A paper has been recently posted to arXiv by Fromholz, Poisson, and Will (http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0394). In their paper titled “The Schwarzschild metric: It’s the coordinates, stupid!” the Authors consider the so-called ‘Schwarzschild solution’ for “a vacuum, static spherical spacetime” and attempt to determine a general means by which equivalent solutions can be generated.

They have however, failed to obtain this means, deriving instead by their methods only one already
known equivalent form, which has no physical significance. Their paper is without any scientific merit.

The full downloadable PDF, ‘On The ‘Stupid’ Paper by Fromholz, Poisson and Will,’ may be located at viXra.org where, over 19 pages, Stephen J Crothers addresses the false arguments for the black hole adduced by Fromholz, Poisson, and Will. Mathematics is employed. Version [2] corrects some typographical anomalies.

Here are selected extracts:

What these Authors don’t realise is that even if it is assumed, as they do, that linearization of Einstein’s field equations is admissible (which they have not proven or even addressed), the “simple wave equation” they refer to is in fact coordinate dependent. Consequently the speed of propagation of the ‘gravitational waves’ they allude to is coordinate dependent. In other words, the speed of propagation of Einstein’s gravitational waves can be given any speed one likes, by a simple change of coordinates. Einstein merely wished his gravitational waves to propagate at speed c (light in vacuum) and so he deliberately chose a set of coordinates to make it so. The wave equation obtained from the linearised field equations is not unique at all.

The speed of propagation of Einstein’s gravitational waves is not deduced from Einstein’s linearised form of his field equations; it is set by hypothesis and a set of coordinates deliberately chosen to satisfy the hypothesis.

Only this morning very early the enormity of what I had written yesterday struck me. Whereas the Rev Philip Foster had supplied some elegant constructs, I will now tempt you with some extremely simple arithmetic. Twice one is two, twice two is four. Are we agreed? But what is twice nought? Of course, it is nought. Let us go further. What is one thousand times nought? Of course, that is also nought, nothing, zero. Let us try one more time – What is 6,000C, which is reckoned to be the temperature of the corona of the Sun, what is 6,000 Centigrade times nothing? – you have it in one. It is zero, it is nix, it is nil, it is absolutely NOTHING!

This accounts for the temperature of Outer Space. Since space contains nothing, then the temperature of Outer Space is zero. Okay, it is given a Kelvin number, since dust particles may stray there. But the space itself is zero.

So now I am going to attempt to answer some of the questions that I posed yesterday in my essay ‘What’s in the space?’ Was Galileo right? I mean, does the atmosphere have mass? The answer is complex, but in the simplest terms the atmosphere has increasing mass from the top down. At the edge of space there are very few molecules and according to an email I had from the astrophysicist James Peden there are very few molecules at the Karman line, but they are very hot – how hot cannot be possibly measured by conventional thermometers. But the vastness of the Thermosphere is cold. Why? Because it is near vacuum, it is nearly empty. And you cannot heat empty, as per the foregoing conclusions.

I don’t follow Anthony Watts or “Watts Up With That”, and so, I didn’t see this post from WUWT that was posted back in the summer: ‘Friday Funny – reflections on the greenhouse effect,’ (July 19, 2013):

Let’s quote Mr. Watts:

“After the essays in May on mirrors and light bulbs, I’ve been regularly poked and prodded via email for not wanting to engage “the slayers” anymore, or to do that “third experiment” I mentioned in May. I long ago concluded by my experiences afterwards with “the slayers” that it is a waste of time and effort to try to explain anything to them. Curt Wilson, who did the second experiment and was planning to do the third, has come to the same conclusion, as have many others.”

In regards to the “essays on mirrors and light bulbs”, we demonstrated with Mr. Watts own work that he and Curt Wilson weren’t aware of high-school level math and physics, and that their experiments directly demonstrated that there was no greenhouse effect.  See Slaying Watts with Watts and Closing with Watts.  Also see Slayers “Putting Up” not “Shutting Up” for what started it all and how Mr. Watts et al. walked right into their own debunk of the greenhouse effect.  By the way, I wonder what that “third experiment” was anyway – they were either too embarrassed to continue at their own scientific incompetence, or the experiment didn’t do what they wanted it to, and buried it.

Watts:

“WUWT regular, Duke physicist Dr. Robert G. Brown has been trying to talk some sense into them over at Principia Scientific.”

Let us deal with this “Dr.” Robert G. Brown for a moment.  First of all, this supposed physicist doesn’t understand the basic equations for heat flow, as seen here The Difference between Math and Physics and Greenhouse Fraud 20: Physics disproves the GHE; Steel Greenhouses; & General Electric Lightbulbs.  Those posts come directly from attempting to educate this supposed physicist that cold doesn’t heat hot…seriously this fellow has a difficult time with the concept that cold doesn’t heat hot, and he claims to be a physicist.  Just wait to see what comes next.

To add to the character and competency self-defamation of this supposed physicist, scanning a few comments down into the WUWT article linked above, we see this quote from Robert Brown:

“It takes around 100,000 years for a photon produced in the Sun’s core to get to the surface and escape. Now that’s a greenhouse effect!”

The time it takes for “a photon” to get from the core of the sun to the surface of the sun is a function of the mean-free-path a theoretical photon would have to go through to travel that direct distance, given the number of times scattering/absorption/reemission etc. it would have to go through because the density of the solar gas is so thick.  This has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.  Seriously, Robert Brown’s example intersects the supposed mechanics of the greenhouse effect nowhere.  What is Robert Brown trying to say, that there’s a greenhouse effect in the solar atmosphere which creates the high temperature and nuclear fusion at the core?

The Spectator has an article (November 5, 2013) by David Holmes who poses the question, ‘Is climate change a socialist plot?‘ in which Holmes infers that those who question the global warming narrative are tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Apart from the tens of thousands of scientists who would disagree with Holmes on this issue, there is also an excellent article by Dr Tim Ball, co-founder and first Chairman of Principia Scientific International (PSI) to put the question into a more factual context. Although the article primarily addresses the fraudulent acts of alarmist professor Peter Gleick, it also provides a unique insight into how the UN’s Agenda 21 goes hand in glove with man-made global warming scare stories.

Below we cite freely from Dr Ball’s article.

Dr. Ball is not only a respected scholar of the back story of the climate fraud, he is a climatologist who witnessed the rise of the global warming fraternity among his academic colleagues in the 1980’s. He has always bravely defended real science, even in the courts when required. To better guide us into deciding the answer to the Holmes question Tim advises us to look no further than the grandfather of the UN’s IPCC, Stephen Schneider, who made the following admission in Discover magazine in 1989:

“On the one hand we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but, which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, ifs and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, wed like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the publics imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”

Dr Ball advises that Schneider’s ‘science’ was incorporated by the Club of Rome (COR), that is well known for advocating for a ‘new world order’ based on socialist ideals.

Comment to Otto, A., Otto, F.E.L., Boucher, O., Church, J., Hegerl, G., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., (…), Allen, M.R., Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013 6 (6):415-416:

The climate models sensitivity to carbon is overrated

Albert Parker

E-mail: [email protected]

Comparison of reconstructed global land and sea temperature (for example GISS [1]) and anthropogenic carbon dioxide time histories (for example CDIAC [2]) over the last century show a very different sensitivity of temperatures to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions than what is claimed by Otto, A., Otto, F.E.L., Boucher, O., Church, J., Hegerl, G., Forster, P.M., Gillett, N.P., (…), Allen, M.R. in their paper Energy budget constraints on climate response, Nature Geoscience 2013 6 (6):415-416.

The reason why climate models are failing so badly so quickly is not because of the “variability” in the climate, but because of the overrated effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and neglected natural oscillations.

Figure 1 presents the non-dimensional global temperatures as reconstructed by GISS and the non-dimensional carbon emission as reconstructed by CDIAC vs. time 1910 to present. While carbon emissions are growing almost exponentially, the temperature has a much more complex behaviour where two natural oscillations of about 60 years are clearly superimposed to a longer term trend that may be natural and/or carbon driven. The upwards phases 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000 are followed by the downward phases 1940 to 1970 and 2000 to the present (and very likely to 2030). As pointed out in the recent works [3-7], the climate sensitivity is overrated when correlating the temperature and carbon dioxide emission behaviour over the time window 1970 to 2000.

This is written in response to an earlier contribution by Derek Alker, which I criticized and I need to begin with an apology to Derek. My criticism was clumsy in its wording and could have been interpreted as arrogant in spirit. As far as I know Derek has no ill intent towards me and I have none towards him but I was surprised by my own apparent aggression when I saw the contribution on-line. This is important, though I withdraw none of the points of criticism I made, since the manner of criticism is an important issue in the community of science and in particular in the debates about climate change, which (as anyone will know who is familiar with the main blogs) are awash with insults and bad behaviour and even threats. I want to begin by correcting my own mistake in that respect by referring to a key aspect of Popper’s philosophy.

