Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies ( Global Warming is a SCAM)

Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight. First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon. What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight. It’s sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space. The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere. These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2. Global warming due to humans is based on the hypothesis that our addition of CO2 has changed the balance of energy entering and leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. There are a multitude of factors that can change this balance, many ignored or underplayed by climate science. They get away with this because the public is unaware.

Incoming Energy Inadequacies

It begins with measures of the amount of energy entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only consider changes in the irradiance portion of incoming solar energy (insolation). They claim that up to 1950 it explained over 50 percent of temperature variation then CO2 became 90 percent of the cause of change. Part of the reason for downplaying irradiance is the low percentage of change in modern records. The earliest record from outside the atmosphere from a manned observatory was Skylab (1973 – 1979). Skylab showed a change of 0.14% in the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). An average over time shows a variation of 0.1% for an 11 - year sunspot cycle. This seems like a very small number and therefore of little consequence.

HOWEVER

Just came across this....why Propaganda works.....

****************************************************************

The Blatant Nonsense Effect

There are cases when a person reads some argument, which is obviously wrong, yet accepts the argument and the conclusion. In many cases there is a reason for it: the person already believes in the conclusion, or wants the conclusion to be true, or maybe they are simply not interested enough to bother to think about it. However, in some cases there is no apparent reason for this acceptance, and the blatant nonsense effect explains some of these cases.

For the Blatant nonsense effect, the reader{1} must have some respect towards the writer. This may be based on the credentials of the writer, the context of the text (e.g. a respected journal), or simply on the (reasonable) belief that anybody that can write fluently about a complex phenomenon is a reasonably good thinker.

When the reader reads an argument that is obviously wrong, they have a problem: If they are going to trust their judgment that the argument is obviously wrong, they will have to believe that the writer wrote complete nonsense. However, they have some respect to the writer, so that belief is difficult. A workaround to this contradiction is simply to accept the writer's argument and conclusion.

Most of the readers would still need to justify to themselves and others why they accept the argument, and there are several typical ways of doing this:

The reader 'decides' (without being aware of it) to believe that they do not understand enough the subject to make a judgement. The stronger the credentials of the writer are, the more the reader would tend to do this move.
The reader assumes (again, normally without being aware of it) that they 'missed something'. This tends to be mixed with the previous justification.
The reader distorts the meaning of the argument and the conclusion, such that it does seem to make sense to them. Note that the distorted argument may still be nonsensical, but as long as it makes sense to the reader (presumably because it fits their prejudices), this does not cause a visible contradiction.

[12Aug2001] One reason that it is difficult for people to accept the existence of the Blatant Nonsense Effect is that in most of the cases it requires that the reader perform some mental operation(s) (e.g. decide that they don't understand enough) without being aware of it. Many people believe that they, and people in general, are aware of any mental operation that they perform. These people are most vulnerable to the Blatant Nonsense Effect, because they cannot perceive its mechanism. Most of the comments that I got about this page were from people that seem to be in this state. In fact, some of them seem not even to perceive that I think that people can perform mental operations without being aware of it.

The strength of the effect depends positively on:

The credentials of the writer.
How obviously wrong the argument is. To be really effective, the wrongness of the argument has to be very clear, and that is what the term blatant nonsense means.
The lack of self-confidence in the reader.
The lack of expertise in the subject by the reader.

A good example is given in the first page of Crick's book [1.1]. In this example, the writer has extremely high credentials, and the wrongness of the argument is obvious to any idiot, which makes the effect very strong. There are many examples in psycholinguistics, with Chomsky leading the way. In Evolutionary psychology there are good examples as well ([4.4] is the most blatant).

An interesting question is whether the writer is actually aware of the mechanism of the effect (if the reader is aware of the effect, they are unlikely to accept the argument, so we can assume readers are generally unaware of the effect). In general, the most probable reason for the writer to use the argument is that it proved convincing (at least with some readers) in previous occasions. The first occasion that the argument was used was probably generated by searching for arguments that will convince opponents. When some of these arguments work (for whatever reason), the writer repeatedly uses them, while discarding the arguments that did not convince other people. Thus there is no reason to assume that the writer actually understands how the argument succeeds in convincing anybody.

Implications

The implications for readers are fairly obvious: If you read an argument that seems nonsense, you have to consider the possibility that it is indeed a blatant nonsense. What seems not to be obvious for most of readers is that blatant nonsense is a very common tool, in particular in the fields of psycholinguistics, evolutionary psychology, and to less extent in other cognitive sciences.

The Embarrassment Effect

One effect that makes it difficult for readers to get over the blatant nonsense effect can be called the Embarrassment Effect. Once a reader read and accepted a blatant nonsense, admitting it is a blatant nonsense will entail admitting that the reader themselves accepted a blatant nonsense as a reasonable argument. This is embarrassing, so readers will try to avoid it, by various maneuvers. Some of these involve avoiding admitting that it is a blatant nonsense, others avoiding admitting that the reader accepted the argument in the first place. In the former case, the embarrassment effect strengthens the blatant nonsense effect. In the latter case, the embarrassment effect serves to hide the blatant nonsense effect.

-----------------------------------------
{1} I use the terms 'writer' and 'reader' in the text, but the discussion is also applicable to speaker and listener.
-------------------------------

Yehouda Harpaz
yh@maldoo.com
12Jul98
http://human-brain.org

Plato believed that people sit in a cave facing down into the darkness. The enlighten try to take one-by-one each person and face them towards the light at the opening of the cave.

I knew they were deceiving us and had us looking down into the cave. One day I found a book titled, “Through Space and Time” by Sir James Jeans of the Royal Society.

He took all the classes of a liberal science degree and rolled them into one book. The book clearly rebutted the IPCC and Al Gore nearly 80 years ago.

We are in a global warming period that won’t happen again for 115,000 years. In the last 10,000 years we had 3 global warming periods.

We are in the latter part of this global warming period before we slide into the next ice age.

We are in another cooling period that happens every 100 years. That will last at least 30 years.

The people who will suffer the most are the elderly and the poor whom depend on big government much as those whom were dependent on the government in Katrina

That showed up in an Ireland report just last week. This group feels the effects of winters the most and is reflected in higher death counts during winter months.

Like lambs they depend on the farmer. The farmer doesn’t know better to house them for the next 30 years.

Those who bought into the darkness of the cave such as Hollywood producers, stars and starlets, politicians, directors of our key government offices, liberals and intellects will be looking more into the darkness for answers as 30 years of severe winters come upon us. Why? They want to believe they can answer the problem.

I was thinking today how rural we will be in 50 years as all our technical gains are lost.

If sunspot activity doesn’t begin to pick up in the next two years, another min-ice age may be upon us.

Paul

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.