Religion of Climate Change Part 5: Cold Gods don’t create Hot Gods

Going for it in the Open

I identified years ago that climate alarm via the sophistically-named “atmospheric greenhouse effect” was the new religion for atheists, new agers, and other types of idiots in general:

See my “Religion of Climate Change” title series starting at the bottom of this link:

It’s all in the archetypes and the unconscious draw towards adopting them in whatever guise as fits the narrative of the times.

Get this quote from the first link, from the Secretary of the UN:

“I don’t think faith leaders should be scientists,” said Ban, in reply to the question. “I’m not a scientist. What I want is their moral authority. Business leaders and all civil society is on board [with the mission to combat climate change]. Now we want faith leaders. Then we can make it happen.”

Ban wants the “moral authority” of scientists?! What is science’s moral authority!?

That life is an accident!?  That mind and soul don’t exist!?  That humans are a blight on this planet, and that humans have no purpose or meaning!?

Good God! No wonder we now see them uniting openly, all the while no one has a clue as to the underlying connection and strategy at work. Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah hates humans, as do most scientist and other types of idiots who buy into the climate alarm environmentalist fraud based on the sophistry of the fictional “atmospheric greenhouse effect”.

[Edit:  Secretary Ban was actually referring to the moral authority of the Abrahamic Church, not of science.  While the statements about science above still stand, depending on Abrahamism for “moral authority” makes this entire fraud that much worse!]

The Simulacra

One connection is that billions of people have faith in God, while not actually ever really truly defining God and knowing what God actually is. If you press anyone past the platitudes of “all powerful force”, “all loving entity”, “creator of existence”, etc. you’ll find as many mutually contradictory and internally inconsistent definitions as you find the same for the alarmist greenhouse effect!  In fact, it is the lack of clear or rational definition which paradoxically makes these false concepts so powerful and so unamenable to critical analysis!

Now here’s where the game really gets interesting, and where it gives away how truly manufactured it is. These “skeptics” that were there, “Morano, Monckton, Delingpole”, are not actually skeptics. They only pretend to be. Oh sure, everyone thinks they are because they’re always criticizing alarmist predictions about the weather. Well, that says who they are then, doesn’t it?

No it doesn’t. In the case of Monckton in particular (I don’t know Morano or Delingpole), who I’ve had extensive personal communications with, their role is actually to pretend to be skeptics and to feign skepticism by criticizing the alarmist predictions, but all the while what they actually do is protect the underlying basis of the climate alarmist movement, their simulacra “atmospheric greenhouse effect”, from ever being exposed for the fraud and sophistry that it is. They actively suppress criticism and analysis and the debunk of the climate alarm greenhouse effect – they will not let the slightest criticism of it appear anywhere! It is protected as sacrosanct and Monckton has even went so far in personal communications as to call criticism of the greenhouse effect “condemnable”!

He said that the notion of criticizing the alarmist greenhouse effect was condemnable. What a joke! And what does it actually tell you?

There’s two classes of people who absolutely lose their minds in a frothing-at-the-mouth type manner when you expose the fraud of the climate alarm greenhouse effect – the alarmists themselves, and a very public and outspoken subset of the skeptics, such as Monckton, and Anthony Watts, etc, etc. You should read Monckton lose his entire shit in personal communications when you outline what is the fraud of the alarmist greenhouse effect; he is bar-none the nastiest, rudest, meanest, jerkiest beast I have ever encountered in this “debate”. In his latest hissy fit he promises that he’s going to try to send me and the others who understand this fraud to jail for 10 years, because we cite other scientist’s research and make conclusions that they don’t necessarily agree to.

WTF! LOL! That’s how science works, my LORD!

That is how much this game is being rigged.

Wise up, God

On an occult level, there seems to be a connection here between the fraudulent idea of a cold thing heating up a hotter thing (the atmospheric greenhouse effect), and the idea that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah trapped us here on Earth in order to dialectically evolve us into more advanced beings.

Given that the Abrahamic God is an evil selfish egotistical tyrant driven by its id, its monadic frequency spectrum is therefore composed of very low frequencies and is hence actually quite “cold” in temperature. It thinks that by trapping human souls underneath it that it will cause those human souls to warm up until they are able to break free.  (See this article for an overview of the actual theological language used in the climate alarm greenhouse effect!  Note at that article link that it is all about “trapping light” “until light can escape”, and, light is of course the singularity, and is thus the reference to the soul.)

And this is exactly what is said about the sophistical greenhouse effect of climate alarm – that a cold atmosphere will cause a hotter surface underneath it to warm up some more, even though the atmosphere is colder and can not send heat to the surface trapped underneath it.

The truth of course is that the warmer surface is what heats the cooler atmosphere, and the atmosphere can not send heat back to the surface nor can it trap heat at the surface because it never has the high-frequency energy spectrum components to be able to do so, because it is colder.

Likewise then, a cold-frequency God can not contribute to the development of higher-frequency Gods, and the truth for the Abrahamic God is that it came here with human souls to Earth for it to be dialectically evolved and improved by us. But it is still working on its id, and so it still finds this too much to believe. Hence this fantastical, totally irrational, apparently controlled opposition to the criticism of the flawed mathematics and energy physics of the climate alarm greenhouse effect, and why we see “God’s representatives on Earth” now directing their sheep, and the “moral authority of scientists” directing their atheist and liberal sheep, to unite under the new religion of climate alarm.  The best religion to fleece the sheep is one that doesn’t appear to be a religion at all, and that’s what “the mission to combat climate change” is exactly.

