Reviewing John Cook’s "Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change"

I was surprised to receive an email from John Cook the creator and driving force behind SkepticalScience.com inviting me to review his new book “Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change.”  Having received the challenge, I couldn’t refuse.  An easy to read graphic book that at 164 pages frames important climate science and communication lessons within cartoons, artwork and concise sentences.

It reads to me as a light hearted, inoffensive, easy to comprehend look into the conundrum of conveying climate science facts to folks in a world that’s swimming in disinformation.

John Cook doesn’t shout or agitate instead preferring to explain the well understood science, while offering only fleeting glimpses into the past decades of full blown malicious dirty tricks that the contrarian campaigns against climate science understanding are guilty of.

The Cranky Uncle’s opening chapter is “How did Climate Change get so Controversial?” tells the story of a few corporate funded (Republican) political operatives who were able to completely distort how climate science was presented to the public.  

Mike Hulme's Tenacious Grip on Physical Reality. An examination.

After reading Hulme's "Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?" he invites us to read: "‘We Always Get the Weather We Deserve’: The Tenacious Grip of Moral Accountability."   So I did.  It was an even deeper exploration into his Mindscape rather than climate science.  Needless to say, this essay also deserves a serious examination.

I'm looking for a job, researcher and writer, 
dedicated to confronting the deliberate calculated lies 
of the climate science contrarian community!
PO Box 56
Durango, Colorado 81326
citizenschallenge - at - gmail com

@ mikehulme.org  |  25/01/2018

TEXT REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS. 

My intention is a review of ‘libertarian' deception in action. 

________________________________________________________________

Abstract: 

Different cosmologies, religious thought, political ideologies, social practices and scientific paradigms of knowledge all contribute to the rich cultural matrix in which theories of climatic change and causation have emerged, flourished and declined. 

____________

Sure, but lets be clear, this is about our inner perceptions and not about understanding our climate system.

Prof. Mike Hulme gets lost in his Mindscape. An examination.

Yesterday I read an ATTP post about Mike Hulme’s controversial May 27th article, "Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?" I did a double take.  

Weren't they just saying, “No Manmade Global Warming” - then it was “No Catastrophic Warming” - now we’re up to, “No Human Extinction” - anyone else notice a disturbing pattern here?  It made me curious so I read it and found myself recalling the Missing Key, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape.  

I don’t know Hulme.  I do know his article did nothing to recommend him.  It was a contrived piece of…, of…, I don’t know, manipulative nothing.  A waste of time if constructive learning was one’s goal. 

However, it offers a great case study in getting lost within one’s own Mindscape and forgetting all about the Physical Reality ‘out there’.  That’s why I decided to dissect Hulme's article and add it to my collection.

In truth, I don’t know if Hulme considers himself a libertarian or not, I do know his words parrot libertarian arguments and logic so I’m comfortable assuming he is until told otherwise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?

@ mikehulme.org  |  27/05/2019

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS. 

My intention is a review of ‘libertarian' deception in action. 

¶1  There has been a lot of talk recently about climate change and extinction.

¶2  It is undoubtedly the case that species go extinct.  And sometimes large numbers of species disappear together in mass events caused by the same physical stresses.  It is also true that at some point in the future the human species will go extinct, or at the least evolve into a new species partly of our own making.  

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Astroturfing?

After reviewing Steele’s odd April 17th “Safe Space” column about opinions regarding Polar Bears in the Inuit’s warming Arctic world, I became curious and looked up the word Kappiananngittuq which Jim tossed around so glibly. 

I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ and I’ll tell you, I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles - it turned out that upon closer examination there were 29 links to articles that mirrored the same deceptive What's Natural? article.  

What is going on?  Have Jim Steele, Sherman Frederick, Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  Or is it just astroturfing?  

Then I thought of the rationalists, the science respecting side of this public dialogue, ten years I’ve been working at trying to network with like minded, but there’s no network out there.  Like everyone is off doing their own thing and no one has the time to care about the rest of it.  Or something like that.  

I don’t know.  It's like very few seem to appreciate the gravity of the Faith-Blinded political drive to destroy rationalism and democratic governance.  Think I'm exaggerating, ever listen to American Christian radio!?  Ever listen to FOX, or Trump?  

All I do know is the clock keeps ticking and the ruthless intellectual frauds and rhetorical bullies continue having free reign to mislead and deceive and slander and astroturf their utterly self-destructive delusional crap as much as they like.  It’s a disgrace, the founding fathers of the intellectual enlightenment would be appalled.

Below I include the google screen shots if anyone cares to investigate.  After that I share a good sized collection of articles about Social Media manipulation.

Google search results for _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ (May 28, 2019)

click on the images for a clear view:

What’s natural about Steele’s take on Carl Sagan? - 97% - Pacifica Tribune 2/20

A study guide to Jim Steele’s  “What’s Natural?”, featured in the Pacifica Tribune.

What’s Natural? (#5)  Jim Steele, Pacifica Tribune, February 20, 2019

The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. 

This is the second half of the previous post, please refer to it for an introduction.  

Basically Jim Steele is lecturing us on how to interpret Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.  It promises to be an insightful journey into the workings of the libertarian deception.  

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a point by point review of libertarian deception in action.

(please click on image for sharp view)

Before we begin, let me share Sagan's (or was it Feynman)  sage advice for us science spectators: “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out!”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jim Steele writes:  “To overcome our biases and strive for a greater scientific truth, our discussions will be well served if guided by Sagan's principles. Below I paraphrase the most pertinent points in Sagan's Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. (I add my comments in parentheses.)” 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wait a minute.  Check out what’s going on here, reread that first line.

“To overcome our biases” and “striving for a greater scientific truth.” Those are two very different things and must be recognized as such. 

Carl Sagan’s book was written to and for us regular people, non-scientists, we who look at the scientific community and their studies from the outside.   

Recognize that not everyone can be an Earth scientist.  It takes a particular perspective on life and a burning curiosity to understand nature, along with a disciplined character that’s always striving for greater scientific truth.  

The point I’m trying to get across is that before we can continue with this discussion - we must openly recognize who’s who.

c) Intellectually Confronting Faith-Based thinking and Dogma Driven Deceptions

Why not challenge people to realize no human has ever been born capable of understanding the true “God Almighty of Light and Time, Creation and Love” ?

( 2018 was the climax of a decade long crescendo in my decades long effort to network with rationalists, scientists and science communicators, in what I fancied was our communal struggle to confront the dishonest nonsense that corporate funded science contrarians and select politicians were so successfully peddling to an under-informed and mostly disinterested public - and since New Year's Eve is upon us, I feel like collecting some of my favorite essays in an effort to summarize my perspective.  

This is half of a flier that I circulated at the Colorado Democratic Assembly and Convention and where I did my best to summarize a challenge to confront faith-based thinking and dogma driven deceptions - along with some retrospective at the end. )

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Memes Courier

    Colorado Democratic Assembly -  April 13, 2018  

      

Intellectually Confronting Faith-Based thinking and Dogma Driven Deceptions.

The opposing sides: Children of the Intellectual Enlightenment vs Faith-based dogmatism spearheaded by the evangelical movement (driven by wannabe oligarchs).  Winning at the polls is only half our challenge when well over a third of our country fully supports this amoral president and his white supremest bullying and his attacks upon our government and democratic institutions.  

Beyond winning in the 2018 elections, we need to nurture a massive grassroots movement of informed and engaged voters who are willing to confront faith-based delusional thinking on an individual level, while also standing behind those we elect to make sure they get their jobs done.

Faith-based thinking demands a rejection of serious science along with hostility towards learning from down to Earth evidence.  This attitude is enabled and reinforced by a constant flow of contrived high pitched fear-mongering and paranoid machinations towards “the other” be it different people or ideas.

Why have we allowed their religion and God a free pass?

Memes Courier - Colorado Democratic Assembly 2018 - Intellectually Confronting Faith-Based thinking

I'm at my fourth Colorado Democratic Assembly and I've always been a pamphleteer.  Not the easiest for a private shy sort of guy.  So I've been rather passive, offering my pages and ready for dialogue but not stepping forward to engage people.  Time passes, we learn more with every day and this year I've promised myself to step it up a little and reach out to people to introduce the topic and establish an interest before offering my flier. 

Had a little practice during the short district assembly this evening.  At first looking at the 350+ District 3 delegates it seemed the crowd of the usual old folks, and not that many young faces.  But, then I started spotting them.  Not in the numbers I had hoped.  Then I heard a couple powerful speeches by young speakers.  Followed by a few good conversations,
as in 'yippy, they get it.'  I realized their small number way under-represented the energy and substance and power they possess.

It was fun.  I'm feeling a little better already and I'm looking forward to tomorrow.  Here's side one, a lifetime's distillation.  I'll share side two tomorrow, now I'm going to bed, it's late and tomorrow will be a long busy day.

The Memes Courier

    Colorado Democratic Assembly -  April 13, 2018  

      

Intellectually Confronting Faith-Based thinking and Dogma Driven Tribalism.

The opposing sides: Children of the Intellectual Enlightenment vs Faith-based dogmatism spearheaded by the evangelical movement (driven by wannabe oligarchs).  Winning at the polls is only half our challenge when well over a third of our country fully supports this amoral president and his white supremest bullying and his attacks upon our government and democratic institutions.  

Beyond winning in the 2018 elections, we need to nurture a massive grassroots movement of informed and engaged voters who are willing to confront faith-based delusional thinking on an individual level, while also standing behind those we elect to make sure they get their jobs done.

Faith-based thinking demands a rejection of serious science along with hostility towards learning from down to Earth evidence.  This attitude is enabled and reinforced by a constant flow of contrived high pitched fear-mongering and paranoid machinations towards “the other” be it different people or ideas.

Why have we allowed their religion and God a free pass?

Lamar Smith's baseless smears against NOAA scientists - HotWhopper Repost - Nov. 2015

Like I mentioned recently, trying to discuss serious science based topics with GOP representatives of climate science denial is worse that trying to explain serious things to kids, it's more akin to trying to get through to a profoundly autistic kid, with Lamar Smith of Texas being a prime example of a person so locked up within his ideology that no evidence from outside his faith-shackled mindset has any change of registering with the dude's brains.  Excuse the outburst, but it what comes from dealing with the GOP's filthy dishonesty up front and close up.

I have been asking myself what's the point of what I'm doing, why even care?  No one else seems to.  I find myself asking me that more and more.  But, for some reason I really do love and care for this planet I was born into.  Walking away from the GOP driven insanity and simply ignoring the willful stupidity - and the future that we are committing our children's lives and our miraculous planet's to - doesn't work for me either.

In any event, today I noticed Lamar Smith's hard-on against serious science has been mentioned over here previously.  Here is a reposting from a November 20, 2015 article written by Sou over at HotWhopper.com.

_________________________________

There are times I feel like setting up another blog simply to mirror Sou's steady flow of quality news regarding climate science contrarians.  Why?  In order to add some counterbalance to the phenomenal amount of right-wing astro-turfing going down on the internet these days.  But, I can't even keep up with what's on my plate, so it remains a vague notion.  Instead, I have to self-censor myself and keep my reposts of Hotwhopper's many informative articles to a minimum. 

The other day she wrote one that is a must addition to my collection looking at climate science contrarian dirty tricks.  With thanks to Sou for all the work she does at Hotwhopper.

Blistering letter from House Committee member to Lamar Smith about his baseless smear campaign against NOAA scientists

Sou | Hotwhopper.com | Friday, November 20, 2015

You may have read about US Congressman Lamar Smith's ongoing vindictive harassment and smear campaign against scientists at NOAA. You might have also read about his latest allegations of "whistleblowers". If you are wondering if there is anything behind this, other than a deranged attack on science, scientists and the NOAA, then wonder no more.

There is not.

To prove this point, just read the letter to Lamar Smith from Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, a member of the committee of which Lamar Smith is chair - the Committee on Space, Science and Technology.

I'll quote some segments damning the unconscionable actions of this vindictive, out-of-control, grandstanding US congressman, Lamar Smith. The bolding and some paragraph breaks are mine.

What exactly is Lamar Smith alleging? That the scientists are doing science!

(#B) Further dialogues with the disconnected

It wasn't an hour before my pal fired back (If you want to know about the background to this thread, check out the previous post).  

If you're someone who wants to confront climate science contrarian types, this will be worth your time.  I dare say valuable background for your future endeavors.   Others need not waste their time.  

The Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series would be a much better use of your time.  {fixed typos and other edits 2/20/16, 12:45 PM}
_______________________________________________

Dude writes:

I think you're in the mood for battle. I've read your blog post. Nobody with half a brain, outside of yourself, believes carbon dioxide has historically been the primary global climatic driver. Co2 traps a little heat, but it is not the primary driver. 

ENSO is a massive signal in comparison. Maybe we should say ENSO drives climate? 

___________________

CC:  How can you say that considering those were NASAGoddard videos and data, not mine?

"Primary driver", that would be the Sun, but it's been closely observed and it's been very steady for a very long time.

Can you explain the difference between driving weather patterns and the state of the planet's climate regime?

Do you not believe our atmosphere acts as insulation for our planet and the climate system within?

How does ENSO produce or take away heat from the global climate system?

_______________________________________________

Dude:  Some, and I disagree with these, believe that Co2 drives our current climate. Now comes the easy part. Please provide evidence that Co2 drives climate today, but if you stray from  empiracles... You lose.

___________________

That's pretty confusing not sure what you're claiming.  

The whole way you're looking at it seems backwards.  CO2 is an integral part of our atmosphere and is a major regulator of the amount of heat that's held within the global climate system.  The temperature at which our climate engine is running is profoundly tied to the amount of warmth our atmosphere holds, and the way the ocean basins are formed and its waters are circulating, even land masses and plate tectonic behavior, volcanoes, all, and more, interact with our atmosphere.

We are talking about complex systems science that won't submit themselves to your simplistic disingenuous lab bench expectations. 

Where is your empirical evidence showing that experiments establishing CO2's "greenhouse properties" are wrong?

Then perhaps - can you explain why we have dozens of modern marvels that would be impossible without that thorough empirical understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in the atmosphere?

Further dialogues with the disconnected

I left a simple comment at the following YouTube video, basically sharing notes I'd put together.  Next thing I know I wind up in another textbook exchange with a climate science contrarian type, I swear Heartland must have brigades of faithful combing the internet.  Since it turned into another vehicle for explaining my position and exposing the tactics of climate science contrarian pros, I'm going to share it, first the short build up, then I have a closer look at his most recent challenge.  His words are unaltered and in Comic Sans font.  
{sorry about the typos - touch up editing 2/20, 10:30 AM}

CO2 & the Atmosphere

Earth: The Operators' Manual

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eGzPxA1Dg#t=36

0:00  -  What CO2 does was confirmed by Air Force atmospheric research.

0:10  -  Studying the physics of the upper atmosphere for communications and heat seeking missiles.

1:00  -  "The air force hadn't set out to study global warming, they just wanted their missiles to work.  But physics is physics.  The atmosphere doesn't care if you are studying it for warring or warming.  Adding CO2 turns up the planet's thermostat."

1:20  -  Works in the other direction also, remove CO2 and planet cools.

1:30  -  Glacier studies

3:00  -  Glacier cross-section, deposition, accumulation, record of the past.

4:30  -  Orbital and rotational variations and their impact on sun's insolation.

5:10  -  Ice ages

6:00  -  Glaciers as earth mover

6:35  -  Time-lapse animation of glacial advance retreat

7:15  -  Orbital/rotational driven insolation variations interaction with Earth's many CO2 reservoirs and cycles.

8:00  -  {eye witness to a disintegrating glacier}

8:50  -  Place thermometers any where on this planet and they show warming.

The evidence is clear, the Earth's climate is warming.

__________________________________________________________

Dude writes:

Co2 was not the driver of climate over the last several thousand years.  The AGW debate today,  centres  around  the  notion  that  carbon  dioxide  drives today's  climate due  to  its  volume.  But  according  to  the  ice  core record,  rising  levels  of  Co2 followed warming by  several  hundreds of  years. 

Accepting the Challenge: What's so special about today's AGW

There's a new commenter at CFI (Center for Inquiry) forum who tossed down a challenge that I took up this morning.  Since putting together my response required plenty of time and effort I'm going to add it to my WUWTW's 'considering debate' collection.  

I haven't changed his words though my response is a bit more detailed than over there and as usual I share many authoritative links to support and explain the claims and arguments I make.  

I figure it's an interesting case study others may find helpful.  

