Friday, May 28th, 2010
This week, John O'Sullivan stumbled
upon information from NASA that seems to refute
the very basis of Global Warming Theory - and worse, he may have
discovered a concerted, forty-year effort to cover it up.
O'Sullivan reports on a paper
(link opens a PDF file - Acrobat Reader or similar program
required) co-written by three men: Martin Hertzberg, PhD,
Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former
radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist.
According to these three, the equation upon which all Global Warming
Theory studies are built is inherently flawed.
...The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the
"Stefan-Boltzmann" equations in fine detail...
The long-trusted formula has been
used by climatologists without question - until now. The researchers
report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first
assumption that climate science makes when predicting the Earth's
The "Stefan-Boltzmann" equation is, apparently, remarkably simplistic and arbitrary, so much so that
NASA actually abandoned the use of that equation when preparing
for the Apollo Mission in the 1960's. You read that right;
this equation was deemed not good enough for NASA more than forty years
ago. And yet it is still the equation upon which climate scientists
base their assumptions.
The problem with the equation is that it does not factor in the earth's crust varying capacity for
absorbing heat; instead treating it as a two-dimensional, uniform "black body."
NASA had found that daytime temperatures on the lunar surface were lower than expected because
planetary bodies also conduct heat to their inside rather than radiating
it all into space - an empirical fact that challenges the GHG theory.
Computer models supporting GHG theory had predicted that such heat
energy would be ‘blanketed’ above a planet's surface.
In fact, the Apollo data proves the Moon’s surface temperatures throughout its two-week night were
higher than predicted by the blackbody equations because the moon "feeds
on" the heat it had previously absorbed.
Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of the Stefan-
Boltzmann equations in real world science.
Worse, however, than the flaw in the equation, is that this fact has remained covered
up by NASA from the first Lunar landing until now, nearly 41 years.
But it gets worse: compounding such disarray, NASA, now apparently acting more like a politicized
mouthpiece for a socialist one world government, cannot even provide
consistent numbers on Earth’s actual energy budget.
Thanks to further discussion with
scientist, Alan Siddons, a co-author of the paper, ‘A Greenhouse Effect on the
Moon,’ it appears I inadvertently stumbled on a NASA graph that
shows the U.S. space agency is unable to tally up the numbers on the
supposed greenhouse gas "backradiation." Why would this be?
In its graphic representation of the
energy budget of the Earth the agency has
conspicuously contradicted itself in its depiction of back-radiation
based on its various graphs on Earth's radiation budget.
As Siddons sagely advised me, "This
opens the question as to WHICH budget NASA actually endorses, because
the one you show is consistent with physics: 70 units of sunlight go in,
70 units of infrared go out, and there’s no back-flow of some
ridiculous other magnitude. Interesting."
To reiterate: 40 years ago, NASA scientists discovered that a certain equation was too simplistic to
risk the lives of their astronauts when calculating the first Lunar
landing, so they threw it out and used their own. The landing was
successful. Then, for whatever reason, their reservations about the
first, simplistic equation vanished, and it was used in support of
Man-Made Global Warming theory, despite its obvious inadequacies in the
This bombshell comes the same week two seemingly staunch supporters of Climate Change action appear to
have backed down. In the U.S., Reuters
reports that it is extremely unlikely the proposed climate bill will
be tackled before 2011 at the earliest. And the U.N. is now arguing
that economic considerations for nature preservation are
far more compelling than those of Global Warming. Both actions
appear quite obviously to be a response to growing public doubt in the
veracity of global warming science. Yet, scientists (and their lackeys
in the media) wonder why their cries of "wolf!" continue
to lose credibility with the public.
At some point, the media and climate scientists alike are going to have to respond to these doubts.
It probably won't happen until the see their funding dry up. So it's up
to you. Contact your local congressman and tell them how you feel.
And forward this email to anyone interested in the topic.
In the end, the truth will win out. It always does.
Most Egregious Claim of the Week
A report on ABC's World News Sunday attempted to draw a parallel between White
Supremacists and Climate Change Skeptics:
...[D]espite overwhelming evidence that Mann's science has some flaws and that there
are some bad characters among the global warming alarmists, Harris
attempted to link radical fringe elements on the Internet to outspoken
climate change alarmism skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
"A white supremacist Web site recently posted Mann's picture alongside several other climate
scientists, with the word ‘Jew' next to each image," Harris said. "To
many scientists, however, the most disturbing recent development was a
report released by Republican Sen. James Inhofe, naming 17 climate
scientists, some of whom Inhofe says have engaged in potentially illegal
According to Harris and NASA's Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Inhofe's efforts to highlight the evidence that
scientists deliberately manipulated data to mislead the public is
-Patrick Gallagher, Editor