Thursday, February 4, 2016

On Undirected Evolution, and Other Euphemisms For Design of the World

The Heartland Institute site has an admiring post on a new book by Matt Ridley, on "The Evolution of Everything". By "evolution", Ridley means undirected evolution (also known as Darwinian evolution), and as the title indicates, he applies the idea to everything.

My response is to republish, on this blog, an article I wrote back in 2008 for

Ten years ago, as a result of a personal scientific research program I had begun more than a year earlier, I discovered an ancient design in the world - not an isolated artifact or two, you understand, but a worldwide design. (You can read a bit about it at After several years spent proving that design scientifically (I am a professional scientist, in physics), I discovered my work had only just begun: I still had to figure out how to communicate my discoveries to the world, a world whose main authorities - science and religion - were, just at the time I sought recognition for my work, divided into diametrically opposite, warring camps over the very idea of design of the natural world; and both regarded the design I found as anathema to the polar-opposite positions they had each staked out.

A verifiable design is like a jigsaw puzzle, whose overall picture becomes ever more apparent the more pieces one correctly places. The pieces of the puzzle I found were of several kinds: The precise shapes of constellation forms on the celestial sphere and the matching forms of landmasses on the Earth ("As Above, so below," the ancient tradition said); the precise placing of landforms to represent important conceptual features of the celestial sphere as recognized by science (such as the ecliptic, or path of the Sun, and the vernal equinox, the zero point of celestial longitude, or right ascension); the precise positioning of the Earth's continents according to a famous ancient, global symmetry (a dodecahedron design); clear design features around the poles of the ecliptic (defining the axis of the entire solar system, indicating its deliberate design as well); and uncounted precise associations between these features on Earth and sky, and the ancient sacred traditions of all the peoples of the world - the common themes, objects and characters of myths and legends, word usages, other religious traditions, and megalithic monuments of precise construction mimicking the precision of the design.

This design, involving a re-formation of the Earth and solar system, invalidates the principle of uniformitarianism underlying evolution theory, and invalidates the assumptions behind plate tectonics. These, the two central theories of all the life and earth sciences, are overturned wholesale, and science knows nothing about it, refuses to even hear of it.

Peer-reviewed science journals will not accept articles about a design of the world; individual scientists will not respond to queries about it, much less condescend to take time to study the overwhelming evidence; and religious authorities do not want to hear that someone other than an all-powerful Creator was responsible for any part of the world as we now find it (although I stress that what I found was a re-formation of the world, not a creation). I have tried to make the book I wrote - The End of the Mystery - available to the public (at the above-named site), but in the present intellectual climate of war, between two powerful and opposing authorities, the revolutionary discovery of a third position, and a more complex reality, has so far been too much for the average man or woman to embrace.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts. Yet once I had assured myself of the reality of the design I had found, I could see many hints to design in well-known phenomena. For example, the solar system is littered with moons orbiting the main planets, more than 135 the last time I checked (Jupiter alone has 62 listed moons now). Yet Earth's moon is unique, being both perfectly round like the Sun, and of just the right apparent diameter to completely eclipse the Sun - the Moon's average apparent diameter is 0.527 degrees, while the Sun's is 0.533 degrees. It is Earth's only moon, and the only moon, in a system littered with moons, that can not only precisely eclipse the Sun as seen from its mother planet, it does so regularly, and on a precisely repeating, 18.6 year cycle. Science today believes the Moon was not always at its present distance from the Earth, making it even more unbelievable that it should now be at just the right distance, purely by chance, to precisely eclipse the Sun as it regularly does.

There are many such clues to design of our world. Indeed, our modern earth and life sciences are all weak and unsupported by hard evidence to the precise extent and in the precise ways that they ignore the possibility of design.

