All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2024 - Jim Fetzer
35:56
Sky Dragon Slaying - January 21, 2024
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
talk to us now and go to the tnt radio interactive live chat room at tnt radio.live Lighting the fuse for freedom.
Today's news talk radio, TNT.
Using science to debunk myths.
From the pandemic to climate fraud.
Thanks for listening to Sky Dragon Slang on TNT Radio.
Hi, welcome to another episode of Sky Dragon Slaying, where we bring you your truth on science and current affairs the mainstream would rather you wouldn't know.
I'm John O'Sullivan, CEO of Principia Scientific International.
Joining me as usual is Canadian astrophysicist Joe Postma.
Now, I showed your guest couldn't make it, but Joe and I have got plenty of material to cover today because things have been happening for Joe.
Joe, for those who follow the show regularly, know he was A serious professional scientist, astrophysicist working for the University of Calgary.
And in his spare time, Joe's been writing books and doing everything he can to get across his interpretation of the errors in climate science and pretty profound stuff.
And, you know, he like like many of us who have talked about the climate fraud, he's had a lot of pushback.
And like many of us, he's had to pay a price.
He paid the ultimate price because his employment at the University of Calgary was terminated.
Now, that's caused him real hardship.
You know, that's a very unpleasant thing to do.
He's got a young family to support and it's very hard and, you know, our thoughts go out to him.
Joe, we've not taken time to spend, you know, any dedicated time talking about your situation.
But, you know, it's a sad story.
And, you know, it does typify the situation for a lot of people on our side of the fence who put truth above everything else.
You know, you you're not a money, you're not a gold digger.
You're like me.
You know, you put principles before profit.
And, you know, it was gut wrenching when you finally got termination because before you were terminated, you stood up to all the lockdown narrative.
You know, you defied your university.
Mandates for, you know, all the nonsense about masking up and what you can and can't do.
You're out of a few cages.
And again, you know, your persona non grata, you know, you were not conforming with the narrative.
And as we know, universities, every education institution in the West seems to be very much in lockstep with government policy.
Now, just give us, first of all, a joke, just a summary of what you've had to go through this past year.
Well, you know, a lot of people, when I relate this story to them, they say, well, wait a minute, I thought that universities were a place of intellectualism and free debate.
I mean, nothing could be further from the truth these days, and it's been that way for several decades now.
They are not places of free debate.
They are not institutions of learning and free inquiry.
They are the most backwardly conservative.
I mean, when people criticize conservatives for being backward, That's usually because they're talking about real people, you know, flyover country, who simply have family values, as if that's backward.
No, no.
These people in university are the most backwardly conservative people you could imagine, and they're backwardly conservative in the actual definition of that term, in that they hate free inquiry, they hate free speech, They hate having their ideas challenged, and it's not over trivial scientific issues either.
It's over important society-wide issues, such as climate change, climate change policy, which is going to affect all of our lives, right?
And so, yeah, when you push back against that, they don't like it, and they will come up with whatever excuse they want.
You write a book about it, they can just say, oh, this book contains harassment, and you can be like, well, what's harassing about it?
I'm just pointing out what's wrong with your science and I'm expressing my own frustration with what I'm facing because the issue should be so trivial to discuss and it should be a topic to discuss but there's a political narrative that the system, the academic system, wants to maintain and they will not We'll not question it.
So I really discovered through all this, you know, I started with you, John, over 10 years ago.
It's, what, 13 years ago now, right?
I met you and, you know, back then the group was just called The Slayers, right, on this issue of what is the basis of this whole climate change debate?
Where does that start, right?
So as a scientist, well, you do due diligence and a lot of scientists don't do this, which is very strange.
They go to the political arguments and they go to the precautionary principle arguments.
They say, well, if it's true, we really need to do it.
It's like, OK, but, you know, we generally in science reject the precautionary principle because it can be used for any manner of absurd things.
Now, of course, in science, academia, You mostly have atheists there, so you would just use the precautionary principle of religion on them and say, well, OK, you're an atheist, but there's a lot of people out there who say that Jesus is true and you really better believe in it because that's going to have long term consequences for you.
Right.
So is an atheist going to accept that precautionary argument to be religious, to believe in Jesus?
They're going to reject it.
Right.
but for some reason they think that the precautionary argument, just as carte blanche applies all the time with the climate change issue.
And so the point of that is that you go to first principles.
You go and do your due diligence as a scientist, and you don't use the precautionary principle, and you don't use the political arguments and the threats that the planet is going to boil, right?
They're calling it global boiling as if the oceans are going to boil.
It's just also absurd, right?
They're using these alarmist arguments.
That's why it's called climate alarmism, because they use these alarming arguments that you get from the precautionary principle, just like the way you get from, you know, for example, Christianity or Islam or Judaism or any religion.
You better believe this because there's really bad, severe consequences if you don't.
And so what do you do?
Well, you ask for the evidence.
So that's what You had been doing and you had started with Hans Schreuder and several other scientists with your work with the Slayers and your What was your book called, John?
Slaying the Sky Dragon.
Yeah, Slaying the Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.
It's a bit of a long winded title, but we wanted to mix it up a little bit, have a bit of drama.
Because again, it's so over dramatized, isn't it?
So we thought, well, we'll play that game a little bit with Slaying the Sky Dragon.
But the key element of what we were doing is we were debunking the cornerstone of climate alarmism, which is the greenhouse gas theory.
And we've had a multiplicity of reasons why it's not valid, and you came along with a novel approach.
What you did that was unique, that added to our work, Well, as you define very neatly this concept of the flat Earth principle, the equations used to substantiate the so-called... We've got a number, haven't we?
33 degrees is what the alarmists say is the temperature raised by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
They say without the atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler.
And what you did, you know, very ingeniously, but as you say, quite trivially, because it's a basic physics problem.
You pointed out that they were modeling the Earth as a flat plane, one-dimensional.
And reality is that the Earth is two-dimensional, or three-dimensional, it rotates, it has night and day.
And they didn't want to factor that in because, again, that was more complex when the theory was first elucidated, you know, back in a hundred years ago.
There were no mainframe computers to model the Earth, the complexity as we know.
But we can do that now.
And not only that, we've got other data as well.
We've got a whole host of data.
But they kind of are stuck in a time warp.
They want to stick to these back of an envelope calculations.
It's nonsensical, isn't it?
It really is a flat Earth thinking.
Well, that's what I valued about your specific approach was that you're going to the basis because there's so much debate about minutiae, right?
And it was absurd because some people would be getting so mad at each other.
That some people were saying that the warming was going to be one degree versus others saying that it's going to be 1.5 degrees and they would just get irate over the difference and it's like oh my gosh come on let's go to first principles and figure out who is correct what is the real basic physics how do you work this out from from the outset what is the underlying principles of the physics involved right now is where you had went With the greenhouse effect.
So right away, I was like, perfect.
That's where we need to go.
We need to go and understand what this greenhouse effect is, because that's what it's all predicated on.
Right?
And so that was where the first principles are found and where the underlying physics is found, as everyone knows the narrative.
Why is climate change happening?
Because of the greenhouse effect.
Why is global warming happening?
Because of this greenhouse effect.
Great.
What is the greenhouse effect?
What is that then?
And how does it work?
And so yeah, you find that it comes out of, and I know that this sounds absurd, you know, I've written several books on it now, um, just demonstrating it and you can find the references easily.
It comes with a flat earth model and it's said, it's, it's claimed to be that this is just a simple representative model of the earth and shows a basic way to do an energy input output analysis for the earth.
Okay, well the question is, here's a question from Philosophy.
If your founding premises are flawed, what happens to any concluding extrapolations you make from those premises, right?
So, if you have a fundamental flaw in your initial premises, what happens downstream to everything you conclude from those premises or from those initial axioms, right?
Well, they're likewise going to be flawed.
They're going to contain the original flaw, right?
And you're going to conclude something, extrapolate something, which simply has no Connection to reality because the initial premises didn't have anything to do with reality.
And so this greenhouse effect really is derived from Flat Earth Theory.
Now, one retort that you get often is that, oh, climate scientists know what they're doing and they do model the Earth as around it.
That's fine if in the global climate circulation models they're doing around Earth.
That's fine.
That's accepted.
The point is the greenhouse effect concept itself Which is then inserted into those spherical models.
The origin of the greenhouse effect concept in climate, that specifically does come from these flat earth models.
And so does it make a difference?
Yeah, I can tell you.
I've written five books on it now.
About the difference that it makes.
The difference that it makes is that when you model the earth is flat, the way that the math works out for that, this is, you know, premise leading to conclusion, the way that the math works out when you treat the earth as a flat plane, the whole earth, not just a small section, but the whole earth, the whole earth surface is treated as a flat plane.
What happens in the math is that sunshine heating is reduced to minus 18 degrees Celsius.
That's a mathematical extrapolation.
It's been demonstrated so many times.
It's in all the diagrams.
So when you do that flat earth approximation, sunshine heating is only minus 18 degrees Celsius.
Well, people, what happens if sunshine is only minus 18 degrees Celsius?
You can't explain the origin of the climate then, can you?
Why do we have a temperate warm climate and especially warmth around the equator if the sun, if the solar heating is only minus 18 degrees Celsius?
Then that is where the greenhouse effect is invented.
They come up with this idea of a greenhouse effect and they say that it's the atmosphere which reflects heat back and amplifies the heat and amplifies the temperature.
OK, fine.
That's your premise, right?
Or that's their extrapolation.
That's their conclusion, given their initial premise.
So what I did is I said, you know, that looks like it doesn't actually follow thermodynamic law because the atmosphere is generally cooler than the Earth's surface and you cannot actually have heat flow from the cold atmosphere back to the warmer surface.
That's not something that's really possible in thermodynamics.
Also, other things that aren't possible in thermodynamics is heat trapping.
That's not a concept.
That heat trapping is an idea that goes back to 1850 in the phlogiston theory, where they thought that heat was a substance that can be trapped.
It's not.
Heat is a transient phenomenon.
It's like a verb.
It's an action.
It's the action of raising a body's temperature.
But it is not a force or substance or entity thing that can be trapped.
So when they use that language, that's poor language.
It's simply not a possibility.
So I said, let's Let's instead of having this basic model where we have a flat earth, why not just draw a circle, you know, as a representative of a sphere for the earth and do our energy budget model with that.
And when you do that, when you draw the earth as a sphere, now you're, now you have it.
So that's going to be my initial premise.
So their initial premise is draw the earth as a flat plane.
The extrapolated conclusion is that the sun is only minus 18 degrees Celsius worth of heating and therefore can't create the climate.
Okay.
That's their paradigm, right?
So I said, let's draw the earth as a circle, which is a representative of a sphere.
And let's see how the math for the sun works out in that case.
And amazingly, the math works out for the sun, that the sun, the solar heating is 121 degrees Celsius on the earth.
And that is actually what's measured as well.
Right?
When you go to the moon and you have a temperature sensor on the moon where there's no atmosphere in the way, you're just getting a direct sunlight.
That's what you measure.
120 degrees Celsius.
If you're in space, in orbit, like in the space shuttle and you have a temperature sensor there, that's what you measure, plus 121 degrees Celsius worth of heating.
So that's actually consistent now, theory is consistent with empiricism.
When you go up in space, you do not measure that the solar heating is only minus 18 degrees Celsius, that's not what's measured, but that's what their, you know, flat Earth model implies or would imply or requires.
So anyway, when you treat the Earth as a sphere, as a circle, then you get the math working out for what actually happens.
Solar heating is plus 121 degrees Celsius on the Earth.
And now ask yourself, is that enough heating?
Is that strong enough to create the climate?
Well, yeah, it is.
That's enough heating to create the climate.
That also explains why it's hot around the equator and cooler at the poles, right?
They just have a unit on their flat earth model.
They have a uniform minus 18 degrees Celsius heating from the sun over the whole planet.
Well, that doesn't make sense.
We all know that it's hotter at the equator, colder at the poles.
Well, if you draw a sphere, if you, you know, use a circle or a sphere for the Earth, then that's what you get.
