The Extreme Stupidity Of The Scientific Consensus

Nearly every academic in the country believes that Venus is hot because of the large amount of CO2 in their atmosphere, which they say is “trapping the Sun’s heat.”


It is trivial to demonstrate that this theory is mindless nonsense.

The lapse rate on Earth is nearly the same as it is on Venus, despite the fact that the Venusian atmosphere has 95% GHG, and Earth’s atmosphere has less than 3% GHG.


Venus lapse rate is slightly higher than Earth, because CO2  is more dense than N2 or O2. Thus the atmospheric pressure increases at a higher rate as you descend through the atmosphere.

If GHG’s controlled the lapse rate on Earth, then humid days would have much higher lapse rates than dry days. In fact, we see the exact opposite. Humid days have slightly lower lapse rates than dry days, because H2O is less dense than N2 or O2. GHG’s have very little control of the temperature.

If GHG’s controlled the lapse rate on Earth, then the lapse rate would decrease with altitude, because there are more GHG’s near the surface. This doesn’t happen.

Venus surface receives very little sunlight. They go for months at a time in total darkness. yet the temperature doesn’t drop. How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that Venus is hot because of trapped sunlight?

Venus is hot because it has a very tall, high pressure troposphere. At 1000 mb in the Venusian atmosphere, temperatures are similar to Earth’s surface, despite a very different chemical makeup of the atmosphere.

The bottom of the Grand Canyon is hot because of high atmospheric pressure. The top of the Grand Canyon is cold because of low atmospheric pressure.

The combined IQ of academia on this subject is close to zero. Complete flaming idiots.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The Extreme Stupidity Of The Scientific Consensus

  1. jimmy Haigh says:

    You would think that Hansen would know about this?

    • MieScatter says:

      The standard textbook answer seems to be that scientists know about this, but then they start talking about the pressure lapse rate. Does that matter?

  2. Steve Case says:

    The atmosphere on Venus is 95% CO2 and it’s hot enough there to melt lead.
    The atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2 and it’s so cold there it snows dry ice.
    The atmosphere on Earth is 0.04% CO2 and it’s rather pleasant.

    A doubling CO2 should run the temperature up a degree or so, whether it actually does or not is another matter.

    • jimmy Haigh says:

      This fact suggests to me that maybe, just maybe, the distance to the sun might have something to do with it too…

      • MieScatter says:

        Distance to the Sun must matter, but if it’s the only important thing then why isn’t Mercury warmer than Venus?

        I don’t think the percentage calculation makes too much sense either. Shouldn’t it be the total amount of greenhouse gas that matters?

  3. bobbyv says:

    Can you quantify heat transfer in a static situation vs that due to convection on Venus?

    • Edmonton Al says:

      A doubling of CO2 from 400ppm to 800ppm is an increase of 400ppm or 1 in 2500.
      The UN IPCC says that this doubling will increase the atmospheric temperature about 2C.
      Therefore, 1 molecule of CO2 has to “trap” enough “heat” to raise the other 2499 molecules 2C.
      Now, that is a lot of heat. This seems absurd to me.

  4. frederik wisse says:

    Obama and the Pope are ready to put you in jail for this heresy !

  5. Stephen Richards says:

    That’s a great pointer on lapse rate Tony. Thanks

  6. Don G says:

    Hey, you used “consensus” correctly. Too bad Cook et. al, didn’t use a dictionary. Or maybe Cook was intentionally misleading the world….

  7. nancy wilson says:

    Alan Croft is a Belfast born deep sea scaffolder who moved to London to learn the English language and make his fortune by selling surgical wrestling boots to under privileged Mongolian immigrants. But the only job he could get was wringing out chamois’s for a one armed window cleaner. His love affair with England ended when he was given the cold shoulder by the Queen who had made tea and toast during renovation work at Windsor castle. Disillusioned following an unsuccessful 13 years of trying to teach the people of Reading, Berkshire to speak with a Belfast accent he packed up his digital alarm clock radio and headed to Canada. He now resides in Toronto and is president of the “Oy watch it club.” He is now looking for a new publisher or assistance to promote his book. Read (Belfast: tears and laughter), available on Amazon.

  8. M. says:

    The lapse rate has nothing to to with the greenhouse effect, because the lapse rate depends on the composition of the atmosphere as you also admit. When the average molar mass of the atmosphere is similar the lapse rate is similar. I’m sorry but you are completely off focus. You should consider the radiative-convective equilibrium of the atmosphere. In that case the concentration of CO2 and the cloud cover make the difference.

  9. Michele says:

    Given that my previous post was canceled by the administrator, so I repost it in the hope he will accept a real discussion.

    The lapse rate has nothing to do with greenhouse effect, it is just a function of the gas composition of the atmosphere. The atmosphere is almost transparent to the solar shortwave radiation, but not so transparent to the longwave radiation emitted by the planet surface (because the planet surface is much colder than the sun, its radiation has a longer wavelength), due to the presence of H20, Co2, CH4 and other gases which absorb it (each gas can absorbe only a limited range of wavelenghts). The troposphere of a planet is therefore heated by the planet surface (heated by the sun and by the heat coming from the planet interior), which generates the atmospheric circulation (which is trimmed by warmer air which moves up). In the ascending motion the gas expands (because pressure reduces) and therefore becomes cooler, but this gradual cooling (measured by the lapse rate) has nothing to do with greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect would change the temperature of the surface, simply shifting the temperature curve, which would have the same slope. Can you understand this? It requires just high school physics!

Leave a Reply to MieScatter Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *