Posted by: graemebird | May 25, 2008


Here’s a typical comment from one blogger that you hear everywhere on both sides of the global-warming argument:

“leebert at 06:41 AM on 1 April 2008
Hi John,

It’s generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone.

What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4’s of the way to doubling and we haven’t experienced a 2.5° – 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback…..”

Here’s the take-home story right here:

“It’s generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone.”

Both the skeptics and most of the alarmists make this claim. This claim is going on everywhere. Its coming out of our ears. The neighbours dog just choaked on the pile-up of this relentless claim made by even the staunchest skeptics. But its a totally dubious and unscientific claim for starters.

So for example you’ll read Annan making the claim and saying that it comes from basic radiative physics. Perhaps this is just the mystique of the physicists going on here. Whereas the reasoning of everyone else is open to questions people tend to back away slowly rather than scrutinise the claims of physicists.

The claim that a doubling of CO2 will lead to an initial 1 degree increase in equilibrium temperature appears to assume that the molecules in the air are totally static. It assumes that pockets of molecules won’t move upwards as a result of being warmer than the molecules around them.

This one degree increase is a flat earth calculation. Its as if the sun is twice as far away, the earth is flat, and its always noon and so the whole flat world is the equator at noon-time.

The dubious assumption also takes no account whatsoever of imbedded energy in the oceans or in the entire planet.

Everything is wrong with this assumption. Everything about this assumption is unscientific. So this particular paradigm, which goes in many stages, isn’t getting past its first assumption. The Watts Per Square Metre paradigm manifests as a series of steps. The first step being this radiative-physics assumption.


But it just gets worse from there for the standard watts per square metre paradigm. The doubling of C02 cannot be assumed to increase temperature by 1 degrees because of some sort of IMMUTABLE UNQUESTIONABLE PHYSICS OF SPECTROSCOPY. But at stage two of this paradigm matters get even more dubious.

Because while, on the instantaneous level, water vapour is a greenhouse gas…. What the water vapour is really doing is conveying energy out into space. So anyone not taking a mentally-deranged instantaneous-snapshot, of the matter, will realise that resultant increased water vapour is a NEGATIVE-feedback, rather than a POSITIVE-feedback…….. to whatever the CO2 is going to do initially.

The process of wind whipping along the ocean and creating water vapour is a process of REFRIGERATION.


This is why this pandemic of lying continues. Because the skeptical side of the argument knows that the other guys are wrong (since thats what the empirical evidence says)…. But the situation can’t progress, because the political motivation of the committed leftist liars has so “polluted the air” (as it were), that no-one will dare putting up alternative paradigms to the hairbrained standard model.


Well what can we do?

We can start by emailing the lying institutions. I just emailed the CSIRO. They have an enquiry email. They also have an enquiry phone-line.

My enquiry was whether or not they could stop lying about global warming.

I included a ridiculous amount of swear-words because I was thinking of how these goons are preventing us from getting serious about our energy-production problems, which can only lead to mass-death, if not here than overseas.

The CSIRO thanked my for my enquiry. And they promised they would get back to me in two working days.


Here’s a history of peoples thinking on this matter. Nowhere in this history do we find this fabled initial 1 degrees Fareheit increase for a CO2-doubling. Its just a rumour. Its a myth. And people ought to stop repeating it on both sides of the argument. Nowhere in this history can we even find any indication that such a determination could be made:



  1. graeme
    harrassing a govt agency is not a good idea, they might sic the police onto you

  2. Yeah but think of the publicity.

    They won’t do squat. Because this is just a way of letting them know that the rest of us are onto them now.

    The best thing would be for thousands of people to harrass them on the basis that they cannot arrest them all.

    These parastical scum have been lying. And now they need to know that they’ve been found out.l

  3. The comment above might be more convincing if there were actually an argument that the physics is wrong, and that the physicists have got the physics of CO2’s “greenhouse” effect wrong. But there is not such an argument.

  4. Yes there is. Its wrong from the start. I just listed a bunch of reasons why it was a wrong assumption from the start. It assumes that the air particles are static. That the suns rays are constant. So it would only be valid in a situation where it was noontime all the time. It doesn’t assume days and night. Its a totally crap assumption for starters. And thats the starting point of the watts-per-square metre model.

    Its a model whose simplifying assumptions negate it right from the start. And yet we have skeptics claiming its established science.

  5. Look where do they get this one degree from Petard? They are fooling themselves. How can you do it on a worldwide-watts basis when the situation is about night and day? You’ve got this extra CO2 that blocks a thin slice of the spectrum. But the temperature is always changing moving the air molecules in and out of the range where the (extra) CO2 could have any effect. And they just average out every damn thing the whole world over and come up with this 1 degree of farenheit. This is not science and its only the first step in the process!??

    I’ve seen the spectroscopy guys trying to show some effect of the change. But in the example I saw they didn’t lable their axis clearly, they had a misleading colour codiing, and whatever the effect was they could only show it pictorially in the stratosphere. So where is this bipartisan claim coming from?

    Its a pretty poor showing on both sides of the fence if you ask me.

  6. What are you lying about now Mark. I’m not going to let you lie to third parties.

    You have claimed that I”ve got some new idea about thermodynamics.

    You aren’t allowed to tell lies here like you can Catallaxy.

    Jason encourages this sort of lying for consensus ideas that he priviledges. I forbid it outright. I’m telling you that since your last post combines implied lies I’m going to wipe it and every post where you try that on.

    I’ll leave it there for awhile so that people can get to look at it and then I’ll wipe.

    You can do a lot of stuff here but lying is not one of them.

  7. MARK


    Get used to it.

    “You have claimed that I”ve got some new idea about thermodynamics.”

    I already TOLD YOU what you were lying about.

    Now you are not allowed to tell lies.

    I have no new ideas on the laws of thermodynamics.

    You lied about that.


    You can lie all you want at Catallaxy.

    Thats encouraged.


    What was the point of asking me what you were lying about when I already told you and you already knew.

    Have you got it sorted now?

    You can tell lies at Catallaxy.

    But you cannot tell them here.

  8. I’m not challenging the laws of thermodynamics Mark. Now you are lying and you can only do that at Catallaxy. This is the third time you’ve lied and claimed that I”m challenging the laws of thermodynamics.

  9. You can do a lot of things on this site but what you cannot do is tell lies. I have not ever put up a new theory of thermodynamics.

    No lies Mark. And no gay-homosexual stuff the rest of you.

  10. No Mark.

    YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO LIE ON THIS SITE. JASON ENCOURAGES LYING. ITS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN HERE. I have nothing to add to the laws of thermodynamics and have never challenged them.

  11. Once again. There is a straight prohibition on lying on this site. Either directly or by implication.

    This is what Mark would do always at cattallaxy. Once a thread of doom was to hand he’d show up an confuse everyone by this relentless recourse to lying by implication.

  12. I’ve already TOLD you how you are lying by implication. So you are lying again by making the claim that I haven’t told you.



  13. First you lied three times claiming that I disagreed with the laws of thermodynamics. Then you lied again making the claim that I hadn’t told you what you lied about.

    Now its not too much to ask that you don’t lie on this site. It might come as a shock to you being how this behaviour is actually encouraged at Catallaxy.

    But the fact is its zero tolerance when it comes to lying on this site.

  14. How can you prove I lied when you won’t show any of my responses?

  15. I don’t need to prove you lied. You just have to stop lying. You didn’t lie this time so within reason the comment can stay.

  16. You are not understanding this. I don’t have to show you jack. You just have to stop lying. And I don’t accept that “you don’t think you lied…” which is why that last post isn’t slipping under the net either.

  17. The main problem here is that Peter D appears to have lied. He may not have. But just look at it. He reckons I’ve got it wrong and when I go to ask him about it we find he’s got nothing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: