Slayer Live Webcast: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect (Jan 10, 10AM MST)

PDF of presentation: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect

Presentation start at 18:20.

In this live webcast I will be giving a slideshow presentation which demonstrates that the radiative greenhouse effect, upon which climate alarm and even the field of climate science itself is based, does not exist. On both scientific requirements of having theoretical & empirical support, the radiative greenhouse effect is proven to have neither: it is based in false physics and paradox, violates the laws of thermodynamics, and doesn’t produce the empirical observables it predicts and claims responsibility for.

It isn’t just that climate alarm isn’t as bad as the alarmists say it is, it is that the very foundation of the science – the radiative greenhouse effect – is in error, does not exist, and hence the alarmism and the policy surrounding it is completely, 100% in error.

Not merely slightly wrong, not mostly wrong, but completely 100% wrong.

If you start with false premises, everything you subsequently extrapolate from those premises will likewise carry along the original error and thus exhibit error within themselves.

I will do the webcast live, but it will be saved on Youtube for watching later too.

After the science discussion I will also discuss some of the political and cultural impacts as well, as they segway directly in.


This entry was posted in Fraud of the Greenhouse Effect and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Slayer Live Webcast: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect (Jan 10, 10AM MST)

  1. squid2112 says:

    This is AWESOME!!! … I will be watching for sure!!! … can’t wait!

  2. Pingback: Slayer Live Webcast: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect (Jan 10, 10AM MST) | ajmarciniak

  3. Joe, huge thanks for this essential and long-overdue video presentation setting out the key points of Slayer science. There is no doubt that what you presented exposed the radiative greenhouse gas effect as junk science – it simply doesn’t exist in the real world.
    On a presentation note the feedback we have had so far at PSI about the video is that the graphics were too small to read easily plus there were perhaps too many words per slide for comfort.
    We have being asked if we can send out a pdf file to interested parties. Do you have that available for distribution yet?
    Many, many thanks again!

  4. Pingback: Slayer Live Webcast: There is no Radiative Greenhouse Effect (Jan 10, 10AM MST) « Fishing Science, Inc

  5. dbhalling says:

    Great video – except you do not start talking until about 18 minutes in.

  6. gseine says:

    Mr Postma, that is a great presentation. That said, there are a couple of little things that occurred to me as I was watching it. I’m going to go through again and I’ll send you some feedback.
    Thank you for a most delightful video link. I believe this will go far toward enlightening a naive public.

  7. squid2112 says:

    Wonderful presentation Joseph !!! … Congratulations!! … Thank you very much for creating!

  8. The purpose of the science text, “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and formation of Principia Scientific International has been to expose the fake Alarmist BIG and Luke LITTLE debate, and educate on the real forces and laws governing our planet. The deception is far greater than just the elements in this presentation. More educational videos are pending as visual education has greater results than literary based self study.

    “Lukewarm Lemmings and the Lysenko Larceny” at FauxScienceSlayer, more to come.

  9. Thanks Joe Postma, a stunning summary of truth that exposes the pseudo-science of cllimate alarmism over human emissions of carbon dioxide.

  10. Glenn Sherwood says:

    Thank you for the pod cast concerning non-existent RGHE. I’m a regular reader of the Climate Change Dispatch where your announcement of the podcast was posted on January 10. I saw it and went to the given URL precisely at 1:00 PM CST (I live in Houston, TX). I sat there looking at the blank PowerPoint screen for many minutes before I started moving the position pointer forward in the presentation. I discovered, as has been noted in another comment, that there is silence for the first 18 minutes and 23 seconds (or so) of the presentation. You start talking at about that time.

    I share this so verbosely, and a second time, to offer a warning that the U-Tube viewer who stumbles onto your presentation will quite likely become disenfranchised long before he gets to the 18-minute mark and will go on to another video. The educational impact of your very important message will be drastically reduced. I suspect that in your preparations you connected to whatever video recording mechanism you were using 18 minutes before the start time and did not realize you were creating this long, silent lead to the video. If there is a way to edit it and to cut most of that lead, doing so would be beneficial if you want your message to be heard.

