A Fundamental Misunderstanding in the Greenhouse Effect

I’ve been searching the past few days for something, anything, that would hint at why people ignore basic thermodynamics in favor of the more complicated radiation models. I think I have finally stumbled upon it.

See, in space, a good way to determine how hot something is is to look at its radiation output. This spectrum can give you a sense of the total power output of the object, as well as its temperature.

In a simple model we can consider the earth in space as an object where the sunlight incident on the earth is either reflected or absorbed. If absorbed, we can assume radiative balance. However, you have to measure the complete spectrum of both the incident sunlight and the earth’s emissions. The two should balance because energy in should equal energy out (unless there is a source or a sink of energy in the earth.)

Of course, this isn’t precisely accurate. Some of the energy could go to plastic deformations of the planet, or a change in the chemical properties of the planet, such as melting or freezing snow. Some of the energy could be leaked to outer space through evaporation. Some of the energy could manifest itself in the changing magnetic field, or a change in velocity or position. There are an infinite number of ways the earth could hide energy from radiation detectors. Assuming earth doesn’t, or doesn’t do it very much, is why we can use radiation balance as a rule of thumb in the first place.

And this is where climatologists go wrong. They forget that this is only a rule of thumb that is useful when you have vast vacuums between the two objects. Climatologists stretch the above simple model into a complicated model of the earth and the layers of atmosphere between them. Then they have to pretend that the layers of atmosphere can only interact through radiation. Of course, this is completely wrong; the layers of atmosphere interact with each other through convection and conduction and mass transfer. In addition, the ground interacts with the air through conduction.

Trying to map all of these interactions is nigh impossible. I know a lot of people have done tremendous work to try and figure out how much radiation goes where, and things like that. Some people even seem to have answers that seem to match what we see in nature.

Of course, in thermodynamics, the type of interaction is irrelevant. You can just measure how well the material transfers heat (via all heat transfer methods), and then have the number you were looking for all along.

I propose this simple experiment: Measure the heat conductivity of air and air with CO2 doubled or even trebled. If you think radiation is so important, then control for that, or use a really big room, or a long tube. The numbers you measure under controlled circumstances in a laboratory will give you much greater precision than anything you can measure in the wild. Show me how different air and air with more CO2 behaves, then we can start a discussion. As far as I can tell, no one has performed an experiment like that that shows the Greenhouse Effect. In fact, all measurements point to “NO.” Theory and measurements are in agreement here: there is no measurable Greenhouse Effect.

Tyndall and others did measure how radiation and various gasses interact, which is supremely interesting. But he had to isolate every other heat transfer method before making his measurements, because the interactions were nigh undetectable otherwise. Thus, his work is irrelevant in determining how well CO2 conducts heat from the surface of the earth. If anything, it is testimony to how irrelevant considering the radiation alone is.

Climate Science has a long way to go before clearing the bar that would cause me to give up my “addiction” to oil or skepticism towards climate science. It’s not an impossible road to travel, but involves scientific integrity, something which simply does not exist in the climate sciences. It has been revealed far too many times that the actors involved are not acting with any sort of scientific integrity. The fact that they do not release the data they are using is a sign that something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.

Unlike climate scientists, I don’t shift the goalposts every time something new is found. I simply want scientific integrity, accuracy, and sound logic and reasoning.

Explaining Why The Greenhouse Effect Doesn’t Exist

I think I am beating a dead horse here, but it’s nice to try and summarize in a way that the lay-person can understand what the meaning of landmark scientific papers is. Like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that clearly and powerfully demonstrates that the Greenhouse Effect doesn’t exist is worth summarizing again and again.

There has, to date, been no worthy rebuttal to the paper. I mention Smith’s attempt, riddled with mathematical errors and inconsistencies, not because it is worthy but because it is the only attempt I have heard of.

After recently reviewing the paper, and taking enough time to digest the finer points within it, let me try yet another attempt at summarizing it.

