The Walking Braindead: Flat Earther Science Denier List

Who gets the honour of being identified as the world’s most braindead!?  It’s not the outright Flat Earther’s, no, not at all!  Rather, it is the people who pretend to stand for modern science and who believe that they have presented to the world science’s greatest accomplishment and relevance to the modern world!  It is the people who truly, seriously, fundamentally believe, while having (at least claiming) actual credentials in science and physics, that they have presented the world with science’s most important work in relevance to mankind, while having based all of their work on literal flat Earth physics and claiming that it reflects actual reality.

Stupid, uneducated people can simply be dismissed and even forgiven for believing in flat Earth science.  Trolls can be ignored while they post links in Youtube comments and various internet places to flat Earth pseudoscience.

However, you must be a very special and particularly acute brand of braindead to truly and seriously present yourself as a scientist with degrees in various scientific fields, professing science’s greatest relevance to mankind in modern times, and have based that proselytizing on flat Earth physics!  This is what every climate alarmist and climate alarm skeptic is guilty of who believes in the radiative greenhouse effect at the sole fundamental basis of climate alarm and the field of climate science.  Here is that basis, from Harvard University no less(!):

Flat Earth physics as taught at Harvard University to students of science!

That’s a flat Earth, you braindead retards!  No offence to people who are actually developmentally retarded due to factors beyond their control.  The people who believe in the radiative greenhouse effect at the basis of climate alarm are willfully braindead retarded.  Here’s flat Earth physics published in an actual science journal(!):

Global Energy budget from the climate science point of view.
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society)

That’s a flat disk, you braindead retards!  DUUUUHHHHH!!!  So they have the flat Earth, and then look what numbers come out of it: sun provides 161 W/m^2 of energy to the Earth surface, and Earth’s atmosphere provides…wait for it…333 W/m^2 of energy to the surface, a full two-hundred-and-seven percent (207% !) more energy than the Sun!


We have actual, real scientists (claimed to be, anyway) who start with a flat Earth, and that’s one thing.  But then they actually go ahead and work out the numbers as if the Earth were actually truly physically flat, find that Earth’s atmosphere must therefore provide 207% more energy than the Sun, and then…wait for it…publish it in a science journal!


One simply has to take a step back from this and marvel at the monumental stupidity of it.  The profound absurdity of it.  One really needs to step back and ask what it means.  What it means about man?  What it means about humanity?  What is says about science?  What it says about the forces behind it?  What it means about man’s place in the universe?  What it means differentially about the folks who do and who do not believe in climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect?  About the difference between those who can’t question it, and those who are capable of doing so?

I went into astrophysics because I found planets, solar systems, galaxies, space, time, existence, etc., profound beyond comprehension.  This situation with the flat Earther science deniers with degrees in science claiming to be scientists is still more profound but in a quite disturbing way.

Here we will collate a list of nominations for the world’s greatest science deniers: those who apparently believe in flat Earth physics by believing in climate alarm and its radiative greenhouse effect, and who have performed some of the world’s greatest efforts at proselytizing it to the public.  Drum-roll…The nominations for the list are:

The Flat-Earther Science Denier List

  • Kevin Trenberth
  • Michael Mann
  • Christopher Monckton
  • Anthony Watts
  • Gavin Schmidt
  • Roy Spencer
  • JoAnne Nova
  • David Evans
  • Everyone at “Skeptical”Science
  • Robert Brown
  • Al Gore
  • Leonardo DiCaprio
  • Richard Branson
  • David Attenborough
  • Richard Lindzen
  • Fred Singer
  • David Whitehouse
  • Benny Peiser
  • Mark Mosher
  • Nick Stokes
  • Willis Eschenbach
  • Neil DeGrass Tyson
  • Bill Nye
  • Bjorn Lomborg
  • more soon to come!

Please suggest names in the comments section and I will add them to the list!

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

50 Responses to The Walking Braindead: Flat Earther Science Denier List

  1. Great article Joe, thanks for once again highlighting the utterly brain-dead “physics” of Earth’s interaction with the Sun as proclaimed by even so-called skeptics. We are heading straight into a new Dark Ages.

  2. I think that “brain dead” here does NOT mean lack of intelligence or lack of education. Rather, it means developing blind spots to critical details of the thinking process that get bypassed when one’s intellectual habits are geared more towards a mechanical cranking out of results, as opposed to a deep analysis of what those results might mean.

    Mathematicians and physicists apparently can do what they do and not really know WHAT they are doing, because the way they learned what they think they know is largely by mimicking — going through the motions of getting the results of calculations, without being careful to observe consistency and meaning throughout their analyses. That’s my suspicion, anyway, based on a few years of seeing my fellow math students in college seemingly crank out mathematical solutions, as I sat baffled, trying to figure out slowly why each step should unfold as it does, making sure all levels of the logic were consistent with where they originated. I apparently lack this important genetic trait of cranking out, and so I am doomed to the slow drudgery of trying to understand what I am doing.

    Case in point, we can note Roy Spencer PhD’s apparent failure to do dimensional analysis on his defense of the “steel greenhouse” thought experiment, leading him to an equation that was not even an equation, according to one very detailed analysis. Brain dead? Well, not in the way we might think. But more like partially brain dead in a very specific region of the brain. “Selective brain death”, we might call it.

    Similarly, with Stephen Hawking. Now today he might really be degenerating mentally, of course, but before this, even with all his faculties in tact, he professed climate alarm, and so even he seemed selectively brain dead, by virtue of the fact that his critical thinking process about climate change was numbed by the authority of other scientists in whom he apparently placed his complete trust on matters of climate change. He failed to confirm the physics behind their claims of doom. Being such a high profile figure, he (in my judgment) was irresponsible for doing this. Before proclaiming doom of other scientists, one should confirm the reasoning to see that their understanding of physics is consistent with one’s own. Especially with the high, … high level of physics knowledge Hawking possessed, you would have thought that he, at least, checked their math, before joining the doom band wagon.

    And now I am amazed at how my lowly self, with not an inkling of the training that some of these PhD’s have, see clarity in details to which their supposedly superior minds seem brain dead. How is this possible? My answer is that this surely confirms that there are different kinds of intelligence, … different dimensions of intelligence, and some people must be brain dead in one or more of these dimensions, while being fully alive in other of these dimensions.

  3. That’s an excellent summary of the situation Robert. As from the other post about the meaning and answer to existence, what a person is able to understand is truly dependent upon their personality type. Their Myers-Briggs type. BTW, do you know yours? I am INTP/J.

    Most scientists and mathematicians are sensing-oriented, mechanically minded and on the autistic spectrum. It is absolutely correct that they are going through the steps, without considering the meaning of the steps. They learned the basic algorithm for conducting such steps in their schooling and learned the general method for applying the algorithm to other specific cases, but they never learned that the particular examples they learned from may have had lifetimes of reasoning and logical analysis behind them to get to those final simplified examples they learned from.

    They have been turned into functionaries and apparatchiks. And they have been taught that logic and philosophy and meaning isn’t important, and don’t even really exist as things in reality; it is only important to get a result that looks something like reality. Add fudge factors from there to get closer. So when they create the flat Earth model with 240 W/m^2 from the Sun, they justify this as an average and what’s wrong with averages? Average force applied over distance for example can be used to get the total work: W = <F>*d. We ALL learn that in physics. And so they apply that reasoning elsewhere without thinking about it in any finer detail for other situations. They never consider that a flat surface facing the Sun which receives 240 W/m^2 must actually be at two astronomical units distance from the Sun, twice the distance that the Earth actually is. It’s a paradox. A paradox indicates something wrong. But they don’t know that, because they really don’t know why a paradox is logically important in reality. They probably don’t even know what a paradox is, because they literally have zero knowledge about logic and what it means to be rational. Indeed they’ve been taught that existence is irrational and meaningless and so who cares if there’s a physical paradox embedded in the model? If the model gets reasonable answers with reasonable fudge factors then it must be correct, right!? The fudge factors here, in this case, is that the atmosphere must provide 208% more energy than the Sun does as heat to the surface. Thermodynamics? That’s only important for nuclear plants, and wasn’t an interesting course anyway.

    Maybe people don’t know this, but the “fudge factor” thing is a real concept in physics. It goes way back. It is why Einstein felt that he could simply add another term to his general relativity equations in order for those equations to result in a type of universe that he simply presumed should exist. My friends in undergrad and I actually had a running joke about a constant we called “M”. The constant “M” could be added to any equation in order to make the equation give the correct answer! We thought we were hilarious. “M” stood for the “magic constant”. We were exposed to this idea of adding fudge factors to equations “which seem reasonable” so often that we made a joke about it, while accepting that under certain conditions it might be valid if you have a reason to suspect that the equations you derived might be incomplete because they left something out…like friction for example. Einstein did it 100 years ago and later called it his biggest blunder. But that was after the fact – he did it originally for reasons which not only him but everyone else accepted because they presumed that they knew what type of universe we lived in. It was only 20-30 years later with Hubble and the discovery of the expanding universe that everyone realized Einstein’s “fudge factor” was incorrect.