    I viewed the video a second time this morning (I appreciate being able to do so, but my need to do so may suggest that clarity was not a strength of the presentation for the novice). The impact of the realization that the RGHE is all pseudoscience (or woowoo physics) is so large, I feel compelled to fully understand the points made. I do have a PhD in Analytical Chemistry, but must admit, that I never enjoyed or fully grasped physics. I find myself just on the edge of understanding. A few more words around why the numbers on the “flat” earth diagrams apply to the flat earth would be helpful.

    There is a lot of jargon in your presentation, i.e., “Absorbed solar constant flux…at zenith” from your Faults and Paradox slide slips by me.

    Other concepts, such as putting two ice cubes together to get a higher temperature represents one of several excellent pedagogical aids to my understanding, but the connection to the sum in the S-B expression is weak for the non-physicists (i.e., me and most of your readership).

    Accuracy in language is so important and you present that well in your discussion of the difference between physical greenhouse effect and the non-existent RGHE. But use of the terms heat, energy, and temperature is somewhat muddled in your presentation: even in the definitions quoted from your various sources. If heat = energy transfer, then what is heat transfer? what is heat energy? That muddling increases the amount of effort I must expend to understand or increases the “fog index” of your presentation (and it may be why physics was such a challenge for me some 45 years ago).

    As a probably unimportant aside, I did not think your use of the term “asphyxiation” regarding low CO2 concentrations is precise or accurate. Wouldn’t the term “starvation” be more precise. Asphyxiation, to me, implies an excess crowding out another essential component and we are talking about a deficit that exists not because of an excess but because of real losses to geological processes.

    Truthfully pointing out the reprehensibility and vileness (i.e., similarity to the Goblins of Mordor) of many in the GW Alarmists community, while literarily creative, will not likely do much to re-establish the ability to have a discussion with the opposition. Are there better ways to try to make converts?

    Overall, the presentation is very thought provoking. While my musings may seem critical, I hope they will strengthen your ability to spread this message. Thank you for taking the time to put this discussion out there. Maybe some will be challenged to rethink their science. I am much better prepared to defend the position that AGW is a hoax.

  11. Thanks Glenn. Yes I started the presentation 20 minutes early to prepare, and then on the hour I began. Youtube provides some basic video editing and so I am now waiting for it to finish clipping out the first 20 minutes, so that it starts right away. Youtube says it is still processing the edit, but it should be done soon. I did have a link to the start time posted in the text below the video, but have removed that now since the dead-time will be removed once the Youtube edit is finished.

    Thanks for the other comments and in the future perhaps such discussions can be had again, and clarifications will be made as you suggest. I did assume a certain level of understanding of the issue…of course if one gets too muddled in definitions then the discussion proper can never take place. But on the point of energy vs heat vs temperature etc., yes that is a good one to clarify some more.

    I do not think that the people who are unable to recognize the vileness of those comments, and who are alarmists and environmentalists, would ever “come over” to the other side. I do not believe that all people wish for the same things, and I now fully believe them when they say that such vileness is what they wish to experience and to impose. I think it is simply better that the people who are “right in the head” more fully understand and comprehend the nature of the enemy that such good people face. The opposition seeks to dehumanize & kill us in very grotesque ways, and such people are not salvageable nor should they be salvaged; it is better that the remaining thinking people comprehend the grotesque nature of the enemy we face.

  12. Jim Simpson says:

    Thanks Joe – Good effort. A most welcome contribution to the ongoing CAGW debate.

    I echo Glenn Sherwood’s comments above and note that you have already recognised their merit and foreshadowed likely adoption for future presentations. For your ‘message’ to be understood by ‘Joe Public’, perhaps you could also seek guidance/assistance from those who specialise in Marketing & Communications in an effort to demystify the physics of thermodynamics.

