Live at 1 PM ET: Paper Straws Suck: SCIENCE! — The Climate Realism Show #223

It is more likely the repetition and use of accounting terminology is a primary cause.
Another possible cause is posting these multiple times on articles unrelated to atmospheric phenomena, weather, etc.

That said, this write up is much more elegant and concise.

Thermal management of components uses T^4 calculations. Materials Sciences have determined the validity. But, one must combine EM with thermal. At a given temperature a surface emits EM but at a lower level that T^4 calculates due to thermal energy removed via conduction (e.g., heat sinks) (and for the earth, convection, conduction, and latent heat). The components I analyze operate in vacuum conditions (<< 1% atmospheric pressure).

From this experience, I can confirm your experimental results, structurally.

Now for the disagreement. EM is not thermal and is not part of the Laws of Thermodynamics, regardless of how many pseudo-science sites/organizations are promoting it.

There are no greenhouse gasses nor is there a greenhouse effect. The earth is an open system and those expressions only apply to closed systems. Yes, the terms are commonly and socially used, but those definitions are not concise scientific definitions.

Yes, climate collapse (or whichever spin is in vogue today) is fake and actions on addressing such a non-issue are tantamount to a scam. Given climate is more than temperature reinforces the conclusion that climate actions taken based on temperature alone are scams.

It is also true that what is being claimed violates systems engineering, specifically control theory.