    So yes, there is a structural problem with science and it has existed for quite some time. It has a solution and the solution is trivial: All scientists need to become educated in logic and related philosophy. They need to understand what they’re doing on a deeper level rather than simply being educated to crank out a general algorithm.

  4. Joseph E Postma says:

    This is basically a good article also explaining how people can become so solidified in such otherwise obvious untruths:

  5. Pingback: The Walking Braindead: Flat Earther Science Denier List | Principia Scientific International

  6. I remember, once, twenty or more years ago, a student in one of my dance exercise classes that I taught was very eager to apply the Myers-Briggs questionnaire to me. I said, “okay”, and the next time I saw her, she said that my answers revealed that I was a personality type making up 1% or less of the population, which, I think, was the INFJ type, according to the rationale of that questionnaire.

    Maybe this tool is useful for assessing the type of brain death that we are all subject to. (^_^)
    … The Myers-Briggs brain-death inventory …

    Anyhow, I was just looking at the original post by Willis Eschenbach at WUWT about the “steel greenhouse”, and was noticing some lately realized things:

    WE: “As a result, for a blackbody, we can measure the temperature in units of radiation, which are watts per square metre (W/m2).”

    (1) CAN we measure temperature in units of RADIATION ? — I thought that temperature determined radiation, rather than radiation determining temperature, let alone standing for temperature as its measure.

    (2) IS a unit of RADIATION designated in W/m2 ? — I thought W/m2 was a unit of radiation energy FLUX DENSITY, where the “W” is the unit of energy POWER and the “m2” is a specific area over which this energy power radiates.

    [JP: Yes it is a stupid statement. Confusing and stupid. We’ll see a contradiction later, but first… A unit of radiation would be a JOULE. A Joule spent in some time over some area is energy flux density, having units of W/m^2. So…his statement simply makes no sense at all. He knows the words, and knows some little things about what they kind of sort of mean…and then he sweeps himself into grand fallacies because he actually has no idea what he is talking about. This is their best material too. They don’t know what in the fuck they’re talking about, don’t know what physical units are, don’t know about any difference between temperature, energy, and energy flux density…and then they come up with their “best” (lol) material. Amazing idiots. The only thing that is true which could be pulled out, is that indeed for a blackbody its temperature and its radiant output have an equation which directly connects them…but they’re not the same units!]

    WE: “The advantage is that while temperature (degrees) is not conserved, energy (W/m2) is conserved.”

    If “m2” can change with respect to where the W radiates, then how can “W/m2” be conserved ? — It cannot, and so “W/m2” is NOT a correct statement of the “energy”, and a NOT-correct statement of energy cannot be a correct statement about energy conservation.

    [JP: And here’s the contradiction I mentioned. He said that temperature could be measured in units of radiation which he said were W/m^2. Although he goes back to referencing “degrees” here, he did just say that “we can measure the temperature in units of radiation, which are watts per square metre (W/m2)”. Thus, if W/m^2 are conserved, and these stand in for temperature, then temperature should be conserved too. But because he doesn’t know w.i.t.f. he’s doing or even talking about, this allows for the convenience of simply making up any old BS and sophistry you want until you think it sounds like you’ve arrived at the conclusion you wanted. And this is their best material! You are correct in your assessment…W/m^2 is NOT a conserved quantity. Here we have logical consistency because just as temperature is not a conserved unit, W/m^2 are not either.]

    WE: “The planet is in interstellar space, with no atmosphere and no nearby stars. The equilibrium surface temperature of this planet is, of course, 235 W/m2.”

    [JP: Makes no direct sense. The temperature is not in units of W/m^2.]

    This statement really causes me dissonance, because simply claiming a temperature in terms of W/m2 seems wrong. A given “W” radiating over a given “m2” could be assigned a temperature, yes, but the temperature is NOT that particular “W/m2”, is it ? We only know the particular temperature, if we know the particular “W” and the particular “m2”. The particular “W/m2” does not exist alone without the particular, associated “m2” (an actual reference SURFACE AREA) to DEFINE the combination of “W” and “m2” as a “temperature”, right ?

    [JP: Indeed. All right.]

    Hence, I find statements about W/m2 radiating to space to be nonsensical. Space is NOT a surface area over which any W could radiate to result in any power going to “space”. Space surrounding a W/m2 flux is indeterminate or infinite. So, what are those watts doing? In other words, WattTF ?

    [JP: Right. It’s a certain W/m^2 originating at the surface, then going to space but by going to space the W/m^2 value changes and decreases. It doesn’t stay the same W/m^2.]

  7. Robert I embedded my reply to your comment above since it was easier to do it that way.

  8. AfroPhysics says:

    Great piece, JP.
    Great art, Kernodle.

    JP, I recently reread your piece

    “Why are there no patents which exploit the underlying physical principle of the GHE?”

    I’m afraid you were completely wrong about the patent office. They really are that stupid (or don’t care):


  9. Joseph E Postma says:

    Oh man reading that is so painfully stupid. Given the names on the patent, must have been a family project with this kids for science fair or something…lol.

    It’s so sad. They tried to capture heat in the 1800’s people…they couldn’t! Hence modern thermodynamics.

  10. AfroPhysics says:

    US Patent 4993403

    “Concentric transparent shells surround the enclosure and permit the passage of solar radiation therethrough, creating a greenhouse effect for elevating the temperature within the shells. Heat energy present at the exterior surface of the enclosure is then absorbed and trapped therein.”

    Eschenbach is not even an original imbecile. He’s ~25 years late!

  11. AfroPhysics says:

    The family has Downs Syndrome, so they can be forgiven. This patent would make a good joke. Just send it to your “The Flat-Earther Science Denier List”. Claim that there’s big money in this, and that they should fund you to build this device.

  12. That’s a real patent ? Seriously ?!


    I tracked down a couple of articles that might relate to your recent interest in CO2 absorption bands and CO2’s overall capability of heating Earth’s atmosphere. These articles were written by a person whose name I think I finally figured out is C. B. Thorington, located at a website where the claim is that the author is a retired physicist.

    I found this person’s name by associating an avatar picture to a response made to one of the comments at the website, and then I tried Googling this name to see whether I could find any background information.

    Doing this, I came across a list of about eight abstracts of some pretty high-caliber physics articles in apparently peer-reviewed journals with this name listed as one of the authors. This person’s words seem to make sense, and I’m not finding any grave inconsistencies yet between them and JP’s words.

    Anyhow, here are the URLs to the two articles:

    Basically, the idea is: It is physically impossible for atmospheric CO2 to hold enough thermal energy to cause a detectable change in ocean water temperature, let alone a change large enough to cause additional evaporation to add more water vapor to the atmosphere as the amplifier of Co2’s thermal effect. Without the ability to heat the ocean to cause evaporation to cause more water vapor to cause more heating, CO2 is impotent, which means Catastrophic Human-Caused Climate Change is (ironically) f***ed.

  13. Mark says:

    I think context and personality will shape our innner dialogue. I love this song, I think it FEELS what it means …. ” Look back in”

  14. Mark says:

    Sorry I meant this track by Moby.. Look Back in:

  15. Mark,

    Back in my dance/choreography days [yep, you read right — I was a dancer too] — I was a big Moby fan.

    So, we have male, straight, dancer, visual artist, math/science wanna be, climate alarm skeptic. What planet is this guy from ?

  16. Mark says:

    Lol, Robert, Ive no idea? I just like some of his music. I maybe was consciously interpreting his sound with a deep inner memory code. It felt nice. It made me feel good. Sometimes away from the raw scientific false world is a world of senses that we aslo use erroneously to be reality. Im an INTJ , my interptetation will be different from yours maybe, but it doesnt mean either interpretation is wrong. You seem to have a grasp of the right brain creative side obviously with your dance skills and visual artistry which you you realise and know that a lot a people dont have. Balancing both heispheres gives you a multitude of advantages as you know. My concept here is how we realte to the whole climate alarm thing. How does it make you feel, or how does it rationally bother you. Two answers to the same question are dependent on your personality profile. As Shakespeare said:
    “Why then ’tis none for you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

  17. Rosco says:

    I don’t wish to denigrate but I was absolutely gob smacked at the number of people I previously admired as “sceptics” and published articles on their own sites, one even being falsely investigated by the police, who wholeheartedly supported the “steel greenhouse” bullshit.

    Sad, really !

  18. Rosco says:

    I wish to nominate Tim Flannery of Australia’s Climate Council fame. He is so concerned about climate change that he purchased waterfront properties in a secluded exclusive area north of Sydney that will most definitely go under with another few feet of sea level rise. There are no roads to this enclave.

    This highlights one of the reasons these people promote this BS – celebrity leads to financial opportunities and cushy well paid Government consulting jobs and other gravy train benefits the like of which most similarly qualified individuals employed in Academia can only dream of.

    But I can never understand how BS like Trenberth et al’s Energy Budget has any credibility when it is obvious nonsense.

    I have some solar panels with an area of ~1.3 square metres. They are rated as 200 W. Their maximum efficiency is 15.6%.

    With 161 W/m2 solar insolation these panels could produce at most 161 x 1.3 x 0.156 = ~33 W making the solar panel industry the biggest scam on Earth.

    At 1000 W/m2 solar insolation the 200 W rating is real.

    Surely this is obvious to anyone who thinks about it – no pixie dust needed if you think rationally.

  19. Mark says:

    I like this, it takes the Myers-Briggs type to another level:
    Ponerization (from ancient Greek poneros – evil), is a ponerological term coined by Dr. Andrzej M. Łobaczewski. Ponerization is the influence of pathological people on individuals and groups whereby they develop acceptance of pathological reasoning and values.[1]

  20. Squidly says:

    @Robert Kernodle says:
    2017/09/14 at 7:01 AM

    I disagree with your premise on two counts. One, most of those people profess to be “experts” in scientific fields of study for which they have no knowledge, disingenuously and willfully so. Second, they care more about their “belief” systems and the “means” to purely support those “beliefs”. These are not intelligent people! … quite to the contrary. An intelligent person accepts reality and truth. These people accept neither. They dismiss both. Is “belief” a measure of intelligence? .. Not in my world.

    No, Joseph has it correct. These people are full blown idiots and zealots. They care not for science and the truth. They only care about themselves, their beliefs and their agendas. The facts of this have been laid before you for decades and has become as clear as could be.

  21. squid2112 says:

    AfroPhysics, Rosco,

    Thanks for bringing up the “steel greenhouse” thing … you guys gonna come over and clean the coffee off of my monitor now? … I just can’t help but laugh hysterically at the mere thought of that stupid “thought experiment” .. reminds me of the old advertisements on the back of 80’s Popular Mechanics magazines, promising free energy (perpetuum mobile) machines. Just cracks me up every time… 🙂

  22. Regarding:
    2017/09/15 at 6:11 AM

    Disagreement noted.

    If there is true mental deficiency here, then it is at a higher level than current psychologists seem to be aware. Hence, that’s why the word, “idiot”, these days tends to be a descriptive, pejorative term only, reserved for people we think are senseless and foolish, as opposed to a word describing a measurable mental deficiency.

    In this respect, I stand by what I wrote earlier.

    Take Michael Mann, for example. I think this is a case where somebody really didn’t study his physics thoroughly enough to understand the subject deeply. He managed to get his PhD by successfully going through the motions required to get it, without really grasping all the implications of what he supposedly learned to get it.

    Then, lots of funding became available for research in this new area of study at the time, centered around human causes of global warming. Mann maybe could not hack it in the field of physics at the professional level, and so he jumped on this new funding boat to apply (he thought) his “understanding” of physics to this new, popular area of research.

    He subsequently made erroneous conclusions that were too concealed in technicality for most people to detect. His plain-language words based on his publicly-undetectable errors became gospel, and the chain of his errors got extended and encased in other errors that formed the basis of more false doctrines that got publicized, aggrandized, politicized further, which all made him into an iconic hero. And here we are today, grasping for the real truth in his shadow.

    This is all my speculation, of course, but rather than simply call someone an “idiot”, I’d like to probe a little deeper to figure out just what KIND of an idiot they might be. This is a very sophisticated form of idiocy, … not your ordinary idiocy. Maybe we need a new word for it — maybe “academidiocy”. This word reflects the possibility that our educational institutions are failing in a way that produces such “academidiots”.

    That ends this session of idiot analysis (IA, for short). (^_^)

  23. That’s a good one – academidiocy. And I agree that this condition needs to be recognized and studied and understood.

  24. “academidiocy” — a social disorder ? … a behavioral disorder ? … NOT a medical or true, physical, functional disorder.

    Hey, if alarmists can label deniers, then deniers can label academidiots and climate faith healers for what they appear to be.

    The climate faith healers have no interest in the science, as squidly might agree. The climate faith healers just follow the preaching of the academidiots. One, therefore, does not dare question Pope Gore or Cardinal Mann — one accepts The Word as preached by them, while trying to save others.

