Enforcers of Greenhouse Gas Faith versus the Seekers of Truth

Climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer is at it again. He has stood up for his religious belief in the greenhouse gas theory in yet another article  dodging the growing mountain of evidence disproving it. In  Roy’s new post, “Misunderstood Basic Concepts and the Greenhouse Effect”  we again see a high priest of the cult defending the creed that insists that radiation always transfers thermal energy. Taking him to task is agnostic, Douglas Cotton in his “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.” [1]

Greenhouse Gas Church

Spencer believes radiation is  climate’s almighty king. Cotton says it isn’t and counters by insisting ‘back radiation’ has never been shown to add more heat movement from a cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface of our planet. Indeed, ‘back radiation heating’ was a non-science term invented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees Dr. Judith Curry.  But Spencer is holding true to his beliefs while Cotton and his 200+ colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) choose the facts.

Critic Cotton declares Roy wrong and berates  his crass assumption that all radiation transfer must add heat. Cotton and his colleagues also dismiss  Spencer’s unproven assumptions that radiation is the key to transport energy throughout earth’s gaseous, wet atmosphere (those damned heretics claim it’s convection and conduction). Cotton blasphemes by pointing to empirical evidence that proves that gravity, not radiation, “creates a thermal gradient which determines planetary surface temperatures. In comments added to Spencer’s blog Cotton says that unlike in greenhouse ‘heaven’  our worldly facts show that any radiation imbalance “is the result of natural climate cycles, not the cause.“

But this sullies Spencer’s Scriptures  - not to be confused with Lindzen’s liturgy. (For those who don’t know, Roy says the greenhouse effect works from the ground up, while Dick disagrees and says the opposite!).  It’s like Catholics debating Jews, or Shia versus Sunni. How many angels can really dance on the head of that greenhouse gas pin? Spencer repeats the same tired old mantra, “the full depth of the atmosphere would achieve the same temperature as the surface through thermal conduction.” To which Cotton is most dismissive pointing to the evidence of 800 real-world experiments. Bishop Roy has no experiments to back his claims. His Holiness still claims that hand-held infrared meters (IRT’s) can measure his GHE. He does so even after an email exchange with a noted expert in thermodynamics proved him wrong.

But Roy not only dismisses the ‘evil’ of such facts he doesn’t appear to heed the message from one of the world’s leading manufacturers of these devices. Mikron Instrument Company Inc., has confirmed that IRT’s are deliberately set to AVOID registering any feedback from so-called greenhouse gases. Thus climate scientists were measuring everything but the energy emitted by carbon dioxide and water vapor. Perhaps Roy should have a word with Mikron.

What we have from Dr Spencer is a lot of sanctimony in devotion to his GHE religion. His is the creed of no equations, no experiments, or observations.  Indeed, trying to get sight of any of those IPCC greenhouse gas models is proving as fruitless as trying to locate the Ark of the Covenant – or as mysterious as the true goings on at the Freemasons Grand Lodge. As Lionell Griffith observes, the Greenhouse Effect is all a matter of faith for climate ‘scientists.’

Griffith observes:

“If that were not so, the so called Greenhouse Effect would have been unambiguously defined long ago in such a way it could be tested. Then, it actually would have been tested rather than just being simulated. This has NOT been done and the so called effect has morphed from ambiguity to ambiguity countless times from the get go. It continues to morph in exact parallel to the belief in spirits, gods, goblins, devils, and the like has morphed and for the same purpose. Its purpose is to stop thought, investigation, questions, and the requirement for objective evidence and actual demonstration. Their whim is to rule simply because it is THEIR whim. Everything else is simply a fog intended to hide what they are really after – likely even from themselves.

What to do about it? At the very least, don’t get entrapped in their tangled web of words. Their words are without referents in reality. They connect only to a foggy undefined constantly morphing set of intentions within what passes for their minds. Simply continue with the effort of discovering the truth, offering a demonstration of it being the truth, and making things that work because you have discovered and know the truth. THIS is the only thing that has ever worked.

Trying to convince them of the rightness of your path by open and honest debate is a hopeless effort. They are not interested in rightness. They are only interested in their whim and your sacrificed to that whim. Your being engaged in that debate is part of that sacrifice.”

[1] Cotton, D., ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,’ (March, 2012), principia-scientific.org (accessed online: January 2, 2013)


Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Enforcers of Greenhouse Gas Faith versus the Seekers of Truth

  1. Pingback: Enforcers of Greenhouse Gas Faith versus the Seekers of Truth « Skeptics Chillin'

  2. There are many paradoxes in physics, we deal with them regularly. Yes, a CO2 molecule can radiate certain frequency photons, and yes, they can go in all directions, even pack toward the earth.

    But there can be no NET energy transfer from a colder region to a warmer one without doing work, and that’s just a cold hard fact confirmed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    All the “greenhouse effect” ( a bogus term from the beginning ) can do is delay slightly the cooling of the earth’s atmosphere after the sun sets… and water vapor, not any form of “carbon” is responsible for this “blanket effect”. This can easily be tested experimentally and verified using a dry desert ( freezing at night ) and a moist jungle ( still uncomfortably warm at midnight ).

  3. Andrew

    Good article, if trenchantly stated. It needs to be read with the References for maximum effect. It all amounts to “there is no free lunch”. An ice cube can’t boil a kettle of water, unless amazing work is performed on the ice cube, which doesn’t happen in nature.

    If we left it to the physicists then the ‘climate scientists’ could just shut up and colour. Even then they would probably go outside the lines of a simple hockey schtick.

  4. Edmonton Al

    The Great James Randi used to have a $1,000,000.00 prize for anyone who could prove claims of the paranormal.
    Maybe someone will offer a prize to the GHE ers if they can prove the GHE?
    [Sorry I do not have a spare $1m ... but if I did....]

  5. Martin Hodgkins

    It occurred to me the other day that even though the air remains reasonably well mixed at altitude in terms of ppm the density of air is greatly reduced. So the amount of CO2 per cubic metre must be really, really small. Just a thought.

  6. Shooter

    John, you mentioned Lubos Motl (sp?) in another post, and he recently posted an article stating that the GHG doesn’t violate any laws of physics:


    Defending the orthodoxy indeed. Why are “skeptics” bashing skeptics? It’s so odd, hearing that language from a physicist.

  7. AndyG55

    A little experiment for those that don’t understand heat ovement by convection

    Light a candle, stand it upright..

    Now see how close you can get your fingers to the side of the wick, (This illustrates radiation and a small amount of air conduction.)

    Next see how close you can get your finger to the TOP of the wick (convection)….

    I dare you !!

  8. AndyG55

    heat MOVEMENT (correct if possible, please mods.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s