While that may seem, to the scientist comfortably working within the parameters of current theories, a harsh and unconsidered judgment, it is easily illustrated. Here is an example, from biology, which was used as a featured example of the "overwhelming" evidence for evolution, in an article ("Was Darwin Wrong?") in the November 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine; so it was meant to be taken as among the best evidence confirming Darwinian, or undirected, evolution:

The Madagascar orchid - Angraecum sesquipedale - has a unique, 11-inch long nectar receptacle, far too deep and narrow for almost all insects, even moths with their extended proboscises, to obtain nectar from it. It is such a unique variation that Charles Darwin himself was drawn to it, and he predicted that there must be a moth, equally unique, with an 11-inch proboscis, to draw nectar out of so deep a receptacle. In fact, forty years later (the article relates) just such a moth was found, the Madagascar sphinx moth, Xanthopan morganii praedicta. This is an example of a very common, wide-ranging phenomenon that is called "co-evolution" (also "mutual adaptation"). There are many variations of orchids that offer different, individual examples of "co-evolution", and in fact, the whole range of flowering plants, the angiosperms, are generally dependent upon animals for their reproduction, and so are "co-evolved" with those animals. I have seen it written more than once, in recent years, that most evolution is in fact co-evolution. That is how important the example given here and in the National Geographic article really is: It exposes a fundamental characteristic, called "co-evolution," in the development of the vast array of lifeforms - both plants and animals - on Earth.

The tendency for evolutionists is to interpret the Madagascar orchid-moth pair as the moth following the orchid in its variation; that is, as the orchid's receptacle lengthened, the moth's proboscis lengthened to be able to probe it successfully. Indeed, it hardly makes sense the other way around, that the moth's proboscis might have begun to lengthen, and the orchid's receptacle lengthened in response - what, to get away from an overlong probe?

The National Geographic article emphasized that the discovery of the moth "confirmed Darwin's forecast." But Darwin, under his own theory, would have to have been arguing that the orchid must have developed its unique variation in order to follow the variation in the moth - that the moth's variation required the orchid's - in order to predict the existence of the moth from the fact of the orchid as he did. And we see that is nonsense; why should the orchid receptacle lengthen precisely to follow the length of the moth's proboscis - it doesn't need to. If Darwin had known about the moth and not the orchid, he could have legitimately predicted the orchid on the basis that the lengthening receptacle of the orchid required the moth's proboscis to lengthen - the moth would have needed to undergo some such variation, to survive as it did.

The truth is, Darwin did not predict the moth based upon his theory. The only way he could predict the moth from the orchid would be to intuit that such a unique variation in the orchid implies a design, the intent of which was to match it to an equally unique moth. Darwin unconsciously did what any competent logician would do, who believed that things don't happen without reason in nature, that everything has its particular use. Put another way, any competent reasoner - including a child - should be able to tell, upon seeing both the moth and the orchid, that they were made for one another. Yet Darwin was so focused upon interpreting everything in terms of his own theory, he deluded himself that he was using that theory in making this prediction; and it is a strange fact that, over a hundred years later - a hundred and more years of debate, scientific research and development - his mistake is still upheld as a triumph of scientific prediction, and a triumph of Darwinian theory.

Looking even more deeply into this example, it is hard to understand why biologists would have so long accepted such a stunning example as this one as even being consistent with the theory, much less a sterling example of it. Evolution is currently believed to proceed by natural selection of random mutations. This means that a particular mutation, or variation in one species, has no direct influence upon what mutations may occur in another species, however closely they are associated in nature. The lengthening of the orchid nectar receptacle proceeded, it is supposed, through a sequence of variations - one variation would not force it to lengthen to precisely 11 inches, it would have to make it past two, three, and so on, in stages. The moth would have to undergo a precisely similar sequence of variations to get to an 11-inch proboscis. At every point along the development of the 11-inch receptacle and the 11-inch proboscis, the moth would have to undergo just the right variation. Its variations would have to precisely track the entire series of variations undergone by the orchid (or vice-versa, since under the theory the orchid might just as well track the moth as the other way around, however counterintuitive that may be to our minds). Yet the theory provides no way for even one variation of the orchid to force the precisely-needed variation in the moth, much less an extended sequence of variations in the orchid to force an exact tracking of that sequence in the moth. And what is the result of this precise "co-evolution" of the two species: A quite unnecessary variation in both, taken to unnecessary extreme, without increased survival value to either. The theory is shredded by this one example alone; across the full range of living, "co-evolved" things, it is made ridiculous to uphold it.

There is overwhelming, world-ranging evidence surely indicating a progression in living things, but it is equally overwhelmingly a progression of design. A proper study of living things on Earth shows that they are remarkably "co-evolved," and that fact - that overwhelming fact - proves the progression, the development of life as we observe it, was not undirected. There must be design behind it, on more than one level. In the example presented here, we have looked at the level of just one, particularly remarkable, "co-evolved" pair of species.

I am 59 years old now; all my life, we have been assured that science is self-correcting. Yet for all my life, it has not been self-correcting. Science is in critical condition, and its symptoms of distress are being widely ignored. (These symptoms include dogmatic debates, particularly over evolution, and the most improbable speculations - such as unobserved, "dark matter" making up to 99% of the universe - needed to save current theories.) In many instances, science is trying to ride on the back of a still-advancing technology - as in telescopic observations of an incredibly varied and structured cosmos - but failing to explain, much less predict from current theory, what it finds.

The discoveries we read about are hyped to make them appear more important than they really are. Science now markets itself to the public through the media, driven by profit and influence, not desire for hard, dependable knowledge. And science has become a religion, in direct conflict with traditional religions, with its own incontestable dogmas - against intelligent design, for example - and its own religious defenders/warriors.

Science has become too much like a religion driven by fear of diametrically opposed ideas, rather than by love of a higher truth and an overarching unity.

------- And one or two points I summarized in my blog post "Challenge to Science and Religion" back in 2009:

Undirected evolution is invalidated 1) above all, by its denial of meaning (or truth, or higher reality) underlying the physical world; 2) by a great deal of positive evidence of design on every scale of observation throughout the biological realm (such as the many remarkable examples of "co-evolution" and its deeper, characteristic presence, across the entire class of flowering plants, for example); and 3) most surely by the world design I uncovered, which communicates a coherent message encompassing, and thus surely the original motivation for, all of the ancient, religious obsessions held in common by men worldwide.


The term "evolution" is abused and universally applied [N.B.-- as by Matt Ridley in his book] because it is only a robust metaphysical reality, not a physical one; across all fields to which it is applied, it merely reflects human learning. Here is the fundamental philosophical truth that needs to be apprehended by all sides today: "Evolution" requires design, and design requires an overarching, prior intelligence. Undirected evolution is a logically inept metaphysics, a fundamental confusion of the mind, and the "intelligent" in "intelligent design" is superfluous.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The Awful Truth About Global Temperature Records

The Notrickszone site has a post suggesting a "sharp global cooling ahead". My response:

The global temperature is stable — no runaway global warming OR cooling [correction: no global warming at all from a century or more ago]. The definitive evidence (as I have been harping on since November 2010) is my Venus/Earth temperature vs. pressure comparison, in which the Standard Atmosphere model of the Earth’s troposphere is precisely–I repeat, precisely–confirmed against the temperature vs. pressure profile of Venus, when only Venus’s lesser distance from the Sun is taken into account. Not only does that Venus/Earth analysis prove there is no global-warming CO2 greenhouse effect (since Venus’s atmosphere has over 2400 times the concentration of CO2 as Earth’s does, with no effect upon the temperatures), it shows that the century-old Standard Atmosphere, developed by measurements throughout the atmosphere over many years, precisely agrees with the Venus atmospheric profile on ONE DAY, October 5, 1991. THINK about that, people: The mean surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere, 288K, has been unchanged in that model for a century, and yet it precisely agrees with the measured temperature in the Venus atmosphere at the same pressure, on that one day in 1991 (after most of the supposed “unprecedented global warming” is claimed to have occurred on Earth). The surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere–288K, for a century or more–is greater now than the supposed global mean surface temperature today, despite all of that supposed recent global warming. This is the pitiful truth, behind all of the “authoritative”, condescending “expert” opinions that are fed to the public as the unquestionable, sacred truth.

The Venus/Earth comparison, all by itself, shreds not only all of the alarmist climate science theory, it shows that the “measured global mean surface temperature” record(s) is a farce–there has been NO global warming since the development of the Standard Atmosphere Model a century and more ago.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Climate Alarmism: Facing the Larger Problem

The bishop hill site has a post on one of the latest examples of sophistry (reasoning that is superficially plausible but actually fallacious) in public statements by climate alarmists. One commenter on the site likened his rejection of that sophistry to his quick rejection of "von Danniken's 'Worlds In Collision'". My response:

Immanuel Velikovsky, not Erich von Dänniken, wrote "Worlds In Collision". Whichever one you mean, Spectator, neither is worthy of your disdain, which says more about you--about your beliefs--than either of them. They were both on the right track, as opposed to the consensus view you were taught. Like it or not, science got off-track with the ascension of Darwin and the uniformitarian, undirected evolution paradigm as the unquestionable "settled science" (unquestionable means it's dogma over reason, which is the real evil). Global-warming alarmism is just the tail of that very "settled science" dog (basically: if chance, via undirected physical processes alone, brought about this complex world, then chance, or man, can easily destroy the natural order, as in "runaway global warming"; the truth is that, if chance did not make the world, then its observed stability, throughout history, should tell us it was DESIGNED to be stable, albeit with a wide variety of regional climates, all the way from tropical to polar). The insanity of "global warming" alarmism is just a symptom of the deeper problem, that science currently recognizes no MEANING to the order or stability of the world, and so that stability is easily dismissed as "coincidence", or "natural selection", and so considered ephemeral and easily broken (by the mere increase of atmospheric CO2 from .03% to .04% of the atmosphere). Both sides of the climate science debate/war fail to see that deeper problem, and the self-correction of science needed across the board, which my research and unprecedented findings reveal. Put bluntly, mine is the next scientific paradigm, replacing the "undirected evolution" paradigm, which this generation is showing itself unprepared to face.

Thursday, November 5, 2015

Climate Alarmists and Lukewarmers Are All Incompetent

The Climate Etc site of the tenured (snugly employed) academic Judith Curry has a post on "lukewarmers", those who are proud to call themselves reasonable (as opposed to the alarmists on one side, and the "skeptics" who are "deniers" on the other). Their "reasonableness" has been a drag on any effective criticism of current climate science for years, and it is unfortunately the position of choice for many in the global warming debate. My response:

There is no haven in the lukewarmer position(s); climate science is totally wrong, because it is based upon the science of mere weather--alias local and transient processes--with no regard for the global constraint of the hydrostatic atmosphere, or for the direct heating of the atmosphere by the Sun rather than by the planetary surface. Their (your, Judith Curry) scientific incompetence is just as large as the alarmists'. But here at the nadir of the "debate" (or fruitless war of words) to co-opt the public to a science they are not equipped to judge, no one will question their own tragically flawed estimation of their own "expertness"; no one is learning anything. None of you is worthy of the name "scientist".

Friday, October 2, 2015

One Reader's Confirmation

The following e-mail I just received, and my response, may be of interest to readers here:

After buying your books over a year and a half ago, it seems the only conclusion I can make is that you are correct. I maintained some doubt (perhaps unreasonably) until I found where you noted the ENP on the ground in the Great Mapping and located a sphere rotation script on the web to check the points, but having done so I can only conclude that the Great Mapping is a projection of the (rotated) celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere.

I had already concluded that I couldn't really justify doubling [I think he means "doubting"-HDH] the probability of chance being the reason for each of the input probabilities in chapter six as long as the mapping was correct. Even doing so as a gedankenexperiment still leaves a number that isn't remotely reasonably the result of chance. Thus, I find the only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth was designed.

To check the star positions I used the rotation script noted below[1] with GNU Octave, and took my star positions from KStars. I ran the equatorial coordinates through the KStars equatorial->ecliptic converter, added 180 to the ecliptic longitude (at least that seemed to work for all my checks) and fed that to the rotation script.

The rotation script is a bit odd in that it asks for /South/ pole coordinates, not North pole, and that it asks for Longitude,Latitude. Thus, the rotated pole coordinates are ENP_lon - 180, -ENP_lat. I left out the actual coordinates because they are possibly the heart of the book, and I haven't seen you post them online.

Regarding the Milky Way core to South America comparison, that one I found a little more difficult to verify because I found four different outlines from four different sources - only one of which (nearly) matches yours. Still, with that much disagreement in conventional sources your outline is as reasonable as any I've seen. Even if one disregards that particular match probability calulation, I can't see that it meaninfully affects the overall calculations.

I did try looking up the etymology of Russia, and found that while the Ursa etymology is unsupported by recent history, I didn't immediately find a trace back to Indo-European. However, the history seems to be only well supported back to about 830AD, which leaves open the possibility of earlier Latin influence. Perhaps inconclusive, but highly interesting.

Regarding footnote 146 on page 121, I was a little surprised that you missed noting the archaic and no longer used Digamma that was the 6th letter in the dialects that had it, pushing Eta to the eighth position.

I probably could go on, but this is getting long enough already.

Thank you for being willing to hold to truth in the face of (nearly) universal opposition.




Good Morning, Tor,

Thank you for your feedback comments; they tell me that it is likely that any substantial conversation regarding the evaluation of my work, in finding and verifying--to the highest scientific standards--what I have called the Great Design of the "gods", must inevitably involve giving a full university-level course (perhaps even a four-year program) to thoroughly explain every aspect of it from the ground up, so to speak. I was slightly surprised, for example, to hear that you did so much work before you realized you were dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the earth globe; I thought I had made that clear in the early chapters of "The End of the Mystery" (the "celestial sphere" itself is a projection of the actual stars onto an imaginary sphere surrounding the Earth, as shown in my Figure 3.2, for example); but I see I was mistaken. In trying to communicate my own sense of discovery at each early step of my research--including the discovery that I WAS dealing with a projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth sphere--I introduced the idea of a "mapping" of the former onto the latter (on page 28), and then my discovery that one had only to use the mirror image of the constellation Cepheus in order to have it map precisely onto the African Horn (page 29, and Figure 2.15). I called this "mirror image" placing of Cepheus precisely on the shape of the African Horn "the second great discovery" (on page 30), precisely BECAUSE it meant a simple projection of the celestial sphere onto the Earth was involved; but I left that conclusion unsaid on that page, because I wanted to allow the reader to make that connection in their own mind, as I did when I first found the Cepheus/African Horn match (the precision of which, by itself, was enough to prove it was a deliberate design, using probability arguments like those used in Chapter Six and other chapters--which I also left unsaid). I thought, by the time the reader encountered Fig. 3.2, it would be clear to anyone that we were dealing, in the Great Mapping, with a mathematically precise projection of the one sphere onto the other; and the introduction of the "downward looking" view of the celestial sphere immediately after, and the later views of the Great Mapping (and many other projectional mappings, in Chapter 9) would cement that understanding. You have reminded me one book cannot do justice to the depth and breadth of the new/old knowledge--indeed, the new field of scientific study--I have discovered. Too many things along the way are inevitably left unsaid, or remain unaddressed, by any single book.

Of course, since the finding and verification of the Great Design changes the entire modern science paradigm--especially in the earth and life sciences, where uniformitarianism, Darwinian (undirected) evolution and plate tectonics are literally swept away as adequate explanations of the observable truth, about the Earth design--the necessity for a new major course of study, of this new scientific field, should be apparent.

I have not investigated your method for checking on the Great Mapping, and may or may not do so in the near future, so I won't comment on your efforts there, except to say congratulations on your desire to check for yourself, and your apparent confirmation of the Great Mapping as a real, and accurate, projection of the celestial sphere onto the terrestrial sphere. The mappings I discussed in Chapter 9 are likewise real, and precise, projections of the celestial sphere onto the Earth, all enabled by the deliberate design of the landmasses on the Earth, as an objective record of the deeds of the "gods", for a sufficiently advanced earthbound mankind to find and translate, as I have done.

The Milky Way outline I used in my research and in the book was that given by Wil Tirion, in the book "The Cambridge Star Atlas" (1998). He has been the most authoritative source for star charts for decades, and his charts are used in all of the several, and most widely available, sources I cited in "The End of the Mystery".

As to Russia, the main thing is to remember that I tried to use the most familiar material I could, as far as I could, in my research (with an eye to making it easier for the lay reader to either already know, or most easily check, the information I presented). With that in mind, the fact that Russia has traditionally, even commonly, been known as "The Great Bear" is all that needs to be said, when one sees that the constellation of Ursa, "The Great Bear", well stretches out over Russia in the Great Mapping. That alone tells one that that placement was deliberate, not by chance, and that the words "Russia" and "Ursa", so close in sound, must both come from the same original source, and that source is the Great Mapping (as is well confirmed by all the other matchups, of constellation names and names on the corresponding lands or other earth features, in the Great Mapping, I found).

Several years ago, one of the earliest buyers of my book wrote to me, also telling me about the extra letter that once put "eta" in the eighth place in the Greek alphabet. As I told him, I don't mind getting this independent confirmation of my claim about the identification of "eta" with "eight"; I used the current form of the Greek alphabet, again because that is what is out there today, for anyone to see. The way I look at it is, I already knew, from all those observations I listed on page 121 of the book, that there must be a reason why "eta" is only in the seventh place today, and my footnote was in the nature of a dare, or prediction, that that reason must and would come to light (as it did to you--see how easy that confirmation was? And you did it yourself, hence a truly independent confirmation on your part, and on the part of that earlier reader I mentioned).

Friday, September 18, 2015

More Than a Conspiracy, More Than Climate Science

The Notrickszone site has a post on universities suppressing non-consensus climate views. One commenter derided the post as a "conspiracy" view, while another, on the other side of the climate debate, looked back to the 1950s, when, he wrote, continental drift was suppressed. My response to both sides:

Continental drift was not suppressed, just strongly argued against, because geophysicists (not geologists, but physicists) could find no reasonable physical cause for it. And no one has ever actually found the internal magma currents supposedly driving continental drift, nor have they ever found subduction actually taking place anywhere; the physics of the crustal materials involved still denies it CAN take place (i.e., lighter material diving into and below the denser material beneath it), much less that it HAS happened, or IS happening.

The truth is that it is not just climate science that fails today; all of the earth AND life sciences are in a yet-unrecognized crisis of incompetent theories, going all the way back to the rise (and consensus agreement that it was "settled science") of uniformitarianism and its most famous offspring, Darwinian (i.e., undirected) evolution.

See, for example:

The True Origin of Continental Drift


Challenge to Earth Scientists

So it is not a matter of just a "climate conspiracy" having taken over all of our most trusted and authoritative institutions; it is the culmination of a long-nurtured, dogmatic denial of deliberate design of our world, which has affected all of the earth and life sciences. I am the only scientist who can speak authoritatively about this, because I am the one who has uncovered and verified the re-formation and design that was imposed upon the Earth, and the entire solar system, by those who were called gods by ancient man. It was that deliberate re-formation that moved and shaped the continents, not plate tectonics. That is the FACT that no other scientific "expert" in the world will face today; too many theories, too many lifetimes of diligent but misdirected research, are at stake. The sacrosanct uniformitarian paradigm, the "undirected evolution" paradigm, is at stake. Against that, those who seek refuge in their political ideology--as if the debate were only between the enlightened Left and the reactionary Right--are the most deluded, the most misdirected in their thinking, and the most irrelevant and incompetent. But make no mistake, ALL are incompetent today, in the face of the great design I found to be the single source of all the ancient mysteries.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Standing Together: Sooner Would Have Been Better (But Still Is)

Jo Nova has a post on an "emergency meeting" this month of world leaders, apparently meant to make "backroom" deals among them in advance of the December "climate change" (a.k.a. global warming) conference. Jo commented that climate "skeptics" need to "stand together", a remark that seemed to me likely to have little effect--which would be unfortunate. My response:

The point is, there are too many "lukewarmers" and too few "deniers" (or, like me, defiers, though that means little since I have no influence on my own). The "greenhouse effect" should never have been taken seriously in climate science; it should have been laughed off the stage while still being bandied about by a few scientists, only at scientific gatherings, and never been allowed to metastasize into the public consciousness as an hysterical "meme", or sacred "scientific" commandment. You are all going to have to "stand together" with my kind, not me with yours, lukewarmers -- and that means showing some competence first of all in the DEFINITIVE evidence against the "consensus". Do not accept the "greenhouse effect", nor the "radiation transfer" theory with its "blackbody Earth", AT ALL. No more "radiative forcings"! Ban the use of "W/m^2" talking points, period, unless and until you can use them to explain, fully and precisely, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun (very precisely so, outside of the cloud region on Venus). And you will never be able to do that; the radiative transfer theory is simply wrong, because it takes the temperature in the atmosphere to be due to radiative transfer, and thus reverses the true cause and effect in the real, essentially hydrostatic atmosphere (whose set vertical temperature structure--the constant lapse rate structure--rules over all, especially the LW radiation "measurements").