    Never the less, for those closer to the ‘science’ and/or those (like me) without a science background, but with a firm interest in the topic, I found it most useful and will share widely!. Thanks again.

  13. Cheers Squid! 🙂

    And Hans and Olson too.

  14. Russ Jimeson says:

    Speaking of a “grotesque enemy”, I had a very unsettling experience on my first viewing of your presentation on Youtube, Joe. Due to another commitment, I wasn’t able to watch your live event at 10:00am MST on Tuesday. That same evening, I eagerly called up the Youtube version.

    As has been pointed out, there was a long lead time of about 18 minutes before your presentation began. (It is now fixed and starts immediately.) After a few minutes, I became restless and tried advancing the time line at the bottom of the screen.

    I eventually landed on some video content that was decidedly not your presentation. What I got instead were some snippets of pro-AGW alarmist videos and some sophomoric attempts at snide humor that were overlaid or interposed on your content.

    My first thought was that your presentation had been hacked by someone who did not want your presentation to reach an audience. I commented on it on the Facebook page “There is no Greenhouse Effect”. When no one else at the site described a similar experience, I began to wonder whether only my computer had been hacked with malware.

    That possibility seemed to be confirmed when I later tried a Bing search on an unrelated matter. My anti-virus program popped up with a warning that a “malicious attack” was ahead if I proceeded. I tried other search engines (Google and Yahoo), and got the same warning screen.

    So, this is a long winded way of asking if anyone else experienced anything like this when first visiting the Youtube video on Tuesday evening. The malicious attack warning popped up on searches all day yesterday and into this morning when I called my anti-virus provider to have it successfully removed. I can now watch the video as it was intended to be viewed, without what may have been alarmist subterfuge directed at rendering your video unwatchable or at confounding me for spreading the notice (I had shared your announcement to two FB pages). I suspect it was the latter.

    In any case, I found your presentation outstanding. Thanks for producing it. May the truth of it reach a broad and deep audience.

  15. That’s interesting Russ. I had a few reports from others that the presentation was corrupted and not watchable, even though it was streamed at 720p and was perfectly clear on my end.

    Well, it all seems well now, at least. I hope you’ve got your computer cleaned up too!

  16. geran says:

    Absolutely Awesome, Joseph!

    I watched the entire video on Youtube. My only criticism is: Why didn’t you do this earlier?

    But, it really was a great production. You explained everything so well, even a “Lukewarmer” should be able to understand….

  17. More coming! Stay tuned.

  18. Gary Ashe says:

    I found some bits hard to understand what you saying Joe, but having followed your blog i could fill in the gaps,, Accent, sort of blurred some bits,,,,,,

    Heres hoping you dont have to make another one, as the transition teams bleach the American government departments clean of 2 words ‘climate change” it will completely disssapear from government speak.

    Do you think any of the legit temperature data sets will go rogue for headlines ?.
    Tony Heller would be a perfect pick for tom karls or gavins job,.

    Anyway good listen, be lucky.

  19. squid2112 says:

    So, Joseph, I have been spreading this video around as much as I can (I just love it!) .. and while I was posting links to it on my Fakebook page, I happen to run across this “next up” video in the YouTube sidebar … I had to clean the coffee off of my monitor 4 times and I didn’t even make it through the entire video I was laughing so hard.

    For a comical relief, I suggest watching this video .. it is sure to split your sides!

  20. It is really just so sad how people teach that rghe stuff without thinking about what they’re teaching! Just rote repetition and no critical thinking.

  21. squid2112 says:

    Once one understand (and easily so I might add) the physical laws that govern our universe, as you outlined so well in your webcast, it makes this video better than an SNL skit.

    The thing I find horrific about it however, is that this lady is obviously teaching this stuff to a class. That is like teaching “The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy” as if it were proven physics. Such a shame.

    Fortunately, with the election of President Trump, I believe you are going to begin to see the scam of “Climate Change” come crashing down. I am, at this time, attempting to get the message of your webcast video to the Trump administration. I don’t know if I will be successful, but I am trying. If there is anyone on here that can lend a hand, please step up. I would really like to see, at some point, Joseph Postma briefing the Trump administration with the FACTS about the Laws of Thermodynamics and why a Radiative Greenhouse Effect cannot exist, and because of this, why the entire “Global Warming / Climate Change” movement is nothing more than a scam. I think he already had the idea, but armed with the information you present in your webcast would really hit a homerun.

  22. We have had contact with them via Tim Ball who was invited by the EPA transition team to advise them. They know. But it would be good for me to have a visit too in order to focus on this most fundamental point and hammer it home…our kids are being taught flat Earth physics by these monsters! Please do help me get the visit myself. In any case, the policy that is now being followed is indeed exactly what we intended. They know it’s all BS…they know we need more CO2.

  23. geran says:

    Gary Ashe says “Tony Heller would be a perfect pick for tom karls or gavins job.”

    Gary, be wary of Heller. He is a devout Lukewarmer. Just like his “brother”, Watts, he does not understand physics. He has actually stated “CO2 produces warming”!

  24. squid2112 says:

    @geran … You are absolutely correct geran! .. I have had many conversations with Heller on this subject, and he absolutely believes that a cooler object can add heat to a warmer object, and also absolutely believes that CO2 heats our planet and causes a greenhouse effect. Heller is a wonderful weather historian, but he knows absolutely nothing about physics.

  25. Gary Ashe says:

    Thanks Geran,

    I like Tony because he will un-smudge the data-sets, that act alone disappears AGW from any serious science because it isnt happening, Heller knows what Schmidt has done and is doing.

    His presentation to the Aussie gov was very good, i watched it, Both he and Tim Ball who i like, i dont know these people, but i adjudge them honest, and honest is all is all its going to take,

    I read all the time, Harvard chaired NASA physicists who well out-rank idiots like Schmidt etc. Their/studies find no trace of human effect on sea-levels etc 1.18mm a year average last 160yrs.
    Business as usual next 100yrs 1.18mm a year,….thats for the worlds 6 most studied oceans.

    The idiocy they have to include ”yet” after their conclusion of no trace of AGW {yet]…….
    Because their funding depends on it,…..why would lie, what happens when someone like Heller/Ball is deciding what GISS sea level information shows,,

    Honesty and global warming is conspiracy theory about the fossil fuel industry winning a battle,….
    It doesn’t exist in the real world, the very mechanism underlying the postulate doesn’t exist.

    Energy from an ice cold sky comes back all day long,..
    But you cannot add all that cold energy up,…figure out how much energy is required to heat the surface for 24 hours, then apportion that amount of totted up soon be pretend sunshine, cold energy can only warm colder energy , you cannot award it a warming power it never had at the surface, or any layer below in a basic flat earth model with no forcing’s, i think its nonsense.

    Sorry about the terminology or what might ”seem” like trying to educate, when actually i am trying to express what i have learnt here…….i use ”warm” or ”cold” ofcourse i mean frequency,..higher consuming lower, onwards and upwards never backwards low energy cannot consume high energy is my understanding of thermal flow,…..

    ps i hope I am,right…a more succinct way to express my understanding if am would be helpful.

    All the best lads,…….the axeman cometh,,,,,,whudda thought it would be a 70yr old yank swinging it….

  26. Gary Ashe says:

    Can i ask a question lads.

    When a molecule is being bathed in both longwave and shortwave flux’s at the same time.
    Is the molecule warming from centre to skin ?.

    Is the longwave adding anything to a molecule thats at a higher frequency than the molecule that emitted it.

    That was 2 i know, now a 3rd, what happens to the longwaves weaker thermal potential..when absorbed by a higher frequency molecule….


  27. geran says:

    “…what happens to the longwaves weaker thermal potential..when absorbed by a higher frequency molecule….”

    The key word is “absorbed”. If the incoming IR is outside the molecule’s absorption band it gets reflected. There is NO energy transfer in that case.

