Joseph developed a bit of a following for a pal reviewed paper [Joseph E Postma has published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal on climate science] that said a 100 years of scientific consensus on greenhouse gases was entirely wrong. The paper [and you will be wasting your time reading this] another PDF to clutter your download folder, is here.  As it has been heralded as, yet another, final nail in the AGW scam Skeptical Science did another painstaking review to illustrate its many flaws.The quick answer is here.

It is yet another pal reviewed propaganda piece by the vanity online science journal Principia Scientific International set up by Tim Ball [geologist and climate denier] and pals who have real problems with being rejected by mainstream science because the are frankly nuts-an organisation too fringe even for Lord Monckton. There you will find law graduates, weathermen, and some retired scientists producing papers saying climate change isn’t happening and even a paper on a perpetual motion machine. [Even Anthony Watts accepts CO2 is a GHG]

So who is Joseph E. Postma? The Principia Scientific Int site says

Joseph E. Postma (Canada): Astrophysicist Joe Postma  (M.Sc. Astrophysics, Honours B.Sc. Astronomy) works for the Canadian Space Agency and Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). He quickly made his mark on the PSI research team as author of two papers published by PSI: ‘The Model Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect’ and ‘Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.’ Postma obtained his Masters in 2007. His graduate thesis can be found here (or here) and is titled “The observation and analysis of the Cepheid SZ Tauri”. Postma’s discovery is a new observable phenomenon in the behavior of Cepheid stellar pulsation. As a result, we might be able to use Cepheids to gauge distances in space to better accuracy if this work was continued and developed further. In November 2012 Postma was made a PSI Senior Fellow in recognition of his groundbreaking paper,’ A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect.

The Calgary University web site of personnel says he is ‘support specialist’ which could be anything from a researcher, to lab technician to someone who sweeps up at night. His Linkedin profile says he’s a calibration manager. He works for Calgary Uni who probably do research for the Canadian Space program but it doesn’t mean Jo works for them too.

So why is such a smart person being so dumb? Joseph Postma is not actually an Astrophysicist, he did an astronomy degree and followed it up with a M.Sc. A masters is a one year full time course that covers

The MSc in Astrophysics……… It gives students a detailed overview of the fundamentals of the subject as well as an up-to-date account of recent developments in research. The wide range of topics covered by the course reflects the breadth of research interests pursued by the members of staff ….. Lectures cover such diverse topics as the origin of the universe, dark matter, the life and death of stars, black holes, extrasolar planets and space and solar plasma physics. Students also write a dissertation, which may be a critical review of an astrophysical topic or a project of an observational, theoretical or computational nature.

The MSc can be studied either part-time (two years) or full-time (one year).

Joseph could go on to submitting a novel paper [like the idea that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas] for a Ph.D and if his peers can find no error he could claim to be the new Copernicus and be employed as a professor.

From Skeptical Science


In summary, Joseph Postma published an article criticizing a very simple model that nonetheless produces useful results.  He made several very simple errors along the way, none of which are very technical in nature.  More sophisticated models are obviously designed to handle the uneven distribution of solar heating (which is why we have weather!); nonetheless, the educational tools are useful for their purpose, and in no way does Postma undermine the existence or necessity of the greenhouse effect.  Without a greenhouse effect, multiple studies have shown that the Earth collapses into a frozen iceball (Pierrehumbert et al., 2007; Voigt and Marotzke 2009, Lacis et al 2010) and indeed, after an ice-albedo feedback, plummets below the modern effective temperature of 255 K.  This work makes extraordinary claims and yet no effort was made to put it in a real climate science journal, since it was never intended to educate climate scientists or improve the field; it is a sham, intended only to confuse casual readers and provide a citation on blogs.  The author should be ashamed.

contributing author to an astronomy peer-reviewed paper here.

For more on Joseph Postma thoughts visit his blog climateofsophistry

The climate alarmists are instead trying to negate the human mind.  Why don’t they realize that even a cursory understanding of their beloved “Gaia” theory would have to indicate that “mother Earth” created human beings on purpose, in order to help replenish the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere which had almost disappeared which would have caused the mass and final extinction?  They don’t want to believe in anything good because their true goal is that they want to murder humans, as we will see below; that is what drives them.

