The following is from an email exchange which will remain anonymous. But rationalists will find it quite interesting, hilarious, and extremely saddening…
I sent the link to your Youtube presentation titled “There is no radiative Greenhouse Effect” to [anon1] (who’s just started a PhD in statistical Mathematics – so tends to think he knows it all), who did respond, but not favourably. In summary, [anon1] followed the presentation to the point (at 1m 30s) where you invited the listener to perform a Google search i.e. “derivation+of+radiative+greenhouse+effect+diagram” which he immediately did – and his Google search returned many results showing a curved Earth model (30 curved or spherical: 6 flat). At this point, his desire to proceed further into the presentation totally evaporated – your argument had been destroyed.
We have since discussed the topic on several occasions and each time he rejects the argument that there is no radiative Greenhouse Gas effect for the following reasons;
- I (me personally) am desperately grasping for any opportunity to substantiate ‘my belief’ that a colder object cannot transfer heat to a hotter object (as required by the back-radiation theory of GHG). Belief is contrary to the scientific method – one should only believe in where the science takes you and that is that CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas. For the GHG theory to get this far then there can be no reasonable dispute, no doubt. The atmospheric GH effect been proven and accepted by all main-stream scientists – why would they lie? How could they be deceived? Just because, for example, one can’t envision that, in quantum physics, a particle can be in two places simultaneously doesn’t mean that quantum mechanics has been falsified. Something which is beyond my own comprehension is no less true.
- The author’s (your) claims are so extravagant that, if they were indeed true, ALL well-respected journals would be honoured to be chosen to publish your work, the Impact Factor would be very high.
- If your work has been rejected for publication, then it can only be because;
- The topic of your articles were not considered a good match for the particular journal,
- Impact factor for the articles were too low for the journal,
- The journal’s own reviewers rejected the robustness of the scientific method use,,
- You could not comply with the journal reviewers’ requirements for the improvements deemed necessary for publication,
- Your “H” Factor (?) is not sufficiently high (and questions whether you actually have one)
As you may have rightly imagined, [anon1] thinks that I am deluded on this matter (both the science and politics) but for my part, I can’t overcome my ‘meaningless hopes’ that CAGW is a massive fraud that will, eventually, be exposed. Perhaps the recent article (highlighted by PSI) by Kramm et al 2017, in Natural Science, might create more possibilities for other main stream Journals to consider publishing more articles that convey a similar conclusion?”
For a mathematician, [anon1] has a low degree of numeric comprehension. For it is the numbers in the radiative greenhouse effect derivation which I show in the presentation which are from a flat Earth and which do come from multiple university and “official” sources. It’s the numbers!
I did the Google search and find a bunch of grade-school level diagrams showing backradiation heating the planet (using spherical cartoon diagrams of Earth): This idea comes from the flat Earth models which dilute solar input over the entire planet at once. It’s the mathematics that matters and where the original mathematics came from. I note that none that I can see from the search of the cartoon spherical models actually show the derivation of the RGHE mechanism. What they show are only the final numbers where it has been assumed that the previous derivation of the mechanism is correct and where the atmosphere provides twice the heat of the Sun. Does he really think that the atmosphere provides twice the heat of the Sun? You need to search for the right thing – the search specified doesn’t seem to actually return the derivation. This is rather ham-fisted of him…just because a search returns something doesn’t mean that it is the correct thing. One needs to then sift through the results for what is actually desired; [anon1] doesn’t actually seem to know what is desired, although he is acutely aware of the conclusion he desires!
People are braindead. They are just braindead. They have no comprehension of anything whatsoever. And they don’t understand where anything came from or why things are the way that they are.
For the points:
1: This faith in science is the undoing of science. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is a convention! Does he know what that means? It means that there are some several dozen different ways to interpret quantum mechanics ranging from ones which are completely deterministic to completely randomist. The randomist Copenhagen interpretation is a convention only. It’s arbitrary. It was chosen so that mathematical “hidden-variables” wouldn’t exist because they didn’t know how they would measure them. They didn’t know how to measure “i” for example. This is an arbitrary empiricist preference that in no way dictates whether the hidden-variable determinist interpretations are incorrect or whether the hidden-variables may in fact one day be measurable. In other words: IT IS A BELIEF! So much for belief not being part of science! Is [anon1] aware of the pilot-wave interpretation for QM? It was never refuted…the Copenhagen Convention simply arbitrarily decided that everyone should stop researching it. As for the science, thermodynamics does indeed restrict that heat only flows from hot to cold, and that once heat input is used to warm an object, that same energy can not be used to heat same object some more. I am sorry but [anon1] is painfully uninformed in mathematics, physics, and science and science history in general. There is no “proof” of the RGHE anywhere. There is only an assumption of it derived out of flat Earth physics.
2: Not when political correctness and political motives exists. Not when people have been made to be afraid of voicing different ideas and criticisms. Does [anon1] live under a rock!? Is he that unawares of the existence of political pressure, peer-pressure, narrative, etc.?
3: It hasn’t been rejected, it is being held without movement on review. And as for my day-job, I have publications in the most highly respected astrophysics journals in the world – the highest possible rated ones. I have a new publication soon to come out in PASP (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific), for example. Does he understand that where I have published doesn’t affect the Laws of Thermodynamics? (If he were to ever familiarize himself with them.)
I am sorry but seeing this coming from [anon1] saddens me greatly. Not about him or you in particular, but just because in general it shows how easily captured people’s minds are and how extremely difficult actual critical thought is for most people. As for [anon1], being 26, I am simply reminded of the quote (attributed to various sources):
“If you are not a liberal at 25, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 35 you have no brain.”
As it is, critical thinking only or at least preferentially develops in the conservative. Many still never make the switch at all.”
Flat Earth Physics
Flat earth physics is identified by the numbers, by the physics, by the mechanism it purports to explain. The derivation of the radiative greenhouse effect of climate science comes from flat Earth accounting of energy and heat from the Sun where sunshine is spread over the entire surface area of the Earth at once as if the Earth is a flat plane. That’s where the RGHE comes from and official references to this fact have been provided.
If people then use the result of that and place it on a spherical depiction of the Earth, it does not change the fact that it is all flat Earth physics, and hence pseudoscience.