A Truer Path Into the Past of Mankind

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.

Dealing With Criminal Authorities

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.

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.

Where Science Went Wrong

Claes Johnson has a summary post on "quantum contradictions", and other instances of what he considers bad modern theories in science. The following is my response, basically agreeing with him that modern science has gone wrong:

"A magic theory that we all have to accept without understanding" is a good, but not, I believe, the best way to characterize these instances of bad--and fundamental--theories at the center of our physical sciences, because of course it is really only stating things from the deluded believer's point of view, a totally dark, unknowing and unquestioning point of view. I prefer to make specific, positive and definitive statements that clarify the true physicist's point of view, and give an immediate feel for just what is wrong in each theory: The length contraction and the increase in mass with velocity, in relativity theory, are both unphysical (they violate the conservation of matter, and mass cannot be, at the same time, both transformable into kinetic energy, yet increasing with it, as Dewey Larson pointed out); that every part of the universe is flying away from us, in big bang theory, is unphysical (in precisely the same way as the ancient belief that the universe revolves around the Earth is unphysical--infinite energy, strangely working to make us the, or a, center of the universe, is needed in both); the greenhouse effect in climate theory (which simply ignores the simple truth of "heat rises--flows upward--in the atmosphere") is unphysical; the repudiation of physical reality itself, in quantum mechanics theory, is unphysical, and illogical (as Einstein masterfully made perfectly clear, to me and no doubt to others, in his famous EPR analysis--no one has gone beyond that criticism of QM, to this day, in this physicist's view). I am a physicist, because I assert, as fundamental, "I think, therefore I am; I interact constantly with a physical world, therefore it exists; physical bodies and physical interactions are fundamentally real (not contingent upon my 'measuring' them, or knowing anything about them)." An arrow shot from a bow DOES reach the target, despite the pretentious irrationality of Zeno; a tree falling in the wilderness DOES make a sound; and we do NOT "create our own reality". We defy even the tiniest sliver of physical reality (bacteria, and viruses, for example) at our peril and our eventual, certain regret--I believe we are all here to learn precisely that, if nothing else. The physical world, and universe, were here before any of us were born, and will be here, working precisely the same, after we are gone. Everything physical was designed--that is what MY unprecedented research and unparalleled discovery, of the "Great Design of the gods", makes utterly clear, for the first time in history, to any competent mind, not just the spiritual-minded--and must work as it was designed to do, with conscious choice the only undetermined, yet fundamentally important, variable, and we humans, in particular, were made (designed) to learn that, in exquisite detail (to encompass the design with our minds, and honor it as the intentional, accomplished design it is). That is what, before Darwin, science was known to be (by men of the stature of Newton, at least): The study of the Design of the world, and universe.

The IPCC Must Go (February 2011)

Claes Johnson has a post on Judith Curry, who in the wake of the latest IPCC "report" has apparently called for its dissolution. I responded with the following comment:

Competent scientists knew this long ago. I wrote the following comment on MasterResource back on February 23, 2011:

I agree, the IPCC must go, if science -- not just climate science -- is to take back its credibility from political corrupton. But that is not enough, because the IPCC could not live and prosper without a general weakening of scientific competence, indeed without a raising of false dogma to the level of proof throughout science. Science must begin to regain its intellectual health by repudiating the incompetent scientists who enabled the IPCC, and who continue even now to ride the wave of false consensus that has ensnared all of our scientific institutions (NOAA, NASA, AAAS, APS, etc.), and the public media (including all of the peer-reviewed scientific publications). James Hansen, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth -- all those who have continued to promulgate AGW in the face of overwhelming evidence against their poor science (including internet bloggers like "Eli Rabett", "ScienceofDoom", skepticalscience.com, realclimate.com, etc.), must be demonstrated to be wrong-headed, and ejected from science. I maintain the proper comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth (as I have done, very simply, in "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect") is the key proof, and an amazing demonstration, of the general wrong-headedness of the climate "consensus". The last generation of students has been taught nonsense masqueraded as "settled science", and a whole new generation is being brainwashed with this dogma (the "greenhouse effect", based upon an incompetent "radiation balance theory" of climate) even now. Until the Venus/Earth data is dispassionately confronted, and admitted by all to be definitive against the current consensus, all scientists are incompetent. That is the unpalatable truth that must be faced.

The Venus/Earth comparison is here. A VERY simple understanding of it, for children and smugly dismissive "experts", is revealed here.

Bottom line: Judith Curry has been as incompetent, in her dismissal of the Venus/Earth definitive evidence--indeed, in her failure to have uncovered that definitive evidence herself, long ago--as every other climate scientist. Climate science has failed, and it is too late for this generation of climate scientists to save themselves.

Incompetent Skeptics IV: Dr. Judith Curry

The climate depot site has a link to a puff piece on Judith Curry and her views on climate change/global warming. The following is my response:

This is a puff piece, based entirely on a friendly, personal view of Dr. Judith Curry. But the climate change debate is not about any person, especially any academic who basically accepts the climate science as sound and, as they like to say in their own best interests, "settled". Those who have involved themselves in the debate--who have studied the science behind it, and the arguments about that science--are strung out over the full range, from complete acceptance of the academic science to complete rejection of it. A layperson must either choose an "authority" to believe in, blindly, or seek out the definitive facts that tell for or against climate science theory--for that is what they are getting from all sides, predigested theory presented, smoothly and easily, as fact.

I am a 65-year-old physicist by education and long experience, in the academic and high-tech industrial sectors, and in presenting my view to laypersons, I take the latter route, of uncovering the definitive facts that anyone can appreciate. I uncovered the definitive fact that disproves the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and any need to worry about a "runaway global climate" at all, nearly 3 years ago, in November 2010 (see here).

When I found that definitive fact against the greenhouse effect, I knew the consensus climate science was not just wrong, it was in fact incompetent (for what I had done should have been done 20 years earlier, when the relevant data, on the atmospheric temperature and pressure profile of Venus, was obtained by the Magellan spacecraft. That it was not done at the time is a gross error by climate scientists at the time, and that it has been dismissed even after I pointed it out in November 2010 is a gross crime against all of science and the trust of the public that we scientists are both competent and honest.) In late November, when I first tried to inform Judith Curry and her blog readers of the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--which depends only upon the two planets' distances from the Sun, and no additional "greenhouse effect" at all, despite Venus's atmosphere having over 2400 times the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere (Venus 96.5%, to Earth's 0.04%)--the following telling exchange took place:

Judith Curry:

"whether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible."

Harry Dale Huffman:

"The issue is whether they warm by absorbing incident solar radiation, or by absorbing secondary LW [longwave, i.e., infrared] radiation from the surface. I say the former, and there is no bouncing and amplifying of heat between the surface and the atmosphere."

In other words, I identified for her the mistaken belief she (and every other climate scientist) was nursing, that the atmosphere is warmed, on the global scale, from the surface, when in fact it is warmed, to its stable, equilibrium vertical temperature structure, by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation.

No climate scientist, including Judith Curry, has ever shown the slightest interest in or serious consideration of the fundamental corrections to climate science dogma that are provided by the definitive fact of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio. Yet any STUDENT of climate science could have done what I did, and seen what I saw.

So, as nice as Dr. Curry may be, she is--as is every other climate scientist or academic who defends the science behind the "global warming" scare--simply and unavoidably incompetent. And to put this in the proper context (because I know that charge of general incompetence among the "experts" sounds flamboyant and hyped to the unwary), I suggest the reader here also read the short article, "The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics".

Modern Science Has Gone Wrong

I have posted the following response to a comment on my November 2010 Venus: No Greenhouse Effect article:

Good Morning, Astrobiology,

The proper statement, of fact not theory, is that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is determined only by the ratio of their distances from the Sun (in accordance with the fundamental physics that relates mean absorbed radiation intensity with attained temperature, at equilibrium), and nothing else. That fact has implications for the temperatures in the other planetary atmospheres, but of course it should not be expected to predict their temperatures; it is not a theory of planetary warming, it is a fact relating the Earth troposphere with an equivalent (in pressures) portion of the Venus atmosphere.

The easy, even lazy, answer to your first question is that when you say, "Venus is hotter than Mercury", you really mean the surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, despite being much farther from the Sun--that ignores the atmosphere, of course (and that little detail of comparing at points of equal pressure in the atmosphere, which my comparison emphasized), and any hack will tell you the surface of Venus is hotter because it lies at the bottom of a deep, heavy, heat-retaining ocean of air, while the surface of Mercury is essentially bare to the near-absolute cold of space. (All of this is so obvious, I suspect your question is merely disengenuous--suspect so strongly, that I say so here for any interested reader to see. David Appell, a charlatan who pretends to be a competent PhD physicist, recently tried to comment on this site with the same incompetent point, that the Venus/Earth comparison does not work for the other planets. I wouldn't be at all surprised if your comment was an attempt to get by my denial of any further comments from him, as an unthinking, determinedly dismissive, disruptive influence. If you follow his lead, you won't get anywhere worthwhile--here, at least.)

I have always emphasized that I do not have a theory, only that definitive fact, which disproves the greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric temperature (at any given pressure) with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (for Venus's atmosphere has over 2400 times the level of carbon dioxide as does Earth's atmosphere, yet it makes no difference in the temperature--and note, if there WERE such an effect, it would be ADDITIVE to Venus's temperatures, not multiplicative as the constant Venus/Earth temperature ratio implies).

To explain the temperatures in the atmospheres of the other planets would require a general theory of atmospheric warming. I do not feel the slightest need to bail out climate and atmospheric scientists from their responsibility to produce such a theory--which MUST EXPLAIN the Venus/Earth result quantitatively and precisely, note. I have done some comparisons of the troposphere of Earth with the equivalent parts of the other planetary atmospheres, as I have said in earlier responses to earlier comments here, but nothing as definitive as the Venus/Earth result emerged from that preliminary work, and I am interested only in communicating definitive results--facts, not theory.

All of the earth and life sciences are now working with fundamentally false theories, to a lesser or greater extent. That is the larger point, that has emerged from my own research, with my discovery of a great world-encompassing design at the very beginning of mankind's intellectual history, and motivating every aspect of its development. Random cosmic events and undirected geological and biological processes are not the truth about Earth's origin and development. The Earth and solar system were subjected to deliberate wholesale reformation, to impose an overall design--and modern science has, thus, gone wrong.

The True Situation in Climate Science

I have submitted the following comment at Steven Goddard's Real Science site, where another commenter noted that he had only just noticed a change in the "Earth Energy Budget" diagram put out by NASA et al., no longer showing "back radiation":

They changed the diagram because it was so obviously ridiculous, as only I, so far as I am aware, first strongly pointed out in 2010, here. But they never changed their theory -- not just the "greenhouse effect", but the underlying, radiation transfer theory (which is basically just a simple-minded "light extinction" model, of light extinction in passing through a nearly transparent medium), which is also clearly wrong, because it ignores conduction and convection, and reverses the real physics, making the temperature the effect of radiative transfer, instead of acknowledging that the supposed radiative transfer is due to the fixed temperature structure of the atmosphere. The definitive evidence remains my Venus/Earth comparison, which disproved the greenhouse effect, precisely confirmed the stable Standard Atmosphere model for the troposphere, showed that the atmosphere is warmed, not from the surface but by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, and should have opened everyone's eyes to the fact that radiative transfer--within the atmosphere, and between the surface and atmosphere-- is the wrong way to approach the problem of atmospheric warming. Dr. Johnson (cf, Richard Fowler's comment above) gets caught up in theoretical radiative transfer arguments, that boil down to "heat goes from warm to cold regions", when the simple truth of the atmosphere is that the vertical temperature distribution of the troposphere has nothing to do with radiative transfer (which is just one of the three ways heat is transferred, after all--the other two basically ignored in the consensus theory) but is provided by the hydrostatic condition of the atmosphere, which imposes the well-known temperature lapse rate structure, defined by the Standard Atmosphere model. That structure is stable and predominates over all other conditions, globally, in the atmosphere, including night and day (wind and weather are essentially local and transient variations in the underlying stable structure). Until this basic understanding is learned and accepted by climate scientists, there will be no correction, and no progress, in climate science.

Peer Review: Theory and Epicycles

I have submitted the following comment to the bishop hill site, where they are talking about proposed new changes to peer review:

There is an incipient, general revolution in science, a NEW PARADIGM (yet very old; I call it "The Once and Future Paradigm"), that needs to come out, and peer-review -- any review by current deluded and dogmatically defensive "experts" -- is incompetent to handle it. Imagine back in Galileo's day, "peer review" was by ecclesiastic overseers; the situation is similar to that. We are dealing with an incompetent fundamental belief system, maintaining an incompetent consensus, across many fields of science, and climate science is just the tip of the iceberg, with its deluded assumption of a globe poised on the razor edge of "runaway global climate", either too hot OR too cold. No isolated debate, over any one supposed "cause" or "effect" (such as the "greenhouse effect" debate in climate science) can properly address the underlying general incompetence (that makes both alarmists and skeptics fellow-travellers in the "global-warming greenhouse effect" delusion). Adding epicycles to peer review is meaningless in that larger, proper context.

There Are More Things In Heaven And Earth, Than Are Dreamt Of In Your Philosophy

I have submitted the following comment to the warning signs site of Alan Caruba, who asks if Edward Snowden is a spy or a hero:

The bottom line is that Snowden acted to protect the basic freedom of Americans to not be continually lied to by their leaders, and to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure of even our personal communications. He should be a hero to real Americans, those who seriously value their individual freedoms, so carefully laid down at the very beginning of the United States of America. Insofar as you think the jury is still out on him, you have already given up on your rights. You know Obama, and the Insane Left he represents, lies to the American people every day, in every way. Obama is the traitor, the Insane Left is traitorous of all our individual freedoms, and the Right is clueless and abetting of the treason. Enough of the KGB/FSB crap--you should be worried, and outraged, first last and always by the misinformation fed to us by the Insane Left and its pet media, and by the incompetence of the Right to stand up to it.

