Nowadays its very easy to refute disinformation. Happened to check on the actual freedom webpage today and saw that richard is into the whole global warming is not real conspiracy. Then to test how good chatgpt is in combatting disinformation, i put it to test.

Model: GPT-4

Refute this with reasons:

“

RICHARD: As I have been asked to expand upon the mathematics referred to by the words “based

upon unverifiable-in-the-laboratory quantum mathematics” in my 13 

January 2006 response to an online request – (regarding what I did over 

the seven-week

period 02 November to 14 December, 2005, when I was not writing to the 

Actual Freedom Trust mailing list) – this is an apt moment to point out 

how the Anthropogenic

Global Warming hypothesis is based upon flat earth mathematics.

It would appear the guys-n-gals at Quantumville 

recalled the high-school formula for determining the surface area of a 

disc consists of its radius

squared times pi 

    (i.e., r² × π) and 

    how the greater surface area of a sphere consists of its radius squared times pi times four (i.e., r²π × 4).

Thus a disc with a radius of 1 will have a surface 

area of pi (i.e., 3.14) and the same disc converted to a sphere will 

therefore have a surface area

four times more than the original disc (i.e., 12.57). Applying this 

mathematical thinking to the terraqueous planet we all live on their 

abstractive minds effectively

reduced it to a flat disc which has been expanded four times.

Then they mentally painted this flat earth black.

Thereupon they reduced the (measured) insolation of

 the oblate spheroid known as Planet Earth to a quarter of its 

real-world strength – and directed it

to impinge upon every square millimetre of their phantom planet 

twenty-four-seven forever and a day – thereafter applying a radiance 

versus temperature constant and thus

they had their flat earth temperature of -18° Celsius.

As this is at odds with the +15° Celsius real-world temperature they confected the “greenhouse effect”

to account for the missing 33° Celsius.

This is where the weirdity of a blackbody flat 

earth bathed twenty-four-seven with quadruply-weakened sunbeams turns 

into utter bizarrerie as they

deemed some trace gases in the frigid upper troposphere, busily 

absorbing infrared light radiating from the blackbody surface and 

emitting it in all directions, to be

thus radiating some of it back to the heat-source and thereby raising 

its temperature via this ‘back-radiation’ thaumaturgy the requisite thirty-three degrees (from -18°C to +15°C).

Moreover, this sci-fi scenario conveniently ignores

 how the other atmospheric gasses constituting some 99% of the air we 

all breathe – which are heated

at ground-level by conduction and thence by convection as hot air rises 

and cold air sinks to such an extent as to dominate in determining the 

thermal structure of the

lower atmosphere (troposphere) – are also emitting infrared light in all

directions.

Furthermore, no externally heated substance – be it

 heated by conduction (direct transference from the heat source), by 

convection (heated gases rising

and mingling and mixing with sinking cooler gases), or by radiation (via

 the heat source emitting infrared light) – can actually raise the 

temperature of its heat-source 

(let alone to such a precise degree as 33° Celsius, no more and no less,

 provided some specified trace gases remain at pre-industrial 

parts-per-million 

levels).

(Ha! this real-world matter-of-factness does not apply to all the phantom planets in the noncausative

 quantum solar system, of course, which are busily raising the surface 

temperature of its central star – the 

heat-source for all those blackbody flat planets – above 5778° K via a 

massive-scale variant version of this phantasmagorical 

‘back-radiation’).

To summarise: 

1. The physical earth is not flat.

2. The physical earth is not black.

3. The physical earth is not static (it is constantly rotating).

4. The physical earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams.

5. Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical earth twenty-four-seven (only during daytime).

6. Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere (most obliquely at 

polar latitudes and dawn-dusk regions).

7. All atmospheric gases are heatable (not just several trace gases).

8. All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light (not just several trace gases).

9. The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere from heating-up to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest 

neighbour the airless moon).

10. The physical atmosphere insulates the nighttime hemisphere from freezing to unliveable temperatures (unlike its nearest 

neighbour the airless moon).

11. In the physical world no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source.

12. In the physical world some specified trace 

gases can (as evidenced in notable past eras) exceed by several thousand

parts-per-million those several hundred parts-per-million pre-industrial

 levels deemed sacrosanct by influential doomsayers and/or panicmongers.

tl;dr: there is no “greenhouse effect” in actuality (nor “greenhouse gases” either).”

1 / 1

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

While the author raises some concerns about the assumptions made in simplified climate models, it is important to understand that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is based on a vast body of research, including complex climate models, empirical data, and observations. Refuting the claims made in the passage:

1. The physical Earth is not flat: Climate scientists are aware of this fact, and they use models that account for the Earth's shape, rotation, and other factors. Simplified models might use a flat Earth assumption for ease of calculation, but this does not affect the validity of AGW research.

2. The physical Earth is not black: This refers to the blackbody assumption made in some simplified climate models. However, actual climate models take into account the Earth's albedo, which is the fraction of solar energy reflected by the Earth's surface.

3. The physical Earth is not static (it is constantly rotating): Climate models account for the Earth's rotation and the related effects on climate, such as the Coriolis effect.

4. The physical Earth is not bathed with quadruply-weakened sunbeams: This seems to be a misunderstanding. Climate models take into account the variability in solar radiation, both spatially and temporally, to provide accurate estimates of energy inputs.

5. Sunlight does not impinge upon every square millimetre of the physical Earth twenty-four-seven: Climate models incorporate the day-night cycle, including variations in solar radiation due to the Earth's rotation.

6. Sunlight does not impinge with equal intensity upon every square millimetre of the daytime hemisphere: Climate models account for differences in solar radiation intensity based on latitude, time of year, and other factors.

7. All atmospheric gases are heatable: This is true, but some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others. Greenhouse gases, like CO2, are particularly effective at absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, which contributes to the greenhouse effect.

8. All heated atmospheric gases radiate infrared light: While this is true, greenhouse gases are particularly effective at absorbing and re-emitting infrared radiation, which is why they are the focus of climate change research.

9. The physical atmosphere insulates the daytime hemisphere and nighttime hemisphere: The atmosphere does provide insulation, which is partially due to the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases help regulate the Earth's temperature by trapping heat.

10. In the physical world, no externally heated substance can raise the temperature of its heat-source: The greenhouse effect does not violate thermodynamics. Instead, it slows down the rate of heat loss from the Earth's surface, leading to an increase in temperature. This is analogous to a blanket, which does not create heat but rather slows down the rate of heat loss.

11. In the physical world, some specified trace gases can exceed pre-industrial levels: This is true, and it is a major concern for climate scientists. Rising greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for the observed warming of the Earth's surface.

In conclusion, the scientific consensus on AGW is based on robust research that accounts for the complexities of the Earth's climate system. Simplified models may be used for educational purposes, but they do not form the basis for our understanding of climate change. The greenhouse effect and the role of greenhouse gases are well-established phenomena that have been observed and measured in the real world.

1 / 1

Why do you think Richard Maynard of Actual Freedom Trust recently hold such delusions? Did his philosophy, teachings and experience influenced his views?

1 / 1

ChatGPT

ChatGPT

It's difficult to determine the exact reasons behind Richard Maynard's views on climate change without having more information about his background and beliefs. However, it is possible that his philosophy, teachings, and experiences may have influenced his views. People's opinions are often shaped by a combination of factors, such as personal experiences, education, and exposure to certain ideas or perspectives.

In the case of Richard Maynard, it's possible that his involvement with the Actual Freedom Trust, which focuses on promoting personal freedom and happiness, may have led him to adopt a skeptical view of mainstream science, particularly when it comes to anthropogenic climate change. This skepticism could be a result of a distrust in authority or the belief that mainstream science is overly influenced by politics or other external factors.

Additionally, people sometimes become attached to certain ideas or beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Confirmation bias, the tendency to search for, interpret, and recall information that confirms one's pre-existing beliefs, can play a role in reinforcing such views.

It is important to note that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is based on a vast body of evidence and is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. While it's essential to question and evaluate scientific findings critically, it's also crucial to rely on accurate information and the expertise of the scientific community when forming opinions about complex topics like climate change.