Monday, March 31, 2014
Steven Goddard has a post on the "Big Lie" of climate alarmism, and says: "Climate change politics is straight out of the worst annals of human history, back to the days of burning witches for cooking the weather. Who could have imagined this would happen in the 21st century?" I submitted the following response:
Yet there are clear antecedents--albeit totally within science, and no political coercion--going all the way back to the inauguration of the current scientific paradigm, of undirected evolution of all that we observe in the world today. The origin of today's climate science tyranny lies in the long years of dogmatic assertion of favored theories as unquestionable fact, with the ever increasing suppression of contrary facts; it is no surprise to me that the process of promulgating scientific dogma as fact finally has spilled over into political abuse, on a worldwide scale (it was science that first made its dogmas sacrosanct, worldwide--literally "throwing the baby out with the bath water" for the last 160 years, in order to demonize any idea connected with, or even falsely imagined to be connected with, religion or a belief in God).
And only my scientific research, into the true origin of all the "ancient mysteries", of ancient religious import, gets to the heart of the fundamental human problem, that has plagued mankind through all of known history. Mine is the greatest discovery in all of history, yet the world is so awash in unreasoning anger and fear, and science so abused as to be just another religion, that I literally have no scientific peers--really competent, and honest, scientists--to turn to (as I have found out over the last 11 years of seeking such).
Thursday, March 6, 2014
I have submitted the following comment to the Steven Goddard site, where the subject of Venus's hot surface is erupting again:
Convection does NOT dominate in the global troposphere, the constant vertical temperature lapse rate (temperature gradient) does; that is the stage upon which weather (and climate) plays its part. Convection just drives the weather (primarily horizontally), it does not create or maintain the vertical lapse rate--the hydrostatic condition does that (and Jerry Gorline needs to understand that his derivation above is even more easily, and effectively, done as: mcΔT= -mgΔx, as provided by the hydrostatic condition). The stable lapse rate means heat rises naturally "down" the temperature gradient--convection would only destabilize such a precise structure, and so cannot dominate, rather that structure dominates, on the global scale (too many--incompetent "experts" and lay citizens alike--in the global warming debate continue to be confused by local and transient effects that have no global effect).
The critical piece of evidence remains (I brought it out in November 2010) that the Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison shows that essentially the only difference in temperatures in the two atmospheres, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due to the difference in distance from the Sun--and that is a PRECISE quantitative fact above and below the Venus cloud layer (so clouds don't affect the global lapse rate structure either, nor does planetary albedo, at least for Venus and Earth, because that great difference between them also has no effect (obviously, unless you want to try to explain how these various effects DO matter, but add up to PRECISELY zero in the comparison of Venus and Earth). The only explanation for this is that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident heat (infrared) energy from the Sun (so, for example, it doesn't matter that they have quite different reflections of VISIBLE light--albedos--or that little light reaches the Venus surface to heat it--atmospheric warming, to the ruling temperature lapse rate structure, has already occurred. So I concur with Jason Calley, that the astronomers are not experts--or really, all that competent--in their attempts to understand, and in their claims to fine new discoveries. (Nor do I claim to have all the answers myself. Nor am I as interested in the climate field as are most of those engaging in the unending "debate", which consists of vainly lobbing theoretical points past each others' unheeding heads, in an insane controlling political environment to boot.)
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
I submitted the following comment to the wuwt site of Anthony Watts, where Willis Eschenbach reiterates his idea of climate as "emerging phenomena" (and which I understand as "magical self-creation"):
"Emergent phenomenon" is an argument from incompetent, third-rate thinkers like Richard Dawkins, determined to push Darwinian, or undirected, evolution upon students of science, despite its by now obvious failings; back in the 1980's, it was called "order out of chaos", elevated to the airy status of a "meme", and "chaos theory" was misapplied to support it (for the latter really only supports "order behind the apparent chaos", not order produced--"surprisingly", as Eschenbach himself emphasizes--BY chaos, or randomly-working physical processes).
But the idea fails, and fails here on a very basic level. "Emergent phenomenon" does not "explain" the "extremely stable system"--and the outstanding stability SHOULD be emphasized, as I have also done--it cannot, it is in fact logically opposed to it ("emergent phenomenon" is change, as Eschenbach's examples well show, while "extreme stability" MEANS unchanging).
The truth, as I mentioned when Eschenbach first brought out this recycled idea here, is much simpler (but more surprising, of course, in the tattered intellectual atmosphere of current, officially unquestionable, scientific dogma), and should have been obvious by now, if science had not gone so determinedly wrong following Darwin:
"Emergent Phenomenon", Or Design?
"Emergent phenomenon" is a desperate renaming of the observable truth, in order to avoid that truth. It is anti-scientific nonsense, which science will have to reject before real progress can be made. It is, in short, the same as saying "magic", which science once so proudly scorned, and by which it lifted itself up out of the ancient pit of superstition and "sacred writ".
Monday, January 27, 2014
When you are a scientist with research findings that strike at the heart, not only of the current consensus, nor even the current paradigm in science, but at the whole tangle of man's most obsessively and religiously affirmed beliefs, and their uncounted variations, over the full course of known history--well, suffice it to say that you find yourself in the land of perpetual experiment, strugging to find a way to get your discoveries before the world, and not just a relative handful of open-minded individuals. This blog is an exploratory experiment, as are all my efforts on the internet.
I submitted the following comments on the not even wrong site of Peter Woit, where the subject of Copernicus's heliocentrism versus the church-sanctioned geocentrism is discussed, in the context of a new independent movie in which the views of scientists Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss are included. Woit and others seemed to me strangely unsure of the positions of those scientists on geocentrism; they also couldn't know that there is a truth behind the religious adherence to geocentrism, so I thought I would mention it to them:
Any physicist with an awareness of the careers of Michio Kaku and Lawrence Krauss knows they are strict followers of the "sacredness" of the modern academic consensus (they just pile on more empty-headed speculation to the accepted boundaries of scientific thought than others), so one should know beforehand that they are not going to embrace geocentrism, as it has always been understood. They are hidebound, while pretending to be on the cutting edge of new knowledge (as so many are apparently taught to be these days, as the "consensus" is indeed presented as settled fact, over and over and over again, for many, many, many years).
For those willing to learn new knowledge--that will leave the current sacred consensus in the dust, probably long after I am gone and can safely be recognized--the origin of the geocentric view is the Great Design I discovered and verified, encompassing the Earth and the entire solar system (see here and here, for example, for the simplest, most easily grasped evidence--that is, for competent, dispassionate scientists, though not for the emotionally defensive of the beloved consensus). Plainly stated, the Great Design was the motivation for all the religiously-held beliefs that gave rise to all the "ancient mysteries" of perennial popularity throughout history (including the ancient, original pseudosciences, like astrology, tarot, etc.), and the overall plan of that design, its core, was the mapping (or projection) of the celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere--a whole series of mappings, in fact, spanning a series of "ages" and "generations of the gods" over thousands of years--with, of course, the Earth necessarily at the center. The Earth is at the center of that great design, not the center of the universe as clueless later generations of "god-fearing" men--strict believers in a prehistoric consensus that retained only shattered fragments of the original truth--misapprehended and made religious certainty (and thus, religious mental tyranny).
To my surprise, that comment was almost instantly rejected, so I added:
My comment, informing of the true origin behind the false religious view of geocentrism, has been summarily rejected by you (yet you cannot say my explanation, and the sample evidence I cited, is wrong–you just don’t want to let it in).
That comment was also instantly rejected. Woit has published some previous comments I have submitted there, so obviously my choice of words in the above somehow kept him from appreciating the new knowledge, which explains so much of man's religious obsessions and perennial trials on Earth. Modern scientists have been inculcated with the belief that there is no truth at all, not just in, but behind, the ancient beliefs so at odds with rational thought, much less modern knowledge. They are mistaken, and avoiding what science now so desperately needs, a broader, deeper understanding of the origin of the world as we now know it.
Sunday, December 1, 2013
Steven Goddard mentions, in this post, Viking travellers across a quieter past Atlantic ocean to a warmer past Greenland. I submitted the following comment, with a wider view:
If you are prepared to have your mind broadened by a wider understanding of the ancient past--not limited to climate records, for example, but who travelled where, and spread their civilizations to a greater or lesser extent--read "America B.C" (1976), by anthropologist Barry Fell. The book details evidence for settlers from many lands (Celts, Libyans, Egyptians, etc.) in North America, between roughly the 10th and 6th centuries BC. This is a rich new/old source of information about the not-so-ancient western world (information characteristically dismissed and neglected by academics for well over a century, in their mad pursuit of an easy, uniformitarian and meaningless consensus). Plato wrote, quoting Egyptian priests who spoke to Solon when the latter visited Egypt around 600 BC, that after the disappearance of Atlantis--which I alone re-discovered, and verified, in my greater research (see "Atlantis At Last", for example)--the Atlantic to the west of the Pillars of Heracles (now known as the Straits of Gibraltar) was an impassable muddy shoal, even into Plato's own time in the 4th century BC; the evidence, however, as shown by Fell over 35 years ago, is that many peoples were able to cross the Atlantic nearly 3,000 years ago, and leave good evidence of their presence in North America. (Immanuel Velikovsky, writing between 1940 and 1975, has independently reconstructed the history of that time, and should also be read and studied by any who want to know the truth about where academics went wrong in the field of ancient dating, before about 600 BC.) Vikings in Greenland is just the tip of an ancient-world-sized iceberg. My own discoveries relate primarily to thousands of years earlier--the time when the "gods" walked the Earth, and their earthbound offspring, who ruled "by divine right" after them.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Steven Goddard has come to the conclusion that the climate "debate" is no longer about science, and wonders how to deal with "criminals". My response:
You do what I have been doing for the last 3 years, ever since I definitively disproved the "greenhouse effect" with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the scientific debate has been over ever since): You identify the Insane Left (and the subornation of all of our authoritative institutions by it) as the immediate problem--substituting as it does a political ideology, and outright tyranny, for science--and the underlying problem, that of a general incompetence among scientists, for letting climate science go so far wrong as to forget the Standard Atmosphere and the stable vertical temperature lapse rate structure of the troposphere. Beyond that, I can only recommend mass civil disobedience of any and all laws passed during the Obama years, particularly Obamacare and the anti-scientific EPA regulations (like officially denoting CO2 an "air pollutant", and thus subject to strict regulation under the Clean Air Act).
And you should prepare yourself mentally for increasing forays into governmental tyranny over individuals' rights--as more and more citizens fail financially--and for actual war (although that is most likely to occur when most of the Baby Boomers are dead).
When my greater discoveries are finally confronted and generally accepted, then our divisions will recede, people will start to really work together in a newly vibrant society, and real progress can be made, in science, religion and modern societies. For now, reason is taking a back seat to tribalism and past historical injustices, both real and imagined, and the world is pushing for war thereby.
Monday, October 28, 2013
No "Kind Regards" for the Pretend-Scientists Promulgating Anti-Scientific Tyranny in the Name of Science
Claes Johnson has posted an inquiry to one Hans Rosling, a high-profile climate alarmist in Sweden, and Rosling has responded with "answers" to Johnson's questions. My response follows:
Hans Rosling: I reject your "answers" as blatant political and ideological chaff, i.e., scientifically non-responsive, thus worthless. And since they ARE so clearly political chaff, it is also obvious you are not a scientist, at least not a competent and honest one. You are one of the Insane Left, relishing a position in which you can promulgate empty alarmism to the people of the world (blaming especially those in the more developed countries--by which you mean the West--again without evidence). You have well shown yourself ignorant of any definitive evidence supporting such alarmism, only a "consensus" you admit you are not competent to judge, and which you choose to accept blindly, or fraudulently, to the people of the world. This is one scientist who will never accept the likes of you as a true scientist, or a true voice for the people. You are nothing but a fellow-traveller of utopian tyranny over honest reason.