They'll get their wish if Yellowstone caldera erupts. I don't think preparedness will be their forte. Environmentalist will be wiped from the face of the earth.

Yes, we need more people to understand that.

I have said for many years that the goal of the environmentalist is the extinction of man. It's pretty obvious to many now...

Do you understand how black body radiation works? Nothing can be hotter than the black body radiation, unless something else is hotter.

Physicist Freeman Dyson on a famous discussion with Enrico Fermi on 'models': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV41Q...

"I arrived at Chicago and knocked on Fermi's door, and he was very polite. I came in, and he said, 'Yes?' and I showed him the graphs on which our experiment, our theoretical numbers were plotted and Fermi's experimental numbers were plotted, and the agreement was on the whole pretty good.

"And Fermi hardly looked at these graphs, he just put them on the desk, just glanced at them very briefly and he said, 'I am not very impressed with what you've been doing.' And he said, 'When one does a theoretical calculation, you know, there are two ways of doing it. Either you should have a clear physical model in mind, or you should have a rigorous mathematical basis. You have neither.'

"So that was it - in about two sentences he disposed of the whole subject. Well then I asked him, well what does he think about the numerical agreement, and he said, 'How many parameters did you use for the fitting? How many free parameters are there in your method?' So I counted up. It turned out there were four.

"And he said, 'You know, Johnny von Neumann always used to say, "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." So I don't find the numerical agreement very impressive either.' So I said, 'Thank you very much for you help,' and I said goodbye. There was nothing more to be said."

Freeman Dyson speaks out about climate science, and fudge
Anthony Watts / April 5, 2013
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/0...

Obviously the heat is there. No one is arguing that heat at -18C is heating itself as the source of warming. The major source is the sun. If it weren't we wouldn't be alive to talk about it.

If you want to spend the time on him you should look at what is in fact being calculated in accordance with what principles in the specific "models" he claims to be refuting.

I don't know if he ever got to claiming to reveal that with claimed reliable references because I gave up and stopped listening, and didn't go back to it once I looked further and saw the other crack pot stuff he is promoting in addition to his polemical insistence on how rational he is and all his targets assume the earth is flat. To me he has no credibility and isn't worth any more time.

And as one of the signers of the original Global Warming Petition Project I am no fan of the climate hysteria movement and its exploitation of "models" in the name of science for their ideology. But associating opposition to that with kooks does not help.

If you are interested in thermodynamic arguments then by all means pursue that because it can be very interesting, but I don't have the time for this clown.

Nope. You can't trap heat that is not there. If a black body is only -18C and there is no other heat source, you cannot get about that temperature.

The greenhouse effect is usually described as trapping heat so it can't escape. It isn't claimed that heat flows from cold to hot. The sun and man-made energy is the source of the heat. Watch out for his strawman arguments and rationalizing.

They have a romanticized fantasy of an effortless Garden of Eden utopia if only we endorse primitivism. The modern version is promoted in terms of "it's for the economy" -- they think wilderness restoration is the foundation for a "tourist economy", as if no production is necessary and most people would spend their earnings from blankout traveling to indulge themselves in scenic hiking in the swamps, funded by "investment" amounting to trickle down economics from government picnic tables.

All good information, but his presentation on the main three points makes good sense.

1) The -18C black body calculation is incorrect and based on a fallacy.
2) Heat is the flow of energy and heat only flow from hot to cold.
3) There is no way for radiation from the cold atmosphere to heat up the surface.

And his point that the term greenhouse is misleading since a real green house works in a totally different manner than the AGW advocates describe the CO2 green house effect.

I used to teach survival at the local college along with some other outdoor recreation classes. I took students out into the wilderness, gave them very little information about where they were and what to do to get back. While I enjoy the outdoors even camping by todays standards are much higher than life was 150 years ago. Although the challenge of overcoming extreme circumstances and returning to the safety of modern society was fun for me, even the kids did not seem to realize that if they had to live that way all the time it was not fun to be on the edge of starvation every single day of your life! The reason ancient man often had large numbers of children is that 60% of them often died before they were mature adults. Even if you managed to become a mature individual a hard winter, sudden change in weather or an unexpected disease that we would currently consider a minor threat could end your existence. If they want to live in pre-settlement conditions they should volunteer to do so and refuse anything that comes from current modern manufacturing methods including, shelter, transportation of desired goods, food, medicine. From my experience as a teacher most wouldn't last more than five days before returning crying out for more free stuff to alleviate their stress and struggles.

They are inconsistent in their preservationist political policies of what state to restore something to, but at root they don't care about nature changing on its own. They oppose man "exploiting" the earth and want to undo it. They are driven by hatred for man and his productivity for human life. Their idea of a proper state of humanity is primitive tribalism.

Roxanne Quimby, the wealthy radical "counter culture" viro appointed by Obama to the National Park Foundation and who bought government policy (in the name of a "gift") to decree a National Monument in Maine, said:

"To me, ownership and private property were the beginning of the end in this country. Once the Europeans came in, drawing lines and dividing things up, things started getting exploited and overconsumed. But a park takes away the whole issue of ownership. It's off the table; we all own it and we all share it. It's so democratic."

They literally want to restore land to primitive pre-settlement conditions, any pre-settlement conditions. Don't bother them with details about what Indians and glaciers did.

Be very careful with that video presentation. He is very much a Rationalist and not the erudite scientific expert he presents himself to be. Anyone who leads with repetitious denunciations insinuating that his targets all assume the earth is flat and who repeatedly insists how rational he is himself, while claiming to have found a simple magic bullet refutation that everyone else has somehow missed, should set off alarms. Keep that in mind and watch for strawman arguments if you invest the time to go through the details of his technical claims in between his repeated insistence of how logical he is.

An example of his rationalism exploiting mathematical equations elsewhere in his blog https://climateofsophistry.com/2016/1... announcing his "World’s 1st Scientific Paper on Ontological Mathematics", in which he argues that a need to change "boundary conditions" required to make a partial differential equation "produce realistic behavior" implies an "active noumenal mind governing the behavior of physics" -- in contrast to "equations of physics that don't change" making it only "appear that this mind is dead (i.e. inactive) and a dead mind is no mind at all. In order to detect mind in physics then you have to see that mind making a choice about the way reality should behave."

His trying to deduce a "noumenal mind" from time dependent boundary conditions with feedback needed to "produce realistic behavior" from a "static partial differential equation" is more an argument that he is a crackpot with a dangerously misused smattering of technical knowledge:

"So, the device is a light trap and its behaviour is determined by the mathematical boundary conditions of the Fourier Transform solution to its real-time thermal equation. So you have light, being trapped by matter, with thermal behaviour dependent upon the mathematical form of the boundary conditions in the Fourier Transform describing it, and the form of the equation changes in order to replicate realistic behavior.

"These are all of the ingredients one would expect to be involved in an Ontological Mathematical demonstration of mind operating behind the scenes.

"In essence, Ontological Mathematics states that everything is governed by mathematical, noumenal mind. Inserting mind into physical theories is said to be one of the tasks that occupies the Pythagorean Hyperborean Illuminati these days. It’s an important one – explaining how the entire physical world is governed by mind is essential to strengthening the kind of evidence for Ontological Mathematics that will convince scientists."

And

"Inserting mind into physics is said to be one of the 'holy grails' of Ontological Mathematical research. Mike Hockney discusses the problem in the last several of his 'God Series' books. You see, the Pythagoreans are already quite convinced that mind is the basis of existence, and you will likewise become convinced of that too if you are rational and if you read Hockney’s philosophical-mathematical-scientific treatise."

Aside from his mysticism, notice how his technical emphases in the rationalizations are so peculiar: why focus on a Fourier transform as a method that is irrelevant to the underlying physics with his "mathematical boundary conditions of the Fourier Transform solution". Why "Fourier Transform solution" and not just the "solution" of the boundary value problem? It's the only method he knows and he can't make a distinction? Or does demonstrating a "noumenal mind" he finds "behind the scenes" depend somehow on Fourier transforms in his rationalizations, which wouldn't work for any other method of solving the same boundary value problem, let alone depend on the physical law itself as opposed to any method of solving an equation?

Or how about his pompous and supposedly erudite statement in his greenhouse speech in which he asserts that partial differential equations are all about heat flow?: "This is from Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations, which is actually all about the study of heat flow since that's where and how Joseph Fourier developed the Fourier transform and that's what applied partial differential equations eventually I'll get into." Is the original heat equation the only PDE he knows? Didn't he look at the rest of the book, or the table of contents?

Spend more time on this guy at the peril of your own priorities.

Thanks

While I have not had the chance to fully processes the video, I think this guy has great points. The video embarrasses me that I did not see these points. It is wonderful for someone to provide that sort of insight.

Dhalling video above clearly explains your succinct points.

In my work as an astronomer I have studied planetary atmospheres; Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and even Earth. I have a pretty good idea how difficult it is to model such complex structures. Simply stated the projections made by climate fear mongers are not possible with current computer modeling technology. Technically climate dynamics is chaotic which means that computer models are extremely sensitive to the input parameters. Slight variations in the input data lead to wildly different end points. This opens the door to a "pick and choose" approach to the analysis process. The results can be benign or catastrophic. If it is the intent to instill fear there are plenty of catastrophic results from which to choose. That, however, does not make them real. It does provide ammunition to politicians that want to use climate science as a weapon.

Each of these people can relieve themselves of the obvuios stress they are feeling on this matter by choosing to remove themselves from the picture, aka kill themselves. Its the most sincere, ecoconcious thing they could do AND they no longer need worry.

Rome had a problem with low birth rates that we see in all industrialized countries. In some cases shockingly low: With the births per woman at 2.1 considered as "replacement rate", U.S. and many European nations are around 1.8. Singapore is around 1.2 (or less depending on who is counting). China which forced women to have an IUD after 1 child is now offering to remove it for free to try to get to 2 children per woman. Rapid population decline causes serious demographic dislocations.

As we become more educated and healthier, populations will naturally drop. Because of demographics, even with lower birth rates the world population should continue to rise until about 2050. The consensus seems to be for a peak of about 10 billion, but I suspect the decrease will be sharper and we'll peak at 9.5 billion from then population will continue to drop.

At some point uterine replicators and other mechanisms to ease the effort of having a child will be introduced to try to stabilize the population at some number.

Fair enough .

Doing a great job with health care and reproductive health services does not mean killing people with vaccines. Population growth falls in advanced societies. The quote fragment is clumsy out of context, but should not be contorted.

Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

"The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vac...

Excellent db....laughing...wonder if the flatearthers got their notion from these graphs?...

What is the source of that. It does not seem plausible that he would openly advocate depopulation through vaccines. Whatever he thinks about population control he has been dispensing medical assistance to cure and keep people alive who are sick.

Hi ProfChuck,
A scientist by definition would be interested in reality. The power of pull is strong in the climate science field. So many become frauds and whores deceiving their field, colleagues and the public. They Offer desired results to the grantors and funders then watch the money flow. The professor's are authors of alarming disaster fiction. While the data gatherers smudge the true numbers to fit the narrative. Laws are put into place in Oregon restricting the climate global warming change whatever to man's blame.It is a worldwide network of deceit centered in the UN. The best way to deal with weather, is have a Roark designed shelter.