Sunday, 21 August 2011

Anthony Bright-Paul winner of 2011 von Monckhofen Award for Pedagogical Excellence



The prestigous von Monckhofen Award for Pedagogical Excellence goes this year, that is AD 2011, to Anthony Bright-Paul for his most pedagogical refutation of the greenhouse effect and hence also of the entire global warming climate change fraud. It is a demonstration of the most impeccable logic and brilliant clarity. Indeed, it is so clear and simple that even Al'Gore might be able to understand it provided he can get his big fat butt out of his jet plane for once. I'm especially impressed by the way Mr Bright-Paul uses beer as a vehicle of explanation and identification. Congratulations, Mr Bright-Paul! You are a most deserving winner.

As further motivation, I will simply let Mr Bright-Paul's text speak for itself:

The History of Science is the history of wrong conclusions, being eventually overturned by more evidence, or more correctly by logic. Even today, the data that science uncovers is more often than not misunderstood.
...
These questions concern the properties of gases. The question here is whether gases are active or passive?

Can Carbon Dioxide be frozen?
Can Carbon Dioxide be liquefied?
Can Carbon Dioxide be cooled?
Can Carbon Dioxide be warmed?
In this case I will suggest that the answer in every case must be, Yes. Carbon Dioxide can be made into Dry Ice, which is even colder than Water Ice, and can even cause frostbite. Carbon Dioxide can be liquefied and is often so done for ease of transportation. Carbon Dioxide can be cooled, as in Ice-Cold lager from a fridge. Carbon Dioxide can be warmed as in warm beer. So the question is this: Is Carbon Dioxide active or passive? Please note above the use of the passive tense.

Let us do the same with Water Vapour?
...
I hope so – in all cases it is clear that gases are passive. They re-act. In no way can a Gas jump out of a Gasholder or a can, like a Genie, and say ‘Tickety-Boo!’ ( I am willing to be corrected!)
...
What conclusion, what logical conclusions must follow from that? If gases are passive, if gases can be warmed or can be cooled, if gases have no inherent temperature of their own, then there is no way that they can cause warming. They are either warmed or cooled.

If we put a potato a microwave oven and switch on the power, the potato can be baked within 10 minutes. But put the same potato in a freezer, how long will it take to bake? Is there a hot spot in the freezer? And yet our noble scientists have been searching for a Hot Spot at 10 Kilometres high in the Troposphere, that is some 33,000 feet! It is not a question of Science it is a question for Logic; it is a question of Philosophy.

The crux of the argument is philosophical and the nub of it is logic. To suggest that Man is somehow creating radical changes in Climate is an inadmissible conclusion. And as to Man warming the Globe, it is a complete impossibility.

13 comments:

  1. Endorphin Monkey21 August 2011 at 14:13

    I read the link and Anthony B-P is right. Anthropophagic Glimate Warming (AGW) is easily disproved. Just go to the fridge, open the door (necessary step) and bring out a bottle of beer or pop. Its existence disproves AGW. The CO2 inside is cold, not warm. So why do people deny this is the case?

    We all know that heat is not the increasingly rapid movement of atoms, with this movement transferable to less rapidly moving atoms. It is a thing in itself (infra-red radiation "The Good Radiation") which can and must dissipate through special sub-microscopic heat pathways from a warm source to a cold non-source. Therefore all the heat that arrives on earth from the sun eventually turns around and leaves again. This heat loss might be slowed by CO2, but how does that raise temperatures? After all, there's no relationship between heat and temperature, is there. B-P is also right in that there's a heck of a lot of air around the planet and nothing people can do to it or about it.

    I'm grateful to Anthony B-P for telling us all this and more. The question remains: Why did he have to use so many bloody words to do it. Editing, man! Editing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To have no understanding of what science is or what it is that scientists do.......

