Climate Change Heuristic Proves They’re Lying to You

We often encounter this back-up argument that the climate physics greenhouse effect “is only a heuristic” and that isn’t the real greenhouse effect of climate physics. I dissect this argument to demonstrate how it proves that advocates of global warming and anthropogenic climate change are actively & purposefully & knowingly engaging in deception.

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

8 Responses to Climate Change Heuristic Proves They’re Lying to You

  1. Christopher Marshall says:

    Great job you are getting more relaxed and your points are coming over clearer on video.

    You really need a better sound set up. Lots of feedback noise going on there and your voice gets a little distorted. Maybe you should wear a bow tie so people will take you more seriously. Nothing screams science genius like a bow tie…

    However if you want to be taken really serious you need glasses tipped on the end of your nose, a haphazard cheap suit, messed up hair and an air of impatience like you are annoyed you have to explain things to stupid people. Now that’s pop culture science, baby!

  2. A heuristic technique (/hjʊəˈrɪstɪk/; Ancient Greek: εὑρίσκω, “find” or “discover”), often called simply a heuristic, is any approach to problem solving or self-discovery that employs a practical method, not guaranteed to be optimal, perfect, logical, or rational, but instead sufficient for reaching an immediate goal. Where finding an optimal solution is impossible or impractical, heuristic methods can be used to speed up the process of finding a satisfactory solution. Heuristics can be mental shortcuts that ease the cognitive load of making a decision.

    So, a practical method to learn about the Earth-atmosphere system is to employ mathematics that can only represent a flat Earth at twice the distance from the sun?

    “Not guaranteed to be optimal”?! — Ya think?

    “Not guaranteed to be perfect”?! — Such an understatement, to the point of being comedy [clowns of the world unite].

    “Not guaranteed to be logical, rational, but instead sufficient …” — to think this is nothing short of abusing a good idea and grossly distorting the context where it could be invoked.

    Here’s a concept: Some heuristics are flat-out wrong [here literally flat — ha ha], leading vulnerable people onto horribly erroneous paths.

    The only “satisfactory solution” a flat-Earth heuristic could have would be to keep some people on horribly erroneous paths, in order to benefit other people.

    The only “mental shortcut” here would be to “ease the cognitive load of making GOOD decisions” [by following the leaders of climate-change alarmism], in other words, to enable the making of decisions that are completely at odds with reality.

  3. See my next vid!!

  4. I was trying to think how I would get through a hard head on the issue of averaging flux, and here’s what I came up with:

    “Radiative flux is the amount of power radiated through a given area, in the form of photons or other elementary particles, typically measured in W/m^2.”

    Let’s look at those units of measure more closely:

    “W” is watts, where a watt is one joule (a unit of energy) per second

    “m^2” is meters squared or square meters.

    Now notice the part of the definition that says, “through a GIVEN area”.

    The GIVEN area is the “m^2”.

    The GIVEN area DEFINES the place where the radiative flux is happening.

    The watts impinge specifically on this GIVEN area to DEFINE what the flux is for this GIVEN area.

    You calculate flux for this GIVEN area, and this GIVEN area is the ONLY area to which this calculated flux applies.

    You know the area that you want to focus on. You know the watts impinging on it. That’s your flux for THIS GIVEN AREA.

    There is no other area to which this flux applies, because THIS GIVEN AREA was the starting basis for defining the flux for it.

    The flux, thus, cannot apply to any other adjacent area, no matter how close this adjacent area might be. Any other area was not in the focus of the flux calculation, and so the only area that can possibly be the area of meaning for the flux you calculated is the first GIVEN AREA for which you made the calculation.

    Once you make the calculation for THIS GIVEN AREA, that’s it. You cannot spread it out over another area, because now you are off the area that orginally defined the flux you just calculated. You cannot dilute it by half or by a fourth or by any fraction of what it is, because there is no area for which this halving or fourthing exists. There is no flux happening on these other areas. There is no definition of flux now for these other areas. Trying to spread out the flux of the GIVEN area onto another area, for which there is no mathematically defined amount of flux to begin with, is absurd, meaningless, wrong, erroneous, unreal, not allowed by the very definition of what flux is.

    If no watts are impinging on a surface area, to begin with, then you cannot apply watts to this area from another area at a distance that does have watts impinging on it to begin with. You cannot just borrow watts from one area to thinly paint onto another area, and dilute the watts on the original area to a fraction of what they truly were to begin with.

    Watts are not paint that can be thinned like this. Flux is not such that it can be averaged like this. There is no meaning for the action of trying to average flux over two adjacent areas, where one area has flux and another area does not have flux.

    I hope my understanding is correct.

  5. Herb Rose says:

    Hi Joseph,
    I would like to draw your attention to the diagram showing the distortion of the space-time continuum supporting Einstein’s general relativity. The 4 dimensional space-time continuum is represented by a 2 dimensional flat plane. The mass causing the distortion is represented by a 3 dimensional sphere. This would mean that the mass has 5 dimensions and is distorting the four dimensional space-time continuum into the fifth dimension. This is clearly another diagram designed to deceive rather than illustrate.

  6. Herbb Rose says:

    Hi Robert,
    A sphere is a three dimensional object so area is not simple like a cylinder. Think of a pyramid. From the perspective above it appears as a square so its area would be m^2. The light striking the top of the sphere would be direct but on the sides the light density would be affected by the height of the pyramid. A taller pyramid with the same base would have the light dispersed over a larger area than a shorter pyramid so the watts/area would change.

  7. Kev-In-ZA says:

    Hi Joseph, I have for a while now been wondering if there is a more detailed definition of the earths energy model and mechanisms, or alternatively a good and cogent articulation of all the macro mechanisms and the physics that underpin them. In your video, you say you have gone looking and can’t find anything. They seem to jump from a cartoon illustration with sophistric averages into complex GCM code which is not practically accessable to anyone least of all the educated-public and lay-scientists.

    Do you know of anything that I could reference to see what the heck they are doing at the next level, or is that really a jump into GCM code…?

    This is one of the most frustrating areas as an lay sceptic trying to see thru the fog, as you cannot interrogate/review something which is not defined and owned…..

  8. That’s a purposeful strategy: create an undefined and un-owned impenetrable fog that noone can access. It is a strategy for parasitism.

    Hence my thermodynamic model…We should start, at least, with the sun heating the ground, and go from there.

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