_______________________________________________________

Dude writes:  Nice evidence and empirically referenced discussion so far. 

Here are my questions regarding this vital topic. It is only vital due to the implications of mass destruction of our planet. Otherwise, who GAF (give a *&#$%$F word)

1. What is the evidence that warming of the surface of the planet is happening today?

_________________

Your phrasing is telling.  Why do you single out "surface of the planet"?  

Don't you appreciate that the oceans are an integral part of what's happens to surface temperatures?

For starters there are copious thermometer records that are recording a warming surface.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/1036/record-high-temperatures-far-outpace-record-lows-across-us

https://www.wmo.int/media/content/wmo-2015-likely-be-warmest-record-2011-2015-warmest-five-year-period

There is also plenty of real down to Earth physical evidence, among the most obvious,

A)  Cryosphere is melting throughout the world

B)  Hydrologic Cycle has intensified

C)  Lakes and river temperatures are increasing

D)  Sea level rise
E)  Ocean warming

Debating-Rod Martin's globalwarmth_org's worship

I received the following challenge this morning that deserves a thorough response. 

Rod Martin, Jr.1:25 AM - January 6, 2016 via YouTube - 

proprietor of "GlobalWarmth.org" (#4)

+citizenschallengeYT, 

CO2 has been far higher in Earth's past with life thriving! (#1) Warming doesn't cause extreme weather; cold does. More accurately, storms are driven by thermal differences. Warming the Earth brings poles closer to equatorial temperatures, thus eliminating most storms (#2).  More warmth creates more evaporation which yields more rain and fewer, smaller deserts (#3).

GlobalWarmth.org_climate_science/extreme_weather

_______________________________________________

Here is a perfect example of what I describe as The Self-Certain believing their own mind's eye view of their world as reality, while relegating the real world to an imaginary construct.  

(#2) Rod's conviction that "warming the Earth brings poles closer to equatorial temperatures" and that thus we should welcome warming, demands that Earth is a cartoon construct, made of some solid heat conducting material and little more.  Storms on this planet are driven by regional scale temperature and barometric differences.  Our real geophysical Earth is huge, with a liquid ocean covering two-thirds of it's surface, land covering a third and a pulsating cryosphere covering large portions of both, all of which resides under an ocean of fluid gases in motion.  

Our planet has Jet Streams that push and pull storm systems across our globe.  What this "closer to equilibrium" temps means on our real planet Earth is that Jet Streams are slowing down a bit and meandering more, this in turn leads to all sorts of extreme weather events - as witnessed by the increasing tempo of infrastructure destroying, life disrupting events happening throughout the world these days.  How Rod manages to ignore all that is beyond me.  

(For a more authoritative description of what's going on I've embedded a short interview with Jennifer Francis PhD who's been studying this particular phenomena for a long time.)

Behind Marc Morano's facade

A bit of unfinished business.  In my last post of 2015 I wrote about Marc Morano's contempt for learning about our Earth and his disregard of anything beyond his own ego-centric interests.  At the end of my thoughts, I tacked on over a dozen links to further articles giving various details into the ways and means of this climate science denial fabricator.  

Since sharing authoritative information with others is one of my main goals, here's an easy to copy and share index of articles that look behind the facade of Marc Morano.

 The Hustler arrives for his Paris "Red Carpet" entrance.

A look behind the facade.

This peek courtesy of Baerbel W

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCVezyqdxIE

________________________________________________________________

Here's a look behind the faux science of the hustler,

courtesy of Graham Readfearn

The faulty science of the Climate Hustle documentary 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM62eTr8gqA#t=11

____________________________________________________________________________

The Fakery of the Paris ‘Red Carpet’ Premiere of Marc Morano’s Climate Hustle Film

By Graham Readfearn • Wednesday, December 30, 2015 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/30/fakery-paris-red-carpet-premiere-marc-morano-s-climate-hustle-documentary

About this blog and me

I'll start 2016 with some rambling about this blog and where I'm coming from.

Back in 2011 I started commenting at Anthony Watts' blog, WattsUpWithThat.  I did it with trepidation since I knew Mr. Watts had quite the reputation for banning skeptical commenters regarding his insinuations and pronouncements.  I tried being rational and civil, but the contrarian tactic of baiting to divert the conversation must have suckered me over his tolerance-line for alarmists and I found myself joining his legion of the banned and effectively being censored from his online "debate".  Ironically his compatriots seem to have no limits on the hysteria, insults and fabricated claims they are allowed to inject - oh but you better not confront them with facts, that's unacceptable in their echo-chamber "debate."

What's a little go-getter to do?  Roll over for Anthony?  Why?  When I could respond with a blog of my own.  Thus, "What's Up With That Watts et.al" was born.  Dedicated to examining contrarian claims; learning about their debate tactics; confronting their arguments with reason and links to authoritative sources for learning; and sharing that information with other concerned students and citizens.  Deep down I was also hoping to spur some dialogue with other like minded individuals, perhaps even encourage some to engage in the public "debate" themselves.

Marc Morano, Champion of Willful Ignorance, contempt, and oblivion

(Final touch up edits shortly before midnight 12/31/2015, my time)

Another year has come and gone and what do we have to show for it?  More Earth observations confirming that our 'global heat and moisture distribution engine' is in a state of increasing transition towards a hotter more energetic regime.  More climate science and communication outreach programs (and here and here and here and here). 

The COP21 climate agreement in Paris?  To be honest, I have no idea what it actually means or how it will impact the climate or me, and I doubt anyone else does either.  What about the most important thing?  Did we as humans in a global society learn anything?

Have the folks who've been battling climate scientists moderated their outlandish attacks in light of what's been happening before our eyes?  Has the Republican PR machine slowed down enough to learn anything?

ClimateDepot's (and Senator Inhofe's pal), Marc Morano is happy to supply the answer:

(This article is followed by a dozen+ interesting Marc Morano related articles and links, 

for the curious.)   

Looking at that picture I can't help wondering, did Marc transport that thing over there for this one show of utter in-your-face contempt towards people who think our finite physical planet is worth worrying about and conserving?

His display of contempt underscores a profound disconnect from the physical realities of our planet.  These people remain in love with their Reaganomics mantra of Greed is Good and Too Much Is Never Enough - they can't see through the lie because they are on top of the heap and honestly don't give a rat's ass about the rest. 

It really is that simple.  It's why observation and fact-based rationalists continue losing this "debate" - which is supposed to be a learning process, not a PR game.  

Regarding Bob Armstrong claims - seeking technical information - updated 12/30/15

I'm curious if anyone might offer some technical details and other observations?  Specifically, explaining the flaws in one Bob Armstrong's attacks on science and fundamental physics understanding.  

You see, I like to believe that a good deal of my audience consists of informed students and some actual scientists - it's time for me to put it to a test.  You who do possess the knowledge to see through Bob's game, can you help teach me how to explain it?

Bob Armstrong plays an interesting game.  He projects an image of the well-meaning "independent student" engaged in a sincere effort to understand basic physical principles and extrapolate those principles into the real world.  But, I've been reading the way he distorts his science while weaving his political paranoia into the interpretation of his "intellectual breakthrough".

Worse, he also displays a visceral contempt for established experts, people who have actually dedicated their lives to learning about these matters he professes his sudden interest in. 

Back to the issue at hand: Bob Armstrong's supposed rewriting of "settled physics" and his contempt for the "consensus" understanding.  I'll admit I take a different approach.  While I tend to be skeptical of all I hear - at least until mounting evidence turns a claim into something more substantial - I admit it's been good enough for me to know many thousands of experts have been refining this understanding for centuries and decades.  

Bob, on the other hand has convinced himself all those accomplished experts are too stupid to grasp the basics.  Since I've been spending time looking into Bob's spiel and all the bizarre dead-ends they lead me into, I've been wanting to know a bit more about it.  

Thus, I'm sending out this plea into the ether for someone(s) who are fluent in these matters to spend a few minutes explaining their understanding and observations regarding the various deceptions Bob Armstrong has been projecting.  

Supplemental links to further learning sources would also be much appreciated.  To link in comments: <a href="-----">???</a>
Simple straight-forward response would be welcome.  Clarity is the object.  

I have listed five specifics followed by own understanding and questions, followed by Bob's quotes in their complete context.

________________________________________________

Armstrong:  "the deep relationship between equilibrium temperatures and gravity"