Climate Change

[Alan V]

This article provides a brief overview of the earth's climate:

https://theconversation.com/how-humans-d...Ff11ytXqM0

[Alan V]

'Professor Michael Livermore and co-author Peter Howard of the New York University Institute of Policy Integrity argue in 'Sociopolitical Feedbacks and Climate Change' that developing international cooperation to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to the problem must come during a time of economic and political stability. Otherwise, they say, the ability to forge meaningful international agreements may be lost. 'We explore the possibility that humankind is wasting a short window of opportunity to address climate change, one that may soon shut as climate damages incapacitate effective political action,' they write in their paper. Instability from weather events related to climate change may not spur nations to solve the problem, but rather incapacitate them, if past history with other social and environmental upheaval is any indicator."

https://www.law.virginia.edu/news/201904...ClnaswqjY8

[Alan V]

"[John] Kaiser sums up the primary reason he and other conservatives rejected the premise of climate change: 'Because if climate change is as bad as they say it is, it would justify government intervention. And we can’t justify government intervention because that’s a bad thing.' Climate change was viewed as a power grab: 'This is how the government was going to trick us into giving our rights away and fully regulate the economy to protect the environment.' He recited the rationale with uncanny polish. 'I still remember making that argument myself as a college student.' He elaborated, 'I think a lot of people on the right do what I did, which is that we work backwards from an ideological fear of government intervention to the idea that we can’t accept climate change.' "

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2...hVPeNhJC28

[Alan V]

"A cluster of new studies from states, electric utilities and environmental groups suggest that as more electricity from solar and wind power is introduced on the nation’s electric grids, a wider use of electric heat pumps will help the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to near zero by 2050. The latest study, by a California research firm for three of the state’s major utilities, describes heat pumps for home heating and cooling as 'the low hanging fruit when it comes to saving customers money and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.' It asserts that in California, where renewable power provides almost 50% of the state’s electricity, regulations and incentives for the 'beneficial electrification' of new and existing homes using heat pumps could be the cheapest and fastest way to reach its climate goals."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...rgy-grows/

[Alan V]

From a summary of climate change science by the American Meteorological Society:

"The increase in global average surface temperature over the past half-century cannot be fully explained by natural climate variability, e.g., responses to Earth’s orbital changes over thousands of years, or natural climate forcing such as from solar or volcanic variability. The observed warming rate varies from place to place and from decade to decade because of natural climate variations, such as natural swings between El Niño and La Niña on time scales of two to seven years, and variations in ocean circulation in the Pacific and Atlantic basins on decadal to multi-decadal timescales. The influence of these relatively short-period fluctuations is factored into climate change analyses. These natural fluctuations have neither the magnitude nor the spatial characteristics to explain the observed warming of Earth’s average surface temperature over the past several decades. The IPCC (2013), USGCRP (2017), and USGCRP (2018) indicate that it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century."

https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/ab...F9TtaLb7nw

One bit from the report was particularly striking to me:

"Global temperatures were last on par with the present ones in the previous Interglacial Period (125,000 years ago), when sea level was 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today."

So the sea level will rise, at minimum, 20 to 30 feet in the centuries to come. We are already committed to that much, and it can't be stopped unless we remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and bring it down to previous levels quickly enough.

[SYZ]

"Global temperatures were last on par with the present ones in the previous Interglacial Period (125,000 years ago), when sea level was 6–9 m (20–30 ft) higher than today."

Phew... I'll be okay then.  My house is 21 metres above current mean sea level.       

[Deltabravo]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time. Maybe I was in a depression where the sea was lower than in other places. lol It also got progressively colder, or, hey, maybe that's just an anecdote. But it sure put people off swimming.

[Deesse23]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time.  Maybe I was in a depression where the sea was lower than in other places. lol  It also got progressively colder, or, hey, maybe that's just an anecdote.  But it sure put people off swimming.

How much was the tidal range at your property?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time.  Maybe I was in a depression where the sea was lower than in other places. lol  It also got progressively colder, or, hey, maybe that's just an anecdote.  But it sure put people off swimming.

You really believe all that?

[Alan V]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time.  Maybe I was in a depression where the sea was lower than in other places. lol  It also got progressively colder, or, hey, maybe that's just an anecdote.  But it sure put people off swimming.

First of all, how do you know "the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time"? Where scientists taking measurements for you?

When scientists talk about the sea level rising, or even about the temperature rising, they are talking about the global average.  There are certainly local variations for different reasons.  I don't wish to rationalize what may indeed be anecdotal accounts, but ocean temperatures in the Northern Atlantic, for instance, are cooler than average because of the melting of the ice in Greenland (if I remember correctly).  That might affect coastal Spain. Also, because of the changes to the weight of the melting ice, there are actually some areas of the earth where the sea level is getting lower because the land is rising. You would have to do some research about regional differences to make your argument.

Presently, Louisiana is losing one football field of land per hour:

"Scientists say Louisiana’s land loss involves at least three main factors — (1) reduced sediment flow from the Mississippi River and its tributaries, (2) subsidence, or the sinking of land, and (3) sea-level rise. These factors come about via natural processes, human interference or both."

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/land-l...louisiana/

So I guess it depends on where you are as to how obvious this seems. The global sea level average has risen only 8 inches since the beginning of the industrial revolution, so I doubt it is perceptible to many people except to scientists. However, since ice melting and ocean warming are also accelerating, sea level rise will progress faster in the future. Present scientific projections are that sea levels will rise a foot by 2050 and 3 to 6 feet or more by 2100, rising as much as a foot or more each decade thereafter.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The tides rose and fell on schedule, so they did rise. But let's get the official information on that, please.

[PopeyesPappy]

The tides rose and fell on schedule, so they did rise. But let's get the official information on that, please.

DB could be (probably is) correct. Sea level trends aren't the same everywhere, and Spain trends lower than most. For example the 1943 - 2002 trend in Algeciras, Spain is .43 mm per year. At that rate it would take around 25 years for a 1 centimeter increase. By contrast sea level is rising at closer to 9 mm per year in Gaum. Almost a centimeter per year.

[Deesse23]

The tides rose and fell on schedule, so they did rise. But let's get the official information on that, please.

DB could be (probably is) correct. Sea level trends aren't the same everywhere, and Spain trends lower than most. For example the 1943 - 2002 trend in Algeciras, Spain is .43 mm per year. At that rate it would take around 25 years for a 1 centimeter increase. By contrast sea level is rising at closer to 9 mm per year in Gaum. Almost a centimeter per year.

This sea level trend is overlayed over the daily tides. Which vary considerably all over the globe. On the atlantic coast of Spain the tide is actually quite large, on the mediterranean side much less. I am assuming his property was on the mediterranean side (much more popular to foreigners).

Below you can see the M2 tidal constituent (tides are basically a bunch of various frequencies/constituents overayed over each other). M2 is the largest constituent (relative amplitude), which may add or cancel out others, i wont bother with details here, but lets assume for sake of simplicity that other constituents cancel out each other and only M2 remains near DBs former property: M2 is 30cm, so the tide should be 30cm at least, and according to Popeye the sea level rise is 0.43mm/year.

Hands up, who thinks that DB could have filtered out a sea level rise of even a few cm out of a daily (well, mix of 12 and 24hr cycles) tidal rise of 30cm at least?
...without kickass equipment that is.  


M2 tidal constituent around the globe




https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ear...onstituent


Finally, from https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/applic...world.html

Most people associate the Mediterranean with small tides. However, this is not to say there are no tides at all. Indeed, they generate a mean variation of about 40 centimeters, but atmospheric conditions often hide the rise and fall in sea level. Headwinds or, more often, higher-than-normal atmospheric pressure attenuate the effect of these tides, sometimes making them virtually impossible to see.

[SYZ]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time...

A twelve-year time span of course is in no way indicative of sea levels rising—or falling, as they may have
been doing along the Spanish coast during that period.    I'd be interested to know your methodology used
in determining that the sea level was consistent—within an accuracy of [+] or [-] one centimetre.  I've lived
on the Australian coast all my life, from the Indian Ocean, to the Southern Ocean, and to the Pacific Ocean,
and since the late 1940s, I've seen no evidence of mean sea levels rising.  This is in accord with tidal evidence
from man-made structures dating back to the 19th century, such as piers, storm walls, beached ship hulks,
bridge pylons etc that I've viewed here.  That's only my non-scientific observations of course—I could be wrong.

But naturally, all that (apparent) sea level "consistency" could and probably will change over the next century.
Personally, I tend to agree with the scientific consensus—particularly concerning the melting ice shelves.  We
already have empirical evidence that they are melting, and at an increasing rate.  In fact, seas have risen
faster over the past two decades than they did for the bulk of the 20th century.

New York Heightened Sea Levels
Hurricane Sandy 2012

This is a short 2014 Aussie video produced by our Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s "Catalyst" program, using
data from the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and which are both
independent federal agencies, with—most importantly—no corporate involvement.

[Deltabravo]

I had a house on the seafront in Spain for 12 years from the early 2000's until a few years ago and the water level didn't rise one centimeter in that time...

A twelve-year time span of course is in no way indicative of sea levels rising—or falling, as they may have
been doing along the Spanish coast during that period.    I'd be interested to know your methodology used
in determining that the sea level was consistent—within an accuracy of [+] or [-] one centimetre.  I've lived
on the Australian coast all my life, from the Indian Ocean, to the Southern Ocean, and to the Pacific Ocean,
and since the late 1940s, I've seen no evidence of mean sea levels rising.  This is in accord with tidal evidence
from man-made structures dating back to the 19th century, such as piers, storm walls, beached ship hulks,
bridge pylons etc that I've viewed here.  That's only my non-scientific observations of course—I could be wrong.

But naturally, all that (apparent) sea level "consistency" could and probably will change over the next century.
Personally, I tend to agree with the scientific consensus—particularly concerning the melting ice shelves.  We
already have empirical evidence that they are melting, and at an increasing rate.  In fact, seas have risen
faster over the past two decades than they did for the bulk of the 20th century.

New York Heightened Sea Levels
Hurricane Sandy 2012

This is a short 2014 Aussie video produced by our Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s "Catalyst" program, using
data from the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) and which are both
independent federal agencies, with—most importantly—no corporate involvement.

Thanks for confirming what I thought was the case, that there is, in fact, no evidence that mean sea levels have risen.    I live in a country with the metric system. If I were living in a country with the Imperial or American system of measurement I would have said the sea levels haven't risen one inch and no doubt you would have realized this is an widely used expression which people use without actually meaning they go around with a ruler and take measurements.  

The reason I said it, however, is that I was genuinely concerned about the issue, and with things such as Tsunami's either of which issues could have caused a long-term or immediate problem for me and my family, ie., being drowned in bed by a tidal wave or having the beach gradually disappear from in front of my house.  Such is the alarm created by the climate change rhetoric.  

What you refer to in relation to the rising sea level after Hurricane Sandy is, I believe, referred to as a storm surge caused by low atmospheric pressure.  I suppose the point you are making is that since temperatures are not rising, the problem is now "climate change", ie., that the weather is now more changeable and more volatile, resulting in surges, hurricanes, cyclones etc.  I don't know if that is or is not the case.  i recall that Hurricane Hazel did damage all the way up to Toronto. That was back in 1954.  It killed 81 people and there's been nothign like it since so, from my perspective, I think talking about how things are getting worse recently and that this supports climate change is probably a mistaken impression.  

Geting back to the original points which I raised to argue against the current notions of greenhouse gas-caused climate change, I've been criticized for posting without backing what I say with science. My main points are that the theory that burning fossil fuels and making CO2 causes global warming via a greenhouse effect violates various scientific principles particularly the laws of thermodynamics, the composition of the atmosphere and the weight of gases and the laws of light refraction. 

Here's a paper which explains those points:http://principia-scientific.org/publicat...sphere.pdf

The themes of the paper are:

1. The standard, and generally only known approach, for determining Earth’s radiative equilibrium with the Sun, begins with the application of the principle of conservation of energy via several applications of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The total solar energy absorbed by the Earth must be equal to the energy emitted by the Earth, over the long-term average assuming radiative thermal equilibrium, and assuming there are no significant terrestrial sources of energy. 

2. ... in actuality, only half of the Earth’s surface physically accumulates radiative heating energy from the Sun in any moment. This is the actual and physically real average boundary condition that exists. The true, and physically accurate average of the system, is that half of the surface of the Earth absorbs twice as much energy as the entire surface of the Earth radiates. The incoming solar radiation is not equal, in energy flux density, and thus temperature, to the outgoing terrestrial radiation. Claiming otherwise forgets the reason for the difference in illumination between day and night, and is completely irrational within the frame of physics. Dividing the solar flux by a factor of four and thus spreading it instantaneously over the entire surface of the Earth as an input flux amounts to the denial of the existence of day-time and night-time, and violates the application on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which deals only with instantaneous radiative flux. 

3.  when we contrast the average surface-air temperature to that of the effective radiative temperature of the ensemble, without qualification or physical justification, as is done in the standard radiative greenhouse model, we too cannot expect in the least to understand or comprehend why such a difference should exist, and thus become prone to inventing a mythology to describe it. Now contrast that scenario of paradox to a properly qualified one: the temperature of the surface-air is +15C, and the effective radiative average of the ensemble is -18C, and we expect these temperatures to be different because the former one represents only a very small, and undoubtedly the warmest, fraction of the entire ensemble. But because we, like the farmer who only ever saw the first row of his orchard, spend most of our time upon the ground surface with the surface-air blowing around our bodies, it seems intuitive to think in terms of the surface-air temperature being representative of the entire ensemble, when in fact there is an entire glut of atmosphere only a short distance above us which is much colder than +15C, and that when accounted for, supplies the effective radiative temperature of -18C. We expect the aforementioned temperatures to be different due to the-already theoretically quantified distribution of temperature of a gas in a gravitational field via known equations related to existing universal principle, and including the bare logical necessity that the radiative average of an atmospheric ensemble be found in between its two boundaries, at altitude. The juxtaposition of these two qualitatively physically-dissimilar temperatures presents the initial paradox from which a back-radiative greenhouse effect is postulated. The problem of logic however, is that these two temperatures, -180C on the one hand, and +150C on the other, do not actually correspond to a physically meaningful direct contrast. The ground temperature is a different physical metric, completely, than the entire-system-ensemble effective radiative output temperature. In other words, the surface-air temperature represents only a tiny fraction of the entire thermal ensemble and so comparing its temperature to the entire-ensemble temperature is not meaningful without certain qualifications being made. It is the specific exclusion of the necessary qualifications, with the added application of fictional boundary conditions, which creates the tautologies found in the backradiative greenhouse effect. If the existing physically justified pre-qualifications are sufficient to extinguish the paradox, as we have seen here, then there need be no other hypothesis put forward…there is no reason to multiply entities beyond necessity. The point is, we must occasionally re-assess the conditions of originating paradoxes in order to re-establish if they are actually logically and physically sound. Such is the domain of higher cognition and ‘ignited flashes of 28 insight’ in relation to Natural Philosophy and paradigmatic advance beyond possibly-antiquated dogmas of ‘establishment academia’. 

4.   Anyone who subscribes to the radiative greenhouse model atmosphere, and that is almost everybody, subscribes to the idea that an (completely arbitrarily) artificially cool solar insolation can be passively amplified by an even cooler atmosphere such as to increase the temperature of the tautologously already-warmer ground by an invented scheme of radiative heat transfer, and that an effect like this is necessary because denying the existence of day & night is a reasonable approximation to the system. This is only a belief system which comes out of this type of model radiative greenhouse. And it is a philosophy of physics which is completely tautologous, based on completely fictional and imaginary boundary and input conditions. It simply isn’t real. In the end, it is not even actually possible to satisfy the first criteria of atmospheric modelling listed above, which is to create a plane-parallel model for the terrestrial atmosphere, for the very fact of the reality that this is not what exists on the Earth, even in approximation or abstraction. You can do it for a stellar photosphere, but you cannot do it for the Earth, because it is not what exists. 


The author makes the point that in a desert with little greenhouse gas, the temperature at ground level are much higher than in areas of dense jungle at the same latitude where there are more greenhouses gases, ie., water vapour and CO2.


In relation to CO2 having some reflective capacity to keep heat in the lower atmospehere, the author makes what seems to me to be a very simple and undeniable argument, that it is colder higher up and you cannot have heat reflected from an area of cold back into an area of warmer air.  That's simply impossible.  He also explains why the analogy of a greenhouse is, itself, false, namely that a greenhouse keeps heat in because it stops convection with a solid roof.  The atmosphere has no roof so there is convection and heat is therefore dispersed upwards so using a model which is the complete opposite of what exists in reality is wrong.  To me, it's an example of human gullibility, that you can make people get het up about being fried to death by saying we live in something like a greenhouse, when...hmmm... we don't.

Nuff said.

[Alan V]

Deltabravo,

About Joseph Postma's paper:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=385

You really could look up this kind of thing on the internet yourself, if you were actually careful. You obviously have a strong belief which you are grasping at straws to support.

"This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed."

I suggest you start with the scientific consensus. If you can't follow the reasoning of the majority of scientists, just remember: it's so complicated that few people can.

Science is what peer-reviewed scientists say it is.

Nuff said.

[Deesse23]

I've been criticized for posting without backing what I say with science

...and when you started to do, you were criticised for demonstrating your lack of knowledge of basic physics.

[PopeyesPappy]

Thanks for confirming what I thought was the case, that there is, in fact, no evidence that mean sea levels have risen.   

Yes DB, there is evidence that mean sea levels are rising. In fact the evidence says that for the last 25 years global mean sea levels have been rising at an average rate of more than 3 mm per year. Mean sea level is now about 9 cm higher than it was 25 years ago.

https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/en/data/p...mages.html

[Alan V]

"Speaking at a Texas banquet Thursday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters that congressional Republicans hope to develop their own climate bill, which will likely focus on energy efficiency, natural gas, and technology to clean up coal power plants. 'Let’s just cross the Rubicon,' Graham said. 'Let’s, as a party, say the Green New Deal sucks but climate change is real. We owe it to the country to have an alternative to the Green New Deal,' said Graham, as E&E News reported, noting the senator expressed frustration with those in his party who oppose climate action. 'We’re going to sit down with the president and see if we can unveil a bill for 2020 that would be good for the environment and good for business.' "

https://thinkprogress.org/republicans-gr...LjfPvDCW6o

[Deltabravo]

Deltabravo,

About Joseph Postma's paper:

You really could look up this kind of thing on the internet yourself, if you were actually careful. You obviously have a strong belief which you are grasping at straws to support.

"This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed."

I suggest you start with the scientific consensus. If you can't follow the reasoning of the majority of scientists, just remember: it's so complicated that few people can.

Science is what peer-reviewed scientists say it is.

Nuff said.

And here is Postma's response, which you also could have searched on the web, since you want to claim to be unbiased:

After the Skeptical Science blog critique of the recent paper by astrophysicist Joseph E. Postma, 'Copernicus meets the greenhouse effect,' Postma posts another telling rebuttal provided below.The rebuttal clearly illustrates how Skeptical Science relies on sophistry and misdirection to obfuscate reality.
By Joseph E. Postma (Astrophysicist)
I have been asked to write a brief overview on the errors and misconceptions as presented on the so-called “Skeptical Science” blog. I’d first like to point out that the term “skeptical science” is an oxymoron and so it immediately calls into question what kind of person might use such a term. 
 It's attempted debunk of my paper states:  “Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results.” 
In fact, what I showed is that the model cannot even be called “simple” because it doesn’t even represent anything that can be equated with reality. The Earth isn’t flat and the Sun isn’t cold, for goodness’ sake, yet this is what the model pretends. In and of itself and for many other reasons, which were specified in the paper, it is clear that the “simple” model doesn’t actually produce any useful results at all because all it is, is fiction.
Skeptical Science: “The claims are of course extraordinary, along the lines of Gerlich and Tseuchner’s alleged falsification of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.  As is often the case with these types of “skeptics,” the more extravagant the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue; in this case the host is Principia Scientific International, which according to the website “…was conceived after 22 international climate experts and authors joined forces to write the climate science bestseller, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’” Most rational people would stop here…”
It is not rational at all for science to not be open to skepticism, so it makes little sense that they’re making a statement here implying that rational people operate via ignorance as a matter of policy.  It’s a contradiction in terms. You also see a bullying tactic being employed here via an implied ad-hominem, attempting to corner you into a state of ignorance as to what is actually written in the paper, such as to keep the unwary from informing themselves of the truth by reading the paper. They’re trying to imply that you’d be irrational to read something, which would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous. So, we’re already becoming quite familiar with what kind of people we’re dealing with here, and you can be assured that they have nothing to do with rational climate science.
Skeptical Science: “…but this is the Americanized age where we need to glorify everyone’s opinion and must provide rebuttals for everything, so here it goes”
This is some sort of a slight against the nation of America, and you can read in to it whatever motives might drives such statement as you wish; but it is pretty obviously biased in some fundamental aspects, to say the least.
Skeptical Science:
“Most of Postma’s first 6 pages are actually correct.  He describes the greenhouse effect through the so-called layer model, which is a simple way to break up the planet into a “surface” and an “atmosphere,” with outer space overlying the top layer.  This model is described in many climate books such as Dennis Hartmann’s Global Physical Climatology, David Archer’s Understanding the Forecast, Marshall and Plumb’s Atmosphere, Ocean and Climate Dynamics, and radiation books like Grant Petty’s First Course in Atmospheric Radiation.  I will say that I do not particularly like this model as a suitable introduction to the greenhouse effect.  It is useful in many regards, but it fails to capture the physics of the greenhouse effect on account of making a good algebra lesson, and opens itself up to criticism on a number of grounds; that said, if you are going to criticize it, you need to do it right, but also be able to distinguish the difference between understood physics and simple educational tools.”
In “The Model Atmosphere” paper, we had a reference link listing over 60 references to the standard greenhouse model as what was subsequently developed and presented to the reader.  In the statement above, we witness equivocation over whether the model is physically relevant or isn’t…Skeptical Science can’t seem to make up it’s mind. What is certain is that this model IS presented as the mechanism of the greenhouse effect in numerous textbooks, weblinks via NASA and other climate institutions, and is presented in undergraduate physics classes as a real phenomenon in physical principle. 
So, is it the real greenhouse effect model, or isn’t it?  Nowhere else in physics education do we use a “toy-tool model” to teach as physics reality something which only a fictional “toy” model is capable of demonstrating.  When we learn physics in university we learn physics that is actually real and we do not need to equivocate over whether the physics we are learning is fictional-toy-model or real world.  It is ALL real world. 
Imagine that in every physics classroom in the world, the professor had to inform the students whether they were going to be learning real physics today, or physics which isn’t actually demonstrably real physics and only a toy.  It never happens.  But apparently, it is happening in climate science with the greenhouse effect, as admitted in the text above.  So there is only one question which remains: if this model isn’t the real greenhouse effect, then please present us with the real greenhouse effect, the mathematics which describes it, the graphical model which represents it, and the software code you use to model it. 
This has actually been the greatest “strength” of the greenhouse effect, in that they do not actually have a concretely defined version of it.  If you criticize one aspect or version of it, then they just change the way the physics works and the language used to describe it, and slip out of the argument.  We witness this time and time again.
Skeptical Science: “The atmosphere in Postma’s paper is just a single slab, so he has two layers (atmosphere+surface), but in general you can have many atmospheric layers.  He goes on to solve for the energy balance of each layer (see equations 11-14). RealClimate derived the same result in less than a page here.”
To be clear, this is not “my” model; it is the standard model alarmist climate science uses and is found in almost all of their writing on the subject.
Skeptical Science: “Postma actually doesn’t get the atmospheric radiative flux right.  The emission is not σTa4, it is fσTa4, where f is the atmospheric emissivity/absorptivity (following his notation) and Tais the atmospheric temperature.  …  Both right hand sides of equations 11 and 12 are thus wrong, but it turns out that those errors cancel each other out and he gets equation 14 right.”
This was a minor typo in the equation and as they pointed out, it didn’t matter.  I didn’t notice it because the term cancels out in the final equation, so it’s quite inconsequential if you understand what’s happening, which they do not.
Skeptical Science: “The factor of 2 in Equation 12 comes about because the atmosphere emits both up and down, although Postma clearly doesn't know how to derive this result formally, based on later statements he makes about this.”
This is funny.  The factor of two isn’t “formally derived” anywhere, in any of the models upon which was presented you.  This is exactly what I pointed out in my “later statements…” so, they’ve simply copied my criticism of their model and tried to blame me for it!  Whatever…
Skeptical Science: “Postma then goes on to describe fictitious “boundary conditions.”  In particular, he seems to have serious objections to the averaging of the solar radiative flux over the Earth.  In essence, he would prefer we had one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight, etc. instead of the simple model where we average 1370/4=342.5 W/m2 over the planet (so that the whole Earth is receiving the appropriate "average" solar radiation).”
So here they are objecting to the reality I presented that there is “one sun delivering 1370 W/m2 of energy to the planet, with a day side and a night side, noon and twilight”.  Why would they object to something like that?  They literally admit to prefer to think of the Earth as flat and without night and day…they’re criticizing my position that the Earth is round and the Sun is hot.  Amazing.
Skeptical Science: “The factor of 4 is the ratio of the surface area to the cross section of the planet, and is the shadow cast by a spherical Earth.  It is therefore a geometrical re-distribution factor; it remains “4” if all the starlight is distributed evenly over the sphere; it is “2” if the light is uniformly distributed over the starlit hemisphere alone; with no re-distribution, the denominator would be 1/cosine (zenith angle) for the local solar flux.”
Here they are seen to be repeating exactly what was described about how the mathematics works out from my previous paper, which was linked in this paper and which they obviously must have read.