    So, beware of that intrusive knock on your front door, some sunny warm summer day, when a pleasant fellow dressed in black pants, white shirt, and a tie smiles at you, asking, “Did you know that Al loves you?” [Allah Gore]

  25. AfroPhysics says:

    Thanks Robert for the links. I had previously only considered the heat capacity of co2 in relation to other gases in the atmosphere. Taking the heat capacity of all ocean and land absorbing solar energy, makes co2 look like an ant attempting to lift the empire state building.

  26. AfroPhysics says:

    This is a good tune. Only hip hop song to use the words “mathematics”, “atmosphere”, “scientifical power”.

  27. George says:

    “I explained why a small miinority of scientists might dissent despite their scientific training, in my above post. I shouldn’t have to do it again.
    I diddn’t write anything that confused heat, energy and temperature.
    Radiation is a flux of energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed in any processes that we are familiar with. I am not confused about the meaning of these terms. Heat energy is lost as a result of radiation outflow. Temperature is the measurement of the average energy per degree of freedom in a system according to statistical mechanics.
    You are just trying to confuse the issue with BS, to justify holding an opinion that is based on political bias and ignorance of the subject.”

    Joe, that is a reply I received from Eric Adler on Daily Caller. He claims to hold a PHD from Columbia in Physics. I don’t doubt that but I wish I had your expertise to give him a cogent rebuttal.

  28. @George – Well in reading that quotation it appears that he didn’t rebut anything at all. Just claims and accusations. You must have just trounced him…lol.

  29. Allen Eltor says:

    Anyone posing or functioning as “Editor of the Flavious Maximus website” is almst CERTAINLY an authority worshipper

    and magic gas barking K o o K.

    Mark Mosher, serial deceiver,

    Nick Stokes, statistical fraud worshipper and serial deceiver

    both fraud barking science destroyers with connections to the other frauds on Joseph’s list, particularly Watts, Eschenbach, et al.

    Almost everyone who belongs to the West’s liberal political parties in any official capacity

    has concluded that “magic insulation mixed in a bath
    conduction chilling a light-warmed rock,
    makes thermal sensors detect and depict more light arriving and warming the rock
    as the insulation makes less light arrive and warm it.”

    Neil DeGrass Tyson is one.

    Bill Nye Thuh Magic Gais Barking Fly
    contaminating science

    is yet another of the professional class science molesters.

    Obviously the list goes on – Prince Charles, legendary bafflegabber, is one of the political innumeratti/ignoratti whose job of authority worship ruined his potential for intellectual capacity to properly answer “What happens to the temperatures of light-warmed rocks, 20% less light warms?”

    His answer to that would be
    “An interesting question I myself have wondered, I think this is a matter climatastrophologists have written on extensively, and it’s a question of whether the magical gassiness is making the light not arrive… it seems from what I’ve read and understand if the magical gassiness stopped the light from reaching and warming the rock or rocks, then of course their temperatures will go up, each time the green house gases cause less warming light to warm them. If that wasn’t the case, we wouldn’t have need of the field of Climatastrophology would we?”

  30. Sky Dragon Rap-sody

    by moi (yours truly)

    There’s a rumor goin’ ’round’
    that the climate is precarious

    a dark proposition

    made of lies
    by men nefarious

    automatic truths
    spit out in cyber gibberish

    so twisted, skewed
    and fiddled with
    conclusions are ridiculous

    you workin’ words sophistically

    controlling minds like wizards
    instead of empir-i-cally

    the world is doomed to suffer hell
    this you say is certain

    hoping all pay no attention
    to that man behind the curtain

    climate change, climate change
    a catastrophic vision

    it’s all our fault
    its’ all our fault
    its’ all our fault for livin’

  31. I just noticed something interestingly disturbing about a couple of video lectures online by George Mason University Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences — fairly long videos (one about 20 minutes, the other about 16 minutes).

    The instructor, I thought did a great job explaining, in great detail, the technicalities of CO2 band broadening, and energy relationships. His pacing was good. His graphics seemed good. His whole presentation seemed very educational. Surely, I thought, in Part II, the second video of the lecture duo, the instructor will relate all that he has detailed to a thermal capacity figure for Earth’s CO2, .. but no.

    It is as though he just stopped, after all that detailed explanation to merely assert some positive feeling that “we think we know what is causing it” [the heating of the globe?]. He put on this whole song a dance to show all this detailed technical knowledge, and then he showed absolutely NO causal relationship between everythig that he just talked about and the position he was supporting. … as if viewers were supposed to be so impressed by a display of technical knowledge that they would just take his word for it.

    Think of somebody presenting you with a detailed molecular breakdown of hamburger meat, only to conclude his exposition by saying, “We know that Jesus loves you.”


    But how do the molecular intricacies of hamburger meat cause Jesus to love me?

    How does CO2 band broadening translate into a real atmospheric heat capacity and heating potential? Come on ! Go all the way with it ! Apply it ! Connect it causally to a mechanism !

    Brain death by avoidance or by proclamation without causation.

  32. Mark says:

    Hey Robert , Hehe.. love it … your a poet and you dont know it lol o lol

  33. That’s the spirit! I like your tone, Joe.

  34. When you talk about the small percentage of CO2 in the air, alarmists say that size does not matter, and then they proceed to present a plethora of seemingly well-constructed paragraphs to justify this claim.

    Well, I did the following graphic:

    Is this picture worth a thousand of their words?

    If not, then tell me how one molecule of CO2 can vibrate, translate, and rotate enough to cause 100 molecules of H2O to vibrate, translate, and rotate with enough energy to translate to 2400 other molecules of air.

    Further, tell me how the greater forces that move these other 2400 molecules fluid dynamically at a collective molecular level are slaves to this one molecule that dictates to a hundred molecules radiatively at a collective atomic level.

    Maybe I’m the one who is brain dead, because I just cant’ see it.

  35. A few updates to the list!

  36. RK: “He put on this whole song a dance to show all this detailed technical knowledge, and then he showed absolutely NO causal relationship between everythig that he just talked about and the position he was supporting. … as if viewers were supposed to be so impressed by a display of technical knowledge that they would just take his word for it.”

    That’s the CON! We all know how to do this to greater and lesser extents but in my experience it is something that everyone can do to some level of confidence. The conmen we actually call conmen are simply the best at it. Some are so good at it that most people don’t even recognize the con, like money printing for example (cough Federal Reserve).

    Scientists have become good at it in today’s academic world. You’ll note that this behaviour is endemic in the alarmist side of the debate. “Higher temperature and higher CO2 are correlated!” Yes, but the direction of causality in that correlation is that higher temperature caused the higher CO2. “You don’t know that!” Umm…yes that’s what the graph says. “The increasing CO2 made the temperature higher still.” Etc. Fraud. It’s ALL FRAUD. And now almost every scientist and high school teacher is a conman, using very basic techniques of the con as you described so well.

  37. A lot of the people on the list argue skeptically within the bounds of the greenhouse theory, which helps a little to deconstruct this theory from within. At the same time, it helps a little to keep the theory viable.

    I think a number of people on the list have helped the case, and by adding a name, I do not wish to totally dismiss a person’s useful contribution. I that spirit, I nominate a person whose perspectives I have valued, but who still seems to hold to the fundamental theory that I think is fundamentally wrong. This person I am nominating is Bjorn Lomborg. Sorry, Bjorn. Again, I don’t think of this list so much as a sh** list as a list of people who are almost there, except for Neil DeGrass Tyson and Bill Nye — they probably would fit better on another list, along with Stephen Hawking.

  38. Fake, or at least nicely boxed in and thus controlled opposition, has always been one of the most favorite con techniques.

  39. Speaking of “nicely boxed in”, I’ve been looking at this paper again:

    I find the paper enlightening, although annoying.

    One statement that particularly annoys me is that skeptics should stop saying, “CO2 is a trace gas”, because this is “irrelevant”. So what if CO2t absorbs 1/3 to 1/4 of longwave radiation absorbed by the WHOLE atmosphere? That’s only 0.04% of the WHOLE atmosphere exhibiting this behavior. I would call this a “trace effect”. Only 1 in 2400 other molecules is exhibiting this behavior, among, at most, 100 other molecules exhibiting this same behavior among 2400 OTHER molecules exhibiting OTHER overpowering behaviors like convection, evaporation and such.

    I would say, then, that an entity that causes a trace effect qualifies for a label as a “trace entity”.

    Come on ! … Dethrone it ! … You can do it, Dr. Rancourt.

  40. AfroPhysics says:

    The elites project their personality onto co2. If they can whip a mob into a frenzy, then so can co2 drive the other 2499 molecules of air. Oh oh oh it’s magic, you know, never believe it’s not so.

  41. Hey, AP, now that inspires me to make up another false analogy with misapplied physics to convince you that the main false analogy with misapplied physics is true.

    It would involve elites, a mob, and “backrecitation” of the elites’ ideas. A good alarmist must be well equipped with an arsenal of false analogies, you know, in case the first one does not have the desired effect.

