Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again

Oh dear. I really didn’t want my first blog post in a week to be yet another one about global bloody warming. Problem is, if those lying, cheating climate scientists will insist on going on lying and cheating what else can I do other than expose their lying and cheating?

The story so far: ten days ago a self-proclaimed “sceptical” climate scientist named Professor Richard Muller of Berkeley University, California, managed to grab himself some space in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) claiming that the case for global warming scepticism was over. Thanks to research from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures (BEST) project, Professor Muller stated confidently, we now know that the planet has warmed by almost one degree centigrade since 1950. What’…

(to read more, click here)

5 thoughts on “Lying, cheating climate scientists caught lying, cheating again”

  1. Don’t you think that if you are proved wrong in the next few years you will appear to be an arrogant fool.

  2. Strange, this project was even funded by the Koch brothers, pinnacle of climate denial funding. So I guess the only person the denial lobby can turn to now is Mr Delingpole himself, the man who doesn’t even do science, since, Muller, once the hero of the sceptical world, is now a lying cheating scientist.

  3. James, pleasesee Richard Muller’s article in Scientific American in May 1978, “The cosmic background radiation and new aether drift”? PDF: http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf

    Richard Muller’s article used measurements of the 3.5 mK cosine angular anisotropy in the 2.73 K microwave background cosmic radiation, to determine earth’s motion with respect to the average locations of matter in the universe which emitted that radiation at 300,000 years after the big bang origin. Michelson and Morley’s 1887 null result led FitzGerald in Science in 1889 to predict a “contraction” of matter in the direction of motion, so that Maxwell’s relativity is physically caused by “aether” force contracting measuring apparatus in the direction they move (like water pressure on the bow of a ship causing a contraction of the ship in the direction of motion); Einstein mathematically removed the aether physically causing the contraction. The radiation you are moving into is Doppler blueshifted; that you are receding from is redshifted. This effect in the gravitational field causes inertia (the force of resistance to acceleration). Objects are contracted by the compressive force due to the blueshifted field quanta in the direction you are moving. (The frequency of field quanta is proved by the experimentally confirmed Casimir effect.)

    Muller stated: “There can be only one inertial frame in any region of space where the background radiation is completely isotropic. In any other frame, an observer’s motion will reveal itself as a variation in temperature of the radiation … P. J. E. Pebbles, one of the physicists in Dicke’s group who correctly identified the origin of the radiation, coined the term ‘the new aether drift’ to describe the expected motion. … it is motion with respect to the most natural frame of reference in cosmology: the expanding coordinate system in which the galaxies are nearly at rest.”

    Einstein stated in , “The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity,” Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916:

    “The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).”

    General covariance of the laws necessitates absolute motions, not relativity. General relativity replaces relative motion with general covariance, the concept that the laws of nature (not motions) are independent of the reference frame selected. General covariance permits absolute accelerations, necessitating a “preferred” absolute coordinate system. General covariance states that the laws of nature, not motions, are invariant. “General relativity” is a serious misnomer, and should be changed to “general covariance.” Spacetime contraction makes light speed appear invariant by distorting spacetime, FitzGerald’s mechanism for light speed relativism. Arthur S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152:

    “The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus [the Lorentz contraction itself is physically caused by the head-on pressure of the ether against the front of the moving particle, squeezing it] … The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.”

    So far so good, but the Muller sold out to Willem de Sitter’s armchair philosophy in his book Kosmos, 1932:

    “Our own galaxy system is only one of a great many, and observations made from any of the others would show exactly the same thing: all systems are receding, not from any particular centre, but from each other: the whole system of galaxies is expanding.”

    Muller wrote:

    “… astronomers accept the ‘cosmological principle’: the belief that the universe is essentially the same everywhere. … an exploding clump of matter sitting somewhere in space offers no natural way to account for the existence of the cosmic background radiation … the radiation would no longer be around to be observed. In the big bang theory there is no primordial clump of matter and no center to the explosion. … there is no outer edge to the distribution of matter. The big bang was not an explosion of matter within space but an explosion of space itself.”

    However, the curved spacetime model contradicts the discontinuous quantum field theory (particulate vacuum) at the heart of the Standard Model (all particle interactions), as Steven Weinberg explained in his 1972 book Gravitation and Cosmology, John Wiley and Sons, 1972:

    “Einstein and his successors have regarded the effect of a gravitational field as producing a change in the geometry of space and time. At one time it was even hoped that the rest of physics could be brought into a geometric formulation, but this hope has met with disappointment, and the geometric interpretation of the theory of gravitation has dwindled to a mere analogy, which lingers in our language in terms like ‘metric,’ ‘affine connection,’ and ‘curvature,’ but is not otherwise very useful. The important thing is to be able to make predictions about images on the astronomers’ photographic plates, frequencies of spectral lines, and so on, and it simply doesn’t matter whether we ascribe these predictions to the physical effect of gravitational fields on the motion of planets and photons or to a curvature of space and time.”

    Willem de Sitter’s 1932 dogmatic lie misrepresents abject speculation as being proved fact, a piece of vile falsehood, misleading, pseudoscientific assertion. Willem de Sitter didn’t travel throughout the universe to check his dogmatic assertion about isotropy throughout the universe. He conflated speculation and fact by deliberately omitting vital caveats.

    A hot gas fireball is opaque to radiation as it initially expands, limited by light velocity, containing radiation with a short mean free path until the ions and electrons combine and the fireball becomes transparent to radiation, by which time a great deal of expansion has occurred and the fireball is very large. This is analogous to the moment of radiation decoupling at 300,000 years after the big bang origin, when the temperature fell low enough to deionize. So the cosmic background radiation was unleashed throughout a large fireball, not a point source, removing Muller’s objection.

  4. Isn’t it odd? Muller, once the hero of the ‘I don’t understand science but I know what I like’ cretins like Delingpole, is suddenly a ‘lying, cheating’ scientist. Why?

    Because he accepted that what virtually every expert (a concept that Delingpole doesn’t recognise, except, presumably, when he needs a plumber or a dentist or anyone who actually knows what they’re doing) has been saying for 25 years is true. The irony of the study being funded by the vile Koch brothers (heroes to a born toady like Delingpole, who has never met a rich man he didn’t like) is almost too sweet.

    1. At what point was Muller one of Delingpole’s heroes?

      We had hopes, but it turns out Muller is just another media manipulating fearmonger.

Comments are closed.