You get a hot equator, you get cold poles, and then you get enough heating power from the sun coming in to create the climate in the first place.
Now, Isn't that an important distinction in how, in a basic model, in a basic understanding, or a basic approach to understanding the climate?
You know, my approach with a spherical Earth and the circle drawn for the Earth on the paper results in math that shows that the Sun can create the climate.
Versus the flat Earth approach which says and concludes that the Sun can't create the climate.
I mean, that's a binary difference, right?
That's an important fundamental difference.
And they will not have that conversation.
John, I think we've got to go, but I'd like to continue that because I'd like to discuss with the audience what was then found after I presented that to the academic community.
Yeah, you're listening to TNT Radio.
TNT's Darren Denslow.
Yeah, I'm talking about the illness.
Actually, that has been doing the rhymes.
Not have we only seen a mass influx of people waving their COVID tests online.
Look, I've got a red line!
It's like, oh my God.
or people trying to encourage others to wear their masks.
But there has been a talk of a dry cough.
There have been doctors coming out.
We've seen loads of cases of that.
Have you been suffering from a bit of cough and flu or cold?
Or COVID?
COVID.
I just did my eighth test.
And I'm just going to keep doing it until I get lines and lines.
Why?
Why?
Well, because work's coming back up, isn't it?
Dig in deeper with D.D. Denslow on today's News Talk TNT.
From weather and traffic reports.
To news of political developments.
We turn to journalists for the information we need to live our daily lives. .
Journalists around the world provide the news that is essential for democracy, for personal freedom, and for safety and stability.
Yet their ability to report freely and safely is under attack like never before.
Democratists are playing with their lives.
They face exponential risks and they've already paid a heavy toll.
Death threats, online harassment, and physical attacks are becoming a daily experience of journalists in all countries.
Absolutely.
We just want people to be safe, to be able to get our readers the information that they need to make informed decisions.
They checked my phone and realized that it was Pegasus.
I feel myself like I'm naked in the street.
These charges were politicized from the start.
Facts win.
Truth wins.
Justice wins.
Stand with a free press.
Stand with journalists whose reporting won't be silenced.
Press freedom is your freedom.
CO2 sustains all life on Earth.
But now, it's in long-term decline.
We face the return of an ice age.
We mandate that the truth be told.
Today's News Talk Radio, TNT.
Yeah, the topic we're discussing today, to help out Alex, we're talking about the bogus greenhouse gas theory.
And what we did is during the break, Joe, we mentioned some anecdotes that actually would help people who are not scientists to comprehend where we're coming from.
Because, again, I always relate it back to my teachings as a schoolteacher.
I taught for nearly 20 years as a high school teacher and most children don't get it.
When you explain it very simply, you know, and demonstrate in reality what we see, then they can kind of grasp that the academics are not really making sense.
And one of the things I like to point out is this concept of if the greenhouse gas theory says the sun is too cold and it's the atmosphere that warms the earth, Then why is it when the sun goes behind a cloud, we feel suddenly cooler?
And again, conversely, when you have a cloudy day and the sun comes out, all of a sudden it feels very bright.
You know if you step into the shade on a hot sunny day, you're cooler.
And if it was the atmosphere heating us, it wouldn't matter if you were in the shade or not.
And, you know, when I first was trying to, you know, explain to children I was teaching this kind of concept, I knew then I was, you know, peddling a lie.
I was paid to teach this global warming nonsense, Joe.
Yeah.
And the more I talk to people about it, they come up with their own analogies.
And again, it's like the idea of when you wake up on a frosty morning and look outside your window and just say that sun's shining and you can see the sun shining on the frost.
And very quickly, that frost, that bit of ice melts.
And in the shade, you see the icicles, the part of the ground that is not yet warmed.
And it's very evident it's the sun doing this, not the atmosphere.
And you talked about the idea of back radiation, and this is something that the co-host of our book, Swing Sky Dragon, Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, Professor Klaus Johnson.
Klaus Johnson is an eminent mathematician.
You know, he's Sweden's most cited expert in the peer-reviewed journals in terms of mathematical principles.
