This was a really awesome follow-up appearance on the show!
Categories
-
Join 530 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Pelagius on Back to the Parallel Plates
- CD Marshall on An Experiment to Demonstrate Ontological Mathematics
- CD Marshall on Back to the Parallel Plates
- Leon Hiebert on Back to the Parallel Plates
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- boomie789 on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- CD Marshall on Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Paradox
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- DIN on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- petraliverani on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
- J Cuttance on Back to the Parallel Plates
- donaldgisbey on Is Your Astral Spirit Body Infected with a Noetic Parasite?
- donaldgisbey on Ontological Cosmology – The Cosmology of Existence (LiveStream Tonight)
- Pierre on Soul Camera – How Does Your Soul Work?
Climate of Sophistry 
Joseph I think you should discard the flat earth narrative, it is an
unnecessary distraction because it has nothing to do with the greenhouse
gas, greenhouse effect hoax. Nobody in the fake climate change global
warming community has ever mentioned a flat earth. Nobody is claiming
that the earth is flat. We can make a model of the globe by making it
flat, that is a model. There is no problem with doing that as long as
the underlying assumptions are correct. The climate alarmists are making
up mock psuedoscience by correlating CO2 concentration with temperature.
Correlation is not causation. That is all they have. We are wasting so
much time and energy to debunk these people that never had a scientific
hypothesis to begin with and are unable to expain what their position
is. Everything that they say is a lie.
It’s directly relevant Larry; it is precisely where the radiative greenhouse effect idea originates. It has everything to do with the greenhouse effect hoax.
Sure, no-one mentions flat Earth, none of them are avowed flat Earthers. Yet, the derivation and origin of the GHE idea comes from the flat Earth diagram model. The model is incorrect, and its assumptions are incorrect. And it marks the origin of all of the other pseudoscience of alarmism. It is where the correlation of CO2 with temperature originates.
Watch the livestream in the above comment, for elucidation.
Blackrock is behind all of this control and Vanguard owns more stock in BR than BR does. Anyone know what these people are?
New movie out called “Nobody will save you” a few logistic errors from a writer’s POV but the message is pretty on point.
Joe, Sorry that I missed the Oppenheimer Ranch Project video webcast.
You should follow Winston Churchill’s KBO motto. Keep Bggr*ng On.
@Larry Mashowski
Larry: Your comment is topological nonsense. Have you never heard of this guy Mercator? If you for one second believe that a plane can map onto the surface of a sphere then you can start a new business as a cartographer and clean up all map making from the last 10 thousand years.
Not all models are equal. Some are ontologically impossible, and patently ridiculous.
Pingback: CENSORED: How Facebook Silenced John Stossel – Newsfeed Hasslefree Allsort
@CD – will watch asap!
I cannot believe the number of people, educated at that, who insist that a cooler atmosphere further warms a warmer surface! Look at this quote:
Back radiation is energy reflected down toward earth by water vapor, CO2 and night clouds. That IS the greenhouse effect. The downwelling flow of radiation heats the earth while the upwelling radiation that is not reflected cools the earth.
The net flow of radiation is upwelling, which is why earth cools at night.
Radiation flows between any objects at temperatures below absolute zero.
There are flows from warmer objects to colder objects and flows from colder objects to warmer objects.
The net flow of radiation is always from a warmer object to a colder object but there are energy flows in both directions.
The flow of heat toward space is partially offset by a smaller flow of heat reflected back down by the greenhouse effect (water vapor, CO2 and night clouds).
Satellites and land based instruments measure back radiation at night and find it has been increasing — that would be one cause of global warming since 1975 — less heat escaping to the infinite heat sink of outer space.
I responded to that with Schroeder’s quote from his thermodynamics textbook. That quote above is a classic example of what Schroeder says about confusing temperature, energy, and heat.
Exactly, they just call it heat, when it is not. Simple as that. And why do they do it? Because they think that sunlight doesn’t heat the earth! Due to flat earth theory.
Frustrate them more by saying absolutely no thermodynamic heat ever escapes to space or enters the planet. I love doing that to set the climate clowns off into a foaming mouth rage.
Pingback: Oppenheimer Ranch Project – Flat Earth Climate Alarm Debunking | ajmarciniak
These satellite LWR measurements, if I’m not wrong, are all modeled. See, CO2 “blocks” radiation the satellite can’t see. So they used global average temperature X CO2 levels to generate “blocked radiation” and add that back into the telemetry. I’m pretty sure this is where their “less radiation is getting out” statement comes from
So:
1) Assume CO2 causes warming.
