Propertarianism vs Parasitical Climate Pseudoscience

Joseph and guest Noah J. Revoy discuss how Propertarian Law would provide for the ability to punish parasitical political pseudoscientific schemes such as climate change alarmism, and remove that pseudoscience from the educational, political, and public commons.

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

18 Responses to Propertarianism vs Parasitical Climate Pseudoscience

  1. songhees says:
    Book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
    Book “Human Caused Global Warming”, ‘The Biggest Deception in History’.

  2. Marshall Rosenthal says:



  3. boomie789 says:

    A hour long Propertarian/Postma vid?

    Today was a good day.

  4. MP says:

    How Parasites Work

  5. CD Marshall says:

    Joseph I’m curious, you have studied the spectroscopy of stars for years (decades?) do they show the spectrum of a radiating ball of gas or is it likely they have some kind of core or core-like phenomena? A gas by itself can’t compress unless gravity is compressing it and for gravity to be compressing it the star requires mass.

    Gas is not a radiating black body. Does make you wonder how a giant ball of gas like the Sun is a radiating black body.

  6. Joseph E Postma says:

    Actually CD I did a colloquium discussion on that topic once. It’s really quite wonderful in terms of logic. It turns out that all you need to create a blackbody spectrum is that much less light is absorbed than what is emitted. Or something like that…need to check my stellar atmospheres textbook…lol. Anyway there is some basic condition like this for stars which therefore dictates that their emission spectrum should be blackbody. And so we do see that: the basis of stellar emission is the Planck Curve. However then we throw an atmosphere/photosphere on top of that emission, and this creates the absorption lines and the resulting deviations of the spectrum from being a perfect BB. You have the Balmer Discontinuity for example from the first hydrogen ionization level, etc.

  7. boomie789 says:

    Brown Dwarfs are the mini bosses of the universe.

  8. George says:

    I encourage everyone to go to Dr. Ed Berry’s blog to see the exchange between Dr. Berry and a clown who stole my moniker ‘Immortal600’. I would really appreciate a critique on what was being said because the math and validity of ‘chemical potential’ the clown uses in an attempt to prove Dr. Berry’s model wrong. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!!!

  9. George says:

    I didn’t write that last post very well. I should have added after “model wrong”, is a little beyond my expertise. That makes that sentence clear. Please, gentlemen (and ladies) feedback.

  10. CD Marshall says:

    If you keep reading the troll’s comments over you’ll see they all are using the same tactics, just cut out for levels of deception and education. One they always start off with a law or rule that is vague to confuse you and then state “facts” that you can’t easily research as false. I’ve seen it a dozen times and if I have Joseph seen it a hundred times. So he chose to use the Taylor Series to justify his calculations.

    “You can’t calculate time scales for non-equilibrium processes based on the equilibrium exchanges as you have naively done. Do you understand that across a surface in a metal wire with zero voltage drop across it, there are countless electrons flying back and forth across that surface? However, the current flowing through that surface is zero. Given that information do you think you can calculate the resistance? The fact is that you can’t. You have confused the content of the CO2 in each reservoir with the generalized chemical potential of that content. At equilibrium the chemical potential in each of the reservoirs is equal. Away from equilibrium, the net flux between each reservoir is related to the difference in the chemical potential. The mobility coefficient describing that flux then can be used to set a time scale for non-equilibrium processes. You cannot determine those mobility coefficients by looking at what is happening at equilibrium, just like you cannot determine the resistance of a wire by looking at the electrons flying back and forth when there is no potential drop…”

    “net flux” they love that key word don’t they?

    “You do need to explain where the extra CO2 comes from if you want to be taken seriously. The ocean and land sinks have been measured. Look up Global Carbon Budget 2019. Given that both the oceans and the land have taken more CO2 out from the atmosphere than they have put into it, that means that they cannot be the source of the atmospheric increase”

    Evidence claims that can’t be proven true or easily disproved and using the false source as the source to prove his sources when Dr.Berry is disqualifying the actual source they are using.

  11. Word salad. Source of co2 doesn’t matter…no ghe.

  12. CD Marshall says:

    I asked Dr Berry,
    “I was curious as I watched this video on YT where they sited your work it was an excellent presentation, a little hard on the sound which was unfortunate.

    I noticed a key point of 0.06 degrees increase if all IR according to the IPCC was reabsorbed to the surface. I wasn’t sure if the .341 W/m^2 was your calculation or the IPCC.

    So the question is, do you understand that all energy distribution does not equate an increase in temperature even if radiation was being re-absorbed back to the surface? This is a climate change trick
    not supported by the standard Laws of Thermodynamics, but more importantly the Bose-Einstein Statistic, where it is obvious unlike fermions, low level bosons can stack without an increase in temperature, for bosons, in this case photons, are frequency/wavelength dependent.

    Any line spectrum (a quantized discrete package) only carries transferable energy according to its frequency/wavelength.

    Photon Energy=Delta E =hf
    E=Energy of the photon
    h=Plank’s constant (6.63×10^(-)34 J*s)
    f=frequency (^14 Hz)=6.63×10(-)20 J

    That energy must be greater than the radiative emissions of the frequency/wavelength of the object receiving it to increase the temperature.”

    Hasn’t replied yet.

  13. CD Marshall says:

    Taylor Series is used for approximations of incremental increases it is not used for a “flux” that changes. by using the TS this troll is deliberately increasing the input of CO2 in the atmosphere over the output unless he is using the same statistics for the output, which would create a logarithmic equilibrium regardless of increase.

  14. George says:

    CD and Joe, thank you for your replies. I appreciate it !

  15. PB2505 says:

    Hi Jo Postma
    I love you work you are teaching the laymen how to understand this shill
    Some people make bold claims about the climate science community but until you have experienced it yourself ….
    The reason why I am commenting is I just had a discussion with an apparent climate scientist who was argueing that the principles behind the processes of an actual greenhouse is purely radiative after I explained that an actual greehouse prevents convective cooling
    He then preceded to tell me that heat can flow from a cooler object to a warmer one and that i need to take a physics class…….
    I now see your point Joseph

  16. PB2505 – wow, yes, these people have no clue what they’re doing.

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