And he argued that the concept of back radiation is unscientific and doesn't even add up mathematically because as you as we pointed out this 33 degree anomaly is purely an anomaly created by, you know, processing the numbers fudging the numbers from first principles you're making an error in first principles.
And I did like what you said at the beginning, at the top of the show, we talked about the precautionary principle.
A lot of people say, oh, well, you know, better to be safe than sorry.
Let's just cut back on CO2, just reduce CO2 because, you know, it can't do any harm, you know.
And you had this wonderful conversation with Dr Naomi Wolf, who was on our show, and we were talking about the precautionary principle.
You had a terrific comeback, Jo.
She was talking about leaving a loaded gun in her apartment.
Is it wise to walk out and leave the loaded gun there with a 12-year-old?
And you had a wonderful comeback on that.
Do you want to just show us where this precautionary principle analogy completely falls apart?
Well, she brought up the precautionary principle, right?
And she said, well, we should do it just in case because the consequences are so bad.
And, you know, and I said, OK, well, that's a that's the precautionary principle.
And generally in science, we reject that.
And I said and I asked her, you know, are you religious?
Do you have a religion?
And she said, yes, I'm Jewish.
I said, OK, that's great, actually, because I'm going to say you should believe in Jesus, because if you don't, it's going to be in a really bad for your soul.
And she said, well, there's no evidence for that.
She says, let me rephrase that.
There's a loaded gun that's been left in the house and the house is full of children.
Don't you think we should do something about the gun?
And I was like, Okay, there's a claim that there's a loaded gun in the house.
I said, prove it.
I said, people have been through the house, top and bottom, looked in all the nooks and crannies, looked in the attic, looked in the couch cushions everywhere.
No one has found a loaded gun anywhere.
If the children are going to hurt themselves with a loaded gun in the house, it's just as likely, if you're going to claim that, It's just as likely that they're going to find a loaded gun at the park, on the sidewalk, anywhere else.
You know, so it's just an analogy.
It's just a silly precautionary principle.
And by analogy, even now, now we have to use a precautionary principle.
By analogy, while the climate may or may not be true, but if the climate or the climate change may or may not be true, but if climate change was like a loaded gun, You know, in a house full of children, wouldn't that be bad?
So it's just getting so absurd, isn't it?
It's just so nonsensical.
And during the break, you brought up... Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, I just want to say that we have somebody, some mischievous character in the house, screaming about the loaded gun, and that guy is Dr. Michael Mann.
I always point to Dr. Michael Mann.
He is the alarmist in the room.
Screaming that there's a loaded gun and he's actually hiding it.
He says he's got it behind his back.
And I say to him, all right, Dr. Mann, show it, show us the gun.
He won't show it.
And this is exactly the analogy that I would put alongside what happened in the Supreme Court in British Columbia, where Dr. Mann sued our colleague and PSI co-founder, Dr. Tim Bull.
Dr. Tim Bull Way back in the day when we first came together in 2010-2011, he pretty much came out and just said, Dr Mann is basically a fraudster.
He hid his data.
He's the guy screaming there's a loaded gun in the house, but he won't point out where the loaded gun is.
He says he knows where it is, but he won't show it.
We're just meant to take his word.
So anyway, we had eight years of litigation in Canada in the British Supreme Court where Michael Mann is saying, yeah, I've got the data, but I don't need to show it to you.
You just have to believe me.
Unfortunately, the court was not having any of that and Timbal had a good lawyer and said, well, no, you have to show your data.
You know, you apparently went through the peer review system, journals peer reviewed your work.
Surely this is non-controversial.
You should be able, as a scientist, to demonstrate your calculations so we can objectively, us critics, us sceptics, can point out where you are right or whether you're wrong.
And as you pointed out, Joe, We have found mathematical errors in their work and they don't like to admit there's mathematical errors, do they?
Well, it's such a good point, John, bringing up this case with Matt, with with a Michael Mann, because what that proves and Tim Ball, what that what that proves in that court case is that when climate science is put up to the standards of legal proof, From our court system, it cannot do it.
It cannot handle it, and it loses.
So what climate science has is this peer review system, right?
But it's just an internally self-contained system where they peer review each other's work to promote the narrative that they want, right?
