even religion than in a Constitutional Republic?

We live in such exciting times for the advance of science, technology and education. The Internet has created an environment for us to find each other, communicate ideas and bring new and better technologies to fruition. That being said, John Naisbitt in his prophetic 1980 book “Megatrends” stated; “We keep hoping science and technology will deliver us from moral responsibility. It never has and it never will.” Science and technology by definition is designed to either build on or outmode that which came before. Truth, morality, spirituality, faith and great works of art fall into the category of “No new sins, just new spins!” Truth is what it is. Our job is to seek it, find it, apply it and protect it. Truth never changes, though our perception of it does as we grow and shrink.

PSI think tank publishes more evidence refuting man-made global warming and announces ambitious expansion plans in war against government-sponsored junk science.

In a press statement John O’Sullivan, spokesman for Principia Scientific International (March 13, 2012) announced, “Today we proudly present both the publication of a new study debunking the unproven claims by discredited government climatologists plus seventeen new recruits to our growing team of qualified experts.”

The PSI frontman added that the new study by Douglas Cotton was completed as part of pioneering  new peer-review system called ‘PROM’ (or ‘Peer Review in Open Media’). Cotton’s paper‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics’  defly approaches the concept of the greenhouse gas effect from the point of view of radiative transfer.[ 1]

Algae, the green stuff suspended in and floating on the surface of over-fertilized (polluted) water, AKA scum, is supposed to save America’s dependence on foreign crude oil. The President has said so. He stated that “up to 17% of the oil we import for transportation” could be replaced with this fuel [1].

The Chemistry

To begin with, a mass of algae is not the same as a container of crude oil. Algae are small plant-like organisms living in water. Like all plants, they use the energy of sunlight to convert carbon dioxide (CO2, i.e., one carbon and two oxygen atoms per molecule) to plant matter. In chemical terms, crude oil is a pure hydrocarbon of the approximate composition CH2 (i.e., one carbon and two hydrogen atoms per molecule). The composition of algae is more like CH2O, sort of half way in between CO2 and CH2. Because of the remaining oxygen atom in the plant matter (CH2O), its energy content is substantially lower than that of a pure hydrocarbon. You might say that it is already half burnt (the end product of which, of course, is CO2).

Foreword to Andrew Montford’s Nullius in Verba: The Royal Society and Climate Change

Andrew Montford provides a straightforward and unembellished chronology of the perversion not only of The Royal Society but of science itself, wherein the legitimate role of science as a powerful mode of inquiry is replaced by the pretence of science to a position of political authority.

A post mortem examination of the collapse of the man-made global warming scare points to the cancer of post-normal science that infected two generations of academia and led to the criminal waste of $100 billion in public grants for junk science.

Climatology has held an iron grip on science funding since the late 1980’s. But this infant field of research suffered two hammer blows to its credibility last week.

First, a new paper in Science proves that the planet won’t suffer catastrophic ill health from a global warming ‘fever’ due to human carbon dioxide emissions. [1.]

Investigations into a case of alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing

ANIL POTTI, Joseph Nevins and their colleagues at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, garnered widespread attention in 2006. They reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that they could predict the course of a patient’s lung cancer using devices called expression arrays, which log the activity patterns of thousands of genes in a sample of tissue as a colourful picture (see above).

A few months later, they wrote in Nature Medicine that they had developed a similar technique which used gene expression in laboratory cultures of cancer cells, known as cell lines, to predict which chemotherapy would be most effective for an individual patient suffering from lung, breast or ovarian cancer.

Hermann Muller AMHERST, Mass. – University of Massachusetts Amherst environmental toxicologist Edward Calabrese, whose career research shows that low doses of some chemicals and radiation are benign or even helpful, says he has uncovered evidence that one of the fathers of radiation genetics, Nobel Prize winner Hermann Muller, knowingly lied when he claimed in 1946 that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

Calabrese’s interpretation of this history is supported by letters and other materials he has retrieved, many from formerly classified files. He published key excerpts this month in Archives of Toxicology and Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis.

The general public, as well as scientists are all too aware that there is a rise in the perception of misconduct in science in recent decades.

The ease by which information is exchanged today has allowed for us all to become all too aware that there are more than just a few “isolated instances” of misconduct in science.

As reported in the New York Times (July 10, 2010) corruption of science has not only poisoned perception about climatology. As the NYT says, “Experts say the problem is only getting worse, as research projects, and the journals that publish the findings, soar.” 

South Korean Science Scandal Shocks World

This cancer has long tarnished medical science research. Reporting on the stem cell scandal involving South Korean scientist, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk NYT illustrated how one minute Dr. Hwang’s research made him a national hero then the next he’s the biggest snake oil salesman going. Today Hwang is paying for his crimes languishing in a prison cell. Many more such white-coated crooks are still free to walk the streets.