In the debate about the relative merits of Popper’s and Kuhn’s ideas about what I will call the dynamic of science, this matter of attitude is pivotal, though few commentators have analysed it. And this in spite of the repeated emphasis that Popper gave to it. It is captured in the often-quoted lines;

“I may be wrong and you may be right,

and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth”

These lines encapsulate what Critical Rationalism means and they hold the secret to the whole of Popper’s approach. They have many layers of meaning; logical, methodological and social. They point to a logic of discovery that is based on criticism, to an attitude of mind that is non-authoritarian, to a culture of tolerance and to humility in the individual.

The Internet Reformation is the culmination of the power and glory of Western civil society and free-market thinking. It is the apogee of all that is best in a sweep of history that began with the ancient Greeks and has culminated in the hearts and minds of millions of young men and women who industriously add to its impact every day via additional code, non-mainstream news or fundamental scientific commentary.

It is NOT an “Internet Revolution.” The Internet Revolution is a standard “pat” phrase of the powers-that-be about the so-called empowering effects of technology. The Internet Reformation is a much more deeply disruptive concept. It is truly a revolutionary one, affecting every aspect of human society and human relationships with modern elites. It is focused around the insights generated by the Internet itself.

This concept is based on what happened during the era of the Gutenberg press. Almost from the beginning, the Gutenberg press was a revolutionary technology. As soon as people used the press to print Bibles, readers began to discover that the Holy Word differed considerably from what they’d been taught by the Catholic Church.

Until then, Bibles had been fairly rare. They were printed in Latin or Greek, and copied down by hand with elaborate engravings. The Catholic Church and its important functionaries and bureaucrats possessed Bibles. Priests performed Mass with their back to the congregation. The ceremony was a highly Romanized one, as the West had come to conceive of Rome within its most corrupt and centralizing phase, and highly controlled.

But printing Bibles in moveable type changed the power relationship entirely. Now, anyone could own a Bible and they were easily reproduced and increasingly inexpensive. Almost immediately, then Bibles began to be translated into “vulgate” and eventually the King James Version (English) would become a dominant variant. But in the meantime, the damage was done. First came the Renaissance and then the Reformation and finally the Age of Enlightenment, three powerful rolling waves of free-thinking that transformed the face of human society, first in the West and then around the world.

The changes ushered in by the Gutenberg press were fundamental. The Renaissance began the reconfiguration by allowing for the rediscovery of the scientific orientation of Greece and Rome. This set in motion a series of events that has not yet ceased to reverberate.

Across North America and elsewhere, independent scientists are increasingly worried that freedom of thought and discourse among fellow professionals is under grave threat. One such scientist who has long endured attack on his academic freedom is Dr. David Rasnick. Rasnick is a chemist and biologist noted for research questioning the orthodoxy about HIV/AIDS. For raising doubt on common misconceptions he is vilified by the mainstream. In this article we examine Rasnick’s concerns and offer readers some insight into how propaganda about HIV/AIDS and man-made global warming sprout from the same Establishment root: the Academic-Governmental-Industrial Complex (AGIC).

The AGIC is a multi-national business enterprise that has kept science in its enthrall due to the mega bucks on offer to researchers. Dissenters are denounced and starved of funding in this monolithic culture. Without numerous competing sources of funding, the centralized gatekeeping mechanisms of government grants have led to a scientific community too readily possessed by Group Think.

Group Think is the collective corruption of the decision-making processes. Group thinkers have an illusion of invulnerability, collective rationalization, stereotypes of outgroups, self-censorship, mind-guards, and belief in the inherent morality of the group.

As psychologists have shown:

“They typically have defective decision-making, involve the incomplete survey of alternatives and objectives, poor information search, failure to appraise the risks of the preferred solution, and selective information processing. Not surprisingly, these combined forces are predicted to result in extremely defective decision making performance by the group.” [1]

David Rasnick has the courage to stand up for his personal scientific convictions. According to PubMed, Rasnick has contributed to 18 scientific papers on protease-related research, and written a book about the aneuploidy theory of cancer. Rasnick’s complete CV and publication list is posted on his website. He dares to advance new ideas that question common AGIC scientific assumptions even if they may threaten entrenched interests (and investments). AGIC investments are worth many hundreds of billions of dollars to those who serve the system. Even those who passively kowtow to it are, in effect, sustaining the Establishment view.

From Wiki:

The Mercator projection is a cylindrical map projection presented by the Flemish geographer and cartographer Gerardus Mercator in 1569. It became the standard map projection for nautical purposes because of its ability to represent lines of constant course, known as rhumb lines or loxodromes, as straight segments which conserve the angles with the meridians. While the linear scale is equal in all directions around any point, thus preserving the angles and the shapes of small objects (which makes the projection conformal), the Mercator projection distorts the size and shape of large objects, as the scale increases from the Equator to the poles, where it becomes infinite.

The Mercator projection is all about the problem of how to transform a physically 3-dimensional object into a two-dimensional representation.  The problem is that this can’t be done without distorting the intrinsic physical properties of the 3-dimensional object, when viewed in the 2-dimensional representation.

What does this have to say about the greenhouse effect?  Simple.  A flat Earth is not a physically correct approximation to the true 3-dimensional nature of the planet.  Just like a 2-D map of the planet Earth is not a true representation of the 3-D planet.

Not only do things like day and night disappear, and rotation stops, but the physics numbers themselves get modified by this physically incorrect mathematical transformation to make the Sun twice as far away as it really is and its energy four times less intense (far below “freezing cold” in fact).

And since the greenhouse effect only exists in these 2-D maps of the planet, such as the IPCC K&T and related energy budgets, and it comes about only in order to reconcile the difference in the physics between the false 2-D and real 3-D planet, then the greenhouse effect is demonstrated as a fiction invented to fix a fiction.

Senior UK government minister tells the Daily Telegraph (James Kirkup, November 8, 2013) that a water industry study confirms that ‘frakking’ to exploit Britain’s shale gas reserves is “safe.” Kirkup reports as follows:

Households “right across the South” should prepare for gas fracking to begin in their areas, a senior minister has warned. Michael Fallon says that in the next few weeks, a study by the water industry will conclude that fracking will not contaminate the water supply.

“Half the work done in the world is to make things appear what they are not.” E.R. Beadle.

In a 2003 speech Michael Crichton, graduate of Harvard Medical School and author of State of fear, said,

“I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

We are in virtual reality primarily as Public Relations (PR) and its methods are applied to every aspect of our lives. The term “spin doctors” is more appropriate because it is what they are really doing. A spin doctor is defined as: “a spokesperson employed to give a favorable interpretation of events to the media, esp. on behalf of a political party.” It doesn’t say truthful interpretation. There are lies of commission and omission and this definition bypasses the category of omission. It’s reasonable to argue that if you deliberately commit a sin of omission it encompasses both. A ”favorable interpretation” means there is deliberate premeditated deception. The person knows the truth, but selects information to create a false interpretation.

Despite all the discussion and reports about weather and climate the public are unaware of even the most fundamental facts. Recently, I gave a three hour presentation with question and answers. The audience was educated people who distrust government and were sympathetic to my information. I decided to illustrate my point and concern by asking a few basic questions. Nobody could tell me the difference between weather and climate. Nobody could name the three major so-called greenhouse gases, let alone explain the mechanics of the greenhouse theory. My goal was not to embarrass, but to illustrate how little they knew and how easily PR can deceive and misdirect.

COMMENT TO CAMILO MORA ET AL., THE PROJECTED TIMING OF CLIMATE DEPARTURE FROM RECENT VARIABILITY, NATURE 502:183–187 (10 OCTOBER 2013) DOI:10.1038/NATURE12540:

THE CLIMATE MODELS DO NOT FAIL BECAUSE OF “VARIABILITY” BUT BECAUSE OF THE NEGLECTED MULTI-DECADAL NATURAL OSCILLATIONS AND THE OVERRATED EFFECT OF THE ATMOSPHERIC COMPOSITION

Albert Parker

E-mail: [email protected]

If the authors of [1] carefully analyse the reconstructed global land and sea temperature time history since the 1800s (for example GISS [2]), they may certainly realize that the reason why climate models are failing so badly so quickly is not because of the “variability” in the climate, but only because of their wrong assumptions about the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission driving the climate and the neglected natural oscillations. This “inconvenient truth” emerges clearly as soon as the reconstructed global temperatures are compared with the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions not only during the last upwards phase of a quasi-60 years natural oscillation affecting the climate, but also including what happened prior of 1970 and what is happening since 2000 [3-8]. Fitting the data with functions that minimize the error over the full record length and not only a small time window of the recent past it is clear that the theory of exponentially growing temperatures is wrong.

The Carbon Sense Coalition has accused those waging a war on carbon dioxide of being “anti-green”. The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that carbon dioxide is the gas of life, feeding every green plant, producing food for every animal and in the process releasing oxygen, another gas of life, into the atmosphere.

A recent report on measuring global vegetation growth notes that data from remote sensing devices show significant increase in annual vegetation growth during the last three decades. They also report that CO2 fertilization is more important than climate variation in determining the magnitude of the vegetation growth. “The CO2 fertilization effect of the carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, gas and oil, is beginning to assume its vaulted position of being a tremendous “boon to the biosphere. . .”  

Current levels of carbon dioxide are well below optimal levels for plants, so all true environmentalists should welcome any increase – all life would benefit if the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere was triple current levels.

The biosphere always flourishes during the recurring but short warm eras on Earth. Ice ages are the times of extinctions. As oceans warm, carbon dioxide is expelled and water evaporates. Warmth, and more moisture and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide ideal growing conditions for the green world.

Not content with promoting junk climate science the former poster boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published his latest unscientific rant, ‘The Subterranean War on Science‘.

Pronouncing that “science denial kills,” Penn. State University’s Michael Mann’s new paper launches off by promoting a myth first promulgated by data fraudster,  Dr. Pride Chigwedere (2008). Chigwedere’s false claim was of 300,000 needless South African deaths due to President Mbeki’s refusal to adopt Big Pharma’s use of antiretroviral drugs.

Clark Baker, CEO of the Office of Medical and Scientific Justice (OMSJ) and a dedicated opponent of junk HIV/AIDS science unequivically dismisses Mann’s claim as “pure propaganda.” But then, those of us familiar with Michael Mann, infamous for his ‘hockey stick’ graph, can see why he and co-author, Stephan Lewandowsky, find such affinity with Chigwedere. Mann’s reputation is now so low that even those who were once his closest colleagues distance themselves from his shenanigans.

Lewandowsky, Mann’s accomplice in the latest tawdry piece, is likewise increasingly mocked among his peers. The tortured (and tortuous) twosome have just published (November, 2013), in the Association of Psychological Science (APS), a 2,400-word outpouring of hate against critics who simply demand that scientists be more open about their methods and data. And heaven knows this is desperately needed with so much apparent fraud and deceit tarnishing the image of government scientists in general.

But in this paper we see that Lewandowsky’s and Mann’s old habits die hard. They are back to the same tricks – this time telling ‘porkies’ about the AIDS/HIV controversy.

As Clark Baker points out, “As I reported here, Chigwedere admits to using estimates that UNAIDS admits were deliberately inflated and FAR BELOW South Africa’s actual mortality numbers.” (see table below)

The Chigwedere data begs the question: if AIDS allegedly kills millions in Africa, why has Africa’s population doubled from 400-800 million during the same period? The source of such misinformation is Nathan Geffen of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), which is funded by mining giant AngloGold and TAG, which is funded by pharma. Chigwedere’s report was funded by the Harvard School of Public Health, which received a $160 million spike of AIDS funding from HRSA in the years leading up to publication (2008). As they say: follow the money!

While perusing the US Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts vs. EPA 2007 one finds this astonishing statement in footnote #26 on page 26: “No party to this dispute [Massachusetts vs. EPA 2007] contests that greenhouse gases both ‘enter the ambient air’ and tend to warm the atmosphere. They are therefore unquestionably ‘agents’ of air pollution.”

As you can see, according to this Court decision “warm[th]” is itself air pollution and “greenhouses gases” are simply presumed to be “agents” of that pollution. Under this paradigm anything that enters and warms the atmosphere can be considered a “pollutant”. Sunlight enters the ambient air and tends to warm the atmosphere; is it a “pollutant” as well?

The law upon which the US Supreme Court was relying in the formation of this decision was the Clean Air Act (first passed in 1970 and revised in 1990) that defines a “pollutant” as that which can reasonably be “anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In their 2007 decision the Court reasons that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant because it is presumed to warm the atmosphere; ergo the Court views atmospheric warmth to be a danger to public health and welfare. Stated another way, the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts vs. EPA (2007) asserts that warmth is air pollution.

A common argument that skeptics of anthropogenic global warming have been voicing of late is the fact that the mean global temperature stopped going up some 15 or so years ago while carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, thus attempting to disassociate carbon dioxide from global warming. Even though it has a certain merit the problem with this argument is that it tacitly concedes the assertion being made that global warming is itself a bad thing and leaves open the possibility that said warming may very well have resulted in environmental catastrophe had it continued. Have we forgotten that the cold polar regions are nearly devoid of life while the warm equatorial regions are teaming with life and that in the mid to upper latitudes everything dies or goes dormant in the cold of winter and comes to life in the warmth of summer?

Did not humanity start using fire as an energy source in the first place to warm the air because in many places on Earth during much of the year the air is just plain too cold?