Okay, that's fine.
You're just a bunch of buddies with your own system, right?
That doesn't mean anything.
What we have in the West is, you know, jurisprudence, legal, you know, law, right?
And so when climate science is put up to the requirements of law, of the legal system, proof it cannot handle it can it John and it loses.
Tim Ball, sorry Michael Mann lost that case and Tim Ball won right so that's just such an excellent example of how we need to figure out how to make the peer review process in academia and the claims scientific claims liable to legal proof and And if they cannot hold water, if they cannot stand up to it, then they need to pay for it, just like any liar does in the world, don't they?
Yeah, I want to add one more to the thought process here.
There's another character, Mark Steen.
Anybody who's into alternative media will know about Pundit.
And GMB TV presenter Mark Steen, again, a fellow Canadian, did a wonderful job exposing Michael Mann and using humour to make fun and poke fun up to Michael Mann.
And like Michael Mann doesn't like people criticising him.
He takes it to heart and he's got very thin skin.
And like with Tim Ball, he went to law.
He sued Mark Steen.
And Mark Steen's case, I believe, kicked off about a year after Tim Ball's.
It's still ongoing.
But unfortunately, that jurisdiction is in Washington, D.C., and as we all are waking up to the fact now that Washington, D.C.
is not really the home of, you know, fair justice, of true justice, as we saw with January 6th, you know.
If you get into any kind of court actions in Washington, D.C., it's going to be a tough fight.
And Mark Steen's battling away, but he's using basically the same principle.
You show us your data.
My call man will not show his data.
And again, we mentioned on previous shows, Joe, a lot of it is computer modelling.
We saw it with the pandemic.
I mentioned a few times that the ringleader, the big promoter of alarmism through the pandemic here in the UK and around the world was You know, a professor from Imperial College, you know, and again, these people are backed by government.
They're backed by people in government and they never lose their prestige or their well-paid jobs.
It's data manipulation.
There was a really, really good interview, which I recommend everybody go look up.
It was Willie Soon and Tucker Carlson.
I'm sure everyone is familiar with Tucker, at least Tucker Carlson.
A couple of weeks ago, he interviewed Dr. Willie Soon, who's a very, very good, honest scientist.
And he made the point, this is such an excellent point, people probably don't know because the media just lies about it.
If you look at the temperature monitoring stations that are all rural, so they're not contaminated with urban heat island effect, because concrete is dark and it gets really hot, right?
And so when you have temperature measuring stations in the cities, they're not.
They report hot.
They're way too hot because the black concrete is getting simply too hot.
So the thing is, if a global warming is happening everywhere, then it should be happening in the country, too, because it's not dependent on because it's about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
So that should be happening everywhere, right?
The thing is, if you look at only the rural temperature measuring stations, there's absolutely no sign of any significant change happening whatsoever.
The only change is happening in the city because cities are expanding and they have lots of concrete.
So, I mean, that's the data right there.
The empirical data has always been on the side of people, like us, skeptics saying, wait a minute, you're claiming things that are ridiculous.
The data has always been with us.
But the media, it seems to be a media academia government complex, which seems to coordinate on this issue.
And so, I mean, as another anecdote you brought up during the break of Venus, people love to bring up Venus and say, oh, well, Venus is proof of runaway Venus effect because it's so hot on Venus.
Well, compare that to Mars.
Mars has a 95% carbon dioxide atmosphere and it's freezing cold on Mars.
So what's the difference?
What is the true difference?
Venus has an atmosphere which is 90 times the mass.
Right?
Like Venus isn't a planet like Earth.
It has an atmosphere that's 90 times the mass.
It's 90 times deeper.
And it's atmospheric pressure at the bottom of the atmosphere which makes the temperature at the bottom of the Venusian atmosphere so hot.
That's all it is.
So when they bring up Venus, just be like, oh, you mean the planet that has 90 times the atmosphere that Earth does?
Yeah, I would expect that to be a lot hotter at the bottom of the atmosphere.
It's just so silly.
So the way that I describe this, explain this, we had Dani Katz on a couple weeks ago.
She's a really great Brimley woman.
