Climategate: ‘The Science is Settled,’ They Told Copernicus
Notice that Tolosani “refutes” Copernicus by referring not to the observations — in predicting planetary positions, Copernicus was twice as accurate as Ptolemy — but to the opinions of Aristotle. What is striking about the AGW controversy is that the believers in human-caused warming do exactly the same: they cite the opinions of the authorities rather than the evidence.
Al Gore, in his recent op-ed for the New York Times, cites “every major National Academy of Sciences report on climate change” and “the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Even when Gore cites actual data — “from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago” — he always cites the manipulated temperature data, never the raw data (which show no significant warming).
Who are you going to believe: Gore, or your lying eyes? Gore writes: “January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States.” Yeah, it was. We Americans saw it. Sadly, Gore was just following the example of the leading climate “scientists,” who themselves never ask us to look at the raw data, but instruct us to read — and bow down before — the “peer-reviewed papers.”
The motto of the Royal Society of London, the world’s premier scientific society, is Nullius in verba – which they translate as: “Take nobody’s word for it.” Yet these days the Royal Society itself is asking us to accept AGW, and the only evidence they give is — you guessed it — “peer-reviewed papers.”
Hopefully the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences will one day return to their roots and behave as scientific academies.
Man made global warming? As Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein, “follow the money”. How much has Al Gore made out of the world’s newest “now you see it, now you don’t” shell game? How about General Electric and various other multi-nationals?
Any scientist, doing governments work, is usually dishonest, because of political leaning, and are mostly unable to be ‘neutral’. This AGW is the best example.
The Al Gore’s of the world are not interested in the truth, it doesn’t fit their agenda, which is to run the world. God has a great sense of humor; everytime these liars think they are close to achieving their goal, there it is, like the coldest winter, which in turn exposes this absurdity, and almost mental disorder of these people, when they claim because of that, it shows global warming is real.
They may eventually scale back their agenda, but I’ll bet they come up with some other bogus crisis. The prgressive ideology is based on a lie, a house of cards, and therefore never holds. It is that reason that it always caves in. God is in charge of climate, wheather, and or climate change. Would he not, humans would not b able to withstand the changing, and natural climate. It would also expose the Bible as a lie, and that I do NOT believe!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits proves no one believes it.
The congress/press are selling a scam, for profit, not seen since the middle ages; The cap and trade scam is a variation of the “indulgences scam” used, among other things, to man the crusades/get bad people to go somewhere else!
Post the data showing the randomly selected locations where temperature and snow pack are documented for 1 million years and that will tell the tale. Select locations that meet your agenda: liars figure but figures do not lie!
Earth wobble, sun spots, ocean currents/temperature, volcanoes, solar storms/winds et al;
Environmentalists are invariably: “people that want others to use less energy”. c Getty 2002. Cap and trade is a scam just like a ponzi scheme is a scam. The last variation of the cap and trade scam I can site occurred in the middle ages when indulgences were sold as a stairway to heaven for the G-dless/bad people.
Environmentalist are invariably people that want OTHERS to use less energy!
If Obama/Gore really believed global warming, they would talk non stop about lowering speed limits to 50 and demand that Americans stop jack rabbit starts and stop racing to lights that are red.
Virtually no Americans believe it either; just look at the fuel wasting driving habits; that also fund the other sides war against us! If you believe the hurricane may kill you/your family: you leave. The driving habits proves no one believes it
Come ’n’ get it while the poop is hot, Dr. Bones!
Or at least make a memorandumb of Neocomrade Perfesser F. J. Tippler, here, wouldja? It’s not every day that somebody with pricey credentials like his confirms the ignorant lay sheeps in their Copernicocentric notions of Nat. Sci.
(( Where are you now, Tommy Kuhn? ))
Healthy days.
2. Inge: “Any scientist, doing governments work, is usually dishonest…”
And she doesn’t know anything about punctuation either.
5. Cute.
I’ve always been curious about the global warming green house effect, which to me seems to have evolved from our observations of our sister planet Venus. Trouble is the CO2 levels there are 97+% of the atmosphere, which has 90x the earth’s atmospheric pressure. We are learning more and more about our solar system daily and many of our preconceived notions are being reevaluated…I’ll stick with the physicists on this one. They seem more willing to revisit their theories with new evidence.
(Maybe I’m tainted by my background)
Copernicus’s biggest problem was that he wass wrong about one point — he thought that the planets had circular orbits. Ptolemy was in fact much more accurate, and the Ptolemaic system is still used today for certain computations — that’s one advantage of being able to add a sphere any time and anywhere you want. It wasn’t until Kepler established the correct elliptical orbits and laws of planetary motion (more than half a century later) that Copernicus’s original lack of insight was corrected.
Sometimes, data points you in the wrong direction. I think I’ll stick with Ockham’s Razor.
The Gorecentric model is far superior hypothesis. The Pythagorean and heliocentric models have neither Nobel prizes or are Oscar winners, and they could never invent the interwebs or cause record-breaking blizzards where ever they go, OR lose an election in their home state.
“Nullius in verba.” Thank you for giving me the words for what I love about the scientific method. It’s the PERFECT motto for what I think of as “real science.” Now, if only people still believed in that kind of thing!
I think you will find a lot of political science — not that kind — at the EPA. It is all part of the left’s power grab, the spear point of which just now is health care.
the warmerbaggers are out in full force
Jay Getty, here’s another example: moving out of regions with extreme temperatures to regions with less extreme temperatures. I’ve never once heard an environmentalist recommend this, even though it would obviously save energy. It’s true that environmentalists want us to move out of suburbs and into cities, and to give up cars for mass transit, but they have never wanted people to move out of regions with extreme temperatures.
The reason is simple: leftists have always hated the suburbs and cars. Global warming allows them to attack suburbs and cars. But they’ve never had any strong feelings about regions with extreme temperatures, so they say nothing about that. The fact that I moved from a state with very cold winters and hot summers to a state with moderate winters and slightly less hot summers means nothing to them, although it was the greenest thing I’ve ever done.
“I’ve always been curious about the global warming green house effect, which to me seems to have evolved from our observations of our sister planet Venus. Trouble is the CO2 levels there are 97+% of the atmosphere, which has 90x the earth’s atmospheric pressure.”
…not to mention that Venus receives about double the solar forcing (2611.0 w/m2 vs 1366.1 w/m2) because of it’s closer orbital position. Average surface temperature of Venus is estimated to be about 720 degrees Kelvin, the Earth 300 degrees Kelvin. So Venus is about 120 degrees Kelvin hotter than solar constant difference alone would explain. The difference is what needs to be explained as net relative atmospheric “feedbacks”, i.e. pressure, albedo, greenhouse etc, plus any planetary thermal heating and AGW.
The tragedy here is that the climate change scientists and their political proponents have not been willing to openly debate the issue.
I always understood hallmark of science is supposed to be continual review. This also resulted in Newton being eventually challenged. Einstein was shown to not have it entirely right.
There seems to be little serious public debate today – just sound bites and verbal attack thrown about. There’s no civil face to face, across the table, you show me yours I’ll show you mine debate going on. There’s no “please examine my data to see if its correct”. Instead its a lets see who can yell loudest contest.
P.S. If Al Gore would pledge to make not a dime from CAP and Trade or any sort of carbon trading scheme I might listen to him a bit more carefully. There’s something wierd about someone who starts a campaign to tell you “trust me” there’s a flood coming so you better buy a boat from me…
Prescience is precious
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
I never believed in CATASTROPHIC global warming because A) I believe that God created earth and therefore, man’s folly in thinking we can control it B) I lived through the ’70s warning of an impeding ICE AGE.
Off the subject but closely related: Notice how Google developed a “flu tracking” site and 6 months later the swine flu “epidemic” hit? Just saying….I’d hate to think of myself as a conspiracy theorist, but dang, the government seems to always “find” a way to save us.
Blech, terrible use of a made up story from the 19th century.
Copernicus wasn’t even the only Catholic astronomer working on the helio-centric model at the time… He just happened to be the only one who published his works in tandem with a mockery of the ruling authority, signed an agreement to the effect that he wouldn’t do that again, and then did it again. I’m glad free speech is a wide-spread right now, but it wasn’t then. Heliocentricity didn’t get him in trouble, stupidity did.
Copernicus was out to proove a theroy, not to steal billions.
Copernicus could back up his theroy, star rotation and sun movements(simple rundown).
These AGW yahoos are making it up as they go, they cannot repeat the experiment. And they want billions of dollars.
#14 and #7:
Add Mars to the equation: Again, the atmosphere is almost all CO2, but in this case it’s farther from the sun and barely enough pressure to notice. And what do you know, it’s cold as hell! That CO2 can do ANYTHING! (/snark)
James @18
You’re confusing Copernicus with Galileo. It was Galileo who published his theory again after promising he wouldn’t; and his second publication also made fun of the pope.
“… As Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein, ‘follow the money’.” Hmmm, I think someone had just finished catching a viewing of TCM’s showing of “All the President’s Men” last night. A reference which is apropos considering the junk sorcery and lying of men and organizations under our leadership of a former #2 who, just like any cheap horror flick monster (“Yes, Master, they call me Algore, eh, eh!), won’t depart from the screen for long. We could call his version of things “All the Wannabe President’s Wannabe Mensches.”
Seriously, the problem with “scientists” in Copernicus’ day and now is no different than those of writers over the ages – just think Antonio Salieri vs. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart – professional jealousy that they didn’t/couldn’t/never would have been able to see it first and were beaten to the punch or, just as likely, didn’t have the cajones to state what they knew or seriously suspected.
Thus, argumentum ad hominem or an attack his “sources” but rarely a sound attack/examination of the actual empirical science employed to progress from a given hypothesis to theory to determination.
I always had an issue with the time scale of thier “data.” Gore cites measurements that are 130 years old. The planet and its atmosphere are however, billions of years old. 130 years isn’t a trend, it’s a data point.
You’ve got your analogy reversed. In both cases it was the scientific community blasted by people who don’t/didn’t understand the science.
You can put lipstick on a “Scientists once believed that the world was flat.” but it’s still a “Scientists once belived the world was flat.”
“Prostration to Peer Review” exists only for a science in its infancy that can be hijacked by its practitioners. If Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and the others had followed the moral imperative of scientific method that published experiments or research must contain all the data and methods necessary to replicate the experiment, and yes that means exactly reproduce, there would be no climate hysteria in the scientific community.
Oh, your grandchildren will be lamenting about how stupid their grandparents were denying man’s contribution to climate change.
Love how many “Climategate”-esque articles are on PJM. And how absolutely wrong your denial is.
Keep up the entertainment and hysteria, though.
The thing most people fail to realize is that the Catholic Church at the time had very little to do with actual Christianity and had everything to do with power. They were the established governmental and academic elite of the time. You had to tow the party line or no grants and/or out you go. Only the names have changed.
This is much better:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
“Love how many “Climategate”-esque articles are on PJM. And how absolutely wrong your denial is.”
Thankyou for blessing us with your profound wisdom. I humble myself before your elegant, yet subtle and revealing analysis.
God lives!
Silly avoidswork, lashing out without any real contribution to the discussion.
A number of AGW scientists are now agreeing that between 60 and 80 percent of their temperature monitoring sensors are placed where they will get artificially raised temps. You know, like in a south facing parking lot next to an air conditioner that is venting hot air (and have been that way for decades).
Unfortunately they still can not quite embrace real science. In real science the corrupted data would be thrown out. These guys have decided that the solution is to “adjust” the readings that are wrong to what they believe they should be.
Game, set and match.
ever notice how every crisis trumpeted by the leftys can only be solved by more govt intrusion on our lives and more control over the economy? nullis in verba indeed
I recommend you read the article by Lindzen from ’92. puts things in historical context…I know having been knee deep in the technology as it evolved
The Earth revolves around the Sun?!
@27 avoidswork: Even if all of the AGW scammer’s models and data were accurate, our grandchildren would not even notice – not even a little bit. Neither would their grandchildren. Right on cue, this poster shows up to demonstrate the Tolosani-like ignorance and dismissive arrogance of the AGW believers. And for comic relief accuses us of “hysteria”.
Jor-el: Nice White Rabbit
Or, MickeyG, you can read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7369339/New-evidence-for-man-made-global-warming.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9513bee6-27b3-11df-863d-00144feabdc0.html
i stand by what I said – you may deny it, but a few generations down the road will not as they will be AGW believers unlike their grandparents.
but i like how you say “even if…” as though it’s not worth looking into ameliorating these problems by attempting to change our collective behavior.
i’m never surprised, though, by your denialism. your peeps are deep in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry (hello, Inhofe).
“27. avoidswork:
Oh, your grandchildren will be lamenting about how stupid their grandparents were denying man’s contribution to climate change.”
Actually, if there is any truth to the global warm-ongers faith about the degree mans CO2 admissions affect Earth, our grandkids will probably be thanking us for stopping the next ice age.
How to guarantee a ‘scientific’ consensus:
What you’d want to do is the following:
Assemble a sum of money larger than most people have ever thought about.
Position managers of these funds, which will be used both for political lobbying and to bring in other investors.
Take the managers of those funds and also put them in charge of key institutions and their pension funds. You are then in control of their financial self-interest. Thus, they have little choice but to play along.
That’s certainly how I’d do it. Now, let’s see how this differs (if at all) from reality, using two examples:
The head of the Carbon Disclosure Project ($55 trillion under management) is Robert Napier. He is also the head of the UK Met Office (IPCC WG1).
The head of the IIGCC (largest lobbying group at the Bali Climate Summit) is Peter Dunscombe. He is also the head of the BBC Pension Trust.
Get the picture? See how this works? This is what we’re up against. This is what needs to be exposed. for more on this see:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/eco-imperialism-every-environmentalists-dream/
Check the facts for yourself. The architects of this eco-imperialist project have worked slowly and carefully, trapping institutions within the walls of their pyramid. That pyramid hates sunlight. Get shining.
Frank;
When it comes to the UEA/CRU lot, I suggest you switch to the far more accurate “pal review” terminology.
Every time the Goracle says “the science is settled”* or Barack Obama says “we’ve debated (such and such) to death, now shut up and do it my way”, I harken back to Copernicus and Galileo.
“Settled science” (church sanctioned)then was that the Earth was the center of the universe.
*(even that guy trying to control the information stream, Phil Jones, acknowledged a couple of weeks ago that the AGW science isn’t settled. Authentic scientists say science, in general, is never settled.)
So, how long, exactly, have would be powermongers actually been trying to control the nature of “the truth” ?
Forever ? Or as long as we humans have had our relatively short tenure on the planet, whichever comes first.
@37 avoidswork: All I can ask is that you keep your delusions to yourself and stop trying to enlist governments into coercively extracting and wasting trillions of dollars that would otherwise go to creating useful goods and services that would improve the standard of living all over the world.
And by the way, the “fossil fuel industry” that you hate so much cares not about this insanity – they have already figured out how to position themselves at the cap-and-trade feeding trough if it goes through.
And lastly, did you even read the links you posted and were they supposed to defend your position?
The first one concluded by saying:
“I have seen no published evidence that goes beyond a rather unlikely hypothesis that man caused global warming and it is getting thinner by the day,” he said. “So before we disturb the global economy we need to take a step back and re-evaluate.”
The second is a propaganda YouTube video and here is a typical comment found there:
“So in creating what Sinclair would like his opponents’ arguments to be, he is then able to effectively rebut them. It is this type of tactic that has the skeptics wondering about conspiracies.”
The last is an article about the work of the UK Met Office – mostly government and UN funded and biased totally for AGW as a key to obtaining more studies and grants.
Brian H:
That’s an important part of the scam, but you also need the media to either not report or defend the scammers. This can be achieved by holding their pensions hostage (in the above case, several billion British pounds worth).
@tanstaafl:
“So, how long, exactly, have would be powermongers actually been trying to control the nature of “the truth” ?”
There’s a good reason for the phrase ‘speaking truth to power’. Power is built on falsehoods and tends to dissolve on contact with the truth.
False assumptions about the World are fed into and reinforced in us from birth. Get rid of those and the liars don’t stand a chance. And they know it.
Erhlich has made himself more famous than *He* ever imagined. I’m very happy for him. He has served the world a great service by again exposing the gullibility of the “collective”. In the official record, he’ll go down as a footnote. He deserves a chapter in The Book if he comes clean.
avoidswork, you are so gullible. Of what value is peer review when it is true believers reviewing the work of other true believers? Naturally, they will accept the work of other true believers and reject the work of any skeptics. You really need to think about how this all works.
I am amazed at the number of folks (I don’t mean so called green businesses, I mean just ordinary folks) who still cling to their global warming beliefs. They fear that now everyone will just give up and start dumping pollutants everywhere. Sheesh. I think most peps prefer not to have huge landfills of garbage and toxic chemicals spewing into the air we breath etc. Personally, I just want to be reasonable and fiscally responsible about it. Naturally business are worried about going out of business now but frankly after trying some low VOC paint stripper I could care less. I only tried it because it was supposed to smell less and I needed to use it indoors. It may have been safer fumes but it stunk to high heaven and didn’t work worth a damn and cost more since I had to use more. The efficacy of the paint stripper was on a par with wind energy in Europe so I don’t have any confidence in much of anything claiming to be green. And don’t get me started on the recycling scams…
I’m no scientist, but if greenhouse gasses keep heat in, then don’t they keep heat out as well or is it like a one way mirror? I mean, X amount of heat trapped inside doesn’t just keep getting warmer all by itself does it? Even coffee in an insulated cup goes cold after a while.
Hi Eva,
The idea is that greenhouse gasses act like the glass in a greenhouse. Thats where the name comes from.
Glass lets sunlight in,
the sunlight hits rhings in the greenhouse and makes them a bit warmer,
warmer things ‘glow’ a bit with infra-red ‘light’,
The glass stops some of the infra-red going anywhere and the greenhouse, gets warmer.
If you want to stop it getting warmer you need to remove some of the glass.
CO2 and some other gasses act like glass; light gets through very well but they are more opaque to infra-red.
So anyway, “like the glass in a greenhouse”.
The thing most people fail to realize is that the Catholic Church at the time had very little to do with actual Christianity and had everything to do with power. -Dave #28
That accusation against the Church is commonplace among Protestants (and, lately, by neo-pagans) against the Church founded by Christ through his apostles. If “most people” don’t share Dave’s Big Realization, it’s because they’ve heard and rejected Dave’s mythology after giving it fair consideration.
They (the Catholic Church) were the established governmental and academic elite of the time. -Dave
The first conjoined assertion is false, the second is true and that truth redounds to the great credit of the Church. It was the Catholic Church that established colleges and founded the university system. (To this day, formal graduation and professorial robes resemble the habits worn by medieval priests – even at the most secular of modern colleges and universities.)
You had to tow the party line or no grants and/or out you go. Only the names have changed. -Dave
False again. Copernicus himself thrived as a Catholic university scholar. Later, in Galileo’s day, Jesuits were making novel speculations about the apparent motions of the sun and planets as seen from Earth, building telescopes of their own, making observations of discovery with them (a surprising number of lunar features are named after Jesuit scientists), and occasionally even repeating some of Galileo’s reported observations of the heavens. Scholars at Jesuit universities bucked the Aristotelian “party line” (to use Dave’s inelegant term) by openly debating the Copernican system and Galileo’s conjectures.
Eventually, the modern science that we have today validated the caution shown by the early modern skeptics of the Copernican system and Galileo’s claims: the sun is not immobile and none of the planets have orbits that trace perfectly circular orbits around the sun. The AGW proponents of today resemble today’s Galileo fanboys with their peddling of errorneous claims as fact; the AGW skeptics are turning out to be vindicated just as Galileo’s skeptics were.
…skeptics of the Copernican system and Galileo’s claims: the sun is not immobile and none of the planets have orbits that trace perfectly circular orbits around the sun. The AGW proponents of today resemble today’s Galileo fanboys with their peddling of errorneous claims as fact; the AGW skeptics are turning out to be vindicated just as Galileo’s skeptics were.
Whatever errors may have been present in 16th & 17th scientific inquiry, it took the Church several centuries to get around to fully and formally acknowledging its own.
1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642
“The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo’s Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960′s and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei’s namesake spacecraft had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.”
That’s just delightful Frank, your link @ #39.
To learn more of the crooks (aka “architects of this eco-imperialist project”) who have their fingers stuck in the AGW pie.
I was aghast enough already to learn of the deals and machinations of the guy who heads up the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, deals with carbon credit schemes in New Delhi and even, reportedly, his own personal involvement with Soros/Soros organizations.
IPCC reports have served as gospel for AGW alarmists and True Believers everywhere. Recently, they’ve been trying to minimize the glaring errors and downright fabricated “science” that made it into those reports or (like Barbara Boxer in the US Senate) claim they didn’t rely on them in the first place.
Is this the scam of the century, the centuries, 20th & 21st, religious and political fervor stirred up in the name of greed and control ?
Has this scam deflected attention from true environmental insults to the planet (e.g., deforestation) which genuinely affect weather patterns ?
“The OLD REDS are the NEW GREENS”
Hey, Al Gore!
Wipe you mouth, there’s still a little BS on your chin.
It’s tough to argue with people like avoidswork who jump to the conclusion that everything that happens is a direct result of man’s interaction with the environment…Land use patterns are now and always will be an issue…think dustbowl and future depletion of Ogallla aquifer, likewise conditions soon to be expected in Asia.
But CO2 causation is an unproven theory that is virtually impossible to prove…perfect scapegoat. The earth is warming so it has to be related to CO2 and industry is an excuse to extract money plan and simple. Citing big oil as being behind ‘denial’ is laughable if you follow the money. Folks like avoidswork have a singularly narrow perspective on life which makes them easy dupes for the propagandists. I come to this blog to learn from my contemporaries, so cut and paste intellectuals like avoidswork make me fear for my future grandchildren more than this AGW BS. Read the Lindzen paper archived at the CATO institute circa ’1992 (link in post 16) it’s extremely enlightening given it’s age.
@tanstaafl:
Yep – Deforestation, toxic waste dumping etc have all taken a back seat to the Carbon Plan, now that its architects consider it a fait accompli.
This is one of the more nauseating, deeply macchiavellian aspects: people’s natural instinct to care about their planet is being used ruthlessly against them. This reveals a great deal about the psychological make-up of the architects.
The deeper you dig, the more you’ll find seemingly unconnected aspects of the scam meshing in with one another. One more example: that bastion of allegedly objective climate science Realclimate.org is, in fact, registered to Environmental Media Services, founded and owned by Arlie Schardt – Al Gore’s press officer. Research and ye shall find.
As for the Old Reds – well, yes – but ultimately they’re just useful idiots, to be dumped overboard when the agenda is complete.
It’s always been about World Government, since that day in the late 1940s when the Rockefellers installed Maurice Strong at the UN. In 1972, Strong brought the UNEP into existence, which in due course (1988) gave birth to the IPCC.
Thanks for reading.
Hi Roy,
‘glass stops some of the infra-red going anywhere’ Actually it does go somewhere. There are at least 3 elements to consider when talking about heat. Radiation (the infra-red you mentioned). The others are conduction and convection (movement and transfer). Convection comes in two forms: vertical movement and horizontal-advection. While radiation may penetrate gases, convection and advection move the heat and transfer it via the gases to other parts of the earth where it is cooler and also transfers it out to space. Clouds, a ‘greenhouse gas’, reflect radiation back out to space so as I was pointing out it isn’t a one way mirror and it isn’t as though the earth is under constant assult by radiant heat or that the heat is not escaping at all or will cease to escape after a certain point.
One has to consider the effects of heat on a sealed glass bottle. Given enough heat, the gases expand and the bottle will crack and even blow up. So, one could theorize that a similar process happens in the atmosphere when gases become heated enough that they become less dense and more conductive. It just wouldn’t be as violent as the glass bottle.
It is my understanding that there is little study on actual temps in the higher reaches of the atmosphere as it relates to rates of conduction and convecton so there is no real evidence that transfer of heat to outer space has slowed (so naturally the AGW crowd want us to believe it has stopped altogether.) But since global warming has been disproved it hardly matters at the moment.
Dont take this the wrong way, Roy, but by saying I wasn’t a scientist doesn’t mean I don’t understand the thermaldynamics of a glass greenhouse.
If we could please use the book’s proper title, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. Thank you.
Citing big oil as being behind ‘denial’ is laughable if you follow the money. Folks like avoidswork have a singularly narrow perspective on life which makes them easy dupes for the propagandists.