It is beyond any level of insanity you might read in the book 1984, say.  It is literally about getting people to believe that we should engage in a pursuit to fight the weather.  Don’t think for a second that it is actually about protecting or improving human development and quality of life, nor that for the environment itself.  It is all merely about the business of trapping human minds in cognitive dissonance, gaining untold power from that enforced state of insanity and mental and physical slavery, and keeping them from dialectically evolving past it at all.

This entity actually just seems to hate all life, hence why it demonizes carbon dioxide which is the fundamental plant food that exists as a gas in the atmosphere and which the atmosphere is still starved of, and why it also drops the “dioxide” part and just demonizes the element carbon, which is of course the very basis element of all life itself.  We’re dealing with a very sick, very mentally-damaged, very hurt and sad, very pained and sore, very sorrowful entity here…  AXO.

This entry was posted in Religion of Climate Change and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

71 Responses to Religion of Climate Change Part 5: Cold Gods don’t create Hot Gods

  1. Derek Alker says:

    Very well said.

  2. ilma630 says:


    My initial comment is that true Christians do not see the Pope as “Gods representative on earth”. God has never sent ‘representatives’, only prophets and himself in the form of his own son Jesus, and called the apostles, but of whom only Jesus had His ‘authority’.

    However, when I saw the paper the Vatican released yesterday, I could only describe it in batmanesque language: “holy crap”! As for Moon wanting science’s ‘moral authority’, that’s the scariest statement I’ve heard in a long while, and it’ll only be a matter of time before all the usual suspects, Gore, Mann, Schmidt, etc. pounce on it and use it as their own justification and doubling their sceptic witchhunts.

  3. Yes indeed ilma630 – it is actually the Church’s “moral authority” that Ban wants, as I misread his quote, but that makes it even worse and makes it even more about witchhunts!

    It’s about combining the “moral authority” of the Church with the “rationalization” of scientific materialsm, neither of which are actually moral or rational…but they do sure want to enforce their authority!

  4. johnmarshall says:

    Thanks Joe. I am an athiest so think that the church should keep itself to itself and leave us humans alone. But then what do I know?

  5. Agreed John it indeed should do that. However, materialism is not the final alternative and the soul doesn’t require a creator god to exist like the Church says…souls are immortal and exist of their own accord. No need to reject idealism and your own soul…just rightly reject the Church and Scientific Materialism and go for rational idealism based on mathematics.

  6. DBZ says:

    While I disagree with some of the “religious” side issues brought up, in such a realm I have no problem with any of you believing whatever you want to. Why? I believe I am right, and believe some or many of you are wrong. That is simply because of faith, I have faith in something, and I recognize that it is faith, it does not lessen my belief in it, nor my belief that some or many of you err in such a regard, but it does then logically reveal to me, that this is a perspective framework of belief that is not shared by others. Without that framework and that faith, I know that another would never agree with me and would equally and unequivocally believe I also am wrong. This is what happens when we enter into the noetic metaphysical realms of thought with unanswered questions and unverifiable premises…we establish the ethical, metaphysical constraints of our own world view (each of us), that must involve assumptions about the whole of life, negative or positive, whatever they may be.
    I know this is faith, I know this is a belief…but “science” the word “science” today is a farce. So much (and it is an unbelievable amount once you get into even meta-analysis statistics for pharmaceuticals, trials, forensics, you name it)of it is assumptive, theoretical. Yet society has cast out the religious (in many ways rightly so) from positions of power, shaking off an arrogant faith-based perspective that governs all men, in favor of individuality (so it is made out to be), yet taken up the mantle of “science” in a religious context. How different is now, than the inquisition? You have things like DDT being derided for a variety of reasons that indirectly results in thousands of deaths, you have a dogmatic religion of climate science that obfuscates any attempt to characterize it as anything other than unequivocal fact. The Catholic church, rather people within it corrupted by the tao of humanity with their own pride, and greed set to rule people by fear, and by dogmatizing everything, and tearing down any opposing belief. The idea that “this is the truth, so any that do not comport to it, are heretics”, is not so different from “this is the truth, and any scientist who disagrees will be ostracized, and we will attempt to find further methods to silence and even jail the dissenters”. This is nothing more than a cyclical repeat of history, as history tends to do..isolating a lower caste of society, forcing superstitious beliefs upon them, calling them the “absolute truth”, and creating greater schizms between societal elements in order to ensure a reign un-opposed by a smaller elite class, who in truth believes themselves to be the saviors of all.
    Unfortunately it isn’t just climate science, it is society as a whole that in this age of information has been pushed back into the dark ages. All commercials boast of their product being “scientifically proven” to do this, or that..poppycock. This is no different than the snake oil salesman, or blessed water salesman telling you what his god will do for you as a fact.
    Science is not fact, it is a process to determine the efficacy, definitude, and veracity of ideas by challenging them with paradoxical, parallel, and opposing concepts.

    Theologians many times would be called the seekers of truth, and in those I would call holy, you could see an openness about them surrounding their walls of belief, but then so many degraded into the purveyors of myth for their own gain. (I do understand that many would see all religious people as purveyors of myth, although I would contend we are all religious in one way or another)

    Scientists used to be seekers of truth, but by and large they no longer are, most unfortunately, like most theologians during the inquisition are corrupted, and seek to prove what they are paid to prove.

  7. Well said DBZ. Very good.

  8. @DBZ – There is one category of metaphysics in which absolute rational certainty and dispensing with faith can indeed be found. It is in the rationalist idealism of ontological mathematics. Mathematics is the only reason why science as it is works at all, but the empiricists don’t even think about it.

    Please read the God Series:

  9. They’re literally threatening to trump up some charges which they claim can see jail time for 10+ years…for writing down equations and then explaining what they actually ontologically mean which refutes the fraudulent materialist antimind antihuman narrative they’re trying to impose instead.

    You can’t legally harass someone merely for scientific dissent, though that is surely what they desire just as the Church did regarding the doctrine during the dark and other ages etc. So instead they’re trying to make a case that we’ve harmed other scientist’s reputations by interpreting their work in a way they did not agree with and in a way which they claim is “condemnable”! Lol.

    So what they’re trying for is to set a precedent that if you cite another scientist but conclude something different than the politically correct narrative which that scientist subscribes to, then you’re tarnishing his or her work and hence damaging their reputation and career. Hence, any conclusion which does not support the materialist or politically correct narrative must be “condemnable” in order to make the case that such condemnable conclusions harm other scientists if they are associated with them even simply in passing as reference.

  10. Opinionated says:

    Faith is a personal choice. You can choose to have faith in whatever you wish to. Nobody has the right to question or critise that choice. No priest, rabbi, mullah, monk or pastor has the right to tell you what your faith should or should not be.

    Religion is a purely human construct so that a small number of people can control a large number of people. It has no other function and serves no other purpose.

    All talk of prophets and holy texts are a self perpetuating circular argument.

    Why should we believe [insert holy text of choice]?
    The [insert holy text of choice] is the word of God because it was given to us by the prophet [insert prophet of choice] who speaks for God.

    How do we know [insert prophet of choice] speaks the word of God?
    [insert prophet of choice] speaks the word of God because it says so in [insert holy text of choice].

    Similarly theism and atheism are the two sides of the same cursed coin. The argument between them is pointless because the negative can never be proven. The failure to prove something does exist does not prove that it doesn’t. The failure to prove that something does not exist does not prove that it does.

    Either the universe exists or it doesn’t. Since it exists it must be something. This is what it is. Anyone going down the “why” path lacks the clarity of thought to accept this simple truth.

  11. Dispense with faith and go with rational idealism instead. Dispense with atheism and scientific materialism and go with rational idealism instead:

    The God Series

    You get the best of both worlds, the synthesis of the dialectical opposition: rational knowledge of your own immortal soul (thus requiring no creator god) and its free will and will to power, and rationalist mathematics which answers everything that science and scientific materialism can’t while producing a better form of science and technological advancement.

  12. blouis79 says:

    Religion doesn’t die by being mocked. Mockery makes religion stronger.

    Science is the key to understanding the long-term relative stability of the earth over milennia in spite of the influences of various living organisms.

    a. an entirely passively lit spherical object in space has a temperature dependent on solar radiation and probably not much else.
    b. an internally heated spherical object in space will have a non-zero temperature if there is no sun

  13. johnmarshall says:

    Back to the Dark Ages in more ways than one.

  14. DBZ says:

    I will look into this series. I always enjoy such reads. All people have faith in something, some ideal, or compendium of theories. I am rather steadfast in my own faith in things, but that does not keep me from entertaining and exploring any such writings. It is, I believe one of the more beautiful things about humanity. All people’s beliefs, and framework structures, all writings and ramblings, no matter how wise the man, or ignorant the fool betray some truths of human existence, be it of the psyche, numinous, soul, or essence of one’s being, whatever you may wish to call the heart of man.
    Philosophy and Theology are lost by and large in the modern world, and I think that a shame. I think it due to a push to exorcise critical thinking from the growing youth of the world in order to ensure a compliance. It is the same way science is treated now, conclusions are given and people are encouraged to reach those conclusions. The hardest questions we have in life to answer are those that stare us in the mirror.
    We need to advance technology and science further and further, however the best thing that could happen to “science” in general is for a healthy renewed skepticism of all science theories across the board. A true research facility would fund one group of scientists to research an issue, and fund another to combat their findings. You need a dueling dichotomy to ensure critical thinking, reasoning, true progression and to insulate from pretext and dogmatism. It’s like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade when he goes to cross the chasm with an invisible bridge, belief and faith in theories propel us to large steps forward..skepticism throws the sand down first to make sure we are stepping on something solid.

  15. HYPERGY (paul) says:

    Actually Opinionated, ‘faith and belief’ is exactly why there are so many climate alarmists that utterly deny you have any right to make a choice via vicious threats, much like abrahamism damming everybody to hell.
    In other words it deny’s free will, I.e.’choice’, yet ,as we know we can choose.
    Knowlage, reason, mathematics or faith, unreason, wuhu belief.
    So, religion can be defined as the former or latter.
    Obviously the former is intelligable and the latter…well,”mind vomit”(:-P)

    Sooner or later you will take on ‘The God Series’.reason and ontological mathermatics, not because I said so but because there will be nowhere else to go.
    Put it this way, do not take my word for it,im just a spraypainter, why would you…..If a dumbass aussie tradesman with nothing more than a simple self generated Goathe’ian theory of colour can grasp ontological mathematics there is no reason why you or anyone else cant do so.

  16. solvingtornadoes says:

    “Science is not fact, it is a process to determine the efficacy, definitude, and veracity of ideas by challenging them with paradoxical, parallel, and opposing concepts.”

    Well stated.

    Paradoxes are the crack in the seam of belief that once pried open provide us a pathway to scientific breakthroughs. Unfortunately many are so obsessed with defending their own beliefs and disparaging those of their opponents that they gloss over and dismiss the opportunity that paradoxes provide.

  17. DBZ that’s exactly what that series discuss. Enjoy.

  18. Opinionated says:

    HYPERGY (paul) says:
    2015/04/30 at 7:33 AM
    Alarmism has become a religion complete with dogma, zealots and high priests. It is just another grab for control. Regardless of the flavour, religion is all about control. Nothing else. Once you understand that, everything about their actions and motivations become clear.

    There is a discussion on this website in an earlier post (some months ago) between Joseph and “Truthseeker” about mathematics, the universe and our place in it. You should spend the time to go through them. As for the “God Series”, it is just another dogma that puts humans at the centre of the universe. Personnally I would like to think that we are a little more evolved than that.

  19. Evolution is opposite of denying the role of mind and man in the universe. Your view of evolution is backwards and infected with materialism.

  20. HYPeRGY says:

    Opinionated said “As for the “God Series”, it is just another dogma that puts humans at the centre of the universe.”
    Is that so?
    Here’s a tip, minds”souls” are the universe, do the math, so,to rectify your statement it should read “puts minds at the centre of the universe”.do the math!
    Of course you will turn that statement around too, so its not really ‘put’ there, minds”souls” have always been “there”.
    You have simply misinterpreted the mathematics presented is JP’s work when it suits you, or most likely not at all.
    Go ahead and squirt your squid ink in despair some more OR provide a mathematical foundation of your so called non religious “faith”……
    If you can (?)

  21. Opinionated says:

    Hypergy … I am guessing that English is not your first language on the observation of your inability to construct a complete sentence, let alone a coherent argument.

    Putting any part or characteristic of humanity at the centre of anything let alone the universe is just arrogance to hide fear. That fear is the fear of the reality of our insignificance to the universe. We are significant to ourselves and to some degree our immediate environment and that is all. If the universe manages to throw a large enough rock at us and not miss, it will have a terminal effect on us and absolutely no effect on the universe.

  22. Opinionated, the immediate resort to ad-hom doesn’t make your argument stronger. And what if English wasn’t their first language – then you’re just being a prick to someone from another culture trying to communicate with you.

    Secondly, it is actually YOUR fear that life might have value and that you might be solely responsible for its value that makes you deny your own relevance and value in the universe. And to be sure, Hypergy said that “mind” was at the center of the universe, as it is, not humans specifically. Humans can either chose to be or not to be. You are welcome to choose to go extinct because you choose the belief that your mind has no value or purpose. See ya later! The rest of us will go on to become Gods.

  23. markstoval says:

    The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
    The name that can be named is not the eternal name
    The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
    The named is the mother of myriad things

    Thus, constantly free of desire
    One observes its wonders
    Constantly filled with desire
    One observes its manifestations

    These two emerge together but differ in name
    The unity is said to be the mystery
    Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders

    The nameless Tao is the source of the universe was the claim of the Taoists (Daoists). The Gnostics and the Daoists seemingly describe totally different belief systems but both groups seek to know and not just believe. I am comfortable in either camp but prefer physiological Taoism over the mythology of the Gnostics. (don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy both systems)

    The problem I have with materialistic atheism is they have no answer for mankind’s most ancient and important question: “why is there anything at all” Or, why is there a “here” here? Where did even emptiness come from?

    It has been said by those much smarter than me that logic has its place in human affairs but isn’t everything. Wisdom comes not by tossing out logic and reason but by transcending them and using our intuition fully. We seek insights as opposed to mere knowledge.

    Anyway, thanks for the post Joe. I enjoyed it as always.

  24. Robert Brown at Duke is a skilled sophist who likely believes himself. Two simple points: spectrographic data is not evidence of heating; the temperature evidence for the heating implied by the radiative greenhouse argument is not found in a greenhouse box designed to test for it. QED.

  25. The central illogical point is where Robert Brown says that, in the radiative heat flow equation Q’ = k*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4), that Q’ is a fixed quantity because “it is the heat from the sun”. This simply exposes a misunderstanding of definitions (not surprising for these guys). Q’ is the heat flow and it is not a conserved quantity – it goes to zero in equilibrium. Secondly, the energy from the sun is given by the sun’s term in the equation, i.e. Thot. If the energy from the sun is given by Thot, and it is, then why would the energy from the sun appear as Q’? This is simple illogic. Lastly, if Q’ is the power from the sun (it isn’t), and if Thot and Tcool are for the surface and atmosphere, then the equation has no physical meaning at all because “the energy from the sun Q'” is not equal to the difference in energy between the Earth’s atmosphere and Earth’s surface – that’s just nonsensical and without meaning or physics.

    So, Robert Brown is debunked. A good writer, but a good spinner of illogic. Whether he knows it or he’s just on a missionary of belief, who knows.

  26. Arfur Bryant says:

    From Truthseekers link:

    “…as the downward directed photons carry energy from the atmosphere to the surface and hence reduce the net rate of cooling…”.

    So, let me get this straight, Prof Duke: If I take two potatoes of equal size, heat one in a microwave (piping hot) and leave the other at room temperature, then place them both on the kitchen table, the radiation energy from the cool potato will add thermal energy to the hot potato (to reduce the cooling effect). It follows then, that if I then add another room-temp potato to the table, the added radiation energy from this second potato will reduce the cooling rate even further.

    So how many potatoes do I have to add to the table before the hot potato stops cooling and actually gets hotter?


  27. He says just add one and it gets hotter…lol.

  28. geran says:

    It’s an interesting situation that has emerged over the last 4-5 years. As I see it, there are three groupings: Warmists, Lukewarmers, and Skeptics. There is little hope for Warmists, because they are purely agenda driven. The Skeptics have always had the actual science on their side, but now they even have the observations to support their case.

    So, the problem seems to be with the “Lukes”. They fervently cling to IPCC bogus “science” while claiming it is not as bad as IPCC claims??? (Whatever that means….) I can understand them being confused about the science, especially if they do not have a science background. But, I can not understand their refusal to consider the facts, unless, as you imply, it is their “religion”.

  29. geran says:

    Arfur Bryant asks: “So how many potatoes do I have to add to the table before the hot potato stops cooling and actually gets hotter?”
    Arfur, climate “science” teaches us you can also warm the hot potato with mirrors!

  30. geran says:

    Hey Truthseeker, my comment got published! (About the third comment after RGB’s, at your link.)

    geran May 4, 2015 at 1:19 pm
    I see RGB is here to explain in 50,000 words, or more, how he can bake a turkey in his freezer.
    And, as if it could not get any funnier, I will likely be censored again!
    You just can’t make this stuff up….

    I was shocked, as WUWT has been censoring my comments for almost two years. My comment was referring to another comment I had left at Dr. Spencer’s site. (Dr. Spencer does not understand radiative physics. He thinks a hand-held IR thermometer is PROOF of the GHE! But, to his credit, he does NOT censor science.)

  31. markstoval says:


    If you would be so kind, would you explain in a few words (if possible) exactly why Dr. Spencer thinks a hand-held IR thermometer is proof of GHE and why he is wrong? Thanks in advance.


  32. Q’ = k (Thot^4 – Tcool^4). That is radiative heat flow. But then they say that because they can detect Tcool, it means that heat is flowing in reverse and in contradiction of the heat flow equation! Pure sophistry and bad physics. Then they’ll also say the thing about Q’ being fixed, which is also wrong and bad physics.

  33. geran says:

    Mark, Dr. Spencer has indicated several times that using a hand-held IR thermometer to read sky temperatures is proof of the GHE. His “thinking” (and admittedly I don’t know what he is thinking, but I am interpreting from what he has written) is that since the thermometer works off incoming IR, that proves IR is returning to Earth’s surface, from the atmosphere. And since, to him, IR means heat, he translates that as the atmosphere is heating the Earth (the GHE).

    Joseph explained the physics, but let me try an example. If you read the temperature of deep blue sky with an IR “gun”, you usually get a temp between -60 and -20 ºF (-51 and -29 ºC). A modern freezer can easily chill ice to about 0 ºF (-18 ºC). So, if deep blue sky can warm a warmer Earth, an ice cube should be able do even more. Ice is actually a very good emitter, so going directly to the S-B equation, one square meter of 0 ºF ice would be emitting about 340 Watts.

    So, the joke for Lukewarmers is “Why bake food in an oven when you can bake in your freezer?”

    And, of course, if 340 Watts is not hot enough, just add more ice…

  34. Arfur Bryant says:

    I suspect the Lukewarmist and Warmist confusion comes from either a misinterpretation of, or the falsity of, Prevost’s ideas on the subject of ‘radiant fire’.

    Yes, all objects above absolute zero emit radiation but no, not all emitted radiation is absorbed for thermal energy gain. Only radiation emitted by a hotter body to a cooler body is absorbed for thermal gain. The radiation emitted by a cooler source does not have the power to jump the energy gap (wider electron orbit?) to make the hotter body raise its thermal energy level. The radiation from the Sun has that power, ‘backradiation’ from atmospheric CO2 does not, unless the receiving surface is cooler, which is certainly not the case globally.

    So demonstrating that one can identify ‘backradiation’ exists is a far cry from proving that it causes warming of the surface! Hence the potato analogy…

    Then, when they can’t argue this basic concept, they resort to changing the goalposts and pretend that CO2 acts as an insulator!

  35. markstoval says:

    geran and Joseph

    Thanks to both of you for the clarifications. I have never used a hand-held IR thermometer and so was not real sure what it was measuring. Now I see how he is fooling himself.

  36. geran says:

    Dang, checked back this morning and discovered my typo. “340 Watts” should be “240 Watts”.

    Sorry if it caused any confusion.

  37. Martin Clark says:

    Thought I’d add a comment here as the thread has come round to something I have been doing recently – checking outdoor IR at night.
    (I have been using IR guns for a while as part of building design and inspection work, for checking on internal ‘hot spots’ where insulation inside cavities has become displaced or has been omitted, or internal surfaces of high thermal capacity material such as concrete walling, which sometimes takes months to cool down. This is 19.18°S, where heat is what matters, and cold is an occasional novelty.)
    I don’t get minus values for clear night sky, but they are the lowest. Readings at an angle are higher. Surprising to me was obtaining higher values off cloud compared to clear sky even if it is fairly high. Big increase as soon as the angle includes any vegetation. As expected, higher readings from rocks and concrete paving than from turf and bare earth. I am struggling a bit getting readings throughout the night, but the rate of heat loss from the surface only seems to vary with airflow and humidity. RH highest, 80s & 90s when airflow is “calm”. 50mm thick concrete slab in full sun that reads 60°C at 3pm will be 20°C at midnight on a clear night, same at 2 am on a calm humid night, but always back to near air temperature at dawn. (This was last week in April, no rain, min temps 11.7 to 20C).

  38. markstoval says:

    “So demonstrating that one can identify ‘backradiation’ exists is a far cry from proving that it causes warming of the surface!” ~ Arfur Bryant

    That is a very astute observation. I have seen “debates” between luke-warmers and real skeptics that went like this: luke-warmer says there is back radiation and the skeptic says you can’t have a cool object warm a warmer object. Over and over the luke-warmers say that ‘backradiation’ exists. So? But we never hear from them how said ‘backradiation’ is supposed to heat the surface 33 degrees or whatever. Anyone ever seen one of them try to do that?

  39. The Lukewarmers and alarmists say that the observation of IR spectra at the ground, i.e., what they call “backradiation”, is the evidence for the radiative greenhouse effect. They’ll say that since we can detect IR radiation at the surface from the atmosphere with a spectrograph, then this proves that radiation is coming from the colder atmosphere and heating the warmer surface, with the “heating” claim being just that – a claim. But the existence of an atmospheric IR spectra itself is not the evidence required for their GHE! The evidence required would be backradiation actually causing heating at the surface measurable in its effect on temperature in real time, and this doesn’t exist. That non-existence of effect on temperature has actually been measured.

    And so look at the radiative heat flow equation for two parallel emitting sources:

    Q’ = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)

    The skeptics do not say that the second term, “backradiation”, Tcool, doesn’t exist. We say that taken as a whole equation, which is what the heat flow is, that the heat flow equation shows that heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, and the atmosphere’s radiation can’t warm the surface. They think that just because the Tcool term exists, means that it is heating the surface – this is just a plain illogical anti-physics statement, in contradiction of what heat flow and its equation is. The existence of the Tcool term itself does not mean heat flow from cold to hot! That Tcool is detectable with an appropriate device still does not mean that its presence causes heat to flow from cold to hot!

    There is of course a cool term, Tcool, in the equation, but the equation as a whole says that even with the cool term, heat is only flowing from the hot side to cool side.

    So then their way out of that is to say that Q’, the heat flow term, is the fixed energy from Sun, and so if the Tcool (atmosphere) term goes up, then the Thot (surface) term must also go up to keep Q’ constant. But wait a minute: Q’ is heat flow and it is not a conserved quantity – it goes to zero when thermal equilibrium is reached. Also, if Q’ is the power from the sun (it isn’t), and if Thot and Tcool are for the surface and atmosphere, then the equation has no physical meaning at all because “the energy from the sun Q’” is not required to be physically equal to the difference in energy output between the Earth’s surface and Earth’s atmosphere – that’s just nonsensical and without meaning or physics, and it’s not what the terms of the radiative heat flow equation are supposed to correspond to.

    You see how insane it all is? It is just a smorgasbord of irrationality. They are all either idiots, skilled sophists, or sophist idiots.

  40. Yes, and then they will completely change the entire ontology and physics of their whole scheme, and say that CO2 is an insulator.

    Well, either way, a glass box greenhouse device which can directly empirically test either scenario, they both require the same end-point: that the temperature will be higher than the external input radiant forcing factored appropriately for absorptivity and emissivity etc. Such a device does not report the additional (higher) temperature as required.

    Empirical QED losers…since you’re too stupid to understand basic logic and a very simple equation. Morons.

  41. Arfur Bryant says:


    Thank you for your compliment. I too have witnessed (and had) many discussions with Warmists and Lukewarmists alike where the other party has just assumed that any radiation emitted adds thermal energy to the receiver. Hence they refer to net heat transfer, or net radiation transfer as being identical.

    going back to the rgbatduke comment:
    [“To understand how this “warms” the surface, it suffices to note that all heat transport mechanisms in physics are monotonic in temperature difference. As has often been pointed out on this list, net heat transport by spontaneous processes is from warm to cool, at a rate that strictly increases with the difference in temperature.”]

    Heat transfer only works one way – from hot to cold. The way to look at the ‘net heat transfer’ nonsense is this: 5 less 3 is numerically the same as 2 less zero. The difference is 2. But, in the case of heat transfer, the 2 does not arrive from 5-3; it arrives from 2-0 because there is no heat flowing (3) from cold to hot. There is radiation flow both ways, not heat. And, as we keep telling the assumers, radiation IS NOT heat.

    They will confidently state that it is standard physics that there is a ‘net’ heat flow but, crucially, they will never provide empirical (and real) evidence that this is so. Because there isn’t any.

    So, to answer your question, no, I haven’t seen the Warmists explain how backradiation warms the surface. A simple few minutes of reasoning why the Sun’s radiation CAN heat the surface will make them realise why backradiation cannot (globally)…


  42. Greg House says:

    Guys, we’ve had that: energy/radiation goes both way but heat goes one way. I can say it again: at least it sounds confusing. It will not convince anyone. Warmists will successfully counter that with the question “what happens then with the energy/radiation going from cold to hot?”. This is not a good explanation. Or maybe even a false one.

    There is a way to avoid that by focusing on what the “greenhouse effect” is supposed to do: to raise the temperature of the source by “back radiation”. We also know already that it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. This is what everyone can understand. Counting energy is the simplest way to deal with the “greenhouse effect”. Forget the “heat flow” and “net” things, it is what warmists love for a good reason.

  43. geran says:

    Joseph gets going so fast he often forgets many do not understand quantum physics. The equation:
    Q’ = s*(Thot^4 – Tcool^4)
    only applies for perfect black body radiation in a perfect vacuum.

    Just in case some “Warmist” tries to shoot him down. His point is accurate. Sky temps, at well below freezing, CANNOT warm the Earth!

  44. Greg House says:

    About IR thermometer allegedly proving GHE. Spencer goes so far as to say “I’ve used a handheld IR thermometer to directly measure its effect (the temperature of the surface of a thermopile in the device increases as you scan from pointing straight up in a clear sky to pointing at an angle…voila! Downwelling sky radiation changing surface temperature!).” Clearly a “cold warms hot” guy.

    It should be said that that is impossible. A colder object does not warm the warmer detector. When pointed at a colder target the detector cools depending on the targets temperature, which causes certain changes in the electrical circuit, which in turn can be converted into temperature.

  45. markstoval says:

    Greg House,

    I have read your take this issue before. You are suggesting a line of tactics of staying away from dealing with the question, “what happens then with the energy/radiation going from cold to hot?”.

    My opinion on that tactic is that question is central to the whole issue and to avoid it will win no converts. What does happen to the radiant energy that gets sent back down to earth from the atmosphere? That question must be dealt with, otherwise Dr. Spencer will claim that his hand held IR thermometer proves the Slayers are all cranks, and A. Watts will run widely read posts celebrating his “win”.

    in one man’s opinion, we must do these things:

    1) Show that CO2 has not done any warming. (the lukes are with us on this one)

    2) Show that CO2 can not warm the surface anyway. (tell why there is backradiation but it does not do what the alarmists say it does — and say that in simple terms)

    3) Explain how there really is an atmospheric effect. The atmosphere really does things to the temperature (along with the oceans) but it cools and distributes heat around the system rather than warm it by 33 degrees.

    4) Explain how a thing warming itself is a violation of what we have learned over the last two centuries in physics. (again, with layman explanations)

    5) Explain how hot the earth would be if there was no atmosphere to cool it. (the moon is right there to use as an example)

    The above will not reach Dr. Spencer or A,. Watts perhaps, but the war is being fought for the “average Joe” in the street. In our political battles we need to communicate our truths to the people … remembering that the other side controls the media. They have all the appeals to authority on their side. All we have is the truth.

  46. Mindert Eiting says:

    A theatre may consist of a theatre hall and an entrance hall. At the beginning of the evening people stream from the outside into the entrance hall and next into the theatre. After the performance people stream from the theatre hall into the entrance hall and next to the outside. The rate people leave the building, depends on the number of doors and their width. If you close one of the doors, the rate people leave the building, decreases. Because the entrance hall remains more crowded, the rate people stream from the theatre hall into the entrance hall also decreases, since it depends on density differences in the halls (if you want to the fourth power). So the theatre hall remains more crowded. It would be bizarre to say that the theatre hall remained/became more crowded because of a back stream of people in the opposite direction from the entrance hall into the theatre hall. I do not know who invented the nonsense of back radiation, but do you understand that not all luke-warmers endorse it? Yes, I know that Spencer trivially measures the density in the entrance hall which can never imply that people go back to the theatre hall. I want to know whether CO2 closes doors to outer space. That is the question to which Joseph has to give an answer.

  47. As I said, with Q’ = k (Thot^4 – Tcool^4), that you can detect the Tcool term with an appropriate instrument does not mean that cold is heating hot! These people are such sophists and poor scientists!

  48. Guys I’m almost done a new paper that puts all this to bed. It’s my best one so far and is brief and consice, unlike my past lengthy ones.

    Question for advice from you: Should I send it to Energy & Environment for review and publication, self publish here, or publish with PSI? What do you think is the best way to get such a consice and direct paper out and how best to “force” it into people’s understanding etc?

  49. Greg House says:

    Joe, I suggest you publish it here and I do my best to take it apart in the most positive way, so let us discuss it first. Then you can maybe correct something if necessary and then send it to journals.

  50. Greg House says:


    To your 5 points, only 2and 4 are relevant, they are about the “greenhouse effect”. Like I said many times, the warming by back radiation is impossible, because it is equivalent to creating energy out of nothing. This is the same as warming itself by own heat. The body “warmed” this way would radiate away more energy than it gets. That demonstrates that the whole AGW thing is based on a non-existing process.

    The other 3 points are irrelevant and only obfuscate the issue.

  51. Derek Alker says:

    Re New paper.
    E&E is part of the official record, none of the others are. Therefore, first.
    Then letter to nature perhaps.
    Then here and PSI.
    Then Tallblokes workshop.
    Then Curry.
    Then Watts, Spencer, Id, et al

  52. Arfur Bryant says:


    [“My opinion on that tactic is that question is central to the whole issue and to avoid it will win no converts.”]

    I agree. The question “what happens then with the energy/radiation going from cold to hot?” is absolutely fundamental to the debate, as it is the biggest misconception the Warmists and (some) Lukewarmists have, along with the term ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

    The straight answer, in my view, is this: the so-called ‘backradiation’ is at a frequency which is lower than the radiation being emitted by the warmer object. Hence the ‘backradiation’ is either transmitted (depending on the composition of the receiver) or reflected. The term ‘reflected’ can be taken to mean “absorbed for no energy gain and instantly re-emitted at the same frequency”. Hence there is no increase in temperature of the (already warmer) receiver and, therefore, no further reduction in the cooling rate.

    I’ve said it before on this site, simply gainsaying the pro-cAGW argument is pointless. Yes, they are guilty of assumption and dogma; so what is needed is clear, reasoned argument that at least can win over the section of Joe Public which is at least reasonably objective.


  53. blouis79 says:

    There is enormous confusion between “earth = solid” vs “earth = earth+atmosphere”. To make the physics clearer, I think when talking about radiaitve thermal equilibrium, we should only talk about “earth = earth+atmosphere”. What goes on inside the “thermodynamic atmosphere+earth solid” in terms of distribution of chaotic heat energy is a separate discussion. I suggest that the radiative thermal equiibrium temperature of a sphere in space lit by parallel rays (the sun) is independent of all physical surface composition properties. A mug simple space experiment can easily prove or disprove.

  54. Derek Alker says:

    btw Joseph, don’t forget the journals that Robitaille (in particular) and Dr. Miskolczi (Maybe – I can possibly help with a Hungarian translation) have published in.

    Nor, Marohasy’s blog (same time as Tallbloke), and Jo Nova (same time as Watts et al).

  55. Derek Alker says:

    blouis79 I think it should be earth = earth + oceans + atmosphere….
    Without an atmosphere there would be no oceans…..

    This means heat capacity, and the water cycle HAVE TO BE INCLUDED,
    which changes everything…

  56. geran says:

    The scientific process is SUPPOSED to go something like this:

    1) A theory is proposed and presented to the scientific community.
    2) The scientific community tries to shoot it down, if possible.
    3) If, after time, the theory still stands, it advances in stature based on its own merit.
    4) If the theory is shot down, it goes back to being revised, or dumped.

    The IPCC CO2/AGW nonsense should have been dumped from the very start. I have seen (but cannot find now) that even Arrhenius disavowed his own theory before he died. I believe that, because Arrhenius was actually a good scientist, and before his death, he would have had access to a lot of new information on radiative heat transfer.

    But, even if good scientists get confused, “Climategate” should have opened their eyes. Take our friend Dr. Spencer, for example. He clearly does not understand radiative heat transfer, but he wants to be a good scientist. So, even if he does not understand the physics, did he not understand that the Climategate emails clearly proved AGW was no longer about science? How does he still cling to the IPCC science, after Climategate???

    And then, there is the last 20 years of relatively flat global temperatures. But, CO2 levels continue to rise. CO2 levels rising, temps remaining flat (possibly dropping), is NOT the IPCC CO2/AGW “science”.

    But, the WUWT crowd still bitterly clings to the IPCC nonsense.

    Joseph started this post with: “I identified years ago that climate alarm via the sophistically-named “atmospheric greenhouse effect” was the new religion for atheists, new agers, and other types of idiots in general…”

    Maybe Joseph has it 100% right….

  57. markstoval says:


    Well put and I agreed wholeheartedly.

    I was re-reading just now. Joseph P. put it all very well and I understand it. I agree with it. The trouble I am having is how to explain/prove/demonstrate to others that just because a photon hits the earth don’t necessarily mean that it gets absorbed and therefore raises the earth’s temperature.

    I finally thought of an experiment but I don’t know if it would work. Take a surface heated to a constant temperature by constant internal heat source, say 50 C. (or whatever) Make sure you have an embedded thermometer to accurately measure the temperature of the surface. Then use high intensity infrared lamps (or radio waves?) to shine on the surface and see what happens to the temperature. If the luke-warmers were correct, I should be able to heat the hot surface with the cooler radiation.

    Or perhaps heat the surface with gamma rays and then try to add to that with radio waves. But can we measure temperatures well enough for something like this to make any sense?

    I totally believe that you can not transfer heat from a cold object to a hot one. I would like to ram that down the throats of the folks at wuwt. (hmmmmm. I need to work on those anger issues. time to meditate)


  58. Truth is Geran that science doesn’t work like that at all. It’s a fraud that it works anything like that at all.

  59. Arfur Bryant says:


    I agree it should be fairly easy to carry out such an experiment, although the re-emitting source would have to be cooler and, the crucial point with respect to the cAGW debate is that the cooler emitter has itself been warmed by the first (warmer) energy source!, Hence your ceramic plate would have warmed a room temperature object very slightly and it is THAT slightly warmed object that is then supposed to warm the original source even further! It is way past ridiculous.

    It might help to read this section of hyperphysics regarding the interaction of radiation with matter:



  60. geran says:

    Mark and Arfur, a suitable experiment happens daily in almost every house. If a house has a hallway, or room, with opposing walls, you have your experiment! Walls radiate IR, so, each wall is “heating” the other wall.

    As you know, over time, the wall temperatures will increase to the point the homes catch fire. (This is why we have firemen, duh.)


    For those Lukers peeping in, this is sarcasm. Walls can NOT warm themselves.

    You need mirrors on the walls, right Anthony? (Yup, more sarcasm.)

  61. Arfur Bryant says:


    Aaah… Spontaneous Confusion! I see it all the time on some sites…


  62. James says:

    Just a quick question, on the ‘cold heats warm’ belief that warmists cling to. In the energy consideration that they use in this, do they say that cold gets more cold when doing so?

  63. No, they actually say that cold gets hotter in doing so. That’s why the the cold atmosphere gets hotter! Because the cold atmosphere heats the hotter surface which thereby makes the atmosphere hotter still.

  64. James says:

    Aha – well that’s a very clear flaw in their logic I would think Joseph. That’s what I would point out to them, since cool does indeed contain some heat, but by losing it – it cannot get warmer. This is a clearer point than saying a cool body cannot shed heat to a hotter one, since cold bodies can lose heat.

  65. John says:

    What if we put a concave mirror behind the earth with a diameter of 5 times that of the Earth, so that the suns rays reflected back toward the Earth rather than just going by it. Like a mirror from a reflecting telescope that focuses the sun’s rays onto the Earth.

    What would be the temperature of the mirror?

    Would the Earth be any warmer as a result of the mirror?

    By the way, no climate alarmist here, just trying to understand what you guys are saying. From the evidence that I have seen, the more CO2 the better for life.


  66. Yes John more CO2 = more life.

    If you put a large mirror behind the Earth, so big (5 times Earth diameter) that it captured solar energy to reflect back to the night-side of Earth and make it day-time, then you would get a much warmer planet indeed since input would continue 24/7. You would get cooling only when a region passed through the limbs of the Earth – what would have been “evening” and “morning” times.

  67. Kathy Berkowitz says:

    Western science came into existence in the religious context of the late Middle Ages, when Christian Platonists sought the divine seeds hidden in nature. However, these early proto-scientists always made a distinction between absolute truth and what could be measured because they knew the Infinite could not be measured. This gap between Infinite and finite could be negotiated with mathematical symbols that were considered a parallel process to God’s divine creation. They also recognized that human institutions, no matter how lofty, were subject to human error. Of course, this led to endless attempts to reform those institutions, which in the case of the Church led to wars, and eventual demise as we see with the current Pope–what an idiot. In the case of carbon caused global warming I’ve heard it’s best to follow the money, not the spirit of anything–law or otherwise. They want more money for their banking fraud, it’s all too obvious.

  68. Great comment Kathy! Indeed, that is so obvious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s