Why Junk Climate Experts Prefer Flat Earth Physics
Written by PSI Staff
Man-made global warming “skeptics” Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts (he of the science blog, WUWT) are both very much on the defensive this week. Each has been exposed as zealous defenders of flat earth physics (literally!).
“Flat earther” is a term of ridicule often used against backwards thinkers. But in this case Spencer and Watts, prominent spokesmen for the skeptic cause, are persisting in regarding earth as flat. They do so in the forlorn hope no one will notice it is the botch of modeling earth as flat that makes the equations for the discredited greenhouse gas effect “work.” Both men are being called out for their anti-intellectualism by Principia Scientific International’s Joe Postma in his The Fraud of the AGHE Part 14: Controlled Opposition.
Postma, a successful astrophysicist by profession, again shows that you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), the cornerstone of climate alarmism is bogus.
Mainstream science had long known the GHE was junk. Who says so? None other than the renowned American Meteorological Society.  The AMS stated that the idea that CO2 could alter the climate “was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is absorbed by water vapor.”
The Great Switcharoo came about when governments chose to encourage science ruled by opinion rather than fact. Thanks to no documented game changing discoveries, no great scientific breakthroughs no Nobel science prizes, post-normalism permitted us to disregard the unequivocal empirical fact that carbon dioxide is shown only to operate as a cooling gas.
Below is an edited version Postma’s latest take on things. The full version can be found on climateofsophistry.com:
The last post of this series was a formal disproof of the atmospheric greenhouse theory. It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce the physical responses all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect.
Hence, the greenhouse effect is false. QED. Do you understand? Did you understand that last post?
There is no more confusion on the logic, it has been perfectly clarified: The greenhouse effect is false.
It is an a-priori mathematical truth of reason based on physics, not merely a truth of theory or contingency, that a spherical rotating Earth with real-time sunshine can induce physical responses on the surface of the Earth all by itself that a flat-Earth model with diluted sunshine can only do by adding in a manufactured greenhouse effect. QED
Well, almost all of my posts have enough to expose the greenhouse effect for the fiction that it is, but the last post was the most concise and easy to understand, and got to the rational heart of the matter clearly.
Now this will be a short post, just pointing something out.
A few weeks ago Roy Spencer, great friend and scientific adviser to the man who doesn’t understand how a light-bulb works, Anthony Watts, and who incidentally doesn’t understand how a greenhouse works, and who incidentally doesn’t understand what a real-time differential equation is even though he somehow got a PhD, spoke to the US Congress from a “skeptical” position waylaying the fears of climate alarm.
Now, this latter seems all well and good. What great guys Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts that they are such skeptics, right?
However, despite being asked to consider the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth both of these men have told me in personal correspondence that they simply want to choose to believe that carbon dioxide “has some forcing via the greenhouse effect”, to quote. They said they WANT this.
They simply choose to not want to consider the physics, science, and mathematics of the reality of a spherical Earth vs. that of a flat Earth, because if they did, they would no longer get to satisfy their “want” of believing that “CO2 has to have some forcing effect, just smaller than the alarmists say”, to quote!
They’re feigning skepticism while back-handing the entire theoretical apparatus to support climate politics, via the Greenhouse Effect.
And even with so much atrociously poor science, they still had a large majority of society (read here why such people fell right in to the alarmist religion) believe in it all.
This is how political intrigue and subterfuge works, and it is a wonderful example. This whole thing also goes by the name of the manufacture of a “simulacra”, as I wrote about here. You simply pretend to have expertise in a field of concern which you manufactured; you pretend to do science and you manufacture the appearance of doing science, and you manufacture the support from the public by injecting the simulacra with fear and frightening consequences of “not believing”.
Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts both told me that they will not talk about the Earth being spherical. Do you get it? They will not acknowledge the factual irrefutable content of the last post of this series. A spherical Earth is taboo.
And so now, what do we see Roy Spencer doing this week? This problem that a real greenhouse doesn’t actually function as the atmospheric greenhouse models pretend, even though the math and physics should be directly equivalent to one another, needs to be covered up. Because if anyone is out there who might comprehend the paradox between a real greenhouse and the pretended Greenhouse Effect, they might start to ask the right questions.
Roy Spencer is the front man on this, so this week he’s initiated an intrigue and line of subterfuge to pretend that a real greenhouse does function like the atmospheric greenhouse effect. His reasoning? Because the atmospheric greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse! It is yet more incestuous tautology…the forte of climate alarm and the greenhouse effect. In the comments of his article, Roy Spencer literally says that he is “not sure what causes the air to heat up in the greenhouse in the first place”, and therefore tries to imply that it must be the infrared radiation inside the greenhouse causing the heating -the IR which is a result of the heating! Dr. Roy Stupid, the air inside a real greenhouse is heated by contact conduction with the surfaces inside the greenhouse…surfaces which have been heated by THE SUN. But of course, the Sunshine is only -18C, right? The Sun can’t heat anything?
Roy knows full well that PSI already did a physics experiment looking for the type of heating that is postulated from their greenhouse effect models. We used the atmosphere’s very own theorized greenhouse effect to check for the heating from back-radiation/imbalanced radiation output/heat retention or whatever label they want to obfuscate with to pretend the process. It doesn’t exist. Real-world data does not show any hint of any form of the postulated greenhouse effect.
Not only is it experimentally disproven, the entire concept is already disproven on simple theoretical and basic conceptual grounds. The Earth isn’t flat – and therefore any form of thought or memes which come from mathematically thinking such a thing, are ipso-facto wrong. All this stuff about IR scattering via CO2 and radiative transfer “proving” that a cold gas heats a warmer surface “via some method”, is subsequent, not antecedent, to the flaw of the flat-Earth cold-sunshine model. An absorption spectrum, such as that from CO2, is created by a cold gas in front of a warmer background source of radiation.
The cold gas is not the cause of the warmer background.
 Brooks, C.E.P. (1951). “Geological and Historical Aspects of Climatic Change.” In Compendium of Meteorology, edited by Thomas F. Malone, pp. 1004-18 (at 1016). Boston: American Meteorological Association.