Politics Spreading the Delusion: A Case in Point

P. Gosselin's Notrickszone site has a post on Australian "shrinks" deludedly spouting off against climate skeptics.  I submit the following response:

I have known for some time that the public climate debate needs a thorough review by psychologists, maybe even psychiatrists (NOT sociologists, who self-importantly invented the term "post-normal science" to justify their unjustified intrusion into that debate). But they need specifically to observe and ultimately expound upon those promulgating and/or defending the climate consensus, not those criticizing and/or denying it. (I for example am proud to stand up and deny the "greenhouse effect" completely, as a competent physicist--not a climate scientist, who have all been miseducated--who rather easily and quickly uncovered the definitive evidence against that hypothesis, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison; and it is telling that none of the usual gang of climate bloggers (much less any other academic "experts"), on either side of the debate, has been able to wrap their minds around that definitive evidence, though it should be the front-page news worldwide. That is no doubt because everyone wants to present a complete climate theory--this psychological need is central to the whole, ongoing farce--and my Venus/Earth analysis, so far, merely destroys the consensus theory, with a simple, obvious, and overwhelming fact.)

So this news of Australian "shrinks" (psychiatrists, rather than psychologists, I suppose) bloviating upon precisely the wrong camp in the debate, rather than upon those incompetently promulgating or deluded by the consensus, is just another strong indication that the world is deeply invested in the wider, and scientifically incompetent, Left vs. Right POLITICAL debate over climate policies, and judging according to their political prejudices, rather than according to verifiable, good science. The "shrinks" will not be addressing reality until they understand the climate consensus is incompetent, and seek to uncover why it has nevertheless prospered, to the point of suborning all of our institutions.

Peer Review: Getting a Token Shakeup

The following is my response to an article on the wattsupwiththat site, about new open-publishing rules being considered for peer-review journals, giving everyone free access to them:

It sounds good, just like Obamacare does to a poor man, BUT...  You are taking your eye off the ball, which is that an incompetent climate consensus is basically the accepted law of the land, worldwide, and that all of our institutions have been suborned by that consensus. Two generations of scientists have been miseducated (and thus made incompetent from the beginning of their higher education) in a non-existent "greenhouse effect", of increasing global mean temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is in turn upheld by an obviously misleading radiative transfer theory that is taken to be fundamental "settled science" by all. The consensus physics is literally upside-down and causally backward, because radiative transfer is taken to be the cause of temperatures, but is obviously the effect of them (where is there a clear-headed lukewarm believer?--for here and elsewhere none of them can even note that the 390 W/m^2 in longwave IR said to be emitted by the Earth's surface, is really just the intensity of radiation calculated for a blackbody at the temperature of that surface, and understand that this is a physics misunderstanding that should fail a freshman, much less an "expert" like Kevin Trenberth, first and foremost because it provides only for a gross violation of the conservation of energy?)

This open-publishing gambit is really just desperate political maneuvering (and is analogous to Obamacare, supposedly giving everyone access to the "best science", but there is no "best" climate science, there is only fundamentally bad climate science), trying to do the least, and to protect everyone involved in the outrageous rape of science, by "97% of climate scientists" and every "authoritative" institution in the world. This generation is diligently and politically avoiding getting to the heart of the matter, and it will only, as the old saying goes, reap the wild wind for the next generation. No one in a position of authority--and public responsibility--is practicing true science (and that includes WUWT). If you did, there would be no political debate, and no tyrannous governmental climate policies, because there would be a healthy and robust lack of consensus, given the bad science.

The "Catastrophic" Origin of Climate Science and Science Fiction

I have submitted the following comment at the Bishop Hill site, where science fiction has been linked to the current climate consensus/hysteria:

Scientific hysteria is always science fiction. In fact, the scientific hysteria of the late 19th and early 20th century--when the Darwinian dogma, particularly, became the unquestionable law in science, despite the gross evidence of non-uniformitarian, large-scale processes at work in the past, that required "ice ages" (or Noah's flood, heaven forbid) or other catastrophes(!) to explain--gave emotional birth to science fiction (the flood of technological and scientific knowledge advances didn't provide the spark--it took the idea of world-shaking, world shattering energies, combined with the new idea of mankind confronting, and even harnessing, such energies). The earth and life sciences have since Darwin been stuck with that catastrophic dichotomy, of uniformitarian evolution of a world in which catastrophic forces are precariously balanced, so that a global temperature change of only 5°C, or 9°F, they say** separates the current "interglacial" period from a full-blown global ice age (which of course means the world would be in the latter, frozen state, with a mean surface temperature of 50°F, since it is 59°F--15°C--today).

**Andy Lacis mentioned this, when his paper on CO2 as the "Control Knob" for atmospheric temperature came out. He said it casually, as an accepted "fact", so it is evidently "settled science" among the academic hoi-polloi. Too bad it is childish nonsense, just like the "greenhouse effect"--too bad, because it means the radiative transfer theory, considered sacrosanct even by skeptics/deniers, is also nonsense (and no one knows how to fix it, so we mustn't talk about it in front of the children/academics). There is no climate science worthy of the name. And you have Darwin, Agassiz and H.G. Wells to blame, not Hansen (poor little, miseducated kid--and obvious science fiction fan--that he is).

The Insane War, a War of Dogmas

Something of what is going on in the world, affecting the fundamental processes by which our civilization works, can be seen at the Pajamas Media and invisibleserfscollar sites, where I have submitted the following comments:

At Pajamas Media, concerning "the 3 great scams of our time":

All three of these "scams" really depend, not upon conspiracy per se, but upon a general incompetence, of the uninformed populace but also of the "experts", who were supposedly well-educated to BE experts--but are in fact not.

It is the incompetence brought about by long-held, religiously held, dogma, culminating in our time on many fronts, in many fields, but most especially in science, the very home of objective thought and understanding.

The human race is at war with unquestioned dogmas, some of them rooted in pre-history, in the earliest myths (which played the part of authoritative science in the truly ancient world, before the rise of the known civilizations). There is new scientific knowledge concerning those earliest and most divisive, most violent, most religious dogmas, that could dissipate much senseless hatred in the world today. But that newly civilizing knowledge is not welcome among the mandarins of academic science, the arbiters of what may be discussed, and who may be considered expert.

What makes this time insane, is that the supposed experts in every field are incompetent. The intellectual and psychological forces at work are beyond their blindered scientific understanding--their obsolete understanding, based upon too small a time frame, too small a sample of, essentially, scientific fads.

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child."
 
And at InvisibleSerfsCollar:

Today's world is a war of dogmas, which have been long held, for varied time periods up to and including all of known history and more, and thus well entrenched. This is true even in the hard sciences, which are all in an unrecognized crisis of incompetence, characteristic of the times (although the false dogmas there are only a century or two old--still enough to be taken as gospel today). A good watchphrase is, "He who knows only his own generation remains always a child." A people taught from youth only according to what are essentially the fads of the decade, or the generation, or even the century, is a civilization started on a downward slope, that accelerates suddenly to the point of dislocation and violent confrontation of opposing ideas. Only new knowledge, new real expertise, about the far past can harmonize the many divisive dogmas currently at war in our society and in the world. And academics have been brought up in recent generations to dismiss and deny the new knowledge that is in fact coming out, through individuals like me (and especially by me, as I am an independent physicist with hard knowledge that corrects both science and religion, about the true origin of the world, and its continuing myths, as we know it).

Climate Science Not the Greatest Hoax, After All

I have submitted the following comment to Alan Caruba's Warning Signs site, where the subject is "The Greatest Hoax", referring to the "global warming" hysteria:

I am an independent (and therefore unwanted) physicist (64 years old, and educated before the great educational train wreck of the last 40 years, which has miseducated the last two generations of physical scientists), and I disproved the "greenhouse effect" supposed to underpin the global warming hysteria, with the definitive evidence I know is needed to correct climate science. It is not just the man/woman on the street who pays no attention, what is frightening to me is that there are no climate or atmospheric scientists competent enough, or honest enough, to listen to that definitive (and quite simple, for a scientist) evidence.

I have been saying for some time that all of our institutions (AAAS, NAS, APS, AGU, etc.) have been suborned by the incompetent climate consensus (and of course, the cheerleading media). What makes this climate hoax greater than even the insiders among the "consensus skeptics" (a.k.a. "deniers") know, is that the greater the authority of the institution, the more its subornation is tied to a religious belief in evolution theory. That is to say, they think that opposition to the global warming idea is tied to a "creationist" denial of evolution (when they don't put such "denial" down to the evil of "Big Oil corporations").

And it is, in a larger context that both they AND the skeptics don't yet even imagine can possibly be true: The bad theory behind global warming is just the tail of the dog of the general evolution paradigm, that science has hewed to since Darwin: That everything we observe in the natural world is the product of undirected physical processes, without any deliberate design as even most scientists believed before Darwin. In such a paradigm, the Earth is all too easily seen as unstable (rather than the harmonious, repeating dynamic stability man has observed throughout history), and therefore can be subject to runaway climate ("ice ages", as well as "global warming"). That paradigm is now failing, increasingly openly, as the incompetence of scientists grows, as they struggle to tack on layer after layer of theoretical "natural" processes--like the non-existent "greenhouse effect"--to their "explanations". I am the only scientist in the world, so far as I know, who really, professionally knows this, because of my discovery and verification of the "great design of the gods", the highly fragmented and misunderstood knowledge of which--passed down by the "gods" to their offspring, historical man--was responsible for all the "ancient mysteries" of mankind's most ancient religiously-held beliefs.

Children In Charge in the Climate Debates

I have submitted the following comment on the Real-Science site, where Steven Goddard concluded:  "Temperatures continue to plummet below Hansen’s Scenario C – which represents humans having disappeared off the planet twelve years ago. The only possible interpretation being that human generated CO2 has little or nothing to do with global temperatures.  Our alarmist friends, being the crooks that they are, will continue to pretend that they don’t notice this disaster.":

And the "lukewarmers" will also continue to pretend, that there is a greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide--just not a "catastrophic" one. Well, as a real scientist, I say anyone who thinks there is ANY such global-temperature-raising greenhouse effect, is incompetent and should be thrown out of science. Once again, my comparison of temperatures in the tropospheres of Venus and Earth, here--which should have been done by any competent, interested scientist 20 years ago--is the definitive evidence, that makes the "no greenhouse effect at all" obvious. If there were a greenhouse effect, it would ADD to the temperature in Venus's atmosphere (which has over 2400 times, or over 11 doublings of, Earth's carbon dioxide concentration), but in fact the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a CONSTANT, and even more amazing, that constant is PRECISELY, physically explained by the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, and nothing else. Until that is faced, there is no viable climate science at all.


I am also still waiting for someone to find independently what I suggested many months ago, that the global temperature record is really not that at all, but only an unrecognized proxy for the multidecadal ocean oscillations, and that is really why the former and the latter are so well correlated since the 17th century. I am sadly amused that the surface temperature in the Standard Atmosphere--which I confirmed in my Venus/Earth analysis--is 288.15K, and has been for a century, and that is higher than the supposed mean global surface temperature, even after a century of "global warming".

Unfortunately, the climate "debate" is just so many barking dogs, unwilling to learn anything but only wanting to defend their respective territories. (The consensus is thus a "Lord of the Flies" phenomenon: Out of control children, really, without any responsible parental authority.)