Three Fatal Flaws in Greenhouse Gas Climate Science

Written by John O'Sullivan

As America enters a brave new era of climate realism under President Trump three fatal flaws in catastrophic man-made global warming theory could influence policymakers.

The biggest elephant in the room? Despite huge rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels global temperatures have barely risen – up by less than ONE degree in 100 years. And keep in mind that with the known error margin for thermometer readouts the reality could be a ZERO overall change. So much for that threatened ‘climate catastrophe.’

This is cold, hard fact in stark contradiction of what greenhouse gas theory says, that cornerstone of alarmist science. That tells us more CO2 should equate to a hotter climate. Looking for scientific reasons to explain the failure of the doomsday prophecy Canadian astrophysicist and climate analyst, Joseph E. Postma points us towards three paradoxes in the ‘science’ of the greenhouse gas theory:

Paradox One: (the blatant fraud) Despite thousands of years of proxy data (e.g. from ice cores) proving all past rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW not cause increases in global temperatures, alarmist scientists have falsely reported the opposite;

Paradox Two: (an irrational love affair with models) Despite hard empirical evidence that solar energy first heats earth’s surface before rising up to warm the air, alarmists have turned this fact full circle to program their models to suggest it is the cooler air that somehow heats earth’s warmer surface even more;

Paradox Three: (the mathematical errors) The direct heat of the sun, which can only impact half of our three-dimensional planet at any time, has been crudely modeled as constant; a ‘flat earth’ heat source with one-quarter of the intensity averaged out over the entire planet (the ‘P4 number’)

These three crucial points should be among the simplest things to understand in physics and reality, argues Postma, who successfully earns a living in the real world of applied rocket science.  In Postma’s world things have to work or people (i.e. astronauts) die.

But in academia climate models have been preferred over real life for decades – and have kept on failing. Since the 1980’s those ivory tower researchers such as NASA’s James Hansen, have consistently given projections about a global warming nightmare that stubbornly refused to occur – all despite increasingly elevated human emissions.

What has not helped the case for the catastrophe peddlers is that so much government research into climate change has been performed by a small clique of academics, people who have pal reviewed (not peer reviewed) each other’s work and kept secret their data. These eco-warriors have shirked open debate for too long.

When challenged the alarmists double down on post-apocalyptic scare tactics based on their self-serving secret science, all to try to make us roll back our modern, industrialized lifestyles. As the Climategate scandal (2009) showed skeptic academics have been vilified or lost jobs. But the climate scientists did more than tarnish their own dubious ‘professional’ reputations. They threw into doubt the reputation of government science per se. So much so, that NASA is no longer the jewel in the crown of American exceptionalism. Space science and exploration gave way to environmental advocacy.

NASA became corrupted by data distorters and cultists who betrayed the Apollo Mission pioneers and turned a blind eye to the hard-won empirical knowledge of applied scientists and engineers. No one knows their materials better than experts with ‘hands on’ experience.

No wonder nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists–including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center–claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

Since the emergence of such bodies as Principia Scientific International (2010) experts from the ‘hard’ sciences working in the real world have repeatedly been telling the academics what is fact as opposed to fiction: namely, that in the real world outside of university campuses carbon dioxide has only been proven to have cooling properties. But those ivory tower advocates of greenhouse gas ‘science’ will ad naseum insist that CO2 is THE atmospheric gas for ‘delayed cooling’ or ‘trapping heat’ because of human emissions.

Perhaps President Trump can persuade academics on the government dime to finally address those three paradoxes shown above? Then perhaps academia will finally admit that a gas that comprises a very tiny 0.04 percent of the atmosphere cannot muster the power to be the thermostatic control knob of our climate.

Surely, if the tail could wag the dog so powerfully then that gas should be a prime resource in chemical engineering in the devising of heat energy systems, for both storage and transmission. But carbon dioxide isn’t. So why not?

“We have divorced logic from science: why?” Asks a bemused Postma. When science gets so wrapped up in computer models too easily distorted by GIGO (‘garbage in, garbage out’) we end up with pseudo-science that is never tested, merely formulated to look convincing to non-scientists.

Reality trumps computer models every time: As recently as 2015 an experiment was devised by Colm O’Sullivan of the National University of Ireland and titled ‘A simple experiment to study cooling by convection and radiation’. It shows that cooling in a vacuum is slowest and convective cooling ( i.e. in earth’s atmosphere) is significantly higher than stated in climate science.

We must all accept science is never settled. But at minimum surely most can agree that no signal for a supposed impending climate Armageddon from elevated levels of carbon dioxide has materialized. Let the scientists openly debate this anomaly and permit critical reasoning to come back into fashion in government laboratories.

Applied scientists like Postma feel increasing disdain towards academics who have spent too long in their ivory towers building the hyper-reality of Climatism, where “climate change” directly translates to “human caused.”

We have been told by a mocking mainstream media that President Trump is “anti-science” on this issue for siding with the skeptics. But it is the Climatism of the alarmists that is anti-science.

“This is the hyper-reality of Climatism,” bemoans this Canadian champion of empirical evidence has authored several hot papers in this field including Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect (2011) and The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect (2011).

Postma observes, “The underlying goal here, of Climatism, is to use computer models to divorce us from the reality of real climate change. By sticking to the lies within the three paradoxes mentioned above we have been sold a simulacra of climate change which actually has nothing at all to do with climate change.”

Instead, a new era of open debate between climate alarmists and climate realists can expose the alarmists as tricksters employing nothing less than Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, as Postma observes:

“This aspect of philosophy has been negatively exploited by Climatism. Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem tells us: “In any system of arithmetic ‘A’, there will exist a statement ‘x’ which is neither provable or unprovable by ‘A’.”

In other words alarmists, when cornered about the failure of their greenhouse gas theory to show higher global temperatures at a time of higher levels of atmospheric CO2, will resort to citing the unprovable element which is always just beyond our reach. For example, they say there must exist “missing heat” held deep in the oceans, or that we must wait longer (50, 100, 1,000 years) before our self-inflicted carbon climate catastrophe kills us.

Postma asserts: “The statement ‘x’ of Gödel’s theorem IS the Greenhouse Effect, within the system of physics and thermodynamics of modern science. It is a fraud and will never be proven because it requires faith in a belief in something beyond current scientific proofs.”

Sadly, even some so-called skeptics of man-made global warming have bought into the myth that ‘some warming’ must be due to CO2. We call them the ‘lukewarmists‘ and they, too, are struggling to stay on message. For them former NASA Apollo mission engineer, Dr Pierre Latour, provided four known scientific examples of how carbon dioxide cools.

Confirming Latour’s position are the ever-rising number of peer-reviewed science papers finding CO2 innocent. Such papers have concluded  climate sensitivity is effectively zero, or so close to zero as to be unmeasurable and negligible. What these papers refer to is the key metric, or ‘climate forcing’ due to carbon dioxide.

But what these groupthinkers still overlook – notwithstanding their findings that CO2 is NOT a key climate player – is that the ‘climate forcing’ metric itself is a self-defeating fudge factor. This astonishing revelation was only recently uncovered by British climate researcher, Derek Alker.

Alker found the crucial needle in the haystack in old papers by math genius Lewis Fry Richardson, the father of modern climate modeling. In 1922 Richardson devised an innovative set of differential equations still used today in climate models. But he made a terrible error.  Richardson’s mistake explains why no current models can explain the warming ‘pause’ since 1998.

Meanwhile in Monterrey, Mexico, Professor Nasif Nahle shows again why applied, empirical data beats GIGO models every time. Nahle used known and well-established values from the results of actual experiments performed previously by leading scientists, H. C. Hottel, B. Leckner, M. Lapp, C. B. Ludwig, A. F. Sarofim, et al, showing that the combined effect of overlapping absorption bands of water vapor with CO2 causes a reduction on the total absorptivity of the mixture of those gases in earth’s atmosphere. As such, water vapor and CO2 are proven to combine to cause global cooling, not warming. [1]

Then we have in December 2016 respected online climate analyst Tony Heller exposing another key error made 115 years ago by the “grandfather” of greenhouse gas theory. The findings, say Heller, make the climate theory of Swedish Chemist Svante Arrhenius “inadmissible” and “junk science.”

But alarmists and lukewarmers cling to those computer simulations rather than address the reality presented by applied scientists. Not only can warming from CO2 not be proven but the exact opposite – cooling – is most likely the case. At the macrocosmic level what we can prove today is that carbon dioxide is plant food. It is essential for life on earth and the ‘carbon cycle’ keeps us all alive.

Working ‘hands on’ at the microcosmic level industrial scientists and engineers (not academics) know that CO2 emits radiation as lightning fast as it is absorbed. No trapping, no delay in transmission. In fact, CO2 so efficiently loses heat (radiation) that it became one of the most important gases in refrigeration systems used for a century. Before the era of CFC’s to keep our food cold it was good old carbon dioxide that did that job world wide. And has anyone ever heard of what makes dry ice?

No one, not any expert working with chemicals as coolants anywhere in the world will tell you any differently: carbon dioxide DOES NOT trap heat or delay cooling. Just the opposite!

But talk to any climate academic on the government dime and they will run from such hard, cold facts and call you mad. They demand we offer an alternative climate theory. So we do and refer to the sun (sunspots), the oceans and water cycle, latent heat and the Ideal Gas LawAs Postma says:

“When you use the real power and temperature of sunlight, what it actually is, instead of assuming that it is the same as the temperature of the Earth itself, then you get a whole climate created naturally and driven by sunlight.  And when you do it this way, then there’s never a need to invent a “climate greenhouse effect.””

Academics ill trained in anything but Climatism insist a gas that is only ever used to COOL is somehow, in their pseudo-planet’s atmosphere, a gas that magically becomes a force towards heat.

Try to debate a climate academic and you will be given the one ‘proof’ of a greenhouse gas effect –those hoary ‘thought experiments.’

Sadly, so many climate scientists labeled Climatists are either not aware of it, or are fraudulently aware of it that their greenhouse gas theory is a mirage. If the politicians permit the scientists to speak openly and debate freely on the pro’s and cons without fear of censure and reprisal. Then perhaps the three paradoxes highlighted above will be comprehensively addressed leading to better-informed policies and savings on our tax dollars.


[1] Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water. Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands. By Nasif S. Nahle. Scientist, University Professor and Director of Scientific. Research.

Comments (1)

Comments are closed