The summary is basically that the Greenhouse Effect, if it existed, would imply a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or that there is a heat pump forcing heat to transfer from the atmosphere to the earth. In plainer words, the Greenhouse Effect is a perpetual machine. No one seems to notice this because all the scientific literature the authors have reviewed simply assume that the Effect exists. This was quite a chore, because there doesn’t even seem to be much agreement on what, precisely, the Greenhouse Effect is.

In the very beginning of the paper, the authors state simply and clearly what a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere would do based on well-understood physics and actual measurements of the things involved. They show, quite clearly, that the effect is nothing. Notice that no one dares challenge the authors on their claims in this section. The reason why is because their arguments are bulletproof.

With that out of the way, the authors try to figure out what people mean by the Greenhouse Effect. Since there are contradictory claims about what the Greenhouse Effect is, including the fact that the Greenhouse Effect has nothing at all to do with greenhouses (as scientists who claim the Greenhouse Effect exists will readily admit to), this is not an easy thing to do.

See, the word “Effect” is a specific term, just like “Theory” and “Law”. An “Effect” has three things:

1. It is not obvious upon first glance. That is, it is surprising when it is first noticed.
2. It is reproducible, which means you see it everywhere it might occur.
3. It is measurable, meaning you can put numbers of how strong the effect is.
4. It has a theoretical explanation.

Right off the bat, it’s clear that the Greenhouse Effect is not an Effect at all. In fact, the authors note that the Greenhouse Effect isn’t mentioned in any physics literature at all, except as a reference to climate science. Even then, no one dared explain the Effect with any theoretically sound explanation. This is surprising: one of the characteristics of an effect is that it has a solid theoretical explanation, and yet no one dared say what it was.

When the Greenhouse Effect has been tested by measurements, Alfred Schack showed in 1972 that it is not measurable at all. Meaning, it is an effect that has not effect at all.

The authors then go on to explain how real greenhouses work, and showing with some simple experiments how much warming you might achieve by simply interfering with normal convection currents—wind, or air moving up and down and side to side. In fact, Wood did some experiments in 1909 that proved that radiation had nothing to do with how greenhouses worked. Replacing the glass in a greenhouse with sheets of clear salt did not change how heat escaped from the warmer greenhouse.

The next section is where the authors tackle the many different and conflicting versions of the Greenhouse Effect. They carefully document 14 different Greenhouse Effects and disprove all of them using basic thermodynamics and solid theory. If someone would want to show the Greenhouse Effect to exist, they would need to do one of two things:

1. Show that the Greenhouse Effect is not accurately reflected in any of the 14 that were documented.
2. Show that the authors were incorrect in reasoning about any one of the 14 that were documented.

The fact that no one has attempted this shows how thorough the authors of the paper were.

Note that some of the words people use to describe the Greenhouse Effect, such as radiative forcing, radiative equilibrium, etc., are not based on physics. They are simply fabrications with nothing other than wishful thinking. If you believe these terms mean something meaningful, I kindly request you read the paper to see why they are not.

Finally, the authors drive many nails into the coffin of climate science. They do so by showing that the models climate scientists are using cannot even begin to predict the future, because the math required to solve all the necessary equations does not exist and probably never will. They show that climate simulations have never explained why they do not need to solve these complicated equations.

The authors conclude with a beautifully written summary of all the problem facing climate theories in relation to well-understood and documented physical phenomena.

In conclusion, you are witnessing a dramatic shift in climate science. With this paper standing, Climate Science cannot be considered scientific, or at least, congruent with physics. Climate Scientists peddle the same garbage that people who claim to have built perpetual machines have peddled since the beginning of time. We would be wise to ignore them, and wiser still to explain to the ignorant why they should be ignored.

 

Examining Climate Science, Again

One of the mental games I like to play is called, “Let’s pretend I’m stupid.”

It works like this. Take something I already know, or at least, think I know, and then try to disprove it. If I can’t at least come up with several good arguments against it, then I’m not playing hard enough.

The process of evaluating things with logic and reason is challenging, to say the least. It exposes whatever biases I have, uncovers new facets of my ignorance, and causes me to question some very basic things I hold dear. In the process, I have to relearn things I’ve forgotten, and go back to a more primitive state.

One of the most exciting feelings I have ever had is the feeling of doubt. That is, “Can I actually pull it off? Can I really go back and demonstrate a clear enough understanding of this subject that I can honestly continue to believe in the thing I already knew?”

There are only two possible outcomes of the exercise. Either my knowledge is confirmed, or it is exposed as incorrect. Whenever it is exposed as incorrect, it is hopefully replaced with better, more accurate knowledge.

In the end, it helps me be a better teacher, and keeps my mind sharp.

I’ve lately re-examined the science behind climate science. (I apologize that I’ve allowed the language of these papers to change my usual writing style.) I’ve exposed myself to countless arguments against the things I’ve already learned. I’ve uncovered a few interesting bits of knowledge, or at least a renewed enthusiasm for principles I already know.

First is the solid foundation of basic physics and logical rigor. I have long ago developed a sixth sense that informs me when someone isn’t using sound logic. I love talking with mathematicians and theoretical physicists because every thing they say follows this rigor. Their knowledge has been honed by the very exercise I have done over decades and decades, and further polished by communication within their field.

We can trust science, at least real science, as long as it is based on plain observations and rigorous logic.

There is another aspect of science, the seedy side of science. Scientists being fallible people, they are prone to mistakes. Mathematicians and physicists are well aware of this, which is why their immediate instinct is to distrust their own results. If they can find problems with their work, then they’ll fix it before publication. After publication, they have to acknowledge any errors they made. The reason for publication is to get others to look at it closely and help find the errors.

However, certain scientists don’t behave this way. Rather than take on this attitude, they try instead to build themselves up as the next Einstein or they try to manipulate the science to get a desired result. These people are pretty easy to find, when you know what to look for. Every one of the vocal advocates of Global Warming reek of this attitude. The so-called “ClimateGate” emails have revealed it for all the world to see. The sham of a cover-up that was done makes the scientists look even more foolish. The amount of credibility these scientists have is exactly zero in my mind.

Nevertheless, it shouldn’t be hard to falsify their claims. After all, science doesn’t depend on who’s making the claim, but the claim itself.

Examining the claims of Global Warming I see self-contradictions, contradictions between scientists, and ultimately, contradictions with nature itself.

Over at this blog post, the most fundamental aspects of Global Warming have been thoroughly examined, and found to be sorely lacking. If you want to understand, you have to read the 3 papers mentioned. If you don’t have the patience or the ability, then there are lay-persons explanations of the 3 papers. To date, there is no rebuttal to the original paper that has any weight at all. I have read hundreds upon hundreds of arguments against the original paper. Only a few actually acknowledge the ideas presented in the paper, and they fail in rebutting them. The rest are vacuous statements made in complete ignorance of the topics addressed in the paper.

All the other arguments for or against Global Warming end up being meaningless after the publication of the above paper. No number of ice cores or tree rings or satellite imaging or contemplation of Venus or Mars or hurricanes or whatnot has any bearing on the discussion. The entire field has been leveled, because none of it matches with the first principles of physics.

I am sure that the temperature changes over time. After all, it is generally warmer in the daytime than in the nighttime. I am sure that there are changes in the weather, because I see it. I am sure that the climate changes as well, because we read about it in history books. What we cannot be certain of, and what the paper marvelously exposes, is the repercussions of these changes and variations. These fall within a realm of physics and math where you have to throw up your hands and say, “We do not know. We cannot know.”

You can safely assume that anyone who claims to know anything definitive about the weather and climate is an idiot who can’t do basic math or physics. Either that, or they are an all-powerful being with knowledge and power far beyond our own.

Note that meteorologists, the ones we rely on every day, do not claim certain knowledge. Their field is based on statistics and some general principles, principles which may be based on some first principles of physics. The further in the future they look, the less and less likely their predictions are to come true. Certainly no meteorologist would even pretend to know what the weather will be like a year from now.

Why, then, do these climate scientists persist? There are only two reasons, really. One is ignorance, the other is greed. If they are ignorant, then the solution is educate them and others. Perhaps one day we’ll teach the full story of thermodynamics to 2nd Graders, and it will be as common knowledge as Newton’s 3 Laws, but that day is not today. It is incumbent upon us who do know the 2nd Law to be so well versed in it that we can explain it to children in a scientifically rigorous way.

On their greed, well, we all struggle with greed. When we see it cloud people’s judgments, the solution is to pay it no heed. We certainly shouldn’t fuel it by funding it with public money.

Those who claim that Climate Science is real in any way are not only foolish, they are wrong. It’s ok for people who don’t know any better to do so. We can educate and correct any misstatements they make, and after a while, they’ll come to agree with us. Those who know better, or who remain close-minded to the possibility that they are wrong, can only be ignored. We cannot convince someone who has set their thoughts in stone.

The Null Hypothesis and Global Warming

The Reference Frame points out an interesting article about the Null Hypothesis and Climate Change.

For those who don’t know, the Null Hypothesis is a way to run experiments and generate meaningful results. It starts with a simple statement that can be easily disproven, the Null Hypothesis. Then you collect your data, and you evaluate what the probability of the Null Hypothesis being true is, given the data.

As an example, consider the Null Hypothesis “this coin is fair”. If you flip the coin 5 times, and you get 5 heads in a row, then you note that the probability of getting a run of 5 heads with a fair coin is 6%, so the Null Hypothesis is only 6% likely to be true.

It’s important to note that you can’t ever really rule out a Null Hypothesis, unless it is stated in terms of absolutes. In our coin example, there is still a tiny change the Null Hypothesis is true, even if you flip the coin a thousand times and get heads every time. However, the chance of the Null Hypothesis being true in such a case is very, very small. Conversely, you can never really show a Null Hypothesis to be true, unless it is stated in terms of absolutes.

What does this have to do with Climate Change or Global Warming?

In the article I cited above, one scientist says, “The Null Hypothesis should be that Global Warming is true.” Another scientist says, “No, it shouldn’t be, and Null Hypothesis are pointless anyway.” A third person, a mathematical physicist says, “You’re both wrong.”, and goes on to say that the Null Hypotheses (plural here–multiple hypothesis-es) that have been proposed in the past have never been shown to be wrong.

Of course, the Reference Frame goes on to point the silliness about the whole thing with basic and clear science and observations.

To date, I haven’t seen many Null Hypothesis that even survive the laugh test from climate science. I certainly haven’t seen many genuine experiments.

Mitt Romney and Global Warming

It’s no secret that Mitt Romney is accused of being a flip-flopper. I honestly can’t understand why anyone would make the accusation on the issue of Global Warming.

Politico does a reasonable job at fairly portraying Romney’s position on Global Warming. I’m going to try and connect the statements and history into one whole.

This is a short summary of what I understand Romney’s statements to be.

1. Mitt Romney is not a scientist, and so cannot make statements of scientific fact about Global Warming.
2. Mitt Romney believes the earth is getting warmer.
3. Mitt Romney believes that humans contribute to that, although he does not know how much or how little.
4. Mitt Romney believes that changing human behavior can have an effect on the climate, although how much or how little is not known to him.
5. Finally, Mitt Romney does not believe that justifies harming the economy in the name of Global Warming.

The conclusions I draw from that are:

1. Mitt Romney will rely on experts, hopefully from both sides, to find the best solution to everyone’s problems.
2. Mitt Romney will not ignore the economic impact of his decisions regarding Global Warming, and will, in fact, err, heavily, in the favor of the economy.

Now, let’s examine the statements and the facts.

