The Battle for the Truth about Climate Change

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

Anybody who declares that we must fight changes of climate thereby also declares that they are scientifically illiterate. Anyone who declares that we must fight climate change is also linguistically illiterate.

green

Now Matt Ridley has done a great service to humanity by showing graphically that the increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has led to a worldwide greening (see graph above).

http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-global-warming-versus-global-greening

He has used scientific data from Zhu and Mynemi that shows how the increases in Global Emissions of Carbon Dioxide have lead to a very welcome greening of the Planet. However he still declares defiantly that he is a Luke-warmer and that Carbon Dioxide warms the atmosphere.

I wonder if Matt would kindly explain how and by what means Carbon Dioxide warms the atmosphere. What in the first place does he as a writer and journalist mean by the word ‘atmosphere’? Once he has defined atmosphere it would be interesting indeed to see how this trace gas is supposed to warm the atmosphere in any way whatsoever.

We know already that even the most committed Warmists will not declare that Carbon Dioxide generates heat, and I am sure that Matt would not declare that, for that would be the height of stupidity. So he is left with only two options. There is the classical Warmist argument that Carbon Dioxide traps heat. Heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy from one system to another. Surely he has not fallen for that hot potato! How does one trap a transfer?

The final option of the Warmists is Back-Radiation. Yup! I grant you that there are eminent Physicists with whom I have corresponded, who declare that Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs outgoing Infrared and radiates every which way including downwards, ‘thus making the Lower Atmosphere hotter than it would otherwise be’.

These are the words of an eminent Physicist, who was prominent on an excellent series on the BBC. However her arguments were repudiated by Dr Philip Bratby, who said effectively that while radiation is emitted by all molecules at all temperatures in all directions there is only a net radiation (hence heat flow) from hot molecules to cold molecules. As long as there is a temperature gradient heat is transferred upwards by radiation through the atmosphere and none is transferred downwards. (This argument by two Physicists can be seen in full in my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ in one of the last Chapters, entitled ‘If You want Crap Science’.)

So where does Matt Ridley stand in this matter? Is there yet another way to warm the atmosphere that I wot not of? Since he has done such a splendid lecture to show the benefits of emissions of Carbon Dioxide, – how in fact the Skeptics are the true Greens, while the political Greens can be more correctly called Greenbacks, relying heavily and almost totally on vast funding, and whose so-called Green policies would only lead to a brown and dead world – can he now explain his stance on Global Warming of the atmosphere?

The Powers that be have given mankind coal and oil and gas in great abundance, the combustion of which also produces carbon dioxide, just as we humans with every exhalation produce Carbon Dioxide. The enemies of mankind however seek to confuse people by not distinguishing between smoke pollution and the clear gas of life Carbon Dioxide and the Carbon cycle. Of course we must renew our efforts to scrub smoke and to encourage the use of smokeless fuels, but in no way must we reduce the emissions of Carbon Dioxide into the Atmosphere which has led to a greening of the Globe, so ably demonstrated in his lecture by Matt Ridley.

Of course we must fight against pollution and for clean air, but in no way must we be confused into thinking that the clear gas Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant – only scientific, historical and linguistic illiterates think that way.

Anthony Bright-Paul

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Jerry L Krause

    |

    Hi John,

    You wrote: “In the matter of debating climate science controversies, there is often a distinction with the science PSI relies on – it can (a) be science developed specifically to focus on and refute government science that was especially created to promote a political agenda (eg. climate models and scenarios) and (b) science created outside of the field of research of climate change and from within the realms of Physics, Chemistry, etc. that is generic but may be employed to show conflict and anomalies in how climate researchers are applying the laws of Physics, Chemistry. etc.”

    And this statement began: “In the matter of debating climate science controversies,” There would be no science controversies if it were recognized there is no place for debate in science. Do you care to question: “The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.”” (Richard Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I, pp 1-1)

    Feynman continued: “But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints.” Do you care to question this?

    You wrote: “If we err and insert superfluous commentary to embellish our scientific refutations then it behoves us to remove or disavow ourselves from it.” Feynman referred to laws: Does either of your statements explain why I have yet to find one reference to Einstein’s laws of radiation about which I read in The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I, pp. 42-8 to 42-10? Is it only ‘superfluous commentary’ which PSI must avoid?

    I answer this last question. No, it is bad science because I have yet to find anywhere an scientific consideration how this might apply the absorption of atmospheric greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. For it seems well known to me, at least, that these radiation laws of Einstein and other quantum mechanical understandings of atoms and molecules, are the theoretical basis of common devices known as lasers or masers.

    Bad science. Bad science. And the solution is: Good Science! Good Science solely based upon reproducible observations of well defined natural systems.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    • Avatar

      Jerry L Krause

      |

      “No, it is bad science because I have yet to find anywhere an scientific consideration how this might apply the absorption of atmospheric greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ” should be: No, it is bad science because I have yet to find anywhere a scientific consideration of how this might apply to the absorption and emission of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

  • Avatar

    John O'Sullivan

    |

    Hi Jerry, thanks for the input. However, I would disagree insofar as PSI’s mission is to counter politicized science with science that is blind to any political agenda. I would agree that it is sometimes hard to separate science from advocacy, especially when the science in question is post-normal in support of policy (e.g. predictive for events so far into the future that the known unknowns are considerable).
    In the matter of debating climate science controversies, there is often a distinction with the science PSI relies on – it can (a) be science developed specifically to focus on and refute government science that was especially created to promote a political agenda (eg. climate models and scenarios) and (b) science created outside of the field of research of climate change and from within the realms of Physics, Chemistry, etc. that is generic but may be employed to show conflict and anomalies in how climate researchers are applying the laws of Physics, Chemistry. etc.
    If we err and insert superfluous commentary to embellish our scientific refutations then it behoves us to remove or disavow ourselves from it. That way we can be judged to have sought to have avoided muddying our message that we are non-political.

  • Avatar

    Science or Fiction

    |

    “Anyone who declares that we must fight climate change and that ‘change’ is a threat to humanity is fundamentally atheistic and is clearly bonkers and unfit to govern.”

    So those who are atheistic are unfit to govern?
    So those who do not lend themselves to religion are unfit to govern?

    Holy Moses – have you been smoking your socks?

    This article doesn´t seem to be even remotely within the basic principles for Principia Scientific International:

    “2. PSI AND POLITICS: THE BASIC PRINCIPLES
    PSI serves no political purpose, supports no political party (or parties) and does not engage in political activities. Our advocacy is for the advancement of the traditional scientific method (as per the ideas of Karl Popper) and resolute opposition to ‘post-normalism’ in science.”

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Science Or Fiction, you are perfectly correct that those passages in the original article are incompatible with PSI’s mission statement. They have now been removed. Thank you for the heads up.

      • Avatar

        Jerry L Krause

        |

        Hi John,

        Do you believe that the greenhouse effect, global warming, climate change has no political purpose? And because it has a political purpose PSI should have nothing to do with these issues?

        Atheism is much as a religion as any other recognized religion in the world. It is a belief that there is no god. It is my understanding that it PSI’s objective is to return our physical science to that founded by Galileo and Newton and Kepler and Brahe and Copernicus who first dared to consider that Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe was false. These were devote Christian men who believed in a Creator God. But from the beginning Copernicus and Galileo did not allow their church leaders to dictate would they believe about their science.

        In his farewell speech (1/17/1961) President Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War: “We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method … ” and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence whether, sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” (Wikipedia)

        You (John) made an article about a comment I had made which included this quote. Which certainly is ‘political in nature’ and includes the words–‘atheistic in character’.

        ‘Science Or Fiction’ did a number on you and I hope you will put Anthony’s statement back in his article. Science Or Fiction asked: “So those who are atheistic are unfit to govern? I do not know if the NASA mangers, who ignored their own rules and their engineers’ advise and chose to launch and thereby killed a number of people on that spacecraft were atheistic or not, but I know they were unfit to govern. But to my knowledge they suffered no punishment for their evil deed.

        Have a good day, Jerry

Comments are closed