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