The following is a short email sequence I shared with Anthony Watts last night over the defeat of his “challenge” to PSI and his subsequent experiment which he didn’t understand and with which he tried to ignore the answer to his challenge. It follows on from some previous emails which I think I shared in a previous post in the comments section…
So I just wanted to follow up to confirm to you that you didn’t perform an actual scientific analysis of your experiment and so you didn’t produce what you thought you did. I understand that you don’t actually have scientific training, and so how you blankly interpreted your results is understandable. Your experiment fully supported PSI’s and the Slayer position and the actual scientific analysis using physics equations has been published by us, and it fully supports the fact that there is no greenhouse effect. Of course, we’ve also already published real-world data which demonstrated that in any case.
You have also confirmed that your source for science knowledge is Roy Spencer, and within that context you were unable to understand the results of your and his challenge to us to show our model. We showed our model and referenced the real world data which proves there is no GHE, and we showed that Spencer’s model wasn’t what he thought it was and that ours was much more advanced that his. This seems to escape you but your only justification for your dismissal of such scientific fact was that Spencer told you to think that.
I have something for you to think carefully about. This isn’t a challenge, I am just providing you an analysis of what you’re doing. It seems apparent that you lack actual scientific training and ability to mathematically analyse and understand physics with actual physics equations. You rely on other people for what you should think. You are being had, and are being used. I don’t know if you know this, and are knowingly benefiting from it, but you’re being used. Having a “highly read” climate blog doesn’t mean that you yourself actually know or are capable of doing science…problems of ego and personality and misplaced confidence can get in the way of clarity.
Anthony, in terms of mathematical physics, in terms of heat flow differential equations, in terms of reality and the laws of thermodynamics, to believe in the GHE, you literally, no joking, but literally, have to believe that the Earth is flat, and that the Sun is twice as far away as it actually is, and that there is no water on the surface of the Earth, etc.
So, you’re either an honest person who is being had, being used in fact, or you’re in on this scam. How many articles will WUWT publish that indicate there is no GHE and there is no climate sensitivity to CO2 at all before you become cognizant of the fraud of the greenhouse effect?
PSI can quite factually demonstrate a model based on the actual and only heat-flow differential equations operating in real-time, that easily demonstrate there is no GHE. It has already been done…we’ve already proved it, theoretically and with real-world observations. Your recent challenge and your experiment have only bolstered and helped our position.
I need to tell you how you are being used, or how you are knowingly using yourself. You are (knowingly or not) engaging in what is called “bracketing”. Bracketing in the context of debate is when two parties, who appear to oppose each other (alarmists vs. skeptics), actually work together “behind the scenes” to establish the boundary conditions of what is considered “acceptable thought”. The alarmist position (which ends with CO2 taxes and all that jazz) depends entirely on the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect there is no alarmism, no taxes, no CO2 politics, etc. A fully skeptical position would be to analyze the GHE for validity, which you discover it doesn’t actually have, and then alarmism and any related politics falls apart completely. So, the bracketing comes in from people only appearing to be skeptics, who condition the boundaries of the debate so that the GHE is accepted and criticism of it is vilified with prejudice, and who then argue for a “low level” of climate sensitivity to alarmism. The old question of “how much”. A low level of sensitivity still supports CO2 taxation and some of the political goals attendant to that. This was of course the original plan. Thus, such skeptics and such a bounded phase space of criticism ends up fully supporting CO2 politics.
Such people who perform this role (on the supposedly “skeptic” side) have been accurately and brilliantly labelled as “luke warmists” by Joe Olson.
PSI is the only group acting like actual critical scientists. We’ve shown in numerous ways why the greenhouse effect is a manufactured fraud designed to create alarmism and/or support CO2 politics. It is very easy to do: all you have to do is demonstrate that the Earth isn’t flat and that sunshine isn’t cold, and then the GHE falls apart.
So, I’m not sure if you know you’re a “warmist” and you know what that implies and what you’re supporting, or, if you’re unknowingly being used by others to help maintain the “holy law” of protecting belief in the fraudulent greenhouse effect and shielding it from the slightest valid criticism. Either way, it is not a position which you can win, or have won, and in fact have already lost, with your own challenges to us and your own experiments. No amount of sophistry or shoddy science will ever actually make the Earth flat or the Sun twice as far away, etc. The GHE will only ever be a cheap belief system based on lies for the purpose of lying. PSI has much better, much more interesting, and actually valid mathematical physics that actually reproduces the climate without requiring a greenhouse effect. The greenhouse models are based on, and create, fiction, in an entirely literal and matter-of-fact truth.
Anthony’s reply was his usual piss and vitriol, telling me that “people are laughing at you” (lol, oh no, really? my, I guess I better fall inline, right? …idiot), called me “juvenile”, said that Jeff Condon has already defeated the idea that the Earth is spherical with his own new challenge (related post), then got all pouty and said he doesn’t want to talk to me or any Slayer anymore (I guess not after all this huh? must be smarting a bit…), and said we have an “irreconcilable difference of opinion” on the what the Earth looks like.
I didn’t expect you would understand and didn’t write it for us to agree over. I was just letting you know what you are doing and what you’re in to. You characterize it as a difference of opinion. It is not a difference of opinion, it is understanding science and reality vs. not doing so, mathematics vs. desires. I grant that your lot will likely win in emplacing this fraud given that most people don’t have the intelligence level required to comprehend it.
We answered Condon’s request. He didn’t understand basic mathematics either. And then he just lied and said we didn’t answer. That’s how you guys operate, and you can get away with quite a bit doing that. I just can’t figure out if such fellows know they’re lying, or if they’re just that daft about it all.
You have to really appreciate what damage is being done to science. The greenhouse effect requires the Earth to be flat and the sun to be twice as far away…that is literally what its math does to the model. And almost no one can understand it. Even “experts” like Roy Spencer don’t know what a time-dependent model is.
I’m just telling you…you’re being had. What I don’t know is if you’re in on it, but if you think [to quote] “You publish a simple experimental diagram, I replicate it exactly based on the parameters laid out by PSI’s essay, it doesn’t support your theory, and somehow I’m the one that didn’t do it correctly” is actually a defense that gets around the lack of an actual scientific analysis using physics equations and the law of conservation of energy (i.e. the 1st Law of Thermo) in what you did, then I think that perhaps you mean well, but have been had by others who are using you.
Your side doesn’t want to talk about the Earth being a sphere, and sunshine being hot, and the heat flow math and physics which model that in real time, and what they have to say.
In the future, you’ll be banning comments which reference a spherical Earth and hot sunshine. Just think about that.
This isn’t about who’s laughing at who and making it that sort of a low-brow context indicates failure and it indicates your role in bracketing the discussion and helping to prevent skepticism. It’s merely sad, what you guys are trying to do to people. We’ve lost thousands of years of scientific development in going back to a flat Earth, in vilifying the thought of a spherical Earth. It is just sad.
At this point, I think I must let you do this to yourself and to the people who want to fall for it. But just remember that we know what you’re doing, we’ve identified your role and the role of the others, and we won’t go away. We know how to prove the fraud and demonstrate it in your own words. These lies have loose ends and they’ll become easier and easier to unravel as they have been. Eventually, what you guys have attempted to do will be exposed.