How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
jimmcginn
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 6:43 pm

How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?

Unread post by jimmcginn » Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:09 pm

How do you Debate a Greenhouse Gas Theory ‘Expert’?
James McGinn

https://principia-scientific.org/how-do ... ment-21445
October 28, 2018 at 6:52 pm | #

Squidzee:
As it relates to the RGHE, the “re-radiated” IR from CO2 cannot further heat the surface. It violates the physical law described above.
DONE! … The RGHE is completely disproven by very well known and verified scientific fact.
No need to go any further.

James McGinn, Atmospheric physicist:
Right. Academia has long ago stopped pursuing truth when it comes to the atmosphere. They are only concerned with consensus. And that means academia is mostly concerned with the collective perception of their models. They comply with the “keep it simple stupid” approach to science: models are dumbed down to appeal to the lowest common denominator of the voting public.

Most skeptics of global warming are too naïve and gullible to realize that none of this is new. Meteorologists have been using the same tactics for 170 years. The convection model of storm theory is dumbed down to make it digestible to the public.

Academia cares about consensus because consensus pays their bills. Academia does not care about empirical truth so much because empirical truth can often be an obstacle to the perceived credibility of their dumbed down models, and maintaining the perceived credibility of their dumbed down models is essential to maintaining the consensus that pays their bills. Consequently, the main skill that is essential to academia is the ability to pretend to understand what actually doesn’t make sense.

None of this is new. Academia has been pretending to understand for a long time now. The convection model of storm theory harbors numerous plainly nonsensical assumptions. Since its inception, many generations of meteorologists have pretended to understand what actually doesn’t make sense. They aren’t going to stop pretending. Pretending pays their bills.

Nobody notices that the real frauds in all of this are and have always been meteorologists. Meteorology’s success at fooling the public into believing they understand what they don’t is ultimately the behavior that underlies climatology and global warming fraud. That behavior isn’t going to stop until it becomes unprofitable. And its not going to stop being profitable until the public realizes that the core of the problem lies in meteorology not climatology.

The roof leaks at the top.

The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests