Ground Breaking Paper Refutes the Greenhouse Gas Theory

International team of researchers confirms peer-reviewed new paper refutes the greenhouse gas theory, the cornerstone of science that claims human emissions of carbon dioxide dangerously warms the Earth. Principia Scientific International (PSI) today issues a press release for Joseph E. Postma’s astonishing game-changing publication  ‘A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect.’

Amateurish Greenhouse Effect Dramatics Comprehensively Slain

PSI are adamant that what they have here compellingly debunks what a generation of government climatologists  incorrectly assumed i.e. that the flow of radiation in Earth’s atmosphere is indicative of the flow of heat. They endorse Postma’s findings and confirm that the issue was never really about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the  big question should have been whether once it has arrived at the surface: does it get more than one go at generating heat (i.e. “back radiation” heating)?

Along with other critical debunks beside this one, Postma and his colleagues say “no” because a) no such phenomenon as “back radiation heating” is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks and b) nor has any such effect been measured empirically. As the debate has raged in the blogosphere believers in the GHE were shown to be incapable of determining whether  to support the “back radiation” heating or the “delayed cooling” (i.e. “blanket effect”) argument for the GHE. But as Postma’s paper proves,  each of the ideas is a contradiction in terms and may separately be shown to not have any empirically proven basis. The Laws of Thermodynamics probably play a part in this.

Texan engineer, Joe Olson, speaking on behalf of his colleagues said this morning, “This paper has been assessed by a multi-disciplinary group of dedicated and trusted colleagues, we see there is so much original material here to establish a watershed.”   Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is among those who assisted in developing the paper. Like the other 120 members of PSI (known in the blogosphere as the ‘Slayers’) Ball accepts that his and his colleagues’ credibility are at stake. Nonetheless, Ball and co. are adamant that if Postma’s findings are widely confirmed then future climate researchers may well be discussing the science in terms of “pre-Postma” and “post-Postma” analysis.

Hans Schreuder, who along with Alan Siddons, provided the core science upon which Postma’s paper was built, has laid down a bold challenge to the critics, “If they can demonstrate we are cranks then all power to them.” PSI’s press release reads as follows:

Principia Scientific International Publishes Ground breaking Paper

Refuting the Greenhouse Gas Theory

( October 30, 2012)

Joseph E. Postma’s new paper is the most coherent and complete analysis any of the 120+ members of Principia Scientific International (including a Nobel SCIENCE prize nominee) has seen on the greenhouse gas theory.

As a multi-disciplinary group of dedicated and trusted colleagues, we see there is so much original material here to establish a watershed. We do not make the claim lightly because we know our credibility will depend on this. Nonetheless, if these findings are widely confirmed then future climate researchers may well be discussing the science in terms of “pre-Postma” and “post-Postma” analysis.

Principia Scientific International, as a fledging science association, is pioneering a new kind of peer-review in open media (PROM). As such, we heartily welcome full and open public examination of Postma’s work. It is in the interests of us all that Postma’s claims are put under the spotlight and either accepted as compelling and valid or demonstrated to be flawed and inconsequential.

The ball is now firmly in the court of all those who insist the so-called greenhouse gas effect must cause “some” warming – a claim this paper compellingly refutes.

For more information contact: info@principia-scientific.org

—————–

Below is Postma’s summary as it appears on Page 54 of his paper:

(1)

The surface of albedo is not the ground surface, and so it never was correct to associate the radiative temperature of -180C with the ground surface in the first place when devising GHE equations, since the albedo is what determines the equilibrium temperature and the albedo is not found with the physical surface.

(2)

Even as the climate models show, an increase in cloud height causes an increase in temperature at the surface. This is not due to a backradiation GHE but due to the lapse rate of the atmosphere combined with the average surface of equilibrium being risen further off of the surface.

(3)

A real greenhouse doesn’t become heated by internal backradiation in any case, but from trapped warm air which is heated by contact with the internal surfaces heated by sunlight, and then physically prevented by a rigid barrier from convecting and cooling. The open atmosphere doesn’t do what a greenhouse doesn’t do in the first place, and the open atmosphere does not function as a rigid barrier either.

(4)

The heat flow ordinary differential equation of energy conservation is a fundamental equation of physics. It combines the fundamental mechanics of heat flow together with the most venerated law of science, conservation of energy. This equation predicts what should be observable if backradiation or heat-trapping is introduced to the equation, in accordance with the main idea of the atmospheric GHE, that a higher temperature than the insolation will be achieved. A higher-than-insolation temperature is not achieved in experimental data, and we make it clear how one could test the postulate with even more surety by using the “Bristol Board Experiment”.

(5)

An important factor for why the introduction of backradiation into the equation fails to match the real world is because radiation cannot actually increase its own Wien-peak frequency and its own spectral temperature signature; radiation cannot heat up its own source. The Laws of Thermodynamics are real and universal.

(6)

The rate of cooling at the surface is enhanced, rather than retarded, relative to the entire atmospheric column, by a factor of 10. Therefore, backradiation doesn’t seem to slow down the rate of cooling at the surface at all. Backradiation neither causes active heating, nor slowed cooling, at the surface. (Given Claes Johnson’s description of radiative heat transfer, radiation from a colder ambient radiative environment should slow down the rate of cooling, and we agree with that. What we didn’t agree with was that “slowed cooling” equated to “higher temperature” because that is obviously sophistic logic. And now in any case, it is apparent that sensible heat transfer from atmospheric contact at the surface dominates the radiative component process anyway, leading to ten times the rate of cooling at the surface relative to the rest of the column.)

(7)

Given the amount of latent heat energy actually stored (i.e. trapped) within the system, and that this energy comes from the Sun, and considering the Zero-Energy-Balance (ZEB) plot, it is quite apparent that this energy gets deposited in the equatorial regions and then shed in the polar regions. This trapped latent heat prevents the system from cooling much below 00C, which keeps the global average temperature higher than it would otherwise be and thus leads to an “interpreted appearance” of a GHE caused by “GHG trapping”, when the only trapping of energy is actually only in H2O latent heat.

(8)

Subsoil readings prove that a large amount of energy is held at a significant temperature (warmer than the surface) overnight, and because this soil is warmer than the surface, and the surface is warmer than the atmosphere, then the direction of heat flow is from the subsoil to the atmosphere. And as discussed, the atmosphere seems to enhance surface cooling rather than impede it.

(9)

The heat flow equation can be modeled to show that the Sun is capable of maintaining large amounts of water under the solar zenith at about 14 degrees C. This is very close to the surface average of +150C. The Sun can maintain a liquid ocean at +140C because it takes a long time for heated water to lose its thermal energy. This is also in combination with the surface of albedo being raised off the surface where the lapse rate will maintain a near-surface average of +150C in any case.

(10)

The issue has never been about whether radiation moves freely about in the atmosphere (it does), the question is whether once it has arrived at the surface, does it get more than one go at generating heat (i.e. “back radiation” heating)? We say “no” because a) no such phenomenon as “back radiation heating” is cited in any thermodynamics textbooks and b) nor has any such effect been measured empirically. GHE believers are left not knowing whether to support the “back radiation” heating or the “delayed cooling” (i.e. “blanket effect”) argument for the GHE; this is because each is a contradiction in terms and may separately be shown to not have any empirically proven basis. The Laws of Thermodynamics probably play a part in this.

(11)

As Alan Siddon’s has explained [41], it isn’t actually clear, and there seems to be a plain logical contradiction, when we consider the role of non-GHG’s under the atmospheric GHE paradigm. If non-GHG’s such as nitrogen and oxygen don’t radiate, then, aren’t they the ones trapping the thermal energy which they sensibly pick up from the sunlight-heated surface and from GHG’s? If on the other hand they do radiate, then aren’t they also GHG’s? If a GHG radiates, and the others gasses don’t, then doesn’t that mean that GHG’s cause cooling because they provide a means for the atmosphere to shed thermal energy? If the GHE is caused by trapping heat, then aren’t all non-GHG’s contributing to the effect since they can’t radiatively shed the thermal energy they pick up? Isn’t how we think of the GHE therefore completely backwards? In any case, everything with a temperature is holding heat; the only place trapping can be thought to be occurring is in latent heat.

