Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly PhD. Conman is, as Conman does.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.


When I questioned the appropriateness and repeated my request for basic explanatory information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with a personal whimpering email this time.  It again refused to answer any of my questions.
  
Does it seem reasonable to assume Holmes’ email under the official Federation University Australia letterhead was inappropriate?  Does it seem reasonable for me to wonder what game Dr. Frolly Holmes is trying to play with me?  

I ignored 1000Frolly for three years because it was too overwhelming and frankly hopelessly frustrating since no one else seems to give a flying fart, they rather spend their hours and days arguing trivial pursuits.

I don't imagine much has changed - but if anyone out there has had enough and thinks something should be done to confront Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD's lies and malicious slander - please contact me.

Now I find that Dr. Holmes has come out of the closet upgraded to "1000frolly PhD" and is channeling Trumpian belligerent disregard for honesty and truth and strutting like a freak’n peacock.  It must be doing good for him.  The big question: which pool of Dark Money supports him?

The belligerence and maliciousness of his arrogant disregard and misrepresentation of serious climate science is beyond hideous.  His idiots inability to appreciate the 'future' consequences - that we can see and record beginning to unfold all around us - is beyond me.  I sit here in my little cabin wondering how the world can be allowing such insane reasoning and self-destructive ethics to be normalized to such a degree. 

Dealing with a few of his YouTubes is going to take some mental prep, it’s like I know how to deal with screwed up septic tanks too.  But hate it.  Still if it needs to get done, you just gotta wrap your head around the necessity and cowboy up, put on the safety gear and respirator and dig in.  At least the septic tank can be cleaned up and any plumbing problems resolved. Deliberate contrarians . . .

Fortunately for my mental wellbeing I was already involved in a much more enjoyable project when 1000Frolly PhD decided to jump into my face.  That project has ballooned on me, knowing Frolly is at the other end of this project helps the procrastination and stretching immensely.  

The project, an article sharing my perspective on the pageant of Evolution evolved into a three column series.  Actually, evolving, I’ve just started writing the last one.

Working on this has reminded me of other (more pleasant and fulfilling) things I've wanted to do, such as sharing links to some of my favorite geology and evolution videos.  

Since I need a good dose of fresh air and mental/spiritual fortification before diving into Dr. Robert Holmes Frolly’s YouTube's incredible Shit Shows - I’m going to spend most of the next weeks focused on Evolution and Geology - After all, folks will never appreciate our global heat and moisture distribution engine without the perspective that only a sober appreciation of Earth’s Evolution can offer - so it is relevant for me.

Cheers


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Holmes' thesis is here
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Australian%20Digital%20Thesis%20(1).pdf

citizenschallenge said...

Anonymous at 6:10 AM - that link does not work. Is this what you wanted to share?

Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change

Article (PDF Available) · April 2018
Robert Holmes - Federation University Australia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324599511_Thermal_Enhancement_on_Planetary_Bodies_and_the_Relevance_of_the_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_to_the_Null_Hypothesis_of_Climate_Change

"Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on all planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 0.69kPa, by the use of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law. This method requires a gas constant and the near-surface averages of only three gas parameters; the atmospheric pressure, the atmospheric density and the mean molar mass.

The accuracy of this method proves that all information on the effective plus the residual near-surface atmospheric temperature on planetary bodies with thick atmospheres, is automatically 'baked-in' to the three mentioned gas parameters. It is also known that whenever an atmospheric pressure exceeds 10kPa, convection and other modes of energy transfer will totally dominate over radiative interactions in the transfer of energy, and that a rising thermal gradient always forms from that level.

This rising thermal gradient continues down to the surface, and even below it if there is a depression or a mine-shaft present.

This measured thermodynamic situation, coupled with other empirical science presented herein, mean that it is very likely that no one gas has an anomalous effect on atmospheric temperatures that is significantly more than any other gas. In short; there is unlikely to be any significant net warming from the greenhouse effect on any planetary body in the parts of atmospheres which are >10kPa. Instead, it is proposed that the residual temperature difference between the effective temperature and the measured near-surface temperature, is a thermal enhancement caused by gravitationally-induced adiabatic auto-compression, powered by convection.

A new null hypothesis of global warming or climate change is therefore proposed and argued for; one which does not include any anomalous or net warming from greenhouse gases in the tropospheric atmospheres of any planetary body. "
_______________________________________

Should anyone with some genuine knowledge on the topic care to point out the game Dr. Robert Holmes Frolly is playing at - please do!

July 3, 2019 at 6:25 AM

Anonymous said...

Apologies, try this one
https://researchonline.federation.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/vital:13434?site_name=Default+Site

citizenschallenge said...

The one works, the other doesn't.

"Reducing climate change related fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from operational longwall coal mines
Creator; Holmes, Robert
Date; 2017
Type Text; Thesis; PhD"
____________________________________________________________

And I'm supposed to care because . . . . . . .

citizenschallenge said...

Regarding Frolly's paper quoted at July 3, 2019 at 6:26 AM -

I always find it bizarre that so many contrarians will present non experts with expert level information, then treat their naive readers as though they were in a position to assess the evidence, let alone arrive at a serious conclusion. I myself try to remain cognizant of my intellectual limitations, I have no problem with asking people who understand more than me to help explain things and to correct my own misconceptions.

That's why I sent out a request to the ATTP crew, most of whom do have the depth in understanding to intelligently assess Holmes' above claim. I receive two short responses.
======================================
citizenschallenge asks:

“Might someone be willing to look at this, written by the YouTuber ‘Frolly1000’”



These are joke arguments.

The ideal gas law has three degrees of freedom — pressure, temperature, & density.

So whatever the actual atmospheric science predicts by way of GHG physics, the three parameters will re-adjust so as not to violate the ideal gas law. So if mainly temperature and density is involved in the calculations, the pressure will re-adjust.

I think that is all there is to it, yet clowns such as Holmes and Nikolov use it to bait the rubes.


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


Had a very brief look. If the model requires the pressure and the density and molar mass, then it is not surprising that you can use this to work out the temperature.

From the gas law, PV = nRT, then if you know the density you can work out V (up to a multiplicative constant) as P is the mass of the atmosphere.

If you warm up an atmosphere, the surface level pressure doesn’t change (as it is fixed by the mass of the atmosphere), so the scale height of the atmosphere increases and it’s density drops. 

That the ideal gas law is a reasonable approximation to the behaviour of the actual atmosphere doesn’t sound too surprising.

======================================================

For myself, all I needed to notice was that Robert Holmes doesn't acknowledge, ignores, the impact of greenhouse gases on Earth and how they regulate our atmospheric insulation. Or that we have been injecting geologically significant amounts of said greenhouse gases into our atmosphere. It all comes back to stepping back from the uncertainties - to refocus on the known certainties that we damned well know for certain.

Instead the rightwing it's all deception and handwaving with 'what ifs' and 'hypotheticals' - an utterly insane way to deal with the real physical world that surrounds us. But it's always worked for ruthless salesmen.
=========================================

In looking at more stuff I found this interesting in-depth review of the issue right back at ATTP, seems to me it has direct bearing on Holmes exercise in arm waving:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/08/no-pressure-alone-does-not-define-surface-temperatures/