Tuesday 26 March 2024

There's no Greenhouse Effect

If an atmospheric greenhouse effect existed for CO₂, it will be possible to measure the ‘back-radiation’. It will show up in both the thermal conductivity (λ) and isochoric thermal diffusivity (aᵥ) properties. Scientists will then be able to calculate it precisely using either or both these 2 physical properties of CO₂. But
Q: why do climate scientists not measure it that way; despite billions of dollars in funding lavished on them?
Q: Would attempting to measure it prove them wrong?

amount present in atmosphere ( vol.)
formula ppm relative
to CO₂
λ (25 C),
[ W / m K]
[ m² / s ]
Nitrogen N₂ 780900 1855 0.0259 3.038 × 10⁻⁵
Oxygen O₂ 209400 497 0.0262 3.040 × 10⁻⁵
Argon Ar 9300 22 0.0178 3.586 × 10⁻⁵
Carbon dioxide CO₂ 421 1 0.0167 1.427 × 10⁻⁵
λ :
thermal conductivity, determines how much heat per time unit and temperature difference flows in a medium;
aᵥ :
isochoric thermal diffusivity, determines how rapidly a temperature change spreads, expressed as area per time unit


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO₂ Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, version 4;
Gerhard Gerlich & Ralf D. Tscheuschner, 2009,
arXiv:0707.1161 abstract, pdf

Michal E Mann (Climate scientist)

I have to take these tweets on trust, since I'm blocked from following him. But Michael E. Mann is a famous, and iconic, climate scientist. A true darling of the Left, academic, establishment. His honourary degrees and awards outnumber my academic qualifications. His Wikipedia entry, shows only a fraction of awards actually doled out to him.

Dispite (me) being a relative imbecile, due to the weight of awards Mann has, compared to mine, I state, with certainty, that carbon dioxide, cyanide and arsenic are 3 very different substances, which behave in no way like CO2. With water, Carbon dioxide, CO2, is the basis for life on earth; Cyanide and arsenic are toxic poisons.

Friday 15 March 2024

Can 'Street Epistemology' cure motivated reasoning?

Why do climate doomers double down aggresively when presented with contra-evidence?

Mental Illness

It's evidently mental illness!; we just can't say what kind yet. My instinct says that - based on my experience of interacting with these fanatics. "Fanatics", is just what they appear to me. We give them our best, most compelling, empirical evidence. They don't simply ignore it; they're actually offended that we think about the issues but didn't come to their conclusion! I was so set on this explanation that I coined the term 'nihilistic personality disorder' for climate doomers! But, realistically, empirical pychological research doesn't favour my idea! Perhaps they suffer from fear instead? Possibly, as there is a lot of fear-oriented propaganda directed against fossil fuels.


  1. Fear is a survival response.
  2. Although fear is first experienced in our mind, it triggers a strong physical reaction in our body. As soon as we recognize fear, our amygdala (a small organ in the middle of our brain) alerts the nervous system, which then sets our body’s fear response into motion. Stress hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are released. Our blood pressure and heart rate increase. We breath faster. Blood flows change — blood actually flows away from our heart and into your limbs, making it easier for us to throw punches, or run for our life. Our body is preparing for fight-or-flight.
  3. As our amygdala senses fear, our cerebral cortex (the reasoning and judgment part of bour brain) is impaired — making it hard to make good decisions or think clearly. We see the results of this in: shouting, screaming, throwing our hands up, wanting to punch something. We want to act - not to think.
  4. We cannot override fear. For example, even when we know there's no threat we can't rationalize that the apparent threat isn't real.

Yet, although propaganda and groupthink can condition people into fear against fossil fuel, I don't see how presenting a person with an argument against wind-turbines or solar power should also condition this same dogmatism we see, not only from activists, but also from well-educated academics.

'Street Epistemology' to the rescue?

In recent years, a group of psychologists, studied how we change our minds. They found that group ideas (we often see in activists) are particularly hard to change. When groupthink ideas are poo-pooed we don't consider the arguments in the same light they're presented to us. We defend those ideas; our minds get to work to explain to us why we're right and they're wrong! The more educated the person is - the more explanations they will evoke to explain why they're right. Philosopher Peter Boghassian, writes and studies this. "How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide". Peter B developed a technique he calls street epistemology, to have rational discussions on sensitive and often, firmly held beliefs. Essentially Peter B:

  1. States a clear simple proposition.
  2. Asks a person whether they agree or disagree,
  3. and how firmly. He asks them to stand on a scale indicating the certainty of their position
  4. This exercise is best done with two subjects who disagree with each other.
  5. He asks each subject to guess why the other person holds their belief
  6. Then asks each subject to explain, as best they can, why
  7. Finally Peter B asks the question to each: "what would take, in terms of evidence, for each subject to move one step, on the scale, to a less certain position.

This technique helps us to clarify what and why (in terms of evidence or logic) we believe things. Several you-tube videos show this method in action.

There's no Greenhouse Effect

If an atmospheric greenhouse effect existed for CO₂, it will be possible to measure the ‘back-radiation’. It will show up in both the ther...