 

“Against Global Warming”

(Guest post by Robert P. Cheshire AIAS.US)

An essay respectful of the growing resurgence of proper scientific procedure in light of existing dogmatic, propagandist or purely erroneous data.

Einstein: Greenhouse Effect is a Fraud

The “Greenhouse Effect”, a phrase often bandied about over the last two to three decades or so, began life as an erroneous analogy for certain atmospheric activity. The phrase went on to be at the core of a new model, consequently and erroneously predicting data for Man-made, Global Warming; Whereby, we lesser mortals are supposed to have been leaving “fatal” footprints of carbon emission and hastening the Apocalypse or Armageddon. This alarmism has spawned a host of trade businesses and government directives through those decades, alongside human feelings of imminent doom and despair. I too [as one of many millions or even billions] was taken in. The atmosphere behaves in no way like a “Greenhouse” model.

In fact, we were understandably taken in. Mainstream scientific authority is supposed to tell us how things are to the best of modern thought and knowledge ( I feel a wistful sentimentality coming on…). The plain truth is that they haven’t got a clue for a variety of reasons and have been misdirected by both their own sense of self importance and an almost religious adhesion to dogma or received opinion. There are other reasons involving the securing or redistribution of funding that shares centre stage in the reasoning as to why such a large body of scientists have either conspired, been duped or merely been unscholarly enough to accept error and then elevate that error to current mathematic model status. The rot set in as far back as 1906 if not before.

When Einstein published his theory of Special Relativity it was suitably met with great accord (considering the comparatively small number of capable physicists as measured pro rata today). Einstein appeared to be describing a logic in the universe such as had not been quantified before in such a seemingly elegant fashion. It was not long before he was awarded lasting genius status in both the scientific and the general, public eye.

In 1915 he published his theory of General Relativity, an elaboration of the former “SR” theory and possibly an attempt to apply the Relativity theory to the whole of Physics and related auspices – the holy grail known as the T.O.E. – The “Theory of Everything”. The penning of such reasoning gave Einstein even greater status. Many would come to regard him as spiritually blessed to the point of deification! Einstein became God of Science and – (and this is where the known rot crept in) – infallible.

A fatal assessment given that Einstein’s Field Equation was shy of two forces known today; the Strong and the Weak Nuclear Forces. He could only try to unify the known Gravitation with known Electromagnetism and with hindsight, was short of the full scientific deck by a huge margin. So much so that E=MC squared could be better employed as Esub0 =MC squared – a completely different ball game.

From the beginning, Einstein had met with the odd refutation of his theories since and even before publication but either he or some colleagues did not see evidence enough to review or revise. And so, despite the eminence of any would-be refuter, General Relativity became the benchmark “manual” for much of modern mainstream scientific research – particularly theoretical physics and cosmology.

In 1927, Werner Heisenberg had been proffering his principles of Uncertainty or Indeterminacy which, seemingly precluded a full understanding of Atomic quantification and highlighted “probability” as our only eventual recourse in much atomic level endeavour.

Einstein did not agree and he “told them so” [notable followers of these new principles] and was thanked for his monumental contribution of Relativity, but now, effectively, he’d “lost it” and couldn’t keep up with the pace of “modern thinking”!

Heisenberg was a notable scholar, engineer and scientist with a Nobel award. His later field had been the A Bomb for Germany until around the end of WW2 when he was held by Britain for a while before working in the USA. It seemed at first, that his earlier theories of Uncertainty and such would put something of a block on scientific, thought development since our hands could be tied by calculations in Probability. In fact, quite the opposite happened! Either because of, or coincidental with Heisenberg’s concepts, a plethora of ideas had come forward that by 1930 were bordering, if not part of the plainly fantastic. Not of this world. Interestingly, Chemical physicists had carried on regardless of the Heisenberg interruption and were busily measuring the “immeasurable” and advancing chemistry as if Heisenberg had not spoken at all. Chemical physicists could not however, sway a mindset determined upon indetermination.

Time was now subject to change. It could contract or equally, expand. Measuring sticks became flexible. It seemed as if Heisenberg had given license to an unrestrained imagination that was to go walkabout even to the present day. The mathematical models we have today are supposed to reflect a framework of reality. They do not. It has gotten so bad that in some cases in our modern age, neither the reality nor the frameworks can even be detected by sight or radiation…or any other measuring system…ever! Yet we’re, most of us, convinced of the existence of Black Holes for example. Dark Matter or Dark Energy are more mathematical models of no traceable evidence whatsoever! Big Bang Theory is based on such abstract mathematics that even Dr. Roger Penrose of Messrs Penrose and Hawking, has modified his view to the effect that he now thinks that Big Bang, point singularity [nothingness then everythingness] was actually one of a series of such events and not the “one off” event that Prof. Hawking prefers. It just gets worse. Less and less palpable or tangible evidence = more and more funding. It is bizarre when you stop to think on it. Further…it is madness. A hundred years of suspect, mathematical modelling and no product from almost all of it.

Many and much of the mathematical modelling of this type is based on Einstein’s General Relativity along with Heisenberg’s – probably unintended – encouragement to guess. An encouragement to guess can be a good thing. Imagination is an essential part of logic and problem solving. However, just as a bicycle will carry you forward faster than your legs, you will inevitably, need brakes! Imagination is a tool not a resting place! You have to balance the imagination with scientific back-up such as plain, observable logic or understandable, cohesive mathematics.

Almost all of the notable refuters of all or parts of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity had made valid points that should not have been ignored. Contemporary refutations of today are also by eminent scholars of science. Incredibly, many of these original thinkers (now in secretive thousands as well as overt hundreds) have been labelled as “crackpots” by mainstream “authority” and in places such as the online, Wikipedia.

It is still a cardinal sin – worthy of “excommunication” to thoroughly check the findings of others and find error – in almost every quarter of this so-called mainstream scientific authority. In other words, adjustable parameters have been ostensibly inserted into the very definition of the word, “science”. As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, the word science is taken from the Latin, scientia and scire, to know. It specifically refers to bodies of knowledge gained by observation and experiment. It has never meant, “to guess” or to disregard the “observation” part of its definition as would appear today. This astoundingly, deems most of our “frontline” mathematical models – of the cosmos particularly – unscientific. Without confirming or observable data, it is effectively, another shot in the dark.

I have been and will be attacked for my requests to revise EGR to the point of throwing it out completely. What an arrogant man I must be. Who do I think I am to doubt the work of Saint Albert etc etc. Well St. Albert was a great and innovative, instinctive thinker and the very birth of his theories should have advanced us no end if we’d applied proper scientific appraisal to the fundaments of this work. Einstein gave us the key to another level and we didn’t take up his gauntlet and move forward with a firm theoretical foundation because we took it for granted that Einstein doesn’t make mistakes. The mistakes would not have precluded the higher level but in fact enable us to correct and alter an initial course set by Einstein himself. No authority or governing body checked the theory sufficiently but went on to pillory all doubters of it. Mindless authoritarian dogma. So we got stuck where Einstein left us – more than a century behind in scientific development. There will be no memorabilia from this lost time either, since you cannot photograph something that isn’t there. We could not photograph the Emperors new clothes as we might well be paradoxically, charged with possession of obscenity as well as lunacy.

The concept of Global Warming, man made or otherwise, had also spawned a host of “pseudo-experts in the field” who are now coming painfully unstuck as true diligence and scientific analysis takes hold once more. Proper men and women of proper science are re-analysing existing, long held beliefs and finding them appallingly lacking and without any scientific justification. Misinterpretation, misrepresentation, laziness and even corruption have abounded by the result of a “few good men doing nothing” in the past. They should have done something. Respects are very much due to all those who tried hard but died, were declared insane, incapable or “too unorthodox” to inspire proper, concerted, scientific investigation. Total irony. Total dogma. Totalitarian Tyranny.

They should have done something because “a few good men” are once again on the rise. These men and women of more diligent science had smelled a rat at some point, somewhere during recent decades and honoured their profession by rooting it out. What a furore this has caused amongst the hitherto smug-minded of this dying “standard model” era. “A few more good men and women” are identifying huge cracks and fatal flaws in currently held doctrines, dictats and theories. There is a plague of rats. The mainstream Owl and the Pussycat had been repeatedly and still are, putting to sea in a beautiful, pea green colander and fly the now ragged and rotting bunting of a victorious but fictitious fleet. A fantasy.

