A Discussion on the Absence of
a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
Joseph E Postma, M.Sc. Astronomy
An Original Publication of Principia Scientific International
A contextual flaw underlying the interpretation of a back-radiative greenhouse effect is identified. Real-time
empirical data from a climate measurement station is used to observe the influence of the “greenhouse effect” on
the temperature profiles. The conservation of heat energy ordinary differential equation with the inclusion of the
“greenhouse effect” is developed, which informs us of the temperature profile we expect to see when a “greenhouse
effect” is present.
No “greenhouse effect” is observed in the measured data. The latent heats of H2O are identified as the only real heat-trapping phenomenon and are modelled.
A discussion on the existence of universal principles is used to explain why simplistic arguments cannot be used as justification for the greenhouse effect...If you placed yourself out into the woods, naked and with no tools, what would you do? What would an animal do? An animal would just start sniffing around and eating whatever smelled eatable.
But a human wouldn’t do that. The first thing a human would do is start changing the local environment, by building a shelter, by fashioning bodily coverings, by using sharp rocks and learning how to create sharp rocks for cutting, by using vines to tie things together, by figuring out how to store water and food, by making sharply-pointed sticks for hunting, by making a controlled fire for various purposes, etc.
All of man’s actions for fundamental survival are based on changing the environment. If man is not supposed to change the environment, then it means that man is not supposed to exist,
No “greenhouse effect” is observed in the measured data. The latent heats of H2O are identified as the only real heat-trapping phenomenon and are modelled.
A discussion on the existence of universal principles is used to explain why simplistic arguments cannot be used as justification for the greenhouse effect...If you placed yourself out into the woods, naked and with no tools, what would you do? What would an animal do? An animal would just start sniffing around and eating whatever smelled eatable.
But a human wouldn’t do that. The first thing a human would do is start changing the local environment, by building a shelter, by fashioning bodily coverings, by using sharp rocks and learning how to create sharp rocks for cutting, by using vines to tie things together, by figuring out how to store water and food, by making sharply-pointed sticks for hunting, by making a controlled fire for various purposes, etc.
All of man’s actions for fundamental survival are based on changing the environment. If man is not supposed to change the environment, then it means that man is not supposed to exist,
Stanford Professor Sues Skeptical Scientists For $10M Published on
Written by Dr Judith Curry
Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre.
Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:
JC reflections
Well, I am just speechless. Alice Dreger summed it up with this tweet
This is batshit.
