torsdag 16 december 2010

Why are Skeptics Skeptical to Other Skeptics?

Our new book Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Effect is topping Amazon
ebook lists, but its has (so far) received little attention from other climate skeptics.

This indicates that climate skeptics are not only skeptical to CO2 alarmism, but also to other
skeptics skeptical to CO2 climate alarmism. It seems as if each skeptic seeks to protect a special domain of skepticism, and that this separatism is more important that unity against the common target of CO2 alarmism. Is this a correct observation, and if so is it desirable to seek a correction?

Is it so that there are so many skeptics of different color, size, background and agenda, that unity among skeptics is impossible?

Skeptics do not even agree in their skepticism to the basic question of the physics of the greenhouse effect. Is it because the greenhouse effect is fiction and there are so many ways to be skeptical to a non-existing physical phenomena? Like skepticism to ghosts which can take a large variety of different forms?

In Sweden the book has been banned by Royal Institutions controling the minds of the loyal citizens of the Kingdom, and is invisible even on skeptical websites. The reason for the ban is that the book contains a mathematical analysis of Planck's model of blackbody radiation and the equations of thermodynamics, which raises questions concerning the so-called atmospheric greenhouse gas effect.

The control of mathematics taken by Institutions is similar to the control of physics by the same by declaring that the Earth will not be permitted to heat up more than 2 C, with UN negotiations under way setting the limit to 1.5 C. This is a firm action taken by in particular EU to control both climate energy budgets and state monetary budgets.

It seems that our free open democratic Swedish society can only exist under a very strict firm steady all encompassing control with uncompromising ban of anything unacceptable.

PS Lubos and The Reference Frame is representative of many skeptics: Instead of focussing on the real scientific issue, which is the nature of the so-called greenhouse gas effect and climate sensitivity, Lubos finds irrelevant aspects outside science to pick on. Why not follow Leibniz and ask if there is something of interest in our book, rather than just trying to find something of little interest to question?

15 kommentarer:

  1. Can it also be that the only thing that unifies the skeptics is that they are skeptic? And that they all want to promote their own skeptic theory, one more skeptic than the other. Given two arbitrary skeptic theories, the probability that they are equally skeptic is small.

  2. Claes,

    I think most people (deniers, skeptics, and believers) don't have a clue about thermodynamics and why the green house effect is fiction. Hence what can they say?

  3. Yes, there are many arguments showing that 2 + 2 = 5 is incorrect. But if you understand one of these arguments, there is a chance that you also understand another.

    True, since nobody claims to understand thermodynamics, understanding
    of climate must be rare, since climate is thermodynamics + radiation.

  4. Claes,
    As climate is so complex there has be many thoughts on what is relevent and what is important. There is much more to climate than thermodynamics and radiation. Certainly, there is incoming radiation from the sun and there is outgoing radiation to space but climate also involves heat transfer in the form of convection (natural and forced through winds), evaporation of water and condensation into clouds and rain. Then there is fluid dynamics in the atmosphere forming jet streams which move warm and cold air and clouds. Monsoons, cyclones, blizzards are all part of the climate pattern in various locations around the globe. There there is the fluid dynamics in the ocean causing warm and cold currents. There gravitational effects of the moon and planets giving tides and changes to the electromagnetic forces.
    Thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, fluid dynamics, electro-magnetism, instrumentation, process modelling etc are all engineering subjects but possibly only chemical engineers have some grasp of how all these subjects are intertwined. Even then the engineers may not have a full understanding of the quantum physics which underlies the laws pertaining to gravity, radiation, electro-magnetism, chemical bonds and reactions etc.
    Certainly, none of the pseudo-scientists in the field of climatology understand even a fraction of the technology.
    Your knowledge and mathematical skills is helpful to widen understanding of some of these engineering topics. I like to also read the thoughts of Lubos Motl on quantum physics at
    I am sure that by keeping an open mind and encouraging good research everyday we will learn more.

    best wishes to all

  5. Claes, we should not make the mistake of forming new coteries. The only way to defeat the dark forces is by rational scientific enquiry and open debate.

    That's the reason why the lukewarmers don't want anything to do with you. They lack both intellectual capacity, integrity, courage and honesty. Maybe it is because of these shortcomings that they are so desperate to tell everybody that they are "serious" sceptics.

  6. Claes, I think that a total "greenhouse gas" denial is the big problem for some other sceptics. I myself can´t understand how theese gases can have no influence on the climate at all, acc to you. Yes, I have read all blogs about this, and I think you state that (radiation) energy from cold materia can´t warm hotter materia. But as I look upon it, radiation energy is an electo-magnetic force field and it can act on all charged particles, hot ones or cold ones, in the same way, independent of it´s origin. I look at the greenhouse gases as some kind of a mirror that reflects (reradiates)radiation coming from the earth. Am I totally out of relity? But I have no opinion on how big this effect is.

  7. "This is a firm action
    taken by in particular EU to control both climate energy budgets and state monetary budgets."

    This also part of the skeptics motivation. To keep socialist central governmental control from taking over their lives through the pretense of saving the planet from AGW. To most people in the free world, extreme socialism doesn't have to be called communism, it can take the form of any organzation strivng for centalized control, like the EU and the UN strive to do. Just look at how the EU and the UN are competing for global control through climate change. As long as the public remains silent about this, eventually they will lose their freedoms, abdicate their sovereignty.

  8. Prof Claes,
    I am a daily reader of many of the main sceptical blogs and I have noticed
    the absence of Slay the Sky Dragon.
    Several times I have mentioned your analysis of "back radiation" and also the writings of Prof John Nicol (Townsville Australia ) in posts but with no result.
    However, I do not think it is being sceptical of other sceptics but rather a position which does not undermine prominent sceptics who accept the back radiation concept e.g. Lindzen, Monckton. I believe that they think they have more credibility with the 'luke warmists' by accepting some of their arguments.
    Unfortunately, serious physicists have not been engaged in AGW and we have seen the pressure applied to the few who have! Trenberth with his diagrams is the best the warmists have come with. (Sad that he is from the same country as Rutherford and Fleury - N.Z.)
    I suspect that the understanding of fundamental physics of both sides is limited and people like you are needed to educate us. I must add that my physics is very limited - retired anaesthetist - but I know who I would put my money on as being correct.

  9. I've made a little contribution to the cause: a list of skeptical bloggers. The list is now over 100:


  10. Lasse, have a read at Lubos Motl explains (from research by many) that the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to quantum physics (mechanics) and also to "black holes". A low temperature object can not heat a higher temperature object!
    Climatologists are conmen like those who have sold the London Tower Bridge and the Panama Canal to gullible investors. The greenhouse concept (similarity to a glass enclosure to grow plants in European winters) for the atmosphere of planets (eg Earth, Mars and Venus) has been falsified by many starting with Robert Wood in 1909.

    Good health and enlightenment for the New Year

  11. Dear Claes,

    the book contains lots of nonsense e.g. about the CO2 increase not being man-made, based on bogus isotope analyses. Every year, 100 ppm worth of CO2 is released by Nature, 4 ppm is emitted by the industry, and 102 is absorbed by Nature. The total is that CO2 grows by 2 ppm a year; if man-made emissions stop, it would be decreasing by 2 ppm a year - until the atmosphere would get closer to 280 ppm, the equilibrium.

    But you see that most of the 390 ppm of CO2 in the air oscillates every four hours. Oceans and the biosphere replace one isotope by another; chemically, there's no difference. So it's misguided to link the man-made CO2 increase to the isotopic composition. The individual atoms were not necessarily man-made and they may be different isotopes. But the calculation of the balance is still possible.

    One of the authors, Oliver Manuel, also defended the totally preposterous iron Sun theory. There are lots of elementary reasons why the Sun can't be dominated by iron.

    Equally importantly, it was found out that Oliver Manuel has been convicted as a sexual predator (of his family etc.). This is just another reason why he won't be actively promoted by WUWT, myself, or others.

    I am personally skeptical towards any nonsense, not just some kind of nonsense.

    Best wishes

  12. Dear Lubos: I ask you to consider my contributions. Have you anything to say?

  13. Lubos: What is your conception of the greenhouse effect?
    Do you follow Lindzen and Spencer or have you studies the issue yourself?

  14. Although I don't know enough on the science, I wonder if other skeptics have accepted the greenhouse effect simply for "political" reasons, so to not alienate too many people, and give some common ground with those they are debating


  15. Claes: No one today questions their own competence to judge some aspect of the climate science debate, that they both think they understand and can take to be definitive in judging the whole debate. Even those who stand on the "consensus" as being authoritative are firm in their conviction. Everyone is standing pat now on their own particular unquestioned dogma; no one is backing down, no one is willing to respect an opinion that differs from his/her own opinion. But far worse, no one will look at the simplest evidence that disproves the greenhouse effect, and admit that it is now, irrevocably, disproven. No one will focus on the hard, definitive facts. I have shown definitively that there is no greenhouse effect, by comparing the temperatures at corresponding pressures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, and finding that their ratio is essentially a constant that is determined solely by their relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (such as CO2 concentration):

    but I have heard back from no one, so I know they are unable to focus on a simple but devastating demonstration of the critical, overwhelming facts, as opposed to interminable theoretical speculations that fly past one another all over the internet. It is a matter of basic scientific competence, to heed critical facts rather than one's chosen speculative construction. Motl, above, shows you his basic incompetence by pretending that he knows the "equilibrium" level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that "Nature" can only absorb precisely that which he calculates it absorbs currently. He doesn't even stop to think that the anthropogenic CO2 signal he identifies is just noise against the natural emission and absorption values he claims, or that, whether or not human emissions stop, "Nature" might very well change either or both its emission and absorption. He doesn't know, yet he pretends he does, before the whole world. I consider such incompetence obscene, but it is typical in climate science, and I know it goes far beyond climate science. I, alone among scientists, have the facts that prove that. As for climate scientists, and climate science commenters of all stripes, until everyone studies and accepts that the Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures directly and simply invalidate the greenhouse effect, I consider them all incompetent. That entrenched, systemic incompetence is the real problem, not global climate change, and what all scentists need to address in common, scientific cause. But it will, it is obvious to me, take a revolution, that no one now wants to contemplate.