The Greenhouse Effect: Parsing a Scientific Lie Does Not Help Science or the Public

The climaterealists site has yet another article that seeks to apportion the contributions to the "greenhouse effect" and "anthropogenic greenhouse effect", and I have submitted the following there:

There is a general incompetence in climate science, among all scientists on both sides of the debate over the "consensus". Too many identify the "greenhouse effect" as simply the absorption of IR radiation by those atmospheric gases that can do so (and are then, by circular reasoning, called "greenhouse gases"). There will be no competent climate scientists until they change their fundamental thinking, and hew to the "greenhouse effect" which is being foisted upon the public: That increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) causes increasing global mean surface temperature (or simply "increasing temperature", in the loose public vernacular). This is the very heart of the global warming scare theory.

And once they get that into their heads (which they show no signs -- as in Jonathan Duhamel's article here -- of doing, or even trying to wrap their minds around), then they need to confront, and accept, the definitive evidence, that completely disproves the greenhouse effect at the real heart of the debate:

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

This definitive -- I will say it again: definitive -- disproof of the greenhouse effect also shows that the atmosphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not by heat from the warmed planetary surface.

It is atrocious that all of climate scientists, and all of those debating climate science, ignore and dismiss the definitive Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, for that is the only competent "climate science" in the world today: The comparison of two detailed, and quite different, planet-plus-atmosphere systems. Despite their many, gross differences, Venus and Earth are both warmed in precisely the same way, by precisely the same fraction of the incident solar radiation (over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, in the two atmospheres).

The public is not being served by climate science, nor is it being served by the debate, such as it is, because the definitive Venus/Earth evidence is being avoided, and that in turn is because that definitive evidence does not allow anyone to pretend to be "expert", so far it merely establishes that a stable atmospheric background exists, well represented by the Standard Atmosphere model (which is confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison), upon which weather and climate (neither of which are global, but regional and temporal -- or "local and transient" -- and above all, periodic, i.e. ever repeating) play their recurring roles.

You are all facing, not a running argument among climate experts, but a revolution in scientific understanding of a fundamentally stable thermodynamic system in the atmosphere (not at all subject to runaway global warming OR cooling), and how that atmosphere is really warmed.