Matthews Bradley promotes Climate Lysenkoism

This is my reply to an opinion article in our local newspaper. The PhD opinion author is a moron who believes attacks on the messenger proves the message is wrong. So I had to defend myself as well as my message. 

Click Daily Inter Lake to see my rebuttal in print on the right side of page 24. Notice the article to the left titled, “Montana fishing industry gutted by climate change.” The authors are morons who claim Montana must “address climate change” to save its fish. 

Face it. The average logic-impaired homo sapiens is not too logical. They “addressed” village problems by burning innocent ladies at the stake. The “addressed” lack of rain by cutting out beating hearts. 
Now, to “address” climate change they tax and shut down our abundant cheap energy. They can’t tell the difference between facts and their political religion.

by Dr. Ed Berry, also Daily Inter Lake March 6

Models prove AGW wrongMatthews Bradley, a PhD in molecular biology, (Daily Inter Lake Feb 7) admits he is “not an expert in climate science.” Yet, he makes irrational claims about climate science.

In the 1930s, Soviet biologist Lysenko made irrational claims. Lysenkoism set back Russian biology some 30 years until 1964.

Bradley promotes “Climate Lysenkoism.”

He avoids logic and the scientific method. Like Lysenko, he thinks ad hominem attacks make a scientific argument.

Here are Bradley’s unfounded claims followed by facts.

Bradley: Berry denies fundamental principles and facts in climate science. Berry never studied statistics. Berry’s climate denials aren’t credible. Berry claims to be a physicist. Berry doesn’t understand that all quantitative scientific models and results are considered correct within a certain probability.

Facts: My physics mentors were the best in the world. My theoretical PhD thesis received instant worldwide attention because it solved a key problem in climate physics. It combines probability, statistics, numerical mathematics, and the scientific method. The Director of Nevada’s Desert Research Institute credited my 1965 thesis with putting the institute on the map. Today, 50 years later, after most PhD theses are long forgotten, scientists still cite my thesis every month. Science textbooks discuss my thesis. Geologists, cosmologists, and engineers use my thesis to make calculations.

Bradley: Berry is an anomaly and huge outlier among the vast majority of scientists and particularly atmospheric physicists and climate scientists.

Facts: Only 64 of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers agree with Bradley. On my side are more than 1000 climate scientists, a huge number in this field. We are the majority. My side includes Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Democrat who won the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics. Giaever concludes Bradley’s climate claims are a religion because its believers reject data that show their belief is wrong.

Bradley: The earth would be an ice-covered planet without CO2.

Fact: The water phase diagram, an elementary concept in climate physics, shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today’s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.

Bradley: The basic science is not very complicated: CO2 traps heat. CO2 has risen dramatically. Those basic facts will convince anyone that human fossil fuel burning causes the earth to warm.

Facts: Only fools believe a complex problem is so simple. The scientific method proves Bradley’s simplistic cause and effect claim is invalid. Dr. Willie Soon’s 2015 peer-reviewed paper shows CO2 does not even correlate with temperature, but solar radiation does.

Bradley: No credible scientist denies that CO2 is one of the most important greenhouse gases.

Facts: Bradley is not a credible scientist. Water vapor is more important than CO2. Data show water vapor and clouds keep the Earth’s average greenhouse effect constant when CO2 changes.

Bradley: Each climate model prediction has a certain high probability of being correct (typically 95 percent or better).

Facts: We have had 37 years to test climate models. The 102 climate model average over-predicts temperature by a factor of 2.5. That is far outside Bradley’s claim of 95 percent accurate, which would be acceptable. If your prediction is wrong, your theory is wrong.

Bradley: Oceans are warming, sea levels are rising, glaciers are shrinking. We have a serious problem. Ignoring it is disingenuous, irresponsible, and perhaps worse. Doing nothing is not an option. Deniers are either ideologues with rigid minds or on a paid agenda.

Facts: Rate of warming since 1950 is lower than in previous centuries before human CO2. Dr. Murry Salby’s textbook “Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” shows temperature, not human emissions, causes atmospheric CO2 to rise. Follow Salby’s lectures here.

Nature, not our CO2 causes climate change.

Matthews Bradley is an ideologue with a rigid mind.

(Please see my related rebuttal to Elwood and Thiessen.)

3 thoughts on “Matthews Bradley promotes Climate Lysenkoism”

  1. Pingback: Rebuttal to Elwood and Thiessen

  2. Mr. Bradley displays, like so many with irrational belief, show a lack of logical thinking, or ability to do elementary science experiments to verify his beliefs. Science is not about any number ‘scientists’ agreeing about a hypothesis but improving our understanding of nature through measured verifiable observation.

    Bradley says “The basic science is not very complicated: CO2 traps heat. CO2 has risen dramatically. Those basic facts will convince anyone that human fossil fuel burning causes the earth to warm.”
    So why does not Mr. Bradley test this hypothesis, as I have done, by replicating Professor Woods’ experiment and prove his hypothesis is in error.
    Professor Wood proved back at the beginning of the last century that “CO2 traps heat” is wrong, by an experiment that has been successfully repeated many times (see http://www.biocab.org/Wood_Experiment_Repeated.html ).
    I have done similar and to my satisfaction I have proved that CO2 is irrelevant at ‘holding heat’. I would strongly advise other to do this experiment for themselves as it is not difficult or expensive to replicate — it’s just time-consuming and tedious.

Leave a Comment

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