First, when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he had Massachusetts participate in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Emissions Initiative (RGGEI). Note, carefully, that Romney dropped Massachusetts out of the initiative when it was realized that there would be a massive economy cost and that there would be no opt-out. In fact, Mitt Romney ripped into his representative for the initiative because he failed to represent what was happening and failed to represent Romney’s views.

What do we learn? First, Romney is willing to work with coalitions some people would outright reject. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I say it is a good thing, because it means Romney will have a profound influence in those circles. This is one of the reasons why I strongly support Romney: He is an effective leader! Second,we learn that Romney values the economy more than the possible negative effects of Global Warming, and he values, especially strongly, the role of individual choice.

Now, on to his statements.

In No Apology:

“I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore,” he wrote. “I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

No one accused him of flip-flopping when he wrote that.

In June 2011:

“I don’t speak for the scientific community, of course, but I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that,” he said. “I can’t prove that, but I believe based on what I read that the world is getting warmer.

“No. 2, I believe that humans contribute to that,” Romney continued. “I don’t know how much our contribution is to that, because I know there’s been periods of greater heat and warmth than in the past, but I believe we contribute to that. And so I think it’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may well be significant contributors to the climate change and global warming that you’re seeing.”

Is there a flip-flop here? No. This is exactly the same position he had when he signed Massachusetts on to RGGEI, and the same position he had when he took Massachusetts out of RGGEI.

Those people who claim Romney flip-flopped when he issued the June statement have no grounds for their claim.

In August 2011:

“Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that, but I think that it is,” Romney said in New Hampshire, according to Reuters. “I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

No one accused him of flip-flopping between June and August.

Thursday 10/27/2011:

“My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet,” the GOP presidential front-runner said Thursday during a fundraiser in Pittsburgh. “And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Again, no flip-flop, although some, like Climate Depot, claim there is.

If anything, Romney’s position on Global Warming is entirely reasonable. Romney is not a trained scientist. He doesn’t know physics like I do, or weather or anything like that. And he can’t be expected to.

He is deferring his knowledge to others. He doesn’t adopt the Gore ideas wholesale, and in fact, he takes a rather middle-of-the-road view of the issue, where he doesn’t have to reject the claims of either side wholesale. I honestly can’t expect more from any layperson, although I would still try to convince them that the Greenhouse Effect is a lie and that we can’t measure whether temperatures are rising or falling at all.

He is putting the economy, and freedom, ahead of science that is certainly not settled. This is the most important attribute I want in my leaders. Heck, even if you believed Al Gore, as long as you believe individual choice and freedom is still more important than the environment, I would support you.

Finally, he knows that he does not know. If he had to, he could investigate and come to a more complete answer. He tells you, with his statements, that he doesn’t know. He is not shy about that. This is humility, a very important attribute in any leader.

Romney on Warming

A lot of electrons have been moved bemoaning the phrase “I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that” uttered by by Mitt Romney in response to a question on global warming. Over at Power Line Blog, the response Romney should’ve given is neatly summarize in hundreds of words.

Look, as one of the “deniers” who sees through the science fraud and can point to solid evidence that should convince anyone that the Global Warming doomsayers are making it up, I cannot disagree with the substance of what Mitt Romney said.

One, “I believe the world is getting warmer.” OK, I have no way of knowing whether it is getting warmer or colder, since I don’t know how any can take the temperature of the entire earth accurately. Certainly, average temperature is meaningless. However, you are free to believe what you want, and here he says he BELIEVES the world is getting warmer. This is not a scientific statement, and I can’t condemn anyone who believes in nonsense of one sort or another, as long as it is harmless. Simply believing the earth is getting warmer is harmless. I don’t hold it against my friends that they believe the earth is getting warmer, anymore than they believe in the Big Bang or in monkeys-to-men evolution. I’m fine having a Baptist, a Jew, or a Muslim in the Oval Office, whose beliefs differ from my most sincere beliefs very much so.

Two, “I believe humans have contributed to that”. Again, a BELIEF.