What is going on is not just a conspiracy by the Left, or the Communists, or any group of men. I have tried to tell people, including you and your readers, something of the greater tide running against all men today, but I don't have the kind of details needed to convince most--because what is going on is a general ascendance of dogma in the minds of the people of Earth, and the dogmas are specific to the specific groups and individual members of those groups who harbor those specific dogmas. What is going on is a meta-conspiracy, a general testing of mankind. And mankind is too grasping of what it has, or in many cases only thinks it has, to recognize, much less focus upon for long, the overriding threat, among all the lesser ones--revolution must come, even many revolutions all on top of one another, and considering the avoidance behavior of practically everyone, that means wars must come to enable the revolutions. I personally only know much about the scientific revolution, because I have started it with my own unprecedented discoveries, which will demand the fundamental rethinking of many fields of science, especially the earth and life sciences. I know there are other revolutions coming too, because it is obvious in everyday affairs, increasingly over the last ten years, in the same time frame that I have been trying to inform others of my scientific discoveries. It is all tied together, and at the bottom it is incompetence on the part of modern man, due to his clinging to his many different false and divisive dogmas, both ancient and modern. For you see, my scientific discovery, put succinctly, has been to uncover the single, objective origin for all the earliest, religiously-held dogmas of mankind, responsible for all the so-called "ancient mysteries". And the world IS NOT ready to handle that uncovering, and is instead grasping at its dogmas, even the most unforgiving and bloody. Never has the world needed gentleness, dispassionate reason, and a unifying love of God--or love of one's fellow man--like it does now; and, you see, it obviously doesn't have any of those prerequisites. Everyone's thinking is in common and sordid ruts, day in and day out.

Don't Tell the "Experts"

I have posted the following comment on my Venus: No Greenhouse Effect page, in response to someone wanting to argue theory, rather than accept the simple facts:

I received your second comment, but I will not reward you for ignoring the plain facts by allowing you to whine about how reasonable you are in questioning the Venus/Earth comparison presented on this page.

However, since I know that even the "climate science experts" are incompetent, I will make the Venus/Earth comparison very simple for you. But you can't tell any "experts", because I want to leave the analysis just as I originally did it here, back in November 2010, because any real expert would have, like me, focused upon the actual bottom-line of the comparison--the fact of the presented Venus/Earth temperature ratio, and the physical explanation of that ratio I have given, over and over for 2 and 1/2 years--rather than gotten sidetracked by how I came to do the comparison. And I want that to become clear to everyone, eventually--that any competent physicist should have seen that the actual Venus/Earth temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is explained (and precisely so, above and below the Venus cloud layer) by the ratio of the two planets' solar distances, and nothing else. That is the fact--I repeat, the FACT--you are ignoring.

Here is the simple way to look at the comparison. Make a table of temperature vs. pressure for the Standard Atmosphere troposphere, and the same for the Venus atmosphere as measured on October 5, 1991(over the same range, of Earth tropospheric pressures). You don't have to justify doing that, it is just something you can easily do (it is the first table in my article above), and it is what any competent student--much less experienced scientist--interested in comparing the two atmospheres would do as a matter of routine.

But, having done that little chore, a good physicist would ask if there is a simple explanation for the fact that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is in fact basically a constant (1.176), and that particular constant. A merely competent student in the physical sciences would pretty quickly discover that the temperature ratio is just that expected from the different solar distances alone, from the Stefan-Boltzmann formula. (How using that formula can be justified is what most critics of my analysis homed in on, but they did so incompetently. And it was not until a year and a half later that I myself added an update that properly explained it, with the physically pertinent simple equations.)

Now here is where the really simple part comes in, that was not in my original presentation, but should have been brought out very quickly by any real "expert". Imagine if Venus were simply moved outwards to the same distance from the Sun as Earth (so it was still heated by the same portion of the incident solar radiation, but that portion would be reduced, as the total incident solar radiation would be, by the greater solar distance), how would the Venus temperatures, at the various pressures in your table, change? The answer is that they would be reduced, by the factor 1/1.176--and that is what is shown in the fourth column of my table above. Graphing the resulting T vs. P curves of Earth and the newly-moved Venus, one gets the graph I presented in the post here.

Now, don't tell anyone what I have just told you, about simply "moving" Venus to the same solar distance as Earth. I want to see how long it will take a competent scientist to come to the realization on their own, instead of incompetently saying, 1.176 is "just a coincidence", or "you failed to account for the difference in albedo". Of course, you are free to inform President Obama of how easy it is to disprove the CO2 "greenhouse effect", which he and the EPA are using for the most venal of political purposes (to wit, the exercise of ruinous and fraudulent power over the lives of millions of innocent and unwary people).

Comments on Dr. Murry Salby's Critique of the Climate Consensus

I have commented upon the Dr. Murry Salby presentation recently touted by the critics of the academic climate science consensus, at the claes johnson site:

I prefer the summary analysis presented at appinsys.com. And if you look at the temperature record (the first graph at the appinsys link), you will see what everyone should know, that the temperature decreased from 1880 to 1910, increased from 1910 to 1940, decreased again from 1940 to 1975, and increased again from 1975 to about 2000. Now the CO2 record from 1957 onward shows dC/dt has increased monotonically over that period, i.e., d/dt(dC/dt)>0 from at least 1957 onward. But your CO2 vs. T relation above requires d/dt(dC/dt)=dT/dt, and dT/dt was negative from 1940 to 1975 (including the period 1957 to 1975). So the posited relation dC/dt=T is empirically wrong. And physically, that relation flies in the face of what I (a general physicist, not a climate scientist) have heard repeatedly as common knowledge: That a warmer ocean cannot hold as much CO2 dissolved in it, and releases more CO2 into the atmosphere the warmer it gets (in line with the skeptic's claim, "atmospheric CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa as the consensus claims"). So the posited CO2 vs. T relation is also falsified according to (the general understanding of) the basic physics of CO2 sequestration by the ocean as a function of T. So, again, I prefer the appinsys summary of the situation. I commented on Dr. Salby's presentation at hockeyschtick also.

The Hydrostatic Condition of the Real Atmosphere

I have submitted the following comment, affirming the stable Standard Atmosphere model for our troposphere, to the wattsupwiththat site of Anthony Watts, in reply to another comment by one DirkH:

DirkH @9:14a.m.: "The principal and terminal fault with climate science and climate models seems to be that they assume the atmosphere to be hydrostatic. It is known that it isn’t ..."

You should be aware of the definitive evidence by now, my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. That comparison is between the temperature-versus-pressure (T-P) curve of the Standard Atmosphere model, for Earth, and the T-P curve of Venus as measured on October 5, 1991 (over 21 years ago now). The clear result can be stated thus: If you imagine moving Venus to the same distance from the Sun as the Earth, or Earth to the same distance from the Sun as Venus, then their T-P curves are essentially, and precisely, the same (for pressures above and below the cloud layer of Venus, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) . Not only does this disprove the "greenhouse effect", of increasing temperature with increasing CO2 (as the temperatures in Venus's 96.5% CO2 atmosphere are no different from Earth's, when corrected for solar distance), but it confirms the Standard Atmosphere, with its defining hydrostatic condition, as the real, stable equilibrium state of our troposphere. If current academics believe the hydrostatic condition does not apply to the real atmosphere, that is just one more wrong belief they harbor, while stubbornly ignoring my definitive Venus/Earth evidence against their theories. Alarmists and lukewarmers alike will get nowhere, no matter how protracted or how honest the debate, unless and until they understand and accept the clear corrections to climate science indicated by that definitive evidence.

Climate: Global Me Vs. Local Everyone Else

I have submitted the following comment to the Real Science site, where Steven Goddard uses Charles Darwin to make a point about long-term and extreme "climate change", and someone made the point that Darwin considered climate to be local, not global:

I wish I could get people to realize this; it is the reason why all the supposedly learned discourse, by those with "climate" theories (including the "consensus"), about the effects of details in the atmosphere--such as water vapor, clouds, "greenhouse gases", etc.--is irrelevant to the global mean surface temperature, as definitively demonstrated by my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison. The global mean surface temperature is stable, so everyone is fundamentally deluded by thinking it must change because "climate changes". Only local conditions change, in my view, molded as it is by the definitive Venus/Earth evidence. The stable "global climate" (the global mean surface temperature, as given in the Standard Atmosphere) is maintained simply by the tropospheric vertical temperature lapse rate, due to the governing hydrostatic condition of the massive atmosphere itself, and by the fact that the troposphere is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar (IR) radiation, not from the surface of the Earth--heat from the surface drives the WEATHER, while heat from the Sun alone drives the global mean temperature.

But Darwin was wrong about undirected evolution, by "natural selection" of random mutations. --see here, here, and here.

The Truth Is Where You Find It

Many critics of the current, false, climate consensus (on "global warming", or "climate change") like to point to plate tectonics (or continental drift) as an example of a once-heretical idea that overcame the former consensus to become the central idea of all the earth sciences today. Steven Goddard has made the latest such posting, and the following is my response, based upon my own, much more "heretical" research findings:

The bottom line is, truth is where you find it, not where everyone else is looking for it. Reality is what it is, not what you would like it to be. And the truth is, the older generations of geologists--geophysicists especially--had good reason to reject continental drift: They could see no physically acceptable cause for it. And it turns out Wegener only started a revolution whose real depth and breadth only my work now encompasses. (That is why I started a blog in 2009, as one more experiment in getting recognition of a new-yet-ancient paradigm, a new frame, particularly for the earth and life sciences.) See

The True Origin of Continental Drift

The Earth's surface was, in fact, deliberately reformed, to a great design:

Challenge to Earth Scientists

The whole solar system was reformed, and reoriented (and witnessed by men on Earth, and incorporated in what are dismissed today as the earliest myths, of men worldwide):

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the Design, and Man

And there has even been independent confirmation of the Earth design (follow the "Independent Confirmation" link here).

Why is there still continental movement? I don't know (yet--and I see no reason to hurry to explain that). I only know the reason the continents moved in the past, to their present positions and orientations (and shapes): They were deliberately moved, to a great design, the mere shattered remembrance of which has guided, even dictated, the intellectual voyage of mankind on Earth ever since.

The words, "be not quick to judge", come to mind here, and so I pass them along to you as well.

Put Up or Shut Up, Indeed

Dr. Roy Spencer, another in the Church of The Lukewarm Greenhouse Effect, tells deniers of that effect to "put up or shut up", to which I have responded:

After all this time, everyone still clings to their own pet statement of a "greenhouse effect", when the only valid statement--promulgated to the public for over 20 years -- is "an increase in global mean surface temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide".

But a simple comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth, at points of equal pressure over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, shows that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant (there is no ADDED temperature on Venus due to its much higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and in fact a constant that is PRECISELY explained by Venus's smaller distance from the Sun, and nothing else (except within Venus's cloud layer, between about 650 and 200 mb pressure, where the Venus temp. is about 5K LOWER--in other words, a minor ADDITIVE effect within the clouds themselves--than that calculated, simply, from the Standard Atmosphere model here on Earth and the ratio of solar distances of the two planets).

"Lukewarmers" like Spencer and Watts are stymied by their unswerving belief in the radiative transfer theory. My Venus/Earth demonstration of the absolute absence of a greenhouse effect--as I define it, and as it is sold to the public--implies the radiative transfer theory is also wrong, physically; but I am not about arguing theories, and I don't feel any need to put forward a better one to replace theirs. I only insist that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is the definitive evidence that denies their theory. Contrary to Spencer's insistence heretofore, the onus is on defenders of the consensus greenhouse theory to demonstrate quantitatively, that the observed Venus/Earth constant temperature ratio--needing nothing but the ratio of their solar distances to explain--arises naturally from their theories. I have already demanded you put up or shut up, many times over the last two and a half years. Instead, you go on about how you "observe" the greenhouse effect (but not the one that counts), without confronting the definitive evidence that denies that effect's existence (specifically, in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth). How lukewarmers can fight against the alarmists, and often give evidence that the global warming "greenhouse effect" must be very small, nevertheless are dogmatically set against admitting that effect is zero, is all that separates you from the "Slayers", in the end. (And no, I am not one of them; they like to say carbon dioxide is a coolant, but my Venus/Earth comparison says that is no more correct than that it is a heater. It is a "heat lubricant", whose increase only speeds up heat transfer--by radiation--within the atmosphere, without changing either the lapse rate or the surface mean temperature; it neither traps nor slows down heat).

Climate Science Is Doomed

I have submitted the following comment, on CO2 climate sensitivity, to the bishop hill site:

The ongoing CO2 climate sensitivity debate is a festering parade of incompetence. Outside of 1975-2000, the up-and-down global temperature record does not correlate with the level of CO2 in the air (but it does correlate, quite well, with the multidecadal ocean oscillations, on top of a presumed half-degree-per-century of warming since the Little Ice Age--so why bother with CO2 at all, why treat the CO2 "greenhouse" theory as sound and settled, is the proper scientific question). When one looks for the simplest, most definitive evidence to force the "consensus" to admit the obvious--that CO2 is not to blame, and their models which assume it is are simply bad science enshrined as "settled"--one need go no further than a proper Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures). Then one finds a definitive rethinking of basic atmospheric warming theory is forced by those two real, detailed atmospheres--a rethinking that denies any global-warming "greenhouse effect" at all, and any non-zero CO2 climate sensitivity whatsoever:

CO2 Climate Sensitivity Vs. Reality

...and one is embarrassed by the continued childish fussing and fighting that masquerades as "expert" estimates, of that which simply does not exist, according to that most simple, competent comparison of the Temperature-vs-Pressure curves of Venus and Earth. One realizes climate science is a farce, and a fraud, and above all a mass delusion, and one wonders how to disabuse the world of that delusion before it is too late--when even the "lukewarmers" insist the "basic science" is settled. (The basic science is a total lie, gentlemen and ladies. You are pursuing a phantom, created by the most incompetent scientists ever, and are rendered incompetent yourselves thereby. You are made idiots by your continued serious consideration of patently false science. You are mumbling incoherently in a madhouse, and you need to slap yourselves out of it, and refuse to dignify idiot "experts"--alarmists and lukewarmers alike--any further....unless you or they can explain, within the "consensus" theory, why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio should be precisely (!) due only to the relative distances of the two planets from the Sun, and nothing else. Hint: You cannot, and they cannot. Their science is doomed.)

CO2 Climate Sensitivity Vs. Reality

Anyone who has followed the climate debates on the internet knows that even most "skeptics" of runaway global warming (and all of those who ever make the news or have a large audience on their blogs) accept the consensus "greenhouse effect" and the idea of a "CO2 climate sensitivity", or theoretically expected global mean surface temperature (GMST) increase with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2--due, everyone is brainwashed to believe, in increasing fossil fuel consumption by man). Anthony Watts has posted yet another article by one of his fellow-believers, arguing for a significant value of the CO2 climate sensitivity (albeit smaller than that claimed by the alarmist climate scientists). The following is my response, to any who are still capable of thinking for themselves on the subject, and who want definitive, quantitative proof of the truth of the matter.

Anyone who wants to keep worrying about the "CO2 climate sensitivity" needs to explain why, in the Venus/Earth temperature comparison I performed well over 2 years ago, there is none at all: Venus has 96.5% CO2 to Earth's less than .04%, yet the Venus/Earth temperature ratio is a constant due entirely and precisely to the ratio of their distances from the Sun and nothing else (no "greenhouse effect" contribution, no "difference in planetary albedo" contribution--no anything but the difference in the solar distance).

The precision with which the solar distance, by itself, explains the Venus/Earth temperature ratio--at points of equal pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures--is nothing short of amazing, in the present tattered intellectual climate, in which the greenhouse effect is adamantly, vehemently claimed to be "settled science", and even most "skeptics" smugly argue for SOME CO2 climate sensitivity. But the Venus/Earth comparison says that smug certainty is a lie, and there simply is no greenhouse effect, of increasing temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, AT ALL.

If one is dense enough, after studying my Venus/Earth analysis, to demand what that analysis shows the CO2 climate sensitivity to be, here is what it says:

First, for over half of the range of Earth tropospheric pressures (between ~650 - 250 mb), the Venus temperature is COOLER, by about 5°K, than is predicted from the solar distances alone. But as indicated in my original analysis, in this pressure range lies the thick planetary cloud cover of Venus. Below that range--between 1,000 and 700 mb--the temperature ratio is essentially just that predicted from the solar distances alone; above the cloud layer as well (at 200 mb), the ratio again comes back to very near the "solar distances only" prediction, though not quite all the way (the Venus temperature there is only ~1.7K cooler than so predicted)

The best estimate of the climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 alone, then, is made with those points below the Venus cloud layer. For the 4 points in that pressure range, in my original analysis, the Venus/Earth temperature ratio varies between 1.172 (at 800 mb) and 1.178 (at 1,000 mb), with the average being 1.175.

(The uncertainty in that measured ratio is just the uncertainty in the Venus temperature (1.4K) divided by the corresponding Earth temperature (average 278.3K, for those 4 points), or +/-.005.)

Now 1.175 is just .001 less than the 1.176 predicted by the solar distances alone, and since that error is much less than the +/- .005 uncertainty, it should be immediately obvious that there is no greenhouse effect, without even bothering to calculate a "CO2 climate sensitivity". But let's do so anyway. That .001 "error" in the temperature ratio gives a possible error of only .001 x T_earth, or about -.3K, from the Venus temperature predicted by solar distances alone (that is, using 1.176 for the ratio). If one assumes that -.3K difference is due entirely to the "CO2 greenhouse effect", then the maximum CO2 climate sensitivity (in degrees K per doubling of CO2) is -.3K divided by the number of doublings, between ~353 ppm on Earth (in October 1991, when the Venus data was obtained) and 965,000 ppm (96.5%) on Venus--which is 11.4 doublings of CO2, so that -.3K/11.4 = -.026K/doubling of CO2, or about -.03K/doubling (a slight negative number, note), for the CO2 sensitivity.

But with an uncertainty of +/- 1.4K in the Venus temperature (see my original analysis), the uncertainty in the CO2 climate sensitivity is +/- 1.4/11.4 = .12K/doubling.

So my Venus/Earth comparison demands that the CO2 climate sensitivity must be less than

( -.026 +/- .12) K/doubling

and since the indicated sensitivity is much smaller than the uncertainty, the CO2 climate sensitivity revealed by my Venus/Earth comparison must be reported as

essentially zero (0),

...which is just a precise quantitative statement of the fact that has been obvious all along, that the Venus/Earth comparison shows there is NO greenhouse effect, period. Only solar distance counts in the detailed comparison of these two vastly different planet-plus-atmosphere systems. And the physical reason is because both atmospheres are fundamentally and globally warmed in precisely the same way: by direct absorption of the same physical fraction of the incident solar energy (and NOT from the planetary surface, as almost everyone--and certainly every mis-titled "expert"--believes is the case on Earth).

Added Note: In the above, there are in fact three different, but equivalent, quantitative statements to demonstrate that there is no greenhouse effect of increasing temperature with increasing CO2:

1) The error between measured Venus temperature and that predicted from Earth's Standard Atmosphere and the smaller solar distance of Venus = (-0.3 +/- 1.4)K,

2) The error between measured and predicted Venus/Earth temperature ratio = -.001 +/- .005,

3) The possible size of the CO2 climate sensitivity = zero (-.026 +/- .12)(K/doubling of CO2)

In all three quantitative statements, the (+/-) uncertainty is about 5 times the error, indicating the error is entirely negligible

The Greenhouse Effect: Incompetent to the Point of Insanity

Global warming "skeptic" Anthony Watts, on his wattsupwiththat site, has once again shown his intense antipathy towards those who disbelieve in the "greenhouse effect" (although, as a "lukewarmer", he limits his own belief in it, and disavows the "catastrophic" global warming of consensus climate scientists). I simply pointed him and his readers to the main points of my definitive posts:

No part of the "global energy budget" can be greater than the incident energy,

There is NO increase in atmospheric temperature with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, at any given pressure in the troposphere,

and, last but not least,

The System is Broken (and Anthony Watts and others of like mind are not helping as much as they think).

The System Is Broken: Incompetent Science and Insane Politics

The Steven Goddard site has a post on "It must be the CO2" (he rightly ridicules the idea), and the following is my response:

My Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (the key of which is to do the comparison at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures) established that the Standard Atmosphere model for Earth--as developed over many years of temperature measurements around the globe, and well-known for over a century--agrees precisely with the actual vertical temperature distribution on Venus as measured on ONE DAY (October 5, 1991) by the Magellan spacecraft: The temperature vs. pressure (T-P) curves of the two planets are essentially the same, when they are corrected for the difference in incident solar radiation, due only to the two planets' different distances from the Sun AND NOTHING ELSE (which, first of all, immediately and completely disproves the carbon dioxide "greenhouse effect", since Venus has over 2400 times the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide as does Earth, yet that difference has no effect on the T vs. P curve).

Most fundamentally, however, my Venus/Earth comparison establishes that the Venus atmosphere must be always in equilibrium (if October 5, 1991 on Venus agrees precisely with the many years of temperature measurements, throughout Earth's atmosphere), and further, that the Earth's atmosphere is also always in near-equilibrium--on the global scale, with minor local and transient variations, due to day and night, wind, and weather--with that equilibrium being well and truly represented by the Standard Atmosphere model.

Beyond that, my Venus/Earth comparison (which, as competent scientists should already know, is the definitive correction to climate science now) establishes that both atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation, not from the separately warmed planetary surface. Again, that is on the global scale; obviously, there are local and transient effects, again the main players being day vs. night (with many cities, in particular, being urban heat islands, which often see a local temperature inversion developing overnight, in the lowest 1 km or so of the atmosphere, as the surface cools faster than the near-surface tropospheric temperature lapse rate structure can handle) and local weather (due to uneven heating of the daylit surface, as a function of latitude, or incident solar angle, for example).

So unless there is a change in the strength of the incident solar radiation--in particular, in that portion that is directly absorbed by the atmosphere (which incompetent critics of my Venus/Earth comparison can't seem to get into their heads, preferring instead to claim I "failed to consider the difference in albedo")--the ruling Standard Atmosphere model (as precisely confirmed by my Venus/Earth comparison) assures us there can be no change in the global mean surface temperature.

Promulgators of the multidecadal ocean oscillations theory, on top of a presumed warming since the minimum temperature of the Little Ice Age (around 1680, in the expositions I have read) have shown their theory matches the global mean temperature record since that time (while the "greenhouse" theory does not). In the context of what my Venus/Earth comparison has demonstrated about the constancy of the global Earth atmosphere, however, and in view of the uncertainties in the temperature records (especially with the fraudulent adjustments to some of those records that have been uncovered, by Steven Goddard, and even myself), one has to wonder if any scientific confidence at all should be placed in those temperature records; in particular, as I have commented numerous times, if the climate scientists have not really been measuring the true global mean temperature with their sampling algorithms, but have instead merely been unintentionally measuring a proxy for the multidecadal oscillations (the ocean covers 71% of the globe they are trying to sample, after all), that would explain the observed strong correlation of global temperature and ocean oscillations, and even the modest 1° or so of supposed global warming over the last century may be fictitious; until recently, I was amused by the fact that some scientists were saying (as if it were common knowledge) that the global mean surface temperature (GMST) was around 14.7°C, when for a century the Standard Atmosphere has given that temperature as 15°C--higher than the supposed current temperature, despite a century of supposed warming. (However, lately I have seen efforts being made to counter my miniscule but definitive ridicule, with the inner cadre of "consensus" climate scientists claiming the GMST is 15.7°C. So I know they are listening to me, and working hard to stay ahead of the ridicule they so rightly deserve. But the 15.7°C claim is still at odds with the definitive(!) Venus/Earth comparison, because the latter confirms 15°C, not 15.7--that is how precise the comparison is.)

All of this, of course, is happening in the immediate context of a political war, being waged by what I call the Insane Left, upon all those they want to demonize and marginalize in the public mind. The majority of voices you gather information from, particularly the mainstream media (but even the "lukewarm skeptics" in the climate debates), are incompetently and/or fraudulently pretending the system is working as it should--but it is not, and reality and recognition of the objective, scientific truth were the first victims in the war. You cannot stop the insanity if you will not recognize it as insanity, if people will not recognize the system is broken.

Too Many Chiefs in the Climate War

The wuwt site has a post on "Categorical Thinking"--unfortunately, done in the service of the categorical thinking of lukewarmists in the climate debate (actually, political War)--and the following is my response:

It is as if, in a large classroom, one student has stood up here and made the above speech. In reality, he is just a student, and not a particularly good one, yet he talks like he is the professor, who has the answers required in the course. If it were not a classroom situation, everyone could spend time on his points, agreeing here and disagreeing there, but in the end his inexpertness--indeed, his incompetence in the handling of categories (so that he succumbs to them: "I am unable to understand why people act this way, but at least now I can categorize it!")--is what should shine through. He himself categorizes falsely. He thinks the proper way to think about climate is "how much warming?", and that of course is in line with Anthony Watts' thinking, known as the "lukewarm" position. Unfortunately, it is incompetent thinking, the result of forty years of miseducation of climate scientists. And it is all of the incompetent scientists who have allowed the fearful and tyrannical dogma--not "category", childish moderns, but good old fashioned dogma (the "greenhouse effect", of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide)--to energize what is now, in fact, political insanity at the highest levels of governmental authority.

The bell rang on the scientific bottom line--that the Standard Atmosphere model describes the real, equilibrium state of the atmosphere, and there is no destabilizing, global warming greenhouse effect--long ago, and without a real professor in sight, who knows that bottom line, this class has been dismissed for some time now. You are merely keeping the insanity going, by deluding yourself, and those who follow you blindly (dogmatically), that you have the answers.

War, Or Enlightenment: The Only Option

The climaterealists site has a post by James Delingpole, wherein he seriously asks what can be done about President Obama's lies about "climate change" (in quotes, because it is just a false idea, not a reality). The following is my response (with an added phrase or two at the end, to the comment as I submitted it):

The leaders and movers in the world act like they are playing an involved game of chess, but one in which pieces are never removed from play (the major pieces just move around in their own spot, the pawns are replaceable), so the King can always believe he is winning. The reasons appear to be because nations can really only attack one another through open war, economic sanctions, or psychological attacks. As long as the first, open war, is avoided, the strange chess game goes on and on, with ever increasing delusion on all sides. But that game, which the world is in now, is strictly limited in time, it cannot be sustained forever, or for long--two or three generations, perhaps, at most. Then real war must break out, and the game board reset.

Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas is the Key

The side Obama is on (and the "climate change" believers...and the academic scientists in general) is thoroughly deluded by dogma; I have, for the last 3 years, known them as The Insane Left. Conservatives seem on the surface to be less deluded, but childish in their slavish adherence to their dogma. And underneath all, what drives the whole game, towards its only possible, inevitable outcome, is the belief in "survival of the fittest in a world of limited resources" (so only the biggest players were helped in the infamous "bailout stimulus", those "too big to fail"). If you don't really provide, on a more or less continuous basis, for the individual over the corporation or state, then you eventually come to being FORCED to bail out even the biggest of the big, to keep the game going. Education was supposed to be the continuing help for individuals, but the rigor-mortis of long-uncorrected dogma has slowly been choking the life out of that "path to success", so that path is an uncertain one, through a swamp of societal delusions and exclusionary beliefs in the real world.

Obama is just the tail end of a long, sorry degeneration, of the whole world (because he fundamentally evinces, not the beliefs of the country he now "leads"--much as Nero "led" Rome--but beliefs held in the East, having lived as a child in Indonesia, and raised the half black/half-orphan of radical activists). And so I see war coming: With the Insane Left in the US, and the wider East-West delusions--midwifed by global, yet myopic, business developments--that are causing the East to believe "it is our turn to rule now", there is real, political war here, and the stage is being set for World War III on the wider stage.

Yet after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the atom bomb has never been used to attack another country. Men can collectively decide, as the imaginary Captain Kirk famously once noted, "We will not kill TODAY!"--on a daily basis, if need be. We can also collectively and individually decide, "We will not judge AGAINST one another, solely on the basis of the past, nor on the basis of received authority from the past--on the basis of dogma". The key is, and always has been, the Golden Rule, which is NOT "Do unto others as they have done to you" (which is the way of the mentally stunted jihadist, essentially bound to the past), and not "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" (which is the secular humanists' childish rewrite of the everlasting rule among men) but "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". In other words (and a hat-tip to Jesus of Nazareth) "Love one another as you love your selves" (and if that sounds too sugary to you, understand "love" as, "respect, way down deep, where it counts, and in all your actions").

Darwin's Lasting Error: Design, Not Undirected Evolution, Is the Fact

The climaterealists site has a post by Matt Ridley, essentially celebrating Charles Darwin and his seminal and central contributions to modern science (whose ruling paradigm, or fundamental assumption, is undirected evolution, not only of all the life on Earth, but the Earth itself). The following is my response:

Matt Ridley is typical of the increasingly and fundamentally incompetent scientists of the last 150 years (that is about 7 generations, of a miseducated and delusionary consensus); he knows that the consensus climate science is false, but he doesn't begin to realize that the climate consensus is false because the greenhouse theory is false, and the greenhouse theory is but the offspring of the false science of Darwinian evolution--for the "greenhouse effect" came into science as a way to explain the past "ice ages" that were thought to have sculpted the landmasses of the Earth, as part of THEIR supposed undirected "evolution".

But in fact, neither the Earth nor the life on it evolved, as evolutionists now use that term, and the core theories of both the earth and life sciences are false:

Challenge to Earth Scientists

Challenge to Science: Focus on Design

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the Design and Man

Challenge to Science and Religion

Just as incompetent climate scientists, acting as political activists, have been trying to suppress debate and the definitive evidence against their theory for the last 20 years or more, so incompetent evolutionists like Matt Ridley, acting as political activists, have been trying to suppress debate and the definitive evidence against their theory, since the time of Darwin--who was an amateur, who considered only one childish hypothesis: Either undirected evolution of all life occurred, over many millions of years, or all life was created at one and the same time, by God. Evolution, or one-time creation; that was all Darwin considered, as readers of "The Origin of Species" can easily verify for themselves. The truth is that everything was designed, land and life alike, but not all at once. The real formative history of Earth was undoubtedly one of design, the last, revolutionary chapter of which (as uncovered and verified by me) involved a wholesale re-formation, not just of the Earth's landmasses, but the entire solar system, a re-formation that gave rise to all the myths--in fact all of the earliest and longest-lasting intellectual ideas and religious obsessions--among men. Darwin was a foolish amateur, who has misdirected the world of science for over a century and a half. And Matt Ridley is just one of a legion now of Darwin's dogmatic intellectual offspring--puppets of a long-running, false dogma in science, against any competent consideration and recognition of design in the "natural" world.

Changes in Arctic and Antarctic Ice Area Do Not Affect the Global Mean Temperature

Steven Goddard has a post stating that changes in the Antarctic sea ice area affect the shortwave (SW) radiation reaching the surface from the Sun, thus suggesting that could contribute to global warming or cooling. This of course assumes that the atmosphere is warmed, at least partially, by heat from the solar-warmed surface; virtually all scientists today believe this. The following is my response:

In my seminal Venus/Earth temperatures comparison, that temperature ratio is a constant--at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres, and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures--which is precisely explained by the ratio of their distances from the Sun, and nothing else: No CO2 greenhouse effect (Venus's atmosphere has 96.5% CO2, Earth only 0.04%); no albedo effect (Venus's albedo is 0.7 or more, Earth's only 0.3); no surface effect (Venus's surface is all solid crust, Earth's 71% ocean).

The reason why the Venus/Earth temperature ratio depends only upon the solar distances, is because both tropospheres--in the above-stated range of pressures--MUST be warmed by incident solar radiation, not from the surface (in fact, they must both absorb the same physical fraction of the incident solar radiation). So the Venus/Earth comparison, as properly done by me over 2 years ago, not only disproves the hypothesis that increasing atmospheric CO2 increases the global mean surface temperature, it also revolutionizes science's understanding of how the Earth atmosphere is warmed--just like all the other planetary atmospheres, it is warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation. That direct warming by the Sun is distributed according to the essentially hydrostatic, vertical pressure gradient--pressure increasing with depth in the atmosphere, and thus temperature increasing with depth (the negative lapse rate structure, which is clearly the stable, predominant condition determining the temperatures in the troposphere, according to the Standard Atmosphere model, used in and confirmed by my Venus/Earth analysis).

And because the surface does not warm the atmosphere, except locally and transiently, changes in the reflectivity of the Earth's surface, as well as changes in the cloud cover, do NOT affect the ruling lapse rate structure or the global mean temperature.

My Unique Scientific View: Most-Recent Comments

As a reminder of my unique scientific view, I recommend reading my responses to three comments submitted to my latest posts, "Casting Off Dogmas", and "Emergent Phenomena"

Casting Off Fearful and Hateful Dogmas Is the Key

Steven Goddard has a post on the saving grace of the Internet today, where he concludes: "Information is the key to keeping the tyrants at bay." My response follows:

I think a true sense of morals--above all, honesty over self-interest, and logical reasoning over unquestioning acceptance of received "wisdom", or dogmas--is the key. I have known, ever since I discovered the Great Design of the "gods", that unquestioned dogmas were the key, and the universal threat to man, in this time. That's because I found that all of the "ancient mysteries"--and hence, all the earliest and most stubborn, religiously-held dogmas--came from visual images wrought on the Earth and celestial spheres by the design (the original "sacred images" and "sacred truth", never to be questioned by mankind). And also, because some of those early dogmas, of the bloody-minded, fearful variety, are among the greatest threats to free men now (most obviously, the lie that passes for a religion, Islam, in which "Allah" really has the same jealous and demanding nature as the "gods", and is really based upon the same, age-old superstitions left over from the worst age of the "gods").

"Emergent Phenomenon", or Design

The wuwt site has a post putting forth the idea of global temperature variations, or climate, as an "emergent phenomenon", and hopefully suggesting that idea might be a new paradigm for understanding "climate". I submitted the following comment:

The mean global temperature of the atmosphere is not an "emergent" phenomenon, but simply a designed one. No one has yet demonstrated to my professional scientific satisfaction that there has even been any real global (as opposed to regional) warming over the period of modern temperature records; it is entirely unclear that climate scientists are even properly measuring the true global mean surface temperature, that they may not after all have been merely identifying multidecadal ocean temperature oscillations as "global mean surface temperature".

"Emergent phenomena" is just a false euphemism for a very real design of the world (as is every other design-denying term that has been invented by defenders of the undirected evolution paradigm, to avoid admitting the rather obvious designs scientists and laymen alike can observe just about any day, if their eyes and minds are open to recognizing them--look, for example, at the flowers, and their characteristic so-called "co-evolution" with animals and plants, a fundamental characteristic entirely counter to the expectations of, and thus disproving, undirected evolution). The next paradigm, as only my research has uncovered, is a rebirth of appreciation for the world design, as most recently redone by the "gods" of ancient worldwide myths, in a wholesale re-formation of the Earth's surface (designed to communicate their deeds to any future mankind capable of seeing and interpreting it), only 10,000 to 20,000 years ago.

"There's No Money in the Pot for Climate Skeptics"

Steven Goddard has a post whose comments quickly turned into a discussion of the trials and tribulations of those of us who deny the popular, but tyrannical and false, climate consensus. I submitted the following comment:

I have gone down a different path than anyone, and don't really fit in anywhere any more. My epochal discoveries, coming outside of any professional paid employment or institutional framework, open the door to the next scientific paradigm--overturning the "undirected physical evolution" paradigm under which all the earth and life sciences now operate--but they require the fundamental re-thinking of every current theory of the origin and development of our world. I know, as no one else does, that there are no scientific experts any more. Who could believe that, if they hadn't done the hard research and found it for themselves? The answer, I have found over the last 10 years, is almost no one--certainly no academics, or happily-employed fellow scientists. (My own circumstances are, unsurprisingly, most limited, and dangerously precarious now--but I can only tell the truth, whether anyone wants to buy it or not.)

(I have changed the next sentence from the original comment I submitted, to improve the clarity of the idea I am trying to express:)

There is a growing general incompetence of scientists, and dogmatic denial of any correction, as never before, just at the time I am trying to make known revolutionary new knowledge about the origins of man on Earth. Of course, that is far too great a coincidence for the two to be unconnected. So, by the very recalcitrance of scientists to my claims and the veritable avalanche of incompetence I am seeing, in such fields as climate science, I also know mankind is being tested, as never before, by old dogmas that go all the way back to those hidden origins (and cannot be defeated without a knowledge of those quite specific, quite precise origins)--dogmas that originated in the Great Design of the "gods" (for, again, who could believe that the earliest creation myths and a world of ancient religious obsessions and pronouncements, of seemingly insane "sacred truths", were the misunderstood shards of knowledge of the Great Design--who but me, who verified that design through the smallest, and precise, details of those ancient obsessions, those undying traditions cast as "tall tales" of myth?)

Incompetent Nobel Laureates Signify a New Dark Age

Claes Johnson has a post on "Politicised Nobel Laureate Science" (they wrote an open letter emphatically endorsing Obama in the last election), to which I responded with the following comment:

Good for you to realize this. I wrote a letter to President-Elect Obama the very day after the 2008 election, of quite opposite import to the Nobelists' letter (which I was unaware of before now), and I put my letter on my blog 6 months later, in May 2009, as part of my "Challenge to Science" series of posts:

Challenge to Science III: The "gods", the design, and man"

The hard truth is, the incompetent climate science is just the tip of the iceberg, and the world is in real trouble, with scientists deluded by unquestioned dogma (incompetent fundamental theories and assumptions) on all fronts. My independent research, going back to the mid-1990's, has opened the door to a new paradigm--the once and future paradigm of deliberate past re-formation (re-design) of the Earth and solar system. Modern students of science have been taught to fear the abuses of religion, and have thereby been cut off from the shards of wisdom that anciently could only have been passed down, in a barbaric time of no books and no real science, in religious metaphor (the earliest myths of the world, about the "gods" and their Earth-shaping deeds). So what may appear to be merely a monumental screw-up by climate scientists is really only one symptom of a culminating disintegration of science, with as yet no sign that my work will be heeded and the new true paradigm properly ensconced among the academics and other professional truthseekers. On the other side of the present troubles lies brilliant new understanding of age-old mysteries--but the world has to be led out of the obstinately-clasped darkness of mass scientific delusion, that has been moving toward culmination throughout our lifetimes.

Man Vs. Gods: Designs Big and Small, and Whose Will Likely Win Out In The End

The Real-Science site has a post entitled "Politicians on Opposite Sides of Reality", which deals with the same idea as the old story of the blind men and the elephant (remember, each man only felt a different portion of the elephant, so none of them could agree upon what it was they were encountering). I respond here, from a slightly higher perspective:

Self-love (which the author bemoans as the overweening vice of mankind) is not a vice per se, because it is just a very small step away from the greater realization that it took a God to make such a wonderful being as man--unless you actively ban the idea of God, as modern scientists are enjoined to do by the "consensus" (which has been failing ever since Darwin). Still, reality is not just a matter of man and God, because the "gods", known from all the world's oldest "myths", actually existed, and in fact re-made the world and the solar system, to a coherent design, with an undying (and encyclopedic) message for mankind on Earth--and barely 20,000 years ago, as my unprecedented research has proven.

The author writes, "I am starting to think this series of winters is not a coincidence." No, nothing about the trials currently occurring among men is a coincidence. The basically ignorant and petty designs of men like Obama and the Insane Left, or the perennially clueless designs of the Conservatives, are no more adequate to address the greater design, than is climate science, to address the reality of Earth's climate. (But beware of over-thinking, or striving for the ultimate answer: The meaning of the "series of winters" of unusually heavy snows is most likely just a reminder that the globe is not undergoing runaway warming, after all--a hint, that is all, to let go of the incompetent "consensus" that has suborned all of our institutions, in favor of understanding of a more benign reality--and, of course, to hint, for one's future understanding, that it was designed, after all, and that even the "experts" have become far too free with their lazy judgments of "coincidence"). What is going on is a general testing of man, and his many divisive, and false, dogmas. There are no experts now; there are only men and women who are honest professionals, or not...competent, or not.

Dogma, Not Reason, Rules Today

Dogma (in the form of unquestioned and unquestionable theory) has ruled the climate debate for over 20 years now. It is, in fact, at its worst right now, as the public is being bombarded with fraudulent stories about runaway global warming.

The following statement, taken from a "basic climatology text", was included in a comment on the Real Science site:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/ocean_warm_and_cool.pdf

Dr. Robert E. Stevenson SOME BASICS OF MARINE CLIMATOLOGY

“The atmosphere cannot warm until the underlying surface warms first. The lower atmosphere is transparent to direct solar radiation, preventing it from being significantly warmed by sunlight alone."

But it is not so. My Venus/Earth tropospheric temperatures comparison definitively shows that both Venus and Earth atmospheres are warmed by direct absorption of incident solar radiation (in the infrared), not from the planetary surface. And the famous Kiehl-Trenberth (1997) "earth energy budget" -- which can be seen in my article, "Runaway Global Warming is Scientific Hysteria" -- shows that the atmosphere is NOT "transparent to direct solar radiation", but absorbs some 19.5% of it. About 8%, comprising the solar ultraviolet radiation, is stopped in the stratosphere, which leaves some 11.5% absorbed in the lower atmosphere (throughout the troposphere, including the near-surface atmosphere). So the "basic texts" are wrong on a fundamental point, and more than one generation of scientists has simply been miseducated. (That one group of climate scientists should know that the atmosphere is not transparent to solar infrared radiation, yet everyone still thinks it is, is like different U.S. intelligence agencies not talking to each other about imminent terrorist threats: Simply unthinkable, to a rational person.)

All of our institutions -- scientific, political, and the media -- have been suborned to a false and incompetent climate science "consensus" story, of unstable, runaway climate. The intellectual rot is far advanced, and deluding yet another generation of the best and the brightest young minds right now. This is the gravest of threats in the world today.

Solar (UV) Variation and Terrestrial Climate

"Simplify, simplify!" is the famous admonition to writers, in Strunk and White's "Elements of Style". It should equally be taught to students of physical science, as the necessary tool of every good scientist.

The following is my response to an article on "Solar Variation and Terrestrial Climate" at the climaterealists site, in which the subject of simplicity of hypotheses came up:

"Many of the mechanisms proposed at the workshop had a Rube Goldberg-like quality."

Yes -- the examples given above, and the "busy" yet strangely irrelevant "Atmospheric Structure" figure (which doesn't even include UV, but only cosmic rays and solar protons) well demonstrate the incompetence of scientists today. Obviously, if the temperature lapse rate (decreasing temperature with increasing depth) in the stratosphere is due to the decreasing effect (molecular smashing) of UV absorption with increasing depth, and the tropopause merely marks the altitude (or altitude range) of balance between the opposing lapse rates of stratosphere and troposphere, then the first hypothesis that needs to be considered is that an increase in solar UV would tend to force the tropopause (whose temperature would be a constant, -53°C) closer to the Earth's surface, thus decreasing the temperature at the surface (and a decrease in that UV would act to increase the surface temperature). Even if that hypothesis is quite wrong, it needs to be aired, and aired FIRST, in a public forum like this.

Of course, it also needs to be emphasized, yet again, that my view is that of the independent scientist who did the first proper Venus/Earth comparison of temperatures (fully 19 years after the necessary Venus data was obtained, and before any climate "expert" apparently--since it is so easy--even thought of doing it):

Venus: No Greenhouse Effect