    This is one of the points Lukewarmers cannot understand. If IR is coming back to the surface from the atmosphere (back-radiation) then it MUST be heating the planet, they say. NO! The IR wavelengths from the atmosphere just get reflected back to the atmosphere. There is NO heat transfer. The photons bounce back and forth until they are eventually emitted to space.

    We can actually see this photon reflection happening all around us. During daytime, grass appears green because the green wavelengths from the Sun are being reflected back to our eyes.

    (Very short explanation, hopefully not confusing….)

  28. Gary Ashe says:

    Thanks Geran.

    Yeah thats a good way to put it,……i used high consuming low etc,…..its all mind imagery for the layman,……hard to express,….i can see it, the process’s the ”flows” in a basic model with no forcing’s plugged in,….

    I have 2 basic models i picture.
    One the basic Newtonian meteorological model Joe posted in the flat earth series of postings, That is what i was taught at school nearly 50 yrs ago.
    Something like 83% of the heat produced in the earths surface is removed by latent, sensible, and convected heat,……to the TOA where it all burns of as longwave,,,,

    And i see the mechanics in-play of a back-radiation model,,,,,with its amplification,….
    Same as holding my hand above a hot plate on a stove, my hand is warm and emitting but it isnt making the hot plate any warmer,……if it did, the H P would get warmer, that would make my hand warmer,…which would make the H P warmer, and that amplification would carry on till one or the other melted,…….

    Anyway i appreciate joe letting me struggle by here, and all you guys,…

  29. Matt in Frisco says:

    Finally had the time to go through your video.
    Great presentation JP. A nice tour de force shredding the gibberish of the evil tyrannical elites.

  30. Gary Ashe says:


    Have you considered turning the long series of posting on the fraud of tghe into singular linked audio, as in podcast, and link them,.

    Examples like the absurdity of quarter strength 24/7 sunshine being a basis of anything real.
    I mean the perfect loaf example, the difference between theoretical mathematics, and real world physic’s, energy distribution/flow, its all good Joe,

    Short and catchy people will watch start to finish, or listen to rather, or both, they already have to have a science back-ground to understand and take in the full bundle Joe,…the podcast is everything bundled..

    Easy people in with post linked 5/10 min pod/video casts, 1 pt 2 etc etc…..the public are not ”wired” like you guys.

    Be lucky.


  31. Pingback: Slayer Youtube: How the Flat Earth Error Occured | Climate of Sophistry

  32. Sean Foley says:

    Where did you get the citation for the photosynthesis shutting down below 200 PPM CO2?

  33. “Where did you get the citation for the photosynthesis shutting down below 200 PPM CO2?”

    I recall reading it someplace but can’t find where now. In any case, the quantity of life supportable on the planet is a positive linear function of CO2 concentration. More CO2 = more life.

  34. Torsten Persson says:

    Example No. 1
    Imagine an empty space.
    Place a black sperical body with internal temperature control in the space.
    According to physical laws and experiments this black spherical body will emit energy flux isotropically in the space. I presume that you agree.
    Crucial question no.1 :
    When the energy flux has left the spherical body and moves through empy space, does it know the temperature of the spherical body it was emitted from? I,e. does the energy flux have a memory? If so, how is this memory stored by the flux?
    Please comment!

  35. Answer: Yes.

    The temperature of the body is what determines the flux, it’s spectrum, it’s intensity, and of course it’s source. The energy flux diminishes with distance thus giving the point of origin, and the photons are vector-directional and have greatest intensity when looking back at their source, and flux has a spectrum and intensity dependent upon its source’s temperature. So yes, the flux has the baked-in imprint or “memory” of its source. The flux itself is the memory. The flux itself IS the “memory” of the source and it is stored in the flux’s spectrum and its intensity and its directionality.

  36. Torsten Persson says:

    If you study only a small part of the space, what does that say. Can you from the sunlight at the earth tell how hot the sun is?

  37. Yes. Most definitely. Of course you can. That’s introductory astronomy. Not just the Sun. Any star. Etc.

  38. Torsten Persson says:

    Example No. 2
    Imagine an empty space.
    Place a black spherical body with internal temperature control in the space.
    According to physical laws and experiments this black spherical body will emit energy flux isotropically in the space.
    Place a second black body distant from the first. By definition a black body absorbs all incoming radiation. A fraction of the radiation from the first black body will hit the second black body and be absorbed by the second black body. I presume that you agree.

    Does this second black body in any way change the emission from the first black body?
    Or merely cast a shadow downstream?

  39. You first need to be careful with what you’re actually defining. Something defined as a “black body” which “absorbs everything” doesn’t exist, neither theoretically nor physically.

    What does theoretically exist is a blackbody (one word, not two) as defined by thermodynamics and which obeys all laws of thermodynamics; few objects if any are true physical blackbodies but some are quite close in certain situations. This object only absorbs heat from another object if the other object is warmer – the equation for heat transfer applies to a blackbody since a blackbody is a theoretical concept from thermodynamics, and hence all of the rules of thermodynamics apply to it. If all of the laws of thermodynamics do not apply, then this is something that does not exist either theoretically or physically and hence there is no point in talking about it.

    If the second blackbody is a passive object starting off at 0K then yes it absorbs heat from the primary energy/heat source until thermal equilibrium is achieved, at which point the second body absorbs no more heat; it can not change the emission from the first blackbody since it has no heat to send to it. Yes, it casts a shadow downstream.

  40. Torsten Persson says:

    You wrote earlier that you can identify the temperature of the sun by known means and advanced calculus. How should the actual flux do the same thing? The flux has no advanced means at all.

    The second blackbody has a certain temperature no doubt about that, but how does the incoming flux know this temperature?
    How does the incoming flux know the temperature of the emitting body?
    What happens when the second body reaches the temperature of the first body?
    How can the flux be stopped? I mean this fraction.
    Where does it go?
    Are you really convinced?
    (I am not a native Englishman but I have a clear mind.)

  41. The properties of the flux are its qualitative and quantitative nature…in nature determines what it is and what it can do. 1 = 1 and 1 is not equal to 2. 1 behaves as one. 2 behaves as two. 1 doesn’t do what 2 would do. It doesn’t have to be conscious or to do its own math consciously by “advanced means”. Billiard balls don’t need to calculate their exchange of momentum…the math is built-in. The language of existence is mathematics, and all things can do nothing but this.

    The incoming and outgoing flux “know” their respective strengths by their own nature – which one is more dense, more intense. How do two forces know which one is stronger? How does an applied force know the mass of the object it is being applied to, resulting in a particular acceleration? These things are called physics, and they function by logic, i.e. mathematics, i.e., an effect can be no greater than its cause, i.e. cause and effect.

    When the second body reaches the temperature of the first, they are in thermal equilibrium. Their exchange of energy is equal.

    No flux is stopped. The flux goes in all the directions it can.

  42. Torsten Persson says:

    I wish you would be more physical and less filosofical.

    [JP: Physics is mathematics. Call it physics or philosophy or whatever. You do physics with math.]

    You have to realize that you will have to search very long before you find someone that agrees with you.

    [JP: Mathematics and the laws of thermodynamics agrees with me…or rather I agree with them. Other people being stupid doesn’t affect the laws of thermo.]

    Don’t mix with billiard balls. Physical laws give a clear explanation of their movements.

    [JP: You had asked how a flux knows that it is a flux; how a wavelength knows that it is a wavelength; how a vector knows that it is a vector. So I asked you how a billiard balls knows to exchange momentum.

    The point is, your questions are meaningless and indicate that you do not have a high-school level of familiarity with physics. The “physical laws” you reference for billiard balls also apply to the laws of heat transfer and photons, the latter of which you seem to not comprehend that “physical laws” also apply. Then, if you truly want to know why physical laws can function, the answer has to be mathematical philosophy and logic since science can’t say where physical laws come from, except for referencing mathematics. However I am sure that all that is well beyond you at this point, given that you do not have a high school level of familiarity with mathematics and physics.]

    “No flux is stopped” but if the first body emits isotropically and the path of a fraction of the flux is “blocked” by another body, what happens to that fraction of flux.

    [JP: That fraction of flux is absorbed by the cooler body as heat until thermal equilibrium is achieved. You were referencing stoppage of emission so I answered regarding that…I didn’t think that you needed an explanation of what a shadow is. You are some form of glitching-out AI. Your questions and statements aren’t ones that a human would ask.]

    Please give the physical model for a changed behaviour once the second body becomes warm enough!
    Please explain if the change will be a step function or take place gradually!

    [JP: The equation for heat flow is a differential of time. The approach to thermal equilibrium is asymptotic. The behaviour falls under this physics at all times, and never changes.]

    Try to understand that I and many others find clear similarities between your arguments and the arguments of the Jehowas Witnesses when the defend their dogmas. You may be well prepared linguistically but this is or should be physics.

    [JP: It has been physics. But you ask how a flux can know that it is a flux. Hence how could one discuss physics with you and how can you discuss physics yourself when you haven’t had high school introductory physics?]

    Have you ever studied a textbook on radiative heat transfer?

    [JP: Yes. It would be good if you would familiarize yourself with any physics at all.]

    I have tried to incorporate formulas, well known formulas, in this message but it has not worked so far.

    [JP: That’s probably for the better.]

  43. Torsten Persson says:

    I strongly advice you to watch

  44. Yes that link is really basic high school physics. You must find it quite overwhelming.

  45. Erick Veldhuis says:

    Joseph, at 9:42 you are talking about the paradox… saying a ‘flat earth’ is calculated to be twice as far from the sun … isn’t that just the error of forgetting the earth has one side towards the sun and the other half away from the sun? Just trying to understand.

  46. It is related to that, sure. The point is that it is a paradox…a flat Earth facing the Sun with that input would have to be twice as far away as the Earth actually is. Hence, it is all physically meaningless, because it all paradoxical.

  47. John Stafford says:

    Well Done Sir, well done.
    I too have concluded that Co2 is the life molecule and as you stated we are really too close to planetary extinction, and one in which carbon based life can not recover. We very well could be the dead third rock long before the red giant phase of our start consumes this planet.

  48. Nice to have you here John.

  49. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph I gave shout out to Tony Heller on your behalf (on his website), maybe say hello to him on Twitter or whatever Canadians say these days. I love bringing intelligent like minded people together. Odds are nothing will come of it but he may be able to give you a few pointers on reaching er, you know, those of us w/o a degree in physics. Personally I think you are doing a great job, but advice is always appreciated. Then again you might correspond over email and I’ll never know. Also perfectly acceptable. He has ties you don’t and that is always helpful to get the word in the ears of the right people, ears Roy tries very hard to keep closed.

  50. Brad J says:

    Would you be interested in going on some oilfield podcasts? I know some hosts personally. This topic might be too hot touch, but if you’re interested and willing I think it would be good for a larger audience to hear. The oilfield needs to play more offense. It seems they have fallen into accepting the narrative and believe they’re evil.

    I agree with 100% of your videos calling out the false climate claims. I had a great thermo education. One professor would actually rant on about how garbage climate science is. He gave us a pop quiz on disproving the greenhouse effect the same exact way.

    Anyways, I appreciate the good work.

  51. Hey Brad J – sorry, had to pull this comment from the spam…for some reason it got sent there automatically.

    Yes sure, always up for a discussion with someone. Would be happy to. If you used your real email address I’ll reply to it, otherwise message back on here again for contact.

    Good to hear about your thermo education!

  52. CD Marshall says:

    “Lawyers worldwide submit new evidence to International Criminal Court alleging World Leaders & Scientific Advisors have used Covid-19 & the Injections to commit Genocide and Crimes against Humanity”

  53. CD I think that you posted this to the wrong thread.

  54. CD Marshall says:

    LOL Yes I did.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s