MEMORANDUM
Kenneth G Dextras
January 29, 2025
To: McGill University School of Computer Science
Attention: Professor Gerald Ratzer, Professor Emeritus for Climate Science
Subject:
THE ATMOSPHERIC CLIMATE TESTING SIMULATOR
A permanent resolution to the CO2 theory of climate change.
Dear Professor Ratzer:
Further to our recent email correspondence regarding the above subject, I thought I should give you the benefit of a formal response to your very interesting publications and comments.
First is your analysis of the Hunga-Tonga event. It shows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the amount of work/heat required to raise the temperature of the atmosphere a mere 1.50C in an area of say, 10,000 square miles (out of 79,000,000). Imagine the amount of heat/work that would be required for the same dT but for the entire planet and yet, the IPCC and their scientific serfs will tell you they can effectively do the same thing by increasing the amount of a trace gas (CO2) from 400 ppm (.04%) to 800 ppm (.08%) !!! It’s like Oppenheimer telling Einstein and Fermi that his little 24 kiloton bomb can somehow ignite the entire atmosphere. Preposterous and violates the fundamental principles of thermodynamics and yet, is mathematically possible in Oppenheimer’s “quantum/probabilistic” world. Sounds awfully familiar doesn’t it.
Second is from your “Factors affecting Earth’s Temperature” (2024, sections 9 and 9 ?). Interesting that you nail down the entire CO2 delusion using the concept of specific heat which, as you know by now, is precisely
what I pointed out to Professor Lovejoy in my March 2/24 memo to him. He never responded directly. How appropriate and extremely revealing actually.
Looking at the rest of your references, it seems to me that we are all in agreement that to try and pin any kind of significant causation to climate change on CO2 is a fool’s errand. Again, as I stated to Lovejoy, even Arrhenius himself knew it way back in 1896. Today, most of the alarmists freely admit it and so, they simply shift gears by stating that CO2 is just a catalyst that triggers a cascade of other weather related parameters and that, in turn, causes the temps to rise. What physical proof is provided for same ? None, but a vast mixture of mathematically manipulated data and equations the net result of which is: “the lost decade” (Lovejoy). He’s understating it here but to be fair, it’s only natural that any scientist would try and work backwards from a pile of loosely connected (weather) output to a working model that demonstrates causation. However, after at least 20 years of failure one would expect that said scientists would come clean with it and abandon this obvious dead end. Why ? Well, as you said: “Follow the money.”
At this point in this debate it would be wise to remember that this has happened in the past ie, Galileo/Kepler vs the Catholic Church ; Joule/Dalton vs the Royal Society ; Rutherford vs Thompson ; Einstein/Fermi vs Oppenheimer etc… Note that in each one of these cases the scientific truth did prevail and the issues were resolved by the irrefutable hammer of experimental verification. It’s no different for us and the issue of climate change. The ACTS is designed to apply the very same tried and true “hammer” and yes it will cost a lot more than paying a few professors to do some calculations. However, that cheap alternative did not work and so, it’s time to move on.
Finally, out of the 108+ ACTS test conditions, the ones involving water vapour (moisture contents, clouds etc…) will prove the most decisive since, as you have correctly shown, it’s the only other greenhouse gas that can have any significant effect. Again, we could estimate the net results by simply going to the lab and measuring the specific heat of each atmospheric condition but in the end, no one would believe us, would they Professor Ratzer ? The reason is that unlike our ancestors, science itself has been corrupted by politicians and a clique of elites who control the narrative through a mostly ignorant mainstream media. You can do an end run on the Catholic Church by going Protestant but you can’t do an end run around the NY Times. The only way forward is to go to the people directly. I still think an independent review of the ACTS by a small committee of McGill Professors (chaired by the Chancellor himself) is the way to at least kick start the process. Would you be interested in being part of the same or is there a better way ? Let me know. Thanks.
Yours truly,
Kenneth G. Dextras, B. Eng., McGill ‘76 Managing partner