The only question I care about is what Romney intends to do on climate policy. His stance? Don’t enact Cap & Trade & allow the free market to innovate as needed. The man could be accept every scientific claim of AGW theory and I wouldn’t care as long as he intends not to impose his will on the people, anymore than I’d care if a Muslim got into the White House as long as he intends not to impose his will on the people.

Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn’t matter what he believes, as long as he believes the answers lie within the free market, not government bureaucracy.

What we have in office today is a man who believes he has the power to dictate to the three hundred some odd million Americans how they should live their lives. I don’t care what scientific fact that he cites for justification to do so, I BELIEVE anyone who thinks like that deserves no part in our government.

I don’t expect Mitt Romney to argue about global warming on the campaign trail. I shudder to think anyone would want a scientific debate to be settled on any campaign trail. Campaigns are for rallying your political allies and diminishing your political opponents. Campaigns are for putting people who will protect your rights at the expense of government in office. Isn’t religion and beliefs irrelevant in all of that? If Mitt Romney’s moderate stance on the issue of AGW earns him 1% more votes from the left and middle, then by golly, I’m proud that we have a candidate who believes in something other people agree with, even if I don’t share his beliefs!

2010 the Hottest Year Ever?

Here’s a good explanation of why calling 2010 the “Hottest Year Ever” isn’t supported by actual measurements. (link) Keep in mind that Hansen (who doesn’t deserve to be called Doctor anymore) is the scientist at NASA who was found to be committing outright fraud by manipulating data. He was also on the payroll of George Soros.

Now, let’s ask ourselves some fundamental questions that apparently we, the non-climate scientists, are not allowed to ask. These cut at the very heart of the issue.

Laying aside the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Greenhouse Effect, let’s consider what they mean when they say “hottest year ever”.

How do you measure the temperature of a year? It almost sounds absurd when you put it like this, but this is what they are claiming to do.

See, temperature is something you measure once the systems come into equilibrium. It is a constant number, one that doesn’t change as you leave the thermometer in the system longer and longer (provided you have properly insulated your system.)

You can stick a thermometer into a pot of water and watch the mercury rise as you heat the water. You can record the temperature of the pot of water at specific times, but really you are only recording an approximate temperature. For instance, the bottom of the water may be hotter than the top, or one side may be hotter than the other. You really can’t say, at any particular moment in time, what the temperature of the entire pot is.

Someone might suggest you stick thermometers at different areas of the pot, or at the top and bottom, or in some combination thereof. These thermometers might give different readings at different times. But you can’t use these measurements to tell what the exact temperature of the pot of water is.

If someone were to ask you what the temperature of the pot of water during the entire process, from start to finish, was, you’d draw a graph or explain that the temperature was changing. You can’t give a single number and accurately describe what happened.

This is important because we know that during the course of a day, the temperature might swing from highs 70 degrees F different than the lows. The temperature in the shade is different than the temperature in the sunlight. The temperature of the ground is different than the temperature of the air. What is the temperature of the day? If you tried to use a single number, you’d be making up a story that didn’t make sense. If the high was 110, and the low was 45, what was the temperature that day? It’s an absurd question.

So likewise is the question of what the temperature of the week or month or year or decade or century or millennium. What was the temperature of the Ice Age? The 1990′s? These questions don’t make sense, and can’t be answered except in describing the range of temperatures observed or describing how the temperature varies throughout the day and how measuring the temperatures of the dirt, or air, or shade or sunlight would give different readings.

How then do climate scientists even begin to talk about the temperature of 2010 being hotter than 2009 or any other year?

Do they mean the average high of each day? Or the average lows? Or the average of half of the sum of the highs and the lows? Are they measuring air temperature in the sun or shade? Or the temperature of the earth? I cannot answer any of these questions. I doubt the climate scientists would like to either. It’s certainly not convincing when you say something like, “We recorded the highs all over the earth, and found that there were a few more days with a higher high than normal, and not enough days with a lower high, and thus the highs were slightly higher than they were over the last century.” Well, what about the lows? Is it possible to have the hottest and coldest year on record in the same year? It depends on how you measure it.

Finally, I want to tell you about the fallacy of measuring the average temperature, something I hear people talk about from time to time without explaining why it even makes sense. First, what sense does it make to measure the average of anything? When we want to summarize a population, if we only have the average we really don’t know much about what the population looks like. Other numbers, such as the standard deviation, the mode, or even the median give us much more insight into what the population looks like.

Assuming you do take the average of all the temperatures. What significance does this number have? You have effectively taken an instantaneous measurement of a value that varies over time and space, points which aren’t even representative of the entire sample, and derived a new number. How easy it is to manipulate this data! If you stick more thermometers where things are getting hotter, and fewer where things are getting colder, you can greatly change the average, all without changing the underlying facts.

Until someone proposes a significant meaning to average temperature, when that average is taken over time or space, I don’t care who says what year was hotter than which other year. We might as well be talking about how blue the Smurfs are or have been, because there is jus as much significance to that as average temperature.

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Gravity and Levity is one of those blogs where the posts are few and far between, but each post is a treasure. I am compelled to mention the latest post on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Those of you who follow this blog remember the big discussion we had when it was realized that the Greenhouse Effect cannot exist because it would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Indeed, the 33 degree rise in temperature isn’t at all due to CO2 or any other gas in our atmosphere, but due to gravity and the resulting pressure.

Anyway, to those of you who cling to the notion that somehow one type of gas can magically “trap” heat, or that heat rays exist and can be reflected, I only offer one word of advice: Please go read about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and realize that no gambler gambled his way to riches, and you have no more control over random processes than anyone else.

The Global Warming movement itself is petering out, due to a lack of funds and interest. But mostly because more and more scientists realize what a giant dupe it was, and what a terrible fraud and scam was pulled off in the name of science. It will be many, many years for climate science ever to be taken seriously again, and even then, I doubt humanity will ever forget about “Global Warming”.

In the end, the smart ones were the skeptics, who said that solutions to problems that involve the government are, except for rare exceptions, not the best solutions. You cannot overcome the laws of physics, nor can you establish scientific fact, with acts of congress or tax hikes and vast budgets.

By the way, you can’t focus the sun’s rays to make something hotter than the sun.

I’m a Denier

M4GW releases their latest hit video: I’m a Denier

On a positive note, it looks like there won’t be any government movement towards the tenets of Global Warming by congress for at least 4 or 6 years. All the big supporters of AGW went down in flames at the polls, making the issue toxic for people who actually want to get elected.

Google CEO Schmidt: Scientific Debate is “Criminal”

Apparently, director James Cameron and Google CEO Eric Schmidt agree: If you question so-called Climate Science, you must be a criminal.

Now, what’s really criminal is people who lie about what they have observed, people who refuse to allow people to review their data, and people who not only make predictions but control the observations to satisfy those predictions. What is really criminal is people who abuse the power of government to stomp on those people simply trying to make a living in the name of the pseudo-science called Global Warming.

Nature doesn’t hand out traffic citations. There is no court of law for violations of the natural order. When you try to behave like a scientist but refuse to adopt the scientific method and refuse to allow debate on a very important topic, the laws of human nature dictate that you are going to get in trouble. There is a high likelihood that you are actually wrong about what you think is right.

At the end of the day, as the Catholic Church found out with Galileo, stifling debate and launching ad hominem attacks does not bring anyone closer to the truth nor does it earn anyone friends or converts.

I wonder, is CEO Eric Schmidt fit to run a multi-national corporation that has access to so much of the people’s personal data? I mean, he doesn’t even allow scientific debate on important topics like whether we should shut down our entire economy. I wonder what it’s like to work for him? Does he allow people to challenge his ideas or does he simply label them “criminal”? I think it’s time the Google board review Eric Schmidt’s views on dissent and reconsider whether he should hold his high position of authority. I certainly have not been inspired to invest in his company any time soon.