In this video I discuss the importance of performing due diligence upon the extraordinary claims of climate science. Due diligence means making sure that all of the t’s are crossed and all of the i’s are dotted, that all your ducks are lined in a row, so to speak. That is: do all of the underlying elements of the claim form a valid logical chain from their initial premises out to their conclusion? And even if they do, is there any extant evidence which still refutes or is inconsistent with the claim? This has been my approach to the extraordinary claims of climate science, and it results in a discovery and a conclusion even more extraordinary, but in this case, it is supported by evidence. We encounter an incredible and seemingly impossible paradox, a “rift in the space-time continuum”, of the human mind in the process of performing this due diligence, and examine its implications.
Slides:
Click to access climate-due-diligence.pdf
Support:
BTC: 1EeURvMjtGUxznP44cM6iSdDAqzjNUJFr8
PayPal:
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/joepostma
GiveSendGo:
https://www.givesendgo.com/ontologicalmathematics
Climate of Sophistry 
This model uses a flat surface, but that is ok because it isn’t representing the entire surface area of the earth.
This model also does not demonstrate a mechanism that would create a free energy device.
This is a valid heuristic.
In this model, that flat line represents the entire surface area of earth. The dark side and the light side both being hit by 240w/m^2(-18C) at the same time.
I don’t think a lot of people get that’s why Postma harps on the flat line so much.
It really is ridiculous to do that.
Postma is an Astrophysicist. That’s why it sticks out so much to him.
Argument I used the other day. It’s yours if you want it.
Nice!
Put this in the wrong spot, so they will have to claim CO2 does fluctuate or it is not the driver of temperature.
So they put in a disclaimer.:
“This article is about ice ages and what causes them, but it does not address the significant differences between pre- and post-Industrial Revolution climate change. A wealth of information is available from numerous scientific organizations with expertise in climate science. For those wishing to learn more, here are a few examples:”
Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey
On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more. For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?
Right-just ignore the point that there have been recent wild variations in climate for reasons we don’t have any explanation for!
Greenhouse effect is not science and those pretending and promoted beoynd capabilities and tallent. There can be no energy transferred to CO2 unless there is transmission resonance, and that virtually ceases over 300ppm at340ppm the Pen Uni experiment wrote up no measurabe heating was detected. That is the experiment destroying the false hypoyhesis that CO2 is a probem, it is not.
Yip JP. If you wanted conditions which would destroy the Earth, you would invent this new Bolshevism and enslave normies. In the covax era, these creeps have already joined the mass murder club. What motivation could there be?
It’s hard to fathom self-aware people coming up with the comments that they did about your model. Again, motivation?
Exactly. Their motivation is simply the end point of what they’re doing.
Thank you for this new way of seeing climate. It makes good sense. In fact, I wonder if you couldn’t explain weather changes even better by taking account of the “albedo effect”: i.e., the heat reflected off the earth’s surface, which then heats up the atmosphere directly. The more reflective the surface (less absorption because of less photosynthetic greenery) the greater the atmospheric warming, and the more turbulence (I guess it has been increasing over the last 4-5 decades in parallel with increasing urbanization). If this is albedo effect is a significant factor, then the answer for extreme weather conditions is simply to plant up the reflective areas (deserts, cities and overgrazed semideserts) with trees and shrubs, using drip technology until the roots are well established. This will increase the absorption of sun’s energy, and decrease reflection, atmospheric overheating and turbulence. Excess ‘anthropogenic C02’ will actually help the re-planting process. What do you think, Joe? Could you incorporate the albedo effect mathematically into your model, to see if it is determinative?
Certainly those are great ideas and would constitute doing real actual science!
Lovely graph.