Top Scientist: Time to ‘Slay’ Greenhouse Gas Climate Theory
Top Swiss specialist in organic and general chemistry publishes devastating new paper backing claims that consensus ‘greenhouse gas’ science is wrong about man-made global warming.
Journal of Earth Science & Climate Change publishes yet another study ‘slaying’ the greenhouse gas theory. Author Dr. Thomas Allmendinger, a physicist (chemistry, quantum mechanics), used real-world experiments to document a glaring lack of empirical support for the position that CO2 is a dominant agent of atmospheric warming.
Allmendinger has been researching earth’s climate since 2012. His findings are in accord with those of a controversial group of researchers known as the ‘Slayers’, who deny that carbon dioxide is the ‘control knob’ of earth’s climate. Confirming such science, the Swiss scientist denounces the greenhouse gas theory as a ‘phantasm’ that should now be ‘neglected’ by serious researchers.
Allmendinger defied convention by preferring to rely on actual laboratory experiments rather than computer modelling, which has long been dominant among government researchers (some of the apparatus he used is depicted above).
Dr Allmendiner’s findings are summarized below:
Original Greenhouse Theory Not Backed By Experimental Data
The starting point of the here referenced research was the generally accepted greenhouse thesis which assumes that the present climate change is mainly due to the observed growing amount of the so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, particularly of carbon-dioxide in spite of the fact that, unlike a greenhouse, the Earth atmosphere doesn’t exhibit a transparent roof … This [greenhouse effect] idea takes its source in Fourier’s treatise made in 1827, exhibitingno empirical data or physical calculations and experimental data.
The first results were delivered by Tyndall in the sixties of the 19th century, using artificial IR (= infrared) radiation. His photometric [light-measuring] apparatus consisted of metallic tubes as gas vessels and Leslie cubes as heat radiation sources, entailing comparatively low temperatures, namely 100°C and lower. In the [eighteen] nineties, Arrheniuscontinued such measurements. He established the greenhouse thesis claiming that, unlike air, carbon-dioxide considerably absorbs infrared-radiation. Thereby we distinguish between near IR (λ = 0.8 – 3μm), emitted at high temperatures (> 1000 K), and medium IR (λ = 3 – 50μm) occurring at lower temperatures as usual thermal radiation, while IR-radiation with larger wavelengths (λ = 50 – 1000μm) is defined as far IR.
[O]verall, the greenhouse thesis has been commonly settled even if[…] its empiric basis appears poor while several theoretical presumptions are speculative. … there is reason enough to examine the current climate theory and in particular the greenhouse thesis, regarding fundamental scientific principles and possibly to question the usual assumptions.
The analytic methods applied in climatology were exclusively photometric [light-measuring] ones. … Thermal measurements have never been made, except those by pyranometers comprising the whole spectrum, so that direct coherences between light absorption and warming-up effects at matter have not been detected yet.
For those keeping count, the number of highly-qualified experts from the ‘hard’ sciences who have either published in the peer-reviewed literature or made public statements refuting the consensus theory of climate change is rising fast. More details of the new paper may be found at No Tricks Zone.
Paradigm Shift Builds Vindication Carbon Dioxide
In recent months no less than 17 new scientific papers have been published by journals denouncing the ‘greenhouse effect’ as the primary explanation for climate change.
The trigger for this rise in the number of scientists prepared to engage in research disproving the accepted theory of climate is believed to be the controversial book ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ (2010).
Lead author of the book, prominent Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball mounted an attack claiming data fraud among a clique of high-profile government researchers. Pinpointing Dr Michael Mann as a principle protagonist in the ‘greatest science fraud of all time’ Dr Ball famously quipped Mann belonged ‘in the state pen., not Penn. State.’ The multi-million dollar lawsuit that ensued may be about to be settled in favor of Dr Ball.
Trackback from your site.