Friday, August 23, 2013
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".
Harry I happen to agree with your post here, and I suspect a lot of other people do to. But the problem is people don't like to hear it how it is, and prefer to muddle through. It has been obvious to many that the greenhouse theory is just plain wrong, and you don’t have to be a PhD or even a BSc to realise this.
ReplyDeleteMany if not most of the leading sceptical websites and blogs suddenly found themselves as part of the mainstream as the global warming meme started to unravel. A good number of these blogs took the view that the global warming theory was correct, but that they just got the numbers wrong. Some like Anthony Watts did excellent work in highlighting the distortion of the temperature record and others did great work showing that the statistical mathematics was completely wrong. But these guys and many others were dismissive of those who openly stated that the greenhouse theory was plain bunkum.
No one took on the fundamental theory that a small rise in CO2 would lead to catastrophic warming. It has been to the enduring shame of science that this has happened. Now there are a few voices with enough knowledge and grasp of the physics to work through the theory, but the voices are still hard to hear. It is amazing how many aspects of science are being distorted because of this so called climate science.
Here are some examples that I have come across. Molecular oxygen exists in our atmosphere solely as far as I can tell from the action of life. And that life must have used CO2 to as the primary stock to produce all this Oxygen. So it follows that the atmosphere was once all CO2 with some nitrogen and other minor gases. But when you look at how much CO2 was originally in our Atmosphere you have to look to Venus and say, if they have 92 bars worth then earth must have had over 100 bars worth at some point given the greater mass of earth. We know that when water condensed that much of the CO2 would have dissolved, and we know much of the CO2 is now locked into Dolomite and limestone rocks. When you ask the question what was the atmosphere like 150 million years ago at the time of the dinosaurs they say just like todays. So how was it so much warmer? How was so much heat transferred to the poles and why was there no ice even at the top of mountains. Only a thicker atmosphere of higher pressure can explain all of these questions.
I was looking the other day at studies of oxygen levels during this period. All of the studies agreed and calculated that there was more oxygen in the atmosphere and agreed that there must have been more CO2 about to make this Oxygen. But when it came to quantifying this there studies fell apart because they blindly accept the climatologist theory that the atmosphere was the same as today with CO2 as a minor constituent when clearly all the evidence is that it was not.
Palaeontologist are another group that have difficulty accepting what is the obvious answer as to why the dinosaurs grew so large 150 million years ago and why they were so much smaller by 65 million years ago at the time they went extinct.
No you don’t have to be a PhD to know that climate science is more like vodo science. But as a science lover I want to see those who study science get back to seeking the truth and give up on this quest to prove a discredited theory right.
Good Morning, Peter,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the positive response. But judging climate science alone is not enough; your speculations on atmospheric levels of CO2 and oxygen millions of years ago is based on what I know to be a false assumption (and which I started this blog to correct, with new knowledge I have discovered): That the Earth as we know it today developed solely through the workings of undirected physical processes. The fact is, it did not so "evolve", on its own; it was subjected to deliberate re-formation, and a precise design was imposed upon it (see my 2009 "Challenge to Earth Scientists", for some of the simplest evidence of this). Not only that, but those who re-designed the Earth's surface also re-formed the entire solar system (again, I have put forth the simplest evidence in earlier writings, summarized in "Challenge to Science III").
Earth scientists (geologists particularly) are going to have to go back and pick up the threads of pre-Darwinian geology, and look at them in the context of a real design imposed upon the Earth, less than 20,000 years ago, before they can begin to reason effectively about how oxygen and CO2 levels came to be as they are now, and what they may have been millions of years ago. The same is true of Venus, and every other planet, for science does not know how any of them came to be, or in what condition they started (we do not know whether Venus, or Mars, had life before, for example).
Bottom line: The incompetence in climate science is just the tip of the iceberg. The geological past of Earth--the fundamental theories of all the Earth and Life sciences, especially the two central theories of undirected evolution and plate tectonics--has to be fundamentally rethought. (See for example, my 2009 articles, "Atlantis At Last", "Details of Atlantis" and "Atlantis Testimonies"). My discovery and verification of the Great Design of the "gods" (as I call it) will have to be confronted and accepted by scientists. It is, quite simply, the next paradigm.
Mr Hoffman: You are correct at so many levels. The dismissive attitude of "experts" is a result of their being paid to teach what they were taught- nothing else is funded, so nothing new can be taught.
ReplyDeleteA case in point, Mr Richard S. Shaver, a science fiction writer in the 1950's, was trying to point out the re- creation of the earth done by the "gods" in the past. For his trouble, he was dismissed as a lunatic and locked away until he repented and became "normal". Part of his proof was from world maps which clearly show that continents, shorelines, islands- (even the moon)- were purposely formed into human profiles and that drawings and writing can be found on every stone, mountain, and across the continents anywhere one will look. This was before satellite imagery or Google earth which make these things even more obvious.
Please disregard the toadies who have no eyes to see. Your eyes are open.
Baba Lorac,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the positive response, but again, I must warn you, and everyone, against too easy acceptance and indiscriminate adulation of the work of any past researchers, for none of them pierced to the heart of the ancient mysteries of man. I did not know of Richard Shaver until your comment, but I did a quick internet search on him, and the bottom line is he is just one of the many with their own pet theory, based primarily upon subjective (and romantic, and dramatic) imaginings that are essentially incorrect in many ways, rather than upon a coherent analysis of objective evidence that ALL goes to reveal, along every line of study, the single, central ancient reality from which all the mysteries proceeded: The Great Design of the "gods", as revealed and verified only by my research. Shaver claimed to get his information "telepathically", from voices in his head, and that "information" was essentially unsupported and authoritarian statements, without any coherence overall (which only the Great Design provides). His "analysis" of the supposed "original language", for example, gives an "original" meaning to each of the letters of the alphabet, but the reality is that phonemes, generally consisting of a consonant and a vowel form, were the units of meaning from which all the languages developed, and they were not spelled, nor pronounced, the same in those later languages (and so cannot be reconstructed from Shaver's simple imaginings of the meanings of the letters). My scientific research, piercing to the heart--the single source--of all that came after, simply cannot be compared, in any detail, with anyone's past imaginings, which are all inevitably as fictional as even the earliest myths that have come down to us. Others, throughout history, have played with the uncounted and tiny metaphorical shards from which those myths were made; my research has uncovered, and verified as fact, the original, real context of all those shards. What I have put on this blog, and elsewhere on the internet, is but the very simplest, clearest objective evidence for the Great Design of the "gods", which is the single answer to all the ancient exoteric mysteries (and, in the context of the universal religious use made of the passed down knowledge shards by every ancient people, also illuminates as never before the esoteric truths of the ancient wisdom traditions).