I had an interview with her this week.
What I explained to her in my own, with my own storyline, with how I've interfaced with this, is basically people are familiar with Star Trek.
I'm sure a lot of our viewers have watched Star Trek.
You get you remember those storylines where there is a paradox, right?
They always talk about there's always like a there's always a paradox in the space time continuum, right?
That's what the problem always is.
And you need to use outside the box thinking.
To solve that problem right there's a paradox so I found a paradox basically in science with doing this work all I'm doing is saying look the standard way to look at the climate to do basic pedagogy basic understanding foundational understanding of the climate and by the way Roy Spencer who's a who's actually you know touted as a skeptic but he is he's a full-blown Uh, doctor of climate science, a PhD in climate science.
He says, and I have him quoted, that this is the universal and accepted foundation for all of climate science.
Is this what I call this pedagogical, which means it's, it's what, it's how you do the teaching of basic climate science to introductory theory is using this flat earth diagram.
And Roy Spencer says, yeah, that's right.
That's where it all starts.
OK, so I said, you're doing that.
Let's draw the earth as a circle, which means it's a sphere.
And look at how the math works out for that.
Oh, wow.
The math works out that the sun is actually hot and creates the climate.
And the paradox that I discovered is that academics will refuse to have that conversation.
They refuse to have it.
So I had tried writing several papers, which I submitted to the peer review system.
And of course, you know, I'm an astrophysicist.
I've written, you know, lots of papers in the top rated astrophysics journals in the world.
So just writing about, you know, how does a math work out differently between, you know, flat plane Earth versus sphere Earth?
Oh, look, that's pretty basic stuff scientifically.
And they come back with these absurd responses.
They're like, you need to find some experts.
So one response was, you need to find an expert to vet whether or not there's a difference between the Earth being round and the Earth being a flat plane.
And I'm like, Well, wait a minute.
You're the Peer Review Journal.
You're supposed to be the experts.
And what do you mean it needs to be vetted?
Don't we accept that the Earth is round in a sphere in astrophysics?
I mean, that shouldn't be that big of a problem.
But I had a response.
After and after, just similar to that time and time again, similar responses being like, oh, there's no difference between saying that the sun creates a climate versus the atmosphere does.
And it's like, how is that not a difference?
So this represents a paradox, right?
It's paradoxical.
It's impossible is what I mean.
It's impossible that I should find that academics would refuse to have that conversation.
And so if you want to learn about that paradox and how I discovered it and what I conclude from it, that's in my book.
Planet Wars.
Planet Wars, like Star Wars, but Planet Wars.
I go through this derivation.
I go through demonstrating how, you know, they came up with this flat earth climate approach and why they do it.
And then, you know, subsequently what's wrong with it.
And then I, I, so I submitted a paper explaining that to 14 different journals.
I have in that book, Planet Wars, the peer review response.
You can read the peer review responses and they're shocking.
It's literally shocking.
It's literally professional academic university science asking me to prove that the earth is round, and even if it is round, that it would make a difference in science.
And it's like, isn't that what we've been doing since the ancient Greeks for 2,500 years, saying that it makes a difference, that it's actually an important thing?
I mean, why not just let the flat earth theorists, trolls out there just have their way with us then, if we're gonna say there's no difference.
It's the most absurd thing impossible.
So that's a paradox.
It's an impossibility that I should find scientists responding that way.
So that is in my book, Planet Wars, which is my third book on my Amazon page.
You'll find my other books if you're interested in other philosophy of science issues.
But Planet Wars would be the one to read on this climate issue just just to totally see, you know, how this whole narrative is It's pulled apart and what it means about these people because how do you explain these people if that's what they're saying, if that's what they're acting like?
That impossibility requires an explanation and so I explain what's happening with them in Planet Wars.
We do put it to them.
I mean, again, I started doing working full time as a science writer over 15 years ago.
And again, I befriended many people who were skeptical and my skepticism grew and grew because we use freedom of information law to try and get from these government scientists The actual data they're relying on and the biggest scandal, I think, was their willful disobedience, unlawful disobedience of our request through freedom of information.
▲
Export Selection