Skeptical Science: “In simple textbook models, we like to prefer explanations that get a point across, and then build in complexity from there (see Smith 2008 for descriptions on a rotating Earth).”
What is presented in the Smith reference has no similarity or likeness whatsoever to the standard greenhouse model, so this statement is completely out of bounds. Newtonian physics, for example, actually does an excellent job at describing gravity, even though the general theory of relativity has subsumed it.  But the general theory of relativity reduces to Newtonian physics automatically, while the work of Smith (2008) has no relation to the flat-Earth greenhouse model at all, as can be seen in his equation (2). 
And so in fact, there is no valid “complexity-building” going on here at all when going from the fictional flat-Earth model to a reality-based model.  My current work in bringing reality to climate science and the greenhouse effect is actually highly correlated with the Smith (2008) paper.  However, we will be improving upon Smith’s simplistic treatment, and our preliminary results utilizing real-world data indicate something very different from the assumptions that went into the way Smith chose to present the formulation…of course, there is no greenhouse effect.
Skeptical Science: “Postma is simply tackling a non-issue, just as how people criticize the term “greenhouse effect” for not working like a glass greenhouse. Postma objects to teaching this simple model because it is not real.”
People are very correct in their criticism of the “glass greenhouse model”.  A real physical glass greenhouse operates NOTHING like what is claimed of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, and therefore it is wrong and even fraudulent for the alarmists to continually analogize the two.  This is an example of how the greenhouse effect has multiple definitions, and apparently, the alarmists quite like this feature and call it a “non-issue!”  Apparently it is a “non-issue” to teach as reality a model which is admitted to be not based in reality, as they’ve now admitted, and which has multiple definitions and multiple mechanisms of operation, each one being more prevalent when another is shown to be flawed.
Skeptical Science: “All that is done, however, is to use a brilliant and sophisticated technique, taught only to the geniuses among us, called averaging! And of course, simple models are used in any classroom...it is how we learn.”
But they just admitted that it is not just a simple model, but that it is in fact a model which isn’t real at all. The comment about averaging is quite funny, because I spent a great deal of time describing how averaging needs to be physically interpreted if you want it to correspond with reality.
Skeptical Science: “But, in actuality, the globally averaged solar re-distribution approximation is not bad when we use it to describe the temperature for planets like Earth or Venus.  These planets have an atmosphere or ocean that transport heat effectively, especially Venus with virtually no day-to-night or pole-to-equator temperature gradient.  The atmosphere and/or ocean help smooth the diurnal temperature difference very well.  Therefore, when coming up with a temperature estimate, it is a great first approximation.”
Here, they don’t actually seem to be aware of what the only thing the solar insolation distributed average is good for, which is calculating the expected planetary blackbody temperature, and it works not just for Earth or Venus, but for all other planets as well whether an atmosphere is present or not. 
For Earth, the blackbody temperature works out to 255K (-18C), and in fact, this is exactly what the temperature of the planet Earth is!  The temperature of the Earth is exactly the temperature it is supposed to be. But what the alarmists do is mix up two different physical metrics and phenomena:  they compare the blackbody temperature of the Earth to its surface temperature, when these are completely different phenomena.
We already know why the surface temperature of the Earth should be warmer than the blackbody temperature and that it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect in the various manifestations they try to present it, as I laid out in my papers.  Of course this is beside the point because we already know that the agenda-makers will do whatever they can to try to make a problem out of a completely natural and beneficial gas that all animals breath out and which the biosphere requires more of, not less of.
Skeptical Science: “On Venus, the variability is even less, and most of the planet is at around 735K.”
This is a very good demonstration on their part of not distinguishing what physical metrics they’re actually talking about: “planet” can have many different connotations. The “planet” Venus actually has a temperature of 184K, not 735K!  It is the surface temperature of Venus that is 735K, and such a temperature is expected to be so independent of any greenhouse effect. It is likely that they are either unaware or they are complicit in this type of obfuscation.  They can get away with it because most of their leftist supporters are immune to science education.  Thankfully, the rest of the population hasn’t been.
Skeptical Science: “To summarize so far, Joseph E. Postma did not like a simple model of Earth’s radiative balance where we approximate the Earth as a sphere with uniform solar absorption.  Of course, this is never done in climate modeling or in more detailed analyses appropriate for scholarly literature, so it is more an exercise in complaining about undergraduate education than an attempt to correct what he calls a “paradigm” in climatology.”
Of course they are ignoring the fact that the flat earth model does indeed establish the paradigm for climatology and the greenhouse effect.
Skeptical Science: “Nonetheless, the 0-D energy balance model is a useful approximation on Earth when coming up with an average emission temperature (~255 K), since air circulations and oceans tend to even out the diurnal temperature gradient on Earth, in addition to the thermal inertia provided by the system.”
Air circulation and oceans and thermal inertia all have exactly nothing to do with the blackbody emission temperature of 255K, so this statement is just completely nonsensical.
Skeptical Science: “In essence, Postma stretches a simplified model to areas that it was never designed to go to, and then declares that its failure to work means the whole paradigm of the greenhouse effect is wrong.  The incompetence is overwhelming.”
This statement is risable nonsense.  Physics works universally. Skeptical Science presents the admitted fictional model greenhouse as if it is a logical principle borne out of physics, and as soon as it breaks down, they say that the same physics and the same idea isn’t supposed to be used anymore. This is the multiple personality disorder of greenhouse effect alarmism. The paradigm is wrong because it isn’t scientific in the first place, and we have admission that the models used to teach the paradigm are based on fiction.  What more do you need?  I think the incompetence, or should we call it the obfuscation level here, has been clearly demonstrated.
Skeptical Science: “He claims that observations of the atmospheric lapse rate (the rate at which temperature declines with height) disallow the greenhouse effect.  His reasoning is that the atmosphere is at a fixed height.  When greenhouse gases warm the surface, and cool the upper atmosphere, that height still remains fixed, but obviously the temperature difference between the bottom and top of the atmosphere must increase.  Postma then claims that this necessarily implies that the lapse rate must have a greater slope than the theoretical value that he derived of about -10 K per kilometer (which is about right for a dry air parcel ascending).  That is, if the atmospheric height remains fixed, and the temperature difference between bottom and top is increased, then the rate at which air cools with height must increase.  Since this is not observed, then we have a problem, right?  In actuality, the atmospheric height is a distraction.  The adiabatic lapse rate does not extend beyond the point where convection breaks down, which is the tropopause.  The whole point of the greenhouse effect is that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases does increase the “average” height at which emission to space takes place (and the tropopause increases in height too), so one IS allowed to extrapolate further down the adiabat to reach a higher surface temperature.  On Venus, the optical thickness forces the tropopause to some 60 km altitude.”
The point, which they curiously missed, is that we should occasionally be able to see lapse rates larger in magnitude than that set by thermodynamics alone because the action of the greenhouse effect that is supposedly continually acting everywhere would have exactly this effect.  The climate and weather systems are never (never have and never will be) in equilibrium and so we should be able to see natural perturbations above the adiabatic rate due to the action of the greenhouse effect as the system tries to return to an equilibrium state after some natural short-term fluctuation.  But in fact, the fastest observed rate is the 10K/km that is seen for dry air, as expected.  The average observed lower rate of 6.5K/km is due to the typical presence of water vapour which returns latent heat to the air column via condensation and it rises and cools, thus slowing the rate of temperature decrease as compared to an absence of water vapour.
 This is well known and can probably be modelled to first order relatively easily. The thick atmosphere on Venus doesn’t mean there’s more ambiguously-defined greenhouse effect, it simply means that there’s more atmosphere and more atmospheric pressure at the surface, and therefore from thermodynamic physics alone, such as the adiabatic lapse rate, we expect much higher temperatures.
Skeptical Science: “Perhaps just as crucial to all of this, Postma cannot get around the surface energy budget fallacy, which says that increased CO2 causes surface warming by just increasing the downward infrared flux to the surface.  This problem is described in standard treatments of the greenhouse effect, which he does not seem to know exist, such as in Ray Pierrehumbert’s recent textbook. The primacy of the top of the atmosphere budget, rather than the surface energy budget, has been known at least since the work of Manabe in the 1960s (see also Miller, 2011 submitted)”
Well first of all, linking to “RealClimate” (energy-budget-fallacy link) is hardly doing the author a favour.  Of course, we already identified what type of non-science we are dealing with here, and so we shouldn’t be surprised to find links to blogs or websites run by what many of us regard as pseudo science peddlers. Moreover, we again witness an equivocation as to what the real greenhouse effect actually is and how it actually works.  The fact is that it works in whatever way they want it to depending on how the criticism is exposing the flaws, which of course means their arguments are veritable sophistry.
Skeptical Science: “Postma runs into this mistake again when he claims that the low water vapor in hot deserts is a problem for greenhouse theory, but this is largely due to the lack of evaporation cooling, which is just one component of the surface energy budget, and nearly absent in a desert.  This is one scenario where a detailed consideration of the surface budget is critical, as well as in other weakly coupled regimes.”
            But it couldn’t be clearer:  In the desert there is very little water vapour, and water vapour is the strongest heat-amplifying so-called greenhouse gas, especially considering it’s overwhelming radiative properties as compared to CO2.  Yet in the desert, much higher temperatures are reached than are achieved at similar latitudes in areas where there is an abundance of water vapour.  If the greenhouse effect was really in operation, regions with more water vapour in the air should get much hotter than regions without, yet the reverse is seen to be the truth.  It doesn’t get any simpler and clear cut than this: where there should be a stronger greenhouse effect, the opposite is what is actually found.
 In fact, recent scientific findings by independent researcher Carl Brehmer has shown that water vapour, the strongest "greenhouse gas" according to climate theory, actually behaves as an ANTI-greenhouse gas because of its strong negative-feedback effects upon temperature increases.  This is therefore a double-whammy to alarmist climate irrationality, because in addition to requiring water vapour to act like a heat-amplifying greenhouse gas, it also requires water vapour to act as a positive feedback factor!  The data clearly shows that water and water vapour is a strong negative feedback factor in the climate, and that its presence reduced temperature, not increases it.
Skeptical Science: “The way CO2-induced warming really works in a well mixed atmosphere is by reducing the rate of infrared radiation loss to space.”
            This just doesn’t make any sense. The rate of infrared radiation loss to space is exactly the rate it should be, at about 240 W/m^2.  There is no reduction in the rate of energy loss to space due to CO2.
Skeptical Science: “The back-radiation will indeed increase in part because of more CO2 and water vapor, but also simply because the atmosphere is now at a higher temperature. But if the lower atmosphere was already filled with water vapor or clouds to the point where it emitted like a blackbody (at its temperature), increasing CO2 would not directly increase downward emission before temperature adjustment, but would nonetheless warm the planet by throwing the TOA energy budget out of whack.”
            The TOA blackbody energy budget results in the same value independent of anything which happens with a planet’s atmosphere; for the Earth, it is always 240 W/m^2, and this is true if it has an atmosphere or not.  Unfortunately, this simple fact escapes the hyperreality of climatism.
Skeptical Science: “…nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.”
            What has been clearly demonstrated is that the so-called “educational tools” are admitted “toys” which have no basis in reality.  It can’t be more evident that these “educational tools” are therefore tricks of sophistry designed to obfuscate reality and support a pre-arranged political agenda, as was demonstrated by the intimations of the author.
Skeptical Science: “Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.”
            But the Earth HAS “collapsed” into a frozen ice-ball several times in its history!  What warms it back up is the hot Sun, but climate science is incapable of understanding this and must therefore attribute this warming to the greenhouse effect, because they treat the Sun as if it is cold and as if it has little effect on warming the planet.  The paradigmatic irrationality and incompetence is just amazing.
Skeptical Science: “This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs. The author should be ashamed.”
            What scientists should be ashamed of is supporting policy-driven science for it’s own benefit. We are left with the perception that alarmist bloggers like Skeptical Science are probably paid by individuals in the government who have previously determined a policy initiative that they wanted supported by some science.  The result of that is billions of dollars worth of sophistry and obfuscation, as witnessed daily but what comes from alarmist-policy agenda setters.  Take my field of astrophysics for example: what we produce has no consequence to public policy or political excuses for austerity whatsoever - we can do whatever research we please and we won’t lose funding for it.  But the alarmist climate community feels compelled to produce alarming results to back political policy to ensure their future  funding and job security. 
All in all, skeptics are fairly concerned that there is a fundamental conflict of interest that such "science" could never be trusted. It's like giving the power to create money to the counterfeiters.  It is also most telling that the only scientists who are the most alarmist appear to be those who benefit most from the political policy funded it. Yet, typically any other scientist from any other field becomes “a skeptic” when they take the time to review the actual data for themselves. 
Nothing could be more clear: a scientifically literate person who doesn’t know any of the details of climate facts might support the alarmist cause, but once a scientifically literate person informs themselves of the actual science, they invariably become more skeptical.  The only scientifically literate enclave still supporting alarmist climate science is the one paid to do so.
These links are suggested for further reading:
Understanding the Atmosphere Effect (PDF)
The Model Atmosphere (PDF)
Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect (PDF)
The Three Hyper-real Paradoxes of Global Warming’s Climatism
The first two are long papers although they make for very good reading, while the latter two links are brief summary articles. The last link is particularly interesting for the philosopher of science and reason, and gives a good overview on the abuse of philosophy being engaged by climate alarmism.
            Like my colleagues at Principia Scientific International I suggest  there needs to be wider realisation that science has been hijacked by policy and that this policy is not in the public interest.  Life adapts to the natural rhythms of planetary climate change and humanity’s real science  improves its teleological evolutionary function in the biosphere and noosphere. Let's be clear: we’re going to have more climate change in the future, and we’re going to utilize it, and we will create more of it when and where it serves the teleology.  It is the definition of ludicrous insanity to be afraid of climate change, and to think that political and monetarist austerity will somehow negate that fear.



https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=385

[Deltabravo]

I want to post this separately because it sets out the problem with the use of the expression “Climate Change Denier” This is what Postma says about it:

The term is offensive on a fundamental intellectual and academic level because:

1) the skeptic community of proper scientists has never denied the existence of climate change,

2) climate change is not synonymous with human influences, a-priori,

3) climate change is well-known to have always occurred in all time-scales and periods that humans have data for,

4) The only thing one can deny is that climate can change now without human influence.

I've paraphrased Postma but the important point is paragraph 4. What he is saying is that, while calling skeptics "deniers" the so-called deniers are not denying anything in paragraphs 1 to 3.

So, what does that leave to deny so as to be called a "denier"? The most important aspect of climate "alarmism" as Postma puts it, is that it ascribes, by necessity, all relevant climate change to humans. It denies that climate CAN change other than by human intervention. It makes human-caused change to the earth's temperature (if that is even possible) to be the only determination cause of the "climate warming" or "climate chage" which they say is defnitely, yes absolutely definitely, going to harm us all.

Who's the denier? The warmist denies that naturally occuring changes in the climate can have any impact when, in fact, we know that these have always occurred, going back to before humanoids could even light fires.

The problem is that once one allows for natural climate change, unrelated to human activity, one has to accept that the future is not predictable unless one can predict future solar activity. If the future holds, for us, changes such that the temperature drops by several degrees, or rises by several degrees. there is nothing humans can do about it and if that is the case, then the whole basis of the politics based solely on climate change is a sham. Do what we can to reduce carbon emission, even if that reduces temperature (which it doesn't) and you cannot say that this is going to result in the temperature lowering, rising or staying the same.

[SYZ]

Postma's response to the Skeptical Science report debunking his nonsensical theories is merely a reworking of the same errors of
climatology that he made in his original, non-peer reviewed paper—which everybody with a background in science laughed at then.

Deltabravo,
About Joseph Postma's paper:

You really could look up this kind of thing on the internet yourself, if you were actually careful.  You obviously have a strong belief which you are grasping at straws to support.  

This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.  The author should be ashamed...

And here is Postma's response, which you also could have searched on the web, since you want to claim to be unbiased...

[massive snip!]

Joseph E. Postma developed a bit of a following for a "pal" [closely aligned peer, possibly uncredentialed] reviewed paper but has  
published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science that said a 100 years of scientific
consensus on greenhouse gases was entirely wrong. The paper is, (and you'd be wasting your time reading this) another PDF to
clutter your download folder LOL.  As it's been heralded as yet another, final nail in the AGW scam, Postma's response to the
Skeptical Science article debunking of his nonsensical, non-peer reviewed paper is littered with variations on exactly the same
absurd theme of his original paper.

Skeptical Science carried out another painstaking review to illustrate its numerous flaws.

It's yet another "pal" reviewed propaganda piece by the grandiose-sounding, vanity online science journal Principia Scientific International
set up by Tim Ball—geologist and climate denier—and his pals who have real problems with being rejected by mainstream science
because the are, frankly, nuts.     Therein, you will find law graduates, weathermen, and some retired scientists producing papers
saying climate change is not happening, and even a paper on a perpetual motion machine!

Postma is not actually an astrophysicist; he completed an astronomy degree and followed it up with a M.Sc which is merely a  two-year
part time course that gives students a detailed overview of the fundamentals of astrophysics.

The Calgary University web site list of personnel says Postma is a "support specialist"—which could be anything from a researcher, to a
lab technician, to someone who merely sweeps up at night. His Linkedin profile says he’s a "calibration manager", whatever the fuck that is?
He does work at Calgary University, which possibly does research for the Canadian Space program but it doesn’t mean Postma works
for them as well.

[Alan V]

"Burger King is planning to extend testing of its meatless 'Impossible" Whopper and will roll out the vegetarian option nationwide by the end of the year."

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/burger-k...d=62701439

[Deltabravo]

Postma's response to the Skeptical Science report debunking his nonsensical theories is merely a reworking of the same errors of
climatology that he made in his original, non-peer reviewed paper—which everybody with a background in science laughed at then.

Deltabravo,
About Joseph Postma's paper:

You really could look up this kind of thing on the internet yourself, if you were actually careful.  You obviously have a strong belief which you are grasping at straws to support.  

This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.  The author should be ashamed...

And here is Postma's response, which you also could have searched on the web, since you want to claim to be unbiased...

[massive snip!]

Joseph E. Postma developed a bit of a following for a "pal" [closely aligned peer, possibly uncredentialed] reviewed paper but has  
published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science that said a 100 years of scientific
consensus on greenhouse gases was entirely wrong. The paper is, (and you'd be wasting your time reading this) another PDF to
clutter your download folder LOL.  As it's been heralded as yet another, final nail in the AGW scam, Postma's response to the
Skeptical Science article debunking of his nonsensical, non-peer reviewed paper is littered with variations on exactly the same
absurd theme of his original paper.

Skeptical Science carried out another painstaking review to illustrate its numerous flaws.

It's yet another "pal" reviewed propaganda piece by the grandiose-sounding, vanity online science journal Principia Scientific International
set up by Tim Ball—geologist and climate denier—and his pals who have real problems with being rejected by mainstream science
because the are, frankly, nuts.     Therein, you will find law graduates, weathermen, and some retired scientists producing papers
saying climate change is not happening, and even a paper on a perpetual motion machine!

Postma is not actually an astrophysicist; he completed an astronomy degree and followed it up with a M.Sc which is merely a  two-year
part time course that gives students a detailed overview of the fundamentals of astrophysics.

The Calgary University web site list of personnel says Postma is a "support specialist"—which could be anything from a researcher, to a
lab technician, to someone who merely sweeps up at night. His Linkedin profile says he’s a "calibration manager", whatever the fuck that is?
He does work at Calgary University, which possibly does research for the Canadian Space program but it doesn’t mean Postma works
for them as well.

But, yet again we have a response which does not deal with the issues and tries to tell people that they shouldn't read the article, that he's a "denier" etc etc.   

The point he's making is that you cannot warm up the temperature at ground level by having a gas reflect "heat" back down from a colder and higher layer of the atmosphere, which is what the Greenhouse Effect tries to suggest.   We went skiing last month in Cyprus and it's cold enough only a few thousand feet up to get several meters of snow, but down the bottom of the hill is lush greenery.  He's pointing out a fatal flaw in the "model" of a greenhouse since greenhouses work by using a physical barrier to keep warm air in and the physics of light reflection simply does not support the greenhouse gas hypothesis.

Also, you haven't addressed the issue about what exactly "deniers" are said to be denying.  There's no dispute that climate has warmed and changed over many millennia and without human influence. The seas rose 400 feet at some point. They have been rising 3mm a year during the last 25 years.  Now the climate is not warming.  

So, what is being denied?   Alarmists deny that the sun has anything to do with climate change.  Is that not correct?  

Again, I want to point out that what this thread is doing is to call people names and make them out to be deniers, heretics and skeptics.  But that's what religions do to people who deny the dogma, are skeptical and become heretics.  I thought atheism was all about embracing denial, heresy and skepticism in the face of insistence that everyone follows the same "truth" without question.

[Minimalist]

This fucktard is a climate change denier. 





So is this fucktard.



And this fucktard.....




I see a pattern here.