Latest Study Confirms No Atmospheric Warming from Carbon Dioxide
PSI think tank publishes more evidence refuting man-made global warming and announces ambitious expansion plans in war against government-sponsored junk science.
In a press statement John O'Sullivan, spokesman for Principia Scientific International (March 13, 2012) announced, “Today we proudly present both the publication of a new study debunking the unproven claims by discredited government climatologists plus seventeen new recruits to our growing team of qualified experts.”
The PSI frontman added that the new study by Douglas Cotton was completed as part of pioneering new peer-review system called 'PROM' (or 'Peer Review in Open Media'). Cotton's paper ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics’ defly approaches the concept of the greenhouse gas effect from the point of view of radiative transfer.[ 1]
Doug Cotton is yet another scientist showing that carbon dioxide in the atmoshere plays an insignificant role in resonating against a small percentage of the total surface emission. His paper proves that the 0.05 deg.C / decade long-term trend observed on Earth by satellites and other temperature measuring devices is entirely within natural bounds. “There is absolutely no sign of any effect from CO2, not even 0.01 deg.C/decade. Just zero” said Doug.
The new PSI recruit added,“It's important to highlight the difference between thinking of a barrage of equal photons, compared with a picket fence (just a few spectral emission lines) from CO2 up against the flood of all frequencies coming from the surface. “
Open Media Peer Review: the Future of Science Publishing?
What is unique here is that the pioneering 'peer review in open media' (PROM) requires authors to be responsive to real time criticisms and suggestions from fellow scientists who, as reviewers, share notes and suggest improvements while third parties can watch as it happens.
Cotton's paper was put online and discussed among a panel of reviewers from various diverse disciplines for several weeks. This is the key to PSI's more robust assessment. “It's far better when outside experts add their voice to the review process, as was recommended by the Oxburgh Report (2010).” For those who don't recall the British government commissioned a panel of experts to evaluate evidence of misconduct by climatologists after the 'Climategate' scandal. The Report recommended more reviews by outside experts.
The PROM system addresses that need and encourages a real-time dialog between author and reviewers ensuring that feedback is heeded and acted upon. “This is the way more science should be done in this age of instant high-speed document transfer,” adds O'Sullivan. “The author got invaluable input from his reviewers and he acted upon the feedback he got, plus the reviewers were able to satisfy themselves of the validity of Doug's research because they saw precisely how the author collated his evidence and substantiated his findings.”
In a series of email exchanges the four reviewers, Dr. Matthias Kleespies (environmental scientist), Alan Siddons (radiochemist), Hans Schreuder (analytical chemist, ret.) and Professor Claes Johnson (applied mathematics) ensured that expertize from various scientific disciplines was applied constructively and thoroughly, unusual for the assessment of climate science papers.
Recognizing PSI is gaining a reputation for quality and integrity in an age of 'post-normal' government science, seventeen new members have added their names to this organisation's campaign for a return to tradiational scientific values. Those values extol openess and full verifiability.
Seventeen Additional Experts Join New Science Body
An upbeat Schreuder insists that these seventeen new recruits provide tangible evidence of the momentum PSI was now generating. [2.]
He emphasized, “We are seeing clear battle lines being drawn between the defenders of the traditional scientific method - that demands open experiment and rigorous testing - versus the murky world of post-normalism where science is done behind closed doors and evidence is hidden making it almost impossible to independently verify if standards are being compromised.”
PSI is sending out a clear message that it has no faith in the current discredited system employed by mainstream science journals that are perceived as increasingly politicised. It does seem there are more principled scientists willing and able to shine the light of reason onto post-normalism and papers like Cotton’s add to that luminosity. “If we can get the politics out of science then sanity has a chance to return,” opined O'Sullivan.
A Policy Statement addressing the thorny issue of 'post-normalism' can be found on the Principia Scientific International website. It's accompanied by an invitation to all concerned scientists to add their voice - either in a passive or proactive capacity - to the campaign for a return to old fashioned scientific values.
[1.] Cotton, D., ‘Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics,’ (March 12, 2012), Principia Scientific International (principia-scientific.org)
[2.] Alberto Miatello; Ulric Lyons; Dr.Gerald V. Todd; Joe Bastardi; Louis A.G Hissink; Dr. Jinan Cao; Ken Coffman; Dr. James O. Coles III; Dr. Dev Dangol; Dr. Klaus L.E. Kaiser; Robert Webster; Kevin 'K'; Robert Ashworth; Dr. Geraldo Luís Lino;Berthold Klein; Alan Caruba; Dr. Matthias Kleespies.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/Earth-s_Climate_Engine.pdf
www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/slaying-the-slayers-with-the-alabama-two-step/
So, it is by omission that N2 and O2 are not listed as GHGs (see Wikipedia), how convenient. The focus is thus on CO2 and H2O.
If all of the atmosphere is IR active, how can a bit player like CO2 have any detectable effect. It obviates the whole "how much effect does CO2 have" question. Let's now ask about all of the gases.
What this does do is make the IR interaction of the atmosphere essentially a constant, or perhaps decreasing a tiny bit with CO2 being the weakest of all the interactions. Hmmmm. that's what the satellites find with the IR flux over the last 40 years.
It also means that other natural factors are in control.
Doesn't this just make the most plain sense possible, after all?
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere at much less than 1 percent concentration. O2 occupies 21 percent, while N2is 77 percent. The heat-trapping capacity of any volume of gas is dependent upon the molecular characteristic of the component gases to vibrate in response to thermal excitation and vibrate to retain that energy. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, at present prevailing atmospheric conditions, is already at or very near its maximum heat-retention threshold. This is CO2's frequency absorption spectrum.
Bring these principles up in a discussion with global warming alarmist and propagandists and they go on a personal attack, completely ignoring the physical science that is crucial to supporting (or refuting) their claims.
This is where the truth hurts them and run away screaming from it. It's funny to watch, but unfortunately, a segment of the public still buys the rubbish that is dangled in front of their faces.
Every year we see more and more completely useless degrees being created so cretins like this man can have a platform for their ideas.
1984, A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World, and some titles I've forgotten. When I read them I never thought I'd find myself in a world where people wanted them to be reality rather than the warnings they were meant to be.
This is tantamount to curing cancer by killing the patient. Oh, sorry . . . the patient didn't actually HAVE cancer? Oh, well....
Hello warmists!
As for the quotes above, it appears someone hijacked my name and played a trick on you (and me). I would never make claims about working in engineering as I never have.
I did notice that Derecho64 was also in that thread and have had issues with him in the past.
None of those abusive or ridiculous claims were made by me.
I know you are no warmist. it appears someone has been having some fun with me.
Now back to sanity.
Nice Pete. I don't care for being smeared.
Good night.
Who I am does not matter.
Ad hominems are squashed when there is no man to attack.
Good night.
However, having spent time in the past on other blogs with Ridley and Co, I shall not respond to the type of irrelevant questions he tends to pose which clearly indicate his lack of understanding of the key points in this paper.
I will state, however, that, like most members of Principia Scientific International I am not a "Slayer" though that does not mean that I disagree (or agree) with any particular points made by any particular authors of the book. I will state, though, that Prof Claes Johnson and I are in complete agreement that radiated energy is not converted to thermal energy when it meets a traget which is warmer than the source of emission, this belief being in accord with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and classical physics relating to objects with measurable temperature, as per Reference [2] in the paper.