      Wondering what is made of actual Greenhouses used to grow vegetables out of their normal season? The glass has no effect on the temperature for the plants? How does the temperature remain traped within the glass I wonder? Hmmm! (Tip: I'm being facetious)

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the "scientists" do logic they usually do something like this:

    1. Make some statements
    2. Reasoning and deductions
    3. Conclusions

    Anthony is a master of logic, as can be seen by the way he effortlessly skips over step 2 and still ends up with conclusions that we already believed were right. It makes the logic plain and simple, unlike the "scientists", who flail about on step 2 trying to prove something that isn't even obvious. It's a crapshoot whether they'll end up with the right conclusion or the wrong one. It's no wonder the essence of science is the essence of wrong conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks. I'm always getting the crux and the nub mixed up. This will help, like a mnemonic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow Baron, you have a real Award named after you! You must be truly an important person, even Al-Gore doesn't have an award named after him. From now on I will uncritically accept whatever you say!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow, just wow Baron.

    Your award might just be what it takes to add the right amount if gravitas and publicity to Dr. Bright-Pall's writings, which should be shouted from every rooftop.

    With the addition of just one ot two more sentences, preferably also using some more long words (e.g. 'marmalade' or 'corrugated iron', although there are probably plenty of others) Prof. Brite-Pull could author an edition of that popular series 'The Truth About Global Warming For Dummies'.

    Although thinking about it, that pointy faced character they have on the covers is suspiciously egg-headed and elitist looking.

    Perhaps 'The Truth About Global Warming For Absolute F*cking Morons' or 'The Truth About Global Warming For Complete Cretin C*nts' or 'The Truth About Global Warming For Those Whose Neurons Wouldn't Spark If You Filled Their Ears With Thermite And Rammed Two Sticks Of Dynamite Up Their Noses And Lit The Fuse' would be more suitable for the 'everyman' market to whom these essays should be exposed.

    Of course, those suggestions are just off the top of my head and may need a little refinement, but I feel convinced that the popularity of Doctors Watts', McIntyres' and Montford's websites would indicate a market of several dozens for Prof. Ring-Pull's work.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Endorphin Monkey22 August 2011 at 21:18

    Further advice for your award... I clicked on the image of the trophy you plan to award to Mr. B-P and I make two recommendations 1) Make it bigger. You can hardly see it. 2) Call it something other than "stock-photo-golden-cup-44654779" I suggest "The von Monckhofen- Climate Truth Goblet of Triumph. The name to be inserted will be that of your sponsor. Koch, perhaps? Cato Institute? It's your chance to make some extra money.

    I will follow your lead and create an award too. However, the only person who deserves any award given by me, will be me. After I pay off the washer-dryer combo I will go to the antique shop/flea market and find a suitable trophy to re-engrave.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Endorphin Monkey22 August 2011 at 21:23

    I meant to say "The von Monckhofen-Insert Name Here Climate Truth Goblet of Triumph"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Baron von Monckhofen23 August 2011 at 00:54

    Thanks for the advice, Monkey.

    I am still working on buying an actual trophy (in gold) that I can send to Mr Bright-Paul. I would need some sponsors. I am in negotiations with a gentleman from Nigeria (the poor man has cancer and a lot of money in a secret account) but the Cato Institute is also worth trying.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But, Check,

    Those elitists are the dummies when it comes to global warming. The average man in the street knows more about the scam that is AGW than those liberal green lefties, let alone those "sceintists" who cannot even predict tomorrow's weather. Really, everybody knows more about the climate than them .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anthony Bright-Paul, that's me, is pleased to accept the Monckhofen Award. My article, '7 Billion Machines' has been published on 5 different sites, and I believe it also appeared on Facebook. So it was somewhat of an honour to be reqested to allow my article to appear. Here is one link http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10173-seven-billion-machines Tony BP for short.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You know what - climate change causes climate change. Look out! If you don't believe in 'climatechange' you are a denier. For 'climate change' has now been deified. Anthony Bright-Paul (Author of Climate for the Layman)

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to comment on my blog, dear reader.