Too many of conscience are finally disseminating the myths of Theoretical Physics and Global Warming particularly, and finding that the sickness goes right through sciences to taint even the most genuine minded of scholars. I am informed that there have been times in recent history, where to secure funding for a potentially unrelated thesis, it has been considered wiser if not a direction to add some convoluted connection to effects of Global Warming. Only readers with such first hand experience could verify that. I cannot comment much beyond receipt of such information. Equally, I cannot readily see the case for, “It does not or would not happen”. We also see cases where challenges to the “standard model” will mean certain examination failure and subsequent “catch 22” scenarios that threaten a students or graduates prospects if error in the mainstream view is suspected or worse, voiced. Further investigation and research must needs be done covertly.

I don’t think that the growing mistrust of mainstream science and academia in the eyes of a “lay” public is wholly unjustified or unqualified either. They, us, now more than ever. witness the failure of practically all servants of The People and many of the institutions that simply, ought to have known better. Be those institutions of scientific, social health, political, financial or media bases, they’ve all been practicing obscurantism – concealing the true facts of a thing. Often in favour of greater personal or individual gain for a select leadership or the protection of same. What comes as depressingly routine is the selling of principle for tenure and the tenuring of chairs of no sound principle.

Good Americans will know that a few of that newly settled nation, a few founding fathers, scorned the abuse of the original natives of the land but that for their pains, would be labelled, “Indian Lovers” and publicly derided by a ruling echelon with a “pressing need” of such lands. Again, hindsight makes us suitably uncomfortable about this. In the same way, albeit not as socially tragic, those who challenge mainstream policy or thinking and especially in the field of Particle Physics where Einsteinian theory underpins a lot of the research concepts, are labelled “Einstein (or EGR) haters” and have been mocked and ridiculed without any cohesive data to rebut the more than adequate,mathematical refutations. Purely personal abuse and/or attempted suppression by declarations of congenital lunacy or other such related, invented impediment. That is, all dissenters are as the “savages” and the “Indian Lovers” and therefore, completely barking.

These immoveable agenda lead us up blind creeks to wallow in the predictable and gentle tidal flow of non production – back and forth, back and forth. The ferryman is happy. He is paid to hold his water only. To keep the boat static. We are under way but not making way. Just the constant tides and sea life pass us in and out but our ground is still. The ferrymen are overqualified and should be deep sea, expeditionary Masters but creeklife is calm and can be very comfortable. Losing the paddles doesn’t seem much of a problem either ..not if you go straight to anchor or permanent moorings.

We the public are at fault too. Laziness at the ballot box. Unconditional acceptance of received opinion. Anthropomorphic digestion of unsubstantiated data that only a little consideration would beg challenge…”Decades?? Billions and billions of Dollars, Pounds and Euro??? Higgs Bosons?? the “GOD Particle”??? Where are they??? What has our Particle science investment brought us?? Nada. Another question that should have been asked more than a decade ago: “Is there something radically wrong with the theory??”.

Those questions were asked by a few heroes of our time. Made heroes by the hardships they have had to endure for the sake of integrity in their chosen fields. Those questions are continually being asked by those who have witnessed the rigid dogma of a closed shop. Still no answers. Only abuse to the questioner. Many of us (the public at large) don’t want to know because it stretches the mind to envisage these dilemmas and that can smart when your constitutional diet is headed by the “Entertainment Factor” of TV. So we all share blame in that respect. The unquestioning acceptance of any authority is a weakness we can do without and increasingly, cannot afford – let alone an intractable scientific authority. Especially when what we can see is as self serving or has vested interest in an agenda that may even wipe us all out. If we continue to fight over energy – oil and gas, then we’ll surely die all the sooner. We need a sensible investigation into all alternatives no matter how outlandish they may first appear. If oil reserves are truly low, we should be studying their potential replacements – in all forms. Many of our great achievements have come from challenges to some kind of mainstream authority. The world of “political science” as the unabridged science of politics, is fraught with irony, paradox and obscurantism. Paradigm shifts are only feasible when this is exposed. A real-life scenario may feature a teacher say, or a political figure or an exponent of a particular belief. A Thomas Edison figure with DC power plans. How they deal with paradigm shifts, with the Nikola Teslas of this world with their AC and superior systems; That is an interesting question and negatively revealing.

The difference between the “few good men” who did nothing then and the “few good men” of today is that the former were only good until they elected to do nothing. The latter are doing something that affirms and will cement that goodness and will help restore our faith in ourselves by searching diligently for a better way without dishonest lip-service and false, party-line chanting. The internet has so far ensured that scientists can talk to each other across the world to formulate and cement solid ideas by peer review and without unthinking censorship. We see a classic situation whereby, once a stifling authority is removed, something far from anarchic chaos ensues but innovation and clear thinking and, as history shows, progress. This has cost a select few a great deal and we owe them much for it. Many have had their career livelihoods removed from underneath them but have soldiered on against an almost overwhelming aggression and abuse from yet another, academic, mainstream mindset or authority who ought, but appear not, to know better. It has been criminal treatment of some of our best scientific minds and makes this author ashamed of many of our culpable institutions.

I am a proud Fellow of The Institute for Advanced Study – aias.us where a few good men – almost all of our members and Fellows have distinctions in their field or are past laureates of other connected institutions – have forged ahead of mainstream with the mathematics and science – the proof of the errors of EGR and much more. A new, contemporary Unified Field Theory has been emplaced to replace the obsolete parts of Einstein’s propositions and gained accord from progressive scientists who use solid mathematical bases of tried and tested spacetime geometry and algebra in models of observable and more accurate definition. Einstein’s errors have been addressed and respect for his being in general has never been purposely compromised. Some of his platforms will not hold and have had to have been rebuilt. It is my view that Einstein has been made greater by this “reset” to humanity and my own sense of respect for his timely being on this planet has been strengthened. He was a human man and therefore the greater for it. Had he been a God, his work would have been easy. It wasn’t.

The revised, rebuilt and extended theory is called the Einstein – Cartan – Evans Theory that is, ECE Theory- so named after its three main contributors.

Einstein set the ball rolling with renewed vigour by a variety of cutting edge concepts that would eventually tease out a reality that now, we can all begin to agree on. Honours to his brilliance must be and are reflected in the theory’s title.

Elie Cartan was another brilliant mind and French mathematician who had developed the known geometry of physics into far greater accuracy, particularly by engaging with the torsion of spacetime T – a major parameter hitherto neglected. Part of his legacy is Cartan Geometry – enough on its own to overturn much dogmatic waywardness and a key element in the smooth functionality of ECE Theory.

Dr. Myron Wyn Evans is the architect of the sum of the parts and chief author of both the completed and continuous flow of computer-algebra tested data resulting from the diligent mathematics and geometry at the heart of his brainchild and any peer input.

Dr Evans is a quiet man in real life. He is the youngest D.Sc. (Doctor in Scientia) of modern times having attained that honour at 27 yrs. a record of more than half a if not nearly a century since a comparative predecessor. More latterly and under the advice of Parliament, The Queen awarded Dr. Evans a Civil List Pension and a subsequent personal and public title of Armiger / Gentleman for his services to science. Between those two events and before and after are a host of outstanding records and awards. You don’t get accolade such as Dr. Evans has achieved if you’re a crackpot! Dr. Evans maintains an ongoing personal diary in which he puts his general views on many topics and issues. He is the Director of the AIAS and its site displays all the Unified Field Theory [UFT] Papers – more than 220 papers to date in just that series – and works of other contributory and prolific authors such as Drs. Horst Eckhardt and Doug Lindstrom together with a host of eminent scholars and thinkers such as Stephen Crothers and others too numerous here to mention. The site caters for the higher level mathematician in the UFT papers yet speaks to the layman in plain English or the less complex terms of the essays and lecture materials section. There are many works therein.

The science of Physics has entered a paradigm shift. There is a growing resentment of dogma and the promotion of hackneyed and unproductive data or statistics that would stifle the very nature and essence of what a true scientist is – a seeker of knowledge. By default he or she should be a seeker of truth. Can we let it be that we let our publicly financed institutions or the ties to private gain without product, teach us to lie?

By relentless endeavour and without pay, Myron Evans with ECE Theory and the AIAS group, together with other ECE Related sites have been preventing that and will continue to do so for both the love of learning and the benefits that honest scholarship may provide for all and not just the few. There are other sites and institutes that have so dedicated their studies and the AIAS group welcomes all affiliates who can merely prove any theoretical posit with clear, recognisable and appropriate mathematics. Insistence on an EGR based model will not get you published here. Having already been shredded by many notable scholars down the last century, such insistence shows that ECE theory has not been read or digested and therefore that insistence begins to challenge the very mathematical subject and nature of algebra itself. Naturally and for the sake of experimentation and the furnishing of physical meetings – a most productive exercise beyond the video conference – the AIAS welcomes patronage of like minded thinkers and scholars who wish to further or accelerate the group research by financial assistance or funding but the main job is done.

The rest will be an exploration of realistic possibility, shrouded before by a blanket of invented, confusing and almost infinitely adjustable parameters that could have the power to make telephone numbers, input as data strings, turn out Man Made Global Warming indicators and alarum! After all, despite dire consequences from actual, excessive (natural) planet temperature, there will be a plus for many lobbies and businesses. If manufacturing or industry can be seen as contributory in its “footprint” on the end of the planet as we know it, then that might aid another lobby such as the “All Nuclear” exponents. No smoke. But of course, none of that could ever happen (!).

Inverted dogma? Amgod? No. We don’t see Dr. Evans as a God. We merely see him as a lifelong and eminent scholar of dual disciplines who has never compromised in the furtherance of understanding in Natural Philosophy – Physics. The calibre of his studies and respect of his genuine colleagues may also be testament to that fact.

Many of us have experienced a degree of the mindless and bitter abuse and attempted defamations issued by dethroned “bishops and rectors” of an erstwhile pseudo-theologian regime. None so fierce or underhand as has been suffered by Dr. Evans. Even as an assistant, artist and herald, I have had tirades of abuse that outside of any sinister elements, are really quite funny in a throbbing, cartoon jugular kind of way . As the programme “Yes Minister” may have shown home truths about Whitehall and Westminster through humour, so the two ancient and decrepit “gentleman’s clubsters” of a bygone hierarchy address each other on TV as do 6 year old children…”See that wastebin?…That’s you that is.”

Fact can indeed be stranger than fiction and I do speak from experience. We must isolate the cream cake of fiction and realise that the salted porridge of scientific fact is far more sustaining and productive. But where and how could that have become TOO obvious and how could such a thing have been so readily ignored over so long by so many?

Robert P. Cheshire

AIAS.US

October 30th 2012

Much Ado About Michael Mann the Climatology Courtroom Perjurer

Three days on and it is finally beginning to dawn on his supporters that Michael Mann has been monumentally caught out committing perjury in two lawsuits in which he has filed untrue statements claiming to be a Nobel laureate. Already the retractions are happening apace.

Michael Mann surrenders his credibility

Just witness how Penn State University (PSU) and Wikipedia are in full retreat and a forlorn Mann has withdrawn to the sanctuary of his Facebook page. Today, up in Vancouver, Canada, Dr Tim Ball sits serene and satisfied that not only is he about to defeat Mann’s bogus, dragged out libel suit but that he can proudly announce that the organization of which he is chairman and co-founder, Principia Scientific International, today publishes a truly astonishing new paper utterly refuting the greenhouse gas theory.

We are truly at the end game of the man-made global warming scam that has preoccupied western academia for over a generation. The rent seekers like Mann sustained the greenhouse gas fraud to steal over $100+ billion from taxpayers.  Monday morning PSU continues in it’s ignominious task of removing from all university documents and websites Mann’s bogus claims that he won the prestigious Nobel award in 2007.[1]

Mann’s crestfallen employers were already reeling and face further criminal charges in their midst due to the boardroom conspiracy in the cover up of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile ring (conspiracy theories anyone?). Now they’re liable to a full investigation by the National Science Foundation, a federal agency, for complicity in this long-standing deception that culminated in Mann repeating the falsehood with his sworn affidavits, both in the Washington DC court last week and last year in the British Columbia Supreme Court versus Ball. In both instances, Mann sought to prevail in libel claims where others had disputed his truthfulness. It seems time has now caught up with the perjurer and his critics are proven correct.

NSF, as per their mandate, are required to investigate why PSU, a federally-funded university. PSU disregarded it’s own official policy about academic misconduct and false representation to and became complicit with their employee to assist him to profit personally, professionally and financially in plying his false Nobel claims. In this quid pro quo arrangement PSU gained undeserved prestige and addition funding. And the happy counterfeiting arrangement went on brazenly for several years.
As I reported yesterday, PSU is hard at work playing damage limitation. But is it too late? No doubt their attorneys advised them that to continue to make such misrepresentations renders the university to the charge of accessories in the crime. At minimum they flagrantly disregarded their own policy statement on academic misrepresentation:
“Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.”

On two separate occasions, the first last year in British Columbia Supreme Court, Canada, the second last week in the District of Columbia Court Mann committed perjury with the  implicit consent of his university that also shields pedophiles. PSU enabled Mann’s nauseating chutzpah to rise above mere academic fraud into criminality. Regardless of Mann’s counterfeiting his Nobel credentials, his increasingly popular adversary in Canada, Tim Ball, is on the very brink of defeating  Mann on a wholly separate issue anyway: Mann’s refusal to comply with the court’s  mandatory requirement to release of his hidden “hockey stick” graph data (more on that below).

For over a year the Ball case has been a slow -ticking time bomb and very soon Ball’s legal team will be motioning for a dismissal on the basis that Mann declines to progress the case.  In both lawsuits Mann’s court papers comprise a list of arguments from authority whereby the “authority” on all things climate is inferred to be a Nobel laureate, i.e. Mann himself. By unlawfully assuming the identity of “Nobel laureate” he then demands that the courts take this “Nobel laureate’s” word that Mann’s science “must” therefore be top class. That’s called deception with intent to gain undue advantage.

There can be no mistake, from hereon in the defendants in these actions will want to put it to any jury that if Mann can lie under oath and falsify his academic credentials, then what else has he falsified? On the balance of probability a reasonable juror may thus then be inclined to believe Mann also lies when he declares his (hidden) “hockey stick” data isn’t deliberately rigged (fraudulent).

The “hockey stick” graph has been an iconic image since the 2001 Report by the International Panel on Climate Change. It is allegedly reliable and affirmed tree ring proxy evidence proving the existence of dangerous man-made global warming. It isn’t and doesn’t. In fact, no third party analysts have been allowed any open access to Mann’s crucial, but hidden r-squared cross-validation results for his graph.

But we do know a few interesting facts about this secret science. For example, it is a matter of public record that Mann’s proxy reconstruction method was made by lining up his tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale. In the process Mann used a statistic called the r-squared correlation coefficient. We also know, from evidence in the public domain, that Mann found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match (in other words the r-squared data was telling Mann his graph was junk).

We know Mann did, indeed, perform this important due diligence test because he let on that he got r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match. We also see it in the code he eventually was forced to publish. We critics of this post-normal junk science then say Mann thereafter lied when he proudly boasted to journalists that his graph had passed the tests. He got away with that hubris for a while because he very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves. These unpublished r-squared numbers are what Tim Ball wants to see examined in open court and what Steve McIntyre and others have repeatedly asked Mann to release. Instead Mann had his PSU employers spend upwards of a million dollars to pull every trick in the book in the U.S. to finally block open public access to it in  the Virginia courts. But that trick won’t work in Canada under different judicial rules.

In fact, the r-squared numbers are what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment in the Climategate emails was about. Mann won’t release the r-squared data to Ball to pick apart in open court, and would rather lose the case. We say Mann chooses not to comply with court rules because if he did release the numbers we believe he will be exposed in court for what he actually did after performing his original r-squared tests. We test data shows his procedure was bad (ie it created hockey sticks whatever numbers were fed in, and Mann knew it). In fact, statistics expert, Steve McIntyre and others have actually demonstrated that Mann’s methods themselves are why his tortured data churns out endless hockey stick-shaped graphs.

Reason and common sense demands that if Michael Mann is guilty and all his lawsuits must be thrown out. Certainly, costs and damages should be awarded to Dr Ball. While Mann’s employers, Penn State University and the NSF, must now sanction him. The US federal govt should also sanction Penn State for their duplicity. Perhaps a Romney Whitehouse might even countenance banning PSU from applying for any further federal funding for several years. The world is now seeing the complete vindication of Dr Ball. He was right on the money when said Mann belongs in the ” state pen, not Penn State!”

———————–

[1]Page 6 (Para. 17) of Mann’s Complaint makes the false and misleading claim that Mann, “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph.”

Michael Mann Retracts False Nobel Prize Claims in Humiliating Climbdown

Disgraced Penn State University (PSU) climatologist, Michael Mann, concedes defeat in his bogus claims to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Mann’s employer this weekend began the shameful task of divesting itself of all inflated claims  on university websites and official documentation that Mann was ever a Peace Prize recipient with Al Gore and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Thanks to a tip off from respected climate researcher, Dr. Klaus Kaiser, myself and Tom Richard (who scooped the original Nobel story) obtained “before and after” copy images from PSU websites as records of this damning retraction. (see below).

But not only has Mann opened up a can of worms in the DC courts, he’s also rendered himself liable to full misconduct investigations by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and PSU for academic misrepresentation. No wonder that as of yesterday (Saturday October 27 2o12) the university began the task of ridding itself of  their crestfallen ‘hockey sticker’s’ fake claims. In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile controversy it seems the penny has finally dropped at the scandal-ridden university that what was once disregarded as mere peccadillos actually bring unwelcome legal consequences. No one is buying any of the apologists’ assertions that the affidavit slip up was a trifling one off  “mistake.” Retrieval of third party archives of PSU web pages proves Mann has plied his fraudulent claims for years.  So how many more times will Mann’s climate cronies seek absolution for His Phoniness?

It won’t surprise legal analysts if the removal of these bogus claims is swiftly followed by equally shaming corrections, if not complete withdrawal, of the current botched defamation suit.  Also liable to collapse is Mann’s other libel claim dragging on since last year against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. In that related Vancouver action Mann also made the very same perjurious Nobel Prize claim.  Heaven forbid, even Wikipedia is hurriedly re-writing their biography of the climate con artist within 24 hours of Tom Richard obtaining confirmation from the Nobel Committee that Mann had lied in his sworn affidavit filed last week in the District of Columbia Court. (See image)

WIKI editors in weekend rush to re-write Mann’s entry

Let’s not forget that much, if not all, of Mann’s lawsuit is an appeal to the DC court for it to uphold the rightness and sanctity of Mann’s beatified authority on all matters environmental. Therefore, lawyers for Steyn, Rand Simberg and their respective publishers, the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, defendants in the case, may reasonably and fairly assert that for the past five years Mann has unscrupulously touted these false claims to unjustly further his personal, financial and political ambitions. With his saintly mantle shattered he can expect an onslaught of accusations of related scientific misconduct. PSU’s own policy statement suggests Mann has certainly breached their code of conduct:

“Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.” [1]

Expect all eyes to be on PSU’s hierarchy to see whether they dodge their own internal disciplinary policies. After the humiliation of the Jerry Sandusky scandal PSU will get no wriggle room to save a second bad boy.  Likewise, the NSF has a detailed history of handling cases where individuals have falsified their degrees, memberships, prizes and other accomplishments. An AAAS report tells us, “Federal agencies finding scientific misconduct have subjected researchers to a variety sanctions from a letter of reprimand to debarment from receiving federal funding for a number of years.”  [2]

We shall  have to wait to see whether 2013 brings a new U.S. administration mindful to send a signal about the apparent slide in standards within American academia.

[1] From Penn State’s University Faculty Senate Policy 49-20 (accessed online: http://advising.psu.edu/integrit.htm)

[2] Parrish, D., ‘The Scientific Misconduct Definition and Falsification of Credentials,’ AAAS Professional Ethics Report, Volume IX, Number 4, (1996).

Breaking: Michael Mann in Perjury Sensation: Nobel Committee Affirm He Lied

The Norwegian Nobel Institute has today made a statement affirming that climate scientist, Michael Mann lied when he claimed he was a joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. The news is set to render a devastating blow to all libel suits Mann has filed against critics of his outlandish global warming claims.

Where once there was doubt now none remains

Tom Richard investigating for Examiner.com takes the credit for this sensational scoop.  Tom says, “I contacted the  Norwegian Nobel Institute to find out if Mann was indeed a Nobel Laureate, winner, etc.” A prompt reply from  Geir Lundestad, Director, Professor, of The Norwegian Nobel Institute was soon forthcoming. In no uncertain terms Lundestad affirmed, “Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Yet lo and behold Mann makes the claim that he has been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize” in the complaint itself (page 2, paragraph 2).

Mann and his hot shot lawyers have thus violated Rule 11(a)(1) and (3) over Mann’s  dodgy affadavit submitted this week in the District of Columbia Court. He is now proven to have knowingly sought to mislead the court. In short, the offense is one of perjury. Blackstone’s law dictionary describes perjury as, “a crime committed when a lawful oath is administered, in some judicial proceeding, to a person who swears willfully, absolutely and falsely, in a matter material to the issue or point in question.”

EXHIBIT A: Mann’s IPCC certificate displayed in his office proving he was a helper NOT a Nobel Laureate

Earlier this week, Mark Steyn, a co-defendant in the latest Mann libel suit was scathing about Mann’s Nobel Prize claims. As to the IPCC “certificate” Mann proudly displays on his Facebook page as “proof” Lundestad had this to say, “Unfortunately we often experience that members of organizations that have indeed been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize issue various forms of personal diplomas to indicate that they personally have received the Nobel Peace Prize. They have not.”

In essence, this new evidence shows that Mann will stoop to criminality to achieve his goals. He is now the veritable Lance Armstrong of climate science. Whether the court imposes a light or a harsh sanction  the offense is a criminal act. As such, this is the best possible news for those Mann is suing for libel. Up till now there was only circumstantial evidence in the public domain to suggest the Penn State University (PSU) climatologist is guilty of academic fraud. But  now with proof of perjury, Mann’s reputation sinks to an all time low with actual  criminality established.

For all their smart work in forum shopping the case to the District of Columbia courts, Mann’s lawyers now face a tortuous uphill battle to win over any judge and jury, let alone one under “biased” Judge Natalie Combs-Greene.

In Canada this news may also impact Mann’s libel suit against fellow climatologist, Dr Tim Ball which has stalled since last year. That’s all because Mann refuses to provide courtroom examination of the dodgy data he has kept secret since he first concocted his infamous “hockey stick” graph that was trumpeted by the IPCC and others as “proof” human emissions of carbon dioxide were dangerously changing the climate.

You can imagine Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg and the folks at National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute will today be convulsant with laughter at the news.

Michael Mann Gets “Most Biased” Judge for Key US Global Warming Trial

A Washington judge acknowledged to have the worst reputation for bias and abuse of process is appointed to oversee one of the biggest science lawsuits since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. The appointment of Judge Natalie Combs-Greene  has enraged skeptics of the U.S. government’s tax-raising crusade built on junk man-made global warming science. It’s no secret that Greene is rated by Washington lawyers as one of the worst on the circuit.

Judge Natalie Combs Greene DC’s ‘Worst’

Here’s some background to the case. Prominent government global warming scientist Michael Mann, the plaintiff in the action yesterday (October 23, 2012) announced he has filed suit against a skeptic American conservative think tank and the National Review Online (NRO) and others. Mann claims the defendants libeled him by comparing his employer’s investigation into misconduct allegations of a fellow employee with an investigation into his own alleged misconduct. The “fellow employee” is none other than convicted pedophile, Jerry Sandusky. And many analysts agree there are obvious similarities in the way Penn State University handled their internal separate investigations into Mann and Sandusky. I remain firmly of the opinion that Mann’s junk science helped Penn State fleece the taxpayers of personal grants of $4.2 million in grants between 2006 and 2009, let alone the billions that have been wasted pursuing pointless carbon emissions policies.

One of the defendants in this case, the Competitive Enterprise Institute first ran the opinion piece on their blog by in house author Rand Simberg, which thereafter inspired another allegedly defamatory opinion piece by NRO writer Mark Steyn. Although the CEI withdrew two sentences from the Simberg article upon Mann’s “take down” notice, they, like the NRO, state they won’t back down any further. Their defense to the action will likely be First Amendment free speech privilege and the right of fair comment about a public figure. As the ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), cases demonstrates, regulation of content over the Internet is challenging in light of the protections guaranteed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Simberg may have made some minor factual errors on the technical details e.g. his piece mistakenly refers to the National Science Foundation Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as the National Academy of Science (NAS), which is a triviality and neither the OIG or NAS are parties to the action anyway. But from plain reading of the Steyn and Simberg blog pieces it is readily apparent no one was accusing Mann of being a pedophile, which is the crux of this matter.  The real  issues raised by skeptics are those eerie similarities in the way the employer of Mann and Sandusky, Penn State University, seemed to handle both investigations about alleged misconduct by their employees. My own article at the time analyzed this in some detail and Mann also threatened me with a lawsuit. But I’ve yet to be served.

As analyst, Popehat notes, “the [Mann] complaint misconstrues hyperbolic rhetoric and statements of opinion as false statements of fact. “Merely rhetorical hyperbole” and “lusty and imaginative expression of . . . contempt” and “vigorous epithets” are generally treated as protected statements of opinion, not actionable statements of fact. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 17 (1990);Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264, 284-286 (1974). Here, many of the statements by Samberg (sic) or Steyn complained of are clearly hyperbole in the service of political opinion.”

Nonetheless, somehow Mann’s slick lawyers  believe they can prove libel and after a delay of three months have officially set the legal wheels in motion. They not only face strong defense based on constitutional rights but Steyn has an impeccable track record in defending such cases. So is Mann’s legal team as crazy as he looks? Perhaps not.

“Somehow” Judge Natalia Combs Greene reputed to be one the most biased and incompetent judges in Washington has been appointed to handle this huge case.  This comes as no surprise to hard-bitten and cynical legal analysts. Not only is she Greene by name she’s green to the core. But that’s not the worst of it. Every attorney and litigant who has expressed a public opinion on her has labeled Greene among the worst judges when it comes to such matters as strict adherence to discovery rules.

Is this going to be cause for concern for Steyn and co? You bet. The defendants are putting all their faith in the discovery process. But that may not help them if Judge Greene is presiding.  Rich Lowry, editor of NRO, wrote that Mann was going “to great trouble and expense to embark on a losing cause that will expose more of his methods and maneuverings to the world.” While Simberg wrote “the last thing that Mann wants to do is go under oath with a discovery process.”

Certainly, they are correct that the last thing Gore and his DC cronies want to see is open courtroom examination of all Michael Mann’s data relating to the infamous “hockey stick” graph. Big Green NGO’s, the UN and western policymakers are hugely invested in this scam and have trumpeted Mann’s dodgy graph as the smoking gun that proves global warming claims. As such Greene is presiding over a critical case impacting trillion dollar government policy; moreover a high profile legal defeat for one of the world’s most prominent climatologists cannot be countenanced by Al Gore and the bankster class.

But as we see from Greene’s track record she “Openly states she is on the side of DC government attorneys, having been one herself, and turns a blind eye to their refusal to participate in discovery and late responses.”

For readers unfamiliar with court procedures, the discovery process is a pre-trial process whereby opposing litigants may assert their legal entitlement to have access to particular documents and other evidence within the possession of the adverse party.

Usually refusal to fully and fairly comply in this process results in severe sanctions imposed by the court and this often results in the offending party losing the case. For those who have followed Mann’s other courtroom exploits, north of the border in Vancouver, Canada Mann is currently embroiled in another crucial lawsuit against Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball.

For more than a year now Mann has stubbornly refused to comply in supplying Ball’s attorney with copies of calculations and data for the “hockey stick” graph that Mann argues are protected by “proprietary rights” which allow him to keep them secret. But because he is the plaintiff in these cases that contention doesn’t fly.

So having Greene on the bench in Washington will be right up Mann’s street being that he has pulled every trick in the book to keep secret the dodgy calculations he used to concoct his infamous “hockey stick” graph, the iconic image waved by the UN and government policymakers keen to raise “green” taxes.

In one prominent lawsuit Greene was accused of allowing corners to be cut during the discovery process and some observers claim this was instrumental in the controversial ruling in favor of defendants, Alpha Kappa Alpha, the “oldest African-American sorority in the United States.”

Judge Combs-Greene is listed as one of the 10 worst judges in Washington DC. In a review of robeprobe.com and other online reviews of judges  my colleagues and I couldn’t find a single review of this judge that was positive. Here is a flavor of some of the comments about Judge Greene from lawyers and litigants who have had the misfortune to cross her path.

“With great hubris, Judge Combs-Greene controls every aspect of the court room to ensure a favorable outcome for DC.”

“….disregards the law.”

“Worst possible judge in DC… She acts not on the law but on her emotional bias, she controls every aspect of the case to ensure the outcome she wants”

So, watch out Steyn, Simberg, NRO and CEI, you could be fighting against loaded dice here.

Carbon Taxes “No Scientific Basis” as IR Thermometer Makers Debunk Radiation Claims

Some climatologists still wrongly say that any hand held IR thermometer will prove global warming back radiation heating. But as we see below, real world experts from both thermometer manufacturing and the ‘hard’ sciences (better skilled in the laws of thermodynamics) have proved this  claim wrong.

Handheld Infrared Thermometer courtesy: Made-in-china.com

To lay readers, please be assured, this is not some arcane scientific dispute of no great significance to you and your family. It is a fundamental paradigm shift – the collapse of the greenhouse gas theory (GHE) –  the very “science” that underpins man-made global warming and global carbon taxation policies. Recent progress in these matters is in no small part due to a few climate scientists with the gumption to come out and debate. Kudos to them for that despite wagon-circling by their colleagues and the public opprobrium witnessed since the Climategate fiasco.

As such, an important discussion on the supposed greenhouse gas theory has ensued. Top climate experts, Roy Spencer and Judith Curry came out to cross swords with skeptical experts at Principia Scientific International aiming to slay that GHE “sky dragon.” At issue were claims about whether trace gases like carbon dioxide can cause infrared radiation to “back radiate” and add/delay heat at the Earth’s surface making our planet “33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.”

As was demonstrated in my prior article, the “33 degrees” claim is well and truly refuted. PSI analysis found that this number is the product of a botched 1981 equation by NASA’s James Hansen who fatally mixed a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value. Nonetheless, GHE diehard Roy Spencer  has followed the lead set in 1990 by his colleague, Dr Richard Lindzen.  Spencer claims Hansen’s number fudge offers a “real-world observed “radiative-convective equilibrium” case.”

But this article isn’t about Spencer and Lindzen being duped by Hansen’s dodgy doings. It’s about the very concept that the supposed greenhouse gas effect can “back radiate” heat to our planet’s surface. And to Spencer’s credit he boldly faced up to my colleague, Dr. Pierre Latour, an industry expert in thermodynamics, to test claims for and against this assertion. Their private email debate is published online and it’s not good reading for Spencer fans.

To affirm Latour’s victory colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) contacted the world’s leading manufacturer of hand held IR thermometers, Mikron Instrument Company Inc., for confirmation of Spencer’s  misunderstandings that IRT’s prove CO2 and GHE warming. Sure enough Mikron affirmed that IRT’s are set “to evade atmospheric moisture over long path measurements.” This, they say, is necessary to “avoid interference from CO2 and H2O.”  [1] Sadly for Roy, these thermometers therefore aren’t even measuring the gases he claims they are!

Thus, from the “horse’s mouth” the hand held thermometer gambit is well and truly busted.  Professor Claes Johnson thereafter also persuaded Dr. Curry to abandon “back radiation.” But unlike Curry, Spencer  did not renounce his “back radiation adds more heat” claims. So Latour pressed home the point to explain to Spencer:

“My radio antenna detects and absorbs cold radio waves but it does not re-emit them with higher intensity than it intercepted them. My 1200 w microwave oven heats coffee to boiling; when I turn it off the boiling stops abruptly, within a few seconds. I suppose coffee re-emits some intense (hot) microwaves converted to IR for a while. I think the IR rate drops very quickly when the oven stops and equalizes with my kitchen IR as I drink it. I am not able to determine how long the coffee continues to radiate above background T.

I accept radiation detector surfaces need not be colder than the incident radiation to detect and measure cold radiation. My eyes see ice. My eyes do not re-radiate ice light. Penzias & Wilson detected CMBR = 3.7 K in 1964 with a radio telescope in a warmer NJ. Radio telescopes do not re-radiate CMBR. I suppose warm IR thermometers can indeed measure radiating temperature of colder refrigerators, without absorbing refrigerator radiation and warming further. What does that have to do with whether warm radiators get warmer from cold re-radiation?”

In short, Latour and other PSI researchers argue climatologists need to drop the unphysical term “back-radiation” and more correctly explain that what they mean is “downward” radiation. But  that does not per se add to, or delay heat transport. Any such downward radiation can be composed of two or more sources; remember the atmosphere is heated up also by solar radiation. The air absorbs 14% of solar radiation before it touches the surface. Oxygen, water vapor, and dust are the components of the air that absorb directly part of the incoming solar radiation.

As Latour said to Spencer,

“We cannot count the whole percentage of solar energy absorbed by the atmosphere as energy emitted towards the surface as a warm wrapper because it is dispersed immediately to winds, in the form of kinetic energy, to space like thermal radiation, and to other systems like unusable potential energy. However, the main reason other systems do not absorb thermal radiation from the atmosphere is that the wavelength of the emitted electromagnetic energy does not correspond to thermal energy, i.e. it cannot be transferred as heat to other systems, because of redshift. Downward radiation exists, but it cannot warm up systems that are warmer than the air.”

In summary, we find that climate scientists are proven to have grossly erred in perpetuating the myths about the so-called greenhouse gas theory. They were misguided to seek to prioritize their version of radiative transfer theory at the expense of real, complex physics. The delusion over “back radiation” heating is shown to be just another example of how that infant branch of science blew a fuse in seeking to short-circuit Earth’s entire atmosphere to fit the nonsensical greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Until more climate researchers come out of their ivory towers and consult with industry experts better grounded in the hard sciences, then climatology will be condemned as a second rate discipline. But more pointedly for you and me, any “green” taxes based on limiting carbon emissions are now  shown to have a very dodgy scientific basis.

[1] [1.] Mikron Instrument Company Inc., ‘Infrared Temperature Measurement Theory and Application,’ omega.com, (accessed online: September 20, 2011).

Industry Radiation Experts Nail it: Greenhouse Gas Theory Debunked

Millions of hours of commercial tests have scorched the cornerstone of global warming science: the disputed greenhouse gas effect. Hidden in plain sight for years has sat irrefutable evidence from heating manufacturers to prove that infrared radiation does not heat the air. Is this a big deal? You bet. It means that only in the fantasy world of climatologists’ computer models can man-made global warming still exist. Below Carl Brehmer is first to go public with this compelling new analysis. Read more below.

Typical Industrial Infrared Heater ( F J Evans Engineering Co)

(Guest Post by Carl Brehmer)

“If the colder object is warmed, then this reduces the flow of heat from the hotter body. If the Atmosphere is warmed, it reduces the flow of heat from the Ocean.”

This is Newton’s Law of Cooling, which states “The rate of heat loss of a body is proportional to the difference in temperatures between the body and its surroundings.”

 It is the law of physics that defines heat flow between two bodies of matter in physical contact, i.e., the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface/ocean. This is the equation:

T2 = T0 + (T1 – T0) * e(-k * Δt)
where:
T2: Final Temperature
T1: Initial Temperature
T0: Constant Temperature of the surroundings
Δt: Time difference of T2 and T1
k: Constant to be found

(Finding k–the constant–requires further calculations none of which have anything to do with IR radiation, net, total or otherwise.)

The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis attempts to define the heat flow between the Earth’s surface/ocean and the atmosphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law and accompanying formulae, which requires something that is absent. The radiating surfaces of the two bodies of matter need to be separated from one another, ideally by a vacuum. The bottom “surface” of the atmosphere, if you will, is in direct contact with the surface/ocean which makes Newton’s Law of Cooling the operative law.

Is it not axiomatic in science that you cannot get the right answer if you use the wrong formula? You wouldn’t for example, attempt to figure out the volume of a sphere by using the formula that calculates how fast it would fall 10 feet in a vacuum.

That then leaves us with the question of whether or not one can heat air with IR radiation. If so than this would affect the rate of heat transfer from the ground to the atmosphere via Newton’s Law of Cooling.

Rather than speculating on this question let’s take a look at what both scientific experimentation and what millions of hours of residential IR heating has shown. First we will look at the work of John Tyndall, a 19th century physicist, who did some extensive laboratory testing on the ability of various gases to block the transmission of Infrared radiation, which he called “calorific rays.” He tested gases at concentrations of 80,000 ppm, which for carbon dioxide is about 200 times the current atmospheric concentration. Even at that high level Tyndall concluded:

 “Carbonic acid gas is one of the feeblest of absorbers of the radiant heat emitted by solid sources. It is, for example, extremely transparent to the rays emitted by the heated copper plate already referred to.” [2]

 He also noted that at atmospheric concentrations carbon dioxide had no affect on the temperature of the air regardless of how much IR radiation was passed through it. He said:

“Through air . . . the waves of ether pass without absorption, and these gases are not sensibly changed in temperature by the most powerful calorific rays.”

In spite of these observations Svante August Arrhenius (1859 – 1927) thirty years later speculated that carbon dioxide actually increases the temperature of the ground (not via Newton’s Law of Cooling but rather through the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law.)

To test Arrhenius’ hypothesis in 1900 a Swedish physicist Knut Ångström (1857 – 1910) performed an experiment and published his findings in a paper entitled “On The Importance Of Water Vapor And Carbon Dioxide In The Absorption Of The Atmosphere.”
Ångström’s experiment was to fill a tube with the amount of carbon dioxide that would be present in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere (TOA) and then running infrared radiation through it. He first doubled and then halved that amount and repeated the test, which demonstrated virtually no temperature change between these differing amounts of carbon dioxide.

These experimental observations have since been confirmed through millions of hours of the commercial application of infrared heating. Here is what a few retailers of infrared heaters assert:
“Infrared energy travels at the speed of light without heating the air it passes through, the amount of infrared radiation absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapor and other particles in the air typically is negligible.”
“Infrared heating technology by definition does not heat up the air, instead it targets the objects leaving the Oxygen and humidity intact.”
“These infrared rays pass through the air in the room and start heating any object they hit. These rays, however, do not heat the air of the room or area, making it more comfortable for you.” [1]

So, what we have is both experimental data and real world commercial application data that demonstrates IR radiation does not heat air. Why? Because it has been known since the 19th century that gases that absorb IR radiation also emit IR radiation. John Tyndall also said:

“By this mode of experiment it was proved that the self-same molecular arrangement which renders a gas a powerful absorber, renders it in the same degree a powerful radiator—that the atom or molecule which is competent to intercept the calorific waves is in the same degree, competent to generate them. Thus, while the atoms of elementary gases proved themselves unable to emit any sensible amount of radiant heat, the molecules of compound gases were shown to be capable of powerfully disturbing the surrounding ether.”

So, increasing the concentration of IR emissive gases in the atmosphere increases the emissivity of the atmosphere. The Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law does define the atmosphere’s thermal relationship to outer space and part of that formula is the inclusion of an emissivity number. It has long been known that a higher emissivity number allows matter to emit the same amount of IR radiation at a lower temperature. The “greenhouse effect” hypothesis for some reason suggests that increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere by adding GHGs to it will have the opposite affect and require the atmosphere to become warmer in order to emit the same amount of IR radiation out into space.

Can you not understand why some people might be skeptical of a scientific hypothesis that 1) uses the wrong law of physics to define the thermal relationship that exists between the atmosphere and the earth’s surface/ocean and 2) then reverses the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law in its definition of the atmosphere’s thermal relationship to outer space?

[1] http://www.infraredheaters.com/basic.html (accessed online: October 22, 2012)

[2] TYNDALL J., Fragments of Science: A Series of Detached Essays, Addresses and Reviews,’ (1879), http://www.gutenberg.org (accessed online: October 22, 2012)

Now Australians Take Up Challenge in Debating Dodgy Greenhouse Gas Physics

Leading Aussie skeptic blogger, Jo Nova, is currently holding the second compelling debate about the validity of disputed numbers woven into the cornerstone of global warming science: the so-called greenhouse gas effect theory (GHE).

Will Jo Nova Shine Some Light on the Greenhouse Gas Debate?

Now that even the U.S. presidential contest is a “global warming free zone”  it is becoming clear that not just the political, but the scientific edifice of this international scam is collapsing. The biggest remaining obstacle is vested interest scientists who are either incapable or refuse to examine a very simple element of the GHE: the supposed “33 degrees” of measured warming that makes our planet “warmer than it would otherwise be.”

In a spirit of refreshing openness, Jo Nova has recently been leading the way on this matter. In September she hosted the superb paper by Dr Jinan Cao that questioned the applicability of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in the formation of the “33 degrees” number.

Now Nova’s blog is running a welcome critique of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ the book that first propelled discussion of the GHE center-stage. Already the comments are lively. Sadly there exists an element that prefers name-calling over civilized debate and my co-authors and colleagues who support the  book are being labeled “dunderheads,” “cranks,” and “deniers.” Ok, so let’s do simple analysis even a dunderhead can fathom. Take, for instance, the claimed “33 degrees” of so-called greenhouse gas warming cited as “fact” proving the “theory.”

Contrary to popular myth this “33 degrees” is not observed, empirical fact at all. The book’s authors and converts to our science say it is the product of a botched equation by NASA’s Dr. James E. Hansen from the 1980’s. Currently, my article on this is doing the rounds.

Dr. Pierre Latour earlier this year proved that Hansen’s “33 degrees” is the result of a fatal mixing of a scalar temperature value with a vector temperature value (not permitted in either math or physics).  That no one questioned this till we ‘Slayers’ did suggests it is perhaps among the most successful elements of the GHE fraud. Pointedly, it duped two top skeptic climatologists, Dick Lindzen and Roy Spencer, among other leading skeptics, who never questioned its validity and when challenged opted to play “follow my leader.”

It appears Lindzen first swallowed the bogus “33 degrees” number at least since March 1990, as proven by his paper ‘Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming’ AMS, Vol 71. In September 2010 on his blog Spencer admitted he merely followed Lindzen’s lead. But Spencer went further and actually asserted (crassly) that  Hansen’s  “33 degrees” number offers a “real-world observed radiative-convective equilibrium.”

But both Spencer and Lindzen are shown, since March 2012, to have circled the wagons obstinately avoiding the issue. Despite our urging neither will apply due diligence to verify the providence of the number. But if they had looked more closely at the “33 degrees” from the outset they would have seen that the first value Hansen used to obtain it is a 3-D measure (a vector) of the infrared radiation emitted by Earth back into outer space (255K). Hansen then put that alongside a 2-D measure (288K), which is an average of surface weather stations (a scalar). That’s how Hansen and government climate science “got” it’s 33 degrees greenhouse gas effect.

But anyone trained in higher math or physics knows this is not a permissible procedure as it’s the equivalent of adding apples to oranges. Earlier this year Latour and others on our team had a good-natured, but vigorous private email discussion with Lindzen, Spencer and other leading lights. Despite our insistence neither would address the matter. In fact, despite engaging with us on other issues they obstinately pretended we never raised the “33 degrees” problem even though we referred them to our articles on it. Nonetheless, Spencer thereafter blogged an attack piece against me; is this the real measure of a “leading skeptic scientist?” Not only that, it seems Fred Singer was then recruited and he, too, joined the name-calling fraternity labeling us “deniers.”

In his attack piece Singer laments, “One can show them  [the ‘Slayers’] data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. [My emphasis]

Contemplate closely the emphasis on the vague “clearly impinge” as it seems even Fred is having doubts here because he balks at asserting any actual energy is being transferred.  He then writes, “But their minds are closed to any such evidence.” Oh, come on, Fred.  Does “clearly impinge” mean you are claiming carbon dioxide adds/delays  heat  loss or not? This is why Fred, Roy and Dick need to come out and be less mealy-mouthed.

As such we are regrettably forced to conclude that leading skeptic climatologists are disinclined to own up to their gaffe probably because they have decades invested in this junk science – quite simply it’s too shaming for them. Indeed, if Spencer, Lindzen and Singer were true skeptics they would meet us in open debate and resolve this “33 degrees” issue once and for all.

But because the better part of a year has elapsed and they won’t man up, I’ve now emailed Jo to ask she show some leadership on this Down Under. I await her reply and hope she will host an open debate on our readily proved/disproved contention. Be assured, if the “33 degrees” number is proven bogus there is nothing left of substance (ie. as measured in our atmosphere) to sustain this collapsing “theory.”

EU Commission U-Turn on Greenhouse Gas Limiting Policies

After the debacle of the banking collapse and while the Eurozone edges closer to the precipice of total meltdown, EU bosses have finally seen the light: “Europe must re-industrialize for the 21st Century.” So says European Commissioner Antonio Tajani. On Wednesday the EU Commissioner announces an initiative that will boldly “reverse the declining role of industry” on the continent.  This policy U-turn undoubtedly conflicts with stated environmental goals.  But more pointedly, this presents a great opportunity for political leaders take a new look at the disputed science at the heart of so much eco-friendliness.

Like a breath of fresh air Die Welt today, with it’s story ‘EU plans to re-industrialization of the continent’ (October 9, 2012), reveals that EU technocrats are gearing up to re-invent Europe’s once great manufacturing sector. Suddenly we are in the midst of a sea change in political thinking at the top of the EU.

Günther Hermann Oettinger, European Commissioner for Energy

EU Technocrats Declare: “Europe Must Re-Industrialize!”

Tomorrow (October 10, 2012) Commissioner Tajani is to announce a target to raise the share of industrial enterprises as a proportion EU Gross Domestic Product (GDP) “to 20 percent by 2020.” Tajani wants to set in train a strategy for a “strong industrial base vital to a prosperous and economically successful Europe.” Accepting the plight of the current global economy Tajani conceded, “the investment outlook is bleak.” The EU is now calling for Europeans to back a continent-wide “third industrial revolution.”

European Commissioner for Energy, Günther Oettinger is even more strident than Tajani. He is calling for a complete overhaul of environmental policy that he insists is beset with “negligence.” Taking a swipe at pro-green Angela Merkel he declared, “the number of do-gooders in the Euro Parliament should not remain as high.” He bemoaned that “We are in the midst of [a] de-industrialization” process that has put too much faith in the growth of the financial sector run by people who are “half my age and twice as clever” but are fast becoming unemployed. ThyssenKrupp boss Heinrich Hiesinger also waded in appearing to endorse this new tone by declaring, “Future generations expect from us jobs,” and not just a cleaner environment. Hiesinger points to the high cost of climate change regulations and foresees further job losses due to CO2 limits, especially with the big knock-on effect of higher energy prices.

Hard-pressed taxpayers will say, “about time!” But the biggest obstacle to Tajani and Oettinger’s new vision is that Europe has nailed its colors to the green mast of lower greenhouse gas emissions. Unless they can find a compelling reason to backslide on  carbon dioxide (CO2) limits they will be accused of treachery and cowardice by many- especially on the green left.

 Greenhouse Gas Science Shown to be Full of Holes

But the green energy sector has failed to deliver on its promises for affordable and reliable energy to compensate. Now the European Commission can seize on a way to square the moral and scientific circle to avoid ridicule by finally acknowledging there does exist great uncertainty about the role of CO2 in our climate. Part of the “negligence” Oettinger pinpointed is certainly within the science, itself. Incredibly, there are no less than 63 competing “theories” about the actual mechanics of CO2 and “greenhouse gases” taught at leading universities, many of which are mutually contradictory. The flaws are recognized by many including leading German scientists  that Oettinger could speak to. They can enlighten him that contrary to media hype this has never been “settled science.”

Ever more independent researchers are finding flaws that climatologists decline to address or even acknowledge. Tajani and Oettinger will thus see that the guiding principle of performing due diligence may free them from exclusively relying on government-funded climatologists whose careers are invested in promoting the man-made global warming narrative. Not least among those pinpointing such “negligence” are the 50+ experts at Principia Scientific International (PSI). Only this week a new article based on their findings proves that 33 degrees of  atmospheric warming allegedly due to trace gases like CO2 is simply the product of a bungled equation. With that kind of “science” underpinning policy its no wonder so many wrong turns have been taken. Let’s hope Tajani and Oettinger will now seize the opportunity to talk to fresh thinkers like those at PSI.