  1. Bart Conrad

    Climate scientists are incapable of being educated. They have reached their conclusions and no facts data or otherwise will change their conclusions. Doesn’t really sound like a scientist to me but……. as long as everyone agrees, it must be true then.

  2. The author of this blog is a scientific illiterate.

    Claiming their exists “100 years of scientific consensus on greenhouse gases”, the author reveals his ignorance.

    In fact, there is NO “scientific consensus” and if there were, consensus is not science. Remember the “consensus” for a flat Earth?

    The author’s smarmy vilification of Postma provides evidence that Postma is on to something and the author of this blog fears the revelation of truth.

    Such extremist vilification makes this entire site a useless tool for any informed individual.

    Furthermore, the author lies, claiming:

    “Postma has published NO peer-reviewed paper in any legitimate science journal”

    When, in fact, Postma has authored (or co-authored) the following:

    1. “Line Absorption as a Metallicity Index for Giant Stars.” The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 114, Issue 795, pp. 536-545. I was 3rd author for the scientific astrophysical data analysis that contributed to the paper.

    2. “Observations and Analyses of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.” Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 99, No. 4, p.143. I was first author for this presentation at the annual RASC meeting.

    3. “Observations and Analyses of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.” American Astronomical Society Meeting 208, #65.06; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 38, p.144. This was for a presentation at the AAS meeting at which I gave a talk.

    4. “Photon Event Centroiding with UV Photon-counting Detectors.” The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 119, Issue 860, pp. 1152-1162. I was 2nd author for this paper which based largely on my data analysis and modelling, and much of my writing.

    5. “The observation and analysis of the Cepheid SZ Tauri.” Proquest Dissertations And Theses 2008. Section 0026, Part 0606 177 pages; [M.Sc. dissertation].Canada: University of Calgary (Canada); 2008. Publication Number: AAT MR38109. Source: MAI 46/06, Dec 2008. This is my masters thesis the results of which I have described here.

    6. “Calibration and Performance of the Photon-counting Detectors for the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope (UVIT) of the Astrosat Observatory.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Volume 123, issue 905, pp.833-843. I was 1st author for this paper based exclusively on my research.

    7. “Tests and calibration on ultra violet imaging telescope (UVIT).” Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2012: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray. Proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 8443, id. 84434R-84434R-9 (2012). I was 4th author for contributing to the scientific data analysis for this paper.

    A simple question for the author of this blog:

    If the greenhouse warming theory (that claims greenhouse gases increase Earth’s surface temperature) were, in fact, true, then why wouldn’t every daytime use of a highly efficient greenhouse create runaway warming sufficient to label the device a furnace? Why aren’t such greenhouse furnaces common in cold winter climate zones?

    Since all electromagnetic radiation behaves according to the same laws of physics, if reflected (absorbed and reradiated) IR is capable of increasing the temperature of the emitting surface, why doesn’t a mirror aimed back at a brightly lit piece of white paper make the paper become brighter and brighter in obedience with the same laws of physics?

    Greenhouse climate change is utter nonsense and pseudo-science of the worst kind because it plays on the ignorance of the people.

    Finally, the only climate change that has been global and observable over the past 17 years has been a slight cooling trend.

    [ed- author’s contribution to peer-reviewed astronomy papers has been corrected. thanks]

    • Attack and discredit is the tool of those who have no logical response and is the alarmists’ M.O.

    • Bob Webster asked (long ago), “why wouldn’t every daytime use of a highly efficient greenhouse create runaway warming sufficient to label the device a furnace? … if reflected (absorbed and reradiated) IR is capable of increasing the temperature of the emitting surface, why doesn’t a mirror aimed back at a brightly lit piece of white paper make the paper become brighter and brighter…?”

      Analysis of systems involving feedbacks is the domain of systems science and engineering. For linear systems, the analysis is quite simple. It is explained in detail, here:

      The Earth’s climate system is affected by dozens of feedback mechanisms, some positive, and some negative. The most fundamental feedback is strongly negative. It is simply that when the Earth’s surface gets warmer, it loses heat faster, thereby reducing the increase in temperature.

      ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍“It is like pumping air into a tyre with a puncture: the harder you pump the faster the air escapes.” –Clive Best

      The simplest and easiest to quantify component of that effect is the radiative component, called “Planck feedback” or “Stefan-Boltzmann response.” Radiative emissions from a warm body are proportional to the 4th power of the body’s absolute temperature (temperature in Kelvin). It is calculated that a uniform global temperature increase of 1°C would increase radiant heat loss from the surface or the Earth by about 1.4% (variously estimated to be 3.2 to 3.7 W/m²).

      ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍ ‍‍‍‍‍‍ ‍‍warmer surface → more rapid radiative heat loss → cooler surface

      Coincidentally, 3.7 ±0.4 W/m² is also the approximate amount of additional energy usually estimated to be retained (i.e., the “forcing”), due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. (However, that’s probably too high. Atmospheric physicist Will Happer has found evidence that CO2’s forcing is commonly overestimated by about 40%. If that is correct, it means CO2’s forcing is only about 2.6 W/m² per doubling.)

  3. Avocet

    Joe Postma contributes under the name “thinkright” to Recently, he has taken to saying that the world needs to increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. For example:

    “CO2 is green plant food and the environment needs more of it.

    “We would have increased the CO2 level by choice eventually, once we realized we could, if we didn’t do it by accident.

    “The appearance of a conscious species in the millions and billions of years of life on the planet means that the planet will come under control of the conscious species, and we will make changes as we see fit, for our benefit, and for the planet’s benefit. Increasing the CO2 level for the benefit of all life including humans is exactly and precisely one of the changes that a conscious species on any photosynthesising planet would engage in. ”

  4. Avocet

    More goofball stuff from Joe Postma, writing as thinkright :

    Yes but you see, carbon is life. Only these alarmist people-control, tax-loving, fascist, liberal rejects deny that carbon is the basis of all life on the planet, and that carbon’s only vector for entering the biosphere is via carbon dioxide photosynthesis.

    When you use a “carbon neutral” source, you’re only putting back the life which was taken out – a tree for a tree.

    With a hydrocarbon fuel, such as gas, coal, oil, etc, you put back more life than was taken out, because you’re adding more green plant food (carbon dioxide) back into the atmosphere where it has the chance to turn back into life – life that was taken out of the environment millions of years ago. That life would have been permanently removed from the environment if it wasn’t for humans putting the source of life (carbon and carbon dioxide) back into the atmosphere, where it can turn back into life.

    In 50 years or so, we’re going to see the greenest and lushest, most robust and life-creating global environment that this planet has seen in millions of years. It is going to be a beautiful green world that naturally outproduces, by several factors, the previous ability of the environment to create and sustain life as it has over the last few million years. Already, the increase in crop yields, although mainly from technological progress in energy generation and usage, irrigation, and scientific development of farming methods, is also partially due to the increase in carbon dioxide over the last few decades.

    So, don’t be carbon neutral – be carbon positive! We still need at least 2 or 3 times the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we have now. Being carbon-positive means that you are directly producing future-life in the global environment! Humans are an amazing species and it is amazing that we developed at just the right time to reinvigorate the global environment with more life-producing (it is literally life creating) gas (carbon dioxide).

  5. Avocet

    Even more by Joe Postma writing as thinkright:

    People miss the point that solar and wind can’t work. Those sources of power are fundamentally fixed, and they are so inefficient, literally 1000 times less productive than hydrocarbons and nuclear, that they blight the landscape and trash vast areas of land to gather an extremely weak source of power. It makes no environmental sense at all. Why would we want to trash thousands and thousands of square miles of land to gather an extremely weak source of power – particularly in the case of solar where it means that no life will be able to grow again on the soil underneath the panels.

    Solar and wind simply do not represent progress – they represent a limit to growth. They represent a limitation to human development, science, technology, progress, engineering, etc. And this is precisely what they’re supposed to do.

    In case anyone wonders whether thinkright is Joe Postma, he said so himself at

  6. Avocet

    Continued posts by Joe Postma writing as thinkright:

    “The science of alarmism is non-existent – it is a liberal/monetarist FRAUD designed to replace the petro-dollar with carbon currency.

    We need to keep increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere to about 5-times is current level. This doesn’t cause damage, it creates life! CO2 is green plant food and it benefits the entire biosphere. There is nothing unique or alarming about the current weather and current “changes” are well within historic variations and are neither unique nor unprecedented. That is what the scientific facts are.

    This is an easy-to-read report from the Carbon Sense Coalition that explains all of the environment-benefiting effects of increased CO2. Report here (pdf). …

    Don’t let the alarmist frauds trick you with guilt trips, condemnation, and scary stories. They’re basically trying to replace Christianity with a new religion and god. Humans are GOOD and we are a GOOD species on this planet doing wonderful things. Yes, life is hard and we’re not perfect, and REAL pollution does exist, which we FIX in the 1st world. But the carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it is plant food which increases more life on the planet. We would have increased the CO2 concentration on purpose (!), once we realized we should have, because the CO2 level was getting way too low. It should be about 5-times the value it is now.”

  7. Avocet

    Postma just won’t stop

    “There’s also been higher CO2, faster rates and larger degrees of climate change, ice-ages, higher and lower sea-levels, etc etc etc. Fighting the climate, a new war on climate change, is about the stupidest response possible. Adapt, and build systems to mitigate it where needed. Warming isn’t the problem…by all scientific analysis we should want a warmer world; it is a colder/cooling world that would be the real existential threat. ”

  8. Avocet

    Joe Postma = thinkright

    Again more sophistry. “Just because SOME things had gone together at ONE point or another doesn’t mean one of them causes the other. The historic scientific data shows that temperature change CAUSED CO2 change in the past, and that there has never been a time where CO2 caused temperature change. The assertion that CO2 is causing current temperature change is also baseless – the temperature started warming by itself after the little ice age, and THEN CO2 started rising. The temperature was already rising and THEN the CO2 started rising, but pseudoscience alarmists just claimed that suddenly the already rising temperature was DUE to the subsequently rising CO2. Complete fraud in other words”.

    “The long-term record shows that there is NO correlation between CO2 and temperature whatsoever”.

    “The one thing that is true is that the modern CO2 level was getting so low that it endangered plant life, that plant life was about to stop operating. We need more CO2 and it is a great thing that the environment is changing such as to add CO2 back to the atmosphere where it supposed to be. There is literally zero evidence that this is a bad thing”.

    “Liberal alarmists just make up this fear-based idiocy to promote their idiotic political policies”.
    ED NOTE; whilst it cannot be verified that the person quoted by Avocet is Joseph, but a visit to his own web site will inform you of his strong political views and his dismissal of mainstream climate science and indeed physics.

  9. Avocet

    One last quote from Joe Postma, writing as thinkright:

    “That’s just yet another fallacy of pretending that suddenly in 2015 something scary and alarming might happen just because there is a lack of ice at ONE pole. It’s alarmist meaningless claptrap.”

    In case anyone wonders whether thinkright is Joe Postma, he admitted so himself, when confronted, at and other places in the same forum.

  10. Avocet

    Oh, and Joe Postma / thinkright posted his own picture here:

    and his background here:

    including his LinkedIn profile

  11. avocet

    This morning, Joe Postma wrote:

    I’ve had extensive personal comm’s with Dr. Lindzen. In private he doesn’t agree with the models for the greenhouse effect but he has no desire to discuss it publicly because it isn’t his area of expertise, and because of the irrationality involved on the issue.

    The greenhouse effect is literally flat Earth physics, and is complete fraud. Literally, you have to model the Earth as FLAT, in order for a model to necessitate the greenhouse effect. If you apply spherical physics (like the shape of the Earth) and in real-time (include day and night) like I do, the greenhouse effect simply doesn’t need to be invented – the Sun heats and drives the whole climate, and the atmosphere is not a source of energy.