  42. If I understand correctly, Rancourt outright rejects the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to determine Earth’s planetary temperature from outer space. Further, he outright rejects the estimated temperature of Earth without an atmosphere, suggesting the figure, -4 C., instead of the traditional -18C.

    Yet, he speaks of the global average temperature of AIR near the surface as if it were the same domain of measurable quantities as the NO-air surface for which he calculated that revised -4 C. How do you equate the domains of temperature-with-NO-air and temperature-OF-air. All you are doing is saying that the temperature of air is this, and the temperature of no air is that. There’s no comparison, as if they represent the same quantity. One is air. The other NO air. Two different measurements.

    I still don’t see how you can just combine them like that to say that a difference of the two is an addition to the one by some unexplained, yet asserted, mechanism. At most, you might say that air has a different temperature than no air, but the temperature of air does NOT measure the temperature of the space that it now occupies without it. It’s BECAUSE the air now occupies the space that it is no longer the same space. It’s air space instead of “space” space. What caused the air to heat? Well, that’s what we are trying to figure out. Don’t go through all this calculation to get at a temperature difference between space and air, only to assert that CO2 somehow heats the air that now occupies the once airless space

    Rancourt seems to do precisely this when he says, A planet’s surface (and atmosphere) heats up without any greenhouse gas present but it heats up faster and reaches higher temperatures with greenhouse gases. I am NOT seeing where this statement of his about CO2 is supported in anything else he presents in his paper. HOW, in all his physics wisdom, does CO2 do this?

  43. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yep, indeed. As Carl has pointed out often, they’re comparing temperatures which don’t even make sense to compare in the first place, and then coming up with some scheme to justify the difference as some physical phenomenon which they call a greenhouse effect but by which a real greenhouse doesn’t actually function. Stupid!

  44. Earth is not a greenhouse, and yet it is. Earth is not a black body, and yet it is.

    It’s pathological ambivalence. Contradiction and confusion, creatively juxtaposed.

    If it’s not these things, then STOP calling them these names.

    That’s not an order, and yet it is.

  45. Joseph E Postma says:

    Yah exactly…just make up new ideas in exchange for existing ideas using the same names which but now mean different things.

    “Pathological ambivalence, contradiction and confusion, creatively juxtaposed.”

  46. AfroPhysics says:

    Rancourt’s calculation doesn’t make any sense. If we magically remove the atmosphere, the oceans will evaporate a new atmosphere.

    Robert, yes sophists desperately need analogies. CO2 is like a virus to them, spreading its warmth wherever it goes, for centuries. That’s what they effectively claim.

    It’s just a coincidence that Earth’s effective temperature matches SB equations with no atmosphere. This Te (-18C) matches the temp of middle of troposphere. This really fooled the psyentists. Venus has a Te of -41C. That should not be the case according to their paradigm.

  47. gallopingcamel says:

    While I tend to agree with some of our host’s list of brain dead, he is deluded when he says the main issue is that the Earth is round rather than flat.
    Some “Flat Earth” models agree with observations with astonishing accuracy. For example Vasavada’s one dimensional model for the Moon:
    My attempt to replicate Vasavada’s work was successful even though my model is also one dimensional (aka “Flat Earth). At least three other workers replicated Vasavada’s work using different methods:
    More recently I have calculated the effect of changing the rate of lunar rotation and am gratified that Scott Denning is in close agreement:
    As an amateur climate scientist I don’t expect to get much respect. However it is gratifying when one’s predictions match observations. You can call me names but it does not sting as long as my predictions match reality!
    Airless bodies are relatively easy to model but there is a one dimensional model that has some success with bodies with significant atmospheres:
    * It is derived from first principles with only one “Fudge Factor”.
    * It works in the troposphere, tropopause and stratosphere.
    * It works on all seven bodies in our solar system with significant atmospheres.
    * The model predictions agree closely with observations.
    * The model is replicable.
    In this model the troposphere is characterized by collision broadening that renders the lower atmosphere opaque to outgoing Infra-Red radiation because absorption is proportional to the square of pressure.
    In the stratosphere the absorption of radiation is proportional to pressure which means radiation is the dominant energy transfer process.
    The tropopause is the transition region between linear and square law radiative absorption.

  48. gallopingcamel says:

    Titan is a moon of Saturn that has a surface atmospheric pressure higher than Earth’s. Like Earth it has oceans which means that latent heat has a significant effect on temperature gradients in the atmosphere.

    Here is what happened when I tried to replicate Robinson & Catling’s model of Titan:

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s