Just to be clear, my conclusion is that Richard is on to something. I just investigated what he wrote and concluded it is all 100% factual and relevant… … just like everything else I have deeply looked into that he wrote so far, lol.
Ahh so now you make a judgement of whether my thirst for knowledge is genuine or not. But what do you base this judgement upon?
But how do you know what I have “searched and found”? I see I initially reached out to Vineeto about this topic around March 8th, and I’ve spent a ton of time looking into it since then. You don’t know the articles I’ve read, the papers I’ve read, the questions and comments I’ve posted on various blogs, the authors of papers that I’ve reached out to, the books I’ve read, the discussions I’ve had with Vineeto on this, etc…
So, your judgment is based on an incorrect assumption that I only looked into it superficially.
But you don’t know that I didn’t do that, you just assumed I didn’t. For example, I posted a question called " Has the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually been experimentally verified?" on the skeptics stackexchange. It got 4 downvotes and is now deleted:
The stated deletion reason is that the question doesn’t challenge a notable claim! As that is patently absurd - AGW is certainly a notable claim - and I even updated the question to specifically address what was obviously implicit – then it’s clear the deletion reason was something else… namely that I was challenging the groupthink. And the response to challenging the groupthink is to get shut down, downvoted, condescended upon, and cancelled. If I had a job in the field I would be fired like Peter Ridd was.
Here are some samplings from the comment section (that I can still view from my account):
Question: […] Further there’s a possible issue of the model having the Sun essentially be a constant diffuse light everywhere, as opposed to a small powerful light source in the sky. To show that this can matter significantly, it will help to understand that you can’t burn paper with moonlight and a magnifying glass. To put it differently, if the Sun is out and the temperature of a patch of ground is 30°C, you could still use magnifying glasses to burn a piece of paper on this patch of ground, because the magnifying glasses can ‘expand’ the ‘small’ image of the sun to look bigger, such as to surround a spot of Earth with the high-intensity sun, thus causing a paper to be able to reach 220°C+ and ignite. […]
Oddthinking: Magnifying glasses don’t “enlarge” the sun.
Which, of course, they do, lol.
Oddthinking: The Sun doesn’t heat the Earth less during “night”.
Amazing.
Oddthinking: No-one expects the toy model, used for teaching, to be accurate - that is a strawman.
He is saying the +33°C calculated by the simple model is not accurate! Yet the IPCC thinks it is accurate enough to base everything upon it…
Oddthinking: I suggest you don’t use the word ‘skeptic’ to describe denialists while you are here.
i.e. name-calling to shut down the conversation.
Oddthinking: But simply pointing to a thermometer in a glasshouse in someone’s garden seems to pretty much wipe out most of those claims.
i.e. pointing to how an actual greenhouse works, which is completely and 100% well-understood that it does not work according to the atmospheric greenhouse effect, but rather by preventing convective cooling.
Oddthinking: I don’t think we should delve too deep into tackling this problem, down at the OP’s level.
i.e. condescension.
Jiminy Cricket: What would constitute an experiment? Presumably you’d want a laboratory large enough for a solar system.
i.e. he is implying it’s not possible to prove the effect with an experiment, i.e it’s not falsifiable.
Dave: [in response to the question title, ‘Has the atmospheric greenhouse effect actually been experimentally verified?’] Yes. youtu.be/ueB3TONpv8Y
i.e. he links to a YouTube video with no control, no demonstration, no laboratory setup, just some jars and a graph, which is reproducing an experiment that fraudulently purports to explain the greenhouse effect when it’s actually a property of the differing thermal conductivity of gases: link to a German site debunking it, and document of the same:
Die falschen KLima Propheten.docx (1.4 MB)
(Try DeepL to translate.)
Mark: I would argue that there is nothing capable of completely settling denialist arguments regarding the second law, or any other issue. Most of the deniers are basing their objections on (often intentionally) misunderstood science, rather than any real questions about physics.
i.e. name-calling and outright dismissing any questions about the standard narrative of global warming as not being “real questions about physics”.
In short, the reception and treatment I got here for asking a genuine question about demonstrating the greenhouse effect, is essentially the same that Richard got in 2006… so nothing much has changed in 17 years.
Here is an example of the state of peer review in climate science: - Bishop Hill blog - More evidence of gatekeeping .
And also: Why Everyone Should Be A Climate Skeptic – haakonsk's blog .
It’s not clear why one would expect a different response individually contacting the “experts” than more of the same of what has been presented above.
Yet I did do so – so your conclusion is invalid:
Further, as you cannot know what others will think, here you are stating that everyone should think what you think – that the value of what I’ve presented here is equivalent to “that of a scientist presenting his supposed discoveries or reasoning to the consideration of laymen and being satisfied for not finding flaws”.
As you wrote that I “should expose your ideas to those who have the time, the knowledge and the will to analyze them properly”, and you are one of the people on the forum that I have exposed my ideas to, you are essentially saying that you yourself do not have “the time, knowledge, and the will to analyze them properly”.
As you have not analyzed my ideas, nor do you think you are capable of or even perhaps want to analyze my ideas, and nor apparently have you submitted them to “hundreds of experts” to have them analyze it for you, in essence you have pre-judged them as wrong, and incorrect, or at the very least essentially valueless, and you haven’t based this judgement on the merits of the ideas at all nor taken any steps to back this judgement up with anything at all (as far as I can tell).
The salient question then, is: what did you base this judgement on?
It appears the solitary thing you based it on is that you presume the “experts” and “peer-reviewed scientific journals” (presumably you would only accept experts that are climate scientists/climatologists and not any of the other various scientists) all would say that the ideas are wrong. In other words, you’re making an appeal to authority.
But if the ideas are correct… then you already know that that very authority would reject them out of hand, because their livelihoods depend on it, e.g.:
WASHINGTON, September 7, 2022 – The World Bank Group delivered a record $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022 (FY22) to help countries address climate change. This is a 19% increase from the $26.6 billion all-time high in financing reached in the previous fiscal year.
Climate Finance | $31.7 billion in fiscal year 2022.
( Dave Chappelle gave an excellent personal anecdote relating to this point, see this video between 4:03 to 8:03: https://youtu.be/EJJ-Pu8WsZU?t=243 )
Not only that, but these same authorities want to go from billions of funding to trillions of funding! I’m not making this up, here is the Secretary General of the United Nations speaking at the World Economic Forum in 2023:
The battle to keep the 1.5 degree limit alive will be won or lost in this decade. On our watch. […] We must act together to close the emissions gap. […] The developed world must finally deliver on its $100 billion climate finance commitment to support developing countries. […] our climate goals also need the full engagement of the private sector. […] I call on all corporate leaders to act on it. Put forward credible and transparent transition plans on how to achieve net zero […] Finally, what is true about private sector engagement on climate applies across a range of challenges. […] Government action is critical – but it’s not enough. We must find avenues to boost the private sector’s ability to play its full role for good.
In many ways, the private sector is leading. Governments need to create the adequate regulatory and stimulus environment to support it.
And business models and practices must be reworked to advance the Sustainable Development Goals [1]. Without creating the conditions for the massive engagement of the private sector, it will be impossible to move from the billions to trillions needed [emphasis added] to achieve the SDGs.
Now would these people really accept an idea, no matter how correct, that the very basis of the trillions of funding they desire and may very well get, is totally fictitious? Of course not… you already knew they wouldn’t when you wrote what you did.
So what are we left to do? We can either embrace the peasant mentality and trust the authorities that we’re all in good hands even though they want to reduce the world’s standard of living to back how it was at pre-industrial times…
Or we can come to our senses, critically evaluate using what we know to be facts, and stick to those facts, no matter how many experts or authorities may disagree with them.
Just think… how many psychological and psychiatric experts would say that actual freedom from the human condition is impossible, or actually a medical illness? We all know the answer… 100% of them. How many spiritualists would say that actual freedom is just a poor and incomplete Enlightenment or a delusion or a wrong view? Again we know the answer… 100% of them.
Should we just believe them all and give up and ignore what our PCEs factually tell us?
Everyone must choose for themselves, but … I know my answer .
Goal 7: “Ensure access to reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all.”
Goal 13: “Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.”
THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development . ↩︎