2) Create a fake global temperature average with CO2 levels as input, calibrated for 1950, to show warming on the basis that CO2 has increased.
3) Use fake global temperature data, CO2 levels, and greenhouse theory to contrive “blocked” radiation that satellites can’t see, and add this back into the “raw” telemetry.
4) Use the “raw” telemetry to argue that there’s an energy imbalance.
Nevermind how insane it is to suggest a long-term stable energy imbalance. Yes, “the Earth will adjust to the imbalance by warming.” But it would do this, like, immediately.
You wouldn’t see day-by-day, month-by-month, year-by-year permanent radiative energy imbalance. How stupid.
God these people’s constructs and theories are so complicated and sophisticated but they can’t see when they’re plainly wrong. I think they’re all liars, the ones we interact with. I have family who is in the climate fraud industry and I think they’re true believers, but they are Bay Area types, Berkeley types, who dabble in hallucinogens. I think the effect is to cause them to somehow not be very intellectually curious or interested in the details of something about which they are very socially and emotionally committed to, in spite of being trained and smart.
Discredit the LOT validate the GHGE. I used to think Sabine was smart_er.
@CD Marshall There used to be a tag line, “I am reporting from New York so you don’t have to” Once Sabine started using the D____r label I stopped watching.
I recommend that you do the same.
I feel like there needs to be a college-level textbook style “Climate Agenda Science And Corrective Pedagogy”.
We don’t have the right language for this in our society. Typically, the best you get is that corrections to court history get labelled “revisionism”. However, the anti-scientific corruption of the academy calls for a new paradigm of university level corrective pedagogy and I would in fact call it exactly that. It’s sad to discuss what I mean here, but basically it’s where you have “good” universities having to teaches courses to correct the academic notions created by irresponsible universities. That now needs to be part of university education. Not just teaching ideas, but correcting bad ideas due to widespread maleducation.
This textbook would present an honest steel man of RGHE climate science. Since warmists don’t present an honest or consistent framework for RGHE warming, this can “make the case” and include warmist data, but also be honest about the unflattering methodologies used in compiling that data. Still it will offer a sincere best approach.
Then, it will critique the narrative one category at a time.
Planetary science and climate. Include Nikolov and Zeller, Holmes, Postma, and the old greats who derived the lapse rate. The experiments and radiosondes which discovered the makeup of the atmosphere. Start with ideal gas law, lapse rate, discovery of hadley cells, solar radiation, etc.
Radiation and thermodynamics. Maxwell. Wood. Angstrom. Get into how thermodynamics really works at a mechanical level. We have multiple experiments now that show GHG doesn’t trap heat or create warming. That’s not how that dynamic works. Maybe get minor funding for more serious, upscaled, varied implementations of some of these basic lab set ups. There’s actually a lot here.
Sociology and Political science. There have been academic studies on the evolution of science and paradigm shifts. Power elite politics. Etc. Why not just include a rather sterile, unbiased review of the “climate gate” situation. The Club of Rome funding etc.
Finally, a more aggressive deconstruction of modern climate science. The cherry picking, the inappropriate data adjustments, the model-based conclusions. Just go through a litany of two dozen climate-weather papers about catastrophe and show a couple paragraphs of where the methodology was inappropriate or the conclusion unmerited.
Conclude with a Planet Wars-esque review of the harms the climate agenda can cause, from starvation, to net zero, to the destruction of life on Earth, to the impoverishment of society. Include information from studies that ask, “what would be the economic effects of a X% carbon reduction” since these have been done.
It would be enough for a 200 level general science course for a solid semester.
I like the “Slayers” but there’s a bit of everyone’s ego-driven theories dripping in, and then the wall of resistance from the alarmists and their stubbornness becomes a distraction. I think there’s a (small) market for a corrective climate course at some colleges. At least, from the point of view of “hearing both sides” as they put it. There’s larger market of general readers who might want such a book.
I’ve come to believe that the climate debate – which has long taken the form of spats between academics nitpicking datasets – really just reduces down to basic science. The “audience” for climate debate has always been a small circle of engineers and academics online. And so, basic science is ignored or taken for granted and these people do cartwheels when the discussion is taken there.
There is a younger audience though, which would appreciate discussion on that basis.
The planetary science side of this question seems covered, but never consolidated by all parties into a harmonized textbook format.
The radiative-thermodynamic side of the question has a lot to say, with a lot of very compelling, hard to refute actual lab experimentation. I feel there could be even more. However, I feel like very little has been covered in this realm. Since, as it’s basic science, the typical climate debate overlooks it. This is why we go in circles over the 2d LOT. In other words, “put together a team”.
The very good political science people are a generation departed. There aren’t many good ones anymore, but they left a lot of material behind and while many of these guys are a bit compromised, there might be some left to consult. The activities and agenda of the industrial elite have been well documented, and in the 80s a lot of it made it into the academic record, so there’s plenty of material for an academic textbook to provide context to the “corrective pedagogy”. There’s a guy named Corbett who could consult.
Just an idea. Would have to be a kind of pirate radio sort of project, but the final product could come off as completely fit for format.
Excellent thoughts spro.
And I have extended that to say that we need a whole new school and approach to science.
But, how to force it? Right now we don’t have the power. Our videos and even a textbook would mean and do nothing. Like I pointed out in the livestream – they’re going ahead with their plans, and they don’t care.
The trouble is, then, that we need to FORCE the issue.
In almost any other area of society, we have laws and people can sue. When there are no laws which simply get people directly in trouble with the police and legal system, then, people SUE.
Academic and scientific journals are in fact almost completely irresponsible for their conduct, and can say and do and publish whatever they want, independent of any formal legal frameworks for rules regarding truth, truth simply being made by the “consensus”, which therefore lets them lie with impunity.
The problem of course is that their lies are hurting people, costing people in taxes, and as I point out, planning things which are very dangerous to life on Earth.
If I were in a court of law by jury, and I could show the diagrams and explains what they mean, normal people would get it and I would win, hands down.
But under what terms do we sue? Is there even a precedent? Imagine how excellent it would be to set such a precedent!
Why can’t we sue for billions, trillions even, given what we can prove?
Remember the few recent defamation cases with that Catholic school boy, and Rittenhouse, who sued CNN and other media groups for 500 million because they defamed him with false reporting? The idea here is that you sue the organization for ALL that it is worth, given what it professes to be, but isn’t actually.
So, there is trillions in projected spending, and at the very least these academic institutes and government departments are worth billions, and claim to represent science, but they do not. They’re not worth any of that funding given that they’re literally doing flat Earth theory, but we are worth it for pointing it out.
Seriously we should consult with someone and see how the f to sue these lying bastards.
Meanwhile…Ignored by mainstream and the IPCC.
We have REAL scientists doing such great work.
And they are steadfastly ignored by the apparatus, which REALLY prefers any science which justifies radical geo and solar engineering instead.
Kind of giving away the plot.
Thoughts?
I found the video to be a classic misdirection.
Soon mentioned the IPCC’s estimates are based on global forcings which we do not entirely support. That’s interesting.
Look at this idiot:
https://woodromances.blogspot.com/2023/09/does-climate-science-assume-the-earth.html
He makes all the usual mistakes, while COMPLETELY not addressing and ignoring that I demonstrate how to correctly do the math on a spherical Earth RIGHT THERE on the graphic which he copied!
Like I said in the livestream – it is as if the left side of the diagram, with the spherical Earth, doesn’t even exist…as if they do not even see it!
The dude is a twat waffle. They know they lie as the ghge can be easily disproved.
He does deserve a response post from you here though and maybe a video or invite him for a debate which he will decline.
@Joe
From the link:
Joe,
This is absolutely stunning. He does not know what a tidally locked planet is. He does not appreciate that the surface area of a lit hemisphere is 2πR^2
It is literally mind-numbing to try and read this, but then mental poisoning is clearly the objective.
@CD – Oh I’ve been dealing with that idiot, and a bunch of others, on FB. He made that post because he couldn’t defend flat Earth theory vs. me on FB.
It’s quite strange. I have a graphic showing a spherical Earth, and how sunlight falls on a sphere. Their response is to say: “No, your spherical depiction is wrong. The flat line represents a sphere because it’s the total surface area of the Earth.”
So I say: “What is the only physical way in which that total surface area could mathematically receive a uniform solar input? This could only be true if that area were a flat plane facing the Sun, which is then why that surface is drawn as a flat line which implies a flat plane. I think that it is better to draw the Earth as sphere with solar input at its actual value, rather than 1/4 of itself.”
They say: “The flat line is a sphere because its the total surface area. Your spherical method is crank crackpot stuff.”
That is literally how it went for 500 comments or so. I should link the FB post this was under.