Twitter: @MukeshP36161079

Posts

Press Releases

If you believe in Climate Change...

So where is the harm in having a widely publicized open public debate on the science, the physics, between this guy who claims he is the Promised Messiah, and the top scientists of NASA? (Why NASA? Well, turns out they are the guilty party.)

Suppose I get proven wrong, silly, absurd, in that debate?

Ok, not good. Maybe I might want to move to Timbaktoo or somewhere I am not recognized...

But good for the planet, right? I mean, we have thunder, lightning, a great open show, and it's proved to everybody's satisfaction that we have to take Climate Change seriously...

Where is the bad?

Ok, suppose I get proven right? Again, that's good for everybody. We depend upon journalists and scientists in our modern society.

If there is something that's misleading, misguiding our journalists and scientists, we have to deal with it. Have to.

If you are skeptical

Ok, so you are skeptical of manmade climate change, or deny it. Good for you.

But as a group, the skeptics/deniers have been very dishonest, so I urge you not to join the group, but stand for yourself in honesty.

What is their dishonesty? They refuse to admit that for 30 years, all the paid/unpaid deniers failed to catch the simple mistake in James Hansen's blackbody calculations. (Oh, the irony - all the while NASA was helping spread the name "pale blue dot" for Earth, the name itself coming from NASA images!)

I did it - caught the error - in a few hours, once I saw a relevant paper. Anthony Watts and Jo Nova et al couldn't even understand the blackbody error enough to publish it, despite my explanations - clearly heavy science is not for them, just nitpicking and name calling level of science.

It is courtesy in science to have some respect for those who have the talent and the dedication to do the heavy lifting. If you are a skeptic/denier - that requires propagating my name. That's Mukesh Prasad - the individual who caught the error in the blackbody calculations, and in fact in the modern teaching of blackbody temperatures.

I am the one challenging all physicists - alarmists/deniers alike. None of them have shown the depth of physics that I did. Worse, they lack core honesty - in their place I would have been repeating Mukesh Prasad's name and works all over the place. That's what core honesty, integrity of science, demands. Propagate my name. Mukesh. Prasad. The one who schooled alarmists AND deniers on the real physics of manmade Climate Change.

Summary

TL;DR Worried about the climate alarm? Skeptical? Either way, there is an honest approach here - spread the word of my challenge to NASA to publicly debate the physics of Climate Change.

Remember the name. Public challenge on the science to NASA. From - Mukesh. Prasad.

Latest on Debate

So NASA ignores me on Twitter, except the thing containg the comment was retweeted, and I got into some "unofficial" debates on their feed, where I had to school a few people into the REAL scientific literature. [The "Termination 3" paper from Nicolas Caillon came into play - I proved that it was a clear example of fraud, with Caillon being forced to turn from scientist to fraud.]

Then they post "We have had warning the last 4 years" or something. The usual.

My response:

[In that case]... shouldn't you be asking scientists for a theory? For CO2 demonstrably can not cause warming. So what's the reason? You have been biased in the past, so the most obvious hypothesis is - your bias. How do you respond? Anything beyond ignoring this, or twists?

PS I don't mean individual bias. A systemic bias. Going back to Prof. Hansen's research paper reversing the scientific method - he argued, if data doesn't fit the theory, the data must be changed. This was accepted in all seriousness, at least at NOAA and GISS.

So... Several results have been accepted, and become part of the algorithms. So the algorithms are doing their best to show warming, ignoring data when it doesn't match the (partial) models. Because Prof Hansen said so. And there was the precedence of averaging out.


I am sure most people didn't know this - NASA has reversed the scientific method in temperature (and possibly other) measurements, and seriously believes that if data doesn't fit the models, no problems, just throw out the data that doesn't fit.

2/6 8:15 PM MT - So my comments were on top of the comments-list on NASA's tweet for a while, now I don't see them. I am not that familiar with Twitter anyway, but now the comments are not there in the view. Maybe somewhere down below.
2/6 8:18 PM MT - I couldn't find the comments though I scrolled though. I might not understand how Twitter works, or else they have deleted my comments.
2/7 - NASA had indeed deleted my comments by deleting the tweet that contained these comments, and re-tweeting it. I added the comments again, and they didn't remove it this time.

Note: So why are many average people convinced they have personally experienced Climate Change (e.g. Mass Governor says they are "experiencing" it)? It's called Baader-Meinhoff effect. If they keep repeating disaster stories... every rain, every warm day, every cold day, every strong gust, becomes evidence of it to the non-skeptical population.

Apparently Joseph Goebells of history had a deep intuitive understanding of this technique: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." That is manmade Climate Change.