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.