Richard made a new post on the new Global Warming “Facts (Actuality) and Groupthink (Orthodoxy)” page: Global Warming .
He goes through the flat earth and blackbody math, although in a funnier way than I did 
.
I didn’t quite get this part tho:
RICHARD: Furthermore, no externally heated substance – be it heated by conduction (direct transference from the heat source), by convection (heated gases rising and mingling and mixing with sinking cooler gases), or by radiation (via the heat source emitting infrared light) – can raise the temperature of its heat-source (other than all the phantom planets in the quantum[1] solar system, that is, which are busily raising the surface temperature of its central star above 5778° K via a massive-scale variant version of this phantasmagorical ‘back-radiation’).
I mean I understand that no externally-heated substance can make the source hotter.
If you put hot coffee in a thermos, the coffee warms the thermos walls but the thermos walls don’t make the coffee hotter than when you put it in.
I thought a better example would be if you have say a tall thin metal pot on a stovetop with coffee in it. At a certain temperature setting the coffee will be say 20C. Then if you wrap the pot in insulating material, the coffee inside will end up hotter, say 25C, because less heat is escaping. But that’s only possible if the stovetop was hotter than 25C. If the stovetop was at 20C then the temperature would have been lower than 20C in the initial configuration due to heat loss, or if the coffee inside already were 20C then that means it’s already perfectly insulated and more insulation won’t do anything lol.
I suppose the point is that if the incoming Sun’s energy is really at a temperature equivalent of -18C as the flat-earth model says, then no amount of insulation on the Earth can make the Earth hotter than -18C (i.e, such that the temperature coming from the sky is now 15C instead of -18C), so the flat-earth blackbody model of trace gas radiative forcing doesn’t even make sense on the face of it (i.e. it doesn’t even really matter that the 99% of the atmosphere is radiating IR back to the surface as well).
It seems too simple an argument to be correct on the face of it haha. But I can’t find any convincing counter-examples in real life that would demonstrate the point. I can make a mathematical equation that results in that it should heat up, and complicated hypothetical examples involving flames and lasers, batteries, perfectly insulating glass walls, etc…, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct or reflects reality…
In any case I think I may have reached the “good enough” point for me for now. It’s become clear it’s a lot more important and relevant to be happy and harmless, and enjoy and appreciate being alive, which eventuates a reveling in delicious intimacy with my partner (as opposed to resentful distancing), which is a lot more fun, and whether humans are causing the Earth to heat or not is not really the primary concern, although the arguments (that the model which demonstrates this is flawed) are at the very least certainly not “bad arguments”, certainly so far they make sense and I can’t disprove them… indeed so much so that I would call them “good” arguments 
.
Mr. Werner Heisenberg, of the uncertainty principle fame, dispensed with the main plank of science – causality (cause and effect) – altogether:
• ‘The law of causality is no longer applied in quantum theory’. (page 88, ‘Physics and Philosophy, the Revolution in Modern Science’, by Werner Heisenberg; ©1966 Harper and Row, New York). ↩︎