[this was drafted a long time ago but I never posted it at the time; given recent events (Monckton Capitulates to Slayer Science and How Anthony Watts and Christopher Monckton Helped Prove Slayer Rationalism) I think it is worth posting now]

Ducks

If it talks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck, then it’s a duck.

And what is a climate alarm duck?  A climate alarm duck has one very identifiable feature, in fact it has a single feature which distinguishes it from all other species of duck:  It needs the radiative greenhouse effect to live.

Climate alarm is based on a single fundamental postulate: that the atmosphere behaves in some way analogously to a physical greenhouse building, and produces a radiative greenhouse effect, where a cold atmosphere makes a warmer surface warmer instead of cooler.  The alarmist movement just calls it a “greenhouse effect” without making the distinction that it is a radiative greenhouse effect, not a physical greenhouse effect.

There is definitely one type of person who gets very upset when the climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect is questioned, and that person is of course a committed alarmist.

The other type of person is a person who appears to be skeptic or scientist, but doesn’t behave like a skeptic or scientist when it comes to questioning the climate alarm radiative greenhouse effect; in this interesting case, they behave just like an alarmist.  It is quite a curious thing.

Joy of the Internet Hate Machine

So I got put onto an email thread referencing this post at PSI.  The following all occurred at that time, around a year and a half ago by now.

Apparently it made Mr. Christopher Monckton very upset that someone would publish an article with a title that implied that a scientist that he knew would agree with PSI.

What Singer originally said in his summary in his article where he discussed the possibility of climate sensitivity to CO2 being close to zero was:

“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero. I will have to publish the analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”

So the article at PSI was then making the point that if climate sensitivity (CS) is actually indistinguishable from zero, then ipso-facto one has to reconsider the radiative greenhouse effect which is the singular basis of climate alarm, because CS can’t be zero (or close to it) if there is indeed a radiative greenhouse effect.

I got put in to a reply from someone from PSI to this email from Monckton (there were a bunch of people on the cc list…):

Dear Mr O’Sullivan, – You are not, repeat not, to suggest in future that Dr Singer in any way endorses the unscientific superstition to which “Principia” “Scientific” adheres. Like all true scientists, Fred – whom I have contacted – accepts, as any scientist must, that the measured and well established greenhouse effect exists, and that, all other things being equal, our returning to the atmosphere some of the CO2 that was formerly there will be likely to cause some warming. The question in the scientific debate is not whether CO2 will cause some warming – it will: get over it – but whether it will cause very much warming, and whether the warming it causes will be harmful, and whether the cost of attempting to prevent the warming would be greater than permitting it and adapting to it. Dr Singer has remained constant in this position throughout, and you are not in future, on pain of legal action, to attempt any further your characteristically dishonest attempts to suggest that you have somehow persuaded him of anything, let alone of the abandonment of science.

Behave, or else.

– Monckton of Brenchley

Thus, my initial foray into the email thread:

Let us not make it a red-herring about cooling in any case. More important is that the mechanism of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect does not exist, as shown long ago already by Joseph Fourier and his friend Horace-Bénédict de Saussure. The measurements with de Saussure’s “blackened cork vase” unequivocally demonstrated that there is no such mechanism as a radiative greenhouse effect, today represented by such diagrams as this (source: University of Washington):

Fourier and de Saussure, long ago, demonstrated that this supposed mechanism of this diagram does not exist, and any modern analysis free from the contamination of climate pseudoscience sophistry likewise continues to demonstrate that fact.

That above diagram establishes the basis ontology, the metaparadigm, of climate science and its alarm. One can test for the mechanism of this diagram empirically, and one can analyze it via theory and logical analysis, and it does not stand. Radiation does not behave within the atmosphere as some sort of a pressure valve leading to higher temperature. The scale of the pseudoscience of this climate fraud, the scale of the lie, is too much for some to comprehend. Get over it…science makes mistakes and then progresses.

With the climate models, based on this metaparadigm and this ontology of the mechanism of this diagram, failing, it is thus totally irrational to continue believing in and refuse to reconsider the basis theory called the radiative greenhouse effect. It has failed, and to remain unable to imagine criticizing that originating basis postulate – which has demonstrably failed via the climate models – is simply irrational, and not at all scientific. If the underlying model has failed, do we blame nature or the model?  [We blame the model, and the model is the radiative greenhouse effect.]

Radiation from a cooler source does not send heat back to a warmer source, and neither does radiation from a cooler source act like some sort of a pressure valve which radiation from a warmer source must overcome by its source becoming warmer still. It is that diagram above which proposes those ideas, it is those ideas at the basis of climate alarm and climate science as a field, those ideas are called the radiative greenhouse effect, [and they are contradictory to thermodynamics and heat energy flow] and Fourier and de Saussure demonstrated long ago already that those ideas are wrong, that they do not occur, and any empirical test will continue to demonstrate that since nature hasn’t changed, only man’s skill at sophistry and misunderstanding nature, accidental or not.

I have always found it curious how some of the most vocal and public skeptics are simultaneously the most staunch defenders of the single underlying postulate which creates the alarm in the first place, in the form of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The curiosity arises even more with the ongoing failure of the models predicated on that radiative postulate. Whether this indicates accessory to fraud is a court case that would be very interesting to see, and Fourier & de Saussure’s observations would play a central role in demonstrating the initial fact that no radiative greenhouse effect in fact exists. Whether certain players have gone on to purposefully lie about those results, or if they will admit their own incompetence on the subject, would be very revealing indeed.

https://climateofsophistry.com/

Regards,

JP

PS:

A text on radiation heat transfer, for those actually interested, and uncontaminated from climate science:

Click to access Heat_4e_Chap13-Radiation_HT_lecture-PDF.pdf

Note that there is no mention of a radiative greenhouse effect mechanics in situations where they should certainly apply according to the diagram above and its radiative scheme(ing).

The response from Chris Monckton:

Let it be very plain that Fred Singer has denied Mr O’Sullivan’s lie. Like all credible scientists, he recognizes that there is a greenhouse effect and that, all other things being equal, adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will cause some warming. Accordingly, there is to be no more dishonesty from Principia Unscientific about Dr Singer. He is not, repeat not, a convert to their shoddy cause. That is the central point at issue here. There are no respectable scientists supporting the idiocies of your organization, and you most certainly cannot claim Dr Singer as a convert. This is just another lie from an organization whose chief purpose seems to be to allow the Thermageddon cult to maintain that “skeptics” don’t believe in the greenhouse effect. Well, it isn’t working. – M of B

So note here how Mr. Monckton is apparently afraid of the “Thermageddon cult” accusing someone of not believing in the greenhouse effect. But why, what would be wrong with that?

My reply:

As scientists, as skeptics, we do not support the radiative greenhouse effect for the reasons stated in my previous reply and various places & reasons elsewhere. I am a respectable scientist and this is my respectable position which I can defend theoretically and demonstrate empirically at any time, as can any other “Slayer”.

There is no necessary a-priori to believe in the radiative greenhouse effect. It is not an insult that the “Thermageddon cult” would point out that some skeptics do not support their radiative greenhouse effect which they require at the originating level to support their “Thermageddon cult”. To staunchly defend the basis of said “Thermageddon cult” is thus to defend that cult, and is what makes this duplicitous position among some very vocal and public “skeptics” so otherwise curious.

It doesn’t help the “Thermageddon cult” if they point out that some scientists do not support their radiative greenhouse effect and that said scientists can even debunk it entirely – this directly harms them, obviously.

It does directly defend them however when such a basic scientific thing to do as to question a demonstrably failed model and its basis postulate which they require for their policies is turned into a point of ridicule.

Best regards,

JP

Monckton’s reply:

You are neither scientists nor skeptics but crooks. The matter now passes to the District Attorney and to the IRS. The particular matter of concern is not so much the pseudo-scientific nonsense you are paid to peddle in the hope of discrediting climate skepticism, but your falsely claiming the support of scientists who have not in fact lent you support as you say they have done.

You and Mr O’Sullivan – who is one of the nastiest pieces of work I have come across – have made an enormous mistake in trying to pretend that Fred Singer in any way supports your nonsense. He doesn’t, and has just sent me a further email to confirm that that is the case – not that any such email was necessary. Your attempts to blacken his name will now lead to an official investigation of your fraudulent methods, of your funding, and of your tax arrangements. In the meantime, you will do well to remove me from all of your ghastly mailings. Anything further that you send me will be included in the file for the DA and the police.

We have all had enough of your nonsense and your lies about decent scientists such as Professor Singer, who is justifiably disappointed at your self-serving, dishonest, and malevolent misrepresentations of his scientific position on the climate question. Don’t you dare blacken his name again.

– Monckton of Brenchley

On a branch of this email thread, someone else had this to say:

Dear All. As the issue is Willie being in troubles for skepticism about cathastropic agw, it does not help too much the present discussion about the zero or the negligible effect that co2 may have. May I suggest the proponents of zero effect and negligible effect to respect each other and focus on the issue, again Willie being in troubles? The idea of a common letter to the Smithsonian’s is OK to me and should be OK almost to any one believing the scientific debate. The text may certainly be corrected to remove the reference to a negligible agw if this is not well accepted by all of us. There is absolutely no reason to push forward divisions these days. Are we supporting free debate on agw or not?

To which I replied:

I support such debate, indeed, particularly when it doesn’t protect or shield from debate certain fundamentals which are most necessary to debate given that those fundamentals have demonstrably failed via the climate models. Singer and others are of course well and welcome to begin questioning the fundamentals, and the Slayers particularly welcome it, as that was the gist of earlier comments.

Cheers,

JP

Then, Monckton again interjected:

Mr Postma, like his conspirator Mr O’Sullivan, is again disingenuous. This email thread is being copied to the District Attorney, with a complaint from several of us, including scientists in addition to Dr Singer whose support this corrupt organization has attempted falsely to claim for its mad notions. A copy also goes to the IRS with a request for an investigation. Enough is enough. This is where the lies and evasions and circumlocutions stop. The further email from Professor Singer making it quite plain that this poisonous gang of crooks is misrepresenting his opinions makes matter plain, and his permission to forward his emails on the subject to the investigating and prosecuting authorities is being sought.

You have been given more than enough more than plain warnings.

– Monckton of Brenchley

My final interaction to Mr. Monckton:

That’s an awful lot of upset, anger, and ad-hom, all quite apparently directed towards protecting the “Thermageddon Cult’s” radiative greenhouse effect from critical analysis, conveniently using various red-herrings, side-issues, and unfounded legal charges as cover.  Again, it is so curious how some “skeptics” protect and disallow criticism of the greenhouse effect, the greenhouse effect which is the very basis of climate alarm, and which is entirely criticisable for its logical and physical flaws and violations of the laws of thermodynamics.  It is, as I said, duplicitous, and indicates possible compromise of either competency or honesty.

By the way, there is no P&C anywhere on this email chain, and so you are quite welcome to submit my comments to whomever you like – I can defend and explain them at moment’s notice.  Likewise, I shall be using your comments, Chris, from this email thread, for my own purposes including public exposure on my blog.

-The Glamorous Joseph of Postma-

5^th Column Skeptics?

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck, as the old test goes.  Perhaps the definition of “5th Column” would be helpful:

A fifth column is any group of people who undermine a larger group—such as a nation or a besieged city—from within, usually in favor of an enemy group or nation. The activities of a fifth column can be overt or clandestine. Forces gathered in secret can mobilize openly to assist an external attack. This term is also extended to organized actions by military personnel. Clandestine fifth column activities can involve acts of sabotage, disinformation, or espionage executed within defense lines by secret sympathizers with an external force.

Now I don’t know what actually motivates people to censor scientific discussions, and so I merely present that as a possible explanation.

Of course, the Slayers and I have been accused of being such actors as well, the reasoning going that it is “so ridiculous” to question the radiative greenhouse effect that to do so makes skeptics look like fools and undermines the climate skeptic movement.

Well, the alarmists would certainly take that position, and they take the general position that to be skeptical of climate alarm at all is foolish.  That is, being skeptical of climate alarm is foolish, but being skeptical of the radiative greenhouse effect is the most foolish thing of all.  Mainstream climate alarm skeptics then seem able to take the position of being skeptical of climate alarm, and nominally support climate change just not in an alarming manner, but are unable to withstand being called “utter fools” by the climate alarmists and therefore stand firm with the climate alarmists that the basis of climate alarm, their radiative greenhouse effect, is true.  They do that even though their own research and findings have found that there is no evidence of a radiative greenhouse effect in operation.

And so, it seems that what is actually being protected here is not climate alarm, but its underlying faulty basis, the radiative greenhouse effect.  Let me repeat: What is actually being protected is the radiative greenhouse effect, not climate alarm.

The Slayers and PSI however have taken the rational position that if one desires to criticize a theory, then one must examine the theory’s fundamental components.  In the case of climate alarm, there is actually only a single fundamental component and that component is the radiative greenhouse effect.  If the climate alarmist models have failed, and they have, then the sole rational thing to do is to reexamine those models, how they were created, how they work, and what they’re about, etc.  I mean it’s empiricism, right?  And doing any of that leads you squarely into the radiative greenhouse effect and how that concept is developed, and whether or not it is valid.  We have found that it is not valid on basic theoretical grounds a-priori by violating such basic principles as the concept of heat, and the failed models also demonstrate that empirically after the fact.

Why is it so important that everyone “believe” in the radiative greenhouse effect?  Why is this an a-priori?  Why is this something that can not be questioned or thought about?

What other purposes could that mental boundary condition be serving?