12.07.2015 Views

Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed as Dissenters ... - WEBCommentary

Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed as Dissenters ... - WEBCommentary

Greenhouse Gas Theory Trashed as Dissenters ... - WEBCommentary

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

warmer surface, heating it more and causing it to radiate to theatmosphere and space with higher intensity than it would withoutcold CO2 back-radiation. To Latour this contradicted all he saw inhis branch of applied science, chemical engineering, and needed tobe confronted head on. Engineers must ensure their theories are inharmony with the Second Law of thermodynamics: energy onlyflows from a hot source to a cold sink, not the other way around. Ifthat law is violated, it can lead to the theory creating energy anddriving global warming, a violation of First Law conservation ofenergy. That would be a perpetual motion machine, impossible tobuild. It appears Dr. Spencer and the UN IPCC succumbed to thisfallacy at the start, <strong>as</strong> depicted in the famous 1997 Kiehl-Trenberthradiation flow diagram.Echoing the analysis of another climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, Latourinsists that the apparent errors in atmospheric physics made byclimatologists are because they work in a “generalist” field ofscience, unlike most “hard” sciences such <strong>as</strong> physics, chemistry,biology, engineering and medicine where detailed and in-depthspecialization is essential so that products and services actuallywork.Leaked Climategate 2.0 Emails Show No Research into<strong>Greenhouse</strong> EffectDespite congratulating Spencer for so much good science, Latour<strong>as</strong>serts that Spencer’s interpretation of reality in his “Yes, Virginia”essay w<strong>as</strong> readily disproved, not just by observations, but also bytwo different mathematical proofs that illustrate the fallacy ofgreenhouse g<strong>as</strong> warming. The Spencer-Latour emails, found here,stand <strong>as</strong> an erudite microcosm of the intense broader debate nowpervading the blogosphere, with greenhouse g<strong>as</strong> effect (GHE)believers looking incre<strong>as</strong>ingly in disarray.To Latour the blatant political advocacy and aversion to traditionalscientific processes displayed in the Climategate emails are a majorclue <strong>as</strong> to how and why the generalists of climatology could havegotten the atmospheric physics so wrong for so long.Since the rele<strong>as</strong>e of a second batch of 5,000 new Climategateemails in November 2011 (the first came in November 2009)observers from other sciences are staggered at how climatologistsnever questioned their own core “<strong>as</strong>sumption bi<strong>as</strong>” of their climatechange hypothesis: the greenhouse g<strong>as</strong> effect. Indeed, despitearound $100 billion spent on climate research, none of Climategateemails shows researchers addressing the need to test their

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!