Why Is Roy Spencer Not Serious?

Roy Spencer returns to the "The Issue of Backradiation" in More Musings from the Greenhouse with statements like:

• The existence of this “back radiation” is disputed by some people because of two seemingly counter-intuitive features.
• Imagine two plates at two different temperatures facing one another. Let’s say one plate is at 100 deg. C and the other is at 0 deg. C.
• But now imagine that the cooler plate is nearly the same temperature (99 deg. C) as the hotter plate (100 deg. C). It will be obvious to most people that the net flow of IR energy from the 100 deg. C plate to the slightly cooler plate will be at a slower rate than it was before.
• But why should that be? In both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate, yet the NET flow of IR is reduced if the cooler plate is not as cold.

When I ask in a comment what the scientific evidence Roy has for his proclamation that "in both cases the 100 deg. C plate is emitting IR at the same rate", I get the following answer:

• Yes, Claes you found me out. I have nefarious motives for using certain terminology. It’s simply to annoy you.

This is more than musing, it is nefariously amusing, with nefariously meaning "extremely wicked" or "extremely morally bad in principle or practice".

When I ask Roy to get serious, I get no response.

I ask him here again to get serious and answer my question: What is the scientific evidence Roy, supporting your proposition that emission of IR energy is independent of the surrounding temperature? You can reply as a comment to this post. I am serious.

PS Follow the debate as comments to Roy's post, and see how backradiation is deconstructed into the wardrobe of scientific ghosts.