    Of course, the point is that it doesn’t matter what is logical or rational, because some people have a stated independent goal of social engineering for their apparent ****s and giggles…they’ll make up whatever they have to say if it means they get to experience social engineering, being engineered by it and seeing it engineered on others.

  12. avocet

    A recent short quote from Postma:

    “No reputable climate scientists are alarmed at climate change either.”

  13. ryan0991

    Just had a bit of a “debate” with this guy. Although I use the term debate loosely because he was mostly interested in insulting me. One of his more bizarre insults was “you are a degenerate freak of nature”.

    At best, this guy is mentally ill.

  14. Reply. · July 9, 2015 at 1:31 am. oakley polarizzati lenti polarizzate oakley · Reply …

  15. Sancho Panza

    That’s weird – Joe Postma’s blog,, has gone private. Why would he want to deprive the world of his earth-shattering brilliance?

  16. avocet

    New Postma paper, A Note on Fourier and the Greenhouse
    Effect, can be found here —

  17. The link to Postma’s ridiculous “paper” has gone bad, but there’s a copy here:

    Click to access The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

  18. After read this blog, please add my name to the deniers list.

  19. yKpq


  20. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND 4213=2664 AND (‘hgZj’=’hgZj

  21. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND 9513=9513 AND (‘IQqN’=’IQqN

  22. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND 7944=4913 AND (‘HDAE’=’HDAE

  23. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT CHR(77)&CHR(109)&CHR(89)&CHR(81) FROM MSysAccessObjects)=CHR(77)&CHR(109)&CHR(89)&CHR(81) AND (‘jxgf’=’jxgf

  24. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT ‘EiNn’ FROM RDB$DATABASE)=’EiNn’ AND (‘qwXv’=’qwXv

  25. yKpq


  26. yKpq


  27. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT ‘IUmD’ FROM VERSIONS)=’IUmD’ AND (‘Dufg’=’Dufg

  28. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT CHAR(77)+CHAR(102)+CHAR(82)+CHAR(90))=CHAR(77)+CHAR(102)+CHAR(82)+CHAR(90) AND (‘mSTP’=’mSTP

  29. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT 0x62446871)=0x62446871 AND (‘Snwh’=’Snwh

  30. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT CHR(74)||CHR(79)||CHR(105)||CHR(107) FROM DUAL)=CHR(74)||CHR(79)||CHR(105)||CHR(107) AND (‘BdMZ’=’BdMZ

  31. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT (CHR(99)||CHR(85)||CHR(84)||CHR(87)))=(CHR(99)||CHR(85)||CHR(84)||CHR(87)) AND (‘WaBf’=’WaBf

  32. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT ‘PdNy’)=’PdNy’ AND (‘WoBi’=’WoBi

  33. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND (SELECT CHAR(102)+CHAR(119)+CHAR(67)+CHAR(90))=CHAR(102)+CHAR(119)+CHAR(67)+CHAR(90) AND (‘JcpA’=’JcpA

  34. yKpq

    ayqM’) AND 24=24 AND (‘ljJk’=’ljJk

  35. Jeremy Snyder

    You forgot the fact that over the last decade he’s written a series of books under the pseudonyms of Michael Faust, Adam Weishaupt, and Mike Hockney, dubbed “The God Series” in which he started off by demonizing the Abrahamic god, but then veered off into demonizing all of Western science from Francis Bacon until today, while trying to push his believe that real reality was not material and atomistic, but grounded in ontological mathematics. He is a quack to begin with. I suspect is disbelief in global climate change is because it threatens his belief that he can recreate physical reality just by using his mind.

  36. Darville Risdorf

    Whomever this Jules Bollocks is, he’s a load of it for sure. Just another climate alarmist protesting too much, and proving once again, that no matter how hard you try – you just can’t make chicken salad out of chicken shit!

  37. Postma is a pathological case, as anyone who has tried to honestly engage with him on his blog swiftly finds out. The man doesn’t understand absolute basics of climate science, and even gets simple geometry wrong, then denies it for all he’s worth. He is terrified that he might be proved wrong about something, and nearly becomes hysterical when someone proves he make a mistake. Don’t waste your time with his climate stuff. It is truly garbage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: