Thermodynamics 101: Socrates Debunks Climate Alarm Science
Canadian professional space scientist and critic of the greenhouse gas theory of climate change, Joseph E Postma, posts another telling video exposing the junk science cornerstone of man-made global warming.
Postma writes: You may read my blog post about the same events discussed in the video, Rebranding the Simulacrum with Sophistry, and in which we showed:
“Rebranding is a marketing strategy in which a new name, term, symbol, design, concept or combination thereof is created for an established brand with the intention of developing a new, differentiated identity in the minds of consumers, investors, competitors, and other stakeholders.[1] Often, this involves radical changes to a brand’s logo, name, legal names, image, marketing strategy, and advertising themes.”
simulacrum: an unsatisfactory imitation or substitute (Google Dictionary)
simulacrum: a slight, unreal, or vague semblance of something; superficial likeness (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/simulacrum)
simulacrum: a representation which bears no relation to any reality whatsoever (French social theorist Jean Baudrillard, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacrum)”
Below is my latest video on the matter:
Find more science-based articles and videos discrediting the fake science of the greenhouse gas theory on my blog, climateofsophistry.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
MattH
| #
During world war two many convoy ships were torpedoed in the North Atlantic and the chilly water caused the sailors alive in the water to die from hypothermia.
The ocean stores a lot of heat energy so is it likely those sailors died in the water from overheating.? Ask a survivor. Were you too hot in that water? Bloody Nora! (an ancient Kiwi proverb)
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
There is a difference between radiated energy and convection (collisions). In the troposphere, as it water, the main transfer is through collisions not radiation. When your hand feels cool near an ice cubes it is a result of air molecules striking the ice cube and transferring energy to it, then striking your hand and absorbing energy from it.
Consider a gas molecule in equilibrium with its surrounding. An identical gas molecule with more energy is introduced. If the new molecule collides with the first molecule there is an instant equalization and both molecules have the same energy. If the second molecule does not collide with the first molecule it will radiate energy and eventually the two molecules will reach equilibrium, where they have the same energy. The energy of the two molecules where equilibrium is reached by radiation will be less than when equilibrium is reached by collision. This is because during a collision the energy transfer is in one direction (to the first molecule) while in radiation the energy flows in all directions. If radiation and conduction were identical means of energy transfer you would expect identical results from both processes.
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Thank you for the clarification. It is not the first time. I made another error back in ”56.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
It was good to watch JP – clearly wearied from battle – cleaning off and displaying the intellectual blade with which he slayed some pseudo-scientists.
His flailing explanation for why there is so much stupidity in the world was, as much as anything, testament to his heroic struggle.
I don’t wonder too much about people’s capacity to think after witnessing the rush to get the genetic juice jab.
Bloody nora is a kiwi-ism? I must be only half-pai kiwi.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi J .
The “ancient Kiwi proverb” is a piece of satire appropriated and adapted from a pathological commenter currently blocked from this site. (stolen)
Reply
Alan
| #
I agree, Joseph puts in a lot of effort to present “real” physics and his frustration is obvious. II think a lot of people are trying to understand why there is so much stupidly and perhaps more importantly why it is impossible to get them to listen to facts when feelings have taken over their lives.
Reply
A Reasonable Man
| #
The green house theory is just such a poor analogy to begin with, even with a glass garden variety backyard green house the theory does not hold up to experiments that are easily replicated.
Reply
richard
| #
The Al Gore and Bill Nye experiment where they added Co2 to a test tube- 500,000+ppm vs around 380ppm to illustrate warming.
Reply
Terry shipman
| #
Which have been debunked time after time. No one can seem to duplicate Gore and Nye’s experiment. That’s the way science is supposed to work. Experiments should be able to be replicated
Reply
tom0mason
| #
So was that a change in heat or heat flux, energy or energy flux, or temperature or thermal change?
The advocates usually lack of understanding to differentiate between them, just as “Al Gore and Bill Nye experiment” does!
Reply
Monty
| #
I doubt they considered the test tube affect on the warming.
Reply
Max Polo
| #
Thanks Joe, keep up the good work ! In addition to your excellent theoretical debunk, there seem to be a bunch of experiments piling up (for instance Geraint Hughes’s ones), that invariably show how backradiation has ZERO heating effect, like your explanation shows in theory. It’s just incredible how the world is being totally fooled by such climate clowns.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Joe is wrong when he says space does not absorb energy. It does not capture energy and radiate it like matter does, but it does contain energy. The energy radiated by the sun decreases with distance as the energy expands into a larger volume. The energy reaching the Earth is less than that which reaching Venus but greater than that reaching Mars, even though the energy is from the same source. The energy doesn’t disappear, it is in transit in space until it encounters matter. The size of an object is determined by the energy field it emits, not its matter.
Reply
julian
| #
Sophists love to call their work “science”. There are several types of “science” and these can be defined. There is of course real science. Where data is systemically gathered from calibrated instruments, reported in a raw form and conclusions drawn. Tested by reproducible methods. Is rigorously matched to known natural laws and peer reviewed etc.
And then there are the others;
Junk science: pretends to follow the rules of real science but results in invalid conclusions and ignores variables. Example; 100 people who drink coffee compared to 100 who drink tea. The tea drinkers had more colds therefore coffee prevents colds.
Pseudoscience: No pretense of scientific method. Just claim anything is evidence. A cold wave in Kansas, a flood in Austria, a forest fire in New Zealand, sea gulls in Arkansas…literally anything is claimed to be evidence of CO2 effects on climate.
Consensus science. Where a group of people agree to regard something as true/factual despite there being no valid evidence (of the real science type) to support this belief. Einstein pretty much summed it up when he noted that (the consensus of) a thousand scientists cannot prove me right, a single scientist (doing real science) could prove me wrong.
I would note that “climate science” today is made of of all these sophistrical forms of “science”. Facts are inconvenient so they are ignored and suppressed with manufactured or fiddled “data” substituted.
There is one more; Pathological science. Not only are the methods junk and pseudo but the intent is malicious or evil. Phrenology and its racist motives for example. Hitler’s racial and ethnic prejudices. Today we have critical race theory… the idea that all white people are racist or evil etc. Same bull, different players.
Reply
Moffin
| #
Hi Julien. I appreciate it when I learn from comments. My eyes are too close together to learn much
Cheers. Moff
Reply
bufete de abogados en chile
| #
bufete de abogados en chile
blog topic
Reply
fyd-abogados laborales valdivia
| #
fyd-abogados laborales valdivia
blog topic
Reply
abogados laborales chile o
| #
abogados laborales chile o
blog topic
Reply