Dependence on Earth's thermal radiation

Comments on Will Happer/Willem van Wijngaarden paper – Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases Kelvin Kemm December 4, 2020 I found it most interesting going through the Will Happer/Willem van Wijngaarden paper. It indicates that there is a saturation point, but it also shows that the whole CO2 climate change issue is far more complex than the Al Gore/Leonardo Di Caprio model suggests.

As far as the comments of Gary Young go, I really enjoyed them. I like 'nailed it' and 'definitive'. Also 'CO2 was innocent' is a neat phrase. It was really interesting to see the approach of Gary essentially confirming what Will and Willem indicated. I really appreciated Gary explaining the challenges of bringing real physics into engineering production aimed at financial profitability. I have been involved in that over many years so I really appreciated the experiences explained.

But now the challenge that we have is how to take CO2 physics evidence like this, and then to converted it into the type of story that can appear in Vogue and Cosmopolitan. I am not joking.

The policies of governments are decided by politicians. They in turn listen very much to 'public opinion.' The 'public opinion' is very much like the biblical explanation of the ploughed land into which you sow your grain. If good grain does not land in prepared ground then it does not achieve very much. (Will told me a bit about his experiences in the White House of trying to talk to political-types. I had great sympathy, I know all about that.)

The extreme greens have invested huge amounts of money and effort into preparing the public opinion in such a way that it not only favours them, but also condemns and trivializes the type of information of the Will/Willem/Gary type.

The greens are looking for political power so that they can dictate how all people must live their lives. The goal of 'Saving the Planet For All Mankind' is the basis of their moral claim to be telling everybody not only what to do but also how to think, so that 'climatedeniers' are denied the opportunity to alter the narrative.

Most Physics and Engineering people are not interested in getting into a bun-fight with public opinion. It is risky and exhausting. But sadly that is where the real power lies.

1

I have found that most members of the public are well-meaning and inherently honest.

But what they want is an ‘excuse’ to believe you if you are right. They need something that they can explain to their friends.

Some years ago, through physics and engineering, I got involved with the packaging industry and the Advertising Standards Authority. I watched crisps being packaged, beer cans being filled, cement going into bags, lipstick being packaged, baby food and more. It was all very interesting. A Package is essentially never 'seen' by the purchaser.

The packaging guys used to constantly complain to me how much effort they put into making a box or packet, which the purchaser immediately threw away. What the purchasers see is the advertising on the can/packet/bag/tube, but they never look at how the package is made or sealed. I always do look now. Here we have to package potato crisps at the coast and inland because of the difference in atmospheric pressure.

Johannesburg is high (6000 feet) and a bag of crisps packed there goes flat if you take it to the coast. It goes flat enough for the crisps to be broken in transit before sale, so people then don't buy them. The psychology of the recipient (purchaser) is very important.

From the advertising people I learned that purchasers react to a perception, not to detail or facts. I also learnt that you can't change a perception, you can only replace it with the new one. (I liked the Gary illustration of the Gillette razor. That showed how they achieved their objective without actually telling the public what they were trying to do, ie; sell blades not razors) Like Revlon sells ‘hope’ not chemicals. This is the type of approach that the greens use.

So if the public hear that some product 'contains poison' for example, they don't buy it.

If you then say: 'well it now contains much less poison that it did last month and it is now ok,' it makes no difference. Or, if you say: 'Well technically the chemical it contains; potassium xyz, could be a poison but you would have to eat 10 tons of crisps with that flavouring before you could conceivably absorb any dose of consequence,' it still makes no difference.

So the greenies say: "Nuclear radiation is dangerous." Physicists can't say: "No it is not."

We have to say something like: "Well yes it can be, but only in doses far higher than the doses in LNT arguments." By then you have lost the audience. So we have to rather answer something like: "Yes it can be dangerous, but less so than the granite top and the bananas in your kitchen." We have to create an impression (a mental picture) that they can grasp, and then discuss in the pub.

'Climate change' has cunningly been altered to 'climate crisis' so that a time pressure is built in. That subtle change then says: "You don't have time to think about this, or to argue. Just do as we tell you, and do it fast." Politicians then want to grab votes, so they fall in line with the loud demands. If one of us then says: "Hold on, that is not correct,’ then we are branded 'deniers' and also as people who do not care about the salvation of the planet. A green Inquisition Mob is then ready for a public lynching. So we have to figure out mental imagery that is aimed at a middle school mentality which creates a

2

picture of CO2 saturation etc which can easily be featured in the likes of Vogue and Cosmo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OBSERVATION: During humanity’s increased use of fossil fuels (over 200 years), life has gotten significantly better for more than half of the world’s population (3 billion plus people). Food production has increased tremendously. Respect for the environment and biodiversity has improved. Prior to use of fossil fuels humanity’s attitude toward nature was mainly that it was there to be used. Appreciation for nature is improving. Life is getting better. Here are some photos from South Africa, Tanzania, and Ecuador today.

3