An open California courtroom this week saw dodgy alarmist scientists properly exposed and taken to task by a US Federal judge – who just so happens to also be a trained engineer! (see: ‘California Court Shines Bright Light On Junk Climate Science‘
In court Oxford Professor Myles Allen failed in his shyster attempt to deceive the judge with a shoddy graph purporting to depict how much CO2 was now in the atmosphere.
This shameful Oxford professor must surely have been schooled in the same fake science techniques employed so infamously by the disgraced climate fraudster, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann. Mann is on the cusp of the most monumental court defeat by Dr Tim Ball, the co-founder of Principia Scientific International and proud fellow ‘Slayer’ of greenhouse gas theory.
Ball is on a roll. He has already wiped the British Columbia Supreme Court floor with that other IPCC shyster, Dr Andrew Weaver (see: ‘Tim Ball’s Huge Courtroom Win Now Targets Michael Mann!‘)
Finally, the world is now seeing that open courtrooms are the best venues to shine a bright light on climate criminals. I’ve been saying this since 2009; it is the ultimate and most compelling way to apply the “red team, blue team” adversarial test. I’m so glad Tim took my advice and bravely accepted the legal gauntlet thrown at him by Weaver and Mann. The best is yet to come!
Judge Alsup (that trained engineer) spotted that the dodgy Oxford professor (Myles Allen) had sought to fool the court with a misleading graph that made the atmosphere appear to have more than 400 parts per million of CO2. It is no coincidence that PSI is comprised of many applied scientists and engineers with PhD’s. Judge Alsup thinks and speaks our language.
Justice Alsup: “It’s 400 parts per million but you make it look like it’s 10,000 part per million”
Professor Allen: “Your honor is quite right,” he agreed
As Judge Alsup is fast learning, global warming is truly ‘man-made’ – but not from CO2 – but by those errant clammy hands of climate profiteers and careerist data-manglers selling the Big Lie.
Even the ‘lukes’ are slowly starting to get it. Dr. Willie Soon et al., as ‘friends of the court,’ followed our lead and finally saw it takes applied science and engineering know-how to win in these cases (see: amicus curiae brief to Judge Alsup).
Check the Facts, Not the Hype
First, here is some of the easy science: Paleoclimate researchers know that when looking back over eons, not just the last century or two, we see historic levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels (that supposed control knob of climate) in no way match changes in temperature.
We can see ice ages are common and pleasantly warmer epochs, like our current Holocene interglacial are rare. If we look back to the previous interglacial period (the Eemian) we see it was warmer than today, but CO2 levels were significantly lower than current values. This is prima facie evidence even to a non-scientist, that CO2 did not the cause the warming climate of the Eemian epoch, which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 115,000 years ago.
Thus, paleoclimate research shows the record of our climate system did not operate in a manner consistent with man-made global warming conjecture; groupthink that began to take hold from the late 1970’s.
Indeed, the re-emergence into consensus science of the discredited greenhouse effect during the 1980’s relied heavily on computer models programmed with the science fiction of high climate sensitivity to CO2, even when real world evidence showed sensitivity about zero.
But climate modelers had an advantage. From around 1975 began a generation’s worth of higher global temperatures at the same time as levels of atmospheric CO2 were rising. Correlation existed for sure. But ‘Correlation does not imply causation’ as we know.
And today, in 2018 there is no longer any such correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. CO2 levels keep going up, temperatures are flat, even going down. Does the next ice age cometh?
Moreover, independent climate researcher, Tony Heller, brilliantly demonstrates how climate was much more extreme at lower levels of CO2 (see: ‘Further Proof That Reducing CO2 Won’t Save The Climate‘)
- The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2;
- The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels;
- The NASA temperature record is complete garbage.
As lower solar activity sets in scientists now realize temperatures are headed down with a new ice possible. But those pesky measured levels of CO2 keep rising; no correlation, no causation there. So, finally, inquiring minds are turning their intention to more careful examination of the greenhouse gas theory (GHE) relied upon by governments, as cited by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This ‘theory’ was thoroughly trashed in the world’s first and only book dissecting those wacky numbers. Nonetheless, PSI still identifies no fewer than 53 Bogus Authority Statements That Earth’s Atmosphere ‘Like A Greenhouse. This is the inescapable problem when groupthink takes hold.
In 2009 ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory (lead author: Tim Ball) challenged the consensus and exposed glaring flaws in the GHE. The book correlated well with ideas and analysis put forward by German physicists Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D Tscheuschner. We were ridiculed by alarmists and lukewarmers alike.
The ‘Slayers’ (morphing into Principia Scientific International (PSI) and now 1,000+ strong) showed that man-made global warming conjecture is based upon a simplistic, non-time dependent model of our planet fashioned from bad measuring at NASA in the 1980’s by Dr James Hansen.
PSI’s ‘Slayers’ explained in detail why the radiant greenhouse effect, supposedly driven by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere via Long wave infra-red radiation (LWIR) bore no resemblance to how a real greenhouse operated.
Regardless of our efforts, the consensus persisted in reliance on a simple, but false model. It was false because, in reality a radiant greenhouse effect has never been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or anywhere else in the solar system.
Climate Fraud Goes Right to the Top
Second, here’s some more tricky science: A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of LWIR in our atmosphere absorbing heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm and not a radiative greenhouse effect.
Yet despite such an obvious and crassly unscientific paradigm, government-funded science institutions worldwide (even NASA) have lied to the public that our climate works like a greenhouse.
Their junk science greenhouse analogy omits to tell you the truth that gravity, plus the heat capacity of the atmosphere controls our climate via convection and conduction acting through the water cycle.
Thirdly, some of the ‘hard’ science: The other lie we are told is that the greenhouse gas effect ‘keeps our planet 33 degrees warmer than it would otherwise be.’ That number is a whopping great lie fabricated by Dr. James Hansen’s (innumerate) mixing of scalar and vector numbers – more bad measurements. You simply shouldn’t do it. Nonetheless, the idiocy stuck and Hansen’s error is oft repeated, by among others, NASA’s new top climate scientist, Dr Gavin Schmidt:
“The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C. This is more of a ‘thought experiment’ than an observable state, but it is a useful baseline.” Dr. Gavin Schmidt, NASA
Note how Schmidt qualifies his misfeasance by calling the idiotic “33°C degrees” effect just a “thought experiment” and not an “observable state.” It’s not observable because it is a fantasy from bad measurement!
To further the fraud, Schmidt, in his own diagram of the GHE (below), crassly doubles the atmospheric infrared energy input (both ‘up’ and ‘down’). Bad measure on top of bad measurement!
Such is the willful blindness of climate science “group think.”
Schmidt’s Impossible Outcome: Examine how much energy that two-sided (dotted) air layer is radiating. In the real world, when a unit of light is absorbed by a flat plane that’s free to discharge this energy in two directions, its emission on each side will be cut in half. This means that a 1 square meter plane emitting 1 Watt per square meter will radiate half a Watt from one side and half a Watt from the other — certainly not a Watt from each side! Otherwise, two Watts would be emitted for each Watt absorbed. NASA, Schmidt & Hansen DOUBLED the effect by a statistical sleight of hand- just as Professor Myles Allen attempted on Justice Alsup in federal court this week.
Layer upon layer of clumsiness and/or intentional errors by Schmidt, NASA & consensus climate science depend on the original and widely-promoted paper by NASA researcher, Dr James Hansen in 1981. [1.2]
PSI Slayers showed that it was Hansen (pictured below) who was the ‘scientist’ who put together those dodgy numbers to form the official (and legally-recognized) UN IPPC consensus model greenhouse gas theory.
If you go through the literature you will see the whole climate kerfuffle kicked off officially with the 1979 First World Climate Conference. BUT back then the term “greenhouse gases” (GHG) had not yet been coined. It simply doesn’t appear in the literature till later. In fact, it was my own research that first brought to wide attention that the highly-influential ‘Charney Report‘ (1979), the most important and detailed US government climate report of all time, being 13,000-words long, has not ANY mention WHATSOEVER of the “greenhouse gas effect” or “greenhouse gas theory”.
They needed the shyster father of the fraud, NASA’s James Hansen to step in to fully fabricate the ‘science’.
The abstract for the hugely important paper, Hansen et al 1988 only uses the term “trace gases” with no mention of the term “greenhouse gases”, but in the body of the text (page 9358) Hansen switches from talking of “trace gases” to “greenhouse gases” without ever first defining this newly made up term. The climate science world swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Hansen had thus provided the veneer of a mathematical proof of a greenhouse gas effect tied to wholly innocent carbon dioxide (CO2), a benign trace gas the biosphere craves as plant food.
On their face, Hansen’s numbers appear to validate the 33C “greenhouse effect.” But that number is utterly bogus, unscientific and an intentional fraud inflicted upon non-scientists and the gullible, but beloved by tax-raising policymakers.
As PSI researcher scientist, Dr Pierre R Latour noted:
“The ‘Slayers’ proved the standard greenhouse gas effect equation is a statistical anomaly created from the perverse addition of scalar and vector numbers. But Physics 101 tells us “vector and scalar quantities cannot be added together.”
Believers in the 33C “greenhouse effect” hypothesis say our atmosphere thus acts “like a blanket” and use the insulation analogy in support of their hypothesis. They say that “greenhouse gases” make the atmosphere a better insulator. But what they omit to consider is that CO2 is one of the most superior EMITTING gases (i.e. no ‘trapping heat’ or delaying of cooling). Indeed, Hansen’s model (adopted bt NASA and UN IPCC) violates three basic laws of thermodynamics:
1) energy created out of thin air,
2) energy moving from cold to hot without added work, and
3) depends on physically impossible 100% efficiency, zero loss, perpetual looping.
While another PSI researcher, Nick Schroeder BSME PE gave a detailed debunk in ‘’To Be 33C Or Not To Be 33C’ Greenhouse Gas Fallacy Exposed’ ( February 28, 2017). Our team of highly-credentialed researchers prove government scientists misuse the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and crassly ascribe to Earth an emissivity of 1.0 when real data proves it is lower. Such that:
The S-B equation: Q/A = sig * emis * T4
Let’s insert a 0.5 emis. There are two choices: constant Q/A or constant T.
Constant Q: Q/A = sig * 0.5 emis * T4/0.5 Equation stays balanced, but T4 doubles.
Constant T: 0.5 * Q/A = sig * 0.5 emis * T4 Equation remains balanced, Q/A is halved.
We know the real value of T from actual physical data, therefore Q/A must go down – and take that nonsensical greenhouse gas theory down with it.
17 New Peer-reviewed Studies Trash Greenhouse Gas Theory
Wholly independent validation of PSI’s refutations are finally appearing. In 2017 some of the ‘lesser’ peer reviewed journals permitted publication of studies debunking the GHE as we saw with ‘17 New Scientific Papers Dispute CO2 Greenhouse Effect As Primary Explanation For Climate Change’. Even in Japan, scientists are pointing out the hidden fatal errors James Hansen et al. rely on and another paper in 2018 shows how our planet’s temperature is easily explained without reliance on any GHE. Recently, Russian scientists have declared the GHE dead as global cooling sets in; while a team of Italian scientists called for a “deep re-examination” of the failing theory.
Climate realists see that the direct heat of the sun can only impact half of our three-dimensional planet at any time. We also see that an artificial “heat gap” was created in the models, as identified by government calculations creating an anomaly caused by crudely averaging all solar energy into the “P4 number error.” The P4 error was due to Hansen and propagated thereafter by the IPCC and all consensus science because they crudely model solar energy as constant, 24-hour input (no night/day modulation), which entirely explains the 33 degrees difference due the GHE. It is not a real temperature difference, but a man-made (Hansen-created) number fudge.
Flat Earth, Junk Climate Models
‘The Slayers’ proved this in their published GHE models which all clearly depict a ‘flat earth’ heat source with one-quarter of the intensity averaged out over the entire planet (the ‘P4 number’). We are told ‘better models’ exist that do not rely on the P4 number, but none has been shown.
While climate researcher, Will Haas, shows the nonsense of CO2 ‘climate sensitivity’ noting:
“For those that believe in a radiative greenhouse effect, the initial radiometric calculations performed decades ago came up with a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 neglecting feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. One researcher has pointed out that these initial calculations failed to take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. That decrease in the lapse rate will cause a reduction of the climate sensitivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So now we have a value for the climate sensitivity of CO2 excluding feedbacks of less than .06 degrees C.”
We are told that in the GHE water (H2O) provides a positive feedback to any carbon dioxide-based warming. The idea is that CO2 based warming caused more water to enter the atmosphere. In turn, that supposedly causes more warming because water is also a ‘greenhouse gas’ with LWIR absorption bands.
The UN’s IPCC don’t define how strong this positive feedback effect is, but they speculate it may be multiplied by three.
Sun, Gravity and Water Cycle Dominate Climate System
But, according to the GHE theory, water acts as a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2 and being the primary greenhouse gas, it renders any additional CO2 as a trivial effect. But the doomsaying GHE conjecture overlooks the fact that as well as being the primary greenhouse gas, water is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere. Water vapor is well known for transferring heat energy from the Earth’s surface and into clouds via the heat of vaporization.
At PSI we see that Earth’s temperature is a chemical process system coupled with adiabatic pressure (gravity). There are only two CO2 gas phase reactions, both are endothermic: arc welding and photosynthesis; CO2 + H2O + sunlight = sugars + O2, catalyzed by chlorophyll. CO2 can’t cause warming because it isn’t a source of heat. Only sources of heat can cause cooler objects to warm up.
The GHE theory is a flat-earth, one dimensional model with no time dependent (diurnal) factor. However, climate realists know the atmosphere stays warm overnight because oxygen and nitrogen can’t shed their heat. CO2 can lose heat. It sheds it literally in the blink of an eye. [3]
What we do know about greenhouses is this: Adding more CO2 to the
atmosphere supplies plants with their fundamental natural organic
fertilizer. In real greenhouses we put the CO2 level to about four times
what it is in the outside air, because this is what plants like best,
and lets them grow the best and produce the most food. More CO2 in the
atmosphere is a boon for life. 
Considering all what I have presented above, a good value for the
climate sensitivity of CO2 would be zero. Climate realists (i.e. PSI
scientists) assert that in large part, the density of a planet’s
atmosphere is a primary determinant of its temperature (plus distance
from sun).Any rational human being (especially a US federal judge in California) can see, when shown all the evidence, that Earth’s atmosphere is not an insulator – carbon dioxide plays zero role – our climate certainly does not operate like a greenhouse. Dr Tim Ball will be fighting for us all in any scheduled future appearance in the British Columbia Supreme Court where he will be demanding of the shyster king of bad measuring – Dr Michael Mann – “show your work!”
[1] Hansen, J, Johnson D, Lacis A, Lebedeff S, Lee P, Rind D & Russell G, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”,Science, Vol 213, n 4511, pp 957 – 966, August 28, 1981.
[2] Hansen, J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R & Russell G, “Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 93, n D8, pg 9341 – 9364, August 20, 1988.
[3] Determination of Mean Free Path of Quantum/Waves and Total Emissivity of the Carbon Dioxide Considering the Molecular Cross Section, Nasif Nahle, University Professor, Scientific Research Director at Biology Cabinet Division Mexico. http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_free_path_length.pdf
Source